RRC Archives

WW2 was the last vote by congress declaring war on another country... I'm GLAD we kicked Hitler's ass! I'm not calling for anyone's impeachment, or for anyone to be tried for war crimes. I'm calling for a change in foreign policy. The problem with an authorization for 'necessary force' for 'terrorists' is that it's too broad. A few people were responsible for 9/11, not millions. We've invaded and occupied 2 foreign countries for almost a decade and spent billions of taxpayers money that could've been better spent here at home over a few fucking terrorists. It's not rational. We've given the Muslims what they want, their highest duty according to the koran, jihad... and as long as we're on their soil that's what we'll get... and it'll even be used as an excuse for future terrorist acts! So I'm sorry for thinking that we'd be better off without a bunch of innocent people dead, friends coming home from war limbless and fucked up forever w/ ptsd and commiting suicide. I'm sorry for thinking that we might someday be labeled 'terrorists' by a foreign invader like china or russia if we were planting ied's along I-64 to ambush and kill some bastards that accidentally dropped bombs on our homes and family. If your mother or father or son or daughter were killed by collateral damage you wouldn't just say 'sadly it's a part of war' you'd likely come to the conclusion that war should be avoided in almost every situation. It seems like such a waste...

cliftongifford wrote: Why can't we all just get along?...

Good question. When you figure that one out please let us know, for you will have solved the world's only problem that really matters, 'cause if we all got along, there's no other problem that couldn't be solved.

Meanwhile, it wasn't just a few people that were responsible for 9/11. It was an organization of thousands of religious extremists, supported by a network of rich benefactors and worldwide Islamic "charities". The direct perpetrators of 9/11 were being harbored by the Afghan government. Get it? What looked to some like a ragged band of criminals was actually just the tip of the ice berg. We had to go after the leaders of this organization and the network that supports them. Much of this effort looks like, and is, war, the rest is the most difficult law enforcement operation in the history of the U.S.

I suppose one alternative would be to not take it seriously, just sit back and suffer a 9/11 every few years until they get their hands on, and set off, a nuclear device. I really don't think that approach would save money or lives in the long run.

p.s. The history of Islamic extremism proves that they don't need the justification of collateral damage in order to pursue their deranged agenda. Their "God" commands them to pursue the destruction of the West.

Of course, we all know the evil Bush wasn't good with that. Much to the chagrin of many, Obama ain't good with it either. Thus the war goes on, for the alternative is even more death and destruction, with or without a declaration of war on our part.

Maybe you missed the part about the Taliban run government that was in place. A government that harbored known terrorists. Terrorists linked to 9/11. That put the Afghani government square in the crosshairs of the AUMF.

We don't call the people attacking us over here terrorists. Maybe you do, but we do not. he people over actually be shot at and targeted, do not call them terrorists. They are insurgents. Their government has requested we remain here. They disagree with that and pretty much everything else their government does so the revolt...violently. They attack. They attack they ANA. The ANP. Their own citizens. They set up fake checkpoints and rob innocent civilians. They kill individuals that talk to us. They kidnap others that associate with the government. Often, policemen move far away from home and assume a new identity so the various insurgencies do not retaliate against their families. Insurgents.

Do not try to portray these people as the Wolverines from Red Dawn. These are people using violence to undermine their own government.

You seem to be an ant-violence type guy. You would support our withdrawal, allowing a violent minority to undermine the peaceful majority in order to bring back the powers that subjected its people to such horrors that it displaced millions? To allow a group back into power so they can kill musicians because, well, they are singing and playing instruments? Through fear and violence to control every aspect of a woman's life and, if she did not submit completely and fully, she would be horribly disfigured with acid as a warning to others?

What kind of monster does that make you? One that supports our leaving so these atrocities can return to such an embattled country. A country where only the oldest remember what freedom was like...

Bad shit goes on with governments all over the world. We don't invade N. Korea or China because of human rights issues. Shit, we hardly do anything when genocide is taking place in African countries... makes it kinda hard to believe we're there just to help people. And yes, I'll stand behind the non-interventionist philosophy of our founding fathers on this one. I think we're doing more harm than good... creating more terrorists... I guess history will tell the truth.

Clifton - you need to get a clue. Nobody thinks our military exists as a worldwide peacekeeping force that "helps people". The primary purpose of any nation's military is to defend the nation's people and the national interest. The UN exists for peacekeeping, and it is completely inept.

That said, US military has been used a lot in Africa (ever see Black hawk Down?) and recently Kosovo. There are no US interests in play there, but we still acted. The African genocide was horrible, but it isn't so easy to break up a civil war. You have two sides killing each other and you think introducing a 3rd party with bigger guns is going to save lives?

Its easy to pick apart other peoples decisions when you have no skin in the game. I would say dear brother Cliffton has never done anything for anyone but himself.
I make a motion that you can't vote or make policy suggestions unless you are directly invloved. i.e. can't say shit about shit unless you've been there.

michaelarmand wrote:... you think introducing a 3rd party with bigger guns is going to save lives?

Don't put words in my mouth. I think we should mind our own business and take care of ourselves. Let the internal affairs of other nations remain just that, internal. It was the advice of our founding fathers' and I believe it's still the best way to avoid the unintended consequences of war.

It's the same shit just a different century. When will it ever end? It all started back when you had several empires growing. Then the elbow rubbing started and then the fighting for territory. Some holy land was fought over. Ground was won and lost and then two started fighting one and then one got big and then beat up the two. Minor skirmishes broke out but things started to settle down and the bam another big fight. It has ebbed and tided until current. Sounds like a bunch of kids fighting. The kids grow up and mature but then the next generation takes over.

The road goes on forever but the party never ends. Weird that that song is on while typing this.

cliftongifford wrote: Let the internal affairs of other nations remain just that, internal.

"Internal affairs" Christ, Clifton. Did you not see the video of Bin Laden and the Taliban leaders partying down to celebrate the attacks of 9/11. They really were yukking it up, just giddy about their great victory over the U.S. Bin Laden seemed to think it particularly funny that most of the hijackers didn't even realize that they were headed for "martyrdom". Yeah, he thought the gullability of his own thugs was a regular riot. And you call what these motherfuckers did their "internal affairs". Well, I call you a fucking moron.

[/quote]

"Internal affairs" Christ, Clifton. Did you not see the video of Bin Laden and the Taliban leaders partying down to celebrate the attacks of 9/11. They really were yukking it up, just giddy about their great victory over the U.S. Bin Laden seemed to think it particularly funny that most of the hijackers didn't even realize that they were headed for "martyrdom". Yeah, he thought the gullability of his own thugs was a regular riot. And you call what these motherfuckers did their "internal affairs". Well, I call you a fucking moron.[/quote]

Again, people putting words in my mouth. We could've and should've taken care of Bin Laden and his chronies a long time ago... all I'm saying is, we didn't need to start two wars in two countries over a few thugs. NOW, we ARE involved in the internal affairs of other nations, just another example of the unintended consequence of war. We've dropped bombs on millions of innocent people because of a few terrorist thugs, it just doesn't seem right. Plus, there was never a formal declaration of war, where are the constitutionalists on this one? Any old school republicans here? or libertarians?