Something about liberals really angers me

johncmcleod · September 19, 2002, 23:05

A lot of liberals today are saying that they're totally against the Afghan campaign. They say peace is the answer and that going around and killing innocent people isn't a good idea just because we got attacked. The blame the government for attacking Afghanistan. I do believe that peace is the answer-that retaliating won't solve anything. But we're taking out potential threats towards our nation, and I think it's worth it. We're not going around killing innocent people. In fact, we're helping Afghanistan. We're freeing them from a tyrannical government and setting up one completely set by the people. And also, I hate it when they blame it on the government. After Sept. 11, when the people saw that many Afghanis and other arbs and terrorists supported these attacks and cheered them on, they were hellbent for war. The whole country was screaming for it, and the government gave them what they want. And now they blame the government for doing it and now they're saying peace is the answer when they started it. Sometimes I'm frustarated with the short-mindedness of Americans.

OldWarrior_42 · September 19, 2002, 23:52

Quote:

We're freeing them from a tyrannical government

Tyrannical by our standards. And yes, I agree it was tyrannical, but it seems many Afghans preferred the Taliban over the Warlords that have taken over the outer regions of the country.

Quote:

and setting up one completely set by the people.

So when did these elections take place?

Actually it is a handpicked US govt. with friendly views to the US. Although many were in power before, so I guess you could say some people in Afghan. support it as well.

But it certainly was not chosen simply by "Just the People" of Afghan.

Dom Pedro II · September 19, 2002, 23:57

And certainly saying that this is "something about liberals" isn't really true. You're saying that some people are totally against the war, but that's not a cornerstone of any kind of liberal policy. It's just from a vocal group either trying to do some rabble rousing for political power, or those who aren't in line with the rest of Party thought at this time.

notyoueither · September 20, 2002, 00:00

Many people feel that armed conflict is a no-no in almost all cases.

Have they lost the nerve? I don't know, but I can't agree that that would be a good policy to follow in this world at this time.

Shi Huangdi · September 20, 2002, 00:07

Don't let other peoples political opinions bother you personally.

Dis · September 20, 2002, 00:09

well that's liberals for you. If they had their way everyone would work for the goverment. the goverment solves all problems

orange · September 20, 2002, 00:12

Quote:

But we're taking out potential threats towards our nation, and I think it's worth it. We're not going around killing innocent people.

But, in fact, we have and continue to kill innocents.

notyoueither · September 20, 2002, 00:13

There will never be a war without some dead innocents.

It ain't gonna happen.

Tingkai · September 20, 2002, 00:18

Quote:

Originally posted by johncmcleod
But we're taking out potential threats towards our nation, and I think it's worth it. We're not going around killing innocent people.

Actually, the US has killed innocent people; people's whose only mistake was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's fair to say the US government tried to minimize civilian casualties and that the use of high tech weapons for the most part achieved the objective of minimizing these deaths, but to say that the US has not killed any innocent people is completely false.

Many people objected to the American invasion of Afghanistan because it was a questionable method of achieving the desired objective of capturing Osama, such as pressuring the Taliban to turn him over to the US.

Would a diplomatic strategy have worked? We'll never know. Did invading Afghanistan work? Only time will tell.

notyoueither · September 20, 2002, 00:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
Many people objected to the American invasion of Afghanistan because it was a questionable method of achieving the desired objective of capturing Osama, such as pressuring the Taliban to turn him over to the US.

Capturing Osama was not the only objective.

Demonstrating to governments everywhere that your country could be taken apart if you harbour terrorists was part of the programme.

orange · September 20, 2002, 00:36

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
There will never be a war without some dead innocents.

It ain't gonna happen.

Sorry, that's what we should be aiming for. 0 civilian casualties. I wouldn't tolerate anything less from the greatest most advanced fighting force the planet has ever seen.

notyoueither · September 20, 2002, 00:38

You shoot for that Orange, but don't ever expect it's going to happen. It is not possible. In the last event, human beings make mistakes.

orange · September 20, 2002, 00:43

i'm talking about Afghanistan...our goal was not to declare war on a country, but to surgically remove a few chioce 'leaders'

We failed to do our job correctly on several occasions. We're making the same mistakes we made throughout the 70s and 80s.

Tingkai · September 20, 2002, 01:01

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Capturing Osama was not the only objective.

Demonstrating to governments everywhere that your country could be taken apart if you harbour terrorists was part of the programme.

Getting Osama was the prime objective.

Bosh · September 20, 2002, 01:03

Quote:

Afghanis and other arbs

Something about conservatives really angers me, namely their ability to believe that a nation that includes indo-european pashtuns and a variety of turkic people is an any way "arb"

notyoueither · September 20, 2002, 01:10

Arabs are Indo European Bosh.

Alexander's Horse · September 20, 2002, 01:10

What angers you about liberals is they don't agree with you.

Grow up

notyoueither · September 20, 2002, 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
i'm talking about Afghanistan...our goal was not to declare war on a country, but to surgically remove a few chioce 'leaders'

I think the goal of your administration was to demolish a government that harboured terrorists and to capture as many of the terrorists as possible. That could just be my interpretation, but that's just me.

There is never going to be anything surgical about invading another country.

Kepler · September 20, 2002, 01:14

Pacifism and isolationism aren't "liberal" or "conservative," they cut across those categories. For every liberal who doesn't want to "destabilize the indigenous culture of Oogetyboogetyland," there's a conservative who is incensed about "our American boys shedding their precious blood for dirty fer'ners." For every liberal who doesn't want to "feed the military-industrial complex," there's a conservative who doesn't want to "submit to the socialist dictates of world government."

Get your terms straight.

notyoueither · September 20, 2002, 01:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
Getting Osama was the prime objective.

Not in the invasion it wasn't. The point of the invasion was to destroy the government, then get OBL and others.

MichaeltheGreat · September 20, 2002, 01:14

Quote:

Originally posted by orange

Sorry, that's what we should be aiming for. 0 civilian casualties. I wouldn't tolerate anything less from the greatest most advanced fighting force the planet has ever seen.

Nope, that's not a realistic aim. If you can control the weather (wind gusts, visibility) and get your enemy to courteously not shoot back when you're targeting him, and get you enemy to sit still in the open well away from any civilians, then you've got a better chance.

It's real simple - our enemies make a point of trying to blend into civilian areas, blend in with the civilian population, and make themselves harder to detect.

No human activity is perfect, and if you never take a shot because there might be a chance an innocent is hit, you may as well just not shoot 99% of the time. And let the enemy get away, and waste you because he doesn't operate under those constraints.

The best way to minimize civilian casualties is to win the war quickly and decisively, not to play around forever because you might hurt the wrong people.

Blisterz · September 20, 2002, 01:17

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=61983

Give me P!

Give me A!

Give me R!

Give me A!

Give me G!

Give me R!

Give me A!

Give me P!

Give me H!

Whats that spell?

PARAGRAPH!!!!

johncmcleod · September 20, 2002, 22:54

I'm sorry about using the term 'liberals'. Just most of the people against he war are liberals, that's all. And, I acknowledge the fact that there have been some civilian casualties. But like I said before, we're not just getting our soldiers to go running around, guns blazing, killing civilians. We're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties.

Tingkai · September 21, 2002, 06:24

Quote:

Originally posted by johncmcleod
We're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties.

At least things have changed since Vietnam.

Ethelred · September 21, 2002, 08:05

Its always easy to be against another group when you make up their position for them or label EVERYONE in the group with the actions of few.

Why just think how much I could put down ALL Republicans for the actions of a few narrow minded individuals on Aployton if I was to act that way myself.

Sava · September 21, 2002, 08:34

As a liberal, I guess my big qualm with the Afghan campaign was the amount of money spent. During the months after 9/11 the military was spending a billion dollars a day on the campaign. Come on, that is the biggest waste of money I've seen since the whole Ken Starr thing. For that amount of money, they could have built up our security infrastructure so that international cargo shipments could be checked; as well as improving airline security.

Yes, its good that the Taliban is gone. But how many oppressive regimes that support terror are there? It seems to me that the Afghan campaign was a very inefficient way of dealing with terror. That's why I'm very much opposed to going into Iraq. The money they waste on these fruitless foreign campaigns is money that could be better spent improving domestic security.

Or here's an idea. How about you use that money to make 3rd world countries agriculturally self-sufficient? I'm sure that would make it a hell of a lot harder to recruit terrorists. Unfortunately, Republican leadership is more interested in giving corporate welfare to defense contracters and rattling sabres than actually improving things.

chequita guevara · September 21, 2002, 12:12

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Arabs are Indo European Bosh.

No they aren't. They're Semites.

chequita guevara · September 21, 2002, 12:15

It's not liberals who are opposed to the war, it's progressives and radicals.

Urban Ranger · September 21, 2002, 12:25

So are you a progressive or a radical?

MrFun · September 21, 2002, 12:42

Let's follow the thread author's logic.

Some liberals are anti-war, therefore all liberals are anti-war. Ok, then in that case:

Some whites are racist, that means that all whites are racist.

Some blacks are racist, that means that all blacks are racist.

Some conservatives are bigots, that means that all conservatives are bigots.

Anyway, to what extent do these two lessons that our dear mothers taught us, apply to international politics?

1) Violence never solves anything.

2) Two wrongs do not make a right.