AFboard - View Single Post - O/T War (posted 04-01-03)

Fukkenshredded · 04-02-2003, 12:21 PM

Your answers:

1. We will be safer after this war for the following reasons: The slowly forming alliance of Syria, Iraq, and other terrorist supporting countries will be somewhat thwarted. Countries will be forced to take a position now, before those relationships are crystallized, rather than after America has become a weaker country by virtue of inaction. This consideration of consequence will reinforce many countries' assumption that we are still the superpower to be dealt with and to oppose us is foolish. However, if left unattended, a broad base of individual opponents could develop into a threat that we could not so readily avert.

2. "...now united Arab world..." Hmmm. I'm not sure what your thinking is here. Of the 1.3 billion Muslims, about ten percent are fundamentalists. That's 130 million that were already united in their hatred of America. These attacks started long ago. the bombing of our barracks, the attempted bombing of the towers in 1992, etc. Now, that first attempt on the towers went unanswered. So what happened? The approach was refined and finally successful. The attacks have become more prevalent as a result of inactivity, so where is the logic in continuing a posture of nonresponse? The attacks will come anyway, why make it easy? Terrorists need sponsors. If the world witnesses a penalty for such sponsorship, certainly their will be some reluctance on the part of most countries to sponsor them so openly, wouldn't you agree? the idea that our response is provocative is illusory...these people are already united in their mission, and have been for a long, long time. Sponsorship from an alliance of countries must be avoided if possible.

3. The financial cost of the war...well, first of all, the oil will offset much of the costs. Secondly, where are you getting the data to suggest that our economy is weak? That case has not been made yet. What has happened is a correction of inflated and inaccurate economic numbers generated by a lax and irresponsible administration for the previous eight years. Our economy is strong, and is getting stronger. The stock market is NOT the economy. Employment numbers are NOT the economy.

4. Mending relations with the EU. What has happened is an exposure of the true nature of these so called relations. They are not damaged as a result of this war, rather, our decision to act has revealed to us who our allies are. France and Germany were providing assistance to Iraq BEFORE this war ever came onto the scene. How, then, are we to argue that the war has caused the friction? We simply exposed the dual nature of some of our colleagues, as well as the lack of substance in many of these alliances. I think its good to know right where everyone stands, so in that sense, our increased knowledge and awareness is an asset, not a liability.

5. Unilateralism? 45 nations, bro. The only unilateral position here is France's position. We were attacked, we responded. Who's permission do we need? This coalition is larger than any in recent history. There is no unilateralism on our part. Think again. Also, who ever suggested that Bush believes he is solving all problems? Again, we perceive a threat, we are taking action to avert that threat, period. Everything else is commentary generally indulged in as a result of ignorance. We have a right to defend ourselves, and to do so on
our own terms.

6. Bush re-elected? Who would you pick? Would it be so bad to have Bush re-elected? Has your life been negatively impacted by all of this so called mismanagement of our economy? Are you in more danger now because of Bush's policy on terrorism?

I'll vote for him...and I am not even a Republican. His policy is, in my way of thinking, much sounder than his predecessor's.

04-02-2003, 12:21 PM	#15 (permalink)
Fukkenshredded Super Moderator Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 1,036 Rep Power: 13711	Your answers: 1. We will be safer after this war for the following reasons: The slowly forming alliance of Syria, Iraq, and other terrorist supporting countries will be somewhat thwarted. Countries will be forced to take a position now, before those relationships are crystallized, rather than after America has become a weaker country by virtue of inaction. This consideration of consequence will reinforce many countries' assumption that we are still the superpower to be dealt with and to oppose us is foolish. However, if left unattended, a broad base of individual opponents could develop into a threat that we could not so readily avert. 2. "...now united Arab world..." Hmmm. I'm not sure what your thinking is here. Of the 1.3 billion Muslims, about ten percent are fundamentalists. That's 130 million that were already united in their hatred of America. These attacks started long ago. the bombing of our barracks, the attempted bombing of the towers in 1992, etc. Now, that first attempt on the towers went unanswered. So what happened? The approach was refined and finally successful. The attacks have become more prevalent as a result of inactivity, so where is the logic in continuing a posture of nonresponse? The attacks will come anyway, why make it easy? Terrorists need sponsors. If the world witnesses a penalty for such sponsorship, certainly their will be some reluctance on the part of most countries to sponsor them so openly, wouldn't you agree? the idea that our response is provocative is illusory...these people are already united in their mission, and have been for a long, long time. Sponsorship from an alliance of countries must be avoided if possible. 3. The financial cost of the war...well, first of all, the oil will offset much of the costs. Secondly, where are you getting the data to suggest that our economy is weak? That case has not been made yet. What has happened is a correction of inflated and inaccurate economic numbers generated by a lax and irresponsible administration for the previous eight years. Our economy is strong, and is getting stronger. The stock market is NOT the economy. Employment numbers are NOT the economy. 4. Mending relations with the EU. What has happened is an exposure of the true nature of these so called relations. They are not damaged as a result of this war, rather, our decision to act has revealed to us who our allies are. France and Germany were providing assistance to Iraq BEFORE this war ever came onto the scene. How, then, are we to argue that the war has caused the friction? We simply exposed the dual nature of some of our colleagues, as well as the lack of substance in many of these alliances. I think its good to know right where everyone stands, so in that sense, our increased knowledge and awareness is an asset, not a liability. 5. Unilateralism? 45 nations, bro. The only unilateral position here is France's position. We were attacked, we responded. Who's permission do we need? This coalition is larger than any in recent history. There is no unilateralism on our part. Think again. Also, who ever suggested that Bush believes he is solving all problems? Again, we perceive a threat, we are taking action to avert that threat, period. Everything else is commentary generally indulged in as a result of ignorance. We have a right to defend ourselves, and to do so on our own terms. 6. Bush re-elected? Who would you pick? Would it be so bad to have Bush re-elected? Has your life been negatively impacted by all of this so called mismanagement of our economy? Are you in more danger now because of Bush's policy on terrorism? I'll vote for him...and I am not even a Republican. His policy is, in my way of thinking, much sounder than his predecessor's.