The Firearms Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
With all of the demonstrations about war, many of us will encounter
"Peace Activists" who will try to convince us that we must refrain from
retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering . . . most of us don't know
how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one
of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up
a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas.
They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people
who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They probably use
many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in
the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry
and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings
about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter.
Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to
undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a
solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what
they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are
correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them
much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the
idiot realizes how stupid an argument he/she is making.

There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting
victim, a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people or standing by
while a
tyrant massacres his own people by gassing them to test his biological
warfare. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high
cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do
for us and our children.

We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no
choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit
in the nose.

Lesson over!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,087 Posts
USRSF

Dang ruffit, I told you not to go postin' my pic!!! We's tryin' to be in-gog-neeeeee-to. Now we's gonna stand out like sore thumbs over there!!! We was actually gonna sneak into Baghdad all secret like...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I must say that the current political and military situation leaves me somewhat confused and I think I need a few things explained:
1) I may have misunderstood, but you seem to say that the current military action is a counterattack against the forces responsible for the attack on Twin Towers on 9-11. I have a few questions concerning that:
a) I thought the terrorist organization Al-Quaeda was declared responsible for the attacks and an attack on the leadership and manpower of this organization has already been made in Afghanistan, replacing the formerly-US-supported Taliban regime with a more agreeable form of goverment. Did any members of this organization flee Afghanistan? Have they been identified in Iraq?
b) If Al-Quaeda infrastructure and manpower has been identified in Iraq why are the attacks not directed against those objects, concentrating instead on conquering cities and destroying Iraqi military. Is Iraqi military a part of Al-Quaeda?
c) Wouldn't it be more logical to perform a strike against Saudi Arabia, since most funding for Al-Quaeda, as well as most of the terrorists, who performed the hijackings on 9-11 came from that country?
2) I was under the impression that the current military operation in Iraq is a direct consequence of UN resolution 1441, pertaining to stripping of Iraq of any and all weapons of mass destruction.
a) If it's so then why no UN body declared the need for such an action and why are there no UN military personnel in Iraq?
b) Was any material forbidden by this resolution found in Iraq?
c) Elsewhere on this board I've read an excellent post, defining chemical and biological weapons as area-denial weapons, leaving the nuclear weapons as the only weapon of mass destruction. Isn't calling biological and chemical weapons WMD a bit like calling every semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip an 'assault rifle' - a publicity stunt, designed to lower the acceptance of such weapons and people posessing or wanting to have them?
d) Or is the resolution 1441 just a convenient way of shielding the coalition forces from international criticism for waging a retaliatory strike on a country, which is perceived as being responsible for the 9-11 attack, since it was established long before that attack.
3) The current military action in Iraq could be also a preventive strike against the regime of Saddam Hussein, threatening military action against the US, if only Saddam had any weapon he could strike any part of US soil with, except for an US embassy in Baghdad (if there ever will be one).
4) The current military action in Iraq could be of course and attempt to strike two birds with one stone: removing the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, responsible for aiding terrorism, producing WMD, atrocities against the citizens of their own country and the terrorists that he supports. Then can we expect similar actions agains other countries, comitting the same or similar acts: Saudi Arabia (terrorism), Turkey (terrorism, atrocities), Israel (atrocities, terrorism, WMD), Pakistan (terrorism, WMD), India (WMD), North Korea (atrocities, WMD), Russia (atrocities, WMD, terrorism), USA (WMD, terrorism), South Africa (atrocities), Zair (atrocities, terrorism), China (atrocities, WMD)? The list is of course far from complete.

In case you haven't noticed I'm against the war in Iraq.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,133 Posts
Go Get Beer, you bring up some very good questions. I don't believe that there has been any connection between Iraq and September 11, except some vague connections between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. But our administration has never said that we are going after Iraq in retaliation for 9/11.

The US has simply said that 9/11 opened our eyes to the threats against us. It spurred us to begin the "war on terror". Therefore, the attacks of 9/11 are relevant in the sense that we are now hunting down terrorists worldwide and regimes that support them.

Anyone with a lick of sense will know that it is implausible to go after every country that supports terrorism at the same time. We have to pick our battles, and do it in order of the level of threat they pose to us.

UN resolution 1441 was brought up as an attempt to get other countries involved with this campaign. It is not the sole reason for attacking Iraq. As Bush promised, he attempted to use diplomatic means to reduce the threat. This failed. Therefore, we are going ahead with our campaign without the UN. Keep in mind that the UN is not the be-all end-all of worldwide law. That is a common misconception. The UN has no authority over sovereign nations. Each nation can choose whether or not to be a member or participate or play by UN rules. However, if a country decides to be a jackass, it may find that its neighbors will call upon the UN to help them out in keeping peace. Iraq has chosen to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, pretending to be a UN member in good standing, while violating all their rules secretly. Because of their aggressions against Kuwait in 1991, the UN did get involved the first time, but failed to retain their resolve. Since the US has been the chief enforcer of UN rules, we have had our eye on them for over a decade now. Since September 11, we are re-evaluating every threat. Saddam's flagrant disregard for the rules they agreed to follow is the reason we are taking action. We believe that Saddam can and will use WMD, whether the French believe it or not.

You asked whether we have found any banned weapons in Iraq. Well, the war ain't over yet. But we have so far found a chemical factory that we will be investigating for links to a banned chemical weapons program. We have found chemical suits in an Iraqi military compound which was disguised as a hospital. This leads us to believe that they had planned to use chemical weapons; they would not have needed these suits otherwise. We have also seen missiles fired into Kuwait that far exceeded the allowed range. We find more evidence every day that Saddam has, in fact, violated the rules. When will Europe wake up and realize that we were right all along? Are you secretly hoping that Saddam will actually use these weapons? Is that what it will take to convince you?

I agree that the term WMD is overused. Chemical/biological weapons are not WMD. But we have chosen to use WMD as a catch-all phrase, for lack of a better term. It is misleading. Perhaps they should change the nomenclature to "banned weapons". But the point is, these weapons should not exist in Iraq.

It constantly amazes me how the Europeans have such short memories. They conveniently forget that Saddam brought this all upon himself with his invasion of Kuwait over a decade ago. If he hadn't done that, we would never have had the first Gulf War. The sanctions would never have happened. We would not be there now. So calling the Americans the aggressors is just stupid. We are just responding to his initial actions. Unfortunately, we had to take a 10-year break in the fighting due to political pressures. But we are now determined to finish the job that should have been finished in the early 1990s.

One question I would ask of any non-American who criticizes us right now: What would you do if you were in our shoes? If your country had been attacked like we were, and you had the means to prevent another attack, wouldn't you do it? Or would you just turn the other cheek and wait for them to attack again? Do you honestly think that America enjoys picking fights that cost us money and lives? Do you really think that we would be doing this if we didn't find it necessary for our safety and security?

Gimme a break.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,087 Posts
Okay..here I am posting in a political discussion...sheesh.

I am only going to say, though, that I admire your expository skills Toby.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,087 Posts
Now that I consider it, yes, I suppose a link between the two is not much of a stretch!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
But 'regimes that support terrorists' include the US allies in the campaign against Iraq: Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey. Are the politicians in those countries blind? Do they think that when the US is done with Iraq they will discontinue their campaign?

In 1991 UN did not 'fail to retain its resolve' IMHO. It did what it set out to do - pushed Iraqis out of Kuwait and secured it against further invasion, leaving the rest to politics on the grounds of UN forums. Very few countries agree that the political venue for resolving this matter ended before the coalition forces moved in.

So when one can't prove a criminal activity, s/he is entitled to a search by force to find that proof?
I can imagine that the chemical factory you've found isn't the only one in Iraq. There may be many investigations in the near future.
Poland has sent 200 soldiers to the operations region. This is a chemical warfare unit, so they've brought their chemical suits with them. I hope you don't take it as an offensive measure against coalition troops.
The missiles which were found exceeded the allowed range by 1/6th AFAIK.
I don't expect anyone to justify their actions before me, I don't condemn anyone for doing what they think is right for their country. I just think that a country which wants to retain moral upper hand should exploit all avenues of political action before resorting to violence.
Saddam and his regime may be guilty of any or all of the crimes he's accused of. Is this a reason to put two countries at war? If it is why it is needed to draw connections to 9-11, resolution 1441 and a threat to US Saddam is incapable of realizing?

I didn't call American's aggressors. I just call this war premature and overkill.

The last paragraph of your post left me stunned. You disassociated the two incidents (9-11 and Gulf War II) in the first paragraph and still you use the association as an argument in the last. Or was there an Iraqi attack on the US I'm not aware of? Is this war an anti-terrorist operation (Iraq's ties to Al-Quaeda are vague, at best), disarmament effort (why not let the inspectors finish their job then?), political tool or what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,133 Posts
My last statement in that post was a general question. It does not link Iraq to 9/11, but merely asks whether we should sit on our laurels and wait for others to attack us. As the old saying goes: Hit me once, shame on you. Hit me twice, shame on me.

You still think Iraq doesn't support terrorism? Check this out: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural/index.html While it is not evidence by any means, it is a strong indicator of Iraq's mentality toward the use of terrorism against Americans.

So when one can't prove a criminal activity, s/he is entitled to a search by force to find that proof?
Not necessarily. But keep in mind that Iraq agreed to the inspections. Their duty was to show the inspectors what they had. Instead, they played the cat-and-mouse game and hid everything. They were not honest or truthful in anything they did. Anybody who thinks that these inspections would eventually have worked is kidding himself.

So you think the war is premature and overkill huh? I will ask the same question I've asked before: what other solution would you recommend? More time? Do you honestly believe that more time would have made it any better? And what do you mean by overkill? What other way is there to fight a war besides using decisive force? If anything, it's underkill. Overkill would have been unleashing our nuclear arsenal on Iraq. But we have been VERY careful to wage war against the military and government leaders, not against civilians. How is that overkill? Should we have only lobbed a few cruise missiles and called it a day, like Clinton would have done?

Again, I just don't understand the European mentality. The European model of defense is to wait until the enemy marches through your capitol and then call the Americans. We Americans have learned the hard way that the best defense is a good offense. We have learned lessons that countries like France (and apparently Poland) have not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
Go set Beer

I have followed your posting and just have a few things to say.

1. Yes I am A God fearing (respecting) AMERICAN!!

2. My cousin is in Warsaw @ this very moment Serving an LDS mission. His letters home talk of the total socialist attitude of the people there and and how hard it is to get the people to realize that Freedom is a God given right. Not a right determined by man.

3. I seem to remember some sort of uprising in poland to gain your soverinty from the USSR back in the 80's. Is this not true ?

4. I hate war, but, when all else fails that is the only solution. As difficult as this may be for any of us to understand, it is an eternal truth. (Good vs Evil). I do wish that "we could all just get along."
But, that would be Good. And Evil would have none of that.

5. As far as your arguments go in your posts. You express your view very well. I may not agree with them, but , you have the right to express them and that is what freedom is all about. They are intelligent and well thought out. Please continue to post. I often enjoy other points of view and yours will always be welcome.

Rider
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,128 Posts
Well done, all.

It's nice to see that reasonable people can disagree reasonably.

Sniper....generally I agree with you...but...I have many of the same qualms that GGB has.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,133 Posts
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the US should have carte blanche to do whatever we want. And I'm not saying that we're totally innocent. Perhaps there are ulterior motives at work here; I just don't know.

But my point is that the rest of the world (and other people on this Forum) think that Iraq is an innocent victim being brutalized by the big mean bully. That just ain't the case. We have legitimate reasons to go in there. The worldwide public may not know them all yet, but we will find out in short order. So far, the things our government has claimed exist in Iraq are being uncovered one by one.

I fully agree with the idea of the US having the authority to protect itself against threats without the approval of the impotent UN. There are far too many members of the UN who dislike the USA to count on them to watch our back.

Supposedly the number is up to around 47 countries supporting us. Regardless of what the UN decides in its official capacity, it's nice to know that we do have friends in the world who trust us enough to assist us in our efforts. After all, regardless of how much a person may hate the United States, it is still generally true that what's good for the US is good for the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
ABGREE WITH YA SNIPER

And people ....especially Americans...calling us evil invaders & portray Saddam as an ''innocent victum'' make me want to puke :mad: some people like finding any excuse to attack our gov't regarding the war...we may not have a perfect gov't however we do have the power to control or change our gov't & it will never make everyone happy it is far better than any other .,..to compair our gov't to Mofia...2 things...it aint & the mob would be a giant step up from Saddam:eek:
 
1 - 20 of 69 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top