nfb: This may get your blood boiling

[Jeff_in_Atl]

In some situations, I agree. But, from my personal experiences, I have seen freedom yield security more often than not. Which would you fight harder for, your freedom or your security? If you have your freedom, do not have your security in the fact that you can defend yourself, your family and your freedoms? Just thoughts from my vantage point.

I'll have to think about that.

[Z Ya Later]

I'll have to think about that.

And I'm glad this didn't get ugly...I love you man!!! lol

[Jeff_in_Atl]

And I'm glad this didn't get ugly...I love you man!!! lol

Oh I don't get mad having a discussion as long as the other person is using logic and common sense rather than giving particular party line (cool aid drinker). I think everyone can learn something from a good discussion and there are some pretty smart people on this board.

[DeWynter]

Say what? "War only breeds more war," So there is no end in sight and the people on this planet have no control over whether there is another war or not.

Not what im saying. You just cant go and kill a guy in another country because he attacked you without stiring up a sh!* storm across the globe. Espescialy if you do it against that contries will. All you will do is send a message saying "We dont give a *@!# about your country and laws when it comes to what we want, because we got big guns" to the whole world. In a day and age where the other side of the globe is only a few hours away news travels fast. Sympathetic countries are going to come together, even if they have differeng veiws for feer of the US just doing what they want, when they want and damn what others think. Im not saying this is what the US is saying, it just may look that way. Many countries are not fond of the USA weather it be from jelousy or from fear, but the worst thing any one can do is push all these seperate countries together (iran, syria, north korea, etc.). They watch what the US does very carfully and plan around what it does, and if the US decides its going to go after any enemy at any cost, these countries may say to each other look, we need to band together to keep the US out. We all know that the countries that arent fond of the US harbor criminals and even support them, and help them to undermine the US. I say all the power to the US to protect its self from invation and terrorists, but going into a country unsanctioned is just a little over the edge. There are still many dangerous countries out there, with many military toys at their command, and with the Rusians selling arms to who ever has the money, they can get more, and the rusians have some not to bad things still parked in the hangers, and bases.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

And I'm glad this didn't get ugly...I love you man!!! lol

Here's is what I have come up with.

You can have your security and not have your freedom. There are a lot of countries you can use as examples there. Russia, China, etc.

I just can't seam to figure out how you can have your freedom without having security. Some nut case can come along and take your freedom.

The US has given Iraq freedom and it has not led to their security. It may have led to ours but there is no way to know without being able to see an alternate time line.

If you can guarantee your security, you can choose to have freedom or not and there isn't anything someone else can do about it.

[DeWynter]

Here's is what I have come up with.

You can have your security and not have your freedom. There are a lot of countries you can use as examples there. Russia, China, etc.

I just can't seam to figure out how you can have your freedom without having security. Some nut case can come along and take your freedom.

The US has given Iraq freedom and it has not led to their security. It may have led to ours but there is no way to know without being able to see an alternate time line.

If you can guarantee your security, you can choose to have freedom or not and there isn't anything someone else can do about it.

Absolute perfection, couldnt agree more.

[Dave M]

It comes down to us not being in a position to get into another armed conflict, so we have to "resort" to the diplomatic process. Other countries who's first instict would be not to cooperate with us know this too. Do you really think we'd ever go to war with North Korea and it's million man army and claimed nuclear weapons? Not in the forseeable future while our military is stretched so thin. They know this, we know this.

Of course, this all goes out the window in the case of an overt act of war.

[Joe 1320]

Joe, you know how to open up a hornets nest.

Yep. However, I had full faith in the members of this forum to be able to discuss the topic with respect to other points of view. I had faith that everyone could have an intelligent discussion and not have it turn ugly. I was right and you guys are great.

But...... more people need to stir this hornet's nest else our government will accept less than what the people truely want.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Not what im saying. You just cant go and kill a guy in another country because he attacked you without stiring up a sh!* storm across the globe. Espescialy if you do it against that contries will. All you will do is send a message saying "We dont give a *@!# about your country and laws when it comes to what we want, because we got big guns" to the whole world. In a day and age where the other side of the globe is only a few hours away news travels fast. Sympathetic countries are going to come together, even if they have differeng veiws for feer of the US just doing what they want, when they want and damn what others think. Im not saying this is what the US is saying, it just may look that way. Many countries are not fond of the USA weather it be from jelousy or from fear, but the worst thing any one can do is push all these seperate countries together (iran, syria, north korea, etc.). They watch what the US does very carfully and plan around what it does, and if the US decides its going to go after any enemy at any cost, these countries may say to each other look, we need to band together to keep the US out. We all know that the countries that arent fond of the US harbor criminals and even support them, and help them to undermine the US. I say all the power to the US to protect its self from invation and terrorists, but going into a country unsanctioned is just a little over the edge. There are still many dangerous countries out there, with many military toys at their command, and with the Rusians selling arms to who ever has the money, they can get more, and the rusians have some not to bad things still parked in the hangers, and bases.

Yes and no. Iraq had the 6th biggest army in the world. You saw how quickly it fell in 1991. I understand what you are saying though.

I'd like to know exactly what the US does to push other countries together. I don't mean theories I mean really doing something like sanctions, blockades, or military attacks unilaterally.

The biggest reason Muslims hate the US is because the US supports Israel's right to exist. This goes way back to Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was outcast from the family because he was an illegitimate child of the Muslim slave. Isaac inherited the family fortune and Ishmael got nothing. Ishmael was pissed and the Muslims and the Jews have been fighting ever since. Tit for tat for thousands of years. The only thing that will satisfy the Muslim extremist is the death of all Jewish people which to them include Christians. (Which is interesting to me because Jesus was Jewish.) My question is how do you deal with this if you are a Christian or a Jew? When your enemy will only be satisfied when you are dead. What do you do? Do you try and build a big wall around you? There is no way you can live totally isolating the outside world. So you live in fear with someone stalking you trying to kill you all the time. Or do you get fed up with it and go after them and kill them before they kill you.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Yep. However, I had full faith in the members of this forum to be able to discuss the topic with respect to other points of view. I had faith that everyone could have an intelligent discussion and not have it turn ugly. I was right and you guys are great.

But...... more people need to stir this hornet's nest else our government will accept less than what the people truly want.

I try. I think discussions are a great way to learn something. I think this is why talk radio has seen the biggest growth in the radio arena for the last 15 year. I guess Rush started all of that. I tried to listen to him once. That lasted about 15 minutes.

As for the second comment I totally agree. The interesting this is the minority is mostly what is stirring the pot. The last election proved that the majority of the country even only 51% is conservative and they are less vocal as a group.

I heard an interesting statistic that said that only ~20% of Americans would admit to being liberal. Another ~20% voted liberal and express liberal views but wouldn't admit to it. ~40% of the population admitted to be conservative while the other ~20% claimed to be something else. That ~20% swaying back in forth is what determines the elections.

[fastTa]

First of all, let me just say that I love you guys too. With that said, here it comes.

First of all I agree that any one person, group, and/or country that is "potentially" harboring Bin Laden shall be considered to be harboring a war time criminal to say the least. And given the fact that they are harboing a war time felonious criminal, they should be treated as if they were commiting a crime. Whether that crime falls under US law, International law, or the Geneva Convention (especially the 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act), Bin Laden is a mass murderer that needs to be brought to a real and prompt justice. Pussyfootin' around trying to eliminate stepping on foreign toes is the worst possible perspective that the US can take in regards to bringing Bin Laden into custody.

Even if the US were to capture Bin Laden alive, it would be difficult to accurately try him for his acts due to the complexity and unconventional legalities of trying a war time crime. The US needs to decide if it would better serve him justice if they were to indict him as a common criminal or treat him as a prisoner of war. If they indict him, they might not have enough evidence to convict him. However, let us never forget that prior to all of this, Bin Laden published an open declaration of war against the United States. If they treat him as a prisoner of war, Bin Laden could have the capacity to take the position that soldiers cannot be held responsible for killing the enemy during an active war. Either way this guy needs to go down, and we need to send a strong and unmistakibly clear message to terrorists and all who have any asssociation with them.

On the freedom topic, I must agree with Jeff and say that freedom is generated by security, and security is generated by our brave soldiers pro-actively seeking out and destroying anything to do with terrorism. Freedom in a domestic and societal sense can not exist without security. Just can't.

Of course in an ideal world, we would not have to go to war, we would not have to kill anyone, we would not have to worry about terrorists killing people on our own US soil because the law says they can't , and we could all just relax and enjoy our freedom. Unfortunately this ain't an ideal world.

[Steel2686]

Then again, it's possible Bin Laden is either already captured or dead.

I don't know if anyone remembers these reports when we first went into Afghanistan, but there were Generals saying in the likely event Bin Laden was successfully targeted, it would most likely remain confidential as there are some terrorist cells imbedded in this country, set to attack when news of OBL's capture or death is announced.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but just throwing another possibility out there. I just think with all the technology we have, and the mass amounts of money we are willing to give informants, it could have already happened and we will never know.

[Joe 1320]

Then again, it's possible Bin Laden is either already captured or dead.

I don't know if anyone remembers these reports when we first went into Afghanistan, but there were Generals saying in the likely event Bin Laden was successfully targeted, it would most likely remain confidential as there are some terrorist cells imbedded in this country, set to attack when news of OBL's capture or death is announced.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but just throwing another possibility out there. I just think with all the technology we have, and the mass amounts of money we are willing to give informants, it could have already happened and we will never know.

Sounds like the hunt for DB Cooper.

[Steel2686]

Sounds like the hunt for DB Cooper.

Maybe they are one in the same. Ever seen OBL and DB Cooper in the same place? Well?

[fastTa]

Then again, it's possible Bin Laden is either already captured or dead.

I don't know if anyone remembers these reports when we first went into Afghanistan, but there were Generals saying in the likely event Bin Laden was successfully targeted, it would most likely remain confidential as there are some terrorist cells imbedded in this country, set to attack when news of OBL's capture or death is announced.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but just throwing another possibility out there. I just think with all the technology we have, and the mass amounts of money we are willing to give informants, it could have already happened and we will never know.

I think it is hard to be sure if there are in fact "embedded terrorist cells" within our own country, but I suppose anything is possible these days. I would like to believe that our domestic law enforcment and/or government has a pretty good wrap on things here. Still scary theless.

But I still think that this will be the least of our worries if we do not continue to proactively seek out and destroy terrorism and anything associated with terrorism.