US Soldier Shot for Drinking water

[dburkhead]

We don't have to completely isolate ourselves to protect us from this threat.
Some are already here...others will be coming....this can't be completely stopped. The fight isn't keeping them all over there. It is only building more of a resistance for their cause

Evidence that the fight over there is "building more of a resistance for their cause"? By that logic we should be seeing German and Japanese terrorists on a daily basis.

The only reason to belive the "creating more terrorists" line is because the media has told you so.

and killing our brave men and women in doing so.
Tell me, where else does Israel send their fighters to keep them safe?
From what I understand, they only send their troops across boarders when they have been attacked...not trying to nation build or protect themselves by fighting a force outside their borders as a means of proactive security.

And what possible relevance has Israel, with a completely different situation from that of the US, have to our situation? And not sending troops across the borders except when attacked has really worked well for them hasn't it?

 

[ATF Consumer]

Yes, we can look at history and we can see a lot of "forever" conflicts that have died out. Consider the 30 years war. Or how about the origins of the Inquisition (note: it wasn't about witchcraft)? Then there was the mormon persecutions in the 19th century. History is full of conflicts that would never end (short of the complete annihilation of one side or the other), and yet they're, if not gone then lost in the "noise."

I see no reason whatsoever to think that this one will be any more permanent than those in the past.

So, you fail to see the conflict that has been in existence between these two religions from the beginning writing?
You actually think that some day, the Muslim populace will no longer have an outrage for our behavior and a hate for our ways?
That sure would be nice to see...but I really don't think it will be any few generations to come.

 

[El Cazador]

Giving up isn't in my vocabulary.

We shouldn't be worried about other nations either, yet we subsidize them with billions of our tax dollars every year.

Even if it forwards the American position, and provides a staunch ally in that region?

 

[ATF Consumer]

Evidence that the fight over there is "building more of a resistance for their cause"? By that logic we should be seeing German and Japanese terrorists on a daily basis.

For Japan and Germany we were fighting a nation, not a religion. Wrong logic.

The only reason to belive the "creating more terrorists" line is because the media has told you so.

OK...so how many more do we have to kill before our troops can come home?

And what possible relevance has Israel, with a completely different situation from that of the US, have to our situation? And not sending troops across the borders except when attacked has really worked well for them hasn't it?

If you do a bit of research...look at how much life has been lost for Israel and how much has been lost for the United States..since Israel was formed as a nation and you will clearly see what works and what doesn't.

 

[SavageEagle]

Wow guys. Just wow.

It's my personal opinion that if we were to follow our Founding Father's advice and leave other Countries to their own demise and concentrate on our own defense here at home, we'd be much better off.

But then again maybe the Founding Fathers were crazy, off their rocker, Tin Foil Hat wearing petards too. It's not Isolationism. It's called Nonintervention. I'd be willing to bet that if we shut down ALL our oversea's bases, brought ALL our troops and equipment home, concentrated on our own borders, not only would we save Trillions, but we'd be a much safer Country without sacrificing any freedoms.

We wait for bin Laden to get brave and show himself in public and execute him then bring our unit home.

Make peace with these nation's overseas, boot the UN out, and watch the USA prosper. Think I'm crazy? Think it's impossible? How would you know if it hasn't been tried? Since WWI we've made more enemies than the British all because we have a presence on foriegn soil and stick our nose where it doesn't belong.

 

[dburkhead]

So, you fail to see the conflict that has been in existence between these two religions from the beginning writing?
You actually think that some day, the Muslim populace will no longer have an outrage for our behavior and a hate for our ways?
That sure would be nice to see...but I really don't think it will be any few generations to come.

Sure I see the conflict. I also see just as many conflicts that were "unresolvable" at the time.

Mind you, those "unresolvable" conflicts usually required one side getting the other's attention (in the sense of the old joke) as something other than as a target, something that the current pablum eaters in Washington are unwilling to do, but I have yet to see one "resolved" by running away.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Wow guys. Just wow.

It's my personal opinion that if we were to follow our Founding Father's advice and leave other Countries to their own demise and concentrate on our own defense here at home, we'd be much better off.

But then again maybe the Founding Fathers were crazy, off their rocker, Tin Foil Hat wearing petards too. It's not Isolationism. It's called Nonintervention. I'd be willing to bet that if we shut down ALL our oversea's bases, brought ALL our troops and equipment home, concentrated on our own borders, not only would we save Trillions, but we'd be a much safer Country without sacrificing any freedoms.

We wait for bin Laden to get brave and show himself in public and execute him then bring our unit home.

Make peace with these nation's overseas, boot the UN out, and watch the USA prosper. Think I'm crazy? Think it's impossible? How would you know if it hasn't been tried? Since WWI we've made more enemies than the British all because we have a presence on foriegn soil and stick our nose where it doesn't belong.

SE revisit this thread.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/politics_laws_and_2nd_amendment/10145-terrorism_and_our_founding_fathers.html

 

[ATF Consumer]

Sure I see the conflict. I also see just as many conflicts that were "unresolvable" at the time.

Mind you, those "unresolvable" conflicts usually required one side getting the other's attention (in the sense of the old joke) as something other than as a target, something that the current pablum eaters in Washington are unwilling to do, but I have yet to see one "resolved" by running away.

I certainly wouldn't see it as running away...it would be withdrawing from which we injected ourselves. I really like SE's post above yours...makes a lot of sense, but too many in the US like the smell of blood and the sound of explosions...and the money it generates too.

 

[dburkhead]

Originally Posted by dburkhead
Evidence that the fight over there is "building more of a resistance for their cause"? By that logic we should be seeing German and Japanese terrorists on a daily basis.

For Japan and Germany we were fighting a nation, not a religion. Wrong logic.

We were and are fighting a belief system, whether one calls it "religion" or something else it's still a belief system. Both the Nazis and the Japanese militarists were every bit as fanatical about their belief system as the RIFs are about theirs, and usually more competent. Simply declaring "this is different" doesn't make it so.

But there was a big difference. There was the simple fact that we treated the war then as a war and fought it as such. So long as we continue to play patty-cake with them, things won't get significantly better. But that's a different topic from "will never end."
​

The only reason to belive the "creating more terrorists" line is because the media has told you so.

OK...so how many more do we have to kill before our troops can come home?

Non-sequitor. I point out that water is wet and you respond with "how high is up."

How many did we have to kill over a mere 3,000 or so fatalities at Pearl Harbor?
​

And what possible relevance has Israel, with a completely different situation from that of the US, have to our situation? And not sending troops across the borders except when attacked has really worked well for them hasn't it?

If you do a bit of research...look at how much life has been lost for Israel and how much has been lost for the United States..since Israel was formed as a nation and you will clearly see what works and what doesn't.

Israel is a lot smaller nation than the US. There are simply fewer people to be killed. Look at per-capita.

How many US civilians, other than those knowingly going into a war zone, have been killed by terrorists since we went into Afghanistan and Iraq per capita? Compare that with the per capita rate in Israel.

When was the last suicide bombing in a downtown cafe in the United States?

 

[SavageEagle]

SE revisit this thread.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/politics_laws_and_2nd_amendment/10145-terrorism_and_our_founding_fathers.html

I'm not sure if this was an agreement or disagreement as I know about the Barbary Wars and such, but war is one thing, occupation of a Country is another.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Israel is a lot smaller nation than the US. There are simply fewer people to be killed. Look at per-capita.

How many US civilians, other than those knowingly going into a war zone, have been killed by terrorists since we went into Afghanistan and Iraq per capita? Compare that with the per capita rate in Israel.

When was the last suicide bombing in a downtown cafe in the United States?

You are leaving out all of our life lost during other intervening wars...Korea and Vietnam to name a few...why would you forget about all of that life?

 

[SavageEagle]

When was the last suicide bombing in a downtown cafe in the United States?

I was gas attacked the other day standing in line at the Panera. Does that count?

J/K Trying to lighten the mood a bit.

 

[dburkhead]

I certainly wouldn't see it as running away...it would be withdrawing from which we injected ourselves. I really like SE's post above yours...makes a lot of sense, but too many in the US like the smell of blood and the sound of explosions...and the money it generates too.

No, it doesn't "make a lot of sense" and stop trying to mindread people who disagree with you.

As for "we injected ourselves," Yep, how dare those Franks be living on the land that the Islamic Jihad was trying to conquer and the sheer affrontery of Charles Martel objecting to that invasion. How dare El Cid and others of his people decide they want their nation back from their invaders.

How dare Thomas Jefferson object to Islamics attacking American merchant shipping. How dare companies that negotiated deals to develop and buy oil from the middle east object when "men with guns" come along to "renegotiate" (read "steal" or, in polite circles, "nationalize").

Unless you are talking about complete isolationism--seal the border, nothing goes in or out--of a level no one has ever maintained anywhere then "injecting ourselves" is a pure smokescreen. The vast bulk, and indeed, the origin of our "injecting ourselves" is simply being willing to do business. The problem is that they keep coming to the table in bad faith. (Per the Koran, lying to infidels is not only acceptable but laudable.)

Finally, you might not see it as running away but they would. And that would be only one more reason to make us a target.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I'm not sure if this was an agreement or disagreement as I know about the Barbary Wars and such, but war is one thing, occupation of a Country is another.

Even back in the day, of our fight for freedom, we had interests around the world. Coming home does not make it safer for us. Oil wasn't an issue then but we still had the same bad actors causing troubles for us. To think America can close up its borders and not interact with the rest of the world is fantasy and way to simplistic.
Recognizing we have interests around the world that affect our security, requires us to ensure the safety of those interests.

 

[dburkhead]

You are leaving out all of our life lost during other intervening wars...Korea and Vietnam to name a few...why would you forget about all of that life?

Because they have nothing to do with the current conflict. Should I also mention all the life lost from malaria and smallpox? Or how about flu deaths? Can't forget those. None of them have anything to do with the current conflict, but they are deaths nonetheless.

 

[dburkhead]

I'm not sure if this was an agreement or disagreement as I know about the Barbary Wars and such, but war is one thing, occupation of a Country is another.

Kind of like football is one thing and touchdowns are another.

It's only been a recent innovation where the winner taking over conquered territory from the loser was not the expected end of war.

You might want to look up the Indian wars--there's a reason that we're sitting on the land and they aren't. Oh and while we bought the Louisianna purchase (although there's some question of whether it was actually France's to sell--never mind that the authochthons may have been of a different opinion), we didn't get the Southwest by saying "pretty please."

 

[SavageEagle]

Even back in the day, of our fight for freedom, we had interests around the world. Coming home does not make it safer for us. Oil wasn't an issue then but we still had the same bad actors causing troubles for us. To think America can close up its borders and not interact with the rest of the world is fantasy and way to simplistic.
Recognizing we have interests around the world that affect our security, requires us to ensure the safety of those interests.

I never said anything about closing our borders. I never said don't defend our interests. Kinda.

I did say that we don't need a military base in multipule countries, we don't needs tens of thousands of troops stationed abroad on a permenant basis, and we don't need to be meddling in the affairs of other Countries. Our Founders didn't do this and they warned against it.

I especially never said close our borders. That IS isolationism. Again, I said Nonintervention. We intervein in every Country that will allow it and a lot that don't and we do it anyway. This MUST stop.

 

[SavageEagle]

Kind of like football is one thing and touchdowns are another.

It's only been a recent innovation where the winner taking over conquered territory from the loser was not the expected end of war.

You might want to look up the Indian wars--there's a reason that we're sitting on the land and they aren't. Oh and while we bought the Louisianna purchase (although there's some question of whether it was actually France's to sell--never mind that the authochthons may have been of a different opinion), we didn't get the Southwest by saying "pretty please."

So what are you saying? I know what you said, but you have me confused. I need a beer.

 

[dburkhead]

So what are you saying? I know what you said, but you have me confused. I need a beer.

I was responding to your "war is one thing and occupation another" with examples that demonstrate that basically, no, it isn't.

 

[SavageEagle]

I was responding to your "war is one thing and occupation another" with examples that demonstrate that basically, no, it isn't.

We aren't at war with Germany, but yet we have a base there. Same with Japan. Same with South Korea. Same with Cuba. I mean really, occupation is NOT the same as war.