well its a good thing people want to detonate radioactive bombs on the US

Originally posted by BlueStar:
The U.S. has a responsibility to protect its citizens.

By making them a target?

Originally posted by ******:

bull

*begins Google search for the Constitution* http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And...

Being such a prominent country/leader, the U.S. had to take action (a powerful and forceful action) after 9/11. The most powerful country in the world cannot allow itself to be attacked in that manner/on that scale and do nothing about it.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
By making them a target?

On 9/11, the citizens of the U.S. were attacked. The U.S. then issued a counter-strike.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
*begins Google search for the Constitution* http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And...

Being such a prominent country/leader, the U.S. had to take action (a powerful and forceful action) after 9/11. The most powerful country in the world cannot allow itself to be attacked in that manner/on that scale and do nothing about it.

Sure do something about it - but not what it did (as I already stated above). It's the whole 'be the bigger person' idea - if your only response is violence, don't be surprised when someone else tries to take you down.

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Even if you could control all the governments in the world, the terrorists would still exist. Anyway, it wouldn't be all the governments in the world which sponsor terrorism - just a select few.

True. And true. Obviously, the U.S. is only going to go after the governments that sponsor terrorists that are a threat to the U.S. The objective is to end the threat of terrorism to the U.S. and its citizens.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
On 9/11, the citizens of the U.S. were attacked. The U.S. then issued a counter-strike.

This is close to the end of a loooong story.

Woah.

Originally posted by BlueStar:
The objective is to end the threat of terrorism to the U.S. and its citizens.

the statements coming from Bush and his pals were somewhat broader, noticably when they were looking for support from Europe and elsewhere.

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Sure do something about it - but not what it did (as I already stated above). It's the whole 'be the bigger person' idea - if your only response is violence, don't be surprised when someone else tries to take you down.

If Al-Qaida was allowed to strike at the U.S. with no direct and forceful retaliation from the U.S., it could be viewed as an open invitation for further attacks, not only from Al-Qaida but also other terrorist networks.

'be the bigger person' and walk away?? The attacks would just keep on coming. Action had to be taken.


------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

I'd just thought I would share my two cents.

First, I think that the US is justified in arresting Padilla, assuming that we have proof that he was planning or conspiring to attack the United States, which it seems as if we do.

I do not agree with him being declared an enemy combatant, and thus stipped of his legal rights. I think his attorney even said that even she has very limited information about the case against him.

I do not think that this arrest is just being used to generate support for the Department of Homeland Security. The FBI and CIA are not even a part of this new (and rediculous) concept, so I think there is no point in bringing it up.

I'll admit that this arrest most likely is being used to try to generate some respect for the intelligence community, but then again, I see nothing wrong with that. They caught someone who was planning an attack on the US (while it was still in its early stages), and they deserve credit for that.

I think the US was justified in taking large scale military operations against Afghanistan. The Taliban were harboring terrorism, and as long as they were in power, there would always be a signifigant threat to the US (I'm not saying we got rid of that threat, I'm just saying it is smaller without the Taliban).

I think that the actual 9-11 attacks posed very little serious long term threat to the American way of life, the economy, etc.... I believe that more of a threat comes from the "blank check" given to the government in terms of expanding the government's power and restricting civil rights.

David

Originally posted by BlueStar:
True. And true. Obviously, the U.S. is only going to go after the governments that sponsor terrorists that are a threat to the U.S. The objective is to end the threat of terrorism to the U.S. and its citizens.

Right. But this is not the way it's presented. It's the whole vigilante mentality - the US striding out into the town, ready to kick the butt of anyone doing anything it doesn't like. For nobody's benefit but its own. And it's not going to be limited to terrorist states - just anyone not following the US' plans. Someone can make a story up later.

Originally posted by slunky_munky:
the statements coming from Bush and his pals were somewhat broader, noticably when they were looking for support from Europe and elsewhere.

That's because you have to look at the UN and NATO and all that stuff. "An attack on one member state is an attack on all." And, of course, allies of the U.S. are obviously at risk from terrorists hating the U.S.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

One more thing: the US did use the 9-11 attacks as an excuse for ousting the Taliban, but it was a legal excuse. Congress and the public did essentially give the president a blank check to do whatever he wanted, but then again, so have the leaders of other countries, by either participating in the military campaign, the long term peace keeping of Afghanistan, or even by not speaking out against the removal of the Taliban.

David

Originally posted by if there is a llama:

------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
It's the whole vigilante mentality - the US striding out into the town, ready to kick the butt of anyone doing anything it doesn't like.

I guess it's all about point of view. I don't see it that way.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
If Al-Qaida was allowed to strike at the U.S. with no direct and forceful retaliation from the U.S., it could be viewed as an open invitation for further attacks, not only from Al-Qaida but also other terrorist networks.

'be the bigger person' and walk away?? The attacks would just keep on coming. Action had to be taken.

Not walk away and ignore it - deal with it in a mature and diplomatic manner. The US was never in a million years about to lose in a war with Afghanistan, they could have done things any way they liked.

Look at it this way - if this response worked so well, why was this guy arrested?

A change in social policy is what's needed, not a war. America garners little sympathy from many parts of the world - sympathy for the victims, but not for the country.

Sweet merciful creator...

------------------
"Yeah, he's a retard, but he's free ...
Sort of a ... freetard ..."

Originally posted by BlueStar:
"Think for yourself. Question authority."

why should I?

Originally posted by kypper:
why should I?

Because Maynard James Keenan said so.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by if there is a llama:
One more thing: the US did use the 9-11 attacks as an excuse for ousting the Taliban, but it was a legal excuse. Congress and the public did essentially give the president a blank check to do whatever he wanted, but then again, so have the leaders of other countries, by either participating in the military campaign, the long term peace keeping of Afghanistan, or even by not speaking out against the removal of the Taliban.

David

Support tailed off noticeably as time went on - many countries reluctant to supply any aid other than humanitarian. This has always been the case - the US has vetoed UN resolutions over 70 times, yet the rest of the world has not rallied against them.

Originally posted by BlueStar:
No. The Taliban never had any intention of turning over Bin Laden. They claimed that they had no idea where he was. And no evidence ever would have been sufficient for them.

And even if they turned over Bin Laden and there was a trial and all that shit...the terrorist threats would keep on coming and keep on happening. Getting Bin Laden is not the answer to putting a stop to terrorist attacks against the U.S. and ensuring that something like 9/11 never happens again. You must go after the entire network. And you must go after the governments that harbor and support those networks so as to ensure that the networks cannot be built up again.

you definately work for the US government. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif
They are going after governments that HARBOR terrorists. Not support. HARBOR only. That means EVERY FUCKING COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) IS A TERRORIST.
That's why it's an ambiguous and frightening war.

Originally posted by kypper:
why should I?

That's the spirit!

Originally posted by Shparticus:
Sweet merciful creator...

Yes? I'm a busy man, I don't have all day...


AHAHAHAHAHA!
Or for Elisabeth:
hahaha

Originally posted by kypper:
you definately work for the US government. http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif
They are going after governments that HARBOR terrorists. Not support. HARBOR only. That means EVERY FUCKING COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) IS A TERRORIST.
That's why it's an ambiguous and frightening war.

*kills yuo*

Originally posted by BlueStar:
*begins Google search for the Constitution* http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Didn't you know? It's been re-written to

Power, control, and the almighty buck.

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Think for yourself. Question authority.

Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
I love it when people try and think outside their social status.

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Not walk away and ignore it - deal with it in a mature and diplomatic manner. The US was never in a million years about to lose in a war with Afghanistan, they could have done things any way they liked.

A change in social policy is what's needed, not a war.

Yes, of course, a change in social policy is needed. That is happening and will be happening.

9/11 was an act of war. You cannot just come onto U.S. soil, kill thousands of U.S. civilians, and not expect to have the shit hit the fan.

No response is going to be perfect.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

Originally posted by BlueStar:
Because Maynard James Keenan said so.

He also only has a 6 inch penis.

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
*kills yuo*

You know, I didn't like you when I first came to Netwhore.
Now... J00 RULEZ, l33t HAX0R!

Originally posted by kypper:
Didn't you know? It's been re-written to

Power, control, and the almighty buck.

Would you perfer the British version, which actually talks about life, liberty, and property?

David