Write To Congress/President: Time To Take Out Syria and Iran

Jon Alvarez

[familyofman]

"Perhaps you could explain to me why we should attack Syria and Iran? Do they represent a threat to these United States"

This would have been a valid question prior to the Bush pre-emption doctrine. There no longer needs to be a "clear & present" danger - only the possibilty that a threat might arise at sometime in the future.

[niki]

President Bush is not the president of Israel. Israel is perfectly capable of making its own decisions and doing what is best for Israel. And an attack on the UN is NOT an attack on America. The UN has helped undermine Americas efforts in Iraq, they can deal with the consequences of playing games there.

[rrrod]

a point to ponder for all of us...remember when iran fell to the islamnazis? that was the start of this current war..IMHO

[RightWhale]

There's a better way. The free people of Iraq can defend themselves, and should.

[dfrussell]

Your response is a wonderful exercise in changing the subject. If *you're* all hyped up to go on a crusade, lead by example and join up and instead of sitting in your chair and sending other people off to be shot at because it gives you a woody.

Idiots like you who like to make "moral judgements" about things tend to change their minds quickly when they discover it's them or their children in the body bags.

Obviously, there is a time for war. But it's a decision to be made with regret.

Anyone stupid enough to be champing at the bit to get to that time needs a bit more up close and personal with it's effects.

[uncbob]

You cannot compromise with evil. It is time to join Israel and take out not only Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., but Syria and Iran as well.

YEP
The only thing that works is total victory ala Germany and Japan in WWII

Anything else is just shoveling S*&^ against the tide

But it won't happen

[rrrod]

not to be flip but war and the decsions concerning war are HELL..having said that the usa can not hesitate now...our actions today will save lives in the future. we must carry thru.

[rrrod]

not to be flip but war and the decsions concerning war are HELL..having said that the usa can not hesitate now...our actions today will save lives in the future. we must carry thru.

[Prodigal Son]

If *you're* all hyped up to go on a crusade, lead by example and join up and instead of sitting in your chair and sending other people off to be shot at because it gives you a woody.

Lol. Where did I say I agree with the author of this thread? Helloooo. McFly? You in there?

I've done my time in the infantry. My complete 8 yr obligation on active duty. I've spent my fair share of time deployed to sh!tholes that you sent me to. Did I want to go there? No, not especially. But I also realized it was part of the duty I signed up for. I couldn't have given a damn what my mom and dad had to think about it.

Idiots like you who like to make "moral judgements" about things tend to change their minds quickly when they discover it's them or their children in the body bags.

Idiots like me? Hey, f--k you. How's that? You want to get nasty? We can keep going till this thread gets pulled.

It's always going to be somebody's child in the bodybag isn't it? No matter how good the cause or how sh!tty. Whether it's a training accident or an enemy bullet or just pneumonia suffered on the battlefield. Everybody has parents. This doesn't mean we shouldn't deploy them when we see fit. This doesn't mean the author of the thread can't petition his gov't to deploy them. His position is perfectly justified in a republic such as ours. Wanting to shut down the opposition like you and Galt are trying to do is not.

But again, do not assume I agree with the author. I have not stated a position here.

[JohnGalt]

"AQ" is mostly a collection of old CIA friends from the Cold War and more recently Kosovo. There is a long paper trail on this subject, you may or may not have seen it.

If '9/11 changed everything' crap had any backbone or intellectual seriousness in the scope of conservatism, there would have been a rigorous investigation, complete with resignations in disgrace, pension stripping, and criminal investigations for incompetence.

To this day, not one resignation.

While I believe that a well-armed citizenry and decentralized government are the keys to a sound national security strategy, we can agree to disagree but to simply reply on an abstract, is dangerous, and anti-intellectual.

[billbears]

No it's still a valid question, I don't care if this administration is running off at the mouth about pre-empting evil or not. The intent of declaring war as outlined in the Constitution was not revenge, defense of other nations against weak aggressors, or human rights violations. Nor was it to choose sides in civil wars, as is being done in Liberia

[Prodigal Son]

Do you appreciate the wussiness factor of posting a vanity thread that asks people to send and e-mail to congress?

Well, we do have an "Activism" section at FR. I suppose this would fall under that. I have noted other such threads. If the mods feel this one isn't worthy of that status- maybe they should pull it.

I simply found it ironic that one who goes by the name of Galt, J. should be so quick to overlook the implications of a contract, which an enlistment form is as surely as any business contract.

And, like I said, I get sick of people using the old emotional "but they're just kids" saw. They're not kids. They're grown men and women, well trained and they do an absolutely fantastic job under very adverse conditions. No children here. I see American men and women in uniform. Men and women who chose their profession for a reason.

I also get sick of the "only those in uniform should decide" line. It's a totally farcical argument as I tried to point out. The military should have their say just like everybody else at the voting booth but the decision to go to war is not for the military to make, it falls in the civilian sphere. This is the way our nation is set up. This should come as no immediate shock to anyone- it's been that way for over two centuries.

I don't care to debate the merits of the this thread or the author's eagerness to deploy troops. I understand that in a nation of almost 300 million souls we cannot have 300 million soldiers. That leaves lots of people running around on the sidelines wanting to deploy the military for their pet cause. There are a whole pile of threads that seem pointless to me here but this is a big place- FR. Lots of different interests.

[Mac94]

I know plenty about the history of Bin Laden's group, thank you very much. I know the ties to the CIA and the Cold War, etc.

Also, I think I said that 9/11 should have changed the way we do things. I do not think it has, it is business as usual, unfortunately.

BTW, what "abstract" am I relying on?

Is there a long history of rad Islam attacks against Americans or American targets (this is verifiable and far from abstact)?

Are any of these attacks seperate from Bin Laden and his group (also verifiable and far from abstract)?

Do any of the nations in the region support groups that have killed Americans or are directly responsible for attacks on Americans (fairly varifiable and far from abstract)?

Are any of these countries seeking nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons (fairly varifiable and far from abstract)?

Does terrorism and weapons of mass destruction pose a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States? That is the bottom line debate. What say you regarding this question?

[jonalvy44]

Israel has been handicapped by the US in its dealings with terrorism...Our troops are being shot at by terrorists and supporters from Iran. Enough said, time to get to work.

[Dave S]

Have you enlisted yet?

[jonalvy44]

alrighty then...

[JohnGalt]

A well armed citizenry and a decentralized government, then we can discuss troop movements in the Middle East.

I love it though, first "9/11 changed everything" (abstraction), but now you say its business as usual (a reasonable observation).

Radical Islam and regime change in the Middle East has been going on since the '50s. After the tar and feathering, indictments, and pensions strippings deserved at every level of the trillion dollar central intelligence/national security aparatus, then we can talk about new battles and wars.

Arguing for war first, then reform, is Orwellian and anti-Conservative.

[jonalvy44]

well said...

[JohnGalt]

Like Galt minus post-AS Randian baggage, I suspect he would have agreed with the forefathers in not having a standing army for the King for the Day.

You get 'sick' about word usage, but yet Keyboard Patriots, while you reserve the right to be annoyed by them, are contributing to the debate? That is a tough position to stand from, and what did Dante say about the neutral in times of moral crisis?

I never made any claim about only those in uniform should decide; that would be akin to saying only welfare paper pushers should decide welfare policy. But I don't wish death or ask a welfare paper pusher to commit homicides by proxy, either.

[Dave S]

I guess nuclear weapons in the hands of anti-western Islamic states with terorist ties is nothing to worry about at all. Nope, no threat to our national security there.

Iran will be overthrown by its own people within a few short years. They are pro American. So you want to nuke them back to the stone age to help them along in their struggle to be free. Why dont you go join the Israeli Defense Force. I bet they would take you and give you plenty of opportunities to kill them infidels (I mean Muslims).