Surge may be working, says Dem analysts - Page 4 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Indy Coug · 07-31-2007, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueHair

No. Does Iraq deserve to be liberated from us? Why is it acceptable for the United States to overthrow a government, but it wasn't acceptable for Iraq to overthrow Kuwait? We have become way too involved in other countries disputes.

What is the purpose of a cease-fire agreement?

Tex · 07-31-2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Iran is no threat to us. They have no capability of crossing the ocean to attack us. If they were so bold as to launch a nuclear attack, they would be wiped off the map. Honestly, there are very few countries that could cause us any real harm. The idea that we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here makes no sense.

Apparently the lessons 9/11 were lost on you. (No, I'm not suggesting the Iranians were behind it.)

Any rogue nation can be a threat to us, including Iran. Hiding behind our oceans is ineffective.

BlueHair · 07-31-2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What is the purpose of a cease-fire agreement?

What?

Indy Coug · 07-31-2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueHair

What?

What is the purpose of a cease-fire agreement?

BlueHair · 07-31-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Apparently the lessons 9/11 were lost on you. (No, I'm not suggesting the Iranians were behind it.)

Any rogue nation can be a threat to us, including Iran. Hiding behind our oceans is ineffective.

Those attacks originated from people living in the United States. Anything short of kicking out all immigrants and banning international travel will not solve that problem.

BlueHair · 07-31-2007, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What is the purpose of a cease-fire agreement?

Is this a trick question? The purpose would be to stop the fighting so you can negotiate.

BYU71 · 07-31-2007, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Iran is no threat to us. They have no capability of crossing the ocean to attack us. If they were so bold as to launch a nuclear attack, they would be wiped off the map. Honestly, there are very few countries that could cause us any real harm. The idea that we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here makes no sense.

C'mon, if Iran were able to deal with people that think like you, they would just have to be patient. Sure it might take 20 years, but they could economically hurt us. Then after 20 years of libertarians views of letting the military go to pot, they would be emboldened enough to let terrorist attack us without fear of retaliation.

I might be agreeable to some of your thoughts about the governments role in the US, but my agreement stops at the borders. I was the Feds to do everything possible to protect me. Even if that means whacking some other country before they wack me.

Tex · 07-31-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Those attacks originated from people living in the United States. Anything short of kicking out all immigrants and banning international travel will not solve that problem.

The training, planning, funding, and recruiting did not happen inside the United States, nor were any of them US citizens. Immigration laws do need to be fixed and/or properly enforced (were you asleep during that debate?), but that's only a part of the solution.

It's folly to sit around waiting for them to sneak past us and do real damage. If we force them to fight on their own turf, they will be too busy to come over onto ours.

Indy Coug · 07-31-2007, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Is this a trick question? The purpose would be to stop the fighting so you can negotiate.

No. That's a cease-fire, not a cease-fire agreement.

BlueHair · 07-31-2007, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYU71

C'mon, if Iran were able to deal with people that think like you, they would just have to be patient. Sure it might take 20 years, but they could economically hurt us. Then after 20 years of libertarians views of letting the military go to pot, they would be emboldened enough to let terrorist attack us without fear of retaliation.

I might be agreeable to some of your thoughts about the governments role in the US, but my agreement stops at the borders. I was the Feds to do everything possible to protect me. Even if that means whacking some other country before they wack me.

Who said anything about letting the military go to pot? I believe in a strong military. It would be very easy to argue that we are ruining our military by over extending it. It's naive to think that all attacks against the US are unprovoked. Our military is all over the world. We are seen as a threat. Of course they are going to lash out. I'm not suggesting that all of our problems would immediately go away if we quit being the world police, but they would be fewer in number. I can't believe people actually believe that the only reason they hate us is we are Christian and free. Bullies are always hated.