Ok.Good Point. When are we going to find and kill Bin Lanen? Also,how many terrorists have we found my our wiretaps?
Consider this, there are more terrorists in Iraq now then when Saddam was in charge. Speaking of Saddam,do you think he can become a leader again once the civil war starts?

Victor Davis Hanson -
"We must neither presume that comfort and security are our birthrights and are guaranteed without constant sacrifice and vigilance, nor expect that peoples outside the purview of bourgeois liberalism share our commitment to reason, tolerance and enlightened self-interest.
Most important, military deterrence and the willingness to use force against evil in its infancy usually end up, in the terrible arithmetic of war, saving more lives than they cost."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004952

I'm not sure who argues that voilence doesn't settle problems.
Dominate/subordinate behaviour is all round and ingrained in most societies.
The question is really is volience the best way to settle problems?
Apealing to traditions/history of voilence means only that volience has been used to achieve goals and does not mean that we must continue such traditions without inquiry into alternative methods.

Violence solves some situations, nonviolence solves others. It provides no constructive solutions to oversimplify the issue with a pithy quote.

- Rob

TDC - 'best way to settle problems' - the best way is a way that does not create more problems. I think many times the use of force would prevent more problems. In some cases, the use of force will create more problems - unless you use enough.

lol there are more terrorists in iraq right now that when saddam was in charge is because we keep killing iraquis i mean wouldnt we be pissed if russia and china ganged up took our president away and charged him with a bunch of warcrimes then bombed our major cities wouldnt you become a freedom fighter killing the invading russia and china? i mean c'mon i know i would defend my nation if it came to that really thats all what iraq is doing.

rob, the quote wasn't meant to solve anything. it was meant to spur discussion. i would agree with you that violence solves some problems and non-violence solves others. there is an element of society that thinks you can solve anything by diplomacy and negotiation. this is dangerous thinking because there is always a bully out there who doesn't care for negotiating. he just wants to find someone who isn't willing to stand up to him so he can beat them up and take his milk money.

btw harper-no civil war getting ready to start here, be careful about what you see on the news, it is quite baghdad-centric.

I'm glad Crossfit doesn't have spellcheck built in the comments page. Lets me know who has thoughts worth pondering, and who doesn't.
Seriously, Kindergarten called, they are still looking for your overdue spelling assignments!

"It's" means "it is." Other than that, you all can debate a this without me, a statement which is so overtly intended to cause a debate that it could obviously never be settled. Liberal v.conservative, Limbaugh v. Franken! How intriguing. See you tomorrow.

"World relations, it is said, are at present governed not by law but by armed force or the kind of diplomacy which is based upon strength in arms, and the nations are constantly adding to their armaments because they believe that they can maintain or achieve what they regard as their just interests only by their own strength.

If a dispute arises, it will be settled not by recourse to a court of law but simply by the chances of armed warfare. To maintain peace, and to secure that disputes shall be settled on a basis of legal rights, it is necessary to establish the rule of law; that is, to establish order and then to maintain peace through settlement of disputes in accordance with law."

The law and the constitution, Ivor Jennings, Oxford, 1949.

Given the choice between a world where decisions are made according to one's capacity to inflict violence on others and one where decisions are made according to law, there is no choice. Violence represents the ways of the past. Our capacity to live according to the rule of law is the hallmark of a civilised society.

yep - im with you Rob

the best way to avoid a problem as an individual is to neutralise it - ideally that means walking away or avoiding the problem to begin with, and as a last resort, defending yourself, violently if need be. thats an old lesson from my aikido sensai that has served me well. ignorantly/stupidly expose yourself to risk, and you are by half part of the problem

the argument to get violent to get your way (denoted by the suggestive word "issues" in this passage) is disgraceful - whether that is hitting your kid, laying into your wife, some punter at the traffic lights, or a less fortunate country becuse you don't like what they are doing. the principle is the same in all cases. for instance the thug at the traffic lights convinces himself the person who failed to indicate is a threat, and so smashes their face with a 2x4 - why? because they are a thug (big, powerful, and lusting for the thrill to bully the next low-resistance target)

the need for a just & true person to stand and fight when opressed, threatened or cornered in some way - in my eyes that is honourable (and the only passable excuse)

take nothing away from the foot-soldiers - they must have conviction and courage to do what they are told. but beware the agenda laden beurocrats, or religious brain-washers who think in simple riddles like Robert Heinlein

Good points, Matt T.

But it seems to me that then you immediately have to ask: What is law, such that it is distinct from violence?

Whether there can be such a thing as law between nations depends on what law is. For instance, if law is understood to take its authority from force, then there can be no law between nations.

Harper...Who is the "we" in the "when an we going to find or kill Bin Lanen?" comment...how are YOU helping? I would offer that if you are not helping then shut your mouth, WE are doing the best we can. Atleast we are doing something other than criticizing. You keep doing Cross-Fit and we will keep hunting and training.

"How many terrorists have we found with wire taps?"...more than without....WTF!!!! Since it was between terrorist OUTSIDE our country with dirtbags INSIDE our country I am all for it... got any other ideas??

"There are more terroists in Iraq now then when Saddam was in charge"...NO SHIT!!!!... WHAT A BRILLIANT OBSERVATION! HERE IS A QUESTION...Why would they have been there in an offensive role before? He supported their causes and help fund them, why would they take up arms against him...

If they are there to fight us then that is a good thing...that means they look at us an an ENEMY...that is how they should look at us, not thier friends. The idea of GETTING ALONG WITH TERRORISTS is a repulsive idea...I want every ounce of hate they can muster. Does it not make sense that to you that we are fighting people who were fighting us for over 25 years before decide had had enough????

This was coming to a head...and better to do it on our terms than their's....regardless of what you want to believe...this is on our terms. Iraq might not be the smooth running place Saddam TOLD the word it was, but atleast people can vote for someone other than SADDAM.

Some of you are weak willed and it shows in your attemps to apply logic to some arguement that we should not have gone into Iraq...they were at war with us for over a decade shooting at our planes and subverting the will of UN declarations be for we decided to act decisively. He tried to have a President assasinated. There were weapons and he had used them before and he was ready to start again...that is in the record books. How can you stand yourself to know deep down you would rather compromise with thugs than hold them accountable for multiple breeches of requirements laid out by the international community?

Answer to your last question ...most definately if people who think like you were responsible for ensuring stability.... of course those of your ilk would have left him in power after it was clear that no amount of international coersion short of forceful removal was going to free the people of Iraq from his grip or help to set up for long term stability in the Middle East. Hands down he was our best target.

We get it.... you are know fan of this current Administration...but don't lie to yourself...even Clinton and Dems in both houses knew it was time for him to go back in '98. Quit politicizing this just to show your resentment toward this administration. War ain't perfect, but if you arn't willing to fight then shut your yellow mouth and let us get on with it so you can live your life with the ability to bitch without being locked up or killed. I find your tone and context uttterly disrespectful to myself and others trying to keep us safe and avenge our fallen.

piss off you weak bitch

Thankfully, cctjoey took a respectful tone, to turn the conversation to logical discussion, while also avoiding any hypocrisy. I have a tough time criticizing people in the armed forces, and especially in combat...and he seemed to have some good points. And I'm sure it's terrible when your friends are dying and people are questioning the validity of the whole mission...but the reality is, someone has to ask those questions the whole time if you want to maximize your chances of success in any endeavor. I'm sure people above him in command, and in the goverment, in both parties, are asking those questions all the time. But in his reply, he certainly didn't do anything to avoid showing the disrespect himself which he complained he felt he was being shown.

Thanks cctjoey. You said it well!

Cctjoey- "piss off you weak bitch", relax, it's just a conversation. It is this retaliatory mindset that is perhaps blinding, such as when you say "avenge our fallen". Revenge can serve as a blinder.

Maybe taking out Saddam was not a bad idea. What perturbs me is that:

A. It was done under false pretenses. The fact that dubya joked about the WMD's afterwards is just chilling. Come on, he pushed for the war as hard as he could. To go to war based on a lie is just wrong.

B. There were more imminent threats to our nation's security than Iraq and Saddam.

C. All avenues towards solution may not have been exhausted. The possibilities for a more peaceful means of gaining the desired results were not fully explored, making this war overall excessively impulsive.

D. U.S. intelligence is horrible. I mean, with the amount of funding granted our armed forces one would think that our intelligence would be sound but it is not. We should have seen 9/11 coming before it happened. It's all about avoiding the problem before it starts. Analogous to common interaction, it takes true intellect to defuse a situation before it starts. Anyone that can go to blows is just your average person (nation). But I have seen true diplomats in action, and stopping a fight before it happens is an awesome display of deftness and greatness of character.

To everyone who wants to point out that there are more terrorists in Iraq now then there were before is overlooking one of the basic issues. The terrorists are there now due to the fact there is more freedom in the middle east now that the country has been liberated. Peace and negoation can work in some circumstances, but to quote FDR "When you see a rattle snake poised to strike you do not wait untiltill he has struck to crush him"

Saddam seems to have been rid of his venom prior to our descision to invade. The snakes are from Saudi Arabia.

Overpreparedness is of the utmost importance in counteracting an inevitable and imminent violent onslaught with a greater/smarter violent return.
Such is a noble action....in global affairs....or martial arts.
The idiocy of the quote is that it smacks of a blanket validation of violence and doesn't somehow in the same breath, reflect the ignoble bigger fact that violence has historically been over/prematurely used in conflict resolution many more times than is needed... our neanderthal instincts predominating over our warrior's higher skills of finding a conflict solution/action that preserves honor and life(s).
It always remains the failure and reflects the weakness of humankind....interpersonally or geopolitically...whether the violence is initiated or counteracted.
If violence (necessary as it sometimes is) is to be given a blanket validation... Just also call it what it always is: human failure.... of the worst kind.

cctjoey,

Talk about self -righteous!!! Wow.....

, when it suits , you use the UN as a debating tool-`subverting the will of the UN`,yet i dont recall the UN authorising the invasion of iraq, you werent too concerned with the will of the UN then - may be they, the UN knew the truth about the existence of WMD`S??

Oh and i didnt realise that saddam was the only ruthless dictator in the world today....i dont see the USA getting involved in invasions of certain african or southeast asian dicatatorships much more brutal regimes than saddam-do you know why??(little clue- its black and comes out of the ground -and theres lots of it in the mid east),
and to answer what you are thinking there is no link between saddam and ubl-ideologically they are chalk and cheese-and every Arab knows it -and every Arab just laughs when you try to say that invading iraq was somekind of payback for 9/11-beacuse that was UBL not saddam-maybe americans buy that , but the rest of the world sure as hell doesnt.........

I see Iraq is injected here...
It sucks.... coming from family of military service, admiring and suporting our justified and brilliantly orchestrated miltary actions since Vietnam to have to say Iraq is a perfect example of misuse of power and violence.
No rationale makes sense for our preemptive attack, at least with regard to international law and such attacks.
Even if he had WMD's, his chances of threatening anyone were nonexistent...and Bush knew it.
Saddam COULD have been gone (Bush's obssesion since Desert Storm) without 30,000 lives lost.
This is the extreme misuse of violence.
Anyone loving this country and it's future has got to call it for what it is to prevent it from happening again.

"When you see a rattle snake poised to strike you do not wait till he has struck to crush him".............Oh dear...

My case in point.

The brown snake I nearly stood on 2 weeks ago is still alive and well because I chose not to double back and cleave his head off with a rock - even though I could have. I elected to f*uck off out of his territory because I undersood the threat was fleeting and I was at fault. There was surely a stronger chance of me missing with the rock and getting seriously messed up by a very pissed asp with a gob full of jungle juice - even though I am more powerful and of higher intellect.

Was that my RESPONSIBILITY? Or was it my responsibility to kill the snake to protect someone that may have been running the trail behind me? hmmm

Great quote from "Starship Troopers". I also like the passage about you can not have full citizenship unless you serve, no owning a corporation or voting. Check out who the book is dedicated to, if I remember right it is Robert Young MOH.

It's just as unwise to say that violence is always the answer, too. Sometimes is such a beautiful word, because it implies logical judgement of ever changing situations.

1) I find it curious that Gandhi was not mentioned in this post.

the quote didn't say violence was always the answer.

Just so eveyone knows where this quote that is sparking this debate comes from: Prolific American writer, one of the grand masters of science fiction with Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke. Heinlein produced during his career fifty novels and collections of short stories. Heinlein admired highly motivated men of action - like Howard Hawks in his movies - and attacked religious hypocrisy and corporate power games. His later works, in which his right-wing views mixed with fast-moving stories and fascination with with the paranormal, earned him the reputation of being a militarist, even a "fascist". However, a number of his book gained cult status among members of the counterculture.

I'm not going to say anything about the miss-spellings due to my in ability to spell. But I am going to point that those of you who think that "WMD's" was the reason or smoke cloud we went into Iraq for are greatly and insanely short sighted! If you remember, "GW" spoke of the fact that Saddam was harboring and funding terrorists. He gave money to the families of terrorist suicide bombers.

He was and still would be, if people like you were running the show, a great threat! Here is a guy who had his military shoot at our planes everyday. That includes the UN's planes that were patrolling the border of Iraq and Kuwait. He had weapons that he was not allowed to have, by the treaty that he signed. And he used them when we invaded(SCUDDS).

As for the UN... If it was up to those crooked SOB's, we'd still be waiting in Kuwait. How much time did they give Saddam to clear out any weapons and get rid of any evidence that could lead back to their pockets. Huuuhhhh you ask? Just look at Germany, Russia and the President of the UN. They have been proven already that they were buying oil and or caught in a food for oil deal w/Iraq accepting money.

Open your F-n eyes! Can you really be that blind? It's 74 minutes into St. Paddy's Day. That might explain why I'm rambling. Then again, it might be because I get fired up when J-holes shoot off at the mouth. I know not every Muslim is a bad guy. Just as I know that not every white guy is a racist and not every black guy is a thug. So get off that one too.

Sure violence doesn't solve all the worlds problems. But when diplomacy can't be used on a megalomaniac, you are left w/no other option. Strength through power. And peace through strength.

Those that want to argue the point of "Why we haven't used the violence w/N.Korea or Iran yet" need to look at the big picture. We tried to levy economic sanctions against Iraq. Thanks to the UN and other countries mentioned earlier, it didn't help. That and they were insanely rich already. (Or at least their ruler was.) So we did what we did. Now w/the other countries, diplomacy is still any option. That and N.Korea and China their Alli, are poor and we can do alot through economic sanctions. Make sense yet?

I suggest you pay attention to things that are affecting this whole country. Not just you. We are all safer because we used violence, after many failed attempts at other methods, to get that scum out. Now we just need to be patient. Japan wasn't our Alli over night.

I know that's alot of rambling. I just had to get it off my chest. But then again, who am I? Just some dude who is out there laying it on the line so that J-Holes can speak their free minds and sleep safely at night. I apologize in advance for lack of decent sentence structure. I'm tired, pissed and ready for another Guinness!

Joey, the world is full of "Weak B*@#S" unfortunately.

HOO-Fn-Ya!

Erin go braugh and pass another pint!

Just a thought, it was mentioned earlier that there is a desire to avoid violence by the use of international law. However, international law is a misnomer, there is no greater authority that enforces it, except the threat that other nations will make war on a nation that ignores, or violates, prior agreements (law / treaties). The UN is does not have any authority except that which a state grants it (witness the US bypassing the UN and attacking Iraq, with no repercussions). Sovereignty, the idea that there is no higher authority above that of the state, has served as the foundation of the international system since the Treaty of Westphalia in the early 17th century, and few (or perhaps no) states advocate the creation of an international body that maintains supreme authority over their actions.

Ultimately, the threat of force is what allows the international community to function. The threat, or lack thereof, of force (either violence or economic) against a state is the primary motivator for action. For example, if Iran perceives the threat of violence to be low regarding the creation of nuclear weapons, it will make the decision to create the weapons, despite “international law”. However, if the threat of violence is sufficiently real, then they will most likely cease, or at least delay, the creation of such weapons. Diplomacy is useful; it allows states to create a solution short of violence, and the threat is always there. It is that very threat, which must remain credible, that allows diplomacy to work

I wear the uniform proudly. I've had the good fortune to see the world from the ground up. Much to the dismay of a lot of Americans, most people outside of the US don't operate on the same sense of principles that we do. They don't respect kindness. And they don't respond to it. They respect force. They don't value life like we do. Everyday I wake I appreciate the fact that I was born a US citizen and live quite a high standard of living compared to the rest of the world. I don't apologize for it.

Americans are warriors. Since the inception of this nation we have fought. We've taken our licks, and have gotten better with each battle. Why is this a bad thing? We are violent people. It's no secret. That's fine too. To say that violence isn't the answer is silly. War is a terrible thing. Innocent people die. I can think of 3,000 or so innocent people just off the top of my head. But that's just how it is. That's war. Be thankful we're so good at it. It's nice to be on the winning team. There's a lot of oil under that desert. Good. We'll take that too. If you think fighting for oil is wrong, think about that the next time you turn the key in your ignition, buy that polyester blend tee from the Gap, or turn on your plastic computer... Why not fight for oil?

If situations can be negated with politics, then we have succeeded as creatures of higher intellect. However, the mindset of the Jihad warrior against Americans and Christians alike doesn't respond to logic. He responds to strength and violence of action. We are strong and violent. We will drive on. We got a list of names, and we're crossing them off slowly but surely. And that's the plain truth from the guys on the ground...

The widest prairies have electric fences
For though old cattle know they must not stray
Young steers are always scenting purer water
Not here but anywhere beyond the wires

Leads them to blunder up against the wires
Whose muscle-shredding violence gives no quarter
Young steers become old cattle from that day
Electric limits to their widest senses

Philip Larkin

-D.

As mfbunch pointed out the quote is not a blanket endorsement to use violence to get what you want, whenever you want, so those who criticize it for doing so are attacking a straw man of their own creation.

Heinlein's quote is one of many intelligent answers to the bumper sticker philosophy expressed in such simple minded slogans as "War Is Not The Answer" or, as painted on a stop sign near me, "Stop War" (which I'm gonna change to "Stop Warts"). This is the foreign policy of idiots such as Jimmy Carter, an "Easter Bunny" approach--"If I am nice to the Ayatollah then he will surely be nice to me."

Churchill said the same thing as Heinlein, over and over, before and after WWII, and others have said it throughout history, and they are right.

Someone talked about the rule of law. A very noble concept, essential to a free society, but you did not take your thought far enough. What does such a society do with law breakers? Government force or the threat of force is always behind the law. The very concept of "enforcing" the law, contemplates the use of force. And the rule of law permits the use of force by citizens when and to the extent they reasonably apprehend the use of force against themselves. In other words you can kill someone who's trying to kill you. The rule of law recognizes that there are elements in society that do not adhere to the rule of law, do not listen to reason, who must be dealt with forcefully, up to and including the death penalty.

I suppose it was inevitable that Heinlein's quote would be used by some folks as a take off point vent their spleen about Bush and to criticize the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a sad comment on the state of our union that we no longer have a loyal opposition, instead we have domestic critics who actively root for the enemy, who take perverse joy in every setback, who run around like Chicken Little prediciting the end of the world whenever another IED goes off in Iraq, and whose only solution to the threat posed by radical Islamists is to give them what they want by pre-emptive surrender.

"Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become."

- Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, Before the U.S. House of Representatives
February 15, 2006

This used to be the Roman Empire once, does anyone remember how it came to an end?
The economic power scale is tipping towards the east. It's the US military vs Chinese/Indian economy.
And when the east decides "it has paid enuf tax to Rome" and drops the dollar there will be no more money coming in to finance the US military.
The US which is officially bankrupt already, will have to pay back their huge debt to foreigners for years to come.
Yes, it will hurt the whole world's economy but the US economic and military power will be history, and a new Empire will rise in the east.

For who's interested in the real reason of going to war and a history in the dollar hegemony - please read the speech by Ron Paul.
It's a real eye opener.

sorry, forgot the LINK:

http://www.paulvaneeden.com/displayArticle.php?articleId=145

Hey cctjoey,
Thansk for calling me names. It shows me that you are a man on intergrity. If war is such a good idea,how come our President and VP stay out of Vietnam?? Maybe,because they were weak bitches such as myself. By the way,does cct stand off xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?
Have a nice day..

Let's all just settle down for a second (did I actually just write that?)...and actually read what Heinlein wrote:

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue, and thoroughly immoral, doctrine that violence never settles anything..."

First of all, is it historically untrue that "violence never settles anything"? Yes, it is. As Heinlein points out, violence has settled quite a bit throughout history. But I don't believe that Heinlein or anyone else that's been involved in this discussion so far this morning has suggested or is suggesting that violence solves everything. All that's being said is that insisting the contrary ("violence NEVER solves anything") is false and a sure way to end up dead. Which I firmly believe. Even the most ardent pacifist must concede that violence has in fact solved problems.

"So long as there are men there will be wars." -Albert Einstein
"We make war that we may live in peace." -Aristotle
"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum" -Roman saying

What's scary about this quote is that I can easily imagine Bin Laden posting it on the wall of his cave.

I will only interject this: I am extremely proud to be an American. I am extremely proud of our men serving over seas who I believe are safeguarding the future of my son. Last time I checked Saddam gassed the Kurds who are his countrymen. Don't for one minute think he had no disire to do the same to our children. I crush mosiquitos just for tasing my blood, imagine what I think should be done to a man who commits genocide....

To all our troops on the message board: Thank you and please come home safe!

I notice that some of the same folks that commented in agreement with the lady last week that was criticizing the arabs/muslims, etc for using violence to advance their agenda/jihad, are in principle shifting gears and espousing the virtue of violence as it applies in to us in our needs/wants/desires...
Just for the record I think violence is a valuable tool to keep us safe at night but we as a free and powerful people seem to think it okay to impose our violent will on a people and then cry foul and get all virtuous when the same tactics/violent behavior is used on us. Many of these folks in Iraq/Afghanistan don't have access to media sources or other ways to inform and educate themselves and they see big dudes dressed like storm troopers roaming their streets and busting down doors... then the people are told by their clerics/ town leaders that those big stormtroopers are bad and are the devil and should be stopped /killed, etc... who they gonna believe? The soldier ( who is just trying to do the best job he can and help the locals ), or the cleric/town leader whom you have known all of your life? What would you do if you were them? If the roles were reversed and I had to choose between the two I would be an "insurgent" too... I would be trying to get these foreigners out of my town and would be defending my house/ family.
Just my opinion. HOOAH!

Wow I even proof-read my statement above and a typo still got by.... How did I ever use a typewriter?

"We simply must have faith in each other, faith in our ability to govern ourselves, and faith in the future of this nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans."

I'd hardly call Jimmy Carter an "idiot."

-D.

I actually just reread Starship troopers last month, good book.

...but on the last day he seemed to be trying to find out what we'd learned. One girl told him bluntly: "My mother says that violence never settles anything"

"So?" Mr Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn't your mother tell them so? Or why don't you?"

They had tangled before... She said shrilly. "you're making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!"

"You seem unaware of it", he said grimly. "Since you do know it, wouldn't you say violence settled their destinies rather throughly?"

Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Perhaps the the cliche is refers to interactions among individuals. If we were to go about settling our individual differences with violence rather than negotiation, or even litigation, society would be even more violent than it actually is.

Even in relations between nations states, wars often (but not always) cause as many problems as they solve--WWI solved very little, but caused WWII.

Nice to see some heated conversation here... especially regarding such an emotional topic.

My contribution: I take full responsibility for my own safety by training hard and being aware of any threats around me. If violence comes to me or my family I will respond with unrelenting force of action until the threat is neutralized.

With that in mind, you can only stretch your imagination this far (-) to get an idea of how I feel about our men and women in the military (God bless you all and please come home safe) and the need for violence when it is the only language that is understood in many parts of the world.

Matt # 10
I agree civilized societies wouldn't use violence. But someone forgot to tell Hitler Sadaam, Bim Laden and a host of others. "Sleep soundly knowing rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf" G. Orwell

OK, I have a question about training philosophy.

In other websites which feature a certain Russian strength trainer who caims to have introduced kettlebells, there is something called "grease the groove" (GTG). GTG basically says that one should never work to the point of failure on exercises like pullups and dips.

In crossfit, most of the workouts require the sets to go to failure, break and then continue the set.

These two philosophies contradict. Has anyone practiced both and found the crossfit method of going past failure to be more effective??

I think I need to be more violent - with my CF girls.
Maybe we need less Starship Troopers quotes, and more Dune ones......."For he is the quisarks hatharach"
harper made a good start huh - asked a bunch of open ended questions...offered suggestion without opinion and shabaam..!! Are you in the media dewd? Just goes to show the power of a well worded question....Like..."How must it feel for a child living in such a hell-hole full of lawlessness, fear, death, and invading forces?" - not what I think...just a question.

HARPER #35 (and #1)

CCT- Combat Control Technician, USAF

As a member of the "tip of the spear", cctjoey is more of an authority on all things war & combat than you could ever dream of being (all though judging by your posts, I'm sure your dreams involve Michael Moore and Sean Penn). It's incredible how cctjoey simply responded to your misspelled, grammatically incorrect quote from the latest liberal rag and you retort with such infancy. Obviously your views on war and diplomacy are as skewed as your maturity. And before you get into the "he started it" rebuttal, know that while cctjoey may insult your ignorance; he gladly risk his life to ensure your freedom.

Matt

Intelligence failures occurred because our intelligence apparatus was decimated by people who thought intelligence gathering should be "clean" and politically correct. 9-11 happened because we sat back and let acts of terrorism occur without hitting back hard. The Taliban never believed we had the will to send our warriors to battle, because our former president ruled by polls. What do you think would happen if we pulled our military out of Iraq and Afghanistan and cut military spending by 50%? Peace loving nations would all hold hands and sing...or despots would see the opportunity to reign hell? By the way, I'd rather have the terrorists in Iraq then here, every terrorist killed there, is not going to blow himself up in a shopping mall in mid-America.

Intelligence failures occurred because our intelligence apparatus was decimated by people who thought intelligence gathering should be "clean" and politically correct. 9-11 happened because we sat back and let acts of terrorism occur without hitting back hard. The Taliban never believed we had the will to send our warriors to battle, because our former president ruled by polls. What do you think would happen if we pulled our military out of Iraq and Afghanistan and cut military spending by 50%? Peace loving nations would all hold hands and sing...or despots would see the opportunity to reign hell? By the way, I'd rather have the terrorists in Iraq then here, every terrorist killed there, is not going to blow himself up in a shopping mall in mid-America.

God bless the American soldier. By their violence, we are free.

#23
The book was dedicated to RODGER Young, MOH.

For everybody else- please read the book from where the quote was taken. It is titled "Starship Troopers"; I bought my copy last August at Barnes and Noble.

Skip the movie by the same title and its sequel.

JD... well said. I am proud of our men who take years out of their lives, to fight far from home, willing to die for our freedoms, or even worse come home broken and disresepcted by a few who get to enjoy the freedom provided by others.

The free man is a warrior.—How is freedom measured among individuals, among peoples? According to the resistance that must be overcome, according to the trouble it takes to stay on top. The highest type of free man must be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps away from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Violence and force bring about a temporary change, non-voiolence and the power it comes from is more lasting when looking at the overall history of mankind. Unfortunately violence will always be a part of the world. Although I choose not to use Napoleon as a role model, I would rather use the teachings of Jesus, Ghandi, Buddha...people who never used voilence but their spiritual freedom goes on for centuries. Freedom is something we all have inside, it is all based on our perspective. I would argue that although the United States is a free country, many people are not truely free as they are so heavily attached to jobs and lifestyle that they really have no control of. So what is the definition of true freedom?

Now...go have a pint and kick some ass with Chuck Norris...it's St Patty's day. Woohoo.
http://www.addictinggames.com/chucknorrisattackofthemassacreninjas.html

Well said Adc and Rob. If the thing that makes humans different is consciousness, then we ought not be bound by historical determinism a la Heinlein. To fully embrace our nature is to decide whether violence will best achieve our means. And I mean we in the completely inclusive sense because humans now have the power to violence ourselves right off the planet.
It should also be pointed out that violence does not make us unequivocally free. If you avoid dark alleys because you're alone, you're limited by others violence or your unwillingness to bring more deterrence. Hopefully you realize that's a never-ending escalating cycle, until one side runs out of resources and quits, or launches the attack while it has the upper hand. Do you stay out of muslim countries because you fear blowback will be perpetrated on you personally? Your freedom has actually been limited by virtue of the American soldier's violence.

#47 - Joe - the CF metabolic-conditioning workouts prescribe that one goes "Hard and Fast", but not to failure. If the approach to the workout results in failure, one should consider scaling it.

Take "Angie" 100*(pullups, pushups, situps, squats). Breaking the sets into small pieces, with minimal rest, could be consider a high-powered, heart-pounding, G-T-G. Obviously, trying to bang out 100 reps all at once isn't the right path.

AHA! I FIGURED this was a quote from his literature and not from some polemic! It sounded more narrative than essay-like. I expect someone will use quotes from Senator Palpatine to justify imperialism.

We live in a world of sides...pick one and fight for it. cctjoey. Thanks for being on ours

Fact - the Natives of North America violently defended their land from the European settlers.
Fact - the European settlers violently defended North America from European rulers.

Flip the coin and you have violent aggressors asserting rule.

Determining whether violence is desired or a function of necessity depends on your perspective.

Just a point that always annoys me. Just because you are serving in the military does NOT mean you are, "ensuring our freedom" as is so often posted in these arguments. Iraq, Desert Storm I, Panama, Grenada all had nothing to do with securing or "protecting the freedoms" of the American people. This is not to denegrate those who serve, but let us be honest, many times the wars we fight are not noble and have a lot more to do with geopolitical and economic realities than anything else.

The reality of being a soldier is that you don't get to pick the conflicts you fight in or the reasons why and they are not all undertaken for the highest of ideals. That responsibility however, falls not on the soldiers, but with the politicians who are ultimately in charge in our system of government.

Just to save someone any inane screeching, I served in the Army as a paratrooper '86-'90.

Off today's topic, but I enjoyed this one:

With a continuously running clock do one HSPU the first minute, two HSPUs the second minute, three HSPUs the third minute... continuing as long as you are able.

17 rounds + 11 done after 60+ pushup/pullup burpees (jammed my fingers against the bar twice when I hit it during the jump - stopped then to preserve my hand). Amazing how the shoulders/triceps just run out of gas.

Wow Crossfit San Jose LOOKS AWESOME!!!!!!!

Owner CrossfitSJ

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag

One of my personal favorites:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill

And it has everything to do with the security and freedom of the American people.

Rowwwerrrrs look at all the rowers.

swwwweeeet!

Thank God that the people who salivate at the chance to trash our country and the men and women who serve it will never condescend to leave the faculty lounge and join in the fight.

Don't mistake cctjoey's passion for utter violence. Without the passion of the sheepdogs the wolf would get his way.

Semper Fi

matt (61),
freedom can be threatened by quite a few different things: american students in jeopardy as a direct result of a bloody coup (grenada); a drug epidemic and a government and dictator actively supporting that drug trade and political alliance with cuba (panama); cash-strapped dictator invades neighboring country for oil resources and revenue threatening global economy (desert storm I); invasion of country because of a number of violations of treaty from desert storm, having suspected ties to known terrorists including making payments to families of suicide bombers, etc (oif).

imo our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are actively defending us and our freedom and way of life. i for one do not want to live in constant fear of an ied going off on I-85, having to live in the stone age because some knucklehead cut off the oil flow, having my children grow up and pay for someone else's weaknesses and addictions, or having to stand idly by while american citizens are held hostage by an unfriendly extremist political faction. i think those things were and still are worth fighting for.

Violence is defined in the dictionary as 1. acting done with strong, rough force, 2. rough or harmful action or treatment, 3. harm; injury, 4. unlawful use of force.

When force is used in defense of the weak or to protect an morally correct ideal, is it violence? I chose to think that when I am called away from my family and my job to defend this country, I am going to defend it through the use of force, to protect the ideals and morals of an imperfect country that has, as it's core, a true and good basis for it's actions. Not to cause unlawful and harmful injury.

It is not violence that is used by soldiers, but rather the intelligent use of force tempered with restraint. Most soldiers, while willing to use force, would rather use diplomacy to solve conflicts. Unfortunately, the use of force is sometimes the only way to end the barbaric treatment of others. I dont believe that any survivor of the Nazi concentration camps would compare the force used by the Allies with the violence perpetrated by thier captors.

Matt R #38 Remember when Rummy was in Iraq giving those weapons to Saddam that he so gladly used to gas his own people. How nice of them.

I don’t normally post on these subjects but what maniac said in post #70 is so true. Excellent post!

San Joese, you motivated me to pull-out my favorite at-home make-up (missed one earlier this week) WOD today.

10 rounds tor time:

250 Meter C2 row
20 push-ups

23:15

Pukie rode sidecar after set 7.
Social Distortion was along for the whole ride.

When used properly, the C2 will flat mess-you-up.

"Most soldiers, while willing to use force, would rather use diplomacy to solve conflicts."

Unfortunately, what the soldiers would or wouldn't like to do is irrelevant because they are soldiers and will do what they are told. (Gulf War Vet.)

Matt, I must disagree ...the conflicts that you mentioned absolutely had to do with security. Whether narco-trafficing or allied invasion or economic stability.

Harper...again your inane dribblings are evidence that your point is to talk trash about this administration...so be it. The POTUS or VP serving in Vietnam is not the issue, though VP Gore and SEN Kerry did must make leftist feel pretty proud. They after all saw SO much support from the military during their campaigns. I wonder why they did suffer such disdain from a over-whelming majority of military mambers. Could it be that they both went to further thier political ambitions and then turn around and show disdain for those very same people they served with both through political speech and actions as legislators???

War is a good idea at times...when you can not get bad actors to adjust policies through other means then force is necessary. These leaders are not held to a standard that our's are, even by you. You seem to give more slack to those who want to use us at best and harm us at worst, than to our own people. Again and again they move forward with their agenda then back off enough to begin "talking" again so they can move forward again. Over and over they creep forward knowing that the world is full of weak bitches who will keep talking while they keep doing. Why? Because they are PUNKING you. They know you do not have it in your genetic make-up to fight, only compromise away our safety for their strategic and political gain. You become a useful idiot for their cause because you only bark at those you know mean you no harm, while you ignore them to keep out of a fight.

I will not be PUNKED, and I will not let you be PUNKED either, even if you are too stupid to see it or too weak-willed to do anything about it.... SO ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT MY INTEGRITY IS MOOT.

Keep using your anger against your countrymen who are trying to protect you the best they can and offering fig leaves to those that wish you, and your loved ones, dead. When you get your way, and we as a country lose our will to fight, keep your comments to yourself about how we did not do our job to your satisfaction.

CCT does stand for xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx n this case since I have been teasing you for free...

Yes...you are still weak and still a bitch.

Turk...whatever man... you still think Coach is a Racist and I am a right wing nut... Your opinion would be of value if you would see that no one gives a shit that the enemy is over-whelmingly Muslim outside that it is obvious that most of the Muslim world is not helping stop the madness. Don't get defensive towards us, you need to see we arn't the ones that would kill you for not toting the party or religious line...that happens over there. I wonder if they would only exchange words with you for your differing views. The recent evidence suggests not...Coach has not banned you from his sight...none of us has hunted you down...However I know of some CARTOONISTS who have a 10 million $ bounty on their head for what they "said".

I've worked in defense for a long time. I am not a pacifist. I would like to point out that violence and tyranny have been defeated by non-violence. Jesus changed trhe course of the world by accepting death over violent reprisal. Ghandi defeated the most powerful nation in the world, not only by refusing to take up arms himself, but by convincing others to lay them down as well. MLK helped free our nation from the shame of legal racism and lost his life defending the idea that non-violent resistence would prevail.

I am not a pacificst, but I do not so easily dismiss Jesus, Ghandi, and King.

Where Jesus said:

You have learned that they were told, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth." But what I tell you is this: Do not set yourself against the man who wrongs you. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left.

and

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

I find this more nuanced view more in line with my thinking. If anything bothers me about this discussion it's the flippant dismissal peaceful alternatives and the labeling of those who espouse them as ignorant and weak. Jesus was not weak, not were the others who followed his lead.

I prefer to think of it like this:

Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.
Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?
He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.

Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

Hey, I have a question for Matt (#49) or anybody who agrees with his post.

It often seems, on this board and in discussions I have with friends, that people who are or were once in the armed forces believe that non-military people shouldn't criticize or question military activities. cctjoey's post (#13) implies that if you aren't actively hunting for Bin Laden, then you shouldn't criticize the U.S. failure to have found him yet. And when friends of mine who are critical of the war in Iraq talk to other friends who are serving, they're told "they don't understand the situation" and "they have no credibility" because they themselves aren't fighting.

Even in Matt McCartney's fairly evenhanded comment (#61), he adds that he was once an Army paratrooper to stave off the screeching.

Do you guys really agree with this? If I'm not a soldier, then my criticism of, say, the war in Iraq, has less credibility? Why? Seriously--this isn't a rhetorical question; I just don't understand the reasoning. I feel like war, for example, is a political decision, and as such, something we should all be allowed to question/debate/criticize as much as we want. But it seems like a lot of military guys don't agree. Can somebody explain?

It always makes me laugh when spoiled citizens of the US (and I am one, and also in the SOF community) discuss violence. Being that the most violent thing most have ever seen (note: I say seen, not experienced) is a NFL Footgame, or perhaps a UFC/MMA bout.
US citizens haven't the stomach to do what it will take to when this war on "terrorism". And oh how we have misnamed this war. It is a war against cultures. One striving for progression, one killing innocent people for regression.
So while many speak of sorting to diplomatic means of winning the "hearts and minds" of people, I say our enemy has neither.

Agree. Dont look for it; dont want it, but in a fallen world, you have to have it. Evil must be stopped with force. Period.

To Mike and crew, Good job on your new place, it looks great!

I would like to comment on the Heinlein quote but the logic is so random that it is hard to reply. Does anyone know where this came from, maybe some context would help.

I'm not sure why Heinlein classifies absolute pacifism as "immoral." I don't think it is even debatable that an organized society must have the ability to protect itself by forcible means. From the earliest agricultural communities, men have had to protect their food, their livestock and their families and, if necessary, do so with violence. Keep in mind that we're talking about defense of one's home and, by extension, our homeland. Interestingly, Heinlein's quote refers to both Napoleon and Hitler, both of whom came to grief by waging wars of aggressive expansion. Much of the current debate about the Middle East focuses on whether our military presence is truly defensive in nature, which, by the way, I believe it is and morally justifiable. Afganistan under the Taliban was a rat's nest and our incursion there is an easy call. I might add here that a new book by a former CIA field operative, "Jawbreaker," asserts that if we had more boots on the ground we might have captured Bin Laden at Tora Bora. Iraq is a tougher call since the public justification for the war, the hunt for WMD, didn't seem particularly credible at the time and we certainly haven't turned up anything since we've been over there. According to George Friedman of Stratfor and author of "America's Secret War," the true reason for the Iraq invasion was the need to replace a virulent anti-American dictatorship with a friendly government at the very geographic center of the oil rich Middle East. Inasmuch as our economy, our very way of life, depends on stable supplies of oil, the Iraqui war is very much defensive in nature and justifiable. In closing, let me add that my who post here are men and women in uniform. Thank you for your gallant and courageous service to me, my family and your country; I am proud to know you through this site. I pray for your safe return, but I shall sent my son to take your place so that the line remains unbroken.

I will try to refrain from duplicating any points that have already been expressed. To respond to #77: (and by the way, I am not in the military so don't want to speak on their behalf) but those that criticize from afar, do so without the benefit of all the facts. If you rely on the American media to base your opinions on the war, the reasons for invading, the day-to-day ongoings in Iraq, or anything else that can be used as a tool to bash the current administration, you do so with a skewed point of view.

So I choose to rely on those that know: my friends and family that have served or are serving. The ones that are there, the ones that are on the ground and see what is actually going on. Don't pass judgement solely based on an article you read in the NY or LA times, or some news blurb you got from CNN.

Those that have taken issue with the quote today, ask yourself this, and don't go looking for somebody else's quote or story to base your opinion, "has violence been, and is it sill, a viable and successful course of action?" We are currently in non-violent negotiations with Iran and N. Korea only because of what we have done in the past. They know that threat is real.

If you honestly believe that violence solves nothing, then you live in a false reality. So sit back, keep your mouth shut, reap the benefits of those who continue to provide for you, and allow those that understand the world that we live in to do their job.

Also, those that critique spelling and grammar on a message board do so because they are insecure in their own beliefs.

bcf (#77):
i'll attempt to answer you this way: it isn't that people who aren't in the military don't lack credibility, but a lot tend to undermine their own arguments by speaking as if they have first hand knowledge of current events by quoting things they read in the paper at best or heard from co-workers at worst.

most soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen serving in iraq are quite baffled by what they see in the news. it is a world that most are not familiar with because it is quite divorced from reality. for example, violence and bodies discovered in one neighborhood in baghdad is reported as the country being on the brink of civil war, then cited as such by men and women who use that as the basis for their arguments as to one of the things that is wrong with how we are prosecuting the war in iraq. then some even have the temerity to suggest that the men and women serving overseas don't know what they are talking about and are dismissed as right-wing fanatics.

the men and women serving this nation are frustrated at what they see in the media. there is no mention of the billions of dollars and thousands of hours that have been poured into the reconstruction of the country and the training of security forces. there is no mention of the steady (albeit slow) improvement in the quality of life here (an example is the number of hours of electricity reported which is usually quoted as between 10-12 for most parts of the country; what is left out is that the total output has increased, and nearly every rooftop now has a satellite dish, and everyone has a generator they use as back-up when the electricity isn't running). the press seek the disgruntled, lame, and lazy and spread their words as the prevailing opinion. they leave out all the iraqis who are still happy we are here and want us to stay because they understand what we are doing (although I will readily admit that a growing number want us to leave-but the reason is that they feel they don't need us anymore not because we are an occupying force).

instead they take pockets of violence and report that as indicative of what is going on throughout the country. it is very frustrating when all your hard work and effort goes unrecognized and appears to be for the simple reason that newspaper editors and network media directors don't like the current administration.

then people (especially those not in the military or who are no longer in the military and don't like the current administration) echo those same arguments and repeat the same stories, which are patently untrue but are believed because of "standards of journalism" which really worked for the new york times right? anger boils over and the people repeating these arguments become the target of all our pent-up hostility. it's nothing personal.

i hope this answers your question.

Harper,
I think cctjoey said it all.

Jibreel freeland- maybe you would not talk about taking it easy when a commrad falls and not think of revenge if the only people in your life that matter, besides family, got killed. How come noone want's to talk about the Iraq greneral who admitted to saddam having WMD's resently? Then converting C130's and other transport aircraft to get them out before we got there? I thought so. We know he had them. Think not? Ask the Serds.

DJ-keep up the great work my friend, see you soon.

As a Combat Control Trainee on my way to Pope in June, I will remember the words of people like Harper and Jibreel freeland. I will use those words to get me through Hell Week and the rest of the course. Then I will forget all about people like you.I will be with individuals like cctjoey. People who will do anything to keep their family safe and keep this beautiful country safe. While you guys are debating the BS liberal facts put out by the jaded media, men like him are doing. Think Saddam was a good guy? Maybe a good father? Why don't we ask his sons? Oops their dead! I'm sure men like cctjoey and the rest of his Special Operations brothers will get Bin Laden to. So sit back with your latte and let the real defenders of freedom work. Oh, you have some milk on your upper lip, you might want your mama wipe it for you.

Sorry, one more point I want to add:

Do you really believe that it is in the best interest of our country for our govt. to share all intelligence (as well as how we gather that intelligence) with the media and the public?

Average Joe citizen, just because he has the right to vote, does not mean that he should be prevy to all that is being done to secure this nation. Have trust in those who have the job of keeping this country safe on a daily basis.

Violence is at times the Only way to restrain evil.

Even the loving Jesus will use it when He returns and destroys His enemies.

Hint: God created the lake of fire/hell not the devil.

Great conversation.....

I'd like to thank Coach and others for all the work they do in an effort to "do their part" in the WOT. Everyone had a role...providing a solid modality for physical training to prepare team guys to kill bad guys is one of them.

Keep up the good work!

Turk,
You dont need the UN's approval to continue a war that was put on hold because Saddam was crying like a little girl. So we let inspections resume with the condition if he did not follow the terms he originally agreed to, we would then resume stomping his butt. We can't free everyone at once. Hey, I have an idea. Why dont you sign up and help? Oh, that might require you to act instead of talk. My mistake.

Hey Harper,
Clinton Stayed out of Vietnam to:)
Was that Monica under the desk? Or you? Nice dress.

Thanks to Alex (comment #82) and especially mfbunch (#83) for taking the time to answer with intelligent, reasoned responses. Food for thought.

And thanks to coach and crossfit for providing a forum where people with nothing in common but an interest in fitness can freely exchange ideas.

Violence was an effective way of ending conflict when populations were smaller and the technology was physical training and hand to hand weapondry.

I'm afraid we've gotten too good at killing, and if we continue thinking we can just kill anything that challenges our (over consuming) Western way of living, we will end up with ecological and biological disasters as a result of biochemical weaponds and nuclear arms.

The world is too interconnected through globalization for large scale
war to continue, its just not a sustainable strategy for society or business.

Compassion, economics and dialogue between the world's people is the way. I'm sure many of you argue survival of the fittest but when the weak and the strong have access to the same bombs and breathe the same air and share a water cycle there is bound to be a fallout..eventually.

But since we only live 100 years or so max., the incentive is just not there. Also when people believe that they are transported to an after life for killing in the name of their Gods this also poses a problem...whatever god it be.

In Darwinian think, the wolf doesn't kill all the sheep in the heard for a reason. There must be a balance. Humans must reconsider how they live and become care-takers versus pillagers of the world. This must start from the top of society whose needs are best met. What is rich must be re-defined.

Just a thought.
If you'd like some good reading on globalization which is directly related to this topic check this out:

http://www.chumirethicsfoundation.ca/pages/indices/indexpublications.html

-E

Pres. Bush is the most evil, corrput, and incompetent President in history. The gulf war is about diverting the people's attention from all his shortcomings (gutting every environmental law possible, weak economy, the ignoring of the poor [see Katrina relief effort], etc...). As a occupying force of an oil rich country shouldn't gas prices be going down not up. But, that wouldn't benefit W. and all the billionaires that control his puppet strings.
I have total respect for our military, I spent six years in the military myself. That is one of the reasons I dislike Pres. Bush so much. He is using the lives our brave men and women to hide his mistakes and make the rich richer. This is unforgiveable. He is a chickenhawk (person all for military solutions, but didn't have the guts to serve in the military themself)and is a disgrace and embarassment to the country I love.
Take care I hope I spelled everything correctly

Eric,

You identify problems with using violence as a panacea for EVERY potential row, but no one here contends that we should lock-and-load at every hint of conflict.

Sure, it's easier to employ violence when it's contained to raiding your neighbor's castle and putting his head on a pike. The opposite extreme is the opposite of contained force - a nuclear attack. There, everyone really does lose. But there are many in-betweens, and globalization is not some omnipotent force that permeates each consideration.

One recent example of violence providing a concrete solution to a problem is Israel's use of targeted killings. Within a year of this tactic coming into use, Palestinian terrorism in Israel fell by some 80%. (Admittedly, building the wall, and collapsing the PA economy also helped).

There is also the problem of those who will not be deterred, but only incapacitated. Our justice system recognizes this. The life sentence is used as much as a deterrent, as a means to incapacitate career criminals who simply will not be deterred. This works on an international scale too. OBL, et al., will not be "hugged into peace," or negotiated into it, or otherwise pressured. There are people and groups who will remain threats unless they are physically neutralized. Not conceding to their existence is the height of naivete.

Your abstractions, lofty and well-intentioned, remain inapplicable in a world, where only some people are willing to live without violence. Pacificism, if not universally embraced, is suicide to those that do embrace it.

jimmie, you ought to be careful to recognize when your own rhetoric approaches self-parody. i thought you were kidding, except i got to the end, and there was no punch line. check the vitriol at the door, then get some facts, and then criticize bush - who, God knows, gives us plenty of reason to criticize him. But do it with substance, not with bullshit and conspiracy theories.

C- Nice bro! See you soon and keep up commentary on those J-Holes...It's cracking me up!

CrossFit San Jose looks sweet! Especially when you look at all those rowers and the size of that pull-up bar. Keep up the good work Mike!

On another note. Just by reading the posts here, you can see the morale character of the majority of this community. Makes me proud to be a part of it. That and Hooters chicks dig my Pukie shirt.

Get some, Go again- Henry Rollins

"There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."
- George Washington, 1793 State of the Union Address

GW has made two key assumptions here, that we would be: a) able to recognize the "insult", which we haven't, QED: Beirut 1983, Germany 1986, Lockerbie 1988, WTC 1 1993, Somalia 1993, Kobar 1996, USS Cole 2000, WTC 2 2001, Madrid 2004, London 2005 x2.
b) willing, as well as "able to repel it."

The body is strong but the mind is weak. Our mind is committing suicide.

Some guesses who said these?...

Hint: same guy said both...

"The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on the level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife."

"There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100%."

I always come to this site on rest days with mixed emotions. I’m morbidly curious to see what new quote will be posted to prompt heated debate among a “community” of people who obviously share at least one goal: physical fitness. I applaud whoever chooses the quotes because I’m convinced that whether you agree or disagree with the quote itself or the banter it provokes, each quote prompts critical thinking.

I really have enjoyed this site over the last several months because it’s helped me to get stronger and I appreciate the efforts at helping me understand people whose views might be different from my own.

Before you wonder about which “side” of these arguments I might be on, I’ll provide the requisite background. I have served for 11 years both on active duty and in the reserves of the Marine Corps. I have spent the last 5 years trying to hold my livelihood (businesses that I own) and my life together through (or in spite of) military call ups. I have never fired my weapon in anger and I hope I won’t have to, but I have used the tools provided by Coach and his team to ensure that I’m prepared to go wherever they might send me.

The best people I’ve served with have understood a couple of basic tenets about military service:
1. We’re tools of policy. Policy is what military folks call commander’s intent. We’re taught to internalize commander’s intent and make it our own. To someone who hasn’t been in the military, this would be best described as buying into a corporation’s culture. When you don’t buy into a corporation’s culture in the non-military world, you might lose your job. We’re taught that if you don’t buy in you might lose your life.
2. Warriors are willing and able to do violence in order to achieve the ends of the policymakers. They generally have the discipline that a bully lacks in that they will not blindly go out and start the wars themselves because they are believers in the principles of the countries they represent and hope (sometimes in spite of any legitimate reason to) that the policymakers will resolve the conflicts through peace.
3. Military service is a missionary calling. While it may not be one that is dictated by any specific religious fervor, serving in any branch of any military anywhere in the world requires sacrifice that most don’t understand and are unwilling to find out about. Through peace and war, I’ve missed birthdays, anniversaries and funerals of the people closest to me.

I’m not unique and I’m not complaining, but when people ask (as Post #77 did) about the thoughts that go through a military member’s mind when the principles they believe they are fighting for are questioned, it’s helpful to remind them of the small things in life that we miss out on that others take for granted. In further response to Post #77, I would say this: many people in the military violently agree that they serve to protect the freedoms that others use to denigrate both the tools of policy and the political choices made by the leaders who implement those tools. Deep down, though we are creatures of passion and while we have been trained to follow orders without question and compartmentalize external distractions, it hurts to have what we consider to be pure motives questioned by those who haven’t been “called” to service. The opinions of those who don’t serve are often the proverbial “pen” that is mightier than the sword.

As hard as people try, there is little that can be done to truly separate criticism of military actions decided on by policy makers from the daily duties of your average military member. Most of them are very proud of the contributions they make, large or small, in or outside of the line of fire. Even if we weren’t ingrained with the philosophy of supporting the decisions made by our commanders, we would still feel like the quality of our work was being called into question.

I tend to think in analogies, so I’ll try one for those who work in the commercial world. I think we can all relate. When I buy a thing or a service, in this case a house, I’m making an investment that I want to be perfect. In the case of government, I feel like my taxes are an investment in an organization that I want to ensure acts in my best interests. If I move into my new house and there are problems with the plumbing or the drywall, I’m frustrated because I spent so much money on the house. When the drywall company comes out to perform warranty service, I have a choice. I can lambaste the repairman because maybe he was the one who actually performed the work or I can express my concerns in a professional manner to the company who built the house because they are the ones who established the timelines that actually forced the drywall guy to work faster than he knew he should. The reality is that the drywall guy wants to do work that he’s proud of…most people do. When we attack the quality of the house we built, we usually do it to an audience that is relatively limited, but if we went on the internet and published our piece the drywall guy would then be frustrated because the quality of his craftsmanship is being questioned in a forum where everyone can see.

Folks who serve in the military are rarely irritated by valid arguments when they exhibit rational thought process and can be backed up with known facts or viable solutions. Unless the argument is unfounded or untenable, people who serve in the military are more than capable of recognizing rational arguments as exactly that. What gets under our skin is when the arguments aren’t particularly well thought out or appear to attack without offering viable solutions. Hence the comments like why don’t you join us? That’s not just a suggestion to go to one of the service boot camps. It’s really more an invitation to take action that amounts to more than being an armchair quarterback.

Violence sometimes is the only way to solve disputes, for instance our current foes won't respond to talks or have a change of heart. Obviously violence isn't always the best approach. Too much of anything isn't such a great idea except for PULL-UPS.

I can't help but sense an overall tone among those who support the invasion and espouse violence of underlying attatchment to such courses of action.

Of all the aspects of progress we have made, in technology, knowlege, etc., I think an exploration into less destructive means of conflict resolution on a global level is long overdue.

Violence is a reaction that is reaching a point of becoming obsolete. It is not in any way a sign of neo-cortex functioning, it is a remnant of the limbic, or reptilian, brain.

I truly believe that there are solutions to every problem, and alternative solutions.

There may be benefits to our invading Iraq. I will freely admit that, but the invasion does not hold a monopoly on the solutions to the problem. The fact remains that Saddam was a contained threat.

You want to talk about harboring terrorists? Where were the majority of the 9/11 attackers from? Saudi Arabia. Wahabbism is a truly imminent threat, with the majority of mosques on US soil controled by members, as well as multiple Islamic institutions and non-profit organizations. Whabbism is a true emerging threat, and it is strong in Saudi Arabia., more violent and bloodthirsty than any form of traditional Islam. It is a cult, and it is growing.

Scott U #8- you're right, no spell checker, or you would have known that "kindergarten" is not capitalized :)

Ok I get a couple of things out of reading all of these quotes. One of the things I would like to point out is that before we went into places such as Iraq and Afganistan people were unable to hold a conversation such as this one that we have running on here. In the past they would have gotten killed for voicing an opinion that goes against what the govt says. What ever reasons people have for being either in favor of or opposed to our actions involving us in these parts of the world need to consider we are giving these people more of an ability to go and have freedom that so many of us take advantage of with out thinking about.Im not trying to say that we are right or wrong, every one has their own opinions and is entiled to them. If you have streangh then it is a duty to help other who can not help themselves.

To get back to the original matter its a matter of knowing how to apply force. To take borrow a old roman quote which states, if you want peace you must prepare for war. It is important to find a balance somewhere in there on a global scale. To fight with one hand to help with the other.

boy that snake story is getting longer each week,as is the snake itself.
heinlein is correct.Violence solves all,even if it is a last resort,even though i abhor it myself and even if you dont smack your children.

Come on guys...some guesses at my quotes...at least one?

Like it or not, the current age is characterized by a resurgence of the zeal of devout Muslims to spread Islam by any means. As hard as it is to believe by members of the modern secular liberal democratic West, it is nonetheless a fact. This struggle is 1400 years old and only during the last 200 years has the dominance of the West allowed us to forget the mortal danger that these conflicting worldviews present.

The command to wage Jihad has nothing to do with current grievances against others or us. It is a pillar of their faith and any claim to be otherwise is disingenuous. The desire for this not to be so is understandable, but we do so at our peril.

Tom-

There is evidence that the living situations in Iraq have deteriorated considerably since the invasion, without sign of much improvement.

Furthermore, Sunni and Shiite Muslims view us as occupiers, not liberators. It is only the kurds who view us as liberators. Thus it is not valid to argue that we aredoing the Iraqi people good, when the majority of them disagree. How could we know better than them the value of our invasion into their country? They just plain don't want us there, and we do not respect that. It is a carryover of colonial mentality to profess better insight into the well being of foreign citizens than the citizens themselves.

Afghanistan is in horrible shape. When will would be colonizers learn? That country is indominable. A perfect example of the failed use of force. The Russians tried to use violence as a solution to their percieved problem there for a long time and it was fruitless. America couldn't take the hint I guess. The country is presently seeing an upsurge in violence, what's being called a 'Re-Talibanization'.

Jibreel #100

"Whabbism is a true emerging threat...violent and bloodthirsty...a cult, and it is growing"

All good points that have been willfully overlooked by the US in favor of our love of Saudi oil.

But more importantly, who is going to confront this 'threat'? Will it be Berkeley protesters and their ilk or the warrior class that defends western society?

When you have an opponent that has no intention of compromise and negotiation, those that "espouse violence" with an "attatchment to such courses of action" seem to become very useful to say the least.

Rob-

Thanks for your reply.

It is pretty clear to me that overt violence towards Whabbism will solve nothing. It will just serve to strengthen them in number and fervor. The more Western nations push, the more Islam will push back, and with greater force.

I am no expert, but initially my advice to those seeking solution to the Muslim problem, (and I agree it is a problem) would be to explore more subversive means of achieving desired results; essentially finding ways to assist the numerous regimes with toppling in on themselves, with hope that the emphasization of anti non-Muslim sentiment among Muslims will eventually begin the long slow process of weakening and die off.

I sincerely believe that unless it is used in pure defense, in the case of Islam violence will only make their hatred of us stronger.

#97-

Who is Senator Joseph R McCarthy?

Jibrell,

I would like to ask you a question on what you are basing that statment on what you have heard on the news or from being overthere/talking to people who have been over there. I know that the situation is not great but that it is improving. One thing that I think must be considered is that everyone has an opinion and puts thier own spin on things. A prime example is the news, they often fail to report the good news that is happening over there. Insted they will report on the negitive things that are happening. What about the fact that for the first time the Iraqi people were able to have free elections. What about the fact that in Afganistan girls are being allowed to attend school again, a right that they were denied while the Taliban was in power. What about the fact that Saddam is now being tried in by a court in Iraq for the atrocites that he and his assistants were responsible for back in the 80's. I'm not saying its perfect but it is impoving.

Zag, #97 TR.
Rob, #4 Wouldn't it be ironic if you were to become famous and someone quoted you on that?
Scott U, #8, Seriously, College called, they are still looking for your overdue philosohy assignments!

It is easier for people to sit in an armchair at home to play the role of armchair general. When they feel they are safe and secure in their home with their loved one's, they feel the need to claim moral superiority against those who are in a hostile area or choose to take risks in their life.

This comfort makes it easier to critisize and finger point at those who choose to take hazardous jobs they be police, fire fighters, soldier's, mountain guide's or even a mountain biker.

It is far easier to belittle those who take those risks and have taken time to learn the skills to do their activies. Usually those same people who belittle and critisize those who takes risks are actually taking their own failing's out on those who are living life at the dangerous end.

Tom #110

I agree that the news is not always a reliable source of information. Some are better than others however.

I stand my my assertion that overall conditions in Iraq have deteriorated since the U.S. invasion. If I looked I could find opinions of occupying soldiers that agree I'm sure.

Has anyone posting comments ever been to Iraq?

#97

Strong work Seiler.

On the Mark: Teddy Roosevelt.

Beleive it.

Has anyone posting comments ever been to Iraq?

Every body just relax for a second....

All this tension is killing my buzz, man.

The Iranians have the solution...don't worry.

The war in Iraq is not about liberty or getting their oil. It's about getting a forward Operating Base for the REAL WAR with IRAN(duh?). Can't fight out of Israeli bases, because then guess what... more uprisings, arab world up in arms, they were right, calls to Yeehaw(something like that) yackity f@#king yak.

Just wait till Iran puts their peaceful uranium, in one of those new missles they just tested(Range 4000 mile or Western Europe...shooter's choice). And hey, why fire it all the way to Europe when you have Israel to get rid of, and infidel soldiers right next door.

All the peace, love, and harmony you can muster doesn't matter to Iran. While the UN(again) puts together another nastygram to mail to Iran, the Iranians are going nuclear(why stop at peaceful means...who's going to stop us? The UN security council? Laughable!). And the Grand Dragon -The high Ayattolah of Rockandrolla can't wait to get off first!! If he starts Armagedon, then all the infidels are gone, and all his people are martyrs and go to paradise. Genius! Now that is a CLEARANCE SALE!!!

So we can sit and debate back and forth about the Preamble to the Real Deal, but when it finally goes down, expect 3000 dead in 1 day to become a weekly event.

So now its out. We just want to be closer to the fight. And if you think Iran isn't a threat to our safety, just ask yourself who has been bankrolling terror for the last 27 years.

It's moments like these...the calm before the storm....that i enjoy most.

Anyone want in on a Crossfit Hades?

Damn...sorry zag...blame it on Texas Public school!

Did this one today...
Complete as many rounds as you can in twenty minutes of:
65 pound push press, 12 reps
10 pull-ups
12 complete rounds
blood blister on right hand exploded on round 8 or 9, fun.

Enjoying it huh?

How many of you people ( where did all of these ignoramus xfiters come from anyway) who believe that violence has no justified place in this world; especially in "OUR" country's current situation ( with those xxxxxxxxxs in Iraq), have ever been over here and seen it with their own eyes? What do you base your strong and emotional beliefs off of? The all knowing and unbiased media? The people who do so are a true and lasting embarrassment to America.

"Don't believe everything you read" unknown

Unfortunately for the Senator his tactics sucked but he was proven correct, there was a conspiracy. Too bad the leftist used his poor execution to catapult political correctness on us.

Hey Sarge,
Yes,Clinton stayed out of nam,so,what is your poi....deleted for filth.

Sinebad,
It's my understanding that they already have a Crossfit Hades in Santa Cruz.

The devil is afraid that when he dies, Chuck Norris will get him.

BTW, Chuck Norris drove the snakes out of Ireland!!!

::sigh::

Though the fatwas for my death may be shouted from karate studios across the land...

I can't even say it...

Chuck Norris is the devil.

"History teaches that when you become indifferent and loose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over"
-Colonel Bull Simons

I wonder how this discussion over a quote in a Sci-Fi book degenerated into a discussion over the merits of invading Iraq. I don't think this was the direction that this discussion was supposed to take.

Violence does solve problems and in some cases saves lives. Ask the Marines from World War II who are still alive because they did not have to invade Japan.

Violence is not the only answer. Theodore Roosevelt said "Walk softly but carry a big stick." Aside from just carrying that proverbial big stick you have to have the ability and will to use it or it is pointless to carry it.

It is a true fact that the United States has gone to war for a variety of reasons over it's history. It is also very true that generally we leave our enemies better off when we leave then before we got there.

America is the sleeping giant Admiral Yamamoto spoke of after Pearl Harbor. We are slow to anger...but once we get going, Katie bar the door.

Anyone who denies that we are in a war on terror is living with thier head in the sand. Anyone who believes that the 'other side' will accept anything less then out total capitulation is living a dream.

In the end whether you support the war in Iraq or Afghanastan, whether you love George Bush or hate him the simple fact remains that violence does solve problems. The big question is did we do everything we could do before reverting to the default setting?

I am a serving member of the US Military and an Iraq War Veteran.

I am on my way from the office to drink green beer.

However, I have been reading some of the posts over the course of the day and wanted to wade in a little.

There are a lot of military folks on the net here and I would say thank you to all of you. You are placing yourselves in harm's way for us and for that we cannot repay you.

When I served in the 1980's there was not as much chance to engage as trained. Now that I am a police officer, I can tell you there are far too many engagment opportunities for my liking. But we do what we do because we have to, not because we want to.

Our military and police are participants in a delicate social contract that entrusts them with the authority to use force in order to defend and protect the rest of the signators to the contract.

My position would be that, whether a common criminal is holding a knife to the throat of your neighbour or an oppressive regime is poised to train and deploy irregular forces against your nation, we must be prepared to support the use of force by our professions in arms. We have entrusted them with that responsibility.

Our soldiers and police are more than aware of the need to be regulated by third party interests. This "leash" if you will, keeps us honest and above reproach. Such that, if we are called to action, we know in our hearts we have done the right thing.

For those who are not familiar with him, I recommend the works of Dr David Grossman for some excellent reference material on the use of force and the personal and social impact regarding the preparation for and use of that lethal force.

Happy St Patricks day to all. Enjoy your families.

Wow...it come down to momma jokes...

Hey...You Mom is so fat, even that B#@ch's picture is HEAVY!!!!

you guys are the best! F@#cking momma jokes!!

John (#81)...

I think that Heinlein's classification of "absolute pacifism" as immoral is probably due to the results of unilateral (whether on the part of an individual or a nation-state) "absolute pacifism". The results are the worst kind of immorality. Think Chamberlain (pacifist) vs. Hitler. Would you call the results of that little tete-a-tete immoral? I know I would. Attempted genocide and a global conflict is a pretty immoral thing. The problem with "absolute pacifism" (and the idea that "violence NEVER solves anything") is that it requires both parties to hold the same view. If you insist on holding your pacifist stance and your counterpart has no problem with violence...well, you're going to be witnessing some pretty immoral stuff in the very near future.

Again, I don't think that anyone here believes that violence solves everything. But insisting the opposite to be true is just insane (and has been proven false).

***

W/respect to the statements I've seen that "Iraq is worse off now than before the war"...by what measure? Rome wasn't built in a day you know. The former Soviet Union...without being invaded...was worse off after the fall of communism and the emergence of a free-market economy. It is SLOWLY getting better. Would the world be a better place if the political changes there hadn't taken place? Nation-states don't exactly turn on a dime.

Last point...w/respect to the arguments that our (the US) Middle-East policy is driven (to at least to some degree) by our need for oil. Is this a surprise to anyone? Western society has been oil-fired for over 100 years. The decisions that led to that and continue to reinforce it have been made on both ends of the political spectrum since the early 1900s. I strongly suspect that none of you who bemoan our need for oil have given up your cars or are voluntarily paying double the pump price for gas in a show of support for avoiding the use of foreign oil; by the way, the balance of US imports don't come from the Middle East. And I notice you're happily using your computers (made from petroleum products) which are powered by electricity (from oil/gas fired generating plants). It's great to argue your high ideals...how about living up to them? Western society runs on cheap oil. Embrace reality.

Want to see a horrifying and immoral world? Cut off the supply of oil to Western civilization. I hope you're well-armed and have lots of ammo if/when that happens.

D #121-

There is more dissent among the rank than you may think. Get over it- our military is deeply divided over this war.

Mike B good use of the word vitriol I actually had to look it up. I'm sure your opinions are very valuable and when you feel the need to share them I'll be glad to read them with the respect we should all give each other (no insults or offensive language) too bad you couldn't do the same

Typical Crossfit theme: (pay attention newbies)
First...
Someone leaning liberal responds to a qoute in their typical liberal ways.
Then...
Everyone leaning conservative piles on.

We can't help it. We are close-minded, highly-divided Americans. We hate each other. United we stand my ass.

Libs: don't take the bait! There's a nasty, rusty, old, defunct, archaic hook on the line.

Wasn't Heinlein swimming in the world of SCIENCE FICTION??

uh, huh..huh...huh... he said "breeds"

2 jibreel freeland:
R U a member of the U.S. Military? If so, and if you are a door kicker , not a supply puppy ( a honorable and needed job, but none the less off the front lines, so 2 speak), or one that stays in fortified areas, U R the first I have heard of that shares that sentiment.
That makes 1. Anyone else???

Matt G #131

Iraq being worse off- I guess I am a pessimist, but I simply don't see how this effort to force democracy on Islamic states (using violence, to show Bobby the relevance of this to the original discussion topic) will ever prove fruitful. If I am wrong I'm wrong, but the very nature of Islam is undemocratic.

Oil- So be it, if we're there for oil so be it. But if the president failed to say so prior to the invasion then that is plain wrong.

The fact remains that Iraq is not a significant enough source of oil to justify lost lives. Mid East oil only accounts for 10% of the oil used in the US. Iraq imports add up to not even half of the oil imported from Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia.

Mr. White (#134)...yes, Heinlein was a SciFi writer. That doesn't mean his thinking isn't applicable or true. I know many libs who think Barbara Streisand's opinions on domestic/world affairs are truly important and relevant.

FWIW, I know an awful lot of left-leaning folks who think Stranger in a Strange Land (a Heinlein classic) is the best thing ever written and a model for living.

"the very nature of Islam is undemocratic" -jibreel freeland, #137

Is it? Islam is a religion, not a form of government. I have read much of the Koran, I don't recall anything specific in it about being anti-democracy. I don't believe we're in the act of FORCING democracy on anyone, we're in the act of allowing a country self-determination. Something prohibited under Hussein's rule. Actually I think everyone other than the terrorists immigrating to Iraq and the formerly-in-power minority Sunnis are pretty happy to have some options. If they transition to democracy and then move to something else shortly thereafter, that's fine with me...at least they were given a chance.

No matter what your views of the war were originally, up and leaving Iraq now, could in fact cause more problems, than there were before we went.

Instead of having a fairly stable (not mentally of course) dictator there, who was basically scared shitless of us. We would have a newborn democracy that could possibly be over run by radical insurgents. Doing anything in the middle east was unfortunately a catch 22. Saddam was a very bad person, and it's good that he's no longer in power. Unfortunately he also spoke their language, and understood that the radicals there only understand violence and display of power.

It's good that he's no longer a dictator. But in engaging in the invasion we've sort of sturred up the bee's nest that's in the middle east. We all know that war is hell, and that civilians get killed, and unfortunately civilian death breeds great recruiting grounds for future terrorists.

Do I wish that the Bush administration would've been truthful with the american people? Absolutely. But by deciding to go there, we've "made our own bed", and now we're going to have to sleep in it, and see this through. Not doing so could in fact make the USA less secure.

I support the troops. They don't make the descisions as to who we go to war with, but they still have to go there and do the fighting, watching their buddies getting messed up. The fact that we have the strongest military in the world is why we haven't been attacked or bullied by other nations. These same troops you may not support in Iraq are the same guys who would do the fighting if we were attacked by another nation, or invaded.

Personally I didn't believe the reasons given for going to Iraq, and I especially don't believe them now. But all of that is now moot. None of it matters anymore. We've created an extremely volatile situation that we have to see through to the end, or risk being much less secure than we were before.

Other than the obvious misquoting of; “We can have no "50-50" allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all.”

The quotes are attributable to Theodore Roosevelt.

To whom the quote; “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.,” is also attributable.

I appreciate both the difficulties of the job and the shortcomings of the man. I appreciate also that this POTUS understood what is at stake and is willing to take great personal risks do what needs to be done.

Even more, I appreciate and respect the men and women who are willing to sacrifice, suffer, and risk everything.

God Speed Warriors.

Being that I am in the military and have had the luck and priviledge to sit in on meetings with senior Iraqi and American govt officials, I feel that I could contribute to the above discussions. But I will refrain, I think the debate that occurs on here is healthy, but unless you are in the military and or in the intelligence community, you should watch what you say. Do not believe the press and what you see and read. There are many things that occur and happen that you will never know about and your ignorance keeps you safe and happy.
We in the military have accepted the fact that we cannot question the policy which we are ordered to enforce. If we do not like what the policies and do not want to carry out the orders, GET OUT!!!
For those making blanket comments about the situation in Iraq and our intelligence gathering, the administration and all...unless you are read into the briefs or have the need to know....watch your tongue, do not fall into the mindless statements of most people who care not to take the time to learn.
Case in point: the ports deal. NO COMPANY, WHETHER AMERICAN OR FOREIGN HAS ANY CONTROL OVER CUSTOMS OR BORDER SECURITY!!! More US Navy ships pull into Dubai than any other port of call in the world.

I am off my soap box!! Stay safe brothers in arms.

AND LETS DEBATE WORKOUTS...NOT NATIONAL SECURITY!!!

Time constraints force me to stay out of today's discussion, but I did do the wod from the other day, 5 rds of 15 dl 135#, Row 500m (instead of run 400), and 15GHD situps. :26::29 on about 3 and a half hours sleep. Just wanted to finish today; I was hurtin'.

Matt G #139-

Thanks. I see your point. There is an underlying tendency in Islam towards fundamentalism that seems to me to be at odds with democracy. If moderate Islam can grow and flourish then I am all for it. That would mean peace.

I just have a few points in response to the fact that we have "destroyed" Iraq and Afganistan. Iraq is now getting the justice of having a trail of Saddam, they have since had several free elections with voter turn out increasing at each one lacking the major violece that has been predicted. In Afganistan the schools are open to girls again who were denied that right under the Taliban govt, we have managed to cause a major disruption in the terrost training camps.

Now I agree with Josh, lets get back to the subject that has drawn us all to this website. Its not politics, its worrking out.

Long ago a navy man by the name of Roy Boehm was at the White House to met secretly with President Kennedy. When the President entered the room Boehm said "I didn't vote for you but I will die for you."

I believe that Roy Boehm went on to found one of the first SEAL teams. Could he have meant something more in his comment?

Mike #116

Yes, I have been to Iraq.

#142 - Wow Josh, I hope for your sake you either did leave the army or you agree with your politicians 100%! Otherwise your behavour is irrisponsable to say the least.

Deep inside you know you're being conned by your own government, but you try to absolve yourself by saying you didn't come up with these policies yourself.
That's what the German soldiers said after WW2: "wie haben das nicht gewusst".
So YOU watchout what your saying!

Your Pentagon boss Generals NEED their money to keep the military machine rolling, and for that they need to be good buddies with the Bankers. The Bankers NEED the army to "protect" american interests, more specific the US dollar has to remain the worlds reserve currency at all times or there wont be money anymore to keep the military afloat.
So in effect you work for the Bankers whether you like it or not, and in fact most of your salary is being payed (indirectly) by foreign central banks.

Americans live an exuberant life on credit compared to the rest of the world and you're in the military to make sure it stays that way.
The US pays $0.02 for a barrel of oil, the world pays $60 a barrel. And thats just oil. It costs the Fed only $0.03 to print a $100 bill, but just like your bank provides your mortgage money they can create it out of thin air and the world pays for it! Sure you pay at the pump but thats mostly tax and costs recovery for the infrastructure, but the oil is basicly free.
And you believe the military is in the middle east to "secure the oil"? Its to make sure that the oil stays pegged to the dollar, nothing else. Saddam wanted to peg Iraqi oil to the euro, so did Venezuela and so does Iran.
So since 2000 Saddam sold oil for euros and as soon as the US army got rid of him in 2003, the oil was pegged to the dollar again. And the valid contracts with China, Japan, Russia and France nullified!

Get yourself informed on economics and the global monetary system and you'll see things totally different for sure...i know i do now!

“The cause of violence is not ignorance. It is self-interest. Only reverance can restrain violence - reverance for human life and the environment.”

William Sloan Coffin

is the crossfit march jounal out yet?

"Boy, that escalated quickly... I mean, that really got out of hand fast!"
-Ron Burgundy

Guess I'm not feeling so insightful today, at least not as much as some dude named "Harper" who seems to have cornered the "potty mouth" market today. At least our friend Turk didn't label the reading as "anti-Islam" or "Muslim-bashing." For that, free speech can be grateful.

Oh, and for those who bash others for spelling and grammatical errors, lighten up. The errors are not a clear and decicive indicator of intelligence nor good looks. On the other hand, the ability to state an argument, even if in a full state of angry arrousal, without asking the opposing party to perform acts of oral grattitude upon one's hairy bits is a sign of an intelligent poster. Few and far between today.

For Mike OD: My wife was playing a computer Connect Four game and I told her, "Chuck Norris can win Connect Four in 3 moves." She actually laughed. Hated to do it, but she laughed. I saw it.

Dan (Silver),
Apparently, it was your turn to be insightful today. Good work. I doubt many got the jist, but it needed to be said. I know you're probably on duty tonight and the streets will be filled with "Instant Irishmen" asking you to kiss them. Cuff them extra hard for me.

Off to the gym, then to drink in peace.
Erin go frickin' Braugh.

# 139 Matt G. You're saying: "I don't believe we're in the act of FORCING democracy on anyone, we're in the act of allowing a country self-determination."

Come on, this is what the Soviet Union was saying when they rolled their tanks into eastern europe.
"We're not FORCING you communism, just giving you a choice. Just make sure it's the right choice though ;-)

If you're so concerned about dictators and totalitarian regimes why dont you free some countries in africa? Or are those people not important enuf? It's the dollar hegemony that has to be defended at all costs Matt, thats what it is all about.
You either go to war to defend yourself or to GAIN something...to gain a democracy i would say we're very late to the party, why not done it in the 60-s or 70-s? Actually the US did with instating the Sha and getting rid of the DEMOCRATIC elected president of Iran at that time...And there are more country examples (latin america rings a bell?)

Its all about the almighty $ until it crashes under the weight of accumulated consumer and government debt.

"It's the dollar hegemony that has to be defended at all costs Matt, thats what it is all about." -august k #151

You say that like it's a bad thing august. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't (a bad thing). I benefit from it, as does everyone else in this country and 98% of the people in Western societies. As I stated earlier...I doubt that you've given up your car or are willingly donating extra money to your filling station; I also notice you're in the act of using a computer that is largely composed of petroleum products powered by electrity which is generated by oil.

We're at the top of the pyramid baby...and that's where I want to be...whatever it takes to stay there. Personally, I'm not foolish enough to think the concept of survival of the fittest (and best armed) has suddenly been invalidated or found to be morally repugnant.

The folks who have mentioned Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. as examples of the power of non-violence to change the world have a point, but they are missing a larger point, which is that non-violent protest works only against those who have a basic respect for human rights and the rule of law. They each called on their societies to adhere to the moral code they professed to live by. A good tactic under the circumstances, but Ghandi's 1st protest and King's 1st bus boycott would have sent them straight to the grave in Nazi Germany and you would have never heard of either one of them.

Check out what happened to a modern day advocate of non-violence, Tom Fox, of the Christian Peacemakers, when he went to Iraq. Hint: those lovable jihadis cut off his head.

Violence should be a last resort, but to say it never solved anything is infantile. It often solves the school yard bully problem, and it solved Hitler, it solved Tojo, and it ended slavery in America.

Dan S, I apologize for calling Jimmy Carter an "idiot." He's actually very, very cunning. Remember the time he was attacked by the enraged swimming rabbit? A judicious use of force shooed the creature away.

My position that our (my) inflicting the 3 years of violence in Iraq was/is unlawful, unethical thus criminal is unrelated to my politics (I am FAR from liberal and generally apolitical) or my patriotism ... (it STEMS from my love of this country)....
It is the view of a human being (detached from the politics and what is often blind allegience) who knows when it is right and not right to inflict violence on other human beings.
It is outlined for the blind in local criminal or global courts.
We can't attack people cause we know they're bad people who've done bad things. We have to show the judge that they presented imminent danger to us or another.......
LIKE.... Kuwait, Serbia... Afganistan,Hitler..etc...Iran perhaps.
Iraq did NOT.
It was a long standing Bush-Hussein vendetta he tried to pull off by picking a fight with bogus lines drawn in the sand....coralling questionable intelligence.
Then he said F*** it let's go...... and used our kid's to do his dirty work.
(I know: another wimpy war-hating, left-wing liberal america basher).
Actually.....that's about as far from the truth about me as you can get..
I'm completely convinced of this and have no problem stating it.
We're responsible as Americans to hold our public servants accountable because they're resonsible to do us right and this one hasn't.

If violence is the answer to all of our questions,how come Russia went away without a shot being fired?

Harper...you really are a moron...tell me... where did RUSSIA go since this morning?

D'oh!

harper (#155), are you actually naive enough to think that the Soviet Union went away "without a shot being fired"?

Wait...of course you are. You don't even realize that Russia still exists...it's the Soviet Union that's gone.

And once again, no one has said that violence is the answer to all problems. What's been said is that pacifism doesn't solve all problems. If you can't see that I pity you.

Dan M-

Just as Jaws sent a generation running from the beaches, Monty Python and the Holy Grail forever changed the image of the cute, fuzzy, bunny to one of murderous fury. Once can hardly blame the man for being cautious, considering the prevailing social climate of rabbit fear.

I wouldn't have let that thing in my boat either and I will testify to that while under oath. I dare not trifle with nature's predators.

-D.

Just for fun tonight!

1 mile run 7:50 minutes
Fran as RXed 8:45 minutes

P/U 5 minutes WOOOOOO!!!!HOOOO!!!!

Gotta love Crossfit
Changing my life.

TimM...tell me again what Kuwait did to us or Serbia or A-stan...Saddam was shooting at our planes on a daily basis for over a decade!! Saddam gased his own people and killed political disidents. This was not about Iraq, but Saddam...unfortunately he used Iraq as a place to hide himself and many Iraqis were to willing to keep him hidden...

We don't attack countries we remove "bad actors" in this current geo-political climate.

Also for anyone else who thinks we are FORCING democracy on these countries...democracy is the natural state of man...so the FORCE you see is the stripping away of Government run amock with represive regimes and "bad actors" who run those peoples lives. They have no recourse or ability to stand up to their government or leaders without risking physical harm and retribution. I find this Force to be a worthy cause versus claiming they are not ready in incompatible with freedom...bullshit...Cubans sail on cardboard to get here, why do you think illegal immigration is such a problem...they know that even if they never get to vote atleast citizens can and that is better than the thug run governments they come from.

It only saddens me that our national budget is to small and the Global community is to scared and corrupt to join in the fight...I wish we could move on to the next country...we are 0-2 on the war on terror for ousting represive regimes and atleast giving those people a fighting chance to get ahold of their own destany.

I truely grieve for those innocent who get caught in the middle, but we do our best, which is better than doing nothing and "talking".

Talking did not bring down USSR, Nazi Germany, Taliban, Saddam, etc.

Peace is a two way street. However these "bad actors" use our lust for peace against us, so negotiation is only a means of delaying for them. Ghandi and et all are great to put on a pedistal and allow to speak in platitudes...however one bullet to the head ends their influence...which is a shame but is the reality. Pray for peace but don't forget your target practice...

Robert Heinlein is wrong. Violence doesn't SOLVE problems, it creates new ones. Sure, in the short term, violence may put an end to a particular conflict. In the long run, however, violence breeds fear and as long as there is fear there will always be conflict and problems.

WOD = 95lbs Deadlift (10 reps)
95lbs Hang Clean (8 reps)
95lbs Push Press (6 reps)

is one round. Do as many rounds as possible in 25 minutes. Basically March 6th workout with 95lbs instead of 65 and in 25 minutes instead of 20. I did 17 full rounds in under 25 minutes and started the 18th with 15 seconds left (24:45).

Finished my workout with Turkish Get-ups. Kicked my ass!

correction to last we are 2-0

Kevin #162

Well put.

Did some bench press and 45 min on the eliptical. Joey, you are absolutely correct " pray for peace but remember, put the front sight on center mass. Thanks for all you guys are doing on the tip of the spear. I'll be in San Antonio for spring break. Does cct Practice there?

SA is where our pipeline begins, but no further "training" is done there formally. Though it is where trainees return to between formal schools.

Thanks cctjoey.

Thanks cctjoey.

CrossFitSJ IS awesome! Great job Mike, Shawn and Rob!

Run: Beach Run 55min

30 Pull-ups
30 Dips
100 Sit-ups

Just to stir it up a bit. To quote a Pioneer I knew,

" There are very few problems or situations that can't be fixed by the proper application of high explosive."

In response to the rabbit situation,

"Here little bunny, come get the nice fresh carrot. That's a good bunny, come on don't be afraid. Fire in the Hole"

Okay, I have to say something in response to the Iraq debate. We did not invade Iraq on false pretenses. Yes, Saddam did not have WMD's but he wanted everbody in the world to believe that he did. His own general's were suprised that when the United States invaded Iraq that he didn't use chemical weapons. If Saddam fooled everybody into believing that he had chemical weapons then he was a dangerous threat. He was playing a dangerous game of poker and the United States called his bluff.

Diplomacy is very important but when diplomacy comes to an end then you have to take action. If you don't back up your diplomacy with action then the trouble-makers in this world will not take you seriously. Talk can only go so far. Words without action will fall upon deaf ears.

Oh, and if the reason for the Iraq war was oil then why didn't the U.S. take over the oil fields in Iraq? Or why did President Bush comment that America is addicted to oil and needs to find alternative fuel sources? I seem to remember right after 9/11 that all of America was behind Bush. Bush said this would be a long hard road and that the war on terror would not be easy. As he stated this in his first address after 9/11 all of America was behind him. I remember this well because as a member of the armed forces I knew that the war on terror would affect myself and my family. I, for one, will fight the terrorists. If we don't, then the terrorists will destroy our freedoms. These radicals want to be in control. Oh, and as I recall, they attacked us without provocation. Just for the simple reasons that we uphold freedom and support Israel.

The terrorists will not go away by wishful thinking. We need to hunt everyone of them down and bring them to justice or innocents will suffer. Iraq is a perfect example for the simple fact that the terrorists are targeting innocent civilians.

I sound like a broken record here, but I'll try to reiterate my post more bluntly:

I submit that the reason that both the need for international law and the impossibility of international law arise from the assumption that law is founded upon force.

This is a peculiarly modern assumption, first explicitly revealed by Hobbes. There is AT LEAST one alternative to this idea of law. Plato suggests that law consists in the appeal of reason or the divine to the human soul.

In other words, to say it simply: Law doesn't begin when one takes power over another by force. Law begins when any wise man does his best to figure out what would be best for human beings, and how he can persuade human beings to do what is best.

When you make law depend on the imposition of force, international politics becomes the arena in which 'everything is permitted.' When you make law depend on the human effort to most perfectly care for the souls of human beings, international politics becomes the arena in which those who with understanding and ability have the obligation with the MOST care as to what is right and what is wrong.

Again, this is only ONE alternative.

Mike, Rob, Sean and gang, congrats on a sweeeeet lookin' place. Now GET SOME!

august k-who are you getting your information from?? pentagon generals in collusion with the bankers of america? how many general officers do you know? i happen to work directly for one and know quite a few-you can rest assured that all these men and women are of the utmost moral fiber. even if they weren't, the rules on ethics are so stringent that if they do something that even smells close to conspiracy they will go to jail for a very long time (did you know there is a regulation that governs the receipt of gifts by a general officer and even goes so far as to say there is no monetary limit from family members with the exception that the fammily member can't have any business dealings with the military?)

jibreel, i have spoken with quite a few iraqis. how many have you spoken to personally or are you getting your facts from the new york times or cnn?

here is an analogy: if the only news you heard about small town general hospital was the people who died on the operating table, what would you think? what if the reporter covering the story talked to every patient in the hospital but only quoted one who was afraid because his patient had died and the another who was absolutely sure he had no chance of living because the hospital 106 people had died in that hospital during the last year? what if the newspaper quoted hospital administrators as saying the quality of medical care in that hospital was good but the next paragraph went told of one patient who died of wounds en route to the hospital and another died on the operating table, then told how much money the procedures cost the families of the deceased and how much impact it had on the cost of insurance. what would you think of that hospital? what if you were a doctor in that hospital and knew that even though 106 patients had died, that most 48 of those were terminal cases, 50 had died of injuries sustained in accidents, 1 had died of complications from the surgery, and 1 had died as a result of an error (which of course was widely reported and the doctor responsible was placed on administrative leave and sued for an unreasonable amount of money). even though the hospital lost 106 patients, 5242 patients had received care at that hospital, but none of that was reported. how would you feel about media coverage then, or the actions of politicians who questioned what you were doing in the hospital, or the unqualified assertions by john q public who thought their tax dollars were being wasted on the hospital and wanted the politicians responsible held accountable? would you think that it was a mistake to pay for that hospital or that the hospital should be closed down?

"Violence; naked force, has settled more issues in history than any other factor"

That is simply not true. The number of issues that have been settled by humans certainly far outnumbers the number of violent acts. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to give more consideration to the claim.

i think, that perhaps there is no easy answer as to whether it is better to be peaceful or violent. I know that to take the violent course is to take a lot of risks, including the risk that your violent act will lead to another, and another, into a 'tit-for-tat' sort of scenario, until one or both parties have been wiped out.
so, that is the primary risk. if i fought with a man who attacked me and injured him badly (or even killed him), i could expect that certain members of his friends and family would probably want to do the same to me. now, let us say for a moment (and this is of course only in theory) that i am too strong for all of them, and one after another, i defeat them. on each one, i will have inflicted either a grievous injury, or i will have shamed them by making them quit, and therefore make them want to take me down more, or i will have killed them, spreading great sorrow among their friends, and families, and giving more people a need for revenge. how can i ever stop this cycle? quite simply, i cannot, and until they kill me, it will not end.
that, i think is the worst thing about violence. if i strike my enemy, and harm him, i'm not just harming him. i'm harming his mother, his father, his sisters and brothers and all his friends. we humans have more power to change the lives of individuals than we could possibly know.
Having said that, their is something to be said for taking the martial path in this world. the spartans told the world that it was war, not peace that produced virtue. war, and the preparation for war, they said, would draw out all that was noble even in the meanest of men. they said that by preparing to engage in such an ugly and sorrowful act, they could make themselves and their families into safer, better people than they would be if they had laid down all arms forever.
so their seem to be benefits there too, if you believe the spartan philosophy that is. but nothing has been settled, i think, through only violence, or only talking. it's more a combination that will lead us to the best path. like they say, you have to have balance in everything in this world. violence is not the be-all, end-all. neither is pacifism. but if you want my opinion, learn to keep your temper, but learn to punch hard too.
Or something like that

The President has fumbled the ball at every key point in this conflict. That fact of the matter is, Iraq will never in my or any of your lifetimes be a safe haven of democracy in the Middle East. This is a lesson we had shoved down our throats in Vietnam and yet history repeats itself. Over the long haul, the insurgency will wear down the resolve of any great army. Conventional warfare is not the correct method and never will be against combatants of this nature. We subsitute sand for jungle, car bombs for booby traps and whoops, well its not all that different(this should draw plenty of critisism from some of you no doubt. I realize that Iraq is a much different war from Vietnam but the idea is the same. The enemy is among the people. Friend and foe are nearly impossible to distinguish until they walk into a crowded marketplace or a city bus and blow themselves up. We will never completely eliminate terrorism. That's fools' talk for ya'.)It all starts with intelligence my friends. You just can't take your army and hop from country to country in the ME "freeing and liberating", fighting the "bad guys" before they attack you. I'll some it all up in one statement. The U.S. should never, never, never, ever use our military strenght for occupation unilaterally. It's a clear mistake and it always will be. I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative. I'm just a high school history teacher out of Florida with no agenda whatsoever. To the unbiased eye it should be crystal clear that the invasion and eventual occupation as conducted was a clear mistake.

The President has fumbled the ball at every key point in this conflict. That fact of the matter is, Iraq will never in my or any of your lifetimes be a safe haven of democracy in the Middle East. This is a lesson we had shoved down our throats in Vietnam and yet history repeats itself. Over the long haul, the insurgency will wear down the resolve of any great army. Conventional warfare is not the correct method and never will be against combatants of this nature. We subsitute sand for jungle, car bombs for booby traps and whoops, well its not all that different(this should draw plenty of critisism from some of you no doubt. I realize that Iraq is a much different war from Vietnam but the idea is the same. The enemy is among the people. Friend and foe are nearly impossible to distinguish until they walk into a crowded marketplace or a city bus and blow themselves up. We will never completely eliminate terrorism. That's fools' talk for ya'.)It all starts with intelligence my friends. You just can't take your army and hop from country to country in the ME "freeing and liberating", fighting the "bad guys" before they attack you. I'll some it all up in one statement. The U.S. should never, never, never, ever use our military strenght for occupation unilaterally. It's a clear mistake and it always will be. I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative. I'm just a high school history teacher out of Florida with no agenda whatsoever. To the unbiased eye it should be crystal clear that the invasion and eventual occupation as conducted was a clear mistake.

I agree with the statement. War is necessary because there will always be those who want to predatate on others. My problem is that we are fighting the wrong war. There is a war right on our borders with millions of illegal alians, which I prefer to call criminal tresspassers, coming over our border illegally every day. I say let our men and women in uniform leave Iraq and let the Iraqis war it out and decide who or what will rule in Iraq. We need our soldiers on both borders, keeping illegals out, and rounding illegals up in our communities and to put them in containment camps until they can be transported. An easy way to get illegals to leave before the armed forces are called in is to stop all benefits and welfare. They will be swimming home. Also those who hired illegals should be made to pay heavy fines and to do jail time.

I agree with the statement. War is necessary because there will always be those who want to predatate on others. My problem is that we are fighting the wrong war. There is a war right on our borders with millions of illegal alians, which I prefer to call criminal tresspassers, coming over our border illegally every day. I say let our men and women in uniform leave Iraq and let the Iraqis war it out and decide who or what will rule in Iraq. We need our soldiers on both borders, keeping illegals out, and rounding illegals up in our communities and to put them in containment camps until they can be transported. An easy way to get illegals to leave before the armed forces are called in is to stop all benefits and welfare. They will be swimming home. Also those who hired illegals should be made to pay heavy fines and to do jail time.

Missed yesterday. Biked 40:00 and did yesterday's WOD today. 8:00 with 4:00 regular pullups\chinups and 4:00 Kegger pullups\chinups.

Cctjoey is wrong. Democracy is not the natural state of man. It has always had to be fought for.

It never ceases to amaze me how many are unable to see the forest for the trees. The level of sanctimonious, self righteous BS in here is stifling. I am going to piss some people off in here, but at least I will feel better for getting it off my chest.

"Serve or shut up...knows more things combat than you'll ever comprehend....Illegals are taking our jobs..." STF UP! Stop your own whining and accept your lives. There's nothing worse than someone who cheapens service by trying to use it to prove their own superiority and entitlement. You weren't drafted, so handle your business and stop writing like someone owes you shit. You're either a patriot or you're not! Serve with pride and accept your task. It's noble if you can, but shameful if you can't.(F U if you can't handle the truth.)

These individuals are only seconded by people who are too weak to take charge of their own lives and make something of themselves. People who bitch about "criminal tresspassers" don't line up to do the "tresspassers" jobs, but enjoy the services they provide. They also tend to partake in the social services they complain about the illegals taking, and unlike the illegal they seem to be unable to find a job... WAHHH WAHHHH! Just so you know, the leading demographic of newly empoverished people is a young white single mother. Look it up for yourself. (for the record I am not pro illegal aliens. I am ANTI FRIGGIN WHINERS!)

Here's a question for you; what are you doing to make a positive difference in your own life and in your own community??? If you were really working on #1 you wouldn't have time to talk #2 about everyone else.

Here's a point to ponder for your border crisis, you can't be pro big business and anti cheap labor. If the Govt. really thought it was in the best interest of Americans to lock down the border with MEXICO they would have already locked it down. You are a victim of PANDERING POLITICIANS. Wake up and stop vomitting that crap you get from FOX NEWs and the drug addict in Florida, and start thinking for yourself.

As for the hegemon/realism question about force that started this whole cluster fck, there is a time and a place for ALL things. Timing is everything.

In closing, the last political party to run on a platform of "Defense of language, culture, and borders, the Defense of Family and the Virtue of Womanhood, was the KKK in 1920's Indiana. GO READ A HISTORY BOOK.

I'm getting back to the girls.

#175-

Dont get your panties in an mfbunch.

I'm talking about polls. Gallup included. This is not some spin the liberal media has put on the situation. It is fact. Hey, at least the Kurds want us to stay, provided we don't betray them as we have done previously, but they are in the minority.

Improve intelligence, use surgical strikes on terrorist cells based on that hopefully soundly established evidence, and prevent/avoid the long drawn out occupations, as such modes of action are outdated. And you know what? The pentagon agrees with me. They see Iraq as one big SNAFU just like I do. Why do you think so many funds are being diverted towards special ops? Because infantry and armor and the like is destined to play less of a role in future military action.

Iraq is pointless. The only way to do away with the middle east problem completely would be to nuke the lot of them and I am against that.

Otherwise it's back to where we were with maybe some new tricks up our sleeves: policy of containment.

I can agree with a policy of containment. It worked for Communism. Why not terrorism?

I can agree with a policy of containment. It worked for communism. Why not terrorism?!

To NC USMC,

I am a mother and a homemaker and I care for my country. It is you who do not see the forest for the trees. Saddam did not invade the US. The past few Presidents have not taken their oaths to defend the border. They, and you also, have taken up oaths to defend the country and enforce our laws. It is not being done, buddy. These illegals are only taking jobs because they will work for peanuts, not because there are Americans who can do them. Also these illegals as a group have a higher criminal rate than the general population and bring diseases and conditions that have not been appeared in a number of years such as tuberculosus, bedbugs, and others. And the bigger implication is if these illegals can get over so easily, how much more can a terriorist group do it? You are needed to guard the borders. As for my politics, I am a conservative and voted Constitution Party. I am no liberal. As for whining, I am into action. I am active in NumbersUSA.

Sandy-

Do you have any proof that immigrants make a net-negative contribution to the economy? I'm inquiring because I do not know much about the subject and not because I am biased regaurding the matter.

jibreel freeland #16: “To go to war based on a lie is just wrong.” jibreel gets his news from Garry Trudeau (see today's diatribe in Doonesbury) and Harry Reed et al. If you say “Bush Lied” often enough, it becomes true. That’s propaganda.

Read the documents of why we went to war (Authorization for Use of Military Force, PL 107-40. 9/18/01), and why we took the fight into Iraq (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, PL 107-243, 10/16/02). W pushed for the war, just hard enough. He got what he wanted. Congress approved two dozen reasons for taking the War on Terrorism into Iraq. None was stockpiles of WMDs. No lie.

jibreel says, “We should have seen 9/11 coming before it happened. … it takes true intellect to defuse a situation before it starts.” It takes even more intellect to check your facts. W’s Administration put tough, new FAA regulations put into place 7/17/01, almost two months before 9/11. See 14 CFR Part 108, Aircraft Operator Security; Final Rule, and 14 CFR Parts 107 and 139, Airport Security; Final Rule. Intelligence briefed him on the al Qaeda threat on 8/6/01. The airlines more than anyone else screwed the pooch on 9/11.

Read, then post from knowledge.

On 4/4/67 at the Riverside Church in New York City, Martin Luther King gave a bunch of his reasons for speaking out against the Vietnam war:

>My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years, especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, "What about Vietnam?" They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. …

>We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible. …

>In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution.

Then appealing to JFK, he said,

>"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

So in defense of a failing world revolution that King would not live to see collapse, he could no longer reject Molotov cocktails and rifles. Henceforth, he could not champion nonviolence in the ghettos. The inner city logic, “but what about Vietnam” was overpowering. Instead MLK heralded the inevitability of the coming violent revolution. This was all because his country was “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world”.

He had not spoken out enough. His thinly veiled threats took hold.

Three months later, just ten miles across the river, Newark was in flames. Two days more, 17 miles down the road, so was Plainfield, NJ. Nine days more it had spread 600 miles west to Detroit. They burned an average of about a week each. In the end, four dozen were dead and property damage rose to nearly $100 million.

Do you know any example of group violence that proved to be spontaneous, that is, leaderless?

# 190

LA riots, 1992.
French riots, 2005

for more examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots

Jibreel,

Here you are:

1. They cost more than they save. Employers do not have to pay the hidden costs, taxpayers do. And if they are legalized the costs are here to stay. From a list at http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html :

Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.

Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.

With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments — not their legal status or their unwillingness to work.

Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be largely unskilled, and thus their tax payments would continue to be very modest, but once legalized they would be able to access many more government services.

The fact that legal immigrants with little schooling are a fiscal drain on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.

Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.

However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.

About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.

Employers do not see the costs associated with less-educated immigrant workers because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers.

2. Illegal immigrants have higher than average criminal rates:

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/criminals.html

Do a search of "costs" and "illegal immigration", and you will get all the proof you want.

Mr. Glassman-

I haven't read doonsbury in years. Maybe it is you who should check your facts. And I don't even recognize the name Harry Reed. You are misinformed.

The Authorization of Military force cwas conditional and Bush did not adhere to those conditions. What was his main reason? Zarqawi training camps? That dude was training in Kurdish Iraq intent on creating an independent Arab state. Hardly a clear finger pointing to collusion between he and Saddam. The finger points more towards Zarqawi and Whabbism; Saudi Arabia. Can it be any less clear that Bush is interested in Iraq for reasons other than our precious nation's well being and security?!

Most people fail to make a distinction between chemical and neuclear weapons as well. All you WMD naysayers who claim that Saddam had chemical weapons for sure may not remember that Dubya claimed repeatedly that Saddam had gone nuclear.

The authorization was conditional and Bush pushed those conditions, and yes, congress turned a blind eye. I fault them for it. Do you think I am here to grant amnesty to the crop of libs who went for Dubya'a ride then wanted off? NO. I am not. The fact remains that the lie began with Bush. Nevertheless, there is sure to have been less liberals as supportive as one might think when the rift between chemical and nuclear weapons is taken into consideration. It was near consensus that chemical weapons were perhaps at Saddam's disposal, not so with the nuclear weapons.

The liberal politicians, fearing voter backlash, fell right in line to save the disgrace of being labelled 'supportive of Saddam/terrorists'. Bunch of imbeciles.

I don't get my information from the liberal mass media, I don't have cable television and I don't read the funnies. Sorry to burst your bubble.

jibreel...you just proved Mr. Glassman's point...you don't know who Harry Reed is and you don't even have cable television. Mis and underinformed at the same time...

cctjoey-

What am I misinformed about? Name one thing that I have stated in my posts that is false, and we will debate the matter. Substantiate your claims please.

Stating that don't 'even' have cable television, what are you suggesting I go to Fox news (which has relented to reporting the sorry state of affairs in Iraq) or CNN or MSNBC?

I think that it is you who are misinformed.

Since jibreel freeland has no source of real information, and since he falsely claims that PL 107-40 imposed conditions on the President, here is the full text of this brief law.

>Public Law 107–40 107th Congress Joint Resolution

>To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

>Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

>Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

>Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

>Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

>Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

>Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

>SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

>This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’’.

>SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

>(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organiza-tions, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

>(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—

>(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statu-tory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

> (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

>Approved September 18, 2001.

jibreel, the "Whereases" are facts found by Congress. Note that the last Whereas is the Presidential power for his NSA surveillance (as if FISA alone were not enough!)

Note especially, the President alone could determine where to take this war. He made a BIG mistake asking for permission again to go into Iraq. He apparently was overly influenced to cast displomacy before Congress.

And finally note the lack of any added conditions. W needed no excuse, such as phantom WMD stockpiles.

I fail to see the relevance when you claim to 'post the full text' but do not do so. You left out most of the text. I would suggest posting a link because it is quite a cut and paste job.

Next time don't leave out the parts on 'Presidential Determination'.

Nevertheless the authorization is a sham which is why I made it clear that I am not speaking in defense of congress. They simply followed Dubya's lead.

jibreel freeland #197

You made me double check. The Government Printing Office is my source:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107.pdf

What I posted is the full text. Where do you get your information?

No wonder you're a confused guy! Are you sure W is the liar?

http://www.broadbandc-span.org/downloads/hjres114.pdf

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. >

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress > assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) > Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

[[Page 116 STAT. 1502]]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.

I've been out of town, but wanted to add my two cents (I have a pocket full of two cent pieces for this express purpose). The most salient fact, relative to the ongoing debate about our invasion of Iraq, is that the first Persian Gulf War never ended. Let me repeat: the first Persian Gulf War never ended. Saddam did not surrender: he negotiated a cease-fire, as in "We, the coalition, will stop marching, if you agree that we are going to put on surgical gloves and shove them up your ass until we are absolutely sure you aren't hiding anything, either actual, or on the drawing board." He never abided by these terms, and thus was in clear violation of the cease-fire, in consequence of which he gave us full authority to continue the march, albeit delayed 10 or so years. This is open and shut. The fact that the UN had so much trouble with it revolved around the facts that: it is corrupt, as subsequent investigations verified; and numerous individual nations within it had strong financial interests in Iraq, such as Russia, Germany, and France.

The fact is that Saddam was someone who--however much power he had--always wanted MORE power. Clearly, nukes would have given that to him. There is no question he had chemical warfare capabilities in 1991, and the likely sole reason he doesn't seem to have had them when we invaded was that we rode him so hard. That doesn't mean--and this point is VERY important--HE COULD NOT HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY DEVELOPED THEM.

Bottom line: Bad guy in violation of treaty. We took him out.

I have said this numerous times, but I really, really think everyone should study the leadup to WW2. Seriously. In detail, the specific tactics Hitler used. It seems to come as a shock to some people--which in itself shocks me--that people lie.

With reference to the topic at hand, it seems clear to me that violence is sometimes necessary. However, hatred and anger are NEVER necessary. It is written in the Tao Te Ching that "A good soldier is not violent/a good fighter is not angry/a good winner is not vengeful/a good employer is humble/This is known as the virtue of not striving/This is known as ability to deal with people./This since ancient times has been known as the ultimate unity with Heaven."

A good soldier is not violent. This is interesting. This does not mean that a good soldier does not kill people. It means he or she does not ENJOY killing people. He or she does what is necessary, then stops.

I was in a sophomoric discussion with a pacifist once who genuinely thought it would have been wrong for her to have killed Adolph Hitler before WW2, even if she knew precisely what he was going to do. This, to me, is the sort of immorality Heinlein is pointing to. What right would she have to place her moral squeamishness above the lives of millions of people?

In conditions of ambiguity--which admittedly are considerable--her position could be maintained as "We don't know FOR CERTAIN what this person will do.", but in the real world decisions have to often be made in conditions of imperfect information. There are likely innocent people in Guantanamo Bay. Most of them are likely guilty. American law only applies to Americans. Everyone else we need to apply laws of averages to. That is what has been done there. It is much more moral, to me, to imprison a few innocent men, than risk our very way of life, which would shatter if a successful WMD attack were ever made. Anyone who argues differently, has--to my way of thinking--either an utter lack of imagination, or some sort of pathological need to side with our enemy, deriving, presumably from a combination of self-hate, and ignorance about how life works, and how bad things really can get.

jibreel,

The law being discussed was 107-40 not 107-243.

The laws' titles can mislead the folks who haven't read the text.

jibreel freeland,

In your post #193, you referred us to “The Authorization of Military force”, and said it was conditional and that Bush didn’t adhere to the conditions. PL 107-40 is the “Authorization for Use of Military Force”. You left out some words, didn’t you?

When called on your error, you switched to PL 107-243, “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq”. Even more words are missing, but that law does indeed impose conditions on the President. Now you can inform us just which of these Bush failed to respect.

If you read the law you intended to cite in #193 but posted in #200, you’ll see that none of the 23 reasons for the Iraq campaign was that he possessed stockpiles of WMDs at that time. That he had had them is credited to three sources, qualified and thus discounted by Congress.

Administration intelligence briefed Congress, and Congress over the years held extensive intelligence hearings inviting foreign sources, too. Congress had far more information than any one man could possess.

A popular line among the left is that W fooled the people with the WMD story. This, too, is a patent misrepresentation. The people had no say. The US has no national referendum or initiative. And the polls are little more than the ultimate no-source, manufactured news story.

If W fooled anyone it would have been Congress. So, was any one of the 23 reasons untrue?

I couldn’t find it.

You have failed to substantiate your claim in #193 that “The fact remains that the lie began with Bush.” You are unable even to state what that lie was.

That lie? Was that Iraq had nukes, and Zarqawi was directly linked with Saddam.

Bush, in essence, gave Congress only one purported fact to meet the requirement of making a congressional determination. He cited the information offered by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations. [Powell has since publicly acknowledged that his presentation contained inaccurate information, which damaged his international reputation badly.] Bush merely reminded Congress that Powell's report "revealed a terrorist training area in northeastern Iraq with ties to Iraqi intelligence and activities of [al Qaeda] affiliates in Baghdad." Bush added that "public reports indicate that Iraq is currently harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close [al Qaeda] associate," and that in the past Iraq had "provided training in document forgery and explosives to [al Qaeda]." He offered no governmental confirmation of this "public report."

In contrast, Saudi Arabia is a much more clear and present danger to the security of the United States. Further evidence that our troops are dying over Bush business. Japan gets 70+% of it's oil from the middle East, Europe 30%, us only 10. It's the control of the area that is valuable. Anyone claiming we went there to liberate the Iraqis needs to read up on Sudan and then judge what exactly should take human rights priority. But noooooo...there's no money to be made by saving them. Christ my heart is sincerely breaking.

So there's not a whole lot left with as far as justification for invasion. *cough*Haliburton*cough*

Anyone hear the latest crap coming from Dubya's mouth? Now dissent is simply background noise to him. A true politician cares about what citizens think of him. Do some research. This man is a greedy liar. Hey, they all are. But under the liar Clinton's watch, at least the nation's economy was better, less people (innocents) got killed, and he got his dick sucked.

I give up on this debate. Time will tell. The truth will set us free.

A wise man once observed that everything following "in essence" was a lie.

Jibreel:

I encourage you to read "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq" by Kenneth Pollack from September 2002:

http://tinyurl.com/rsybl

If you believe Saudia Arabia represents a strategic threat to the U.S., you may find in it ample justification for the war in Iraq that doesn't rely on cooked up presidential conspiracy theory. The Iraq containment policy had become an unsustainable travesty. It was enriching a gangster regime at the expense of the Iraqi people and facilitated Oil for Food—the biggest act of financial fraud the world has yet seen. We and the Brits were beholden to and sabotaged by duplicitous dirtbags across the globe and were playing a losing hand. It was up or out time. Our leaders chose up. I believe history will show that to have been the wise course.

It has gone almost completely unnoticed that as a result of OIF we no longer have troops in Saudia Arabia. That fact alone has immeasurably increased our freedom of maneuver in the region--including the ability to put far greater pressure on the Saudis to stem their financial support for the global salafi jihad. Whether that pressure is sufficient or effective is a worthy topic of discussion.

Brian,

Right on! Keep going with your thinking.

With a friendly, civilized Iraq, we have a base for our troops and weapon systems with immediate access to Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. No more long flights skirting France, or super valuable and vulnerable aircraft carriers in shallow waters. We can control the borders of these three remaining terror-sponsoring states to stop the flow of terrorists, weapons, supplies, Imams, and money.

Our presence is an irresistible magnet for them. We have the best possible trained and equipped people ready to take them out, instead of exposing our women and children in WalMarts and grammar schools. Iraq is our shooting gallery. Send out for sandwiches.

If they regress into a civil war, it’ll all go a lot faster: more targets per minute. Maybe they’ll form up in groups, or try to hold a little territory. That will make our efforts a lot more efficient!

W has dealt a major strategic blow to the terrorist threat in the ME. The first rule of warfare is to take from the enemy what he cherishes most. Their objective was Islamic expansion; Bush gave them a huge dose of Islamic shrinkage. The only problem with this spectacular strategy is the Administration’s public unawareness of what it has accomplished.

From Iraq, we can surgically remove Iran’s nuclear facilities. We can smoke the weapons caches in Syria. We can erase conclaves in Saudi Arabia. We can help Israel herd Hamas into desert encampments.

P.S. The objective of warfare to the John Murthas? According to them, we enter a war to withdraw our troops. See what Vietnam training did?

Sandy,

With reference to NC USMC supposedly under oath to enforce laws. LEOs and the Coast Gaurd enforce laws in the US not the military. The US military are war fighters not peacekeepers or law enforcers or border defenders. They go to someone elses yard to play. It will be a sad day when the military is pulled back to defend the contiguous 48.

The thing that chaps my A$$ is that W gets indignant when people question him about how he is handling the War.

People should read "War 2020".

Joe

Perhaps we need a battle ground to fight terrorists. Maybe Iraq is that battle ground. Better than our home eh! Remember that you are an infidel!! And there are people out there that want you dead! We have taken the battle to them, when we leave Iraq, where will the battle ground be?