Disclaimer

Nothing like waking up to 9500 rpms... I figured it was someone that knew I'd be sleeping.

Don't be skeerd... you guys have probably already rubbed penises and don't even know it.

Umm, err... ok, I won't tell you that. I was running errands all morning. Responsibilities suck.

Good writeup... if I can't tag along, it's always nice to live vicariously.

$79M!? We could've bought half of an F22 with that money! (Or 1/5th of one, depending on how you want to do the accounting) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

That's the same list that alab32 posted...and my rebuttal is the same.

sadface for the wrecked Sp1 At least your boy is alright though..

I disagree. If they want it bad enough, it'll happen regardless of any safeguards or military ops we put in place because humans are flawed - so I guess I'd rather strength us internally rather than send our boys and girls overseas. Our dollars go a lot farther here than they do over there. Not to mention putting our soldiers in harms way. If they want to bring the fight to us, then bring it, but otherwise they can keep their sandbox. But, I think it's about more than just terrorists - there's ulterior motives for being over there.

Dude, yes, you gave me a list, but the list isn't pertinent to our discussion on why we need troops overseas to fight terror. All those foiled plots were on our soil (or allies soil). I'm fully aware of your stance, I'm just asking for substance to back it up. The list you gave me wasn't applicable for the reason I stated. So, anything else?

FUD group

That is quite the interesting list. But what does it have to do with the war overseas?... that list looks, predominately, to be terrorists on our own soil. That's more of a list to argue the merits of the Patriot Act than Operation Enduring Freedom.

lulz...good game.

You need to post where you're reading this stuff, so I can read it too. There's some mention of the ANA in that report I posted... but it's not an apples to apples if you're comparing ALL troops to ground troops.

You'll see I edited my post to reflect the information in the report. Do you have evidence of these foiled attacks? Do you have evidence we would have continued to be attacked? Like I said, I have a mailbox that keeps out bears. It's foiled many a bear attacks, just from my experience with it - I just have no proof.

I just thought the argument was "Nothing's happened since 9/11" - so has nothing happened or are we getting attacked over and over?

Well, technically... they were both invaded about the same time (I suppose Afghanistan was technically first)... but when you put 15,000 troops in Afghanistan compared to 130,000 in Iraq... it's pretty clear where the focus was. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf http://www.nationalpriorities.org/2009/09/02/quick-facts-US-military-operations-Afghanistan <--- quick fact sheet, too bad I can't find the same one on Iraq, you gotta read the big report above for that info. Page 14 has a great table on Afghan vs. Iraq troop deployment.

I know IRAN's got weapons... I know Iraq's got weapons... well, we should know, we gave/sold them to them.

He's not an American citizen, but as it's been stated... if we treat him worse, then we're no better than "them". What kind of hypocritical message does that send? Turn the other cheek, right? Jesus says so. The best way to fight terrorism (as in, causing terror and fear) is to not let it cause terror and fear within a country. Yet, here we are over 8 years later, and still no Bin Laden, no end or resolution in sight, and arguing with each other about it on the internet. How productive.

So, does it make sense to invade Iraq before Afghanistan? Weapons of Mass destruction was the reasoning, right? Not terrorists... WMDs was the reason we were given...and even that wasn't true...

1) I still don't think you can compare Constitutional rights with a military bonus. You have the right to habeas corpus, you also have a right to a public defender if you can't afford one. You don't have a RIGHT to a military bonus. This is why one debt is unacceptable, one is debatable. I understand a trial will add debt, but that's the price you pay to have the Constitution, not a bonus check. 2) I understand we're not fighting Muslims, but once again... good luck fighting an ideology, this is why the War on Drugs has worked so well too. The simple fact that we do fight them, then torture them, and it's all leaked out just helps recruitment. That's how it works. 3) You said it yourself "Human error happens" - so until all humans are outside the process, it won't be error-free and thus we'll never be 100% safe... ever, no matter how much money we throw at the problem. 4) Like I said before, I've never ragged on or dogged our troops. They're following orders. Sorry you didn't read any of the previous threads where I've mentioned it, but it's always been about the 'mangement' - so it's NOT the first time I've mentioned it overall, but yes - the first time I've mentioned it in this thread. My bad for assuming it was implied. I have friends that have served and I wouldn't dog their service. Further - you keep mentioning Iraq. Iraq has little to do with terrorists... it was Afghanistan, so I don't see why you keep going to the 'Iraq tree' when it doesn't strengthen your argument.

I'd rather not give the people who're going to label people as 'liberals' to find a group full of them where they can go right on down the line, listing people they should ignore.

Let me break this down for you. Again... slowly, sentence by sentence. They don't deserve a bonus when it creates additional debt. Just like I don't deserve one when my company is losing money, and the Wall St. guys don't when they drive their companies into the ground. That's debatable... you can fight a war over land, you can fight a war over resources, but you can't fight a war (and WIN) over ideological values. This is why the Jews, Muslim, and Christians still exist. This is why drugs still exist. This is why terrorism still exists - Ft. Hood? Where did I say that? I haven't taken a stance on that issue... I'm still weighing both arguments, it depends on whether I believe he's entitled to the rights afforded by the US Constitution - I haven't decided that yet. Was Ft. Hood not a terrorist attack? So, something obviously went wrong there... especially in light that this guys motives were questioned long before this tragedy occurred. No, it's not. I've said I've had qualms with the management long ago - you must've missed those threads. And, yes, I realize Obama is 'in charge' now, but 1) he inherited this cluster, and 2) who said I agree with everything he does? I support Obama as a MUCH better candidate than anything the GOP offered (McCain/Palin - really? ), but that is not an endorsement that I believe 100% in everything Obama does.

What's the benefit of discussing something if it's in a group where everyone agrees w/ you? Anything I'd say there wouldn't stop me from saying it in the general ORDN populace - I expect that everyone wouldn't agree with me on my views.

Agreed... this may just be asking for trouble.