In either case, if you’re only commenting on people’s blogs for the link back, you’re doing it wrong. Comments should be made because you found the post interesting and want to join in the discussion.

I’ll watch Google Webmaster Tools, and if the links don’t show up after a couple of weeks — I won’t go back to that blog again.

Another suggestion: you should have a Top Commentator widget installed.

Do Follow and Top Commentator will ensure that you have a successful blog with lots of readers!

The War on terror is a sensitive subject for many, and I find the comments here quite interesting. I keep an open mind at all times when it comes to this subject, great comments and opinions on both sides of the house! (In Feb 2005, I retired from the military with just over 26 years of active duty service)

Yes Douglas, the U.S. has established military bases in just about about every corner of the world. As far as criminal jurisdiction goes, the SOFA is in place in all foreign countries occupied by U.S. forces. (Status of Forces Agreement).

This agreement simply states that U.S. courts have initial jurisdiction of crimes involving a service member, against another service member. There have however, occurred crimes against local nationals by service members. Each of these types of (major) crimes are looked at case by case by both the military and host nation to determine jurisdiction or legal authority. In almost all cases, the host nation has the final say so and the service member is tried under host nation laws. If the host nation refuses or waives prosecution, the service member is then tried under the U.C.M.J. (Uniform Code of Military Justice) Most end up being the latter.

Those of us who serve in the military must keep in mind that as we serve abroad, we also represent the united States as diplomats who must set an example. Unfortunately, there are a few bad apples even under the strict conditions of the military who fail to follow the rules.

The war on terror? Well, I guess you say that I’ve seen much of it first hand, from the Cold War in Europe, to “Operation Desert Storm”, to Operation “Enduring Freedom” to “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.

Whether it be our current world condition, or twenty years from now, there will always be those who try to influence their beliefs on others. We can only hope that perhaps someday they will realize that violence is not the answer.

Hope this helps..

Tony Lees last blog post..Ben Hogan Headcovers

And they will tell that this is true if you pay attention to many of them. They have stated in the media that their goal is global domination and the destruction of all those who do not worship their god. They have said this over and over again, and every time they do, another American says we should be nice to them.

The US has bases all over the world in the name of peace, not domination. We have bases in Germany, but is US law in force their? We have bases in Japan, but I can tell you that if a Marine breaks Japanese law, he goes to a Japanese prison. And if Japan or Germany tell us to leave, we will leave.

And if you get the head of a terrorist organization in a room, and he believes you and agrees with you, he will simply be replaced by another.

Douglas Ragans last blog post..The Undaunted Dozen

As for the second part of your comment, in essence you’re saying that there exists a small group of people unlike the rest of us who believe they need to kill us because we’re not like them and the only way to deal with these people, who are not like us, is to kill them. Well, isn’t that what you’re saying the terrorists are doing (killing people who are not like them). If we go out and kill this small group of people for not being like us, are we not doing exactly the same thing that we’re killing them for? That’s a pretty impressive piece of circular logic you’ve outlined there, are you by chance a lawyer? Anyway, we can make the claim that we’re only protecting ourselves (by killing them before they kill us), but they make the same justifications. We can sit here and say we’re only killing them because they’re killing us but terrorists make the same exact claim. To me, that highlights the absurdity of both sides. Perhaps I’m just too much of an optimist and should face reality that war is a part of the human condition but then again we wouldn’t have had this great discussion if that was the case.

As for dominating the world, the reality is terrorists are far from being a dominating force, if any party involved is dominating it’s the USA. We’re the ones with military bases all over the world. I hope I don’t come across as defending terrorists/terrorism, because I’m not. I simply don’t believe that either side is clearly right or justified. Both sides are responsible for innocent deaths, deaths that could have been avoided. Perhaps I’m being a bit too abstract in my thinking, but the logic that these people are bad because they kill, so we must kill them doesn’t make sense to me. If you’re saying it’s a kill or be killed world, well that might be true but does that make it right to kill? Or do we live in a world where necessity dictates what is morally right?

Tell them that, see how it works.

Here is the reality, at least from the perspective of the actual world. There have always and will always be horrible people in the world who believe for one reason or another that they need to kill anyone not like them. There will always be people who believe they need to dominate the world.

The only way to deal with these people is to kill them.

Douglas Ragans last blog post..The Undaunted Dozen

The main point of this post was to note that both sides should stop being terrified of each other (which also requires both sides to stop attacking each other) and to move forward to a better day for all of us.

2) I may be wrong here but I do not believe that all the people in Guantanamo are there because they shot at soldiers or Marines. Many of them are there without being charged with any crime, without having had a trial. Even if they are guilt of some crime it is simply wrong and completely against American ideals to jail them indefinitely without charging them and without giving them a fair trail.

3) The United States is/was under heavy surveillance Douglas. Part of this is us accepting this surveillance (GPS, facebook etc.), and part of it is covert government surveillance. To say that the NSA only placed terrorists under surveillance is giving the NSA and our technology too much credit. The nature of watching communication lines for terrorist activities means we are all under watch to some extent, especially when terrorism is so loosely defined.

4) The federal government spends money on everything, not just defense. Take a look at the budget. Besides, the point still applies, if the federal government did not spend so much money on “defense” (I don’t consider it defense when we’re attacking people on foreign soil, to me that’s a clear case of offense, whether justified or not) there would be more money left over for education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

5) By caving on civil rights issue such as surveillance and Guantanamo we are giving in to terror.

6) Perhaps Douglas, but the 9/11 attacks only required a small group of people. Are you saying that the terrorists don’t have 20-30 people to send over here for another attack attempt? There’s been less attacks because they would have less impact after 9/11. If we’re already in a terrified state, the terrorist really has nothing to gain by attacking, however once we’re lulled back into feeling safe we also become vulnerable to more attacks. In either case, I hope that these attacks and our responsive wars become a historic note and do not occur going forward.

Something that happens during war, if we had not been attacked, there would have been no war.

“jailing people indefinitely with no rights and no alleged crimes”

You shoot at soldiers and Marines, you go to jail.

“putting an entire country under surveillance”

You should have a conversation with whoever did that and please let me know what country this is so I never move there.

“spending immense amounts of money on wars overseas while bridges crumble at home (and so on)”

The Federal government spends money on defense, state governments build bridges.

“My point is we can’t give in to the terror, that is essentially what terrorists want, for us to be terrified and stay home in our underground bunkers.”

We haven’t done this, we have tracked them down and killed them.

“If a terrorists only goal is to kill, then relatively speaking they have failed. Don’t get me wrong here, the thousands of deaths caused by terrorists is tragic, but when looked at relative to all other causes of death terrorism is very, very low on the causes of death list.”

Because we have killed so many of them and prevented them from attacking us again.

Douglas Ragans last blog post..The Undaunted Dozen

If a terrorists only goal is to kill, then relatively speaking they have failed. Don’t get me wrong here, the thousands of deaths caused by terrorists is tragic, but when looked at relative to all other causes of death terrorism is very, very low on the causes of death list. Personally, I believe a terrorists’ goal is to instill fear, while a murderer’s goal is to kill. In that sense they are an even more dangerous enemy, as fear is relatively easy to achieve compared to massive amounts of death.