American soldiers aren't "defending their country"

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

So this is could piss off a lot of people, but I've thought this for ages now and figured I might take a shot at sharing it.

They say that when American soldiers go to Iraq they do it to "defend their country". Now considering they don't have, y'know, an army, forces like Al Qaeda and the Taliban can't exactly launch an assault on the US. Now call me crazy, but the only thing soldiers seem to be defending are the swelling bank accounts of the people who make money from conflict, like weapons manufacturers and the like, then in turn the politicians who are in their pocket.

You can say you're defending you're country or protecting your loved ones all you want, that doesn't mean it's what you're doing. The only that happened since the US invaded the middle-east is a shit ton of death. It hasn't "prevented terrorism" at all. War is just the thing that the US is best at and all they're doing is what they know best, killing foreigners, and the soldiers are just as involved as those who are supporting the war.

So in short, I'm disgusted by warmongering politicians and just as disgusted by the military that does what it says as well as the individual soldiers who sign up for it.

So what are your thoughts? Am I right? Am I wrong? Am I a terrorist? Or am I just some brat who isn't a "real man" just because he hasn't been in the army?

You know, you don't need a full on military invasion to have your country be attacked.

September 11th was that attack, our invasion of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan was the response. Those soldiers are risking their lives to defend their country. They're working towards the dismantling of groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban so we never have to face such a tragedy as the one that occurred on September 11th.

I can understand hating the war, and hating the politicians that caused the war; but once you start insulting the soldiers you crossed the line in my book. They're brave men and women who risk life and limb doing things that you better pray you never will have to do yourself. They deserve, at the very least, to be treated respectfully.

Remember these?


What happened to them?

Oh this guy:

Who organised a guerilla army from here:

To perform terrorist attacks on the Western 'Christian' nations like this one:

So what did they do about it do defend themselves?

Those pink boxers are fighting for your freedom. Salute the boxers sir! I SAID SALUTE THEM!

EDIT: OH, this is about Iraq, well damned if I know, Sadam was deposed, which was good, but then they'd no real plan for how to stabilise the country after that, and it'd take divine intervention to get the religious extremists' in the civil war to announce peace, so... yeah.
At least they're not in Israel/Palestine at the moment,

How many major attacks have Al Qaeda carried out on US soil since 2001? Wouldn't 11 years of quiet on the home front be pretty indicative of a successful policy of prevention?

Allied troops bleed and die in the sands of the Middle East every day, waging a decade long war of horrific attrition to exhaust the resources and capabilities of fanatics whose dearest wish is the utter destruction of you and every facet of the culture you hold dear, and yet you are disgusted. Men and women return home from years of overseas service maimed and disfigured, their psyches shattered by a war that drags on and on and on, and you sneer at their sacrifices and ignore their pain.

I'm not going to say you are less of an American for not serving in the armed forces, but I would recommend you volunteer a day at a VA hospital and see the actual people you look down on before passing judgement.

Hero in a half shell:
Remember these?


What happened to them?

Oh this guy:

Who organised a guerilla army from here:

To perform terrorist attacks on the Western 'Christian' nations like this one:

So what did they do about it do defend themselves?

Those boxers are fighting for your freedom. Salute the boxers sir! I SAID SALUTE THEM!

That's some nice logic there. Bin Ladin sent a small sect of the Afghan population to attack the U.S., so the logical solution is to invade the whole country? No. I'm not saying you're totally wrong, but please set out some better logic.

I've honestly never seen such a poor argument for a stance so easy to argue. So, uh, congratulations, I guess. I guess it's good to be reminded that there are morons on all sides of the spectrum.

"Al-Qaeda can't attack the US?" Making that argument in 2012 is about as stupid as someone arguing that "the Nazis will be satisfied with Austria and the Czech Republic." In 1940.

Move to R&P, please.

Taking the fight to the enemy keeps them out of your own shit. Thereby keeping things like 9/11 from repeating. Country defended. End of story.

They say that when American soldiers go to Iraq they do it to "defend their country". Now considering they don't have, y'know, an army, forces like Al Qaeda and the Taliban can't exactly launch an assault on the US. Now call me crazy, but the only thing soldiers seem to be defending are the swelling bank accounts of the people who make money from conflict, like weapons manufacturers and the like, then in turn the politicians who are in their pocket.

Iraq did have an army. Also do be careful of confusing Afghanistan with Iraq.

Also you seem to be ignoring the fact that there was the suspicion that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction and would be willing to use them. Turned out to eb wrong but that was certainly part of the motivation (along with other things like oil)

Also terrorist groups dodn't launch assualts like invasions, they commit terrorist attacks like 9/11 or 7/7 (in the UK). So the idea of "protecting your country" is to deny these organisations the ability to do so by crippling their home bases.

You can say you're defending you're country or protecting your loved ones all you want, that doesn't mean it's what you're doing. The only that happened since the US invaded the middle-east is a shit ton of death. It hasn't "prevented terrorism" at all. War is just the thing that the US is best at and all they're doing is what they know best, killing foreigners, and the soldiers are just as involved as those who are supporting the war.

Except you are. You are trying to avoid the possibility of events like 9/11 happening again.

And seeing as it hasn't the US seems to have been succesful.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means"-Carl von Clausewitz. Goign to war just to kill people is stupid and not something that any sane state does. As it is a pointless waste of resources for no real purposes. US actions in the Middle East can be criticised, but simple pretending that they do so because they are Saturday Morning Villians who like killing Brown People is laughable.

So in short, I'm disgusted by warmongering politicians and just as disgusted by the military that does what it says as well as the individual soldiers who sign up for it.

That's a point of view, your post makes it seem uninformed but whatever.

So what are your thoughts? Am I right? Am I wrong? Am I a terrorist? Or am I just some brat who isn't a "real man" just because he hasn't been in the army?

You like pre-emptive attacks to discredit those who disagree with you.

That's some nice logic there. Bin Ladin sent a small sect of the Afghan population to attack the U.S., so the logical solution is to invade the whole country? No. I'm not saying you're totally wrong, but please set out some better logic.

It is incredibly hard to deal with Terrorist groups. By definition they avoid being visibly open and try to blend in with the people.

So it is hard to target them without having a footprint in the country to reduce domestic support.

CpT_x_Killsteal:
Or am I just some brat who isn't a "real man" just because he hasn't been in the army?

Did you get into an argument with a soldier about this and he shut you down or what? Cause that's the vibe I'm getting from this sentence.

Anywho OT: USA was attacked. You don't need a full scale invasion or an army. They took down our twin towers so we retaliated. Iraq was a mistake I'd wager but Afghanistan was a war on the terrorist organizations that want to do us harm.

And not to be that guy but you being from Australia, I feel you're probably biased in some way. If you're not cool but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that we were attacked. War is stupid but I don't see it going away anytime soon.

sir I kindley respect your opinion, but please do not veiw the solideirs as the bad ones invading a wrong country. They are risking their very lives while the so called "leaders" sit back and watch. So if you disagree with the military's actions please take it on with the politicians, not the solidiers.

So in short, I'm disgusted by warmongering politicians and just as disgusted by the military that does what it says as well as the individual soldiers who sign up for it.

As opposed to a military that doesn't listen to the politicians, thus setting the government up for an overthrow by said military? Civilian control of the military is kind of important. As for those individual soldiers, I can say that almost none of them - or rather, us - signed up to 'kill the other guy'. We signed up either out of a sense of duty to protect our nation, or to take advantage of the benefits joining the military offers. I'd appreciate it if you didn't label everyone who joins the military as blood-hungry psychopaths, thanks.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

So in short, I'm disgusted by warmongering politicians and just as disgusted by the military that does what it says as well as the individual soldiers who sign up for it.

So what are your thoughts? Am I right? Am I wrong? Am I a terrorist? Or am I just some brat who isn't a "real man" just because he hasn't been in the army?

Here is a somewhat hard truth: You live in a democracy!
A democratic system is not a perfect way of governing by any stretch of the imagination, but I do believe it is the best one we have come up with so far. Being part of a democracy means that you have to go along with what the majority decide even when you, as an individual, do not agree.

Soldiers in any democratic country, when deployed, fight a fight that the majority of their country's population (through the use of elected representatives) have decided is necessary. They have to trust that at the end of the day they are fighting for what we as a society have decided to be the right course of action.
Most soldiers do not sign up to kill people! They sign up because they want to do service to their country (though as I understand it, the US army also serves as a social institution giving access to jobs and education for a lot of "poor" Americans. Which only makes it harder to condemn any one for signing up). Sometimes this service ends up being for the betterment of the world (WW2, Baltic war intervention), other times the war turns out to be a pointless slaughter (Vietnam). But it is wars we as a society decide to participate in.

So you do not like the war? Do something about it! Educate yourself about the democratic system and help change it. Work at getting anti-war politicians elected. Find out how to and then start lobbying for legislative changes. Is it hard? Yes. Borderline impossible I would say but it is a thousand times better than throwing up your arms in disgust declaring that everybody else should just stop being so warlike.

Of course to be perfectly honest I think you already know all of these things and just needed to blow of some steam. Being faced with the greed, indifference, cruelty and stupidity of the world makes most sane people just want to throw up their hands in surrender and hope somebody else will fix it, but as they say; For evil to prevail all it takes is for good people to do nothing.

Full disclosure: I have a little brother who is a solider and who has served in Afghanistan and I am one of those guys who hope some one else will fix the world for me.

Please put this in Religion and Politics.

Also, I forgot it was even happening, but I do remember attacking a country over what a small terrorist group did was how WW1 started... Luckily that doesn't seem to be how this is going to go down, just pointing that out.

I kinda doubt it. Yes, there are threats out there, but I don't think treating everyone as a suspected bomber, invading the Middle East, putting despots in power, and stealing all the oil is gonna really protect their country. Besides, if America was gonna attack every country that dsliked them, well, good luck on that whole world domination thing. I hope the individul soldiers come out of it allright, but to the adminisration that made them do all that, there is no middle finger big enough.

Welcome to the political debate the US has been having for a decade. No, your ideas aren't unique or original thousands if not millions share them and have stated them throughout this conflict. Go discuss them in the politics forum if so inclined.

The people (and more importantly, congress) were fooled into thinking Iraq had more potent weapons than they had by some very bad people, yes. As a result, people like me were ordered to go there and dispose of the Iraqi government, which we did.
...and then somehow people and congress got convinced we should just stay there and rebuild.

And here comes my troll: what.the.fuck. America, we should have ended that war in 2003. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us for over a decade, we're fuckin' stupid.

Afghanistan on the other hand, was pretty much what it was billed to be. It just took a competent commander-in-chief (and the transformation of the CIA into a branch of the military sans accountability) to end it.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

snip

Moved this to Religion and Politics, please be more aware of your thread topics and their proper location in the future.

As for a response, I would say neither are you 100% correct nor 100% wrong. The real world is sadly not as cut and dry as you are presenting it. Limiting your scope of thinking to say that every war is merely fought for war profiting and warmongering or that somehow the US's only export is war is just as damning to conversation as being on the reverse.

What a sad OP. I wonder what you expected us to do after 9/11? Shrug our shoulders? Have you not seen the Middle-East recently? The place is a damn tinderbox and chock full of people who want to hurt us.

Now, I will gladly concede that the initial strategies for the 'War on Terror' were not well thought out; but the purpose of our deployment there is still to fight the enemy in his own backyard so we don't have to fight him in ours.

It's almost 2013. And this world is still plagued by crackpot dictators, and parents who would gladly throw acid on their own daughters for just talking to a boy. People who are obsessed with vengeance for ancient slights and view murder as the will of God. Now Bush's answer to them WAS NOT the correct one; but going home and leaving them be isn't either.

senordesol:
What a sad OP. I wonder what you expected us to do after 9/11? Shrug our shoulders?

So...the only two options were shrugging your shoulders or invading a more or less randomly picked Middle Eastern country?

Now that's some absence of capacity for lateral thinking right there.

senordesol:
Have you not seen the Middle-East recently? The place is a damn tinderbox and chock full of people who want to hurt us.

...and as we all know about tinderboxes, the proverbial solution to them is the introduction of a match?

senordesol:
Now, I will gladly concede that the initial strategies for the 'War on Terror' were not well thought out; but the purpose of our deployment there is still to fight the enemy in his own backyard so we don't have to fight him in ours.

Then you should've invaded Saudi Arabia, because that's where the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center were from. But you couldn't do that, could you, because they are your allies.

It all stinks of politician's logic. "We must do something. This is something, therefore we must do it!"

How about considering that invading a sovereign nation to basically beat Islam out of them just might not be a foolproof plan?

senordesol:
It's almost 2013. And this world is still plagued by crackpot dictators, and parents who would gladly throw acid on their own daughters for just talking to a boy. People who are obsessed with vengeance for ancient slights and view murder as the will of God. Now Bush's answer to them WAS NOT the correct one; but going home and leaving them be isn't either.

Again with the notion that either we do nothing or we invade something, can't you think of a single other alternative?

"So, this man has robbed someone? Either we have to kill him or set him free, there are no other options!"

I fully agree that the soldiers who went into Iraq weren't defending this country, Iraq got put in their place in the 90s. The ones who went to Afghanistan, well that's questionable, I thought defeating terrorists was more of a behind the scenes type thing, CIA gathering intel and picking off important people type of thing, not one of those types that involves a tank rush to the capitol.

Even I, a pacifist, have profound respect for veterans.

Now, I have some stern words for the generals and commanders in charge, but the foot soldiers, field medics, clerks, nurses etc...nothing but respect, and more importantly, sympathy. Now, for the record, they ARE defending the country as well as other countries. Some would argue it's safer to have troops stationed in or around danger zones rather than waiting for an attack to get to our shores, and I concur, though we don't need nearly the amount of military spending we've had for the last few years. I'm glad O's getting them back home.

Hate war, not the warrior, in other words. I respect and appreciate them, though not in a blindly patriotic way. I'll always be willing to call the military out on it's bullshit, as should any citizen. Same for the government, but our allies and us have not been attacked since 9/11, and the military and FBI have stopped several attempts over the years. And the increase of women's education and reducing the influence of the Taliban has been helping the area quite a bit, though slowly.

And in either case, for the foot soldiers, the last thing a traumatized, disabled veteran needs is being called a monster when they come back home.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

They say that when American soldiers go to Iraq they do it to "defend their country". Now considering they don't have, y'know, an army,

Just because they fight with irregular guerrillas or paid mercenaries does not mean they don't have an army.

forces like Al Qaeda and the Taliban can't exactly launch an assault on the US.

USS Cole, Beirut Barracks, WTC(both times), etc.

You can say you're defending you're country or protecting your loved ones all you want, that doesn't mean it's what you're doing.

I agree. Personally, I was protecting my translator friend and other Iraqis.

So what are your thoughts? Am I right? Am I wrong? Am I a terrorist? Or am I just some brat who isn't a "real man" just because he hasn't been in the army?

No, you're a human being with an opinion that isn't really very controversial.

Pernese:
How many major attacks have Al Qaeda carried out on US soil since 2001? Wouldn't 11 years of quiet on the home front be pretty indicative of a successful policy of prevention?

That's not a given. You'd have to show that the reason for not having more (successful) terrorist attacks is because of the invasion and not something else, like homeland security.

Allied troops bleed and die in the sands of the Middle East every day, waging a decade long war of horrific attrition to exhaust the resources and capabilities of fanatics whose dearest wish is the utter destruction of you and every facet of the culture you hold dear...

Most of the "fanatics" are actually desperately poor men hired as mercenaries so they can support their families. Even the honest fanatics ultimately don't care about our culture, but more about the influence we have on the region. All of the religious overtones just mask far more traditional political reasons for fighting.

Yabba:
sir I kindley respect your opinion, but please do not veiw the solideirs as the bad ones invading a wrong country. They are risking their very lives while the so called "leaders" sit back and watch. So if you disagree with the military's actions please take it on with the politicians, not the solidiers.

Why not the soldiers too? Any soldier currently in the military at this time has been quite aware of the political situation when they joined up and/or decided to stay in. They knew full well what they were getting into, so why don't they share in the responsibility?

loc978:

And here comes my troll: what.the.fuck. America, we should have ended that war in 2003. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us for over a decade, we're fuckin' stupid.

We followed the "You break it, you buy it" policy. It would have been incredibly easy to just go in, crush everything, then leave. Rebuilding? That's a whole other story.

Elcarsh:

Again with the notion that either we do nothing or we invade something, can't you think of a single other alternative?

"So, this man has robbed someone? Either we have to kill him or set him free, there are no other options!"

I thought he made it abundantly clear that our chosen course of action was wrong, but so was doing nothing, thus implying there were other courses of action that could have been taken. Edit: If he's guilty of anything, it's in strawmaning the OP into the argument that we should have done nothing.

They're not defending American territory per-se, but they are certainly fighting for American interests abroad. (Or at least what American politicians think those interests are) Again, those US soldiers are not protecting the freedom of American citizens per-se, but by clearing the world of threats to the US is making it safer (and better) for American citizens.

I would say that yes, the people in the middle east ARE defending their western countries. The problem is that the organization behind it SUCKS at doing their jobs. Still not done 'defending' your country after 11 years of war in the country that attacked you? You're doing something wrong there...

Pernese:
How many major attacks have Al Qaeda carried out on US soil since 2001? Wouldn't 11 years of quiet on the home front be pretty indicative of a successful policy of prevention?

A tiger escapes from a zoo and attacks and man in the street. The man is unharmed, but shaken up, so he seeks out a way to keep this from happening in the future. In the end, he buys some magic, tiger-repelling beans from a wizard out of the back of his van. He hasn't been attacked by a tiger since.

In other news, after terrorist attacks killed a handful of people, the US decided to start invading countries in the Middle East at random. There hasn't been a major terrorist attack since.

Pernese:
Allied troops bleed and die in the sands of the Middle East every day, waging a decade long war of horrific attrition to exhaust the resources and capabilities of fanatics whose dearest wish is the utter destruction of you and every facet of the culture you hold dear, and yet you are disgusted. Men and women return home from years of overseas service maimed and disfigured, their psyches shattered by a war that drags on and on and on, and you sneer at their sacrifices and ignore their pain.

Yes! You finally get it! We're disgusted because people are needlessly bleeding and dying far away from home trying to kill relatively harmless religious extremists, so that the people selling the guns have an excuse to sell more guns.

PS: Calling it "the sands of the Middle East" is like saying "the fat, intolerant people of the US". Just because that's what represents it to the world doesn't mean it's all like that.

Pernese:
I'm not going to say you are less of an American for not serving in the armed forces, but I would recommend you volunteer a day at a VA hospital and see the actual people you look down on before passing judgement.

It'd be kind of difficult for those of us who live in other countries to be less American, but we'll keep trying anyways.
That said, the fact that these people are so hurt by this war is actually a reason to stop, not keep going. Frankly, I've always been a little confused as to how you lot came to that conclusion.

CpT_x_Killsteal:
So this is could piss off a lot of people, but I've thought this for ages now and figured I might take a shot at sharing it.

They say that when American soldiers go to Iraq they do it to "defend their country". Now considering they don't have, y'know, an army, forces like Al Qaeda and the Taliban can't exactly launch an assault on the US. Now call me crazy, but the only thing soldiers seem to be defending are the swelling bank accounts of the people who make money from conflict, like weapons manufacturers and the like, then in turn the politicians who are in their pocket.

You can say you're defending you're country or protecting your loved ones all you want, that doesn't mean it's what you're doing. The only that happened since the US invaded the middle-east is a shit ton of death. It hasn't "prevented terrorism" at all. War is just the thing that the US is best at and all they're doing is what they know best, killing foreigners, and the soldiers are just as involved as those who are supporting the war.

So in short, I'm disgusted by warmongering politicians and just as disgusted by the military that does what it says as well as the individual soldiers who sign up for it.

So what are your thoughts? Am I right? Am I wrong? Am I a terrorist? Or am I just some brat who isn't a "real man" just because he hasn't been in the army?

I love the idea that ill-informed civvies trot out that the war on terror hasn't prevented terrorist acts. Al qaeda is a tiny shadow of what it once was, JI is pretty much dead, a host of smaller cells and groups have ceased to exist and their largest training grounds are gone. If you apply the worldwide notion of 'Take/Hold/Build' as a counter terrorist/ counter insurgency option, then we have just about finished the take phase, are holding what we have and can soon, once the world wide economy gets back on its feet, move into the build phase, where the US and its allies can start pouring money into those areas that tend to breed terrorists to give them more opportunities in life.
That has been the strategy in the war on terror for at least the past five years, maybe longer, its just that people who have bought into the mentality that 'there is no strategy' don't like to look for evidence to the contrary.
So yes, terrorism has very much been prevented.

Second up, these groups can attack, they just do it unconventionally. 9/11 was an attack, as was the London bombings, the Bali bombings, the Madrid bombings etc etc. So while you won't see a green flag flying over Canberra and Washington any time soon, these are attacks that require defending against, so how are we to do that, well we have several options,
1- Do nothing and hope that it all works out -will not work for obvious reasons
2- Just move straight to the 'build phase' of take/hold/build -won't work as terrorist elements know that a happy populace is harder to recruit, so they strike out against such efforts and claim that a girl going to school, for example, is against allah.
3- Only defend in our homelands - Requires that a lot of the measures that have been semi/successful overseas be implemented here, biometric coding of fighting age suspects, soldiers on the streets to respond to armed threats, much looser ROE for police, all of this because instead of facing dirt farmers being paid 200$ to fire a mag of rounds at our guys before going back to their farms, we will be facing Jihadis who have had the time to be properly trained and equipped and sooner or later, they will get through.
4- Take hold build in terrorist source regions, the best of a bad bunch I'm afraid.

Or, maybe you have a master plan to solve this problem, but seeing as you don't seem to understand what an 'attack' is and that you think the US invaded the 'middle east' just to 'kill foreigners' I'm going to take a stab and say you don't understand the mindset of people in the military, you don't understand the mindset of our enemies, you don't understand the strategy that we are using, you don't understand the mindset of someone in Kabul, someone in the Chora valley, someone in Baghdad, someone in Syria or that there is even a difference between all of them and you don't understand what day to day life is for them and what day to day operations are for our guys.

So no, I don't think you are a terrorist, they wouldn't want you, you are too comfy and complacent. I don't think you are a brat, a little ill-informed and immature maybe, but not a brat. I don't think you need to be in the army to be a real man, back in the day I was a firey, a labourer, a kitchen hand, and an environmental apprentice and all of the people I work with there were 'real men' and a lot of the women in the defence force are 'real women' (who, by the way you completely neglected to mention in your post). I also think you should get to know some more soldiers before feeling disgusted with them, because you seem to have it in your head that anyone who wears a uniform is a jackbooting knuckledragger, when in reality, that is not the case.

So, in short, I think you watch 20 seconds of news while you eat dinner, read the occasional Op-ed, speak a lot with like minded people and then think you understand what is probably the single most complicated issue on geopolitics today.

Oh lord here we go!

Alright first off you need to be aware of something. An army is not required to strike a country, only a few men with adequate motivation and supplies. That is basically what al-qaeda is. Now we could either send forces to Afghanistan to fight them in the streets of Kabul, or we could wait for another attack on the streets of New York and Washington DC. Like it or not Afghanistan was a necessary conflict. It was a training ground and safe haven for an enemy organization and it had to be eliminated. In terms of lives the War in Afghanistan has been a resounding success. We have lost less soldiers in ten years of war then civilians in the 9/11 attacks. We have also turned what was once thriving terrorist organizations into shadows of their former selves. Afghanistan was necessary, and it has been successful so far. We obviously are not at risk of losing territory. However lives and interests hang in the balance.

However, I will not defend Iraq. That was a boondogle and we shouldn't have done it.

American soldiers are defending their country, but only for a set level of defending their country. Pretty much anything can be termed defending your country if you're willing to stretch the terms far enough. I pay my taxes which pays for national security! I'm defending my country!

The point being made is that American Soldiers aren't an effective defence. If they hadn't invaded various Middle eastern countries, the USA would be just as safe as it is today. Probably safer, as I'd consider the deaths of thousands of young men and women to be the kind of damage that should be avoided but which the USA has had to put up with for decades as their soldiers are slowly killed.

The problem is that Al Qaeda and affiliated organisations as well as those with a similar ideology aren't conventional army, it's a terror network spread across a dozen countries. It's funded by diverse sources, large parts of which come from supposed Western allies like Saudi Arabia. It's not even an essential component to protecting the USA, as an Afghan farmer with a Ak-47 can shoot at Western troops regardless of whether he's formally joined Al Qaeda or not.

Witty Name Here:
You know, you don't need a full on military invasion to have your country be attacked.

September 11th was that attack, our invasion of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan was the response. Those soldiers are risking their lives to defend their country. They're working towards the dismantling of groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban so we never have to face such a tragedy as the one that occurred on September 11th.

I can understand hating the war, and hating the politicians that caused the war; but once you start insulting the soldiers you crossed the line in my book. They're brave men and women who risk life and limb doing things that you better pray you never will have to do yourself. They deserve, at the very least, to be treated respectfully.

Ok maybe the part about being disgusted by the soldiers was a little too much. But isn't everyone who signs up for the military supporting the people the politicians? Or atleast buying into the bullshit about "defending the country"? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 yet they were the first ones invaded. For what? Oil?

CpT_x_Killsteal:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 yet they were the first ones invaded.

2003 (Iraq) is now before 2001 (Afghanistan)?

Yabba:
sir I kindley respect your opinion, but please do not veiw the solideirs as the bad ones invading a wrong country. They are risking their very lives while the so called "leaders" sit back and watch. So if you disagree with the military's actions please take it on with the politicians, not the solidiers.

But if soldiers disagreed with where the politicians were sending them, then why not quit after your term was over? why sign up again if you disagreed with invading the wrong country?

Pernese:
How many major attacks have Al Qaeda carried out on US soil since 2001? Wouldn't 11 years of quiet on the home front be pretty indicative of a successful policy of prevention?

And how many major attacks did Al Qaeda carry out on US soil before 2001? There is no evidence to suggest that 9/11 would have not been an isolated event had the USA not invaded Afghanistan. On the contrary, several other western countries have been attacked by Al Qaeda since then.

senordesol:
What a sad OP. I wonder what you expected us to do after 9/11? Shrug our shoulders? Have you not seen the Middle-East recently? The place is a damn tinderbox and chock full of people who want to hurt us.

That's more than a little bit racist.

the clockmaker:

I love the idea that ill-informed civvies trot out that the war on terror hasn't prevented terrorist acts.

Calling people "civvies" does not help your argument. In fact, it makes you sound rather arrogant.

The Plunk:

Pernese:
How many major attacks have Al Qaeda carried out on US soil since 2001? Wouldn't 11 years of quiet on the home front be pretty indicative of a successful policy of prevention?

And how many major attacks did Al Qaeda carry out on US soil before 2001? There is no evidence to suggest that 9/11 would have not been an isolated event had the USA not invaded Afghanistan. On the contrary, several other western countries have been attacked by Al Qaeda since then.

senordesol:
What a sad OP. I wonder what you expected us to do after 9/11? Shrug our shoulders? Have you not seen the Middle-East recently? The place is a damn tinderbox and chock full of people who want to hurt us.

That's more than a little bit racist.

the clockmaker:

I love the idea that ill-informed civvies trot out that the war on terror hasn't prevented terrorist acts.

Calling people "civvies" does not help your argument. In fact, it makes you sound rather arrogant.

Civvies is not a derogatory term, it is simply the shortened form of the word.
Australians, Aussies
Civilians, Civvies
And note that I qualified it with 'ill informed' most well informed civvies don't think that.
ANd thanks for ignoring essentially all of my post.

Edit: and as to why it wouldn't have been an isolated incident? Their capabilities, ideology, support base and leadership hadn't changed, the only things that had changed were that
A- They experienced a big upswell of support from the 'soft jihadi' crowd (the sorts that burn flags and talk but don't really do much) causing a lot of them to switch to being 'hard jihadis'
B- They dealt a heavy blow to their enemy, increasing their morale and wilingness to fight
C- They came to the greater attention of other Anti-west groups, leading to greater cohesion (eg JI/AQ cross training, sharing of resources, things like that) and
D- They had proof of concept for their methodology, (small groups attacking high population centers using existing infrastructure as a method of funneling and controlling the crowds.

So the situation, in every way, points to an organisation that has the motive and capabilty to continue strikes. That is why I very much doubt that 9/11 was isolated.

In addition, there has been a pattern of Jihadist attacks against the US and her interests for decades, it is just that 9/11 was the highest profile/ most succsessful.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked