American soldiers aren't "defending their country"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

newfoundsky:

Dijkstra:

newfoundsky:
It is unfortunate that hundreds of thousands of people died when they did not need to. But the INTENT is what is important. Those deaths were not intentional.

Haha no, intention is not what is important. It's like shooting into a crowd with a machine gun to kill one criminal. You're still guilty even if all you intended to do was hit the criminal.

Depends on whether or not you got em.

What the fuck?!

I don't.... I don't even... How... What?

This is mind boggling. Do you actually believe this?

Meaning of Karma:

newfoundsky:

Dijkstra:

Haha no, intention is not what is important. It's like shooting into a crowd with a machine gun to kill one criminal. You're still guilty even if all you intended to do was hit the criminal.

Depends on whether or not you got em.

What the fuck?!

I don't.... I don't even... How... What?

This is mind boggling. Do you actually believe this?

Hell no. But I figure as long as long as Dij can get away with idiotic analogies that have nothing to do with the topic, I can have a bit of fun. There is a difference between a criminal, who is trying to evade police, and the enemy in question, the terrorist, who is trying to murder soldiers, citizens, and probably puppies too, in a war zone. One is using the crowd to ESCAPE, and the other is using the crowd to hide and attack, in a way that the crowd its self is in danger.

newfoundsky:

GunsmithKitten:

newfoundsky:

The intentions are what matters. If having one dictatorship supports democracy for the majority, I'm all for it. Would I say the same living a dictatorship? Probably not, but thanks to several dictators, I won't have to find out.

So you're nto opposed to the idea of murderous, dictatoral thugs being in power, right?

If ten percent of the population has to live under a dictatorship, so that one day we can all have a democracy, I'm for it.

It's an obvious moral contradiction, but it works. Allow me to explain, or at least show you some of what I mean.

The majority of people in many countries wanted a communist nation. These nations always turn into dictatorships. However, some dictatorships, noticing that it was probably better to cozy up to the West, did so. They provided materials and markets for Western economies, and in doing so, helped end seven decades of oppression for many more people than they themselves were oppressing. When those regimes no longer are worth supporting, they either collapse or are taken out, which leads, IN SOME CASES, to democracy.

Is this probably the best way to do things? No. But it certainly is A WAY. And it's proven to work.

So you're in favor of democracy for YOU. Everyone else can roll the dice.

People like you make me sick with rage.

GunsmithKitten:

newfoundsky:

GunsmithKitten:

So you're nto opposed to the idea of murderous, dictatoral thugs being in power, right?

If ten percent of the population has to live under a dictatorship, so that one day we can all have a democracy, I'm for it.

It's an obvious moral contradiction, but it works. Allow me to explain, or at least show you some of what I mean.

The majority of people in many countries wanted a communist nation. These nations always turn into dictatorships. However, some dictatorships, noticing that it was probably better to cozy up to the West, did so. They provided materials and markets for Western economies, and in doing so, helped end seven decades of oppression for many more people than they themselves were oppressing. When those regimes no longer are worth supporting, they either collapse or are taken out, which leads, IN SOME CASES, to democracy.

Is this probably the best way to do things? No. But it certainly is A WAY. And it's proven to work.

So you're in favor of democracy for YOU. Everyone else can roll the dice.

People like you make me sick with rage.

No, and I can't fathom why you would think that.

newfoundsky:

GunsmithKitten:

newfoundsky:

If ten percent of the population has to live under a dictatorship, so that one day we can all have a democracy, I'm for it.

It's an obvious moral contradiction, but it works. Allow me to explain, or at least show you some of what I mean.

The majority of people in many countries wanted a communist nation. These nations always turn into dictatorships. However, some dictatorships, noticing that it was probably better to cozy up to the West, did so. They provided materials and markets for Western economies, and in doing so, helped end seven decades of oppression for many more people than they themselves were oppressing. When those regimes no longer are worth supporting, they either collapse or are taken out, which leads, IN SOME CASES, to democracy.

Is this probably the best way to do things? No. But it certainly is A WAY. And it's proven to work.

So you're in favor of democracy for YOU. Everyone else can roll the dice.

People like you make me sick with rage.

No, and I can't fathom why you would think that.

I'm done with you. I talk to you anymore, and I'll hurt something within arm's reach. Goodbye, and never darken my towels again.

GunsmithKitten:

newfoundsky:

GunsmithKitten:

So you're in favor of democracy for YOU. Everyone else can roll the dice.

People like you make me sick with rage.

No, and I can't fathom why you would think that.

I'm done with you. I talk to you anymore, and I'll hurt something within arm's reach. Goodbye, and never darken my towels again.

That's within your right, I suppose. I would at least like to direct your attention back a page, and I ask you to read a conversation between myself and another member. . .

Vegosiux:

newfoundsky:

I agree with you. Unfortunately, its the best way we have at the moment. Unless you have a better idea? (Serious question, not trying to be a bastard here. Just because I support something doesn't mean I like it, and don't want to change it.)

A "better" idea, I can't really say because I don't know if it'd work out better or not, but I think the problem here is that this is actually still the mess left from the Cold War. The opposing powers meddled, and the meddling is starting to blow up in everyone's faces. I don't think I could think of a "good" way to clean up something at that scale.

So, no, I'm not sure I have a "better" way. But I am sure that this way needs a nice, tall glass of honesty. To drop the pretenses, to put it in the nutshell and say what everyone knows: "We're not doing this for the sake of those people over there, we're doing it because it benefits us." And by "we" I don't actually mean soldiers, I mean the ones who got them sent there.

I feel like I should have communicated my DISDAIN for the way things are. I just feel that the way things are is the best way we could get them. I invite you to give alternatives, however.

newfoundsky:
And you don't understand that mob rule is not democracy.

As for the rest of your post, cool. Why don't you sit and tell me how you would manage a war on an enemy that hides behind the populace. Innocent people die all the time. Woopdeefuckingdoo. Is it right? no. Is it sometimes necessary to show your enemy they can not use civilians to hide? Yes.

We have not installed a single dictator in the Iraq War. There were all these elections. And the same thing happened in Afghanistan. Is it perfect? No. Not yet.

As for education, well their dear leaders, who murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people as well, mind you, were doing a piss poor job.

No, democracy is majority rule.

I'm going to join the crowd that has decided to ignore the nonsense you're spewing. I do hope you're trolling, but unfortunately I suspect you're just laughably ignorant. Either way I pity you.

Hero in a half shell:
Remember these?


What happened to them?

They were bombed by US goverment, twice, second being more sucesful together with two planes crashing in order to provoke a civilian reaction agasint easterners.

Hero in a half shell:

Oh this guy:

You mean, former CIA agent trianed by CIA?

Hero in a half shell:

Who organised a guerilla army from here:

And this is in Iraq how?

manic_depressive13:

newfoundsky:
And you don't understand that mob rule is not democracy.

As for the rest of your post, cool. Why don't you sit and tell me how you would manage a war on an enemy that hides behind the populace. Innocent people die all the time. Woopdeefuckingdoo. Is it right? no. Is it sometimes necessary to show your enemy they can not use civilians to hide? Yes.

We have not installed a single dictator in the Iraq War. There were all these elections. And the same thing happened in Afghanistan. Is it perfect? No. Not yet.

As for education, well their dear leaders, who murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people as well, mind you, were doing a piss poor job.

No, democracy is majority rule.

I'm going to join the crowd that has decided to ignore the nonsense you're spewing. I do hope you're trolling, but unfortunately I suspect you're just laughably ignorant. Either way I pity you.

Apparently you're ignorant of a better way. I don't have one, and you don't have one. What we have is a terribly flawed system that supports dictators, but has a history of slight success. Figure out a better way, and come talk to me.

newfoundsky:

manic_depressive13:

newfoundsky:
And you don't understand that mob rule is not democracy.

As for the rest of your post, cool. Why don't you sit and tell me how you would manage a war on an enemy that hides behind the populace. Innocent people die all the time. Woopdeefuckingdoo. Is it right? no. Is it sometimes necessary to show your enemy they can not use civilians to hide? Yes.

We have not installed a single dictator in the Iraq War. There were all these elections. And the same thing happened in Afghanistan. Is it perfect? No. Not yet.

As for education, well their dear leaders, who murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people as well, mind you, were doing a piss poor job.

No, democracy is majority rule.

I'm going to join the crowd that has decided to ignore the nonsense you're spewing. I do hope you're trolling, but unfortunately I suspect you're just laughably ignorant. Either way I pity you.

Apparently you're ignorant of a better way. I don't have one, and you don't have one. What we have is a terribly flawed system that supports dictators, but has a history of slight success. Figure out a better way, and come talk to me.

Your logic is messed up. Those dictators who were set up did more harm than good. They were set up to the detriment of already existing democracies sometimes.

What was done during the Cold War did more harm than good.

Setting up dictators is not a "solution". There's already better solution which was "Don't set up dictators".

In a country building mission, you don't kill civilians on ground and you make sure to express a clear date of withdrawal.

Frission:

newfoundsky:

manic_depressive13:

No, democracy is majority rule.

I'm going to join the crowd that has decided to ignore the nonsense you're spewing. I do hope you're trolling, but unfortunately I suspect you're just laughably ignorant. Either way I pity you.

Apparently you're ignorant of a better way. I don't have one, and you don't have one. What we have is a terribly flawed system that supports dictators, but has a history of slight success. Figure out a better way, and come talk to me.

Your logic is messed up. Those dictators who were set up did more harm than good. They were set up to the detriment of already existing democracies sometimes.

What was done during the Cold War did more harm than good.

Setting up dictators is not a "solution". There's already better solution which was "Don't set up dictators".

In a country building mission, you don't kill civilians on ground and you make sure to express a clear date of withdrawal.

Those dictators did more harm than good to their own nation, I agree. And as for the ones that were set up to oppose democracies, I find that fucked up and don't agree with it. I apologize if it looked like I have, but I'm talking about the US, during the Cold War, supporting dictatorships that came to us and wanted to be friends, or we came to them and offered them a deal. NOT ones that were put in place by us by destroying a good, healthy democracy that protected the rights of their citizens.

As for your statements about the Cold War, it's what we have. We can't say they did more harm then good without going back in time and checking, which is why I support the system of accepting the oppression of some, so that eventually we can all have freedom. I have already explained how this works above. And that system is fucked up.

Don't get me wrong, it's fucked up. But the solution of "don't set up dictators" is about 30-40 years too late, and doesn't really help us with the dictators we have right now. Unfortunately, dealing with these people was necessary to protect and give freedom to a majority.

But something we have not talked about yet is whether or not we still need this system in the modern day. The dictatorships (the true dictatorships, not Russia or China, which are semi totalitarian.) we have now are small puny countries. Do people have a moral obligation to spread freedom, by any means necessary? If so, then doesn't spreading it at the point of a gun fall under that. Or should we try diplomacy to topple these regimes, even though it may just lead to another round of dictatorships?

newfoundsky:
Apparently you're ignorant of a better way. I don't have one, and you don't have one. What we have is a terribly flawed system that supports dictators, but has a history of slight success. Figure out a better way, and come talk to me.

I could tell you exactly what you could do to solve this unfortunate dilemma but I suspect that would get me banned. Suffice it to say the best solution would be not to stick our collective dick where it has no business being. It's not our "moral obligation to spread freedom". Our moral obligation is to get the fuck over ourselves and stop killing people.

manic_depressive13:

newfoundsky:
Apparently you're ignorant of a better way. I don't have one, and you don't have one. What we have is a terribly flawed system that supports dictators, but has a history of slight success. Figure out a better way, and come talk to me.

I could tell you exactly what you could do to solve this unfortunate dilemma but I suspect that would get me banned. Suffice it to say the best solution would be not to stick our collective dick where it has no business being. It's not our "moral obligation to spread freedom". Our moral obligation is to get the fuck over ourselves and stop killing people.

And what of the people actively trying to kill us? Or does not being an American all of a sudden make someone the good guy? American's are the only ones that can ever be labeled as murdering tons of dudes. Right?

newfoundsky:
And what of the people actively trying to kill us? Or does not being an American all of a sudden make someone the good guy? American's are the only ones that can ever be labeled as murdering tons of dudes. Right?

That's right my friend. Everyone is trying to kill you. I'm not a fucking expert on the matter, but I would say the obvious solution would be to:

1) Stop killing civilians so they wouldn't have so much incentive to hate us.
2) Protect our own borders rather than going to the middle east and killing civilians.
3) Stop trying to force our own interests onto other countries at the expense of live civilians.

Which I suspect would have the net result of less dead civilians. Or are 300 000 dead people in the middle east not worth 3000 dead Americans to you? How many tons of dudes need to die before you concede that the entire enterprise was a giant mistake from the start.

manic_depressive13:

newfoundsky:
And what of the people actively trying to kill us? Or does not being an American all of a sudden make someone the good guy? American's are the only ones that can ever be labeled as murdering tons of dudes. Right?

That's right my friend. Everyone is trying to kill you. I'm not a fucking expert on the matter, but I would say the obvious solution would be to:

1) Stop killing civilians so they wouldn't have so much incentive to hate us.
2) Protect our own borders rather than going to the middle east and killing civilians.
3) Stop trying to force our own interests onto other countries at the expense of live civilians.

Which I suspect would have the net result of less dead civilians. Or are 300 000 dead people in the middle east not worth 3000 dead Americans to you? How many tons of dudes need to die before you concede that the entire enterprise was a giant mistake from the start.

The mission is to protect our borders by taking the fight to the enemy, not kill civilians for gits and shiggles. I don't think you understand that. Possibly because you're a terrorist /sarcasm

Look, if you can't understand the fact that we aren't over there to actively murder people, and that the conflict has helped stem terrorist attacks, AND increase the chances for democracy to take root in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you obviously don't understand a damn thing about this conversation.

newfoundsky:

manic_depressive13:

newfoundsky:
And what of the people actively trying to kill us? Or does not being an American all of a sudden make someone the good guy? American's are the only ones that can ever be labeled as murdering tons of dudes. Right?

That's right my friend. Everyone is trying to kill you. I'm not a fucking expert on the matter, but I would say the obvious solution would be to:

1) Stop killing civilians so they wouldn't have so much incentive to hate us.
2) Protect our own borders rather than going to the middle east and killing civilians.
3) Stop trying to force our own interests onto other countries at the expense of live civilians.

Which I suspect would have the net result of less dead civilians. Or are 300 000 dead people in the middle east not worth 3000 dead Americans to you? How many tons of dudes need to die before you concede that the entire enterprise was a giant mistake from the start.

The mission is to protect our borders by taking the fight to the enemy, not kill civilians for gits and shiggles. I don't think you understand that. Possibly because you're a terrorist /sarcasm

Look, if you can't understand the fact that we aren't over there to actively murder people, and that the conflict has helped stem terrorist attacks, AND increase the chances for democracy to take root in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you obviously don't understand a damn thing about this conversation.

you forgot to add the part of "AND increase the chances for a PRO AMERICA democracy to take root in Iraq and Afghanistan, that will give us oil at low prices and tons benefitial trade agreements at the expences of their people"

DEMOCRACYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

oh wait its not benefitial to us, COUP DETAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT then

sonofliber:

newfoundsky:

manic_depressive13:

That's right my friend. Everyone is trying to kill you. I'm not a fucking expert on the matter, but I would say the obvious solution would be to:

1) Stop killing civilians so they wouldn't have so much incentive to hate us.
2) Protect our own borders rather than going to the middle east and killing civilians.
3) Stop trying to force our own interests onto other countries at the expense of live civilians.

Which I suspect would have the net result of less dead civilians. Or are 300 000 dead people in the middle east not worth 3000 dead Americans to you? How many tons of dudes need to die before you concede that the entire enterprise was a giant mistake from the start.

The mission is to protect our borders by taking the fight to the enemy, not kill civilians for gits and shiggles. I don't think you understand that. Possibly because you're a terrorist /sarcasm

Look, if you can't understand the fact that we aren't over there to actively murder people, and that the conflict has helped stem terrorist attacks, AND increase the chances for democracy to take root in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you obviously don't understand a damn thing about this conversation.

you forgot to add the part of "AND increase the chances for a PRO AMERICA democracy to take root in Iraq and Afghanistan, that will give us oil at low prices and tons benefitial trade agreements at the expences of their people"

DEMOCRACYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

oh wait its not benefitial to us, COUP DETAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT then

So, tell me, how much oil have we gotten at severely discounted prices from Iraq?

There was a discount for the purchase of oil to support the occupying forces (and the revenues went to rebuilding the nation. So essentially we were paying reparations, in a way.), however, all other oil was bought at the market price. Also, very little oil is bought from Iraq. So most of what you said is false. There is no "War for Oil", and to suggest such a thing when there is absolutely no oil gained from the war is silly.

And I would prefer a pro America democracy than the anti west theocracy that was in charge of Afghanistan. However, if you watch the news in Afghanistan, the elected Prime Minister/President guy over there is pretty much not a fan of the US at all, and has made that very clear, in public and in policy. So that doesn't really make sense either.

Could it be that the US is actually not the bad guy here? >.>

CpT_x_Killsteal:

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?

Well if you quit the military, something that these people have been in a large part of their life, good luck finding a job and showing your experience in buisness to help you get above minimum wage.

Yabba:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

Yabba:
sir I kindly respect your opinion, but please do not view the soldiers 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 soldiers.

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?

Well if you quit the military, something that these people have been in a large part of their life, good luck finding a job and showing your experience in business to help you get above minimum wage.

So your saying it's justified because they're getting good pay out of it?

Yabba:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

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?

Well if you quit the military, something that these people have been in a large part of their life, good luck finding a job and showing your experience in buisness to help you get above minimum wage.

That depends entirely upon what their job was. Most jobs in the military have some equivalent in the civilian world; especially for the Navy and Air Force. Even if one's job has little civilian equivalent most employers prefer former military since they believe that makes them more likely to do a good job.

newfoundsky:

The mission is to protect our borders by taking the fight to the enemy, not kill civilians for gits and shiggles. I don't think you understand that. Possibly because you're a terrorist /sarcasm

Look, if you can't understand the fact that we aren't over there to actively murder people, and that the conflict has helped stem terrorist attacks, AND increase the chances for democracy to take root in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you obviously don't understand a damn thing about this conversation.

Bullcocky. If you want to really fight dictators and terrorism go to Saudi Arabia, they're actively exporting Islamist Extremism to western countries and their regime is far worse than the Iraqi was. (After the first Gulf war)

Your borders don't need to be protected, one terrorist attack doesn't suddenly mean your borders are extremely unsafe and you need to start a crusade in the middle east.

generals3:

newfoundsky:

The mission is to protect our borders by taking the fight to the enemy, not kill civilians for gits and shiggles. I don't think you understand that. Possibly because you're a terrorist /sarcasm

Look, if you can't understand the fact that we aren't over there to actively murder people, and that the conflict has helped stem terrorist attacks, AND increase the chances for democracy to take root in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you obviously don't understand a damn thing about this conversation.

Bullcocky. If you want to really fight dictators and terrorism go to Saudi Arabia, they're actively exporting Islamist Extremism to western countries and their regime is far worse than the Iraqi was. (After the first Gulf war)

Your borders don't need to be protected, one terrorist attack doesn't suddenly mean your borders are extremely unsafe and you need to start a crusade in the middle east.

Well, now we don't have to find out, do we?

newfoundsky:

generals3:

newfoundsky:

The mission is to protect our borders by taking the fight to the enemy, not kill civilians for gits and shiggles. I don't think you understand that. Possibly because you're a terrorist /sarcasm

Look, if you can't understand the fact that we aren't over there to actively murder people, and that the conflict has helped stem terrorist attacks, AND increase the chances for democracy to take root in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you obviously don't understand a damn thing about this conversation.

Bullcocky. If you want to really fight dictators and terrorism go to Saudi Arabia, they're actively exporting Islamist Extremism to western countries and their regime is far worse than the Iraqi was. (After the first Gulf war)

Your borders don't need to be protected, one terrorist attack doesn't suddenly mean your borders are extremely unsafe and you need to start a crusade in the middle east.

Well, now we don't have to find out, do we?

If that remark is supposed to imply that attacking the middle east has stopped the possibility of a terrorist attack, then I would like to point out that it is still possible for ANYONE to launch one at any point at a given time. Doesn't take that much to do.

CaptainChip:

newfoundsky:

generals3:

Bullcocky. If you want to really fight dictators and terrorism go to Saudi Arabia, they're actively exporting Islamist Extremism to western countries and their regime is far worse than the Iraqi was. (After the first Gulf war)

Your borders don't need to be protected, one terrorist attack doesn't suddenly mean your borders are extremely unsafe and you need to start a crusade in the middle east.

Well, now we don't have to find out, do we?

If that remark is supposed to imply that attacking the middle east has stopped the possibility of a terrorist attack, then I would like to point out that it is still possible for ANYONE to launch one at any point at a given time. Doesn't take that much to do.

Lets leave the reasons for the invasion aside for a moment, would you really argue that Saddam and the Taliban were better for the Iraqi and Afghan people than the possibilities the invasions have opened?

Verbatim:

CaptainChip:

newfoundsky:

Well, now we don't have to find out, do we?

If that remark is supposed to imply that attacking the middle east has stopped the possibility of a terrorist attack, then I would like to point out that it is still possible for ANYONE to launch one at any point at a given time. Doesn't take that much to do.

Lets leave the reasons for the invasion aside for a moment, would you really argue that Saddam and the Taliban were better for the Iraqi and Afghan people than the possibilities the invasions have opened?

Actually, I have heard plenty of arguments that just leaving Saddam alone probably would've been better and would leave Iraq in a somewhat less chaotic state. But I do have to admit I don't know much about the topic at hand and really only posted because the implications from that one guy's post sounded to me like "Now that we invaded the middle east, terrorist attacks won't happen!", which is horribly wrong.

CaptainChip:

Verbatim:

CaptainChip:

If that remark is supposed to imply that attacking the middle east has stopped the possibility of a terrorist attack, then I would like to point out that it is still possible for ANYONE to launch one at any point at a given time. Doesn't take that much to do.

Lets leave the reasons for the invasion aside for a moment, would you really argue that Saddam and the Taliban were better for the Iraqi and Afghan people than the possibilities the invasions have opened?

Actually, I have heard plenty of arguments that just leaving Saddam alone probably would've been better and would leave Iraq in a somewhat less chaotic state. But I do have to admit I don't know much about the topic at hand and really only posted because the implications from that one guy's post sounded to me like "Now that we invaded the middle east, terrorist attacks won't happen!", which is horribly wrong.

Not to mention that the terrorist attacks only happened BECAUSE of USA meddling in other people's affairs.
So basically, the remedy to a disease is the same as the cause of said disease... not smart.

Shock and Awe:

Yabba:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

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?

Well if you quit the military, something that these people have been in a large part of their life, good luck finding a job and showing your experience in buisness to help you get above minimum wage.

That depends entirely upon what their job was. Most jobs in the military have some equivalent in the civilian world; especially for the Navy and Air Force. Even if one's job has little civilian equivalent most employers prefer former military since they believe that makes them more likely to do a good job.

Alright fair enough I guess, at least you provide some evidence for your case.

Verbatim:

Lets leave the reasons for the invasion aside for a moment, would you really argue that Saddam and the Taliban were better for the Iraqi and Afghan people than the possibilities the invasions have opened?

Well it couldn't really get worse in Afghanistan so there you have a point but when it comes to Iraq it's a little more dodgy. I'm fairly certain that at this point Iraq is worse off than it was pre-invasion (and post 1st Gulf War)

TheBelgianGuy:

CaptainChip:

Verbatim:

Lets leave the reasons for the invasion aside for a moment, would you really argue that Saddam and the Taliban were better for the Iraqi and Afghan people than the possibilities the invasions have opened?

Actually, I have heard plenty of arguments that just leaving Saddam alone probably would've been better and would leave Iraq in a somewhat less chaotic state. But I do have to admit I don't know much about the topic at hand and really only posted because the implications from that one guy's post sounded to me like "Now that we invaded the middle east, terrorist attacks won't happen!", which is horribly wrong.

Not to mention that the terrorist attacks only happened BECAUSE of USA meddling in other people's affairs.
So basically, the remedy to a disease is the same as the cause of said disease... not smart.

That's is so inaccurate I can't even see where you began to be wrong.

Terrorist attacks happen because murderers have an agenda. This is like saying the Black Hand killed Ferdinand because of the US. It's POSSIBLE that terror attacks happen do to US intervention, but it is not likely. It is far more likely that the reason was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And for some reason the United States is that bad guy for giving them the tools to fight back. Sure, it was screwed up that the nation was caught in a war, but WE DID NOT START IT. God damn, people. The United States, I love it to death, but it is not perfect angel. But fuck, we are allowed to be the good guys sometimes.

As for the guy above, I'm not saying terrorist attacks won't happen, I'm saying that on the home front they are much less likely do to being able to hit terrorist training camps and leaders in these countries we are in or were in.

newfoundsky:

Terrorist attacks happen because murderers have an agenda. This is like saying the Black Hand killed Ferdinand because of the US.

That was not a "murder" tho, I mean, the objective of a "murder" is to put someone in the dead-book. In case of assassinations like that (or terrorist attacks), the death of whoever is targetted is not the objective. It's a means by which they believe to achieve their objective.

In short, the agenda the terrorist groups have is not "Kill as many yankees as possible", it's "Scare them shitless and show them we can hit where it hurts". That's why they're called "terrorists". Sure, murder and terrorism overlap to a large degree, but they're in no way identical. A terrorist bombing isn't as much of a mass murder as it is a display of power. I mean, yes, it can end up killing many people, but that's not what it's about to the one doing it.

It's POSSIBLE that terror attacks happen do to US intervention, but it is not likely. It is far more likely that the reason was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And for some reason the United States is that bad guy for giving them the tools to fight back. Sure, it was screwed up that the nation was caught in a war, but WE DID NOT START IT. God damn, people. The United States, I love it to death, but it is not perfect angel. But fuck, we are allowed to be the good guys sometimes.

Well, being a good guy isn't about being allowed to be one, nor is the world black and white. In case of Afghanistan, it was more of a case of neither side being a moral absolute. Much like most of the stuff going on in the world, truly...some of them then blow up like this one did. That's the problem with allies, they're not necessarily friends. Both USA and USSR wanted to have an ally in Afghanistan, but...

newfoundsky:

Terrorist attacks happen because murderers have an agenda. This is like saying the Black Hand killed Ferdinand because of the US. It's POSSIBLE that terror attacks happen do to US intervention, but it is not likely. It is far more likely that the reason was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And for some reason the United States is that bad guy for giving them the tools to fight back. Sure, it was screwed up that the nation was caught in a war, but WE DID NOT START IT. God damn, people. The United States, I love it to death, but it is not perfect angel. But fuck, we are allowed to be the good guys sometimes.

As for the guy above, I'm not saying terrorist attacks won't happen, I'm saying that on the home front they are much less likely do to being able to hit terrorist training camps and leaders in these countries we are in or were in.

Actually i have read plenty of times Al Qaeda sent those planes in the twin towers because of the American involvement in the Middle East. The main reason was the support of the US towards Israel if i recall correctly. The fact is that the West has been toppling and supporting leaders based on allegiance in the middle east quite often and obviously this angers those who ain't on "our" side.

generals3:

newfoundsky:

Terrorist attacks happen because murderers have an agenda. This is like saying the Black Hand killed Ferdinand because of the US. It's POSSIBLE that terror attacks happen do to US intervention, but it is not likely. It is far more likely that the reason was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And for some reason the United States is that bad guy for giving them the tools to fight back. Sure, it was screwed up that the nation was caught in a war, but WE DID NOT START IT. God damn, people. The United States, I love it to death, but it is not perfect angel. But fuck, we are allowed to be the good guys sometimes.

As for the guy above, I'm not saying terrorist attacks won't happen, I'm saying that on the home front they are much less likely do to being able to hit terrorist training camps and leaders in these countries we are in or were in.

Actually i have read plenty of times Al Qaeda sent those planes in the twin towers because of the American involvement in the Middle East. The main reason was the support of the US towards Israel if i recall correctly. The fact is that the West has been toppling and supporting leaders based on allegiance in the middle east quite often and obviously this angers those who ain't on "our" side.

The reason that Bin Laden declared war on the US was because the Kuwaitis chose them over him as the people to liberate their nation. So it was less a case of 'The US is meddling in the middle east' (and I'm getting the feeling that a lot of people here are seeing the mid east as a hegemonic block) but 'Why is the US more popular than me'

Within this particular 'War on Terror' BS, no I don't think they are defending their country. I was a soldier, served for four years, was deployed once to Iraq and the entire time I knew it was all BS. Too many people are dying, losing loved ones or coming back with fractured psyches all for nothing. High rollers, power brokers, politicians and various persons of high influence in government and corporate structures gain from these useless conflicts, the common man gains nothing.

Meaning of Karma:

newfoundsky:

Dijkstra:

Haha no, intention is not what is important. It's like shooting into a crowd with a machine gun to kill one criminal. You're still guilty even if all you intended to do was hit the criminal.

Depends on whether or not you got em.

What the fuck?!

I don't.... I don't even... How... What?

This is mind boggling. Do you actually believe this?

Depends. Say the criminal in question is hiding in a crowd of 50 people, and he's headed to go set a plan into motion that will threaten the lives of hundreds or more (For a vague example, a terrorist going to set off a group of bombs in the middle of a heavily populated city). In that case, it's perfectly justifiable to kill all 50 people to stop him if there are no other viable options because not acting in that situation would be worse than taking extreme measures against him.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here