Debate and Discussion

The Iraq/Afgan war. Was it justifiable?
Product Placement at 12:14PM, Sept. 17, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Since the public healthcare thread is being derailed by that type of discussion, I decided to start this thread to direct that talk over to here.

There are many questions you can ask related to this discussion.

Were the reasons behind the war justifiable or not?

Has the failure to find WMD hurt the image of America and it's allies?

Was the “coalition of willing” just a big joke? (allot of the countries didn't even have an army)

Has the war improved the life of people in the middle east or destabilized it further?

Is the world a safer place now?

Discuss.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:51PM
bravo1102 at 12:34PM, Sept. 17, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,224
joined: 1-21-2008
Let's not discuss this again. ;) I seem to remember the last knock-down drag out fight between name-calling neo-cons, conservatives, Liberals and the poor realists stuck in the middle and the growing frustration on all sides as the arguments became so predicible and the sides so clearly drawn.

Of course we have plenty of new members to throw in their (predictable?) views and a few to play devil's advocate and maybe one or two with access to intell that no one believes because the mainstream media never bothered to cover it?

I'll just paraphrase Benjamin Franklin. A preemptive war is always legal and justified in the first person; our just war, it is only unjustified and illegal in the third person, their “just” war.

The American Government screwed up from day 1. Didn't anyone in the White House bother to read Best and the Brightest?
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
kyupol at 2:21PM, Sept. 17, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006

Were the reasons behind the war justifiable or not?
Ask the families of the dead and injured Iraqis, Afghans, Americans, etc. You know, all the casualties of this “war on terror”. Lets do a poll among them and lets see what they think.

The question is: Is it justifiable to lose your family member over the whim of some greedy nutjobs at the top?

Has the failure to find WMD hurt the image of America and it's allies?

Why do you think the USA is perceived by the rest of the world as the new Nazis? I remember an argument I had in another forum with Filipino commies(most of them well-meaning uninformed people who don't even know about the history of communism.) that hurl every insult at the USA as if the USA is the greatest evil on this planet.
I had to clarify to them that not every American agrees with their government. I had to clarify to them that the American presidents are just puppets. I had to clarify to them that the American people are victims too. I showed them Alex Jones “police state” films as well as Ron Paul's websites. Hopefully they won't anymore hate America as much.

Was the “coalition of willing” just a big joke? (allot of the countries didn't even have an army)
Yes. A big UNFUNNY joke.

Has the war improved the life of people in the middle east or destabilized it further?
Again. Ask the average person in the middle east.

Is the world a safer place now?
No. No. No. No. and No.

More and more liberties are being destroyed as we head towards a Brave New World (read that book! It gave me goosebumps reading it as that's were we're headed to. I'd say we're already 30% there).

The police are getting more and more militarized as we head towards a Big Brother society. More and more mass surveillance.

All to keep you safe? what a joke.

What are the chances that multiple crises will happen all at the same time?

think about it. There's the swine flu “pandemic” (more like paranoia to me), the global warming crisis (more like cash grab on taxes to me), the continuous threat of "terrorists– now its not just those guys in the desert with turbans that live in the middle east. It includes anyone who disagrees with the New World Order (See DHS and MIAC reports). And don't forget the economic crisis?
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
imshard at 4:03PM, Sept. 17, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Product Placement
Since the public healthcare thread is being derailed by that type of discussion, I decided to start this thread to direct that talk over to here.
There are many questions you can ask related to this discussion.
Were the reasons behind the war justifiable or not?
Has the failure to find WMD hurt the image of America and it's allies?
Was the “coalition of willing” just a big joke? (allot of the countries didn't even have an army)
Has the war improved the life of people in the middle east or destabilized it further?
Is the world a safer place now?
Discuss.

Having lost close friends in the war on terror my own judgment tends to be a bit clouded. Altogether I think it was all a giant crapshoot, for lack of a better term.
The reasons were justifiable but half-baked.
The entire situation hurt America's image, capabilities, reputation, budget, military and people.
The Coalition was not a joke namely because it truly was a group of nations joined towards invading and supporting that invasion both politically and practically.
In the future … sometime … eventually, the invasion will have a prosperous effect assuming the coalition continues to shepherd Iraq and Afghanistan.
Unfortunately they're still surrounded by hostile nations so altogether the region is choppier and the world in general is in more turmoil for the meddling then it was.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
qqq at 7:33PM, Sept. 17, 2009
(offline)
posts: 122
joined: 8-10-2009
My hypothesis is that the Iraqi war, and on terror in general has the same roots ultimately as things as simple as idol worship, that the new boyfriend of your ex is an arse and pink filters to your ex when she still was yours.

People have a tendency to just have a notion, an idea with no clear reason to it and then try to find a justification for that idea to exist and of course believe in that justification. Bush probably subconsciously just felt he had to invade, and for himself then tried to find a good reason.

Also, an article I did on the subject: http://nihilarchitect.net/blog/archives/209/war-on-terror/
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
ozoneocean at 1:25AM, Sept. 18, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Justifiable in any sense of that word at any time past present or future? No. No. And no.

Even pathetic watered down weak excuses like women's rights are a joke as a reason when you consider how many of them were and are still being killed as a mere “collateral damage” during these conflicts AND the fact that rights have gone amazingly backwards for them in Iraq and have only improved in some isolated areas in Afghanistan anyway.

Saddam being a torturing Tyrant? Funny when coalition prisons in Iraq continued to imprison and torture people. And all the vast multitudes of new militia gangs in Iraq and Afghanistan both pro and anti the “coalition” are ALL petty little torturing tyrants now.

Making Iraq a better country by building new infrastructure for it? Funny when the reason most of it was degraded in the first place were due to U.S. led sanctions. Apart from that they still haven't finished fixing what the coalition destroyed during the war. lol!
“Look, aren't we good? We built a new school!”
…but what about the schools, hospitals, power stations, water plants, food processing plants, roads, bridges, airports etc etc etc. destroyed during the war? O_o
Add to that fact that the Iraqi's are actually paying for most of the damage themselves through their oil revenues.

Afghanistan was about revenge. Iraq was about Neocon failed strategy and Bush Jnr's aims to walk in Snr's footsetps. None of that is justification.

/Rant.
Bravo is right, thread has been done.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
manicmerganser at 3:30AM, Sept. 18, 2009
(offline)
posts: 54
joined: 8-10-2009
kyupol
Were the reasons behind the war justifiable or not?
Ask the families of the dead and injured Iraqis, Afghans, Americans, etc. You know, all the casualties of this “war on terror”. Lets do a poll among them and lets see what they think.

The question is: Is it justifiable to lose your family member over the whim of some greedy nutjobs at the top?

Has the failure to find WMD hurt the image of America and it's allies?

Why do you think the USA is perceived by the rest of the world as the new Nazis? I remember an argument I had in another forum with Filipino commies(most of them well-meaning uninformed people who don't even know about the history of communism.) that hurl every insult at the USA as if the USA is the greatest evil on this planet.
I had to clarify to them that not every American agrees with their government. I had to clarify to them that the American presidents are just puppets. I had to clarify to them that the American people are victims too. I showed them Alex Jones “police state” films as well as Ron Paul's websites. Hopefully they won't anymore hate America as much.

Was the “coalition of willing” just a big joke? (allot of the countries didn't even have an army)
Yes. A big UNFUNNY joke.

Has the war improved the life of people in the middle east or destabilized it further?
Again. Ask the average person in the middle east.

Is the world a safer place now?
No. No. No. No. and No.

More and more liberties are being destroyed as we head towards a Brave New World (read that book! It gave me goosebumps reading it as that's were we're headed to. I'd say we're already 30% there).

The police are getting more and more militarized as we head towards a Big Brother society. More and more mass surveillance.

All to keep you safe? what a joke.

What are the chances that multiple crises will happen all at the same time?

think about it. There's the swine flu “pandemic” (more like paranoia to me), the global warming crisis (more like cash grab on taxes to me), the continuous threat of "terrorists– now its not just those guys in the desert with turbans that live in the middle east. It includes anyone who disagrees with the New World Order (See DHS and MIAC reports). And don't forget the economic crisis?




Youre a libertarian correct?


I as a leftist as you a question: Whats the difference between leftist and libertarian?

We seem to agree so much….
www.alannispoliticalcart00ns.blogspot.com
http://1-art-1.deviantart.com/
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
kyupol at 6:53AM, Sept. 18, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Youre a libertarian correct?
I as a leftist as you a question: Whats the difference between leftist and libertarian?

We seem to agree so much….

Some people say that it isn't about “left vs right” but “freedom vs tyranny”. I guess the distinction between “left” and “right” isn't really that much.

To come to think of it, Ron Paul (Republican) and Dennis Kucinich (Democrat) tend to agree on alot of issues.

http://www.issues2000.org/Tx/Ron_Paul.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
qqq at 2:33PM, Sept. 18, 2009
(offline)
posts: 122
joined: 8-10-2009
manicmerganser
kyupol
Youre a libertarian correct?


I as a leftist as you a question: Whats the difference between leftist and libertarian?

We seem to agree so much….
In the United States Political system it's like this:

Liberals: Pro personal freedom, con oeconomic freedom (Or simply, more freedom where you concern only yourself, less freedom if you can use it to hurt others.)
Conservatives: Con personal fredom, pro oeconomic freedom (More freedom where you can use it to hurt others, less freedom in your private live)
Libertarians: Freedom on all fronts
Stalinism: Freedom on no front, the state knows best what's good for you.

last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
BffSatan at 7:11PM, Sept. 18, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,478
joined: 3-2-2008
qqq
Stalinism: Freedom on no front, the state knows best what's good for you.
Yes, because you might as well just say that the opposite from you is Stalin.
Why not go all the why an say Nazi?

Opposite from libertarian is populist. Don't just bull shit your way into saying anyone who disagrees with you is a Stalinist.

Also, libertarian does not me nutjob who thinks the government poisons the water and was behind 9/11. That's just called being a nutjob.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:21AM
qqq at 1:02AM, Sept. 19, 2009
(offline)
posts: 122
joined: 8-10-2009
BffSatan
qqq
Stalinism: Freedom on no front, the state knows best what's good for you.
Yes, because you might as well just say that the opposite from you is Stalin.
Why not go all the why an say Nazi?

Opposite from libertarian is populist. Don't just bull shit your way into saying anyone who disagrees with you is a Stalinist.
1: I am not libertarian, I am socialist, or what many US residents'd call ‘communist’, a more extreme version of ‘liberal’, my opposite is conservatism. I am for boundless, literally boundless freedom where you only affect yourself, this includes the freedom of chopping of an arm if you want to. I am for very strict regulations of freedom in situation where you affect others, possibly by exploiting their ignorance.

2: Political compass' analysts seems to agree (horizontal scale is oeonomic liberty, vertical is social liberty):



I think you got that from this chart on some research:



Which is pretty much propaganda by the libertarian party. Populism is not a political alignment or ideology, it is a movement to bring politics closer to the people, it is the inverse of elitism, to keep politics a task of the educated elite. I am also an elitist (note that this term has different connotations in politics)

Stalin is totalitarianism though, which defined as ‘the state knows best’ culture or autarchy, as in ‘rule from self’, that the opinion of the leader is the only justification he or she needs.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
Orin J Master at 8:30PM, Sept. 19, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
y'know, i'm sure no one cares, but the iraqi and afganistani wars conducted by the US are two separate engagements conducted for two different reasons and with two different goals.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
qqq at 7:52AM, Sept. 20, 2009
(offline)
posts: 122
joined: 8-10-2009
Orin J Master
y'know, i'm sure no one cares, but the iraqi and afganistani wars conducted by the US are two separate engagements conducted for two different reasons and with two different goals.
Explain.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
Orin J Master at 11:21AM, Sept. 20, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
qqq
Orin J Master
y'know, i'm sure no one cares, but the iraqi and afganistani wars conducted by the US are two separate engagements conducted for two different reasons and with two different goals.
Explain.
the war in afganistan was approached as a response to the sept.11 attack with the intent of breaking up the power of the taliban (which ironically the US had been helping to galvanize until the sept.11 attack) as a warning to other terrorist groups that might otherwise target the US.

the war in iraq….well, that's kinda hard to figure out. the reasons were given in general order as being 1:attack hussian for his ties to the taliban (that he didn't have) 2:attack hussian for his ICBMs and biological weapons (again, which he didn't have. unless you count long expired US chemical weapons we'd left behind after it had turned useless) 3: break up a tyrannical government so the people could instill their own freedom (they didn't, ended up siding with al-queda and other terrorist groups) and 4:instill an acceptable form of freedom for the iraqi people (which is probably the most nonsensical move ever by a US leader, as they don't really want us there).

the goals for the iraqi war haven't really been explained past vagueries like “furthering freedom” and the recent plans carried out by the military seem to waver between “holding pattern until we get a real plan underway” and “get out of there with our dignity less than entirely tattered”.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
qqq at 3:32AM, Sept. 21, 2009
(offline)
posts: 122
joined: 8-10-2009
Orin J Master
qqq
Orin J Master
y'know, i'm sure no one cares, but the iraqi and afganistani wars conducted by the US are two separate engagements conducted for two different reasons and with two different goals.
Explain.
the war in afganistan was approached as a response to the sept.11 attack with the intent of breaking up the power of the taliban (which ironically the US had been helping to galvanize until the sept.11 attack) as a warning to other terrorist groups that might otherwise target the US.

the war in iraq….well, that's kinda hard to figure out. the reasons were given in general order as being 1:attack hussian for his ties to the taliban (that he didn't have) 2:attack hussian for his ICBMs and biological weapons (again, which he didn't have. unless you count long expired US chemical weapons we'd left behind after it had turned useless) 3: break up a tyrannical government so the people could instill their own freedom (they didn't, ended up siding with al-queda and other terrorist groups) and 4:instill an acceptable form of freedom for the iraqi people (which is probably the most nonsensical move ever by a US leader, as they don't really want us there).
Well, that's what they claimed, I guess the only real difference was that the Taliban turned out to have Osama (or didn't they perhaps?) and Saddam didn't turn out to have WMD's. In both cases it seemed as if they wanted a justification, they were just lucky to have it in the former case.

the goals for the iraqi war haven't really been explained past vagueries like “furthering freedom” and the recent plans carried out by the military seem to waver between “holding pattern until we get a real plan underway” and “get out of there with our dignity less than entirely tattered”.
I can't believe the world took this:

Bush: You have WMD's
Saddam: Good lord, I don't, I am a good boy.
Bush: Oh yes you do, allow for inspections or we'll invade.
Saddam: Sure chap, have nothing to hide here, come over and see for yourself.
(Inspection half way with nothing found) Bush: WE INVADE!

last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
El Cid at 7:17AM, Sept. 22, 2009
(online)
posts: 946
joined: 5-4-2009
qqq
Well, that's what they claimed, I guess the only real difference was that the Taliban turned out to have Osama (or didn't they perhaps?) and Saddam didn't turn out to have WMD's. In both cases it seemed as if they wanted a justification, they were just lucky to have it in the former case.

So… you'd be here now supporting the Iraq invasion if it had turned out there actually were still WMDs in Iraq?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
MeHighLow at 2:53AM, Sept. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 44
joined: 8-27-2009
Oh God. I have to join in, the pull… too strong… can't resist… ranting.


So. I come from a country that was actually attacked by the U.S. in the last decade. Maybe you should read what I have to say on the subject.

Nope, not Iraq. Not Afganistan. Serbia. Anybody remember that one?

Well, there was no ground presence by US troops. Only air raids. But a lot of them. All over my country. People dead, buildings and roads obliterated, that kind of stuff, you know. And the reason was - ethnic cleansing of Albanians by Serbs in Kosovo. So, the pretense: helping the weak and protecting human rights.

With bombs.

You know what Lennon said about fighting for peace? Trust me, nobody benefited from that war except the US military industry (used up some stock, needed to produce new one, tested some new technologies, hence - PROFIT), Albanian leaders (since they “won”, nobody could persecute them for war crimes and those more mundane, drug trafficking crimes) and Serbian opposition (who used it to get rid of the dictator and to install themselves as new, equally corrupt but “pro-Western” leaders). Not ordinary people. Of any ethnicity. It's all still a huge mess down there, even a decade on. But a mess with a US military base, in the middle of Europe, in the key country of the great Asian-European heroin distribution chain, and at a time when almost every other European country wants such bases out. Go figure.

And let me tell you… I am not anti-US, really. But the war of 1999 made me study some history and learn about war. And my conclusion is that every reason that was given to the US public for entering a war was simply a pretense. And I mean every war the US has waged since the Civil War. Yes, Even WWI and especially WWII. It was always “wait for an opportunity to enter a conflict, and if it does not present itself, create it” (The sinking of the Lusitania? Asking for it. Pearl Harbor? Trade war with Japan, initiated by the US which preceded it. Korean War? Give me a break. Vietnam. Oh god, do you really need me to write about that?). The true reason was always some kind of gain, and what “gain” boils down to is simply -economic control.

But at least back then, realpolitik didn't hide itself that much… And, yes, the US entering WWII helped end the war and generaly brought a lot of good things (although to West Europe, exclusively). Especially because the FDR/Truman dem governments knew that you need to have some kind of a backup economy if your military industry runs out of war, as well as that you need to create and nurture consumers i.e to invest in order to reap a profit. Hence, the Marshall plan and the great push to rebuild Europe after WWII.

But not so today. Today, on one hand, there is the new morality of human rights, which was hammered into our consciousness as being inseparable from free-market capitalism (It isn't, OK?). On the other hand, the logic of capitalism dictates ever-present increases. So, business needs to be done more expediciously, everybody wants huge profit margins faster. And war was always HUGE business. And now there is a built-in moral pretense! Somebody's rights are being violated! Let's go bomb the place! Nobody will stop to ask “why that place and not one of the dozens or so other places where those rights are being violated at the very moment! ”. Not if we bomb them with (mis)information, simultaneously!

And so the Bush clique used a gift from Allah that was 9/11 in the same way as FDR did with Pearl Harbor. Only it was quicker, dirtier and far more profitable (but only for the said clique and the companies who buld military equipment and get security and reconstruction contracts - the US people as a whole didn't see much benefit from it yet, did you?). Now, the U.S controls (or tries to, it seems the bite turned out far too big to swallow) Afganistan, with its strategic mid-Asia position, ideal for gas pipelines… Not to mention that heroin production actually reached a record in 2006, what, five years after the invasion? And the US controls Iraq with an added bonus of filthy rich oil fields.

That was the idea anyway. But on the ground, things turned out a bit differently, much more complicated then the authorities and their media lapdogs (not all media, but most) would have us believe. Because, you know, it ain't the truth. But who cares, profits have been reaped. On to the next target.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:59PM
El Cid at 5:24PM, Sept. 23, 2009
(online)
posts: 946
joined: 5-4-2009
MeHighLow
And the US controls Iraq with an added bonus of filthy rich oil fields.
Also supposedly at least (heard this from a guy who knows a guy who I guess read it somewhere) Saddam was gearing up to switch to a petro-euro oil economy as opposed to a petro-dollar one. This would have forced us to swap out our currency in order to buy oil from him, which would've devalued the dollar significantly, especially if it caught on with the rest of our oil-pushers. Nope. We ain't havin' that! Saddam brought that beatdown on hisself!

MeHighLow
On to the next target.
Canada?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
qqq at 12:25AM, Sept. 24, 2009
(offline)
posts: 122
joined: 8-10-2009
El Cid
qqq
Well, that's what they claimed, I guess the only real difference was that the Taliban turned out to have Osama (or didn't they perhaps?) and Saddam didn't turn out to have WMD's. In both cases it seemed as if they wanted a justification, they were just lucky to have it in the former case.

So… you'd be here now supporting the Iraq invasion if it had turned out there actually were still WMDs in Iraq?
Not at all, there still wasn't enough evidence to conclude that back then. They may have been right then, but for the wrong reasons.

If some one takes an irresponsible gamble but it pays of by sheer dumb luck that person still made a foolish choice.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:57PM
Rich at 7:07AM, Sept. 24, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
It appears that most of this thread seems focused on “They did it for money!”. Making money off a war does not equal doing it for money. If that is what you seek to prove, you will need clear evidence beyond “Some dudes who owned bomb factories made a buck off the war”.

Without evidence, that argument does not work and cannot be considered anymore than an appeal to poverty.




As for whether or not the invasions were justifiable, Afghanistan itself most certainly was due to their direct ties to Al-Qaeda. They attacked us. We attacked in retaliation. There is nothing ethically questionable about that.



Now the Iraq war, that's the gray area. We have been informed that the intelligence provided was in fact wrong, but at that point we'd kind of already dicked up the country pretty bad. We leave it and we look like irresponsible assholes who run in, fuck your shit up, and then leave you with your pants down. We repair it the best we can (hahaha) and we look like fascists.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. We lose either way, but it's better to look like fascists than irresponsible dicks.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:07PM
Orin J Master at 9:41AM, Sept. 24, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
Rich
It appears that most of this thread seems focused on “They did it for money!”. Making money off a war does not equal doing it for money. If that is what you seek to prove, you will need clear evidence beyond “Some dudes who owned bomb factories made a buck off the war”.

what else was accomplished, aside from some contractors making a lot of money “Rebuilding” after the bombs dropped? nobody was saved, no problems are any better, and noone walked away with anything resembling a victory. if there was some other goal you can find besides “there's a buck in it” i'd like to heart it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
Rich at 9:47AM, Sept. 24, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
Unfortunately for you, the burden of evidence lies with people making claims. You cannot prove that they started the wars to make money, thus until you can it is pointless to even argue the fact.


As for what was accomplished, not really a whole lot. Just because you try to do something doesn't mean you're actually going to be able to do it, you know. We went to Afghanistan to kick Al-Qaeda's ass in retaliation for 9-11 and then we went off to kick Iraq's ass based on intelligence that turned out to be very very wrong.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:07PM
ozoneocean at 2:02AM, Sept. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Rich
As for whether or not the invasions were justifiable, Afghanistan itself most certainly was due to their direct ties to Al-Qaeda. They attacked us. We attacked in retaliation. There is nothing ethically questionable about that.
Unfortunately, completely untrue. :(

Al-Qaeda had nothing at all to do with Afghanistan. They never did. There was just some bad intelligence about that particular tiny little group happing to reside temporally in some little corer or cave of that country at the time. The retaliatory attack could have been against Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan and they could have used the same justification.
- why didn't they attack those countries instead then? Well Those Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were allies and they didn't look like an easy walk over like Afghanistan did. (of course it wasn't, but they didn't know that then)

The attack on Afghanistan was unjustified and more: it was an unprovoked attack that was 1000 times worse than the unprovoked attack that those other nutcases made on the US on 9/11. And more than that it has been amazingly counter-productive in every singe way for the US as a country- Lack of prestige, it exploded post Vietnam rebuilt the myth of American military supremacy, thousands of good soldiers dead, increased hat for the U.S. in the Muslim world, increased the volume of narcotics being shipped to America, weakened the U.S. military through fatiguing and killing off soldiers, destruction of equipment, crippling the miltary budget so that advanced weapons programs have to be all killed off to make way for mundane stuff like replacing and fixing old gear and buying bullets and missiles etc

And so much more. It was an idiot decision by an idiot administration.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
Rich at 6:05AM, Sept. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
So Osama didn't have ties to the Taliban who in fact happily didn't say “No, Mr. President, we will not give him to you.”?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:07PM
ozoneocean at 6:24AM, Sept. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Rich
So Osama didn't have ties to the Taliban who in fact happily didn't say “No, Mr. President, we will not give him to you.”?
Not really. The Taliban, as you should be able to guess by now, couldn't do a damn thing either way.
I think that was pretty obvious to anyone who knew anything about the situation at the time, and the U.S. administration certainly would've. ;)

Think about it logically: If all the combined resources of most of the world's most sophisticated, wealthiest militarys, all the kings horses and all the kings men globally can't find and get Osamma, how in this world or any other do you think a primitive little group like the Taliban could've done anything either way?
It's hilarious just to contemplate it.

And bear in mind that at the time the Taliban did NOT control the whole country either, there were hundreds of separate groups fighting away.

The whole idea was a joke, just like the Iraq war, but Bush had 9/11. After that punch on the nose the coward needed someone weak to make an example off. But Afghanistan didn't turn out to be the 90 pound weakling they were expecting.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
Rich at 6:54AM, Sept. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
Someone
how in this world or any other do you think a primitive little group like the Taliban could've done anything either way?

The general assumption is that a group with connections to a dude would know where the dude is or at least have a general idea where a dude is. Granted, it's not exactly the tightest reasoning to go on, but it's a fairly safe assumption.



And while I don't exactly agree with you on it being unjustifiable or worse than 9-11 (the suggestion is borderline offensive), I will happily agree that it was a poorly handled mess and it IS about time for us to get our asses out of there either way.

It should be fairly certain at this point that Al-Qaeda's been put back years and should not be a clear threat any time in the near future and many of the terrorist groups may be hesitant to strike out against the US again due to the fact that we blow all of their shit up and all of the shit of whatever country we suspect they might be connected to if they do anything to us.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:07PM
ozoneocean at 8:05AM, Sept. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Rich
but it's a fairly safe assumption.
I'd say that assumption is more like: Hey, I know a guy who lives in Hollywood, that means he must know Tom Cruise! If I visit him he should TOTALLY introduce me to Tom Cruse!"

Rich
the suggestion is borderline offensive
Even suggesting that it's offensive is bizarre. o_O
The events of 9/11 ware very bad. almost 3000 people were killed. It was quite a horrible thing to happen, and I'm not minimising it in any way.
The invasion of Afghanistan however has killed many, many more than that, caused billions in damage, wounded and orphaned many, many more. And it's still going on. As a terrible disaster to happen to a country, it was worse for the human beings who happen to live in Afghanistan than 9/11 was to those human beings who lived in the U.S.
On purely logical grounds as well as on human compassionate ones.

Rich
It should be fairly certain at this point that Al-Qaeda's been put back years and should not be a clear threat any time in the near future and many of the terrorist groups may be hesitant to strike out against the US again due to the fact that we blow all of their shit up and all of the shit of whatever country we suspect they might be connected to if they do anything to us.
Not really. Terrorist groups care nothing for retaliation. Nothing intimidates them. If those people are happy enough to blow themselves up or fly a plane into a building, do you think there is any anything on this earth that will make them wary of committing an atrocity? Really?

None of them have been put back a skerrik. These are people who make bombs out of garden supplies, use internet messaging to communicate. These are thousands of evil MacGyvers running around that can make weapons out of shit and don't care about their own lives. Those idiot wars don't stop them, it just gives them more reason to hate the west and specifically the U.S., it gives them the perfect training ground, better than ANY secret base or training camp, those wars are perfect breeding grounds for extra terrorists- a never ending supply of well trained, battle hardened men and women.

What''s keeping them out of the West is CONSTANT paranoid surveillance and tight border control: strict police state offensive security at borders that none of us had to suffer with before. All because of those stupid wars.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
Orin J Master at 8:09AM, Sept. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
Rich
It should be fairly certain at this point that Al-Qaeda's been put back years and should not be a clear threat any time in the near future and many of the terrorist groups may be hesitant to strike out against the US again due to the fact that we blow all of their shit up and all of the shit of whatever country we suspect they might be connected to if they do anything to us.

actually, the reverse it true. the US's attack gained them legitamacy, which means troops (people that want revenge on the US for attacking their villages looking for al qeada) money (Sea above) and fear (we attacked the united states, biggest army in the world and scared them, don't mess with us!)

their little backwater, religious retard plan is finally payin' off.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
Rich at 8:19AM, Sept. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
So simply leaving them be and not retaliating if they attack us is the only acceptable course of action?

Ozone
Hey, I know a guy who lives in Hollywood, that means he must know Tom Cruise! If I visit him he should TOTALLY introduce me to Tom Cruse!"

It's more like “Hey, that guy talks to Tom Cruise or at least knows a guy who knows Tom Cruise. He might know where we could find him!”.

Someone
The invasion of Afghanistan however has killed many, many more than that, caused billions in damage, wounded and orphaned many, many more. And it's still going on. As a terrible disaster to happen to a country, it was worse for the human beings who happen to live in Afghanistan than 9/11 was to those human beings who lived in the U.S.

Indeed you raise a good argument there. I'll cede that point.

Someone
actually, the reverse it true. the US's attack gained them legitamacy, which means troops (people that want revenge on the US for attacking their villages looking for al qeada) money (Sea above) and fear (we attacked the united states, biggest army in the world and scared them, don't mess with us!)

Yes, you're going to get the idiots who think it's a good idea to continue launching terrorist attacks. THAT will never go away entirely.

However I expect the intelligent members of society will realize that they can accomplish far more through democratic and political means than by blowing themselves up.


But it is too early to tell who will be right. We'll see down the road.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:07PM
seventy2 at 8:44AM, Oct. 4, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,953
joined: 11-15-2007
ozoneocean
The events of 9/11 ware very bad. almost 3000 people were killed. It was quite a horrible thing to happen, and I'm not minimising it in any way.
The invasion of Afghanistan however has killed many, many more than that, caused billions in damage, wounded and orphaned many, many more. And it's still going on. As a terrible disaster to happen to a country, it was worse for the human beings who happen to live in Afghanistan than 9/11 was to those human beings who lived in the U.S.

some of those numbers are off. it's been proven that the surveyors do it this way: okay, september 11, there was a massive attack in new york city. "exscuse me sir, did any of your family members die on september 11? Oh, a heart attack you say? that's 1 more to the casualty list.

taliban has been known to take their dead soldiers and place them in or near a loyal residents house, and the family claims it's their son killed by an angry soldier just spraying bullets left and right.


Ozone
Not really. Terrorist groups care nothing for retaliation. Nothing intimidates them. If those people are happy enough to blow themselves up or fly a plane into a building, do you think there is any anything on this earth that will make them wary of committing an atrocity? Really?
it's not the terrorist groups we're trying to scare. that'd be like trying to scare the entire american military. what we're doing is scaring people who would join.


Ozone
What''s keeping them out of the West is CONSTANT paranoid surveillance and tight border control: strict police state offensive security at borders that none of us had to suffer with before. All because of those stupid wars.
that too.
facara
Running Anew an exercise blog.
I'm gonna love you till the money comes, half of it's gonna be mine someday.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:30PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved