|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:50 pm
SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse Taliban is their government, not formally, but lets call a spade a spade. My uncle is from Afghanistan by the way (no he is not a terrorist or think woman are below him >.> at least if he did the brash, overbearing women in my family have beaten it out of him) and not only has he told me it is a s**t hole but the Taliban was their structure. According to him, it's been worse for the citizens since the US took many of the Taliban out. We went into Iraq because Bush felt he needed to finish the job his father started talk2hand I'm not saying dictators are good people, but it's not our problem until they attack us (like Afghanistan in which case we need to bring the war hammer down) or actually HAVE things that can be used to attack us, like N. Korea (although rumor has it pancreatic cancer has delayed things). It isn't out concern about how they treat their citizens, it's just not. Saddam was a bad guy, he was their bad guy. If his people wanted him gone, then they should have rose and done it themselves. No sooner did we do that then did the rest of that area start protesting against us cause guess what? It was none of our business. Iraq is still failing. It was a failure. Most countries can't function like we do. The US is an anomaly when you look at our system. We shouldn't be able to work as well as we do. Ok lets say Taliban is/was their government. Do you really want to stoop to their level and attack civilian targets with carpet bombings? How can you say that Bush wanted to finish what his father started without any proof or sound reasoning to say so. Bring me something substantial then we talk. But it is our business when a country continuously attacks our friends even when we have told them to stop. Besides Iraq has been showing signs of improvement and have taken down insurgents with almost no help from the U.S. government at times. Use them as an example. Their people didn't stand up in fight and they attacked out civilians. Why treat terrorists with respect? Burn then down and use them as an example. Think of a small scale example: A little kid is hitting you, yeah it doesn't really hurt, but the actions are disrespectful an annoying. You tell the kid to stop, he keeps prodding, you turn around and spank him, he suddenly has learned his lesson and stops doing such things. Same thing can be applied to other countries. Look at how we dealt with pearl harbor. We made two examples in japan and they surrendered and since then we've been pretty much on the same page. Bush went on a manhunt for Saddam without any reasoning. We suspected weapons of mass destruction and went in with absolutely no proof. Bush mad a few reference to desert storm (when his father was president and they choose to leave Saddam in power so he could control him masses). And no it's not. We aide them through selling off old military equipment but no other country really gets involved beyond that. The UN was against America's actions. Oh? What are these signs? The women there are still being abused and mistreated in the name of religion. There are still a lot of IED and suicide bombings lining the streets. So your plan is to kill thousands of innocent civilians just to try to scare the Taliban who already hate our gust and will use those actions to recruit even more? Not even that but on the global scale all the countries in the world will hate us more than they already do. Of course there was reason to hunt Saddam you don't just go into a country and let the person you invaded to take out of power go free. Yes I do say there was little reason or good intelligence to go in but now that we are in there is nothing we can do but set up the government we took down. The signs are all of the successful operations they have operations they have carried out by themselves. It may be a little early now but give it time. Iraq is far from a lost cause. Oh you thought I was talking about just the taliban? I meant make the area an example for the who region. They don't want us there. None of the middle eastern countries do, save Israel. Iraq wants us out, Iran wants us out, you name it they hate us. Why should we help them? We shouldn't let them burn and make it known not to ******** with us. That entire area is a lot cause. Look at Iran, they have an "election" that is rigged and the opponent is up for war crimes against the country for just running! What successful operations are we talking about? The ones were there are still suicide bombings? Mild protest (against us)? The murder of our troops and construction workers? Oh really? the entire region? Might I remind you that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are all allies of the United states? and any mass strike against a large group of civilians is just political suicide for the United States. You think it is bad now with just the Middle East hating us? Think what it would be like if the United states did that and violate tons of U.N. regulations as well as the Geneva convention. Any kind of mass attack any where in that region that could harm civilians is a bad idea. Yes Iraq wants us gone. Hell we don't even want to be there but it is taking time for us to leave but it is going to happen and who knows we might get an ally out of Iraq. But Iran is undergoing change at the moment there are still protests all over the streets of Tehran and the result of this election was that the regime will fall. About 70% of Iran are 30 or younger and want a new chance with the U.S. Yes, because these countries follow UN regulation as well as the Geneva convention. In all seriousness if they aren't going to abide by them why should we in regards to them? We have diplomatic relationships with Pakistan that doesn't make them an ally. A strike on Afghanistan (at the time after 9/11 not now since it's been too long) would have soon other countries to not ******** with us. All the little terrorists do these things to protect their country. Well, best way to protect your country is not to attack ours, as this would show. Fight for your own country. It's not our problem. Those kids would turn around and high tail it back to their hovels once the first US supporter was taken down. You want to reform your country, then do your own fighting. Why should the US get involved with another country and do their reformation rights for them? We shouldn't.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:58 am
Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse Use them as an example. Their people didn't stand up in fight and they attacked out civilians. Why treat terrorists with respect? Burn then down and use them as an example. Think of a small scale example: A little kid is hitting you, yeah it doesn't really hurt, but the actions are disrespectful an annoying. You tell the kid to stop, he keeps prodding, you turn around and spank him, he suddenly has learned his lesson and stops doing such things. Same thing can be applied to other countries. Look at how we dealt with pearl harbor. We made two examples in japan and they surrendered and since then we've been pretty much on the same page. Bush went on a manhunt for Saddam without any reasoning. We suspected weapons of mass destruction and went in with absolutely no proof. Bush mad a few reference to desert storm (when his father was president and they choose to leave Saddam in power so he could control him masses). And no it's not. We aide them through selling off old military equipment but no other country really gets involved beyond that. The UN was against America's actions. Oh? What are these signs? The women there are still being abused and mistreated in the name of religion. There are still a lot of IED and suicide bombings lining the streets. So your plan is to kill thousands of innocent civilians just to try to scare the Taliban who already hate our gust and will use those actions to recruit even more? Not even that but on the global scale all the countries in the world will hate us more than they already do. Of course there was reason to hunt Saddam you don't just go into a country and let the person you invaded to take out of power go free. Yes I do say there was little reason or good intelligence to go in but now that we are in there is nothing we can do but set up the government we took down. The signs are all of the successful operations they have operations they have carried out by themselves. It may be a little early now but give it time. Iraq is far from a lost cause. Oh you thought I was talking about just the taliban? I meant make the area an example for the who region. They don't want us there. None of the middle eastern countries do, save Israel. Iraq wants us out, Iran wants us out, you name it they hate us. Why should we help them? We shouldn't let them burn and make it known not to ******** with us. That entire area is a lot cause. Look at Iran, they have an "election" that is rigged and the opponent is up for war crimes against the country for just running! What successful operations are we talking about? The ones were there are still suicide bombings? Mild protest (against us)? The murder of our troops and construction workers? Oh really? the entire region? Might I remind you that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are all allies of the United states? and any mass strike against a large group of civilians is just political suicide for the United States. You think it is bad now with just the Middle East hating us? Think what it would be like if the United states did that and violate tons of U.N. regulations as well as the Geneva convention. Any kind of mass attack any where in that region that could harm civilians is a bad idea. Yes Iraq wants us gone. Hell we don't even want to be there but it is taking time for us to leave but it is going to happen and who knows we might get an ally out of Iraq. But Iran is undergoing change at the moment there are still protests all over the streets of Tehran and the result of this election was that the regime will fall. About 70% of Iran are 30 or younger and want a new chance with the U.S. Yes, because these countries follow UN regulation as well as the Geneva convention. In all seriousness if they aren't going to abide by them why should we in regards to them? We have diplomatic relationships with Pakistan that doesn't make them an ally. A strike on Afghanistan (at the time after 9/11 not now since it's been too long) would have soon other countries to not ******** with us. All the little terrorists do these things to protect their country. Well, best way to protect your country is not to attack ours, as this would show. Fight for your own country. It's not our problem. Those kids would turn around and high tail it back to their hovels once the first US supporter was taken down. You want to reform your country, then do your own fighting. Why should the US get involved with another country and do their reformation rights for them? We shouldn't. We follow the Geneva convention and U.N. regulations because that is what a civilized country does, it doesn't resort to terrorism to win a fight and carpet bombing is a form of terrorism. Are you talking about Iraq or Iran? If it is Iraq then as I keep saying we don't want to be there. We want them to stand on their own. But any major military withdrawal takes a huge amount of time. If it is Iran we aren't doing any sort of help to the protesters and that is exactly what they are doing is making their own reformation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:35 am
SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse Use them as an example. Their people didn't stand up in fight and they attacked out civilians. Why treat terrorists with respect? Burn then down and use them as an example. Think of a small scale example: A little kid is hitting you, yeah it doesn't really hurt, but the actions are disrespectful an annoying. You tell the kid to stop, he keeps prodding, you turn around and spank him, he suddenly has learned his lesson and stops doing such things. Same thing can be applied to other countries. Look at how we dealt with pearl harbor. We made two examples in japan and they surrendered and since then we've been pretty much on the same page. Bush went on a manhunt for Saddam without any reasoning. We suspected weapons of mass destruction and went in with absolutely no proof. Bush mad a few reference to desert storm (when his father was president and they choose to leave Saddam in power so he could control him masses). And no it's not. We aide them through selling off old military equipment but no other country really gets involved beyond that. The UN was against America's actions. Oh? What are these signs? The women there are still being abused and mistreated in the name of religion. There are still a lot of IED and suicide bombings lining the streets. So your plan is to kill thousands of innocent civilians just to try to scare the Taliban who already hate our gust and will use those actions to recruit even more? Not even that but on the global scale all the countries in the world will hate us more than they already do. Of course there was reason to hunt Saddam you don't just go into a country and let the person you invaded to take out of power go free. Yes I do say there was little reason or good intelligence to go in but now that we are in there is nothing we can do but set up the government we took down. The signs are all of the successful operations they have operations they have carried out by themselves. It may be a little early now but give it time. Iraq is far from a lost cause. Oh you thought I was talking about just the taliban? I meant make the area an example for the who region. They don't want us there. None of the middle eastern countries do, save Israel. Iraq wants us out, Iran wants us out, you name it they hate us. Why should we help them? We shouldn't let them burn and make it known not to ******** with us. That entire area is a lot cause. Look at Iran, they have an "election" that is rigged and the opponent is up for war crimes against the country for just running! What successful operations are we talking about? The ones were there are still suicide bombings? Mild protest (against us)? The murder of our troops and construction workers? Oh really? the entire region? Might I remind you that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are all allies of the United states? and any mass strike against a large group of civilians is just political suicide for the United States. You think it is bad now with just the Middle East hating us? Think what it would be like if the United states did that and violate tons of U.N. regulations as well as the Geneva convention. Any kind of mass attack any where in that region that could harm civilians is a bad idea. Yes Iraq wants us gone. Hell we don't even want to be there but it is taking time for us to leave but it is going to happen and who knows we might get an ally out of Iraq. But Iran is undergoing change at the moment there are still protests all over the streets of Tehran and the result of this election was that the regime will fall. About 70% of Iran are 30 or younger and want a new chance with the U.S. Yes, because these countries follow UN regulation as well as the Geneva convention. In all seriousness if they aren't going to abide by them why should we in regards to them? We have diplomatic relationships with Pakistan that doesn't make them an ally. A strike on Afghanistan (at the time after 9/11 not now since it's been too long) would have soon other countries to not ******** with us. All the little terrorists do these things to protect their country. Well, best way to protect your country is not to attack ours, as this would show. Fight for your own country. It's not our problem. Those kids would turn around and high tail it back to their hovels once the first US supporter was taken down. You want to reform your country, then do your own fighting. Why should the US get involved with another country and do their reformation rights for them? We shouldn't. We follow the Geneva convention and U.N. regulations because that is what a civilized country does, it doesn't resort to terrorism to win a fight and carpet bombing is a form of terrorism. Are you talking about Iraq or Iran? If it is Iraq then as I keep saying we don't want to be there. We want them to stand on their own. But any major military withdrawal takes a huge amount of time. If it is Iran we aren't doing any sort of help to the protesters and that is exactly what they are doing is making their own reformation. Being civilized goes out of the door when threatened. They don't follow those codes why should they be protected by them? We have ignored the UN in the past, it'd be nothing new. Both are doomed. Iran isn't going to change and neither is Iraq. I just hope we get out there and let the place burn (by their own hands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:03 pm
Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse Oh you thought I was talking about just the taliban? I meant make the area an example for the who region. They don't want us there. None of the middle eastern countries do, save Israel. Iraq wants us out, Iran wants us out, you name it they hate us. Why should we help them? We shouldn't let them burn and make it known not to ******** with us. That entire area is a lot cause. Look at Iran, they have an "election" that is rigged and the opponent is up for war crimes against the country for just running! What successful operations are we talking about? The ones were there are still suicide bombings? Mild protest (against us)? The murder of our troops and construction workers? Oh really? the entire region? Might I remind you that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are all allies of the United states? and any mass strike against a large group of civilians is just political suicide for the United States. You think it is bad now with just the Middle East hating us? Think what it would be like if the United states did that and violate tons of U.N. regulations as well as the Geneva convention. Any kind of mass attack any where in that region that could harm civilians is a bad idea. Yes Iraq wants us gone. Hell we don't even want to be there but it is taking time for us to leave but it is going to happen and who knows we might get an ally out of Iraq. But Iran is undergoing change at the moment there are still protests all over the streets of Tehran and the result of this election was that the regime will fall. About 70% of Iran are 30 or younger and want a new chance with the U.S. Yes, because these countries follow UN regulation as well as the Geneva convention. In all seriousness if they aren't going to abide by them why should we in regards to them? We have diplomatic relationships with Pakistan that doesn't make them an ally. A strike on Afghanistan (at the time after 9/11 not now since it's been too long) would have soon other countries to not ******** with us. All the little terrorists do these things to protect their country. Well, best way to protect your country is not to attack ours, as this would show. Fight for your own country. It's not our problem. Those kids would turn around and high tail it back to their hovels once the first US supporter was taken down. You want to reform your country, then do your own fighting. Why should the US get involved with another country and do their reformation rights for them? We shouldn't. We follow the Geneva convention and U.N. regulations because that is what a civilized country does, it doesn't resort to terrorism to win a fight and carpet bombing is a form of terrorism. Are you talking about Iraq or Iran? If it is Iraq then as I keep saying we don't want to be there. We want them to stand on their own. But any major military withdrawal takes a huge amount of time. If it is Iran we aren't doing any sort of help to the protesters and that is exactly what they are doing is making their own reformation. Being civilized goes out of the door when threatened. They don't follow those codes why should they be protected by them? We have ignored the UN in the past, it'd be nothing new. Both are doomed. Iran isn't going to change and neither is Iraq. I just hope we get out there and let the place burn (by their own hands) Being civilized is all that separates man from beast. I disagree they both have potential to grow into more than they are right now. But they also can destroy themselves like you say, wouldn't it be more beneficial if they were to come out better than they are now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:01 pm
SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse Oh you thought I was talking about just the taliban? I meant make the area an example for the who region. They don't want us there. None of the middle eastern countries do, save Israel. Iraq wants us out, Iran wants us out, you name it they hate us. Why should we help them? We shouldn't let them burn and make it known not to ******** with us. That entire area is a lot cause. Look at Iran, they have an "election" that is rigged and the opponent is up for war crimes against the country for just running! What successful operations are we talking about? The ones were there are still suicide bombings? Mild protest (against us)? The murder of our troops and construction workers? Oh really? the entire region? Might I remind you that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are all allies of the United states? and any mass strike against a large group of civilians is just political suicide for the United States. You think it is bad now with just the Middle East hating us? Think what it would be like if the United states did that and violate tons of U.N. regulations as well as the Geneva convention. Any kind of mass attack any where in that region that could harm civilians is a bad idea. Yes Iraq wants us gone. Hell we don't even want to be there but it is taking time for us to leave but it is going to happen and who knows we might get an ally out of Iraq. But Iran is undergoing change at the moment there are still protests all over the streets of Tehran and the result of this election was that the regime will fall. About 70% of Iran are 30 or younger and want a new chance with the U.S. Yes, because these countries follow UN regulation as well as the Geneva convention. In all seriousness if they aren't going to abide by them why should we in regards to them? We have diplomatic relationships with Pakistan that doesn't make them an ally. A strike on Afghanistan (at the time after 9/11 not now since it's been too long) would have soon other countries to not ******** with us. All the little terrorists do these things to protect their country. Well, best way to protect your country is not to attack ours, as this would show. Fight for your own country. It's not our problem. Those kids would turn around and high tail it back to their hovels once the first US supporter was taken down. You want to reform your country, then do your own fighting. Why should the US get involved with another country and do their reformation rights for them? We shouldn't. We follow the Geneva convention and U.N. regulations because that is what a civilized country does, it doesn't resort to terrorism to win a fight and carpet bombing is a form of terrorism. Are you talking about Iraq or Iran? If it is Iraq then as I keep saying we don't want to be there. We want them to stand on their own. But any major military withdrawal takes a huge amount of time. If it is Iran we aren't doing any sort of help to the protesters and that is exactly what they are doing is making their own reformation. Being civilized goes out of the door when threatened. They don't follow those codes why should they be protected by them? We have ignored the UN in the past, it'd be nothing new. Both are doomed. Iran isn't going to change and neither is Iraq. I just hope we get out there and let the place burn (by their own hands) Being civilized is all that separates man from beast. I disagree they both have potential to grow into more than they are right now. But they also can destroy themselves like you say, wouldn't it be more beneficial if they were to come out better than they are now? For them? Of course. For us? It shouldn't matter because it's none of our business. I disagree. Survival of the fittest is still very relevant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:24 pm
Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse SolarInvictus Vajapocalypse Yes, because these countries follow UN regulation as well as the Geneva convention. In all seriousness if they aren't going to abide by them why should we in regards to them? We have diplomatic relationships with Pakistan that doesn't make them an ally. A strike on Afghanistan (at the time after 9/11 not now since it's been too long) would have soon other countries to not ******** with us. All the little terrorists do these things to protect their country. Well, best way to protect your country is not to attack ours, as this would show. Fight for your own country. It's not our problem. Those kids would turn around and high tail it back to their hovels once the first US supporter was taken down. You want to reform your country, then do your own fighting. Why should the US get involved with another country and do their reformation rights for them? We shouldn't. We follow the Geneva convention and U.N. regulations because that is what a civilized country does, it doesn't resort to terrorism to win a fight and carpet bombing is a form of terrorism. Are you talking about Iraq or Iran? If it is Iraq then as I keep saying we don't want to be there. We want them to stand on their own. But any major military withdrawal takes a huge amount of time. If it is Iran we aren't doing any sort of help to the protesters and that is exactly what they are doing is making their own reformation. Being civilized goes out of the door when threatened. They don't follow those codes why should they be protected by them? We have ignored the UN in the past, it'd be nothing new. Both are doomed. Iran isn't going to change and neither is Iraq. I just hope we get out there and let the place burn (by their own hands) Being civilized is all that separates man from beast. I disagree they both have potential to grow into more than they are right now. But they also can destroy themselves like you say, wouldn't it be more beneficial if they were to come out better than they are now? For them? Of course. For us? It shouldn't matter because it's none of our business. I disagree. Survival of the fittest is still very relevant Ok it seems we're going in circles on Iraq/Iran Ok it is relevant but Iraq and Iran both don't show any signs of becoming massive ****holes anytime soon. Nor do they have many enemies that want to take them over. From this the only conclusion is that they will survive and there are no faults in helping along a government just starting out. Besides the Iranian regime will most likely fall in our lifetime it is all a matter of how they fall that will decide their opinion of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:47 pm
I'm reading the comments you have all made, and I hate to sound rude, but almost all of you are misinformed on the events of the past.
It makes me sad that this is the outlook you have. It seems that you guys might never learn. I'm not pointing out names, but I just find this all terrible.
While there are certain things that we, as human beings, cannot look away from, there are matters that we should mind our own business.
We had to stop Hitler, right? The Halocaust was not something we could just ask the people of Europe to sort through by themselves, right? Then again, America says they support democracy but when an Islamic government is elected, they need to be overthrown.
Please, follow alternative media outlets, not just American newspapers and CNN and the like. The media isn't informing you, it is manipulating you. Remember the man that predicted that the war in Iraq would take years and cost a lot of money? He was forced to resign. Does anyone remember him?
The recent battles in Gaza. Israel said that Hamas fired on them, right? Did you know that Israel refused to renew the ceasefire that Hamas was publicly asking for, and that they began dropping bombs before the ceasefire even stopped? That the missles fired by Hamas were for defense, killed no one, and yet the retaliation killed hundreds, many children, and even bombed public, internationally run facilities providing humanitarian aid?
Are you aware that for years Israel has had illegal check points within Gaza, keeping the people trapped? That Israel prevents enough humanitarian aid, such as food, clothing, and medicine, from entering the region? The people are starved and trapped, and have been for decades. Yet you think of them as evil people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:03 pm
AHMETRock I'm reading the comments you have all made, and I hate to sound rude, but almost all of you are misinformed on the events of the past. It makes me sad that this is the outlook you have. It seems that you guys might never learn. I'm not pointing out names, but I just find this all terrible. While there are certain things that we, as human beings, cannot look away from, there are matters that we should mind our own business. We had to stop Hitler, right? The Halocaust was not something we could just ask the people of Europe to sort through by themselves, right? Then again, America says they support democracy but when an Islamic government is elected, they need to be overthrown. Please, follow alternative media outlets, not just American newspapers and CNN and the like. The media isn't informing you, it is manipulating you. Remember the man that predicted that the war in Iraq would take years and cost a lot of money? He was forced to resign. Does anyone remember him? The recent battles in Gaza. Israel said that Hamas fired on them, right? Did you know that Israel refused to renew the ceasefire that Hamas was publicly asking for, and that they began dropping bombs before the ceasefire even stopped? That the missles fired by Hamas were for defense, killed no one, and yet the retaliation killed hundreds, many children, and even bombed public, internationally run facilities providing humanitarian aid? Are you aware that for years Israel has had illegal check points within Gaza, keeping the people trapped? That Israel prevents enough humanitarian aid, such as food, clothing, and medicine, from entering the region? The people are starved and trapped, and have been for decades. Yet you think of them as evil people. Hm not trying to sound mean either but for someone saying we're misinformed you are quite misinformed yourself. First we didn't go into WWII because there was the Holocaust. Hell we didn't even know about the Holocaust until the later parts of the war. Yes America supports democracy it is just that it is almost a proven fact that the Iranian election. 1. It said that the incumbent president won in a landslide of 63% even winning an area that Mousavvi was from. An area that has in all of Iran's previous elections has voted for the person coming from that area. 2. There are reports that Mousavvi recieved a call about an hour before the election results were made public from the election board themselves congratulating him on his win. What who was talking about Hamas? But yes I completely agree with you on the point of Israel going overboard in the direction of the Palestinians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:42 pm
@Solar: America did know about the holocaust, but we didn't know the extent and thought the issue wasn't going to spread beyond Europe. If the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor we probably wouldn't have gotten involved as soon as we did.
@Ahmet: I watch a lot of different sources of news like BBC world news (Neutrality for the win!) Fox news (Got to get the conservative side) and NBC news (Liberal side). And the media isn't manipulating anyone. Yes, there is bias, but that doesn't mean that some of the info isn't accurate.
You really need to stop this assuming about us. I don't think they're evil, but I also think that there are severe problems with extremism.
In Israel's defense you don't shoot off a missile and not expect back lash. Even if it doesn't hit anyone it is a declaration of war, or at least the onset of. Both Palestine and Israel need to come to a treaty, but that's not what this topic is exactly about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:14 pm
I didn't say Hitler is why we went, but people sure weren't happy about going to fight in WW2.
I'm sorry, but when I hear statements like "think we should have just carpet bombed them and use them as an example to back off of our country". There were other things I object to, but this should be the most obvious.
How is that statement different from 9/11?
I'm making general responses to the entire thread. 20 posts in before me.
Oh, I double checked, and it's Vaja's quote. I don't mean to target you so much. We need to have tea together some time so it doesn't seem that I'm just bullying you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:30 pm
The difference is we didn't start s**t with them. They attacked us first in without any reason. They weren't diplomatic, they didn't attempt to be. They didn't care about our citizens, why should we care about theirs?
Actually, people were ok with it once we were attacked. If we had gone in before then there would public disagreement about going in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:50 pm
But we DID start things. We armed Al-Qaeda, remember? During the Cold War, we trained and armed radical islamic forces because they would fight against Russia, our enemy, for us. They were a vital asset to defeating the "communist threat", and yet we ruined their country, destroyed the ruling class, and wacked out their economy. So there is a vast wealth difference, the people in charge are the war lords that gained power (and surely not content after the battle ceased), and Bin Laden was called a Freedom Fighter!
We put warriors into power, who don't look out for the country. We use them, have them incur the damage our country would have taken if we fought, and don't help them afterwards. Plus, we persecute them for having the people WE put in charge once they no longer benefit us.
America created the terrorists. The middle eastern plight was created when Europe and America sought to recover from WW2 and the Cold War. This is not conspiracy theory. The problem is that we are electing people who are soldiers or lawyers into office, rather than people who study the effects of what will happen as a result of their actions.
"I'm American" or "I'm British" or "I'm Iranian" or "I'm Israeli" means nothing. The government now, for every country, must do their best to fix the mistakes of the past. Killing all the by-products of your past ventures does not qualify.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 am
Ahmet: That entire area has ALWAYS been like that. Caste systems were the way to go for a very long time and a backwards country like Iraq wasn't going to change.
But see there you prove my point, we were trying to create some level of understanding, not an alliance but something close.
Again going back to history of that area, warriors in power was nothing new, it wasn't something they never had or initially had and issue with. Oh so everyone who is a soldier or a lawyer is a terrorist? Do you know those are the first levels of political involvement in the US? The majority of our presidents have been enlisted or have a history of being active in politics and government. Many senators have law degrees. God forbid we push what we do here in another county.
Oh and we persecute them not necessarily for their people in power but because of their actions against us. Instead of their leaders coming to a treaty with us they'd rather send out suicide bombers.
It's not our problem. They should fix their own country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:02 pm
Am I the only one who loves reading Vaja's and Ahmet's responses? ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:48 pm
Haha. I'm not just against her, but I think people don't really like me going against them actively.
Anyways, "always" isn't a good description. Unless you're 70or 80 years old and can recall, I'm pretty sure that's merely a perception you are holding. True that there were power struggles within the Middle East as the Ottoman empire collapsed, but nothing like today.
The Ottoman empire had allied with German, unable to oppose them. The empire was overthrown, and became turkey and other modern countries. The UN and US oversaw the region, and as I said, promoted the war hungry into power for siding with capitalism against Russia. Your dismissal implicates they are somehow violent by nature. That the arabs or middle easterners would have fought and tried to kill us even if we didn't screw them over.
I personally didn't want Ahmadinejad to win again, and even if the polls weren't rigged, disabling the youth's internet and phones stopped them from being effective. I know that there are problems with them and the people in charge. But America is pretty bad too. Christianity is the unofficial official religion of the US. Remember all the accusations that Obama was Muslim? So what if he was? A country that claims Islamic roots is bad, but America is just as bad with their christian wing. And deny it all you want, but the majority of power is held by people that feel the bible's law should be America's law.
Anyways, you all seem to feel privaleged. That you are part of a strong nation, your pain must be punished. The opponents must accept your decision, despite the fact they also feel the same kind of pain as you. It's being hypocritical. I think someone called me a "bleeding heart" once. What I'm saying is that if you say it's okay for you to have them killed, don't feel surprised that they think it's okay for them to kill you.
Also, don't you dare ask for mercy when you stare down the barrel of a gun, because you guys aren't reluctant to pull the trigger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
