Another beheading..... (CNN, soldiers, weapon, border)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You speak like George W. Bush is the only president who got us into a war.
About 64 years ago, the US went head first into the Korean War, even though no American lives were in danger. Three years later, the US sent "military advisers" to Vietnam. This began the Vietnam War, accelerated greatly under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, even though no American lives were ever in danger. In the early 1980s, over 200 US Marines were killed in a terrorist attack in Lebanon. They were stationed there by our commander in chief, even though no American lives were ever in danger. Also in the early 1980s, the US spent several billion dollars keeping the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, even though no American lives were in danger. In 1990, President George HW Bush started the first Gulf War by sending over half a million of our troops to save Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, even though no American lives were in danger.
You say that our last episode of "going to war" went sour???!! How about the last 64 years of battles that went sour? We have been at war almost continuously since the end of World War 2, and we have only one victory to speak of, that is the liberation of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Even though we were able to keep the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, during that war we ended up arming muslim militants and giving them a safe haven for them to attack us on September 11, 2001. I don't call that a victory.
Thanks a lot Mr. Eisenhower. Thanks a lot Mr. Kennedy. Thanks a lot Mr. Nixon. Thanks a lot Mr. Reagan. Thanks a lot Mr. Bush (president number 43).
First of all, in the cold war era, the US used to go to war even though no American lives were in danger. And that was received well by the world. The world used to take their hat off to Americans for our selfless sacrifice. For example, if the US had not sent troops to Korea in 1950, the world would be very different now. At least that was the consensus. Vietnam war was a little different story. It was a terribly lost war, but still the world was on our side, only sorry that we lost.
However, since the Soviet's collapse, it all changed. We lost our fighting partner. The new enemies that emerged were something called "terrorists." Their attack capacity was way too small, compared to the USSR, but they still threw us small punches here and there and gave us non-negligible damages from time to time. So we kept the reason to be alert with our military forces.
But, in my view, the real damage to the US began during the first Gulf War (the war you consider a "victory"). The world began to question the true motivation of the US in the war. After all, nations wage a war or help other countries defend from an attack, because of their own national interest--balance of world power, defense of certain religion, or money--whatever that might be. Prior to the first Gulf War, the US did a pretty good job of hiding the real motivation and putting forward the ideology. The world believed us. They might not agree with us all the time, but when we posed ourselves as a righteous people, they took its face value. But the first Gulf War made the world realize very clearly that, after all, the US was doing it because of their own interest. Those countries on our side, UK, Germany, France, etc, were busy calculating their gains and losses and decided their level of participation (of course, for the "return"). No more ideology. No more noble goals. Everyone knew it. Other countries, however, that were not part of the equation of gains and losses, started to look at this in a very sour way. They just considered the US (and the western in general) "blood-loving" people who go to war every once in a while and show off the power.
You call it "liberation of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein." Unfortunately, that wasn't the consensus in the world. To most people outside the US, it was simply a US-led invasion. So people started to hate the US and Americans. Granted, the anti-Americanism had existed for a while, but it was rather sporadic. The anti-Americanism gained its momentum during 90's and that coincided with the collapse of the USSR. The anti-Americanism was getting worse, whenever the US tried to act "righteously." Those people were sickened by that. Obviously the US was no longer doing a good job of showing the good propaganda and hiding the true motivation.
Now, back to the issue on this thread:
911, and admittedly the war on afghanistan was a necessary evil, because it was our counter-attack to Al-Qaeda, it was well justified.
But, going after Saddam Hussein?? That really messed things up.
Here's my summary---
In the past the US went to war even if Americans were not in danger. And the world respected us.
But, now we are in all different landscape. When the US goes to war without Americans in danger... the world no longer respect us like they used to. A bad example is the first US-led invasion to Iraq and even worse example is the second invasion to Iraq. We all know it.
My whole point is, now, the US is threatened by IS. We can attack them with good justification. Show the world what the consequences are if you mess with us. But somehow Obama is not doing that (or he doesn't seem to have a strategy). I feel violated as a nation. We are being raped and how long are we going to stand it? That's my disappointment with Obama.
But, now that you mentioned it, I'm going to have to say again, Thanks a lot Mr. Bush (both of you!). It's pretty hard to forget what you father and son did to our country. History will know it.
I hate to be heartless, but when will americans realize that we do not belong in these god forsaken countries.
I'm sick of hearing about journalists going to these places and getting taken hostage then killed.
for what, a job? no job, in my mind is worth losing your life, not even a freaking story.
so my sympathy runs a little low when I hear this.
these journalists are showing the world what the tyrants don't want anyone to see. They're responsible for uncovering the atrocities. Yes, it's dangerous. But if they don't do it, no one will. And, unfortunately, some things are worth dying for.
I hate to be heartless, but when will americans realize that we do not belong in these god forsaken countries.
I'm sick of hearing about journalists going to these places and getting taken hostage then killed.
for what, a job? no job, in my mind is worth losing your life, not even a freaking story.
so my sympathy runs a little low when I hear this.
WE DO NOT BELONG IN THESE COUNTRIES
You're not being heartless, you're stating the truth.
It's really not much different than these hikers who get themselves stranded and than the taxpayer has to foot the bill to get them rescued. You put yourself in harm's way and than someone is supposed to rescue you.
Now some states are starting to bill them, as they should be.
These aren't military personnel, these are "journalists"(anyone can call themselves that) who went over there knowing the danger. The mother was on TV asking the US govt for help, but how much did she do trying to talk her son(yes he is an adult but you can still talk someone out of something) and drive home the point, not a good idea.
If you look at it from the "It's Bush's fault" angle, you can also say the same for Obama. He pulled the troops out of Iraq and ISIS immediately spread across the country like wildfire. I didn't want the troops staying over there either, but everyone knew this was going to happen. They were counting on the Iraqi's to be strong enough to put down an organized insurgency, which was completely unrealistic.
Doesn't matter if we were there for 1 year or 100 years, the Iraqis would never have been able to stand on their own and this would have happened anyways.
You have noticed Middle East countries don't hold up under pressure except for US backing? Their people don't have enough heart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequon
About 10 years ago, the US invaded Iraq based on a few people's lies, even though no American lives were in danger.
Since then, trillion dollars wasted, thousands of lives sacrificed.
For what? Not sure.
Now, gruesome murders of two Americans and a few more lives threatened, what is the US doing now?
I am not saying "go to war" now, particularly because out last episode of "going-to-war" went sour. We are just too tired. Thanks a lot, Mr. Bush.
Still, shouldn't there be any counter-measure of some sort? I normally don't like Israelis' approach to "killing 10 enemies for one of us killed," but a milder version may be OK--like killing 2-3 enemies for one of us killed. The point is, if you are attacked, attack back. HARD. Until they know it.
Forget international collaboration stuff, you have less reason to be diplomatic when American lives are directly on their gunpoint (worse, under their knife blades).
This is not a time to spread Jesus' love.
We've been bombing them. Speculation spec ops are on the ground.
ISIS needs to be destroyed. Iraq was a waste. Destruction of ISIS isn't. But it needs to be done brutally, which the US won't do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsun556
Orrrrrr, maybe American non-combatants can just keep their nose out of that area and refrain from getting in the middle of it all since journalist obviously doesn't matter.
That's another side of it. These journalists went into war zones. You accept the probability of death when you do that. Doesn't matter who's flag you fly under.
Same thing with the idiot Americans going to North Korea or Iran. You accept the risk when you go to certain places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ7
ISIS told Obama to stop bombing them, Obama did not stop and instead has taken back ground with his airstrikes. Obama needs to step up to the plate right now and attack them in Syria, where it really matters.
If we stopped bombing them to save one person, terrorism wins. We didn't go to Iraq to fight terrorism, ISIS on the other hand embodies terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sade693
I hope you are all aware that our involvement with Iraq and the Middle East (and the subsequent hardcore resentment held by some people in the areas affected) goes back way before 2001-2003. You have to go back at least as far as Bush Sr. to see the string of mistakes we made that got us to this point. And I suspect, if you really do your research, you'll see the history goes back even farther than that..
People forget that. Prior to Bush Sr. Iraq had a growing middle class. We destroyed that. We brought that country down. We destabilized. We are responsible for what's going on there with ISIS and their crimes against humanity.
Not at all. The Bush led invasion was a horrible mistake.
I was just heading off the "it's all Bush's fault" babble before that snowball gained momentum.
Obama had a role in all of it as well. Our government has failed us at many critical levels over the past 2 administrations.
Although the US was not prepared for the insurgent fighting that killed most of our troops, ridding the world of a regime that committed mass murder, harbored terrorists, invaded Kuwait, funded a jihad against Israel, tried to kill a US President and was working on rebuilding its once-massive stocks of chemical weapons was not a horrible mistake.
Or maybe the world would have been better off with Saddam Hussein.
I hate to be heartless, but when will americans realize that we do not belong in these god forsaken countries.
I'm sick of hearing about journalists going to these places and getting taken hostage then killed.
for what, a job? no job, in my mind is worth losing your life, not even a freaking story.
so my sympathy runs a little low when I hear this.
WE DO NOT BELONG IN THESE COUNTRIES
If ISIS is able to come through with its threat to attack and kill Americans on our own soil, what would you expect the US response to be?
Although the US was not prepared for the insurgent fighting that killed most of our troops, ridding the world of a regime that committed mass murder, harbored terrorists, invaded Kuwait, funded a jihad against Israel, tried to kill a US President and was working on rebuilding its once-massive stocks of chemical weapons was not a horrible mistake.
Or maybe the world would have been better off with Saddam Hussein.
No evidence of any of that.
We can occupy other countries, but others can't? Makes sense.
Might as well invade every muslim country then.
Iraq wouldn't be in pieces with Saddam. Bad man, yes. Enemy of America, no. At least he kept the country in order better than we did.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,156,795 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequon
......My whole point is, now, the US is threatened by IS. We can attack them with good justification. Show the world what the consequences are if you mess with us. But somehow Obama is not doing that (or he doesn't seem to have a strategy). I feel violated as a nation. We are being raped and how long are we going to stand it? That's my disappointment with Obama.
But, now that you mentioned it, I'm going to have to say again, Thanks a lot Mr. Bush (both of you!). It's pretty hard to forget what you father and son did to our country. History will know it.
Well, actually we're not threatened by Isis. It's the ME that's threatened by them.
Any terrorist group can pose a threat of doing some little Boston-marathon type attack, an al-Qaeda cell no less than an Isis one. We seem to have good protections against the bigger attacks now.
The threat is from extremist Islam, not any one of the many small groups that infest the entire planet. It's a fundamentalist theology that is actually well-supported by the Koran and the actions of Muhammed, so it won't go away anytime soon. It's not a problem that can be solved even with a nuclear weapon, they're everywhere!
The main attack needs to be psychological, to promote the "softer" versions of Islam, to urge them to elect non-theocratic govts ...... and to open them up to the idea of nonviolent methods of resolving conflict.
It was done in Turkey under Ataturk with quite a bit of success, so we know it can be done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
