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.
They absolutely would be, yes...they just might not be planting them in Baghdad, if you catch my drift.
They are not fighting us because we are there. They are fighting us there because we are there, but they would be just as happy fighting us somewhere else if we weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That makes absolutely no sense. The old "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" argument. If they really wanted to fight us "somewhere else" (interpreted to mean in our own backyard) they would be doing just that. But they don't have the means to do so and they are not stupid or foolish or as wasteful of their resources as we are. Their leaders invoke their God to spread hatred just like our government (and media, and religion, etc.) do except they've now got thousands of valid reasons and we don't have any.
"Invading their countries, killing their loved ones, irradiating them with depleted uranium, destroying their pitiful infrastructure, installing puppet governments, torturing their citizens, locking up innocents in foreign prisons, building permanent military bases on their land... nah, they got no rational reason to hate us glorious freedom-givers. They've got to be contained over THERE because they're all nuts". (...applause...applause... at my impression of American insanity).
My specific question involves Iran, and Hillary Clinton's pronouncement at the debate and in subsequent interviews that she would be in favor of American protections for all the countries of the Middle East and that if Iran hurt Israel, she would order the "obliteration" of Iran. Since this is a departure from our current policy, I wanted to discuss our relationship with the Iranian people vs the government and if you thought it moral or not to plan for the "obliteration" of Iran. This is not a discussion of Iraq.
First off, this is not a "departure" from our current foreign policy in the region it is a continuation of our foreign policy in the Middle East that has existed for 50 years.
As far as "our" relationship with the Iranian people, we have none beyond one of dehumanizing the entire population. After all, if we need to ever invade, occupy or just simply attack Iran, it is easier to pump round after round of depleted uranium rounds into their skulls if they are seen as terrorist, suspected terrorist, or even potential terrorist, anything but human beings.
The only time war approaches a moral thing is when it is the defense of ones people and to ensure ones existence and even then, it isn't as much a moral thing as a necessary thing. War on its best day is a damn horrible thing that should be the last recourse of those who value life, so trying to interject morality into it is more the realm of a political pep rally rationalizing it for consumption of the masses.
Clinton's comments may have some truth if we ask ourselves, which is more humane; to obliterate and turn an entire population into ash in an instant and the remainder to die in days and weeks or to subject a population into a long drawn war in which people slowly starve, die of disease, and simply waste away?
Would they have been planting those IEDs had our troops NOT invaded their land?
I think it is pretty safe to assume that the killing prevalent before we invaded would have continued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
That was another question.
That was another attempt to avoid the original question. Please answer... yes or no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001
That makes absolutely no sense. The old "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" argument. If they really wanted to fight us "somewhere else" (interpreted to mean in our own backyard) they would be doing just that. But they don't have the means to do so and they are not stupid or foolish or as wasteful of their resources as we are. Their leaders invoke their God to spread hatred just like our government (and media, and religion, etc.) do except they've now got thousands of valid reasons and we don't have any.
"Invading their countries, killing their loved ones, irradiating them with depleted uranium, destroying their pitiful infrastructure, installing puppet governments, torturing their citizens, locking up innocents in foreign prisons, building permanent military bases on their land... nah, they got no rational reason to hate us glorious freedom-givers. They've got to be contained over THERE because they're all nuts". (...applause...applause... at my impression of American insanity).
WOW another Anti-American rant. These are serious charges that you can't back up. This is the exact type of thing our enemies use to recruit and motivate. These newly recruited and motivated enemies kill our soldiers. Knowing this, there is no way anyone can make these blatantly false claims then turn around and say they support our troops.
I thnik if you will look at the past such as bill clintons presidency the democrats prefer to bomb the hell out of them rather than send troops. They say that the people of Iraq were better off with saddam in power killing the shia and kurds . They also say it is none of our business if people in the sudan are being kiled off by the thousands all the time.But then if some where like Bosnia in europe happens we must act becasue europe says so. But otherwise we can call for protest and feel our moral obligation has been met.
Surely you jest. The tonnage dropped by the Repubs far outweigh what Clinton used in Iraq and Bosnia. The only reason Saddam used the weapons that America sold him, on the Kurds and Shia , was because Bush Sr urged them to revolt against Saddam, and they did, thinking that America was right behimd them. Oops.
I think it is pretty safe to assume that the killing prevalent before we invaded would have continued.
The level of killing prevalent before we invaded was trivial in comparison to that which has gone on since. You'd have to go back more than a decade to the Gulf War and its aftermath to find anything remotely comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagz
That was another attempt to avoid the original question. Please answer... yes or no.
No, US troops are not setting roadside bombs or carrying out car bomb attacks. Now it's your turn. Would these roadside and car-bomb attacks be occurring if we had not invaded? Yes or no.
Bonus Question: Would there be such a thing as al Qaeda in Iraq if we had not invaded, or is this group one of the reasons why US intelligence agencies concluded that the US invasion has made terrorism worse, not better...stronger, not weaker.
We didn't find WMD but we found mass graves. You are simply wrong on this one.
Who was buried in those mass graves? Let's see...there were the Kurds that Saddam wiped out during the Iran-Iraq War because they were fighting for and with Iran, and there were all those who did not survive Saddam's brutal prison system. The bulk of them however were the Kurds slaughtered in the north and the Shia Marsh Arabs slaughered in the south after they rose up in an attempted revolt against Saddam at US urging at the end of the Gulf War, only to see the US pack up and fly away on them.
I'm confused why we think a statement like this is needed. After all Israel has 200 nukes. I think Israel will take care of business if they are attacked. No need for us to do anything lets wait for the dust to settle and most all lets see if we can exist together and not have to nuke each other first. This is something Israel and Iran need to work out. We also don;t need to pick sides and most of all we don't need any military bases and we shouldn't be supporting any countries.
The level of killing prevalent before we invaded was trivial in comparison to that which has gone on since. You'd have to go back more than a decade to the Gulf War and its aftermath to find anything remotely comparable.
What a surprize... the level of killing is greater in wartime than peace time.
Quote:
No, US troops are not setting roadside bombs or carrying out car bomb attacks. Now it's your turn. Would these roadside and car-bomb attacks be occurring if we had not invaded? Yes or no.
No.... That is one of the reasons I was in the minority before the war started when I was opposed to going. Now that we are there, you can't blame our troops for illegal actions such as roadside bombings and such questions do exactly that for no other reason than political gain.
Quote:
Bonus Question: Would there be such a thing as al Qaeda in Iraq if we had not invaded, or is this group one of the reasons why US intelligence agencies concluded that the US invasion has made terrorism worse, not better...stronger, not weaker.
This is not a yes or no question... it is a false dichotomy - So my answer will not fit one of your choices. As it turned out, the ability to do so much damage to al Qaeda was a side benefit to the war... not to be confused with a reason to go to war.
Bonus question (yes or no) Has al Qaeda attacked American Soil since 9/11??
Double bonus... Do you think they would have if they could have?
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.
