War on Terror

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

You know I don't know. Have things really changed all that much? I'm not over there, so I don't really know. Sure, you have the media, but they can spin it anyway they want, can't they? You really don't know if you can trust them, do you? They haven't exactly proved to be trustworthy in the past, have they?

Do I personally believe that we have done well? No, I don't. Personally, I don't understand why we were in Iraq in the first place, but that's me. Do I think we should just leave now? Not really, we interfered and it's our responsibility to fix things as best we can now. Should we continue? I don't know. Maybe.

 

[Rexi]

Well, an attack was done in the United States, that's why we have troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. If troops are not stationed there, we will see more attacks in the United States, so they are there, at the very least, for our safety. And yes, terrorism will never be fully abolished, but if we can at least reduce it to the point where it won't endanger many countries, then it is well worth it. So as much as people may think our presence there is less than good, there is a reason for it, and quite frankly, a very good one, for the safety of the people in the United States.

Bolded parts - wrong. People need to learn to differentiate between Iraq and Afghanistan. They are two seperate wars. Afghanistan = terrorism, Osama Bin Laden. Iraq was due to SUPPOSED (Which has now been discredited as a lie) weapons of mass destruction. In addition to that, a dictator was removed. This had very little to do with the original attacks on the towers in 9/11, which are the sole reason for this ludicrous war on terror.

Your second bolded statement is just an assumption. There is nothing to say that if America pulls out of Iraq and Afghanistan, more terrorist attacks will follow. It's a possibility, hell even a probability, but in no way is it a dead cert.

Unfortunately, we wouldn't be in this position if Bush and his advisers hadn't been so incapable. What began as a small partisan force in the mountains of Afghanistan, which could have easily been eradicated since the MOD knew exactly where Bin Laden was based, was allowed to grow into what we have now. I don't think I really need to mention as well, that no wars fought by external forces have ever succeeded in a war against the middle-east. They know the terrain too well and are too well-defended.

Depressingly, the whole situation reminds me of trying to knock a wall down by throwing tomatoes at it. No matter how many troops are thrown against Afghanistan and Iraq, all that will happen is a bloody, squishy mess.

 

[blakstang98]

Bolded parts - wrong. People need to learn to differentiate between Iraq and Afghanistan. They are two seperate wars. Afghanistan = terrorism, Osama Bin Laden. Iraq was due to SUPPOSED (Which has now been discredited as a lie) weapons of mass destruction. In addition to that, a dictator was removed. This had very little to do with the original attacks on the towers in 9/11, which are the sole reason for this ludicrous war on terror.

So Iraq is not a country that supports terrorism? Considering the dictator funded terrorism and even terrorized the people of his own country, I'd say that my initial statements were correct. Sure, the war was initially against Afghanistan, but don't be naive in thinking Iraq had nothing to do with it. And thinking Iraq doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction is also an assumption. If you knock on someones door and ask them if they have something you're looking for, it doesn't mean they'll tell the truth and show it to you. Obviously things are hidden very well when it's known that someone else is looking for them. But it certainly doesn't mean that there aren't any in the country of Iraq.

Your second bolded statement is just an assumption. There is nothing to say that if America pulls out of Iraq and Afghanistan, more terrorist attacks will follow. It's a possibility, hell even a probability, but in no way is it a dead cert.

Considering threats have already been made for another attack, I'd say that the assumption becomes more of a fact. Sure, they could be yanking our chains and bluffing, but considering it's already been done once, what says it won't be done again? Especially considering how much America is disliked by said countries and terrorist organizations. Nothing would make them happier than to see the United States leveled completely.

Unfortunately, we wouldn't be in this position if Bush and his advisers hadn't been so incapable. What began as a small partisan force in the mountains of Afghanistan, which could have easily been eradicated since the MOD knew exactly where Bin Laden was based, was allowed to grow into what we have now. I don't think I really need to mention as well, that no wars fought by external forces have ever succeeded in a war against the middle-east. They know the terrain too well and are too well-defended.

You may blame Bush, but the best has yet to come. This war would have been long over if the terrain didn't work to the Afghan's advantage so much. It's one of the many factors that keeps the war in progress. But considering what kind of armament the United States has, I'd say they've done a very good job in not making the war an external effort, it's saved many lives, relatively speaking of course.

Depressingly, the whole situation reminds me of trying to knock a wall down by throwing tomatoes at it. No matter how many troops are thrown against Afghanistan and Iraq, all that will happen is a bloody, squishy mess.

It's unfortunate, agreed. But it's for the safety of the general population.

 

[Donald Trump]

So Iraq is not a country that supports terrorism? Considering the dictator funded terrorism and even terrorized the people of his own country, I'd say that my initial statements were correct. Sure, the war was initially against Afghanistan, but don't be naive in thinking Iraq had nothing to do with it. And thinking Iraq doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction is also an assumption. If you knock on someones door and ask them if they have something you're looking for, it doesn't mean they'll tell the truth and show it to you. Obviously things are hidden very well when it's known that someone else is looking for them. But it certainly doesn't mean that there aren't any in the country of Iraq.

They didn't have WMDs. And Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with funding terrorism. Middle Eastern terrorists; Al Qaida, Hamas etc etc tend to all be religious extremists. Iraq was a secular country, so funding terrorism would, a) not be something he believed in and b) detrimental to himself.
The fact that he committed genocide has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. It proves that he was a cunt, but nothing more than that.

Considering threats have already been made for another attack, I'd say that the assumption becomes more of a fact. Sure, they could be yanking our chains and bluffing, but considering it's already been done once, what says it won't be done again? Especially considering how much America is disliked by said countries and terrorist organizations. Nothing would make them happier than to see the United States leveled completely.

Threats mean very little. Most terrorists and even quite a few leaders of Middle Eastern countries make these threats. Whether it's about wiping Israel off the face of the Earth or just killing the great Satan America, it doesn't prove anything. It's already been mentioned how hard it is to attack Americans in America in this thread. Their dislike of America is more to do with the fact that America gets itself involved in their affairs, than any desire to eradicate America.

You may blame Bush, but the best has yet to come. This war would have been long over if the terrain didn't work to the Afghan's advantage so much. It's one of the many factors that keeps the war in progress. But considering what kind of armament the United States has, I'd say they've done a very good job in not making the war an external effort, it's saved many lives, relatively speaking of course.

Relatively 10,000 or fewer American lives against the million plus caused by the war.

It's unfortunate, agreed. But it's for the safety of the general population.

I think that's the crux of your argument. The war makes sense because it keeps Americans safe, even at a massive cost of lives to non Americans. Perhaps if I was American I'd feel the same way but being a neutral it sounds arrogant. 'Our lives are worth more than yours', I'm not saying that's how you think but that is sort of how it comes across.

 

[blakstang98]

They didn't have WMDs. And Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with funding terrorism. Middle Eastern terrorists; Al Qaida, Hamas etc etc tend to all be religious extremists. Iraq was a secular country, so funding terrorism would, a) not be something he believed in and b) detrimental to himself.
The fact that he committed genocide has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. It proves that he was a cunt, but nothing more than that.

Terrorism is funded by someone, it doesn't operate for free. Groups like Al Qaida have a ton of money, and Afghanistan doesn't have much to spare for these groups. So yes, Hussein was funding them, as well that was proven before his death anyways.

Threats mean very little. Most terrorists and even quite a few leaders of Middle Eastern countries make these threats. Whether it's about wiping Israel off the face of the Earth or just killing the great Satan America, it doesn't prove anything. It's already been mentioned how hard it is to attack Americans in America in this thread. Their dislike of America is more to do with the fact that America gets itself involved in their affairs, than any desire to eradicate America.

An attempted attack was made under the Clinton administration and an attack was successful under the Bush administration. Whether they are empty threats or not, we can't turn our backs to them. Their dislike for America could be for any reason, but the fact is, they dislike us, and given the opportunity, it will happen again.

Relatively 10,000 or fewer American lives against the million plus caused by the war.

As I mentioned in an earlier response, the main objective to war isn't to erradicate as many lives as possible, but to reduce terrorism as much as possible. Americans aren't going to walk into villiages of innocent people and just kill them because they are Afghans or Iraqi's. If the war ended tomorrow, would that really be the final tally?

I think that's the crux of your argument. The war makes sense because it keeps Americans safe, even at a massive cost of lives to non Americans. Perhaps if I was American I'd feel the same way but being a neutral it sounds arrogant. 'Our lives are worth more than yours', I'm not saying that's how you think but that is sort of how it comes across.

Obviously one will support their country. But again, nobody is shooting for numbers. It's unfortunate, but it is the cost of war, that lives of Americans and non Americans will perish. The point I'm making goes back a few responses, again, is that we are keeping the war off American soil. We would all prefer a war with no bloodshed, but you and I both know that will never happen.

 

[Donald Trump]

Terrorism is funded by someone, it doesn't operate for free. Groups like Al Qaida have a ton of money, and Afghanistan doesn't have much to spare for these groups. So yes, Hussein was funding them, as well that was proven before his death anyways.

Afghanistan has a lot of Heroin to sell. Terrorists also rob and extort and kidnap, they can fund themselves. There are also plenty of rich arab businessmen willing to fund terrorism. Plus Osama bin Laden's own personal wealth.
If you can show me the proof, I'll admit you have a point. IF he was funding them, there were still plenty of others who haven't attacked.

An attempted attack was made under the Clinton administration and an attack was successful under the Bush administration. Whether they are empty threats or not, we can't turn our backs to them. Their dislike for America could be for any reason, but the fact is, they dislike us, and given the opportunity, it will happen again.

But what America is doing is not going to change anything. They will still dislike America and continue to make threats. It's just going to perpetuate the status quo. It doesn't sound like much of a plan.

As I mentioned in an earlier response, the main objective to war isn't to erradicate as many lives as possible, but to reduce terrorism as much as possible. Americans aren't going to walk into villiages of innocent people and just kill them because they are Afghans or Iraqi's. If the war ended tomorrow, would that really be the final tally?

They don't walk in and shoot them yet, they're not the IDF. But civilians are constantly being killed in the crossfire or by inaccurate bombings. The suicide bombings are car bombings are done to destabilise the government. For better or worse they wouldn't have happened under the previous regimes. America has to be at least slightly accountable for those deaths.
If America left the Middle East entirely physically and politically I don't think that Americans would be targets. They were more than happy to accept help from America in 1979, they don't have an irrational hatred for America.

Obviously one will support their country. But again, nobody is shooting for numbers. It's unfortunate, but it is the cost of war, that lives of Americans and non Americans will perish. The point I'm making goes back a few responses, again, is that we are keeping the war off American soil.

But the price for keeping the war off American soil is the deaths of Soldiers and massive numbers of Arab civilians. Al Qaida think exactly the same way, the civilains are collateral damage.

 

[blakstang98]

They don't walk in and shoot them yet, they're not the IDF. But civilians are constantly being killed in the crossfire or by inaccurate bombings. The suicide bombings are car bombings are done to destabilise the government. For better or worse they wouldn't have happened under the previous regimes. America has to be at least slightly accountable for those deaths.
If America left the Middle East entirely physically and politically I don't think that Americans would be targets. They were more than happy to accept help from America in 1979, they don't have an irrational hatred for America.

Innocent civilians die at the time of war, civilians from both sides. This is the reason war is unsupported by many, just to spare those lives and those of the troops. America was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001, and the United States at that point in time had no involvement in Middle Eastern affairs. So why were our innocent lives lost on that day? Every American was ready to pick up a rifle and go to war on September 12th. People quickly forget what happened over 8 years ago, you expect them to remember 1979? I don't want to see or hear about anyone getting killed, no matter what the situation is. But if I have to choose between a person trained to defend themself and their country or a person who doesn't have involvement in military action to take the bullet, I'd choose the trained one because there is a chance that person will be able to evade it. Troops have died, but they were certain that death was a consequence. The innocent lives in the twin towers were regular people going to work and never came home to their families, and had no idea that they were being dragged into a military affair, never had a chance to tell their families that they loved them if they never made it home alive. That's the point I'm getting at.

 

[The Illusive Man]

Personally I think the war on terrorism is a lesser of two evils, yes there are lives lost on a daily basis and there is always going to be questions raised and peaceful ideals dreamed of.

But there is no guarantee if the US and UK's influence was entirely pulled out that they would just simply leave us alone, they are afterall the extremist wing of relgious beliefs and are every bit as zealous as the knights that participated in the crusade masacres during the middle ages.

9/11 and 7/7 are just testiment to what they are capable of, they were both completely unprovoked attacks, to just simply pull out of the middle east and allow them to carry on to there own devices would simply allow more of these tragedies to occur in which millions more lives would be at stake, the few thousand soldiers although deaths that none of us like to see or hear about especially when it directly involves loved ones are but a small price to pay for the freedoms that we take for granted on a daily basis.

 

[CassinoChips]

America was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001, and the United States at that point in time had no involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.

That's not entirely true. First and foremost, the U.S. will always be linked to the Middle East as long as Israel exists as an independent state, as we were among the coalition that carved the Israeli nation out of what was Palestine. Secondly, the reason Osama bin Laden was so anti-American was because of our involvement in the Middle East, and specifically Saudi Arabia, his home nation. After he helped drive Russia out of Afghanistan, Iraq invaded Kuwait, which was a problem for the Saudis. (Another reason he and Hussein shared no love.) bin Laden wanted the Royal Saudis not to rely on foreign troops, and he had his successful army from Afghanistan. Instead, the Saudis allowed the U.S. to set up on Saudi soil to launch their invasion of Iraq and defense of Kuwait, which to bin Laden was a slap in the face. This, combined with his belief that the U.S. allowed/supported the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and their general lack of direct involvement in Afghanistan, soured bin Laden on the U.S.

After the Soviets withdrew, bin Laden then went to the Sudan, set up a mujahideen, eventually wore out his welcome, and returned to Afghanistan.

bin Laden and Iraq have no ties. Al-Qaida and Iraq have no ties. 9/11 and Iraq have no ties. Terrorism has nothing to do with why we are in Iraq. The Cheney regime, in a moment of devious brilliance, walked Americans up to the cliff that tied together terrorism and Iraq and then let us all jump over the edge on our own. You'd be hard-pressed to find any Cheney official who directly linked Iraq to terrorism, because they knew that wasn't the case. But you'll find plenty of instances where they hint at it. Because they wanted justification to go into Iraq, and needed the support of (enough of) the American people. And by incorrectly linking Iraq to bin Laden, or Al-Qaida, or saying they had WMDs, they could prey on and exploit that fear that was now firmly planted in the psyche of the United States. That is the lasting legacy of Cheney's regime. The ability to manipulate and prey on the fears of the American public.

You may say that Hussein terrorized his own people, and that's certainly the case. The torture chambers, etc. that troops have uncovered speak to that. But if that was a mitigating factor, why did we not interfere in Darfur when A) atrocities were happening left and right, on an arguably greater scale than in Iraq, B) the mujahideen in charge and commiting much of the atrocity was a direct descendant of that which was established by bin Laden in the '90s, and C) that country and that region in general are just as unstable, if not more so, than the Middle East?

No, the more I look back, the more I think Cheney was hell bent on finding a way to go into Iraq from the start. That way he could clean up the mess that Bush Senior left in Iraq, raise oil prices across the globe which would earn him more money, and allow Halliburton to get the major DoD contracts in the region, which would earn him more money. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, it's the only thing that makes even the slightest bit of sense. The 9/11 attacks just gave him the perfect opportunity to do so, and Afghanistan gave him the perfect cover to do so.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

well it sorta makes sense in the aspect of where your going Jesse. I'm not a fan of Cheney anyway but if I think about it, a part of me think that it's better to have gotten rid of Hussein, and a part of me thinks that we should've left Iraq alone and focused on Afghanistan.