You attack = you are the bad guy. It's as simple as that.Harmor wrote:
Interesting...only attack once they have attacked you. So much for prevention/intervention.
I believe the United States has 150,000 troops after the Surge™. Plus another 20,000 in Afghanistan. This doesn't count the 5 carrier groups we have in or near the Persian Gulf.Magpie wrote:
aint that more troops than the us has in iraq?
What about when Israel attacked Hezbolla last summer? Even though Hezbolla kidnapped an Israeli soldier and started firing rockets into Israel first, Israel was the bad guy? Or could Hezbolla justify the preemptive attack because of the way Israel dealt with the Palistilians?CameronPoe wrote:
You attack = you are the bad guy. It's as simple as that.Harmor wrote:
Interesting...only attack once they have attacked you. So much for prevention/intervention.
You're attacked = you can respond in kind conscience-clear (within reason).
If there is evidence that a country harbored/supported the group responsible for an attack, as in the case of Afghanistan that was harboring the Taliban, then we are justified to attack them. As for attacking Iraq, that was interventionism.CameronPoe wrote:
Besides, what are you supposed to 'attack'? You can't tell who is who - that's why it's best to keep to yourself and build a fortress of a nation.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.Mekstizzle wrote:
What the hell is wrong with you? They want to get rid of the TERRORISTS in Kurdistan. In what way is that war against America? In what way is that NOT helping you guys out (helping out the Coalition) by getting rid of extremists in that area? This is the war on terrorism buddy, don't cry when someone else wants to kill terrorists.ATG wrote:
It will be interesting to see Turkeys standing army go up against the standing army in Iraq of America._1_MAN-ARMY.17 wrote:
we will never let them seperate our country!
It will not be IED's and occupation but a conventional war and the Turks will be butchered.
Please remind your war mongering brethren of our capabilities in conventional war.
Besides they're both part of NATO. I doubt they'd fight each other.
So, in other words, an allied terrorist is OK, even when he commits the same crimes than the extremists you fight.ATG wrote:
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.Mekstizzle wrote:
What the hell is wrong with you? They want to get rid of the TERRORISTS in Kurdistan. In what way is that war against America? In what way is that NOT helping you guys out (helping out the Coalition) by getting rid of extremists in that area? This is the war on terrorism buddy, don't cry when someone else wants to kill terrorists.ATG wrote:
It will be interesting to see Turkeys standing army go up against the standing army in Iraq of America.
It will not be IED's and occupation but a conventional war and the Turks will be butchered.
Please remind your war mongering brethren of our capabilities in conventional war.
Besides they're both part of NATO. I doubt they'd fight each other.
The Kurds are our allies.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-07-12 05:57:18)
Harmor you do realise that the last Israel - Lebanon conflict was started over ONE detained soldier while the whole world decided to neglect the fact that 10'000 Palestinians were and still are being detained by the Israelis (most without trial or basic legal rights)? Maybe who is considered the bad guy has more to do with what facts one chooses to ignore?Harmor wrote:
What about when Israel attacked Hezbolla last summer? Even though Hezbolla kidnapped an Israeli soldier and started firing rockets into Israel first, Israel was the bad guy? Or could Hezbolla justify the preemptive attack because of the way Israel dealt with the Palistilians?CameronPoe wrote:
You attack = you are the bad guy. It's as simple as that.Harmor wrote:
Interesting...only attack once they have attacked you. So much for prevention/intervention.
You're attacked = you can respond in kind conscience-clear (within reason).
I think world opinion has more to do as who is considered the bad guy.If there is evidence that a country harbored/supported the group responsible for an attack, as in the case of Afghanistan that was harboring the Taliban, then we are justified to attack them. As for attacking Iraq, that was interventionism.CameronPoe wrote:
Besides, what are you supposed to 'attack'? You can't tell who is who - that's why it's best to keep to yourself and build a fortress of a nation.
When will you learn that you can't be allies with these people....remember?ATG wrote:
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.Mekstizzle wrote:
What the hell is wrong with you? They want to get rid of the TERRORISTS in Kurdistan. In what way is that war against America? In what way is that NOT helping you guys out (helping out the Coalition) by getting rid of extremists in that area? This is the war on terrorism buddy, don't cry when someone else wants to kill terrorists.ATG wrote:
It will be interesting to see Turkeys standing army go up against the standing army in Iraq of America.
It will not be IED's and occupation but a conventional war and the Turks will be butchered.
Please remind your war mongering brethren of our capabilities in conventional war.
Besides they're both part of NATO. I doubt they'd fight each other.
The Kurds are our allies.
Hence my inclusion of the bracketed 'within reason'. It is acceptable to launch a sensible military action - not to engage in collective punishment of an entire group of people because some of their number decided it would be a good idea to lob a missile at Israel.Harmor wrote:
What about when Israel attacked Hezbolla last summer? Even though Hezbolla kidnapped an Israeli soldier and started firing rockets into Israel first, Israel was the bad guy? Or could Hezbolla justify the preemptive attack because of the way Israel dealt with the Palistilians?
I think world opinion has more to do as who is considered the bad guy.
I never had much difficulty with the attack on Afghanistan, it made sense. Iraq didn't and I don't agree with interventionism in the slightest.ATG wrote:
If there is evidence that a country harbored/supported the group responsible for an attack, as in the case of Afghanistan that was harboring the Taliban, then we are justified to attack them. As for attacking Iraq, that was interventionism.
Wrong, 2 soldiers, Israel wouldn't have demolished Lebanon for just 1 guy.Braddock wrote:
Harmor you do realise that the last Israel - Lebanon conflict was started over ONE detained soldier while the whole world decided to neglect the fact that 10'000 Palestinians were and still are being detained by the Israelis (most without trial or basic legal rights)? Maybe who is considered the bad guy has more to do with what facts one chooses to ignore?
Kind of like Al Qaeda against the Russkies?ATG wrote:
The Kurds are our allies.
Woops, of course not. Sorry!sergeriver wrote:
Wrong, 2 soldiers, Israel wouldn't have demolished Lebanon for just 1 guy.Braddock wrote:
Harmor you do realise that the last Israel - Lebanon conflict was started over ONE detained soldier while the whole world decided to neglect the fact that 10'000 Palestinians were and still are being detained by the Israelis (most without trial or basic legal rights)? Maybe who is considered the bad guy has more to do with what facts one chooses to ignore?
More and more 'evidence' or more and more 'rumours'. It's hard to tell... My haven't we forgotten pre-Iraq war 'evidence' so quickly.Harmor wrote:
Furthermore there is more and more evidence that Iran is helping kill our troops in Iraq. There are more than a few Republican presidential candidates that are willing to attack Iran. None of the Democratic presidential candidates will retaliate. So depending who is elected in the next election will determine what will happen next.
There is, however, rumors that we may attack Iran in October...but these rumors are not justified.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-07-12 06:02:19)
How many freedom fighters kill their own citizens? I think its clear within the last few months that opinion of the coalition troops is gaining in popularity with the local imams. More and more imams are volunteering their young men to the military/police. More and more Iraqis are informing coalition troops of foreign extremist operations.ATG wrote:
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
Hmm...the Kurds have definitely acted how we expected all Iraqis should had acted after the initial invasion to dethrone Saddam. I wonder if the centuries of hate between the Kurds and the Turks will metastasize into full blown war?ATG wrote:
The Kurds are our allies.
It wasn't over one detained soldier; it was about them assholes not being able to honor any agreements.Braddock wrote:
Harmor you do realise that the last Israel - Lebanon conflict was started over ONE detained soldier while the whole world decided to neglect the fact that 10'000 Palestinians were and still are being detained by the Israelis (most without trial or basic legal rights)? Maybe who is considered the bad guy has more to do with what facts one chooses to ignore?Harmor wrote:
What about when Israel attacked Hezbolla last summer? Even though Hezbolla kidnapped an Israeli soldier and started firing rockets into Israel first, Israel was the bad guy? Or could Hezbolla justify the preemptive attack because of the way Israel dealt with the Palistilians?CameronPoe wrote:
You attack = you are the bad guy. It's as simple as that.
You're attacked = you can respond in kind conscience-clear (within reason).
I think world opinion has more to do as who is considered the bad guy.If there is evidence that a country harbored/supported the group responsible for an attack, as in the case of Afghanistan that was harboring the Taliban, then we are justified to attack them. As for attacking Iraq, that was interventionism.CameronPoe wrote:
Besides, what are you supposed to 'attack'? You can't tell who is who - that's why it's best to keep to yourself and build a fortress of a nation.
That's not me you quoted.CameronPoe wrote:
Hence my inclusion of the bracketed 'within reason'. It is acceptable to launch a sensible military action - not to engage in collective punishment of an entire group of people because some of their number decided it would be a good idea to lob a missile at Israel.Harmor wrote:
What about when Israel attacked Hezbolla last summer? Even though Hezbolla kidnapped an Israeli soldier and started firing rockets into Israel first, Israel was the bad guy? Or could Hezbolla justify the preemptive attack because of the way Israel dealt with the Palistilians?
I think world opinion has more to do as who is considered the bad guy.I never had much difficulty with the attack on Afghanistan, it made sense. Iraq didn't and I don't agree with interventionism in the slightest.ATG wrote:
If there is evidence that a country harbored/supported the group responsible for an attack, as in the case of Afghanistan that was harboring the Taliban, then we are justified to attack them. As for attacking Iraq, that was interventionism.
Exactly...that is why I'm was at first hesitant with the information about Iran. But the evidence is clear that Iranian backed organizations are helping kill our troops and destabilize Iraq. Is this plausible deniability?CameronPoe wrote:
More and more 'evidence' or more and more 'rumours'. It's hard to tell... My haven't we forgotten pre-Iraq war 'evidence' so quickly.Harmor wrote:
Furthermore there is more and more evidence that Iran is helping kill our troops in Iraq. There are more than a few Republican presidential candidates that are willing to attack Iran. None of the Democratic presidential candidates will retaliate. So depending who is elected in the next election will determine what will happen next.
There is, however, rumors that we may attack Iran in October...but these rumors are not justified.
If there was a battle for control of Mexico following the toppling of their Government do you think the US would be sitting back and minding their own business? No, and that's what Iran are doing ...I believe the Americans refer to it as 'national interest'. Just go home, the Iranians won't follow you.Harmor wrote:
Exactly...that is why I'm was at first hesitant with the information about Iran. But the evidence is clear that Iranian backed organizations are helping kill our troops and destabilize Iraq. Is this plausible deniability?CameronPoe wrote:
More and more 'evidence' or more and more 'rumours'. It's hard to tell... My haven't we forgotten pre-Iraq war 'evidence' so quickly.Harmor wrote:
Furthermore there is more and more evidence that Iran is helping kill our troops in Iraq. There are more than a few Republican presidential candidates that are willing to attack Iran. None of the Democratic presidential candidates will retaliate. So depending who is elected in the next election will determine what will happen next.
There is, however, rumors that we may attack Iran in October...but these rumors are not justified.
I'm almost certain that the mulas in Iran are encouraging attacks/support in Iraq.
That's the American position. They're arming 'good insurgents' in Iraq.sergeriver wrote:
So, in other words, an allied terrorist is OK, even when he commits the same crimes than the extremists you fight.ATG wrote:
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.Mekstizzle wrote:
What the hell is wrong with you? They want to get rid of the TERRORISTS in Kurdistan. In what way is that war against America? In what way is that NOT helping you guys out (helping out the Coalition) by getting rid of extremists in that area? This is the war on terrorism buddy, don't cry when someone else wants to kill terrorists.
Besides they're both part of NATO. I doubt they'd fight each other.
The Kurds are our allies.
so you prefer supporting kurds that have nothing instead of one of your biggest ally in the region?ATG wrote:
It will be interesting to see Turkeys standing army go up against the standing army in Iraq of America._1_MAN-ARMY.17 wrote:
we will never let them seperate our country!Turquoise wrote:
You could end the terrorism really quickly if you let the Kurds have their own country (and if your country didn't treat them like shit).
It will not be IED's and occupation but a conventional war and the Turks will be butchered.
Please remind your war mongering brethren of our capabilities in conventional war.
Terrorism is a tactic, not a cause.sergeriver wrote:
So, in other words, an allied terrorist is OK, even when he commits the same crimes than the extremists you fight.ATG wrote:
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.Mekstizzle wrote:
What the hell is wrong with you? They want to get rid of the TERRORISTS in Kurdistan. In what way is that war against America? In what way is that NOT helping you guys out (helping out the Coalition) by getting rid of extremists in that area? This is the war on terrorism buddy, don't cry when someone else wants to kill terrorists.
Besides they're both part of NATO. I doubt they'd fight each other.
The Kurds are our allies.
I think Isreal would have been just as right to attck for only 1 kidnapped guy. Then again, I have never said the Palastinians are wrong for what they want, either. Their tatics suck, however. But have you seen how neighboring Muslim countries treat the Palastinians? Like less than dog droppings. It is not just the Isrealis, so don't go pushing ALL the blame on them.sergeriver wrote:
Wrong, 2 soldiers, Israel wouldn't have demolished Lebanon for just 1 guy.Braddock wrote:
Harmor you do realise that the last Israel - Lebanon conflict was started over ONE detained soldier while the whole world decided to neglect the fact that 10'000 Palestinians were and still are being detained by the Israelis (most without trial or basic legal rights)? Maybe who is considered the bad guy has more to do with what facts one chooses to ignore?
Last edited by imortal (2007-07-12 13:32:34)
And the Kurds haven't been putting forth terrorist orginazations, to the best of my knowledge. They are the closest thing you can call 'good guys' in Iraq. The Turks just do not want them getting ideas of forming theri own countries, since a LOT of kurds also live in the area of Turkey bordering Iraq. The turks are afraid that if the Kurds form their own nation, they will try to take the land from Turkey where those Turkish Kurds are.Kmarion wrote:
Terrorism is a tactic, not a cause.sergeriver wrote:
So, in other words, an allied terrorist is OK, even when he commits the same crimes than the extremists you fight.ATG wrote:
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
The Kurds are our allies.
And calling them the police and the military. And then firing them when they act like the 'insurgents' do. Give a bunch of Iraqi police powers, and the first thing they do is form a 'death squad' to go right all their perceived wrongs. It is insane. The culture there is really warped. Not the religion, though that does not help matters; I am talking about the culture.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
That's the American position. They're arming 'good insurgents' in Iraq.sergeriver wrote:
So, in other words, an allied terrorist is OK, even when he commits the same crimes than the extremists you fight.ATG wrote:
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
The Kurds are our allies.