Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2006-09-12 18:11:57
KX500Racer
Member
+4|7235
I've got a question to all those against what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and Afganistan.

What were we supposed to do after 9/11?  Laydown and say "oh well"?  That's not how the U.S. operates.

Some say, why did we take the war to Iraq when Bin Laden was the root of 9/11.  The terror network that Bin Laden uses is everywhere including places like Iraq that cattered to these terrorist.

I am really sick of all those against us.  Screw 'em.  We don't need you but we will still come to bail you out when you need.
2006-09-12 18:23:27
SGT_Dicklewicz
Member
+33|7016
The war on terror will never end or have a "victory".
There will always be crazy Mother F#$Kers that want to kill themselves to blow up innocent people.
So once we figure out a way to make these unrreasonable wastes of life not want to kill other people, The war will never be over. It's here to stay for a long while.
I just hope the intelligence agencies of the free world are working together to prevent attacks of the future. This war can't be won in the air or the sea. It has to be won on the ground. Intel is the key to at least competeing in this War on terror.
So my opinion is that it can't be won, only contained.
2006-09-12 18:29:21
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6973|SE London

KX500Racer wrote:

I've got a question to all those against what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and Afganistan.

What were we supposed to do after 9/11?  Laydown and say "oh well"?  That's not how the U.S. operates.

Some say, why did we take the war to Iraq when Bin Laden was the root of 9/11.  The terror network that Bin Laden uses is everywhere including places like Iraq that cattered to these terrorist.
Afghanistan good idea. But why Iraq? You say "the terror network that Bin Laden uses is everywere including places like Iraq", so should the US invade everywhere? There were no links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, there are now.

So why Iraq? It can't be because of terrorists, because Iraq had no terrorist ties (certainly not to Islamic movements like Al-Qaeda).

So was it to liberate an oppressed people from a brutal dictator? It that is the case why not liberate a different country? There are plenty to choose from.

If it was because of WMDs, then why was all the very shaky evidence surrounding them overplayed by the governments to make a case for war? Why aren't there any there? They couldn't have been moved out of the country, Saddam couldn't even get himself out.

Was it for oil? If so that was a bad move, being over there costs the US $1.5 billion a day, the oil is worth a lot, but it's a pretty crap investment - when the US won't be getting the profits from the oil, which is still Iraqi, so really it's all a waste of money.

Was it to secure another ally and US foothold in the region? Hmmm. I don't know - it hasn't worked out very well if that was the plan. It hasn't worked out very well no matter what the plan was. Unless of course the plan was to create more and more terrorists to promote more terror in the public, which is why terrorist attacks are so massively publicised. But that's a bit of a silly conspiracy theory, what is most likely by far is that they went into Iraq for some reason, I don't know what, and it all backfired and went horribly wrong.
2006-09-12 18:33:27
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6933|Texas - Bigger than France

Bertster7 wrote:

KX500Racer wrote:

I've got a question to all those against what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and Afganistan.

What were we supposed to do after 9/11?  Laydown and say "oh well"?  That's not how the U.S. operates.

Some say, why did we take the war to Iraq when Bin Laden was the root of 9/11.  The terror network that Bin Laden uses is everywhere including places like Iraq that cattered to these terrorist.
Afghanistan good idea. But why Iraq? You say "the terror network that Bin Laden uses is everywere including places like Iraq", so should the US invade everywhere? There were no links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, there are now.

So why Iraq? It can't be because of terrorists, because Iraq had no terrorist ties (certainly not to Islamic movements like Al-Qaeda).

So was it to liberate an oppressed people from a brutal dictator? It that is the case why not liberate a different country? There are plenty to choose from.

If it was because of WMDs, then why was all the very shaky evidence surrounding them overplayed by the governments to make a case for war? Why aren't there any there? They couldn't have been moved out of the country, Saddam couldn't even get himself out.

Was it for oil? If so that was a bad move, being over there costs the US $1.5 billion a day, the oil is worth a lot, but it's a pretty crap investment - when the US won't be getting the profits from the oil, which is still Iraqi, so really it's all a waste of money.

Was it to secure another ally and US foothold in the region? Hmmm. I don't know - it hasn't worked out very well if that was the plan. It hasn't worked out very well no matter what the plan was. Unless of course the plan was to create more and more terrorists to promote more terror in the public, which is why terrorist attacks are so massively publicised. But that's a bit of a silly conspiracy theory, what is most likely by far is that they went into Iraq for some reason, I don't know what, and it all backfired and went horribly wrong.
Stay on topic.  I believe we all know Iraq was not about terrorism by now.
2006-09-13 04:37:14
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7149|Argentina

KX500Racer wrote:

I've got a question to all those against what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and Afganistan.

What were we supposed to do after 9/11?  Laydown and say "oh well"?  That's not how the U.S. operates.

Some say, why did we take the war to Iraq when Bin Laden was the root of 9/11.  The terror network that Bin Laden uses is everywhere including places like Iraq that cattered to these terrorist.

I am really sick of all those against us.  Screw 'em.  We don't need you but we will still come to bail you out when you need.
Don't ask a question like this if they can answer it.
Bush recognized there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq, so your question has no point there.  Bush recognized there were no WMD's in Iraq, so your question has no point there. 
First, they shouldn't have trained and acknowledged Osama, but what is done is done.  Second, they should chase all the suspects in the attacks and judge them.  Why must people of Afghanistan and Iraq pay for these assholes?  There were Saudis also in the attacks, will you invade Saudi Arabia?
And don't buy that bullshit Bush invaded Iraq to give freedom to the oppressed Iraqis.
Nobody is against you, not me.  I'm against Bush coz I think he sucks as president and he thinks the world is his playground.  America and American citizens are cool to me.  I have relatives there, so why should I hate that country.  I've been there a lot of time and I love it.  But Bush is a disgrace to America and the whole world.

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-09-13 04:41:13)

2006-09-13 04:39:13
Penetrator
Certified Twat
+296|6899|Bournemouth, South England
Victory Conditions....

When every Arab state is flying the Stars & Stripes, and every oil field in the world is pumped straight to the US.
2006-09-13 04:39:42
markkos
Kokko, kokoo koko kokko kokoon!
+9|7067|Zurich, Switzerland
I believe in the conspiracy theories and the terror is over when bush isn't president of the USA anymore. Or maybe the republicans do it over and over again...
2006-09-13 04:41:45
Penetrator
Certified Twat
+296|6899|Bournemouth, South England
Haha Markkos, u had neg karma

Last edited by Penetrator_01 (2006-09-13 07:47:37)

2006-09-13 04:50:03
Macca
Cylons' my kinda frak
+72|6837|Australia.
Pfft...America is only feeding its ego by going to war, to tell the world its still the Number 1 'Super Power'

Do you think Australia went to war with Indonesia to anihilate Jemaah Islamiah after its Embassy was bombed?
Or after the Bali Bombings where hundreds of Australians were killed?

No.

Maybe if America wasn't so egotistical, other countries wouldn't be threatned by helping them in Iraq/Afghanistan. America has no right to intervene and invade countires.
The United Nations was formed to help resolve these types of problems.
2006-09-13 05:29:49
JG1567JG
Member
+110|6980|United States of America

Macca wrote:

Pfft...America is only feeding its ego by going to war, to tell the world its still the Number 1 'Super Power'

Do you think Australia went to war with Indonesia to anihilate Jemaah Islamiah after its Embassy was bombed?
Or after the Bali Bombings where hundreds of Australians were killed?

No.

Maybe if America wasn't so egotistical, other countries wouldn't be threatned by helping them in Iraq/Afghanistan. America has no right to intervene and invade countires.
The United Nations was formed to help resolve these types of problems.
The U.N. did such a fine job in Rhwanda(sp). The U.N. is useless.

Terrorism will not be defeated just like the war on drugs will not be won.

Somebody wanted to know the difference between somebody that bombs an abortion clinic and somebody that bombs a bus.  There is no difference.  They are both terrorist.  Timothy McVeigh was just as much of a terrorist as Osama.

Also some people have said that the bombing of London, Berlin, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks. I understand the point the next poster made about Pearl Harbor but none of these bombings or attacks during ww2 were terrorist attacks.  These attacks were made by legaly recognized countries and were acts of war but not terrorism.  The actual men that conducted these attacks were wearing uniforms and were loyal to a country and fighting under a flag.  I have yet to see a terrorist wearing a uniform on a battlefield.

I myself hate seeing the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" thrown out so loosly.  An Iraqi, that was loyal to Saddam, that only fights against the U.S. and coalition troops would not be in my eyes a terrorist.  An Iraqi that was loyal to Saddam and blows up cars in a crowded market to kill 50-100 Iraqi citizens is a terrorist.
One mans terrorist is not another mans freedom fighter.  Freedom fighters don't kill innocent civilians from their own country on purpose.
2006-09-13 07:01:44
markkos
Kokko, kokoo koko kokko kokoon!
+9|7067|Zurich, Switzerland
Here are some other definitions of Terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
2006-09-13 07:03:03
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6918|Portland, OR USA
thank you so much for posting a link to a search in wikipedia ... seriously ...

from now on, I'll refrain from saying anything on my own and just type this instead.
2006-09-13 07:04:21
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7149|Argentina

PuckMercury wrote:

thank you so much for posting a link to a search in wikipedia ... seriously ...

from now on, I'll refrain from saying anything on my own and just type this instead.
Wiki what?
2006-09-13 07:25:03
motherdear
Member
+25|7043|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)

Lazzars wrote:

regime change is a pretty frequent thing for the American military to try to do (Iraq twice, Vietnam even back as far as 1900)
bullshit the us didn't get allowed to make a regime change in iraq because of that the mission in the first golf war was to stop the iraqs in kuwait and then push them back into iraq and get them to surrender. but if they had made a regime change back then then it would be way better firstly the people of the us and other countries would see that there is a reasonable mening behind the war without knowing much about it, today if you wanna know what the war is anout you got to know quite a bit about it, but that only happens if you are really interested in it and very few people are. secondly the us didn't even try to make a regime change in vietnam back in 1967 they defended a countrie that asked for help to defend them self againts another country, think about it, if they hadn't helped them back then that would have been even worse and people would get a serious grudge against the us because of that they thought of them as selfish bastards that don't care about other people wven through they have the hardware and soldiers to help them. so think about this stuff before you accuse the us of just invading other countries.
2006-09-13 07:43:50
mikeyb118
Evil Overlord
+76|6990|S.C.
I recognize that Saddam was a dictator and needed to be removed and punished for his crimes, although I do not believe 9/11 is a valid reason for the Invasion, there is no solid evidence proving a link. Also we should not jump to conclusions like al-Qaeda having involvement in Iraq with Saddam because Iraq was/is mostly an Islamic country.
2006-09-13 08:03:57
Macca
Cylons' my kinda frak
+72|6837|Australia.

JG1567JG wrote:

The U.N. did such a fine job in Rhwanda(sp). The U.N. is useless.
Actually, since America's ego was so deflated after the incident in Mogadishu, they just let the genocide in Rwanda happen, the U.N. is not to blame. Sure, the U.N. has failed to resolve some problems, just like The League of Nations before it.
Sure, Saddam had to be removed from power, but the accusations of WMDs?
I'm sure that was just a cover up for America to try and gain more WMDs for their own defense.
And Osama...i'm pretty sure that you guys trained him with "secret CIA tutorials" to fight the "Ever advancinng threat of Communism" and sold him weapons...

And c'mon...David Hicks?...sure sure...he was definately "training with terrorists"
If that was an American in an Australian prison, dang, i'd be dumbstruck if he didn't disappear overnight and given a far trial over there.

Global warming is the World's new terrorist, and if we dont try and do anything to stop it, every terrorist, freedom fighter, innocent child, innocent women and man, will be killed without any remorse that we have.
But sure, if the Republicans in the American Goverment can't be bothered to sign the Kyoto Protocol, so be it, dont bother asking for aid from other countries that helped to reduce Greenhouse gases.

Maybe if Al Gore acutally became President of the United States (and not have lost when the sore loser W. Bush went to the Senate or whatever), the world would already be on the track to a better standard of survival, because i'm sure George Bush doesn't even understand the word 'environment' or 'global warming'

I'm sure someone got it right http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/06/endofworld.html
2006-09-13 08:05:29
GATOR591957
Member
+84|7018

KX500Racer wrote:

I've got a question to all those against what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and Afganistan.

What were we supposed to do after 9/11?  Laydown and say "oh well"?  That's not how the U.S. operates.

Some say, why did we take the war to Iraq when Bin Laden was the root of 9/11.  The terror network that Bin Laden uses is everywhere including places like Iraq that cattered to these terrorist.

I am really sick of all those against us.  Screw 'em.  We don't need you but we will still come to bail you out when you need.
Kill Bin Laden and those responsible for the act.  Not invade a country that had NOTHING to do with the attack!

Hezbolla has killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization.  Why aren't they being targeted.

Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-09-13 08:07:19)

2006-09-13 19:07:46
KX500Racer
Member
+4|7235

Macca wrote:

JG1567JG wrote:

The U.N. did such a fine job in Rhwanda(sp). The U.N. is useless.
Actually, since America's ego was so deflated after the incident in Mogadishu, they just let the genocide in Rwanda happen, the U.N. is not to blame. Sure, the U.N. has failed to resolve some problems, just like The League of Nations before it.
Sure, Saddam had to be removed from power, but the accusations of WMDs?
I'm sure that was just a cover up for America to try and gain more WMDs for their own defense.
And Osama...i'm pretty sure that you guys trained him with "secret CIA tutorials" to fight the "Ever advancinng threat of Communism" and sold him weapons...

And c'mon...David Hicks?...sure sure...he was definately "training with terrorists"
If that was an American in an Australian prison, dang, i'd be dumbstruck if he didn't disappear overnight and given a far trial over there.

Global warming is the World's new terrorist, and if we dont try and do anything to stop it, every terrorist, freedom fighter, innocent child, innocent women and man, will be killed without any remorse that we have.
But sure, if the Republicans in the American Goverment can't be bothered to sign the Kyoto Protocol, so be it, dont bother asking for aid from other countries that helped to reduce Greenhouse gases.

Maybe if Al Gore acutally became President of the United States (and not have lost when the sore loser W. Bush went to the Senate or whatever), the world would already be on the track to a better standard of survival, because i'm sure George Bush doesn't even understand the word 'environment' or 'global warming'

I'm sure someone got it right http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/06/endofworld.html
Geez, we got a greenie in the house here too!!!!  Global warming is a bunch of B.S.!!!  And Al Gore???? You gotta be kidding me.  I'm not the biggest fan of Bush but come on,  AL GORE????

Don't even get me started on the Wilderness Act.  I'm a die hard desert racer and I'm fed up with these tree-huggin' greenies shutting down riding areas.  Let people ENJOY the land.  Mother nature will take care of itself.

Okay, back to Jihaad.  After 9/11, I'm all for going after ANY country or territory that harbors terrorist.  Just because IRAQ had nothing to do with 9/11 doesn't make them imune to our policy on getting rid of terrorist. 

I agree, we won't win against terrorism but we sure as hell ain't gonna let them dictate policy to us like some countries out there.  So long as there is terrorism, I'll be here offering my service to make sure every single one of those idiots meets their creator sooner than they'd like.
2006-09-13 19:09:55
CaptainKris
Member
+54|6868|Safety Harbor, Florida

CameronPoe wrote:

I feel like introducing a fiery new topic....

With respect to this so called 'war on terror':
1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
2) What form will 'victory' take?
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?

PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?

Flame on.
PIE!!!! No, seriously. Its got all those holes on the top, it sort of makes it look like its smirking at me. I define that as terror because its just so evil looking. But 3.14 on the other hand...

Last edited by CaptainKris (2006-09-13 19:11:32)

2006-09-13 19:22:43
Macca
Cylons' my kinda frak
+72|6837|Australia.

KX500Racer wrote:

I agree, we won't win against terrorism but we sure as hell ain't gonna let them dictate policy to us like some countries out there.  So long as there is terrorism, I'll be here offering my service to make sure every single one of those idiots meets their creator sooner than they'd like.
That just makes you a terrorist as much as them over in Iraq.

Most of these countries are sick of America trying to influence them and try to change their ideals to the American way of life.
If a country wants to be communist, so be it, they have every right to, America has no right to go to war with them just because of their state of Government.

If a country has a dictator, so be it, George Bush is as much of a dictator as any other tyrant out there.


KX500Racer wrote:

Global warming is a bunch of B.S.!!!  And Al Gore???? You gotta be kidding me.
Actually, its not, Global warming is gonna cause Australia to dry up 10-15% quicker, when the ice-caps melt, and half of Philadelphia will be under water, we're all gonna say "Dang, we should have listened to Al Gore and the Greenies". The Ice-caps took millions of years to form, and once they're gone, they aint gonna form back to solid for a bloody long time.
When I wake up every morning, I see 11 giant wind turbines in the distance, and I say "Aint it great that my town is creating no bad emissions" I walk to school, I walk into town.
I know that i'm helping the world to be a better place in the future.
2006-09-13 19:49:41
KX500Racer
Member
+4|7235

Macca wrote:

KX500Racer wrote:

I agree, we won't win against terrorism but we sure as hell ain't gonna let them dictate policy to us like some countries out there.  So long as there is terrorism, I'll be here offering my service to make sure every single one of those idiots meets their creator sooner than they'd like.
That just makes you a terrorist as much as them over in Iraq.

Most of these countries are sick of America trying to influence them and try to change their ideals to the American way of life.
If a country wants to be communist, so be it, they have every right to, America has no right to go to war with them just because of their state of Government.

If a country has a dictator, so be it, George Bush is as much of a dictator as any other tyrant out there.


KX500Racer wrote:

Global warming is a bunch of B.S.!!!  And Al Gore???? You gotta be kidding me.
Actually, its not, Global warming is gonna cause Australia to dry up 10-15% quicker, when the ice-caps melt, and half of Philadelphia will be under water, we're all gonna say "Dang, we should have listened to Al Gore and the Greenies". The Ice-caps took millions of years to form, and once they're gone, they aint gonna form back to solid for a bloody long time.
When I wake up every morning, I see 11 giant wind turbines in the distance, and I say "Aint it great that my town is creating no bad emissions" I walk to school, I walk into town.
I know that i'm helping the world to be a better place in the future.
If my above comments make me a terrorist, can I at least be called a good terrorist?

Look, believe me, America goes into countries not to help the poor souls as our politicians say.  I agree.  Our mission is to insure OUR way of life is preserved for future generations.  Countries are run on money just like a business.  Whatever it takes to secure and keep my freedom, I will gladley support.

I care for the enviroment to a point, but I've seen so much waste come from enviromental initiatives.  California is FULL of them.  Those agencies are the most corrupt and wateful agencies ever.  A desert wilderness area closed to dirt biking and any other vehicle to include bicycles.  You can hike around in it, but who the hell is going hiking in the Mojave Desert????  Total waste of resources!!!

Okay, this time, I'm done.  Don't try and drag me back.
2006-09-13 20:07:46
Macca
Cylons' my kinda frak
+72|6837|Australia.
Thats cool,  Out with the Republicans and Liberals (Australia) and in with the Good guys

Yeah, I admit Greenies do take it a bit far in times, but atleast they're aiming for a better, liveable Earth
2006-09-13 20:08:41
AAFCptKabbom
Member
+127|7049|WPB, FL. USA
stretch, yawn, another Bush bash {as he goes upstairs to tuck the kids in and goes to bed knowing that his family is safe, saying a lil prayer to forgive those who hate and to give the president strength and guidance to fight the evil in the world} goodnight, enjoy your safe and peaceful sleep, yawn, zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Kaboom.
2006-09-13 21:33:41
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|7035|Seattle, WA
Ooof sooo much to respond to so little time, ah nevermind I won't even do that, Victory is when terrorist and rogue states stop oppressing their people and funding terrorists and the terrorists STOP threatening and attacking U.S. and ALL targets, maybe if people would calm the hell down instead of shooting and killing people and wanting to take over, everyone would be a lot more happy.  Israel stop killing people, terrorists stop killing people, than the world will be happy.  N.Korea stop being an asshat, Iran, stfu you don't need nuclear power unless you let inspectors in like every day, some libs take the 'Mission Accomplished' and 'Victory' phrases and speeches in relation to the 'War On Terror' way to literally, It is a never ending battle unless people calm the fuck down and stop killing in the name of an ideology or religion. 

Victory constitutes in people stopping overgeneralizing others comments, not fucking going off on tangents and interpreting religious texts incorrectly and killing in the name of that.  Maybe, just maybe, than there will be peace, but until than, the U.S. is still threatened by terror cells and states, Saddam WAS a threat, even though there was no link with 9/11 DUH (Bush never said that, do I have to remind this again) Iraq was funneling funds to terror cells in and mostly outside of Iraq.  At any rate, just chill out and focus on defense of our country and stop the belittling of every little detail you can get a hold of.  Contribute to the ideals of freedom and protection, and America will stand strong against threats and stand strong with allies and those oppressed by terrorists and rogue states.
2006-09-13 21:59:45
R3v4n
We shall beat to quarters!
+433|6878|Melbourne

CameronPoe wrote:

1) Can a battle against an abstract concept be 'won'?
That would depend on how abstract one defines terrorism as, i would not say that it is "Abstract" rather the opposite actually as, we see it every day.  When there worlds population feel safe, or when war lords give food back to the people, or when the people elect there leader is when i can see the battle as won.
2) What form will 'victory' take?
I think it will take for of peace between waring nations, citizens will walk The middle Eastern streets with out fear across there faces.  I think tourism will increase as people are no longer afraid to travel across the world.  New trade agreements will be signed and the world will flourish.
3) Can 'victory' be achieved at all?
The one way victory can be achieved is to cut the snake of at its head, we have rich people funding the various terror groups, these are the people that need to be questioned.  A population with out economy is doom for failure.  Also if these terrorist groups can understand the value of life then victory would be achieved.
4) Is this 'war on terror' just rhetoric, serving as a convenient label for western nations actions abroad given that the handy pretext of the Cold War has been removed?
No i don't feel it is, we forget that it was not the western nations that started the war, but the terrorist by taking th e life's of inisent people and damaging the economy of many country's, if tourist are afraid to travel on airlines there economy will drop.  a stale war sits at our feet, and the only way for peace is to end terrorism at the snakes head and tail. 
5) How do you see 'victory' being achieved?
Personally i see victory achieved once the people are no longer afraid to travel the world, when people can speak against there leader and not be killed for it, only then will terrorism have been defeated
6) How long will this 'war on terror' take?
Years, right now as we speak our troops fight the leaders and break the moral of the terrorist next people will start to walk freely.  But i don't see the war finished in quite some time,
7) Who are 'the terrorists'?
these are the people that want life ended, these are the people that send money to end the life of civilians the people who are to blame for the war in the first place.  And these people are in our own country's and they remain anonymous.
PS What do YOU define as 'terror'?
I think this is to damage ones economy and strike fear in to the harts of the free people, to stop people from spending there money, make them stay inside.  it all points to the economy.  terrorism is striking the un-armed  and the un-armed are the ones pushing the country forward.
~ Do you not know that in the service … one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard