|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 11, 2011 10:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Bin Laden and his cronies are not even catalysts but excuses.
Yeah, sure. For an attack on Afghanistan... Because there are so many economic, politic ad other reasons to attack it. Like, umm... wait... well, maybe they want to really get stoned in Washington and need full control over the Black Afghan production?
This is geting more ridiculous by the day.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 11, 2011 11:12 AM |
|
|
|
Man, go do your homework before saying something shallow, ain't very hard. Afghanistan is an important communication link between the Middle East and Central Asia, it's neigbouring Iran and it's close to the Persian Gulf. Why do you think the USSR attacked it in 1979 - for the international communist solidarity, for the nice view, what? There were projects for building a transnational pipe-line through Afghanistan, I don't know how far they went. Even without them, the location of the country is strategically quite important. Surely you won't hear that from CNN or the other mainstream media, if these are your only sources.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2011 11:25 AM |
|
|
Yeah, that's why everyone wants nothing more than LEAVE Afghanistan.
Zenofex, you do know it's 2011 now, right?
Not the 19th century nor the cold war anymore.
But, yeah, whatever. Believe what you want, I don't care.
Homework. Hah!
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 11, 2011 11:49 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 11:50, 11 May 2011.
|
What Cold War? I'm talking about things that haven't changed for centuries and are unlikely to change for at least a few more - geopolitics, strategical planning and execution, long term security policy and so on. "Small" things that each country and especially the big ones hold much dearer than the execution of some criminal and his organization. There is little to no difference between the US and the USSR here. If that's irrelevant for you... well... nothing more to say.
As for why "everybody" wants to leave Afghanistan - nobody starts something if he doesn't want to finish it but there are things like mistakes. You see, when the Soviets invaded the same country 32 years ago, they didn't do it with the idea to suffer huge economic damage, lose nearly 15 000 soldiers and serious part of its international prestige (although the latter was acceptable for some time). Likewise the US did not attack with the idea to bog down in an unwinable war and in this regard they are dumber because they could have learned from the Soviet experience.
And seriously, do you really think that one country - even the most powerful one - will be willing to spend a fortune and send an entire army just to kill one man and some of his followers? Surely you can't afford to be that naive.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2011 11:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Nah, I'm not guessing. Al-Qaeda would have loved to have carrying out other attacks on US soil. Keeping them fighting on their own soil was an important factor in keeping the US safe. And of course every Al-Qaeda leader we killed diminished the terrorist organization's capabilities.
Terrorists fighting regular army aren't terrorists. The whole point of "terrorism" is attacking civilians without declaring war by independent groups.
There is absolutely no proof that the cells that were about putting bombs at civilian locations seen any battles at all.
You launched an attack on a single country, but Al-Qaeda is supposed to be a scattered force around Arabian countries, not some HQ-based group you can fight and destroy...
So where's the logic in that?
Quote:
Mutual Assured Destruction prevented a third world war. I assume you think if the Soviets had launched a nuclear attack on the US that the US should have just laid down and died. The Soviets knowing what would lay in store had they launched such an attack prevented it from ever occurring.
Well I wanted to know your opinion on:
SIOP-62 aiming at pre-emptive strike (not just "revenge bombing" like you say). One of the possibilities was nuclear holocaust of not just Soviet Union, but also China and other Soviet Satellites.Without declaring war. Sounds like act of terror to me, something that US shouldn't be even considering (nuclear attack on Warsaw, for instance. There were never any military installations IN Warsaw, so de facto your country would just annihiliate a couple million Polish civilians for the snow of it. Cool, huh?)
The plan of bombing civilian cities is what puzzles me most and I'd like to hear what do you think of that. Justified? If not, what does that exactly make of US for planning to bomb millions of civilians without declaring war to oblivion for no real reason?
Is it "unavoidable collateral damage" to you? Or maybe rather a genocide?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 11, 2011 01:53 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:59, 11 May 2011.
|
Quote:
Terrorists fighting regular army aren't terrorists. The whole point of "terrorism" is attacking civilians without declaring war by independent groups.
Huh????? So when they attack civilians they are terrorists but when the US army catches up to them they become freedom fighters? Give me a break.
Quote:
There is absolutely no proof that the cells that were about putting bombs at civilian locations seen any battles at all.
Sorry, but you need to do more research. Rather than me listing a bunch of suicide bomber attacks google, "suicide bombers civilians afghanistan"
Clicky
Quote:
Since 2006, Afghanistan has experienced a dramatic increase in Taliban-led insurgent activity. In their campaign the Taliban also target the civilian population of Afghanistan in terrorist attacks. According to a report by the United Nations, the Taliban were responsible for 76 % of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009.[33] The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIGRC) called the Taliban's terrorism against the Afghan civilian population a war crime.[34] Religious leaders condemned Taliban terrorist attacks and said these kinds of attacks are against Islamic ethics.[34]
Quote:
You launched an attack on a single country, but Al-Qaeda is supposed to be a scattered force around Arabian countries, not some HQ-based group you can fight and destroy...
Hate to burst your bubble but I don't have a private army and I've never launched an attack on any nation. 
Oh, the US did not launch an attack on Afghanistan. The US and allies launched an attack on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Clicky
Quote:
The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001,[28] as the U.S. Armed Forces launched Operation Enduring Freedom along with the British Armed Forces and Afghan United Front (Northern Alliance) in response to the September 11 attacks with the stated goal of dismantling Al-Qaeda and ending its use of Afghanistan as a base for terrorist operations. The United States also promised to remove the Taliban regime from power and create a viable democratic state.
The prelude to the war were the September 11 attacks on the United States, in which 2,752 civilians lost their lives in New York City, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania, and on September 9, 2001, assassination of anti-Taliban leader Ahmad Shah Massoud took place, two days prior the September 11 attacks. The United States identified members of al-Qaeda, an organization based in, operating out of and allied with the Taliban's Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as the perpetrators of the attacks.
In the first phase of Operation Enduring Freedom, ground forces of the Afghan United Front working with U.S. and British Special Forces and with massive U.S. air support, ousted the Taliban regime from power in Kabul and most of Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. Most of the senior Taliban leadership fled to neighboring Pakistan. The democratic Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was established and an interim government under Hamid Karzai was created which was also democratically elected by the Afghan people in the 2004 general elections. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was established by the UN Security Council at the end of December 2001 to secure Kabul and the surrounding areas. NATO assumed control of ISAF in 2003. ISAF includes troops from 42 countries, with NATO members providing the core of the force.[29]
Quote:
SIOP-62 aiming at pre-emptive strike (not just "revenge bombing" like you say). One of the possibilities was nuclear holocaust of not just Soviet Union, but also China and other Soviet Satellites.Without declaring war. )
If a nuclear attack was launched against the US the US would nuke back. If it was discovered that a nuclear attack was imminent the US would strike first.
No, the US is not a terrorist nation. The Mutual Assured Destruction plan was a defensive policy and it served its purpose well.
Sometimes I think the US should start acting like anti-Americans accuse it of being. Maybe we should start nuclear blackmail instead of protecting other nations. We could threaten to nuke nations that refused to be our vassals for instance. They would have to send us regular tribute money. Say 25% of their gross national product.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2011 03:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Huh????? So when they attack civilians they are terrorists but when the US army catches up to them they become freedom fighters? Give me a break.
Yes, dear sir. Your soldier attacking an unarmed civilian would be a criminal. People are defined by actions, not labels.
Quote:
Sorry, but you need to do more research. Rather than me listing a bunch of suicide bomber attacks google, "suicide bombers civilians afghanistan"
Clicky
Why "sorry" ? What are you apologizing for?
Anyways, is there a shread of proof that this war did anything towards preventing another big action like 911, or is it just your wishful thinking?
If you can give me proof of a planned terrorist strike prevented because of military action in Afghanistan/Iraq, not just "they would do this and that", I might give it a think.
Until that, I assume you're just guessing, and guessing isn't an argument.
I mean action against US only, of course. Preventing a teen blowing himself up in the bus in Iraq is hardly worth a war claiming thousands of civilian lives.
Quote:
Oh, the US did not launch an attack on Afghanistan. The US and allies launched an attack on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
*Soviets invade US*
*Stalin: hey, it's not an attack on US, we just launched an attack against CIA spies and those annoying Democrats.*
Quote:
If a nuclear attack was launched against the US the US would nuke back. If it was discovered that a nuclear attack was imminent the US would strike first.
No, the US is not a terrorist nation. The Mutual Assured Destruction plan was a defensive policy and it served its purpose well.
Which is obvious. The question was however: How do you feel about US' past plans of using pre-emptive nuclear bombings of civilian-only cities.
Quote:
Sometimes I think the US should start acting like anti-Americans accuse it of being. Maybe we should start nuclear blackmail instead of protecting other nations. We could threaten to nuke nations that refused to be our vassals for instance. They would have to send us regular tribute money. Say 25% of their gross national product.
You'd either destroy the world, or follow Soviet Union and collapse.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2011 09:05 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
Quote:
There were a number of terrorist plots that were thwarted that the public knows about. Or maybe you'll claim those were just made up by the government?
What does them being thwarted have to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Not going to get into the civilian casualties debate right now, butQuote:
6) When the US homeland is attacked should the US refuse to attack the other nation because the other nation might experience civilian casualties? If not, what is the acceptable total of civilian casualties before the US should stop the offensive?
7) Were the Allies immoral pieces of **** for invading Germany since German civilians died in their offensive? Would it have been better if they had just surrendered to Hitler to save the lives of German civilians?
8) Can you name any war in which civilians have not died?
6. The US should fight to reduce the threat to American lives. However, when the US kills more foreign civilians than the enemy has killed American civilians, there is a problem.
7. False dichotomy. It is immoral to kill innocent civilians, but it can be justified if it saves more innocent lives elsewhere. World War II was justified for the Allies, although not every Allied action was justified.
8. No. That's a good argument against war in general.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 11, 2011 09:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
7) Were the Allies immoral pieces of **** for invading Germany since German civilians died in their offensive? Would it have been better if they had just surrendered to Hitler to save the lives of German civilians?
Every attack directed against civilians is a crime and Allies weren't actually saint in this matter. They did not try to eradicate people depending on their race, but some of the events (Bombing of Dresden for instance) are deemed controversial or unnecessary.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 11, 2011 11:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin:
Quote:
There were a number of terrorist plots that were thwarted that the public knows about. Or maybe you'll claim those were just made up by the government?
What does them being thwarted have to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Many were thwarted due to information we obtained from captured terrorists.
Quote:
Not going to get into the civilian casualties debate right now,
Yet civilian casualties are the thrust of your argument. Your numbers don't agree with the numbers the human rights branch of the US estimates.
6. The US should fight to reduce the threat to American lives. However, when the US kills more foreign civilians than the enemy has killed American civilians, there is a problem.
A) You have not established the number of civilians the US has killed in Afghanistan.
B) What should the US do if it actually does launch attacks that result in more civilian deaths than the terrorists killed in the US. Should the US withdraw and just accept more murdered civilians in the US?
C) What is the magic ratio of US civilian deaths to the other nation's civilian deaths at which the US should no longer fight the terrorists? Is it exactly 1:1?
D) Terrorists deliberately chose to fight in civilian population centers to increase the civilian casualties.
Quote:
7. False dichotomy. It is immoral to kill innocent civilians, but it can be justified if it saves more innocent lives elsewhere. World War II was justified for the Allies, although not every Allied action was justified.
No it is not a false dichotomy. If the Allies had surrendered to Hitler can you prove Hitler would have killed more Allied citizens?
The question is does the US have a greater obligation to protect its citizens or to protect the citizens of another nation?
Further, US troops have been fighting side by side with Afghan troops and Iraqi troops against the terrorists.
Quote:
8. No. That's a good argument against war in general.
Yes, in Lollypop land there would be no wars. But here is the real world there are evil men who want to dominate the world or force the world to live a certain way or kill everyone they don't like.
In Lollypop Land if perchance there were a war the combatants would all meet on a desert island and shoot it out so there would no innocent munchkins killed. But we don't live in Lollypop Land. We live on the planet Earth.
On the planet Earth wars can be force upon you and you don't get to chose where to fight the battles. On the planet Earth there will always be collateral damage in every war that results in civilian deaths. The responsibility for the collateral damage is the side that caused the war in the first place.
In the case in question the responsibility for collateral damage goes to the terrorists who specialize in killing innocent civilians and who did so to the thousands in a single day in the United States. The United States, knowing it is not in Lollypop Land and that it had an obligation to protect its citizens took the battle to the home turf of the terrorists.
This displeased Michael Moore and others but "Oh well." Maybe those who hate the US so much for defending itself should pack up their bags and move to Lollypop Land.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 11, 2011 11:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Further, US troops have been fighting side by side with Afghan troops and Iraqi troops against the terrorists.
And the Afghan troops had been fighting side by side with the Soviet troops during their occupation. Damn, these people are really fond of fighting side by side with someone.
The rest is your usual jabber, devoid of any logic, common sense or even literacy, no need to comment it.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 11, 2011 11:47 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:48, 11 May 2011.
|
Quote:
The rest is your usual jabber, devoid of any logic, common sense or even literacy, no need to comment it.
As usual, you can bring nothing but insults to the discussion. I'll continue to post facts. The more facts that are discovered the more the left is shown to be wrong.
Clicky
Quote:
WASHINGTON – Deep in hiding, his terror organization becoming battered and fragmented, Osama bin Laden kept pressing followers to find new ways to hit the U.S., officials say, citing his private journal and other documents recovered in last week's raid.
Strike smaller cities, bin Laden suggested. Target trains as well as planes. Above all, kill as many Americans as possible in a single attack.
Though he was out of the public eye and al-Qaida seemed to be weakening, bin Laden never yielded control of his worldwide organization, U.S. officials said Wednesday. His personal, handwritten journal and his massive collection of computer files reveal his hand at work in every recent major al-Qaida threat, including plots in Europe last year that had travelers and embassies on high alert, two officials said.
They described the intelligence to The Associated Press only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about what was found in bin Laden's hideout. Analysts are continuing to review the documents.
The information shatters the government's conventional thinking about bin Laden, who had been regarded for years as mostly an inspirational figurehead whose years in hiding made him too marginalized to maintain operational control of the organization he founded.
Instead, bin Laden was communicating from his walled compound in Pakistan with al-Qaida's offshoots, including the Yemen branch that has emerged as the leading threat to the United States, the documents indicate. Though there is no evidence yet that he was directly behind the attempted Christmas Day 2009 bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner or the nearly successful attack on cargo planes heading for Chicago and Philadelphia, it's now clear that they bear some of bin Laden's hallmarks.
Don't limit attacks to New York City, he said in his writings. Consider other areas such as Los Angeles or smaller cities. Spread out the targets.
In one particularly macabre bit of mathematics, bin Laden's writings show him musing over just how many Americans he must kill to force the U.S. to withdraw from the Arab world. He concludes that small attacks had not been enough. He tells his disciples that only a body count of thousands, something on the scale of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, would shift U.S. policy.
He also schemed about ways to sow political dissent in Washington and play political figures against one another, officials said.
The communications were in missives sent via plug-in computer storage devices called flash drives. The devices were ferried to bin Laden's compound by couriers, a process that is slow but exceptionally difficult to track.
____________
Revelation
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 12:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If the Allies had surrendered to Hitler can you prove Hitler would have killed more Allied citizens?
He already did. In Russia. I think Mvass comes from there to begin with.
Just saying.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 12:19 AM |
|
|
Are you saying Hitler killed Mvass?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 01:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The question is does the US have a greater obligation to protect its citizens or to protect the citizens of another nation?
Okay. That's a legitimate way of looking at it. "We taxpayers paid for it so it should do whatever it takes to protect us. Other concerns are unimportant." However, in that case we can't claim the moral high ground.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 01:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As usual, you can bring nothing but insults to the discussion. I'll continue to post facts. The more facts that are discovered the more the left is shown to be wrong.
Alright Elodin! Enough trolling on the left side of the political spectrum! Your endless insults and hypocritical remarks actually have become more than just slightly Annoying.
Tell me, how every single thing, every single thing, that is wrong with the human race is the left's fault. Let's look at your precious right's track record, shall we? Trail of Tears, Subjugation of the Cuban islands, Bay of Pigs incident, eradication of 9 separate fledgling democracies, Imperialism, Every problem that occurred during the era of good feelings, The Nixon Administration (negative on the whole), Vietnam war, the first two stock market crashes, and 90% of our current national debt. That is what I can pull from the top of my head!
Stop putting blame for our problems on a president and political spectrum who inherited them. Thank you. 
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 02:58 AM |
|
|
@gnome
While the left certainly is responsible for most problems, I was really talking about the left as pertaining to this discussion. I also certainly don't blame Obama for everything he inherited.
____________
Revelation
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 04:10 AM |
|
Edited by shyranis at 04:11, 12 May 2011.
|
Sorry, being kicked out because the local government, despite wanting you there longer, cannot keep you any longer without an uprising isn't really victory...
But the huge debt is not a single party problem. It's a bi-partisan mess. Also left and right effectively don't exist with how well the two parties line up with what they actually do when they are in power. What's more, the Democrats aren't even a Leftist party. They are Center Right.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 04:42 AM |
|
|
@ Elodin:
Quote:
Also left and right effectively don't exist with how well the two parties line up with what they actually do when they are in power. What's more, the Democrats aren't even a Leftist party. They are Center Right.
Take note. Memorize this. Remember it. Aren't these the people you have a problem with?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 06:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@ Elodin:
Quote:
Also left and right effectively don't exist with how well the two parties line up with what they actually do when they are in power. What's more, the Democrats aren't even a Leftist party. They are Center Right.
Take note. Memorize this. Remember it. Aren't these the people you have a problem with?
Oh, the dem party is the party America has a problem with.
No, the dem party is not a center right party. If they go any further left they will be communist. The democrat party will essentially be dead after the next Congressional election. They will lose the Presidency and the Senate. Americans simply will not tolerate being ruled by socialists.
Clicky
Quote:
PRINCETON, NJ -- A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39% to 46%. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party's losses in that year's midterm elections.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
