It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How exactly does fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan secure our borders at home?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
A major problem that we have in analyzing the answer to this question is that in order to make a "pro-war" argument, you need to assume the President of the U.S. and the people he appoints are competent people capable of planning out and executing a task. If we could make this assumption, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could help thwart terror.

It is easy to see how invading Afghanistan could thwart Al Qaida. Al Qaida was based in Afghanistan. If one invades Afghanistan, the could cripple or perhaps even destroy Al Qaida by capturing its leaders, destroying and disrupting its infrastructure, and capturing many of its members.

Iraq has a more tenous connection with terrorism. While there were many bad things one could say about Sadam Hussein, he was not a terrorist nor was he a supporter of Al Qaida. A properly executed war against Iraq could have advanced the anti-terror cause.

For one thing, the US's need for oil hampers its ability to deal with nations that support Al Qaida like Saudi Arabia. If the US could secure an oil supply, the terror supporting entities of the world would have one less bargaining chip. The US could utilize this supply for a few years while it implemented a massive overhaul of its energy infrastructure which would eliminate its reliance on fossil fuels. Unfortunately the US was unable to secure Iraq's oil supply.

A properly executed invasion of Iraq would also serve as a show of force. It the US invaded Iraq and handily dispatched Hussein, the leaders of the US would be on notice that the US could handily dispatch them. Unfortunately, the invasion was far from properly executed. The invasion made the US look vulnerable and inept.




posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by zysin5
 


Zysin, as far as I am concerned anyone who claims the public can't know things is protecting their own butt. Or someone else's. The people, whether American, Canadian, French, Botswanan or any other derivation can handle anything. I am not aware of anyone who died from proper information. National security is 99% wrongdoing.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by microsoft123Henry Kissinger said it "military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."



Henry Kissinger was apparently stupider than I thought he was... To assume that all people in the military are "dumb" is a perfect example of complete IGNORANCE...



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
To fight terrorism by killing soon to be 1 mill. civilians dosnt give you more security, it gives you a greater chance of being struck by some small amount of fanatical idiots, much like your goverment is acting at the moment.

And wow Starchild you are really a "hero" by fighting for "our" way of living???? wtf can i have that one again, i thought you were there to first find the weapons of massdestruction, when they couldnt be found your leaders then decided that it was a war for democracy, and then they put in their friend Hamid Karzai as pres. of Afghanistan and helped them build a pipeline all across the country so they could help the poor afghans to get rid of all that dirty oil.

I´m sorry if you, Starchild and your 2 other warhorny friends are being offended by this thread, but 4 billion other people on this earth are getting offended by your leaders choice of playing world leaders.

[edit on 16-3-2008 by Loke.]



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I'm glad to know there are so many ignorant people out there who blame the honest hard working American people who actually have the courage to go fight in a war for our governments shortcomings. It is truly encouraging to see so much support for our troops who are overseas fighting in the war, however unjust it may be. It really disgusts me to think that someone could be so stupid that they blame the foot soldier for the CIC's decisions. That is a perfect example of IGNORANCE.

To call us "warhorny" is even more moronic and hilarious. You have no idea what you are talking about do you? Do everyone here on ATS a favor and put a little more thought into what you say before you decide to press that little "Post Reply" button. Also, for future reference, show some respect to the senior members here, regardless of what your opinions may be. This isn't MySpace...

One more thing... About us killing "soon to be 1 million civilians"...are you out of your f***ing mind?



Originally posted by Loke.
To fight terrorism by killing soon to be 1 mill. civilians dosnt give you more security, it gives you a greater chance of being struck by some small amount of fanatical idiots, much like your goverment is acting at the moment.

And wow Starchild you are really a "hero" by fighting for "our" way of living???? wtf can i have that one again, i thought you were there to first find the weapons of massdestruction, when they couldnt be found your leaders then decided that it was a war for democracy, and then they put in their friend Hamid Karzai as pres. of Afghanistan and helped them build a pipeline all across the country so they could help the poor afghans to get rid of all that dirty oil.

I'm sorry if you, Starchild and your 2 other warhorny friends are being offended by this thread, but 4 billion other people on this earth are getting offended by your leaders choice of playing world leaders.

[edit on 16-3-2008 by Loke.]




 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join