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.

 

Why Shouldn't We (The U.S.) Just Take Over the World?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Why would we want to? What purpose would be served in our taking over the world? Aside from more debt, more deaths, and more starving people.

I have a better question, why is it that some can't seem to understand that we don't just indiscriminately go after countries or groups? We were attacked, and horribly so. The information we had pointed to bin Laden and Al Qaeda, so that is who we went after. The fool released a video claiming responsibility for heavens sake. 3000 innocent people were murdered over ideological differences. We went after those responsible, as we should have. You don't get to fly our own planes into our own buildings and expect us to sit back and do nothing. Had it not been for that, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan and we wouldn't have gone to Iraq.


With all due respect.

'We' don't want to. Well..I don't want to. I don't buy the story that three thousand people were killed by a few people performing impossible manuevers in commercial aircraft and because of that, we are justified in the murder of hundreds of thousands of men, woman and children.

I am a BIG fan of smacking the hell out someone that actually attacks us, don't get me wrong. I DO buy into the eye for an eye, to a certain extent, but why a thousand eyes for one? When will the world run out of eyes to pay for fabricated 'crimes' against the United States.

My point was, and IS, if we make up this fairy tale crap to murder the people of Afghanistan and the others, why not take it all the way? Why not? It would be just as logical, just as intelligent, just as justified as what we are doing now.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by KSPigpen]




posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


My mistake, you weren't clear enough with what you were implying so I took it the wrong way.

The point still stands though for anyone who does indeed think the US has taken over Afghan.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Discotech


My mistake, you weren't clear enough with what you were implying so I took it the wrong way.


Alright, buddy. I'll take responsibility for you taking something the wrong way.Project much?

Yeah, the point stands, the US hasn't taken over. What they need to do is take a dump or get off the pot. Take over the rest of the world with their screwed up sense of superiority, or stop making up reasons to occupy countries with strategic importance or resources we want to consume.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
I don't buy the story that three thousand people were killed by a few people performing impossible manuevers in commercial aircraft and because of that, we are justified in the murder of hundreds of thousands of men, woman and children.


Civilians casualties happen, they aren't planned. They happen even more when the people we're fighting against use those men, women, and children as bomb carriers and human shields. And they happen even more when the people we're fighting against make it a point to blend in with the civilians like the cowards they are so that we don't know who is a civilian and who isn't until it's too late. We've yet to come up with a weapon that will only target specific people and leave everyone else in a crowd completely untouched.

As for the planes, thousands saw the planes hit the towers in person and millions were watching the news when the second plane hit. It was witnessed, nothing impossible about those maneuvers.


I am a BIG fan of smacking the hell out someone that actually attacks us, don't get me wrong. I DO buy into the eye for an eye, to a certain extent, but why a thousand eyes for one? When will the world run out of eyes to pay for fabricated 'crimes' against the United States.


It wasn't one eye we lost, it was 3000 sets of eyes. We aren't going after the entire world, we're going after one group of people. Iraq was a load of bull and was completely irrelevant to our goal.

There was nothing fabricated about planes flying into the towers, the towers coming down, and 3000 people dieing. Murder is a crime no matter what country you're in, and that is what happened that day. Innocent people were murdered and I'd imagine there is no end in sight until those responsible are all either in custody or dead. Unfortunately they aren't just going to show up at a military base and turn themselves in, so we have to hunt them down. Personally I think we should just tell the student loan people that they owe for student loans, they can find anyone anywhere.


My point was, and IS, if we make up this fairy tale crap to murder the people of Afghanistan and the others, why not take it all the way? Why not? It would be just as logical, just as intelligent, just as justified as what we are doing now.


Not much of a fairy tale when it starts with the murder of 3000 people while the world watches is it. Do you understand the rules our troops have to follow before they can do anything in a war zone? They don't just walk around shooting people, they have to practically be shot or blown up before they can even think about pointing their weapon at anyone.

What exactly is illogical, unintelligent, and unjustified about going after the people who attacked us?



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
our culture kind of sucks. I like traveling and seeing other ways of life (however different they may be).

but indeed the point of hypocrisy does present itself.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I don't diasagree with you. What I disagree with is the 'logic' that we are attacking people that 'attacked' us. I thought all the 'terrorists' supposedly died in the planes? I know planes hit the towers. I'm not denying that. I know three thousamd PLUS people died that day. I'm not denying that either. I watched it too. The 'terrorists' were Saudi, they weren't Afghani....and before we go THERE, yeah, supposedly, there is 'intelligence' that a big bad man is living in Afghanistan, but don't forget there was 'intelligence' that Iraq had WMDs.

In a prior post, I already addressed the false logic that we are only attacking someone because they attacked us. If that were the case, we would be fighting a lot more wars right now.

Yeah, I agree that 3000 + sets of eyes were lost..what I don't agree with is that it somehow justifies the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people...We put men on the moon. (supposedly) and it has taken us HOW MANY YEARS to catch a handful of people 'responsible' for killing Americans on 9/11? How many MORE countries should we invade in the name of finding a person that WE TRAINED anyway?

I agree, Iraq WAS a farce. There was no reason for us to be there. It took a few years for people to realize that. I am thoroughly convinced that in a few years, we will all look back and say Afghanistan was a farce as well. But how many more will have to die before we come to that realization?

Let's just get it over with and invade every country on the planet and kill off thousands of their citizens. Maybe that way we can find the dozen or so 'terrorists' that are responsible for taking American lives.





[edit on 16-7-2009 by KSPigpen]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
We are in afghanistan is because China finished their damn that opened up a route into Cashmere the river bed that has been drying up is a high way into the middle east. No one remembers China and India were at war in 72 or73. We are putting up front lines to the mongal horde.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnTimothy
We are in afghanistan is because China finished their damn that opened up a route into Cashmere the river bed that has been drying up is a high way into the middle east. No one remembers China and India were at war in 72 or73. We are putting up front lines to the mongal horde.


Why should we be concerned with the Mongol Horde? Wouldn't they have to ride their horses across the ocean?



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Personally, I think jingoism is our God given right.

In a lot of ways, we already have taken over the world. It is OUR culture that is exported (movies, music, and video games), it is OUR military that occupies 130 countries, and it is OUR economy that makes up 30% of the world GDP.

Sounds like an Empire to me.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by A.M.L.]

[edit on 16-7-2009 by A.M.L.]



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by A.M.L.
Personally, I think jingoism is our God given right.

In a lot of ways, we already have taken over the world. It is OUR culture that is exported (movies, music, and video games), it is OUR military that occupies 130 countries, and it is OUR economy that makes up 30% of the world GDP.

Sounds like an Empire to me.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by A.M.L.]

[edit on 16-7-2009 by A.M.L.]



Jingoism is a pejorative phrase used to describe chauvinistic patriotism, characterized by a readiness to go to war and support for a very aggressive foreign policy.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I respectfully disagree with your belief that it is somehow a 'God given right.'

I have a really hard time believing that God wants me to kill anyone. Even infidels.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
What I disagree with is the 'logic' that we are attacking people that 'attacked' us.


They are the targets. Like I said, the problem is they hide themselves among the civilians. How do you tell who is really a civilian and who isn't when there are no visible signs until it's too late? If they weren't such cowards this would have been finished long ago, but they are so it's not.


The 'terrorists' were Saudi, they weren't Afghani....and before we go THERE, yeah, supposedly, there is 'intelligence' that a big bad man is living in Afghanistan, but don't forget there was 'intelligence' that Iraq had WMDs.


No there wasn't, we were lied to. And again, we aren't going after Afghani's we're going after people who happen to be hiding in Afghanistan.


In a prior post, I already addressed the false logic that we are only attacking someone because they attacked us. If that were the case, we would be fighting a lot more wars right now.


How do you figure?


Yeah, I agree that 3000 + sets of eyes were lost..what I don't agree with is that it somehow justifies the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people...


Actually the number is between 8k and 30k civilians at the most, which is still way too many by far but is nowhere in the vicinity of hundreds of thousands.


How many MORE countries should we invade in the name of finding a person that WE TRAINED anyway?



America.gov
Al Qaida’s number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has confirmed that the “Afghan Arabs” did not receive any U.S. funding during the war in Afghanistan. In the book that was described as his “last will,” Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner, which was serialized in December 2001 in Al-Sharq al-Awsat, al-Zawahiri says the Afghan Arabs were funded with money from Arab sources, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars:

“While the United States backed Pakistan and the mujahidin factions with money and equipment, the young Arab mujahidin’s relationship with the United States was totally different.

“… The financing of the activities of the Arab mujahidin in Afghanistan came from aid sent to Afghanistan by popular organizations. It was substantial aid.


The book referenced above is available on Amazon, and I'm sure it can probably be found for free if one looks for it.


Let's just get it over with and invade every country on the planet and kill off thousands of their citizens. Maybe that way we can find the dozen or so 'terrorists' that are responsible for taking American lives.


Or we can do the opposite of that and not pretend we are the bloodthirsty people that the rest of the world would like to believe we are. How about we go after the people we should have been going after for 8 years now instead of getting side tracked and then we can be done with it.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

They are the targets. Like I said, the problem is they hide themselves among the civilians. How do you tell who is really a civilian and who isn't when there are no visible signs until it's too late? If they weren't such cowards this would have been finished long ago, but they are so it's not.


I think I like you.


Yes, I agree they are targets, through no fault of their own. The 'Taliban' hide among the citizens and escape capture through the forced cooperation of the Afghani people. But you know the Taliban have occupied that part of the world for a long time. It is no more our job to save the people of Afghanistan from their decisions and lack of action than it is for us to 'police' the world, getting rid of all the 'bad guys.'

I understand the point the we are in Afghanistan 'chasing' people who are allegedly 'hiding' in there. That was never in dispute. If you have accepted that we were lied to about WMDs in Iraq, why would it be so hard to accept lies related to the presence of the bad guys anywhere else?

I'll repeat this one more time, just so we can be on the same page. The ONE valid reason I have been given, re-emphasized by YOU, for our presence in Afghanistan, is that we are 'chasing the guys that attacked us and that is where they are hiding.' To follow that logic, we should, understandably be involved in far more wars, in far more places, chasing far more bad guys. Yemen, Iran, Israel for Pete's sake, all perpetrators of attacks against our people. The 'We are attacking the bad guys that bombed us.' argument is very tired.

As far as the number of civilian casualties, I admit to a little bit of sensationalism (generalized sarcasm) on my part, but I think you should dig a little deeper on the numbers. Between 2001 and 2005, there ARE NO OFFICIAL NUMBERS of civilians killed. They weren't even keeping track. Estimates, by people other than myself, place the numbers between 25 and 60 thousand in Afghanistan alone. Try googling 'civilian deaths in afghanistan.' If we do the same with Iraq, we come up with a total of almost 170,000 for both theaters. How many dies in the towers again? I'm not trying to minimize it, it was a tragedy, a heinous crime. I just feel strongly that the almost TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND innocent civilians killed in both of those countries, under the guise of 'catching a few bad guys' is extremely excessive.

I may be a little shallow and easily led, but I have read enough to understand that Mr. Bin Laden was on the U.S. government payroll and supplied with GI weapons and training to fight the soviets. Our son has either turned on us, or is being used as a patsy. Of course there is going to be a book that claims otherwise. Yup, a deathbed confession of a former terrorist. Easy to float when the guy isn't around any more to ask.

You know, our hopes are not really too divergent on this issue. I also want justice, but not at the cost of the needless slaughter of many, many innocent civilians. The Afghanis screwed up. They should have revolted against the Taliban, but they should have done it themselves. They had the duty to their OWN children, just as we would have the duty to OUR children, facing the same situation.

I want our troops out of Afghanistan. I want our troops out of ANY country that is not the United States of America. Our days of being the global police force have been outlived.

Should the monsters that killed our people in those towers and planes on that day pay with their lives for what they did? Absolutely. Every last one of the filthy bastards. Should we have concrete proof before we go off half cocked, annihilating innocent, if not slightly stupid civilians? No. We shouldn't. We should have absolute proof of what we are after and where it is before we subject any more nations to the scorched earth that results from the global bullying of a nation that has no problem making up evidence to destroy the sovereignty of another nation through witch hunts based on lies.

I appreciate your input.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by A.M.L.
 


...I'd be inclined to agree with you...

...seems the more I walk through the streets of our country's cities and townships the more I see our country's people shovelling Mc-FattyFatFat burgers and supersized Mc-Heartattack Fries in their mouths...wearing stoooopid clothing half down their a$$, listening to ridiculous meaningless music, yearning to purchase some obscenely large and obnoxious overly heavy, overly thirsty, overly slow and bad handling piece of metal monstrosity laughingly referred to as a car or SUV...turn on the TV and the more I see absolute rubbish couched as entertainment, drive down the road for an hour and see at least 4 big Golden Ms, see advertising for celebrations/events such as Halloween which has NOTHING to do with this country...listen to our kids talk smack to their parents, attack their teachers, bemoan any piece of effort they may have to put in their lives or any moment they may have to spend away from their X-box, Playstation, Bebo, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc etc etc etc...

...yeah...it my country isn't yet part of the US Empire (despite it apparently officially being part of the British one)...its probably not far from it...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by alien
reply to post by A.M.L.
 


...I'd be inclined to agree with you...

...seems the more I walk through the streets of our country's cities and townships the more I see our country's people shovelling Mc-FattyFatFat burgers and supersized Mc-Heartattack Fries in their mouths...wearing stoooopid clothing half down their a$$, listening to ridiculous meaningless music, yearning to purchase some obscenely large and obnoxious overly heavy, overly thirsty, overly slow and bad handling piece of metal monstrosity laughingly referred to as a car or SUV...turn on the TV and the more I see absolute rubbish couched as entertainment, drive down the road for an hour and see at least 4 big Golden Ms, see advertising for celebrations/events such as Halloween which has NOTHING to do with this country...listen to our kids talk smack to their parents, attack their teachers, bemoan any piece of effort they may have to put in their lives or any moment they may have to spend away from their X-box, Playstation, Bebo, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc etc etc etc...

...yeah...it my country isn't yet part of the US Empire (despite it apparently officially being part of the British one)...its probably not far from it...



Sounds like we did a damn good job of effin' up your countrymen's consumer taste.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
I think I like you.


Thank you.



But you know the Taliban have occupied that part of the world for a long time. It is no more our job to save the people of Afghanistan from their decisions and lack of action than it is for us to 'police' the world, getting rid of all the 'bad guys.'


It's not the Taliban that are the targets of our efforts, it's Al Qaeda. The word 'Taliban' gets used for both, but Al Qaeda is a smaller group within the Taliban from my understanding. It's like those tests they gave us in school: whitsits are whatsits, but not all whatsits are whitsits. And we're not there to save the Afghani people, that's not our job and it's not our goal. If they want rid of the Taliban then they need to do it themselves.


I understand the point the we are in Afghanistan 'chasing' people who are allegedly 'hiding' in there. That was never in dispute. If you have accepted that we were lied to about WMDs in Iraq, why would it be so hard to accept lies related to the presence of the bad guys anywhere else?


The information we have says they are hiding there, so that's where we're looking. If credible info is found that says otherwise, we'll look where it points us. Personally I think bin Laden died years ago unless he has his own personal doctor and medical machinery hidden in a cave somewhere.


To follow that logic, we should, understandably be involved in far more wars, in far more places, chasing far more bad guys. Yemen, Iran, Israel for Pete's sake, all perpetrators of attacks against our people. The 'We are attacking the bad guys that bombed us.' argument is very tired.


And again I ask, how do you figure? We don't just go after people that make us angry cause we feel like it, though I'm sure there are some that would love to. What is it that Yemen, Iran, and Isreal have done that makes you think we would/should be going after them?


Between 2001 and 2005, there ARE NO OFFICIAL NUMBERS of civilians killed. They weren't even keeping track. Estimates, by people other than myself, place the numbers between 25 and 60 thousand in Afghanistan alone. Try googling 'civilian deaths in afghanistan.'


I did, that's where I got my numbers. Between 6k and 24k ware the estimates for 01-03.


I just feel strongly that the almost TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND innocent civilians killed in both of those countries, under the guise of 'catching a few bad guys' is extremely excessive.


Yes, it is excessive, though I do think your numbers are slightly inflated. Not by much, but a bit. What can we do though? How do you prevent civilian deaths when the cowards won't stop hiding among them? How do you prevent civilian deaths when the cowards blow the civilians up themselves and use them as living shields? There's only so much we can do.


Yup, a deathbed confession of a former terrorist. Easy to float when the guy isn't around any more to ask.


If we had been the ones who trained and supplied them, don't you think they would have absolutely loved to rub it in our faces? They gloated and bragged about bringing the towers down, why wouldn't they gloat and brag about us training them too if we had? That would be something they would have absolutely loved to do and we never would have heard the end of it. Fact is, we didn't. They were in the same place at the same time as the ones we were supplying and training, but they were not a part of that group.


I want our troops out of Afghanistan. I want our troops out of ANY country that is not the United States of America. Our days of being the global police force have been outlived.


As do I. I would absolutely love to have everyone stay here and be able to tell the rest of the world to go take a flying leap and handle their own business. It would tickle me pink if we were a bit more isolationist when it comes to the problems of other countries. And regardless of what some people would like to believe, we're not the world police nor have we ever acted as such.


We should have absolute proof of what we are after and where it is before we subject any more nations to the scorched earth that results from the global bullying of a nation that has no problem making up evidence to destroy the sovereignty of another nation through witch hunts based on lies.


What exactly would count as absolute proof to you? A big flashing neon sign that says "Al Qaeda Live Here!!"? They aren't going to give us that. We can only go by the information we have, and all of it for eight years now tells us they are hiding in Afghanistan.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 




It's not the Taliban that are the targets of our efforts, it's Al Qaeda.


It was Al Qaeda that was ORIGNALLY the 'excuse' given for the invasion of Afghanistan. That got old a very long time ago.

Here's Time Magazine's take on it..

The war in Afghanistan — the war that President-elect Barack Obama pledged to fight and win — has become an aimless absurdity. It began with a specific target. Afghanistan was where Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda lived, harbored by the Islamic extremist Taliban government. But the enemy escaped into Pakistan, and for the past seven years, Afghanistan has been a slow bleed against an array of mostly indigenous narco-jihadi-tribal guerrilla forces that we continue to call the "Taliban." These ragtag bands are funded by opium profits and led by assorted religious extremists and druglords, many of whom have safe havens in Pakistan.




The information we have says they are hiding there, so that's where we're looking. If credible info is found that says otherwise, we'll look where it points us. Personally I think bin Laden died years ago unless he has his own personal doctor and medical machinery hidden in a cave somewhere.


You can certainly understand the difficulty I am having with this argument, can you not? You claim that we are chasing Al Qaeda, but then you admit that Bin Laden is probably dead...How can it be both ways? Are we chasing a ghost? Are we trying to cllect some DNA to PROVE he'se dead? The information we have, was from many years ago. It is common knowledge, heck even TIME magazine knows it, that he is not IN Afghanistan. It stands to reason, if he has fled to Pakistan, his top commanders can't be too far away. Should we invade Pakistan, or are the UAV bombing raids sufficient there for now? Oops, we forgot to count the innocent Pakistani people that have already been killed.




We don't just go after people that make us angry cause we feel like it, though I'm sure there are some that would love to. What is it that Yemen, Iran, and Isreal have done that makes you think we would/should be going after them?


Some, myself included, would argue that we do EXACTLY that. We attack countries based on many things, primarily resources and the ability to make money from them. All three of those countries mentioned were involved in attacks against US citizens. There are many more. So, given the point that we attack only the countries that attack us, we should be waging wars in those countries now as well. Why are we not?



I did, that's where I got my numbers. Between 6k and 24k ware the estimates for 01-03.


It's 2009 now. The 'war' in Afghanistan has been going on for over EIGHT YEARS.

Here is a quote from the general that was in charge...


In a discussion of that issue at the same conference, Gen. David Barno, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005, said, "We’ve got to be careful about who controls the narrative on civilian casualties."


The truth of it is, they don't WANT us to know how many civilians have been killed.

I'm going to assume you have read this site about the numbers of civilian dead in Iraq

92,498-100,971 DOCUMENTED CILVILIAN DEATHS.

Why should we believe that Afghanistan will be any different? Iraq is not nearly as hostile terrain. The enemy was never as well entrenched as Afghanistan.



Yes, it is excessive, though I do think your numbers are slightly inflated. Not by much, but a bit. What can we do though? How do you prevent civilian deaths when the cowards won't stop hiding among them? How do you prevent civilian deaths when the cowards blow the civilians up themselves and use them as living shields? There's only so much we can do


Give it another year and the numbers will be spot on, if they aren't already. Again, they won't tell us the truth. They don't tell us the truth. Remember the JFK assassination? His brother? That is the method to avoid civilian casualties. You can read a book from outer space using the governments satellites, but you can't find a couple dozen people and put a bullet in their heads? Do you really think our military is that inept? There is no reason that this couldn't have been completed already, if what they really wanted was for it to be over.




If we had been the ones who trained and supplied them, don't you think they would have absolutely loved to rub it in our faces? They gloated and bragged about bringing the towers down, why wouldn't they gloat and brag about us training them too if we had? That would be something they would have absolutely loved to do and we never would have heard the end of it. Fact is, we didn't. They were in the same place at the same time as the ones we were supplying and training, but they were not a part of that group.


Here is a link to one of the many articles where Bin Laden 'claims responsibility' for the attcks.


WASHINGTON — Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people.

The DATE on the article, you may ask?

Saturday, October 30, 2004


More than THREE YEARS after the attack. Why do you think it would take him three years to claim responsibility for something he was apparently very proud of? I have no idea. Seems to me like he would have told us the next day.

I really wish I knew what the solution is. I know that continuing to murder, in the name of justice, when the original perps are still in question is just not going to work. Do YOU have proof that Al Qaeda was responsible? Did they have that painted on the planes, or are we just believing what we've been told?

Edit to catch the most glaring of my many typing errors.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by KSPigpen]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I believe it's a little (actually a lot) arrogant to assume that the US is 'right' and everyone else is wrong. Policing the world would take absolute moral high ground and I don't think any nation can claim that. Strange how the US didn't go in on Rwanda, Darfur, Chad etc.

As for the current conflicts; it would have taken a small group of black ops with the right intelligence and the right equipment not-very-long to take out all those "responsible". However, that would preclude any no-bid contracts, huge awards to military suppliers, lots of confusion on a budgetary level (whatever happened to Rumsfeld's inquiry into the missing billions at the pentagon from 9/10/01?), and less political smokescreen.

Afghanistan? Iraq?
One question from me:
Are there any oil interests (pipelines, production etc.) in either of these countries.
Yes?
No?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Badgered1
 





I believe it's a little (actually a lot) arrogant to assume that the US is 'right' and everyone else is wrong. Policing the world would take absolute moral high ground and I don't think any nation can claim that. Strange how the US didn't go in on Rwanda, Darfur, Chad etc.


Exactly. Strange indeed how the countries we 'choose' to exact our own brand of justice, or vengeance on, are the ones that can offer us the most resources for the least amount of investment.



As for the current conflicts; it would have taken a small group of black ops with the right intelligence and the right equipment not-very-long to take out all those "responsible". However, that would preclude any no-bid contracts, huge awards to military suppliers, lots of confusion on a budgetary level (whatever happened to Rumsfeld's inquiry into the missing billions at the pentagon from 9/10/01?), and less political smokescreen.


Black Ops would have been the pinpoint sort of answer to the attack that is acceptable IMO. There would certainly have been far fewer innocents murdered.

I think you hit it on the head, B. Pipelines, oil, gold, poppies, fill in the blank with whatever it is these countries have that we can liberate them of.

Again, to heck with stretching our troops too thin, or taking some sort of make believe morale 'high ground.' Let's embrace the murderous beast that this country is and take over the rest of the world now. By force. Kill any and all who oppose the manifest destiny of the great United States.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
It was Al Qaeda that was ORIGNALLY the 'excuse' given for the invasion of Afghanistan. That got old a very long time ago.


So what should we do then? Change what we call them? What would that change? Just because you're tired of hearing it, doesn't make it less true.


You can certainly understand the difficulty I am having with this argument, can you not? You claim that we are chasing Al Qaeda, but then you admit that Bin Laden is probably dead...How can it be both ways?


Did you see the word "Personally" in my post? That is my opinion. My opinion is that I think he's dead already, but I don't know that he is. Should everything be called off because I, an absolute nobody as far as Congress or the military are concerned, am of the opinion that he died already? I didn't admit or claim anything, I posted a fact (Al Qaeda is our target) and followed with an opinion (I think bin Laden is dead).


t is common knowledge, heck even TIME magazine knows it, that he is not IN Afghanistan. It stands to reason, if he has fled to Pakistan, his top commanders can't be too far away.


You are aware that Pakistan and Afghanistan share a fairly large border, right? And you're aware that Parachinar not far from that border, right?


All three of those countries mentioned were involved in attacks against US citizens.


Last I checked none of those countries flew our own planes into our own buildings. Maybe I missed it?


It's 2009 now. The 'war' in Afghanistan has been going on for over EIGHT YEARS.


Yeah, go back to my post that originally had numbers and then compare them to my last one. The numbers are different. My last post was just from 01-03, the time you said there were no numbers. The post before that was from 01 to now.


The truth of it is, they don't WANT us to know how many civilians have been killed.


That explains why there are never any news reports about civilian deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Oh wait...
Nine dead in hotel bombings....Deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan...
Bomb kills 10 civilians in Eastern Afghanistan
Roadside bomb kills Afghan child, injures 21 in S Afghanistan


I'm going to assume you have read this site about the numbers of civilian dead in Iraq


Yes I have. It's also safe for you to assume that I prefer sources that bother to differentiate between deaths caused by US troops and those caused by the hundreds of bombs set off on roads and in markets by suicide bombers and cowards up front instead of making you dig to find out how many deaths were caused by what. Sites with an obvious bias don't rate very high in my book.


You can read a book from outer space using the governments satellites, but you can't find a couple dozen people and put a bullet in their heads? Do you really think our military is that inept? There is no reason that this couldn't have been completed already, if what they really wanted was for it to be over.


You're completely missing what I am saying. The people we are after blend in completely with the civilians around them. There is no outward sign to differentiate between them until it is too late. You can't just take out someone when you don't know exactly what they look like and exactly where they are going to be at any given time.

If Bob is a member of Al Qaeda and hides in a group of people who aren't that look and dress like him, and you've never seen Bob before, how do you know which one is Bob before he shoots you? The answer is you don't, you just hope he misses and you're looking in the right direction when he fires.


Why do you think it would take him three years to claim responsibility for something he was apparently very proud of? I have no idea. Seems to me like he would have told us the next day.


Last I checked bin Laden doesn't have a direct satellite feed into all the news stations. Perhaps he didn't think of making a tape at first. Perhaps he couldn't find anyone to air it when he did think of it. Perhaps he didn't have the equipment to make the tape and had to wait for someone to get it for him.


Do YOU have proof that Al Qaeda was responsible? Did they have that painted on the planes, or are we just believing what we've been told?


Do you have proof that they weren't? Do you have proof that someone else was? Not theories, not opinions, proof.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 




So what should we do then? Change what we call them? What would that change? Just because you're tired of hearing it, doesn't make it less true....Did you see the word "Personally" in my post? That is my opinion. My opinion is that I think he's dead already, but I don't know that he is. Should everything be called off because I, an absolute nobody as far as Congress or the military are concerned, am of the opinion that he died already? I didn't admit or claim anything, I posted a fact (Al Qaeda is our target) and followed with an opinion (I think bin Laden is dead).


It doesn't matter WHAT we call them....the result is the same...a disproportional response to group of 'perpetrators' that cannot be proven. I beg to differ with your idea that 'Al Qeada is our target' is a fact. As you have pointed out, you, as well as I, am a nobody to the governement, therefore, I don't think either of us is really qualified to speak on behalf of the 'strategists' and other boneheads that think it's ok to kill whomever they choose.



You are aware that Pakistan and Afghanistan share a fairly large border, right? And you're aware that Parachinar not far from that border, right?


Yup...familiar with the geography involved. Your logic was that we are attacking Al Qeada. If we KNOW he's in Pakistan, why are we not in Pakistan with 50 thousand troops killing women and children? Oh yeah, that's right, Pakistan doesn't have a pipeline.




Last I checked none of those countries flew our own planes into our own buildings. Maybe I missed it?


Last I checked, we didn't really have any proof that ANYONE was flying those planes...there are several discussions to that effect being played out currently...including some very experienced pilots claiming the maneuvers would have been impossible for pilots with the level of training of the alleged hijackers. People died, I don't dismiss that. A lot of people. My point is that unless you were in the cockpit when the planes hit the tower how do you KNOW who was flying? Oh yeah, the government, who has NEVER lied by the way, has told us who we should be mad at, and where we should go to find them.



That explains why there are never any news reports about civilian deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan.


Again with the sarcasm? Of course they report on some of the casualties.They just don't care to do it accurately. Answer me this: When you found your sources about the number of civilian deaths, were any of those sources from the military? I doubt it. They've gone on record as stating they are not in the business of body counts. They don't care.



It's also safe for you to assume that I prefer sources that bother to differentiate between deaths caused by US troops and those caused by the hundreds of bombs set off on roads and in markets by suicide bombers and cowards up front instead of making you dig to find out how many deaths were caused by what.


So, if I am to understand correctly, in your opinion, a civilian death caused by an IED, a suicide bomber or some other type of cowardly action should not apply towards the total civilian deaths? I think you should understand that there would be little need for these cowards to be using these explosive devices, if the United States was not occupying their country militarily. If a person dies, as a result of me committing an unrelated felony, I am now guilty of their murder. How is this not the same?



You're completely missing what I am saying. The people we are after blend in completely with the civilians around them. There is no outward sign to differentiate between them until it is too late. You can't just take out someone when you don't know exactly what they look like and exactly where they are going to be at any given time.


I'm not missing what you are saying. I'm following you perfectly well, I just don't agree with you about everything.

I agree that the issue of identification of targets is a huge concern. It leads to collateral damage and also ties the hands of the troops in the field to do their job. The issue I have is that if the US were not there, it wouldn't be an issue. Had this been an actual attempt to bring members of Al Qaeda to justice, it would have been finished seven years ago. It's not, so it drags on...costing more lives every day, wasting more of our money and keeping more of our troops away from home.




Last I checked bin Laden doesn't have a direct satellite feed into all the news stations. Perhaps he didn't think of making a tape at first. Perhaps he couldn't find anyone to air it when he did think of it. Perhaps he didn't have the equipment to make the tape and had to wait for someone to get it for him.


I don't know a lot. Of that, I am certain. But I DO know that this can't POSSIBLY be your first rodeo. How many terrorist acts have you seen on the news? How long does it usually take a group to claim responsibility? Nowhere NEAR three years. Usually not more than a day. That's part of the terrorism. They want credit so you know who to be afraid of. I find it HIGHLY SUSPECT that Bin Laden, a very, VERY wealthy man would not have had the means, or desire to spread the fear, if he were in fact responsible.



Do you have proof that they weren't? Do you have proof that someone else was? Not theories, not opinions, proof.


Innocent until PROVEN guilty is the way it's supposed to work in this country. The burden of proof lies with the accuser. If there is any doubt..ANY AT ALL, that these people did not commit the crime they were accused of, then we have no right to be chasing them down. Regardless, we have no right to be murdering, or causing by our close proximity, the deaths of thousand of Afghani civilians.

Our nation has been rallied, of that there is no doubt. We have remained on a hunt for over eight years for a person or group of persons we have been conditioned to believe committed heinous crimes against our nation. We are killing thousands of people...almost TEN TIMES the number of those killed on 911. My question to you, is when does it stop? When is it enough? When have we filled our quota of justice?




Edit for fat fingers

[edit on 17-7-2009 by KSPigpen]




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join