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

Originally posted by KSPigpen
It doesn't matter WHAT we call them....the result is the same...

You said it was getting old, not me. That was merely a suggestion so that it wouldn't be old to you anymore.

I don't think either of us is really qualified to speak on behalf of the 'strategists' and other boneheads

I wasn't speaking on their behalf, nor did I claim to be.

If we KNOW he's in Pakistan, why are we not in Pakistan with 50 thousand troops killing women and children?

First off, we aren't in Afghanistan to kill women and children. Second, bin Laden isn't the only one we're after. Third, Pakistan is reportedly looking for him and people from our CIA are reportedly there with them.

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.

A few problems there. The planes left the ground with people on them all, including pilots. The planes didn't land anywhere to let those people off prior to flying into the towers, if they had the people would have been found or come forward long ago. Those pilots are assuming that those who flew the planes into the towers didn't have much training or experience, when they may very well have had much more than we know about. The planes were already in the air, all they had to do was turn them and point them the right direction at the right altitude. For all we know the real pilots were forced to turn the planes in the right direction by the hijackers. If so, all the hijackers had to do was get the altitude right to accomplish their goal.

Again with the sarcasm?

Sarcasm is my usual route when someone says that we aren't told something that we very clearly are.

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 not the military's job to report the news. That's what the news stations and newspapers are for. Why would you expect it to be otherwise?

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?

Nope, you don't understand me correctly. In my opinion, a civilian death caused by an IED, suicide bomber, or some other cowardly action applies to the total civilian deaths, but is not the same thing as US troop caused civilian deaths. In my opinion, there is a very large difference between the two and the military is not, nor should it be, the whipping boy for what cowards do to their own countrymen. In my opinion, that website is very useful but would be even more so if they were up front about who is causing those 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.

I'll ask you the same thing I've asked others that I have yet to get a response to. How does targeting a market full of civilians somehow equate with targeting US troops when there are none in the area? They aren't always targeting our troops, they more often are targeting their own countrymen. How is that our fault?

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

You don't have to agree with me about everything, nor do I expect you to. Your responses to my other posts tell me that you haven't been understanding me completely and have indeed been missing what I've been saying or it wouldn't have taken me three tries to get the next section I have quoted.

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.

You did understand me this time. If you understood that was what I was trying to point out before, my apologies, but your previous responses made it seem as though you did not.

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.

I find it highly suspect that he would claim responsibility if he were not in fact responsible. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense to bring that level of anger and hatred upon your own head if you weren't in fact the person who was responsible. He was a wealthy man, as you pointed out, and would not have been easily pressured into claiming responsibility for something he didn't do.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty is the way it's supposed to work in this country.

And an admission of guilt is what leads to a quick verdict.

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.

I'm sure you understand how our justice system works, just as I'm sure you know that we do indeed hunt down people who have been accused of murder. They are hunted down, and captured, before they are tried. If you expect bin Laden and his crew to have their day in court, then surely you understand that they must be hunted down first. So we do indeed have the right to be chasing them down.

We are killing thousands of people...almost TEN TIMES the number of those killed on 911.

You're exaggerating again.

My question to you, is when does it stop? When is it enough? When have we filled our quota of justice?

I'm not the one who can answer that question. I would imagine that the war will be over once bin Laden is found and Al Qaeda is dismantled. Whether that is something that can or will be accomplish any time soon, I don't know.

reply to post by Jenna


Sigh.

Yeah, the Afghani people get killed by bombs in the market, by allowing their own country to be ovverrun with Islamic extremeists.

I understand that the US hunts down murderers. Well...the murderers they WANT to hunt down...

Its way too easy for me to get off on tangents here.

The people of Afghanistan are suffering. A lot of people consider the US a bunch of murderers. I suppose we should allow other nations to enter our land as they seem fit, to hunt down those that are accused of, or admit to murder? Does that sound ok? Of course not.

I don't care what excuse someone tried to use. It's never ok for a nation to insert it's military into another nation in order to hunt down bad guys. Its never ok to kill, or allow to be killed, or contribute to the killing, of tens of thousands, or even just hundreds of innocent people in the quest to bring two dozen people to justice. Ever.

Hypothetically....there is an accused, or admitted murderer in New York City....should we be willing to accept thousand of deaths and millions in collateral damage to bring this murderer to justice? The position I read in your words is yes, we should. There is no price to high, no amount of lives too important to preclude the bringing of one man, or a small group of men to justice. The funny thing is people would scream bloody murder if it were their neighbors or children paying with THEIR lives, but when it's a country across the sea, made up of mostly simple people, the simpletons lives just aren't worth as much.

I think I read you loud and clear. As far as you are concerned, the collateral damage, the loss of innocent lives, the billions of dollars, is all worth it, if we can bring Bin Laden to justice.

I respect your right to have that opinion, but I can't help but be a little dissappointed. Not in you so much, as you relate your opinion eloquently and zealously. What brings me great sorrow is the perceived disparity in the worth of an American life and that of a person in Afghanistan.

A lot of major cities have started policies whereby they do not engage in high-speed chase. This is done to limit, or avoid collateral damage. Someone, somewhere, figured out that it just wasn't worth it to kill innocent people to try and bring one person to justice. If you give it enough time, you'll get that person your after, without having to become the murderers that you so righteously pursue.

The Taliban are in 14 countries, they will never be beaten by bullets.

There will come a time just as with the IRA when we all have to sit round the table. We did not go into Southern Ireland and kill civilians when they were bombing London and Manchester.

Having been to Cuba on numerous occassions have friends there , I see no repression, funny thing democracy, we think we have it, yet Cuba has the best health system in the world for every citizen, it is their right.

Originally posted by dizzylizzy
The Taliban are in 14 countries, they will never be beaten by bullets.

There will come a time just as with the IRA when we all have to sit round the table. We did not go into Southern Ireland and kill civilians when they were bombing London and Manchester.

I agree. The harder we fight them, the more they recruit and the more resolved they get. We would be the same way. I just don't understand why we make the same mistakes we've made in other theaters of battle. It must be pride, or something.

reply to post by KSPigpen

Let's face it, the real problem here is that we are against people who have no morals and who make up their own rules. We, on the other hand, have to obey certain rules, worry about world opinion, and are just too damned civilised for our own good. . . If, just for a minute, we allowed ourselves to drop to the enemies level then they would be far more likely to think twice before daring to attack us!

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


The taliban are a bunch of pansies compared to what much of the western world has been doing for even the last 50 years across the world.We have morals...maybe "we" do,but we are also apathetic..the people that run our countries are nothing short of savages plain and simple and are more brutal than the taliban could even wish to be,albeit more discreet.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Solomons]

reply to post by Solomons

Oh come on, more brutal than the Taliban!? Surely you're joking? The Taliban get away with it because they never pretend to be anything other than the insane weirdo's which they are. How can you tarnish the image of a group of people like the Taliban who stop women attending school and feel the need to have their women hide their faces from public view?
We, on the other hand, have to act accordingly knowing full well that the glare of the media is constantly pointing in our direction. We dare not step out of line as it will be reported world wide in hours if not minutes! We are treating savages in a civilised way and the sooner we realise that we have to stoop to their level if we have any chance of defeating them the better it will be for all concerned.

Originally posted by KSPigpen
The position I read in your words is yes, we should. There is no price to high, no amount of lives too important to preclude the bringing of one man, or a small group of men to justice.

...

I think I read you loud and clear. As far as you are concerned, the collateral damage, the loss of innocent lives, the billions of dollars, is all worth it, if we can bring Bin Laden to justice.

See that right there is the problem, you think that's what I'm saying because you are reading into what I post instead of just reading what I type. I never said either of those things, never even hinted that that was my opinion, because it's not. I agree with you that too many lives have been lost already. There is nothing in this world that I want more at this moment than for every last person we have in Afghanistan and Iraq to be back home. That would just tickle me pink. The problem is I'm too much of a realist to believe that it as easy as an order being given to pack it up and come home.

Not in you so much, as you relate your opinion eloquently and zealously. What brings me great sorrow is the perceived disparity in the worth of an American life and that of a person in Afghanistan.

Thank you. The only lives I place above any others are my own and those of my family. Outside of that, everyone else is equal in worth to me whether they live here or in Afghanistan.

If you give it enough time, you'll get that person your after, without having to become the murderers that you so righteously pursue.

Generally speaking, people who are in high speed chases aren't hiding in other countries where they think we'll never find them.

you know, OP.. nothing personal...

but if you really had ALL the miles of pages of data that are relevant to our ACTUAL purpose in Afghanistan, then you'd understand, and would THEN be able to make a concise decision as to how everything else should work and pan out.

but you don't neither do we, and most likely we will not.

so there's only mild surface-level ineffectual hypothesizing that's to b taking place..

we can debate and chat up a banter over this and that and what we think we know.. but in reality.. you won't know the truth.. and you won't have a say in wha the next step is..

REALLY you WONT.

so it's kind of pointless lol. it's CUTE .. what you're all doing here.. but you know.. pointless..
it's almost like you guys are playing a text only RPG here.. with pretend maps etc... because you haven't a clue as to the real complex of situations and agendas within agendas that are creating this all...

anyway.. as you were..

-

reply to post by prevenge


Then seen as you seem to know so much, please enlighten us with your knowledge.

Failing that, what is the point of you even posting in this thread?

While we are talking about the complexities of Afghanistan can someone please answer me this. . . We the Brits, are meant to be just one country in a long line of UN or NATO countries which should have forces stationed in that hell hole. Why is that I only hear of Brits and Yanks being killed in action? Where are the Germans, Danes, Italians, Spanish, Canadians,etc?
Just what exactly is their role in this?

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
While we are talking about the complexities of Afghanistan can someone please answer me this. . . We the Brits, are meant to be just one country in a long line of UN or NATO countries which should have forces stationed in that hell hole. Why is that I only hear of Brits and Yanks being killed in action? Where are the Germans, Danes, Italians, Spanish, Canadians,etc?
Just what exactly is their role in this?

Back in their countries, living off the security our blood is providing. This is assuming you subscribe to The War Is Making Us Safer line of thought.

In reality, they are probably providing the logistic support or something that doesn't require putting themselves in danger.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


I know that the Danes have helped in the recent British offensive in Afghanistan. Personally i don't see why other European countries should have to clean up our mess. Unless a country actually joined in the invasion in 2001, then they shouldn't have to do anything.

But i think it has something to do with a NATO article which states that if one member state is attacked it is seen as an attack on all members. I think that was invoked with the attacks of 9/11. Although the actual article may have been refering to attacks by another state rather than non-state enteties, like terrorists. Although i am not entirely sure.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


Also i know the Canadians are losing quite a few soldiers. I don't really hear much in regards to troops of other nationalities. Perhaps more is heard of British and Americans, because they have the largest contingent. But i am not trying to belittle the support of other nations.

reply to post by KSPigpen


Well put mate.

I think that if all the other countries had access to the Caspian Basin Oil reserve, and were in a country that groes the majority of the worlds opium, then you'd see the US/UK going into those countries too!

I like your reasoning, S+F mate.

Sorry for being so cynical, but it's too much of a coincidence!

reply to post by KSPigpen


It's about money, in this case the black liquid kind. The US can make money in Afganistan, and it's one step away from Iran.

Also that picture is a little off. Russia is actually a free country, it's just really a new thing for them and they are not so good at it, and Tibet is owned by China.

come on now , america cannot take on the world, we just simply have to free one country at a time, so that they meet the standards of the usa. i dont understand when people ask that question. is usa taking over the world? we have been doing that since thomas jefferson, look what we have conquered in the past to achieve the united states. we are just exspanding our borders. we are still exspanding. soon in the near future the other countries will be in the united axis group. U.A.G

Originally posted by pudgeego
come on now , america cannot take on the world, we just simply have to free one country at a time, so that they meet the standards of the usa. i dont understand when people ask that question. is usa taking over the world? we have been doing that since thomas jefferson, look what we have conquered in the past to achieve the united states. we are just exspanding our borders. we are still exspanding. soon in the near future the other countries will be in the united axis group. U.A.G

My sarcasm filter must either not be working today, or you're being serious.

As much as it may not seem like it, I'm all for a little empirical expansion every now and then...provided you 'say as you do and do as you say.' If we are just adding to the states, Someone should come out and say that. Make them states, so we can use the taxes and resources, without all of this behind the back stuff.

I don't think it's asking too much to want leaders that are honest with their serfs.

Originally posted by Solomons


You will never defeat the taliban for the simple reason that ideologies cannot be killed with bullets and airstrikes.And trust me,the influx of pakistanis into Afghanistan will not stop unless you kill every single man,woman and child in the region.

Except it won't. Because if that happened, the Muslims of this world would recognise a genocide when they saw one, of their fellow Muslims, and their sense of being wronged, their anger, will shake the world.


If people think they know 'Jihad', they will have seen nothing yet.


Their fury will be quite justified.


And so would the fury of any other civillised person at such a deliberate mass slaughter of innocents.


The whole world would rise up in outrage at such an action.

Originally posted by prevenge
you know, OP.. nothing personal...

but if you really had ALL the miles of pages of data that are relevant to our ACTUAL purpose in Afghanistan, then you'd understand, and would THEN be able to make a concise decision as to how everything else should work and pan out.

but you don't neither do we, and most likely we will not.

so there's only mild surface-level ineffectual hypothesizing that's to b taking place..

we can debate and chat up a banter over this and that and what we think we know.. but in reality.. you won't know the truth.. and you won't have a say in wha the next step is..

REALLY you WONT.

so it's kind of pointless lol. it's CUTE .. what you're all doing here.. but you know.. pointless..
it's almost like you guys are playing a text only RPG here.. with pretend maps etc... because you haven't a clue as to the real complex of situations and agendas within agendas that are creating this all...

anyway.. as you were..

-

Nothing taken personally...well, not after a little bit of healthy detachment.

I realize I have no CLUE why we are in Afghanistan, other than oil, drug money, and just because we can. As far as I know, we're in the process of creating another government in Afghanistan that will kindly obey every edict passed down by the ones making all the money. You're absolutely correct. I have no idea. That, my friend, was more or less the point of this thread.

You see, the notion and reality of ignorance has always been difficult for me to swallow. I try to absorb whatever I can, from whatever source I can, to better understand what's going on. Yeah, I realize that no one else around here really know what all is going on either, or at least their not saying. It's commonly expressed that monetary motivations are at the forefront of our actions there. I find that easy to believe.

I'm a pretty fast reader, so if you can provide any of the 'miles' of pages you were referring to, I would be most happy to use them in an attempt to get more educated.

I'm glad you find the discussion we are having 'CUTE' and hope that it puts a smile on your face when you think about it. I find it difficult to be anything but angry about the whole thing. I have some growing to do when it comes to separating my emotions from an issue.

Whether it was of any value to you or not is, truthfully, irrelevant. I was entirely selfish in my motivation.

I have had some absolutely wonderful enlightenment along the way. I played text based games back on my apple, and vic 20...the problem I had, was I would modify the basic code....I can't modify this code. I can't change anything over there and it makes me feel very powerless. I already knew I was, but now I know that I'm not alone.

Although I have become very angry, at more than a couple of times during this discussion, I wouldn't go back and not do it. I suppose I could crawl back under the covers and hope it all just goes away, but I don't think that'll work and I prefer to be schooled on occasion.

Thanks for your post.