Originally Posted by ZENBOY123
For 9/11 I say it's fair retaliation since the group hated the government and bombed the civilians
The group didn't bomb civilians, they flew planes into buildings. The group was lead by a Saudi national heading a group based in Afghanistan, yet we invaded Iraq. The group is also a minority of both countries and claimed no cities, yet we bombed cities anyways. So get your statements right, and no, it was not a fair retaliation.
Originally Posted by ZENBOY123
And America is just trying to help who they feel is right along with assisting the U.N. in achieving world stability by eliminating over-aggresive countries. Many want freedom but their actions make it harder for them to be granted since they are too aggresive with attacks especially because it endangers civilians and since they don't care they appear inhumane and Americans will intervene to save the civilians such as in Iraq or Bagdhad.
Yet we will do nothing to Israel, which has a history of encroaching on the territory of their neighbors and routinely discriminates against non-Jewish Israelis. And Baghdad is the capital of Iraq.
Originally Posted by ZENBOY123
Also the Operations was literally called Iraqi Freedom Fates.
This just in, naming your operation something pleasant sounding makes it morally right. Hitler should have called gassing the Jews something fun like Happy Time Group Shower.
Originally Posted by ZENBOY123
And we could make a Thread saying "Afghanistan's Inability to keep from starting firefights" and talk about how US Troops are risking their lives just to try to protect the Middle-Eastern country from it's own Insurgence because they are too violent and that because of them many US Troops are dying for the freedom of Afghanistan such as US Army Troops and Navy SEALs.
Since 1970, Afghanistan has underwent exactly 3 major wars. First, the war against the Soviet Union, where the U.S. funded organisations in their fight against the Soviet Union, like our good friends the Taliban. Second, a civil war, which was fueled by Pakistani, Saudi, and Iranian interests. Third, the U.S. invasion, where we fought our wonderful friends the Taliban. In all of these situations, Afghanistan instigated the fight exactly once, and that was during their civil war. And we indirectly influenced or caused ALL of these wars from happening.
Originally Posted by ZENBOY123
To sum it up and most can probably agree on this part, America is just doing what they feel is best to help protect you because they care and they mean well. If you feel they have made your home a warzone just bare in mind it is not them attacking, they are merely deployed there to guard the civilians and once they are fired upon they must fire back. If they didn't intervene Afghanistan could be taken over by Al-Qaeda or Syria by ISIS.
Have you ever heard the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? Nobody gives two shits if your intentions were well meaning when your family gets blown up by an artillery shell.
Furthermore, Al Qaeda had no military capabilities to capture and hold territory for any extended period of time. Second, ISIS formed because the U.S. backed government in Afghanistan run by Karzai routinely discriminated against Sunnis, and a good portion of the ISIS army are former Sunni soldiers from the Afghan army. America indirectly caused the birth of ISIS because of the stupid diplomatic decision to let Karzai continue the conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
Originally Posted by ZENBOY123
Political Arguements will always be messy V_V And call it colonialism if you will but don't hate on the winners. Besides it's not like America is an angry country like Nazi Germany back in WWII. America are the good guys.
Colonialism, by definition, is horrible for the country being colonized. It is the systematic exploitation of a colony for resources and capital and exporting it back the home country. That's nothing a "good guy" would do. And winning doesn't exempt you from judgement. Winners are frequently people who made morally questionable decisions.
Originally Posted by ZENBOY123
There is no 100% winning with the populous because you cannot satisfy everyone since everyone has different interests. If the US didn't help then some people would say "Oh this superpower isn't even helping Afghanistan achieve peace.". Everyone has different opinions and beliefs.
Afghanistan had peace. They had an insurgency, but it was generally peaceful for them. Iraq had peace. They were under a dictatorship, but they had peace. It all changed when America attacked. Now they have several active insurgencies, most of which are anti-American and are fueled by the continued occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Apparently we didn't learn from the Soviets or the British and realized that occupying either of these countries tends to result in a severe, protracted guerrilla war with an incredibly proud populace that has always, in their entire history in the region, resisted any foreign occupation to the death.
The Middle East doesn't want America's interference. They want to solve their own problems without a bunch of trifling white men having their say in the matter. The region as a whole has been burned by white men making promises that they don't keep since World War 1. They're tired of Western meddling.
Originally Posted by ZENBOY123
I know some will disagree but I have said my part. If you do not agree then just respect my opinions and beliefs.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but some opinions are worse than others. I'm not required, nor obligated, to respect your beliefs if they're made through rose-tinted glasses and fervent nationalism.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
-snip- (supermassive image)
They didnt bomb civilians just flew planes into buildings. Never mind the 2,606 people in or near the towers including fire fighters, residents of new york, employees of or Marsh Inc, employees of Cantor Fitzgeral L.P., Employees of Aon Corp, police officers, and paramedics, not to mention the 246 passengers, not only that but the 194 pentagon employees died during the crash into the pentagon never actually died. They just went and bombed some random tower in the middle of the pacific as a test. No one actually died or got hurt. Let's not forget the many more that could have died if they succeeded in the bombing of the White House. Nahhhhhhh, they didn't bomb us.
They were bombed by al-Qeada, and its way too obvious how desperately you tried not mentioning their name. Anyway nice try though bud, we didnt invade Iraq to fight al-Qaeda we invaded Iraq to stop the threat of Saddam Hussein 's programs for developing weapons of mass destruction and passing them on to al-Qaeda... This operation was not only done by us but also by the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. al-Qaeda now also occupies one of Iraqs biggest cities Mosul, which could have been stopped potentially stopped.
I want you to guess, just guess who one of our biggest allies is that also happens to be in the middle east. I'll even give you a hint it starts is Is and ends with rael. They didnt start on offense, they get attacked then we helped them and they won the defense then moved to offense.
We fought that war as a proxy war against Russia and pretty common tactic that larger countries use smaller countries to fight against their opposition. Other notable proxy wars are the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Chinese Civil War. While I'm not denying that we did fund Iraq we funded a rebel group wanting to fight the Russians then later became a corrupt terrorist organization. Though they still decided to become corrupt on there own mind you.
Lol? [X][X][X][X][X]
Oh, I'm sorry maybe we should have invaded in an attempt to stop the conflict? Or maybe we should have funded the other side which later turned into Isis? At the end US intervention had very little to due with the founding of Isis.
Ah yes, Afghanistan had peace... We just dont talk about the civil wars that have been going on there since 1929-the present day, the assassinations of there leaders, the constant wars they fight in, but they had peace... Iraq had loads of peace, I mean unless you count the almost continuous string of wars they fight in, but don't worry their dictator who was wildly condemned for how brutal he was, who executed almost all of his political opponents, and killed over 20,000 of his own people, ya him, he was peaceful at least. Everything changed when America attacked though! Damn Americans and their funding of us rebels attempting to overthrow our murderous and dictatorous governments.
Ya Iraq doesn't want our help! And we do nothing to help Afghanistan either!
I'll post my response to deprav later.
Originally Posted by Oracle
The group didn't bomb civilians, they flew planes into buildings. The group was lead by a Saudi national heading a group based in Afghanistan, yet we invaded Iraq. The group is also a minority of both countries and claimed no cities, yet we bombed cities anyways. So get your statements right, and no, it was not a fair retaliation.
They didnt bomb civilians just flew planes into buildings. Never mind the 2,606 people in or near the towers including fire fighters, residents of new york, employees of or Marsh Inc, employees of Cantor Fitzgeral L.P., Employees of Aon Corp, police officers, and paramedics, not to mention the 246 passengers, not only that but the 194 pentagon employees died during the crash into the pentagon never actually died. They just went and bombed some random tower in the middle of the pacific as a test. No one actually died or got hurt. Let's not forget the many more that could have died if they succeeded in the bombing of the White House. Nahhhhhhh, they didn't bomb us.
They were bombed by al-Qeada, and its way too obvious how desperately you tried not mentioning their name. Anyway nice try though bud, we didnt invade Iraq to fight al-Qaeda we invaded Iraq to stop the threat of Saddam Hussein 's programs for developing weapons of mass destruction and passing them on to al-Qaeda... This operation was not only done by us but also by the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. al-Qaeda now also occupies one of Iraqs biggest cities Mosul, which could have been stopped potentially stopped.
Originally Posted by Oracle
Yet we will do nothing to Israel, which has a history of encroaching on the territory of their neighbors and routinely discriminates against non-Jewish Israelis. And Baghdad is the capital of Iraq.
I want you to guess, just guess who one of our biggest allies is that also happens to be in the middle east. I'll even give you a hint it starts is Is and ends with rael. They didnt start on offense, they get attacked then we helped them and they won the defense then moved to offense.
Originally Posted by Oracle
Since 1970, Afghanistan has underwent exactly 3 major wars. First, the war against the Soviet Union, where the U.S. funded organisations in their fight against the Soviet Union, like our good friends the Taliban. Second, a civil war, which was fueled by Pakistani, Saudi, and Iranian interests. Third, the U.S. invasion, where we fought our wonderful friends the Taliban. In all of these situations, Afghanistan instigated the fight exactly once, and that was during their civil war. And we indirectly influenced or caused ALL of these wars from happening.
We fought that war as a proxy war against Russia and pretty common tactic that larger countries use smaller countries to fight against their opposition. Other notable proxy wars are the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Chinese Civil War. While I'm not denying that we did fund Iraq we funded a rebel group wanting to fight the Russians then later became a corrupt terrorist organization. Though they still decided to become corrupt on there own mind you.
Originally Posted by Oracle
Furthermore, Al Qaeda had no military capabilities to capture and hold territory for any extended period of time. Second, ISIS formed because the U.S. backed government in Afghanistan run by Karzai routinely discriminated against Sunnis, and a good portion of the ISIS army are former Sunni soldiers from the Afghan army. America indirectly caused the birth of ISIS because of the stupid diplomatic decision to let Karzai continue the conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
Lol? [X][X][X][X][X]
Oh, I'm sorry maybe we should have invaded in an attempt to stop the conflict? Or maybe we should have funded the other side which later turned into Isis? At the end US intervention had very little to due with the founding of Isis.
Originally Posted by Oracle
Afghanistan had peace. They had an insurgency, but it was generally peaceful for them. Iraq had peace. They were under a dictatorship, but they had peace. It all changed when America attacked. Now they have several active insurgencies, most of which are anti-American and are fueled by the continued occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Apparently we didn't learn from the Soviets or the British and realized that occupying either of these countries tends to result in a severe, protracted guerrilla war with an incredibly proud populace that has always, in their entire history in the region, resisted any foreign occupation to the death.
Ah yes, Afghanistan had peace... We just dont talk about the civil wars that have been going on there since 1929-the present day, the assassinations of there leaders, the constant wars they fight in, but they had peace... Iraq had loads of peace, I mean unless you count the almost continuous string of wars they fight in, but don't worry their dictator who was wildly condemned for how brutal he was, who executed almost all of his political opponents, and killed over 20,000 of his own people, ya him, he was peaceful at least. Everything changed when America attacked though! Damn Americans and their funding of us rebels attempting to overthrow our murderous and dictatorous governments.
Originally Posted by Oracle
The Middle East doesn't want America's interference. They want to solve their own problems without a bunch of trifling white men having their say in the matter. The region as a whole has been burned by white men making promises that they don't keep since World War 1. They're tired of Western meddling.
Ya Iraq doesn't want our help! And we do nothing to help Afghanistan either!
I'll post my response to deprav later.
Last edited by Ele; Sep 17, 2015 at 05:34 AM.
Originally Posted by Divine
They didnt bomb civilians just flew planes into buildings. Never mind the 2,606 people in or near the towers including fire fighters, residents of new york, employees of or Marsh Inc, employees of Cantor Fitzgeral L.P., Employees of Aon Corp, police officers, and paramedics, not to mention the 246 passengers, not only that but the 194 pentagon employees died during the crash into the pentagon never actually died. They just went and bombed some random tower in the middle of the pacific as a test. No one actually died or got hurt. Let's not forget the many more that could have died if they succeeded in the bombing of the White House. Nahhhhhhh, they didn't bomb us.
They were bombed by al-Qeada, and its way too obvious how desperately you tried not mentioning their name. Anyway nice try though bud, we didnt invade Iraq to fight al-Qaeda we invaded Iraq to stop the threat of Saddam Hussein 's programs for developing weapons of mass destruction and passing them on to al-Qaeda... This operation was not only done by us but also by the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. al-Qaeda now also occupies one of Iraqs biggest cities Mosul, which could have been stopped potentially stopped.
There is so much wrong with what you just said. First, it doesn't matter that I named the group that attacked as Al-Qaeda, if you know anything about them you could gather who I was talking about when I described them. Second, it's already been established that Iraq was not producing weapons of mass destruction (they were producing, and had used, chemical weapons (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...pons.html?_r=0), but chemical weapons =/= weapons of mass destruction). Third, the claims that the Bush administration made the Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were in cahoots was debunked, as the meeting that took place between representatives of these parties resulted in no cooperation between the two parties (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/). Lastly, ISIS is not Al Qaeda, nor does Al Qaeda want to be affiliated with them (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...bd1_story.html).
Originally Posted by Divine
I want you to guess, just guess who one of our biggest allies is that also happens to be in the middle east. I'll even give you a hint it starts is Is and ends with rael. They didnt start on offense, they get attacked then we helped them and they won the defense then moved to offense.
Israel didn't initially own the West Bank or Gaza. They now own them because of preemptive attacks against Egypt and Jordan, and they are considered occupied lands to this day. They entirely started the offensive.
Originally Posted by Divine
We fought that war as a proxy war against Russia and pretty common tactic that larger countries use smaller countries to fight against their opposition. Other notable proxy wars are the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Chinese Civil War. While I'm not denying that we did fund Iraq we funded a rebel group wanting to fight the Russians then later became a corrupt terrorist organization. Though they still decided to become corrupt on there own mind you.
Why do you think they fought the Soviet Union? Because they wanted democracy? Fuck no, they wanted the Soviet Union to get the fuck out of their country. There was no democracy before the Soviet Union occupied them, and there was none when they were finally repulsed. In addition, the Afghan Taliban aren't even considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.
Originally Posted by Divine
Lol? [X][X][X][X][X]
Oh, I'm sorry maybe we should have invaded in an attempt to stop the conflict? Or maybe we should have funded the other side which later turned into Isis? At the end US intervention had very little to due with the founding of Isis.
First, read my post again. "...capture and hold for an extended period of time..." How long did Al Qaeda hold Fallujah and Ramadi? They held it on and off for 3 years. They last held it in 2007. You can hardly call 3 years any extended period of time
More importantly, we DID fund the other side. We funded and held up the Karzai government in Afghanistan, and Karzai's inept handling of uniting the Sunni and Shiite Muslims, something he was explicitly placed in power to accomplish, lead a decent-sized minority of the Sunni population to become radicalized and form groups such as ISIS.
Originally Posted by Divine
Ah yes, Afghanistan had peace... We just dont talk about the civil wars that have been going on there since 1929-the present day, the assassinations of there leaders, the constant wars they fight in, but they had peace... Iraq had loads of peace, I mean unless you count the almost continuous string of wars they fight in, but don't worry their dictator who was wildly condemned for how brutal he was, who executed almost all of his political opponents, and killed over 20,000 of his own people, ya him, he was peaceful at least. Everything changed when America attacked though! Damn Americans and their funding of us rebels attempting to overthrow our murderous and dictatorous governments.
Looking through the lens of Western culture, of course you would say Iraq was not peaceful. But you have to understand the culture of the area. When you took power, you killed you opposition because to do otherwise was considered a sign of weakness, and invited a swift, and strong, rebellion.
Second, if we're going to list a bunch of wars with no context as to who was the aggressor in any of them, how about listing the exceedingly greater number of wars the United States has participated in?
Originally Posted by Divine
Ya Iraq doesn't want our help! And we do nothing to help Afghanistan either!
Because Nouri al-Mailiki literally received his position because of U.S. intervention. And your second link is about the reduction of funding being provided by the U.S. for education. Seems kind of contrary to what you seem to be implying that America is doing. In fact, it seems more from that link that America viewed assistance to Afghanistan as a pet project while they were still occupying it. Which isn't a bad thing, considering they felt the need to appropriate over $100 billion in rebuilding the country after they bombed it. So I would say if the U.S. wasn't doing it to begin with that would be morally wrong, paying back for damages the U.S. has caused is morally appropriate.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»