NationStates Jolt Archive

i know there are many people in here who are very much against the war on terrorism. what do you think we should have done after terrorists took hold of 4 planes and crashed them into various places killing many americans? do you think we should have just said wwjd?(if you do think so i hope you know that they would have just kept attacking us)

i would really like to know the opinions on this and people who favor the wars please dont post because this thread will be too big already. (i dont expect people to heed me on that but i can try)

i know there are many people in here who are very much against the war on terrorism.

You have it wrong there, but you had it right in the thread title. This isn't a war on terrorism; might as well have a war on paramilitarism or a war on war (or hey, a war on drugs and a war on crime and a war on homelessness!)

what do you think we should have done after terrorists took hold of 4 planes and crashed them into various places killing many americans? do you think we should have just said wwjd?(if you do think so i hope you know that they would have just kept attacking us)

I think we should have done an investigation and found those who are responsible. You know, like Osama bin Laden. Is that so wrong? But no, we had to invade two countries just so people could feel safe with the ILLUSION that we're doing something about terrorism (other than causing it). Because appearance, in the media, counts more these days than substance. As long as the Prez looks tough, says the right words, and we get clips of American soldiers kicking ass, why it doesn't really matter who we're fighting, eh? Especially if they're all brown people in towns whose names you can't pronounce anyway. Because it looks like we're fighting a war... the enemy must be terrorists... and we must be winning!

Reminds me of when we declared a "war on aggression." Back then, "aggression" actually meant, Iraq. Today, "terrorism" means Iraq. Anyway, Bush (the first) said, after we'd defeated their military and pushed them out of Kuwait, "Aggression is defeated." Haha!

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1571323767.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Yay! No more aggression, as of 1992!

The whole world stood by the US when they went into Afghansitan and went after Osama.

They then took a step back again when the US decided to use it as an excuse to go into Iraq (who had nothing to do with september 11) as well. It sent a pretty worrying precident that the US can use a mix of lies to invade any sovierign nation that they like (that being Iraq.)


I was for going to afghanistan to take out Osama and the taliban helping him.

I was against the Iraq war which was based heavily on lies, half truths and using people's fears.

I'm for the war on terror. What I am against is the abuse of that title to start private wars or actions against political enemies, as has been the case with the US, China, Indonesia, Russia, etc...

I think we should have done an investigation and found those who are responsible. You know, like Osama bin Laden. Is that so wrong? But no, we had to invade two countries just so people could feel safe with the ILLUSION that we're doing something about terrorism (other than causing it).
It's not an illusion. The Taliban are pretty much done and the Al-Qaeda in Iraq are the subject of heavy losses.

Because appearance, in the media, counts more these days than substance. As long as the Prez looks tough, says the right words, and we get clips of American soldiers kicking ass, why it doesn't really matter who we're fighting, eh?
What media are you watching? I'd like to tune into that. All I see is anti-American bias in the reporting.

Especially if they're all brown people in towns whose names you can't pronounce anyway. Because it looks like we're fighting a war... the enemy must be terrorists... and we must be winning!
I can pronounce the names...does that make it OK?

Yay! No more aggression, as of 1992!
There will always be aggression.

i know there are many people in here who are very much against the war on iraq. what do you think we should have done after terrorists took hold of 4 planes and crashed them into various places killing many americans? do you think we should have just said who's done this to us, and how can we find them, bring them to justice and stop this from ever happening again?(if you do think so i hope you know that they would have been quickly stopped with much less loss of life)

i would really like to know the opinions on this and people who favor the wars please dont post because this thread will be too big already. (i dont expect people to heed me on that but i can try)

...don't mind me, i just edited your origional post a little bit, to tidy it up ;)

If the United States wants to avoid being the victim of further terrorist attacks it should stay out of the middle east and cease its policy of intervention. The only reason terrorists hate the US is because the US has stuck its nose into their business. If the US gradually withdrew its troops from the mideast the terrorists would have no reason to hate America and Americans would have no reason to fear terrorists.

Were the people who perpetrated the attacks of 11 September justified in their actions? No. Is a policy of leaving the terrorists alone and staying out of the affairs of foriegn nations un-American? No; in fact, it is what George Washington advocated in his farewell address, paragraphs 32-35 http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html

What media are you watching? I'd like to tune into that. All I see is anti-American bias in the reporting.

I don't bring myself to look much beyond the first pages, and I don't watch the TV. I get enough of the picture through other people's reactions to the daily newshit. You are going to say you've never seen pictures of US muscle in Iraq?


I can pronounce the names...does that make it OK?

He he he. Why no.


There will always be aggression.

And there will always be terrorism, too. So is this whole middle east "war on terror" thing you guys buy into really a metaphoric struggle with Satan? I thought we got over that attitude with the last Crusade.

I don't bring myself to look much beyond the first pages, and I don't watch the TV. I get enough of the picture through other people's reactions to the daily newshit.
Then trust those of us who have seen it first hand that we're not the bullies that the media has made us out to be. It's not your fault, you just haven't been given the whole story.

You are going to say you've never seen pictures of US muscle in Iraq?
Pics of troops and equipment? Sure. But I don't see any positive stories about what we're accomplishing there. On my last deployment to the middle east we visited/repaired/otherwise helped an orphanage a few times a week and we're just a small cadre of special ops troops. The larger scope over the entire theatre of operations is rather impressive from a humanitarian standpoint.

If the United States wants to avoid being the victim of further terrorist attacks it should stay out of the middle east and cease its policy of intervention. The only reason terrorists hate the US is because the US has stuck its nose into their business. If the US gradually withdrew its troops from the mideast the terrorists would have no reason to hate America and Americans would have no reason to fear terrorists.

Were the people who perpetrated the attacks of 11 September justified in their actions? No. Is a policy of leaving the terrorists alone and staying out of the affairs of foriegn nations un-American? No; in fact, it is what George Washington advocated in his farewell address, paragraphs 32-35 http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html

Careful now. Using George Washington's advice as refrence will do a number of things:

1. Non-Americans will attack and criticize you for citing the man who was smarter than they are and whom lived 200+ years ago as reference for foreign policy whom they have no respect for.

2. Confuse normal Americans who've never heard of the guy and don't know why he is so damned important.

3. Make other Americans who know about him fustrated that their method of pathetically fighting terrorism is in contrast to both the right way AND Washington's advice making them essentially blow a fuse.

4. Make non-Americans who never heard of the guy confused.

5. Piss off people from any country that are so ideologically warped that they think the whole world needs to come together under a UN government like some large facist nanny state to protect and wipe everybody's ass for them because they hate other peoples' independence, liberty, and different perspective.

Then trust those of us who have seen it first hand that we're not the bullies that the media has made us out to be. It's not your fault, you just haven't been given the whole story.

I don't think you're a bully.

Pics of troops and equipment? Sure. But I don't see any positive stories about what we're accomplishing there.

Well, pics of troops and equipment, when it's US troops and US equipment, is enough. It shows what's expected - a military response, US military superiority in chocolate-chip camo as we know it. It lends credence towards the notion that we're actually fighting a war on "terrorism," boosts support. Maybe some people aren't awed by such little things as a display of the military... but most people are. It's a little dose of US Might Makes Right in the daily paper.

One doesn't even have to read the articles, and pictures and video have long become far more influential.

On my last deployment to the middle east we visited/repaired/otherwise helped an orphanage a few times a week and we're just a small cadre of special ops troops. The larger scope over the entire theatre of operations is rather impressive from a humanitarian standpoint.

No doubt. I'm not saying the US or it's military is a force of Evil, working an evil agenda and butchering innocent Muslims wholesale. I just oppose the opposite belief that many seem to have, that our purpose in being there is wholesome, that invading Iraq makes the US safer, that after we offed Saddam we needed to remain, that we need to start setting up a US-style 'democracy' in other countries.

I'm not saying the US or it's military is a force of Evil, working an evil agenda and butchering innocent Muslims wholesale. I just oppose the opposite belief that many seem to have, that our purpose in being there is wholesome, that invading Iraq makes the US safer, that after we offed Saddam we needed to remain, that we need to start setting up a US-style 'democracy' in other countries.
Ah. OK. I do believe that the motives for going into Iraq were a bit sketchy (and this is a positive outlook on it as I know politicians don't do a damned thing unless they gain monetarily from it). However, we're there and that's not going to change. I've chosen to focus on the positive aspects of it. And I'm not just speaking of the low level things that I've done, but the strategic aspect to showing freedom to Arabs and Persians in the middle of the most problematic area of the world. It will spread from Iraq to other countries. I'm pretty sure that the first country to really feel the impact of this will be Iran, followed by Saudi Arabia...and I'm looking forward to it. :)

Careful now. Using George Washington's advice as refrence will do a number of things:

1. Non-Americans will attack and criticize you for citing the man who was smarter than they are and whom lived 200+ years ago as reference for foreign policy whom they have no respect for.

2. Confuse normal Americans who've never heard of the guy and don't know why he is so damned important.

3. Make other Americans who know about him fustrated that their method of pathetically fighting terrorism is in contrast to both the right way AND Washington's advice making them essentially blow a fuse.

4. Make non-Americans who never heard of the guy confused.

5. Piss off people from any country that are so ideologically warped that they think the whole world needs to come together under a UN government like some large facist nanny state to protect and wipe everybody's ass for them because they hate other peoples' independence, liberty, and different perspective.

I like you!

But really, doesn't it seem strange that an interventionist policy is seen by many Americans as being patriotic, even though George Washington specifically said that persuing such a policy is "particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot"?

Ah. OK. I do believe that the motives for going into Iraq were a bit sketchy (and this is a positive outlook on it as I know politicians don't do a damned thing unless they gain monetarily from it). However, we're there and that's not going to change. I've chosen to focus on the positive aspects of it. And I'm not just speaking of the low level things that I've done, but the strategic aspect to showing freedom to Arabs and Persians in the middle of the most problematic area of the world. It will spread from Iraq to other countries. I'm pretty sure that the first country to really feel the impact of this will be Iran, followed by Saudi Arabia...and I'm looking forward to it. :)

It's amazing... somebody with a positive mindset out this war.

It feels good to not be the only one who looks at what we can now accomplish instead of just complaining about the reasons we went in. Yeah, we went in for unjust reasons. But now let's at least try to make it just by doing good things.

Ah. OK. I do believe that the motives for going into Iraq were a bit sketchy (and this is a positive outlook on it as I know politicians don't do a damned thing unless they gain monetarily from it). However, we're there and that's not going to change. I've chosen to focus on the positive aspects of it. And I'm not just speaking of the low level things that I've done, but the strategic aspect to showing freedom to Arabs and Persians in the middle of the most problematic area of the world. It will spread from Iraq to other countries. I'm pretty sure that the first country to really feel the impact of this will be Iran, followed by Saudi Arabia...and I'm looking forward to it. :)

You assume it will even spread in iraq.

Iraq had freedom, for the most part, before the invasion. Not political freedom, but civil rights, etc, were on the general level good. It probably wont be much different than having junta's, at least in the peoples eyes, especially if muslim law is put into place.

You assume it will even spread in iraq.

Iraq had freedom, for the most part, before the invasion. Not political freedom, but civil rights, etc, were on the general level good.
You consider being put feet first into a wood chipper generally good civil rights?

It probably wont be much different than having junta's, at least in the peoples eyes, especially if muslim law is put into place.
That's one of the reasons why we're not leaving. We're going to make sure that doesn't happen.

You consider being put feet first into a wood chipper generally good civil rights?
...
Saddam was detestable, but there was no human shredding. Propaganda, you see...

War in Iraq != War on terror.

War on terror (the pan-islamist global jihadic terror that caused 9/11) should have been fought in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Saddam was detestable, but there was no human shredding. Propaganda, you see...
My apologies. When was the last time that you were in Iraq talking to the locals?

My apologies. When was the last time that you were in Iraq talking to the locals?
I haven't been in Iraq. I gather you have visited the country. Have you seen the human shredder? Where?

I am aware that the paper is anti-war, but The Spectator is a Tory magazine... So read the article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1155399,00.html

I haven't been in Iraq. I gather you have visited the country. Have you seen the human shredder? Where?

I am aware that the paper is anti-war, but The Spectator is a Tory magazine... So read the article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1155399,00.html
So I suppose that the chemical weapons which were used on the Kurds and the Iranians never existed either?

You're the expert here, I'm just asking.

So I suppose that the chemical weapons which were used on the Kurds and the Iranians never existed either?

You're the expert here, I'm just asking.
Why, the chemical weapons used in 1988 were very real.

So, what about the shredder?

Why, the chemical weapons used in 1988 were very real.

So, what about the shredder?
Just like I can't produce the chem weapons, I can't produce the shredder. All that I have to go on is what the locals tell me.

Just like I can't produce the chem weapons, I can't produce the shredder. All that I have to go on is what the locals tell me.
There's evidence for the former. Very tangible evidence. There's hearsay for the latter.

Just like I can't produce the chem weapons, I can't produce the shredder. All that I have to go on is what the locals tell me.
Have the locals in Iraq told you about the human shredder?

Have the locals in Iraq told you about the human shredder?
That was the basic idea of my post. I don't know all, but I at least have what is supposed to be first hand knowledge. Have you left the college campus yet?

That was the basic idea of my post. I don't know all, but I at least have what is supposed to be first hand knowledge. Have you left the college campus yet?
First hand knowledge... The belief of those Iraqis in the existence of human shredders may be justified, but is it true? I am a Russian, and what prevents me from telling that the FSB exported the human shredder to Russia and set it up at Lefortovo prison? Nothing does.

I have graduated four years ago. So what?

First hand knowledge... The belief of those Iraqis in the existence of human shredders may be justified, but is it true? I am a Russian, and what prevents me from telling that the FSB exported the human shredder to Russia and set it up at Lefortovo prison? Nothing does.
Da, my soglasny. (Keep in mind that I have to use military translit. I'm computer illiterate and don't know how to use cyrillic.)

I have graduated four years ago. So what?[/QUOTE]
Gde vy uchilis'?

i was for afghanistan, and at the time, was for iraq (since then i've changed my opinion, but thats not because of all the dead or the mess, i've just realized it was pointless)

lots of people say iraq was based on lies. it wasnt. i beleive bush truly THOUGHT iraq had wmds. im pretty sure bush would NOT intentionally lie to us. but i think he definately made a mistake. but, we're stuck there now, it would be a fiasco if we pulled out now. thats my take.

Da, my soglasny. (Keep in mind that I have to use military translit. I'm computer illiterate and don't know how to use cyrillic.)

I have graduated four years ago. So what?
Gde vy uchilis'?[/QUOTE]
Your Russian is good. :) The first sentence, however, sounds as if you are the Tsar (my here is pluralis majestatis, the T-V distintion in Russian is mostly confined to second-person singular). :)

The Russian State Medical University in Moscow. I'm a gynaecologist. :)

i was for afghanistan, and at the time, was for iraq (since then i've changed my opinion, but thats not because of all the dead or the mess, i've just realized it was pointless)

lots of people say iraq was based on lies. it wasnt. i beleive bush truly THOUGHT iraq had wmds. im pretty sure bush would NOT intentionally lie to us. but i think he definately made a mistake. but, we're stuck there now, it would be a fiasco if we pulled out now. thats my take.

It would be more of a fiasco to stay. Spend billions of dollars to bring very little, and indeed, make life worse for the iraqi's, definately in the short run, quite possibly in the long run if a civil war really does break out.

Fox, do you actually think the majority of people were being fed into wood chippers? Just because a tiny minority of iraqi's had horrible things done to them, it doesnt mean life in general wasnt quite free for iraqi's, minus politics. At least compared to the rest of the middle east.

Also, if we are giving the iraqi's democracy, how do you propose we stop them from implementing Muslim law? Is it not their choice, as a democracy?

Im actually pro Iraq War, but I think that the "war on terror" is not only a complete and utter waste of time, but it's also a complete and utter disaster in terms of propaganda and public relations. Despite was George "Dubya" Bush says in his extremely ineloquent manner, you cant declare war on abstract nouns. There are only as many terrorists as there are people willing to be terrorists. That number shot up after Iraq and Afghanistan. If you want to fight terrorism, then you should fight it by infliltrating terrorist groups and by willing hearts and minds in the Middle East.

What was the Iraq about anyway? I mean, why did we have to send the army in at all? All that seems to me to have happened is that they went around, accidentally killing and being killed, trying to stop riots, eventually finding Saddam etc.

:sniper:
:mp5:
:confused:
:headbang:

What was the Iraq about anyway? I mean, why did we have to send the army in at all? All that seems to me to have happened is that they went around, accidentally killing and being killed, trying to stop riots, eventually finding Saddam etc.


:confused:

i know there are many people in here who are very much against the war on terrorism. what do you think we should have done after terrorists took hold of 4 planes and crashed them into various places killing many americans? do you think we should have just said wwjd?(if you do think so i hope you know that they would have just kept attacking us)


I think Serj Tainkan, lead singer from System Of A Down says my basic thoughts on this.

“It’s very important to reflect upon what’s happened and also to reflect on what’s happened before that in the world, not just in this country, so you can see the events leading up to something like this so that you can use changes in foreign policy to institutionalize peace. You’ve got to take the power from the hands of terrorists. To do so, you’ve got to take their support, their cause. To take their cause, you’ve got to take their injustice away, and there’s a lot of injustice.”

I'm not a paccifist and believe fighting terrorism is important. Terrorists are criminals. They take away innocent life and need to be stoped. But in general I am against the war on terrrorism because I have a major objection to how wars are carried out. The US has no regard for foreign citizens and I think we often have to ask ourselves if we are doing more harm then good. It's hypocritical when you say you are liberating the people from an evil dictator that kills his own citizens and then proceed to both kill and indirectly cause the deaths of numerous citizens. We accuse Sadam of war crimes, then we commit our own. We wouldn't bomb a US neighborhood and kill all the people (including children) there to get rid of a terrorist we though was hiding there. I don't think its acceptable to do that over seas either. We need to have a policy that no civilian deaths are acceptable. While this is impractical and some civilian deaths will no doubt occur, we should do everything in our ability to prevent them. Even if that means that sometimes the bad guy gets away. On a side note, why don't we divert some of those multiple billions we spend on the military to develope non-lethal weapons.