All middle eastern countries contain terrorists.
And so do all western ones too, I'm talking about the ones which attacked America. Bush had no proof that any of the countries he bombed were actually the people who crashed the planes into the twin towers, so in the typical 'Ooh-look-what-a-big-army-I've-got' style he attacked any and all countries in the vicinity of the Middle East who could have potentially performed the attack.
hmm, let's see...
He didn't bomb Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Oman, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaidjan, etc. etc. etc.
Seems your far left political views are seriously clouding your judgment almost as much as your fundamentalist treehugger views do.
You're belittling your own line of argument by allowing it to get personal there, I feel.
The point is:
Bush did not attack countries because they could have been responsible for the attacks. The intervention was because it was believed the countries involved were condoning and assisting terrorist groups. It was believed that those countries were a threat to security on a global scale.
Don't get all blinded by the belief that the whole world revolves around Bush and the US either. The action wasn't undertaken alone. In fact, I highly doubt if the successes could have been achieved without the Australian Special Forces personnel who went in ahead of the invasionary force.
There were a number of nations involved in taking action, it happened because the UN had failed to take adequate action years earlier, and now the world has the responsibility to assist with the rebuilding of the countries affected. That obligation remains regardless of anyone's stance about whther the action was justified or not, and that obligation will necessitate a peacekeeping force to be in place for decades to come.
Well said, Catweazle!
Many of the problems with the sides in this discussion about Irag stem from the extremem polarization of the viewpoints. This polarization is partly caused by the press, who give a one-sided opinion based on their political affiliations and by the administrations, who don´t tell the public the whole story, from fear of alienating voters.
Thus you get wild statements from people when you try to have a reasonable debate about the facts.
It´s obvious that the US doesn´t go out and try to find wars to participate in or start wars to take over countries or to bomb everybody in sight to prove its point in defense of an attack. But you still hear ranting about all of these things, in spite of what the facts are...
The numbers aren't the important thing in the war... regardless of how many people have lost their lives, it's the fact that they lost their lives that concerns me. Nobody should have been shipped out to die in the desert because of a matter like this.
I love how you totally ignored my point about the Russian nuclear weapons floating around the world... I didn't think you'd have much to say to that.
So they shouldn't have been shipped over for a matter like this? Did you ever read about the things Sadam did to his people? Obviously not. You talk about how we should intervine in Africa because you THINK genocide is still going on.
You just don't make ANY sense. You've implied that intervention is bad, but yet you say we should be in Africa. You said we shouldn't be in Iraq, but yet you want us in Africa for a lesser circumstance.
About Russia, it's funny you talk bad about intervining in the Middle East, because that's where most of those nukes are. But ohh wait, you said we shouldn't be in the Middle East, once again your changing your side.
If your going to argue with me, at least don't do like our Presidents opponent John Kerry did in debates and continously switch sides. It's really annoying. I can't figure out if your just a far left liberal hypocryte, or just don't know what your talking about.
it's sufficient to say that the US is in Iraq and cannot leave without some resolution.
it's sufficient to say that the US is in Iraq and cannot leave without some resolution.
EXACTLY. It will be a couple of years, possible up to 10 before this thing is resolved. Were there, and we need to finish.
Where does this come from? All middle eastern countries contain terrorists. Bush never expected there would be a quick peace. He has said the war would last a long time over and over.
I see how different the people of both sides of the world have their views about the same thing... People here believe that the Americans are terrarists cuz they interfere everywhere ... No solid reason of attacking Afghanistan or Iraq has yet been given ... I personally think that destroying 300,000 for 3000 isnt that fair as you people think. Is that ?? (I dont read much of the news so the figures are mere imagination).
And if you look at the past of mankind ... there never been a thing called peace that has existed at any time instance ..... and most of the time the most powerful nation doing the destruction .... if you look at the past 200 year history ... you'll see that it has been the US which was in war all the time ...
EXACTLY. It will be a couple of years, possible up to 10 before this thing is resolved. Were there, and we need to finish
British never left a single area until they saw it was impossible for them to hold on to it .... same with the US I think ...
Bush did not attack countries because they could have been responsible for the attacks. The intervention was because it was believed the countries involved were condoning and assisting terrorist groups. It was believed that those countries were a threat to security on a global scale.
Again it was only a state of mind or some imagination ... as Catweazle said that "it was believed" .... no proof whatsoever has been given till now of some assistance to the terrarists. (its only a matter of power ... same jungle rule type of a thing ... survival of the fittest ........ if it were the Arabs or Iraq or Afghanistan in power ... and if the US was attacked like this only bcuz the Arabs believed that the US had some terrorist gangs ... what would be your reaction ?? ............................ you considering the Arabs terrorists and Arabs considering you the ones .... same opposite thing is happening right now ...
This is one side of the picture which we are viewing .... it would be interesting to see the other one .... the religion side .... what the largest religions of the world say about this .... the Christian view .. the Islamic view and the jewish view ..... n I'm sure they tend towards the same path ..... The arrival of Antichrist. Does anyone has any knowledge about it ??( please donot be extreme ... I can only request ).
if you look at the past 200 year history ... you'll see that it has been the US which was in war all the time ...
you need to review history. Yes, the US was in wars because it was the protector of freedom throughout the world. Just one example: Why was the US in WWII? We came in very late because it was apparent that if we didn´t, Hitler would subjugate Europe permanently. Our efforts are almost never thought of as beneficial, especially after the fact. Look at the way France treats us today. But if the US had not saved France, the French would be goose stepping around Paris and eating saurkraut instead of sitting on the UN security council causing problems...remember, please, that the French capitulated to the Nazis in that war. The majority of Frenchmen were not responsible for this but they suffered because of their weak-kneed politicians. True Frenchment fought the Nazis tooth and nail until the Americans could get in there and support all the brave allies that stood their ground.
There was a lot of opposition to that effort then, too. The US even had its own American Nazi party. At least the minds of reason in the US prevail when the chips are down...
And another reminder that it is almost certain that the French, Germans and Russians only supported Sadaam in the UN discussions because they had an economic deal going with him. Imagine putting money before the lives of hundreds of thousands of Sadaam´s victims of torture and abuse. To their embarassment, the investigation of the oil for food program has certainly uncovered some very smelly fish in the dealings between the countries that tried to squash the movement to make right Sadaam´s thumbing his nose at UN mandates!
British never left a single area until they saw it was impossible for them to hold on to it .... same with the US I think ...
Please name just one country that the US is holding...the British did have an empire, the US is diametrically opposed to any country having dominion over any other.
Why was the US in WWII? We came in very late because it was apparent that if we didn´t, Hitler would subjugate Europe permanently.
YOU need to review history! The US came in late because the bloody Japs kicked your arse bigtime at Pearl Harbour and shook you out of your smug indifference!
GRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!
Besides, if it wasn't for Aussie know-how you'd have KEPT ON getting your arses kicked in the Pacific!
YOU need to review history! The US came in late because the bloody Japs kicked your arse bigtime at Pearl Harbour and shook you out of your smug indifference!
GRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!
Besides, if it wasn't for Aussie know-how you'd have KEPT ON getting your arses kicked in the Pacific!
Are we going to get into a big discussion of WWII in this thread?
OK, I simplified things a little. And I´ll say right up front that without Australian support in the Pacific, America could never have gotten anywhere in that theater!!
But I´m not talking about the Pacific...and my history is correct. If you want to use the major dates, 7 December, 41 Pearl Harbor - 6 June, 44, Op Overlord, then you have a point. But this is simplistic history and the minor dates will show what I´m talking about...and I believe you know it...meanwhile, we´ll get back into this tomorrow, it´s 1am here and I´m hitting the sack after posting this one. :)
But I´m talking about when the US actually started action against Germany. 14 June, 41, German assets in the US frozen and consul offices closed. 7 July, 41, American/British troops occupy Iceland. 9 August, 41, Roosevelt/Curchill sign Atlantic Charter outlining war aims. 11 September, Roosevelt declares shoot on sight against German/Italian shipping. In the middle of this, 26 July, Japanese assets were frozen, suspension of trade with Japan was suspended and an oil embargo was put in place against Japan. This is what prompted Pearl Harbor.
I maintain that the US was already at war, in principle, with Germany many months before Pearl Harbor. Because of the complications in the Pacific, it took a while before we were able to actually invade into France but remember US involvement in Africa, Italy, etc. etc., which were supporting actions for the eventual western Europe main invasion.
it wasn´t Pearl Harbor that shook us out of anything, we were already involved in the war in Europe when that happened. It certainly made us angry enough for total involvement, but my gracious man, look at the fronts we had to cover worldwide. For sure, the Aussies were right there in every instance too and thank goodness for it. You guys have always been right there in every fight for freedom and deserve all the credit that you speak of!
Thought I'd get a bite!
:D
And if you consider the shipping of military equipment to a combattant an act of war (which I do) the US had been in the war a lot longer than that.
Shipments of supplies (including oil) and equipment to the UK started in 1940, maybe 1939. This is what prompted the Germans to attack American ships despite there being no declared state of war between the countries (earlier US ships had been left alone by German forces to prevent drawing the USA into the European conflict).
While the Japanese actions indeed prompted the largescale involvement of US forces in both theaters in an offensive role, they'd been involved in the fighting in a defensive and support role for a year or more prior in the Atlantic.
I see how different the people of both sides of the world have their views about the same thing... People here believe that the Americans are terrarists cuz they interfere everywhere ... No solid reason of attacking Afghanistan or Iraq has yet been given ... I personally think that destroying 300,000 for 3000 isnt that fair as you people think. Is that ?? (I dont read much of the news so the figures are mere imagination).
300,000 for 3000?
What does that represent?
You said the US has been in war over 200 years, look at the freaking Middle East. Those dummys are at war almost everyday. I hear about suicide bombings all the time, but not in the US? It's like, you guys don't even like your own country. Something must be wrong, or else you guys wouldn't be fighting yourselfs.
YOU need to review history! The US came in late because the bloody Japs kicked your arse bigtime at Pearl Harbour and shook you out of your smug indifference!
Yeah, they took a cheap shot, but they got what they deserved not to long after.
Thought I'd get a bite!
:D
OK, you got me...:rolleyes:
you need to review history.
So I reviewed a little American history ... this is what I got ...
Ever since the United States Army massacred 300 Lakotas in 1890, American forces have intervened elsewhere around the globe 100 times. Indeed the United States has sent troops abroad or militarily struck other countries' territory 216 times since independence from Britain. Since 1945 the United States has intervened in more than 20 countries throughout the world.
Since World War II, the United States actually dropped BOMBS ON 23 COUNTRIES. These include: China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53, Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala 1960, Congo 1964, Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala 1967-69, Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1984, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s, Nicaragua 1980s, Panama 1989, Iraq 1991-1999, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998, and Yugoslavia 1999.
Post World War II, the United States has also assisted in over 20 different coups throughout the world, and the CIA was responsible for half a dozen assassinations of political heads of state.
So how many times will you be saying that it was for the sole purpose of those countries ??? just how many times ??
For those of you who want "FACTS" and "FIGURES" and have the intellect to judge 'GOOD' from 'EVIL' ... see this :
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/American/list.html
For those of you who want "FACTS" and "FIGURES" and have the intellect to judge 'GOOD' from 'EVIL' ... see this :
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/American/list.html
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yeah, get the facts from a clearly biased source. If you want to do that kind of junk, I'm sure I can EASILY find LOTS of trash on Pakistan. You guys have been too busy killing each other for the last thousand years to control yourself...No wonder you can't figure out why the US is intervening.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yeah, get the facts from a clearly biased source. If you want to do that kind of junk, I'm sure I can EASILY find LOTS of trash on Pakistan. You guys have been too busy killing each other for the last thousand years to control yourself...No wonder you can't figure out why the US is intervening.
Pakistan isnt a thousand year old ... if you want to find trash about Pakistan ... go find some ... I'm not gonna stop you.
And if the facts and figures are wrong ... tell which specific one is ... so that I can further research over it ..
So I reviewed a little American history ... this is what I got ...
So how many times will you be saying that it was for the sole purpose of those countries ??? just how many times ??
For those of you who want "FACTS" and "FIGURES" and have the intellect to judge 'GOOD' from 'EVIL' ... see this :
Consider the source. This is not American History but a spouting of unsupported rhetoric from a tainted source, an islamic web page. Where is the bibliography? Where is the reference to support the statements? Non-existant.
Iraq FACT: Sadaam has killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen.
Iraq FACT: Today, Iraq´s new government took over control of its own fate. Not likely if, as you claim, the US invaded the country ¨to take it over¨.
Consider the source. This is not American History but a spouting of unsupported rhetoric from a tainted source, an islamic web page. Where is the bibliography? Where is the reference to support the statements? Non-existant.
Iraq FACT: Sadaam has killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen.
Iraq FACT: Today, Iraq´s new government took over control of its own fate. Not likely if, as you claim, the US invaded the country ¨to take it over¨.
Thank you.
Pakistan isnt a thousand year old ... if you want to find trash about Pakistan ... go find some ... I'm not gonna stop you.
I can't escape it. Each time I turn on the news there's some crap about Pakistani's confused about there own country.
I can't escape it. Each time I turn on the news there's some crap about Pakistani's confused about there own country.
Yeah but atleast they are not interfering in other countries ...
I asked you to get where I was wrong about my stats ...
I just wanted to discuss all that stuff but the people here are opposing me for the sole sake of opposition ... no positive comments ...
You talk about Pakistan ... okay I tell you my views ............. I oppose Pakistan for being a front line state against "terrorism" ... I oppose Saudia Arabia for supporing the US ... I oppose all the Muslim countries for supporting the US and I oppose all the world for being in war against terrorist without defining terrorism clearly ...
But I do think that 9 11 was a terrorist attack ... but just blaming Taliban or Osama for the attacks without proofs wasnt at all fair.
I only wanted to discuss here ... but I dont think anyone is gonna discuss anything neutrally ... so I wont be posting here anymore ...
** I request the admin to close this thread. Its affecting the site's cause.
Yeah but atleast they are not interfering in other countries ...
I asked you to get where I was wrong about my stats ...
I just wanted to discuss all that stuff but the people here are opposing me for the sole sake of opposition ... no positive comments ...
You talk about Pakistan ... okay I tell you my views ............. I oppose Pakistan for being a front line state against "terrorism" ... I oppose Saudia Arabia for supporing the US ... I oppose all the Muslim countries for supporting the US and I oppose all the world for being in war against terrorist without defining terrorism clearly ...
But I do think that 9 11 was a terrorist attack ... but just blaming Taliban or Osama for the attacks without proofs wasnt at all fair.
I only wanted to discuss here ... but I dont think anyone is gonna discuss anything neutrally ... so I wont be posting here anymore ...
** I request the admin to close this thread. Its affecting the site's cause.
Don't have someone else close this thread just because you've pissed some people off with your terriost views. What did you expect from the comments you've made?
What do you mean defining terrorism? It was obvious what Sadam was doing. If you don't call gasing millions of your own people, and killing thousands more, terrorism, then you have problems.
I asked you to get where I was wrong about my stats ...
You know exactly what you were posting. It's quit obvious you got that from a biased muslim terrorist website.
I'm seriously considering closing this for my own reasons. It's getting out of hand.
For those of you who want "FACTS" and "FIGURES" and have the intellect to judge 'GOOD' from 'EVIL' ... see this :
That was an inflammatory comment, and the site linked was not reputable and unbiased by any means. It was a list of supposed 'historical data which was unsubstantiated and presented in value laden terms.
your terriost views.
Using language like that is akin to calling someone a terrorist.
If you don't call gasing millions of your own people, and killing thousands more, terrorism, then you have problems.
Actually that act was an act of Genocide, not an act of terrorism.
Get this topic back on track, people, and stop using terms and comments which offend others, or I WILL close it!
Using language like that is akin to calling someone a terrorist.
Actually that act was an act of Genocide, not an act of terrorism.
Get this topic back on track, people, and stop using terms and comments which offend others, or I WILL close it!
Did you read some of the things he said?
This is one of them: . I oppose Pakistan for being a front line state against "terrorism"
Now, he's saying he oposses Pakistan because they're against terrorism...After that, yes I was calling him a terrorist because he oviously supports it.
By the way, here is the definition of a terrorist:
terrorist >noun a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Exactly describing Sadam.
I'm done..If you want to complain anymore about my views on terrorist supporting people, or countrys..PM me.
I will not stand for ANYBODY getting personal and inflammatory in discussions here. When duscussions relate to current affairs I would request that EVERYBODY be cautious in what they post. You have time to critically review your comments before pressing the 'Submit' button!
.If you want to complain anymore about my views on terrorist supporting people, or countrys..PM me.
The views were not 'complained about. One small item was challenged, , in that there is a distinction between terrorism and genocide. If any member here is unable to involve themselves in topical discussion without taking personal affront at the views and comments of others, and unable to make comment themselves without allowing themselves to become heated and inflammatory, then perhaps they should consider refraining from making comment. Personally directed outbursts and attacks WILL attract administrative attention, and that attention will be regardless of the topic subject matter and regardless of what 'side of the fence' someone sits on!
Keep it mature, reasoned and friendly in discussions here please, because we do not want Daniweb to be a place for heated and personal arguments.
Let's be clear about something, I am a soldier, and I live with this war on terror every single day. I know how many people Sadam has injured, and killed, and I think he was lunatic. However, your defination (wherever your source was taken from) could be defined also as a "group" of people... not just a person who uses violence and intimidation for political aims.... now, don't take this out of context, because I fight this war on the side of the states every day, but with your definition of a terrorist, The U.S. could be viewed as a terrorist. I'm not 100% sure, no, yes I am. I am 100% sure that we used violence and intimidation to remove a political power. Do I think I am a terrorist for helping? No. Your definition would define me as one though. So, maybe it depends on which side of the fence you are standing on?
Actually that act was an act of Genocide, not an act of terrorism.
The two terms aren't mutually exclusive. Terrorism is the use of usually seemingly random violence against a civilian population for political reasons, genocide is the wholesale killing of a population for whatever reason.
To get back on track: it seems the attitude of mistrust in the Islamic world where people don't believe anything that doesn't come from an Islamic source (and are thus very likely to become polarised against outsiders resulting in violence against non-Islamic peoples) has been shown here to be a major cause for concern.
This doesn't just affect Muslems in mainly Muslem countries but also smaller groups elsewhere.
With countries like Iran and Sudan exporting fundamentalist mullahs to mosques around the world where they preach hatred and recruit potential terrorists for local cells this situation is getting worse fast.
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.