Isn't ironic America charge an individual with using a 'weapon of mass destruction'?

Vietnam, Japan, Iraq & Afghanistan finally moving towards Pakistan among others,
The only country to have used nukes,
Need More??

Those countries all still exist, so no they did not 'destroy the nation'.

The US hasn't actually used it's WMDs, and using the nukes in WWII is hardly a reasonable grounds for 'charging' since it was TOTAL WAR and everyone was simultaneously inventing new weapons, desperately trying to win. Just be thankful that everyone say the error of their ways and hasn't used them again since then. It is also why things like the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty exist, to stop these ridiculous weapons from spreading to become commonplace and thus increasing the likelihood that they will be used in a comparatively frivolous manner.

Finally, before someone jumps in with an ideologically immature statement like "well why should some people have them and some people not" then consider that we have them with the intention of not using them. Rather than other nations who would want them in order to use them.

I found out about this a few weeks ago. Some guy who seem to remember went to Syria to fight the regime used an RPG, and it was said it was going to have consequences if he ever returned to the US, due to the fighting itself and an RPG being classed as a WMD.

On a side note omg wtf happened to tsr

US still exists as well, so why the war on 'terror' , just charge the people responsible and not kill 100000s odd people and classify that as collateral damage.

Refusing to comply with UN Weapons inspectors means we're fed up of him destabilising the region and possibly sparking a larger conflict with his pretty powerful neighbour Iran. So we go in again and remove him from power, then rebuild and let Iraq be independent again.

Vietnam, Japan, Iraq & Afghanistan finally moving towards Pakistan among others,
The only country to have used nukes,
Need More??

Afghanistan was a valid endeavour, badly planned and managed but still had a valid reasoning behind it. Iraq is not a good example of the USA doing the right thing though.

just charge the people responsible and not kill 100000s odd people and classify that as collateral damage.

I agree with you entirely.

What I was trying to get across to the person I originally quoted is that you can't just

Afghanistan was a valid endeavour, badly planned and managed but still had a valid reasoning behind it.

He didn't refuse to comply. He let them in and they didn't find anything. He sent the report that the UN demanded too, but because it said Iraq didn't have any WMD's it was made out to be a lie. Bush never had any intention of finding a peaceful resolution, he was always going to invade.

Afghanistan was a valid endeavour, badly planned and managed but still had a valid reasoning behind it. Iraq is not a good example of the USA doing the right thing though.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Yes of course the US still exists , what's your point?

Al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11, so the US went after them. They were found in Afghanistan being harboured by the Taliban who didn't hand them over so the US went in and removed the Taliban from power, which had the convenient side effect of un-subjugating the population of Afghanistan from the extreme-Islamic rule they were under. They've spent the past twelve years rebuilding Afghanistan and trying to get them on their feet to be independent.
Since then, Al Qaeda's ideology has spread to all sorts of places, notably North Africa. The death of Osama Bin Laden - the head of the original Al Qaeda - doesn't really change much since his legacy is now so widespread that the newer 'Al Qaeda' groups aren't even related to him.

Iraq was simple. Saddam Hussein abuses his people for decades and commits genocide with Chemical weapons, he invades Kuwait in the 90s and we chase him out. He's on thin ice. Refusing to comply with UN Weapons inspectors means we're fed up of him destabilising the region and possibly sparking a larger conflict with his pretty powerful neighbour Iran. So we go in again and remove him from power, then rebuild and let Iraq be independent again.

Your idea of



makes no sense. You think we should have written Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein a strongly worded letter and inform them that they are being charged with crimes, that they would have simply gone "Yeah alright, you got me" and walked into a jail cell?

Afghanistan a valid reason?? killing so many people just because a group of terrorists did something.

Then it is sure to be okay to invade USA and kill innocent people over there, because the drone attacks kill so many innocent people and the 'whole' of usa is responsible for it.

Valid meaning that there was a case and evidence showing that the enemy was there and was being supported and supplied by the government.

The USA doesn't target ONLY civilians. If they did, yes that would be a terrorist act. The fact that the target is an enemy combatant is important. The fact is the enemy surrounds themselves with civilians and therefore casualties will be higher. The enemy are the reason civilians are in danger as they don't give a damn about innocent people dying and purposely base themselves near them.

Basically...

USA - NOT terrorist because they attack military targets. Are there civilian casualties yes, but they are NOT the target of the attack.
AQ and other organisations like them - ARE terrorist because they PURPOSELY target civilians.

This really isn't a tough concept you know.

Try to justify this for whom these civilians are family and friend. I mean if my parents were killed I AM SURE I would understand that USA did not want to, but its okay since they are not specifically targeting them..

So, if a terrorist is hiding in a building in USA, would the building be blown up? If yes, I will change my mind and agree with you.
If you say no...then only thing to conclude is that it is not a war on terror, but a war on islam. And all wmd stuff is BS.

Would I be angry, yes of course. Would I hate the US, yes probably. I'm not saying the situation is great. I would much prefer that drones have more precision weapons on them. However that's not the case so there's no other choice right now. You either kill the bad guy or you let the bad guy kill you. I know which option I prefer.



That's not the same situation at all and you know it. If the building in the US then there will be forces on the ground able to deal with it up close and personal.

That's not the case when it comes to drone strikes. Often there's no boots on the ground anywhere nearby and it's therefore impossible to attack the enemy in any other way.

Oh and you're right about one thing, the WMD thing was a lie in Iraq. Unfortunately the rest of what you said is naive and lacks understanding of how military operations work.