Americas "war on terror"

Does anyone think that Americas war on terror just creates more terrorists? it increases demand...

Scenario

A man just walks out of his home when a US drone strike obliterates his house, his belongings, and every member of his family
What has this man got left? Nothing. But he has got the will to fight against the people who murdered his family

Im starting to think its something done purely for commercial gain

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Skip_Snip

Original post by Carterj09

Im starting to think its something done purely for commercial gain

Such as?

And why do you think terrorism is the only response?

Reply 2

Carterj09

Original post by Skip_Snip

Such as?

And why do you think terrorism is the only response?

Well what has the "man" got left to do? Other than commit suicide? t
Also the money gained from the iraqi war (oil and whatnot) was enough to justify an illegal invasion
Maybe in Afghanistan a positive improvement has been made, but the other countries are still screwed

And Britain and the US have double standards, they'll invade a country on false pretenses (WMDS in iraq) but when a country like russia shows blatant hostility and annexes a about a quarter of a country we do nothing?Lets face it the economic sanctions haven't affected russia one bit

Reply 3

Radicalathiest

Scenario

A man just walks out of his home when a Muslim terrorist obliterates it, his belongings, and every member of his family
What has this man got left? Nothing. But he has got the will to fight against the people who murdered his family

would the above be a good enough reason for him to go and slaughter a few random Muslims? (the majority of people killed by Muslim terrorist attacks are Muslims)

Reply 4

Skip_Snip

Original post by Carterj09

Well what has the "man" got left to do? Other than commit suicide?

He doesn't need to take others with him, though.

Also the money gained from the iraqi war (oil and whatnot) was enough to justify an illegal invasion

tbh I'd rather we used more renewable energy, so we could eventually just leave the Middle East to rot.

And Britain and the US have double standards, they'll invade a country on false pretenses (WMDS in iraq) but when a country like russia shows blatant hostility and annexes a about a quarter of a country we do nothing?Lets face it the economic sanctions haven't affected russia one bit

The WMDs could have been used against us, while Russia is doing something to a neighbouring, non-affiliated country on the other side of the world.

Reply 5

Aj12

Original post by Carterj09

The Iraq war has cost over 1 trillion dollars to America, it certainly was not done for financial gain. As for oil imports, America now imports from less oil from Iraq than they did before the war, it has done nothing but decrease in the last couple of years.

Are you suggesting we invade Russia? Its quite clear why nothing physically was done to Russia despite its actions in Eastern Europe. The cataclysmic war it would lead to.

Reply 6

Carterj09

Original post by Aj12

Im not suggesting we invade russia, just do something more to support Ukraine, because the annexation of crimea was illegal

Reply 7

Carterj09

Original post by Skip_Snip

He doesn't need to take others with him, though.

tbh I'd rather we used more renewable energy, so we could eventually just leave the Middle East to rot.

The WMDs could have been used against us, while Russia is doing something to a neighbouring, non-affiliated country on the other side of the world.

Except there was no evidence of a wmd... anywhere...

we still invade poor countries who dont stand a chance, but we wont respond wit military action in crimea? It could still lead to the outbreak of war, because after studying all the crises leading up to WW1 and WW2 i can tell you one thing, we're on exactly the same path. the annexation of bosnia by austria-hungary all but led to ww1

Reply 8

Skip_Snip

Original post by Carterj09

we still invade poor countries who dont stand a chance, but we wont respond wit military action in crimea? It could still lead to the outbreak of war, because after studying all the crises leading up to WW1 and WW2 i can tell you one thing, we're on exactly the same path. the annexation of bosnia by austria-hungary all but led to ww1

Let's not get involved in any horrrid wars, let's leave them to it eh.

Reply 9

HAnwar

Original post by Carterj09

America are the biggest terrorists

Reply 10

Aj12

Original post by Carterj09

Im not suggesting we invade russia, just do something more to support Ukraine, because the annexation of crimea was illegal

Perhaps but different situations require different responses. Russia's actions require a much more nuanced response than those of say Iraq or Afghanistan.

Reply 11

Carterj09

Original post by Skip_Snip

Let's not get involved in any horrrid wars, let's leave them to it eh.

A war would definitely be a bad thing, but the policy of appeasement led to ww2

Reply 12

TheAnusFiles

Original post by HAnwar

America are the biggest terrorists

generic lefty/islamist quote of the day

Reply 13

Carterj09

Original post by Aj12

Perhaps but different situations require different responses. Russia's actions require a much more nuanced response than those of say Iraq or Afghanistan.

Yeah, but i think we rely too much on russia to do anything worthwhile, they could invade ukraine and we would probably do nothing

Reply 14

rumenaislam

Original post by Carterj09

Well to them the Americans and the British are terrorist. The civilians are having to pay for what some sick individuals have done. So obviously they'll want to retaliate if they've lost family members, their homes, etc. So many lives have been lost in these wars, but many people just see the numbers as statistics rather than 'humans'.

Reply 15

Carterj09

Original post by rumenaislam

I agree, which is why i think the iraqi was was unjustified, we could have got rid of saddam without rushing into the country and killing the same amount if not more civilians than he ever did

Reply 16

DErasmus

Original post by Carterj09

I agree, which is why i think the iraqi was was unjustified, we could have got rid of saddam without rushing into the country and killing the same amount if not more civilians than he ever did

How? Bush pull a gun out of his ass and shoot him? A retaliation to the attacks of 9/11 demonstrated that the US will not take **** from terrorists, it gave us the chance to remove a dictator and potentially improve the conditions of the Iraqi people, we now had justification in order to do this (even if it failed!), also you're looking at this wrong, what good is being a civilian in a country that deprives its citizens of basic human rights? The US is not the bad guy here, it's done some pretty disgusting things (all governments have) but no where near as bad as terrorism.

Reply 17

Carterj09

Original post by DErasmus

I think it is terrorism, they didnt even have to decency to declare war on iraq before they attacked

Reply 18

DErasmus

Original post by Carterj09

I think it is terrorism, they didnt even have to decency to declare war on iraq before they attacked

... terrorism is deliberate harming of civilians for political gain (the US and UK requested permission from the UN and was denied so many do think it was a violation of international law, not to mention the sufficient information that Iraq contained weapons (you might look in hindsight and say: 'it was all fake' how the hell did they know that?) I think we've established which camp you are in and since you play on the basis of morality I don't see the point in you making a thread.