Americas "war on terror"
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Carterj09
Age doesnt determine anything, i like learning, therefore i spent my time reading books. I do understand the effects. But to america its just a stat. Just "collateral damage"
Original post by Carterj09
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
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
No evidence of any wmds... Apart from the chemical weapons he used to kill tens of thousands of Kurdish civilians?
Original post by Carterj09
It still kills civilians... but at least it is better yes, in vietman they killed civilians all the time (AGAIN) when will they learn?
Just like how they blew up a wedding convoy in Yemen full of women and children using their so called advanced drones that could't tell the difference between civilians and terrorists. You can blame the technology or the drone operator but the fact is that innocent lives were lost. Does this fall under the definition of terrorism?
Well, nowadays the word 'terrorists' is used by governments to say 'we're the good guys' and 'they're the bad'. Again, what the yanks do can never be considered terrorism and if you do try calling it terrorism, then you're just some paranoid conspiracy theorists.
Coming back to the wedding convoy, these women and children were potential daughters, wives and sisters. I wouldn't be surprised if their male relatives were to strap a bombing on their chest and blow up markets thinking that is revenge hence causing more death and havoc.
I must be crazy to think like this. The US government never lies and fights for freedom and peace.
Original post by MrHogwash
Just like how they blew up a wedding convoy in Yemen full of women and children using their so called advanced drones that could't tell the difference between civilians and terrorists. You can blame the technology or the drone operator
If you understand that drones have an operator, and are not autonomous robots that make their own targeting and firing decisions, why would yoy suggest that a more advanced drone should have a better chance of telling the difference between civilians and terrorists, as if it were such an autonomous machine? Are you purely talking about the quality of the video provided to the human operator to aid him in his decision making?
Original post by MrHogwash
but the fact is that innocent lives were lost. Does this fall under the definition of terrorism
No. It simply doesn't fit the definition. Not everything in which non-combatants are killed is terrorism. Terrorism refers to one specific type of violence.
Original post by the mezzil
And? The USA has not taken resourves. In fact oil imports from Iraq has decreased since 2003.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Oil is involved, but not because the US needs it right now. They just want to maintain control of the region. If Iraq were allowed to defy the US with impunity, there'd be the risk that other countries would follow suit - the 'domino effect'.
Original post by the mezzil
And? The USA has not taken resourves. In fact oil imports from Iraq has decreased since 2003.
The invasion helped American oil companies - American oil prices went up when the invasion occurred. Numerous American officials admitted that the war was about oil: General John Abizaid, former commander of CENTCOM with responsibility for Iraq said, “of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that”, while Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel said this in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are.” To round it off, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan added in his 2007 book: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
As someone else has pointed out, the invasion also prevented a domino effect occurring whereby dictators stop being obedient to the United States. When dictators are being obedient, the United States couldn't care less about "democracy".
Original post by Carterj09
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist... i doubt that
and one of the reasons they invaded iraq was for their oil supply
and one of the reasons they invaded iraq was for their oil supply
The Iraq War was indeed largely about oil. See above.
Original post by Oldcon1953
Any statement that the US is there for financial gain doesn't hold up and lacks enough evidence as to make it silly. Iraq cost us 1 trillion and it looks like we're about to drop another bundle on it and that would buy a lot of Venezuelan oil.
Iraq did cost you a lot of money, but the neo-cons in the Bush Administration thought it was worth it, at least at first.
They then fell prey to the sunk cost fallacy - they wanted to prolong the Occupation because they thought that the deaths of soldiers would have been for nothing.
Original post by yo radical one
I think that's why America uses targeted drone strikes rather than carpet bombing...
The drone strikes still kill far too many civilians. The simple fact is that they are illegal and violate other nations' sovereignty. They tell Russia to respect the territorial integrity of other countries while simultaneously violating it themselves.
Original post by Oldcon1953
Why wouldn't we assume that there were WMDs? He had them and used them before. I believe he did have them. Do ou think he used his entire stockpile on the Kurds? You don't think he saved any? Not even one to use on some future enemy? Your naive. Syria has them yet you think Iraq didn't. That's dumb. That's a great big desert and their probably buried out there in it somewhere. One way or the other, everybody in the region wanted Saddam gone and phony WMDs were as good a reason as any to hang him.
Fallacious argument. Just because Saddam Hussein had them and used them before, it doesn't mean that he had them in 2003 - it's not a case of a simple extrapolation. By your logic, we could extrapolate that if Saddam Hussein did have them, then the United States would have defended him if he did use them, as they did when he gassed the Kurds in 1988.
There were most likely no weapons of mass destruction, the evidence shows. Even Bush had to start making jokes about the whole issue. It was a false pretext designed to justify U.S. imperialism. People know better now.
"Your naive", by the way, is a fallacious ad hominem attack which adds nothing to your arguments.
Original post by Dr Alcoholic
This is Michael Scheuer, the CIA bin Laden Chief, talking.
"American lifestyle, democracy, women in the workplace, elections, liberty -- all of those things , the Islamists – al Qaeda and its allies – would never have in a country that they govern. That's very clear. But the idea that has been pushed by President Clinton, President Bush, Mr. Dick Cheney, Barack Obama and Senator McCain, that America is being attacked because of those things – is a disservice to the population of the United States. This war is not against Americans because we are Americans. It is motivated by the activities of our government and allies in the Muslim world."
"But It's not only that. It's our support for the Saudi police state. It is our exploitation of the low prices, as the Islamists consider it, of Middle Eastern oil – Muslim oil. It's our presence on the Arabian peninsula and our military activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia and other places. None of that is to say those policies or actions are wrong. I would vote to change several of them very drastically but that's not the point. The point is – unless you understand the motivation of your enemy, you are never going to be able to understand his durability, his intentions, or his ability to recruit in the coming generations."
"American lifestyle, democracy, women in the workplace, elections, liberty -- all of those things , the Islamists – al Qaeda and its allies – would never have in a country that they govern. That's very clear. But the idea that has been pushed by President Clinton, President Bush, Mr. Dick Cheney, Barack Obama and Senator McCain, that America is being attacked because of those things – is a disservice to the population of the United States. This war is not against Americans because we are Americans. It is motivated by the activities of our government and allies in the Muslim world."
"But It's not only that. It's our support for the Saudi police state. It is our exploitation of the low prices, as the Islamists consider it, of Middle Eastern oil – Muslim oil. It's our presence on the Arabian peninsula and our military activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia and other places. None of that is to say those policies or actions are wrong. I would vote to change several of them very drastically but that's not the point. The point is – unless you understand the motivation of your enemy, you are never going to be able to understand his durability, his intentions, or his ability to recruit in the coming generations."
To be fair he also says that Israel should be destroyed.
Original post by viddy9
The invasion helped American oil companies - American oil prices went up when the invasion occurred. Numerous American officials admitted that the war was about oil: General John Abizaid, former commander of CENTCOM with responsibility for Iraq said, “of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that”, while Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel said this in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are.” To round it off, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan added in his 2007 book: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” As someone else has pointed out, the invasion also prevented a domino effect occurring whereby dictators stop being obedient to the United States. When dictators are being obedient, the United States couldn't care less about "democracy".The Iraq War was indeed largely about oil. See above.Iraq did cost you a lot of money, but the neo-cons in the Bush Administration thought it was worth it, at least at first.They then fell prey to the sunk cost fallacy - they wanted to prolong the Occupation because they thought that the deaths of soldiers would have been for nothing. The drone strikes still kill far too many civilians. The simple fact is that they are illegal and violate other nations' sovereignty. They tell Russia to respect the territorial integrity of other countries while simultaneously violating it themselves.Fallacious argument. Just because Saddam Hussein had them and used them before, it doesn't mean that he had them in 2003 - it's not a case of a simple extrapolation. By your logic, we could extrapolate that if Saddam Hussein did have them, then the United States would have defended him if he did use them, as they did when he gassed the Kurds in 1988. There were most likely no weapons of mass destruction, the evidence shows. Even Bush had to start making jokes about the whole issue. It was a false pretext designed to justify U.S. imperialism. People know better now. "Your naive", by the way, is a fallacious ad hominem attack which adds nothing to your arguments.
Original post by MrHogwash
Just like how they blew up a wedding convoy in Yemen full of women and children using their so called advanced drones that could't tell the difference between civilians and terrorists. You can blame the technology or the drone operator but the fact is that innocent lives were lost. Does this fall under the definition of terrorism? Well, nowadays the word 'terrorists' is used by governments to say 'we're the good guys' and 'they're the bad'. Again, what the yanks do can never be considered terrorism and if you do try calling it terrorism, then you're just some paranoid conspiracy theorists.Coming back to the wedding convoy, these women and children were potential daughters, wives and sisters. I wouldn't be surprised if their male relatives were to strap a bombing on their chest and blow up markets thinking that is revenge hence causing more death and havoc.I must be crazy to think like this. The US government never lies and fights for freedom and peace.
Original post by Oldcon1953
The wedding convoy may have been a terrifying event but it wasn't a terrorist attack. I think the word "terrorist" is an excellent way to divide the good guys from the bad. We just disagree on who the bad guys are.
I actually disagree. It's when we start morally loading the word 'terrorism' that it ceases to be a useful category of objective analysis and becomes pure opinion.
Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish
I actually disagree. It's when we start morally loading the word 'terrorism' that it ceases to be a useful category of objective analysis and becomes pure opinion.
Original post by Oldcon1953
Objectify the "terrorism"?? The word is wholly undefinable. Remember, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.
This has always been a silly statement, because they are not mutually exclusive. Terrorism is a method, whilst freedom is a cause.
You can fight for freedom using terrorism, and you can fight for oppression using terrorism, just as you can fight for freedom without using terrorism, and you can fight for oppression without using terrorism.
Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish
This has always been a silly statement, because they are not mutually exclusive. Terrorism is a method, whilst freedom is a cause.You can fight for freedom using terrorism, and you can fight for oppression using terrorism, just as you can fight for freedom without using terrorism, and you can fight for oppression without using terrorism.
Original post by Oldcon1953
You say, " When dictators are obedient to the USA we don't care about Democracy." Well, when dictators are being obedient their not slaughtering their people.
The United States continued to defend Suharto, who was the dictator in Indonesia, and supply him with aid, despite the fact that he was directly behind the genocide of 250,000 East Timorese people.
The United States supported Saddam Hussein during the 1980s when they knew that he was using chemical weapons as early as 1983, and continued to supply him with the materials he required for his chemical weapons. They also defended Saddam and claimed that the Halabja chemical weapons massacre against the Kurdish people was perpetrated by Iran even though there was clear evidence linking Saddam to it.
The United States overthrew the democratically elected President of Chile on September 11th 1973, and installed the dictator Augusto Pinochet, who killed thousands of his people and tortured tens of thousands more, all with the support and backing of the United States.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point: when dictators are being obedient, it means that they are a) allowing the United States access to strategic resources or b) serving US geopolitical interests in another way. Democracy doesn't factor into anything at all when strategic resources are at stake, as admitted even by the United States' own Security Strategy of 2013, which states:
"access to strategic resources... combined with [our] desire for foreign citizens to freely express themselves democratically, will not always align"
[National Security Strategy, 2013]
Original post by Oldcon1953
My statement that WMDs were used on the Kurds so Saddam probably still possesed them is fallacious only onTSR.
It's fallacious because, as early as 1998, weapons inspectors such as Scott Ritter had already said that Saddam probably didn't have weapons of mass destruction, a belief confirmed by 2004. Illegally invading a country and initiating a war which killed hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of a pretext known to be faulty is, quite frankly, idiotic.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Oldcon1953
We were discussing the difficulty of defining the word "terrorist" and you know very well what I meant. Good day.
It's not that difficult to come up with a good working definition of 'terrorism' which is useful as a category of objective analysis. Sure, you'll have some trouble with marginal cases, but you always do. I go with: 'politically-motivated violence perpetrated by a non-state actor, outside the bounds of conventional armed conflict' with a possible addendum about how the effectiveness is often intended to be based on the fear created rather than the actual damage from the attack (debatable, but it is after all where the term comes from).
It's not watertight, but it's a good place to start.
Why are you so huffy?
Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish
It's not that difficult to come up with a good working definition of 'terrorism' which is useful as a category of objective analysis. Sure, you'll have some trouble with marginal cases, but you always do. I go with: 'politically-motivated violence perpetrated by a non-state actor, outside the bounds of conventional armed conflict' with a possible addendum about how the effectiveness is often intended to be based on the fear created rather than the actual damage from the attack (debatable, but it is after all where the term comes from).It's not watertight, but it's a good place to start.Why are you so huffy?
Original post by MrHogwash
Nobody can question the Yanks. They're fighting for true freedom and democracy. They are fighting terrorism, not causing it. I repeat , they are fighting terrorism , not causing it.
Just some food for thought
'We were told we were fighting terrorists, but the real terrorist was me and the real terrorism is this occupation.'
Mike Prysner, American soldier
Original post by HAnwar
Just some food for thought
'We were told we were fighting terrorists, but the real terrorist was me and the real terrorism is this occupation.'
Mike Prysner, American soldier
'We were told we were fighting terrorists, but the real terrorist was me and the real terrorism is this occupation.'
Mike Prysner, American soldier
He sounds like an idiot.
Edit: Just looked him up. Yup, affiliated with some of the most detestable radicals on the political scene.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish
He sounds like an idiot.
Edit: Just looked him up. Yup, affiliated with some of the most detestable radicals on the political scene.
Edit: Just looked him up. Yup, affiliated with some of the most detestable radicals on the political scene.
Of course you would say that
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Please my GCSE Edexcel History answer to a question
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- the reign of terror france 1790s
- My English Essay- Remains vs Exposure
- I need help on my inspector calls essay
- Of Mice And Men GCSE Essays
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- English Literature
- AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023
- edexcel gcse history 2023
- Calling all irish people (who know about Eamon de Valera)
- how can i get a grade 9 on this english literature essay?
- any tips?
- History help!!!
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- an inspector calls
- The Wipers Times - AQA English Literature A Level
- AQA English Literature Paper 2 Predictions
- An inspector calls
- GCSE English Literature Study Group 2023-2024
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
