No you're just hard headed. I couldn't say it anymore clearly than I already have. At this point it's only a waste of time to continue on putting up with your pretentciousness.
If Al quaeda had attacked us then I prefer using self defense in the way Clinton did....by striking the group (their camps and bases) who we are defending ourselves from...not invading Afghanistan. You can say that didn't work but neither did invading Afghanistan.
I don't know any anti-war activists who say you shouldn't defend yourself when attacked.
Actually, there are plenty of anti-war activitists who say that we shouldn't defend ourselves when attacked.
Those are the people who sware up and down that Al Qaeda is the result of decades of US intervention in middle eastern affairs and that the only way to stop al qeada is to change our middle east policy and pull all of the troops out immediately.
You, on the other hand, say that military action is justified, but only when planned properly and only when it is successful.
By that rationale, the invasion would've been justified if it had achieved its goals. That's why you are for military action, but not for improperly planned military action.
BTW, I guess you still don't understand that Al Qaeda had training all over the country. Also, the Taliban had struck a deal to support Al Qaeda. This means that even if a bombing campaign alone had been successful in wiping out Al Qeada, then it is possible that the Taliban would've supported the resurrection of those training camps as soon as the campaign ended.
Not to mention, most of Al Qaeda went for the mountains when the US showed up. This means troops on the ground would've been the only alternative.
Regardless, it didn't work. I'm not saying that it did. I'm saying that the US intentions at the time were to take out "Bin Laden and Co" the best way that they could think up.
Therefore, you support military action, but disagree with the manner in which it was carried out.
Lastly, you first said to use "assassinations". Now you've stepped it up to "bombing campaigns". Again, it's a huge difference, and only supports my guess that you're sort of lost on this issue.
There's nothing noble about being inconsistent. It's nice to live in the ideal world of world peace, but it's just illogical to apply that to real world situations and expect to it be received as empirical.
After all, you just spent many posts discussing the circumstances where war is necessary, but then change your tune to "war should be avoided" as though the very sound of those words alone make you "noble". It's delusional and utterly self-righteous.
You again miss entirely the direction my sail is pointing. You missed the part about me seeking a solution and not having textbook examples to follow...not having all the answers because they don't exist yet.
This is where your approach falls flat and mine shines.
Metaphorically you are the guy snickering at the kids in class learning and asking questions...the ones who are trying to formulate and propagate something entirely new which will make things better for everyone.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
That invading Afghanistan was the only way to get to Al qaeda.
I never said tht it was.
I said that if al qaeda and bin laden had not run away from afghanistan, then they would've been wiped out by the invasion. In which case, the invasion would've been success- and in which case your views would be very different.
That's why you are for the invasion, but not for a poorly planned invasion. Again....huge difference...not sure why you don't see that.
You again miss entirely the direction my sail is pointing. You missed the part about me seeking a solution and not having textbook examples to follow...not having all the answers because they don't exist yet.
This is where your approach falls flat and mine shines.
Metaphorically you are the guy snickering at the kids in class learning and asking questions...the one who is trying to formulate and propagate something entirely new which will make things better for everyone.
Wrong, you are the one kid who thinks every should have pizza for lunch but ignores the fact that pizza is unhealthy and makes people fat.
That is, you aren't really searching for a solution, but you think just knowing what you want is all the justification you need to start a call for pizza.
I never said I had a solution. I'm only trying to figure out what your point of view really is. I've long since learned that you don't really have a point of view. You just like to act like you do, and when someone calls you on it, you resort to the above.
You keep saying "no war" "no war" but you actually for war. You just ignore the fact that the war was improperly carried out. What you should be saying is "no improperly planned wars".
I said that if al qaeda and bin laden had not run away from afghanistan, then they would've been wiped out by the invasion. In which case, the invasion would've been success- and in which case your views would be very different.
That's why you are for the invasion, but not for a poorly planned invasion. Again....huge difference...not sure why you don't see that.
No, even if it did wipe out Al qaeda, I wouldn't be pro invading Afghanistan. I don't accept the civilian casualties. Afghanistan did not attack us. I believe we could have went after Al quaeda with the help of other countries, the UN, international law. If you hold a different opinion, so be it. No country attacked us...a group did that is spread out in many countries. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. If a country had attacked us I would support our right to defend ourselves but that doesn't mean by any means either. Perhaps there could be more precisional type attacks that could cripple the attacking country's ability to do harm to us.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
if a man declares war on your country by apparently masterminding an horrrendous act of terrorism, then your target is the MAN.
if you find out where this man is, you ask that country harbouring him to give him up.
when they ask you for evidence that this man is in fact guilty of the charges levelled at him, you give them that evidence. you don't expect your word to be taken as irrifutable evidence. you negotiate with said country to turn the man over to a neutral country once you have provided the evidence.
you seek help from countries who have a respectful relationship with the harbouring country.
you do this as a show of good faith and because your own reputation is not worth squat outside your own borders, except for a few close personal friendlies.
you never assume thy enemy of thy enemy is thy friend.
you do everything you can to avoid war because you know from extensive experience that when it comes to warfare you basically suck at it because apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word tact or overkill.
you also do everything in your power to avoid war because you also know that civilians will get killed needlessly.
if the country does not give up the wanted man after you have provided the irrefutable evidence, then you squeeze them dry until they do. you offer them no aid AT ALL. that means military aid especially. you offer the government of that country no support.
what you do not do is invade the country and then just when you've gotten close enough to grab the sonofabitch, pull your resources out and go invade another country.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
No, even if it did wipe out Al qaeda, I wouldn't be pro invading Afghanistan. I don't accept the civilian casualties. Afghanistan did not attack us. I believe we could have went after Al quaeda with the help of other countries, the UN, international law. If you hold a different opinion, so be it. No country attacked us...a group did that is spread out in many countries. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. If a country had attacked us I would support our right to defend ourselves but that doesn't mean by any means either. Perhaps there could be more precisional type attacks that could cripple the attacking country's ability to do harm to us.
OK, if you wouldn't support the invasion even if it wiped out Al Qeada, then why did you say "It didn't even stomp out Al Qeada".
Why does it matter either way?
And why did you support a bombing campaign if you're so worred about civilians? Don't you know that bombing campaigns always kill civilians?
if a man declares war on your country by apparently masterminding an horrrendous act of terrorism, then your target is the MAN.
if you find out where this man is, you ask that country harbouring him to give him up.
when they ask you for evidence that this man is in fact guilty of the charges levelled at him, you give them that evidence. you don't expect your word to be taken as irrifutable evidence. you negotiate with said country to turn the man over to a neutral country once you have provided the evidence.
you seek help from countries who have a respectful relationship with the harbouring country.
you do this as a show of good faith and because your own reputation is not worth squat outside your own borders, except for a few close personal friendlies.
you never assume thy enemy of thy enemy is thy friend.
you do everything you can to avoid war because you know from extensive experience that when it comes to warfare you basically suck at it because apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word tact or overkill.
you also do everything in your power to avoid war because you also know that civilians will get killed needlessly.
if the country does not give up the wanted man after you have provided the irrefutable evidence, then you squeeze them dry until they do. you offer them no aid AT ALL. that means military aid especially. you offer the government of that country no support.
what you do not do is invade the country and then just when you've gotten close enough to grab the sonofabitch, pull your resources out and go invade another country.
by that rationale, you think the US should not have invaded europe to stop hitler. instead, it should've had hitler assasssinated. that is what you're saying.
Also, 9/11 was planned by many of bin laden's captains, and the people who carried out 9/11 were trained in afghanistan, where more terrorists were being trained.
do you honestly believe that removing bin laden alone would've stopped al qeada activities in afghanistan?
And why did you support a bombing campaign if you're so worred about civilians? Don't you know that bombing campaigns always kill civilians?
If we were being attacked by another country, I believe the best idea would be to make precision air strikes on their military bases and facilities....that way it would result minimal civilian deaths.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Because that was the point of going there and I'm saying it didn't even accomplish that.
But, that implies that if they did accomplish that, you wouldn't be so against it. It shouldn't really matter to you either way if it did accomplish that.
If we were being attacked by another country, I believe the best idea would be to make precision air strikes on their military bases and facilities....that way it would result minimal civilian deaths.
But, most of the deaths occurring in afghanistan right now are being caused by bombing campaigns. This is because the taliban blend in.
You don't think al qaeda would've blended in just the same? Not to mention, most of al qaeda went for the mountains, thus requiring troops.
So, effectively, bombing campaign alone would not have worked, yet you find yourself suggesting it. why?
by that rationale, you think the US should not have invaded europe to stop hitler. instead, it should've had hitler assasssinated. that is what you're saying.
Also, 9/11 was planned by many of bin laden's captains, and the people who carried out 9/11 were trained in afghanistan, where more terrorists were being trained.
do you honestly believe that removing bin laden alone would've stopped al qeada activities in afghanistan?
that's not what im saying. where do i ever advocate assassination?
can we stop comparing hitler and his roll across europe with binladen and 9/11. they are not comparable.
9/11 didn't start on 9/11. it was the culmination of many things over a long period of time. binladen didnt wake up one day and say oh i know let's teach the great infidel a lesson. let us attack a sovereign nation for shits and giggles. we are a peaceful nation. that is what president bush said after the attacks when he was trying not to pee his pants. who is he kidding? the united states has never been a peacful nation. she was born from war and it looks like it's gonna be a slow slow suicide.
it is quite obvious by the major fuckup we all find ourselves in the middle of that the removal of bin laden is not a guarantee for the death of al qaeda. the entire episode was handled incorrectly from even before 9/11. now what we have is two destroyed countries and no one willing enough to suck it up and admit liability. as well as thousands of civilians and soldiers killed. and no end in sight. and for what? are we safer? has anyone learnt any lessons? is the world more respectful of the US?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Wrong, you are the one kid who thinks every should have pizza for lunch but ignores the fact that pizza is unhealthy and makes people fat.
That is, you aren't really searching for a solution, but you think just knowing what you want is all the justification you need to start a call for pizza.
I never said I had a solution. I'm only trying to figure out what your point of view really is. I've long since learned that you don't really have a point of view. You just like to act like you do, and when someone calls you on it, you resort to the above.
You keep saying "no war" "no war" but you actually for war. You just ignore the fact that the war was improperly carried out. What you should be saying is "no improperly planned wars".
Actually you're still wrong about me...and really I think just you insist on pointing fingers at me to elevate yourself instead of trying to connect with anything I'm saying, or getting at...and to be honest...you're really just kinda boring the shit out of me now with the small details.
War and conflict is your preferred method of solving problems in your life.
Established.
have yourself a good night
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
that's not what im saying. where do i ever advocate assassination?
can we stop comparing hitler and his roll across europe with binladen and 9/11. they are not comparable.
9/11 didn't start on 9/11. it was the culmination of many things over a long period of time. binladen didnt wake up one day and say oh i know let's teach the great infidel a lesson. let us attack a sovereign nation for shits and giggles. we are a peaceful nation. that is what president bush said after the attacks when he was trying not to pee his pants. who is he kidding? the united states has never been a peacful nation. she was born from war and it looks like it's gonna be a slow slow suicide.
it is quite obvious by the major fuckup we all find ourselves in the middle of that the removal of bin laden is not a guarantee for the death of al qaeda. the entire episode was handled incorrectly from even before 9/11. now what we have is two destroyed countries and no one willing enough to suck it up and admit liability. as well as thousands of civilians and soldiers killed. and no end in sight. and for what? are we safer? has anyone learnt any lessons? is the world more respectful of the US?
The two are comparable if you consider al qaeda a threat to the united states. 3000 people died in new york. that's more americans killed on us soil than was killed by hitler. you wouldn't consider that a threat to america?
Also, I misread the part about assassination. But, the reason being is because I know that the taliban would not give up bin lade. they had been asked to do that before. It's in the commission report. The taliban had sworn to support al qeada. They were allies in every sense of the word.
Also, embargoes would not have stopped the al qeada machine from running for some time. Afghanistan is already a very poor country with very little trade activity. Embargoes would've taken some time to have any effect. In fact, throughout history, when have embargos really stopped anybody?
So, what I'm asking you is if none of those things worked, would you then support military action?
Actually you're still wrong about me...and really I think just you insist on pointing fingers at me to elevate yourself instead of trying to connect with anything I'm saying, or getting at...and to be honest...you're really just kinda boring the shit out of me now with the small details.
War and conflict is your preferred method of solving problems in your life.
Established.
have yourself a good night
Go find where I say war is the preferred method. I did not say any such thing anywhere.
What I'm saying is that I don't pretend to hate war while supporting it. That's what you do.
I gotta go, but what I'm saying here is that I don't really have an opinion on this. This is because I don't really know everything there is to know about this.
But, there are a lot of people out there who pretend to know, and that's even worse than just not knowing. That's all I'm saying. Goodnight.
But, that implies that if they did accomplish that, you wouldn't be so against it. It shouldn't really matter to you either way if it did accomplish that.
That's putting your spin on it. I've already said it wouldn't matter if they did wipe them out, I'd still be against it a couple of replies ago.
But, most of the deaths occurring in afghanistan right now are being caused by bombing campaigns. This is because the taliban blend in.
You don't think al qaeda would've blended in just the same? Not to mention, most of al qaeda went for the mountains, thus requiring troops.
So, effectively, bombing campaign alone would not have worked, yet you find yourself suggesting it. why?
If they are killing civilians then they aren't only attacking military targets. And I was using the example of attacking another country, anyway. I've already said attacking al qaeda would require a completely different approach involving outside help a few replies ago.
We're just going over the same stuff in circles now.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I gotta go, but what I'm saying here is that I don't really have an opinion on this. This is because I don't really know everything there is to know about this.
But, there are a lot of people out there who pretend to know, and that's even worse than just not knowing. That's all I'm saying. Goodnight.
you don't really have an opinion? then what the hell have you been going on about all these pages then?
as for me, i never pretend to know everything. but ignorance is not bliss. and there is no shame in asking if you don't know. we should never ever assume that what they are engaged in is for the good of the people. history has shown this to be untrue time and time again. we have to ask questions and we have to question motives and actions, otherwise governments get away quite literally, with murder.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Go find where I say war is the preferred method. I did not say any such thing anywhere.
What I'm saying is that I don't pretend to hate war while supporting it. That's what you do.
The last I'll say on this thread, but your same mentality would mock Einstein for going back and re-hypothesizing his formulas because he wasn't 100% sure in the first place...as you are.
Tell me you can fly into the unknown without a map and know exactly where to go to land at you destination then I'll agree with your proposed representation of my viewpoint and beliefs.
thankyou and now good night.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
But, that implies that if they did accomplish that, you wouldn't be so against it. It shouldn't really matter to you either way if it did accomplish that.
it matters that you seem to be justifying 'stomping out al qaeda' as a reason to bomb and invade afghanistan...so she said you didn't even accomplish that...so you killed a bunch of ppl and didn't achieve your objective, that is far from supporting an invasion! do you know what you're talking about??
maybe we should've just checked out maps to find the training camps, i mean we helped pay to have them built in the 80's...
if you are saying the taliban supporting al qaeda is a good enough justification in attacking and invading them, you should also be for the same towards pakistan, right? the head of their isi wired mohammed atta a bunch of money right before 9/11, they were selling nuke secrets to a lot of ppl and al qaeda is in their country, as well...
afghaninstan wasn't about going after al qaeda, otherwise other countries, other than iraq, would be targeted. it's about control of strategic areas and it's resources...that is why we moved to iraq and even had MORE troops 'nationbuilding' (something bush said he was so against using our military and money for in 2000) in iraq than afghanistan! there was NO REASON to go to iraq next.
what would occam's razor say the reason those countries were targeted and others like pakistan weren't?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Those are the people who sware up and down that Al Qaeda is the result of decades of US intervention in middle eastern affairs and that the only way to stop al qeada is to change our middle east policy and pull all of the troops out immediately.
You, on the other hand, say that military action is justified, but only when planned properly and only when it is successful.
By that rationale, the invasion would've been justified if it had achieved its goals. That's why you are for military action, but not for improperly planned military action.
Wrong. I said only when we've been attacked should we take action. You view 9/11 as us being attacked not me. I stated clearly what I thought should be done if Al qaeda was responsible (which I don't) as well. I never said if we had stomped them out it would be justifiable...you tried to say that's what I meant when it isn't.
BTW, I guess you still don't understand that Al Qaeda had training all over the country. Also, the Taliban had struck a deal to support Al Qaeda. This means that even if a bombing campaign alone had been successful in wiping out Al Qeada, then it is possible that the Taliban would've supported the resurrection of those training camps as soon as the campaign ended.
Not to mention, most of Al Qaeda went for the mountains when the US showed up. This means troops on the ground would've been the only alternative.
Regardless, it didn't work. I'm not saying that it did. I'm saying that the US intentions at the time were to take out "Bin Laden and Co" the best way that they could think up.
Therefore, you support military action, but disagree with the manner in which it was carried out.
Lastly, you first said to use "assassinations". Now you've stepped it up to "bombing campaigns". Again, it's a huge difference, and only supports my guess that you're sort of lost on this issue.
I did not say use assassination. I said we've used those tactics before so I didn't understand the need to invade and take out so many civilians when it was possible to take out only al qaeda members. Again, I'm only arguing from your point of view of defending ourselves against being attacked by al qaeda (which I didn't see the need of attacking at all). I only brought up bombing campaigns in reference to us being attacked by another country. I'm not lost but you seem to want to say I'm saying things that I'm just not saying...and that's where you're getting confused.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And when was the last time a US bomb killed an entire gathering of people? Weekly basis?
Another week, another bombing of civilians. At least 45 of 'em this time. Karzai even called for an investigation. Ooooh, watch out, he's gettin' tough.
Another week, another bombing of civilians. At least 45 of 'em this time. Karzai even called for an investigation. Ooooh, watch out, he's gettin' tough.
I just don't see how you could've missed that I was referring to Iraq when I made that statement. And this is the second time I've told you this, lol.
And, again, you have not yet issued a response in regards to the fact that just about every statistic you've posted has been confirmed only by "local sources".
And if I had to guess, you probably think that simply taking a stance against the war automatically means that you are more "in touch" with what is going on. But, what you might not realize is that you do this at the expense of common sense.
I believe I've already responded to your last offering of ultra-left unsubstantiated propaganda. Why you don't try responding to that instead of waiting a few days and hoping that people don't notice the difference?
And do you see where it says that the afghani officials are calling for the US and NATO to leave? No, of course you don't see that. This is because the Afghani people don't really want the US to leave. They know it means the Taliban coming back to power and their heads on stakes once again.
So, what difference does it really make to you if civilians die there when afghani "local officials" don't personally want to see an end to NATO aggression against the Taliban anyway?
If you really care about the Afghani people, do what Roland did and try taking some time to understand the history of that area and the full scope of the situation that they're in.
I just don't see how you could've missed that I was referring to Iraq when I made that statement. And this is the second time I've told you this, lol.
And, again, you have not yet issued a response in regards to the fact that just about every statistic you've posted has been confirmed only by "local sources".
And if I had to guess, you probably think that simply taking a stance against the war automatically means that you are more "in touch" with what is going on. But, what you might not realize is that you do this at the expense of common sense.
I believe I've already responded to your last offering of ultra-left unsubstantiated propaganda. Why you don't try responding to that instead of waiting a few days and hoping that people don't notice the difference?
And do you see where it says that the afghani officials are calling for the US and NATO to leave? No, of course you don't see that. This is because the Afghani people don't really want the US to leave. They know it means the Taliban coming back to power and their heads on stakes once again.
So, what difference does it really make to you if civilians die there when afghani "local officials" don't personally want to see an end to NATO aggression against the Taliban anyway?
If you really care about the Afghani people, do what Roland did and try taking some time to understand the history of that area and the full scope of the situation that they're in.
Does not caring about the afghani people extend to not caring that US soldiers are killing innocent civilians there?
I just don't see how you could've missed that I was referring to Iraq when I made that statement. And this is the second time I've told you this, lol.
And, again, you have not yet issued a response in regards to the fact that just about every statistic you've posted has been confirmed only by "local sources".
And if I had to guess, you probably think that simply taking a stance against the war automatically means that you are more "in touch" with what is going on. But, what you might not realize is that you do this at the expense of common sense.
I believe I've already responded to your last offering of ultra-left unsubstantiated propaganda. Why you don't try responding to that instead of waiting a few days and hoping that people don't notice the difference?
And do you see where it says that the afghani officials are calling for the US and NATO to leave? No, of course you don't see that. This is because the Afghani people don't really want the US to leave. They know it means the Taliban coming back to power and their heads on stakes once again.
So, what difference does it really make to you if civilians die there when afghani "local officials" don't personally want to see an end to NATO aggression against the Taliban anyway?
If you really care about the Afghani people, do what Roland did and try taking some time to understand the history of that area and the full scope of the situation that they're in.
Your references ti\o Iraq weren't lost on me, but the fact of the matter is that its the same principles at work here - whether its Iraq or Afghanistan. Its about the disregard for human life and the counterproductive measures that it has taken in these places. Lost on you, perhaps, were Karzai's repeated calls for greater communication with the Afghans in order that civilians stop getting blown to shit. But apparently this is a major problem for the Americans, b/c, well, they're not too big on being told what to do. Kind of a problem when you're dropping bombs in SOMEBODY ELSE'S COUNTRY, don't ya think ?
Sponger, people like you are scary. First you pose the question as to whether these incidents are happening, even laughing at the suggestion that it is happening with any frequency. Its not me that's hopelessly ignorant but you. Here's a life-lesson, and one you might want to grab hold of: just b/c YOU are not aware of something taking place, that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Then you find out that maybe, just maybe, it IS happening, and your response is to question the source. Let me guess, unless Centcom or Richard Pearle says its so, then it really isn't so, right ??? Lets get this straight, you are, in effect, questioning the very people who you claim are supporters of the U.S., and who want the U.S. there. Why would they lie ? Answer: they're not lying, and this is evident from witnesses associated with international relief agencies and other orgn's in these countries who often corroborate the assertions of the local people. I remember 2 or 3 incidents in iraq where the story never would have broke except that reporters were right there and witnessed it. One of them was a wedding party in western Iraq.
As for being ultra-left(as you claim), then I'm afraid that takes in a huge amount of the planet's population. Its not me but people like yourself that represent the minority in this world. And what a tiny minority it is. In case you haven't noticed, the U.S. stands largely ALONE.
Your references ti\o Iraq weren't lost on me, but the fact of the matter is that its the same principles at work here - whether its Iraq or Afghanistan. Its about the disregard for human life and the counterproductive measures that it has taken in these places. Lost on you, perhaps, were Karzai's repeated calls for greater communication with the Afghans in order that civilians stop getting blown to shit. But apparently this is a major problem for the Americans, b/c, well, they're not too big on being told what to do. Kind of a problem when you're dropping bombs in SOMEBODY ELSE'S COUNTRY, don't ya think ?
Right, and you know exactly what is going through the minds of NATO and US military commanders as they plan their bombing runs. A key part of warfare is having the element of surprise. You may have forgotten, but in vietnam, the US tried collaborating with indingenous forces such as the S. Vietnamese before launching strikes, and this often resulted in the intended targets receiving ample forewarning.
But, hey, you'd rather believe that the US is just arrogant and bull-headed, so that's what you're going to believe.
Sponger, people like you are scary. First you pose the question as to whether these incidents are happening, even laughing at the suggestion that it is happening with any frequency. Its not me that's hopelessly ignorant but you. Here's a life-lesson, and one you might want to grab hold of: just b/c YOU are not aware of something taking place, that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
On many occasion, NATO claims that many of these "civilian" deaths are in fact taliban collaborators. Do you believe that the Taliban are wearing official "Taliban" uniforms and are hanging out in designated battle zones that are chosen for their safe distance from civilians? Who is ignorant?
Then you find out that maybe, just maybe, it IS happening, and your response is to question the source. Let me guess, unless Centcom or Richard Pearle says its so, then it really isn't so, right ??? Lets get this straight, you are, in effect, questioning the very people who you claim are supporters of the U.S., and who want the U.S. there. Why would they lie ? Answer: they're not lying, and this is evident from witnesses associated with international relief agencies and other orgn's in these countries who often corroborate the assertions of the local people. I remember 2 or 3 incidents in iraq where the story never would have broke except that reporters were right there and witnessed it. One of them was a wedding party in western Iraq.
You ask why the afghanis would complain about NATO airstrikes while at the same time supporting the effort against the Taliban. The answer is simply that everybody profits from playing the victim. Do you honestly think that the Afghanis don't strive to win the sympathy of anyone who would listen? Foreign aid doesn't just fall out of the sky for no reason. The more sympathy they evoke, the more support they can expect to receive. That's how it works in third world countries.
As for being ultra-left(as you claim), then I'm afraid that takes in a huge amount of the planet's population. Its not me but people like yourself that represent the minority in this world. And what a tiny minority it is. In case you haven't noticed, the U.S. stands largely ALONE.
And sadly most people like yourself know next to nothing about how wars are fought or how third world politics work. As I have just explained, your understanding of the realities of battlefield tactics and the politics of the affected governments is very limited to only what you want to believe.
Comments
Actually, there are plenty of anti-war activitists who say that we shouldn't defend ourselves when attacked.
Those are the people who sware up and down that Al Qaeda is the result of decades of US intervention in middle eastern affairs and that the only way to stop al qeada is to change our middle east policy and pull all of the troops out immediately.
You, on the other hand, say that military action is justified, but only when planned properly and only when it is successful.
By that rationale, the invasion would've been justified if it had achieved its goals. That's why you are for military action, but not for improperly planned military action.
BTW, I guess you still don't understand that Al Qaeda had training all over the country. Also, the Taliban had struck a deal to support Al Qaeda. This means that even if a bombing campaign alone had been successful in wiping out Al Qeada, then it is possible that the Taliban would've supported the resurrection of those training camps as soon as the campaign ended.
Not to mention, most of Al Qaeda went for the mountains when the US showed up. This means troops on the ground would've been the only alternative.
Regardless, it didn't work. I'm not saying that it did. I'm saying that the US intentions at the time were to take out "Bin Laden and Co" the best way that they could think up.
Therefore, you support military action, but disagree with the manner in which it was carried out.
Lastly, you first said to use "assassinations". Now you've stepped it up to "bombing campaigns". Again, it's a huge difference, and only supports my guess that you're sort of lost on this issue.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
You again miss entirely the direction my sail is pointing. You missed the part about me seeking a solution and not having textbook examples to follow...not having all the answers because they don't exist yet.
This is where your approach falls flat and mine shines.
Metaphorically you are the guy snickering at the kids in class learning and asking questions...the ones who are trying to formulate and propagate something entirely new which will make things better for everyone.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I never said tht it was.
I said that if al qaeda and bin laden had not run away from afghanistan, then they would've been wiped out by the invasion. In which case, the invasion would've been success- and in which case your views would be very different.
That's why you are for the invasion, but not for a poorly planned invasion. Again....huge difference...not sure why you don't see that.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Wrong, you are the one kid who thinks every should have pizza for lunch but ignores the fact that pizza is unhealthy and makes people fat.
That is, you aren't really searching for a solution, but you think just knowing what you want is all the justification you need to start a call for pizza.
I never said I had a solution. I'm only trying to figure out what your point of view really is. I've long since learned that you don't really have a point of view. You just like to act like you do, and when someone calls you on it, you resort to the above.
You keep saying "no war" "no war" but you actually for war. You just ignore the fact that the war was improperly carried out. What you should be saying is "no improperly planned wars".
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
No, even if it did wipe out Al qaeda, I wouldn't be pro invading Afghanistan. I don't accept the civilian casualties. Afghanistan did not attack us. I believe we could have went after Al quaeda with the help of other countries, the UN, international law. If you hold a different opinion, so be it. No country attacked us...a group did that is spread out in many countries. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. If a country had attacked us I would support our right to defend ourselves but that doesn't mean by any means either. Perhaps there could be more precisional type attacks that could cripple the attacking country's ability to do harm to us.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
if a man declares war on your country by apparently masterminding an horrrendous act of terrorism, then your target is the MAN.
if you find out where this man is, you ask that country harbouring him to give him up.
when they ask you for evidence that this man is in fact guilty of the charges levelled at him, you give them that evidence. you don't expect your word to be taken as irrifutable evidence. you negotiate with said country to turn the man over to a neutral country once you have provided the evidence.
you seek help from countries who have a respectful relationship with the harbouring country.
you do this as a show of good faith and because your own reputation is not worth squat outside your own borders, except for a few close personal friendlies.
you never assume thy enemy of thy enemy is thy friend.
you do everything you can to avoid war because you know from extensive experience that when it comes to warfare you basically suck at it because apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word tact or overkill.
you also do everything in your power to avoid war because you also know that civilians will get killed needlessly.
if the country does not give up the wanted man after you have provided the irrefutable evidence, then you squeeze them dry until they do. you offer them no aid AT ALL. that means military aid especially. you offer the government of that country no support.
what you do not do is invade the country and then just when you've gotten close enough to grab the sonofabitch, pull your resources out and go invade another country.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
OK, if you wouldn't support the invasion even if it wiped out Al Qeada, then why did you say "It didn't even stomp out Al Qeada".
Why does it matter either way?
And why did you support a bombing campaign if you're so worred about civilians? Don't you know that bombing campaigns always kill civilians?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
by that rationale, you think the US should not have invaded europe to stop hitler. instead, it should've had hitler assasssinated. that is what you're saying.
Also, 9/11 was planned by many of bin laden's captains, and the people who carried out 9/11 were trained in afghanistan, where more terrorists were being trained.
do you honestly believe that removing bin laden alone would've stopped al qeada activities in afghanistan?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Because that was the point of going there and I'm saying it didn't even accomplish that.
If we were being attacked by another country, I believe the best idea would be to make precision air strikes on their military bases and facilities....that way it would result minimal civilian deaths.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But, that implies that if they did accomplish that, you wouldn't be so against it. It shouldn't really matter to you either way if it did accomplish that.
But, most of the deaths occurring in afghanistan right now are being caused by bombing campaigns. This is because the taliban blend in.
You don't think al qaeda would've blended in just the same? Not to mention, most of al qaeda went for the mountains, thus requiring troops.
So, effectively, bombing campaign alone would not have worked, yet you find yourself suggesting it. why?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
that's not what im saying. where do i ever advocate assassination?
can we stop comparing hitler and his roll across europe with binladen and 9/11. they are not comparable.
9/11 didn't start on 9/11. it was the culmination of many things over a long period of time. binladen didnt wake up one day and say oh i know let's teach the great infidel a lesson. let us attack a sovereign nation for shits and giggles. we are a peaceful nation. that is what president bush said after the attacks when he was trying not to pee his pants. who is he kidding? the united states has never been a peacful nation. she was born from war and it looks like it's gonna be a slow slow suicide.
it is quite obvious by the major fuckup we all find ourselves in the middle of that the removal of bin laden is not a guarantee for the death of al qaeda. the entire episode was handled incorrectly from even before 9/11. now what we have is two destroyed countries and no one willing enough to suck it up and admit liability. as well as thousands of civilians and soldiers killed. and no end in sight. and for what? are we safer? has anyone learnt any lessons? is the world more respectful of the US?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Actually you're still wrong about me...and really I think just you insist on pointing fingers at me to elevate yourself instead of trying to connect with anything I'm saying, or getting at...and to be honest...you're really just kinda boring the shit out of me now with the small details.
War and conflict is your preferred method of solving problems in your life.
Established.
have yourself a good night
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The two are comparable if you consider al qaeda a threat to the united states. 3000 people died in new york. that's more americans killed on us soil than was killed by hitler. you wouldn't consider that a threat to america?
Also, I misread the part about assassination. But, the reason being is because I know that the taliban would not give up bin lade. they had been asked to do that before. It's in the commission report. The taliban had sworn to support al qeada. They were allies in every sense of the word.
Also, embargoes would not have stopped the al qeada machine from running for some time. Afghanistan is already a very poor country with very little trade activity. Embargoes would've taken some time to have any effect. In fact, throughout history, when have embargos really stopped anybody?
So, what I'm asking you is if none of those things worked, would you then support military action?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Go find where I say war is the preferred method. I did not say any such thing anywhere.
What I'm saying is that I don't pretend to hate war while supporting it. That's what you do.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
no. i never support military action. i am a conscientious objector.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
But, there are a lot of people out there who pretend to know, and that's even worse than just not knowing. That's all I'm saying. Goodnight.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
That's putting your spin on it. I've already said it wouldn't matter if they did wipe them out, I'd still be against it a couple of replies ago.
If they are killing civilians then they aren't only attacking military targets. And I was using the example of attacking another country, anyway. I've already said attacking al qaeda would require a completely different approach involving outside help a few replies ago.
We're just going over the same stuff in circles now.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
you don't really have an opinion? then what the hell have you been going on about all these pages then?
as for me, i never pretend to know everything. but ignorance is not bliss. and there is no shame in asking if you don't know. we should never ever assume that what they are engaged in is for the good of the people. history has shown this to be untrue time and time again. we have to ask questions and we have to question motives and actions, otherwise governments get away quite literally, with murder.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The last I'll say on this thread, but your same mentality would mock Einstein for going back and re-hypothesizing his formulas because he wasn't 100% sure in the first place...as you are.
Tell me you can fly into the unknown without a map and know exactly where to go to land at you destination then I'll agree with your proposed representation of my viewpoint and beliefs.
thankyou and now good night.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
it matters that you seem to be justifying 'stomping out al qaeda' as a reason to bomb and invade afghanistan...so she said you didn't even accomplish that...so you killed a bunch of ppl and didn't achieve your objective, that is far from supporting an invasion! do you know what you're talking about??
maybe we should've just checked out maps to find the training camps, i mean we helped pay to have them built in the 80's...
if you are saying the taliban supporting al qaeda is a good enough justification in attacking and invading them, you should also be for the same towards pakistan, right? the head of their isi wired mohammed atta a bunch of money right before 9/11, they were selling nuke secrets to a lot of ppl and al qaeda is in their country, as well...
afghaninstan wasn't about going after al qaeda, otherwise other countries, other than iraq, would be targeted. it's about control of strategic areas and it's resources...that is why we moved to iraq and even had MORE troops 'nationbuilding' (something bush said he was so against using our military and money for in 2000) in iraq than afghanistan! there was NO REASON to go to iraq next.
what would occam's razor say the reason those countries were targeted and others like pakistan weren't?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Could you give me some examples of people who say we should just sit here if we were bombed by another country?
I would be one of those people. I stated at the beginning I was using your angle for arguments sake.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4555101&postcount=188
Wrong. I said only when we've been attacked should we take action. You view 9/11 as us being attacked not me. I stated clearly what I thought should be done if Al qaeda was responsible (which I don't) as well. I never said if we had stomped them out it would be justifiable...you tried to say that's what I meant when it isn't.
I did not say use assassination. I said we've used those tactics before so I didn't understand the need to invade and take out so many civilians when it was possible to take out only al qaeda members. Again, I'm only arguing from your point of view of defending ourselves against being attacked by al qaeda (which I didn't see the need of attacking at all). I only brought up bombing campaigns in reference to us being attacked by another country. I'm not lost but you seem to want to say I'm saying things that I'm just not saying...and that's where you're getting confused.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
There is no war on terror.
Never was, never will be.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Another week, another bombing of civilians. At least 45 of 'em this time. Karzai even called for an investigation. Ooooh, watch out, he's gettin' tough.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2727866.ece
I just don't see how you could've missed that I was referring to Iraq when I made that statement. And this is the second time I've told you this, lol.
And, again, you have not yet issued a response in regards to the fact that just about every statistic you've posted has been confirmed only by "local sources".
And if I had to guess, you probably think that simply taking a stance against the war automatically means that you are more "in touch" with what is going on. But, what you might not realize is that you do this at the expense of common sense.
I believe I've already responded to your last offering of ultra-left unsubstantiated propaganda. Why you don't try responding to that instead of waiting a few days and hoping that people don't notice the difference?
And do you see where it says that the afghani officials are calling for the US and NATO to leave? No, of course you don't see that. This is because the Afghani people don't really want the US to leave. They know it means the Taliban coming back to power and their heads on stakes once again.
So, what difference does it really make to you if civilians die there when afghani "local officials" don't personally want to see an end to NATO aggression against the Taliban anyway?
If you really care about the Afghani people, do what Roland did and try taking some time to understand the history of that area and the full scope of the situation that they're in.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Does not caring about the afghani people extend to not caring that US soldiers are killing innocent civilians there?
Asshole.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Do you see where it says that the afghanis are calling for the US and NATO to leave? I can't seem to find it.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Your references ti\o Iraq weren't lost on me, but the fact of the matter is that its the same principles at work here - whether its Iraq or Afghanistan. Its about the disregard for human life and the counterproductive measures that it has taken in these places. Lost on you, perhaps, were Karzai's repeated calls for greater communication with the Afghans in order that civilians stop getting blown to shit. But apparently this is a major problem for the Americans, b/c, well, they're not too big on being told what to do. Kind of a problem when you're dropping bombs in SOMEBODY ELSE'S COUNTRY, don't ya think ?
Sponger, people like you are scary. First you pose the question as to whether these incidents are happening, even laughing at the suggestion that it is happening with any frequency. Its not me that's hopelessly ignorant but you. Here's a life-lesson, and one you might want to grab hold of: just b/c YOU are not aware of something taking place, that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Then you find out that maybe, just maybe, it IS happening, and your response is to question the source. Let me guess, unless Centcom or Richard Pearle says its so, then it really isn't so, right ??? Lets get this straight, you are, in effect, questioning the very people who you claim are supporters of the U.S., and who want the U.S. there. Why would they lie ? Answer: they're not lying, and this is evident from witnesses associated with international relief agencies and other orgn's in these countries who often corroborate the assertions of the local people. I remember 2 or 3 incidents in iraq where the story never would have broke except that reporters were right there and witnessed it. One of them was a wedding party in western Iraq.
As for being ultra-left(as you claim), then I'm afraid that takes in a huge amount of the planet's population. Its not me but people like yourself that represent the minority in this world. And what a tiny minority it is. In case you haven't noticed, the U.S. stands largely ALONE.
Alright.
Now what?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I am seriously genius.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Right, and you know exactly what is going through the minds of NATO and US military commanders as they plan their bombing runs. A key part of warfare is having the element of surprise. You may have forgotten, but in vietnam, the US tried collaborating with indingenous forces such as the S. Vietnamese before launching strikes, and this often resulted in the intended targets receiving ample forewarning.
But, hey, you'd rather believe that the US is just arrogant and bull-headed, so that's what you're going to believe.
On many occasion, NATO claims that many of these "civilian" deaths are in fact taliban collaborators. Do you believe that the Taliban are wearing official "Taliban" uniforms and are hanging out in designated battle zones that are chosen for their safe distance from civilians? Who is ignorant?
You ask why the afghanis would complain about NATO airstrikes while at the same time supporting the effort against the Taliban. The answer is simply that everybody profits from playing the victim. Do you honestly think that the Afghanis don't strive to win the sympathy of anyone who would listen? Foreign aid doesn't just fall out of the sky for no reason. The more sympathy they evoke, the more support they can expect to receive. That's how it works in third world countries.
And sadly most people like yourself know next to nothing about how wars are fought or how third world politics work. As I have just explained, your understanding of the realities of battlefield tactics and the politics of the affected governments is very limited to only what you want to believe.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825