I think I'll plop my first post.... (1 Viewer)

[VTA]

Right here.
Hello all, I've been reading through the topics here the last day or so
and see like all forums, this one has losts of diversity and differing opinions.

There're alot of points in alot of posts I wanted to answer but figured a topic 20 pages long would be hard to wiggle in on, so I'll just comment on them here.

First thing I notice is the question of why Iraq and not another country.
With the UK attacks seeming to lead people to believe this furthers the opinion that we're in the wrong place, to me it confirms that this war is not at all about any one country.

With a Saudi national, aided by an Egyptian doctor working out of Afghanistan/Pakistan and handfuls of Syrians, Jordanians, Pakistani's, Morrocans, etc joining the Jihad, America can't realistically be expected to fight every country that aids terrorism, and it can't realistically be expected to fight it forever. An ideological change has to be instilled.

Perhaps Iraq was the right place to start. Creating an ally in Iraq may influence the region. Geographically located in the heart of the Middle East, changing the ideology that causes terrorism, Iraq can be a central democratic foothold in the center of a volatile region.

We can kill all the extremists until we're blue in the face; that's not going to change the root cause, and striking at that root means working on future generations of Middle Easterners. Not killing them, influencing their ideology. But unfortunately it all starts with a war...

Another advantage of Iraq is breaking up the silent coalition that was forming between Sadaam and the other countries involved in the oil for food scandal.

I think the administrations main fault was taking the WMD angle for validation. I have no idea if anyone thought they were there, or if they were and have been moved, (though it has been reported he had plenty of weapons deemed illegal by the cease-fire agreement from the 1st Gulf war), but I never once thought that this war was about that.

That's what I think this war is about...

I know I said I would comment on some issues, but I'll have to leave it at that for now. Don't hold it against me.:doh

 

[cnredd]

Welcome to Debate Politics, VTA!:2wave:

So far, you're 1-for-1 in my view...

I'd like to debate you, but I haven't seen anything to disagree with....yet.:2razz:

 

[mustafa]

Right here.
We can kill all the extremists until we're blue in the face; that's not going to change the root cause, and striking at that root means working on future generations of Middle Easterners. Not killing them, influencing their ideology. But unfortunately it all starts with a war...

Interesting how you put all the blame on them ... why don't you think that there is something wrong with U.S ??? ..... also , how you considered their countries somehow responsible and invovled with them ... just because their are from this or that country doesn't mean their countries are to to blame , don't you think ? ..... btw , isn't the terrorists who bombed britain were british ???? .....these terrorist are people with twisted minds and going after their country will not change that .... keep in mind that these people are driven by their hatred to U.S , not by who they are and where did they come from .... why when people see these terrorists hatred to U.S , they automatically think that their is something wrong with them and U.S is always right ???? I agree they have twisted minds but maybe U.S has treated them wrongly ... like the constant protection and veto in favor to Israel ....

 

[mustafa]

Right here.
We can kill all the extremists until we're blue in the face; that's not going to change the root cause, and striking at that root means working on future generations of Middle Easterners. Not killing them, influencing their ideology. But unfortunately it all starts with a war...

Interesting how you put all the blame on them ... why don't you think that there is something wrong with U.S ??? ..... also , how you considered their countries somehow responsible and invovled with them ... just because their are from this or that country doesn't mean their countries are to to blame , don't you think ? ..... btw , isn't the terrorists who bombed britain were british ???? .....these terrorist are people with twisted minds and going after their country and trying to change ideologies there is wrong because these people are minority , and the majority of population in their country is against their actions , so going after the majority for the deed of the minority is futile .... keep in mind that these people are driven by their hatred to U.S , not by who they are and where did they come from .... why when people see these terrorists hatred to U.S , they automatically think that their is something wrong with them and U.S is always right ???? I agree they have twisted minds but maybe U.S has treated them wrongly ... like the constant protection and veto in favor to Israel ....

 

[cnredd]

Interesting how you put all the blame on them ... why don't you think that there is something wrong with U.S ??? ..... also , how you considered their countries somehow responsible and invovled with them ... just because their are from this or that country doesn't mean their countries are to to blame , don't you think ? ..... btw , isn't the terrorists who bombed britain were british ???? .....these terrorist are people with twisted minds and going after their country and trying to change ideologies there is wrong because these people are minority , and the majority of population in their country is against their actions , so going after the majority for the deed of the minority is futile .... keep in mind that these people are driven by their hatred to U.S , not by who they are and where did they come from .... why when people see these terrorists hatred to U.S , they automatically think that their is something wrong with them and U.S is always right ???? I agree they have twisted minds but maybe U.S has treated them wrongly ... like the constant protection and veto in favor to Israel ....

1) 1972 Olympics hostage taking of 13 Isreali athletes
2) 1974 attack on an Israeli high school leaving 26 dead
3) 1974 TWA flight bombing killing 88.
4) 1975 Air France plane skyjacked. Israeli special forces rescue all but 3 hostages.
5) 1979 Tehran American Embassy attacked and 66 American hostages held.
6) 1979 Mosque in Mecca seized and 100s of hostages taken. Saudi and French military retake Mosque at a high price.
7) 1979 skyjacking and kidnapping of 66 Americans
8) 1980 Train Station bombing in Italy leaves 80 dead.
9) 1983 Embassy bombing in Beirut kills 63
10) 1983 Gulf Air Flight bombed killing 117.
11) 1983 Beirut Marine Bombing killed 241 Marines and a similar attack on a French barracks killing 58.
12) 1985 TWA Flight skyjacked and 153 civillians held hostage. One U.S. Sailor murdered.
13) 1985 Soviet Diplomats kidnapped and one is killed by Sunni Terrorists.
15) 1985 Egypt Air Flight skyjacked. 60 dead in rescue attempt.
16) 1985 Air India bombed killing 329.
17) 1985 Air Canada Aircraft bombed on the ground killing two in Japan.
18) 1985 Two seperate attacks in two seperate airports in Italy kills 16 total.
19) 1986 TWA bombing by Palestinians blow a hole in the cabin and 4 Americans are sucked out during the flight including one infant.
20) 1986 German Discotheque in Berlin bombed killing 3 U.S. servicemen and 230 others. America bombs Qadhafi in response.
21) 1986 Pan Am Flight hijacked. Terrorist open fire and kill 22 passengers.
22) 1987 North Korean Operatives plant a bomb on Korean Air Flight killing 115
23) 1987 Barcelona Bar bombed killing 1 service man.
24) 1987 USO in Naples bombed killing 1 service man.
25) 1988 Pan Am Flight bombed killing 259 over Scotland.
26) 1989 UTA Flight bombed killing 170.
27) 1992 Israeli Embassy bombed killing 29.
28) 1993 World Trade Center in New York bombed killing 6 and wounding more than a thousand.
29) 1993 U.S. Army ambushed by Al-Qaeda during Peace Keeping Mission in Somalia.
30) 1994 Jewish Center bombed killing 86.
31) Saudi Arabia military compound bombed killing 40.
32) 1997 Palastinian gunman open fires at the Empire State Building killing one American.
33) 1997 Four U.S. business men are killed in Pakistan.
34) 1998 Two American Embassy bombings by Al-Queda kill 301.
35) 2001 World Trade Center destroyed and Pentagon attacked by three seperate air planes killing almost 3,000 on American soil.

Are we to assume that EVERY ONE of these atrocities are because of US foreign policy?

They use terrorism because they believe it is a potent political platform...against the USA AND everyone else.

Coming to the table to negotiate would've been an option decades ago, but the ones who do this damage are not interested in other's opinion...they want full control & domination over the Middle East and they are willing to use the lives of their own in order to acheive their goals.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

1) 1972 Olympics hostage taking of 13 Isreali athletes
2) 1974 attack on an Israeli high school leaving 26 dead
3) 1974 TWA flight bombing killing 88.
4) 1975 Air France plane skyjacked. Israeli special forces rescue all but 3 hostages.
5) 1979 Tehran American Embassy attacked and 66 American hostages held.
6) 1979 Mosque in Mecca seized and 100s of hostages taken. Saudi and French military retake Mosque at a high price.
7) 1979 skyjacking and kidnapping of 66 Americans
8) 1980 Train Station bombing in Italy leaves 80 dead.
9) 1983 Embassy bombing in Beirut kills 63
10) 1983 Gulf Air Flight bombed killing 117.
11) 1983 Beirut Marine Bombing killed 241 Marines and a similar attack on a French barracks killing 58.
12) 1985 TWA Flight skyjacked and 153 civillians held hostage. One U.S. Sailor murdered.
13) 1985 Soviet Diplomats kidnapped and one is killed by Sunni Terrorists.
15) 1985 Egypt Air Flight skyjacked. 60 dead in rescue attempt.
16) 1985 Air India bombed killing 329.
17) 1985 Air Canada Aircraft bombed on the ground killing two in Japan.
18) 1985 Two seperate attacks in two seperate airports in Italy kills 16 total.
19) 1986 TWA bombing by Palestinians blow a hole in the cabin and 4 Americans are sucked out during the flight including one infant.
20) 1986 German Discotheque in Berlin bombed killing 3 U.S. servicemen and 230 others. America bombs Qadhafi in response.
21) 1986 Pan Am Flight hijacked. Terrorist open fire and kill 22 passengers.
22) 1987 North Korean Operatives plant a bomb on Korean Air Flight killing 115
23) 1987 Barcelona Bar bombed killing 1 service man.
24) 1987 USO in Naples bombed killing 1 service man.
25) 1988 Pan Am Flight bombed killing 259 over Scotland.
26) 1989 UTA Flight bombed killing 170.
27) 1992 Israeli Embassy bombed killing 29.
28) 1993 World Trade Center in New York bombed killing 6 and wounding more than a thousand.
29) 1993 U.S. Army ambushed by Al-Qaeda during Peace Keeping Mission in Somalia.
30) 1994 Jewish Center bombed killing 86.
31) Saudi Arabia military compound bombed killing 40.
32) 1997 Palastinian gunman open fires at the Empire State Building killing one American.
33) 1997 Four U.S. business men are killed in Pakistan.
34) 1998 Two American Embassy bombings by Al-Queda kill 301.
35) 2001 World Trade Center destroyed and Pentagon attacked by three seperate air planes killing almost 3,000 on American soil.

Are we to assume that EVERY ONE of these atrocities are because of US foreign policy?

They use terrorism because they believe it is a potent political platform...against the USA AND everyone else.

Coming to the table to negotiate would've been an option decades ago, but the ones who do this damage are not interested in other's opinion...they want full control & domination over the Middle East and they are willing to use the lives of their own in order to acheive their goals.

Great! And you didn't even go into the atrocities they have commited against their own people.

 

[VTA]

Interesting how you put all the blame on them ... why don't you think that there is something wrong with U.S ??? ..... also , how you considered their countries somehow responsible and invovled with them ... just because their are from this or that country doesn't mean their countries are to to blame , don't you think ? ..... btw , isn't the terrorists who bombed britain were british ???? .....these terrorist are people with twisted minds and going after their country and trying to change ideologies there is wrong because these people are minority , and the majority of population in their country is against their actions , so going after the majority for the deed of the minority is futile .... keep in mind that these people are driven by their hatred to U.S , not by who they are and where did they come from .... why when people see these terrorists hatred to U.S , they automatically think that their is something wrong with them and U.S is always right ???? I agree they have twisted minds but maybe U.S has treated them wrongly ... like the constant protection and veto in favor to Israel ....

I'm not really sure where you're coming from... You almost seem to be agreeing with me - not by who they are and where did they come from -as you put it, but an ideology and not a specific place - though the region is a good place to start. It's an ideology born in a region, not a specific country.

Both sides have complicity in this situation, and I don't think I've played the blame game, just observed things as they are. But as for 'why when their hatred is apparent' don't we do a bit of soul searching? Because their hatred isn't always directed at Americans. What exactly is the problem with Buddhists? Coptics? Fellow Muslims? It seems there is zero tolerance for anyone not in agreement with their way of life.

Sometimes you just have to accept that some people don't need an excuse to be bad. There's plenty of crime all over the world and always trying to find the why and arguing semantics as to how it's defined just clouds the issue.

Thanks for the greetings, cnredd. Maybe someday we'll disagree, eh?:2razz:

 

[cnredd]

Thanks for the greetings, cnredd. Maybe someday we'll disagree, eh?:2razz:

Count on it!:lol:

There is a guy on this forum by the name of "teacher"...when we first came into contact, the subject was "prostitution"...

teach & I butted heads for a week!...We were whacking each other upside the head with vim & vigor...No ground given...

On every other subject we've been totally agreeable and have become quite friendly with each other...No; not THAT way, you freak!:3oops:

I'm assuming if someone brings up prostitution again, it'll be round 2....

 

[nkgupta80]

Perhaps Iraq was the right place to start. Creating an ally in Iraq may influence the region. Geographically located in the heart of the Middle East, changing the ideology that causes terrorism, Iraq can be a central democratic foothold in the center of a volatile region.

This would make sense if we were not supporting other far more radical countries in the mid-east. I doubt we're gonna turn on Pakistan or even less conceivable Saudi Arabia. And don't give me the stuff about there being a possiblity of good change in those countries through diplomatic means.

We can kill all the extremists until we're blue in the face; that's not going to change the root cause, and striking at that root means working on future generations of Middle Easterners. Not killing them, influencing their ideology. But unfortunately it all starts with a war...

you are right. This should be the guiding principle of this war. However, it isn't hard to see the hypocrisy that the normal Arab people detect when the US supports their oppressive regimes. Remember most of these terrorists are from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. There is much pent up anger about US and European policies in the Iran-Iraqi wars. I think that in addition to spreading the idea of democracy, we should take a slightly apologetic stance towards the normal arab PEOPLE, the POTENTIAL terrorists, not the terrorists. We may think that its only the liberals that say the war is for oil or greed. Assuming it isn't, how can we say that the Arab people don't think that this war is only for oil and exploitation. The West was in the Mideast only for the oil in the firstplace.

 

[VTA]

This would make sense if we were not supporting other far more radical countries in the mid-east. I doubt we're gonna turn on Pakistan or even less conceivable Saudi Arabia. And don't give me the stuff about there being a possiblity of good change in those countries through diplomatic means.



you are right. This should be the guiding principle of this war. However, it isn't hard to see the hypocrisy that the normal Arab people detect when the US supports their oppressive regimes. Remember most of these terrorists are from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. There is much pent up anger about US and European policies in the Iran-Iraqi wars. I think that in addition to spreading the idea of democracy, we should take a slightly apologetic stance towards the normal arab PEOPLE, the POTENTIAL terrorists, not the terrorists. We may think that its only the liberals that say the war is for oil or greed. Assuming it isn't, how can we say that the Arab people don't think that this war is only for oil and exploitation. The West was in the Mideast only for the oil in the firstplace.

But as I questioned above, is it conceivable to play world police? Wouldn't that raise the ire of the crowds just as much? I think the questioning of 'Why Iraq'? is mostly dissembling and rhetoric and wouldn't be any quieter if we had gone into Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Or Syria or Iran. And again, those countries didn't come complete with the 'get out of the oil for food scandal free' pass. Of course those involved didn't take it, but that's their choice.

Iraq offered the best strategic starting point on both counts of making an attempt at changing an ideology and breaking up the OFF party, which was not in our best interests to have grow.

If this war works out - and unfortunately we won't really know what effects it will have for some years to come, and most likely they will be too ambiguous to be called a victory or a defeat - the region will change and Pak, Saudi & Syria will have no choice but to change with the times.

BTW, we get more oil from Canada, Venezuela and Mexico than we do from the Mid-East, if it were about oil (and it might very well be to some extent) as much as the other reasons, we could have conceivably started with the Saudi's. We didn't; just on their neighbors.

 

[nkgupta80]

But as I questioned above, is it conceivable to play world police? Wouldn't that raise the ire of the crowds just as much? I think the questioning of 'Why Iraq'? is mostly dissembling and rhetoric and wouldn't be any quieter if we had gone into Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Or Syria or Iran. And again, those countries didn't come complete with the 'get out of the oil for food scandal free' pass. Of course those involved didn't take it, but that's their choice.

Afghanistan did not give the same rhetoric that Iraq had received.

Iraq offered the best strategic starting point on both counts of making an attempt at changing an ideology and breaking up the OFF party, which was not in our best interests to have grow.

The strategic starting point idea is arguable. However as a change in ideology, Sadaam's regime was not Islamic fundementalist. Yes he was a crazed tyrant, but he was the likes of say Stalin or non-religious dictators in Africa/South America. In terms of Islam Iraq was actually one of the most progressive. So wouldn't common sense dictate that the ideal place to start a change would be a country headed by a fundementalist government?

If this war works out - and unfortunately we won't really know what effects it will have for some years to come, and most likely they will be too ambiguous to be called a victory or a defeat - the region will change and Pak, Saudi & Syria will have no choice but to change with the times.

yes the region will change in time, but thats regardless of US involvement in Iraq. Fact of the matter is, regardless of the Iraqi war, we're still as prone to terrorism as before. Thus was it imperative that we attack Iraq when that money could be spent in more worthwile situations?

BTW, we get more oil from Canada, Venezuela and Mexico than we do from the Mid-East, if it were about oil (and it might very well be to some extent) as much as the other reasons, we could have conceivably started with the Saudi's. We didn't; just on their neighbors.

it isn't that we don't have other places. The point is that oil is what gives a country power. The more control you have over it, the greater your economic and military security. Yes, btw, Canada is the number one exporter of oil to the US. But our investments in the Mid East are more profitable for the Oil corporations. And they are a sizeable oil source for the US. Quality there is much better.

See, we have Saudi Arabia in our hands. That is why we don't attack them. Even if we were to attack them, we'd be in the holiest Muslim Place. Think about what unrest that would incite.

 

[teacher]

Well lookie here. Big long term picture stuff.

Right here.
Hello all,

Welcome.

First thing I notice is the question of why Iraq and not another country.

Strategically placed.
Got oil?
Saddam WAS a bad guy.
Other Arabs not to fond of him.
Not a theocracy.
Job half done anyway.

With the UK attacks seeming to lead people to believe this furthers the opinion that we're in the wrong place, to me it confirms that this war is not at all about any one country.

Don't take this the wrong way, but, you're just realising this?

An ideological change has to be instilled.

Hearts and minds.

Perhaps Iraq was the right place to start. Creating an ally in Iraq may influence the region.

Will. The oppressed in nearby countries now can look at Iraq and allow themselves to hope.

We can kill all the extremists until we're blue in the face; that's not going to change the root cause, and striking at that root means working on future generations of Middle Easterners. Not killing them, influencing their ideology. But unfortunately it all starts with a war...

Hearts and minds.

Another advantage of Iraq is breaking up the silent coalition that was forming between Sadaam and the other countries involved in the oil for food scandal.

Like the French maybe? Perhaps I should express my views on them. Nah.

I think the administrations main fault was taking the WMD angle for validation. I have no idea if anyone thought they were there, or if they were and have been moved,

Everybody in the friggin world agreed he had them. They're in Syria.

That's what I think this war is about...

More. Follow your train of thought.

 

[nkgupta80]

Will. The oppressed in nearby countries now can look at Iraq and allow themselves to hope.

and thats all they're gonna have.. hope. The Pakistanis would do that while lookin at India, but with US aid Pakistan is still gonna be an oppressive shithole. Saudi Arabia's regime is US backed, so all its people have is hope and then the devilish opportunity to join terrorists.

 

[VTA]

Well lookie here. Big long term picture stuff.

Welcome.

Strategically placed.
Got oil?
Saddam WAS a bad guy.
Other Arabs not to fond of him.
Not a theocracy.
Job half done anyway.

Don't take this the wrong way, but, you're just realising this?

Hearts and minds.

Will. The oppressed in nearby countries now can look at Iraq and allow themselves to hope.

Hearts and minds.

Like the French maybe? Perhaps I should express my views on them. Nah.

Everybody in the friggin world agreed he had them. They're in Syria.

More. Follow your train of thought.

In succession:
Thank you.
Exactly.
Nope.
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Don't forget China, Russia, and a few others who've slipped my mind, and only if you feel like it.
Could be.
?