1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzMy point is .. Every country that has participated in the war on terrorism are targets. To my mind that s a just war that must be fought. If the UK govt has decided that they dont want to be targets then they should back off and withdraw support for the cause. But its their responsibility to protect their borders .. it has nothing to do with the US.
SO the frequency of terrorist attcks may (or may not) have went down in the US, but up everywhere else as a result. Nice.
Originally posted by Rajk999What's being in Iraq got to do with protecting their borders ?!!
My point is .. Every country that has participated in the war on terrorism are targets. To my mind that s a just war that must be fought. If the UK govt has decided that they dont want to be targets then they should back off and withdraw support for the cause. But its their responsibility to protect their borders .. it has nothing to do with the US.
Originally posted by STANGYou asked that question before dummy and I answered it. Here is it again and dont ask the same question again :
What's being in Iraq got to do with protecting their borders ?!!
*****************************************
Originally posted by STANG
We were getting somewhere on the opening post.
Why can't you find an example yourself ?
Let's start with the invasion of Iraq.
It's the fact that America doesn't acknowledge these things that lead to frustration and attack. America thinks it's a do-gooder. So do those who attempt to eliminate the infidels.
**********************************************
My Answer :
Thanks . Invasion of Iraq. You know the facts but I will repeat them for the benefit of anyone who does not :
1. Saddam attacked Kuwait in 1991, killed murdered and raped citizens. Kuwati GOvt asked the US for assistance.
2. The US withdrew and Saddam proceeded to gas (from his stockpile of WMDs ) the Kurds, his own people, leading to the death of about 300K.
3. He also attacked Israel with scud missiles and Israel did not retaliate.
4. Between 1992 and 2004, the UN had weapons inspectors in Iraq but Saddam often expelled them for months at a time making the inspection process pointless.
5. Saddam is on record as saying that he will destroy the US.
6. Saddam said that the Iraqi Govt gives $25,000 US to the surviving family of every Palestinian suicide bomber - Saddam is therefore a supporter of terrorism.
Those are some of the facts. There is much more but from those alone I would support Bush making an excuse about WMDs and going in to kick his ass and help the Iraqi citizens change their govt.
The US used their power to overthrough a dangerous dictator who was proving himself to be a bully in the region and to the world as whole. Thats not an abuse of power.
Originally posted by CliffLandinThe US had terrorist attacks prior to 9-11. The WTC was bombed I think in 93? No one can ever prevent a terrorist attack if someone really wants to do it. I can make a bomb with the common household cleaners that are under the sink of my house if I so choose to thanks to my instructors who taught me when I was in the Army. Look at what McVeigh did with some fertilizer, diesel, and homemade detonators. We have a porous border here in the US. Hell I had illegals jumping in my backyard prior to putting a couple of pits in the yard. They would run away from the Border Patrol via my backyard. I attribute the lack of an attack on the US soil due to the terrorists being too busy overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting our troops there. You ask most soldiers and they will tell you that they would rather be fighting overthere than in our own backyard. It has nothing to do with Bush. I was not in favor of attacking Iraq. Hell we killed off most of his Army in 91. We killed so many of them that we stacked them up like cordwood. We should have went into Iran instead, as far as I'm concerned. As a veteran and as a father who has sons who either are in the military or soon will be yes I'm concerned about the war. No one currently serving in the military is there because of a draft. All are volunteers who have chosen the military lifestyle and all have my respect and gratitude. It takes a special person to put their ass on the line and thats why I defend them on these posts from people who don't have a dog in the fight per se. Europeans who have nothing to do but bitch about the US and people over here who generally anti-military who have never served or will never serve but feel they can abuse the troops due to their free speech rights. Rights that they have because of so-called "baby killers" that anal orifices like STANG browbeats every chance he can. Do I believe there will be another attack? Yes unfortunately I do. I just hope that when it does happen and we find out who is at fault that the naysayers will STFU and let the wrath of the military bring back major payback. Nuff said.
So what do you attribute to the lack of attacks before 9/11? It was eight years after their first attempt and the 9/11 attack. Without the Homeland Security or the PATRIOT Act we went 8 years. So why do you think that they would attack again right after a successful attack? There is nothing to show that we have been doing anything that has really thwarted an attack.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzok, so you are saying comply with terrorist and in return the frequency at which they attack will diminish? Brilliant! These terrorist will attack no matter what, they want to kill all 'infidels'. Living in your theoretical world only puts lives in danger.
The US has adopted your style of foreign policy for the last 50 years, the attitude that 'we can go in to other countrys, do what we like and suffer no retaliation'. 9/11 was the result. Wake up. Keep on with this imperialist crap and you'll have terrorist attacks. Clean up your own behaviour as a nation and the terrorist attacks will desist, or at least be reduced in frequency.
prior to 9-11 we were not in iraq or afghanistan, blowing up 2 building brought us there. If you want to blame anyone for our presence in those 2 countries you should blame the terrorists. Or you can blame France and Russia both of whom had they stood by the u.s. and great britian Iraq may have complied with the inspectors and backed down. Instead, due to bribes from Oil for Food monies, they sided with Iraq. Also, I saw a report on CNN the other day that said many segments of the terrorist network are very upset that 9-11 happened because of the retaliation it caused.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenGood Post! You also get a rec.
sure there is mid ground. you weigh the risk/reward; their intelligence may have said top terrorists, ie, many top level terrorists, in that case certain amount of collateral damage would have to be accepted. but this was not in a well populated area and it does appear very high level terrorists were suppose to be there, and some were/killed. Look ...[text shortened]... everyone on this site says every time america does someting its wrong and that is just not true.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Did'nt the Bali and Malaysia bombings kill mostly tourists and foreigners ? I dont understand the rest of your post about the cause and effect. The history of violence in Iraq and the war on terrorism is reason for the Iraq invasion . 9/11 just provided the catalyst and courage to go back in because Saddam by his own admission is a supporter of terroris. . Everything does not revolve around 9/11. Terrorist attacks have been going on on US interests for over 30 years.
Did Bali and Malaysia send troops to Iraq? I'm pretty sure they didn't. Do you recall that before the Madrid train bombings, the opposition candidate, who was leading in the polls at the time, ... . These extremists want this "clash of civilizations" and when it looked like they weren't going to get it in two places, they attacked.
Can anybody claim that there was a war where no civilians were killed? I don't think so. Civilians getting killed in a war is a sad fact of life and anybody who thinks that there is a way to fight a war without civilian losses is smoking better sheeeeeet than I've ever had and I would like to get to know your connections.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Hey ... I am not Shavix .. I dont laugh at people dying whether guilty or innocent. Death should be avoided as much as possible and peaceful means should be sought after first for all conflict resolution. Even terrorists should be caught alive and put in Siberia to live out their days. But there comes a time when you have to say enough is enough and the US reached that boiling point on 9/11.
Well your post certainly suggested that people blowing up Iraqi civilians are justified, and I don't know what side of the argument you're on.
Originally posted by slimjimThis is what I posted:
The US had terrorist attacks prior to 9-11. The WTC was bombed I think in 93? No one can ever prevent a terrorist attack if someone really wants to do it. I can make a bomb with the common household cleaners that are under the sink of my house if I so choose to thanks to my instructors who taught me when I was in the Army. Look at what McVeigh did with some ...[text shortened]... naysayers will STFU and let the wrath of the military bring back major payback. Nuff said.
So what do you attribute to the lack of attacks before 9/11? It was eight years after their first attempt and the 9/11 attack. Without the Homeland Security or the PATRIOT Act we went 8 years. So why do you think that they would attack again right after a successful attack? There is nothing to show that we have been doing anything that has really thwarted an attack.
You responded;
The US had terrorist attacks prior to 9-11. The WTC was bombed in '93.
What reasons do you give for the eight year gap in attacks by foriegn terrorist on US soil. There was no war on terror then. Nor was there the Homeland Security or the PATRIOT Act. So why didn't they just attack again right after the WTC bombing?
It has only been 5 years since the attacks on the WTC. They used box cutters for crying out loud. They didn't need huge amounts of money, nor did they need sophisticated weapons. The whole war on terror is a farce designed to appease the guilty conscience of an inept president and your children are paying the price for it.