Just fire 2 blasts outside your window
-
@dhromed said:
Because in the real world, you can't fix thing #1, check it off the list and do thing #2, and so on. You have to tackle all things sort of at once. A similar argument is sometimes brought against space exploration, and it's just as silly and easily removed.
@Rosie O'Donnell said:
-
@dhromed said:
Sometimes I think it's odd that these kind of supernations exist.
E pluribus unum
If we weren't united we wouldn't be a global superpower.
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
I think they shouldn't have changed it from Department of War.
War is an ever so slightly loaded idea. Defense currently refers to the apparatus of organized combat between nations, so it's more than just a euphemism for war.Yes, I like the more loaded term. Not because it's loaded, but because it's more blunt. Even better would be the Department of Killing People and Breaking Stuff. Because that's what it's really for, and I don't want to hide that. I would have said that War is more about the apparatus than Defense. We can defend against all sorts of things (tanks, asteroids, killer bees).
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
Yes, trying to help out the poor brown people was probably a mistake. I think most Americans have come around to the view that we shouldn't go by the "Pottery Barn Rule," and should have just left once our military objectives were complete. The difference between the ICC approach and ours is that more of the casualties happen somewhere else. Assuming you live in western Europe, don't pretend that you haven't benefited from this, either. Much better to burn off the excess jihadi portion of the middle eastern population in Iraq than Europe or America.
Apart from "leaving once our military objectives were complete", I have no idea what this means.The real bloodbath in the Iraq war was after major combat operations were over. It was the insurgency, which was a huge magnet for young men from nearby areas, especially Saudi Arabia. So thousands of these guys, who were excited to go fight and become martyrs, fought and died in Iraq. It's tragic, of course, for all of the Iraqi people around whom this took place (though not necessarily worse than having Saddam still in charge). But every crazy suicide bomber who died in Iraq was one less available to go somewhere else. And the Americans that were killed were in general Americans who were trained to shoot back, so they fared a lot better than civilians would have.
-
A former Secretary of State - Pre Spanish American War : 'our policy of non-intervention — straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'" and insisted that "[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference
-
@boomzilla said:
The real bloodbath in the Iraq war was after major combat operations were over. It was the insurgency, which was a huge magnet for young men from nearby areas, especially Saudi Arabia. So thousands of these guys, who were excited to go fight and become martyrs, fought and died in Iraq. It's tragic, of course, for all of the Iraqi people around whom this took place (though not necessarily worse than having Saddam still in charge). But every crazy suicide bomber who died in Iraq was one less available to go somewhere else. And the Americans that were killed were in general Americans who were trained to shoot back, so they fared a lot better than civilians would have.
So, you attempt to justify the illegal invasion by reference to the USA's wish to use the civilian population of Iraq as human shields in your war against an unrelated third party.And still you wonder why everyone despises you?
-
@boomzilla said:
Much better to burn off the excess jihadi portion of the middle eastern population in Iraq than Europe or America.
Much better to have not created the "excess jihadi portion" with US meddling in the Middle East at all.
And "burn off"? Really? You are aware of the rate of civilian death in all of the various Middle East conflicts exceeds that of the "excess jihadi"?
Or, is it that you want to show yourself as an arrogant American, in order to reinforce the stereotypes that the rest of the world hold?
-
@boomzilla said:
but I suppose it must be the sort of people who read language like, "Congress shall pass no law," and think that there is a hidden section that says, "...except..."
ObOT: Reading various RSS feeds recently (/. comes to mind, but there have been others) I was under the impression that there was such a hidden section. PRISM for example... (Not that it was a law, just a blatant disregard for those that already exist.)
-
@DaveK said:
So, you attempt to justify the illegal invasion by reference to the USA's wish to use the civilian population of Iraq as human shields in your war against an unrelated third party.
TDEMSYR. There was no illegal invasion.
@DaveK said:
And still you wonder why everyone despises you?
Not really. I understand now that it's an international conspiracy of shoulder aliens.
-
@scudsucker said:
@boomzilla said:
Much better to burn off the excess jihadi portion of the middle eastern population in Iraq than Europe or America.
Much better to have not created the "excess jihadi portion" with US meddling in the Middle East at all.HAHAHAHAHA. Yeah, we totally created all of that.
@scudsucker said:
And "burn off"? Really? You are aware of the rate of civilian death in all of the various Middle East conflicts exceeds that of the "excess jihadi"?
Yes, it's a pretty terrible place.
-
@boomzilla said:
HAHAHAHAHA. Yeah, we totally created all of that.
In the country in which I grew up, we studied world history. But I'll helpfully point you to Wikipedia so you can refresh yourself with the growth and deleterious effects of US influence in the Middle East:
If you look carefully at history, you can see why there are "excess jihadis" in the Arab countries. They are there as a direct result of US foreign policy. You burnt your goodwill in the region, and the wider world, which directly led to your "war on terror"
In turn, your "war on terror" by indiscriminately killing civilians (via drones and helicopter gunships) and your utter failure to set up any form of government in the two countries the US invaded (and let's not forget destabilising Pakistan) encourages ordinary people to become jihadis.
Winning hearts and minds, indeed. Mission accomplished there.
-
@scudsucker said:
If you look carefully at history, you can see why there are "excess jihadis" in the Arab countries. They are there as a direct result of US foreign policy. You burnt your goodwill in the region, and the wider world, which directly led to your "war on terror"
Oh, yeah, we totally made them go all crazy Islamic fundamentalist.
@scudsucker said:
In turn, your "war on terror" by indiscriminately killing civilians (via drones and helicopter gunships) and your utter failure to set up any form of government in the two countries the US invaded (and let's not forget destabilising Pakistan) encourages ordinary people to become jihadis.
The shoulder aliens are strong in this one. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what "indiscriminately" means. Still, the rest of this is just obviously wrong. Well, I suppose we maybe helped to destabilize Pakistan, but there are so many reasons for it to be unstable that it's probably a chicken and egg thing.
-
I realise ad-hominem insults are the standard form of argument here, but let's just focus for a little while on one source of Islamic Fundamentalism, Iran. Do you think that the strong support of the Shah was a good or bad thing in that country? Do you think that the Iranian Revolution - fuelled by militant Islam - would have occurred if, instead of supporting a brutal absolute monarch for US selfish interests, you had encouraged democracy in the region.
Militant Islam in that country was a natural response: all over the world rebellions have hung their flag on some unifying cause. Islam, being the largest religion, is an obvious rallying point. The militarism, unfortunately, is a symptom of the anger that leads to a revolution.And, perhaps our definitions of "indiscriminate" are different. Mine refers to killing people without any real knowledge of who you are pointing your missile at, and then counting all adults killed as targets. I refer, as an example to the wedding at Wech Baghtu, November 3, 2008, where 63 people were killed in a US airstrike.
A wedding. But perhaps, killing the women and children who are at a wedding as collateral damage, when you got some (allegedly) "militants" at the same time is not "indiscriminate" to you? Or were all women, children and supposed "militants" an acceptable target?
-
@scudsucker said:
I realise ad-hominem insults are the standard form of argument here, but let's just focus for a little while on one source of Islamic Fundamentalism, Iran. Do you think that the strong support of the Shah was a good or bad thing in that country? Do you think that the Iranian Revolution - fuelled by militant Islam - would have occurred if, instead of supporting a brutal absolute monarch for US selfish interests, you had encouraged democracy in the region.
From my reading of your points, we supported brutal regimes (i.e. Shaw) and so it's our fault there are problems in the mid east; we actively sanction brutal regimes (i.e. Ayatollahs) and it's our fault there are problems in the mid east; we do NOTHING (i.e. Assad) and it's our fault there are problems in the mid east. Did it ever occur to you that there are just some problems in the mid east?
Militant Islam in that country was a natural response: all over the world rebellions have hung their flag on some unifying cause. Islam, being the largest religion, is an obvious rallying point. The militarism, unfortunately, is a symptom of the anger that leads to a revolution.
And, perhaps our definitions of "indiscriminate" are different. Mine refers to killing people without any real knowledge of who you are pointing your missile at, and then counting all adults killed as targets. I refer, as an example to the wedding at Wech Baghtu, November 3, 2008, where 63 people were killed in a US airstrike.
A wedding. But perhaps, killing the women and children who are at a wedding as collateral damage, when you got some (allegedly) "militants" at the same time is not "indiscriminate" to you? Or were all women, children and supposed "militants" an acceptable target?
-
@rad131304 said:
Did it ever occur to you that there are just some problems in the mid east?
I concede there probably would be problems in the Middle East anyway. However, the people in the Middle East would not hate the US as much as they do. US interventionism made you a target of hatred; for this you have only yourselves to blame.
-
@scudsucker said:
@rad131304 said:
But we get hated when we don't intervene, which makes the argument bullshit. We've made plenty of specific mistakes in how we've handled relations with many foreign powers and insurgent groups (assassinations in Iran, supporting insurgents in Afghanistan against the USSR but not helping clean up afterwards, supporting corrupt regimes like Egypt, Syria, and the Shah of Iran, etc.), but none of those mistakes lead me to believe that, had we acted any differently, we'd be any less hated.Did it ever occur to you that there are just some problems in the mid east?
I concede there probably would be problems in the Middle East anyway. However, the people in the Middle East would not hate the US as much as they do. US interventionism made you a target of hatred; for this you have only yourselves to blame.
-
I think, that if you had not interfered at all, there would be no reason for hatred.
In which cases where the US has not intervened, has there been any fallout for the US?
-
@scudsucker said:
Do you think that the Iranian Revolution - fuelled by militant Islam - would have occurred if, instead of supporting a brutal absolute monarch for
USBritish selfish interests, you had encouraged democracy in the region.FTFY. I suspect the reason the US finally agreed to go along with the Brits was Cold War related. Realpolitik is a bitch.
I think that the post-WWI breakup that removed the Ottoman control allowed a bunch of people to take over without any reasonable established institutions. I think some of Mosaddegh's reforms were good, but some probably went too far (e.g., collectivizing farms). Unfortunately, the predominant religion has not outgrown its militancy and is possibly getting more militant, and has been used to fill a lot of institutional gaps. It helps that Islam was meant to govern religious and secular things.
@scudsucker said:And, perhaps our definitions of "indiscriminate" are different. Mine refers to killing people without any real knowledge of who you are pointing your missile at, and then counting all adults killed as targets. I refer, as an example to the wedding at Wech Baghtu, November 3, 2008, where 63 people were killed in a US airstrike.
OK, then apparently you don't understand the difference between being wrong and not caring.
-
Incidentally guys...
War costs billions to wage. Hospitals and schools cost millions to build.
You only need to spend a barest fraction of 1% of your war spending on building hospitals, and you start to win hearts and minds. To my knowledge, you have never done this.
I'm sure someone like boomzilla will have a glib answer to this, but to any reasonable person its pretty obvious that you could have easily avoided the war on terror, and it would have cost you absolutely nothing.
-
@scudsucker said:
I think, that if you had not interfered at all, there would be no reason for hatred.
Syria.
In which cases where the US has not intervened, has there been any fallout for the US?
-
@scudsucker said:
In which cases where the US has not intervened, has there been any fallout for the US?
I'm not aware of any US intervention in Saudi Arabia, aside from being their ally and defending them from some of their psychotic neighbors.
-
@eViLegion said:
You only need to spend a barest fraction of 1% of your war spending on building hospitals, and you start to win hearts and minds. To my knowledge, you have never done this.
Except for those billions we spent in Afghanistan building schools and hospitals and roads ...
-
@eViLegion said:
You only need to spend a barest fraction of 1% of your war spending on building hospitals, and you start to win hearts and minds. To my knowledge, you have never done this.
How about after WWII?
-
@boomzilla said:
I'm not aware of any US intervention in Saudi Arabia, aside from being their ally and defending them from some of their psychotic neighbors.
Propping up another totalitarian regime in a region that is already unstable is, in your eyes "non intervention"?
-
@eViLegion said:
You only need to spend a barest fraction of 1% of your war spending on building hospitals, and you start to win hearts and minds. To my knowledge, you have never done this.
We already know that. Why do you seem so proud of being ignorant?
-
@scudsucker said:
@boomzilla said:
I'm not aware of any US intervention in Saudi Arabia, aside from being their ally and defending them from some of their psychotic neighbors.
Propping up another totalitarian regime in a region that is already unstable is, in your eyes "non intervention"?How did we prop it up? You make it sound like it was teetering on the edge of disappearing but for us making sure Saddam never invaded (OK, from that perspective maybe it makes some sense, but still). But yeah, the Saudi regime was preferable to Super Iraq.
-
@boomzilla said:
But yeah, the Saudi regime was preferable to Super Iraq.
This is true. For the US, and for the US's interest in Israel. And possibly gives you reason to do so. I can't imagine that this makes too many people in Iraq and surrounding areas fall in love with your foreign policy, however.
And still not a very good example of a time/place where non-intervention earned you any hatred.
-
@rad131304 said:
How about after WWII?
That is a very good point.
And while the motives for helping to rebuild Germany post WWII in my opinion are very strongly cold-war related, in doing do Germany became a strong ally, even after unification.
-
@scudsucker said:
@boomzilla said:
But yeah, the Saudi regime was preferable to Super Iraq.
This is true. For the US, and for the US's interest in Israel. And possibly gives you reason to do so. I can't imagine that this makes too many people in Iraq and surrounding areas fall in love with your foreign policy, however.
And still not a very good example of a time/place where non-intervention earned you any hatred.WTF. Yeah, fighting the Nazis didn't produce a lot of fans in Germany, either. You haven't told me how we intervened in their country in the first place, but I'm glad you brought up Israel, because their relatively excellent treatment of Palestinians (compared with their Arab neighbors) shows how much nonsense in the region relies on scapegoating to deflect attention from local deficiencies.
-
@eViLegion said:
@boomzilla said:
We know. That's how we can tell we're doing something right.
Because systematically antagonising virtually every other country in the world, not to mention the worlds fastest growing religion, for decade upon decade, while your economy begins to stagnate, is a recipe for success, right?
Your bed of roses is almost ready guys, prepare to inhale the odour.Apparently you're totally blind to the fact that the Democrats have done exactly everything in that list that you just gave as reasons to hate the Republicans.
And so has G.B./England/WhateverItIsTheseDays.
Disregarding the fact that the "fastest growing religion" is doing so because their M.O. is to outgrow the local population and establish their religious law as the national law (see Indonesia). Disregarding that the behavior of that "fastest growing religion" is exactly the behavior that those people who hate the Republicans hate the Republican pet religion for doing
I've heard it said that there should be separation of church and state, and that "conservative american religion" should stop legislating its morality. Well guess what, once that "fastest growing religion" gains the majority control, I know exactly what it's going to do, and you won't have a chance to complain about it, because they won't stop at protesting and writing up senators.
If Egypt isn't warning enough that the "peaceful religion" isn't so peaceful, then I pity you. You have been warned, substantially forewarned. France has the right idea (for once, ZOMG for once).
Sometimes you have to offend somebody to ensure they don't establish their totalitarian regime in your backyard.Mod: fixed quoting. Surely you're not reading this in tree mode? Trees are for chumps! –dh
-
@xaade said:
Sometimes you have to offend somebody to ensure they don't establish their totalitarian regime in your backyard.
Frightful fantasies are not a good basis for policy.
-
@DaveK said:
So, you attempt to justify the illegal invasion
What illegal invasion?
@DaveK said:
by reference to the USA's wish to use the civilian population of Iraq as human shields
When did that happen?
@DaveK said:
in your war against an unrelated third party.
Which war was this? The war against the guy who used weapons of mass destruction only years previous on his own population? That guy? The guy who, while it's true he did not have functioning WMD at the time of the invasion, gave every indication to every UN and US official that he did? The guy who had spit in the face of a dozen UN resolutions, the last of which BTW did actually give the framework making the invasion legal? That guy?
@DaveK said:
And still you wonder why everyone despises you?
Actually I wonder where you're being fed this shit propaganda.
-
@scudsucker said:
If you look carefully at history, you can see why there are "excess jihadis" in the Arab countries. They are there as a direct result of US foreign policy.
Ok; you have the A portion of the test, where the US does intervene. Now show me the B where the US does not to demonstrate cau-- oh what's that? You can't? You're just speaking out your ass? You have no way of verifying or proving your words? Oh.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Ok; you have the A portion of the test, where the US does intervene. Now show me the B where the US does not to demonstrate cau-- oh what's that? You can't? You're just speaking out your ass? You have no way of verifying or proving your words? Oh.
So there's no way of learning from history ever because historical events can only unfold one way and therefore it's impossible to determine causal relationships?
-
@joe.edwards said:
So there's no way of learning from history ever because historical events can only unfold one way and therefore it's impossible to determine causal relationships?
Correct, because when it comes to history, which is just human interaction, there is actually no way to have the same (or similar enough for purposes of this discussion) sequence of events occur given the same inputs.
People (and even individuals) do not really act in a deterministic manner. So we can use history to say things like "look, war is bad, lots of people and stuff get blown up" and we might be able to say "people used this particular event as justification for their behavior" but since those situations - and more importantly involving those same people - never occur twice, history cannot be predictive.
History is not by any stretch of the imagination a predictive science. It might have some general trends like "if you make people mad enough they may resort to violence" but it's incapable of making statements like "if you do this particular thing to this particular group they will get mad enough to resort to violence."
-
Don't be stupid. You do have to have actual measurable data, though, which has not yet been brought to the table.
-
@xaade said:
Apparently you're totally blind to the fact that the Democrats have done exactly everything in that list that you just gave as reasons to hate the Republicans.
And so has G.B./England/WhateverItIsTheseDays.
Disregarding the fact that the "fastest growing religion" is doing so because their M.O. is to outgrow the local population and establish their religious law as the national law (see Indonesia). Disregarding that the behavior of that "fastest growing religion" is exactly the behavior that those people who hate the Republicans hate the Republican pet religion for doing
I've heard it said that there should be separation of church and state, and that "conservative american religion" should stop legislating its morality. Well guess what, once that "fastest growing religion" gains the majority control, I know exactly what it's going to do, and you won't have a chance to complain about it, because they won't stop at protesting and writing up senators.
If Egypt isn't warning enough that the "peaceful religion" isn't so peaceful, then I pity you. You have been warned, substantially forewarned. France has the right idea (for once, ZOMG for once).
Sometimes you have to offend somebody to ensure they don't establish their totalitarian regime in your backyard.Mod: fixed quoting. Surely you're not reading this in tree mode? Trees are for chumps! –dh
So, then, if the democrats are doing it as well, that is obviously likely to make Muslims hate America less?
You're right, UK has done a lot of the same. However, in most cases this is because the US is our strongest ally, and we're not so fucking stupid to disagree with you... we kinda like all the benefits that comes from being a close friend, and NATO ally, of your nation. It doesn't stop it being kinda annoying that we're essentially a vassal state, who pretty much have to do what you tell us. So if you tell us to go to war with someone, that is what we're gonna do. Doesn't mean we like it.
Incidentally, the UK has been called the UK for longer than your country has existed. I just want to put your confusion over the name into some kind of perspective.
What does it matter why Islam is growing fast? Like it or not, it IS growing fast, and thus it is probably not wise to antagonise it. Perhaps you think it is wise?
I never said the religion was peaceful. I'm not quite sure what you're arguing against here. I'm not in favour of Islam, at all. I'm an Atheist, for obvious reasons. But I'm trying to point out that there are some genuine reasons why a large number of people hate America. Like stomping all over their countries with the result that a lot of stuff gets blown up, and a lot of innocent people get killed. Christians would totally hate you for that as well, because it's not a question of religion, it's a question of human nature; no-one likes their friends and relatives and stuff to get destroyed.
-
@eViLegion said:
But I'm trying to point out that there are some genuine reasons why a large number of people hate America. Like stomping all over their countries with the result that a lot of stuff gets blown up, and a lot of innocent people get killed.
So we have no reasons to hate them? They crashed two passenger planes into civilian buildings, after trying to unsuccessfully blow them up with a truck and after bombing a naval ship and several of our embassies.
-
@eViLegion said:
What does it matter why Islam is growing fast? Like it or not, it IS growing fast, and thus it is probably not wise to antagonise it. Perhaps you think it is wise?
So we should just like back and think of UK?
-
@rad131304 said:
@eViLegion said:
But I'm trying to point out that there are some genuine reasons why a large number of people hate America. Like stomping all over their countries with the result that a lot of stuff gets blown up, and a lot of innocent people get killed.
So we have no reasons to hate them? They crashed two passenger planes into civilian buildings, after trying to unsuccessfully blow them up with a truck and after bombing a naval ship and several of our embassies.There is a crucial difference:
Yeah, but you're hating on millions of people because of the actions of a around 100 of them, who are not representative. They destroyed 2 buildings, and killed around 3000 people.
Whereas, they're hating on millions of people, because of the actions of hundreds of thousands of them, who ARE sanctioned representatives of that 300 million. They have destroyed countless buildings and infrastructure, completely removed legitimate governments (who weren't actually involved in the terrorism, as it happens), and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
So, yeah, both types of hatred are pretty irrational, but if you're gonna try and apply some numbers to it, your hatred is many times more irrational.
@rad131304 said:
They...
Who the fuck are they? Do you mean a bunch of Afghan shepherds? You see, I'm pretty sure the terrorists you're talking about came from UAE, Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of places, but none of the 911 guys were Afgahns, nor Iraqi.
-
@boomzilla said:
So we should just like back and think of UK?
No, you should just leave it the fuck alone.
You certainly shouldn't invade two countries that basically had nothing to do with it, because that is simply insane.
-
@eViLegion said:
@boomzilla said:
So we should just like back and think of UK?
No, you should just leave it the fuck alone.
You certainly shouldn't invade two countries that basically had nothing to do with it, because that is simply insane.Why are you still spouting this nonsense? I thought you guys had media that gave you good information about what happened in the world.
-
Man, you are so blind.
I can count, on one hand, the number of Islamic ministers who have decried the actions of the terrorist regimes. However, I can't count the number of Pastors that have decried the actions of radical "Christians".
I honestly believe that there is a small set of people who don't give a lick about Islam who are training a bunch of naive kids to blow themselves up in the name of a religion they don't understand. Why? Because we find said leaders in hooker joints when they come to the States or Europe.
But that's only one small subset of the problem.
We also have Syria, where the radical Islamic sect threw out the Moderates in the rebellion, because the radical sect wants to re-establish a Theocracy where they can throw acid on their wives faces when they forget to bring a son or brother with them while they go get water for their family. That culture is the antithesis of any conceptual form of freedom, and I honestly don't give a rats buttocks if we offend them.
The American President went to war in Libya and Syria without The Peoples' consent (a congressional vote). He actively continued to support the "rebellion" after the extremists dismantled the moderates support. In my mind, that's nothing more than supporting terrorism.
And people continue to bash Bush on the war in Iraq, whereas no one worldwide says a thing against Obama doing much worse.
These "millions of people" will never like us or the UK or any culture that doesn't have a Islamic Theocracy.
Go look at the supports of the late Egyptian President (supporter of the Brotherhood). It included women who have likely lived in oppresion under Sharia Law, and continue to support it. It's like the woman who keeps selecting spouse abusers for boyfriends. It's a mental disease.
Even in America, the Islamic community wants to create a pocket environment where Sharia Law is legal in America. Um, so you can gang-assault a woman who ventures in public without a man, and at the trial you hang her instead of the assaulters. That's what they want.
-
@eViLegion said:
Yeah, but you're hating on millions of people because of the actions of a around 100 of them, who are not representative.
Speak for yourself. I'm certainly not doing that.
@eViLegion said:
completely removed legitimate governments (who weren't actually involved in the terrorism, as it happens)
Ruling by force and fear is not "legitimate" by any reasonable (that is, American) definition of the word "Government."
-
@xaade said:
stuff
I'm not blind, I'm just not paralysed by unfounded fear.
I agree that their treatment of women is, at best, rather backward, and at worst absolutely vile. So, I don't like them, and they don't like me... fine. We don't have to have a fight about it, we can just hang out in different locations, which, as it happens, we've already been born at. Its not a question about offending them. I don't care about offending them, either, I don't care about offending anyone. But simple offence is quite different from military antagonism.
Bombing the fuck out of them isn't just offending them, its a actually fucking good reason for jihad.
So what if they want sharia law in their country. Let them have it... big deal.
So what if they want sharia law in YOUR country. DON'T let them have it... again, big deal.
Neither of those things they want are a good reason to go to war.
Then, taking into account that the main reason for you going to war (911) wasn't actually perpetrated by the people from either of the countries you went to war with, and it becomes impossible to justify rationally.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@eViLegion said:
Yeah, but you're hating on millions of people because of the actions of a around 100 of them, who are not representative.
Speak for yourself. I'm certainly not doing that.
I never said you were blakey. As you can see, I was responding to:
@rad131304 said:@eViLegion said:
But I'm trying to point out that there are some genuine reasons why a large number of people hate America. Like stomping all over their countries with the result that a lot of stuff gets blown up, and a lot of innocent people get killed.
So we have no reasons to hate them? They crashed two passenger planes into civilian buildings, after trying to unsuccessfully blow them up with a truck and after bombing a naval ship and several of our embassies.
Its pretty clear he's hating on people irrationally, and his mindset is a very common one. I know a lot of people who think that way over here, and you must have a considerably higher proportion of your population who do also (since you were the direct recipients of 911, and hadn't had decades of Irish troubles to soften you up beforehand).@blakeyrat said:
@eViLegion said:
completely removed legitimate governments (who weren't actually involved in the terrorism, as it happens)
Ruling by force and fear is not "legitimate" by any reasonable (that is, American) definition of the word "Government."
So, rolling in with tanks and installing your own regime, doesn't count as ruling by force?
-
@boomzilla said:
@eViLegion said:
@boomzilla said:
So we should just like back and think of UK?
No, you should just leave it the fuck alone.
You certainly shouldn't invade two countries that basically had nothing to do with it, because that is simply insane.Why are you still spouting this nonsense? I thought you guys had media that gave you good information about what happened in the world.
What nonsense?
How many of the people involved in 911 were Afghani?
How many of the people involved in 911 were Iraqi?
So, what was your justification for going to war with those countries?
-
@eViLegion said:
So, rolling in with tanks and installing your own regime, doesn't count as ruling by force?
Not if the rule imposed is democratically elected.
I believe this is the first I've heard the argument that deposing dictators is somehow a bad thing.
-
@eViLegion said:
So, I don't like them, and they don't like me... fine. We don't have to have a fight about it, we can just hang out in different locations, which, as it happens, we've already been born at.
Now you're just trying to top your previous comments.
@eViLegion said:
So what if they want sharia law in YOUR country. DON'T let them have it... again, big deal.
@eViLegion said:
Then, taking into account that the main reason for you going to war (911) wasn't actually perpetrated by the people from either of the countries you went to war with, and it becomes impossible to justify rationally.
Let's start with Afghanistan. They were providing sanctuary for the people directly responsible for the attacks. They refused to hand them over, so now they're aiding and abetting our enemy. You've been told this already. You're ignoring history and reason.
Iraq is a more complicated thing. They did harbor an al Qaeda training camp. They were supporting other forms of terrorism, like subsidizing Palestinian suicide bombers. They were violating numerous UN Security Council resolutions (the one kind of UN resolution that actually means anything). They had already participated in numerous acts of war against us while we were implementing the US designated no fly zone. I get that you're an extreme pacifist and isolationist, but normal people would consider at least some of these things to be casus belli.
-
@eViLegion said:
What nonsense?
How many of the people involved in 911 were Afghani?
How many of the people involved in 911 were Iraqi?Ffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuckkkkkkkkkkkkkk.
What country was the base of the organization that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
Aside from people who use BushMcHitler nonironically, who has made a statement that relied on a claim that Iraq was responsible for 9/11?
-
@eViLegion said:
So what if they want sharia law in their country. Let them have it... big deal.
So what if they want sharia law in YOUR country. DON'T let them have it... again, big deal.Hmmm.... let's fix that
@eViLegion said:
So what if they want to kill homosexuals in their country. Let them have it... big deal.
So what if they want to kill homosexuals in YOUR country. DON'T let them have it... again, big deal.Boy do I love the idea of not stopping perceived injustices because it doesn't affect you! Just like when Hitler came for the Jews and gypsies!
United States foreign policy in the Middle East - Wikipedia
