<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Oct 24 2003, 03:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Oct 24 2003, 03:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> keep attacking random nations and people will band togeather in resistance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Random? These nations are not "randomly" picked, most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudia Arabia, not to mention they donate millions to terror organizations, give money to the families of palistian suicide bombers, that they may have funded to begin with. Syria is no innocent nation, they may be harboring Saddam, along with countless other terrorists, not to mention the terror training camps they have there. Alot of other countries don't do these things, hence they don't get brought up in disscussions about the war on terror.
Reasa: this all boils down to why USA only picks nations that it can beat with ease and avoids China and N-Korea. If USA wants to free people, it should do it for all instead of choosing nations with smaller armed forces. It puts USA's motives in an odd light.
A war with China, which I think you just suggested, would be the stupidist thing in the world to do, especialy now. China is makeing good progress. I'm sure if we did fight China for what ever reason we would win, but the losses would be huge, WW3 anyone? NK is the same thing only smaller, and were still not sure what Chinas side is on this, they speak out aganst NK then they go and give them supplies. If China would take a difinitive stance then maybe we could do more. China needs to learn its a world power and start makeing tough choices.
I didn't say attack China. I said don't attack anyone but let them solve their own problems, though you were not solving problem in Iraq or Afghanistan anyway. It was IMO purely egoistic so there is no reason to play like it wasn't. Terrorist hunt, stability on oil fields etc. Freeing Iraq people is just positive side aspect that brings good publicity.
Don't start with the oil! As I said before, the US has yet to profit from anything in Iraq, oil or otherwise, also we do not expect Iraq to pay us back for anything once they are on their feet. Other countries however may not be so kind, chance are they will benifet from Iraqs oil money before we do. As for a terrorist hunt, yes you could call it that, if were going to be there we mid as well look for them to. Afghanistan a was purely justified war and I don't feel I have to defend it in anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Oct 24 2003, 11:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 24 2003, 11:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Don't start with the oil! As I said before, the US has yet to profit from anything in Iraq, oil or otherwise, also we do not expect Iraq to pay us back for anything once they are on their feet. Other countries how ever may not be so kind, chance are they will benifet from Iraqs oil money before we do. As for a terrorist hunt, yes you could call it that, if were going to be there we mid as well look for them to. Afghanistan was purely justified war and I don't feel I have to defend it in anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Only because I have respect for the topic(and authors holding the ban-book) I won't de-rail this by asking why Afghanistan was justified, but I say that the reason you went to Iraq wasn't you wanted to free people. Here are the reasons: a) Bin Laden is hiding with Saddam and Devil in Iraq. Must. Kill. Terrorists.(none found) b) There are massive amounts of WMD's in Iraq(none found)
So in desperate attempt to justify the war to world and get re-elected, Bush came up with: "We are freeing people here!" Those are the reasons they REALLY came up first and announced to world. Always when one reason got knocked down, they came up with another so it's not about "As for a terrorist hunt, yes you could call it that, if were going to be there we mid as well look for them to"
And I was talking about stability to oil reserves, and especially to Bush who is connected to oil business pretty heavily(so it's not USA benefiting, only certain people) but I won't start on that subject. If you want to know more just search for earlier topics about Iraq and mid-east.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And Ryo, that theory that fighting terrorism causes more terrorism is nonsense that does not bear up under the slightest examination.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gee was that what I said? Man I really must make myself more clear.
Attacking <i>nations</i> is a bad way to fight terrorism. I stated the reasons why. Then for some bizzare reason you bring up WWII, which was the result of political forces in Germany coupled with historical resentment of the treatment of Germany post-WWI. I do not suggest "sticking our heads in the sand". I simply point out that attacking nations is a bad way to fight terrorism.
Intelligance operations, small-scale covert raids using special forces, cutting off bank accounts and working in concert with other nations is how I think terrorism should be combatted. The problem is that the US seems to be fighting terrorism as though they were fighting another military force. Al Quaeda is not a military force, nor does it fight as one.
Of course we should fight terrorism. But we should do it properly.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Oct 24 2003, 11:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Oct 24 2003, 11:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Attacking <i>nations</i> is a bad way to fight terrorism. I stated the reasons why. Then for some bizzare reason you bring up WWII, which was the result of political forces in Germany coupled with historical resentment of the treatment of Germany post-WWI. I do not suggest "sticking our heads in the sand". I simply point out that attacking nations is a bad way to fight terrorism.
Intelligance operations, small-scale covert raids using special forces, cutting off bank accounts and working in concert with other nations is how I think terrorism should be combatted. The problem is that the US seems to be fighting terrorism as though they were fighting another military force. Al Quaeda is not a military force, nor does it fight as one.
Of course we should fight terrorism. But we should do it properly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sure we have been and are doing those things now, just because you don't hear about it dosen't mean its not happening. We fought the war in afganistan, on a relatively small scale, large groups of special forces troops, with air cover. Sure small raids are nice, but there were hunderds of terrorists in those mountains, which required large groups of troops to go in and flush them out. Not to mention the bombing,which I might add did not kill any inocent people, unless inocent people like to hide in a cave, in the middle of no where with an ak-47. Sometimes small scale isn't enough, especally if you want to take down the governments suporting terror that refuse to listen to you....won't mention any names.....
<span style='color:red'>This is not discussion. You are just swearing and yelling and flaming and generally being tiresome. Try again, and try presenting some actual thoughts, or you will lose your posting rights in the Discussion area of the forum.
This topic could of used a little life... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
Random? These nations are not "randomly" picked, most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudia Arabia, not to mention they donate millions to terror organizations, give money to the families of palistian suicide bombers, that they may have funded to begin with. Syria is no innocent nation, they may be harboring Saddam, along with countless other terrorists, not to mention the terror training camps they have there. Alot of other countries don't do these things, hence they don't get brought up in disscussions about the war on terror.
Only because I have respect for the topic(and authors holding the ban-book) I won't de-rail this by asking why Afghanistan was justified, but I say that the reason you went to Iraq wasn't you wanted to free people. Here are the reasons:
a) Bin Laden is hiding with Saddam and Devil in Iraq. Must. Kill. Terrorists.(none found)
b) There are massive amounts of WMD's in Iraq(none found)
So in desperate attempt to justify the war to world and get re-elected, Bush came up with: "We are freeing people here!" Those are the reasons they REALLY came up first and announced to world. Always when one reason got knocked down, they came up with another so it's not about "As for a terrorist hunt, yes you could call it that, if were going to be there we mid as well look for them to"
And I was talking about stability to oil reserves, and especially to Bush who is connected to oil business pretty heavily(so it's not USA benefiting, only certain people) but I won't start on that subject. If you want to know more just search for earlier topics about Iraq and mid-east.
Gee was that what I said? Man I really must make myself more clear.
Attacking <i>nations</i> is a bad way to fight terrorism. I stated the reasons why. Then for some bizzare reason you bring up WWII, which was the result of political forces in Germany coupled with historical resentment of the treatment of Germany post-WWI. I do not suggest "sticking our heads in the sand". I simply point out that attacking nations is a bad way to fight terrorism.
Intelligance operations, small-scale covert raids using special forces, cutting off bank accounts and working in concert with other nations is how I think terrorism should be combatted. The problem is that the US seems to be fighting terrorism as though they were fighting another military force. Al Quaeda is not a military force, nor does it fight as one.
Of course we should fight terrorism. But we should do it properly.
Intelligance operations, small-scale covert raids using special forces, cutting off bank accounts and working in concert with other nations is how I think terrorism should be combatted. The problem is that the US seems to be fighting terrorism as though they were fighting another military force. Al Quaeda is not a military force, nor does it fight as one.
Of course we should fight terrorism. But we should do it properly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure we have been and are doing those things now, just because you don't hear about it dosen't mean its not happening. We fought the war in afganistan, on a relatively small scale, large groups of special forces troops, with air cover. Sure small raids are nice, but there were hunderds of terrorists in those mountains, which required large groups of troops to go in and flush them out. Not to mention the bombing,which I might add did not kill any inocent people, unless inocent people like to hide in a cave, in the middle of no where with an ak-47. Sometimes small scale isn't enough, especally if you want to take down the governments suporting terror that refuse to listen to you....won't mention any names.....
Thanks.</span>