The U.S/Israel leaders

Post Reply New Topic

You keep taking what I say and making leaps with it. Yes, powerful countries have more leeway than less powerful ones. But I did not make any mention of whether or not the wars are justified. I am offering no opinion on that subject.

I bolded the statement I disagree with. Why do you think the war is to enrich certain people among the "elite"?

Since you mentioned it I am curious as to what you think justifies the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The massive death and destruction involved certainly have nothing to do with the originally stated motivations to invade.

I don't think the Iraq war is at all justified; the case for war was extremely weak and we clearly didn't have a plan for what we would do when we took down Saddam (which is inexcusable, everybody with a brain knew that the Iraqi army had no chance in hell).

I think the war in Afghanistan was much more justifiable than the Iraq war. Bin Laden had obvious connections to the Taliban; in fact, the Mullah refused to turn bin Laden over to the Saudis.

I also think that war would be over by now if we hadn't split resources on Iraq. That war also gave the insurgents in Afghanistan new ideas for tactics.

Neither war has any justifiable reason for it taking place.
(let's just forget the conspiracy theories. I guess it's my fault I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place, and I apologise for going off topic)

As for Iraq, it's like me suspecting my neighbour has a stash of weapons somewhere in his house and because I fear for my safety I decide to use my own weapons to break into his house, kill him , his wife and injure his children. And while ransacking his house I find that the only weapon he has is a water pistol and then say "sorry, my bad" and go on as if I did nothing wrong.

As for Afghanistan, it's more like the police killing an entire neighbourhood of people because a potential suspect is known to reside there from time to time. If we kill everyone, we are bound to get the culprit too.

I would like to answer your question but it would only provoke more questions. I suggest you watch a few of the documentaries I gave a link to.

Why don't you offer an opinion about the wars justifiability?

That's a very bad comparison. First and foremost, bin Laden is much more than a potential suspect. Even if you deny his role in 9/11, he has plenty of other attacks on his resumé (1998 embassy bombings, USS Cole bombing, some murders in Libya, a truck bombing in Riyadh). The "neighbors" aren't exactly innocent people either, as the Taliban leadership was perfectly aware of bin Laden's activities and still refused to turn him over.

Why drop the conspiracy subject? We've been doing fine juggling the two topics so far, and I've actually been enjoying this discussion.


I didn't give an opinion because I didn't find it necessary; after all, my opinion on how the world should be doesn't affect the way the world is, and that's what we've been talking about.

I wanted to drop the subject because it's easy to pose questions hoping for me to find an answer, which conveniently takes us away from the main point. You yourself said the Iraq war is unjustifiable. So shouldn't someone pay for that? Plus, there are too many subjects to speak about. As I said before, watch the videos if you wanna know more.

But you are more than willing to give your opinion as to there being "pissed off Muslims, and that all those conspiracy claims are false". So why not speak up now? Oh but you did.

First and foremost, bin Laden is much more than a potential suspect.

The FBI themselves have said that there is not enough evidence to tie him to the attacks.

Last edited by i_wanna_blue on 03 Mar 2010, 7:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

According to the latest reports there are about 100 Al Quada in Afghanistan. Do you really think that justifies the many thousands of troops there to screw around with the Taliban which are fighting the US installed very unpopular government plus all invaders. I am not at all sympathetic with the fundamental religious religious insanities of the Taliban but it is obvious the war is not a cultural enterprise.

I gave that opinion because that was something I had thoroughly researched, and it involves subjects I am more familiar with (physics and engineering rather than international politics and diplomacy).

Notice that bin Laden is still on the FBI's Most Wanted list despite that. As I said, he has plenty of other attacks on his resumé (most notably the 1998 embassy bombings, which he has been formally indicted for).

I gave that opinion because that was something I had thoroughly researched, and it involves subjects I am more familiar with (physics and engineering rather than international politics and diplomacy).

Ok fair enough. And I must thank you for creating a good platform for debate, rather than just being sarcastic and avoiding the main points I was trying to make .

Yes add him as well.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMwHwoNdidQ[/youtube]

The problem is that the Hamas rocketeers insist on using schools, hospitals, mosques, nurseries as launching points. The Israelis aim for the rocketeers and there is collateral damage. That is tough nuggies, but war is war.

ruveyn

Maybe the popular viewpoint of the population they usually hold hostage must change? I'm not 100% sure if they view those structures ruveyn mentionned as important as they are to us. (Sorry for throwing the doubt here, i'm mostly uninformed about this, this is merely speculation)

Yes that's a very convenient excuse. War is war. What would happen if someone you loved was collateral damage? Would you still say war is war? Thanks for getting rid of the sarcasm.

Where's Hamas now? How come you don't hear about them? If they were a real threat they would still be sending missiles into Israel at this very moment, but instead they very conveniently only start firing from hospitals, mosques and nurseries when it's election time.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb1rmLAuvM8[/youtube]

Yes collateral damage.

Last edited by i_wanna_blue on 03 Mar 2010, 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Asounding. How can anyone believe this kind of fantasy at this point.

Saddam initially did not cooperate. He came to realise matters were serious, and cooperated, complying in such a manner that Mr Hans Blix (the world's foremost expert on this issue) was confident that he could carry out the inspections effectively and was in the process of doing exactly that. Hans Blix reported as much. The US responded by changing the rules. Initially it was cooperate and if there are no WMDs then there will be no invasion. When Saddam cooperated, the timetable for invasion was changed to prevent the inspections from being completed. If the implications of this are not obvious to you, that must be because you are determined to not see them.