2008 Presidential Election - Obama v McCain (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter kaz1
- Start date
bigboyjames
Banned
which news station are you watching?Iron said:
go iron! you can predict the future!Iron said:
Iron
Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 7,765
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Sock it. They had a very clear link with those who conducted the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbour, and they have been unable to repeat the effort since the invasion.
It's stupid to argue against Afghanistan. As just as just war gets
It's stupid to argue against Afghanistan. As just as just war gets
bigboyjames
Banned
you dont even know the enemy after 8 years. the link was never with Taliban at all. it was with al-queda.Iron said:
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
^Taliban supported Al Qaeda, no?
I'm not arguing, but I would like to see those stats out of interest.
I'm not arguing, but I would like to see those stats out of interest.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/afghan-survey2007.html#right
I gave them to you earlier, there's others out there.
I gave them to you earlier, there's others out there.
bigboyjames
Banned
anyways, the blame for creating this situation does indeed lie squarely with the USA. They armed the anti-government militias in Afghanistan during the one time in that country's history when it had something resembling a progressive government. That government asked for Russian help when faced with reactionary insurgency, and when that help came, the USA fed and armed that insurgency, parts of which later merged to become the Taliban.
For a while the USA left the Taliban alone to get on with it, despite the fact that they were worse in every respect than what had gone before, and the USA only began to intervene directly in Afghanistan after 9/11. That intervention, in fact, was to do with the need to be seen do something about 9/11, rather than any desire to make things better for the long-suffering Afghan people.
The allegation the invasion was based on was that Afghanistan's Taliban government had knowingly hosted al Qaida training camps. Given the reaction of the Taliban government to the events of 9/11, it seems unlikely that they had anything to do with those attacks, and indeed they even condemned them, expressed solidarity with the American people against the people who did it!
had the USA used MORE diplomatic pressure rather than launching its suicidal and murderous invasion, there is little doubt that the Taliban could have been persuaded to drive Bin Laden and his mob out of the country. In fact, at the time of the invasion, they'd already started doing exactly that. The invasion instead forced the Taliban and al Qaeda to become bedfellows. How are al Qaeda going to be removed from Afghanistan now that they've got significant numbers of Afghans within their ranks?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_/ai_80050524
Most of the 9/11 brainwashed zombies hailed from Saudi Arabia, not a country noted for having had the crap bombed out of it by the USA, but noted for having lots of oil.
For a while the USA left the Taliban alone to get on with it, despite the fact that they were worse in every respect than what had gone before, and the USA only began to intervene directly in Afghanistan after 9/11. That intervention, in fact, was to do with the need to be seen do something about 9/11, rather than any desire to make things better for the long-suffering Afghan people.
The allegation the invasion was based on was that Afghanistan's Taliban government had knowingly hosted al Qaida training camps. Given the reaction of the Taliban government to the events of 9/11, it seems unlikely that they had anything to do with those attacks, and indeed they even condemned them, expressed solidarity with the American people against the people who did it!
had the USA used MORE diplomatic pressure rather than launching its suicidal and murderous invasion, there is little doubt that the Taliban could have been persuaded to drive Bin Laden and his mob out of the country. In fact, at the time of the invasion, they'd already started doing exactly that. The invasion instead forced the Taliban and al Qaeda to become bedfellows. How are al Qaeda going to be removed from Afghanistan now that they've got significant numbers of Afghans within their ranks?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_/ai_80050524
Most of the 9/11 brainwashed zombies hailed from Saudi Arabia, not a country noted for having had the crap bombed out of it by the USA, but noted for having lots of oil.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Do you propose an invasion of Saudi Arabia, or non invasions at all?
I read nothing there that I particularly disagreed with or that I thought dismissed my assertion that the war is just because it seems to be, and hopefully will be leaving the people afghanistan better off. I guess my main issue with what you wrote would be the implied assertion that it was wrong for America to topple the taliban in order to achieve their goal of capturing those who launched an attack against their nation, if they were to also stick around to rebuild the nation better off.
I mean, you call the war suicidal and murderous... but what you'd rather is for them to make a diplomatic deal with murderous tyrants, who the people of Afghanistan are damn glad were taken out.
I mean, you call the war suicidal and murderous... but what you'd rather is for them to make a diplomatic deal with murderous tyrants, who the people of Afghanistan are damn glad were taken out.
Last edited:
bigboyjames
Banned
Nebuchanezzar said:
i do not propose an invasion on Saudi Arabia. but i do propose the people of Saudi Arabia rise up against their tyrannic-totalitarian-theocratic government. if people want freedom and liberation, it must come from within the country.....if anybody has learnt from history, real freedom is dirty, bloody and long fought by the people FOR THE PEOPLE...not this bullshit that the United states and western powers offer (puppet regimes).
the problem with invading Saudi Arabia is you will see a instantaneous global economic consequences, which is not in the best interest of the united states second largest supplier after Canada is Saudi Arabia.
also, you cannot place blame a country for a hand full of radical fuckheads. just because 11 assholes like smashing planes into buildings does not mean the government is responsible of those crimes. if this is how the world were to run, it will lead to a dangerous precedence on a global scale.
Last edited:
That's not the precedent. The precedent is, you do not harbor/assist such people and you do take active measures to, as best you can, try to get rid of them. For example, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia... both these nations have radical fuckheads in them that actively and successfully seek to harm America, but they attempt, as best they can within their somewhat fragile nations, help the situation along.
Last edited:
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
^So long as the harm is measured and you don't end up killing half a country.
bigboyjames
Banned
To say that the tyrants had no explanation and to label the terrorists as maniacs, or as the press liked to use "mindless", is to say that they don't have a mind, theyre too crazy, so we dont have to explain a motive, because they couldnt possibly have capacity for one. That's a very dangerous course. No act is without motive or explanation. If you aren't aware of it, you can justify any response (eg destroying Afghanistan and Iraq).Enteebee said:
There are many examps in history, FARC, Tamil Tigers, IRA etc. When the British response to internal bombing was just more bloodshed, did that solve the problem? The answer to that question is no. When motive and grievances were actually considered, solutions were born.
moll.
Learn to science.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,545
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Yeah, but you must consider that Ireland is at least of similar culture and tradition to Britain. In Afghanistan we're talking about completely dissimilar cultures and traditions coming to a clash.bigboyjames said: