Four thousand to Afghanistan

Should the US have troops in Afghanistan?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • No

    Votes: 18 94.7%
  • Total voters
    19
tangerinegreen555 said:
Terrorism is a military problem.

Did you have a problem with the midnight raid into Pakistan to get bin Laden?

Foreign territory and all. They had to know he was there. We did. Did they mention it?
Are foreign governments 'all in' against terrorist organizations?

You've implied they aren't a threat. Sounds naive.
Click to expand...
Terrorism is not just a military problem. It's far more complex.

Or do you suggest using the military to hunt down and destroy domestic terrorists, the vast majority of whom are white Americans who were born here?

And if 'that's different', then explain how?
 
ttystikk said:
I might go to extreme measures if someone or their country bombed my village and killed my family. Or attacked them with drones. Or overthrew my democratically elected government in favor of a brutally repressive one.

Or ALL of those things, over the course of years and decades.
Click to expand...

Except that none of that happened to the perpetrators of 9/11.
 
ttystikk said:
Terrorism is not just a military problem. It's far more complex.
Click to expand...

Only the military is capable of chasing down terrorists in foreign countries.

They also chase down domestic terrorists. Or it sure fucking looked like it in Boston a few years back.

You never answered the bin Laden question.
 
tangerinegreen555 said:
Only the military is capable of chasing down terrorists in foreign countries.

They also chase down domestic terrorists. Or it sure fucking looked like it in Boston a few years back.

You never answered the bin Laden question.
Click to expand...
Why aren't we holding the country they came from accountable in terms of economic sanctions? That's another tool and it would certainly be effective.
 
If I can throw my thoughts into the original comments on page 1...on the surface it's the conventional forces trying to stop terrorism but just like Vietnam using conventional forces...there was stuff going on behind the scenes in 'nam (see the movie air america with Mel gibson and robert downey junior) and the citizens of the US were fed possible reasons why that war was necessary. I believe that they're about protecting the ancient technologies that they've found underground and they have to keep that stuff under constant protection. Same thing in Iraq. Surf the youtube for forbidden archeology. In my opinion they'd going back to ancient civilizations who were much more developed than we have been and finding and back engineering whatever ancient technology they can find. That's my belief as well as several other friends who have seen things during their military service.
 
buckets said:
If I can throw my thoughts into the original comments on page 1...on the surface it's the conventional forces trying to stop terrorism but just like Vietnam using conventional forces...there was stuff going on behind the scenes in 'nam (see the movie air america with Mel gibson and robert downey junior) and the citizens of the US were fed possible reasons why that war was necessary. I believe that they're about protecting the ancient technologies that they've found underground and they have to keep that stuff under constant protection. Same thing in Iraq. Surf the youtube for forbidden archeology. In my opinion they'd going back to ancient civilizations who were much more developed than we have been and finding and back engineering whatever ancient technology they can find. That's my belief as well as several other friends who have seen things during their military service.
Click to expand...
Nah. It's about money and power. Power to coerce others into giving them more money.
 
ttystikk said:
Why aren't we holding the country they came from accountable in terms of economic sanctions? That's another tool and it would certainly be effective.
Click to expand...

The question was, Was it OK to go into Pakistan, a foreign country, in the middle of the night to shoot a terrorist to death?

Because if it was OK there, why nowhere else?

And as far as Saudi Arabia, they would have considered the 9-11 group murderers and would have cut their heads off if they weren't dead already.

Unless you think the Saudi gov't. sent them, why sanctions?
 
tangerinegreen555 said:
The question was, Was it OK to go into Pakistan, a foreign country, in the middle of the night to shoot a terrorist to death?

Because if it was OK there, why nowhere else?

And as far as Saudi Arabia, they would have considered the 9-11 group murderers and would have cut their heads off if they weren't dead already.

Unless you think the Saudi gov't. sent them, why sanctions?
Click to expand...
Bin laden was an outlier. The vast majority of 'terrorist' incidents against Americans are committed by Americans.

And what about everything else American forces have been doing in Pakistan? Even over the objections of the PakistaniGovernment?

Isn't it just a wee bit misleading to obsessively focus on just one attack out of context with the larger situation?

Do you think Bin laden would have gotten as much support and volunteers of America wasn't attacking other Arab countries on a routine basis?
 
ttystikk said:
Bin laden was an outlier. The vast majority of 'terrorist' incidents against Americans are committed by Americans.

And what about everything else American forces have been doing in Pakistan? Even over the objections of the PakistaniGovernment?

Isn't it just a wee bit misleading to obsessively focus on just one attack out of context with the larger situation?

Do you think Bin laden would have gotten as much support and volunteers of America wasn't attacking other Arab countries on a routine basis?
Click to expand...

The vast majority of terrorist incidents all added together wouldn't equal the death count on 9/11.

Are you fucking kidding me with the highlighted statement?

What the military is really worried about is a nuclear device making it's way over here.

Got any justification for that?
 
tangerinegreen555 said:
The CIA has been involved in dirty business forever.

Is that something new?

The government was obsessed with communism since the end of WWII through the fall of the Soviet Union.

The cold war cost more than all the hot wars put together. We made some mistakes.

Failing to stay vigilant against terrorism would be another mistake. This isn't theory, we know they will attack if they can.

I used to think there could be peace at some point. Then came 9/11.

Maybe in a couple hundred years.
Click to expand...
Our violent and menacing actions taken to ensure oil flowing at low prices has created this situation. Stationing troops in Saudi Arabia long after Desert Storm was over was an outrage to most in the Middle East. And of course, our number one ally in the area, Israel. In all cases, US arms and sometimes soldiers would be used against exactly whom? Why wouldn't a young person in the Middle East in 1999 have a strong dislike or hatred for the US?

For a very brief period after 9-11 the US could claim justification for what we did. But then again, we just continued to kill young men in the Middle East well past that mandate and the violence continues to expand every year. Vigilance against terrorism sounds like a very different process and set of actions than what we are actually doing. Vigilance against terrorism is something I can support but it sounds like you equate a drone strike with vigilance. Not the same at all.

And I DO claim that Shrub wasn't vigilant pre 9-11. Then stupid in his invasion of Iraq. And Obama made a dumb decision to take sides in civil actions that led to more wars. If mistakes and stupid, violent acts aren't working to make peace, maybe we should try something intelligent?
 
Fogdog said:
Our violent and menacing actions taken to ensure oil flowing at low prices has created this situation. Stationing troops in Saudi Arabia long after Desert Storm was over was an outrage to most in the Middle East. And of course, our number one ally in the area, Israel. In all cases, US arms and sometimes soldiers would be used against exactly whom? Why wouldn't a young person in the Middle East in 1999 have a strong dislike or hatred for the US?

For a very brief period after 9-11 the US could claim justification for what we did. But then again, we just continued to kill young men in the Middle East well past that mandate and the violence continues to expand every year. Vigilance against terrorism sounds like a very different process and set of actions than what we are actually doing. Vigilance against terrorism is something I can support but it sounds like you equate a drone strike with vigilance. Not the same at all.

And I DO claim that Shrub wasn't vigilant pre 9-11. Then stupid in his invasion of Iraq. And Obama made a dumb decision to take sides in civil actions that led to more wars. If mistakes and stupid, violent acts aren't working to make peace, maybe we should try something intelligent?
Click to expand...

Desert Storm was about Iraq commandeering Kuwaiti oil fields. I don't think we wanted Iraq controlling a huge percentage of the world's oil supply.

If you wish to call that 'menacing actions taken to ensure low oil prices', that's up to you. Maybe Iraq would have sold it cheaper if we let them just keep it. I'll bet we could have negotiated that. But I don't think that would be an American kind of thing to do.

As far as drones, there are high value terrorist leaders out there. Nobody had a problem going into Pakistan to kill bin Laden in the middle of the night, 10 yrs. after 9-11. I never said we should drone just anybody. But there are people over there that are justifiable to kill.

You obviously don't agree. But if another 9-11 ever happens, the following slaughter will make a drone hit seem like nothing.

It's decades late to just walk away. Even if oil becomes valueless tomorrow, there will still be crazy jihadists who want to kill people. It's a religious war in their minds in a region that's been at war for 2000 years.

The whole region is shaky, no wonder their ordinary people want to come over here to get away from the madness.
 
tangerinegreen555 said:
The vast majority of terrorist incidents all added together wouldn't equal the death count on 9/11.

Are you fucking kidding me with the highlighted statement?

What the military is really worried about is a nuclear device making it's way over here.

Got any justification for that?
Click to expand...
American terrorism- war fighting without declaration- has made the body count on 9/11 look like a rounding error.

You just changed the subject. On the nuclear issue, I highly doubt that drone strikes all over the Arab world are related to nuclear proliferation.

It's time to stop playing the victim and own up to the consequences of indiscriminate black ops warfare throughout the Arab world and elsewhere.
 
tangerinegreen555 said:
Desert Storm was about Iraq commandeering Kuwaiti oil fields. I don't think we wanted Iraq controlling a huge percentage of the world's oil supply.

If you wish to call that 'menacing actions taken to ensure low oil prices', that's up to you. Maybe Iraq would have sold it cheaper if we let them just keep it. I'll bet we could have negotiated that. But I don't think that would be an American kind of thing to do.

As far as drones, there are high value terrorist leaders out there. Nobody had a problem going into Pakistan to kill bin Laden in the middle of the night, 10 yrs. after 9-11. I never said we should drone just anybody. But there are people over there that are justifiable to kill.

You obviously don't agree. But if another 9-11 ever happens, the following slaughter will make a drone hit seem like nothing.

It's decades late to just walk away. Even if oil becomes valueless tomorrow, there will still be crazy jihadists who want to kill people. It's a religious war in their minds in a region that's been at war for 2000 years.

The whole region is shaky, no wonder their ordinary people want to come over here to get away from the madness.
Click to expand...
We conned Saddam into invading Kuwait by telling him that the U.S. considered a takeover of Kuwait was a "local matter". Remember the crying girl testifying that Iraqi soldies were throwing babies out of incubators and stealing them? Turns out she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador. We also lied to the Saudi's, telling them there were hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers on Kuwaiti border so we could use Saudi Arabia as a base.
 
Dr. Martin Luther King
He would call the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" and note that "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
 
tangerinegreen555 said:
You're full of shit and so is the website you got that off of.
Click to expand...
Nope, it was reported by all the news agencies months after the war. No website needed.
Damn liar Morley Safer and 60 minutes!

and
In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, ‘[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.’ The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’ The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did."
 
Last edited:
I agree that it's about money and power. Deep government/those secret corporations.... needs dirty money to fund their underground programs and deep underground bases....the muslim thing in my opinion, is a major distraction for what is really going on...plus the CIA now controls the heroin trade coming out of afghanistan. Money and power in the drug trade. They fly it back in their own planes just like they did in the vietnam period. It's being repeated over and over...I'm hoping others see it too or am I the only one? Super strict on the airports now so they stop the flow of narcotics that they don't control distribution for....so many dots are joined up if yu spend enough time researching...look at how many countries are now controlled by the US empire. It's over 172 I believe if not more. Countries with US bases in them. Don't just go with the normal reasoning guys...the truth is there if you study the past. They got super secret stuff going on underground all over the world...the rabbit hole has a lot of dark secrets in there and in my opinion they're needing war and conflict as a cover for what they're really doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DIY-HP-LED
Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’
6 7 8
Replies
142
Views
5K
Fogdog
Fogdog
Jimdamick
tRUMP to send 15,000 troops to Mexican border
5 6 7
Replies
120
Views
5K
schuylaar
S
squarepush3r
Hypocrisy Without Bounds: The Tragedy of ‘Liberal’ Foreign Policy
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
3K
Budley Doright
Budley Doright
Jimdamick
  • Poll Poll
Here we go, again?
Replies
12
Views
497
SmokeyDan
SmokeyDan
The Ruiner
World Peace Could Be Closer Than You Think...
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
The Ruiner
The Ruiner
Back
Top