US Foreign Policy

[Harry Smith]

I've just started reading a really good book by William Blum about US foreign policy over the last 60 years,and how it's had a disastrous effect on many countries.

I'm sure some of you would agree, and other's will disagree. Do you think US foreign policy along with that of NATO/UK etc has had a positive effect on the world?

[Stronk Serb]

No. Their anti-communist interventions alone from the beggining of the 20th century till the last 20 years made a crapload of problems for good people.

[britishboy]

It has caused or aggregated problems but there heart is in the right place. Most interventions are good and worth it.

[tbake98]

Just look around. The US/NATO alliance has their hands in too many different conflicts around the world, that they're not focusing on what's important. IMO, they are trying to fix all of the world's problems, when they have nothing to do with them in the first place. A majority of the countries we're in don't want us there. Let these other countries solve their own issues... and, if that means that they wipe each other out, so be it.

[Harry Smith]

It has caused or aggregated problems but there heart is in the right place. Most interventions are good and worth it.

That claim is pretty wrong, the claim that there heart is in the right place only applies if you think that there heart is in the interests of big business and TNC's. The US don't give a shit about democracy-hence why they've been so happy to oust democratic leaders

What interventions are you talking about? Which ones are good and worth it?
-Afganistan-destroyed countryside, merciless drone strikes, death squads, breaking of the Geneva convention, installing a corrupt government, setting up another state doomed to fail e.g South Vietnam
Panama-Invaded a country on the sole intention of removing a 'drug dealer' who was in fact a CIA solider
Grenada-Invaded a country simply because guess what-it was communist
Iraq-100,000 dead, no attempts at diplomacy, destroyed the infrastructure of a country, massive increase in disease/infant hunger, allowed state to become a warzone for 8 years and guess what-no WMD were ever found in Iraq-we went in on the basis that Iraq could attack us-but they clearly couldn't. Ironically enough I supported the war on the basis that the UK claimed we had the intel however it's clear that Blair A) Got played by Bush B)The US wanted war.
South Vietnam-Supported a largely corrupt, autocratic government, poisoned the countryside,committed massacre after massacre, left long standing scars of vietnamese society. Along with huge loss of life for many American families
Cuba-Worse one IMO, not only did they support a corrupt regime in the 50's but when this was removed in favor of populist policies they started funding a very right wing miltia group that tried to invade Cuba in 1961, then they decided when that failed to bomb the Island, sink boats, poison food supply and in one case-support Domestic terrorism.
Saudi Arabia-Another Cuba type, supported a corrupt ruling family in exchange for wealth and security. Saudi's have one of the most extreme islamic states including virtually no rights for women, LGBT or underclass within society. The US always boost about the mission in Afghanistan to restore human rights-what about Saudi Arabai

I think I'd be more sympathetic to western foreign policy if it wasn't so hypocritical-we've done good work before that's clear but there's a clear trend that since the 1950's the US has supported people it should punish (Cuban terrorists,Islam militants in the 80's) and allowed crimes to go with approval (Supporting war crimes in Iraq-Iran war, killing over 50 heads of state, supporting Cuban terrorists). You don't condemn 9/11 whilst your own government is supporting similar actions, and in effect even encouraging hijackings to get public support for a war

Worth it? Please tell me what we've got from 50 years of warfare?
-Increased public debt
-removal of civil liberties
-outsourcing of war to PMC's
-Millions wasted
-Increased terrorism
-Hatred around the world

[phuckphace]

lol fuck no.

daily reminder that neocons are slime and should be legally stripped of their personhood. okay not really but they are 110% responsible for most of the conflicts and deaths around the world. anytime you see a protracted conflict that was started for dumb/unknown reasons, you can bet everything you own that there was a slimy neocon or ten behind it.

does anyone ever stop and think about what a ridiculously awesome place this country (and the world) would be had it not been shat upon by neoconservatives? it's actually irritating how so few people could have such an enormous influence over so many others.

tl;dr we need to colonize another planet, move all the neocons there and alderaan the shit out of it.

[Gamma Male]

Do I even need to answer this? The US isn't a democracy, it's an oligarchy. And our leaders only care about one thing: Profit. Nevermind all the dead civilians, dead soldiers, human rights violations, increased hatred for the US worldwide, destruction of countryside and infrastructure, oh, and did I say dead civilians?

But you know what's even worse than all that? How brainwashed everyone is. Try to point any of this out, and what do you get?
http://tokyodesu.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/inarticulate-yelling.png?w=300&h=228

[Harry Smith]

Managed to dig these numbers up as well, if anyone thinks that it's actually worthwhile.

Interfered in over 30 democratic elections
Tried to overthrow over 50 governments
Tried to kill more than 50 foreign leaders
Dropped bombs on the people of more than 50 countries

But hey remember the US, and the brave old boys fighting have helped to spread democracy and freedom across the world-just look at Saudi Arabia. To be honest that grins my gears the most-is the admiration for the armed forces

[Living For Love]

I'm not an American, but I guess what the USA has been trying to do is promote global peace and avoid armed conflicts escalating into even deadlier ones. They shouldn't intervene in every single conflict in the world, but the truth is that they've helped in many. Either way, if there has to be a great power to exert its influence around the world and to be the "dominant world country", I want it to be USA.

[Harry Smith]

I'm not an American, but I guess what the USA has been trying to do is promote global peace and avoid armed conflicts escalating into even deadlier ones. They shouldn't intervene in every single conflict in the world, but the truth is that they've helped in many. Either way, if there has to be a great power to exert its influence around the world and to be the "dominant world country", I want it to be USA.

Global peace? The idea that they've helped by stopping wars is like committing suicide out of fear of being murdered. I don't see how invading countries like Afganistan,Iraq and Panama has helped to promote global peace, do you? In Iraq they had the opportunity to stop the conflict and use the UN so that's a clear example of how they've caused a more deadlier one rather than avoiding. I'll agree that the US has helped in a few countries, and even then it's been sketchy.

I'll admit that Western Europe hasn't been that affected by US policy but I think the Middle East is clearly somewhere that's had deadly effects. Do you support the use of chemical weapons on troops? Because the US does.

[Living For Love]

Global peace? The idea that they've helped by stopping wars is like committing suicide out of fear of being murdered. I don't see how invading countries like Afganistan,Iraq and Panama has helped to promote global peace, do you? In Iraq they had the opportunity to stop the conflict and use the UN so that's a clear example of how they've caused a more deadlier one rather than avoiding. I'll agree that the US has helped in a few countries, and even then it's been sketchy.

I'll admit that Western Europe hasn't been that affected by US policy but I think the Middle East is clearly somewhere that's had deadly effects. Do you support the use of chemical weapons on troops? Because the US does.

Well, if those troops are affecting another nation based on something as ridiculous as jihads, and killing millions of innocent people, then I guess international organisations must intervene when the local troops and governments can't deal with the situation.

[Harry Smith]

Well, if those troops are affecting another nation based on something as ridiculous as jihads, and killing millions of innocent people, then I guess international organisations must intervene when the local troops and governments can't deal with the situation.

Jihadists haven't actually killed millions of people, at least from I've seen. I should also point out the US government trained, armed and funded these jihaids in the 80's so it's kinda ironic. They're happy when the terrorists are fighting for them, but unhappy when they turn bad so then they heroically march in

You wanna talk about terrorism? How come the US has been funding terrorism in Cuba for the last 50 years, do you think this is a good thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviaci%C3%B3n_Flight_455

If the US want to have a vendetta against terrorism then they should lock up the entire CIA. I agree that international organisations should play a part-that doesn't mean the US should do it alone. I don't understand why this board seems allergic to questions.

Do you support the use of Chemical weapons on troops?

[Living For Love]

Jihadists haven't actually killed millions of people, at least from I've seen. I should also point out the US government trained, armed and funded these jihaids in the 80's so it's kinda ironic. They're happy when the terrorists are fighting for them, but unhappy when they turn bad so then they heroically march in

You wanna talk about terrorism? How come the US has been funding terrorism in Cuba for the last 50 years, do you think this is a good thing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviaci%C3%B3n_Flight_455

If the US want to have a vendetta against terrorism then they should lock up the entire CIA. I agree that international organisations should play a part-that doesn't mean the US should do it alone. I don't understand why this board seems allergic to questions.

Do you support the use of Chemical weapons on troops?

What happened with the Mujahideen in the 80's is a good argument you can point out of the negative aspects of the intervention of the USA in foreign affairs, but what would have happened if they didn't acted at all? The problem is that, despite the USA has the money, the weapons, the troops and the resources, it can't do everything on its own. That's why UN and NATO exists. They helped the Afghans fighting the Red Army, but they didn't help raising the country ravaged by war and poverty. This, doesn't mean, however, that American intervention was something bad, but instead that there should be even more intervention, and more dialogue, between the USA, the countries involved and other nations, not only going there, bombing some areas and coming back.

And like I said, if those troops are threatening world peace, then yes, they can use chemical weapons on them, though I'm sure there are less controversial options available.

[Stronk Serb]

"I am Emperor Ronald Reagan
Born again with fascist cravens
Still wanna make a president
Human rights will soon go 'way
I am now going chardonay
I will command all of you
Now your kids will pray in school
I will make sure they're Christian too!
California Uber Alles! California Uber Alles!
Uber Alles California! Uber Alles California!"

Dead Kennedys- We've Got a Bigger Problem Now (California Uber Alles re-done for Reagan)

The US interventions here have been sketchy. They and the Germans trained Ustashi terrorists and sent them to infiltrate Yugoslavia, they probably did the same for Wannabe Chetniks. After they sent idiots like Milošević, Tuđman and Izetbegović, the slaughter began.They stopped us from killing eachother. Note: EACHOTHER. All sides did messed up shit, but they got a fractured Yugoslavia, two military bases at the cost of barely one, and tensions in Bosnia and Kosovo.

[Stronk Serb]

What happened with the Mujahideen in the 80's is a good argument you can point out of the negative aspects of the intervention of the USA in foreign affairs, but what would have happened if they didn't acted at all? The problem is that, despite the USA has the money, the weapons, the troops and the resources, it can't do everything on its own. That's why UN and NATO exists. They helped the Afghans fighting the Red Army, but they didn't help raising the country ravaged by war and poverty. This, doesn't mean, however, that American intervention was something bad, but instead that there should be even more intervention, and more dialogue, between the USA, the countries involved and other nations, not only going there, bombing some areas and coming back.

And like I said, if those troops are threatening world peace, then yes, they can use chemical weapons on them, though I'm sure there are less controversial options available.

Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviets because the US removed a democratically elected socialist. The invasion was a big "FUCK OFF CAPITALIZT PIGS!" move which went hprribly wrong.

[Living For Love]

Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviets because the US removed a democratically elected socialist. The invasion was a big "FUCK OFF CAPITALIZT PIGS!" move which went hprribly wrong.

Whatever. Once again USA undid the crap that other nations did for a greater cause.

[Harry Smith]

This, doesn't mean, however, that American intervention was something bad,

And like I said, if those troops are threatening world peace, then yes, they can use chemical weapons on them, though I'm sure there are less controversial options available.

It does actually, the communists were fighting for a much more modern Afganistan that supported womens rights along with a more western society, whilst the Mujaheddin were conservative muslims who wanted to stop women rights. You had the russians supporting a progressive regime, and the US supporting a very far right mujaheddin. Very ironic that the US now boast about supporting a modern liberal Afghanistan.
US foreign policy is basically a collection of Ironies

The US supporting the Mujaheddin was clearly bad-
-Armed, trained, supported there future enemies
-Plunged Afganistan into choas for the next 20 years
-Destabilized the region
-Gave high grade weaponry later used against western troops.

Now onto to the use of chemical weapons by Iraq
1) No matter what, it's illegal to use chemical weapons even if the troops are in your words 'threatening world peace'-see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

2)The US gave information, training and guidance to Iraq about how to use chemical weapons on both civilians and soldiers. Iraq-you know the country they went to war with (and use of chemical weapons was cited as why-more Irony) It's a war crime, and that's a fact. But sure we all love war crimes don't we

3)The Iraqi's were attacking Iran-so you've got the US supporting a war of aggression were one side is using chemical weapons in an offensive state.

So do you still think that it's beneficial to the world that the US gave Iraq chemical weapons guidance when they attacked the sovereign nation of Iran?

[Stronk Serb]

Whatever. Once again USA undid the crap that other nations did for a greater cause.

Removing a populist-socialist who was:

Pro-woman rights
Secularist
Not pro-Soviet
Pro-workers right
Means they did a good thing? I would rather be ruled by the Soviets then by a new leader who made it Saudi Arabia 2.0. Shit hasn't changed there since the Soviets cleared out. The US supported the Taliban who are fundamentalists like Al-Qaeda. Don't tell me they're better then the Soviets.

[Harry Smith]

Removing a populist-socialist who was:

Pro-woman rights
Secularist
Not pro-Soviet
Pro-workers right
Means they did a good thing? I would rather be ruled by the Soviets then by a new leader who made it Saudi Arabia 2.0. Shit hasn't changed there since the Soviets cleared out. The US supported the Taliban who are fundamentalists like Al-Qaeda. Don't tell me they're better then the Soviets.

Yet now the US support the new Afgan government and they always claim that it's liberal and pro womens right-if they wanted a pro-womens right regime then why did they support the Mujaheddin

[Stronk Serb]

Yet now the US support the new Afgan government and they always claim that it's liberal and pro womens right-if they wanted a pro-womens right regime then why did they support the Mujaheddin

I think they would've had it better under Soviet boots. Yeah, the Spvoet Union was oppressive, but it was better then Taliban Afghanistan. But to be honest, they would've had it best with that democratically-elected socialist which the US removed for no fucking reason

[Living For Love]

It does actually, the communists were fighting for a much more modern Afganistan that supported womens rights along with a more western society, whilst the Mujaheddin were conservative muslims who wanted to stop women rights. You had the russians supporting a progressive regime, and the US supporting a very far right mujaheddin. Very ironic that the US now boast about supporting a modern liberal Afghanistan. The US supporting the Mujaheddin was clearly bad-
-Armed, trained, supported there future enemies
-Plunged Afganistan into choas for the next 20 years
-Destabilized the region
-Gave high grade weaponry later used against western troops.

Now onto to the use of chemical weapons by Iraq
1) No matter what, it's illegal to use chemical weapons even if the troops are in your words 'threatening world peace'-see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

2)The US gave information, training and guidance to Iraq about how to use chemical weapons on both civilians and soldiers. Iraq-you know the country they went to war with (and use of chemical weapons was cited as why-more Irony) It's a war crime, and that's a fact. But sure we all love war crimes don't we

3)The Iraqi's were attacking Iran-so you've got the US supporting a war of aggression were one side is using chemical weapons in an offensive state.

So do you still think that it's beneficial to the world that the US gave Iraq chemical weapons guidance when they attacked the sovereign nation of Iran?

You talk about the USSR like it was a really good thing. I guess those clearly awesome plans they had of giving women the same rights after killing thousands of Afghans and while the troops were raping Afghan women would end anyway with the Dismemberment. And I guess you support all that as well...

And like I said, there are clearly better alternatives to chemical weapons. What happened at that time happened under certain circumstances, and what would happen afterwards, no one could prevent, so you can't really blame the USA for having certain attitudes. And you're also forgetting the whole influence al-Qaeda had during the Persian Gulf war and consequent conflicts. This is not something so black and white that you can't simply blame someone (USA, or its intervention) for what happened. Lots of bad stuff occurred, yes, and some decisions might not have been the best ones, but still, it's always preferable to have a nation such as the USA to moderate conflicts.

[Stronk Serb]

You talk about the USSR like it was a really good thing. I guess those clearly awesome plans they had of giving women the same rights after killing thousands of Afghans and while the troops were raping Afghan women would end anyway with the Dismemberment. And I guess you support all that as well...

And like I said, there are clearly better alternatives to chemical weapons. What happened at that time happened under certain circumstances, and what would happen afterwards, no one could prevent, so you can't really blame the USA for having certain attitudes. And you're also forgetting the whole influence al-Qaeda had during the Persian Gulf war and consequent conflicts. This is not something so black and white that you can't simply blame someone (USA, or its intervention) for what happened. Lots of bad stuff occurred, yes, and some decisions might not have been the best ones, but still, it's always preferable to have a nation such as the USA to moderate conflicts.

The US does the same exact thing today. Double-standards? I'm not sure, but I think ačl those Spviet war crimes are exaggerated.

[Vlerchan]

You talk about the USSR like it was a really good thing.
It had it's moments.

For a time it was also the most progressive country in the world in regards to woman's rights.

[Stronk Serb]

It had it's moments.

For a time it was also the most progressive country in the world in regards to woman's rights.

Didn't the Soviets legalise gay marriage first too?

[Harry Smith]

You talk about the USSR like it was a really good thing. I guess those clearly awesome plans they had of giving women the same rights after killing thousands of Afghans and while the troops were raping Afghan women would end anyway with the Dismemberment. And I guess you support all that as well...

And like I said, there are clearly better alternatives to chemical weapons. What happened at that time happened under certain circumstances, and what would happen afterwards, no one could prevent, so you can't really blame the USA for having certain attitudes. And you're also forgetting the whole influence al-Qaeda had during the Persian Gulf war and consequent conflicts. This is not something so black and white that you can't simply blame someone (USA, or its intervention) for what happened. Lots of bad stuff occurred, yes, and some decisions might not have been the best ones, but still, it's always preferable to have a nation such as the USA to moderate conflicts.

This isn't about the USSR-this is about Afganistan. The US supported the Taliban, and other regimes which were very anti-women. The socialist government in Afganistan was extremely pro-women-something the US backed Taliban weren't. If the US wanted to stop the Soviet Abuses then you take them to the UN and to the Hague-but if the US did this then I'd love to see what would of happened after Iraq. Do you have any evidence that Russians raped thousands of women?

You can't accept that the US supported the Taliban can you?

Your attitude to chemical weapons is frankly appauling, it's a war crime to use them-it's simple as. Do you understand that? I bet if Russia used them you'd be one of people calling for WW3-pretty ironic that the US was going to attack Syria for the same thing right?

Moderate? Moderate? What have you been smoking. The US haven't moderated anything
1)They've attacked Iraq twice, Afghanistan once and threatened Iran. That's not moderate
2)They've launched drone attacks against innocent civilians-that's not moderate
3)They've supported one of the most brutal regimes in the world-Saudi Arabia. That's not moderate
4)They've imposed sanctions that killed millions of children, destroyed key facilities which has made life in countries like Iraq impossible for Children.
5)Disregarded the 1948 and 1929 Geneva convetion, but you've shown you support war crimes-that's not moderate
6)They've kidnapped, tortued and killed British Citizens in Afghanistan without ever charging them-that's not moderate.
7)They've supported a corrupt, violent government in Afghanistan-that's not democratic.
8)They invaded a sovereign nation-breaking every single law, defieing the UN, killing 100,000 Iraqi's, crippling the country leading to civil war-that's not moderate
9)Supporting Saddam Hussein, Colonel Gaddafi and other corrupt dictators during the cold war purely because they were anti-communist. That's not moderate

Heck if the US are moderate in the Middle East then the Germans were loving to Poland-and yes I'm saying that the US policy in the middle east is paramount to crimes of Nazi Germany

[Vlerchan]

Didn't the Soviets legalise gay marriage first too?
Yes. But Stalin repealed that later - along with everything else progressive about the USSR.

And the only reason they didn't legalise poly-marriages is because they were fearful that such further revolutionary change would scare the peasants back into the grips of the Orthodox church. The end goal was to: “eliminate the need for certain registrations, for example, marriage registration, for the family will soon be replaced by a more reasonable, more rational differentiation based on separate individuals,” but gradually opening up people towards non-traditional sexual relations they felt needed to be done before that.

[Stronk Serb]

Yes. But Stalin repealed that later - along with everything else progressive about the USSR.

And the only reason they didn't legalise poly-marriages is because they were fearful that such further revolutionary change would scare the peasants back into the grips of the Orthodox church.

The Orthodox Church of Serbia tried to ban eating of potatoes. When the harsh winters came, potato was the only thing to eat, so they didn't complain. Yeah, Stalin, one of the reasons the USSR failed at it's goals.

[Living For Love]

This isn't about the USSR-this is about Afganistan. The US supported the Taliban, and other regimes which were very anti-women. The socialist government in Afganistan was extremely pro-women-something the US backed Taliban weren't. If the US wanted to stop the Soviet Abuses then you take them to the UN and to the Hague-but if the US did this then I'd love to see what would of happened after Iraq. Do you have any evidence that Russians raped thousands of women?

You can't accept that the US supported the Taliban can you?

Your attitude to chemical weapons is frankly appauling, it's a war crime to use them-it's simple as. Do you understand that? I bet if Russia used them you'd be one of people calling for WW3-pretty ironic that the US was going to attack Syria for the same thing right?

Moderate? Moderate? What have you been smoking. The US haven't moderated anything
1)They've attacked Iraq twice, Afghanistan once and threatened Iran. That's not moderate
2)They've launched drone attacks against innocent civilians-that's not moderate
3)They've supported one of the most brutal regimes in the world-Saudi Arabia. That's not moderate
4)They've imposed sanctions that killed millions of children, destroyed key facilities which has made life in countries like Iraq impossible for Children.
5)Disregarded the 1948 and 1929 Geneva convetion, but you've shown you support war crimes-that's not moderate
6)They've kidnapped, tortued and killed British Citizens in Afghanistan without ever charging them-that's not moderate.
7)They've supported a corrupt, violent government in Afghanistan-that's not democratic.
8)They invaded a sovereign nation-breaking every single law, defieing the UN, killing 100,000 Iraqi's, crippling the country leading to civil war-that's not moderate
9)Supporting Saddam Hussein, Colonel Gaddafi and other corrupt dictators during the cold war purely because they were anti-communist. That's not moderate

Heck if the US are moderate in the Middle East then the Germans were loving to Poland-and yes I'm saying that the US policy in the middle east is paramount to crimes of Nazi Germany

Since you absolutely love to just throw facts without any evidence and to use ironic expressions which contribute nothing to this debate, answer this question please: what would you prefer to be done instead? What would you think the outcome of all those conflicts would have been if the USA didn't intervene?

There's a film called Charlie Wilson's War, which was based on true facts, and that shows thousands of women were raped (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/Casualties-and-War-Crimes-in-Afghanistan) by the Red Army during the invasion.

And contrary to what you've said, I don't support WWIII or war crimes, I just think global peace should be established, using any necessary methods.

[Stronk Serb]

Since you absolutely love to just throw facts without any evidence and to use ironic expressions which contribute nothing to this debate, answer this question please: what would you prefer to be done instead? What would you think the outcome of all those conflicts would have been if the USA didn't intervene?

There's a film called Charlie Wilson's War, which was based on true facts, and that shows thousands of women were raped (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/Casualties-and-War-Crimes-in-Afghanistan) by the Red Army during the invasion.

And contrary to what you've said, I don't support WWIII or war crimes, I just think global peace should be established, using any necessary methods.

Peace through endless war. Gotcha.

[Living For Love]

Peace through endless war. Gotcha.

There would be endless war if an outside nation like the US didn't intervene. Gotcha?

[Harry Smith]

Since you absolutely love to just throw facts without any evidence and to use ironic expressions which contribute nothing to this debate, answer this question please: what would you prefer to be done instead? What would you think the outcome of all those conflicts would have been if the USA didn't intervene?

There's a film called Charlie Wilson's War, which was based on true facts, and that shows thousands of women were raped (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/Casualties-and-War-Crimes-in-Afghanistan) by the Red Army during the invasion.

And contrary to what you've said, I don't support WWIII or war crimes, I just think global peace should be established, using any necessary methods.

Ask for the evidence, and I'll produce it.

I'd prefer that the US respect international treaties they've signed, and didn't endorse war crimes such as that of Iraq. I'd prefer that the US would use actual international organisations such as the UN to act rather than act on their own in defiance of international law.The outcomes of the conflict-the Soviets would of left Afghanistan in the 1990's no matter what the US did. Iraq would probably still be ruled by Saddam which wouldn't of been great but it's better than civil war that's currently effecting the country.

Global peace? Please tell me you're joking. The US hasn't helped at all establish this-the US has poured oil on the flames of international peace

There would be endless war if an outside nation like the US didn't intervene. Gotcha?

No, not really. Every single major war in the last 30 years has the finger tips of the US on it. The US very rarely has been able to stop war through intervention, as Mike said the idea that you stop war by war is a completely false on. Your actually quoting the book 1984-you know the one about a totalitarian super state

Freedom is slavery, Peace is War

[Stronk Serb]

There would be endless war if an outside nation like the US didn't intervene. Gotcha?

There would be endless war if the US continued intervening. Harry showed you all the evidemce you need, and you refuse to believe that the US has too much blood on their hands. Look at the October Revolution. The people were rebelling against the Tsar because he was oppressive. BAM! Half of the world intervened including the US, making the fullfilment of communist agendas impossible.

[Living For Love]

Ask for the evidence, and I'll produce it.

I'd prefer that the US respect international treaties they've signed, and didn't endorse war crimes such as that of Iraq. I'd prefer that the US would use actual international organisations such as the UN to act rather than act on their own in defiance of international law.

The outcomes of the conflict-the Soviets would of left Afghanistan in the 1990's no matter what the US did. Iraq would probably still be ruled by Saddam which wouldn't of been great but it's better than civil war that's currently effecting the country.

Global peace? Please tell me you're joking. The US hasn't helped at all establish this



No, not really. Every single major war in the last 30 years has the finger tips of the US on it

"Use actual international organisations"? Do you really think UN and NATO would send troops to the field? All they do is producing stupid rhetoric speeches and trying to dialogue with politics and war lords who don't care about them, their citizens and their opinions. Big problems require big solutions, as fast as possible.

And by the way, if the USA actually used international organisations to act rather than act on their own, what would they do, in your opinion, to end the conflicts?

[Harry Smith]

"Use actual international organisations"? Do you really think UN and NATO would send troops to the field? All they do is producing stupid rhetoric speeches and trying to dialogue with politics and war lords who don't care about them, their citizens and their opinions. Big problems require big solutions, as fast as possible.

And by the way, if the USA actually used international organisations to act rather than act on their own, what would they do, in your opinion, to end the conflicts?

Yes, because they've done it in the past. They've done it in the Democratic republic of congo, they've done it in Korea-there's countless examples of where the UN have engaged with direct troops. So you're wrong to claim that they wouldn't send troops in the field

They'd negotiate a peace deal, work the current government rather than the US model of supporting the anti-communist guy and not asking any questions.

Big questions require the international community, not just bombs. You've been very quiet about Iraq, I thought that's the best example of how the heroic US saved the world-http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/iraq-fall-mosul

[Stronk Serb]

"Use actual international organisations"? Do you really think UN and NATO would send troops to the field? All they do is producing stupid rhetoric speeches and trying to dialogue with politics and war lords who don't care about them, their citizens and their opinions. Big problems require big solutions, as fast as possible.

And by the way, if the USA actually used international organisations to act rather than act on their own, what would they do, in your opinion, to end the conflicts?

Not bomb them to the Stone Age for starters. Conflict breeds war. War breeds more war. You cannot stop this endless cycle with more war.

[Living For Love]

Yes, because they've done it in the past. They've done it in the Democratic republic of congo, they've done it in Korea-there's countless examples of where the UN have engaged with direct troops. So you're wrong to claim that they wouldn't send troops in the field

They'd negotiate a peace deal, work the current government rather than the US model of supporting the anti-communist guy and not asking any questions

Not bomb them to the Stone Age for starters. Conflict breeds war. War breeds more war. You cannot stop this endless cycle with more war.

Negotiate a peace deal? Yeah, sure, this is paradise and I'm Santa Claus. USA weaponry and experience in armed conflicts are much more than the ones of the UN, and either way, if the UN intervenes, the USA intervenes too. Take a look at Syria, for instance: what has UN done so far? I'm sure that if USA had intervened, the conflict would be over already.

[Harry Smith]

Negotiate a peace deal? Yeah, sure, this is paradise and I'm Santa Claus. USA weaponry and experience in armed conflicts are much more than the ones of the UN, and either way, if the UN intervenes, the USA intervenes too. Take a look at Syria, for instance: what has UN done so far? I'm sure that if USA had intervened, the conflict would be over already.

This is a treat

Your disregard for the UN shows that your knowledge of History is pretty weak, as was shown in your last post where you incorrectly claimed that the UN never deployed troops. Here's some examples showing that your claim is wrong

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21563949
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Protection_Force (sorry mike)

The conflic would be over? The US planned for 4 days of air-strikes, the Russians promised that they would respond in turn by providing anti-air missiles, and the Iranians would of backed up support for Syria. But let's go on your claim-the conflict would be over. It's extremely simple to think the US would simply turn up with a magic wand and help the situation, in fact history proves that you're wrong. The problem the US have in the Middle East is that they're unable to beat the peace. Sure it's easy for them to crush a much smaller military but they've proved that they lack any sort of exit plan leading to in many cases civil war. Still no mention by you of Iraq-14 years ago the US were able to solve the Iraq problem-oh wait

It's been 11 years since Iraq-has the conflict ended-No
It's been 13 years since Afgansitan-No
It's been 3 years since Libya-No

[Living For Love]

This is a treat

Your disregard for the UN shows that your knowledge of History is pretty weak, as was shown in your last post where you incorrectly claimed that the UN never deployed troops. Here's some examples showing that your claim is wrong

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21563949
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Protection_Force (sorry mike)

The conflic would be over? The US planned for 4 days of air-strikes, the Russians promised that they would respond in turn by providing anti-air missiles, and the Iranians would of backed up support for Syria. But let's go on your claim-the conflict would be over. It's extremely simple to think the US would simply turn up with a magic wand and help the situation, in fact history proves that you're wrong

It's been 11 years since Iraq-has the conflict ended-No
It's been 13 years since Afgansitan-No
It's been 3 years since Libya-No

Why do you keep proving your claims by showing me evidence of conflicts that happened in the past? Just because it happened/didn't happen in the past doesn't mean it's going to happen now. So I guess your idea is to let Syrians kill themselves till there's no one left? If you think calling UN's aid would be such a good idea, then why hasn't anything been done yet?

And I admit that my knowledge of History is not very good, but still, I don't need to know a lot of history to know that the USA foreign policy brings more advantages than negative aspects to worldwide peace, I just need to turn on the television. I don't know where your hatred of the USA comes from, and I don't really care, but you should think about the thousands of men and women who keep on fighting on wars that they didn't start and that don't affect them minimally just to make sure the world is safe from sick terrorist maniacs.

[phuckphace]

not to derail this thread too much but someone mentioned the completion of women's liberation in the USSR. unfortunately this was a social experiment that failed. in the USSR women could hold literally any job that men could, including working in coal mines IIRC. but what about the counter-revolutionary tradition of child-rearing? Soviet "families" would pop out a couple of kids, abort the rest and chunk the live ones into the state-run child-care system where they would then spend most of their childhood. this miserable arrangement (essentially raised as an orphan while your parents were still living) was about as far removed from the natural Western family tradition that you can get, and I wouldn't be surprised if this contributed significantly to Russia's still-high alcoholism and suicide rates.

the commies had the right idea when they removed the corrupt haute bourgeoisie from power, but their social arrangements were disastrous. the traditional family is often thought of as a religious phenomenon (hence being targeted numerous times by progressive agendas of one stripe or another) but it's clear to me that it evolved naturally. when you disrupt the family, you introduce many negative psychological externalities that nobody prepared for.

tl;dr - women need to stay at home to raise their children. without the stay-at-home mom we would die out.

[TheBigUnit]

The US foreign policy is sought generally to benefit ourselves to make the masses/companies happy,

if our actions also positively affects other nations its like adding sprinkles to your ice cream to brag to the world population that be truly care, if it doesnt positively affect the world we make it look like its a necessary evil or something that "must be done"

One thing though, US foreign policy affects almost everyone in the world

[Gamma Male]

not to derail this thread too much but someone mentioned the completion of women's liberation in the USSR. unfortunately this was a social experiment that failed. in the USSR women could hold literally any job that men could, including working in coal mines IIRC. but what about the counter-revolutionary tradition of child-rearing? Soviet "families" would pop out a couple of kids, abort the rest and chunk the live ones into the state-run child-care system where they would then spend most of their childhood. this miserable arrangement (essentially raised as an orphan while your parents were still living) was about as far removed from the natural Western family tradition that you can get, and I wouldn't be surprised if this contributed significantly to Russia's still-high alcoholism and suicide rates.

the commies had the right idea when they removed the corrupt haute bourgeoisie from power, but their social arrangements were disastrous. the traditional family is often thought of as a religious phenomenon (hence being targeted numerous times by progressive agendas of one stripe or another) but it's clear to me that it evolved naturally. when you disrupt the family, you introduce many negative psychological externalities that nobody prepared for.

tl;dr - women need to stay at home to raise their children. without the stay-at-home mom we would die out.


What about stay at home dads?

[Harry Smith]

Why do you keep proving your claims by showing me evidence of conflicts that happened in the past? Just because it happened/didn't happen in the past doesn't mean it's going to happen now. So I guess your idea is to let Syrians kill themselves till there's no one left? If you think calling UN's aid would be such a good idea, then why hasn't anything been done yet?

And I admit that my knowledge of History is not very good, but still, I don't need to know a lot of history to know that the USA foreign policy brings more advantages than negative aspects to worldwide peace, I just need to turn on the television. I don't know where your hatred of the USA comes from, and I don't really care, but you should think about the thousands of men and women who keep on fighting on wars that they didn't start and that don't affect them minimally just to make sure the world is safe from sick terrorist maniacs.

Because History very much repeats itself, you stated that the war in Syria would now be over if the US got involved and I citied the prevoius time we were told this only for the war to go on much further-anyone remember this-2003 George Bush proudly stated that the Iraq war was over-he was as usual wrong. The US doesn't now how to do a limited war-which is what you want in Syria. You've got one side lead by a dictator, and the other by Islamic extremists who've beheaded, raped and even eaten they're enemies-but sure lets help them into power. We should keep the hell out-the US didn't care when Congo had a civil war for 10 years-they only care if OIl is involved

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg

AH yes, the infamous bash of my character on the basis of my hatred for both troops. Do you know how ironic your language is-I mean just look what you said before

but you should think about the thousands of men and women who keep on fighting on wars that they didn't start

They didn't start? Please tell me you're joking-who started Iraq? US. Who started Afganistan? The US. Who started Panama? The US. Please never again claim that the US didn't start the wars because even if you think there cause is right they very much started these wars due to the fact they're offensive wars. Who started the war in Vietnam? The US. Who started the war in Grenada? The US. This whole idea that the brave troops deserve to be treated as heroes isn't really backed up by anything in fact they're crimes in Afghanistan are close in scale to that of the German Army in France. You never hear people saying-think of all the germans who died under the banner of Nazism. Just because someone dies for an idea doesn't make it worthwhile

affect them minimally just to make sure the world is safe from sick terrorist maniacs.

Okay-you claim they keep the world safe from terrorists.

Why have the US supported terrorist actions in Cuba involving blowing up a plane, assisation attempts and bombings? (under operation Moongose)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviaci%C3%B3n_Flight_455

If the US is keeping the world safe from terrorists then they'd need to imprison the entire CIA staff. They literally committed a copy of 9/11 yet no-one in the US seems to talk about it-just more wank about how the US saves us from terrorists when it has been supporting terrorists for the last 50 years including those in Afghanistan. The US only cares about terrorists who harm the US-otherwise they're more than happy to support them.

This is my problem with people like you-you're literally delusional about what's going on. Please tell me which one of these helped the Global community? You've yet to give an example of war which has helped the Global community

If you think this is peace-I'd love to see your definition of war

-Afganistan-destroyed countryside, merciless drone strikes, death squads, breaking of the Geneva convention, installing a corrupt government, setting up another state doomed to fail e.g South Vietnam
Panama-Invaded a country on the sole intention of removing a 'drug dealer' who was in fact a CIA solider
Grenada-Invaded a country simply because guess what-it was communist
Iraq-100,000 dead, no attempts at diplomacy, destroyed the infrastructure of a country, massive increase in disease/infant hunger, allowed state to become a warzone for 8 years and guess what-no WMD were ever found in Iraq-we went in on the basis that Iraq could attack us-but they clearly couldn't. Ironically enough I supported the war on the basis that the UK claimed we had the intel however it's clear that Blair A) Got played by Bush B)The US wanted war.
South Vietnam-Supported a largely corrupt, autocratic government, poisoned the countryside,committed massacre after massacre, left long standing scars of vietnamese society. Along with huge loss of life for many American families
Cuba-Worse one IMO, not only did they support a corrupt regime in the 50's but when this was removed in favor of populist policies they started funding a very right wing miltia group that tried to invade Cuba in 1961, then they decided when that failed to bomb the Island, sink boats, poison food supply and in one case-support Domestic terrorism.
Saudi Arabia-Another Cuba type, supported a corrupt ruling family in exchange for wealth and security. Saudi's have one of the most extreme islamic states including virtually no rights for women, LGBT or underclass within society. The US always boost about the mission in Afghanistan to restore human rights-what about Saudi Arabai

[Living For Love]

Because History very much repeats itself, you stated that the war in Syria would now be over if the US got involved and I citied the prevoius time we were told this only for the war to go on much further-anyone remember this-2003 George Bush proudly stated that the Iraq war was over-he was as usual wrong. The US doesn't now how to do a limited war-which is what you want in Syria. You've got one side lead by a dictator, and the other by Islamic extremists who've beheaded, raped and even eaten they're enemies-but sure lets help them into power. We should keep the hell out-the US didn't care when Congo had a civil war for 10 years-they only care if OIl is involved

image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg)

You still haven't told me what should be done in Syria, then. Let them solve the conflicts while Russia and China feed Assad's troops with weaponry till there's no one left to fight?

AH yes, the infamous bash of my character on the basis of my hatred for both troops. Do you know how ironic your language is-I mean just look what you said before

They didn't start? Please tell me you're joking-who started Iraq? US. Who started Afganistan? The US. Who started Panama? The US. Please never again claim that the US didn't start the wars because even if you think there cause is right they very much started these wars due to the fact they're offensive wars. Who started the war in Vietnam? The US. Who started the war in Grenada? The US. This whole idea that the brave troops deserve to be treated as heroes isn't really backed up by anything in fact they're crimes in Afghanistan are close in scale to that of the German Army in France. You never hear people saying-think of all the germans who died under the banner of Nazism. Just because someone dies for an idea doesn't make it worthwhile

Don't say only they started the war, say why they started as well. In case of Afghanistan, to stop terrorism, in case of Panama, so stop a dictator and free Panama from his wickedness, in Vietnam, to prevent communist take-over in the southern territories of Vietname, in Grenada to defeat a dictator as well. If the USA didn't intervene, these conflicts, most of them ended by now, would have taken the lives of many more people, and worldwide, there would be also economic and social consequence no one could even determine. So yeah, these are some examples of the positive aspects of American intervention on foreign affairs.

Okay-you claim they keep the world safe from terrorists.

Why have the US supported terrorist actions in Cuba involving blowing up a plane, assisation attempts and bombings? (under operation Moongose)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviaci%C3%B3n_Flight_455

If the US is keeping the world safe from terrorists then they'd need to imprison the entire CIA staff. They literally committed a copy of 9/11 yet no-one in the US seems to talk about it-just more wank about how the US saves us from terrorists when it has been supporting terrorists for the last 50 years including those in Afghanistan. The US only cares about terrorists who harm the US-otherwise they're more than happy to support them.

This is my problem with people like you-you're literally delusional about what's going on. Please tell me which one of these helped the Global community? You've yet to give an example of war which has helped the Global community

If you think this is peace-I'd love to see your definition of war

Once again, you're repeating your weak arguments and stating that the USA have been supporting terrorist for the past 50 years. You know that now, but no one could have foreseen that when it actually happened, they didn't know that some decades afterwards they were going to start a war with those rebels. Some of the conflicts you mentioned are directly related to the Cold War, so you can't say the USA did this and that just for the sake of it, they were at a war with USSR, and between those two, a logical sane person would support the USA, so there are bad things that are definitely worth it in order to prevent a greater evil.

[Vlerchan]

EDIT:

... but it's clear to me that it evolved naturally.
It evolved naturally. I agree with that. I don't agree with the idea that the "Western family tradition" is "natural" however: the current 'traditional' family model is only tradition if you pretend that history started in 1780 or about the onset of the Industrial Revolution: the current notion of the 'traditional family' grew out of the industrial revolution (http://www.articlemyriad.com/impacts-industrial-revolution-families-new-england/) as families adapted to then immediate material conditions. You'll find that most aspects of culture are a resultant of immediate material conditions: importantly marraige exists as a result of private-property existing - individuals engage in long-term relationships as to birth an heir.

It was presumed by Kollontai an those others who pioneered the progressive legislation in the early USSR that family relationships would also shift to adapt to the new immediate material conditions. Given that this as a history of happening in most aspects of life that you might name I don't feel that this was a wrong point of view to take. Stalin then himself re-introduced the 'traditional-which-isn't-really-traditional' family unit when he came to power - clamping down on homosexuality, etc. - because (I presume - I never looked into this bit) he realised that the nuclear family was much more suited to traditional capitalist industrial-production - of which he felt would grow his country fastest (and was correct).

unfortunately this was a social experiment that failed.
No. It didn't.

It wasn't given a chance. It ended in 1927.

in the USSR women could hold literally any job that men could, including working in coal mines IIRC.
You mean like they can in Capitalist countries now?

I personally don't have an issue with equal employment opportunities.

but what about the counter-revolutionary tradition of child-rearing?
It would become a communal effort.

Or so it was hoped.

Soviet "families" would pop out a couple of kids, abort the rest and chunk the live ones into the state-run child-care system where they would then spend most of their childhood.
Feel free to present evidence which documents this occurring during the period 1917 - 1927.

Y'know before they'd even set up communal childcare in most areas.

... and I wouldn't be surprised if this contributed significantly to Russia's still-high alcoholism and suicide rates.
Russia's suicide and alcoholism rates are high currently as a result of neoliberalism and the toll it took on Russians.

but their social arrangements were disastrous.
Ironically, for most of its history, the social arrangements in the USSR were similar to that of the nuclear family.

... when you disrupt the family, you introduce many negative psychological externalities that nobody prepared for.
Nobody went about disrupting.

There was just a presumption around the time of the USSRs formation that as immediate material conditions changed then so would family structures. Legislation was passed in order to allow for this. It might have happened but then Stalin came to power and reverted everything - which extends to some ridiculous propaganda attempts. Look how happy the commies look in their traditional family structures:

http://russophilia.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/1967.jpg
http://russophilia.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/breastfeed.jpg
http://blogs.lt.vt.edu/carlin/files/2013/10/baiuskinmax.jpg

Don't you just wish it could stay that way forever?

[Stronk Serb]

You still haven't told me what should be done in Syria, then. Let them solve the conflicts while Russia and China feed Assad's troops with weaponry till there's no one left to fight?



Don't say only they started the war, say why they started as well. In case of Afghanistan, to stop terrorism, in case of Panama, so stop a dictator and free Panama from his wickedness, in Vietnam, to prevent communist take-over in the southern territories of Vietname, in Grenada to defeat a dictator as well. If the USA didn't intervene, these conflicts, most of them ended by now, would have taken the lives of many more people, and worldwide, there would be also economic and social consequence no one could even determine. So yeah, these are some examples of the positive aspects of American intervention on foreign affairs.



Once again, you're repeating your weak arguments and stating that the USA have been supporting terrorist for the past 50 years. You know that now, but no one could have foreseen that when it actually happened, they didn't know that some decades afterwards they were going to start a war with those rebels. Some of the conflicts you mentioned are directly related to the Cold War, so you can't say the USA did this and that just for the sake of it, they were at a war with USSR, and between those two, a logical sane person would support the USA, so there are bad things that are definitely worth it in order to prevent a greater evil.


Afghanistan- to stop the terrorists they armed and trained.

Panama- to make another puppet and they did some messed up shit there

Cuba- they are trying to overthrow a man who oveerthrew a dictator with the aid of the people

Iraq- trying to overthrow a dictator who they installed, armed, taught chemical warfare

Syria- supporting cannibals, Al-Qaeda and other extremists

I'd not go USSR or USA. I would go Non-Aligned Movement.

[Harry Smith]

You still haven't told me what should be done in Syria, then. Let them solve the conflicts while Russia and China feed Assad's troops with weaponry till there's no one left to fight?



Don't say only they started the war, say why they started as well. In case of Afghanistan, to stop terrorism, in case of Panama, so stop a dictator and free Panama from his wickedness, in Vietnam, to prevent communist take-over in the southern territories of Vietname, in Grenada to defeat a dictator as well. If the USA didn't intervene, these conflicts, most of them ended by now, would have taken the lives of many more people, and worldwide, there would be also economic and social consequence no one could even determine. So yeah, these are some examples of the positive aspects of American intervention on foreign affairs.



Once again, you're repeating your weak arguments and stating that the USA have been supporting terrorist for the past 50 years. You know that now, but no one could have foreseen that when it actually happened, they didn't know that some decades afterwards they were going to start a war with those rebels. Some of the conflicts you mentioned are directly related to the Cold War, so you can't say the USA did this and that just for the sake of it, they were at a war with USSR, and between those two, a logical sane person would support the USA, so there are bad things that are definitely worth it in order to prevent a greater evil.

This is going to be pretty long but why not

Your knowledge on Syria appears to be pretty weak-the UN has been greatly involved and has actually been able provide food, medicine and support for the civilians. I'd want there to be another Geneva conference, like the one earlier this year where we get all sides around the Table, and use this thing called diplomacy-you may of heard of it. I'd want the UN to get a peace settlement on the table. The UN has been able to take chemical weapons from the Assad Regime which is clearly a good action-Iraq showed us that the best way to deal with WMD's is to work with the international community rather than dismissing it.

What you want to do by following the US plan is to give Islamic extremists control of Syria-that sounds great doesn't it. I mean if you're a proper US Fanboy then why would you want another safe heaven for terrorists next to Israel?

Also in regards to Syria-I hate to tell you but the US hasn't actually intervened so you can't use it as a positive example of the US intervention because they haven't intervened so your argument is moot

No please, in Vietnam they were supporting a dictator, in fact they killed the democratically elected president and supported a far right military regime. Have you seen the damage that US bombing has done to Vietnam? You've got children now who are still feeling the effects of the bombing as they pretty much sprinkled the ground in Chemicals. The MY LAI massarce where US troops killed over 200 women and children for absolutely no reason. Even the most ardent US supporters would question the tactics that were used in the Vietnam war because not only were they supporting a far right dictatorship but they were also destroying the country. From a moral point of view I don't think that the US should get involved in a civil war that's happening on the other side of the world. I know it's hard for you right wing nuts to understand but some people in the developing world wanted Socialism because they'd been fucked over by western companies for hundreds of years. The people of Vietnam wanted to live in a communist state-hence why the South fell not due to a standing Army but through a peasant uprising. In order for your theory to be correct South Vietnam should of risen from the ashes-but just like many other unpopular regimes.

Please tell me you didn't say wickedness, this isn't a fairy-tale. This wicked dictator had been set up the US government. You talk about Panama but you clearly ignore these two facts about the President of Panama-even congress admitted that they had failed on this account. It really shows just how bad the US foreign policy-it's hard to put a lead on a dog after you've put a crown on it's head

though the relationship did not become contractual until 1967, Noriega worked with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s until the 1980s

The 1988 Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations concluded: "The saga of Panama's General Manuel Antonio Noriega represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures for the United States.

Lol please-they weren't at war with the USSR-I'm sure you know that. I love that your breaking up the cold war because it really shows just how desperate the US were for global domination in the era-they supported terrorists, dictators and murderers on the basis of them being anti-communist. The cold war shows just how bad the US were, and still is.

It's not a weak argument man, you brought up terrorism-and I showed that the US has supported Terrorism in the past in a range of locations. You can't claim that terrorism is bad whilst then supporting it in other countries as that makes you a hypocrite. A greater evil? Ha. The Cuba policy had very little to do with the USSR-in fact Cuba still remaining after the fall of the USSR in the 1990's shows that the Cuba foreign policy was solely about Cuba-you claim it was for the greater good. That's bullshit because it defaults the greater good if you have to rape, kill and bomb and order to achieve it. You've still yet to actually respond to the actions taken in Cuba which shows that either your ignoring the issue or you agree with my line on Cuba which is that the US funded, supported and directed terrorist acts in Cuba. However you're previous disregard for international laws mean you probably support said action because you know-we need to defeat those damn commies and there free healthcare. As Mike says the chose isn't between the US and the USSR-they could quite easily of joined the non-allinged movement

If the USA didn't intervene, these conflicts, most of them ended by now, would have taken the lives of many more people, and worldwide, there would be also economic and social consequence no one could even determine

This is worse thing you state because you don't actually give me any examples to work with-you've been very bad at giving successful examples of US foreign policy instead you've just resorted to claiming everything is good because it helped stop the USSR (when in fact it didn't)

Okay let's look at Iraq-if the US didn't intervene you'd have 100,000 people still alive, you'd have a stable government, you wouldn't have civil war destroying the country. Have you seen Iraq in the last 10 years-it's turned from a Secular secure nation in the 90's to bandit land ruled by Islamic extremists that's plunged the country into civil war. The economic consequences are pretty clear considering the country is a bombsite, and the social issues-more babies born with abnormalities, a country that this week has been plunged into civil war and a country that has clearly been made since the US intervened in 2003.

Your claim that the US stop war by starting war has really only been backed up in 1991 and I'd argue whilst the US are given credit they had a United Nations mandate enabling the international community to get involved. When the US go alone such as in Iraq or Vietnam they don't stop the conflict-they make it 100x times worse.

[TheBigUnit]

This is going to be pretty long but why not

Your knowledge on Syria appears to be pretty weak-the UN has been greatly involved and has actually been able provide food, medicine and support for the civilians. I'd want there to be another Geneva conference, like the one earlier this year where we get all sides around the Table, and use this thing called diplomacy-you may of heard of it. I'd want the UN to get a peace settlement on the table. The UN has been able to take chemical weapons from the Assad Regime which is clearly a good action-Iraq showed us that the best way to deal with WMD's is to work with the international community rather than dismissing it.

What you want to do by following the US plan is to give Islamic extremists control of Syria-that sounds great doesn't it. I mean if you're a proper US Fanboy then why would you want another safe heaven for terrorists next to Israel?

Also in regards to Syria-I hate to tell you but the US hasn't actually intervened so you can't use it as a positive example of the US intervention because they haven't intervened so your argument is moot

No please, in Vietnam they were supporting a dictator, in fact they killed the democratically elected president and supported a far right military regime. Have you seen the damage that US bombing has done to Vietnam? You've got children now who are still feeling the effects of the bombing as they pretty much sprinkled the ground in Chemicals. The MY LAI massarce where US troops killed over 200 women and children for absolutely no reason. Even the most ardent US supporters would question the tactics that were used in the Vietnam war because not only were they supporting a far right dictatorship but they were also destroying the country. From a moral point of view I don't think that the US should get involved in a civil war that's happening on the other side of the world. I know it's hard for you right wing nuts to understand but some people in the developing world wanted Socialism because they'd been fucked over by western companies for hundreds of years. The people of Vietnam wanted to live in a communist state-hence why the South fell not due to a standing Army but through a peasant uprising. In order for your theory to be correct South Vietnam should of risen from the ashes-but just like many other unpopular regimes.

Please tell me you didn't say wickedness, this isn't a fairy-tale. This wicked dictator had been set up the US government. You talk about Panama but you clearly ignore these two facts about the President of Panama-even congress admitted that they had failed on this account. It really shows just how bad the US foreign policy-it's hard to put a lead on a dog after you've put a crown on it's head





Lol please-they weren't at war with the USSR-I'm sure you know that. I love that your breaking up the cold war because it really shows just how desperate the US were for global domination in the era-they supported terrorists, dictators and murderers on the basis of them being anti-communist. The cold war shows just how bad the US were, and still is.

It's not a weak argument man, you brought up terrorism-and I showed that the US has supported Terrorism in the past in a range of locations. You can't claim that terrorism is bad whilst then supporting it in other countries as that makes you a hypocrite. A greater evil? Ha. The Cuba policy had very little to do with the USSR-in fact Cuba still remaining after the fall of the USSR in the 1990's shows that the Cuba foreign policy was solely about Cuba-you claim it was for the greater good. That's bullshit because it defaults the greater good if you have to rape, kill and bomb and order to achieve it. You've still yet to actually respond to the actions taken in Cuba which shows that either your ignoring the issue or you agree with my line on Cuba which is that the US funded, supported and directed terrorist acts in Cuba. However you're previous disregard for international laws mean you probably support said action because you know-we need to defeat those damn commies and there free healthcare. As Mike says the chose isn't between the US and the USSR-they could quite easily of joined the non-allinged movement



This is worse thing you state because you don't actually give me any examples to work with-you've been very bad at giving successful examples of US foreign policy instead you've just resorted to claiming everything is good because it helped stop the USSR (when in fact it didn't)

Okay let's look at Iraq-if the US didn't intervene you'd have 100,000 people still alive, you'd have a stable government, you wouldn't have civil war destroying the country. Have you seen Iraq in the last 10 years-it's turned from a Secular secure nation in the 90's to bandit land ruled by Islamic extremists that's plunged the country into civil war. The economic consequences are pretty clear considering the country is a bombsite, and the social issues-more babies born with abnormalities, a country that this week has been plunged into civil war and a country that has clearly been made since the US intervened in 2003.

Your claim that the US stop war by starting war has really only been backed up in 1991 and I'd argue whilst the US are given credit they had a United Nations mandate enabling the international community to get involved. When the US go alone such as in Iraq or Vietnam they don't stop the conflict-they make it 100x times worse.

+1 rep :P

[Living For Love]

This is going to be pretty long but why not

Your knowledge on Syria appears to be pretty weak-the UN has been greatly involved and has actually been able provide food, medicine and support for the civilians. I'd want there to be another Geneva conference, like the one earlier this year where we get all sides around the Table, and use this thing called diplomacy-you may of heard of it. I'd want the UN to get a peace settlement on the table. The UN has been able to take chemical weapons from the Assad Regime which is clearly a good action-Iraq showed us that the best way to deal with WMD's is to work with the international community rather than dismissing it.

What you want to do by following the US plan is to give Islamic extremists control of Syria-that sounds great doesn't it. I mean if you're a proper US Fanboy then why would you want another safe heaven for terrorists next to Israel?

Also in regards to Syria-I hate to tell you but the US hasn't actually intervened so you can't use it as a positive example of the US intervention because they haven't intervened so your argument is moot

Diplomacy!? You still think there's an actual chance that peace negotiations between the international community, the rebels and a man that's been gassing his own people will even occur? There's no room for diplomacy in Syria, and by what you said so far, it seems to me that you prefer Assad to still rule Syria after all he's been doing.

No please, in Vietnam they were supporting a dictator, in fact they killed the democratically elected president and supported a far right military regime. Have you seen the damage that US bombing has done to Vietnam? You've got children now who are still feeling the effects of the bombing as they pretty much sprinkled the ground in Chemicals. The MY LAI massarce where US troops killed over 200 women and children for absolutely no reason. Even the most ardent US supporters would question the tactics that were used in the Vietnam war because not only were they supporting a far right dictatorship but they were also destroying the country. From a moral point of view I don't think that the US should get involved in a civil war that's happening on the other side of the world. I know it's hard for you right wing nuts to understand but some people in the developing world wanted Socialism because they'd been fucked over by western companies for hundreds of years. The people of Vietnam wanted to live in a communist state-hence why the South fell not due to a standing Army but through a peasant uprising. In order for your theory to be correct South Vietnam should of risen from the ashes-but just like many other unpopular regimes.

Please tell me you didn't say wickedness, this isn't a fairy-tale. This wicked dictator had been set up the US government. You talk about Panama but you clearly ignore these two facts about the President of Panama-even congress admitted that they had failed on this account. It really shows just how bad the US foreign policy-it's hard to put a lead on a dog after you've put a crown on it's head

Vietnam might have been a failure, but even if the south had won, it would only won due to American involvement. It didn't happen, saddly, and that's why you can call it a failure, not because American intervention was bad, but because the south didn't win.

It's not a weak argument man, you brought up terrorism-and I showed that the US has supported Terrorism in the past in a range of locations. You can't claim that terrorism is bad whilst then supporting it in other countries as that makes you a hypocrite. A greater evil? Ha. The Cuba policy had very little to do with the USSR-in fact Cuba still remaining after the fall of the USSR in the 1990's shows that the Cuba foreign policy was solely about Cuba-you claim it was for the greater good. That's bullshit because it defaults the greater good if you have to rape, kill and bomb and order to achieve it. You've still yet to actually respond to the actions taken in Cuba which shows that either your ignoring the issue or you agree with my line on Cuba which is that the US funded, supported and directed terrorist acts in Cuba. However you're previous disregard for international laws mean you probably support said action because you know-we need to defeat those damn commies and there free healthcare. As Mike says the chose isn't between the US and the USSR-they could quite easily of joined the non-allinged movement

You are wrong, the Cuba policy had everything to do with USSR, because it was only after Fidel Castro expropriated lands and companies owned by Americans in Cuba, and after Bay of Pigs invasion, that Cuba's relationship with USSR grew stronger, and that would lead to Cuba's missile crisis, which consequently would put worldwide peace at stake. The USA intervention had the purpose of avoiding the conflict to escalate into an even more serious condition. And we still don't have enough information and evidence about USA terrorist attacks in Cuba.

This is worse thing you state because you don't actually give me any examples to work with-you've been very bad at giving successful examples of US foreign policy instead you've just resorted to claiming everything is good because it helped stop the USSR (when in fact it didn't)

World War II, for instance. If the USA hadn't bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we would still be at war these days.

[Harry Smith]

Diplomacy!? You still think there's an actual chance that peace negotiations between the international community, the rebels and a man that's been gassing his own people will even occur? There's no room for diplomacy in Syria, and by what you said so far, it seems to me that you prefer Assad to still rule Syria after all he's been doing.



Vietnam might have been a failure, but even if the south had won, it would only won due to American involvement. It didn't happen, saddly, and that's why you can call it a failure, not because American intervention was bad, but because the south didn't win.



You are wrong, the Cuba policy had everything to do with USSR, because it was only after Fidel Castro expropriated lands and companies owned by Americans in Cuba, and after Bay of Pigs invasion, that Cuba's relationship with USSR grew stronger, and that would lead to Cuba's missile crisis, which consequently would put worldwide peace at stake. The USA intervention had the purpose of avoiding the conflict to escalate into an even more serious condition. And we still don't have enough information and evidence about USA terrorist attacks in Cuba.



World War II, for instance. If the USA hadn't bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we would still be at war these days.

The rebels have also been using chemical weapons you know? If the US want to stop people using Chemical warfare then they shouldn't of let Iraq do it in the 1980's when they attacked Iran. It seems to me that you want to attack another Muslim country-I'm sick of our country invading the Middle East because we can't afford it-we need to be spending money on hospitals and schools. We can't get involved in every civil war in the world.

Lol nice try with Vietnam-I'd argue that the US being in the country actually made it about 10 times worse-true it would of happened by itself but it would of been better to have a quick war rather than the US just drawing out the conflict, destroying an entire country and poisoning it's land. Vietnam shows how bad US intervention is because they often end up fighting for the much more brutal corrupt side. Just give up on Vietnam-even the most ardent US fanboys struggle to defend that war-there's a reason that so many people in the US protested about it.

Yes we do have enough evidence-even wikipedia knows about it, heck even the most loyal Kennedy supporters know and accept it-hence it's coverage in so many books
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviaci%C3%B3n_Flight_455
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

Okay surely can't you understand why Cuba would move to the USSR after the bay of pigs-the US tried to invade there country. That's not right. You talk about the Socialist policies introduced by Castro but why did the US support Batista for over 10 years. Do you know him? He was a corrupt murderous dictator that the US basically used as puppet-I love that the moment a country becomes anti-US then the the US feel they have a duty to invade just to save the country. The US doesn't care about democracy, and you're really old enough to realize this-why has the US supported so many dictators over the years?

The US wanted regime change in Cuba, and I honestly don't think you understand what Cuba was like in the 50's. I know it's hard for right wingers to imagine a bad capitalist government but it was brutal under Batista hence why the whole of Cuba rose up against him. I love how right wingers then say 'oh wait he tried to reform land'-heck Britain had major land reform in the 40's I didn't see the US stopping us

You seem to take a strange view that the only way to get peace is through war-by your logic would you support an Invasion of the US to stop it's warmongering. You made me laugh with your WW2 claim, you were joking right.Japan had been trying to agree for a peace deal since April 1945 a whole 3 months before the bombing

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

Perhaps the US should only get involved when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Other wise, they'll be sticking their noses where they don't belong and something awful could happen as a result.

[Living For Love]

The rebels have also been using chemical weapons you know? If the US want to stop people using Chemical warfare then they shouldn't of let Iraq do it in the 1980's when they attacked Iran. It seems to me that you want to attack another Muslim country-I'm sick of our country invading the Middle East because we can't afford it-we need to be spending money on hospitals and schools. We can't get involved in every civil war in the world.

Lol nice try with Vietnam-I'd argue that the US being in the country actually made it about 10 times worse-true it would of happened by itself but it would of been better to have a quick war rather than the US just drawing out the conflict, destroying an entire country and poisoning it's land. Vietnam shows how bad US intervention is because they often end up fighting for the much more brutal corrupt side. Just give up on Vietnam-even the most ardent US fanboys struggle to defend that war-there's a reason that so many people in the US protested about it.

Yes we do have enough evidence-even wikipedia knows about it, heck even the most loyal Kennedy supporters know and accept it-hence it's coverage in so many books
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviaci%C3%B3n_Flight_455
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

Okay surely can't you understand why Cuba would move to the USSR after the bay of pigs-the US tried to invade there country. That's not right. You talk about the Socialist policies introduced by Castro but why did the US support Batista for over 10 years. Do you know him? He was a corrupt murderous dictator that the US basically used as puppet-I love that the moment a country becomes anti-US then the the US feel they have a duty to invade just to save the country. The US doesn't care about democracy, and you're really old enough to realize this-why has the US supported so many dictators over the years?

The US wanted regime change in Cuba, and I honestly don't think you understand what Cuba was like in the 50's. I know it's hard for right wingers to imagine a bad capitalist government but it was brutal under Batista hence why the whole of Cuba rose up against him. I love how right wingers then say 'oh wait he tried to reform land'-heck Britain had major land reform in the 40's I didn't see the US stopping us

You seem to take a strange view that the only way to get peace is through war-by your logic would you support an Invasion of the US to stop it's warmongering. You made me laugh with your WW2 claim, you were joking right.Japan had been trying to agree for a peace deal since April 1945 a whole 3 months before the bombing

That only supports what I've been saying about the chances of diplomatic resolutions in Syria being completely impossible. Since, like you said, both sides are using chemical weapons, and the war doesn't seem to going to end soon, then there has to be an international intervention as soon as possible. And for your information, I don't give a crap about who stays in power or not, I just care about the millions of refugees who are fleeing away to other nearby countries who don't have any conditions to support them, who live miserably, and only want a stable government to support them. In this cases, we need to start from zero, and as they can't do it by themselves, and seeing how this conflict is affecting other nations, there has to be an international response.

A quick war!? Are you joking or something, I mean, we're talking about Syria and how the conflict has been lasting for more than three years without any international intervention on the field and now you're telling me in case of Vietnam it would have been just a quick war if the USA hadn't invaded the country? Can you even see the contradiction here or not?

About Cuba, the USA invasion was due to the "international communism" that was being established a bit all over the world. Much threatening than Cuba was the USSR, and considering the close relationships these two nations had, the invasion has a defined purpose, it wasn't only because Cuba was anti-America, like you said. And it's still a bit ironic that Fidel ruled as a dictator, forbidding the media and freedom of speech in Cuba and violating human rights in some cases, which were precisely the two things he fought against during the Cuban Revolution. Having supported someone with similar political and economic ideologies, even if they were autocrats, was important to the USA to combat their main rival (Soviet Union).

In some cases, and unfortunately, the only way to achieve peace is through war, in order to avoid greater and deadlier conflicts. I don't support a USA invasion in order to stop its warmongering, that's just absolutely ridiculous. And the Japanese didn't accept the unconditional surrender that America and Britain proposed to them, that's why the bombings occurred.

[Harry Smith]

That only supports what I've been saying about the chances of diplomatic resolutions in Syria being completely impossible. Since, like you said, both sides are using chemical weapons, and the war doesn't seem to going to end soon, then there has to be an international intervention as soon as possible. And for your information, I don't give a crap about who stays in power or not, I just care about the millions of refugees who are fleeing away to other nearby countries who don't have any conditions to support them, who live miserably, and only want a stable government to support them. In this cases, we need to start from zero, and as they can't do it by themselves, and seeing how this conflict is affecting other nations, there has to be an international response.

A quick war!? Are you joking or something, I mean, we're talking about Syria and how the conflict has been lasting for more than three years without any international intervention on the field and now you're telling me in case of Vietnam it would have been just a quick war if the USA hadn't invaded the country? Can you even see the contradiction here or not?

Much threatening than Cuba was the USSR, and considering the close relationships these two nations had, the invasion has a defined purpose, it wasn't only because Cuba was anti-America, like you said. And it's still a bit ironic that Fidel ruled as a dictator, forbidding the media and freedom of speech in Cuba and violating human rights in some cases, which were precisely the two things he fought against during the Cuban Revolution. Having supported someone with similar political and economic ideologies, even if they were autocrats, was important to the USA to combat their main rival (Soviet Union).

In some cases, and unfortunately, the only way to achieve peace is through war, in order to avoid greater and deadlier conflicts. I don't support a USA invasion in order to stop its warmongering, that's just absolutely ridiculous. And the Japanese didn't accept the unconditional surrender that America and Britain proposed to them, that's why the bombings occurred.

Firstly your showing your own pretty poor knowledge by trying to compare Syria and Vietnam-whilst the Assad regime still has a great deal of support the Vietnamese government never did-the war in Syria started in the Arab Spring, and has been hijacked by Islamic extremists whilst the war in Vietnam was a peasant uprising-and it had much better terrain. If you think Syria is similar in it's geopolitcal struggle you should look at a map, and a book.

If the US didn't get involded they'd be 50,000 more US troops alive, children in Vietnam wouldn't be born with abnormalities, they'd be able to use their land for farming and the US would have about 50 billion more dollars to waste.To be honest the US should of realized after the French were defeated that they couldn't hold Vietnam, that's the funny thing-the US fails to understand basic history hence why they're struggling in Afganstian.

The USSR wasn't dangerous-they had every right to place missiles in Cuba-the US had missiles in Turkey which is equally close to the USSR. Good old US hypocrisy. My point with Cuba was that the US has no right to claim it was doing it out of wanting to help the people of Cuba considering they were happy to help Batista for 20 years. Don't pretend the US cares

Your whole argument is that war is created through peace-considering the US has attacked over 20 countries in the last 50 years why can't we create some peace by destroying them? (I don't believe this, I'm using it to show how bad your argument is)

And no-you're wrong with Japan. America's top generals from the Era disagree with you

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-diary/

Lets see what the Generals said about the bomb as well.

Douglas LeMay-TOP USAAF official in the Pacfic

Quote:
General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."
Douglas MacArthur

Quote:
Stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

[Living For Love]

Firstly your showing your own pretty poor knowledge by trying to compare Syria and Vietnam-whilst the Assad regime still has a great deal of support the Vietnamese government never did-the war in Syria started in the Arab Spring, and has been hijacked by Islamic extremists whilst the war in Vietnam was a peasant uprising-and it had much better terrain. If you think Syria is similar in it's geopolitcal struggle you should look at a map, and a book.

If the US didn't get involded they'd be 50,000 more US troops alive, children in Vietnam wouldn't be born with abnormalities, they'd be able to use their land for farming and the US would have about 50 billion more dollars to waste.To be honest the US should of realized after the French were defeated that they couldn't hold Vietnam, that's the funny thing-the US fails to understand basic history hence why they're struggling in Afganstian.

Lol, this is starting to get funny, you said earlier that history tends to repeat itself, and now you're saying we can't compare Syria and Vietnam. Or better, history repeats itself when USA invades other countries (when conflicts get even worse, according to your statements), but not when they don't (when "quick wars" occur instead, according to your statements as well). I hope you're realising how ridiculous this theory of yours sounds...

The USSR wasn't dangerous-they had every right to place missiles in Cuba-the US had missiles in Turkey which is equally close to the USSR. Good old US hypocrisy. My point with Cuba was that the US has no right to claim it was doing it out of wanting to help the people of Cuba considering they were happy to help Batista for 20 years. Don't pretend the US cares

I didn't say the USA was pretending to be doing it to help people of Cuba, USA was doing it to prevent USSR/communism domination. And the missiles in Turkey and Italy were removed after the Cuban ones.

Your whole argument is that war is created through peace-considering the US has attacked over 20 countries in the last 50 years why can't we create some peace by destroying them? (I don't believe this, I'm using it to show how bad your argument is)

So, I guess you're saying the world would be better off if the USA simply disappeared. Once again, this still sounds pathetic, but I can answer that, if USA was destroyed, we'd have no one to protect us from terrorists, dictators and no one to make sure global peace was established no matter what.

And no-you're wrong with Japan. America's top generals from the Era disagree with you

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-diary/

on the point of collapse and surrender

No one can say this with 100% accuracy. Japan was pretty damaged, yes, but they only wanted to surrender if their godlike Emperor was set free from all the charges of war crimes and human right violations, which clashed with US and Britain's requirement of "unconditional surrender".

[Harry Smith]

Lol, this is starting to get funny, you said earlier that history tends to repeat itself, and now you're saying we can't compare Syria and Vietnam. Or better, history repeats itself when USA invades other countries (when conflicts get even worse, according to your statements), but not when they don't (when "quick wars" occur instead, according to your statements as well). I hope you're realising how ridiculous this theory of yours sounds...



I didn't say the USA was pretending to be doing it to help people of Cuba, USA was doing it to prevent USSR/communism domination. And the missiles in Turkey and Italy were removed after the Cuban ones.



So, I guess you're saying the world would be better off if the USA simply disappeared. Once again, this still sounds pathetic, but I can answer that, if USA was destroyed, we'd have no one to protect us from terrorists, dictators and no one to make sure global peace was established no matter what.





No one can say this with 100% accuracy. Japan was pretty damaged, yes, but they only wanted to surrender if their godlike Emperor was set free from all the charges of war crimes and human right violations, which clashed with US and Britain's requirement of "unconditional surrender".

Not really-anyone with an ounce of military knowledge (something you lack) would know that Syria and Vietnam aren't similiar-however in regards to what I said before Vietnam and Afganistan are similar mainly due to the fact that they're both countries where the combat is rural, where as Syria is much more Urban based. Afghanistan is also similar to Vietnam in the fact that there's one universal group (Taliban/Viet cong). What's funny is how little you seem to know about both conflicts.

The missiles being removed only furthers my point, not yours. And yes, you citied many times that the US was doing to help the Cuban landowners who sufferd.

Not really-I'm sure you know more than the US's top general about the war, all the evidence disagrees with you-the Japanese were trying to get peace-sure we can't be 100% sure but that's not much of a debating point since it's all subjective.

Also you're very weak knowledge is becoming exposed in the debate-the Japenese emperor was never charged with war crimes and the allies never intended to-so yeah nice point

Before the war crime trials actually convened, the SCAP, the IPS, and Japanese officials worked behind the scenes not only to prevent the Imperial family from being indicted, but also to slant the testimony of the defendants to ensure that no one implicated the emperor. High officials in court circles and the Japanese government collaborated with Allied GHQ in compiling lists of prospective war criminals, while the individuals arrested as Class A suspects and incarcerated solemnly vowed to protect their sovereign against any possible taint of war responsibility

protect us from terrorists, dictators and no one to make sure global peace was established no matter what.

Oh please-that's just too easy of me. This has to be the worst thing I've ever seen on this site by about a mile. For the point I don't want the US to disappear-I want the US to work with the international community.

Terrorists-The US not only armed, trained and funded the terrorists who we're fighting, but our own foreign policy has very much encouraged them. They haven't protected Britain from terrorists since we went into Afganistan in 2001 and we where then bombed in 2005. That's not protection. The US and the CIA have always supported countless acts of terror across the world-you've yet to formly reply to the fact that they're currently protecting someone who blew up a passenger plane-that's terrorism. That's not protecting the world from terrorism-that's introducing the world with terrorism. If you can't accept that the US supports terrorism then you should really give up with this whole debate. The US has funded terrorism since the 1950's.

Dictators-Please-I'll give you one example-in 1953 the US/UK government other-threw a democratic government in Iran and replaced it was a monarchy that had completely power. They took power from the government and gave it to a single person. I'd also like to highlight the fact that the US currently supports the world's worse dictatorship in the world. You can't say that the US protects us from Dictatorship when they've been wanking off Saudi Arabia for the last 50 years. Please again give up with these statments that aren't backed up by history

Global peace-Have you seen Iraq? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/13/us-iran-fight-jihadis-iraq
Global peace doesn't exist at the moment, quite frankly to put it nicely you're deluded if you think we have global peace http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10629358

But sure we all love Global peace

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6xTXzQgHmfI/Uh5w71RwF9I/AAAAAAAAOaU/XLUuIMZfwWQ/s1600/US+war+monger+perpetually+at+war.jpg

[Living For Love]

Not really-anyone with an ounce of military knowledge (something you lack) would know that Syria and Vietnam aren't similiar-however in regards to what I said before Vietnam and Afganistan are similar mainly due to the fact that they're both countries where the combat is rural, where as Syria is much more Urban based. Afghanistan is also similar to Vietnam in the fact that there's one universal group (Taliban/Viet cong). What's funny is how little you seem to know about both conflicts.

The missiles being removed only furthers my point, not yours. And yes, you citied many times that the US was doing to help the Cuban landowners who sufferd.

Not really-I'm sure you know more than the US's top general about the war, all the evidence disagrees with you-the Japanese were trying to get peace-sure we can't be 100% sure but that's not much of a debating point since it's all subjective.

Also you're very weak knowledge is becoming exposed in the debate-the Japenese emperor was never charged with war crimes and the allies never intended to-so yeah nice point





Oh please-that's just too easy of me. This has to be the worst thing I've ever seen on this site by about a mile. For the point I don't want the US to disappear-I want the US to work with the international community.

Terrorists-The US not only armed, trained and funded the terrorists who we're fighting, but our own foreign policy has very much encouraged them. They haven't protected Britain from terrorists since we went into Afganistan in 2001 and we where then bombed in 2005. That's not protection. The US and the CIA have always supported countless acts of terror across the world-you've yet to formly reply to the fact that they're currently protecting someone who blew up a passenger plane-that's terrorism. That's not protecting the world from terrorism-that's introducing the world with terrorism. If you can't accept that the US supports terrorism then you should really give up with this whole debate. The US has funded terrorism since the 1950's.

Dictators-Please-I'll give you one example-in 1953 the US/UK government other-threw a democratic government in Iran and replaced it was a monarchy that had completely power. They took power from the government and gave it to a single person. I'd also like to highlight the fact that the US currently supports the world's worse dictatorship in the world. You can't say that the US protects us from Dictatorship when they've been wanking off Saudi Arabia for the last 50 years. Please again give up with these statments that aren't backed up by history

Global peace-Have you seen Iraq? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/13/us-iran-fight-jihadis-iraq
Global peace doesn't exist at the moment, quite frankly to put it nicely you're deluded if you think we have global peace http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10629358

But sure we all love Global peace

image (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6xTXzQgHmfI/Uh5w71RwF9I/AAAAAAAAOaU/XLUuIMZfwWQ/s1600/US+war+monger+perpetually+at+war.jpg)

While I lack military knowledge, you definitely lack common sense, because you're trying to fill this debate with useless and unjustified facts about wars and conflicts in order to make me give up of my statements, which is something that, by the way, you'll never succeed in, so you can now stop telling me that because it won't happen.

What does the fact that in some places there's rural combat and in others urban combat has to do with the fact that an USA intervention in those places would have different outcomes? Since you're an expert on military knowledge, could you please enlighten me?

Yes, that's true, USA was also helping American who had their properties expropriated by Cuba only because they were Americans. USA, contrary to Cuba, respects and defends their citizens, so that's one of the reasons Cuba was invaded.

The Japanese emperor was never charged because General MacArthur pushed to spare him so that the transition of the Japanese from a fanatic military state to a peaceful unarmed democracy would be a lot easier. Australia, for instance, intended to do it.

You're repeating everything you've stated before. They couldn't predict that the "terrorists" they funded before would now turn against them. It's not the fact that USA helped them before that will make America seem like they cooperated with terrorist, it's all the hatred a lot of nations have of America, which consequently develops into bombings and terrorist attacks such as the 9/11, that causes USA to retaliate. And for your information, Saudi Arabia has the oil that we all need, so once again, America is trying to avoid economic chaos to spread around the world in case they want to close access to Persian Gulf. I'd suggest you stopped using your military rhetoric that not even you seem to understand and actually focused on debating the actual facts, because that's what really matters, not conflicts that happened fifty years ago.

[Harry Smith]

.

What does the fact that in some places there's rural combat and in others urban combat has to do with the fact that an USA intervention in those places would have different outcomes? Since you're an expert on military knowledge, could you please enlighten me?

Yes, that's true, USA was also helping American who had their properties expropriated by Cuba only because they were Americans. USA, contrary to Cuba, respects and defends their citizens, so that's one of the reasons Cuba was invaded.

The Japanese emperor was never charged because General MacArthur pushed to spare him so that the transition of the Japanese from a fanatic military state to a peaceful unarmed democracy would be a lot easier. Australia, for instance, intended to do it.

You're repeating everything you've stated before. They couldn't predict that the "terrorists" they funded before would now turn against them. It's not the fact that USA helped them before that will make America seem like they cooperated with terrorist, it's all the hatred a lot of nations have of America, which consequently develops into bombings and terrorist attacks such as the 9/11, that causes USA to retaliate. And for your information, Saudi Arabia has the oil that we all need, so once again, America is trying to avoid economic chaos to spread around the world in case they want to close access to Persian Gulf. I'd suggest you stopped using your military rhetoric that not even you seem to understand and actually focused on debating the actual facts, because that's what really matters, not conflicts that happened fifty years ago.

The US contrary to Cuba, respects and defends their citizens, so that's one of the reasons Cuba was invaded.

Have you seen the patriot act? Or NSA? The Us doesn't respect it's citizens at all. We've had land reform in this country that's taken land away from people by force why didn't the US invade us?

They should of predicted it, just look at Iran in1979-anti-American backlash led to a Islamic government which shows that was potential for it to happen again since both the USSR and the US had views that conflicted with them.

You didn't really relpy to that magic criteria you spunked out before, I'm repeating myself because you don't actually back up any of your claims with evidence or examples. I mean you even accept above that the US supports the dictorship of Saudi Arabia meaning that your argument before is wrong, wrong wrong. Heck you're stubborn with this, but your lack of knowledge makes it look like you a right wing nut who'd love the US even if they commit war crimes, torture innocents and invade countries for false reasons-oh wait.

Your a massive hypocrite if you support Saudi Arabia if USA was destroyed, we'd have no one to protect us from dictators .

Saudi Arabia has the oil that we all need

So you support dictatorships if they have cheap oil? Can you withdaw the claim the US protects us from dictators because they clearly as you accept they don't

[Living For Love]

Have you seen the patriot act? Or NSA? The Us doesn't respect it's citizens at all. We've had land reform in this country that's taken land away from people by force why didn't the US invade us?

They should of predicted it, just look at Iran in1979-anti-American backlash led to a Islamic government which shows that was potential for it to happen again since both the USSR and the US had views that conflicted with them.

You didn't really relpy to that magic criteria you spunked out before, I'm repeating myself because you don't actually back up any of your claims with evidence or examples. I mean you even accept above that the US supports the dictorship of Saudi Arabia meaning that your argument before is wrong, wrong wrong. Heck you're stubborn with this, but your lack of knowledge makes it look like you a right wing nut who'd love the US even if they commit war crimes, torture innocents and invade countries for false reasons-oh wait.

Your a massive hypocrite if you support Saudi Arabia



So you support dictatorships if they have cheap oil? Can you withdaw the claim the US protects us from dictators because they clearly as you accept they don't

The PATRIOT Act and the NSA exist to protect Americans from terrorism, precisely. I honestly don't mind being spied by my government or by the American government because I know they're doing it to protect me, and I have nothing to fear because I have nothing illegal to hide and, to be honest, I trust more the American government than certain people. But I don't want to continue the debate in that direction because I'm going off-topic.

Back on topic, the USA obviously didn't invade Britain because their land reform didn't affect any American the way Cuban one did, and to be honest, which nation would be stupid enough to invade, or even try to invade Britain? That's just one more stupid assumption.

They should have predicted it? How so? How can you even compare both cases again? As far as wars and armed conflicts are concerned, no one can predict anything just because it happened or it didn't happen in the past; different countries, different economic and social situations, different conditions. A military expert like you should know that.

You can call me whatever you like, that just shows how desperate you're looking. I never said I supported Saudi Arabia, either way, I only said the USA are supporting it for a greater cause.

[Harry Smith]

The PATRIOT Act and the NSA exist to protect Americans from terrorism, precisely. I honestly don't mind being spied by my government or by the American government because I know they're doing it to protect me, and I have nothing to fear because I have nothing illegal to hide and, to be honest, I trust more the American government than certain people. But I don't want to continue the debate in that direction because I'm going off-topic.

Back on topic, the USA obviously didn't invade Britain because their land reform didn't affect any American the way Cuban one did, and to be honest, which nation would be stupid enough to invade, or even try to invade Britain? That's just one more stupid assumption.

They should have predicted it? How so? How can you even compare both cases again? As far as wars and armed conflicts are concerned, no one can predict anything just because it happened or it didn't happen in the past; different countries, different economic and social situations, different conditions. A military expert like you should know that.

You can call me whatever you like, that just shows how desperate you're looking. I never said I supported Saudi Arabia, either way, I only said the USA are supporting it for a greater cause.

I know the US aren't going to invade the UK, I was just using to show the usesles of your argument. The US were fighting for big business and Mafia interests in Cuba-and ironically this got JFK killed.

The US should of seen the changes that were ocurring within Islam-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_revival

The 1979 revolution showed that many Muslism were against the US, you can keep saying 'they couldn't of predicted it' but they really should of. This shows the failure of there own policy as even after an anti-US revolution by Muslims they still assumed that they could be trusted. In fact the CIA were told in the 80's that the Mujadeen were fighting for conservative causes which could be 'anti-American'

You can predict stuff very easily from History-hence the first law of warfare-don't march on Moscow-Napoleon tried it, Hitler tried it and I'd know that I wouldn't try it with a land army. We learned after WW2 we needed to work with Germany rather than destroy it. The americans should of looked at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu as proof that the Vietnamese were very powerful on their hometurf. Your rather amateurish comments.

So basically despite the fact you said the US protects us from dicatorships, you meant to say the US protects us from dictatorships that don't agree with the US?

Still no mention of Iraq-you've posted about 50 times, yet you haven't brought up how the US saved us from Iraq

[Vlerchan]

I had a really long post done out. And then lost it. tl;dr:

The US only cares about fulfilling its own interests. This is not unlike every other nation in history. In the past the US has supported dictators (inc. left-wing ones: Pol Pot) and terrorists and opposed democraticly-elected governments.

I feel the best thing to do in Syria is to just leave it be. I'd prefer if Asaad came out on top though.

Syria and Vietnam are unlike in that the communists (opposition rebels) had massive public support which would have allowed them to end the war quickly without intervention. If you want proof: just see how quickly they overran the south after the US had left.

The combat in Syria is looking to become more hit-and-run-like as Asaad continues to liberate terrorist-held cities and strongholds and forces them out into the countryside. It has only been urban-based these last few years because the forces were evenly-matches enough to allow for such sustained and drawn-out conflict to take place.

The US-SA relationship is actually cooling. The US is looking more towards Iran now.

It seems obvious that if you install a brutal dictator, as the US did in Iran, when that brutal dictator is ousted the ousters will take a dim view of your country.

Cuba cares about its people. It wouldn't be trying to transition to Socialism otherwise.

People commit terrorism against the US because the US is invading their countries to further the asupposed 'greater good'.

[Living For Love]

I know the US aren't going to invade the UK, I was just using to show the usesles of your argument. The US were fighting for big business and Mafia interests in Cuba-and ironically this got JFK killed.

The US should of seen the changes that were ocurring within Islam-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_revival

The 1979 revolution showed that many Muslism were against the US, you can keep saying 'they couldn't of predicted it' but they really should of. This shows the failure of there own policy as even after an anti-US revolution by Muslims they still assumed that they could be trusted. In fact the CIA were told in the 80's that the Mujadeen were fighting for conservative causes which could be 'anti-American'

You can predict stuff very easily from History-hence the first law of warfare-don't march on Moscow-Napoleon tried it, Hitler tried it and I'd know that I wouldn't try it with a land army. We learned after WW2 we needed to work with Germany rather than destroy it. The americans should of looked at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu as proof that the Vietnamese were very powerful on their hometurf. Your rather amateurish comments.

So basically despite the fact you said the US protects us from dicatorships, you meant to say the US protects us from dictatorships that don't agree with the US?

Still no mention of Iraq-you've posted about 50 times, yet you haven't brought up how the US saved us from Iraq

Then why are you even using those "arguments" in the debate? It simply doesn't make any sense, if it's not going to happen, then it can't contradict mine. And Kennedy's assassination is still involved in a lot of mystery, so you can't really make something out of that.

The Islamic revival occurred due to the Arab oil embargo and the Iranian revolution, it had nothing to do with USA foreign policy. Sure, USA supported the Imperial State, but still, it's not enough to just suddenly stop all the American operations in the Middle East.

No, you can't predict stuff that easily from History, it never works that way. The Battle of Dien Bien Phu was between Vietnam and France, not with America. American doesn't protect us from dictatorships that don't agree with the USA, it just protect us from those dictators' bad influence on other nations. Take a look at Iran, for instance, and Ahmadinejad's WMD's development. And since you want to talk about Iraq, the USA also suspected they were developing WMD, financially supporting Palestinian terrorists and violating human rights.

[Harry Smith]

The Islamic revival occurred due to the Arab oil embargo and the Iranian revolution, it had nothing to do with USA foreign policy. Sure, USA supported the Imperial State, but still, it's not enough to just suddenly stop all the American operations in the Middle East.

No, you can't predict stuff that easily from History, it never works that way. The Battle of Dien Bien Phu was between Vietnam and France, not with America. American doesn't protect us from dictatorships that don't agree with the USA, it just protect us from those dictators' bad influence on other nations. Take a look at Iran, for instance, and Ahmadinejad's WMD's development. And since you want to talk about Iraq, the USA also suspected they were developing WMD, financially supporting Palestinian terrorists and violating human rights.

Your taking it literally-the point of the argument was to push your argument to an extreme length
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

The Islamic revival occurred due to the Arab oil embargo and the Iranian revolution, it had nothing to do with USA foreign policy

It heavily linked to it, as the US had supported the Shah in Iran-in fact the Shah was nothing more than a puppet. You claim it was nothing to do with US Foreign policy, how come after 1979 Iranian muslims didn't' stormed the US embassy? They had a chance to storm the British or french, but they went for the US which shows the link between Islamic growth and anti-american feelings. I'd be happy to go more in depth with this link.

I know what the Battle was, don't patronize me. The Battle showed that a western force (france) would be unable to defeat the Vietcong using traditional tactics and air support. As always the History proves you wrong-the French lost in Vietnam which showed that a western power can't hold a country opposed to them-The US then lost in Vietnam which shows the same. You'd have to be thick to say that the Battle of Bien Dien Phuh was not a sense of foreshadowing for America.

Do you have any evidence Iraq provided money to Palestinian terrorists? It's just similar claims were made about Al-Qaeda

The primary target, however, of Saddam's terror activities was not the United States, and not Israel. "

the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released the final part of its Phase II investigation into the intelligence assessments that led to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq; this part of the investigation looked into statements of members of the Bush Administration and compared those statements to what the intelligence community was telling the Administration at the time. The report, endorsed by eight Democrats and two Republicans on the Committee, concluded that "Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence."

Did Iraq have nuclear weapons in 2003?

You also can't invade a country for violating Human rights, I mean if we did that we'd have to invade the US. We were told in 2003 that Iraq had nuclear weapons, we sent the might of our Army, cost us billions and what did we gain from it?

100,000 dead
Hospitals destroyed
Depleted uranium rounds causing long term damage
Billions wasted
No WMD's found
Country plunged into civil war

You've yet to actually point out a good point (with examples) of US foreign policy-all you've claimed is that the US backs up some vague values

[Living For Love]

Your taking it literally-the point of the argument was to push your argument to an extreme length
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum



It heavily linked to it, as the US had supported the Shah in Iran-in fact the Shah was nothing more than a puppet. You claim it was nothing to do with US Foreign policy, how come after 1979 Iranian muslims didn't' stormed the US embassy? They had a chance to storm the British or french, but they went for the US which shows the link between Islamic growth and anti-american feelings. I'd be happy to go more in depth with this link.

I know what the Battle was, don't patronize me. The Battle showed that a western force (france) would be unable to defeat the Vietcong using traditional tactics and air support. As always the History proves you wrong-the French lost in Vietnam which showed that a western power can't hold a country opposed to them-The US then lost in Vietnam which shows the same. You'd have to be thick to say that the Battle of Bien Dien Phuh was not a sense of foreshadowing for America.

Do you have any evidence Iraq provided money to Palestinian terrorists? It's just similar claims were made about Al-Qaeda





Did Iraq have nuclear weapons in 2003?

You also can't invade a country for violating Human rights, I mean if we did that we'd have to invade the US. We were told in 2003 that Iraq had nuclear weapons, we sent the might of our Army, cost us billions and what did we gain from it?

100,000 dead
Hospitals destroyed
Depleted uranium rounds causing long term damage
Billions wasted
No WMD's found
Country plunged into civil war

You've yet to actually point out a good point (with examples) of US foreign policy-all you've claimed is that the US backs up some vague values

Well, it makes sense that they wouldn't like USA as well after they supported the regime the revolutionaries were fighting against, doesn't it? But the truth is, United States didn't intervene in the revolution directly. And as you said, England and France, being USA allies, should have also suffered consequences, such as having their embassies destroyed by the revolutionaries just like the American one. Yet, that didn't happen. Why? It's this unsubstantiated hatred of the USA that I don't understand.

The battle was just a battle, nothing more, you can't generalise to the point that, if the French didn't succeed, the USA wouldn't also succeed. You know now that they, in fact, didn't succeed, but you can't justify it with the French failure, just like the USA at that time couldn't have guessed it.

CNN (12 September 2002) "the White House released a report early Thursday, listing some of the principal accusations against Iraq and its leader.... Iraq is also accused of sheltering two Palestinian terrorist organizations, and it lists Saddam's decision in 2002 to increase from $10,000 to $25,000 the bounty paid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

And I have already told you about WMDs in Iran and the War on Terror against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Those are two good examples of the benefits of USA foreign policy.

[Left Now]

I think they would've had it better under Soviet boots. Yeah, the Spvoet Union was oppressive, but it was better then Taliban Afghanistan. But to be honest, they would've had it best with that democratically-elected socialist which the US removed for no fucking reason

Only if US would support Ahmad Shah Massoud instead of its extremist enemies,Taliban could have never been able to take the power in Afghanistan.Even after Soviets got out of Afghanistan borders,US still supported extremist Mujahedins against Ahmad Shah Massoud and his other more moderate allies through Pakistan;Why?Because Ahmad Shah Massoud didn't want foreigners such as US to intervene in his country.Then what happened?Exactly two days before 9/11,extremist Mujahedins assassinated him.


And I have already told you about WMDs in Iran and the War on Terror against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Those are two good examples of the benefits of USA foreign policy.

These are all nonsense which western medias are feeding you with them.Iran is actually more moderate than countries like Saudi Arabia and even Pakistan,and guess what?Pakistan has already made nuclear weapons and SA is going to purchase them in not a very far future.Does US have any complains about it then?Of course not!

[Harry Smith]

.
And I have already told you about WMDs in Iran and the War on Terror

There aren't any WMD's in Iran. You lot told us Iraq had WMD's-why should be believe you again?

You mention Afganistan-What happened when the US left Vietnam in 1973? Three laters it fell, that's going to happen in Afganistan. Afganistan is a joke-we've inserted a corrupt right wing governemnt, set up a police force that's high on drugs, an Army that rapes and pillages, along with the destruction of the Geneva convention. We got attacked by a member of the Saudi royal family who trained Pakistan militants in Germany. Afganistan has been a distater-I'd like to point out that 4 years after the 'war on terror' we got our capital city blown up-it's hardly been effective

In regards to Dien Bien Phu-it was the most important Battle after 1945, Battles make wars

Military historian Martin Windrow wrote that Dien Bien Phu was "the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle."[11]

The war ended shortly after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu and the signing of the 1954 Geneva Accords. France agreed to withdraw its forces from all its colonies in French Indochina

That should of got alarm bells ringing,you don't march into war after your enemy has just smashed their foes

[phuckphace]

Iran is not a threat and any official who claims otherwise is probably a neocon getting paid mad sheqelim to do so.

[Living For Love]

There aren't any WMD's in Iran. You lot told us Iraq had WMD's-why should be believe you again?

You mention Afganistan-What happened when the US left Vietnam in 1973? Three laters it fell, that's going to happen in Afganistan. Afganistan is a joke-we've inserted a corrupt right wing governemnt, set up a police force that's high on drugs, an Army that rapes and pillages, along with the destruction of the Geneva convention. We got attacked by a member of the Saudi royal family who trained Pakistan militants in Germany. Afganistan has been a distater-I'd like to point out that 4 years after the 'war on terror' we got our capital city blown up-it's hardly been effective

In regards to Dien Bien Phu-it was the most important Battle after 1945, Battles make wars





That should of got alarm bells ringing,you don't march into war after your enemy has just smashed their foes

There aren't any WMD's in Iran yet, but they have a nuclear weapons program that the international community should keep an eye on.

So what do you purpose about Afghanistan? Leave the country to the Taliban and hope they don't bomb anything more in the meanwhile?

[Harry Smith]

There aren't any WMD's in Iran yet, but they have a nuclear weapons program that the international community should keep an eye on.

So what do you purpose about Afghanistan? Leave the country to the Taliban and hope they don't bomb anything more in the meanwhile?

So do Pakistan-how come the US hasn't wanted to bomb them? Oh yeah because they're allies. Iran is honestly more stable than Pakistan. I'm not trusting the US with info about WMD'S after they got it so wrong on Iraq

We leave, we stop the system of imprisoning innocent men and shipping them off to Guantanamo bay on trumped up charges, end all drone strikes in the region, get around the Table with the Taliban and negotiate a settlement involving a coalition government of some sort-which was was Britain did with the 'terrorists' in northern Ireland. Give funding for major infrastructure projects in the region e.g damns, roads, schools. Just end the drone strikes that have killed thousands of innocent people without a just reason

We can't police Afghanistan for the next 30 years, we can't afford it even if we wanted to. The people need to decide what form of government they want-that includes a right wing Islamic government.

The Taliban never bombed anything in America-that was Saudi Arabian terrorists, you know that country the US supports despite being a fully fledged dictatorship

[Living For Love]

So do Pakistan-how come the US hasn't wanted to bomb them? Oh yeah because they're allies. Iran is honestly more stable than Pakistan. I'm not trusting the US with info about WMD'S after they got it so wrong on Iraq

We leave, we stop the system of imprisoning innocent men and shipping them off to Guantanamo bay on trumped up charges, end all drone strikes in the region, get around the Table with the Taliban and negotiate a settlement involving a coalition government of some sort-which was was Britain did with the 'terrorists' in northern Ireland. Give funding for major infrastructure projects in the region e.g damns, roads, schools. Just end the drone strikes that have killed thousands of innocent people without a just reason

We can't police Afghanistan for the next 30 years, we can't afford it even if we wanted to. The people need to decide what form of government they want-that includes a right wing Islamic government.

The Taliban never bombed anything in America-that was Saudi Arabian terrorists, you know that country the US supports despite being a fully fledged dictatorship

It's not just the USA and the CIA claiming there are WMDs in Iran. (http://www.voanews.com/content/medvedev-iran-nearer-to-nuclear-weapons-potential-98239489/121707.html)

"Get around the table with the Taliban"? That seems really unlikely. Unless they are allowed to establish an Islamic dictatorship in Afghanistan, willing to continue discrimination against women and the jihad, then they won't accept any agreement. And about the funding for major infrastructure projects in the region, that was already tried in the eighties after the Soviet invasion, and it didn't work.

[Left Now]

It's not just the USA and the CIA claiming there are WMDs in Iran. (http://www.voanews.com/content/medvedev-iran-nearer-to-nuclear-weapons-potential-98239489/121707.html)

"Get around the table with the Taliban"? That seems really unlikely. Unless they are allowed to establish an Islamic dictatorship in Afghanistan, willing to continue discrimination against women and the jihad, then they won't accept any agreement. And about the funding for major infrastructure projects in the region, that was already tried in the eighties after the Soviet invasion, and it didn't work.

What the heck do you mean by the word "Jihad"?

[Living For Love]

What the heck do you mean by the word "Jihad"?

Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad)

[Left Now]

Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad)

This article hasn't mentioned that how many kinds of Jihad we have:

1.We have "Aggressive Jihads"

2."Defensive Jihad"

3."Interior Jihad"

*Right now we only have defensive and interior Jihads;Muslims need the approval of nearly more than half of all Muslim scholars to declare an aggressive Jihad,but such a thing like this has never happened in about 500 years,which means something like since the end of the Crusades!

[Harry Smith]

It's not just the USA and the CIA claiming there are WMDs in Iran. (http://www.voanews.com/content/medvedev-iran-nearer-to-nuclear-weapons-potential-98239489/121707.html)

"Get around the table with the Taliban"? That seems really unlikely. Unless they are allowed to establish an Islamic dictatorship in Afghanistan, willing to continue discrimination against women and the jihad, then they won't accept any agreement. And about the funding for major infrastructure projects in the region, that was already tried in the eighties after the Soviet invasion, and it didn't work.

Why do people never read there own sources, it's wrong of you to claim that Menedev stated that Iran have nuclear weapons-the first line of the article states...

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev says Iran is getting closer to having the potential to build a nuclear weapon.

The Potenial-not actual weapons. The Potenial. The Potenial doesn't mean they do-it simply means that they have the ability to enrich uranium-something I'd say about 30 countries have. (Brazil, Bulgaria, Japan etc)Please check what you post because it's completely 100% wrong to state that the Russian PM thinks that Iran have nuclear weapons.

Get around the table with the Taliban"? That seems really unlikely.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22957819

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24463839

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/18/us-peace-talks-taliban-afghanistan

Unless they are allowed to establish an Islamic dictatorship in Afghanistan (1), willing to continue discrimination against women (2)and the jihad (3)

1 There's no point having democracy in Afghanistan if you can't have justice, I'd argue the current situation in Afghanistan is akin to a dictatorship-elections don't always equal democracy. The Taliban have a right to form a part of a coalition government, that's how any peace arrangement works. They're going to surrender unless you give them something to work with.

We'd been fighting Irish 'terrorists' for 40 years, they tried to blow up our PM about 3 times and killed about 200 soldiers. However we realized that the IRA were actually a focal part of NI in the fact they represented people's views even if the actions didn't. Rather than ignoring the terrorists we talked to them, and managed to secure a peace agreement in Ireland that we can be proud of.

2 That's going to happen no matter what, as brutal as it. Afgan society/culture is responsible for the discrimination not the Talibian , although I'd want to ensure that certain fresholds can be achieved (funding for women right's, women serving government posts, women involved in the peace talk) Big misconception hawks have is that the Taliban are the only people who are repressive-Pakistan shows that even a 'democratic' government can have appalling levels of sexism-it's culture dear boy http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/25/afghanistan-reintroduction-public-stoning-adulterers

3 The 'Jihad' is going to happen no matter what we do, you can't kill the religious extremism in Afganistan

[Left Now]

3 The 'Jihad' is going to happen no matter what we do, you can't kill the religious extremism in Afganistan

Would you please not call the things which they are doing in the world Jihads dear Harry?Because they actually are not Jihads,but terrorist acts in the name of their own so-called Islam.In fact,when medias call those terrorists and extremists Jihadists,I just want to tear myself apart because of anger!

[Miserabilia]

Would you please not call the things which they are doing in the world Jihads dear Harry?Because they actually are not Jihads,but terrorist acts in the name of their own so-called Islam.In fact,when medias call those terrorists and extremists Jihadists,I just want to tear myself apart because of anger!

Who are you to decide what is islam and what is not? Can't it be that it's also islam and jihad but differently? There are many sides to islam but they are still islam.

[Stronk Serb]

Who are you to decide what is islam and what is not? Can't it be that it's also islam and jihad but differently? There are many sides to islam but they are still islam.


Well, it's not a Shia Jihad or Sunni Jihad. They should call it the Suffi or Salafite Jihad or whatever sect they are.

[Left Now]

Who are you to decide what is islam and what is not? Can't it be that it's also islam and jihad but differently? There are many sides to islam but they are still islam.

The thing which they claim is a Jihad,is an Aggressive Jihad.We haven't had any Aggressive Jihads since about 500 years ago,because not even half of the Islamic scholars at a time,whether Sunni or Shia,had or have agreed to have an Aggressive Jihad.

These groups are Salafit and Takiri groups which have been excommunicated by nearly all official Islamic groups in the world;So calling the things which they do Jihad,is absolutely wrong and unacceptable.

[Stronk Serb]

The thing which they claim is a Jihad,is an Aggressive Jihad.We haven't had any Aggressive Jihads since about 500 years ago,because not even half of the Islamic scholars at a time,whether Sunni or Shia,had or have agreed to have an Aggressive Jihad.

These groups are Salafit and Takiri groups which have been excommunicated by nearly all official Islamic groups in the world;So calling the things which they do Jihad,is absolutely wrong and unacceptable.


Then call it a holy war? They're Islamic heretics now, so they wage their little holy war instead of Jihad.

[Left Now]

Then call it a holy war? They're Islamic heretics now, so they wage their little holy war instead of Jihad.

They can call it anything they like,but Jihad is not a correct word for it.

[Perfectly Flawed]

Has US intervention in the world had it's benefits? Yes.
Do those benefits out-way the negatives? Probably not.

[Harry Smith]

Has US intervention in the world had it's benefits? Yes.
Do those benefits out-way the negatives? Probably not.

How has it benefited the world? Iraq in civil war, 100,000 Iraqi's dead after 2003,Afgnistan,Yemen and Pakistan targeted by reletentess drone strikes

[Perfectly Flawed]

How has it benefited the world? Iraq in civil war, 100,000 Iraqi's dead after 2003,Afgnistan,Yemen and Pakistan targeted by reletentess drone strikes

I'm not saying everything the US has done has benefited the world, I'm saying some of what they have done has benefited the world. An example would be the US helping South Korea in the Korean War. Looking at North Korea right now I can assure you that our intervention improved the lives of many of the people in the Southern part of the peninsula.

[Harry Smith]

I'm not saying everything the US has done has benefited the world, I'm saying some of what they have done has benefited the world. An example would be the US helping South Korea in the Korean War. Looking at North Korea right now I can assure you that our intervention improved the lives of many of the people in the Southern part of the peninsula.

Lol 'your' intervention. It was the intervention of the United Nations-not only the US fought in Korea. That's one example almost 50 years, and I'd argue that the failure to get a peace plan meant that the region is still very much divided by war.

Your basically saying that one thing they did benefited one country which I'll accept even though Korea could of been solved in a much better fashion

[Perfectly Flawed]

Your basically saying that one thing they did benefited one country

That's exactly my point. The US has had positive intervention on a few occasions. More often than not US intervention has a lot more negatives than positives however.

[Harry Smith]

That's exactly my point. The US has had positive intervention on a few occasions. More often than not US intervention has a lot more negatives than positives however.

Then why did you vote yes for has has US FP benefited the world?

[Living For Love]

Sorry for the late answer :P

Why do people never read there own sources, it's wrong of you to claim that Menedev stated that Iran have nuclear weapons-the first line of the article states...



The Potenial-not actual weapons. The Potenial. The Potenial doesn't mean they do-it simply means that they have the ability to enrich uranium-something I'd say about 30 countries have. (Brazil, Bulgaria, Japan etc)Please check what you post because it's completely 100% wrong to state that the Russian PM thinks that Iran have nuclear weapons.

Yes, the potential of having WMDs. Considering the turmoil that region is currently going through, and the fact that those WMD, in case they actually exist or be created, can easily fall in the wrong hands, then I guess that's something the international community should keep an eye on.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22957819

However, the talks are on condition that the Taliban renounce violence, break ties with al-Qaeda and respect the Afghan constitution - including the rights of women and minorities.

The level of trust between the Afghan government and the Taliban is described as "low".
So, do we respect their """culture""" or the Afghan Constitution and Afghan's rights?

US officials stressed that this was the first step on a very long road, adding that there was no guarantee of success.

First step on a very long road, and in the meanwhile, people are dying, and the international community sitting and enjoying the show.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24463839


Mehsud has a $5m FBI bounty on his head and is thought to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.

You sure you want to negotiate with this "person"?

1 There's no point having democracy in Afghanistan if you can't have justice, I'd argue the current situation in Afghanistan is akin to a dictatorship-elections don't always equal democracy. The Taliban have a right to form a part of a coalition government, that's how any peace arrangement works. They're going to surrender unless you give them something to work with.

We'd been fighting Irish 'terrorists' for 40 years, they tried to blow up our PM about 3 times and killed about 200 soldiers. However we realized that the IRA were actually a focal part of NI in the fact they represented people's views even if the actions didn't. Rather than ignoring the terrorists we talked to them, and managed to secure a peace agreement in Ireland that we can be proud of.

2 That's going to happen no matter what, as brutal as it. Afgan society/culture is responsible for the discrimination not the Talibian , although I'd want to ensure that certain fresholds can be achieved (funding for women right's, women serving government posts, women involved in the peace talk) Big misconception hawks have is that the Taliban are the only people who are repressive-Pakistan shows that even a 'democratic' government can have appalling levels of sexism-it's culture dear boy http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/25/afghanistan-reintroduction-public-stoning-adulterers

3 The 'Jihad' is going to happen no matter what we do, you can't kill the religious extremism in Afganistan

What happened in the early 80s with the IRA was a UK's domestic affair and can't be compared with the Taliban issue nowadays, which is so much more international. And if the peace agreements were successful, you can owe that to Thatcher and her government, not to the Irish terrorists goodwill.

We can't kill religious extremist in Afghanistan, but we can prevent them from getting into power. Sharia Law and Islamic fundamentalism are part of the Taliban ideology, so yes, they would make sure those laws would be applied if they actually got into power again.

[Vlerchan]

Yes, the potential of having WMDs. Considering the turmoil that region is currently going through, and the fact that those WMD, in case they actually exist or be created, can easily fall in the wrong hands, then I guess that's something the international community should keep an eye on.
Would you agree that the International community should also embargo/other Egypt, Iraq, Isreal, Libya, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Ethiopia, et all until they ... actually, what do you want big-bad Iran to do?

First step on a very long road, and in the meanwhile, people are dying, and the international community sitting and enjoying the show.
What would you prefer the International Community to do?

And if the peace agreements were successful, you can owe that to Thatcher and her government, not to the Irish terrorists goodwill.
It was Tony Blaire who organised the Good Friday agreements.

Tatcher actually made things worse.

[Living For Love]

Would you agree that the International community should also embargo/other Egypt, Iraq, Isreal, Libya, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Ethiopia, et all until they ... actually, what do you want big-bad Iran to do?
No, because most of the countries you've just stated don't pose any international threat, and possibly not even Iran. The thing is, we know the situation in the Middle East, and even though they signed the NPT of Nuclear Weapons and after all the UN Resolutions, the truth is that they've been carrying out uranium enrichment activities.

What would you prefer the International Community to do?
To act, once for all, whether it's by peace agreements or military operations in the field.

It was Tony Blaire who organised the Good Friday agreements.

Tatcher actually made things worse.

Didn't that only happen like 10 years later? I was talking about the Anglo-Irish Agreement only.

[Harry Smith]

Sorry for the late answer :P



Yes, the potential of having WMDs. Considering the turmoil that region is currently going through, and the fact that those WMD, in case they actually exist or be created, can easily fall in the wrong hands, then I guess that's something the international community should keep an eye on.




So, do we respect their """culture""" or the Afghan Constitution and Afghan's rights?



First step on a very long road, and in the meanwhile, people are dying, and the international community sitting and enjoying the show.





You sure you want to negotiate with this "person"?



What happened in the early 80s with the IRA was a UK's domestic affair and can't be compared with the Taliban issue nowadays, which is so much more international. And if the peace agreements were successful, you can owe that to Thatcher and her government, not to the Irish terrorists goodwill.

We can't kill religious extremist in Afghanistan, but we can prevent them from getting into power. Sharia Law and Islamic fundamentalism are part of the Taliban ideology, so yes, they would make sure those laws would be applied if they actually got into power again.

I'm not going to support another war to stop WMD's after Iraq-you remember what happened when we went to stop big bad Saddam? I wonder if US policy fanboys have dementia or whether they think that Iraq was a sucess. We don't want another war for WMD's that don't exist

Your approach to nuclear weapons is laughable-Israel is a lot more agressive and violent than Iran, it's verging on becoming a religous state and it's modern day south Africa, along with committing war crimes. Iran don't have Nuclear weapons-as you earlier claimed, and it's interesting how your claim has backed from- We need to invade-They have nuclear weapons-They may have Nuclear weapons-Lets watch them. I've managed to debunk your claims about Iran in about 5 points.

You only make peace with your enemy-I seem to remember Nelson Mandela being labelled a terrorist and accused of the murder of thousands of white south Africans-it's all in the eyes of the beeholder.

Ah-fuck all to do with Thatcher. The anglo-irish agreement was a piece of piss. It was down to Blair sitting around the Table with the IA-IRA 'terrorists' are now in the government of Northern Ireland, and I'd say that Northern Ireland is much better in 2014 than it was in 1994

Your generic reaction to dismiss my source, and theory is laughable-it's clear from South Africa to Northern Ireland that your going to have to work with people you don't want to. Your quite frankly stupid if you think we can police Afganistan for the next 30 years A) we can't afford it B)We don't want to C)It's not our job

meanwhile, people are dying, and the international community sitting and enjoying the show.

We're not sitting by-we have troops in Afganistan. Do you support intervention in the Democratic republic of Congo?

[Vlerchan]

No, because most of the countries you've just stated don't pose any international threat ...
But, most of them exist within a) the middle east or b) another area with a high propensity for violence just like Iran.

Unless, there's another reason that you're singling out Iran that you haven't mentioned yet.

... and possibly not even Iran.
Iran don't present an international threat anymore than any other country with the ability to possess WMDs might.

The thing is, we know the situation in the Middle East, and even though they signed the NPT of Nuclear Weapons and after all the UN Resolutions, the truth is that they've been carrying out uranium enrichment activities.
I'm aware of this, it's why I'm asking a) why it's a problem, and b) why they should be singled out if it is a problem.

To act, once for all, whether it's by peace agreements or military operations in the field.
We are not going to have a peace agreement without some form of power-sharing.

We already have military operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)) ongoing in Afghanistan.

Do you have any suggestions that are either feasible or not already happening?

Didn't that only happen like 10 years later? I was talking about the Anglo-Irish Agreement only.
The Anglo-Irish agreement was functionally useless.

---

Your quite frankly stupid if you think we can police Afganistan for the next 30 years A) we can't afford it B)We don't want to C)It's not our job
Don't worry: you'll only be there another 5 years, tops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

[Living For Love]

I'm not going to support another war to stop WMD's after Iraq-you remember what happened when we went to stop big bad Saddam? I wonder if US policy fanboys have dementia or whether they think that Iraq was a sucess. We don't want another war for WMD's that don't exist

Your approach to nuclear weapons is laughable-Israel is a lot more agressive and violent than Iran, it's verging on becoming a religous state and it's modern day south Africa, along with committing war crimes. Iran don't have Nuclear weapons-as you earlier claimed, and it's interesting how your claim has backed from- We need to invade-They have nuclear weapons-They may have Nuclear weapons-Lets watch them. I've managed to debunk your claims about Iran in about 5 points.

You only make peace with your enemy-I seem to remember Nelson Mandela being labelled a terrorist and accused of the murder of thousands of white south Africans-it's all in the eyes of the beeholder.

Ah-fuck all to do with Thatcher. The anglo-irish agreement was a piece of piss. It was down to Blair sitting around the Table with the IA-IRA 'terrorists' are now in the government of Northern Ireland, and I'd say that Northern Ireland is much better in 2014 than it was in 1994

Your generic reaction to dismiss my source, and theory is laughable-it's clear from South Africa to Northern Ireland that your going to have to work with people you don't want to. Your quite frankly stupid if you think we can police Afganistan for the next 30 years A) we can't afford it B)We don't want to C)It's not our job



We're not sitting by-we have troops in Afganistan. Do you support intervention in the Democratic republic of Congo?

Israel and the USA are allies, they don't pose any threat. You know, the invasion of Iraq in 2002 wasn't only justified with the fact that Iraq could potentially be developing WMDs. Hussein was a brutal dictator, he had connections with al-Qaeda, and I don't know if you remember, but he had previously invaded Kuwait in the nineties for absolutely no reason. And I never said USA should invade Iran, I only said they should simply stop their uranium enrichment activities and cooperate with the global nuclear disarmament. Please stop throwing dust in my eyes and being arrogant because it doesn't add anything to this discussion.

Making peace with an enemy that is an ally of an organisation that was responsible for 3000 deaths on the 11th September!? Now, that's something really laughable, how can you be so naïve? The Taliban are not interested in making peace with anyone, because if they would, the war in Afghanistan would be over already. What they want is to rule over the Afghans like they did in the past, supported by al-Qaeda. And yes, it is the international community's job to stop the Taliban since the War on Terror began. I just hope we won't take as long as 30 years to do it.

And why would the US intervene in Congo?

But, most of them exist within a) the middle east or b) another area with a high propensity for violence just like Iran.

Unless, there's another reason that you're singling out Iran that you haven't mentioned yet.

I'm aware of this, it's why I'm asking a) why it's a problem, and b) why they should be singled out if it is a problem.
Simply because they're violating a treaty they signed whose objective is to achieve the goal of nuclear disarmament.

We are not going to have a peace agreement without some form of power-sharing.

We already have military operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)) ongoing in Afghanistan.

Do you have any suggestions that are either feasible or not already happening?
Well, I don't think you have to be very intelligent to understand that what's currently going on in Afghanistan (in terms of military operations) is still not enough because the Taliban still continues to bomb certain areas.

The Anglo-Irish agreement was functionally useless.

The Agreement set out conditions for the establishment of a consensus government in the region.

[Harry Smith]

Hussein was a brutal dictator, he had connections with al-Qaeda,

Please do not come on here and sproud facts that are completely false. Saddam Hussein did not have links to Al-Qaeda. Do you withdraw that claim?

he consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

The official report issued by the 9/11 Commission in July 2004 addressed the issue of a possible conspiracy between the government of Iraq and al-Qaeda in the September 11 attacks. The report addressed specific allegations of contacts between al-Qaeda and members of Saddam Hussein's government and concluded that there was no evidence that such contacts developed into a collaborative operational relationship, and that they did not cooperate to commit terrorist attacks against the United States.

While the study did not look specifically at allegations of Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda, it did analyze papers that offer insight into the history of the movement and tensions among the leadership. In particular, it found evidence that al-Qaeda jihadists had viewed Saddam as an "infidel"

Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

[Living For Love]

Please do not come on here and sproud facts that are completely false. Saddam Hussein did not have links to Al-Qaeda. Do you withdraw that claim?

Nope.

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp)

If we're going to simply throw articles from newspapers to each other then it's better to just stop here, because it won't lead anywhere.

[Vlerchan]

Simply because they're violating a treaty they signed whose objective is to achieve the goal of nuclear disarmament.
Iran aren't armed. And enriching uranium is perfectly legal under the NPT.

I also must ask why you still seem so lenient towards the other nuclear states, and states that like Iran have the potential to create WMD.

Well, I don't think you have to be very intelligent to understand that what's currently going on in Afghanistan (in terms of military operations) is still not enough because the Taliban still continues to bomb certain areas.
Yes, historically, guerilla warfare has been difficult for advanced forces to combat.

I don't believe that just throwing more men at the problem is going to work either, because historically that hasn't.

The Agreement set out conditions for the establishment of a consensus government in the region.
Again, it was functionally useless: it did not end the violence, and the power-sharing structure decided under the Good Friday agreement is quite different to that set out under the Anglo-Irish agreement. It was only a benefit in that it demonstrated the importance of a ROI voice in proceedings, but beyond that it achieved little.

---

Israel and the USA are allies, they don't pose any threat.
Because apparently you're only a threat to world peace if you're not friends with the West, right?

You know, the invasion of Iraq in 2002 wasn't only justified with the fact that Iraq could potentially be developing WMDs.
Someone having the potential to do something isn't an excuse to invade their country, oust their functioning government, and kill their people.

I can't understand why you think it would be.

Hussein was a brutal dictator[1], he had connections with al-Qaeda[2], and I don't know if you remember, but he had previously invaded Kuwait in the nineties for absolutely no reason[3].
[1]: Do you believe that Iraq is better as now today or under Hussein?

[2]: Feel free to provide solid, verifiable evidence to back these allegations.

[3]: And the International community corrected that.

And I never said USA should invade Iran, I only said they should simply stop their uranium enrichment activities and cooperate with the global nuclear disarmament.
You don't seriously believe that 'global nuclear disarment' is ever going to happen, do you?

The NPT is just a means to maintain the West's power-balance. None of the Big 5 have any intentions to disarm.

Making peace with an enemy that is an ally of an organisation that was responsible for 3000 deaths on the 11th September!?
I can never get over this sort of hypocrisy.

What do you feel should be done about Saudi Arabia's financial backing of Sunni Jihadists groups in the middle east and beyond, (inc. Al Queda)?

The Taliban are not interested in making peace with anyone, because if they would, the war in Afghanistan would be over already.
The Taliban are not prepared to make peace on terms in which they lose everything.

Though, I'd generally agree with your stance on Afghanistan, I just don't feel that NATO, et all, should take such a lead role.

[Harry Smith]

Nope.



If we're going to simply throw articles from newspapers to each other then it's better to just stop here, because it won't lead anywhere.

No I'm not going to stop-this article uses as it's main source a memo from the CIA in 2003. Plus the author of the source is...

According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer,

These are the same people who told us Iraq has WMD's, did they?

Earlier you also said

but he had previously invaded Kuwait in the nineties for absolutely no reason

Ah so it's bad when Iraq do it, but when the US invaded for WMD's that didn't exist it's fine. US logic 101-if they do it it's bad-if we do it it;s democracy

Back on point though Are you honestly telling me that you think you know more than the offical 9/11 commission about the matter? Are you telling me that the 2009 US senate committe is wrong and you are right? If you think that you know more than an offical US senate comittee then there really isn't much point debating, next time you cite a source please make it much better.

The head of the CIA said this in 2007 (George Tenet)

We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."#

[Living For Love]

Iran aren't armed. And enriching uranium is perfectly legal under the NPT.

I also must ask why you still seem so lenient towards the other nuclear states, and states that like Iran have the potential to create WMD.
Obviously, because of the diplomatic relations between USA and Iran, don't you think?


Yes, historically, guerilla warfare has been difficult for advanced forces to combat.

I don't believe that just throwing more men at the problem is going to work either, because historically that hasn't.
It probably won't work, yes, but not because historically that hasn't, but because there has to be a solid strategy concerning what needs to be done in the region.

Because apparently you're only a threat to world peace if you're not friends with the West, right?
Go ask that to those who unjustifiedly oppose to the USA.


Someone having the potential to do something isn't an excuse to invade their country, oust their functioning government, and kill their people.

I can't understand why you think it would be.

"Functional government"? I hope you're joking or something. Either way, it's better to just end the problem before it even starts.

[1]: Do you believe that Iraq is better as now today or under Hussein? Yes.

[2]: Feel free to provide solid, verifiable evidence to back these allegations. See above.

[3]: And the International community corrected that. Sure, while Iraq left behind a devastated Kuwait and caused the death of thousands of innocent people, no biggie.


You don't seriously believe that 'global nuclear disarment' is ever going to happen, do you?

The NPT is just a means to maintain the West's power-balance. None of the Big 5 have any intentions to disarm.
So, that's it? We let them with their nuclear program and do nothing?


I can never get over this sort of hypocrisy.

What do you feel should be done about Saudi Arabia's financial backing of Sunni Jihadists groups in the middle east and beyond, (inc. Al Queda)?
Like I said earlier, Saudi Arabia can't be touched due to economic reasons. And as far as I know, Saudi Arabia hasn't attempted genocide on an entire population like Iraq (Kurds) and Afghanistan (Hazara).


The Taliban are not prepared to make peace on terms in which they lose everything.
Though, I'd generally agree with your stance on Afghanistan, I just don't feel that NATO, et all, should take such a lead role.
Well, then the international organisations shouldn't be prepared as well to make peace on terms in which human right violations and jihadist movements still carry on.


Ah so it's bad when Iraq do it, but when the US invaded for WMD's that didn't exist it's fine. US logic 101-if they do it it's bad-if we do it it;s democracy

Back on point though Are you honestly telling me that you think you know more than the offical 9/11 commission about the matter? Are you telling me that the 2009 US senate committe is wrong and you are right? If you think that you know more than an offical US senate comittee then there really isn't much point debating, next time you cite a source please make it much better.

The head of the CIA said this in 2007 (George Tenet)

We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."#

If you want to put things in that childish way, then I can say that, because Iraq had invaded Kuwait for no reason, then the USA can also invade Kuwait for no reason.
And I'm not talking about 9/11 solely, I'm talking about al-Qaeda support on a broader way.

[Harry Smith]

If you want to put things in that childish way, then I can say that, because Iraq had invaded Kuwait for no reason, then the USA can also invade Kuwait for no reason.
And I'm not talking about 9/11 solely, I'm talking about al-Qaeda support on a broader way.

Iraq had a reason to invade Kuwait-Kuwait was historically part of Iraq, and because they claimed that Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq. So your wrong to claim that they had no reason-what you should of said was that there reason was lacking in credibility.

On the overall picture do you claim that the 2009 US senate committee was incorrect

In June 2008, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released the final part of its Phase II investigation into the intelligence assessments that led to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq; this part of the investigation looked into statements of members of the Bush Administration and compared those statements to what the intelligence community was telling the Administration at the time. The report, endorsed by eight Democrats and two Republicans on the Committee, concluded that "Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Sure, while Iraq left behind a devastated Kuwait and caused the death of thousands of innocent people, no biggie.

Do you realize how hypocritical you sound? The US left behind a devesated Iraq and caused the death of 100,000's of inncoent people-yet you happily defend it,

Once again if Iraq do it it's bad, If the US do it then it's good. You're part of the 15%

[Vlerchan]

Obviously, because of the diplomatic relations between USA and Iran, don't you think?
I'm quite tired right now, so you could (or someone else) translate this into non-sarcasm so I can get a better understanding of what you're saying and make an appropriate response? Thanks.

It probably won't work, yes, but not because historically that hasn't, but because there has to be a solid strategy concerning what needs to be done in the region.
You'll find that there's no solid strategy because it's incredibly difficult to prepare a solid strategy against guerilla fighters.

Go ask that to those who unjustifiedly oppose to the USA.
What?

I also consider opposition to foreign policy of the US, past and present, to be justified, considering what's actually happened as a result of their foreign policy.

"Functional government"? I hope you're joking or something.
It wasn't overrun by Jihadists.

It held legitimacy across it's sovereign territory.

It was functional.

Do you believe that Iraq is better as now today or under Hussein? Yes.
I'd appreciate an explanation.

Feel free to provide solid, verifiable evidence to back these allegations. See above.
There's nothing 'solid' about the 'evidence' you've offered.

You also won't find any because despite Cheney, et alls, claims, no solid evidence linking Hussain to Al Queda has ever been brought to light.

Sure, while Iraq left behind a devastated Kuwait and caused the death of thousands of innocent people, no biggie.
http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/

No biggie. Though, I've never been a fan of guilt-pushing, honestly.

So, that's it? We let them with their nuclear program and do nothing?
Yes.

They were actually sued (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/24/us-nuclear-usa-marshalls-idUSBREA3N0OU20140424) for non-compliance by the Marshall Isles not so long ago, though didn't even bother with a response.

Like I said earlier, Saudi Arabia can't be touched due to economic reasons.
So it's only wrong when the West don't get their cut?

And as far as I know, Saudi Arabia hasn't attempted genocide on an entire population like Iraq (Kurds) and Afghanistan (Hazara).
It supports groups that I'd claim as holding genocidal tendencies.

Well, then the international organisations shouldn't be prepared as well to make peace on terms in which human right violations and jihadist movements still carry on.
So, you hold steadfastly to the complete annihilation of the opposition sectors in Afghanistan?

And believe that's possible?

[Living For Love]

Iraq had a reason to invade Kuwait-Kuwait was historically part of Iraq, and because they claimed that Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq. So your wrong to claim that they had no reason-what you should of said was that there reason was lacking in credibility.

On the overall picture do you claim that the 2009 US senate committee was incorrect





Do you realize how hypocritical you sound? The US left behind a devesated Iraq and caused the death of 100,000's of inncoent people-yet you happily defend it,

Once again if Iraq do it it's bad, If the US do it then it's good. You're part of the 15%

Kuwait became independent in 1961, and Iraq formally recognized Kuwait's independence and its borders two years later, so there was still no reason to invade the country. The allegations that Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq were also never totally proved.

I actually don't care about your useless quotes from Senate committee's reports. If the invasion happened, it was for a reason, and there must have been strong indicators that made the military operation to occur.

Well, Iraq were the first ones to use force against Kuwait for, once again, illegitimate reasons, so they should have thought about that before invading Kuwait.

I'm quite tired right now, so you could (or someone else) translate this into non-sarcasm so I can get a better understanding of what you're saying and make an appropriate response? Thanks.
Can't you understand English? What I meant was that Iran-USA diplomatic relationships got obviously tense after the Iran-Iraq War, military operations and embargo on trades, so do you think USA would want nuclear weapons on Iranian hands?

It wasn't overrun by Jihadists.

It held legitimacy across it's sovereign territory.

It was functional.
I was run by a dictator who constantly violated human rights.

It wasn't democratically elected.

It wasn't functional.


I'd appreciate an explanation.
Well, despite all the ongoing tensions, Iraq is now rule by a more democratic government and more willing to cooperate with international organisations.


So it's only wrong when the West don't get their cut?


It supports groups that I'd claim as holding genocidal tendencies.

You do realise what would happen to the world's economy if Saudi Arabia was intervened militarily by the USA? It's not only about profit, it's about maintaining world peace and order.


So, you hold steadfastly to the complete annihilation of the opposition sectors in Afghanistan?

And believe that's possible?

I never said that. I only said that, as there is no other option available, a military operation must still continue on the field in order to prevent extremists to raise again and in order to try to promote the establishment of a democratic government.

Look, I know this is not easy, but I can't see any other way of solving things. Peace treaties take way too long, and we have clearly seen that both sides don't want to simply hand over everything to the other.

[Vlerchan]

Can't you understand English?
I'm Irish?

What I meant was that Iran-USA diplomatic relationships got obviously tense after the Iran-Iraq War, military operations and embargo on trades, so do you think USA would want nuclear weapons on Iranian hands?
Okay, so you agree that Iran are singled out not because they are a threat, but because the US don't like them?

I was run by a dictator who constantly violated human rights.
You'll have to explain how this harmed it's functionality.

It wasn't democratically elected.
You'll have to explain why I should care about this.

It wasn't functional.
No, it didn't maintain the values that you feel important.

It was entirely functional.

Iraq is now rule by a more democratic government ...
Democracy quite clearly isn't working for them.

Iraq's current democratic regime holds legitimacy in just under two-thirds of Iraq's territory.

... and more willing to cooperate with international organisations.
I'm not sure how this matters when your country is being overrun by Jihadists, after a war that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

I'm not sure how this matters in general beyond this, though.

You do realise what would happen to the world's economy if Saudi Arabia was intervened militarily by the USA?
Please do explain.

I'm going to want graphs, etc. pointing to the effects it would have on the worlds economy, because I tend to consider claims made by people like you concerning this to to be highly exaggerated.

... to try to promote the establishment of a democratic government.
We both (or at least we both should) know that the US has no intention of allowing this happen.

Their current president, Hamid Karzai, is a US puppet, and this is unlikely to change in the future, because Afghanistan is an important zone from a geopolitical point of view.

Look, I know this is not easy, but I can't see any other way of solving things.
I actually do realise that your hearts in the right place here, the problem is that the West has no real intention of helping people in these countries, though I personally don't believe that there's any possible way of actually offering any substantial help: the middle east, and I don't mean to generalise, is a sector still stuck in the medieval mindset, and there's going to need to be some massive foundational changes in the area before we can even start to see things getting better for them.

---

If the invasion happened, it was for a reason, and there must have been strong indicators that made the military operation to occur.
Nobody ever said there wasn't a reason.

Oil, was the reason.

[Harry Smith]

I actually don't care about your useless quotes from Senate committee's reports. If the invasion happened, it was for a reason, and there must have been strong indicators that made the military operation to occur.

.

It's not really a useless quote, it just happens to prove that your wrong

You claimed that Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein worked together, and I'm showing that even the US congress disagrees with you. Accept that there is no link. To quote my Bush SNR-' Read my lips-there was no link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, they hated each other considering one was a athesist and the other was a Shia backed Saudi Group. You're quite clearly one of those people who thinks that Islam is just one massive unitary religion.

I'm not letting you go on this-you claimed that Saddam worked with Al-Qaeda, and the only source you provided was from A)2003 B) Used an Iraqi Intelligent officer as it's author. These people told us that Iraq had nuclear weapons-they were wrong.

All I want you to admit is that you can't prove there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda as you claimed because about 10 very powerful committee's and groups

You have an extremely bad trait of not being able to accept the facts-it's like the time you kept claiming the 2011 london riots were immigrant uprisings when they quite clearly weren't.

I'm not sure if you follow the news-but this had been happening in Iraq lately-Civil War

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/25/uk-iraq-security-idUKKBN0F00RT20140625

Well, Iraq were the first ones to use force against Kuwait for, once again, illegitimate reasons, so they should have thought about that before invading Kuwait.

The US used force against Iraq, for illegitimate reaons, they should of thought about that before 2003. They told us that Saddam had nuclear weapons, that he was going to destroy the west, did he have nuclear weapons?

[phuckphace]

sorry but Harry and Vlerchan are right here. the facts are out and they're against you, unfortunately. US foreign policy has been a continuous disaster and it will only continue to get worse as the USG becomes ever more spooked at the realization that its influence is slowly declining. we'll be getting shitloads more Orwellian bullshit to the point where in 15 years, whatever they'll be doing then will make Snowden's NSA secrets seem tame in comparison. it's also going to get way worse for you poor saps that Uncle Sam has in his sphere of influence outside our borders. tl;dr: everybody's getting rekt.

[Living For Love]

Okay, so you agree that Iran are singled out not because they are a threat, but because the US don't like them?
And because Iran doesn't like the USA that much as well, do they? Either way, they shouldn't get singled out only because of that, their simply violating an international treaty they signed, that already enough by itself.

You'll have to explain how this harmed it's functionality.
So, a government which constantly violate human rights is functional?

You'll have to explain why I should care about this.
It wasn't chosen by the people, it was only the consequence of a revolution. Governments who are created in the aftermath of revolutions and coup d'états always turn into dictatorships or eventually create conditions for a civil war, it has always been like this.

No, it didn't maintain the values that you feel important.

It was entirely functional.
It wasn't functional.


Democracy quite clearly isn't working for them.

Iraq's current democratic regime holds legitimacy in just under two-thirds of Iraq's territory.

I'm not sure how this matters when your country is being overrun by Jihadists, after a war that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

I'm not sure how this matters in general beyond this, though.
Well, then maybe another intervention is necessary.

Please do explain.

I'm going to want graphs, etc. pointing to the effects it would have on the worlds economy, because I tend to consider claims made by people like you concerning this to to be highly exaggerated.
You don't need graphs, you just need common sense. Saudi Arabia has the second largest oil reserves in the world, an armed conflict between the USA and SA would make most of world's economies simply collapse.

We both (or at least we both should) know that the US has no intention of allowing this happen.

Their current president, Hamid Karzai, is a US puppet, and this is unlikely to change in the future, because Afghanistan is an important zone from a geopolitical point of view.

Why do you say Hamid Karzai is an US puppet?

I actually do realise that your hearts in the right place here, the problem is that the West has no real intention of helping people in these countries, though I personally don't believe that there's any possible way of actually offering any substantial help: the middle east, and I don't mean to generalise, is a sector still stuck in the medieval mindset, and there's going to need to be some massive foundational changes in the area before we can even start to see things getting better for them.

Ok, yes, I agree, but I don't care about their "medieval mindset". Call it culture, call it tradition, call it government, call it whatever you want, when their medieval mindset clashes with other's mindset, then we have a problem. It's their conflict, ok, just like in Syria, just like it was in the Iran-Iraq conflict, yes, but because those nations signed certain agreements, and because terrorism is a global issue, there has to be an intervention from the outside. People say 9/11 happened because the USA supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, but what would have happened instead if they supported Iran? And what if they supported none at all? When people talk about these issues they only see what they want to see, they don't get the whole picture.


Nobody ever said there wasn't a reason.

Oil, was the reason.

USA invaded Iraq in 2003 because of oil?

It's not really a useless quote, it just happens to prove that your wrong

You claimed that Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein worked together, and I'm showing that even the US congress disagrees with you. Accept that there is no link. To quote my Bush SNR-' Read my lips-there was no link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, they hated each other considering one was a athesist and the other was a Shia backed Saudi Group. You're quite clearly one of those people who thinks that Islam is just one massive unitary religion.

I'm not letting you go on this-you claimed that Saddam worked with Al-Qaeda, and the only source you provided was from A)2003 B) Used an Iraqi Intelligent officer as it's author. These people told us that Iraq had nuclear weapons-they were wrong.

All I want you to admit is that you can't prove there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda as you claimed because about 10 very powerful committee's and groups

You have an extremely bad trait of not being able to accept the facts-it's like the time you kept claiming the 2011 london riots were immigrant uprisings when they quite clearly weren't.

I'm not sure if you follow the news-but this had been happening in Iraq lately-Civil War

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/25/uk-iraq-security-idUKKBN0F00RT20140625



The US used force against Iraq, for illegitimate reaons, they should of thought about that before 2003. They told us that Saddam had nuclear weapons, that he was going to destroy the west, did he have nuclear weapons?

The fact that the source I provided used an Iraqi intelligent officer as its author, and the fact that those people told us previously that Iraq had nuclear weapons, which might have been false, doesn't mean that they were wrong about the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. And the fact that you can't prove it doesn't mean it didn't exist, just like the links between the 2011 London riots and immigrants.

But let me ask you this question: if it wasn't for the WMDs and al-Qaeda links in Iraq, then why did the USA invaded them?

[Vlerchan]

And because Iran doesn't like the USA that much as well, do they?
Okay. You agree then?

Either way, they shouldn't get singled out only because of that, their simply violating an international treaty they signed, that already enough by itself.
Would you mind explaining how they are violating the treaty?

I'd prefer if you quoted the relevent passage of the treaty, too.

So, a government which constantly violate human rights is functional?
Functional (adj): "performing or able to perform a regular function"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/functional

It wasn't chosen by the people, it was only the consequence of a revolution.
It was a popular revolution with the backing of the general Iraqi populous.

Governments who are created in the aftermath of revolutions and coup d'états always turn into dictatorships or eventually create conditions for a civil war, it has always been like this.
Should I start listing instances where this hasn't happened? Because this a blatant untruth.

Suddam Hussein had been in power almost 25 years before foreigners ousted him.

It wasn't functional.
You're yet to provide a valid basis in support of this claim.

Well, then maybe another intervention is necessary.
Perhaps.

Do you accept that a) democracy hasn't worked in Iraq, and b) that the previous American intervention has made the situation worse?

It seems clear that it hasn't made things better or else we wouldn't be considering sending more troop in to quash the resurgent civil strife.

You don't need graphs, you just need common sense.
I must lack your 'common sense' then.

Saudi Arabia has the second largest oil reserves in the world, an armed conflict between the USA and SA would make most of world's economies simply collapse.
This is if you presume that oil production just collapsed, which it probably wouldn't, because any sane US administration would ensure that doesn't happen.

Iraq's oil production has actually been rising (http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Iraq5.png) as the war progressed. It might have underwent a sudden drop (https://oilprice.com/images/tinymce/James10/AE3321.jpg) in 2003, but that was just the time it took America, et al. to take Iraq's oil reserves.

Why do you say Hamid Karzai is an US puppet?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/world/asia/cia-delivers-cash-to-afghan-leaders-office.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&pagewanted=all

... and because terrorism is a global issue, there has to be an intervention from the outside.
Why is is that you believe terrorism has become a global issue?

And what if they supported none at all?
What would have happened?

USA invaded Iraq in 2003 because of oil?
Yes.

---

And the fact that you can't prove it doesn't mean it didn't exist
The fact that you can't prove that it did happen makes me wonder why we're bothering to discuss it.

[Harry Smith]

The fact that the source I provided used an Iraqi intelligent officer as its author, and the fact that those people told us previously that Iraq had nuclear weapons, which might have been false, doesn't mean that they were wrong about the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. And the fact that you can't prove it doesn't mean it didn't exist, just like the links between the 2011 London riots and immigrants.

But let me ask you this question: if it wasn't for the WMDs and al-Qaeda links in Iraq, then why did the USA invaded them?

It does actually-all source work in history relies on the nature, the origin and the purpose. The source really doesn't meet any of that criteria-it's a natural reaction to not believe something a liar told you isn't it? You'd have a point if more evidence emerged. ''Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me

But in 2009 a US senate committee-this is from the US congress, they don't often admit they're wrong but they did. In this case nearly every single person involded with Iraq-the CIA, M16, the US congress has come out and said there were no links between. Can you please withdraw the claim that Saddam Hussein was a supporter of Al-Qaeda

Even the 9/11 committee disagrees with you-The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994.

which might have been false

No, just give up now. Iraq did not have WMD's in 2003. There's no might about it. Your failure to accept evidence just shows how your 'common sense' debating is awful

fact that you can't prove it doesn't mean it didn't exist,

Okay-lets invade America because they have aliens hidden under the white house. Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You made the claim that Saddam Hussein supported and worked with Al-Qaeda the burden of proof lies with you

But let me ask you this question: if it wasn't for the WMDs and al-Qaeda links in Iraq, then why did the USA invaded them?

Lol-there were no WMD's, the US had closer links to Al-Qaeda than Saddam. The US invaded so that George Bush could finish off the work that his father started and so that the country could be opened up to large TNC's

[Living For Love]

Okay. You agree then?
I agree that the USA should keep an eye on Iran.

Would you mind explaining how they are violating the treaty?

I'd prefer if you quoted the relevent passage of the treaty, too.

Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.

Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Uranium enrichment activities -> "diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."



Functional (adj): "performing or able to perform a regular function"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/functional

It was a popular revolution with the backing of the general Iraqi populous.
I'm sure people didn't chose another dictatorship.


Should I start listing instances where this hasn't happened? Because this a blatant untruth.

Suddam Hussein had been in power almost 25 years before foreigners ousted him.
South Sudan, Congo, Angola, Mozambique, Egypt, Sierra Leoa, those are just some examples of nations that suffered from civil wars and dictatorships after gaining independence or after coup d'états.


Perhaps.

Do you accept that a) democracy hasn't worked in Iraq, and b) that the previous American intervention has made the situation worse?

It seems clear that it hasn't made things better or else we wouldn't be considering sending more troop in to quash the resurgent civil strife.
a) Maybe.
b) No.
The recent occurrences in Iraq don't demand an international intervention yet, maybe only in the future.



I must lack your 'common sense' then.
You do.


This is if you presume that oil production just collapsed, which it probably wouldn't, because any sane US administration would ensure that doesn't happen.

Iraq's oil production has actually been rising (http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Iraq5.png) as the war progressed. It might have underwent a sudden drop (https://oilprice.com/images/tinymce/James10/AE3321.jpg) in 2003, but that was just the time it took America, et al. to take Iraq's oil reserves.
Oh, yeah, sure, they would be in war with Saudi Arabia and the oil production wouldn't collapse... The same happened in Iraq, the same would happen in Saudi Arabia.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/world/asia/cia-delivers-cash-to-afghan-leaders-office.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&pagewanted=all

Fair enough.


Why is is that you believe terrorism has become a global issue?
This must be a joke. Terrorism is a global issue since 9/11, since Bush declared war on Terror, since Madrid 2004, since London 2005.


What would have happened?
The conflict would be much deadlier and would last much longer.


Yes.
Would you mind explaining, please?

It does actually-all source work in history relies on the nature, the origin and the purpose. The source really doesn't meet any of that criteria-it's a natural reaction to not believe something a liar told you isn't it? You'd have a point if more evidence emerged. ''Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me

But in 2009 a US senate committee-this is from the US congress, they don't often admit they're wrong but they did. In this case nearly every single person involded with Iraq-the CIA, M16, the US congress has come out and said there were no links between. Can you please withdraw the claim that Saddam Hussein was a supporter of Al-Qaeda

I won't withdraw my comment, I will only admit that solid evidence of the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Intelligence was never found, or it might have been destroyed by some reason.


Lol-there were no WMD's, the US had closer links to Al-Qaeda than Saddam. The US invaded so that George Bush could finish off the work that his father started and so that the country could be opened up to large TNC's
Please explain.

[Harry Smith]

I won't withdraw my comment, I will only admit that solid evidence of the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Intelligence was never found, or it might have been destroyed by some reason.

Trust me-if the US found any evidence they would not of destroyed it-I never understand this myth that somehow Saddam destroyed all the evidence. If the US found evidence they would of been parading it around for the last 10 years. If a solid connection was never found then by right you have no right to state that Saddam Hussein supported Al-Qaeda, and from a purely legal point of view you would be sued for libel and slander. Not that you would, it's just custom to back up a claim like that with evidence. The burden of proof still lies upon you to back up your claim, and if you can't support it with reliable evidence then your claim is wrong.

Do you know admit that Saddam Hussein did not support Al-Qaeda in funding, supporting or directing 9/11 or any previous terrorist attacks?

[Living For Love]

Trust me-if the US found any evidence they would not of destroyed it-I never understand this myth that somehow Saddam destroyed all the evidence. If the US found evidence they would of been parading it around for the last 10 years. If a solid connection was never found then by right you have no right to state that Saddam Hussein supported Al-Qaeda, and from a purely legal point of view you would be sued for libel and slander. Not that you would, it's just custom to back up a claim like that with evidence. The burden of proof still lies upon you to back up your claim, and if you can't support it with reliable evidence then your claim is wrong.

Do you know admit that Saddam Hussein did not support Al-Qaeda in funding, supporting or directing 9/11 or any previous terrorist attacks?

It's my opinion, it doesn't have anything to do with law. And has it ever occurred to you that USA might have wanted that information confidential? And that Saddam could have always tried to destroy the evidence even if the USA didn't make it public? And even though Saddam probably didn't support 9/11 directly, he might have known about it before it occurred. About other terrorist attacks, there's no evidence whether he was involved or not.

[Harry Smith]

It's my opinion, it doesn't have anything to do with law. And has it ever occurred to you that USA might have wanted that information confidential? And that Saddam could have always tried to destroy the evidence even if the USA didn't make it public? And even though Saddam probably didn't support 9/11 directly, he might have known about it before it occurred. About other terrorist attacks, there's no evidence whether he was involved or not.

It does actually, I'm saying that if you make a claim about someone that is untrue you can get sued. Although it has very little relevance I'm trying to make you understand that when you present a claim, as you did you need to back it up with evidence. You can't just say 'it may be true' because quite frankly it defeats the whole point of a debate.

The very nature of the evidence-phone calls, bank statments etc would of been very hard to destroy. The CIA/MI6 were watching both Saddam and Al-Qaeda like a hawk since 1996 so they would of found something intelligence wise.

Yes, Saddam might of know about it. That's not a reason to invade his country-once again your stepping back in your argument. First you claimed that he funded Al-Qaeda, know you claim he may of know about it. Your backing down. You want to know who did know about 9/11-the CIA and Mossad. Your best friends knew about 9/11

You can't invade a country because you think that there is a chance that there leader knew about 9/11. As usual Family guy is actually the best represeation of how stupid the whole Saddam/9-11 argument is

cpP7b2lUxVE&feature=kp

[Vlerchan]

I agree that the USA should keep an eye on Iran.
I was asking whether you thought Iran were being singled out because the US* didn't like them.

Also, 'keeping an eye' and 'wrecking their economy' are two entirely different things.

Uranium enrichment activities -> "diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."
I presume you've evidence that Iran are creating nuclear weapons then?

Because enriching uranium doesn't necessarily mean they are. You need enriched uranium in order to create nuclear power.

those are just some examples of nations that suffered from civil wars and dictatorships after gaining independence or after coup d'états.
Okay, but how does it happening in some countries infer that it must always happen as you claimed.

It didn't happen in the US, for example.

b) No.
US intervention clearly destabilised a previously stable country.

There was no terrorists in Iraq when America entered, and now they control one third of the country, and this is hundreds of thousands of deaths later.

You do.
Lol.

Oh, yeah, sure, they would be in war with Saudi Arabia and the oil production wouldn't collapse...
You've given me no reason to believe it would.

The same happened in Iraq, the same would happen in Saudi Arabia.
I don't see how you can argue it wouldn't.

If the US invaded, the first thing it would do is gain control of SA's oil reserves, and the second thing it would transfer the rights of these to Exxon, et al.

Terrorism is a global issue since 9/11, since Bush declared war on Terror, since Madrid 2004, since London 2005.
You misinterpreted what I was saying.

I asked why you believe it became a global issue. What factors contributed to the globalisation of terror?

The conflict would be much deadlier and would last much longer.
I've no idea how you reached this conclusion.

Would you mind explaining, please?
Oil is involved in most production processes, Iraq was not putting much of its oil (see: earlier graphs) on the world markets, which was forcing the price of oil up, which in turn was resulting in higher expenses for Western businesses, which in turn was hurting their economies: The US invaded as to liberate the oil onto global markets (see: earlier graphs again: Iraqi oil output jumps massively), as so to push down operating prices for businesses.

The was further incentive in the fact that Hussein was threatening to start dealing the oil he was producing in euros instead of dollars: since the euro was appreciating against the dollar at the time, this was going to result in even higher prices for American businesses in particular, and that would be awful for an American economy still stuttering after the dotcom. bubble bursting. It was actually a very good decision as made by the US, if considered from a wholly neutral perspective - one, perhaps, further devoid of base morality.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/28/iraq.usa
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/

---

The Australian FM at the time himself admitted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6272168.stm) that oil was at least a factor.

A Former Chairman of the Fed. Reserve admitted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html) securing oil was important.

[Harry Smith]

The was further incentive in the fact that Hussein was threatening to start dealing the oil he was producing in euros instead of dollars: since the euro was appreciating against the dollar at the time, this was going to result in even higher prices for American businesses in particular, and that would be awful for an American economy still stuttering after the dotcom. bubble bursting. It was actually a very good decision as made by the US, if considered from a wholly neutral perspective - one, perhaps, further devoid of base morality.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/28/iraq.usa
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/

---

The Australian FM at the time himself admitted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6272168.stm) that oil was at least a factor.

A Former Chairman of the Fed. Reserve admitted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html) securing oil was important.

Funny how you mention the Euro-I seem to remember only a handful of European countries joined the US in the 2003 invasion.

[phuckphace]

leaving Saddam Hussein in place would've been the best move for that region. I've mentioned this before...Ba'athist Arab socialism was vastly tame in comparison to the Islamic fundamentalism that rose up in response to America's meddling. internally, Iraq was quite stable thanks to Hussein's regime. now of course, Iraq is fragmented and chaotic.

now we have America to thank for the fundie Wahhabism that's gaining ever more influence in the Arab world. I don't think the trade-off was worth it.

[Harry Smith]

To be honest my biggest concern is that the US don't seem to care at all about Africa, more specifically the democratic republic of congo which makes Iraq look like a picnic. About 8 million have died since 1997, highest levels of rape in the world and half the country is held by rebels.

This is the point I've been trying to make-I want the US to consistent in there policy-if they're going to invade Iraq because it's a dictatorship then surely they should do it to every single dictatorship in the world

[phuckphace]

To be honest my biggest concern is that the US don't seem to care at all about Africa, more specifically the democratic republic of congo which makes Iraq look like a picnic. About 8 million have died since 1997, highest levels of rape in the world and half the country is held by rebels.

This is the point I've been trying to make-I want the US to consistent in there policy-if they're going to invade Iraq because it's a dictatorship then surely they should do it to every single dictatorship in the world

well I'd say you've answered your own question here. we can't expect consistency in our foreign policy if this policy is one of acting opportunistically and only for our own benefit.

[Harry Smith]

well I'd say you've answered your own question here. we can't expect consistency in our foreign policy if this policy is one of acting opportunistically and only for our own benefit.

The most ironic thing is that all the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 have actually been carried out by the US. The US has used WMD's, supported chemical weapons attacks, attacked sovereign nations for natural resources, supported terrorist attacks and human rights abuses

[Living For Love]

I was asking whether you thought Iran were being singled out because the US* didn't like them.

Also, 'keeping an eye' and 'wrecking their economy' are two entirely different things.

They're not wrecking their economy.

I presume you've evidence that Iran are creating nuclear weapons then?

Because enriching uranium doesn't necessarily mean they are. You need enriched uranium in order to create nuclear power.
Oh, yeah, sure, they wanted the uranium to produce nuclear energy in order to provide electricity to their citizens and improving their quality of life...

Okay, but how does it happening in some countries infer that it must always happen as you claimed.

It didn't happen in the US, for example.
Because that was like 300 years ago.

US intervention clearly destabilised a previously stable country.

There was no terrorists in Iraq when America entered, and now they control one third of the country, and this is hundreds of thousands of deaths later.
How can you be so sure terrorist wouldn't take control of the country eventually even if the USA didn't intervene? And if they are there now, that's another reason to intervene again, without committing the mistakes that were made in the past, though.


I don't see how you can argue it wouldn't.

If the US invaded, the first thing it would do is gain control of SA's oil reserves, and the second thing it would transfer the rights of these to Exxon, et al.
That's a bit easier said than done. And I really doubt those oil reserves would serve any purpose with a war going on in their territory. Saudi Arabia would probably think like this: "If we can't have it, then no one will."

You misinterpreted what I was saying.

I asked why you believe it became a global issue. What factors contributed to the globalisation of terror?
The fact that now the USA is not the only target in terrorist aims, their allies can be targeted as well.

Oil is involved in most production processes, Iraq was not putting much of its oil (see: earlier graphs) on the world markets, which was forcing the price of oil up, which in turn was resulting in higher expenses for Western businesses, which in turn was hurting their economies: The US invaded as to liberate the oil onto global markets (see: earlier graphs again: Iraqi oil output jumps massively), as so to push down operating prices for businesses.

The was further incentive in the fact that Hussein was threatening to start dealing the oil he was producing in euros instead of dollars: since the euro was appreciating against the dollar at the time, this was going to result in even higher prices for American businesses in particular, and that would be awful for an American economy still stuttering after the dotcom. bubble bursting. It was actually a very good decision as made by the US, if considered from a wholly neutral perspective - one, perhaps, further devoid of base morality.

Alright, then it was a justified invasion.

Yes, Saddam might of know about it. That's not a reason to invade his country-once again your stepping back in your argument. First you claimed that he funded Al-Qaeda, know you claim he may of know about it. Your backing down. You want to know who did know about 9/11-the CIA and Mossad. Your best friends knew about 9/11

You can't invade a country because you think that there is a chance that there leader knew about 9/11. As usual Family guy is actually the best represeation of how stupid the whole Saddam/9-11 argument is

That doesn't make sense. If the CIA and the Israeli intelligence knew about 9/11, then why didn't they do anything to stop it? And I'm not stepping back, I'm just saying that the fact that he could possibly know about the attacks could have been considered enough, at that time, to start allegations of complicity or supporting the attacks.

[Harry Smith]

Alright, then it was a justified invasion.
.

How was it justified? The US went in claiming that Iraq had nuclear weapons-which they didn't.

And I'm not stepping back, I'm just saying that the fact that he could possibly know about the attacks could have been considered enough, at that time, to start allegations of complicity or supporting the attacks.

Hussein had connections with al-Qaeda,

That's a massive step back-you've gone from He had connections to he make of know.

But no, the White house knew that Saddam had no knowledge, role or funding of 9/11. Ever. The US lied about the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. You try and spin it as some sort of romantic incident where the US suggested a link but they vocally come out in 2002 and said Saddam knew about it, and supported it despite knowing it to be false

Paul Pillar, former CIA analyst and National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, wrote in his recent book: “The supposed alliance between Saddam’s regime and al-Qa’ida clearly did not drive the Bush administration’s decision to launch the war [in Iraq] because the administration was receiving no indications that any such alliance existed,

n addition, Bush received on September 21, 2001, a classified President's Daily Brief (PDB), indicating the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that "there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda


That doesn't make sense. If the CIA and the Israeli intelligence knew about 9/11, then why didn't they do anything to stop it?

Once again your entire US foreign policy knowledge is shaky at best

On July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html

The US administration, CIA and FBI received multiple prior warnings from foreign governments and intelligence services, including France, Germany, the UK, Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Morocco and Russia.[5][30] The warnings varied in their level of detail, but all stated that they believed an Al-Qaeda attack inside the United States was imminent. British Member of Parliament Michael Meacher cites these warnings, suggesting that some of them must have been deliberately ignored.[31] Some of these warnings include the following:

March 2001 – Italian intelligence warns of an al-Qaeda plot in the United States involving a massive strike involving aircraft, based on their wiretap of al-Qaeda cell in Milan.
July 2001 – Jordanian intelligence told US officials that al-Qaeda was planning an attack on American soil, and Egyptian intelligence warned the CIA that 20 al-Qaeda Jihadists were in the United States, and that four of them were receiving flight training.
August 2001 – The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.
August 2001 – The United Kingdom is warned three times of an imminent al-Qaeda attack in the United States, the third specifying multiple airplane hijackings. According to the Sunday Herald, the report is passed on to President Bush a short time later.
September 2001 – Egyptian intelligence warns American officials that al-Qaeda is in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US.

[Living For Love]

How was it justified? The US went in claiming that Iraq had nuclear weapons-which they didn't.

Once again your entire US foreign policy knowledge is shaky at best

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html

Lol, and considering the entire territory of the United States, how could have they guessed it would be on the World Trade Centre? I can't believe you're one of those fanatics who believe 9/11 was a conspiracy or something. Go tell that to the victims' families. It happened, many people might have known it could happen, but they didn't know when, it's like if I tell you someone is going to win the World Cup, I don't know who or how, but I know it will happen. So please don't use the argument that the CIA or the Mossad or whatever knew about it because they couldn't have done anything to prevent it. They can do something to avenge the victim's families and bring some justice into this, though, and that's what I'm defending here since the beginning of this "debate".

Vlerchan was talking about the invasion of Iraq being due to the fact that the USA wanted to take control of the oil prices, not about WMDs or al-Qaeda links.

[Harry Smith]

I can't believe you're one of those fanatics who believe 9/11 was a conspiracy or something.

.

Lol-I don't believe in any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, in fact I've been pretty vocally against them on these forums. I just gave you evidence, which you asked for-that the US/Mossad new about the 9/11 attacks in advance and acted very slowly to stop them. This is what I said about it on an old thread

No, it's the most ridiculous idea ever. Do you have any idea how much shit would go down if it ever leaked, it would be like 10000 times worse than Watergate. The people who claim it was an inside job don't actually have a theory worked out they just stick to facts like the whole in the rubble was 12.3 meters when the wing of a 747 was 12.31 metres.

Then people claim that the towers were blown up using thermite, I don't think that anyway who is planning a fake attack is stupid enough to fly a plane into a building then have to blow it up using some plastic. If they were faking it they would just cut out the planes.

The conspiracy theory has no proof or alternative, just a bunch of crackpots

Lol, and considering the entire territory of the United States, how could have they guessed it would be on the World Trade Centre?

As usual you asked for my evidence that the CIA/Mossad had prior warning of 9/11, linking to Saddam Hussein. I've proved now that you were wrong to claim that Saddam Hussein knew about 9/11, and that he funded and supported Al-Qaeda. I've also proved you were wrong to claim that Mossad didn't know...

Please don't use the argument that the CIA or the Mossad or whatever knew about it

There have been suggestions that some of these Israeli spies lived close to some of the 9/11 hijackers. For instance, a US Drug Enforcement Administration report from before 9/11 noted that Israeli spies were living in the retirement community of Hollywood, Florida at 4220 Sheridan Street, which turned out to be only a few hundred feet from lead hijacker Mohamed Atta’s residence at 3389 Sheridan Street (see the DEA report, 6/01). Israeli spies appear to have been close to at least ten of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. [Salon, 5/7/02] In fact, Forward, the most widely circulated publication in the US targeting the Jewish audience, has admitted the spy ring existed, and that its purpose was to track Muslim terrorists operating in the US. [Forward, 3/15/02]

Israel gave the US several specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks. In the second week of August 2001, two high-ranking agents from the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, came to Washington and warned the CIA and FBI that 50 to 200 al-Qaeda terrorists had slipped into the US and were planning an imminent “major assault on the US” aimed at a “large scale target

In October 2002, the story broke in Europe and Israel that on August 23, 2001, the Mossad had given the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US. The Mossad had said that the terrorists appeared to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.The four names on the list that are known are names of the 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Ha’aretz, 10/3/02] These are also probably the four most important of the hijackers (and two of the pilots).

An undercover agent from Morocco successfully penetrated al-Qaeda. He learned that bin Laden was “very disappointed” that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning “large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001.” He provided this information to the US in August 2001. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02]

In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels.

[I]So many countries warned the US: Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, and Russia. Yet the two countries in the best position to know about the 9/11 plot—Saudi Arabia and Pakistan—apparently didn’t give any warning at all.

They can do something to avenge the victim's families and bring some justice into this, though, and that's what I'm defending here since the beginning of this "debate".

Justice? You've supported using chemical weapons in warfare, you've supported terrorist attacks on Cuba involving destruction of civilian planes, you've supported a war in 2003 which killed 100,000 for WMD's we never found and you've supported the most destructive brutal country on the planet.

v7m5VcpMCtU

[Vlerchan]

They're not wrecking their economy.
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/25/247077050/crippled-by-sanctions-irans-economy-key-in-nuclear-deal

Oh, yeah, sure, they wanted the uranium to produce nuclear energy in order to provide electricity to their citizens and improving their quality of life...
Feel free to present evidence indicating otherwise.

Because that was like 300 years ago.
So, you agree that your claim is objectively untrue?

How can you be so sure terrorist wouldn't take control of the country eventually even if the USA didn't intervene?
Well, when resistance rose up in the past, Hussein did well to crush them rather quickly.

Of course, I can't say for certain that Iraq might not have experienced its own difficulties, but given the fact that Iraq would have been in a healthy, stable state if the US had not intervened, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that Iraq would have been in a much better state to counter any insurgency, and would most likely not be overrun by Jihadists at this moment in time. Considering that Hussien himself is a Sunni, such only adds to the unlikeness that Sunni Jihadists would be posing anywhere near the issue that they are posing now.

That's a bit easier said than done.
It has been done in the past, so.

And I really doubt those oil reserves would serve any purpose with a war going on in their territory.
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here.

The oil would still be of great value, and so would be of use.

Saudi Arabia would probably think like this: "If we can't have it, then no one will."
How do you propose they destroy their massive oil reserves?

The fact that now the USA is not the only target in terrorist aims, their allies can be targeted as well.
You misinterpreted my question again.

Why do terrorists want to target the US, et al.?

Alright, then it was a justified invasion.
Your imperialist tendencies are showing.

[Living For Love]

Lol-I don't believe in any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, in fact I've been pretty vocally against them on these forums. I just gave you evidence, which you asked for-that the US/Mossad new about the 9/11 attacks in advance and acted very slowly to stop them.

Ok, so let me put this is another way: what do you think they (USA/Intelligence services) could have done to stop the attacks? Because the USA government was warned, right?

Justice? You've supported using chemical weapons in warfare, you've supported terrorist attacks on Cuba involving destruction of civilian planes, you've supported a war in 2003 which killed 100,000 for WMD's we never found and you've supported the most destructive brutal country on the planet.
You've supported 9/11 when you claim we don't need to fight those who perpetrated the attacks. Great problems need great solutions, the USA might have failed in the past, but 9/11 happened and there has to be a response.

http://www.npr.org/2013/11/25/247077050/crippled-by-sanctions-irans-economy-key-in-nuclear-deal
That's funny. The international community had been warning them multiple times about stopping their nuclear programme, warnings which they totally ignored, and know you're telling me their economy is devastated because of the sanctions the international community have been applying to them for not having stopped their nuclear programme. I hope you realise how ridiculous this sounds.


Feel free to present evidence indicating otherwise.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-nuclear-iran-iaea-idUSTRE7AG0RP20111118

So, you agree that your claim is objectively untrue?
No, because that happened in the USA 300 years ago. You've yet to tell me a country that has became independent or suffered a massive revolution in the twentieth century and that has not been involved in a civil war afterwards.

Well, when resistance rose up in the past, Hussein did well to crush them rather quickly.
So, the idea is to simply kill those who oppose? Well, if Hussein can do it, the USA can do it as well.

Of course, I can't say for certain that Iraq might not have experienced its own difficulties, but given the fact that Iraq would have been in a healthy, stable state if the US had not intervened, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that Iraq would have been in a much better state to counter any insurgency, and would most likely not be overrun by Jihadists at this moment in time. Considering that Hussien himself is a Sunni, such only adds to the unlikeness that Sunni Jihadists would be posing anywhere near the issue that they are posing now.
Then why aren't they doing it now?

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here.

The oil would still be of great value, and so would be of use.

How do you propose they destroy their massive oil reserves?
Do you think oil extraction and production would be minimally viable and efficient with a war going on precisely because of those reserves? When Iraq invaded Kuwait, they simply burned their oil wells (scorched earth technique), yet they said they invaded it because they were stealing their oil. Ironic, isn't it? Saudi Arabia wouldn't think twice as well, and would simply destroy refineries or occupy them, just like the jihadists are doing in Iraq now.

You misinterpreted my question again.

Why do terrorists want to target the US, et al.?
Mainly, because terrorists are simply merciless maniacs, but if you want a more rational justification, I'd say USa support to Israel and USA troops in the Middle East.

Your imperialist tendencies are showing.
?

[Harry Smith]

Ok, so let me put this is another way: what do you think they (USA/Intelligence services) could have done to stop the attacks? Because the USA government was warned, right?

Use legal methods to A) Track the hijackers B) Inquire into their flight training (they only trained how to take off, they said they didn't need to land) C) Contact other agencies e.g Germany, UK, Jordan for further info and intelligence
D)Put US air force on higher alert on the east coast, give them some warning E)Increase funding for FBI domestic terror program F) Follow the people that the Israeli's warned you about.

Do you know accept that Mossad knew about 9/11 in advance?

You've supported 9/11 when you claim we don't need to fight those who perpetrated the attacks. Great problems need great solutions, the USA might have failed in the past, but 9/11 happened and there has to be a response.

Lol that's not supporting 9/11, I don't support Cocaine use but I wouldn't fight those who use it. By your own logic you support genocide, rape and murder in the DRC because you don't want to fight those who perpetrated the attacks

the USA might have failed in the past

There's no might about it, they have failed

9/11 happened and there has to be a response

Happened 13 years ago, we had a response. Why the fuck are we still in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan and other middle eastern countries 13 years later. If you want to go after the people involved go after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It was planned in Germany and Spain why didn't we attack them? Look what happened when you attacked Afghanistan, did it destroy Al-Qaeda? No they simply moved across the border to Pakistan or to Saudi Arabia. We went in during 2001 and 4 years later Britain and Spain faced terrorist attacks-that shows that a war on terror doesn't work. There's still no comment on the US widespread use of terror tactics in Cuba-do you support terrorist operations in Cuba?

Plus look

On October 14, the Taliban offered to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country in return for a bombing halt, but only if the Taliban were given evidence of bin Laden's involvement

[Vlerchan]

I hope you realise how ridiculous this sounds.
It was you who said that the UN should only be 'keeping an eye on them'.

Have you decided that you would prefer if the UN decimated their economy?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-nuclear-iran-iaea-idUSTRE7AG0RP20111118
This isn't evidence. Try again.

So, the idea is to simply kill those who oppose? Well, if Hussein can do it, the USA can do it as well.
Hussein dealt with it before it got out of control.

It is out of control on Iraq now.

Then why aren't they doing it now?
I thought we had been over how de-stabilised Iraq is?

2014 Iraq, in its destabilised state, lacking leadership or a strong government, is having a much harder time that was ever faced by Hussein's Iraq because this issue has been fermenting for the last 10 years, since Hussein's overthrow actually, and successive Iraqi governments, with US support until 2012, have failed to deal with it.

Do you think oil extraction and production would be minimally viable and efficient with a war going on precisely because of those reserves?
Did you read the graph I linked to which demonstrated that Iraqi oil production rose during the course of the Iraqi war - a war fought for its oil?

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, they simply burned their oil wells (scorched earth technique), yet they said they invaded it because they were stealing their oil.
This is a short-term problem. It can be overcome quite quickly.

Kuwait seemed to be able to resume production quite quick (http://www.marketminder.com/img/Kuwait-Oil-Production1.jpg) anyway.

I'd say USa support to Israel and USA troops in the Middle East.
Ah.

So, you want to invade the middle east to stop the terrorists who want to kill you for invading the middle east?

?
You just said that you supported invading Iraq for oil.

[Living For Love]

Use legal methods to A) Track the hijackers B) Inquire into their flight training (they only trained how to take off, they said they didn't need to land) C) Contact other agencies e.g Germany, UK, Jordan for further info and intelligence
D)Put US air force on higher alert on the east coast, give them some warning E)Increase funding for FBI domestic terror program F) Follow the people that the Israeli's warned you about.

Do you know accept that Mossad knew about 9/11 in advance?

The Mossad knew about the 9/11, I accept that, but still, it would be extremely hard to avoid the terrorist act in the WTC. And if all those options you just stated weren't followed, it might have been because the USA didn't want to alarm people for reasons that they weren't 100% sure of. Bomb and terrorists attack threats have always fairly common in the USA.

Happened 13 years ago, we had a response. Why the fuck are we still in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan and other middle eastern countries 13 years later. If you want to go after the people involved go after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It was planned in Germany and Spain why didn't we attack them? Look what happened when you attacked Afghanistan, did it destroy Al-Qaeda? No they simply moved across the border to Pakistan or to Saudi Arabia. We went in during 2001 and 4 years later Britain and Spain faced terrorist attacks-that shows that a war on terror doesn't work. There's still no comment on the US widespread use of terror tactics in Cuba-do you support terrorist operations in Cuba?

The War On Terror DID work and DOES work. Bin Laden is dead, al-Qaeda's influence is now pretty weakened. However, the threat still exists, and that's why we are still in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...

It was you who said that the UN should only be 'keeping an eye on them'.

Have you decided that you would prefer if the UN decimated their economy?
No, what I said is that they're suffering the consequences for not accepting and obliging what the United Nations have told them as far as their nuclear program is concerned.

This isn't evidence. Try again.
Since you don't want to accept it, there's not much point in continuing.

Hussein dealt with it before it got out of control.

It is out of control on Iraq now.
It's out of control now, but it isn't due to American intervention. And because it's out of control now that it's necessary an exterior intervention.

Did you read the graph I linked to which demonstrated that Iraqi oil production rose during the course of the Iraqi war - a war fought for its oil?
I can't find that graphic, but it doesn't matter. Actually, Kuwait was only able to resume the oil production because Iraq's oil production fell during the American invasion.

Ah.

So, you want to invade the middle east to stop the terrorists who want to kill you for invading the middle east?
No, I want to invade the Middle East because I want this world free of terrorists who amuse themselves by blowing up people. Now, obviously, they won't be so happy with that, right? And because we're actually stopping their actions when we invade their countries, then they consider it a reason to attack America and their allies.

You just said that you supported invading Iraq for oil.
Well, you said America invaded Iraq because they wanted to control their oil as Iraq was threatening to raise the oil prices and negotiate in Euros etc... So, that was one of the reason to do it. Was it done with a good intention? Absolutely. Was it done the in best way? Probably not. Was it worth it? It was.

[Vlerchan]

No, what I said is that they're suffering the consequences for not accepting and obliging what the United Nations have told them as far as their nuclear program is concerned.
I don't think the UN should just be allowed to intervene in sovereign affairs because some of the more powerful countries feel its a good idea.

Do you?

Since you don't want to accept it, there's not much point in continuing.
It's not that I don't want to accept it.

It's that it doesn't back up what you are saying.

It's out of control now, but it isn't due to American intervention.
Well, there was no prominent Jihadist front before the US invaded.

And because it's out of control now that it's necessary an exterior intervention.
Only if you presume that sending men into the centre of a Shia-Sunni sectarian war will actually help.

I don't. I actually think it would make things worse by galvanizing the now-neutral Sunnis.

I can't find that graphic, but it doesn't matter.
Okay. I'll take it you accept it then.

Actually, Kuwait was only able to resume the oil production because Iraq's oil production fell during the American invasion.
My point was that you can only momentarily hinder production through scorched earth tactics.

It's quite easy to pick-up production again if you can secure the reserves.

No, I want to invade the Middle East because I want this world free of terrorists who amuse themselves by blowing up people.
But, you realise that these terrorists rose because you invaded in the first place?

And because we're actually stopping their actions when we invade their countries, then they consider it a reason to attack America and their allies.
You're not, really.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/2008/RAND_RB9351.pdf

Was it worth it? It was.
If that's your position then I stand by my original statement.

---

... al-Qaeda's influence is now pretty weakened.
No, it's not.

[Harry Smith]

No, I want to invade the Middle East because I want this world free of terrorists who amuse themselves by blowing up people.

Lol-you can't kill an idea. No matter how many people you kill terrorism will exist. JFK said ''A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on.''

You want to free the world of terrorists? Does that include those who blew up a Cuban plane in the 1970's? How do you feel about Nelson Mandela and his obvious and clear use of terror in the 1960's? If you want to take the moral high ground with terror/middle east then you're going to have to change your view on a number of countries in the world-including the UK which has sponsored, supported and carried out acts of terror

The Mossad knew about the 9/11, I accept that, but still, it would be extremely hard to avoid the terrorist act in the WTC. And if all those options you just stated weren't followed, it might have been because the USA didn't want to alarm people for reasons that they weren't 100% sure of. Bomb and terrorists attack threats have always fairly common in the USA..

Not really-you follow those 4 guys, carry out the required checks it could of been done-look at this http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/23/usa.september11

If the Bush White House had heeded warnings in early 2001 about the threat from al-Qaida at least two of the September 11 hijackers would "probably have been caught" and "there was a chance" the attacks could have been prevented, the president's former top counter-terrorism adviser told the Guardian yesterday.

He even gives an example how how the previous Clinton administration was able to prevent a terrorist attack

"In December 99 we get similar kinds of evidence that al-Qaida was planning a similar kind of attack. President Clinton asks the national security adviser to hold daily meetings with the attorney-general, the CIA, FBI, They go back to their departments from the White House and shake the departments out to the field offices to find out everything they can find.When the head of the FBI and CIA have to go to the White House every day, things happen and by the way, we prevented the attack [an al-Qaida millennium bomb plot aimed at Los Angeles airport].



The War On Terror DID work and DOES work. Bin Laden is dead, al-Qaeda's influence is now pretty weakened. However, the threat still exists, and that's why we are still in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...


One guys dead-great. The war at least for Britain hasn't worked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242803/Has-War-Terror-failed-Number-terrorist-attacks-QUADRUPLE-decade-9-11.html
http://rt.com/uk/166128-isis-jihadists-threaten-britain/

Britain as a nation has been at much greater threat since the war on terror compared to before that. We went in with the US, yet the number of terrorist related attacks have increased. The war on terror has left us bankrupt and at threat. Compare us to a country like Switzerland which hasn't joined in our wars-
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/jihadists-show-little-interest-in-switzerland/35678896
We're not in Iraq to stop Al-Qaeda-we talked about this before-Saddam had no workable links to Al-Qaeda

[Living For Love]

I don't think the UN should just be allowed to intervene in sovereign affairs because some of the more powerful countries feel its a good idea.

Do you?
The UN should be sensible enough to understand when it's right to intervene or not. If they aren't, then the more powerful nations should take the lead.

Well, there was no prominent Jihadist front before the US invaded.
And there's no connection between the rising of the Jihadists and the American intervention.

Only if you presume that sending men into the centre of a Shia-Sunni sectarian war will actually help.

I don't. I actually think it would make things worse by galvanizing the now-neutral Sunnis.
I presume so. When Iraqi citizens are suffering the consequences of a war they didn't created, and considering how Iraqi troops can't deal with it, then sending more men into the centre of the war will help.


It's quite easy to pick-up production again if you can secure the reserves.
And how would you ensure that would happen?

But, you realise that these terrorists rose because you invaded in the first place?

You're not, really.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/2008/RAND_RB9351.pdf
That's not true. Terrorism existed before American interventions, it has roots on cultural, religious and economic interests, not because America invaded Middle East countries.

No, it's not.
Care to explain?

You want to free the world of terrorists? Does that include those who blew up a Cuban plane in the 1970's? How do you feel about Nelson Mandela and his obvious and clear use of terror in the 1960's? If you want to take the moral high ground with terror/middle east then you're going to have to change your view on a number of countries in the world-including the UK which has sponsored, supported and carried out acts of terror
Well, if you put it in that way, it depends on the intentions. Were the Cuban plane incident and the Nelson Mandela uses of terror caused by religious reasons? I was talking generally on the fanatic terrorists who supposedly kill for religious reasons.

He even gives an example how how the previous Clinton administration was able to prevent a terrorist attack
Now that's a pretty lame argument that is abusively used after something catastrophic had happened, because a thousand people come near you and say it could have been prevented using this and that. Please, we can't even be 100% sure if it's going to rain tomorrow, no one knows what could have happened if this and that was done, as things would take a completely whole different path. If it wasn't the WTC, it would have been another American landmark somewhere else.

One guys dead-great. The war at least for Britain hasn't worked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242803/Has-War-Terror-failed-Number-terrorist-attacks-QUADRUPLE-decade-9-11.html
http://rt.com/uk/166128-isis-jihadists-threaten-britain/
That's why it's not enough, that's why it must go on.

[Harry Smith]

Well, if you put it in that way, it depends on the intentions. Were the Cuban plane incident and the Nelson Mandela uses of terror caused by religious reasons? I was talking generally on the fanatic terrorists who supposedly kill for religious reasons.

So you support Terrorism if it has nothing to do with religion? Even as an Atheist that makes me feel quezy. I'd argue that since Islamic terrorism is based on failures to understand the Koran it's not about religion wholeshomlly. I still don't understand why it should matter what the motive is-either you oppose terrorism, or you're in favour of it. I take the view that it can be justified in certain situations such as in France in 1944 and in SA in 1980's. From the rhetoric of this thread you seem to want to rid the world of all terrorism-however I think the only thing you care about is western terrorism. That's your main problem-you can't have one rule for the west and one for the rest.

On that point the US has supported Islamic/Catholic Terrorism in 1980's Ireland and Afganistan

http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/niallodowd/cia-says-irish-americans-were-terror-agents-in-new-wilkileaks-document-101543703-238042521.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-backed-islamic-terrorism-dividing-the-arab-world-weakening-russia-and-china/5365020


Now that's a pretty lame argument that is abusively used after something catastrophic had happened, because a thousand people come near you and say it could have been prevented using this and that. Please, we can't even be 100% sure if it's going to rain tomorrow, no one knows what could have happened if this and that was done, as things would take a completely whole different path. If it wasn't the WTC, it would have been another American landmark somewhere else.


Calm down. Breathe. You've done this a lot-you ask for evidence, I submit it, you react with rhetoric and like with the Mossad/Al-Qaeda idea you then realize that you were in fact wrong.

Can you please tell me who has more experience working in domestic counter terrorism- you or Richard Clark? This is someone who worked in the Bush Government, this man had worked with the President and the FBI. You asked me...

what do you think they (USA/Intelligence services) could have done to stop the attacks?
?

If the Bush White House had heeded warnings in early 2001 about the threat from al-Qaida at least two of the September 11 hijackers would "probably have been caught" and "there was a chance" the attacks could have been prevented, the president's former top counter-terrorism adviser told the Guardian yesterday.
For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean. Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

Six years after the deadliest attack on U.S. soil, the head of U.S. spy operations admitted to lawmakers that "9/11 should have and could have been prevented."Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, told members of the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday that "it was an issue of connecting information that was available."

McConnell, explaining that the intelligence community was, at the time, very focused on foreign threats, said the community allowed itself "to be separated from anything that was potentially domestic," and that domestic threats were "not something we [were] supposed to be concerned with."

You've got at least three US officials saying that 9/11 could of been stopped, so it answers your question

Please, we can't even be 100% sure if it's going to rain tomorrow..... If it wasn't the WTC, it would have been another American landmark

Hypocritical much? One minute you state we can't be certain of an attack the next you say one was going to happen...



That's why it's not enough, that's why it must go on.

http://www.utne.com/~/media/Images/UTR/Editorial/Blogs/Politics/Nine%20War%20Words%20That%20Define%20Our%20World/1984-war-is-peace.jpg

How many Islamic attacks has Switzerland faced in the last 10 years?

You've kinda been able to understand parts of the WOT. Terrorists aren't evil-they're not killing for the joy of killing. They're doing it because of US foreign policy which has fucked over the region-the sanctions placed on Iraq in the 90's, the support of Arab dictators from Gadaffi to Hussein, overthrowing democratic governments in Iran, unconditional for Israel even after countless wars.

These terrorists aren't stupid-they know that the US has had a role in the political spectrum of the Middle East

[Vlerchan]

If they aren't, then the more powerful nations should take the lead.
The most powerful nations lead the UN.

I don't think you're realising though that these countries have interests that makes them act outside the common good.

And there's no connection between the rising of the Jihadists and the American intervention.
The US invasion destabilised the country. Because the country was destabilised it became a good base for terrorists - terrorists came from cross-borders as a result.

I presume so.
Okay. Well, I don't, which leaves us at a bit of a dead-end.

And how would you ensure that would happen?
By shooting the people who disagree?

I can't tell you exactly how it will be done.

Terrorism existed before American interventions, it has roots on cultural, religious and economic interests, not because America invaded Middle East countries.
Your words:

"... but if you want a more rational justification, I'd say USa support to Israel and USA troops in the Middle East."

I'm also saying that terror was globalised and not that terror exists because of Western intervention in case you are misinterpreting.

Care to explain?
ISIL is an off-shoot of Al-Queada.

The Syrian rebel coalition is largely made up of Al-Queada offshoots.

Most Islamist groups in the middle east are either aligned with Al Queada as a focus point or take orders from Al-Queada.

[Living For Love]

So you support Terrorism if it has nothing to do with religion? Even as an Atheist that makes me feel quezy. I'd argue that since Islamic terrorism is based on failures to understand the Koran it's not about religion wholeshomlly. I still don't understand why it should matter what the motive is-either you oppose terrorism, or you're in favour of it. I take the view that it can be justified in certain situations such as in France in 1944 and in SA in 1980's. From the rhetoric of this thread you seem to want to rid the world of all terrorism-however I think the only thing you care about is western terrorism. That's your main problem-you can't have one rule for the west and one for the rest.

I don't support terrorism, there are only different types of it, and the thing is, you can't compare what's happening in Iraq and Syria currently to what happened in Cuba or in South Africa some decades ago. More important than the motive, though, is how terrorism influence spreads beyond the nations borders it has origins in, and how it influences not only the people who live there but also the people who live in those other countries, and right now what is happening is Syrian and Iraqi civilians being gassed and mercilessly killed by a dictator and by jihadists with connection with al-Qaeda and that need to be stopped.

On that point the US has supported Islamic/Catholic Terrorism in 1980's Ireland and Afganistan

http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/niallodowd/cia-says-irish-americans-were-terror-agents-in-new-wilkileaks-document-101543703-238042521.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-backed-islamic-terrorism-dividing-the-arab-world-weakening-russia-and-china/5365020
This talks about USA's support to the mujahedeen and the fight against Russia, we already discussed that.


Hypocritical much? One minute you state we can't be certain of an attack the next you say one was going to happen...

I was saying that we can't be certain what would happen if we tried to stop the attacks, it we would actually succeed or make it happening somewhere else.


You've kinda been able to understand parts of the WOT. Terrorists aren't evil-they're not killing for the joy of killing. They're doing it because of US foreign policy which has fucked over the region-the sanctions placed on Iraq in the 90's, the support of Arab dictators from Gadaffi to Hussein, overthrowing democratic governments in Iran, unconditional for Israel even after countless wars.

These terrorists aren't stupid-they know that the US has had a role in the political spectrum of the Middle East

"Not killing for the joy of killing." No, they're actually killing for the joy of killing, because their "God" tells them to do so. The fact that they blame the USA foreign policy and use it as an excuse is simply to hide their true intentions. They don't care about USA, if they decide to bomb them it's not because of the fact that they invaded their territories, but because they're considered enemies of Islam for supporting Israel.

The most powerful nations lead the UN.

I don't think you're realising though that these countries have interests that makes them act outside the common good.
And you have any evidence to support that? And if USA invaded Iraq for oil, it was for a greater good.

The US invasion destabilised the country. Because the country was destabilised it became a good base for terrorists - terrorists came from cross-borders as a result.
And the country wasn't destabilised when Saddam Hussein took the power, and during the subsequent dictatorship? Yes, it was, a dictatorship creates good conditions for the implementation of terrorist bases.

Your words:

"... but if you want a more rational justification, I'd say USa support to Israel and USA troops in the Middle East."

I'm also saying that terror was globalised and not that terror exists because of Western intervention in case you are misinterpreting.

Yes, like I said before, terrorists use the fact that USA are invading their home countries to commit terrorist attacks, but their true motives are others.

ISIL is an off-shoot of Al-Queada.

The Syrian rebel coalition is largely made up of Al-Queada offshoots.

Most Islamist groups in the middle east are either aligned with Al Queada as a focus point or take orders from Al-Queada.
Those are groups who work under the command of al-Qaeda, not al-Qaeda itself. But yes, like I said, the threat still exists, they need to be fought, that's why I support the interventions against ISIL, an intervention in the Syrian civil war, etc...

[Harry Smith]

right now what is happening is Syrian and Iraqi civilians being gassed and mercilessly killed by a dictator


You have no right to comdemn chemical weapons considering you've said this


I just think global peace should be established, using any necessary methods.
and this

And like I said, if those troops are threatening world peace, then yes, they can use chemical weapons on them,

So you support using chemical weapons to try and get peace-this is what Assad was doing-trying to get peace.

heck look at this-the people you want to help also use chemical weapons

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-against-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139

I don't support terrorism, there are only different types of it, and the thing is, you can't compare what's happening in Iraq and Syria currently to what happened in Cuba or in South Africa some decades ago.


Yes you can, you just don't want to accept that the United States has funded terrorism operations. You can't come on here and present yourself as being against all terrorism if you then support terrorism in Cuba and Northern Ireland. Do you support acts of terror against the people of cuba?

This talks about USA's support to the mujahedeen and the fight against Russia, we already discussed that.

I know-you said that religious terrorism is wrong-I'm showing you that the US supports religious terrorism by religious extremists.

"Not killing for the joy of killing." No, they're actually killing for the joy of killing, because their "God" tells them to do so. The fact that they blame the USA foreign policy and use it as an excuse is simply to hide their true intentions. They don't care about USA, if they decide to bomb them it's not because of the fact that they invaded their territories, but because they're considered enemies of Islam for supporting Israel.

Even if what you say is true how come the US were happy for them to kill the Soviets with this religious extremism?

Not really-the US has been fucking up the Middle east since the 1950's. If it was blind religious hatred then please tell me why haven't these groups attacked other christian countries such as Switzerland and Norway? You didn't answer this in my last post-there's a clear link between terrorism and foreign policy. Just look at what the US have done in the last 30 years

-Bombed Libya in 1986
-Bombed and sank an Iranian boat in 1987
-Shot down an Iranian passenger plane
-Bombed Sudan in 1998 causing a massive chemical disater
-Supported Israel despite the routine devastation and torture placed on Palestinian people
-Abduction of innocent muslims who are then tortured and imprisoned without charge
-Support for undemocractic governments in the Middle east from the Shah of Iran to Mubarak in Egypt.
-Bombing and firing of missiles into yemen, somali, Pakistan and Libya in blatant disregard for international law

Look what a 2004 report by the US government said-once again the country your defending is more left wing and progressive on the issue than you are. The big issue here is that despite everything you support these policies-you support torture, you support dictatorships and you support war crimes

Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

[Vlerchan]

And you have any evidence to support that?
You mean, do I have evidence that countries hold interests that may not necessarily align for the general good over the national good?

It's the basis of every International Relations theory going.

I can list some examples of countries acting outside the general good though if you want.

And if USA invaded Iraq for oil, it was for a greater good.
I honestly can't understand how you can hold this religious-like faith in the integrity and benevolence of the US government.

And the country wasn't destabilised when Saddam Hussein took the power, and during the subsequent dictatorship?
It was stable before the US intervened, is the point I'm making.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2014/06/16/u-s-meddling-inflames-middle-east-conflicts-america-should-stop-trying-to-fix-iraq-syria-and-everywhere-else/

Yes, it was, a dictatorship creates good conditions for the implementation of terrorist bases.
No, a sympathetic government creates the conditions for terrorists bases to arise.

I don't see where this is going, though. Hussein (the Ba'athist and secularist) was not interested in Islamism.

... but their true motives are others.
Do enlighten me.

Those are groups who work under the command of al-Qaeda, not al-Qaeda itself.
You said that al-Qaeda's "influence" was "pretty weakened".

I'm highlighting that it is nothing of the sort.

... that's why I support the interventions against ISIL, an intervention in the Syrian civil war, etc...
Who's side do you suggest we intervene on in Syrian war?

---

I'd also suggest you read the below article before responding again:

http://monthlyreview.org/2008/09/01/humanitarian-imperialism-the-new-doctrine-of-imperial-right

[Living For Love]

So you support using chemical weapons to try and get peace-this is what Assad was doing-trying to get peace.

heck look at this-the people you want to help also use chemical weapons

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-against-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139
I wasn't condemning the use of chemical weapons per se, I was just condemning the fact that this conflict has been dragging on for ages and nothing has been done so far while people from both sides are being killed and gassed.

Do you support acts of terror against the people of cuba? Depends on what exactly happened.

I know-you said that religious terrorism is wrong-I'm showing you that the US supports religious terrorism by religious extremists.
Well, that happened a long time ago, some things might have been mistakes, but right now, we can't just stay clinged to the past wondering why we did that or why we didn't.

Even if what you say is true how come the US were happy for them to kill the Soviets with this religious extremism?

Not really-the US has been fucking up the Middle east since the 1950's. If it was blind religious hatred then please tell me why haven't these groups attacked other christian countries such as Switzerland and Norway?
Maybe because Switzerland and Norway don't directly support Israel like the USA do, maybe because Switzerland and Norway don't pose such a threat to terrorists and jihadists like the USA do, and maybe because Switzerland's and Norway's foreign policies aren't as active and influential as the USA foreign policy is.

You didn't answer this in my last post-there's a clear link between terrorism and foreign policy. Just look at what the US have done in the last 30 years

-Bombed Libya in 1986
-Bombed and sank an Iranian boat in 1987
-Shot down an Iranian passenger plane
-Bombed Sudan in 1998 causing a massive chemical disater
-Supported Israel despite the routine devastation and torture placed on Palestinian people
-Abduction of innocent muslims who are then tortured and imprisoned without charge
-Support for undemocractic governments in the Middle east from the Shah of Iran to Mubarak in Egypt.
-Bombing and firing of missiles into yemen, somali, Pakistan and Libya in blatant disregard for international law
Yeah, ok, and how is that connected with the rising of terrorism?

Look what a 2004 report by the US government said-once again the country your defending is more left wing and progressive on the issue than you are. The big issue here is that despite everything you support these policies-you support torture, you support dictatorships and you support war crimes
No, it's precisely because I don't support torture (generally), dictatorships and war crimes that I want the USA and the international community to intervene in those regions.

It was stable before the US intervened, is the point I'm making.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2014/06/16/u-s-meddling-inflames-middle-east-conflicts-america-should-stop-trying-to-fix-iraq-syria-and-everywhere-else/
The country was also unstable during the Gulf War in 1990, the terrorists might have been establishing themselves in the country since then.

No, a sympathetic government creates the conditions for terrorists bases to arise.

I don't see where this is going, though. Hussein (the Ba'athist and secularist) was not interested in Islamism.
If a sympathetic government creates conditions for terrorists bases to arise, then we would have terrorists bases all over Europe.

Do enlighten me.
It's due to religious reasons, their support to Israel and hatred of America that they do that.
This is what one of the bombers involved in the 2005 London bombings recorded in a videotape:
I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.

You said that al-Qaeda's "influence" was "pretty weakened".

I'm highlighting that it is nothing of the sort.
Ok, it's not as strong as it was in the past, but it's still active, yes, that why we still need to fight it.

Who's side do you suggest we intervene on in Syrian war?
Since the war has already been started, and thousands of lives already been lost, then it should end with a positive outcome for those who started it and died for their ideals. I'm not saying the USA should support Assad nor the rebels, I'm just saying there has to an intervention that somehow contribute to the end of the conflict.

[Harry Smith]

The country was also unstable during the Gulf War in 1990, the terrorists might have been establishing themselves in the country since then.


We've gone over this time and time again-Saddam Hussein was an Athesist who wanted a secular Iraq-he wasn't going to support Al-Qaeda who were A)Funded by his own enemies B) The polar opposite. Al-Qaeda wouldn't leave Pakistan/Saudi Arabia/etc to go to a war torn country that's filled with UN and CIA spies-they'd be stupid to do this, as the quote shows below they hated each other

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Osama bin Laden offered to defend Saudi Arabia by sending mujahideen from Afghanistan to repel Saddam's forces. After the Gulf War, bin Laden continued to criticize Saddam's Ba'ath administration, emphasizing that Saddam could not be trusted.

You keep trying to claim that terrorists might have been in Iraq however every major study after the 2003 Iraq has shown that Iraq did not support Al-Qaeda, heck half the US Cabinet now admit it. Give up on the Iraq-Al-Qaeda link, I've citied about 10 pieces of evidence that prove that there was no link at all

I wasn't condemning the use of chemical weapons per se, I was just condemning the fact that this conflict has been dragging on for ages and nothing has been done so far while people from both sides are being killed and gassed.
.

You were, you didn't even limit it to both sides. And yeah stuff has been done to limit the damage in the war-we've got rid of the chemical weapons, we've frozen Assad's assets over here, we've taken in refugees and the UN has helped to deal with the refugee crisis. Sending in the planes and dropping democracy from 30,000 will not make the country any better-look at Libya and Iraq-both marred by civil war



Well, that happened a long time ago, some things might have been mistakes, but right now, we can't just stay clinged to the past wondering why we did that or why we didn't.

That translates into we fucked up, but I want everyone to forget about it. History shows us we need to look at our past decisions,and work out what we did wrong. That's the entire point of History



Maybe because Switzerland and Norway don't directly support Israel like the USA do, maybe because Switzerland and Norway don't pose such a threat to terrorists and jihadists like the USA do, and maybe because Switzerland's and Norway's foreign policies aren't as active and influential as the USA foreign policy is.

So you accept that terrorism is linked to foreign policy as citied in the own source that you provided to Vlerchan?


No, it's precisely because I don't support torture (generally), dictatorships and war crimes that I want the USA and the international community to intervene in those regions.
.

Oh please, Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, that tortures it's own citizens and has committed questionable offences that could be war crimes-Israel on the other hand is guilty of nearly every single war crime in the book.

I take it then since you 'support intervention' that you want to invade Saudi Arabia?

Of course you don't though, you just like to pretend to care about it to score cheap moral points

[Vlerchan]

The country was also unstable during the Gulf War in 1990, the terrorists might have been establishing themselves in the country since then.
Unless you can provide evidence supporting these allegations I'm not going to bother responding to them.

If a sympathetic government creates conditions for terrorists bases to arise, then we would have terrorists bases all over Europe.
I've no idea what sort of point you're making here. Are you denying that it's easier for terrorists to set up bases in countries that sympathise with them?

If you read the Monthly Review article I posted you'd know that America allowed Cuban terrorists a safe haven in US territory.

This is what one of the bombers involved in the 2005 London bombings recorded in a videotape:
Your quote supports exactly what I have been saying. I'll bold the relevant:

I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.

It seems like he wants to commit atrocities against Westerners because Western governments are committing atrocities against Muslims (when they invade Middle Eastern territories.)

Ok, it's not as strong as it was in the past, but it's still active, yes, that why we still need to fight it.
No, it is as strong as it is in the past, because fighting Islamism hasn't only not helped, but actually made it stronger.

I'm just saying there has to an intervention that somehow contribute to the end of the conflict.
I'd say the quickest way to end the conflict would be to stop funding the rebels and let Al Asaad complete his victory.

I would agree though that Syrian refugees should be given asylum in EU countries like Ireland and Portugal.

edit: 1000 post c:

[Living For Love]

You were, you didn't even limit it to both sides. And yeah stuff has been done to limit the damage in the war-we've got rid of the chemical weapons, we've frozen Assad's assets over here, we've taken in refugees and the UN has helped to deal with the refugee crisis. Sending in the planes and dropping democracy from 30,000 will not make the country any better-look at Libya and Iraq-both marred by civil war
The truth is that the conflict is still going on, no one has been charged with war crimes yet and the economic situation of Syria is still pretty bad.


So you accept that terrorism is linked to foreign policy as citied in the own source that you provided to Vlerchan?
No, because once again you're trying to turn the things I said against me. When I said Norway's foreign policies aren't as active and influential as the USA foreign policy, I meant that obviously Norway is not going to try to stop terrorists from gaining power in the Middle East as the USA has been doing for the last decades, so they don't see them as a threat.

Oh please, Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, that tortures it's own citizens and has committed questionable offences that could be war crimes-Israel on the other hand is guilty of nearly every single war crime in the book.

I take it then since you 'support intervention' that you want to invade Saudi Arabia?
I've already said why I don't support an intervention in Saudi Arabia.

Of course you don't though, you just like to pretend to care about it to score cheap moral points
Lol, if there's someone here with lack of morality it's definitely you. You're the one who's defending the loss of thousands of more lives in an everlasting conflict in Syria, you're the one who doesn't care about Iraqi civilians who are being shot and killed by terrorists, you're the one who simply doesn't want to fight jihadists and prefer to stay attached to the past with your narrow-mindedness. Wake up and realise there's still a lot of things to solve in the Middle East, and we can't expect them to fix by themselves.

Unless you can provide evidence supporting these allegations I'm not going to bother responding to them.
I'm speculating, just like you.

I've no idea what sort of point you're making here. Are you denying that it's easier for terrorists to set up bases in countries that sympathise with them?

If you read the Monthly Review article I posted you'd know that America allowed Cuban terrorists a safe haven in US territory.
Sympathise with them? That's not what you said first, but either way, how was the post-Saddam Iraq government sympathetic with terrorists?


Your quote supports exactly what I have been saying. I'll bold the relevant:

I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.

It seems like he wants to commit atrocities against Westerners because Western governments are committing atrocities against Muslims (when they invade Middle Eastern territories.)
No, he wants to commit atrocities against Westerners because the westerners have been fighting terrorists and al-Qaeda, whom he has relations to.


No, it is as strong as it is in the past, because fighting Islamism hasn't only not helped, but actually made it stronger.

Whatever you say, I don't even know why we're discussing this point. If the al-Qaeda is still active, whether by influencing its ideals on other groups or not, it needs to be combated.


I'd say the quickest way to end the conflict would be to stop funding the rebels and let Al Asaad complete his victory.

I would agree though that Syrian refugees should be given asylum in EU countries like Ireland and Portugal.
So you support a dictator who has been gassing his people? The death of all those who fought for a more democratic Syria was simply in vain? I'm going to be honest with you, I don't like these Arab Spring uprisings and stuff, I think those rebels are just a bunch of delinquents who simply wish to install chaos, but they actually want a better government, not using the best methods, I must admit, but they have the right intention, we just can't simply end it all now with a foreign intervention supporting Assad.

Congrats on 1000 posts. c:

[Vlerchan]

I'm speculating, just like you.
Feel free to quote my speculations and I'll work to back them up.

Sympathise with them? That's not what you said first ...
Yes, it is.

but either way, how was the post-Saddam Iraq government sympathetic with terrorists?
Post-Hussain Iraq was destabilised by the war. It became much easier for terrorists to set up here as a result.

I've already been through this.

No, he wants to commit atrocities against Westerners because the westerners have been fighting terrorists and al-Qaeda, whom he has relations to.
He's quite clear in what he is saying. It's that he is angered that "[our] democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against [his] people all over the world" and he will fight us until the West stops the "bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of [his] people."

If someone else would like to jump in and verify my interpretation of the source then that would be appreciated.

If the al-Qaeda is still active, whether by influencing its ideals on other groups or not, it needs to be combated.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242803/Has-War-Terror-failed-Number-terrorist-attacks-QUADRUPLE-decade-9-11.html

It should be noted that the above is a Daily Mail article. It's not often that we agree.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-iraq-war-made-terror-worse/

So you support a dictator who has been gassing his people?
Al Asaad is the lesser evil in this situation.

I've also seen no evidence that he's gassed his own people.

The death of all those who fought for a more democratic Syria was simply in vain?
Yes.

Like in Libya, Egypt, etc.

... we just can't simply end it all now with a foreign intervention supporting Assad.
I'm not saying support Asaad.

I'm saying stop supporting the rebels.

I don't want the West to intervene at all.

Congrats on 1000 posts. c:
Thanks.

---

I've already said why I don't support an intervention in Saudi Arabia.
I also already explained why you were wrong to oppose it on the grounds you do.

Lol, if there's someone here with lack of morality it's definitely you.
I'm going to presume this applies to me, too.

I oppose intervention because intervention in the Middle East as of July 4th 2014 has not helped the situation.

It also been done on grounds that have nothing to do with humanitarianism as some claim but rather neo-imperialism.

I would love to be able to stand up and say that if we just marched some troops in then it would make the situation better but I know that won't occur.

[Harry Smith]

The truth is that the conflict is still going on, no one has been charged with war crimes yet and the economic situation of Syria is still pretty bad.


Of course the economic situation is bad-heck our economic situation in Britain is bad and we're not even at war. The mechasism for actually charging someone with war crimes aren't as simple as saying 'your bad-lets charge you'' you actually need to go into the country, get evidence, talk to witnesses and then process it through the court of law.



No, because once again you're trying to turn the things I said against me. When I said Norway's foreign policies aren't as active and influential as the USA foreign policy, I meant that obviously Norway is not going to try to stop terrorists from gaining power in the Middle East as the USA has been doing for the last decades, so they don't see them as a threat.

Gaining power? I'd say terrorists have actually got more powerful since 2001-the war on terror has ironically furthered there base. I don't want more terrorist attacks in the UK and it's clear that our own foreign policy has caused this

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/12/04/report-terrorist-attacks-more-quadrupled-decade-911

In the decade since 9/11, fatalities from terrorist attacks have increased by 195 percent, incidents by 460 percent and injuries by 224 percent


global terrorism only started to increase after the escalation of the Iraq war. This was subsequently followed by further increasing waves of terrorism in Afghanistan and then in Pakistan eighteen months later."


I've already said why I don't support an intervention in Saudi Arabia.



No, it's precisely because I don't support torture (generally), dictatorships and war crimes that I want the USA and the international community to intervene in those regions.
.

http://focusmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/hypocrite.jpg


Lol, if there's someone here with lack of morality it's definitely you. You're the one who's defending the loss of thousands of more lives in an everlasting conflict in Syria, you're the one who doesn't care about Iraqi civilians who are being shot and killed by terrorists, you're the one who simply doesn't want to fight jihadists and prefer to stay attached to the past with your narrow-mindedness. Wake up and realise there's still a lot of things to solve in the Middle East, and we can't expect them to fix by themselves.


Do you really think us sending in a couple of planes will help save the people of Syria? How is bombing a country going to save lives? Look at Libya-we went in there and started bombing for freedom now the country is a complete mess-there parliament gets bombed every week and half the country is getting kidnapped by the other. Where are the brave troops to help them? Your solution in Syria would turn it into another Islamic republic-there's a reason that Israel have not being vocally supported the rebels in the last couple of months. First Vlerchan was agreeing with the Daily Mail-now I'm agreeing with the Israeli Army. Look at this

Israel’s preference is for President Bashar Assad to remain in power rather than see radical Islamist forces take control in Syria, the former military chief of staff is quoted in Wednesday’s edition of the daily tabloid Ma’ariv as saying.

You have no right to talk about Iraq, like please don't even try and take the moral highground on Iraq when you flat out supported the 2003 invasion that was carried out on false pretensions-100,000 dead, region in civil war, diseases spreading whilst the US TNC's pillage the land. You have no right to accuse me of not caring about the people of Iraq when you support an illegal invasion of a sovereign state in 2003.

It's been a failure-we've had 13 years of war, it's increased the very thing it was suppose to prevent, it's lead to an erosion of civil liberties in our country, an even further debt, more power to the Military Industrial complex and more British lives being lost. You can't simply kill someone for disagreeing with you.

TBH what's most concerning is that you have no idea about what's happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo-you don't even care, your happy for them to kill each other, to rape each other and to destroy a country with such vast potenial. Your too busy wanking off Uncle Sam to realize that the world doesn't stop at the Middle East

[Living For Love]

Post-Hussain Iraq was destabilised by the war. It became much easier for terrorists to set up here as a result.

I've already been through this.
No, that's the country and the economy itself, I was asking how the post-Saddam government encouraged terrorists to establish in Iraq.

He's quite clear in what he is saying. It's that he is angered that "[our] democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against [his] people all over the world" and he will fight us until the West stops the "bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of [his] people."
Well, by "his people" he's clearly not referring to hard-working and honest citizens but instead to terrorists linked with al-Qaeda whom the West has been fighting for over a decade. Because in his perspective, every Muslim should join his faction and commit the atrocities he already committed in London in the name of a greater god.

If someone else would like to jump in and verify my interpretation of the source then that would be appreciated.
Don't say that, it makes you look weak.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242803/Has-War-Terror-failed-Number-terrorist-attacks-QUADRUPLE-decade-9-11.html

It should be noted that the above is a Daily Mail article. It's not often that we agree.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-iraq-war-made-terror-worse/
It's a War, what were you expecting? Now, you really believe those attacks wouldn't happen if the USA didn't intervene in the USA? If they weren't fighting Terror, al-Qaeda and its allies would gain even more power in the Middle East, enough power to pose a serious threat to western nations.

Al Asaad is the lesser evil in this situation.

[...]

Yes.

Like in Libya, Egypt, etc.

I'm not saying support Asaad.

I'm saying stop supporting the rebels.

I don't want the West to intervene at all.
Now it's you who are showing imperialist tendencies, by claiming that the death of all those people was in vain. In Libya, the situation worked pretty well, and now there's a more stable government. In Egypt, Mubarak was sent to court, and the region now has a more stable government as well. Why would Syria be different?

I've also seen no evidence that he's gassed his own people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10796175/Syria-chemical-weapons-the-proof-that-Assad-regime-launching-chlorine-attacks-on-children.html

The use in war of “asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases” - both of which can be produced by chlorine and ammonia - is banned by the Geneva Protocol, of which Syria is a signatory.

The attacks, which in some cases used canisters marked with their chemical contents, were conducted by helicopter. In the Syrian civil war, only the regime has access to aerial power, making it now certain that the recent chemical attacks could only have been carried out by the regime, not the opposition.

I also already explained why you were wrong to oppose it on the grounds you do.
This response wasn't even addressed to you, and I still don't believe that an USA intervention in Saudi Arabia wouldn't make the world's economy on the brink of collapsing.

Of course the economic situation is bad-heck our economic situation in Britain is bad and we're not even at war. The mechasism for actually charging someone with war crimes aren't as simple as saying 'your bad-lets charge you'' you actually need to go into the country, get evidence, talk to witnesses and then process it through the court of law.
There's evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons. Since you're such a great opposer of war crimes, don't you think that would be enough to charge him?

Gaining power? I'd say terrorists have actually got more powerful since 2001-the war on terror has ironically furthered there base. I don't want more terrorist attacks in the UK and it's clear that our own foreign policy has caused this

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/12/04/report-terrorist-attacks-more-quadrupled-decade-911

Like I said, if there wasn't a War on Terror, al-Qaeda would gain even more power in the Middle East.

Do you really think us sending in a couple of planes will help save the people of Syria? How is bombing a country going to save lives? Look at Libya-we went in there and started bombing for freedom now the country is a complete mess-there parliament gets bombed every week and half the country is getting kidnapped by the other. Where are the brave troops to help them? Your solution in Syria would turn it into another Islamic republic-there's a reason that Israel have not being vocally supported the rebels in the last couple of months. First Vlerchan was agreeing with the Daily Mail-now I'm agreeing with the Israeli Army.
It's not indiscriminately bombing the country that I'm talking about, it's stopping the conflict once for all, and trying to establish a democratic government in the region.


You have no right to talk about Iraq, like please don't even try and take the moral highground on Iraq when you flat out supported the 2003 invasion that was carried out on false pretensions-100,000 dead, region in civil war, diseases spreading whilst the US TNC's pillage the land. You have no right to accuse me of not caring about the people of Iraq when you support an illegal invasion of a sovereign state in 2003.
It wasn't carried out on false pretensions only. Did you support the invasion of Kuwait in 1990?

TBH what's most concerning is that you have no idea about what's happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo
And what is it happening in DRC that's so worrying?

[Harry Smith]

In Libya, the situation worked pretty well, and now there's a more stable government.

Give up-this is the most stupid statement I've seen on this entire thread. All the evidence is against you as usual. The Libyan government is not stable-do you even read the news?

Oil exports collapsed from about 1.5m barrels a day to fewer than 500,000, costing the country billions of dollars.

The country is awash with up to 15 million rifles and other weapons, and a report by the UN panel of experts this month found that "Libya has become a primary source of illicit weapons

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/18/libyan-parliament-attack

Militias hold 8,000 people in prisons, many of whom say they have been tortured. Some 40,000 people from the town of Tawergha south of Misrata were driven from their homes which have been destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-civil_war_violence_in_Libya






It wasn't carried out on false pretensions only.


Yes it was, it was carried out solely to stop the 'WMD's' that Iraq didn't have-the crap about dictatorship/oppression doesn't constitute a legal backing for the war since the British Public were told that we were going to remove WMD's. That's what Tony Blair said to our own parliament

lSieUhqIR6k

This House notes its decisions of 25 November 2002 and 26 February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441; recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles

The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason. - See more at..

In Iraq, Saddam cultivated weapons of mass destruction (that's a lie right there) and the means to deliver them (Another lie). He gave support to terrorists, had an established relationship with al Qaeda (Another lie). . - See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1217#sthash.bYM3yg72.dpuf

Thee evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.... George Bush 2002

We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons Dick Cheney

An August 2006 report prepared at the direction of Rep. John Conyers, Jr. found that “members of the Bush Administration misstated, overstated, and manipulated intelligence with regards to linkages between Iraq and Al Qaeda; the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iraq; the acquisition of aluminum tubes to be used as uranium centrifuges; and the acquisition of uranium from Niger.” The report also noted that “[b]eyond making false and misleading statements about Iraq’s attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, the record shows the Bush Administration must have known these statements conflicted with known international and domestic intelligence at the time

[Vlerchan]

No, that's the country and the economy itself, I was asking how the post-Saddam government encouraged terrorists to establish in Iraq.
I never claimed it did.

Well, by "his people" he's clearly not referring to hard-working and honest citizens but instead to terrorists linked with al-Qaeda whom the West has been fighting for over a decade.
No, I'm pretty sure he's referring to Muslims as a whole.

Because in his perspective, every Muslim should join his faction and commit the atrocities he already committed in London in the name of a greater god.
He made it quite clear why he's promoting terrorism and it's not as much this as you want to make out.

Don't say that, it makes you look weak.
Lol.

It's a War, what were you expecting?
I'm pointing out that the war has made the problem worse because it's fuelling Islamism.

Now, you really believe those attacks wouldn't happen if the USA didn't intervene in the USA?
I believe that the US is aggravating the problem in engaging in the very activities that Jihadists groups have expressly stated to be against.

If they weren't fighting Terror, al-Qaeda and its allies would gain even more power in the Middle East, enough power to pose a serious threat to western nations.
You'll find that the reason al-Qaeda and its allies have a stronghold in countries like Irag is a direct result of US intervention.

You'll find the reason that al-Qaeda and its allies held a stronghold in countries like Afghanistan was a direct result of US intervention.

Now it's you who are showing imperialist tendencies, by claiming that the death of all those people was in vain.
If you believe that is what imperialism is then you clearly don't understand what the term means.

It's also a historical fact that it has.

In Libya, the situation worked pretty well, and now there's a more stable government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Post-Gaddafi_era

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/06/counting_the_dead_in_benghazi_militias_libya_khalifa_haftar

In Egypt, Mubarak was sent to court, and the region now has a more stable government as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Revolution

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/05/23/egypt_isnt_stable_sisi_presidential_election_poll

I also take it that you support military coups when it overthrows democratically elected leaders that you don't like.

Why would Syria be different?
Al Asaad is close to a total defeat of the rebel forces.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10796175/Syria-chemical-weapons-the-proof-that-Assad-regime-launching-chlorine-attacks-on-children.html
I must have missed this report because it's being privately run.

I always thought that the claims pertained to Al Asaad using missiles to deploy the chemical weapons. Since when has it changed to helicopters?

I can accept that there's strong evidence linking Al Asaad to the attacks, anyway. Though, that doesn't change the other relevant facts or my position.

This response wasn't even addressed to you ...
It doesn't make your underlying logic any less faulty.

and I still don't believe that an USA intervention in Saudi Arabia wouldn't make the world's economy on the brink of collapsing.
Feel free to address the points I made.

---

Like I said, if there wasn't a War on Terror, al-Qaeda would gain even more power in the Middle East.
You'll actually need to explain how this might be true instead of just continuously claiming it.

[Harry Smith]

The whole claim about Al-Qaeda is bollocks-the US removed a progressive socialist government in Afghanistan in the 1980's and handed over the keys to the Taliban along with training for the terrorists. US foreign policy created Al-Qaeda

[Stronk Serb]

All supporters of US invasions, explain this: why did terrorist activity, primarily Al-Qaeda's increase after the US invaded or intervened in Middle Eastern countries?

[Living For Love]

I never claimed it did.
So why do you think terrorists are more likely to establish themselves in a post-Saddam Iraq rather than an Iraq ruled by a dictator before the US invasion?

No, I'm pretty sure he's referring to Muslims as a whole.
He's not, because not all Muslims are psychopaths who want to kill innocent people just for the sake of it.

You'll find that the reason al-Qaeda and its allies have a stronghold in countries like Irag is a direct result of US intervention.

You'll find the reason that al-Qaeda and its allies held a stronghold in countries like Afghanistan was a direct result of US intervention.
You don't have any evidence that can support this. Al-Qaeda has its roots in the eighties, before the major American military interventions in the Middle East.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Revolution

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/05/23/egypt_isnt_stable_sisi_presidential_election_poll
Ok, Lybia might not be as stable as I previously said it was, but you can't deny Egypt is better than when comparing when the rebellion started.


I also take it that you support military coups when it overthrows democratically elected leaders that you don't like.
I support military coups when it overthrows dictators who pose a national and, most importantly, an international threat.

Al Asaad is close to a total defeat of the rebel forces.
Can you please explain how?

You'll actually need to explain how this might be true instead of just continuously claiming it.
The U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan was a necessary and legitimate response to 9/11 against a regime that was harbouring those who carried out that atrocity. Did America stood still when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour? Did Britain stood still when Argentina invaded the Falklands? Why would the USA do absolutely nothing when Al-Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Centre? It's a matter of justice and basic common sense that terrorists obviously lack.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/06/18/10-reasons-the-global-war-on-terror-must-continue

[Harry Smith]

He's not, because not all Muslims are psychopaths who want to kill innocent people just for the sake of it.



Lol tbh you're starting to look stupid. Terrorists aren't dumb beings that just want to kill. He clearly states that he's doing it because of US foreign policy, and the destructive influence it's had.

Have you ever tried to shot a cloud of smoke before? That's what the war on terror is.

Your point about Afghanistan is wrong-the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden and the rest of Al-Qaeda in 2001 before the invasion. If you think invading Afghanistan was a good idea then you're lost. It hasn't stopped Al-Qaeda-it's just created another US proxy to serve big business

[Vlerchan]

So why do you think terrorists are more likely to establish themselves in a post-Saddam Iraq rather than an Iraq ruled by a dictator before the US invasion?
Because post-Hussein Iraq is unstable and lacks an effective government.

This is unlike Hussein's Iraq.

I've been through this already.

He's not, because not all Muslims are psychopaths who want to kill innocent people just for the sake of it.You'll find that US foreign policy targets areas which hold a strong concentration of Muslims and so results in the deaths of non-phychopathic Muslims too: the speaker considers all these Muslims his people regardless of whether they are Islamists or not.

If we pretend your correct, then we're left with a situation in which terrorists rise to avenge other terrorists. Think about that for a moment.

You don't have any evidence that can support this.
In Afghanistan the US funded and equipped Islamists to overthrow the socialist regime there and later to combat the soviet intervention. This begun in The late 70s and continued throughout the 80s.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/17/yemen.islam

In the 2000s the US invaded Iraq in order to oust Hussein. This destabilized the country, which resulted in it being a point of convergence for radical Sunnis, etc.

Egypt is better than when comparing when the rebellion started.
It has 'democracy'.

It seems worse in every other way, though.

I support military coups when it overthrows dictators who pose a national and, most importantly, an international threat.
Feel free to explain how Morsi was either a national or international threat.

It is also nice to see it confirmed that you support democracy in the middle east et. al. only when it's running in your interests.

Can you please explain how?
It'd be much easier on me if you just looked into it yourself. Would you mind doing that?

I'd give a proper response but I'm on.holidays and don't have the time.

The US-led invasion ... obviously lack.Please answer my question.

None of this is relevent to what I asked.

[wolf g]

Yet now the US support the new Afgan government and they always claim that it's liberal and pro womens right-if they wanted a pro-womens right regime then why did they support the Mujaheddin

i will tell you something mujahid doesn't mean kill every one you find it in your way mujahid mean never accept the person who say the wrong ideas about islem the god say it
when we talk about ISIS they are not muslims and islem is enecent
if you want to know about the true islem read about mohammed it's the true islem or read the quoran in english

[Plane And Simple]

This is more than a year old, threads over 2 months inactive shouldn't be bumped.

:locked:

PM me if anyone wants it reopened.