The Military Fights to Defend our Freedom, or absurdist things the news tells me.

[kai]

Or we could just stop waging pointless wars that're mostly based on lies, perhaps?
Sure do you think that works both ways?
Didn't the 7/7 bombers say that their justification for the bombing (not that I'm saying it was justified) was our invasion or Iraq? Our aggressive foreign policy has mega blowback, and it has done over the decades. see below

This isn't about trying to be PC with Terrorists, it's about how our aggressive and intrusive foreign policy makes more enemies than it does friends. A prime example, the Taliban. We helped them (and the foundations of Al-Qaeda) in Afghanistan in the 80s with financing and giving them weapons, and we were even doing deals with them for oil pipelines in the mid to late 90's. Now we've gone and stirred up trouble and we've made another enemy. Not only that, but the rhetoric used to justify Afghanistan and our presence there has gradually changed from "zomg! we've gotta stop Al-Qaeda!" to "zomg! we can't let the Taliban take control of the country, we must defend Karzai!". i would feel it was a great failure on the Isaf forces if the Taliban regained control, i have no love for such a murderous regime

Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are BS and not only have British soldiers died from it, but British civilians on 7/7 suffered the consequences of it, and the British public will have to foot the bill for these two expensive wars. calm down, calm down, would you like to address the other issues they have with us?

And what good has come of it? I heard we're even setting a timetable for withdrawal for around 2014. Well that's just great, so we leave and then the Taliban will jsut overrun the Karzai forces in 2014 and we'll be back to square 1. Seriously, what on Earth have these two wars achieved? Naff all!

well dont blame the soldiers the politico l will to win has never been there.

Mohammad Sidique Khan, described his motivation for the 7/7 bombings


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.


On 6 July 2006, a video statement by Shehzad Tanweer was broadcast by Al-Jazeera. In the video, which may have been edited[7] to include remarks by al-Qaeda member Ayman al-Zawahiri, Tanweer said:
What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel.
Tanweer argued that the non-Muslims of Britain deserve such attacks because they voted for a government which "continues to oppress our mothers, children, brothers and sisters in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya."[8]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings#Videotaped_statements

so lets not rile them, heavens no , lets do as they demand ,quick march left left, left left left ,left left, left left left

 

[Badran]

Well, Kai, do you at least agree now that this is a prime motivator for people to go extreme? (note i'm not talking about the agendas of the leaders).

As for combating this, nobody is suggesting that you don't. But i think its safe to say that at the very least thats not the only goal behind the wars. It also doesn't justify crimes that have been committed during these wars.

 

[Badran]

Hi Badran,

I am glad you made this point. The US didn't just go to war with Iraq to spread democracy and show what good people we are. The US is first and foremost looking out for the interests of the US. The war was waged to protect the US, now this is obviously a debatable proposition and in ways it went terribly wrong in a number of ways, but the interest of the US were paramount in the decision to use military action in Iraq.

I don't really see Iraq situation as needing a military invasion if we assume of course that the US "had" to do it, but you're entitled to your opinion of course.

However i agree that the war must have had more than one reason.

3. Bringing democracy to the region. The argument being, democratic states aren't state-sponsors of terrorism and don't start wars.

Well, like i said bringing democracy to the region could be done and should be done through non-violent measures.

Well, I would argue that the people of Iraq will be better off even though they have gone through the carnage of war. And the use of military action was last resort and we have to remember the historical context here; this was 2003. From the US perspective it was less than two years since the deadliest terrorist attack on its soil, the intelligence (much of which was flawed) indicated that Saddam had a robust WMD program and Saddam had ties to terrorists. I read my fair share about the inner deliberations in the Bush administration and the one thing they were obsessed about was getting attacked again. In that context, it doesn't seem implausible that military would be a legitimate option regarding Iraq.

May be later on it will be better for Iraqis. But that isn't a justification, we can't just decide to sacrifice some people. Or in other words a lot of the things done throughout that war doesn't get excused even if Iraq end up a democratic state.

There is so much wrong things that happened that not only make this war a huge mistake, and contain horrible injustices, but also should make you question the real intention behind it.

When thousands of our citizens are slaughtered in a terrorist attack, then yes, we'll use military action in response and I don't believe that is the wrong approach. In fact, in dealing with a lot of these people the only way to stop them is to kill them.

I was talking mainly in that part about combating the injustices and oppressive stuff that goes on in some middle eastern countries. This is the part i meant we should combat with ideas and so on.

As for thousands of your civilians dying, well that is partially like its been argued due to the US's actions, not saying its justified. However, i'm not so sure that a full scale war on a country is the best solution to fight a group of terrorists.

 

[kai]

Well, Kai, do you at least agree now that this is a prime motivator for people to go extreme? (note i'm not talking about the agendas of the leaders).

As for combating this, nobody is suggesting that you don't. But i think its safe to say that at the very least thats not the only goal behind the wars. It also doesn't justify crimes that have been committed during these wars.

sorry Badran but what is a prime motivator? The prime motivator for the 7/7 bombings in my country seems to me to be Islam (or their version of it) as none of them were Afghans or Iraqis and seem to be using the classic defence motive, crimes are never justified on either side

 

[Badran]

sorry Badran but what is a prime motivator? The prime motivator for the 7/7 bombings in my country seems to me to be Islam (or their version of it) as none of them were Afghans or Iraqis and seem to be using the classic defence motive

You don't have to be Iraqi or Afghani to have this motive. As for them using this, you mean they are lying? Well why isn't this also applied to the other side? Unless you do believe that the US government was lying about their motives for wars, then forgive for misunderstanding.

Lastly, what would convince you that this is at least a prime motive for most of people who go radical? Some take it as a cause for their religion, some do it for revenge and so on. While of course not neglecting that the leaders like Bin Laden for example might have a bigger agenda than just that.

crimes are never justified on either side

Of course.

 

[Aquitaine]

Sure do you think that works both ways?

​

Huh? I don't believe I understand your question, do you mean if "they" start pointless unjust wars based on lies that they will create blowback? Of course.​

i would feel it was a great failure on the Isaf forces if the Taliban regained control, i have no love for such a murderous regime

​

Well, if history is any indicator that is exactly what will happen, we will fail. Afghanistan is...... well..... pretty much invincible to foreign invaders. The Soviet Union, with their hordes of Men and huge columns of Armour couldn't do it - what makes you think we can? "Hearts & Minds" well yeah I agree, but to be fair we're not exactly pursuing that strategy very well: the Karzai Administration is corrupt as Hell, and we're imposing a totally Alien (to them) way of life via a centralized and out-of-touch government on groups of people who're mostly Tribal-like and reclusive. Not only that, but every time one of our Airstrikes whacks a civilian target, all our efforts with "Hearts & Minds" shatters instantly.​

We're also giving up Afghanistan's resources to other countries, most noticably the Coppor deposits to the Chinese. Of course, we all know China is a beacon of Human and Workers Rights, and the deals will totally benefit the people of Afghanistan ​

calm down, calm down, would you like to address the other issues they have with us?

​

I apoligize, but debates like this easily get me angry, good God if one of my relatives or friends was a Soldier over there I'd probably go bezerk. There are people dying, and not only that but it's our fault! That's why I get wound-up so easily about the situation. Of course, I'm not getting angry at you personally.​

well dont blame the soldiers the politico l will to win has never been there.

​

Huh? Sorry I don't understand. However, yes I don't blame the Soldiers, I blame the people who actually make these crappy decisions: the people who won't suffer one bit of this war and the consequences: the Politicians and Industry leaders.​

As for the 7/7 bomber's motives, meh I honestly doubt it's got anything to do with Palestine and Chechnyia, the fact that they both happened after our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and not before, leads me to believe (well, guess - to be honest) that those two conflicts were the primary motives. For all I care, "but, but - Palestine!" is mostly an overused "excuse" that most extremists use anyways - they cry crocodile tears for them all the time, I doubt they really give a damn.​

Regardless, no I don't believe in cowering to Terrorists, I'm just saying that our reckless actions have simply added to the number of enemies we have, and considering we don't even need to be in Afghanistan or Iraq, it's all for nothing.​

so lets not rile them, heavens no , lets do as they demand ,quick march left left, left left left ,left left, left left left

​

I'm not saying that and you know it. It would have benefited all parties had we not invaded those two countries. In fact, it probably would've damaged the Terrorists more had we not invaded - since they'd loose support and would have had much less recruits to join the "cause". Whereas now they just say "Look at Iraq, look at Afghanistan" (then the usual "Palestine!!" Crocodile Tears added to the mix) and Ta-Da - they get new recruits.​

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

Considering that its your assertion that coalition forces in the middle east are doing proper military job, while the Israelis conduct involves terrorism, I wonder what you think about former commander of British forces in Afghanistan analysis that:

"based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in the combat zones than any other army in the history of warfare"

(Colonel Richard Kemp, who was a Commander of British forces in Afghanistan)

The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem reports that in just one Israeli offensive in Gaza that took place from 27 Dec 2008 to 18 Jan 2009 there were 773 Palestinian civilians killed, over 200 of which were children.

The figures, which are comparable to those of other non-government organizations are more than double that of the official numbers released by the Israeli Defense Force. Also, Amnesty International has charged Israel with comitting war crimes during the offensive.

The conduct of the Israeli Defense Force is far from laudable.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Badran,

Well, like i said bringing democracy to the region could be done and should be done through non-violent measures.

I would not underestimate the ability of despots to hold onto power and to manipulate international organizations like the UN (Saddam and the Oil for Food scandal comes to mind).

May be later on it will be better for Iraqis. But that isn't a justification, we can't just decide to sacrifice some people. Or in other words a lot of the things done throughout that war doesn't get excused even if Iraq end up a democratic state.

Of course this kind of thinking would preclude any military action ever even in such cases as WWII.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Paul,

Regime change, to turn Iraq into a Puppet for global businesses, basically.

Or maybe the rather common sense belief that one of the only bright spots in the Iraqi ecomony is oil and therefore it would be smart to protect this important industry for Iraqis when they have control of their own country.

 

[Aquitaine]

Hi Paul,

Or maybe the rather common sense belief that one of the only bright spots in the Iraqi ecomony is oil and therefore it would be smart to protect this important industry for Iraqis when they have control of their own country.

LOOL!1

Hahaha! That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time! You think we're gonna let the Iraqis have control over, and primarily benefit from their own Oil?!

Remember what happened in '53 when the Iranians tried to nationalize their own Oil with the help of Mossadeq, and opposed the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

Remember what happened in the late 50's and early 60's when Iraq continued to try and nationalize her own Oil with the help of Qassim, against the wished of the Iraqi Petroleum Company?

:biglaugh:

Iraqi Oil for Iraqi people........... hahahaha!

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Paul,

Hahaha! That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time! You think we're gonna let the Iraqis have control over, and primarily benefit from their own Oil?!

Are you arguing that Iraqis aren't using their own oil?

What was all that fight in Iraqi parliament about the Shia, Sunni and Kurds sharing in the oil revenue?

How could that happen if they didn't control their own oil industry?

 

[Aquitaine]

Are you arguing that Iraqis aren't using their own oil?

Honestly, at this moment in time I have no idea how or if Iraqis (and by that I mean the people and not the puppet politicians) are currently benefitting from their Oil revenue.

However, what I'm saying is that both our countries have had a history of denying countries in that region the ability to nationalize their own oil and benefit from it directly, as opposed to selling it all entirely to Western-owned Oil monopolies like the IPC and APOC - supported by Western-allied puppet Monarchies. Iraq is one of those nations, hence why I find the assertion that we invaded Iraq (and are currently occupying it) in order to help Iraqis benefit from their own Oil completely hilarious.

What was all that fight in Iraqi parliament about the Shia, Sunni and Kurds sharing in the oil revenue?

How could that happen if they didn't control their own oil industry?

I dunno, I've honestly not heard of this recent fight in the Iraqi Parliament over Oil revenues. Regardless, I sincerely doubt it's anything of great importance to the Iraqi people. But hey, feel free to provide links about this issue if you want.

Now a question for you, why do you think we invaded Iraq, and also do you support this conflict? Bear in mind that one can oppose a war but still support the troops - they're too separate things, so don't feel pressured into accepting this conflict because others try to label you as "unpatriotic" are "anti-military" etc. :yes:

 

[Badran]

Hi Badran,

I would not underestimate the ability of despots to hold onto power and to manipulate international organizations like the UN (Saddam and the Oil for Food scandal comes to mind).

Hi Joe, well if you mean or pointing out that it would be very difficult to introduce and help a country to apply a new system and a better government for themselves, i agree. I know its going to be met by a lot of challengers, but that kind of struggle is worth it, and doesn't cause such side effects. Also, if even failed, thats okay. For two reasons, the first because a country isn't ready to live in freedom and equality until its citizens can fight for ther own, so if they couldn't with the help they got, then they are not ready yet. The second reason, is because the way i view military usage doesn't at all allow for its usage in this situation. Military for me is a very last resort.

Of course this kind of thinking would preclude any military action ever even in such cases as WWII.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying never is military usage okay. There are times that not only is it okay, but it is the best thing to do.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Paul,

I love it when you guys play dumb.

Don't you remember in the 2008 presidential campaign where Obama kept repeating the talking point about Iraq not spending their budget surplus? Guess where they got this surplus? Oh yeah, oil.

So, the Iraqi government got a surplus because of their oil revenue. Interesting, isn't that the money that the evil corporations were supposed to be stealing from Iraq.

 

[Aquitaine]

Hi Paul,

I love it when you guys play dumb.

Don't you remember in the 2008 presidential campaign where Obama kept repeating the talking point about Iraq not spending their budget surplus? Guess where they got this surplus? Oh yeah, oil.

So, the Iraqi government got a surplus because of their oil revenue. Interesting, isn't that the money that the evil corporations were supposed to be stealing from Iraq.

Meh, I'm not playing dumb, I don't really follow much of the Iraqi government's decisions because well let's face it: it's full of corruption. There's an important distinction to make between Iraqi Government and Iraqi people.

Also, like I'm gonna know about Obama's talking points during the 2008 elections, I'm not a US citizen nor am I a supporter of the Democrat party.

Out of curiosity, you got any sources or links which explain these oil revenues, and that the money is being spent on good things like infrastructure and not just lost in the corruption?

Oh and again, why do you think we invaded Iraq and continue to occupy it, and do you support this conflict?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Paul,

Out of curiosity, you got any sources or links which explain these oil revenues, and that the money is being spent on good things like infrastructure and not just lost in the corruption?

Iraq oil revenue soars, creating surplus - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com

Oh and again, why do you think we invaded Iraq and continue to occupy it, and do you support this conflict?

There were a number of reasons why the US invaded Iraq:

1. WMD threat

2. Saddam's ties to terrorism

3. Bringing democracy to region.

And yes, I supported the decision to use military action against Saddam.

 

[Aquitaine]

Joe Stocks, from your own article:

But according to other U.S. officials, a major problem is that Iraq does not have the capacity to allocate the money without it being wasted or pocketed by corrupt officials.

Ever wondered that considering they're not spending the money on anything, that they're simply pocketing the cash for themselves? I remember when my Dad was in Iraq not too long ago, he said that Iraq is full of corruption and that the very first thing the Governor of Basra did when he took office, was to spend taxpayer money on Marble flooring for his residence - whilst the people of Basra have no permanent electricity.

With all that money floating around, and the people of Iraq poor and weak, do you seriously doubt that it's all just getting pocketed? After all, it sure as Hell ain't being spent on the people.

There were a number of reasons why the US invaded Iraq:

1. WMD threat

What WMDs?

2. Saddam's ties to terrorism

What ties to Terrorism?

3. Bringing democracy to region.

Hahahahahaha!

Both our countries have had a history of denying weaker countries the right to have Democracy. Iran, Chile, Vietnam, Nicaragua for example, and instead prefering to back oppressive Monarchs - the Iranian Shah, the Iraqi Monarch, the Saudi Arabian Monarch etc. As well as backing dictators and murderes like Suharto, Musharraf, even Saddam Hussein.

Do you think that all of a sudden the UK and particularily the USA now love Democracy, and that our military expansion is done because we just love Democracy? If so........ then what the Hell happened and when?!

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US a Federal Republic and not a Democracy? I know for a fact that the UK is not a Democracy either - it's a sort of ugly hybrid between a semi-constitutional Monarchy and a representative Parliament, mixed in with some EU influence.

 

[Sunstone]

There were a number of reasons why the US invaded Iraq:

1. WMD threat
2. Saddam's ties to terrorism

Both of those reasons have been thoroughly discredited. You're giving us reasons for the invasion that were never more than propaganda, Joe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Both of those reasons have been thoroughly discredited. You're giving us reasons for the invasion that were never more than propaganda, Joe.

If leaders believe their own propaganda, is it still propaganda?

 

[Caladan]

The Israeli human rights group B'Tselem reports that in just one Israeli offensive in Gaza that took place from 27 Dec 2008 to 18 Jan 2009 there were 773 Palestinian civilians killed, over 200 of which were children.

'One Israeli offensive?' you are talking about Operation Cast Lead, it happened not long ago and was starring the news, its not an anonymous 'one Israeli offensive'.

The conduct of the Israeli Defense Force is far from laudable.

The conduct of the Israeli Defence Forces is better than that of some of the other Western forces, and far better than the militaries, factions, organizations around the middle east.

furthermore, please dont divert my posts from what they were intended to, my posts addressed a specific argument, and they addressed it very well. if you want to argue about a different topic then please stay in context. the context of my debate with Revoltingest was what I found an inconsistency in claiming that the Israeli forces use terrorism in the Palestinian territories, while the coalition forces in Iraq or Afghanistan do not.