America at war

Good or Bad?

Man i hope the civilian death toll is keep to a minimum.

Good cos terrorism sucks, but I can see America having their fair share of losses from terrorist attacks.

Just as long at they don't do anything bad near me.
I found out yesterday there is a nuclear plant not too many miles from where I'm situated

And I ain't gunna be able to party to much sitting on top a big ass mushroom cloud am I?

Oct. 15 issue — Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from American and British ships in the Arabian Sea, including U.S. submarines, rained on sites inside Afghanistan. Strike aircraft were also used. The initial targets were believed to be air defenses and military communications sites controlled by the ruling Taliban clerics, as well as Osama bin Laden’s terrorist training camps. But in yet another indication of how unusual a war this will be, Bush also announced in his midday address to the nation that the United States would simultaneously drop humanitarian aid, mainly food and medicine, in areas of Afghanistan where thousands of refugees have fled in anticipation of the attacks.

Well, I think its a bad thing really. But I feel a bit hesitant to say that without being able to provide an alternative to war?... How can the US resolve this issue without war? Questions I cannot easily answer.

But I do think that bombing Afghanistan is quite akin to the actual event that sparked it off in the first place?.. its organised terrorism at a government level.. so they call it military. Its almost seems to me as though the Americans think that 'its ok if they have a good reason'??? You can imagine Osama and George as to little kids in a playground being as bad as each other, and you tell them off and George goes "But he started it!!!" ??? Well.. thats my impression.

I am a pacifist so anything war related just absolutely horrifies me ... but in saying that ... terrorism horrifies me too ... and those who do the crime should do the time!

However, I believe there is an alternative solution to war .... did Bush even consider it though? NOPE! He's too gun-ho, "shoot em up" styles and worry bout the consequences later - goddamn lets just call the man Duke Nukem!

Quite a few years ago (10 i think) an american ship shot down a syrian airbus with a couple of hundred arabs on it, no one was held accountable for this.

America is one of only a few countries that have refused to sign a treaty on war criminals, as it is afraid thats members of its government and military could be brought before the Hague War Ciminal Court for past "military" actions.

America is now saying it may have to attack other nation in the pursuit of terrorism...

Personally I believe American is the global bully in the sandpit, and theyve set themselves on path that isnt going to lead to peace for anyone. They cant be seen to do nothing, but its actions similar the current attacks on afganistan that have lead to the terrorism against them. I wonder how many civilians died in the gulf war bombings? and how many more pissed of arabs there are going to be now.

Global bully in the sanpit... AMEN. I like that description

I like how in the past 2 world wars america never really entered until the end... it was only when Americans were killed that they joined in. Suddenly America is attacked and the world is supposed to unite with America.
Secondly I find it quite disturbing that America has announced that they wanna persue the "terrorists" in other countries as well, its not like other Arab countries are jumpy enuf without Bush proclaiming that they may be next!

Yeah, have you guys read what is happening in Palestine?.. Its crazy. Yasser Arrafat has denounced the Teleban, and Palestinian police are attacking the Anti-American (Hammas) protesters. All in fear that they may be next if they are seen to be sympathic to Osama. Its a quick goddamn turn around.

And Pakistan, well thats even crazier. The same fear has caused them to denounce the Teleban also. However this would normally be the last thing they would ever do. The Teleban was principal in getting Pakistans current military ruler into power.

If you look at the history in the region. The old Pakistan government helped the Teleban get into power after the Russians pulled out, mainly because the Northern Alliance treatment of pakistan at the time, which was less than pleasent. The Northern Alliance was Pakistans arch enemy, and is America's ally. Its crazy. The United States is stiring up a HUGE shitstorm over there which is likely to cause political unrest across the Arab nations for years to come. The repercussions of attacking Afghanistan will be massive for all the Arab nations let alone the rest of the world.

I reckon everyone of these warring bastards need to drop a few e's and then they'd forget about the warring and be down for some good LURRRVIN instead!

hehehe

Hmm, I was discussing this with a mate last night, and I said that the states should pursue peace, for the simple reason that there is no way that they can keep tap of all the terrorists around the world, and at any time one could resort to biological warfare, so its best to try to be diplomatic with the leaders to keep the followers in line.
But my mates reply made me think, although I'm not sure if hes right or wrong, he has a point:
That is applying a western mindset to an arab mind. The terrorists have their own logic, and no real respect for humanity. The US attempting peace would be seen as a sign of weakness, and would do nothing to cease attacks. The rest of the world is behind the US because they know that if the Great Saten (an attitude of a lifetime) is seen to bow, then they will be next in the firing line. So therefore, the US, and any "allies" have no choice but to do what they are doing. Thats the way it has to be fought.
I dunno, its something to think about.

The american respect for humanity...
USA have been strongly critisised by amnesty international for its human rights abuses of maximium security inmates. Kinda makes Americas complaints against China a little rich.
USA still wont sign up to the war criminal treaty of the UN.

How many civilians have died so far in the bombing in Afganistan? or Iraq? and is Americas responce "well they started it" valid? The arab terrorists are (in their mind) responding to americans past aggression. (the americans have been involving themselves in arab conflicts for decades (they used to support the taliban and put Saddam hussein (sp?) into power.

Your friend is right that America cant be seen to back down, but thats only because theyve set themselves upon this path.

Americas allies (Britain in particular) are exposing themselves to more arab terrorism by backing USA's military responce than had they not supported it. I think they should be asking themselves where America has been with thier own struggles against terrorism (UK, France, Spain, Israel).

If you need any more to think about look at americas responce to Kosovo they didnt exactly chase the ethnic cleaners with any vigour.

You are right there is alot to think about.. i dont think pissing off more arabs is the way to go about looking for any lasting peace.

FunKdinGo Say WAR BAD Dance GOOD especilly at sun rise when the soulfull sounds of heavenly house and smiley faces make mes feels all gooood and happy for what lifes about is not da bang bang of da Gun but the Boom of Da Sun and happy boys n girls going about the day knowing that theys loves da ones they with and da ones thay want 2 B with. Say Yeah?

Nicely put FunKdinGo

Bomb em with liquid E, and fly in Special force DJ's armed with latest high tec decks and sound systems

This shit is getting pretty intense now, the americans are like non stop bombing Afganistan. I wonder how long they can keep this up for. I bet Bin Laden isn't even close to Afganistan at the mo. Will this ever be resolved....... personally i cant really see this happening.

Yes America is responsible for being a bully in the global sandpit, but you can hardly compare Americas prior actions to what was done to the thousands of innocent people in New York.
Posting opinions based on ignorance and an expression of tall poppy syndrome is not what I would call sound opinion.
Let us not for get the global panic onset by the Anthrax letters! As much as it may not be something that any of us like, we are living in a world where America plays a major roll in stability, and this is under threat from a group of religeous fanatics who believe that Americans are a bunch of haedonistic cretins. If you were bought up in a similar way to those people you would also think that way. However these people have crossed a universal line where life becomes less precious. Are several thousand dead Americans, still increasing due to Anthrax poisoning, really comparible to a couple of hundred incidental civilian casualties??? None of these people would be dead if it weren't for a couple of planes flying into buildings - who was responsible for that?

i am disgusted that new zealand has supported
america and her bad foreign policy.. i am
disgusted that
"oh yes by the way how about that trade
agreement"
And throwing bombs from afar is it self an act of
terrorism.
And isnt it ironic that israel goes into palestine
territory to get terrorists but america pleads
them to stop and withdraw their troops........funny
how that 25 years worth of oil can disrupt so
much of the world....
(please advise me if I Ill informed here but its
hard to get an independpent source)

Forest: eloquently put as usual... you are religious? Your post was deleted after a request was made.

"couple of hundred incidental civilian casualties??? " - What would you think if the NZ police said "Well weve finally caught the Sarah Jamieson murderer, oh and by the way we shot 2 incidental civilians as we had incorrect inteligence.

"However these people have crossed a universal line where life becomes less precious" wtf! these civilians have NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! and to put it into context more americans die on the roads each year than in the WTC.....OK what should arabs have done after the americans shot down the syrian airbus killing 250 odd arabs? maybe the captain of that missile ship was in the building and the dead were just incidental civilians (not at all funny just trying to put it into context)

"Posting opinions based on ignorance and an expression of tall poppy syndrome is not what I would call sound opinion." ??


America has a history of punishing civilians for others actions - yugoslavia has had its infrastructure destroyed because of milosovich(sp?) but the americans wouldnt send in ground troops (no oil maybe), they even killed a few of the refuges they were trying to save.

America responsible for stability?... yeah they put saddam into power... but dont worry with all the instability america is selling billions of dollars worth of weapons in the area thatll calm them all down....

Money...Oil.... Arabs have been fucked over for years because of it and theyre alittle pissed off about it (it doesnt justify terrorism) America has to understand the part its played in the hatred these arabs have for it. And realise that bombing more civilians is going to make it worse.

FunKdinGo Knows no hate 4 da man or his religon only that each War be it 4 da land, da sacred rights to belive in a God or a higher being, the real people of the world suffer & most of the time its based on $$$ and the so called advancement of mankind, natural resources. No unity exists in war only children dyin, men made to make horrible choices and peoples like you and me scratching our heads and sayin WHAT DA FUCK APPENED HERE THEN?

would like to say sorry for my brother, has a habbit of wrecking fourms like this , i hate war guns dont solve shit neva will, i just hope sumone sorts it out really quicky.

cause ppl dying isnt a good thing at all let the world be at peace and enjoy the music !!!

Bob, re: "...an american ship shot down a syrian airbus with a couple of hundred arabs on it.."

But that was a mistake, not an act of terrorism. And there was a huge fuss made over the events surrounding it and appologies were made, and massive financial payments were made to the airline and passengers families.

What else could they have possibly done to make it better?

Rob W

RobW thats crap - a mistake! They have committed far too many "mistakes" to ever forgive them.

America at war is BAD.

They are the worst terrorists the world has ever known - their attcks on innocents (people they say are attcking freedom like communists - pah!) since the end of the 2nd world war are uncountable.

I don't want anyone to be killed - neither americans nor anyone else - but theres many, many americans that have been in the army and government that should definitely be in prison for the rest of thier days.

Americans think that american life is more important and better than all other forms. Hence its ok to murder koreans, vietnamese, iraqis, serbians, afghanis and anyone else they feel like. You may say oh but theres good reasons for all of that killing". Bullshit. Its war crimes and atrocities that have brought about such anti-america angst worldwide that will cause more attcks on the states which could possibly be its end eventually. History has taught us all great empires, no matter how powerful and inconceivably undefeatable (think roman empire, alexander and the greeks, british empire to a lesser degree) all get conquered. Americas time in the lead is running out, mainly due to thier own corruption.

And its not just "military targets" as they put it. What bullshit. Even the propoganda machine lets a few true stories in - today they apparently bombed an afghan hospital. But who knows how many crippled children, homeless people, solo mothers etc (afghans general population) they have slaughtered in thier terrorist attacks on afghanistan?

America is the worst example to the world there is. The so called AL QUEDA network if it exists is terrible, but not nearly as bad as the worst terrorists in history.

...It was a commercial airliner in commercial airspace flying at a commercial altitude... screaming "its coming right for us!" and firing a missle at it. You can see the accuracy of "precision bombing" on the tv at the moment.

They arent attacking the Al Queda network, theyre attacking the taliban and afganistan.

America removing 30,000 Marines from Saudi Arabia that have been there since the Gulf War, and putting more pressure on Israel to move out of Palestinian areas might go a long way towards resolving the conflict, as these are two of the main reasons for anti-American sentiment in the Mid-East

I have a strange feeling that USA could be behind this all, what better than an International War to kick start its failing economy.
G.W. Bush is carrying on his fathers legacy, and the biggest mistake was letting the Republican party back into power. This is not only a War against Terrorism, its turning into a Religious war, if the Taliban declare Jihad on the States, then we have alot to worry about, we are right on the doorstep of one of the biggest Muslim Countries.

I think people are all too eager to verbally attack the US at the moment, ironically enough. Sure, I think the Americans have made some bad decisions in foreign policy, and many Americans would agree with that too. However, I think you should all think very carefully about the "overall" role the Americans have played over the past 100 years (in particular) in policing the world.

They have made mistakes, yes. But they also fought a couple of World Wars that us young 'uns seem to forget about. I don't think the Allieds would have won without the US. Since then, the US has tried to go into these danger zones before the trouble brews to the level of World War, it seems to me. It's a risky strategy, and it's meant the US has copped a lot of criticism, but the alternative might be too horrible to imagine.

Giznad - I think it's too goddam easy for you to dismiss the reasons behind US attacks in other countries. In your post, you just brush it all aside with the statement "bullshit". That's not rigorous discussion or reasoning, and I'd like to hear some more copious defense of your view point.

Take Kosovo, for instance. Should the US have stood aside and let the Serbs and Slobodan Milosevic go about their ethnic cleansing? What other choice was there?

War is never nice, and people dying is never good. But have you considered that America kills 'x' out of a set of 'X' people to prevent 'y' people from being killed by members of the X, where y is much, much larger than 'x'? (thereby preventing y - x deaths)

Be careful about getting caught up in emotive argument lines involving "crippled children" and "solo mothers". Emotion is never a valid way to justify an argument.

GO AMERICA!!! BLOW SOME SHIT UP!!!
makes for entertaining news

I sincerely hope that was a satirical remark.

Emotion voiceinsideyou is the only way to argue. It's the basis of what we believe, and when america declared a 'war against terorism' emotions that had not been felt for over 50 years on a global scale were arroused. War guys, is the most emotion filled time, therefore you cannot say that we cannot use emotion as a basis for arguement.

Sure you can have logic without reason, and make evrything into a math equation, but what's that got to do with seeing people die?

I do not blame America for what happened to them, but then i do not blame Afghanastan either. Yet, America has taken as a scapegoat this nation.

I am not going to quote America's past as i feel this has nothing to do with the actions they choose to take in their 'war against terorism'

but c'mon America, surely we understand that war brings emtions to a pinnacle and therefore we shouldn't use it.

aims *just stop any god damned war*

s.p.s, 1 dead is way too many, when there is no apparent cause

i tried to make that as understandable as possible, i'm not exactly the english scholar, but i do have opinions and like them to be voiced.

and children...

hasn't the past taught us anything?

Fair enough - it's good to hear your opinion.

Things don't have to be represneted as mathematical equations, but I as merely presenting a situation in which the US believes that it is expending some life in order to save many more lives.

It's naive to wish an end to all war. It'd be nice, and we all hope for a world of that nature, but how do you negotiate a peaceful solution to disagreements with religious fanaticsim, which at it's definitional roots thinks all other religions and belief sets are wrong and should be dismantled? It's hard to negotiate withg that, and once those fanatics turn to terrorism and violence - it's not hard to see where you'd get to by standing back and letting things take their course - probably more attacks by terrorists.

I disagree that emotion is the only way to argue. Emotion is something that allows us to 'express' our feelings and thoughts about issues, and to convey them to other people in a way that reveals the strength of our feeling. This is fine.

However, a 'reasoned' argument, to be valid, must be logical. Logic IS reason, I believe. Emotions are feelings, and are unique to a person. Logic is a way of formulating conclusions based on agreed facts, rather than unique opinion. In fact, I would contend that an argument should be a reasoned sequence of statements bound by logical inference, one following the other to reach a valid conclusion. The English language is not conducive to building such an argument, so we do the best we can, and one should try to avoid using emotive language in the midst of an argument, as its only purpose is to stir up the emotion of the reader.

What we should want are 'facts' about situations when arguing, not bold statements that appeal to sensitive issues - such as "crippled children" being killed.

I agree that one dead is too many, but I also point out that x dead is better than x+1 dead, and this is the logic that I hope the US is following.

I believe the past has taught us several things (and I'm not expert on history or war), but it has told us that if the US hadn't intervened in WWII, the world would most likely be a very different (/Nazi) place, at least in Europe. It has also taught us that negotiation can resolve many conflicts. Ten years ago, no-one would have envisgaed the Palestinians and Israelis being able to sit down and negotiate, but they have - and have been closer than ever to a peace agreement. But when there's no ability to negotiate, what can one do?

Terrorism seems to me to be the anti-thesis of democracy, moreso than communism, even. At it's heart, it is often about a small bunch of people holding the majority to ransom, so to speak. That's a shame - and it's especially a shame for Islam.

communism is not the antithesis of democracy, you are mistaking recent dictatorships in communist trappings(China, Soviet Union)for true communists. The world has yet to see a true communist state. And on the subject of America winning WW2, check out some non-American historians, they tend to see Russia as the country that broke Germany. And America in this instance refused negotiations when the Taleban offered to hand Osama over to a neutral country for trial, if the US provided some proof. I do agree with terrorism being a poor substitute for
peaceful means of protest, but you have religion to thank for the violent side of these people. After a couple of thousand years dying and killing for fairytales you would have thought we might have learned something.

OK. The kosovo example. There was absolutely NO ethnic cleansing involved. That was emotive propoganda. It was a civil war between two races of people living in the same country, which dates back forever. But that aside, even though it was a civil war, most of the serbs in belgrade did not support slobodan. So what do the americans do? Bomb innocent people in Belgrade. Call that justice? If that is justice, then some serbs would've bombed innocent people in an american city, then the americans get revenge for that, then the serbs for that. It doesn't make sense.

I am not really a pascifist, I believe in warfare in some instances. But I don't believe in death being a suitable punishment. Like sentancing a man to death for a murder, or killing innocent people in a country because someone did that to yours. Its like spanking a child telling him/her not to be violent, or even like saying "don't fucking swear you little shit". Doesn't make any sense.

America sends these messages. DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO. ITS ONLY OK TO KILL PEOPLE IF YOU'RE AMERICA, OR IF WE HAVE STRONG ECONOMIC TIES WITH YOU. (think china in tibet).

America selects which fights it wants to join in as well for money - the gulf for oil etc. But what about all the others? Palestine/Israel. India/Pakistan. Nope - not worth it for them.

About the world wars - america was a help, at the END of each war. They chose not to help the allied countries for years until they finally had an attack - a tiny little assault on Pearl Harbour in comparison to what'd been going on in europe. America winning the wars? PAH! It was because they were so late in joing in WW2 that they're so rich and powerful today. Britan lost all its money in the war and thier empire went to shit.

What do you reackon? Am I speaking some sense or am I a raving lunatic?




This is a great debate and I think its something some of us feel passionately about. Good to see nobody has been childish and gotten angry with eachother for different opinions so far (touch wood!).

I agree that communism is not the anti-thesis of democracy, personally - I was alluding to the view of much of the world that it was. Perhaps that was a rash statement on my part.

America refusing negotiations is an interesting issue. I was dubious of this move myself, but I think they saw it merely as a move by the Taleban to delay things. The Americans may have been trying to move quickly, afraid that it was a stalling tactic to allow the Taleban to defend themselves better, or Al Queda and Osama to evacuate.

I also wholeheartedly agree with your comments re: religion. It's sad that religion is repeatedly hijacked and used as a defense for racism, ethnic cleansing, hatred, jihad and all manner of atrocities. The quiet scourge of humanity, IMHO.

The americans joined WWII when.... the english gave them all their science secrets (radar for one) and at the end of the war america took all the german technologies and scientists (ever wonder how their space rockets were developed).

Even tho america was being attacked my german uboats they didnt want to join the war till a)the germans advance had lost momentum and b) the british had paid for the americans involvment.

If america had been so keen to stop ethnic cleansing they would have deployed ground troops instead of destorying the infrastructure of a city to try and turn the population against its leader.

The fact that america wont negotitate is (IMHO) the biggest sign yet that america thinks of itself as a law unto itself. The fact they telling pakistan and india to sort their disagreements without resorting to force well.. proof.

I personally, dont think america has played much of a role in stabilty in the world they are ussually just cleaning up messes they created (saddam). If america would stop meddling in the word it wouldnt have messes to clean up.

yeah well...

Hitler at leats found a solution (to the jewish 'problem')... not that i agree with what he did, but that's an example of logic without reason. Stalin killed more peeps though.... yet not many people pay attention to that *damn communism* communism is great theory though... but that's how it should remain,a theory.

'in the desert there are no signs saying 'though shalt not eats stones'' *practises english*

okay i'm too lazy to actully think of something then type... so yeah

Yeah Bob, you're entitled to that opinion. However, I think it's pretty pessimistic, or suspicious. Almost like conspiracy theory.

The English exchanged their scientific secrets in exchange for not having their country destroyed and overrun by Nazis. I think that's a fair trade, don't you?

So, let me get this straight. On one hand, you are saying that America were wrong for holding off in their involvement in WWII (if they indeed did, which I am not sure about - not being a historian). On the other hand, you are criticising them for now attempting to be more pro-active in keeping these hostile situations from arising? Be careful...

On the use of ground troops - I think you'll find that many, many countries are viciously against foreign occupation of their countries, moreso than airstrikes. In fact, this is precisely what Osama bin laden opposes in Saudi Arabia. Actually invading a country (e.g. to prevent ethnic cleansing) is a much, much more intrusive combat strategy, putting aside the risk to ground troops.

Aims - I'm bring out a classic, but true argument used all the time in building arguments and models for things. The saying goes "Bullshit in, bullshit out".

It alludes to the fact that if you build and argument or model based on 'bullshit' assumptions that you put into it, you'll get bullshit answers/conclusions/results out of it. This is what Hitler did. He based his action against Jews on his (and many other Nazis') belief that Jews were evil. From here, he decided that annhilating them was the optimal solution.

He used logic AND reason to formulate his conclusion (albeit at a very simplistic level here, I am using for illustration), BUT his assumptions were not rational, so his conclusion was correspondingly not rational. Bullshit in, bullshit out.

When I talk about arguing using logic/reason (be careful about the two different meanings of the word 'reason' in different contexts) I am talking about not justifying a conclusion based solely on language that is designed to make people emote, rather than 'think'.

Shit, theres some long-ass posts on here... marathon reading style... I say bomb the bastards, they still havent lost anywhere near as many civilians as were killed on Sept 11th, and war is fun to watch on TV

I was simply stating americas involvment in the war was for its own good rather than the coming to the rescue of its ally england. The fact that Hitler controled most of western europe should have been enough of a reason for america to act but they held off. (Though they were sending aid to the British in the form of food and materials)

Time and again air bombing hasnt worked for the americans/Nato and i think the idea of bombing civilian targets to turn people against their leader (kosovo) is fucked up to say the least.

Voice the fact that your posting in here indicates you have emotions, (Music is emotional). A human without emotions is as good as dead.

And for arguements sake the Jews were disliked throughout europe for being racist.

I agree that turning civilians against their leader is a strange and risky strategy. But I am yet to see a better alternative. Going into a foreign country cold turkey and overthrowing the government by force with ground troops is incredibly invasive, and I'm not sure if it would yield a better outcome for the people of the country.

On the other hand, I think it is time to revisit the sanctions placed on Iraq - and at least discuss alternatives, as they have not produced the results needed. I'm not sure any of the alternatives are satisfactory, especially when you're trying to prevent a guy like Saddam from amassing weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, I do have emotions, and I'm not disputing that this is why people have opinions - I agree entirely. What I am trying to point out (but failing miserably at, it seems) is that when making an argument, it is more important to be able to justify your viewpoint via reasoning and logic than by emoting and bringing up emotive arguments that don't really explain or justify what you are saying. Bob - your style is what I would consider to be measured, reasoned and logical - no criticism from here. *smile*

I hope I haven't offended anyone here. To tell you the truth, I don't like the attack on Al Queda / Taleban / Afghanistan much at all, but I don't like any of the alternatives I have heard (which are none) either. I just like to promote debate to understand both sides of the argument. On other internet forums I've been arguing the other side of the story with people who have the "kill all the Arabs" attitude. American forums, no doubt. :-/

*ignores everyone and flies round like a peace fairy*

yeah so anyway.... i agree with you voiceinsideyou *to an extent* bullshitting is fun *hehehehe*

i enjoy being naive, infact "it's easy to be ignorant, it takes alot to ignore" *wtf, but yeah*

i'm not into argueing sides of the story, i'm wayy to wishy washy for that... i'm just saying, wouldn't it be nice if we couls all hold hands sing a song

okay so i'm a dreamer not a realist, but whoever said there was anythign wrong with that?








*BULLSHIT*

and we're still at it...

Suprised?

it will keep going until osama is killed, the american public will feel the war is 'won' once that has happened.

...unless the politicians try to conjure up another figurehead to replace him, which wouldn't surprise me.

you can't kill the bogeyman.... bad for business

Please don't tell me you really think that...

i was being facetious. the 'war on terror' brand, relies on a big bad guy that american public can hate hate hate. makes it nice and easy for them to understand you see.

Hahaha my posts crack my up.

Focken america, talk about dragging something out way too long.

I think i've accomplished more in the past 4 years than america Hahaha