An "attack" as defined by NATO is any attack on home soil of any NATO signatory. Afghanistan's government harbored a terrorist organization and refused to hand over several key figures that committed the attack. The UN approved of aggressive action against the taliban and it was unilaterally agreed that such a war was justified. The US did have a Causus Belli on all of the countries you mentioned if what you claim was true, however declaring war over bombings of embassies would be a rash overreaction and would unlikely to be approved by the UN or the NATO allies. Nevermind the fact that such small attacks are not worth the billions that cost to run a war. If America let 9/11 unavenged, how would you think that would affect the number of terrorist attacks that will be attempted against America? Are you seriously attempting to say that Afghanistan is an unjust war despite the reality of NATO, the UN's approval, and the 3000+ dead in the WTC?
What are we doing in Afghanistan?
- Thread starter benny_patrick7
- Start date
An "attack" as defined by NATO is any attack on home soil of any NATO signatory. Afghanistan's government harbored a terrorist organization and refused to hand over several key figures that committed the attack. The UN approved of aggressive action against the taliban and it was unilaterally agreed that such a war was justified. The US did have a Causus Belli on all of the countries you mentioned if what you claim was true, however declaring war over bombings of embassies would be a rash overreaction and would unlikely to be approved by the UN or the NATO allies. Nevermind the fact that such small attacks are not worth the billions that cost to run a war. If America let 9/11 unavenged, how would you think that would affect the number of terrorist attacks that will be attempted against America? Are you seriously attempting to say that Afghanistan is an unjust war despite the reality of NATO, the UN's approval, and the 3000+ dead in the WTC?
what the hell is the US gonna do with the quagmire that was iraq after 11 months? When the country was basically in civil war and the sunni and shia were at each other's necks, and Al Quaeda was establishing a foothold in there? How would America consolidate power between the rival factions of kurds, sunni Baaths (many of whon are saddam loyaltists), and the Shiite majority?
Both Iraqi politicians and American stategists knew that if american withdrew in 2004, the most likely scenario is a massive civil war between the Baaths and Shias with the kurds taking advantage of this situation and declaring independance. How stable would the middle east be if a major oil producing nation descended into a civil war while a resurgent kurdish nation starts to consolidates their "territories" in turkey?
Iraqi Parliament are actually planning to vote for a US pact right now, and surprise surprise the sunnis are against it. However it is expected to pass, this bill is indicative of how far Iraq has come, that they are able to accomplish things democratically and peacefully. If they do end up passing this bill, will you concede that the iraqi people want the US in Iraq?
And if Vietnam was an exercise, then iraq is casual sex.... Because theres a stark difference between 200 thousand deaths and 2 million deaths..
Hmmm, a US planted puppet government votes to have the US stay in Iraq. Sounds oh so democratic!
The Taliban refused to turn over the people the US wanted because the US could not provide evidence that they had done anything. Bin Laden is still a business partner of the Bush family and has never been charged with the 911 bombings because their is no proof. Bin Laden is a co conspirator with the Bush administration to hood wink the people of the world into allowing the US to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq. That is why the US isn't even looking for him and never has.
The Taliban refused to turn over the people the US wanted because the US could not provide evidence that they had done anything. Bin Laden is still a business partner of the Bush family and has never been charged with the 911 bombings because their is no proof. Bin Laden is a co conspirator with the Bush administration to hood wink the people of the world into allowing the US to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq. That is why the US isn't even looking for him and never has.
Other than footing the bill the US should not have had any involvement, I'm quite sure Iraq would have allowed some troops from other nations in for a set time. All the US has done is carve it up for their own corporations.
Is it really your opinion that even though they lied to get in there they should now stay there? Did you ever look at the constitution they are trying to push through there?
Al Quaeda is an American asset or have you been asleep for most of the invasion?
I would be more than happy to prove that point, it would take all of 5 minutes.
He's dead and he has been for some time. More likely he was set up to take the fall (in that there is no bonus coming his way for assisting the US in anything).
YouTube - Benazir Bhutto: Bin Laden was Murdered
Nobody is saying it will happen in a short-time, the slap in the face is that it should not be the illegally invading country that does the reconstruction.
If that is your argument the Saddam should have stayed in Kuwait for 10 years!!
He's dead and he has been for some time. More likely he was set up to take the fall (in that there is no bonus coming his way for assisting the US in anything).
But his family will.
But his family will.
so let me get this straight, The United states Orcestrated 9/11 using bin laden as a proxy to justify an invasion of iraq and Afghanistan, rigged the UN supervised Iraqi elections so that their canidates win, and Has no proof of bin Laden attacking the WTC.
So a government can cover up the murder of 3000 people without anyone having a clue while running 2 wars in the most inept manner possible.
Lets not forget that Bin Laden himself said that he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Do you see how extraordinary your claims are? do you have extraordinary proof to back this up?
HAHAHAHAHA
you're a funny guy. The United States are still having difficulty getting EU nations into more active roles in Afghanistan, you expect these very same EU nations to send more of their own troops to die in Iraq even though they aren't even pulling their weight in afghanistan? For god sakes man, Canada has the third highest casualty rate in afghanistan, and we have at most 3000 troops there, where are we gonna get 100 000 troops to protect Iraq?
I'd like to see this proof that you speak of, when i say proof i mean facts not some opinion blog.
I wouldn't bet on it, when they disown you over there they do not go out to avenge your death, let alone all the building contracts they would then lose.
So a government can cover up the murder of 3000 people without anyone having a clue while running 2 wars in the most inept manner possible.
Mongul
They are not inept. They don't intend to win a war. They are there to reap obscene profits from destroying the place and then rebuilding it in their own image. And steal all the oil. They don't care how many innocent Iraqi women, elderly and children die. Many thousands died between the Gulf War and the present fiasco from the imposed sanctions and from all the depleted uranium on armour piercing shells and bombs.
This is not about democracy. It is about chaos and the proof is on the ground, the blood of a million people slaughtered in one of the most inhumane wars instigated by the United States of Aggression. You want to hold these barbarians up as heroic? Sad. Just plain sad.
Mongul
They are not inept. They don't intend to win a war. They are there to reap obscene profits from destroying the place and then rebuilding it in their own image. And steal all the oil. They don't care how many innocent Iraqi women, elderly and children die. Many thousands died between the Gulf War and the present fiasco from the imposed sanctions and from all the depleted uranium on armour piercing shells and bombs.
This is not about democracy. It is about chaos and the proof is on the ground, the blood of a million people slaughtered in one of the most inhumane wars instigated by the United States of Aggression. You want to hold these barbarians up as heroic? Sad. Just plain sad.
LOL Kuwait is a monarchy not a democracy, there doesn't seem to be any rush to change that system now is there. If the US is there for that then maybe they should start with their 'friends' first, once the 'renegades' see how well that works they will just fall into line woithout a shot being fired.
"Kuwait is a constitutional emirate, which is similar to a monarchy. The ruling emir is always chosen from the al-Sabah family, who chooses the prime minister. The prime minister appoints a cabinet with the emir’s consent. A 50-member unicameral National Assembly, or Majlis al-Umma, is popularly elected every four years. Strictly speaking political parties are banned, but groupings such as Sunni Islamists are represented by salafi groups and the Muslim Brotherhood. Shiites are represented by the National Islamic Alliance. The Popular Action Bloc is a secularist group. The emir frequently dissolves the assembly."
Kuwait: Country Profile - Profile of Kuwait, Oil-Rich Emirate - Kuwait Government, Economy and Religion
Saddam went in to stop the wells that had slant-drilled into Iraqi oil-fields, and illegal act BTW, and he went in only after diplomatic action failed to stop the theft.
Does your mother know what you do on the net?
The US has trouble getting combat troops from other Nations. News flash for you with the US footing the bill there would be lots of help from Europe to rebuild both countries, might cost the US dearly but in the end they could make Kuwait look like a hillbilly town.
I'm also quite sure Iran and China might be willing to supply the security forces for a short term.
Democracy eh, did the US give either country a copy of the Constitution that Venezuela adopted recently, you know the one that gave the natural citizens the majority of the wealth from any natural resource? Well, did they?
Are you referencing a link I posted earlier, feel free to debunk it with some cold, hard facts. If none are forthcoming then the article is bang on.
A million? Really? i'll take it as a hyperbole, albeit a weak one.
You can continue living in your fantasy world where America is the Big Bad Eviol Enemy of the chained poor. But here in the real world, Iraq is costing america over 600 billion dollars, while at the same time the amount of oil being exported is no where near the level it was at before the war.
Please address my previous points and stop putting words into my mouth, i never said anyone was a hero.
I've been around long enough to see many critics of the Iraq war slowlyy move away from the "Blood for Oil" tagline into other accusations of war profitteering which most of the time generally bears no weight or supported by facts
P.S. can you provide proof that backs up these borderline outlandish claims?
MHz,
She may have bad intel (like Dubbya) but I don't disbelieve her sincerity. I would trust her word before any that came out of the West. Her integrity got her killed.
She may have bad intel (like Dubbya) but I don't disbelieve her sincerity. I would trust her word before any that came out of the West. Her integrity got her killed.
cool, but my point still stands, Saddam was not there to install democracy and never intended to.
right on time
Yeah, you think the european citizens would be glad acting as mercenaries for the US? do you know how reconstruction works? THe US government looks for a buisness that can achieve the goals set out for them in the cheapest manner possible via a bidding system, these reconstruction efforts therefore would be cheapest possible in theory. It operates under the fact that Government should be concerned with security while private initiative would be far more effective in reconstruction as they have expertise in that field.
You seem to like avoiding the fact that europe is reluctant to commit troops into iraq, let me ask you again, where are you gonna get the 100 000+ troops needed in order to ensure that iraq is secure if not the United states? When the US provides 40% of the 50 000 troops of the ISAF in Afghanistan?
China maybe, but Iran? They're supplying weapons to iraqi Insurgents.. Confict of interests? i think so
that constitution that took those resources from buisness entities that acquired them legally and freely? you mean government sanctioned theft?
Oh yeah thats right Venezuela is the paradigm of prosperity, their supermarkets and democratic freedoms are the ENVY of the world:lol::lol:
Ah, Mongol, the 600 billion has cost the American tax payers and filled the coffers of the likes of Haliburton and many other US companies. Did you not know about the "permanent" military bases they built? The million dead figure is everywhere if you just look. I'm not doing your homework for you because if I hand it to you you will still not believe your Yanks can do no wrong.
But that's OK, because you have a right to your delusions.
But that's OK, because you have a right to your delusions.