|
On October 10 2009 11:20 alphafuzard wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Have to love Aegraen he is in the intelligence field, the coast guard, earth can handle 30+ billion people with ease, and now the Taliban are the good guys.
Only on TL. If you study history, it becomes much easier to understand where the Taliban are coming from. Not saying I'm any kind of supporter, but its not like they do what they do for no reason. Separating people into "good guys" and "bad guys" is a close-minded notion.
Truth. People need to watch Powers of Nightmares.
|
Obama probably deserves a nobel in economics more than peace. rofl
Though tbh, I don't know why people are hating on Obama rather than the nobel prize committee or w/e.
|
On October 10 2009 11:08 alphafuzard wrote:
So much ignorance in this thread.
I think people are mixing up the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. Obama has consistently supported the Afghanistan war because it is the right one to be fighting. Someone mentioned increased bombings in Pakistan. This is because terrorists flee across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and expect to be protected by international law, like in the Vietnam war, making it just as unwinable....
wow. We are just going around and kicking ass in a bunch of different countries. And the people who think its bad are the "ignorant". Any idea what kind of hell we would raise if any other country did military operations in our country? I cant believe how easy it is to just apply different standards to different countries.
The main mix-up between Iraq and Afghanistan was when Iraq was started. These wars were going to be inherited by whoever took office, and he is contining to fight them much the same as his predecessor. "Surges" are a real good way to end a war.
edit: ^ Above me is wellsaid. Obama is CERTAINLY a better president that Bush. There is no debate, esepcailly for foreign policy. The debate is weather or not he deserved this award? Not yet.
|
Well taliban isn't good right? so sending troops make a lot of sense to stop those guys from blowing innocent people up
|
On October 10 2009 11:20 alphafuzard wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Have to love Aegraen he is in the intelligence field, the coast guard, earth can handle 30+ billion people with ease, and now the Taliban are the good guys.
Only on TL. If you study history, it becomes much easier to understand where the Taliban are coming from. Not saying I'm any kind of supporter, but its not like they do what they do for no reason. Separating people into "good guys" and "bad guys" is a close-minded notion.
Yea because Cia gave them money and weapons during their war against the USSR. It means that they are free to have terrorist camps to train international jihadists.
Sounds really rational >.<
|
On October 10 2009 11:33 BalliSLife wrote:
Well taliban isn't good right? so sending troops make a lot of sense to stop those guys from blowing innocent people up
The US has "blown up" far more civilians in the last 10 years than Al-Quida and the Taliban combined. The US just says different things as it does it, so its okay.
|
On October 10 2009 11:33 BalliSLife wrote:
Well taliban isn't good right? so sending troops make a lot of sense to stop those guys from blowing innocent people up
Did we send troops into Egypt, and Algeria when they were blowing them up? No. The people of Algeria and Egypt turned against these people and expelled and or executed them. Let the people of their own nation handle their own people. With thinking like yours, there is no more Sovereign Nations. America becomes the de-facto arbitar of what is good and bad, and as such, we have all rights to go into any Nation to enforce this good and bad dichotomy.
On the contrary. America has no right to invade any Sovereign Nation, unless we have a Declaration of War from Congress that is in line with Christian Just War Theory (Defense).
Libertarian scholar Murray Rothbard stated, "a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them."
Using this theory, what gives us the right to go there after defeating the enemy, to then impose our belief system on these people? Is it any different than the Taliban? Do you believe people have the right to Self-Determination? What if these people do not want Democracy? What if they don't want Capitalism? Why should we force them into doing such things? Do you believe that is just?
We have defeated Al-Qaeda. It's time to get out of there, and Iraq. Let these people rule themselves.
|
I want world peace. Where's my Nobel Prize?
|
Where were you when bush waged war on Afghanistan and iraq anyway? as far as i'm concerned obama didn't even vote to go to war with them
|
United States1610 Posts
On October 10 2009 11:36 cUrsOr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 11:33 BalliSLife wrote:
Well taliban isn't good right? so sending troops make a lot of sense to stop those guys from blowing innocent people up The US has "blown up" far more civilians in the last 10 years than Al-Quida and the Taliban combined. The US just says different things as it does it, so its okay.
The United Nations says 1,500 civilians have died so far this year, with insurgents killing three times as many as Western and government forces.
I sense a disturbance in the force.
|
On October 10 2009 11:32 cUrsOr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 11:08 alphafuzard wrote:
So much ignorance in this thread.
I think people are mixing up the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. Obama has consistently supported the Afghanistan war because it is the right one to be fighting. Someone mentioned increased bombings in Pakistan. This is because terrorists flee across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and expect to be protected by international law, like in the Vietnam war, making it just as unwinable.... edit: ^ Above me is wellsaid. Obama is CERTAINLY a better president that Bush. There is no debate, esepcailly for foreign policy. The debate is weather or not he deserved this award? Not yet.
I wouldn't say that. How is he better on Foreign Policy? It seems to me Obama has pacified the anti-war movement while continuing the same policies and expanding them. How is this "better"?
Secondly, abdicating American Sovereignty to ambiguous International Groups and Cabals isn't certaintly better whatsoever. The world isn't homogenous, and better yet, all people have the right to Self-Determination. Did I or you consent to give these groups just rule?
|
"over the last 10 years" thats the key. This includes shock and awe, the 9-11 attacks and all our wars in all countries. The fact that we are even arguing about how many civilians we kill in other countries is kinna saddening tho.
|
On October 10 2009 11:43 BalliSLife wrote:
Where were you when bush waged war on Afghanistan and iraq anyway? as far as i'm concerned obama didn't even vote to go to war with them
What? You do know that Obama was a Senator, correct? Secondly, what does that have to do with current policies, that he is acting on and promoting?
|
On October 10 2009 11:46 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 11:32 cUrsOr wrote:On October 10 2009 11:08 alphafuzard wrote:
So much ignorance in this thread.
I think people are mixing up the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. Obama has consistently supported the Afghanistan war because it is the right one to be fighting. Someone mentioned increased bombings in Pakistan. This is because terrorists flee across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and expect to be protected by international law, like in the Vietnam war, making it just as unwinable.... edit: ^ Above me is wellsaid. Obama is CERTAINLY a better president that Bush. There is no debate, esepcailly for foreign policy. The debate is weather or not he deserved this award? Not yet. I wouldn't say that. How is he better on Foreign Policy? It seems to me Obama has pacified the anti-war movement while continuing the same policies and expanding them. How is this "better"? Secondly, abdicating American Sovereignty to ambiguous International Groups and Cabals isn't certaintly better whatsoever. The world isn't homogenous, and better yet, all people have the right to Self-Determination. Did I or you consent to give these groups just rule?
I totally agree with you. I meant our perception by the rest of the world. People seem to think the US is better now than they thought 5 years ago. Though we know perception isn't reality, and yes, it does tent to minimize the criticism we SHOULD be getting if people start thing we are the "good guys".
|
On October 10 2009 11:46 cUrsOr wrote:
"over the last 10 years" thats the key. This includes shock and awe, the 9-11 attacks and all our wars in all countries. The fact that we are even arguing about how many civilians we kill in other countries is kinna saddening tho.
Don't forget Economic Sanctions.
|
Ya well the total deaths estimated caused by the Invasion of Iraq, not just people we shot or bombed... but starvation etc... Im sure you saw the estimates... is at least 100,000.
This figure is AKA people that wouldnt have otherwise died. Direct and indirect results of the invasion. I believe the number was much higher but Im totally safe guessing it was 100,000.
|
United States1610 Posts
On October 10 2009 11:46 cUrsOr wrote:
"over the last 10 years" thats the key. This includes shock and awe, the 9-11 attacks and all our wars in all countries. The fact that we are even arguing about how many civilians we kill in other countries is kinna saddening tho.
erm what?
The 9/11 attacks were committed by the Taliban, not the U.S. government, unless you're into all those conspiracy theories, unless you're into all those conspiracy theories, in which case discussion is moot.
And what wars with what other countries pray tell?
|
On October 10 2009 11:51 alphafuzard wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 11:46 cUrsOr wrote:
"over the last 10 years" thats the key. This includes shock and awe, the 9-11 attacks and all our wars in all countries. The fact that we are even arguing about how many civilians we kill in other countries is kinna saddening tho. erm what? The 9/11 attacks were committed by the Taliban, not the U.S. government, unless you're into all those conspiracy theories, unless you're into all those conspiracy theories, in which case discussion is moot. And what wars with what other countries pray tell?
Even if you don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, there's even less proof that it was done by the "taliban."
|
On October 10 2009 11:47 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 11:43 BalliSLife wrote:
Where were you when bush waged war on Afghanistan and iraq anyway? as far as i'm concerned obama didn't even vote to go to war with them What? You do know that Obama was a Senator, correct? Secondly, what does that have to do with current policies, that he is acting on and promoting?
Lobbyists, bankers, glenn beck (lol), loud townhall republicans, blue dogs etc etc
|
Nobel peace prize lost all of its credibility 2 decades ago when it awarded Dalai Lama. The Obama award is quite reasonable in comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
