|
On July 26 2010 20:48 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:41 travis wrote:On July 26 2010 12:37 kzn wrote:On July 26 2010 12:36 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 12:32 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it. 1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN. 2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you. The invasion was approved based on incorrect information. This "preemptive strike" nonsense really needs to stop. America will get invaded unless we attack? LOL, by who? We don't need anyone to protect us and we don't need to protect anybody else. You've been fooled into thinking that we need to attack them before we get attacked. All this has accomplished is the needless loss of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities. These civilians who lost family members because "people die and war sucks" will, in turn, channel their rage and anger towards Americans because of their presence in their country. They were harboring the people who were behind the world trade center attacks. If you're really going to say that everything the UN and NATO reviewed was false then there's no point in discussing this with you. Who is "they"? An entire population? The government in question. Doesn't it make more sense for a country to secure within it's own borders than to invade other countries in an attempt to get rid of security risks there? It seems obvious to me that such security risks are infinite in number, and that invading a country only creates more of them. It might make sense if it weren't for the fact that the majority of terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda against the United States happened outside the contintental US.
You're missing the point. Afganistan, for instance, is a goldmine for war lords, islamist guerillas, drug lords and illegal weapons dealers. The anarchy, created by the US war is making the US war impossible to "win", because infinite supply of opium + the US presence and brutality is a tool for never-ending stream of recruitments. There are other factors, but the Taliban are just particularly nasty criminals, not "terrorists" that would otherwise be launching attacks against US citizens. All the supposed Al Qaeda attacks in Iraq would not have happened if it weren't for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Sometimes it seems like terrorists are people who fight against America, regardless of their reasons, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of the fact that the US is the leading rogue state in the world (by far), supporting the most nasty regimes in the world and eliminating any government that doesn't do as it says, unless these states are strong enough to defend themselves a little. If you really believe that the US is engaged in a "war on terror" then you're not looking at the big picture.
|
We're fighting in two countries for an attack done on 9/11 which involved 15 individuals from saudi arabia herp derp.
|
On July 26 2010 21:49 hifriend wrote:
We're fighting in two countries for an attack done on 9/11 which involved 15 individuals from saudi arabia herp derp.
Yep, bunch of smart folk we are. I think Bin Laden grinned when he realized we had done exactly as he wanted.
|
On July 26 2010 21:49 hifriend wrote:
We're fighting in two countries for an attack done on 9/11 which involved 15 individuals from saudi arabia herp derp.
Why be ignorant? Do research of why we went into those 2 countries.
|
On July 26 2010 21:57 Dr.Kill-Joy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 21:49 hifriend wrote:
We're fighting in two countries for an attack done on 9/11 which involved 15 individuals from saudi arabia herp derp. Why be ignorant? Do research of why we went into those 2 countries.
Uh, the iraq invasion was obviously based on false intelligence, and UN stood against the afghanistan invasion as well as it wasn't a legitimate self-defense operation.
And 9/11 obviously laid way for an iraq invasion. I found some funny numbers back from 2003,
"A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11"
loool
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 26 2010 22:08 hifriend wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 21:57 Dr.Kill-Joy wrote:On July 26 2010 21:49 hifriend wrote:
We're fighting in two countries for an attack done on 9/11 which involved 15 individuals from saudi arabia herp derp. Why be ignorant? Do research of why we went into those 2 countries. Uh, the iraq invasion was obviously based on false intelligence, and UN stood against the afghanistan invasion as well as it wasn't a legitimate self-defense operation. And 9/11 obviously laid way for an iraq invasion. I found some funny numbers back from 2003, "A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11" loool
The UN security council and NATO both supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq, on the the other hand, has been a complete mess from the start.
|
Private corporation also help this along as well.
|
|
|
Julian Assange is a hacker hero. 
|
On July 26 2010 22:14 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 22:08 hifriend wrote:On July 26 2010 21:57 Dr.Kill-Joy wrote:On July 26 2010 21:49 hifriend wrote:
We're fighting in two countries for an attack done on 9/11 which involved 15 individuals from saudi arabia herp derp. Why be ignorant? Do research of why we went into those 2 countries. Uh, the iraq invasion was obviously based on false intelligence, and UN stood against the afghanistan invasion as well as it wasn't a legitimate self-defense operation. And 9/11 obviously laid way for an iraq invasion. I found some funny numbers back from 2003, "A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11" loool The UN security council and NATO both supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq, on the the other hand, has been a complete mess from the start.
yep, that's a distortion of the facts. First off : NATO = USA.
"The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)"wikipedia and common knowledge among non-idiots. On the other hand for the US state might is right, so justice is meaningless. The US makes the UN even more irrelevant than it already is (because of the veto powers of the security council members).
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 26 2010 22:16 Dr.Kill-Joy wrote:
Private corporation also help this along as well.
You're right. The notorious American flower lobby pressured the government into invading Afghanistan because of hope of taking over their rose fields.
The next time you accuse someone of being ignorant and tell them to do research... well, don't.
I know people aren't going to understand this but when you get attacked, you attack back. Not doing anything was not an option. And you don't even do it in some small proportional way that makes it seem like you're trading one set of actions for another. You respond in a disproportionate way that stops others from considering it.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
On July 26 2010 22:41 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 22:16 Dr.Kill-Joy wrote:
Private corporation also help this along as well. You're right. The notorious American flower lobby pressured the government into invading Afghanistan because of hope of taking over their rose fields. The next time you accuse someone of being ignorant and tell them to do research... well, don't. I know people aren't going to understand this but when you get attacked, you attack back. Not doing anything was not an option. And you don't even do it in some small proportional way that makes it seem like you're trading one set of actions for another. You respond in a disproportionate way that stops others from considering it.
This is exactly the kind of thought that leads to two unwinnable (lost) wars, tens of thousands of dead soldiers and trillions of debt while not even accomplishing the main goal to stop the attacks...
Stop being 16 years old already?
|
Zurich15355 Posts
On July 26 2010 22:53 Go0g3n wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 22:41 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 22:16 Dr.Kill-Joy wrote:
Private corporation also help this along as well. You're right. The notorious American flower lobby pressured the government into invading Afghanistan because of hope of taking over their rose fields. The next time you accuse someone of being ignorant and tell them to do research... well, don't. I know people aren't going to understand this but when you get attacked, you attack back. Not doing anything was not an option. And you don't even do it in some small proportional way that makes it seem like you're trading one set of actions for another. You respond in a disproportionate way that stops others from considering it. This is exactly the kind of thought that leads to two unwinnable (lost) wars, tens of thousands of dead soldiers and trillions of debt while not even accomplishing the main goal to stop the attacks... Stop being 16 years old already?
No, actually that is the thinking most successful (military) strategist followed. It has been common knowledge since Machiavelli's Prince.
However, today a thorough application of Machiavelli is just not practical for a first world power which leads to these half-asses attempts like Afghanistan which result in the quagmire we are in now and which you are describing.
|
On July 26 2010 22:41 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 22:16 Dr.Kill-Joy wrote:
Private corporation also help this along as well. You're right. The notorious American flower lobby pressured the government into invading Afghanistan because of hope of taking over their rose fields. The next time you accuse someone of being ignorant and tell them to do research... well, don't. I know people aren't going to understand this but when you get attacked, you attack back. Not doing anything was not an option. And you don't even do it in some small proportional way that makes it seem like you're trading one set of actions for another. You respond in a disproportionate way that stops others from considering it.
Because sending attack helicopters and commandos to gun down farmers and their children is a sure fire way to make sure that no group of individuals ever dares to attack american citizens again.
Wait
Somehow I dont think that's how it actually works.
Your argument works great for dissuading attacks from rational politicians but the problem is that the US has never (unless you want to count the USSR) and will never (within a forseeable future) been threatend by rational politicians.
Don't hurt us and we won't hurt you simply doesn't work very well when you have already murdered the wife and children of the person you are talking to not to mention spat in the face of everything they ideologically hold dear.
|
On July 26 2010 14:54 Jibba wrote:
Afghanistan wasn't a pre-emptive strike. In fact, the basis for the invasion of Afghanistan is precisely how international conflict should be done. No pre-emptive strikes, no preventative strikes, just retaliation. You absorb the first punch, and then you retaliate. I realize that sounds impersonal and it's not something politicians can lead with, but it's exactly what military powers should be doing and prevents crap like ticking time bomb arguments. There's always a question whether the response is (or should be) proportional but that's a different issue, and in this case it probably began that way. Don't misunderstand me, I don't think we should be in it anymore, but I do believe the grounds for being in it are valid.
We were bombing Afghanistan days after 9/11. On top of that, there was never any hard evidence presented to the UN or to the Afghan government that Bin Laden financed or played a role in planning 9/11. It was something we all just sort of assumed, and the international community didn't feel it was worth challenging in the wake of 9/11.
On July 26 2010 22:41 Jibba wrote:
I know people aren't going to understand this but when you get attacked, you attack back. Not doing anything was not an option. And you don't even do it in some small proportional way that makes it seem like you're trading one set of actions for another. You respond in a disproportionate way that stops others from considering it.
Yes and no.
You first assume that your enemy cannot be negotiated with and must be annihilated. Once you've dehumanized the opposition, any atrocity is permitted.
The situation on the ground in Afghanistan is effectively two brutal and unpopular groups vying for power over a nation that cannot decide which side is the lesser evil - perhaps whichever side slaughters them less vehemently is the side they'll back.
It's true that no meaningful peace is ever achieved out of war without one side being completely overwhelmed, abused, and humiliated. But you need to measure who your enemy is. Personally, I don't give a damn about American strategic interests if it means slaughtering an innocent people who deserve far better given their troubled history.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 26 2010 22:36 wadadde wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 22:14 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 22:08 hifriend wrote:On July 26 2010 21:57 Dr.Kill-Joy wrote:On July 26 2010 21:49 hifriend wrote:
We're fighting in two countries for an attack done on 9/11 which involved 15 individuals from saudi arabia herp derp. Why be ignorant? Do research of why we went into those 2 countries. Uh, the iraq invasion was obviously based on false intelligence, and UN stood against the afghanistan invasion as well as it wasn't a legitimate self-defense operation. And 9/11 obviously laid way for an iraq invasion. I found some funny numbers back from 2003, "A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11" loool The UN security council and NATO both supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq, on the the other hand, has been a complete mess from the start. yep, that's a distortion of the facts. First off : NATO = USA. "The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)"wikipedia and common knowledge among non-idiots. On the other hand for the US state might is right, so justice is meaningless. The US makes the UN even more irrelevant than it already is (because of the veto powers of the security council members).
No distortion of the facts.
NATO = Treaty between US, Canada, and 26 European countries.
Also, the UNSC has many resolutions that deal with the Afgan issue, no of which condemn America for the invasion. In fact, Resolutions 1378 and 1383 specifically address the situation of removing the Taliban government for one that is less supporting of terrorism and more supporting of human rights. So you might want to check your facts and 'common knowledge'.
Also, the source used to validate that quote comes from a blog which never states the UN said anything of the sort. Only argues that the UN resolution doesn't provide justification, which if that was the case the UN would have it very explicitly stated, which they don't. So I'd say Wikipedia is just plain wrong in that case. That's why you always check your sources.
|
On July 26 2010 22:53 Go0g3n wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 22:41 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 22:16 Dr.Kill-Joy wrote:
Private corporation also help this along as well. You're right. The notorious American flower lobby pressured the government into invading Afghanistan because of hope of taking over their rose fields. The next time you accuse someone of being ignorant and tell them to do research... well, don't. I know people aren't going to understand this but when you get attacked, you attack back. Not doing anything was not an option. And you don't even do it in some small proportional way that makes it seem like you're trading one set of actions for another. You respond in a disproportionate way that stops others from considering it. This is exactly the kind of thought that leads to two unwinnable (lost) wars, tens of thousands of dead soldiers and trillions of debt while not even accomplishing the main goal to stop the attacks... Stop being 16 years old already?
Stopping "the attacks" could never have been the goal. We know what stops terrorism from earlier experience (Northern Ireland etc). You deal with the legitimate issues and invest in policing at home and intelligence gathering abroad aswell as at home. The issue is that the ligitimate grievances of Arabs before 9/11 were a result a US goal that Washington would never dream of abandoning, so it doesn't even get discussed and ignorant people will call for the blood of whoever their government calls a culprit and everyone who happens to be around. This increases the legitimate grievances of the terrorized populations and those who identify with them and exponentially increases the bloodshed. Obviously, none of this gets much mention, because the people who shape the news organisations are the ones who 'helped' shape the Washington policies in the first place. People need to connect some dots... the factual ones, not the ones that get thrown around by governments and their cheerleaders.
|
On July 26 2010 22:41 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 22:16 Dr.Kill-Joy wrote:
[spoilerPrivate corporation also help this along as well. You're right. The notorious American flower lobby pressured the government into invading Afghanistan because of hope of taking over their rose fields. The next time you accuse someone of being ignorant and tell them to do research... well, don't I know people aren't going to understand this but when you get attacked, you attack back. Not doing anything was not an option. And you don't even do it in some small proportional way that makes it seem like you're trading one set of actions for another. You respond in a disproportionate way that stops others from considering it.
Things are not that simple. The strategy you outline has been successfull but there were many options which may have prevented the current state we are in. With the onset of necular proliferation we must reconsider our options.
This is the first time in our history that such a large collection of detailed information about a war has been made available to the public. I look forward to the seeing what will come of this and if it will change anyones oppinion (including my own).
|
Most of the documents leaked I've already knew and read about through journalist that wrote books on their year experienced over there doing their own research. Corruption was a giving, wasteful spending always happening. Crazy ass special forces doing crazy shit and when there caught up in the moment bad stuff happens.
I just hate how we(United States) try fix something for our benefit and end up putting us in a hole.
|
On July 26 2010 23:20 wadadde wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 22:53 Go0g3n wrote:On July 26 2010 22:41 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 22:16 Dr.Kill-Joy wrote:
Private corporation also help this along as well. You're right. The notorious American flower lobby pressured the government into invading Afghanistan because of hope of taking over their rose fields. The next time you accuse someone of being ignorant and tell them to do research... well, don't. I know people aren't going to understand this but when you get attacked, you attack back. Not doing anything was not an option. And you don't even do it in some small proportional way that makes it seem like you're trading one set of actions for another. You respond in a disproportionate way that stops others from considering it. This is exactly the kind of thought that leads to two unwinnable (lost) wars, tens of thousands of dead soldiers and trillions of debt while not even accomplishing the main goal to stop the attacks... Stop being 16 years old already? Stopping "the attacks" could never have been the goal. We know what stops terrorism from earlier experience (Northern Ireland etc). You deal with the legitimate issues and invest in policing at home and intelligence gathering abroad aswell as at home. The issue is that the ligitimate grievances of Arabs before 9/11 were a result a US goal that Washington would never dream of abandoning, so it doesn't even get discussed and ignorant people will call for the blood of whoever their government calls a culprit and everyone who happens to be around. This increases the legitimate grievances of the terrorized populations and those who identify with them and exponentially increases the bloodshed. Obviously, none of this gets much mention, because the people who shape the news organisations are the ones who 'helped' shape the Washington policies in the first place. People need to connect some dots... the factual ones, not the ones that get thrown around by governments and their cheerleaders.
This is BS, basically all of this resentment boils down to palestine and as we all know unless both parties ABSOLUTELY can agree it will never stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
