|
On July 26 2010 12:43 kzn 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? Not with the advent of non-state entities. There's no way to secure a country completely - if someone wants to penetrate your security, especially if they're willing to die to do it, they can do it. I think its fairly agreed among counterterrorism people that the best way of combating terrorism is to attack their ability to operate, which means attacking countries that allow them to operate within their borders. Of course this means we should invade Saudi Arabia too, so I'm not claiming everything has been done perfectly.
What a complicated issue.
Personally, I don't buy into: "the best way of combating terrorism is to attack their ability to operate".
It seems to me that any intelligent person with the drive to do so could commit serious acts of terrorism.
|
On July 26 2010 12:51 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:48 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:46 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:43 Sadist 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. Afghanistan wasnt invaded on incorrect information. That was Iraq ;d Nobody really had a problem at all with the US going into Afghanistan after 9/11. Iraq on the other hand...... I've got a problem with both *crosses arms* After the fact ya, basically Iraq seemed to have fucked everything  Still doesnt change the fact that Afghanistan was completely legitimate and Iraq was the troll in the mix Yeah, like I said, lets hope the Italian mafia don't blow up a building.
If Italy's government was protecting them there would be issues, when you say Italian Mafia I hope you mean actual italians from italy.
|
On July 26 2010 12:51 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:43 kzn wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Not with the advent of non-state entities. There's no way to secure a country completely - if someone wants to penetrate your security, especially if they're willing to die to do it, they can do it. I think its fairly agreed among counterterrorism people that the best way of combating terrorism is to attack their ability to operate, which means attacking countries that allow them to operate within their borders. Of course this means we should invade Saudi Arabia too, so I'm not claiming everything has been done perfectly. What a complicated issue. Personally, I don't buy into: "the best way of combating terrorism is to attack their ability to operate". It seems to me that any intelligent person with the drive to do so could commit serious acts of terrorism.
Absolutely they could - but it becomes much harder if you have to do everything yourself compared to having an organization that's coordinating to do things.
1 person could have flown a plane into the WTC (hell, in theory, one person could have flown 2 into it), but it was much easier for AQ to do it than it would have been for that hypothetical individual.
It is an interesting dynamic, and I'm curious to see the effects it has on the idea of a nation.
|
On July 26 2010 12:53 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:51 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:48 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:46 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:43 Sadist 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. Afghanistan wasnt invaded on incorrect information. That was Iraq ;d Nobody really had a problem at all with the US going into Afghanistan after 9/11. Iraq on the other hand...... I've got a problem with both *crosses arms* After the fact ya, basically Iraq seemed to have fucked everything Still doesnt change the fact that Afghanistan was completely legitimate and Iraq was the troll in the mix Yeah, like I said, lets hope the Italian mafia don't blow up a building. If Italy's government was protecting them there would be issues, when you say Italian Mafia I hope you mean actual italians from italy.
Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden for trial but Bush didn't want a trial. Government protection has little to do with the situation
|
Here before CNN which to me translates to TL > CNN ...
WELL DONE
|
Oh Julian you sly bastard.
|
i downloaded it. Now i have this excel? With hella stuffs but I have no idea what it means
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 26 2010 12:55 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:53 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:51 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:48 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:46 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:43 Sadist 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:
[quote]
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. Afghanistan wasnt invaded on incorrect information. That was Iraq ;d Nobody really had a problem at all with the US going into Afghanistan after 9/11. Iraq on the other hand...... I've got a problem with both *crosses arms* After the fact ya, basically Iraq seemed to have fucked everything Still doesnt change the fact that Afghanistan was completely legitimate and Iraq was the troll in the mix Yeah, like I said, lets hope the Italian mafia don't blow up a building. If Italy's government was protecting them there would be issues, when you say Italian Mafia I hope you mean actual italians from italy. Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden for trial but Bush didn't want a trial. Government protection has little to do with the situation
After Pakistand rejected to take Bin Laden for a international tribunal under Isamic Law, the Taliban offered to put in in their own Islamic Trial if we provided evidence. They should have just handed him over and let the international tribunal decide the evidence.
|
Wait how do you view, i downloaded the sql version and I searched google around how to view, but I'm a little bit confused.
|
whether or not you think wikileaks.org is bad or good, left wing, anti-america etc .... it doesn't change the fact that the more information we 'the people have', the better.
People shouldn't have to follow blindly and that is all we are doing right now.
Post Vietnam was a 'turning point' in military media control and as we all know, Vietnam was an incredibly violent, tragic war with multiple village massacres and rampant civilian killings (i know people will flame this saying they didn't know who the enemy was etc). This sparked revolt among the american people which eventually brought the war to a complete halt.
This information leak is a good thing. Knowledge is power.
|
"children discovered a UXO and nearby fuse in the Kampani area of PD5. The children began playing with the UXO, which resulted in the detonation of the UXO"
Finding shit like this in these is fucked up
|
On July 26 2010 13:33 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:55 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:53 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:51 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:48 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:46 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:43 Sadist 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:
[quote]
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. Afghanistan wasnt invaded on incorrect information. That was Iraq ;d Nobody really had a problem at all with the US going into Afghanistan after 9/11. Iraq on the other hand...... I've got a problem with both *crosses arms* After the fact ya, basically Iraq seemed to have fucked everything Still doesnt change the fact that Afghanistan was completely legitimate and Iraq was the troll in the mix Yeah, like I said, lets hope the Italian mafia don't blow up a building. If Italy's government was protecting them there would be issues, when you say Italian Mafia I hope you mean actual italians from italy. Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden for trial but Bush didn't want a trial. Government protection has little to do with the situation After Pakistand rejected to take Bin Laden for a international tribunal under Isamic Law, the Taliban offered to put in in their own Islamic Trial if we provided evidence. They should have just handed him over and let the international tribunal decide the evidence.
IIRC they offered to send him to a third party nation even without evidence (which they demanded first along with an Islamic court). Might be wrong on that one.
We'll never know because no effort was ever made by the US side to do anything but nail him with a missile.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 26 2010 13:44 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 13:33 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:55 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:53 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:51 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:48 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:46 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:43 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:
[quote]
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. Afghanistan wasnt invaded on incorrect information. That was Iraq ;d Nobody really had a problem at all with the US going into Afghanistan after 9/11. Iraq on the other hand...... I've got a problem with both *crosses arms* After the fact ya, basically Iraq seemed to have fucked everything Still doesnt change the fact that Afghanistan was completely legitimate and Iraq was the troll in the mix Yeah, like I said, lets hope the Italian mafia don't blow up a building. If Italy's government was protecting them there would be issues, when you say Italian Mafia I hope you mean actual italians from italy. Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden for trial but Bush didn't want a trial. Government protection has little to do with the situation After Pakistand rejected to take Bin Laden for a international tribunal under Isamic Law, the Taliban offered to put in in their own Islamic Trial if we provided evidence. They should have just handed him over and let the international tribunal decide the evidence. IIRC they offered to send him to a third party nation even without evidence (which they demanded first along with an Islamic court). Might be wrong on that one. We'll never know because no effort was ever made by the US side to do anything but nail him with a missile.
From what I gathered(from wikipedia admittedly, though I did check their sources) they wanted evidence from the start. They may have offered to send him to Pakistan, but I think that whole thing was a farce because its pretty clear Pakistan is two faced and wants to support terrorists but still look ok in the international community. After that they wanted to do the trial themselves.
It wasn't until the Taliban was actually under attack that they offered to send him to a 3rd party nation, but still insisted on evidence.
Either way, the US government said 'hand him over', the international community agreed, and the Taliban tried to beat around the bush.
|
On July 26 2010 14:02 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 13:44 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 13:33 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:55 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:53 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:51 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:48 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:46 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:43 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:
[quote]
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.
Afghanistan wasnt invaded on incorrect information. That was Iraq ;d Nobody really had a problem at all with the US going into Afghanistan after 9/11. Iraq on the other hand...... I've got a problem with both *crosses arms* After the fact ya, basically Iraq seemed to have fucked everything Still doesnt change the fact that Afghanistan was completely legitimate and Iraq was the troll in the mix Yeah, like I said, lets hope the Italian mafia don't blow up a building. If Italy's government was protecting them there would be issues, when you say Italian Mafia I hope you mean actual italians from italy. Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden for trial but Bush didn't want a trial. Government protection has little to do with the situation After Pakistand rejected to take Bin Laden for a international tribunal under Isamic Law, the Taliban offered to put in in their own Islamic Trial if we provided evidence. They should have just handed him over and let the international tribunal decide the evidence. IIRC they offered to send him to a third party nation even without evidence (which they demanded first along with an Islamic court). Might be wrong on that one. We'll never know because no effort was ever made by the US side to do anything but nail him with a missile. From what I gathered(from wikipedia admittedly, though I did check their sources) they wanted evidence from the start. They may have offered to send him to Pakistan, but I think that whole thing was a farce because its pretty clear Pakistan is two faced and wants to support terrorists but still look ok in the international community. After that they wanted to do the trial themselves. It wasn't until the Taliban was actually under attack that they offered to send him to a 3rd party nation, but still insisted on evidence. Either way, the US government said 'hand him over', the international community agreed, and the Taliban tried to beat around the bush.
Seems entirely reasonable for the Taliban to ask for proof, especially considering proof probably doesn't exist. Obviously he still deserves a life sentence, not saying he doesn't.
I would have made this a police effort, not invasion and occupation, even if the Taliban had said, "Fuck off American shit stains. We'll give Bin Laden hugs and kisses for his job well done." Releases like this one from Wikileaks only solidify my view on this one.
PS: Fools thought we would except a Muslim court :D
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 26 2010 14:15 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 14:02 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 13:44 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 13:33 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:55 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:53 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:51 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:48 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:46 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:43 Sadist wrote:
[quote]
Afghanistan wasnt invaded on incorrect information. That was Iraq ;d
Nobody really had a problem at all with the US going into Afghanistan after 9/11.
Iraq on the other hand......
I've got a problem with both *crosses arms* After the fact ya, basically Iraq seemed to have fucked everything Still doesnt change the fact that Afghanistan was completely legitimate and Iraq was the troll in the mix Yeah, like I said, lets hope the Italian mafia don't blow up a building. If Italy's government was protecting them there would be issues, when you say Italian Mafia I hope you mean actual italians from italy. Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden for trial but Bush didn't want a trial. Government protection has little to do with the situation After Pakistand rejected to take Bin Laden for a international tribunal under Isamic Law, the Taliban offered to put in in their own Islamic Trial if we provided evidence. They should have just handed him over and let the international tribunal decide the evidence. IIRC they offered to send him to a third party nation even without evidence (which they demanded first along with an Islamic court). Might be wrong on that one. We'll never know because no effort was ever made by the US side to do anything but nail him with a missile. From what I gathered(from wikipedia admittedly, though I did check their sources) they wanted evidence from the start. They may have offered to send him to Pakistan, but I think that whole thing was a farce because its pretty clear Pakistan is two faced and wants to support terrorists but still look ok in the international community. After that they wanted to do the trial themselves. It wasn't until the Taliban was actually under attack that they offered to send him to a 3rd party nation, but still insisted on evidence. Either way, the US government said 'hand him over', the international community agreed, and the Taliban tried to beat around the bush. Seems entirely reasonable for the Taliban to ask for proof, especially considering proof probably doesn't exist. Obviously he still deserves a life sentence, not saying he doesn't. I would have made this a police effort, not invasion and occupation, even if the Taliban had said, "Fuck off American shit stains. We'll give Bin Laden hugs and kisses for his job well done." Releases like this one from Wikileaks only solidify my view on this one. PS: Fools thought we would except a Muslim court :D
The international community agreed with our assessment and he had already been convicted of the 1998 Embassy Bombing. What the hell would a police effort do? Even without directly supporting terrorists and not complying with the worlds demands, the Taliban was hardly worthy of control. They had horrible humans rights and only 3 governments in the world even accepted them as a legitimate governing body.
Also, what has been released to solidify your view? All that's been released is situation reports, not anything to do with the reasons for invasion itself.
|
Wow.
Someone is going to input all of this data into video format day by day and year by year and it will be the most sad thing I'll ever seen.
My girlfriend is a former solider who served in the afghan and iraq wars.
She immediately showed me an event in this damn thing.
Then a few years later, someone will get the same files from iraq and we will no longer be a super power =(.
Dang america we suck =(.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
On July 26 2010 11:33 snotboogie wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/war-logs.html Here is the NY Times hub for this thing. They've had access to the files for a few weeks and have written articles summarizing big points - for example the fact that Pakistan has been playing both sides in the Afghan war, sending intelligence agents to collaborate with the Taliban in planning attacks against the Americans.
Yeah, a lot of this was known before. The sources weren't out in the open, but everyone in intelligence knew what the ISI was doing. In a way, these leaks justify US action a bit more to the public.
|
On July 26 2010 08:37 FindingPride wrote:
I bet there going to be fucking furious about this.
how it warms my heart to piss off government officials
|
On July 26 2010 14:45 AttackZerg wrote:
Wow.
Someone is going to input all of this data into video format day by day and year by year and it will be the most sad thing I'll ever seen.
My girlfriend is a former solider who served in the afghan and iraq wars.
She immediately showed me an event in this damn thing.
Then a few years later, someone will get the same files from iraq and we will no longer be a super power =(.
Dang america we suck =(.
Vietnam footage is pretty freakin' sad. I don't think a modern war can top that one.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 26 2010 13:44 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 13:33 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:55 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:53 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:51 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:48 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:46 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:43 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:
[quote]
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. Afghanistan wasnt invaded on incorrect information. That was Iraq ;d Nobody really had a problem at all with the US going into Afghanistan after 9/11. Iraq on the other hand...... I've got a problem with both *crosses arms* After the fact ya, basically Iraq seemed to have fucked everything Still doesnt change the fact that Afghanistan was completely legitimate and Iraq was the troll in the mix Yeah, like I said, lets hope the Italian mafia don't blow up a building. If Italy's government was protecting them there would be issues, when you say Italian Mafia I hope you mean actual italians from italy. Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden for trial but Bush didn't want a trial. Government protection has little to do with the situation After Pakistand rejected to take Bin Laden for a international tribunal under Isamic Law, the Taliban offered to put in in their own Islamic Trial if we provided evidence. They should have just handed him over and let the international tribunal decide the evidence. IIRC they offered to send him to a third party nation even without evidence (which they demanded first along with an Islamic court). Might be wrong on that one. We'll never know because no effort was ever made by the US side to do anything but nail him with a missile.
I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. Neither of us know what went on in telephone calls and behind closed doors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
