Wikileaks

[Wombat]

Cheesecan, what you are posting makes no sense. I could post gore pics from car accidents or diseases, both kill waaaaay more people than al-quaeda ever did.

oh ok so u dont see difference between murder and accident

[Johannes]

& don't understand the difference between european and arab

[Wombat]

damn germans

[BaNa]

?

Semantics. If they do it, its murder, if we do it, its accidental or collateral damage. You could argue that the intent is important, but I ask, is it important to those who are dead? Even if none of the 100.000 iraqi civilians (and this is a lower bound) that died in this war where deliberately killed, how is this not a greater tragedy than 9-11?

Morality has never consistently been important in politics, sometimes it is used as an excuse, but the US has also had its share of amoral meddling that came with huge body counts.

[PicassoCT]

I heard that, i mean, im hurt by that, oh, if i new were you live wombat, i would march in and drag you into combat

Also Bana is simple math, you just have to be a patriot.

Life of my people > then foreign people.

3000 > 10.000

Not to mention, that saddam hussein really feared al quaida and did everything to keep them out of his country. Yes, dictators dislike destabilzing rebells. But bad math has always been part of dieing empires.

[PicassoCT]

Does your family need to get blown up before you see the necessity of the war on terror?

Al-Qaeda bombing in Spain 2004.

My family does not needed to be blown up, to see that the oil-industry, fukkin troops stationed in the islamic vatican, and real politics support for every lousy dictator in the middle east endanger there lifes. Its so easy to treat the symptoms but hard to cure the disease.

[Wombat]

Life of my people > then foreign people.

3000 > 10.000

just small thought

3k of pplz of democratic country whos cost was *bana drama*k > 10.000 of pplz who dont respect own/others life, punish kids for crimes like adults, beat wifes, perform suicide bomb attacks

dunno, just thought about it

[BaNa]

First of all, even the US military estimate is 100.000, not 10.000.

Second, way to generalize.

People tend to forget that Saddam and Ahmadinejad are creations of the US & Friends.

Iran had Mosaddegh, a democratically elected (and fairly normal) leader. Unfortunately he privatized the oil and that was not acceptable. -> CIA-backed putsch bringing corrupt shah back. How surprising that people rebelled against him. Ohshit but now its gone all islamic.

As for Iraq, FFS THE US SOLD THEM ANTHRAX DURING A WAR OF AGRESSION

[Forboding Angel]

Cheesecan, what you are posting makes no sense. I could post gore pics from car accidents or diseases, both kill waaaaay more people than al-quaeda ever did.

Also, you know what has killed at least fifty times more civillian people than al-quaeda? The US in Iraq.

You know what killed the most people in modern history? WW2. Go yell at the Germans and Japanese for a while until you feel better and your self-righteousness is more pure than ever.

If the US doesn't fight vs terrorism, who will? I don't see any of your countries rushing into the limelight. It's easy to sit back and make snide remarks and potshots when you're an armchair pilot, which, incidentally, makes you very similar to a politician.

Hindsight is 20/20, so why don't you get over what has happened, and state your grande scheme for how things should go in the future?

It's interesting that you seem to think we actually like the war on terror. A necessary evil unfortunately. Look at it this way, if the US were an isolationist country, other countries wouldn't have much of a clue as to what the US is doing. The most powerful military on the planet operating completely out of sight from anyone and everything else in the world? Not good. Isn't that how WWI and WWII were able to come about as easily as they did?

[Wombat]

I don't see any of your countries rushing into the limelight. It's easy to sit back and make snide remarks and potshots when you're an armchair pilot, which, incidentally, makes you very similar to a politician.

so yanks fight in iraq/afganistan alone? fu ? :> but to be honest, usa deserves to fight alone

also 'The most powerful military on the planet' lost to little yellow ppl and nomads with aks in iraq and afganistan, so :D

[pintle]

Forb wtf are you talking about?

Want to say that to the faces of families dead British service men and women?

WW1 was started because of isolationism? Read some history ffs...

A good start towards changing things for the future: your president and commander in chief to act within the confines of international law, and either accept the judgements of the UN, or to step down from the permanent seat on the security council.

If the USA doesn't train, equip, fund, sell out, and eventually bomb civilians unlucky enough to live next to these terrorists, who will?

If the USA were an isolationist country... You owe so much money to China that it is just a hilarious idea to even pretend you have some sort of choice in that matter.

[Wombat]

enough to say how usa supports kids in africa with weapons. even if they signed some international document to not do it

[MidKnight]

People tend to forget that Saddam and Ahmadinejad are creations of the US & Friends.

*nods*

One clarification, The Shah wasn't all that bad, his major vice was that he tried too hard to 'westernize' the country, causing some to believe the culture was getting diluted, and making the same mistake as Russia's Tsar Peter.

Its so easy to treat the symptoms but hard to cure the disease.

*nods*

Terrorists aren't some sort of unfeeling, evil force hell bent on destroying all of the achievements of human society. They're human beings, really desperate, uneducated, brainwashed human beings who think they have nothing to lose and that killing other people will bring them some kind of holy recompensation.

Killing insurgents is a very direct way of dealing with the problem and may make for a good initial strategy to break their oppressive hold over communities, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. Terrorist groups aren't going to run out of stupid or brainwashed people willing to throw their lives away any time soon, that is, unless we do something about it.

The best way to deal with terrorism, imo, is to turn the insurgents' kinsmen against them and cut off their supply of potential suicide bombers. To do that, some very expensive widespread education, aid, and PR services would have to be provided, in addition to the military pressure that we've been throwing so bluntly at our problems and hoping it'd make them go away.

Blah blah blah politics. It's not like an internet forum sways Congress or Parliament or what have you...

[Forboding Angel]

I don't see any of your countries rushing into the limelight. It's easy to sit back and make snide remarks and potshots when you're an armchair pilot, which, incidentally, makes you very similar to a politician.

so yanks fight in iraq/afganistan alone? fu ? :> but to be honest, usa deserves to fight alone

also 'The most powerful military on the planet' lost to little yellow ppl and nomads with aks in iraq and afganistan, so :D

I never said that wombat. The point was that without the resources of the US, it would be hard enough that I highly doubt that the other countries would suddenly band together and wage said war on terror. The competence involved is another matter entirely.

@vietnam, that is what happens when you have wars commanded by politicians. The most recent prime example would be Iraq. Same thing.

WW1 was started because of isolationism? Read some history ffs...

As usual, you show that you utterly fail at reading comprehension.

The most powerful military on the planet operating completely out of sight from anyone and everything else in the world? Not good. Isn't that how WWI and WWII were able to come about as easily as they did?

Instead of taking that together, you grabbed bits and pieces from all over my reply to twist it up. Read again and reply without the foot in your mouth.

A good start towards changing things for the future: your president and commander in chief to act within the confines of international law, and either accept the judgements of the UN, or to step down from the permanent seat on the security council.

You guys love to blame everything on the president. Apparently you aren't aware that the president never has first hand knowledge in matters of intelligence. The idea of blaming everything on one man is ridiculous.

The UN has shown over and over that all it is is a giant dripping vagina. Oh sure, pass another resolution, that'll do the trick Ohay, hitler invaded poland and is bombing the shit out of london, we better pass a resolution fast! The UN is a joke and always has been.

If the USA doesn't train, equip, fund, sell out, and eventually bomb civilians unlucky enough to live next to these terrorists, who will?

Brittan probably. I like how you act as tho the US is the only country on earth guilty of having corrupt politicians. Stroke your self righteousness some more, you're not enough of a prick yet.

If the USA were an isolationist country... You owe so much money to China that it is just a hilarious idea to even pretend you have some sort of choice in that matter.

Isolationism doesn't necessarily mean that trade is isolated as well.

@MK, +1
Unfortunately, education alone takes too much time, leaving you with the uncomfortable position of having to attempt to fight and educate at the same time, creating a conflict of interest, to a degree.

[MidKnight]

Ohay, hitler invaded poland and is bombing the shit out of london, we better pass a resolution fast! The UN is a joke and always has been.

Uh, just a quick clarification: The UN was created because Hitler invaded Poland and bombed the shit out of London, after WWII (1945), to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.
How successful they've been and how influential they are, though, is debatable.

[PicassoCT]

Nukes keep your peace. Without those our falcon, sociopathic Leadership, democratically elected or not, would have waged endless wars.

[Sleksa]

If the US doesn't fight vs terrorism, who will? I don't see any of your countries rushing into the limelight. It's easy to sit back and make snide remarks and potshots when you're an armchair pilot, which, incidentally, makes you very similar to a politician.

Or from the other side's perspective, If the jihadists dont fight usa and its allies on their war of occupation, who will?


There are usually reasons for terrorism , such as the IRA wanting the brits out, the spanish separatists wanting their own country, the chechens wanting the russians out of theirs , and the ossetians wanting to get rid of georgian control. It's a matter of perspective

It shouldnt come as a surprise that after kicking and meddling with the arab countries for years they would hit back.

There isnt a country in the middle east that hasnt been exploited, meddled by cia, or assaulted by the us. Maybe it woulda been wise to look in the mirror instead of invading some countries again by random

[hoijui]

indeed.. iran should have nukes too.
"but they have a very stupid leader, and there might get even more EXTREME guys into power there, then we are fucked!"
there is no imaginable guy that could get power over nukes there that is worse in EXTREMISM then some of the US guys that had power over nukes in the last 7 decades. all of them are leaders at least, they care for some people. in the US, you can be Hollywood actor and get president, it happened before, and (hello terminator!) may happen again. and these guys know what cool sentence to give before pushing the button! "wat? yu sai, tees extreemischts want to have nukes like us? waer is mai button! let's show aehm who is first hair! bai bai mr extreemischt!"

@wombat: thinking is something different...

it may go like this:
if war on terror kills 10'000 "terrorists" and 100'000+ civilians, and puts a few million into poverty and anger, then guess what... more, considerably more then 10'000 new "terrorists" will emerge (because they are evil, stupid, uneducated, mindless, undemoctaized, ...). lets say, one member of each family that lost someone in your war (same happens on the US side, for their fallen soldiers, except that they get called "freedom loving patriots" there (also known as "terrorists" in the countries they are attacking)), so that'd be around 50'000 new "terrorists".
now "thinking", the obvious solution is to fight these new ones too, right? because this way, one day, all the bad people will be wiped from the face of the earth, and only freedom loving patriots will be left.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality.

WAKE THE FUCK UP to see reality!

[Cheesecan]

Cheesecan, what you are posting makes no sense. I could post gore pics from car accidents or diseases, both kill waaaaay more people than al-quaeda ever did.

Also, you know what has killed at least fifty times more civillian people than al-quaeda? The US in Iraq.

Civilian casualties are due to jihadist tactics not US tactics. The US has not yet developed anything that could kill only jihadists, although drone planes come very close to that. Also, in Pakistan, terrorists are killing other arabs and muslims. Many muslims abroad which I have spoken to are grateful for US involvement in the middle east because they are tired of fascist rule and/or rule by religious fanatics.

Don't blame the US for deaths, blame jihadists who choose to fight among women and children.

Also, the US failure to create working democracies in that region is due to the population's inability to grasp democracy. They have basically been living with rule by terror ever since Hammurabi. These are not people who are familiar with the concepts of freedom of speech, voting, human rights and so forth. Iran was a pretty decent country until they toppled the shah, and millions of iranis fled abroad because they didn't want to live in a country ruled by a religious priesthood.

?

Semantics. If they do it, its murder, if we do it, its accidental or collateral damage. You could argue that the intent is important, but I ask, is it important to those who are dead? Even if none of the 100.000 iraqi civilians (and this is a lower bound) that died in this war where deliberately killed, how is this not a greater tragedy than 9-11?

Morality has never consistently been important in politics, sometimes it is used as an excuse, but the US has also had its share of amoral meddling that came with huge body counts.

We never wanted the civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan to die. But the terrorists want our civilians dead in the ground.

What is immoral about defending your home soil? We live in a world where terrorists can or will soon be able to get their hands on nuclear weapons. This is because the US failed terribly. If you don't take the fight to them, they take the fight over here. Sure western occupation of the middle east created a lot of new terrorists, but that is because the US has been ineffective in fighting the war. It's not because the war itself was a bad decision.

I heard that, i mean, im hurt by that, oh, if i new were you live wombat, i would march in and drag you into combat

Also Bana is simple math, you just have to be a patriot.

Life of my people > then foreign people.

3000 > 10.000

Not to mention, that saddam hussein really feared al quaida and did everything to keep them out of his country. Yes, dictators dislike destabilzing rebells. But bad math has always been part of dieing empires.

Let's get some facts straight here:
Afghanistan was invaded because of al-qaida and 9/11. The casus belli on Iraq was WMDs. But really it was pure politics, it had nothing to do with the war on terror, just regional power politics. Iraq was a US vassal state since the cold war, and the US couldn't have the Iraqi government and military falling apart anymore under Saddam. Basically it was a .take

An ineffective ally is just as bad as an enemy really, that's why Saddam needed to go. If you look at Pakistan, the sole US ally left in there, they are trying hard not to draw the US wrath by not committing the same mistake. But they still are. Terrorists are coming and going as they please along the border in the Waziristan region, where the Pakistani military doesn't even dare to go near. The US has to send in unmanned drones to take care of what the Pakistanis cannot.

Does your family need to get blown up before you see the necessity of the war on terror?

Al-Qaeda bombing in Spain 2004.

My family does not needed to be blown up, to see that the oil-industry, fukkin troops stationed in the islamic vatican, and real politics support for every lousy dictator in the middle east endanger there lifes. Its so easy to treat the symptoms but hard to cure the disease.

Well is it rhetorics but the islamic equivalent to the Vatican would actually probably be Mecca in Saudi Arabia. Iraq is more like the arab cultural equivalent to England.
As for Israel and Jerusalem, it belonged to the Jews way before Muslims conquered the city. Muslims never had any issues with sacking Jerusalem several times(neither did the Christians!). All they care about is actually gaining territory, the sentimental value of that territory was of no concern to Muslim leaders historically. Only Jews ever cared about the city itself.

[zwzsg]

If the US doesn't fight vs terrorism, who will?

If the US stopped crushing and killing innocent people in third world countries, there would be less hatred toward westernised countries, and no terrorism.

What the US calls "the war on terror" is in reality the US terrorizing poor people, until they get so desperate they turn into terrorists.

The most powerful military on the planet operating completely out of sight from anyone and everything else in the world? Not good.

Ah, so you agree Wikileak is a good thing?