Originally posted by 0mega SpawnWhat if stopping them from coming here meant having to go over there?
they're not my hero. I don't want them in other peoples land. how is that defending? just stop their asses from getting over here now thats defending our country. they're just provoking people PERIODnot to mention shady America is shady
Originally posted by 0mega SpawnHypothetical situation: A bunch of Saudi Arabians, Lebanese, and Egyptians financed by a Saudi Arabian guy living in Afghanistan and sheltered by Pakistanis attack American soil, kill American citizens and plan to do so again.
explain a scenario where that would be needed?
Do you go over to the country that shelters them and refuses to give them up, or do you stay back and hope they don't do it again?
Originally posted by Lord Lucienlet me know how iraq figures into that. anyway, inteligence gathering and assassination would be more effective than invading afghanistan and not finding bin laden a decade later.
Hypothetical situation: A bunch of Saudi Arabians, Lebanese, and Egyptians financed by a Saudi Arabian guy living in Afghanistan and sheltered by Pakistanis attack American soil, kill American citizens and plan to do so again.Do you go over to the country that shelters them and refuses to give them up, or do you stay back and hope they don't do it again?
Originally posted by 753It doesn't but I think NATO invaded another Middle Eastern country earlier because of it...
let me know how iraq figures into that.
Originally posted by 753The great thing about hindsight is that it makes us look back and go: "Oh, but if we only.." or "They really oughta have done... "
anyway, inteligence gathering and assassination would be more effective than invading afghanistan and not finding bin laden a decade later.
of course, that wouldnt secure natural gas reserves in central asia.
the 911 atatcks could have been easily stopped if intelligence services had been taken seriously by the american executive branch and al qaeda itself is a consequence of continued political and military itervention in the middle east to secure economic interests and even the american congress itself understands that the iraq war has galavanized anti-american sentiment in the region adn created a new spawning pool for al qaeda cells.
My question I posited is done from a post-attack viewpoint. 9/11 happened, no matter how much we say it shouldn't have, now... what do you do about it? Go "over there" to take out the people responsible, or "stay here" and do... what?
Originally posted by Lord Lucienactually, implementing the non-interventionist policies that could have prevented 911 after it happened would suffice to prevent further attacks and going after al qaeda's leadership did not require a war against afghanistan.
It doesn't but I think NATO invaded another Middle Eastern country earlier because of it...The great thing about hindsight is that it makes us look back and go: "Oh, but if we only.." or "They really oughta have done... "
My question I posited is done from a post-attack viewpoint. 9/11 happened, no matter how much we say it shouldn't have, now... what do you do about it? Go "over there" to take out the people responsible, or "stay here" and do... what?
Originally posted by 753So the Afghani government that harbored al-Qaeda and refused to surrender them should have been left alone, and allowed bin Laden to plan more attacks?
actually, implementing the non-interventionist policies that could have prevented 911 after it happened would suffice to prevent further attacks and going after al qaeda's leadership did not require a war against afghanistan.
I'm against the occupation and rebuilding of the country, but I don't think sitting back and doing absolutely nothing about them would have sufficed.
Originally posted by Lord Lucienal qaeda's high command is still at large and operational. the taliban would likely recover and retake the country once the ocupation army left.
So the Afghani government that harbored al-Qaeda and refused to surrender them should have been left alone, and allowed bin Laden to plan more attacks?I'm against the occupation and rebuilding of the country, but I don't think sitting back and doing absolutely nothing about them would have sufficed.
actually finding and simply assassinating bin laden would have been more efficient than this war.
Originally posted by 753I agree, though locating him within Afghanistan when the current regime is uncooperative and anti-American would make locating and actually taking out Bin Laden (and his top lieutenants) a very difficult operation. I feel that outside of headshotting Usama from a grassy knoll, the best course of action could have been a Gulf War style attack--neutralize the Talibani military assets, scatter al-Qaeda, and leave. Though both the blitz option and the stealthy assassination option require NATO forces to be inside Afghanistan, so "staying here" is out of the question.
al qaeda's high command is still at large and operational. the taliban would likely recover and retake the country once the ocupation army left.actually finding and simply assassinating bin laden would have been more efficient than this war.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Hypothetical situation: A bunch of Saudi Arabians, Lebanese, and Egyptians financed by a Saudi Arabian guy living in Afghanistan and sheltered by Pakistanis attack American soil, kill American citizens and plan to do so again.Do you go over to the country that shelters them and refuses to give them up, or do you stay back and hope they don't do it again?
attack American soilEXACTLY, stop them from getting over here in the first place
Originally posted by Non Jihadist
What you mean when they torch villages and torture innocents?
No, I think it means that you take innocents just because they're of the same religion or nationality as the infidels and cut their head off, film it and release it on the internet so everyone back home at the monkey bar 2nd grade recess terrorist training camp can like it on their facebook pages.
I like this character you're playing.
Originally posted by skekUngIm just curious, but when did that happen just because of that exactly?
No, I think it means that you take innocents just because they're of the same religion or nationality as the infidels and cut their head off, film it and release it on the internet so everyone back home at the monkey bar 2nd grade recess terrorist training camp can like it on their facebook pages.I like this character you're playing.
Originally posted by Non Jihadist
What you mean when they torch villages and torture innocents?
Not all soldiers do that.
Obviously you can't say that all soldiers are heroes or all soldiers aren't. Because in the end they are still people. I'd think that what a soldier is SUPPOSE to be is heroic.
Risking your life to protect those who you care about, as well as many other innocents you haven't even met, is heroic. That's what a soldier is suppose to be. That isn't always how they are, though. But again, they are people. You can't blanket the title of hero or villain over all of them.