Discussion - US intervention in the Middle East

[Icenflame]

This is an extremely sensitive subject for many I apologize for bringing this up if its already been discussed. I just wanted to know your thoughts and feelings towards America's increased intervention in Iraq and the Middle East, this can include any topics from US policy with Israel or the Iraqi invasion or the occupation of Afghanistan.

Personally I do not agree with the stance the United States has taken in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan. I feel that they have thrown their over sized weight around enough in the past few decades and they are beginning to alienate themselves more and more.

[Gambit]

I believe the Americans bit of a bit more than they can chew and they are now stuck in a mess they can't just back out of. The physical war in Iraq was a text book defeat and out right victory for them (as everyone expected) but the planning on what to do with a broken nation afterwards was flawed, and that is why they are having so much trouble.

I believe there was some just in their cause but they should not have just gone in with so little support from the rest world, becuase let's face it there was no imminent threat from Saddam (i.e. WMD). But it is a very tricky situation they are in now with Iraq and Iran seeming to be the next one. Even a superpower can become overstretched. On on another note I really think it is high time there was a change in the U.S presidency, the country will be better of.

[ioiiooio]

Whatever their reason were I dont feel it was right for them to go against the UN and invade Iraq, they are a powerful country and with great power comes great responsibility, they have proven many times over their history ever since all this **** with nukes started that they certainly cant handle that responsibility, inevitably I think it shows they are just as much a danger and a threat to the world as the middle easern countries they condemn.

[Gambit]

Whatever their reason were I dont feel it was right for them to go against the UN and invade Iraq, they are a powerful country and with great power comes great responsibility, they have proven many times over their history ever since all this **** with nukes started that they certainly cant handle that responsibility, inevitably I think it shows they are just as much a danger and a threat to the world as the middle easern countries they condemn.

I will have to dispute some of the points you make, if America was not able to handle the power they have the world would/could have been in a much more sorry state than it is now. I think they handled the cold war quite well, I mean the entire world could have been destroyed in those days. At the moment they just have some very poor leadership. And I don't think they are condemning any middle eastern country's(well apart from Iran), they are however condemning terrorism. If you think about the amount of innocent people each of those country's have it is just their leaders who are sending their respective country's to hell.

[ioiiooio]

^^^^ If not more of a threat, since they do it all under the banner of so-called "Democracy"

[ioiiooio]

And what exactly does Iraq, or Iran for that matter, have to do with Terrorism?

[Gambit]

And what exactly does Iraq, or Iran for that matter, have to do with Terrorism?

If a country's leaders actively endorse/harbor/promote terrorism, they have a lot to do with terrorism.

[ioiiooio]

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

[Gambit]

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

"On on another note I really think it is high time there was a change in the U.S presidency, the country will be better of." - GAMBIT

I am not disputing the fact that he is a **** nut. But if you are saying all the connections between Iran and terrorism is fabricated I would tend to disagree.

[ioiiooio]

Okay, I agree they are certainly the lesser of the two evils, however they are still dangerous and untrustworthy. I am no politcian nor historian, this is just my honest opinion. Need I mention Hiroshima?

[Gambit]

Okay, I agree they are certainly the lesser of the two evils, however they are still dangerous and untrustworthy. I am no politcian nor historian, this is just my honest opinion. Need I mention Hiroshima?

The dropping of the nukes in WW2 was in such a different time that neither of us could even begin to imagine what it must have been like to make that decision. But in the end it did save more lives than it cost if you ask me, the Japanese were not going to give up without a fight they were to proud.

[wisp]

America loves to stick it's nose in were it is not wanted they got their Ass Kicked in Vietnam and they are getting their troops killed in Iran,the don't learn at all. Russia got it's Ass kicked in Afghanistan and now the Yanks want to poke their nose in there to.

The American public want their troops back home , but George "i'm the biggest ******* in the world" Bush couldn't care less.It's all about oil and money . The Yank companies care making a fortune out of rebuilding Iran after the Gulf war, contracts that were issued even before the war had started somesay.

They deserve another Vietnam so leave the idiots to learn the hard way , the unfortunate part is that the bloody politians who start war never do the fighting that "honour " is left to the men and woman of the Army while they sit in their air conditioned office a worry about will they get re-elected. Maybe if the politians actually picked up a rifle and fought there would be less wars.
South Africe did the same thing in South West Africa (Namibia) it was all for the diamonds . How many good men had to die to protect Debeers bloody diamond fields, we were at "war " for over 20 years and all was for nothing . We signed at all away , blood spilled for "F" all...War sucks sorry for the rant...but at least i got see Luanda :)

Peace...nuff said

[dislekcia]

The dropping of the nukes in WW2 was in such a different time that neither of us could even begin to imagine what it must have been like to make that decision. But in the end it did save more lives than it cost if you ask me, the Japanese were not going to give up without a fight they were to proud.

Nope. The Japanese were actually on a path to surrender before the Hiroshima bomb. Immediately after the bombing there was a groundswell of support in Japan for the war, meaning that another bombing was deemed necessary to force them to surrender... It's a classic case of "have force, will use it" despite analysis that it would be counterproductive. The US wanted to test their superbomb.

Personally I cannot stand the attitude of "action X prevented more deaths", that's most often total bull****. What is actually meant is "action X prevented the deaths of people that matter to us more, we don't care about all those natives we're killing".

And finally: Does anyone actually think that terrorism is going to DECREASE due to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Terrorism is a response to a situation, especially where militarily a population is completely devoid of recourse. The hatred and fear that the US is sowing in the middle east at the moment will come back to them. The cynical part of me says that that's exactly what the US wants: More reasons to keep its populace in fear-driven consumerist nationalism. That's the best way to empower the government as long as it's so closely tied to the military.

-D

[Icenflame]

haha Terrorism will not be stopped by invading Iraq or Iran or Lebanon or Palestine. By oppressing people you only fuel the hatred and animosity towards yourself. To be completely honest I think that the hole America Iraq invasion was a crock of bull****. Its complete double standards, so the US can go against the UN because everyone likes them?

Its double standards and the US has clearly indicated to the World if you not with us your against us. I.e. President Chave's in Venezuela took a stand against America next two week disappeared and then was released by "rouge" CIA agents yeah right !

America has made it very clear to the rest of the world who are top dogs and if you don't listen you'll get bitten with all the economic force the country has to bear! Look I don't completely disagree with "all" of the action taken. But some how it seems rather strange.

Afghanistan what country does Afghanistan boarder? Look on your atlas? Pop US troops in Iraq and you have a rapid deployment force ready to strike "anywhere" in the middle east.
Its all about the power play...

Another thing that really got my goat is how America very cleverly declared "WAR on TERROR" now alot of people may think its a catch phrase but it serves a purpose.

Under the Geneva Convention the US can legally hold Terrorists indefinably with out trail. Really cleaver to declare war on terror...

[kHayne]

o hells no.

/gets the **** out.

Rather, I shall direct oh ye of little understanding to the local experts on this matter.

[Nandrew]

Tired topic is tiiiiiiiired.

^^

[Gambit]

Nope. The Japanese were actually on a path to surrender before the Hiroshima bomb. Immediately after the bombing there was a groundswell of support in Japan for the war, meaning that another bombing was deemed necessary to force them to surrender... It's a classic case of "have force, will use it" despite analysis that it would be counterproductive. The US wanted to test their superbomb.

Personally I cannot stand the attitude of "action X prevented more deaths", that's most often total bull****. What is actually meant is "action X prevented the deaths of people that matter to us more, we don't care about all those natives we're killing".

And finally: Does anyone actually think that terrorism is going to DECREASE due to the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Terrorism is a response to a situation, especially where militarily a population is completely devoid of recourse. The hatred and fear that the US is sowing in the middle east at the moment will come back to them. The cynical part of me says that that's exactly what the US wants: More reasons to keep its populace in fear-driven consumerist nationalism. That's the best way to empower the government as long as it's so closely tied to the military.

-D

Do you believe terrorism will decrease if America stays passive and/or only uses its diplomacy with governments that do not wish to hear anything from an American and the rest of the world? When you hear the leader of Iran saying that the state of Israel should be "wiped of the map", how are you supposed to negotiate with a maniac like that? (and no I am not Jewish).

[Aesir]

I think it like a little boy with a BB gun, shooting all his moms flowers and all the birds in the yard. For some odd reason America and England(+ a few more) have declared themselves "protectors" of the world, they attack any country some misled foolish politican points it's finger at.

All I have to say.

[kHayne]

Why does America poke it's nose in other peoples business?
Because they aren't. They're sticking it in their own business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm
http://www.multied.com/korea/causes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam...0.E2.80.931963
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

The United States of America is the most attacked nation on Earth.

If anything history has shown them that isolationism is the worst policy.

[Aesir]

well they attacked Afganistan because of the Terrorists why the hell the entire country? Gawd knows why they attcked Iraq.

What about us, yes they didn't attack us but they did put sanctions against us. Worst attacked nation on earth? I know why, like Dislekcia said "have force, will use it"

Hulk angry hulk smash, ugh!