PDA

View Full Version : Middle East Invasion


Mew Ichigo
August 21st, 2009, 11:55 AM
http://fc06.deviantart.com/fs47/f/2009/230/c/7/The_US_Army_by_Ruby_Misty_Aurahog.png

Weapons of mass destruction is just a lol worthy excuse.

But, seriously, what do you think about the Middle East Invasion?

Picture (C) me

Chaostorm
August 21st, 2009, 11:59 AM
this is cruel .... Im actually living there ..... invading other countries is nothing but leading to destruction and , what if someone decided to invade your country ? would you accept that ?

Mew Ichigo
August 21st, 2009, 12:03 PM
this is cruel .... Im actually living there ..... invading other countries is nothing but leading to destruction and , what if someone decided to invade your country ? would you accept that ?

Sorry if I offended you.
But, yea, I found this decision stupid. I don't know much about this, but they never found Weapons of Mass Destruction, right?
So why wont they leave?

Chaostorm
August 21st, 2009, 12:08 PM
Sorry if I offended you.
But, yea, I found this decision stupid. I don't know much about this, but they never found Weapons of Mass Destruction, right?
So why wont they leave?

I didnt get what you said in bold ....

Mew Ichigo
August 21st, 2009, 12:10 PM
I didnt get what you said in bold ....

(Im probably wrong, but) Didnt they first invade because their was a rumour that one of the countries has Weapons of Mass Destruction. So they killed the leader, but never found the weapons.

Chaostorm
August 21st, 2009, 12:17 PM
If you mean Middle East holding a weapon of mass destruction , then no , since when Middlie east holds such a weapon like this ?

lx_theo
August 21st, 2009, 12:54 PM
Well we (as in America) invaded Afghanistan to fight the terrorist group involved with the 9/11 incident. Then misinformation of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq caused us to invade them, even though they had nothing to do with the event that put us in the area in the first place, 9/11.

Jolene
August 21st, 2009, 01:21 PM
Our soldiers are fighting in the Middle East to take down the Taliban, which is something we need to do because the Taliban are really dangerous and they'd get even stronger if we just left them alone. Unfortunately, our troops have killed a lot of innocent people in the process.

Yoshimi
August 21st, 2009, 03:06 PM
this is cruel .... Im actually living there ..... invading other countries is nothing but leading to destruction and , what if someone decided to invade your country ? would you accept that ?

Strangely ‎enough, ‎Buddhist ‎countries ‎improved ‎when ‎being ‎controlled ‎by ‎CHINA. When your government is controlled by corrupt/just plain stupid politicians, invading isn't such a bad idea in the long term. That's why Iraq was in, and Iran still is in all of this B.S.

.little monster
August 21st, 2009, 05:18 PM
I sense a flame war to ensue.

I do think it was pretty pointless to invade, I do think however Bush did believe there were weapons of mass destructions but really..it's Bush...:/ Not surprising.

Timbjerr
August 21st, 2009, 05:55 PM
At least some good came of it, and that being the end of Saddam Hussein's cruel regime.

Too bad our military is too inept to properly manage the area once the power void was created. >_>

Yoshimi
August 21st, 2009, 06:05 PM
At least some good came of it, and that being the end of Saddam Hussein's cruel regime.

Too bad our military is too inept to properly manage the area once the power void was created. >_>

We also stole all their oil, making gas prices temporarily cheaper. With that amount of time, money, and effort, we could've made researches on solar and electric powered cars.

donavannj
August 21st, 2009, 08:39 PM
We also stole all their oil, making gas prices temporarily cheaper. With that amount of time, money, and effort, we could've made researches on solar and electric powered cars.

You see, it never really made gasoline cheaper. In 1998, gasoline was proportionately as cheap as it was in the early 1960s (based on % of our income spent on it). For reference, I found a receipt from 1998 of my parents from a convenience store and the price per gallon was $0.98, which 10 years later is what we consider cheap (it reached $3.29 per gallon at some stations here last summer [2008], maybe higher, but I'm not sure on that). And any price decline at that time was due to the recovering economy.

Plus, we never really stole their oil, since, if I recall correctly, Saddam Hussein's men had set fire to many the rigs (not sure on that... I know that was the case in the first Gulf War, and wouldn't be surprised if that was repeated in 2003).

Though the false information is concerning, what matters is that we're there and we have to clean up the mess we made. Of course, considering that Iraq and Afghanistan are on either side of Iran, the goal in Iraq may have been intimidation of Iran instead (though that was a thought from left field [meaning random] related more to geography than politics).

With regards to Afghanistan, we probably would be finishing up about now if we hadn't gotten distracted with Iraq. The Taliban did fall very swiftly but swelled up later when we were mostly focused on Iraq.

Amachi
August 21st, 2009, 08:57 PM
At least some good came of it, and that being the end of Saddam Hussein's cruel regime.

Too bad our military is too inept to properly manage the area once the power void was created. >_>

You know, I thought Saddam Hussein being taken out of power was a good thing as well, especially considering that he killed so many people.

But I didn't think about why he killed them.

I was talking to an Iraqi woman the other day, she left Iraq in 96. She thought Saddam Hussein was the best. I asked why, and she responded, "he protected us [Christian minority groups]." All the people causing violence now, killing and driving the ancient Christian community out of Iraq, were being killed by Saddam back when he was in power, therefore keeping the peace.

Because really, peace in the Middle East means having the bigger stick.

That said, Iran needs to be attacked. Iran and Ahmadinejad can't be trusted with nuclear power, especially with Israel nearby - they're in the greatest danger.

Yoshimi
August 21st, 2009, 09:04 PM
You see, it never really made gasoline cheaper. In 1998, gasoline was proportionately as cheap as it was in the early 1960s (based on % of our income spent on it). For reference, I found a receipt from 1998 of my parents from a convenience store and the price per gallon was $0.98, which 10 years later is what we consider cheap (it reached $3.29 per gallon at some stations here last summer [2008], maybe higher, but I'm not sure on that). And any price decline at that time was due to the recovering economy.

Plus, we never really stole their oil, since, if I recall correctly, Saddam Hussein's men had set fire to many the rigs (not sure on that... I know that was the case in the first Gulf War, and wouldn't be surprised if that was repeated in 2003).

Though the false information is concerning, what matters is that we're there and we have to clean up the mess we made. Of course, considering that Iraq and Afghanistan are on either side of Iran, the goal in Iraq may have been intimidation of Iran instead (though that was a thought from left field [meaning random] related more to geography than politics).

With regards to Afghanistan, we probably would be finishing up about now if we hadn't gotten distracted with Iraq. The Taliban did fall very swiftly but swelled up later when we were mostly focused on Iraq.

Well, it's always much harder to clean up the B.S than to make it. I'll have to check some sources to support your claim, but you don't seem like a liar. I don't find the taliban a major threat whatsoever, because their access to dangerous weapons is very limited. The only major event I can recognize is September 11th, and that was the fault of low security. However, since then, anyone with brown skin and a beard is always checked through "random" security measures in airports. I can recall of other events in Britain, I think, but not as major as they seem. I have a feeling that the Taliban will expand in the Dutch government since they recently handed in their man cards and basically ignored their own Grondwet.

donavannj
August 21st, 2009, 09:11 PM
That said, Iran needs to be attacked. Iran and Ahmadinejad can't be trusted with nuclear power, especially with Israel nearby - they're in the greatest danger.

Iran is a problem.

Semi-Relevant
List of nuclear weapons possessing nations in Iran's range:
Russia
China
India
Pakistan
Israel (probably, but not a certainty)
Syria (accused but not certain)

List of countries with NATO nuclear assistance in range:
Turkey

Feign
August 21st, 2009, 09:23 PM
I think people are having a misconception here. The majority of the issues within the middle-east is with Israel and Palestine. While the "war on terror" has to do with Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US is backing Israel, but is ultimately trying for peace negotiations, while they are also fronting invasions and general attempted stability in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The history between Israel and Palestine really sparked right after world war two, but their conflicts have been going on since Bible times.

At one point, Saddam was using ethnic cleansing. And the Taliban used to be in coop with both the US and Soviet Union at one point or another...

donavannj
August 21st, 2009, 09:31 PM
I think people are having a misconception here. The majority of the issues within the middle-east is with Israel and Palestine. While the "war on terror" has to do with Afghanistan and Iraq.

I know the vast majority are related to those two states... however, since the conflict's been going on so long, the issues have become almost like consistent background chatter in regional politics for those not in the region.

Feign
August 21st, 2009, 09:39 PM
I know the vast majority are related to those two states... however, since the conflict's been going on so long, the issues have become almost like consistent background chatter in regional politics for those not in the region.

Not to mention that the facts etc. is so muddled it is quite confusing on where to begin... It's one of those things, our children's children will read/study about in school, where many thing might have been declassified since then...

After all, there are some pretty touchy subjects on all sides there...

donavannj
August 21st, 2009, 09:48 PM
Not to mention that the facts etc. is so muddled it is quite confusing on where to begin... It's one of those things, our children's children will read/study about in school, where many thing might have been declassified since then...

After all, there are some pretty touchy subjects on all sides there...

Quite a few touchy issues indeed.

If I recall correctly, some of Israel's land was gained through legitimate (meaning non-violent in this case) means (the first Jews to return had actually bought land from the locals pre-WWII, I think). The UN establishing and recognizing the state of Israel in 1947 is probably the event that was the catalyst for most of the conflicts post-WWII in the region.

Back on topic... one of the invasions was for legitimate reasons (flushing out an enemy of the United States) and the other was based on bad intel.

Feign
August 21st, 2009, 09:54 PM
Quite a few touchy issues indeed.

If I recall correctly, some of Israel's land was gained through legitimate (meaning non-violent in this case) means (the first Jews to return had actually bought land from the locals pre-WWII, I think). The UN establishing and recognizing the state of Israel in 1947 is probably the event that was the catalyst for most of the conflicts post-WWII in the region.

Back on topic... one of the invasions was for legitimate reasons (flushing out an enemy of the United States) and the other was based on bad intel.

T'is as I recall. It is however interesting to note how the media treats this, and the various misconceptions one receives...

People can't really base a judgment though at this point (despite the fact that they do). However of course, researching this topic would take ages, not to mention all the lack of necessary info and intel.

Among other things however, I believe that the corporations (such as GE, Monsanto and The News Corporation), are more than they say they are...

donavannj
August 21st, 2009, 10:10 PM
Among other things however, I believe that the corporations (such as GE, Monsanto and The News Corporation), are more than they say they are...

Now that sounds like a foray into conspiracy theories (though many companies would profit from a war since many have contracts with the military).

Feign
August 21st, 2009, 10:25 PM
Now that sounds like a foray into conspiracy theories (though many companies would profit from a war since many have contracts with the military).

Some of it isn't really war related, but some of it is even instigated in such a fashion it seems...

It is actually disturbing in what has been done in the past (Watch the movie 'The Corporation' and find out why).

Needless to say, I think as long as we can make the moral high ground decisions that we are in control of, then we would be leading a better life than some of these morally ambiguous people.

Fishyman
August 21st, 2009, 10:51 PM
Here's an idea.

Let's actually attack the people who caused 9/11, instead of everyone else in the Middle East.

Feign
August 21st, 2009, 10:54 PM
Here's an idea.

Let's actually attack the people who caused 9/11, instead of everyone else in the Middle East.

That statement is a bit generic though, and not much information is known to cast full blame. However, something is fishy on both sides, and no one can deny that...

donavannj
August 21st, 2009, 11:02 PM
Here's an idea.

Let's actually attack the people who caused 9/11, instead of everyone else in the Middle East.

That's why Afghanistan was invaded. ;) The Taliban, which was supporting Al Qaeda, was in power in Afghanistan. By taking out one of the government supporting them, Al Qaeda would be weakened and would be less capable of carrying out another attack (that was the idea, anyway).

Cassino
August 25th, 2009, 02:32 AM
Eliminate the US from existence and watch this world's worst problems fade into memory.

Keeping it in one sentence, lest I be scorned, that's what I think.


If you mean Middle East holding a weapon of mass destruction , then no , since when Middlie east holds such a weapon like this ?
American forces assaulted the Middle East in the belief that there were nuclear weapons that present a threat to the US. Since this turned out to be false, with there being no actual threat (as opposed to the ongoing preceived threat) about, people have come to question the value of keeping a proportion of the nation's military on foreign soil, which naturally of course weighs somewhat on the taxpayers' credit balances.
Of course, they don't leave because extremists are still about, but they always will be so why not leave now? But then, it's too late to do that either; see, America has, by force of its own eye-for-an-eye-styled justice ideals, dug the hole deeper.

dc_united
August 25th, 2009, 07:06 AM
That's why Afghanistan was invaded. ;) The Taliban, which was supporting Al Qaeda, was in power in Afghanistan. By taking out one of the government supporting them, Al Qaeda would be weakened and would be less capable of carrying out another attack (that was the idea, anyway).

Well, we began to put the Taliban in power back in the 80's, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan (part of Reagan's stupid policy of 'enemies of enemies are friends'). We gave the Taliban weapons and money to fight Communists, then when they kicked the Soviets out and looked at the hellhole that remained of their country and asked US for money, and we backed out on them, pissing off a lot of people.

So the War on Terror is really our fault, especially since many of those shooting Soviets were in MaK (the precursor to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban) and they had the means to violently take power.

Also, things with Osama and Al-Qaeda might be different if Bill Clinton hadn't launched a few missiles at him.

HyPeRsHoCk
August 25th, 2009, 09:38 AM
I'm all for it. We need to annihilate the terrorists before they they take over our country. Most Americans fail to understand that there are millions of radical Muslims chanting "destroy America" every day. There are kids being trained on how to Jihad. They killed many of us on 9/11. So we need to fight back.

Alinthea
August 25th, 2009, 09:48 AM
I'm all for it. We need to annihilate the terrorists before they they take over our country. Most Americans fail to understand that there are millions of radical Muslims chanting "destroy America" every day. There are kids being trained on how to Jihad. They killed many of us on 9/11. So we need to fight back.
I didn't know George Bush had an account on PC...

Yoshimi
August 25th, 2009, 01:06 PM
I'm all for it. We need to annihilate the terrorists before they they take over our country. Most Americans fail to understand that there are millions of radical Muslims chanting "destroy America" every day. There are kids being trained on how to Jihad. They killed many of us on 9/11. So we need to fight back.

Barely any people were killed in 9/11(3,000 something) and only about 10,000 in the Middle East, if I heard correctly. The government refused to tell the amount of Muslims(both innocent and otherwise) killed, most likely because they don't want to stain their reputation even more. Whatever happened to an eye for an eye?

HyPeRsHoCk
August 25th, 2009, 01:10 PM
But we aren't slaughtering innocent people like a genocide. Sure, there were probably some innocent people killed. But it's war, it happens. And just picture yourself there. You see a bunch of Iraqis, and you don't know if one of them has a bomb strapped to their chest or not.

Yoshimi
August 25th, 2009, 01:13 PM
But we aren't slaughtering innocent people like a genocide. Sure, there were probably some innocent people killed. But it's war, it happens. And just picture yourself there. You see a bunch of Iraqis, and you don't know if one of them has a bomb strapped to their chest or not.

Bollocks. Even though there are extremist muslims, there are also extremist christians and extremist jews. The chance that the muslim will have a bomb strapped to them is very low, since the Jihad population is significantly lower than the Muslim population. And just because they hate America, doesn't mean they are terrorists. Do you get that?

HyPeRsHoCk
August 25th, 2009, 01:18 PM
Yeah I get it. But that "slim chance" can be you and your unit's lives. And you think when they're chanting "DESTROY AMERICA", they wouldn't kill every single one they can?

Yoshimi
August 25th, 2009, 01:51 PM
Yeah I get it. But that "slim chance" can be you and your unit's lives. And you think when they're chanting "DESTROY AMERICA", they wouldn't kill every single one they can?

No, they wouldn't. I hate China, but I won't get access to nuclear weapons to kill everyone I can.
There is also a slim chance that your neighbor is a serial killer, but it could mean yours and many other lives. The war on terror was a terrible one.

HyPeRsHoCk
August 25th, 2009, 01:54 PM
Are you chanting and saying "I'M GOING TO DESTROY CHINA FOR ALA!" every day?

Yoshimi
August 25th, 2009, 01:56 PM
Are you chanting and saying "I'M GOING TO DESTROY CHINA FOR ALA!" every day?

No, I just think that China has too much detriments, both in its government and the normal life, but I don't chant that because I don't believe in Allah.

HyPeRsHoCk
August 25th, 2009, 02:01 PM
Exactly. They all do. So these corrupt radical Muslims get in there and tell all the people to go kill Americans for Allah. So they believe they're killing for their god. They think what they're doing is "holy". Honestly, I feel bad for them.

lx_theo
August 25th, 2009, 02:17 PM
Exactly. They all do. So these corrupt radical Muslims get in there and tell all the people to go kill Americans for Allah. So they believe they're killing for their god. They think what they're doing is "holy". Honestly, I feel bad for them.


Honestly, your view of the Muslim world is extremely diluted. Every single one of them? I've seen no evidence to support that at all. There no where near that bad, and most every other religion I've seen is just as bad in their own ways.

HyPeRsHoCk
August 25th, 2009, 02:19 PM
No, not every single one of them. I never said that. In my previous post, I meant they all believe in Allah btw.

Timbjerr
August 25th, 2009, 02:37 PM
No, not every single one of them. I never said that. In my previous post, I meant they all believe in Allah btw.

I thought I was PC's resident right-winger. But by comparison, you make me look like Hilary Clinton. o_0

The whole problem with this "war on terror" is that terrorists rarely organize politically, and the ones that do come out of hiding to blow people up blend in with everyone else. Our soldiers over there can't tell just by looking that this person or that person is a terrorist.

...and believe it or not, not all Muslims are extremists. How would you like it if you were cast-typed as one of the Christian extremists trying to get all forms of media censored to hell every time you tell someone that you're a Christian.

HyPeRsHoCk
August 25th, 2009, 03:06 PM
I suppose so. Again, I never said that every Muslim is a terrorist. And I have nothing against them. It's the terrorists that kill our armed forces that tick me off.

Yoshimi
August 25th, 2009, 03:28 PM
I suppose so. Again, I never said that every Muslim is a terrorist. And I have nothing against them. It's the terrorists that kill our armed forces that tick me off.

The armed forces have too much power, just like your modern police. These are the same armed forces that threw a dog over a cliff, not that I care for dogs as much as the average American. Too much power leads to corruption.

HyPeRsHoCk
August 25th, 2009, 03:30 PM
Ok. So if I throw a dog over a cliff, that means I have too much power?

Yoshimi
August 25th, 2009, 04:10 PM
Ok. So if I throw a dog over a cliff, that means I have too much power?

No, but when you take too much advantage of people just because you fought in an unnecessary war, you do have too much power. you aren't getting what I'm saying, are you?

HyPeRsHoCk
August 25th, 2009, 04:20 PM
Yeah. I understand. Vietnam would be a good example of that. But we can't just bail out here. Imo, I think Iran is one of the greatest threats to the US atm. They're figuring out how to use nuclear technology, and will not hesitate to use them on us. So we need to concentrate less on Iraq and Afghanistan, and more on Iran before they vaporize the US. Agreed?

Yoshimi
August 25th, 2009, 04:56 PM
Yeah. I understand. Vietnam would be a good example of that. But we can't just bail out here. Imo, I think Iran is one of the greatest threats to the US atm. They're figuring out how to use nuclear technology, and will not hesitate to use them on us. So we need to concentrate less on Iraq and Afghanistan, and more on Iran before they vaporize the US. Agreed?

No. I remember seeing news from Iran recently on youtube that it was in the middle of an overthrowing. The crowds went completely wild. However, the country will be weakened to say the least, so an attack wouldn't be out of the question.
But come on, Iran can't vaporize the U.S. The government has more than 300 nuclear bombs in stock. If even one nuke get's sent here, we'll completely obliterate them, and that's considering the fact that extremists will actually get their hands on dangerous technology like that.

HyPeRsHoCk
August 25th, 2009, 05:02 PM
I don't think they really care about what happens to them. As long as they're serving Allah and get their 70 virgins or however it is.

Yoshimi
August 25th, 2009, 05:08 PM
I don't think they really care about what happens to them. As long as they're serving Allah and get their 70 virgins or however it is.

Basically, but I heard only the martyrs get the virgins. Or is that some old Hussein hysteria?

HyPeRsHoCk
August 25th, 2009, 05:09 PM
Oh yeah. I think it is the martyrs actually. And I'm pretty sure it's Islam.

Feign
August 25th, 2009, 08:40 PM
I don't think anyone here can make an educated guess on whether or not Iran is indeed a threat... First off the media is unreliable, second, the government is not giving enough info.

Also, even though accidental killings of innocent people might occur and supposedly be an inevitable part of war, think of the repercussions it might have on those affected by it. Wouldn't it be 100% justified if a relative of a dead innocent victim retaliated against said death? I'd think so. And if that would mean adhering to some doctrin (such as extremism), I can see that too...