Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
hunterkiller2001

US presence in the Middle East.

74 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

hunterkiller2001

Notes: I was given a chance by Magikman to take my original post, and create a new topic with it. I'm really interested in the responses this will create, and I'm personally asking everyone to keep this on topic, and keep it civil. This is a discussion I'm hoping could shed light on both sides of the arguement.

To give some background on the discussion, it had turned into an argument about the casualties of Innocent people in the war on terror. Please remember.. the war on terror isn't JUST iraq.

The post i responded to, By CMA was.

ok, all lives are inportant...

so why the **** arnt the iraqi lives being counted!

And my reply.. which we'll start this topic with..

let me break it down like this.

John kills the following people: Mike, Justin, Cindy and DJ.

Police track down John, and he resists, pulling out a gun.

Police shoot John.

Police acted correctly, they get rewarded for thier quick thinking.

Now... Try it in an international situation.

Taliban kills 3000+ innocent americans.

America goes to thier homeland, to find others.

Others resist arrest, suicide bombing, and pulling out guerilla tactics.

Americans Capture/Kill as many bad guys as they can. Sadly, some civilians get killed.

America is wrong, because they tried to catch those who hurt america? (THIS IS BS!)

Another:

The police find out Billy Jo plans to kill her brother, Bobby Jo.

Police find Billy Jo, but she pulls out a gun, refusing to be captured.

Police shoot Billy Jo, to protect themselves, and to ultimately protect Bobby Jo.

Police acted correctly, they get rewarded for thier quick thinking.

Now... Try it in an international situation.

America finds out others are planning to attack the US.

America tries to find them, most resist, using force.

Americans shoot to protect themselves, and sadly, some civilians get killed.

Again, america is wrong.. and again, it's a load of BS.

Would you rather the above senarios happened like this :

Police find out Homer Simpson is planning to kill your XxXxX (wife, hubby, kid, sister, mother, whatever).

Instead of stopping Homer, they're afraid they civilians could get caught in the cross fire.. so they do nothing.

a week later, homer murders XxXxX.

Or, again.. an international senario.

After 9-11, America finds out Taliban is planning to strike again.

Fearing civi deaths, they do nothing.

A week later, a nuke goes off in LA.

Now, America is wrong.. because they did nothing to protect the few million people killed in the blast.

I use to be against this war... until the day i sat down and realized that the entire thing is to protect YOU AND ME.

Crap happens in war. Innocent people get killed. While this is a bad thing, it's also unavoidable. Civilian casualties have always been a part of war, and they always will be. It's a fact of life that people need to get over.

*IF* another attack were to happen on US soil, something major that dwarfs 9-11, I'd love to see everyone still sing and dance the peace song. And it's not just the US.. what if LONDON were the target next time? would people from the UK still think this is all for nothing?

People have no will to be patriotic anymore... Hell, after the bombing of pearl harbor, American citizens were one minded. REVENGE.. and this lasted for years After 9-11.. yea, a lot of people hung american flags.. but quickly, they became nothing more then sunbleached rags on sticks.

To the people who watched 9-11 over CNN, and never really felt anything more then a minor patriotic beltch, you can't understand the amount of rage and hatred that flares through your system when your sitting at home, praying the person on the other end of the phone is about to bring your world down.

I was lucky.. the person i was worried about was stuck in traffic a few blocks away when the first plane hit. But the rage has never subsided. And my rage isn't pointed at any person from the the middle east, don't get me wrong.. I have a number of friends who have moved here from Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

My feeling are toward the people who have sworn to inflict pain on this country, and her people.

--Again.. Please stick to the topic, and please attempt to keep this civil. --

Edited by hunterkiller2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naveed

BRAVO! clap.gifnotworthy.gif

hunterkiller2001, you hit the ball right on the money. That is precisly why the US has been doing what it has, and why Bush and others are urging that we continue doing it. You're gonna have civilian casualties no matter what. A good example is Hiroshima and Nagasaki (I know it's a sore topic), but do any of you think we would have defeated Japan if we hadn't dropped the nukes? I mean sure we were advancing forward and doing really good, but what if we had not dropped the bombs? The war could have gone much longer, more lives would have been lost and perhaps the tide of war would have shifted to Japan's favor. After all, countries can make new alliances, or more powerful weapons. War is war, and war is all a matter of who is allied with who, who has the biggers guns, but largely random luck, because sometimes even those with the most powerful weapons can faily miserably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

Some very good poits.

However, I do not remember anyone from the UM community condemning the invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent overthrow of the Taliban.

There were clear indicators that the Taliban not only supported Osama Bin Laden and his band of not-so-merry men but also allowed training grounds for these nutjobs on their soil.

The only negative I can see from the invasion is the fact that now opium production is back to full strength again.

Iraq, however, is a different kettle of fish.

It has been argued by myself and many others here that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken on a lie; i.e. that is was done in our name in order to defeat terrorism.

There have been no proven links with Iraq and 911, Osama Bin Laden or Al Queda and there has been no real proof of any WMDs; sure there have been some rumours, some scant un-proven evidence, etc, but no solid proof.

I for one would have supported the war if there was any, and I mean ANY proven links, but there wasn't.

Even following the overthrow of Saddam, no links have been found.

The war should not have been fought under the banner of the 'War on Terror'.

However, the title of this topic is 'US presense in the Middle East'; if your argument is 'should the US be in the Middle East' then I would say 'yes' in a Intelligence guise, listening in on suspected terrorist groups, liaising with Middle Eastern Governments and training their soldiers, etc.

Just don't go around invading countries and telling me it is for the benefit of mankind, when, in the case of Iraq, it clearly wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

There have been no proven links with Iraq and 911, Osama Bin Laden or Al Queda and there has been no real proof of any WMDs; sure there have been some rumours, some scant un-proven evidence, etc, but no solid proof.

I for one would have supported the war if there was any, and I mean ANY proven links, but there wasn't.

Even following the overthrow of Saddam, no links have been found.

The war should not have been fought under the banner of the 'War on Terror'.

This depends on your deffinition of Terror groups...

The problem with most westerners is that they are only familiar with one specific terror group and one specific ideology....

wake up guys - you ain't seen nothin' yet!

There's a whole world of Terror groups and ideology in the ME, backing eachother, helping eachother, competing with each other.

Just because Saddam didn't support Al-Qaeda (maybe he did... we mightl never know this), doesn't mean that the guy didn't support terrorism at all.

He supported Terrorist groups all over the ME, from the disputed territories in Israel to Iran.

He made the ME less safe and less stable by financing terror groups who operated in the region.

I really hope that Europe and America will not experience the other two brutal and terrorist ideologies of the ME... but when one thinks about it, the coalition forces already met those nuts - Al-Sadr's terrorists in Iraq represent the Khummeinistic ideology, and the supporters of Saddam represent the Pan-Arabic Baathist ideology.

All three - Wahhabism (the ideology of Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood), Khummeinism (Al-Sadr, Iran's Islamic regime, Hezballah) and Pan-Arabism (Baathism - both Syrian and Iraqi, PLO's ideology, the former ideology of Qaddafi), are the three terror ideologies which lurk the free world and desperate to destroy it.

You Americans and Europeans only came to meet Al-Qaeda's Wahhabist ideology, but there are the other two, who wait for the right time to strike.

So if one really wants to destroy terrorism, he can't just fight against one specific organization and ideology - he has to destroy all terrorism.

The War on Terrorism, my friends, has just began.

Edited by Erikl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

The War on Terrorism, my friends, has just began.

Agreed.

Just because Saddam didn't support Al-Qaeda (maybe he did... we mightl never know this), doesn't mean that the guy didn't support terrorism at all.

Also agreed, however, the invasion was undertaken on the basis that we were under immediate threat from WMDs and that Saddam was linked with 911; remember Blairs 45 minute deployment speach and the fact that a 'security' dosier on his terrorist links was actually a student's thesis copied from the internet.

Nobody, least of all myself, is that naive to believe that Saddam wasn't a tyrant and anti-US, that is not the issue.

And let's not forget that this thread is about US presence in the Middle East; as I said before, if it is actually because they are fighting terrorists then all well and good. I will shed no tears for these Islamic morons, as I shed no tears when IRA and INLA scumbags were killed by us in Northern Ireland.

However, the invasion of Iraq has led to a rise in Islamic militancy not a decrease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cma

Terror groups are everything from the USA to al quada.

Think about it, and maybe th ecitizens of america should look it up in the dictionary, and while they are at it they can look at the death tolls our country has prevoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

Terror groups are everything from the USA to al quada.

Far be it for me to defend Bush, but the USA should not be tarred with the same brush as these Islamic fanatics.

Sure the US and my Country have conducted an illegal war and many innocent civilians have died, but their deaths were not the intention of this war, they are, to use an ugly phrase, 'Collateral Damage'.

Do I support the deaths of the innocent? Of couse not.

You have to way up the reasons for America's involvement in the Middle East; is it to protect Israel? Is it to expand their sphere of influence? Is is Imperialism? Is it oil?

Hell, it could be all of the above and more.

On a more personal note, I have to question why my country is backing the US to the hilt on this one, when, for instance, back in the 60's we wouldn't support the war in South-East Asia.

It is not cut and dry or black and white.

The realities of the current events unfolding around the World are more complex than any we have come across before; WW1 and WW2 were straightforward in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

hunterkiller2001...Thank you for saying all of that!... thumbsup.gifthumbsup.gifthumbsup.gif

I feel exactly the same way and many people, here, feel this same way. It's about time we hear from real America. thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Druidus

Your analogies are flawed in a key way. The U.S. is not the police. They are not the police force of the world. They are not allowed to "arrest" other countries based solely on their own judgement. Sadly there is no real police, and the U.N. is the closest we've got. The majority of the U.N. were against the Iraq invasion. The U.S. disregarded a number of agreed international laws while conducting the "war". The U.S. government is acting like a bunch of hypocrites! The one thing I've learned from this is that the U.S. plays nice until it wants something. Then it becomes the bully who pushes the kids in the sandbox. Then it becomes the international-scale mafia.

Sure the US and my Country have conducted an illegal war and many innocent civilians have died, but their deaths were not the intention of this war, they are, to use an ugly phrase, 'Collateral Damage'.

The "Islamic Fanatics" do not intend to kill innocents either solely for the purpose of killing. They are collateral damage as well. They believe that it is the only way to get what they desperately want, and so they do it. If many innocents have to die, before the rest get their "paradise", then thats what they'll do. Not that I agree with the killing either, indeed, I grow more weary everytime I notice a living creature die, innocent or not. Death saddens me. Perhaps I merely have an inside view, as a number of my relatives are from the middle east, not the least of which, Iraq. (My uncle and two cousins are from Iraq and he explained much to me.)

Edited by Druidus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NirmalaMaya

I agree 110% with Druid.

The Taliban didnt kill anyone in America..they were too busy killing their own back home in Afghanestan.

Now, may or may not know where the man who claims responsibility for killing 3000+ people in America. But no, the Taliban didnt kill any Americans that day.

I, too, have inside sources just like Druid. Were cool. BWAHAHAAHAH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hunterkiller2001

Your analogies are flawed in a key way. The U.S. is not the police. They are not the police force of the world.

I'm sorry I implied the US as the police of the world. That was not my intention. I was simply implying that those with the power to prevent future attacks should do it.

I used the police to bring the analogies right down to something everyone could fully understand.

As far as the US conducting an "illegal" war, the purpose of the war was to bring down Saddam. We've done that.

"We have a long, long, long list of crimes against Saddam Hussein," al-Rubaie said, citing the chemical attacks in Halabja, the execution of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, people killed in mass graves, and the launching of three wars.

"These are crimes against humanity, homicide and genocides," he concluded.

I don't care if the US started the war by saying "We're going for Hotdogs", the above quote is reason enough. Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mekorig

Where was USA when a Military Junta make "disappear" 30.000 persons in my country in the 70´s? or in Chile, or Brazil, or Peru, or Colombia, or Sudan, or Camboya, or Zaire, or Camerun.........the "we are saving innocent people" doesnt work here....Bush isnt started this war by "humanitarian" reason. IF he had done it, why he dont attack North Korea, or save all the poor people how suffers under a military gov in Pakistan, or in a lot of african countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naveed
Where was USA when a Military Junta make "disappear" 30.000 persons in my country in the 70´s? or in Chile, or Brazil, or Peru, or Colombia, or Sudan, or Camboya, or Zaire, or Camerun.........the "we are saving innocent people" doesnt work here....Bush isnt started this war by "humanitarian" reason. IF he had done it, why he dont attack North Korea, or save all the poor people how suffers under a military gov in Pakistan, or in a lot of african countries?

Well in the 70s the US was involved in Vietnam and dealing with anti-war hippies.

lso as far as Pakistan goes, the US has men stationed there, in fact one of my best friends was there, or is still there, but I haven't heard from him in awhile. We seem to be in somewhat good standing with Pakistan at the moment, or at least from what my friend told me when he called me from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

Erikl...I agree with you, there is a world of terrorists out there and we must be willing to destroy all terrorists. This is going to be a big war. It will last a long time and there will be a lot of killing.

The U.S. I know went to war because of 911. 911 scarred our people so deeply that we will never get over it. No matter how many terrorists we kill, even if we kill all of the terrorists, 911 will still be in the American consciousness. This is where we are. ph34r.gif

Edited by Babs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

As far as the US conducting an "illegal" war, the purpose of the war was to bring down Saddam. We've done that.

QUOTE 

"We have a long, long, long list of crimes against Saddam Hussein," al-Rubaie said, citing the chemical attacks in Halabja, the execution of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, people killed in mass graves, and the launching of three wars.

"These are crimes against humanity, homicide and genocides," he concluded.

I don't care if the US started the war by saying "We're going for Hotdogs", the above quote is reason enough. Source

Well, by that logic then you should also invade North Korea and China.

Please don't justify the war by saying it was because of human rights, the US didn't care about the rights of Iraqis for decades.

Edited by Stamford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

I use to be against this war... until the day i sat down and realized that the entire thing is to protect YOU AND ME.

thumbsup.gif

The Taliban didnt kill anyone in America..they were too busy killing their own back home in Afghanestan.

So, if I train people in my backyard how to blow things up, and then they blow up your house, I am not responsible? wacko.gif

Please don't justify the war by saying it was because of human rights, the US didn't care about the rights of Iraqis for decades.

The war was to bring peace to a troubled world. It isn't that no one cared about the rights of the Iraqis...rather..it is that no one had the balls to do anything about it until Dubya! wink2.gif And look how much flak he is taking for the effort. And this on the heals of nine,eleven. Do you really think anyone could have done what he has done without any provocation at all? You guys would have crucified Bush Senior if he had gone into Bagdad. disgust.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

You guys would have crucified Bush Senior if he had gone into Bagdad.

Not me, joc.

I remember during the Gulf War, Bush Snr encouraging the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds to rise up against Saddam's Army; when they did, we sat back and watched them massacred.

The reason? The UN had not sanctioned the invasion of Iraq, only the freeing of Kuwait.

Funny, back then the UN must have actually meant something to the US Administration.

The war was to bring peace to a troubled world. It isn't that no one cared about the rights of the Iraqis...rather..it is that no one had the balls to do anything about it until Dubya!

Puh-lease!!!!!!!!!!!!! huh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

Please don't justify the war by saying it was because of human rights, the US didn't care about the rights of Iraqis for decades.

the US thought the UN would do something usefull instead of simply passing ineffective resolutions.

Funny, back then the UN must have actually meant something to the US Administration

funny, the US wanted to fix the mess, the UN held them back creating a humanitarian disaster, now the US has said, 'look, saddam has been screwing you guys around for years, shooting at our planes in the no fly zone blah blah blah, everyone says he has WMDs, its only a matter of time' the UN says 'i think its best we don't do anything about it' so the US says, screw the UN there is something wrong with that?

Puh-lease!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hmmm, so tell me, what did the UN do for the Iraqi civilians? the Oil for Food program went to building Saddam more palaces, the sanctions didn't hurt Saddam at all. The French, germans and Russians were there making behind the counter deals with Saddam and even after passing on intelligence that demonstrated a threat (Russia) still disagreed with the US invasion....the UN was a waste of time. Who else would have done anything to help the Iraqis? Sure it wasn't the main reason the US went in, but does that somehow justify it not being important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

the UN says 'i think its best we don't do anything about it' so the US says, screw the UN there is something wrong with that?

Well the US wants the UN's help now don't they; you can't have it both ways.

All the UN wanted was more time for their weapons inspectors to investigate whether Saddam had any WMDs; this would have then justified an invasion - what was the US/UK/AUS's rush to invade - was an attack by Iraq imminent?

Sure it wasn't the main reason the US went in, but does that somehow justify it not being important?

The argument is that this is one of the justifications for invasion, when, as you admit, it clearly wasn't - that's all.

the US thought the UN would do something usefull instead of simply passing ineffective resolutions.

Simply rubbish I'm afraid; the US, UK and the world in general turned a blind eye to the human rights violations when Iraq was our ally and engaged in a war with Iran.

It is very convenient to claim that we fight for the rights of humankind, when in reality we pick and choose whose rights we defend when it suits us.

As I have said before, this thread is about US involvement in the Middle East; if you read my earlier posts, I have defended much about the US's involvement, especially when it comes to the war on terror; however, when it comes to Iraq, I cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

All the UN wanted was more time for their weapons inspectors to investigate whether Saddam had any WMDs; this would have then justified an invasion - what was the US/UK/AUS's rush to invade - was an attack by Iraq imminent?

The UN wanted more time to scam the Oil for Food Program. THe UN is, for the most part, a bunch of thugs.

Well the US wants the UN's help now don't they; you can't have it both ways.

We wanted the UN's help from the start. They dragged their feet the whole way because of the already mentioned. See Above Quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

The UN would have dragged on and on until we would have been hit. 911 filters into this and the way Americans act. The UN has no balls...and is ineffective. Now, maybe, they will perform their duties. disgust.gif The U.S. as a super dupper power had to take the lead...you guys want us to take the lead in other issues, be a role model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

The U.S. as a super dupper power had to take the lead...you guys want us to take the lead in other issues, be a role model.

Care to elaborate?

911 filters into this and the way Americans act.

Possibly the greatest get-out-clause of all time. wink2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

ell the US wants the UN's help now don't they; you can't have it both ways.

'UN' help is nothing more than forcing UN countries to help out a little, regardless of whether or not the UN was/is involved, the US would have supplied the majority of troops.

All the UN wanted was more time for their weapons inspectors to investigate whether Saddam had any WMDs; this would have then justified an invasion - what was the US/UK/AUS's rush to invade - was an attack by Iraq imminent?

would it have then justified the invasion? what do you think Saddam has been doing regarding UN resolutions since the end of the Gulf War? Abiding by them? what did the UN do to try and stop Saddam from giving them the finger? thats right, they pass more resolutions and stand back. Going by history, the Inspectors would have wandered around Iraq for a bit and come back empty handed much like they have done so for years (even though, all major intelligence agencies believed there were WMDs, and as we can see from the aftermath, banned delivery systems are appearing, stuff that the inspectors missed, not just prior to the iraq war, but whenever they were in there last).

The argument is that this is one of the justifications for invasion, when, as you admit, it clearly wasn't - that's all.

excuse me, i never said that it wasn't a justification, i quite clearly said it wasn't the main reason (ie justification).

Simply rubbish I'm afraid; the US, UK and the world in general turned a blind eye to the human rights violations when Iraq was our ally and engaged in a war with Iran.

well of course, they had to pick the lesser of two evils, are you saying the West should have let Iran win?

It is very convenient to claim that we fight for the rights of humankind, when in reality we pick and choose whose rights we defend when it suits us.

Indeed, because it costs us money and lives. However this doesn't mean we can't 'fight for the rights of humankind' at all, it just means a realistic approach must be made.

Care to elaborate?

foreign aid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

That's a get-out clause to you Stamford because it never happened to you!

...actually you're not qualified to talk about 911 from the Americans' standpoint.

Edited by Babs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sp23

When talking about US presence in the middle east I think its important to step back and see the bigger picture of the history of US foreign policies and how it has lead to the recent events we now face(9/11, war in a Afganistan and Iraq).

Take the Afganistan/Russian war, who do you think funded and set up these so called terrorists training camps throught Afganistan. After the Afganistans defeted the Russians I think it was the US responsibility to dismantle this monster they created, and their inability in doing that led to the spread of knowledge concerning the US taught 'terrorist/combat' tactics.

Up untill(and imidiatly proceding) the Gulf War, Saddam and Iraq were American allies. In fact after the Gulf war many rebelling Iraqi generals(with the support of Saudi Arabia) approched the US about overthrowing Saddam, but the US blocked their efforts. Then they sat around as Saddam turned to his own population and started massacring the shiite rebels.

Their are many examples throught history but I think its plainly clear that US intrests have a reputation for creating an enviroment throughout the world in which terrorist organizations can flourish and are in fact supported.

As for the UN not doing anything or dragging their feet, I think they just wanted to be sure that the claims made by the US about Saddam having weapons of mass were substantiated. And we all know that they have not found anything over their. So in a sense you could say the UN was right in their cautious nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.