That statement would be funny in all aspects except for the stupidity behind it. Now, I'm not calling you stupid, I'm calling the statement stupid, because really how the hell do you fight terror? Does anyone know the TRUE point of being in the Middle East anymore? Oh sure we can say "We're fighting terror and terrorists", but at the end of the day that gives us nothing, because there will always be terrorists. A terrorist is someone simply looking to inspire mass hysteria in people, whether it's global, local or national. So we can parade something good and nice, but what does this really come down to? They destroyed the WTC, America and friends rushes in, takes out the existing government(s), tries to establish a democracy and runs into the current situation. Now, at what point does this seem logical? A group of extremists attack and that gives America leave to run all over the Middle East blowing stuff up. I feel there's a missing link here and there probably is, but no one really knows what the hell is going on.
The war is against Al Quaeda (spelling??) and all those crazy muslim jihadists that are trying to destroy America. In other words, terror. Not terror as in the feeling you get when you are terrified.
I find it odd we "Liberate" the people of Iraq and so on, yet Burma is in dire need of help. Mast genocide is not as important as our current ocupation?
Im not saying going to the middle east was bad, the general Iraqi populace like the support we bring.
The war is against Al Quaeda (spelling??) and all those crazy muslim jihadists that are trying to destroy America. In other words, terror. Not terror as in the feeling you get when you are terrified.
I understood what you meant. The staement remains stupid. My points still remain. It's all fine and dandy to justify it like that, but we're talking about the minority here, not the majority. America's war is justified by a minority group and in turn are doing more damage to the majority of the nations, which is highly counter productive.
Yes but if you knew that a place was recruiting people that have the sole intention to hurt you and your country it would be immoral not to act on it.
It's also immoral to destroy a nation without reasonable grounds for war, uproot their government, and try to police the world, but America does it anyway. You do know that the UN fined America with sanctions for invading Iraq yes?
Indeed lets see how long this lasts for, why is there a UN when we have America? If the UN did something there wouldnt be mass genocide in Burma, the UN needs to eat some concrete and harden up.
Not true. A lot of people know what is really going on. And to direct this at your comment about the logic behind 'fighting terror', by stabilizing the region, improving the infrastructure and education, and establishing democracy, we can create an environment where terrorist organizations are going to find it much more difficult to recruit people to their cause.
You cannot wipe out terrorism but you can create an educated, secure, and healthy society in which people will be less likely to find the ideals and rewards of terrorism desirable. Much of what Al-Qaeda and their ilk are using to recruit people are promises of money for their starving families. This seems to be the primary motivator behind many of their fighters. If we can create an environment where people are educated and are not starving to death on a daily basis then what do the terrorist organizations have to offer new recruits? Sure they will still find recruits, but not at the level they have now.
I find it odd we "Liberate" the people of Iraq and so on, yet Burma is in dire need of help. Mast genocide is not as important as our current ocupation?
The mass genocide in Burma is not a direct concern, or a threat to the security of the rest of the world. While it is deplorable what is going on there, it doesn't threaten anyone else, so no one sees a need to get involved. With the middle east there is the threat against Europe and America due to the ideologies of the Jihadists, as well as the need to keep a presence in the region in order to keep Iran, Libya, and other nations from being able to act overtly against their neighbors and us.
[quote]Indeed lets see how long this lasts for, why is there a UN when we have America? If the UN did something there wouldnt be mass genocide in Burma, the UN needs to eat some concrete and harden up.[/quote
No, no ,no, 10 peace core workers can do more then any number of UN troops...
Ok but really, the UN is America when it comes to military acts. Oh, Britain may send a few hundred to bolster the 50000 Americans, but no one cares about Burma. So they have to wait.
The mass genocide in Burma is not a direct concern, or a threat to the security of the rest of the world. While it is deplorable what is going on there, it doesn't threaten anyone else, so no one sees a need to get involved. With the middle east there is the threat against Europe and America due to the ideologies of the Jihadists, as well as the need to keep a presence in the region in order to keep Iran, Libya, and other nations from being able to act overtly against their neighbors and us.
Im just combating other arguments. But I agree they need to make sure those countries are in control of themselfs. So, stay as long as they need to. If they stay to long, it may have the dreaded "chain Link" effect.
