FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Was the US wrong to invade Pakistan?





deanhills
What do you think? Was the US wrong to invade Pakistan? Was there another way to deal with the situation? How do countries usually deal with situations like these?

Surely, if the US can invade Pakistan to "extract" Bin Laden, it can do the same with Ghadaffi? We can have Seal teams deployed all over the world to get rid of terrorists and other enemies of the United States? What makes Bin Laden different, and what makes invading Pakistan OK?
inuyasha
I always disapprove of any wars and invasions. Besides, to extract Bin Laden is perhaps just an excuse. Yet I can't tell right from wrong in such situations.
deanhills
inuyasha wrote:
I always disapprove of any wars and invasions. Besides, to extract Bin Laden is perhaps just an excuse. Yet I can't tell right from wrong in such situations.
Exactly. The US could easily have had a secret agreement to enter the country, and then the Government protesting to save face with their people. Principle for me is a bit dicey however. No doubt we will hear more about this later. Very Happy
ocalhoun
Wrong how?

Morally (without consideration of the objective)? - Probably
Legally? - Also probably, although they might have gotten permission discreetly, or at a low level.
Tactically? Certainly not.
Strategically? No, probably; looks like it will turn out well for them after all is said and done.
Geographically? No, they definitely found the right place on the map. (ie, they didn't invade the 'wrong' country.)
Bikerman
Morally? Debatable but probably.
Legally? Definitely - assassination is illegal under international law.
Tactically? Probably not - though I think on balance that taking him alive would have been better for their cause.
Strategically? Debatable. There is a school of thought, which I share, that says OBL was not a good leader for a terrorist group. They will almost certainly pick a better one (if not already done).
Geographically? Definitely.Pakistan is now polarised and divided utterly. It could be argued that it always was - the Pakistani Taliban are very strongly supported in many areas - but the US has given them a hate figure to combine around. Last week a large number of Pakistanis hated the US. This week the number is much larger.
If t'were needed to be done then best t'were done coldly and silently. Once they knew where he was then it was just a case of biding time until they could get a single shooter up close, a drone in range, or a bomber overhead. By invading Pakistan (even if only a tiny invasion) it has demonstrated that the US will do what the hell it likes and that only a fool would trust them as an ally to do anything other.
menino
In terms of the Bin Laden assasination and extraction, where the US SEAL's infiltrated their compound and killed Osama, and took his body, I think the US made a choice decision based on the scenario.
The scenario being that the compound where Osama was in, was in the vicinity of other Army personnel, and the area was frequently visited by some top military and government officials.
So even if Pakistan had a secret agreement, it would be possible that Osama could have fled and they would catch him only after a long time.

Pakistan made a big deal out of it, because as you see now, the al qaeda have retaliated to Pakistani personnel, and have already caused a lot of casualties.
If Pakistan had to allow it openly, then al qaeda would have inflicted a lot more damage to human lives than it did at the moment.

I think in terms of the Pakistan-osama affair, the US did what it thought was right, and it was more personal.

In terms of Gaddafi, I think that NATO should play its part, and support the people.
deanhills
menino wrote:
So even if Pakistan had a secret agreement, it would be possible that Osama could have fled and they would catch him only after a long time.
But here's the thing. Some say the US Government had known as long as nine months in advance that Osama Bin Laden had been there. Even if that had not been true, the US must have known at least a good period of time for their famous SEAL teams to have had time enough to be trained to the nth degree as they claim they have done.

menino wrote:
Pakistan made a big deal out of it, because as you see now, the al qaeda have retaliated to Pakistani personnel, and have already caused a lot of casualties.
If Pakistan had to allow it openly, then al qaeda would have inflicted a lot more damage to human lives than it did at the moment.
I learned lots in that "I knew Bin Laden" Al Jazeera show (refer the Introducing Bin Laden thread), particularly that Bin Laden had many friends in the Pakistani Government and the Military over years. Most of the friendship was of course based on sponsorship. I can't help wonder that he may have gone broke in his later years and hence had become vulnerable for being sold out that way. The info also went to the highest bidder, i.e. the US paying more for informants than the Pakistani Government does.

I was just thinking at the same time that if one were into conspiracy theories, one could easily argue that El Qaeda could have wanted him dead too as he had become a liability to them, so could have leaked the information deliberately?

menino wrote:
In terms of Gaddafi, I think that NATO should play its part, and support the people.
I don't think anyone should interfere in Libya, except perhaps for no fly zones. If they interfere in Libya, why not interfere in all of the countries in the world that have similar problems, and they include quite a large number in the Middle East. Also not a good idea for the West to become too involved, as it may be seen as neo-colonialism. Better to facilitate local solutions.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Also not a good idea for the West to become too involved, as it may be seen as neo-colonialism.


Isn't it a bit too late to avoid being seen that way?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Also not a good idea for the West to become too involved, as it may be seen as neo-colonialism.


Isn't it a bit too late to avoid being seen that way?
I don't think so. I was listening to a discussion about why the US is not as involved in Syria or Bahrain as it has been with Cairo, and it would appear that in its Foreign Policy the US is trying to defer to the Arab League of Nations for example or the Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council where it can. With Egypt apparently it was an exceptional case because the US has real big ties, apparently especially with the military. Difficult to find a consistent US foreign policy from Middle East country to Middle East country, but hopefully Obama will reveal where he is going with this later in the week.
menino
If they had known 9 months in advance, it probably took them that much time to plan ahead and weigh their options, to consider invading Pakistan secretly or tell them about it and risk OBL escaping again.
I think Osama got comfortable there, and probably was waiting for info from informants / spies from the Government if there was any evidence of knowledge to his whereabouts.

Deanhills, regarding Osama being sold out to the Pakistani government, or Al Qaeda might make some sense, but I doubt it, but again, there's always space for a never ending argument. Razz

For the Libyan case, yes, I think NATO should have even gotten involved in Africa, where people are dieing everyday and in great numbers, due to the current wars there, but probably each country has their own causes and conditions.
IceCreamTruck
No doubt the reasons we actually went into Pakistan are probably more suspect then the reported reasons we went into Pakistan. Which are we discussing? There's duality to everything, after all.

Probably went in to fight terrorism

Could have gone in for minerals and resources... not much else of interest there unless it's a strategic stepping stone for us to get somewhere else.

Honestly, what were we doing in Pakistan if not hunting for Osama. I'm curious if we can get some real man-hour numbers on what it would take to knock on every door in Pakistan and say "Is Osama in?"

I just want to know man-hours it would take to knock on every door, and the number of troops we have in Pakistan and then reexamine the number of days, months, and years that OBL was on the loose. Just to have something to compare, cause I'm still upset it took so long to bring him down. Makes us look bad, and allows the rest of the world to forget that we could have just nuked the whole country many times over and probably would have been justified in doing so after Obama promised the world that America would go to war with any country that harbored terrorists.

How many ways do I have to slice that so you guys believe OBL being alive was our fault!!! We were responsible for him being alive, make no mistake. I don't know why they decided to kill him now.

Honestly... Call it the Japan effect... They kill our people, and wage war on us like we're pushovers.

Insert nuke and shake hard! That should shut them up. Pesky non-proliferation treaties get in the way of us being able to send a clear message -- If you hide terrorist in the mountains, then we level the mountains and make it impossible for anyone to live there for 100 or so years. Now that's a deterrent!!!!!!

PS. The Russians would do it if they were in our position! They wouldn't even ask the UN if it was ok!
deanhills
menino wrote:
Deanhills, regarding Osama being sold out to the Pakistani government, or Al Qaeda might make some sense, but I doubt it, but again, there's always space for a never ending argument. Razz
We'd probably never know. However, if I had the choice between which version to believe, US or Pakistan Government, the US would win hands down, Pakistan coming from a very low base. Pakistan is pretty chaotic and who knows that may have been one of the reasons that Ossama could retire there as well. I just can't help wondering that he must have run out of funds towards the end and perhaps the Generals had become restless, or were amenable to funds from a higher bidder. If not, then the US should have been able to locate him years before.

menino wrote:
For the Libyan case, yes, I think NATO should have even gotten involved in Africa, where people are dieing everyday and in great numbers, due to the current wars there, but probably each country has their own causes and conditions.
This has to be a very difficult call. Probably better to select battles selectively relative to world balance of power and strategic resources. Very Happy

ICT, I think there are many reasons the US wishes to have a good relationship with Pakistan. For one, the country has nuclear know how, so it would probably want to keep as close a possible eye on Pakistan as it can. It can do so as Pakistan is always asking for money, it is a needy country. If the US should disappear, then it would upset the balance of power. China or Iran, or both may be interested to offload their goods and services in Pakistan and use them for their own advantage.
ocalhoun
IceCreamTruck wrote:

Insert nuke and shake hard! That should shut them up. Pesky non-proliferation treaties get in the way of us being able to send a clear message -- If you hide terrorist in the mountains, then we level the mountains and make it impossible for anyone to live there for 100 or so years. Now that's a deterrent!!!!!!

Except that he wasn't hiding in the mountains, and was, in fact, in a city in Pakistan...
So we would look really bad when after we nuke huge tracts of land and kill millions, it turns out that we still didn't get our man, and it was all in vain.


(And if you're thinking of nuking Pakistan, you'd better do it before they develop a missile that can reach the US, since Pakistan already has nukes of their own.)


As for the 'Russia would do it' argument... That's seriously flawed.
A- Russia has never used nuclear weapons in combat; the US did.
B- Some of us like to think of ourselves as ethically superior, which means we can't go about doing things just because (we think) somebody else would do it.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
A- Russia has never used nuclear weapons in combat; the US did.
I dunno Ocalhoun, Bay of Pigs was close enough for me to count as use of nuclear weapons by the Russians.

I agree with you however, when it gets to nuclear either as a defensive or an aggressive measure, then there is complete absence of ethics. For me this is playing a very dangerous game of power and politics. If any one makes a wrong move, all of us are going to suffer the consequences.

I know I watch too many movies, but "Crimson Tide" really made me think very hard. How very vulnerable of of us are.
IceCreamTruck
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
A- Russia has never used nuclear weapons in combat; the US did.
I dunno Ocalhoun, Bay of Pigs was close enough for me to count as use of nuclear weapons by the Russians.

I agree with you however, when it gets to nuclear either as a defensive or an aggressive measure, then there is complete absence of ethics. For me this is playing a very dangerous game of power and politics. If any one makes a wrong move, all of us are going to suffer the consequences.

I know I watch too many movies, but "Crimson Tide" really made me think very hard. How very vulnerable of of us are.


The Russians ignored international treaties when they used the MEGA bomb on all of us, including themselves. The whole world held it's breath -- KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! Russians didn't show any reserve there, and I don't think much has changed. Sure, no one we know of died in that explosion, but it changed men's minds non-the-less. It did it's job. The Russians just let the UN "abhor" and "deplore" their actions all they wanted because they don't give a crap about what people think when it comes to what they need.

I'm not condoning violence of our own, and killing millions with an atomic bomb wouldn't fix the 6000 or so that died in New York on 9/11. However, I don't think we should put the nukes on the shelf for this conflict, or any conflict. Mutual assured destruction is not a risk, so I say we throw a little caution to the wind when dealing with terrorists abroad. I think we should have nuked Afghanistan, not Pakistan from what I can tell. The Afghani mountains where the terrorists were already covered with bombs and artillery many times over, but the terrorists are still there, dug in. Nuke them and assure their destruction either in the blast, or in the fallout. The land I'm talking about is not a city, it's already targeted by the US for artillery, missiles, UAVs, and bombs. Dropping the bomb there would be a statement that we're ready to send them to meet their virgins TODAY! Smile

Also, do you think anything is going to stop terrorist from detonating a nuke if they get their hands on one? If anyone is going to shoot a nuke at America, then they are already decided on it, and us firing a nuke at someone else isn't going to encourage anything except utter hopelessness in the enemy.

What's the difference between dropping 100,000x1pound bombs versus 1x100,000pound bomb? Sure radioactive fall-out, but it all renders the land uninhabitable and bad for farming. All of that changes with time, but we need to be looking for a message about terrorism that the world can understand. "We will go to war with any terrorist harboring country" didn't cut it, and won't work. I think we need to raise the bar: we will strategically nuke any country that harbors terrorists. Hey, if they don't want their cities bombed, then they have a clear choice. Then we use our intelligence to find terror groups, and when we find one we approach the government of the country, and tell them we are willing to ignore the problem if they do something about it quickly. We can also offer to go ahead and nuke the location for them.

Most countries would get rid of the terrorists instead of going against these wishes. I say we get public about it, and don't hide or obscure any details. Offer a 2 month grace period for any country that wants to clean up their problem, or they can ask us for a non-nuclear solution to attacking the terrorists, and their compliance will be rewarded by not dropping a nuclear device on their soil.

We're having trouble getting anyone to listen to reason on this issue, and for the sake of political argument and the future generations I think we need to experience this hardship now as opposed to fighting a fully reborn terrorism industry a few years down the road in every nation and every city. That's not my idea of peace.

We need to stop terrorism groups from going global where we can.
ms_j
I think it was wrong.
I actually got into an argument about this on another forum and it turned into a fight. So I don't even wanna read what other people said here.
IceCreamTruck
Just so we are clear I'm not all happy go lucky nuke time here!

Nuclear weapons are horrible, but no more horrible than ANY other violence where people die. Dead is dead is dead... it doesn't matter how. I'm trying to tip the scale in favor of peace again!

Peace that has apparently not been experienced in the Middle East lately like it has in the West after WWII. It's true, we almost lost it all to the Hippies, in the 60s, but we brought it back in the 90s! Smile
catscratches
IceCreamTruck wrote:

Nuclear weapons are horrible, but no more horrible than ANY other violence where people die.
Yes, they are... Because not only do they kill lots of people, they also render vast areas uninhabitable for a long time.
IceCreamTruck
catscratches wrote:
IceCreamTruck wrote:

Nuclear weapons are horrible, but no more horrible than ANY other violence where people die.
Yes, they are... Because not only do they kill lots of people, they also render vast areas uninhabitable for a long time.


OK, so heres the choice. Let terrorists continue to drive people out of regions so they can build their secret armies for millennia, or nuke these areas and let normal people move back in after only 50-100 years? Also, fall-out can be minimized further, I'm sure. They don't have to dirty bomb like they used to, as I know for a fact they get much higher yield from smaller weapons, and we've almost maximized the ground effect of small nukes through further testing after WWII. We don't have to make the same mistakes we made at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but we rushed those attacks.

Since when does war have so much etiquette? Terrorists are right to challenge us in our confusion, but their doing so should force us to decisive action. I feel the time has past to play the nuke card effectively, as it would raise too many questions now. We only could have gotten away with it back when we started carpet bombing regions of Afghanistan. The damage remains the same, and without people to repopulate these regions will stay unpopulated for many years.

It would just make me feel better if the picture we painted was of total annihilation of any extremist/terrorist group, and make it very clear there is no where to hide. As it stands all the terrorists are thinking Yemen is a good idea, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, etc. And I feel real terrorism in Africa goes unpunished simply because we've already sanctioned trade against them, or because they often don't have much to offer us. We only step in if we have interest... and the UN is nearly impotent in coming up with a real solution.
Bikerman
This is depressing.
What is a terrorist? Generally it is a person who is out of options. Someone who has been pushed beyond endurance, or subjected to blatant injustice which they can see no way to combat other than by terrorism.
Examples of terrorists?
Nelson Mandela and many of the leaders of the ANC
Underground movements in France and much of Europe during WW2
Yasser Arrafat and the PLO
Menachem Begin and many other Israeli 'statesmen'
The taliban (when the US was training and arming them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan)
Many of the post-war US administrations - actively backing terrorism in South America, providing the chemicals for Saddam to use against Iran (oops, he used them against the Kurds, didn't see that one coming did you Ronnie?).
Many UK administrations, sponsoring terrorism all over the globe
the list continues.....
Of course the US defines terrorism in such a way that it can never apply to the US itself, so we have to talk about state-sponsored terrorism, but any fair reading of history, post WW2, reveals the US has been probably the largest sponsor of terrorism that the world has seen.

As Chomsky has said repeatedly - if the US is serious about the desire to reduce terrorism then it can do so very easily - stop sponsoring it.
IceCreamTruck
Bikerman wrote:
This is depressing.
What is a terrorist? Generally it is a person who is out of options. Someone who has been pushed beyond endurance, or subjected to blatant injustice which they can see no way to combat other than by terrorism.
Examples of terrorists?
Nelson Mandela and many of the leaders of the ANC
Underground movements in France and much of Europe during WW2
Yasser Arrafat and the PLO
Menachem Begin and many other Israeli 'statesmen'
The taliban (when the US was training and arming them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan)
Many of the post-war US administrations - actively backing terrorism in South America, providing the chemicals for Saddam to use against Iran (oops, he used them against the Kurds, didn't see that one coming did you Ronnie?).
Many UK administrations, sponsoring terrorism all over the globe
the list continues.....
Of course the US defines terrorism in such a way that it can never apply to the US itself, so we have to talk about state-sponsored terrorism, but any fair reading of history, post WW2, reveals the US has been probably the largest sponsor of terrorism that the world has seen.

As Chomsky has said repeatedly - if the US is serious about the desire to reduce terrorism then it can do so very easily - stop sponsoring it.


I'm polish, so I notice everyone forgetting polish intelligence on Germany was a huge factor of WWII! We may have lost the battle early, but we still helped win the war!

I fear the gravity of your statement can be missed, although you've supported it with evidence, as many people don't require evidence for their decisions, and will continue, despite our best efforts, to blindly believe whatever they are told to believe. You, Sir, are a terrorist and it has been a pleasure catching the inside scoop from your excellent topics and replies because you generally are the illustration of the best one can expect in public forum discussion. I need not gather evidence to support that statement for it is all around us on frihost. Not all the minds you speak to are closed -- please continue.

So, was that before or after Cheney suggested special forces fire on friendly troops to make it look like Iraq shot at us first? I can't remember.

Remember: if you're a politician and you act like Hitler, then you have to go in "time out".
ocalhoun
IceCreamTruck wrote:

What's the difference between dropping 100,000x1pound bombs versus 1x100,000pound bomb?

I'll tell you what the difference is.
The difference between the two is MASSIVE CIVILIAN/NONCOMBATANT CASUALTIES.
Thousands of small bombs can be aimed carefully, and only at strategically/tactically important targets. One large bomb targets indiscriminately.


50 to 100 years later, the land isn't going to be repopulated by peaceful people, it's going to be repopulated by people who hate the US even more for what they did 100 years ago, plus their original grievances.

Nukes might win the battle, but they will not win the war, unless you nuke everybody. Why? Because the use of them will create more enemies than it destroys.



I am in favor of keeping a nuclear stockpile ready to go, but only as a deterrent in the name of self-defense. (ie 'mutually assured destruction')
They should not be used flippantly, because they cause extremely unacceptable levels of civilian deaths, and because the unprovoked use of them will turn the world against us. (rightly so)
Bikerman
Quote:
So, was that before or after Cheney suggested special forces fire on friendly troops to make it look like Iraq shot at us first? I can't remember.
Hmm, I've actually heard that suggested seriously, but like many such claims I give them little or no credence. The evidence for chemical and biological materials being supplied to Saddam - both from the UK and the US - is pretty unequivocal.
Indeed Polish intelligence was very important to the western allies and that should not be forgotten. The other major factor that is often consigned to the 'inconvenient therefore forget' pile is the central role of the USSR - probably THE most important factor. Of course, nobody wants to praise Uncle Joe because he was a very naughty boy indeed, but I think it is perhaps worth sparing a thought for 20 million of his countrymen, occasionally, and I do wish that Hollywood might one day make a WW2 film that doesn't feature a plucky squad of US GIs giving the stupid Bosch a good hiding and stepping in to save the nice but rather dim Europeans from themselves....
saberlivre
Bikerman wrote:
This is depressing.
What is a terrorist? Generally it is a person who is out of options. Someone who has been pushed beyond endurance, or subjected to blatant injustice which they can see no way to combat other than by terrorism.
Examples of terrorists?
Nelson Mandela and many of the leaders of the ANC
Underground movements in France and much of Europe during WW2
Yasser Arrafat and the PLO
Menachem Begin and many other Israeli 'statesmen'
The taliban (when the US was training and arming them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan)
Many of the post-war US administrations - actively backing terrorism in South America, providing the chemicals for Saddam to use against Iran (oops, he used them against the Kurds, didn't see that one coming did you Ronnie?).
Many UK administrations, sponsoring terrorism all over the globe
the list continues.....
Of course the US defines terrorism in such a way that it can never apply to the US itself, so we have to talk about state-sponsored terrorism, but any fair reading of history, post WW2, reveals the US has been probably the largest sponsor of terrorism that the world has seen.

As Chomsky has said repeatedly - if the US is serious about the desire to reduce terrorism then it can do so very easily - stop sponsoring it.


Great post, Bikerman ... I totally agree with you.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
The other major factor that is often consigned to the 'inconvenient therefore forget' pile is the central role of the USSR
Unless I misunderstand your reference to "central role", I'm surprised that you should say that people do not appreciate the central role that the USSR had played during WW2. Everyone knows that the five central parties in the War had been the UK, US and USSR as Allies and Germany and Japan as Axis. It is also well known that the turning point of the war had been Stalingrad and that the West owes the USSR big time for having been able to both fight the Germans off and form an impenetrable defense in the East. Everyone also knows that the USSR had scored heavily in acquiring territories right through the war. Particularly at the conclusion of the war when the Russians had pushed as far into Germany as they possibly could get away with.
IceCreamTruck
ocalhoun wrote:
IceCreamTruck wrote:

What's the difference between dropping 100,000x1pound bombs versus 1x100,000pound bomb?

I'll tell you what the difference is.
The difference between the two is MASSIVE CIVILIAN/NONCOMBATANT CASUALTIES.
Thousands of small bombs can be aimed carefully, and only at strategically/tactically important targets. One large bomb targets indiscriminately.


50 to 100 years later, the land isn't going to be repopulated by peaceful people, it's going to be repopulated by people who hate the US even more for what they did 100 years ago, plus their original grievances.

Nukes might win the battle, but they will not win the war, unless you nuke everybody. Why? Because the use of them will create more enemies than it destroys.



I am in favor of keeping a nuclear stockpile ready to go, but only as a deterrent in the name of self-defense. (ie 'mutually assured destruction')
They should not be used flippantly, because they cause extremely unacceptable levels of civilian deaths, and because the unprovoked use of them will turn the world against us. (rightly so)


Civilian casualties are happening left and right because of the "little" bombs you mentioned. I also think we did have a window to use it without the mentioned recourse, and in fact, I think the world wouldn't have blamed us any more than they currently blame us for the loss of innocents in Afghanistan.

I believe a nuke can be aimed with the same exacting precision as any other bomb/missile we have launched, and nukes are not the same as they once were. They are not as dirty, and much smaller warheads produce greater destruction with less long term effects. Much experimentation has been done to improve them, and I see the goal is letting our enemy know we will stop at nothing to eliminate the threat.

I don't think there would be any more civilian casualties with a nuke then with are current methods. The military has been on it's heals a lot lately over the large number of civilians who have been killed, and my thought is that if we did more to change minds, then many smaller strikes close to civilian populations would not have been required. We could have nuked their heart, and made them really question their motives at one point in time, but the window has closed.

I completely side with you now on the issue, ocalhoun. The window is closed, no targets big enough to warrant such measures, and the risk of civilian casualty has only gone up with the removal of much of the head of these terrorist groups that have been persistent for so long in several regions of the middle east.

It is my understanding that they operate thinking that the US has too much red tape to really be a hindrance to them unless they are careless. They think with a little management, and well laid plans, that they stand a chance to operate against us in many engagements before they are eventually martyred and whisked away to heaven and their virgins.

I saw we put in a virgin express lane. Attack the idea that if they join a terrorist group they can help... and I want them to feel like if too many people join then they become a target for complete annihilation. Nuclear deployment would deter their organization, which is something we're doing a poor job of now, and some may even argue we're up to our old tricks of trying to cause Iran problems with state sponsored terrorism, but that's neither here nor there. All I know is that terrorist groups continue to develop around Iran, in neighboring countries, and we've supported their strength before hoping that it would weaken Iran.
Navigator
It seems clear to me that the US never took the moral dilemma of invasions into consideration, ever. It is now just a matter of public perception and timing, I don't think the wars waged by the US in the second part of the 20th century had anything to do with peace, justice or whatever high values are repeated in the tv or newspapers. Its plainly an expansionist agenda what we are witnessing here folks. Behind such twisted intent, there is something called pathocracy.
deanhills
Navigator wrote:
It seems clear to me that the US never took the moral dilemma of invasions into consideration, ever. It is now just a matter of public perception and timing, I don't think the wars waged by the US in the second part of the 20th century had anything to do with peace, justice or whatever high values are repeated in the tv or newspapers. Its plainly an expansionist agenda what we are witnessing here folks. Behind such twisted intent, there is something called pathocracy.

Checked out the pathocracy link Navigator as I am always curious to learn about new "cracies" - is Pathocracy for real or just tongue in the cheek?
Quote:
Pathocracy: a corrupt political/economic system in which capitalist psychopaths and sociopaths have seized power and rule in an insane (psychotic) manner that enhances their power and wealth while utterly destroying working class people

Psychopaths: 3 Engagement in illegal and immoral behavior without any feeling of guilt, aggressive narcissism, glibness and superficial charm, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, cunning and manipulation, lack of remorse, shallow affect, callousness and lack of empathy

Ponerology: 4 the study of evil as it applies to social phenomena

So we would then get ponerologists? Is this for real too? Twisted Evil
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
I do wish that Hollywood might one day make a WW2 film that doesn't feature a plucky squad of US GIs giving the stupid Bosch a good hiding and stepping in to save the nice but rather dim Europeans from themselves....

Enemy at the gates?

IceCreamTruck wrote:

I don't think there would be any more civilian casualties with a nuke then with are current methods.

Yes, and that's the central plank of your argument... Problem is that -- to put it simply -- it is wrong.

Yes, civilians die because of the current bombs; they have an area effect, and therefore collateral damage.
Yes, civilians die because of bullets, but less so, because bullets have a much smaller area of effect, and therefore much smaller collateral damage.
And, indeed, civilians would die from nukes, but due to the far larger area of effect, the collateral damage would be correspondingly larger.
(And, of course, all three are subject to errors in targeting)
Quote:

It is my understanding that they operate thinking that the US has too much red tape to really be a hindrance to them unless they are careless.

The US is indeed bound by red tape.
That red tape is the rule of law, and it's the same red tape that binds the hands of tyrants. Remove it, and terrorists won't be the only ones who regret its absence.
nepalstar
Please STOP WAR...!
Spear LOVE & PEACE in the World...!


~~~~~~~~~ STOP WAR ~~~~~~~~~~~
IceCreamTruck
ocalhoun wrote:

The US is indeed bound by red tape.
That red tape is the rule of law, and it's the same red tape that binds the hands of tyrants. Remove it, and terrorists won't be the only ones who regret its absence.


I'm not saying the red tape needs to go so much as their perception that we are hindered by it that must go. As it is they act, and we argue amongst ourselves. They kill and maim, and we argue amongst ourselves. They steal and threaten, and we argue amongst ourselves.

We haven't really had a course of action that we agree on. We have war mongers in this country that are suggesting we go to war in the Middle East, and at the same time we need to do something about terrorism, but I don't understand why we keep turning to the war mongers, who we usually suppress, and give them license to do what they want, and the problem seems to continue to go unaddressed. So to speak we keep putting our wrong foot forward with terrorism, and I think it's time to take a much more decisive approach but, as I also said before, we are way past being able to retaliate with excessive force.
Bikerman
Doing something about terrorism is only possuble one way - address the causes. Most people - Muslim or not - don't particularly want to blow themselves to bits in the name of <whatever>. Most terrorists can also be seen as legitimate freedom fighters by just tweaking a single situational variable - place of birth. If you were a child of Gaza, or of Palestinian parents who live, and have lived all their adult life, in a refugee camp, then I venture to suggest that palestinian suicide bombers would not necessarily be regarded as terrorists at all and could be considered heros. The west basically became the 'rich' west by terrorism. The British were masters (in both senses) of this, and used it to establish the largest empire in history. Since ww2, the US has taken over the lead
deanhills
Pakistan seems to be negotiable in everything since it is poor and needy and always requires lots of aid. As long as the US can provide plenty of aid to Pakistan and reward some of the politicians for their support, Pakistan would be able to forgive almost anything. I viewed the second Al Jazeera show last night: I knew Bin Laden. I got the impression from the interviews that Al Qaeda was regarded amongst Pakistanis as freedom fighters, both from a patriotic point of view but also jihad, along the lines of "holy war". Bin Laden was supported in a major way by the mujahideen through plenty of financial assistance by Bin Laden. His support of the mujahideen seems to have been a great investment in the loyalty of other Muslims in the area as well. It would seem that Bin Laden's support was sincere, but at the same time savvy as well. He knew how to get the mullahs on his side as well. I'd say El Qaeda is half freedom fighters and half holy war. It would seem that El Qaeda is regarded with respect by quite a large number of citizens of Pakistan according to the Al Jazeera show.
Related topics
Iran says will resume atomic work
Previously dismissed by "Bush Lied" crowd...
the 9/11 truth
How many people did usa kill in iraq?
India as an emerging superpower
my girlfriend is beautiful
How is religion harmful to society?
Be ready for guerrilla war against the US, Chávez tells army
"Emergency" in Pakistan :(
Children of Jihad
2008 Predictions
[Opinion] Iraq War
US raid inside Pakistan? Why making it hard for your allies
The Pakistan Government is making peace with the Taliban
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.