Are you suggesting we go around doing the same thing they do because they do it? You’re talking about killing innocent people because someone is fanatical. If we started killing innocent people then we would be doing the same thing they do. Although we are a somewhat conceited nation, and a few of our citizens can be more arrogant than others, do we as a whole (including all the innocents) deserve to die for the “offenses” of a few fellow citizens? Absolutely not, that is the whole problem with terrorists attacking us in the first place, its not right! Lets think about the same thing in another state: Do the innocent men, women and children of some nations deserve to die because some fellow citizens of their’s attacked us unrightly? Once again, absolutely not! Stooping to the terrorists’ level of unjust killings will not solve anything, rather further instigate more problems and killings until the problem either escalates into nuclear war or some people start thinking clearly and realize where that type of illogical reasoning will lead. What happened to the clean slate idea for our children? We can’t hold it against someone because someone they’re related to commited a heinous[color=black][font=‘Times New Roman’][/font][/color] crime. Provided that the relations of a terrorist have no connection to terrorism, the relations of a terrorist need a clean slate just as much as we do from our own ancestors’ history of slavery. Oh, there is also the problem of a terrorist being so fanatical and obsessed in his or her jihad that they would either think it would be an honor for their close ties to die or they just wouldn’t care.
Javifutbolista is WRONG
Are you suggesting we go around doing the same thing they do because they do it?
Nope… and if you had read all posts you would have read I said you would have to be insane to think that.
that is the whole problem with terrorists attacking us in the first place, its not right!
It is right…. There is nothing wrong with terrorism….
If the US was to attack Australia there isn’t anything we could do about it.
The USS Enterprise carries enough air power to take out our entire air force. There is no country on this planet that can defeat the US in a conventional war.
(And once the US has it Mk4+ Raptors roaming the skies the sure thing of victory for the US only becomes more guaranteed.)
So if the US came and invaded Australia it would be pointless to try and fight back in a conventional manner.
Since we can’t win by pure force the only other option is terrorism. If we kill enough US citizens then perhaps the US citizens will get their politicians to withdraw from our country.
So while conventional war is pointless, at least terrorism might work even if unlikely.
So when you can’t fight a war, you have the choice, bend over and take it up the arse. Or resort to terrorism.
So while I don’t condone it, and feel sorry for innocent people who get killed.
Terrorism is a legitimate tactic when you don’t have the power to fight a conventional war and we can’t sulk when innocent people on our streets get killed.
And what’s the alternative ??? We send our solders off some where to fight their solders and they kill each other while we sit back in our lounge rooms watching the guided missiles killing people on our large screen TV’s.
Perhaps terrorism is a good thing, when the killings are closer to home and it could be you killed it makes us think about the fact that people are dying and that a war is going on. Instead of watching it on TV while we go about our daily business.
While you sit here and read this, solders over there are being killed, being maimed, innocent people are being killed in bombings. But it is so far away from us we don’t even think about it.
Perhaps if it was your house that was blown up or your neighbors by a terrorist you would be protesting your senator to bring the troops home immediately so no more have to die.
Or would you be like them and screaming for an eye for an eye, asking your senator to bomb every last one of them.
After 9/11 most US citizens where screeming for blood, and we got it and we are still getting it… So lets not make out like we are any different to them.
Thankfully you guys aren’t voting… (foreigners) wheeze I’ll probobly post later tonight when I can gather myself. In the mean time, I’d reccomend reading some news Vulcan. It was confirmed that Bush was never even briefed on the Bin Ladens. The guy who Moore quotes in the movie about them leaving the country said it had nothing to do with Bush himself. John Clarke authorized it on 9/11 because he knew there would be backlash if they were here. There was an interview with the family on NBC.
I think that this is a bit of brain washing…… The US is not responsible for what other countries do. The US has no right to interfere with what other countries do.
Believing that as a Super power the US must intervene in other countries affairs is just brain washing your government has done to justify their actions.
Rather than giving crap about how we must intervene because we are so all and mighty and powerful. How about just using the truth.
We are so all mighty and powerful, we want your oil and there is nothing you can do about it, give it to us or we will flatten you.
But how does the US do it ?
You need our help, you may not know it, you may not want it, but we are going to help you anyway. But incase that’s not a good enough reason we will pretend to look for WMD that we know you don’t have.
If you watch Farenheight 911, this is what you’ll think of America. Were it not for US intervention, so many places would be messed up right now it’s not even funny. I’ll research a bit and get back to you.
them leaving the country said it had nothing to do with Bush himself.
I didn’t think I said Bush had anything to do with it.
I don’t recall Moore’s movie saying he had anything to do with it either.
Just that it was arranged for them to fly out when there was a lock down.
Were it not for US intervention, so many places would be messed up right now it’s not even funny.
I don’t know about that……. But if you find examples of a place that was screwed up, the US has gone in and it is now all sweet I would be interested…
And there are plenty of places that are in turmoil right now and have been for a long time.
So when does the US decide to intervene ? When there is a profit to be made ?
I am not for it… It’s very wrong… You would have to be insane to think otherwise…
I am just saying things that would have to be done to have a impact on them.
Hence why I said you kill his family and friends…… You don’t leave anyone behind that cares.
You can’t have it both ways, and in my view, you seem to be taking both sides on this issue
It would not have to be done to have an impact on them. A guy is about to commit suicide with the hope of killing more people. You killing his family is not going to solve anything, but it will make matters worse because you consciously killed somebody who was probably innocent.
Several examples of countries that benefitted from US involvement:
Japan - the US nuked the place, gave them their own Constitution, they are one of the most prosperous countries in the world.
Philippines - it was once a US territory, but was granted independence in the late 1940s.
South Korea - another one of the world’s most advanced countries that owes a lot to the US for its current successes.
The US is already involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. China/Japan/S.Korea are taking care of the N. Korea situation. India/Pakistan are having summits to discuss the border issue. Russia is dealing with their insurgency problem on their borders.
Problems are being dealt with without having to have the US intervene. The biggest profit is when there are no expenses caused by wars. I mean, the US actually stays back and invests its own money to help rebuild countries after the war. That money, using your idea of profit, would be better spent funnelling directly into corporations domestically!
You killing his family is not going to solve anything,
It’s a deterrent…. It wouldn’t deter all of them but some is better than none. 
And I don’t want it both ways.
I can say that nuking the whole middle east of the face of the world would solve a lot of problems.
Doesn’t mean for a second that I would even contemplate it as a solution.
Japan – what was wrong with it before the US nuked it ?
Philippines – how did it become a US territory, and what was wrong with it before that ?
South Korea – Helping hand and intervention are two different things
would be better spent funnelling directly into corporations domestically!
As corrupt as politicians are, I don’t see them getting away with giving away billions of tax payer dollars directly to companies.
But they can sign off on a war, spend billions of tax payers dollars on the war, so that after the war those companies can make billions rebuilding the war torn country.
Japan…that little thing called World War II in the Pacific.
Phillippines - result of the Spanish American War. We received it as part of some treaty thing.
I can say that nuking the whole middle east of the face of the world would solve a lot of problems.
lol - if you don’t mean it, then why say it
lol - if you don’t mean it, then why say it
It is one possible solution, just because it may not be a solution that I personally would consider, it doesn’t stop it from being a solution.
Japan…that little thing called World War II in the Pacific.
That’s not the US intervening to assist a country in turmoil.
Phillippines - result of the Spanish American War. We received it as part of some treaty thing
Again that’s not the US intervening to assist a country in turmoil and it being better off for it.
If anyone has an example of a war torn country that the US has gone to and the country is now all honky dory without problems ?
Bosnia, etc. - done with UN/Nato (which includes the US).
I would think that Japan was a warring country from all of the battles they had with their neighbors such as China (Nanking ring a bell?) during 1937. That was before the US got involved.
Bosnia, etc. - done with UN/Nato (which includes the US).
Well I thought Bosnia was still a mess with lots of problems, unless there has been updates I missed.
I would think that Japan was a war-ravaged country from all of the battles they had with their neighbors such as China (nanking ring a bell?) during 1937. That was before the US got involved.
So Japan was in need of assistance to help with it’s turmoil so the US nuked it ?
Sorry I don’t consider that helpful intervention.
You are expecting a quick miracle. Compared to the situation Bosnia was in then, it is better now. Progress is being made. At least there aren’t any largescale ethnic cleansings to report in that area. Or would you actually allow that since it doesn’t directly affect you?[color=red]*[/color] :evil:
You asked earlier about a warring country that the US used military intervention on, and is a good success now. Nuking is considered military intervention. Japan is one such example of a country where the US was involved in militarily. And Japan is also an example of a country, that after US intervention, is a success. South Korea is another example.
[size=1][color=red]*[/color]Not trying to be ugly, but you inferred earlier that terrorism is OK as long as it is happening elsewhere.[/size]
Terrorism will never be solved completley, it may be slowed but not stopped…
The_Vulcan, just give it a rest. Your ideas are contradicting and you need to just take a chill.
Compared to the situation Bosnia was in then, it is better now. Progress is being made. At least there aren’t any large-scale ethnic cleansings to report in that area.
Yeah it might be better now but then the UN is there.
All I want is a clear example of a troubled area, where the US has gone in and then all is better.
It’s not the first time the US went to Iraq, they were there 10 odd years ago with the gulf war and now they are back again. Clearly the first war solved nothing or there wouldn’t be a second.
Yeah things take time; maybe it will take 50years after the US has gone in for a place to become stable.
I just don’t see any clear cut examples of the US going in and it making a difference that would warrant the US interfering with other countries.
Perhaps given time Saddam would have been taken care of by his own people, and you now wouldn’t have another country breeding hatred towards the US.
Not to mention the thousands of life’s that wouldn’t have been lost in the war.
From an experimental point of view, you invade 1 country, make sure that your efforts achieve the desired out come and then when you know it is successful you move on.
You don’t just go messing about here and there.
America invaded Iraq 10 years ago, they didn’t get it right then and who’s to say they will get it right now. Mean while there are plenty of other places the US is interfering with. And lets not mention Vietnam.
And as for South Korea, I believe that they are still negotiating and the US is now talking about pulling out it's forces.
<>Or would you actually allow that since it doesn’t directly affect you?[color=red]*[/color]
[color=red]*[/color]Not trying to be ugly, but you inferred earlier that terrorism is OK as long as it is happening elsewhere.
Now you are just being silly…. And I said terrorism is a valid tactic, perhaps even good one as it brings the war to our door so we can take it seriously. So your statement regarding as long as it is happening else where is a complete contradiction to what I said…
Your ideas are contradicting and you need to just take a chill.
How are my idea’s contradicting ?
If I say you can run an old car designed to use super fuel:
On Super
On Unleaded
On Unleaded with an additive
I am not contradicting myself, I am just stating the options. As I have stated different options on dealing with terrorists, from nuking them all to killing them and anyone who knows them, to asking what they want and appeasing them. I have said some maybe more effective than others. No where have I said which I feel is the better to use, my only comment regarding these options was that you would have to be insane to think it is alright to kill people just because they are somehow associated with terrorists, and that I wouldn’t consider for a second nuking them as a option.
So where is my contradiction ???
back it up a bit. look at your perspective. whos the terriorist? who’s to say that the cause is bad? a lot of people here are american, let me put you in perspective. i’m almost certain that founding force of america were considered rebels, or what we now call ‘terrorists’. something quite lasting came out of that little war didn’t it!?
think about human behavior. we fight, we kill, it’s in our nature. people in a more ‘civiliazed’ area don’t realize what they could act like in a more desperate situation.
so is peace possible? course it is, there’s no neutons law or anything that stops it from being possible. just appease everyones needs to the degree that people won’t wage wars and peace is the outcome. how do we appease everyone? we advance, make the entire world civilized. we’re workin on that one… it’ll come eventually… but certainly not in our life times i would think…
whos the terriorist?
They are the terrorists, we don’t commit terrorist act’s. Where as they might bomb a building here or there. We just declare war and flatten everything in one go.
We do a lot more killing then they do.
I have no doubt that some terrorist are just Looney and some actually do have a legitimate reason to be terrorists.
i’m almost certain that founding force of america were considered rebels, or what we now call ‘terrorists’. something quite lasting came out of that little war didn’t it!?
Well if Hitler succeeded there would be world peace, we would all be the same and have the same beliefs and there would be no boarders.
However I don’t think any war or deaths justifies the end means.
‘civiliazed’ area don’t realize what they could act like in a more desperate situation.
Well that comes from arrogance and thinking they are better than others just because they are better off.
Do you think the Pope would stave to death or steal a loaf of bread ? Where all the same, given the wrong up bringing the Pope could now be serving a life prison sentence for one thing or another.
“Changing places” with Eddie Murphy depicts this.
we advance, make the entire world civilized. we’re workin on that one… it’ll come eventually… but certainly not in our life times i would think…
One doesn’t need to be civilized to live in peace. America considers it’s self civilized. If all of Europe was to Unite and invade the US and hold it under occupation I guarantee that US citizens left right and centre would be turning into terrorists to free themselves. Doesn’t make them any less civilized.
We just need to live and let live and stay out of other peoples affairs. Although I am all for helping others who don’t have the quality of life that we do because of some dictatorship, as long as they want help.
I personally think that we will never have peace until we get rid of religion and capitalism. But thats just me.
Japan Like Germany, it was very powerful before getting nuked, and recovery was imminent.
S.Korea South korea has a very corrupt country, while I think USA did a good there, but it was just channeling funds to it.
Philippines You know how many philipinos got murdered by the US occupation forces during the philipino-US war? Much of the tactics used in Vietnam were developed there. It was a bloody war of supression.
Annnyyywaaayyy comparing modern times to WW2 is WAY of… the colsest we come is Vietnam.
Read up on Revolutionary War Concept.
So is there any clear example of where the US has gone in to help, cleaned it up and left ?
I am not saying there isn’t, I just dont know of one and want to know if there is.
South korea has a very corrupt country, while I think USA did a good there, but it was just channeling funds to it.
I don’t know much about it, I thought the US was there to basicly change the balance of power in the region.
And since I don’t about it, I don’t know what the US’s motivation was for doing it.
you american dudes make me chuckle!!
‘How do we stop terrorists!! boo hoo help! help!!’
pity your government didnt give a crap when the IRA were bombing us in the 80s. The answer is that fanatics will always exist. We have to look to our own governments as to why the commit these terrible crimes.
Bin Laden is a product of American foreign policy, just as the IRA was a porduct of Enlgish foreign policy… GET USED TO IT
