West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: GoodLuvn169 on March 28, 2004, 04:10:20 PM
-
i will remain indifferent on this subject for now. but i want to know what poeple think about war. do we attack if we see a threat brewing, or do we wait until we have been struck... thoughts?
-
I think it depends on how we interpret "brewing". This time around we thought Iraq had WMD and thought that there could potentially be a threat. Of course, there was no WMD and we admited we fucked up(or at least the ones that could swallow their pride) , but in most cases a problem should be taken care of before it gets out of hand. It also depends on who you let take care of the problem; with our current government it seems like we want to kill anybody who has the potential to sneak more than a rifle around their country without our knowing, so we have been a little overly gung-ho lately. However, yes war can be justified if there is actual proof without a shadow of a doubt that there will be a problem if a threat isn't neutralized.
-
war is justified if an other country attacked you or has annouced war on you or your allies, USA in afghanistan and iraq was absolutely unjustified and if there was something like hell which isnt, the neocons would definitly go there.
-
war is justified if an other country attacked you or has annouced war on you or your allies, USA in afghanistan and iraq was absolutely unjustified and if there was something like hell which isnt, the neocons would definitly go there.
ummmm afghanistan didn't attack us but were housing a major training facility of the ones responsible for the 9/11 attacks soooo that was justified
-
war is justified if an other country attacked you or has annouced war on you or your allies, USA in afghanistan and iraq was absolutely unjustified and if there was something like hell which isnt, the neocons would definitly go there.
ummmm afghanistan didn't attack us but were housing a major training facility of the ones responsible for the 9/11 attacks soooo that was justified
I know the circumstances, but if some crazy dudes in columbine would have attacked china or somethin lol, would it be right for China to bomb the trash out of the US? doubt it. also, if the perpretraitors of 9/11 would be citizens of a more so-called civilized country like e.g. England, France or Germany, you cant tell me they wouldve bombed this country lol.
-
war is justified if an other country attacked you or has annouced war on you or your allies, USA in afghanistan and iraq was absolutely unjustified and if there was something like hell which isnt, the neocons would definitly go there.
ummmm afghanistan didn't attack us but were housing a major training facility of the ones responsible for the 9/11 attacks soooo that was justified
I know the circumstances, but if some crazy dudes in columbine would have attacked china or somethin lol, would it be right for China to bomb the trash out of the US? doubt it. also, if the perpretraitors of 9/11 would be citizens of a more so-called civilized country like e.g. England, France or Germany, you cant tell me they wouldve bombed this country lol.
columbine children (still wondering the validity of such a comparison??!!) don't have a big influence on our government plus our government would gladly hand them over if there was a group in the US making terrorists attacks on other countries... a so called civilized country would also hand over such criminals.... we attacked afghanistan because they would not cooperate with us and let us bring the terrorists to justice
-
a country is not supposed to give their citizens to another country when they did a crime.
for example, if a mexican has 200 kilos of cocaine in his trunks, gets chased by american police in californ-i-a, they cant do shit to him as soon as he is over the border... and the mexican government wont force him back to american where he has to go to jail.
of course you cant compare a drug dilla to an organisation that is responsible for such sick terrorism. but that aint the point. point is, ppl are brought to justice in their own country, not in the country in which they did the crime.
I agree to some degree that it was a bitch-move of afghanistan tho, but I assume they had no other chance. Of course the war is more justified than the war in iraq, even tho I wont call it justified either.
but hey, we're still alive. that's the only good (or bad?!) news in these times.
-
you cant always wait to get atacked to go to war... (im not justifing america, im jsut saying)...
-
The US definetly had a right to go into Afghanistan but I don't believe they were justified with Iraq. Afganis did attack them first, after all.
-
mexico is one of the few countries that do not turn over criminals. when that kid spray painted all that shit in singapore...the US handed him over to singapore authorities.... when the military commits crimes over seas, not only are they tried by the host country but also the US justice system....
in fact there was a guy that was 7 years older than me that went to my high school....he beat his mom to death with a bat, got away with it, the proceded to commit violent crimes such as rape...when the cops were closing in on him, he made it look like he commited suicide by going over the falls
5 years later, it turns out he ended going to college in Canada under a fake name and got caught raping and beating a girl. canada is trying him for the rape and assault charge, and when he's done with that, they are handing him over to get tried over here....
-
The US definetly had a right to go into Afghanistan but I don't believe they were justified with Iraq. Afganis did attack them first, after all.
That's not nessacarily true. Afganistan was no doubt a victim of the Cold War. America and Russia competed heavily for Afganistan and the poor Afgans were the victims of American and Soviet imperialism.
Also it wasn't simply an Afgan issue. The Afgans were angered over America's support of Isreal in the oppression of the Palestinians, America's military presence in 100 countries throughout the world, and it's decade long sanctions that killed thousands of children in Iraq.
-
The US definetly had a right to go into Afghanistan but I don't believe they were justified with Iraq. Afganis did attack them first, after all.
That's not nessacarily true. Afganistan was no doubt a victim of the Cold War. America and Russia competed heavily for Afganistan and the poor Afgans were the victims of American and Soviet imperialism.
Also it wasn't simply an Afgan issue. The Afgans were angered over America's support of Isreal in the oppression of the Palestinians, America's military presence in 100 countries throughout the world, and it's decade long sanctions that killed thousands of children in Iraq.
You make good points, but even though it was brought on by themselves, it's not like the US could just lay back and pretend it didn't happen. The US would not have too many problems, realistically, if it just minded it's own business and quit intervening with other countries.
-
And everyone should know that all a pilot has to do is press a 4 digit code to alert ground control if a plane is going to be hijacked, how come magically none of the pilots of any of the 4 planes could pull off the task of typing in a 4 digit code on their side panel? Ya'll have been took.
-
And everyone should know that all a pilot has to do is press a 4 digit code to alert ground control if a plane is going to be hijacked, how come magically none of the pilots of any of the 4 planes could pull off the task of typing in a 4 digit code on their side panel? Ya'll have been took.
I didn't know that, interesting info.
-
And everyone should know that all a pilot has to do is press a 4 digit code to alert ground control if a plane is going to be hijacked, how come magically none of the pilots of any of the 4 planes could pull off the task of typing in a 4 digit code on their side panel? Ya'll have been took.
LOL!
You really think that you're smarter than all of the investigators, scientists, engineers, pilots, etc that investigated the 9/11 events?
You can't even spell, how are you gonna crack an “conspiracy” that nobody else has from the seat of your computer?
MORON!
-
LMAO...Infinite, no offense, but you have been saying some stupid shit...
-
i will remain indifferent on this subject for now. but i want to know what poeple think about war. do we attack if we see a threat brewing, or do we wait until we have been struck... thoughts?
War is never justified. A war is the abandonment of law, so the answer to your question is, we attack whenever the fuck we want. that's how wars work.
-
And everyone should know that all a pilot has to do is press a 4 digit code to alert ground control if a plane is going to be hijacked, how come magically none of the pilots of any of the 4 planes could pull off the task of typing in a 4 digit code on their side panel? Ya'll have been took.
LOL!
You really think that you're smarter than all of the investigators, scientists, engineers, pilots, etc that investigated the 9/11 events?
You can't even spell, how are you gonna crack an “conspiracy” that nobody else has from the seat of your computer?
MORON!
LMAO...Infinite, no offense, but you have been saying some stupid shit...
LMAO... btw we can not attack whenever we want. The reason the war took so long to develop was because the US was waiting on the UN's vote!... but It is very hard to justify war. although everyone wanted it 9/12/01 :-X
-
And everyone should know that all a pilot has to do is press a 4 digit code to alert ground control if a plane is going to be hijacked, how come magically none of the pilots of any of the 4 planes could pull off the task of typing in a 4 digit code on their side panel? Ya'll have been took.
LOL!
You really think that you're smarter than all of the investigators, scientists, engineers, pilots, etc that investigated the 9/11 events?
You can't even spell, how are you gonna crack an “conspiracy” that nobody else has from the seat of your computer?
MORON!
LMAO...Infinite, no offense, but you have been saying some stupid shit...
LMAO... btw we can not attack whenever we want. The reason the war took so long to develop was because the US was waiting on the UN's vote!... but It is very hard to justify war. although everyone wanted it 9/12/01 :-X
The U.S. should get out of the U.N
-
The U.S. should get out of the U.N
Yeah, that's the U.S. way of doing things anyways. Start something, and then leave it. Then when something happens, go back and attack. U.S. foreign policy for you.
-
We shouldn't get out of the U.N.! There's lots of money to be made there. Just look at all the money France, Germany, and the U.N. as an organization were making off of the "Oil For Food" program that Saddam was pocketing the money from.
It works like this. You pass a resolution that says the United States is going to kick your ass if you don't ONLY sell oil for money that will be spent on food.
So, you brokerage the oil sales, and keep a percentage for the trouble (the U.N.).
When Saddam just hordes and pockets all the money, building Arab disneylands in his palaces and such, you pass another 14 resolutions saying he's a 'bad man'.
When the United States wants to end all this bullshit, and actually enforce any of the resolutions you've passed; you have Germany or France, or Russia (who were selling Saddam navigation devices to use in war) veto the vote, so that the U.N. can't approve a United States invasion of Iraq to enfore the 14 resolutions your sham has instituted over the last 10 years; you keep making profit off of the oil sales 'for food' (HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA nice inside joke on the children of Iraq) and it lands your gung-ho buddies in the U.S. in all the hot water.
It's really a great institution, not many people can not only run the racket but write the laws that govern it; and when it comes down to it, not even have to do any of the fighting or financing.
-
Halliburton doesn't get any reconstruction contracts? Israel isn't claiming some of the oil? LMAO @ Israel wanting oil from its enemy. I mean it's a "grab what you can" situation.
By the way Trauma, why did we support Saddam during the time that the oil fields weren't nationalized, in the same way we supported Iran during the time the oil fields weren't nationalized? Then as soon as he nationalizes the oil fields we call him a fuckin dictator and what-not. Fact of the matter is he was killing his people while we supported him. Only difference was that he nationalized the oil at one point. Then the Iraq-Iran war came, and we had to chose the lesser of 2 evils. I mean seriously, do you not think our fucked up foreign policy of the last 50something years is to blame for the bullshit going on.
-
Read about what happened in Central America when countries decided to nationalize bananas and the United Fruit Co went crazy.
-
Halliburton doesn't get any reconstruction contracts? Israel isn't claiming some of the oil? LMAO @ Israel wanting oil from its enemy. I mean it's a "grab what you can" situation.
By the way Trauma, why did we support Saddam during the time that the oil fields weren't nationalized, in the same way we supported Iran during the time the oil fields weren't nationalized? Then as soon as he nationalizes the oil fields we call him a fuckin dictator and what-not. Fact of the matter is he was killing his people while we supported him. Only difference was that he nationalized the oil at one point. Then the Iraq-Iran war came, and we had to chose the lesser of 2 evils. I mean seriously, do you not think our fucked up foreign policy of the last 50something years is to blame for the bullshit going on.
O.K., let me follow your rationale.
Bush, before he was governor, supported Saddam Hussein.
This is all about Bush, isn't it? What, should we be friends with Saddam, then? Is that what you're avocating? Were we wrong then, or now?
-
Either you didn't read my post, or you're just fuckin dumb. I clearly stated that our foreign policy of the last 50-60 years is to blame. Does that get through to your narrow mind?