US Foreign Policy Debate ?

[SlvrDragon50]

Continuing from the other thread so it doesn't get locked

Last three posts

Originally Posted by scuba Widow

Personally , it's children with your views that scare and worry me. Where is America headed when your generation takes over running the country?

First off if you can't write your own post don't use mine, I don't want nothing that you have to say even remotely associated with me. Now, you think that the war was unprovoked, what country are you living in? Where were you on 9-11? Do you remember that day? I feel sorry for everybody that has been affected by the tragic events of that day and since that day, but my alliance lies to my homeland and my people. If you want to give a history lesson, you might want to learn history first. This nation was not built in peaceful nor will it ever be. We can all pray and hope for it but it won't happen, we have to be realistic. The idea of war goes back many years ago. We have the Constitution because of a war.

In my opinion, at your age you should worry more about school and things that are relative to your age at this time in your life, than government and war. I do think that you need to be more respectful to people and their ideas, instead of the typical teenage "I'm right" attitude especially if you are going to place yourself into areas of conversation that children don't belong.

Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50

This topic is so much more fun though Can't you just change the thread title?

That last line is pretty discriminatory.. And I never said I dont worry about school.

When did I say that? Please quote me!

I remember that day since I went to school and saw the planes crash LIVE.

Please point out where my use of history has been faulty. Everything I've used can be supported with articles.

Did I say the US is peaceful? NO. However, the US needs to try and minimize its police-ing.

Originally Posted by thagar

I think a lot of people are tired of the US being the world police force, including some of our military members. I know I got tired of deploying every other year because we were stretched to thin. That is what the UN and NATO were supposed to be. Let them do it so they can show the world the failure that they really are.

[rox@ucf11]

hmmm I wonder if anyone really wants to continue to argue this thread. I suppose we will see

[fire diver]

The first post has some interesting debate points, but the thread was too confusing to follow who said what, and I'm too lazy to sit with pen and paper and figure it out.

So without quoting that whole thread, lets have a discusion.

First off, I agree with Thagor. I think that MOST soldiers are tired of us being the worlds police force. It's one thing to serve your country, and we all serve in an all-volunteer army, but things have gotten just stupid when it comes to the deployments. I highly question the amount of good we are doing in the mid-east at the current moment. I think will will eventually just pack-up and leave, with no real objective deffined or met, and go home like the Russians did a couple decades ago.

[comet24]

I now have a headache.

[cummings66]

I don't care anymore, logic doesn't work. For what it's worth, I think that there is no solution there. When they don't value human life as we do there can be no real peace. When mothers and children become human bombs, there is no way to make it work.

There is no way we can do anything of lasting value here. Generations of hatred have pretty much determined the end game here. They can not forgive the past and will fight until the end times.

There is no diplomatic solution here. As long as one of them is left standing they'll fight. That's how they behave, like animals.

The solution to the terrorist is simple, kill them and bury them with pigs. Once they learn that's the plan they'll stop quick enough.

[zerozin23]

Here's my reply to fire diver.

You claim that we have "murdered" hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. If you can call killing the person who is trying to kill you "murder" than you have a lot more learning to do.

How is killing people that have no arms and no connection to any type of insurgency such as women, children and even newborns, be killing someone who is trying to kill you? If you assume that every single person of those hundreds of thousands of people that have been killed is an insurgent that is trying to kill you, which is not true because there are well documented cases of innocent bystanders and non-insurgents dying, then you must also assume that every Iraqi is trying to kill you, as any of them can be killed for being an insurgent even when they aren't. Let's take your generalization and apply it to America:
I'm sure that the 19 hijackers that ran planes into the World Trade Center thought that they too were killing people who were trying to kill them. Are you saying that you follow the same logic as terrorists? Explain yourself.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:&quot;&quot;; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:56.7pt 42.5pt 56.7pt 85.05pt; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> You can come talk to the locals, and form your own, personal, opinion instead of swallowing the gargae that is being fed to you.

I have already done so, as stated in my earlier posts. And I don't swallow garbage, I make my own opinions based on what I have experienced, learned and read coupled with judgment.

What are your opinions on the current regime of Iran, and thier proven funding and training of terrorists that are sent into Iraq, Afghanistan, and all over the world. It's proven by the ones we capture, and by the Iranian marked weapons we find in weapons caches. What are your views concerning that aspect of the war?

Iran sending weapons into Afghanistan? You've got to be joking! Or you might just not have the slightest clue about geopolitics of the region. Surely, Iran would rather give weapons to Israelthen Afghanistan! The Sunni tribal leaders and al-Queda in Afghanistan are the biggest enemies of Shi'ie Iran. Did you not listen to the recent tape of bin Laden in which he said that al-Queda would shift their focus from killing Americans to killing Iranians?



As to sending weapons into Iraq, once again you prove that you are extremely misinformed. If you have any knowledge of the political situation in Iraq, you would know that both Iran and the US train and arm the same exact militia. The American supported government in the green zone of Abdul al-Hakim of the Supreme Council and Nouri al-Maliki of the Dawa party are both supported and armed by Iran. Consequently, they are also supported and armed by the US. So if say that they are 'terrorists', you would be saying that the US supports terrorists.



"It's proven by the ones we capture, and by the Iranian marked weapons we find in weapons caches."
This is your 'proof'? Well then I guess that Islamic extremists world over are loyal to the late atheist Soviet Union because they use AK-47's. Tracking a groups loyalty based on what they buy on the black market is ridiculous.



What you are right in saying is that Iran does support organizations that some call 'terrorist'. Why aren't they allowed to support those people that are loyal to them? This is done all over the world and it is not considered a crime. America supports and arms groups that are pro-American, like Israel. Why isn't Iran allowed to support and arm groups that are pro-Iranian, like Hezbollah?

[fire diver]

I will have to strongly disagree with you on all points. First off, your claims of the deaths of women and children. That's not murder. Murder is a diliberate act. how about this for your mind to wrap around. you're sitting at a checkpoint. Here comes a 10 year Iraqi girl pulling a 155 arty round in a wagon towards you. Do you let her walk up so the handler can kill everyone or do you shoot the girl? How about a van with women and children, and an armed insugent forcing them to drive through the checkpoint without stopping? Everyone knows such actions will result in death. Maybe the car is filled with explosive and heading to the fuel point you are guarding? Do you follow the rules of war and (and clearly posted in mulitple languages for hundreds of yards before the checkpoint) and open fire into the van, or let it drive through and pray it doesnt kill fifty of your friends (and you with it). This isn't a clasic war with established rules

And just for the record, I do function under the idea that every Iraqi is trying to kill me. Hostile fire is based on rules, but that doesnt change the basic idea. I also get along quite well with many of the locals here, and am learning the language. I even have friendly conversations with the known insurgents who would slice my throat if given the chance.
Also, as for the supplying of weapons by Iran, it doesn't matter much what one politcal factions thinks of another. The old saying of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is taken very close to heart here. Iran wants America out so that it can begin to take control of entire region. If we are next door in Afghanistan, that doesn't leave much room for them to spread out, in a manner of speaking.

As for the Iranian marked ordinance, no it's not old surplus junk. It's new. The insurgents are even stating that they were trained in Iran. Keep a blind eye on them all you want. The only reason we are STILL fighting in Iraq today is because of them supplying men, arms and training to the insurgency.

If you want the truth, don't talk to people in another country, come to Iraq and talk to the people living here. I don't doubt that you have studied the geo-politics of the war, but reading another's point of view, and see it first hand are two different things.
I'm also curious HOW you talked with the "refugees". Are you a natice Iraqi speaker? Do you speak any variation of Arbic with fluency? Were you using an interpretor? What was the background, religion, and region of the terp? If they were talking to Baghdadis (or other area of Iraq) but not from there, they probably got a lot of things wrong.

[Rockhound76]

My previous employer did business in both Khurdistan and Iraq. Because they had contacts pre-Iraq war, I was able to hear and learn much about what went on. Keep in mind that this company was not American and most of it's employees were not American.

Under Hussein, the Shi'a and Sunni populations did not "get along" Anyone who says that is (I usually don't use such harsh language) either a liar or a fool. Under Hussein's secular dictatorship, any disagreement from any group was dealt with harshly. His power base was Sunni, so the most horrific actions were taken against other groups, including Shi'a and the Khurds. However, an Sunni group that disagreed with him was also a target.

At the end of any totalitarian regime, there will be those who would prefer the relative calm at the center or repression to the chaos of freedom, especially when those who are freed have to overcome generations of cultural and personal submission. They know no other life, how can they prefer not knowing what will happen next? In the end, however, Liberty is the preferred state of man.

Regarding the US military: Again, anyone who dare compares the loss of innocent life in the fog of war, where the combatants mix in with the population, where women and children are used both as shields and as weapons, where Rules of Engagement often force one side to fall back for fear of causing collateral damage, where the technologies are applied with surgical precision never seen in warfare....anyone who compares that as worse or even the same as the practices of a regime whose response to rebellion is genocide, to religions that demand death to any who disgree.....that person is both a liar and a fool.

I challenge anyone to point out another nation engaged in a terrible war that takes such pains to limit collateral damage and loss of innocent life. Yes, it happens. But, great pains are taken to avoid it.

I have spoken with Khurds who tell me our nation saved their people. I have spoken with Iraqis who say they are less safe as individuals, but more safe as a nation than they were under Hussein. And they all fear being ruled by Iran.

Regarding the weapons found in Iraq, supplied directly Iran, with forces TRAINED by Iran: America has indeed funded and armed groups of both Sunni and Shi'a militia, part of the Iraqi defense forces. To compare the use of Shi'a militia to stabilize a Shi'a area with Iranian Qod trained and armed forces used to de-stabilize that same area by KILLING THEIR OWN CITIZENS as well as any Americans they find is specious at the very least.

It makes me wonder if the writer of those opinions is Sunni himself. Part of the problem in that area is a history of hate fueled by medieval religous doctrine. If you are Shi'a, you are condemned to death. If you are Sunni, you are reasonable. Or is it Iran and the Iranian allied Shi'a who are the reasonable ones? I got a bit confused on that part--I guess I need to speak to more "refugees".

IMO, there are crazies on both sides. I for one, believe in the honor and intergrity of the American and it's allied forces. While I was dismayed at our decision to invade based on unclear assumptions of WMD's (which MOST of the world believed, as well), I cannot take issue with our conduct in the war.