jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (37 posts)

At What Cost?

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/0 … 47862.html

    When is our military strategy too much?  How many innocent civilians have to die?

    1. CreatePerfection profile image72
      CreatePerfectionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi sooner28,  I already believe that we have used military force instead of common sense, too often.  It is our huge military and their suppliers who continue to lobby our elected officials, to promote our emperialism world wide, because of their greed.  We have no business being in other parts of the world, especially when they do not want us there.  The time for that is over!

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So if China or some other country bombed NY city we should not carry the fight back to China?  Just leave them alone in the hopes we could prevent other attacks before they were successfully carried out?

        I do believe that Hitler would have loved to have that strategy used against him, as would the Japanese in WWII.

        Seems to me that somewhere back then the US declared that either every country would kick al Quaeda out or we would do it for them; that every country supporting that organization would find us within their borders fighting the enemy that declared war on the US. 

        I have no problem with that.

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Is there not a line? How many children dead is too many?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Of course there is a line.  The US drew it when terrorists hit New York.  As long as those organizations exist and other countries provide a location and support for them then those countries are crossing that line.

            The option is to ignore them and wait for them to attack again - not an option that we want to take, IMO.

            1. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Is that your answer? You've essentially implied that there is no line to be drawn as to what methods are used to prevent terrorist attacks on US soil.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And yet we make massive efforts to limit civilian death.  That doesn't quite fit  with "no line to be drawn as to what methods are used".

                That there will be innocent people dying is inevitable - it has been so in every war ever fought on the face of the planet and it always will be.  The best we can do is try, which we do.

                On the other hand, I would be interested in your solution to prevent future terrorist activities once a decision is made to leave them alone until they enter US soil.  How would you stop it?

                1. innersmiff profile image79
                  innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  This drone program in particular has been an unmitigated disaster in protecting civilian life. In many cases, it seems like the military's justification for their targets is pure guesswork. When 30-50 civilians are being killed in single strikes and nobody even associated with a terrorist organisation is hit, we have a problem. This is a good resource: http://livingunderdrones.org/

                  Well, firstly we need to stop needlessly antagonizing these countries that could breed extremists. We don't need to sanction, bomb, drone, invade and set up shop in a country for decades in order to prevent terrorism. Neither do we need to enact a police state at home. Consider what the British did when we were being terrorised by the IRA: we were brave, went in there after the perpetrators. Nothing complicated. We didn't start bombing or invading Ireland and looking down everyone's pants for a bomb.

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Unless it was US that created "al Quaeda".

    1. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Al Qaeda is not a formal terrorist organisation but a name for a number of terrorist groups under CIA surveillance. There is no central axis of control. Some of them, including Osama Bin Laden, have been used by the west in specific instances, including the Afghan war with China. They are all equally useful as mercenaries and scapegoats.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "Scapegoats" did not destroy the twin towers, and are not now involved in taking over Mali.

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There is no compelling evidence to suggest Al Qaeda destroyed the twin towers, yet within minutes of those planes hitting those buildings, the media was blaming them. That's amazing considering there hasn't been a full criminal investigation. It sounds like scapegoating to me.

          And thank you for bringing up Mali as it proves my point: these same 'terrorist groups' were the ones involved in the Libyan 'revolution', but back then they were called 'freedom fighters'. Now that they've moved to Mali, a country the west actually supports, they've been targeted for a war. First they were mercenaries, then they were scapegoats. The US government doesn't place a value judgment on any terrorist group as they may come in useful in the future, as with Syria also.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm sorry, Innersmiff, I'm just not into any of the numerous conspiracy theories that Uncle Sam took down the towers.  al Queada did it and all the finger pointing in the world isn't going to change that.

            "Freedom Fighters" eh?  Since when do "Freedom Fighters" enter a foreign country uninvited and kill the residents to take over their land?  Or would you can Hussein a freedom fighter when he invaded Kuwait, too?  Same thing - you can promote all the wild theories you want, use all the nice names you want and spin it how you want; those are terrorists, of the same group that invaded the US, and they need eradicated.

            1. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You're into the conspiracy theory that Al Qaeda did it just fine, and a patently absurd one at that: some Arabs, armed with box cutters, infiltrating the most secure security system in the world, successfully hijacked 4 aircraft, flying the aircraft way off course for hours without jets being scrambled, hitting 3 of it's targets and somehow destroying 3 buildings with only 2 of them (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk). Ok, good for you.

              "Since when do "Freedom Fighters" enter a foreign country uninvited and kill the residents to take over their land?"
              Exactly my point. The label 'freedom fighter'  or 'terrorist' are arbitrary just so long as they are the same force. Except we act like they're different. We need to support these groups in Syria and Libya but go to war with them in Mali. Whether we need to or not, we have to recognise this deception.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, it is quite a deception to call terrorists that are out to take over a foreign country "freedom fighters", but there seems to be a few people that will fall into the trap out of hatred for someone else.  They often make up the most outlandish stories and ask silly questions (why didn't the US scramble war planes and shoot down civilian planes over occupied territories?) as if merely asking them makes the theory behind them true.

                Some recognize the spin and deception, some don't.

                1. innersmiff profile image79
                  innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What's silly is asking no questions whatsoever. True sceptics are not building a full-spectrum alternative theory when we are only privy to some of the evidence. The intelligent layman, however, can recognise scientific folly, and the official story matches that description.

                  No individual has been brought to trial over 9/11! Isn't that a shocking fact, no matter who you believe perpetrated it?

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "I'm sorry, Innersmiff, I'm just not into any of the numerous conspiracy theories that Uncle Sam took down the towers.  al Queada did it and all the finger pointing in the world isn't going to change that."

              Agree that Al Qaida did it. But I don't agree that going to war in Afghanistan was the best answer.

      2. profile image83
        Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hitler wasn't in total control of the Axis powers either, but war was necessary.  How does this make 9-11 any less compelling of a cause for military involvement?  When war is brought to your home, either you react, or you get hit again and again.  Should we have taken it on the chin and done nothing about it?  Should we have put up sanctions?  They've worked so well in Iran.  What should we have done?

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          World War II was the inevitable consequence of the disastrous and ill-advised First - military intervention makes military intervention in the future necessary, incentivising perpetual war for expanding governments and the military-industrial-complex. But when you're actually being invaded, of course you defend yourself. We have to take a wider look at the issue though - you're seeing these instances within a short time frame, as if nothing ever happened outside of that. Do you not think Muslim resentment of the West is anything to do with the fact that the US has been ravaging their land for decades? And you don't think that these people could be pushed to the limit? People don't hate each other for no reason.

          When a crime has been committed, and the evidence leads you to suggest a terrorist organisation has perpetrated it, you gather the evidence and work with other countries to find, arrest and bring to trial the individuals responsible. What you don't do is send in the troops to fight a phony war, set up shop for an indefinite amount of time and then invade countries that have nothing to do with it and hold no threat to us (Iraq).

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, Muslim resentment (as in the hate and fatwa of the terrorist organizations) isn't due to US "ravaging" their land.

            It is due to their own people looking over the sea and seeing what can be done when radical Islam isn't the driving force or their society.  It is due to their own citizens wanting what the West very vividly shows can be done when people aren't oppressed.  The powers of Islam, the leaders at the top, take a very dim view of the inevitable erosion of their iron control and make the West into a scapegoat used to control their own people.

            That, not the grossly exaggerated "ravaging" you mention, is the root of the violence of Islamic peoples against the west.

            As far as working with other countries to bring to trial the individuals responsible, that's a little tough when those countries hide, protect and support those individuals.  Unless, of course, you send in troops and take that "phony war" back to the people that started it.

            1. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And you don't think droning their children would contribute to their already dim view of the West? Right . . .

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Do you have a safer way to root them out?  Or would you just leave the terrorists alone to continue their murderous rampage?

                1. Zelkiiro profile image83
                  Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  wilderness says: "It's okay for thousands of innocent children to die as long as we get rid of 5 old guys who don't like us very much! That'll make the world love us!"

            2. profile image83
              Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              wilderness,

              I just wrote a comment, then read yours, and erased mine.  I second what you said.  Well put.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Agree. Iraq was a needless, costly, foolish war. Our invasion of Afghanistan was a bit more understandable, but it was a costly mistake as well, especially since the CIA and a few Navy Seals were able to get Bin Laden.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Do you think those few Seals would have still found him without the war pushing him every day to hide?  Or would he have quite secure from 100 Seals, surrounded by an army?

              In any case, bin Laden was only a part of what has been accomplished in Afghanistan.  A very political and shouted about part, but only a part.

              We can certainly agree, though, that Iraq was a very bad mistake - we should never gone back the second time.  Hindsight has a way of being 20-20, doesn't it?

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                My Senators had the foresight to vote against the invasion of Iraq, and my wife and I marched in February before the invasion with a "NO WAR" sign.

  3. Wayne Brown profile image87
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    Let's just wait and see how many innocent people die at the hands of the F-16's and Abrahams tanks handed to Egypt by this president.  The Benghazi coverup shield him from exposure on the Syrian arms situation and now he will need another one to cover him on this one.  At the same time, I wouldn't call in any margins to say that the Israelis just might kick any butt that shows up.  ~WB

  4. ocbill profile image75
    ocbillposted 4 years ago

    The twin towers conspiracy. Why were there no F-16s near that plane that crashed into the towers?
    That is very odd. A lot of inconsistencies. The govt. let it happen when it could have been easily prevented.
    The FBI had identified the guy as a terrorist and allowed him to board a plane and rolled the dice.Now the U.S. is still feeling the effects of a BS invasion of Iraq, a no-win war in Afghanistan and a suffering economy. Al Qaeda isn't dieing but growing. 
    Prevention is the best deterrent versus a reaction with lies behind it. Invade Iraq while N. Korea threatens you. While Iran does not let you in to inspect. Uh huh, Iraq is a real threat, sure. All greed and money (* Cheney **) behind it is what I believe. I thought satellites, drones, and a Navy ship offshore is enough. Why have an embassy there? I need to be informed more.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wonder how loud you would scream if the military scrambled armed F-16's to "escort" a 747 over your house?

      You have to know that such an action is the last thing we want to do.  Sure, hindsight is wonderful and we would have been better off to shoot those planes down, killing a few hundred homeowners in the subdivision or small town center they landed on, but of course anyone that gave that order would be hung out to dry when the public decided it was a govt. conspiracy to kill American citizens.

      It's a no win, isn't it?  You complain that we let terrorists board a plane, but complain just as loud when we insist in inspecting a collection of hollow pipes and hidden leather pockets (wheelchair).

  5. profile image83
    Education Answerposted 4 years ago

    I can't believe we are even having this conversation.  We were attacked.  We responded.  At the time, both democrats and republicans overwhelming agreed on the need to respond militarily.  Thousands of innocent lives, some children, were lost on 9-11.  We were attacked.  Has political correctness really reached the point that we have to start feeling the terrorists' pain?  Seriously?

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What?  Are you purposely ignoring the issue or are you just blinded by fear?

      Innocent children are being murdered, and drones are terrorizing Pakistani people who are simply trying to live their lives.  That isn't morally acceptable.

      1. profile image83
        Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not blinded by fear.  I believe many are blinded by a false belief that we must martyr ourself in guilt. Enough.  We were attacked, and we struck back at the terrorists.  What is wrong with that?

        As for the drone issue, we may just agree.

    2. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Again, the implication that purely because we were attacked, literally anything goes in retaliation.

      1. profile image83
        Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nope.  The statement is clear.  When we were attacked, we were justified in attacking the terrorists who so willingly killed our citizens.  Terrorists understand force and retaliation. You don't negotiate with terrorists or terrorist-harboring nations.  What were we to do, try to get Afghanistan to help?  Perhaps Pakistan?  Afghanistan was absolutely in no position to assist us, and we clearly know that Pakistan was undermining our efforts.  What option, other than a military option in Afghanistan, did we have? 

        Sometimes people believe that we need to have peace at any cost.  I appreciate the fact that a lot of people oppose war, because they want to save lives.  It's hard for me to fault that, but at some point, the military is the best answer.  This was a scenario where negotiations, sanctions, and political pressure would have accomplished nothing.  We had little choice but to act with our military.  It's an unfortunate reality, and I certainly do not feel like the "Great Satan" for doing so.

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Since you're so sure that there was no other option, I wonder, do you consider the war in Afghanistan a success?

          1. profile image83
            Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Since you are so certain that there were other options, what were they?

            Nope.  The war wasn't a total success.

 
working