Foreign Policy

[thrasher]

So the United States government justifies murder in the case where it supports our constitutional doctrine. If something is worth fighting for, then it is also worth killing for.

Now the United States obviously condemns terrorist action. But in reality, on some fundamental level, we operate much the same way terrorist organizations do. That is to say, if we do not agree with the way something is, we will not hesitate to use deadly force. Killing thousands of innocents in the process? Acceptable, as long as they are not our own. How is this different from the actions of terrorist organizations? They believe in something so strongly that they are willing to take innocent lives in the process of fighting for those beliefs.

The most alarming aspect is that 50% of the US population (Assuming the voting pop. is representative of the entire pop.) condones this foreign policy.

Sept 11, 2001 = About 3500 dead due to terrorist actions
Iraqi deaths since March 2003 = over 100,000 according to a study by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health

Who are the real terrorists?

[YogsVR4]

You're trying to make moral equivelencies and are missing badly.

[thrasher]

Wow, you got me there...good solid response. I really would like to hear what conservatives have to say about this. I don't understand what makes our taking of innocent life any less abhorrent than the taking of innocent lives by terrorists. We hide behind a blanket of "democracy" and suddenly it becomes ok. I don't buy it.

Edit: P.S. I haven't missed one bit on my moral equivalencies. Terrorists are working towards a goal and taking civilian life becomes necessary in achieveing that goal. We are no different. It's wrong no matter how you look at it.

[Muscletang]

Thrasher how many of those 100,000 deaths have been done by Americans? If you read in the paper you see "car bomb kills 12 Iraqis", "suicide attack kills 20 Iraqis", and so on. Unless the U.S. is behind these personal attacks and not the terrorist, I don't see your point.

We are trying to get the terrorist and it's obvious they'll kill their own people to get to us.

[thrasher]

Oh, the 100,000 was referring only to deaths caused by US troops, according to the study anyways. That's what causes such concern

[Twitch1]

How many of the alledged 100,000 the US is supposed to be responsible for were killed by torture? How many were killed by poison gas? How many were killed execution style? How many were raped before being killed? How many were killed and dumped into mass graves to conceal the fact?

[codycool]

I'm sorry, until I see prove I'm calling BS on the U.S. troops killing over 100,000 Iraqis..

I'm guessing you would rather have the taliban running afganistan, and Sadaam running Iraq?

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by thrasher

Wow, you got me there...good solid response. I really would like to hear what conservatives have to say about this. I don't understand what makes our taking of innocent life any less abhorrent than the taking of innocent lives by terrorists. We hide behind a blanket of "democracy" and suddenly it becomes ok. I don't buy it.

Edit: P.S. I haven't missed one bit on my moral equivalencies. Terrorists are working towards a goal and taking civilian life becomes necessary in achieveing that goal. We are no different. It's wrong no matter how you look at it.

You'll get a good response when you've put together a rational point. You've equated the attacks of 911 with the war in Iraq. They are not equivelent.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/terrorism
the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

Just what in that definition did the troops in Iraq perform? Wait, don't tell me. I bet you're so open with that definition that you'd consider a parent a terrorist because they coerced their kids into doing their homework. Or, is it only death that has you in a bind.

Its horrendous that anyone died. The fact someone was killed does not mean that it was a terrorist act. Death is an end. Terrorism is a means.

[Raz_Kaz]

And who defines terrorism? America? England? People in power obviously. Ask them if they think theyir actions are terrorist and they will say no, obviously just as America denies that they can do any wrong in the world.

America's view on the rest of the world is so crooked, as long as their people aren't involved they couldn't care less.

[thrasher]

I'll give you the fact that our actions are not terroristic by definition, that was meant merely to provoke thought. However, we went abroad with the full knowledge that our actions would result in loss of civilian life. We KNEW that innocents would die, yet we proceeded anyways. And we continue to kill thousands more.

Terrorists intent to kill in order to make a statement, to fight for what they believe in. We intend to promote democracy with the full knowledge that thousands will die, to fight for what we believe in. So on the pathetic, immoral, way to suck at being alive-o-meter, terorists rate a 1, and we rate a 2. Yay for us.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

Thrasher how many of those 100,000 deaths have been done by Americans? If you read in the paper you see "car bomb kills 12 Iraqis", "suicide attack kills 20 Iraqis", and so on. Unless the U.S. is behind these personal attacks and not the terrorist, I don't see your point.

We are trying to get the terrorist and it's obvious they'll kill their own people to get to us.

The ultimate irony is that terrorism is now more rampant in Iraq, because Saddam was deposed - with the excuse that we were combatting terrorism. Not that I would wish Saddam on his people - it's just obvious that our intentions were not so clear (i.e.: every public reason given was a lie or a mistake), hence no proper plan was instituted. There's still no plan.

Defined as terrorism or not, we sure haven't made life any easier on the people we were "liberating".

Personally, I only care about our country, but all this damned political gaming has cost us hundreds of BILLIONS. Not acceptable, in my book.

[Twitch1]

Every conflict the US or any country has ever been involved in produces civilian casualties. It's an unfortunate part of conflict and a given when combat happens. When Napoleon was marching on Moscow there were civilian casulaties too. So?

The only good thing about all this that every self pronounced terrorist or wanna be terorist has made tracks for Iraq. If they'd stayed home we'd have never been able to take them all on. They're doing us a favor by making it a terror summit or Celebrity Death Match. When one yahoo gets crushed the next fruitcake martyr wanna be steps up for a thrashing. They're all in one place now!

The big show is now going on! Meet the 72 virgins- no waiting!!!

[Raz_Kaz]

Originally Posted by Twitch1

Every conflict the US or any country has ever been involved in produces civilian casualties. It's an unfortunate part of conflict and a given when combat happens. When Napoleon was marching on Moscow there were civilian casulaties too. So?

Were the majority of the US conflicts really necessary? When war is waged, no matter who gets killed in the crossfire in between the two parties is scratched off as collateral damage...well that's how it's suppose to be except the Americans like to call the other peoples tactics terrorism while they follow the good book.

The only good thing about all this that every self pronounced terrorist or wanna be terorist has made tracks for Iraq. If they'd stayed home we'd have never been able to take them all on. They're doing us a favor by making it a terror summit or Celebrity Death Match. When one yahoo gets crushed the next fruitcake martyr wanna be steps up for a thrashing. They're all in one place now!

The big show is now going on! Meet the 72 virgins- no waiting!!!

Let me know when the "good guys" start winning and then maybe they will go home. Since the war was oficially "won", there have been more and more killings of the troops, what's going on?
America can keep sending their children to their deaths, all in the name of what?

[moslerporschefreak]

Originally Posted by Twitch1

The only good thing about all this that every self pronounced terrorist or wanna be terorist has made tracks for Iraq. If they'd stayed home we'd have never been able to take them all on. They're doing us a favor by making it a terror summit or Celebrity Death Match. When one yahoo gets crushed the next fruitcake martyr wanna be steps up for a thrashing. They're all in one place now!

The big show is now going on! Meet the 72 virgins- no waiting!!!

It must be nice having such a simple view of this issue. Seriously though, I mean no personal attack, it just annoys me that people don't relaize that our actions in Iraq have bred terrorists in the middle east for the next 30 years. Note to the uninformed out there: the anti-American Sentiment in the Mid East is characterized by a rejection of our POLICIES in that region (Israel support, Troops in Suadi Arabia, etc.). Perpetuating these shitty policies solves nothing.

Also, most of the people in Iraq are not terrorists, they are insurgents that grew up in Iraq and are fighting against an outside occupying force that they don't agree with. Terrorists are still afoot in other nations, Mid Eastern and Western, so if you sleep better at night because you think they're all in Iraq that's fine, you're just wrong.

[drewh4386]

there countries never had a stable society in the first place so those people don't really know any better. All they learn is what to believe and what not the stand for. it may have something to do with their religon. Anybody could be a leader in those countries. Which is why there is still alot of corupt unruly things that go down.