We gave ourselves the right to set them...we faught for those rights when we faught ourselves out from under British rule...and no, we don't suffer from the Napolean or Roman or Hitler complexes where we must occupy and rule all the world, not even close...the birth of our Nation was based on our desire to have total and complete freedom in all aspects of life, and we paid the price with blood...not all countries were able to do that against England, but we did, and now that we have it we will never give it up, and we will battle those that try to take it from us OR threaten to!!!...again, who gives a shit what NATO does, we honor the sanctions they impose, we pretty much give it what it asks for, but we're not the only ones...if there was no NATO (or some other type of global police) where would everyone get together to opine??...come to decisions on global issues??...NATO by far is not perfect, I think it hurts the US more than helps, but if not, then there's chaos...if anything, I don't think NATO does enough...keep in mind Strat, we attack those that attack us, no the other way around...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, May 25, 2009 11:35:25 AM)| |  | _strat_ wrote: | | And whos in charge of NATO? And even if NATO was the world police, would that be any better? Who gives the right to the US (or NATO) to be the world police?
Now, innocent victims, there are plenty, and on both sides. What strikes me as incredibly hiporytic is that western victims are obviously worth more. September the 11th, how many people died? 3000? Compared to the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan thats not very much. Compared to the 60 years of oppresion and suffering of the Palestinians, its just a joke. Yet, no one ever thought of starting a "war on Israel" (save its Arab neighbours) over it.
And of course... Yes the world knows your polcies and what happens if we violate them. Again, who gave you the right to set them?
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | We don't give a shit about being the world's police...that's what NATO's for...and don't forget about those 2 buildings that were decorated with airplane and body parts...that's why we're there...and if we let 1 get away with it, then any piece of shit with an agenda will try to do the same...any self respecting country with the ability to defend itself would/has done the same thing...I don't give a shit if it is North Korea, China, Russia, Central America...whomeverthefuck...I don't care, you hit me and I'm gonna hit you back 10 times harder, you threw the first punch!!!...Messing with the population???...groups like that don't exist without support, they must be hid (cowards) and fed, and it's not like their side is the only side with innocent victims, it's just that that's there forté, and it usually extends to hurting their own ppl as well as everyone else's...as for dropping bombs, we have laser guided missiles, we hit what we aim for with a great deal of accuracy...and of course we've done wrong, no country has a perfect record, but we defend ourselves and we do it with effect...we don't want to fight, so when we do, we try to make our actions decisive and with intent...the World knows our policies and they are extremely fair, so those that choose to violate them already know what's coming next 
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | And the "terrorists" have shown that you cant go around punching them in the mouth and get away with it. Even if you are an American.
Now, am I supposed to believe that invading Afghanistan did not "mess" with the population? Come on. And even if allies do leave (which Im guessing will happen at one point or another), they will leave behind the puppet government, with its military, and the thing will go on. Besides, "give them, and we leave" is nothing but extortion. Worse, its bullying. Id like to see what would the allies do if N. Korea would be harbouring those terrorists. Or Russia, or China. Anyone with a decent military.
In any case, since we are talking about muslim terrorists... What about western terrorists? You, know, the people in planes that drop bombs, and most of the time dont even care what they hit? And the people who order them to do that? Sorry, but no one can be the judge here. And that is exactly it. The attitude that somehow "we" cant do wrong. That "our" soldiers are always on the right side. And worst of all, that America has the right to call good from bad, and act as the worlds policeman.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Strat, Afghanistan's borders are a safe haven for known terrorists, which is why our troops are there...not messing with the civilian population, but looking for specific individuals...if they don't want us there, help us find them and we will leave...end of story!!!...if you choose to call that an invasion, fine, but it is what it is...you don't go and punch the USA in the mouth and expect to get away with it...no matter WHO or WHERE you are!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Invasion is as correct as can be. For better or for worse, Afghanistan got invaded.
As for liberation... That makes me laugh everytime I hear it. An army comes in, kills a whole lot of people, installs a puppet government, and thats liberation? There are liberators in Afghanistan, to be sure. The Taliban, and no one else. And as bad and medieval as they may seem, I hope they will win in the end.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | invasion isnt the right term. going in to kick out terrorists and give the country back to the rest isnt conquoring it. its realy liberating it.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I agree, actualy. I mean, it looks like your troops are doing something worthile, at least. IDK, I dont want to be the judge here, but it beats the hell of our troops, that are there just to patrol, and fulfill NATOs desires. Thats what I find the most offensive, really. Our army is based on generations of guerrila fighters, who resisted foreign occupation, and now they are helping in an invasion? Perverse.
| | | Becks wrote: | | Strat, I too oppose the war in Afghanistan, what I found offensive was this girls view which was entirely wrong - she has no idea what our troops actually do there, and saying that my husband, in a round about way, is a murderer, was offensive to me. The fact of the matter is, New Zealand troops are not there in a combat role, they are there to help the local people. And by all accounts, the locals are grateful for this help. I will not go around denouncing the work that they are doing when it is so desperately needed and welcomed.
You are entitled to your opinion, we just happen to have slightly differing views, LOL!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | First of all, let me say that I have absolutely no desire to offend Becks or her husband. I think of her as a friend, and I hope politics wont come between it.
But I have to respond to this.
I am not gratefull, not even a little bit. I oppose the war in Afghanistan, with this oh so precious freedom, that is brought up so often, and that is not the result of NATOs actions in Afghanistan.
Frankly, whats offensive is this "in your name" attitude, that the soldiers are there in our name, fighting for us... Even if we not only dont care for it, but we also dont want it. We have military there. Granted, not much, but theyre there... Doing pretty much what the New Zealanders seem to be doing. Patroling a relatively peacefull province, and not getting exposed. Fine. The problem is that they are there representing us. I cannot be gratefull for that. What I am is offended.
| | | joedraper wrote: | | Becks, that girl is just ignorant! Nobody has the right to judge anyone and push their views onto anyone else.
I know it's hard not to react but pay her no heed.
You and your husband sacrifice so much so that others may have peace of mind and a safe, free world to live in. I may not have any desire to have a military life but I'm thankful to God for those who do. Those who put their lives on the line for strangers, the least those 'strangers' could be is grateful!
| | | Becks wrote: | | A girl at hockey pissed me off tonight real bad, thinking she can comment on what our military does in Afghanistan when she has no fuckin clue 
I was talking to another girl on my hockey team (who is in the airforce) and mentioned that Craig had been in Afghanistan. This other girl heard and asked what he was doing there, I said 'Fixing the optical equipment and things like that' and she said 'Oh so they can go and kill people' me and the airforce girls were like um NO! And this stupid girl started going on about how murder is illegal here, but it's ok for soldiers to do it over there etc. Me and airforce girl were like um no it's provincial reconstruction (although admittedly, they would kill someone if they were in immediate danger) and stupid girl was like 'well I have a differing view'. WTF kind of view is that?! When it is entirely WRONG and pretty offensive to those of us who have family who have served. Silly cow.
In case any of you are wondering, New Zealands role over in Afghanistan is patrolling and helping the local people rebuild. Not so much out hunting for Taliban, although the patrolling that is done is to ensure security of the province - no front line conflict for our troops where they are. Although if the shit hit the fan where they are, they would become front line troops etc.
Edited at: Sunday, May 24, 2009 2:37:05 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
