Are current US wars justified and moral?

[Zzyzx]

.
Moved from another thread:

Who, exactly, was responsible for the WTC event?

The proposed 19 terrorists were primarily from Saudi Arabia – an “ally�. Why did we not invade that nation instead of nations that cannot be shown to have been involved?

That is not correct, the mastermind of 9/11 Khalid Shekh Mohammed was from Afganistan.

You are DEAD WRONG – he is a Pakistani who was evidently born in Kuwait and captured in Pakistan (both “allies� of the US).

To the best of my knowledge he has not been convicted of being the 9/11 mastermind -- but is accused and imprisoned -- and "questioned" before confessing (see bold below).

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also transliterated as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and additionally known by at least fifty aliases)[3][4][5] (born March 1, 1964, or April 14, 1965) is a Pakistani in U.S. custody, Guantamano Bay for alleged acts of terrorism, including mass murder of civilians. He was charged on February 11, 2008, with war crimes and murder by a U.S. military commission and faces the death penalty if convicted.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a member of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization, although he lived in Kuwait rather than Afghanistan, heading al-Qaeda's propaganda operations from sometime around 1999. The 9/11 Commission Report alleges that he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks." He is also alleged to have confessed to a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI, possibly in a joint action with agents of the American Diplomatic Security Service, and has been in U.S. custody since that time. In September 2006, the U.S. government announced it had moved Mohammed from a secret prison to the facility at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[6] The Red Cross, Human Rights Watch and Mohammed have claimed that the harsh treatment and waterboarding he received from U.S. authorities amounts to torture.[7][8]

In March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention and alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — as it was claimed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing[9] in Guantanamo Bay — confessed to masterminding the September 11 attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks.[10]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is reported to have been born in Kuwait to parents from Balochistan in Pakistan.[1] He spent some of his formative years in Kuwait, just like his nephew, Ramzi Yousef (three years his junior). He joined the Muslim Brotherhood at age sixteen. He returned to Pakistan soon after, and after spending some time there, went to the United States for further study.

He attended Chowan University, a small Baptist school in Murfreesboro, North Carolina, for a semester (beginning in 1983) before transferring to the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and completing a degree in mechanical engineering in 1986.[12][13] The following year he went to Afghanistan, where he and his brothers (Zahed, Abed, and Aref) fought against the Soviet Union during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. (Some sources claim that Khalid was fighting in Afghanistan before he moved to the United States.) There, he was introduced to Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, of the Islamic Union Party. The 9/11 Commission Report notes on page 149 that "Sayyaf was close to Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Afghan Northern Alliance".

The 9/11 Commission Report also notes that, "By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel."[14]

However, according to a U.S. intelligence summary reported on August 29, 2009 by the Washington Post, his time in the U.S did lead him to become a terrorist. "KSM's limited and negative experience in the United States — which included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills — almost certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist," according to this intelligence summary. "He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country."[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

Bold added

Do you deny that the 19 people identified as carrying out the 9/11 event are primarily Saudi Arabian?

Considering Saudi Arabia has a stable government with a King also committed to fighting the war on terror, we have no need to invade.

Others might say that Saudi Arabia is a puppet of the US.

Places like Iraq were ruled by the tyrannical Sadam Hussein who spoke out in favor of the 9/11 conspirators, not only was that nation harboring islamic jihadists, but they also supported their cause.

Do you recommend attacking every nation that is governed by a “tyrant� and/or one who speaks against the US or supports groups opposed to the US (called “terrorists� by some)?

Thank you – INSECURE – as I said.

In my opinion, invading and occupying other nations that cannot be shown to have been involved was a massive blunder by frightened people.

Yes, the United States would not have attakced a country if our national security and foreign interests were not at risk.

Kindly show the actual risk posed to the US by Iraq and Afghanistan – enough to produce FEAR to justify invading another nation.

And since the governments of the countries we are occupying cannot successfully eliminate the terrorists by their own means, our help is neccesary.

Do you recommend that the US “help� governments of all nations (against their will if necessary) if they cannot “successfully eliminate the terrorists� (by whose standards)?

You'll see no complaing from the current iraq government are Harmed Karzi.

You don’t suppose (just suppose) that the current Iraqi government is a tiny bit beholden to the US, do you? Of course not. It is a free and independent democratic nation. Right?

Many nations of the world “harbor� groups or individuals hostile to the US. Shall we invade all of them?

Many of the world’s nations are actively opposed to the US – including Russia, China, Venezuela. Shall we invade them also?

If groups within those states attack us and the governments are not able to contend with the threat, then yes, we should invade them, out of fear of another attack.

If a group from Russia was to crash a plane into the Empire State Building, we should INVADE Russia – right?

Out of FEAR of another such attack we should GO TO WAR with Russia?????

And even with the occupation of the middle east, we've still seen 2 attempted foreign attacks on this country, and one successful domestic attack.

RIGHT. Evidently what we are doing is NOT working. It is NOT preventing other attacks.

So what have we accomplished (other than making additional enemies)?

Against whom did we retaliate? Afghanistan and Iraq have not been shown to have been involved. If a small group (say 19) from the US commits hostile acts in the homeland of another nation, is that nation justified in invading and occupying the US?

Prior to 2001, Afganistan was being run by Islamic Facists and a taliban government and Iraq was being ruled by a ruthless dictator who spoke in favor of the 9/11 suicide bombers.

Quite a few of the world’s nations are run by “ruthless dictators� and groups that oppose the US. Shall we invade them all?

Cuba is a dictatorship and a <shudder in fear> communist nation. Shall we invade?

Now, what you suggest is wrong, it is not a small group of 19 people, it is a massive chain of terrorist organizations throughout the middle east, with indoctrintational schools and advanced weaponery.

Advanced weaponry????? BOX CUTTERS????? IEDs??????

It is a huge threat to the United States and American lives when you have these people calling for the dimise of the west and the destruction of Israel.

Yes, we should regard box cutters and IEDs as a “huge threat� to the US.

Note that every military action in which the US has engaged since WWII has NOT been a declared war (as required specifically of Congress by the Constitution).

Yes, a declaration of war should be declared on terrorism.

That has been done illegally by presidents – and has failed. Presidents have no power under the Constitution to declare war.

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War�.

I do not agree with Mr. Biden’s analysis of Iraq as a “functioning democracy�.

Even if it was, who are we to impose our favored system of government on the people of other nations?

It is not our favored system, it is the right system as it allows direct rule by the people, not some monarchy or Islamic fanatical dictator.

What entitles you to decide what is right for others?

Does that entitlement come with citizenship in the US or with Christian worship practices or personal opinion?

Do propose that other nations do NOT have the right to develop their preferred form of government?

Within the past year has the US threatened other nations?

No.

Are you honestly NOT aware that the US has threatened Iran and North Korea?

Perhaps you are also not aware that the US has threatened Eritrea – a nation of 5 million people (a “real threat� to the US) http://news.antiwar.com/2009/04/17/us-t ... e-eritrea/

Are verbal threats basis for invasions? Should any nation we threaten invade the US – or is there a double standard involved?

Who has verbally threatened the United States, or who has the United States verbally threatened? North Korea and Iran are eminent threats, and if the joint chiefs and the defense department see it fit to invade in order to prevent nukes from getting into the hands of a Holocaust denying dictator and a North Korean deraigned king, then we should. Wouldn't you rather have us be proactive and prevent a nuclear war.

Are you not aware that North Korea has atomic weapons?

If a dictator denies the Holocaust, shall we attack his nation?

If another nation (say China, Russia or North Korea) regards the US as an “eminent threat�, are they justified in attacking the US?

Or, is the US the only nation that is entitled to attack others it regards as an “eminent threat�?

Should the US start a nuclear war to prevent a nuclear war?

Should the US risk a nuclear war by threatening, provoking or attacking nuclear armed nations?

In my opinion, our invasions and occupations have produced far more enemies than they have eliminated.

Who? Not world power houses.

Some “world power houses� (and nuclear armed nations) are ALREADY enemies of the US (or strongly opposed to US actions and policies), perhaps including Russia and China (unless they are to be considered friendly nations or allies).

Do either of those nations possess greater ability to harm the US than Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea or Iran?

We have the full support of NATO,

Correction: We have SOME support of NATO. Notice how few NATO nation troops are engaged in warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan.

the only enemies we are creating are those anti western terrorists.

You are correct in stating that we ARE creating enemies identified as “anti-western terrorists�. Thank you. That is exactly my point.

How many thousand such enemies do you think it is advisable to create?

that pose a threat to my life and your life.

You are welcome to feel afraid that “terrorists� threaten your life. That is an example of the fear and insecurity I mention.

However, you are not entitled to speak for me. I am NOT afraid of “terrorists� threatening my life.

If a foreign nation invaded the US and killed hundreds of thousands of people, would that nation not have created / inspired thousands of enemies among the US population and US allies who would strike back however possible?

Not people, we are not killing people, we are killing terrorists

�We are not killing people, we are killing terrorists�??????

Are you serious? Do you not know (or deny) that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed thousands of civilians – women, children, old people?????

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf

Iraqi Civilian Deaths Estimates

Three cluster studies of violence-related mortality in Iraq have recently been
undertaken. The first two studies were both conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Baghdad’s Al-Mustansiriya University and are commonly referred to in the press as “the Lancet studies� because they were published in the British medical journal of that name. The third study was conducted by a consortium of researchers, many of whom are associated with the World Health Organization, and so the study is commonly referred to as “the WHO study� in the press.

The first of these studies, published in 2004, used a cluster sample survey of
households in Iraq to develop an estimate ranging from 8,000 to 194,000 civilian
casualties due to violent deaths since the start of the war.9 This report has come under
some criticism for its methodology, which may not have accounted for the long-term
negative health effects of the Saddam Hussein era. Former British Foreign Minister Jack
Straw has written a formal Ministerial Response rejecting the findings of the first Lancet
report on the grounds that the data analyzed were inaccurate.10

The second study, published in 2006, increased the number of clusters surveyed from
33 to 47 and reported an estimate of between 426,369 and 793,663 Iraqi civilian deaths
from violent causes since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.11 This article, too,
has sparked some controversy.12 Stephen Moore, a consultant for Gorton Moore
International, objected to the methods used by the researchers, commenting in the Wall
Street Journal that the Lancet article lacked some of the hallmarks of good research: a
small margin of error, a record of the demographics of respondents (so that one can be
sure one has captured a fair representation of an entire population), and a large number
of cluster points.13 On the other hand, documents written by the UK Ministry of
Defence’s chief scientific advisor have come to light, which called the survey’s methods
“close to best practice� and “robust.�14

In the third and most recent study, a team of investigators from the Federal Ministry
of Health in Baghdad, the Kurdistan Ministry of Planning, the Kurdistan Ministry of
Health, the Central Organization for Statistics and Information Technology in Baghdad,
and the World Health Organization formed the Iraq Family Health Survey (IFHS) Study
Group to research violence-related mortality in Iraq.15 In their nationally representative
cluster study, interviewers visited 89.4% of 1,086 household clusters; the household response rate was 96.2%. They concluded that there had been an estimated 151,000
violence-related deaths from March 2003 through June 2006 and that violence was the
main cause of death for men between the ages of 15 and 59 years during the first three
years after the 2003 invasion. This study seems to be widely cited for violence-related
mortality rates in Iraq. Neither the Lancet studies nor the IFHS study make an effort to
distinguish different victims of violence, such as civilians versus police or security force
members.

The Associated Press has kept a database of Iraqi civilian and security forces dead
and wounded since April 2005. According to their database, between April 2005 and
August 10, 2008, 34,832 Iraqi civilians have died and 40,174 have been wounded.16
A number of nonprofit groups have released unofficial estimates of Iraqi civilian
deaths. The Iraq Body Count (IBC) is one source often cited by the media; it bases its
online casualty estimates on media reports of casualties, some of which may involve
security forces as well as civilians. As of August 22, 2008, the IBC estimated that
between 86,661 and 94,558 civilians had died as a result of military action.17 The IBC
documents each of the casualties it records with a media source and provides a minimum
and a maximum estimate.

The Brookings Institution has used modified numbers from the UN Human Rights
Report, the Iraq Body Count, General Petraeus’s congressional testimony given on
September 10-11, 2007, and other sources to develop its own composite estimate for Iraqi
civilians who have died by violence. By combining all of these sources by date, the
Brookings Institution estimates that between May 2003 and August 22, 2008, 113,616
Iraqi civilians have died.18

Finally, the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (ICCC) is another well-known nonprofit
group that tracks Iraqi civilian and Iraqi security forces deaths using an IBC-like method
of posting media reports of deaths. ICCC, like IBC, is prone to the kind of errors likely
when using media reports for data: some deaths may not be reported in the media, while
other deaths may be reported more than once. The ICCC does have one rare feature: it
separates police and soldier deaths from civilian deaths. The ICCC estimates that there
were 43,099 civilian deaths from April 28,2005 through August 22, 2008.19

Do you still maintain that we are not killing people but terrorists?

In my opinion, the attitude and “arguments� you present are evidence of the fear, insecurity and lack of confidence that I mentioned.

A strong and confident person (or nation) is not intimidated by threats by “pipsqueaks�.

Considering the way Russia reacted to a minor threat from Georgia by launching all out war, and considering the fact the France has declared to retaliate with Nuclear weapons on any domestic attack, and consdiering America just signed a treaty with Russia to reduce the amount of war heads we had (that France did not join in with) I'm afraid your claim that America is insecure does not hold under all these events.

I stand by my statement that a strong and confident person (or nation) is not intimidated by “pipsqueaks� – and that attack of such pipsqueak nations that posed no threat to the US is evidence of LACK of strength and confidence.

I am not persuaded by arguments involving the foreign policies of Russia and France. Are you offering them as examples of strength and confidence or weakness and lack of confidence?

It is my opinion that the US has lost a great deal of respect among the world’s nations and citizens by invading nations that obviously posed no threat to its national security (and is being fought to a stalemate or a loss by a “rag-tag group of insurgents�). There appear to be similarities between the current wars and the Vietnam war – a national disgrace in my opinion.

It is noteworthy that the US constitutes 5% of the world population. It is not wise, in my opinion, to attempt to determine how the other 95% shall live and conduct their affairs or govern themselves. Nor is it wise, in my opinion, to attempt to coerce or purchase “friendship�.


Questions for debate:

1) Are current US wars justified and moral?

2) Is it a wise move for the US to spend one Trillion dollars of borrowed money to pursue the current wars?

[WinePusher]

You are DEAD WRONG – he is a Pakistani who was evidently born in Kuwait and captured in Pakistan (both “allies� of the US).

You are right, I must have mis-read my source.

To the best of my knowledge he has not been convicted of being the 9/11 mastermind -- but is accused and imprisoned -- and "questioned" before confessing (see bold below).

He has not officially been convicted as they do not yet know where to hold hs trial. Also, questioning and interrogration are usually the normal means to extract information from a person.......

Do you deny that the 19 people identified as carrying out the 9/11 event are primarily Saudi Arabian?

Of Course not, they are indeed identified as coming from Saudi Arabia. Do you deny the fact that Al-Qaeuda and the Taliban were the primary orchaestrators of 9/11 and their existence streches far from Saudi Arabia.

Others might say that Saudi Arabia is a puppet of the US.

Because Saudi Arabia is committed to fighting a war on terrorism to prevent loss of innocent life, they are automatically a puppet of the United States?

Do you recommend attacking every nation that is governed by a “tyrant� and/or one who speaks against the US or supports groups opposed to the US (called “terrorists� by some)?

I recommend "attacking" those countries that harbor and support the terrorists who attack us. As I said, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are somewhat stable Muslim States that have an army capable to fighting the taliban military forces. Iraq did not, and to the contrary supported these Jidhad groups.

Kindly show the actual risk posed to the US by Iraq and Afghanistan –enough to produce FEAR to justify invading another nation.

At that time, the risk that we thought was being posed were Weapons of Mass Destructions in the hands of Saddam Hussein. Granted, there were none found, but our troops remained in there and successfully developed a counter insugencey and a functioning democracy, to the point that we are able to declare that war a success.

Do you recommend that the US “help� governments of all nations (against their will if necessary) if they cannot “successfully eliminate the terrorists� (by whose standards)?

I recommend American intervention is our national security is in jeopardy. You see, we are now able to look back 8 years and observe the reapings of these two wars. Notice that there as not been one single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, I credit the Bush Administration's anti terrorism policies and the middle eastern occupation. Thus, the outcome of these wars is beneficial as there have been no foreign assults on America. Now, what would you have done in light of 9/11 and growing tensions in the middle east? Not invade, not try to capture these killers, just sit back and show the world that they can attack America without any fear of retribution?

You don’t suppose (just suppose) that the current Iraqi government is a tiny bit beholden to the US, do you? Of course not. It is a free and independent democratic nation. Right?

I can suppose whatever I want. However, I would rather not "suppose" things (as you suggest). I observe that the appreciation that Harmed Karzi has expressed towards General McCrystal and I observe that Iraq has hald a couple free elections and that there was massive turnout. Now, you can reject all this and "suppose" whatever you wis.

Many of the world’s nations are actively opposed to the US – including Russia, China, Venezuela. Shall we invade them also?

Do organizations inside those countries wish for our dimise, and attack us relentlessly, and did these organizations inside these countries hijak planes and fly them into landmark buildings killing thousands of innocent American Lives?

If a group from Russia was to crash a plane into the Empire State Building, we should INVADE Russia – right?

Where did I suggest that, and since your speaking hypothetically and creating any fake situation that would help support your point, would the Russian government be activily supporting this terrorist group? Or would the Russians seek to fight them and prevent his sort of travesty from occuring again?

Out of FEAR of another such attack we should GO TO WAR with Russia?????

Do you understand that currently, in the middle east, we are not at war with in particular country? Have you noticed that we are working proactivly with the armies of Afganistan and the Counter Insurgence in Iraq to achieve the same goal?

RIGHT. Evidently what we are doing is NOT working. It is NOT preventing other attacks.

Please refresh my memory, were those attacks successful?

Quite a few of the world’s nations are run by “ruthless dictators� and groups that oppose the US. Shall we invade them all?

Cuba is a dictatorship and a <shudder in fear> communist nation. Shall we invade?

Again, you don't seem to understand. If these countries are harboring and supporting organizations that wish to kill Americans and they have already successfuly launched an attack on the largest city in America, we should retaliate.

Advanced weaponry????? BOX CUTTERS????? IEDs??????

More like AK-47's, Rocket Propelled Grenades, C4's, TNT. Do you not consider IEDs to be a threat?

Yes, we should regard box cutters and IEDs as a “huge threat� to the US.

Again, I see IED's as a threat as they have killed generally around 12 people in one blast. And the threat is their ability to "terrorize" and "hijak" things like PLANES that they use to CRASH into buldings in America.

That has been done illegally by presidents – and has failed. Presidents have no power under the Constitution to declare war.

No official delcaration was declared by Congress, but a majority vote passed approving of the beginnings of the war.

What entitles you to decide what is right for others?

Does that entitlement come with citizenship in the US or with Christian worship practices or personal opinion?

EXACTLY, I cannot decide WHAT IS RIGHT FOR OTHERS. Thats what a Democratic society does, it allows PEOPLE TO CHOOSE WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THEMSELVES.

Do propose that other nations do NOT have the right to develop their preferred form of government?

I would condemn nations that violate BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS such as North Korea, China, and Soviet Russia. Now, if the citizens of a said country want to live in a communist state ruled by a few elites, by all means, if they want that let them be. If they have NO SAY about the form of government they wish to have because their voices are OPPRESSED AND SMOTHERD, then a democracy would allow them to choose for themselves.

Are you honestly NOT aware that the US has threatened Iran and North Korea?

Threaten, assuming this is about war, I assume you may to threaten with war. NO we have not. Please prove me wrong by quoting a president that uses war as a coercive tool. We have applied sanctions to Iran in order to prevent ehm from attaing Nukes, do you equate economic sanctions with threats of war?

Perhaps you are also not aware that the US has threatened Eritrea – a nation of 5 million people (a “real threat� to the US) http://news.antiwar.com/2009/04/17/us-t ... e-eritrea/

So, a writer cites the daily telegraph who cites an unammed Obama source as saying "Eritrea has chosen the wrong path," said a source. "There are consequences for working with al-Shabaab when President Obama cannot afford to look weak on terrorism by not retaliating if there is an attack on the homeland." Maybe its me, but I see no "WAR" word in there. And it came from an UNAMED obama source and is being reported by a BIAS newspaper that delcares itself to be an anti war group. An unnamed obama source the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND PRESIDENT has threatening war with a nation.

Are you not aware that North Korea has atomic weapons?

If a dictator denies the Holocaust, shall we attack his nation?

No, I am not aware that North Korea has Nukes. Please give an objective source that states for a fact that North Korea has developed nukes without any speculation. Di I suggest we attack a country because the dictator denies the holocaust, or was I listing that as a fact about the dictator to show his hatred of Israel and of the Jews?

If another nation (say China, Russia or North Korea) regards the US as an “eminent threat�, are they justified in attacking the US?

Well, considering you were emphasizing me using "IF" when it came to the possibility of a soul, I would like to emphaize you use of "IF." You certainly are using many fake, hypothetical situations to make your point, I would think that if your claims had any veracity, they would be able to hold using real life situation instead of "IF" situations.

And, do you suggest that if a group in America hijaked planes and flew them into the Duma building of Russia, that the United States would not try to capture and destroy the organization headquarted in America.

Should the US start a nuclear war to prevent a nuclear war?

Never suggested this, and no.

Should the US risk a nuclear war by threatening, provoking or attacking nuclear armed nations?

If those nuclear armed nations have made statements like Israel must be destroyed, then every possible method to deter their achievement of muclear weaponry should be used.

In my opinion, our invasions and occupations have produced far more enemies than they have eliminated.

Some “world power houses� (and nuclear armed nations) are ALREADY enemies of the US (or strongly opposed to US actions and policies), perhaps including Russia and China (unless they are to be considered friendly nations or allies).

What is Russia and China opposed to of the US? They certainly are not our best allies, but they are intelligent and realize that any use of nuclear weapons would lead to a destruction of this planet and their countries.

Do either of those nations possess greater ability to harm the US than Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea or Iran?

Certainly, but have they already launched a successful strike aganist us? Have the terrorist groups in the Middle East already launched a successful strike aganist us? YES

You are correct in stating that we ARE creating enemies identified as “anti-western terrorists�. Thank you. That is exactly my point.

Yes, and had we not invaded and let them go about with their indoctrination and field training do you think they would be more appreciative of us?

You are welcome to feel afraid that “terrorists� threaten your life. That is an example of the fear and insecurity I mention.

Yes, and this was the pre 9/11 mentality that lead to 9/11 (thinking that the US was untouchable). Considering that thouands died in the WTC, and those poor passengers had to be subject to the terrorists in the planes, I am afraid. But, we shouldn't be afraid, we should just continue our lives as if it nevered occured, isn't that right?

�We are not killing people, we are killing terrorists�??????

Are you serious? Do you not know (or deny) that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed thousands of civilians – women, children, old people?????

Tell me, did the United States invade with the intent to MURDER CIVILIANS? Our is it the fact that the Taliban and Al Qaeda groups engage in gorilla warfare and hide behind Children and Woman as SHIELDS. It is tragic that innocent lives are lost, but I hope you are not suggesting that we are intentionally killing innocents, some of us have family fighting in Iraq and Afganistan, it would be OUTRAGEOUS for anyone to equate of military men and woman to treacherous murders.?

I stand by my statement that a strong and confident person (or nation) is not intimidated by “pipsqueaks� – and that attack of such pipsqueak nations that posed no threat to the US is evidence of LACK of strength and confidence.

Yes, do you consider 9/11 to be a "pip squeak" attack? Do you consider people capable of orchaestraing 9/11 to be "pipsqueaks?"

I am not persuaded by arguments involving the foreign policies of Russia and France. Are you offering them as examples of strength and confidence or weakness and lack of confidence?

Well, if you are going to regard the United States as "insecure" by what standard to you make this conclusion. Do you compare the actions of the US to other nations and make this conclusion? If you did, you would take into account what I list above, right?

It is my opinion that the US has lost a great deal of respect among the world’s nations and citizens by invading nations that obviously posed no threat to its national security (and is being fought to a stalemate or a loss by a “rag-tag group of insurgents�). There appear to be similarities between the current wars and the Vietnam war – a national disgrace in my opinion.

Do you regard the soldiers that served in Vietnam to be "a national disgrace?" Quite a suggestive word you use...... And again, we are at war with no nation, we are working WITH nations to achieve a common goal of eliminating Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Do you regard those two groups as a threat? And do you know why we los tin Vietnam? Was it because it was a stalemate? Or was it because of public opinion, and people with your views who protested and rioted in the streets, and then these anti war protestors have the nerve to shun and demean our soldiers who fought there. The only similarities between this war and the Vietnam war is that there is an active group of Americans who wish for us to fail and exist.

It is noteworthy that the US constitutes 5% of the world population. It is not wise, in my opinion, to attempt to determine how the other 95% shall live and conduct their affairs or govern themselves. Nor is it wise, in my opinion, to attempt to coerce or purchase “friendship�.

Most certainly isn't wise. Have we tried to determine how the 95% of the world should live and conduct their internal affairs?

1) Are current US wars justified and moral?

I would regard any war as "mora"l if its precept abided by the points of the "Just War Theory."

2) Is it a wise move for the US to spend one Trillion dollars of borrowed money to pursue the current wars?

Considering that the money is being put forth to defend America, I see not problem with it. As the primary role of the governemnt is to maintain an armed militia and provide for th safety of its citizens. I would regard it as unwise when people borrow trillions of dollars to to pay for pork barrel spending projects (2009 Stimulus Bill), such as cleaning Nancy Pelosi's precious san francisco lake and renovating several federal agency buldings.

But anyways, theres my rebuttal, sorry it I seemed to be yelling or speaking uncivilly, I tend to be very passionate about these sorts of issues.

[ChaosBorders]

1) Are current US wars justified and moral?

Objectively, doubt it, but can't know for sure. So it then depends on a person's subjective opinion on what qualifies as justification and what system of morality they subscribe to.

2) Is it a wise move for the US to spend one Trillion dollars of borrowed money to pursue the current wars?

No, by pretty much every definition of wisdom I have ever heard. A case could be made for starting the war in Afghanistan, but they handled the wars so poorly from a strategic perspective that they probably would have been a lot better off doing nothing than the trillion+ dollar catastrophe they've turned into.

I realize that hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but when you're consistently violating the most basic principles of warfare that have been around thousands of years in The Art of War, ignoring lessons learned more recently from Vietnam, and ignoring/firing the people whose jobs entail giving you sound military advice, it doesn't take a genius to see things are probably going to end badly.

[sickles]

The director of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad, wired sheihk 100,000 dollars a few months before the 911 attack.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SCO410A.html

[Goat]

The director of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad, wired sheihk 100,000 dollars a few months before the 911 attack.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SCO410A.html

So a bunch of induendo's based on newspaper articles in europe in 2001 lead to this vast conspiracy that the U.S. government was behind it?

You got to be joking me that you consider that 'evidence'.

[Flail]

IMO, both 'wars' are and have always been a ridiculous waste of resources and lives. I initially bought into the idea that Sadam had to go because of weapons of mass destruction and what he had done to gas 5,000 Kurds etc, but in hindsight, we either had flawed intelligence or were late in investigating. We have done what we can in Iraq and should leave. Afganistan is a disaster. We should leave immediately. I thought Obama was elected to 'undo' Bush doctrine. To me it seems he doing a far worse job of the same thing as Bush in these war zones and (off topic)his domestic policies are reckless. He is obviously in over his woefully inexperienced head.

Unless we are 'in it to win it' asap, we should leave both war fronts and concentrate our resources at home. Our borders are vulnerable, we have flawed immigration policies, we are facing an unequaled environmental challenge in the gulf and we are in debt to the point that our economy is vulnerable to Obama's progressive, socialist agenda. On a religious note, I think it is always easier for a 'Christian country' to wage war against 'non-Christian' countries. Superstition is as good a rationale to kill as anything else.

[Goat]

IMO, both 'wars' are and have always been a ridiculous waste of resources and lives. I initially bought into the idea that Sadam had to go because of weapons of mass destruction and what he had done to gas 5,000 Kurds etc, but in hindsight, we either had flawed intelligence or were late in investigating. We have done what we can in Iraq and should leave. Afganistan is a disaster. We should leave immediately. I thought Obama was elected to 'undo' Bush doctrine. To me it seems he doing a far worse job of the same thing as Bush in these war zones and (off topic)his domestic policies are reckless. He is obviously in over his woefully inexperienced head.

Unless we are 'in it to win it' asap, we should leave both war fronts and concentrate our resources at home. Our borders are vulnerable, we have flawed immigration policies, we are facing an unequaled environmental challenge in the gulf and we are in debt to the point that our economy is vulnerable to Obama's progressive, socialist agenda. On a religious note, I think it is always easier for a 'Christian country' to wage war against 'non-Christian' countries. Superstition is as good a rationale to kill as anything else.

I never bought the story of the 'weapons of mass destruction, and always felt that Bush went after Iraq for personal reasons, while his advisers had a very misguided Middle east policy in mind.

I reluctantly think that Afghanistan was initially justified, and if the U.S. had concentrated their efforts there instead of being distracted by Iraq, the current unjustified action would have been over with and we could have left reasonable quickly.

On the other hand, just because it was initially justifiable doesn't mean it was 'moral' . Moral and war are mutually exclusive.

[Flail]

Goat wrote:

I reluctantly think that Afghanistan was initially justified, and if the U.S. had concentrated their efforts there instead of being distracted by Iraq, the current unjustified action would have been over with and we could have left reasonable quickly.

I don't think the Afgan war would have resulted in anything different than we have today regardless of any intitial 'concentrated' effort. For our country to wage a war to pursue an individual (Bin Laden) or an indoctrinated cult is silly IMO. Whenever we leave, things will return to their former state of affairs. Obama needs to be true to his anti-war campaign promises and bring the troops home now.

[Goat]

Goat wrote:

I reluctantly think that Afghanistan was initially justified, and if the U.S. had concentrated their efforts there instead of being distracted by Iraq, the current unjustified action would have been over with and we could have left reasonable quickly.

I don't think the Afgan war would have resulted in anything different than we have today regardless of any intitial 'concentrated' effort. For our country to wage a war to pursue an individual (Bin Laden) or an indoctrinated cult is silly IMO. Whenever we leave, things will return to their former state of affairs. Obama needs to be true to his anti-war campaign promises and bring the troops home now.

At this point, I will agree. It is 6 years too late to make any good effect on the state of Afghanistan.

[sickles]

The director of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad, wired sheihk 100,000 dollars a few months before the 911 attack.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SCO410A.html

So a bunch of induendo's based on newspaper articles in europe in 2001 lead to this vast conspiracy that the U.S. government was behind it?

You got to be joking me that you consider that 'evidence'.

why should we not consider this evidence?