Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
It does when they are willing to use military force to do so.
|
Violence creates violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
They were created by their own zealots, they get their weapons from arms dealers, we fight them with our military and itelligence resouces, they are still in Afghanistan because we shut the door to Iraq, the ones in Iraq are there to try and take over and fight us there which is better than having to fight them in the mountains of Afghanistan and we are whipping their butts in Iraq which is what we want to do.
|
The terrorism we fight is linked to the foreign affairs of the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
What was the alternative with Hitler and Tojo?
|
I'm not shure if this words mean exactly what I want to express: Civil defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
Well yes it is the right discussion, the poster brought up the fact we used it. Would it have been better if Japan had surrendered and we not have to use the A bomb yes. They refused.
|
And because they don't refuse you think, "oh this is about prestige and revenge and they "force" us to do that, so we do it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
Yep, there have been many cases where the US could have taken over most of the world, certainly this hemisphere, but we haven't have we.
|
Yes, definitely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
And in each case we were trying to get rid of an oppressor and move the country to a more democratic government and a less oppressive ruler.
|
Sophia mentioned it already. The CIA and the MI 6 overthrowed Mossadegh, a democratical elected premier and installed the regime of the Shah.
The US brought Khomenei into Iran and the Iranians came from smoke to smother.
Allende was overthrowed by the CIA also, was democratical elected and killed during the coup. The US brought Hussein to power and was a long time - as the Shah - the marionette. The US helped Iraq and lengthened the war in the gulf what meant the death of millions. Hussein and Bin Laden were both listed on the pay-roll of the CIA. Bin Laden was trained and financed by the CIA and the US created in Afghanistan a new ideology with the Mujahideen against the (atheist) Soviets. Pakistan is well known for its terrorists but it is your partner. I can't see any consequence. Western countries support extremists and dictators as long as they act in our interests. And then they turn against us. No politic of principles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
Sometimes that is not possible in on fell swoop it takes time and diplomacy unless we just go in with the military and take them out.
|
You support them as long as they play your marionette and sometimes they turn against you and then you invade the country. That's it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
In the case of Iraq Saddam gave us Casus belli.
|
WMDs? Where? The other way round; Bush gave the whole world the "casus belli" or name it propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
We never tried to take over Iraq
|
No. The US wanted to democratize Iraq and a regime change, after Hussein didn't anymore what the US wanted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
and lots of wars are fought over vital natural resources.
|
For shure. But that doesn't make the war better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
And appeasors, those who believed war was never necessary and that even the most evil forces could be negotiated with.
|
First of all appeasement politic isn't pacifism. And secondly this were anticommunists who didn't put pressure on Hitler because they agreed with his "procedures" against communists and supported Hitler's idea to invade the USSR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
You said there were ALWAYS options, now you say the situation with Hitler was too late. Well which is it?
|
Well ok. You're right, I have to choose my position.
Civil defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
Sure, and some are not and some are managed by citizens soldiers.
|
Military actions take a higher price than peaceful ones. So I would prefer always the peaceful one.
I just wanted to say that peaceful protest can work. Sometimes it wasn't successful and that has its reasons. But you could improve it and there are enough examples where it had worked.
By the way: A war is always lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
Moot point, they had to be stopped.
|
That's not a moot point, it's a fact. Conscription and being shot as deserter...total war and the arm industry.
Ironically pacifists like Carl Ossietzky warned already in the Weimar Republic because of the "secret" remilitarization.
But okay, they had to be stopped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceofReason
What was your plan? Had you been Churchill or Roosevelt, what would your peaceful alternative have been?
|
Civil defense.