logo Sign In

The $$$ spent on the war on terror — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Number20
How many successful terrorist attacks have been launched after Sept. 11 in the USA? None.

Um, how many were there before 9/11?



What has changed?





Not to mention the problem of defining (much less achieving) victory in a war against a noun?



.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Originally posted by: Number20
How many successful terrorist attacks have been launched after Sept. 11 in the USA? None.
Um, how many were there before 9/11?

The first trade center bombing in 93, Kobar Towers, U.S.S. Cole...you name it.

What has changed?


The Taliban has been removed from Afghanistan and one of the worst strong men in history has been deposed. Next.

Not to mention the problem of defining (much less achieving) victory in a war against a noun?


That sounds like a John Stewart-ism if I ever heard one, but let's be honest, "Germany" is a noun too, and it sufficed when talking about WWII.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Actually, I would count only the first WTC bombing in 1993.

There has been no decrease in the incidence of terrorist attacks on non-U.S. soil. And there's been precisely one less foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil after 9/11 as there was before. Where's the measure of sucess or even progress?


And Stewartism or not, the absurdity of declaring war on a particular tactic should be self-evident. There can never be victory against a tactic.


But we might as well pour as much money into a War on "Terror" as we poured into a War on "Drugs" - because that worked out very successfully, didnt' it?



.
Author
Time
Post link
"Spend the money on education."
The US spent more money on education than Iraq in 2004 (John Stossal). Why isn't anyone saying that's a waste of money.

"Has Bush learned nothing from history and vietnam?"
Maybe he was paying more attention to WWII history. The Nazi's could have easily be wiped out and untold death and suffering avoided if Europe had acted in the 1930's. Winson Churchill was denounced as a warmonger who played up threats about a "phoney war" while appeasement was used to ensure "peace." In the time Europe waited, the Nazi's became stronger ultimately requiring more sacrifice to defeat. The 5th Harry Potter book parallels this.
The lesson of Vietnam was that it wasn't so much a military defeat as a moral one. We should have either made a full commitment to victory or not been there at all.

I think Bush nailed the importance of Iraq becoming a free democratic state in this speech to the UN on this past September 19.
"For decades, millions of men and women in the region had been trapped in oppression and hopelessness. And these conditions left a
generation disillusioned and made this region a breeding ground for extremism.
Imagine what it's like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You're 21 years old, and while your
peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government.
While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you
have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings.
And everywhere you turn, you hear extremists who tell you that you can escape your misery and regain your dignity through violence
and terror and martyrdom.
If Iraq becomes free, people around the Middle East will take notice and wonder why their country can't be like that too. And those brutal dictators will have a harder time blaming Israel.

And yes the Iraq war was about oil but NOT involving the US. Look up Oil for Food scandal. France and Germany WERE BRIBED! Instead of doing what they thought was right, they did what was easy.


I've posted this before but I think it needs to be shown again. Why isn't this being reported on?
"In the Name of God the Compassionate and Merciful.

To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall' Afar from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life.

To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many months. To those who spread smiles on the faces of our children, and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days, and stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city.

Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city.

Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young.

This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi's followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them.

I have met many soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism.
The leaders of this Regiment; COL McMaster, COL Armstrong, LTC Hickey, LTC Gibson, and LTC Reilly embody courage, strength, vision and wisdom. Officers and soldiers alike bristle with the confidence and character of knights in a bygone era. The mission they have accomplished, by means of a unique military operation, stands among the finest military feats to date in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and truly deserves to be studied in military science. This military operation was clean, with little collateral damage, despite the ferocity of the enemy. With the skill and precision of surgeons they dealt with the terrorist cancers in the city without causing unnecessary damage. God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the families. They have given us something we will never forget.

To the families of those who have given their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and to the souls of your loved ones. Their sacrifice was not in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their souls hovering around us every second of every minute. They will never be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this land.

Let America, their families, and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life. Finally, no matter how much I write or speak about this brave Regiment, I haven't the words to describe the courage of its officers and soldiers. I
pray to God to grant happiness and health to these legendary heroes and their brave families.

NAJIM ABDULLAH ABID
AL-JIBOURI
Mayor of Tall 'Afar,
Ninewa, Iraq

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Actually, I would count only the first WTC bombing in 1993.

There has been no decrease in the incidence of terrorist attacks on non-U.S. soil. And there's been precisely one less foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil after 9/11 as there was before. Where's the measure of sucess or even progress?

The attacks I mention were against Americans on foreign soil. Do they not count because they occured on foreign soil?

And Stewartism or not, the absurdity of declaring war on a particular tactic should be self-evident. There can never be victory against a tactic.


What's the difference between "terrorism" and "guerilla"? Guerilla movements have been put down in the past, this one will be put down as well. As you mention the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty, I think it's safe to say we're talking semantics.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

And Stewartism or not, the absurdity of declaring war on a particular tactic should be self-evident. There can never be victory against a tactic.


But we might as well pour as much money into a War on "Terror" as we poured into a War on "Drugs" - because that worked out very successfully, didnt' it?

.

I don't understand this logic. So we are fighting terrorism, but, since it has been going on forever, and will continue in one form or another forever, we shouldn't try? Following this logic, we should disband the police force in every city in this country. People have always stolen stuff, murders have taken place since the beginning of time, etc, so we shouldn't try to fight that anymore? Just let people do what they want to do, kill whoever, because we can't stop all killings, so we shouldn't try?
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, pointing out the absurdity of fighting 'terrorism' misses the point.

"War On Terror" is a politically correct euphemism for the world-wide war agaisnt violent Muslim extremsists. Victory in this war means capturing or killing leaders of terrorist organizations in order to make all future uses of terrorism independent affairs sponsored by no state governments.

Number20's analogy is effective. If we can't when the 'war on terror' does that mean we should give up on the war on crime as well?

4

Author
Time
Post link
Chaltab allow me to move away from the main discussion for a while and pose you this question - one that I've already did, but would be interesting on the present discussion - do you think this war on terror is actually winnable, it'll end?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
I think the war on terror has had mixed results, yes it has it successes - the fall of the Taliban, the fall of the Saddam regime and Al Qeada being weakened, terror plots stopped but it has had alot of failures either the war in Iraq or failure to capture Bin Laden Al Zawahiri the top failures, I dont feel any safer than I did before 9/11 and the War in Iraq in fact i feel less safe, the terrorists have just scattered from Afghanistan to Pakistan, the Middle Eastern countries plus Iraq and set up training bases there, plus it has inspired alot of young muslims around the world including lots here in the UK to join the fight around the world and to attack the UK homeland and the rest of the world, this is going to be a war that will take ages to win and it has while making the US homeland safer, has not made the world safer from terrorism eg Bali, Madrid, London etc and the Iraq war itself is a disaster while it removed the evil Saddam regime it has turned the country onto the brink of civil war with tons of civillans Sunni and Shite muslim dying every day in tit-for-tat violence while coalition forces are still dying frequently, it seems to me to have been very badly planned war where they didnt have any idea what would happen and what to do once Saddam was rightly deposed...
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Chaltab allow me to move away from the main discussion for a while and pose you this question - one that I've already did, but would be interesting on the present discussion - do you think this war on terror is actually winnable, it'll end?


I think that we can win. This is not to say I think we will win. I think that if we resolve to win and vote for politictians who understand the danger that radiacl Islam poses, and are willing to use the proper ammount of force, then yes, we can win. What scares me is that too many people don't seem to want to win.

The original topic is a good example. The $$$ spent on the war on terror? As long as it is buying the equipment and supplies our troops need to win and its not helping our enemies, I don't think who gets the money in the end matters. If Company A makes the best body armor available, and it helps to keep our troops alive, what's wrong with them getting money for that? I think they deserve it. I think that's capitalism. Are they profiting off war? I guess, but that doesn't bother me. If they were making shoddy product, that would bother me. That would be something worth investigating, but I see no moral dilema with an honest transaction.

The message I get is that the people who care about who gets the money, really are saying "Hey, if someone is profiting off this war, God forbid, then it must be an illegitimate war! We don't have to fight it!"

And to them, I'd point out that it was World War 2 that brought the US out of the great depression. Should we have not fought THAT war since someone profited off it?

4

Author
Time
Post link
Chaltab what if profiting from war is the only reason behind the war? I mean, so many dictators in the world through the last decades, what made Saddam so special, for example? The no found weapons?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Chaltab what if profiting from war is the only reason behind the war? I mean, so many dictators in the world through the last decades, what made Saddam so special, for example? The no found weapons?


If profiting off the war was the only reason behind it, then I'd agree. But Saddam was a murdering dictator who destabilized the region. We weren't alloud to fly over Iraq, and there was a huge obstacle between Kuwait and Iran should, God forbid, we have to invade that country.

To suggest that profit was the only motive is to suggest that the President is completely and totally controlled by the companies that arm our military, and with an accusation that unlikely, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Why Iraq? Because Saddam had been defying the UN for 12 years and the resolutions had been given plenty of time to work but didn't. Saddam just enriched himself the whole time with deals by corrupt officials. The fact he was willing to invade Kuwait made a lot of people worried what he would do if he got weapons. The first Gulf War was ended on a ceasefire with the condition Saddam certify all weapons programs had been destroyed and dismantled. Saddam never did so the war technically never ended.
There actually is some evidence to support the idea Saddam had wmd's sent to Syria in June 2002. A dam broke in that country at the time and Saddam was very eager to send "humanitarian items."
But you don't have to take my word for it.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042/ref=wl_it_dp/002-4382805-0197647?ie=UTF8&coliid=I7NFQ134XZKMM&colid= 3I07YG19ITNVR

"Saddam's Secrets" by Iraqi general Georges Sada

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Post link
I'd much rather spend money on the war in the stars.


I like Star Wars.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
There is no war on crime. We fight crime perpetually. It's an ongoing struggle of society. And appropriate resources should be dedicated to it on an ongoing and perpetual basis.

Terrorism is, in fact, no different. It doesn't require a war. To declare "war" on terrorism is to admit a permanent and perpetual state of war. A state wherein abdication of human rights and constitutional rights can be falsely justified and facistically implemented. Not to mention all other the other horrors and economic siphoning that would be a permanent state of being with a permanent state of war.

If we treat terrorism as the crime that it is, we can fight it just as we would any other heinous crime, and battle organizations that commit terrorism the same as we would any other criminal organization.


The danger to our society from terrorism has been insignificant compared to others we are not throwing treasure at. A war is not an appropriate economic or moral response to acts of terrorism commited by ad hoc organizations. Where is the "war" on the mafia? Where is the "war" on the bloods and crips? Far more Americans lie dead or wounded via the acts of these criminal organizations than from those of international terrorists (though I'll grant that terrorism adversely affects our economy to a greater degree with far fewer and less lethal acts of violence).


Risk assessment would be prudent to apply to international terrorism.


And yes, it would be wonderful to rid the world of all despots and evils. Would that we could. And if we could, would war be the proper way to rid the world of evil?
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
There is no war on crime. We fight crime perpetually. It's an ongoing struggle of society. And appropriate resources should be dedicated to it on an ongoing and perpetual basis.

Agreed.


Terrorism is, in fact, no different. It doesn't require a war. To declare "war" on terrorism is to admit a permanent and perpetual state of war. A state wherein abdication of human rights and constitutional rights can be falsely justified and facistically implemented. Not to mention all other the other horrors and economic siphoning that would be a permanent state of being with a permanent state of war.

Here's where you're wrong. Terrorism is a crime when it is perpetuated by citizens of a country against that country or against a friendly country. Terrorism is an act of War when the terrorists operate from hostile countries where they are encouraged and harbored by the countries.

If we treat terrorism as the crime that it is, we can fight it just as we would any other heinous crime, and battle organizations that commit terrorism the same as we would any other criminal organization.

No thank you. That's what Clinton did for years, and it DOES NOT WORK. If we had treated the 1993 WTC attack as an act of war instead of a law-enforcement issue, then the towers might still be standing.


The danger to our society from terrorism has been insignificant compared to others we are not throwing treasure at. A war is not an appropriate economic or moral response to acts of terrorism commited by ad hoc organizations.


Al Quaida and other networks are not ad hoc organizations--they are global networks backed by the governmetns of some of the coutnries. What about the the Taliban? Do. You. Remember. Them?

Where is the "war" on the mafia? Where is the "war" on the bloods and crips? Far more Americans lie dead or wounded via the acts of these criminal organizations than from those of international terrorists (though I'll grant that terrorism adversely affects our economy to a greater degree with far fewer and less lethal acts of violence).


Not to excuse their crimes by any means, but please. The bloods and the crips do not want every Westerner to convert to Islam or die. There's a rather pronounced difference there, dude.


Risk assessment would be prudent to apply to international terrorism.


If you don't see how serious the threat is, then you aren't paying attention, or you're willfully blind. The president of Iran wants to bring about the bloody Apocalypse; if that isn't a threat we need to assess, I don't know what is.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Terrorism is an act of War when the terrorists operate from hostile countries where they are encouraged and harbored by the countries.
Agreed. And if that can be proven, then a military response against such countries' military targets would be appropriate. In any case, a military response against terrorist organization assets and personnel on foreign soil is always appropriate. But such a response need not be a "war."


Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
If we had treated the 1993 WTC attack as an act of war instead of a law-enforcement issue, then the towers might still be standing.
And if the WTC was demolished by local terrorists, as the Murrah Federal Building was, why is it appropriate to treat one as a crime and not the other? I will grant that a crime committed by overseas perpetrators allows for a military response, as opposed to a law enforcement response. It may even be proper for ongoing military operations to target an entire organization for the purpose of eliminating it. I'm all for a War On al-Queda, or a War on Hizzbollah ... heck even a War on Syria for its support of terrorist organizations - - but a War on Terror is dangerously open-ended.


Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
What about the the Taliban? Do. You. Remember. Them?

Yes, refer above to my statement on Syria. A War on the Taliban is legit. A War on Terror is not.


Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
The bloods and the crips do not want every Westerner to convert to Islam or die. There's a rather pronounced difference there, dude.

Yes, the difference being that the radical Islamacists have killed under 4,000 Americans, and the bloods and crips countless more. We do not have 'Minority Report'-style crime-fighting or war powers; what people "want" to do is not the issue. It's what they can do and have done.

Frankly, governments do not place any importance on human life. As I said before, the killing of 3,000 people on 9/11 dealt a horrible blow the economy of our country ... and that's what the military response was to ... not to the deaths of our countrymen. As a government purportedly of the people and by the people, perhaps the people should decide other priorities. And if human life were the priority, our resources could go toward defending from likely threats ... and not from the statistically insignicant danger of terrorist attack.


Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
The president of Iran wants to bring about the bloody Apocalypse; if that isn't a threat we need to assess, I don't know what is.

Yes, and I assess it at zero. What he wants to do and what he can do are two different stories. It was the same with Saddam Hussein: Surely he wanted to cause mass mayhem ... but, despite the lies told by our Administration, he did not have any capability to. As such, a so-called pre-emptive strike against the country he happened to rule was an act of unprovoked aggression. It is the United States that is the danger to innocents, not Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Madman Ahmadinejad of Iran. They may want to cause mayhem and mass murder, but the U.S. has.

That makes the U.S. every bit a legitimate military target as Iraq was an illegitimate one.






.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Terrorism is an act of War when the terrorists operate from hostile countries where they are encouraged and harbored by the countries.
Agreed. And if that can be proven, then a military response against such countries' military targets would be appropriate. In any case, a military response against terrorist organization assets and personnel on foreign soil is always appropriate. But such a response need not be a "war."


Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
If we had treated the 1993 WTC attack as an act of war instead of a law-enforcement issue, then the towers might still be standing.
And if the WTC was demolished by local terrorists, as the Murrah Federal Building was, why is it appropriate to treat one as a crime and not the other?

Nicols and McVeigh were American citizens who were afforded their due-process rights under the constitution. Terrorists do not enjoy the same protections, despite the efforts of leftist politicians and the media.

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
The bloods and the crips do not want every Westerner to convert to Islam or die. There's a rather pronounced difference there, dude.
Yes, the difference being that the radical Islamacists have killed under 4,000 Americans, and the bloods and crips countless more. We do not have 'Minority Report'-style crime-fighting or war powers; what people "want" to do is not the issue. It's what they can do and have done.

We do have Ahmidenajhad in Iran openly calling for the annihiation of Israel and persuing nuclear weapons. Hellen Keller can see "what they want".

Frankly, governments do not place any importance on human life. As I said before, the killing of 3,000 people on 9/11 dealt a horrible blow the economy of our country ... and that's what the military response was to ... not to the deaths of our countrymen.


Wow, that's jaded.

As a government purportedly of the people and by the people, perhaps the people should decide other priorities. And if human life were the priority, our resources could go toward defending from likely threats ... and not from the statistically insignicant danger of terrorist attack.


Statistically insignificant? Those statistics are a reality in the examples I cited previously. Again, because they occured on foreign soil does not mean they didn't happen.

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
The president of Iran wants to bring about the bloody Apocalypse; if that isn't a threat we need to assess, I don't know what is.

Yes, and I assess it at zero. What he wants to do and what he can do are two different stories. It was the same with Saddam Hussein: Surely he wanted to cause mass mayhem ... but, despite the lies told by our Administration, he did not have any capability to. As such, a so-called pre-emptive strike against the country he happened to rule was an act of unprovoked aggression. It is the United States that is the danger to innocents, not Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Madman Ahmadinejad of Iran. They may want to cause mayhem and mass murder, but the U.S. has.

That makes the U.S. every bit a legitimate military target as Iraq was an illegitimate one.


I'm always amazed by how many people have bought into the whole "the U.S. is bad too so we deserve it" mentality. The worst kind of self-haters.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Chaltab what if profiting from war is the only reason behind the war? I mean, so many dictators in the world through the last decades, what made Saddam so special, for example? The no found weapons?


If profiting off the war was the only reason behind it, then I'd agree. But Saddam was a murdering dictator who destabilized the region. We weren't alloud to fly over Iraq, and there was a huge obstacle between Kuwait and Iran should, God forbid, we have to invade that country.

To suggest that profit was the only motive is to suggest that the President is completely and totally controlled by the companies that arm our military, and with an accusation that unlikely, the burden of proof is on the accuser.


So why did the US back up and fund dictatorships in Iran, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, that did pretty much what Saddam did? Why didn't the United States remove Idi Amin Dada, who as a dictator in Uganda mass murdered his people for a period of 10 years? You know who removed him from power? Tanzania. And he lived freely on South Arabia until his death a couple of years ago. Why dosen't the US remove Omar al-Bashir from Sudan - he has killed and tortured hundreds of thousand! Wy not remove Mugabe? Maaaybe because there would be NO profit from doing it?

The only reason for creating wars is economical.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Chaltab what if profiting from war is the only reason behind the war? I mean, so many dictators in the world through the last decades, what made Saddam so special, for example? The no found weapons?


If profiting off the war was the only reason behind it, then I'd agree. But Saddam was a murdering dictator who destabilized the region. We weren't alloud to fly over Iraq, and there was a huge obstacle between Kuwait and Iran should, God forbid, we have to invade that country.

To suggest that profit was the only motive is to suggest that the President is completely and totally controlled by the companies that arm our military, and with an accusation that unlikely, the burden of proof is on the accuser.


So why did the US back up and fund dictatorships in Iran, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, that did pretty much what Saddam did? Why didn't the United States remove Idi Amin Dada, who as a dictator in Uganda mass murdered his people for a period of 10 years? You know who removed him from power? Tanzania. And he lived freely on South Arabia until his death a couple of years ago. Why dosen't the US remove Omar al-Bashir from Sudan - he has killed and tortured hundreds of thousand! Wy not remove Mugabe? Maaaybe because there would be NO profit from doing it?

The only reason for creating wars is economical.


So, military intervention is never justified?

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
It is always justified if done the proper way by the proper reasons. A military action IS justifiable to remove Omar al-Bashir. Will it be done? No. Why? No economical profit from it. There's a military action taking place in Haiti lead by the UN, a country teared apart by war, hunger and poverty. Several nations are sending in soldiers (including Brazil). American soldiers in Haiti? None. No profit from it.

So, answering your question, military actions are justified when they are done with the porpouse of saving people's lifes and making them better. WW2 for instance was justifiable. Vietnan was not.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
It is always justified if done the proper way by the proper reasons. A military action IS justifiable to remove Omar al-Bashir. Will it be done? No. Why? No economical profit from it. There's a military action taking place in Haiti lead by the UN, a country teared apart by war, hunger and poverty. Several nations are sending in soldiers (including Brazil). American soldiers in Haiti? None. No profit from it.

So, answering your question, military actions are justified when they are done with the porpouse of saving people's lifes and making them better. WW2 for instance was justifiable. Vietnan was not.


Hmm. So, the companies making the equipment for the U.N. (that noble of most noble organizations, hopefully nobody will be sexually assaulted on their watch) are donating it to them? The workers in the companies making the equipment work for free?

You realize the U.N. is in Haiti because the U.S. urged them to go in during the Clinton administration, and also because the U.S. played a large role in getting Cedras out.

I'm sure the South Vietnamese who were slaughtered after the fall of Saigon would tell you it wasn't a good thing that the U.S. left...
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
What I'm saying is, if the justification for the action IS to liberate people, them yes it IS justifiable. But the reason for most wars is plainly to PROFIT from them, and use the action porpouse as an excuse for it. That is why no country ever wanted to remove militaristic dictators from Africa, for instance, and that is why the US has funded and backed up evil dictatorships around the world - heck, even Saddam himself!! So spending on war should be the consequence, NOT the real reason for fighting the wars...
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
What I'm saying is, if the justification for the action IS to liberate people, them yes it IS justifiable. But the reason for most wars is plainly to PROFIT from them, and use the action porpouse as an excuse for it. That is why no country ever wanted to remove militaristic dictators from Africa, for instance, and that is why the US has funded and backed up evil dictatorships around the world - heck, even Saddam himself!! So spending on war should be the consequence, NOT the real reason for fighting the wars...


But military intervention regardless of the reason is not very....Ghandi-esque, is it?
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com