NJ5 said:
oldschoolfool said:
NJ5 said:
oldschoolfool said:
NJ5 said:
oldschoolfool said:
NJ5 said:
Makes you wonder why anyone wanted this war in the first place... Afghanistan doesn't have oil, the population is made up of a ton of different tribes that don't probably don't want to be united for or against anything, and the number of terrorists only increases when innocents are getting killed after NATO sticks its military dick in places that don't want it.
The only ones profiting out of this is the military-industrial complex. I guess that answers my question.
|
Nobody wanted this war,it was the terrorist that wanted this war. The U.S. did'nt start anything. Not every war is as sinister as you would believe.
|
If the terrorists wanted it, why did "we" give them the satisfaction?
|
So when terrorists attack your home soil,your supposed to sit back and do nothing. I'm talking about 9/11. I'd rather have the American military fight on there home turf,then have another 9/11. It's better to take the fight to them,rather then set back and do nothing.
|
What's "their home turf"? There are probably terrorists planning attacks against the US living in the US right now.
Do you still believe that killing innocent civilians and constantly disrespecting other nations' sovereignty with acts like these is the path to eliminate terrorism? Do you not see how it makes terrorists stronger rather than weaker?
|
Colleteral damage is a part of war. It's unavoidable. It's unfourtnate,but that's just the way it is. What about the terrorists blowing up civilians with IED's on a daily basis and using them as human sheilds. Nobody seem's to talk about that. So were just suppose to sit back and do nothing,because it makes terrorist stronger. You know how many wars we would have lost,if we thought that way. The terrorist would even be stronger if we did nothing at all.
|
You can't win a war against an invisible enemy which can easily disappear. It's hard to call it a war in the first place, as a war needs a defined enemy.
A war without a clear objective always fails. As the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan makes it clear. It's like whack-a-mole, you kill one terrorist and two more jump up somewhere else. What's more, you're encouraging people to hate you and become terrorists.
|
Are you that narrow minded to not see the broad picture? It's not the enemy as much as the means and ways for terrorists to obtain the necessary tools to cause legitimate destruction. This means cutting the government approved, planned, supported funding of money towards the terrorists. This means cutting off an ample supply of infrastructure that the terrorists have built up. That is how you defeat terrorism or atleast smolder it.
The clear objective is to do exactly what I stated above. That objective has not been a failure. You are looking at a very primitive, old fashioned definition of War. This is not the Revolutionary War. We don't lineup and go at it man vs man.
It's unfortunate that innocent casualties occur. Then again, the United States takes plenty of pre-cautions on avoiding these types of things. The problem is, without directly risking United States citizens lives they can't always be 100% certain of avoiding all civilian casualties. This has always been a case with War and probably always will.
