Philippines 'pulling out' Iraq troops

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Klaus

Refugee
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
2,432
Location
on a one of these small green spots at that blue p
Seems like the Philippine Government donsn't refuse to be blackmailed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3892125.stm

anila says it is organising the withdrawal of troops from Iraq after threats made to a Philippine hostage.

I was no friend of this "coalition of the willing" And the philiphines are not important if you look at the number of their soldiers but i don't think it's good to make these decisions because you are blackmailed by terrorists.
 
I think that any level headed person can agree that by capitulating to terrorists a lot more blood will be spilt. The Philipinos have a strong history of fighting the good fight and I think that Gloria Arroyo is doing a disservice to the fight for liberty in Iraq and around the world. First Spain and now the Philipines, governments dragging their peoples pride and honour through the mud in the face of sheer barbarism, I stand by what I said, whenever a terrorist murders a hostage or threatens too increase security contingents and reinforce the battle against them. Osama Bin Laden may well be right and the civilized world is weak, a paper tiger who will fold when threatened with big knives and savagery right now I know that he is right about many, but by no means all. The strong will always fight and die to protect the weak and when it is all over and the fight to bring peace and democracy to Iraq is done, the sacrifices shall be worth it and those that fought shall be heroes and those that opposed it shall be revealed for whom they really are.

If the coalition falls apart in the face of these barbarians then I will know that the civilized world is fucked and the War on Terrorism pointless because leaders will not stand up for their own principles, then and only then will I believe that whatever is left is not worth being defended and the Islamist's are free to claim it for themselves, the carcass of the once great world to be claimed by the savages.

I will never forget the reason we fight, the terror inflicted upon innocent people and in my mind Osama bin Laden and Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao are beyond redemption and there is a special place by their side in hell for Deserters of the noble and just cause of freedom in the world, Namely Zapatero and if this pullout from Iraq goes ahead Arroyo too.

Ελευθερία ή Θάνατος
Freedom or Death
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
there is a special place by their side in hell for Deserters of the noble and just cause of freedom in the world,

one of the worst things Ive read in a while. Why don't you save your judgement for yourself instead of implying the phillipians are are no batter than the nazis.

For all your talk of courage and blah blah blah, some people just don't want to die or they want to save others from dying if it is within their power. I respect their decision and I think others should as well.
 
It is not saving others, it is condeming more innocent people to die. This is rewarding terrorists and showing them that barbarity works and I think that there is going to be a lot of innocent blood on the hands of the Philipino government if they go ahead full and this is not just stalling. I stand by that 100%, terrorism works on a sliding scale, if you reward minor terrorist acts such as beheadings what do you think they will do when they want more? 9/11 didn't just happen, it was a steady progression in the latter half of the 20th century that showed that terrorism was ideal for bringing any groups problems to the frontline. It worked wonders for the Palestinians who after the Munich Olympics rallied many nations behind their cause and brought through UN resolution after resolution condeming Israel. It worked for Osama Bin Laden whom by attacking the west gained a massive ammount of support for his cause on the "arab street", this is a sorry example of what happens when the world negotiates with terrorists and I refuse to sit down and say that I just accept their decision and I wont speak against it because we should just sit back and accept what goes on in the world. People made statements against this war, I will exercise the same freedom of speech in making a statement against this despicable action.

When you are captured by these Islamist terrorists you are dead meat. It is a dead zone and governments cannot negotiate with them ever, it emboldens them. Now you may find my opinion that by doing this is almost as evil as the terrorists offensive but I will stand by it, they are rewarding terrorist actions by capitulating their entire forces over a single life. I cannot stress enough how bad this is, this single actions condemns even more people to die and I will not respect that one bit, they are trading a single Philipino for many more other innocents and that is not right, they are not saving others, they are killing others by proxy.

I didn't say that the Philipinos are no better than Nazis. I said that on an order of whats bad you have your front line, which would be the Nazi's or Islamist terrorists who are followed on the list by those that support or give comfort to them them. There you get Saudi Arabia, CAIR (Muslim Civil Rights organization, not inherently wrong however the strong connections to know terrorists by its founders and the cover that they provide for perpetrators and those inciting violence place it on this ring) as well as leaders who capitulate in the face of being threatened who now it appears includes the Philipino government who have encouraged and comforted the terrorists who will no doubt continue their strategy of beheadding and other vile deeds rather than abandon it because it was unsuccessful.
 
Last edited:
all of this is simply your opinion

you have no idea what would happen if everyone pulled out.

in the meantime, I would be very thankful if I was a hostage ...and my country pulled out of a place where it didn't make sense for us to be in the first place.
I imagine there are a lot of happy people in the phillipians right now
 
I have some idea that without a strong millitary presence to provide security for the Iraqi people and protection for their government the situation could spin out of control and the country could split along ethnic and factional lines opening up the possibility of an Iranian invasion in the name of being a stabalising power but in actuality being a grab for the Basra oil fields which they could annex along with the large population of Shiites in the South. The blowback from a failed Iraq would be just like the blowback from allowing Afghanistan to fail only rather than 9/11 the resulting attack would claim hundreds of thousands of lives. Failure is not an option.

Fact is that that hostage (if he is even released) has to live the rest of his life in the knowledge that other innocent people have died so that he can live, that is a burden that nobody should carry. I would applaud the government if they could negotiate an unconditional release by threatening the terrorists and would mourn for a lost life if they had stood their ground but this action deserves nothing less than condemnation. Negotiating with terrorists and giving into their demands is aiding the terrorists and their cause, think about all the other people that will be killed in the brutal fashion because of this one decision. Being beheaded is a quick way to die if it is done properly however these terrorists don't use a Guilltoine or a single swipe of a sword, they carve a persons head off, screams give way to gurgling as the victim bleeds profusely, but the job is only half done because then the work through from the back, only after having the front of the neck mutilated do they go to the back and cut the head from the body before shoving it up into the camera. That is one of the worst ways to die and I repeat, it is not right to save one innocent life knowing that by doing it even more innocents (especially Philipinos because once a state is proven to be a good client they will be targeted especially) will suffer the same fate and I stand by my Dante's Inferno-esque comment that people who give in to terrorist demands and help them kill more people are in my mind only slightly less evil than the terrorists themselves.
 
Last edited:
Basstrap said:


one of the worst things Ive read in a while. Why don't you save your judgement for yourself instead of implying the phillipians are are no batter than the nazis.

For all your talk of courage and blah blah blah, some people just don't want to die or they want to save others from dying if it is within their power. I respect their decision and I think others should as well.

I'm positive that A.Wanderer didn't mean to imply that the Phillipinos are no better than the Nazis......

If a shopkeeper is shaken down by the mob and told to pay up or else - thats called extortion and its a crime. If the shopkeeper gives in once then the mob goons will come back over and over again and it won't ever end.

Same thing here. First Spain gave in and gave the terrorists a victory and now the Phillipines(sp?) is going to do the same thing. Where will it end? When Iraq is totally over-run by terrorist thugs who make Saddam Hussein look like Pollyanna???....NO....they must be stopped by any means possible and the answer is not to give in to their demands but rather to give them a big resounding SCREW YOU......

I'm truly sorry for the innocent hostages who are being toyed and bargained with like products in a marketplace, but terrorism cannot be rewarded.
 
Thankyou AchtungBono, reason and common sense are virtues that few on either point of the political spectrum posess.

I guess that when push comes to shove alliances can quickly find out who their real friends are.

This decision has a great deal of implications for SE Asia, the Phillipines has been accepting a lot of millitary assistance from the US in the fight against Jemaah Islamiyah (They were that bastards who perpetrated the Bali Bombing - they had a lovely codename for my type, White Meat), now having US troops operating in Mindanao is a thorn in the side of JI so what do you think is going to happen now?

The terrorists have been shown that Manilla is a willing client for their will, there will be more Philipino lives taken and the possibility of bombing campaigns throughout SE Asia has suddenly risen. I am personally feeling that the world is less safe today because of this decision. There may well be a lot of charred white meat on the streets if the Philipines doesn't show it means business at home.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:
If it bolsters the insurgents and adds credibility to their terrorist tactics, then more people will die.

Sorry but this same thing could be said about the whole war...invading Iraq without evidence, without UN support, and without being provoked all Osama had to do is turn to his men and say, "see I told you the US is evil and all they want to do is occupy our land, now who's with me?" I can't imagine the spike in recruitment...So if you want to talk about bolstering a terrorist credibility let's look at the big picture.
 
I absolutely love how some people can assert with 100% certainty who ends up in hell. Forget about whether hell even exists, but hey, it'll be populated by Gloria Arroyo soon. LOL.

Nobody seems to care that the vast majority of Spaniards and Filipinos were against this war. In Spain, I believe 9 out of 10 people opposed the war, yet their leaders trampled all over the will of the people, and in many instances either bowed in to the pressure from the US or accepted some sort of perks to become members of the coalition. Spain and The Philippines, as countries did not believe in the war, did not believe in WMD (shocking!), did not want to go fight, did not want their people dying. This is an undeniable majority view and their leaders took a huge shit right over it. So you can say that the terrorists have won in some small way, but they did not change the minds of the people there. The bombing in Spain may have helped people decide to vote for the other party, but the people NEVER believed in the war in the first place!! You cannot make the ridiculous argument that they believed, but their opinions were changed. Same goes for the Filipinos - they disagreed, they didn't want their troops there and their leader is now pulling them out. Terrorists intervened, but remember that had Arroyo listened to the will of the people, they'd never have been there in the first place.

But forget about all that, it's Lucifer and his shiny pitchfork that matters in the end.

I suppose that the vast majority of the world who did not want to go to Iraq and is not sending troops today will also end up in hell. The party should be grand with all of us there. :wink:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Sorry but this same thing could be said about the whole war...invading Iraq without evidence, without UN support, and without being provoked all Osama had to do is turn to his men and say, "see I told you the US is evil and all they want to do is occupy our land, now who's with me?" I can't imagine the spike in recruitment...So if you want to talk about bolstering a terrorist credibility let's look at the big picture.

If terrorist succeed in getting concessions from countries through their acts, it only creates the desire and opportunity to launch more terrorist strikes in order to get more concessions. To the terrorist, their actions are working and they are seeing the results they want.

Iraq was invaded by member states of the UN because Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. The only one required to prove anything was Saddam. Oh, and there are 3 UN resolutions, specifically resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 all of which approve of the use of military force against Saddam if he failed to comply. Unprovoked? Lets remember that it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait and attacked Saudi Arabia and Israel, and was required in the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement to verifiably disarm or face renewed military action to accomplish that goal.

As far as Al Quada goes, have they been able to launch more strikes since 9/11 than before? How many times has the United States been attacked by this massive new army of Al Quada personal since 9/11? Has the invasion of Iraq boosted Al Quada's ranks? No one knows for sure. Has the invasion of Iraq boosted specific Al Quada attacks so far? Definitely not.
 
anitram said:
I absolutely love how some people can assert with 100% certainty who ends up in hell. Forget about whether hell even exists, but hey, it'll be populated by Gloria Arroyo soon. LOL.

Nobody seems to care that the vast majority of Spaniards and Filipinos were against this war. In Spain, I believe 9 out of 10 people opposed the war, yet their leaders trampled all over the will of the people, and in many instances either bowed in to the pressure from the US or accepted some sort of perks to become members of the coalition. Spain and The Philippines, as countries did not believe in the war, did not believe in WMD (shocking!), did not want to go fight, did not want their people dying. This is an undeniable majority view and their leaders took a huge shit right over it. So you can say that the terrorists have won in some small way, but they did not change the minds of the people there. The bombing in Spain may have helped people decide to vote for the other party, but the people NEVER believed in the war in the first place!! You cannot make the ridiculous argument that they believed, but their opinions were changed. Same goes for the Filipinos - they disagreed, they didn't want their troops there and their leader is now pulling them out. Terrorists intervened, but remember that had Arroyo listened to the will of the people, they'd never have been there in the first place.

But forget about all that, it's Lucifer and his shiny pitchfork that matters in the end.

I suppose that the vast majority of the world who did not want to go to Iraq and is not sending troops today will also end up in hell. The party should be grand with all of us there. :wink:

It is sad and unfortunate when countries like Spain and the Philipines decide they no longer want to aid in preventing attacks on innocent Iraqi people and childern. The majority of the people being killed by the terrorist and insurgents in Iraq are not foreigners but Iraqi people themselves. The United States along with dozens of other countries are helping rebuild and stabilize the country after 30 years of hell from Saddam.

The war to remove Saddam from power has been over for over a year now. Whether or not to have troops in Iraq now has nothing to do with Saddam, but whether one wants to protect the Iraqi people and help them develop a prosperous country. Iraq needs help from the world community. It needs foreign troops and foreign money. Unfortunately in Iraq's time of need, Spain and the Philipines have turned their backs on them in regards to troops.
 
STING2 said:
It is sad and unfortunate when countries like Spain and the Philipines decide they no longer want to aid in preventing attacks on innocent Iraqi people and childern.

They did not want to be there in the first place, but you seem to be missing this. They didn't decide they "no longer" wanted to be there, they had no desire to be there at all. 90% of the people did not and I guarantee you that if 90% of Americans vehemently opposed the war in Iraq, there is no way Bush would have gone, and if he did, he'd be deserved toast in November.
 
anitram said:
I absolutely love how some people can assert with 100% certainty who ends up in hell. Forget about whether hell even exists, but hey, it'll be populated by Gloria Arroyo soon. LOL.

Nobody seems to care that the vast majority of Spaniards and Filipinos were against this war. In Spain, I believe 9 out of 10 people opposed the war, yet their leaders trampled all over the will of the people, and in many instances either bowed in to the pressure from the US or accepted some sort of perks to become members of the coalition. Spain and The Philippines, as countries did not believe in the war, did not believe in WMD (shocking!), did not want to go fight, did not want their people dying. This is an undeniable majority view and their leaders took a huge shit right over it. So you can say that the terrorists have won in some small way, but they did not change the minds of the people there. The bombing in Spain may have helped people decide to vote for the other party, but the people NEVER believed in the war in the first place!! You cannot make the ridiculous argument that they believed, but their opinions were changed. Same goes for the Filipinos - they disagreed, they didn't want their troops there and their leader is now pulling them out. Terrorists intervened, but remember that had Arroyo listened to the will of the people, they'd never have been there in the first place.

But forget about all that, it's Lucifer and his shiny pitchfork that matters in the end.

I suppose that the vast majority of the world who did not want to go to Iraq and is not sending troops today will also end up in hell. The party should be grand with all of us there. :wink:

I agree 100%
 
STING2 said:


If terrorist succeed in getting concessions from countries through their acts, it only creates the desire and opportunity to launch more terrorist strikes in order to get more concessions. To the terrorist, their actions are working and they are seeing the results they want.

Iraq was invaded by member states of the UN because Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. The only one required to prove anything was Saddam. Oh, and there are 3 UN resolutions, specifically resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 all of which approve of the use of military force against Saddam if he failed to comply. Unprovoked? Lets remember that it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait and attacked Saudi Arabia and Israel, and was required in the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement to verifiably disarm or face renewed military action to accomplish that goal.

As far as Al Quada goes, have they been able to launch more strikes since 9/11 than before? How many times has the United States been attacked by this massive new army of Al Quada personal since 9/11? Has the invasion of Iraq boosted Al Quada's ranks? No one knows for sure. Has the invasion of Iraq boosted specific Al Quada attacks so far? Definitely not.

Blah, blah, blah not even Bush is trying to use the argument of "Verifiably disarm of all WMD". But what has happen is that terrorist activity has risen globally since we attacked Iraq.
 
Bloody Hell, are you people also blind to the fact that some 30,000 children died in Iraq annually as a direct result of Saddam missusing the UN Sanctions, compiled with the 70,000 or so people who would have been killed directly by the regime, e.g. summary executions, torture (the real kind with sharp razor blades and knifes). 10,000 people killed in a war is a lot less than those that would have died if we had left Saddam alone, how can anybody who genuinely feels compassion stand by and say that the Iraqi people were better off living in that vile dictatorship?
 
Last edited:
hey, I'm all about allieviating the suffering of others.

Fact is, there is a mess over there now that won't be resolved for many many years. I;m guessing we'll see strife and sufferring in iraq for the rest of our lives...bar a miracle.
 
But do you see the peace in the South and North of the country. You must know that the vast majority of the instability is occuring in the center, the so called Sunni Triangle where you have the highest concentration on Baathist remnants, the people who have lost because of the Iraq war. It is moving forward nicely, I honestly expected it to be tougher post-war but it has turned out a little better considering that you have a huge US presence only a day trip away from any terrorists and hostile governments (Syria and Iran, both countries who are actively undermining the construction phase).

So I ask again, what would you have done if you had the call in Iraq, knowing full well that a a coup would not work (They allready tried, someone spilled the beans and Saddam executed everybody with the remotest link to the plot) and assassination was impractical.

Again to be back on track. Pulling forces out of the country is a bad thing for all involved, it doesn't help the Iraqi people and will only lead to more instability and more innocent people killed.
 
Last edited:
probably a little more than what the US is doing in most dictator-led countries and countries with horrible human rights records...which is nothing

seriously...war in the apex of evil. It is the most vile thing the human race has brough to the earth.
I would not use it unless it appeared the very human race was in jeopardy. Otherwise, I beginning to think that the best thing to do is to leave the situation alone. Use more subtle means, perhaps. Measures that may be more effective but may take a lot longer.

But I don't know...maybe we should go start a war in every non-western country

god bless eurocentrism eh?
 
Really, now war is not the worst thing there is, I would say that allowing abuses to go on when there is a power with the will and ability to remove them. There is not the will to remove the House of Saud from power, or the Syrian Government but there was the will to remove Saddam and it was taken and I am very very happy with the result as are the Iraqi people, the majority of Iraqi's in a poll this month said that their lives are somewhat or much better off today than before the war, if isolationists had their way then they would all be suffering under the iron fist of the regime compiled with the crippling sanctions.

The more subtle measures were tried against Saddam for over a decade. Sanctions were used to no avail. The sanctions killed over a million Iraqi civilians. To alleviate the suffering the UN istigated a food for oil program which was rife with corruption and now the facts are coming undone (surprise surprise, many prominent anti-war figures were given the right to sell Iraqi oil on the black market). So you have a program of "peaceful" resistance that was failing outright and fucking up the country and killing vast ammounts of innocent people while the regime became more entrenched and eliminated its enemies. So we had tried all the other methods, they were innefective against this regime, war was a legitimate means to resolve the problem and it was the right thing to do. It is bad to be sure but when you look at the alternative it is the only sane option. Now if we took Basstrap's suggestion of only fighting wars when the human race was in peril we would all be doomed. Leaders wouldn't deal with threats, they would wait, and the threats would grow larger and larger until they truly were able to annihilate the world and we would all be killed. That is an illogical means of dealing with the world, you cannot talk peace with those that do not know the meaning of the word. Likewise you cannot claim peace unless it is a true and just peace and not the peace of the grave or peace of slavery that many here would prefer to see.

Again with the eurocentrism call, honestly I have been called eurocentric, ethnocentric and a dozen other labels just to avoid the one beneath, racist. I do not mind if people wish to label me in such a way because I am simply not, surely there is nothing "ethnocentric" in believing that all people should be free to live their lives in peace, without fear of dictatorships and violence. There is nothing particuarly western in thinking that freedom is the optimal state for mankind. It is not an inherently western concept because it works so well all over the world and the people of the world deserve it. I am rather shocked by the willingness of many to stand by and allow people to die needlessly because it's far removed from their everyday lives, to sit back and say that it isn't our problem and then cry when great crimes take place. This is the same ideology that allows great evil to persist. Would the Rwandan Genocide have taken place if Clinton had had some more backbone after Somalia, would the Holocaust have occured if the western powers had listened too Churchill in the 30's and prepared properly for war in Europe, the legacy of inaction is allways worse than that of direct force.

War is not the apex of evil, it is bad, but it is not the worst thing. War is a means to an end, in this case it was a means to rid the world of the most barbaric dictatorship of the latter 20th Century surely a just cause that was long overdue. Other Measures were tried and they failed (They were not more effective, they cost a lot more lives over 100 times as many as the war and they took a decade before anybody took an altenative course of action), containment didn't work and once taken the suffering caused by a brief war in the name of liberation was less by the first year than if nobody had taken action.

Inaction is the murderous path and knowing now post-war about the regime, the way that they tortured innocents (I repeat, download the Abu Ghraib video prewar and come back to tell me that you can sit back and not take action, the only reason people continue to say Iraqi's are worse off is because the mass media simply cannot show the true face of the regime is because it is so violent and shocking it would give peace protestors nightmares). George W Bush is a better peacemaker and has spread freedom in the world much better than Bill Clinton ever did, GWB has less blood on his hands today than Clinton did at the same point in his term and the war that was won in Iraq is going to be the cornerstone of the liberal democracy throughout the Middle East. I guess I am just one of those "ethnocentric" fools who thinks that Saudi Arabia is an evil regime that should be toppled and that the Iranian people deserve to have a true say in their own country if caring for human rights and standing up for them is ethnocentric then so be it and screw anybody who is progressive and accepting of other cultures.

By the way, the use of saying a place in hell by the side of Hitler was in reference to Dante's Inferno and was an allusion to a literary work and not an expression of religious conviction or beliefs.

EDIT
Basstrap, I presume that you think that Islamism does not pose a threat to humanity therefore the entire War on Terror is pointless until Osama posesses the capacity to kill us all. By abiding to your world view removing the Taliban was the wrong thing to do wan't it? And the US entering WW2 was useless because Hitler didn't want to exterminate mankind, only certain less "racially pure" groups, I mean the US could have allowed a Japanese economic sphere in Asia as well as a Greater Germania if it didn't enter the war, that whole endevour was pointless. And the war of Independence for the US that was technically wrong and unjustifiable because they were fighting for the pointless concept of freedom which doesn't really have an application in the real world. Where does your application of blind moralty towards war end? I suspect that it ends in a world devoid of civilization.
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Blah, blah, blah not even Bush is trying to use the argument of "Verifiably disarm of all WMD". But what has happen is that terrorist activity has risen globally since we attacked Iraq.

I've actually heard Bush restate his central case for war a number of times recently, even in the interview with the Irish Women he mentioned Saddam's failure to disarm.

Has the USA been attacked since the invasion of Iraq? Even if there is slightly more terrorism now than before the war, it is probably just a random bounce. I seriously doubt that terrorist globally need the removal of Saddam to motivate them to launch terrorist strikes. Outside of Iraq, Israel/Palestine, and Afghanistan, I do not see any significant increase in terrorism.
 
anitram said:


They did not want to be there in the first place, but you seem to be missing this. They didn't decide they "no longer" wanted to be there, they had no desire to be there at all. 90% of the people did not and I guarantee you that if 90% of Americans vehemently opposed the war in Iraq, there is no way Bush would have gone, and if he did, he'd be deserved toast in November.

The war to remove Saddam is over! Has been for over a year. Any decision to keep troops in Iraq now has to do with whether the country is interested in helping the Iraqi people or not.

In both cases, Spain and the Philipines gave the terrorist precisely what they asked for.

Answer me this, how will Spains and the Philipines pull out of troops help the Iraqi people and stop terrorism?
 
Outside of Iraq, Israel/Palestine, and Afghanistan, I do not see any significant increase in terrorism.
I will have to disagree with you there Sting, since the fall of Iraq there has been less terrorism in Israel/Palestine than before the war, this is to do with the West Bank Barrier as well as the cutting of support for the terrorist organizations (directly related to the removal of Saddam and the subsequent spooking of other Arab regimes about the risks of sponsering terrorism).

You are of course right on target when you point that there is no quantatative evidence of an increase in terrorism or Al Qaeda post-war, really when people argue that by removing Saddam we have inflamed hatred in the Arab world it is code of "they have been shown how impotent they were in solving an Arab problem so they have gone from hating America the Great Satan too hating America the Great Satan + 1", if anything we are showing the moderates in the Middle East that the civilized world means business and that the strangelhold dictators and terrorists hold over their lives is going to come to an end over the next decade, watch as apathy gives way to hope.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:
Another win for the terrorist

What about the win for the hostage?

It makes me sick to hear how people become pawns. We hear all the arguments about the cause and the good fight for freedom, for the 'better of the people' but is this how the people are respected? It's little wonder they fucking hate us. It really is. I hate how the west appears to these people. I hate how there have been too many instances where governments have been forced by these repulsive people, to choose the belief in their good intentions or the life of (in this case) one man. And I hate how that one man's life ends up being worth nothing.
Want to bring God into this? More shame. The God I believe in would be just as appalled at humankind for having these situations eventuate in the first place. And I warily say this next sentence, but I'd think it is just as utterly shameful that a precious life is treated as such.

Doint misread what I'm saying. Bowing to terrorists is dangerous and never ideal. But it moots the point of fighting for freedom in the first place when life is so devalued. This numbers game is still about people. A whole bunch of individuals. More shame that this is forgotten.
 
A_Wanderer said:


...
EDIT
Basstrap, I presume that you think that Islamism does not pose a threat to humanity therefore the entire War on Terror is pointless until Osama posesses the capacity to kill us all. By abiding to your world view removing the Taliban was the wrong thing to do wan't it? And the US entering WW2 was useless because Hitler didn't want to exterminate mankind, only certain less "racially pure" groups, I mean the US could have allowed a Japanese economic sphere in Asia as well as a Greater Germania if it didn't enter the war, that whole endevour was pointless. And the war of Independence for the US that was technically wrong and unjustifiable because they were fighting for the pointless concept of freedom which doesn't really have an application in the real world. Where does your application of blind moralty towards war end? I suspect that it ends in a world devoid of civilization.

don't turn this around to make me look like some kind of uncompassionate isolationist fool.

WW2 was completely justified. They should have gone to war earlier. Aside from the horrible and sickening genocide, If hitler and the japanese had won the world would be a much worst place. (not saying anything bad about the japanese people as a whole, but I forget the leaders name at the time)

and don't make it seem like all this present day war is completely selfless. Thewar didn't start with iraqi freedom on anyone's mind. Homeland security was the purpose.

Okay...but I think I'll come over to your side.
I say next we attack China. But that would be a hard war, eh? and not much in it for us.
so...lets go for Africa! Millions of people starving and a big reason for that is corrupt government. They got lots of diamond mines too, so once we set up a nice friendly interim government we'll have it made in the shade.

And cuba too. Since castro is such a bad guy with killing his own people and stuff, I think we should go there.
But then again, CUba isn't exactly a nice juicy mid-eastern country
 
Back
Top Bottom