Unless you have a cite proving they were a "random" sect operating outside the purview of the Taliban, shut the **** up.

ran·dom   [ran-duhm]
adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.


Please tell me you trying to be factitious.

you said when has a sovereign middle astern/muslim country ever attacked the us. its happened lots of times.

and who else is going to protect those guys? all nations protect their and others shipping all around the world.

Called that from a mile away.

Okay, I concede to the warmongers. I see no point to further discussion of this topic after those three posts.

I'm not a war monger, I just detest the "random" ignorance and distorted assumptions some here present.

kuwait asked us to reflag their tankers then this happend:

The first convoy began on July 22, 1987. Eight naval combatants were assigned to the Gulf for Operation Earnest Will, with three providing a close escort for two reflagged Kuwaiti tankers, the Gas Prince and the Bridgeton, along the entire five-hundred-mile sea-lane from the Gulf of Oman to Kuwait. U.S. Navy P-3 surveillance aircraft and carrier-based tactical aircraft provided cover around the Strait of Hormuz. The Saudis agreed to allow the basing of aerial surveillance aircraft from their airfields during the convoy operations and deployed their own F-15s to protect the convoys should the AWACS aircraft detect an approaching Iranian jet. To avoid any accidental attacks by Iran or Iraq, the convoy schedule was published in advance.

On the night of July 23, a small Iranian logistics vessel departed Farsi Island and laid a string of nine SADAF-02 mines—a variant of a North Korean contact mine packed with 243 pounds of explosives—in shallow waters directly across the path of the convoy. The next morning, the Bridgeton struck one these mines. That evening, the Middle East Force commander, Rear Adm. Harold Bernsen, wrote, “The events of this morning . . . represent a distinct and serious change in Iranian policy vis-à-vis U.S. military interests in the Gulf. There is no question that Iranian forces specially targeted the escort transit group and placed mines in the water with the intent to damage/ sink as many ships as possible.”

As Bernsen later noted, “The day we hit the mine was very important because it meant that deterrence would not succeed and the Iranian leadership had decided to take their chances by directly challenging the U.S. The threat of the carrier was not enough— deterrence failed.” The mining of the Bridgeton forced CENTCOM to radically change its approach to the convoy operations and ushered in a massive escalation in U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf.

My point has always been, what have you done for me lately. And on that matter, that is what the occupied see, each and every day. Take the Ahfgans, their home has been occupied since the first Soviet tanks rolled in the 70's (not bothering to go further back). Then after they left, the Taliban structure took over, and now for the past 10 years, American GI's have been parading around.

Now imagine a German/French/Australian/whatever force cruising your neighbourhood, for as long as you can recall. Where they go is their business, and if you get in their way, you might get shot & killed. They never go anywhere without a full armed guard. Doesn't sound like much fun, a prisoner in your own community.

I agree its not something to be constantly debated and discussed, BUT, if the occupiers don't leave it's impossible to move on. Diplomats and technical people are who build a society, not armed soldiers. The bussword is security, but that's a canard. Its also not a sign of weakness to declare victory, and go home. Then it becomes a Churchill moment, not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.

well the last time we left astan too early the taliban (ahfgans) took over. also us soldiers are not the only ones there or on the ground.

I agree with this but we probably don't agree on the timing.

Let me be clear, I see Afghanistan and Iraq as seperate issues except with similar challenges when it comes to exit strategies and the threat of a hard line Islamic governments taking root, not by the will of the people but by the violent minority of extremist/fundamentalist who are backed by the theocracy of Iran. I think both countries are unable to currently avoid this with out heavy US/Western influence. This is the single biggest challenge for US interest in withdrawing from both countries.

While I do not doubt the negative impact our presence has but from personal experience, its not as significant issue as you seem to think it is. They do not like it, for sure, but they understand it.

The other side of the coin is, the people are going to be ultimately oppressed either by the US or fundamentalist influence...in the short-term......which do you think leads to better results for US/Western interest and likely the country in question?


Lastly, if we leave and the democratic government falls and a strict Islamic one takes it's place, specifically Iraq, we ultimately failed on the invasion then failed on our exit as well, making the situation much worse. While I'm sure many pundits would point to the invasion as the catalyst for the failure and rise of another hard-line Islamic government, the reality is one had very little to do with the other, other than the sequence of events in history. Sure the failure of leaving would of never occurred with out failures of the invasion and occupation, but as I've pointed out, that an irrelevant argument because the invasion did happen and their was no way to change that when the decision was made to leave.

I hope that made sense.

Policy of the USA: Invade a country whenever you can gain anything from it or feel really scared of what they MIGHT do in the future. Power gained by greed and inhumane materialism makes the population feel proud to be American, makes them blindly cheer for their dictator, I mean... president.

Policy of civilized modern countries in the world: Attack only when being attacked. Help countries which are poor or in need. This doesn't mean giving them "freedom" by killing their family while stealing their oil, but this means giving them real help without gaining anything from it yourself.

I prefer the last one, FYI

Please cite any reference that indicated the US "stole" oil. Hell, I'll give you a cookie if you can cite whether or not the US has bought any oil from Iraq in the past ten years.

Ignorance helps when spouting tired old fallacies you heard on the interwebs .

fleeingfish,
The US positioning in the ME & surrounding regions reminds me of when the cosa nostra, Italian Mafia, was supplanted by the Fascists. The only body possible to force them under was a totalitarian regime. But because there was never an education component to the suppression, once removed they just returned. Its these concepts that appear to be consciously neglected by the powers that be.

So be it one year, or generations, unless the people choose to change everything else is short term suppression (from both sides West and Islamic Fundamentalists). And that change comes not from the barrel of a gun, never has and never will. The longer the guns stay, the higher the level of resentment and corresponding retaliatory violence, which undermines the chance of changing the status quo.

I do think we agree on more than we disagree. That doesn't occur very often around here.

I def agree education is the answer.

Non-American opinion:
IMO a super power shall do everything in their power to remain the sole supermancy. This includes, keeping your allies 'satisfied' just as much as hindering your opponents from growing to strong/fast. For the time being controlling sea territoriy is the same as supermancy. But of course this is no good reason to tell your people, because it sounds like pure greed. Therefore you need some excusses in order to march into a country. The most popular is ofc "protecting the innocent".

If this makes sense or not is written on another piece of paper. Take Lybia for example: yes, Gadaffi was a dictator, and yes, he ruled over a country which before was in the hand of bandit lords. You cannot enter a country like Lybia and tell them "all right, you are a democracy now". It is simply not gonna work and the people who demand that it should work, are well aware of the facts.

It is the same **** all over Africa. Africa is not poor by definition. But there is only a low low low wealth and a uper uper uper wealth population. "Democracy" - along being a great excuse for war - will do nothing but raise false hope.

Have you actually researched to see if you understand these talking points?

That depends. Would you mind telling me what deepness of research we are talking about?

Sounds like he's been playing Civilization.

Fleeingfish, have you by any chance read Imperial Hubris by Michael Sheuer?

Lets start with any.

No, should I?