we never entered lybian waters. we were in recognized international waters in a commercial fishing area.

nope i dont think we took any hits but they did. and they always fired first.

by the way krm we didnt invade because of 911 we did because the taliban refused to hand over bin laden and his guys and to stop allowing them to train.

sadam could have just opened up let everybody see what we asked for and turned over the guys we asked him to.

both governments told us to basically go screw and if we want to fight bring it on.

we gave plenty of time and plenty of warning.

cmon dude, it's way too early to rewrite history. The SF guys had him in Tora Bora. Then you group SH, who had zero to do with BL. Which culminated in a false war for reasons beyond any that could be rationalized.

we are not rewriting anything. its a fact before we dropped 1 bomb in astan we told the taliban hand everybody over and let us see the intel. they refused.

we also told sh let the inspectors see anything they want and we specifically asked for certain individuals. if memory serves right one of the 103 guys was one of them. he said no.

he did the same thing in gulf 1 we gave him a warning he said lets fight. we gave him a warning again this time and i guess he was just stubborn cause again he said lets fight. those are facts.

The problem with this is, the proof contradicts your assumptions and for that reason you will find fault with it and dismiss it, no matter if its legitimate or not.

but you are still grouping the al Quaeda hunt with the Iraq affair. Since SH drove over the border to occupy Kuwait, there has been a bitter word battle with the US. Bush 41 and his line in the sand. While geographically both nations may be in the same vicinity, the former was chosen from an intel basis, while the latter was a fabricated grudge match based on 1990.

The missing concept from your analysis is the rule of law, that is supposed to govern the actions and activities of the United States of America. You don't like what they do, fair enough. But that is far from the ability of one nation to impose its custom of the week on another. The aggressor always considers themselves on the correct side, and that is where the rule of law is supposed to correctly establish what can and can't happen.

Its from that side Americans will lose the battle. While the Islamic code is quite horrid, it tries to maintain consistency. It has no place for the rewriting tendency of lawyers, or what appear to be autocrats. So while the Libyan intervention, and the Kosovo operations were to save lives, the political interventions were what?

Here's the rub, if there is no consensus from the USA as to why those military exercises took place, how are those attacked supposed to know. Instead they group ALL activity together, which can explain the tendency to attack any partisan target.

And what is missing from yours is the current impracticality of following antiquated "rule of law" that does not acknowledge a non-sovereignty entity operating inside of a sovereign nation that threatens another sovereign nation's interest. If you are talking specifically about Iraq, I agree but also find it irrelevant to the current problems and challenges in the region as whether or not it was legal or illegal to invade Iraq does not matter any more, it occurred, we should instead focus on the best way to move forward from our current position.

Who are they losing the battle against? The Islamic fundamentalist/extremist? The Muslim population? If you think it's the Muslim population, I'd like a cite. In the middle east their are two predominant voices. One is the US and the other is the Islamic extremist/fundamentalist, both of which have a minority stake in the middle east, yet both voices are the loudest in an attempt to influence the greater population. It seems to me, you assume the fundamentalist voice is speaking for the entire middle east population. Where as the US is not speaking for them, we are trying to influence them into accepting democratic ideals and reject strict Islamic ideals as, obviously that is in the best interest of the world. You may ask, how can I speak for whats in the best interest of the world, I take leap of faith most of the free world does not want to come under or be influenced by a strict Islamic government that has zero tolerance for freedom.

Besides that, is it good for US/western interest if a strict united Islamic government forms in the place of already established government(s) across the middle east? I would argue that it would not matter unless if we had an efficient alternative fuel but one has yet to be discovered.

Again, who is "they"? I'm assuming you think its the broad Muslim population, when in reality it is Islamic extremist/fundamentalist who have the tendency to attack any partisan target.

What assumptions? Please just show me any proof.

krm if lybia and iran have sent miltary planes and ships to attack or military planes and ships does that not qualify?

All I want is some proof of a sovereign middle eastern nation attacking the united states.

again if lybia and iran attack our ships and planes in international waters how does that not count?
Do you remember top gun? The engaements in that movie were based loosely on real life in both the med and persian gulf.

Did they ever strike a plane or ship?

and as much as that sentiment would be nice, the aggrieved parties won't just wish away the actions they have faced. Or that their brothers faced. The Qur'an burning should atleast reinforce the problem with one side, the aggressor, trying to handwave away historical fact. It doesn't just go away because you want it to.

How about you do some research and learn for your self? But, I'll post proof as soon as you prove it was "random" terrorist from "random" countries that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and we invaded Afghanistan for this reason alone. Until then, shut the **** up about proof..

Are you under the impression we can change history? Tell me how debating if it was wrong of right to invade Iraq a decade ago solves the problems of today? That debate is irrelevant. What interesting is everything these topics come up, your side of the debate always focuses on how wrong it was to invade Iraq, when it's inconsequential in handling of today problems. Do not get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we should ignore the ill will that action caused, although I think it is significantly less than you think it is.

They were from Saudia Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon working under the terrorist group Al Qaeda lead by Osama Bin Laden, residing and operating in Afghanistan. We entered Afghanistan on October 7, 2011 less than a month after the primary motivation for the invasion, the September 11th attacks.

krm you are off base. 1st what diff does it make if they hit us? if you are walking down the street and you have a gun and sum thug takes a shot at you are you going to ask him why? are you going to try and love on him and give him another shot or are you going to kill his ass?

yes they did almost sink a ship after they mined international waters with the intention of sinking as many us and neutral ships they could.

both of those countries could have avoided any military action if they had just done what they were told.

Why do they have to do what they are told? I just want to know when the United States was under threat or attack from a sovereign middle eastern nation.

so i take it that you dont consider them shooting at our ships and planes as an attack on the us? i also guess you dont consider an attack on us and allied civilian cargo ships by their military as an attack on the us or our allies?

Now the "random" part? Or did you just make that up? Also, the primary motivation was the Taliban unwillingness to cease harboring and facilitating a terrorist enterprise. Just how long should it take a responsible government to stop supporting terrorist who just attacked a country that had the power to remove your government from power almost overnight?

why do they have to do what they are told? because the attacks were planned and orchestrated in their country. they had been harboring bin laden and al qaeda for years. allowed them to have training bases and funded them.

you have a friend that kills someone and keep him in your house see what happens when the police come to get him. you tell them over your dead body and see how long you stay alive.

I would love citations of our ships civilian or military being hit by an attack.

The terrorists were not acting for the sovereign nation of Afghanistan. They were a random small sect acting in their own interest.

my goodness kerm do you know what harboring a fugitive means?

when the USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG 58) struck a mine the following April, Navy explosive ordnance specialists matched the serial numbers of nearby unexploded mines to the ones aboard the Iran Ajr. This evidence of Iranian involvement in the Roberts mining led to the biggest surface-warfare battle since World War II,

On May 13, 1984, an Iranian F-4E fighter bomber attacked the 80,000-ton Kuwaiti tanker Umm Casbah as it steamed off the Saudi coast carrying a load of petroleum for the United Kingdom. These attacks marked a major escalation in the war: For the first time ever, Iran had deliberately targeted neutral shipping. By the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Iranian forces had attacked 190 ships from 31 nations, killing at least 63 sailors.

Are you really quoting things from the Iran-Iraq war when we are discussing when the USA should get involved militarily? Do you honestly think the USA is the governing body of the entire world?