Over 100 Children Killed in US-Led Airstrikes.....

There was no evidence for WMD in Iraq and the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 doesn't matter if they had OBL in their territory or camps. Afghanistan as a nation didn't commit 9/11 there is no logic in invading a country that didn't attack the US.

There was no evidence for WMD in Iraq and the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 doesn't matter if they had OBL in their territory or camps. Afghanistan as a nation didn't commit 9/11 there is no logic in invading a country that didn't attack the US.

According to the US not to the rest of the world.

even then "according to Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

There absolutely were evidence of WMD and WMD research in Iraq. The problem is a lot of it was either circumstantial (like components for uranium enrichment) or deliberately falsified by Iraqis and possibly Iranians (like magellan). However there were also a lot of evidence that Saddam abandoned his WMD programs shortly after the end of Gulf War. Evidence which was either suppressed or ignored by the Bush administration.

As for Afghanistan, the Taliban didn't just "had OBL" in their country. They actively harbored him and AQ group. They've refused every US request for OBL extradition and international demand to close down AQ terrorist training and operation centers. In almost any countries, one who harbor and protect a criminal is guilty of aiding and abetting and accessory to the crime.

"On June 21, 2006 Rick Santorum claimed that "we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons", citing a declassified June 6 letter to Pete Hoekstra saying that since the 2003 invasion, a total of "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been found scattered throughout the country.^[102][103]

On June 21, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released key points from a classified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center on the recovery of a small number of degraded chemical munitions in Iraq. The report stated that "Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." All are thought to be pre-Gulf War munitions.^[104]

These munitions meet the technical definition of weapons of mass destruction, according to the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, according to Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, though agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said.^[105]

On July 2008, 550 metric tonnes of "yellowcake" the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium, arrived in Montreal as part of a top-secret U.S. operation. This transport of the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans. The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars."^[106]

In October 2014, the New York Times reported that U.S. servicemen had been exposed and injured during the disposal and destruction of abandoned 4,990 chemical weapons that had been discovered in Iraq.^[107] CBS News reported that the U.S. government had concealed the injuries to the troops by chemical weapons.^[108][109] US soldiers reporting exposure to mustard gas and sarine allege they were required to keep their exposure secret, sometimes declined admission to hospital and evacuation home despite the request of their commanders.^[10"

At the time of the Iraq war there where no evidence presented they where doing those things now and even if they where US cannot wantonly invade they still have the security council to go through. Like you said it was circumstantial and falsified just the same as having no evidence.

Doesn't matter Afghanistan itself and it's government at the time didn't plan and commit the 9/11 attacks. It doesn't matter if they where harbouring AQ it doesn't give US the right to invade. It isn't the same as an individual harbouring a criminal.

Evidence that wasn't reliable and even if they did have evidence US still can't invade iraq.

Doesn't matter what Afghanistan did it is a soverign country it isn't the same as harbouring robbers in your house from the police. Your house is subject to American laws. Afghanistan isn't. The end, your argument is finished.

Evidence that wasn't reliable and even if they did have evidence US still can't invade iraq.

Doesn't matter what Afghanistan did it is a soverign country it isn't the same as harbouring robbers in your house from the police. Your house is subject to American laws. Afghanistan isn't. The end, your argument is finished.

Never implied that the evidence was accurate. Doesn't change the fact that existence of evidence that pointed to WMD in Iraq.

Go back and reread the context, I specifically stated that in almost any country, aiding and abetting a criminal is a crime. This is in respect to international law not US law. OBL was not restricted in anyway by the Taliban even after 911. By continuing to allow OBL to operate unhindered, Taliban government have effectively declared war on the US.

That's a terrible rationale. If I give you a lift to the bank and you go in a rob the place....it's not my fault. It's YOURS. People are responsible for their own actions. Period.

They found WMD's in iraq. GG WP.

And?? Any reason for you to keep derailing the topic?

It was stated there no reason to invade iraq, and that the WMD evidence wasn't there. It was, therefore justified. Take your trolling somewhere else, account made 9 days ago.

And there wasn't any reliable evidence. Even if there was it doesn't making invading iraq legal or right.

We found WMD's there. 500 munitions of chemical based WMD's. It was legal, you lost.

And there wasn't any reliable evidence. Even if there was it doesn't making invading iraq legal or right.

That's in retrospective. Hindsight is always 20/20. We should have kept the Iraqi military and police in place post invasion. We should have removed Saddam in the first Gulf war. Shoulda, coulda, woulda.

And all in all the invasion was still illegal. It doesn't matter what the US thought it could do it still has to go through the UN security council but instead it circumvented it and invaded iraq creating a power vacuum for terrorists to take over.

Again, no international court of law held a trial and declared it illegal so really the matter of legality is relative and debatable. Unlike Afghanistan, I will say that the decision to invade Iraq was not one that was made with sufficient or accurate information.

US violated UN charter by invading Afghanistan. It is illegal.

UN charter specifically forbidden the invasion of Afghanistan? Cite exact passage in the UN charter.

"Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (U.N. Declaration)"

"(a) The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, . . . (c) The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter, . . . (e) The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, . . . (f) The principle of sovereign equality of States, . . . (g) The principle that States shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter . . . . 90"

So your source of information that Americans are "raining" death from the skies with UCAVs on unsuspecting civilian women and children is what? One questionable "independent journalism project" and Pakistani children who have been exposed to anti-American propaganda from an early age?

.............. Are you denying that we have seen considerable collateral damage from this? Should we go down the list of actual drone strikes for the past 10 years to look at the list.. And I am not talking about what every Pakistani child says, I am talking about ones that actually went IN FRONT OF CONGRESS AND TESTIFIED.

And what kind of policy are you referring to? Be specific. I would like to be critical of any policy that allow our military to target innocent children as well. Is your understanding that "drone policies" are some how different or excepted from law of armed conflicts (LOAC) which governs all services members?

Where in the hell did I say they target children? I am pointing out that our drone campaigns has smeared a helluva a lot of innocent people as collateral damage.

Also how exactly is the unjust internment of Japanese Americans related? Is saying wars will inevitably have casualties including civilian ones excusing past acts of racism? I don't follow the logic there.

Because it is apathy, it basically is suggesting because "this is war" we can't be critical of the policies and the like when such things happen.. That was my point.. Not that this specific event actually happened with the article, but the overall nonsense of excusing and condoning horrible things that should be criticized by keep on shrugging your shoulders and saying "well that's war"..

And about CIA tortures, we did locate OBL so there's that...

You mean the numerous innocent people that have been tortured and later released because they were falsely imprisoned to begin with? Abu Ghraib says hi.. People have been killed under these uses of torture.. There are lines you don't cross..

Not saying we should let CIA torture whomever, but if torturing the right bad guys will ultimately save lives, then it's not so morally cut and dried.

Wrong. There are human rights you never violate, the US has never been in mortal danger in which we suddenly have to throw out all the things we think are important due to the threat of absolute anniliation.. It has never come to that point.. And quite honestly I consider you a weak person for not seeing that.. The road to hell is paved in good intentions..

Nope. But you seem to care a lot about what I have to say most of the time. You respond to me quite often.

Either that makes them un-moot, or you moot.

That's a terrible source and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

Fact of the matter is, there is always collateral damage in war. Civilians are going to get killed and it sucks. It doesn't help that ISIS is using child soldiers.

Well said until you came up to civilian deaths in war. That existed long before WW2. Hell Caesar used civilians as pawns to get to the warriors. I think today most countries try to marginalize civilian deaths....it's not always possible. But it isn't an objective as it was in the past.

I see very broad language, one which UN themselves have violated in the past military operations. Again no trial to determine guilt, so legality is still questionable.

Why is it a terrible source? The article is factual and uses more legit news media sources to support the article.

Using news articles from legitimate sources is an attempt to give credibility to their unfounded conclusion. They also take information out of context or outright lie because the truth doesn't fit what they already think to be true. It helps that many don't read the extra links that they post as their 'sources'. Theantimedia is just another conspiracy web site. Conspiracy theories are for lazy people. They promote an overly simplistic, black and white view on subjects when the authors have no real clue about what's going on - so they guess and BS whatever blank spaces they have in their logic.

I assure you, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton, George Bush, John Kerry, and Benjamin Netanyahu aren't all sitting around a table in some secret room in the White House Legion of Doom style plotting genocide and eating babies; as sites like this would have you believe. The world is more complicated than that. I know this because I used to read these web sites. I used to eat it up. Then, I just woke up one day. I started fact checking them and realized how full of shit they are. I also started working for the government and it's much, much more mundane than one would think.

Fair enough friend, but just because you work for the government doesn't mean they are going to fill you in on all the dirty secrets :)

1+2. I am just being realistic here. Which of these news would be the most shocking to you? 400 women and children in a nearby town of yours were massacred or 400 US troops were gunned down by ISIS fanatics? Our minds are wired to react in certain ways, that is just how life works.

You insist on painting a disingenuous picture of reality. The apt articulation of the scenario you purvey comprises a comparison between the shock value of the massacre of 400 women and children murdered by my government and my countrymen, and that of the death of 400 of our soldiers. Responding to that scenario, I'd be equally shocked - if not more shocked by the women and children massacre as it's an occupational hazard for soldiers to die in war - as I fancy myself to be a decent and upright individual. If you don't hold yourself and your compatriots to such standards then a eulogy is in order.

3. Well, I will say that the War on Terror has been a collosal failure. Especially the part of waging 2 wars at once. Biggest US foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War. Both the execution and concept were wrong, for one. Instead of merely occupying the nations. They should have conquered them so to speak.

Let me get this straight: you're acknowledging the failure of the American war on terror only because they merely occupied nations rather than "conquering" them? Oh dear..

4. The War on Terror bound to happen. If Al-Qaeda and other islamist groups were getting support (including financial) from governments, they should expect war to come to their borders. The bombing and air strikes is a lesser evil compared to sending troops down, which could very well have caused even more deaths and suffering. Especially a bigger loss of lives of US citizens, which is the duty of the US military and government to protect.

We're back to the age-old chicken-or-egg dilemma. What created terrorism? If you're going to appeal to the "they hate our freedom, they hate our lifestyle" moronic rhetoric then I regret ever responding to you. If you rise above that twaddle, we'll agree that terrorism came into being either as a response to U.S intervention and belligerence in the region or as the result of the region's subsequent destabilization in the form of insurgency. Consequently, the hackneyed American plaintive rhetoric is inopportune, if not duplicitous.

Moreover, the claim that Al-Qaeda and other radical groups received support from governments is dubious as these groups are the adversaries of their host states first and foremost; they thrive on their disintegration and the regional death tolls that dwarf their extraterritorial counterparts attest to their enmity towards regional states above all. Ironically enough, Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism and insurgency in the region and the U.S seems too eager to be in cahoots with it.

None of that, however, touches on the Iraq war. The U.S invaded a state that wasn't even included in the war on terror propaganda based on lies of the presence of WMD that were never found. How is it that a state can reduce another into rubble, murder hundreds of thousands of its people, destabilize it beyond repair and then continue to feel justified and entitled to the moral high-ground? What kind of a citizenry is that?

But the elephant in the room is that you're espousing the same scorch-land tactic Israel employs in the Palestinian territories, a tactic that leads to an outrageous civilian death toll for trivial gains most of the time. In order to lower casualties among U.S soldiers, you support bombing everything and anything, which almost always turns out to be ineffectual and ground invasion emerges as inevitable. Given the superiority of the U.S military might, it gets away with it, but it strips the U.S of the moral fig leaf it holds on to as the civilian deaths under this scheme can no longer be claimed to be accidental and unavoidable. They are premeditated for the sake of gains perceived by the military and political leadership. That premeditation makes those sanctioning it guilty of war crimes and those who approbating it morally abject.

Stop trying to paint the middle east as victims here. While the loss of innocent civilian life is a tragedy, there may not have been a better way to deal with the current situation. Why is it the middle east that always gets targetted? Because the majority of the foreign threat to the well being of Israel and the US comes from. The US military's duty is to protect the US and her allies, and they are doing exactly that.

Oh really? In what way was the Saddam regime a threat to the U.S? In what way is ISIS a threat to the U.S? You have no understanding of cause and effect. What is "the current situation"? The Middle East has become the stage for the U.S latest imperialistic stunts and the ventures of its drunken leadership in recent decades. This is why it's the Middle East that always gets targeted. The U.S ensures a vicious cycle of instability and reliance on its influence in the region continues to maintain a pretense for further intervention in the region. How come ISIS' armament is chiefly American? How come ISIS' top brass were once prisoners in an American prison?

And let me point out the flaw in the banal fabrication you repeated here. Israel is surrounded by four countries: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Both Egypt and Jordan have longstanding peace treaties with the U.S, with full diplomatic and economic relationships and military and intelligence cooperation. Lebanon, the state, detached itself from the conflict following the Lebanese war that witnessed Israeli atrocities against the Lebanese people that went unaccounted for. That leaves Syria which didn't fire a single bullet at Israel even after many Israeli aggressions against Syrian targets and encroachments on Syrian sovereign territories. Before you repeat propaganda, it's advisable that you make sure it'll hold slight scrutiny.

A diplomatic approach would be far favorable, but it is not that simple.

A diplomatic approach to what? Imperialism? Political egomania? lol

5, Yes it is, and that is life. The point is, the US will NOT be held accountable for their actions. Concepts like morality and chivalry often do not go hand in hand with survival in life and death situations like war.

The world is not black and white. All sides have commited their fare share of atrocitites, though, no one has been quite as horrible as ISIS, the Taliban, The Islamists and most other middle eastern dictatorships.

If that helps you sleep better at night carry on. I find it hard to accept that you're actually writing soberly. The U.S isn't fighting a war of survival; it's fighting a war of expansionism and imperialism. If you're comparing the moral fabric of the U.S to that of ISIS I, again, rest my case. Based on your arguments in this topic, here's what it comes down to: you're either morally bankrupt by genuinely espousing this narrative or you're just ignorant, lacking an understanding of morality and reality beyond the shallowest of propaganda. Because I have to tell you, I don't know what "all sides have committed their fair share of atrocities" even mean in this context. Are you sure you didn't borrow that from shamefaced propaganda on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

But that loses its meaning if it is not acknowledged as such. And nothing changes if people recognize their attitude and feel bad about or apologize for it. I can honestly say that I dwell on things like this and that I question the acts of governments and people, but that doesn't in any meaningful way set me apart from the people who shrug.

It certainly does, though I understand how at face value it doesn't seem to be the case. There are gradations of morality, the lowest of which is voicing disapprobation of an immorality. If you fall below that threshold your standing on the moral spectrum becomes a hazardous one. This alone is a utility sufficient enough to warrant the practice and set its agents apart from others. But that utility has the potential to go beyond the symbolic when realized by enough people. The government is a reflection of its citizenry; a politically apathetic citizenry gives rise to a lawless government that's prone to power fantasies and expansionist stunts. A politically aware citizenry keeps the rulers on a leash that bolsters the best in them and dwarfs the worst.

I'm not an ideologue although many will tell you otherwise. I understand the capacity of the multitude and I won't venture into burdening them with what they inherently can't bear. This, however, is within their means, which means that if they fail to realize it then they deserve the stigma of moral depravity.

Fair enough. I'm not invested in this enough to make any strong claims. I didn't put a time stamp on the subject either. And I should have been more specific when I mentioned 'other nations'. All I'm saying is that the US is surrounded by other 'western' nations who often expect a certain initiative from the US. Now, the US can of course apply pressure to these nations, because it has so much influence and power, but I don't think that's always the case. For example, some of the 'western' nations supporting the war or terror after 9/11 weren't simply pressured into offering support (regardless of the whole 'if you're not with us, you're against us' attitude). They were either agreeing with the US or uncritically followed a powerful ally. These are countries that wait for (and expect) the US to make the first move. Similarly (at the risk of simplifying the issue) in the case of Syria, most of the 'western' world seemed to think that intervention was necessary (regardless of whether it actually was), but they were all waiting for the US to make the first move.

I mean, I remember that when the weapons of mass destruction accusation popped up, the press in my country (The Netherlands) was already rather critical of the evidence these claims were based on. Yet our government chose to support the US, even though they really didn't have to. I don't think that was the sole result of my country being put under pressure by the US. I doubt it would have stopped the US if the entirety of Western-Europe had not supported the US, but at least it would have sent a clearer message.

That explains it as I was referring to the Middle East, where I reside. I believe western Europe has a complicated relationship with the U.S as far as foreign and security policies are concerned. Fundamentally, it may be adamantly opposed to the U.S in that regard, but it gets on board out of a sense of necessity. It's a shame that western Europe has lost its standing as an equal ally to the U.S and is becoming gradually an American protectorate.

@GazaAli: i think you are or at least try to be a pretty honest person so i'm going to have to give you the benefit of the doubt on you not using mass produced industrial goods and those goods not causing untold misery around the world.

anyway, i have ended up in this outlandish science fiction existence where i am the janitor on the deathstar and i am the guy that makes the operation of the evil galactic empire possible and even that is just a drop in the bucket compared to the evil i spread just by existing.

i have zero moral high ground from which to judge anyone else, i believe the vast majority of isis members are guilty of less global crimes than i am and wonder why i am the only person that seems to see that.

It certainly does, though I understand how at face value it doesn't seem to be the case. There are gradations of morality, the lowest of which is voicing disapprobation of an immorality. If you fall below that threshold your standing on the moral spectrum becomes a hazardous one. This alone is a utility sufficient enough to warrant the practice and set its agents apart from others. But that utility has the potential to go beyond the symbolic when realized by enough people. The government is a reflection of its citizenry; a politically apathetic citizenry gives rise to a lawless government that's prone to power fantasies and expansionist stunts. A politically aware citizenry keeps the rulers on a leash that bolsters the best in them and dwarfs the worst.

I'm not an ideologue although many will tell you otherwise. I understand the capacity of the multitude and I won't venture into burdening them with what they inherently can't bear. This, however, is within their means, which means that if they fail to realize it then they deserve the stigma of moral depravity.

Neither the "lift to the bank" scenario that you describe, nor the "bartender and drunk driver" scenario that @ad1x2 described is really comparable: In your scenario, "you" didn't give "me" the lift for the express purpose of robbing the bank. In ad1x2's scenario, the bartender doesn't give the driver alcohol for the express purpose of causing an accident.

But the US does arm ISIS for the express purpose of waging warfare, knowing full well (on the basis of prior ISIS conduct) that the group won't hesitate to terrorize civilians who support Assad or who simply follow the wrong religion.

Fair enough friend, but just because you work for the government doesn't mean they are going to fill you in on all the dirty secrets :)

I take conspiracy theories with a pinch of salt, they maybe true and they may not be. 9/11 conspiracy theories, there have been some compelling arguments for the conspiracies, but then i think bloody hell this shit can't be even remotely true, can it?

Neither the "lift to the bank" scenario that you describe, nor the "bartender and drunk driver" scenario that @ad1x2 described is really comparable: In your scenario, "you" didn't give "me" the lift for the express purpose of robbing the bank. In ad1x2's scenario, the bartender doesn't give the driver alcohol for the express purpose of causing an accident.

But the US does arm ISIS for the express purpose of waging warfare, knowing full well (on the basis of prior ISIS conduct) that the group won't hesitate to terrorize civilians who support Assad or who simply follow the wrong religion.

First of all, you proved my point, some deaths are far more impactful than others. Even if they have the same ammount of victims.

No I didn't. Your point was that some deaths are shocking enough to warrant a reaction while others understandably fail to get anything but a shrug. I, on the other hand, stated that all deaths warrant a forceful reaction, even if some are - rightfully rather than partially - more shocking than others and consequently demand a more forceful reaction. That doesn't annul the forceful reaction I affirm to all deaths.

The biggest failure on the War on Terror was the attempt to declare 2 wars at once. I could have listed that instead, but that was too obvious. Conquering them would probably have been more practical in the long run. And possibly lead to fewer deaths.

What is conquering a country? I'm extending you the courtesy of soliciting a clarification before I judge you and your statements based on my understanding of conquering, which is the permanent occupation of a land and the creation of a colony/protectorate/tributary state on it.

I am not a naive idiot to say "They hate our freedom or lifestyle or whatever". Of course, I am aware of the political causes, such as the troops in their soil, aiding their enemies and installing sock puppets as dictators in their countries. I dont think they give a crap how we govern our civilians. Al Qaeda got support and could hide in palestinian and afghan borders. I opposed the war in iraq, and I still think it was incredibly stupid, I dont oppose the war on Afghanistan however.

Therefore, you're acknowledging American culpability and belligerence in the region and the role the U.S continues to play in its destabilization. I rest my case then. But I don't understand what impelled you to say that Al-Qaeda got support and could be hiding in Palestine; that has a grain of neither substance nor truth to it, not to mention that it's geopolitically nonsensical to include Palestine and Afghanistan in the same argument.

What I am saying is, no one is innocent.

Which is a truism that has no place in this discussion. You can't acknowledge the precedence of the U.S culpability and belligerence in the region and the role it played in its destabilization then appeal to this equitable rhetoric. The truth that matters is that the U.S incessantly wreaked havoc in a region at the other end of the world for God knows why, havoc that immensely contributed to the mess that has become the bane of the world and the utter ruin of millions.

Not only are US lives more endangered when on foot invasoins are involved, but as are civilians, especially as terrorists may take hostages and have even less regard for civilian lives than the US military. I think @Wasdie, who knows people in the actual military could correct me on any mistakes I say, and clarify things I say better.

To clarify, how many civilians end up dying in Palestine whenever Israel sends its troops in? Compared to its air strikes. From what I have read, almost always, the most devastating assaults are those done on foot.

That's incorrect. Air strikes and artillery fires are indiscriminate; they just pound areas irrespective of its inhabitants. In last summer's war, the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths occurred as a result of airstrikes and artillery fires from tanks and missile batteries stationed across the Gazan borders. It's this indiscrimination that yields little gains in terms of military objectives; you end up with massive damage and a mounting death toll without actually accomplishing anything. Ground invasion gives soldiers more control over combat parameters; they actually engage the enemy and as such they have the potential of achieving military objectives. No military with a sound leadership and a clear agenda relies on airstrikes and sheer firepower used in excess, specially against paramilitary groups and insurgents.

Several of those nations you listed have at some point invaded israel though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Which is irrelevant. Britain once colonized the U.S, so? What matters is that those nations integrated themselves in a longstanding and entrenched status quo that poses no threat to Israel.

How exactly would the US benefit from imperialism? Do you even have any evidence to back up your claims about this being about imperialism and not to hunt down terrorists, who pose a threat to the safety and well being of western civilians. The US repeatedly tried to get into Afganistan, so they could hunt down the Al Qaeda members there but were denied access, same happened with Pakistan. With Pakistan and Afganistan nurturing the terrorist groups, providing them shelter.

The U.S would benefit from imperialism in the same manner every empire benefited from it: hegemony, wealth, ambition..etc. There are things we understand without having them inscribed on tablets or proclaimed to us. The U.S often engages in wars against vague enemies for vague reasons in regions that lack the ability to pose a threat of any substance to the U.S, regions that often have certain strategic and economic advantages; you do the math. Spreading democracy, WMD, defeating godless communism; these are some of the laughable pretenses the U.S relied on to wage war. But you don't have to listen to me; listen to your intelligentsia instead. There are strong intellectual voices in the U.S that warn from the dangers of American imperialism on the U.S itself.

But even if you demand overt proclamations of American imperialism, you won't be disappointed in such a quest and you'll encounter such proclamations uttered by the highest authority in the state. I urge you to review president Bush's state of the union speeches; they're laden with proclamations about American forceful spreading of democracies and abolition of tyranny all over the world. Reagan spoke about "starting the world over again", and there is much more where that rhetoric came from.

You again left out cause and effect. The pretense of fighting terrorism was a result of U.S intervention in the region prior to the former's existence; you can't cite it as the reason behind U.S intervention in the region as it's a mere effect of it, an effect that's mainly utilized for propaganda in order to perpetuate the pretense for further intervention in the region.

And to clarify again, no one is innocent.

If that helps you sleep tighter, by all means carry on.

I assure you, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton, George Bush, John Kerry, and Benjamin Netanyahu aren't all sitting around a table in some secret room in the White House Legion of Doom style plotting genocide and eating babies;

Conquering it and making it something of a vassal state is what I am preferable. It would be far more preferable to what they are doing now. Those states need less autonomy and more authoritarian control by the US. Merely occupying the lands has shown that the problems will just revert in a few years.

You reject the notion of American imperialism then you espouse turning states into American vassals and stripping them of autonomy. Oh dear...

Of course, the problem is heavily caused by US politicians. Back then, America did try to maintain an extremely strong control on the globe, and for a good reason. It was the cold war. The US and middle easterners, were strong allies against the soviet union. Either way, just because the US is guilty of crimes against hte middle east does not change the middle east is responsible for crimes against India, Israel and pretty much anyone targeted by jihadists.

Now you're just driveling. What are the crimes that the "Middle East" committed against Israel? What does India have to do with anything? "Jihadists" are insurgents; they don't represent states. Therefore, the incoherent point you made is moot. But most importantly, this is a discussion of U.S culpability and belligerence in the region; don't resort to equivocation and diversion.

You are wrong though ground operations are far more dangerous,

https://www.lawfareblog.com/meta-study-drone-strike-casualties-version-20

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2015/01/05/obama-2015-pakistan-drone-strikes/

http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes

http://www.longwarjournal.org/multimedia/Yemen/code/Yemen-strike.php

Air Strikes, especially drone strikes is quite frankly, the safest method of warfare we have. Perhaps you should look at reality instead of reading anti-USA propaganda.

Not a single source you cited has anything to do with this discussion. My guess is that you thought I'd quail at the seemingly numerous sources that strangely cite one another and accept them at face value. You assumed wrong; I read them all and they're irrelevant, though for honesty's sake none of them was a substantial read. They shed light on certain statistics pertaining to drone strikes in specific regions at different points in time. Perhaps you should learn to read all together.

Something more recent might be this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_southern_Israel_cross-border_attacks

There is a reason the Israel is building a huge fence to seperate the two nations.

Anecdotes don't qualify as arguments, and isolated incidents don't constitute realities. Egypt is at peace with Israel and it's been the case for decades, period. You want to defy reality and bash your head against a wall be my guest; you can crack it wide open.

Clearly if the US wants imperialism for wealth they arent doing a good job of it, losing tonnes of money from this war. You might have made an argument 30 years ago with the Cold War going on. But now there is little point of it and such ventures would be more costly than anything. Spreading democracy is an idealogical goal, and shouldnt be a concern with the US. But the other 2 reasons, were done as pre-emptive attacks. One of the keys to the Success of the US military is its ability to attack preemptively. Proactive defense rather than reactive, fight the tumor before it can spread out far enough. The cause and effect is entirley what caused the war on terror though. The events of 9/11 caused the war on terror, the Taliban refusing to allow americans into their soil to handle Al-Qaeda led to the war in Afghanistan. 9/11 can be traced back to the israeli-palestine conflict and that conflict can be traced back to both sides wanting to kill eachother. Which goes to my central point, no one here is innocent.

Intent and impact are two separate things. Just because the U.S supposedly continues to fail in realizing its imperialistic fantasies doesn't refute the existence of those fantasies. Not that it matters at this point in the discussion: you reject the notion of American imperialism but you espouse the creation of American vassals and preemptive wars. Never underestimate the inebriating effects of propaganda and ideological fantasies.

P.S: when I said Palestine in my previous post I meant to say Pakistan, my bad.