US drone war kills up to 168 children in Pakistan

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

It was based on defense, the Taliban would not give up Bin Laden, essentially saying they we're on his side. Did we really want the Taliban to be running Afghanastain, essentially making it a breeding ground for terriosts so they could strike America again.

KC_Hokie

In what world has that happened? have you missed when we said that the US overthrows democratically elected leaders and buys dictators all the time. If Hitler welcomed you back then to their land would you have accepted? Really this is a lousy excuse if I've seen any.

Al Qaeda and OBL were formed because of anti-western sentiment because of the west constant meddling in the region. Another way that could have prevented future attacks against the US could have been actually getting out of the region in the first place and stop manipulating it for the US interests.The flaw in that theory is that we are welcomed by those Middle Eastern governments. Many of these have some of the highest GPD per capita in the world. So it's not for the money either. They could ask us to pack up and leave and we would. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]Check Shamsi Airfield on wikipedia then.

It's pretty goddamn simple from my point of view, most of the Middle East is ruled by corrupt politicians, even you can't deny that. The dictators are supported by the US, they get a lot of money and in turn have to bend over when the US wishes. Terminating their military bases would mean that they would receive no money after that. Given how they are corrupt, they can't do that. What i meant by "they don't want you there" was the PEOPLE, the average muslim doesn't want you there, most of the people don't want you there not the few people in power. That's why i said that this conflict goes way before the 9/11 attacks, in my opinion it started the minute the US began meddling in the Middle East.

Stavrogin_

It's not the U.S.'s fault the Middle East is filled with non-democracies and sub-par leaders. They weren't put there by us. And you have to deal with the governments that are there. You can't deal with groups that aren't in power pretending to play government.

I wouldn't be against getting rid of a lot of their aid, but many of those governments got their initial aid from the Soviets or oil money. So we didn't create them like some think.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Al Qaeda and OBL were formed because of anti-western sentiment because of the west constant meddling in the region. Another way that could have prevented future attacks against the US could have been actually getting out of the region in the first place and stop manipulating it for the US interests.RAGINGxPONY

Maybe OBL shouldn't have killed thousands of American civilians, that would have worked to.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Al Qaeda and OBL were formed because of anti-western sentiment because of the west constant meddling in the region. Another way that could have prevented future attacks against the US could have been actually getting out of the region in the first place and stop manipulating it for the US interests.The flaw in that theory is that we are welcomed by those Middle Eastern governments. Many of these have some of the highest GPD per capita in the world. So it's not for the money either. They could ask us to pack up and leave and we would. Stavrogin_

Debating over the leaders in the ME is another topic. I would cut their funding but that doesn't have anything to do with our bases (which Al Qaeda complains about).

If you cut the funding to these leaders I wouldn't be shocked if Al Qaeda complained about that. They'll find someone anti-West to **** about. THAT's the big point.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Al Qaeda and OBL were formed because of anti-western sentiment because of the west constant meddling in the region. Another way that could have prevented future attacks against the US could have been actually getting out of the region in the first place and stop manipulating it for the US interests.kuraimen

In what world has that happened? have you missed when we said that the US overthrows democratically elected leaders and buys dictators all the time. If Hitler welcomed you back then to their land would you have accepted? Really this is a lousy excuse if I've seen any.

"If Hitler welcomed you back to their land would you have accepted?"....not sure what you mean by this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]It also says the U.S. stopped using that airfield in April 2011. So they asked us to stop and we stopped. There goes Al Qaeda's theory.

It's not the U.S.'s fault the Middle East is filled with non-democracies and sub-par leaders. They weren't put there by us. And you have to deal with the governments that are there. You can't deal with groups that aren't in power pretending to play government.

I wouldn't be against getting rid of a lot of their aid, but many of those governments got their initial aid from the Soviets or oil money. So we didn't create them like some think.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The flaw in that theory is that we are welcomed by those Middle Eastern governments. Many of these have some of the highest GPD per capita in the world. So it's not for the money either. They could ask us to pack up and leave and we would. KC_Hokie

In what world has that happened? have you missed when we said that the US overthrows democratically elected leaders and buys dictators all the time. If Hitler welcomed you back then to their land would you have accepted? Really this is a lousy excuse if I've seen any.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Al Qaeda and OBL were formed because of anti-western sentiment because of the west constant meddling in the region. Another way that could have prevented future attacks against the US could have been actually getting out of the region in the first place and stop manipulating it for the US interests.The flaw in that theory is that we are welcomed by those Middle Eastern governments. Many of these have some of the highest GPD per capita in the world. So it's not for the money either. They could ask us to pack up and leave and we would. KC_Hokie

Debating over the leaders in the ME is another topic. I would cut their funding but that doesn't have anything to do with our bases (which Al Qaeda complains about).

If you cut the funding to these leaders I wouldn't be shocked if Al Qaeda complained about that. They'll find someone anti-West to **** about. THAT's the big point.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Al Qaeda and OBL were formed because of anti-western sentiment because of the west constant meddling in the region. Another way that could have prevented future attacks against the US could have been actually getting out of the region in the first place and stop manipulating it for the US interests.The flaw in that theory is that we are welcomed by those Middle Eastern governments. Many of these have some of the highest GPD per capita in the world. So it's not for the money either. They could ask us to pack up and leave and we would. KC_Hokie

Debating over the leaders in the ME is another topic. I would cut their funding but that doesn't have anything to do with our bases (which Al Qaeda complains about).

If you cut the funding to these leaders I wouldn't be shocked if Al Qaeda complained about that. They'll find someone anti-West to **** about. THAT's the big point.

[QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Al Qaeda and OBL were formed because of anti-western sentiment because of the west constant meddling in the region. Another way that could have prevented future attacks against the US could have been actually getting out of the region in the first place and stop manipulating it for the US interests.kuraimen

Maybe OBL shouldn't have killed thousands of American civilians, that would have worked to.

Regardless just because OBL disagreed with America meddling in the affairs of the middle east(which is a ****** up place and needs help) doesnt justify him for 9/11. After 9/11 America had every right to seek justice, the Taliban refused to hand over OBL and that's why America is in Afghanastain right now.

As for if China was meddling in the affirs of America, that would never happen because America can take care of themselves.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] You are missing the point. They don't want military bases closed because that would most likely mean cutting off funding to those dictators, that is what happens if one is not a good enough puppet for the US, that is what will happen to Pakistan most likely. My point was and still is, most of the people don't want military bases and American meddling there, not the few in power. Given how that place is full with islamic fundamentalists did the US expect them to sit quietly?Stavrogin_

Mubarak was Egyptian (Africa) and not a Gulf State. We had almost no military presence there. I would have cut their aid a long time ago.

Again, Al Qaeda focused on the military bases as their justification. So you're interweaving two issues into one.

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]They are collateral damage so they don't count as human beings. Now if you killed them using some planes crashing against some buildings then those count as humans and the perpetrators are evil terrorists!! That's how things work.RAGINGxPONY

indeed, is only terrible when the terrorist do it, but hey they werent american kids so its ok.

You to are missing the point, it's not colleteral damage when the terriosts do it because there sole purpose of doing it is to kill innocent civilians. When NATO causes colleteral damage they are going after a military target, plus NATO uses way more discretion than the terriosts do when going after military targets.

You people can not compare NATO to the Taliban it's ridiculous.

all the more reason, NATO has more intelligence and organization there is no way they couldn't have known there would be many kids in the casualties, so they just said screw it, they are just a few kids.

And basically you are saying the same thing, the user i quoted says, when its the terrorists is horrible but when its NATO, they were just war casualties and its ok.

Well done USA. Show the world how civilised you are.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

Maybe OBL shouldn't have killed thousands of American civilians, that would have worked to.

RAGINGxPONY

Regardless just because OBL disagreed with America meddling in the affairs of the middle east(which is a ****** up place and needs help) doesnt justify him for 9/11. After 9/11 America had every right to seek justice, the Taliban refused to hand over OBL and that's why America is in Afghanastain right now.

As for if China was meddling in the affirs of America, that would never happen because America can take care of themselves.

The way some people debate on here is worse then war.minus the deaths and stuff.

I'll just leave this here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Once again, the few corrupt individuals that are in power are not important, it's the people who are the overwhelming majority. Off course the dictators want you there when you are giving them money! Give every citizen a few million dollars and Americans will be worshiped like gods!

Stavrogin_

Debating over the leaders in the ME is another topic. I would cut their funding but that doesn't have anything to do with our bases (which Al Qaeda complains about).

If you cut the funding to these leaders I wouldn't be shocked if Al Qaeda complained about that. They'll find someone anti-West to **** about. THAT's the big point.

all the more reason, NATO has more intelligence and organization there is no way they couldn't have known there would be many kids in the casualties, so they just said screw it, they are just a few kids.

And basically you are saying the same thing, the user i quoted says, when its the terrorists is horrible but when its NATO, they were just war casualties and its ok.

Krelian-co

You are assuming that bolded part. America would not take out a bunch of innocent kids if they knew they were there. You know how many times America passed on killing Bin Laden due to civilian casualties, alot. They do try their best to avoid civilian casualties, terriosts do not, in fact they target them.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Most U.S. bases in the ME are in wealthy countries in the Gulf. They certainly do not need the money. KC_Hokie

Mubarak was Egyptian (Africa) and not a Gulf State. We had almost no military presence there. I would have cut their aid a long time ago.

Again, Al Qaeda focused on the military bases as their justification. So you're interweaving two issues into one.

But we are discussing trivial things here, like i said numerous times before the few people in power are not important, it is people's opinion that matters. And fact is most of them don't want you there, so it doesn't matter if the few in power do and happily welcome the opening of military bases. What did people expect, in a region full with fundamentalists that someone wasn't going to rise up against westerners opening bases in Arabia, the country of Mecca and Medina, the two most important cities in islamic culture and the birthplace of the prophet Muhammad?

If these were American kids it would be front page news everywhere and people wouldnt be saying **** like "its just war".V4LENT1NE

True in every way.

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

all the more reason, NATO has more intelligence and organization there is no way they couldn't have known there would be many kids in the casualties, so they just said screw it, they are just a few kids.

And basically you are saying the same thing, the user i quoted says, when its the terrorists is horrible but when its NATO, they were just war casualties and its ok.

RAGINGxPONY

You are assuming that bolded part. America would not take out a bunch of innocent kids if they knew they were there. You know how many times America passed on killing Bin Laden due to civilian casualties, alot. They do try their best to avoid civilian casualties, terriosts do not, in fact they target them.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Wow, the US gives billions of dollars to dictatorships every year and you claim they don't need money. Wow, just wow. Mubarak was one of the wealthiest people on Earth thanks to the money taken by the US and here you claim dictators are already wealthy and they don't really need the money they want another country opening military bases on their sovereign territory because they're good pals. Wow.

Stavrogin_

Mubarak was Egyptian (Africa) and not a Gulf State. We had almost no military presence there. I would have cut their aid a long time ago.

Again, Al Qaeda focused on the military bases as their justification. So you're interweaving two issues into one.

But we are discussing trivial things here, like i said numerous times before the few people in power are not important, it is people's opinion that matters. And fact is most of them don't want you there, so it doesn't matter if the few in power do and happily welcome the opening of military bases. What did people expect, in a region full with fundamentalists that someone wasn't going to rise up against westerners opening bases in Arabia, the country of Mecca and Medina, the two most important cities in islamic culture and the birthplace of the prophet Muhammad?

And these countries could turn into democracies tomorrow. They would still welcome the protection. These small Arab (Sunni) countries fear Iran (a large Shia country) that is way too close for comfort.

[QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

all the more reason, NATO has more intelligence and organization there is no way they couldn't have known there would be many kids in the casualties, so they just said screw it, they are just a few kids.

And basically you are saying the same thing, the user i quoted says, when its the terrorists is horrible but when its NATO, they were just war casualties and its ok.

Stavrogin_

You are assuming that bolded part. America would not take out a bunch of innocent kids if they knew they were there. You know how many times America passed on killing Bin Laden due to civilian casualties, alot. They do try their best to avoid civilian casualties, terriosts do not, in fact they target them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REIqvCQP0vcits just a commercial for it, didn't want to look hard enough to find the actual video.

Go ahead and watch that documentary if you want to know cause i saw it awhile ago and don't remember exactly, but there were a couple of times America had it's chance to kill him and didn't because of too much colleteral damage, and think this is the worlds top terriost, so some colleteral damge would have been acceptable. When America goes after no name militants, they go for no colleteral damage.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The vast majority of U.S. bases other than Iraq and Afghanistan (which won't be there in a few years) are in the Gulf. THOSE countries certainly do not need the money.

Mubarak was Egyptian (Africa) and not a Gulf State. We had almost no military presence there. I would have cut their aid a long time ago.

Again, Al Qaeda focused on the military bases as their justification. So you're interweaving two issues into one.

KC_Hokie

But we are discussing trivial things here, like i said numerous times before the few people in power are not important, it is people's opinion that matters. And fact is most of them don't want you there, so it doesn't matter if the few in power do and happily welcome the opening of military bases. What did people expect, in a region full with fundamentalists that someone wasn't going to rise up against westerners opening bases in Arabia, the country of Mecca and Medina, the two most important cities in islamic culture and the birthplace of the prophet Muhammad?

And these countries could turn into democracies tomorrow. They would still welcome the protection. These small Arab (Sunni) countries fear Iran (a large Shia country) that is way too close for comfort.

Where do you come up with this stuff, straight from the transcripts of the State Department or? Anyway, there is a point in every normal discussion when it transforms into a worthless argument, this is that point so i'll just... stop.. and... leave...

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]It's a pretty simple thing to understand. If they don't need the money why are they taking it, out of boredom? I'm not talking about peanuts here i'm talking about billions of dollars every year, and you're saying that a greedy dictator doesn't need that money and instead allows a foreign country to open a base out of love. You are also forgetting that if a dictator wants to stay in power for a long time, the US is a good ally to have. It's a matter of mutual interest.

But we are discussing trivial things here, like i said numerous times before the few people in power are not important, it is people's opinion that matters. And fact is most of them don't want you there, so it doesn't matter if the few in power do and happily welcome the opening of military bases. What did people expect, in a region full with fundamentalists that someone wasn't going to rise up against westerners opening bases in Arabia, the country of Mecca and Medina, the two most important cities in islamic culture and the birthplace of the prophet Muhammad?

Stavrogin_

And these countries could turn into democracies tomorrow. They would still welcome the protection. These small Arab (Sunni) countries fear Iran (a large Shia country) that is way too close for comfort.

Where do you come up with this stuff, straight from the transcripts of the State Department or? Anyway, there is a point in every normal discussion when it transforms into a worthless argument, this is that point so i'll just... stop.. and... leave...

The State department policy is the one where countries all across the world receive aid. This is the one the Egyptian leader benefited from. Most can agree these should be cut or at least reduced.

The second policy is the Defense. This is the policy of establishing military bases around the world. In the Middle East the concentration of these bases, outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, is in the Gulf states. THESE states DO NOT require money. They have some of the highest GDP per capita in the world. Like I stated above, they welcome protection in a volatile region in the world.

And Al Qaeda complained about the military presence and NOT the State Department program of aiding countries (and what happened with that aid).

You're still interweaving two policies into one and using them interchangeablyKC_Hokie

1. The US starts meddling on the ME by opening bases and supporting dictators.

2. You claim that the opening of military bases is welcomed there by the governments.

3. I am saying that those governments are not representing the people, they are dictactorships.

4. They are financially and strategically motivated to support, whether it's the influx of money by collaborating with the US or the fact that they have a strong ally which pretty much will cement their positions, meaning they will stay on power for a long time.

5. The fact that the few that hold power approve the bases doesn't mean the people approve and THAT is what matters, this goes to show why the US is hugely unpopular on that part of the world.

This was the point i was trying to make through all those pages of unnecessary discussions. That's it...

One kid is to many.

Kcube

^^This ^^

We have certain values in our country that is supposed to value human life but our actions go against what we believe in. If an enemy country did this to us we would all be pissed and want revenge (as we should) but how can we "spread peace and democracy" by doing this kind of stuff? All we are dong is encoarging more enemies to hate us even more.

Yes things happen in war but killing innocent civilians, ESPECIALLY children, should NOT be accepted. Period.There are far better tactics to use, in fact how about we don't even get involved with other countries that arn't a direct threat to us?

IMO the ONLY time we should go to war is if we are directly attacked or go to war against a country that is performing massive human rights violations (genocide ect...) other than that we shouldnt get too involved. Oh and if one of our best allies gets attacked (like say North Korea attacked the UK or Canada or something like thant) than I think we should stand by our allies.

Yeah, people will walk all over you if you don't go around inflicting your arbitrary will on other nations. You'll get walked on if you don't kill children. It amazes me how mass killing is more accepted than killing on a smaller scale.Rhazakna

It is the natural consequence of the deliberate ACT OF WAR committed against the United States on 09/11/2001. The Taliban declared war on the United States and were complicit in attacks that killed nearly 3000 civilians in the United States. The Taliban must be killed wherever they exist. The Taliban exist in Pakistan. Therefore, Taliban in Pakistan must be attacked.

You want the bombing to stop? Then convince the Taliban to surrender unconditionally to the US armed forces and turn themselves in for processing.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]It's a pretty simple thing to understand. If they don't need the money why are they taking it, out of boredom? I'm not talking about peanuts here i'm talking about billions of dollars every year, and you're saying that a greedy dictator doesn't need that money and instead allows a foreign country to open a base out of love. You are also forgetting that if a dictator wants to stay in power for a long time, the US is a good ally to have. It's a matter of mutual interest.

But we are discussing trivial things here, like i said numerous times before the few people in power are not important, it is people's opinion that matters. And fact is most of them don't want you there, so it doesn't matter if the few in power do and happily welcome the opening of military bases. What did people expect, in a region full with fundamentalists that someone wasn't going to rise up against westerners opening bases in Arabia, the country of Mecca and Medina, the two most important cities in islamic culture and the birthplace of the prophet Muhammad?

Stavrogin_

And these countries could turn into democracies tomorrow. They would still welcome the protection. These small Arab (Sunni) countries fear Iran (a large Shia country) that is way too close for comfort.

Where do you come up with this stuff, straight from the transcripts of the State Department or? Anyway, there is a point in every normal discussion when it transforms into a worthless argument, this is that point so i'll just... stop.. and... leave...

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Yeah, people will walk all over you if you don't go around inflicting your arbitrary will on other nations. You'll get walked on if you don't kill children. It amazes me how mass killing is more accepted than killing on a smaller scale.dkrustyklown

It is the natural consequence of the deliberate ACT OF WAR committed against the United States on 09/11/2001. The Taliban declared war on the United States and were complicit in attacks that killed nearly 3000 civilians in the United States. The Taliban must be killed wherever they exist. The Taliban exist in Pakistan. Therefore, Taliban in Pakistan must be attacked.

You want the bombing to stop? Then convince the Taliban to surrender unconditionally to the US armed forces and turn themselves in for processing.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Yeah, people will walk all over you if you don't go around inflicting your arbitrary will on other nations. You'll get walked on if you don't kill children. It amazes me how mass killing is more accepted than killing on a smaller scale.0Hamburgher

It is the natural consequence of the deliberate ACT OF WAR committed against the United States on 09/11/2001. The Taliban declared war on the United States and were complicit in attacks that killed nearly 3000 civilians in the United States. The Taliban must be killed wherever they exist. The Taliban exist in Pakistan. Therefore, Taliban in Pakistan must be attacked.

You want the bombing to stop? Then convince the Taliban to surrender unconditionally to the US armed forces and turn themselves in for processing.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Yeah, people will walk all over you if you don't go around inflicting your arbitrary will on other nations. You'll get walked on if you don't kill children. It amazes me how mass killing is more accepted than killing on a smaller scale.0Hamburgher

It is the natural consequence of the deliberate ACT OF WAR committed against the United States on 09/11/2001. The Taliban declared war on the United States and were complicit in attacks that killed nearly 3000 civilians in the United States. The Taliban must be killed wherever they exist. The Taliban exist in Pakistan. Therefore, Taliban in Pakistan must be attacked.

You want the bombing to stop? Then convince the Taliban to surrender unconditionally to the US armed forces and turn themselves in for processing.

[QUOTE="0Hamburgher"]

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

It is the natural consequence of the deliberate ACT OF WAR committed against the United States on 09/11/2001. The Taliban declared war on the United States and were complicit in attacks that killed nearly 3000 civilians in the United States. The Taliban must be killed wherever they exist. The Taliban exist in Pakistan. Therefore, Taliban in Pakistan must be attacked.

You want the bombing to stop? Then convince the Taliban to surrender unconditionally to the US armed forces and turn themselves in for processing.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="0Hamburgher"] If Pakistan was as large of a country as the U.S. then the U.S. would have minded their own business. They're doing nothing but exploiting a (relatively) poor country for their own gain.

dsmccracken

[QUOTE="0Hamburgher"][QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

It is the natural consequence of the deliberate ACT OF WAR committed against the United States on 09/11/2001. The Taliban declared war on the United States and were complicit in attacks that killed nearly 3000 civilians in the United States. The Taliban must be killed wherever they exist. The Taliban exist in Pakistan. Therefore, Taliban in Pakistan must be attacked.

You want the bombing to stop? Then convince the Taliban to surrender unconditionally to the US armed forces and turn themselves in for processing.

dsmccracken

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Again, the Gulf states don't need money. They accept and welcome military protection. They don't need a military or a very small one with protection. That saves them hundreds of billions per year. THATs why they allow the bases.

And these countries could turn into democracies tomorrow. They would still welcome the protection. These small Arab (Sunni) countries fear Iran (a large Shia country) that is way too close for comfort.

LJS9502_basic

Where do you come up with this stuff, straight from the transcripts of the State Department or? Anyway, there is a point in every normal discussion when it transforms into a worthless argument, this is that point so i'll just... stop.. and... leave...

While yes you can't blame all the problems of the Middle East on the US, the fact remains that the United States government DID support dictaror regimes. Hell it was our own CIA that trained Osama Bin Laden and many of his early followers during the late 70's/early 80's. Our own government taught them the skills they needed so they could fight the Soviet Union, back then everyone was calling Bin Laden a freedom fighter. No joke it's the truth. And later on Bin Laden being the SOB that he was turned and used his training against us and targeted innocent civilains, see the government doesn't have any idea what it's doing!

And it was our government that put Saddam Hussein and many other Middle Eastern dictators into power. Our government still supports some of them today, including ones that kill millions of their own people. Now again it's not entirely the US governments fault but they definately had a hand in many of the conflicts that go on in that part of the world.

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="0Hamburgher"] If Pakistan were as large of a country as the U.S. then the U.S. would have minded their own business. They're doing nothing but exploiting a (relatively) poor country for their own gain.0Hamburgher

The REAL question that this thread begs to ask is:

Why do the Taliban use children as human shields?

The REAL question that this thread begs to ask is:

Why do the Taliban use children as human shields?

dkrustyklown

When did the U.S. do anything like this in Canada though? And when were the Canadians too incompetent to clean up their own crap?

0Hamburgher

I'm fairly certain that if there were 5,000 marauding Taliban in Manitoba the US would at the very least offer the Canadian government assistance in taking care of the problem.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]Oh yes yes you are right because every dictator wants to lose power and create democracy, yes that's it, stupid me. The money that goes is into their personal accounts, they don't need that too. They want the protection the US gives and the peace and prosperity it brings.

Where do you come up with this stuff, straight from the transcripts of the State Department or? Anyway, there is a point in every normal discussion when it transforms into a worthless argument, this is that point so i'll just... stop.. and... leave...

ShadowMoses900

While yes you can't blame all the problems of the Middle East on the US, the fact remains that the United States government DID support dictaror regimes. Hell it was our own CIA that trained Osama Bin Laden and many of his early followers during the late 70's/early 80's. Our own government taught them the skills they needed so they could fight the Soviet Union, back then everyone was calling Bin Laden a freedom fighter. No joke it's the truth. And later on Bin Laden being the SOB that he was turned and used his training against us and targeted innocent civilains, see the government doesn't have any idea what it's doing!

And it was our government that put Saddam Hussein and many other Middle Eastern dictators into power. Our government still supports some of them today, including ones that kill millions of their own people. Now again it's not entirely the US governments fault but they definately had a hand in many of the conflicts that go on in that part of the world.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="0Hamburgher"] If Pakistan was as large of a country as the U.S. then the U.S. would have minded their own business. They're doing nothing but exploiting a (relatively) poor country for their own gain.

dsmccracken

Addressing the second bolded part

There is NO DOUBT about that. They definately know more than they let on.... Kinda makes you think about who's side their really on. They keep saying they support the US and other western countries but they don't really seem like they care too much about. Seems like they have other interests they don't want anyone else to know about.

[QUOTE="0Hamburgher"]

When did the U.S. do anything like this in Canada though? And when were the Canadians too incompetent to clean up their own crap?

dkrustyklown

I'm fairly certain that if there were 5,000 marauding Taliban in Manitoba the US would at the very least offer the Canadian government assistance in taking care of the problem.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The ME does want the US oil money. And some countries are friendly with the US for that reason. Because some terrorist groups...which aren't legitimate governments nor countries don't like doesn't mean we should let them free. More civilians...yes children have been killed by the insurgents. And even taking the US out of the violence in the ME....you see many other conflicts amongst the people of the ME. So blaming the mess on the US is a bit simplistic IMO.dsmccracken

While yes you can't blame all the problems of the Middle East on the US, the fact remains that the United States government DID support dictaror regimes. Hell it was our own CIA that trained Osama Bin Laden and many of his early followers during the late 70's/early 80's. Our own government taught them the skills they needed so they could fight the Soviet Union, back then everyone was calling Bin Laden a freedom fighter. No joke it's the truth. And later on Bin Laden being the SOB that he was turned and used his training against us and targeted innocent civilains, see the government doesn't have any idea what it's doing!

And it was our government that put Saddam Hussein and many other Middle Eastern dictators into power. Our government still supports some of them today, including ones that kill millions of their own people. Now again it's not entirely the US governments fault but they definately had a hand in many of the conflicts that go on in that part of the world.

Uhh actuallly no....Bin Laden back then clearly hated western countries just as much as he hated the Soviet Union. It was just that we were doing the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing back then. We knew he was dangerous but we didn't care at the time and just chose to ignore it.

[QUOTE="0Hamburgher"]

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] False. If the terrorists were in a more wealthy country, like my Canada, the US would attack them there too, if the Canadian armed forces were unable or unwilling to do so.dsmccracken