[QUOTE="mrbrainheart"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] But dig deeper. Why should anyone care what someone believes? There is more to the issue than the surface will show....

LJS9502_basic

If you'ld believe someone's believe is wrong and holding them back, wouldn't you be inclined to try and tell them?

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

What he said. It's pretty simple, i'm attacking the idea that the US government were sitting still only minding their own business and then the mujahideens attacked them because they are jealous of their freedom and democracy. I'm attacking the idea that the US had absolutely nothing to do with the conflict and that the attacks were unprovoked. Take Iran for an example. One of the reasons Ahmadinejad is so pissed of at the US is that when he was growing up he witnessed the influence the US had on Iran, even going as far a huge number of Americans working there receiving immunity from the Shah.

When you start installing military facilites on the place were the prophet of Islam was born and where the holiest cities of Islam are, someone is bound to get pissed off. Whether you think the attacks were justified or not is not important, the point is the idea that the US had nothing to do with this conflict is absurd.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] There is a difference....or there should be to everyone....between the relations between two countries....and an organization not officially recognized that just creates "terror". Or don't you see that?

LJS9502_basic

When you start installing military facilites on the place were the prophet of Islam was born and where the holiest cities of Islam are, someone is bound to get pissed off. Whether you think the attacks were justified or not is not important, the point is the idea that the US had nothing to do with this conflict is absurd.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[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.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.LJS9502_basic

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...

[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="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="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?

[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.