Stavrogin_'s forum posts

Avatar image for Stavrogin_
Stavrogin_

804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Stavrogin_
Member since 2011 • 804 Posts

[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

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!

Al Qaeda spoke of U.S. bases specifically.

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.

Yes because they hate your freedom and democracy, come on you really believe in that? The conflict started because of the constant meddling of USA in the ME not because they are so anti-west.
Avatar image for Stavrogin_
Stavrogin_

804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Stavrogin_
Member since 2011 • 804 Posts

[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

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?

Most U.S. bases in the ME are in wealthy countries in the Gulf. They certainly do not need the money.

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.

Avatar image for Stavrogin_
Stavrogin_

804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Stavrogin_
Member since 2011 • 804 Posts

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
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!

Avatar image for Stavrogin_
Stavrogin_

804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Stavrogin_
Member since 2011 • 804 Posts

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Which dictator was put into power by the U.S.?

Pakistan says one thing for the papers then asks for $ billions in private. They are the ultimate double-speak government. And with their intelligence they have a government within government.

And to my knowledge the drones don't even take off from Pakistan.

KC_Hokie

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.

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.

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?
Avatar image for Stavrogin_
Stavrogin_

804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Stavrogin_
Member since 2011 • 804 Posts

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Then name a country in the last 10 years that has requested the U.S. close any based AND the U.S. refused.KC_Hokie

Are you aware that most of the dictators installed back then are still in power today? Anyway i read that Pakistan is asking for the US to shutdown their drone bases, don't know if they refused. You claimed that the government welcomed those bases, fact remains that the governments are dictatorships who receive American support but what matter is that most of the people don't want you there. That's why i said this conflict goes way before the 9/11.

Which dictator was put into power by the U.S.?

Pakistan says one thing for the papers then asks for $ billions in private. They are the ultimate double-speak government. And with their intelligence they have a government within government.

And to my knowledge the drones don't even take off from Pakistan.

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.

Avatar image for Stavrogin_
Stavrogin_

804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Stavrogin_
Member since 2011 • 804 Posts

Then name a country in the last 10 years that has requested the U.S. close any based AND the U.S. refused.KC_Hokie
Are you aware that most of the dictators installed back then are still in power today? Anyway i read that Pakistan is asking for the US to shutdown their drone bases, don't know if they refused. You claimed that the government welcomed those bases, fact remains that the governments are dictatorships who receive American support but what matters is that most of the people living there don't want your presence. That's why i said this conflict goes way before the 9/11.

Avatar image for Stavrogin_
Stavrogin_

804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Stavrogin_
Member since 2011 • 804 Posts
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. first and the Taliban protected them.KC_Hokie

I've said this before. This conflict has more to do with US meddling in the Middle East, opening military bases there and goes way before the 9/11 attacks.

The governments of those nations welcomed those bases. The terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda, didn't approve. Again, Al Qaeda attacked us first.

Yes and most of those governments were (some still are) run by dictators that were supported to power by the US on the first place, real democratic.
Avatar image for Stavrogin_
Stavrogin_

804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Stavrogin_
Member since 2011 • 804 Posts

Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. first and the Taliban protected them.KC_Hokie
I've said this before. This conflict has more to do with US meddling in the Middle East, opening military bases there and goes way before the 9/11 attacks.

Avatar image for Stavrogin_
Stavrogin_

804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Stavrogin_
Member since 2011 • 804 Posts

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

Yeah so the 4000+ troops that sacrificed their lives can die for nothing. No thanks.

We have come this far, we need to first make the Afghan Army a competent army so that they can continue to fight the Taliban without us. Leave some American bases in Afghanastain and continue to help train the Afghan Army past the time when America ends it's combat mission, much like Iraq. That's what's going to happen, and people like you are ridiculous to think we should just pull out all troops overnight. That would be disgraceful to all the NATO troops that have sacrificed their lives for the cause.

sSubZerOo

So you prefer 15 thousand troops dying, a few more trillions spent and then retreat?

Don't forget the millions of Iraqis that suffered during and after the war..

I doubt that mentioning the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis will invoke feelings of empathy in him.
Avatar image for Stavrogin_
Stavrogin_

804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Stavrogin_
Member since 2011 • 804 Posts

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

I really think Obama should do as advertised and have the troops return home. NO point being there at this time. Only bad things can happen.

RAGINGxPONY

Yeah so the 4000+ troops that sacrificed their lives can die for nothing. No thanks.

We have come this far, we need to first make the Afghan Army a competent army so that they can continue to fight the Taliban without us. Leave some American bases in Afghanastain and continue to help train the Afghan Army past the time when America ends it's combat mission, much like Iraq. That's what's going to happen, and people like you are ridiculous to think we should just pull out all troops overnight. That would be disgraceful to all the NATO troops that have sacrificed their lives for the cause.

So you prefer 15 thousand troops dying, a few more trillions spent and then retreat?