Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Aleenik, Sep 22, 2009.
Which has what to do with whether they are a terrorist state or not?
I said though the main thing is Iran supports terrorism and equips terrorist to kill Americans and American allies.
But the thing about hating America and its allies I said because you asked me the difference between Iran and Israel.
Um nothing? I never said it did.
I was just throwing that in there, JollyRoger asked me the difference between Iran and Israel. That's why I said that.
Are you talking about attacks against forces occupying Iraq? Because that is not terrorism, that is warfare.
What Defiant said. It may very well be a waste to stay.
I don't think it would be. We came there to accomplish a mission and we should keep trying to do it.
We need more troops there, fine I say send more troops because there isn't much of another choice if we want to win.
Either we send more troops and possible win.
Or we send no more troops and loose.
Iran supports, gives financial aid to, arms, and even trains(Iran trains some of the following at least) the Taliban, Hizballah, Hamas, other Palestinian terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations.
Is that enough of a list?
This is what you call State Sponsored Terrorism.
Is there any point you can imagine at which you would think we should not keep trying?
I think winning is not the only thing that matters.
Yes, of course there is a point when someone has obviously lost something and trying any more is just a waste.
I do not believe this to be the case in Afghanistan though.
I think winning matters when its a major part of Americas security and foreign policy.
So Bush ignored his own doctrine?
I dunno, haven't looked into it that much. I only brought up the doctrine(which I shouldn't have I suppose) as a policy that was basically what the Afghanistan war resembled. As in a nation harbored terrorist(Afghanistan) and we attacked.
I'm not trying to make this about the Bush doctrine.
Then you see the simple disagreement.
Some folks think we've reached the point where it's not worth spending more treasure and blood to "possibly" reach our goal. There's no guarantee that it's even possible, let alone affordable, and some folks are tired of seeing Americans die to find out.
I said it may be a waste to stay. I don't know that it is, I'm not terribly familiar with the situation and I suppose it's possible that it's still winnable at a reasonable cost. I'm hesitant to speculate that it would be a waste to pull out, because I suspect that if we were on the verge of "mission accomplished", somebody would have told me by now.
It's as simple as that, though. The fact that we've thrown so many dollars and lives at this problem does not oblige us to continue throwing dollars and lives at it if it promises to still be a problem. "We're already there" is not an argument for staying.
I think America can be secure in a world with a Taliban running Afghanistan. I think America's foreign policy would be a lot more respectable if we stopped playing in other peoples' sandboxes.
Ya I'm not expert on the situation either, I understand there are people who want to send more troops, keep on fighting, and such. I also understand there are people who want the soldiers to come home and end the Afghanistan war.
My personal opinion however is that I want more troops to be sent there to continue the war effort.
I think the Afghan war was justified also.
We should not pull out of Afghanistan. The whole reason we're in this mess with the Taliban is because we left after the Soviets withdrew their troops back during the Cold War. If we leave now, we'll only have another mess another 20-30 years in the future...
Did Iran just recently become a terrorist state or did Bush not know they were one?
Are you planning on signing up to be sent?
No. I'm 16. And even if I was old enough I don't think I would want to.
Do most people when a war is going on that they support sign up? No. Sure there is a lot of people that sign up, but the far majority of the country is civilian. Are you saying supporting a certain effort in war(Like sending more troops, or even going to war at all) Requires someone be signed up in the military to give their opinion on the matter?
Regarding your Bush statement, again, I'm not defending Bush.
Bush shouldn't affect how we label Iran today. Should it? Obama is president now.
Back in World War II, 16 year olds were lying about their age just to sign up. Guess Afghanistan isn't seen as so critical.
I don't think I could pass as a military age, also they have documents to show the age of people and stuff.
My point stands. The majority of a nation is civilian. You don't have to be in the military to have an opinion on a situation in a war. You don't have to be in the military to support going to war. Stuff like that.
So you can't go yet, go in two years. If you support a war and are physically capable of fighting, then you should go support the war by fighting. Those that support the war and are not capable of fighting should do what they can to support the services and the government fighting. Otherwise, what you're really supporting is the idea that you can tell other people to go fight for you without incurring any personal cost or doing any personal work to help them. Is your support real or is it paper and words?
You can have an opinion, it will just be heavily discounted by your unwillingness to take action that you are capable of taking. Afghanistan is important enough for you to put other's lives at risk, but not important enough to put your own life at risk, right?
Separate names with a comma.