Pro-God, Pro-Human Life, anti-New World Order, Anti-Nefarious Secret Societies, Pro-Civil Liberties, anti-Torture, anti-National ID Card, Pro-Family, Anti-Neo Conservativism, Pro-Net Neutrality, Pro-Home Schooling, Anti-Voting Fraud, Pro-Good Israelis & Pro-Good Palestinians, Anti-Human Trafficking, Pro-Health Freedom, Anti-Codex Alimentarius, Pro-Action, Anti-Bigotry, Pro-9/11 Justice, Anti-Genocide, and Pro-Gun Control. My name is Timothy and I'm from the state of Virginia.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
On War
Posted by Nixakliel
Jul 30 2011 - 3:52pm
His argument may seem perfectly logical from a NARROW Perspective... Of course in combat if some-one shoots at you [or even if you spot the opposition first] you 'natural' instincts as well as training is to shoot back [field commanders count on this]... But from a broader perspective your argument is absolutely correct - Is the invasion / attack of another country justified - especially when they pose no REAL direct &/or eminent threat to you. The answer is NO! Without a doubt virtually every military action the US [& most US allies] has taken since WWII [with the possible exception of the Cuban Missile Crisis], the attacked / threatened country posed NO REAL threat to the US or her allies. Now some will argue that the Korean, Kosovo, & 1st Gulf War [as is currently Libya] were UN authorized. The Korean War [like Vietnam] was a civil war that became a semi-show down between the US [& allies] & China / Russia. Kosovo [as is Libya] was also a civil war that was hyped by the US & allies for they're own purposes & the legitimacy of the side that the US & allies backed was / is dubious at best. Gulf War I [Bush Sr vs Saddam] was over-hyped [remember the fake 'Saddam's troops are throwing infants out of incubators' LIE {then Bush Jr's- 'Saddam's got WMD & was in league w Al-Qaeda on 9-11' LIE... Now its- Khadaffi is attacking & slaughtering unarmed civilians' LIE] & there is reason to believe Saddam was baited into a trap! Even in the case of Afghanistan, in the wake of 9-11, the Taliban offered to turn bin-Laden over if the US produced proof of guilt- which Bush rejected. Then, as the attack became eminent, the Taliban offered to turn OBL to Pakistani / Saudi custody w NO pre-conditions - again Bush rejected it [just like UK-US NATO has rejected several truce offers by Khadaffi], because the Bush, Cheney, NeoCons had already planned to attack Afghanistan BEFORE 9-11 [[just like UK-US NATO had planned to attack Libya as early as Nov 2010]!!! As for Libya those at the UN who 'authorized' the Libyan assault are the very same ones who are leading the assault [IE: US, UK , France, etc]! How convenient!
But from a broader perspective your argument is absolutely correct - Is the invasion / attack of another country justified - especially when they pose no REAL direct &/or eminent threat to you. The answer is NO!
Without a doubt virtually every military action the US [& most US allies] has taken since WWII [with the possible exception of the Cuban Missile Crisis], the attacked / threatened country posed NO REAL threat to the US or her allies.
Now some will argue that the Korean, Kosovo, & 1st Gulf War [as is currently Libya] were UN authorized. The Korean War [like Vietnam] was a civil war that became a semi-show down between the US [& allies] & China / Russia. Kosovo [as is Libya] was also a civil war that was hyped by the US & allies for they're own purposes & the legitimacy of the side that the US & allies backed was / is dubious at best.
Gulf War I [Bush Sr vs Saddam] was over-hyped [remember the fake 'Saddam's troops are throwing infants out of incubators' LIE {then Bush Jr's- 'Saddam's got WMD & was in league w Al-Qaeda on 9-11' LIE... Now its- Khadaffi is attacking & slaughtering unarmed civilians' LIE] & there is reason to believe Saddam was baited into a trap!
Even in the case of Afghanistan, in the wake of 9-11, the Taliban offered to turn bin-Laden over if the US produced proof of guilt- which Bush rejected. Then, as the attack became eminent, the Taliban offered to turn OBL to Pakistani / Saudi custody w NO pre-conditions - again Bush rejected it [just like UK-US NATO has rejected several truce offers by Khadaffi], because the Bush, Cheney, NeoCons had already planned to attack Afghanistan BEFORE 9-11 [[just like UK-US NATO had planned to attack Libya as early as Nov 2010]!!!
As for Libya those at the UN who 'authorized' the Libyan assault are the very same ones who are leading the assault [IE: US, UK , France, etc]! How convenient!
_______________