Quote:
Originally Posted by soot
Bear in mind that the United States has not actually invaded, attacked, or in any other material way shown aggression toward these third-parties. A little sabre rattling maybe, on the part of both sides, but no attacks by the United States have taken place against these nations (obviously there are places where the U.S. has military forces: Afghanistan, a few skirmishes on the Horn of Africa, drug interdiction and counter narcotics/terror work in South East Asia, South America, etc... but they're not material to our discussion because they don't really apply to Iraq's regional Arab/Muslim/Persian neighbors).
So if it's okay for these third-parties to overtly kill Americans in Iraq because they disagree with American policy and consider it "wrongdoing", then why is it wrong for Americans to kill Iraqis in Iraq because we disagreed with Iraqi policy and considered them to be guilty of "wrongdoing"?
I'm asking if it's okay for one side then it must be okay for the other, right?
And if that's the case, then it pretty much legitimizes the Iraq invasion.
|
Soot,
America continues to be a threat to all those peaceful nations in the Middle East. They have not threatened the US in any way shape or form. Has Iran ever threatened to attack the US or bomb the uS? Has Syria ever done that? Has hizbullah ever done that? Has Iraq ever done that? No.
Secondly, I dont understand your last point, its a false comparison, it doesnt work. Those weaker nations must oppose American aggression and wrongdoing IN THE MIDDLE EAST, am not saying they should go over to the US. America came and caused wrongdoing in the Middle East, it came to them, they didnt go over there and messed with the US. So to say that:
"...then why is it wrong for Americans to kill Iraqis in Iraq because we disagreed with Iraqi policy and considered them to be guilty of "wrongdoing"?"
Hmmm hello, America came to Iraq. Iraq never threatened America. Am not even goin to go into the illegality of doing something like that. If Finland decides that Argentina is involved in wrongdoing, it cannot just decide to launch a war on it, especially if the wrongdoing is internal. I was talking about America getting involved in wrongdoing INTERNATIONALLY. If you weigh what bad has been done against good, you will understand what I mean and come to your own conclusion.
Wherever there is a base, presence of American troops, in whichever part of the world, it is for something fishy. Frankly I dont believe America should have bases outside its borders unless that particular country allows it,... just like I dont believe China should have bases in America,... France should have bases in Brazil, Germany should have bases in Portugal,.. etc you get the point.
America came to the region, destabalized it, caused chaos, destroyed a country, caused millions of refugees who now fled to neighbouring countries, the economies of the region are affected, and u kno the rest of the sht that happened. On top of all this, it is fueling the sht happening iin the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and directly financing and supporting Israel while tryin to play a peace broker between the two parties, we are not fkin idiots.
So, the only way this world in general and the Middle East in particular are going to see any peace is by America staying inside its own borders. It will get oil if oil is what shes bothered with, through business and Opec and through its companies doing deals with Middle Eastern countries. But to come to the region and sht all over the place, am sorry but like I said those nations affected directly or indirectly should unite and resist this aggression by all means necessary and do you blame them? I think not. They have every right to behave this way. Americans crossed thousands of miles to the Middle East not to do good, but to do bad and you know this because you watch it every day on your tv. This is reality. I say it how it is.
WS.