So what makes them different than the many Japanese and Germans that didn't do anything during WWII that were killed?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What makes the Japanese and Germans any different than the peasants that didn't do anything during the Crusades that were killed?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You're only proving my point?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

He's saying that it's pointless to point out every single group of innocent people that died in conflict.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I know, and thats my point

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Perhaps I misinterpreted your original comment then. My apologies.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's all good!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You realize that most of those Afghans and Iraqis weren't killed by Americans, or any western nation for that matter. They were killed by Middle Eastern extremists.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I can't stand people who think like this.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Think like what?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

that America is just killing innocent middle eastern people for absolutely no reason

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But that really did happen.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Everyone acts like they're so much wiser and have a better solution. Tough decisions have to be made on a daily basis. And every other country in history has done this and worse. So don't act like America's terrible.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh yes that must have been a really tough decision to make: "LET'S GO START A WAR IN IRAQ AND KILL PEOPLE BECAUSE OF A STRIKE CAUSED BY A GUY WHO ISN'T EVEN FROM THERE."

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You're not in that position and I'm pretty sure you're younger than 20, so.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, what DOES age have to do with this? I'm a 19-year-old political science minor at UCLA, and with all due respect, youre very ignorant on the situation, and it shows, especially when you keep changing your ideas, which arent even backed up with factual evidence, and you dont even seem to be getting to a point, especially with your use of ad hominem

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Remember that many of the decisions made in US foreign policy aren't "good vs bad", it's "bad vs worse"

by Anonymous 12 years ago

America has goals in Iraq and Afganistan. You act like they're just mindlessness killing people with no purpose. Civilians have died, that is extremely sad and unfortunate, but the Americans there do in fact have reasonable objectives and aren't just purposefully slaughtering the innocent like you imply.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes you're right, and that purpose is oil.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, exactly. Oil that just about everything in the American lifestyle relies, and, moreover, oil that is needed by the economies of Europe and Asia. The US has reasonable motive to be in Iraq and Afganistan, and the innocents that lose their lives are not the intention, and for the most part not the fault of the US.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh so you think the war is perfectly okay and justifiable just because they fucking want and need oil? That there's nothing wrong with killing hundreds of thousands of people because they want something that isn't even theirs? No, of course no fucking way wtf? If they want oil so bad they fucking buy it, not kill innocent people for it, which you apparently you think is okay and reasonable. If 100 people die for some sort of reason in the US, they make a big fucking deal about it, but nahhh who cares about the million people who died in Iraq; 'MURICA NEEDS OIL LOLZ GO AMURICA.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You're not listening to me. At all. You were basically saying that the US wanted revenge for 9/11 and went to kill as many civilians as possible. I question whether or not you even would have thought of the whole oil thing if I hadn't said it in my two other comments. I was only pointing out that you are completely wrong and should learn a bit more about these events. You should also wake up and realize that these civilians deaths you're obsessing over are caused by the people the US is fighting the vast majority of the time. Deaths caused by Americans can be attributed to civilians who were used as human shields, civilians caught in fire fights that weren't actually the targets, civilians who helped hide actually people the Americans were after, and other things like that.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I posted my comment about oil before you even posted yours; I know perfectly about the matter unlike you who seems to be ignorant. The only things you seem to know are the stuff you hear on American news, who would of course justify America's actions. You think the US is actually helping these countries? They're just making them worse for the US's own good. And if you think that they're trying to "protect" the oil by the war, then why didn't they start the war in Saudi Arabia? Osama Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian after all, and they have more oil there.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't even watch the news for the most part, I do my own research. And of the news reports I've seen on this, most of them are against the war and the country's actions. The US didn't start any of these wars, the US saw conflicts starting and saw it as an opportunity to improve relations with these countries. The US was never so involved with Saudi Arabia because there was no conflict there, nothing threatening that oil. You most certainly did not mention oil before me, I replied to two other people about oil (which you would have been notified of) before you or any of the other commenters even brought it up. I also find it funny that you're calling me ignorant when you were just going on and on about how the US needs to buy oil and not win it over in war, and how they're mindlessly killing civilians. The US IS buying that oil, more civilian deaths are prevented than caused, and the wars are way more complicated than that. People like you, ignorantly anti-war and anti-American without justification, really annoy me. I recommend you go educate yourself.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I can tell this is going nowhere, seeing as you keep changing your argument to defend yourself and attack whatever I say, and I really don't feel like listening to you spit out crap anymore. I consider this argument over. Goodbye.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I never said I thought oil justifies the killing of innocents, but the US isn't killing innocents for oil. America's goal is to assist these countries in this time of need (whether they realize it or not, there are a whole lot of people that will be better off because of America's involvement) as a means of improving their relationships with these countries and protect the valuable source of oil that, as you clearly do not know, is pretty much already their's, as it's being bought by the US and, more importantly, several nations in Europe and Asia (I must stress that the majority of the oil we're talking about is actually for these countries, not the US, by protecting the oil, the US is helping its allies, not just taking oil for itself) that really need it. You don't go to war to win oil, you go to war to protect a valuable source of oil that you're already paying for.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Just because every other country has done it, that doesn't make it right.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't like the way this post is worded. It seems like OP is saying that those 3,000 Americans just sort of died, while the Iraqis and Afghans "paid the ultimate sacrifice." Like Op's glorifying their deaths, making it seem as though they died for some noble cause. It's just kinda brushing the Americans' deaths off to the side. I especially don't like how it says "for a crime they did not commit." That to me makes it sound like the Americans had it coming to them, almost like they deserved to die, but all the other foreigners were just so innocent and holy that it's just such a shame these innocent civilians had to die in such an awful way. It is a shame, but those who died on 9/11 were innocent too. Don't get me wrong, I like the general concept of this post, but they're going about it the entirely wrong way. They're aiming for people to remember all those who died for the war, not just the Americans. But OP's doing it in such a way that it downplays the Americans' deaths and glorifies the others' deaths, which is the opposite of what they should be trying to accomplish (equal remembrance for everyone who lost their lives)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Maybe I'm just a little over defensive because I had several relatives die in 9/11

by Anonymous 12 years ago

First of all, I am very sorry for your loss. Secondly, yes you did get a little over defensive because I in no way meant it that way. Of course the people who died on 9/11 were innocent as well, and of course they didn't deserve to die. I suppose you could say that my post was more aimed to the deaths of the Iraqi and Afghan people, though they both deserve equal remembrance as you said, but to show the difference between the amount of dead people. Still, the amount of dead people doesn't make 9/11 any less tragic, I do think it was a tragic event, but the people who died in Iraq and Afghanistan definitely didn't deserve the war that happened in their countries that lasted years, not just one day; the people who died had to live their life constantly scared of dying and leaving their house; hiding, losing family members, being poor, struggling, and in the end getting killed. I understand the way you feel though, because you lost relatives that day; their deaths probably mean to you more than the deaths of million other people.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

This was certainly better than my post about 9/11. If you want to see the post: http://amirite.net/737845

by Anonymous 12 years ago

'MERICA!

by Anonymous 12 years ago