Until you ask yourself WHY Afghanistan is so important that it's worth fighting over? Is it really a nation of strategic or economic importance? What goods have you bought from there? It's a windswept dust bowl in the arid planes, mountanous and rocky elsewhere. It is hardly a prized asset. Why then continue? If it is to liberate the people then surely Afghanistan could manage on it's own, it's not quite the blood bath Iraq has turned out to be, atleast not recently. What is there?
Alchy, no, I know how to use those, I wanted to go from point to point and not inside the box as I thought it might be confusing. Clearly I was wrong lol
It's not a case of letting them die though, is it? When I say there is no solution I really mean that I can't see a way out of this mess. Iraq is not only being influenced by the west, it is being influenced by its neighbours who all want a piece of the pie. America fights those neighbours on Iraqi soil. Iran provides a lot of weapons and logistics for insurgents to use against the US and its allies. The US engages its enemies indirectly. This is a well tried tactic and was used time and time again during the cold war. American never actually fought the USSR directly, but they battled over a number of wars that both had high stakes in. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, they were all about cock waving and keeping each other in check. Now American's attention is focused on the Middle East. Oil no doubt has a massive influence on that focus, but I also believe that there is some good that can come out of it. By having a military presence in Iraq, the US can attempt to influence the region. It can keep a fighting force close to Iran to put pressure on its nuclear program and it can keep ships in the Gulf in case things escalate. It can stop Iran pushing its agenda and groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda et al are given a battle to keep them away from other potentially more deadly projects closer to home. It can offer support to its allies in Israel, Saudi Arabia etc who are under threat from extremist groups. This all pays off politically in the end. None of the consequences of this war were unpredicted, we just weren't told about them. The US government isn't stupid and world politics are not as simple as the shake of a hand or flicking someone the bird. In much the same way as the British empire used all the tricks in the book to keep daily life ticking over in Britain, so too does American for its people. It's terrible the Iraqis are in the middle, but we can only pray that one day they will see peace. That certainly won't happen if the troops pull out of there.
Our "leaders" keep digging deepers holes for themselves and this country. It's an embarassment to me to have a war-mongering dumbass in the office, not to mention dangerous. What's most surprising to me, though, is the amount of people who still believe that we are in Iraq under the pretense of "self-defense." While perhaps slighty off-topic, I figured you guys might like to see a short clip of Senator Gravel. I like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzyDZsC8YiA I'm just a bit worried he won't make it to elections...
1) you say "on our turf" - Iran is miles away from Europe , let alone US. There's no western 'turf' in the middle East, sorry. 2) if the Qoran was read word by word , it would make sense, not attacks at the cost of one's life. Suicide is condemned as in all religions. 3) "Is it right to try to fix the mess? Absolutely." Things will go their own way without any foreign intervention. America didn't let the British "fix the mess" when the country was at war with England, they kicked them out. On the same wave, American soldiers owe nothing to Iraq to stay and 'fix' the mess by patrolling, shooting , and losing their lives in far away lands. 4) Iraqi people need to be protected, sure, but who made anyone their "daddy" suddenly? If it's an internal conflict, tipping the balance is an external force that doesnt belong to the system, because any tinkering to that balance and u ll be sure that the country helping is helping to their own benefit. So based on their own benefit they want to decide who's more proper to rule Iraq? I think not. Let's not use the word "help, assist, fix" etc as terms of Art - they are terms of substance, following an agenda.
OK, here goes. This is my opinion, I guarantee most of you will not like it and will tear me down but hear me out first. First, we (the US) gets 3,000 people killed in WTC by a culture that we have seen doesn't like us. The US people urge the government to act, root out and destroy the people responsible. We find out a lot of these people are part of Al Qaida, and the military heads to Afghanistan. Next comes the WMD issue. US intel, prominent politicians like Bill Clinton and John Edwards just to name a few, all say Hussein has or is producing WMDs. We don't find as much as the hype would lead us to believe. Hussein had been fighting the Kurds and Iran for quite some time. He had gassed Iranians as well as some of Iraq's own citizens with biological weapons. Bush was concerned that al Qaida would get bioweapons from Hussein and use it as they saw fit. Thus the reason to boot Saddam from power, his lengthy list of humanitarian crimes was just an extra drop in the bucket. Now for what I think. You will disagree with me, but I think it is better to act preemptively and fight these terrorists out there instead on our own soil. Will it take time? You bet. It will probably be 15-20 years before the terrorists are effectively annulled. I agree with a lot of what Bush did. It was no small decision to go and show these scum that we won't stand for any of their shit. However, I think it was also naive of Bush to think that the Iraqi people will be able to govern themselves. He thought too highly of them. The Iraqi people need someone to control them and tell them what to do. I think the US should have sent many more troops to Iraq to deliver a bigger blow. We're in a messy situation right now. What should we do? I'm really not sure. But, pulling out will make things worse because Iraq is still headless. There is no magic solution to war. People will die. Lots of people. When it is to protect the peace and freedoms we have come to taken for granted as a result of almost no war since Vietnam, that's something I'm willing to fight for. Why should we fight over there? If the terrorists don't see the US wake up and make them run for their lives, who's to stop them? Anyway, that is my opinion. Agree or disagree with it as you will. I am not perfect, I'm not saying my opinion is absolutely fault-proof because it's not. Don't get me started on the "elitist" media... I'd break your scroll wheel
To say that America is defending itself from "muslim terrorists" is to put the carriage before the horse. They wouldn't be terrorists in this magnitute if America left the middle east alone in the first place. Kind of makes sense eh? If you shake a tree, the leaves might fall - you can't expect to shake it leaf-less just to 'defend' yourself when you started the whole thing in the first place. They ll keep falling on your head , the more you shake.
Who hasn't been at war since Vietnam? 1964-73: USA-Vietnam war (3 million) 1965: second India-Pakistan war over Kashmir 1965-66: Indonesian civil war (200,000) 1966-69: Mao's "Cultural Revolution" (11 million) 1966-: Colombia's civil war (31,000) 1967-70: Nigeria-Biafra civil war (800,000) 1968-80: Rhodesia's civil war (?) 1969-: Philippines vs New People's Army (40,000) 1969-79: Idi Amin, Uganda (300,000) 1969-02: IRA - Norther Ireland's civil war (2,000) 1969-79: Francisco Macias Nguema, Equatorial Guinea (50,000) 1971: Pakistan-Bangladesh civil war (500,000) 1972-: Philippines vs Muslim separatists (120,000) 1972: Burundi's civil war (300,000) 1972-79: Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's civil war (30,000) 1974-91: Ethiopian civil war (1,000,000) 1975-78: Menghitsu, Ethiopia (1.5 million) 1975-79: Khmer Rouge, Cambodia (1.7 million) 1975-89: Boat people, Vietnam (250,000) 1975-90: civil war in Lebanon (40,000) 1975-87: Laos' civil war (184,000) 1975-2002: Angolan civil war (500,000) 1976-83: Argentina's military regime (20,000) 1976-93: Mozambique's civil war (900,000) 1976-98: Indonesia-East Timor civil war (600,000) 1976-2005: Indonesia-Aceh (GAM) civil war (12,000) 1979: Vietnam-China war (30,000) 1979-88: the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan (1.3 million) 1980-88: Iraq-Iran war (1 million) 1980-92: Sendero Luminoso - Peru's civil war (69,000) 1980-92: El Salvador's civil war (75,000) 1980-99: Kurds vs Turkey (35,000) 1981-90: Nicaragua vs Contras (60,000) 1982-90: Hissene Habre, Chad (40,000) 1983-2002: Sri Lanka's civil war (64,000) 1983-2002: Sudanese civil war (2 million) 1986-: Indian Kashmir's civil war (60,000) 1987-: Palestinian Intifada (4,500) 1988-2001: Afghanistan civil war (400,000) 1988-2004: Somalia's civil war (550,000) 1989-: Liberian civil war (220,000) 1989-: Uganda vs Lord's Resistance Army (30,000) 1991: Gulf War - large coalition against Iraq to liberate Kuwait (85,000) 1991-97: Congo's civil war (800,000) 1991-2000: Sierra Leone's civil war (200,000) 1991-: Russia-Chechnya civil war (200,000) 1991-94: Armenia-Azerbaijan war (35,000) 1992-96: Tajikstan's civil war war (50,000) 1992-96: Yugoslavia's civil war (260,000) 1992-99: Algerian civil war (150,000) 1993-97: Congo Brazzaville's civil war (100,000) 1993-2005: Burundi's civil war (200,000) 1994: Rwanda's civil war (900,000) 1995-: Pakistani Sunnis vs Shiites (1,300) 1995-: Maoist rebellion in Nepal (12,000) 1998-: Congo/Zaire's war - Rwanda and Uganda vs Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia (3.8 million) 1998-2000: Ethiopia-Eritrea war (75,000) 1999: Kosovo's liberation war - NATO vs Serbia (2,000) 2001: Afghanistan's liberation war - USA & UK vs Taliban (25,000) 2002-: Cote d'Ivoire's civil war (1,000) 2003: Iraq's liberation war - USA, UK and Australia vs Saddam Hussein (14,000) 2003-: Sudan vs JEM/Darfur (180,000) 2003-: Iraq's civil war (50,000) 2004-: Sudan vs SPLM & Eritrea (?) Please note, it ends in 2004 so add a few since then Also note, that number at the extreme right of the line are numbers of those who have died in conflict. Also look closely at 1998, more people died in 1 year than throughout the entire Vietnam conflict.
Barc0de: Yes, I agree a lot of the problems we're facing from the "middle east" are largely because of past actions by the US. That doesn't change our current predicament because it's clear there are those who intend us harm. What do you suggest the US to do? Parris: That is a long list of wars. Unfortunately a lot of the US public wouldn't be able to explain our involvement in most of them. The last time the US drafted was the last time a lot of people here were concerned about otehr wars. For a long time North Americans have been able to be relatively unconcerned about foreign affairs.
One thing you have to be careful of in suggesting that America brought the entire thing upon itself is what I was saying in a previous thread regarding terrorism etc. Once someone shouts "Terrorists!!" we all start looking over our shoulder. When Bush declared "you are either with us or against us" the implication was clear. When various nation states throughout the world with their own particular internal struggles, freedom fighters and issues with civil unrest heard those words they immediately pounced. Up went the cry "we are rife with terrorists". It was another blunder on Bush's part and left many, such as the Chechen people rebranded as terrorist, which meant that the Palestinian people were rebranded as terrorsts by Isreal etc. It carried on throughout the entire globe for various reasons. Instead of it being a small isolated group of terrorists that were not allied to any particular country, suddenly every second country in border disputes or at war had terrorists. It clouded the issue entirely and as such we have seen a perception change in peoples views of terrorism. Instead of it being isolated, insignifant numbers it feels like everyone is at it. It is also wrong to assume that terrorism is anything new, or that it simply arrived one night and America is to blame.
Well, if America cut cold ties with the Middle East (in its military capacity), I guess that's enough of an insentive for people not to blow themselves up in front of Americans - they have their own, internal struggles to sort, they wouldnt want to waste themselves on an extra ex-enemy.
That is the problem, a lot of those wars have direct US support in terms of arms, aid, training and the like. You might not have realised it, but America and Americans have been fighting wars almost constantly throughout the last half of the 20th century. You paid your taxes, the money invariably passed through the US into the hands of people like the Mujahadeen and was used to perpertate counterstrikes against Russian troops (for example). It is a long list. It is also sad that people don't know this is one reason why so many overseas issues have come home to roost for Western people. Even if you didn't know it, a lot of those caught up in the conflict knew it and have steadily grown more angry that the West interfered, financed war, financed genocide, financed training and all sorts of underhand methods of assuring that one side or another in these far flung conflicts either remained in power or gained it. It was meant to create stablity. What it has done (and America is not alone in this) has created resentment. Oh, there is also the small matter of 1991 not being mentioned, now I KNOW American people realised they were at war at that time, because that was Iraq round 1 with Papa Bush at the helm. Not to mention Ireland, which was aflame with terrorism from 1969-2002 was actually bankrolled by a certain section of American people so they could fight the British. That was different though, that wasn't terrorism, that was freedom fighting. What I am saying is that you cannot hand out guns to Mr. X, to Group B and then stand back. In the grand scheme of things it was bound to fail. Just because you don't know it was going on is not the point. These are our governments, elected by us and governing our lands, making our policies and defending us. We should make it our business to know precisely what they are doing and whether in fact it is in our best interest. Clearly, there have been some pretty dubious decisions taken in the not so distant past. The ramifications are being seen today.
You know, you are right there. We do have a huge mess created from putting so-called "tin-pot" rulers in power and handing them weapons so we can go in and take whatever we want from their land. As Roosevelt said, "[SIZE=-1]Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch."[/SIZE] Quite similar to what Great Britain did with colonization. A lot of people don't realize that we did this with Hussein quite a while ago, to busy himself fighting Iran. We've opened a whole new can of worms now that he's dead, and I'm still trying to figure out how that's going to work.
Yeah, lets make one thing clear, I personally feel that Good old GB has a lot of blood on its hands too. This is not just an American problem. Most democratic, modern governments have capitalised in some way from previous conflicts. We just didn't have the same military might & disposible wealth at our hands in order to create quite as much as the US has. Perhaps we would have, had we had the same resources. In many ways America and Britain are directly linked and in support of one another. The majority of Britains see themselves closer to the United States than Europe for example. Sitting in the middle ground has always served our needs very well, but not in a "ride me" way lol. There is however a decline in the structure of relationship. At one stage it was like a beautiful romance, but under the Bush administration it has been a disaster. This is a conflict that has truly tested that relationship and has deeply alienated the public from the government. It is too late for the British people to show Labour their contempt, but it has changed British society and caused a lot of condemnation of the actions taken in our name. I think history will look very unfavourably at the Bush / Blair coalition.
I have a rather unpopular opinion on the current problems out in iraq. We should have gone in the first time and sorted it out, rather than let saddam pull our chain for so long. He kept hinting that he had WMD, he kept booting out the inspectors. He had WMD, we know that he did. What we didn't know was whether he still had WMD. He was laughing because he knew with so many UN countries illegally supplying him weapons there was no way that the UN would sanction an attack. Unfortunately he was wrong. If he had acted responsibly, rather than a dictator who murded so many people then he would still be in power today. In fact he could probably have still gotten away with murdering people. The problem in iraq now is caused by people who don't want the country to come out of the dark ages. People from surrounding countries are going in to fight against the US soldiers, because they know that if iraq becomes more westernised then their citizens will also want the same thing. Just recently in iran there have been arrests of people with western style hair cuts. The religious leaders must be scared stiff that their followers would prefer to give their money to western companies rather than pay for them to spout their hate filled rants. As soon as starbucks and mcdonalds move in, they think that people will turn away from islam. Which is a rather odd thought, there are many ( many ) people who have moved to the uk and are still muslims. Ok so alot of them don't bother to learn english and just claim benefits, we even provide interpretors to do that. Maybe if they integrated more then we'd see more people turning away from their religion, which is something that has happened to the greater populous. I think Tony Blair has done alot of bad things for the UK, but going to war in iraq wasn't the worse idea by a long shot. I'm glad that WWII has already happened, because if it happened today then germany would sue us. I won't comment on bush, other than say that he is an idiot but then so was reagan & to a certain extent alot of the other ones. Unfortunately to get in power you have to be considered safe & idiots that you can control are less likely to do any damage. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Thomas Jefferson, the decleration of independence. We really need to do something about Darfur and Nigeria. smf
i.e. Johnny Strap-a-bomb walking into a London/New York subway. The Koran commands muslims to punish/kill non-believers. Iran won't leave Iraq to settle things internally though, will they? They have an interest in pushing the Shiites into leadership and control of the country. That is why the US needs to remain. The new government was elected in by the people of Iraq and is represented by all political groups (AFAIK). It's not that simple, there is a huge tangle of political dealings within the Middle East not to mention that a). The American economy desperately depends on oil, b). A large amount of political funding comes from Jewish benefactors that help a president get to office c). Saudi Arabi owns a huge amount of the US, literally. d). America brokers peace in the region with nice back handers (Egypt is brided to keep peace with Israel, for instance).
The Koran preaches tolerance to the Jews and Christians - Muslims accept both Moses and Jesus in their book. In other words you suggest that "its better for America to control Iraq and serve American interests instead of Iranian interests". I m not discriminating between super powers, but I think Iran is more closely related to Iraq and thus more closely affected and influenced. Imagine if Iran wanted to send troops to Cuba if America chose to invade Castro .It would be quite bizzare, as they re not geographically related , so it's none of their business .
If you still think terrorism can be stopped by threat of force, you're still not understanding their motives. Every bomb that is dropped in the Middle East ruins more lives and creates more suicide bombers.
