War on Terror..Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. (1 Viewer)

[Azarnakumar]

afghanistan has also never been conquered by an invading army or something silly

 

[Big Boss]

Terrorism is a reaction to the intervention in the middle east by the United States and her allies over the last half century. Imagine how the US would react if the Arabs had bases and troops in their country. Of course these people are going to be pissed. Hey maybe installing Saddam Hussein and giving him money and weapons wasn't such a great idea....

Fighting more wars in this region will only increase terrorism as more angry young men are driven towards these extremist groups. The solution is for the US to get the fuck out of the middle east.

If the US is so concerned about national security it should bring home its troops from its hundreds of military bases all over the world and use them to protect its own borders.

Terrorist is a term to brand scapegoats to satisfy political agendas fabricated by the voracious and often incompetent and always useless politicians.
Notice why 'forward defense' was a term to mask the true diabolical intentions of the US in the Vietnam War era and implicitly even to this day as you said, the States should dedicate more troop numbers to its own borders rather than those of foreign land.

Well that would be legitimate self defense.

But this does not apply to either party in this conflict.

Despite all the bad things the US government has done, killing American civilians is not a proportionate response, nor is it effective in helping their people.

So long as we remain loyal to our countries, there is nothing to worry about.

Hmm. Yeah ok...

But my question is not only should we be fighting the War on Terror (which I am strongly opposed to) but given that we ARE already, is it possible to 'win'? Specifically, with relationship to Afghanistan.

Victory is only temporary and allows you to live another day.
There is always an uncertainty in enemy numbers and thus we never know when or how much will show up again to fight coalition forces and this is why the cycle of war will always continue.
Unless total destruction bestowed upon the enemy such as the use of a nuclear weapon, there will never be firm results.
Unfortunately the States are reluctant to use such means.

 

[kokodamonkey]

we need more troops

 

[banipal753]

listen guys, Iraq's situation is good, USA's intervention has ensured Iraq has a democratic environment, and now with Sadam gone, Iraq has become a better place. LOLLLLLLLLL

I think if we ignore the random raiding of Christian Assyrian tribes in Iraq to kidnap children and holding foriegners ransoml, not to mention the random bombings, we can further develop the facade that USA's intervention actually contributed to society.

 

[Empyrean444]

No a terrorist is someone who uses terror and violence to get their way.

So the coalition forces and the insurgents are both terrorists. But the US is certainly the biggest most tyrannical terrorist organization.

In the most technically true sense, a terrorist is one who uses deliberate violence directly targeted at a civilian population to achieve political ends. I'm not necessarily justifying one way or another US actions, but they are not strictly speaking a 'Terrorist' organisation (even though their attacks result in a lot of despicable collateral).



On another note, I would hesitantly support the war in Afghanistan, for the simple reason the threat from Clandestine terrorists in the Middle East (and elsewhere) is a very real one (not just an invention or exagerration of the state). I totally agree that US intervention and machinations in the past have been a key (possibly the key) driving force which has made present conditions the way they are; the problem is that it does not help very much to discuss things in terms of what they should be. Despite the misdeeds of the past, the present must still compel us to act in the greater interests. I also don't think that the problem of terrorism will simple dissipate if the US pulls out all troops of Afghanistan. Ending their attempts to politically dominate the area will certainly help (and so this course of action ought be pursued) but will not solve the problem completely. While structural conditions and poverty give rise to these problems, an attempt to reverse said conditions will not reverse the entire situation, as the sentiments of the people, fighters, differing forces/orgs etc (and the actions and attempts of them) will remain long after. This is a problem tied with extremist Islam - we may well understand how it emerged, but it is such a powerful force that it will remain and inspire actions long after the original cause is lessened (hate is a monstrous force).

Similarly, pulling back to its own borders is not a good choice, as the root and source of the problem, violence and aggression will remain unhindered and thus will continue strongly and prove to be a self perpetuating problem. Bear in mind that the extremes of the terroristic threat do not simply want an end to US domineering and occupation; many want to actually destroy the West (or at least cause it great and an almost self-purposed destruction). I am open to the argument that Afghanistan is militarily 'unwinnable', but at the same time would question whether this is in fact an accurate statement. Often persistence and an effectual counter-guerrilla strategy is the key, and naturally significant casualties may well be likely; but no one said we have to celebrate or extol the war itself (the individual soldiers are of course another matter). On top of this, an Afghanistan left to the Taliban would not be nice.

The US has 'sinned' in its past doings, but we cannot let guilt over the past immobilise or prevent us from acting in the 'best' (or might I more accurately say ' least bad') way possible. Naturally, there is much they diplomatically ought to do, but these motions won't render fighting unnecessary.

 

[dcb4usmcfr]

So I think the best argument against the wars are those which say Iraqis and Afghans don't deserve to be helped, wasting the lives and money of the western countries. It's not worth it helping them.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

I just got this email off a comrade.

1. Life is getting worse for most Afghans under occupation. There are still millions of Afghan people in refugee camps in Pakistan and thousands have been internally displaced. Life expectancy is 43 years. Access to water is 31% of households. Adult literacy is just 24%. Some 50% of children are malnourished. Far more is spent on the war and the military than on reconstruction.

2. More and more people are dying. No one keeps track of the number of Afghan dead, but it numbers in the tens of thousands since 2001. Eleven Australian soldiers and more than 1000 US and NATO soldiers have been killed in the war and occupation. There are weekly reports of occupation forces and US air strikes killing civilians. The Taliban is using suicide bomber to do the same. The carnage is growing.

3. The coalition forces are spreading the war into Pakistan. Military raids and unmanned drones have taken the war into the North-West Frontier regions of Pakistan. Under US pressure the Pakistan army has attacked the Swat valley and displaced some 2 million people.

4. The war has cost us billions over the past 8 years. The Rudd government has budgeted the Afghanistan war to cost $1.3 billion in 2009-10, a 50% increase over previous years along with another 500 troops. There is no separate budget for aid to the Afghans.

5. We were told that the war in Afghanistan would liberate women.Women's lives have not improved. Death in childbirth is rising. less than a third of Afghan girls are in school and less than 10% can read and write. In a bid for fundamentalist support, the Karzai government has even passed a law allowing rape in marriage. Women are still subject to high rates of physical abuse and limited access to jobs even in the cities.

6. This war cannot be 'won' by the occupiers. The failure of the Karzai government and foreign aid to deliver any real improvement to the people of Afghanistan is forcing them to look to the Taliban and war lords.. More foreign troops and more helicopters will not change that equation as retired generals in the UK and US also admit. They have called the war "unwinnable" , not least because of the cost of lives and weapons. Afghanistan is called the "graveyard of empires" because its people have fiercely defended their independence.

7. Kevin Rudd claims the war is about 'combating terrorism'. But there was no terrorist threat to Australia before the war in Afghanistan, or before the war in Iraq in 2003. Strategic analysts like conservative Huge Whitepoint out that Australian support for America's war in Muslim countries has made us a target.

8. The majority of Australians want the troops to leave. An Age/Nielsen poll in March revealed 65% opposed Kevin Rudd's decision to send more troops there and 51% opposed the war outright. A majority of Americans – 54% - also now oppose the war according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released in August, 2009.

9. The war is destroying the country. The Hamid Karzai government, mired in corruption, is prepared to do deals with the Taliban and war lords to try to hang onto power. Opium cultivation and addiction has massively increased, encouraged by the warlords and the Taliban. Ethnic divisions fostered by the Occupation is dividing people as never before and threatening ethnic strife.

10. The majority of Afghans do not want the war and do not want occupying forces in their country. Malalai Joya, an Afghan woman MP, told meetings around Australia in July that the Afghan people have two enemies: the fundamentalists and the occupation forces. She said that they can easily deal with the fundamentalists, but not with an occupying force which is giving support to such reactionaries. . She urged Australians to pressure the government to remove the foreign forces.

Ten reasons to end the war in Afghanistan. What do people think of this?

 

[SJ851]

I just got this email off a comrade.



Ten reasons to end the war in Afghanistan. What do people think of this?

The coalition cannot just cut and run now.

 

[John McCain]

The coalition forces should stop persecuting and start assisting the poppy growers, and others involved in the heroin and cannabis trade. It's the country's only successful export, and a way out of poverty.

Wealth will stabilize the country.

 

[DavidBenGurion]

The coalition cannot just cut and run now.

why not?

 

[SJ851]

why not?

Because Coalition troops provide valuable security in areas where they are stationed - to withdraw now would destabilise that.

I do not think coalition soldiers should have 'gotten into' a war in the middle east in the first place, now that they are there however... they need to stay - all they need to do is change their strategy to one more focused on reconstruction, empowerment of the local community and backing it up with the troop levels to ensure these tasks are completed with the maximum level of security that one can expect in a hostile combat environment.

 

[John McCain]

That's been exactly their strategy for years.

It's done fuck all.

 

[lolrofllol]

Wasn't the Taliban a U.S. funded faction during the cold war?
What About the Taliban's Stingers? - The New York Times

Wasn't Saddam supported with U.S. weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?
History of Iran: Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement

This is a pattern that ends with U.S. invasions justified by terrorism/wmd's/liberation. These invasions can be better explained by motives such as:

1) Oil
2) Drugs (Afghan poppy trade)
3) Destabilizing regions
4) Contractors

The 'War on Terror' is a facade for U.S. Imperialism. Why else would you arm someone and invade their country for the same reason.

EDIT: To conclude, the 'War on Terror' has already been won

 

[JonathanM]

Wasn't the Taliban a U.S. funded faction during the cold war?
What About the Taliban's Stingers? - The New York Times

Wasn't Saddam supported with U.S. weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?
History of Iran: Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement

This is a pattern that ends with U.S. invasions justified by terrorism/wmd's/liberation. These invasions can be better explained by motives such as:

1) Oil
2) Drugs (Afghan poppy trade)
3) Destabilizing regions
4) Contractors

The 'War on Terror' is a facade for U.S. Imperialism. Why else would you arm someone and invade their country for the same reason.

EDIT: To conclude, the 'War on Terror' has already been won

The U.S have supported the Taliban and Sadaam in the past and the 4 reasons you have identified for the invasions are correct, but you are wrong, the 'War on Terror' is not a facade for 'U.S Imperialism.' Welcome to the world of politics and intrigue where your closest ally can become your closest enemy in the space of a few weeks and vice versa.

Think about it logically; after such a huge attack on U.S soil as 9/11, not responding with way over proportional force would have been a sign of weakness and an open invitation to more attacks. Granted attacking encouraged more attacks, but I think not acting would have been a worse mistake.

You can argue that America's continued involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq has been under the 'facade' of U.S Imperialism, but again, I disagree. The Taliban and radical Islam as a whole embody a serious threat to the Western world, not to mention your already mentioned reasons as well.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Think about it logically; after such a huge attack on U.S soil as 9/11, not responding with way over proportional force would have been a sign of weakness and an open invitation to more attacks. Granted attacking encouraged more attacks, but I think not acting would have been a worse mistake.

Fyi, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 at all. Its hardly going to scare the terrorists. It would be like me saying: "hey, I'm going to teach you a lesson Jonathan.....by bashing up this complete stranger. That'll teach ya."

Killing civilians in Afghanistan is hardly effective either. The US military presence just drives more young men angry about the occupation of their country and the killing of their friends and family to join groups like Al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, the actual perpetrators are believed to be hiding in any number of places including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The strongest response that could possibly be justified would be the targeted bombing of known Al Qaeda sites.

Or to put it another way, if Australian terrorists attacked the US, would the US be justified in invading Australia and killing Australian civilians who had nothing to do with the attack?

 

[Follz21]

9/11 was an attack orchestrated by the highest levels of US government & intelligence agencies. The official conspiracy theory is so easy to pull apart that even a child could do it.

Al Qaeda is a CIA invention and people in Intelligence know this. Al Qaeda literally means 'the base' or 'the database' and was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

So no, there is no multi-headed, sophisticated or co-ordinated network of sleeper cells and dangerous extremists around the world.. it's simply a lie.

 

[JonathanM]

Fyi, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 at all. Its hardly going to scare the terrorists. It would be like me saying: "hey, I'm going to teach you a lesson Jonathan.....by bashing up this complete stranger. That'll teach ya."

Killing civilians in Afghanistan is hardly effective either. The US military presence just drives more young men angry about the occupation of their country and the killing of their friends and family to join groups like Al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, the actual perpetrators are believed to be hiding in any number of places including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The strongest response that could possibly be justified would be the targeted bombing of known Al Qaeda sites.

Or to put it another way, if Australian terrorists attacked the US, would the US be justified in invading Australia and killing Australian civilians who had nothing to do with the attack?

True, there were other motivations for Iraq, arguably convoluted motivations at that. But in the whole, with Saddam gone, the attacks having dropped from 40 a day to 4 a day to 4 a fortnight, I think the Iraqi people are now in a position to move on and build up from whatever rubble is left xD

I'm sure America would love to take action in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but there are huge complications beyond that. America needs to keep a presence in Afghanistan or Al-Qaeda will just move in permanently, what with a welcoming populace who seem to have already forgotten what the Taliban did to them prior to 2001 and all the poppy farms to fund their efforts.

 

[Follz21]

True, there were other motivations for Iraq, arguably convoluted motivations at that. But in the whole, with Saddam gone, the attacks having dropped from 40 a day to 4 a day to 4 a fortnight, I think the Iraqi people are now in a position to move on and build up from whatever rubble is left xD

You seemingly laugh at Iraq's predicament. Several independent counts estimate over 1 million have been killed since the slaughter began in 2003. Several more million have been displaced due to America crippling the country's infrastructure (in which the big boys back home get the huge contracts to 'rebuild'). Depleted Uranium bombs/shells/bullets have been used in incredible quantities, leading to horrific diseases/deaths & deformities of babies.

In the previous conflict (slaughter) in 91, there was not a reservoir, a pumping station, a filtration plant that wasn't deliberately destroyed by U.S. bombing to deprive the people of water. Eventually, the Iraqi's had to use raw water from the Tigris just so people could drink... but this water made people shockingly sick. So, imagine the only liquid you have for rehydration is more of the dirty water that made you sick in the first place. Must be fun!

The US also knocked out the power. Well, that doesn't sound like a big deal right? But it meant that 90 percent of the poultry was lost in a matter of days, because they had had a very sophisticated system of raising chickens. They also lost over a third of all their livestock. Another third was driven out of the country to save them. Because you couldn't pump water remember? They either died or you got them across the border where they could get something to eat and drink. Must have been a bloody hoot for those Iraqis, I bet..

On top of this, the US systematically destroyed every aspect of the food system they could: not a grain silo left standing in the country, not a food distribution center, a food processing center, not even the famous date processors. They destroyed fertilizer plants, fertilizer storage, insecticide storage, insecticide plants.

This isn't even mentioning the US imposed sanctions after the war. This, alone, led to more than a million deaths in the decade that followed. Iraq couldn't import water purification equipment; medicine of just about any kind; they couldn't profit from their own oil... why is it people forget this?

Both wars were systematic slaughters of the worse kind.. they either died from bombing, a painful death from DU poisoning or a terribly slow death from starvation, dehydration or preventable diseases.

I'm sure America would love to take action in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but there are huge complications beyond that. America needs to keep a presence in Afghanistan or Al-Qaeda will just move in permanently, what with a welcoming populace who seem to have already forgotten what the Taliban did to them prior to 2001 and all the poppy farms to fund their efforts.

Al Qaeda is a CIA creation, and the poppy fields are fully functioning now thanks to the US presence. The CIA are the biggest drug runners on the planet, as anyone who does the research will realise this. The opium production in Afgahnistan was steadily declining prior to 2001; after the invasion however, it now supplies something like 90+% of the world supply.

 

[JonathanM]

Thanks for the laugh.

Ha! Idiot, it was the Jews who created Al-Qaeda.

 

[Follz21]

Thanks for the laugh.

You find the systematic slaughter of millions of people a 'laugh'? Oh I get it it... just as long as it's not you!

Ha! Idiot, it was the Jews who created Al-Qaeda.

I laugh when people attribute something to an entire mass of people. Exactly who were the 'jews'? The Zionists or...?