Why was the Iraq war such a bad idea and the Afghanistan War such a good idea? Osama Bin Laden is Saudi. The hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi. We have now killed more innocents in Afghanistan that Osama Bin Laden did on 9/11. Is it really a good idea to stay the course in Afghanistan, or should we pullout?
American Says:
I don't know if you are implying that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia after 9/11. Saudi Arabia has a Wahabbi problem, there is no doubt about that, but they didn't harbor Bin Ladin. The Taliban did. That's why we went to Afghanistan. And though I disagree with the current President on most issues, the surge of troops to Afghanistan is essential to our national security. We cannot and must not repeat the mistakes of the past. After the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989, we abandoned them too. After years of civil war, the Taliban took over and gave safe haven to Al Qaeda. If we leave now and another extremist taliban-type government were to assume control at some point and give a base to terrorist groups, then the world is back to September 10, 2001. We have to win in Afghanistan. And removing Saddam wasnt a bad idea. The plan used to remove Saddam was the bad idea
American Says:
Because the Taliban hosted Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida while he planned and executed these attacks.
American Says:
Because the majority there is being tyrranized by the minority. It's supposed to be the other way around.
American Says:
I think that the real lesson that we should take from the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is that the USSR bankrupted itself by refusing to leave. The Mujaheddin and the Taliban were essentially created to combat foreign occupation. America fought its own war for self-determination. If we think we can force other countries to do what we did ourselves, we are going to keep on empowering totalitarian regimes and we will hurt our own country in Vietnam-style wars that increase our debt and create enemies abroad.
American Says:
well i dont think we need to worry about Afghanistan bankrupting us, the President is looking at other ways to do that, and by the way, the Taliban was not created to combat foreign occupation. In the ealry 1990s, it was formed by wahhabist followers who wanted to establish sunni sharia law in Afghanistan. And I dont understand what you mean "...create enemies abroad." Before 9-11, unfortunately we paid no attention to Afghanistan, there wasnt one US soldier in Afghanistan, and guess what. We were attacked. That's why we must guard against the complaceny and the expediency that you advocate because complacency to the extreme could be regarded as complicity.
American Says:
i think that you're logic is flawed. The reasons that terrorists exploded themselves in the WTC are numerous and all can be traced back to american bombing in somalia, libya, bagdad, ect.... Also the american embargo on iraq killed 500,000 children. The american support for Israel and its crimes against the Palestinians also contributed. All these things amounted to hundreds of thousands of deaths and came back to us, (albeit unjustly) in the form of the murder of 3,000. now to combat this terrorism we have killed thousands in Afghanistan (again), and hundreds of thousands of innocents directly in iraq, and possibly millions indirectly in iraq. from what i understand from your comments, you believe that these terrorists appeared out of nowhere, came from Saudi arabia, but planned the attack all out in Afghanistan, and now we can finally defeat them by carrying out bombing campaigns in iraq and Afghanistan (again) at the cost of the civilian populations and then we can finally have peace and pro-americanism in the middle east. i think we need to try something new that doesn't rely on the destruction of people with radical ideas, because that further radicalizes more people. there are always replacements for terrorists. and no matter how many people we torture, starve, and kill, they wont come around to our side. we need to support economic development and self-determination, not any specific government or ideology.
American Says:
the minority should be tyrannized by the majority? you sound like a segregationist
American Says:
The taliban aren't really even in afghanistan that much. For the most part they've all retreated into Pakistan. Afghanistan is controlled by our friends the Northern Alliance. Saudi Arabia, and many other nations that we are cool with do just the same type of stuff that the Afghanis do to their people. For someone to justify going into Afghanistan because of human rights violations is to say that we were right to go into Iraq. For anyone to say that we should go into Afghanistan to enforce human rights is to agree with Bush, and his decision to go into Iraq. Isn't going into Iraq what everyone now says was a bad idea?
American Says:
"all can be traced back to american bombing in somalia, libya, bagdad, ect...." I don't think they can all be traced there. I agree that the reasons that people did what they did on 9/11 are numerous and complex, but not all of them can be traced back to America bombing an Islamic nation.
American Says:
Yes, most of them have retreated into Pakistan but if we leave Afghanistan they will go back into there too. Also Afghanistan is where we must base out efforts into Pakistan.
American Says:
"i think we need to try something new that doesn't rely on the destruction of people with radical ideas, because that further radicalizes more people. there are always replacements for terrorists. and no matter how many people we torture, starve, and kill, they wont come around to our side. we need to support economic development and self-determination, not any specific government or ideology." I half agree with you. Yes, we should try something new. If someone is willing to wage a war of suicide and mass murder against the United States we should look into their reasons for wanting to do so. At the same time is someone does commit a heinous crime against this nation they must be hunted down, no matter what their motivation may or may not have been.
American Says:
yeah, attacking a nuclear power like pakistan is a GREAT idea. i have a better idea. put all the billions of dollars, and thousands of troops at home in america. have them guard our airports and our streets. even better, hire alot more police and agents, because people might not like armed troops everywhere. (imagine how the iraqis and afghanis feel). scattering all our troops all over the place is not gonna help us stop the one guy that decides to blow something up in america. it's time to strengthen security at home instead of having stray bullets and stray bombs kill thousands of civilians, get people pissed off, shoot up our troops, and convince more people to become terrorists. if the taliban wants to attack us, let them swim, our coast guard will take care of them no problem.
American Says:
"yeah, attacking a nuclear power like pakistan is a GREAT idea." 1. We're not attacking Pakistan. You know that. 2. Pakistan is not stupid enough to use their nukes against us; which I think is what you were implying. Bush, in his Iraq propaganda, did get at least one thing right - its better that we fight our enemy over there instead of here at home. A big problem with what you are suggesting is that no amount of resources can stop a man who is willing to take his own life in order to take other lives. Look at Israel. They have mandatory military service for their young men. They have the strongest military in the region. they have nuclear weapons. They have walls. They have security checkpoints. Still, they get bombed. We must try to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic peoples, but we must also destroy those who wish to heart us.
American Says:
And how are we not attacking Pakistan? If Pakistan truly wanted the taliban out, they would kick them out. I was not implying Pakistan is stupid enough to use them. I was implying that we might be stupid enough to take the chance that they would feel threatened enough to. And we will not win the hearts and minds of the people by accidentally killing mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters. Already in Afghanistan the number of civilian deaths has gone way up, and our attacks in Pakistan so far have yielded alot of civilian deaths. If history repeats itself, look how many hearts and minds we won in iraq from our stray bombs and bullets. Iraq was a disaster, and expect no less when we kill people's family members in other countries. It doesn't matter who you are, no one likes it when you kill their family members.
American Says:
"If Pakistan truly wanted the taliban out, they would kick them out." You're forgetting that the Pakistani government doesn't have much power. This isn't like if the US decided we didn't want the Neo-Nazis anymore so we got the National Guard to round them up. The Pakistani government has almost no authority in the Pashtun region. These people rule themselves and they are loyal to the Taliban.
American Says:
The pakistani government has nuclear weapons and equips their soldiers with german made heckler and koch g3 rifles. They are far more advanced than Taliban hill billies.
American Says:
"equips their soldiers with german made heckler and koch g3 rifles." How does that mean they can invade the Pashtun region? Because they have decent machine guns? So what? Its not like the Taliban is there sitting in barracks and they can just invade. They are based in the mountains and have the loyalty of the local tribal leaders. They look just like the Pashtun peoples. You really don't know what you are talking about. A good rifle doesn't mean that they can go into a region where they have never ruled and root out the Taliban.
American Says:
Wikipedia says Pakistan has the 6th largest army in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Army and they also know the language and know the people alot better than us. the taliban are a joke. it appears you do not know what you are talking about. Pakistan has an overall force of 1,000,000 men. You should do more research before you tell me I have no idea what I am talking about.
American Says:
The Soviet Union had the most powerful army in the world and they couldn't take over Afghanistan. We have the most powerful army in the world right now and we can't root out our enemies in Iraq. Once again I would bring up the example of Israel here. Army size does not equal ability to root out terrorists/guerrilla armies. And, lol, no, they don't necessarily speak the language. Its not like America where we all pretty much speak English. There are many separate ethnic groups within Pakistan and many of them speak different languages. The Pashtun people speak Pashto which is actually more common in Afghanistan and Iran then it is in the rest of Pakistan. Also they don't necessarily know the people. These are fiercely isolationist tribes who distrust outsiders - even those from their own nation. Probably because they don't acknowledge any kind of government based in Islamabad.
American Says:
It's not. Diplomatic solutions, please. We're all humans beings here, we can do it if we put our mind to it.
American Says:
Sorry, it's 2:30 am here >_> Basically, no, military presence in Afghanistan is not a good idea, it's better to take economic or political approach to resolving the terrorist threat the country presents.
American Says:
The taliban are not bulletproof. And part of the reason they beat the soviets was because we gave them a shitload of weapons. And Israel doesn't fight armies, they get hit by random individuals with small scale terrorist attacks. we're talking armies here, let's stay on topic. the Pakistani military has 1,000,000 personnel, 530 attack aircraft, including f-16's, and nuclear weapons. If they wanted to wipe out every man, woman, and child in the pashtun region, they could. and i'm sure america would look the other way if they decided to disregard the rules of war, just as we do when we send prisoners off to other countries to get tortured. maybe you got me on language, but that is insignificant.
American Says:
No, I just believe in democracy :P
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.