Do you think we belong in Iraq/Afghanistan? Why or why not!




 
--
Boots
 
July 29th, 2004  
RecruitWalterUSMC
 

Topic: Do you think we belong in Iraq/Afghanistan? Why or why not!


Do you think we should be over there helping? Or maybe you think we're not helping at all !?! Give your opinion on the subject. Personally, I don't have an opinion. I can't say we don't belong over there because they need some assistance. Then again I can't say we do belong over there because they need to learn on their own how to do things and if they want to live one way we shouldn't jump in and stop that. So, I have no opinion...
July 29th, 2004  
Shadowalker
 
 
I think we (UN forces) do belong in afganistan as they basically have nothing left to build a country on, the soviet and US attacks as well as the taliban have left a country that is ungovernable without help and if we leave then the country will be a hotbed for future terrorists, drug smugglers etc and will be no better off then before the invasion!
July 29th, 2004  
jen.parabellum
 
 
I think we should be there.

1. Afghanistan: the Taliban became a safe haven for Al Qaeda after the Russian-Afghani war that OBL fought in for the Afghans. They also committed crimes against their own people and their religion. The forcer Olympic soccer field was turned into a mass killing field. That alone was reason enough to go for me. Plus why should we go in there, remove OBL and most of Al Qaeda and just get out?!? You have to remove the harborers, in that case, the Taliban. Personally I don't think we have enough forces in that country because of the elections coming up.

2. Iraq: Yes, we should have gone there and thanks to the 30 other nations who went in with us, these were mostly nations that know what it is to be underneath the brutal hands of a dictator for many generations. When Saddam Hussein came into power in the late 70's, the first thing he did was kill I believe it was over 150 of the old governmental leaders for "being traitors to the state." One by one they were led out and never to be seen again. He gassed the Kurds. No war is easy, there will be deaths involved. However look what happened when we left the first time, we promised them: "If you rise up against Saddam, we'll help you."

We didn't. So for us to leave now - especially since their new foe are unknown terrorists who wishes to destroy the structure of Iraq and take it further back. Would just be ... the costs would be too much for us, Iraq and the world.

We should not be tempted with fear and put our tails between our legs, load the helicopters and war planes up and high tail it out of there. Because even at the risk of being corny, if we do that the terrorists would have won. They would have proof once again, if things don't go necessarily in our favor, we would just leave.

I still believe Saddam Hussein had WMDs, they found sarin that wasn't really reported here in the media, doesn't that kill people? Oil-for-food program that was so corrupted. The hundred of thousands of Iraqis who killed gave us more reason than any other to go in.

One doesn't appreciate freedom until they lost it. Now they have a volunteer army, no one will barge into their houses and take away their sons. When the sports teams don't do well, they won't be scared anymore with torture. Women are safer and they won't be used as sexual pawns.

Yes the war hasn't been perfect on both sides, but we have taken the first step in giving them freedom - something they have not tasted for so long and that makes me proud. That makes me want to point my finger at all those nay-sayers and say: "Told you so!" America is not an empire, if it was an empire, we would have so much land right now.

But in reality, we have freed more than any other nation in the past 228 years of our nation's existence. I ... that makes me proud too, we'll never be liked but we are still the torch bearers of freedom and democracy and we will do it again if necessary.

That's just my opinion, I could be right or wrong.
--
Boots
July 30th, 2004  
Airborne Eagle
 
 
I doubt you'd find many Americans that don't think we should have gone into Afghanistan (short of Michael Moore types). That said, things are improving there. It's a hard slog, but there's a blogger (web log writer) who captures the "good news" in the country.

Link

He also has a series on Iraq. An Australian.

Iraq is trickier, but I think we (America in particular, but the world if willing) needed to go in.

If I told you a leader with access to hundreds of millions in revenue each year:

-attacked two neighbors within four years of each other
-actively targets US patrol aircraft (No Fly Zones)
-attempted to assassinate a former US President (Bush I)
-funds terrorists (Hamas, suicide bombers in Israel, etc)
-harbors known terrorists (Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, al Zawaqari)
-has numerous contacts with al Qaeda, including (according to multiple debriefs) WMD training
-has, at a minimum the expertise to make and weaponize, the resources (scientists, dual use technology), and the will to use WMDs
-the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands, and
-made countless threats against the US and our allies

you'd be darn happy if we took him out.

But our mission doesn't end there. We also have a responsibility to help the Iraqi people and the Afghanis. It's no secret the US badly played our hand with those governments and never took aggressive measures to stop abuses. WE owe it to those people and to our national character, to set it right.
July 30th, 2004  
RecruitWalterUSMC
 
Wow Jen, you accually made me cry. I'm with you on that one. 150% The 50% is my cat agreeing also.
July 30th, 2004  
tank_master
 
I doubt even american president himself thinks they should really be there.In my opinion,the U.S. hasn't brought democracy to Iraq..They brought kill,war,blood there..However,the only truth they made was to get Saddam Hussein out...But why do they keep staying there?They want to protect the Iraqi people from rebellion forces?Huh..I think no..
They only care about the patrol they have...And let me put it in this way..
Why doesn't have the new government have the force on U.S and other forces there?Why can't the new government say anything to the invasion forces?
July 30th, 2004  
Airborne Eagle
 
 
tm,
After Somalia, the US will never allow foreign forces or governments to have any type of operational control over US troops. As soon as the Iraqis field capable forces (I think their target is 37 battalions), you will see a significant US withdrawl.

If the US was solely interested in the oil, we could have easily allowed the ecnomic sanctions to end. France and Russia were pressing to end the embargo, China was interested in ending it.

We could have just lifted the sanctions and let the oil flow.

It was not about the oil (or petrol).
July 30th, 2004  
RecruitWalterUSMC
 
Nicely said Eagle.
July 30th, 2004  
jen.parabellum
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tank_master
I doubt even american president himself thinks they should really be there.In my opinion,the U.S. hasn't brought democracy to Iraq..They brought kill,war,blood there..However,the only truth they made was to get Saddam Hussein out...But why do they keep staying there?They want to protect the Iraqi people from rebellion forces?Huh..I think no..
They only care about the patrol they have...And let me put it in this way..
Why doesn't have the new government have the force on U.S and other forces there?Why can't the new government say anything to the invasion forces?
I think they can - for example the Green Zone - is the Baghdad International Zone and also the recent safe house bombings in Fallujah were done with the permission of the Prime Minister Alawi. In fact Jordan offered to send a force in and the Iraqi government turned them down. Now the Saudis are interested in sending a force made out of numerous Muslim nations.

-

Airborne Eagle - of course are you are correct. In a recent article posted on National Review it states:

Quote:
Eighteen Americans died in the battle and dozens were wounded. Television footage showed a howling mob dragging the body of a dead American soldier through the streets. Two days later, Clinton announced a reinforcement of the Somalia deployment, this time he said under American command. He didn't even know the original force had been under Garrison's command. Shortly thereafter, Clinton announced that American troops would withdraw from Somalia by March 1994.
Then when we sent soldiers to Macedonia in 1995 and it was under UN control, even the American flag was replaced on the soldiers' BDUs.

Quote:
Clinton never explained what American interests were implicated in the Bosnian civil war. By the end of his presidency, Bill Clinton had reformed the world's image of America, and not for the better. There are three lessons he taught the global community:

* The UN, by determining where American forces should go, can be an effective means of constraining the United States in the exercise of its power.

* America will not respond decisively when it is attacked. Clinton took no decisive action in retaliation for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 attacks on our embassies in Africa, or the 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

* Inflicting only a few casualties on the United States, as in Somalia, can defeat the United States.
I suggest everyone read this article Click Here.

It also states that the relationship between the Commander-in-Chief and the soldier has been repaired during Bush's presidency.
August 30th, 2004  
RecruitWalterUSMC
 
This was a point brought up to me by one of my friends and I would like to know others opinions on the subject . My friend says "we'er over there trying to help them become a better place because we feel it's hard on them and they don't appriciate it and we allow those same people over here and they still do the same things they do over there. Our government gives them a place to live, gives them money from our welfare system, and has a program that helps them find a job. Yet they don't find jobs." He/she believes that the people allowed over here through immagration are being treated better than the U.S. citizens that were here before all this. Simply because there was and accident near her house. A car accident that killed 7 people. 4 or 5 different cars totalled and the car that caused the accident had 4-5 mhungs in it. They all still lived and she tells me that none of those people that are still living have even gotten so much as a ticket yet. Something else stated by my friend is the fact that there is no school funding. It's been said it's going to happen but I guess in my friends wirds "there are 14 schools going out in this state because there isn't any funding to help them." Well, that's all I'll say right now. Don't think this person is a democrat because he/she denies it all the way. Not a republican either.