Jump to content
The Emma-Watson.net Forum

Recommended Posts

Ok so you are saying that the US and the UK are the only countries doing humane things? Basically you say war of aggression is humane? Last time I checked war of aggression is forbidden and Germany got punished for it. There are reasons why other countries didn't want to go to war. Plus many countries are participating to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Happy New Year.

Where did I say a war of aggression was humane? Right or wrong the US was just trying to protect itself. Afghanistan is where Bin Laden and his boys are hiding out hence that's why the US is there - for retaliation. You can come up with all the conspiracy theories you want, but I think that President Bush truly believed there were weapons mass of destruction in Iraq and that's why the US was there. In your worldview the US dropping bombs on Japan was an act of aggression and when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor we should've just looked the other direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Where did I say a war of aggression was humane? Right or wrong the US was just trying to protect itself. Afghanistan is where Bin Laden and his boys are hiding out hence that's why the US is there - for retaliation. You can come up with all the conspiracy theories you want, but I think that President Bush truly believed there were weapons mass of destruction in Iraq and that's why the US was there. In your worldview the US dropping bombs on Japan was an act of aggression and when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor we should've just looked the other direction.

Well it was a war of aggression. The United Nations did not approve, Bush did it without a 'yes', hence war of aggression, hence it's humane for you. Well he didn't find any weapons of mass destruction I believe. But he got what he wanted anyway. Well if Bin Laden is there, why didn't the US and it's allies find him in all this years. Chasing a shaddow much? Yeah, the two bombs on Japan weren't necessary because Japan would surrender anyway.

Edited by W.V.B
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it was a war of aggression. The United Nations did not approve, Bush did it without a 'yes', hence war of aggression, hence it's humane for you. Well he didn't find any weapons of mass destruction I believe. But he got what he wanted anyway. Well if Bin Laden is there, why didn't the US and it's allies find him in all this years. Chasing a shaddow much? Yeah, the two bombs on Japan weren't necessary because Japan would surrender anyway.

 

I think when we were talking about being humane, it was with regards to giving foreign aid and not about going to war.

 

But yes I do believe that the 2 wars are pretty unjust.

 

 

And the debate of the bombs is another kettle of fish. Japan may have surrendered eventually, but only when the US army had reached the capital. How much more bloodshed would have been needed to do that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afghanistan was a country in need of a good military kicking.

 

We went in, kicked a few Taliban behinds, they decided to play ball, and much Taliban kicking has ensued with minimal casualties. (I'm sorry but considering the supposed Taliban strength, Both Britain and the US have taken light casualties for an 8 year war)

 

Trying to put blame or shame on the US/Britain is ridiculous, particularly when there are at least 15 other country's armed forces in Afghan' right now, not least of which the Danes/Swedes/Canadians/Kiwis/Aussies/Russians/Czechs have all taken part in heavy military action

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afghanistan was a country in need of a good military kicking.

 

We went in, kicked a few Taliban behinds, they decided to play ball, and much Taliban kicking has ensued with minimal casualties. (I'm sorry but considering the supposed Taliban strength, Both Britain and the US have taken light casualties for an 8 year war)

 

Trying to put blame or shame on the US/Britain is ridiculous, particularly when there are at least 15 other country's armed forces in Afghan' right now, not least of which the Danes/Swedes/Canadians/Kiwis/Aussies/Russians/Czechs have all taken part in heavy military action

 

Who decides when a country needs invading ?

 

The Taliban cannot be totally beaten, there is a steady stream of angry young men willing to join them from various countries.

 

As for casualties being as you say *light*, try talking to some of the families who have lost loved ones.

 

The Allied Forces are having a difficult time in Afghanistan, fighting an unseen and often cunning enemy, this is not a conventional war, if it was it would have been over a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

When the troops are pulled out, I can only see trouble for both countries.

They will be 2 unstable countries, I can see various different factions trying to take over, perhaps sharing the spoils.

The Allies should never have invaded, it was pointless.

Most of the world was against it, that is why America and Britain are hated by everyone.

 

No one ever has been able to conquer Afghanistan since Genghis Khan, period. Any success in Afghanistan will be a miracle. The British were there and failed, the Soviets were there and failed and now a multinational effort is struggling. The biggest problem in Afghanistan is control over the numerous tribes and clans in the country; an example of such a problem is if the ISAF and the central Afghan government ally or befriends one clan, they're deemed the enemy of another.

 

Who decides when a country needs invading ?

 

The Taliban cannot be totally beaten, there is a steady stream of angry young men willing to join them from various countries.

 

As for casualties being as you say *light*, try talking to some of the families who have lost loved ones.

 

The Allied Forces are having a difficult time in Afghanistan, fighting an unseen and often cunning enemy, this is not a conventional war, if it was it would have been over a long time ago.

 

You probably mean al Qaeda. The Taliban is an extremely conservative Islamic group which came to power during the early '90s after the Soviets pulled out; thereafter the Taliban was sympathetic to Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda allowing them to base themselves in Afghanistan. There has been a mutual alliance between the two ever since. Like I said before in order to succeed in Afghanistan you have to win over the numerous tribal clans. So far the Taliban and the ISAF are back and forth in control over the clans; some clans side with the Taliban, others with the ISAF. They are then used as either combatant allies or a useful tool in public relations. Then there are certain tribes in which find both forces as invaders and will fight either one. People need to understand that the war in Afghanistan is very, very dynamic. It's not good guys vs. the bad guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one ever has been able to conquer Afghanistan since Genghis Khan, period. Any success in Afghanistan will be a miracle. The British were there and failed, the Soviets were there and failed and now a multinational effort is struggling. The biggest problem in Afghanistan is control over the numerous tribes and clans in the country; an example of such a problem is if the ISAF and the central Afghan government ally or befriends one clan, they're deemed the enemy of another.

 

Our countries are not trying to 'conquer' Afghanistan though, we're trying to stabilise it. If we wanted to 'conquer' it, I don't think the war would be going on nearly as long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering most of the fighting is localised, most of the injuries and deaths are caused by roadside bombs and IEDs, I stick by my statement of light casulaties.

 

Edit: Also, I personally have a few good mates who have been injured in Afghan. Most of my mates are serving/ex-military, and I reckon they'd agree on light casualties.

 

I'm also just talking about Afghan, casualty wise.

Edited by SomeBloke
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our countries are not trying to 'conquer' Afghanistan though, we're trying to stabilise it. If we wanted to 'conquer' it, I don't think the war would be going on nearly as long.

 

"No one ever has been able to conquer Afghanistan." That was a line from the movie 9 Рота (9th Company) about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. By 'conquer' in other words meant that no one ever has been able to succeed militarily in Afghanistan no matter what the mission. Even the Taliban had difficulty taking power in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew. They met resistance from members of the Mujahideen who were fighting during the occupation, some of the Muj joined the Taliban 'cause, others fought it. Many of them formed to create what was known as the Northern Alliance which became a major ally during OEF-1.

 

Considering most of the fighting is localised, most of the injuries and deaths are caused by roadside bombs and IEDs, I stick by my statement of light casulaties.

 

Edit: Also, I personally have a few good mates who have been injured in Afghan. Most of my mates are serving/ex-military, and I reckon they'd agree on light casualties.

 

I'm also just talking about Afghan, casualty wise.

 

I too have good friends who served overseas. One of my best friends served in Iraq, two served in Afghanistan. One of them was part of a US Marine unit who have seen more combat in one month than most units encountered during entire deployments, in the Helmand Province. The other served near Jalalabad a few years ago. The interesting bit was my friend who served in Iraq encountered no enemy contact at all save for the occasional IED here and there when delivering supplies to the hospitals and schools, other than that his deployment was pretty uneventful for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have good friends who served overseas. One of my best friends served in Iraq, two served in Afghanistan. One of them was part of a US Marine unit who have seen more combat in one month than most units encountered during entire deployments, in the Helmand Province. The other served near Jalalabad a few years ago. The interesting bit was my friend who served in Iraq encountered no enemy contact at all save for the occasional IED here and there when delivering supplies to the hospitals and schools, other than that his deployment was pretty uneventful for him.

 

Doesn't surprise me, I have a mate in the Pioneer corps, and the only action he saw, was over the top wrist action from his mates in the portaloo. Whereas a friend in the Royal Engis was encountering IEDs a few times a week

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

It always strikes me as funny when ppl say "the afghans". There is no "the afghans". There's Pashtuns, Pathans, Tajjiks, Uzbeks, and more....and they do not universally reject the allied invasion.

The problem lies mainly with the Pashtuns and Pathans who on the one hand cling to stupid medieval traditions and want to kick out all foreigners....and then on the other hand blame the whole western world for their own poverty, backwardness and poor living standards. They are the main driving force behind the Taleban and everything associated with it.

 

The western forces are not loosing in Afghanistan, they just don't win. And they don't win because it's not pure logic that dictates their strategy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is impossible to name traditions of another's country silly with what these traditions wouldn't be...

The soldier comes into the house to Pashtun. At it on a visit and the owner will feed and give to drink to soldiers its tea as native. But it is necessary to the soldier to cross a kishlak threshold, the owner which 5 minutes ago gave to drink its tea will shoot to it at a back.

p.s. For all history nobody managed to win Afghanistan.

Edited by Ant
Link to post
Share on other sites

p.s. For all history nobody managed to win Afghanistan.

 

In the words of the movie 9th Company, "Ðикто никогда не Ñумел завоевать ÐфганиÑтан. Ðикто никогда."

 

Well in truth, no one ever since the Mongols and even they had a tough time holding Afghanistan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 company is a feature film on the basis of real events.

Actually this operation shown in a film, actually became one of the most successful operations for all Afghani company... 3 persons were lost if I am not mistaken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Now that bin Laden is dead, the war in Afghanistan could swing 1 of 2 ways.. the Taliban could become extremely violent and hostile or they could settle down a little, and maybe begin peace talks. The latter is very unlikely to happen, you could say its virtually impossible, if neither of those happen though then the situation regarding hostility wiill presumably stay the same as it is at the current time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that bin Laden is dead, the war in Afghanistan could swing 1 of 2 ways.. the Taliban could become extremely violent and hostile or they could settle down a little, and maybe begin peace talks. The latter is very unlikely to happen, you could say its virtually impossible, if neither of those happen though then the situation regarding hostility wiill presumably stay the same as it is at the current time.

 

The latter is probably the most likely thing to happen. You have to remember that the Taliban is not the terrorist organization that Osama Bin Laden was leading. They are simply a governing organization that took control during the power vacuum after the Soviets withdrew. Currently the main conflict is between them and the government put into place by NATO. If any talks is to occur, it will be between those two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

The title of "Operation Enduring Freedom" is a misnomer, and should have been "Operation Ongoing Warfare." For the last half century, as administrations have come and gone, the fundamental assumptions about America’s military policy have remained unchanged: American security requires the United States (and the U.S. alone) to maintain a permanent armed presence around the globe, to prepare our forces for military operations in far-flung regions, and to be ready to intervene anywhere at any time.

 

I recommend the book Washington Rules by Andrew J. Bacevich. In his book, Bacevich exposes the preconceptions, biases, and habits that underlie our pervasive faith in military might, especially the notion that overwhelming superiority will oblige others to accommodate America’s needs and desires—whether for cheap oil, cheap credit, or cheap consumer goods. The usefulness of our militarism, as it has become both unaffordable and increasingly dangerous, and should be questioned if not refused.

 

In the Obama era, just as in the Bush years, these beliefs remain unquestioned gospel. Though our politicians deny it, American global might is faltering. This is the moment, to reconsider the principles which shape American policy in the world—to acknowledge that fixing Afghanistan should not take precedence over fixing Detroit. Replacing this Washington consensus is crucial to America’s future, and may yet offer the key to the country’s salvation. =/

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, the war has created more chaos than fixed anything.

 

There can be nothing gained from leaving troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, what do I know...I'm just an American. Obviously, the president knows better! /end sarcasm

Link to post
Share on other sites

The title of "Operation Enduring Freedom" is a misnomer, and should have been "Operation Ongoing Warfare." For the last half century, as administrations have come and gone, the fundamental assumptions about America’s military policy have remained unchanged: American security requires the United States (and the U.S. alone) to maintain a permanent armed presence around the globe, to prepare our forces for military operations in far-flung regions, and to be ready to intervene anywhere at any time.

 

Totally irrelevant but did you know in the past, the names of such military actions "Operation: --- ---" were literally chosen out of a hat. One or two random words are chosen at random to represent these operations. i.e. Operation Market Garden in WWII, Operation Eagle Claw in 1979 Iran, Operation Gothic Serpent in 1993 Somalia, etc.

 

In the Obama era, just as in the Bush years, these beliefs remain unquestioned gospel. Though our politicians deny it, American global might is faltering. This is the moment, to reconsider the principles which shape American policy in the world—to acknowledge that fixing Afghanistan should not take precedence over fixing Detroit. Replacing this Washington consensus is crucial to America’s future, and may yet offer the key to the country’s salvation. =/

 

The purpose of any nation's military is not to just protect the borders of that nation. The more practical use of a military is to protect the interests of that nation whether it be natural resources, political dominance, protection of that nation's citizens overseas. However people mold the reasons of any military action taken in Afghanistan or Iraq really doesn't matter. Whether or not the mission of such action was successful is what matters. The reason why wars become unpopular is because of how long it takes to complete these objectives. People have lost faith in the mission of Operation Enduring Freedom because it's taking longer than they thought. Most Americans believed OEF would be over by 2002 because of the early fall of the Taliban and the crippling of al Qaeda's power in Afghanistan.

 

What most don't fully realize is that OEF is a Global War on Terror; and it involves not only moving armies around but money, people and resources. Afghanistan is only just the main theatre of combat. Other theatres include but not limited to Chechnya, the Philippines, Indonesia, Somalia, and to some extent certain countries in Europe. al Qaeda is a global network of terror cells, not just a group of disgruntled extremists from Afghanistan.

 

If anything, the war has created more chaos than fixed anything.

 

There can be nothing gained from leaving troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, what do I know...I'm just an American. Obviously, the president knows better! /end sarcasm

 

The question you have to ask is whether or not your forces achieved what they went in to do. It's a success or fail situation whether you like it or not. The mission in Iraq was a success: eliminate Saddam Insane and topple his Ba'ath party. The mission in Afghanistan is being won but not quite won yet: topple the extremist Taliban government and cripple the al Qaeda cell in country. Then that's where the tactics come in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

If anything, the war has created more chaos than fixed anything.

 

There can be nothing gained from leaving troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, what do I know...I'm just an American. Obviously, the president knows better! /end sarcasm

 

Okay, the Sgt to the rescue here. We got attacked back in the day, right? So, just like any human being would do in that situation, we're not just gonna sit back and let them attack us. We're going to do something about it. We went to Iraq, we identified the problem, took care of the problem, implimented procedures so "9/11" wouldn't happen again (which took some time) and got out of there. Now, we're just basically doing the same thing in Afghanistan, only now with bin Laden gone, things will go more smoothly and we hope to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2013.

 

So think about it. If some intruders flew a plane into your house and killed everybody in it, wouldn't you do something about it too? That was basically President Bush's frame of mind at the time he declared the war. You can't just sit back and let whoever kill your people. That's what we are there for. So when somebody comes into our 'house' and try to screw things up, we can go back in their 'house' and screw things up even worse.

Edited by Turbo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

al-Qaeda, sad to say is not an enemy that can be defeated in one theatre of conflict. For lack of a better term, al-Qaeda has evolved into an international franchise with cells and splinter factions in every continent (al-Qaeda in Iraq formerly headed by Abu al-Zarqawi was one of these groups; they were an independent organization but integral to al-Qaeda as a whole). Now that OBL is gone that has dealt a major blow to the organization and practically decapitated their network. But now the issue is that they're a global movement of extremists; not necessarily like a conventional army which can be defeated by taking out their chain of command. For all intents and purposes, although we have made great strides and victories against al-Qaeda, this will be a long and bloody conflict.

Edited by sirbenedictvs
Link to post
Share on other sites

al-Qaeda, sad to say is not an enemy that can be defeated in one theatre of conflict. For lack of a better term, al-Qaeda has evolved into an international franchise with cells and splinter factions in every continent...

 

Which is why we have to teach Iraqi and Afghani police how to defend for their own country. Makes perfect sense. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...