Jump to content
The Emma-Watson.net Forum

Recommended Posts

I personally think that the best thing ISAF can do is to withdraw all troops now, let them fight their own battles, too many lives have been lost to this conflict. dont even mention the money that has been poured into this, the US is broke, so is the majority of Europe, we need to get out of there, and fast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I personally think that the best thing ISAF can do is to withdraw all troops now, let them fight their own battles, too many lives have been lost to this conflict. dont even mention the money that has been poured into this, the US is broke, so is the majority of Europe, we need to get out of there, and fast.

 

Yeah. Different strategy next time. Let them rebuilt their jihad training camps for a while. At least then you know what to hit with all that expensive ordnance on friday evening. :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that the best thing ISAF can do is to withdraw all troops now, let them fight their own battles, too many lives have been lost to this conflict. dont even mention the money that has been poured into this, the US is broke, so is the majority of Europe, we need to get out of there, and fast.

 

Rule #1: do it right the first time. A second invasion probably wouldn't be the best option.

 

We've gotten this far, the ISAF shouldn't p***y out and withdraw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

uhh, yeah we should withdraw, we havent got the money to fund it anymore, besides we will never beat the Taliban until the Pakistani govt allow us to destroy the Quetta Shura, they are safely tucked over the border of Afghanistan, commanding the Taliban. Only when we kill the leaders, will we have any chance of driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it would've been better if the usa had never started these wars... i dont like the "we-bring-peace-and-democracy-to-the-world" mentality of the us.

these wars didnt change anything for the citizens of afghanistan or iraq. life is even worser and more dangerous instead. the bush administration said that iraq has got nbc weapons but they didnt had anything. the us government was just searching for an ocassion to start this war and im very glad that the german government decided to take no part in this unnessecary and stupid revenge campaign of g. w. bush.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it would've been better if the usa had never started these wars... i dont like the "we-bring-peace-and-democracy-to-the-world" mentality of the us.

these wars didnt change anything for the citizens of afghanistan or iraq.

 

The invasion of Afghanistan, the primary objective was to kill or capture top al-Qaeda personnel, crush any al-Qaeda fighters and all those who resists (this includes the Taliban). Helping the Afghan people was a secondary objective because helping the tribal regions will gain trust for the coalition thus helping find and eliminate any known al-Qaeda/Taliban within their regions.

 

About Iraq, I want you to do a little research on what Saddam Insane did during his reign of terror. Ever heard of his atrocities in Northern Iraq/Kurdistan? He killed tens of thousands of innocent people(men, women and children); most were killed by the mustard and sarin gas he deployed onto the region (yes he used WMD's) those who survived were "arrested" but ended up being rounded up and executed in mass graves- ethnic cleansing at its finest. Not to mention his incursions with the Shia muslims of Iraq; random arrests, torture, executions. No one else wanted to do crap because Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world. The US (or NATO as a whole) is the only force able and willing to take down Saddam Insane.

 

The task of taking out Saddam Insane should've been done back in 1991. There was a larger coalition force involved and a clear consensus that Saddam needed to go. But reluctantly, President Bush Sr. decided the objective of Operation: Desert Storm was to oust Iraq from Kuwait, not a full scale invasion of Iraq. In 1997, President Clinton launched cruise missiles against specific Iraqi military targets in response to his weapons build-up and genocides he continued to commit. The same year, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1997 which basically states that Saddam Insane needed to go and Iraq needed a regime change. This was signed 6 years before the invasion of Iraq took place!

 

Immediately after the Iraqi army withdrew from Kuwait, there was a Shia insurrection to take down Hussein (similar to the rebellion going on in Libya right now). The insurgency requested foreign aid such as logistical support, weapons and ammunition. No one answered. The rebellion was subsequently and quickly crushed by the Iraqi military. Those accused of conspiracy against the government were arrested and some were never seen again.

 

Be thankful you didn't live in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's reign, cause if you did and spoke even one word against the government. They'd cut your head off.

 

What I want to ask you is would you let a monster like this stay in power?

Edited by sirbenedictvs
Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you, finally, someone who agrees with me, we need to get the f**k out of there!

 

Just as long as the local forces aren't as corrupt and incompetent as they are now. If we leave before they're self-sufficient, then it will be a mission failed.

 

It'll be on their shoulders, not ours. They have to take advantage of the opportunity we gave the, we can't hold their hand all the time. That's the main thing before withdrawing, a force cannot simply call quits because it's getting too hard.

Edited by sirbenedictvs
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as long as the local forces aren't as corrupt and incompetent as they are now. If we leave before they're self-sufficient, then it will be a mission failed.

 

It'll be on their shoulders, not ours. They have to take advantage of the opportunity we gave the, we can't hold their hand all the time. That's the main thing before withdrawing, a force cannot simply call quits because it's getting too hard.

 

Very true, I think the US doesn't want this to be seen as another Vietnam so the whole thing will be seen through to the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ðикто никогда не Ñумел завоевать ÐфганиÑтан.

 

"No one ever has managed to conquer Afghanistan." Afghanistan is one of the hardest if not the hardest country to control, no one since the Mongol Empire has ever effectively controlled Afghanistan. Having said that, a coalition of foreign forces fighting an enemy that isn't even native themselves will have a very, very hard time winning. It isn't impossible but they have to be ready to stay the long haul

Link to post
Share on other sites

we discussed this conflicts in politics alot and i think i know enough about them. i may also understand the reasons for the war in afghanistan. but iraq, especially sadam, hussein had nothing to to do with terrorism. bush jr. desperately wanted this war and therefore he was hunting for any reason to start it. i dont know his true interests but i guess it was all about oil.

the europeans arent even better because we supported the libyan rebels not before there was a danger for the oil export. you might know that libya is one of the most important exporter of raw oil.

 

you won't share my opinion about that topic but it's ok for me

Link to post
Share on other sites

we discussed this conflicts in politics alot and i think i know enough about them. i may also understand the reasons for the war in afghanistan. but iraq, especially sadam, hussein had nothing to to do with terrorism. bush jr. desperately wanted this war and therefore he was hunting for any reason to start it. i dont know his true interests but i guess it was all about oil.

the europeans arent even better because we supported the libyan rebels not before there was a danger for the oil export. you might know that libya is one of the most important exporter of raw oil.

 

you won't share my opinion about that topic but it's ok for me

 

I will assume you didn't read my post I made earlier so I'm posting it again:

 

The invasion of Afghanistan, the primary objective was to kill or capture top al-Qaeda personnel, crush any al-Qaeda fighters and all those who resists (this includes the Taliban). Helping the Afghan people was a secondary objective because helping the tribal regions will gain trust for the coalition thus helping find and eliminate any known al-Qaeda/Taliban within their regions.

 

About Iraq, I want you to do a little research on what Saddam Insane did during his reign of terror. Ever heard of his atrocities in Northern Iraq/Kurdistan? He killed tens of thousands of innocent people(men, women and children); most were killed by the mustard and sarin gas he deployed onto the region (yes he used WMD's) those who survived were "arrested" but ended up being rounded up and executed in mass graves- ethnic cleansing at its finest. Not to mention his incursions with the Shia muslims of Iraq; random arrests, torture, executions. No one else wanted to do crap because Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world. The US (or NATO as a whole) is the only force able and willing to take down Saddam Insane.

 

The task of taking out Saddam Insane should've been done back in 1991. There was a larger coalition force involved and a clear consensus that Saddam needed to go. But reluctantly, President Bush Sr. decided the objective of Operation: Desert Storm was to oust Iraq from Kuwait, not a full scale invasion of Iraq. In 1997, President Clinton launched cruise missiles against specific Iraqi military targets in response to his weapons build-up and genocides he continued to commit. The same year, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1997 which basically states that Saddam Insane needed to go and Iraq needed a regime change. This was signed 6 years before the invasion of Iraq took place!

 

Immediately after the Iraqi army withdrew from Kuwait, there was a Shia insurrection to take down Hussein (similar to the rebellion going on in Libya right now). The insurgency requested foreign aid such as logistical support, weapons and ammunition. No one answered. The rebellion was subsequently and quickly crushed by the Iraqi military. Those accused of conspiracy against the government were arrested and some were never seen again.

 

Be thankful you didn't live in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's reign, cause if you did and spoke even one word against the government. They'd cut your head off.

 

What I want to ask you is would you let a monster like this stay in power?

 

 

This gives you a brief recent history of the conflict; further details are numerous to put on here.

 

Oil may have been an objective in this conflict, and to be honest a legitimate reason for military action (to a certain extent; the purpose for a military these days is not only to defend the homeland but to defend that country's interests. If that means defending/and or taking the oil, then it is a legitimate objective for action) although frowned upon. Aside from that, you need to know that it's not only President Bush that wanted this invasion. The guy that really wanted to invade was Vice President Cheney. When President Bush was being interviewed about his account of the 9/11 attacks, VP Cheney immediately put the blame on Iraq and urged an immediate invasion. Even President Bush was surprised and said "we'll deal with Iraq later, the real enemy is al-Qaeda." Don't forget President Clinton who wrote an executive order for a regime change in Iraq, this wasn't Bush's idea, it was Clinton's. Although he did little to do good on his own order. Whether you like it or not, a lot of people are still breathing today because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is the West went into these two conflicts without having a plan for what to do after the main hostilities had ceased. They have now been drawn into a long term battle with the enemy, which they have no chance of outright victory.

 

Seeing all these Arab countries rising up and ousting their tyrant rulers, makes me think it could have happened in Iraq now, if Saddam was still there. The West just could have supplied air support, as in Libya.

 

Too many lives have been lost, for very little gain !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing all these Arab countries rising up and ousting their tyrant rulers, makes me think it could have happened in Iraq now, if Saddam was still there. The West just could have supplied air support, as in Libya.

 

As I stated earlier. It did. The rebellion against Saddam was predominantly comprised of Shia muslims in Iraq in the central to southern parts of the country where the population are mostly Shia; this took place immediately after Iraqi forces withdrew from Kuwait. Their revolt was quashed because although they asked for foreign aid, particularly from NATO (mostly western powers, they went unanswered. They honestly believed that we (the West) would come to their aid. Reluctantly the then Bush administration decided to not prolong the conflict and withdraw US forces immediately (ironically what you want now). In Operation: Iraqi Freedom, most of the support for the invasion came from most Iraqi citizens, especially the minority Shia, as they only now are receiving the help they desperately needed over a decade before.

 

A separate and longer rebellion was taking place in northern Iraq by Kurdish rebels fighting for an independent state; these rebels received no help from foreign nations until the beginning of Operation: Iraqi Freedom.

 

During and after Operation: Desert Storm in 1991, NATO established a No-Fly-Zone over northern Iraq and a huge chunk of southern Iraq. If Iraqi war planes were airborne in these zones, they would be engaged by British and American birds patrolling these regions. Roughly around 1996-1997, President Clinton launched numerous cruise missile attacks against various Iraqi military installations. Sound familiar?

 

(By the way, the Clinton administration was the very administration who chose not to lend military aid to stop the genocide in Rwanda because they did not want another incident to occur as it did in Somalia a year before: Black Hawk Down. The UN lacked the manpower, equipment or will to stop the killings.)

 

---

Learn from history and don't make the same mistake twice. What NATO is doing in Libya now is exactly what they should've done better in Iraq 20 years ago. Yes a No-Fly-Zone (air support) was established, yes Iraqi military buildings/installations were bombed, but no support was given to the very Iraqi people that wanted to overthrow Saddam and his murderous Ba'ath party.

Edited by sirbenedictvs
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ðикто никогда не Ñумел завоевать ÐфганиÑтан.

 

"No one ever has managed to conquer Afghanistan." Afghanistan is one of the hardest if not the hardest country to control, no one since the Mongol Empire has ever effectively controlled Afghanistan. Having said that, a coalition of foreign forces fighting an enemy that isn't even native themselves will have a very, very hard time winning. It isn't impossible but they have to be ready to stay the long haul

 

Maybe some ppl who wonder about why no one since the mongol descendants (the Timurids, i think) has managed to control Afghanistan should ask themselves what their methods were. Medieval generals were rarely hampered by funny ideas about ethics and morals.

 

The MEANS to win are there. The nations fighting there now just lack the necessary attitude about fighting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With as many troops as we have in Afghanistan right now, I would say that it should be fairly...easy to conquer Afghanistan. However, that's not what we are there to do. We are there to simply train Afghani troops on how to guard their country, and to set the innocent people free. We are also there to make sure "9/11" does not happen again.

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

^Karen, In a way, I can relate these wars to Vietnam, and then again, I can't. Yes, we have been in those countries for "x" amount of years. But on the same token, we are accomplishing something, unlike Vietnam where we basically accomplished nothing at all. We have the main mission done (get rid of Saddam Hussein.) Now, our mission is to establish democracy and to train Iraqi and Afghani troops so this kind of thing does not happen again.

 

I am afraid that training the iraqi and others will turn against the american army. You never know what will happen in these countries, unless you are a prophet who is told by God what will happen in the future. That would be great of course, but there are too many wars in the world, and yes terrorists are a threat. These are things you/me/us/all don't have the power to control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid that training the iraqi and others will turn against the american army. You never know what will happen in these countries, unless you are a prophet who is told by God what will happen in the future. That would be great of course, but there are too many wars in the world, and yes terrorists are a threat. These are things you/me/us/all don't have the power to control.

 

That's pretty much what the Allies did after WWII, although Germany and Japan were not allowed to have actual militaries, paramilitary forces (police included) were trained by the occupying forces. Germany in particular as the West German forces were trained by the British and Americans.

 

It definitely is a risk undertaken by the coalition forces; what you do need to know is their motives. Do they have hostile intent to the coalition for any reason at all? With the amount of weapons and training given to the mujahideen by the Americans back in the 1980's, many would assume that these weapons and expertise are being used by the Taliban against the ISAF. This is true, but the majority is being used by friendly forces such as the Northern Alliance who have been fighting against the Taliban well before the intervention of the international community.

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...