Iraq and Afghanistan-different ideas

brianthebard

Why is it that the coverage and criticism of the Iraq war has been almost wholly negative, whereas there's hardly anyone giving out about the war in Afghanistan? Obviously the taliban weren't a nice group of people, but they weren't the one's that attacked America. Also, that war has been going on for 7 wars to Iraq's 5, so timewise its been even more of a disaster. But there doesn't seem to be the same emphasis on Afghanistan from the Presidential hopefuls, from the media, or anyone else. thoughts?

wes

Well, the war in Afghanistan was done with the international community, as opposed to unilaterally as in Iraq.

Also, remember Iraq was built on lies and the Taliban were protecting Bin Laden. So the war in Afghanistan is seen as legitimate war.

Gobán Saor

Do people who oppose the war in Iraq believe the morally correct thing would have been to leave Saddam and his sons and cronies in power?

A simple yes or no will suffice:D:D:D

Just wondering - can't quite get my head around it

wes

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Do people who oppose the war in Iraq believe the morally correct thing would have been to leave Saddam and his sons and cronies in power?

Going to war was clearly the wrong way to handle Saddam. The rather large mess that the Anglo/American axis has made, has shown that there war of aggression, has been a complete failure in there stated aims.

Quick question to you then, do you think the millions of refugee's and the over a million dead, still make a war based on looking for imaginary WMD's (the original given reason), was a good idea?

Also, seeing as the war was actually about looking for non-existent WMD's, how can you say that it was about removing Saddam?

Also, what do you say about the constantly changing reason for the war? Its a bit odd isn't it.

Also, do you think it was ok for the West to sell him chemical weapons (maybe it was the components), to gas Iranians and the Kurds? Also, why was the west ok with that?

Gobán Saor wrote: »

A simple yes or no will suffice:D:D:D

Nope, will answer how I want to. The question doesn't necessarily need a yes or a no.

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Just wondering - can't quite get my head around it

I can't get my head around how people still support the Anglo/American axis's idiocy (a million dead, millions of refugee's) that led to an illegal war of aggression and why they aren't demanding the criminals involved are brought to justice.

djpbarry

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Do people who oppose the war in Iraq believe the morally correct thing would have been to leave Saddam and his sons and cronies in power?

I would have thought the "morally correct" thing to do would have been not to arm him in the first place.

nacho libre

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Do people who oppose the war in Iraq believe the morally correct thing would have been to leave Saddam and his sons and cronies in power?

A simple yes or no will suffice:D:D:D

Just wondering - can't quite get my head around it

Do you believe it was morally correct for America to support him in the eighties by shipping him weapons.
Do you believe it was morally correct for America to sustain various dictators throughout the last fifty years. I can't get my head around it if you seek to justify them doing either.

Fratton Fred

I believe it was right to get rid of Saddam, but in hindsight the war was the wrong way to go about it. Saddam had to go, but the war is as much a sign of the UN's ineffectiveness as it is any war mongering attitudes of the US and UK (and Spain, Australia, Poland etc etc), Jesus, look at Darfur.

Maybe there are one million dead, but how many are the coalition killing and how many have been killed in the civil war that followed. Everyone is very quick to blame the US or Britain, but what about the extremists that are putting car bombs in Market Squares, I don't hear any condemnation of their actions, (but they are Muslims so we daren't critcise them)

As for Afghanistan, it's simple in my book. For years the leftie pressure groups were demanding that action be taken against the Taliban because of the way they treated women, now it has happened they can't really complain.

djpbarry

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Saddam had to go, but the war is as much a sign of the UN's ineffectiveness as it is any war mongering attitudes of the US and UK (and Spain, Australia, Poland etc etc)...

The UN is rather ineffective at times because it is, in general, viewed with contempt by the world's only superpower.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Everyone is very quick to blame the US or Britain...

And rightly so.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

...but what about the extremists that are putting car bombs in Market Squares, I don't hear any condemnation of their actions...

They're all a bunch of bloodthirsty ****tards too. Happy now?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

For years the leftie pressure groups were demanding that action be taken against the Taliban because of the way they treated women, now it has happened they can't really complain.

Let's not forget that the Taliban received masses of funds and arms from the US in the 80's.

I don't want to sound like I'm blaming the US for all the world's ills; I'm not. However, had the US not meddled in the affairs of Afghanistan and Iraq in the not-too-distant past, then it is quite likely that neither of these wars would have been fought.

wes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe there are one million dead, but how many are the coalition killing and how many have been killed in the civil war that followed. Everyone is very quick to blame the US or Britain, but what about the extremists that are putting car bombs in Market Squares, I don't hear any condemnation of their actions, (but they are Muslims so we daren't critcise them)

The US/UK caused the mess, so share a huge amount of blame. They screwed up the "reconstruction" big time and there actions helped spark the civil war off. You know stuff like firing the well trained army and leaving a lot of angry young men without jobs and therefore money to feed there families.

At a bare minimum the reconstruction, is an example of criminal incompetence of the highest order.

Then theres the fact that they invaded for oil as opposed to humanitarian reasons, the fact they have done very little for refugee's (Jordan and Syria have taken in the majority).

As for the terrorists, there scum, no doubt about it. The difference in this thread is that no one has defended them, but someone was trying to defend the US/UK and hence the response your seeing.

Also, lets not forget mercenaries hired by the US/UK axis that seem to have a habit of killing civilians and are above the law.

CPT. SURF

djpbarry However, had the US not meddled in the affairs of Afghanistan and Iraq in the not-too-distant past, then it is quite likely that neither of these wars would have been fought.

To say the US was meddling in Afghanistan is too basic and sweeping of a statement. The Russians were killing, raping, and pillaging that country to death. The refugee camps full of thousands of Afghans in Pakistan at the time are quite infamous actually. The Russians treated the Afghans like animals.

Yes the US supported and gave arms to the Islamic rebels who fought and defeated the Russians (Communists). Mostly anti-aircraft stuff. Remember this is just post Cold War and the US would support anyone who was anti-communist. There are many examples of this in Latin America. Chile, El Salvador, etc.

The problems started when the Russians were defeated and the US just left what remained of Afghanistan to rot. The country slipped back into the dark ages and the armed religious zealots took over. The Taliban was born. If the US had kept its commitment and supported creating a new infrastucture for Afghanistan it would probably have developed into a more modern country.

A much more complex situation than just meddling.

ART6

I have a friend in Moscow who was a major general in the Russian army during their attempt to get control of Afganistan. It's not something he talks about much, and the Russians at the time were not trying to impose democracy on a country that had no concept of it. All of that was at a time when the Americans and Russians were using small countries and peoples as their bullets so that they could avoid sending ICBMs at each other. Between them they created the Taliban. If ye sow the whirlwind, so shall ye reap anyone?

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

The US/UK caused the mess, so share a huge amount of blame. They screwed up the "reconstruction" big time and there actions helped spark the civil war off. You know stuff like firing the well trained army and leaving a lot of angry young men without jobs and therefore money to feed there families.

I'm not convinced there wouldn't have been violence regardless of how Saddam was deposed. Just look at the Balkans for an example of what happens when a strong central authority over an artificial country vanishes, without any needs of external invasion. The Iraq invasion just accelerated the process a bit. Yes, there were still some daft mistakes made, such as the disbanding of the Army you mention, but to say that the US caused the civil strife isn't quite accurate. It's not as if they actively tried to set the one off against the other.

Then theres the fact that they invaded for oil as opposed to humanitarian reasons, the fact they have done very little for refugee's (Jordan and Syria have taken in the majority).

They're trying to get the refugees back into Iraq. If the refugees feel safer in Jordan or Syria, there's not much that can be done otherwise.

Also, lets not forget mercenaries hired by the US/UK axis that seem to have a habit of killing civilians and are above the law.

I don't know about the UK, but that loophole in the US law (Civilians contracted by State Dept were out of jurisdiction, civilians contracted by DoD could be) has since been fixed. A State-Dept civilian contractor is currently facing court-martial for an alleged murder comitted earlier this year.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not convinced there wouldn't have been violence regardless of how Saddam was deposed. Just look at the Balkans for an example of what happens when a strong central authority over an artificial country vanishes, without any needs of external invasion. The Iraq invasion just accelerated the process a bit. Yes, there were still some daft mistakes made, such as the disbanding of the Army you mention, but to say that the US caused the civil strife isn't quite accurate. It's not as if they actively tried to set the one off against the other.

I never said they did it on purpose, but that what happened in Iraq was an example of criminal incompetence. There actions directly caused the current mess, for example hiring foreign contractor, instead of the already available educated work force. The "reconstruction", is just one stupid mistake after the other.

Your right there would been violence, but the US/UK actions made it a hell of a lot worse.

Manic Moran wrote: »

They're trying to get the refugees back into Iraq. If the refugees feel safer in Jordan or Syria, there's not much that can be done otherwise.

Give money to Syria and Jordan to help the refugee's for one. Take in more themselves. There is a hell of lot they can do.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't know about the UK, but that loophole in the US law (Civilians contracted by State Dept were out of jurisdiction, civilians contracted by DoD could be) has since been fixed. A State-Dept civilian contractor is currently facing court-martial for an alleged murder comitted earlier this year.

Good to hear that has changed then. I was wrong about that.

Fratton Fred

djpbarry wrote: »

The UN is rather ineffective at times because it is, in general, viewed with contempt by the world's only superpower.
I don't want to sound like I'm blaming the US for all the world's ills; I'm not. However, had the US not meddled in the affairs of Afghanistan and Iraq in the not-too-distant past, then it is quite likely that neither of these wars would have been fought.

wes wrote: »

The US/UK caused the mess, so share a huge amount of blame. They screwed up the "reconstruction" big time and there actions helped spark the civil war off. You know stuff like firing the well trained army and leaving a lot of angry young men without jobs and therefore money to feed there families.

At a bare minimum the reconstruction, is an example of criminal incompetence of the highest order.

Then theres the fact that they invaded for oil as opposed to humanitarian reasons, the fact they have done very little for refugee's (Jordan and Syria have taken in the majority).

As for the terrorists, there scum, no doubt about it. The difference in this thread is that no one has defended them, but someone was trying to defend the US/UK and hence the response your seeing.

Also, lets not forget mercenaries hired by the US/UK axis that seem to have a habit of killing civilians and are above the law.

Lets face it, the UN is owned by the US so I guess it thinks it can do what it likes. The fact that half the world hides behind them probably, in their eyes, negates the need to care what we think.

I'm not defending the actions of the US or the UK, that is not possible and not desireable from my point of view. I do feel that a large part of the problem is that different factions have seized the opportunity to satisfy their blood/power lust and people conveniently forget this because they are more interested in having a go at America.

You have both made very simple summations of the two, very diffeent, situations and ended up blaming the US which in the case of Afghanistan is very unfair.

Can someone explain to me why the US had to invade Iraq to secure oil, this has always confused me. Surely they could just buy it like they do from Saudi, UAE etc.

djpbarry

CPT. SURF wrote: »

Yes the US supported and gave arms to the Islamic rebels who fought and defeated the Russians (Communists). Mostly anti-aircraft stuff. Remember this is just post Cold War and the US would support anyone who was anti-communist. There are many examples of this in Latin America. Chile, El Salvador, etc.

The problems started when the Russians were defeated and the US just left what remained of Afghanistan to rot. The country slipped back into the dark ages and the armed religious zealots took over.

Ok, so the Soviets (not sure why it was necessary to stress that they were communists) AND the US ****ed up Afghanistan; better?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You have both made very simple summations of the two, very diffeent, situations and ended up blaming the US which in the case of Afghanistan is very unfair.

You don't think the US deserves any blame for the current situation in Afghanistan?

Victor

CPT. SURF wrote: »

The Russians treated the Afghans like animals.

Substantially true. The Afghans also treated Afghans like animals. They still do.

Yes the US supported and gave arms to the Islamic rebels who fought and defeated the Russians (Communists). Mostly anti-aircraft stuff.

Substantially false.

The war was between the mujahideen and the Afghan government, backed directly by the USSR. Russia didn't exist as an independent state at the time.

The mujahideen did not 'win' the war - the Soviets withdrew. The war continued between the mujahideen and the Afghan government, with the mujahideen gaining the upper hand, but never outright victory. Eventually, in-fighting set in. As is the Afghan tradition.

The mujahideen were receiving 20,000 tonnes per year of surplus from Egypt and Isreal (originally owned by Egypt or Syria, Soviet made) financed by the Americans and Saudis and transported via Pakistan. Most of it was small arms, not "anti-aircraft stuff".

The Soviet objective was not communism, but strategic - they wanted what they have wanted for nearly 200 years - direct access to the Indian Ocean.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not convinced there wouldn't have been violence regardless of how Saddam was deposed. Just look at the Balkans for an example of what happens when a strong central authority over an artificial country vanishes, without any needs of external invasion.

I mostly agree. However, Iraq 1992 was very different from Iraq 2002, with much stronger regional and tribal structures being implement - the 2003 invasion say no need to 'invade' Kurdistan.

The Iraq invasion just accelerated the process a bit. Yes, there were still some daft mistakes made, such as the disbanding of the Army you mention, but to say that the US caused the civil strife isn't quite accurate.

It was an enabler, not a bona fide cause.

It's not as if they actively tried to set the one off against the other.

Divide and conquer was a factor. They were quite willing to use Shia militia to go after Ba'athists and vice versa.

wes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You have both made very simple summations of the two, very diffeent, situations and ended up blaming the US which in the case of Afghanistan is very unfair.

I didn't blame the US (soley) for the trouble in Afghanistan, just Iraq.

As for Afghanistan, the current situation is due to the Taliban, Pakistan, the Soviets and the yes the US shares some responsibility too.

Manic Moran

As for Afghanistan, the current situation is due to the Taliban, Pakistan,

There's a Pakistani Army officer in my class. Sometime he says the darndest things... "As far as Osama bin Laden.. does he exist? I don't know..."

Give money to Syria and Jordan to help the refugee's for one. Take in more themselves. There is a hell of lot they can do.

The US is pouring blood and treasure into the country of Iraq, more so than any other country that I'm aware of, and you say this isn't enough?

It's the old 'give a man a fish, teach a man to fish' argument. Given that the US can directly affect the domestic Iraqi situation, which is a relatively unusual position for refugee situations, does it really make sense to put the effort and expense into Iraqis who aren't even in the country any more? Put the effort and money into fixing Iraq, the refugee problem is solved. Put it into the refugees, and you're solving nothing.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

There's a Pakistani Army officer in my class. Sometime he says the darndest things... "As far as Osama bin Laden.. does he exist? I don't know..."

That is a very odd thing to say.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US is pouring blood and treasure into the country of Iraq, more so than any other country that I'm aware of, and you say this isn't enough?

Not even close to enough. The US/UK made a pretty damn big mess and its there responsibility to clean it up. No one made the US/UK invade Iraq, its there own fault.

Basically, you broke it, you bought it.

Also, the US/UK throwing money at the situation means less than nothing. Most of it goes to foreign (US/UK) contractors, who don't do the job right and charge a hell of a lot of money to do it. The money basically goes to Bush's corporate buddies. Just imagine if the US/UK hired locals to do the work instead and all the money went to the Iraqi people? Instead it goes to US/UK corporations. So when you say the US/UK are spending a lot of money, so what? Its goes into the coffers of US or UK companies.

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's the old 'give a man a fish, teach a man to fish' argument. Given that the US can directly affect the domestic Iraqi situation, which is a relatively unusual position for refugee situations, does it really make sense to put the effort and expense into Iraqis who aren't even in the country any more? Put the effort and money into fixing Iraq, the refugee problem is solved. Put it into the refugees, and you're solving nothing.

Why not do both? There are people suffering due to the US/UK not doing there job right, the people who fled are the US/UK responsibility.

Again, the US/UK decided to invade, so its there mess and is there fault.

If it costs a lot of money, well thats the problem for the US/UK. They shouldn't have engaged in an war of aggression looking for non-existent WMD's.

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

Not even close to enough. The US/UK made a pretty damn big mess and its there responsibility to clean it up. No one made the US/UK invade Iraq, its there own fault.

Basically, you broke it, you bought it.

Which is why I support the continued US presence there. I think it would be a bit immoral to just up and quit.

Also, the US/UK throwing money at the situation means less than nothing. Most of it goes to foreign (US/UK) contractors, who don't do the job right and charge a hell of a lot of money to do it. The money basically goes to Bush's corporate buddies. Just imagine if the US/UK hired locals to do the work instead and all the money went to the Iraqi people?

They do hire locals to do the majority of the work. You think American contractors are going to be willing to go to a construction site in downtown Mosul with a bulldozer or welding torch? Arguably, the use of local contractors is what leads to some shoddy construction results, although one must also blame the MNF supervision, or lack therof. Of the various works going on in my AO (water supplies and schools, mainly) only Iraqis were used: We know that it puts money in the economy, people who are working aren't people who are blowing each other up, and it's cheaper labour anyway. Yes, much of the money passes through the US-based corporations who are tasked with the administration of the projects, but that's far from saying that the money for services and materials do not end up in the local Iraqi economy.

Why not do both? There are people suffering due to the US/UK not doing there job right, the people who fled are the US/UK responsibility.

There's only so much money going around, and needs to be prioritised. This is a common problem for governments. "Sure, we'd like to fund healthcare and education and defence and transportation all to the levels they need..."

NTM

Suff

America has suffered from both wars, it's image has been drastically damaged due to all the lies and the "Changing excuses" that came out of the current administration.... it will be a hell of a job to fix it and there's no fast solution.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which is why I support the continued US presence there. I think it would be a bit immoral to just up and quit.

From what I can see the US/UK are doing more harm than good. I would love to see the US/UK turn things around in Iraq, but I don't see it happening.

I personally don't want to see the US/UK fail, but it really looks like they already have.

Manic Moran wrote: »

They do hire locals to do the majority of the work. You think American contractors are going to be willing to go to a construction site in downtown Mosul with a bulldozer or welding torch? Arguably, the use of local contractors is what leads to some shoddy construction results, although one must also blame the MNF supervision, or lack therof. Of the various works going on in my AO (water supplies and schools, mainly) only Iraqis were used: We know that it puts money in the economy, people who are working aren't people who are blowing each other up, and it's cheaper labour anyway. Yes, much of the money passes through the US-based corporations who are tasked with the administration of the projects, but that's far from saying that the money for services and materials do not end up in the local Iraqi economy.

The vast majority of the cash ends up in the hands of the contractors. Everything I have read indicates this and the fact that the like of haliburton are seeing massive profits from the war.

Also, if the contractors are doing a bad job, why aren't they fired? The whole things smacks of mismanagement from the top down.

Manic Moran wrote: »

There's only so much money going around, and needs to be prioritised. This is a common problem for governments. "Sure, we'd like to fund healthcare and education and defence and transportation all to the levels they need..."

NTM

The US has the money. Its just needs to spend it more wisely rather than flushing it down the toilet.

Better management could really turn things around. With any luck the new US president regardless of who it is, will do a better job in that regard.

Suff

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which is why I support the continued US presence there. I think it would be a bit immoral to just up and quit.

"a bit immoral" !!!! ...destroying the infrastructure, over 1 Million people dead and the counrty would need over 20 years to get back to where it was before the war .....and you use the word immoral!!!!
The damage is done, sorting this mess/ Nightmare is not a simple task and leaving the country is the easy way for the states to take and I'm SURE they'll do it within a year or two.

They do hire locals to do the majority of the work. You think American contractors are going to be willing to go to a construction site in downtown Mosul with a bulldozer or welding torch? Arguably, the use of local contractors is what leads to some shoddy construction results, although one must also blame the MNF supervision, or lack therof. Of the various works going on in my AO (water supplies and schools, mainly) only Iraqis were used: We know that it puts money in the economy, people who are working aren't people who are blowing each other up, and it's cheaper labour anyway. Yes, much of the money passes through the US-based corporations who are tasked with the administration of the projects, but that's far from saying that the money for services and materials do not end up in the local Iraqi economy.

It doesn't matter, if there's no peace the people will not work and spend money trying to revive a dead economy. All the Iraqi refugees have no intention of return to a troubled country. They have setteled in thier host country and can only envisage a return if Iraq is "safe" and "thriving" which is something only could be found in their dreams.

There's only so much money going around, and needs to be prioritised. This is a common problem for governments. "Sure, we'd like to fund healthcare and education and defence and transportation all to the levels they need..."

We all know the amount of money that got spent on Iraq and the war...honestly it can Create a new country! ...think of it this way; an inconpetant administration can only deliver bad decisions.

Manic Moran

Suff wrote: »

"a bit immoral" !!!! ...destroying the infrastructure, over 1 Million people dead and the counrty would need over 20 years to get back to where it was before the war .....and you use the word immoral!!!!

You'd use...?

The damage is done, sorting this mess/ Nightmare is not a simple task and leaving the country is the easy way for the states to take and I'm SURE they'll do it within a year or two.

I know, and I'm not happy about it, but that's what the Democrats seem to want, and they're most likely to win the election, so what can you do?

It doesn't matter, if there's no peace the people will not work and spend money trying to revive a dead economy.

It's a bit of a vicious circle. Much of the violence is caused by people with no jobs, and no other source of income than to turn to being paid for violence or to banditry. The thinking is that if you can get them jobs, they'll not be as discontented, and the 'pool' of people willing to continue the violence will decrease.

NTM

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote: »

I know, and I'm not happy about it, but that's what the Democrats seem to want, and they're most likely to win the election, so what can you do?

Oh that's it, blame the democrats for the Iraq mess!

Red Hand

Manic Moran wrote: »

I know, and I'm not happy about it, but that's what the Democrats seem to want, and they're most likely to win the election, so what can you do?

Well, the reason that so many people would be voting Democrat is because the current administration doesn't seem to have any idea how to do a job properly. You might as well be burning taxpayer's money.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

I know, and I'm not happy about it, but that's what the Democrats seem to want, and they're most likely to win the election, so what can you do?

To be fair, the democrats are screwed either way. They stayed there screwed, they leaves there screwed. Hell I am surprised they want the presidency at all.

CPT. SURF

Originally posted by Victor

The mujahideen did not 'win' the war - the Soviets withdrew.

The difference being what exactly? They shot down the Russians choppers and they left. Those who shot them down took over the country.

Originally posted by wes

Ok, so the Soviets (not sure why it was necessary to stress that they were communists) AND the US ****ed up Afghanistan; better?

It was necessary to mention, not stress as you say, that they were communists because that is the only reason the US got involved. Surprised you did not know that.

Besides, I never said that it was the Soviets who were solely responsible for the mess. I was referring to another poster who put the whole situation down to US "meddling", which I felt was too simplistic of a view. I said it was a combination of the actions from both sides. You then go on to make the EXACT point I made in my post and ask me if it is better than my post!

Hilarious!!!

wes

CPT. SURF wrote: »

Originally posted by wes

Ok, so the Soviets (not sure why it was necessary to stress that they were communists) AND the US ****ed up Afghanistan; better?

It was necessary to mention, not stress as you say, that they were communists because that is the only reason the US got involved. Surprised you did not know that.

Besides, I never said that it was the Soviets who were solely responsible for the mess. I was referring to another poster who put the whole situation down to US "meddling", which I felt was too simplistic of a view. I said it was a combination of the actions from both sides. You then go on to make the EXACT point I made in my post and ask me if it is better than my post!

Hilarious!!!

The quote you attribute to me, was posted by djpbarry.

CPT. SURF

Sorry wes, my bad. Thats why I was surprised, I normally like your posts

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote: »

Oh that's it, blame the democrats for the Iraq mess!

I don't.

But I do accuse them of trying to solve the mess the wrong way. I don't think 'Get out' is the correct course of action.

NTM