Invasiontastic (fightfightfight)

HeyYou

Ois&#237 wrote: »

They not only endangered their own, but also the citizens of other nations coerced into fighting the war and endless numbers of civilans who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This kind of reckless behaviour is NOT a new thing for the US. Look at Gulf War I, the Vietnam Conflict etc.

Sure, that's all true. My point was that they didn't do it as a training excercise, remember? On the forcing moral opinions thing, that's only partially true, and certainly not to the same extent as what happened in Vietnam. Back then, Communism was perceived to be a threat worthy of a massive invasion, a perception based on paranoia alone, as was the case with the entire Cold War. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had material goals i.e. removal of the Taliban/ capture of Bin Laden and ousting of Saddam and securing (non-existent) WMDs. Both had US security interests at heart.

That's not foisting your opinions on anything else, unless you think the way the Taliban and Saddam conducted themselves was: a) appropriate and resonable and b) supported by their own people. I think most of the world finds the restriction of women's rights, harbouring of terrorists and state-owned drug industries morally abhorrent; both occurred in Afghanistan. I doubt anyone would sanction gassing large ethnic minorities and murdering all political opponents; both occurred in Iraq under Saddam. Getting rid of acknowledged evils in society does not constitute cultural imperialism, it constitutes common sense.

The problem is that the way the US goes about achieving these aims tends to be counterproductive. Not having a plan for Iraq has crippled the country. The best thing the US could do to better US-Muslim relations is to stop selling arms to the Israelis, but we all know that's not going to happen.

Oh, and where is this edit button? And what does it do?

Oisín Collins

HeyYou wrote:

....unless you think the way the Taliban and Saddam conducted themselves was: a) appropriate and resonable and b) supported by their own people.....

Then why, I ask, have there been marches through the streets of Baghdad, calling for Saddams release, and his return to government?

I agree, he wasn't a good person, but saying that he's not what Iraq wants is just wrong. They'd certainly prefer their dictator back to the current american puppet regime.

halenger

HeyYou wrote:

Oh, and where is this edit button? And what does it do?

Hmm... I wonder what the "Ban this user" button does. It's right under your name. Hmmm... Think I'll click it and see.

Grow up.

Ois&#237 wrote: »

Then why, I ask, have there been marches through the streets of Baghdad, calling for Saddams release, and his return to government?

That sorta crap was always going to happen. I'm not saying the Americans are doing much good in there but supporters of Sadam will always get people behind them. Especially people who have lost someone to an American bomb or lost their home or some form of (political/other) power. A dictatorship is easier for them anyway. It's like when Communism fell, there were many people (especially older ones) who just didn't know what to do with themselves. It will take many new generations before this isn't still very prominent.

HeyYou

Halenger, that wasn't a sarcastic question. I've never seen an edit button, nor do I know what it would be used for. Why assume the worst?

HeyYou

Scratch that, just noticed it now, sorry. I'm not in the habit of reading my own posts after I've posted them, my mistake.

Barry Aldwell

halenger wrote:

supporters of Sadam will always get people behind them. Especially people who have lost someone to an American bomb or lost their home or some form of (political/other) power

Also, while it's fine for us to sit here talking about how we think things should be, not everyone has Sky News and CNN to see the big picture with. Your average Iraqi can be told that the Americans come to destroy Islam/spit on the Koran/turn the entire country into the 52nd state(51 being Afghanistan), and they'd believe it

The yanks may be trigger happy, but they don't go around gunning people down for fun (repeats of the massacares in Vietnam are not wanted). They respond when fired upon, with their main asset, massive firepower. Saddam kept the country under control with a standard "my stick is bigger than your stick" approach ("killing is negotiation", if you will), by murdering the families of individual dissenters, and gassing any towns he took a dislike to. Frankly, it's all your average arab with an AK under his bed understands, and it's all the yanks can do to try to keep the country under control (not the gassing part, of course).

TalkISCheap

Surely we cannot allow Dubya to be the sole barometer of Western Morality? If we are going to deem something "morally unnacceptable"/"evil" then it should be done under the auspices of the UN, by a vote. This would give it some legitimacy at least.

America is responsible for textbook breaches of human rights (right to a fair trial, right to a lawyer, right to freedom of speech/the press/opinion, rights of "life, liberty, and property" until a judge decides otherwise etc. etc.)
These rights are in the US Constitution and/or UN Charter for Human Rights. Just look at Guantanemo Bay. This is largely ignored by the main western powers. The Shannon stopovers (perpetrated by the good ol' US of A) are a clear breach of neutrality under the Hague Convention of 1907. In fact under international law all American troops arriving in Ireland en route to Iraq should have been interned for the duration of the war.

America itself (as has rightly been said) is the one country which would it would invade for breach of human rights laws and rules of war. At the least trade sanctions would apply. The UN should be the sole power with the right (or responsibility...) to correct tyrranical regimes, human rights abuses ot the suspicion of WMD.

IMO. :rolleyes:

(and to the inevitable assailants of this post, i will gladly back any of the above up with relevant links. Just PM me.)

Oisín Collins

Hear hear.

*taps table*

halenger

TalkISCheap wrote:

In fact under international law all American troops arriving in Ireland en route to Iraq should have been interned for the duration of the war.

"OMFG invade Ireland, quick. Erm... terrorists, yeah that's what we'll call them *coughs* I mean they are. Nothing to do with interning our troops, honest!"

Shoulda, coulda, woulda... The world would look mighty different if countries really stoop up to America. I'm not saying better, I'm saying it would look might different. It would more than likely get drastically worse before (if ever) it got better.

LiamD

How about we all just be friends?

StupidLikeAFox

Why Cant We be Friends - Reel Big Fish

EDIT: Oh ****, wrong thread, nvm

HeyYou

TalkISCheap wrote:

Surely we cannot allow Dubya to be the sole barometer of Western Morality? If we are going to deem something "morally unnacceptable"/"evil" then it should be done under the auspices of the UN, by a vote. This would give it some legitimacy at least.

America is responsible for textbook breaches of human rights (right to a fair trial, right to a lawyer, right to freedom of speech/the press/opinion, rights of "life, liberty, and property" until a judge decides otherwise etc. etc.)
These rights are in the US Constitution and/or UN Charter for Human Rights. Just look at Guantanemo Bay. This is largely ignored by the main western powers. The Shannon stopovers (perpetrated by the good ol' US of A) are a clear breach of neutrality under the Hague Convention of 1907. In fact under international law all American troops arriving in Ireland en route to Iraq should have been interned for the duration of the war.

Unfortunately, the UN is completely useless now. The situation with Resolution 1441 proved that; it allowed the French to say in a previous resolution that they were entirely opposed to what was happening in Iraq under Saddam and would support intervention, but then to veto any resolution which would actually do anything about it. Moral hypocrisy, anyone? It's not as if they haven't been responsible for dodgy stuff themselves, the situation in the Ivory Coast saw them intervene unilaterally. I don't think we need a UN vote to declare genocide and oppression as "evil", it's there in the Declaration of Human Rights.

Which is why its so annoying that America keep shooting themsleves in the foot with stupid human rights breaces in Baghram Bay, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Any moral stance they take on anything is undermined entirely by the fact that they break their own rules to secure their nation when they see fit, and that's doing them no favours. Neither is their stance on the Israel-Palestine thing. If they could just stop being stupid they could do a lot of good.

DubTony

Barry Aldwell wrote:

The United States Military is one of the greatest armies to ever exist, in the field of all arms open warfare. It does not need to "test it's tactics" by invading some random country. In addition, they would be better off invading the state of Nevada than invading Afghanistan, if they want experience for Iraq. Afghanistan is a mountainous country, where the main mode of mass transport has to be helicopter. Iraq, on the other hand, is the complete opposite: A flat, featureless land, a commander's wet dream, where mechanised infantry is queen. The tactics required for both countries are completely different

OK, my original post had "test our tactics" just like that, in inverted commas. So take from that what you will. Absolutely the tactics are different for both countries. Maybe I should have said "give the troops a run out" but now you'll probably come back with some stuff about not using the same troops in Iraq.
Or maybe it had something to do with seeing how good their bombers were. They hadn't used them for a while.

The state of Nevada doesn't have a border with Iran. Also, Afghanistan has an oil pipeline running down it's eastern border. If there are any pipelines in Nevada they are well protected and controlled and not at much risk from Muslim extremists.

The point being made here is that there was no solid reason to go to war in Afghanistan, other than to overthrow a not so friendly (for friendly, see useful) regime, and secure a prescence in a country neighbouring Iran.

Don't let the propoganda fool you. All is not what it seems to be.

Tony

halenger

DubTony wrote:

Or maybe it had something to do with seeing how good their bombers were. They hadn't used them for a while.

They've been bombing Iraq/other places daily for years. Iraq since the first Gulf War at least. Sorry... Not bombing. "Patrolling" the no-fly zone (i.e. bombing). We just don't hear about it because it's not "news worthy" enough.

Raphael

Afaik ever since the US invaded Korea they haven't not been at war. So I doubt they needed much practice

HeyYou

DubTony wrote:

The point being made here is that there was no solid reason to go to war in Afghanistan, other than to overthrow a not so friendly (for friendly, see useful) regime, and secure a prescence in a country neighbouring Iran.

That's just not true. Don't you accpet that the Taliban were harbouring Muslim extremists? Don't you accept that those extremists were responsible for 9/11? I think that amounts to a pretty good reason myself.

Have you looked at the numbers of troops in Afghanistan? They're token, at best, and many were withdrawn when Iraq started. It hardly counts as a presence at all.

Undergod

DubTony wrote:

The point being made here is that there was no solid reason to go to war in Afghanistan, other than to overthrow a not so friendly (for friendly, see useful) regime, and secure a prescence in a country neighbouring Iran.

The Afghanistan-Iran border is in the arse end of nowhere. It's hardly that relevant since they had perfectly serviceable bases in Kuwait prior to Gulf 2.0, and a fleet in the Persian Gulf.

Barry Aldwell

Undergod wrote:

The Afghanistan-Iran border is in the arse end of nowhere. It's hardly that relevant since they had perfectly serviceable bases in Kuwait prior to Gulf 2.0, and a fleet in the Persian Gulf.

Plus 3 Airborne/Air Assault Divisions, capable of dropping a very big force pretty much anywhere, and the entire Marine Corps, capable of mounting an amphibious operation that would make Normandy 1944 look like a day at the beach. The yanks can invade Iran without using Afghanistan. However, their occupation of Afghanistan offers them a blocking position, where they can capture anyone they don't like, who is trying to flee Iran

Undergod

Makes sense.

DubTony

halenger wrote:

They've been bombing Iraq/other places daily for years. Iraq since the first Gulf War at least. Sorry... Not bombing. "Patrolling" the no-fly zone (i.e. bombing). We just don't hear about it because it's not "news worthy" enough.

Tossing a few tomahawks a couple of times a month hardly constitutes bombing. What was done on Afghanistan (and afterwards on Baghdad) - now that's bombing. The war in Afghanistan was the most high tech bombing campaign in history. Nice to get it right before you attack a country that might have the capacity to fight back.

Hey You wrote:

Don't you accpet that the Taliban were harbouring Muslim extremists? Don't you accept that those extremists were responsible for 9/11? I think that amounts to a pretty good reason myself.

Have you looked at the numbers of troops in Afghanistan? They're token, at best, and many were withdrawn when Iraq started. It hardly counts as a presence at all.

The Taliban themselves are the most extreme of Muslim extremists and were harbouring bin Laden and his group. The Taliban, and Osama bin Laden, received the support of the US when the Soviets invaded. In fact, the Taliban were practically installed by the US.
After Sept. 11, because the Taliban was no longer friendly, Afghanistan was bombed further into the stone age than it already was. All in an effort to get one man? I don't think that amounts to a fairly good reason at all.

There are about 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan. Definitely, a token. But they are already there, so it's not an issue to add more.

Look at it this way. Iraq borders Iran. Afghanistan borders Iran. Both countries were formerly friendly to US interests. Both countries became unfriendly to the US. Remember that Saddam claimed that the Americans said they wouldn't respond if he tried to annex Kuwait. But that was while he was at war with Iran. Since he tried to take Kuwait after the Iran-Iraq war he was no longer keeping an enemy of America busy and so (with the invasion of Kuwait) had become a liability. Iran was just recovering and so wasn't a threat at the time. Iran has now rebuilt and needs to be watched. Hence the invasion of Iraq and a military presence in 2 of Irans neighbours. What better way to "keep an eye" on someone than from their neighbours garden.

Tony

halenger

DubTony wrote:

Tossing a few tomahawks a couple of times a month hardly constitutes bombing.

The U.S and Britain changes tack in response to overwhelming international disapproval of Operation Desert Fox. They abandoned public saber-rattling and began waging a low-profile war of attrition. In Jan. 1999, weekly, sometimes daily, bombings of Iraqi targets within the northern no-fly zone began. The air strikes were incorporated into Operation Northern Watch, a British-U.S. air mission based in Turkey that in 1997 began to monitor the northern no-fly zone.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraq1.html
How reliable that site is I have no idea but it's not the first time I've heard about daily bombings. True that was since '99 so maybe I heard/remembered incorrectly originally.

DubTony

Apologies for being a bit flippant with the few missiles a month thing. The Afghan campaign was the biggest since Gulf War 1. (Unless I missed an invasion somewhere )

Tony

Barry Aldwell

DubTony wrote:

(Unless I missed an invasion somewhere )

While to you an invasion may be a bunch of pretty explosions on a tv screen, to those involved, the commanders organising it, the soldiers fighting in it, and the civilians caught in it, it is a much more serious business. One where people are maimed for life, or die. Please, do not make light of the death and suffering of others, some of whom volunteer for it, and some of whom are unlucky enough to be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Oisín Collins

Jesus, calm down General!

No one is saying that a war is in any way something to be taken lightly so spare us the propoganda would you?

I would think we all know that in wars, people die. Some people die for a cause they believe in and, as you say, others die because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. Others die because of incompetent officers and bad decisions, it's all a part of war, and it sucks.

However, until people respect the sovereignty of other nations, and the rights of their citizens, it seems war will continue in the world.

StupidLikeAFox

Barry Aldwell wrote:

While to you an invasion may be a bunch of pretty explosions on a tv screen, to those involved, the commanders organising it, the soldiers fighting in it, and the civilians caught in it, it is a much more serious business. One where people are maimed for life, or die. Please, do not make light of the death and suffering of others, some of whom volunteer for it, and some of whom are unlucky enough to be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

How long have you been preparing that and waiting to say it?

HeyYou

DubTony wrote:

The Taliban themselves are the most extreme of Muslim extremists and were harbouring bin Laden and his group. The Taliban, and Osama bin Laden, received the support of the US when the Soviets invaded. In fact, the Taliban were practically installed by the US.
After Sept. 11, because the Taliban was no longer friendly, Afghanistan was bombed further into the stone age than it already was. All in an effort to get one man? I don't think that amounts to a fairly good reason at all.

Look at it this way. Iraq borders Iran. Afghanistan borders Iran. Both countries were formerly friendly to US interests. Both countries became unfriendly to the US. Remember that Saddam claimed that the Americans said they wouldn't respond if he tried to annex Kuwait. But that was while he was at war with Iran. Since he tried to take Kuwait after the Iran-Iraq war he was no longer keeping an enemy of America busy and so (with the invasion of Kuwait) had become a liability. Iran was just recovering and so wasn't a threat at the time. Iran has now rebuilt and needs to be watched. Hence the invasion of Iraq and a military presence in 2 of Irans neighbours. What better way to "keep an eye" on someone than from their neighbours garden.

Tony

The search for bin Laden wasn't quite incidental, but the destruction of al Qaeda was the main aim, not the recovery of one man. They failed to get bin Laden, but al Qaeda lost a lot of ground. I just have two questions:

1) Do you accept the right of a country (any country) to defend itself when attacked?

2) Do you conceed that al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11, and have made threats regarding their aim to destroy western civilisation?

If you accept those two questions, which must be answered "yes" by any non-biased person, then the Americans had every right to invade. It's as simple as that, and the international community agreed.

The Iran thing is just speculation; you can't cite that as a definitve reason any more than I can say it definitely wasn't a reason. Doesn't it seem more likely that the US invaded to deal with the newly manifested threat of global terrorism? It doesn't matter one bit that the US installed the Taliban, except as a pointer of their poor judgement in the past. Installing a regime gives no responsibility to stand by it if it turns hostile, especially of it's a danger to your own security. There are easier ways to watch Iran than to mobilise entire divisions of troops, and they have them at their disosal already.

DubTony

HeyYou wrote:

They failed to get bin Laden, but al Qaeda lost a lot of ground. I just have two questions:

Don't fool yourself that al Qauda lost a lot of ground. We're talking about terrorist cells here. They are everywhere. Surely Bali and Madrid showed that.
You actually ask 3 questions

1) Do you accept the right of a country (any country) to defend itself when attacked?

Every country has the right to defend itself from it's attackers. Your question would probably be more apt if it asked - Does a country have the right to attack whoever it feels like in order to defend itself when attacked?

2) Do you conceed that al Qaeda were responsible for 9/11, ?

There is no doubt that al Qaeda were responsible for the attacks.

and have made threats regarding their aim to destroy western civilisation

They have continuously made threats against the west and carried them out.

If you accept those two questions, which must be answered "yes" by any non-biased person, then the Americans had every right to invade. It's as simple as that, and the international community agreed.

We're discussing a subject here, not whether I am biased or non-biased. As for the international community agreeing, there was no UN mandate to invade Afghanistan. America used the Nike style of diplomacy. They just did it.

The Iran thing is just speculation; you can't cite that as a definitve reason any more than I can say it definitely wasn't a reason.

Of course it's speculation. I seem to have to explain in detail. I don't accept that Afghanistan was invaded just to get al Qaeda. There were other motives

Doesn't it seem more likely that the US invaded to deal with the newly manifested threat of global terrorism?

No. Invading a country to depose it's regime has little to do with dealing with terrorism. Libya was attacked during Reagan's era but never invaded. Afghanistan was attacked during Clinton's era but never invaded. Both countries were attacked on the basis that they harboured terrorists.

When the IRA blew up Canary Wharf, would the British have been justified in invading Ireland? No, that'd be nonsense. The Taliban .... now read carefully .... used to be friendly to the US. They then harboured terrorists. When those terrorists began to attack Americans the US retaliated until, after September 11 they decided to wipe out the place and install a new regime. One that would be friendly. The old regime wouldn't have allowed American troops on it's soil. So they went in anyway and now hold a prescence.

Am I repeating myself?

Installing a regime gives no responsibility to stand by it if it turns hostile, especially of it's a danger to your own security.

Correct. But if they turn nasty they probably won't let you put your troops there when you need to. So it might be a good idea to get rid of them.

There are easier ways to watch Iran than to mobilise entire divisions of troops

No argument there. But why not have a couple of thousand of them there anyway - just in case. That'd be - just in case "we'd like to invade Iran and install a friendly regime."
Answer this. North Korea is on the list of the "evil" countries. If North Korea had been harbouring al Qaueda, would the US have attacked it? Would North Korea have been a pushover like Afghanistan was?

Tony

Barry Aldwell

Ois&#237 wrote: »

However, until people respect the sovereignty of other nations, and the rights of their citizens, it seems war will continue in the world.

To be honest, in a large portion of the world, political power flows from the barrel of a gun, as Mao said. While we have a nice system of elected government set up, where we solve problems with words, in their world there are power hungry people with guns, who will do anything to get power, including starving their own people to death (Somalia 1993, Operation Restore Hope, anyone?). I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's how the world is. While these people continue to exist, war, famine and suffering will endure.

Oisín Collins

Thats.......exactly what I just said!

Basically anyway

Bazookatone

I'm no fan of Bush, his Administration, or his "I'm going to over simplify every situation" attitude, however, while we all criticise America, we forget that the reason we have that luxury is,
1) America's industrial might allowed the Allies to win WW2 (combined with the USSR's huge sacrifice of life)

2) The stationing of American military forces in Europe and Asia deterred the USSR from invading.

3) The economies of Europe (esp. Ireland) are COMPLETELY dependent on the American economy. If Intel, HP, Phizer etc moved out tomorrow, this country would be poorer than Somalia.

4) We need that oil just as much as the U.S., make no mistake, if the oil dried up, we'd be up **** creek without a paddle.

I try to differentiate between my dislike of Bush and a dislike of America. Really, Americans are no worse than we are, they seem ignorant and selfish, but the truth is that their situation gives them a distorted perpective, and we have a distorted perspective of them. If we were in the same situation, we would act no differently.