|BFC|Icenflame
Member
+11|6715|Cape Town - South Africa
Ok so I was thinking this forum has people from all over the world Europe the America's etc. I just want your views on the subject has America gone to far by invading two countries and occupying them? All Americans out there what are your views on the War are you freeing the people of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or do you think your government has alterior motives?

If its about freedom and democracy why hasn't America ever invaded an African country to implement democracy? Why didn't America send troops to stop the massacre in Rwanda in 1994 where over 800,000 people where massacred, I suppose when there is no financial gain in the country why help them out hey! It suppose the administration just said its Africa who cares... But i bet it would be a different story if there where large American oil interests in that country. Or not ? you tell me... I'm not jumping to conclusions just asking some questions thats all...
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6820|SE London

The US don't like getting involved in Africa. There are many worse dictators there than Saddam. But the wars America wages are not about liberation, but about establishing American footholds (military, financial and political ) in the Middle East. The same reason that the US are still involved in NATO so they can have their say in European security issues (Pentagon has always moved to block plans for a European defence initiative, so don't expect anything like in EF anytime soon), to extend US control around the globe.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6794
This is going to become a MASSIVE flame war. I can feel it in my bones. It's good to have an African perspective. I may post views later on.
|BFC|Icenflame
Member
+11|6715|Cape Town - South Africa
CameronPoe ! I  hope not I don't intend it to be at all! it's mealy to gain the views of others thats all I hope people do not misinterpret it to much
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6903|NT, like Mick Dundee

This one is gonna be big. I can see the World Domination Pic turning up again too...
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
mavrick 3399
EA GAMES PATCH EVERYTHING
+102|6780|Doncaster UK
this is a very good topic and if its not flamed in there should be some good debates going on.

when it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its a hard decision if i agree with them or not, the war on Afghanistan came about because of 9/11 and America needed that war its people need to see that something was being done to the people that caused 9/11. but now a couple of years on and we are just occupying Afghanistan and not much as come from it.

when i first heard that America where going back into Iraq my first thoughts were fantastic lets find them WMDs so they cant use them, lets get the job done this time, lets get rid of Saddam.
the news company's were making out that we were going to do so much for Iraq, freeing its people, helping them, and so on.

but then NO WMDs were found and we are still there today fighting and occupying the country,and you here of so many bad things happening to the people of Iraq.

so now i am thinking that going into these wars was a bad idea.
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6940|Little Rock, Arkansas

|BFC|Icenflame wrote:

Ok so I was thinking this forum has people from all over the world Europe the America's etc. I just want your views on the subject has America gone to far by invading two countries and occupying them? All Americans out there what are your views on the War are you freeing the people of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or do you think your government has alterior motives?

If its about freedom and democracy why hasn't America ever invaded an African country to implement democracy? Why didn't America send troops to stop the massacre in Rwanda in 1994 where over 800,000 people where massacred, I suppose when there is no financial gain in the country why help them out hey! It suppose the administration just said its Africa who cares... But i bet it would be a different story if there where large American oil interests in that country. Or not ? you tell me... I'm not jumping to conclusions just asking some questions thats all...
When you phrase a question in a certain way, you are framing the way in which you want it answered. Beyond that, I'll say a few things.

First, alterior is not the same as ulterior, which is the word for which you were shooting. Actually, I don’t think it’s a word at all.

Next, I really don't think its fair to say that we invaded and occupied Afghanistan. We sent forces there, to be sure, and still have forces there, but I think its more fair to say that we were supporting an armed insurrection than invading. And we are definitely not occupying Afghanistan. We have troops there operating, to be sure, but they have their own government, with whom we are cooperating.

Now Iraq, yeah, we invaded and occupied it. Really though, if our commanders had their way back in '90, we would have done it then. This has been a long time coming. Was the invasion about oil? That’s a complicated question that has no black and white answer. Sure, we want to ensure the stability of the region because its oil exports are essential to both our country and our allies. Is it a good thing that we are freeing people of oppression and fear? Sure, but its not so simple as that either.

The Saudis and the Israelis are the US's two closest allies in the region, and neither of them could be described as fans of Saddam and his merry men. They saw him as a necessary evil, though, as he was a buffer between them and Iran, which is without a doubt the biggest threat in the region. If they thought that he could be removed and replaced with a representative democracy, it was in both of their interests, and that's why they supported the move.

Was it about freeing the Kurds from evil tyranny? Well, I personally think that the war was justified for that reason alone. The Kurds in the north want nothing more than to break free from the fake country that is Iraq and have their own little state, that they govern and defend, so that they don’t have to worry about a repeat of the little ethnic reprisals of the middle 90’s. That, by the way, worries our allies in Turkey, which has a substantial Kurdish minority. So why did Turkey support the war? Well, when you choose an unknown over a known evil, that evil has to be pretty bad.

Do I think that the US has done a bang-up job in Iraq? No, not at all. There have been numerous missteps, plenty of blunders to be sure. That being said, there is a school of thought that says the more foreign-born fighters that we kill or capture in Iraq, the fewer there are to attack the evil empires of the west.

Is the overall gain worth the price we have paid? There is no way, CNN’s instant worldview notwithstanding, for us to tell right now. 20, 30, 40 years down the line we may be able to make some judgments, but not now. Right now, its time to focus on short term goals, like making sure the people of Iraq can trust their own police forces.

And I’m so tired of hearing about how the US should have gone in to save the Rwandans from each other. Where was the rest of the world? All I hear from countries like France, Spain, German, etc is how the US shouldn’t try to be the policeman of the world. Where was the Bundeswar? Where was the French Foreign Legion? Where was the Australian Army? We all saw the same images on CNN. We all knew what was happening? Why didn’t anyone else step up and stop it?

You can’t have it both ways kids. Either you want the US to act as the world’s policeman, or you don’t. Pick one and stick with it, but when something goes wrong, don’t just stand there and wring your hands and say, why, mister president, why?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6794

blisteringsilence wrote:

|BFC|Icenflame wrote:

Ok so I was thinking this forum has people from all over the world Europe the America's etc. I just want your views on the subject has America gone to far by invading two countries and occupying them? All Americans out there what are your views on the War are you freeing the people of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or do you think your government has alterior motives?

If its about freedom and democracy why hasn't America ever invaded an African country to implement democracy? Why didn't America send troops to stop the massacre in Rwanda in 1994 where over 800,000 people where massacred, I suppose when there is no financial gain in the country why help them out hey! It suppose the administration just said its Africa who cares... But i bet it would be a different story if there where large American oil interests in that country. Or not ? you tell me... I'm not jumping to conclusions just asking some questions thats all...
When you phrase a question in a certain way, you are framing the way in which you want it answered. Beyond that, I'll say a few things.

First, alterior is not the same as ulterior, which is the word for which you were shooting. Actually, I don’t think it’s a word at all.

Next, I really don't think its fair to say that we invaded and occupied Afghanistan. We sent forces there, to be sure, and still have forces there, but I think its more fair to say that we were supporting an armed insurrection than invading. And we are definitely not occupying Afghanistan. We have troops there operating, to be sure, but they have their own government, with whom we are cooperating.

Now Iraq, yeah, we invaded and occupied it. Really though, if our commanders had their way back in '90, we would have done it then. This has been a long time coming. Was the invasion about oil? That’s a complicated question that has no black and white answer. Sure, we want to ensure the stability of the region because its oil exports are essential to both our country and our allies. Is it a good thing that we are freeing people of oppression and fear? Sure, but its not so simple as that either.

The Saudis and the Israelis are the US's two closest allies in the region, and neither of them could be described as fans of Saddam and his merry men. They saw him as a necessary evil, though, as he was a buffer between them and Iran, which is without a doubt the biggest threat in the region. If they thought that he could be removed and replaced with a representative democracy, it was in both of their interests, and that's why they supported the move.

Was it about freeing the Kurds from evil tyranny? Well, I personally think that the war was justified for that reason alone. The Kurds in the north want nothing more than to break free from the fake country that is Iraq and have their own little state, that they govern and defend, so that they don’t have to worry about a repeat of the little ethnic reprisals of the middle 90’s. That, by the way, worries our allies in Turkey, which has a substantial Kurdish minority. So why did Turkey support the war? Well, when you choose an unknown over a known evil, that evil has to be pretty bad.

Do I think that the US has done a bang-up job in Iraq? No, not at all. There have been numerous missteps, plenty of blunders to be sure. That being said, there is a school of thought that says the more foreign-born fighters that we kill or capture in Iraq, the fewer there are to attack the evil empires of the west.

Is the overall gain worth the price we have paid? There is no way, CNN’s instant worldview notwithstanding, for us to tell right now. 20, 30, 40 years down the line we may be able to make some judgments, but not now. Right now, its time to focus on short term goals, like making sure the people of Iraq can trust their own police forces.

And I’m so tired of hearing about how the US should have gone in to save the Rwandans from each other. Where was the rest of the world? All I hear from countries like France, Spain, German, etc is how the US shouldn’t try to be the policeman of the world. Where was the Bundeswar? Where was the French Foreign Legion? Where was the Australian Army? We all saw the same images on CNN. We all knew what was happening? Why didn’t anyone else step up and stop it?

You can’t have it both ways kids. Either you want the US to act as the world’s policeman, or you don’t. Pick one and stick with it, but when something goes wrong, don’t just stand there and wring your hands and say, why, mister president, why?
I pick option c) the west stays the fuck out of the affairs of others bar giving them financial aid if/when required. No pre-emptive wars. If something does happen, respond in an appropriate, considered and measured manner.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-10 02:39:48)

blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6940|Little Rock, Arkansas

CameronPoe wrote:

I pick option c) the west stays the fuck out of the affairs of others bar giving them financial aid if/when required.
So does that mean that if the, say, Liberians decide to start slaughtering all of the residents of, say, Sierra Leone, you don't want the west to get involved? That you won't be taking part in the protests for the US to move in and defend the helpless slaughterees?

What if its the Ukrainians slaughtering Maldovians?  Bulgarians slaughtering Romanians? You're cool with that?
|BFC|Icenflame
Member
+11|6715|Cape Town - South Africa
thanks I was going for Ulterior... You have some good points I think that the media has also not helped the situation the way the US Administration used the media. True about Rwanda and other countries stepping in... If we going to see USA as a police force you have a point.

But invading a country without the consent of the UN? I thought the whole point of the UN was to make sure nations couldn't go AWOL.

I'll look at the way I phrase my questions more carefully, I might come across as  an American bashing hypocrite but I'm not I just want to try and understand some of the actions taken by the administration. Ok so Afghanistan isn't technically invaded but there is a large occupational force there, and have you noticed the strategic value of Afghanistan?

It boarders with China. Now I can see you convenient it would be to be occupying a country that nabour's a country that is communist.

There are ulterior motives I mean I bet the US government never thought they would have to remove a man they helped put into power? Same situation with Osama and CIA money. It seems that you tent to get bitten by the mouths that you feed occasionally.
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6892

mavrick 3399 wrote:

the war on Afghanistan came about because of 9/11 and America needed that war its people need to see that something was being done to the people that caused 9/11. but now a couple of years on and we are just occupying Afghanistan and not much as come from it.
And maybe 9/11 was needed because of all the innocent civilians who were bombed in Lebanon by US-Israeli alliance the last time round... at least that is what the stated motive was on the Bin Laden tape of dubious origin...

God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.
It's a clearly visible cycle of violence, but like many of these things it is hard to realise when you are trapped by it. 

I think 9/11 was an excuse for war in Afghanistan rather than the primary motive, which was getting the pipeline built and installing a government capable of providing protection for that pipeline.  Despite what some of the posters on this forum will tell you, the pipeline is still going ahead, and even though the more obvious gain to the US through Unocal has been withdrawn, the United States has considerable interests in the Asian Development Bank, and perhaps more than is publically known as the bank is under investigation for corruption.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntc61043.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Development_Bank

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-08-10 02:52:01)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6794

blisteringsilence wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I pick option c) the west stays the fuck out of the affairs of others bar giving them financial aid if/when required.
So does that mean that if the, say, Liberians decide to start slaughtering all of the residents of, say, Sierra Leone, you don't want the west to get involved? That you won't be taking part in the protests for the US to move in and defend the helpless slaughterees?

What if its the Ukrainians slaughtering Maldovians?  Bulgarians slaughtering Romanians? You're cool with that?
Pretty much. What business is it of ours? I certainly don't think it's our place to intervene in the manner we have been doing all last century and this one - rolling in with all guns blazing, laying down the law of the land, implanting some imperfect democracy that'll fall apart in a couple of years and rolling back out again because the leader elected when the action was taken is booted out of office due to the unpopularity of his actions. The west, contrary to popular opinion, doesn't permanently occupy the sole patch of moral high ground, doesn't have the stomach to carry through with its 'well meaning' plans (the public begin to ask why western lives are expended for the sake of some backyard banana republic) and doesn't respect the fact that these countries of which you speak are all evolving countries: most western countries have had their civil wars as part of their evolution process and have emerged as largely civilised nations (after many centuries of strife). We can't force other less developed countries to play catch-up - it's just not possible and will blow up in our faces (literally).

Providing humanitarian aid and helping evacuate persecuted people should be as far as it goes.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-10 02:52:40)

Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6903|NT, like Mick Dundee

As far as Afghanistan goes, it is no longer a US military operation. In the last month I believe it has been turned over to NATO and is now a NATO joint operation.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6839|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

I pick option c) the west stays the fuck out of the affairs of others bar giving them financial aid if/when required. No pre-emptive wars. If something does happen, respond in an appropriate, considered and measured manner.
Let me tell you there are plenty of "westerners" who agree. The problem is the guys starting this topic complains about us going into another country and then complains about us not going into another country all in one breathe. It's typical. It's the nature of being at the top. There will be hate no matter what you do.

Most Americans would love to just worry about America and our friends. (Psst Americans I found the secret, do your best to do whats right and don't worry about it.) Don't lose sleep over things you can't change.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-10 02:55:19)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6940|Little Rock, Arkansas
Well, with Osama and Saddam both, you use the old axiom "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sometimes it comes back to bite you in the ass, sometimes not.

Here's the real question when it comes to the UN. How can you respect the actions of a body that forms a Human Rights Commission and lets the People's Republic of China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Syria, Libya, Vietnam, and Sudan sit on it?

The idea of the UN is fantastic. I love it. The problem is that the idea, much like communism, is better on paper than in real life. When it comes right down to it, should the US really care what South Africa and Trinidad have to say about actions it takes to protect itself and its interests?

I totally agree that the geographic location of Afghanistan is part of the reason we went to work there. The main reason, though, is that was the country that was giving aid in the form of training camps and arms to Osama and his homies. Of that point, there can be no debate. We killed and captured way, WAY more al quaeda operatives in Afghanistan than we did in Iraq.
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6940|Little Rock, Arkansas

CameronPoe wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I pick option c) the west stays the fuck out of the affairs of others bar giving them financial aid if/when required.
So does that mean that if the, say, Liberians decide to start slaughtering all of the residents of, say, Sierra Leone, you don't want the west to get involved? That you won't be taking part in the protests for the US to move in and defend the helpless slaughterees?

What if its the Ukrainians slaughtering Maldovians?  Bulgarians slaughtering Romanians? You're cool with that?
Pretty much. What business is it of ours? I certainly don't think it's our place to intervene in the manner we have been doing all last century and this one - rolling in with all guns blazing, laying down the law of the land, implanting some imperfect democracy that'll fall apart in a couple of years and rolling back out again because the leader elected when the action was taken is booted out of office due to the unpopularity of his actions. The west, contrary to popular opinion, doesn't permanently occupy the sole patch of moral high ground, doesn't have the stomach to carry through with its 'well meaning' plans (the public begin to ask why western lives are expended for the sake of some backyard banana republic) and doesn't respect the fact that these countries of which you speak are all evolving countries: most western countries have had their civil wars as part of their evolution process and have emerged as largely civilised nations (after many centuries of strife). We can't force other less developed countries to play catch-up - it's just not possible and will blow up in our faces (literally).

Providing humanitarian aid and helping evacuate persecuted people should be as far as it goes.
Don't we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves? To lead them down the path to the glowing nirvana that is a representative democracy?

I really don't disagree with you, I'm just playing devil's advocate. What do our friends from across the pond think about this plan? We just pull out, and make western europe go pacify warring villagers for a couple of decades.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6839|132 and Bush

blisteringsilence wrote:

We killed and captured way, WAY more al quaeda operatives in Afghanistan than we did in Iraq.
Source please.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
|BFC|Icenflame
Member
+11|6715|Cape Town - South Africa
I think 9/11 was an excuse for war in Afghanistan rather than the primary motive, which was getting the pipeline built and installing a government capable of providing protection for that pipeline.  Despite what some of the posters on this forum will tell you, the pipeline is still going ahead, and even though the more obvious gain to the US through Unocal has been withdrawn, the United States has considerable interests in the Asian Development Bank, and perhaps more than is publically known as the bank is under investigation for corruption.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntc61043.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Development_Bank
Why is it that everytime we talk of America invading counries oil always seems to turn up... Interesting very interesting I never knew that. Time will only tell! And it was quite a clever idea for ol GW to declare WAR on terrorism that way US can keep a terrorist for an indefinate amount of time in prison because he's a POW.

Brilliant thinking if u ask me dodgy but smart !
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6794

|BFC|Icenflame wrote:

I think 9/11 was an excuse for war in Afghanistan rather than the primary motive, which was getting the pipeline built and installing a government capable of providing protection for that pipeline.  Despite what some of the posters on this forum will tell you, the pipeline is still going ahead, and even though the more obvious gain to the US through Unocal has been withdrawn, the United States has considerable interests in the Asian Development Bank, and perhaps more than is publically known as the bank is under investigation for corruption.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntc61043.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Development_Bank
Why is it that everytime we talk of America invading counries oil always seems to turn up... Interesting very interesting I never knew that. Time will only tell! And it was quite a clever idea for ol GW to declare WAR on terrorism that way US can keep a terrorist for an indefinate amount of time in prison because he's a POW.

Brilliant thinking if u ask me dodgy but smart !
The brilliant thing, the stroke of genius if you like, is to have coined the term 'The War On Terror'. I mean it can literally be applied to almost anything the US administration disagrees with. Don't like Cuba? War on Terror. Help out Israel? War on Terror. So on and so forth. The even more ingenious thing is that this concept can last forever because the enemy: 'Terror' - can never be defeated and has been and always will be a part of human civilisation from the year dot to the end of time.
|BFC|Icenflame
Member
+11|6715|Cape Town - South Africa
Kmarion - Let me tell you there are plenty of "westerners" who agree. The problem is the guys starting this topic complains about us going into another country and then complains about us not going into another country all in one breathe. It's typical. It's the nature of being at the top. There will be hate no matter what you do.
I'm sorry was there a genoside happening in Afganistan? did 800,000 people get killed when the world trade centre buildings came down. My only point is that the American Government is extremaly bias if they do not have a finacial interest in that particular country then that partcular country is worth nothing or is of no interest.

I'm not flaming Americans at all please I'm just questioning the actions of your government of late.

Ok i understand the need to hunt the perportrators of the 9/11 fiasco granted. As other forum memers stated with the Iraq situation first it was WMD's then there are no WMD's so its the Freedom of the people. Nice switch when last did we hear anything about Osama? has the US government found him?

This is one person we are talking about has been able to hide from the United States Government for how many years now?

All i'm saying is some actions are a bit strange and more should be read into them.
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6940|Little Rock, Arkansas

Kmarion wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

We killed and captured way, WAY more al quaeda operatives in Afghanistan than we did in Iraq.
Source please.
http://cageprisoners.com/

Plus articles from the NYT that I can't link to, as they're too old. If I can find the fulltext somewhere I'll copy and paste it.
|BFC|Icenflame
Member
+11|6715|Cape Town - South Africa
Thanks for the link.
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6903|NT, like Mick Dundee

blisteringsilence wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

We killed and captured way, WAY more al quaeda operatives in Afghanistan than we did in Iraq.
Source please.
http://cageprisoners.com/

Plus articles from the NYT that I can't link to, as they're too old. If I can find the fulltext somewhere I'll copy and paste it.
I think Kmarion is after a source saying that you actually caught Al'Queda operatives in Iraq, which according to that rather good source you provided none were.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6820|SE London

Kmarion wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

We killed and captured way, WAY more al quaeda operatives in Afghanistan than we did in Iraq.
Source please.
Why would you need a source for that, it's obvious. There weren't any Al Quaeda operatives in Iraq, not when the war began anyway.

The US need a more even foreign policy.

blisteringsilence wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I pick option c) the west stays the fuck out of the affairs of others bar giving them financial aid if/when required.
So does that mean that if the, say, Liberians decide to start slaughtering all of the residents of, say, Sierra Leone, you don't want the west to get involved? That you won't be taking part in the protests for the US to move in and defend the helpless slaughterees?

What if its the Ukrainians slaughtering Maldovians?  Bulgarians slaughtering Romanians? You're cool with that?
International aggression is another story entirely. Something like the 1st Iraq war was totally justified because Iraq invaded Kuwait and the UN intervened. US led forces to counter international aggression are ALWAYS a good thing (at least I can't think of an example where they haven't/wouldn't have been/be).

People always go on about Saddam killing Kurds, but if that were a reason for invasion why didn't the US do something about it at the time.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6913|Canberra, AUS
It'll be difficult to find a source.

I mean, the Defence Dept. is hardly going to go round shouting 'THERE AIN'T ANY AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ AS FAR AS WE KNOW'.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard