PDA

View Full Version : What are we still doing in Afghanistan??



Bluesky
03-14-2013, 12:29 PM
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/14/u-s-troops-bracing-for-violence-after-afghan-presidents-disgusting-anti-american-tirade/

Karzai is accusing the US of colluding with the Taliban in their suicide missions in order to keep the country unstable.

Wow! Talk about biting the hand that feeds him. I cannot believe we are still wasting lives and money in that country.

Anapeg
03-14-2013, 06:56 PM
I thought it had been by now.

Hans
03-14-2013, 09:54 PM
The same question can be asked when we look at Iraq, another freed country that is extremely happy to be free.
I think the question is : when are we going to learn to either stay out of these countries, or when are we actually going to be willing to clean them up properly regardless of the political outfall?

RWGR
03-18-2013, 06:53 PM
The same question can be asked when we look at Iraq, another freed country that is extremely happy to be free.
I think the question is : when are we going to learn to either stay out of these countries, or when are we actually going to be willing to clean them up properly regardless of the political outfall?

Still feel Iraqi's long for Saddam back?

Wow, Hans...just, WOW

Hans
03-18-2013, 08:13 PM
Not so much long for him back, as waiting for them to overthrow Saddam on their own.

If they would have overthrown the regime on their own, they would have had a much better chance of forming a working country.
As it stands now, they were freed and are unable to form a coherent government due to a lack of leadership and vision.

Anapeg
03-18-2013, 09:54 PM
Not so much long for him back, as waiting for them to overthrow Saddam on their own.

If they would have overthrown the regime on their own, they would have had a much better chance of forming a working country.
As it stands now, they were freed and are unable to form a coherent government due to a lack of leadership and vision.

Do you not think their religion throws a wrench into things as well? Their church leaders want/need whatever to have so much control from government on down that achieving anything resembling a free country is sabotaged before getting off the ground.

Hans
03-18-2013, 10:25 PM
I don't believe that is a real issue, since it was like that under Saddam.
It's seems that several groups want control, none has enough power and leadership to actually accomplish anything.
Same story as Afghanistan.

Anapeg
03-19-2013, 01:59 AM
Odd. The U.S. usually installs, or backs how ever you choose to put it a leader then go back in years later and kill them. Must have been an over sight.

Hans
03-19-2013, 09:17 AM
Not so much an oversight, it's that there's nobody up to the task.

Anapeg
03-19-2013, 01:01 PM
"..........nobody up to the task."
By who's estimation?

Hans
03-19-2013, 08:54 PM
Within a few years of the invasion, Iraq spiraled into chaos, fueled by a growing insurgency and the increasingly deadly sectarian fighting between Sunnis and Shiites. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians lost their lives, with some estimates as high as 100,000.

And the divide between Sunnis and Shiites is reflected in the political stalemate generated by the increasingly authoritarian government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/10-years-iraq-invasion/story?id=18759281

It's clear there's no government in place that has proper control of the country.

The Left Sock
03-19-2013, 09:12 PM
Saddam invaded other countries for unjust reasons, had people tortured and killed, without just cause.

George W. Bush invaded other countries for unjust reasons, had people tortured and killed, without just cause.

As the years go by, and Iraq remains a living hell, it gets harder and harder to characterize one man as the 'bad' guy, and one as the 'good' guy, doesn't it?

Bluesky
03-19-2013, 11:56 PM
I don't agree with the war in either country, but I think this attempt at equivalence is ridiculous.

Anapeg
03-20-2013, 10:13 AM
You are taking umbrage with Hans and myself and our discussion or the combatants? I am unsure as to my response to your post.

Bluesky
03-20-2013, 11:04 AM
No, I am saying that the comparison of Bush with Saddam Hussein, as if their actions are morally equivalent is ridiculous.

Anapeg
03-20-2013, 11:35 AM
What was done was done for very different reasons and the attempt at comparison was,I believe, at the numbers rather than the men or their motives. God knows I have been wrong before and far be it for me to put words in Hans mouth. I still hold with the lines twixt politics and religion being so very blurred in the region any attempts at having a sane quiet future are scuttled prior to the attempt.

The Left Sock
03-20-2013, 11:57 AM
On the three points that I made, which are beyond dispute, the actions of Bush and Saddam are morally equivalent. They are precisely equal.

Unless someone wants to try and argue that Bush didn't invade Iraq under false pretenses, didn't torture people while invading Iraq, and didn't kill innocent people, for no just cause.

I'll take it as granted that people agree on those three points with regard to Saddam, although he had a better justification for invading Kuwait, than Bush did in invading Iraq.

Bluesky
03-20-2013, 04:32 PM
Precisely? LOL

The Left Sock
03-20-2013, 08:55 PM
Yes, precisely.

Point:

1. Invading other countries without just cause.
2. Have people tortured.
3. Unjust killing.

On these three points, Saddam and Bush are morally equivalent, and precisely equal.

I notice how no one attempted to paint Bush as a good guy. Interesting. Just ten years ago, people would have been ranting and raving about the morality of his actions.

Wonder what the talking points will be ten years from now?

The Voice
03-21-2013, 08:39 PM
Yes, precisely.

Point:

1. Invading other countries without just cause.
2. Have people tortured.
3. Unjust killing.

On these three points, Saddam and Bush are morally equivalent, and precisely equal.

I notice how no one attempted to paint Bush as a good guy. Interesting. Just ten years ago, people would have been ranting and raving about the morality of his actions.

Wonder what the talking points will be ten years from now?

Sockie Sockie Sockie. Wrong as usual.

We don't know how History will judge Bush's actions.

I be willing to bet He will be judged a lot less harshly than you think.

People in the press were saying some pretty nasty stuff about Lincoln when he was alive, today he is remembered as the second most important President in history.

President Bush was waging a war against Muslim Extremist's that they started.

You may not like it but I do, and so do a lot of other people.

Anapeg
03-21-2013, 10:17 PM
While vehemently disagree with the war I also disagree with sock. If held to the same standards the men in question where in so many ways operating under different criteria. Saddam did for personal gain while Bush ostensibly operated for the good of the general public of the region. We all realize it was for the good of the U.S. and assorted business but this will forever remain the elephant in the political "room".

The Left Sock
03-21-2013, 11:04 PM
"President Bush was waging a war against Muslim Extremist's that they started."

You have no idea what you are talking about. Saddam was not a 'Muslim extremist', he was an ally of the US, until he invaded Kuwait. He fought Muslim extremists, with the aid of the US, in the Iran-Iraq War.

Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States, from a Muslim extremist perspective. He posed no immediate threat to the United States, as he did not possess the WMD's that America alleged. He did not threaten war with the United States, or take any hostile action against the US.

The invasion of Iraq was a lie. It was a war crime, and many atrocities were committed by US forces while they occupied that country. What the US did in Iraq, was far worse than what Saddam Hussein did to his country.

Just because I'm in the Western World, doesn't mean I have to abandon reality, in order to preserve Western sensitivities. George W. Bush is a war criminal, and his friends profited shamelessly from the rape and pillage perpetrated on the nation of Iraq.

History will not be kind to those involved in this outrage, and misuse of their power.

The Voice
03-22-2013, 10:57 PM
"President Bush was waging a war against Muslim Extremist's that they started."

You have no idea what you are talking about. Saddam was not a 'Muslim extremist', he was an ally of the US, until he invaded Kuwait. He fought Muslim extremists, with the aid of the US, in the Iran-Iraq War.

Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States, from a Muslim extremist perspective. He posed no immediate threat to the United States, as he did not possess the WMD's that America alleged. He did not threaten war with the United States, or take any hostile action against the US.

The invasion of Iraq was a lie. It was a war crime, and many atrocities were committed by US forces while they occupied that country. What the US did in Iraq, was far worse than what Saddam Hussein did to his country.

Just because I'm in the Western World, doesn't mean I have to abandon reality, in order to preserve Western sensitivities. George W. Bush is a war criminal, and his friends profited shamelessly from the rape and pillage perpetrated on the nation of Iraq.

History will not be kind to those involved in this outrage, and misuse of their power.

Oh you must have missed what happened on 911.

The Left Sock
03-23-2013, 02:30 AM
Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

You must have missed that.

The Voice
03-23-2013, 10:04 AM
Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

You must have missed that.

Actually it had everything to do with 911.

911 set off the chain of events that led to the Invasion.

It also set the political mood that led to Congress approving the Invasion in the first place.

But alas I realize that you know so little about American Politics that you think Bush ordered the invasion on his own.

The Voice
03-23-2013, 10:28 AM
What the US did in Iraq, was far worse than what Saddam Hussein did to his country.

Sure if you say so.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html

The Left Sock
03-23-2013, 11:17 AM
"Actually it had everything to do with 911.

911 set off the chain of events that led to the Invasion.

It also set the political mood that led to Congress approving the Invasion in the first place."

Nothing but circular reasoning. Not a single shred of justification. You have no point.

Your position is dead in the water. No need for me to comment, as there is nothing to comment on.

BFLPE
03-24-2013, 01:09 PM
I notice how no one attempted to paint Bush as a good guy.I think he's a pretty good guy.