The War in the Middle East

[Rainstorm]

What are your thoughts of the war? Is it worth fighting? When do you foresee it ending, if ever? Pretty much, anything relating to the war.

[Sapphire]

We are doing a good thing by being out there. We are standing up for equality and peace.
If we pull out now then all the soldiers died in vain and the citizens that we are working to protect will still suffer human rights violations and risk death.

[Sage]

We are standing up for equality and peace.

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/liberate-shit.jpg

The problem with your argument is that there are human rights violations and if we 'stood up for equality and peace' everywhere, well, good fucking luck.

[Sapphire]

The problem with your argument is that there are human rights violations and if we 'stood up for equality and peace' everywhere, well, good fucking luck.
So we should sit by and do nothing?
We can't make a stand against everyone at the same time, I know that. But to do nothing at all when there are major injustices being done to people is not the way to go about life.

[Sage]

So we should sit by and do nothing?
We can't make a stand against everyone at the same time, I know that. But to do nothing at all when there are major injustices being done to people is not the way to go about life.

Because it's America's responsibility to take care of the entire world, right? There are a lot of good arguments you could be making to be in the war, but morality is not one of them. Try again.

[theOperaGhost]

Yes, we should sit by and do nothing. It's not our business. It is NOT America's responsibility to take care of the entire world and by trying to take care of the entire world, we are splitting out own country as well as becoming more and more hated by other countries. America should mind it's own damn business and stop going in to save the day like they always have done. Going in and saving the day didn't work in Vietnam, so why would it work now? This conflict can easily be compared to the Vietnam conflict. The government lied to us in both, neither can really be won, etc. Bush should have used Vietnam as a model and to realize it was stupid to liberate Iraq.

More emphasis should have been on Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden instead of ending Saddam Husein's regime.

[Sage]

More emphasis should have been on Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden instead of ending Saddam Husein's regime.

I'll agree there. I'm generally against war as a whole but I can accept that at times it's necessary- Bin Laden is a problem, Iraq however will never be at ease until it sorts it's own problems out.

[Sapphire]

Because it's America's responsibility to take care of the entire world, right? There are a lot of good arguments you could be making to be in the war, but morality is not one of them. Try again.

Yes, we should sit by and do nothing. It's not our business. It is NOT America's responsibility to take care of the entire world and by trying to take care of the entire world, we are splitting out own country as well as becoming more and more hated by other countries. America should mind it's own damn business and stop going in to save the day like they always have done. Going in and saving the day didn't work in Vietnam, so why would it work now? This conflict can easily be compared to the Vietnam conflict. The government lied to us in both, neither can really be won, etc. Bush should have used Vietnam as a model and to realize it was stupid to liberate Iraq.

More emphasis should have been on Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden instead of ending Saddam Husein's regime.I agree that the focus should have been more on Afghanistan than Iraq.

I have been talking more about Afghanistan though, btw. Atm the situation in Afghanistan is of greater concern here and so when I read the ambiguous opening post on "the war" that is what I thought of.

I actually resent the fact that you are both talking as if you are the only country out there. The UK and other NATO forces are out there too and we are there for good reasons. If we withdraw from the war then we are dismissing those reasons, dismissing the people who will only suffer more from our withdrawal and our brave men will have died for nothing at all.

I'll agree there. I'm generally against war as a whole but I can accept that at times it's necessary- Bin Laden is a problem, Iraq however will never be at ease until it sorts it's own problems out.
Since we have abolished the dictatorship that they had previously had, it is in everyones best interests that we help them gain some stability by helping them so that they can deal with their own problems.

[CaptainObvious]

America should withdraw from Iraq sooner than later. Afghanistan, however, continues to require a great deal of attention.

[Church]

I support the war, I wont be happy till every Al Queda member is either dead or in jail.

[Sage]

I support the war, I wont be happy till every Al Queda member is either dead or in jail.

Bullets and shrapnel can kill mere men, but ideas are invincible. Good luck shooting ideas.

[theOperaGhost]

I agree that the focus should have been more on Afghanistan than Iraq.

I have been talking more about Afghanistan though, btw. Atm the situation in Afghanistan is of greater concern here and so when I read the ambiguous opening post on "the war" that is what I thought of.

I actually resent the fact that you are both talking as if you are the only country out there. The UK and other NATO forces are out there too and we are there for good reasons. If we withdraw from the war then we are dismissing those reasons, dismissing the people who will only suffer more from our withdrawal and our brave men will have died for nothing at all.


Since we have abolished the dictatorship that they had previously had, it is in everyones best interests that we help them gain some stability by helping them so that they can deal with their own problems.

I understand your point. I forget that the UK is more involved in Afghanistan than the US really is (hell, we never even hear anything about Afghanistan in America). All we hear is "Iraq, Iraq, Iraq!" so this is why I automatically jumped to "the war" as referring to Iraq and not Afghanistan.

[Church]

Bullets and shrapnel can kill mere men, but ideas are invincible. Good luck shooting ideas.

Yea, so lets not shoot these fuck tards cause of course it doesn't matter if we kill them cause there ideas wont die, yea, tell that to the families of soldiers who have been killed, of Iraqi and Afghan families who had there children, siblings, or spouses killed, with all aspects of their lives controlled by these extremist.

I guess we shouldn't of fought Japan or Nazi Germany in WW II as well either huh? "Well if we kill them people will still support their ideas", yea they do, but they arnt a threat anymore are they?

[Sage]

Yea, so lets not shoot these fuck tards cause of course it doesn't matter if we kill them cause there ideas wont die, yea, tell that to the families of soldiers who have been killed, of Iraqi and Afghan families who had there children, siblings, or spouses killed, with all aspects of their lives controlled by these extremist.

Soldiers volunteer to put their lives on the line to defend their country. Yes, every death is a death too many, but that's part of the job- Soldiers die. Also, how are 'all aspects of their lives' being controlled?

I guess we shouldn't of fought Japan or Nazi Germany in WW II as well either huh? "Well if we kill them people will still support their ideas", yea they do, but they arnt a threat anymore are they?

Japan and Nazi Germany were real countries with formidable technology and powerful armies. In the case of Nazi Germany, they also had imperialistic goals to spread their reign across the world. These, my friend, are simply some radical muslims living in shacks and caves armed with shoebox bombs and poor training. That's a real threat to sovereignty.

[Church]

Soldiers volunteer to put their lives on the line to defend their country. Yes, every death is a death too many, but that's part of the job- Soldiers die. Also, how are 'all aspects of their lives' being controlled?



Japan and Nazi Germany were real countries with formidable technology and powerful armies. In the case of Nazi Germany, they also had imperialistic goals to spread their reign across the world. These, my friend, are simply some radical muslims living in shacks and caves armed with shoebox bombs and poor training. That's a real threat to sovereignty.

The life part is, the Al Queda occupy a city, you do as they say or you get a ak 47 slug in the back of your head.

And the Al Queda are a little more trained than that, they were trained to fight the Russians, so they do have some military training, they are a threat and like all threats agaisnt the US, they need to be terminated.

[Sapphire]

Soldiers volunteer to put their lives on the line to defend their country. Yes, every death is a death too many, but that's part of the job- Soldiers die.There has to be a reason for them to fight for and die for. Our soldiers are dying to protect our countries and to defend the rights of the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq. If we withdraw without seeing our goals through then what will the deaths of these brave soldiers have been for?
Also, how are 'all aspects of their lives' being controlled?Not all aspects are controlled. But there is still much to be done to improve the freedom of the Afghan people as women are still very restricted. For instance, getting an education is still just a dream for the majority of Afghanistan girls - only 30% of the women are actually literate.

Japan and Nazi Germany were real countries with formidable technology and powerful armies. In the case of Nazi Germany, they also had imperialistic goals to spread their reign across the world. These, my friend, are simply some radical muslims living in shacks and caves armed with shoebox bombs and poor training. That's a real threat to sovereignty.
You're forgetting that the devastation of 9/11 was caused by these radical muslims "armed with shoebox bombs and poor training".
And you are also turning a blind eye to the fact that they have been utilising the internet to reach out to a wider audience, that they have successfully recruited young, educated muslim men from our own countries and that they have incited these young men to detonate bombs themselves.
They are a real threat and turning a blind eye to them will result in nothing but more bloodshed of innocent citizens.

[theOperaGhost]

I believe they are more of a threat than Tim says they are. Tim, you should watch the documentary "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West." It explains how much of a threat radical Islamic people really are.

[Tiberius]

I don't agree with the War in the Middle East. It hasn't been handled it correctly. I personally think that Iraq should have been divided into two different countries. The Britsh didn't do a good job setting up those countries and ignored the cultures in the countries that they were creating. I also think that Afganistan hasn't been given enough attention and Pakistan needs to be taken care of since they likely harboring Bin Laden.

[Sapphire]

I personally think that Iraq should have been divided into two different countries.There's nothing to suggest that such action would have lessened tensions. In fact, it would probably have made things a lot worse.
Separating countries has been done a number of times but I can't think of one example where it was met with enthusiasm or even just widespread acceptance. Vietnam, Israel and Palestine, Korea and Ireland have all experienced violent conflict because some agreed with and others disagreed with the separation of their country.

The Britsh didn't do a good job setting up those countries and ignored the cultures in the countries that they were creating.The king that was appointed was chosen on points relevant to the faith and culture of the country and its people. How could they have done that if they had ignored the culture?
And don't you think that the lack of precedent with regards to true democracy has more to do with the course that politics took within the country?

[quartermaster]

Alrighty then guys, my turn.


We are doing a good thing by being out there. We are standing up for equality and peace.


If you think our governments care about “equality and peace” in the Middle East, you have another thing coming, my friend. Our governments are just as fine to support the oppressive Saudi, and before that, Iraqi regime, insofar as their existences benefit us in some way. Without a doubt, they sold the wars on the platform of protecting the people and spreading “freedom,” but that is simply not the case; Iraq and Afghanistan are strictly geopolitical, any ethical appeal is nothing but an afterthought.


I forget that the UK is more involved in Afghanistan than the US really is (hell, we never even hear anything about Afghanistan in America).

Well fortunately, you never actually forgot, as the UK is not more involved in Afghanistan than the US is; make no mistake, the UK is a major player, but they are by no means more involved than the US military is in Afghanistan. The troop numbers alone make the UK being more involved a mathematical improbability: US: 48,000, UK: 9,500


And the Al Queda are a little more trained than that, they were trained to fight the Russians, so they do have some military training, they are a threat and like all threats agaisnt the US, they need to be terminated.

They do not have any military training; they were “trained” with the goal of being an insurgent group, in camps that had no true military backing. They are, at most, paramilitary splinter groups; the running and jumping you see them doing in the “terrorist camp” videos is not legitimate military training, and is for the most part, mere propaganda. In short, they were never formally trained to fight the USSR, they were given shabby training at best.

I commonly try to put this into the scope of the Amero-Indian; as the US encroached upon the land and usurped the land of the natives in America, the natives fought back, brutally killing many American civilians in towns and cities along the frontier (one may even call the native attacks something of a “terrorist” action against civilians). Back then, the native attacks were all about capability, do not think for a second, if any had the means to do so, they would not have tried to raid and kill many people in D.C., Charleston, Chicago or New York. I would argue that terrorism is never right and is unacceptable, but I also argue that the arguments of these said groups are more than legitimate.


There has to be a reason for them to fight for and die for. Our soldiers are dying to protect our countries and to defend the rights of the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq. If we withdraw without seeing our goals through then what will the deaths of these brave soldiers have been for?

Okay, we somehow gain a tenable amount of victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, then what? It does not take a terrorist camp to design an intricate terrorist attack; all it takes is a hotel room and a determined lot of individuals with some amount of ingenuity and capital.

These wars did nothing for us but give the terrorist ideology more backing. The issue is, and this is primarily for the US now, that we did not address the salient issue involved with the attacks in the Middle East during the 1980s, 2000 and in New York in 2001. It was the issue of empire and control, above all, our intervention into the Middle East to increase our strategic and economic hegemony there. Though it makes for a great story that they attacked us for our “freedom loving ideas,” that is simply not true, they attacked us for the very reasons that they said they did, and that is intervention in the Middle East.

Until we address the real issue of empire and intervention, these wars are meaningless, and we will simply continue to have more soldiers die in vain due to our government’s stubbornness to want to continue empire, or we will simply go bankrupt (given current trends, it appears both will occur concurrently).


Not all aspects are controlled. But there is still much to be done to improve the freedom of the Afghan people as women are still very restricted. For instance, getting an education is still just a dream for the majority of Afghanistan girls - only 30% of the women are actually literate.

Yes, that is the west’s job, just “Carry the White man’s burden.” Our culture is superior to their culture, therefore we must spread our ideas and democracy to them because they are oppressed or do not know any better. That is pretty much your argument, a 21st century equivalent of “Carrying the White man’s burden,” an idea of which allowed for the US involvement and invasion of Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish-American war. The idea of “Carrying the White man’s burden” goes back to the 1893 Columbian expo in Chicago, and fueled American expansionism for over a century.

All we are seeing today are variances of the same idea: these people have inferior culture and ways, their ways are barbaric and foreign to us and thus we must spread democracy, our superior form of government, and show these people, who clearly do not know any better, the errs of their ways. It is all the same, in the end, our call for anything within their countries is an attack on their culture, and they will rightfully see it as such. If their countries gradually move towards a form of liberalism, similar to the west during the slow decline of the authoritarian nation-states of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which history’s trends show they probably will, then they will become more democratic and their countries less intrusive and oppressive, but if we believe we can change their culture and exert ourselves in such a way, then we are incorrect. They will simply see it as an attack upon their culture, and will respond accordingly, as they already have.


You're forgetting that the devastation of 9/11 was caused by these radical muslims "armed with shoebox bombs and poor training".
And you are also turning a blind eye to the fact that they have been utilising the internet to reach out to a wider audience, that they have successfully recruited young, educated muslim men from our own countries and that they have incited these young men to detonate bombs themselves.
They are a real threat and turning a blind eye to them will result in nothing but more bloodshed of innocent citizens.

Again, not addressing the salient issue involved, why are they gaining recruitment? What is making these terrorist groups so attractive? You think raids in Afghanistan can stop these people, you think their ideas can be stopped by military action and candy boxes given to local children? When they are driven by legitimate arguments, meaning western intervention and hegemony, simply bogging down our militaries in areas while only addressing one or two terrorist organizations, is not going to work.


Since we have abolished the dictatorship that they had previously had, it is in everyones best interests that we help them gain some stability by helping them so that they can deal with their own problems.

This is where we do agree, I believe that since we started the war in Iraq and destroyed what little stability they had in Afghanistan, we must now finish this job because it is in our best interest. If we do not now attempt to establish some form of stability within these countries, it could turn out to be catastrophic for our national securities. People do not forget such offenses and at this point, drawing back on empire will not remedy the situation, as such, these countries in their current states will only breed disgruntled offspring; indeed, this is a most tenuous situation.


I actually resent the fact that you are both talking as if you are the only country out there. The UK and other NATO forces are out there too and we are there for good reasons. If we withdraw from the war then we are dismissing those reasons, dismissing the people who will only suffer more from our withdrawal and our brave men will have died for nothing at all.

The UK has put a great amount of resources into the Iraqi and Afghan campaigns, so they do deserve recognition for their commitments on the ground. However, I noticed you simply avoided Deschain and theOperaGhost’s comments, just because the UK was not included in their scopes, does not mean their comments are any less poignant in the UK’s case.

Make no mistake, I do not endorse or support any terrorist groups, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are scum as far as I am concerned, but it is not because of their arguments against the West(which I think are more than legitimate), it is the ways in which they carry out their operations that I find particularly heinous. However, I believe these groups would be of no threat to us if we were not so interventionist and so supportive of the ideas of empire and control. We cannot win a war on ideas, and taking out these groups will do nothing for us, it does not address the real problems involved with terrorism at home and abroad, in fact, our wars appear to have deepened such problems.

[theOperaGhost]

I'm actually quite shocked that we have 48,000 troops in Afghanistan and I stand corrected. Once again, I know so little about what is going on in Afghanistan because it is never mentioned in the news. I know we started out in Afghanistan with a few guys from the CIA in 2001 I believe and I figured a few thousand more were there now, but I would have never guessed 48,000.

[Strength]

I consider myself far right and even I can see the war is a total waste of time, not to mention lives...

[Sage]

I consider myself far right and even I can see the war is a total waste of time, not to mention lives...

You just know something has to get done when the political right and left both agree on something.

[theOperaGhost]

You just know something has to get done when the political right and left both agree on something.

Agreed...Conservatives and liberals don't agree on how the war should be handled, but they do agree that it is not being handled properly and that something needs to be done.

[Sapphire]

If you think our governments care about “equality and peace” in the Middle East, you have another thing coming, my friend. Our governments are just as fine to support the oppressive Saudi, and before that, Iraqi regime, insofar as their existences benefit us in some way. Without a doubt, they sold the wars on the platform of protecting the people and spreading “freedom,” but that is simply not the case; Iraq and Afghanistan are strictly geopolitical, any ethical appeal is nothing but an afterthought.I don't care if it was an afterthought. We are standing up for equality and benefiting the situation for women by being in Afghanistan, regardless of whether it was the main reason at the time of the invasion or not.

Okay, we somehow gain a tenable amount of victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, then what? It does not take a terrorist camp to design an intricate terrorist attack; all it takes is a hotel room and a determined lot of individuals with some amount of ingenuity and capital.Victory is the wrong word, IMO. The "victory" will be the day when all Iraqi and Afghan people are free to live the lives they want (not the ones forced upon them because of extremist ideas) and residing in democratic countries.

These wars did nothing for us but give the terrorist ideology more backing. The issue is, and this is primarily for the US now, that we did not address the salient issue involved with the attacks in the Middle East during the 1980s, 2000 and in New York in 2001. It was the issue of empire and control, above all, our intervention into the Middle East to increase our strategic and economic hegemony there. Though it makes for a great story that they attacked us for our “freedom loving ideas,” that is simply not true, they attacked us for the very reasons that they said they did, and that is intervention in the Middle East.

Until we address the real issue of empire and intervention, these wars are meaningless, and we will simply continue to have more soldiers die in vain due to our government’s stubbornness to want to continue empire, or we will simply go bankrupt (given current trends, it appears both will occur concurrently).The situation in Afghanistan has improved since we've been there so the war is hardly "meaningless". Our intervention has seen female government officials instated and the setting up of legitimate schools for girls (though availability is poor and they are very poorly funded) to mention only a couple.

And the situation between Saudi Arabia and the USA weren't so bad and irreparable as to warrant the actions taken on 9/11.
I mean the USA wasn't attacking Saudi for it's very strict treatment of women or for any other reason as far as I'm aware.

Yes, that is the west’s job, just “Carry the White man’s burden.” Our culture is superior to their culture, therefore we must spread our ideas and democracy to them because they are oppressed or do not know any better. That is pretty much your argument, a 21st century equivalent of “Carrying the White man’s burden,” an idea of which allowed for the US involvement and invasion of Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish-American war. The idea of “Carrying the White man’s burden” goes back to the 1893 Columbian expo in Chicago, and fueled American expansionism for over a century.

All we are seeing today are variances of the same idea: these people have inferior culture and ways, their ways are barbaric and foreign to us and thus we must spread democracy, our superior form of government, and show these people, who clearly do not know any better, the errs of their ways. It is all the same, in the end, our call for anything within their countries is an attack on their culture, and they will rightfully see it as such. If their countries gradually move towards a form of liberalism, similar to the west during the slow decline of the authoritarian nation-states of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which history’s trends show they probably will, then they will become more democratic and their countries less intrusive and oppressive, but if we believe we can change their culture and exert ourselves in such a way, then we are incorrect. They will simply see it as an attack upon their culture, and will respond accordingly, as they already have.It isn't an attack on their culture. It is a quest to see that everyone's basic human rights are upheld and that dictators can't rule with an iron fist. That includes the right of those living in the West to the right to security and the right of those living in Afghanistan to security, equality and freedom.

Dictatorships tend not to fall without either a more reasonable person assuming control through death of the previous dictator or through military intervention. That's how the USSR and Nazi Germany ended.

Again, not addressing the salient issue involved, why are they gaining recruitment? What is making these terrorist groups so attractive? You think raids in Afghanistan can stop these people, you think their ideas can be stopped by military action and candy boxes given to local children? When they are driven by legitimate arguments, meaning western intervention and hegemony, simply bogging down our militaries in areas while only addressing one or two terrorist organizations, is not going to work.I wasn't supposed to be going into it in depth as I was simply demonstrating to Jared that although these people aren't as technologically advanced as Nazi Germany, they are still dangerous.

While I'm talking about Nazi Germany, those ideas from that are still alive today in many countries. Does that mean we shouldn't have invaded Germany in the 40's because the ideas behind it wouldn't die?

This is where we do agree, I believe that since we started the war in Iraq and destroyed what little stability they had in Afghanistan, we must now finish this job because it is in our best interest. If we do not now attempt to establish some form of stability within these countries, it could turn out to be catastrophic for our national securities. People do not forget such offenses and at this point, drawing back on empire will not remedy the situation, as such, these countries in their current states will only breed disgruntled offspring; indeed, this is a most tenuous situation.I hardly call a violent dictatorship as a "stable" situation but otherwise we do agree on this point.

The UK has put a great amount of resources into the Iraqi and Afghan campaigns, so they do deserve recognition for their commitments on the ground. However, I noticed you simply avoided Deschain and theOperaGhost’s comments, just because the UK was not included in their scopes, does not mean their comments are any less poignant in the UK’s case.I did address their comments but not to any lengthy degree. I said what I wanted to say and cleared up the ambiguity of who was talking about which war.

Make no mistake, I do not endorse or support any terrorist groups, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are scum as far as I am concerned, but it is not because of their arguments against the West(which I think are more than legitimate), it is the ways in which they carry out their operations that I find particularly heinous. However, I believe these groups would be of no threat to us if we were not so interventionist and so supportive of the ideas of empire and control. We cannot win a war on ideas, and taking out these groups will do nothing for us, it does not address the real problems involved with terrorism at home and abroad, in fact, our wars appear to have deepened such problems.
Just because ideas can't be shot down with bullets doesn't mean that we should let the dangerous people who hold them carry on unchallenged. And it is better to make a stand against dangerous people and organisations than to appease them or just let them get on with it.

[Severus Snape]

Is there really any winning an unconventional war? The battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan are filled with the bodies of multinational Muslims who come to these places at the behest of their insane imams to die as martyrs. The local problems are borne from unique social tribal tensions and religious differences that no amount of UN soldiers is going to stop. These rivalries are are centuries old. The US should launch quick offensives into taliban controlled areas, kill as many as possible, and then pull everybody out. As soon as the taliban activity increases, the air force should be adequate firepower to annihilate anything that moves. I don't think it is fair to the American people that all of their money is being used on people I couldn't give two shits about when we are reeling in debt ourselves.

Look, if the crazy Muslims fundamentalists want to beat the shit out of eachother, I don't care. I don't want my money being turned into charity cash for uneducated people who don't even appreciate the good we are trying to do for them.

[Sapphire]

Is there really any winning an unconventional war? The battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan are filled with the bodies of multinational Muslims who come to these places at the behest of their insane imams to die as martyrs. The local problems are borne from unique social tribal tensions and religious differences that no amount of UN soldiers is going to stop. These rivalries are are centuries old. The US should launch quick offensives into taliban controlled areas, kill as many as possible, and then pull everybody out. As soon as the taliban activity increases, the air force should be adequate firepower to annihilate anything that moves. I don't think it is fair to the American people that all of their money is being used on people I couldn't give two shits about when we are reeling in debt ourselves.

Look, if the crazy Muslims fundamentalists want to beat the shit out of eachother, I don't care. I don't want my money being turned into charity cash for uneducated people who don't even appreciate the good we are trying to do for them.
These people are grateful for what we are all doing for them.
For God's sake, do you really think that people woud be ungrateful for beig provided with an education?
Maybe you should do some research into the wars and the effects on the lives of the citizens of these countries.

[Sage]

These people are grateful for what we are all doing for them.

I will repeat this since I feel it is just as relevant as ever.

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/liberate-shit.jpg

[Severus Snape]

These people are grateful for what we are all doing for them.
For God's sake, do you really think that people woud be ungrateful for beig provided with an education?
Maybe you should do some research into the wars and the effects on the lives of the citizens of these countries.

Maybe you shouldn't assume I haven't been doing research already. I also know that in many of the rural areas they don't have so much as electricity. Look, if we gave them the ability to write their own constitutions independently, they would vote away their own rights we worked so hard to give them. We have no regard for their religion or culture or political mindset. If you refuse to acknowledge the culture gap and religious differences that is your own ridiculous prerogative. Of course good things have been done by western definition, but that doesn't justify the loss of life and money. I'm not some humanitarian crusader that think my nation had a moral responsibility to make other people's lives better.

[Sapphire]

I will repeat this since I feel it is just as relevant as ever.

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/liberate-shit.jpgThat image, fascinating as it is, fails to recognise the restructuring of the country and the training of the Afghan people that we are providing.

Maybe you shouldn't assume I haven't been doing research already. I also know that in many of the rural areas they don't have so much as electricity. Look, if we gave them the ability to write their own constitutions independently, they would vote away their own rights we worked so hard to give them. We have no regard for their religion or culture or political mindset. If you refuse to acknowledge the culture gap and religious differences that is your own ridiculous prerogative. Of course good things have been done by western definition, but that doesn't justify the loss of life and money. I'm not some humanitarian crusader that think my nation had a moral responsibility to make other people's lives better.I have nothing against different cultures - I actually embrace the diversity of the human race. The thing I do have a problem with is one group exerting discrimination, violence and oppression over another. It was rife under the Taliban and, even though the situation has improved since Western intervention, is still a problem today.

I know that the women of Afghanistan are grateful for the intervention because I have seen interviews with them. There are a small number of women in political positions in the country which have been appointed since the West intervened. In an interview, a woman wasy saying that she can't go outside without a full entourage to ensure her safety and her children are under the same precautions. Attempts have been made on her life but she won't be deterred because women and girls should be able to get an education, work and live their lives without threats and oppression from men and she is working hard to progress towards achieving this.

And there is absolutely nothing good or admirable in leaving people to be oppressed, injured and killed because it will cost you money and lives.
If we had had that attitude in 1939 then Nazism would have spread to all four corners of the globe in no time.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Rainstorm]

Let me ask this. Once, whenever we end up do finally ending this war and pulling out, what do you think it will be like? Will it go back to the way it was before, with terrorists running around, shooting people and bombing buildings?

[Sapphire]

Let me ask this. Once, whenever we end up do finally ending this war and pulling out, what do you think it will be like? Will it go back to the way it was before, with terrorists running around, shooting people and bombing buildings?
The whole point of the restruturing and training is to ensure that doesn't happen.

[bennybronx]

Look, if the crazy Muslims fundamentalists want to beat the shit out of eachother, I don't care. I don't want my money being turned into charity cash for uneducated people who don't even appreciate the good we are trying to do for them.

I am an iraqi living in brooklyn, lived in iraq in multiple area's (bagdad, sinah, kifri etc) and have taken huge offence to what you are saying.

How dare you speak about iraq and iraqi people so poorly? you clearly have no idea whats going on or how many of us really feel about foreign countries aiding us. my family travelled alot in order to try and avoid conflict as much as we could. I learned english so that i could be educated in an AMERICAN university. i leanrt english from AMERICAN missionaries. I lost so much family to the tyranny of saddam AND to extremists. you say we are fundamentalists beating the shit out of each other? actually only one side are angry fundamentalists, the other side are comprised of good iraqi people and foreign legions. if you had any sense in your pathetic little head you would know that and not be so persecutory.

And i am just one person, who owes my LIFE to foreign aids, and am now out living my life and trying to make a diffrence. How dare you say i dont appreciate it? How dare you call me uneducated?

Try NOT being an asshole when speak about matters you very clearly know nothing about. And dont you dare insult people you clearly know nothing about.

Its not intelligent,
Its not funny,
Its not patriotic,
Youre making yourself look like a dick,

Fuck you for saying my family are uneducated muslim fundamentalists.

[theOperaGhost]

I am an iraqi living in brooklyn, lived in iraq in multiple area's (bagdad, sinah, kifri etc) and have taken huge offence to what you are saying.

How dare you speak about iraq and iraqi people so poorly? you clearly have no idea whats going on or how many of us really feel about foreign countries aiding us. my family travelled alot in order to try and avoid conflict as much as we could. I learned english so that i could be educated in an AMERICAN university. i leanrt english from AMERICAN missionaries. I lost so much family to the tyranny of saddam AND to extremists. you say we are fundamentalists beating the shit out of each other? actually only one side are angry fundamentalists, the other side are comprised of good iraqi people and foreign legions. if you had any sense in your pathetic little head you would know that and not be so persecutory.

And i am just one person, who owes my LIFE to foreign aids, and am now out living my life and trying to make a diffrence. How dare you say i dont appreciate it? How dare you call me uneducated?

Try NOT being an asshole when speak about matters you very clearly know nothing about. And dont you dare insult people you clearly know nothing about.

Its not intelligent,
Its not funny,
Its not patriotic,
Youre making yourself look like a dick,

Fuck you for saying my family are uneducated muslim fundamentalists.

He didn't say that every Iraqi was a Muslim fundamentalist. He's talking about the radical extremists who DO beat the shit out of each other. Ever heard of a suicide bomber? They are generally Islamic radicals. He is not saying every Iraqi is an Islamic radical...don't put words in his mouth.

[Buddy]

Earth would be a much better place if people would just set their differences aside and just talked everything out. I just don't get why they don't see more harm than good coming out of this.

But don't get me wrong I will suport our troops any day, but just don't like the idea of fighting wars.

[Sapphire]

Earth would be a much better place if people would just set their differences aside and just talked everything out. I just don't get why they don't see more harm than good coming out of this.

But don't get me wrong I will suport our troops any day, but just don't like the idea of fighting wars.I don't like the idea either. But wars are, sometimes, a necessary evil.

[bennybronx]

He didn't say that every Iraqi was a Muslim fundamentalist. He's talking about the radical extremists who DO beat the shit out of each other. Ever heard of a suicide bomber? They are generally Islamic radicals. He is not saying every Iraqi is an Islamic radical...don't put words in his mouth.

He's talking about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and proceeds to say "if crazy muslim fundamentalists want to beat the shit out of each other."

2 sides to the war, terrorists and counter terrorists. ever heard of the counter terrorists? last i checked they were NOT islamic fundamentalists so him saying that was stupid and offended me.

He didnt mention any suicide bombers. . . .now whos putting words into his mouth.

[theOperaGhost]

He's talking about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and proceeds to say "if crazy muslim fundamentalists want to beat the shit out of each other."

2 sides to the war, terrorists and counter terrorists. ever heard of the counter terrorists? last i checked they were NOT islamic fundamentalists so him saying that was stupid and offended me.

He didnt mention any suicide bombers. . . .now whos putting words into his mouth.

You're taking what he said way out of context.

I also never said he said anything about suicide bombers, thus I didn't put any words in his mouth. I was simply inserting my own example of a radical Islamic fundamentalist (that being a suicide bomber). Is every Iraqi a radical Islamic fundy? No...and he nor I ever said they were...If we believed that, we wouldn't go through the trouble of typing out "radical Islamic fundamentalist" and would simply type "Iraqi."

[kolte]

War is a very primitive instinct. That makes modern societies very primitive. It's depressing that in an era of such exponential change, mankind is still controlled by a comparatively infinitesimal group of wealthy land owners.

The United States takes advantage of its global influence for strategic gain. This behavior is highly unethical. Civil Rights abuses are appalling in one country, necessitating total war, whereas the same abuses in an economically beneficial country are ignored. e.g. afghanistan vs china.

Our forgiven policy is very hypocritical, to the detriment of millions of human lives.

[quartermaster]

I don't care if it was an afterthought. We are standing up for equality and benefiting the situation for women by being in Afghanistan, regardless of whether it was the main reason at the time of the invasion or not.

[QUOTE=Sapphire;686828]I don't care if it was an afterthought. We are standing up for equality and benefiting the situation for women by being in Afghanistan, regardless of whether it was the main reason at the time of the invasion or not.

No, you do not seem to understand, we are NOT standing up for equality by any means, we are attempting to establish a stable regime that may have a shred of Western liberalism intertwined. Take for instance the newly passed Afghan law that allows husbands to deny their wives food if they (the wives) deny sexual advances, or the law that was recently passed that says that women must have their husband's consent to leave the house or work. Truly, we are fighting for those women's rights!

Make no mistake, these are allowed to appease the populace, and thus hopefully allow for more stability. The pretense of our morality, though quaint and at once touching, is false; again, this is all strictly geopolitical.


Victory is the wrong word, IMO. The "victory" will be the day when all Iraqi and Afghan people are free to live the lives they want (not the ones forced upon them because of extremist ideas) and residing in democratic countries.


Victory for whom? You can define victory, but it does not at all make it true. Given the Coalition forces' goals, victory would be a stable Iraq and Afghanistan, regimes of which are taking orders from Washington and London.


The situation in Afghanistan has improved since we've been there so the war is hardly "meaningless". Our intervention has seen female government officials instated and the setting up of legitimate schools for girls (though availability is poor and they are very poorly funded) to mention only a couple.


You lack clarity in how this all works, I believe. I first need you to understand that this is not now, nor has it ever been, a war for those people, it has been, and continues to be, a war out of self-interest in realigning the Middle East and eradicating certain terrorist groups in order to establish security at home and abroad. As such, these wars are meaningless because they do not address the salient issues involved with why we were attacked. It was Western interventionism within the Middle East, and strategic moves of Empire and hegemony. These wars, in the grand scheme of the Anglo-British goals, are meaningless.

The so-called spreading of "rights to women" in this country, and in Iraq is irrelevant, as it does not, once again, address the issue of why we were attacked. In fact, the exertion of Western liberalism does nothing more than strengthen their arguments about our intervention and attempts at control; if not done naturally, liberalism will simply disgruntle the traditionalist.


And the situation between Saudi Arabia and the USA weren't so bad and irreparable as to warrant the actions taken on 9/11.

I would argue that violence is wrong, so what? I never said the terrorists were justified in attacking the World Trade Centers, terrorism and the attacking of civilians is inherently wrong, and those men who carried out those attacks were vicious loons. I'd argue that no amount of offenses could warrant an attack on civilian targets.


I mean the USA wasn't attacking Saudi for it's very strict treatment of women or for any other reason as far as I'm aware.

Again, you don't seem to understand me. At no point did I argue they were justified in their attacks, I only assert that their arguments against Western intervention and hegemony within their home regions was, and still remains, completely justified.


It isn't an attack on their culture.


Then friend, prey may you tell me what it is then?

Our being there is seen as an attack on their culture by them, and our attempted foundation of Western liberal ideals within their countries is an attack on their traditional conservative values, vis a vis, their culture. Liberalization has to come naturally, otherwise, our efforts to do so for them, is an attack on their traditionalist culture. You are falling into that traditional Western elitism that I was talking about previously, you are asserting that their traditionalist culture is inferior, and thus it is our job to show them the errs of their ways and show them a superior form of culture (western liberalism). Forcing our values onto them is asserting that our values are superior to their values, which is an attack on their culture and traditionalist views, which can only breed more anger. As opposed to addressing the issues of our attacks, we simply further anger and alienate the populace.

Keep carrying that "White man's burden!"


It is a quest to see that everyone's basic human rights are upheld and that dictators can't rule with an iron fist.

No it is not, that is the platform the war was sold on, but this is nothing more than a quest to increase hegemony and ensure the safety of citizens at home and abroad.


Dictatorships tend not to fall without either a more reasonable person assuming control through death of the previous dictator or through military intervention. That's how the USSR and Nazi Germany ended.

Okay, and? A bit of a non sequitur don't you think?


While I'm talking about Nazi Germany, those ideas from that are still alive today in many countries. Does that mean we shouldn't have invaded Germany in the 40's because the ideas behind it wouldn't die?

Nazi Germany was not attacked for its ideas, it was attacked because it had become a strategic threat to the interests of the former Entente powers, and even then, WWII was far more complicated than Japan and Germany being aggressor states, it was a power struggle amongst the preponderant powers, a fight for hegemony, as it were. The comparison of fascism and the attack on Germany and Japan to the "war on terror" is a logical fallacy in the form of a false analogy. We were attacking a clearly defined regime for its actions and motives, not beliefs, understand. The "War on terror" is an attack on an idea, but even then, it was not really, as the US and Coalition forces only focused on two radical groups. That all said, contrary to attacking Germany and Japan, destroying these two groups will not solve the issue of the threat of terrorism on Western soil.


I hardly call a violent dictatorship as a "stable" situation but otherwise we do agree on this point.

I said "what little stability" they had, in Afghanistan, which was much more than there is today. Iraq, despite your misunderstandings that threat of coercion and stability are not mutually exclusive, was a relatively stable country.


Just because ideas can't be shot down with bullets doesn't mean that we should let the dangerous people who hold them carry on unchallenged. And it is better to make a stand against dangerous people and organisations than to appease them or just let them get on with it.

Missing the point, once again; why do those dangerous people exist? What drove these people to be this way? And why do they continue to gain recruitment? Taking a stand can be noble, but it is not noble when you are taking a stand to protect your own intervention and empire within a region of which you are not welcome. Such an argument can be summed up as follows: there are terrorists out there and we must not appease them, but take a stand against their tyranny.

My response would be, yes, but why do they exist? Are we taking a stand against their tyranny? Or are we simply attempting to repeal the attacks of the radical reactionaries of empire? Regardless, if you see that you are simply “taking a stand” for empire, perhaps it is time you reconsider how “moral” your motives really are.

You have to address the salient issues and understand how geopolitics work, if you believe you can spread your values through force (values of which are already seen as blasphemous), you will quickly find that such a strategy is untenable.

Note: This is not an indictment of our troops, I believe that should be made clear, if not obvious, this is an indictment of our Western interventionism and Western neo-imperialist policies that have led us down this road of a disgruntled Middle East.

[Sapphire]

There is nothing good to be found in leaving Afghan or Iraqi people to tyranny.
The fact that you would rather see these people persecuted, tortured and killed at the hands of their own people than see the West help protect them by bringing down the oppressors (even if it is for selfish reasons) is sickening.

They may see it as an attack on their culture. But the reality is that it is simply an attack on their destructive and tyrannous ways.
This is not a battle of cultures and people who see it as such are simply looking for a reason to be angry.

We will never see eye to eye on this.

[quartermaster]

There is nothing good to be found in leaving Afghan or Iraqi people to tyranny.

They have been living in this said "tyranny" for thousands of years, but it should be noted, these current levels of oppression were created by the West's carving up of the Middle East, creating independent nation-states, and then funding to keep those said nation-states’ regimes in power. We are the source of many problems in the Middle East, and we are doing nothing more but exacerbating the problems through our intervention. We have to let our culture slowly influence their populations, like what has happened in Iran with their extremely liberalized, educated, college youth, who reject the hardliner arguments of their elite. If we force our will, it will be seen as an attack on their culture and lead to more bloodshed.

Our imposition of sanctions on Iran does nothing more but alienate us from those people, and our attacks in the Middle East make us few friends in the Middle East's rising liberalized college population. If anything, we are even driving many of them to radicalism. You have to look outside the box on this one; freedom through coercion is not freedom at all, freedom through will and virtue is always legitimate.


The fact that you would rather see these people persecuted, tortured and killed at the hands of their own people than see the West help protect them by bringing down the oppressors (even if it is for selfish reasons) is sickening.

I feel like I am going in circles with you.

Anytime you intertwine morals into your argument, I can turn that right around on you. The fact that you advocate force and coercion upon a population, justifying the deaths of thousands of civilians so that the West may protect its empire is most unsettling to me. That you can argue moral grounds on forcing your will on people who just want to go about their lives, who at least had the security of not getting shot or blown up when they went to the market under their oppressive regimes, is unsettling.

I would not like to see these people persecuted, and the fact that you would indict me is not only a fallacy, but also insulting. I simply understand that this entire situation is untenable, that we cannot force liberalization unto a traditionally ultra-conservative society, but we have to let it come naturally, or bloodshed will ensue, as it has.

I also am trying to establish that we are not now, nor have we ever, promoted real liberalized change in the Middle East, beyond hollow phrases. That these missions in Afghanistan and Iraq not only do not address the salient issues for our being attacked by these terrorist groups, but are nothing more than power grabs at changing the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East to favor us. Just like in Kuwait, where we restored the monarchy, or in Saudi Arabia where we continue to support their usurpations, we are just as willing to allow for oppressive regimes in the Middle East, insofar as they are on our side.


They may see it as an attack on their culture. But the reality is that it is simply an attack on their destructive and tyrannous ways.

There we have it; I am glad you finally just came out and said it. Their "tyrannous ways" is their culture; Sharia law etc. is what defines them today in many respects. That argument about this not being about culture not only absolves yourself of having a hand in the creation of the problems, but it is Western elitism at its best, telling these people how they should live, and what is best for them.


This is not a battle of cultures and people who see it as such are simply looking for a reason to be angry.

Yes, it is a battle of cultures, a battle between Western liberalism and Eastern conservatism. They have every right to be angry about our intervention into their nations from the past one hundred years; it would be analogous to Middle Easterners taking over in the UK and imposing Sharia law upon the entire country (though it would appear that has already happened in some neighborhoods).


We will never see eye to eye on this.

We could, if you open up your mind and see that we have done more harm than good by being in the Middle East, and that our intervention is the source of much of these problems. We could, if you would understand that people value their lives much more than they value "democracy" or "liberalization;" these are abstract ideas, and can be taken away, but lives are irreplaceable. We could, if you understood that we Western countries have a lot of blood on our hands from this (as do the terrorists, who are responsible for most of the civilian deaths), and that we have done nothing to alleviate these problems, but we have only deepened them. For you to argue moral grounds on some abstract ideas that these people do not value over life, like some of us may, is unfortunate.