Iraq and Afghanistan ?

[Azunite]

What do you think about the invasions ?

[Azunite]

This thread is not founded by any insulting or other bad meanings, please warn if I offend

[Whisper]

dude...your polls flawed, this thread period is.
they're two completely different wars.... Afghanistan "Operation Enduring Freedom" is by the ISAF under NATO. Iraq aka "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is a multination offence by the Americans and the British.
They're two completely different wars.

[Azunite]

Yes, I know that

[CairAndros]

Then you cannot equate them to the same poll as they were started by different people therefore their intentions are therefore different, therefore - by extension - your poll is flawed as you cannot judge both wars by the same options.

[The Dark Lord]

Yes, I know that

Why did you group them then?


From a british point of view, Iraq was an illegal war, caused by a weak Prime Minister star struck by an American idiot. Having said that, how much worse would iraqi's lives have been under sadam? Afganistan is a war worth fighting for and I hope we stay there as long as is necessary, we can never surrender to terrorists.

[CairAndros]

Matty, you and I are very much like minded. I agree that we should be out of Afghanistan only when a stable, democratic government has been successfully installed and is likely to remain in place when we leave. Otherwise it will all have been for nothing; the killing and the dying done in vain.

[Jess]

Iraq war - gah!

Afghanistan, I agree with Matthew

[mrmcdonaldduck]

iraq war was an illegal war, and if it was some african leader who started it, would get punished accordingly, but because it was the president of the USA, its all honkey dorey with the UN. We ruined the iraqi middle class, and just to overthrow an anti american dictator. Like america hasnt installed 20 other dictators, and overthrown countless democratic, anti american governments.

Afghanistan is different, it was justified to an extant, and to leave now would be worse then if we never went at all. Afghanistan needs our help to overcome the Taliban, as does Pakistan. If we don't help them, then there is a real chance of there being a huge attack against the west, instead of the small chance of a minor attack.

[TopGear]

Jason please justify why you think the Iraq war was illegal?

[mrmcdonaldduck]

Jason please justify why you think the Iraq war was illegal?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm

The fact that leaders in international law, and the UN secutary general at the time said it was illegal, makes it illegal, at least as far as i can interpret.

[The Dark Lord]

Jason please justify why you think the Iraq war was illegal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

Drew, Do you think Iraq was legal?

[CairAndros]

Perhaps the reason used to invade Iraq was unjustified. But the end result can't be disputed. An evil dictator, who had no qualms about murdering his own people, was removed from power and tried by a court of justice - led by his own people - and found guilty of crimes against humanity and his country and subsequently sentenced to death. Surely that is a good thing?

[Azunite]

I would say both of them are kinda illegal, after all you are invading a whole nation.
But yes, going to Afghanistan is way more diffrent than Iraq,

[The Dark Lord]

I would say both of them are kinda illegal, after all you are invading a whole nation.
But yes, going to Afghanistan is way more diffrent than Iraq,

This is a contradiction. How is Afganistan illegal?

[Perseus]

I would say both of them are kinda illegal, after all you are invading a whole nation.

Invading a nation isn't really illegal. We kinda had just cause to invade Afghanistan.

[Continuum]

Invading a nation isn't really illegal. We kinda had just cause to invade Afghanistan.

Perhaps the reason used to invade Iraq was unjustified. But the end result can't be disputed. An evil dictator, who had no qualms about murdering his own people, was removed from power and tried by a court of justice - led by his own people - and found guilty of crimes against humanity and his country and subsequently sentenced to death. Surely that is a good thing?

By overthrowing a repressive, anti-american dictatorial regime and afterwards quelling what is left of them due to the destruction their attacks cause and their links with Al Qaeda? I say it's very legal, if it weren't for the thought of liberation of the Afghan populace just before the capitulation. It's a worthy fight, I guess.

Saddam's trial was quite intense, but at least they gave him a "fair", as in they didn't just put him in death row immediately. But, it wasn't. Thankfully, he's dead now.

I support both of those invasions, but I still have doubts on Iraq.

[CairAndros]

I was meaning the claims that there were WMD's in Iraq as the pre-text for invading the country. Which is the main reason citied by all those involved at the highest level.

[The Dark Lord]

I was meaning the claims that there were WMD's in Iraq as the pre-text for invading the country. Which is the main reason citied by all those involved at the highest level.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but George W Bush always maintained that the Iraq war was about the regime change, not the susposed WMDs. It was Mr. Blair, aided by Alaister Campbell, who used WMDs as the motive behind Iraq.

[CairAndros]

oops :L

'in Britain' never made it into that sentence :L

sorry =[

[Azunite]

I haven'T said nything about Iraq or Afghan. yet Matty, why do you think that I tihnk Afghan. is illegal?
Iraq was illegal, Afghanistan IMO is less illegal.

I mean, invading any country should be illegal. There is a certain government, certain laws and some other certain things. You just go in there and destroy everything.
And invading those countries helped nothing, terrorism has increased. Every day americans and the british die for other country's freedom.

[CairAndros]

I would say both of them are kinda illegal, after all you are invading a whole nation.

That is saying something about them. It also makes us think that you think they were both illegal.

[The Dark Lord]

I haven'T said nything about Iraq or Afghan. yet Matty, why do you think that I tihnk Afghan. is illegal?
Iraq was illegal, Afghanistan IMO is less illegal.

I mean, invading any country should be illegal. There is a certain government, certain laws and some other certain things. You just go in there and destroy everything.
And invading those countries helped nothing, terrorism has increased. Every day americans and the british die for other country's freedom.

There is no such thing as more/less illegal. It is either legal or illegal. Afganistan were lead by terriorists, which is no government and there was nothing to destroy. American and British soldiers' fight for their citizens' freedom, if we didn't stand up to terrorists, they would win and destroy the concept of freedom. I have never seen anything that suggests that Afganistan was illegal, would you care to share your source?

[Azunite]

Source? You ask for a website which says " Invasion of Afghaistan is illegal " ?
I said it is my opinion.

[Perseus]

Every day americans and the british die for other country's freedom.
They know what they signed up for, and it's for the greater good. Maybe one day we can live in a world where there isn't a suppressive government. But the only way for that is to overthrow cruel regimes. One can argue "why aren't we in Africa, then?". And I would agree with this one, for it makes no sense why to focus on the ME and not help out the folks in Africa.

[The Dark Lord]

Source? You ask for a website which says " Invasion of Afghaistan is illegal " ?
I said it is my opinion.

In law there is no opinion. It is either legal or illegal. There is no evidence suggesting that Afganistan is illegal, therefore it is legal. You can't describe something as illegal without any substantial evidence to back up your claim.

[CairAndros]

One can argue "why aren't we in Africa, then?". And I would agree with this one, for it makes no sense why to focus on the ME and not help out the folks in Africa.

Because, at the moment, the African Nations aren't a major threat to world security. Afghanistan was funding terrorist groups = major threat. Saddam was a major threat to Kuwait and other nations in the region and that is where the majority of the known oil supplies are. If he had invaded the other nations around there and added their oil supplies to Iraq's considerable natural deposits then they could play merry havoc with the west be restricting supplies or bumping the price up majorly.

We have intervened in Africa before but never to the extent that we have in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Perseus]

Because, at the moment, the African Nations aren't a major threat to world security. Afghanistan was funding terrorist groups = major threat. Saddam was a major threat to Kuwait and other nations in the region and that is where the majority of the known oil supplies are. If he had invaded the other nations around there and added their oil supplies to Iraq's considerable natural deposits then they could play merry havoc with the west be restricting supplies or bumping the price up majorly.

We have intervened in Africa before but never to the extent that we have in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Iran could be classified as a national security, as with North Korea. But we do nothing with them.

[CairAndros]

We are doing nothing with them at the moment :P

For all we know plans could be in the pipeline to deal with them should the situation arise; I think that is the most likely scenario.

[The Dark Lord]

Iran could be classified as a national security, as with North Korea. But we do nothing with them.

That's because their too powerful. Given the mentality of the USA, the President has to be certain of victory otherwise they will look extremely weak, which is why Iran and North Korea are being dealt with by diplomacy currently.

[Perseus]

That's because their too powerful. Given the mentality of the USA, the President has to be certain of victory otherwise they will look extremely weak, which is why Iran and North Korea are being dealt with by diplomacy currently.

Diplomatic relations will not work for them. They didn't work for Iraq and Afghanistan, obviously. I do not foresee diplomacy working for Iran and North Korea.

[Azunite]

In law there is no opinion. It is either legal or illegal. There is no evidence suggesting that Afganistan is illegal, therefore it is legal. You can't describe something as illegal without any substantial evidence to back up your claim.

I BELIEVE that the invasion is ILLEGAL
It is my opinion why do you resist to nderstand ?

[CairAndros]

Should Iran get too out of its box then the international community will act. There is no doubt, in my mind, over that.

[Perseus]

I BELIEVE that the invasion is ILLEGAL
It is my opinion why do you resist to nderstand ?

Why do you feel it is illegal? One could find their treatment of people illegal and should be dealt with hastily.

[The Dark Lord]

Diplomatic relations will not work for them. They didn't work for Iraq and Afghanistan, obviously. I do not foresee diplomacy working for Iran and North Korea.

I completely agree, my point was that America is too weak to take on North Korea or Iran, diplomacy will fail and there is a chance of war. However, depending on what North Korea's new leader is like, war could be prevented or accelerated, depending on his ambition. Iran is different and it is particularly worring that as the Middle east gets weaker and more divided, Iran becomes stronger. I think Iran is a more likely war than North Korea

I BELIEVE that the invasion is ILLEGAL
It is my opinion why do you resist to nderstand ?

I'm not failing to understand anything, the person who is having difficulties understanding the issue is you! You can't claim something is illegal, without evidence/sources to back up your claim. In my opinion, sausages should be given voting rights, I have no evidence to back up my claim but because its my opinion, David Cameron is set to announce that all sausages will given voting rights! Do you see how stupid your claim looks?

[CairAndros]

. In my opinion, sausages should be given voting rights, I have no evidence to back up my claim but because its my opinion, David Cameron is set to announce that all sausages will given voting rights!

sorry - its gotta be sigged :P

[The Dark Lord]

sorry - its gotta be sigged :P

feel free;)

[Azunite]

I see this invasion illegal according to what I see, what I hear.
When I see ambitious countries who have a huge imperialistic record invade other countries under the title " freedom " I may think some other things.
It is illegal for me, I don't say " It is illegal according to X law ". It is illegal for my thoughts and beliefs.
Do I say ( like your sausage example ) " This invasion is illegal in my opinion so you guys just get outta there and declare that you have done something illegal " ?


Nevertheless, the sig thing is hillarious :)

[CairAndros]

Right; hold up there. Imperialistic Records. You can say Britain has one of those. Hell we had the largest Empire to ever grace the face of the Earth, an Empire that survived two world wars - a greater achievement than any other empire. We don't now, such a shame. But America has no such record. They broke away from Britain in the American Wars Of Independence because they didn't like the way Britain was running the show and stated that they wanted to escape from the Old World traps of Empire. America has never been an Empire and as such cannot be said to have Imperialistic Records as Imperialistic is implicative of Empire.

[The Dark Lord]

I see this invasion illegal according to what I see, what I hear.
When I see ambitious countries who have a huge imperialistic record invade other countries under the title " freedom " I may think some other things.
It is illegal for me, I don't say " It is illegal according to X law ". It is illegal for my thoughts and beliefs.
Do I say ( like your sausage example ) " This invasion is illegal in my opinion so you guys just get outta there and declare that you have done something illegal " ?


Nevertheless, the sig thing is hillarious :)

Then you think it is wrong, not illegal. There's a huge difference

[Azunite]

Someone may think marijuna should be legal, some think marijuana should continue be illegal.


And excuse me ? You don't think America is imperialistic ? The whole world thinks America is imperialistic.
You people will see, 5 years later it will be another middle eastern country.

Apart from that, a question;
If US invades countries because there is terrorism there, they should have conquered half of Africa and South America by now

[CairAndros]

I will put in very clear terms so you understand.

A country has to have been an Empire to have Imperialistic Records.

America has never taken control from the countries it has invaded in the long term nor annexed them.

This means America does not posses that territory.

This means she is not an Empire and doesn't have Imperialistic Records.

[The Dark Lord]

Someone may think marijuna should be legal, some think marijuana should continue be illegal.

Yes, but they have reasons for their views, backed up by science and not just the opinions of a teenager

And excuse me ? You don't think America is imperialistic ? The whole world thinks America is imperialistic.
You people will see, 5 years later it will be another middle eastern country.

I agree with this, well part of this, America was founded on a principle of "Manifest Destiny" and started out as only 13 states, there are now 50, America is, or at least was an imperialistic nation.

Apart from that, a question;
If US invades countries because there is terrorism there, they should have conquered half of Africa and South America by now

I appreciate you have an issue validating your claims, but could we have some sources of African and South American terrorism?

[CairAndros]

That annexation was by the will of the people of Texas. When Britain took places like India, South Africa, Burma; it wasn't by the consent of the people.

Also; out of the original 13 states; Mass. split to become Mass. & Maine - again the will of the people. And more states were founded as the Americans headed out west; so they still wanted to be part of America as they were Americans. Thus it was all done via the will of the people; not against.

That is the difference between the creation of the states and the creation of an Empire.

If America truly wished to be an Empire then she could easily have held onto Japan at the end of the Second World War; claimed parts of Germany due to her struggles there. She could have taken complete control of Iraq and Afghanistan and made them part of American Territory. The fact she didn't is a clear indication that she isn't Imperialistic.

Besides; Empires are Autocratic - British Empire was the one weird exception to that rule - and the American President has always been democratically elected; again taking steps away from Empire.

[The Dark Lord]

That annexation was by the will of the people of Texas. When Britain took places like India, South Africa, Burma; it wasn't by the consent of the people.

Also; out of the original 13 states; Mass. split to become Mass. & Maine - again the will of the people. And more states were founded as the Americans headed out west; so they still wanted to be part of America as they were Americans. Thus it was all done via the will of the people; not against.

That is the difference between the creation of the states and the creation of an Empire.

If America truly wished to be an Empire then she could easily have held onto Japan at the end of the Second World War; claimed parts of Germany due to her struggles there. She could have taken complete control of Iraq and Afghanistan and made them part of American Territory. The fact she didn't is a clear indication that she isn't Imperialistic.

Besides; Empires are Autocratic - British Empire was the one weird exception to that rule - and the American President has always been democratically elected; again taking steps away from Empire.

I'm going to stand corrected on this and bow to your superior knowledge

[CairAndros]

I'm going to stand corrected on this and bow to your superior knowledge

lol - thanks :L

[The Dark Lord]

I appreciate you have an issue validating your claims, but could we have some sources of African and South American terrorism?

I'm still waiting....

[CairAndros]

I'd quite like to see some as well. Bar the Somali Pirates which we know about.

[The Dark Lord]

I'd quite like to see some as well. Bar the Somali Pirates which we know about.

I'm afraid our friend is notorious for making claims and being unable to back them up with evidence

[CairAndros]

Ah; interesting.

[Azunite]

Excuse me, i am not a server who would answer to a question withing seconds. I am not on PC for the whole time eh ?


And it is your problem if you lack the present day news' knowledge. If you don'T know that ;

Many african countries lack proper government, milita dominate the country.
African children are wielding AKs,
Kidnapping and blowing things up are African tradition now.
Many african countries have civil war. Where is America ?
And I think everbody knows how south african favela gangs dominate over innocent people, killing them.
Hey drop by to Sudan, terrorism is a mainstay there.
We are expecting any American to help us against Kurds.


This website's members know too much about their own country, that I would respect. But they have no idea what is going on in other places ( of course, excluding the countries they invade )
Now none of you can say : " Africa is a happy place where terror is almost at 0 percent, the live happily along puppies running around them "

Oh and about this : If America truly wished to be an Empire then she could easily have held onto Japan at the end of the Second World War; claimed parts of Germany due to her struggles there. She could have taken complete control of Iraq and Afghanistan and made them part of American Territory. The fact she didn't is a clear indication that she isn't Imperialistic

America's intentions weren't imperialistic by WW2, but now everyone knows that they suck out Middle Eastern petrol

[The Dark Lord]

And it is your problem if you lack the present day news' knowledge. If you don'T know that ;

Many african countries lack proper government, milita dominate the country.
African children are wielding AKs,
Kidnapping and blowing things up are African tradition now.
Many african countries have civil war. Where is America ?
And I think everbody knows how south african favela gangs dominate over innocent people, killing them.
Hey drop by to Sudan, terrorism is a mainstay there.
We are expecting any American to help us against Kurds.


Again these are claims, there are no sources


This website's members know too much about their own country, that I would respect. But they have no idea what is going on in other places ( of course, excluding the countries they invade )
Now none of you can say : " Africa is a happy place where terror is almost at 0 percent, the live happily along puppies running around them "

No we can't, Africa has serious problems in terms of poverty, AIDS, maleria, debt. Although I'm not aware of acts of terrorism being commited in Africa (I add to ignorance here) as I don't remember any country being attacked by african terrorists. I add to knowing little about Iraq or Afganistan so you can take back your comment about we only care about ourselves and countries we are engaged in. I pride myself on having an excellent knowledge on American history as well as Nazi Germany.


Oh and about this : If America truly wished to be an Empire then she could easily have held onto Japan at the end of the Second World War; claimed parts of Germany due to her struggles there. She could have taken complete control of Iraq and Afghanistan and made them part of American Territory. The fact she didn't is a clear indication that she isn't Imperialistic

America's intentions weren't imperialistic by WW2, but now everyone knows that they suck out Middle Eastern petrol

Scotland has a lot of links to oil, does this mean that we'll be next on America's hitlist?

[1_21Guns]

now then, I know discussions do get quite heated,
however there is only so far you can go before you become insulting.
those posts are, in reality spam.
unessasary remarks.
this is a warning to all of you to have a bit more respect, if there are any more incidents which are heard of, there will be concequences.

[CairAndros]

Right; what you have said is in clear contradiction to what you have claimed previously. Terror is a mainstay in Africa, yes in some countries; not in all.

Secondly; I believe that NATO forces have intervened in several African Countries over the years when Aid has been requested.

Thirdly; I do not take being called ignorant lightly. Anyone who knows me will tell you that is the last thing that I am. Moreover I happen to have proved in this forum that whilst I am Scottish I have detailed knowledge of America. Furthermore I am a first rate historian - so to accuse me of not knowing much about other countries is a major slight against me. Finally; please do not act stupid; the majority of the world's oil supplies come from the Middle East and America uses a lot of Oil therefore it is an obvious conclusion to make that she takes a lot of Oil; by fully legal means i.e. purchasing it

[Azunite]

Before you guys grumble more ;
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7716/africa.html
http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/asr/12No4/Cilliers.pdf

This, for Africa.

Matty, Scotland is an ally to US, why would US attack you ?
Craig, do you have a diploma about History, how can you say that you are a historian ?
Okay then, according to my Turkish, French, German and Islamic knowledge, I can call my self a Supreme historian above all.

[The Dark Lord]

Matty, Scotland is an ally to US, why would US attack you ?.

The reason Scotland would be a US target would be oil! You said that the war in the middle east is based on oil, so using your logic Scotland should be attacked by America

Okay then, according to my Turkish, French, German and Islamic knowledge, I can call my self a Supreme historian above all.

Okay

[CairAndros]

One does not need a diploma or degree to be a historian. One only needs to study history in enough depth. I have a wide range of historical knowledge that, as of yet, I have to see rivaled in my school by anyone outside of the teaching staff and even then I have come up with things that even they didn't know. My Head Of History(one of the senior markers on the SQA History Exam Marking Board and a very good historian) has told me that I am one of the best he has ever come across. But that is a different story entirely. However, you may call yourself whatever you feel like.

Also; we are getting slightly off topic.

If you have nothing more to say about Iraq/Afghanistan then we should see this matter closed and another thread opened up on this form where we may debate terrorism and your ideas of Imperialism to your hearts content.

[Azunite]

If we are to bring back the topic we shouldn't be talking about imperialistic ambitins

[The Dark Lord]

If we are to bring back the topic we shouldn't be talking about imperialistic ambitins

Why did you bring them up then?

[CairAndros]

Also; one of the links you provided contained the following information;

What is the United States doing to counter the terror threat from Africa?
The Bush administration has focused on dismantling Qaeda cells and infrastructure in Africa, particularly in the Horn of Africa region, according to Lyman and Morrison. The U.S. strategy is to "work with local governments to find and arrest these people," Byman says. "That's how we fight terrorism around the world." In countries where local governments are not strong enough to accomplish this goal themselves, the United States is working to help build their capacity, experts say. On June 26, 2003, President Bush announced a U.S. commitment of $100 million over 15 months to help Horn of Africa countries improve counterterror efforts. The money will go toward improving air and seaport security, increasing coastal and border patrols, building computer databases to track terrorists, increasing intelligence-sharing, and cutting off terrorist financing. The primary beneficiaries of the program are Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Uganda, and Tanzania.

This is in direct contradiction to your previous claim that America is doing nothing to combat terrorism in Africa.

[Azunite]

We both know that neither you nor me heard any intervention to Africa by America.

[CairAndros]

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/ - go check that out; it might show you where you are wrong.

[Azunite]

Well, never saw anything about American intervention on news, nor in any forums or websites.

Those pages are made by the government and the company related to the operation so surely they will put such thigns there
Are there any newspaper articles or anything similliar that would support what that link said ?

[1_21Guns]

as there was some confusion as to what is acceptable, and what isn't here's a little bit.

Ah; interesting.

ulitmately, this is just spam.

I'm afraid our friend is notorious for making claims and being unable to back them up with evidence

possibly a valid argument, which is fair enough, but making a blunt point of it isn't overly nice.

I'm still waiting....

spaaaaaam.

lol - thanks :L

spam also.

as it's a debate, its hard to pick at what you can and can't say.
it's important to remember to respect others opinions, without insulting them however 'stupid' they might be.
there is no need to try and insult someones intelligence etc.
bottom line, you wouldn't like those things said to you, and although you may be able to handle them better, others cannot.

[The Dark Lord]

Well, never saw anything about American intervention on news, nor in any forums or websites.

Those pages are made by the government and the company related to the operation so surely they will put such thigns there
Are there any newspaper articles or anything similliar that would support what that link said ?

So you are now disputing your own source? (which completely destroys your own argument)

[CairAndros]

What possible reason would the American Government have to make all of this up?

Thanks 1_21 for clarifying that issue, much appreciated =]

[Azunite]

So you are now disputing your own source? (which completely destroys your own argument)


? ? ?
I am talking about Craig's resource here, I haven'T said anything about mine .
You say america helps africa, I say they don't.

[CairAndros]

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/US-Official-More-Troops-Needed-in-Somalia-99244734.html

http://www.africare.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4091528.stm - American Citizens helping Africa

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/15/opinion/ed-ghana15

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/aid-to-africa-triples-during-bush-presidency-but-strings-attached-430480.html

enough sources for you to look through?

[Tiberius]

Guys, this isn't a debate about Africa; it's about Iraq and Afghanistan. If you have a problem with that, take it to pm but leave it out of this thread. This is your final warning.

[Azunite]

(Just saw Tiber's post, ceasing Africa talk now)


So I have said what I was going to say about Iraq and Afghanistan. Waiting for any replies for that to continue the discussion

[Patchy]

The war is pointless. We are not the Europe and USA world police so why the bloody hell are we sticking our noses in other peoples business, yeah sure afghanistan is a country home to terrorists plotting against them but to get Saddam trialled and executed when he was less of a killer than George Bush is fucking unreal, Bush and Blair should of been right beside him when they hung him.

It sickens me to see the UK troops (not too sure about USA troops) are not being given the correct kit/working kit for the job yet we're giving £60 million away for foreign aid - if your having a war you have to fund it! Its ridiculous you cannot stop terrorists because they've just moved to Pakistan where they are protected because we cant attack them. Get the troops home!

[The Dark Lord]

The war is pointless. We are not the Europe and USA world police so why the bloody hell are we sticking our noses in other peoples business, yeah sure afghanistan is a country home to terrorists plotting against them but to get Saddam trialled and executed when he was less of a killer than George Bush is fucking unreal, Bush and Blair should of been right beside him when they hung him.

It sickens me to see the UK troops (not too sure about USA troops) are not being given the correct kit/working kit for the job yet we're giving £60 million away for foreign aid - if your having a war you have to fund it! Its ridiculous you cannot stop terrorists because they've just moved to Pakistan where they are protected because we cant attack them. Get the troops home!

I find it hard to believe that fighting terrorism is pointless. What Bush, and in particular, Blair did was wrong and they will never be forgiven. Actually we give away £9billion away in foreign aid each year and this is set to rise by 37% by the end of the parliament. David Cameron is out of touch with reality if he thinks British people can more about foreign aid, then about defence, we will never get the decisive victory against terrorism when the army is motivated by saving money. If you are going to fight terrorism, then you do it properly, motivated by a desire for victory, not for saving money.

[TopGear]

The war is pointless. We are not the Europe and USA world police so why the bloody hell are we sticking our noses in other peoples business, yeah sure afghanistan is a country home to terrorists plotting against them but to get Saddam trialled and executed when he was less of a killer than George Bush is fucking unreal, Bush and Blair should of been right beside him when they hung him.

It sickens me to see the UK troops (not too sure about USA troops) are not being given the correct kit/working kit for the job yet we're giving £60 million away for foreign aid - if your having a war you have to fund it! Its ridiculous you cannot stop terrorists because they've just moved to Pakistan where they are protected because we cant attack them. Get the troops home!

How are you saying that Bush was more of a killer then Saddam? I really would like to know

[Azunite]

I find it hard to believe that fighting terrorism is pointless. What Bush, and in particular, Blair did was wrong and they will never be forgiven. Actually we give away £9billion away in foreign aid each year and this is set to rise by 37% by the end of the parliament. David Cameron is out of touch with reality if he thinks British people can more about foreign aid, then about defence, we will never get the decisive victory against terrorism when the army is motivated by saving money. If you are going to fight terrorism, then you do it properly, motivated by a desire for victory, not for saving money].

Agree with Patchy there

Plus the army is motivated by the money going into their pocklets and to their families.
War on terrorism will never win. If they were regular and orginazed troops Turkey would have ended the terror war in Southeastern Turkey within a day for example. Americans could just embark to Aghanistan, raid the major terrorist headquarters and end the war.

But terrorists ....
They are disguised as villagers at daylight, then grab their AKs and go to battle. They always have a place to flee, where Americans cannot find them, like caves in mountains.

You are going to say " If we just dont stop killing they will eventually end "
Did you know that, according to numbers, Turkey should have officialy killed all of PKK's terrorists for 4 times.
(Resource: An interview with the commander in chief of Turkish army, İlker Başbuğ )
But no, they still come and kill Americans, Brits, Turks... They may not have those flashy Abrams tanks, or Stingers to shoot down aircraft. Even with their AK and that inaccurate RPGs, they still fight, and the "opposing force" to terrorists will never win.
Terrorists will always crawl out from somewhere, shoot an American, then run back to a cave, then get out as a poor farmer.

[CairAndros]

The command structure of Al-Qaeda has been severely weakened over the course of the war on terror. Several of their highest ranking leaders have been eliminated. Granted others step forward to take their places but these people are inexperienced and with inexperience comes mistakes.

Also; the tribal leaders that support the Taliban have started to turn them; working with the Coalition forces in Afghanistan thus delivering a bodyblow to the Taliban's capability to strike and then disappear into the surrounding populace.

[Continuum]

Also; the tribal leaders that support the Taliban have started to turn them; working with the Coalition forces in Afghanistan thus delivering a bodyblow to the Taliban's capability to strike and then disappear into the surrounding populace.

Talibans are a resurgent insurgent force; they need local support. They get food, manpower, etc. from them. It's actually a strategy to intervene whenever they scour the wilderness for remote tribes, and occupy them while at it. It was effective in starving the communists during the malayan emergency, I do not know why it fails to erase them completely.

[CairAndros]

I am aware they are a resurgent insurgent force. But seeing as we are talking about Coalition Forces being killed, and the Taliban are the main perpetrators of this, I felt it necessary to mention them :P

[Continuum]

I am aware they are a resurgent insurgent force. But seeing as we are talking about Coalition Forces being killed, and the Taliban are the main perpetrators of this, I felt it necessary to mention them :P

I was implying how they get their supplies for following days, especially by extorting rural tribes or making alliances with them to gain manpower. We need to cut this supply line up when we have the chance.

[CairAndros]

Ah; sorry - I misread you.

Yeah; I totally agree with you. And that work is starting to be done by working with the local tribal leaders and the local populace to show them that they don't need to give in to the Taliban; there is an alternative. And we are already starting to see that take effect.

[Continuum]

Ah; sorry - I misread you.

Yeah; I totally agree with you. And that work is starting to be done by working with the local tribal leaders and the local populace to show them that they don't need to give in to the Taliban; there is an alternative. And we are already starting to see that take effect.

The problem is, they're gaining more and more connections each day, even beyond afghan borders (with a little help from their buddies, the Al Qaeda).