War on Terror..Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. (2 Viewers)

[HumanDichotomy]

Just watched the SBS news. 6 Italian soldiers were killed in Kabul in Afghanistan. That was as many killed in a single blast than had been killed over 2 years. And apparently the election has gone to shit because so many votes were deemed 'rigged'. The situation there definitely hasn't got any better.

But on the other side of the coin, an Indonesian Islamic militant leader was killed today, which was deemed as a minor victory in the WOT.

So...simple question...there's lots of terrorism out there. Can it be overcome? If so, are we going about the right way?

For example, in Afghanistan, the terrain and the factionalism that exists makes it difficult to take down a central force and thus undermine the regime...the Soviets couldn't do it.

EDIT: The question I'm asking isn't 'Should we be in there?' but since we ARE in there...well...see above.

 

[copkiller]

Terrorism is a reaction to the intervention in the middle east by the United States and her allies over the last half century. Imagine how the US would react if the Arabs had bases and troops in their country. Of course these people are going to be pissed. Hey maybe installing Saddam Hussein and giving him money and weapons wasn't such a great idea....

Fighting more wars in this region will only increase terrorism as more angry young men are driven towards these extremist groups. The solution is for the US to get the fuck out of the middle east.

If the US is so concerned about national security it should bring home its troops from its hundreds of military bases all over the world and use them to protect its own borders.

 

[SnowFox]

Bit bad that Aussie troops are getting flack for this as well, all we do is peace keeping.

 

[Freedom_]

Terrorism is a reaction to the intervention in the middle east by the United States and her allies over the last half century. Imagine how the US would react if the Arabs had bases and troops in their country. Of course these people are going to be pissed. Hey maybe installing Saddam Hussein and giving him money and weapons wasn't such a great idea....

Fighting more wars in this region will only increase terrorism as more angry young men are driven towards these extremist groups. The solution is for the US to get the fuck out of the middle east.

If the US is so concerned about national security it should bring home its troops from its hundreds of military bases all over the world and use them to protect its own borders.

Pretty much this

 

[Freedom_]

War usually is a phony “external threat” been used as a chief means by which the State wins back the loyalty of its subjects. We must understand that the state NEVER goes to war to PROTECT us but works so hard in persuading us that all their deeds of oppression of foreign nations are in our best interest is false.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Hmm. Yeah ok...

But my question is not only should we be fighting the War on Terror (which I am strongly opposed to) but given that we ARE already, is it possible to 'win'? Specifically, with relationship to Afghanistan.

 

[SJ851]

Hmm. Yeah ok...

But my question is not only should we be fighting the War on Terror (which I am strongly opposed to) but given that we ARE already, is it possible to 'win'? Specifically, with relationship to Afghanistan.

Simple answer is that the war in Afghanistan (in my eyes) is militarily "unwinnable" - we will never defeat the Taliban or Al Qaeda - they are both such loose organisations now that have perfected rectruiting people when their reasons for doing so have long dissapeared, they make people channel hatred of something they are not quite sure why they hate into killing action.

Coalition forces do a lot of good for the individuals 'on the ground' in these places but it would take hundreds of years of coalition involvement to bring the country to western standard 'normality' - this is something I don't think any government or any voting public would be willing to agree to and quite rightly!

 

[Azarnakumar]

peacekeeping =/= war

one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter

 

[SashatheMan]

This occupation of Afghanistan is a cycle of hate and revenge. US bombs a few places, people die, their family wants to avenge, turns to one of the terrorist groups, and the process begins all over.
This is the biggest policy i disagree with Obama about.

I heard one of the commanders requested another 40,000 troops!!! I hope Obama looks at the public disaproval of this war, and doesn't increase this number.

 

[yoddle]

Terrorism is a reaction to the intervention in the middle east by the United States and her allies over the last half century. Imagine how the US would react if the Arabs had bases and troops in their country. Of course these people are going to be pissed. Hey maybe installing Saddam Hussein and giving him money and weapons wasn't such a great idea....

Fighting more wars in this region will only increase terrorism as more angry young men are driven towards these extremist groups. The solution is for the US to get the fuck out of the middle east.

If the US is so concerned about national security it should bring home its troops from its hundreds of military bases all over the world and use them to protect its own borders.

Well that is sort of an answer in a way.

Maybe shitloads of investment in rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq, and winning the hearts and minds of those people would be money better spent.

That way they're just not leaving the shit they have created to fester (which would in turn give rise to more terrorism).

But the whole situation is pretty fucked I reckon.

 

[copkiller]

Maybe shitloads of investment in rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq, and winning the hearts and minds of those people would be money better spent.

It will not work. You can't win people's "hearts and minds" by destroying their homes, occupying their country, establishing permanent military bases and then expecting them to like you because you help rebuilt what you yourself destroyed.

The whole rebuilding and staying to finish the job thing is just a bullshit excuse to stay in the country and establish a permenant US military presence in the region.

That way they're just not leaving the shit they have created to fester (which would in turn give rise to more terrorism).

Publicly apologize. Pay them reparations for the damage and let them rebuild themselves. Get the fuck out of there ASAP.

I still think doing nothing is better than continuing to occupy the country. Of course there are going to be some really pissed off people. You can't fix that by continuing to stay there and helping them rebuild some things, because these angry people just view the US as the enemy and want them gone.

The best thing the US can do is get out of there immediately. It can't afford this war anyway.

 

[ashie0]

peacekeeping =/= war

one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter

.

 

[copkiller]

peacekeeping =/= war

It shouldn't be, but in this case peacekeeping is an excuse for further warmongering.

one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter

No a terrorist is someone who uses terror and violence to get their way.

So the coalition forces and the insurgents are both terrorists. But the US is certainly the biggest most tyrannical terrorist organization.

 

[ashie0]

It shouldn't be, but in this case peacekeeping is an excuse for further warmongering.



No a terrorist is someone who uses terror and violence to get their way.

So the coalition forces and the insurgents are both terrorists. But the US is certainly the biggest most tyrannical terrorist organization.

sometimes people have been so violently oppressed that life is practically un livable. when fighting brutality with peace achieves nothing, violence is sometimes your only answer. eg, umkohnto we sizwe and nelson mandela in the apartheid era.

 

[copkiller]

sometimes people have been so violently oppressed that life is practically un livable. when fighting brutality with peace achieves nothing, violence is sometimes your only answer. eg, umkohnto we sizwe and nelson mandela in the apartheid era.

Well that would be legitimate self defense.

But this does not apply to either party in this conflict.

Despite all the bad things the US government has done, killing American civilians is not a proportionate response, nor is it effective in helping their people.

 

[ashie0]

Well that would be legitimate self defense.

But this does not apply to either party in this conflict.

Despite all the bad things the US government has done, killing American civilians is not a proportionate response, nor is it effective in helping their people.

'one nations terrorists are another nations freedom fighters' may not apply to this conflict but it is a very legitimate statement.

The war is ridiculous. September 11 does not justify the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

 

[Azarnakumar]

sometimes people have been so violently oppressed that life is practically un livable. when fighting brutality with peace achieves nothing, violence is sometimes your only answer. eg, umkohnto we sizwe and nelson mandela in the apartheid era.

haha that doesnt make terrorism/freedom fighter stuff okay lol it is morally abhorrent

 

[ashie0]

haha that doesnt make terrorism/freedom fighter stuff okay lol it is morally abhorrent

so you dont think violence is ever justified?

 

[Azarnakumar]

i dont know, but all im saying is that i made the distinction about the terrorist v freedom fighter thing and it just shows how the idea of a 'terrorist' is very subjective.

im sure the russians thought of the afghans in the 80s as terrorists, while in the west they were freedom fighters

Edit: these same guys + their sons are now fighting coalition troops and being labelled terrorists (which they are)

although i admit russias intentions were a lot less noble than the coalition

 

[ashie0]

i dont know, but all im saying is that i made the distinction about the terrorist v freedom fighter thing and it just shows how the idea of a 'terrorist' is very subjective.

im sure the russians thought of the afghans in the 80s as terrorists, while in the west they were freedom fighters

yeah, every war has two sides.

apparently, in the last 200 years or something Afghanistan has been ruled by every system of government...