Six Year Anniversary of the Iraq Invasion is today

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by worlds edge, Mar 20, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. worlds edge

    worlds edge Well-Known Member

    Flew completely under my radar until I saw this article at a libertarian website. Interesting article, I recommend checking it out. Personally, I agree w/about, oh 95% of what is said but think the rhetoric contained in the article is unfortunately over the top.

    But what is most interesting of all, to me anyways, is that the whole thing seems to be passing without so much as a peep in any media I've seen, other than this one.
     
  2. Summer.Rain

    Summer.Rain Well-Known Member

    Americans are Imperialists who like to stick thair noses in others problems...
    and thay use the citizens ignorance to spend their taxes on war that no one cares about...

    What will happen if america will try to take over some middle east country?
    they cant because there is imperialisem law that forbiddens capturing...
    but they can "controll" the country for thair needs if there are soldiers
    in there who keep crashing and pushing the goverment to do as they want.
     
  3. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    And how many years has Afghanistan been?

    What I never understood is this popular veiw that the Iraq war is wrong but Afghanistan is justified.
     
  4. worlds edge

    worlds edge Well-Known Member

    Good question.

    My understanding is that the Taliban provided aid and comfort, etc to Al Qaeda that without which the 9/11 attacks could not have possibly occurred. I accept the first part of that statement as true, and am willing for the present to assent to the conclusion that arises from it. And given that the 9/11 attacks are about as likely a cause for war as I can think of, I suppose I also agree that invading Afghanistan was justified.

    As to Iraq, Saddam Hussein also gave just about continuous grounds for war, should the US have decided to follow up on the provocations. Violating the agreed to "no fly" zones, locking on fighters with SAMs, etc. He essentially treated the Gulf War I cease fire as toilet paper...the fact that the causes for war fed to the world have just about across the board been shown to be garbage (from WMDs to to nuclear weapons to the now acknowledged as never occurring meeting in Prague between Al Qaeda and Hussein representatives) notwithstanding. Nor does the fantasy land Bush 43's advisors seemed to be living in as to the aftermath of the invasion necessarily invalidate this. Of course, the war would have been impossible to sell to the public had it been presented to it honestly, barring the 20% or so that qualifies as nitwits of the Free Republic type.
     
  5. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Excellent work on bringing this to light.

    The Afghan War is deemed more justified for several reasons beyond its legitimate connection to 9/11 (and several other terrorist attacks from groups based and/or connected there, such as the 1996 World Trade Center Bombings, the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Nairobi, etc). There is also the fact that a global consensus deemed it so as well. The UN, NATO, and much of the international community all agreed that Afghanistan--also a source of 92% of the world's Opium--needed an intervention. That is one reason while, unlike Iraq, it has recieved more aid and troops from a dozen other countries, including Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and so on (and not just the token dozen or so that comprise our so-called coalition in Iraq).

    The problem with Afghanistan, as with Iraq, is that we were prepared for war rather than for what comes after. Defeating a military and toppling a regime (in Afghanistan's case a semi-regime) is one thing. Accounting for the aftermath--reconstruction, accomadation, aid, insurgency tactics, endearment to the populace--is another. Had webeen more farsighted and culturally sensistive, we could've assesed each campaign more holistically and done a better job.
     
  6. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Excellent work on bringing this to light.

    The Afghan War is deemed more justified for several reasons beyond its legitimate connection to 9/11 (and several other terrorist attacks from groups based and/or connected there, such as the 1996 World Trade Center Bombings, the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Nairobi, etc). There is also the fact that a global consensus deemed it so as well. The UN, NATO, and much of the international community all agreed that Afghanistan--also a source of 92% of the world's Opium--needed an intervention. That is one reason while, unlike Iraq, it has received more aid and troops from a dozen other countries, including Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and so on (and not just the token dozen or so that comprise our so-called coalition in Iraq).

    The problem with Afghanistan, as with Iraq, is that we were prepared for war rather than for what comes after. Defeating a military and toppling a regime (in Afghanistan's case a semi-regime) is one thing. Accounting for the aftermath--reconstruction, accommodation, aid, insurgency tactics, endearment to the populace--is another. Had we been more farsighted and culturally sensitive, we could've assessed each campaign more holistically and done a better job.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.