The 'freedom' our troops are dying for?

[Sukerkin]

Are you sure you're not being disingenuous there, Don? It's a weak argument at best and certainly on the opium growing side of things at least I'm not certain you have your facts straight.

It is also true that if a country simply cannot resist going and enforcing it's views on other countries, then it should be an Equal Opportunity Imperialist and go to all such places where things that offends them occur.

Of course, the reason why that does not happen is because a country will only expend resources in a way that it feels will benefit it i.e. where there is a 'pay off' to compensate for what is expended.

 

[Makalakumu]

Yeah, you're right, we should have just ignored the opium farming, women abusing little bastards. How dare we decree that women have the same rights as men? If the Taliban decrees that women are property and not entitled to more consideration than livestock, well, shoot, that is just the way it is in Afghanistan and we have to respect that, the very idea of forcing them to treat all people as equal is just forcing our morals on them and therefore wrong.

Don, I don't know what the solution to that is. This may sound like a Red Herring, but I'm not sure how else to say it, but here I go, if we were to send in troops to an area every time we disagreed with aspects of an area's culture, we'd be the most hated country on the planet. There's more to going into Afghanistan then simply attempting to enforce human rights. I would argue that human rights are NEVER a consideration when the US decides to go to war.

That said, I think the solution to what you are talking about is simple. It's found in our Constitution. War and our military forces were meant to protect our country not gallop across the globe and be the world's policeman. If we decide that we do not like how a country operates, we simply do not trade with them. Consider the effect this would have on the world? You want US trade and money, you need to conform to a reasonable standard of human rights.

I don't think that's a polly anna solution. Money can be a very positive and motivating factor and I think it would generate a lot less hatred toward the US then bombing the crap out of wedding parties until the people are forced to listen.

IMO, the only way an external force can cause real cultural change within a society is by resorting to genocide. The Brits found this out (again) in the Boar War and we discovered with our own indigenous populations and there are countless other examples throughout history.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

They aren't there for revenge or to wipe out villagers celebrating weddings.

Do you think that this is the motivation of U.S. soldiers?

It's already been said on this thread that there is no interest in the people whatsoever.

So because it's been said here, it must be true?

In that case, I say that there U.S. military does care about the lives of the people. So, now it must be true.

So no we aren't there primarily to stop Americans being run over by planes, we are there to do as much as we can for as many innocents as we can, to make the world a better place ( you can sneer at our idealism but remember the guys who are dying believe this) this could stop all people being run over by planes not just Americans.

No offense, but you seem to be idealising your country's military, in the same way the you denegrate us for doing with ours. I find that very interesting.

It is also true that if a country simply cannot resist going and enforcing it's views on other countries, then it should be an Equal Opportunity Imperialist and go to all such places where things that offends them occur.

Of course, the reason why that does not happen is because a country will only expend resources in a way that it feels will benefit it i.e. where there is a 'pay off' to compensate for what is expended.

And this is wrong why?

That said, I think the solution to what you are talking about is simple. It's found in our Constitution. War and our military forces were meant to protect our country not gallop across the globe and be the world's policeman. If we decide that we do not like how a country operates, we simply do not trade with them. Consider the effect this would have on the world? You want US trade and money, you need to conform to a reasonable standard of human rights.

You need to understand that money is the main reason that the government of these countries, which holds exclusive media rights in their countries, is because we are more properous then they are. And, they want what we have. So they incite the hatred of the U.S. to get what they want. So by doing what you suggest, as we did in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein simply hoarded what they did have for themselves, while blaming the U.S. for the masses problems, would solve nothing, and perhaps even exacerbate the issue.


And as I side note, I further find it interesting that we keep talking about making it better over there.

Better according to whom...???

 

[Archangel M]

If I was London the planes crashed into Im wagering that this conversation would sound somewhat different. Regardless of what is probably going to be stated in response to this...

 

[Tez3]

Hearts and minds.
The only way forward now is to show people by positive action that we are the good guys, that we keep our word and that our intentions are for the greater good.
This is never going to defeat the terrorists
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12009906
The war is on more than one front, it's being fought in the newsrooms, the newspaper and the market place. When we believe this war is about politics and oil lines not peoples safety and getting rid of terrorists how can we persuade anyone else? There were rumours long before 9/11 that America was planning on invading Afghanistan, more than rumours actually. The corridors of Whitehall were buzzing with it. None of this helps the ordinary people of any country though, the people of Afghanistan suffer and people of Iraq suffer and don't say they brought it on themselves they didn't, their countrie's leaders did as did ours.

To now bring about any sort of peace in Afghanistan we have to win over the people and show them there is a different way of living. Maunakumu is so right when he says we should have taken trading sanctions against them, made them feel the outcasts in a world that they need to be part of. Bombing the hell out of them is going to do nothing but make them hate us even more.

This is the type of action that will bring us closer to peace, we'd do well to listen to the Gurkhas, they are reputed to have liberated Afghanistan from the Muslims before in the 8th century. This isn't their first time in Afghanistan.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-gentle-touch-of-the-gurkhas-1609186.html

Hearts and minds is not a new operation for the British.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA479660&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

If I was London the planes crashed into Im wagering that this conversation would sound somewhat different. Regardless of what is probably going to be stated in response to this...

Not from anyone here. We already did it. It was called the Battle of Britain. And if you look at the appreciation for that, all you will see is how we made them pay for material that they just finished paying off. Even though it was at $0.10 on the dollar, neverminding the human cost to the U.S.

 

[Tez3]

If I was London the planes crashed into Im wagering that this conversation would sound somewhat different. Regardless of what is probably going to be stated in response to this...

You are so wrong. We've had bombings and killings on the mainland for many years now and our response wasn't to go and bomb the hell out of Northern or Southern Ireland. In all over 3600 people were killed and over 40,000 people injured in terrorist killings.
You are taking the view that vengence against anyone is fine instead of sitting and thinking that the first thing to do is get accurate intel, find out the ways, the wherefores, the hows then launch your plan against the perpetrators not a country where they are hiding and can leave at any moment.
I'm all for the terrorists being destroyed preferably in the nastiest way possoible but I want it to be the terrorists killed not innocents. I want us to be the ones who can hold our heads up and say we are morally and undeniably in the right, I want people to look at us and say, see thats how a democracy should work, there's freedom and equality. I don't want us to be in the gutter with the terrorists comming massacres, torturing people and bobming the hell out of people just because we can. I want us to be the good guys.

 

[Tez3]

Not from anyone here. We already did it. It was called the Battle of Britain. And if you look at the appreciation for that, all you will see is how we made them pay for material that they just finished paying off. Even though it was at $0.10 on the dollar, neverminding the human cost to the U.S.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/roll.html

In 1940 America was not in the war. They didn't join until over a year after the Battle of Britain.

You do know what the Battle of Britain was?
http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/bobhome.html

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Hearts and minds.
The only way forward now is to show people by positive action that we are the good guys, that we keep our word and that our intentions are for the greater good.

That was the only way to ever go forward. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. has never been good at guerilla warfare, at least not the political-military kind necessary for this type of engagement. We have gotten better at it,but maybe not good enough.

The thing that I take issue with is the fact that you seem to belive that the average soldier is there for revenge, or to blow up wedding parties. Perhaps it's because they have a sincere belief that they are doing what is necessary for their country.

This is never going to defeat the terrorists

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12009906

Terrorism will never be defeated. It is a tactic, not an organization. It will be used by whomever finds it useful. And someone will always find it useful whenever they cannot successfuly engage a larger army. Hell, the U.S. did it in the War of Independence.

The main difference between now and then is the efficiency of the attackers.

The war is on more than one front, it's being fought in the newsrooms, the newspaper and the market place.

When you have a media that is predisposed to think along leftist lines, it is difficult, if not impossible, in a country with a free press, to win that front. No matter how logical the argument.

When we believe this war is about politics and oil lines not peoples safety and getting rid of terrorists how can we persuade anyone else?

But who is propogating the fact that it is about oil lines and politics? The same media as above.

There were rumours long before 9/11 that America was planning on invading Afghanistan, more than rumours actually. The corridors of Whitehall were buzzing with it.

I would be interested to see what you mean by "more than rumours actually". What is your evidence?

None of this helps the ordinary people of any country though, the people of Afghanistan suffer and people of Iraq suffer and don't say they brought it on themselves they didn't, their countrie's leaders did as did ours.

It is never the leaders that fight the wars.

To now bring about any sort of peace in Afghanistan we have to win over the people and show them there is a different way of living. Maunakumu is so right when he says we should have taken trading sanctions against them, made them feel the outcasts in a world that they need to be part of. Bombing the hell out of them is going to do nothing but make them hate us even more.

You are making one assumption: that they want your different way of living.

As I said before, trading sanctions would have been used against us, just as a military action. The only real way to make change is to essentially force upon the common people economic prosperity. And I say force, because the leaders of those countries would lose power if they allowed the common man prosperity, and would fight it at all cost.
This is the type of action that will bring us closer to peace, we'd do well to listen to the Gurkhas, they are reputed to have liberated Afghanistan from the Muslims before in the 8th century. This isn't their first time in Afghanistan.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-gentle-touch-of-the-gurkhas-1609186.html

Hearts and minds is not a new operation for the British.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA479660&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf[/quote]

 

[Sukerkin]

And this is wrong why?

You missed my point, Kenpo.

I didn't say it was wrong (altho' at a purely moral level it is wrong).

What I was implying is that there is always a 'profitable' reason for a country to intefere in the affairs of other countries. As peasants we might not be privy to what that reason is but there always is one.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

You missed my point, Kenpo.

I didn't say it was wrong (altho' at a purely moral level it is wrong).

What I was implying is that there is always a 'profitable' reason for a country to intefere in the affairs of other countries. As peasants we might not be privy to what that reason is but there always is one.

I didn't, actually. I just wanted it to be plainly stated that this is not necessarily a wrong-thinking concept.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/roll.html

In 1940 America was not in the war. They didn't join until over a year after the Battle of Britain.

You do know what the Battle of Britain was?
[URL="http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/bobhome.html"]http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/bobhome.html[/URL]

I was not referring to the battle itself, but our response to it. We went to that war to assist those that we considered allies, in what was a European theater of conflict with no direct consequences to the U.S.A.

And all we get for it here anyway is the fact that we are arrogant in our movies, that we screwed Britain for making them pay 10% of war materials, etc.....

 

[Tez3]

That was the only way to ever go forward. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. has never been good at guerilla warfare, at least not the political-military kind necessary for this type of engagement. We have gotten better at it,but maybe not good enough.

The thing that I take issue with is the fact that you seem to belive that the average soldier is there for revenge, or to blow up wedding parties. Perhaps it's because they have a sincere belief that they are doing what is necessary for their country.



Terrorism will never be defeated. It is a tactic, not an organization. It will be used by whomever finds it useful. And someone will always find it useful whenever they cannot successfuly engage a larger army. Hell, the U.S. did it in the War of Independence.

The main difference between now and then is the efficiency of the attackers.



When you have a media that is predisposed to think along leftist lines, it is difficult, if not impossible, in a country with a free press, to win that front. No matter how logical the argument.




But who is propogating the fact that it is about oil lines and politics? The same media as above.



I would be interested to see what you mean by "more than rumours actually". What is your evidence?




It is never the leaders that fight the wars.



You are making one assumption: that they want your different way of living.

As I said before, trading sanctions would have been used against us, just as a military action. The only real way to make change is to essentially force upon the common people economic prosperity. And I say force, because the leaders of those countries would lose power if they allowed the common man prosperity, and would fight it at all cost.
This is the type of action that will bring us closer to peace, we'd do well to listen to the Gurkhas, they are reputed to have liberated Afghanistan from the Muslims before in the 8th century. This isn't their first time in Afghanistan.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-gentle-touch-of-the-gurkhas-1609186.html

Hearts and minds is not a new operation for the British.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA479660&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

[/quote]

No I'm assuming nothing and you are putting words in my mouth.

this is why I think your people may be thinking that it's all about revenge, posted here on this thread by Bill Mattaocks.
"It is important to remember the original situation. We did not go into Afghanistan to bring democracy to Afghanistan. We did not go in to enforce regime change in particular, that was just a side-effect of kicking their asses. The world, unlike the invasion of Iraq, was on our side. Even our traditional foes stood back and went 'oh, hell no, we're not saying nothing'. We (the US) were mad, we were hurting, Afghanistan was harboring the people who were proudly admitting they did it, and we were going to get us some. There was nothing in HELL that would have stopped that invasion. Bush didn't even have a choice - we'd have strung him up and gone in using commandeered shrimp boats if he'd refused.

Unlike Iraq, we don't particularly care what happens to Afghanistan after we leave. They can fall back into warlordism, or the Taliban can come back and tear down all the schools and whatnot. All we want is to save some face and capture or kill bin Laden and his cronies, finally put a bow on that little package, and get the hell out."

 

[Sukerkin]

If I was London the planes crashed into Im wagering that this conversation would sound somewhat different. Regardless of what is probably going to be stated in response to this...

Er, what?

 

[Tez3]

I didn't, actually. I just wanted it to be plainly stated that this is not necessarily a wrong-thinking concept.



I was not referring to the battle itself, but our response to it. We went to that war to assist those that we considered allies, in what was a European theater of conflict with no direct consequences to the U.S.A.

And all we get for it here anyway is the fact that we are arrogant in our movies, that we screwed Britain for making them pay 10% of war materials, etc.....

Well sunshine what a chip you have on your shoulder don't you?
Here let me give you one on the other to make the weight equal. We followed you into war with Japan, to help you. The war would have reached you anyway as Germany declared war on America so pal get your facts straight.We followed you into Iraq twice and Afghanistan.
We aren't discussing the Second World War here, so you are way off topic.
Get off your high horse and come down to earth, your people are dying and being horrendously wounded and all you can do is twitter about the second world war, get a grip man.
What on earth is your problem other than you like Brit bashing?

 

[Sukerkin]

I didn't, actually. I just wanted it to be plainly stated that this is not necessarily a wrong-thinking concept.

Fair enough, good sir.

I was not referring to the battle itself, but our response to it. We went to that war to assist those that we considered allies, in what was a European theater of conflict with no direct consequences to the U.S.A.

I think you need to dig a little deeper into the why's and wherefore's of this as you're, if you'll forgive the pun, off the money.

And all we get for it here anyway is the fact that we are arrogant in our movies, that we screwed Britain for making them pay 10% of war materials, etc.....

You really don't want to divert the thread down this path, I'm sure. I reckon this topic must have been touched on here before but if it hasn't it's worth a thread of it's own - or maybe not given the ire it will arouse in those of us who are so ungrateful for the selfless aid given to us in our time of need.

 

[Tez3]

The question I was asking is that of whether our troops are giving their lives for nothing or are they being let down (again) by our politicians and leaders?

Please notice I said our, not yours. the responsiblity lies with all our governments.

 

[jks9199]

Gentlefolk,
Arguing different national responses to terrorism within their countries, or the causes and reasons for different countries to enter WWII, is pointless. Europe (and much of the rest of the world) has been dealing much more directly with terror attacks for many years longer than the US, where we've been very fortunate that most of our terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 were homegrown, and non-political, special interest actions like abortion center bombings. The original post here seems to have questioned whether or not the cost to our troops is worth seeing essentially the same people come into power. Perhaps we can return to that topic?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Gentlefolk,
Arguing different national responses to terrorism within their countries, or the causes and reasons for different countries to enter WWII, is pointless. Europe (and much of the rest of the world) has been dealing much more directly with terror attacks for many years longer than the US, where we've been very fortunate that most of our terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 were homegrown, and non-political, special interest actions like abortion center bombings. The original post here seems to have questioned whether or not the cost to our troops is worth seeing essentially the same people come into power. Perhaps we can return to that topic?

From a purely strategic point of view, the answer is yes if they do not sponsor / continue terrorist attacks against the United States.

If they do, then the issue is how do we make it so that they don't.

It amazes me that the same people who insist that the U.S. has no right to force it's culture on other nations, are the same people who insist that we must make Afganistan a democracy and instill " basic human rights" into the country.

 

[Deaf Smith]

This is what happens when those in power decide that we cannot force our morals on others. This is what happens when a segment of a religion is so feared our leaders won't dare speak against obvious evils, lest they offend some whackos that may explode with little provocation.

We went to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, stop Al-Qaeda, and destroy their training bases. The Taliban was the religious government that was harboring them.

Bin Laden is stuck somewhere in a cave (with kidney problems if not dead), Al-Qaeda is scattered across the globe and right now incapable of making a serious terrorist incident, especially on the United States. The Taliban are hiding out near the borders of Pakistan and trying hard to make life difficult for Afghanistan.

We only offer to have them form a more-or-less democratic government in Afghanistan. That is all. We cannot and will not dictate just who and what makes up all the government. That is for them to decide. THEY ARE NOT A PUPUT REGIME FOR THE UNITED STATES.

This also applies to Iraq.

To think our GIs died for nothing is a mistake. WE HAVE NOT HAD ONE TERRORIST INCIDENT ON THE UNITED STATES SINCE WE WENT TO WAR WITH THE TERRORIST GLOBALY.

That's a win to me. The only question is, will Obama forfeit all that we have done for an illusion of peace.

deaf

 

[Big Don]

Hearts and minds, Tez?
While we all agree that it is great to be loved. If you cannot be loved, feared runs a close second. When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.