• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

i know the region and i was in Iraq prior to the invasion. Saddam was a tyrant and a petty thug. i have stated that he needed to be out of power.

i am still against the US invasion of the nation with other coalition forces. the US has changed leaders many times in other nations and it has always gone badly. the killing of 10o's of thousands of people does not make sense to me. killing to end killing is an odd step forward.death is death. which is more wrong.
are you less dead if a Coalition troop kills you?
are you more dead if Saddam kills you?

the coalition had no reason to be in the country and therefore the people were raped of their power to change their nation as they saw fit.

just say this. if the entire world hated George Bush so much that the thought that he should be removed. and every nation in the world stopped trade with the US. then all on the same day the armies of the entire world tossed everything they had at the US to get rid of Bush. (i know you are going to say the US would have kicked ass) but say this had happened and the Swede's marched into the White House and executed Bush. you would be pretty upset.

what right did the US and others have to do it to someone else?

We have an important image to keep up Katie..We are the saviours and the policeman of the world..only the US has the right to invade other nations under the diguise of promoting democracy.

The world for the most part after WW11 used to respect the US for valid reasons, now it is not that way anymore....to many bridges burned.
 
Katie, I totally agree with you. The only reason soldiers wouldn't want their picture taken is if they are doing something wrong. I understand that not all reporters are honest (look at people like Limbaugh) but we need the media so we know what is happening. Frankly, I wish we were more like Canada in that regard and kept our nose out everyone's business.
 
Great response, thanks!

the US has changed leaders many times in other nations and it has always gone badly.

We have a bad track record this half-century, for sure.

the killing of 10o's of thousands of people does not make sense to me. killing to end killing is an odd step forward.death is death. which is more wrong.
are you less dead if a Coalition troop kills you?
are you more dead if Saddam kills you?

I think there is a difference between people directly killed by the actions of our soldiers and people killed by the terrorists.

I am cognizant of the fact that those killed by the terrorists would not have been killed if we didn't invade, but we are not directly responsible for their deaths.

I also think that the majority of people that our soldiers killed were bad guys and not innocent people, although I am sure a lot of innocent life was taken by bombing, mistaken identity, poor judgement, and counterinsurgency.

Iraq had a power structure in place that extended past the Army and included the police and intelligence services and local government. This power structure was abusive and murderous to its people. It takes blood to remove the structure and form a new one. Is it worth it? I think so.

It was worth it when we threw off the English power structure, both in 1775 and in 1812. It took blood to save lives.

the coalition had no reason to be in the country and therefore the people were raped of their power to change their nation as they saw fit.

There were good reasons to be in country. I think that there were multiple reasons given to go. I think there was one primary objective. I think there were multiple secondary objectives that hinged on the primary objective.

just say this. if the entire world hated George Bush so much that the thought that he should be removed. and every nation in the world stopped trade with the US. then all on the same day the armies of the entire world tossed everything they had at the US to get rid of Bush. (i know you are going to say the US would have kicked ass) but say this had happened and the Swede's marched into the White House and executed Bush. you would be pretty upset.

Was Bush killing his people and threatening his neighbors and not in a Democracy but the leader for life with no way to change him? Bring it on!

what right did the US and others have to do it to someone else?

Reasons:
- WMD development threat
- Treatment of citizens
- Iraqi cooperation with terrorists
- UN violations
- To transform into a democracy, because it is geopolitically important and it has the capacity for a democracy – high literacy, developed economy, etc

and the primary objective was:
- To transform into a democracy

Secondary objectives (long-term):
- Influence Iran as a neighboring democracy
- Influence Saudi Arabia as a neighboring democracy
- Become a regional leader
 
Great response, thanks!



We have a bad track record this half-century, for sure.



I think there is a difference between people directly killed by the actions of our soldiers and people killed by the terrorists.

I am cognizant of the fact that those killed by the terrorists would not have been killed if we didn't invade, but we are not directly responsible for their deaths.

I also think that the majority of people that our soldiers killed were bad guys and not innocent people, although I am sure a lot of innocent life was taken by bombing, mistaken identity, poor judgement, and counterinsurgency.

Iraq had a power structure in place that extended past the Army and included the police and intelligence services and local government. This power structure was abusive and murderous to its people. It takes blood to remove the structure and form a new one. Is it worth it? I think so.

It was worth it when we threw off the English power structure, both in 1775 and in 1812. It took blood to save lives.



There were good reasons to be in country. I think that there were multiple reasons given to go. I think there was one primary objective. I think there were multiple secondary objectives that hinged on the primary objective.



Was Bush killing his people and threatening his neighbors and not in a Democracy but the leader for life with no way to change him? Bring it on!



Reasons:
- WMD development threat
- Treatment of citizens
- Iraqi cooperation with terrorists
- UN violations
- To transform into a democracy, because it is geopolitically important and it has the capacity for a democracy – high literacy, developed economy, etc

and the primary objective was:
- To transform into a democracy

Secondary objectives (long-term):
- Influence Iran as a neighboring democracy
- Influence Saudi Arabia as a neighboring democracy
- Become a regional leader

But no connetion to the 9-11 attacks...those threats and people were left behind in Afghanistan and the Pakistan border region.

I think we will be very fortunate as a nation that not all presidents have the same standards as far a honor and dignity goes and have a totally different definition as to what honesty is and what a Accomplished Mission really is.
 
Last edited:
But no connetion to the 9-11 attacks...those threats and people were left behind in Afghanistan and the Pakistan border region.

9-11 highlighted the importance of stopping nuclear proliferation. That is the only connection.

As far as Afghanistan goes, there is a limit to how many people our logistics system can support. There was also a limit of effective missions. I think we were at that point.

Al Qaeda was in Pakistan and we couldn't very well invade those mountain highlands could we? We had limited missions.

I think we will be very fortunate as a nation that not all presidents have the same standards as far a honor and dignity goes and have a totally different definition as to what honesty is and what a Accomplished Mission really is.

I think the Bush Doctrine will be used again. Not be every president. We aren't going to start invading countries willy-nilly. The country in question has to have a bad track record (17 UN resolution violations...), has to be of geopolitical importance to its region, has to be in our national interest, and has to have the capacity for democratization.
 
Obama is incapable of making quick decisions and certainly not capable of making tough decisions that could cost him politically. Everything this Administration will be stifled by the "political" assessments first and foremost.

It is typical with Democrat leadership and something once again so painfully and obviously on display.

Remember the Kerry rant; "I was for the war before I was against it." It pretty much sums up the dimwitted mentality of Democrat politicians.

it really has little to do with either Democrats or Republicans. the world does not work that way. underneath the rhetoric they are pretty much the same.

Obama is trying to hold to many things in the air at one time. trying to fix all that has gone wrong at one time makes a mess of the soup.

Bush by not focusing on the capture of Bin Laden missed that and has you in two conflicts in areas on the globe that have been in conflict since the world took form.

you are stuck and outside of just biting the bullet and pulling out you will be stuck in both places for years. Iraq is and always will be one day away from going right back to where they were. Afghanistan is where Empire goes to die.

i blame your Bush for getting into these things. i blame Obama who said he was against these conflicts from the3 beginning for not ending them. the US needs if they follow the original goal to create a police action to capture Bin Laden. they need to help Iraq rebuild their nation. the world needs to help Afghanistan to rebuild theirs.

the fighting by the coalition needs to stop and stop now. that is the only plan that makes sense. if the Iraqi insurgence finds work and pay they will stop attacks. if they are paid to lay brick and plaster walls and hang doors and are left to their faith and life they will stop.

the reason for the hatred of the west is that the west wants them to be like they are. these people have a totally different culture. they always have. why is it important to the west to have these folks be like you are?
 
We have an important image to keep up Katie..We are the saviours and the policeman of the world..only the US has the right to invade other nations under the diguise of promoting democracy.

Reading the above, it is apparent that it contains nothing more than hyperbolic nonsense. :roll:


The world for the most part after WW11 used to respect the US for valid reasons, now it is not that way anymore....to many bridges burned.

Once again, the above contains nothing factual; just more of the same uniformed opinions that appear to be your forte'.

I would ask you for some credible facts to support your absurd opinions, but that would be like asking an elephant to fly; it just isn't going to happen. :doh
 
Katie, I totally agree with you. The only reason soldiers wouldn't want their picture taken is if they are doing something wrong. I understand that not all reporters are honest (look at people like Limbaugh) but we need the media so we know what is happening. Frankly, I wish we were more like Canada in that regard and kept our nose out everyone's business.

Yes, the age old farcical notion that if we just kept to ourselves, the world would be a better place.

But yet, in historical context it begs the question; how did that work for us in WWI? How about WWII?

Carry on; your uniformed assertions about our role in history are about as informed as your opinions are about the economy. :roll:
 
But no connetion to the 9-11 attacks...those threats and people were left behind in Afghanistan and the Pakistan border region.

Once more it is painfully obvious, and typical, that you did not read the joint resolution which contains the reasons we went into Iraq; it is called enforcement of UN resolutions and agreements Saddam failed to comply with.

Of course the TRUTH and the FACTS are an inconvenience to your hyped up partisan views.

I think we will be very fortunate as a nation that not all presidents have the same standards as far a honor and dignity goes and have a totally different definition as to what honesty is and what a Accomplished Mission really is.

I tried to use my goldendog translator here and still cannot make any sense of the above; we are probably better off for it.

:2wave:
 
Once more it is painfully obvious, and typical, that you did not read the joint resolution which contains the reasons we went into Iraq; it is called enforcement of UN resolutions and agreements Saddam failed to comply with.

Of course the TRUTH and the FACTS are an inconvenience to your hyped up partisan views.



I tried to use my goldendog translator here and still cannot make any sense of the above; we are probably better off for it.

:2wave:

Translate this TD...

"That's why I said to the Taliban in Afghanistan: Get rid of al Qaeda; see, you're harboring al Qaeda. Remember this is a place where they trained -- al Qaeda trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. And the Taliban, I guess, just didn't believe me. And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. (Applause.)"

George W Bush
September 27, 2004


This was part of his great "Mission Accomplished" Speech..

So TD looking at the situation in Afghanistan TODAY. Which do you think was the most prudent mission reguarding avenging the 9-11 attacks?
Iraq-who had zero connections to the 9-11 attacks?
or
Afghanistan and the Paki border region and the Taliban - who had everything to do with the 9-11 attacks?
Looking back do you think that it would have been a better use of our rescources to have stayed there and actually completing the mission one way or another?
 
it really has little to do with either Democrats or Republicans. the world does not work that way. underneath the rhetoric they are pretty much the same.

The differences could not be vaster; unless of course you willingly suspend disbelief.

Obama is trying to hold to many things in the air at one time. trying to fix all that has gone wrong at one time makes a mess of the soup.

No, Obama is clueless and is showing how little experience he truly brings to the job. In addition, he is also a very political animal and knows that if he doesn’t pass his poorly thought out partisan agenda while he has BIG majorities in the Congress, he will never get another chance.

Bush by not focusing on the capture of Bin Laden missed that and has you in two conflicts in areas on the globe that have been in conflict since the world took form.

I am continually fascinated by this lie; the notion that Bush did not focus on capturing Bin laden cannot be supported by any facts and is more the realm of hyperbolic partisan BS.

you are stuck and outside of just biting the bullet and pulling out you will be stuck in both places for years. Iraq is and always will be one day away from going right back to where they were. Afghanistan is where Empire goes to die.

I cannot make sense of this comment; the notion that American is an empire is patently absurd.

i blame your Bush for getting into these things. i blame Obama who said he was against these conflicts from the3 beginning for not ending them. the US needs if they follow the original goal to create a police action to capture Bin Laden. they need to help Iraq rebuild their nation. the world needs to help Afghanistan to rebuild theirs.

Of course you blame everyone except for the despots, tyrants, dictators and terrorists who are the cause of all our problems in the ME. I cannot say that I am surprised because blaming the US appears to be a simplistic and convenient place to wallow in factual and historic denial.

the fighting by the coalition needs to stop and stop now. that is the only plan that makes sense. if the Iraqi insurgence finds work and pay they will stop attacks. if they are paid to lay brick and plaster walls and hang doors and are left to their faith and life they will stop.
This is of course your own OPINION which lacks any factual basis or historic reference. The FACT is that any notions that if we just withdraw into a cocoon the world will be a better place is naïve, dangerous and would be disastrous.

The good news here is that you don’t hold any office so your opinions are just that.


the reason for the hatred of the west is that the west wants them to be like they are. these people have a totally different culture. they always have. why is it important to the west to have these folks be like you are?

The above couldn’t be further from the truth.

The reasons for the hatred of the West are purely due to ignorance. The only way that such ignorance can be perpetuated is by avoiding the truth and historic realities that breed such ignorance.

The West is not attempting to make these cultures anything like they are; they are attempting to deny despots, dictators and terrorists the capability of causing destruction and harm to their citizens.

I am constantly amazed how people like you, who can easily obtain the facts and historic truth, swallow the asinine terrorist propaganda with such aplomb.

:doh
 
Translate this TD...

"That's why I said to the Taliban in Afghanistan: Get rid of al Qaeda; see, you're harboring al Qaeda. Remember this is a place where they trained -- al Qaeda trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. And the Taliban, I guess, just didn't believe me. And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. (Applause.)"

George W Bush
September 27, 2004


This was part of his great "Mission Accomplished" Speech..

So TD looking at the situation in Afghanistan TODAY. Which do you think was the most prudent mission reguarding avenging the 9-11 attacks?
Iraq-who had zero connections to the 9-11 attacks?
or
Afghanistan and the Paki border region and the Taliban - who had everything to do with the 9-11 attacks?
Looking back do you think that it would have been a better use of our rescources to have stayed there and actually completing the mission one way or another?

Good lord, are you really that dense? What part of the above speech has ANYTHING to do with Iraq? :doh

Here is what the JOINT RESOLUTION contained which were the LEGAL reasons we went into Iraq. Read and become informed rather than spew blatant nonsensical terrorist propaganda like a lemming:

S. J. Res 45 Auhorizing Use of Armed Forces Against Iraq

Carry on. :doh
 
Yes, the age old farcical notion that if we just kept to ourselves, the world would be a better place.

But yet, in historical context it begs the question; how did that work for us in WWI? How about WWII?

Carry on; your uniformed assertions about our role in history are about as informed as your opinions are about the economy. :roll:

How did ****ing with people work out for us in Korea and Vietnam?
 
I am continually fascinated by this lie; the notion that Bush did not focus on capturing Bin laden cannot be supported by any facts and is more the realm of hyperbolic partisan BS.

_________________________________________________________

Translate this TD.......
Think Progress Bush Tells Barnes Capturing Bin Laden Is ‘Not A Top Priority Use of American Resources’


Bush Tells Barnes Capturing Bin Laden Is ‘Not A Top Priority Use of American Resources’
Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes appeared on Fox this morning to discuss his recent meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. The key takeaway for Barnes was that “bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” Barnes said that Bush told him capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.” Watch it.

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2006/09/barnesosama.320.240.flv]
Bush’s priorities have always been skewed. Just months after declaring he wanted bin Laden “dead or alive,” Bush said, “I truly am not that concerned about him.” Turning his attention away from bin Laden, Bush trained his focus on Iraq — a country he now admits had “nothing” to do with 9/11.

Capturing bin Laden, as Rep. Nancy Pelosi recently pointed out, will not necessarily make America safer because it would come five years too late. Yet, capturing or killing the man responsible for 9/11 should remain a high priority.
 
Bush wasn't focused on Bin Laden. Niether is Obama, you know the current president.
 
How did ****ing with people work out for us in Korea and Vietnam?

Is there a point to your uninformed rant?

In Korea, the Communists attempted to take over the South Korean nation. The UN prevented it and South Korea is a shining example of democratic prosperity.

Here's a short history lesson for you so that you can be more informed which makes my point again:

Nov 14, 1947 U.N. Resolution to remove troops from Korea after national elections.

April 8, 1948 President Truman orders withdrawal of US troops from Korea

June 29, 1949 Last US troops leave South Korea
Korean Military Advisory Group (KMAG, 200 men) formed

June 25 Korean time NK invades Republic of South Korea (ROK) without warning

June 25 New York time
UN Security Council demands NK stop its attack and return to its borders

June 30 NK 3rd Division (NK-3) crosses Han River; NK drives down Peninsula

June 30 President Truman commits US Troops to enforce UN demand


Sound familiar yet? :doh

You want to talk about Vietnam? That war was contrived by DEMOCRATS and planned and fought in the White House. The only reason South Vietnam does not exist today which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent people in SE Asia was because the intransigent Democrat Congress at the time felt it was more convenient to ignore an ally and go back on their word.

How did that work out for us?
 
Translate this TD...

"That's why I said to the Taliban in Afghanistan: Get rid of al Qaeda; see, you're harboring al Qaeda. Remember this is a place where they trained -- al Qaeda trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. And the Taliban, I guess, just didn't believe me. And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. (Applause.)"

George W Bush
September 27, 2004


This was part of his great "Mission Accomplished" Speech..

The Mission Accomplished speech was May 1, 2003
 
Good lord, are you really that dense?

Moderator's Warning:
A final warning was given by IT in post #299. These behaviors will not be tolerated, and again, any acting out will result in a thread ban...at least. As it did in this case.
 
excellent points you bring out!
Great response, thanks!
We have a bad track record this half-century, for sure.
the track record for nation building has been very bad we agree.
I think there is a difference between people directly killed by the actions of our soldiers and people killed by the terrorists.
i look at terrorists differently than many in the US. i see someone committing acts in defense of there nation as maybe the word would be self appointed militia. they believe they are defending their way of life.
others i see as revolutionaries that who believe by force they can change their nation. their intent is to overthrow the powers that be. (much as the coalition may have been thinking)
the revolutionary thought process may appear to be terrorist but it is not. it is an assault to say, overthrow Saddam Hussein.
a terrorist would be like the people that flew planes into the World Trade Centers. that was to inflict pain and suffering to a different nation. to create havoc from outside the shores and try and change that nations policy. that is what terrorists do.
when i look at the invasion of Iraq. i see it as nation building from outside. i see it as enforced change of that nation. i see it as an incursion of what Iraq was about. it looks like an effort to have them in the end look like us.

in my definitions above this looks far more like a terrorist act than a friendly gesture. it is the worlds way of knocking down Iraq's World Trade Centers. i do not blame just the US for this invasion.
I am cognizant of the fact that those killed by the terrorists would not have been killed if we didn't invade, but we are not directly responsible for their deaths.
no the US is not directly responsible. but as you look, had the coalition not been present many of the acts of self styled militia and fringe elements would never have occurred. so the blood splashes in all directions. everyone gets dirty.
I also think that the majority of people that our soldiers killed were bad guys and not innocent people, although I am sure a lot of innocent life was taken by bombing, mistaken identity, poor judgment, and counterinsurgency.
this is a tough point. i really believe that the coalition forces tried their hardest to avoid the death of innocents. the problem is that a great deal of collateral damage does happen. in a guerrilla tactic's siege it is often hard to know the true enemy. it could be anyone. the Iraqi defenders would as i stated put innocents in the way. (example: a tactic used against Israel was for a radar station to be set in a hospital. how does Israel take out that instillation without harming innocents.)
the question reverts back to should the coalition forces be in Iraq in the first place?
Iraq had a power structure in place that extended past the Army and included the police and intelligence services and local government. This power structure was abusive and murderous to its people. It takes blood to remove the structure and form a new one. Is it worth it? I think so.
Iraq was over run by thugs and bad management. i do not deny that. i realized the plight of the people that live there. i was there between conflicts. the situation was horrible. the infrastructure was a mess. there were food shortages and bad water. i agree that this was a horrible situation.

nothing was ever done by anyone really to help rebuild Iraq after the first Gulf Crisis. this is much the same a Germany after WWI. had these countries been assisted maybe the problems that happened after could have been avoided. as i recall the people of Iraq and the Kurds were asking for help to fix the nation at the time. the coalition walked out and left them to suffer.
It was worth it when we threw off the English power structure, both in 1775 and in 1812. It took blood to save lives.
Revolution to change is far different than outside forces making the change for you. the American Revolution and French Revolution are different cases.
There were good reasons to be in country. I think that there were multiple reasons given to go. I think there was one primary objective. I think there were multiple secondary objectives that hinged on the primary objective.
i really believe and here we may disagree the primary objective is the statement get even with Saddam.
Was Bush killing his people and threatening his neighbors and not in a Democracy but the leader for life with no way to change him? Bring it on!

i did not say he was. that was an example of how right would it be if outside forces came to your land to change your way of life. you would not like it as i see from your response.

Reasons:
- WMD development threat
- Treatment of citizens
- Iraqi cooperation with terrorists
- UN violations
- To transform into a democracy, because it is geopolitically important and it has the capacity for a democracy – high literacy, developed economy, etc

and the primary objective was:
- To transform into a democracy

Secondary objectives (long-term):
- Influence Iran as a neighboring democracy
- Influence Saudi Arabia as a neighboring democracy
- Become a regional leader

your first list could be ascribed to Korea. why have they not been attacked?
much on the list could be set up for other nations as well. why have they not been attacked.Iraq was a choice made for what i believe certain reasons.

the bolded: nation building is wrong. why do these people need to act as you do in your country? they have a different culture.
 
Back
Top Bottom