• 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

reefedjib said:
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 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.
Click to expand...

Korea was and is a larger nuclear threat than Iraq ever was yet they remain untouched. why is that?
 
Truth Detector said:
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:
Click to expand...

People like to go back to WWI and WWII both could have been avoided. WWII certainly needed never to happen.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
From that timeline, it seems that even is as you suggested rumsfeld wanted to sit on it. The red cross and AI already knew about it, no>?
Click to expand...

They key was the photos that were on the cameras from the guards. Rumsfeld knew just prior to 2004, I believe, though he denies it. It's highly unlikely that the four-stars or Sanchez was tracking something that Rumsfeld didn't know about. He didn't run that kind of ship. He definetely knew about it by Mid-January 04.

Jan. 14-15: Gen. John Abizaid, chief of Central Command, tells Gen. Richard Meyers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, of the investigation and says it is a 'big deal'.
Click to expand...

CENTCOM and JCS know, Rumsfeld knew. It's only logic. Myers kept nothing from him.

who leaked the photos?
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
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?
Click to expand...

The point is that you used two extreme examples as excuse for all intervention previously. But not all intervention has yielded anything productive. Korea and Vietnam were long fought, expensive (especially in terms of lives at the time) wars which fought to stalemate. If there are similarities between Afghanistan/Iraq and previous wars, it would be well more similar to Vietnam of Korea than it would WW I and WW II. In fact, WW II was the last time we even officially declared war.

Thus the ignorance is on your side. You cannot use unrelated wars, such as the World Wars as excuse for all intervention. Interventionist policies may be needed but they can also harm. Thus the specifics of each circumstance must be looked at.
 
Truth Detector said:
The differences could not be vaster; unless of course you willingly suspend disbelief.
Click to expand...

they are not large differences. the end result of either side is that the rich stay rich.

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.
Click to expand...

Obama is has taken on more than he should have at any one time so loses effectiveness. would you really like to say that Bush did a better job. when he came into power the country was not in the toilet as it was when Obama came into office.

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.
Click to expand...

if he did where is Bin Laden now. it is not a lie. it is the truth. it is not partisan at all. this is what you want to make this debate about. it has nothing to do with Obama's abilities or Bush's. it has to do with why the US is doing what it is doing.

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

that is a phrase used to make a point. i believed that everyone had heard that term before. it was also applied to the USSR when they invaded Afghanistan. Afghanistan is where empire goes to die. you have not heard this before.


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.
Click to expand...

no they are not. outside interference is much to blame. the US in this is an easy target. they have set themselves up as such.

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.
Click to expand...

yours too is your own notion.

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

the same could be said for you.


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.
Click to expand...

this is not true either.

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.
Click to expand...

yes they are by nation building and deciding that all nations should be democracy's

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
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

well since that is untrue i will not even respond to this one.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Bush wasn't focused on Bin Laden. Niether is Obama, you know the current president.
Click to expand...

you forget that Bush was focused on Bin Laden when he said it or was that a lie as well.

Obama is trying to deal with the mess of Bush. Obama's fault is that he is still trying to do that and not removing troops.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
Korea was and is a larger nuclear threat than Iraq ever was yet they remain untouched. why is that?
Click to expand...

Low geopolitical importance = no oil and no important neighbors.
 
kansaswhig said:
I'm pretty sure the banner was in reference to the war...

Maybe I'm an idiot.
Click to expand...

it was in reference to the war. when Bush looked like an ass a while later they spun it to make seem as if this was the ships mission.
 
kansaswhig said:
The Mission Accomplished speech was May 1, 2003
Click to expand...

My mistake...he did say that in a Sept 2004 speech...but here is the transcripts from the actual mission accomplished speech...where he made the same claims.

CNN.com - Bush makes historic speech aboard warship - May. 1, 2003


"In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals and educate all of their children."
 
katiegrrl0 said:
yet Korea remains a huge threat to many. they now have nuclear ability
Click to expand...

yep. I don't have an opinion about what to do about N. Korea. I don't have a clue.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
yet Korea remains a huge threat to many. they now have nuclear ability
Click to expand...

In my opinion we should take a general stance that if they're not acting against anyone then they aren't a threat.

Someone can have a registered rifle in their home but if they're not threatening anyone with it then they can't be charged with a crime not yet committed and accused thereof.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
In my opinion we should take a general stance that if they're not acting against anyone then they aren't a threat.

Someone can have a registered rifle in their home but if they're not threatening anyone with it then they can't be charged with a crime not yet committed and accused thereof.
Click to expand...

i so agree with you on this.

i have always believed that as long as one is aloud to have Nuclear weapons everyone should.

i used Korea as an example of why did they not get attacked for Nukes and Iraq did. there were other reasons for Iraq. it was not that they were a nuclear threat.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
i so agree with you on this.

i have always believed that as long as one is aloud to have Nuclear weapons everyone should.

i used Korea as an example of why did they not get attacked for Nukes and Iraq did. there were other reasons for Iraq. it was not that they were a nuclear threat.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I definitely agree with you on this, too.

Some things we simply cannot control or pick and choose - we should react to actions, not preemptive. Eventhough, sometimes, that seems to put us IN danger it is still better than attacking (or other action) without probably cause.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
there were other reasons for Iraq. it was not that they were a nuclear threat.
Click to expand...

Aunt Spiker said:
we should react to actions, not preemptive
Click to expand...

I don't know if it is called the Bush Doctrine, since they sold this on the threat of WMD, but I do think there were other reasons we went to Iraq. It wasn't even pre-emptive or even preventative. We went to change the government to a democracy. Regime change.

Iraq was a bad country (threat to neighbors, WMD history, dictatorship, cruel to people) that was geopolitically important (oil, important neighbors, centrally located in important region <oil again>), so it was in our interest, and had the capacity for democratization (educated, economic potantial). Once in awhile, that kind of country is ripe for regime change. Not all countries, not all the time. So Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Congo, etc are out of consideration.

That's my case. I have made this argument in another thread and I am presented with the assertion that it is unjust. I currently think it is just, and have for 7 years, mainly because I think it is in our interest. I hope to do some reading about that and I may have to change my mind.
 
reefedjib said:
I don't know if it is called the Bush Doctrine, since they sold this on the threat of WMD, but I do think there were other reasons we went to Iraq. It wasn't even pre-emptive or even preventative. We went to change the government to a democracy. Regime change.

Iraq was a bad country (threat to neighbors, WMD history, dictatorship, cruel to people) that was geopolitically important (oil, important neighbors, centrally located in important region <oil again>), so it was in our interest, and had the capacity for democratization (educated, economic potantial). Once in awhile, that kind of country is ripe for regime change. Not all countries, not all the time. So Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Congo, etc are out of consideration.

That's my case. I have made this argument in another thread and I am presented with the assertion that it is unjust. I currently think it is just, and have for 7 years, mainly because I think it is in our interest. I hope to do some reading about that and I may have to change my mind.
Click to expand...

Some of those things could be deemed as probably cause.

If we went and attacked North Korea purely based on the fact that htey are nuclear - that would not be probably cause.
 
reefedjib said:
I don't know if it is called the Bush Doctrine, since they sold this on the threat of WMD, but I do think there were other reasons we went to Iraq. It wasn't even pre-emptive or even preventative. We went to change the government to a democracy. Regime change.

Iraq was a bad country (threat to neighbors, WMD history, dictatorship, cruel to people) that was geopolitically important (oil, important neighbors, centrally located in important region <oil again>), so it was in our interest, and had the capacity for democratization (educated, economic potantial). Once in awhile, that kind of country is ripe for regime change. Not all countries, not all the time. So Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Congo, etc are out of consideration.

That's my case. I have made this argument in another thread and I am presented with the assertion that it is unjust. I currently think it is just, and have for 7 years, mainly because I think it is in our interest. I hope to do some reading about that and I may have to change my mind.
Click to expand...

i am happy to see that you are open minded on a change of mind. having been doing news during the time of the invasion and having read the intell that was available to us which of course was limited greatly. i do think that your reason may be a valid debate point. what i find more troubling is that out of all the nations that caused a threat the least likely to have harmed the US directly was Iraq. they were depleted.

i have always been of the opinion that Bush used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to round about take a slap at Saddam Hussein. to me all other reason aside it looks like a Vendetta. many other news people at the time and still see this attack the same way. no one understood how Iraq a nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks was selected first on the terror list. it made no sense.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Some of those things could be deemed as probably cause.

If we went and attacked North Korea purely based on the fact that htey are nuclear - that would not be probably cause.
Click to expand...

the reasons that were given by Bush before the attack on Iraq were WMD's were present. that was the cause of the attack according to the administration of the time.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

terrorists are people that use terrorism tactics to acheive their strategic aim. The invasion was not terrorism.

katiegrrl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes.

katiegrrl0 said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Yes, the insurgents and terrorists would embed in civilians and attack civilians. Truly despicable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom