To me, the war in Afghanistan is about bringing stability to a nation that has been in turmoil for decades so that the people there might finally be able to make a life for themselves. When I first heard about the Taliban taking power there I was disapointed to hear that a fundamentalist group took charge of the country but then I thought, "well maybe they can bring peace to the nation, who am I to say."

Then a few year later, before the turn of the century, I remember finding the occasional spam in my inbox pleading that I talk to my MP about the Taliban's oppressive ways and beg my MP to do something about it. And I remember thinking, "like what, invade?" A couple years later, the towers were hit and a few short days after, we sent troops there. I was proud of my government for doing so in part because I knew that our army wouldn't be capable of sending troops both there and to Iraq and I didn't think that invading Iraq was a right thing to do.

I remember thinking a couple years ago about the irony of this war. In the end we are hoping for a stable democracy to take root. And it is quite possible that we may see a non-militant Taliban party arise that supports fundamental Islamic ideals. And that may be the very sort of government that the Afghan people want to elect. Who knows. It could be that we are fighting so that fundamentalist Islamic people can take power in a way that we feel more comfortable with.

This war has been going on for 8 years now and people in Canada are getting tired of it. I do think that if we've been doing the same thing for that long and progress has been questionable that it is time to change something. I don't think that necissarily means leaving.

nice post hodgman.

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
The war in Iraq was started for literally no reason other than having a motive (grudge), the means and the opportunity (the general public believed the propaganda that Iraq was linked to 9/11). The USA tried to link them to 9/11 (they were even caught out *forging* evidence!), and made all sorts of illegal threats/demands/ultimatums, which Saddam actually cooperated with. Eventually they made the illegal demand of "get out of your country or we'll kill you", which obviously didn't cooperate with, and therefore the USA invaded his country and killed him.

lets not forget that both bin laden and saddam would never have been big enough to be terrorists / dictators like they got, if not thanks to the us which supported them in the earlier days, trained them to abuse them for own needs. and then dropped their support. which made them angry, and most likely was one of the motives why binladen planned 9/11.

so i guess, after 9/11, it was mostly a "we have to clean up the other one we messed up, too. we need reasons to kill saddam now, quick!"

so all in all, the wars are there because the u.s. had some lost children, which wanted to fight them back. nothing about islam, nothing about afghanistan and iraq. except that it happens that that's where those children live.


and the fun thing is, most wars in the end are such a big issue over tiny, personal problems someone had. well, fun with big quotes.. because all the dying, all the suffering, all the psychical and physical issues that get out of that (and not to forget all the money spent people could use better) are because of that missbehaviour of some.

and the other terroristic activity after 9/11 was because some other countries supported the us going into war. people from there didn't like that, obviously, so wouldn't anyone. and some, thus, thought, it's hip to react with terroristic behaviour, and did.

and now we in switzerland start to fight against islam in our own country. we're just too stupid :)

"The souls of emperors and cobblers are cast in the same mould. . . . The same reason that makes us wrangle with a neighbour causes a war betwixt princes." -- Michel de Montaigne

"Force, no matter how concealed, begets resistance." -- Lakota proverb

Quote: The mission in Iraq is to return it to the peaceful state it was in before the war.

Wait.. what?

Quote: Original post by theMadHatter

Quote: The mission in Iraq is to return it to the peaceful state it was in before the war.

Wait.. what?

For all of his faults, Saddam Hussein was at least able to uphold law and order in Iraq. Car bombings, insurgency and terrorism were basically unheard of in his day and the punishments were brutal for all those who dared try it.

Add to this that Saddam Hussein had no time whatsoever for Al-Qaeda (most Middle Eastern governments don't, including Iran) and this was all a non issue in Iraq pre-2003. Hint: Al-Qaeda aren't half as popular as you might think, and they're now a bankrupt joke with an estimated 3000 members worldwide. Hardly formidable.

EDIT: 7/7 reeks of fish. I'm not convinced we've been told the whole story, a lot of it doesn't add up in the same way as 9/11 didn't.

Quote: Original post by DaveMS
The invasion of Iraq was to displace Saddam Hussein and find weapons of mass destruction. No WMD were found (although a large quantity of oil was), but Saddam was toppled and a new Iraqi government put in place.

Can't argue too much with anything that has been posted in this thread except for one of the things said here - weapons of mass destruction. I know this is (at least used to be) a touchy subject, but it kind of depends on how you define WMD. I have friends who saw chemical weapons in Iraq.

well, even the united states now officially agreed that the WMD stories where faked to create support to invade irak. i think this got stated by obama and bush by now. unsure about bush, though..


the main thing about WMD was to build up fear to get support fighting iraq. weapons that don't reach america don't count, then, as they are not to fear. and they have not found any technology able to attack america at all. and, as officially got stated by now, they think the people who made the stuff up back then actually knew that.

Quote:
For all of his faults, Saddam Hussein was at least able to uphold law and order in Iraq. Car bombings, insurgency and terrorism were basically unheard of in his day and the punishments were brutal for all those who dared try it.

On the other hand repressions on Kurds and other ethnic and religious groups was daily. You could justify Hitler with the same arguments: he did bring Germany out of a total collapse after all.

--------

Also it is not particularly helpful to point out that US has sponsored lots of dictators in various countries (Iraq, Haiti, Chile and probably others). They were actors in the Cold War. Saddam in particular fought Islamic fundamentalism of Iran.

Quote: Original post by visitor

Quote:
For all of his faults, Saddam Hussein was at least able to uphold law and order in Iraq. Car bombings, insurgency and terrorism were basically unheard of in his day and the punishments were brutal for all those who dared try it.

On the other hand repressions on Kurds and other ethnic and religious groups was daily. You could justify Hitler with the same arguments: he did bring Germany out of a total collapse after all.

Godwin's Law :P

The reasons for entering Iraq and Afghanistan were very different, even though some people (like Bush) tried to make them seem like the same thing. Now, though, the goals are basically the same - get out soon, but make sure the government doesn't fall to pieces in the process. If the governments lose control, then those countries might become sources of trouble down the road.

Quote: Original post by visitor
Also it is not particularly helpful to point out that US has sponsored lots of dictators in various countries (Iraq, Haiti, Chile and probably others). They were actors in the Cold War. Saddam in particular fought Islamic fundamentalism of Iran.

Not helpful for who? Depends entirely on what your agenda is, right?
Furthermore, Iraq invaded Iran and bombed civilians, calling it "fighting Islamic fundamentalism" is quite inaccurate, don't you think?