Should We Still Be In Afghanistan / Iraq???

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:39 pm

weirdobeardo wrote:

RconZX wrote:

weirdobeardo wrote:

No, and I think Afghanistan is even more of a quagmire than Iraq.

Iraq has oil to stabilize it self, it will rebuild... Afghanistan has nothing(opium?).

Plus socially, Afghanistan is far less developed than Iraq. Just look at the literacy rates. 74% in Iraq compared to 28% in Afghanistan.

This actually one of the driving forces for the newer surge in marijuana legalization. They feel that alot of these low export countries could farm a large portion of this untapped industry that has serious potential. While removing the illegel and drug war parts out creating just another business with a multitude of different usefull applications and not just for the'' hippies ''. In time you would think of these farms no different then you would a hops farm for your ale and beer.
I think alot of people forget too that Afghanistan was'nt mined for precious minerals until the 70's and should have a decent amount of buried treasure out there. Plus the have a pretty good natural gas supply that at one time kept over 70% of Russia warm during their harsh winters.
Bad thing was the main gas company then was owned by none other then the Taliban.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:41 am

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

I'm saying many things, but yes. I hear it all over interviews in the media, read it in national papers and sites, and not to mention these forums. Maybe not this paticular thread, but I have no doubt if I search the archives I could find a few statements to that effect.
Also they were talkin about history and the price of ignoring it so I felt the background on Middle East was very important as to why we are there and why we have such resistance from the Middle East in gerneral.
After learning much about the Empire I would say they would absolutely influence the actions of Afghanistan if not rule over them. These Ottomans were the best Sultans that the Middle Eastern people have ever had. Not to mention a very formidable army to protect and retain order.

The US is in the middle east, today because of the fact that the Ottoman Empire lost the war in the first world war? Are you saying that the US is simply the victim of circumstances and that had the Ottoman empire existed things would have been different? Well you paint a very odd picture, indeed.

The present situation in the middle east is much more a direct result of the US decision to intervene covertly against Russian operations in the Afghanistan and the strong desire to control the Oil in the area.

The first was an operation left half complete and led to a country being left ravaged, desolate and with a people angry, unable to comprehend they were merely used to prevent the extension of Russian influence to the Indian Ocean. Left to deal with the aftermath of a war, as quickly as they had been befriended, by those who brought them the weapons to fight that war. I thought this was a reality most American's were aware of and this was the basis for remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan till such time as they are able to self sustain. Should I be reconsidering this opinion?

The second factor is a more prominent one. The oil in the middle east is a strategic requirement for the US. Any international defense study will tell you just how important a factor it is. It would have retained this strategic importance irrespective of an Ottoman Empire. The oil would have ensured turmoil in the region no matter who controlled it. In many ways it was the oil that sealed the fate of the Turkish empire.

I'm saying these are the real reasons for the situation in the middle east. The US very much had a role to play. I'm saying the outcome of the first world war would not have changed the situation in the middle east much. If it was not the US, it would have been someone else fighting for the oil. Who knows it might have been much more literal and much more bloody.

The problem with historical arguments is that you can't predict the outcome of what if scenarios. Consider this. If the outcome of the WW1 been different, there would possibly have been no treaty of Versailles and perhaps no second world, no consequent cold war and the middle east would certainly have been more peaceful then.

You can't blame the Turks for the decisions the US made.

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

But here we are now trying to reconstruct their country while receiving much criticism from the rest of the world with little support, while dealing with the mistrust of the west as a whole. All of which slowing this process on a large scale. Which I feel would not be necessary had the Ottoman Empire still remained to govern the Middle East. I really dont believe the Ottoman Empire would have let Saddam any where near a leadership role in that part of the country.

I apologize in advance if I come across as harsh, but the rest of the world never asked you to go in and reconstruct their country all by yourself. The US chose to do it because it suited it's national interests.

I remember a three member US army delegation came to India to see if the army would help in the efforts in Afghanistan. Many things were put on the table. The army was quite willing to go in. Not because they want to help anyone (though we have good record in our humanitarian efforts in Africa) but because the pay is much higher on foreign assignments. It's a great honour, because only the best are sent out. The government refused. Why? Because they would have to go in under a US flag and not a UN flag, which is what the Government proposed.

What I do not understand is why is it that the US is unable to accept international participation in such operations? Why must it continuously undermine the UN?

I know many people consider the UN a useless body. But then it was never supposed to have any kind of military assertiveness. It was supposed to be a decision making body on how to deal with international threats to peace. It was then to be countered jointly by the members. Jointly. The peace keeping forces are a later innovation and have an interesting history but they are not meant to take on the armies of errant nations.

Surely you are aware of the Situation in Egypt, in 1956, over the nationalization of the Suez Canal. Egypt was attacked by Britain, France and Israel. It was the through the UN that the US enforced the cease fire by supporting Canada's resolutions on the matter. Mind you they did this entirely because it suited them. They wanted to increase their own influence in the region. For the first time UN Peace Keepers were introduced, who to the best of my knowledge still operate in the area.

So in effect the UN managed to make two world powers such as Britain and France back down and declare cease fire. If the UN is ineffective today it simply because the US finds it convenient to keep it so. Not because it fundamentally is.

If any rebuilding had to be done, it would have been far better for the US to have done it under a UN banner. Far better to have many nations participating in the process. The US would not face such criticism then. Instead it does what is in it's interests. All the huge contracts go to US companies. Worth billions. Besides control of the Oil. Besides an offensive like this is a chance to show case new weapons system, which then other countries want to buy. It's not as if any favours are being done. Iraq is paying for it's own reconstruction.

Quite natural, when it comes to national interest no country will or should behave differently. But then it is hardly fair to expect the world to be fawning over the US.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:29 pm

@xxVSxxV2_0

Oh, i see. The current mess that the world finds itself in is all the fault of Winston and the actions that Britain took over ninety years ago. Of course. And there was me thinking that it was the present US foreign policy that was to blame.

Your first post was articulate and unfortunately lifted from one documentary, that i have seen myself, i have also seen others that contradict certain key arguments made in that first one. Interpretation is a funny old thing.

It is well documented the kind of man that Winston Churchill was...arrogant, pig headed, a drunk, antagonistic, stubborn, proud, fearless, intelligent and one thing that was sadly lacking in all the other leaders of the time, he had balls. The balls to say no to what was and is a greater threat than racism is and ever will be....he said no to fascism. He alone refused to capitulate to Hitler and that decision destroyed another Empire and allowed another certain country to go on and ultimately win for itself the greatest empire the world has ever known.

It is a very dangerous and unrealistic notion that we can paint over the past with modern attitudes and perceptions. We cant because the past was a very different country. A country where everyone was to a lesser or greater extent racist. Every country, and the USA was one of the leading protagonists of this, had eugenics programmes and even school textbooks right up to the late '60s equated the Kalahari San as no more than ape men recently evolved from barely human ancestors.

I find your deflection of all blame for the current state of affairs in the middle east and your absolution of all responsibility for any errors made by the USA regarding this slightly distasteful. Ok, the US may not have been the direct root cause for these situations but your governments actions in the last 30 years have caused untold further damage and done little to counter the negative image of the west that many in that part of the world hold.

One last thing, great as the Ottoman Empire was, with all the advances they made in astronomy, mathematics, economics, architecture, education and agriculture, they were still very barbaric in terms of law and punishment and social welfare and as you said the practise of killing siblings when the eldest came to power etc but there, as i mention a minute ago, lies the danger of overlaying modern attitudes and morals on the past.

Anyhow, nice first post in debates mate, i'm very pleased to meet you.

Peace.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:15 pm

America was not the first to open up oil derricks in the Middle East, or to show interest in taking those reserves. It was the Allies before WW1 even broke out. Mainly the french.

To say that the Ottoman Empire would have shaped the country in a way different form then it is today is a certainty.. without a doubt. The Ottoman's had not even realized the oil they had under their own feet during this time and had not had a chance to capitalize on their wealth.

Had the Empire still been around after WW1 (without a doubt) the Ottomans would not have let the Russian's invade for a second time and gain such a hold on the Middle East, they realized that with the Empire out of the way it would be a cake walk. So all of the incidents that spurred from this second invasion would not have existed to the magnitude they did, if even at all.. same with Saddam and cutting the west off from oil. The Ottomans would have found it to be very benificial to work with the west and sell their oil no problems to fund the expansion of their empire further accross the Middle East and bring some order to the chaos and fighting between tribes that reigned there for so many years. Sure they would still be dealing with racial problems as does the rest of the world, but that would'nt make them any different from any other nation.

Why is it every time we give aid to another country we are accused of having a secret evil agenda too? Maybe we did like those contracts to Africa, but so did other countries. At the time America was rebuilding we had more resources and the least military connection to these attacks which in my mind would expidite the building process in a much more rapid pace. Would only make sense. Much of the rebuilding was funded by the US so how can you really complain that we helped pay for and fixed what others had broken?

They killed the remaining princes after a successor was chose to avoid dividing the Empire wich has happened over and over to empires in the past. They just wanted this empire to the strongest it could be for the people and not just the Sultan... I found it very noble. I'm sure that in todays society they would have addapted as they have very well in the past and found away to remain in power without having to sacrfice their princes. I kinda wish our government would take lead from this and water the tree of liberty.. if you know what I mean?

So in a nutshell we would not have near as many problems with the Middle East had the Empire remained in control including any US interference to remove Saddam, Russia or the Taliban and like tribes. In fact.. many of these tribes would still be part of the Empire and would have much, much less hostility towards the west... That is my final anwser Very Happy

Thank you and I look foreward to debating with you as well.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:30 pm

Only that isnt an answer mate, it's a supposition, a what if, a maybe if we hadnt come down from the trees in the first place. It explains nor justifies nothing that the US has done since it took over the world post WWII nor does it wish away the hatred that is felt by a large portion of the "What if Ottoman Empire"/"Present day Middle East" has for your nation. Your continued support for the (in your words, mistake) setting up by Britain, a homeland for the Jews is a prime example. You cannot turn back time, only, it seems, justify your actions to try and make yourselves seem less blameless. The USA also played their part in world politics before and after the First World War, despite the insistence to history that you were an isolationist state.

In answer to why the world thinks the US have ulterior motives when it comes to foreign policy is pretty much self evident. The US have been building an economic empire since or before the Second World War, a war to which they took full advantage in cementing their position as the most powerful nation on Earth. So dont even attempt to consider yourselves purely as altruistic, benevolent or philanthropic.

As i said, you have formed all of these views on one documentary, not on an in depth study, or so it seems by your quotation of facts so far. It seems to me that you are blaming others in the past for evil acts committed today.

Let's debate. Wink

I will +rep you, just as soon as you are as charitable with them as others have been with you so far.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:35 pm

I'm not trying to justify what the U.S. has done, but Europe especially France & Brittian deserve a lot of blame. They have fucked up the middle east, Africa and many Islamic nations as well. This is self evident in a lot of muslim counties as well, case and point is Iran. To solely blame the US is ignorance at best.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:39 pm

Iran? Please explain.

Who is solely blaming anyone here? Not me.

Your compatriot is shifting blame to make the US seem like the moral peacekeepers here and i find that objectionable.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:51 pm

Ok.. let's try this out. Had the US not got involved when Germany invaded France you dont think think things there would be way different then they are now? It's cause and effect.

No there is not really much the US can do to get these people to trust anyone from the west. So this really makes it hard to help these people get a functioning government so all the people of their country can benefit and advance while getting rid of them having to worry of the next murderous dictactor.

Of course the USA were in talks with the Allie's at the start of WW1.. they wanted the US to go into war with them..we disagreed till Germany invaded France. Now I'm sure in an effort to make someone else look like the bad here or not to be a savior, many bs conspiracy stories against the US would be presented. But the facts remain.. I did'nt change or mold history to fit my idea and it certainly does'nt come from merely one documentary ( It is what it is..so to speak ). Even today conspiracy about the US run rampant and is nothing new to us. We know you guys dont want us to be the ''good guys'' in anything, not that we are in all things but at least give us the really good stuff.

We profited and came to be seen as the super power because you guys destroyed eachothers assets in war time and again. Then when Japan attacked the US we destroyed their assets and industry leaving the US to be a monoply for awhile and build tremendous wealth. But im sure you have a conspiracy for this attack too as many say 9/11 was an inside job.
Well you can ask the people who were there and they did attack us and later would give an appology of sorts( for the sneak attack ).

I do infact blame the destruction of the Ottomans for the present war conditions we have in the Middle East.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:01 pm

SoDaSeeD wrote:

Iran? Please explain.

Who is solely blaming anyone here? Not me.

Your compatriot is shifting blame to make the US seem like the moral peacekeepers here and i find that objectionable.

I guess I must of read your post wrong, and by no means I agree with my compatriot... U.S. is selfish country, maybe not the people but definitely the people who control the government.

And lastly about Iran, I'm going to retract that statement about Iran. Sorry, I was going to cite some cold war examples but the U.S. is equally to blame in those situations...so nvm. But I can still give you stuff on france & algeria.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:10 pm

Oh I missed the part about the Jews and Uninted KIngdom. They used this promise as a catalist for civil war after the Ottoman were scattered. So they could hold on to their occupied pieces of the Middle East. Similar promises were made to the Turks and Arib's as well to promote the anarchy in hopes it would turn the attention away from the Allie's occupation. Did'nt work for very long and they would all be forced out.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:15 pm

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

Ok.. let's try this out. Had the US not got involved when Germany invaded France you dont think think things there would be way different then they are now. It's cause and effect.

The US DIDNT get involved after Germany invaded France. It was a number of years later and only after you were forced to by the Japanese attacking US interests in the Pacific. Cause and effect?? If you had stood by your oldest ally when they faced danger all alone from the outset you can bet your ass it would have been very different. Instead you played the isolationist game right up until it suited your own nations interests not to.

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

No there is not really much the US can do to get these people to trust anyone from the west.

You cant get trust from people you have to earn it.

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

So this really makes it hard to help these people get a functioning government so all the people of their country can benefit and advance while getting rid of them having to worry of the next murderous dictactor.

You mean the murderous dictators that you had put in place for your own interest?

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

Of course the USA were in talks with the Allie's at the start of WW1.. they wanted the US to go into war with them..we disagreed till Germany invaded France.

Rubbish! Please go and learn about politics in Europe pre WWI.

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

Now I'm sure in an effort to make someone else look like the bad here or not to be a savior, many bs conspiracy stories against the US would be presented. But the facts remain.. I did'nt change or mold history to fit my idea and it certainly does'nt come from merely one documentary.

Bloody conspiracy theories again!!! Sorry man, but what is with this attachment to conspiracy theories you guys have? Facts? If all your knowledge comes from a few Discovery Documentaries then you know no facts.

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

Even today conspiracy about the US run rampant and is nothing new to us. We know you guys dont want us to be the ''good guys'' in anything, not that we are in all things but at least give us the really good stuff.

Of course it's nothing new to you....you made most of it up! You are beginning to sound slightly paranoid and deffensive now. Ok, we thank you for coke, cornflakes, a dependency on youth culture and hmm....conspiracy theories.

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

We profited and came to be seen as the super power because you guys destroyed eachothers assets in war time and again.

Yeah, what are we limeies like, eh?

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

Then when Japan attacked the US we destroyed their assets and industry leaving the US to be a monoply for awhile and build tremendous wealth.

Talking of conspiracy theories, ist there one that the US knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbour?

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

But im sure you have a conspiracy for this attack too as many say 9/11 was an inside job.
Well you can ask the people who were there and they did attack us and later would give an appology of sorts( for the sneak attack ).

Hang on, my understanding (and there has been many discussions here on the Hunt) is that most Americans believe 9/11 WAS a conspiracy.

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

I do infact blame the destruction of the Ottomans for the present war conditions we have in the Middle East.

And that is where you fail in this debate because nothing is that simple. You are trying to blame the present conflicts in that region on the past actions of demised empires, in fact anyone but the US. If that makes you feel better then by all means believe it but dont think for one minute that you are the moral shinning knights of the world. That is blinkered and untrue.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:29 pm

Quote:

The US DIDNT get involved after Germany invaded France. It was a number of years later and only after you were forced to by the Japanese attacking US interests in the Pacific. Cause and effect?? If you had stood by your oldest ally when they faced danger all alone from the outset you can bet your ass it would have been very different. Instead you played the isolationist game right up until it suited your own nations interests not to.

Well, most people would agree that Britain wasn't our oldest ally at that time. The isolationist "game" elected presidents (and other officials) that didn't want to go war. The public wanted to stay out of war but big business wanted to get involved.

You seem harbor a lot of hate towards the U.S. (lets play the debate game, its not like I have to write a paper on cryptochromes and circadian clocks)

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:35 pm

I have to thank you for confirming everything I just posted and now I dont feel so paranoid. Cool

Yes we went in shortly after our trading was messed up in the Pacific.. I said that in my OP. You have been attacking my information I get from books and documentaries made by people who spend their whole life working on the issue and the history... where do you get your divine information so I may seek it out?

Cause you really have'nt posted anything that contradicts my argument on any intelligent level. Rather just saying things like : '' You mean the murderous dictators that you had put in place for your own interest? '' or '' Rubbish! Please go and learn about politics in Europe pre WWI. '' also '' Bloody conspiracy theories again!!! Sorry man, but what is with this attachment to conspiracy theories you guys have? Facts? If all your knowledge comes from a few Discovery Documentaries then you know no facts. '' then go on to support the 9/11 one and bring up one about Pearl Harbor I foretold that you would.. Then there is '' Yeah, what are we limeies like, eh? '' and '' And that is where you fail in this debate because nothing is that simple. You are trying to blame the present conflicts in that region on the past actions of demised empires, in fact anyone but the US. If that makes you feel better then by all means believe it but dont think for one minute that you are the moral shinning knights of the world. That is blinkered and untrue. ''.

Where you fail in this debate is your failure to see that every action has an effect to follow. You are one of those people who would dismiss history if it does'nt fit your mind set. You continue to say what I say is wrong , yet post no proof.
I never said we were the moral beacon, just that we are trying to help those people over there and we did help against Germany when really we did'nt have to. We could have just as easily joined the other side. Not to mention US spent much time preparing for war before we got involved.. pitty we did'nt sacrifice our own country huh?

Oh do you believe the one theory that WSC sent the fake wireless to support his appetite for the Middle East? After all the Germans were not so dumb as to send a wireless of all messages and were not even there to tell if they were low on ammo. Churchill was the only person who wanted to go through the Middle East and his first attemt denied.. suddenly right after his second push for the invasion a message is pulled from the air to gain him the support he needed. .. Even with all this I dont see enough proof to convict the man of sending it, but it makes for a great conspiracy..errrm I mean story.

Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:04 pm

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

weirdobeardo wrote:

RconZX wrote:

weirdobeardo wrote:

No, and I think Afghanistan is even more of a quagmire than Iraq.

Iraq has oil to stabilize it self, it will rebuild... Afghanistan has nothing(opium?).

Plus socially, Afghanistan is far less developed than Iraq. Just look at the literacy rates. 74% in Iraq compared to 28% in Afghanistan.

This actually one of the driving forces for the newer surge in marijuana legalization. They feel that alot of these low export countries could farm a large portion of this untapped industry that has serious potential. While removing the illegel and drug war parts out creating just another business with a multitude of different usefull applications and not just for the'' hippies ''. In time you would think of these farms no different then you would a hops farm for your ale and beer.
I think alot of people forget too that Afghanistan was'nt mined for precious minerals until the 70's and should have a decent amount of buried treasure out there. Plus the have a pretty good natural gas supply that at one time kept over 70% of Russia warm during their harsh winters.
Bad thing was the main gas company then was owned by none other then the Taliban.

I wish the war could end with with the legitimacy of cannabis and hemp. Before the prohibition 50% of all medicines had marijuana in them. The fuel burned by hemp fuel is very low or almost no toxicity. As well as cars have way less carbon buliding up in them so they last longer. The paper and many other uses also would help the environment by cutting down less of the worlds major forests. The constitution of the U>S was written on hemp paper. Many countries still rejuvenate their soils by planting hemp.

Two birds, one stone?

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:11 am

Who was he and why was he banned? I was just getting into that.