Should We Still Be In Afghanistan / Iraq???

Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:37 pm

US can't afford to be there;
many there don't want US there;
many from US don't want to be there...
where is the confusion?

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:19 am

ChasseurDISO wrote:

Well you can make the same argument for an immediate withdrawal: Every day NATO and the US stays in Afghanistan is an unjustifiable foreign presence that increases the mess you talk about

It may have been unjustifiable to go in. How is it unjustifiable to stay given the entire range of problems withdrawing would cause? What mess are they increasing exactly...these arguments are too vague, when confronted with the reality of a nuclear threat.

ChasseurDISO wrote:

and "Precisely the reason there can be no short term solutions" can also be returned as an argument for immediate withdrawal because it does not matter whether NATO leaves now or in 2014, the risk will still be present and need to be managed regardless.

What? Immediate withdrawal would be a short term solution, so how is it an argument for "There can be no short term solutions" ?

So, what exactly are we talking about when you say the NATO leaves and then the risk still needs to be managed....how exactly do you propose that is going to happen? Some kind of remote control thing, you press a button and a school comes up, you press another button and presto!, you have an elected government. A third and Al-Queda and Lashkar remnants give up their attempts to acquire nukes.

Do you not get the argument behind why they should stay? They have to stay because those risks have to be mitigated. They can't and won't take care of themselves.

ChasseurDISO wrote:

Edit: The US just agreed on end of 2014 too this morning.

That does not necessarily make it correct. Politicians are inherently short sighted people and can hardly be blamed for that, given the nature of their profession. What else would you expect Obama to do, when he came into office promising to end the war. With the way Bush left things and the current public sentiment, he does not have much room to maneuver in this regard. And yet on attaining office he found he could not pull out immediately and was forced to commit more troops before he could. For just these reasons.

He was in India recently, and among many other things including support for a permanent seat on the Security Council for India, he did mention Afghanistan. And it wasn't about leaving.

Who can tell if there will not be a reversal of policy two years from now?

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:12 am

WhiteViper wrote:

these arguments are too vague, when confronted with the reality of a nuclear threat.

I already mentioned the past and continuing cost in money and lives, that includes over a hundred thousand Afghan civilians killed and more to come the longer we stay. For that matter, the nuclear threat you mention is also vague and inexistant from Afghanistan. Dramatizing with doomsday scenarios does not make it anymore of a "reality".

WhiteViper wrote:

So, what exactly are we talking about when you say the NATO leaves and then the risk still needs to be managed

Your answer is that more murderous war (call it peace keeping if you wish) is preferable, but how do you think nuclear or terrorist threat has been managed worldwide without getting in war so far, for instance with the Russians? Diplomacy, commerce, counter-measures, surveillance are much more effective, proven and peaceful than war that can only exarcebate the local susceptibilities. Not a single country has any business invading another country's sovereignty nor staying there when the purpose is to find only one man or a few terrorist followers.

WhiteViper wrote:

That does not necessarily make it correct. Politicians are inherently short sighted people

What are you talking about, this is not a whimp from Obama, it is a commitment of the American government before NATO and the whole world, not just before American voters.

By the way, immediate withdrawal does not mean abandon or everybody leaving within the hour. But I think the schools and hospitals you mention should be built by the Afghans, not by the UN. We just need to give them the means to do so, not to impose our foreign presence.

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:54 pm

ChasseurDISO wrote:

By the way, immediate withdrawal does not mean abandon or everybody leaving within the hour. But I think the schools and hospitals you mention should be built by the Afghans, not by the UN. We just need to give them the means to do so, not to impose our foreign presence.

lol
Do you have any idea how the USA and coalition forces have improved the quality of life for civilians in the middle east? I think you sir, are contradictory. The UN shouldn't build hospitals for Afghani people? Wouldn't that almost be remedial? Guess in your stubbornness you couldn't discern the helpful from the hindrant.
Here you go, enjoy: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A27HF20101103

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:07 pm

Give them the means??
As in hand over billions of USD's as has been done in the past to so many other countries. Haiti was recently in the news after the natural disaster and many once there asked locals why are things so bad when you have received so much money. Most locals were afraid to answer and those that did it was clear that the money went into the governing regimes pockets. A common practice that has happened with financial aid the world over.

The means for me come down to a couple of basic issues.
We send in people with the know how. Engineers and civilian contractors who are experienced with building techniques and modern day materials. We send in Medical teams and teaching staff etc who in turn can help and educate those that are there.. Many who may well be afghan but living in the west and a chance of stability is that they want to return to their homeland and help.
Wonderful people all of the above but then you got crazies shooting up the place and killing those that are there to assist and help.

politics aside how does one help or assist those that wish to help in a hostile environment?

here you go mate have a bullt proof jacket just does not cut it.
One of our members Izaheal is out there right now. He is a young American and I think all who know him appreciate his attitude.
He said himself I chose to be a marine to protect peoples freedom.
He may not want the risks but said himself I am needed there.

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:38 pm

@joedles And I persist: The UN is not involved in Afghanistan so far, why would you want to add yet another foreign presence to this already complex equation, instead of having the Afghans rebuild their country themselves. They have architects and engineers too, you know.
As for the "improved quality of life" in a country still in war , your link mentions only improved security , and in "some areas" only.

@johnno23 Certainly give them the means: The Marshall plan was created to help rebuild Europe which the US did not even invade, so it seems only fair that some similar help is granted to a country that did not ask to be invaded and destroyed by a war.
Besides, the current war costs about 6 billions per month, so you'd save an easy hundred of billions with an early withdrawal, even if you give away the same amount of money or of material and equipment.

I don't pretend having the ultimate answer to this delicate matter. For one thing, it has already been decided by NATO and the US this week, and for the other, I support a withdrawal as early as humanely possible because I am opposed to the initial unrequested invasion.