Should We Still Be In Afghanistan / Iraq???

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:53 am

I live right by this place when your driving by the freeway in a city in California called Lafayette. When you drive by you see a cross for every American Soldier who's died since we went over there after 9/11. I think a lot of people don't want any more of the US's soldiers to die but also believe that they'd also hate to see things go bad again and another Saddam type government pop up. If things are better that is. I also feel like people think that they have "control" if we're there and not if we aren't there. Its like a two edge sword and I think two edge swords make people freeze and hesitate to do anything. I think those two edged swords also cause extreme action to take place as well as nothing at all. Stalemate! And where you have an attention point frozen somewhere you take the attention off of other things or other govenments. In this world there's always a scapegoat and blame game going on everywhere there's the game who's good and who's bad. I don't know what we should do.

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:56 am

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

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:23 pm

I have to agree with 1337Cyndic that you should not ignore history, especialy in this matter. I'm so sick of hearing ppl say it's America's fault that the Middle East is in chaos and that they hate the west because of us.

Remember the Ottoman Empire? They were nothing more then a band of nomads looking for better grazing grounds till a man named Osman Bey came along. He united these nomads and several other tribes to form the Ottoman Empire. His goal was to spread Islam and unite the muslim ppl under one empire and in under a year he had most of the Anatolia behind him. He could not expand to the east or south because at this time in history muslims did not kill eachother but were very diplomatic, and with the Black Sea to the north that leaves the Christian Byzantine Empire to the west. So he had taken back what the Byzanite Empire had took many years before and settled his nomads in the city of Bursa which would become a capital of sorts for his empire.

There he would create a '' government '' so to speak. Complete with taxes and politicians. They left many of the Christian clerks alive from the Byzantine who occupied the city to work with them to form and organize this new Empire. In this time they often had more conflicts with muslims laying claim to old family lands then they did from the Christians. But Osman's vision was to bring these small tribes under one Empire and move the muslim world foreward in technology, medicine, and just overall advancement of his ppl.
For example they were the first to say it was invisible germs making ppl sick and made hospitals to seperate them and treat them, meanwhile the west were still praying to Saints to make them better. They were the first to do cataract surgery, and they learned of paper from Asia and right away began to make and use it wher we in the west were still using exspencive parchment. They forged the first cast for solid cannons that fired steel as opossed to the muti part ones lashed together with steel strips that fired rocks that preceded them. They were advancing very quickly and adapting to the world as good as if not better then anyone else at the time.
Early on he started taking the younge boys often even Christians and putting them in schools, if they were considered to be smart they were put in more schools and would become the future polticians and leaders but if they were'nt they had an equaly important job of training to become one of the elite Janassaries which at first were only enough to be the royal guards.

Ottoman's had seen many Empire's rise and fall due to fighting amongst princes for the Sultan's hat so they made a law that after a successor was chosen the other siblings would be executed, of course usually around the time a shift of power to a prince came most other siblings were dead already by their brothers hand. After all Osman's vision was for his ppl and not just his family, he felt it a noble sacrifice( I would agree...givin the day and age. ). His son Murad the 1st would take his place and become the first official Sultan of the empire. By 1365 they had amassed quit a few Janissaries and he decided to replace the bulk of his army that consited mostly of Ghazis ( He and his father felt they were untrustworthy ) with his elite Janissaries and they became one of the most advanced and feared amies of the time.

Fast forward to the early 1900's when WW1 broke out. They found themselves surrounded on both sides with what they felt would be invading forces.. after all they would need that oil to run their tanks and other equipment necessary for war. Turns out they were right.. the Allies of WW1 at the time were only Empire of Russia, France, and of course the master minds The United Kingdom. They all invaded what we call the Middle East and the Ottoman empire defended very well considering they were out resourced and out manned. Eventually they got Belgium, Serbia, Italy, Japan, Greece, and Romania involved in the Middle East for a promise to a piece of that land to call their own. Soon with over half the worlds armies against them the Ottoman Empire would fall and be scattered to the wind and eventualy would make up alot of these west hating war tribes we love so much.

The Allies would split the Middle East amongst eachother while America still wants no part of it all. America never went to the Middle East during WW1, we went to beat Germany out of France because they screwed with the trading. The British Empire lead by Winston Churchill ( The biggest two face war monger I've ever read of! ) would fund and create civil war between the Turks, Jews, and Aribs after their occupation becomes threatened. Watch the film Lawrence of Arabia and it is actually pretty accurate. Eventually the Turks run everyone out of the Middle East, but it's so far damaged and war torn it will never recover. What was once a jewl of civlization that was the Ottoman Empire was no more so they have no kind of leadership and advancement for the ppl all but cease. I have no doubt that had they not been scattered to become war tribes the Ottoman Empire would have capitalized on their oil wealth instead of war lords fighting over the drug business.

So I blame all those involved with WW1 for the hate and mistrust against the west and I cant say I really blame them in the Middle East. But, I do think America is actually trying to help them have a stable country and the job is far from done.

The next time someone says it's America's fault in all this mess... just ask this.. '' What about the Ottoman Empire ''...or the '' Peace to end all Peace ''?

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:28 pm

Wow, an intelligent reply from a new user, that wasn't what I was expecting at all. +1 for actually involving yourself in a debate properly.

edit: I realize how hard it is to take me seriously with this sig, but it's just for christmas...

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:33 pm

@ C_F Hard not to take you seriously, your sig looks dangerous.

@ xxVSxxV2_0 In many respects an excellent post, very informative and seemingly pertinent, certainly well constructed. When I read your post I'd not reread the whole thread since September, however before posting I did... and was quite surprised to note that there wasn't actually any American-bashing as such in the thread.

I wonder if you assume that everyone who posted blaming 'us' and 'we' were Americans; I'm Canadian and was using 'we' to mean the industrialized West or else the countries represented by military force in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Britons have posted in a similar vein, as has a member from Pakistan.

While it's true that going back hundreds of years many European nations have spent more time and effort subjugating and ransacking the Middle East (and much of the rest of the globe) than the USA, and it's true that grudges can be held over many generations, it does not necessarily follow that the USA does not hold significant blame for the current atmosphere.

Grudges are generally not held over many generations without there being some sort of conflict, opression or lingering ill-effect in place that affects the successive generations. There are many countries with elders who still remember being occupied by the British, and certainly in my own posts I've not held the Americans SOLELY responsible for how the West is viewed elsewhere, however since the post-WW2 dissolution of European Empire the United States has most certainly done a very great deal to interfere with the internal politics of the region (and much of the rest of the globe), and it isn't just the elders of the Middle East that remember this.

You haven't complained that anyone has bashed the American people specifically, and I'd like to underline that I've always been careful to bash the American government as opposed to the American people in the isoHunt forums, and Americans who see such bashing might remember that a great deal of their fellow Americans disapprove of their government's actions over the last decade or so.

I'm somewhat offended that you'd disparage WSC himself so, however the blow is lessened by the obvious fact that you know so little about him. In WW1 he held the position of First Lord of the Admiralty, which is roughly the political (civilian, not military) leader of the Royal Navy. Winston didn't become Prime Minister until after the start of WW2, when he was promoted from his recently reacquired postion of First Lord of the Admiralty. Odd that you'd run 'two face war monger' together like that - warmonger is something that he was often called in the years immediately before WW2 when he was campaigning so vehemently against Hitler and warning that Britain should be more prepared (and how correct was that?), but in hindsight his advocation of preperation for war was fully justified, and Britain was indeed ill-prepared for it when Germany attacked Poland in '39. When it came to his campaign to prepare for war he wasn't two-faced about it at all, he was very consistently outspoken and of a clearly defined and eloquently put view.

Still, as I said, overall a nice post. Pithy and debateforumish.

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:01 pm

jeef wrote:

@ C_F Hard not to take you seriously, your sig looks dangerous.

@ xxVSxxV2_0 In many respects an excellent post, very informative and seemingly pertinent, certainly well constructed. When I read your post I'd not reread the whole thread since September, however before posting I did... and was quite surprised to note that there wasn't actually any American-bashing as such in the thread.

I wonder if you assume that everyone who posted blaming 'us' and 'we' were Americans; I'm Canadian and was using 'we' to mean the industrialized West or else the countries represented by military force in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Britons have posted in a similar vein, as has a member from Pakistan.

While it's true that going back hundreds of years many European nations have spent more time and effort subjugating and ransacking the Middle East (and much of the rest of the globe) than the USA, and it's true that grudges can be held over many generations, it does not necessarily follow that the USA does not hold significant blame for the current atmosphere.

Grudges are generally not held over many generations without there being some sort of conflict, opression or lingering ill-effect in place that affects the successive generations. There are many countries with elders who still remember being occupied by the British, and certainly in my own posts I've not held the Americans SOLELY responsible for how the West is viewed elsewhere, however since the post-WW2 dissolution of European Empire the United States has most certainly done a very great deal to interfere with the internal politics of the region (and much of the rest of the globe), and it isn't just the elders of the Middle East that remember this.

You haven't complained that anyone has bashed the American people specifically, and I'd like to underline that I've always been careful to bash the American government as opposed to the American people in the isoHunt forums, and Americans who see such bashing might remember that a great deal of their fellow Americans disapprove of their government's actions over the last decade or so.

I'm somewhat offended that you'd disparage WSC himself so, however the blow is lessened by the obvious fact that you know so little about him. In WW1 he held the position of First Lord of the Admiralty, which is roughly the political (civilian, not military) leader of the Royal Navy. Winston didn't become Prime Minister until after the start of WW2, when he was promoted from his recently reacquired postion of First Lord of the Admiralty. Odd that you'd run 'two face war monger' together like that - warmonger is something that he was often called in the years immediately before WW2 when he was campaigning so vehemently against Hitler and warning that Britain should be more prepared (and how correct was that?), but in hindsight his advocation of preperation for war was fully justified, and Britain was indeed ill-prepared for it when Germany attacked Poland in '39. When it came to his campaign to prepare for war he wasn't two-faced about it at all, he was very consistently outspoken and of a clearly defined and eloquently put view.

Still, as I said, overall a nice post. Pithy and debateforumish.

He was there running the british army during WW1 occupation and played a key role in the strategy there. Maybe it is you who should read up on him more?

In fact you should watch a very good documentary called '' Blood and Oil ''. It should fill you in better on your beloved WSC. Not to mention he was said to be rasist by many ppl who knew him.

I say he is a two-faced war monger because he provoked much of WW1 and then by the end of WW2 he claims to promote the peace.

I still believe givin their history the Ottoman Empire would be ruling over the Middle East today had it not been for WW1. They would be in way better shape then they are now.

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:56 pm

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

Quote:

The British Empire lead by Winston Churchill...

Agreed First Lord of the Admiralty is an influential postition, he is held responsible for Gallipoli which was a poor decision costing many lives. However he certainly did not lead the British Empire at the time.

I suspect that 'Blood and Oil' will be about Iran, yes he along with the CIA was involved in the deposition of a benign and fairly elected leader in order to retain an unfair control over Iranian natural resources, replacing democracy with a king, ffs. 'My beloved WSC' made his share of mistakes, for sure. He also did the world a great service, and if we're to bash him (as with the US) it ought to be for the right reasons. Must admit that I don't know how influential he was in the arms race that led in part to WW1, as First Lord he must have had a part. Will look for 'Blood and Oil', thanks for the heads up.

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:23 pm

Here is a small piece of it about Churchill h t p:w w w.//y o u t u b e .c o m / w a t c h ? v = n CF V y E W s h 5 Q

Sorry cant post the link.. I'm new.. just copy and paste pls Very Happy

. Add the t and remove spaces.

Or just search youtube for Blood and Oil Churchill.. Wink

Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:37 pm

utorrent is working on a complete copy already, I was wrong about it being about Iran, the full title is "Blood and Oil: The Middle East in World War I" (2006).

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:47 am

Very interesting post xxVSxxV2_0 . I was just trying to figure out what you were really talking about, that people blame the US for the middle east? or that Afghanistan would have been under an Ottoman influence had there been no WW1.

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:51 am

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.

Also that had the Ottoman Empires armies not been persued and scattered by the allies we would not see near as many die hard, west hating, combat tribes that litter the Middle East now.

Jeef Wrote:
'' Grudges are generally not held over many generations without there being some sort of conflict, opression or lingering ill-effect in place that affects the successive generations. ''

Sorry but have to say that it's very easy to hang onto hate.. in fact I would say it's the easiest emotion to hang onto. Either way there is a lingering effect when you destroy ppl's entire leadership and send them back to the dark ages overnight. The Allies occupied the Middle East for awhile and by the end of it the Turks were very, very upset.. not to mention the Jews that were promised a land to call their home from Great Britain. Arab's were'nt to pleased either when all was said and done there.

Just an example of such hate having a residual effect years after an event: Many in the deep south US still believe '' The South Will Rise Again '' ... even though the Civil War is so far back in our history and we have appeared to have moved on.

Oh and of course that Mr. WSC was not this big peace loving man that he is portrayed to be by many. That he had the largest impact on the Allie's attack on the Middle East, and he would lead the British army to war with the Ottomans.
His first plan was denied so he pushed for a naval plan of attack in which the he had used back door politics to get approved when no one else wanted to invade, because they knew the German front was much more important. Admiral Carden who was the first to recieve attack orders resigned command just a day before the attack. Not many agreed with Churchill's plan of invasion, but once he got the ball rolling, it was a bloody mess with 3 ships sunk and 3 damaged very early in the attack from mines that the Empire had taken from Russia in the Black Sea. ( Pretty smart huh? You can check out some more great war strategies by another Ottoman Sultan named Mehmed II at Costantinople who was 12 yrs. old when he became Sultan. )

There is even a little conspiracy thoughts on who sent an intercepted, supposed German wireless message saying the Ottomans are running low on ammo in the Dardanelle Straights where Churchill proposed to attack. This gained him enough support to go ahead with the invasion.

Besides this was 91 years ago and there are ppl still alive who were there, and thats not really that long ago. These small tribes tell their history through stories from the elders, not many paint a pretty picture of the west because of the invasion of WWI.

I would even suggest maybe these Allied countries were a little sore about lack of American support during their invasion and even some in the Middle East would be upset because we did'nt step in to help the Middle East. 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.

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:25 pm

Now I can post the link!! Very Happy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCFVyEWsh5Q

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:22 pm

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?).

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:34 pm

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.

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:36 pm

Although I was already an adult by any legal standard twenty years ago, I've done much learning and growing since. I hope to be able to say the same thirty years from now... I'm roughly the age Churchill was at the start of WW1 (about thirty years before the end of WW2) and we must expect that he would also have done much learning and growing; to call him 'two faced' because his outlook changed for the better over such a period of time is pretty harsh IMO. Not only should we expect an individual to change over this time, but Europe as a whole had it's attitude towards war changed significantly by WW1. Whereas it was to be a glorious event that would be over by Christmas, those who signed up to fight the second one did so much more soberly (with the possible exception of Nazi Germany).

The lingering resentment between the South and the Yankees in the US is an interesting example of 'hatred'. They have been taxed continuously by Washington since the American Civil War, and have not been directly threatened by anything else since (there's nothing else to bitch about). This taxation is admittedly a rather mild form of opression, but the 'hatred' is of a rather mild form, also. The American South does not lack access to the North, nor does it lack guns or ammo, yet there seems rather a lack of violence when compared to the Middle East - to compare the hatred of one instance to that of the other is a bit of a stretch. I will admit to a grudge being held in that example, and for a very long time, too. I might also offer for comparison the currently friendly relationship between the British and Germans. They have fought two wars rather more recently than your civil war, each of which generated far more casualties, yet even veterans of those wars can get together and have drinks on anniversaries and reminisce as fellow survivors of a brutal experience that they shared in. Neither side tells the other what to do in any respect, have not done so for a generation or two now.

It's true that the Middle East has yet to fully recover from the damage inflicted almost a hundred years ago now, whereas most (not all) of Europe has pretty much recovered from WW2. It has taken a lot longer for Eastern Europe to recover than the West, and I would suggest that this is in large part due to the fact that the West was allowed to mind it's own affairs, whereas the East was kindly governed by a people more civilized than they for the good of all. The Middle East hasn't been left to mind it's own affairs since WW1, and I submit that in the present day such ill effect as is still in evidence is more due to the interference since WW1 than due to the damage inflicted at that time. Certainly they had something to recover from - to the present day the West continues to rub salt in it. This makes for cheaper oil.

Your idea of 'what if WW1 had never happened' is an intriguing one, and something I would be interested in pursuing. If there isn't already a similar thread (kinda doubt it) maybe you would start one? We're getting a bit off topic here... I guess that there would also have been no Treaty of Versailles, no WW2 - does the British Empire still exist intact? The French, Italian, etc? Has humanity as a whole progressed beyond accepting the slavery of nations, or have attitudes stagnated these last hundred years? Is the Ottoman Empire an oddity in what is otherwise roughly the modern world as we see it now?

xxVSxxV2_0 wrote:

Quote:

Besides this was 91 years ago and there are ppl still alive who were there, and thats not really that long ago. These small tribes tell their history through stories from the elders, not many paint a pretty picture of the west because of the invasion of WWI.

jeef wrote:

Quote:

There are many countries with elders who still remember being occupied by the British... since the post-WW2 dissolution of European Empire the United States has most certainly done a very great deal to interfere with the internal politics of the region (and much of the rest of the globe), and it isn't just the elders of the Middle East that remember this.

And okay, I take that back about you not knowing your Churchill... that 'British Empire led by Winston Churchill' bit sounded like you had the two world wars mixed up, but now so very obivously not.