Cat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
439 Posts
It depends on what you consider the War to be?

the War against WMD's and Terrorism that could harm America was fiction perpetuated by the Bush Administration.

the War to remove Saddam Hussein and his Baath party from power was victorious, but at the cost of a new War;

the War against an insurgency bent on ethnically dividing Iraq and driving out any Foreign/American occupation.

so passing the torch does not mean that last war is over, it only means the Iraqi's are now fighting it for themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
981 Posts
our guys are still there so the wars far from over. Now its time to worry over the fact that Obama wants us to go over to Afganistan. Almost stop one war just to go start another :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,074 Posts
err no Megan. We (the US and UK) started that in 2001. Primarily because of the attacks on the US.

Remember how Bush promised to hunt down Osama Bin Laden? Only the cave was too big or something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
981 Posts
I didnt say we didnt start this, but if we were to pull all our guys out and let Iraq have total control again it would no longer be our war hence "almost stop on war and go start another"

And the "cave" wasnt too big or something :roll: its hard to find one person when other countries chose to help hide him and your fighting on his turf and he knows where to hide and not too. Just like if you were to come here and try and find me- my land I know secert spots you have no idea of so its easy for me to hide
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,619 Posts
Tomorrow is not too soon for me. However, we will probably have to leave some of our service people there to protect out embassy. I hope we stay out of their civil war.

We have never left Afghanistan. The war in Iraq, which was none of our business, left us short of the men and resources needed to find Bin Laden. I pray that when and if Bin Laden is found, we will allow Afghanistan to solve their own problems.

This might be an interesting read:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,619 Posts
John, I don't think the terrorists have retired. They are scattered all over the world. :( If there's another attack, some people have already predicted that it will be to test Obama. And some will say it's because we left the Iraqi war. I don't think they need a reason. They're radicals. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
981 Posts
John, thats one of the big concerns our service men and women have- they would rather fight the war over there then bring it home to thier familys. There will always be people in this world that are terroists. There is no way to get rid of them all but we can try and prepare for another attack. I think there will probally be another right after Obama gets in office, there are supposive rumors going around. Iraq has gotten a little better from what one of my friends says- he's stationed in Iraq for the 4th time in 6yrs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
mstx said:
John, thats one of the big concerns our service men and women have- they would rather fight the war over there then bring it home to thier familys.
How, pray tell, would they bring it home to their families? In their pockets?

That's a big catch phrase, I know - fight them there so we don't have to fight them here! As if there were a certain, known number of terrorists in the world, and they all happen to be in Iraq right now, fighting us.

I have never thought that idea held much water, myself, and I have zero concerns about terrorists lashing themselves to the planes as our men and women come home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,661 Posts
aphrodeia said:
mstx said:
John, thats one of the big concerns our service men and women have- they would rather fight the war over there then bring it home to thier familys.
How, pray tell, would they bring it home to their families? In their pockets?
That's a big catch phrase, I know - fight them there so we don't have to fight them here!
February-26-1993 and September-11-2001 it was brought 'home' to us and endangered and destroyed many of our families. I think that is what is meant by the sentiment. Fight terrorism somewhere else and not have it brought to our shores, endangering our families if it had to be fought here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
Heidi n Q said:
February-26-1993 and September-11-2001 it was brought 'home' to us and endangered and destroyed many of our families. I think that is what is meant by the sentiment. Fight terrorism somewhere else and not have it brought to our shores, endangering our families if it had to be fought here.
Yes, I remember 9-11. But what does that have to do with the war in Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with either of those attacks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
Heidi n Q said:
February-26-1993 and September-11-2001 it was brought 'home' to us and endangered and destroyed many of our families. I think that is what is meant by the sentiment. Fight terrorism somewhere else and not have it brought to our shores, endangering our families if it had to be fought here.
If that's the case, why weren't we bombed in 1994? And 1995? And 1999?

We are not magically quelling terrorism just because we're occupying Iraq. We are not taking up the attention of every last terrorists in the world. There have been plenty of terrorist attacks while we - and other countries - have been in the Middle East.

I know what's meant by the sentiment. I just think it's meaningless, an optimistic little phrase that's supposed to make us okay with Americans dying for a questionable cause. Because hey, at least it's over there. Not in my backyard, right?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,394 Posts
Let's leave the sarcasm out of this conversation....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,661 Posts
Bethany said:
Yes, I remember 9-11. But what does that have to do with the war in Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with either of those attacks.
I didn't bring up 9/11 to specifically relate it to Iraq, I was only commenting on how the sentiment was expressed that we fight the war on terrorism 'over there' and not 'here' because of the opportunity for great loss among ourselves.

aphrodeia said:
I just think it's meaningless, an optimistic little phrase that's supposed to make us okay with Americans dying for a questionable cause. Because hey, at least it's over there. Not in my backyard, right?
Perhaps it is a huge NIMBY for American civilians to have? I don't know.


We are so damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't and hated by almost every country we have given assistance to...I'd like to see us stop. Stop everything. No troops on foreign soil unless specifically asked to save their butts. No American embassies in foreign countries. Travel and/or do business abroad at your own risk. No money for foreign aid, we have plenty of problems here we need to fix. Stronger border and shore defenses. Immigration done through proper channels or not at all.
We need to clean up our own country, first. If we have left over resources after that, then see what we could do to help others.
Every airline says to place the oxygen mask over your own face first before turning to help others. :wink:
I really think...no matter what we do...it will always be appreciated by some, offend some, anger some and cause feelings of resentment for some. You can't please everyone all of the time, but maybe sometimes you can please a few. How do we decide if pleasing the few is enough benefit to risk offending, angering or causing resentment among others?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
981 Posts
The bad part Hiedi is we need other countries to substain our own. So really there is need for our embassys. We need to let other countries destory themselves, example- If they want to have a civil war then let them not our problem. We need to adopt that to all countries not the USA, we have this problem with wanting to help everyone and why should we when they all hate us.

Petspy-if we were to pull all our troops out and come home the terroist are just going to follow and start a war over here. Our troops would rather not have a war going on on thier front door step because then thier families are in more danger.

We are heading in the right direction with handing over control. Now the men left there should help Iraqi soldiers learn to deal with it and then high tail it home. I dont think anymore of our soliders should have to go to Afganistan just bc Obama gets a bee up his butt, let that countrie deal with its own problem its not like they would ever help us out.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,533 Posts
mstx said:
The bad part Hiedi is we need other countries to substain our own. So really there is need for our embassys. We need to let other countries destory themselves, example- If they want to have a civil war then let them not our problem. We need to adopt that to all countries not the USA, we have this problem with wanting to help everyone and why should we when they all hate us.

Petspy-if we were to pull all our troops out and come home the terroist are just going to follow and start a war over here. Our troops would rather not have a war going on on thier front door step because then thier families are in more danger.

We are heading in the right direction with handing over control. Now the men left there should help Iraqi soldiers learn to deal with it and then high tail it home. I dont think anymore of our soliders should have to go to Afganistan just bc Obama gets a bee up his butt, let that countrie deal with its own problem its not like they would ever help us out.
I wonder if its worth pointing out that there are people from countries other than the USA reading this boards ....

America doesnt want to 'help out everyone'. If thats really the case, why is she not helping Africa sort out her civil wars? Easy. Nothing in it for America. America had an ulterior motive for invading Iraq and we all know what that is. Oil. And probably also wanting to demonstrate that 'something was being done about terrorism'.

Am I saying thats necessarily a bad thing or anything to bad mouth America about? Not really. But no country is truely altruistic.

Indeed, Britain helped the USA because she wanted to be seen supporting 'the big guns' and also for her slice of the cake. If we really wanted to help out 'everyone' why arent we in Africa? Easy. Nothing in it for us.

Neither country has anything to be proud about regarding the Iraq thing. Saddam Hussein was contained. He was never again going to be a threat after the Gulf war. There was simply no excuse to invade in the first place.

So, I for one am extremely glad British troops are finally pulling out.

As to the broader question of whether some countries should go in at all to help out others - I think if a people is being unfairly oppressed by its government then theres an arguement for saying yes (indeed, if the reasons stated for going into Iraq was to 'free the people' from Sadaam I would have felt a lot more comfortable with it - but we all know that wasnt the case) but I agree with Heidi that every country has to look after its own first. Britain is spending a ton of taxpayers money on foreign wars when we have so much to fix in our own back yard ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,284 Posts
Heidi n Q said:
We are so damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't and hated by almost every country we have given assistance to...I'd like to see us stop. Stop everything. No troops on foreign soil unless specifically asked to save their butts. No American embassies in foreign countries. Travel and/or do business abroad at your own risk. No money for foreign aid, we have plenty of problems here we need to fix. Stronger border and shore defenses. Immigration done through proper channels or not at all.
We need to clean up our own country, first. If we have left over resources after that, then see what we could do to help others.
Every airline says to place the oxygen mask over your own face first before turning to help others. :wink:
Well if by "given assistance to" you mean "invaded," it's not surprising they don't like us!

I can't agree with this at all. There are times when military intervention in foreign countries is called for. I was fortunate enough to be able to attend a conference in Poland a few years ago and I have to say, when I visited the remains of Auschwitz-Birkenau my reaction wasn't, "Wow, this is sort of sad, but not really anything to do with me because it's not in the US," it was, "My God. The world must never let something like this happen again."

Of course, genocides still happen all the time while the world does nothing because the countries they happen in don't have oil. The US doesn't generally intervene in places militarily out of the goodness of its heart, it does it because of its own self-interest. Which is not a bad thing necessarily, but there are times when I think intervention would be called for regardless of our own interest (and plenty of times we don't have a right to intervene despite the fact it would in our interest to do so).

As far as money for foreign aid goes? I think we need more of it. Look, by world standards the US doesn't have plenty of problems here at home. (Aside: and I would argue the UK has even fewer -- you guys have universal health care.) The US is fabulously well-off compared to much of the rest of the world. There are 1 billion people worldwide who live on the purchasing equivalent of $1 USD a day... less than the equivalent of what I spend to feed my cats. 40% of the people in the world don't even have access to a latrine, let alone a flush toilet. Many people in the third world live at a level of poverty that is absolutely unimaginable in the US.

The US *is* wearing its oxygen mask, and by world standards we're doing it in first class while sipping cocktails. Yes, we have problems, and they're serious ones, but I think it's worth reflecting on how fortunate we really are as a nation. Yes, the bulk of the government money should be spent here, but there are so many problems around the world that could be helped for so little -- so many children who die for lack of routine vaccinations, for example.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top