War on Terror

[Noblesse Oblige]

It has been more than 8 Years since 9/11, the U.S. has a new President and terrorist hotbeds have spread from places like Afghanistan and Iraq, to Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Essentially, the Middle East, and the Indian Subcontinent (and to a lesser extent, North and East Africa and Southeast Asia) is going to pot real fast.

I now want your view, are we suceeding or not in this conflict?

 

[CassinoChips]

We're not fighting a War on Terror any more, remember? It's the Global Struggle Against Extremism now.

For your question to be answerable, there has to be an understanding of what constitutes 'success' in this operation. If the goal is simply to stamp out terrorism in all its forms across the globe, there's no way we can accomplish that. Thus it's impossible to succeed. If the goal is the stabilize regions where terrorist activity tends to foment by establishing pro-American governments through force (i.e. Afghanistan and Iraq), then it's possible to achieve some aspects of that in the short term. Namely, the U.S. can establish those governments. Stabilization of the Middle East will never come about by way of external pressure. It will take a concerted internal mandate to repair long standing divides between cultures. No amount of diplomacy/government pressure from the West can ever heal those wounds.

We can never hope to eliminate terrorism. There are always malcontents around the globe looking for someone to blame. The western world, and specifically the United States, makes for a great scapegoat. Moreover, there are often malcontents within our own borders (McVeigh, the Montana Freemen, etc.) that can cause just as much trouble, which shows that it's not just pockets of Islamist rebels that breed terrorism.

We have had some success in Afghanistan. The Taliban have been pushed out of most of the central Afghan government. Unfortunately, Afghan culture isn't really compatible with a single central government, and the Taliban have begun to reestablish themselves in much of the provincial governments and land holdings. So it's a constant back and forth struggle between centralizing power and letting the Afghani people govern the way they have over the centuries.

Iraq has seen its fair share of success as well, but there is still much struggle between religious factions and ethnic groups.

So, to answer, we can never truly succeed in the long run. Terrorism will always exist in some form. The best we can hope for is the ability to minimize the impact of terrorist groups, and minimize the appeal of joining these groups.

 

[lreal]

I think Bush fucked up when he decided to proclaim his general "war on terror." Even though Al-Qaeda was the group that decided to ram the planes into the twin towers, his proclamation essentially put the US against all extremist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, etc... (dunno if those are spelled correctly). The US isn't omnipotent and I believe Obama has found that settling the financial crisis plus health care reform plus the "war on terror" is a bit too taxing for the nation. Did we win the war on terror? Obviously not. We're pulling troops out of Iraq just so we can actually try to narrow the focus to Afghan and fix the problem there. But this isn't to say that the US is failing or anything.

We can never hope to eliminate terrorism. There are always malcontents around the globe looking for someone to blame. The western world, and specifically the United States, makes for a great scapegoat. Moreover, there are often malcontents within our own borders (McVeigh, the Montana Freemen, etc.) that can cause just as much trouble, which shows that it's not just pockets of Islamist rebels that breed terrorism.

They do have some valid reasons. I'm a US citizen and my history might be a bit foggy, but I know the western world has actually manhandled the middle-east in the recent past. Remember post-WWI? I think Britain or France asked the muslims in the middle-east to revolt against the Ottoman Empire in exchange for an independent nation. They revolted, which I think was a large factor into this empire's downfall. What did the western nations do after the war? Fucked em and divided up the territories between themselves. Also, this division of territories is one of the reasons for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today. Saying that terrorists are simply malcontents is a quite a bit off imo.

 

[Donald Trump]

It has been more than 8 Years since 9/11, the U.S. has a new President and terrorist hotbeds have spread from places like Afghanistan and Iraq, to Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Spread to Pakistan yes, but to India, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, I don't really agree. It's spread to Pakistan because that's a Muslim country, and it's very unorganised, with Musharraf gone it would have been easy for the Taliban and Al-Qaida to consolidate.

Essentially, the Middle East, and the Indian Subcontinent (and to a lesser extent, North and East Africa and Southeast Asia) is going to pot real fast.

Going to pot?
This is how it's always been. It's an area with no history of democracy. And democracy would come with time, not through western intervention. We've no right to tell these people how to live their lives.
It's not a war that can be won either. Even if they kill Osama and every single other terrorist, there will be another Osama in 15 years and plenty more people willing to fight for him.
Less than 3000 people were killed in 11/9, conservative estimates are over 100,000 for the invasion of Iraq.

 

[blakstang98]

Well, there are many factors to consider here.

For starters, the US wouldn't be fighting a religious war if it wasn't taken onto US territory. Many have the misconception that the US just wants to blast Middle East countries because they feel like it. Some theorize that Bush did it because his father wanted to. Some even say the Bush administration setup the 9/11 attacks just to use it as an excuse to go to war. It's as simple as this. Many human lives were lost on US land for no reason other than a high Muslim diety wanted that. Most of the US population is not Muslim, and to be forced to accept death of many others because of someone elses belief is not acceptable. It doesn't mean that seeking revenge is the best idea, but I'll get into that more later.

As far as "abolishing" terror completely, it can never happen. It can be considerably reduced, but never completely removed. I think it's quite possible that people know this and think the US government is trying to "abolish" terror completely, making it a futile effort. Though terror cannot be eliminated, reducing it enough to make it unthreatening to other countries is a good idea. I mean, there will always be terrorist groups, even in the US, but if it can be reduced to prevent another 9/11 event, then it should be done. Common sense of these simple facts elude many people for some odd reason.

The real complication of this matter is how to combat terrorists. These people are willing to sacrifice their lives to take others. It's basically impossible to back terrorist groups into a corner if they are willing to kill themself. I think the idea now is to basically gather intel and reduce the amount of deaths created from suicide bombers. If the US can find a way to combat that better, then we can move in with a better battle plan and possibly bring an end to the War on Terror.

We have troops in the Middle East, and they are there for one simple reason, to protect us. It would seem that many people have a bad misconception of war and how the United States handles the war. Preservation of civilian life is the number one objective, but most seem to think we are sending troops to the Middle East just to slaughter people when in fact, that is not the case at all. Most seem to not realize that pulling troops out of the Middle East puts our country in immediate danger of another 9/11 attack. Those troops made a choice to fight for their country and protect us, the least we can do is support them and their intended effort. I understand many troops have been killed, but if I have to choose between a handful of troops or many innocent lives (all relatively speaking), I'd rather the troops be there fighting to protect innocents. I personally never had the cojones to join the military and fight for my country, so I appreciate the ones that did. I care about them and about the innocent lives who aren't out there fighting.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Shu]

Without reading Jesse's and Hal's post, since they always have damn good points, I gotta put my two scents in.

1) War on terror was a slogan. An awfully terrible one in fact.

Reason: At the time of declaring it, it was a counter attack at particularly one group of people. Their religious extremists perverted their cause and which in turned up with the pickle we are still in today, just with more countries in fact. What people aren't able to comprehend is pissing a few bad eggs off because the whole war actually started based off of occupation of land during desert strike in 1990ish era. The religious flag that we call Al-Qaeda Sunni .. called for a world wide jihad in which.. if I wasn't mistaken didn't quite go down right away.

2) Terrorism will always exist.

People are founded on different beliefs in other countries. When one asks if you he will die for his country, its one thing. If one person says though if he will die for his religion that's another thing. In order to break away from terrorism it would mean to purge all of humanity of religious views (in my opinion). Now I'm not saying this would be the right thing to do.. but it seems that people are more willing to die knowing they are free pass to Heaven or going to their 10,000 virgins due to fighting for their religion, than if they serve their country now a days. Terrorism is always going to be there, because people will never be able to suppress entire countries (aside from some in the UN) without physical force. I mean most countries were founded on wars, and some people have it in their mind that they deserve more land, more resources, and more power, due to their birth or their religion, hince why we have extremists groups.

So is the war on terror as you call it passed over? No I believe the best is yet to come.. to be quite honest. There's just something not right about occupying and redoing someone's country a certain way.. I mean the same thing happened here in America with the colonies, and look what happened there? I mean everyone tried to get a piece, from Spain wanting Florida, France occupying bits and pieces of the south (new orleans crazy ass city).. so I mean people like reform only until told what to do =\

So in order to get rid of terrorism, let's make a checklist:

1) A single unified religion or everyone believing in the same thing
2) No Monarchy, No one man or woman to rule for ages.
3) No corrupt politicians...
4) Do away with all weapon companies in the world. And I do mean all.

If you can handle those three, maybe there would be a little resolve, but until then we shall still be faced with suicide bombers, road side home made land mines, and whatever else over in Iraq.

 

[CassinoChips]

Remember post-WWI? I think Britain or France asked the muslims in the middle-east to revolt against the Ottoman Empire in exchange for an independent nation. They revolted, which I think was a large factor into this empire's downfall.

The Ottoman Empire was falling apart before WW1. The west had little to do with it. It folded for much the same reasons as the Roman Empire did: failing economy, overexpansion, and a people who were tired of monarchical rule.

Your larger point of the West meddling in Middle Eastern affairs is valid though.

What did the western nations do after the war? Fucked em and divided up the territories between themselves. Also, this division of territories is one of the reasons for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has 3000+ years of history. Israel was created in 1948. It's a very minor aspect of a long-reaching culture war.

Saying that terrorists are simply malcontents is a quite a bit off imo.

One can disagree with the West's influence on Arab culture without flying a plane into a building.

 

[Busta]

I personally when I get deployed overseas would rather go to Iraq than Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually looking forward to going over into the combat zone for the experience, but I know I'll be safer in Iraq than in Afghanistan. Most of the fellow Airman in my squadron feel the same way. Some have been over there, some are there now, and some are scheduled to go over this year soon.

I believe we have done a great job in Iraq. Sure incidents still occur where radicals do suicide missions and bombings and such, but overall, that country is more stable now than before we went in there. They are setting up and in the early stages of a working system to run their country. I do believe that while stuff still goes on in Iraq, our main focus should be in Afghanistan where most of the terror and threats still exist. Since 2001 we haven't been attacked on our home-front in a 9/11 scale, (although there was the shooting at Ft. Hood, but it was nothing compared to the plane crashings) so I believe our offensive in the Global War on Terrorism which was a result of counter to 9/11 attacks, is doing good.

Sure we will not see instantaneous results. It does take time. Many people say there is no good being done, and that the terrorism will never stop. It's true, nothing can make terrorism extinct. However, as the U.S., we are not backing down from a personal attack on us. It's like school. If you get bullied, you are told to turn the other cheek or walk away to avoid the problems. If it persists though, eventually you have to fight back. Send a message that we don't roll over and die when it comes to another group/country killing thousands of our citizens.

As I'm preparing to fight in the War, known people who are fighting there now, and I've seen why we're really in it, I listen to others on TV, people I met back in college who believe the government's the dumbest thing in the world for getting into it for "oil", "domination", or to make a name for themselves, I start to realize how little people know about the war and the reasons we're in it as a country until you are faced with the situation of getting involved. I support it. When I go I'll do all I can to make the mission a success. Sure I will not stop terrorism, but if it's a step in the right direction, it means saving one innocent person from dying a messed up death, or helping others to get their lives on the right path, I'm all in.

 

[CassinoChips]

Since 2001 we haven't been attacked on our home-front in a 9/11 scale, (although there was the shooting at Ft. Hood, but it was nothing compared to the plane crashings) so I believe our offensive in the Global War on Terrorism which was a result of counter to 9/11 attacks, is doing good.

We also weren't attacked on the homefront on a 9/11 scale before 9/11, so I'm not entirely sure that's a good gauge. In fact, attacks by foreign terrorists on American soil have always been an incredibly rare phenomenon.

Send a message that we don't roll over and die when it comes to another group/country killing thousands of our citizens.

After seven years, I think we've sent that message by now.

As I'm preparing to fight in the War, known people who are fighting there now, and I've seen why we're really in it, I listen to others on TV, people I met back in college who believe the government's the dumbest thing in the world for getting into it for "oil", "domination", or to make a name for themselves, I start to realize how little people know about the war and the reasons we're in it as a country until you are faced with the situation of getting involved. I support it. When I go I'll do all I can to make the mission a success. Sure I will not stop terrorism, but if it's a step in the right direction, it means saving one innocent person from dying a messed up death, or helping others to get their lives on the right path, I'm all in.

I'm not questioning your motives, by any means. I understand that the President was/is your commanding officer, and you do what he says. But I have to question the government's motives. The reasons for attacking Afghanistan were clear: the Taliban was very likely to be harboring bin Laden. I can support that. The reasons for attacking Iraq, however.... not so much.

Saddam had WMDs: Wrong.
Iraq was involved in 9/11: Wrong.
Saddam was working with bin Laden: Wrong. In fact, by all accounts they hated each other.
Iraqis were involved in 9/11: Wrong.
Iraq had an unstable government that committed human rights violation: Correct, but so did/does North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo, etc.

That being said, I don't think the reasons are as simple as "we want oil" or "Bush wanted to clean up his daddy's mess" either. It's much more complicated than that. But virtually every motive that was given by the Cheney regime, if taken at face value, was, if not an outright lie, a manipulation of the truth. And that makes it difficult to get behind.

And unfortunately, at this point, I don't think we can ever fully withdraw troops from Iraq. In my opinion, the only way we can salvage that mess is by treating it like we did the Axis powers after WW2: we set up military bases in Iraqi territory to act as our eyes and ears in the area.

 

[lreal]

The Ottoman Empire was falling apart before WW1. The west had little to do with it. It folded for much the same reasons as the Roman Empire did: failing economy, overexpansion, and a people who were tired of monarchical rule.

Again, history isn't one of my strong suits so you're probably right about this; however, the problem I see is that France (or Britain I don't remember) didn't fulfill its part of the original bargain. Now, this is reaching into the realm of international diplomacy during wartime so maybe there is a good justification but in my eyes it looks to be a bit of foul play. The two parties agreed, one acted in accordance, the other failed to fulfill its side of the bargain. Maybe it's just me but this seems to be a little unfair no?

One can disagree with the West's influence on Arab culture without flying a plane into a building.

Some people sit around and bitch and moan, others act. Whether or not 9/11 was justifiable is for another discussion; however, I just find 'malcontent' to be a misleading label to place on them. I think that would be more suitable for maybe the likes of North Korea.

 

[CassinoChips]

Again, history isn't one of my strong suits so you're probably right about this; however, the problem I see is that France (or Britain I don't remember) didn't fulfill its part of the original bargain. Now, this is reaching into the realm of international diplomacy during wartime so maybe there is a good justification but in my eyes it looks to be a bit of foul play. The two parties agreed, one acted in accordance, the other failed to fulfill its side of the bargain. Maybe it's just me but this seems to be a little unfair no?

Depends how you look at it. Britain promised something they couldn't realistically deliver on, and the Arabs were so desperate for outside assistance that they agreed to the terms. And/or they didn't realize the Brits couldn't deliver. So they share some blame as well. Realistically though, that was one of the last few dominoes to fall. The Empire was crumbling well before that point.

Some people sit around and bitch and moan, others act. Whether or not 9/11 was justifiable is for another discussion; however, I just find 'malcontent' to be a misleading label to place on them. I think that would be more suitable for maybe the likes of North Korea.

–adjective 1.not satisfied or content with currently prevailing conditions or circumstances.2.dissatisfied with the existing government, administration, system, etc.
–noun 3.a malcontent person, esp. one who is chronically discontented or dissatisfied.

Seems applicable.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Well we all know that World War I was the cause of most of the conflicts (if not all) that happened in the 20th and 21st Century.

We also weren't attacked on the homefront on a 9/11 scale before 9/11, so I'm not entirely sure that's a good gauge. In fact, attacks by foreign terrorists on American soil have always been an incredibly rare phenomenon.

To be fair to both of you, Well you are partially right, attacks by foriegn terrorists are few and far between, but to say that we weren't attacked on the homefront on a 9/11 scale before 2001 is not true, there was Pearl Harbor and to a lesser extent, the Philippines when it was ours in 1941. That was probably the closest to that happening (though there other major occurances, such as the War of 1812. if that counts)

I'm not questioning your motives, by any means. I understand that the President was/is your commanding officer, and you do what he says. But I have to question the government's motives. The reasons for attacking Afghanistan were clear: the Taliban was very likely to be harboring bin Laden. I can support that. The reasons for attacking Iraq, however.... not so much.

Saddam had WMDs: Wrong.
Iraq was involved in 9/11: Wrong.
Saddam was working with bin Laden: Wrong. In fact, by all accounts they hated each other.
Iraqis were involved in 9/11: Wrong.
Iraq had an unstable government that committed human rights violation: Correct, but so did/does North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo, etc.

That being said, I don't think the reasons are as simple as "we want oil" or "Bush wanted to clean up his daddy's mess" either. It's much more complicated than that. But virtually every motive that was given by the Cheney regime, if taken at face value, was, if not an outright lie, a manipulation of the truth. And that makes it difficult to get behind.

And unfortunately, at this point, I don't think we can ever fully withdraw troops from Iraq. In my opinion, the only way we can salvage that mess is by treating it like we did the Axis powers after WW2: we set up military bases in Iraqi territory to act as our eyes and ears in the area.

As far as we are concerned, I don't think we can fully withdraw from any location that currently has a U.S. Presense (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan) because and only because that our brand of democracy, is not fully compatible (taking into account, Afghan President Harmid Karzai) with democracy.

Despite the fact the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the previous government before 9/11) was not really a good government as far as political values and other things are concerned, it was still a stable government, with their mainly Pashtun-government running the country. Comparing them at the hight of their power (around 1996-2001) to the current government with Karzai. The Afghan people believe that they are suffering from two evils, the U.S. backed Karzai government and the Taliban.

Now, I personally think that in order to consider Afghanistan a sucess, the U.S. must do the following:

-Ensure that the Afghan National Army is properly trained and has sufficent numbers: (the target number is 134,000 the current military is about 95,000; without taking to account the number of soldiers deserting)
-Ensure that a stable democracy can be achieved and that the populace can trust their government, right now I don't see that, since most people accuse the Karzai administration of coruption (which for the record doesn't seem too far off)
-Ensure that it's neighbor, Pakistan can affectively stamp out terror cells in the Federal Administrated Tribal Area, formerly known as Waziristan. (Right now the Pakistani government is being passive about it and it is not only hurting U.S. interests but also hurts the interests of India and China, both of them Potential Superpowers of the 21st century)

I agree with CC, the only way to really assure peace is to set up permanent bases in Afghanistan, so that the U.S., Canada and NATO (or to be fair, the EU nations) could watch and hear what's going on. It also serves in geopolitical value as it put them close to the strategic Caspian Sea and Central Asian Oil Fields.

Now I sound like a military analyst....thank you very much....

 

[Donald Trump]

Well we all know that World War I was the cause of most of the conflicts (if not all) that happened in the 20th and 21st Century.

Not really, it was basically a European war, European powers have empires, which accounts for it being a world war. The Treaty of Versailles, amongst other factors, led to WW2, and there's and argument for WW2 causing the Cold War.

To be fair to both of you, Well you are partially right, attacks by foriegn terrorists are few and far between, but to say that we weren't attacked on the homefront on a 9/11 scale before 2001 is not true, there was Pearl Harbor and to a lesser extent, the Philippines when it was ours in 1941. That was probably the closest to that happening (though there other major occurances, such as the War of 1812. if that counts)

They were acts of war and not terrorism, they were also committed by nations, and not groups or individuals.

As far as we are concerned, I don't think we can fully withdraw from any location that currently has a U.S. Presense (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan) because and only because that our brand of democracy, is not fully compatible (taking into account, Afghan President Harmid Karzai) with democracy.

The US has no history of installing democratic leaders or democracy.
The Shah in Iran, 30 years of Dictatorships in South Korea, Pinochet, Papa Doc et al.
Perhaps without the fear of a supposed communist monolith the US now fears install dictators. However they'll try to get pro US governments elected, it's not as if they haven't done that in the past.

And unfortunately, at this point, I don't think we can ever fully withdraw troops from Iraq. In my opinion, the only way we can salvage that mess is by treating it like we did the Axis powers after WW2: we set up military bases in Iraqi territory to act as our eyes and ears in the area.

And that will only cause more problems in the long run. A constant reminder that they are an occupied country, it will only give people another reason to take up arms.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Not really, it was basically a European war, European powers have empires, which accounts for it being a world war. The Treaty of Versailles, amongst other factors, led to WW2, and there's and argument for WW2 causing the Cold War.

Not necessarily, it was the Treaty of Versailles that gave Serbia all that land to become Yugoslavia, I remember writing a paper about how that treaty indirectly led to the Yugoslav Wars 80 years later, but it is primarily stemmed out of Croat nationalism, which spread to nationalism for all of Yugoslavia's other ethnic groups.

They were acts of war and not terrorism, they were also committed by nations, and not groups or individuals.

Some of them were acts of war, but they are attacks on the homefront nonetheless...

The US has no history of installing democratic leaders or democracy.
The Shah in Iran, 30 years of Dictatorships in South Korea, Pinochet, Papa Doc et al.
Perhaps without the fear of a supposed communist monolith the US now fears install dictators. However they'll try to get pro US governments elected, it's not as if they haven't done that in the past.

It's true they had done so in the past, concerning the Shah, South Korea and Papa Doc (whoever he is). But in reality, if the U.S. doesn't bring a pro-US government that the people will back, it will lead to bigger problems in the long run, I mean we did so many times in Latin America that I'm not surprised that they hate us now.

And that will only cause more problems in the long run. A constant reminder that they are an occupied country, it will only give people another reason to take up arms.

And chances are they will do that, probably why I say that the permanent bases though will watch for terrorism but will also serve as a base to isolate Iran and get to the Caspian/Central Asian Oil Fields

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Sorry for the double post, but I suppose I should add this link in, it draws parallels between the current War in Aghanistan and a largely forgotten war, known as the Philippine-American War (1898-1902)

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/07/past-war-offers-afghanistan-lessons-and-its-not-vietnam/

It is noted however that some people believe that the media is lying about it.

 

[Captain Buggy]

I think the thing that upsets me the most is that Britain only went in to kiss up to Bush. Tony Blair is pretty much the evillest man in Britain right now, having done many disreputable things, and this is of course one of the worst, especially after downright admitting later that we would have gone in whether or not there actually were any weapons (Which we did anyway!) I remember watching some of our troops in a small village where they began inspecting for guns- they found what was obviosuly a hunting rifle and began to accuse leaders of the village for looking suspiscious even when they were blatantly just trying to assure everyone else what was going on by checking out on exactly what the soldiers were up to. I remember thinking, our boys are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. They don't get what's going on. They shouldn't even be there.

 

[Donald Trump]

Not necessarily, it was the Treaty of Versailles that gave Serbia all that land to become Yugoslavia, I remember writing a paper about how that treaty indirectly led to the Yugoslav Wars 80 years later, but it is primarily stemmed out of Croat nationalism, which spread to nationalism for all of Yugoslavia's other ethnic groups.

The allies created Yugoslavia so that they could have a strong state to trade with, but mixed the ethnicities so that Yugoslavia would never be as strong as France or England. They choose to do that, it wasn't because of WW1 that they did.

Some of them were acts of war, but they are attacks on the homefront nonetheless...

But only acts of terrorism are relevant, no country is going to go to war with America.

It's true they had done so in the past, concerning the Shah, South Korea and Papa Doc (whoever he is). But in reality, if the U.S. doesn't bring a pro-US government that the people will back, it will lead to bigger problems in the long run, I mean we did so many times in Latin America that I'm not surprised that they hate us now.

Firstly that's not true, they're threats not problems. Cubans are far better off under Castro than they were under Batista. The people of Iran prefer the Ayatollah to the Shah.
Secondly, they are people they deserve the right to choose for themselves. The moment America or any country decides it can install leaders and influence a country to suit its own ends they deserve whatever they get. Even if these countries do make mistakes, Nigeria for example, with its wars since decolonisation, they are better off for it.

And chances are they will do that, probably why I say that the permanent bases though will watch for terrorism but will also serve as a base to isolate Iran and get to the Caspian/Central Asian Oil Fields

You can't watch for terrorism, there are no obvious signs. Furthermore you'd have no power to act, you can't do whatever you like in a country that doesn't belong to you. Very few countries would want your bases, and the Russians and the Chinese won't let you walk into their sphere of influence.

 

[Rexi]

Logically, the war is baseless. Terrorism is an ideal, and ideals cannot be fought against. The people who believe in them can, but terrorism as an ideal will never fully be defeated.

As others have said in this thread, the reasons behind this war are less than good. I don't profess to know much about it, because personally I couldn't care less, but in my opinion we shouldn't be there. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq need/want troops in there, which is shown by the amount of them being killed. The reason we're still fighting isn't to stop terrorism any more. It's because we'll lose money if we pull out.

 

[blakstang98]

Logically, the war is baseless. Terrorism is an ideal, and ideals cannot be fought against. The people who believe in them can, but terrorism as an ideal will never fully be defeated.

As others have said in this thread, the reasons behind this war are less than good. I don't profess to know much about it, because personally I couldn't care less, but in my opinion we shouldn't be there. Neither Afghanistan or Iraq need/want troops in there, which is shown by the amount of them being killed. The reason we're still fighting isn't to stop terrorism any more. It's because we'll lose money if we pull out.

Well, an attack was done in the United States, that's why we have troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. If troops are not stationed there, we will see more attacks in the United States, so they are there, at the very least, for our safety. And yes, terrorism will never be fully abolished, but if we can at least reduce it to the point where it won't endanger many countries, then it is well worth it. So as much as people may think our presence there is less than good, there is a reason for it, and quite frankly, a very good one, for the safety of the people in the United States.

 

[Valvalis]

I just think it's a shame so many civilians get caught up in things like this. My half-sister has been to Afghanistan and Iraq working as a liaison between the village leaders and the governments to improve irrigation, schools, etc, and she said a lot of the people who lived in rural areas often didn't even know a war was going on--soldiers would just show up at their doors with guns out of what seemed to them like nowhere. I really think they should just put the world leaders in a room together and have them duke it out, leave the rest of us out of it. But that'll never happen, of course. People had too many babies and now there's a worldwide resource conflict that's pretty much unresolvable.