Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 07 Feb 2011, 8:32 pm

Seems to me a bit uneven thinking.
Iraq is wrong, but we had a nation that continued to break it's cease fire agreements, they blatantly did whatever they wanted and by doing so they invited retribution. Doing nothing only led to more and more brazen disregard. And while we never found WMD's from their own reports they had them and never proved their destruction. The war was at least deserved.

Afghanistan on the other hand could have been over and done with by sending in a dozen cruise missiles. Or by getting in and getting out, why is Afghanistan so different?How has obama been ANY different than Bush regarding war?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 08 Feb 2011, 7:46 am

Obama hasn't started a war. The vast majority of people would be able to acknowledge that is different.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 08 Feb 2011, 2:27 pm

GMTom wrote:Seems to me a bit uneven thinking.
Iraq is wrong, but we had a nation that continued to break it's cease fire agreements, they blatantly did whatever they wanted and by doing so they invited retribution. Doing nothing only led to more and more brazen disregard. And while we never found WMD's from their own reports they had them and never proved their destruction. The war was at least deserved.

Afghanistan on the other hand could have been over and done with by sending in a dozen cruise missiles. Or by getting in and getting out, why is Afghanistan so different?How has obama been ANY different than Bush regarding war?
Well, RJ can see it. It's not hard...

But seeing as we are talking about UK perceptions, as opposed to yours, here's how a lot of people here see the Afghan and Iraq wars:

1) Afghanistan was a response to 9/11, as it was to remove the regime that was sheltering Al Qaeda.
2) Iraq looked like a bit of revenge or afters from the 90s war, the WMDs were seen as a fabrication - as much as a potential deterrent by Iraq - the country was being contained

For me, Afghanistan was the one that had more justification, and one of the other main problems with Iraq was that it diverted attention and a lot of manpower from efforts there. So when we finally got back to it, we (the UK and US) had a lot less international goodwill to rely on, and had wasted five years, allowing the Taliban and their allies to entrench in the south.

So, when it comes to a 'change' in policy, Obama promised (even if the delivery is slow) to pull out of Iraq, and to finish the job in Afghanistan. Which is better than what Bush did, pull out of a half-finished job to start another one.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Feb 2011, 3:08 pm

Minister X wrote:This is hardly the equivalent of of giving the Russkies the abort codes that would render the weapons useless.


True, but what would we think of our allies giving information to our non-allies after we specifically asked them not to do it?

My guess is that we are giving them all the serial numbers of weapons produced as part of the info provided so they can track our weapons under the agreement, and this is just a case of telling them that the numbers that are "missing" are those of weapons we've sent to the Brits.


Maybe, but our deal with Russia is more important than keeping something secret our allies asked us to? Not my style. Could be my less than russophile status.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 08 Feb 2011, 3:55 pm

How secret are the serial numbers, Steve?

We (the UK gov) asked them (the US gov) not to pass other data (performance information etc), but an agreement was reached to provide the serial numbers only.

So, thanks for getting all offended on our behalf, but we don't need it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Feb 2011, 4:21 pm

danivon wrote:How secret are the serial numbers, Steve?

We (the UK gov) asked them (the US gov) not to pass other data (performance information etc), but an agreement was reached to provide the serial numbers only.

So, thanks for getting all offended on our behalf, but we don't need it.


How strangely independent of you.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 11 Feb 2011, 8:46 am

danivon wrote:[Archduke - you know, surely, that there is a difference between starting a war and not ending one. The main war that is contentious is Iraq, not Afghanistan.

As for whether withdrawal would result in attack, remind me, wasn't the main reason for invading Afghanistan that the 9/11 attacks had been planned and co-ordinated from there, and that the government of the day had been reluctant to do much about it?



Yes I recognize the difference. I was just stating that JJ's comment was inaccurate in this instance. It is not likely if we were fighting a war with another first world country who had a military sufficient to bring the war to our shores if we pulled back.

If Obama was truely interested in ending the war, he could do so and quite easily. It would just require the political fortitude to do it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 11 Feb 2011, 8:58 am

Archduke - depends what you mean by 'ending' it. It would be easy to pull out all troops and say "see ya!". But that would look like an admission that the USA has been beaten by a bunch of guerillas, which didn't do a lot for national self-esteem when you did in in the 1970s.

It would be harder to end the intervention in Afghanistan with what looks like victory.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 11 Feb 2011, 9:39 am

More to the point, it would embolden Islamist groups in Pakistan, who could then become a major threat to the stability of a nuclear armed nation.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 11 Feb 2011, 11:29 am

and doing nothing in Iraq would have done just the same thing, yet that's what liberals wanted then as well. How can you have it both ways?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 11 Feb 2011, 12:03 pm

tom
and doing nothing in Iraq would have done just the same thing, yet that's what liberals wanted then as well. How can you have it both ways?

What was going on with iraq just before the invasion?
There was a southern and northern no fly zones policed by American, British and French air force units.
There was no attempt to build weapons of mass destruction. Indeed there were UN inspectors crawling all over iraq and failing to find anything. Becuse there was nothing to be found
There was a tyrant in power, who had been in power for some time, who was violently oppossed to Iran and to Al Queda.
There were regions of Iraq increasing their efforts for independence and freedom. Especially the Khurds.
The cost of the no fly zone versus the cost of the invasion? 1 to 1000. (And the french were actually helping!)
Considering how things have turned out in terms of the Iraqis government and their alignment with Tehran....the status quo wouldn't have been so bad.
Considering that the allies hadn't helped the marsh Shia's rebellion after the first gulf war, and considering the cost of the intervention ....letting the Iraqis situation remain whilst dealing in a foicussed more effective way with Afghanistan and Pakistan would seem today to have been a prudent response.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 11 Feb 2011, 12:52 pm

danivon wrote:Archduke - depends what you mean by 'ending' it. It would be easy to pull out all troops and say "see ya!". But that would look like an admission that the USA has been beaten by a bunch of guerillas, which didn't do a lot for national self-esteem when you did in in the 1970s.

It would be harder to end the intervention in Afghanistan with what looks like victory.
I\

I understand that Dan. However, the claim wasn't hard to get out of a way with victory. It was just get out of the war. Hence the comment of requiring the political fortitude to do so.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Feb 2011, 1:44 pm

rickyp wrote:What was going on with iraq just before the invasion?
There was a southern and northern no fly zones policed by American, British and French air force units.


Re-fighting Iraq, again????

What else was happening in the no-fly zones? Allied air forces were getting shot at. That's a violation of the ceasefire, which was the result of Iraq invading Kuwait.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 11 Feb 2011, 4:23 pm

and doing nothing in Iraq would have done just the same thing, yet that's what liberals wanted then as well. How can you have it both ways?


Not sure if that was aimed at me or not but I assume it was since it directly followed my post. If so then it's rather odd since it's well known that I supported both wars at the time....
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 11 Feb 2011, 7:06 pm

My original post:
It's very tough to just declare the war is over.


Archduke's comment:
However, the claim wasn't hard to get out of a way with victory. It was just get out of the war. Hence the comment of requiring the political fortitude to do so.


I suspect this is more of an argument over semantics and not view of the world. I'm just saying that there are severe ramifications to ending a war in the middle. It's "tough" because it is complicated. What are the international strategic implications in that part of the world, or the entire world for that matter? What are the political implications ? How long does this last in terms of how the world views the US and how we view ourselves? What happens to all of the people who we have supported in the past? Frankly, I have no clue what the right answer is. I just think it is complicated.

But you are right that Obama can do it if he likes. He is our Commander in Chief and the soldiers will do as he says. I believe he can destroy the world if he wants to as well. That wouldn't be tough either in some respects.