| Welcome to Communityforumz. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Barrak obama - afgan war?; whats your opinion on barrak obamas plan | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 28 2009, 05:41 PM (266 Views) | |
| wei00007 | Mar 28 2009, 05:41 PM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So ive been looking at the news and i just realised that when Bush said were going to put troops into Iraq he was a war monger yet obama is doing the same but with MORE troops into Pakistan and Afghanistan and hes is still considered a peace keeper? whats your opinions? also Rudd is supporting him, however he is not committing troops YET but it looks like he will. |
![]() |
|
| medohudo | Mar 29 2009, 09:34 AM Post #2 |
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, Obama is taking troops out of Iraq, and putting them back into Afghanistan which was the original intention of the War on Terror. It was started in response to the 9/11 attacks, but then Bush lost focus and wanted to go after Iraq instead. So it's more of a refocusing of the War as opposed to him starting a new one. There have always been troops in Afghanistan since Bush put them there, but the focus just left finding Bin Laden and the rest of Al Qaeda. |
![]() |
|
| sk_stylez | Mar 29 2009, 05:20 PM Post #3 |
|
Newbie
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i think this war on terror is just bullshit, USA r a terror to the world, der just lucky countries aren't uniting to kick der ass |
![]() |
|
| wei00007 | Mar 29 2009, 09:31 PM Post #4 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
See, i reckon that they should just pull out, al qaeda would never of even attacked the US but they screwed around with Iraq and all of that and now there going to go and screw around in more countries the very country that arranged the 9/11 attacks, whats the chances that were going to get attacked if we help the US |
![]() |
|
| Weasel | Mar 29 2009, 10:27 PM Post #5 |
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So what about the innocent people of those countries who are suffering under these terrorist regimes? The bad guys are always going to do bad things, and people are going to suffer. 1st world countries have an obligation to help those in need in some way. Perhaps the way the US does this isn't so great, but its something. And its not very helpful to think of countries the same way you would think about a person. "they think they're tough, we should gang up and beat them up, then tell their parents." Countries are a dynamic entity, consisting of many, many views and traits. The US government is going to make some decisions, some good, some bad. Is their decision the right one? For now that decisions seems to be to send troops to the middle east. Then the generals all the way down to the foot soldiers, they're going to make decisions too. Some good, some bad. Is their decision going to be the right one? I think there's too many variables to know for sure, I don't know if its going to end up being a good decision or a bad one. But I know there are a lot of bad people in countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, and there's also a lot of good people suffering there because of that. It would be irresponsible of powerful nations to sit back and watch as millions of innocent people are killed/displaced/recruited into these regimes. The big guy has to try help the little guy. Also, I'm drinking lol, so you can probably disregard this.
|
![]() |
|
| medohudo | Mar 30 2009, 04:30 AM Post #6 |
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I totally agree that the US involvement does get dangerously close to performing terroristic acts, especially in the invasion of Iraq. That country needs to sort it's own problems out, however our immediate total withdrawl would only result in anarchy. This is a situation where the United Nations needs to step up and provide a global force, outside of any single country's ideology and self-interests to help Iraq stabalize and grow as a nation. And if that means splitting the country up back to what it was before World War II (I think, whenever Iraq as we know it today was created), then good. There's no reason to keep so many differing groups clumped together when they have no interest in living together. That's also why it's a good thing to refocus on Afghanistan. We're there solely for hunting down those who attacked us (presumably with the Afghani government's permission, if not we should leave, as that would be a terrorist activity), with no interest in overthrowing a sovereign government. And yes, the War on Terror is bullshit, just like the War on Drugs. They're nothing but a publicity stunt, with no possibility for victory. |
![]() |
|
| medohudo | Mar 30 2009, 04:31 AM Post #7 |
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Let's try to keep the conversation civil on this. Political discussions can be very dangerous, and I do not want to see the conversation get disrespectful or far out of hand. Expressing your opinions is fine and encouraged, but do not blatantly attack another member for their opinion in a way that may seem to intentionally cause a problem.
Edited by medohudo, Mar 31 2009, 10:51 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Weasel | Mar 30 2009, 11:08 AM Post #8 |
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The focus should be more on solving the social issues rather than waiting for corrupt governments of poor countries to get out of hand and start. For decades leading up to the "war on terror", Hussein had attacked invaded other countries, oppressed minority groups in his own country, arrested political opponents, etc. Whether or not the reasons given for the invasion were true (they probably weren't), and whether or not they should have taken that initiative so quickly (the UN were discussing possible UN-lead invasions when the US charged in, guns-a-blazing), the end result of Hussein's regime being overthrown is a good thing. But wait, isn't the country still hella unstable? Well, yeah. The whole region is made up many, many different tribal and religious groups, with thousands of years of hatred for each other. You can't just get them to shake hands and forget about it. In theory the people have been liberated, but its going to take a lot of healing before they sort themselves out, if they ever work it out. As far as putting more troops into Afghanistan, I'm not sure they're ever going to "find the people who attacked us", unless you're referring to the Taliban as a whole. In which case, yes. The purpose there is to fight back the resurgence of Taliban presence, in support the current government. Thats what they've been doing since they invaded and overthrew the Taliban government, but the Taliban still exist and are still fighting Afghan / US / NATO forces, and the number of attacks has grown in the last couple of years, so they're sending more forces there to try and quell these attacks. And I will be careful of what I say in this thread in the same manner shown in my everyday life. An opinion is an opinion. |
![]() |
|
| wei00007 | Mar 30 2009, 03:46 PM Post #9 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
the 9/11 attacks were SUPPOSEDLY planned from Afghanistan sooo there going to go in guns blazing again i think and were most likely going to be caught in the cross fire, so in turn i reckon were screwed XD Weasel whats your opinion on the change between Bush saying lets go in and Barrak going in? |
![]() |
|
| Weasel | Mar 30 2009, 04:01 PM Post #10 |
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry I'm not sure what you mean. And who is "we" when you say "we are getting caught in the crossfire"? Are you asking if I think there's any difference between how Bush handled Iraq/Afghanistan and and how Obama will handle Afghanistan? If so, I would assume yes, as Bush was a drooling moron and Obama appears to be less so. But I can only wait and see, I guess. From the news coverage I have read, it appears they have a more focused goal which should be easier achieved, which I guess can only assist in displaying more tangible benefits of any military action, rather than actually having a better plan. Its like saying: Did you achieve your goal? Bush: "what was our goal again?" .... Did you achieve your goal? Obama: "Yes, but our goal was so narrow even Bush could have done it" In the end, it will definitely have the appearance of being more successful, but whether it actually is, well thats almost impossible to say. He has the benefit of some of the work already been done for him. Despite the opinions of Bush's war on terror being unsuccessful and/or fraudulent, some good has come of it, and its up to Obama to build upon that in stabilizing these regions. |
![]() |
|
| wei00007 | Mar 30 2009, 05:14 PM Post #11 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh sorry i meant Australia, you know, if we send in troops. |
![]() |
|
| Weasel | Mar 30 2009, 11:20 PM Post #12 |
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well first thing is to work out if its the right thing to do, which I really don't have the answer for. But if we assume its right to do, then I think we as a leading nation have an obligation to be part of it. |
![]() |
|
| medohudo | Mar 31 2009, 07:42 AM Post #13 |
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As Weasel said, the biggest difference is the change in mindset between the two American Leaders going after this war. Obama has a much clearer goal in mind, something that can actually be done. However, at this point, 8 years later, I kind of wonder if it is worth going after the Taliban again since they have been left off the hook for 7 years. |
![]() |
|
| Weasel | Mar 31 2009, 08:33 AM Post #14 |
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They are still active along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and, depending on which sources you're reading, very active within Pakistan. I think in the very least its good to have more forces there to keep Taliban forces in check while Afghanistan tries to rebuild. And between the US invasion, prior soviet invasions, and Taliban rule, there's a lot of rebuilding to do. |
![]() |
|
| wei00007 | Mar 31 2009, 11:59 PM Post #15 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, i don't know what to think about it much any more either way i believe were going to get involved as we are closely tied wih America all well, LET THE SHIT STORM BEGIN! |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




4:55 AM Jul 12