Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    World War II. I won't get into the European theater (yes, it was a team effort and I'm not arrogant enough to say America saved everyone), but our war against Japan freed Manchuria from Japan's brutal rule over them.

    But you were attacked by Japan, which justified the response, you were also attacked by Nazi Germany. You were not attacked by the Taliban nor were you attacked by Afghans. You were attacked by an international group of criminals/terrorists (although the US gov usage of the word terrorist is rather hypocritical)

    That didn't justify the invasion of another country. Even when the UK was being attacked by IRA criminals/terrorists we didn't invade Ireland. Defence and diplomacy solved that problem for the most part.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emitothelee)
    HIROSHIMA. Sorta...can be debated.

    Youre right, that can be debated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    he doesn't deserve it
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunOfABeach)
    It has to do with the fact that thousands of innocent civlians died and hundreds of thousands became refugees. That could be you and your family and making such statements as "fight fire with fire" and all that nazi crap, just shows that you have no sympathy for human beings (200,000 SERBS alone had to leave Serbia - become refugees because of the NATO BOMBINGS!). It has to do with the fact that the ends, do not justify the means in this case. They bombed not military bases, they bombed electricity sites, water supplies, television stations, civic buildings and many other non-military targets... And again, NATO violated international laws and UN laws in particular (they did not have the right to intervene - Russia and China wanted to intervene as well but they didn't because they obeyed the security council something that the US did not do). If any state decided to do what NATO did back then, we would end up living in a world of constant violence. States do NOT do as they please. The UN security council exists for a reason. The US do not care about all that though...

    "Conflict between Serbs and ethnic Albanians threatened to erupt in late 2000 in the Presevo valley, on the Serbian side of the Kosovo border, but dialogue between Albanian guerrillas and the new democratic authorities in Belgrade allowed tensions to evaporate. There was, however, a major outbreak of inter-ethnic violence in Macedonia in 2001, again involving the Albanian minority."

    Taken from the BBC News website.
    Have you heard of Godwin's law?

    Awww.

    Also, I could have used a link to that last bit there. "Threatened to erupt" and "an outbreak in 2001" don't really prove your point, seeing as they are isolated events taking place nearly a decade ago. Unless of course you have a link, so I can take a look at the actual context.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    That doesn't mean it was justified.
    No, but I resent the notion that America is always the ultimate "steamroller" when just about everything we do is supported by the UK, and more often than not, a good portion of NATO (this case being Afghanistan).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunwali

    Afghanistan is an ethnically diverse nation made up mainly of Tajik's, Hazaras, Uzbeks and Pashtun. These people are then further split into various tribes. However the customs of these tribes are generally the same.

    The Pashtun (who are the ethnic majority in Afghanistan, and are where the Taliban originated) people follow a philosophy known as the Pashtunwali, which is one of the pillars of their society, it is tribal law fused with religion. Adherance to this code is something we don't really understand. The Talliban would not have given up Al Qaeda easily to the west (certainly not straight away as we arrogantly demanded) mainly because of what the Pashtunwali says about Hospitality and honour.
    What about the bit about fighting evil?
    "Fight evil - Evil is at constant war with good. Evil must be fought and good must prevail over evil. It is a Pashtun's duty to fight evil when he/she comes face to face with it."

    Not to mention, the Taliban is the absolute opposite of most of the codes I'm reading here.


    Because we are going about it all the wrong way. We are currently training an Afghan army made up of Tajik's, Uzbek's and Hazara. Just like we have created a Government formed by the same peoples. We are alienating the Pashtun people, especially considering the Tajik's are there hated rivals, a rivalry which goes back to the chaos pre 1996. All we are doing is laying the groundwork for a civil war, while driving countless young pashtun into the arms of the Taliban. This is worsened by the fact that most of the fighting and civilian casualties happen in Pashtun territory. Coupled with Taliban propoganda, no wonder they have not been destroyed yet.

    The only way i see this war ending is by splitting Afghanistan into ethnostates and letting themm rule themselves. But i can't see Pakistan allowing this. Nor America.
    Why would Pakistan object?

    And with that all in mind, surely don't you think the first alternative would simply be a change in strategy? A good half of Afghans actually believe that an increase in foreign military presence will help stabilize the country.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/123335/Ne...oops-Help.aspx

    I know the US forces have been accused of being incompetent, but they are a professional force, and i can't accept that the incompetence at Tora Bora was not planned. Bin Laden and the majority of Al Qaeda was allowed to flee at the battle of Tora Bora, after which the American priority became nation building, although Bush had assured the people that this reason was not why they were invading, it was to get Bin Laden. Funnily enoughb construction started the year later on a pipeline that UnoCal had been stopped from building through Afghanistan in 99 by the Taliban...
    Hmm.

    Well it is Bush...

    I'm more convinced that Bush really didn't care much about Afghanistan to begin with, and simply went in more to say that he did. His real concern was always Iraq, so I don't think he had too much of an agenda there.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But you were attacked by Japan, which justified the response, you were also attacked by Nazi Germany. You were not attacked by the Taliban nor were you attacked by Afghans. You were attacked by an international group of criminals/terrorists (although the US gov usage of the word terrorist is rather hypocritical)

    That didn't justify the invasion of another country. Even when the UK was being attacked by IRA criminals/terrorists we didn't invade Ireland. Defence and diplomacy solved that problem for the most part.
    We weren't attacked by Germany, actually. They declared war on us, but that really doesn't mean anything if you don't have the means to act.

    We were not attacked by the Taliban of course, but they certainly enabled Al Qaeda to do so.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qaz25)
    Yay!

    The man in charge of the country with the most nuclear weapons on earth has won the peace prize... WOOP!

    The peace prize is the most ridiculous award ever as half of the time it goes to someone who has either not been peaceful, or is in control of nuclear weapons.

    Awarded for his efforts in international diplomacy and to get people co-operating... what a load of BS. He hasn't done anything since coming to power.

    I'm surprised they never gave it to George Bush for his amazing efforts to bring peace to the world :rolleyes:
    When did Barack Obama become the president of Russia?

    ______________
    I don't know where I stand with the award to be honest, but I'm inclined to say it was the wrong decision.

    But Alfred Nobel's will said that the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.".

    He does seem to comform to some of this criteria, but I think the fact that he's been awarded the peace prize so early into his presidency is a bit ridiculous and as much as I hate using cliches, it does come across as though the Nobel Committe have "jumped on the Obama bandwagon".

    Another thing, although Qaz25 (above) was slightly wrong with his facts, he does have a point: the US still has thousands of nuclear weapons, second only to Russia, and then to hear he has been awarded for his efforts in nuclear disarmament seems like a bit of an embarrassment to be honest.

    If Barack Obama is as humble as he comes across, I wouldn't be surprised if even he was secretly embarrassed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ohh right, Obama. :o:

    I read the thread title as "Osama".
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George Agdgdgwngo)
    When did Barack Obama become in charge of Russia?
    I'm also including the secret stash they have that they will never declare as having. To be honest you could say the same for Russia. Yes I may have just remembered about Russia after posting it, and even thought of Russia having more before posting it. But I posted it anyway. :rolleyes:

    Doesn't take away the fact that he runs a country with a very large nuclear arsenal... right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I once hoped I'd at least get nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics, but now I'm not so delighted to get nominated for the Ignominious tool of *
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qaz25)
    I'm also including the secret stash they have that they will never declare as having.
    I assume you have evidence for this claim, yes?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qaz25)
    I'm also including the secret stash they have that they will never declare as having. To be honest you could say the same for Russia. Yes I may have just remembered about Russia after posting it, and even thought of Russia having more before posting it. But I posted it anyway. :rolleyes:

    Doesn't take away the fact that he runs a country with a very large nuclear arsenal... right?
    Yeah I wasn't having a go btw. I totally see where you're coming from. I've added to my post
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supporting21)
    I assume you have evidence for this claim, yes?
    Yes... my work in the American secret service :ninja:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qaz25)
    Yes... my work in the American secret service :ninja:
    Lol. Why don't you go public with the top secret information that you have garnered? You know, like that man who disclosed Israel's secret nuclear weapons programme.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    Ah, right, so you don't want to join in, you just want others to shut up? Gotcha.

    Follow it through with me real slow now, get a teacher to help if needed. OK, here we go. Nice big letters for you:

    nom·i·na·tion (nm-nshn)
    n.
    1. The act or an instance of submitting a name for candidacy or appointment.
    2. The state of being nominated.


    Not noticed the difference between "nomination" and "decision"? Don't worry, we're here to help.
    Did no one ever tell you sarcasm is the lowest form of wit?

    Also, just to let you know if-you-want-to-get-the-nobel-prize-you-must-first-be-nominated-for-it. Meaning-that-you-get-nominated-on-your-acievements.

    Now go back to your corner.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Totally ridiculous.

    Will they revoke it when he invades Iran? They're handing out Nobel Prizes like degrees now!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supporting21)
    Lol. Why don't you go public with the top secret information that you have garnered? You know, like that man who disclosed Israel's secret nuclear weapons programme.
    Coz they killz you
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George Agdgdgwngo)
    Yeah I wasn't having a go btw. I totally see where you're coming from. I've added to my post
    Ah I see.

    I like the edition... get's many good points across
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by burningnun)
    Am I the only one who thought this was a joke thread?
    you were most definitely not the only one lol
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This is ridiculous. The Nobel Commitee have completely devalued the Nobel Peace Prize by doing this. When you compare what Obama's done to what people like Aung Sung Suu Kyii have done...

    Maybe in a few years he'll have earned the Peace prize, but he hasn't yet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    No, but I resent the notion that America is always the ultimate "steamroller" when just about everything we do is supported by the UK, and more often than not, a good portion of NATO (this case being Afghanistan).
    Was it not America who initiated the invasion of Afghanistan? Was it not America who used the extremists for their ownn proxy war against the Soviets and then abandoned the Afghan people in the late 80's, leaving them at the mercy of a group of well armed warlords to face almost a decade of chaos mass murder an rape? When the Taliban eventually came to power they were welcomed in most places with open arms as heroes who would bring order.

    Can you imagine what state the country must ahve been in to regard the Taliban as heroes?


    What about the bit about fighting evil?
    "Fight evil - Evil is at constant war with good. Evil must be fought and good must prevail over evil. It is a Pashtun's duty to fight evil when he/she comes face to face with it."
    When the Taliban came to power they were regarded as fighters of evil.
    That depends on your definition of evil. To be honest, if i was a Gilzai Pashtun and an American airstrike killed my innocent father, i would think that the foreign invaders were the epitome of evil.

    Not to mention, the Taliban is the absolute opposite of most of the codes I'm reading here.
    Again, that depends what context you are reading the codes in. It's all welll and good us sitting here in the safety of the west laying down judgement. But if you were to read into the situation pre 1995 and then apply themm in that context, i think you would have a different view.



    Why would Pakistan object?
    Because a series of ethnostates would put the security of their trade routes in danger, as well as loosen their inflluence over what is now Northern Afghanistan. The biggest factor however is that the Pashtun tribelands extend into what is now Pakistani territory, and they would most likely have to give that up.


    And with that all in mind, surely don't you think the first alternative would simply be a change in strategy? A good half of Afghans actually believe that an increase in foreign military presence will help stabilize the country.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/123335/Ne...oops-Help.aspx
    Yes, and that half are made up of Takjik's, Hazaras, and Uzbeks. Not Pashtun who constitute 48% of the population. This is because foreign forces are waging war agiainst their Pashtun rivals while they get richer and more powerful.

    I'm more convinced that Bush really didn't care much about Afghanistan to begin with, and simply went in more to say that he did. His real concern was always Iraq, so I don't think he had too much of an agenda there.
    Of course he had an agenda. There were plans to invade Afghanistan in place before 9/11. As far back as 1999 the US had threatened military action against the Taliban for their refusal to cooperate with the multinational pipeline.

    We weren't attacked by Germany, actually. They declared war on us, but that really doesn't mean anything if you don't have the means to act.
    Yet it is still an act of aggression which justifies an agressive response in defence of the nation. Afghanistan/Iraq etc.. didn't declare war. they were both wars of US aggression.

    We were not attacked by the Taliban of course, but they certainly enabled Al Qaeda to do so.
    So did Syria, so did Somalia. There is evidence of large terror training camps in both of those countries, almost as many as there were in Afghanistan. Yet we have done nothing at all about them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I dont think it was deserved but giving the American President the title of Nobel Peace Prize Winner to live up to can only do good things for the world surely.

    As the article says it could be regared as more of an encouragement for intentions than a reward for achievements. Which isnt really what the prize is about. But if it helps improve US foreign policy you cant complain.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.