Turn on thread page Beta

Why does the media rarely ever cover civilian casualties? watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I am not sure what you have been reading, but by all means suggest me some books.
    Crile, George (2003). Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History is a fairly fun one as is Al-Qaeda by Jason Burke which gives a good account of how the Taliban formed and how the Afghan insurgency got Al-Qaeda off the ground.

    Regardless of this debate they are good books if your interested in the subjects.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Also the trucks were not rubbish. They were provided for the Soviets via an Import Export agreement.
    When?

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Added to that is the fact that America was loaning the soviets billions of dollars, which was then being used by the Soviets to fund proxies all over the world which were fighting America.
    Loans for what purpose?

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Because we allow them to. Why do you think we havent invaded Saudi or Pakistan? Because they are pro-west. They will do as we say. Afghanistan and Iraq refused, cue a breakdown in relations and a subsequent invasion.
    Not the point I was making.
    The general public is very quick to criticize the US for its involvement in Afghanistan and the eventual rise of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, yet the moderate Muslim world get little to no criticism.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Ha! If you think the Government and police are considered as good by the people of Afghanistan or even our own troops, think again. They are so corrupt they make Pakistan look legitimate. The book 3 Para has some very good examples of just what kind of men the Afghan ploice are.
    Yes there are some cases of corruption, hell there are alot of cases.

    However this corruption is more the exception to the rule, and what corruption there is, is actually fairly manageable. I will grant you that from a Western standpoint it is unacceptable, but from an Afghani standpoint its actually not so bad.

    The Afghan National Army for example are top lads in my opinion.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Leave a desperate people to their fate??? Well with that justification, why arent we invading Zimbabwe or Darfur, Sierra Leone, North Korea, Pakistan, Libya, Iran?????
    I am not using this as a justification, the point is it would be one more you would add to that list.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The list goes on and on and on. That is a foolish reason to justify what is happening in Afghan. While we are on this subject. Do you agree with what happened in Iraq? Ho would you justify the invasion in 2003?
    I 100% support the invasion of Iraq.

    Saddam was a bell end and it was high time we removed him, and on top of that he did have Chemical weapons which were illegal and made the invasion legitimate.

    How do we know he had them, well because they have been used as IED's against troops in Iraq.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Right. I want you to think about this. What do you think the situation would be in the middle east at the moment, if post 1950 America hadn't pursued an interventionist foreign policy.
    It would be a collection of Soviet style states, more than likely in worse shape than it is now.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Although nobody can say for sure, i can guess that there would have been, no Iranian revolution, because the tyrant who America installed wouldn't have existed.
    Agreed.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Afghanistan would be a nation much like its neighbours.
    I disagree.
    For starters India would more than likely be a Soviet style state under you view of the world and would have invaded and annexed large parts of Pakistan imo.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The Iran/Iraq war probably wouldn't have happened.
    Why not, Iraq started that whole thing, so whilst Iran may have been of a different political leaning Iraq may not have been.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    And i doubt things would be as bad as they are now between Isreal and Palestine.
    Well without US support Israel would have been defeated and destroyed by its neighbours.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    There would be no American bases in Saudi,
    The US started getting heavily involved in Saudi in the mid 1930s, so they would have had plenty of time between 1930 and 1950 to get to a similar state they have now.
    Saudi would have pushed for US involvement regardless of US interest in the region as a whole.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    so i doubt Osama would have so much to be mad about. The list goes on and on.
    Osama isn't all that bothered about US involvement in Saudi per say, its US involvement in the Middle East as a whole.
    They problem is people like Osama have existed since the death of the Prophet Mohammed, they see themselves as a vanguard whose example will lead the Muslim peoples into a new golden age like that enjoyed during the Prophets rule.
    People like Osama would have just found something different to be pissed about, more than likely Soviet style government and certainly secular governments, funnily enough exactly like that which was set up in Kabul just before the Soviets got involved.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    If you are not aware of the amount of money the corporate west is indirectly making from the war then, i am afraid you are not as well read up on this conflict as you say.
    But when you compare this to the amount it is costing the Government and its economy as a whole that's a foolish line of thought.

    People at that table care little for money, its about power and influence (especially when you consider they are already massively wealthy.)

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But you are saying that what we are doing in Afghan is good, we are giving women the chance for an education, we are stoppping hardline Islamic groups like the Taliban from exerting Authoritarian control.

    At the moment the ruling party that we have installed in Kabul has many, many similarities with the PDPA. It is backed by a superpower, it came to power during a conflict when many Afghans were dying, it is fighting a hardline rebel force of Islamic extremists, and it would have no control outside Kabul if it wasn't for the coalition. On top of that it is not very popular with the majority of the population, the police force is corrupt and sinister, and Karzai is a monster dressed as an angel.
    It's Islamic, which is enough for the majority of people to at least accept it as a work in progress.



    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I think you are confused, what are the exact reasons for the hardline fundamentalists being the lesser of two evils in the 80's. We have taken the spot the Soviets occupied back then have we not?
    I never said our intentions were not similar to those of the Soviets, or possibly even the PDPA. The important difference however is we value the lives of the Afghan people and really do seek to get them on side, which is good for them as it means we will provide them with education, medical care and general nation building once we have defeated the insurgency.

    I don't claim we are doing this to be nice, we are doing this because it suites our needs, aims and goals and quite frankly I dont think we need to make any apologies for that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    So you still have no sources to reccomend me? Except for Rambo lol.
    Your neg which is quoted below means nothing to me. It is like water of a duck's back. As a neo con, hawk, I have heard all this bullcrap before.

    HAHA! A pretty vast area? Riiiiight ok then. I call bullsit. You should at least be able to remember some of the books... no?

    I thought so
    Clearly you are having difficulty comprehending basic facts about Afghan history. You seem to believe it was a democracy in the 1970's which is beyond laughable.

    This song always reminds me of my gf and relaxes me. Have a listen, it might calm you too.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8vZU...eature=related
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    Your neg which is quoted below means nothing to me. It is like water of a duck's back. As a neo con, hawk, I have heard all this bullcrap before.



    ]

    Then why bring it up lol?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varsity)
    Crile, George (2003). Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History is a fairly fun one as is Al-Qaeda by Jason Burke which gives a good account of how the Taliban formed and how the Afghan insurgency got Al-Qaeda off the ground.

    Regardless of this debate they are good books if your interested in the subjects.
    Thanks, ill check them out.





    When?


    Loans for what purpose?
    The US was lending money to the Soviets and the Soviet bloc for the whole of the Cold War, mostly it was to try and make them dependant, which failed miserably as they just pumped them back into fighting the US through proxies. There was alot of protests at these loans, as many believed them to be strangthening the Authoritarian regimes in the east, making life harder for the repressed populations.




    The Afghan National Army for example are top lads in my opinion.
    Yes but what you see on the front line, and what the Afghans see when you are not around are two differnet things.


    I am not using this as a justification, the point is it would be one more you would add to that list.
    Yes, but that is just the thing, why are we acting as if we are the world police. All it has done over the last 40 years is cause more trouble and drive us to the brink of bankruptcy, America have owed billions of dollars to china for over 5 years now. People are looking for a swift end to the recession, and the answer is right in front of their eyes, bring the troops home and adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy. Let the world sort itself out. And before you say we would have hundreds of 9/11's on our hands, Its like you said, Osama is angry because of American interventionism in the middle east. Yes, there would be madmen, but we would be in a much better position to defend ourselves. The taliban and Al Qaeda have killed almost double the amount of Americans they killed during 9/11. I think we have played into their hands to be honest.

    support the invasion of Iraq.

    Saddam was a bell end and it was high time we removed him, and on top of that he did have Chemical weapons which were illegal and made the invasion legitimate.

    How do we know he had them, well because they have been used as IED's against troops in Iraq.
    We knew he had them because we helped him develop the technology and encouraged him to use it against the Iranians in the 80's. We also stood by as an ally while he gassed 5000 kurds. Iraq was an unjust war for oil. We went in to install a western friendly government and to secure our oil. Invading a whole country, that to be honest couldn't even defend itself let alone attack, on the premise that it's leader was a "bell end". Well... it's like i have argued countless times before, why Iraq? why not NK, or Pakistan, or China for that matter?



    d be a collection of Soviet style states, more than likely in worse shape than it is now.
    I doubt it, socialism is unsustainable when put into practice, if they had become part of the pact they would have fallen when the USSR did. Resembling modern day Kazakhstan perhaps or Turkmenistan.




    , Iraq started that whole thing, so whilst Iran may have been of a different political leaning Iraq may not have been.
    We encouraged Iraq to start it, due to Irans rejection of the pro-western Gov in the Islamic revolution and the subsequent and embarrasing hostage crisis. Iraq started it with full US backing, support money and weapon wise.


    thout US support Israel would have been defeated and destroyed by its neighbours.
    Agreed, but without US backing they wouldnt have been half as aggressive and arrogant as they are or were. They most probably would have come to some kind of agreement, and Isreal would have been alot smaller and more peacefull.


    Saudi pushed for US involvement regardless of US interest in the region as a whole.
    Yes, the Suadi Royal family, the authoritarian rulers of Saudi Arabia would have pushed for US involvement, to secure its rule. There are many within Saudi Arabia and throughout the middle east who want to see the downfall of this unjust, unfair government, Osama included.

    Osama isn't all that bothered about US involvement in Saudi per say, its US involvement in the Middle East as a whole.
    He has explicitly named The Saudi betrayal and American tresspassing on Muslim Holy Land as reasons in his videos.

    They problem is people like Osama have existed since the death of the Prophet Mohammed, they see themselves as a vanguard whose example will lead the Muslim peoples into a new golden age like that enjoyed during the Prophets rule.
    Yes but these men usually arise when provoked by agressors. It has happened far back through history.


    People like Osama would have just found something different to be pissed about, more than likely Soviet style government and certainly secular governments, funnily enough exactly like that which was set up in Kabul just before the Soviets got involved.
    Agreed, and Osama is the smae kind of person who wanted the downfall of the PDPA. We allied ourselves with these men, knowing full well what their prejudices were, and now look what has happened.



    I never said our intentions were not similar to those of the Soviets, or possibly even the PDPA. The important difference however is we value the lives of the Afghan people and really do seek to get them on side, which is good for them as it means we will provide them with education, medical care and general nation building once we have defeated the insurgency.
    But how many years, lives, homes and hopes will be destroyed before we free these people we are killing.

    I don't claim we are doing this to be nice, we are doing this because it suites our needs, aims and goals and quite frankly I dont think we need to make any apologies for that.
    Are you sure? Are you sure we don't need to apologise to all the innocents who are dying because it suits our needs, aims, and goals?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,911

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
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.