Afghanistan

[jagermeister]

We all hated Bush for Iraq, well most of us did - the smart ones. That being said, Obama as far as I can tell is just as focused on having a military presence in Afghanistan as Bush was in Iraq. While I do understand the difference between the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm still a bit confused...

I'm not trying to point fingers, or to talk bad about President Obama, but its just curious to me how supporters of him will (arguably - maybe, maybe not) justify Afghanistan or at least support it somehow while these same people would have, no doubt, been the same ones wearing "Not My President" shirts and being anti-Bush for the last 8 years.

Discuss?

[Machu505]

End this war too, Obama.

[jagermeister]

My thoughts exactly. "Change" doesn't mean you pick a new country to wage war with, to me it means you try your best to stop them. And I will say it again - I'm not trying to be an asshole or anything, perhaps just playing the Devil's Advocate.

[1Roth4]

We all hated Bush for Iraq, well most of us did - the smart ones. That being said, Obama as far as I can tell is just as focused on having a military presence in Afghanistan as Bush was in Iraq. While I do understand the difference between the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm still a bit confused...

I'm not trying to point fingers, or to talk bad about President Obama, but its just curious to me how supporters of him will (arguably - maybe, maybe not) justify Afghanistan or at least support it somehow while these same people would have, no doubt, been the same ones wearing "Not My President" shirts and being anti-Bush for the last 8 years.

Discuss?

:-|

I think that they are two different wars, two different premises, although maybe not initially. The mission in Afghanistan has more factions than just the American government involved. If he were to pull out of that country, it would undoubtably crumble, and America's relationships with the countries that have supported this mission would be weakened.

I think if the state of Iraq was different, (pre-surge) Obama would have changed his rhetoric to something like; we have the responsibility to rebuild and liberate Iraq, regardless if the cause was just. The former administration made a mistake, and I am going to fix it.

But I see your point, and I think it's quite valid.

[jagermeister]

:-|

I think that they are two different wars, two different premises, although maybe not initially. The mission in Afghanistan has more factions than just the American government involved. If he were to pull out of that country, it would undoubtably crumble, and America's relationships with the countries that have supported this mission would be weakened.

I think if the state of Iraq was different, (pre-surge) Obama would have changed his rhetoric to something like; we have the responsibility to rebuild and liberate Iraq, regardless if the cause was just. The former administration made a mistake, and I am going to fix it.

But I see your point, and I think it's quite valid.

Haha, the bolded part is just some cynicism - not trying to offend anyone, just joking around!

I see what you're saying, and its a valid point as Canada is involved in Afghanistan, unfortunately. However, I do recall recently reading an article about a British General or a high ranking military official who is on the front lines there come out and say its mission: failure, and impossible to succeed with what they had planned.

[1Roth4]

Haha, the bolded part is just some cynicism - not trying to offend anyone, just joking around!

I see what you're saying, and its a valid point as Canada is involved in Afghanistan, unfortunately. However, I do recall recently reading an article about a British General or a high ranking military official who is on the front lines there come out and say its mission: failure, and impossible to succeed with what they had planned.

So thats just cause to give up and leave the people of Afghanistan? Leave the people that actually do want to live in a country of their own, in peace?

Imagine the position if we has used that phrase in past conflicts; "impossible to succeed"

War isn't pretty. People die. Its tragic, its awful, I would never wish it upon anyone. When caskets keep coming home and times are still rough, people lose faith. Realistically, we don't know the state of Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza. We just re-iterate what people tell us. And we hold it to be the truth. It is funny we have no problem trusting the Media, because they have no political bias. Really? Do they?

It is situations like these, where we have to trust our democracy. We have political figures from both sides of the political spectrum investigating the state of these places. If the Canadian government agrees to pursue a lengthened agenda in Afghanistan, I am in no position to question that decision. I can question it, of course thats my right, but I don't feel as if I know enough about the state of the country to justifiably condemn it.

So if Obama believes that this is the right path, that something can be achieved in Afghanistan, we can look at it with a weary eye, and question it. But do we really know?

Once again, this is my opinion, I realize it's not always (more like rarely) shared.

[perceptrons]

Is Obama's agenda in Afghanistan more related to catching Osama, or keeping the Taliban out and stabilization?

[1Roth4]

Is Obama's agenda in Afghanistan more related to catching Osama, or keeping the Taliban out and stabilization?

I would go with the latter. I think Osama is just a bonus.

[Lueda Alia]

I actually don't think the countries involved in Afghanistan should pull out anytime soon. It's extremely important that they stay there until the country is back on its feet. It would be extremely easy for the Taliban to get back on power if they were to leave now, and that would be terrible not just for the people there but the rest of us, too. Unlike Iraq, this is a legitimate war.

[envi]

I actually don't think the countries involved in Afghanistan should pull out anytime soon. It's extremely important that they stay there until the country is back on its feet. It would be extremely easy for the Taliban to get back on power if they were to leave now, and that would be terrible not just for the people there but the rest of us, too. Unlike Iraq, this is a legitimate war.

This.

[1Roth4]

I actually don't think the countries involved in Afghanistan should pull out anytime soon. It's extremely important that they stay there until the country is back on its feet. It would be extremely easy for the Taliban to get back on power if they were to leave now, and that would be terrible not just for the people there but the rest of us, too. Unlike Iraq, this is a legitimate war.

Ok. Assuming Iraq is illegitimate like you say, would you agree we should stay there in order to keep terrorists from inhabiting. Obviously they look to travel to countries with weak and unstable governments. So is that something you would agree to, or just a complete withdrawal from there, and whatever happens, happens.

[Lueda Alia]

Ok. Assuming Iraq is illegitimate like you say, would you agree we should stay there in order to keep terrorists from inhabiting. Obviously they look to travel to countries with weak and unstable governments. So is that something you would agree to, or just a complete withdrawal from there, and whatever happens, happens.
I've already stated my opinion on this before. The US needs to pull out troops gradually, which is what this new administration plans to do. They can't and should not stay there forever.

You don't need to "assume" anything. The war is illegitimate.

[1Roth4]

I've already stated my opinion on this before. The US needs to pull out troops gradually, which is what this new administration plans to do. They can't and should not stay there forever.

You don't need to "assume" anything. The war is illegitimate.

This is what Bush was doing. And I think Obama will follow suit. But I don't think you can have no presence at all. They still have some presence in Japan, and that was 60 years go.

Illegitimate can mean different things to different people.

[Lueda Alia]

This is what Bush was doing. And I think Obama will follow suit. But I don't think you can have no presence at all. They still have some presence in Japan, and that was 60 years go.

Illegitimate can mean different things to different people.
It only has one definition in the international community. Which happens to be the same as mine.

[Burning Star IV]

I bet Stephen Harper knows.

[PlacesToGo]

I think the most legitimate approach to ending terrorist threats is to end economic practices of oppression, stop the public relations with the installation of puppet democratic goverments, and to stop supporting state terrorism (israel) it makes us seem like hypocrites.

[1Roth4]

It only has one definition in the international community. Which happens to be the same as mine.

You're 100% right. But this is the same International Community that has interests. I'm not saying you're wrong. Was the basic premise of the war illegitimate? YES OF COURSE. thats been proven.

[Lueda Alia]

You're 100% right. But this is the same International Community that has interests. I'm not saying you're wrong. Was the basic premise of the war illegitimate? YES OF COURSE. thats been proven.
Of course they have special interests, but then you also have to acknowledge that the US does too for going there in the first place. I just don't think that we can go and break international laws all over the place as that sets a bad precedent for other governments around the world. I mean, if the US can ignore international laws, then why should a country like Iran not do the same thing?

What I'm basically saying is that we can't hold other countries to different standards as our judgment or morals are not necessarily superior. Double standards are not fair.

[1Roth4]

Of course they have special interests, but then you also have to acknowledge that the US does too for going there in the first place. I just don't think that we can go and break international laws all over the place as that sets a bad precedent for other governments around the world. I mean, if the US can ignore international laws, then why should a country like Iran not do the same thing?

What I'm basically saying is that we can't hold other countries to different standards as our judgment or morals are not necessarily superior. Double standards are not fair.

I'm going to hold you to that for the next four years ;-)

[1Roth4]

I bet Stephen Harper knows.
I wouldn't test Mr. Harper too soon.

He's still a little upset after what Bush did to his kitty.

http://pm.gc.ca/grfx/cheddar-lg.jpg


http://thewellwroughturn.files.wordpress.c om/2007/08/dubya-kitten-chomp.jpg

[Lueda Alia]

I'm going to hold you to that for the next four years ;-)
8*

[envi]

I wouldn't test Mr. Harper too soon.

He's still a little upset after what Bush did to his kitty.

http://pm.gc.ca/grfx/cheddar-lg.jpg


http://thewellwroughturn.files.wordpress.c om/2007/08/dubya-kitten-chomp.jpg


As much as I hate Harper, that is the cutest kitten...

[1Roth4]

As much as I hate Harper, that is the cutest kitten...

His collection of vests is Epic

http://www.tripproject.ca/images/harper.jpg

[J.C.]

My thoughts exactly. "Change" doesn't mean you pick a new country to wage war with...

SPOILER ALERT

we've been in Afghanistan for the past 7 years

[envi]

SPOILER ALERT

we've been in Afghanistan for the past 7 years

Actually, I'm pretty sure that America has barely had any presence in Afghanistan for the past several years. They started it, then left their allies to finish it.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that America has barely had any presence in Afghanistan for the past several years. They started it, then left their allies to finish it.

actually no:

The U.S. now has some 32,000 forces in the country - record levels - and officials say those troops have moved into new territory and rousted militants in those regions

source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/terror/main4694138.shtml?source=RSSattr=HO ME_4694138)

[J.C.]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that America has barely had any presence in Afghanistan for the past several years. They started it, then left their allies to finish it.

40% of the coalition in 2008 wouldn't be what I'd call 'barely':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_combat_operations_in_Afgh anistan_in_2008#Coalition_order_of_ battle

That also had nothing to do with my point, which was that this isn't some new war with a new country. It's a 7 year old war that Obama supported from the onset.

[HashHolly]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that America has barely had any presence in Afghanistan for the past several years. They started it, then left their allies to finish it.

If by barley any presence in Afghanistan you mean more troops present than anyone else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93pr esent)

[envi]

actually no:

The U.S. now has some 32,000 forces in the country - record levels - and officials say those troops have moved into new territory and rousted militants in those regions

source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/terror/main4694138.shtml?source=RSSattr=HO ME_4694138)

Alright, I concede.


... That being said, sorcing wiki in a debate is not such a smart move (Not you, but the two below you). Will accept CBS news.


EDIT: I should probably explain where I got my feeling from: The overarching feeling in Canada, at least a few years ago [I haven't heard much of it lately], was that America abandoned us in Afghanistan to go wage war in Iraq.

[J.C.]

Sourcing wiki is fine if the part you're quoting is already accurately sourced. It's a lot easier to show you the information the way it is laid out on wiki than having you search through a .pdf file for the same information, which was located here:

http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/isaf_placemat_081006.pdf