Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: Irak_Afganistan

  1. #1 Irak_Afganistan 
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    We should send German and Japanese in Irak and Afganistan. The war would be already finished since long time.


    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  

    Related Discussions:

     

  3. #2 Re: Irak_Afganistan 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,267
    Quote Originally Posted by timel
    We should send German and Japanese in Irak and Afganistan. The war would be already finished since long time.
    Interesting assertion. Proof?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Japan did have a token force in Iraq. I think Germany too. And under NATO Germany has troops in Afghanistan.

    If you're thinking WW2, it's the wrong kind of war. You can't win anything by blitzing tanks through those nations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Seeing there accomplishements in 2nd World War.
    German nation is definitly a war nation.
    Organized, disciplined and systematic.
    I would tend to believe they still are.



    And Yes they are there, but not in combat zones.
    Japan too. They are pretty much in humanitarian levels.
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by timel
    German nation is definitly a war nation.
    Organized, disciplined and systematic.
    I would tend to believe they still are.
    I beg your pardon? On what grounds can you make such assumptions? These are stereotypes and clichees. As a German, I must say that we have learned our lesson (from two wars). Germany was strongly opposed to the war in Iraq. Remember? And we still are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by timel
    German nation is definitly a war nation.

    I would tend to believe they still are.
    I beg your pardon? On what grounds can you make such assumptions? These are stereotypes and clichees. As a German, I must say that we have learned our lesson (from two wars). Germany was strongly opposed to the war in Iraq. Remember? And we still are.


    aight! das ist nicht gut für mich.
    Ok let's try to defent my case.

    1. I'm not saying war is good and should have happend there.
    2. It was more in the purpose of doing a 'smilly' speculation.
    3. I have loads of German friends, I spent quite a few monthes in Germany and many showed this qualities
    Organized, disciplined and systematic - Germany is recognized internationnaly to be this way. I don't see why you would oppose it.
    But I would be interrested to have your perspective on that?

    To finish my case, putting away moral issues of the 2nd war in all aspects (as a French and a Canadian citizen); Germany was very efficient in conducting it = that's why I was making this point.

    Now, seems like my comment is affecting seriously some people. If it is. Soorry about this. It wasn't the point.
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Bon. Alors, ...

    the characterisations "organized, disciplined and systematic" might be justified for the majority. That's okay. I think, I know now how this was meant. But it could have been misunderstood. And, yes, until some point, Germany was leading WW2 quite efficiently. But I think - at least I hope - that we will never be in the position to prove that we still can. I have the impression that Germans tend to be much more peaceful and pacifistic than they used to be decades ago. Much of this we also owe to the allies. So, no harm done.

    A bientot!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I'm pretty sure the Germans have little or no interest in helping us with Iraq. They objected pretty strongly to the original invasion, and with good reason:

    Oil for food was benefiting them economically.

    Sadaam was considering a change from the Dollar to the Euro.


    Basically, when all is said and done, our invasion was done because we were afraid of losing control of the oil trade. Right now, all oil is traded for US Dollars. If someone started selling it in another currency we'd be in serious danger of losing our access to it.

    Since Germany was the one who stood to gain........... I really, really doubt they have any interest in helping us right now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm pretty sure the Germans have little or no interest in helping us with Iraq. They objected pretty strongly to the original invasion, and with good reason:

    Oil for food was benefiting them economically.

    Sadaam was considering a change from the Dollar to the Euro.
    No, we objected, because this war is illegal. I'm pretty sure, we would participate somehow, if the UN would have been involved, as we do in Afghanistan. There is no UN resolution backing this war. The other point is: The initial argument that should legitimise this war - weapons of mass destruction - was a hoax. Therefore: It was the idea of the US administration, so deal with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Sadaam was considering a change from the Dollar to the Euro.
    No, we objected, because this war is illegal.
    The petrodollar thing loomed most large for the US IMO, and surely guys like Cheney felt it serious enough to topple a regime over. Their "greater" world - the world worth fighting over - is macroeconomic. But you can't explain to the public America must punch a guy to take over his bank account.

    For Germany, I think "illegal" is a good enough explanation. Note that Canada and Mexico too, totally allied with US dollar, also opposed the invasion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    ....
    But you can't explain to the public America must punch a guy to take over his bank account.
    ...
    I like how you put that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm pretty sure the Germans have little or no interest in helping us with Iraq. They objected pretty strongly to the original invasion, and with good reason:

    Oil for food was benefiting them economically.

    Sadaam was considering a change from the Dollar to the Euro.
    No, we objected, because this war is illegal. I'm pretty sure, we would participate somehow, if the UN would have been involved, as we do in Afghanistan. There is no UN resolution backing this war. The other point is: The initial argument that should legitimise this war - weapons of mass destruction - was a hoax. Therefore: It was the idea of the US administration, so deal with it.
    Please don't misunderstand. I wasn't objecting to the Germans' decision. What the USA did here was pure thuggery.

    Sadaam wanting to trade oil in Euros instead of Dollars is what motivated the attack, not the BS WMD business. (Though the BS WMD thing probably is what motivated the American voters who sided with the decision)

    But think about what that implies: The USA is basically claiming the right to influence other countries' legitimate economic decisions by threat of arms. The message we sent was clear: "Anyone who refuses to trade in dollars will be attacked." (Or, in other words: "Accept our weakening currency or die.")
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    That's an interesting thought. I didn't know that the Iraq administration was planning that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    A few dollar-hostile countries like Iran, Venezuela, or Saddam's Iraq, can't prompt run on the currency though. No need to panic. Because even to Euro economies our Machiavellian interest is in bleeding the US bubble nice and slow. The last thing we want is US pulling another swindle like when Nixon took the dollar off gold. Easy does it, America. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    The funniest in all of this is that Saddam was put into power by USA.

    An army major, Quasim, seized power in a military coup. The royal palace was besieged, and the young king, Faisal II, and all the royal family were massacred. Nuri was shot in the street and his corpse run over repeatedly by municipal buses. A few years later, Quasim was overthrown in a CIA-assisted coup. Through more coups and purges Saddam eventually came out on top.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002...4/iraq.comment
    [/quote]
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Deja vu then: British forces commander in Afghanistan says Taliban unbeatable, and the envoy to Kabul suggests the best way to maintain control is by backing an "acceptable dictator".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I guess they must think that, because Americans fall for the puppet trick (who do you think has *really* been running this country the last 8 years: GW, or Cheney?), that the rest of the world must be just as unsophisticated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    President Karzai is called "the mayor of Kabul", as he has no real power outside the capital. Too bad, because at least he's a populist sort of figure, upsetting no one. The fact though is Afghanistan's economy is so shabby, the government can't make a difference by means familiar to the developed world, so it is irrelevant to most Afghans. There's simply no industry, finance, infrastructure, etc. to exercise authority over. The way an Afghan government can make a difference is by regulating what actually exists - the culture for example, or the opium, or the kalashnikovs. Karzai won't touch those, so he speaks and gestures at empty air.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore timel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107
    Pong, adding to that you have the big component of corruption that is huge in Afganistan (it's not a surprise).
    This governement has lost all of his credibility because of their corruption.
    If I would be a Taliban, I would be for sure very upset about that and it would be one more reason to reject this governement.

    In my opinion, one thing would be to reform the government once again. The biggest frustration is that loads of countrys are investing such huge amounts of money to rebuild infrastructures. This money is probably going in corrupted pockets.
    Secundo, when troops will leave this country, if it is as corrupted, it won't hold for long and it will come back as before.
    A pilot lives in a world of perfection, or not at all.

    — Richard S. Drury,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2
    peace
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Germany may not have been there in Iraq, but it most definitely is there in Afghanistan, enforcing yet another ideology on a foreign people.

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/...e/25german.php
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    Germany may not have been there in Iraq, but it most definitely is there in Afghanistan, enforcing yet another ideology on a foreign people.

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/...e/25german.php
    "NATO forces keeps watch as Afghan women and their children arrive to attend a free medical assistance camp by the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force"

    Free medical assistance is an enforced ideology, Sam? Hilarious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Ever hear an invading occupying army that says,

    We are killing people who refuse to accept our ideology?

    The condition of Afghanistan is evidence of the consequences of the last 50 years of such intervention. Its like the Israelis are sending "humanitarian" asssistance after invading occupying starving and bombing the Palestinians while stealing all their land and resources. If they were not there, would the women and children need the medical assistance?
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    Ever hear an invading occupying army that says,

    We are killing people who refuse to accept our ideology?
    Not really, but I do know of invading armies that killed millions of people who refused to accept their ideologies. Here's a map of their conquests. Can you guess which armies I refer?



    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Sure you do. Which is why there was so much poverty, desperation and suicide bombing there.

    Here's an example of the tortured subjects:

    "... Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed by heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap and each one of us lives in freedom. Here a Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow star as a badge of shame as is the case in Germany where even wealth and great fortune is a curse for a Jew because he therewith arouses jealousy among the Christians and they devise all kinds of slander against him to rob him of his gold. Arise my brethren, gird up your loins, collect up your forces and come to us. Here you will be free of your enemies, here you will find rest."
    http://www.yeniturkiye.com/display.asp?c=3012
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    Sure you do. Which is why there was so much poverty, desperation and suicide bombing there.
    You're society of superior beings hath been hoisted by its own petard. Ha!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Clearly:

    We Want The Taliban Back, Say Ordinary Afghans
    At least we felt safe under the extremists, say Kandahar residents too afraid to go out after dark
    By Chris Sands in Kandahar

    Faiz Mohammed Karigar, a father of two, fled Kandahar when the Taliban held power in Afghanistan because he was against their restrictions on education. Now he wants the fundamentalists back.

    “When the Taliban were here, I escaped to the border with Iran, but I was never worried about my family,” he said. “Every single minute of the last three years I have been very worried. Maybe tonight the Americans will come to my house, molest my wife and children and arrest me.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ns-443821.html
    What does it say about the "progress in Afghanistan" when backward tribal men with repressive ideologies are preferable to so called secular advanced people?
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey

    What does it say about the "progress in Afghanistan" when backward tribal men with repressive ideologies are preferable to so called secular advanced people?
    That article is almost 2 years old.

    Here's a more recent article on the Taliban and their so-called "progress in Afghanistan"

    "The police in Kandahar have arrested 10 Taliban militants they said were involved in an attack this month on a group of Afghan schoolgirls whose faces were doused with acid, officials in Kandahar said Tuesday.

    The officials said that the militants, who were Afghan citizens, had confessed to their involvement in the attack on the schoolgirls and their teachers on Nov. 12 and that a high-ranking member of the Taliban had paid the militants 100,000 Pakistani rupees, or about $1,200, for each of the girls they managed to burn."

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/25/asia/afghan.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Hmm so western media says the Taliban is killing its own people. I hear the Palestinians, Iraqis, Jews in Warsaw and Russians under Stalin were all killing their own people. Its nothing new.

    Here is todays news:

    The Afghan government disarmed and arrested about 50 Afghan policemen, suspected of corruption and helping the Taliban, while a dozen others defected to the Taliban, a provincial official said on Tuesday.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopN...4BT1FY20081230
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by samcdkey
    I hear the Palestinians, Iraqis, Jews in Warsaw and Russians under Stalin were all killing their own people. Its nothing new.Tuesday.
    It has happened before. That makes it ok. You have a pretty skewed view on the world, guy.

    Yes, we (America) invaded Afghanistan because it's government didn't conform to our ideals. Ideals that say it's wrong for example, to slaughter the inhabitants of Bamiyan who were blasphemers because they lived near large Buddhist statues that were carved into a nearby mountain-side a few hundred years ago. Aren't we terrible people for forcing our ways on them?

    Or maybe the "western media" lied about that incident, among other atrocities too numerous to mention here. The holocaust didn't happen either right?
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    It has happened before. That makes it ok. You have a pretty skewed view on the world, guy.
    She was being facetious.


    It's painful to remember Afghanistan was not always a failed state. The country once stood its own as a basically secular developing economy. They built their own universities and hospitals, streetlights. Woman professionals campaigned for equal pay and state daycare, and so on. It was a normal society. They had reason to be proud, and optimistic. Rather like Iraq, in an age before most of us were born. I blame the cold war and yes the pawn militant Islam as well.

    Kukhri the ways America forced on Afghanistan last century was training boys to fashion improvised bombs and chant "Death to atheists! Death to secularists!" at the schools and camps your government paid for and directed. The intent was to devastate Afghanistan's economy and public order, inviting fruitless Soviet intervention. And it worked. And your country just kept grinding that once-upright country to hell, training and sending "freedom fighters" while Soviets fought their version of a Vietnam war.

    I do blame America's partners bin Laden and the Saudi "charities" as well. The British were there. The French. We called it the Safari Club, before Reagan truly made it official.

    I feel sad for the war orphans, though they are Taliban now. How do we stop making Taliban?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    You mean, why don't we stop making Taliban? Hopefully we won't make any more of them, now that we've seen first hand what happens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Yeah it's a rhetorical question if you understand blowback.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The question is: what should we do instead?

    Creating and arming Taliban (and Taliban-like entities) allowed us to get around sticky matters of international diplomacy, because technically, it didn't count as a direct military action for us to arm local insurgents.

    The only way to get around international treaties these days is to use a proxy, or get one of your buildings blown up by terrorists, or manufacture WMD evidence, or some combination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    The general answer's as trite as a "peace demonstration": do nothing. Don't meddle. It's not very good.


    "Get around international treaties" is awfully Machiavellian isn't it? Or, doesn't the worldwide loss of credibility outweigh the short term gain?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    The general answer's as trite as a "peace demonstration": do nothing. Don't meddle. It's not very good.


    "Get around international treaties" is awfully Machiavellian isn't it? Or, doesn't the worldwide loss of credibility outweigh the short term gain?
    That totally made me chuckle. Yeah. I'm pretty cynical sometimes.

    One half of the trouble with not interfering is how to contain our own citizens' greed. If we accept that we're not going to manage it, then the next question is how to facilitate their greed in a way that doesn't result in all out nuclear war.

    The other half of the problem is the "damned if we do, damned if we don't", problem.

    Massive numbers of people from the third world are constantly trying to immigrate to industrialized countries every day because they apparently have no hope in their homelands. It seems that many people become terrorists out of anger that the USA seems to have so much, but isn't fixing their situations, just as often as they get mad about the outright harm we do.

    If we stand by and let them get poorer, then their terrorists and illegal immigrants will just become a bigger and bigger problem for us. I'm not saying that helping them is exactly a likely outcome of military intervention right now, but I like to hope that someday we'll get our act together, and intervene in a useful way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •