|
|
Post by joegolferg on Dec 21, 2018 13:17:47 GMT -5
What happens to those places when you do withdraw? Vietnam is good example. They have their own independence to grow and prosper in which ever way they choose to. Have they ever become a threat since US troops were pulled out? Believe it or not, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya had and can have again, a functioning government that will take charge of their own land and run the state however they see fit. You went invaded Iraq and removed its government, then we saw ab extreme increase in terrorism not just in the ME, but around the world. You invaded Libya and removed its government, then we saw actual slaves being traded in absence of any kind of authority. What good have you actually done? And opening up the oil markets in those countries doesn't count 😉 Kind of a false equivalent with Vietnam Joe. We were fighting against a government military backed by Russia and China. Terrorists groups are a completely different animal. There's no way to make the comparison you are trying to get to imo. What good have we done.... not as much as we could have. But we took out bin Laden (which is all i ever wanted from any Mid-East incursion - get HIM and get out). Of course, maybe bin Laden shouldn't have flown those planes into the WTC in the first place, killing over 3,000 people from around the world. Vietnam was a war crime. You weren't fighting against Vietnam at all. Ho Chi Min pleaded with the US government countless times to not get involved in their affairs regarding the removal of French colonizers from THEIR lands. The US government realized that the French oppressors were about to be crushed and decided to step in and try and become the new oppressors. |
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Dec 21, 2018 13:19:13 GMT -5
I always thought that liberals were anti war, not anti anti war. What happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by paulus on Dec 21, 2018 13:25:01 GMT -5
I guess it can be complicated Joe. Some wars are a necessary evil. Most recent example - the Kosovo war - I think it's safe to argue that the NATO intervention there saved many lives.
Not sure how that can be argued in the various Middle East meddlings tho... lots of lives cost so far... hard to see how many have been saved.
|
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Dec 21, 2018 13:36:05 GMT -5
I guess it can be complicated Joe. Some wars are a necessary evil. Most recent example - the Kosovo war - I think it's safe to argue that the NATO intervention there saved many lives. Not sure how that can be argued in the various Middle East meddlings tho... lots of lives cost so far... hard to see how many have been saved. I agree. I've only mentioned wars that have been more like war crimes. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Vietnam were all unjust "wars." Absolutely nothing about any of those "interventions" are what I would call complicated. Straight up Imperialism. |
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Dec 21, 2018 13:40:29 GMT -5
Kind of a false equivalent with Vietnam Joe. We were fighting against a government military backed by Russia and China. Terrorists groups are a completely different animal. There's no way to make the comparison you are trying to get to imo. What good have we done.... not as much as we could have. But we took out bin Laden (which is all i ever wanted from any Mid-East incursion - get HIM and get out). Of course, maybe bin Laden shouldn't have flown those planes into the WTC in the first place, killing over 3,000 people from around the world. Vietnam was a war crime. You weren't fighting against Vietnam at all. Ho Chi Min pleaded with the US government countless times to not get involved in their affairs regarding the removal of French colonizers from THEIR lands. The US government realized that the French oppressors were about to be crushed and decided to step in and try and become the new oppressors. Again, a completely different animal than terrorists. Cannot be compared equally. |
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Dec 21, 2018 13:53:27 GMT -5
It's not good at all. It's horrible. Unless you are 1) for Kurds being slaughtered by Turkey and 2) creating another vacuum for ISIS. This is another movie we've seen before from Bush and Obama. Why would Trump's version be any different? It won't. 1) Kurds were still being slaughtered by Turkey despite your presence. 2) We (the west) created the vacuums in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan by occupying those countries, do you really want to add another to that list? 3) The US military has bombed just as many, if not more, Syrian bases, airfields, towns and villages than they have ISIS targets. 1) So that makes it ok to have even more slaughtered by abandoning them completely? Ok. 2) Creating another vacuum is exactly why we should not leave. Not sure of your point with this one - I was basically asking you if YOU wanted to create another one lol. Please clarify. 3) That's why any type of conflict sucks. Innocent people die. I'll go out on a limb and say that every country ever involved in any conflict has killed innocents. We do not stand alone in that evil. But until someone comes up with a remedy to rid the planet of any and all conflicts (good luck), collateral damage is going to happen. It's horrible. |
|
|
|
Post by paulus on Dec 21, 2018 13:54:08 GMT -5
Curbing terrorism cannot really be achieved with War imho - doesn't seem to be working anyway. And actually helps stoke anti-western sentiment when they can justifiably point to the injustices being perpetrated by us.
We could have got Bin Laden without troops being in the country. The intelligence was all that was needed - and that didn't come from the invasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Dec 21, 2018 13:58:22 GMT -5
Vietnam was a war crime. You weren't fighting against Vietnam at all. Ho Chi Min pleaded with the US government countless times to not get involved in their affairs regarding the removal of French colonizers from THEIR lands. The US government realized that the French oppressors were about to be crushed and decided to step in and try and become the new oppressors. Again, a completely different animal than terrorists. Cannot be compared equally. But according to the US government, the Vietnamese were worse than terrorists... And you pulled out, nothing happened afterwards. |
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Dec 21, 2018 14:07:20 GMT -5
1) Kurds were still being slaughtered by Turkey despite your presence. 2) We (the west) created the vacuums in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan by occupying those countries, do you really want to add another to that list? 3) The US military has bombed just as many, if not more, Syrian bases, airfields, towns and villages than they have ISIS targets. 1) So that makes it ok to have even more slaughtered by abandoning them completely? Ok. 2) Creating another vacuum is exactly why we should not leave. Not sure of your point with this one - I was basically asking you if YOU wanted to create another one lol. Please clarify. 3) That's why any type of conflict sucks. Innocent people die. I'll go out on a limb and say that every country ever involved in any conflict has killed innocents. We do not stand alone in that evil. But until someone comes up with a remedy to rid the planet of any and all conflicts (good luck), collateral damage is going to happen. It's horrible. 1) Yes, many kurds will die and that's a tradgedy. But in a world like ours this seems to be the natural order of things. If you are truly for the plight of freedom fighters (which I doubt the US are because a pretty sizeable portion of kurds in that region are communists) then you coukd at least be consistent in your fight against oppression. Why aren't you in Yemen? 2) The US wants to remove Assad, which means a new vacuum. It's better if you pull out and let Syria and it's biggest ally, Russia - sort out the ISIS scum. 3) You misunderstood. The US intentionally bombed those places because they're against Assad and ISIS, apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Dec 21, 2018 14:09:50 GMT -5
Curbing terrorism cannot really be achieved with War imho - doesn't seem to be working anyway. And actually helps stoke anti-western sentiment when they can justifiably point to the injustices being perpetrated by us. We could have got Bin Laden without troops being in the country. The intelligence was all that was needed - and that didn't come from the invasion. Totally agree that most terrorists orgs could be dealt with using intel and Spec Ops to cut off the heads instead of putting boots on the ground. But that was the answer before we put boots on the ground. That damage is already done now. That's a Bush thing that we have a really difficult time digging out of because of the vacuum situation. Bush tried to leave, Obama tried to leave. Both decisions created worse situations. Going from Afghan into Iraq the way we did was the worst decision ever in this theater. We actually got bin Laden w/o the use of the troops that were in Afghan (we killed him in Pakistan). That was an intel / Spec Ops deal that got him. But this also leads to another complicated issue. Pakistan is a sovereign country and we ran a spec op inside their border without telling them first. Obviously we did so in order to keep it secret but still... that's a bigger problem if we wanted to go after another like-person hiding behind another sovereign country's border. The more we delve into this, the more complicated it's going to get  So with that, I'll just be on record for being against the withdraws from Syria and Afghanistan at this time. Syria is the more complicated matter to me. Russia needs to get out. Assad needs to go too. But then what? Depends on how they are removed I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Dec 21, 2018 14:11:20 GMT -5
Non of these interventions have anything to do with terrorism. That's been the perfect excuse for western nations to take oil and land. The more presence you have around the world, the more dominant you become. Imperialism.
|
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Dec 21, 2018 14:13:24 GMT -5
Again, a completely different animal than terrorists. Cannot be compared equally. But according to the US government, the Vietnamese were worse than terrorists... And you pulled out, nothing happened afterwards. Lol.... Was that an official statement from the USA government? Who said it and when did they say it? I need a reference. |
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Dec 21, 2018 14:14:05 GMT -5
Non of these interventions have anything to do with terrorism. That's been the perfect excuse for western nations to take oil and land. The more presence you have around the world, the more dominant you become. Imperialism. We haven't taken any oil or land. You are confusing us with Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Dec 21, 2018 14:16:35 GMT -5
Curbing terrorism cannot really be achieved with War imho - doesn't seem to be working anyway. And actually helps stoke anti-western sentiment when they can justifiably point to the injustices being perpetrated by us. We could have got Bin Laden without troops being in the country. The intelligence was all that was needed - and that didn't come from the invasion. Totally agree that most terrorists orgs could be dealt with using intel and Spec Ops to cut off the heads instead of putting boots on the ground. But that was the answer before we put boots on the ground. That damage is already done now. That's a Bush thing that we have a really difficult time digging out of because of the vacuum situation. Bush tried to leave, Obama tried to leave. Both decisions created worse situations. Going from Afghan into Iraq the way we did was the worst decision ever in this theater. We actually got bin Laden w/o the use of the troops that were in Afghan (we killed him in Pakistan). That was an intel / Spec Ops deal that got him. But this also leads to another complicated issue. Pakistan is a sovereign country and we ran a spec op inside their border without telling them first. Obviously we did so in order to keep it secret but still... that's a bigger problem if we wanted to go after another like-person hiding behind another sovereign country's border. The more we delve into this, the more complicated it's going to get So with that, I'll just be on record for being against the withdraws from Syria and Afghanistan at this time. Syria is the more complicated matter to me. Russia needs to get out. Assad needs to go too. But then what? Depends on how they are removed I guess. Historically Russia has been Syria's biggest ally. Why would Russia ever leave? If anything, Russia are doing a great job in helping their close ally defeat an extremist splinter group from a terrorist organization that your government used to fund... |
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Dec 21, 2018 14:20:29 GMT -5
Non of these interventions have anything to do with terrorism. That's been the perfect excuse for western nations to take oil and land. The more presence you have around the world, the more dominant you become. Imperialism. We haven't taken any oil or land. You are confusing us with Russia. You haven't taken control of oil field in Iraq? Do you know what the first decree in Iraq - post Hussein, was? |
|
So with that, I'll just be on record for being against the withdraws from Syria and Afghanistan at this time. Syria is the more complicated matter to me. Russia needs to get out. Assad needs to go too. But then what? Depends on how they are removed I guess.