rumsfeld to declare end to fighting in afghanistan - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-05-2003, 09:55 AM   #31
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 03:49 PM
Sting, our goal in Iraq was not to find WMDs. It was to rid the world of the terrorist thread posed by Iraq and their relation to Afghanistan. The president used the deaths of 3000 people as a reason for this war. Yet here we are two months later, and its become about rebuilding Iraq and putting a new regime in power. Its about getting contracts for Halliburton. Its about "nation building" despite the fact that Pres. Bush said he was AGAINST nation building during the presidential debates.

On to Afghanistan, which was the original point of this post. It was about getting bin Laden. Now its about removing most of the military power because we have control of Kabul. What about the rest of the country? As someone else mentioned, once you get out of the city, its dangerous. And all these atrocities that the U.S. stopped in Kabul are still going on in other places.

Its great that the people of Afghanistan can watch TV again and the people of Iraq are free of Saddam. But if the U.S. is the savior of these people, why have only superficial changes been made? Who cares if I can watch TV again if I'm still worried about the Taliban retaking control of my city when the U.S. leaves to go fight North Korea?
__________________

__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 05-05-2003, 03:04 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Well I guess you support putting the Taliban back in power. But, the trains didn't run on time during that regime because there pratically no trains at all.
This is then one thing less to worry about when you're going to nuke Afghanistan back to pre-historical times. BTW, I used the train-schedule as a metaphorical example (as that one was connected to Mussolini's rise to power), but you can change it with many things (food, security from the warlords, enough opium not to notice the horrors anymore)

Quote:
This is Afghanistan, not early 20th century Europe. History and Culture here are vastly different. Its a fact that the government in Kabul(which ever it may be) has never at any point in history had control of the country side.


I agree that Afghanistan is totally different from 20th century Europe. However, when the situation isn't that much different from before the Taliban came to power it begs me the question what has changed (for the good) for the Afghan people? What will ensure history will not repeat itself.

Quote:
This is not a movie or a TV show, its the real world of Afghanistan. Development comes with time and patience.
Hopefully the situation will change for the better. But it does mean the focus has to remain on Afghanistan and should not be taken away.

C ya!

Marty
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 05-05-2003, 03:29 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn

Hopefully the situation will change for the better. But it does mean the focus has to remain on Afghanistan and should not be taken away.
I agree with you, Marty. It's quite worrying to see how little attention is currently being paid to Afghanistan, given the continuing problems there. I sincerely hope we won't be having this same discussion about Iraq this time next year.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 05-05-2003, 10:22 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Sharky,

"Sting, our goal in Iraq was not to find WMDs. It was to rid the world of the terrorist thread posed by Iraq and their relation to Afghanistan. The president used the deaths of 3000 people as a reason for this war. Yet here we are two months later, and its become about rebuilding Iraq and putting a new regime in power. Its about getting contracts for Halliburton. Its about "nation building" despite the fact that Pres. Bush said he was AGAINST nation building during the presidential debates."

Our goal in Iraq was to bring about compliance with 17 United Nations resolutions and the 1991 UN Gulf War Ceacefire terms. The most important resolutions out of all of those are the ones that deal with the disarmament of Iraq. Iraq was required to disarm after the 1991 Gulf War because of its repeated violations of international law which included attacking and invading four different countries. Iraq's attempts to block disarmament and produce more WMD so as to facilitate a strike or invasion on one of its neighbors or provide terrorist with such materials, is the reason why the resolutions were put in place back in 1991 and why Iraq's refusal to comply with such resolutions led to the military invasion of the country to ensure that the resolutions(which included disarmament) were complied with.

The President never used the deaths of 3,000 people as the reason for going into Iraq. But Americans did feel less secure after 9/11 and were certainly more likely to support the president because of it.

"Yet here we are two months later, and its become about rebuilding Iraq and putting a new regime in power. Its about getting contracts for Halliburton. Its about "nation building" despite the fact that Pres. Bush said he was AGAINST nation building during the presidential debates."

The only way to ensure that Iraq is completely disarmed and that all resolutions are complied with and not violated in the future is to REBUILD Iraq and an ensure the formation of a democratic government. Halliburton is one of many companies that will be involved in the development of a future prosperous Iraq. Regardless of what Bush said during the debates, he definitely is in support of Nation building now that he is President. He has continued the Nation Building efforts in Bosnia, Kosovo, and now has started new ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is what needs to be done.

"On to Afghanistan, which was the original point of this post. It was about getting bin Laden. Now its about removing most of the military power because we have control of Kabul. What about the rest of the country? As someone else mentioned, once you get out of the city, its dangerous. And all these atrocities that the U.S. stopped in Kabul are still going on in other places."

The purpose of the war in Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban so Al Quada based in Afghanistan could be destroyed. Rumsfeld said that major combat operations for the time being were over. He never said the USA was withdrawing.

A friend of mine was in Afghanistan for over 6 months in 2002. He was involved in missions involving Special Operations and spent much of his time out in the country. He said there are certainly dangers out there, but the situation is improving. The US has stopped atrocities from happening all over the country. Certainly things like atrocities still happen, but this has been the way of life in this area for 6,000 years. Its going to take more than 18 months to change a way of life that has been going on for 6,000 years. It will take years if not decades for economic and political development to take place in ever corner of the country. But the country is on the right track, and thats thanks to the Bush Administrations policies.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-05-2003, 10:33 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Popmartijn,

"However, when the situation isn't that much different from before the Taliban came to power it begs me the question what has changed (for the good) for the Afghan people? What will ensure history will not repeat itself."

Preventing a non-democratic government from coming to power in Afghanistan is one thing. Another is development aid. The USA has troops on the ground that prevent the first situation from taking place and allow the second one to take place. The Bush Administrations policies have given Afghanistan a real chance to have a future far different from its past.

"But it does mean the focus has to remain on Afghanistan and should not be taken away."

As my friend who spent 6 months all over Afghanistan last year would say, the USA has not shifted away anything that would compromise its goals in Afghanistan. Just because you don't see Afghanistan on the news every night does not mean the focus has shifted. The Media's focus may have shifted, the US government continues to engage in policies to achieve its goals of a stable democratic government in Aghanistan.

Iraq or other trouble spots are not diversions. They are extremely serious problems that require attention as well. Its a mistake to say ones focus in a certain region has changed because of work being done in another country. The fact is that there are multiple tasks that have to be handled.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com