With all thats going on in the world with iraq iran afghanistan siria lebanon, and isreal, America, And Britain. What are your own personal thoughts. Do you think that the British and Americans are doing the right thing with iraq, iran And afghanistan. Should we just bomb them and stop them from sending their children to bomb us on bus's underground stations their cell units doing the same. Bombing them would certainly help towards peace. Or should weleave them to it and hopefully they'll kill each other before they kill more of us or are they to menacing and dangerous to be left alone. One things for sure we ain't getting any closer to brokering peace and ending the current affairs. Al quade are still a threat as are the taliban. I wondered what your thoughts and opinions on all of this are.
It is a hard call. I think the bombing is the wrong answer(two wrongs dont make a right type thing) but leaving them alone is also a sketchy move. I think we also need to be aware of all the other issues lurking out there. Like the Darfur genocide that has been going on for quite some time.
I wouldn't say that. The Taliban are quickly becoming an endangered species. Last year at this time there had been 4000 casualties, about 1000 of them civilians, mostly casualties of Taliban bombs, and terror tactics. This year 900 have died. A quarter of them civilians. The much feared Taliban Spring Offensive was cut short by the much understated NATO Winter and Spring offensives. The Taliban have resorted to suicide bombings, which mainly kill fellow Afghan's, this makes the civilians a little upset. Also suicide bombings are done only by the losing side. So a large number of Afghan civilians are seeing the Taliban as losing. Thus they are refusing to offer aid and support except at the barrel of a gun. They also aren't allowing their children to join the Taliban. It's one thing to let children fight as warriors in a valiant struggle, its another to see them become suicide bombers (something Afghans do not respect) against an enemy that is building schools, digging wells, and making jobs. Also in Pakistan the Taliban are coming under fire from the various tribes on the border. They are only tentative allies, and the Taliban have begun to wear out their welcome. They've come with hat in hand asking for fighters, money, and support once too often. And the Taliban have a bad habit of reaching for the gun if they're refused. So there has been a number of bloody incidents between the two groups. Also something that has only been reported in one or two newspapers. The Afghan civilians have grown sick of how the Taliban attacks teachers, and burn schools. The Afghans know that to make money, and become something other than a pathetic backwater country they need education. The Taliban is stopping this whenever possible. So throughout the last year, volunteers have sat up all night in unheated schools with rifles keeping the schools from being burned. This should be seen as a huge blow, because the people are now standing up to the Taliban. The Taliban will be around for a long time, but unless they get a huge boost soon, such as a major country pulling out, their time as a viable fighting force is coming to an end. In Iraq, things looked very bad last year. No question about it. Al Qaeda came to the verge of igniting a sectarian war, Turkey seemed about to attack the Kurds in the North at any moment, and Iran's Shiite allies in Iraq were getting away with murder. Look what a couple of months can do. After the bombing of the Golden Mosque in February 2006, the Shiite and Sunni divide seemed almost insurmountable. Baghdad was becoming a basket case, the Mahdi Army was running all over the South at will, and Police Death Squads were killing hundreds. And Terrorists were bombing markets daily. The interesting thing is this, Iraq was looking at the very brink of destruction. It's major cities were divided into armed camps, The government looked weak, and no one could agree with anyone else. But it also saw how well the smaller cities and towns were doing. The Kurds in the North were flourishing, and its markets and money outside of the central provinces, were beating much of the Middle East. So the armed Sunni tribes in Anbar and the surrounding provinces, that supplied most of the support for Al Qaeda and the Sunni Terrorists, became upset with their allies. After all most of the people killed by these two groups were Sunni's, their own people. So they started refusing to support Al Qaeda and their ilk whole heartedly. In retaliation Al Qaeda killed several tribal leaders. So in October of 2006 the largest tribes signed a treaty with the US. In return for money, guns, and support, they would hunt down the terrorists in their territory. Surprisingly by November, terrorist attacks had gone down. With the Shiite, most of the work came with the government. Bush had a number of conversations with Prime Minister Malaki in late 2006. No one knows exactly what was said, but it certainly had a reaction. By November, US and British forces, were raiding police stations, arresting entire police units, arresting regional governors for corruption, and arresting Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen throughout the country. Now instead of hearing about a market bombing every day, or a university being raided by insurgents, 100 bodies being found executed, there might be a small bombing once a week, a small group of people kidnapped in a major city, and one major bombing a month. Also there seems be an end in sight for how to share the oil revenue between the provinces. That has been a huge sticking point, as the Sunni's live in the oil poor regions, and feared being left destitute. There is still some dickering going on, but by the end of the summer, it looks likely that that will be over with. Now something that was reported but made to look bad last month. al-Sadr the main anti-American Cleric for the Shiite, called for his supporters to take to the streets and demand the Americans leave. Tens of thousands did so all across Iraq. It was reported as a blow to America. But thats wrong. The US knows that the majority of Iraqis don't want the US there. So it was hardly a blow to them. The important was this. No bombs went off. Not a shot was fired. There was no rioting. Not a single act of vandalism was reported. Last year rallies of that size would have seen armed conflict. But the Iraqis are channeling there anger and frustration into peaceful methods of demonstrations. That is exactly what Iraqi's after decades of violent dictatorship needs to learn, and is learning, if they are to rule themselves without an 'Iron man' at the helm. Iraq has a long way to go. But unless the Democrats get their way and can pull out while it is at a very fragile stage, Iraq is now looking like a good bet. Check out their economic standing, how many schools have been built, how many voted in the last election even after getting country wide death threats. Its a lot more heartening then listening to the panicked media. As for the rest of it. Al Qaeda and the Islamic Extremists are not doing so well. Since 9/11 the US has not been successfully attacked. Spain, England, and Indonesia have each been hit once, and only once. Dozens of terrorist cells all across the world have been successfully taken down. Al Qaeda has sent and lost several thousand recruits to Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, with very little return. Somalia was a complete disaster for the Islamic extremists. And a large number of the top level leaders have been killed or captured. Its not time to be jumping for joy, but we shouldn't cry into our beers, and say all is lost.
in re iraq, they never were and are still not, to this day... i went to london before the attack, to join human shields who were headed to iraq, in hopes of stopping it... instead, i was asked to stay in london and help organize the action, which i did... sadly, despite the hundreds of 'shields' we sent there, to show that many in the world did care what happened to the innocents who would be killed and maimed, the attack, invasion and occupation was a political juggernaut that could not be stopped... thankfully, none of our shields were killed, but that was small comfort, since so many of those they went there to protect were... and still are being killed, tortured, maimed, to this day... as for afghanistan, that's another exercise in futility and wasted lives, since the taliban is still operating and keeping its people in thrall to its restrictive religious rules; osama bin laden has still not been caught; and the heroin trade still flourishes, continuing to enslave and ultimately destroy its victims, from the growers to the users in your neighborhood...
There is no fair answer to this question. Everywhere people are been killed. But I can say with total honesty that the British Austrialians and Americans are doing some good there. First off the media fails to tell the stories of How WE British soldiers helped a small village build a bridge the people there were very appreciative. We also helped medical supplies get through to much needing people as with food supplies. No one knows what its like unless they have been there. Bombing them would kill many evil people but what about the ones that are not evil the ones like you and me. War is evil. But a necassery evil. Unless you've been there you really do not know what your talking about. as for bombing them thats never going to solve the problem. ~Raven.
Ok first of all Night Hunter, if your going to name the countries that are part of this war then your going to have to make sure you get ALL of them. Australia and the soldiers we have sent over are very much in this war and yet we get no recognition except by our own media for what we do over there! It's total and utter bull**** the way people only discuss what has happened to the American Soldiers and the Brittish [no offence Hull, your cool buddy]. I just get sick of people overlooking the Aussie hero's who bale the American's out, because WE have to, not because we want to. We're the little guy, the little brother/sister country of America, who gets dragged around because "mum" had to go out!. I dont' particually like this war, the fighting aspect of it, becuase I dont see why America couldn't just leave them. Yes they have done and still do seem to be doing terrible things to America, but they are their own country you can just rampage in and think you know what's best. It would be like we've set ourselves back a few thousand years of evolution. The war is pointless and shouldn't be happening. The only good thing about this war is the fact that men and woman who are able to help the country mend some of the tragedy that has happened, are helping. You never see it on the media because we're a bloodthirsty world who are only entertained by the bad news not the good. I'd love to be able to turn on the news and have the broadcaster say "Today, there isn't anything bad to report". Our soldiers [and when I say our I mean everyone, australian, brittish and american, etc.] are over there defending us. And helping another country to rectify some wrongs that have been done on either side. The men and women who are over there need or respect and dignity, they are the hero's. xxFrostyxx
i just remembered that once i stumbled across an australian chatroom, where two americans had come in and started running down australia, and saying that america was the best country ever and they were so good because they fight all their wars and stuff...... but these two were completely running australia into the mud and well..i couldnt help myself.. i typed in huge letters " if america is so good, then tell us why, OH WHY, do we have to keep sending our soldiers over there to help you fight your wars???" i could almost hear the crickets chirping..the silence that followed my words was beautiful
Good one. Canadians feel the same way in Afghanistan. Holding the toughest province, and taking comparatively the most casualties, but barely mentioned outside of Canada.
We're not fighting their wars as such. Theres so much going on out there that the media is missing out on telling. For a start the Americans pressence at times can upset the balence. As for the Austrialians. well they work very closly with the British and I know that they haven't gone out there to fight anyones war. Their presence is like that of the British and thats to help keep the peace. Many many afghannies and iraqi's are very glad of their pressence. Its not all about fighting either. We help re-build homes and protect them in some cases. Sadly though many don't see the full picture and it doesn't always potray the good thats done out there. Lady frost has hit a good nail on the head.
...and Poland. First and foremost, I respect all the soldiers in the battle, despite my opposing views of the war. As the wealthiest nation, full of pride and patriotism, the populace can be quite arrogant and unsympathetic in regards to foreign affairs. Well, unless it involves a gain on our part of course. (Seriously, if they wanted to improve a country, Sierra Leone and Darfur are always there. Hell, a vast portion of Africa really.) Like the two subjects of Coral Reef's sayings, Americans seem to have been inoculated with a sort of divine-right theory (Dubya believes he's being directed by Jesus). We're the omnipotent warrior of countries, swinging our club without second-thought (or first) in order to destroy anything that has harmed us... even if we'd been fostering the enmity. I believe this is partly due to the fact that war has seldom grazed our shores; always seen through the tv... though it does hit a hell of a lot closer to home when our soldiers do not return. Television. That brings me to an interesting point, the media is extremely mentally challenged. Anything for ratings, eh? Faux (Fox, pronounce it like an American, haha), SiNN (CNN), and the various others seem to display this Chauvinistic quality as thought it were their forte. Also, the airing of unimportant things while a war is raging irks me... really? I need to know a week's worth of information about Anna Nicole on a news station? Eh... my thoughts are quite sporadic at the moment -- which is probably why I suck at essays. To somewhat clarify what I just said, think of it like this: America is like the spoiled, selfish kid in a sand box told to play nice with the others. And really, this country is in the hands of a childish mind.
I think that it's hard for most Australian's to see their men and women shipped off to war when we have never actual faught a war ourselves on our own soil. We've always been a peacful country and I can't remember us every fighting amongst ourselves. Whereas nearly every other country I can think of have had wars within their nation, tribes against tribes, invaders against natives, borders against borders. It's insane and yet Australia [a young country I'll admit] hasn't had anything like that before. The only wars and battles we've been in have been for someone else, to help someone else get out of a tough situation. War is not something you accociate with Australia. Everyone has made really good points. xxFrostyxx
I've seen two people mention how the US and the world should be doing something about Darfur. Please consider some problems with going into Darfur. Sudan is twice the size of Iraq, has a much larger population, has more factions than Iraq currently has, has more support from rebels in the surrounding countries, and has China supporting them. Its government has also declared any Western forces even under UN approval would be an act of aggression. So trying to enter Darfur would automatically lead to a war. So Why would the Sudan be easier and better than Iraq? I can understand why we should be there. Because of photo's like this, And maybe this, I think these are some pretty good reason to go into Darfur. Only one problem these are from Iraq. These pictures were taken in 1988, against the Kurdish people in Northern Iraq. You can get a lot of details here, http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html its where I got the pictures, but most of the pictures shown are a lot worse. The photos are from the city of Halabja taken in March 1988. The city was surrounded and bombed, chemical weapons were also used. 12000 people died in 3 days, not counting the thousands maimed, and injured, and blinded by the chemicals. Similar attacks happened in 1987, leaving anywhere from 50,000 (Saddam's figures) to 180,000 (Kurdish figures) dead. Again this doesn't count wounded, or permanently maimed. But, you may say, all of this happened in the 1980's it doesn't matter in 2000. Wrong. In 1991, the Kurds and Shia believing that they would be supported by outside governments attempted to overthrow Saddam. They received no help. Tens of thousands were killed, but only conventional weapons were used this time. In 1992 using the barest pretense from the UN, No-Fly Zones were set up in Northern and Southern Iraq. Preventing, at least for the Kurds, further genocidal actions. But the city of Kirkuk and its surrounding area, and the city of Sulaymaniyah and its surrounding area, were not included in the No-Fly Zone. Saddam forced out 150,000 Kurds, Turkmen, and Assyrians, replacing them with Arabs. This was an attempted cultural genocide. Those that resisted were killed. To add to this attempt, Saddam raised an embargo against the entire Kurdish region. It's unknown how many starved because of these actions. The Shiites didn't do much better. Most people have probably heard of Dujail, the Shiite village that was literally destroyed, and only rebuilt later. Two snipers tried to assassinate Saddam, and failed. Thus 140 men were killed immediately. 1500 were arrested and tortured, many of them disappearing. And the rest, mostly women and children were sent to Desert Camps, after being raped and beaten. These camps make the refugee camps in Darfur look pleasant. This was the largest attack on Shiites under Saddam, but thousands of similar situations occurred throughout Southern and Central Iraq. Rebels would rise up, especially in 1991, only to be put down by any means necessary. Then their families, friends and neighbours would suffer the same fates. The Shatt al-Arab a river in Iraq, used to have several thousand square kilometers of marshes. One of the largest in the world. But it was surrounded by Shiites. So when they rebelled in 1991, Saddam drained the marshes, this continued until 2003. The fish, irrigation, and other resources the marshes provided, vanished. Leaving the Shiites destitute, and in many cases starving. Police Death Squads were formed, they went after Shiites that came to their attention, and took them away to rape rooms, torture chambers, and back allies to be beaten and shot. All of the children that were malnourished and starved during the UN embargoes, 99% of that can be laid at Saddam's feet, because none of those starving children were Sunni. The Sunni's got the food, the Kurds and the Shiites got the desert. Thats why there is so much hatred in Iraq. Some of it has to do with the religious factions. But the Shiites and the Kurds remember watching their children starve, their siblings massacred, and their homes destroyed. If the US flees now, that particular revenge is going to make Darfur look like a Sunday picnic. But getting back to Darfur. In 2002 I believe, one leader spoke at a UN meeting and said that real action should be taken in Darfur to stop the genocide. The UN ignored him, and the media briefly mentioned it before ignoring it as well. So that leader went onto other issues. That leader was George Bush. If you do some research you'll discover something funny. Darfur only became an ongoing concern for the UN, the media, and the world in late 2003, after the Second Gulf War. Why wasn't it an issue before then? Maybe because the only person speaking about it was President Bush?
What about the media? It's all sensationalism at its worst. And rather than reporting the news, too much of it tries to make the news. If you read Canadian newspapers, you can see it occurring in the Globe and Mail, attacking the Conservatives over the prisoner transfer agreement in Afghanistan that the Liberals put into place. As for Sierra Leone, the last time the US got involved in Africa it was Somalia. The US went in with UN support, some of its soldiers died, and there were claims of torture. The US was told to leave by various world governments, and they pulled out and became a laughing stock, that wouldn't finish what it had started. While the UN that had started it all got off without any problems. And when the Islamic Court took over briefly in 2006, the US was blamed for not staying in Somalia. Then there was Bosnia. The US avoided the conflict and got called cowards. They moved in under NATO, and kept the Muslims from being slaughtered. People claimed the US was heavy handed, and its bombs killed hundreds of innocent victims. After 9/11 people began saying if the US had minded its own business and not gotten involved in Bosnia, they wouldn't have been attacked. When the US tries to influence Africa its called neo-colonialism. If they went into Sierra Leone how quickly do you think protesters around the world would take to the streets calling on the US to leave? I'm guessing one hour. And all the usual suspects would be saying that the US was trying to take over the world. And that the American hegemony was expanding. The US is suppose to be the police man of the world. But when it tries to be it gets blamed for every bad thing that happens. It also has a finite amount of man power to throw at every situation. Sometimes other countries have to stand up and take up the slack.
One hour? please. And yeah, I imagine it would be like trying to police Woodstock. From inside of the crowd with few on your side. So... basically America's testes are in a vice grip. What exactly is one to do in this situation? There doesn't seem to be a way to ease the tension. Eh... muy complicado. Let's all take a siesta.
Your right. With text messaging, 30 minutes. The best way for the US to deal with it would be to tell the world to screw off, protect key areas, and become isolationist. Then wait for the world to go to Hell, as China invades Taiwan, and then turns to fight it out with India. Watch several dozen countries collapse as the aid money the US sends out dries up and they can't pay their bills. And laugh as the E.U. tries to control everything when it can't agree on a constitution.
Doesn't seem like that great of an option. Jiminy Cricket would get mad at me. Besides, we need our imports. How long are we going to survive on Alaska? Or is Venezuela/Iraq/Etc. supposed to be one of the 'key areas'? I think we should pimp-slap the Euro Union into action though. They've got some power behind them, yet it's all wrapped up in politics.
I was actually thinking Guam, and a few other islands in the Pacific, with access to Canada. Canada has enough oil to last at least 100 years at the current level.
huh?... i live only a hundred miles or so north of guam, in the same island group [the northern marianas]... and how you could think we 'have access to canada' is beyond me... not 'easy' access, anyway... in case you didn't notice, we're half-way 'round the world from there... takes me 30 hours or more of travel time just to fly to and from the west coast of the us... only other way to get here is by 'slow boat to china'... not really... humans have just made it so...
I worded that poorly, sorry. I was listed important places for the US. Guam as 'the' major US naval base in the Pacific, is critical as an advanced base against anything coming from Asia. Canada is another area that is important to the Continental US. Considering that the US and Canada share a rather long border, it does provide easy access for oil, energy, natural resources, and manufactured goods.
