Wars and Conflicts

[sammyunltd]

I have been thinking about this for a while... now that the Iraqi campaign is over, that the "War in Afghanistan" is not doing any good/not helping much in finding Osama....

why are we still there? I get that we are on our way out of Iraq, but why aren't we leaving Afghanistan also?

Why are we spending a lot of money [that could really help paying the bills @ home right now] for a truly useless war against an invisible enemy, an enemy that cannot and will not be destroyed by solely capturing/killing its leader (Osama)? Even worse, killing or capturing him will ignite the war and could worsen the situation :S

The way I see it, this war is still on only for political purposes (votes?). When Obama said he would cut the fat/useless programs, I thought he meant useless conflicts as well...

Anyway... my 2 cents.

 

[MovingTarget]

Nah, we're not going anywhere for quite some time, even in Iraq. I suspect it'll take just as long to pull out as it was to get us to where we are now.

Afghanistan? I don't know, but somehow I have the feeling that we will be repeating the same mistakes as the Soviet Union made.

 

[Jaskalas]

Afghanistan is a dilemma for us particularly since it is tied into Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal. These two matters are one in the same.

On one hand, we want to fight for stability in the region. To defeat the Taliban and ensure their extremism does not prevail.

On the other hand, we don?t want to be a lightning rod for whoever takes possession of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal.

Damned if we do and damned if we don?t.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why are we still in Japan and Germany?

 

[yllus]

Nation building in Afghanistan is probably a lost cause, but there's certainly a need to deny terrorist organizations the ability to plan and launch attacks with impunity. Thus a NATO strike force will probably always be in the country from now on.

Nation building is a noble endeavour, but Afghanistan isn't the sort of country that takes to urbanization and the rule of law easily. Even Iraq has a better chance at a stable future.

 

[alchemize]

It's in our nature.

 

[compuwiz1]

To kill a snake you must cut it off at the head. Problem is nobody can find the head.

 

[sapiens74]

Many of these wars are religious, and Islam is leading the charge..

 

[coloumb]

Nothing to see here.. just Policing the world as usual.. /smirk

 

[sammyunltd]

Problem is, "policing the world" is not even our No. 1 priority (see 183278932749 threads about UHC, Economy, Sotomayor, Unemployment etc.) and yet, it costs us as much or even more than our top priorities...

If the US Gov't had spent the $1 Trillion (or even more) that were wasted in these 2 useless conflicts, the situation would have been a lot more different (positively) today. That's sad... really sad.

We gotta ask the following questions? Do we really need to care about Pakistan and India and about their nuclear arsenal? Why isn't Europe taking the lead in this? After all, they're striking military deals (see France) with them and are much closer, hence more likely to be affected by a conflict or a nuclear attack.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: coloumb
Nothing to see here.. just Policing the world as usual.. /smirk

If the world would stop acting like a bunch of asshats maybe we wouldn't have to police them.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Problem is, "policing the world" is not even our No. 1 priority (see 183278932749 threads about UHC, Economy, Sotomayor, Unemployment etc.) and yet, it costs us as much or even more than our top priorities...

If the US Gov't had spent the $1 Trillion (or even more) that were wasted in these 2 useless conflicts, the situation would have been a lot more different (positively) today. That's sad... really sad.

Obama is currently on pace to sign more spending bills during his first year in office than the cost of the entire eight years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

We gotta ask the following questions? Do we really need to care about Pakistan and India and about their nuclear arsenal?

Ummm, yes. We need to "care" about every nuclear weapon on this planet. We need to track who has them, where they are, and what their intentions with those weapons may be -- forever. Whenever necessary, we may also need to control the possession and disposition of those weapons ourselves.

If we fail in that endeavor, we will pay with the lives of millions of our own citizens when -- not if -- one of those unchecked weapons is set off in our own front yard.

So yes, we most certainly need to "care."

Why isn't Europe taking the lead in this? After all, they're striking military deals (see France) with them and are much closer, hence more likely to be affected by a conflict or a nuclear attack.

Does that really surprise you? They (EU) have been dependent upon our protection for more than half a century; and, we've allowed them to remain dependent because it apparently gives us some sort of geopolitical leverage over them. That won't change anytime soon. Europe simply doesn't have what it takes to defend themselves properly so they're quite happy to see us continue to do so for them. (See Also: WWII)

 

[cyclohexane]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why are we still in Japan and Germany?

no reason at all.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: cyclohexane

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why are we still in Japan and Germany?

no reason at all.

Tell that to South Korea and the Euros that want us there to stop the Red tanks from rolling.