David Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Here's a question for Mickey. Do you think we were justified in going into Iraq & Afghanistan in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big mickey Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Afghanistan, yes Iraq, no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ReturnOfTheMack Posted October 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 17, 2011 Im not Mickey, but yes on Afghanistan and no on Iraq. Â From my (limited) knowledge the Taliban were sheltering Bin Laden (despite him admitting to the 9/11 attacks) and so I would consider that a de facto attack by the Taliban. The States were right in going in, and as their allies I would agree with our backing them. Â Iraq, while I think Saddam needed to go we didnt have the right to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Despite the fact that the US basically ignored international law by invading Afghanistan? They pretty much disregarded the United Nations charter (which the US is signed up to, by the way, making it part of US law) and did whatever the fuck they wanted. Â I guess it's okay to impose the law when it suits though? They didn't believe the law applied to them either when they saw fit to launch a military action on Pakistani soil not that long ago without getting permission from the nation in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Really? I find that hard to believe, but its a scary number if its true. I wish it wasn't true. I can find you a link to the information when I have time tomorrow if you wish. Â Have to say that sounds a bit fishy to me, the numbers don't seem to add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Really? I find that hard to believe, but its a scary number if its true. I wish it wasn't true. I can find you a link to the information when I have time tomorrow if you wish. Have to say that sounds a bit fishy to me, the numbers don't seem to add up. I'll dig out the source tomorrow and post it for you. Have a look and see, make up your own mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ReturnOfTheMack Posted October 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 17, 2011 Despite the fact that the US basically ignored international law by invading Afghanistan? They pretty much disregarded the United Nations charter (which the US is signed up to, by the way, making it part of US law) and did whatever the fuck they wanted. I guess it's okay to impose the law when it suits though? They didn't believe the law applied to them either when they saw fit to launch a military action on Pakistani soil not that long ago without getting permission from the nation in question.   The second part I agree was wrong. As for the first bit, I dont think the invasion of Afghanistan was against the charter. Article 51, the right to self defence. The Taliban were sheltering a man and organisation that attacked the USA and was planning further attacks. I see no issue there myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Quick check and http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html infant mortality rates going down due to the extra hospitals and stuff, so that's a bit of a plus. Then here (only wiki, granted, but it works for a start) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_...of_the_Iraq_War they do say that as of 2007 35% of children in iraq were orphans. But importanly it does say that orphan in the arab world means losing your father or your mother and father, so kids with mums would count as orphans. I also can't see any link to show how much the % of orphans went up as a result of the war. Obviously a fair few, but how many? Iraq pre the war had pretty shoddy health care, and that's before you factor in gas attacks on the kurds and other fun things sadam got up to. I'd be interested in hearing a contextual statistic on orphans, but I have a feeling it'd be a lot less sensationalist than your ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Quick check and http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html infant mortality rates going down due to the extra hospitals and stuff, so that's a bit of a plus. Then here (only wiki, granted, but it works for a start) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_...of_the_Iraq_War they do say that as of 2007 35% of children in iraq were orphans. But importanly it does say that orphan in the arab world means losing your father or your mother and father, so kids with mums would count as orphans. I also can't see any link to show how much the % of orphans went up as a result of the war. Obviously a fair few, but how many? Iraq pre the war had pretty shoddy health care, and that's before you factor in gas attacks on the kurds and other fun things sadam got up to. I'd be interested in hearing a contextual statistic on orphans, but I have a feeling it'd be a lot less sensationalist than your ones. Yes, but that was entirely down to the pre-war UN sanctions, widely believed to be responsible for the death of at least half a million children. Those UNICEF figures don't really give the full picture, but Iraq was actually making huge leaps in reducing infant mortality until the sanctions were imposed in 1990, child mortality went through the roof, and they only started to come down after the sanctions were lifted. I'd say the lifting of sanctions has more to do with the (very slight since 1990) reduction in infant mortality than our brave boys helping to build extra hospitals and stuff. Â You mention Saddam gassing the Kurds as if that was actually a genuine reason for war. The US and the UK supplied him with the means to commit that atrocity, and continued to sell him biological weapons and strongly support him diplomatically long after the fact. The UK were still granting export licenses to Iraq for materials used for biological weapons as late as 1997, 9 years after the Kurds were gassed. The sanctions killed their economy, their healthcare, their access to food and clean water, but they did nothing to stop Saddam stockpiling weapons. Â The second part I agree was wrong. As for the first bit, I dont think the invasion of Afghanistan was against the charter. Article 51, the right to self defence. The Taliban were sheltering a man and organisation that attacked the USA and was planning further attacks. I see no issue there myself. No. First of all they actually had no proof that the Al Qaeda/Bin Laden were behind it. They never requested extradition for Bin Laden to stand trial. When the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden, they refused to discuss it. And the right to self defence doesn't cover retaliation attacks. You need security council approval for that. They could have got it, but they chose not to. Â None of those things are happening now though, as bad as some of that is. (And really, sadam being hung seems fine and dandy to me, he's a mass murdering cunt who got what was coming) it's vital we do something now to sort the mess out. Its all very well saying you realise we have to be there to help rebuild it, but bearing in mind thats true how can you morally object to anyone signing up now who then goes there and does it? If you think British soldiers in Afghanistan now are all just building hospitals and infrastructure, you're grossly misled. The killing and fighting is continuing and increasing. Deaths of NATO troops, insurgents and civilians has spiked big time in the last two years. Â As for us doing something to sort the mess out, it's bollocks, we can't. Certainly not through occupation. You cannot bring democracy and freedom by the barrel of a gun. Our occupation just serves to strengthen the grip on the country held by the warlords and the Taliban. The longer the occupation goes on, the more support will grow for those fighting it. Unbelievably patronising to think that we can solve all the Afghan problems for them. Â Also, the Red Cross has reported that the situation now in Afghanistan is the worst it's been in the 30 years they've been working there. Increased displacement of people, spreading of the conflict to previously safe zones, harder and harder to provide sufficient medical, food and water aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Astro Hollywood Posted October 18, 2011 Moderators Share Posted October 18, 2011 David in "taking the moral high ground because he can't remember what his own views are supposed to be" shocker. Cunt. Aw, don't be like that, Ricky. There's no need for such name-calling. Here, maybe this will help bring a smile back to your face; Â This shit again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big mickey Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 The war with Iraq severely hurt the long term prospects in Afghanistan If we'd have had a full strength deployment from 2001-2005 I'm pretty confident we'd have all but eliminated the Taliban However the Iraqi deployment put an end to that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ReturnOfTheMack Posted October 18, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 18, 2011 The second part I agree was wrong. As for the first bit, I dont think the invasion of Afghanistan was against the charter. Article 51, the right to self defence. The Taliban were sheltering a man and organisation that attacked the USA and was planning further attacks. I see no issue there myself. No. First of all they actually had no proof that the Al Qaeda/Bin Laden were behind it. They never requested extradition for Bin Laden to stand trial. When the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden, they refused to discuss it. And the right to self defence doesn't cover retaliation attacks. You need security council approval for that. They could have got it, but they chose not to. Â No proof other than him openly claiming responsibility? They DID request his extradition but the Taliban refused unless he was tried by their choice of courts and the US had to prove his guilt before they would send him. Â Oh and resolution 1368 may eb of interest. Â http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Yes, but that was entirely down to the pre-war UN sanctions, widely believed to be responsible for the death of at least half a million children. Those UNICEF figures don't really give the full picture, but Iraq was actually making huge leaps in reducing infant mortality until the sanctions were imposed in 1990, child mortality went through the roof, and they only started to come down after the sanctions were lifted. I'd say the lifting of sanctions has more to do with the (very slight since 1990) reduction in infant mortality than our brave boys helping to build extra hospitals and stuff.  To be fair sadam did rather bring the sanctions on himself, I'll grant we didn't go to war for the best of reasons but I can't help but think the sanctions against iraq were understandable.  You mention Saddam gassing the Kurds as if that was actually a genuine reason for war. The US and the UK supplied him with the means to commit that atrocity, and continued to sell him biological weapons and strongly support him diplomatically long after the fact. The UK were still granting export licenses to Iraq for materials used for biological weapons as late as 1997, 9 years after the Kurds were gassed. The sanctions killed their economy, their healthcare, their access to food and clean water, but they did nothing to stop Saddam stockpiling weapons.  Oh the hypocricy's staggering, I grant you. And I realise it's not the reason we went to war. It is the reason I was ok with the war though, way back in 1950's the world agreed it would never stand by and allow any form of genocide again. But we did just that with Iraq, and I think that was wrong, we should have taken him out when he invaded kuwait. Even though we didn't go for that reason, I think it's reason enough to remove him from power. And yes I know all the arguments about us not doing it anywhere without oil, and that's true, but if the questions should we have removed sadam? I'll always say yes.  If you think British soldiers in Afghanistan now are all just building hospitals and infrastructure, you're grossly misled. The killing and fighting is continuing and increasing. Deaths of NATO troops, insurgents and civilians has spiked big time in the last two years. As for us doing something to sort the mess out, it's bollocks, we can't. Certainly not through occupation. You cannot bring democracy and freedom by the barrel of a gun. Our occupation just serves to strengthen the grip on the country held by the warlords and the Taliban. The longer the occupation goes on, the more support will grow for those fighting it. Unbelievably patronising to think that we can solve all the Afghan problems for them.  Also, the Red Cross has reported that the situation now in Afghanistan is the worst it's been in the 30 years they've been working there. Increased displacement of people, spreading of the conflict to previously safe zones, harder and harder to provide sufficient medical, food and water aid.  Now I'll grant you the recent elections were a shame, but afghanistan does have a government. And is on it's way to having security forces. There are those within the country that are still loyal to the taliban, but the voting records show the country as a whole are not looking for them to come back. People paint the UK forces as going in and removing governments people wanted, when they really haven't for the most part. The taliban took over afghanistan by force, sadam did the same, if forces left the situation becomes worse and there's no doubt about that. The afghan government, the afghan opposition, the iraqi government, the iraqi oppositon, all realise they need extra support from outside forces and do not want out troops to go. It's incredibaly patronising to ignore those voices and say the best thing we can do is leave. If we leave, the taliban will retake power by force and any progress made in the country will be ended immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/1...-fraud-evidence  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/sep2009/afgh-s29.shtml  http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/14/...E79D3P320111014  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...n-marriage.html  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/1...ens-rights-rape  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/1...fforts-thwarted  What a great job we are doing promoting and protecting Democracy and human rights kiffy  The new lot we allowed to steal an election are no fucking better then the ones we kicked out only diffenerce is the current scum support Western interests so drop the bollocks about us making Afghanistan a better place kiffy because you are just making a fool of yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Did anyone ever think they'd see the day that Kiffy & Mickey would be on the same side of a debate regarding the oppression of Muslims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.