Is The Current Situation In Iraq A Indication For The Future Of Afghanistan

[esmith]

As the current situation in Iraq worsens, is this an indication of what will happen in Afghanistan when allied forces pull out? Discuss?

Iraq city of Mosul falls into hands of ISIS jihadists after police, army abandon posts - CBS News
http://www.newsweek.com/mosul-now-h...st-take-over-iraqs-second-biggest-city-254427

 

[CynthiaCypher]

This is n indication of what happens when a U.S president by the name of Bush oversteps his boundaries and ***** crap up.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

This should have never happened in the first place. There should have never been any war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That whole region seems to be going to hell. I wonder what happened to the "war on terror"? I thought we were supposed to be fighting those people, not handing countries over to them.

 

[Apex]

This should have never happened in the first place. There should have never been any war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan was legitimate. Iraq, probably not so much. But either way, IMO, that entire region of the world is hopeless. Seriously, I almost think the rest of the developed world should just put a wall up around the ME and only let refugees out, and no one back in.

 

[kashmir]

I don't understand why they just don't airstrike them.
Apparently they are just letting about 1500 ISIS just march on and take over town after town.

I might have the numbers off a tad bit, but something like 15,000 solders, crapped stripped off their gear, dropped their weapons and ran from about 800 ISIS resulting in 500,000 civilians to be completely displaced, the ISIS took over everything, the banks half a billion cash, all the weapons, and retrieved prisoners, growing them to about 1500 now.

What am I missing here?
Oh yah, the billions we spent training those tens of thousands of solders that is now in the hands of 1500 terrorists and apparently the vice pres said that we wash their hands of helping them, but might give them more weapons, its on them now

I think we should just cut out the middle man and drop the weapons off to the terrorists, drop them some food and water while we are at it

 

[LuisDantas]

That whole region seems to be going to hell. I wonder what happened to the "war on terror"? I thought we were supposed to be fighting those people, not handing countries over to them.

Fighting those people is essentially making terrorists out of them.

TRUE nation building and leaving them to their own confusion and internal conflict are the only other alternatives. Both are preferable, both carry a heavy toll.

 

[kashmir]

Fighting those people is essentially making terrorists out of them.

TRUE nation building and leaving them to their own confusion and internal conflict are the only other alternatives. Both are preferable, both carry a heavy toll.

Until what?
They get their hands on nukes?

I been reading all kinds of comments on this subject on the news sites.
These people been fighting for thousands of years.
A lot of people said they were better off with Saddam in charge, he kept them all in check, however, he was a sick man who tortured for fun.

Would they be better off with that and have some stability or complete chaos with people like the ISIS that can displace half a million people with only 1000 armed guys?

I say that someone needs to airstrike them now, they are on flat ground out in the open.
Reduce them to a hand full of guys and then let the half a million people all have guns and march them back in.
They have to be taught to fight for their land or they will never have control.

 

[LuisDantas]

I say that someone needs to airstrike them now, they are on flat ground out in the open.
Reduce them to a hand full of guys and then let the half a million people all have guns and march them back in.
They have to be taught to fight for their land or they will never have control.

I just don't see what else that would acomplish beyond a renewal of enthusiasm for terrorism and even more uncertainty and despair.

We are talking about guerillas. Human beings. Not demons or zombies.

 

[metis]

One would think that we would have learned our lesson in Vietnam about how hard it is to nation-build, but we forgot and got into Iraq and Afghanistan. Are we going to make the same mistake again?

 

[LuisDantas]

One would think that we would have learned our lesson in Vietnam about how hard it is to nation-build, but we forgot and got into Iraq and Afghanistan. Are we going to make the same mistake again?

Was Vietnam presented as a nation-building effort?

Nation Building is a very bold (albeit laudable) proposition. It basically involves becoming something of a native people and dealing with the consequences.

The British were the best succesful example in recent History, largely because they knew that it takes a lot of effort and knowing when to bow out of the lands they got involved with, most notably Canada, Australia and India.

Vietnam and even Afganisthan and Iraq don't seem to have ever aimed at being nation building, despite the best efforts of Petraeus and a few others.

 

[Revoltingest]

The war in Afghanistan was legitimate. Iraq, probably not so much. But either way, IMO, that entire region of the world is hopeless. Seriously, I almost think the rest of the developed world should just put a wall up around the ME and only let refugees out, and no one back in.

It's only hopeless if we have unrealistic expectations. Don't invade them to remake them in our image.
Don't expect them to become peaceful westernized progressives. Then we won't be disappointed.
Sometimes ya gotta just live & let live...even if we dislike their governments & cultures.

 

[esmith]

This is n indication of what happens when a U.S president by the name of Bush oversteps his boundaries and ***** crap up.

This should have never happened in the first place. There should have never been any war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

What you do not seem to understand is that you can not put the genie back in the bottle. What is done is done. What I asked was does the same type of events take place in Afghanistan that are now taking place in Iraq.

Iraq refused our offer to keep some military presence, they make the decision and now have to live with it. However, leaving a token force in Iraq would not have made any difference, in my opinion, in the current situation. All they would have been able to do is protect themselves; a waste of manpower and possible lives. We are going to leave a token force in Afghanistan. Therefore do you see the same type of events occurring in Afghanistan?

On another point, I do not see the Western powers allowing Baghdad to fall to the Islamic extremist. But with the political situation in Washington I do not expect to see any military response. Of course Obama could surprise me and respond to the request for military aid by Iraq.

 

[metis]

Was Vietnam presented as a nation-building effort?

Actually it became as such, especially considering the fact that we propped up leaders that we wanted in place, and then we ended up taking over not only most of the fighting but also most of the nation building. BTW, for what it's worth, I was against the war very early on.

The British were the best succesful example in recent History, largely because they knew that it takes a lot of effort and knowing when to bow out of the lands they got involved with, most notably Canada, Australia and India.

The Brits often learned the hard way, but at least they learned and were smart enough to know when it was time to "cut-and-run".

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually it became as such, especially considering the fact that we propped up leaders that we wanted in place, and then we ended up taking over not only most of the fighting but also most of the nation building. BTW, for what it's worth, I was against the war very early on.

That does not look even remotely like nation building to me. Nation building begins after the armed conflicts end.

What you describe is stirring conflict.

The Brits often learned the hard way, but at least they learned and were smart enough to know when it was time to "cut-and-run".

Indeed. For all their mistakes (some of them very shameful indeed, quite possibly beyond forgiveness), they had the courage to learn a lot with their expansionism.

 

[LuisDantas]

What you do not seem to understand is that you can not put the genie back in the bottle. What is done is done.

Are you attempting to convince me to hope that Middle Easterns destroy or at least cripple the USA?

What I asked was does the same type of events take place in Afghanistan that are now taking place in Iraq.

More like the other way around, it seems to me. Iraq is ultimately far less troubled a region. It will take a while before it collapses, and it is even possible to avoid that fate.

But certainly not by employing military force again.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Until what?
They get their hands on nukes?

I been reading all kinds of comments on this subject on the news sites.
These people been fighting for thousands of years.
A lot of people said they were better off with Saddam in charge, he kept them all in check, however, he was a sick man who tortured for fun.

Would they be better off with that and have some stability or complete chaos with people like the ISIS that can displace half a million people with only 1000 armed guys?

I say that someone needs to airstrike them now, they are on flat ground out in the open.
Reduce them to a hand full of guys and then let the half a million people all have guns and march them back in.
They have to be taught to fight for their land or they will never have control.

I would certainly say that Iraq was better off under Saddam and Libya was better off under Gaddafi. They weren't as bad as some of the tyrants the US has installed and propped up in the past (and now). In fact, they were a lot better than many of them.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would certainly say that Iraq was better off under Saddam and Libya was better off under Gaddafi. They weren't as bad as some of the tyrants the US has installed and propped up in the past (and now). In fact, they were a lot better than many of them.

That I am not so sure about, particularly when it comes to Gaddafi.

Sending drones, however, pretty much tainted any efforts at legitimacy on the American intervention in Lybia.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That I am not so sure about, particularly when it comes to Gaddafi.

Sending drones, however, pretty much tainted any efforts at legitimacy on the American intervention in Lybia.

Oh, I'm sure.

 

[kashmir]

I would certainly say that Iraq was better off under Saddam and Libya was better off under Gaddafi. They weren't as bad as some of the tyrants the US has installed and propped up in the past (and now). In fact, they were a lot better than many of them.

Yah but Saddam was one sick man and so was his brothers.
Their prison had thick layers of blood everywhere.

Very Horrible Torture Methods mentioned....

Spoiler: very horrible torture methods

They found albums with picts of thousands and thousands of men, chained to walls naked, and their junk was completely burned off.

The one brother was giving a gold plated wireless meat carver, because he just loved to slice into his victims and take off limbs.
The other loved to drill into peoples bones and hook wires into their bones and hang them from huge industrial fans and leave them there spinning.
They all had young girls brought to them by the hundreds.
nuff said on that one.

That stuff never leaves ones mind.