Are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winnable?
Winnable
Side Score: 8
|
 |
not winnable
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
Militarily they surely are. The problem is that our main goal (Iraqi Freedom) is very hard to accomplish, especially with the limited amount of troops that we have. Too many people in reserve, not enough on the battlefield. Also, there seems to be a lack of focus on attacking the main al-Qaeda leaders. We also need to focus on educating the Iraqi people. It's good that we give them care packages, but we also need to educate them and possibly eliminate most of their media services (since all they do is show films like Redacted and Fahrenheit 9/11 and quote people in America who say we're a torture nation as recruitment tools). We need to get the CIA more involved (if they aren't already, technically, we can't know about shit like that). But as I said, militarily it's pretty easy. In fact, having both Iraq and Afghanistan gives us a major advantage if we ever go into Iran. And, it'll be good if we declared a World War. That way, we'll fix the economy while completely obliterating the enemy. Side: Winnable
|
2
points
2
points
No, It's the truth...nobody wins a war. There are no winners, but "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" Another Hippie saying! I do not see either Iraq or Afghanistan as a win situation. The best we can hope for is that by some quirk of fate we can get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice or just kill him outright. But then what...and then who? Side: not winnable
No one has ever won a war in Afghanistan, the Soviets couldn't and they had far more troops there and lived right next door. I think it's important to remember, and hopefully this administration keeps this in mind, We're not there to nation build, bring in a new regime, or change the people in some way, we're there to get the Taliban and specifically Osama, that's all, then we need to get the f--k out. And as far as Iraq, who knows, I don't even know what we're still doing there. They want us out, the only thing fueling insurgents seems to be our presence, they already have a new gov. for better or for worse, so I really don't know what the goal of remaining there is. Side: not winnable
we're there to get the Taliban and specifically Osama, that's all, then we need to get the f--k out. The problem is that killing Taliban members won't accomplish much. The unstable political situation combined with radical Islam is the problem. Unless we can stabilize the region, new jihadist groups will rise up. And as far as Iraq, who knows, I don't even know what we're still doing there Eh? You do know we're in the process of pulling out, right? We've withdrawn troops from major cities. The remaining troops are there to train Iraqis and ensure things don't go back to how they were. Side: Winnable
Good job calling me out. 1. By getting the Taliban, I mean actually specifically Osama and specifically for 911. But it's impossible to fight an ideology with force, it has to be fought with knowledge, so on the one hand, we've basically let him get away with it for almost 8 years, and justice has to be served at some point, on the other, our continued overbearance in the region seems to only serve to make that type of ideology (whether it culminates in more Taliban, or some other anti-western-civilization cult) more attractive to those people. So when I say get the Taliban and get out, what would have been better to have said was to get the one's specifically to our knowledge involved in 911, then once that is done, instead of strutting our military might, start looking for ways to communicate and be involved with these people in order to make the ideology of these terrorists less attractive to the next generation. 2. Yes, I do know we're pulling out, and am very happy for it. But I sense a dog and pony show. I don't believe the speed we withdraw has any bearing at all on the end result for that country other than more American and Iraqi deaths. I think that we are waiting for an excuse for a permanent military presense and nothing more, and I also believe that is a mistake. Hopefully I'm wrong, but either way, the 2011 timetable seems a long ways away. Side: Winnable
1
point
Win a war, when was the last time that happened. Viet Nam, Korea; neither if these were a win. Winning hasn't been the objective since the second world war. Getting your political friends gov't contracts at the expense of human lives, something we can accomplish. Side: not winnable
1
point
first of all afghanistan is a conflict not a war, big difference. second of all we cannot beat the terrorist threat there. even if we were to catch bin laden and all of his associates, we are not necessarily fighting a group anymore but more the notion of islamic terrorism. to this it is imposible to stop entirely. even by nuclear bombing afghanistan we would only stop the islamic terrorism in that country, the problem is that it has spread now into western countries. so with that in mind we cannot win in afghanistan, the best we can do is help their resources, build up their police and military and leave them to try to deal with the problem on their own. if us pulling out in the next few years goes well, hopefully this will be the case Side: not winnable
1
point
|
