So, I was watching the Australian news the other day and saw this thing about two Australian soldiers and their sniffer dog who were killed by a roadside bomb and I though "Dude, that's a total bummer" and left it at that. The next day, watching the news again and it has footage of one of the soldiers' memorial service and it had one of his superiors reading out a goodbye message that the soldiers son had written, and this kid was two years old and then I thought "That's a child who'll go through the rest of his life without his father. That's a life that has been permenantly damaged forever" and this got my brain thinking about war. Why do both sides insist on using such deadly measures when they claim to want peace? Why do innocent lives have to be lost over such things as land or beliefs when we are suposed to live in a world where you can think what you want and live where you want. My understanding of the Taliban is not very broad but I know that they probably don't share the values of life and equallity that we do, even so, that doesn't mean that we can't be the bigger people and seek a non-lethal resolution. We should go into peace talks and if they break down then we try again and again. If we have no other solution than combat then we should use completely safe measures of subdueing the enemy. We live in the age of hi-tech gadgets and all that, so why can't anyone seem to make a weapon that doesn't kill like some kind of tranquilizer assault rifle? There are only two ways out of a war: Total annhialation or mutual peace. When the day comes that the governments all realize that and end war peacefully, the fallen soldiers can rest in peace. Do you share my views? Discuss.
thats actually a consequence of the war not the cause of it. The reason that no-one will admit to is the planned trans-afghanistan oil pipeline.
im not getting into this one lol theres a few debates exactly like this, it will turn to politics soon and eventually get racism involved and nazi's will also be mentioned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law I therefore conclude that this thread has exhausted all meaningful discussion. Closing words: peace and war aren't as simple as you make it out to be, governments aren't as stupid as you believe (well, for the most part), tranquilisers are impractical as weapons and paragraphs are your friend.
Jeez I can come up with so many concepts of this phony ass war that it's rediculous. However I rather not waste my time going about it.
Actually that's the only plausible explanation for it. No other explanation makes that much sense after you take a look on how USA do business at any country.
peaceful resolution is not possible seeing as it's probably one of the main thing the Taliban stand against, it's a western weakness you see. we should not be there any more, lives are being lost needlessly, get out or hit hard is really the only choice. and where does that lead us? more war. and they are not just road side bombs they are ied's designed to cause the most barbaric damage possible. we may not be there for the right reason but i'm pretty sure we only fight when needs be rather then maim anyone we can for shits and giggles.
the other issue is rules. The western/NATO forces are bound by the Rules of War, Geneva convention and various different treaties covering what weapons and tactics can and cannot be used; as an example we can't use naplam weapons because of civillian casualities (see the Vietnam war for justification of the ban on naplam). The taliban have no such restrictions or moral issues with using such weapons (as far as they possess them). One has to wonder if our strict adherence to these rules are actually harming us when faced with an enemy who doesn't give two shits about the rules of war, and is out to cause as much devastation as possible without regard for colateral damage. Such as the rules existed in WWII, the Germans followed them, as did the the allied powers (the Japanese, notoriously, did not). Obviously following the rules of war is preferable as they are designed to minimise civillian casualties, but is it worth the cost of following them when the enemy doesn't?
this is a touchy topic here. we are trying to get groups of people who have hated each other for over 2000 years to make peace. it not going to work. the war there is point less and a waste of are time and money. if any thing make a base there and keep a few 1000 troops there not the hole goddame army
If only a few thousand troops were all it took to achieve the strategic objectives set, only a few thousand troops would be dispatched. Furthermore, only having a single garrison as you seem to imply should be done is utterly counterproductive to the notion of finding and destroying terrorist operations and whatnot. Also, I don't know which army you're talking about, but no country is foolish enough to send every last ounce of its military strength, or even a proportion close to being so.
pretty sure naplam would if we were allowed to use it. Also it would destroy the poppy fields that eventually end up on our streets as heroin.
Napalm is fearsome, sure, but a weapon of mass destruction it ain't. Considering its scope and the fact that it would be limited to military applications (according to Wikipedia, international law only prohibits use of napalm on civilians) and therefore will not lead to significant collateral damage, it does not present a large enough threat to society that it will cow nations or radical militaristic organisations into submission, which I think is what bhatooth was getting at.
No, some Afghans grow poppies, the Taliban does not farm, before the USA/UK land grab the Taliban had eradicated most of the opium poppy production in Afghanistan. There was allot of money being lost(to USA/UK) when the Taliban stopped the opium, then war. Oh by the way the Russian's (USSR) tried to stop the Taliban and they failed. Simple solution, talk.
opium production in afghanistan has increased by some 90% since the invasion. there is now a hell of a lot more afghan heroin on our streets than there was before we invaded. We should just naplam the poppy fields. problem solved, then we can come home.
If it where a war for opium no invasion would be needed; as you say Loony, opium production has increased under USA/UK regime. No surprise there as 'Western' interests have more to gain than the Taliban could ever. To napalm anything is a brutal act; Loonylion for you to suggest such a thing undermines all my thoughts of you as a caring individual. Good job on destroying your credability as an intelligent functioning human. [edit] I came back to edit this as it has been an eye opener for me to see Loonylion's comment, I am aghast; I thought Loony cared for a better future for nature and man. How foolish am I? to think that some little cunt that programmed a score keeper for English club cricket should give a fuck for anything beyond was foolish of me. Yet I did think that. I did.
I happen to care more about british troops than I do about flowers that are ultimately going to end up as drugs which ruin people's lives.
