[rdeyes]

we all saw what happened when people tried to get freedom in iraq , saddam used fucking chemicals weapon on them , i think that sends a pretty fucking strong mesage to anyone trying to get independence.

Afghanistan is a country that has had over 30 years of war, the people still live like its the fucking stone-age, you cant just bring people up to speed with-in a few years, besides tribal leaders still have alot of clout in afghanistan, also it doesnt help when the border with pakistan has more holes in it then fucking swiss cheese. the us has done alot more for the afghani people , then the soviets did when they were there.

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by Coleman

You can't go into places like Somalia to give food and aid with the current government in place. Many times the government has just taken the food and oppressed the helpers. If we pour money into the UN we'll see it just gets magically "lost" in all of the paper work. There have been millions upon millions of dollars that have been lost in the UN's hands (most likely just taken by leaders). If it was more responsible, I'm sure the US gov't (hell, even celebrities) would be willing to help out via the UN route.

I was referring to Somaliland.

...But regardless, I understand what you're saying - But that is not what I meant by peacekeeping. I'm not talking about just throwing money at them, we all realise that doesn't work. I'm talking about mobilising a "force" as friendly peacekeepers to help people by providing aid, and help rebuilding townships, working with the people to get things back on track.
It's like going to war except instead of shooting and bombing people you give them food, healthcare, help them build houses, mentor their government and get the country back on it's feet....It's also good how they won't shoot back at you and blow you up.

These are people that actually want help.

It seems odd to me that the U.S would go to the most stickiest situation possible merely trying to help people....And also doing it in such a way that it is a violent invasion - How do you expect people to respect the people that have come to "save" them if they've seen their friends and/or family killed by them.
You can only help people who want to be helped....Because you need to be able to work with them.

[Merlin122]

very nice find

[c312]

Originally Posted by Tripper

...But regardless, I understand what you're saying - But that is not what I meant by peacekeeping. I'm not talking about just throwing money at them, we all realise that doesn't work. I'm talking about mobilising a "force" as friendly peacekeepers to help people by providing aid, and help rebuilding townships, working with the people to get things back on track.
It's like going to war except instead of shooting and bombing people you give them food, healthcare, help them build houses, mentor their government and get the country back on it's feet....It's also good how they won't shoot back at you and blow you up.

That would be nice, but once the peace keeping force left, the same warlords would be greedy again and start doing the same thing just in a nicer, rebuilt place.

[Coleman]

Originally Posted by Tripper

I was referring to Somaliland.

fuck, i never heard of that place. I'm retarded. wallbash: wallbash: wallbash:

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by c312

That would be nice, but once the peace keeping force left, the same warlords would be greedy again and start doing the same thing just in a nicer, rebuilt place.

......and what the fuck do you think is going to happen in Iraq?

I don't understand the logic. You write off any of a dozen countries that are in similar situations because you assume that a warlord would just "be greedy again and start doing the same thing," and instead the better option is going to war with a middle eastern nation, which was already strongly anti-american, which is obviously in general, less appreciative of the help and was less in need of help pre-invasion.
The country is in taters now and there is no sign of hope for a respectable government.

.....Basically you're wasting more lives and money and potentially more time in Iraq than you would helping out civilians get their country back, who actually ASK for and NEED help.

Doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. If there is any chance of getting Iraq back on its feet than there is twice as much a chance of getting any of those African nations sorted out.

Originally Posted by Coleman

fuck, i never heard of that place. I'm retarded. wallbash: wallbash: wallbash:

That's probably because it's not even recognised as a country by the rest of the world. biggrin:

[Jin-Roh]

infrastructure > *

[c312]

Originally Posted by Tripper

......and what the fuck do you think is going to happen in Iraq?

I don't understand the logic. You write off any of a dozen countries that are in similar situations because you assume that a warlord would just "be greedy again and start doing the same thing," and instead the better option is going to war with a middle eastern nation, which was already strongly anti-american, which is obviously in general, less appreciative of the help and was less in need of help pre-invasion.
The country is in taters now and there is no sign of hope for a respectable government.

.....Basically you're wasting more lives and money and potentially more time in Iraq than you would helping out civilians get their country back, who actually ASK for and NEED help.

Doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. If there is any chance of getting Iraq back on its feet than there is twice as much a chance of getting any of those African nations sorted out.

I don't beleive that the Iraqis are as ungrateful for our presence as you imagine. I beleive there are lots of Iraqis that wanted our help and are greatful for what we did.

And I'm not writing off other countries, I'm just saying, I don't think the peaceful approach would work, force would be needed, like in Iraq which, given time could very likely stabilize.