So maybe we got it all wrong

**Centurion1** · 02-14-2010, 01:21

I have no belief in making war for peace, no, the NATO soldiers don't have the mentality required to create peace.

So you advocate apathy in the situation. Oh yes it is horrible, but we don't want to make them do anything they do not want. So what form of solution do you see as being feasible if you don't advocate waiting for them to get bored of killing each other.

**HoreTore** · 02-14-2010, 10:08

Originally Posted by Centurion1

So you advocate apathy in the situation. Oh yes it is horrible, but we don't want to make them do anything they do not want. So what form of solution do you see as being feasible if you don't advocate waiting for them to get bored of killing each other.

There are plenty of ways to topple regimes and even introduce human rights without any soldiers at all. Just take a look at Iran, Eastern Europe, the Shah in Iraq, etc etc... Debate and influence is a lot better weapon than people think they are.

Anyway, when exploring the ways to peace and human rights, a military action like what we are doing now just isn't an option, as it doesn't work. Our soldiers won't behave in Afghanistan like they would if the war was a domestic one, and as such they will never gain legitimacy from the population and is therefore won't bring peace. Event the NATO General in charge of the operation knows and has admitted this(and vainly tries to implement it).

**Fragony** · 02-14-2010, 11:00

The Shah in Iraq? I would say reading up first is a good start

**Hax** · 02-14-2010, 12:06

I do not think that bombing the

out of a country is going to do much in the way of bringing peace. I thought you'd learned in Vietnam (which is another great example of a total failure even before the start of the war. Remember President Diem and his lovely wife? Remember Thich Qu'ang Duc?).

The Coalition cannot succeed in Afghanistan. It's way too late for that.

**Beskar** · 02-14-2010, 12:18

Originally Posted by Hax

The Coalition cannot succeed in Afghanistan. It's way too late for that.

They can succeed, it just depends on what goal they got and what they are willing to do, to achieve it.

**Fixiwee** · 02-14-2010, 12:46

Originally Posted by Beskar

They can succeed, it just depends on what goal they got and what they are willing to do, to achieve it.

What is the goal of the coalition in Afghanistan and what does it have to do with the original reason of the war?

**Fragony** · 02-14-2010, 12:29

Originally Posted by Hax

The Coalition cannot succeed in Afghanistan. It's way too late for that.

It can, easily. But we might have made a mistake here if OT story is true.

**Hax** · 02-14-2010, 12:37

It can, easily. But we might have made a mistake here if OT story is true.

Might have made a mistake.

Like declaring the war in the Middle East a crusade, Bush saying he was inspired by Jesus, refusing to open up ties with Iran during Khatami's government, etc, etc. I think the Coalition has done a great job in giving the Taliban loads of reasons to "reclaim Islamic lands from the infidels".

**Fragony** · 02-14-2010, 12:49

Originally Posted by Hax

Might have made a mistake.

Like declaring the war in the Middle East a crusade, Bush saying he was inspired by Jesus, refusing to open up ties with Iran during Khatami's government, etc, etc. I think the Coalition has done a great job in giving the Taliban loads of reasons to "reclaim Islamic lands from the infidels".

You are usually much more openminded when it comes to islamic rethoric, up to 'whiping of the map' not having a Persian equivalent, even when all it means is to destroy. Taliban is scum, but I don't care enough about the Islamic world to put troops in danger for their safety, if this is true we should get out.