A few questions regarding Iraq/Afghanistan
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:02:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  A few questions regarding Iraq/Afghanistan
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: A few questions regarding Iraq/Afghanistan  (Read 1189 times)
MissCatholic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,424


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 28, 2006, 08:26:10 AM »

1. What is the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist in Iraq?
2. What is the best reason to give to people that the Invasion of Iraq was legal or illegal?
3. Has the invasion of Iraq made Afghanistan less secure from the taliban?
4. Has the war in Iraq made Americans in Kansas safer?
5. What is the current mission in Iraq/Afghanistan for US troops? How is it different to before the invasions?
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2006, 08:38:04 AM »


1) Terrorists conduct acts of violence against anyone, while an insurgent is primarily a prior regime's holdovers trying to topple the new rule of the land to regain power.  For years following the "end" of WWII, insurgents in both Germany and Japan fought against the new governments but to no avail.

2) Iraq failed to meet the requirements of numerous UN resolutions and violated the cease-fire agreement.

3) No.

4) Yes.

5) To establish American-friendly (not terrorist-friendly) nations.  The mission has not changed.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2006, 08:41:19 AM »

We went to war with Iraq because they had WMDs. The WMDs have been found and our rationale for war has been justified. Kthxbye.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2006, 08:51:00 AM »

2) Iraq failed to meet the requirements of numerous UN resolutions

Are we planning to invade Turkey any time soon?
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2006, 08:52:47 AM »

1) Terrorists conduct acts of violence against anyone, while an insurgent is primarily a prior regime's holdovers trying to topple the new rule of the land to regain power.  For years following the "end" of WWII, insurgents in both Germany and Japan fought against the new governments but to no avail.

What?  So fighting a foreign invader makes one an 'insurgent'?  What on earth was wrong with the simple term Resistance?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2006, 08:57:24 AM »

1) Terrorists conduct acts of violence against anyone, while an insurgent is primarily a prior regime's holdovers trying to topple the new rule of the land to regain power.  For years following the "end" of WWII, insurgents in both Germany and Japan fought against the new governments but to no avail.

What?  So fighting a foreign invader makes one an 'insurgent'?  What on earth was wrong with the simple term Resistance?

You must have been an awful English teacher if you don't know what "insurgent" means - which is exactly the context in which MODU uses it.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2006, 09:00:57 AM »

1) Terrorists conduct acts of violence against anyone, while an insurgent is primarily a prior regime's holdovers trying to topple the new rule of the land to regain power.  For years following the "end" of WWII, insurgents in both Germany and Japan fought against the new governments but to no avail.

What?  So fighting a foreign invader makes one an 'insurgent'?  What on earth was wrong with the simple term Resistance?

You must have been an awful English teacher if you don't know what "insurgent" means - which is exactly the context in which MODU uses it.

I assure you that the term 'insurgent' will never come up in teaching English to a bunch of Asian kids.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2006, 09:02:22 AM »

2) Iraq failed to meet the requirements of numerous UN resolutions

Are we planning to invade Turkey any time soon?

It depends on what the resolutions against Turkey are, and what punishments have been listed as a possible result for non-compliance.  Personally, I'm not well versed on Turkey.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2006, 09:19:06 AM »

2) Iraq failed to meet the requirements of numerous UN resolutions

Are we planning to invade Turkey any time soon?

It depends on what the resolutions against Turkey are, and what punishments have been listed as a possible result for non-compliance.  Personally, I'm not well versed on Turkey.

Turkey has consistently violated UN resolutions regarding respect of the "sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus", the "withdrawal without delay of foreign troops from Cyprus", and reductions of military funding against Cyprus, the most recent violated resolution from 2002.  There are several other countries that have violated numerous UN resolutions including Morocco, Indonesia, and Israel.  My point is that if we're going to be invading countries on the basis of violated UN resolutions we had better reinstate the draft.

And while I do recall Bush mentioning the UN resolutions issue in the lead-up to the Iraq war, I must say that most of the rhetoric concerned weapons of mass destruction.  It should also be noted that the United Nations voted against the war that would supposedly address its resolutions that were being violated.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2006, 09:54:17 AM »

Turkey has consistently violated UN resolutions regarding respect of the "sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus", the "withdrawal without delay of foreign troops from Cyprus", and reductions of military funding against Cyprus, the most recent violated resolution from 2002.  There are several other countries that have violated numerous UN resolutions including Morocco, Indonesia, and Israel.  My point is that if we're going to be invading countries on the basis of violated UN resolutions we had better reinstate the draft.

Again, I don't know the resolutions, but if the resolutions against Turkey indicated possible address by the UN Security council, then us, invading Cyprus to remove Turkey from their land could be a viable option.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The UN rarely enforces their resolutions, which is why their credibility as an organization in regards to enforcement falls each year.  If the UN would actually "do" something other than passing papers around warning violators of future actions which never comes, then things like the US going into Iraq would not be necessary (except for the fact that the US would be the major contributor of military equipment and personnel since we have the largest available army in the UN). 
Logged
MissCatholic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,424


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2006, 09:56:58 AM »

If an iraqi kills aan American soldier but three iraqi civilians die also. is he a terrorist or an insurgent?
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2006, 10:19:45 AM »

If an iraqi kills aan American soldier but three iraqi civilians die also. is he a terrorist or an insurgent?

It depends.  What was his target and what was his purpose?  Again, reference my answer to your question #1. 
Logged
MissCatholic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,424


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2006, 10:24:29 AM »

If an iraqi kills aan American soldier but three iraqi civilians die also. is he a terrorist or an insurgent?

It depends.  What was his target and what was his purpose?  Again, reference my answer to your question #1. 

as a journalist and this is wired through. journalists cant go outside of Baghdad. so how do they report it. is it a terrorist attack or an insurgency attack?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2006, 01:43:04 PM »

I thought the purpose was to install a democracy, not necessarily to install a pro-American government. If an anti-American government is elected, are we going to topple it by force?

Saddam did have some weapons related research that he was concealing. All WMDs had previously been destroyed, however.

In any event, I fail to see how the massive expenditure of money and lives has made us a better or more secure country moreso than any other use of those resources would have. I support the goal of spreading democracy and freedom but it must be balanced against other problems that we currently have especially when doing so is so expensive not only to our national reputation and thus overall effectiveness in fighting terrorism but also in terms of our tax dollars and the lives of Americans.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2006, 02:42:59 PM »

1) Terrorists conduct acts of violence against anyone, while an insurgent is primarily a prior regime's holdovers trying to topple the new rule of the land to regain power.  For years following the "end" of WWII, insurgents in both Germany and Japan fought against the new governments but to no avail.

What?  So fighting a foreign invader makes one an 'insurgent'?  What on earth was wrong with the simple term Resistance?

You must have been an awful English teacher if you don't know what "insurgent" means - which is exactly the context in which MODU uses it.

I assure you that the term 'insurgent' will never come up in teaching English to a bunch of Asian kids.

It is, however, of obvious meaning to anyone who understands the common roots of the English word.  In any case, before chastising someone for word use, Google it next time.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2006, 03:02:40 PM »

1. What is the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist in Iraq?

Well if we just go by word usage an insurgent is just a person or group using guerilla warfare tactics. A terrorist is one who committs attacks upon, usually, civilian targets using such tactics as suicide bombing, car bombs etc.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Legal: Probably the need to depose a dictator/freeing the people is the best reasoning. Ending Saddam's mass murder as well and making him pay for prior crimes as well.

Illegal: Probably the lack of any viable threat, that it was a "first strike" and that no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably not. No significant amounts of American troops have been removed from Afghanistan to effect operations against Taliban targets in Southern Afghanistan. That coupled with a continued multi-national precence means that any repercussions from Iraq probably have little effect upon the Taliban.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe Kansas was all that dangerous to begin with. If by safer, since you really didn't give a description of what you meant by safer, you mean crime statistics I think they are probably the same as the last few years. As for terrorism Kansans have never really had anything to fear as, unless the terrorists decided to attack the Bombardier aircraft plant in Topeka, there are no major terrorist targets in Kansas. That's probably the best answer I can give to a stupid and awfully devised loaded question.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huh? Well before the invasions the troops were preparing to invade those areas or working in other areas of the world. So now that they are in the countries their job has gone from one of preparing and carrying out to one of gradually ending their mission. As for the only coherent question in number five, the one about the current mission, I believe both missions are to continue to facilitate the reconstruction of those two nations and to stabilize the internal political situations in each.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2006, 03:06:58 PM »

According to Miriam-Webster:

Insurgent

1 : a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; especially : one not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one that acts contrary to the established leadership (as of a political party, union, or corporation) or its decisions and policies

Terrorist

1 : one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

Terrorism

1 : the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I hope that answers the whole insurgent vs. terrorist debate.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2006, 09:11:55 PM »

1. What is the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist in Iraq?
2. What is the best reason to give to people that the Invasion of Iraq was legal or illegal?
3. Has the invasion of Iraq made Afghanistan less secure from the taliban?
4. Has the war in Iraq made Americans in Kansas safer?
5. What is the current mission in Iraq/Afghanistan for US troops? How is it different to before the invasions?

1. The terms are sloppily used as if they were interchangable by many.  The clearest definition is that the insurgents tend to be Iraqi Sunnis who direct their violence against coalition troops or Iraqi Security Forces and oppose both the US presence and the Shia dominated government.  Terrorists tend to be foreign born, they use violence against civilians, and tend to shy away from direct military conflict with the US and the Iraqis.

2. The best legal justification is that in legal terms the First Gulf War never actually ended.  There wasa  cease fire but no armistice.  A violation of the cease fire's provisions by one party (Iraq) gives the inherent right to the other party (The United States) to resume hostilities.

3. The Iraq war has neither made Afghanistan more secure or less secure, at least in the near term.  In the long term it the war in Iraq will prove to weaken Jihadism, a benefit that will eventually be manifested in an improved security situation in Afghanistan.

4. Yes.  By removing a state sponsor of terrorism, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda have been weakened.  This leaves them less able to strike the US with large scale strikes.

5. The current mission in both countries is to nation-build.  Before the objectives were the defeat of the ancien regime.  Now that the ancien regimes have been destroyed, new regimes must be put in their place, and the current mission is to ensure that the new governments are viable.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2006, 09:17:01 PM »

Are we planning to invade Turkey any time soon?

Yeah, when you find oil.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2006, 09:17:08 PM »

2) Iraq failed to meet the requirements of numerous UN resolutions

Are we planning to invade Turkey any time soon?

The UN Resolutions leveled against Turkey do not specifically authorize military force to my knowledge.  The Resolutions against Iraq did explicitly authorize military force (See Resolutions 678, 687, and 688) under certain conditions.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 29, 2006, 01:08:09 AM »

2) Iraq failed to meet the requirements of numerous UN resolutions

Are we planning to invade Turkey any time soon?

The UN Resolutions leveled against Turkey do not specifically authorize military force to my knowledge.  The Resolutions against Iraq did explicitly authorize military force (See Resolutions 678, 687, and 688) under certain conditions.

Fair enough
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 11 queries.