In a recent article by the Guardian, cross-border attacks from Iraq and Afghanistan are apparently the tip of the iceberg of illegal raids into foreign nations in order to perform strikes on Al-Qaida. The article details raids into at least six nations other than the ones that the United States is occupying, including Ethiopia, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Oman, Syria and reconnaissance missions into Iran. This is unacceptable. America has overstepped its mandate on combating terrorism around the world. America must stop, or we will face dire consequences with both the world community and the UN.
However, it is important that we save face in the world community by finding Bin Laden and finishing the Iraq war, both of which President Obama plans to do. This may prove risky, as the war is unpopular and many people have forgotten the war in Afghanistan. I think that all troops need to be sent home today, period. But practically, this is impossible.
Tuesday Late Night Open Thread
35 minutes ago
4 comments:
While I do agree that the war in Iraq must be ended and that raids into other countries are dangerous, raids in places like Somalia are actually productive. Somalia's government has almost no control over the country (any control it does has is thanks to pro-US and pro-government Ethiopian occupying forces) and is engaged in a bitter struggle with Islamist forces sympathetic (and tied to) Al Qaida. Strikes against them in Somalia are necessary because if Somalia becomes a breeding ground for terrorism, stability in the already unstable Horn of Africa region will be threatened. Also, all of the recent pirate attacks on the coast of Somalia will only increase should the Islamists maintain control. This is a threat to global shipping and oil. If Americans can help stop a few terrorist leaders in that country and help the legitimate government, I think they should take every opportunity to do so.
While I agree that such strikes may be beneficial to the stability of the region, why is it the United State`s prerogative to handle another nation`s problem`s?
While it would be nice to not handle others' problems, who else would? It is the responsibility of powerful nations to take stabilizing roles around the world. France has taken the lead in battling the aforementioned pirates. Germany is peacekeeping in the waters off of Lebanon. The US is doing this. If the cost is the US spending a bit of money, I am all for it if it prevents extremist governments from taking hold. Of course, this does not justify the extrajudicial strikes in other countries. Though would you honestly not take a shot a Bin Laden if you could?
this post seems to be arguing that the United States has done no good while in the Milddle East. Although I see the merit of your generalization, I must beg to differ, The American Univeristy in Afghanistan has started to become funded by people in the united states and therefore students in Afghanistan are getting a more rounded education, that can include hands on science. Without the United State's input this program may not have come to exist for years to come and even then may not have had as much funding. As easy as it is to simply critisize the government for the way we have forced ourselves upon these countries we cannot just ignore the bits of good that have resulted.
Post a Comment