At the risk of starting a feud, do you agree with the US and Allied prescence in the Middle East? I do believe that Bin Laden needs to be brought to justice for his actions, but do we have any reason to be in the Middle East other than economic? I'm interested to hear everyones opinions on this.

I won't waste your time with my opinion. I simply don't know enough about it to say anything worth while. It's a great question though Animal!

Wow, that blows my mind. You don't see that much honesty anymore. The reason I ask is, several of our Canadian troops were killed by "friendly fire" from a US war plane. S**t happens in war, but could it have been avoided?

Saddam Houssein (sp?) is supporting terrorism, and he should die too. He should have died a while ago, IMO... [img]smile.gif[/img]

I don't pay that much attention to the news, but my dad was telling me something about Israel and nuclear weapons, and nukes affect the whole world....I think trying to keep the peace there is a very important thing.

something must be done.for too long some of these countries have been supporting terrorists.killing their own people is bad enough,but when they decide that they need to fight their stupid little war outside the middle east then it becomes a problem for the rest of us.and the problem is not going to go away by ignoring them.

You have brought up a sticky question...

Unfortunately, the States elected themselves the Big Brother to the world... many people from many countries were lost in New York and many civilians in the Pentagon. This has brought an honor bound need to see justice done in the US Governments eyes. Also, the President needs this to show the people he can handle foreign problems. The issue needs to be resolved for many, and this is the way they chose to do it.

During Desert Storm, the US lost thier own troops to friendly fire as well. This happens. It always is needless.

I believe that special forces and the like were sent to take care of the actual job. The troops are for morale and appearances.

My take? I am not sure I agree with what action is being taken, but they didn't ask me. I would have made it covert. Other than that....

yep, their presence is needed to get rid of saddam and possibly to take action against iran and syria, they support terrorisme for years now and it's gotta stop

no the airborne and marines that have fought over there are not there for show.these soldiers are very good at what they do.which is why they get sent to hot spots first.
most of this kind of fighting can be done by small groups of special ops personel.but there is still going to be a need for large numbers of infantry.and we need to remember that we aren't the only people fighting.the uk has the sas and royal marines fighting in afganistan,and canada has soldiers there as well.

<font color = lightgreen>No, we have no "real" reason, other than economic, for being in the Middle East at this time. If Bin Laden has not been caught by now we aren't going to catch him in the near future. As I stated in other posts, he most likely has not been in Afghanistan since 12 September, if he is even still alive.... He is most likely in Iran or the Sudan.

I agree with Charean--we should have sent in some covert forces, not a large force and topple the government that existed. Don't get me wrong--I was against the Taliban government--but this will probably come back haunt us in the future (as most of our other Middle-East decisions have over the years). Anyway, covert ops should have been the choice, because they could have done more behind the scenes.</font>

Yes, I agree with Charean, Special Forces were most likely doing the 'real stuff'. However, I don't think it was a good idea to have uniformed soldiers of the West patrolling Kabal. If an Alqueda Agent fires upon them, they are lost in the crowd. Contrary to popular belief, not all Alqueda agents walk around promoting the fact.
Still, I think that the US had a right to go after Bin Laden, but they should have done it a different way.