Why are there some people who still defend the Iraq and Afghan wars now?

No-one would defend genocide. And in any case "genocide" is not what's happening in either country. I don't thing you really know what "genocide" means. It's not a word to be thrown away so lightly.

Anyway - I think we have to stay in Afghanistan because of Pakistan and the threat of a Taliban take over. The Taliban already control much of the NW frontier province of Pakistan. If they took over the whole of the country what then - a Pakistan/India war. We would then be facing a huge threat and a much wider war involving many more innocents.

Hopefully, we can keep them at bay and eventually enter into negotiation. Who knows. Not ideal, but I don't see an alternative right now. We can't simply leave the Afghans and rural Pakistan at the mercy of the Taliban. Aren't they innocents too?

Edit: btw - genocide is the systematic and deliberate descimation and total destruction of a particular ethnic group or religious group on a massive scale - ie - the Holocaust. It's not a term to describe a lot of death and killing.

First things first, it's not genocide. Not a word to be used lightly, and it does you no credit.

Afghanistan - The Taliban were hiding some of the most dangerous people on the planet. Terrorist training camps were set up there with the express aim of attacking the western world. Greed does not apply when talking about Afghanistan. There is no wealth to ravage from them.

Iraq on the other hand, was indefensible. Not least because we invaded based upon a lie. There were no WMDs, let alone any that could be fired at 45min notice. Once this became obvious, some have since tried to use regime change as a valid reason for war.

Let's get one thing straight. Saddam Hussein was a despicable tyrant. However, international law does not allow regime change as a valid reason for war, and rightly so. There have been (and still are) despots in power in nations across the world. We don't invade them - but then perhaps there's no economic incentive.

ETA: You're wrong. Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". The invasions in the middle-east are not that.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#cite_note-0

Genocide is the policy of deliberately killing a nationality or ethnic group:Source - the Collins English Dictionary - so the person who asks this question is fundamentally wrong with his premise.

Moving on to his question. Saddam Hussein was an unstable character who launched a war against Iran,invaded Kuwait, fired scuds at israel & saudi and mass murdered his own population including gassing the Kurds at Halabja. Many people formed the view that he had to be removed.

Afganistan was run by the Taliban who allowed Al Qaida to operate training camps from there.

After the attack on the World Trade Centre - the international community agreed that this regime and the terror bases had to be removed. It became a further aim to try to restore democracy to both countrys.

i defend the afghan wars, why?? did you americans already forget that 9-11 happened?? do you need a repeat???

Because they are liberals and will defend everything they managed to do or cause.

Then they blame conservatives for fighting BACK.

Misinformed

Narrow minded

Right wingers

how can people who have never been over there and fought for our rights and are country continuously slate what they don't and will never truly understand till they themselves have been over there and seen things for themselves.

Cos they wont admit they were wrong in the first place. Arrogance and ignorance.

Killing is fun and makes us more manly, grrrr!