|
On July 27 2010 20:58 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 17:58 L wrote:On July 27 2010 17:11 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 16:08 angelicfolly wrote:On July 27 2010 15:52 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 15:30 angelicfolly wrote:On July 27 2010 15:18 QibingZero wrote:
This is not only preeminently important information, but also great news if it has it's intended effect (more support lost for an immoral and unnecessary war which eventually leads to it's end). There's a strange dichotomy here: sadness going through so many logs of (especially civilian) deaths; yet joy in that this information puts a lot of pressure on the warmongers, and might actually change something for the better.
In the now-immortal words of Julian Assange "I enjoy crushing bastards." Did you even read where those documents are coming from? Afghanistan is NOT an immoral war, and was not an unnecessary war. Iraq was an mistake but Afghan was not. That's your opinion, not fact. I'm more than well aware of where this information comes from, and I happen to think that this war (not unlike Iraq as well, of course) was both immoral and unnecessary. Neither offensive or "preemptive" war, in my mind, is ever justified. Even so, the rationale leading up to the war wasn't even close to satisfactory anyway. If you actually want bin Laden (and I think all reasonable people supported him being captured and put to trial), taking over a country is not the way to do it. Most of the world at the time of action understood this, and - though they sympathized with America - did not want to support the war. Of course the war would never end on these type of principles, as America is a warlike nation. It's only when a war starts going badly or actually affects themselves that the citizenry start caring about ending it. Yeah my opinion, but due note if you really want to play that, you remain on the same field as me. How so? I"m curious to why, but I do think I know what you're hinting at (in it being "immoral" and "unjust"). Sorry but Afghan was not "preemptive" and was a result of an attack on OUR SOIL. Sorry again, but we didn't go over there to take over a country, if you would note that Taliban and al-Qaeda where not exactly enemies to one another. With that said, Just taking Bin-Laden out would not resolve the problem. Yeah, not much is going to come of this if you're seriously claiming Afghanistan attacked the US. I'll expand on this below. On July 27 2010 16:14 L wrote:On July 27 2010 15:52 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 15:30 angelicfolly wrote:On July 27 2010 15:18 QibingZero wrote:
This is not only preeminently important information, but also great news if it has it's intended effect (more support lost for an immoral and unnecessary war which eventually leads to it's end). There's a strange dichotomy here: sadness going through so many logs of (especially civilian) deaths; yet joy in that this information puts a lot of pressure on the warmongers, and might actually change something for the better.
In the now-immortal words of Julian Assange "I enjoy crushing bastards." Did you even read where those documents are coming from? Afghanistan is NOT an immoral war, and was not an unnecessary war. Iraq was an mistake but Afghan was not. That's your opinion, not fact. I'm more than well aware of where this information comes from, and I happen to think that this war (not unlike Iraq as well, of course) was both immoral and unnecessary. Neither offensive or "preemptive" war, in my mind, is ever justified. Even so, the rationale leading up to the war wasn't even close to satisfactory anyway. If you actually want bin Laden (and I think all reasonable people supported him being captured and put to trial), taking over a country is not the way to do it. Most of the world at the time of action understood this, and - though they sympathized with America - did not want to support the war. Of course the war would never end on these type of principles, as America is a warlike nation. It's only when a war starts going badly or actually affects themselves that the citizenry start caring about ending it. How exactly was the war in afghanistan offensive OR preemptive? Additionally, most of the world had quite a different opinion than you did, according to the UN resolutions passed. The Taliban wasn't just hiding Bin Laden at the time when the attacks occured; they were ruling over a famine state dependent on foreign aid which was mass producing opium and heroin for sale abroad. The Taliban had been flouting international pressure for close to a decade, and when their poster child, the target of prior resolutions, attempted to fly planes into the economic, military and political nerve centers of the states, something had to be done. How wasn't the war in Afghanistan offensive or preemptive? Offensive - We assault a country. We were not defending ourselves as Afghanistan had not attacked us. A man, in Afghanistan as a "guest" (he has no citizenship after losing his Saudi), organizes a terrorist attack on the US, in which none of the hijackers are actually Afghan. How does this give us rationale to 'defend ourselves' against Afghanistan? Preemptive - If any part of the rationale mentions the possibility of another attack if we do not attack Afghanistan, it falls under preemptive. Why was there such urgency to attack? I don't see any other explanation offered. Now, as for popular opinion, there were polls done at the time which showed only three countries (US, Israel, India) of 37 surveyed supported war over diplomatic options { see here}. By the way, there was no UN resolution passed supporting the war. Obviously the resolutions condemned the attacks of 9/11, and supported bringing those involved in it's planning and execution to justice. They also offered support of a popular effort within Afghanistan for regime change. However, none supported war or the initial US invasion, and the UN only became involved after the Taliban was displaced. And the idea that the Taliban was so bad that it had to be disposed of is a troublesome argument. Now you're talking about war for supposedly humane reasons, which gets convoluted very quickly. Where do you draw the line? We should technically be intervening on humanitarian reasons in dozens of other countries if we accept the premise. There are so many other questions, too. Is the loss of innocent lives worth the potential gain in livelihood later? Will the population even support the open state and 'civilization' we're forcing upon them? (this is a fucked up white man's burden...) Is it possible to succeed in such an endeavor, even if we were to somehow agree on the morality? The 9/11 attacks were not committed by a man. They were committed by an organization headed by said man. AQ's links to the Taliban were solid and well known; there had been UN resolutions passed 3 years prior to the invasion demanding that the Taliban cease aiding Bin Laden and stop funding AQ (with, might I add, drug money). These weren't random guests, and the Taliban knew what was going on. The 9/11 attacks weren't the only attacks committed by Al Qaeda, nor were they the only attacks committed while they were stationed in Afghanistan. The 1998 US embassy bombings, for instance, happened prior with much less fanfare. Over the course of 3 years, the Taliban systematically refused to revoke AQ's safe haven and offer Bin Laden and other top officers in AQ up for trial. The best part, however, is that the plan to execute the 9/11 attack commenced as a response to international diplomatic sanctions against Afghanistan. Diplomatic measures weren't just ineffective; they were incendiary. The nearly month long refusal from the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks were similarly not the result of any diplomatic failure; intelligence evidence suggests that the Taliban were actively using the time to shuttle Bin Laden to the Pakistan border. So no, this wasn't offensive. There was a first strike against the US which the US responded to. Diplomatically, the Taliban had been at the bargaining table for almost half a decade, then their proxy decided it was a good idea to attempt to symbolically neuter the world's lone superpower. Nor was it pre-emptive; The attack had been committed already. Not every war which takes place on the soil of another country is both offensive and pre-emptive. I frankly can't accept that for obvious reasons. The problem in this situation is that any war is going to disproportionately affect the population of Afghanistan as compared to that of America. This is why I call it an offensive war and not a defensive one - my qualification involves the (especially innocent) loss of life that is undoubtedly going to occur on a large scale. This is especially the case when you consider what kind of shape Afghanistan and it's people were in at the time of the decision to go to war. Any amount of destruction a war would cause amplifies even the smallest of problems when you're already barely surviving. If you're fighting to defend your life or to repel occupation, and your own resources are being destroyed by both sides, there is a lot more at stake - you can aptly call this situation a defensive war. Consider many countries in WWII and their plight, and compare that to the vague possibility that violent extremists taking refuge in a broken country might be able to orchestrate another makeshift attack on the literal military superpower of the world. This is why broad use of the term defensive war is a problem. When we bomb the hell out of targets in another country from the air, and use vastly superior technology to kill people we are hardly threatened by, what do we have to lose? America is fighting completely upon the idea that if war was not brought to Afghanistan, the US would be attacked again - that is the supposed self-defense (otherwise this is revenge). This is a vague and troublesome argument, especially considering the nature of terrorist attacks, and how many of the 'foiled' plots since have come from within, planned by sympathetic US citizens, not by AQ. There is also the thought that if you are actually concerned with self-defense and 'fighting terrorism', the proper response is quite the opposite. Violence begets violence, and the key concern of these supposed 'enemies' is the US involvement in their affairs in the first place. But, in the end, the decision for where the line was drawn is simply a result of power. It really has little to do with claims of state-sponsored terrorism, and is probably by and large a 'don't fuck with us' response - a 'how dare you slap the face of the emperor?!'. Consider this: If America sponsored terrorism in, say, Nicaragua, and then later gave those same terrorists asylum, does Nicaragua have a case for war against the US? The logic used here would say they do, and would even be supported by a relevant court case. It's much more reasonable to assume that this is a power game, though. Obviously a small country with a devastated infrastructure could do nothing in response, regardless of what the US did to it. Even if it were backed by a large portion of the world, how do you match both the US' military spending (about equal to the rest of the world combined), and the alliance of NATO? You simply can't. The same power game can be witnessed in the discussions following the release of these documents by Wikileaks. Just watch for whenever the term 'war crimes' is mentioned and note the dodgy responses. Everyone knows that only the winners - the ones holding power - are able to prosecute war crimes, and currently no one is in position to hold the US accountable.
You don't get to make your own definitions here. Offensive War is a war to attack another nation first. Defensive like the name implies, is one to defend. Al Qaeda attacked first, you cannot get around this. No one is arguing against the "results" of war, the problem lies in the fact that Al Qeada would not stop trying to kill Americans, thus American HAD a responsibility to protect the citizens.
The broad use of "defensive war"? Ok, but wasn't Al Qaeda the one who attacked first? Then wouldn't logic say they prosecuted an offensive war? Because the fight comes to ones soil doesn't mean you negate who started it. And lets not forget that Taliban and Al Qaeda where pretty much butt buddies at the time.
Have you not been made aware of the attacks Al Qaeda has pulled off against the US? I wouldn't calll that less threatening, and I would also say if we didn't go to Afghan most of the attacks would not stop. I really would like you to tell us what these "foiled" US sympathizer are, and what they done. WoW, way to tell the us to bend over, pull down your pants, and say "not the face". Who are you to say what the proper response is? Just leaving them to pick at us isn't going to help or kill the situation.
Ok, well just forget that they managed to pull of a attack that killed 3000 civilians. Where do you draw the line when an organization, that is supported by another country draws that line? Do you say ok, stick out your hands for cuffs? Do you say, put sanctions out? Do you say you kill it at the source? We wouldn't even be over in Afghan if it wasn't for state sponsored Terrorism, so yes I would have to say it does deal with it. '
Cold War gives context and perspective on Nicaragua. With that said, Yes there would be a case Against America. I don't even get how you would say this and then say it is a power game. Umm did you forget that the Taliban and Al Qaeda where the ones who fought the US? This has NOTHING to do with war spending, tech, infrastructure, and/or training. We fought who we where to fight, and sad to say those who we fought where in control of the country.
War crimes, pfft. Do you realize that a number of people had access to those documents, prier to their release? Nothing more then War itself is portrayed in those documents.
dybydx,
Don't come here to troll me. Calling me ignorant without even a explanation is a pure personal insult.
L, can articulate this better then I can.
|
On July 28 2010 00:21 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 20:39 Jibba wrote:
A thought occurred to me today, and it's a slightly depressing one. To those of you who think this leak is going to change the way wars are fought or will be a large burden on the US government, let me remind (or probably inform) you what happened when the Pentagon Papers were leaked: no one cared.
I think Ellsberg did a heroic thing at the time, but for all the fuss we make about it today, most of the public really didn't give a damn when the NYT first started printing them. The only reason it remained a story was because of Nixon's rage and ensuing Watergate scandal. Had the Whitehouse simply controlled the story, it would've died. At this point, I'm at least happy that there's a venue to get this kind of information out anonymously. If you check up on the lives of past whistleblowers, they pretty much get their lives ruined by bringing these events to life. Nothing, including thousands of Afghani civilian casualties, is going to stop the general public from being ignorant and stupid. There's many things that fuel the Iraq/Afghan conflicts, but facts aren't one of them. At this point most war supporters want to continue fighting in the middle east due to racism, or greed, or some fundamental belief that "America can do no wrong". Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 15:30 angelicfolly wrote:
Did you even read where those documents are coming from? Afghanistan is NOT an immoral war, and was not an unnecessary war. Iraq was an mistake but Afghan was not.
No war is moral. No case can be made for a "revenge" war that cost the other side casualties that outnumber ours by a factor of 10. No case can be made for retaliating against 14 Saudi Arabians by attacking the country that they had spent some time in and maybe received training as well. No case can be made for laying siege to a country when the criminals in question would have just moved over to Pakistan anyway.
WWII wasn't "moral" for the allies?
|
@koldblooded,
he probably meant offensive war instead of just war. still, his pts on the war on afghanistan is very valid.
|
On July 28 2010 04:07 angelicfolly wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2010 20:58 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 17:58 L wrote:On July 27 2010 17:11 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 16:08 angelicfolly wrote:On July 27 2010 15:52 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 15:30 angelicfolly wrote:On July 27 2010 15:18 QibingZero wrote:
This is not only preeminently important information, but also great news if it has it's intended effect (more support lost for an immoral and unnecessary war which eventually leads to it's end). There's a strange dichotomy here: sadness going through so many logs of (especially civilian) deaths; yet joy in that this information puts a lot of pressure on the warmongers, and might actually change something for the better.
In the now-immortal words of Julian Assange "I enjoy crushing bastards." Did you even read where those documents are coming from? Afghanistan is NOT an immoral war, and was not an unnecessary war. Iraq was an mistake but Afghan was not. That's your opinion, not fact. I'm more than well aware of where this information comes from, and I happen to think that this war (not unlike Iraq as well, of course) was both immoral and unnecessary. Neither offensive or "preemptive" war, in my mind, is ever justified. Even so, the rationale leading up to the war wasn't even close to satisfactory anyway. If you actually want bin Laden (and I think all reasonable people supported him being captured and put to trial), taking over a country is not the way to do it. Most of the world at the time of action understood this, and - though they sympathized with America - did not want to support the war. Of course the war would never end on these type of principles, as America is a warlike nation. It's only when a war starts going badly or actually affects themselves that the citizenry start caring about ending it. Yeah my opinion, but due note if you really want to play that, you remain on the same field as me. How so? I"m curious to why, but I do think I know what you're hinting at (in it being "immoral" and "unjust"). Sorry but Afghan was not "preemptive" and was a result of an attack on OUR SOIL. Sorry again, but we didn't go over there to take over a country, if you would note that Taliban and al-Qaeda where not exactly enemies to one another. With that said, Just taking Bin-Laden out would not resolve the problem. Yeah, not much is going to come of this if you're seriously claiming Afghanistan attacked the US. I'll expand on this below. On July 27 2010 16:14 L wrote:On July 27 2010 15:52 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 15:30 angelicfolly wrote:On July 27 2010 15:18 QibingZero wrote:
This is not only preeminently important information, but also great news if it has it's intended effect (more support lost for an immoral and unnecessary war which eventually leads to it's end). There's a strange dichotomy here: sadness going through so many logs of (especially civilian) deaths; yet joy in that this information puts a lot of pressure on the warmongers, and might actually change something for the better.
In the now-immortal words of Julian Assange "I enjoy crushing bastards." Did you even read where those documents are coming from? Afghanistan is NOT an immoral war, and was not an unnecessary war. Iraq was an mistake but Afghan was not. That's your opinion, not fact. I'm more than well aware of where this information comes from, and I happen to think that this war (not unlike Iraq as well, of course) was both immoral and unnecessary. Neither offensive or "preemptive" war, in my mind, is ever justified. Even so, the rationale leading up to the war wasn't even close to satisfactory anyway. If you actually want bin Laden (and I think all reasonable people supported him being captured and put to trial), taking over a country is not the way to do it. Most of the world at the time of action understood this, and - though they sympathized with America - did not want to support the war. Of course the war would never end on these type of principles, as America is a warlike nation. It's only when a war starts going badly or actually affects themselves that the citizenry start caring about ending it. How exactly was the war in afghanistan offensive OR preemptive? Additionally, most of the world had quite a different opinion than you did, according to the UN resolutions passed. The Taliban wasn't just hiding Bin Laden at the time when the attacks occured; they were ruling over a famine state dependent on foreign aid which was mass producing opium and heroin for sale abroad. The Taliban had been flouting international pressure for close to a decade, and when their poster child, the target of prior resolutions, attempted to fly planes into the economic, military and political nerve centers of the states, something had to be done. How wasn't the war in Afghanistan offensive or preemptive? Offensive - We assault a country. We were not defending ourselves as Afghanistan had not attacked us. A man, in Afghanistan as a "guest" (he has no citizenship after losing his Saudi), organizes a terrorist attack on the US, in which none of the hijackers are actually Afghan. How does this give us rationale to 'defend ourselves' against Afghanistan? Preemptive - If any part of the rationale mentions the possibility of another attack if we do not attack Afghanistan, it falls under preemptive. Why was there such urgency to attack? I don't see any other explanation offered. Now, as for popular opinion, there were polls done at the time which showed only three countries (US, Israel, India) of 37 surveyed supported war over diplomatic options { see here}. By the way, there was no UN resolution passed supporting the war. Obviously the resolutions condemned the attacks of 9/11, and supported bringing those involved in it's planning and execution to justice. They also offered support of a popular effort within Afghanistan for regime change. However, none supported war or the initial US invasion, and the UN only became involved after the Taliban was displaced. And the idea that the Taliban was so bad that it had to be disposed of is a troublesome argument. Now you're talking about war for supposedly humane reasons, which gets convoluted very quickly. Where do you draw the line? We should technically be intervening on humanitarian reasons in dozens of other countries if we accept the premise. There are so many other questions, too. Is the loss of innocent lives worth the potential gain in livelihood later? Will the population even support the open state and 'civilization' we're forcing upon them? (this is a fucked up white man's burden...) Is it possible to succeed in such an endeavor, even if we were to somehow agree on the morality? The 9/11 attacks were not committed by a man. They were committed by an organization headed by said man. AQ's links to the Taliban were solid and well known; there had been UN resolutions passed 3 years prior to the invasion demanding that the Taliban cease aiding Bin Laden and stop funding AQ (with, might I add, drug money). These weren't random guests, and the Taliban knew what was going on. The 9/11 attacks weren't the only attacks committed by Al Qaeda, nor were they the only attacks committed while they were stationed in Afghanistan. The 1998 US embassy bombings, for instance, happened prior with much less fanfare. Over the course of 3 years, the Taliban systematically refused to revoke AQ's safe haven and offer Bin Laden and other top officers in AQ up for trial. The best part, however, is that the plan to execute the 9/11 attack commenced as a response to international diplomatic sanctions against Afghanistan. Diplomatic measures weren't just ineffective; they were incendiary. The nearly month long refusal from the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks were similarly not the result of any diplomatic failure; intelligence evidence suggests that the Taliban were actively using the time to shuttle Bin Laden to the Pakistan border. So no, this wasn't offensive. There was a first strike against the US which the US responded to. Diplomatically, the Taliban had been at the bargaining table for almost half a decade, then their proxy decided it was a good idea to attempt to symbolically neuter the world's lone superpower. Nor was it pre-emptive; The attack had been committed already. Not every war which takes place on the soil of another country is both offensive and pre-emptive. I frankly can't accept that for obvious reasons. The problem in this situation is that any war is going to disproportionately affect the population of Afghanistan as compared to that of America. This is why I call it an offensive war and not a defensive one - my qualification involves the (especially innocent) loss of life that is undoubtedly going to occur on a large scale. This is especially the case when you consider what kind of shape Afghanistan and it's people were in at the time of the decision to go to war. Any amount of destruction a war would cause amplifies even the smallest of problems when you're already barely surviving. If you're fighting to defend your life or to repel occupation, and your own resources are being destroyed by both sides, there is a lot more at stake - you can aptly call this situation a defensive war. Consider many countries in WWII and their plight, and compare that to the vague possibility that violent extremists taking refuge in a broken country might be able to orchestrate another makeshift attack on the literal military superpower of the world. This is why broad use of the term defensive war is a problem. When we bomb the hell out of targets in another country from the air, and use vastly superior technology to kill people we are hardly threatened by, what do we have to lose? America is fighting completely upon the idea that if war was not brought to Afghanistan, the US would be attacked again - that is the supposed self-defense (otherwise this is revenge). This is a vague and troublesome argument, especially considering the nature of terrorist attacks, and how many of the 'foiled' plots since have come from within, planned by sympathetic US citizens, not by AQ. There is also the thought that if you are actually concerned with self-defense and 'fighting terrorism', the proper response is quite the opposite. Violence begets violence, and the key concern of these supposed 'enemies' is the US involvement in their affairs in the first place. But, in the end, the decision for where the line was drawn is simply a result of power. It really has little to do with claims of state-sponsored terrorism, and is probably by and large a 'don't fuck with us' response - a 'how dare you slap the face of the emperor?!'. Consider this: If America sponsored terrorism in, say, Nicaragua, and then later gave those same terrorists asylum, does Nicaragua have a case for war against the US? The logic used here would say they do, and would even be supported by a relevant court case. It's much more reasonable to assume that this is a power game, though. Obviously a small country with a devastated infrastructure could do nothing in response, regardless of what the US did to it. Even if it were backed by a large portion of the world, how do you match both the US' military spending (about equal to the rest of the world combined), and the alliance of NATO? You simply can't. The same power game can be witnessed in the discussions following the release of these documents by Wikileaks. Just watch for whenever the term 'war crimes' is mentioned and note the dodgy responses. Everyone knows that only the winners - the ones holding power - are able to prosecute war crimes, and currently no one is in position to hold the US accountable. You don't get to make your own definitions here. Offensive War is a war to attack another nation first. Defensive like the name implies, is one to defend. Al Qaeda attacked first, you cannot get around this. No one is arguing against the "results" of war, the problem lies in the fact that Al Qeada would not stop trying to kill Americans, thus American HAD a responsibility to protect the citizens. The broad use of "defensive war"? Ok, but wasn't Al Qaeda the one who attacked first? Then wouldn't logic say they prosecuted an offensive war? Because the fight comes to ones soil doesn't mean you negate who started it. And lets not forget that Taliban and Al Qaeda where pretty much butt buddies at the time. Have you not been made aware of the attacks Al Qaeda has pulled off against the US? I wouldn't calll that less threatening, and I would also say if we didn't go to Afghan most of the attacks would not stop. I really would like you to tell us what these "foiled" US sympathizer are, and what they done. WoW, way to tell the us to bend over, pull down your pants, and say "not the face". Who are you to say what the proper response is? Just leaving them to pick at us isn't going to help or kill the situation. Ok, well just forget that they managed to pull of a attack that killed 3000 civilians. Where do you draw the line when an organization, that is supported by another country draws that line? Do you say ok, stick out your hands for cuffs? Do you say, put sanctions out? Do you say you kill it at the source? We wouldn't even be over in Afghan if it wasn't for state sponsored Terrorism, so yes I would have to say it does deal with it. ' Cold War gives context and perspective on Nicaragua. With that said, Yes there would be a case Against America. I don't even get how you would say this and then say it is a power game. Umm did you forget that the Taliban and Al Qaeda where the ones who fought the US? This has NOTHING to do with war spending, tech, infrastructure, and/or training. We fought who we where to fight, and sad to say those who we fought where in control of the country. War crimes, pfft. Do you realize that a number of people had access to those documents, prier to their release? Nothing more then War itself is portrayed in those documents. dybydx, Don't come here to troll me. Calling me ignorant without even a explanation is a pure personal insult. L, can articulate this better then I can.
"You don't get to make your own definitions here. Offensive War is a war to attack another nation first. Defensive like the name implies, is one to defend. Al Qaeda attacked first, you cannot get around this. "
These are your first words and it's instantly clear that you are clueless. Afganistan didn't attack the US. Even Saudi-Arabia didn't. An event happened (a terrible crime) and the Afgan 'government' was not (directly) involved. It's very understandable that the US would have issues with one of the alleged criminals staying in Afganistan. The Afgan 'government' should have handed over Bin Laden or at least thrown him out of the country, but that was never the issue. Bush wanted his war more than he wanted Bin Laden and I don't think that all other (more sensible) options were exploited. I haven't seen evidence that a deal witrh the Taliban was given a chance. There's also the issue of internatiuonal law, but obviously the strong make their own laws even if that means creating the conditions for global war. The world is ours. Rules (,honesty and logic) are for pussies.
America is a rogue state and has on many occasions engaged in terrorism on a massive scale. Raegan's glorious Contra program is only one example.
By the way, all violence, or threat of violence that is used to influence a political reality is terrorism. This includes US democratization programs past and present. State terror is just terror on a larger scale. All terrorism is criminal. All criminals should be locked up or excecuted after a fair trial and conviction .
|
On July 28 2010 05:37 wadadde wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2010 04:07 angelicfolly wrote:On July 27 2010 20:58 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 17:58 L wrote:On July 27 2010 17:11 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 16:08 angelicfolly wrote:On July 27 2010 15:52 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 15:30 angelicfolly wrote:On July 27 2010 15:18 QibingZero wrote:
This is not only preeminently important information, but also great news if it has it's intended effect (more support lost for an immoral and unnecessary war which eventually leads to it's end). There's a strange dichotomy here: sadness going through so many logs of (especially civilian) deaths; yet joy in that this information puts a lot of pressure on the warmongers, and might actually change something for the better.
In the now-immortal words of Julian Assange "I enjoy crushing bastards." Did you even read where those documents are coming from? Afghanistan is NOT an immoral war, and was not an unnecessary war. Iraq was an mistake but Afghan was not. That's your opinion, not fact. I'm more than well aware of where this information comes from, and I happen to think that this war (not unlike Iraq as well, of course) was both immoral and unnecessary. Neither offensive or "preemptive" war, in my mind, is ever justified. Even so, the rationale leading up to the war wasn't even close to satisfactory anyway. If you actually want bin Laden (and I think all reasonable people supported him being captured and put to trial), taking over a country is not the way to do it. Most of the world at the time of action understood this, and - though they sympathized with America - did not want to support the war. Of course the war would never end on these type of principles, as America is a warlike nation. It's only when a war starts going badly or actually affects themselves that the citizenry start caring about ending it. Yeah my opinion, but due note if you really want to play that, you remain on the same field as me. How so? I"m curious to why, but I do think I know what you're hinting at (in it being "immoral" and "unjust"). Sorry but Afghan was not "preemptive" and was a result of an attack on OUR SOIL. Sorry again, but we didn't go over there to take over a country, if you would note that Taliban and al-Qaeda where not exactly enemies to one another. With that said, Just taking Bin-Laden out would not resolve the problem. Yeah, not much is going to come of this if you're seriously claiming Afghanistan attacked the US. I'll expand on this below. On July 27 2010 16:14 L wrote:On July 27 2010 15:52 QibingZero wrote:On July 27 2010 15:30 angelicfolly wrote:On July 27 2010 15:18 QibingZero wrote:
This is not only preeminently important information, but also great news if it has it's intended effect (more support lost for an immoral and unnecessary war which eventually leads to it's end). There's a strange dichotomy here: sadness going through so many logs of (especially civilian) deaths; yet joy in that this information puts a lot of pressure on the warmongers, and might actually change something for the better.
In the now-immortal words of Julian Assange "I enjoy crushing bastards." Did you even read where those documents are coming from? Afghanistan is NOT an immoral war, and was not an unnecessary war. Iraq was an mistake but Afghan was not. That's your opinion, not fact. I'm more than well aware of where this information comes from, and I happen to think that this war (not unlike Iraq as well, of course) was both immoral and unnecessary. Neither offensive or "preemptive" war, in my mind, is ever justified. Even so, the rationale leading up to the war wasn't even close to satisfactory anyway. If you actually want bin Laden (and I think all reasonable people supported him being captured and put to trial), taking over a country is not the way to do it. Most of the world at the time of action understood this, and - though they sympathized with America - did not want to support the war. Of course the war would never end on these type of principles, as America is a warlike nation. It's only when a war starts going badly or actually affects themselves that the citizenry start caring about ending it. How exactly was the war in afghanistan offensive OR preemptive? Additionally, most of the world had quite a different opinion than you did, according to the UN resolutions passed. The Taliban wasn't just hiding Bin Laden at the time when the attacks occured; they were ruling over a famine state dependent on foreign aid which was mass producing opium and heroin for sale abroad. The Taliban had been flouting international pressure for close to a decade, and when their poster child, the target of prior resolutions, attempted to fly planes into the economic, military and political nerve centers of the states, something had to be done. How wasn't the war in Afghanistan offensive or preemptive? Offensive - We assault a country. We were not defending ourselves as Afghanistan had not attacked us. A man, in Afghanistan as a "guest" (he has no citizenship after losing his Saudi), organizes a terrorist attack on the US, in which none of the hijackers are actually Afghan. How does this give us rationale to 'defend ourselves' against Afghanistan? Preemptive - If any part of the rationale mentions the possibility of another attack if we do not attack Afghanistan, it falls under preemptive. Why was there such urgency to attack? I don't see any other explanation offered. Now, as for popular opinion, there were polls done at the time which showed only three countries (US, Israel, India) of 37 surveyed supported war over diplomatic options { see here}. By the way, there was no UN resolution passed supporting the war. Obviously the resolutions condemned the attacks of 9/11, and supported bringing those involved in it's planning and execution to justice. They also offered support of a popular effort within Afghanistan for regime change. However, none supported war or the initial US invasion, and the UN only became involved after the Taliban was displaced. And the idea that the Taliban was so bad that it had to be disposed of is a troublesome argument. Now you're talking about war for supposedly humane reasons, which gets convoluted very quickly. Where do you draw the line? We should technically be intervening on humanitarian reasons in dozens of other countries if we accept the premise. There are so many other questions, too. Is the loss of innocent lives worth the potential gain in livelihood later? Will the population even support the open state and 'civilization' we're forcing upon them? (this is a fucked up white man's burden...) Is it possible to succeed in such an endeavor, even if we were to somehow agree on the morality? The 9/11 attacks were not committed by a man. They were committed by an organization headed by said man. AQ's links to the Taliban were solid and well known; there had been UN resolutions passed 3 years prior to the invasion demanding that the Taliban cease aiding Bin Laden and stop funding AQ (with, might I add, drug money). These weren't random guests, and the Taliban knew what was going on. The 9/11 attacks weren't the only attacks committed by Al Qaeda, nor were they the only attacks committed while they were stationed in Afghanistan. The 1998 US embassy bombings, for instance, happened prior with much less fanfare. Over the course of 3 years, the Taliban systematically refused to revoke AQ's safe haven and offer Bin Laden and other top officers in AQ up for trial. The best part, however, is that the plan to execute the 9/11 attack commenced as a response to international diplomatic sanctions against Afghanistan. Diplomatic measures weren't just ineffective; they were incendiary. The nearly month long refusal from the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks were similarly not the result of any diplomatic failure; intelligence evidence suggests that the Taliban were actively using the time to shuttle Bin Laden to the Pakistan border. So no, this wasn't offensive. There was a first strike against the US which the US responded to. Diplomatically, the Taliban had been at the bargaining table for almost half a decade, then their proxy decided it was a good idea to attempt to symbolically neuter the world's lone superpower. Nor was it pre-emptive; The attack had been committed already. Not every war which takes place on the soil of another country is both offensive and pre-emptive. I frankly can't accept that for obvious reasons. The problem in this situation is that any war is going to disproportionately affect the population of Afghanistan as compared to that of America. This is why I call it an offensive war and not a defensive one - my qualification involves the (especially innocent) loss of life that is undoubtedly going to occur on a large scale. This is especially the case when you consider what kind of shape Afghanistan and it's people were in at the time of the decision to go to war. Any amount of destruction a war would cause amplifies even the smallest of problems when you're already barely surviving. If you're fighting to defend your life or to repel occupation, and your own resources are being destroyed by both sides, there is a lot more at stake - you can aptly call this situation a defensive war. Consider many countries in WWII and their plight, and compare that to the vague possibility that violent extremists taking refuge in a broken country might be able to orchestrate another makeshift attack on the literal military superpower of the world. This is why broad use of the term defensive war is a problem. When we bomb the hell out of targets in another country from the air, and use vastly superior technology to kill people we are hardly threatened by, what do we have to lose? America is fighting completely upon the idea that if war was not brought to Afghanistan, the US would be attacked again - that is the supposed self-defense (otherwise this is revenge). This is a vague and troublesome argument, especially considering the nature of terrorist attacks, and how many of the 'foiled' plots since have come from within, planned by sympathetic US citizens, not by AQ. There is also the thought that if you are actually concerned with self-defense and 'fighting terrorism', the proper response is quite the opposite. Violence begets violence, and the key concern of these supposed 'enemies' is the US involvement in their affairs in the first place. But, in the end, the decision for where the line was drawn is simply a result of power. It really has little to do with claims of state-sponsored terrorism, and is probably by and large a 'don't fuck with us' response - a 'how dare you slap the face of the emperor?!'. Consider this: If America sponsored terrorism in, say, Nicaragua, and then later gave those same terrorists asylum, does Nicaragua have a case for war against the US? The logic used here would say they do, and would even be supported by a relevant court case. It's much more reasonable to assume that this is a power game, though. Obviously a small country with a devastated infrastructure could do nothing in response, regardless of what the US did to it. Even if it were backed by a large portion of the world, how do you match both the US' military spending (about equal to the rest of the world combined), and the alliance of NATO? You simply can't. The same power game can be witnessed in the discussions following the release of these documents by Wikileaks. Just watch for whenever the term 'war crimes' is mentioned and note the dodgy responses. Everyone knows that only the winners - the ones holding power - are able to prosecute war crimes, and currently no one is in position to hold the US accountable. You don't get to make your own definitions here. Offensive War is a war to attack another nation first. Defensive like the name implies, is one to defend. Al Qaeda attacked first, you cannot get around this. No one is arguing against the "results" of war, the problem lies in the fact that Al Qeada would not stop trying to kill Americans, thus American HAD a responsibility to protect the citizens. The broad use of "defensive war"? Ok, but wasn't Al Qaeda the one who attacked first? Then wouldn't logic say they prosecuted an offensive war? Because the fight comes to ones soil doesn't mean you negate who started it. And lets not forget that Taliban and Al Qaeda where pretty much butt buddies at the time. Have you not been made aware of the attacks Al Qaeda has pulled off against the US? I wouldn't calll that less threatening, and I would also say if we didn't go to Afghan most of the attacks would not stop. I really would like you to tell us what these "foiled" US sympathizer are, and what they done. WoW, way to tell the us to bend over, pull down your pants, and say "not the face". Who are you to say what the proper response is? Just leaving them to pick at us isn't going to help or kill the situation. Ok, well just forget that they managed to pull of a attack that killed 3000 civilians. Where do you draw the line when an organization, that is supported by another country draws that line? Do you say ok, stick out your hands for cuffs? Do you say, put sanctions out? Do you say you kill it at the source? We wouldn't even be over in Afghan if it wasn't for state sponsored Terrorism, so yes I would have to say it does deal with it. ' Cold War gives context and perspective on Nicaragua. With that said, Yes there would be a case Against America. I don't even get how you would say this and then say it is a power game. Umm did you forget that the Taliban and Al Qaeda where the ones who fought the US? This has NOTHING to do with war spending, tech, infrastructure, and/or training. We fought who we where to fight, and sad to say those who we fought where in control of the country. War crimes, pfft. Do you realize that a number of people had access to those documents, prier to their release? Nothing more then War itself is portrayed in those documents. dybydx, Don't come here to troll me. Calling me ignorant without even a explanation is a pure personal insult. L, can articulate this better then I can. "You don't get to make your own definitions here. Offensive War is a war to attack another nation first. Defensive like the name implies, is one to defend. Al Qaeda attacked first, you cannot get around this. " These are your first words and it's instantly clear that you are clueless. Afganistan didn't attack the US. Even Saudi-Arabia didn't. An event happened (a terrible crime) and the Afgan 'government' was not (directly) involved. It's very understandable that the US would have issues with one of the alleged criminals staying in Afganistan. The Afgan 'government' should have handed over Bin Laden or at least thrown him out of the country, but that was never the issue. Bush wanted his war more than he wanted Bin Laden and I don't think that all other (more sensible) options were exploited. I haven't seen evidence that a deal witrh the Taliban was given a chance. There's also the issue of internatiuonal law, but obviously the strong make their own laws even if that means creating the conditions for global war. The world is ours. Rules (,honesty and logic) are for pussies. America is a rogue state and has on many occasions engaged in terrorism on a massive scale. Raegan's glorious Contra program is only one example. By the way, all violence, or threat of violence that is used to influence a political reality is terrorism. This includes US democratization programs past and present. State terror is just terror on a larger scale. All terrorism is criminal. All criminals should be locked up or excecuted after a fair trial and conviction .
Way to say I'm clueless without substance. Please do tell.
I wonder where did I ever say Afghan attacked? Hmmm, really YOU NEED to provide that or I'm going to start to consider that your selectively reading. I have continually made the point that the Taliban and Al Qaeda where the ones. Now here's the thing, Taliban where the de facto rulers of Afghan during this time, but few countries even recognized them as the government. Point is, they ruled Afghan but I specificity mentioning them as the source of problems, not the country.
"alleged criminals"? PLEASE, there's no alleged about it, he orchestrated it. Bin Laden was an issue in its own right, but the main issue was the organization that was grounded in Afghan.
Please, calling America a rouge state, want to call Britain and the rest of the world also? Let's forget context and the court on the Contra issue. Oh let's forget the Cold War happened also.
You might need perspective on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
|
Worst argumentation ever :
"You don't get to make your own definitions here. Offensive War is a war to attack another nation first."
Afghanistan never attacked you. A terrorist organisation did.
Therefore you attacked first -> it's an offensive war. Understand ?...
(I'm on nobody's side, just sayin you're wrong on this one, even if talibans / al qaeda were / are very close)
Something USA fail to realise is that middle east countries wouldnt hate them that much if they had handled things differently.
Im sure if your brother / father had died by the guns of Americans for no reason you would be the first to crash a plane on them. At least I would.
These kind of wars can only serve one interest : Al-Qaeda's.
You cant win over terrorism by sending troops. You'll always lose cause human dignity / courage will always be stronger than guns. You experienced it in Vietnam and many other times. You just cant win.
These wars are all political and financial. If you fail to realise this you're just dumb. (talking to everyone not especially you)
|
Saying the Taliban was not involved in 9/11 is like saying the Chinese were not involved during Vietnam.
The only difference is that unlike nuclear powers like China and Pakistan, the Taliban couldn't make their comeuppance look too dangerous to attempt.
|
America is a rogue state and has on many occasions engaged in terrorism on a massive scale. Raegan's glorious Contra program is only one example.
lol. By definiton America cannot be a rogue state. The status of "rogue state" is by definition a state that isn't bending over to the powers that be (America, the UN, etc). It isn't some kind of moral definition, despite how much Politicians try to cast them that way.
Its like how the law can't break the law because it is the law or something.
Really the only thing the status "rogue state" is is a way for World Powers to subjugate lesser powers.
You cant win over terrorism by sending troops. You'll always lose cause human dignity / courage will always be stronger than guns.
Well, I'd say the a lot of the primary non-directly financial interests of the war were realized pretty well...American power in the middle east has grown signficantly, not dropped.
|
On July 28 2010 07:32 dafunk wrote:
Worst argumentation ever :
"You don't get to make your own definitions here. Offensive War is a war to attack another nation first."
Afghanistan never attacked you. A terrorist organisation did.
Therefore you attacked first -> it's an offensive war. Understand ?...
(I'm on nobody's side, just sayin you're wrong on this one, even if talibans / al qaeda were / are very close)
Something USA fail to realise is that middle east countries wouldnt hate them that much if they had handled things differently.
Im sure if your brother / father had died by the guns of Americans for no reason you would be the first to crash a plane on them. At least I would.
These kind of wars can only serve one interest : Al-Qaeda's.
You cant win over terrorism by sending troops. You'll always lose cause human dignity / courage will always be stronger than guns. You experienced it in Vietnam and many other times. You just cant win.
These wars are all political and financial. If you fail to realise this you're just dumb. (talking to everyone not especially you)
FOR THE LAST TIME, READ my posts. I NEVER stated Afghan attacked. I SAID Al Qaeda DID, and by extension that includes the Taliban. Taliban ruled Afghan, and by a poorly thought out process you "could" say we attacked Afghanistan. That would deny the details now wouldn't it?
Offensive and Defensive are the keywords here...
You know, we really could of done some things better, but in hindsight it's so easy to be critical of events. Then again, the Middle East is not exactly known for the peace.
Im sure if your brother / father had died by the guns of Americans for no reason you would be the first to crash a plane on them. At least I would.
That's inflammatory and not worth giving grounds to.
Of course we can't destroy terrorism by fighting them. But where not going to set idly by and let them have their way. This whole process has been a two part goal. Engage and (for a lack of a better term) propaganda. I so beg to differ on this notion that we can't win. We haven't fought a war like this before and as such mistakes and learning will go a long way. That's not to say that because you think we can't win, we should just give up and let them have there way.
So much for supposedly being "natural".
|
This is actually a lot simpler than you guys are making it out to be (and for that reason I'm avoiding another point-by-point response that would only further complicate it). You're arguing for self-defense completely in the nature of state-sponsored terrorism. I brought up an example to refute that in Nicaragua. All it takes is a quick comparison between that situation and this to see what's going on here.
The US funded terrorists (the contras, as mentioned) in Nicaragua, and eventually this came back around in a court case that I linked in my earlier post. Here it is again for reference. Reading just this synopsis quickly shows an immediate parallel to the Taliban - AQ connection. In fact, there is far more legal basis here for the country to war in self-defense than in the case of the US and Afghanistan. Yet, obviously, they did not (I wonder why...). The key difference is that while the Taliban was certainly aiding AQ by allowing them to operate in Afghanistan, and that while they were even certainly 'allies' of each other (though not in the way that one state is an ally with another), there was not the direct kind of support seen in the US-Nicaragua case. So, a terrorist attack by AQ on the US does not equate to an armed attack by Afghanistan or the Taliban, and, as a result, there is no legal justification for war.
However, since the US has the power to force their will on anyone they please, including the UN, both of these scenarios have worked in America's favor. They refused to even pay reparations to Nicaragua - and got away with it. And it too seems like no one will ever hold the government of the US responsible for the war in Afghanistan (and let's not even go into the Iraq War for that matter, where they can't even hold officials accountable domestically for bold-faced lies). The hope is that with leaks like this, at least someone may be held accountable in the end. The greater hope is that there will be significant change as a result, but that seems to tread too far into the waters of naivety.
So let's call this what it really was - an attempt by America to police the world by it's own standards, ignoring all others. My primary objection to the war is a critique of this, and a note of how incredibly callous you have to be to not consider the inevitability that war takes a far greater toll on innocent lives than any other. Self-defense is a ridiculous claim when you consider the state of the war today, and the actions of NATO troops there for the last 8+ years (as highlighted by these documents leaked). This is nothing new - we just still somehow haven't learned much of anything from war over the sum of human history.
|
On July 28 2010 19:16 QibingZero wrote:
This is actually a lot simpler than you guys are making it out to be (and for that reason I'm avoiding another point-by-point response that would only further complicate it). You're arguing for self-defense completely in the nature of state-sponsored terrorism. I brought up an example to refute that in Nicaragua. All it takes is a quick comparison between that situation and this to see what's going on here.
This is NOT simple. The very fact that "terrorism" and "state-sponsored terrorism" do not have a clear definition complicates this.
How in the world does Nicaragua refute defending ones country against "state-sponsored Terrorism" (theres a key reason what that is put into quotations)? No your Nicaragua example does not extent to this point. Actually it's in contradiction.
Your words.
If America sponsored terrorism in, say, Nicaragua, and then later gave those same terrorists asylum, does Nicaragua have a case for war against the US? The logic used here would say they do, and would even be supported by a relevant court case.
The US funded terrorists (the contras, as mentioned) in Nicaragua, and eventually this came back around in a court case that I linked in my earlier post. it is again for reference. Reading just this synopsis quickly shows an immediate parallel to the Taliban - AQ connection. In fact, there is far more legal basis here for the country to war in self-defense than in the case of the US and Afghanistan. Yet, obviously, they did not (I wonder why...). The key difference is that while the Taliban was certainly aiding AQ by allowing them to operate in Afghanistan, and that while they were even certainly 'allies' of each other (though not in the way that one state is an ally with another), there was not the direct kind of support seen in the US-Nicaragua case. So, a terrorist attack by AQ on the US does not equate to an armed attack by Afghanistan or the Taliban, and, as a result, there is no legal justification for war.
You're kidding me. First off the court decision did NOT find that Contra actions could be linked the US (that link actually puts it bluntly as "the Contras are RESPONSIBLE for their own actions). Secondly before this case the legal matter was not clear. Thirdly Nicaragua was entirely blameless here, and not to say some actions are justifiable. Again this is NOT a simple issue. Fourth the Boland Amendment. Fifth Sandinistas Where NOT an innocent little child. Six Contra was a very broad term to relate to a variety of groups in that conflict.
Point is, before this get's way of topic, this is not a good relation or example for your position, find a better one.
I swear, next time someone mentions Afghan in the context of it being something more then the land or civilians I'm going to mail you a nice letter. There was NO GOVERNMENT. The Taliban RULED that country when 9/11 took place. HENCE (even when I think 3ish governments actually recognized them) it was logical to assume another "country" attacked, in regards to the retaliation.
More context for you
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings
However, since the US has the power to force their will on anyone they please, including the UN, both of these scenarios have worked in America's favor. They refused to even pay reparations to Nicaragua - and got away with it. And it too seems like no one will ever hold the government of the US responsible for the war in Afghanistan (and let's not even go into the Iraq War for that matter, where they can't even hold officials accountable domestically for bold-faced lies). The hope is that with leaks like this, at least someone may be held accountable in the end. The greater hope is that there will be significant change as a result, but that seems to tread too far into the waters of naivety.
You know China and Russia certainly do what we tell them...
What Exactly do you mean "hold responsible" in regards to Afghan? I can think of two things, one being civilians (this has a lot of context), and two being something that is completely not pleasant at all. I can see where people wouldn't like Afghan for the quagmire it's become, but honestly saying it's somehow wrong is such a tree in a desert.
You do realize this so-called leak is information that can be gotten with a little elbow grease? Then again this does more harm to our allies and public image on keeping things in confidential.
So let's call this what it really was - an attempt by America to police the world by it's own standards, ignoring all others. My primary objection to the war is a critique of this, and a note of how incredibly callous you have to be to not consider the inevitability that war takes a far greater toll on innocent lives than any other. Self-defense is a ridiculous claim when you consider the state of the war today, and the actions of NATO troops there for the last 8+ years (as highlighted by these documents leaked). This is nothing new - we just still somehow haven't learned much of anything from war over the sum of human history.
Stop it, You're kidding and at this point being inflammatory by saying without ANY evidence to back up your claim that the US, or in fact soldiers of the US do NOT care about civilian casualties. This is the very REASON why such things should not be known by the public.
It's like some people like to view things in tunnel vision. I mean really now, are we really forgetting ww2 and civilian deaths, are we really forgetting that civilians die in ANY war?
big post lets see if I miss anything.
|
"French convoy shoots 8 children on bus" another reason why I hate the french.
|
On July 28 2010 21:38 houck wrote:
"French convoy shoots 8 children on bus" another reason why I hate the french.
Pointless,
Again I highly doubt they intended to shoot children.
|
On July 28 2010 20:28 angelicfolly wrote:
You're kidding me. First off the court decision did NOT find that Contra actions could be linked the US (that link actually puts it bluntly as "the Contras are RESPONSIBLE for their own actions). Secondly before this case the legal matter was not clear. Thirdly Nicaragua was entirely blameless here, and not to say some actions are justifiable. Again this is NOT a simple issue. Fourth the Boland Amendment. Fifth Sandinistas Where NOT an innocent little child. Six Contra was a very broad term to relate to a variety of groups in that conflict.
Innocence of the other party doesn't matter in the least. The only thing that matters is that the US was not acting in actual defense. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that mess. Furthermore, stating that the contras are responsible for their own actions does not mean that the US was not directly linked to them. The US was in fact linked to the point of intervention and use of force. The US selected the contras' leaders and encouraged human rights violations. You can throw smoke all you want, but context is what matters.
I swear, next time someone mentions Afghan in the context of it being something more then the land or civilians I'm going to mail you a nice letter. There was NO GOVERNMENT. The Taliban RULED that country when 9/11 took place. HENCE (even when I think 3ish governments actually recognized them) it was logical to assume another "country" attacked, in regards to the retaliation.
You probably shouldn't be doing this whole argument thing if it gets you so angry that you start making threats. In any case this is incoherent - I have no idea what you're trying to say.
You know China and Russia certainly do what we tell them...
And this further proves the point regarding power. China and Russia are in a position to at least act contrary toward US interests to a certain degree, and not see serious repercussions. On the other hand, even together they couldn't do something akin to bringing war crimes charges against America.
Stop it, You're kidding and at this point being inflammatory by saying without ANY evidence to back up your claim that the US, or in fact soldiers of the US do NOT care about civilian casualties. This is the very REASON why such things should not be known by the public.
It's like some people like to view things in tunnel vision. I mean really now, are we really forgetting ww2 and civilian deaths, are we really forgetting that civilians die in ANY war?
big post lets see if I miss anything.
I never said anything remotely like this. Of course the US and it's soldiers care about civilian casualties. I'm sure they care in varying degrees, even if some of it is just to save face. The issue is that they certainly don't give civilian lives the proper weight they deserve, and that fact is evident from every angle - from the decision to go to war, to the rules stating how many civilian casualties are 'acceptable' in certain operations.
The fact that "civilians die in ANY war" is one that I've been using from the very start to make my point, as that realization should be vital when considering whether or not war is an answer to a problem you have.
|
On July 28 2010 21:42 QibingZero wrote:
Innocence of the other party doesn't matter in the least. The only thing that matters is that the US was not acting in actual defense. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that mess. Furthermore, stating that the contras are responsible for their own actions does not mean that the US was not directly linked to them. The US was in fact linked to the point of intervention and use of force. The US selected the contras' leaders and encouraged human rights violations. You can throw smoke all you want, but context is what matters.
In context it does matter, a lot actually. Not acting in self defense? Depends on which viewpoint you're using, and curiously I wonder how much of that part of the link you have read.
You don't get to decide here (bluntly your opinion on the matter means little), the court already ruled on this and I quote.
"Having reached the above conclusion, the Court takes the view that the contras remain responsible for their acts, in particular the alleged violations by them of humanitarian law. For the United States to be legally responsible, it would have to be proved that that State had effective control of the operations in the course of which the alleged violations were committed.
I'm going to say this again, This example is very poor. Find a new one.
You probably shouldn't be doing this whole argument thing if it gets you so angry that you start making threats. In any case this is incoherent - I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Oh you do know what I mean, I'm pretty positive of that. In any case I had to say more then three times (or at the very least three times) for people to stop equating afghan in the argument like they actually had power or some form of government at that time. My annoyance at people not reading is well deserved.
"nice letter" really should of been the catch line by the way. (contradictions are fun)
And this further proves the point regarding power. China and Russia are in a position to at least act contrary toward US interests to a certain degree, and not see serious repercussions. On the other hand, even together they couldn't do something akin to bringing war crimes charges against America.
I wonder, do you really want to play that when both China and Russia have actual issues on that front? I mean it's not like we can do much to China considering we use their goods and money to pay for things (there's a hidden meaning to what I just written).
I never said anything remotely like this. Of course the US and it's soldiers care about civilian casualties. I'm sure they care in varying degrees, even if some of it is just to save face. The issue is that they certainly don't give civilian lives the proper weight they deserve, and that fact is evident from every angle - from the decision to go to war, to the rules stating how many civilian casualties are 'acceptable' in certain operations. The fact that "civilians die in ANY war" is one that I've been using from the very start to make my point, as that realization should be vital when considering whether or not war is an answer to a problem you have.
That little bolded part just nuked that paragraph. Come back here after comparing other casualties of war, compared to the methods we use. You will find quite a different kill rate so to speak.
You have not used "civilians die in any war" as an equalizer. You have politicize it to degrade the US, over something that is a by product of any war. NO ONE likes civilian to die, I guarantee most if not all soldiers do not like such things (in the most blunt manner, this is a moot point). This isn't about War, it's about people using this as a smoking gun to try to say the US is war. Point is the very issue is war itself, and how such things should be brought upon the people responsible (Taliban, and Al Qaeda in this instant)
Your words form a previous posting.
The same power game can be witnessed in the discussions following the release of these documents by Wikileaks. Just watch for whenever the term 'war crimes' is mentioned and note the dodgy responses. Everyone knows that only the winners - the ones holding power - are able to prosecute war crimes, and currently no one is in position to hold the US accountable.
With the constant calling of war crimes and such you've done everything but outright said it.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
This is so stupid. Whatever mission was the reason for attacking Afghanistan is now dead and gone. If US is there to capture AQ and/or overthrow the Taliban, the mission was completed or failed about 7 years ago.
All the stuff that has happened in the most recent 6 years has no relevance with the original reason of going into Afghanistan. It's entirely a different mission, needs its own justification, and should be judged separately.
|
On July 28 2010 22:25 TanGeng wrote:
This is so stupid. Whatever mission was the reason for attacking Afghanistan is now dead and gone. If US is there to capture AQ and/or overthrow the Taliban, the mission was completed or failed about 7 years ago.
All the stuff that has happened in the most recent 6 years has no relevance with the original reason of going into Afghanistan. It's entirely a different mission, needs its own justification, and should be judged separately.
The mission was completed, but we lost track on things and because of that, the Taliban have made ground. This is not a failed war yet.
You forget what happen that deviated our resources and attention away from Afghan.
Now that the focus is back on it, we can redo our goals and get back to what we originally went there to do.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
No, that doesn't work. Once you let go of a Causus Belli, you need to find a new one. Once US attention diverted from Afghanistan for several years without really going after AQ and having already overthrown Afghanistan, the causus belli for Afghanistan expired. The fact that US stayed in Afghanistan all through the Iraq war was more an example of mission creep into nation building and occupation rather than a continuation of an unfinished mission.
Original mission has already failed if we are trying to revive it. If we are trying to revive it, then we are already too late. On top of that, I want to know what aspect of the mission we are trying to revive because the current Taliban has different leadership and disavows connections with AQ and AQ is supposedly now in Pakistan.
|
On July 28 2010 22:35 TanGeng wrote:
No, that doesn't work. Once you let go of a Causus Belli, you need to find a new one. Once US attention diverted from Afghanistan for several years without really going after AQ and having already overthrown Afghanistan, the causus belli for Afghanistan expired. The fact that US stayed in Afghanistan all through the Iraq war was more an example of mission creep into nation building and occupation rather than a continuation of an unfinished mission.
Original mission has already failed if we are trying to revive it. If we are trying to revive it, then we are already too late. On top of that, I want to know what aspect of the mission we are trying to revive because the current Taliban has different leadership and disavows connections with AQ and AQ is supposedly now in Pakistan.
Look you're the fourth person I'm having to tell this about Afghan.
You CANNOT OVERTHROW something that has no government. THE Taliban was the ones in charge, there was NO government during that time. Afghan would only refer to two things, the people and the region. Overthrowing the people makes no sense, and you kinda cannot overthrow rock.
You mistake something, we still continued our mission in Afghan, but resources and attention where drawn else where. Taliban and Al Qaeda sized upon this and we have the current situation now. We never let go of our justification.
And what is wrong with building a nation after the Taliban destroyed it, and we fought there? Kinda flies in the face of not caring for the people wouldn't it? We had to stay because of the nature of the fight, if we just up and left things would have reverted back.
We are still continuing to fight Al Qaeda and Taliban those never changed even in Iraq, The goals are now mission support (getting the troop levels and equipment over there, now that we know somewhat how to fight this), and building a stable government.
|
On July 28 2010 08:49 Half wrote:Show nested quote +America is a rogue state and has on many occasions engaged in terrorism on a massive scale. Raegan's glorious Contra program is only one example. lol. By definiton America cannot be a rogue state. The status of "rogue state" is by definition a state that isn't bending over to the powers that be (America, the UN, etc). It isn't some kind of moral definition, despite how much Politicians try to cast them that way.
It's a rogue state because it indeed acts outside of the boundries of (inter)national law. The US is a part of the UN and last time I checked that means that US presidents are bound by US law to operate within the framework of the UN (just check how treaties work). Just because the US cannot be sanctioned by the UN (because of its veto power) and US courts refuse to intervene against state crimes doesn't mean that it isn't constantly operating in breach of the UN charter. Things aren't illegal because you go to jail for them. They are illegal because they are against the law. You may be very impressed by your own argument, but that doesn't mean that it isn't bs.
Your only good point is that it's the phrase 'rogue state' isn't supposed to be used against the US. It's a meaningless word if you can't use it where it applies. So I guess in some twisted way you're right and I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
