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.
I'm playing generics here, so actual examples are not that useful.
UN does not supersede the sovereign of a nation. That is NOT how the UN works. You don't simply join the UN and be apart of every treaty there is.
There is no world Government, and so-called UN law is actually treaties which you have to be signed on to to really have any teeth. And even then not much gets done if you break them (mostly between the two parties involved). Point is UN law is muddy and depended on Interpretation.
I would attend to agree with him in regards to the usage of rouge state.
Nation building requires its own justfication and is a separate mission. Causus belli does not cover nation building even if you destroyed the entire country. A defeated nation is free to dismember itself into 40 nations if the situation calls for it. War is not about "caring". In fact, the Afghan people would complain about too much "caring" by the US Army.
Afghanistan had a perfectly fine government before the US arrived. The Taliban controlled as much territory in Afghanistan if not more than the US-backed one in Kabul does right now. As for the original Causus Belli, you can target AQ or you can target the original Taliban leadership in a war. That's it.
The original Taliban (pashtun tribal) leadership is gone and out of power. The new Pashtun Tribal leadership doesn't want anything to with the AQ and AQ is numbering near a hundred and in Pakistan. The original situation was that AQ was a guest of Taliban, and now the new Taliban disavows all connection. Clearly the situation hasn't reverted back.
Currently, US is trying to sew Afghanistan back into one piece when it was never one piece and the people don't want to be one piece. That is mission creep and it requires its own justification. Whatever is happening in Afghanistan isn't retribution against AQ or the original Taliban leadership.
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.
The facts is that there are rules to waging wars. Just because the US doesn't follow them when it doesn't suit them doesn't mean they don't exist. Your outrage about "alleged criminals" is a little non-sensical. I mean, he hasn't been tried in a court of law so I'm just being technical and not trying to imply innocence. The truth is also that the Taliban were the de facto rulers. The fact that other countries didn't like that doesn't mean that Afganistan was without government. It's a state and should be treated accordingly. The assertion that it's just a sandbox and that that means that any country can just do what it wants there makes about as much sense as saying that Guantanamo Bay isn't US territory and that that means that torture and other extremely serious human rights violations should be considered lawful. Just think of it this way : Let's assume that international law is unjust... that it doesn't adress some really serious issues. This is irrelevant. If you're a citizen of a country you don't get to make up laws as you go along eventhough it may very well be true that the rules you're making up for yourself and everyone else are better than the current ones. You will get convicted if you start shooting Justin Bieber fans, okay?? If every nation gets to do what the US does then there is no way that there will ever be a chance for peace and the futeure becomes entirely unpredictable, fuelling paranoia and arms races all around the world. This is not in the interest of the US population and I don't get why so many people identify with the intersets of their states,even when it's very clear that these are contrary to their own. The US government is bankrupting the state. Raegan started this and presidents ever since have been very happy to rob you blind, while lying about the reality. I think a democratic government owes it to its people to properly inform them, not just demonize the 'enemy'. I noticed that some people here don't know that the Contras were armed and financed and supported by the US. Your assertion that the Cold War somehow justifies international terrorism is simply an expression of chauvinism. This is a kind of tribalism and should be regarded, by anyone with half a brain cell, as a degenerate mindset.
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.
I'm playing generics here, so actual examples are not that useful.
UN does not supersede the sovereign of a nation. That is NOT how the UN works. You don't simply join the UN and be apart of every treaty there is.
There is no world Government, and so-called UN law is actually treaties which you have to be signed on to to really have any teeth. And even then not much gets done if you break them (mostly between the two parties involved). Point is UN law is muddy and depended on Interpretation.
I would attend to agree with him in regards to the usage of rouge state.
Nono, I didn't say the UN supercedes the US. I said that the UN charter is part of US law. Check how treaties work in the US. Agression is a crime under US law and presidents can theoretically be found guilty of this by US courts. There is also an international court, but the US refuses to participate in building further restrictions to its constant stream of illegal actions.
"Point is UN law is muddy and depended on Interpretation" A statement of opinion, probably based on nothing. All law is subject to interpretation. I don't like the UN. I think that there should be a UP, where the people of the world can settle the disputes of states. Not going to happen anytime soon, if ever, but the UN just wasn't designed to make war impossible. This AGAIN doesn't mean that you can (or should) just disregard the regulations.
Frankly the following the rules of war and engagement are to benefit the belligerents rather than anything that can be enforceable. Basically the act of mobilizing for war can be misconstrued as for general expansionary purposes rather than against one specific target.
Establishing good causus belli is to develop a good reputation diplomatically and establish cause and effect in said nation's diplomatic and martial activities. This reduces alarm from neighboring neutral nations. Not killing civilians reduces the number of nations what might come to the enemy's aid defensively when fighting happens on enemy territory. Harboring war criminals and committing atrocities hurts a country's diplomatic power - which is often more important than gun and soldiers on the ground.
It's really up to the belligerents to abide by the rules of war and they only hurt themselves in the future when they don't follow them.
On July 28 2010 23:06 TanGeng wrote: Nation building requires its own justfication and is a separate mission. Causus belli does not cover nation building even if you destroyed the entire country. A defeated nation is free to dismember itself into 40 nations if the situation calls for it. War is not about "caring". In fact, the Afghan people would complain about too much "caring" by the US Army.
Afghanistan had a perfectly fine government before the US arrived. The Taliban controlled as much territory in Afghanistan if not more than the US-backed one in Kabul does right now. As for the original Causus Belli, you can target AQ or you can target the original Taliban leadership in a war. That's it.
The original Taliban (pashtun tribal) leadership is gone and out of power. The new Pashtun Tribal leadership doesn't want anything to with the AQ and AQ is numbering near a hundred and in Pakistan. The original situation was that AQ was a guest of Taliban, and now the new Taliban disavows all connection. Clearly the situation hasn't reverted back.
Currently, US is trying to sew Afghanistan back into one piece when it was never one piece and the people don't want to be one piece. That is mission creep and it requires its own justification. Whatever is happening in Afghanistan isn't retribution against AQ or the original Taliban leadership.
Like you've stated Nation building was a separate mission, THAT WAS NOT our primary goal and was secondary to what we needed to do. Justification is irrelevant when you take this into account, and like you've said we didn't have to spin our own money to help people after we fought, and they where ruled by the Taliban. I never said war was about "caring" (how you're putting it, but I would say you have to care for the loss of life). I mean the US cannot win with some people, either where evil or we care to much.
What government? The Taliban? Are you going to sit there and say they where fine? Are you really going to do that with a straight face? Due note this is a different issue then the war itself.
Where did you not get we are not targeting Al Qaeda? On Taliban, it matters little if the original leadership is gone if the organization still continues their policy, Hence the problem with Bin Laden.
You know squabbles don't really mean anything of relevance at all. Al Qaeda and Taliban can kill each other over and over, but that does not change what happen and current situation in regards to the fighting. Wait, the Taliban taking back over Afghan wouldn't revert things back? I mean some details have changed but it would be a reversal wouldn't it?
Does not the notion of us fighting over there, giving people a better future (face it, they would have a better future), not mean a justification at the base? Yeah what is happening now is a byproduct of the primary mission.
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: [quote]
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.
The facts is that there are rules to waging wars. Just because the US doesn't follow them when it doesn't suit them doesn't mean they don't exist. Your outrage about "alleged criminals" is a little non-sensical. I mean, he hasn't been tried in a court of law so I'm just being technical and not trying to imply innocence. The truth is also that the Taliban were the de facto rulers. The fact that other countries didn't like that doesn't mean that Afganistan was without government. It's a state and should be treated accordingly. The assertion that it's just a sandbox and that that means that any country can just do what it wants there makes about as much sense as saying that Guantanamo Bay isn't US territory and that that means that torture and other extremely serious human rights violations should be considered lawful. Just think of it this way : Let's assume that international law is unjust... that it doesn't adress some really serious issues. This is irrelevant. If you're a citizen of a country you don't get to make up laws as you go along eventhough it may very well be true that the rules you're making up for yourself and everyone else are better than the current ones. You will get convicted if you start shooting Justin Bieber fans, okay?? If every nation gets to do what the US does then there is no way that there will ever be a chance for peace and the futeure becomes entirely unpredictable, fuelling paranoia and arms races all around the world. This is not in the interest of the US population and I don't get why so many people identify with the intersets of their states,even when it's very clear that these are contrary to their own.
The US government is bankrupting the state. Raegan started this and presidents ever since have been very happy to rob you blind, while lying about the reality. I think a democratic government owes it to its people to properly inform them, not just demonize the 'enemy'. I noticed that some people here don't know that the Contras were armed and financed and supported by the US. Your assertion that the Cold War somehow justifies international terrorism is simply an expression of chauvinism. This is a kind of tribalism and should be regarded, by anyone with half a brain cell, as a degenerate mindset.
Can I ask you to break things into paragraphs to make this easier?
Geneva convention, I know it we all know of it. The point is The people we are facing do not abide by it, so before you even try to condemn the US point your finger at somebody else.
The Taliban was ONLY RECOGNIZED by THREE Countries. They had the power in the region but there was no Government involved. People are trying to make a distinction between the Taliban and Afghan to the point of trying to say Afghan had any power whatsoever, that's not true (have I NOT said they where the de facto rulers, oh wait it's in one of the nested quotes).
Do you honestly need to be technique about this? The only people who say such things are 9/11 deniers and frankly they are not worth dealing with. Never claimed it was a sandbox, so I'm going to ignore that part.
I don't get your law point. Sovereign of a nation is not superseded by international law. The laws that govern said country are relevant because a law that states women cannot speak, will be broken and fought over.
Remind yourself who you are. Remind yourself this is speculation at best. Remind yourself you are not another person. I'm not going to theorize, it's pointless.
Reagan DID NOT start this, in fact the opposite. The only negative you can say about Reagan on the economy is the overspending on defense. The American public know what the current leadership is doing we don't need anymore reminders.
Don't even bring up Contras.We have talked about them for the last 3 to 5 pages. And If you haven't noticed I have mentioned the Cold War gives PERSPECTIVE on the issue and nothing more. Way to end that with personal attacks, care to throw the kitchen sink?
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.
I'm playing generics here, so actual examples are not that useful.
UN does not supersede the sovereign of a nation. That is NOT how the UN works. You don't simply join the UN and be apart of every treaty there is.
There is no world Government, and so-called UN law is actually treaties which you have to be signed on to to really have any teeth. And even then not much gets done if you break them (mostly between the two parties involved). Point is UN law is muddy and depended on Interpretation.
I would attend to agree with him in regards to the usage of rouge state.
Nono, I didn't say the UN supercedes the US. I said that the UN charter is part of US law. Check how treaties work in the US. Agression is a crime under US law and presidents can theoretically be found guilty of this by US courts. There is also an international court, but the US refuses to participate in building further restrictions to its constant stream of illegal actions.
"Point is UN law is muddy and depended on Interpretation" A statement of opinion, probably based on nothing. All law is subject to interpretation. I don't like the UN. I think that there should be a UP, where the people of the world can settle the disputes of states. Not going to happen anytime soon, if ever, but the UN just wasn't designed to make war impossible. This AGAIN doesn't mean that you can (or should) just disregard the regulations.
We are saying the same thing then on the role of UN and sovereign nations. Because it's in US law does not mean it stands above other parts of the government/laws.
What illegal actions? I'm not going to continue this with you if your going to continue with the vague support-less accusations.
How can you say my opinion is based on nothing, then make a wider claim then I do? And NO, all law is not subject to interpretation. A murder is pretty clear is it not? While treaties/laws that deal with trade would be open to which treaties you take/interpret.
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.
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.
If this was initially entered as a war against the entirety of a sovereign Afghanistan, you'd be entirely right on your initial points.
But it isn't.
Nor was a war declared against Afghanistan. Because, once more, the war wasn't against Afghanistan. The war was an attack on AQ and the Taliban. Sadly, leaving would essentially just create a power vacuum which would create the exact same conditions that led to the necessity for war in the first place, hence why so many people see 'nation building' as imperative. But its not, really, its more like "rule of law" building.
America dismantling an organization which has been repeatedly killing its citizens, bombing its infrastructure and going after their chief harborers is not 'world policing', and even if it was, making the case that "America's own standards" in this instance are immoral is a steep challenge. I mean, shit, getting held accountable for RAMMING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS seems like a pretty decent standard to me.
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.
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.
If this was initially entered as a war against the entirety of a sovereign Afghanistan, you'd be entirely right on your initial points.
But it isn't.
Nor was a war declared against Afghanistan. Because, once more, the war wasn't against Afghanistan. The war was an attack on AQ and the Taliban. Sadly, leaving would essentially just create a power vacuum which would create the exact same conditions that led to the necessity for war in the first place, hence why so many people see 'nation building' as imperative. But its not, really, its more like "rule of law" building.
America dismantling an organization which has been repeatedly killing its citizens, bombing its infrastructure and going after their chief harborers is not 'world policing', and even if it was, making the case that "America's own standards" in this instance are immoral is a steep challenge. I mean, shit, getting held accountable for RAMMING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS seems like a pretty decent standard to me.
America never declared war in Vietnam either, but that fact was completely inconsequential to the real victims of the war - the Vietnamese people. Saying the war wasn't actually against Afghanistan means nothing. The US invaded that country and seized it, and Afghan citizens are the ones who have had to bear the true atrocities of war, not American citizens. This has to be taken into account when you consider the morality of any military action, and I'm of the opinion that it damns this war from the very start.
And yes, it is the very definition of world policing. America invades another state in order to track down criminals and cause regime change, forcing it's values on them as it goes.
On July 27 2010 21:00 dybydx wrote: i recommend you guys not to argue with angelic.
This is good advice that I'll now be taking. I try to take the stance of making an argument ignoring the person behind it, but when someone is that incoherent so consistently...
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.
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.
If this was initially entered as a war against the entirety of a sovereign Afghanistan, you'd be entirely right on your initial points.
But it isn't.
Nor was a war declared against Afghanistan. Because, once more, the war wasn't against Afghanistan. The war was an attack on AQ and the Taliban. Sadly, leaving would essentially just create a power vacuum which would create the exact same conditions that led to the necessity for war in the first place, hence why so many people see 'nation building' as imperative. But its not, really, its more like "rule of law" building.
America dismantling an organization which has been repeatedly killing its citizens, bombing its infrastructure and going after their chief harborers is not 'world policing', and even if it was, making the case that "America's own standards" in this instance are immoral is a steep challenge. I mean, shit, getting held accountable for RAMMING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS seems like a pretty decent standard to me.
America never declared war in Vietnam either, but that fact was completely inconsequential to the real victims of the war - the Vietnamese people. Saying the war wasn't actually against Afghanistan means nothing. The US invaded that country and seized it, and Afghan citizens are the ones who have had to bear the true atrocities of war, not American citizens. This has to be taken into account when you consider the morality of any military action, and I'm of the opinion that it damns this war from the very start.
And yes, it is the very definition of world policing. America invades another state in order to track down criminals and cause regime change, forcing it's values on them as it goes.
America not declaring was is a mistake.
So the embassy bombings, 9/11, the bombing of the U.S.S, and the 1993 Trade center bombings. Where never acts of war? Where they never atrocities committed against Americans, would you be able to say that to the 3000 people who died on 9/11? I'll leave you to ponder this.
In all honestly the Taliban ARE THE ONES to blame for war being brought to Afghan. I really don't see how you sit there and say that We are the ones to blame for ACTS COMMITTED AGAINST us. 3000 people died on 9/11 there lives where taken by an organization supported by a "fake" government. That was the fourth ATTACK on the US by Al Qaeda, that was the tipping point. The idle that we sit back and play defense isn't going to work in protecting lives, both in Afghan and the US. So I'm glade you even gave this war a chance...
Wait, what happen to several countries after ww1, and ww2? Wouldn't those also be an issue for you? And I ask you this, Getting the Taliban out is bad how? At that stage the Afghan people where so beaten down because of the Cold War, it would be tantamount to having a childlike capacity for issues that deal with rights. So in that regard until they actually get to see what a more free environment is, there's a small ground for forcing values. It's certainly not like Taliban was doing that...
On July 27 2010 21:00 dybydx wrote: i recommend you guys not to argue with angelic.
This is good advice that I'll now be taking. I try to take the stance of making an argument ignoring the person behind it, but when someone is that incoherent so consistently...
On July 29 2010 20:23 angelicfolly wrote: So the embassy bombings, 9/11, the bombing of the U.S.S, and the 1993 Trade center bombings. Where never acts of war? Where they never atrocities committed against Americans, would you be able to say that to the 3000 people who died on 9/11? I'll leave you to ponder this.
So 9/11 justifies anything and everything?
On July 29 2010 20:23 angelicfolly wrote: Wait, what happen to several countries after ww1, and ww2? Wouldn't those also be an issue for you? And I ask you this, Getting the Taliban out is bad how? At that stage the Afghan people where so beaten down because of the Cold War, it would be tantamount to having a childlike capacity for issues that deal with rights. So in that regard until they actually get to see what a more free environment is, there's a small ground for forcing values. It's certainly not like Taliban was doing that...
Excuse me? We're bring freedom and values to Afghanistan. Wait.... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... HAHAHA.... AHAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHAHA
What a joker.
And declaring war on terrorism. That Bush was sure a joker, too. Declaring an open-ended war and just asking to end in failure.
On July 29 2010 20:23 angelicfolly wrote: So the embassy bombings, 9/11, the bombing of the U.S.S, and the 1993 Trade center bombings. Where never acts of war? Where they never atrocities committed against Americans, would you be able to say that to the 3000 people who died on 9/11? I'll leave you to ponder this.
On July 29 2010 20:23 angelicfolly wrote: Wait, what happen to several countries after ww1, and ww2? Wouldn't those also be an issue for you? And I ask you this, Getting the Taliban out is bad how? At that stage the Afghan people where so beaten down because of the Cold War, it would be tantamount to having a childlike capacity for issues that deal with rights. So in that regard until they actually get to see what a more free environment is, there's a small ground for forcing values. It's certainly not like Taliban was doing that...
Excuse me? We're bring freedom and values to Afghanistan. Wait.... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... HAHAHA.... AHAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHAHA
What a joker.
And declaring war on terrorism. That Bush was sure a joker, too. Declaring an open-ended war and just asking to end in failure.
Never said 9/11 justified everything, and that WAS NEVER THE CONTEXT of the paragraph.
I also NEVER stated (and I have stated OTHERWISE) That the goal of Afghan was bringing freedom/values, but a byproduct. WITHER you like it or not the Taliban where NOT an nice government. The point is, they are getting to see a bigger picture here, that they would never have gotten if the Taliban where still in power. This really has nothing to do with us going to war. So again thanks for taking another post out of context, in a attempt to degrade me.
That whole post was to be taken into context. Thread is starting to degrade.
America never declared war in Vietnam either, but that fact was completely inconsequential to the real victims of the war - the Vietnamese people. Saying the war wasn't actually against Afghanistan means nothing.
It means plenty. It defines the mission and scope of the operation, which itself defines whether or not we're engaging in a war against a sovereign or whether we're engaging in other military operations. We aren't 'attacking afghanistan'. This isn't a war ON afghanistan. Its a war IN afghanistan.
Trying to say "well, its irrelevant" doesn't change the fact that the above is true and that your premises are cocked in favor of the conclusion you want to get to, regardless of the actual situation.
If you want to compare the 'victims of the war', feel free to compare those victims to the victims that would have suffered under 9 years of intense famine while the government uses land to grow poppy seeds for opium production over food for the population while being under intense economic sanctions by the UN for harbouring high profile international terrorists. Feel free to add another 9,000+ western victims too, given the rate of killings by AQ while reacting to such circumstances.
The US invaded that country and seized it, and Afghan citizens are the ones who have had to bear the true atrocities of war, not American citizens. This has to be taken into account when you consider the morality of any military action, and I'm of the opinion that it damns this war from the very start.
So, you're saying that you can turn a war into something immoral by the current 'invading' country by having the 'defending' country put as many civilians into the line of fire as possible in order? That's what happened in both Vietnam and in Afghanistan.
Somehow it seems that you're ascribing the moral turpitude of the Taliban, AQ and the Vietcong onto America. Sorry.
And yes, it is the very definition of world policing. America invades another state in order to track down criminals and cause regime change, forcing it's values on them as it goes.
Those aren't American standards. Those are global standards. If you bomb someone, expect them to bomb you back.
Overall it seems like you're just adamant to completely ignore the role of AQ and the Taliban in the leadup to the war. You can't whitewash their activities, and I'd have a far easier time arguing the niceties if you'd admit that mayyyyyybe ramming planes into buildings, then being officially sheltered by the current warlords in charge is unambiguously wrong. I can understand objections to the Iraq war on the points you've raised to the point where I 100% agree with them, but I can't see their application to Afghanistan without ignoring events since 1998.
America never declared war in Vietnam either, but that fact was completely inconsequential to the real victims of the war - the Vietnamese people. Saying the war wasn't actually against Afghanistan means nothing.
It means plenty. It defines the mission and scope of the operation, which itself defines whether or not we're engaging in a war against a sovereign or whether we're engaging in other military operations. We aren't 'attacking afghanistan'. This isn't a war ON afghanistan. Its a war IN afghanistan.
Trying to say "well, its irrelevant" doesn't change the fact that the above is true and that your premises are cocked in favor of the conclusion you want to get to, regardless of the actual situation.
If you want to compare the 'victims of the war', feel free to compare those victims to the victims that would have suffered under 9 years of intense famine while the government uses land to grow poppy seeds for opium production over food for the population while being under intense economic sanctions by the UN for harbouring high profile international terrorists. Feel free to add another 9,000+ western victims too, given the rate of killings by AQ while reacting to such circumstances.
The US invaded that country and seized it, and Afghan citizens are the ones who have had to bear the true atrocities of war, not American citizens. This has to be taken into account when you consider the morality of any military action, and I'm of the opinion that it damns this war from the very start.
So, you're saying that you can turn a war into something immoral by the current 'invading' country by having the 'defending' country put as many civilians into the line of fire as possible in order? That's what happened in both Vietnam and in Afghanistan.
Somehow it seems that you're ascribing the moral turpitude of the Taliban, AQ and the Vietcong onto America. Sorry.
And yes, it is the very definition of world policing. America invades another state in order to track down criminals and cause regime change, forcing it's values on them as it goes.
Those aren't American standards. Those are global standards. If you bomb someone, expect them to bomb you back.
Overall it seems like you're just adamant to completely ignore the role of AQ and the Taliban in the leadup to the war. You can't whitewash their activities, and I'd have a far easier time arguing the niceties if you'd admit that mayyyyyybe ramming planes into buildings, then being officially sheltered by the current warlords in charge is unambiguously wrong. I can understand objections to the Iraq war on the points you've raised to the point where I 100% agree with them, but I can't see their application to Afghanistan without ignoring events since 1998.
War is hell. War makes people behave like the most vile beasts imaginable and it leaves scars and hatreds that endure for decennia. Whatever you're trying to cook.. don't forget that it really is a war against the Afgan population. This certainly isn't the main objective at all in the case of Afganistan, but it was the case in Vietnam. It's called disciplining the population and setting an example for possible future dissenters. Anyways, whatever you say, the fact remains that this was a war on Afganistan. That's the reality and the declared or imagined intentions are irrelevant compared to the predictable outcome for millions of Afgan men, women and children. Iraq was even worse in the sense that it's more densely populated. Over a million have died as a result of the war there (this is an estimate obviously because the Americans only count thzir own deaths). Just google it and make up your own mind as to whether or not you WANT to believe it. Fighting a conventional war.against terrorist ( I won't even adress how fucking stupid fighting a war on terror is) is like poisoning the oceans to destroy a couple of submarines. They may call it counter insurgency, but they're just doing a lot of ald fashioned stuff, spiced with some drone assassinations and torture. There are so many stupid things you said that I can't keep up with them all. I've got stuff to do.
L's American exceptionalism or relative improvement would be arguable if all Afghans preferred the US over the Taliban, but that is patently false. The main criteria for victory in the COIN strategy (COunter INsurgency) as it applies to Afghanistan can be stated as:
"Convince the various Pashtun tribes to recognize the legitimacy of the US backed government in Kabul to such a degree that active and passive support provided to the Taliban resistance drops meaningfully."
By that statement alone, a lot of the claims of American legitimacy, well-intentions, and preferableness over the Taliban in Afghanistan's Pashtun south is void. It also reveals a state of civil war in which the US is currently picking sides in backing the corrupt Karzai administration - supposedly representing Tajiks, Uzbeks, Almaks tribes of the north.
The Taliban are terrible, and the US is effectively empowering them by disenfranchising the Pashtuns to the degree that most Pashtuns see the Taliban as the best vehicle to restoring Pashtun supremancy over Afghanistan or at least prevent the Northerners from meddling in Pashtun areas. In this respect the Taliban has better popular support among their primary constituents (Kandahar) than the Karzai regime has over all of Afghanistan, and on the matter of human rights, Karzai is only marginally better than the Taliban.
Even when the Taliban fights with civilians as shields and commit suicide bombings, they are more legitimate in the eyes of the Pashtuns than Karzai of the north. Americans - who should be minding their own damn business - can't even compare. At this point, if US wants a peaceful resolution, the Taliban will be reintegrated into the Afghani government. If the US is really resolved to have Karzai dominate and destroy the Taliban, it can only be genocide.
Left with a choice between legitimizing the big bad mortal enemy, Taliban, or committing genocide. That's how stupid the fighting in Afghanistan war is.
Wow, I just heard on the radio that people who were undercovor and many people have already been killed as a result of these leaks. Yeah, let's kill people for the sake of letting the entire world know about secret intelligence papers, score one for all you wikileak lovers, you are SO fucking cool. In the article, "Assange, a former teen hacker who launched the site in 2007, denies that WikiLeaks has put troops in danger.". That just makes me sick from what news I've been hearing now. I hope the guy who leaked all of this to that idiot Assange gets charged for treason.
EPT
