Afghanistan - What is the objective?

Back then we fought wars like they were meant to be fought. Wars now are just pussy-footing around, doing very little against the enemy, and talking politics instead of getting on with the business of war ...which is winning.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah. I noticed the US refused to sign any UN resolution that will control arms proliferation, while instituting crippling sanctions [Madeleine "the price was worth it" Albright] on countries who want to improve their defensive measures.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But, SAM, you love seeing and hearing how the Muslims are killing other Muslims ...it gives you lots to talk about here at sciforums! All you have to do is place the blame on the west or America, and you can sit back and watch the carnage of Muslims killing other Muslims.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why sign something if not everyone will agree to it?

 

I guess you never learned counter-insurgency.

 

Of course I know of it! That's the new term for not fighting a war and doing everything that you can to lose that war. Just a liberal term for a war the liberals want to lose, but at the same time keep on fighting while the liberals enjoy the benefits of increased manufacturing of war materials.

Baron Max

 

Tell that to General Petraeus. I thought you conservabots were all giddy about success in Iraq.

 

"Success" in Iraq is a momentary thing. Some like to pick one moment in time, then apply that to the whole situation.

Can you imagine if we'd stopped fighting the Nazis after we "succeeded" in North Africa? It was a success, wasn't it? Why didn't we stop fighting?

And fighting the Japanese in World War II? Geez, how silly ...one lousy terrorist attack and we get all upset about it and go to war! The US should have been ashamed to taking one little terrorist attack to heart.

Ya' know, Spider, you're right ....when you view things in a different perspective, it's all different, ain't it? So, ....whatever outlook we wish to take, we just keep searching through all the different viewpoints until we find the one that suits us at that moment. Yep, I like it.

Baron Max

 

No, it does not.

To repeat:

You have not illustrated what proportion of all arms used in these wars were provided by the US.

You have not illustrated what the outcome of the use of these arms was, or what proportion of that outcome was by US-supplied arms.

You have not illustrated why it is that I should blame the entire US for the actions of one or another of their companies, but should not blame the entire islamic world for the actions of some of their adherents. (I know your comprehension is generally poor, so let me explain clearly: I don't.)

These are necessary for your "US bad" argument on the basis of arms sales.

Is Saudi Arabia bad for selling oil?

 

I don't think these are relevant. If the US is supplying arms to the majority of wars and the majority of supply is to undemocratic institutions, when it imposes sanctions on other nations who build or sell arms, they are accountable for the use of these weapons in the same way that those nations are.

Unless your contention is that the US should not exercise a veto or sign on sanctions towards other countries who supply or build arms.

Or that the US is allowed to bomb people and sign agreements permitting the sales of weapons to militant groups by contracting them from arms manufacturers.

Or you are claiming that US arms manufacturers can sell their arms to anyone in the world, independent of the US government policies.

 

That has turned me celibate Forrest.

On a different note, what you describe ad nauseam is that you concur that US geo statagy is responsible for the bloodshed in Afghanistan. Thank you.

 

My friend, what this indicates is that the issue is "in question". Where there is smoke, there is fire. Your politicians are at odds. I would assume Obama, who displays life above the neck line, would have the more accurate appraisal.

Unlike the recent presidential circus performed by Homo Australopithecus.

 

That is the most excellent idea I have heard on this forum so far.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Mainly because you seem to confuse "help" with "interference", "destabilization" and "warmongering".

 

sure- why not?- it's a political system like any other

 

Except those guys had armies that we could fight with our armies.

 

No. These are leaders (political) of sovereign states. Which state or nation does Bin Laden represent?

Was the Oklahoma bomber tried by military tribunal?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh)

What I am trying to convey is that perhaps, instead of invading a nation, there may have been other, (criminal, ICC, whatever) avenues for bringing those accountable for 9/11 to justice. Lets face it, for the death of 3000 innocents (may they rest in peace), the knee jerk reaction that prompted the massively disproportionate response and has thus far resulted in over 1 million casualties, could have been handled differently. Do you deny this?

(BTW-I am revisiting your reading list.)

 

That's not the point I was making -- and you know it.

My point is that history and fact have shown the ill deeds of these people. They did not need to be convicted in court in order for people to acknowledge what said history and said fact showed. The fact you cling to this court of law nonsense, despite the overwhelming evidence otherwise, is exactly what I am pressing you and others about. It's a charade, almost like you're hiding behind it and refusing to give up on yer alternative theories.

This is obvious, too. Timothy McVeigh was an American citizen with Constitutional rights. Osama bin Laden is not an American citizen and therefore has no Constitutional rights. Furthermore, he is not a uniformed solider and therefore has no protection under the Geneva Conventions.

This is the attitude Ice adopts and it's pure bullshit.

Or rather, it relies on speculation, inference and alternative readings of history

The Taliban were asked numerous times by the Saudis to give up bin Laden and they did not. The Taliban were asked post-Sept. 11 by the US: The answer was the same.

Now Ice will argue the US effort at extradition wasn't serious. Neither he or I have anyway of knowing if that is true (And I, for one, don't care), but the fact of the matter is that the Taliban had a history of being impossible to deal with (see The Looming Tower) and the US did not have time to sit around and discuss things with a government that the majority of the world never even recognized in the first place. The longer negotiations dragged on, the more time Al Qaeda would have had to slip away or stock pile arms or fortify itself for US attack. Bush could not allow this.

Plus, it's difficult to separate bin Laden from the Taliban, as they were very closely entwined. An attack on one is essentially an attack on the other. Not to mention, under United States law, the Taliban clearly provided material support for the worst attack -- terrorist or otherwise -- on US soil in history. How does one punish such an unrecognized government? Indict it? Slap sanctions on it? We all know these were not a realistic options, either morally or politically, which is why the UN voted two resolutions fully approving the US military action in Afghanistan and NATO invoked its charter clause.

I admit that after toppling the Taliban, the US crocked up its effort at nation building and allowed Afghanistan to deteriorate to where it is now through stupid policy decisions and sheer ignorance. But that's a long way from arguing, as you tacitly seem to be, that the US should have left the Taliban in power. I cannot and will not say that. And frankly, when even the Afghans are glad they are gone, I'm amazed at how certain people on this web site can. It baffles the mind.

 

Fair enough Count. I understand your POV.

A little less obvious. McVeigh was waging a "war" against the US government, and by proxy, against the US. Whether he was a citizen or not, he could have been considered an enemy combatant. Just as Aussie David Hicks was tried as an enemy combatant.

Not that it is important, but history, retrospectively, as new information becomes available, is revisionist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes.

Fair enough, I would agree that US efforts were seemingly limited, but as you say, we do not know for sure.

Without intending to come across as unreasonable, I can see your point. At the same time, I consider the invasion of Afghanistan as utterly disproportionate, and I see it in the same terms as the recent disproportionate attack on Gaza. What occurs in these instances is that TOO MANY civilians become casualties, and that enemies are made. Instead of solving the problem, the problem becomes magnified, and as we can see, has now totally spun out of control.

Yes.

Simplistically put, if the US feels it is entitled to enforce regime change in foreign nations at will, we have to firstly understand:
1. On what grounds is this justified?
2. Why is this strategy then not pursued globally, (Zimbabwe, N Korea) but seems to be focused on the ME?
3. How can the US then be critical of, for example Russia`s defense of South Ossetia, which loosely falls into the same catagory?

The better the devil you know, than the devil you don`t. If as you point out, the consensus from the Afghan people was to remove the Taliban, why is the consensus now, for the Americans to be expelled?

 

More Afghan civilians have been killed by the Taliban and/or Muslim extremists than all those killed by the US/UN coalition. Perhaps that could have been handled a bit different, huh?

If the Afghani Muslims had given up bin Laden for his acts of murder, no Afghanis would have had to die. They chose to protect that terrorists at their own risk and at the risk of their fellow countrymen. Perhaps that could have been handled a bit differently, huh?

Baron Max

 

"Maybe we should help no one"

Maybe the Taliban and all those foriegn jihadists should be thinking alone those lines too.