Justification for war in Afghanistan

[Moontanman]

Lots of time has been spent discussing the war In Iraq and the reasons for and against it. Lets discuss the war in Afghanistan and reasons pro and con and it's consequences. First i would like to hear what would you have done if you had been in charge at the time of the 9/11 attacks. For me it's simple, we were attacked by an organized group sponsored by and supported by the government of Afghanistan. I would have gone to war and done what ever was necessary to insure Afghanistan and it's government was pacified and all traces of the influence of the people who had attacked us was purged from that country.

[modest]

Not only do I think the war in Afghanistan was justified, I think it was prosecuted near-flawlessly considering the time frame after 9-11 for preparation, mobilization, and implementation. The Taliban were as-much-as defeated and the war was basically decided before the WTC fires were done smoldering. At the time I found that astonishing, and I still do.

In a strictly legal sense, the war was justified by UN security council resolutions from september through the end of 2001 affording widely-held international support for the "war on terror" and approving of the way it was handled by both the initial US and British forces and the following International Security Assistance Force.

ODS HOME PAGE

More than that, every country has a right to defend itself. I'm not sure I would agree that the war in Afghanistan helped al-Qaeda recruitment or solidified the subsequent attacks in London and Spain. I don't know enough to say one way or the other. But, I see that as a separate issue from justification of the war. The truth is al-Qaeda's intent was to terrorize the western world and their partners in the middle east before the war in Afghanistan. They did so on and before september 11th. Being that cause generally comes before effect it would be hard to argue the war in Afghanistan is in any way a cause of terrorist's motivations. But, again, this is separate from justification. The war was justified.

~modest

[sanctus]

Did you ever think of the possibility the US (and hence the western world) have missed by going to war in Afghanistan? My post there or post #66 there say much about my view on the war in Afghanistan.

To sum it up

1. In any case there are only a few cases where a war is justified and still, it is only because it was waited too long with other means (the US coming to Europe in WW2 is a justifiable example, but if there was action before,already in the thirties...)
2. Often it is motivated that the war in Afghanistan was a good thing because of the taleban-regime and hence not a revenge...but 't this regime exist since the eighties? So, I guess you agree that when someone says that it was against a (really bad) regime it is just to sell the revenge with nicer words
3. Since when the only response to an attack in the own land is going to attack the others? This never justifies a war (as modest ormoontanman said above). You know I talk from the moral/ethical point of view, I do not care if the UN-laws say it does or not
4. THE MOST IMPORTANT point though is, that by not going to Afghanistan, but trying alternate routes (for example development help, stop exploitation of their resources and cheap workers for only our wellbeing,etc. you know like in the bible in which Bush strongly believe:love your ennemy) then there would less a problem with islamic terror now. I believe that the extremists inconsciently use term and do "the holy war" just because they can't say that they are upset at our well-being at the price of their low standard of living.

Do you guys deny that going to Afghanistan started (ok, continued after 9/11 if you want) the spirale of violence. Isn't it up to the western world who has more means to try other ways than violence?

Just a good example, when did the problems in Ireland stop? Wasn't it when both sides agreed on stopping violence?

[questor]

Why is it good to continue war in Afghanistan but not OK for Iraq?
Af is not strategically located.
Af offers no threat to us
Af has no oil or global importance
We can't win this war
If we made opiates legal, Af would collapse economically
We could still patrol the air space and periodically wipe out terrorists training facilities

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by questor

Why is it good to continue war in Afghanistan but not OK for Iraq?

We have no excuse for invading Iraq, the Iraqi war was based on nothing but lies!

Af is not strategically located.

Why is this prerequisite for war?

Af offers no threat to us

They took down the Twin towers and crashed a plan into the pentagon.

Af has no oil or global importance

Why would oil or global importance be a reason to go to war?

We can't win this war

That might be a reason for conservative cowards.

If we made opiates legal, Af would collapse economically
We could still patrol the air space and periodically wipe out terrorists training facilities

Maybe we should make opiates legal but no war or country can be subjugated by air power alone. The Taliban has been routed but due to bad planning and resource allocation they are making a come back. The republicans just can't fight a war these days evidently. They attack the wrong country and then fail to prosecute the war they needed to fight. To win the war in Afghanistan we need to make sure the Taliban is not only defeated but we need to make sure the country doesn't want or need them back. Help build an infrastructure, give the people something other than a terrorist religion and opium. This country has been ignored by the whole world, this is why the Taliban was able to go in and take over. If we had helped them back in the 80's with more than weapons we might not be in this situation now.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by sanctus

Did you ever think of the possibility the US (and hence the western world) have missed by going to war in Afghanistan? My post there or post #66 there say much about my view on the war in Afghanistan.

To sum it up

1. In any case there are only a few cases where a war is justified and still, it is only because it was waited too long with other means (the US coming to Europe in WW2 is a justifiable example, but if there was action before,already in the thirties...)

1. Please explain what could have been done to avoid WW2, assassinate Hitler before he was in power? Attack Germany before they built up their military? Simply surrendered Europe to Germany and helped them round up all the Jews for orderly disposal? Let me know how this war could have been avoided.
   
   

   Often it is motivated that the war in Afghanistan was a good thing because of the taleban-regime and hence not a revenge...but 't this regime exist since the eighties? So, I guess you agree that when someone says that it was against a (really bad) regime it is just to sell the revenge with nicer words

   We went to war against the Taliban because they attacked us, call this revenge if you want but it's the truth.
   
   
   

   Since when the only response to an attack in the own land is going to attack the others? This never justifies a war (as modest ormoontanman said above). You know I talk from the moral/ethical point of view, I do not care if the UN-laws say it does or not

   Yes it does, if you attack me I am going to retaliate, no other solution could stop the Taliban and their desire to spread their brand of Islam and terror around the world.
   
   
   

   THE MOST IMPORTANT point though is, that by not going to Afghanistan, but trying alternate routes (for example development help, stop exploitation of their resources and cheap workers for only our wellbeing,etc. you know like in the bible in which Bush strongly believe:love your ennemy) then there would less a problem with islamic terror now. I believe that the extremists inconsciently use term and do "the holy war" just because they can't say that they are upset at our well-being at the price of their low standard of living.

I'm not aware of the United States exploiting workers in Afghanistan or their meager resources, we did try developmental help it went into flying airplanes into the world trade center.

Do you guys deny that going to Afghanistan started (ok, continued after 9/11 if you want) the spirale of violence. Isn't it up to the western world who has more means to try other ways than violence?

Yes i deny it, the violence probably would have been much worse if the Taliban hadn't been confronted. doing nothing is what allowed WW2 to engulf the entire world. Sometimes you have to intervene before the entire world is in flames. Yes we might be wrong but it's better than being right and not doing anything. Santus you are being naive, countries don't act like reasonable humans beings they act more like small children. Religious fundamentalists act more like rabid dogs. Reasoning with fanatics is like trying to pet a rabid dog, no matter how sweet you are to it you are going to get bit and become a rabid dog too.

Just a good example, when did the problems in Ireland stop? Wasn't it when both sides agreed on stopping violence?

Actually it had more to do with both sides tiring of the violence and realizing it wasn't working. The Irish simply got tired of funerals, that and many of the hard liners were killed or imprisoned.

[modest]

As an analogy - If someone breaks into your house and kills some of your family, you are justified in sending them to jail. There can be no 2 ways about that. The argument can be made that prisons don’t reform criminals. The person we sent to jail may become even more violent. It could even be said that jails in general instill violence in the population. But, this is a separate issue from the justice of detaining the criminal.

To say that locking up a criminal is unjustified because prisons make people violent is blurring two different things. Similarly, to say that the response to 9/11 was unjustified because war doesn’t bring about international peace is blurring two things.

The response to 9/11 against certain parties in Afghanistan was as justified as any war can be. Maybe all war is bad and evil, and maybe all war has awful consequences. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with those statements. But that doesn't detract from the justification of the international response to 9/11.

I'm tempted to argue that turning the other cheek doesn't always pacify or appease someone who's attacking you. But according to the thread's title, that's not the issue. The issue is the justification of hitting back.

~modest

[alexander]

Originally Posted by moon

we were attacked by an organized group sponsored by and supported by the government of Afghanistan

sponsored? they made up like 80 of the gov-t of Afghanistan... Besides they were and still are sponsored, by both privateers and governments of other various countries. That group operates in over 50 countries, trust me, funding, they have...

Originally Posted by quest

Af is not strategically located.

Wouldn't say that, Pakistan is right next door...

Af offers no threat to us

And makes the gov-t a ton of money by becoming the largest exporter of top quality heroin to US

Af has no oil or global importance

Except of supplying 70% of global heroin

If we made opiates legal, Af would collapse economically

Hell no, they would become the next Dubai... When has making something legal brought down it's price, especially with drugs? This would simply legalize like 40% of the country revenue, thats all...

Originally Posted by sanctus

In any case there are only a few cases where a war is justified

Killing people for a gain is never justified...

Often it is motivated that the war in Afghanistan was a good thing because of the taleban-regime

and who won? the war has been going on for 6 years, and the taliban still controls large territories of the country....?

Since when the only response to an attack in the own land is going to attack the others?

Agreed, especially when the people of Afghanistan had NOTHING to do with the initial "attack"...

I do not care if the UN-laws say it does or not

UN is as big of a bully as US, Russia or China is... it's a joke, really... i think so anyways. Not to say that there should not be an international war council, yes, but a, every country needs to be represented and 2 they can not launch their own attacks agains anyone/thing, they can use other, less deadly ways of resolving their issues. What they can do is penalize countries for actions such as the ones taken by US in Afghanistan, Iraq and various African nations, and such as the ones taken by Russia in Afghanistan and Georgia...

I believe that the extremists inconsciently use term and do "the holy war"

i have ranted about that somewhere... i totally agree that the term "jihad" is used wrongly by people that believe they are following true islam... its like they are oblivious to it, and hey, christians are not all that far behind well, i'd argue they are ahead of not following their own scriptures...

[alexander]

I do mean to be synical, but don't take anything i say offensively, i am really hot-headed when it comes to discussing war, especially when the term "good" or "justified" comes...

Originally Posted by Moon

We have no excuse for invading Iraq, the Iraqi war was based on nothing but lies!

as opposed to what excuse for Afghanistan?

They took down the Twin towers and crashed a plan into the pentagon.

DONT equate Afghan people to Islamic terrorists, that's worse then calling all Americans rednecks (redneck is not an incriminatory term, terrorist is), and per capita, there are many more rednecks in the US as there are terrorists in Afghanistan!

Why would oil or global importance be a reason to go to war?

Agreed, but on the flip side, why would the fact that some of the people involved in Sep 11 were from the region be any better of a reason then global importance or oil?

If we had helped them back in the 80's with more than weapons we might not be in this situation now.

Couldn't agree more with that one

[Michaelangelica]

Would the proposed Oil Pipeline though Afganistan and recent USA geophysical survey of the county have anything to do with the war?