Justification for war in Afghanistan

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

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.

The signs were there of what was going to happen, just an example: have you seen Charlie Chaplin's "Dictator"? It came out in 1939...
I do not propose the solution, I do not know enough of all the events that time, but if the symptons can be seen they can also be fought against before the real disease starts.

Originally Posted by moon

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

Supporting is not being part of it (but I agree almost as bad!), as Alex said, they did not attack you. Now, I would prefer that you would say it was something good because the regime was really bad, than that it is just a revenge. What do you called if not revenge, in ypour point of view it was answer to an attack ergo the definition of revenge...

Originally Posted by moon

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.

So you really believe that a violent counter-attack is the only possible answer to a violent attack? The taliban were in power since the eighties as already said, until 2001 they did not much of spreading you are saying, did they?
What abnout understanding, or trying to, why I attacked you and then change the premises which led to the attack?

Originally Posted by moon

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.

If we really did try (I say we because Europe is as much in fault there as the US) then there wouldn't be people starving anymore. We have enough resources now to feed the world. But you know we all want to keep our standard of living, then it is hard to make good development help, because then we rely on the cheap labour in the poorer world. Ok, I do not know if a part from heroin something comes/came from afghanistan to the western world, but my reasoning also holds without it.

Originally Posted by moon

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.

So you deny that there were other ways or that it kept well alive and fed the spirale of violence. It seems to me that doing the wrong thing is better for you than doing nothing. But there was not even a try to do something non-violent. Don't you agree that the western world has more means than Afghanistan and Islamic terror groups? Don't you agree that this implies more options?

About your children analogy: it is time to educate them, the child who has most means (intellectual, material, etc) should hence educate the others.
You call me naive, I call myself a believer in mankind...

Originally Posted by moon

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.

So do you want to wait until the next 20 towers in the US have fallen and the next 20 islamic regions have had war, until half of the terrorists are in Guantanamo, the other half killed and just as many people from the western world killed by falling towers?
Why not learn exactly from that small scale example in Ireland? Doesn't it show cleary that decennies of violence didn't solve anything? Why wanting to do the same on bigger scales then?

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by 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.

No you can't compare these 2, sending to jail and attacking/revenging is something completely different. So I don't think I blurred anything.

Originally Posted by mod

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.

Modest, as said in my first post a war can only very, very rarely be justified. An answer to an attack surely never justifies a war, which then is nothing else than an act of revenge. I would like it if at least all the war-against-Afghanist-supporter here would agree that it is an act of revenge and nothing else. I mean anyway what else could it be?
You say that "(...)that doesn't detract from the justification of the international response to 9/11." in my view it does, you realize that what you said above can be interpreted as that you can justify something bad and evil with awful consequences. I'm interested how you justify it.

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.

Have we ever tried?

The issue is the justification of hitting back.

~modest

Which I haven't got yet


ANYWAY, you (=modest,moon,etc.) might know now why I stopped posting in this forum, about a few years ago. My views very rarely are such that I don't get carried away in long arguments. Hope you don't take my tone as too aggressive.

[modest]

Originally Posted by sanctus

No you can't compare these 2, sending to jail and attacking/revenging is something completely different.

Right. The motivation for jail is different from the motivation for revenge. The character of arresting someone is different from the character of enslaving them. The action of a jury passing sentence is different from a mob tar-and-feathering a fella. Shooting someone who is running toward you with a knife is different from throwing a grenade into a crowded market.

They are different. The difference is justice. So, why is the response to 9/11 unjustified?

Originally Posted by sanctus

Modest, as said in my first post a war can only very, very rarely be justified.

How was Afghanistan different from the very, very rare war you're thinking of?

Originally Posted by sanctus

I would like it if at least all the war-against-Afghanist-supporter here would agree that it is an act of revenge and nothing else.

I’m sure you would. I too would be pleased if everyone agreed that there was no choice after 9/11 but to destroy Al-qaeda and oust the Taliban using whatever force necessary to accomplish those goals.

Originally Posted by sanctus

I mean anyway what else could it be?

"what else could it be"? It could be justified. The UN resolutions approving of the war and the overwhelming amount of international support and participation means that it is assumed justified. If you have reasons to disagree with the rest of the world then I am interested to hear them.

Originally Posted by sanctus

You say that "(...)that doesn't detract from the justification of the international response to 9/11." in my view it does, you realize that what you said above can be interpreted as that you can justify something bad and evil with awful consequences. I'm interested how you justify it.

I was hoping you’d ask. War is not inherently good. It should always be a necessary evil. It should not be “oh good, we’re going to war, good things are going to happen”. It should rather be the lesser of 2 evils. Either we stop them by force or they keep killing our innocent civilians. Neither choice is good. It's the lesser of 2 evils... war should be the lesser of 2 evils. That’s how I feel.

Originally Posted by sanctus

Have we ever tried?

They tried to bring the twin towers down in ’93 and we turned the other cheek. The president said don’t attack them because civilians could be hurt. Bin Laden gained support. He announced to a collection of international press “And by God's grace, we are going to have a successful result in killing Americans and getting rid of them."

They attacked the USS Cole, killing seventeen sailors and nearly sinking a U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer. We turned the other cheek!

While we were busy turning the other cheek, they had built themselves into an army. They issued the order: “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it”

Al-qaeda forces then attacked the buildings that they had failed to bring down the first time. Two thousand nine hundred and ninety eight people died. So, yes, we did try turning the other cheek. It didn't work.

The assumption you make about appeasing them so that they will stop murdering us is not right. Successful al-Qaeda attacks attracted recruits who had training camps to go to and organization to follow. Their only purpose was to learn how to kill as many people as they could. And, they were getting better and better at it.

Originally Posted by sanctus

Which I haven't got yet

Luckily, over 20 countries did get that justification and they sent troops to act on it.

Originally Posted by sanctus

ANYWAY, you (=modest,moon,etc.) might know now why I stopped posting in this forum, about a few years ago. My views very rarely are such that I don't get carried away in long arguments. Hope you don't take my tone as too aggressive.

Likewise. I think you know how much I respect you. I don’t expect we’ll resolve our differences on this issue, and that’s ok. It’s good to hear other opinions different from my own especially on an international issue such as this. So, no worries mate

~modest

[questor]

Sanctus, on 9/11 we were attacked and 3000 of our citizens died. We answered this with an attack against the Taliban, not as revenge, but in an effort to eliminate those who had participated in the training of our attackers.
It seems to have worked so far, we haven't had a repeat attack. If someone
hits you, it is prudent to hit them back or seeing your cowardice, they may try to hit you again. In order to understand this, answer truthfully, what would you do if someone slaps you in the face and appears ready to slap you again?

[Michaelangelica]

9/11 was mostly funded and planned by Saudi Arabians, especially the Bin Ladens.
Is US Geography that bad?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

9/11 was mostly funded and planned by Saudi Arabians, especially the Bin Ladens.
Is US Geography that bad?

It doesn't matter what their country of origin was. The training camps were in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan.

[questor]

War in Afghanistan

The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001, was launched by the United States and the United Kingdom in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was the beginning of the War on Terror. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda.

It's good to learn a little history to go along with your expertise at geography.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by questor

War in Afghanistan

The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001, was launched by the United States and the United Kingdom in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was the beginning of the War on Terror. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda.
It's good to learn a little history to go along with your expertise at geography.

And was any of this accomplished before we headed off to the real goal of this administration.....captalizing on the oil fields of Iraq?

Has any of it been accomplished to this day, nearly seven years and nearly three trillion dollars later? Not to mention several hundred thousand lives including more than 4,000 of our soldiers. Consider the current impact on our economy.

Are you going to continue to stand behind that rhetoric as an effective foreign policy?

All we seem to care about today is being able to claim "victory," whatever the hell that means. It's pathetic narcissism in the face of rampant greed and incompetence, and it's no wonder we find ourselves in such crises these days. It's time for a new approach and new leadership.

[questor]

I merely spoke to the reason we WENT to war. I am for leaving these barbarians to work out their own problems. By the way, I am unaware we went in for oil. How did we do? Where is all the money we made? They have a lot of oil, so I'm happy they are giving it to us.

[modest]

Originally Posted by questor

I merely spoke to the reason we WENT to war. I am for leaving these barbarians to work out their own problems.

The people of Afghanistan are not barbarians. Considering the history of war in that country over the last 40 years and the deep divisions that has brought, I'd say they are doing remarkably well governing themselves.

ISAF is not an American force and we (you and I as Americans) don't get to decide if the security force stays in Afghanistan or not. Frankly, the Afghan government needs the help. Why would you advocate disrupting al-Qaeda and removing the Taliban from power only to watch them attempt to regain that footing without offering Kabul any help? Would you like to watch them fight a civil war? Do you think that would be good for the region or good for America?

~modest