Justification for war in Afghanistan

[alexander]

i can add to that, US did not involve themselves, but rather trained and sponsored the soldiers that were invading south osettiya

invasions that US is not involving themselves in

Second Congolese War

Congolese rebels, backed by Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi, seek the overthrow of President Kabila (the father was assassinated and his son then became president), who is supported by rebels from the above three countries, in addition to the armies of Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia.

Second Chechen War

On 1 October, following the Russian apartment bombings which Russia blamed on Chechen separatists, Russian troops entered Chechnya. The campaign ended the de-facto independence of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and restored Russian federal control over the territory. Although it is regarded by many as an internal conflict within the Russian Federation, the war attracted a large number of foreign fighters.

Kashmir Conflict

Kashmir is divided between India and Pakistan, and a Kashmiri rebel movement is aided by Pakistan... Kashmiri Terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament, attempting to blow it up during a legislative session.

Chad-Central African Republic Border Conflict

 

these are some of the "invasions" there are many other conflicts that and civil wars...

[BrianG]

Your invasions include rebellion, ongoing border conflicts and states within the former Soviet Union. The US didn't respond to China invasion of Tibet, either. All these conflicts have been addressed diplomatically, I don't justify the weak response to the genocide in the Congo, Rwanda or the Sudan.

 

Like Theory5's example of Fallujah, these are far off the mark in justifying the war in Afghanistan. Thank you for your research and your posts.

 

Now, we have troops in Afghanistan and we could withdraw them tomorrow, if the Commander and Chief orders it. I have no doubt abject horror would ensue. On the other hand, we could stay, put down the insurgency, which might take twenty years, and make a long term commitment to stability and democratic elections. We are talking about a long war here.

[sanctus]

We are talking about a long war here.

 

Which exactly the reason why going there with violence was not the solution...(see my first signature, to guess my take on the usefulness of armies ;-) )

[lemit]

Brian,

 

You first wrote:

 

Re: Justification for war in Afghanistan

Babies thrown out of incubators at the hospital, gold stolen from the banks, I don't know.

 

Just right versus wrong.

 

To which Reason responded:

 

Well that's nothing compared to what's been going on in Darfur and Rwanda. Yet we haven't intervened with our military might there.

 

What do you think the difference is?

 

That is when you said:

 

An external invasion instead of civil disorder. That's my answer, can you name another invasion America didn't answer?

 

Given several examples, you finally responded:

 

Your invasions include rebellion, ongoing border conflicts and states within the former Soviet Union. The US didn't respond to China invasion of Tibet, either. All these conflicts have been addressed diplomatically, I don't justify the weak response to the genocide in the Congo, Rwanda or the Sudan.

 

Like Theory5's example of Fallujah, these are far off the mark in justifying the war in Afghanistan. Thank you for your research and your posts.

 

Since the responses were incorrect, could you tell us what you meant when you asked, "can you name another invasion America didn't answer?"

 

Thanks.

 

--lemit

[Buffy]

I have no doubt abject horror would ensue. On the other hand, we could stay, put down the insurgency, which might take twenty years, and make a long term commitment to stability and democratic elections. We are talking about a long war here.

 

...and it'll bankrupt us, because we'll be borrowing from the Chinese to support a war that basically brings us no additional benefit as a nation.

 

What would be the benefits?

 

Avoiding the "abject horror" is for lily livered bleeding-heart liberals. Nice, but you know it's quite likely that more people died in Rwanda which we didn't feel strongly about intervening in than will ever die in Afghanistan if we pull out. In fact, it's arguable that more will die if we stay.

 

"Stopping al Qaeda?" Look, they might be good enough to kill a few more thousand people, but between Iraq and Afghanistan in 8 years we've lost over 5000 American lives. You care so much about American lives? We probably lose more if we stay.

 

So exactly what is it that you think we can accomplish?

 

The real distinction is between those who adapt their purposes to reality and those who seek to mold reality in the light of their purposes, :phones:

Buffy

[lemit]

al-Quaeda's purpose on 9-11 was to engage the U.S. in a land war in Afghanistan so they could bankrupt and eventually destroy us the way we helped them destroy the Soviet Union. By planning to stay there indefinitely instead of pursuing the terrorists, we are doing exactly what they want.

 

Or, to put it another way, the terrorists are winning.

 

Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Let's try using it on anyone who opposes our getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. I first wrote "Iraq" as "Iran." That's coming soon enough.

[BrianG]

lemit, you are mistaken, I was answering the question: "Why did we see it as in our interest to "save Kuwait?"" Please check my original post, it directly followed that query.

[sanctus]

Lemit, I like what you said, I think it even goes further, as long as the answer to terrorism is force, terrorism is winning. Terrorism just can't be won by force, since force always incites more terrorism.

 

Was surprised to hear Obama this morning saying something on the same line when talking to the Oslo press (which is fun anyway, i mean to live in Oslo atm and not recognize the city for all the roadblocks and police everywhere). He said something about linking social/economical injustice to terrorism...I don't remember the exact wording, but I liked it a lot.

[Qfwfq]

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.

Odd. I tried a search in this thread, it strange that a well known fact hasn't yet been mentioned here.

 

On February 12th, 1998, Mr. John J. Maresca (vice president of international relations, Unocal Corporation) was invited to talk at the U. S. Congress. The record is available. He talked about the large sources of fossil fuels in the Caspian region and the problems of getting them to the most relevant commercial markets. His lengthy speech included the following two paragraphs, conveniently at the start and end of page 33:

 

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

 

Last October, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium, called CentGas, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline which will link Turkmenistan's vast Dauletabad gas field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, traveling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan. The proposed extension would move gas on to New Delhi, where it would connect with an existing pipeline. As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.

 

This was over three and a half years previous to the war, so I guess it just took that long for a good excuse to be found.

[lemit]

Lemit, I like what you said, I think it even goes further, as long as the answer to terrorism is force, terrorism is winning. Terrorism just can't be won by force, since force always incites more terrorism.

 

Was surprised to hear Obama this morning saying something on the same line when talking to the Oslo press (which is fun anyway, i mean to live in Oslo atm and not recognize the city for all the roadblocks and police everywhere). He said something about linking social/economical injustice to terrorism...I don't remember the exact wording, but I liked it a lot.

 

One of the major themes of Greek tragedy was the cycle of violence. It is indeed tragic that for at least 25 centuries we've had in our cultural conscience the understanding that violence begets violence, but when Mohandes Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. suggested action to shift the paradigm toward that ancient wisdom, they became victims of the even more ancient lack of wisdom.

 

I was one of those people in the 'sixties who tried to change the world. I now see that changing the world is like Mark Twain said of smoking: "Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times."

 

I suppose beyond cycles of violence we also have cycles of ending violence, which is pretty sad.

 

--lemit

[BrianG]

...We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

 

... For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

 

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

 

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity...

 

Good speech, check it out: Full text of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech - White House- msnbc.com

[sanctus]

This is not the speech I was refferring to, I like it less and it is not a good argument, anyway. When the US came to Europe against the nazi, I agree that there was no more a choice of a non-violent option, but what many forget before there was. The signs were there! For example have you seen "The Dictator" by Charlie Chaplin? It was turned in 1939...

 

I tried to find the speech I refferred to, but did not find it. It is the press-conference after the meeting with the Norwegian prime minister (Stoltenberg).

 

the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades

But no more since having gone to Afghanistan, more the contrary!!!

[coldcreation]

.

 

 

"War is the last possible creative act."

(Mick Travis)

 

 

CC

[REASON]

... For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world.

 

There is no inherent good or evil in the universe - only that which is perceived in the hearts and minds of human kind.

 

One man's perception of evil is another man's perception of righteousness.

 

The way to suppress one's evil is to address his grievances.

[lemit]

.

 

 

"War is the last possible creative act."

(Mick Travis)

 

 

CC

 

It is the last act of many who do not participate in the creatiion but are only so much paint to be spread across the canvass.

 

--lemit

[BrianG]

There is no inherent good or evil in the universe - only that which is perceived in the hearts and minds of human kind.

One man's perception of evil is another man's perception of righteousness.

The way to suppress one's evil is to address his grievances.

Can you back up your claim; there is no inherent good or evil? What does good and evil mean?

Deliberate killing of innocents is evil. Slavery is evil. Love, praise bravery and generosity are good. Teaching the ignorant is good. Helping others is good.

Science is amoral, it gives us weapons in the same way it give us more food. Good and evil may not be an appropriate subject for a science forum.

[maikeru]

One of the major themes of Greek tragedy was the cycle of violence. It is indeed tragic that for at least 25 centuries we've had in our cultural conscience the understanding that violence begets violence, but when Mohandes Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. suggested action to shift the paradigm toward that ancient wisdom, they became victims of the even more ancient lack of wisdom.

 

I was one of those people in the 'sixties who tried to change the world. I now see that changing the world is like Mark Twain said of smoking: "Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times."

 

I suppose beyond cycles of violence we also have cycles of ending violence, which is pretty sad.

 

--lemit

 

I read a lot of Greek tragedy as well. It's interesting how the same themes then resound ever so loudly now.