Reply
Tue 8 Dec, 2009 04:54 pm
This is a more specific question to a general topic already started, but this particular question interests me, so I am curious what others might think.
However, I think it is important for people to distinguish between a wars cause(s) and a wars conduct. Definitely, one can argue they are related in many regards (as I do think), but for the purpose of a clear and coherent argument, if people are going to relate the two then they should be explicit about doing so.
Some particular questions I would like to focus on:
What were the initial causes used to justify an invasion into Afghanistan? Were those causes morally sufficient to justify such an invasion?
How do the causes relate to how the war is currently being fought? Is the actual conduct of war in Afghanistan problematic? If so, why?
Since it seems like we (U.S.A.) will be out of Iraq for purposes of combat in the not too distant future, we should be grateful for still having Afghanistan. It is the only war we have; we should not treat it flippantly, nor with ingratitude.
Wherever the U.S. military goes, the local economies benefit. The local populace benefits from having the contact with Americans, and learning that the U.S. is such a diverse population. It teaches that there is another way to live than valuing a country having one nationality/ethnicity. In a prior age civilization was spread through missionaries. Today our military is doing that job, I believe.
@panzade,
He must have just read
The Mouse that Roared. Losing a war to the US is a key to prosperity, at least in some minds.
@Foofie,
wow that is a controversial post to say the least.
Foofie: do your listed benefits justify the killing of innocent people?
The President must respond to this question--"Why are we in Afghanistan"?
Good American boys are dying there as they did in Iraq.
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
Since it seems like we (U.S.A.) will be out of Iraq for purposes of combat in the not too distant future, we should be grateful for still having Afghanistan. It is the only war we have; we should not treat it flippantly, nor with ingratitude.
Not exactly. The battles for Iraq and for AFG are just that, large battles in the huge Global War On Terror (GWOT).
We should not treat GWOT flippantly.
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:Not exactly. The battles for Iraq and for AFG are just that, large battles in the huge Global War On Terror (GWOT).
We should not treat GWOT flippantly.
You can't
really have a war on terror you know. That's like having a war on bad behavior.
You can have a war on a country, but you can only have an ongoing resistance to a human behavior pattern like terrorism.
What Bigstew does not know, and which the rest of us are all to painfully aware of, is that Foofie is a f*cking idiot.
@rosborne979,
You can't
really expect anyone to believe that you don't know GWOT is the global war against Muslim extremist terrorists.
I find it hard that anyone out there is not aware of GWOT and what it is.
I'll assume that you ask these questions rhetorically, because otherwise it would make you look like an idiot--at least the initial questions.
Having identified Al Qaeda as the guilty party in the September 11th attacks, and knowing them to be sheltering in Afghanistan, the United States gave that nation an ultimatum to hand over the culprits, or suffer the consequences. This is normal practice in international law, i don't see that it does any violence to Chapter VII of the UN charter, either, for that matter. The very concept of morality is disgusting to me, so i really have no comment on whether or not this is morally justified. It is justified in law, and that suffices for me. As the government of Afghanistan, then the Taliban, refused to comply, the invasion was justified.
The continuing fight against the Taliban is more problematic, but i think it is justified on the basis of our having promised to "clean up" the country. When the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad decided to invade Iraq, they took the expedient of simply putting the old drug lords back into power locally in Afghanistan, thereby assuring a prolonged agony for that nation. The sole thing which the Taliban had done which the people of Afghanistan universally applauded had been to get rid of the drug lords.
I think our continued presence there is justified, but just barely. We have the carpet jerked out from under us, though, as long as drug lords remain in power and as long as Karzai remains in power.
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
You can't really expect anyone to believe that you don't know GWOT is the global war against Muslim extremist terrorists.
I find it hard that anyone out there is not aware of GWOT and what it is.
It's pretty hard to have a "war" on that either since they don't all sit around in one place. It's a lifestyle; a belief system. I think you need a whole different approach to crack that nut.
Maybe we should declare war on a patch of land between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then pick another patch of bad behavior and declare war on that.
Oh look . . . The Possum is back . . . i wonder how long he'll last?
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:I think our continued presence there is justified, but just barely. We have the carpet jerked out from under us, though, as long as drug lords remain in power and as long as Karzai remains in power.
Legalize drugs. Win the war.
Ha
Ha
Heroin? I don't think so.
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
H2O MAN wrote:
You can't really expect anyone to believe that you don't know GWOT is the global war against Muslim extremist terrorists.
I find it hard that anyone out there is not aware of GWOT and what it is.
It's pretty hard to have a "war" on that either since they don't all sit around in one place.
Oh, I see ... it's an
easy war you want.
We are using a totally different and ever evolving approach to fighting Muslim extremist terrorists.
Would you have us fighting like we fought the Germans and the Japanese in WWII?
We could just carpet bomb and nuke a few places of your choosing, that would be easy.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
What Bigstew does not know, and which the rest of us are all to painfully aware of, is that Foofie is a f*cking idiot.
At least use the correct word. You meant, "too painfully," not "to painfully."
But, regarding your ad-hominem above, am I now?
@bigstew,
bigstew wrote:
wow that is a controversial post to say the least.
Foofie: do your listed benefits justify the killing of innocent people?
I already listed the benefits. I cannot justify anything ourside my listed benefits. If you are asking me to commiserate with foreign casualties, I really only care about American lives. It is beyond my intellect to care about all the people on the planet. I can only care about American lives. [Foofie you are becoming redundant.]
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
The local populace benefits from having the contact with Americans, and learning that the U.S. is such a diverse population. It teaches that there is another way to live than valuing a country having one nationality/ethnicity. In a prior age civilization was spread through missionaries. Today our military is doing that job, I believe.
Next invasion and occupation, Israel/Palestine. We'll teach them another way to live other than valuing a country having one nationality/ethnicity (there they don't
value multi-nationality/ethnicity; they merely
tolerate it, barely, to a certain percentage point. What is it now, 20% or so?). We'll civilize the lot yet!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208155309.htm
Yes, our wars are a reflection of our kindness to the countries in the world that have fallen behind in modernity.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace