Is the war in Afghanistan Justified?

@Foofie,

You remain, and always will remain, a f*cking idiot.

0 Replies

Setanta says that Afghanistan is barely justified. How? American boys are dying there and the two faced President is pouring troops into that hellhole. Why? To defeat Radical Islam? If so, that was the posture held by our former President George W. Bush and we all know that his decisions on Iraq were irremediably flawed.

Setanta is between a rock and a hard place. As a peacenik, he hates war, but how can he criticize it when the savior of Western Civilization is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. I am very much afraid that Setanta did not read President Obama's speech very carefully. If he had, he would have discovered that the double-talking slippery orator in the White House told us that the withdrawal of the troops might be contingent on the situation on the ground in Afghanistan.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

setanta wrote:

I'll assume that you ask these questions rhetorically, because otherwise it would make you look like an idiot--at least the initial questions.

Besides the ad homminen, I do not think the questions are rhetorical. My intuition tells me that arguments can be made either way concerning the causes of the war. That is all I am interested in hearing. But since you point me out, Ill have a good time responding to your comments.

Setanta wrote:

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 very concept of morality is "disgusting" to you? Could you please articulate that?

"It is justified in law, and that suffices for me"

And what does law derive from? Thin air?

"As the government of Afghanistan, then the Taliban, refused to comply, the invasion was justified."

OK something substantive. The invasion was based on self defense against Al Qaeda terrorist attacks. And you argue the Taliban did nothing to hand over Osama or Al Qaeda corhorts. Factually, this is wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

Setanta wrote:

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.

You claim that the present justification of the war is predicated on stopping the drug trade in Afghanistan. You state it is the "sole thing" which won support from Afghani people. Can you please provide factual evidence for such a claim.

Further, is stopping the drug trade alone a sufficient just cause for war? Further, when the nature of modern war fare is asymmetric, is the destruction of war proportional to your presumed just cause? I can not comment until you further explicate why the stopping drug trade is of the most vital importance to justify war

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H20 MAN wrote:

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.

Modern asymmetric warfare is arguably much more destructive since it reduces intentionality and discrimination on the part of soldiers, thus reducing moral responsibility. More innocent people die as a result of drone attacks and long distance targeting.

2 Replies

@MASSAGAT,

MASSAGAT wrote:

Setanta is between a rock and a hard place. As a peacenik, he hates war, but how can he criticize it when the savior of Western Civilization is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. I am very much afraid that Setanta did not read President Obama's speech very carefully. If he had, he would have discovered that the double-talking slippery orator in the White House told us that the withdrawal of the troops might be contingent on the situation on the ground in Afghanistan.

I will have to read Obama's speech. I am interested in what he lists as the justifications for the war.

1 Reply

@bigstew,

bigstew wrote:

More innocent people die as a result of drone attacks and long distance targeting.

That was then, but technology allows the US to do a much better job of identifying and hitting terrorist targets.
Our drones can see what they are about to kill and our long distance targeting is quite accurate and it's getting better.

The US is not the problem, the problem is that the radical Muslim terrorists have no rules of engagement.
They hide in neighborhoods, use innocent civilians as shields, employ gorilla tactics and they do not wear uniforms.
US troops are doing an incredible job and they need our support and the support of the Obama administration.

Take the gloves off, release the dogs of war and let our troops do the job they are trained to do.

Questioning if the battle for AFG is justified or not is a waste of time.
We are engaged and our warriors need to leave victorious.

2 Replies

@bigstew,

I should think that you were smart enough to know what argumentum ad hominem means. If i had been objecting to a position you had taken, and had substituted a negative personal reflection for an argument against your position, that would have been argumentum ad hominem. That is not the case.

The concept of morality disgusts me because it is, more often than not, an imposition on others which is justified by an appeal to a false universal standard. If there were such a thing as "morality," one would be obliged to point out the authority for its strictures. As i have no good reason to believe that there are any gods or goddesses, and as i cannot help but observe that moral standards are subjective, rather than objective, appeals to morality disgust me.

I recommend to you a reading of Beyond Good and Evil for a closely argued discussion on the origins of law, which is not to suggest that i blindly adhere to the dicta of the author. Law certainly doesn't derive from some anthropomorphic old man sitting on a cloud somewhere off in "the heavens." If one were to allege it derives from "morality," the objections i have outlined above apply. As far as i can see, law derives from a consent to standards of behavior broadly enough based that people willingly submit to the inclusion of such standards in their social contracts. In that odd international contract known as international law, or the "laws of nations," the ultimatum to the government of Afghanistan, and the reaction to their non-compliance is an acceptable standard of behavior.

Your reference to a factual error is laughably absurd. The article you cite refers to comments made after the United States had begun the aerial bombardment of Afghanistan prior to an invasion of their territory. Note further that the initial sentence refers to conditions under which the Taliban might discuss handing over bin Laden to a third party, and not an offer to simply hand him over. Note further that that article states that: "Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to 'hand anyone over.' " Omar referred to possibly handing over bin Laden to a third party, a neutral country. That can hardly be described as a willingness to comply with the ultimatum.

Your claim in response to my remarks is factually wrong, based on the source you cite.

Your reading skills must be deficient. I did not say that " . . . it is the 'sole thing' which won support from the Afghani [sic] people." If you would read again what i wrote, you will see that i said that the sole thing of which Afghans approved of with regard to the Taliban as a government was that they, the Taliban, got rid of the drug lords who had preyed upon the Afghan people, as well as providing opium and/or heroin for the international trade. I said that the justification for continuing in Afghanistan is in "cleaning up" the country, a sufficiently vague kind of claim for which one can thank the Shrub's administration. It didn't sufficiently restrict his administration to the extent that he was not willing to put the same old corrupt crew back into local positions of power, or to tolerate Karzai and his cronies.

In fact, the mantra which the United States government, the Canadian government, the English government and i suspect several other governments have used in justifying the continued fighting in Afghanistan was to defeat the Taliban. I suspect that everyone knows that the Taliban are "resurgent," and that the fighting has gotten more intense in the last two years. It would actually, now, of course, be up to Mr. Obama's administration to define a justification for our c0ntinued military presence in the country. You might also read again what i wrote, and note that i said the continuing fight against the Taliban is more problematic. One major problem being that Mr. Obama has not clearly articulated why we're doing it.

2 Replies

Do me the courtesy of not quoting The Possum, currently mascarading as "Massagat," in reference to anything i do or don't believe. That clown has no clue what i do or don't believe. For example, i am not a pacifist. He is a vile creature who has been at this site under easily dozens of screen names, and has been banned from the site as many times, because he will eventually lose what little grip he has. Given the current climate here, though, he might survive this time. I don't know if those who control the site have permanently banned him--if they have, as soon as the overworked administrators become aware of this presence, he'll be gone.

His stock in trade is the straw man--much like your claim that i said stopping the drug trade is the sole reason for support from the Afghans. However, based on what you've written at this site in your brief career, i'd say he hasn't a fraction of your intelligence. He will eventually lose what little rationality he now possesses as he fulminates against those whom he despises (nearly everyone at this site, it appears), despising them largely for political positions which he imputes to them without evidence.

Quote the fool to your heart's content, by all means. But leave me out of it.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The concept of morality disgusts me because it is, more often than not, an imposition on others which is justified by an appeal to a false universal standard. If there were such a thing as "morality," one would be obliged to point out the authority for its strictures. As i have no good reason to believe that there are any gods or goddesses, and as i cannot help but observe that moral standards are subjective, rather than objective, appeals to morality disgust me.

Fallacy of composition. Just because morality might point to an objective source (but not necessarily), it does not necessarily mean it points all to an omni-whatever, transcendent god. If you are concerned with meta ethical implications for morality, so be it.

But to keep this conversation common sense, I think most people would agree that morality is far reaching enough that most people accept the same constraints. For example, most people around the globe would agree that you can not forcibly kidnap a woman, torture her, raper her, and then kill her. The motility of war is common sense enough that most of us can agree on some basic constraints. So lets keep the moral relavitism out of it for the time being.

Setanta wrote:

As far as i can see, law derives from a consent to standards of behavior broadly enough based that people willingly submit to the inclusion of such standards in their social contracts. In that odd international contract known as international law, or the "laws of nations," the ultimatum to the government of Afghanistan, and the reaction to their non-compliance is an acceptable standard of behavior.

Sure, contractual theories are one way of identifying what the subject matter of morality is. I lean towards deontology, which overlaps with contractualist theories quite a bit. Still, I'm not sure I'm convinced that morality is so distinct from law as you claim. Contractualism is still very much a moral theory. I will honestly acknowledge that my knowledge of international jurisprudence is severely lacking, but I encourage any discussion on it, since morality has implications for how we define law and justice.

Setanta wrote:

Your reference to a factual error is laughably absurd. The article you cite refers to comments made after the United States had begun the aerial bombardment of Afghanistan prior to an invasion of their territory. Note further that the initial sentence refers to conditions under which the Taliban might discuss handing over bin Laden to a third party, and not an offer to simply hand him over. Note further that that article states that: "Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to 'hand anyone over.' " Omar referred to possibly handing over bin Laden to a third party, a neutral country. That can hardly be described as a willingness to comply with the ultimatum.

I don't think the article is absurd at all. If the Taliban were willing to hand over Osama to a third party, is that not a viable option? Shouldn't war only be a necessary last resort? If diplomatic negotiation could have brought Osama to justice (especially considering the ongoing failure to capture Obama), is that not a option worth pursuing? War is utterly destructive. I think it is only fair to the individual rights of those living in Afghanistan that if other alternatives present themselves, morally we have obligation to pursue those other means. Ultimatum? What difference would it make if a third party had kept Obama until he was tried in the International Criminal Court? Wouldn't that had been a far better outcome then killing innocent people?

Setanta wrote:

I did not say that " . . . it is the 'sole thing' which won support from the Afghani [sic] people." If you would read again what i wrote, you will see that i said that the sole thing of which Afghans approved of with regard to the Taliban as a government was that they, the Taliban, got rid of the drug lords who had preyed upon the Afghan people, as well as providing opium and/or heroin for the international trade.

Setanta wrote:

The sole thing which the Taliban had done which the people of Afghanistan universally applauded had been to get rid of the drug lords.

Sophistry. In both quotes you are simply stating that the Taliban's removal of drug lords and drug trade won significant support from the Afghani people. Whats the big deal? However, you still do not provide any factual evidence that supports your claim. Until then, it only begs the question.

Still,my only point, as you later acknowledge, is it alone enough of a justification for war? Considering innocent individual rights are at stake, it doesn't seem like a worthy enough cause . Further, unless the Afghani people explicitly seek foreign intervention, why should it be used as justification? .

Setanta wrote:

In fact, the mantra which the United States government, the Canadian government, the English government and i suspect several other governments have used in justifying the continued fighting in Afghanistan was to defeat the Taliban.

If there was a just cause to begin with, this would be it.

Setanta wrote:

You might also read again what i wrote, and note that i said the continuing fight against the Taliban is more problematic. One major problem being that Mr. Obama has not clearly articulated why we're doing it.

Agreed.

2 Replies

@bigstew,

It's not a fallacy of composition, because morality has no existence outside the minds of humans, and it is humans to ascribe its origin to a "higher power," or at the least to a universal standard. Your continued remarks about morality are rather silly in view of what people do believe, at least from the evidence of their actions, about how one is to treat one's fellows. Although people of European descent may have cleaned up their respective acts (more or less, if we're not talking Croats or Serbs, or some others), it is not, for example, axiomatic that everyone around the world thinks that one ought not "forcibly kidnap a woman, torture her, raper her, and then kill her." And there is no moral relativism in my position--i have not stated that i think there is or ought to be one set of standards used here while another is recognized there, nor have i stated that standards ought to be applied different with regard to historical eras.

You have no reason to conflate my remarks about social contracts to morality, i made those observations in lieu of silly statements about what is or is not moral. Your obsession with morality doesn't constrain me.

As for your attempt to weasel out of the clear-cut case of your error, in claiming that i was factually wrong about the government of Afghanistan being willing to hand over bin Laden, when the source you cite claims otherwise--that's not what an ultimatum is all about. If you need to have that explained to you, then you really have no business in such a discussion.

We were discussing justifications for the continuing occupation of Afghanistan. I happened to point out that the sole thing about the Taliban's government which the Afghan people applauded was the suppression of the drug lords and the drug trade. You attempted to claim that i was saying that the only reason the Afghans tolerated an international presence was upon such a basis, and attempted to claim that i had said that was the sole reason that they would tolerate an international presence--when that clearly was not what i had said at all. Now you want to make snotty remarks about begging questions, when that was not the question, at all, in that the attitudes of the Afghans to the Taliban weren't a part of the question. So whether or not i provide a source for such a claim is not germane to the question, and can hardly be said to beg it, or any other question.

You don't do very well in these types of discussion. You have attempted to deploy straw men, you have attempted to dominate the terms of the discussion with your insistence on morality, you make false accusations about what i've said with regard to morality and the relationship of the Afghans to the Taliban (akin to straw man arguments), you conflate an off-hand remark with question being discussed and falsely accuse me of begging that question, you cite a source which you allege shows me to have been factually wrong, and when i point out that by that very source you are factually wrong in making the accusation, you try to weasel out of it by pretending you don't know what an ultimatum of is, and coming up with another discussion of "morality."

I don't see much point in attempting to discuss such a topic with someone who is as consistently intellectually dishonest as you have been. It is very likely that if you continue in that vein, i'll simply start to ignore you. I'm sure that would be no hardship for you.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You have no reason to conflate my remarks about social contracts to morality, i made those observations in lieu of silly statements about what is or is not moral. Your obsession with morality doesn't constrain me.

OK then, so what are you trying to say? I took a common sense view that by in large, I think most people can agree on what is right or wrong, given our considered moral beliefs. I'm lost on how you can take a quite simple starting point and conflate it beyond belief.

When I talk about morality, I suggest that in the general sense most people recognize that direct moral standing imposes constraints on our actions. Again, common sense tells us we cannot rape and torture a woman. The same goes for morally impermissible acts in and of war. Killing innocents is wrong (but not always), given we accept they have individual rights that should be fully respected. Law should reflect these normative moral values, and as history demonstrates, it in fact does.

Setanta wrote:

As for your attempt to weasel out of the clear-cut case of your error, in claiming that i was factually wrong about the government of Afghanistan being willing to hand over bin Laden, when the source you cite claims otherwise--that's not what an ultimatum is all about. If you need to have that explained to you, then you really have no business in such a discussion.

There is no weaseling out whatsoever. You claim that the Taliban did not comply whatsoever with the ultimatum. Factually, I disagree. Further, I am directly questioning the moral requirement of the ultimatum. The ultimatum implies afalse dillema, where I argue there were other options available.

Bush states:
"the bombing [will] not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over."

Given the sheer destruction of war, and given that the war still has not apprehended Osama, I do not think it is an unreasonable option. The article merely suggests that other options were available to the US, early in the war, and that these alternatives were viable. Instead, you would justify killing innocents in pursuit of the ultimatum.

Further, Bush states: ""There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty"

I do not think Bush is the authority on such matters. Criminal culpability is only provable in court, and whether the US holds him or not, it does not matter. In my opinion, only the ICC should determine that. I do not think that is unreasonable at all, again, given the destruction of war.

Setanta wrote:

We were discussing justifications for the continuing occupation of Afghanistan.

Indeed we are, and should be. But it is important to point out that we are also discussing the original cause(s), and whether those cause(s) sufficiently justify the continuing occupation.

Setanta wrote:

I happened to point out that the sole thing about the Taliban's government which the Afghan people applauded was the suppression of the drug lords and the drug trade.

This is what you said:

Setanta wrote:

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.

And now your objection:

Setanta wrote:

You attempted to claim that i was saying that the only reason the Afghans tolerated an international presence was upon such a basis, and attempted to claim that i had said that was the sole reason that they would tolerate an international presence--when that clearly was not what i had said at all.

Well that was fairly strong wording on your part, given that you argue the basis for justification is predicated on the Taliban cleaning up the drug trade. Further, it is the only justification you make, nor do you make even slight reference to other justification.

As for the question begging remark, my objection still holds. How do you know that it was universally applauded, like you claim it to be? In fact, I would like to know how strong the support for ridding the Taliban drug trade was. If it is such an important justification, you should be able to factually prove it.

Setanta wrote:

You don't do very well in these types of discussion.

Well if that is not an obvious ad homminen, you arguments do not seem to do very well either.

Setanta wrote:

You have attempted to deploy straw men

How so? I am merely interested in your justifications concerning the Afghanistan war. I think I have reasonably responded to your claims and have not intentionally tried to mis interpret them. If your points seem weak to others, do not take it so personally.

Setanta wrote:

you have attempted to dominate the terms of the discussion with your insistence on morality

Well the whole point of putting constraints on war falls under morality does it not? If war does not fall under the constraints of morality, even though common sense tells us it obviously does, then this discussion does not concern you.

Setanta wrote:

you make false accusations about what i've said with regard to morality and the relationship of the Afghans to the Taliban (akin to straw man arguments),

Straw man. See above.

Setanta wrote:

you conflate an off-hand remark with question being discussed and falsely accuse me of begging that question,

Off hand or not, I can press you to justify so. If you can not, then it is not a reasonably justified claim is it?

Setanta wrote:

you cite a source which you allege shows me to have been factually wrong, and when i point out that by that very source you are factually wrong in making the accusation, you try to weasel out of it by pretending you don't know what an ultimatum of is, and coming up with another discussion of "morality."

Your insistence turns on complying fully with 'ultimatum'. The Talibans negotiations, the way I see it, do not violate chapter VII of the UN Charter either. Factually, my argument clearly states that the Taliban did offer compliance with US demands, albeit not fully. If that does not satisfy an ultimatum for you, so be it. Given the destruction of war, morally speaking the US ought to have given it stronger consideration. Factually, that is demonstrateable.

1 Reply

I did not know that Mr. Setanta's rational faculties had been reduced to "ad Hominem". In the past, he often tried( as in the case where he made a pitiful argument that Nazi Ideology was not based, in good measure, on left wing principles) to argue.

Now, the poor man is reduced to name calling.

Nevetheless, I will repeat my previous statement:

Setanta is between a rock and a hard place. As a peacenik, he hates war, but how can he criticize it when the savior of Western Civilization is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. I am very much afraid that Setanta did not read President Obama's speech very carefully. If he had, he would have discovered that the double-talking slippery orator in the White House told us that the withdrawal of the troops might be contingent on the situation on the ground in Afghanistan.

********************************************************

If Mr. Setanta is not a "peacenik". I apologize. However, he certainly appears to be behind on his reading. President Obama did say that the withdrawal of our troops might be contingent on the situation on the ground in Afghanistan.

This is a stance which is not going down well with the left wing. The posters on Moveon.org are furious with the President's position. Even the renown intellectual Michael Moore has excoriated the President.

Mr. Setanta really ought to keep up on his reading. I suggest he read the Wall Street Journal. At Two Million ciculation a day, it is far ahead of the New York Times.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I should think that you were smart enough to know what argumentum ad hominem means. If i had been objecting to a position you had taken, and had substituted a negative personal reflection for an argument against your position, that would have been argumentum ad hominem. That is not the case.

Not "I should think that you were smart enough," just possibly not educated in the tradition of valuing every Latin phrase. When did the Latin (aka, Roman) tradition of learning become the standard on A2K? Would you argue, using Latin phrases, if you were discussing your thinking with a Hindu, Buddhist, or Orthodox Jew? Are you somewhat Eurocentric in your concept of what reflects education? Or, must the whole world pretend to be educated in one tradition, inorder to discuss anything with you?

In effect, why do you possibly waste your time discussing anything with so many people that do not meet your intellectual standards? Is A2K your version of the bullfight, where the noble Spaniard gets to slaughter the bull in the end, even though it was no contest all along? In my own opinion, based on your encyclopedic knowledge of history, you seem to be a big fish in a little pond. That is a compliment on one hand, but it also reflects my confusion as to why you make the forum your stomping ground, so to speak, considering you are intellectually superior (in one tradition of course), in my opinion, to so many posters?

0 Replies

Foofie---Somewhere along the line, someone gave Mr. Setanta a compliment about his erudition. He then leaped to the conclusion that he was never ever wrong. Despite the fact that he has confronted evidence which showed that he was indeed greatly mistaken, his bloated ego does not allow him to reach the conclusion that, perhaps, he was mistaken and not completely correct.

In a previous discussion, Mr. Setanta indictated that the Nazi Ideology in no way shape or form ever touted principles which most people would call left wing.

When I pointed out that a large portion of the Nazi Party Platform sounded suspiciously like the bleatings of the hard left wing in the USA, Mr. Setanta did not answer. Perhaps he could not.

Note some of the key elements of the NSDAP Party Program proclaimed by Adolf Hitler Feb. 24, 1920.

--Abolition of unearned( work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

--The total confiscation of war profits

--The nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts)

--The division of profits ( profit sharing) of heavy industries

--an expansion on a larg scale of old age welfare

--abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation on land

************************
Why, these Nazi principals would make any left wing Socialists proud.

But I am sure that Mr. Setanta( who is never ever mistaken) would not agree that they are really left wing objectives.

Judge for yourself!

0 Replies

@bigstew,

bigstew- a great response to Mr. Setanta. An article from the New York Times( of course, friendly to President Obama) purports to give his rationale for continuing the war in Afghanistan. Even the New York Times notes that his speech was devised to soothe both the pro-war and anti-was group. Perhaps there was really very little of true principle in the speech and was nothing more than a political exercise.

******************

0 Replies

@bigstew,

You're not very good at this sort of thing. I suspect you just want to argue for argume's sake. I have conflated nothing. Just because i used the verb doesn't mean it is correct for you to use it. The social contract of any nation, or of the international community of nations may have notions of what right and wrong are. Individuals in those nations may allege that this has a basis in morality. That means nothing. To assume that "morality" even exists is to beg the question of its origin. If you aren't alleging the existence of a supreme being, then upon what basis do you allege that morality exists? Do you assert that it is universally agreed to? If you were to make such an assertion, you'd be obliged to prove and i assure you that not only can you not prove it has a universally agreed basis, it would be child's play to disprove that claim.

I accept the concept of a social contract, knowing full well that notions of "morality" are subjective, and that therefore, morality does not in fact exist. I accept that people agree on what is right and what is wrong, and i don't give a rat's ass if they babble on about morality.

On the basis of a consensual agreement among the majority of nations, an ultimatum for cause justifies an invasion of the ultimatum is not complied with. Mullah Omar failed to comply with the ultimatum. He made a bad faith attempt to negotiate the terms of the ultimatum.

An ultimatum is non-negotiable. That's why it's called an ultimatum. You allege the morality of the casualties which would be suffered in an invasion. Do you think an Afghan woman would rather be executed publicly in the soccer stadium in Kabul for wearing make-up in the streets than to die by the explosion of stray ordinance? Can you prove that more people died from the invasion than would have been executed by the fanatical, Wahabi inspired Taliban government? Does your moral outrage have an actual basis, or is it only conjectural?

I did not at any time state that the government of Afghanistan "did not comply whatsoever with the ultimatum." Stop erecting straw men. I simply said that they did not comply with the ultimatum, and the article you posted shows that to have been the case--you want to luridly enhance your claim by adding the qualifier "whatsoever," which i did not use. Your straw men are tedious. Don't try to pass off some bullshit to me about factual error. You made the factual error, and the article you cited demonstrates that. You can question the "moral requirement" of the ultimatum to your heart's content, and that's just shotgun argumentation. It's an attempt to avoid the issue of you having made the factual error of claiming that the government of Afghanistan was willing to comply, and as proof citing as source which contradicts you. Once again, unless you can show that the Afghans suffered more as a result of the invasion than they would have under continued Taliban rule, you have no basis for your phony moral outrage. Apparently, you would justify the killing of innocents by the Taliban to assuage your sense of moral outrage. Hypocrite.

The reason bin Laden was held to be guilty is because Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the September 11th attacks. Duh!

As far as i can see, there is no reason to any longer discuss the original cause, as it is clear, and as well from the source you cited, that Afghanistan failed to comply with the ultimatum.

Your continued crap about my remark that the sole thing about the Taliban of which the Afghan people approved was that they got rid of the drug lords demonstrates that you cannot deploy simple logic. I'm not going to argue that any longer. The remark was not about any justification for a continued international presence, it was an aside about the Taliban and the view of them by the Afghans.

Who gives a rat's ass whether or not you approve of the ultimatum process? An ultimatum is non-negotiable. That's why it is called an ultimatum. The government of Afghanistan, as it was then constituted, did not comply. That makes the Taliban responsible for any death and destruction visited on the country, since they could have avoided it by simply handing over bin Laden and any other members of Al Qaeda within their grasp. They didn't. Afghanistan suffered because of the intransigence of the Taliban. Get over it.

I seen no point in continuing to attempt a discussion with someone who employs so many logical fallacies, and who cannot even deploy logic in an attempt to discuss what i did or did not write. I'm tired of your straw men. Find someone else for your circle jerk.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The social contract of any nation, or of the international community of nations may have notions of what right and wrong are. Individuals in those nations may allege that this has a basis in morality. That means nothing. To assume that "morality" even exists is to beg the question of its origin.

And as Kant says, we could say that the subject matter of morality is rational nature grounded in autonomy. Constraints are imposed because as rational beings, we recognize that it is the most reasonable thing to do. That is in the very general sense the basis for every social contract theory (albeit Hobbesian social contractarianism). Clearly, we have a substantive claim about what the subject matter of morality is. Social contract theory IS a moral theory. I am utterly confused as to how you can miss that.

Setanta wrote:

To assume that "morality" even exists is to beg the question of its origin. If you aren't alleging the existence of a supreme being, then upon what basis do you allege that morality exists? Do you assert that it is universally agreed to? If you were to make such an assertion, you'd be obliged to prove and i assure you that not only can you not prove it has a universally agreed basis, it would be child's play to disprove that claim.

First, you keep committing straw man's when you say morality necessarily requires a transcendent, omni whatever being as a source for those values. Not so, since positing such a being is question begging. Even if we think moral values are universal (which I have no where claimed), it does not mean they necessarily point all the way to such a being.

Second, you are conflating quite a simple discussion. We have a common sense idea of what our considered moral beliefs are. We do not require universal moral values to argue such. If someone does want to argue that a moral belief is universal, it is best left to a meta ethics discussion. That is the starting point of this discussion. Stick to it.

Setanta wrote:

If you aren't alleging the existence of a supreme being, then upon what basis do you allege that morality exists? Do you assert that it is universally agreed to? If you were to make such an assertion, you'd be obliged to prove and i assure you that not only can you not prove it has a universally agreed basis, it would be child's play to disprove that claim.

See above.

Setanta wrote:

I accept the concept of a social contract, knowing full well that notions of "morality" are subjective, and that therefore, morality does not in fact exist. I accept that people agree on what is right and what is wrong, and i don't give a rat's ass if they babble on about morality.

I am seriously beginning to doubt whether you know anything about contractarianism/contractualism at all. Both are moral theories, because they impose constraints on our actions. That is exactly how a social contract theorist defines morality. Agreements are made in order to constrain actions against others. Direct moral standing is obtained through mutually consented to agreements (in the very general sense, because I know Rawlsian contractualism differes significantly from a Hobessian/Gauthier contractarianism or Kantian contractualism).

So your notion that social contracts have nothing to do with morality is flat out false. Social contracts are a moral theory, and just one at that.

Setanta wrote:

An ultimatum is non-negotiable. That's why it's called an ultimatum. You allege the morality of the casualties which would be suffered in an invasion. Do you think an Afghan woman would rather be executed publicly in the soccer stadium in Kabul for wearing make-up in the streets than to die by the explosion of stray ordinance?

I agree that humanitarian issues such as womens rights are indeed, very important. From what I have seen and read, women and young girls very much appreciate the freedom they rightfully deserve. I would call this a conditional just cause. On its owns, it may not justify war, but so long as a just cause is present (e.g. self defense against Al Qeda/Taliban), these conditional just causes can contribute to a war's overall net benefits.

So no, I would not disagree that these are very important justifications, and perhaps the only justifications worth fighting for. However, as the war is presently being conducted, I wonder if the casualties of innocents are proportional to the aims of the war. See below:

Setanta wrote:

Can you prove that more people died from the invasion than would have been executed by the fanatical, Wahabi inspired Taliban government? Does your moral outrage have an actual basis, or is it only conjectural?

Well of course I can't, because that involves hypotheticals. But keep these effects in mind:

Beginning of invasion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/terrorism.afghanistan2

A general source on civilian deaths:

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/10/06/the-imprecision-ofus-bombing-and-the-under-valuation-of-an-afghan-life.html

In between Jan-June 2009, see pg. 3-4 (so recent conduct of the war)

http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/09july31-UNAMA-HUMAN-RIGHTS-CIVILIAN-CASUALTIES-Mid-Year-2009-Bulletin.pdf

So my question to you Setanta is, are the deaths of civilians proportional to the just causes sought? In other words, are benefits of the war (ousting the Taliban, dissmantling Al Qeda and improving human rights) sufficiently proportional to the harms caused?

I have to say no. Though the causes are just, the conduct certainly is not proportional to the just causes. Thus, in my opinion the war is unjustified.

Setanta wrote:

Who gives a rat's ass whether or not you approve of the ultimatum process? An ultimatum is non-negotiable. That's why it is called an ultimatum. The government of Afghanistan, as it was then constituted, did not comply. That makes the Taliban responsible for any death and destruction visited on the country, since they could have avoided it by simply handing over bin Laden and any other members of Al Qaeda within their grasp. They didn't. Afghanistan suffered because of the intransigence of the Taliban. Get over it.

Really? See above. Innocents deaths are the responsibility of failing to comply with the ultimatum? Perhaps the ultimatum was the morally wrong action, considering negotiation terms were presented.

Spew off all you want. Your example of citing the term "whatsoever" as indicating a straw man just illustrates the substantial lack of content in your objections. You attempt to talk about this topic like you have something to contribute, but overall you are full of ****.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H20 MAN wrote:

That was then, but technology allows the US to do a much better job of identifying and hitting terrorist targets.
Our drones can see what they are about to kill and our long distance targeting is quite accurate and it's getting better.

This is arguably false. See my above post to illustrate some of the effects of the current war. Many innocents are being killed by US weaponry.

h20 MAN wrote:

The US is not the problem, the problem is that the radical Muslim terrorists have no rules of engagement.
They hide in neighborhoods, use innocent civilians as shields, employ gorilla tactics and they do not wear uniforms.
US troops are doing an incredible job and they need our support and the support of the Obama administration.

I do not disagree. Extreme religious fundamentalism is an absurdity. Further, the tactics employed are arguably immoral as well. However, this is the nature of contemporary warfare involving non state actors. What else can one do but adapt to such methods.

However, if a just war is to be conducted, one cannot conduct a war that results in the significant deaths of civilians. These are difficult wars to fight, and the US of A's continual use of asymmetric warfare only illustrates the problems the US will always have in trying to fight a just war.

Soldiers indeed need our support. But they also need to be educated in what constitutes a just or unjust war. This can go a long way in changing what kinds of wars are fought, and how these wars are fought. Soldiers need to know the morality as to why they are fighting. It is the only way to establish proper moral conduct in war. Our support lies in helping soldiers achieve this through political/military revision.

H20 MAN wrote:

Questioning if the battle for AFG is justified or not is a waste of time.
We are engaged and our warriors need to leave victorious.

Surely it matters to soldiers whether the reasons for fighting a war are just or not. To simply be there fighting, for no good reason at all, is self defeating. If soldiers are going to risk their lives, I argue it better be for a damn good cause.

0 Replies

You have not demonstrated that morality exists outside a subjective human judgment. You continue to ignore the implications of the term ultimatum. You continue to excuse the Taliban of any responsibility of the decisions taken by Mullah Omar when confronted with an ultimatum. It is a matter of complete indifference to me how you judge my ability to comprehend anything. You are a complete failure rhetorically speaking in this exchange.

Rant on to your heart's content, you've proven nothing, and you've not even advanced a convincing argument. As i say, i've grown tired of your antics. You may rant on without me.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You have not demonstrated that morality exists outside a subjective human judgment.

I have not claimed it has, nor do I need to for the purpose of this discussion. I am quite willing to accept a social contract theory, deontological theory, utilitarianism, or, whatever. Of course these theories may end up with different judgments regarding the permissibility of an act, but the point is, none of these theories claim that moral facts exist outside of human judgment (Kant's deontology comes close, but that just requires interpretation and hammering out the details). Social contract theory and Kant's deontology both emphasize reason grounded in autonomy as the subject matter of morality, whereas consequentialism (in general), consists in the maximization of non moral goodness e.g. individual interests. I do not think your objection holds much weight in regards to this discussion. If you want a definitive answer to meta ethics, you won't get one, nor can I provide you with one. My point is we can still talk about morality in the general sense, without getting into foundational issues. I do not think this assumption begs the question, given we can agree on reasons for or against the moral permissibility of an act.

Setanta wrote:

You continue to ignore the implications of the term ultimatum.

If it makes you happy dude, I was not correct about you being factually incorrect. The Taliban did not comply with the ultimatum. However, though I was not explicit enough about it (and that is short sightedness on my part), my purpose was to point out the moral implications of the ultimatum. Was it reasonable to assert a strict ultimatum, given alternatives provided, and given the effects of war? I do not think it was.

Setanta wrote:

You continue to excuse the Taliban of any responsibility of the decisions taken by Mullah Omar when confronted with an ultimatum.

No of course I do not excuse the Taliban. They are an oppressive and therefore immoral regime in various regards. My only concern is that given the effects of war, were the Taliban's negotiations reasonable? Of course in a perfect world, the Taliban would realize they are in the wrong, accept the ultimatum, and remove themselves from power with no harmful consequences. However, morality is complex, and the effects are tricky. The Taliban have reasons (albeit arguably weak ones) for their self preservation as do we for ours. Thus, morality requires we do what what has the best overall consequences. So was the ultimatum a necessary last resort? Again, I don't think so.

If you want to excuse yourself from the discussion, so be it. The talk, however, has been illuminating. Aside from the meta ethical digressions, factors pertaining to the justification for the war has helped developed my position regarding the proportionality between the causes for war, and the conduct of the war itself.

0 Replies

Is the war in Afghanistan Justified?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know