NationStates Jolt Archive

Im just wondering if you feel the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was justified.
feel free to discuss, poll coming

Im just wondering if you feel the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was justified.
feel free to discuss, poll coming

Now, a stricter anti-terrorist policy? Certainly.

An immediate and not thought-out invasion based merely on anger? No.

"Anger makes a poor advisor."-- Hungarian ptoverb

Been done many times.

The fact that many of the people blasting the US over Iraq has troops in Afghanistan is an indication.

It was justified; Iraq on the other hand.....

I dunno.

It seems to me that since that's where the terrorists who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks were hiding, it seems pretty justified to me. Too bad we've decided to back a dictator in neighboring Pakistan, though.

(BTW, does anyone recall whether or not Osama bin Laden officially took responsibility for the 9/11 attacks? I only remember him sending his condolences to the US right after and claiming innocence....)

Now, a stricter anti-terrorist policy? Certainly.

An immediate and not thought-out invasion based merely on anger? No.



Actually conquering it was well thought out. How quickly did it fall?

Now dealing with it afterwards, yes that was not thought out at all.....

Absolutely not, no more than an assault on the United States by, say, Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, and a good portion of the rest of the world would be justified in response to that country's history of belligerent aggression and state terrorism.

Of course it was...I don't recall many people complaining about it at the time, at least.

But then we screwed it all up...had we devoted the resources we've used in Iraq to helping Afghanistan, they'd probably be much farther along in terms of rebuilding the country and setting up a legitimate government. There would also be a much better chance that we'd have caught Osama by now, since we could have sent more force to Afghanistan.

We'd have a much easier time of things if the average Muslim could look at an improved nation, and wonder why things aren't that way in his neck of the woods.

Iraq could have waited, if it was even necessary, until Afghanistan was a sure thing. Now the future of neither nation is certain, all we know is that the U.S. is learning what a pain in the ass nation-building can be when you screw up the process early.

Actually conquering it was well thought out. How quickly did it fall?

Now dealing with it afterwards, yes that was not thought out at all.....

Actually taking a country like Afghanist an is like, 10% fo the battle. HOLDING it is the problem.

Of course it was...I don't recall anyone complaining about it at the time, either in or out of the U.S.

Plenty of people complained about it. The US media did not see fit to mention dissent that bypassed the predefined limits of legitimate discourse, as usual.

Yes. Afghanistan was a major stronghold for radical terrorists and the Taliban government of Afghanistan was fully supporting and sheltering them. Despite numerous requests and warnings to turn suspects over, they refused. They openly sided with Al Quaeda. So using air strikes and special forces--aided rebel armies within the country, we helped the anti-taliban forces overthrow the Taliban and we proceeded to attack Al Quaeda strongholds in Afghanistan. Which is wonderful.

We helped Afghanistan form a new government and they are relatively stable, considering. That's wonderful too.

Then we completely lost sight of the War on Terror and attackedIraq instead, allowing Al Quaeda forces to regroup, escape and relocate including al-Zarquawi who managed to get from eastern Afganistan to Iraq right under our noses to lead an Al Quaeda movement right there in Iraq. Instead of beig contained in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan like they would have been if we weren't so busy playing around in Iraq.

Not too wonderful. :p

War is like theft. For both, there’s better excuses for them than others, but ultimately they’re never justified. My opinions on both anyway.

Actually taking a country like Afghanist an is like, 10% fo the battle. HOLDING it is the problem.

Well that is true and Shrubby left to early.

Alexander did beat them especially when he practically commited genocide on anybody that would even remotely fight him. Whole villages laid to waste.

What would have probably ended the troube would have been going into the "badlands" of Pakistan to deal the tribes and a major rebuilding effort placing priority of putting the men to work on rebuilding their country.

The men have nothing to do; that always leads to problems.

Plenty of people complained about it. The US media did not see fit to mention dissent that bypassed the predefined limits of legitimate discourse, as usual.

I wasn't really speaking of people in general, I was thinking more along the lines of national goverments.

France, Germany and Russia didn't object much regarding Afghanistan, IIRC.

Actually taking a country like Afghanist an is like, 10% fo the battle. HOLDING it is the problem.
We seem to be holding it ok, its a much more calm place than say Iraq.

We seem to be holding it ok, its a much more calm place than say Iraq.

Yes, but we've been there longer. It still wouldn't operate on it's own.

Yes. Afghanistan was a major stronghold for radical terrorists and the Taliban government of Afghanistan was fully supporting and sheltering them. Despite numerous requests and warnings to turn suspects over, they refused. They openly sided with Al Quaeda.

Should your neighborhood be bombed because of US crimes in Iraq? Are you willing to see your house and family blown to pieces by Cuban, Venezuelan, and Iranian bombs for the sake of an ethic of vengeance, or does that only apply to Muslims?

We seem to be holding it ok, its a much more calm place than say Iraq.

That's just because there aren't as many Americans to shoot at as in Iraq, so the American people don't give a rip about what happens there.

Afghanistan is to Iraq what Korea was to Vietnam.

Same struggle. One just, one not. And the just one is the one that's forgotten.

We seem to be holding it ok, its a much more calm place than say Iraq.

The Taliban is regaining control because the US and its puppets have been proven incapable of keeping order. Give me a break.

I wasn't really speaking of people in general, I was thinking more along the lines of national goverments.

France, Germany and Russia didn't object much regarding Afghanistan, IIRC.


Yup, the world pretty much entirely stood behind the US when they went to Afghanistan to get Osama and sort out the Taliban. Osama, if you recall, was the chap who actually attacked the US. Support for the US dwindled a fair amount when they moved all their resources to screwing up their Iraq occupation.

New Zealand has SAS and engineers in Afghanistan and no one in Iraq. I'm happy with that.

We seem to be holding it ok, its a much more calm place than say Iraq.

It's not getting the attention like Iraq. A coworker is from Kabul. He says his family (Kabul and Khandahar(sp?)) says it's pretty bad. They still have to carry their weapons for safety. One uncle says it's almost like the Soviets. The cities are held but the countryside is returning to Taliban control.

The Taliban is regaining control because the US and its puppets have been proven incapable of keeping order. Give me a break.
I used "calm" in the sense that less Americans are dying there, its not a daily thing as it is in Iraq.

Yup, the world pretty much entirely stood behind the US when they went to Afghanistan to get Osama and sort out the Taliban.

The world's governments. Large portions of the world's population, especially in Third World countries, were not so enthusiastic about the prospect of yet another war implemented by the usual perpentrators of terrorist atrocities - superpowers and their clients.

I used "calm" in the sense that less Americans are dying there, its not a daily thing as it is in Iraq.

Non-Americans are people too.

Non-Americans are people too.

:eek:

BLASPHEMY!

Non-Americans are people too.
very true, but it is less unstable than Iraq

:eek:

BLASPHEMY!

If that was sarcasm, El Oh El.

If that was sarcasm, El Oh El.

Roger-roger. Copy that Lima-Oscar-Lima, over.

very true, but it is less unstable than Iraq

Well, true. But the Us has been in Afghanistan longer than in Iraq. Why we;re there in the first place I do not know, but oh well.

It's not my country over there. At least, I don't thin ktoo many Canadian troops are over there...

Should your neighborhood be bombed because of US crimes in Iraq? Are you willing to see your house and family blown to pieces by Cuban, Venezuelan, and Iranian bombs for the sake of an ethic of vengeance, or does that only apply to Muslims?

Do you really think I give a rat's ass if Al Quaeda worships Allah or God or the Easter Frickin' Bunny? Any crimes committed by U.S. Troops in Iraq are investigated for what they are; Crimes. Just like those Abu Ghraib guards. The trials are already ongoing. In war, civilians die. Houses get destroyed. It's one of the most gruesome aspects of war; the effect it has on the innocent. But SANE leaders don't target civilians! They don't convince young men and women that their particular brand of invisible man wants them to blow up anybody they can reach. And sane governments don't support these madmen. Frankly I'm ashamed that the U.S. did when it suited their needs(during the Cold War). That's a tenfold larger crime thananything that's happened in Iraq.

Unfortunately, Henry Kissinger will never see a jail cell. :(

life sucked in Afganastan, people were denied their basic human rights by a tyrannical islamofascist regime - now they're more or less gone and things are getting better - I'm ashamed wee didn't invade sooner

Schrandtopia']life sucked in Afganastan, people were denied their basic human rights by a tyrannical islamofascist regime - now they're more or less gone and things are getting better - I'm ashamed wee didn't invade sooner

No. You should be ashamed that our government subsidized theirs for years.

Do you really think I give a rat's ass if Al Quaeda worships Allah or God or the Easter Frickin' Bunny? Any crimes committed by U.S. Troops in Iraq are investigated for what they are; Crimes.

Except when they are committed on command.

In war, civilians die. Houses get destroyed. It's one of the most gruesome aspects of war; the effect it has on the innocent. But SANE leaders don't target civilians! They don't convince young men and women that their particular brand of invisible man wants them to blow up anybody they can reach. And sane governments don't support these madmen.

Then we have neither sane leaders nor a sane government, since the US has both used indiscriminate violence and supported murderous religious fundamentalists in Iraq.

Frankly I'm ashamed that the U.S. did when it suited their needs(during the Cold War). That's a tenfold larger crime thananything that's happened in Iraq.

In some cases, like Vietnam, yes, the crimes were larger in terms of casualties then.

Unfortunately, Henry Kissinger will never see a jail cell. :(

But no one suggests a Chilean, Vietnamese, or Cambodian invasion to change that. It's an obvious double standard.

Schrandtopia']life sucked in Afganastan, people were denied their basic human rights by a tyrannical islamofascist regime - now they're more or less gone and things are getting better - I'm ashamed wee didn't invade sooner

Actually the Soviet invasion led to your "islamofascist" setup.

The Taliban for all their faults brought order. Heavy handed but they did it.

No. You should be ashamed that our government subsidized theirs for years.

who says I'm not?

The Taliban for all their faults brought order. Heavy handed but they did it.

and we couldn't have done that? the UN couldn't have done that?

Schrandtopia']who says I'm not?

Phew.

But anyway, I think the US is there in part, for oil.

Schrandtopia']who says I'm not?

I did.

Just now. :p

...

...

...

What?

The Taliban for all their faults brought order. Heavy handed but they did it.

I would take any chaos over order by the taliban.

Phew.

But anyway, I think the US is there in part, for oil.

You mean the pipeline?

I would take any chaos over order by the taliban.

Well you live with 20 years of constant fighting and we can talk about that again.

Then we have neither sane leaders nor a sane government, since the US has both used indiscriminate violence and supported murderous religious fundamentalists in Iraq.

prove to me that the United States of America has endorsed the use of indiscriminate violence against civilians in Iraq and I'll stop paying my taxes

Well you live with 20 years of constant fighting and we can talk about that again.

thats pretty much what the Afghan people had with the taliban

Schrandtopia']thats pretty much what the Afghan people had with the taliban

And without.

We seem to be holding it ok, its a much more calm place than say Iraq.

That's because the coalition forces pretty much have left the southern areas to the taliban and do not venture there much......unlike Iraq where resources have to be protected...the southern AFG taliban stonghold have no resources that needs patrolling and stuff.

The bungling of the administration did not start with Iraq, it started in Afghanistan itself what with the recruiting of dubious warlords and their mercenary armies (some of whom are of the same stuff as the taliban) as a tradeoff for lesser US infantry on ground...

and then the Kunduz airlift and the delaying of Tora Bora operations and the outsourcing of the war to the Pakis...

Everytime a short sighted US policy comes back to bite them in the ass, I keep hoping that maybe just maybe they will be more sensible the next time...but no...:(

Schrandtopia']thats pretty much what the Afghan people had with the taliban
Taliban was only one group. You forgot all the Jihadis and more importantly; the warlords.....

And without.

And Afghanistan makes a pretty strong argument against Anarchy....

Well you live with 20 years of constant fighting and we can talk about that again.

I repeat this ad nauseum but it is all in vain.

taliban != mujahideen.

There would have been no fighting and no taliban if the Rabbani-Massoud govt were not allowed to fall by the neglect of the US.

And Afghanistan makes a pretty strong argument against Anarchy....

Yes, indeed.

No. Attacking another nations morally illegal.

Beside that, what is good for Afghanistan People is not from America's view. They forgot the culture.

No. Attacking another nations morally illegal.

Beside that, what is good for Afghanistan People is not from America's view. They forgot the culture.

Morals are subjective.

But I do agree partially with the second point. But theere is a time when you must step in.

No. Attacking another nations morally illegal.

the hell it is, the moral thing to do it often to invade a country

Beside that, what is good for Afghanistan People is not from America's view. They forgot the culture.

they were beating women in the streets and killing Christians - screw their culture

Schrandtopia']the hell it is, the moral thing to do it often to invade a country



they were beating women in the streets and killing Christians - screw their culture

Morals are subjective.

Proof of second point, please? Now, I do NOT agree with killing people for absolutely no reason, but their culture needs to be respected. Their culture doesn'tsay "kill Christians, beat women". However, your rights end where someone else's start.

I repeat this ad nauseum but it is all in vain.

taliban != mujahideen.

There would have been no fighting and no taliban if the Rabbani-Massoud govt were not allowed to fall by the neglect of the US.

Read #45 ;)

they were beating women in the streets and killing Christians - screw their culture

Not before the Soviet Invasion.....

Their culture doesn'tsay "kill Christians, beat women".

sorry to tell you chief, but it does - look at the situation on the ground - no matter what islam means in the west thats what islamic culture ment in Afghanistan previous to the invasion

Morals are subjective.

Proof of second point, please? Now, I do NOT agree with killing people for absolutely no reason, but their culture needs to be respected. Their culture doesn'tsay "kill Christians, beat women". However, your rights end where someone else's start.

That would depend on what one's definition of culture is.

According to the Q'uran, what they were doing was reprehensible.

According to their culture, a culture of Oppress the Woman, Kill the Infidel, and Two Eyes for an Eye, it's perfectly acceptable. (Case in point: One boy in an Elementary-level school looks at the daughter of another clan funny. Next day the boy is murdered by members of said clan. The day after that, the girl and her clan are all slaughtered, cut up, and used as fertilizer by the boy's clan. And that's something that did, in fact, happen (long before 9/11, though).)

That would depend on what one's definition of culture is.

According to the Q'uran, what they were doing was reprehensible.

According to their culture, a culture of Oppress the Woman, Kill the Infidel, and Two Eyes for an Eye, it's perfectly acceptable. (Case in point: One boy in an Elementary-level school looks at the daughter of another clan funny. Next day the boy is murdered by members of said clan. The day after that, the girl and her clan are all slaughtered, cut up, and used as fertilizer by the boy's clan. And that's something that did, in fact, happen (long before 9/11, though).)

f it is not peaceful, then invade.

However, all the Mulims I have met are perfectly peaceful, smart people. Very smart and peaceful people.

Not before the Soviet Invasion.....

Well the only Afghan info I really have is from reading Kite Runner but that certainly sounds true enough from what I've heard from other sources as well.

A good article on this

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume13/laxmibai.html
Brief history of the Afghan War

The Afghan war had its roots in a series of overthrows starting in 1973 when Mohammad Daoud overthrew King Zahir Shah. In 1975, resistance to the communist regime began as uprisings. The Afghan Islamist factions of the resistance were favored by Pakistan , Saudi Arabia and the US over Afghan traditionalist and royalist factions. After the Soviet 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan selected seven Afghan Islamist groups , trained thousands of their members and supplied them with billions of dollars of weapons, aid, and support to fight the Soviets and the communist regime in Afghanistan. The CIA and Pakistan ’s ISI in association with Saudi intelligence set up an arms and aid pipeline to keep the mujaheddin supplied from Pakistan . They also collaborated closely with each other in planning military and political strategy for their mujaheddin clients.

During the period 1979-1989 the Soviets fought to quell the Afghan resistance by repeated assaults such as aerial bombing of villages that resulted in large numbers of civilian casualties and displacements. The mujaheddin practiced guerilla warfare and fought for control over various regions with Pakistan-supplied arms and training. Beginning in 1986, the US supplied Stinger missiles to the mujaheddin to further increase the Soviet cost of involvement in Afghanistan . The mujaheddin did not always fight cleanly; for instance many commanders were paid by the ISI and CIA to launch missile attacks on Kabul city that resulted in large civilian casualties [ii]. Pakistani and Saudi authorities co-opted the initial Afghan nationalist resistance to defeat the Soviet Army and topple its proxy Communist regime in Kabul . This was performed by sustained political, military and material support of the most radical of Afghan Islamists Hikmatyar and Sayyaf.

The Afghan mujaheddin supported by the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, made repeated attempts to engineer total military victory and political dominance for their particular Salafi clients Hikmatyar and Sayyaf. As a result of Saudi and Pakistani influence, multiple attempts to bring about sustainable military or political culminations with cooperation of other Afghan mujaheddin and exile groups failed because they did not grant Hikmatyar such total military or political dominance [iii] [iv] [v].

Jihadis from Pakistan , Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries participated in the Afghan War; notable were Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri. Numerous organizations flourished by receiving their share of aid and/or weapons for the jihad and subsequently gained in power and prestige. Some of these groups later coalesced into Al Qaeda. Under President Zia Ul Haq and his Islamisation program, which ran in tandem with the Afghan jihad, religious parties in Pakistan gained influence through the burgeoning number of madrassas funded by Arab donors aimed at indoctrinating young people for the jihad.

Under pressure from military conflict in Afghanistan and political compulsions in Moscow , the Soviet Army finally withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. The US and Soviets reached an agreement and completely disengaged from the Afghan conflict in 1991, even though no stable settlement for restoring peace in Afghanistan could be reached between the superpowers or various Afghan factions. In the post-1991 period, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia continued to pursue their previous policies of fueling the conflict by avoiding compromise with other mujaheddin groups and attempting to engineer a total military victory for Hikmatyar and Sayyaf [vi] [vii].

Many Afghan commanders and exile groups considered the Afghan Jihad to have ended after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. However, the prerogative for ending the conflict was out of their control due to Pakistani and Saudi obduracy. The Pakistani commitment to engineering victory for the radical Islamist Hikmatyar can also be seen in the fact that two civilian governments of Pakistan, that of Prime Minister Junejo in 1988 and Benazir Bhutto in 1990, were dismissed, in order to enable the Pakistani Army and the ISI to continue their Afghan policy.

In the years 1989-2001, it is estimated that approximately one million Afghans were killed. [[I]Note that this causalty count exceeds that of the count during the Soviet occupation] Specifically, the period between 1989-1995 was marked by large-scale civic disorder and destruction, lawlessness and conflict. Notable was the fighting in Kabul in 1992-1994 in which 20,000 Afghans civilians are estimated to have been killed.

In 1994, Hikmatyar was abandoned by Pakistan and the newly supported Taliban militia gradually won over large tracts of war-weary Afghanistan . Pakistani jihadis fought alongside the Taliban with the Pakistani Army and ISI providing military planning and support. The Taliban's military victories came after not only driving back its chief opponents in the Northern Alliance and Hizb-e-Wahadat, but also after carrying out massacres of Afghan civilians in which the Pakistanis also participated [viii] [ix] [x] [xi].

At the time of the US invasion in 2001, the Taliban were presiding over an oppressive regime not recognized by any country except Pakistan and Saudi Arabia , and entrenched in a civil war against the Northern Alliance . The Afghan economy was in ruins with no prospects for reconstruction; Afghan women were forced out of work and Afghan girls forced out of schools by state decree. Under Taliban patronage, Osama Bin Laden and his allied organizations were operating camps in Afghanistan to train jihadis for guerilla warfare and terrorist attacks on a global scale.

Clearly, the power and prestige which jihadi Islamism gained in the Afghan conflict derived from the billions of dollars of weapons, aid, and training, and state patronage which US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan supplied to their clients during that period. It is also clear that any jihadi victories were of the pyrrhic kind which may be ascribed to jihadi Islamists and their ISI and Saudi sponsors preferring to preside over the most horrific destruction rather than seek compromise. Unfortunately such a destructive conflict is now mythologized and eulogized as a landmark victory by radical propaganda through out the Islamic world. This is facilitated by the continued maintenance of official denial by the US , Saudi Arabia and Pakistan about their roles in the Afghan War.

As any close observer of the region would tell you, the country would have been a lot more peaceful and stable if not for the intereference by Pakistan which wanted to have their proxies in Kabul (for various reasons, google on "strategic depth", narco-drug conflict economy, the nearing expiration of the Durand treaty and rise of pashtun nationalism etc)...

It is not like the Afghan mujahideen were all fighting amongst themselves. The Saudis and Pakis wanted a sunni islamist regime that would suit their agenda and without other powers to back them, the Rabbani-Massoud regime fell and the taliban took over, primarily because the US and the world in general left Afghanistan to the Saudis and Pakis.

That resulted in the taliban, more than anything else. The taliban were proxies foisted on the hapless Afghans by the Saudis and Pakis. Calling them mujahideen or successors to the mujahideen is an insult to the mujahideens like Massoud who lived and died for Afghanistan.

However, all the Mulims I have met are perfectly peaceful, smart people. Very smart and peaceful people.

same here, but I've never met muslims who grew up in fundimentalist Afghanistan - have you?

Schrandtopia']same here, but I've never met muslims who grew up in fundimentalist Afghanistan - have you?

Not all Muslims from Afghanistan are fundamentalist either.

Over-generalization, that is.

f it is not peaceful, then invade.

However, all the Mulims I have met are perfectly peaceful, smart people. Very smart and peaceful people.

As have been all the Muslims I've met.

But I've never met a Pakistani or Afghani Muslim in Pak'ghanistan. Not all of them are 'teh ebol' (perhaps not even most?), but a good deal are. And it's not because they're bad people, it's because of their culture. A culture so pervasive that when one boy is murdered, let alone when a family murders another, its not even investigated by the police.

Not all Muslims from Afghanistan are fundamentalist either.

never said they were

As have been all the Muslims I've met.

But I've never met a Pakistani or Afghani Muslim in Pak'ghanistan. Not all of them are 'teh ebol' (perhaps not even most?), but a good deal are. And it's not because they're bad people, it's because of their culture. A culture so pervasive that when one boy is murdered, let alone when a family murders another, its not even investigated by the police.

Well, if Pythogria existed, my missio nstatement for this campaign would be, "To Restore Order." Wow. You actually changed my opinion.

And it's not because they're bad people, it's because of their culture.

I'm not about to condemn a whole people but at some point your culture stops and you take personal responsibility - some people are very much to blame

Schrandtopia']I'm not about to condemn a whole people but at some point your culture stops and you take personal responsibility - some people are very much to blame

Well, then. Cicero was an evil, evil man.

The Taliban should not have been allowed to continue, for supporting the organisation that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. The USA should have done a better job to maintain the strength and power of the democratic Afghan government, which has already lost control of large areas. Instead of rushing into Iraq that is, leaving Afghanistan under-staffed.

It seems to me that since that's where the terrorists who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks were hiding, it seems pretty justified to me. Too bad we've decided to back a dictator in neighboring Pakistan, though.
Pakistan isn't as bad as Uzbekistan (also a US ally). Musharraff doesn't perpetrate massacres and is not a complete autocrat (there is some representative democracy).

Absolutely not, no more than an assault on the United States by, say, Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, and a good portion of the rest of the world would be justified in response to that country's history of belligerent aggression and state terrorism.
If the US has been committing atrocities against those countries they would be justified in changing the regime in Washington.

Was Afghanistan justified?

In blowing up the towers? Of course!

*runs away*

Morals are subjective.

Proof of second point, please? Now, I do NOT agree with killing people for absolutely no reason, but their culture needs to be respected. Their culture doesn'tsay "kill Christians, beat women". However, your rights end where someone else's start.
Oh look another "leftist" puts moral relativism above women's rights.

You are an apologist for terrorism.

You are an apologist for terrorism.

Only Sith deal in absolutes.

*fwing fwiiing fwiiiiiiing*

However, all the Mulims I have met are perfectly peaceful, smart people. Very smart and peaceful people.
Yeah try and make us look like Islamphobic bigots. It's not about Muslims, it's about Afghans.

Only Sith deal in absolutes.

*fwing fwiiing fwiiiiiiing*
booo! Star Wars! booo!

It's not about Muslims, it's about Afghans.

Which ones?

http://jolo.jmk.su.se/students/global04/mediaday/glocal/Afghanis.jpg

These freedom loving fighters for justice?

http://jolo.jmk.su.se/students/global04/mediaday/glocal/Afghanis.jpg

Or these angry terrorists out for blood and burquas?

Betcha can't spot the difference.

I think the Invasion of Afghanistan was very justifible because the Taliban were openly supporting Bin laden and his thugs, even suppling each other and if you do remember they did attack the United States inflicting over 3 thousend casualties, now on December 7 1941 when the US was attacked you didn't bother thinking about it then so why should you think about the War on terror now?

The Taliban should not have been allowed to continue, for supporting the organisation that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. The USA should have done a better job to maintain the strength and power of the democratic Afghan government, which has already lost control of large areas. Instead of rushing into Iraq that is, leaving Afghanistan under-staffed.The former Governor of Texas shouldn't have been talking to the Taliban about building an oil pipe line through Afghanistan when he was still Governor. Afghanistan was way overdue.

It was a reactionary invasion. No military strategist would have anticipated capturing Osama Bin Laden, nor did they, they merely occupied Afghanistan due to its being an Islamic fundamentalist state with a risible military, that nonetheless served a purpose in disguising the shock of the Buch administration.

Yes it was justified. In fact, we were way too merciful on Afghanistan. An example should have been made that would have terrified anyone even considering attacking our land.

Yes it was justified. In fact, we were way too merciful on Afghanistan. An example should have been made that would have terrified anyone even considering attacking our land.

Oh, that's a brilliant strategy to follow. What 'examples' should be made then, please tell us.

Yes it was justified. In fact, we were way too merciful on Afghanistan. An example should have been made that would have terrified anyone even considering attacking our land.
I didnt know you could be too merciful

Afghanistan was more than justified. Iraq was not.

Schrandtopia']prove to me that the United States of America has endorsed the use of indiscriminate violence against civilians in Iraq and I'll stop paying my taxes

Read about the Nov. 2004 Falluja Massacre, that is the most clear-cut example that comes to mind. It was too long ago for me to find you the articles I read on the subject with any ease, but I recall that Naomi Klein had a rather interesting piece in the Guardian dealing with the subject. The use of white phosphorus, furthermore, in civilian areas is most definitely indiscriminate, and the US military admitted to doing so. The aerial bombardments preceding it also had numerous civilian casualties, though they were justified with the familiar "al-Zarqawi safehouse" propaganda invention.

Just like Iraq, Afghanistan wasn't justified in the very least http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif

Just like Iraq, Afghanistan wasn't justified in the very least http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif
So what was wrong with bringing the slightly less oppressive legitimate government of Afghanistan back into power?

I didnt know you could be too merciful
Sure you can. It shows weakness and invites further attacks.

So what was wrong with bringing the slightly less oppressive legitimate government of Afghanistan back into power?
the argument could be made that the "legitimate government" has no power outside of a few blocks in kabul. Further that the Northern alliance and other groups like them rule the vast majority of country. Since they are basically the same as the taliban, the situation now is a tabilan-like leadership with the added bonus of thousands of civilians killed by the US. Im not saying I argee with that, but some might.

When you are attacked by an enemy who wants you dead, what do you do? If WWII taught us anything, it's that you should never depend on apeasement. After all, Britian and France gave Hitler an inch and he took Poland. It just doesn't bring peace for long.

The US invasion of Afghanistan was more than justified. After all, the Taliban openly supported AL-quieda...alot. The taliban gave the terrorists supplies and training ground. al-quieda was an Islamofacsist organization who supported global Islamofascism. They were going to attack again. The US has nearly 300 million people. We're not going to let any nation get away with a direct attack.

As for the civillian casualties, give me proof that the US is a terrorist nation focused on killing civillians. Civvillians always died in wars. If not from faulty missile guidence systems and shellshocked soldiers, then from Islamofascist car bombs whose main purpose is to scare a population into submission. It's a fact of life. Compared to other wars, these civillian cassualties are pretty light, especially compared to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Isreali-Palistinian conflicts, and WWII. Find one civillian wounded or killed by an American on purpose(terrorists don't count as civillians. Terrorists are those blowing up the civillians) and there will be a hundred killid by terrorists on purpose. If the Soviet-Afghani conflict taught us anything, it's that if you don't stabalize a nation after you chop off the "head", it will go to hell pretty fast.