Jump to content

Was the US war in Iraq/Afghan preventable?


Recommended Posts

It has been stated by many that the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal wars.

 

What could have ordinary citizens who didn't want war done to prevent the US-led war?

 

What was it that fueled the wars? Was it 9/11? Fear of nuclear weapons or desire for oil?

 

What could have ordinary Iraqis, Afghans and Americans done to make sure war did not take place?

 

What could the UN have done?

 

 

It has now been confirmed that the wars were a big mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

IMO, we should have taken the sympathy and well-wishes most of the world was openly offering after 9/11 and we should have used that to form a strong diplomatic mission to stop the active and passive

And give it to whom?  Saddam was no more crazy than the average bigman in control of a huge reservoir of oil, or gold, or rubber, or diamonds, or coltan, or bananas, or whatever. The thugs running

Yep. Your admission that you omitted those adjectives because you think them redundant is welcome - it justifies my paraphrase, which I found necessary instead of quotation because of the wiggle roo

1. It has been stated by many that the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal wars.

By whose authority were these accusations legally authenticated?

 

2. What could have ordinary citizens who didn't want war done to prevent the US-led war?

Unarmed people are only sheeple.

 

3. What was it that fueled the wars? Was it 9/11? Fear of nuclear weapons or desire for oil?

Ans. Possibly all of the above, and a Mad Man seeking more power (Saddam), plus a huge poppy field called Afghanistan.

.

4. What could have ordinary Iraqis, Afghans and Americans done to make sure war did not take place?

Not a damned thing except wait for an outcome, which we all did.

 

5. What could the UN have done?

When we consider a "World Wide Military Government" led by the UN, to control us all, doesn't that in itself make you wonder?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, we should have taken the sympathy and well-wishes most of the world was openly offering after 9/11 and we should have used that to form a strong diplomatic mission to stop the active and passive funding of terrorists all over the world. Quietly strangling them is infinitely preferable to giving them a worldwide media stage for recruitment.

 

I don't think you can ever fight terrorism with conventional methods since it obviously has the reverse effect most people wanted. It was a small percentage of already wealthy warmongers who profited from pursuing those wars. We are NOT safer because of them. We were fooled into thinking the military response was a strong and smart response, and it's proved to be neither.

 

And while negotiations progressed with the world leaders, we should have gone after Osama bin Laden covertly and taken him out in EXACTLY the same way he was eventually removed. He died like the coward he was, with no martyr's fanfare and no grave to attract mourners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

America was spoiling for a fight (and revenge) after 9-11, but prudence and reason should have prevailed, and there were Americans (I being one of them) who should have spoken up more loudly about the ridiculousness of the Bush administration's claims for invading Iraq. At least Al Qaida was in Afghanistan.

 

I wish people would smarten up about this "desire for oil" mentality. Oil is wealth, and wealth is power. Period. You don't want a madman to have power, so yeah, you go in and take control of the oil away from him. And you also don't want the next random madman (or fanatical organization) to wander along and become the next dictator and controller of all that power, So all this whining about "we only went in there for the oil" (as if we only went in there to get cheap gasoline) is malarkey. I heard the same whining about why we supposedly went into Vietnam, and they produce between ¼ and ½ of 1 percent of the world's oil. Whoop-dee-doo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wish people would smarten up about this "desire for oil" mentality. Oil is wealth, and wealth is power. Period. You don't want a madman to have power, so yeah, you go in and take control of the oil away from him.

And give it to whom?

 

Saddam was no more crazy than the average bigman in control of a huge reservoir of oil, or gold, or rubber, or diamonds, or coltan, or bananas, or whatever. The thugs running the show in the countries of Pipelinistan generally are an unattractive lot, but the US seems OK with that, even seems to prefer it - the comparative sanity of the Iranian rulers, for example, does not lead to US approval.

 

 

So all this whining about "we only went in there for the oil" (as if we only went in there to get cheap gasoline) is malarkey.
I heard the same whining about why we supposedly went into Vietnam, and
they produce between ¼ and ½ of 1 percent of the world's oil.
Whoop-dee-doo.

As with Vietnam, the great majority of that particular whining is found in the objections to it, the revisions of history now being floated to obscure the actual launching of the Iraq invasion, and not elsewhere.

 

As with Vietnam, the bulk of the people who were trying hard to keep the US out of Iraq had much better grounds. And their far more accurate accounts of what happened are still not getting much air.

 

The first and most basic task in preventing one's country from taking that skid road is to not hand overt political power to men like Richard Cheney.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was, I believe, well known that Bush and others (notably Cheney) were spoiling for a fight.

So, I think the answer to "What could have ordinary citizens who didn't want war done to prevent the US-led war?" was that they could have voted for the other guys.

 

The only fear about the nukes was that Hans Blix and his team would complete their investigation and prove that Saddam didn't have nukes.So they rushed into a war on the basis of the discredited "dodgy dossier"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier

 

Ewmon, when I first started reading your post I honestly wasn't sure which madman you meant. The one we installed in Iraq or the one in the white house who thought that the sensible reaction to an attack by Saudis was to launch a war with the country next door.

 

It's my belief that, had the Americans chosen to drop food on Afghanistan, rather than bombs they would have won more friends and it would have cost them less money.

Of course it would also have saved the lives of more people among the coalition forces than were killed on 9/11 and God knows how many Afghans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

 

Was the US war in Iraq/Afghan preventable?

 

Yes. Had the international community intervened earlier I feel like war could have been prevented. Had Afghanistan and Iraq decided not to threaten and attack other countries and oppress its own people then war could have been avoided.

 

It has been stated by many that the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal wars.

 

The Afghan intervention was supported by UN security council resolutions, so it was easily legal. The decision regarding Iraq is more complicated.

 

By the way: "it has been stated" is what wikipedia calls "weasel words". It's to be avoided at all costs because it may create the impression of holding meaning when it really doesn't mean a thing. Did your grandma and her tuesday night bingo club state it?

 

What could have ordinary citizens who didn't want war done to prevent the US-led war?

 

 

You could have done everything in your power to influence the fascist Iraqi and Afghan regimes to soften their genocidal ways, or abdicate.

 

What was it that fueled the wars? Was it 9/11? Fear of nuclear weapons or desire for oil?

 

All factors, but the largest contributor by far was Iraq and Afghanistan's extreme right-wing fascist and theocratic antics. I mean... Australia has oil reserves rivaling any country in the middle east, but could you imagine a war cry on that front?

 

 

It has now been confirmed that the wars were a big mistake.

 

Youtube videos can confirm anything. They confirm UFOs.

 

Iraq has a Kurdish president (which is just as significant as having a black president in America) and Afghanistan is running a female candidate in their current election. Perhaps you think these are big mistakes. The former rulers of Afghanistan certainly do. The Taliban tried to murder our fair female candidate before her rise. Maybe that was better.

 

Better not to have overthrown the despots who murdered scores of thousands because it upsets our anti-American sentiments.

 

It used to be that liberals were the only ones brave enough to support nation building. I remember it was a favorite talking point of Bush to bash the idea on his first campaign trail. And now look how far liberals have run into the camps of right-wing crackpots like Pat Buchanan just because they couldn't help but hate Bush.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Had the international community intervened earlier I feel like war could have been prevented.

The "international community" had been "intervening" with considerable effect for decades, in both countries.

Had Afghanistan and Iraq decided not to threaten and attack other countries and oppress its own people then war could have been avoided.

Afghanistan had attacked nobody, even after being attacked by several countries itself. Iraq was itself threatened, attacked, robbed and abused and subjected to "international intervention", before and while threatening or attacking its neighbors. At the time of the US invasion being referred to as the "Iraq War", Iraq was attacking nobody, and not credibly threatening with violence any of the nations that invaded it or any of their allies. It was instead being partly blockaded and persistently bombed from the air, over a period of several years.

 

 

All factors, but the largest contributor by far was Iraq and Afghanistan's extreme right-wing fascist and theocratic antics.

None of their neighbors - most of which matched them in theocratic and fascistic "antics" - were assaulted. No country on this planet has been invaded like that because of its theocratic or fascistic "antics".

 

Australia has oil reserves rivaling any country in the middle east,

Bullshit.

 

Iraq's oil reserves are (were) not only huge, but sweet and cheaply drilled - they by themselves could set the crude oil market planetwide, undermine the cartel prices and destroy the preferred currency of the current dominant players, as Exxon and Chevron and France and Russia and the US well knew. Australia can't do anything like that even now, let along then.

 

Afghanistan sits in the crossroads of the best - market setting - pipeline access to the entire Caspian Basin, India, SE Asia in general.

 

 

You could have done everything in your power to influence the fascist Iraqi and Afghan regimes to soften their genocidal ways,

Irrelevant. Their genocidal ways had been meeting with consistent support and tolerance from the governments who invaded them, for decades. They had been installed into power, given the means and opportunity for genocidal ways, by those very States.

 

An American who wanted to help curb Iraq's genocidal ways had several options better recommended by sense than opening the country to ethnic civil war with modern weapons - such as support for a Kurdish state, with control over its own territory and oil reserves.

Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "international community" had been "intervening" with considerable effect for decades, in both countries.

 

Indeed, they got very good at 'oil for food'. Their intervention, which made Saddam rich and the rest of the nation poor, worked about as a well as a transplanted heart.

 

Afghanistan had attacked nobody, even after being attacked by several countries itself.

 

I'm going to assume you mean as late as the 2001 intervention, Afghanistan had attacked nobody. I'm also going to take that as a deep personal offense and move on.

 

 

...Oh, wait... I get it...

 

You don't think al Qaeda was part of Afghanistan! HA!!!! You were thinking they were south-Vietnamese, perhaps. Priceless!

 

No, Al Qaeda was (as far as the third world equivalent could make it) the Taliban equivalent of the US's CIA. Al Qaeda was removed from Afghanistan in the same way that the CIA is not a US institution.

 

Bias is no substitute for knowledge. The latter always kicks the former's ass.

 

At the time of the US invasion being referred to as the "Iraq War"

 

What territory did the US annex? What trade imports did we blackmail? We were rebuilding and spending billions while Iraq's chief oil production and profit is now done for China.

 

That isn't an invasion, any more than the Allied liberation of Germany was an invasion. The US arrived finding a fascist dictatorship and left a federalized democracy. The person who can't call that a liberation has murdered the English language.

 

I started supporting Iraqi liberation in 1991 just like all liberals and most conservatives did (I did so as a staunch liberal). Liberals changed their minds on that for no apparent reason besides political expediency. Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson were all staunch interventionists. It's a tradition that is thrown away so easily and so unintelligibly by today's left.

 

Iraq was attacking nobody, and not credibly threatening with violence any of the nations that invaded it or any of their allies.

 

They lost the ability to do otherwise, and therefore threatened only their own people? They raped only their own women, and hanged only their own students for public viewing?

 

You support letting Saddam get on with that, but my liberal sensitivities, which have always been trained to fight violent fascism, can't. I can't let the crimes against tortured victims go unanswered. It's just something about my makeup I guess.

 

It was instead being partly blockaded and persistently bombed from the air, over a period of several years.

 

Good point: the 1991 and 2003 hostilities were not two wars, but one conflict seperated by a long and overdrawn truce, and also good for the 2 and 1/2 countries that decided to enforce the no fly zone. When Iraq initiated genocide in the north and south after 1991, at least somebody decided to stop them.

 

If it were left up to the UN, it never would have been stopped. It would have been Rwanda, and we all would have whined, "why couldn't we at least have used a few planes to put an easy end to it?" It's easy to see why the secretary general of the UN -- Boutris -- called the action "illegal". He needed oil for food to take traction so that his family could profit from funding Saddam's palaces. But, why any thinking person could say anything like this now is beyond me.

 

Protecting Kurds and shi'ites from mass graves and genocide, and calling it "bombardment from the air" (when US and British planes targeted only AAA and SAM sites that continually targeted and fired on them) is the worst kind of morally corrupt intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

Australia has oil reserves rivaling any country in the middle east,

Bullshit.

 

Australia to rival Saudi Arabia in oil reserves?

 

Iraq's oil reserves are (were) not only huge, but sweet and cheaply drilled - they by themselves could set the crude oil market planetwide, undermine the cartel prices and destroy the preferred currency of the current dominant players

 

And that isn't a good reason to fight for the Iraqi people? You prefer the Saudi royal family to have a monopoly on the world's oil supply?

 

You'd rather have the Iraqi people, and the world, denied the benefits of their natural resource? You'd rather have Saddam burn oil fields wholesale? You'd rather let Iraq wither and stultify from sanctions, than intervene and open the markets?

 

Talking points. Dumbed down talking points fit for mass consumption. This topic needs thought.

 

 

The "war hawk" was originally a liberal idea and stance. Nation building was originally and principally a US democratic platform. You've all strayed so far from your water source that I wonder how you'll ever get back. The next time a Rwanda, or Pol Pot, happens it will take a force of nature to blow you back on the right course. Otherwise, the left wing will be like the UN, predictably failing to stop genocide from happening, and supporting the Rwandans and the Pol Pots as they commit the worst tragedies humanity has ever envisioned.

 

I couldn't have said it any better -- you all needed political cover when Bush and America turned your views on you so you ran to Pat Buchanan's corner. You'd rather have rape, torture, and genocide than American intervention. It must be some kind of anti-Americanism. I can't, by any other means, explain such a thing.


 

 

It was probably not preventable but inevitable. That is, given the idea of "realpolitik," the need to keep the petro-dollar propped up, etc.

 

Absolutely correct it was a matter of time and not 'if'. Wrong that "realpolitik" was the reason. For one, the US dollar has lost value by extension of the war. Also, realpolitik very much means that the motives are non-ideological.

 

On the contrary, the reason why Afghanistan and Iraq were a matter of time was the ideology of their rulers. They couldn't hep but be violent tyrants. Had the Taliban and the Ba'ath party been subverted by some democratic movement then there wouldn't have needed to be a war. It was their persistence in criminal barbarism that made intervention necessary, and only a matter of time. The sooner, as well, the better.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think al Qaeda was part of Afghanistan! HA!!!! You were thinking they were south-Vietnamese, perhaps. Priceless!

I think the attackers of 9/11 were Saudi Arabian mostly (some UAR and Lebanon, no Afghans or anyone from Afghanistan), and so was their financing, and so was their organization and much of their training

 

(some Pakistani contribution there, not only the Pakistani insurgent base in Afghanistan but also almost certainly piloting help and general Western orientation in Pakistan, also a good part of the operation dates back to the AQ base in Sudan). The new Pakistani installed government of Afghanistan even - let alone the old tribal governments or the country itself - had little or nothing to do with it. It's possible they were not even informed in advance - there was apparently some serious objection to the rich foreigner (OBL's behavior) already, which was reinforced by 9/11.

For the second time: It isn't huge quantities of light, sweet, cheaply drilled, market making crude - as in Iraq. Iraq's reserves were and are capable of controlling the market - keeping them out of the wrong (none US dominated) hands is critical to Exxon, Chevron, etc.

On the contrary, the reason why Afghanistan and Iraq were a matter of

time was the ideology of their rulers. They couldn't hep but be violent

tyrants.

Irrelevant. The rulers of Iraq and Afghanistan were just as tyrannical and violent when the US supported their installation as they were when the US invaded to take them out.

 

There are and have been for decades dozens of countries run by violent tyranny for many modern decades on this planet, and only a couple ever needed fear invasion from the US - a few of the safe ones are right in the neighborhood of Iraq and Afghanistan, such as the other 'stans, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the North African cadre, and so forth. Several of them had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq or Afghanistan, several of them were - and are - under quite comparably brutal and oppressive tyranny.

That isn't an invasion, any more than the Allied liberation of Germany

was an invasion. The US arrived finding a fascist dictatorship and left

a federalized democracy. The person who can't call that a liberation

has murdered the English language.

Here are three examples of how honest people talk - taken from the first page of the thousands and thousands of links Google supplies when prompted by "Invasion of Normandy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Normandy http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-eur/normandy/normandy.htm http://www.google.com.au/search?q=invasion+of+normandy&hl=en&lr=&tbo=u&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=XkweUc-vNOeCyAHR3IDACw&ved=0CD4QsAQ&biw=1112&bih=877

 

That wasn't even Germany - that was France. But an invasion is an invasion, when adults describe what their military is doing.

You support letting Saddam get on with that, but my liberal

sensitivities, which have always been trained to fight violent fascism, can't. I can't let the crimes against tortured victims go unanswered.

The delicacy of your choice of targets for W's army is noted - with violent fascism all over the planet, much of it opposable without bloodshed, you must find an oil reserve and pipeline nexus to unleash the liberators on.

 

And so you invent - see above - threats and attacks on the neighbors, to justify the launching of war. And you credit all the good consequence - such as the limited and halting steps toward democracy, the product of Iraqis violently defying the US attempts to replace Saddam with another strongman government - to the liberating US military; and you describe all the evils attendant - such as the oppression of Iraq's women by the newly theocratic State, and the slaughter of ethnic cleansing unleashed under US auspices - as, - - - - well actually you don't describe them. For some reason.

You'd rather have the Iraqi people, and the world, denied the benefits

of their natural resource? You'd rather have Saddam burn oil fields

wholesale? You'd rather let Iraq wither and stultify from sanctions,

than intervene and open the markets?

That entire list is of consequences of preventable US behavior, including direct responses to the military assault you find so liberating.

 

But regardless, the point is agreed: the Iraq War was preventable, on the US side: political refusal to be shanghaied by State lies and jingoistic warmongering / calls to self-sacrificing liberation of the downtrodden Iraqi is possible for a country like the US. Not always easy, but possible.

 

After all, the opposition to fascism is much the most efficient and effective when it starts at home, say by preventing the keys to the world's most powerful army from falling into the hands of fascists.

Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites

"By the way: "it has been stated" is what wikipedia calls "weasel words". It's to be avoided at all costs because it may create the impression of holding meaning when it really doesn't mean a thing. Did your grandma and her tuesday night bingo club state it?"

 

 

Among others, it has been stated by me.

Also

"The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.""

 

Did you think it was helpful to call the UN a Tuesday night bingo club?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

Lets not bother to lie about this. the iraq war was certainly unlawful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

HA!!!! You were thinking they were south-Vietnamese, perhaps. Priceless!

 

I think the attackers of 9/11 were Saudi Arabian mostly (some UAR and Lebanon, no Afghans or anyone from Afghanistan), and so was their financing, and so was their organization and much of their training

 

That's wrong as far as financing, organization, and training. Financing routed through Afghanistan came from Afghanistan. Organization arranged in Afghanistan (which took place while KSM frequently met Bin Laden there) happened in Afghanistan, and the bulk of the training for most of the hijackers happened in Afghan training camps. As for the attackers holding a different passport, my analogy holds: most of the people paid by the CIA and most of the people gathering their intelligence for the CIA are foreign nationals. The CIA is nonetheless an American entity.

 

Bin Laden was the principal of 9/11, and his organization enjoyed a state all of their own in Afghanistan. Your implications otherwise are

sincerely and honestly laughable.

 

For the second time: It isn't huge quantities of light, sweet, cheaply drilled, market making crude - as in Iraq. Iraq's reserves were and are capable of controlling the market - keeping them out of the wrong (none US dominated) hands is critical to Exxon, Chevron, etc.

 

Did I say that Australia's reserves are easier to get at? No. I said they had more of them.

 

Your larger argument is cut down by a simple fact that I already gave you: the US is not the recipient of Iraqi oil wealth. China is. Did China support the war? Did China fight it? Is anti-China the form of secreted bile your conspiracy theories take?

 

No, of course not.

 

The US and UK liberated Iraq and as a result Iraq uses their oil reserves however they wish (because Iraq is now a federalized democracy). That is "liberation", by the strictest sense of the word.

 

 

Irrelevant. The rulers of Iraq and Afghanistan were just as tyrannical and violent when the US supported their installation as they were when the US invaded to take them out.

 

History has done very little to educate you. The US did not put Saddam's Ba'ath party in power. We were indifferent to it which is something you should appreciate. A xenophobic America that takes no part in the rise of a totalitarian regime appears to be something you positively adore. Mullah Omar's leadership of the Taliban... the US is responsible for his installation is it? What a perfect anti-American conspiracy theory you espouse. It rivals anti-Semitism for how the hated hold the strings making them responsible for everything.

 

 

 

The delicacy of your choice of targets for W's army is noted - with violent fascism all over the planet, much of it opposable without bloodshed, you must find an oil reserve and pipeline nexus to unleash the liberators on.

 

And so you invent - see above - threats and attacks on the neighbors, to justify the launching of war.

 

The Northern Alliance was a neighbor to the Taliban, and they were threatened with annihilation.

 

As for the "delicacy of *my* choice of targets, with violent fascism all over the planet, much of it opposable without bloodshed... ". Three points illustrate your addled thinking:

 

1) you have no idea where I'm willing to support the use of arms to oppose flourishing fascism as a US citizen.

2) You contradicted the first part of that sentence with the second half. If Saddam and al Qaeda were the only two of your many that couldn't be successfully opposed by non-violent means then where does that leave your point?

3) Your point amounts to saying that there is a lot of evil, therefore none of it should be opposed. Bullocks.

 

 

You'd rather have the Iraqi people, and the world, denied the benefits of their natural resource? You'd rather have Saddam burn oil fields wholesale? You'd rather let Iraq wither and stultify from sanctions, than intervene and open the markets?

That entire list is of consequences of preventable US behavior, including direct responses to the military assault you find so liberating.

 

If you honestly believe the US is responsible for Saddam setting Kuwait's oil fields aflame, and applying UN sanctions to Iraq preventing them from profiting from oil, then there is no point in carrying on with the discussion.

 

"By the way: "it has been stated" is what wikipedia calls "weasel words". It's to be avoided at all costs because it may create the impression of holding meaning when it really doesn't mean a thing. Did your grandma and her tuesday night bingo club state it?"

 

Among others, it has been stated by me.

 

 

Very well done. "It has been stated by me" contains no weasel words and would have been much better wording in the OP.

 

Also

"The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.""

 

Did you think it was helpful to call the UN a Tuesday night bingo club?

 

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Iraq_War

Lets not bother to lie about this. the iraq war was certainly unlawful.

 

You didn't read my post (or you didn't understand it). The exact thing I said to which you're responding was "The Afghan intervention was supported by UN security council resolutions, so it was easily legal. The decision regarding Iraq is more complicated." I addressed both Afghanistan and Iraq because the quote I was responding to addressed both.

 

Let me repeat it:

 

"The Afghan intervention was supported by UN security council resolutions, so it was easily legal. The decision regarding Iraq is more complicated."

Your response to this is to tell me that the decision regarding Iraq was not supported by the UN, as if to disagree with me? Had I misrepresented you so badly I would not feel right until I apologized.

 

Your second point is just as bad a misrepresentation. My point was that the weasel words in, "It has been stated by many that...", could be referring to anyone. It could refer to the UN (which it doesn't by the way -- you're wrong about that), or it could refer to a bingo club. It could refer to such drastically different entities.

 

Now you accuse me of calling the UN a bingo club when my point was that they are drastically different. There is probably enough in my posts with which to honestly disagree without having to resort to misrepresenting me.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's wrong as far as financing, organization, and training. Financing routed through Afghanistan came from Afghanistan.

And financing routed through New York or Florida came from New York or Florida? Don't be silly. The financing for AQ's international terrorism did not (and does not) come from Afghanistan. The training of the pilots, and the critical Western familiarization of the thugs, would have been impossible in Afghanistan had it been attempted, which it was not. What little training was done in Afghanistan was not sponsored or financed by Afghans or the government of Afghanistan. No people, no money, no expertise, no contribution to 9/11 whatsoever, has ever been traced to Afghanistan. Germany, Florida, and California made bigger and more significant contributions to 9/11 than Afghanistan.

Bin Laden was the principal of 9/11, and his organization enjoyed a state all of their own in Afghanistan.

You seem to have the Taliban and AQ confused - OBL and AQ was never even in the government of Afghanistan, let alone running the country. They were honored guests, influential and respected foreigners who had brought money and weapons and dedication of their own lives to help the cause, not Afghans. OBL's ethnicity alone, viewed with suspicion by Pashtun, would have prevented him from assuming a governing role in that country under the Taliban.

History has done very little to educate you. The US did not put Saddam's Ba'ath party in power.

The CIA did a great deal to put Saddam Hussein in power, backing the winner as the US chosen anti-communist strongman in Iraq. Most people with a "leftist" perspective regard that as common knowledge by now - multiple eyewitness accounts, a great deal of circumstantial evidence, Saddam's role in punishing Iran for deposing their US backed strongman, his role in ridding Iraq of "communists" (with US help), the US tolerance of things like his massacres of the Kurds, the long line of events and connections in the region, make any other hypothesis dubious at best. We have reasonably solid evidence that he was on the CIA payroll, even, in the early going.

 

But you know all that, right?

Did I say that Australia's reserves are easier to get at? No. I said they had more of them.

 

Your larger argument is cut down by a simple fact that I already gave you: the US is not the recipient of Iraqi oil wealth. China is.

Why are you spending so much time posting irrelevancies, instead of responding to the arguments you seem to want to address?

If you honestly believe the US is responsible for Saddam setting Kuwait's oil fields aflame, and applying UN sanctions to Iraq preventing them from profiting from oil, - - -

- - -

Three points illustrate your addled thinking:

 

1) you have no idea where I'm willing to support the use of arms to oppose flourishing fascism as a US citizen.

2)

You contradicted the first part of that sentence with the second half.

If Saddam and al Qaeda were the only two of your many that couldn't be

successfully opposed by non-violent means then where does that leave

your point?

3) Your point amounts to saying that there is a lot of evil, therefore none of it should be opposed. Bullocks.

You didn't get that stupid bs from anything I said. Why are you avoiding what I actually posted, above?

 

People who actually do oppose violent fascism could, conceivably, have succeeded in preventing the W&Cheney military disasters. They didn't, they lost the political battle in the US, but that loss was not inevitable. 135 US Congressmen voted against givng W his green light, for example - that number could have been considerably larger, surely?

Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites

And financing routed through New York or Florida came from New York or Florida?

 

That is correct. If someone finances a terrorist residing in New York and that terrorist commits an act of terror then the money came from New York. That's how "giving" works. When you give something to someone it no longer belongs to the giver. Children know this.

 

 

The training of the pilots, and the critical Western familiarization of the thugs, would have been impossible in Afghanistan had it been attempted, which it was not.

 

I was clearly talking about the planners and the muscle hijackers when I said "the bulk of the training for most of the hijackers happened in Afghan training camps". They constituted the bulk of the hijackers so you should have known that's what I meant. To support my point (you clearly need each minute point supported) I'll quote the following:

 

 

Most of the muscle hijackers first underwent basic training similar to that given to other al Qaeda recruits. This included training in firearms, heavy weapons, explosives, and topography. Recruits learned discipline and military life. They were subjected to artificial stress to measure their psychological fitness and commitment to jihad. At least seven of the Saudi muscle hijackers took this basic training regime at the al Faruq camp near Kandahar. This particular camp appears to have been the preferred location for vetting and training the potential muscle hijackers because of its proximity to Bin Ladin and senior al Qaeda leadership.

The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report

 

Another quote concerning your Saudis (because I can't help citing how wrong you are):

 

Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were both experienced and respected jihadists in the eyes of al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden. Mihdhar and Hazmi both had prior experience fighting in Bosnia, and had trained during the 1990s at camps in Afghanistan.[4]

 

Hijackers in the September 11 attacks -- selection

What little training was done in Afghanistan was not sponsored or financed by Afghans or the government of Afghanistan. No people, no money, no expertise, no contribution to 9/11 whatsoever, has ever been traced to Afghanistan. Germany, Florida, and California made bigger and more significant contributions to 9/11 than Afghanistan.

 

Afghanistan was al Qaeda's base for planning and carrying out 9/11. If you don't consider that a connection then you're retarded.

 

 

Yu seem to have the Taliban and AQ confused - OBL and AQ was never even in the government of Afghanistan, let alone running the country. They were honored guests, influential and respected foreigners who had brought money and weapons...

 

The exact thing I said was "Bin Laden was the principal of 9/11, and his organization enjoyed a state all of their own in Afghanistan".

 

If you want to disagree with what I said then I suggest you disagree with what I said.

 

To support my comment,

 

From 1996 to 2001 the al-Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri became a state within Afghanistan.[132]

wikipedia -- Taliban Emirate and the United Front

By 2001 al Qaeda was a terrorist group with its own state.

Understanding War in Afghanistan

 

You were so entirely mistaken in the first half of your comments that I'm not going to bother reading the second half.

 

You would have to ask yourself (if you knew better)... "should I really have to make things up if my argument were that strong"?

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

From wiki

"The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men – 15 from Saudi Arabia – did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal."

 

 

— Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild.

Still not a bingo club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From wiki

"The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men – 15 from Saudi Arabia – did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal."

 

 

— Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild.

Still not a bingo club.

 

"When the security council approves" you say? It took me 20 seconds to find a link disproving your proposition...

 

United Nations Security Council resolution 1378, adopted unanimously on 14 November 2001, after reaffirming all resolutions on the situation in Afghanistan, including resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000) and 1363 (2001), the Council affirmed that the United Nations would play an important role in the country and called for the establishment of a transitional administration leading to the formation of a new government.[1]

The Security Council recognised the urgency of the situation in Afghanistan, particularly in Kabul, and supported efforts to combat terrorism according to resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001). It condemned the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base and safe haven for Al-Qaeda, other groups and Osama bin Laden and violations of international law.[2] The preamble of the resolution welcomed the declaration by the Six plus Two group and the intention of convening a meeting involving all Afghan processes.[3]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1378

You have to wonder where your bias has left you when 20 seconds dismantles your whole philosophy on a situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you spend another 20 seconds and see if there's actually a UN security council resolution mandating the use of military force?

I couldn't find one.

 

There are plenty condemning the Taliban, but that's not the same thing.

 

So, as I said, without the security council's authority an invasion would be unlawful.

 

What I'm looking for is the equivalent to this which was the UN response to the invasion of Kuwait.

"If Iraq did not implement the resolution by 15 January 1991, Member States were authorised to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 (1990), requesting Member States to keep the Council informed on their decisions. This was the legal authorisation for the Gulf War, as Iraq did not withdraw by the deadline." from UNSCR 678.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you spend another 20 seconds and see if there's actually a UN security council resolution mandating the use of military force?

 

No. It only took 10. Security Council resolution 1386 (2001):

 

 

Acting for these reasons under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United

Nations,

 

1. Authorizes, as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment;

 

2. Calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to the International Security Assistance Force, and invites those Member States to inform the leadership of the Force and the Secretary-General;

 

3. Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;

 

4. Calls upon the International Security Assistance Force to work in close consultation with the Afghan Interim Authority in the implementation of the force mandate, as well as with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General;

 

5. Calls upon all Afghans to cooperate with the International Security Assistance Force and relevant international governmental and non-governmental organizations, and welcomes the commitment of the parties to the Bonn Agreement to do all within their means and influence to ensure security, including to ensure the safety, security and freedom of movement of all United Nations personnel and all other personnel of international governmental and non-governmental organizations deployed in Afghanistan;

 

6. Takes note of the pledge made by the Afghan parties to the Bonn Agreement in Annex 1 to that Agreement to withdraw all military units from Kabul, and calls upon them to implement this pledge in cooperation with the International Security Assistance Force;

 

7. Encourages neighbouring States and other Member States to provide to the International Security Assistance Force such necessary assistance as may be requested, including the provision of overflight clearances and transit;

 

8. Stresses that the expenses of the International Security Assistance Force will be borne by the participating Member States concerned, requests the Secretary- General to establish a trust fund through which contributions could be channelled to the Member States or operations concerned, and encourages Member States to contribute to such a fund;

 

You ask for reference to "military force". The portion that I quoted above has the word "force" 9 times. But, I know already that you won't accept it.

 

I can warn now... there's no point in asking me to find anything else if you ignore everything I've yet found.

 

No point at all.

 

I couldn't find one.

 

There are plenty condemning the Taliban, but that's not the same thing.

 

You're wrong about that, but even if you were right... if there were a UN authorization to destroy the Taliban -- where do you think they'd be found? We're back to South Vietnam are we?

 

So, as I said, without the security council's authority an invasion would be unlawful.

 

That isn't necessarily true, either. The UN is not the only entity capable of declaring war. Bin Laden declared war on September 11, 2001 and self-defense is a widely recognized legal reason to respond.

Edited by Iggy
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And financing routed through New York or Florida came from New York or Florida?

 

That is correct. If someone finances a terrorist residing in New York and

that terrorist commits an act of terror then the money came from New

York.

?! Ohh - kaaay. And here I thought I had reduced the absurdity to something too obviously stupid even for you - never underestimate the impudence of someone attempting to justify war, would be the lesson.

 

Afghanistan was al Qaeda's base for planning and carrying out 9/11.

So was Florida. So was Germany. So was the Philippines. Essentially: None of the money, people, plans, organization, means, ends, or information, came from the country of Afghanistan, either its population or its government. You can't say the same for Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Florida, San Diego, or Germany.

The exact thing I said was "Bin Laden was the principal of 9/11, and

his organization enjoyed a state all of their own in Afghanistan".

 

If you want to disagree with what I said then I suggest you disagree with what I said.

Light dawns. I apologize for overestimating your literacy. You meant to say " inside Afghanistan" or " within Afghanistan", and I should have known that.

 

Of course the existence of a separate state would undermine your attempted justification of the launching of war, against the other one.

 

Most of the muscle hijackers first underwent basic training similar to

that given to other al Qaeda recruits. This included training in

firearms, heavy weapons, explosives, and topography. Recruits learned

discipline and military life. They were subjected to artificial stress

to measure their psychological fitness and commitment to jihad. At

least seven of the Saudi muscle hijackers took this basic training

regime at the al Faruq camp near Kandahar.

So 7 of the least skilled and least trained of the 19 hijackers got some of their introductory training - none of the special mission oriented stuff or anything particular to 9/11, which happened somewhere else, just a general intro to AQ - ("first" underwent, meaning there was a "second" and "third", right?) in Afghanistan, without involving the Afghan government or its people (It was at this "State within a State" place). So?

 

I said this:

What little training was done in Afghanistan was not sponsored or

financed by Afghans or the government of Afghanistan. No people, no

money, no expertise, no contribution to 9/11 whatsoever, has ever been

traced to Afghanistan. Germany, Florida, and California made bigger and

more significant contributions to 9/11 than Afghanistan.

And apparently you agree.

 

From 1996 to 2001 the al-Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri became a state within Afghanistan

In other words, the actual State, government, and people of Afghanistan were not much involved - bearing much less responsibility for 9/11 than, say, the US as a country bears for Basque separatist terrorism, or the depredations of the IRA.

 

By 2001 al Qaeda was a terrorist group with its own state.

Then the US should have attacked that one, and left the innocent unbombed.

 

Bin Laden declared war on September 11, 2001 and self-defense is a widely recognized legal reason to respond.

Actually OBL declared self-defense, and blamed the declaration of war on the US among others. In this he is generally supported by the historical record.

 

But I do appreciate how the Iraq invasion - my major issue here, the war of the two I have emphasized as obviously preventable and both tragic and absurd in not haveing been prevented - has dwindled from your posting. That shows common sense.

Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually OBL declared self-defense, and blamed the declaration of war on the US among others. In this he is generally supported by the historical record.

 

Yeah, you would be on his side. That is what you are. On your best day... at your most noble... you are a supporter of a terrorist. You do your honest best at supporting the murder of thousands of civilians. That is who you are and what you do.

 

Good luck with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It only took 10. Security Council resolution 1386 (2001):

 

 

You ask for reference to "military force". The portion that I quoted above has the word "force" 9 times. But, I know already that you won't accept it.

 

I can warn now... there's no point in asking me to find anything else if you ignore everything I've yet found.

 

No point at all.

 

 

You're wrong about that, but even if you were right... if there were a UN authorization to destroy the Taliban -- where do you think they'd be found? We're back to South Vietnam are we?

 

 

That isn't necessarily true, either. The UN is not the only entity capable of declaring war. Bin Laden declared war on September 11, 2001 and self-defense is a widely recognized legal reason to respond.

Thanks for that. So only one of the wars was illegal. I guess that's OK then.

BTW, OBL isn't a country he was a nutter. He was, therefore, in no position to declare war on anything. Also, whatever he said he wasn't in a position to engage in war, just terrorism. To call it war, rather than organised crime offers it a legitimacy that it does not deserve.

 

Self defence is a legitimate reason for war (sort of) but Afghanistan hadn't threatened the US. Why not invade Saudia? They were the ones who attacked the US.

 

Incidentally, I have lost count. Who killed more Americans, the 9/11 terrorists or the US government sending its citizens to war?

I don't need to support the terrorists to say that killing even more than they did is bad.

(I understand that some civilians may have been killed too: are their numbers significant?)

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Let's aim those guns at the ideas please, and not the people who have them. No more personal attacks.

 

I apologize for my tone. I know it isn't useful.

 

Thanks for that. So only one of the wars was illegal. I guess that's OK then.

 

I respected you before, but that level of respect just went up immeasurably. I thought for sure you'd argue with the source. We've managed to make an American war legal. This is progress.

 

BTW, OBL isn't a country he was a nutter. He was, therefore, in no position to declare war on anything.

 

By that reasoning no person could ever declare war. War cannot therefore be declared. That's nice.

 

Also, whatever he said he wasn't in a position to engage in war, just terrorism. To call it war, rather than organised crime offers it a legitimacy that it does not deserve.

 

There is far too much euphemism about war already. In the US we have a tendency to call things "police actions" or "armed conflict". For one thing, it is something presidents do to avoid having to go to congress to get approval for "war". It isn't healthy. Calling something a war doesn't elevate it. War is dirty and nasty and ugly, and when the enemy is even more dirty, nasty, and ugly then you can't avoid using the term -- and one shouldn't avoid it. We are fighting a war against theocratic fascism. It is a war we absolutely must win.

 

It's a war alright.

 

Self defence is a legitimate reason for war (sort of) but Afghanistan hadn't threatened the US. Why not invade Saudia? They were the ones who attacked the US.

 

I'm having a hard time responding to this civilly. If you honestly believe al Qaeda was based in Saudi Arabia then there's nothing I can say. Piffle.

 

Incidentally, I have lost count. Who killed more Americans, the 9/11 terrorists or the US government sending its citizens to war?

I don't need to support the terrorists to say that killing even more than they did is bad.

(I understand that some civilians may have been killed too: are their numbers significant?)

 

Indeed you do support the terrorists by saying it. Death at the hands of a terrorist flying a plane into a building should never be compared to anything like a uniformed soldier fighting to liberate a country. To directly compare the two avoids all common decency.... and I have to censor myself from saying anything further...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually

OBL declared self-defense, and blamed the declaration of war on the US

among others. In this he is generally supported by the historical

record.

 

 

Yeah, you would be on his side. That is what you are. On your best

day... at your most noble... you are a supporter of a terrorist.

When simple and accurate description of the historical record is described as "supporter of a terrorist", one would expect a moment's reflection on the implications of that.

 

Among those claiming a "leftist approach" to the discussion of invasions launched on propaganda by authoritarian rightwing military/industrial governments, at least.

 

 

We are fighting a war against theocratic fascism. It is a war we absolutely must win.

The US administration that launched both those invasions,

 

launched two land wars in Asia while exempting its domestic military/industrial support from even the taxes necessary to pay for them,

 

claimed self-defense for both ot them, dubiously in the first case (military invasion not obviously the appropriate response, Afghanistan not clearly the most crucial target or attacking party), flat out dishonest warmongering propaganda in the second (Iraq was not attacking or threatening the US with violence)

 

and screwed both of them up relative to its declared goals, advancing the interests and enriching the persons of its corporate support and by its efforts nobody else to date,

 

were and are theocratic fascists, politically.

 

Unlike Saddam Hussein, who while fascist was not theocratic, and was himself historically and at the time in often violent conflict with both neighboring theocratic fascists who had brought armies to his borders, and domestic theocratic fascists who had brought terrorism and the threat of terrorism to his country.

 

Are you part of the "we" that is "at war" with the various theocratic fascists who had targeted non-theocratic Iraq and Saddam, or do they get a pass?

 

Are you sure, metaphorically speaking, that the battle against arsonists is best fought with flamethrowers?

Edited by overtone
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.