Should we have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11?

[Guaranteed]

Poll question: Should we have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11?

There's a lot of back and forth on this on DU.

What do you think?

[lvx35]

1. My understanding was that OBL was actually there...

And I haven't heard it refuted, not the same way people have refuted the claims of Saddam's links to Queda

[G_j]

13. the Taliban offered to turn him over to a third country n/t

[Guaranteed]

23. If I was the president, I honestly would not have accepted that offer. nt

[G_j]

42. "Mission Accomplished" OBL still at large

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,575593,00.html

New offer on Bin Laden

Minister makes secret trip to offer trial in third country

Rory McCarthy in Islamabad
Wednesday October 17, 2001
The Guardian

A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.

For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.

But US officials appear to have dismissed the proposal and are instead hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership.
The offer was brought by Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister and a man who is often regarded as a more moderate figure in the regime.

..more..

[Guaranteed]

45. It doesn't make sense, though. Why a third country?

Why wouldn't they just give him to us?

He attacked us, after all. And they did have evidence that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.

[G_j]

48. my point is, where is he now?

perhaps a trial in a third country would have been better than nothing..

[Guaranteed]

49. The Chimp only knows.

My point, though, is that we needed to get him. I wouldn't have left it up to another country to make sure that what he was doing was finished. I don't think the Taliban were planning on giving him to a country that would have had our interests in mind, in any case.

[Yupster]

54. if I remember right, the offer

had many contngencies to it.

It had to be to a Muslim country. He had to be tried before an Islamic court. etc.

They had been offering him to us for a while but it always had conditions like "if you can prove to us that he did it first."

After going back and forth for a few months, we gave up.

Don't know if there was ever a serious chance of getting him turned over or not.

I would guess not since he was so important financially to the Taliban regime and had so many armed fighters loyal to him in their country.

Why would anyone think he would agree to being turned over?

I think he probably had more force and loyalty in Afghanistan than the Taliban had.

So, even if they were serious, and I doubt they were, I don't think they had the power to do it if they wanted to. Trying it would have caused their overthrow.

[Pastiche423]

52. They offered to turn him over

IF we provided proof that he was behind the attacks.

We had no proof then, and we have no proof now.

[G_j]

53. from post #42

"For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said."

[Copperred]

71. CORRECT

[jobycom]

34. He was in one part of the country, but we invaded the whole thing

And slaughtered as many Afghanis as Iraqis. Our biggest interest in Afghanistan was overthrowing the Taliban, not getting Bin Laden. We haven't done either, really. Bin Laden escaped, and the head of the Taliban got away. We killed a lot of their troops, and a lot more civilians, and our main goal was to take over the country, not get Bin Laden.

There was never any trial or serious investigation to see who was actually behind 9-11. We don't know if UBL gave the orders, or knew about it in advance, or if it was done by someone further down the line. For all we know, it was done by a small group of locals and funded by someone in the Middle East whom we haven't even caught yet. For all we know, they will be the same people who hit us next time.

That war was as misleading as the Iraqi invasion. Even before 9-11 the India Times was reporting that we planned to invade Afghanistan, and the oil company Unocal had been petitioning the government since 98 to invade so they could build an oil pipeline. Clinton had refused, although he had an almost obsession with catching Bin Laden. After 9-11 Bush invaded Afghanistan, appointed a board member of Unocal as leader of Afghanistan (no lie, look it up, that was Karzai's job), then quit trying to get Bin Laden.

So no, we shouldn't have invaded. Bush should have gone after UBL. The Taliban offered to turn him over to a third country, but rather than pursue that, we chose to invade. We dropped leaflets in villages telling citizens that we didn't want to hurt them, but that if they were outside on roads and bridges we would consider them the enemy and bomb them. We killed a lot of people in these villages, just for driving cars home after dusk, or hauling carts across bridges in broad daylight.

If a man robs a bank and shoots five people, then flees into your neghborhood, the police aren't going to burn down every house to get him. Yet that's what we did to Afghanistan.

Our only interest in Afghanistan was conquest. Bush proved that at Tora Bora, and then by giving up on Bin Laden and invading Iraq. We went from Bush not resting until we got UBL, dead or alive, to Bush not really worrying about UBL. You tell me what Bush's goals in Afghanistan were.

[goddess40]

36. your right - the Afghanis where innocent

OBL invaded their country and what do we do, we attack them too.

[lvx35]

39. A couple points.

Good post, good points. I wanted to respond to two, though. The first is that my understanding at the time was that the taliban didn't have Osama Bin Laden in custody, and wasn't likely to be able to capture him due to his support on the ground, but the whole thing would have given him lots of time to hide. The second thing regards the complexities of treating terrorism as a police matter, as Kerry proposed, which comes from the fact that many governments may be sympathetic to terrorist groups. (Ba'ath Iraq for Hamas, for instance) I don't think Bush's methods are the best at all, but if we want to discount the war in afganistan, I think we've got to come up with something better than hoping a crazy narco- cartel like the taliban are going to play police for us. There needs to be some middle point between war and police action that we haven't thought of, if war is going to be avoided.

[jobycom]

91. That's simple

We invade the part of Afghanistan where Bin Laden is, we hold the feet of the Taliban to the fire to keep them from getting involved, and we make them dance to our rhythm instead of Al-Queda's. If they really can deliver Bin Laden, more power to them, and thanks for proving they weren't sympathetic. If they couldn't deliver Bin Laden, we'd still be on the ground and in position to get him. They weren't that close to each other. There was no geographic necessity to attack Kabul to get Bin Laden. The only purpose in attacking Kabul was to overthrow the Taliban. But since they had offered to play ball with us, we had a chance to hold them to that, to take control of the country by using the government already in place, and putting pressure on them to behave.

Having said that, I don't believe the Taliban were in any position to turn over Bin Laden, and they were simply stalling for time. Bin Laden was closely allied with the Taliban--some people claim he was the military arm of the Taliban. Certainly they were a minor group before he went back to Afghanistan and teamed up with them. That sounds like a good reason to take them out, but we hadn't proven that the Taliban were involved in 9-11, and we hadn't proven that Bin Laden was. We just went after anyone we could blame it on. Don't misunderstand me, I believe it was a plot by someone in Bin Laden's so-called Al-Quida network, and I believe it was probably Bin Laden himself. But since we didn't know who all was involved, we had no plan of attack other than to kill anything that moved.

The overwhelming majority of the people we killed in that invasion, certainly between 90 to 95% if not more, had nothing to do with 9-11, had no foreknowledge of it, and may not have supported it if they did. We should have done like Clinton, gone after Bin Laden and his group using ground troops to avoid killing civilians (it was, after all, our problem, not theirs, so we had no moral right to protect our soldiers by slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians), and kept our eye on the Taliban. Maybe that way we would have caught Bin Laden. Without Bin Laden, the Taliban would have likely fallen, anyway. Then we would have been well-placed to turn Afghanistan over to an international agency to set up a real government there, the way we did with the former Yugoslavia. Many fewer deaths, many fewer enemies, and we'd have probably gotten Bin Laden in the process.

Our method made the world a more dangerous place. According to our own government, the number of terrorists attacks and deaths in the three years following 9-11 are double those in the three years preceeding it. Obviously our war on terror has been a failure. That's not hindsight--many of us were saying this is exactly what would happen.

Afghanistan has a long history of outlasting invasions by mighty empires.

[lvx35]

106. I basically agree...

What you described, sounds to me like an effective combination of limited strategic military conflict and diplomacy...A far more effective strategy than Bush deployed, but still an invasion. I basically think you're right. Commander in cheif Bush bumbled this whole thing. I stand by my stance that the Afganistan war was justified in principle, although I concur that it was terribly mishandled, and the mass of dead civilians is a testament to that mishandling. But something like you described would be an appropriate response to 9-11 in my mind....A better run invasion.

[moddemny]

146. "but we invaded the whole thing"

The United States didn't invade Afghanistan.......

It was invited by the Northern Alliance who wanted our help to overthrow a bunch of thugs. If it weren't so the resistance to the USA being there would be much greater than it is to day.

[steve2470]

2. We should have worked on our defenses and trying to understand

the Al Qaeda network. Once understood, purusing them would have been logical but not invading Afghanistan. I just don't like our forces going overseas unless it's a WW2 type situation.

[Guaranteed]

8. I have to admit that I felt an awful lot of bloodlust after 9/11.

It was focused, though. I actually wanted, and still do want, to get the people that orchestrated it. I don't think I was alone, either. The typically quite civil and rational people that I talked to, including my father, really, really wanted to get this guy (Osama).

For justice, and to protect us. And, yes, out of revenge.

Of course, with the incompetent POS in office we had, we were never going to find him. Not to mention the fact that they don't want to find him. That would ruin everything for them.

And, no, I don't think bombing in Afghanistan was effective at all. If we were going to get this guy, we needed to send in a whole lot more than just the 10-15,000 troops that we did. We needed to close it off tight. George had other plans, though, and didn't want to "waste" the troops.

On edit: And, as those who know me know, my bloodlust didn't translate into support for the Iraq war, at all.

I lost a job over the Iraq war.

[steve2470]

14. I actually supported the Afghanistan war at the time

For all the usual reasons. Now, in hindsight, I was wrong, even if we had been serious about looking for him.

[Deja Q]

22. Bingo. Understanding your enemy is a step toward defeating it.

Dropping bombs like a pidgeon would drop crap on a statue really does little good...

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Knowing what we now know?

That there was no intention to capture OBL or destroy al Qaeda - that the invasion and occupation, on the pretext of going after the perpetrators of 9-11, was in reality part of a grand strategy of world domination, no fucking way.

At the time I supported it. 20/20 hindsight is perfect.

[VelmaD]

4. I thnk it's pretty obvious at this point...

that attacking Afghanistan did us not one whit of good in terms of bringing the people responsible for 9-11 to justice.

[Guaranteed]

11. Say Al Gore had been in office.

Or, Bill Clinton, even.

Say someone who wasn't incompetent with selfish motives was in office. Would you have supported it then?

[VelmaD]

19. Nope...but I also don't believe...

that invasion would have been the response if Clinton or Gore had been in office. We didn't go invade someone when the USS Cole got attacked. Or the first time someone tried to blow up the World Trade Center. We went through legal channels and treated the people involved like the criminals they are rather than giving them a "Crusade" and a bully pulpit to rally support.

Also, I'm not sure I believe the attack would have happened under the watch of an administration that wasn't full of the incompetant.

[lvx35]

24. I disagree...It was a political imperitive.

As democrat JFK said of the cuban missile crisis, he HAD to push it to the brink or he never would have gotten re-elected. Same political realities after 9-11. SOMEBODY was going to pay, and if the president didn't find somebody to pay, he would be viewed as incredibly weak.

[VelmaD]

29. Sorry but I disagree...

the emotion I saw from people right after 9-11 wasn't really bloodlust...it was compassion for their fellow Americans. A more human and humane president would have used his bully pulpit to help heal people rather than to whip up a desire for vengeance. A real leader would have talked honestly about why 9-11 happened and what we as Americanscould do to really make ourselves safer and to really reduce resentment against us in the Arab world. A real leader wouldn't have had to take us to war with an "enemy" that was easy to whip just to make himself look like he was doing something.

[H2O Man]

31. Valid point ....

And someone should have paid.

I think that there are a couple things in the previous post that are worth considering. If Gore had been president, it is possible that 9-11 would have been either prevented -- stopped dead in its tracks -- or that if it had taken place in a similar manner, his response would have been very different.

That combines both of your points: someone should pay for such an attack, but who and how?

This is an interesting thread!

[lvx35]

35. Yes, theres a good point as well.

Would it have happened at all? I have heard some strong arguments that it would not have, if some very normal steps had been taken in response to breifings he recieved.

[Guaranteed]

38. Yes, that is *extremely* important.

The good thing is that if there were some "Americans" that were involved in it and profited from it, we know where to find them.

[Yupster]

55. Boy do times change

When Afghanistan started, there were people in the news all over the place saying "Thank god Gore didn't win because he wouldn't be decisive and wouldn't have the guts to invade Afghanistan when the logistics were such a nightmare."

At DU there was overwhelming opinion that of course Gore would have invaded like anyone would have. It was a no-brainer, and how dare the other side politicize the war.

Now that the war hasn't gone so peachy, now the opinion is going to change to "Gore wouldn't have invaded."

Talk about your Monday morning quarterbacking.

[VelmaD]

63. I defy you to search my posts...

and find anywhere where I said Gore would have attacked Afghanistan in response to 9-11.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Our mistake was in Tora Bora(sp?)

I think Bush was trying to avoid any casualties at all. How do you do that when you declare war? That should tell you something about his reality base.

[serryjw]

6. Seriously............What did we accomplish by going?

We would never get OBL, he knows the area and the people whom have protected him since 9-11. Well, The taliban eliminated the poppy crop....and thanks to the CIA we brought it back more prosperous than ever

[Is It Fascism Yet]

59. Good point. Absolutely nothing. The hijackers were Saudi, anyway. N/T

[Is It Fascism Yet]

62. I second that "we were deceived" notion. 911 was a lie and I think Bush

may have been in collusion. The Congressional 911 Investigation went as far as the White House door and was then shut down. Most of the 911 hijackers were Saudi, not from Afghanistan. People are hiding things. We should not have retaliated until we investigated enough to truly know who was responsible. The sovereign nation of Afghanistan did not perpetrate this crime upon us, or at least, we have no reason to believe so. If the White House hadn't engaged in a cover up which shut down the investigations, we might have known who was responsible and what to properly do about it.

[Mr Rabble]

7. No. The Taliban offered OBL up- if we had proof.

We have yet to see proof to this day.

[lvx35]

9. The taliban refused to extradite OBL.

They wanted to try him in a 'muslim' court, which was just asking for it at the time. I have no tears about the taliban falling.

[VelmaD]

12. Uh...the Taliban hasn't fallen...

they're still there and still really control big swaths of Afghanistan. Our little puppet president is basically the mayor of Kabul.

[lvx35]

21. Well, Bush could screw up anything it seems...

I know what you're saying...But Hamid Karzai is better than who was running the show before...And if Gore had been president and proposed the same plan, It would have gone better. The plan itself isn't flawed, In my opinion it didn't get batshit crazy until Iraq.

[VelmaD]

25. Uh...what exactly is the difference...

between us over-throwing the regime in Afghanistan and over-throwing the regime in Iraq?

And Karzai isn't one bit better...he's just bad in different ways...he's a stooge of American oil and gas interests.

[lvx35]

28. Uh..The taliban was a fundamentalist Islamic (like OBL) regime, Iraq, no.

Iraq was secular and unrelated to OBL. Afganistans government was more ideologically supportive of Bin Laden's goals, and therefore more likely to help him. Also, the taliban was one of the worst groups of human rights violators in the world, they were enemy number 1 of women's rights.

[VelmaD]

30. Yes...I had been agitating about the Taliban...

for more years than I can count...and no one in the Bush gavernment gave a rat's ass about their record on women's rights and don't you believe for one second that they did. This "war" wasn't about 9-11. It was about a stupid natural gas pipeline.

[Copperred]

73. yep

IVX is right on....

Pre USSR invasions..hot afghn women in mini skirts....ever since...hell on earth....ulimately all tthanks to Uncle Sam..


We owe it to the Afghans to put that country back together again...it just happens to be that a cohesive Afghanistan is in US interests and thus we are taking action...

[VelmaD]

77. Actually...

women had more rights under the Soviets and their puppet regime than they did either prior to the Soviet invasion or after their retreat. Granted, they were oppressed in the same way every other Afghan was at the time. But at least they weren't forced into the burka. It's a sad fucking day when you might just be better off in a Soviet client state than under the thumb of your own countrymen.

[Copperred]

81. ok

Velma......pre-soviet times were completely peacefull...

if you were a village girl..u were a village girl.....sure you lived in an ancient world...but u could go into the fields without having ur legg blown off........if u were a modern Kabuli..u were a modern Kabuli...running up and down the streets having fun.

fact is they should have been left alone period....and thanks to the US and its imperialistic goals we setup them up for the USSR to invade.

Under the Soviet millions of innocent women children and men died under carpet bombs....primarly in the Pashtun belt......im sure those women felt just great about it!

Better under the Soviet times.....a huh...

[VelmaD]

85. "sure you lived in an ancient world"...

pretty much says it all. If you were a woman would you want to live in that ancient world where you were considered property and had no say in your life?

And I didn't say it was definitely better under the Soviets...just that it was a different kind of bad.

[Copperred]

89. a huh....

....you been to Afghanistan? What do you know about what goes on in their homes or what rights they have? Especially at the tribal level? or what it was like pre-USSR?

The Taliban were straight up EVIL and built with your tax dollars....thank G-d for OBL...cuz if it had not been for him the T would still be controlling that ancient land. They were a non-indigenous movement that was fully supported by your government to take over that land and oppress its people.

The Greeks were pretty ancient to........and allot more englighted then anything our society knows.

We can't go back in history to fix our wrongs...but at least don't judge what u do not know.

[VelmaD]

93. I know plenty about Afghan history...

because I chose to read up on the topic starting back in the late 70s when the Soviet puppet regime came to power. So drop your condescending tone and just conced that Afghanistan has not been a good place for a woman to live for a very very long time.

BTW, ancient greeks...not too terribly enlightened when it came to women's rights. Last time I checked when the Greeks instituted their democracy women were not allowed to participate.

[Copperred]

98. what version are you reading?

Women in Afghanistan, like the men, have had to face thousands of years of invasion...too long to recount here and many a forgotten.

Over time their culture has become the most closed to the outside world and for very good reason....every time foreigners stick their hands in something bad happens to the women and the men....children too...no different this time around.

The women pre-USSR were safe, (period). I won't go into the account of who is raping who in Afghanistan, but one thing is well known...the tribes...the original ethnic Afghan tribes....have never promoted rape and pillage of anyone while they are governing.

On the inside of that tribal life which you profess to know so much about...I assure you the women rule much of the time and are happy (keyword: happy).

No use continuing this dialogue...your idea of Western rights for women...or anyone in Afghanistan would lead to a vanishing of a much older...and wiser culture.

No doubt the Afghans all should vote...women and men...but they know that based on their own teachings.

EOM

[VelmaD]

105. Two things and then I'm done with you too...

First, older does not always equal wiser

And second, you can call it "Western rights" but it's really about human rights. You know literally nothing about what I think on this subject or what I believe about universal human rights...and given your condescending attitude you're frankly not worth talking to about it.

Have a nice day. :hi:

[Copperred]

119. You never had anything.

Agreed, older does not always equal wiser...but given the Afghans history ...they have always learned from it which is far more than most.

I don't know what you think about universal human rights, nor does it matter, but I do have an idea of what you think about women's rights in Afghanistan, its history and people.

For all the good will it matters little...had the USSR never invaded or the Taliban been created at our behest.......there would be a high probablity that there would be no need for people to be clamming about basic rights in Afghanistan today.

Granted I believe in Karma...I'm sure allot of good is going to come out of the hell we have created for them over there.

--------

Women in the US congress: 15% with no constitutional guarantees

Women in the to be Afghan congress: 25% with constitutional guarantees

--------

Have a great day too :)

[Guaranteed]

50. Basically, Osama was the difference.

The threat to our country was the difference.

[VelmaD]

61. What threat exactly...

did the government or people of Afghanistan pose? It was not the Afghans who did anything to us on 9-11. How many of the highjackers that day were Afghans?

The government of Afghanistan asked us to provide proof before they would turn Bin Laden over and also asked that he be turned over to a 3rd party neautral country. But instead of providin proof (which our government still hasn't shown to anyone TO THI SDAY) we invaded. I say it again...9-11 was an excuse...we were going into Afghanistan anyway over that pipeline.

[Guaranteed]

72. The people of Afghanistan were, for the most part, of no threat to us

whatsoever.

However, in their country was a man who had attacked us and done some serious damage. They surrounded him. For those who knew who he was, what he did, and what he believed, there was a certain amount of complacency involved. I liken it to the Bush supporters who cheered when we invaded Iraq. I feel the same way about them. They knew.

Not that any of them deserved to die. But there are "ripples" within societies. When people allow these kinds of things to happen, when people don't stand up for what is right (and admittedly this is an awfully democratic way of looking at things, something that many don't have the privilege of), they lend themselves to serious hurt (and, also admittedly, they can lend themselves to serious hurt in standing up for what is right). The members of our Democratic leadership who compromised their integrity in supporting the Iraq War, for example- their credibility is DESTROYED. You know what? Their careers are, more or less, over. They might get re-elected, but everyone knows how weak they are. They hold NO power. Those who hold power in our party right now are those who didn't give it up when the chips were down.

But back to the Afghanis. In every war there are those people that get caught in the middle. Many, many people die in wars- war is the *worst* thing on *Earth.* That is why one doesn't go to war unless one *has* to. That's why I draw the line so closely to myself, not to mention that it's good to actually know for sure that you're getting the right person/people. As far as that is concerned, though, I'm pretty sure we had the right guy.

Osama did it.

All of this is why focus is important, and swiftness and strength are important, as well. The best thing that can happen when conflicts such as these arise is that they are finished as quickly as possible. Bush didn't want to finish anything. This was "opportunity," in his mind. It WAS the next "Pearl Harbor." And, while it may have been so, he didn't treat it that way. He- THEY- treated it as an excuse to fulfill their geopolitical ambitions. It's totally true. And they most definitely could have either been complacent or even involved.

But that changes nothing, in my mind. For criminy's sake, I wish Al Gore would have been in office, because, you're right, this may never, ever have happened. I'd say that there's an excellent chance that it wouldn't have. But, if it had, I'd expect that Gore would have done what was just. And what was just was going in to get Osama bin Laden, the man who attacked us, the head of a terrorist organization with 10's of thousands of members, and, one way or another, making sure that he, Osama, would never have done what he did again.

And, having done so, we wouldn't be "living in fear" today.

[VelmaD]

75. Where we're disagreeing I think...

is over whether going to "war" was the best means of dealing with this particular threat. If the US had produced evidence at the time that Osama did it and had rallied the world around us then I can see some sort of very limited action that would have targeted Osama and the top people around him...and then brought them to justice...perhaps in the International Criminal Court or even in the US if the evidence presented had been overwhelming and credible enough.

Invading a sovereign nation, overthrowing the government, and installing a puppet regime with ties to our oil and gas industry was NOT the correct way of handling the situation...and I'd say the same thing no matter who was president at the time.

My big problem with our invasion of Afghanistan is that we were indiscriminate and we did not have to be. We did not solely target Bin Laden. We flattened a lot of territory and killed a lot of people that didn't need to be targets. And in the process we ruined whatever goodwill we had with the Afghan people.

[Guaranteed]

94. Well, in fact, we did rally the world...

Almost all of our allies were involved in the invasion of Afghanistan and its occupation. I remember hearing something about the Norwegians- that's something.

Even the other Middle Eastern countries seemed to understand why we were doing what we were doing. There was very little objection. It's because we were justified. This guy attacked us, and we went in to make sure he didn't do it again. It's pretty simple, and it didn't take any lying, whatever Bush's motives were. If he had done it correctly- and by that I mean effectively- he would have been entirely correct.

And, no, Karzai, Mr. Unocal- I wouldn't go along with that, either.

I'm also hoping that we weren't as indiscriminate as you're saying we were. I will give you that we were certainly, at least for the most part, ineffective, though.

[VelmaD]

95. There's one big assumption...

in your post...that Bush wasn't lying about Osama being responsible. If he showed some proof to world leaders to get them on our side...I'd sure as hell like to know what it was. Because he certainly never bothered to show that proof to the American people. I think he took advantage of the world's support for us after 9-11 and quite possibly hoodwinked everyone at a time when people were predisposed to give us the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sayin AQ did or didn't do it...I've never seen evidence to actually make a decision on that.

As to our being indiscriminate...one too many stories of us firing into weddings and such for me to believe we were tracking Osama with pinpoint precision.

[bpilgrim]

46. what about all the innocent afghans who fell?

http://media.globalfreepress.com

any tears for them, they certainly weren't ask'n for it - not to mention that the taliban are still fighting, over there...

peace

[lvx35]

58. What about all the innocent little children in Nazi Germany?

War is terrible, and the death of innocents is a tragedy which has always been part of it. But have we really come up with an alternative? If we had just ignored the growing Nazi threat, would Hitler eventually just stopped the extermination camps, and mellowed out? I think not. I think global domination by Nazis would be worse than our current world. Therefore I assert that at a certain point war is necessary, though fundamentally Machiavellian. I don't think there is a way that we could have fought the Nazi threat without killing innocents, so I don't look at the blood of children in a current conflict, it does affect me emotionally, but doesn't change my stance. I remind myself to feel equally for the over 2,000 children under 18 in the US (just in the US) who died from being assaulted last year alone. Unfortunatly, kids are dying in a lot of ways, and in bigger numbers with other things. But yeah, Bush is a moron. He could make up for it all if he cared enough to put in a government that set out to eradicate preventable diseases that children died from during the Taliban, but no.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr53_17t1.pdf

[Guaranteed]

66. I think that your point may be misconstrued, but ultimately I agree

with you, regarding Al Qaeda.

I draw the line very, very closely to myself. I am a pacifist up to a very fine point.

What Osama did went WAY over that line. In my philosophy, when that line gets crossed, one has to hit HARD. Hard enough to, with as few casualties as possible, come to a *sure* end in the conflict.

We have to protect ourselves from those threats that are real and proven.

Personally, I'm pretty convinced that Al Qaeda pulled off 9/11 (whether there was any complacency or conspiracy on the part of the Bush administration- and the same standards apply to them). There's plenty of evidence. Osama even admitted to it on video.

When something like that happens to your country and your people, you don't have a choice but to find those who did it, and neutralize the threat that they pose in one way or another.

Contrast that with Saddam Hussein, who, as the leader of a country (and doing quite well), would NEVER have attempted something like 9/11, and, who, in fact, said that while he liked what happened on 9/11, he had nothing to do with it. And, clearly, he didn't.

Past that, no, I don't mind revenge, either, like I said before. Though I'll admit that it's not virtuous. It IS part of justice, though- in the short run.

In the long run, we don't have the first clue as to what justice is.

[bpilgrim]

83. "I don't mind revenge, either" - obviously

but blind, unjust & ineffective revenge is noth'n to be outspoken or supportive about

fyi

peace

[Guaranteed]

84. The point is to strike back with accuracy.

To protect our country.

I'm the last person advocating blindness.

[bpilgrim]

87. oh, ic...

http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

[Guaranteed]

88. With all due respect, has there ever been a

war that was justified, in your mind?

Because innocents are killed in every war.

That's why one doesn't start wars for nothing. In fact, that's why one doesn't *start* wars at all.

Osama attacked us, with devastating efficiency. We needed to "get him."

[bpilgrim]

92. a just reason for mass murder of civilians? - HELL NO

that is what i am pointing out and that what we did in afghanistan is a disgrace and disgusting.

i am all for getting UBL and his followers but i am not for using his methods and philosophy to do it.

not only does it NO WORK but we become our enemy.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." — Thomas Paine, Dissertations on First Principles of Government (1795)

peace

[Guaranteed]

97. I love Thomas Paine.

But I don't think he was against our country defending itself.

Again- when is it OK, in your opinion, for our country to defend itself?

There has to be some kind of point. And, isn't that point always going to involve the death of civilians?

AND, AGAIN- that's not to say that we should just go around engaging in wars all the time because civilians are always going to get killed. What it means is that you don't *start* wars. You only realize when you've become involved in one, and do absolutely everything necessary in order to defend yourself.

[bpilgrim]

116. can we stick to afghanistan, please

it's friday and it is late...

my opinion of afghanistan is that it was a failure and we should have handled it differently, continuing discussions to get OBL handed over to authorities and/or a search and destroy special ops mission.

bush choose to bomb'm, the innocents, too... and then move on to iraq, which is even worse as far as civilian killing goes and i am going to point out the terrorism on both sides, especially ours!

doing "absolutely everything necessary in order to defend yourself" does NOT include mass murder of civilians.

peace

[Guaranteed]

120. You really don't need to bring

Iraq into this discussion, though. We all know that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. And we knew, for the most part, that that was the case before the Chimp even invaded Iraq.

You're right about not deliberately murdering civilians.

But, the thing is, you keep running into this, and you haven't answered it: All wars kill some civilians. Afghanistan probably had one of the smallest civilian casualty ratios of any war we've ever seen, because our targets were typically situated away from civilians (i.e. mountain caves). That's not to say that we didn't hit civilians. I know we did. I remember.

So, at what point is one ethically allowed to defend one's country when one is sure that civilians will be killed in the response?

It sounds as if what you're saying is that one is never allowed to defend one's country. I don't think that that can be right.

In any case, you keep saying "mass murder" as if we were committing genocide. That wasn't the case, either.

[bpilgrim]

124. "probably had" they're you go guessing, again...

i pretty much come down with Thomas Aquinas as far as defining "Just War"

http://ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Texts/aquinas/justwar.html

as far as MASS MURDER of civilians go... i don't think ANYTHING justifies that... do you?

peace

[Guaranteed]

128. ??? Well, first off, Aquinas is quoting the Bible.

While I agree that war is always a "sin," I'd say that in the same way defending yourself from a murderer is a sin. It's a sin to kill.

And I don't even believe in the Bible as much of any kind of moral compass. Although Jesus has some interesting things to say.

However, I do agree with much of what Aquinas says. War is a sin. And, again- we keep running into this- sometimes, you don't start them (as in this case). One can become involved in them involuntarily. When someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself. You didn't start the war. You're simply fighting for your survival. It's entirely justified.

Yes, a whole lot of civilians can get hurt in a war, and many did in Afghanistan. "Mass murder," again, though, I think is being used incorrectly by you in this context. In many ways, you're actually taking away from the meaning of it by using it with such irreverance. We didn't WANT to kill any civilians, BP. And not so many as you would imply were killed. Afghanistan is a very spread out country.

Further, if you believe what Aquinas is saying, there, I'd suggest that you take a look at his three points that make "Just War." Those were pretty clearly satisfied in the attacks that took place on the WTC.

Skipping to the second point, the Afghanis themselves were not, deliberately, being attacked. Those who were surrounded by the Afghanis were being attacked. As for his third point, the intention, at least the intention of the American people was quite pure. We weren't looking to hurt any innocents. We were defending ourselves from those who had attacked us.

Again, if you believe that that wasn't the case in Afghanistan, I encourage you to present a war that was justified based on your interpretation of Aquinas' definition of "Just War."

[bpilgrim]

134. he said a LOT more than 'War is a sin'

And, again- that's my definition of what roughly equals my definition of a just war.

now i am also against, even in a 'JUST WAR' mass murder of CIVILIANS, always have & always will be.

most americans think WWII was a 'just war', but mass murdering civilians, even in wwII, was TERRORISM and UNJUST, imho.

and since i don't even think afghanistan was just why would i think killing all those civilians is just? locking them up as ILLEGAL COMBATANTS is not just and the very same think imperial japan did in asia during wwII.

NOTHING this criminal administration does is JUST and i am not about to start looking on the bright-sides of their injustice tonight.

try me again after they're locked up, though ;->

goodnight :hi:

peace

[Guaranteed]

137. Well, I've given you plenty of opportunity

to explain a situation wherein you think it is justified for a country to defend itself. You've come up with nothing in your posts in response.

According to you, the second a civilian is killed, a country should never have gotten its military involved in a conflict- whether their own civilians, or soldiers, were previously killed or not. Not only that, but in your mind the second that happens it is "mass murder" and the country that is defending itself is the guilty party.

I'm sorry. I disagree strongly.

Civilians, in particular children, should never be killed. But that's not for another country to be thinking of when it is defending its own civilians (not to mention the military).

Surely, civilians were killed in that first attack. Right?

[lvx35]

100. But you are arguing against the bombings of Dresden as well.

And all the other bloody attacks against Axis forces that killed civilians in WWII. Such attacks occur because they work, they are an unfortunate part of war. And I think FDR did the right thing in using them.

[Guaranteed]

101. It's the justification for not starting wars.

But every country has a right to defend itself.

[bpilgrim]

118. "And I think FDR did the right thing in using them." - revealing

http://media.globalfreepress.com

it was TRUMAN who used 'them', 2 nukes, on a defeated, suing for peace nation's cities, filled with innocent men, women & children, young and old, friend and foe alike, TWICE indiscriminately murdering 10's of thousands of CIVILIANS, against the advice of all our military leaders in theater at the time, who actually advised that we accept their 1 condition earlier, in order to SAVE LIVES!

i don't care which government commits MASS MURDER on civilians, it is WRONG and doesn't 'WORK'

* In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

(T)he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .

(I)n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. (THE DECISION, p. 3.)

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm

fyi

peace

[Guaranteed]

123. Great, now we're getting into this.

Japan had 11 divisions situated on the south side of the island, where we would have invaded. We didn't even know that, at the time. We thought it was more like 3 to 6 divisions.

We had 9 divisions there.

Considering that a defender gets to inflict from 2 to 3 casualties on the attacker for each one of their casualties, Japan was nowhere near defeated. If we'd invaded, there's a good chance that they would have beaten us. And they weren't capitulating. They were even hesitant *after* the bombs dropped.

In *any* case, the most important thing in war is to *finish* it as quickly as possible, given the circumstances. The longer it drags out, the more people die. The more *innocent* people die. War's answer is to be done with it. Especially when you're on the side that has the capability of finishing it.

[bpilgrim]

125. so you are all for NUKING civilians - gross

even defeated, suing for peace, civilians :puke:

now you're channeling UBL, like too many americans, and don't even know it, how tragic for all of us :nuke:

peace

[Guaranteed]

131. I'm just glad the war was ended.

That's what was important.

[Pastiche423]

99. There is one question I have asked

here, too many times to count, that no one has been able to answer.

Maybe you can.

What proof do you have that OBL was behind the attacks?

[Guaranteed]

103. He admitted it on video.

A number of times, actually.

It always could be the media doing what they do. But the guy's playing into it awful well.

[Pastiche423]

107. Was that the video

w/the fat OBL or the skinny one?

Btw, do you speak Arabic?

[Guaranteed]

109. No, I don't speak Arabic.

But many Americans do. I also have quite a few pictures of myself at both skinny and more hefty weights.

Of course, I've never hiked continuously through the mountains of Tora Bora with limited supplies, but I can imagine what it would do to me.

[Pastiche423]

127. Were you w/any of those many Americans

when you watched the tape?

Another btw - the skinny OBL was in the 1st video.

You imagine that hiking continously through the mountains of Tora Bora w/limited supplies AND dragging a dialysis machine would help him GAIN weight?

Bullshit.

[Guaranteed]

130. Have you heard any Americans saying that the tape was misinterpreted?

As far as gaining weight when he was hiking, let's see the proof.

[Pastiche423]

138. Yes, I have heard Americans

not only say the tapes were misinterpreted, but were also doctored.

In the 1st video, OBL was skinny. The 2nd video tape showed him fat. Between the 1st video and the 2nd video, he was "fleeing" from those trying to capture him. While he was fleeing, he was hiking up those Tora Bora mountains your referred to.

My whole point is that there has never been a shred of evidence given to the world that he, in fact, has behind the attacks.

[Guaranteed]

139. Bypassing a number of issues regarding bin Laden,

what about Al Qaeda? Do you think they were responsible for the WTC bombing or the USS Cole?

Do you think they didn't like us?

[Pastiche423]

145. To decipher the truth

I depend on evidence.

There was been no evidence presented as to who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

From the begining, any real investigation has been thwarted. That has made me very suspious of those doing the thwarting.

[lvx35]

113. The REAL translation!!!

Right here!

www.whenangrydemocratsattack.com/PRES_GTM_OBL.rm

;)

[lvx35]

115. He's refering to this BTW

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html



I don't know what to make of it either, but I think the main version of events is basically correct, but has alot of spin and misinformation and such.

[bpilgrim]

121. "I think the main version of events is basically correct"

oh, well that explains it... you got a lot to learn from DU.

thank GORE he 'invented' the INTERNETs :evilgrin:

peace

[lvx35]

133. "you got a lot to learn from DU."

I hope so, that's why I love this place so damn much, because I'm always learning so much from lots of nice people. But as far as OBL being an innocent patsy or something, I don't buy it.

[bpilgrim]

136. like, no one ever says "OBL is just an innocent patsy or something" here

welcome to DU :hi:

peace

[lvx35]

143. :) thanks.

I wish we had audio posts, where we could just say things instead of typing them. Somebody should come up with that technology. It would make forums more fun.

[lvx35]

102. Good closing statement.

In the long run, we don't have the first clue as to what justice is.

That is the problem, is it not? When the tapestry gets bigger than the little stage of war, it all makes less sense.

[bpilgrim]

80. yeah, what about THEM! not that that has anything to do with afghanistan

just collateral damage, eh...

well OBL wasn't the head of a state and we should have focused on al CIAda (OUR database) not the STATE.

i see it as a COMPLETE FAILURE and simply a SHOW for american consumption which many lapped right up.

and so it goes...

http://media.globalfreepress.com

peace

[lvx35]

96. It has everything to do with it.

You have got to ask the fundamental question: Was the "collateral damage" worth it in WWII? Because there was lots, in the bombings of German cities. If you say yes, then you have to look at the bigger picture in any other conflict as well. The fact that some kids died is not enough to refute a war, we have to ask if Karzai is better than the Taliban, and my guess is that he is....Now I think that Bush handled all of it terribly, but I do think that war was an appropriate response to the situation at hand.

[movonne]

Well I don't see why we have to kill a lot of people that are not

response able for what the government does...and as it turns out we still have not captured OBL..Afghanistan is another hot bed right now. It seems to be that more and more of our soldiers are being killed there.

[H2O Man]

10. I am not

sure what you mean by "invade." I'm not saying that to be a wise guy. Within two hours of the 3rd plane striking, the US knew who had attacked us. I think that it would have been wise to have bombed the caves known as Tora Bora within the next 12 hours. I think that killing those who were behind the attacks would have been a good thing. That would have very likely made the invasion of the rest of Afghanistan unnecessary.

[Guaranteed]

15. You could be right.

For me, it was whatever would be effective.

I think it's important that we knew, though, and, honestly, I think it would (have been) be better to get him alive. For proof, more than anything.

[H2O Man]

26. I like the quote

by Richard Clarke. Just seeing his name reminds me that we had intelligent people and intelligence people who understood what was occuring, and who had a grasp of how to respond.

We also had a group of bumbling fools, and a cowardly pup who was intent on not returning to Washington, DC. The United States was not well-served by the band of fools in the administration. In truth, there are likely a half-dozen options that we had that would have benefitted the nation and the world. Instead, the jackasses in power made the worst choices.

(Not to sound cranky, but there were smart people available to make rational decisions.)

[Guaranteed]

40. Thanks. I honestly think his saying that was a turning point

in our history as a country.

I remember the feeling, hearing him say that in front of the 9/11 Commission. In that room, across DU, even...it was unbelievable.

It was the "Emperor has no clothes" moment. Stunning.

I think it should be central to the Democratic platform, as well. It sums up what I believe should be our approach to bringing down the Repukes.

[H2O Man]

47. I recently

bought "Against All Enemies." I think it is a fascinating study of the federal government. It takes a brave individual to take a stand, and tell the truth, when they know they will be viciously attacked for it.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. From day one I said no...

because catching culprits is not a job for the military-- it is a job for the police.

I have no love for the Taliban and do have some minor appreciation for their apparent demise. although they seem to be having some resurgence, but, in the end we accomplished nothing for ourselves, and Afghanistan is not that much better off.

It was not am action to find justice for 9/11, but an act of vengeance. We went to war simply because these people running things know no other way.

[titoresque]

17. no we should have

made the Bush admin. accountable for treason, and crimes against humanity!!!! INSIDE JOB!

Those bastards should have been in jail by now!!!!!!!

[Tinoire]

18. Of course not. Most of us knew it back then & said so.

I stand by that. There was NO justification for invading Afghanistan.

Funny about all those pipelines isn't it?

[uppityperson]

20. Other

Invade but only with actually spending the time and money necessary to help straighten things out, do nation building, rather than turning it into the lonely step-child of the Iraq occupation. If it didn't involve that, don't invade.

[Yupster]

56. Straighten out Afghanistan?

:rofl:

You think a major US role on the ground in Afghanistan would help things?

[uppityperson]

67. Yes, no, depends. more...

Afghanistan is a tough one. It has been at war with other countries and amongst itself for such a long time. It is so poor, so limited, such an impoverished place. The taliban, while quite bad for women and people dissenting, were better than the tribal crap going on before them. There was an amount of stability, but repression yes. Another problem is culturally this is a tribal society.

IF the USA was going to attack them and remove the Taliban from power, they needed to have a plan to help the common people get adequate necessities (food, shelter, work, health care, religious at least not oppression) and a plan to provide a government to actually be able to work. So, how the hell do the nation builders actually do it?

Not by attacking, removing the government from power, installing a puppet, and doing minimal work to get the country up and running, with the citizens able to eat, sleep, work, so on. Not by ignoring things there and going on to the main goal of invading Iraq.

Call me naive but I believe in world citizenship. I am not Queen of the Universe, yet, and do not have all the facts about anything, but it seems to me that there was a chance to work with Afghanistan and, as I put it, straighten it out.


Ground troops would help IF there was a plan to use them properly, which there isn't and wasn't. I am really tired of this country invading other places, overthrowing governments and bailing. I know, easy answer is don't invade, overthrow and bail. That is what I hope for, but also believe in world citizenship and helping each other figure out how to live humanely, AND that humanity will make itself extinct, or almost with a lot of technological backwardness (can't think of the word opposite advancements), soon. These beliefs conflict and I don't have easy answers, am complicated.

[Yupster]

74. I just don't believe that more Americans

is what Afghanistan needs.

I think that would make things much worse.

[uppityperson]

78. What do you think would help? Seriously.

I'll check back in a little bit, go fix a bite of dinner.

[Yupster]

144. I honestly don't think there's much we can do

in Afghanistan.

I have very low expectations there.

If we can have a friendly government, and a small group of soldiers who can stay out of the populated areas and keep terrorists from openly training in large numbers, that's about the best we can hope for.

Aid is fine, but it has to be disconnected from American hands, and it can't be too much or it will seem like a threat to their culture.

I expect a very long and slow march of progress if there is any noticable progress at all.

I just don't think 100 billion dollars would help. The people there would see it as Americans coming to destroy their way of life.

I don't think large numbers of American soldiers would help. They will just be seen as invaders and infidels.

I really think Afghanistan has gone as well or better than I thought it would. And that just shows how low my expectations of the place are.

[Darranar]

27. Most certainly not the way it was done, no. n/t

[LincolnMcGrath]

32. Why did we give the Taliban $43 million 3 months before 9-11

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/

[evilqueen]

33. I say maybe because...

there is still so much missing information surrounding 9/11 that we may never find out, tin foil hat or no. As I recall, bin Laden denied responsibility several times (I guess in one of the last tapes he finally claimed responsibility, although that may help his cause more than hurt it.)

I also wonder about those hijackers and how quickly and conveniently their names came up... only to find out later that 7 of those people turned up alive and well and living overseas in their countries, so obviously they'd been the victims of identity theft (or something more sinister).

The cost of this war, in terms of money and lives lost and diminished freedoms, hasn't been justified by the results.

We aren't any "safer" now than we were on 9/10 either.

[Loge23]

37. Hindsight

No, but only in hindsight.
If we only knew then what we know now.
Fact is, war is never the answer. There's no justification ultimately.
The only reason we took action there was to build the pipeline.
At this point, I'm not even sure that bin Laden had anything to do with 911.

[DanCa]

41. Within certain critera yes .

A careful game plan, an exit strategy, and over whelming allies and not the way this murdering SOB triger happy weasel did it. Senator Kerry was right we had the OBL cornered at Tora Bora (sp) and this monkey faced weasel let him go.

[Guaranteed]

43. That's basically it. nt

[Endangered Specie]

44. Yes, though more competently than the way we did..

[SillyGoose]

51. Yes. We most certainly should have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.

[Psyop Samurai]

57. No, we were deceived.

Anyone who has time to post on this board has time to properly research the evidence. This was a crime. Period. No amount of wishful thinking will ever change that.

[Guaranteed]

60. I'm not sure what you're saying...

Are you saying that Osama didn't do it, that he did it with the support of our government, or that what he did wasn't an act of war due to the nature of the attack?

[Psyop Samurai]

68. The combination that no evidence links him to it...

...and that 9/11 was a perfectly timed pretext event for initiating an action already decided upon (the invasion). As concerns Afghanistan, bin Laden is basically a McGuffin.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

64. I agree. N/T

[pinto]

65. I supported and still support handling 9/11 as a criminal case. OBL

was catchable, we flubbed it, and our "partners" in the region were sketchy in the effort at best, culpable at the worst. (I mean Pakistan).

In the 9/11 case, a lot of our actions have been secondary to the issue, as blunt as that seems - the Taliban overthrow (regardless of the justification in regards to their oppressive regime) and the Iraq invasion (again, regardless of the oppressive regime).

9/11 remains an open case. If we really mean to bring the perps to trial, we would be on it. That's how I see it. We could have had OBL and we didn't follow through.

The deadly brinkmanship sidetrack the Administration has chosen in Iraq neither brings us closer to resolving the 9/11 incident nor brings us closer to any kind of reality based security.

Destroying Iraq solves nothing about 9/11...though now it seems almost moot.

My $.02...

[Copperred]

69. We owe it to them.....

My take on why has nothing to do with OBL or 911.

Simply put we owed it to the original Afghans whom we suckered into fighting the USSR for us..and then left them afterward to later be taken over by the CIA/ISI backed crazy Taliban.

There should be a Cold War Afghan Monument in DC that reads.....

"America salutes the brave Afghan people who fought and died for our freedom in the Cold War."

[electron_blue]

70. I said "No" then and still say "No"

I thought it was transparent at the time that the Afghanistan bombings were all bluster and noise, signifying nothing (or however that quote goes). Had they really wanted to capture OBL they would have just done it, quickly and relatively quietly. The war they setup in AFghanistan with the supposed "help" of the locals just when they were getting close to OBL was a total screw-up, intentional, I believe.

If the goal was peace an an end to warfare on AMERICAN SOIL, then bombing Afghanistan (especially haphazardly as it was) followed by Iraq was the worst thing that could have possibly been done.

If the goal was to expand American presence and control in the middle east, especially the Iraqi oil fields, then bombing Afgh. followed by Iraq was the quickest way to achieve that, with a bonus - overwhelming support of the American Public and Congress.

[leesa]

76. Absolutely not...it was an irrational response to a crime. And the net

result is proof that it was the absolute wrong move. We caught NONE of the alleged planners of 9-11, none of the alleged hijackers or their financiers were from there, we destroyed the country and threw it back into the hands of the warlords. It was a stupid, idiotic way to catch alleged criminals. It had nothing but a negative effect.

Also, we have NO IDEA who did 9-11 because it has NEVER been investigated. We were only told by the lying Bush administration who they wanted us to believe did it and Americans fell for it.

Amazing how many people here are still conned by the lie.

We DID get the pipeline right-of-way that we threatened to bomb the Taliban for in July 2001 though. Suckers!

[jayfish]

79. I Said Maybe.

There were many cunundrums in going to Afghanistan. I have always hated the Taliban for what they were doing to the country. And whenever had to listen to a Taliban rep tout his BS on NPR or some other outlet my blood would boil. Hell I would have rather invaded to save those statues then to get AQ. A couple of things though. As we have seen in Iraq and to a growing extent in Afghanistan itself, it looks great on paper but, reality dictates its' own outcome. Most times that outcome is at odds with the grandiose ideas that set the plan in motion. And did we really need to invade Afghanistan to "get" AQ? Or did we push the Taliban out of power in a blind fit of rage and revenge?

Jay

[Guaranteed]

82. Well, politically, it sounds as if it's important that we address

how closely the Taliban was linked to Al Qaeda. While I have no cites, what I've seen and heard over the past few years suggests that they were quite close to each other, indeed.

Of course, this coming from the media that was also allowing Bush's implication that Saddam was somehow tied to Al Qaeda. That was pretty obviously wrong, though.

Osama was in Afghanistan, after all, and their philosophies were the same.

In any case, I'd make the argument that the Taliban was much, much worse than even Saddam. In many ways the Iraqi people were doing okay under Saddam. They were educated, women had rights, etc., etc.....

[bpilgrim]

86. that the Taliban were willing to discuss turning UBL over to authorities

but as you've noted the M$MWs are never goin to expose major transgression regarding war - rare exceptions after many years have passed depending on the severity

and just think how we supported and trained the taliban as well as Saddam's regime, but i'm sure bombing them every now-n-then will show'm how much we care & exact our revenge, of course.


http://media.GlobalFreePress.com

peace

[Guaranteed]

90. They weren't willing to turn him over to our authorities.

I wouldn't have accepted any less with Osama having done what he did.

[jayfish]

117. Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html

<SNIP>
President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty".
</SNIP>



http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/14/ret.retaliation.facts/

<SNIP>
Taliban renews, U.S. rejects bin Laden offer

U.S. warplanes pounded Afghanistan's southern city of Kandahar on Sunday, a day after the ruling Taliban's spiritual leader rejected another call to turn over suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

The Taliban made an offer of their own Sunday, saying they would be willing to discuss giving bin Laden to a third country for trial if the United States ended its attacks and provided evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The White House quickly rejected the offer, and President Bush said the U.S. position was "non-negotiable."
</SNIP>


Now here's my take. Sure it was a bogus offer, but all first offers are bogus. If they wanted bin Laden they could have negotiated for his hand-over. Something else seemed to be going on here. Like I said, I voted maybe, so I think we will have to let time be the judge.

Jay

[Guaranteed]

122. Right, a third country.

The point was that the Taliban weren't willing to give him to our country.

That wouldn't be acceptable to me after what happened.

[jayfish]

111. I See It As Unlikely The Taliban...

were involved in the operation activities of AQ. Maybe they were. Even with that in mind and using the 20/20 hindsight provided by actually invading; is it working? The admin has kept a pretty good lid on what's really been going on over there but it looks like the wheels are starting to wobble a bit.

Jay

[Zenlitened]

104. Yes. There was every reason to invade Afghanistan.

It's a shame that Bush bungled that, too. He let bin Laden walk away, then left the people of Afghanistan hanging high and dry.

[JI7]

108. not the way Bush did it

BUsh fucked it up .

[Guaranteed]

110. Haven't seen you in awhile.

Welcome back. :)

And yes, he did.

[JackieO]

112. Yikes.

Creepy poll results.

[Guaranteed]

114. It was more to the other side for quite awhile. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

126. yes we should have invaded INTELLIGENTLY

The list of missed opportunities is vast.

usama
goodwill
global support
moral high ground
honesty
integrity
security
credibility
respect

All of this would have had to begin with massive boots on the ground to render the taliban impotent. That would have meant more casualties. More casualties in Afganistan would have meant a harder sell on the Iraqi war.

Less oil profits.

Bush has no god but oil, he shall put no gods before it.

[Guaranteed]

132. There's only one thing in that list, IMO,

that we missed.

The rest were destroyed with the invasion of Iraq.

[spindoctor]

129. No, we had to do something but Afghanistan was not the right target.

Luxemburg could have won a war against Afghanistan. A country hardly worth the term.

A show of strength would have been extracting Ben Laden and bring him to trial. Then attack Al-Queda everywhere around the globe in any way possible.

A two-week bombing campaign at a country that has only catapults for ground to air defense is slightly pathetic. Then follow-up with the invasion of the least extremist country in the Middle-East....

I don't know. It just doesn't feel like the right message.

Because Afghanistan did provide shelter to Ben Laden (and assuming that Ben Laden was the mastermind of 9/11), a retaliation against Afghanistan could be considered justified. Ironically the invasion of Iraq gave us more respect with potential enemies.
Everybody knew already that we have a strong army. Now they know we're mental too.

[Warren DeMontague]

135. I thought the point was to get Osama and company

so I supported it at the time.

...obviously that has not been accomplished, so regardless of how I feel currently about what was done back then, (or how I may have re-evaluated what I believe to be the motivations of the people in this Administration), the invasion needs to be regarded, overall, as an abject failure in its obstensible primary objective.

[Guaranteed]

140. No, it hasn't been accomplished.

ChimpCo failed most clearly.

However, the justification was correct. We needed to defend ourselves.

[Warren DeMontague]

141. We needed to defend ourselves from the folks behind 9-11, but we didn't.

Who knows why that is?

[Guaranteed]

142. LOL I hear ya there.

I'm serious. I know.

Honestly, it should have been them, too. It wasn't going to happen, though.

They're the ones that started the whole thing up.

Bush is a fucking piece of shit.