SIMPLE FACT- US INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN IS ILLEGAL

[Orwellian_Ghost]

The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the Charter because the attacks on September 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States.

[NeedleCast]

1. and we're not at war with Afghanistan

We're at war with the Taliban/AQ.

[Sequoia]

2. Yes, when Russia invaded that country

We didn't go to the Olympics.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Look what happened to the President who decided to boycott the Olympics:

[Sequoia]

60. Talk about a landslide.

The Panama Canal was another sore issue too. I was in the air force at the time, brainwashed by Republicans.

[Oregone]

7. Of course. We were to busy training the mujahideen.

But a question...did Russia invade Afghanistan?

[blindpig]

28. Russia did not invade Afghanistan.

Russia was invited to help the legitimate, progressive government of Afghanistan to help them with a revolt of reactionary elements. Initially Russia demurred, only acquiescing after repeated entreaties.

[geek tragedy]

57. Are you serious, or is this snark? n/t

[blindpig]

68. Dead fuckin' serious. n/t

[geek tragedy]

70. Okay comrade! n/t

[blindpig]

75. That's right...

running dog capitalist.

You probably thought 'Red Dawn' a documentry......

[geek tragedy]

83. Wow, I didn't think brainwashed Communists like you

existed outside the imaginations of Freepers.

Kind of like discovering a species that I thought had gone extinct.

[blindpig]

87. Otoh

I have seen way too many propaganda spouting know nothings on this board. The depth of your ignorance is impressive.

Yeah, it was a Whirlpool top loader.

Manchurian Candidate much?

[geek tragedy]

89. Yes, Barry Soetoro Hussein Osama was a Manchurian

Candidate.

Oh wait, you're the other kind of crazy ideologue.

I like you. You're entertaining.

[blindpig]

98. While you're amused...

Show me where the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. An invitation is not an invasion, except in the crooked lies of US propaganda.

[geek tragedy]

107. Just like they were invited in to East Germany, Hungary,

and Czechoslovokia?

[blindpig]

119. So tell me about Afghanistan.

You're getting off topic.

I wait with baited breath.

[geek tragedy]

126. A Soviet satellite puppet dictatorship invited the Soviets in.

Well, then, I guess there you have it--no invasion at all.

[Occam Bandage]

Just like when Manchukuo invited the Japanese to defend them against China.

No invasion. Just peacekeeping.

[Oregone]

176. And a US backed proxy force fought against them

And while the chess pieces moved, an entire country's infrastructure was destroyed, as were the lives of the people living there. Its truly an embarrassing piece of history.

[geek tragedy]

183. True. No one acted meritoriously in that episode.

And the world is still paying the price.

[Oregone]

186. We were instrumental in creating an entire generation of fatherless children,

which is still being felt today. If we continue to create another generation of them, how can we stop this cycle?

I guess we can pretend we will stay, and shape and tailor it, and let it suckle at our teet until it is back on its feet (as if we could ever bring it back to what it used to be). But, that all assumes we can win in the first place, right?

[geek tragedy]

189. Win? Only the Afghans can win.

We can only succeed.

[Oregone]

195. Well...Im not convinced that we can suceed...

and that our military success will translate to success for the Afghan people. They may lose regardless of what happens. The minute we dropped the first bombs, they continued to lose. The minute Carter signed off on Operation cyclone, they began to lose.

[G_j]

305. delete

[G_j]

306. thus

the mujahideen, OBL,

and a perpetual "enemy"

[Two Americas]

500. so Orwellian

Your entire "argument" consists of trying to redefine words. Often to have the opposite meaning.

So if we are only trying to "succeed," rather than "win," that changes everything I guess.

You can always tell when someone is trying to advance a false argument and mislead people, because they spend all of their time trying to change the meaning of words, and force people to accept various euphemisms or point definitions for words.

It isn't a war, it wasn't an invasion, and we aren't trying to win according to you. What that means is that you can't defend the war, and the invasion and the goal, so you would prefer that we don't call them by their proper words.

[Two Americas]

499. hah

Right. Their allies were "satellite puppet dictatorships." Anyone resisting them were to be called "freedom fighters."

Our satellite puppet dictatorships - all over the world - are to be called "struggling democracies" and "our allies." Anyone resisting that is to be called "terrorists."

[sniffa]

294. How do you bait breath?

[tclambert]

340. Minnows.

Or eat a lot of sardines.

[Duende azul]

295. Excuse me, they won WW II.

Not leaving Eastern Germany is pretty understandable after all they had gone through.
And with the oncoming cold war staying in Eastern Europe was pretty logical from their point of view.

But judging from your contributions to this thread: You are not really interested in some historical background, are you?

BTW: They are gone, Americans are still there (atomic arsenal and missile "defense" shield included, stirring up unrest everywhere around Russia).

[JVS]

312. Don't forget that most of Eastern Europe (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, et. at) sided with Germany...

after France fell and even contributed to the German invasion of the USSR.

[geek tragedy]

430. Should France have occupied Italy for 40 years after

WW II?

Amazing how people will defend ANY anti-American state or group, whether it be the Soviet Union, the Imperial Japan, or the Taliban.

But, they're the true core of the Democratic Party. :sarcasm:

[JVS]

437. I'd have had no problem with that. France UK and USA occupied W. Germany for 40 years..

after installing a friendly regime. I don't know why the occupation of Italy was so short. Now, France would have a much harder time arguing that an occupation of Italy helps to create a buffer for France, and of course Italy was not ever under French military control at the end of the war, thus presenting making it hard for them to be occupied by France in a way similar to how Yugoslavia never had Soviet soldiers there. Still, an occupation more similar to that of Germany or the other Axis powers would not have been inappropriate at all.

[geek tragedy]

445. West Germany was a free and sovereign state

well before 1998.

The Italians were not as die-hard behind Fascism as the Germans were behind Nazism.

Is Israel justified in occupying the West Bank as a buffer state?

[Two Americas]

497. another right wing theme

This is another right wing theme you are now promoting - characterizing liberals as the "blame America first crowd" is how the right wing radio people phrase it, I think.

[geek tragedy]

423. Another Soviet Apologist.

Well-argued, Comrade!

[Two Americas]

459. disgusting

Thinking people left this red scare McCarthyism on the ash heap of history quite a while back. I am amazed to see it revived and given new life among Democrats.

The Soviets did win WWII. 20 million people died, and they were fighting intensely on the Eastern front for years before D Day.

[geek tragedy]

491. So that gave them the right to oppress half of Europe.

And, of course, many many many people in the Soviet Union were killed by the very same Soviet government that then expanded the Soviet Empire into Eastern Europe.

It's no coincidence that the Soviet apologists are also Taliban apologists. They have an undeniable attraction to anti-American totalitarianism.

[Two Americas]

508. what?

Who said "that gave them the right to oppress half of Europe?"

So either we support the Bush doctrine in Afghanistan or we are "Taliban apologists" and dirty commies to boot?

[blindpig]

92. responded to wrong post, oops. n't

[byeya]

348. Instead of name calling, let's try & cite some history

if you're up to it.

[geek tragedy]

446. Try wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#1979:_Soviet_deployment

The Soviet Union decided to intervene militarily in Afghanistan in order to preserve the communist regime. Based on information from the KGB, Soviet leaders felt that Amin destabilized the situation in Afghanistan. Following Amin's initial coup against and killing of President Taraki, the KGB station in Kabul warned that his leadership would lead to "harsh repressions, and as a result, the activation and consolidation of the opposition."<23>

The Soviets established a special commission on Afghanistan, of KGB chairman Yuri Andropov, Ponomaryev from the Central Committee and Dimitry Ustinov, the Minister of Defense. In late April 1978, they reported that Amin was purging his opponents, including Soviet loyalists; his loyalty to Moscow was in question; and that he was seeking diplomatic links with Pakistan and possibly the People's Republic of China. Of specific concern were Amin's secret meetings with the US chargé d'affaires J. Bruce Amstutz, which, while never amounting to any agreement between Amin and the United States, sowed suspicion in the Kremlin.<24>

Information obtained by the KGB from its agents in Kabul provided the last arguments to eliminate Amin; supposedly, two of Amin's guards killed the former president Nur Muhammad Taraki with a pillow, and Amin was suspected to be a CIA agent. The latter, however, is still disputed: Amin repeatedly demonstrated official friendliness to the Soviet Union. Soviet General Vasily Zaplatin, a political advisor at that time, claimed that four of President Taraki's ministers were responsible for the destabilization. However, Zaplatin failed to emphasize this enough.<25>

1979: Soviet invasion
The Soviet invasion

On December 7, 1979, the Soviet advisors to the Afghan Armed Forces advised them to undergo maintenance cycles for their tanks and other crucial equipment. Meanwhile, telecommunications links to areas outside of Kabul were severed, isolating the capital. With a deteriorating security situation, large numbers of Soviet airborne forces joined stationed ground troops and began to land in Kabul on December 25th. Simultaneously, Amin moved the offices of the president to the Tajbeg Palace, believing this location to be more secure from possible threats. According to Colonel General Tukharinov and Merimsky, Amin was fully informed of the military movements, having requested Soviet military assistance to northern Afghanistan on December 17th.<26><27> His brother and General Dmitry Chiangov met with the commander of the 40th Army before Soviet troops entered the country, to work out initial routes and locations for Soviet troops.<28>

On December 27, 1979, 700 Soviet troops dressed in Afghan uniforms, including KGB OSNAZ and GRU SPETSNAZ special forces from the Alpha Group and Zenith Group, occupied major governmental, military and media buildings in Kabul, including their primary target - the Tajbeg Presidential Palace.

That operation began at 19:00 hr., when the Soviet Zenith Group destroyed Kabul's communications hub, paralyzing Afghan military command. At 19:15, the assault on Tajbeg Palace began; as planned, president Hafizullah Amin was killed. Simultaneously, other objectives were occupied (e.g. the Ministry of Interior at 19:15). The operation was fully complete by the morning of December 28, 1979.

The Soviet military command at Termez, Uzbek SSR, announced on Radio Kabul that Afghanistan had been "liberated" from Amin's rule. According to the Soviet Politburo they were complying with the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness and Amin had been "executed by a tribunal for his crimes" by the Afghan Revolutionary Central Committee. That committee then elected as head of government former Deputy Prime Minister Babrak Karmal, who had been demoted to the relatively insignificant post of ambassador to Czechoslovakia following the Khalq takeover, and that it had requested Soviet military assistance. <29>

Soviet ground forces, under the command of Marshal Sergei Sokolov, entered Afghanistan from the north on December 27th. In the morning, the 103rd Guards 'Vitebsk' Airborne Division landed at the airport at Bagram and the deployment of Soviet troops in Afghanistan was underway. The force that entered Afghanistan, in addition to the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, was under command of the 40th Army and consisted of the 108th and 5th Guards Motor Rifle Divisions, the 860th Separate Motor Rifle Regiment, the 56th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade, the 36th Mixed Air Corps. Later on the 201st and 58th Motor Rifle Divisions also entered the country, along with other smaller units.<30> In all, the initial Soviet force was around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFVs. In the second week alone, Soviet aircraft had made a total of 4,000 flights into Kabul.<31> With the arrival of the two later divisions, the total Soviet force rose to over 100,000 personnel.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

375. Totally serious

This was widely reported in the press outside the U.S. (e.g. Japan), and was well known to friends of mine who were grad students in either Russian Studies or Middle Eastern Studies.

[Winterblues]

58. Afghanistan had an Army of over 250,000 men that worked with Russia

Russia had an Army of over 150,000 men in afghanistan plus 250,000 men of the Afghanistani Army and they still lost. America has 38,000 men with a possible addition of 17,000. There are over 40 million Punjab that live in the area and they are not happy at being occupied by a western force.

[olegramps]

356. Punjab?

Do you mean Pashtun that comprise about 45% of the population?

[Regret My New Name]

79. hehe

[sniffa]

292. That's the Kremlin's stance too

I salute you, comrade. :patriot:

[byeya]

347. Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was in existence

almost two years before the first Soviet troops entered the country in defense of the government at the Afghan's invitation{begging & pleas were more like it}

[Lydia Leftcoast]

376. Yup, the Marxist government of Afghanistan came into power in March 1978

I was living in Japan at the time, and the Japanese press reported it.

Back in the U.S. in December 1979, I was astonished to hear the official U.S. line that the Soviets had just up and "invaded" Afghanistan simply because they were nasty Soviets and that's what nasty Soviets do.

For the record, for all their faults, from the 1950s onward, the Soviet Union never sent troops into any country that didn't already have a Communist government.

[GOTV]

383. Didn't they *seize* power only months before the Soviets rushed in to help?

It's not hard to imagine that the overthrow of the Afghani government by the PDPA was actually the first step of a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

384. Read the other threads

The coup occurred in the spring of 1978.

The Soviets came in in March of 1979.

The CIA was already organizing the rural Islamists in the summer of 1978.

[GOTV]

396. OK, I was going on Wikipedia which claims Aug 7th 1978 ...

... but there's dispute of that date as well.

[anonymous171]

470. Imperialism is only "imperialism" when America does it.

The glorious USSR never engaged in imperialist ventures.

[Oregone]

3. The Taliban is, for the most part, the governing body of Afghanistan.

Thats like a country invading the US saying, we aren't at war with the US, just the democratic party....(shhh....that makes it OK). And again, the Taliban (Afghanistan) never attacked the US.

I don't remember us declaring war on Al Queada formally.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

6. The legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001

The legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001
Author Williamson, Myra Elsie Jane Bell
Institution The University of Waikato
Date 2007

Abstract The thesis examines the international law pertaining to the use of force by states, in general, and to the use of force in self-defence, in particular. The main question addressed is whether the use of force, which was purported to be in self-defence, by the United States, the United Kingdom and their allies against al Qaeda, the Taliban and Afghanistan, beginning on 7 October 2001, was lawful. The thesis focuses not only on this specific use of force, but also on the changing nature of conflict, the definition of terrorism and on the historical evolution of limitations on the use of force, from antiquity until 2006. In the six chapters which trace the epochs of international law, the progression of five inter-related concepts is followed: limitations on the resort to force generally, the use of force in self-defence, pre-emptive self-defence, the use of forcible measures short of war, and the use of force in response to non-state actors. This historical analysis includes a particular emphasis on understanding the meaning of the ‘inherent right of self-defence’, which was preserved by Article 51 of the United Nations’ Charter. This analysis is then applied to the use of force against Afghanistan which occurred in 2001. Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September, the US and the UK notified the United Nations Security Council of their resort to force in self-defence under Article 51. Each element of Article 51 is analysed and the thesis concludes that there are significant doubts as to the lawfulness of that decision to employ force. In addition to the self-defence justification, other possible grounds for intervention are also examined, such as humanitarian intervention, Security Council authorisation and intervention by invitation. This thesis challenges the common assumption that the use of force against Afghanistan was an example of states exercising their inherent right to self-defence. It argues that if this particular use of force is not challenged, it will lead to an expansion of the right of self-defence which will hinder rather than enhance international peace and security. Finally, this thesis draws on recent examples to illustrate the point that the use of force against Afghanistan could become a dangerous precedent for the use of force in self-defence.

http://adt.waikato.ac.nz/public/adt-uow20070716.103819/

[blindpig]

21. Stupid parsing

It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck............

Or mebbe you might ask all of those dead civilians.

[Winterblues]

54. At that time the Taliban was the legitimate government of Afghanistan

When you go to war with the "Official" government of a country, you in effect go to war against that country.

[geek tragedy]

82. The Taliban was NOT the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

Only three nations--Saudi-occupied Arabia, Pakistan, and some other petrosheikdom--recognized the Taliban.

[Oregone]

102. Question: if they were not the legitimate authority, why was it their responsibility to extradite?

Follow up: And if they were not responsible (obligated) to extradite bin Laden, is their refusal to do so truly grounds to invade?

By not recognizing them as a legitimate authority, you introduce other problems into the equation. If they were simply some illegitimate criminal organization, we should have never talked with them or figured them into the overall equation. It is like invading California because the Hell's Angels wont comply to your demands.

[Oregone]

174. *crickets*

[geek tragedy]

198. We talked with them out of necessity.

They were still bound by UN Security Council resolutions.

Hell's Angels do not rule California.

The point remains--they had a choice--side with the rest of the world, or with bin Laden. They chose bin laden.

[Oregone]

226. But if they aren't the legitimate leaders of Afghanistan, they do not have any obligation to do...

anything. They have as much obligation to turn bin Laden over as the CAGF (Coalition of Afghan Goat Farmers). They had as much obligation as the famous Northern Alliance (who were quite bad in their own right). They are legally equivalent to a street gang, in essence, if what you say is true. If they were an illegitimate group, they had not obligation to do anything for anyone, except to those they were sovereign to (the true leader of their country, of which, there was none). Instead, we went to war with them, and how can we justify that considering this strange legal status?

Since there was no legit, legal leader of Afghanistan, why did we need to go to the UN to invade in the first place? Why was it necessary to talk with an illegitimate group that had no legal obligations to anyone, if we weren't going to "negotiate" with that group anyway? Were we, post 9/11, rational and intellectual enough to objectively ask and answer these questions? If not, can we be sure that we made the best decisions in the heat of the moment, with the most incompetent leader in decades?

You know, I think the days before we invaded would of been good times to ask these questions. The media was too busy talking about Burkas.

[geek tragedy]

238. No. They are not above the law.

Moreover, if they had no obligation to turn bin Laden over, then the US had no obligation to pause in invading Afghanistan.

Since there was no legit, legal leader of Afghanistan, why did we need to go to the UN to invade in the first place?

We didn't. The UN SC resolution referred to the right of self-defense--which every state possesses regardless of what the UN does or says.

The US did seek sanctions to persaude the Taliban to turn bin Laden over, since the preference was to avoid a land war.

[Oregone]

248. "The UN SC resolution referred to the right of self-defense"

Which again fails to provide a reason for attacking the Taliban. They were equivalent to a street gang and never attacked the US. They were not above the law, but besides it, with as much obligation to extradite Bin Laden as the average Afghan goat farmer.

"The US did seek sanctions to persaude the Taliban to turn bin Laden over, since the preference was to avoid a land war."

If you truly think the Bush Administration had a preference to avoid war, it is clear we are living in two different Americas at the time.

[geek tragedy]

251. The Taliban were the de facto army of Afghanistan.

And they were affiliated with the AQ fighters in their country.

So, of course they were targets.

Clinton was the one who went to the UN for sanctions. Bush was not bothering with sanctions, and quite honestly there was no reason to. The Taliban had a full month to decide whether bin Laden was worth a US invasion.

They decided to throw in with bin Laden.

[Oregone]

254. They are illegitimate, so we dont have to negotiate with them. But being de facto leaders, they

have to comply to demands we make? Who makes those fucking rules anyway? Lets just call them all illegal combatants and gas them. Save us the trouble of coming up with new shit to justify carpet bombing children.

[geek tragedy]

256. They're the ones who picked up guns and conquered

a country and then joined forces with the world's most notorious terrorist.

They reaped what they had sown.

[Oregone]

259. Picked up guns?!? They were born with them in their fucking hands

After we raped their country in a game of strategic chess...Maybe, just maybe, its is WE who are reaping what we have sown.

[Oregone]

261. To quote the new hero Zbigniew Brzezinski BTW...

"What is most important to the history of the world? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

Oh, how you are so quick to condemn those violent brown skinned stirred-up Moslems.

[geek tragedy]

264. Yeah, I'm a racist for wanting the people who massacred 3000

people in my city brought to justice and prevented from committing future atrocities.

Fuck you very much.

[Oregone]

267. THE TALIBAN DID NOT DO 9/11! AFGHANISTAN DID NOT DO 9/11!

It is clear that your rage has blinded you from being able to talk about this rationally.

[geek tragedy]

270. The Taliban aided, protected, sheltererd, and enabled

the people who did do 911 and then fought alongside them.

So, to the extent you think that only racism can motivate antipathy towards the taliban(who were among the most violent and sadistic misogynists in the history of humanity) you are a knuckle-dragging, Taliban-hugging moron.

Fuck you and I am done wasting time with your terrorist-supporting ass.

[Oregone]

277. How tangentially do you want to level guilt? Lets talk about who is responsible for AQ and Taliban?

But no one wants to talk about that. At least Robert Gates and General Zbigniew Brzezinski are not shy.

"then fought alongside them"

We didn't give them much choice, realistically.

"So, to the extent you think that only racism can motivate antipathy towards the taliban"

Racism, along with xenophobia definitely help to marginalize these people and their plight. What can I say...the general I quoted (who is now advising Obama), put it best.

"terrorist-supporting ass"

The Taliban was not a terrorist organization. You again, through rage, are irrationally blurring the line between these two separate entities.

But I guess, "You are either with us or against us". Seeking a greater understanding of history does not mean you support one side or the other. You just support understanding, or which, there is none here.

The Taliban is not responsible for 9/11. As long as you say they massacred 3000 people, its is clear you cannot rationally study this event. In fact, I would be certain you will bend facts and perception of reality through many of obstacles to ensure you can justify carpet bombing the children of those who massacred 3000 people (though they never did).

[eridani]

310. The people who did that had nothing to do with Afghanistan

Planning and training was done in the US, Britain, Germany and Indonesia.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

317. You forgot something

U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden

October 7, 2001 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law.

The offer came as the United States massed forces in southwest Asia for a possible strike against Afghanistan if the Taliban refuse to surrender bin Laden. A Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, rejected the Taliban offer and repeated U.S. demands that bin Laden be turned over unconditionally.

The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, made the offer at a news conference in Islamabad. Zaeef said the Taliban would detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the United States makes a formal request and presents them with evidence

"America has given evidence to other countries, we do not say anything," Zaeef said. "If Americans are convinced that they have solid evidence, we are ready for his trial in Afghanistan, and they have to produce that evidence."

<snip>

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/

The invasion is/was illegal. The war crimes continue unabated. That's what you are defending.

[geek tragedy]

392. The Taliban had a duty to turn him over, not put on a show

trial under bullshit Islamic law.

[Two Americas]

420. oh really?

Would we "turn over" the leaders here who lied us into war and have committed war crimes and who are responsible for the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

If you do some thinking here, rather than reacting and spouting right wing talking points, and contemplate why we have not, would not, and could not turn Cheney over to an Iraqi or Afghani court, things might start to become a little more clear in your mind and you might have something more intelligent and interesting to say on this subject.

[geek tragedy]

422. So, you think compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions

is optional?

I'll remember that the next time you try to debate Israel/Palestine.

Let me be clear: It was ILLEGAL for the Taliban to shelter and aid bin Laden in defiance of the World Community.

Either you acceept that the Taliban's behavior was wrongful and illegal, or you side with them against the United States.

Your choice.

[Two Americas]

429. OK this is getting silly

"Compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions?" Why does an image come to my mind of Powell lying to the UN when you say that?

When the UN does something that supports the desires of the US leaders to wage war, then we talk about the UN sanctimoniously. When the UN rules against us, oh then we hear a completely different tune from the same people.

People defending militarism pick and choose which actions by the UN to take seriously. That means that we cannot take them seriously.

[geek tragedy]

431. You're afraid to state your opinion as to whether the Taliban

were acting wrongfully and illegally by aiding and sheltering bin Laden after he bombed the US embassies and after the UN ordered his expulsion from Afghanistan and after the 911 attacks?

Come on, just say it.

I dare you.

[Two Americas]

439. I am not talking about the Taliban

I am talking about you.

You demand that other people, that other countries, ferret out and turn over the fanatics among them or else face war and invasion.

If we applied the same standard that you self-righteously apply to other people to our own country, what would that look like? Who here is beating the war drums, taking a rigid and fanatical position, advocating war and "legitimate targets" and demanding that we invade other countries and kill people? Who is blood thirsty and promoting violence here? Who are our fanatics and war mongers? Shouldn't we ferret them out? Shouldn't we fight against extremism and fanaticism here?

If you are going to hold us to a different standard than you do others, that is fine - America first. But don't camouflage that in a bunch of sanctimonious and illogical rationalization.

Here is your logic:

"They are fanatical blood thirsty violent people, which is wrong and illegal, so therefore it is OK for us to be fanatical blood thirsty violent people, and that would not be wrong and illegal!"

I fear you, and those who think as you do, far more than I fear any Taliban. I see you and your allies as a much greater threat to us.

[geek tragedy]

441. Still too chickensh!t to answer a very simple question.

And, you mischaracterize my position:

We do not get to demand that other countries ferret out their fanatics.

We DO get to demand that other countries not allow their territory to be used as the operations and training center for terrorists who are attacking us.

The United Nations certainly gets to demand that states not aid and abet threats to international peace and stability.

So, again I ask you: Who was in the right: The Taliban or the United Nations and the United States?

[Two Americas]

448. loaded question

The Taliban and the United States government were both wrong. We don't go to war because someone else is wrong, or there would never be anything but war. Some other people being wrong does not justify us being wrong.

[geek tragedy]

450. So, the Taliban were legally in the wrong for allowing

bin Laden to use their territory to launch his campaign of terrorism against the United States.

Thank you.

[Two Americas]

452. huh?

Is this your "Mission Accomplished" moment? lol.

Many things that happen in other countries are wrong. Who denied that?

Many insurgent movements over the years - right wing death squads - have been allowed by us to use our territory for training, arming, and launching campaigns of terror on other countries. How is that different?

[geek tragedy]

453. The actual nexus between the contras and other groups

and US territory was very small. Other than the loathsome School for the Americas, you would not find large camps of contras in the United States.

Note that if Nicaragua had deployed someone to blow up the School for the Americas, I would not have characterized that as illegal.

[Two Americas]

this is funny now

You need to regroup here and polish up those talking points. You are on the ropes at this point, and I haven't even gotten warmed up yet.

Here is the question: did Afghanistan attack the US, or not?

Answer that. That is the topic of the thread, and all of your frantic spinning is designed to distract people away from that. How come? What is your dog in this fight? Why are you so determined to have people not consider that question?

[geek tragedy]

465. You are still hung up on a meaningless technical distinction.

We were attacked by a para-military organization based in Afghanistan.

The de facto rulers of that territory were allies of that para-military organization and refused to impede his terrorist operations.

Ergo, the United States had a right to go in and deal with the threat itself.

[Two Americas]

468. meaningless technical distinction?

You have to be kidding.

Did or did Afghanistan not attack the United States? You call that a meaningless technical distinction?

This is the Bush doctrine, and the rationale used to justify war crimes:

"We were attacked by a para-military organization based in Afghanistan. The de facto rulers of that territory were allies of that para-military organization and refused to impede his terrorist operations. Ergo, the United States had a right to go in and deal with the threat itself."

[geek tragedy]

493. The rulers of Afghanistan were accomplices in the 911 attacks.

They provided indispensable material support and aid to bin laden and Al Qaeda.

So, yes, they were our enemy and the US was right to drive their primitive, barbaric asses from power.

And, quite honestly, no decent person and certainly no decent American would take the Taliban's side against the United States.

This place is full of the Indecent Left.

[Oregone]

504. Can the US be accomplices for instrumentally training and funding the Afghanistan mujahideen?

Which laid way for both the creation of Al Qeada (directly) and the Afghanistan that was ruled by the Taliban...we are a critical piece of the historical puzzle, which enabled 9/11 to take place.

"And, quite honestly, no decent person and certainly no decent American would take the Taliban's side against the United States."

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. You're going to have to come up with something better than that.

[Oregone]

466. "Why are you so determined to have people not consider that question?"

This is quite a good question. I think theyve alluded to the fact that the Taliban murdered 3000 of his people:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5114755&mesg_id=5117921

Blinded by rage, they would of course arrive at this conclusion and want them destroyed. Any logic that would suggest otherwise should be tossed out in favor of bloodlust.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

494. You simply don't know what you are speaking about

Your reactionary posts display an incredible tendency to think about this in terms fitting a cartoon. This is just what the Bush administration did as it lied to the people about all of this and your sad positions parallel those of Rumsfeld and Cheney.

There is no unified group "The Taliban" any more than there is an Easter bunny. But you seem to need a bogeymen to fit your caricature so as to actually accept ideas into your discussion and to prevent you from challenging your assumptions.

It is painfully obvious you know little of the history of the region beyond a Time magazine parody. If you did you couldn't possibly so stridently be speaking about the Taliban in the terms you do.

Obama’s War: US Involvement in Afghanistan, Past, Present & Future

...the Taliban are sort of a catchall phrase for three or four different groups. The one is the group that’s led by Mullah Omar. These are the people that were in power back before 2001, sort of the old guard Taliban, and they make up the core of the insurgency. But they’re also flanked by various other groups. And one group is called the Haqqani network. This is run by a warlord by the name of Jalaluddin Haqqani, who’s based in Pakistan. He was a former American ally, who’s since—he’s then turned his guns on the Americans. And he’s closely aligned with al-Qaeda and has been behind a lot of the suicide attacks in Kabul and other places. There’s also another insurgent group led by a warlord by the name of Hekmatyar. He’s also somebody who was a US ally back in the ’80s during the Soviet war and has since turned against the Americans.

And these three groups are not the same, and they sort of have differing visions.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/23/obamas_war_us_involvement_in_afghanistan

Above show posted so that you will take some time to educate yourself on the history of the matter, at least in a cursory way, as you really don't have much background to make an informed decision here.

Of course there is much more out there for you to catch up on.

[eyepaddle]

354. Now this seems to be a useful area for follow-up: If the Taliban was not the legitimate gov't of

Afghanistan, who was the gov't? While the Northern Alliance still controlled some territory, generally speaking they held no sway over the vast majority of the country; so here is my real question: if there is no widely recognized gov't in a territory what implications does that have for international law?

As a personal disclamier: I tend to take the James Dunnigan/Gwynne Dyer view on the use of force. Generally speaking wars start not in self defense, but because one state thinks it sees an opportunity and calculates that they can pull it off. Almost iunvariably the war winds up costing them far more than they are willing or even able to pay.

Off the top of my head I can really only think of one example where an aggressor's victory was effectively permanent and that is Rome's victory over Carthage in the third(?) Punic war.

With that sidebar out of the way, how does the lack of a government ina region affect its legal status?

[geek tragedy]

440. My thoughts:

The threat to the United States was from AQ in Afghanistan. Now, normally the US would not be justified in invading a country to root out terrorist elements. Instead, they would be expected to seek cooperation from that country's government.

In this case, for all of the debating going back and forth, the Taliban fall into one of two categories:

1) A de facto government that was unwilling to do anything about the terrorist threat emanating from the territory it controlled; or

2) A de facto government that was unable to do anything about the terrorist threat emanating from the territory it controlled.

Vis a vis the US right to self-defense, it really didn't matter which category they fell into. Because, the issue was the US's right to defend itself against al Qaeda, not the behavior and rights of the government of Afghanistan. To put it another way--nothing the Taliban did could take away the right of the US to defend itself. And, if it was necessary for the US to attack AQ in Afghanistan to protect itself, that was the end of the inquiry.

What the lack of a sovereign government meant was that there was no government of Afghanistan with legal standing to object to the US incursion. The recognized government at the United Nations was lead by Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was cooperating with the United States.

[Two Americas]

449. The Bush doctrine

That is the Bush doctrine you are promoting.

Chasing down a perpetrator is not "defending our country" and does not justify war and invasion.

[geek tragedy]

451. It is not the Bush doctrine. It is international law.

If someone attacks you, you have the right to attack them back.

Since the Taliban refused to do anything about AQ, an armed incursion into Afghanistan was the only way to seriously disrupt their operations and kill/capture AQ terrorists.

There was no other choice.

[Two Americas]

456. that is what Bush claimed

No country attacked us. We have attacked two countries. Trying to spin that with these convoluted arguments to obscure the truth is exactly what the Bush administration did, for exactly the same purpose. Hence, I am calling it the Bush doctrine.

[geek tragedy]

460. You are hung up on a meaningless distinction

between a country attacking us and a terrorist force attacking us with the permission of the rulers of a country.

What matters under International law is that there was an attack and the threat of future attacks. This gives the US the right to defend itself.

The US is allowed to defend itself against terrorists as well as against hostile nations.

[Two Americas]

469. absurd

Whether or not another country, that we have invaded, attacked us or not is a "meaningless distinction?" In what universe?

[geek tragedy]

485. The recognized government of Afghanistan--the one

seated at the UN at the time of the 911 attacks, sided with us against the Taliban.

Now is your formalistic mind put at ease?

The reality is that there was no legitimate authority in Afghanistan who objected to our action there.

[Two Americas]

509. ok

"Siding" against a country is not the same as attacking a country.

[mortfrom]

368. Bin Laden Extradition

I'm old, so I could be misremembering. But...

1) The Taliban said they didn't have bin Laden in custody;
2) The Taliban had no extradition treaty with the US;
3) The Taliban said show us some evidence of bin Laden's involvement, and we can discuss it.

As far as I know, number three, to this day, has not been satisfied. We have the claims (and not cross-my-heart hope-to-die claims, just, you know, claims) from the Bush administration the bin Laden was responsible for 911, but absolutely no proof. Less proof, even, than what Powell presented to the UN to justify invasion of Iraq. And we are pretty sure that bin Laden is no longer in Afghanistan (if he ever was), so why are we still bombing weddings?

[geek tragedy]

442. They refused to turn bin Laden over after the embassy bombings

for which there was no doubt bin Laden was responsible.

They had no right to negotiate over their absolute, UN-sanctioned obligation to turn him over.

[FiveGoodMen]

307. "side with the rest of the world, or with bin Laden"

Really?

Those were the only choices?

(Are you George W. Bush? Because that's pretty much what he said.)

[geek tragedy]

443. Well, North Korea, Iran, and Saddam

all were neutral parties, so if you want to join that crowd . . .

[FiveGoodMen]

454. You forgot France

[geek tragedy]

461. France sided with the US and the UN against AQ and the Taliban.

So did Germany, UK, Canada, and every member of NATO.

[geek tragedy]

464. As did Malaysia, India, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Thailand

and the United Arab Emirates.

[FiveGoodMen]

467. So that 'Freedom Fries' thing was all in my imagination?

[geek tragedy]

487. France opposed the invasion of Iraq and supported the action

in Afghanistan.

[DUlover2909]

334. I read somewhere on DU a while back that the Taliban agreed to turn over Bin Laden

and that Bin Laden agreed to a trial to take place in Pakistan, but Bushco insisted that the US must conduct the trial. The US would not have been a place in which Bin Laden could have received a fair trial. It's hard sometimes to know what's true or untrue in these circumstances. In the article I mentioned though, Bin Laden was denying responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban refused to turn him over to the US because they believed that it would just be a kangaroo court.

[GOTV]

389. Interesting points, but still ...

... It seems reasonable to go to the Taliban and give them the opportunity to extradite bin Laden if they want to avoid the invasion.

The Taliban may be unwilling, unable, or both, still it seems like a reasonable step to take to potentially spare the lives of our troops.

You analogy is apt and in fact that has been threatened in California. Medical marijuana growers are apparently breaking federal law but not state law. Federal law authorities have claimed that they can still go into Ca to enforce federal laws without the cooperation of Ca legal authorities.

You can deal with the group in power if it is in your interest while still claiming they aren't legitimate.

[Chulanowa]

271. That's kind of silly rationale.

If they say they are in charge, act like they're in charge, and the people of the nation in question say "they're in charge" then does it matter of Argentina recognizes them as the legitimate government? Was there another more legitimate government? It sure as hell wasn't the merry band of opium-addict rapists that we signed on with and pretended were the good guys...

[Oregone]

281. Its a logical fallacy: Argument from popularity...

The truth should be determined by the most people who believe it.

Essentially, they are using this as an excuse as of why we avoided good faith negotiations and diplomacy. Yet it sort of undermines why they are responsible for extradition in the first place.

Its a lot like making up a term "unlawful combatant" and arbitrarily applying it; it allows you to justify handling people classified as such in a different legal manner. Its a loophole in logic.

[byeya]

349. You've got the facts correct, thanks, and the Reaganoids here

can't tell history from republiKKKan fantasy.

[Occam Bandage]

99. The Taliban was never legitimate. It was never recognized by any but a few countries. nt

[Duende azul]

288. So killing civilians on a daily basis is not being at war?

Maybe you have a point there.
It´s more like terrorism.

[LWolf]

353. Then we have no business

sending our military into their country.

[rd_kent]

4. I submit to you for your reconsideration

If you get in your car and mow down 10 people (or just 1) on purpose, you can and will be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. The airplanes themselves were used as weapons. Not saying you have to agree with me, just consider it.

[Oregone]

9. What do airplanes have to do with Afghanistan?

That country wasn't flying them. Hell, the pilots were from SA.

[Occam Bandage]

13. No, that country was sheltering the organization that launched those attacks,

and was refusing to both render the persons responsible and to allow us to dismantle Al-Qaeda. That was the basis for our self-defense claim, which the UN did not dispute.

[rd_kent]

17. Thanks for saving me from having to say it

I get perturbed when I respond to a post and then get hit sideways with another argument that has nothing to do with the OP.

[Oregone]

22. Not 100% true

Im too lazy to re-Google this entire deal. The Taliban was in substantial talks and negotiations with the US, but the US was not in a mood to diplomatically negotiate at the time. The Taliban was looking for a means to "save face" and still deliver Bin Laden. Further, they wanted proof of his guilt prior to extradition. The US did not attempt to comply.

Do you think the US (Bush) wanted to solve this in another way? We wanted blood and shock and awe. The county was in a weird and fucked up state during this time. Maybe you don't remember--I do. Half the people were buying up plastic sheathing and duct tape, creating Bush savior alters on top of their fireplaces. Everyone wanted war. Unfortunately, Afghanistan wasn't enough war for us.

BTW, did you know the Taliban was going to hand him over prior to 9/11 until we went on a bombing spree. It killed that set of negotiations outright and blew a major opportunity.

[Occam Bandage]

24. "Proof of his guilt" was a stalling tactic and nothing more.

The trial of Milosevic took seven years, and he died before it was over, and there we are talking about a head of state whose entire government archives were open to the prosecution. Moreover, any "evidence" we gave them would do nothing more than informing Osama bin Laden of what our intelligence agencies knew of him; the Taliban would have relayed the information to him (allowing him to figure out which of his information channels were compromised and which were still safe), and then they probably would have said the evidence was insufficient.

If you assume good faith on the part of one party and bad faith on the part of the other, you can paint whatever picture you like. I'm pretty sure that the parties were acting in much the same faith. We wanted the right to dismantle and destroy al-Qaeda, and the Taliban wanted to protect al-Qaeda.

[Oregone]

36. Oh brother, you are either with us or against us...

So we went to war against a country attempting a diplomatic negotiation because we percieved they were engaging in a stalling tactic. We rushed to was on an ultimatum, which didn't include negotiations. It was classic Bush. And now you are using revisionist-history to claim in the same breath this country was harboring and complicit in the crime? Half of the people here hate George W. Bush, but how is it beyond them to consider he dropped the ball negotiating with a foreign sovereign nation? How is it beyond people to believe Bush does everything 100% ass-backwards and wrong, but nailed this one? The entire country was brain-washed at the time, affecting their perception of this event. Maybe that is what needs to be evaluated.

[geek tragedy]

40. The Taliban were 100% with Bin Laden. They disobeyed UN

Security Council resolutions demanding that they turn him over.

After the 1998 embassy bombings.

The Taliban were and remain the enemy, and were not engaging in good faith discussions.

[Oregone]

47. Good faith discussions? Who was egaging in those?!?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E6D6113FF936A25753C1A9679C8B63&scp=1&sq=president%20rejects%20taliban%20offer&st=cse

''When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations,'' Mr. Bush told reporters upon landing on the South Lawn of the White House after returning from a weekend of intensive national security briefings at Camp David.

He added that he was not interested in discussing Mr. bin Laden's innocence or guilt. ''We know he's guilty,'' he said.

Mr. Bush spoke as American aircraft continued to bomb Kabul and other cities in Afghanistan and while Islamic militants opposed to the campaign clashed with the police while trying to storm an air base in Pakistan.

''All they've got to do is turn him over, and his colleagues, and the thugs he hides,'' Mr. Bush said. He added: ''And not only turn him over, turn the Al Qaeda organization over, destroy all the terrorist camps -- actually, we're doing a pretty good job of that right now -- and release the hostages they hold. That's all they've got to do. But there is no negotiation, period.''


Whatever....I guess you are right. The Bush Administration had this diplomatic opportunity covered and handled to the best of anyone's ability...

And yes, they were going to hand him over after 1998 bombings until negotiations broke down due to a military offensive on our part (prior 9/11)

[geek tragedy]

55. Now you're just lying,

And yes, they were going to hand him over after 1998 bombings until negotiations broke down due to a military offensive on our part (prior 9/11)

This is simply a lie.

Which puts you into the sadly large number of people here willing to lie in order to help the Taliban.

[Oregone]

69. I guess others lie too.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB253/index.htm

1998 Missile Strikes on Bin Laden May Have Backfired

"On the tenth anniversary of U.S. cruise missile strikes against al-Qaeda in response to deadly terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, newly-declassified government documents posted today by the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org) suggest the strikes not only failed to hurt Osama bin Laden but ultimately may have brought al-Qaeda and the Taliban closer politically and ideologically.

...

State Department cable argues that although the August missile strikes were designed to provide the Taliban with overwhelming reason to surrender bin Laden, the military action may have sharpened Afghan animosity towards Washington and even strengthened the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance."


So in the middle of intense negotiations about his assassination or extradition, aided by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we launched cruise missiles into Omar's home and a training camp Bin Laden was supposed to be at (I guess that is easier than finishing negotiations). This is an event cited to have broken down negotiations and solidified the alliance between Omar and Bin Laden.

Now look...there it was a criminal matter we were supposed to be handling diplomatically, and we launched missiles against, not only Bin Laden, but the very sovereign leader we were talking with (and assassination of leaders is supposed to be not-kosher). Im not carrying the Taliban's water. Im pointing out we blew some opportunities and shaped their very policy which we are condeming (them harboring Bin Laden).

[geek tragedy]

71. Uh huh. Where does it say the Taliban were going to hand

him over, as they were required to?

Gandhi said he was particularly struck by a U.S. request in early 1997 that it be allowed to visit "militant training camps in eastern Afghanistan," and that a Taliban official initially agreed. But the Afghan government kept delaying the visit and finally rescinded the offer in April.

The cable recounts, in chronological order, a series of attempts to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan that continued before and after the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, which the United States linked to al Qaeda. The U.S. government warned the Taliban, for example, in September 1998, that they would be held accountable for any future terrorist actions by bin Laden.

The Taliban offered a series of responses, most of which were made public at the time. First, the Afghan government told the United States that to oust bin Laden "would violate Taliban rules of hospitality," then later said they would put bin Laden on trial. However, the Taliban rejected the evidence linking bin Laden to the embassy bombings.

At one point, a Taliban spokesman also told a U.S. official that his government could not expel bin Laden because it "would result in the downfall of the Taliban."

The Bush administration continued the warnings, with contacts February 8, March 19 and July 2, 2001. In the last communication, the Taliban deputy foreign minister told the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan that bin Laden had not been convicted and that officials of his government "still consider him innocent."

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/01/30/taliban.talks/index.html

The Taliban delayed and delayed and delayed for three years. After the September 11 attacks, it was no longer reasonable to allow them to delay any furhter.

[Oregone]

76. No no....you aren't seeing it

Who knows what they would of done, had we negotiated in 1998 (and remember, Saudi Arabia was aiding the talks). We tried to bypass negotiations by killing Afghanistan's sovereign leader in a missile strike, as well as Bin Laden. And now, after that happens, people try to justify their "harboring" of him as a reason to attack Afghanistan? This event is when the talks broke down, but we can only guess what would of happened if they came to fruition.

But we NEVER engaged in good faith negotiations on his extradition (since 1998). Rather, we engaged in an overt strike that brought the two together. We NEVER even tried to handle this diplomatically. Did Afghanistan even have the opportunity to extradite Bin Laden without undermining their regional autonomy and authority, based on what we did? We put them in between a rock and a hard place, and let Bush diplomacy(no diplomacy) do the rest.

[geek tragedy]

81. Let us be clear on your sympathies:

Osama bin Laden launched a horrific attack on sovereign US territory and massacred hundreds of innocent people when he ordered the bombings of the embassies. He did so from the territory in Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban.

The Taliban were the occupiers and de facto rulers, but not recognized government, of Afghanistan at the time.

They had an absolute duty under international law to stop allowing him to use their territory for such attacks.

The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted resolutions ordering the Taliban to expel him.

They refused, and instead chose to aid and shelter him, thus triggering UN sanctions that hurt the people of Afghanistan.

And your stance is that the Bill Clinton was unfair to the Taliban.

Just in case people wonder which side you're on.

[Oregone]

94. "And your stance is that the Bill Clinton was unfair to the Taliban."

Fairness aside, my stance (backed by factual history) is that the Clinton Administration attempted to assassinate the leader of a sovereign Afghanistan, rather than to negotiate a release with the help of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

People are trying to draw conclusions here with their "post 9/11 word-view" (credit to Condi), but many things happened prior to 9/11 that reciprocally created, through an intermeshed dependent set of events, the world as we see it today. Things are far too complicated and nuanced to have a black and white moral high-ground that justifies the Bush "no negotiations" invasion.


"Just in case people wonder which side you're on."

Perhaps, to some, its: "You are either with us, or against us". For me, I stand on the side of ambiguity, analysis, and intellectualism (I don't look at an event, scouring it for evidence solely of justification (or the opposite), but rather, I try to look at it somewhat unattached). To be honest, the US probably had more of a justification for invading Afghanistan than Alexander the Great had for conquering most of the known world at the time. Many regimes and leaders have done 'worse', and many have done 'better'. But it is still far beyond some unambiguous morally 'just' decision at all (was the United States, and the world in general, even rational enough to determine the 'just' and wise course of action?). The entire creation of the scenario leading to Bin Laden's existence as he is, Afghanistan as it was, and the relationship between the two, really leaves the US fucked in the grand history of the world when it comes to clean justifications. In the last 30 years, we took a complicated world and made it much moreso by our involvement in that country. And now its supposed to be some clear cut moral decision that it was right to attack them, at the height of our irrational blood lust and calls for retribution, lead by the most incompetent leader of decades?

Evoking Clinton's name does not deter me. He had some 'wrong' foreign policies, just as Reagan did regarding this country, and just as Carter did. The unique "Bush Doctrine", more or less, is merely a reinvention of other president's foreign policy doctrines of decades past, Democrat and Republican alike. Now it is time to see if we can influence Barack to take a much different stance on how he sees and works with the world, much as even he promised.

[geek tragedy]

97. Mullah Omar was not the sovereign head of Afghanistan.

Again, you need to watch the pro-Taliban talking points.

Only three governments on Planet Earth: Saudi-occupied Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the Talibans's sponsor Pakistan--recognized the Taliban's sovereignty.

The basic point is that there was nothing to negotiate over. The Taliban had an absolute obligation to turn him over, and engaged in three years of foot-dragging delay tactics and excuses. Then 911 happened, and their time was up.

[Oregone]

100. If there was no sovereign head, why did we initiate negotiations in the first place?

Just because the US does not, due to political reasons, recognize a head of state, doesn't mean that someone isn't one. How many countries must recognize a leader, for him to become one (or is it rather an internal measure?)?. Does this become an argument from popularity?

"The basic point is that there was nothing to negotiate over."

Then, again, why did we engage in negotiations before launching strikes in 1998? Seems counter-intuitive for the US to acknowledge the grounds for negotiations if there is nothing to negotiate over. BTW, does the US instantly extradite ANYONE (even Luis Posada Carriles) upon demand from others?

"The Taliban had an absolute obligation to turn him over"

Yeah, as Bush said.

I guess things just really are black and white.

You are either with US or against US.

We're going to smoke em out. Shock and awe, baby.

[geek tragedy]

106. De facto control of a territory and sovereignty are two different

things.

The US negotiated because the alternative was a full-scale invasion. When it became clear that negotiations were fruitless and in fact counterproductive in that they allowed for further delays, the US insisted that the Taliban comply with the UN Security Council resolution.

The US extradites people all of the time. It has legal procedures and treaties governing such extraditions.

More to the point, there was a UN Security Council resolution that did not make the Taliban's compliance optional.

There is no "but we're fundamentalist Islamists" exemption to international law.

And, the Taliban were with bin Laden, 100%. They did have a choice to make, as did Pakistan.

Sometimes things really are black and white. If you were in Europe in 1939 and weren't surrounded by the Alps, you had a choice to make.

[Oregone]

109. "Sometimes things really are black and white."

No, they never are. Your short and direct sentences indicate that we see the world very differently.

[geek tragedy]

114. So, did Germany have legitimate grievances

against Poland in 1939?

Anyhow, you are neither with the people of the United States nor with the sworn enemies of the United States, including the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

Just in case anyone questions your patriotism.

[Oregone]

120. In case anyone questions my patriotism, I took a giant shit on it last week...

I don't even live in the US anymore, so fuck that patriotism crap (its not he, she or it that I belong to). Calling someone unpatriotic because they have a different opinion is a crap tactic that should of died in the last election. Lo and behold, it still lives in its idiocy. But doesn't everything after 9/11!

[geek tragedy]

127. Okay, so you're not even an American for all

intents and purposes.

And, yes, when you side with bin Laden and the Taliban against the United States, you're not patriotic--as you've already admitted that you feel no loyalty to the United States.

So, really, why are you debating this stuff on an American website?

[Oregone]

137. My Passport says I'm an America...

I pay taxes in a county in America. I have paid income taxes in the past throughout my entire life....

Do I not wear enough flag lapel pins for you to call me an American? Is this Ad Hominem?

Be careful your "loyalty" to one country or another does not influence your perception of truth. Be careful your rage and need of retribution for 9/11 does not influence your perception of reality. Many loyal Germans had no qualms with what their country did, to reference a point you were trying to resurrect.

[geek tragedy]

144. I opposed the invasion of Iraq precisely because Iraq

had nothing to do with the people who attacked us, and because it would be a distraction to the necessary work to be done in Afghanistan.

So, I was not so consumed with rage that I wanted the US to declare war on all bad people. At the same time, my opposition to Bush was not so full of rage that I opposed everything he did just because he was doing it.

[Oregone]

154. "my opposition to Bush was not so full of rage that I opposed everything he did just because he was"

Nor was mine, but to be honest, I saw little he did to be beneficial.

Even if the Afghanistan war had been determined to have been the proper action, we clearly did not put the time and thought into the decision to determine it to be so. It was, without a doubt, a rush to war and anyone asking questions was labeled unpatriotic and silenced. It was a horrifying time, and the only solution that our government was putting forth was to carpet bomb goat farmers and their families.

I knew something should of been done, but I didn't see the need for the large overt display of military might and blood letting. Our special forces are trained well enough to have been inserted and taken care of this, quietly, before we marched in and polarized the country. Hell, perhaps the special op forces would of had a lot less bodies to go through on their way to Bin Laden if we were quiet, and we didn't declare war on the Taliban first. I didn't understand the need for the high profile, high casualty conflict on this regime who did not perpetrate the crime, other than the fact that it did fulfill a certain desire for retribution.

[geek tragedy]

157. The problem imo was his abandoning of Afghanistan

in order to settle his family's blood feud with Saddam.

You couldn't get rid of bin Laden with the Taliban still in power. Simply not an option.

[Oregone]

160. 'Simply not an option'

We can't get rid of bin Laden with them out of power (resisting en masse). So looks like you are saying the venture is impossible regardless. Why bother then?

I wish I had your crystal that helped you determine that.

[geek tragedy]

162. Bin Laden and the Taliban had become operationally fused

to the point that AQ assassinated the Taliban's #1 rival in Afghanistan on September 10, 2001.

If they weren't going to turn him over, they certainly wouldn't sit by while US forces rounded him up.

[Oregone]

166. A threat to one's existence is always a great motivator

When war with Afghanistan became a real possibility, people here seem to forget that may make some more apt to negotiate and change. Hell, its a fact Saddam attempted the same type of negotiations and voluntary exile on the eve of the Iraq war.

Its silly to suggest that tepid negotiations over years would produce the same result had we even attempted to negotiate after 9/11 with our forces mobilized. As Bush said though, "no negotiations". We basically had them at the end of the barrel before the invasion, and they knew it. A lot of carpet bombed goat farmers and their children could of been avoided.

I find it ridiculous how people who recognize his absolute incompetence think that his actions, and the manner he went about them (in terms of a large overt war), were absolutely correct here.

[Duende azul]

301. Excuse me, the patriotism exams are hold on a different website.

If erroneously you are trying to do it here perhaps someone could redirect you to the place that shall not be named?

[cboy4]

141. You are a hilarious comedian.

Well done.

Thank God you're not in charge of anything, as Democrats would be locked out of the White House for eternity.

[Oregone]

143. So you disagree with...?

If more people like me were in charge, you would probably see UHC and a vastly shrunk Pentagon budget. Oh, the horror!

[cboy4]

151. I don't mind that my tax money goes to defense.

It's a wise investment.

I mean, I can hardly wait for the next generation of stealth fighter aircraft to be revealed.

[Oregone]

159. Lol...they'll probably have super smart bombs on them too.

Genius bombs that only kill brown people. Thats wise.

We should up the percentage of tax dollars from over half to 75% or so. Thatll get this country safe again.

[cboy4]

165. The country is safe when you think about it. There's not a

nation on earth that will screw with us.

Individual terrorists, yes.

But no nation will be sending its bombers toward us any time soon.

And reducing our defense budget will not be enough for radical militants anyway.

I enjoy being the world's superpower.

We do so much to help the world.

[Oregone]

168. How much larger does our per capita military spending need to be to assure we are safe?

Many countries that have smaller spending are also safe and people do not go to war with them. Spending on defense isn't a prerequisite for peace.

"But no nation will be sending its bombers toward us any time soon"

No nation has to. There are more effective ways to destroy the United States (proxy conflicts and economics).

"And reducing our defense budget will not be enough for radical militants anyway."

Who suggested that? It would be enough for Universal Health Care. It would take quite some work (probably beyond our means in terms of concessions) to pacify the bulk of radicals.

"I enjoy being the world's superpower"

Then don't be one of those that whine about the threat of terrorism. The natural role of the world's superpower makes them a perceptual threat to radicals.

"We do so much to help the world."

Definitely not in terms of giving actual aid to countries, we don't. Perhaps if we didn't throw so much into defense we could.

[cboy4]

177. Actually, I don't whine about terrorism. I never have, as I leave

that to the Republics to try to win election by scaring people.

I'm not scared.

And of course we give actual aid. We're about to give almost a billion dollars to rebuild Gaza.

Who else would do that? You sure as hell don't see any of the wealthy Arab countries stepping up to help.

Of course not.

Yet again, it's the United States of America coming to the rescue.

[Oregone]

179. But to stick to facts...

In 2006, the US lagged at a measly ranking of #23rd for ODA per their Gross National Income (far under the UN benchmark).

So while the US is giving aid, there are dozens of countries giving much more of what they can. While the US comes to the rescue in your mind, in other's mind they are neglecting their regal duty as the duly self-appointed "super-power".

[cboy4]

184. Well you can blame George W Bush for all of his wasteful

spending, including a needless war in Iraq.

I'm talking historically, and historically, nobody does more.

[Oregone]

194. After Bush, its actually higher now per GNI than when Clinton left office

When Clinton was elected in 1992, the net ODA per GNI began to take a nosedive, and slowly worked its way back up these last few years under Bush (counter-intuitively).



You speak of historically, and the ODA per GNI graph of the last few decades doesn't look impressive to other countries. I think our performance has been mediocre at best. Maybe you are looking at contrary information.

[cboy4]

203. I think our world-wide contributions are far from

mediocre.

We can always be criticized for not doing more, but the bottom line is we do a lot.

The one thing Bush was, I admit fantastic at, was our contribution toward fighting AIDS in Africa.

Who else has done more?

The answer yet again is, nobody.

Bush Has Quietly Tripled Aid to Africa

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 31, 2006; Page A04

President Bush's legacy is sure to be defined by his wielding of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is another, much softer and less-noticed effort by his administration in foreign affairs: a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa.

The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion.

The moves have surprised -- and pleased -- longtime supporters of assistance for Africa, who note that because Bush has received little support from African American voters, he has little obvious political incentive for his interest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html

[Oregone]

213. mediocre, most definitely, compared to Norway and Luxembourg

"Who else has done more?"



Now...here is the funny thing.....it would take a mere fraction of what we put into the MIC to correct this...

[cboy4]

215. Interesting how the countries that do so little to protect the world

rank so high on that list.

I'm perfectly happy with what we contribute, considering all of our global responsibilities.

It should work out that the countries that do nothing to protect other nations should pony up more cash.

[Oregone]

217. Maybe they protect the world by not fucking with it and instigating violence...

...or exploiting poverty stricken nations, apt to extremism, for cheap resources and labor....

Maybe their per GNI contribution to developing nations and to ending poverty does more to stabilize the world and promote peace than raising a large standing military force.

Maybe....maybe dollar for dollar, its more effective for peace to spend it on raising people up?

Its not too interesting at all...they have more money to spend because they blow less on "defense".

"I'm perfectly happy with what we contribute"

I think that is sad, after one sees the facts

"It should work out that the countries that do nothing to protect other nations should pony up more cash."

There is no proof that spending massive amounts on military contractors and defense does anything to protect other nations. A lot of defense funding is merely a mechanism of class warfare, such that funds from the public coffers are siphoned to well connected, wealthy shareholders of defense companies. Its the most legal way to exploit the government and shuttle tax payer dollars into the private sector.

[Fedja]

329. What the...

As a citizen of what you referred to as "the world", I would like to submit by plea to be free of US protection. My country is currently doing fine, and we even disagree on some key points with the US. Every day we pray that no oil is found under our feet, lest we be liberated and protected.

Please. Take your world protection and keep it to yourselves, we don't need bombs in our lives.

[blindpig]

343. "global responsibilities"??

Now that's rich. And what are these responsibilities? To make the world safe and compliant for capital to ride roughshod where ever it will.

Reminds me of Nam, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

We protect no one but Money. It is puerile fantasy to pretend that US policy is anything like benovelent.

[cboy4]

355. You're clearly still bitter about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Tough shit. *Pout*

[blindpig]

358. Your irrelevant statements display the poverty of your position.

It is a pity that there is no counterbalancing force to restrain the US. It ain't no coincidence that the US began running amok in the Middle East shortly after the Soviet Union's demise.

[cboy4]

361. Yea, and you must be furious that so many Soviet bloc

countries have joined, or will be joining NATO.

That's gotta sting.

[blindpig]

364. Your red-baiting is duly noted.

I'll bet you even got a list of commie moles in the US government.

[cboy4]

372. Gasp, an American who red-baits.

Sorry, but you bring it on yourself.

[blindpig]

378. I see.

It's my fault that you spew the lies that we all have been taught by rote. Proud of it too, I see. Whatever

[RaleighNCDUer]

357. bull fucking shit

By refusing family planning - including condoms - to clinics in Africa, the bush regime vastly INCREASED the incidence of AIDS in Africa.

And only 10% of the aid that he promised ever was delivered.

[cboy4]

359. How did he refuse family planning to clinics in Africa?

Was he the emperor of that continent or something?

And I'm citing the Washington Post article that I linked.

How about links to your information?

I find it suspect.

[RaleighNCDUer]

367. I am not responsible for your short memory.

http://www.thebody.com/content/policy/art11329.html

It was only about the very first fucking thing he did in office.

The fact that five years later he decided to start funding an anti-AIDS program does not expiate his crime of boosting the AIDS crisis to begin with.

[cboy4]

371. Oh give me a break. I don't defend his fundie policies, but let's

be honest.

From your link:

"Bush said that even if such groups promoted family planning or provided abortion services, they could still receive funds under the initiative if they used them to treat people with HIV/AIDS."

And where's the information that only 10% of the 15 billion made it over there?

[RaleighNCDUer]

394. Just because he SAID it, doesn't mean he DID it.

http://opencrs.com/document/RL33771/

All it is is polishing a turd - only a fraction of the money promised is actually getting spent, though since we got control of congress that fraction has gone up.

So it's more like 30% instead of 10% - my big bad. It STILL doesn't make up for the damage he did in the first several years of his administration.

[cboy4]

523. Sorry, I don't believe a word you say since you can't get

your facts straight.

:thumbsdown:

[blindpig]

103. Correction

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8216897#8218011

See post #111

[Oregone]

105. Thanks...

I didn't want to go digging for all those again. Im really tired of this. I can't believe we are still having this conversation in a post-Bush, post-Bloodlust America.

[geek tragedy]

108. Heh. After 911, their time had run out.

They had spent three years throwing up delay tactics and obstacles to the simple demand that they obey the UN Security Council and stop harboring a known terrorist who had declared war on the United States.

[Oregone]

112. blah fucking blah. 9/11 9/11 9/11....

Holy Rudy Guiliani here. You gotta be fucking kidding me.

[geek tragedy]

116. The subject is the invasion of Afghanistan.

Which was a DIRECT result of the September 11 attacks.

But, then again, you're on the Taliban's side in this conflict, so of course 3000 dead Americans isn't compelling for you.

[Oregone]

123. 9/11 9/11 9/11

The problem is that it isn't an event to you, its a philosophy and a different world-view. Its something that bends logic and reinvents fact. Its something that ignores history and creates absolutes.

3000 dead from car accidents each and every year in Florida is more compelling to me. 1 in 4 girls molested by the time they reach adulthood is also more compelling. The US has problem abound everywhere, but they want to cite a rather menial figure that is, in a greater perspective, somewhat marginal, as a number that should defy facts, logic, and alternative viewpoints.

9 fucking 11.

[Occam Bandage]

124. When talking about a war launched because of 9/11, I think 9/11 is a fair point to bring up.

Especially when the particular discussion over the claim that the war was illegal in the face of international law.

[geek tragedy]

129. There you go with things like facts and logic.

Instead, you are obligated to turn to the automatic kneejerk post generator:

Enter First Name:

Enter Last Name:

Where were you born?

Post: Pipeline imperialism LIHOP PNAC illegal CHOMSKY!!!!

[Oregone]

131. It goes well beyond a factual event in its usage.

How often have we heard "post 9/11 world" and "because 9/11, everything changed". How often have we heard the event, on its own, cited as grounds for everything from pervasive security measures, wars, alternative diplomacy, illegal wiretapping, different banking procedures, etc. I, for one, am tired of it.

"when 9/11 happened, they ran out of time".

Come on now, that isn't true. Bin Laden is not captured and his continued existence (without an attack) contradicts that another attack was imminent by not capturing or killing him. Therefore, the event of 9/11 isn't a trigger which means that instant, "no negotiation" invasion was necessary for our existence and survival. Rather, 9/11 "changed the way we viewed the world"; "our oceans could not protect us anymore". We perceived constant danger and thought we had to act. But 9/11 didn't, in itself, trigger constant danger when it was over and done with. It triggered a difference in how politicians could relay their vision of the world to their constituents (while being politically correct in doing so). Because of 9/11, the facts on the ground, in terms of what was being planned, did not change from September 10th to September 12th. Our perception and willingness to go to war changed.

[Fedja]

512. A bold assumption

The war was in the making long before 9/11, and the tragic events of that day were not the -cause- for the war, but rather an excuse. A poor excuse, at that.

[geek tragedy]

125. Can you discuss the legality of the US declaring war on Japan

without referring to Pearl Harbor?

[Oregone]

133. I can't discuss that at all, because history is too complex

Which is illustrated with the McCollum memo; the United States wanted to aid our allies and join the war (without marching straight into Europe), so they pursued means to pressure Japan to commit an overt act of war so they didn't have to commit political suicide and initiate the conflict.

on edit: cannot post image, but whole document is available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo

"If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war." -- A. H. McCollum

[geek tragedy]

155. That's a moral argument, not a legal one.

Ex post Pearl Harbor, is there any legal argument that the United States had no right to fight back against Japan?

[Oregone]

164. No, but perhaps thats where the law fails a bit or is ambiguous...

We barricaded their ports and cut off their oil, as well as positioned fleets in threatening manners. Is there any credence to the moral argument they had in attacking the US? Further, at what point do logistic and economic embargoes constitute and overt act of war, such that they have a legal argument for an attack? If a country simply always wanted to be on the side of the law, couldn't they immorally force other countries to just throw the first punch? How right is that?

You asked if the US had a legal right to attack Japan. I ask if Japan had a moral or legal right to attack the US in the first place.

Regardless, this situation bears NO similarities though to the Taliban (as they never attacked the US as Japan did). Hence, its incredibly irrelevant to the discussion.

[geek tragedy]

188. Japan was literally an imperialist aggressor that was

invading its neighbors. It defies the imagination to suggest that expanding their empire into China and Indochina and conquering the Pacific rim was a valid reason to attack Pearl Harbor.

There is no moral argument on behalf of Imperial Japan to launch a war like that.

There is such a thing as taking moral equivalency too far. The United States was certainly no angel during that time period, but Japan was most certainly a villain.

And, the US didn't barricade Japanese ports. We did stop selling them oil--which was 100% the right thing to do, since that oil was being used to fuel their Imperial conquest war machine.

[Oregone]

197. "conquering the Pacific rim was a valid reason to attack Pearl Harbor"

This is a Straw Man argument. I didn't suggest it.

I suggested the actions that McCollum pointed out, which were followed, to push Japan into an overt act of war, may of been a valid reason for them to attack us. Read the entire memo. Its actually really interesting and a good read about the entire situation at the time. It really lays out a case of why they did this logistically and how it had to be done in this way.

Here is a dirty fox link:
http://origin.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184329,00.html

[geek tragedy]

200. They were forced to attack in order to keep up their dreams

of conquest.

Were they a law-abiding nation without intent of waging a giant war of aggression, they would have had no reason to attack the United States.

[Oregone]

204. Look, Im merely (and I know its taboo), suggesting a little moral ambiguity...

I don't mean to make anyone's head explode. But if we were doing things purposely to make them attack us, then perhaps its not so cut and dry, black and white.



Read A through H (8 points) and the conclusion.

[geek tragedy]

207. Japan was provoked in the same way a rapist is provoked

by a short skirt and flirty attitude.

Sorry, no moral ambiguity here. Japan launched a war of aggression, and included the United States in that war of aggression.

Tojo deserved his fate.

[Oregone]

209. "no moral ambiguity here"

Does that sum up your entire world-view?

[geek tragedy]

212. No. But it does sum up my view of rape and Imperial Japan.

Or, did Nankin provoke Japan into raping it?

[Occam Bandage]

190. That is an absolutely absurd argument that reveals a complete ignorance of history.

We did no such thing as "barricading their ports." We did not sink a single ton of Japanese shipping before Pearl Harbor. We did stop selling them oil, but only because they were engaged in an illegal and aggressive war of expansion against our ally China. The Japanese had absolutely no right to be in China. None. Not any right whatsoever. They launched the war without provocation, and with no cause but expansion.

They had no right to oil shipments. Unrestricted free trade is not a right; rescinding trade privileges with nations at war with your allies is expected. They certainly had no right to launch an aggressive war against America, Britain, China, and the Dutch in hopes of securing an empire.

America had a clear legal right to attack Japan after Pearl Harbor. Japan did not have anything remotely resembling a legal right to attack America. "They stopped selling me the means to continue my illegal and inhumanely prosecuted war of aggression against their allies" does not stand up.

[Oregone]

199. "They launched the war without provocation, and with no cause but expansion."

That memo I was citing was declassified in 1994. Sometimes history tends to reveal more information, which causes people to revisit the situation. I suggest you read it. There may of been provocation, and it may have definitely been to cause Japan to go to war with us. Maybe things aren't as black and white as our favorite Leave it to Beaver episode.

http://origin.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184329,00.html
(forgive the source)

[geek tragedy]

202. Yes, we got in the way of their conquest of Asia.

That was the 'provocation.'

[Oregone]

206. And if we did it to start a war...?

Does that still make things so black and white?

According to you, we then didn't even need Pearl Harbor to attack them, right? Weren't we already justified?

[geek tragedy]

208. The Japanese action was completely unjustified.

So, what one lowly US officer speculated is immaterial.

[Oregone]

214. What is really all so confusing...

Is that you are construing Japan to be this dangerous imperialistic empire, but yet, we were not justified in attacking them outright. Rather, we had to manipulate the situation so they threw the first punch, to ensure we had our little Pearl Harbor rallying flag we could wave around whenever actions were questions. Causing mass civilian casualties? Pearl Harbor! Firebombing cities? But remember Pearl Harbor! Dropping two A-Bombs? Remember Pearl Harbor!

There is some moral ambiguity here....we used Pearl Harbor the same way the US uses 9/11. Not as a contextual event with precursors, but as a rallying flag, and a philosophy, meant to justify every action. Pearl Harbor may not of been simply an act of Japanese expansion. It may of been much more complicated than that. We may of wanted, let, and made it happen. Yet, we turned around and used it for years past that to justify anything, morally, we wanted to do. Yet in the same breadth, most people didn't think that without it, we had the moral highground to overtly attack them prior to this event, even though you describe them as horrible.

Personally....I think things are very complicated and nuanced, and the victor writes the rules and history. Rather than see anything as black and white, my world is just full of shades of gray and questions. Its not such a terrible place to be.

[geek tragedy]

231. Sometimes well-intentioned people confuse things

by overthinking them.

If you try hard enough, you can turn any atrocity into a "well there are two sides to this" kind of equivalency.

And, to address your first point, no the US couldn't declare war on Japan based on its aggression towards China.

Just like we didn't declare war on Nazi Germany even after it was clear what they were after.

[Oregone]

250. Overthinking things is bad, I guess...

LOL.

Maybe we didn't declare war on countries because it was simply not politically feasible to do so. Politics, war, and morality clash continuously.

[geek tragedy]

258. Politically infeasible, yes. But, war was also inevitable.

At some stage, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would have to be confronted and defeated.

The lesson from history is that the West should have stomped on Hitler years before he invaded Poland. That, and they never should have punished Germany after WW I the way they did.

[RaleighNCDUer]

363. Of course it was unjustified, but was it unpredictable?

If we set them up, and they took the bait, doesn't that introduce a little moral ambiguity?

[Oregone]

458. And further...

Its the single event used to justify the moral righteousness of every military action thereafter. If Pearl Harbor is the justifying rallying cry behind the Tokyo fire bombings, then it provides very little basis in retrospect.

[eyepaddle]

362. We pretty much were justified, by that point, but we did not have treaty obligations, and

American public opinion was very isolationist at the time. Throwing down a guantlet with an "...or else." clause in it would never have gottent through congress.

I started a thread about this in the World History (and a companion thread in the US History) forum. The US oil and scrap and steel embargo was ostensibly in response to Japan's incursion to Indochina--then a Frnech possesion. Interestingly enough, the Japanese incursion was executed by an unauthorized General named Rikichi Ando. Japan's politics at the time was pretty lethal for any politican that did not support continually one-upping the military's belligerance.

In other words, Japan was for a variety of reasons committed to an ongoing expansion of its aggressive conquest--and not all of those reasons (or even the most important ones were rational, they were emotional). For the US NOT to respond would have been morally derelict, but an ultimatum stating "Stop what you are doing, or we will go to war" was basically impossible.

I am still curious, had Yamamoto's superiors at Combined fleet suceeded in overruling his insistence on attacking the US fleet at Pearl Harbor, and merely invaded the Dutch East Indies, would we have done anything more than clucked with disapprval? Granted the Phillipines sat astride the route between the Indies and the Home Islands and that looks risky from a strategic point of view, but if the Japanese had bypassed American targets I don't think we would have gone to war.

[Occam Bandage]

400. The memo was a response to their illegal war in China, not a cause of it.

Seriously, your history is fucked up.

[Thothmes]

286. Exactly which Japanese ports did the United States Navy

blockade before the war?

[Oregone]

297. Excuse me...

I mistyped...it was just a complete embargo by the US and whatever European nations we could get to join us. Though we did have cruisers and submarines encroaching the area and running exercises, they weren't overtly interacting and creating a physical blockade. Proxy war activity in China though was a bit more forceful. We were actively building up troops and essentially mobilizing for war in the Pacific though. In the end, it was going to happen sooner than later. It worked well for the US that they weren't the ones to initiate it overtly and cause political fallout.

[Thothmes]

336. We had cruiser and submarines in the West Pacific

from the 1920s on. Ever hear of China station.

[RaleighNCDUer]

360. The difference is, the Japanese military, with the full consent of the

Japanese government, attacked the US, not only at Pearl, but also in the Philippines just hours later.

The Afghan government, or that entity that was calling itself the government at the time, while sheltering and on good relations with AQ, had no operational control over AQ - the Afghan government did not assent to the attack, and had no military control over AQ. Therefore, Afghanistan did NOT attack the US.

Had the US airlifted a mere battalion of Recon, some SEALS, other special ops into Bin Laden's base, where there were a mere couple hundred fighters, we could have left the rest of the country untouched, captured or killed Bin Laden, and then made a public apology to Afghanistan for violating their territory, and EVERYBODY, including the Taliban, would be happy. It would have been another Entebbe-type incident, and had no more repercussions than that.

[geek tragedy]

413. The US had a right to go in and kill every last AQ member

in Afghanistan. And, they had the right to kill any Taliban that got in the way.

The Taliban and AQ ex post 9/10/01 melded into one fighting force. I choose that date because it was on 9/10/01 that an AQ team assassinated the Taliban's #1 rival in Afghanistan.

This is all parsing. The Taliban were playing for Team Bin Laden, and thus were legitimate targets.

[Two Americas]

432. wow

People didn't think we had a right to "go in and kill every last member" of the German military or the Nazi party. That was seen as immoral and illegal.

Lots of people in Europe were playing for Team Nazi, in a variety of ways, some because they had no choice and were caught in the middle. Were they all "legitimate targets?" Were conscripted and prison laborers building weapons for the Germans "legitimate targets?"

Are you describing human beings as "targets" and calling it "legitimate?"

You are playing for Team War Crimes, my friend. Your blood thirsty war mongering and revenge fantasies are horrifying to me, as they should be to all decent human beings.

[geek tragedy]

435. Sure we did. They had the option of surrendering of course.

But, if they resisted surrender, there was no reason not to kill them.

The Taliban had a choice. They made an evil one.

I'm sorry that being anti-Taliban and anti-Al Qaeda is offensive to you. Perhaps you should try to persuade them not to kill people and throw acid in the faces of girls who attend school.

[Oregone]

457. "The Taliban were playing for Team Bin Laden, and thus were legitimate targets"

Some believe that the Americans working on behalf of the economy of America, in the World Trade Center, were legitimate targets.

[geek tragedy]

488. You equate people in the WTC with the Taliban.

And you equate al-Qaeda with the American economy.

Very nice.

If I met you in person, I would vomit on your shoes.

I've never encountered anyone with such perverse values (or a perverse lack of values) before.

So, congratulations on your hatred of all things American to the point where you think the WTC victims deserved to die as much as the Taliban who aided their murderers.

[Oregone]

502. No, I equated the similar perverted lines of thought

There is a tendency to marginalize and dehumanize those killed in war, if their existence may, in some way, be tied to the main target or if their deaths are a Means to an End. Instantly, the value of their lives become nada, nothing, zilch. It is a sick line of thought, and one we only condemn when our enemies have it. Its a concept of enraged and blind justice that can turn even the most ardent opposer of the death penalty into a sociopath.

"you think the WTC victims deserved to die as much as the Taliban who aided their murderers"

I never typed that. You are constructing a Straw Man. If the similarity I pointed out creates a painful tinge of guilt in your side, its likely you have been more guilty of thinking in these ways than I ever was. I feel for everyone hurt by these wars (business man and goat farmer alike).

[bahrbearian]

62. Bush couldn't afford for Osama Bin Laden to go on trial.

There would have been evidence to Complacency admitted in court.

[Occam Bandage]

64. By the time you're arguing "we shouldn't have invaded because Bush was responsible for 9/11,"

you have abandoned all pretenses to sanity and have simply gone gibbering off into the moonlit night.

[TroglodyteScholar]

285. I think s/he said "complacency," not "complicity." n/t

[malaise]

95. Bottom line - the US did not recognize the Taliban as the

legitimate government of Afghanistan therefore the invasion was illegal.

[Oregone]

23. Quick question: should the US be invaded based on that critera?

Luis Posada Carriles

[bigtree]

27. I think you would have to consider that our government and law enforcement

. . . would likely engage in that pursuit on their own if challenged or requested.

[Occam Bandage]

33. Now? A self-defense claim would be kind of shoddy, given

that it has been over ten years since his most recent attacks; it's clear that Cuba has been treating him as a criminal and not as a military threat. Still, should they have responded in a slightly different manner, yes, I think they could have made a self-defense claim and launched an invasion.

That is, if they wanted to be wiped off the map.

[Oregone]

43. "That is, if they wanted to be wiped off the map."

Might is right. The more of it you have, the less justification you need.

"it's clear that Cuba has been treating him as a criminal and not as a military threat"

And maybe that is how we should be handling this too (Criminal matter, with law enforcement agencies involved). Clearly, we wanted retribution though. But look, maybe its criminal. Maybe when as many people died on 9/11 as those who die every year, year after year, in Florida alone from car accidents, then it is still on the criminal level.

[Occam Bandage]

53. Military reality does come significantly into play, yes.

There are probably a thousand events occurring world wide that could lead to a justified war, but which do not because of what that war would entail, for every one that actually does lead to a war. Most provocations are overlooked.

I agree that terrorism should be handled as a mostly criminal affair. At the same time, I think there are some geopolitical reasons why the Afghan war is a decent idea, though that would be a different conversation.

[JackRiddler]

147. I invade because I can! Yay!

[Occam Bandage]

169. Since it's obvious you didn't read the post, let me try a simpler version:

Military ability is why people do not invade after every provocation. It is not a reason to invade.

[JackRiddler]

245. No, for the stronger it is why they can choose to invade after a given provocation...

whereas for the weaker it's why they can't invade no matter how many times provoked.

This is contained in your statement as much as the way you put it. It is the law of might over right.

[Occam Bandage]

401. Nowhere in there is "might over right."

Rather, it is "might allows both right and wrong; a lack of might disallows both." Your bumper-sticker thinking blinds you.

[JackRiddler]

447. I get it, I get it. As to who is blind...

I'm going to say it's you. Specifically, to human nature. If might is the standard that "allows both right and wrong" then you can be certain that over a short period might will declare all of its wrong to right and the standard will have devolved to "might makes right."

Please answer: In Oct. 2002, how did you stand on the IWR? What was your stance on the invasion of March 2003, at the time?

[JackRiddler]

145. True. Basically, all Iraqis have a case for invading the US, don't they?

[Occam Bandage]

170. Sure. Had Iraq been able to, they would have been well within their legal rights

to launch a counter-invasion of America.

[Oregone]

462. If only they were mighty enough...

Sometimes it all comes down to might is right...

No matter who denies it, the mighty most definitely influence world perception too. How many would vote in the UN against the actions of a true military juggernaut?

Being Mighty not only allows one to act, but it prevents others from acting against and disagreeing. You can force a false consensus with might. Hence, using consensus in an argument about who is right or wrong (and isn't it so fortunate the mighty is 'right' here) is beyond misleading.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

20. Your point is irrelevant and sloppy

Not only were the hijackers mostly from Saudi Arabia but the crime committed was not committed by any national government as an act of aggression against another country. Do you get that?

The US could've just as rationally, by the use of such inverted logic, attacked Yemen or Lichtenstein.

But of course we know the only reason that the US attacked Afghanistan (and Iraq for good measure) was for geostrategic interests. It is illegal under international law.

By your logic the entire neighborhood of the person who drove that car could be bombed as an act of "self defence."

And for the record noone has been convicted of the crime we are speaking about so even by that measure there is no justification beyond vigilante law for the US attacks on Afghanistan.

The Afghan War was decided long before September 11.

[Yukari Yakumo]

139. Are you stupid son?

The lackeys used were Saudis, but who the hell do you think organized them, trained them, and gave them their orders?

Are you just THAT stupid?

[JackRiddler]

148. Schoolyard bully.

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. The highjackers were armed, that's how they took over the airplanes

[elocs]

12. Now if both sides would only fight with box cutters there would be fewer civilian deaths. n/t

[L. Coyote]

319. So was the guy who stabbed me. Can I nuke someone now?

[Freddie Stubbs]

345. The US didn't nuke Afghanistan

[L. Coyote]

370. Did you get the point or NOT ??

[Occam Bandage]

10. The UN did not raise any objections to our article 51 claim. Therefore, it was quite legal. nt

[bigtree]

14. right

. . . and I don't know of any international body which would consider the invasion and occupation illegal. Moreover, so many of the UN resolutions, as you say, codify the U.S. military effort, as does NATO.

[Oregone]

15. So.....is OJ Simpson not a murderer?

Since he was found innocent?

Seems like a silly comparison Im making but its a bit deeper here. Does a misguided lawful process determine forever the absolute lawful status of an action (no matter how perverted that process was)?

[MadBadger]

16. Yes, OJ Simpson is not a murderer

If you go by the law of course.

[Occam Bandage]

19. Legally? No, he is not. If I said "OJ Simpson is legally a murderer," I would be wrong.

You might well say that the Afghanistan invasion shouldn't have occurred, or that the U.S. shouldn't have claimed self-defense, but calling it "illegal" seems to me a misuse of the term. Had the UN issued a resolution denying the self-defense aspect and demanding that the United States get a security council resolution before it invade, and had the US then invaded anyway, that would have been illegal. However, I think that in that case, the US would have gotten its resolution; world opinion was strongly behind us and against the Taliban.

[Oregone]

30. I understand what you are saying...but....

Anyone can fix a legal process and skirt the law, but still have overtly committed a crime (the entire Bush Admin can fit this category). For the sake of understanding their crimes, we should still consider them criminals. Hitler was never found guilty (to my knowledge, unless it was post-mortem) so is he therefore innocent of contributing to the genocide?

Call a spade a spade and a murderer a murderer.

[Occam Bandage]

44. I think there's a difference between someone for whom a legal process could not apply,

such as Hitler, and someone for whom the legal process offered no objections. In the first, the lack of a conviction doesn't say anything, because there was no opportunity for trial to say nothing of conviction. Regarding the UN and Afghanistan, though, the legal process (such as it was) was followed. When it comes to self-defense claims, there is not an official Committee of Self-Defense or anything. A nation claims self-defense and that is the end of it, unless the UN says anything different.

I don't agree with equating the legality of one situation in which a nation presents a case under which they meet the legal standards (a case which is not challenged) with the legality of a second situation in which a nation attacks another in direct and flagrant violation of the legal standards. The first is legal, though it leaves itself open to some ambiguity and second-guessing afterwards. The second is unambiguously illegal.

[Oregone]

51. "the legal process (such as it was) was followed"

A problem is though that it can be perverted and corrupted due to politics alone, so as far as absolutes go, the decisions are a bit arbitrary. Was it in anyone's interest, with the world sentiment and situation, and with our influence, for anyone to deny us? If this happened to North Korea, could they of went there for justification to invade Afghanistan (would people have objected)?

This isn't exactly and uninvolved jury of one's peers.

[Occam Bandage]

59. I'm not arguing that the United Nations is an unbiased and just arbiter.

Powerful, influential, and well-liked nations (as America was after Sept. 11) can exert influence that weak, marginal, and detested nations like North Korea cannot. However, I don't think that's so much a case for the illegality of the Afghan war as it is a case for reforming the United Nations, which I would agree with.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. Simpson was never found 'innocent'

The jury returned a verdict of 'not guilty,' meaning that the State failed to proved guilt, which is a lot different that the jury saying that he was innocent.

[MadBadger]

37. In this country you are Innocent until proven guilty.

So even though they didnt find him innocent, he already was because they couldnt prove guilt.

[TroglodyteScholar]

289. It amazes me how many people fail to understand this distinction...n/t

[Orwellian_Ghost]

26. Nonsense

The Security Council passed two Resolutions on terrorism between September 11 and America’s attack on Afghanistan on October 7 (SR 1368 of September 12 and SR1373 of September 28). No honest reading of these could possibly conclude that they authorize the use of force. They condemn the attacks of September 11 and take a whole host of measures to suppress terrorism. Not once does either of these resolutions mention military force or anything like it. They don’t even mention Afghanistan by name.

[geek tragedy]

42. They didn't need to authorize the use of force.

You simply don't understand Article 51.

Article 51 explicitly states that the right of a state to defend itself is inherent, i.e. that it does not depend on the United Nations for approval.

[Occam Bandage]

73. They didn't need to authorize the use of force. Article 51 amounts to a standing authorization

for any act of self-defense. We claimed self-defense, and the United Nations did not dispute the claim. Therefore, it was legal. End of story.

[JackRiddler]

153. Now that you're for the UN, will you call for an enforcement of Resolution 242?

[Occam Bandage]

178. I am and have been consistently in favor of returning Israel to its pre-1967 borders,

and of the establishment of a full and sovereign Palestinian state.

[JackRiddler]

244. Good for you.

Was worth a check.

[ixion]

11. you are correct

well said. :applause:

[bigtree]

18. What about the initial pursuit of the suspected accomplices into Afghanistan

. . . and the complicity of the Taliban in power at the time?

[blindpig]

31. I suppose carpet bombing is sop for 'suspected accomplices'.

Well, mebbe the Philadelphia Police Department.....

[bigtree]

48. there's obviously a tragic flaw in the prosecution of that pursuit

. . . but international law does provide for "hot pursuit" across sovereign borders. Let's not confuse this narrow query in the op about the legality of the 'invasion' with the broader question of the correctness of the measures employed in that pursuit and the aftermath.

[geek tragedy]

25. Simple fact: Your opinion is not the law and you are WRONG

The United Nations, all members of the United Nations, and every credible international law scholar agree that the September 11 attacks counted as an armed attack.

When an attack kills 3000 people, it is serious enough to be considered an armed attack.

They were an armed attack carried out by a terrorist organization based in Afghanistan and protected and aided by the local de facto rulers of Afghanistan, the Taliban.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

34. Simple fact:: You are wrong

It is obvious you are talking without having read the Security Council resolutions.

The Security Council passed two Resolutions on terrorism between September 11 and America’s attack on Afghanistan on October 7 (SR 1368 of September 12 and SR1373 of September 28). No honest reading of these could possibly conclude that they authorize the use of force. They condemn the attacks of September 11 and take a whole host of measures to suppress terrorism ... ot once does either of these resolutions mention military force or anything like it. They don’t even mention Afghanistan by name.

You are not speaking from a knowledge base of what was actually written. So your support an illegal act of war and the accompanying mass slaughter of civilians.

Anyone who takes an honest look at this knows this attack was planned long before Sept. 11th and the continued assault has been to "protect national security interests" which is code for "vital resources."

If Aghnasitan trafficked in carrots and broccoli there would be no continued assault nor illegal invasion.

[geek tragedy]

38. Simple fact: My international law education is much better than yours.

Read the fucking UN Resolution, slow one:

Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in
accordance with the Charter,
1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist
attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington, D.C. and
Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a
threat to international peace and security;

The UN Security Council resolution didn't authorize it because it explicitly recognized that its authorization was not necessary, i.e. that a state does not need UN approval to defend itself.

[bahrbearian]

67. Simple Fact: I'm a lot smarter than You.

[geek tragedy]

72. What degrees do you have, sweetie? n/t

[bahrbearian]

93. Technical quibble: Cupcake

[ColesCountyDem]

484. My legal education leads me to agree with you.

I think she's having trouble with the concept of 'inherent right'.

:shrug:

[TBF]

50. I would like to know when we're going to invade Saudi Arabia.

Most of the hijackers on those planes were Saudis. Cite: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/DCI_18_June_testimony_new.pdf

[geek tragedy]

56. That is not material. The terrorist organization itself

was based in Afghanistan. That's where their training camps were, that's where their leaders were, that's where the great majority of their armed fighters were.

[TBF]

74. Seems like it's taking an awfully long time to round up some people who

live in caves. You're convinced that this is all about terrorism, and has nothing to do with the TAPI pipeline<http://www.aprodex.com/pipeline-opens-new-front-in-afghan-war-1028-n.aspx>?

[geek tragedy]

85. Where can I find this pipeline?

Seriously, where on planet earth can I go to physically touch it?

[TBF]

86. You didn't read the article did you? It is not built yet - but I think

you know that. You didn't answer my question. Not that you have to, the fact that you avoided it pretty much tells me you're just supporting Obama and have no other reason for your comments.

[geek tragedy]

88. So, Bush invaded in order to build a natural gas pipeline

the construction of which isn't even supposed to begin until halfway through President Obama's first term?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not idle speculation.

[TBF]

91. Of course it's spectulation. Not so extraordinary given the Bush family

connection to big oil. I really don't think our invasion of Afghanistan has anything to do with terrorism, but ymmv.

[geek tragedy]

96. The pipeline is for natural gas, which makes the

connection to the invasion even more attenuated.

I don't deny that there are strategic implications at play in the pipeline. I do deny that there is factual support for the hypothesis that it was the pipeline and not the massacre of 3000 people in our largest city that motivated the action in Afghanistan.

[Two Americas]

327. huh?

No armed fighters invaded the United States.

[Fedja]

330. "taliban" is not a curseword

I'd like to point your attention to the fact that the "Taliban" answered extradition demands by claiming that bin Laden had gone missing in Afghanistan, or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or any proof" that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that "without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin... he is a free man."

They claimed they could not find him, and even if they could, they demanded proof that went beyond news clippings.

Secondly, what the fuck is up with extradition? The US doesn't extradite their soldiers to international war crimes courts, so why the fuck would anyone else have to comply with such a demand?

[anonymous171]

29. I agree. But to call Afghanistan a "country" is stretching it.

It's more like a confederacy of warlords. But I get your point. They did not attack us, Al Qaeda did.

[geek tragedy]

35. The UN says you bozos are W-R-O-N-G.

And the UN--representing the will of the community of nations, has a lot more say than random crackpots at Democratic Underground.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/533/82/PDF/N0153382.pdf?OpenElement

Adopted by the Security Council at its 4370th meeting, on
12 September 2001
The Security Council,

Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,
Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security
caused by terrorist acts,

Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in
accordance with the Charter,

1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist
attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington, D.C. and
Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a
threat to international peace and security;

2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their
families and to the people and Government of the United States of America;

3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the
perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those
responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and
sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;

4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to
prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full
implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security
Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 (1999) of 19 October 1999;

5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the
terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in
accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;

[Gregorian]

45. "Justice", not war.

The sentiment of the UN was not unbridled, unending invasions with military force. They use the terms "all necessary steps", but I still do not believe the intention was lingering military might.

This is not a simple issue. We already spent nearly a decade discussing it. Face value is far from what happened under the surface. This was the PNAC dream come true. This was manufactured! I can't prove that, but I have a Colbert sense of truthiness. I know that doesn't hold up in a court of law. And that is why we're still discussing it. But you know, and I know, that it was such an act of terrorism that Bush couldn't be bothered to leave that classroom. And norad didn't bother doing what they train to do, and did not too far before the attacks. And I do not mean to minimize the attacks.

[geek tragedy]

52. The point is that the international community considered

it to be an armed an attack as well as a criminal attack.

[Gregorian]

61. That doesn't alter the truth.

The truth which we are still trying to discover.

The international community may not have known, and most likely didn't know, that the Bush administration was a gang of criminals. And the use of criminals is unjustified as we still don't really know the truth. BUT, Rumsfeld can't go to Germany because he's indicted there. Just as an example. Still not fully related to 9/11.

You know, this is like a bank robbery where the robber is the mayor of the town who owns the local newspaper. He's bloviating about getting those robbers. And everyone is on his side. Little do they know.

I'm biased. I had a sense before they ever stole the 2000 election that they were criminals. It's hard not to be when one watched Reagan and Bush one.

[geek tragedy]

66. I reject the 911 Trutherist stuff about it being an inside job. n/t

[Gregorian]

150. So do I. But I don't reject that it served the same purpose.

They wanted it. They needed it. That cannot be denied.

Whether they had a hand in it we cannot say is factual. Outing a CIA agent is pretty serious stuff. I have a feeling they did more than just let it happen. After all, the deaths of Iraqis and Afghanis doesn't seem to phase them.

[TBF]

101. That's about how I see it as well. I'm not about to argue legalities

since I'm not a lawyer. But I do think that even if the attack was not manufactured by the US military, we certainly were aware such a thing could happen and took advantage of that, at the very least.

Bottom line, I hate seeing so many of our young people killed for cheap natural resources.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

111. No it doesn't

You are simply interpreting what was said to suit a policy you deem okay. Same tactic as used by reactionary right-wingers.

War of Aggression Against Afghanistan

Bush, Jr. instead went to the United National Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. He failed.

You have to remember that.

This war has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council.

If you read the two resolutions that he got, it is very clear that what Bush, Jr. tried to do was to get the exact same type of language that Bush, Sr. got from the U.N. Security Council in the late fall of 1990 to authorize a war against Iraq to produce its expulsion from Kuwait. It is very clear if you read these resolutions, Bush, Jr. tried to get the exact same language twice and they failed. Indeed the first Security Council resolution refused to call what happened on September 11 an "armed attack" - that is by one state against another state. Rather they called it "terrorist attacks." But the critical point here is that this war has never been approved by the U.N. Security Council so technically it is illegal under international law. It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan.

No Declaration of War

Now in addition Bush, Jr. then went to Congress to get authorization to go to war. It appears that Bush, Jr. tried to get a formal declaration of war along the lines of December 8, 1941 after the Day of Infamy like FDR got on Pearl Harbor. Bush then began to use the rhetoric of Pearl Harbor. If he had gotten this declaration of war Bush and his lawyers knew full well he would have been a Constitutional Dictator. And I refer you here to the book by my late friend Professor Miller of George Washington University Law School, Presidential Power that with a formal declaration of war the president becomes a Constitutional Dictator. He failed to get a declaration of war.

Despite all the rhetoric we have heard by the Bush, Jr. administration Congress never declared war against Afghanistan or against anyone. There is technically no state of war today against anyone as a matter of constitutional law as formally declared.

<snip>

http://www.mediamonitors.net/francis21.html

[Occam Bandage]

180. You may be thinking of Iraq. We never tried to get a resolution for Afghanistan,

because we didn't need one under Article 51.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

315. Your interpretation of Article 51 is convenient but terribly wrong

What about self-defense? Though Article 51 of the UN Charter allows a country to defend itself against an armed attack, the US would have to conform to the International Court of Justice's landmark ruling on the scope of Article 51 contained in its Nicaragua judgment of 1986. The ICJ defined an armed attack as either an event in which one State directly sends troops into another or "the sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands...which carry out acts of armed force against another State...(amounting to) actual armed attack by regular forces".

The attacks in New York and Washington clearly constitute an act of armed force committed by armed bands. However, in order to justify attacking Afghanistan, the US would at the very least have to prove both that Bin Laden was responsible and that he acted 'on or behalf of" the Taliban government of Afghanistan.

Nothing has been proved.

Do you have any of the convictions handy? I'd like to see them. Well of course you don't as there has been no trial nor any convictions.

The bulk of the people arguing that the invasion is legal in international terms in the fashion you are folks who are interested in protecting themselves from war crimes trials.

Don't you find it a bit curious that the company you keep in your steadfast support of such a vicious assault is that of the most ardent of right-wingers?

[geek tragedy]

419. You don't have judicial trials before a war can be declared.

That's just stupid. And you know it.

And there is nothing under International Law which suggests that states can only defend themselves against other states, or that a non-state entity is incapable of launching an armed attack.

I side with 90% of Americans. You side with the Taliban and bin Laden.

[Gregorian]

39. It's a crime.

The Bush administration let 9/11 happen. It was their "New Pearl Harbor". I blame them for the deaths. And it was not any one nation that "did it" to us. In fact, it's short sighted to think it just happened in a vacuum.

[MadBadger]

41. And now lets reach for the tin foil hats...

[Gregorian]

49. Sooner or later tinfoil is going to be in fashion.

I also don't believe one bullet killed Kennedy.

[MadBadger]

90. Neither Do i, but not all conspiracies are made equal

[aquart]

46. No shit.

[Raskolnik]

63. Your use of all caps, bold, and large font has convinced me. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Illegal, immoral, and downright stupid.

The American people, at the time, wanted revenge. With good reason. Bush, and politicians from both parties, capitalized on that sentiment to launch two wars, both unwinnable, and counterproductive.

If actual effect, they did exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted them to do. They made a small fanatical band of religious fundamentalists into a bogeyman beyond it's capabilities and made them, and their ilk, heroes to much of the Muslim world.

In doing so, they have made the USA a pariah nation of warmongering, short sighted, fearful, neo colonialists who are destined to bankrupt themselves seeking a unattainable "security".

And, under new leadership, they are continuing the obviously failed policies of force in the vain hope that something might be salvaged from the disasters.

They are too cowardly to admit obvious defeat because they, like most politicians, fear the wrath of their constituencies and would rather cling to power through violence than lose their power.

[leftstreet]

78. ^^K&R for this post alone^^

:thumbsup:

[TBF]

80. I dunno - seems that you could also make the argument that OBL

did exactly what we wanted him to. He's been on the payroll for awhile. For your review: http://www.greenleft.org.au/2001/465/25199.

[leftstreet]

115. 'oops page not found'

I looked around the site but couldn't find the article.

Do you have a different link?

Thanks!

[TBF]

149. Here is the name of the article:

How the CIA created Osama bin Laden, 19 September 2001

I think the period at the end of the link caused problems. Will try again: http://www.greenleft.org.au/2001/465/25199

[tritsofme]

77. Well then you should have cast your vote at the UNSC against the resolution.

Which authorized the invasion under that section of the charter.

Oh wait, you don't have a vote on the UNSC?

Well carry on your whining then.

[geek tragedy]

84. Technical quibble:

The UN resolution in question did not authorize the US response, but rather observed that the US had the right to respond with force under its inherent right to self-defense as recognized by Article 51.

[rapturedbyrobots]

104. ?

i'm confused. so the problem was that we wanted bin laden (and by extension al qaeda) and the taliban didn't hand them over because they thought he was innocent. so we bombed the shit out of them. but why should they think him innocent if as late as 2006 our own fbi admitted “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” and “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.”

then why should we expect an extradition and go to war when it is not given?

[geek tragedy]

110. The taliban already had violated international law by

sheltering him after the UN demanded his expulsion following the embassy bombings.

[bvar22]

216. Thats like bombing Italy....

...because the Vatican shelters child molesters.

[Fedja]

331. Or like bombing the US

...because they shelther the Blackwater criminals.

[blindpig]

346. Good for the goose, good for the gander. n/t

[Prometheus Bound]

117. Why, because Afghanistan was poor and defenceless and the US was rich and powerful.

That's just the way the world is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

121. Maybe France should have occupied the U.S. when we wouldn't hand over Kissinger.

[geek tragedy]

130. Was Kissinger planning attacks against Paris? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

135. OK. How about Chile, Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvodor, Congo..

And, a legion of others.

The USA supported, planned, or carried out attacks, on their countries. By your logic, they have every right to attack and occupy us.

And, by that same logic, Pakistan should be rocketing the Pentagon and CIA environs in hope of killing the planners of the bombing of their country.

[geek tragedy]

136. Not twenty years ex post facto they don't.

I don't believe that Chile faces a security threat from the United States government.

And, yes, if Posada Carilles were conducting bombing raids inside Cuba, Castro would have the right to have agents come to the US and whack him.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

138. Pakistan?

We're not only planning raids and assassinations, we're carrying them out.

How does that square with "we're acting in our defense", with Pakistan right to bomb us for the same reason?

It's a really, really, dumb war that's already failed and is making the situation worse.

[geek tragedy]

140. We're bombing Pakistan's internal enemies--the ones

trying to assassinate the current PM.

There's real Pakistan and then there's Waziristan, which is an Islamic Emirate inside Pakistan's nominal borders.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

146. Which is like saying that the Pentagon is a militarist republic inside America's borders.

I see no indication that the Government of Pakistan is about to recognize the government of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan any time soon.

[geek tragedy]

158. President Obama has full authority over the Pentagon.

The prime minister of Pakistan can't set foot in Waziristan.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

175. So what?

Is your argument that of "American exceptionalism"? That we're special among the nations of the world?

Or, does Cuba have the right to occupy Florida, bomb civilians, and impose Communism in the name of finding Posada and his supporters?

[geek tragedy]

182. Is there any prospect of Posada launching a serious attack

against Cuba?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

191. Beats me.

But, that's not the question.

We've been attacking openly, or covertly, other countries for decades. Over the course of which we've done far, far, damage, killed far more people, destroyed more governments, all in the name of "defense".

There are many, many, countries that could make a helluva case for attacking ours under the same rubric. i.e. Iran, which has certainly been threatened by us.

Our government is busily trying to convince us that the Taliban is the new Bogeyman (among several others) who are about to deprive us of our freedoms. Many of which have already been removed in the name of "Defense".

So, to "protect" us our government kills "terrorists" in Pakistan and Afghanistan (not to mention Iraq). Not to mention thousands of civilians...oops, collateral damage.

And, it's all failed.

[JackRiddler]

156. Iraq obviously has an airtight case.

[Occam Bandage]

187. Not at the moment.

American troops are in Iraq with their authorization, with the consent of the United Nations. For them to attack America at this moment would be illegal and perfidious.

However, if they withdrew their consent for American military presence (claiming that any and all treaties signed by a puppet government under duress were of course invalid), and if American troops remained, then Iraq would have a clear legal right to both attack the soldiers remaining in Iraq, and to mount an invasion of the United States.

Of course, they wouldn't, because they would lose, so it's kind of a moot point.

[geek tragedy]

205. Saddam did.

al-Maliki does not, since he has yet to formally demand that US troops leave Iraq. US troops are there with his permission.

Now, the insurgents can certainly shoot at US troops there, but that's a different story than the state of Iraq.

[JackRiddler]

246. LOL.

I can imagine that's not what you would have been saying if Saddam had!

[Occam Bandage]

397. If Saddam had,

I think we'd all be saying, "Where the fuck did he get a navy?"

[cboy4]

113. A Democratic president would have hit Afghanistan also.

Obama would have done the same thing. I'm sure of it.

Clinton rightfully hit Afghanistan as well.

With OP's like this, now I know why the Republicans accuse Democrats of being weak on defense. :thumbsdown:

[geek tragedy]

118. These are the people they like to pretend are in charge

of the Democratic party.

Fortunately, CODEPINK and ANSWER don't have a lot of sway with anyone who matters in the Democratic party.

[Yukari Yakumo]

142. They don't have any sway with anyone but themselves.

Well, except for those people who catch sound bites of them on O'Lielly, in which case the sway is going in the opposite direction we would like them to go.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

379. And that's too bad

If there's anything infuriating it's that those of us who are sick of war and militarism and American arrogance in world affairs have nowhere to turn on today's political scene except for a very few Democratic politicians who GET IT.

[Occam Bandage]

122. It doesn't matter. They're convinced Clinton is as bad as Bush,

and are slowly beginning to believe Obama is as bad as Bush as well. They have no sense of anything beyond "wars are bad."

[blindpig]

163. Quite right.

D's & R's are only good for style points in imperialism, the substance remains the same.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occam Bandage]

181. Hint: this is Democratic Underground, not Soviet Underground.

Rare to find a Soviet apologist nowadays.

[blindpig]

192. No apologies required

The term 'Soviet apologists' is just more cold war smoke. How about having a clearer view of history sans capitalist propaganda?

[Occam Bandage]

193. "Apologist" means "justifier," not "apologizer."

Dismissing American propaganda while credulously accepting Soviet propaganda does not give one any clearer a view of history.

[geek tragedy]

210. Are you sure this isn't snark?

I mean, really. Hardcore Communist propaganda? Wow.

[Two Americas]

313. Hardcore Communist propaganda?

Where? Where? I want to read that.

[anaxarchos]

323. I'm so tired of that soft-core bullshit...

When you find the hardcore stuff, let me know...

[Occam Bandage]

399. The "Russia did not invade Afghanistan" argument at the top of the thread. nt

[Two Americas]

421. yes, and so?

It is an opinion, and it is not without merit and I think it worthy of consideration at the least, rather than being dismissed with red baiting and anti-intellectual fear mongering, whether we agree with the opinion or not.

[geek tragedy]

434. Not without merit? Only to those who know nothing.

Let's quote BP for what he wrote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5114755#5114949

Russia was invited to help the legitimate, progressive government of Afghanistan to help them with a revolt of reactionary elements. Initially Russia demurred, only acquiescing after repeated entreaties.

Reality:

The Soviet Union decided to intervene militarily in Afghanistan in order to preserve the communist regime. Based on information from the KGB, Soviet leaders felt that Amin destabilized the situation in Afghanistan. Following Amin's initial coup against and killing of President Taraki, the KGB station in Kabul warned that his leadership would lead to "harsh repressions, and as a result, the activation and consolidation of the opposition."<23>

The Soviets established a special commission on Afghanistan, of KGB chairman Yuri Andropov, Ponomaryev from the Central Committee and Dimitry Ustinov, the Minister of Defense. In late April 1978, they reported that Amin was purging his opponents, including Soviet loyalists; his loyalty to Moscow was in question; and that he was seeking diplomatic links with Pakistan and possibly the People's Republic of China. Of specific concern were Amin's secret meetings with the US chargé d'affaires J. Bruce Amstutz, which, while never amounting to any agreement between Amin and the United States, sowed suspicion in the Kremlin.<24>

Information obtained by the KGB from its agents in Kabul provided the last arguments to eliminate Amin; supposedly, two of Amin's guards killed the former president Nur Muhammad Taraki with a pillow, and Amin was suspected to be a CIA agent. The latter, however, is still disputed: Amin repeatedly demonstrated official friendliness to the Soviet Union. Soviet General Vasily Zaplatin, a political advisor at that time, claimed that four of President Taraki's ministers were responsible for the destabilization. However, Zaplatin failed to emphasize this enough.<25>

1979: Soviet invasion

On December 7, 1979, the Soviet advisors to the Afghan Armed Forces advised them to undergo maintenance cycles for their tanks and other crucial equipment. Meanwhile, telecommunications links to areas outside of Kabul were severed, isolating the capital. With a deteriorating security situation, large numbers of Soviet airborne forces joined stationed ground troops and began to land in Kabul on December 25th. Simultaneously, Amin moved the offices of the president to the Tajbeg Palace, believing this location to be more secure from possible threats. According to Colonel General Tukharinov and Merimsky, Amin was fully informed of the military movements, having requested Soviet military assistance to northern Afghanistan on December 17th.<26><27> His brother and General Dmitry Chiangov met with the commander of the 40th Army before Soviet troops entered the country, to work out initial routes and locations for Soviet troops.<28>

On December 27, 1979, 700 Soviet troops dressed in Afghan uniforms, including KGB OSNAZ and GRU SPETSNAZ special forces from the Alpha Group and Zenith Group, occupied major governmental, military and media buildings in Kabul, including their primary target - the Tajbeg Presidential Palace.

That operation began at 19:00 hr., when the Soviet Zenith Group destroyed Kabul's communications hub, paralyzing Afghan military command. At 19:15, the assault on Tajbeg Palace began; as planned, president Hafizullah Amin was killed. Simultaneously, other objectives were occupied (e.g. the Ministry of Interior at 19:15). The operation was fully complete by the morning of December 28, 1979.

The Soviet military command at Termez, Uzbek SSR, announced on Radio Kabul that Afghanistan had been "liberated" from Amin's rule. According to the Soviet Politburo they were complying with the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness and Amin had been "executed by a tribunal for his crimes" by the Afghan Revolutionary Central Committee. That committee then elected as head of government former Deputy Prime Minister Babrak Karmal, who had been demoted to the relatively insignificant post of ambassador to Czechoslovakia following the Khalq takeover, and that it had requested Soviet military assistance. <29>

Soviet ground forces, under the command of Marshal Sergei Sokolov, entered Afghanistan from the north on December 27th. In the morning, the 103rd Guards 'Vitebsk' Airborne Division landed at the airport at Bagram and the deployment of Soviet troops in Afghanistan was underway. The force that entered Afghanistan, in addition to the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, was under command of the 40th Army and consisted of the 108th and 5th Guards Motor Rifle Divisions, the 860th Separate Motor Rifle Regiment, the 56th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade, the 36th Mixed Air Corps. Later on the 201st and 58th Motor Rifle Divisions also entered the country, along with other smaller units.<30> In all, the initial Soviet force was around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFVs. In the second week alone, Soviet aircraft had made a total of 4,000 flights into Kabul.<31> With the arrival of the two later divisions, the total Soviet force rose to over 100,000 personnel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#1979:_Soviet_deployment

LMAO.

[Two Americas]

471. oh. well wikipedia

That is the final authority. :sarcasm:

The first sentence says it all -

"The Soviet Union decided to intervene militarily in Afghanistan in order to preserve the communist regime."

No need to say anything more than that, as that is sufficient to prevent any deeper thinking on the part of most Americans, brainwashed for decades about the evil commies and the Soviet Union.

Seeing the Soviets as goodness and light is not the only imaginable alternative to Reagan's "evil empire" propaganda, you know.

This idiocy of seeing the Soviet Union as evil incarnate, or else being accused of defending anything and everything they ever did is simply a way to suppress a free and open discussion.

[anaxarchos]

474. The only hardcore propaganda tool is you...

You quote Wikipedia? You could have written that.

BUT, you are even dishonest in quoting Wikipedia. This is the section that comes immediately before what you quoted:

"The Afghan government repeatedly requested the introduction of Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 1979. They requested Soviet troops to provide security and to assist in the fight against the mujahideen rebels. On April 14, 1979, the Afghan government requested that the USSR send 15 to 20 helicopters with their crews to Afghanistan, and on June 16, the Soviet government responded and sent a detachment of tanks, BMPs, and crews to guard the government in Kabul and to secure the Bagram and Shindand airfields. In response to this request, an airborne battalion, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel A. Lomakin, arrived at the Bagram Air Base on July 7. They arrived without their combat gear, disguised as technical specialists. They were the personal bodyguards for President Taraki. The paratroopers were directly subordinate to the senior Soviet military adviser and did not interfere in Afghan politics.

After a month, the Afghan requests were no longer for individual crews and subunits, but for regiments and larger units. In July, the Afghan government requested that two motorized rifle divisions be sent to Afghanistan. The following day, they requested an airborne division in addition to the earlier requests. They repeated these requests and variants to these requests over the following months right up to December 1979. However, the Soviet government was in no hurry to grant them.

The anti-communist rebels garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and current US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the US intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime.

Carter adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, December 24, 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting US policy, which, unbeknownst even to the mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled: "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."<20>

Additionally, on July 3, 1979, Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.<21> As a part of the Central Intelligence Agency program Operation Cyclone, the massive arming of Afghanistan's mujahideen was started.<22>

The Soviet Union decided to intervene militarily in Afghanistan in order to preserve the communist regime..."

The last line is where your "quote" begins...

More than this, the great military detail in this Wikipedia entry indicates either a "pro" or a military "hobbyist", right-wing by definition.

Of course the "good parts" start way before either selective quotation, in the actual history of Afghanistan.

Your story is dishonest as is your view, Mr. International Law "expert".

You may be laughing your ass off. Clowns often do.

[blindpig]

476. Graci. n/t

[anaxarchos]

477. Prego... n/t

[geek tragedy]

489. So, the Soviets kicked out the government of Afghanistan

and installed their own stooge.

And then they started flooding the country with troops.

Sigh. Young Commies are not as bright as they used to be. They used to be able to justify the USSR's blood-soaked history so much better.

[anaxarchos]

503. Dense, much?

You just got shown up to be a liar... and now you are trying for reading comprehension?

You can't even read, Mr. Expert. Not even, Wikipedia... which you brought up.

Keep talkin' shit and keep regurgitating insults. You don't know shit about no "blood-stained". Your expertise is in shit-stained.

You don't know anything about Afghanistan except that somebody told you some fable and you buy it because you are obviously in the market for fables... a regular fable entrepreneur.

[JVS]

211. Amen.

:thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

424. projection

We are awash in apologists for right wing politics here lately, yet here we have red baiting and McCarthyism.

Unfortunately, it is not rare to find apologists for the right wing.

"This is Democratic Underground, not Right Wing Underground." That would be a more accurate statement than yours is.

[geek tragedy]

274. Well, you Stalinists wouldn't know anything about

Imperialism, would you?

[fascisthunter]

293. "Stalinist" because the poster tells the truth? You on the Right Web Site?

[geek tragedy]

390. That poster thinks the Soviet Union was peacekeeping in

Afghanistan, and thinks that all Democrats are Imperialists.

Sorry, but this is not Communist Underground, and that crowd are the ones who don't belong.

[fascisthunter]

398. If You Think he's a comie you have big problems

he spoke the truth...

[Occam Bandage]

402. You believe it is true that the Soviet Union did not invade Afghanistan?

Then you accept Soviet propaganda that literally nobody but Soviets accept or accepted.

[Two Americas]

325. ROFL!!

Good grief. Red-baiting.

This is making me so nostalgic. I miss those days of being called a dirty commie.

It is probably a good sign.

[geek tragedy]

388. No, blind pig is a bona fide Communist who thinks that

the USSR was invited into Afghanistan by a progressive government there.

[Two Americas]

404. I'm scared

Hide the babies, convene the House Un-American Activities Committee, start making the black lists, purge the dangerous elements, spread the fear and terror. The godless commies are coming to get us!

Blindpig is a friend of mine, and he is salt of the earth rock solid good people, and there is not anyone I would rather have in my corner.

What you are doing is reviving the red scare McCarthy era anti-intellectualism and promoting the fears that keep the vicious and extreme political right wing in power. It is disgusting and it is very destructive.

Labeling people as "reds" in order to dismiss what they are saying and smear their character is to align yourself with the thuggish and fascistic extreme right wing, to betray a profound ignorance of history, to side with the wealthy and powerful few, to promote the authoritarianism police state mentality, and to suppress freedom of speech.

The political climate has moved so far to the right recently, that your extremist views can pass as moderate or reasonable. The extremism of your views will become more and more obvious in the coming days, so you will have a choice - side overtly with the authoritarian extreme right wing, or listen and learn and change your position. That is in your hands. Do you want help with that, or do we all have to be annoyed and harassed by you while you take your sweet tine getting your head screwed in straight?

Those of us who are older and have been around the block a few times are not fooled by what you are saying, and are not all that excited about hearing your "opinions" since we have been down this path thousands of times and we know how it turns out. Why don't you have some courage and stop sniping from your little intellectual fox hole. Here are your choices: shut up and learn; openly declare yourself to be sympathetic to the right wing and stop trying to deceive us.

[geek tragedy]

409. Communists can be good people.

They just aren't credible when discussing politics.

Blindpig regurgitated loathsome pro-USSR propaganda upthread, and has made it clear he views 90% of Americans as Imperialists.

I judged him by his beliefs.

[TBF]

412. I guess it depends upon your politics. I'd rather discuss issues with

blindpig any day of the week. Although I must admit this thread has been very entertaining in that it has really pulled the warriors out of the woodwork. Good to know which side people are on.

[geek tragedy]

415. Well, I'm sorry your side lost the Cold War.

Blindpig is still bitter about it.

[TBF]

426. Before my time, but whatever. n/t

[Two Americas]

511. that is familiar

That is a Limbaugh talking point. I hear it repeated by dittoheads all the time. Didn't expect to see it here.

[blindpig]

414. Big difference between the people and the government.

My gripe is with the 10% or so who benefit from the rapacious anti-human, ecocidal actions of our government and the capitalists who own it. Oh yeah, and those who carry water for that same scum.

Given half a chance I believe you will find that most Americans will cotton to socialism right well.

[geek tragedy]

416. Yes, I'm sure most people would love collectivism

and the abolition of private property.

[blindpig]

417. You really don't understand a fuckin' thing, do you?

By 'property' Marx refers to the means of production, factories, cropland, etc. But you guys like to scare people into believing that the commies are gonna take your house, ipod, Johnny's shiny new bike and the dog.

Just more lies.

[geek tragedy]

428. Yes, those who oppose a Leninist/Marxist/Stalinist

government and order in society are just a bunch of evil-doers.

[blindpig]

455. Naw

But those who rob and oppress the majority and those who carry water for them certainly are.

[Two Americas]

510. really?

"They" aren't credible when discussing politics?

Man, they are spanking the heck out of you.

[blindpig]

406. bona fide? Excellent, I'll put that on my resume. n/t

[bvar22]

218. NO.

Clinton hit terrorist training camps located in the tribal regions of Afghanistan.

BIG difference.

[geek tragedy]

237. That was after an attack that killed people

in Africa, not New York.

Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama would all have gone into Afghanistan.

The difference is that they wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

128. ROFLMAO!!!!!! Oh The Silliness... Simple Fact LOL You're Too Much!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HughMoran]

152. He's part of the circumference/diameter crew

Just having fun with DU.

[WeDidIt]

132. EPIC FAIL

[Orsino]

134. Not illegal. Just wrong. n/t

[superduperfarleft]

161. While I could care less whether or not it was legal, it was and is definitely immoral. n/t

[Prometheus Bound]

167. Clearly illegal

Thank you for reminding us of this often forgotten fact. The warmongers will be unrelenting in their personal attacks, but this is what you get for speaking the truth in these bitter times.

We in the West were once nations who at least pretended to respect the rule of law. We now spit on the law crowing "Might is Right!"

[geek tragedy]

173. Let me guess . . . no law degree? n/t

[IGotAName]

290. This is the issue that separates the moderate, reasoned liberals from the fringe. nt

[mudesi]

171. LOL

[Dark]

185. Um, if your country's actions threaten mine,

you shouldn't be surprised if my country attacks.

[TBF]

196. Interesting that the Obama campaign has brought so many hawks to DU. n/t

[geek tragedy]

201. Not Hawks, just not Taliban-humpers. n/t

[G_j]

220. Hawk is the correct word

a rose by any other name..

[bird gerhl]

222. Neocon is more correct in my opinion n/t

[geek tragedy]

236. Well, then go register as a Green.

Because the Democratic party does not represent your values, and quite frankly it never, ever will.

[geek tragedy]

234. Just as the pro-Taliban, anti-American crowd

is also present in this thread.

[bird gerhl]

239. I didn't know DU had Afghanistani posters! LOL

[geek tragedy]

252. One need not be from Afghanistan to be either anti-American

or pro-Taliban.

There are a number of people in this thread who will support anyone who kills Americans.

[bird gerhl]

262. "One need not be from Afghanistan to be either anti-American or pro-Taliban."

No, but it certainly helps! :rofl:

[blindpig]

405. Incredible statement.

Boy howdy, never thought I'd see a statement like that around here, elsewhere maybe.

World class lies & slander, devoid of any relation to evidence or reality.

[geek tragedy]

425. I thought pro-Soviet Union would be a slander.

But, evidently I'm debating the Soviet Union fan club here.

One can't be pro-Soviet Union and not be anti-American by the same stroke.

[Fedja]

332. Every time

every time you use the term "anti-american" as a label for a difference in opinion, Europe sighs a sad sigh. We want you guys along for the ride into the future, but when you insist on being the Deliverance crowd, we get sad.

[blindpig]

224. Rather that than a capitalists catamite. n/t

[bird gerhl]

228. No, not hawks, just buzzards.

[G_j]

219. gone way downhill, imo

I posted a thread about Codepink, and of course, a bunch of armchair warriors, had nothing better to do than make degrading remarks about these courageous women. These people are not progressives. They are closet RWingers,
Mention Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich and they often arise like rats from a sewer to attack.

[Mari333]

223. you got that right

nothing more tiresome and old then armchair chest thumpers who play war video games in their moms basements and spout off about sending other peoples kids to war whilst they munch on krispy kremes and cheetos.
chickenhawks. and i thought only the freepers had them.

[cboy4]

229. You are part of the very small majority of America who

doesn't apparently think attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 was justified.

You should think about that "whilst" you think up your cute insults.

[Mari333]

247. well, 15 of the 19 hijackers who hit us 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia

but we kiss their proverbial arse.
staying in Afghanistan because of 9/11? give me a break. follow the money.

[geek tragedy]

273. Where were their training camps and operational

nerve centers?

Oh yeah.

AFGHANISTAN.

[Name removed]

235. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TBF]

227. I agree - I've been seeing that as well. n/t

[geek tragedy]

232. I guess youprefer the people who talk about

how 'honorable' the Taliban are.

[G_j]

240. how did you know??

:sarcasm:


:rofl:

[Mari333]

221. anyone. left or right who supports this goddamned war is a

[G_j]

225. --

:yourock:

[geek tragedy]

233. Too bad it's our party and not yours.

President Barack Chickenhawk Obama thanks you for your knee-jerk stupidity.

[TBF]

242. Interesting. Are you speaking as a representative of Obama's?

Are you being paid by him?

[geek tragedy]

253. What percent of the vote did Kucinich get?

That's how much mojo the Neville Chamberlain wing of the party has.

And some of the nutjobs in this thread make Dennis Kucinich look like Richard Perle.

[TBF]

257. You don't like to answer direct questions do you? n/t

[geek tragedy]

263. Kucinich voted to authorize the invasion of Afghanistan.

So did Socialist Bernie Sanders.

Only one Democrat in all of Congress opposed it.

That's the kind of fringe we're talking about.

[cboy4]

266. LOL

Fringe with a capital "F"

[geek tragedy]

272. Kucinich is totally PNAC. As is Sanders.

I heard that Sanders and Richard Perle room together at the ZOG conventions.

[Two Americas]

418. why don't you discuss this intelligently?

Why don't you discuss this intelligently and seriously instead of just throwing out dozens of silly one line retorts?

If you are not interested in the subject, why post at all?

[bottomtheweaver]

302. Bushler bill rammed through on Sept. 14, 2001. You can fool all of the people some of the time

But we all, including me, know much better now. By the way Barbara Lee of Texas (hint) voted no.

[TBF]

260. But I will answer your question - I don't know what % Kucinich got

because I was too busy making phone calls & walking door to door for Obama down here in Texas, thinking it would make a difference if we could have a dem in office again. Obviously I was mistaken.

[geek tragedy]

265. Did you pay attention to Obama's statements on Afghanistan?

Though, in fairness, Obama didn't vote for the invasion of Afghanistan (but Kucinich did).

[TBF]

278. Not early on, I came back to politics after a long respite. Also, like others,

I hoped there were certain things he was saying just to get elected. Our choice was someone who might continue in the republican vein although he was promising change, and one (McCain) who most certainly would continue the war-mongering. I will give him credit when he does the right thing, like signing the Lily Ledbetter Act, but I won't give him blanket immunity.

[maryf]

316. Thats because he wasn't in office!! nt

[blindpig]

304. Indeed, it is 'your' party.

Just another party of war mongering capitalist/imperialist. That becomes more apparent every day. The curtain is shredded, this fiasco has been very educational for the people, the cards are clearly on the table. Which explains your frantic spastic attempts to support the unsupportable. Cheapjack red-baiting doesn't work as well as it once did, huh? And if that bullshit don't work you can believe that the restof the lies we've been told have far less purchase too. You're on the wrong side of history.

[maryf]

309. Just for you from Twain!!

“The loud little handful will shout for war. The pulpit will warily and cautiously protest at first…The great mass of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes, and will try to make out why there should be a war, and they will say earnestly and indignantly: ‘It is unjust and dishonorable and there is no need for war.’ Then the few will shout even louder…Before long you will see a curious thing: anti-war speakers will be stoned from the platform, and free speech will be strangled by hordes of furious men who still agree with the speakers but dare not admit it...Next, statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.” ~ Mark Twain

[Beam Me Up]

366. You are projecting.

[quaker bill]

230. as all wars should be

but we aren't going to withdraw until bin Laden is dead. No President would do so. While I am unaccustomed to cheering such things on, I hope they find him soon, fewer people will die that way.

[lib2DaBone]

255. Some will say that Bin Laden is already dead or doesnt exist... he's a CIA Boogey Man....

After reading all the posts here.. I still don't understand.. why are we in Afghanistan?


What does the Untied States gain by being there and spending Billions? Is there oil pipelines there or something we need? Bring our troops home.

[quaker bill]

338. Because Bush tried to cut a deal

with the Taliban for a natural gas pipeline to supply an ENRON project in India. He had the Taliban to the Crawford ranch, when they would not play, he threatened to remove them, and a couple of months later, the towers came down. The project in India cratered financially, and ENRON dissolved.

The UNOCAL director negotiating for the ENRON pipeline deal was Hamid Karzai. Do you get it now?

Yes we need to come home from Afghanistan, and a vast number of other places. Osama bin Laden will be dead first, it is really just that simple. If we need to start eradicating the opium crop to get the needed cooperation to complete the task, it will happen. The cards are on the table, thus while protesting for public consumption, recent news is that the Pakistanis are already helping to direct the predator flights. I do not think bin Laden lives to see June this year. Once we have anough DNA to confirm his demise, the negotiations to get our troops out of there will pick up pace dramatically.

This is not a personal preference, I would just as soon we leave now. This is just how I expect things to happen, and I think it will be fairly quick.

[bottomtheweaver]

303. You have to get over the bin Laden thing

because box cutters don't bring down quarter-mile high steel behemoths. The whole damn thing is a fairy tale. Think about it.

[quaker bill]

337. I have been over it for a while

but what I am over or not over does not matter. This is not a matter of reality, it is a matter of perception. Think about it, not practically, but politically; as President, if you leave the middle east without killing bin Laden, the next attack, should one come, ends your term politically. You go from a major political win to lower than Bush in 24 hours. On the other hand, if bin Laden is dead, then as President, you can at least claim that you did all you could, and so much more than the last admin. that political survival becomes possible.

In a very real sense, it does not matter what bin Laden did or did not do. What matters is what the majority of the electorate believes he did. Leaving with him still alive is not a politically viable option. Right or wrong, practical or impractical, his corpse is the price of bringing the troops home. Bank on this.

I am pretty sure that these cards are on the table, face up. This is why while protesting each strike publicly, the Pakistani's intelligence services are in the room helping direct each predator strike. They want us to leave, and now they know the price.

[bottomtheweaver]

483. I think he needs to tell us the truth.

A lot of us already know it. It's shameful, depraved and monstrous, and will probably do great harm to our reputation as a nation, but it's not our lie or his, and the world needs to hear him admit it. Every day Obama covers for the monsters behind that atrocity makes him more one of them himself. In any case, the truth will out soon enough. Some crimes really are just too big to hide, and then he'll have to explain why he helped keep it secret.

[alarimer]

241. Afghanistan will be Obama's Viet Nam.

If we have not ended these stupid, illegal wars by the next election, I am not voting for him again. He also is losing my vote over continuing Bush's illegal actions regarding prisoners and extraordinary rendition. THAT is not change.

[TBF]

243. I'm with you. I'll support a pacifist democrat - such as Kucinich - but I won't vote for

someone who increases troops.

[geek tragedy]

268. Kucinich voted for the invasion of Afghanistan.

I believe that leaves you with Barbara Lee as the sole Democrat you find acceptable.

[TBF]

276. Exactly which vote are you speaking about? If it is the funding bill

you know that was held under false pretenses.

[geek tragedy]

282. No, this one:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.64:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens;

Whereas such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad;

Whereas in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;

Whereas such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.



Roll call vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

Aye: 420

Nay: 1

[bottomtheweaver]

300. Cast on September 14, 2001.

Context counts.

[Occam Bandage]

403. Yes. Context does count.

For instance, the United States had been attacked on Sept. 11, and the Taliban refused to allow us to pursue al-Qaeda, which was the context that made the war legal.

[bottomtheweaver]

486. Once the shock and awe died down, the reality made itself clear,

and there is nothing remotely just, legal, honorable or defensible about our attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. Both are monstrous monstrous crimes against humanity and when the financial reparations come due they might spell the end of the US as a solvent enterprise.

[G_j]

275. I suppose

some people won't get it, personally, I've been actively opposing US wars since Vietnam. Presidents come and go.
Even though I voted for Obama, I won't stop advocating for peace.
We need to deal with the Military Industrial Complex!
I really think we should support Kucinich in his work now!

and who knows?

[Mari333]

249. me either. I will write in Kucinich. and if a pub wins, then maybe

they will wake up..centrist dems..appeasing the pentagon, and their bloated defense budget. time to stop being a chest thumping empire.

and I have put every warmonger on here on 'ignore.'

[geek tragedy]

269. Kucinich voted for the invasion of Afghanistan.

You're NeoCON PNAC BUSHBOT OMG!!!!

[Truth2Tell]

279. Ancient history.

He has since renounced that vote and agrees that the current occupation is illegal. Just FYI.

[bird gerhl]

280. It's true.

Virtually every Democrat has blood on his/her hands. Even Kucinich, who has such a beautiful soul he cannot swat a fly without spending the rest of the day praying on his rosary beads, is a butcher.

[bottomtheweaver]

298. So did Cynthia McKinney. But they know better now.

About 911, for instance.

[bottomtheweaver]

299. p.s. this was on Sept. 14, 2001.

The only rep to vote "nay" was Barabara Lee. Conyers and Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, mother of former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, abstained.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=860&Itemid=1

[anaxarchos]

322. Well that is rich...

You've repeated every NeoCON, PNAC, or "Scoop" Jackson silliness, uncritically, throughout this thread, without the slightest sense of history and now you're outraged? "OMG"?

Eager to teach the failed client states who is the real boss, are you? Well, good luck with that. Five, six, seven more wars and the U.S. will really be the King of the Roost. Or maybe not...

[G_j]

283. I'm tempted to

but I have never put anyone on ignore over the years here.
.. lately I've considered it.

[TBF]

287. I did that during the primaries for awhile, and then cleared it out and started reading

it all again. It's good to know what everyone's thinking, especially when they talk about stealing the dem party.

[leftstreet]

284. Wow. This thread is full of fun

When BushInc waged war we weren't referred to as (insert evil enemy) 'sympathizers' or 'communist' propagandizers when we objected to it, or tried to discuss historical accuracy.

In fact, I believe those sentiments were relegated to Freeperland.

:popcorn:

[fascisthunter]

291. Welcome to Reality DUers

this fact has been known for quite some time, and I'm beginning some of you haven't been paying attention or have been listening to too much propaganda.

[bottomtheweaver]

296. It's the neo-conomy, stupid.

(So to speak.)

As insane and tinfoily as it sounds, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the reasons and even the results of any particular US military "operation" are secondary to the profits produced by GE, Raytheon, Boeing, Haliburton and everybody else on the permanent war economy payroll, including Obama's new Director of National Intelligence, Raptor-ready Dennis Blair.

Hey, it's what Ike was warning us about fifty years ago. :shrug:

Oh, and a great thread! :hi:

[Zhade]

308. Indeed.

NT!

[maryf]

311. Huge K&R

Thanks!

[Two Americas]

314. I was tired of the Republicans

I was tired of listening to the Republican war mongers. This is so refreshing to hear Democratic war mongers. I think that Democrats are better at this war monger stuff than the Republicans ever were.

The Republicans always said we went to war to save the country. Democrats are saying that we need to go to war to save the party. That is a novel and radical approach.

[mike_c]

318. agreed, 100 percent-- the war apologists be damned....

Thank you for being so straightforward. The war against Afghanistan is an American crime against humanity. Period.

[pasto76]

320. Sorry Im late to this party, but we didnt attack Afghanistan per se

We attacked AL Quaeda, an unconventional para military entity with no national colors or whatnot. The "ruling" (they didnt rule the "northern alliance areas) Taliban regime took up arms against US forces, in pursuit of AQ.

So tell us how attacking the perpetrators of Sept 11, and they happen to be in Afghanistan, is not defensible? Remember we gave them weeks for clerics to assemble discuss surrendering Bin Laden....and they denied the request.

We displaced them all. Right into pakistan. I'll say AGAIN this week that 42 million Taliban and AQ live in the "tribal areas" of Wziristan. The head AQ guy has professed to overthrow the Pakistani government.

Last week they did muscle the Pakistani government to enforce Sharia law - you know, dancing is punishable by death, singing is punishable by death, men will not shave, punishable by beatings, females will not show any skin, punishable by death, females will not learn to read or write, punishable by death (sounds great doesnt it)

The Taliban AQ must not control Pakistan, the country has nuclear weapons.

Taliban AQ must be hunted and rendered inert. They certainly will not stop. Letting them persist only reinforces their rhetoric.

People like you need to bone up on geopolitical happenings.

[anaxarchos]

326. Oh... It is the rights of women that you care about'.

"Last week they did muscle the Pakistani government to enforce Sharia law - you know, dancing is punishable by death, singing is punishable by death, men will not shave, punishable by beatings, females will not show any skin, punishable by death, females will not learn to read or write, punishable by death (sounds great doesnt it)."

In 1978 the Afghan government of Mohammed Daoud Khan moved against the leading Afghan opposition political party, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). A leader of the party, Mir Akbar Khyber, was murdered and most of the leadership of the party were arrested during his funeral (reportedly at the instigation of the CIA). In response, the remainder of the PDPA staged an uprising which won power in April of 1978. The party immediately published a series of reforms which echoed the failed attempts at reform in Afghanistan going all the way back to the overthrow of the "reformist King", Amanullah Khan, in 1929.

Within days, the CIA began to organize and fund the reactionary and Islamist "opposition forces" in the countryside of Afghanistan, who had already been the fundamental barriers to reform for over a century. This was 2 years BEFORE the Soviets intervened in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski has openly bragged that the purpose of the U.S. operations was to FORCE Soviet intervention.

The issues on which the CIA organized were the PDPA's Land Reform and the elimination of debts in the countryside (both of which attacked the power of the rural "warlords"), religious freedom (or the elimination of Sharia Law), and, most important of all, the granting of equal rights for women (which had also been central to the overthrow of Amanullah in 1929).

For the first time in Afghan history, a woman - Dr. Anahita Ratebzad, had become a member of the ruling Revolutionary Council. Less than one month after the uprising, Ratebzad wrote a famous May 28, 1978 New Kabul Times editorial which declared: “Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country … Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention."

In response, the CIA distributed leaflets throughout Afghanistan with Dr. Ratebzhad's face displayed prominently on them.



You must not have any sense of irony and your "moral high ground" sits lower than the Marianas Trench. The Taliban was created out of whole cloth by the U.S., hatred of women's rights and religious freedom were the pillars of that creation, and the hand wringing now, concerning those "poor Afghan women", is light years beyond hypocrisy.

[TBF]

341. I hope there is a special level of hell for Zbigniew Brzezinski. n/t

[anaxarchos]

475. Here is part of the quote...

...from post #474, above.

Carter adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski stated: "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, December 24, 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting US policy, which, unbeknownst even to the mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled: "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."

They are actually proud of this shit... A couple of decades later, it is all "Soviet invasions" and crazy "Islamo-fascists".

THey even lose track of their own lies...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

381. FACTS, people, these are FACTS, and if they're unfavorable to the Dems, so what?

We're supposed to be more rational and less blindly devoted to our party than the Republicans.

At least that's our self-image.

[Two Americas]

328. sure

And we didn't didn't attack Viet Nam per se, we went after the Viet Cong.

I can't detect any difference between what Democrats are saying to defend this since the election, and what Republicans were saying to defend this before the election.

The Taliban control Pakistan? I wonder what might have happened to de-stabilize the area and make that a possibility?

God we had to hear all of these same convoluted rationales for the Viet Nam war. Deja vu all over again.

[EFerrari]

333. LOL. Yeah. We attacked al Qaida and all those civilians

just got in the f#cking way.

[Mithreal]

321. Cheney says, "So..." and President Obama says surge. nt

[Piewhacket]

324. Damn! What a Thread! OF COURSE IT WAS ILLEGAL. Duh...

So whatcha gonna dooo about it, buttercup?

[Prometheus Bound]

335. Summary at post 346 - The chickenhawks lost the argument.

Too many loose screws or something.

They won the name-calling section though.

[tomp]

339. the real problem with the invasion of afghanistan is...

...that we invaded before we fully investigated the 9/11 attacks. we STILL have not fully investigated the 9/11 attacks.

[TBF]

342. Maybe we don't need to investigate because we know exactly

how they went down.

[Beam Me Up]

391. Yeah "faith based" knowledge -- like the Earth is flat -- obvious isn't it?

Besides OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD NEVER LIE ABOUT A THING LIKE THAT!


:argh:

[tomp]

481. i have a bridge and some swamp land to sell you.

i'm sorry i have to say this, but you are only displaying your ignorance and/or gullibility.

either that or you have the answer to all the unanswered questions and are not telling us.

[TBF]

501. I just worded it wrong...

mihop.

[tomp]

527. sorry, i suppose i could have read it that way if my knee wasn't jerking.

i have a VERY low threshold of tolerance for people who suggest we know what happened.

mihop!

[iandhr]

344. Tye Afghan goverment

harbored the terrorists who attacked us so it ok to go after them

[ColesCountyDem]

350. It was not only legal, but justified.

The Security Council not only affirmed our right to attack the bandits who organized the September 11th attacks, but implicitly recognized our right to invade and/or attack any country harboring them. After repeated demands for the Taliban to turn the planners and organizers over for trial and their refusal to do so, we legitimately used force to pursue, find and/or kill them. The UN Charter, like the US Constitution, is not a suicide pact.

[blindpig]

351. Your points have been refuted up thread.

Concerning Us negotiation with the Taliban see post #103, the links are enlightening.

[ColesCountyDem]

478. There's a difference between refutation and obfuscation. n/t

[LWolf]

352. K & R nt

[Beam Me Up]

365. That is right. The WTC and the Pentagon were attacked by elements within our own NSSA

that is "National Security State Apparatus." The hijackings were staged -- as were the demolitions of the two towers and building 7 -- as was the "crash" of AA77 into the Pentagon -- as was the "crash" of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. There is ENORMOUS amounts of evidence to back up these assertions. All one has to do is look outside the boundaries of "acceptable opinion" and controlled "news" sources.

I can't believe there are still intelligent people on this forum discussing this AS IF the events of 9/11 -- which were used as the provocation for invading Afghanistan -- were the consequence of hijackings by Muslim extremists. They were not. There is no evidence that they were -- EXCEPT the repeated insistence of it by government and media alike. Meanwhile, there is bountiful evidence that this scenario can not possibly be accurate. Physical impossibilities, highly irregular government procedures, eye witness testimony, FOIA released government data that is irreconcilable with physical evidence -- on and on and on and on.

If you still believe that 9/11 was a "terrorist attack" by 19 Muslim Fundamentalists then you REALLY need to open your eyes. THE WAR ON TERROR IS A HOAX!

[wtmusic]

369. Nice rewrite of Article 51.

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

9/11 attackers were indeed armed (threatening to have a weapon is punishable as an armed offense). And no mention that the attacks have to be sanctioned by the government of another country, is there?

The invasion of Afghanistan was as legitimate as the invasion of Iraq was illegitimate.

[G_j]

373. really?

and they had evidence?

[Beam Me Up]

374. So you "know" who the "armed attackers" were based on assertions

by the same lying bastards who told you there were WMD in Iraq. And you believe them.

Why?

Here is just ONE example of the problem, and I could give you several:

We have numerous eye witnesses on record (names, faces, recorded descriptions) having seen a large Boeing aircraft approach the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11. All of them corroborate one another and are very adamant about what they saw: a low, relatively slow flying aircraft that came over the Naval Annex, flew almost directly over them (most went scrambling) and then there was an explosion at the Pentagon and they ASSUMED it crashed.

Problem: The angle of approach verified by these numerous eye witness accounts is completely inconsistent with the physical damage recorded at the Pentagon.

Now, has any of this been addressed by agents or agencies of the US government? Has any of this been reported by news organizations? No.

Why not?

[geek tragedy]

411. Oh Jesus, the nutjob MIHOP crap.

That kind of stuff belongs in the 911 Dungeon where the various halfwits and asylum-escapees can debate it.

[Beam Me Up]

433. Keep telling yourself that.

I see you offer nothing but ad homonyms to reassure yourself.

It boggles my mind that the Bush administration would lie about EVERYTHING except 9/11. And we know they did lie about it. Jesus, they didn't even want it investigated and there wouldn't have been one had some of the 9/11 families not insisted. Even then Bush and Cheney would not testify except together, in limited circumstances and not under oath. But, rather than look into this, some people who really are intelligent enough to know better would rather sling mud and embrace myopic prejudice than address the evidence.

Denial will not move us forward.

[geek tragedy]

436. Ad homonyms.

Are you hooked on fonicks?

[Beam Me Up]

444. LoL!

Ok, so latin isn't my first language. ad hominin -- feel better now?

[bird gerhl]

515. ...

:banghead:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

377. What I'm seeing is a lot of "I don't care about facts, but

Obama is for it and Democrats voted for it, so it must be ok. I don't have to research or think anymore."

And we think freepers are brainwashed!

[cboy4]

380. No, the Democrats and Obama are supporting the facts.

You have it backwards, just like the rest of the far left.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

382. "Far left" ==ooh, you called me "far left"!

Now I'm scared and intimidated and insulted and silenced---NOT!

[cboy4]

387. It's a fact that it's the far left that's making the most noise

about this issue.

Insinuating that you are part of the far left was not intended to be an insult.

Why would you take it as such?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

395. Not intended to be an insult?

Don't all DLCers consider it just about the worst thing you can call a person?

[cboy4]

407. Oh gasp, you called me a DLCer .. should I stomp my feet now

and over-react like you did?

No, the worst thing you can call a person is a Republican.

Try not acting like such a victim.

[Beam Me Up]

385. What facts?

[cboy4]

393. You can't be so confused that you don't understand why we

went into Afghanistan after 9/11 .. I mean, even Bill Clinton hit that country with cruise missiles even before 9/11.

Why was that Beam Me Up?

Why don't you ask the Democratic President of the United States about the facts.

He's seems perfectly satisfied with them.

[Beam Me Up]

427. He may be, I'm not.

Presidents, in case you haven't noticed, often make mistakes -- or, worse, lie and make decisions that I believe are a) immoral and b) not in our nations best interest. And that can be true regardless of their party affiliation.

What we have is the assertion that al-Qaeda was behind 9/11. Is this an incontrovertible fact? I've seen no evidence that seals that case and a lot of evidence that makes it not only highly unlikely but factually impossible. Example: why would multiple eye-witnesses, two of them Pentagon police officers, go on record -- recorded video -- and state that they saw the plane that they believe hit the Pentagon fly slow and low over the Navy Annex? This was immediately followed by an explosion which is why they believe it struck. Why would they say this when putting the plane at THAT location -- and they all corroborate this -- means the plane they saw could NOT have hit the Pentagon and caused the physical damage recorded there. The downed light poles and the damage path within the Pentagon trace a very specific approach path -- an approach path that can not vary by a degree or two without missing a light pole -- an approach path now utterly contradicted by all these eye-witnesses. What they say they saw is a radically different approach, by around 30°. This is a very serious question and is only one of many I could use as an example. Yet no official of government or military and certainly no corporate owned media has expressed any interest in this question -- or the fact that the data extracted from the Flight Data Recorder allegedly found in the Pentagon (and made public through an FOIA) also contradicts the recorded physical evidence.

The truth about 9/11 is being covered up and THAT is a FACT -- a far more demonstrable one than anything we've been given by government.

[cboy4]

472. Oh brother.

I absolutely don't waste my time with any of the nonsense you posted.

[bottomtheweaver]

498. Beats the nonsense that the NY Times posts.

I caught their reporters once in several blatant lies about the World Trade Center and its construction history. They run a pretty shameless shillery.

[cboy4]

505. Uh huh.

More tin foil. :eyes:

[geek tragedy]

386. No, the facts and law clearly allowed the US response.

You see lots of analysis and factual citations from us mainstream folks, and lots of hyperbolic rhetoric from the people who think that any use of US military is evil.

[G_j]

408. factual citations?

citations, sure.

but I don't remember you backing up any of your "facts"

[geek tragedy]

410. I cited the unanimous resolutions of the UN Security Council:

1) The UN in 1999 ordered the Taliban to expel or extradite bin Laden after the embassy bombings. On September 10, 1001, they were under an absolute duty under International Law to stop sheltering bin Laden. Period.

2) The UN on September 12, 2001 explicitly recognized that the US had a right to act in its own defense and characterized the attack by Al-Qaeda as a threat to international peace and stability. It also called for the Taliban to be held accountable for sheltering bin Laden.

Those two UN resolutions alone make it crystal clear that the US was fully justified under International Law from going in and getting bin Laden since the Taliban were refusing to comply with their legal duties to expel him.

What you see in this thread are people claiming that the Taliban were being reasonable by sheltering bin Laden or demanding 'evidence' that bin Laden was behind the attacks (despite the fact that they were obligated to expel him before the attacks took place) or that they were being reasonable in holding a sham trial under sharia.

That indicates a loathing of the United States so profound that people are willing to embrace the TALIBAN as the aggrieved and reasonable party.

[bottomtheweaver]

492. The Nazis put legal figleaves on their crimes too.

I don't what resolutions you're referring to but if they were pushed through the day after 911 it's safe to assume that they were a) written in advance b) factually inaccurate c) passed under duress and d) morally and legally deficient.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

496. Two things

You have fastidiously avoided any and all facts and have resorted to the most base of name calling, red-baiting and other diversionary tactics proving the weakness of any points you may have (these are impossible to note as you haven't made any).

The other point you may wish to address in a separate thread is places where the US military has been benevolent. Of course that is not the role of the military as it is the protection arm for the corporate racket. Anyone who has studied their history is aware of that.

Simple fact: No one has been convicted of 9/11. Do you dispute that? Didn't think so.

Simple fact: Innocent until proven guilty. Do you adhere to that? Doesn't seem like that you do.

But you do believe in collective punishment it seems.

[Jack Sprat]

438. In a way, I can understand

the resprisal raids being necessary since there were no other options of punishing those behind the terrorist actions. Having said that, the effort did not warrant an invasion of Iraq which was clearly irrelevant. Saddam was the only real guardian against terrorists in the region, ironically. Having failed to capture Bin Laden doesn't warrant more American presence in the area. We have just been doing Bin Laden's will for the last 6 yrs. What's the goal? Destroy the Taliban? Destroy al-qaida? Befriend the Taliban to destroy al-qaida? I think those military specialists warning against a major operation in Afghanistan should be thoroughly sounded out. This territory is wild and the terrain is unsuitable for large armies to operate in. It favors ambush and there are uncanny turns at every pass.

It may sound absurd to many, but I thought the Russian offer of an Afghanistan alliance force was well worth consideration. It isn't easy finding an ally for this endeavor. I think such an offer would heal recent rifts with this former enemy and we could certainly use every bit of help offered to combat renegade terror outfits in those dreadful mountain areas and elsewhere.

[RollWithIt]

463. Factually INCORRECT, Al Qaeda attacked US, who were harbored by Afghanistan Taliban...

And the invasion was fully sanctioned by the United Nations as well as supported by our NATO allies.

[ColesCountyDem]

479. Correct on all counts. n/t

[Hugabear]

473. We never invaded Libya over the PanAm bombing.

By using diplomatic and economic pressure, Clinton managed to get Libya to hand over the suspects it had been harboring for years. Not one drop of blood was shed in the process.

[ColesCountyDem]

480. It is absolutely mindboggling that a progressive person would defend the *Taliban*!

The Taliban are the antithesis of anything remotely related to liberal or progressive thought...

:wtf:

[geek tragedy]

490. They are America's enemy, which makes them worthy

of support to many 'patriots' on this board.

[ColesCountyDem]

495. I hadn't considered that.

I was too busy locating the various pieces of my head, after it exploded due to many of the replies on this thread.

:P

[Orwellian_Ghost]

518. Strawman

How you came to that conclusion is more indicative of your inability or unwillingness to be an honest broker in this discussion.

You simply made that up as a reactionary attack against folks.

Noone has defended the Taliban here and you know this. But since noone has been able to refute the illegality of the US assault you have resorted to outright lies and accusations in place of any ideas.

[ColesCountyDem]

521. You're calling me a liar?

If you believe that many of the posts here, your own included, are NOT defending the Taliban, then we do not agree on the meaning of the word 'defending'. Furthermore, the statement that "...noone (sic) has been able to refute the illegality of the US assault...." is flat-out wrong; it has been demonstrated conclusively AND repeatedly that the US invasion of Afghanistan was CLEARLY legal.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, and anyone who does not see that the US invasion of Afghanistan was an exercise of the US 'inherent right of self-defense' simply does not understand the clear, legal definition of that phrase.

:eyes:

[blindpig]

529. "You're either with us or against us."

What a classic.

USA! USA! USA!

Bah! Baah! Four legs good! Two legs better!

[ColesCountyDem]

530. WTF is that supposed to mean?

The arguments in this topic that the invasion was 'illegal' are so weak that, were this a trial, the judge would direct a verdict FOR the US; none of you have even managed to establish a prima facie case for its being illegal.

:eyes:

[ColesCountyDem]

534. *crickets* n/t

[Jack Sprat]

482. Long-ass thread if I've ever seen one. n/t

[wtmusic]

507. If I'm not mistaken, Will Pitt set the record 4 years ago

when he exulted about taking his girl out to dinner and spending $650.

That was the most debatable subject ever on Democratic Underground. :crazy:

[conturnedpro09]

506. Simple fact: The Taliban & al Qaeda fear Obama and would prefer your way.

N/T.

[SpartanDem]

513. apples to oranges

Quote:
using diplomatic and economic pressure, Clinton managed to get Libya to hand over the suspects it had been harboring for years. Not one drop of blood was shed in the process.

True, but I think on some level you're comparing apples to oranges. Libya when they turned over the suspects to us, we didn't leave the country with a large organization with major training facilities for more terrorist. That couldn't be said of Afghanistan if we had just taken OBL when they offered him to us. You also have to take into account the difference between the attackers the Libyan's were more politically driven behind our support for Israel. Compared to AQ which is much more driven by religious fundamentalism specifically the idea of creating Islamic states and I think that is a much more dangerous ideology. Even in the US I would argue that the religious fundamentalist are the most dangerous people in country

[cboy4]

514. EXCELLENT explanation President Obama!!

"And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away."

That's all you need to know.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3754796

[Orwellian_Ghost]

517. If that's all you need to know

then you'll follow blindly. That's not a citizens duty. You should be asking questions.

So who is Al-Qaedea?

What is this extremism?

How has US foreign policy fostered both of the above?

If you believe the Al-Qaeda myth you are easily manipulated.

[cboy4]

519. I do my best to avoid ridiculously obvious questions.

The entire United States Congress, the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, Secretary of State, Defense Secretary, and a strikingly large percentage of Americans approve of our actions in Afghanistan.

That's extraordinarily telling.

Perhaps you should be asking yourself why you don't get it.

[blindpig]

520. Perhaps it's because he ain't no mushroom.

Some people are not content to be kept in the dark and fed bullshit.

Unlike the slavish water carriers for the military industrial complex....

[cboy4]

522. A self-proclaimed Soviet backer like yourself is sure to be

opposed to any action in which the United States demonstrated military muscle.

So I'm not surprised you've decided to pipe in with your bitterness.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

524. Amazing blindness

The propaganda organs were on full force and you as well as many others simply believed the "government officials" without using your critical thinking skills. The fact that you have not asked any of these questions is cause for concern. Any citizenry that follows it's government blinbdly is prone to fascism.

What you are espousing is blind patriotism and being led around by the nose by authoritarian elements. What I am espousing is understanding history and examining the root causes so as not to be fooled by the liars at The State Department.

What you call "getting it" is no more than believing in lies from an authoriatrain apparatus.

Again you didn't answer any of the questions. Do you care to take that on and turn on your critical mind?

[cboy4]

526. I agree with Obama about the continued threat .. primarily in

the tribal region(s) between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Just because you don't believe him and the rest of the country, especially so many Democrats ... that doesn't automatically crush the facts.

Therefore, I continue to reject your suggestion that I'm not asking questions.

I've heard enough where I don't need to ask questions. I believe what Obama and the experts says about what's going on in Afghanistan and it's hardly far-fetched.

You're way out in left field, far left field, so to speak .. so much so that you don't even trust Democrats.

It's makes one wonder why you even post on DU if you don't agree with the Democrats' foreign policies.

There's not a single thing you agree about when it comes to U.S. defense.

Isn't that true Orwellian_Ghost?


on edit....lots and lots of typos

[maryf]

531. Critical thinking skills are sorely lacking...

With the education system being part and parcel of the spin machines, they are not only not fostered, but not even part of many public school curricula; critical thinking? creative problem solving?? can't have those, the people might figure something out, like how to change this paradigm!

[maryf]

516. Kicking for the fun of it! And because its deadly serious stuff here...

Wish I could rec again...

[TBF]

525. I'm surprised there aren't more people talking about this issue.

What are the college kids doing? At Wisconsin we protested every single invasion.

[maryf]

532. They are taking remedial classes...

and watching tv...many have been totally brain washed...look at the evidence here. I do hear and see signs of hope though...keep talking!!:hi:

[Beam Me Up]

528. "September 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks""

That is correct. The question is, who were the criminals?

You can call me names all you want, folks, I don't care. The FACTS are that we have numerous eyewitnesses on record who saw the plane that they believe hit the Pentagon fly over the Naval Annex, low and slow, banking to the right on its approach. ALL these eye witnesses, two of which are Pentagon police officers, corroborate one another's accounts. The problem is, this plane they saw -- and assumed hit the Pentagon at the time of interview -- was too high and on the wrong approach to knock down the five light poles outside the Pentagon and cause the damage observed at the Pentagon. Really let that sink in. Numerous (not one or two but upwards of a dozen) people who unanimously report on video seeing the approach of a plane that could not have caused the damage observed.

What does this mean?

It means the crime scene at the Pentagon was controlled and staged. Yes, there was an explosive event, yes people within the Pentagon were murdered, but NO the plane that was seen was NOT AA Flight 77 and did NOT impact the Pentagon.

Don't ask me what happened to AA 77 or its passengers. I do not know. That isn't the point. The point is, we have numerous eye-witnesses whose accounts contradict the official story.

So here is the real question: Why haven't these eye witness reports been investigated? Why have they not even been reported? How many of you here even know that the Flight Data Recorder from AA 77 was released from the NTSB via an FOIA -- and that the data within it contradicts the physical damage (it was too high and on a different heading)? Why don't you know this? Why don't you know that the NTSB and the FBI have NOT corroborated ANY of the "plane debris" allegedly found in or around the Pentagon -- IOW, matched part numbers against maintenance logs.

ALL this information is out there, folks. But you'll never find it on TV and you'll never find it in the NYT and you'll have to dig through a lot of cointelpro crap information to even find it on the internet. Even here at DU, you'll have to wade through the assaults of people whose primary tactic is to call those of us who've looked into this "kooks" and "nuts" if you even ask a serious, intelligent question.

We are fighting a war based on faked evidence. We ALL KNOW that EVERYTHING the Bush administration did was in-line with PNAC goals; we also know that ALL their explanations were LIES. Why oh why do you think that 9/11 was any different?? Please, someone, explain this to me. How do you know that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 except that you were TOLD this by the same people who told you that Sadam had WMD and was an imminent threat. And yet most everyone here still believes it -- unquestioningly. Believes it to such a point that they refuse to even consider the evidence that proves conclusively that it can not possibly be true.

WHY?

Knowing all that we know about all their lies and corruption and torture and everything else -- their misleading the public into a war that has killed and wounded tens of thousands of American service men and women and untold hundreds of thousands of civilians -- do you really believe they are incapable of murdering 3,000 US citizens in broad day light and getting away with it? Do you really believe that the corporate owned news would TELL YOU THE TRUTH about something like that? Do you really believe that someone would come forward and spill the beans -- and be believed because they were given air time?

Come on people. Please! We are begging you! WAKE UP!


edit grammar

[bdab1973]

533. Uh, OK

I know a guy who worked in DC, and was driving by the Pentagon when he SAW AA77 hit the Pentagon. All these theories of missiles, military airplanes, planted evidence...it's bogus BS contrived by a bunch of folks who are just chomping at the bit to blame the US government for killing 3000 of their own people in cold blood simply to "start a war". In doing so, they essentially make thousands of other Americans complicit in the attacks, because that would mean all those people involved would have to simply be silent. I've seen reams and reams of circumstantial BS that was "analyzed" by morons who had theories and hypotheses derived before they even turned over the first bit of "evidence".

I'm getting my Masters in education, and one of the classes I had was a class on how to conduct research. One of the common and critical mistakes people make is performing research to support a hypothesis, rather than gathering research objectively and then forming a hypothesis. I'm tired of seeing poor "research" passed along as legitimate.

I'm also a trained aviation accident investigator, and I've read all the idiotic web sites and books about how AA Flight 77 didn't really hit the Pentagon, and "where's the 757?" and stupid moronic stuff like that. All of the "theories" thrown around are not grounded in objective, scientific research, and I've seen many, many claims that obviously show the "theorists" lack of understanding regarding the subject. Anyways, this is my one and only rant on this subject, but to put it straight, I'm fed up reading about how "terrorists who couldn't land couldn't possibly steer a jet into a building"...sure they can, landing is the hard part, why learn to land when all you've got to do is point the nose somewhere? Anyone can point an airplane at a building and crash into it...yes, even you currently reading this could do it with a minimal amount of training (which they all had). Of course they didn't know how to land, because they weren't going to land (and landing takes many times more skill to do correctly than crashing).

I'm fed up reading about how "the 757 couldn't have hit the Pentagon because there wasn't anything left of it". If any of you who believe this theory new anything about aircraft accidents, you'd understand that airplanes burn easily, they are very light-weight structures by necessity (building a huge, heavy steel structure would never get off the ground) and they are basically flying soda cans. Typically the only things that survive high-speed impacts and fires are the items with steel in them, like the engines and landing gear structure, all of those things were also found at the crash site. The fuselage typically disintegrates. I saw a B-1 bomber crash site that impacted at a low speed and then burned...all that was left was a pile of ashes and the engines (and the swing-wing structure). So it did not surprise me in the least that there was little left of the 757.

Geez, I could right all day about this, but basically those of you that think up these complex theories need to go back and actually do some REAL research. How can you possibly do REAL research while sitting in your home, using google? Really? What about looking into the actual mechanics of airplane crashes, or actually interviewing pilots? I can tell you that all the pilots I know understand that 9/11 could very easily have happened. I shake my head now because my country is becoming a country full of internet know-it-alls that love to tell experts they are wrong. I am at a loss of words that we'll listen to a guy who's background is journalism, or listen to a stay-at-home mom who has plenty of time to file through Google, and then won't believe people with years of expertise in very technological fields.

I am tired that our nation gets it's "information" from people who get a BA in journalism...a field that teaches you to write, but doesn't teach you the ins and outs of aviation, structural engineering, or any of those things. But because Sally has a BA degree in "investigative journalism", she is lauded as bringing us the "facts". I've seen too many journalists write about a subject they know nothing about, and get it mostly wrong or completely wrong. But jumping in as an expert in the field the journalist was writing about, I'm shouted down by the masses for some reason.

Sigh...this country is going to hell because no one wants to use their damn brains anymore. Everyone runs around out there with a preconceived idea of what they believe in, and then fit the facts to their realities instead of the other way around. Politics drive people's motives, not a desire to actually learn what's going on.

[Beam Me Up]

535. Ok, then I know some people who want to interview him.

I'm not offering any kind of "theory" what so ever. I'm pointing out that there is a LOT of information out there that has not been given the attention it deserves in a country where the citizenry have a responsibility to keep an eye on what their government is doing.

You said: I know a guy who worked in DC, and was driving by the Pentagon when he SAW AA77 hit the Pentagon. That is GREAT NEWS! I know some people who want to interview him ON CAMERA telling us exactly where he was and what he saw. Please email him and ask him if he is willing to participate and PM me if he is.

As I stated, we have numerous eye-witnesses, including two Pentagon police officers, who saw the plane and have given on-the-scene, on-camera interviews about what they saw. They all corroborate one another. All of them saw the plane and assume it hit the Pentagon (although they did not in fact see it do so). Problem is, where they ALL say they saw it makes it impossible for it to have hit the light poles and cause the damage path inside the Pentagon. That is something very specific. So, either all these men are lying for no apparent reason or they are all mistaken in the same way, which seems highly unlikely, or they are telling a truth which is inconsistent with other evidence. There is no "cherry picking" or "theory" here: These are simple facts. Names, dates, faces, on-site on-camera interviews, complete with them drawing what they saw on an aerial view, signing and dating it.

As for the rest of it -- I never said anything about a missile or anything about a lot of what you complain about. Your final paragraph can't go unchallenged, however. No one I'm associated with is running around with a preconceived idea and cherry picking the facts. That is your assumption, your attempt to dismiss us out of hand. As I said, if we can find someone who is willing to come forward and make a public statement in contradiction to the other witnesses interviewed, we're happy to record it and report it. Until that happens YOUR statement is an unconfirmed, second hand report.

It isn't our fault that news organizations with professional investigation skills and big budgets behind them haven't interviewed these witnesses and asked these questions or submitted the requisite FOIA requests and analyzed the data received in response. Some citizens have taken that initiative, however, at great personal cost of time and money and what we have found as a result is disturbing to say the least. It is true, we are not professional investigators and, consequently do make mistakes or produce records that don't have the same technical quality that a professional, big budget could produce -- but does that mean everything we've found should just be discounted or ignored?

Did you know the FDR alleged to be from AA 77 was found? Did you know the data within it was requested via FOIA? Did you now that the data released is inconsistent with the observed damage at the Pentagon? Did you know there are multiple eye-witnesses that saw the plane on the wrong flight path to cause the damage? Did you know that the NTSB has not followed SOP in comparing aircraft wreckage to maintenance logs -- that, in fact, none of the 9/11 wreckage has been positively identified as belonging to the aircraft claimed to be involved?

None of this is the least bit theoretical. All of it has significant ramifications for our understanding of historical events and how the perception of those events has effected our continuing foreign policy.