War is never the answer...or is it.

[mkultra]

a recent poll i post revealed that the Afghan problem is split amongst those who want Bin Laden dead and those who think war is never the answer. I'm sure there are a few nutbars who think that the Afghan/Pakistan AQ presence is tiny or that the invasion is about the natural gas line. I would ask that those refrain from muddying THIS discussion. My question is regarding the necessity of war and alternatives to it.

Specifically, my stance is that war is acceptable if its truly in self defense. As i think AQ is responsible for 911 and closely tied to the Taliban, a joint effort between us and Pakistan to kill AQ sounds like a winner to me. I want to hear from those who disagree and what the alternatives should be. I specifically want to know what the atheists think.

[damntexdem]

1. It depends on the question.

True, war was justified after 9/11. But the question must be more-involved -- e.g., can war achieve the desired ends? After 9/11, my position was that invasion of Afghanistan was justified but that I did not support an invasion with Dubya as president because the Bushistas would abuse the process and likely screw it all up. That did not take any great foresight on my part; but was definitely proved correct early on and in the years since. So the issue now is whether the ends can still be achieved in Afghanistan/Pakistan. To me, the biggest question raised by President Obama's speech as his statement that "the war in Afghanistan has not been lost." I feel that there is good evidence that it has been. Still, after his speech, I am willing to give him some slack, although I'm afraid that the slack the American public and Congress will likely give him may well become the rope that hangs his administration. I'm not an optimist on this one.

[mkultra]

5. i agree that there is a difference between an Obama and a Bush war

i think the execution of each is dictated by the attitudes of leadership, which is different in each case.

[Clio the Leo]

2. Kicking your thread....

.... because I'd like to hear the answers as well.

And since I agree with you, I wont expound upon what you've said.

[mkultra]

6. i have serious doubts that there will be any reasonable responses

i don't really think that the opposition has a thought out position.

[Clio the Leo]

8. Yeah, but you're probably like me.....

.... I have a constant desire to want to have an intelligent debate about it. Every now and then, you get one.

[ginnyinWI]

3. kicking because I'd like to see an answer too

It's not so easy to come up with any, seems like...


To me, there is a huge difference between a limited military action with a well thought out strategy, and the kind of endless conflict we've seen since 2003. And apparently a lot of the world agrees.

[NJmaverick]

4. Also a kick for the answers

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. I never opposed the Afghan action

Nor did I support it to "free people." Extremism there is not only a threat, but has actually resulted in a major attack on US cities (one of which I happened to be in at the time). Military and other means to create more favorable conditions in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) has been an option I'm willing to go with.

[mkultra]

9. thats even further than i am willing to go

generally speaking, i don't support freedom building/nation building. i do support killing bin laden though. I would prefer that he be locked up, but i doubt he would allow that to happen.

[Cha]

10. I really believe that is

in the Planet's best interests to wrap this war up in the way that's been worked out by those who know exactly what's going on, including the UN..

From Peacetrain's OP

Peacetrain (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-03-09 01:48 AM
Original message

"What does the UN know that we don't know?"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/02/obama.world.reax...

United Nations (CNN) -- U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcomed U.S. President Barack Obama's plan to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

In a written statement, Ban praised Obama's aim to "balance military and civilian efforts" and focus on strengthening institutions and security forces in Afghanistan, noting that it would be a long-term but essential process.

or from the same article Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch said Obama's plan needed to strengthen civilian protection with a "clear strategy for combating corruption, removing warlords and holding rights violators accountable."

The human rights organization called the U.S. emphasis on rule of law in Afghanistan "long overdue" but said sufficient training of Afghan security was needed to "ensure basic human rights protections."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x35094

[mkultra]

11. i guess the UN is going under the liberal bus now

the UN must be a bunch of war mongers

[Cha]

12. They can whine and lie as much as they

want but this president is doing what he thinks is best for the safety of the Planet.