Military Reenlistment and the general public

[Boozy]

As for your last paragraph... so what will the US do if the Taliban are once again reinstated to power through elections?? And what, also, if they choose to take Al Qaeda in under their wing offering a form of 'sanctuary'... will everyone just up and leave - as would be appropriate?

How would it be appropriate for the US coalition forces to surrender if Afghanistan resumed harbouring terrorists?

From the standpoint of the US, it makes no difference if the Taliban were elected or not. (After all, the US does not make a habit of invading every country that does not yet practice democracy.) The US does have the right to defend itself. Afghanistan provided financial and material support to Al-Qaeda for years. Al-Qaeda has declared war on the United States.

I'm a pacifist, and I was disgusted to see that the US chose to invade Iraq, but even I have to admit that Afghanistan is a justified war. And I'm proud that Canadians are helping in that endeavor.

[Shards]

Wow, Boozy! We agree on something! Let me go check for the horsemen.

Never mind, just a coincidence. Oh, well.

Now, Slyt, here's the thing, think back to 2001, when the WTC attacks occurred. Do you forget seeing out president (Who, love him or hate him, handled it as well as he could have been expected to) declare war on the terrorist factions that were behind the attack?

Wars are not pretty, they never have been, they never will be. Good people, who are trying to do the right thing, die, innocents who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, die. One of the many side effects of war is that it becomes a situation (and I know how much you hate these, Slyt) where there are two sides. One may be right, one may be wrong, or they may simply each be rallying around different flags, but there are always two sides, and no middle. You're either with the Allies, with the Axis, or you've stepped out entirely, and typically when you step out entirely, if you're in the way of either side's march to the front lines, you fall first. When the Talliban chose to back Al Queda, they chose their side, and again when they saw the US dedlare open war on Al Queda, and they chose not to surrender the cells they were still harboring, they chose their side.

We didn't fore them to take the side they chose, but we're not going to just let them get away with it.

Also, as to your point about vengeance not being justification for violence, that is a philosophical opinion that many people around the world simply do not share. I think it is a damn good justification, myself. I mean, you said yourself in a different thread that you try to emphasize Honor, Courage, Strength, and Wisdom. Well, it is Wise to understand that humans are always going to find a reason to kill each other, and what is dishonorable or cowardly about fighting to avenge a fallen friend or relative, and defending those you know from suffering similar fates? Because that's why we're there, to stop another 9/11 by trying to eliminate the cells responsible, and if we can't do that, then at least keep them on the defensive so they can't afford to risk attacking US soil again. I mean, as far as reasons to go to war go, what would you prefer? For us to go to war in order to pilfer the country's resources to pay off our debts?

Either you need to use the Wisdom you preach to understand wars will continue happening, and that some will be more justified than others, or you need to find an example of a war you think is worth fighting, and tell me the cost, in the body count of my citizens, that makes a war worth fighting.

[Slytovhand]

Oooh - 3 people to reply too...

Ok, in order, DrT, your argument basically says that only the strong should survive. As I mentioned, the US harbours/ed quite a few international terrorists, as well as used/using terror tactics in various other countries. But, because the US is a big country, and has lots of weapons, they shouldn't be invaded... not that they wouldn't deserve it, but merely because it would be catastrophic.

Have I read you right??

I would love to see the US send a stack of forces to the UN, and have the UN forces made up of multinational troops start getting involved in the human rights issues that the war in Afghanistan is now been made out to be. I don't have a problem with that at all... would be nice to see more of it (I've mentioned Burma a few times in my posts, but also a few African countries as well...should we throw China into the list?? ).

And, DrT, your last line... how true, how true!!! Couldn't agree with you more!


@Boozy. Firstly, no, 'surrendur' isn't the word I'd use, but withdrawal. After all, even if a government is elected, and is accepted the world over, the war will still continue. At what point will it stop?? Til each and every last person who supportst the Taliban is dead or imprisoned? That seems to be the idea that's been going on in the Middle East for decades. Til Al Qaeda is 'gone'? Would make more sense, but is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes... humans are like that - they keep their beliefs, whether they show them openly or not. But this part is merely wordplay anyway...

But you did use the term 'defend'... is the US of A still under attack, that it needs to defend itself, or is it merely presumed that such attacks will come again, and this is a Pre-Emptive Strike?

My main point that you did bring up is: there has not been any conclusive evidence that Al Qaeda even had anything to do with WTC bombings. That's it... my main argument summed up in a nutshell. And as I provided, the FBI are indicating the same thing!!

Shards... yes, I recall Pres Bush making a declaration of getting those involved. But, as per my last paragraph here - the US, in my, and many (often quite respected, knowledgable and authoritive) others, do not think that it was Al Qaeda, nor anything to do with Afghanistan. It's now been 7 years, and that evidence still hasn't been produced... (btw - I also saw a president falter at a critical moment.. a moment when action and decisiveness was required, and he was in limbo..but that's another topic)

Now,wars in general. Yes, I know, and I agree (don't like, mind you, but agree ) I'm curious by that paragraph - are you being Afghanistan specific, or wars in general... you seem to have put both in... But, I did quote above that the Taliban did make offers of handing over Bin Laden that were repeatedly rejected by the US.

Violence... well, it may be true that many do not share that opinion about vengeance, but I would suggest that many more do - at least, on a larger front than individual. Yes, it is wise to understand humans are going to do things, but wiser still to try to prevent it before it can happen. Debate-wise, I brought up the concepts - I didn't ascribe situations to them.. nor their opposites. So, please don't suggest I think it "dishonourable or cowardly" fighting to avenge someone. (if you have the chance, I'd suggest you find a book called "Njal's Saga"... it is one of the Icelandic Sagas... and is very much about all of these concepts!!! Gives a slightly different take on it. The events described are apparently true, and it is because of those events that Iceland created a very strong system of legality and justice... and stopped all the bloodshed in that country).

eliminate the cells responsible

Thank you... now I can bring in what you have just referenced in my words. I see it as Wise to actually find out who was actually responsible. That would be the honourable thing to do, before racing off and invading a country. And I would say it is 'cowardly' to just jump the gun, point a finger and go, without having all (or, in this case, pretty much any) of the facts.

Trust me Shards - when the actual people responsible are discovered... go blow them to hell! But until then....

It's rather interesting the last sentence you used... because, as I've expressed, I and many others say it was done from elements within or closely aligned to the US government and intelligence organisations. I have also said that part of the reason that this is so believable to me is that there are people who calculate costs - in terms of citizen body counts - to decide whether a fight is worth it. And, I reckon (along with many others) that those people figured that 3000 US citizens was a small cost to pay...

I know that wars will continue to happen. I'm not stupid. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid them. Nor that, should they be started, we don't find a peaceful resolution to conflict. I do believe Obama took quite a bit of flack for suggesting this.

But let me counter your question with another.... what price peace?

[DrT]

I'm not saying the strong should survive, I'm saying they do
history being written by the victors, and all that, the fact is that if you have squelletons in your closet tis easier to make them disapear when you're powerful.
I don't like it, but frankly if we start the process of judging all who have dirty hands, you'll have trouble finding a judge to sit on the right side of the court

Anyways, a dirty history doesn't mean your citizen are fair game to the first terrorist coming around.
So, Bin Laden is indeed not linked to 9/11, but Al Qaeda is (of their own admittance, as well as proof that the pilots of the planes were financed by them). I know conspiracy theorists tend to avoid that fact (because otherwise their theory is a bit shifty) but still.

Now indeed, the Taliban offered Bin Laden in 99 or so, however that didn't work back then. Did they refuse to open their doors and surrender AlQaeda later ? yes they did. Then they became accomplice, and thus targets.

[Shards]

I'm not saying the strong should survive, I'm saying they do
history being written by the victors, and all that, the fact is that if you have squelletons in your closet tis easier to make them disapear when you're powerful.
I don't like it, but frankly if we start the process of judging all who have dirty hands, you'll have trouble finding a judge to sit on the right side of the court

Anyways, a dirty history doesn't mean your citizen are fair game to the first terrorist coming around.
So, Bin Laden is indeed not linked to 9/11, but Al Qaeda is (of their own admittance, as well as proof that the pilots of the planes were financed by them). I know conspiracy theorists tend to avoid that fact (because otherwise their theory is a bit shifty) but still.

Now indeed, the Taliban offered Bin Laden in 99 or so, however that didn't work back then. Did they refuse to open their doors and surrender AlQaeda later ? yes they did. Then they became accomplice, and thus targets.

My point exactly.

Trust me, Slyt, I hate it too. I don't like the fact that the strongest survive, regardless of if they deserve to or not, but it is indeed a fact. Al Queda admitted to being involved, and, in fact, bragged about it. I know that may not be enough for a theorist like you, but it's enough for me. Even if you're right, and they weren't actually responsible or involved, the very least they're guilty of is desecrating the memory of our citizens and standing in the way of our finding out who really did what they claim to have (Assuming you're right), and I may sound a bit extreme in saying this, but in my mind, even that alone makes me say they deserve to burn.

I must say, I do believe it is a justified war, I don't believe my country's government had anything to do with the slaughter of all those people, and I will be honored to be allowed to serve on the front lines if that is where Uncle Sam wants me. That doesn't mean I like the war we're in. I'm not fond of the fact that we have declared a war on terror, instead of a war on Al Queda, or some similar organization. It's the same mistake we made in 'nam. We're fighting a war where we can't possibly win, because every civilian could be a terrorist, every refugee could be a sleeper operative, and every child could be a suicide bomber. Unfortunately, we've created a situation where we cannot win until each one of those people is dead or detained. There is no winning a war against an ideal, we should have declared war on a uniform. However, I'm honored to serve my country and do my best to make sure we don't lose, either.

[Flyndaran]

A unified and consistent plan against unprovoked attacks by anyone would be a nice political strategy.
Bin Laden is very likely in muslim controlled northern Pakistan rather than still in Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan was a logical and necessary retalliation against those that atacked the U.S. Terrorism is a military tactic that has been used by the western world for gosh who knows how long. Demonizing them through such words won't lead to a quick and peaceful resolution.

Calling Afghanistan and more certainly Iraq sovereign nations is a joke. Until they can tell american forces to get the "H" out and we do so, they are not sovereign nations. Until then, they are our poorly treated contested territories. If we stop allying with warlords and arrest them instead, it would go so far with helping the innocent civilians... that we bombed into submission. As necessary as you believe such indiscriminate bombing is, we should at least help them back to the non-prosperity they had when they were ruled by zealots and dictators. Schools, hospitals, and electricity infrastructures should have been the minimum we did. But Bush found that to be far too generous and expensive.

[Slytovhand]

Ah sod it... I'm gonna stop debating this now... you're both making too much sense!

Shards, good point on that Al Qaeda admitted responsibility, thus altering the possibility of really finding out who did it. although, said argument doesn't stand up to the fact that the finger was pointed at them, even before the dust settled - literally. And that's before any form of admission was done. The US had it's sights on them long before.

Flyn - I do believe that the US has been told to "get the H out"...nobody listened

How do you mean Iraq wasn't a sovereign nation??? I mean, before the war? If your using teh idea that if the US can pummel them into the ground as a basis for saying they're not, then Australia, Canada and a whole stack of other nations aren't either. If because they have political enemies in their borders, so does China, Spain and Canada..(well, if you define a desire for independence in that vein).

But you've brought up a point at the end there. If the US decides to help rebuild the country, should they take it back to what it was before, or spend millions/billions on making it a better place than before?

DrT... avoiding the 'might is right' argument, but going for your second - no, citizens shouldn't be fair game...unfortunately, this argument again refers to 'might is right'... US international political history is full of it It's just that, when it happens to the US, they've got the resources to hit back. Remember how much the rest of the world screamed at Russia when it's states started using terror tactics, and they invaded? (yes, I'm ignoring the previous 100 years or so here, deliberately).

I still want to see the evidence that Al Qaeda did the funding... independantly tested evidence. Oh, and that that funding wasn't given to them via CIA in the first place (which is why conspiracy theorists, while maybe finding it 'shifty', don't mind it as a 'fact'. After all, the CIA creates a terrorist organisation to fight and to help create a more 'stable' area for their oil pipeline, helps to get other funding from other nations, trains them, organises other training - including bringing them to the US for specialised training, and then gets 'blames' them for a terrorist attack...(I'm not yet bringing in the idea that the CIA co-operated fully in making sure 9/11 happened - cos that's in the other thread...) )

Question for you - and quite rightly too... the US harbours terrorists. Known fact. What should be the reaction if one of those nations out there who have been the victim of those terrorists attacks demands that they be handed over to them? Should the US just ignore it? What if that nation then declares war on the US (and quite rightly too, I would say - and so would you - you just did!). Said nation then uses what capabilities it has to further that war... including bombing of civilian buildings (same as pretty much any war). Is that getting too far out of hand, or is it ok? At what point is something 'justified', is basically what I'm asking...

As for surrendering Al Qaeda... I make an offer to you. You refuse it. Later, you demand to get what was originally offered to you. How do you feel? How do you react?? (sure, international politics is a bit above petty ego stuff, but still... let's just ask that question). Is it then quite right to be bashed up? Is that 'justified'?

Now - to Shards again. Small point - 'desecrating the memory of our citizens' is what democracy is supposed to be about. In your country, you're allowed to. So, on that point alone, I'd say yes, that's a bit extreme to say they deserve to burn (it's desecrating their humanity to say such a thing...).

But I can definitely say one thing... we are very much on the same page with "I'm not fond of the fact that we have declared a war on terror, instead of a war on Al Queda, or some similar organization." We just react to it differently. But then, you believe your government didn't have anything to do with it, I do... and there's the real difference in what we have to say....One of us is right, the other wrong... and $100 says we'll never really find out!

Even assuming I'm wrong, there still hasn't been a good investigation into the whole situation... that whole 'official' investigation got canned by just about anyone - who doesn't matter. How can you seriously say "Well, we really stuffed up" (and people lied), but yet retain their jobs or even get promoted???

Lastly - which goes back to that other thread you mentioned... human nature! It is human nature for fight or flight (or fornicate...). Those options don't allow for peace... so yes, I'm trying to get away from 'human nature'.

That doesn't mean I like the war we're in. <snip> However, I'm honored to serve my country and do my best to make sure we don't lose, either.

Excellent! (oh, that could possibly be read as sarcasm, it's not, it's to say you're doing it for the 'right' reasons, even if I don't agree with the basis for those reasons)

[Shards]

Alright, since we seem to have made it to the end of this debate, allow me to throw out one more question:

Is that $100 US, Canadian, or Australian?

[Flyndaran]

...
How do you mean Iraq wasn't a sovereign nation??? I mean, before the war? If your using teh idea that if the US can pummel them into the ground as a basis for saying they're not, then Australia, Canada and a whole stack of other nations aren't either. If because they have political enemies in their borders, so does China, Spain and Canada..(well, if you define a desire for independence in that vein).

But you've brought up a point at the end there. If the US decides to help rebuild the country, should they take it back to what it was before, or spend millions/billions on making it a better place than before?

....)

To the first:
One problem with the Iraq war was that it WAS a sorvereign nation illegally invaded by a then occupying power. Since then, Iraq has not been sovereign in any sense of the word.

To the second: That question might be appropriate IF the U.S. had ever even entertained the idea of putting Afghanistan or Iraq to pre-war status let alone better than that.

The Iraqi war has cost over half a million civilian deaths. Putting the ongoing death rate to the "low" rate of Hussain's semi-genocidal murdering would be a step UP from what "we" are doing. That's what really sick about how the U.S. gov. has and continues to willfully screw up.

Afghanistan is back to being the major world producer of illegal opium which is worse than the anti-drug obsessed Taliban in a way.

[Slytovhand]

New Zealand??

[DrT]

There's simply a bit too many points there.... I'll try to cover the ones I feel are important.
-proof of Al Quaeda involvment in terrorism, and funding by Arab royal families. Well, if you don't believe CIA investigation, check MI6 or whatever Australia has. But since you already are looking at it with the bias of conspiracy....

-if the US told me to surrender someone I offered them 5 years ago ? I would give them what they want so they leave me in peace. Saying no was a 100% certain road to desaster. Hope you are not defending their decision, as it was downright stupid.

-bombing civilians is never a good idea. Now if a nation would try and condemn the US for war crimes, either the ones commited recently or history's.... well, that would get them a few minutes on TV, maybe, though not US tv. They would fight the good fight, sure, but it would be futile and that's the end of it. Yes it ain't fair, but guess what: life ain't fair. IF that country tried to bomb the US... well that wouldn't be a country for a very long time, so who gives a shit ? Obviously their leader was an idiot to try and take the US head on.

-If the US wanted to bomb my country because they need a dude living here, I'd try to give it to them in a fair trial kind of setting. If that didn't work and they wanted to torture him, I'd ask him to sacrifice himself for the good of the nation, get the hell out of my country clandestinely, and try a run for it. then get the UN involved later on. Wouldn't work, but I wouldn't sacrifice my whole nation just for a handful and guys.

-Lastly: every western nation, in the whole of history, invaded non-western nation without taking a good look at that nation's history and try to understand its people, thus shape a strategy that would agree with their belief and actually get the backing of the oppressed. Every one of them.
The only mistake the US is making is repeating the same dumb crap every other nation did before her, which frankly with the wide publicity that was made about said mistakes is truly stupid. But heh, I spose it's tradition or something

[Flyndaran]

...
-If the US wanted to bomb my country because they need a dude living here, I'd try to give it to them in a fair trial kind of setting. If that didn't work and they wanted to torture him, I'd ask him to sacrifice himself for the good of the nation, get the hell out of my country clandestinely, and try a run for it. then get the UN involved later on. Wouldn't work, but I wouldn't sacrifice my whole nation just for a handful and guys.
...

I would say that by doing so, you had already sacrificed your coutntry. Giving in to thuggish threats is not conducive to anyone having faith in your nation.

Either you stand for ideals or you are just a glorified and wishy washy bearuacracy.

The whole concept of nationhood, let alone effective patriotism, is doing things that increase its citizens faith in their country.

We are just apes pretending that lines in the dirt mean something outside of our feelings.

[DrT]

Really ?
You really think that choosing the certainty of seeing my countrymean pounded to oblivion by the bombs of an obviously more powerful nation is the way to go ?

There's no point in having ideals when your dead, Fly. Ideals don't heal wounds, ideals don't rebuild towers, ideals don't bring back the sons and daughters of my people.
It's because of that mindless idealism that there's so much crap going on right now. People think of their image, their precious belief, before caring about human life. Sure, tis easy to chose the ideals when you're safe in a bunker, and don't have to look mothers, widowers, orphans in the face all day, and simply talk them through a TV and tell them about mission, freedom, and ideals.

I believe in living to fight another day. A head on fight to the US is a sure loss, with misery, poverty and destruction in the mix.
I believe tis better to surrender today instead of going for certain death.

[Slytovhand]

Flyn..... we agree..... it's snowing in Hell - who wants a skiing holiday? :P


DrT...

but but but - isn't that the very reason why the US is in other countries (ok, being a bit naive, and not talking oil or similar...).

Isn't that why the UN exists? Ideals?

Are you arguing that we should all throw our ideals out the window, and let humanity run purely on pragmatism?

Now - to the specifics... handing over Bin Laden. It's one thing to ask, it's quite another to demand with threats. Besides, from a practical point of view, the Taliban had international support (some, maybe not a lot), believe in martyrdom - particularly against anything US, had some support from the UN, and had already fought and survived against recent internal strife as well as the long running war against Russia.... I don't think they were all that concerned. So, partly defending (first part) but mostly understanding - which is rather essential to not keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again...

well that wouldn't be a country for a very long time, so who gives a shit ?

great to know that in reality, there is only 1 country on this planet that really matters. And that human beings, persons, can so easily be divided into 'US citizens' and 'rest of the scummy crap we have to tolerate'. You see - that's the reason why Al Qaeda would have been 'justified' in what they did (but only in the context of where a bombing was done, not who was actually killed). The term you're looking for is 'beligerence'.

And, actually, it would get you a hell of a lot more than 'a few minutes' and yes, even on US tv...I'm fairly sure that the mass murder (if you're bombing civilians, that's murder), then it will hit front page newspapers.

I'm curious... if another nation said to the US to hand over a convicted terrorist that the US was keeping safely on US lands, or said nation would start bombing the US (in whatever definition you choose...), would you then hand that person over??

Lastly... can you re-write your "Lastly..." paragraph - I'm not undestanding it.

AS for repeating the same mistakes as everyone else - the issue on that is that everyone knows now that it's a mistake. Before, we didn't have the technology and communications available for it to be so obvious. When the Brits took over India, communications were months apart (for the most part). Now, we know within minutes or hours... and in far greater detail. And the world has been condeming such actions even before they were done! Yep - truly stupid

[DrT]

Are you arguing that we should all throw our ideals out the window, and let humanity run purely on pragmatism?

Course not. Ideals are all well and good. Tis when they will drive you straigh to the grave that you may have to put them on hold.

And, actually, it would get you a hell of a lot more than 'a few minutes' and yes, even on US tv...I'm fairly sure that the mass murder (if you're bombing civilians, that's murder), then it will hit front page newspapers.

Yup. Like in 'nam or in 'stan. Plenty of coverage of mass murders by carpet bombing.
And then what ? Next news cycle, thank you.

The world isn't all pinky happy happy. There is plenty of bad people going around, and some have more power than you do. You can face them and die, or give them what they want and live to fight another day.

It has nothing to do with fair, it's reality. plain and simple.