Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?

Quote:

---

After three years of terrorist plots and Taliban obstinacy, that was a fully justified demand.

---

Really ????
What is a terrorist or a supporter ?
Who are the appropriate authorities that they should be handed over to ?
for example the Jammu and Kashmiri groups operating out of Afghanistan should they be handed to Pakistan , India or China? What about the Baluchi groups ? Iran or Pakistan ?
Since it said all Afghanistan then what about the areas that were not held by the Taliban ?are the various groups that make up what became the Northern alliance counted as terrorists , what about the Uzbek Tajik and Turkomen groups in their area .

Quote:

---

The Taliban had made it perfectly clear that they would not oversee the dismantling of Al Qaeda themselves.

---

And America knew perfectly well that the Taliban were not able to dismantle Al-Qaida , one of their real concerns was that with the growing domestic hostility to the Taliban regime Al Qaida may have overthrown the Taliban....though of course they go on to wonder how long until the local hostility would grow to overthrow them in turn .

Quote:

---

The fake reasons they gave were ridiculous.

---

No more ridiculous than some of the demands being made of them .

Quote:

---

The fake reason you come up with wasn't even mentioned in their communiques.

---

Firstly , what fake reason ?
secondly , I am speaking for myself not for some fundamentalist nutters so why would my reasoning appear in their communiques ?

Quote:

---

Likewise the release of all unjustly detained foreigners

---

?????????errrrr....fully justified you say??????wouldn't that be a matter for judicial revue on a case by case basis by whoever holds jurisdiction .

Quote:

---

such as aid workers arrested for 'spreading Christianity' and journalists

---

Anyhow doesn't it kind of stick in your throat that other terrorist supporting nations do the same thing but don't get invaded .
Or is your throat already stuck with the fact that the terrorist supporting nation that issued the ultimatum also unjustly detains foriegners .:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

The ultimatum contained nothing new; all those demands had been made on the Taliban earlier by various governments, by international bodies like the EU, by human rights organisations and last but not least by the UN Security Council. There is no way around it, Tribesman.

---

The ultimatum did contain something new .
As said earlier , my first post on the actual question not on what others had so far written .......

Quote:

---

Oh well , I finally voted .
No it was not justified , the justification used was that the Taliban refused to comply with the demands placed on it .
There was no way they could comply with the demands .
Impossible demands negate the justification .
Sad , but it is the only possible answer .

---

It remains the only possible answer , which is sad .
I know where you are coming from , but all you have put forward are reasons why an ultimatum was undeniably justified , but the ultimatum itself was badly written rubbish which does away with the justification that it should have carried .

Okay, Tribes, I'll agree with you.

The ultimatum was written with the knowledge that the recipient not only would almost certainly not WISH to comply, but would have at least some difficulty COMPLYING even if they had wished to do so. This is also true of the AH ultimatum to Serbia and, I will stipulate, a majority of pre-war ultimatums throughout history. As such, it was no more than a legalistic "fig-leaf" to provide a pretext for a course of violence that had already been decided upon.

We should never have sent such a silly document. We should simply have begun the assault without giving up any shred of strategic surprise that may have still existed at that point (not much in all likelihood).

I myself followed this practice as a child. I issued two "stop that" warnings per offender. If these were ignored I did not provide formal notice of anything, I just hit them until they could no longer bother me. The USA might wish to adopt a similar policy in the spirit of honest relations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I myself followed this practice as a child. I issued two "stop that" warnings per offender. If these were ignored I did not provide formal notice of anything, I just hit them until they could no longer bother me. The USA might wish to adopt a similar policy in the spirit of honest relations.

---

:laugh4:

2nd

Quote:

---

We should never have sent such a silly document. We should simply have begun the assault without giving up any shred of strategic surprise that may have still existed at that point (not much in all likelihood).

---

Slight problem there Seamus , America was unable to .
The fig-leaf as you call it was to get the neccesary help so they could assault , they knew air and missile strikes were a waste of time and counterproductive , but heres the real bugger ,(considering how they actually acted in the event) they knew a protracted ground presence would also be counterproductive .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Really ????
What is a terrorist or a supporter ?

---

I'm not going to waste time on this stuff.

Quote:

---

I'm not going to waste time on this stuff.

---

Awwwwww....and I threw in the Tajik just for you ,as with your talk of UNSCresolutions you should know that as part of the peace and reconcilliation agreement they were supposed to have closed their terrorist bases in afghanistan , disbanded and joined the political process in their own country:yes:
Still there though .

Whassup Adrian are you stuck on accepting whats false about this.......

Quote:

---

The ultimatum contained nothing new; all those demands had been made on the Taliban earlier by various governments, by international bodies like the EU, by human rights organisations and last but not least by the UN Security Council.

---

very important clarifying parts from those demands were completely omitted in the ultimatum weren't they .

Quote:

---

This is also true of the AH ultimatum to Serbia and, I will stipulate, a majority of pre-war ultimatums throughout history. As such, it was no more than a legalistic "fig-leaf" to provide a pretext for a course of violence that had already been decided upon.

---

Oh I dunno Seamus , the majority yes but there are other examples .Britains ultimatum over Poland seems pretty clear cut and entirely justifiable in all its terms .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Whassup Adrian are you stuck on accepting whats false about this.......

---

Define 'is'. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Really ????
What is a terrorist or a supporter ?
Who are the appropriate authorities that they should be handed over to ?
for example the Jammu and Kashmiri groups operating out of Afghanistan should they be handed to Pakistan , India or China? What about the Baluchi groups ? Iran or Pakistan ?
Since it said all Afghanistan then what about the areas that were not held by the Taliban ?are the various groups that make up what became the Northern alliance counted as terrorists , what about the Uzbek Tajik and Turkomen groups in their area .

---

No doubt, these were the exact same concerns the Taliban had when they refused to cooperate. Priceless. :laugh4:

If they had an ounce of sincerity, they could have offered to give intelligence on Al Qaeda- if they honestly didn't know where Bin Laden was (total BS), they could've given any information they had and cooperated with US agents in his capture. Were the demands harsh? Of course they were. An organization that was based in Afghanistan and aided and sheltered by the Taliban had perpetrated horrific attacks on the US- they were in big trouble and if they wanted to minimize repercussions, they needed to cooperate fully and quickly. Instead, they decided to stall and play the same old games- a poor choice for them.

Was the US justified? Of course it was. We would've been justified attacking immediately without any warning or ultimatum.

Quote:

---

No doubt, these were the exact same concerns the Taliban had when they refused to cooperate. Priceless.

---

Can you answer any of those questions you quoted ?
If not then you havn't got a point at all .

Quote:

---

We would've been justified attacking immediately without any warning or ultimatum.

---

But they didn't did they , so that is irrelevant .

When is Tribes just going to say that it was all about the Illuminati and their double top secret oil and poppy seed pipelines and therefore anything involving the U.S. and the removal of the Taliban was just scenery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Can you answer any of those questions you quoted ?
If not then you havn't got a point at all .

---

Your questions are a complete red herring and a distraction from the question in the original post. My answer to them would be irrelevant. The relevant information is that Taliban never made a serious effort at cooperation on any points listed in the ultimatum- not one.

Quote:

---

But they didn't did they , so that is irrelevant .

---

Of course it's relevant- what nonsense. After what happened the US was completely justified in removing the Taliban from power- full stop. That's the original question at hand. Was the US justified? Yes. End of story. The US did give the Taliban an "out" if they were willing to make some serious concessions, but they obstinately refused- even when faced with a much deserved invasion and overthrow. It was their call to make, they made it, and are living(or not) with the consequences.

The fact that the US gave the Taliban a choice, however unsavory it was to them, has no bearing on their justification. It only shows that the US made a gesture, however small you may think it is, to avoid conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

When is Tribes just going to say that it was all about the Illuminati and their double top secret oil and poppy seed pipelines and therefore anything involving the U.S. and the removal of the Taliban was just scenery.

---

He's too much of a showman to unveil that this early on. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

We would've been justified attacking immediately without any warning or ultimatum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But they didn't did they , so that is irrelevant .

---

If the US were justified attacking without first giving an ultimatum, how could they possibly be unjustified after giving an ultimatum? In the first scenario, the Taliban are given no choice at all, just attacked; in the second, they're offered an out--or in Tribes opinion, still given no choice at all, so either better or the same as the first scenario, which was already justified. Sorry, Tribes, but you can't dismiss it as irrelevant just because it didn't happen, because the justification Xiahou asserted is independent of any ultimatum. Besides, the whole ultimatum thingy is a distraction from the main point. It's part of the process, not the justification, which came well before it was issued. And as I already noted, it was just political posturing anyhow, the Taliban's response being easily predictable before it was issued.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

But they didn't did they , so that is irrelevant .

---

---

I resent that misquote! :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The fact that the US gave the Taliban a choice, however unsavory it was to them, has no bearing on their justification. It only shows that the US made a gesture, however small you may think it is, to avoid conflict.

---

Imagine what the tin hatters would say if they hadn't, damned if you do damned if you don't.

What's funny is that the more moderate of the radical nutjob Islamic element, "Member's Only" included, were upset at Osama Bin Laden, not for his action but for his lack of following Islamic tradition in issueing 3 warnings or ultimatums before an attack. I'm sure the ultimatums would have read like "remove all your influence in the world, convert to Islam, and make Britney Spears wear a burqa or behead her." Of course had they done this I'm sure would put them in a better light with the tin hatters than the U.S. for retaliation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

and make Britney Spears wear a burqa or behead her."

---

Well we might want to consider that one a little more. .....

Quote:

---

Your questions are a complete red herring and a distraction from the question in the original post.

---

Not in the slightest . The red herring is the one you are throwing , you are throwing it because you don't like the answer you would arrive at .

Quote:

---

Of course it's relevant- what nonsense. After what happened the US was completely justified in removing the Taliban from power- full stop. That's the original question at hand. Was the US justified? Yes. End of story.

---

Yes end of story because you like most who gave an instant yes in this poll havn't thought about the question .:yes: And certainly don't want to think about the question because of the answer

Quote:

---

If the US were justified attacking without first giving an ultimatum, how could they possibly be unjustified after giving an ultimatum?

---

Because they gave the ultimatum , and the ultimatum was bollox .
It is that simple .

Quote:

---

Besides, the whole ultimatum thingy is a distraction from the main point. It's part of the process, not the justification

---

Nope the ultimatum is the main point as it is the justification that was used .
Since it was the justification that was used all other points in the process are secondary to it .

Okay Tribesman, since in your opinion everyone you're arguing with is willfully blind to the wrongness of our actions, I would like to hear your take on what the U.S.A. should have done.

• Should we have done nothing, and accepted the attacks of 9/11 as our just desserts?
• Should we have given the Taliban [insert number] more months to hand over Bin Laden & Co.?
• Should we have modified our demands in a specific way to make them just and reasonable?

You don't need to repeat your view that the rest of us are too cowardly to consider The Truth. You've made that assertion multiple times. Rather, please specify what you would have liked to see done differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes end of story because you like most who gave an instant yes in this poll havn't thought about the question .:yes: And certainly don't want to think about the question because of the answer

---

Incorrect - some of us considered the 6 previous years of history and negotations that preceded the events.

Quote:

---

Because they gave the ultimatum , and the ultimatum was bollox .
It is that simple .

---

Only if one wishes to forget the previous failed attempts at negotating with the Taliban.

Quote:

---

Nope the ultimatum is the main point as it is the justification that was used .
Since it was the justification that was used all other points in the process are secondary to it .

---

Try again in more simple terms, the ultimatum was not the justification that was used to invade Afganstan.

@ tribesman

so per the poll 82.61% are wrong, or mis informed, or didnt think about it?

Statistically thats improbable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Okay Tribesman, since in your opinion everyone you're arguing with is willfully blind to the wrongness of our actions, I would like to hear your take on what the U.S.A. should have done.

• Should we have done nothing, and accepted the attacks of 9/11 as our just desserts?
• Should we have given the Taliban [insert number] more months to hand over Bin Laden & Co.?
• Should we have modified our demands in a specific way to make them just and reasonable?

You don't need to repeat your view that the rest of us are too cowardly to consider The Truth. You've made that assertion multiple times. Rather, please specify what you would have liked to see done differently.

---

I dont think it's that at all. He's arguing that the US was justified, until the ultimatum was offered. Which is like arguing that I'm justified in suing him if he burns down my house, but if I offer an out of court settlement which he refuses, I am no longer justified in suing. It's absolute nonsense. Other than that, he's just trying to shift the discussion to an area where he feels that he can make a stronger argument- things like "What really is a terrorist?", which has nothing to do with US justification or even the subsequent ultimatum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

I resent that misquote!

---

Fixed. :bow:

Quote:

---

@ tribesman

so per the poll 82.61% are wrong, or mis informed, or didnt think about it?

Statistically thats improbable.

---

Improbable , try some of the polls put here about WMDs and Iraq :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
try one now you still get people insisting that long disproven "facts" are indeed true, because they don't like the other answer.

Quote:

---

Try again in more simple terms, the ultimatum was not the justification that was used to invade Afganstan.

---

Try again Red unless you are trying to say that the issuing of the ultimatum that non compliance of would lead to action , is not what was issued ,was not complied with and was acted on .

Lemur

Quote:

---

Should we have modified our demands in a specific way to make them just and reasonable?

---

Yep , a little clarity in language and content changes a bollox statement into a clearly defined justifiable statement .They didn't have to be reasonable , just not impossible and so vague as to be meaningless .

Xiahou

Quote:

---

He's arguing that the US was justified, until the ultimatum was offered

---

yep

Quote:

---

Which is like arguing that I'm justified in suing him if he burns down my house, but if I offer an out of court settlement which he refuses, I am no longer justified in suing.

---

Nope , more of a if someone owes me money but is a tennant on someone elses property and I cannot get the money becuse the landlord refuses to allow me acces to his tennant , I could be justified in suing the landlord to get access to his tennant , and maybe even get the landlord to pay for the costs of I accrue though his obstinacy then I am justified . Because I am on a war against debt . But if I try and get the landlord to allow me access to all property in his town even if he does not own it , to collect all debt irrespective of what debt it is or who it is owed to then I would still be on a war on debt but not be justified .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

@ tribesman

so per the poll 82.61% are wrong, or mis informed, or didnt think about it?

Statistically thats improbable.

---

Yeah, well, the majority of Americans also believed that Iraq was a threat in 2003 and we were wrong then too.:idea2:

WMD's were found...just not of the nuclear variety. Pertaining to the variety found, Saddam had previously shown a willingness to use them. WMD's and a threat all in one.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
See what I mean Odin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

WMD's were found...just not of the nuclear variety. Pertaining to the variety found, Saddam had previously shown a willingness to use them. WMD's and a threat all in one.

---

yeah, we found some old ass stuff rom the 70s buried in the desert. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

yeah, we found some old ass stuff rom the 70s buried in the desert. :inquisitive:

---

Oh of course, but you miss the point...that this is of equal validity to the tired rhetoric like that displayed above by tribes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Oh of course, but you miss the point...that this is of equal validity to the tired rhetoric like that displayed above by tribes.

---

Yes, but tribes' rhetoric is harmless. This rhetoric has already costed tens (hundreds?) of thousand lives... Or maybe I, too, am missing a point?

If you believe its harmless, I have some declassified CIA documents detaling the locations of Chinese embassies that I'll sell you.

Quote:

---

If you believe its harmless, I have some declassified CIA documents detaling the locations of Chinese embassies that I'll sell you.

---

So you believe what I have written is harmful ??????:dizzy2:
Harmful to what exactly ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Try again Red unless you are trying to say that the issuing of the ultimatum that non compliance of would lead to action , is not what was issued ,was not complied with and was acted on .

---

Incorrect that was not what I stated. The ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion. The ultimatum was a step in the process, but it is not in itself the justification.

Your arguement that it is the justification is nothing more then misdirection.

Quote:

---

The ultimatum was not the justification for the invasion.

---

Really ???
What was it then , the ultimatum that is , it must have been something mustn't it , after alll its got a latinish word base and eveything , it must mean something ....so what does it mean (not from the big Red book please)tell me some other logical reason where an ultimatum is not an ultimatum and cannot be an ultimatum.(there is an answer , but it would only further reinforce waht I said)

Quote:

---

The ultimatum was a step in the process, but it is not in itself the justification.

---

The ultimatum by its nature is the final step before things happen , all steps on the way are part of the process . The final step is that which is used , which as it is used is the justification .
The final step is flawed in this case .
No way round it , like I said initially its sad , its a real bugger , but there can be no other answer .

Unless of course someone can show that the ultimatum isn't bollox , or that the ultimatum that was used as the justification isn't the ultimatum that was used as the justification .

No arguements from me about the justification of action agsinst Al-Qaida or the fundynutters , the question is the justification that was used .
The ends cannot justify the means (basic morality lesson#1).....end of story(though the ends are still very uncertain)