-
Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
I'm afraid a discussion of the French presidential race is not an appropriate place to have this discussion. So here we are, another war debate.
Now, on October 14, 2001 the USA and our allies launched an aerial invasion of Afghanistan. Several days later a ground invasion began as well. The stated goal was to remove the Taliban from power, to shut down Al Queda training camps and to capture and put on trial Osama bin Laden; for the 1998 embassy bombings, for the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and the 2001 9/11 attacks in which almost 3000 Americans were killed.
Shortly after September 11, 2001, President Bush announced to the world an ultimatum to the Taliban, that if they did not surrender Osama bin Laden, they would be viewed as supporting and sheltering him and would be treated as such. The Taliban's response? They refused to acknowledge the statement. Speaking to Saudi and Pakastani ambassadors, they claimed to acknowledge a non-muslim leader of any country would be an insult to Islam, and that only muslim heads of states where sharia was enforced were legitimate rulers.
After several weeks of stall tactics, during which Saudi Arabia and all other states, save Pakistan, severed diplomatic ties with the Taliban, the USA's deadline expired and war commenced.
Was the USA justified? Note, for the purposes of this thread the subsequent military actions in Iraq are not open for discussion, except in how they can be linked to the original decision to engage the Taliban with military force.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Yes.
The lack of follow-thru has been disgraceful though, but since that is related to the item we are not supposed to discuss I will leave it at that.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Yes, the only proper response to an attack on New York and the pentagon.
Sad that we have let the aftermath slip. They were on the right track, but Nato was a poor choice.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Yes, the only proper response to an attack on New York and the pentagon.
Sad that we have let the aftermath slip. They were on the right track, but Nato was a poor choice.
Why was NATO a poor choice?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Why was NATO a poor choice?
Simple, they have done poorly in the parts of afghanistan they took charge of. A larger special forces presence would have been better IMO. Even a US army presence would have done well.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I'm afraid a discussion of the French presidential race is not an appropriate place to have this discussion. So here we are, another war debate.
Now, on October 14, 2001 the USA and our allies launched an aerial invasion of Afghanistan. Several days later a ground invasion began as well. The stated goal was to remove the Taliban from power, to shut down Al Queda training camps and to capture and put on trial Osama bin Laden; for the 1998 embassy bombings, for the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and the 2001 9/11 attacks in which almost 3000 Americans were killed.
Shortly after September 11, 2001, President Bush announced to the world an ultimatum to the Taliban, that if they did not surrender Osama bin Laden, they would be viewed as supporting and sheltering him and would be treated as such. The Taliban's response? They refused to acknowledge the statement. Speaking to Saudi and Pakastani ambassadors, they claimed to acknowledge a non-muslim leader of any country would be an insult to Islam, and that only muslim heads of states where sharia was enforced were legitimate rulers.
After several weeks of stall tactics, during which Saudi Arabia and all other states, save Pakistan, severed diplomatic ties with the Taliban, the USA's deadline expired and war commenced.
Was the USA justified? Note, for the purposes of this thread the subsequent military actions in Iraq are not open for discussion, except in how they can be linked to the original decision to engage the Taliban with military force.
I think you will be hardpressed to find many who didnt agree with the removal at the time, sadly current circumstances of opinion are flavored by our other choices in the region
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Heh, nice poll results.
edit: legio, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
I guess I'll play devils advocate on this one and say a guarded 'no.'
Reasons-
Was it even confirmed that Binnie was even in the country? And even if he was (and as has subsequently been shown) he seems reasonably adept at hiding. It stands to reason that maybe the Afghan government had no knowledge of his location.
I cant help but have a gut feeling that the US response was a bit over the top if the search for one man was truly the goal in question.
Which makes me think there were other issues in play- I dont think the exportation of democracy was one of them, thats for sure. Sabre-rattling perhaps?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Don . Has the US removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan ?
Quote:
Simple, they have done poorly in the parts of afghanistan they took charge of. A larger special forces presence would have been better IMO. Even a US army presence would have done well.
Could you explain why the parts of Afghanistan with a US army presence are screwed up aswell then ?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Simple, they have done poorly in the parts of afghanistan they took charge of. A larger special forces presence would have been better IMO. Even a US army presence would have done well.
How do you propose you could have controlled things better on the ground if NATO hadn't provided the grunts? If you used special forces "advisors" to assist primarily Afghan forces, you would have ended up with a warlord-controlled Afghanistan, as in the OTL, but without even the facade of control that we have now. As for a US army presence - we all know why there isn't one, and Don stated specifically at the start of the thread that he doesn't want it discussed here.
For the French baiters here - "Nous sommes tous les Americains".
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Simple, they have done poorly in the parts of afghanistan they took charge of. A larger special forces presence would have been better IMO. Even a US army presence would have done well.
Examples?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Actually, I'm surprised, pleasantly so, by the results. I didn't start the thread on a need to justify our actions to myself. There's very few things the US has done militarily that were as obviously appropriate as our action in Afghanistan. I started this thread in direct response to a couple of posts in another thread that implied a different view. Thus far, said posters have yet to contribute in this thread.
I too wish we had prosecuted the Afghanistan theater more fully, focused on our intended goals more vehemently, and paid more attention to the nation building we claimed we were there to do. My point in not mentioning Iraq was not that we can't mention how that has drained resources from the theater in a way that has inhibited our ability to prosecute the war. That's a very valid point.
My point was to avoid discussions along the lines of "Well, based on the fact that the USA used it as justification to later attack Iraq, then no, they were wrong in Afghanistan too".
And don't blame NATO, BigTex. They've done the best that they can, under the circumstances. We've asked them to keep the area free and clear and they've done a pretty good job. I do think they're stretched thin, and I don't know the gist of what NATO service obligations are, but they are there and they are doing the job.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
@topic: No, the claimed casus belli for the war was that the Afghani regime didn't hand over bin Laden. First of all, it's questionable whether at all you can hold someone besides the suicide bombers who carried out the 9/11 attack guilty for that action - the only that are obviously and provably guilty were dead by the time the attack had taken place. Secondly, to claim the Afghani regime illegally protected bin Laden for failing to hand him over is also a fallacy - 200,000 American soldiers have been unable to find the man while occupying the country so how could the Afghani representatives at all be able to find him and/or hand him over? To require someone to perform an impossible task or face war is hardly fair play. Thirdly, the Afghani government had nothing to do with 9/11, they didn't support the action in any way whatsoever and didn't declare war on the USA. So why attack Afghanistan? The war was merely a propaganda action from the Bush administration who needed someone to blame for the attack to look like he cared about the victims of 9/11. From the 9/11 perspective, the attack wasn't justified.
The other possible casus belli would be to act as liberators to remove the repressive talibani government. In that aspect there was more of an excuse to attack, but not through the methods used by the USA - a pure air campaign with random bombings with outdated precisionless bombs, many of which struck civilian targets. There was also no proper program for how to handle the situation after the war. If the latter had been made, the war could have been justied.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
I think that the U.S. went in, we did the right thing. We stopped the sharia law women oppression of the Taliban, and got the country stablized. However, the unfortunate circumstances elsewhere has rendered out gains to a marginal victory, as warlords seek to carve territory, opium trade flourishes, and the Taliban has moved back into some places.
However, in response to the original question. Yes.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
We were 100% correct to remove the Taliban. If they had been willing to hand over Bin Laden and his lieutenants, it would be a different story. But as it stands, they were truly a rogue nation, harboring people who had planned and executed a massive attack on civilians.
It goes without saying that the follow-up has been disappointing. I cringe when I read accounts of translators, gear and troops being pulled out of Afghanistan because of Iraq. That's a different thread, though.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Secondly, to claim the Afghani regime illegally protected bin Laden for failing to hand him over is also a fallacy - 200,000 American soldiers have been unable to find the man while occupying the country so how could the Afghani representatives at all be able to find him and/or hand him over? To require someone to perform an impossible task or face war is hardly fair play.
I'm going to leave your other points alone, but I'll take issue with this. The Afghani government didn't say, 'This is an impossible task. We can't do it.' They said, 'We don't recognize your right to speak to us, USA.' There was no hint of cooperation, while as I understand it there is plenty of evidence for considerable cooperation with the Al Qaeda forces within their country. If the Taliban had been a little more polite, things may have turned out differently. But then, I don't think there was any real chance of that, or any expectation on the part of US officials, either.
Ajax
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
I'm going to leave your other points alone, but I'll take issue with this. The Afghani government didn't say, 'This is an impossible task. We can't do it.' They said, 'We don't recognize your right to speak to us, USA.' There was no hint of cooperation, while as I understand it there is plenty of evidence for considerable cooperation with the Al Qaeda forces within their country. If the Taliban had been a little more polite, things may have turned out differently. But then, I don't think there was any real chance of that, or any expectation on the part of US officials, either.
So you're basically saying the war with Afghanistan was fought because Afghani officials weren't polite enough? Wow that's some serious penis measuring contest...
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
So you're basically saying the war with Afghanistan was fought because Afghani officials weren't polite enough? Wow that's some serious penis measuring contest...
No. It's a rhetorical device called understatement. I'm sure you've heard of it.
Ajax
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
No. It's a rhetorical device called understatement. I'm sure you've heard of it.
Ajax
So you're saying that if the Afghani officials had said the obvious truth: "we can't find bin Laden", would there not have been any war?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
So you're basically saying the war with Afghanistan was fought because Afghani officials weren't polite enough? Wow that's some serious penis measuring contest...
If that's how you read his post, may I suggest a quick dose of "Hooked on Phonics?"
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
I think we were justified even if we know bin laden wasn't in the country.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
So you're saying that if the Afghani officials had said the obvious truth: "we can't find bin Laden", would there not have been any war?
Theoretically, there's the possibility of US and/or international forces being allowed to operate jointly with Afghani forces to accomplish the task. But as I said earlier, there was no real chance or expectation of the Taliban cooperating with the US. The ultimatum was political theatrics to demonstrate just cause for the world (which doesn't make it wrong: it had to be done). The conclusion was foregone.
Ajax
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Might require a heavy dose.
Quote:
First of all, it's questionable whether at all you can hold someone besides the suicide bombers who carried out the 9/11 attack guilty for that action - the only that are obviously and provably guilty were dead by the time the attack had taken place.
Osama claimed responsibility. There is no question of his guilt.
Quote:
Thirdly, the Afghani government had nothing to do with 9/11, they didn't support the action in any way whatsoever and didn't declare war on the USA.
They harbored those who carried it out.
Really, your case against the war is poor.
CR
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Regardless of Bin Laden himself, there was tons of evidence that Al Queda was operating training camps openly within Afghanistan. The UN passed three resolutions over it!!! When the bombers were sought to face criminal charages, they took refuge within Afghanistan. The Taliban were openly supporting them. Forget Bin Laden himself for a moment, the two organizations: Al Queda and the Taliban, are inexorably linked. They were fully cooperating with each other.
The USA gave the Taliban one last chance on September 12th, 2001. We told them past behavior will be forgotton. Hand over those responsible and we will let bygones be bygones.
Did the Taliban respond that they couldn't because they don't know where AQ were? No (And they did know where Al Queda itself was)
Did the Taliban respond that they wouldn't because they hadn't seen enough proof yet? (Actually, they tried this, 6 hours before the first bombs started landing) No.
Their answer? No answer. They effectively said "you are not muslims and you are not worthy of acknowledging", a great big 'go :daisy: yourself'. They knew fully well they were making a decision about their destiny. They were betting that the rest of the Muslim world would back them, and they were wrong, because, as it turns out, Muslims recognized how wrong the Taliban were on this issue as well.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
So you're saying that if the Afghani officials had said the obvious truth: "we can't find bin Laden", would there not have been any war?
I believe he is saying that if the Taliban had said "We don't know where he is, but we will cooperate fully with U.S. and other nations to locate and capture this mass murderer" then there wouldn't have been a war.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
I just find it odd how you can consider it your right to punish an entire population because you're pissed with 1 person in that population and want to carry through your personal vendetta. It's a bit like Hitler wanting to kill all Jews because he was pissed with 2 guys - his father and the guy who rejected his art school application. Lenin too expressed this type of idea: "it's better to kill 100 innocents, than let 1 guilty get away". To me, it's utterly barbaric and irrational to follow this type of thought pattern: to think it's more important to punish a guilty man than to avoid killing innocents in the process.
But it seems like so far in this thread I'm alone in this view. Perhaps I'm odd and not normal for thinking so? What do you think? Maybe I should go seek all old enemies from my life and bomb them, not minding other civilians passing by? Or maybe I should keep reasoning the way I do, since I consider it a lot more rational.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Osama claimed responsibility. There is no question of his guilt.
Every year, there are over 1,000 non-murderers "admitting" murder in normal legal systems, who are later found out to have lied. Someone admitting a deed doesn't equal guilt. What do you think are the proofs that bin Laden did the attack, despite the fact that he is alive, and the attack was a suicide attack?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I just find it odd how you can consider it your right to punish an entire population because you're pissed with 1 person in that population and want to carry through your personal vendetta. It's a bit like Hitler wanting to kill all Jews because he was pissed with 2 guys - his father and the guy who rejected his art school application. Lenin too expressed this type of idea: "it's better to kill 100 innocents, than let 1 guilty get away". To me, it's utterly barbaric and irrational to follow this type of thought pattern: to think it's more important to punish a guilty man than to avoid killing innocents in the process.
But it seems like so far in this thread I'm alone in this view. Perhaps I'm odd and not normal for thinking so? What do you think? Maybe I should go seek all old enemies from my life and bomb them, not minding other civilians passing by? Or maybe I should keep reasoning the way I do, since I consider it a lot more rational.
Had Hitler's father and Art School Dean committed mass murder of innocents? Were 'all Jews' protecting the two and shielding them from international justice? Was Hitler's objective only to remove the Jews from their position of power so as to bring the murderers to justice? Your analogy makes zero sense to me, but Godwin would be proud.
Ajax
edit: As to the 100 innocents vs 1 guilty--I personally prefer the sentiment (was it Franklin's?) that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to punish one innocent, but the invasion wasn't just a matter of justice. America did not take issue with Al Qaeda and Osama for past injuries alone. The organization represented a continuing threat to innocents worldwide, and for that matter the Taliban represented a continuing threat to innocents within its own country. The invasion was part retribution, part protection.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
Had Hitler's father and Art School Dean committed mass murder of innocents? Were 'all Jews' protecting the two and shielding them from international justice? Was Hitler's objective only to remove the Jews from their position of power so as to bring the murderers to justice? Your analogy makes zero sense to me, but Godwin would be proud.
Ajax
The analogy is simple: someone having a quarrel with you, and you're prepared to kill plenty of civilians to get to the few that are your real enemies. In this case even worse: you want to kill someone you have no proofs against (I have yet to hear any proof that bin Laden had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attack) to score propaganda points at home, and in order to get him you're prepared to kill thousands of innocents. Let's call it "revenge accuracy". The US government killed a few thousands in Afghanistan, but failed to get the one they claim was guilty. The revenge accuracy is thus 0% - 0 successful kills of persons considered guilty per kill of civilians/innocents.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
First, we didn't punish the entire Afghan population. The vast majority of them are happier now than they were in September of 2001. I know the women certainly are. The one argument they might make is "a little more, please sir?"
Second, it wasn't about one person. The Taliban and Al-Queda were fully cooperative in each other's mayhem. The Taliban had been providing a safe haven from which Al Queda had been launching attacks for a decade. And at the end of the day, if we hadn't taken the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan and broken up all the Al Queda training camps, the next attack would have made 9/11 look small in comparison. Maybe you're forgetting that all those dirty bomb plans they found in Taliban and Al Queda offices when they cleaned the place up.
Tribesman, didn't forget you old chum. No, the Taliban's not in power anywmore. Sure, they're slowly trying to come back to life, and we've given them much more of a lease on that we should have. Your point is valid, we should finish the job and finish them off. No argument here.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
The positive results of the Afghanistan war were more or less luck, and were not part of the original plan made by Bush. Like I said: deposing of the oppressive regime is a good thing, but the US army under Bush's plan had little do in this compared to the local - muslim - forces who led the ground invasion, who did the dirty job and established a new peaceful regime there. The plan as made by Bush was to score propaganda points by finding a scapegoat and killing as many as possible that could be claimed to have anything in common with the 9/11 attackers. As I explained, even that objective failed, in that bin Laden escaped. After the US bombings stopped, the muslim ground invasion, and hard work by the UN, established what we now have in Afghanistan. It would be pretty unfair for the USA to take the honor for this, since it wasn't part of the initial invasion plan and a large deal of the stablization work was carried out by third parties.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
:wall: Sorry Legio, MoveOn.Org has let you down on this one. I'm afraid you just dove into the deep end with your claim that the US Army shouldn't get the credit for taking out the Taliban.
You do get my respect for taking a position you knew was going to be unpopular and sticking to the facts (or at least your convolved interpretation of them), and not taking personal issue. I do salute you for that. :bow:
Looks like you've got plenty of other people to continue to discuss this with though. Good luck.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
I'm perfectly happy to give most of the credit to native Afghani forces, and I think that's what it takes to enact lasting change. In my opinion, any move toward democracy must come from within or it is doomed to failure. How does this make it wrong for the US to have invaded and worked in concert with those local forces? Osama bin Laden has yet to be found, but Al Qaeda power in Afghanistan has been severely limited, and they have lost the immunity of their former homebase. This seems to me, while not complete success, a large accomplishment in terms of US objectives. I'll agree with several other posters here that more should have been and still should be invested in bringing the Afghani situation to a successful conclusion. It is unfortunate that another, more misguided venture has diverted most of both the resources and attention that could have been spent on Afghanistan, but I feel the invasion was fully justified and continues to be.
Ajax
P.S.--along with DC, I'd like to voice my respect for your willingness, Legio, to stand alone on this issue and defend a position you consider worth defending in spite of basically unanimous opposition. That is commendable. But as much as I respect your stand, I cannot respect the position you are standing for.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
(Sounds like Antigone)
The UN and hard-work rarely are uttered in the same statement, unless there is a negative interjected in between the 2.
A combine nations force, the local Afghani's who were seeking to free themselves of the Taliban's influence.
And now, with the liberation and democratization of Afghanistan, things are looking up. It's a HUGE investment opportunity, and companies are moving in, to exploit a labor base that has often been passed over. Telecommunications companies have a new buyer group, and all in all, I think that business investment will continue.
Unless.....
The Taliban can come back and break the local Afghani forces and the NATO troops posted there. Hopefully the Taliban will be broken, Osama Bin Laden is caught, and peace enters the region. While reality interjects it's pessimistic, I'm feeling good about it.
Now to main question.
The US was justified in removing a regime who harbored acknowledged terrorists and killers. AQ is one of the groups that trained in the area, and had an anti-US mindset. You can't diplomatically solve an issue when
a.They aren't a nation
b.The nation they live in is also anti-American.
We punished those responsible for harboring terrorists and violent malicious men who punished the innocent in Kenya and in their attacks against the United States.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
But it seems like so far in this thread I'm alone in this view. Perhaps I'm odd and not normal for thinking so? What do you think? Maybe I should go seek all old enemies from my life and bomb them, not minding other civilians passing by? Or maybe I should keep reasoning the way I do, since I consider it a lot more rational.
I'm not going in too far and I will just say that you have a valid point to argue...
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Tribesman, didn't forget you old chum. No, the Taliban's not in power anywmore. Sure, they're slowly trying to come back to life, and we've given them much more of a lease on that we should have. Your point is valid, we should finish the job and finish them off. No argument here.
You might get an arguement from Karzai , he says the Taliban are always welcome in Afghanistan . I wonder what he said about sharing power with them ?:oops:
Hey Don you should have known it was a loaded question~;)
Quote:
Did the Taliban respond that they wouldn't because they hadn't seen enough proof yet? (Actually, they tried this, 6 hours before the first bombs started landing) No.
Now that seems to clash with what I have read about both the nature and the timing of the responses from the Taliban .
Quote:
Osama claimed responsibility. There is no question of his guilt.
CR what date was it when he claimed responsibility ?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
I know the Don doesn't want stuff like [Iraq/future/more Iraq] to distract from the main topic, but since there are claims made here that the Afghans are really better off now I must dispute that position just a little bit.
I mean, the Taliban aren't dead; the local government is very weak; the civilians are less and less receptive to the peacekeeping/occupation forces...these aren't the signs of happy people...
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
The scale of the 9/11 attack, the target that was picked, and the tightness of the relationship between AQ and the Taliban meant 9/11 was nothing short of an open declaration of war. By any conventional standard there was a clear casus belli. The justification question, in terms of legality, is easy.
Not to mention, I think a good case could be made for removing the Taliban even despite AQ, even if 9/11 never took place at all. :yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
To me, it's utterly barbaric and irrational to follow this type of thought pattern: to think it's more important to punish a guilty man than to avoid killing innocents in the process.
But it seems like so far in this thread I'm alone in this view.
Maybe I should go seek all old enemies from my life and bomb them, not minding other civilians passing by?
You are not alone in this. Disregarding everything else you wrote, the wisdom of revenging 3000 when you are sure it's going to claim a multifold of that in innocent lives is a tough question, morally. At the very least it can't simply be dismissed.
I would counter by saying that:
Firstly, the invasion was not only about avenge, but also about prevention. Secondly, that those responsible for 9/11 were not only the twenty hijackers, but a much larger organisation and their hosts. Thirdly, that those innocent Afghanis (by non-Islamist standards?) would be better off without the repressive Taliban regime. And lastly that global relations are conducted by nations, with nations being the actors in matters of war and self-defense, and that the US by international law had every right to protect their own with, within reasonable bounds, disregard of the citizens of the hostile war-declaring state.
Granted though that this fourth argument belongs to the sphere of legality, not morality. Maybe the others too.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
I think they kind of were, yet I voted Gah!
I don't really know why but something inside me said I shouldn't vote yes...:shrug:
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Did the Taliban respond that they couldn't because they don't know where AQ were? No (And they did know where Al Queda itself was)
Did the Taliban respond that they wouldn't because they hadn't seen enough proof yet? (Actually, they tried this, 6 hours before the first bombs started landing) No.
Their answer? No answer. They effectively said "you are not muslims and you are not worthy of acknowledging", a great big 'go yourself'.
Now then Don.......
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in310852.shtml
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
No.
The military response for a criminal terrorist action has only served to solidify terrorist ideology around the world, elevate Al Qaeda and its assosciated groups to the same level of the US Military, essentially making them a legitimate group as opposed to treating them as a criminal organization as they should be.
The United States and Allies' involvement in Afghanistan has done very little to improve the way of life of the thousands of Afghans, many hundreds of whom have been killed directly or indirectly because of Coalition actions in the area. As soon as Allied forces withdraw the Taliban will return to power, period.
I have served two tours in Afghanistan, so I base this analysis off first-hand knowledge.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
No.
The military response for a criminal terrorist action has only served to solidify terrorist ideology around the world, elevate Al Qaeda and its assosciated groups to the same level of the US Military, essentially making them a legitimate group as opposed to treating them as a criminal organization as they should be.
The United States and Allies' involvement in Afghanistan has done very little to improve the way of life of the thousands of Afghans, many hundreds of whom have been killed directly or indirectly because of Coalition actions in the area. As soon as Allied forces withdraw the Taliban will return to power, period.
I have served two tours in Afghanistan, so I base this analysis off first-hand knowledge.
I would question whether the main solidification for terrorist ideology resulted from Afghanistan or Iraq. I suspect the increase would have been much lower if the Iraq invasion had not taken place, but I doubt there is any way to know for sure. I have two questions for you. Could the attack be considered justified, even if it ultimately ends in failure (justification isn't necessarily the same as the best response to a situation)? What would be the proper response to the Taliban-protected Al Qaeda if military invasion was not justified?
Ajax
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan did not attack the U.S, islamic radicals did. Those are criminal actions, and all the Bush administration did by declaring 'war' on a criminal group is elevate their prestige.
Don't get me wrong, if Afghanistan had conducted the 9/11 attacks, obviously a full scale military retaliation would have been appropriate.
And yes, the attack could be justified even if ultimately it failed, I think. Good intentions and all.
I think with hindsight we can see the more appropriate response would have been to more robustly pursue the law enforcement aspect and bank accounts, funding, etc of the Al Qaeda network. (first of all, Al-Qaeda is misunderstood by most americans and does not really exist as a group, its merely a name given to many many groups and idealists by the government so people can "name" their enemy.)
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
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 :shrug: , but it is the only possible answer .
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
No.
The military response for a criminal terrorist action has only served to solidify terrorist ideology around the world, elevate Al Qaeda and its assosciated groups to the same level of the US Military, essentially making them a legitimate group as opposed to treating them as a criminal organization as they should be.
The United States and Allies' involvement in Afghanistan has done very little to improve the way of life of the thousands of Afghans, many hundreds of whom have been killed directly or indirectly because of Coalition actions in the area. As soon as Allied forces withdraw the Taliban will return to power, period.
I have served two tours in Afghanistan, so I base this analysis off first-hand knowledge.
Wisdom and justification are two different things. It might not have been wise to deal with Afghanistan as we did, in the context of Afghanistan, but it was most certainly justified. After 9/11, America wanted blood, and Afghanistan was the justest place where they could get it. My thinking at the time was that, if the US didn't take out its anger on Afghanistan, it could very well escalate the whole thing elsewhere, most likely Iraq. So I supported any war effort made in that direction, and wanted Blair to try and keep the Americans' minds in that direction, lest they should look elsewhere for trouble. Alas, that didn't work, but it doesn't make the Afghan cause any less valid.
As for solidifying the terrorist cause and not improving the lives of Afghan civilians - the Afghan war was a war of revenge, simple as that. After 9/11, the US was entitled to reciprocal action against the country that harboured their attackers. A cool-minded statesman might have reasoned that war wouldn't be the best way of pursuing US goals, but the political reality was that the American people wanted blood, and giving them the Afghans was the least bad option available. IIRC what I suggested at the time was that there should be a short but impressive demostration of power to satisfy the American people, then switch to other methods to make the most of the political capital the US had at that point. Why does the President of the US have less common sense than this amateur newswatcher?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
I agree that the American people, including me, were out for blood after September 11, and that the Afghan war was at least in part an act of revenge, but I do not agree that that is enough to justify it. (perhaps enough to make it inevitable, but not to justify) Justification, I think, takes a little more, namely considering the war an act of defense against an aggressor, which I think is the other part of what the war was. Apart from that, I agree with your post, Pannonian.
Ajax
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Simple, they have done poorly in the parts of afghanistan they took charge of. A larger special forces presence would have been better IMO. Even a US army presence would have done well.
You must admit, Canada has done quite well in their parts of the country, and Germany hasn't fared too poorly either. :book:
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
if you define "well" as not doing anything, then sure they're doing great :) unfortunately the NATO rules of engagement propagated by Canadian command prevent them from taking detainees, among other things. Which is sort of silly in the theatre.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Half jokingly, I fully approved of this action because of what the Taliban did to those ancient stone Buddahs. Absolutely disgusting.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
The demolition of the stone Buddhas really got my goat as well. Nobody should run around blowing up history.
This all reminds me of a woman I used to work with who forwarded me an email in '99 or '00 about how the Taliban brutalized women. It was quite detailed. I spoke to her later, and said that I understood everything in the email to be true, but what was the point? It wasn't as though those guys would bow to any sort of international pressure. The only way to change them would be by force.
"Oh, no, we're not advocating a war."
Then what is the point?
"We're raising awareness."
Raising awareness. All of these years later, I still don't think that's a worthwhile goal. While the Talibs oppressed and destroyed their own people and culture, you would have been hard-pressed to find an American who cared. Then everything changed very quickly.
I'm not sure if this anecdote has a point or not.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Isn't this removing from power thingie a bit, or better, terribly premature?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Regardless of Bin Laden himself, there was tons of evidence that Al Queda was operating training camps openly within Afghanistan.
And there is more: due to their historic ties (forged during the Soviet episode) the 'Arabs' as they were called were a dominant force within the Taliban regime itself. This was a major reason why Kabul wouldn't cough up their leader, close down their camps and confiscate their weapons. If you are looking for an example of a rogue regime, this was it. I have always supported the removal of that regime and I still do. I always knew that the occupation would be disastrous as well. But it was necessary to prevent the bigger of two evils. Sooner or later the Taliban/Al Qaeda regime in Kabul would, through its high-placed sympathizers in neighbouring Pakistan (the islamist secret service ISI and corrupt scientists like Dr Khan), have procured a nuclear capacity with which it would have unleashed the dogs of hell in the Middle East.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
[skips entire discussion up to this point]
Not justified.
Military strikes - maybe.
Invasion? No.
It was just a waste of time, money and resources.
Far better to bomb a few miliary bases/cities at a time until the government gets the point and surrenders OBL
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
[...]the American people wanted blood, and giving them the Afghans was the least bad option available.
That sounds like tribal behaviour to me, also reminds me of Jesus and Pilatus "oh, the people want it, so I give them some blood of strangers to make them shut up." And now the people complain about "all the losses" they are taking there(as if 2000 of almost 300million were a lot...).
IMO that doesn't throw a very good light on "the Americans".
It all depends on the viewpoint though, if you have the narrow-minded tribal viewpoint of a militarily superior "tribe", you can always go for the revenge option and from there it's just a step away from genocide in some peoples' minds(yeah, we have had this sort of "1000 afghans aren't worth a single american soldier's life"-comments here before).
I'm sounding anti-USA again, eh? Well, don't always remind me of the bad parts of US foreign policy.:sweatdrop:
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Let me reply by question.
Were the Tailban justified to removing Mudzahedins from Afghanistan?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapi
[skips entire discussion up to this point]
Not justified.
Military strikes - maybe.
Invasion? No.
It was just a waste of time, money and resources.
Far better to bomb a few miliary bases/cities at a time until the government gets the point and surrenders OBL
I agree. An invasion is to costly, the manpower would have been better served at home. The U.S. has the tactical ability to pinpoint bomb infrastructure from many miles away with minimal harm to its forces.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
well, alot of people do not understand that the taliban was a popular movement within afghanistan seen by a large majority of its population as legitimate, if not 'saviors' of the country from the turmoil after the soviet pull-out. the taliban originated as a group of religious crime-fighters if you will in khandahar, going after the roving rape and murder gangs in the south.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
The fundamental question of all this is: Did the US have the right to invade and occupy Afghanistan? I would say not.
The way I see it 11/09/01 was a strictly terrorist attack by a terrorist group or by those acting on behalf of a terrorist group, not on behalf of any regime, and certainly not on behalf of the Taliban regime. Yes there may have been an element, probably including the Taliban, laughing their socks off at the United States' misfortune, but the fact remains that there is no evidence that the Taliban regime orchestrated or carried out the attack . None of the terrorists themselves were Afghans, in fact they were mostly Saudis. The link to Al Qaeda was based on a Saudi in Afghanistan claiming that he had orchestrated the attacks. So you have a group of Saudis actually carrying out the attack and another Saudi claiming to have been behind it.
Many of you are also ignoring the excuses, and the lies. Bin Laden was never taken, and never brought to account. This was supposed to be the main objective/for going in there in the first place, but was in fact hollow propaganda. When the questions started popping up, the usual excuses started to get churned out, the Taliban were evil and needed to be removed etc. The same happened in Iraq after the WMD debacle, Saddam was harbouring terrorists, linked to Bin Laden even, false, the ba'athists were an evil and repressive regime, true, as were the Taliban,very true, and as are the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians and hundreds of other regimes worldwide. The problem I have with this is that invading on a trumped up pretext failing to find the man and then when it is obvious there's nothing else for it, they resort to the same old "they were evil/harbouring terrorists/thinking of building wmds/we're liberating them" line.
What I find disturbing is this very selective meddling in the affairs of other sovereign states (mostly middle eastern or asian ones that either have some of the worlds largest oil reserves or whose territory involves a certain pipeline) around the world. Not having same kind of faith in the US and UK governments as some of you, I'm not so sure that this meddling is for the good of those being meddled with. I also doubt it is for the good of US citizens or UK subjects.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
The fundamental question of all this is: Did the US have the right to invade and occupy Afghanistan? I would say not.
The way I see it 11/09/01 was a strictly terrorist attack by a terrorist group or by those acting on behalf of a terrorist group, not on behalf of any regime, and certainly not on behalf of the Taliban regime. Yes there may have been an element, probably including the Taliban, laughing their socks off at the United States' misfortune, but the fact remains that there is no evidence that the Taliban regime orchestrated or carried out the attack . None of the terrorists themselves were Afghans, in fact they were mostly Saudis. The link to Al Qaeda was based on a Saudi in Afghanistan claiming that he had orchestrated the attacks. So you have a group of Saudis actually carrying out the attack and another Saudi claiming to have been behind it.
Many of you are also ignoring the excuses, and the lies. Bin Laden was never taken, and never brought to account. This was supposed to be the main objective/for going in there in the first place, but was in fact hollow propaganda. When the questions started popping up, the usual excuses started to get churned out, the Taliban were evil and needed to be removed etc. The same happened in Iraq after the WMD debacle, Saddam was harbouring terrorists, linked to Bin Laden even, false, the ba'athists were an evil and repressive regime, true, as were the Taliban,very true, and as are the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians and hundreds of other regimes worldwide. The problem I have with this is that invading on a trumped up pretext failing to find the man and then when it is obvious there's nothing else for it, they resort to the same old "they were evil/harbouring terrorists/thinking of building wmds/we're liberating them" line.
What I find disturbing is this very selective meddling in the affairs of other sovereign states (mostly middle eastern or asian ones that either have some of the worlds largest oil reserves or whose territory involves a certain pipeline) around the world. Not having same kind of faith in the US and UK governments as some of you, I'm not so sure that this meddling is for the good of those being meddled with. I also doubt it is for the good of US citizens or UK subjects.
Yeah, but if we didn't invade Afghanistan how else would we get those killer contracts for the pipeline?:idea2:
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly handled.
Also shows a complete lack of understanding when dealing with terrorists by the White house. Afghanistan is once again in the hands of fractured warlords and drug dealers (yeah go occupying force!).
Liberation is definatley not a word one would throw around anywhere near the name Afghanistan niether is success.
Catastrophe or failure perhaps.
But hey, this is what happen in polotics, real morals are replaced with words and dirty dealing. People become statistics. Someone is making huge amounts of money somewhere, so there is a plus side.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Also shows a complete lack of understanding when dealing with terrorists by the White house. Afghanistan is once again in the hands of fractured warlords and drug dealers (yeah go occupying force!).
The Taliban no longer control the country and they are on the defensive. That is the most important result. And the greatest danger, an islamist take-over of Pakistan, is still clear and present. There is no way that Nato can leave the area without the direst consequences. God knows the present picture isn't pretty, but it would be far worse had this regime been allowed to govern and expand unchecked in the region.
The invasion was justified because the Taliban aided and abetted Al Qaeda, not because they personaly organised the 9/11 attacks. Any decent government would have handed over Bin and consorts at the drop of a rosary. Kabul didn't, so the invasion was necessary.
Sure, all states have 'dirty morals', particularly in war. But don't kid yourself that U.S. morals are similar to (or worse than) those of the Taliban. Such moral equivocation is worse than dirty morals.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
I'm afraid I voted Gah! because I can't really make up my mind. Back in 2001 I would've voted yes without a moment's doubt. 'Revenge for 9/11/making sure it wouldn't happen again' and the removal of a dangerous regime was legitimation enough for me back then. But now, I have a double feeling.
The Taliban never was defeated utterly, the goverment is weak, conditions haven't improved that much and the war has claimed many lives, and didn't achieve what it wanted. Sure AQ has to move its base of operations, but Osama still lives and nobody knows where he is. And then I consider that the hijackers of the planes on 9/11 weren't Afghani's and that it does make sense that a country refuses to hand over inhabitants/friends of the regime to a regime it doesn't 'like' and whose justice system it doesn't accept. I mean, even the USA isn't going to hand over some of it's 'war criminals' to the International Court in The Hague and they are arguably not as biased as American judges after 9/11.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
The invasion was justified because the Taliban aided and abetted Al Qaeda, not because they personaly organised the 9/11 attacks.
But that wasn't the justification was it , the justification was non-compliance with the ultimatum , just as the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum was the justification for war against Serbia .
The ultimatum the US issued was crap , yet was not open for discussion or negotiation and had to be accepted immediately . That pile of crap removes the proper justification .
Quote:
Any decent government would have handed over Bin and consorts at the drop of a rosary. Kabul didn't, so the invasion was necessary.
No government would have accepted the ultimatum given .
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
No government would have accepted the ultimatum given .
As Jar-Jar Binks would say, exqweeeze me? Governments hand over criminals all the time. It's called extradition. They even sign agreements to do it automatically.
I really don't understand how you can call our demand for Bin Laden & Co. unreasonable.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Sorry Tribesman, I have to disagree with you on this point. The Taliban already had UN resolutions against them for harboring Al Queda after the embassy bombings. It's your contention that they had the right to continue to do so and we were wrong for insisting they turn them over? Telling the Taliban to do so is 'a pile of crap'?
In your own words, just how much aid and abetment can you give an international criminal before you're complicit in their crimes?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Telling the Taliban to do so is 'a pile of crap'?
Quote:
I really don't understand how you can call our demand for Bin Laden & Co. unreasonable.
Well thats two quick and easy ones ... read what I wrote . Especially the post when I voted .......Sad :shrug: , but it is the only possible answer .
Or even better read the ultimatum .:yes:
If you want to you can even do a compare and contrast with the other ultimatum I mentioned .
Then come back and try and tell me it wasn't a pile of crap .
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
As I understand it, the ultimatum issued was pretty simple and straight forward "Surrender Bin Laden and the other leaders of Al Queda holed up in your country or face the consequences". Is that how you remember it as well, T?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Try again Don , your memory already let you down earlier in the topic .~;)
Or try the compare and contrast , that might be fun .:2thumbsup:
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
But that wasn't the justification was it , the justification was non-compliance with the ultimatum , just as the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum was the justification for war against Serbia .
But that wasn't the start of the affair was it? The ultimatum was the last stage of a lenghty period of diplomacy.
When was the frist time Osama bin Laden was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for the killing of five Americans in Riyadh?
And when was the second indictment for the embassy bombings in Africa?
Which former U.S. President had tried in vain to get him extradited? And when were two UNSC Resolutions adopted that called for sanctions against Afghanistan as long as Kabul did not extradite Osams bin Laden?
How many years passed before the U.S. finally had enough and decided it couldn't sit back and wait for another major attack by Al Qaeda orchestrated out of Afghanistan?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Try again Don , your memory already let you down earlier in the topic .~;)
Or try the compare and contrast , that might be fun .:2thumbsup:
Sorry, I'm not playing your game today. You're either going to have to commit actually making a direct statement, or I have to dismiss your position as "the US has no right to defend itself no matter what threats it faced". You're free to continue to use your usual obfuscation all you care to.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
You're either going to have to commit actually making a direct statement
I already have .
Quote:
or I have to dismiss your position as "the US has no right to defend itself no matter what threats it faced".
That would be a rather silly thing to say .
Quote:
But that wasn't the start of the affair was it?
It doesn't matter if it was the start or not , it was the justification used .
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Let me put it another way. Perhaps you could tell me what the ultimatum that you view as so unfair was?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
It doesn't matter if it was the start or not , it was the justification used .
Oh, but it does matter. The diplomatic wrangling between Washington and Kabul over Osama had been going on for three whole years, hadn't it?
And do you remember all the laughable pretexts the Taliban came up with? "Osama went missing" - that was a good one. Osama was the son-in-law of Taliban leader Mullah Omar, for Christ's sake, and we were supposed to believe they 'couldn't find him'. Personally I loved the one about extradition being a breach of their 'time-honoured Afghan hospitality'.
After three years of diplomacy and tugs of war (and three terrorist attacks, each one more devastating than the previous one) the U.S. gave the Taliban a final choice: either you root up Al Qaeda's organisation on your territory to our complete satisfaction, or we will do it for you and we will treat you as its accomplices. Even after 9/11 the U.S. offered to let Osama be extradited to, and tried in, a third country. The Taliban refused. The invasion was the only option left to Washington.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Why are you trying so hard Don. Any question posed to tribesman in which he can side with the US or X, he will side with X - even if it happens to be the Taliban and OBL. :shame:
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
I don't think it's quite so simple as that, PJ. I will grant you that he does appear to be allowing the Taliban quite a bit of latitude here, or at least he appears to be, which is why I'd like to know what he actually thinks the ultimatum that was so impossible to fulfill was. The one I'm familiar with sounds not only reasonable, but is actually done around the world by other nations, on a regular basis.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Why are you trying so hard Don. Any question posed to tribesman in which he can side with the US or X, he will side with X - even if it happens to be the Taliban and OBL. :shame:
Oh, give him some credit. Based on his track record in this forum (I don't know anything else about him) I would trust Tribesman almost blindly to take the right side in any conflict. But he hates sloppy thinking and easy-going majority views. That's his basic attitude. I sometimes share it.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
While I agree with you Adrian that there is frequently more to Tribesman's views than may initially meet the eye, I don't think that's the case here. If I understand him, and his comments about the period between 9/11/2001 and 10/14/2001; he appears to be making the point that the Taliban was in fact justified in refusing to turn over OBL and that the USA was unjustified in demanding that they do, hence the war to enforce that demand (and the other 4) was bogus. Correct, T?
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses II
What I find disturbing is this very selective meddling in the affairs of other sovereign states (mostly middle eastern or asian ones that either have some of the worlds largest oil reserves or whose territory involves a certain pipeline) around the world. Not having same kind of faith in the US and UK governments as some of you, I'm not so sure that this meddling is for the good of those being meddled with. I also doubt it is for the good of US citizens or UK subjects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Yeah, but if we didn't invade Afghanistan how else would we get those killer contracts for the pipeline?
Right, the famed Afghan pipeline. I almost forgot about that. You folks clearly must be using Fahrenheit 911 as a primary source. The theory proposed by Mr. Moore ws that we rushed into war with Afghanistan so that Haliburton could rush in and build a trans-Afghan pipeline and drain oil and gas out of central Russia.
As urgent as it was, seems a little odd that no construction has yet started, close to 6 years later.
-
Re: Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
Quote:
Oh, but it does matter. The diplomatic wrangling between Washington and Kabul over Osama had been going on for three whole years, hadn't it?
You wouldn't be on about the 33 admitted discussions would you ?
(perhaps there are more that are not yet admitted)
Quote:
While I agree with you Adrian that there is frequently more to Tribesman's views than may initially meet the eye
Keep thinking Don:2thumbsup:
Oh dear.......
Quote:
I don't think that's the case here. If I understand him, and his comments about the period between 9/11/2001 and 10/14/2001; he appears to be making the point that the Taliban was in fact justified in refusing to turn over OBL and that the USA was unjustified in demanding that they do, hence the war to enforce that demand (and the other 4) was bogus. Correct, T?
Have I once mentioned Bin Laden in this topic ?