When is war justified or when it is simply imperialism

[a completely inoffensive name]

America always shows it's ugly colors when it finds itself under attack on its own soil. The only problem was, WW2 had a definite ending so we made up at the end and stopped committing crimes against humanity on the Japs. This war has no end, so the anger has no resolution, it just broods and manifests itself has long term imperialism in some and constant fear in others.

Split from 9/11 thread.

[Vuk]

Where do you draw the line between wanting to keep your country safe and free from attack and being a 'dangerous imperialist' exactly?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Where do you draw the line between wanting to keep your country safe and free from attack and being a 'dangerous imperialist' exactly?

When you support a war based off of false information. When you support practices that have on the record gotten no useful information because it was so arduous that suspects told the interviewer anything they wanted whether it was true or not (we call this torture for short).

When you make the argument that people should "have nothing to hide" when it comes to intrusions of privacy and that warrantless wiretapping/searches are only big deals to criminals. The list goes on and on, but you won't listen and I don't know why I bother replying to you.

[Vuk]

When you support a war based off of false information. When you support practices that have on the record gotten no useful information because it was so arduous that suspects told the interviewer anything they wanted whether it was true or not (we call this torture for short).

When you make the argument that people should "have nothing to hide" when it comes to intrusions of privacy and that warrantless wiretapping/searches are only big deals to criminals. The list goes on and on, but you won't listen and I don't know why I bother replying to you.

Because you are so pretty?
I'll tell you what, this isn't the appropriate thread for this discussion, so I was wondering if the mods could copy the last six posts into a new thread, as none of them really belong here, and we should not discuss this any further here.

[Beskar]

Where do you draw the line between wanting to keep your country safe and free from attack and being a 'dangerous imperialist' exactly?

Where you randomly invade countries with no acceptable jurisdiction or international support to impose your military/economic/political dominance on that area.

By this definition, assisting the rebels in Libya is not being a "dangerous imperialist" (Neither is assisting the Syrian ones)*. Operation Iraqi Liberation and also arguably Afghanistan were.


*If said assistance is validated by the international community (UN).

[rvg]

Where you randomly invade countries with no acceptable jurisdiction or international support to impose your military/economic/political dominance on that area.

By this definition, assisting the rebels in Libya is not being a "dangerous imperialist" (Neither is assisting the Syrian ones). Operation Iraqi Liberation and also arguably Afghanistan were.

In Afghanistan we were assisting the Northern Alliance in overthrowing the Taliban. How is that different from Libya?

[Beskar]

In Afghanistan we were assisting the Northern Alliance in overthrowing the Taliban. How is that different from Libya?

No... Operation Enduring Freedom actually caused a civil war with what is called the "Northern Alliance" against the Taliban government with no UN support. The Libya situation was massacres by the government upon the civilian population and it was pretty much a full blown civil war before the UN passed the resolution for Nato and others to act.

Here is an interesting article on the international laws broken in Afghanistan.

[Major Robert Dump]

Crimes against humanity vs the Japanese.

Believe me, they were better off not having their mainland invaded. Far more would have died. Read up on what happened on Saipan and Guam to give you an indication. The general Japanese population had no idea what their army had done in China, and would have followed suit to what went down in Guam and Saipan, right down to the women and children.

[Major Robert Dump]

No... Operation Enduring Freedom actually caused a civil war with what is called the "Northern Alliance" against the Taliban government with no UN support. The Libya situation was massacres by the government upon the civilian population and it was pretty much a full blown civil war before the UN passed the resolution for Nato and others to act.

Here is an interesting article on the international laws broken in Afghanistan.

You apparently were not aware that the Northern Allaince was fighting the Taliban pretty much since the Russians left and well before America arrived. The front lines of this war split the country, and the villages on the front lines were repeatedly brutalized by both sides for being co-conspirators with the others, with the lines moving forward and back over and over. Up until OEF and well into it, it was still common practice for the victors of such a village fight to take the teenage girls and young children as spoils, just as the Koran says to do.

So no, OEF did not "cause a civil war."

When the Northern allaince commanders and the former Taliban commanders started forging coalition partnerships a few years back, there would often be bedrudguing comments made about this, such as saying "we are practically related (due to the rapes) so we might as well be allies)

[Strike For The South]

[Major Robert Dump]

Good. I like chicken. I really like eggs, too.

[HoreTore]

Where do you draw the line between wanting to keep your country safe and free from attack and being a 'dangerous imperialist' exactly?

Easy.

A justified war is a Popular revolution. An unjustified war is one without a popular revolution.

So, Libya was justified, Iraq was not.

[HoreTore]

In Afghanistan we were assisting the Northern Alliance in overthrowing the Taliban. How is that different from Libya?

The Northern Alliance was a collection of warlords and their armies fighting for heroin - it was not a revolt of the people, like in Libya.

There have been such movements in Afghanistan though: the commies, the mujaheddin until the civil war and, arguably, the Taliban.

[rvg]

The Northern Alliance was a collection of warlords and their armies fighting for heroin - it was not a revolt of the people, like in Libya.

There have been such movements in Afghanistan though: the commies, the mujaheddin until the civil war and, arguably, the Taliban.

And Libyan opposition was a collection of tribal elders fighting for oil. Same deal.

[HoreTore]

And Libyan opposition was a collection of tribal elders fighting for oil. Same deal.

Nonsense. The level of popular support is day and night compared to the northern alliance(who were genrally as despised as the taliban). A better comparison for the libyan opposition would be the mujaheddin during the 80's.

And considering that ol' Gaffy bribed everyone and their mother with oil money, I do wonder where you came up with the idea that they were in it for the oil. Why on earth would they cut off a stable source of oil...?

[rvg]

The level of popular support is day and night compared to the northern alliance(who were genrally as despised as the taliban).

You got some numbers to back that up?

[Vuk]

Easy.

A justified war is a Popular revolution. An unjustified war is one without a popular revolution.

So, Libya was justified, Iraq was not.

After all, look how good that turned out for us.

[Vuk]

When you support a war based off of false information. When you support practices that have on the record gotten no useful information because it was so arduous that suspects told the interviewer anything they wanted whether it was true or not (we call this torture for short).

When you make the argument that people should "have nothing to hide" when it comes to intrusions of privacy and that warrantless wiretapping/searches are only big deals to criminals. The list goes on and on, but you won't listen and I don't know why I bother replying to you.

First of all, when that war started (which was when it had the most support) the intelligence communities of ever respectable nation believed there were WMDs in Iraq, or at least the capabilities. It turns out that they did have the capabilities. They were developing long range strike solutions, they had the scientists, most of the materials, the blueprints, etc, etc. As soon as our inspectors were gone, they would have started developing them, and then we would have another Iran on our hands.
As far as so-called 'torture', a lot of the intelligence community would argue with you that enhanced interrogation techniques do not get results. Again though, most Americans were not aware they were even happening when they supported going to war. It wasn't till later in the war that that came up (coincidently, when support for the war was really low)

As far as wiretapping, the Patriot act didn't do that. Law enforcement already could do that with suspected mobsters. All it did was make it where the intelligence community could do the same exact thing that law enforcement already could.

[Major Robert Dump]

You got some numbers to back that up?

He probably does not.

However, the NA (or, the United Front, as they called themselves) was guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, just not on the same scope as the Taliban. Also, the NA/UF did not generally treat their women like cattle and commodities, and did not initiate movements of ethnic cleansing.

I would also disagree at his contention that this was a fight over Heroin. It went far, far deeper than that. The Taliban were Johnny-come-lateleys who arrived on the scene with the backing of Pakistanis and warped Saudis. This was religious, this was about land and property, this was about control of resources (heroin) and this was about extorting international funds from donor nations to clean up mines and develop infrasctructre, which in the Talibans case, they used to buy weapons, live luxurious lives while their people suffered, and build a whopping six miles of paved road... around their HQ of course.

The Northern Allaince as recognized by the UN. The Taliban was not.

[Major Robert Dump]

First of all, when that war started (which was when it had the most support) the intelligence communities of ever respectable nation believed there were WMDs in Iraq, or at least the capabilities. It turns out that they did have the capabilities. They were developing long range strike solutions, they had the scientists, most of the materials, the blueprints, etc, etc. As soon as our inspectors were gone, they would have started developing them, and then we would have another Iran on our hands.
As far as so-called 'torture', a lot of the intelligence community would argue with you that enhanced interrogation techniques do not get results. Again though, most Americans were not aware they were even happening when they supported going to war. It wasn't till later in the war that that came up (coincidently, when support for the war was really low)

As far as wiretapping, the Patriot act didn't do that. Law enforcement already could do that with suspected mobsters. All it did was make it where the intelligence community could do the same exact thing that law enforcement already could.

Yes, God Forbid we had another Iran. I cannot think of a worse fate for the universe.

And of course all of this justified rushing into a war, compeltely unprepared for the consequences, as all those resectable nations you speak of were begging us to wait a little while longer, and people like you were calling people like me a coward, or unpatriotic, and talking about freedom fries....

So totally worth thousands of American deaths, thousands more wounded, and enormous civilian casualties and helping to bankrupt the nation. Yes, more of this please.

[HoreTore]

He probably does not.

The Taliban wiuld never have gained eniugh support to take control of almost the entire country if the warlordw had not engaged in a civil war which tired out an already tired population. The Taliban was, as I'm sure you know, founded as a protest movement to the behaviour of the warlords. It started as a few men who executed a man who had raped one or two local girls(can't remember); it's tremendously fast growth would never have occured if most of the population did not hate the warlords.

[rvg]

The Taliban wiuld never have gained eniugh support to take control of almost the entire country if the warlordw had not engaged in a civil war which tired out an already tired population. The Taliban was, as I'm sure you know, founded as a protest movement to the behaviour of the warlords. It started as a few men who executed a man who had raped one or two local girls(can't remember); it's tremendously fast growth would never have occured if most of the population did not hate the warlords.

Taliban started out in Pakistan. The reason they we able to gain ground in Afghanistan is because they are a Pashto movement. About 40% of Afghanistan (a plurality) is Pashto. The Taliban treated minorities non-Pashto horribly, regardless of their religious affiliation. Northern Alliance was primarily non-Pashto, and thus represented the interests of the majority.

[HoreTore]

Taliban started out in Pakistan. The reason they we able to gain ground in Afghanistan is because they are a Pashto movement. About 40% of Afghanistan (a plurality) is Pashto. The Taliban treated minorities non-Pashto horribly, regardless of their religious affiliation. Northern Alliance was primarily non-Pashto, and thus represented the interests of the majority.

Oh really? I believe you are in over your head, dear sir.

Hekmatyar, Sayyat, Mojadeddi, Haq and Sherzai are all Pashto.

Mullah Omar started his movement, according to the tale, with 40 men outside Kandahar. They were joined in a few months by around 15.000 men educated in pakistani madrassas(thus the name), with mixed origins. 15.040 untrained hillbillys is quite a long way from what you need to subdue a hostile population containing several armies with over a decade of combat experience.

[rvg]

Oh really? I believe you are in over your head, dear sir.

Hekmatyar, Sayyat, Mojadeddi, Haq and Sherzai are all Pashto.

That's four men. The alliance was quite bigger than that. You also conveniently overlooked its leader Masood, who was a Tajik, as well as Gen. Dostum who is an Uzbek.

Mullah Omar started his movement, according to the tale, with 40 men outside Kandahar. They were joined in a few months by around 15.000 men educated in pakistani madrassas(thus the name), with mixed origins. 15.040 untrained hillbillys is quite a long way from what you need to subdue a hostile population containing several armies with over a decade of combat experience.

15,040 Pashto hillbillies. Their ranks grew because they were Pashto.

[HoreTore]

That's four men. The alliance was quite bigger than that. You also conveniently overlooked its leader Masood, who was a Tajik, as well as Gen. Dostum who is an Uzbek.

15,040 Pashto hillbillies. Their ranks grew because they were Pashto.

Are you seriously suggesting that Taliban rose to power because of their ethnic affiliation...?

If so, I don't really see any point in arguing further with someone who spits in the face of established knowledge.

The five men I listed, btw, would all fit in the "top 10 most important warlords"-category*. Meaning that half of the top brass of the warlord period were pashto. If you want more names, I can gladly give you more: just state the appropriate number of names that will satisfy you, and I'll name them. There's a wealth of rabid loonies to choose from, it won't be much of a hassle....

And while Masood was one of the more generally liked warlords, Dostum was arguably the most hated one of the whole lot. You score zero points.

*well, at least four of them. I included Sherzai because he was the governor of Kandahar at the time Omar started out.

[Greyblades]

I think I'll be honest this time; I dont much care if war is well justified, as long as it doesnt make things worse in the long run.

[rvg]

Are you seriously suggesting that Taliban rose to power because of their ethnic affiliation...?

Yes.

If so, I don't really see any point in arguing further with someone who spits in the face of established knowledge.

Established by whom? Can you enlighten me with your sources?

The five men I listed, btw, would all fit in the "top 10 most important warlords"-category*.

How many of them were in Northern Alliance? Certainly not Hekmatyar.

Meaning that half of the top brass of the warlord period were pashto. If you want more names, I can gladly give you more: just state the appropriate number of names that will satisfy you, and I'll name them. There's a wealth of rabid loonies to choose from, it won't be much of a hassle....

And?

And while Masood was one of the more generally liked warlords, Dostum was arguably the most hated one of the whole lot.

And?

You score zero points.

I didn't realize we were tallying points.

[Vuk]

Yes, God Forbid we had another Iran. I cannot think of a worse fate for the universe.

And of course all of this justified rushing into a war, compeltely unprepared for the consequences, as all those resectable nations you speak of were begging us to wait a little while longer, and people like you were calling people like me a coward, or unpatriotic, and talking about freedom fries....

So totally worth thousands of American deaths, thousands more wounded, and enormous civilian casualties and helping to bankrupt the nation. Yes, more of this please.

An Iraq with WMD would have been disasterous to the region. When we were going after terrorists in the Middle East, and we have a dictator on friendly terms with them who has worked with them in the past, how is them gaining WMDs not a threat? Sure, Iraq was careful to never let any links be proven, but again, Western intelligence was almost certain they were involved with terrorists, and just covered up their tracks. You really think that if they got WMDs they would not end up being used against us or our allies in a terrorists attack?
Also, you are wrong, those respectable nations who shared our interests did help us. The French who were making big bucks off of Saddam would never help us, and of course that was not part of Russia's foriegn policy either. Those who did not help us did not have our interests at heart. Did we really need 100% of world nations to give us the ok before we took pre-emptive action to protect ourselves.
If Bush had not done what he had done, and a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon was deployed by terrorists on American soil, you and all the liberals out there would be tearing Bush for being a weak leader and not taking the initiative to stop the threat before it was realized. Since he avoided that future, you now criticize it because it never happened.

I talked about freedom fries? I called you a coward? I called you unpatriotic? Please show me where!
I will call you a liar, based on the above post though. I will also say that I think you are wrong about the war. No, I don't like everything about it and how it was conducted, but it is probably better that it happened than it didn't.

[Major Robert Dump]

The Taliban wiuld never have gained eniugh support to take control of almost the entire country if the warlordw had not engaged in a civil war which tired out an already tired population. The Taliban was, as I'm sure you know, founded as a protest movement to the behaviour of the warlords. It started as a few men who executed a man who had raped one or two local girls(can't remember); it's tremendously fast growth would never have occured if most of the population did not hate the warlords.

This completely ignores the Pakistani desire to annex Eastern Afghanistan and funding a popular movement with money and bodies by promising to turn Afghanistan into a bug muslim frat boy party where the men were men and the women were commodities. The United Front did not have such support, and by yours or my standards the United Front was liberal compared to the Taliban. In northern Afghanistan women walk about uncovered and people do not need to ride in armored vehicles because is is a compeltely different mindset than the monsters in the south.

I freely admit that the warlords did bad things, but not nearly as bad as the Taliban. The idea that this was some sort of popular movement is comical, considering there was very little infrastructure, print media, broadcast media, no cell phones and no internet. Your idea of a popular movement is my idea of some goat herers exchanging runors.

If the Taliban was so popular, they why was there brutal fighting to take Kabul?

[Major Robert Dump]

An Iraq with WMD would have been disasterous to the region. When we were going after terrorists in the Middle East, and we have a dictator on friendly terms with them who has worked with them in the past, how is them gaining WMDs not a threat? Sure, Iraq was careful to never let any links be proven, but again, Western intelligence was almost certain they were involved with terrorists, and just covered up their tracks. You really think that if they got WMDs they would not end up being used against us or our allies in a terrorists attack?
Also, you are wrong, those respectable nations who shared our interests did help us. The French who were making big bucks off of Saddam would never help us, and of course that was not part of Russia's foriegn policy either. Those who did not help us did not have our interests at heart. Did we really need 100% of world nations to give us the ok before we took pre-emptive action to protect ourselves.
If Bush had not done what he had done, and a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon was deployed by terrorists on American soil, you and all the liberals out there would be tearing Bush for being a weak leader and not taking the initiative to stop the threat before it was realized. Since he avoided that future, you now criticize it because it never happened.

I talked about freedom fries? I called you a coward? I called you unpatriotic? Please show me where!
I will call you a liar, based on the above post though. I will also say that I think you are wrong about the war. No, I don't like everything about it and how it was conducted, but it is probably better that it happened than it didn't.

Learn to read. I said "people like you."

I love how WMDs becomes "chemical and biological" weapons when we delve into the debate. We knew he had chems and bios, because we freaking gave them to him. The war was sold to the public as if Saddaam had big NUKILLER missiles pointed at the united states. When that fell through we started getting talk of "Dirty Bombs" which further demonstrates the average american knows nothing about how wepaons grade nuclear materials work, and that dirty bombs are eseentially impossible in the scope of which they are advertised. We found some trailers and some empty storage facilites. We went to war over mustard gas.

And even if he did have nuclear weapons and anything less than a warhead pointed at us, the idea that we can walk unprepared into a country and bomb it into oblivion while sacrificng thousands of troops over an abstract political idea is quite frankly disgusting. Even more disgusting are the civ cas coverups, which you should not have to cover up if, you know, your war is justified. Even more disgusting were the war profiteers and the substandard "Services" they rendered our troops while making billions of dollars for them and their cronies in DC.

Everything about Iraq was wrong. EVERYTHING. It was not worth the cost, not now, not ever.

Ironic that Iran and Iraq were enemies. Maybe if saddam got his nukes we wouldn't be having this Iran Issue right now, OMGUS