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

[KrooK]

Let me reply by question.
Were the Tailban justified to removing Mudzahedins from Afghanistan?

[caravel]

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.

[Zaknafien]

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?

[Incongruous]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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?

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.