What about what Americans want? We’re being robbed of a trillion dollars for… nothing anyone can clearly explain.
Paul is honorably motivated to go fight the butt-raping America-attackers, but Paul, please, can you point out which of the Muslims we’ve killed attacked America? Most if not all of them are reacting to an invasion.
Why do we need a permanent presence of 100,000 troops across the world in this backwater again? Please don’t cite a poll- I’d love for soldiers to do my laundry and dishes every day, but I admit there is a limit to what other people ought to do for me. Do you have any limit to your kill 'em all policy, Paul?
Zanthor, I’ve shortened the text you quoted from that article. Please don’t copy and paste entire articles into posts here. It violates our copyright policy. A link and a relevant quote will do the trick. I couldn’t help noticing that the article did not so much as mention Afghanistan, but I’ll leave it to others to discuss whether or not that matters.
This debate is also getting more and more personal. I suggest to everybody that you stick to the issues instead of making comments like this:
We were allied with the same guys when they were fighting the Soviets. Our influence really worked on them, didn’t it?
You just keep on believing. I’m off to Amsterdam to watch Holland lose in the World Cup final and enjoy some of Afghanistan’s finest exported products.
oops sorry, wrong post, wrong thread, my mistake.
thank you for correcting it.
try this then,
you decide, again, how relevant.
Tomgram: William Astore, Operation Enduring War
Posted by William Astore at 11:00am, July 8, 2010.
excerpt from article.
Some words have a way of enduring. Take “endure.” As the Bush administration headed into Iraq in the spring of 2003, the Pentagon already had plans on the drawing board to build at least four gigantic American bases in that country and garrison them for the long haul. But when questioned on the subject, administration officials and spokespeople were eager to avoid linking the word “permanent” to those as-yet-unbuilt bases and so, for a while, referred to them instead as “enduring camps,” a phrase that had a certain charm and none of the ominous overtones of “permanent base.” In the end, of course, more than four massive bases were built and garrisoned. Given the slow American drawdown in that country, their fate remains unknown – and typically discussed in the U.S. – but as of this moment, they still “endure” and, huge as they are, they couldn’t look more permanent.
snip.
Now, hop a couple of thousand miles to another war, Afghanistan, and a newly appointed war commander testifying before the Senate in his confirmation hearings. Responding to questions about President Obama’s previously announced decision to begin some kind of an American drawdown there in July 2011, General David Petraeus spent much time playing down the significance of that date (as did the president). He even brought up the possibility that the date could be delayed. In the process, choosing his words with care, he said this: “It is important to note the President’s reminder in recent days that July 2011 will mark the beginning of a process, not the date when the U.S. heads for the exits and turns out the lights. As he explained this past Sunday, in fact, 'we’ll need to provide assistance to Afghanistan for a long time to come
article continues. … lengthy… …
Dear Mod, if i have made these excerpts too long, please modify at your discretion.
Of course, these facts (if that is the right term) have no necessary bearing on the question of whether the United States mission in Afghanistan is morally or strategically justifiable.
Funny, that’s not how the extradition system works. “You are asking us to extradite someone, and we will not do that. We will, however, send him to another country so that he can be tried by a religious system of laws that have nothing to do with yours. Cool?”
Where is your sense of personal responsibility? If you aim your gun, fire, shoot and kill the guy, you have committed murder.
Yes, you may be doing it under orders. You may not be held responsible. It could even be the right thing to do (not common). But it is murder, however you kill the enemy.
Here on Earth, murder is one form of unlawful manslaughter. Killing in war is permitted within the limits of law. By definition, killing an armed enemy by legal means on a battlefield is not murder.
Unless the words are defined differently where you come from. Please explain.
Where I come from, if there is a guy on the ground with a bullet in his head, words don’t change the facts. The guy who shot him, killed him. And that is murder. Definitions? There is a dead guy whom you killed. Why not recognize the associated rationalization for what it is?
Yes, a state of war renders it legal. But remember, in general, by no means does legal != ‘not bullshit’.
I want to add that I do not think you are either stupid or evil, Paul. I am not pointing this out to disparage you.
Do you think the dead Muslims of ‘Afghanistan’ would even recognize the borders as ‘their’ country? Were they under the command of Osama Bin Laden? Is a ‘battlefield’ anything your commanders draw a circle around on a map and send troops into, and therefore an ‘enemy’ anyone who objects to armed foreigners marching into their neighborhood? Even if these people have no connection whatsoever to some arch-terrorist who ten years ago happened to cross into the circle your commanders drew on a map?
There is wordplay, and then there are dead people.
Of course killing someone can be legal and still murder; you are ignoring the distinction between legal and moral. If it was legally not considered murder for a slaver to kill a slave because slaves were considered property not people, did that make it any less murder? Of course not.
No, sir I do not disregard the difference between moral and legal. I have made no case along those lines. I make the case for plain speaking and clear understanding.
Murder is illegal, that is what it means. A lawful killing cannot be murder. Elsewise, we violate Noncontrition.
Those who use muddy definitions often do it to conceal muddy thinking.
Not a waste, but wasteful. It really depends on the stated goals. Initially for instance, Obama said in March 2009 the goal was to dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda and dictating Afghanistan’s future was not apart of that. However, McChrystal had been trying to “win” the war by out-fighting and out-governing the Taliban (basically your stated goals above). That’s a difference in goals.
Of course this changed in Dec 2009 when Obama changed the plans more to “win.” I don’t think that is possible. Stabilizing Afghanistan can take decades, if possible, and we won’t commit to that. We need to stabilize as much as possible and then leave. We need to end the rule of the Taliban as much as possible, then leave.
This is effectively the plan. Surge troops and stabilize and remove the Taliban as much as possible, thus showing the Afghans it can be done. Leave and hope the Afghans newly trained troops can continue the plan in our significantly diminished absence. Petraus will try for the same ends, but can either continue McChrystals means (winning hearts and minds by not killing civilians) or use what worked for Petraus in Iraq (killing and/or buying off insurgents).
If the new plan works, it’s been wasteful, but not a complete waste. If it doesn’t, it’s just a lot more wasteful because any gains we’ve made (removing Al Qaeda, will be able to return). Of course, you’re asking about the entire time we’ve been there, and much of that time (say 2002ish-2008ish) was a waste. No matter how it turns out, it didn’t need to take this long.
My point is that the distinction between legal and illegal is a matter of moving some paperwork. Meanwhile, there is no distinction between ‘dead’ and ‘dead’.
Nonsense. You are attempting to use a distorted version of the word murder, the sort of definition that a fanatic or tyrant would use to justify his acts.
Your statement is ridiculous. It implies that a tyrant can’t commit murder if he bothers to make killing someone legal first. And it implies that in societies where there is no law, murder is impossible. Were there no murders before law was invented? Your definition is narrow to the point of worthlessness, and really only useful to excuse killings by those powerful enough to have them declared legal.
Then perhaps you shouldn’t use such a “muddy” definition.