Is the war still justified by 911 when it was so long ago? The most Al Qeada in Afghanistan is supposed to be 100. It could be less or none.That according to Gen McChrystal. There are no Al Qeada training camps now.
Some of the planning for 911 was in Hamburg. Should we attack Germany next?
They also met in Montreal . Can we let the Canadians escape responsibility?
This war is stupid. It is probably about an oil pipeline through Turkey and then through Afghanistan.
Nobody formally declares war anymore. The legality of us using force in Afghanistan is justified by the AUMF statute passed by Congress in 2001. There is no expiration/sunset date in the statute, so it must be repealed by Congress or Congress must stop appropriating money to fund the war effort.
re: war time killing. It doesn’t matter if there is a formal declaration of war for there to be a “war.” “War” is determined by reality. Reality states there is a war (two opposing sides shooting at each other), thus it is a war time killing and legal (assuming no laws of war are violated, ie, killing a medic, intentionally killing a civilian, ect.)
How does it differ from a police action? With your def in downtown Detroit we have war.
Then they shouldn’t be allowed to have them, the corner-cuttin’ sonsabitches.
How does it differ from a police action? With your def in downtown Detroit we have war.
You raise a very interesting and troubling point. When does a police action rise to the level of a war (armed conflict). I’m really not aware of what’s going on in Detroit, but let’s use the 1991 LA riots as an example, if that’s ok.
First, it’s not a nation vs. nation conflict. So it has to be an internal armed conflict, if any. Second, there is no bright line when a police action rises to an armed conflict, but some factors to consider would be:
(1) Are the gangs organized or is there just a bunch of people fuckin’ shit up?
(2) Is the crime sporadic or systematic?
(3) Do the gangs control any territory?
(4) What is the Governments response?
Here, California did say they could not control the situation and asked the President to send in federal troops (or place the State troops under federal control). The gangs may have briefly, albeit unintentionally, controlled some territory. But there was no organization and the crime was just looting and random beatings of police, citizens, other gangs, whomever. They weren’t trying to hold the territory either, no intent to “take over,” no killing to repel the Gov’t, ect ect. So just a police action in this instance, although escalated very much.
Contrasted to Afghanistan (hard to compare, because it’s State v. State), it’s very different. But just for sake of argument…Organized (Taliban), systematic crime instead of random looting, beatings, ect., they do and want to control territory, Gov’t response is the full weight of American military.
Our little trip into Afghanistan is not nation vs nation. Neither Al Qeadaor the Taliban are countries. Bush called it a war because he wanted the powers it granted him. But it is not a war.
The Taliban was governing Afghanistan when we invaded that nation. Thus, it is a state v. state conflict. Why do you think it is not state v. state?
Al Qaeda is different and much more controversial. However, Bush, Obama, Congress, US Supreme Court, NATO, and the UN (kinda) all think a terrorist organization can be in an armed conflict with a nation. A transnational armed conflict, if you will. Many well respected organizations disagree with that, though.
Also, many people disagree you can simultaneously be in a state v. state conflict and in that same territory, be in a non-international armed conflict with a non-state.
In regards to Afghanistan: Part of me wants to napalm every opium field in that country (and those around it). After the napalm, we salt the earth, so they can’t grow opium again. Then kill every single warlord - they are all evil - they are all liars. then kill everyone who objects.
Obviously, this isn’t a reasonable solution. So, another part of me just wants to immediately pull our troops out (Iraq too). Fuck the rest of the world, we in the US have our own problems to deal with and are sick and tired of being the world’s police force. (No offense intended to any allies who also participate in the ‘police-forcing’ of the world)
A third part of me wants to stay the course with the hope that there is somehow something to be gained, not just for the US and its allies, but for the reasonable people of Afghanistan.
In short: I am conflicted.
There was a bombing ,perhaps Al Qeada backed, in Uganda today. So we have to attack Uganda after we do Pakistan. Where does iran fit into the scenario? If we think Al Qeada is in a country ,I guess we are forced to attack them. I read that there are more than 40 countries with some Al Qeada in them. we have so much to do.
That is ‘the easy way out,’ nuke them from orbit and all that. It is immoral and would not work. There is no historical example of such a thing working. (Historical, get out of here Punic Wars.)
We need to use force, certainly, but that is just a means of using other forms of power to change the way the Afghans think and live. That is quite a bit harder, but has many historical examples.
Errm, because I am not American, and I don’t particularly care for it?
No. The Ugandan Government is not knowingly harboring terrorists who inflicted thousands of deaths of Americans on US soil in single day. It’s different. Americans are different than Ugandans from an American viewpoint. If Uganda needs help in dealing with the problem (and I’m assuming we both think an attack that kills 70+ civilians is a problem) then I’m sure we will.
What is interesting is drone attacks outside Afghanistan/Iraq. Since the end of the Bush presidency we’ve stopped requesting Pakistan permission to use drones to attack inside Pakistan. This policy is unchanged, and in fact has increased. I don’t see, in theory, how Uganda is different than Pakistan. Scary.
The Taliban had nothing to do with 911. It was Al Qeada. They are not in Afghanistan. They are in Pakistan.
Whoever permitted Al Qeada to swing on monkey bars and perhaps for Osama to hide in caves is long gone. Whatever kind of weak justification most Americans accept for attacking a country has expired. Most nations around the world want us out of there. Most Americans probably do too.
Experts are now dividing Al Qeada into Pakistani and non Pakistani. Pakistan is supporting and growing the new troops. Our endless war in the middle east makes it easier and easier. This is a war treadmill. We can run on it forever and get nowhere.
Anybody ever hear of negotiation.
You keep playing this game, why?
-There’s your repeated bait and switch between “were 10 years ago” and “are currently”. Obviously you can not substitute 2010 for 2000 and pretend that they are the same date.
-There’s also your repeated nonsense that a government that gives explicit state support to a terrorist organization which has clearly stated that it intends to murder as many US civilians as possible has “nothing” to do with that terrorist organization killing US civilians.
If your argument cannot stand on the facts, it’s a pretty good hint that it can’t stand at all.
What part of “knowing and willing state sponsor of a terrorist group that announced it would attack the US and the attacked the US” doesn’t fit into your story?
And why do you continually conflate 2000 with 2010? You do understand that the reason we invaded Afghanistan is not the same reason why we’re still there, right?
… right?
Afghanistan offered to send Osama to a 3rd country for a trial. (Pakistan). They said they would not try him because they had no evidence tying him to 911. Bush rejected it. The 3rd offer they made was that in Pakistan ,Bush could provide evidence , as long as he made a formal request for the process to start . Bush said no need, we know he is guilty.
The reason we are there now? There is none. We pretend that the Taliban is AlQeada. We pretend a 3rd world country thousands of miles away is a threat and so bad a threat that we have to crush it with bombs and soldiers. Of course that act itself makes us less safe while it recruits new blood into their organization. This stupid war makes us less safe every day. It is a tuning fork that vibrates around the world making us more hated every day. The vibrations are felt in every Muslim enclave on the globe. Bush listed his enemies and proceeded to attack them one after another. We are lucky Iraq took so long. He had other mid east countries in his sights.
Forgive me, I seem to recall you were advocating a position close to Pacifism. Can you justify such a morally bankrupt argument.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1 Here is a decorated American major general telling you why we have war. The fact is war is about money. it always has been. If you believe the war in Afghanistan is making us safer, the delusion has been successful. Ask Halibuton, Blackwater and GE how important the war is. They will tell you it is crucial to our future. They wouldn’t have any reason to lie, would they?
I’m still intrigued as to what you are supposed to do with thousands of mostly testosterone-fuelled men, when they are pulled out of these 2 current “war zones”? Where to deploy next, eh, Generals?
No, that involves making things up. I’m not pretending the US went immediately to the Oil Ministry building or tried to formulate laws giving Iraq’s resources away to its invaders, that’s what happened. I’m not pretending the US just changed excuses when their lies about Iraq’s weapons were exposed to the world, that’s what happened.
You seem to think that taking over the Oil Ministry does not imply the US wanted to, oh, take over the Oil Ministry or something, but I can’t imagine why.
I’ve explained more than once that failure does not speak to motive. Why does failure to do something imply lack of intent to do something?
No, what makes no sense is saying that because the US failed to do something it follows they never intended to do something. That seems to be the gist of your argument; failure.
It did materialize, in the form of Iraqi laws kindly written for Iraq by the US. It just failed. Perhaps because of a lack of willing collaborators, perhaps for some other reason. Who cares why?
Well, if I admit to this will that magically make the motives for writing laws giving away Iraqi oil and taking over the administration of Iraq’s resources less sinister? No, it will not. My point stands. Repeating the fact of the US’s failure will not change the facts of the US’s behaviour, and the US’s failure seems to be the only reason you think the US didn’t invade for the plunder. After all, you keep bringing it and only it up as a counterargument.