i can’t prove to ontological certitude that the queen isn’t “with the terrorists”. is england next?
i couldn’t have summed up our foreign policy any better.
I think you’re onto something there.
I’ve seen more than one thread, and even more than one series of threads, about someone who was, or who knew someone who was, trying to get a visa or green card. It always seems to come down to this:
Bureaucrat X: I need form XYZ and your birth certificate.
Applicant: Oh, I gave form XYZ to Bureaucrat Y two months ago. He has a copy of my birth certificate.
X: No, I need form XYZ. And I need your actual birth certificate.
A: Can’t you get the form from Y? And I have an extra copy of my birthcert. Y told me I didn’t need the actual certificate.
X: He shouldn’t have told you that.
A: Well…he did. And it’ll take more time for me to get the actual certificate than I have; I need the visa by [date which was specified and agreed on over a year earlier].
X: You’ll have to get it before then. Meanwhile, here’s another XYZ; fill it out, bring it back and it’ll take ten days to process.
A: I don’t have to fill out a new one; I filled one out for Y.
X: Y doesn’t need it. I do. Fill it out or else.
Just seems like there’s very little communication between departments. And for every person who is hamstrung in this way, imagine how many slip through the cracks.
Back to the OP. Afganistan and the Taliban was something entirely different from Iraq. First- we did not invade a soverign nation- there was no real recognized government (really no-one recognized the taliban). Thus, what we were doing is taking sides in a civil war- entirely differnt that invading a nation.
Next- the Taliban were supporters of Al Qaida, and Osama. Active and open.
Finally- although getting rid of the Taliban does not stop terrorism, it does stop the terrorists from having a open recruitment & training area, where they could do whatever they want in the open. I am convinced that the only reason why Al Qaida managed to get off such a complex series of attacks was that they could plan, plot, recruit, train and finance such right out in th eopen. Sure- we’ll still see an occasional suicide or car bomber. But anything like 9-11 just got 100 times more difficult to pull off.
As a Post Script- just about the entire world was either behind us or at the least only making noises of general support. The “action” did not damage the USA’s public image world wide. Most thought we were justified, and them that didn’t hated our guts anyway. The world- and especially the USA- was made Safer here. It also cost a lot less lives & money.
Iraq was entirely different. 1- it was a soveriegn nation. Yes, there was a civil war going on in the North, but the Kurds did not claim to be the rightful government of all Iraq- just their section of it.
-
Although Saddam certainly supported terrorism in general, his specific support seemed to be restricted to anti-Kurd and anti-Isreali work. At worst his support of Al Qaida was along the lines of “Rah! Go get that Great Satan!”
In any case, he wasn’t OPENLY training and supporting anti-USA terrorists like the Taliban was. -
Yes, he was a lying sack of shit that had at one time scads of WMD’s (most of which the UN destroyed after the Gulf War), couldn’t seem to get his story straight about what happened to them, and then he made things worse by not cooperating with the UN. Still, our evidence of new WMD was tenuous, and besides the targets would have likely been Kurdistan or maybe Isreal, not the USA. IF we had proof of some weapons concentration, we likely had justification for a surgical strike on that cache, and that’s about it. :dubious:
-
Saddam was Evil- as evil as Hitler. The atrocities are unbelieveable. He deserved to die, his people are better off. Yes- but does that give us the right to invade a soveriegn nation?
-
We had very little support in this. The UN said No, many of our Allies (many of who supported us 100% against the Taliban) said “no way”, and only a few very loyal allies stuck with us. It cost the USA dearly in World opinion. We are now seen as a Bully.
Iraq was where we “over-reacted”. Not Afganistan.
Are you sure about that? I seem to remember Taliban delegates being at the UN.
and getting rid of the Taliban was worth doing in its own right.
I’m troubled by the suggestion that sovereignty gives you a pass to commit atrocities on your own people, though I realize that it probably isn’t your intention to say so. Nazi Germany was a sovereign nation, and one might have argued that we had no right to attack them, nor any obligation to liberate conquered nations that hadn’t had the strength or will to fend off Nazi aggression. North Korea is also a sovereign nation, but in my opinion that doesn’t give them the right to kidnap couples off Japanese beaches.
This is sadly true, though at least toppling Saddam and his Baathist regime was one positive outcome. To be perfectly frank, I’m a political chauvinist, and to a certain extent I want the world to look like the United States. That is, I advocate the spread of pluralist, secularist democracy in which citizens have the freedom to vote, practice any religion or no religion, and not have the tenets of a state religion dictate how they live their lives. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein, who in addition to his political atrocities was beginning to institute Islamist strictures in an effort to curry favor with neighboring regimes, was a step in the right direction, but we should never have done it alone. We should have waited until the free developed world could make a united stand, as was the case in 1991. The time wasn’t right, but I’m sure the right moment would have arrived.
Good point. I’m sure you could be criticized on the “waited until” argument but I certainly think that if any threat existed it was not so imminent as to preclude working to gain a consensus.
It might be defensible to go after viscious regimes but war should be the absolute last resort and then only in the face of a direct attack on us directly or through an ally with which we have a mutual aid agreement, or an unmistakeable intent by someone to do so.
How the fuck did we get to the point where the President makes statements to justify a war and the burden is on his opponents to disprove them? That’s a great encapsulation of what’s happened as the reasons for this war fell apart: ‘well, we didn’t find any weapons, but you can’t prove there weren’t any, and we didn’t find any links to terrorism, but you can’t prove there weren’t any, so we were right.’ I thought the burden of proof rests on people making a claim exactly because proving a negative is so difficult.
HAW HAW HAWW!!! You really got us with the ole’ jumbo jet into the skyscraper thing!!! Good one!!
I know that no significant nation ever recognized the Taliban.
No, it was a question: “does that give us the right to invade a soveriegn nation?”. This might make a good GD, but I am not sure. I’d have to say in the case of Hitler, it would be tempting, but Stalin was as bad, and he was our ally, dammit.