Frogophobia. Remind me to tell you about my economics class proposal regarding the use of France one day. 
people have stated a number of reasons for bringing a war to the taleban
- they’re oppressive to afghanis
- they wouldn’t give us binladen
- we have to go thru them to get binladen
now maybe this is just a variation on the above, but I think the primary reason the US is trying to take out the taleban is this:
- The taleban provided shelter and support to Al Quaeda, enabling it to wage a holy war against the US.
This is the “Bush Doctrine” - Al Quaeda could not have committed the acts they did without state sponsorship. Therefore, he holds the Taleban equally responsible. I.e., “Anyone who aids a terrorist is a terrorist”.
I think the war against the taleban is carefully calculated to set an example to any other government that would look the other way while an independant force wages war against the US from within their borders.
that is why the war is not simply against Al Quaeda
Osama bin Laden has orchestrated a long term escalating pattern of attacks against American citizens. I can’t see any rational person arguing against America wanting to stop his activities.
In the first few days after September 11, there was a possibility that the Taliban would bow to world opinion, repudiate its support of al Qaeda, and cooperate with the capture of bin Laden. But they eventually declined to do so.
So as the OP noted, bin Laden was the immediate target and the Taliban joined the list a while later. This was not some pre-made American plan but a response to events as they occurred.
As for the alternative of “recognizing the problem and trying to solve it” I don’t see that as a realistic plan. What is the problem we’re supposed to recognize and solve? The continued existence of Israel? The United States did not create Israel and Israel does not need American permission to exist. Nor do most Americans see the existence of Israel as a problem.
I don’t see the logic of thinking the best solution to the problem of terrorism is to give the terrorists whatever they want. If terrorism becomes effective, it will inevitably increase. The best way to eliminate terrorism is to eliminate the people and organizations that practice it.
I never said this war was “invented” to give your generals something to do. What I said (personal opinion of a 21 year old person with no experience in international affairs)is that you jumped all of a sudden from fighting and international baseless organazation to fighting a foreign country, Why? I think because you needed results. You needed a “traditional” enemy: a country and you found one in Afganistan. I might be wrong but that is why started this thread, to be corrected by more inteligent people.
The objective was getting Osama, you haven’t yet. What if you learned tomorrow that he is already dead? Will you leave afganistan?
estilicon, i think my post above has an answer for that, please consider it. Whether or not you agree with that policy, i think it at least gives a lucid understanding of why the US is attacking the taleban
“We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” It was said within 12 hours after the US was attacked. There was no “sudden jump”. The taleban have been held responsible by the US all along.
No, the objective was to destroy al Qaeda (and similar organizations). As long as bin Laden could hang out in Afghanistan and direct world operations with impunity, he was a target. As long as the reason that bin Laden could hang out in Afghanistan was that he was protected by the government (the same government that had never been recognized as legitimate by more than three countries–Argentina being one of the countries that denied their legitimacy), then that government was a target. Had Afghanistan agreed to hand over bin Laden and the other leaders of al Qaeda, rather than providing him/them shelter, I suspect that the U.S. military would have never gone into Afghanistan.
If you will note the events of the past two weeks, you will see that the U.S. is not actively engaged in establishing a new government, leaving that process to the international community.
As long as there is no evidence that the Afghan portion of al Qaeda has been destroyed, the U.S. will probably keep forces in the country searching out all the members of that organization. bin Laden was merely one principal in that group.
If it appears that the Afghan portion of al Qaeda has been destroyed, I suspect that the U.S. will be more than happy to pull out. (I also suspect that when the U.S. chooses to pull out, there will be a call from the United Nations to keep U.S. forces in the area, at least long enough for a multi-national force to be brought in by the U.N.)
You keep repeating your statement that the U.S. “needed results.” What would your alternative proposal have been? To sit around waiting for the next assault by al Qaeda as its leaders walked freely around Afghanistan plotting more mayhem? What different action do you believe would have worked.
i explained in my last post that my first post was not an attack on your language, but a cheap joke against your ideas. and yes, i admit it was cheap, but i don’t really think there is anything wrong with that. i agree whole-heartedly with tradesilicon:
exactly, that was my point. my way of saying that is by making jokes. if it’s not a great debate and it’s in a forum called “Great Debates,” it’s a joke to me.
but this, on the other hand, is a good point. the U.S. was attacked, therefore the U.S. should punish those responsible. but now the U.S. is trying to reform the entire country of Afghanistan to a government that it finds agreeable, and that is just stupid. no one has a place to do that except that country, and possibly the United Nations. the U.S. is taking too much of a stance with Afghanistan, when it isn’t even Afghanistan who attacked in the first place.
where do you see the US trying to reform or install a particular afghan government?
it seems to me that the US is being quite coldly pragmatic here. They are not taking part in the creation of the new government. They’re helping to clear out the taleban & don’t really care who comes in & forms the next government, as long as the place isn’t used as a launching pad again.
As I said, I think the US is making an example of the taleban. They don’t really care how the northern alliance is running things. But it’s a good bet that the NA will think twice before allowing anyone to wage war against the US, from within NA territory.
Hola Estilicon! Como estan todos aya en Argentina? I hear that they are in some hard times down there… Bye the way, do you live in Beunos Aires? i have some cousins there… who knows, maybe your’e my cousin. heh. Dinner calls, buhbye
Hi martinez,actually I am not from Buenos aires, I live in Tucuman (north western argentina).Bad Times? let’s say we are envying the afgans. The good news is that even hell has a bottom so we can’t do worst we can only improve.
well they can’t exactly start making a new government while they are still getting rid of the old one. and i’m thinking that they will eventually. even if they don’t, you made a good point right here:
if they have any reason in their minds to believe that the new government will be a launching pad, they will surely do exactly what they have done to the taliban. i believe that they want to do whatever it takes to prevent afghanistan from harboring terrorists again, even if that includes the creation of a new government. bush has even said that he will make no distinction between terrorists and those that harbor them. that’s exactly why he is destroying the taliban. if they can create a terrorist-free government on their own, bush will let them i’m sure, but i don’t think there’s any way they can do that.
There is also a desire, IMO, to not repeat the mistakes of 1989 when the US abandoned Afghanistan because more important things were happening in Europe and the Middle East. The feeling is that had we stayed in and helped stabilize Afghanistan and support them in building a new government that many of the events that are occurring now wouldn’t be happening. So to prevent making that mistake again, the policy is to help the Afghanis rebuild their state.
You know, the first time ireplied to your OP, I thought you may have some valid points, so I tried to adress them, as have several other posters who have done a better job of it. However, it seems you simply ignore what others are saying, and continue to re-state your points. Can you first address what others have said, then we can go from there?
- Should we go after bin Laden and Al Queda, even if it means going through the Taliban?
- Should we continue to go after Al Queda even if bin Laden is dead, since they would likely continue going after us?
- Hi Opal!
- Please explain you approach if you believe the current approach is wrong. (BTW, I also believe it’s partially wrong).
- Should we consider you a valuable addition to this board if you continue to ignore what others are saying? I take that back, I can only speak for myself, so change the ‘we’ to ‘I’ in the previous sentence, and maybe it’s irrelevant anyway.
I think that the war against the Taliban is the best thing that could happen for the Afghan people. Many of the most fanatical Taliban are from Pakistan and other countries. If the Taliban had turned over bin Laden and Al-Queda, then they would have stayed in power and the Afghan people would have continued to suffer at their hands.
Of course, if the Northern Alliance and the Pashtuns start another civil war, the Afghan people will continue to suffer. This time, unlike in the past however, there is a commitment from the U.S. and the U.N. to not walk away from Afghanistan after we achieve our objectives. It appears that many Afghans realize this is their only chance for peace and there will be great pressure on the N.A. and the southern tribes to work together to form a coalition government.
Although the deaths of civilian innocents is terrible, their numbers pale in comparison to the numbers that would die either directly at the hands of the Taliban or by starvation due to the Taliban’s indifference. The U.S. along with other countries have committed to rebuilding Afghanistan. That and a stable non-oppressive government is the Afghan peoples best hope for the future.
i’ve seen this mentioned before, as if lack of american security presence in afghanistan has somehow contributed to our current problems. (not that you’re necessarily implying that, Neurotik. others have)
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t…
isn’t it great how USA is not “abandoning” our friends in Saudi Arabia? oh, whoops, her enemies are claiming that it’s that very presence that justifies their attacks.
isn’t it great how USA didn’t “abandon” lebanon. 200+ marines are sitting ducks for truck bombers.
isn’t it great how USA came to the aid of Somalia, which had devolved into utter anarchy? ObL paints targets on their back there too.
“american imperialism” is a rallying cry of her enemies. How does anyone think more ongoing involvement will make the world safer for the US?
that security is the kind of stuff we should leave to the UN. As far as I’m concerned, let the Saudis defend themselves from Iraq, they’re not showing themselves to be great friends of ours now. There are too many places that the US tries to “stabilize” or “support” where they are not wanted, and therefore attacked.
What I want to know is… when do we start going after them Klingons?
Estilicon you criticized American media and I’m curious if you read any of it. Not saying your critique was wrong (at least not entirely) just wanted to make sure you weren’t quoting something that you heard without verifying it.
Two good US papers:
Washington Post
New York Times You have to register for this one, but it’s free.
Any good Argentinian papers (English please, I am cursed with knowing only one language)? I’ve been checking out foreign media lately.
but because Saddam has used poison gas on Kurdish tribespeople, is suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, and refuses to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into his country.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"
Remember, the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon happened just 2 1/2 months ago. Nerves are still raw here; we’re not used to seeing soldiers stationed in airports with semiautomatic weapons.
"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Uh, those soldiers are carrying fully automatic M-16 assault rifles.
Mr. Duality, The Kurds are fighting a civil war in both Iraq and Turkey for about all of Sadaam Hussein’s life. Turkey is already on record saying that if the US invades Iraq for Desert Storm 2, Turkey will join in, not as allies, but most likely to take out the Kurds once and for all. The war will certainly spill into Iran, an accident such as a navy ship hitting an Iranian commercial jet may occur, and it will be a big mess.