Justification for war in Afghanistan

[Moontanman]

Lots of time has been spent discussing the war In Iraq and the reasons for and against it. Lets discuss the war in Afghanistan and reasons pro and con and it's consequences. First i would like to hear what would you have done if you had been in charge at the time of the 9/11 attacks. For me it's simple, we were attacked by an organized group sponsored by and supported by the government of Afghanistan. I would have gone to war and done what ever was necessary to insure Afghanistan and it's government was pacified and all traces of the influence of the people who had attacked us was purged from that country.

[modest]

Not only do I think the war in Afghanistan was justified, I think it was prosecuted near-flawlessly considering the time frame after 9-11 for preparation, mobilization, and implementation. The Taliban were as-much-as defeated and the war was basically decided before the WTC fires were done smoldering. At the time I found that astonishing, and I still do.

 

In a strictly legal sense, the war was justified by UN security council resolutions from september through the end of 2001 affording widely-held international support for the "war on terror" and approving of the way it was handled by both the initial US and British forces and the following International Security Assistance Force.

 

ODS HOME PAGE

 

More than that, every country has a right to defend itself. I'm not sure I would agree that the war in Afghanistan helped al-Qaeda recruitment or solidified the subsequent attacks in London and Spain. I don't know enough to say one way or the other. But, I see that as a separate issue from justification of the war. The truth is al-Qaeda's intent was to terrorize the western world and their partners in the middle east before the war in Afghanistan. They did so on and before september 11th. Being that cause generally comes before effect it would be hard to argue the war in Afghanistan is in any way a cause of terrorist's motivations. But, again, this is separate from justification. The war was justified.

 

~modest

[sanctus]

Did you ever think of the possibility the US (and hence the western world) have missed by going to war in Afghanistan? My post there or post #66 there say much about my view on the war in Afghanistan.

 

To sum it up

1. In any case there are only a few cases where a war is justified and still, it is only because it was waited too long with other means (the US coming to Europe in WW2 is a justifiable example, but if there was action before,already in the thirties...)
   
2. Often it is motivated that the war in Afghanistan was a good thing because of the taleban-regime and hence not a revenge...but 't this regime exist since the eighties? So, I guess you agree that when someone says that it was against a (really bad) regime it is just to sell the revenge with nicer words
   
3. Since when the only response to an attack in the own land is going to attack the others? This never justifies a war (as modest ormoontanman said above). You know I talk from the moral/ethical point of view, I do not care if the UN-laws say it does or not
   
4. THE MOST IMPORTANT point though is, that by not going to Afghanistan, but trying alternate routes (for example development help, stop exploitation of their resources and cheap workers for only our wellbeing,etc. you know like in the bible in which Bush strongly believe:love your ennemy) then there would less a problem with islamic terror now. I believe that the extremists inconsciently use term and do "the holy war" just because they can't say that they are upset at our well-being at the price of their low standard of living.
   

 

Do you guys deny that going to Afghanistan started (ok, continued after 9/11 if you want) the spirale of violence. Isn't it up to the western world who has more means to try other ways than violence?

 

Just a good example, when did the problems in Ireland stop? Wasn't it when both sides agreed on stopping violence?

[questor]

Why is it good to continue war in Afghanistan but not OK for Iraq?

Af is not strategically located.

Af offers no threat to us

Af has no oil or global importance

We can't win this war

If we made opiates legal, Af would collapse economically

We could still patrol the air space and periodically wipe out terrorists training facilities

[Moontanman]

Why is it good to continue war in Afghanistan but not OK for Iraq?

 

We have no excuse for invading Iraq, the Iraqi war was based on nothing but lies!

 

Af is not strategically located.

 

Why is this prerequisite for war?

 

Af offers no threat to us

 

They took down the Twin towers and crashed a plan into the pentagon.

 

Af has no oil or global importance

 

Why would oil or global importance be a reason to go to war?

 

We can't win this war

 

That might be a reason for conservative cowards.

 

If we made opiates legal, Af would collapse economically

We could still patrol the air space and periodically wipe out terrorists training facilities

 

Maybe we should make opiates legal but no war or country can be subjugated by air power alone. The Taliban has been routed but due to bad planning and resource allocation they are making a come back. The republicans just can't fight a war these days evidently. They attack the wrong country and then fail to prosecute the war they needed to fight. To win the war in Afghanistan we need to make sure the Taliban is not only defeated but we need to make sure the country doesn't want or need them back. Help build an infrastructure, give the people something other than a terrorist religion and opium. This country has been ignored by the whole world, this is why the Taliban was able to go in and take over. If we had helped them back in the 80's with more than weapons we might not be in this situation now.

[Moontanman]

Did you ever think of the possibility the US (and hence the western world) have missed by going to war in Afghanistan? My post there or post #66 there say much about my view on the war in Afghanistan.

 

To sum it up

1. In any case there are only a few cases where a war is justified and still, it is only because it was waited too long with other means (the US coming to Europe in WW2 is a justifiable example, but if there was action before,already in the thirties...)

 
Please explain what could have been done to avoid WW2, assassinate Hitler before he was in power? Attack Germany before they built up their military? Simply surrendered Europe to Germany and helped them round up all the Jews for orderly disposal? Let me know how this war could have been avoided.
 

Often it is motivated that the war in Afghanistan was a good thing because of the taleban-regime and hence not a revenge...but 't this regime exist since the eighties? So, I guess you agree that when someone says that it was against a (really bad) regime it is just to sell the revenge with nicer words

 
We went to war against the Taliban because they attacked us, call this revenge if you want but it's the truth.
 
 

Since when the only response to an attack in the own land is going to attack the others? This never justifies a war (as modest ormoontanman said above). You know I talk from the moral/ethical point of view, I do not care if the UN-laws say it does or not

 
Yes it does, if you attack me I am going to retaliate, no other solution could stop the Taliban and their desire to spread their brand of Islam and terror around the world.
 
 

THE MOST IMPORTANT point though is, that by not going to Afghanistan, but trying alternate routes (for example development help, stop exploitation of their resources and cheap workers for only our wellbeing,etc. you know like in the bible in which Bush strongly believe:love your ennemy) then there would less a problem with islamic terror now. I believe that the extremists inconsciently use term and do "the holy war" just because they can't say that they are upset at our well-being at the price of their low standard of living.

 

I'm not aware of the United States exploiting workers in Afghanistan or their meager resources, we did try developmental help it went into flying airplanes into the world trade center.

 

 

Do you guys deny that going to Afghanistan started (ok, continued after 9/11 if you want) the spirale of violence. Isn't it up to the western world who has more means to try other ways than violence?

 

Yes i deny it, the violence probably would have been much worse if the Taliban hadn't been confronted. doing nothing is what allowed WW2 to engulf the entire world. Sometimes you have to intervene before the entire world is in flames. Yes we might be wrong but it's better than being right and not doing anything. Santus you are being naive, countries don't act like reasonable humans beings they act more like small children. Religious fundamentalists act more like rabid dogs. Reasoning with fanatics is like trying to pet a rabid dog, no matter how sweet you are to it you are going to get bit and become a rabid dog too.

 

Just a good example, when did the problems in Ireland stop? Wasn't it when both sides agreed on stopping violence?

 

Actually it had more to do with both sides tiring of the violence and realizing it wasn't working. The Irish simply got tired of funerals, that and many of the hard liners were killed or imprisoned.

[modest]

As an analogy - If someone breaks into your house and kills some of your family, you are justified in sending them to jail. There can be no 2 ways about that. The argument can be made that prisons don’t reform criminals. The person we sent to jail may become even more violent. It could even be said that jails in general instill violence in the population. But, this is a separate issue from the justice of detaining the criminal.

 

To say that locking up a criminal is unjustified because prisons make people violent is blurring two different things. Similarly, to say that the response to 9/11 was unjustified because war doesn’t bring about international peace is blurring two things.

 

The response to 9/11 against certain parties in Afghanistan was as justified as any war can be. Maybe all war is bad and evil, and maybe all war has awful consequences. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with those statements. But that doesn't detract from the justification of the international response to 9/11.

 

I'm tempted to argue that turning the other cheek doesn't always pacify or appease someone who's attacking you. But according to the thread's title, that's not the issue. The issue is the justification of hitting back.

 

~modest

[alexander]

we were attacked by an organized group sponsored by and supported by the government of Afghanistan

sponsored? they made up like 80 of the gov-t of Afghanistan... Besides they were and still are sponsored, by both privateers and governments of other various countries. That group operates in over 50 countries, trust me, funding, they have...

 

Af is not strategically located.

Wouldn't say that, Pakistan is right next door...

Af offers no threat to us

And makes the gov-t a ton of money by becoming the largest exporter of top quality heroin to US

Af has no oil or global importance

Except of supplying 70% of global heroin

If we made opiates legal, Af would collapse economically

Hell no, they would become the next Dubai... When has making something legal brought down it's price, especially with drugs? This would simply legalize like 40% of the country revenue, thats all...

 

In any case there are only a few cases where a war is justified

Killing people for a gain is never justified...

 

Often it is motivated that the war in Afghanistan was a good thing because of the taleban-regime

and who won? the war has been going on for 6 years, and the taliban still controls large territories of the country....?

 

Since when the only response to an attack in the own land is going to attack the others?

Agreed, especially when the people of Afghanistan had NOTHING to do with the initial "attack"...

 

I do not care if the UN-laws say it does or not

UN is as big of a bully as US, Russia or China is... it's a joke, really... i think so anyways. Not to say that there should not be an international war council, yes, but a, every country needs to be represented and 2 they can not launch their own attacks agains anyone/thing, they can use other, less deadly ways of resolving their issues. What they can do is penalize countries for actions such as the ones taken by US in Afghanistan, Iraq and various African nations, and such as the ones taken by Russia in Afghanistan and Georgia...

 

I believe that the extremists inconsciently use term and do "the holy war"

i have ranted about that somewhere... i totally agree that the term "jihad" is used wrongly by people that believe they are following true islam... its like they are oblivious to it, and hey, christians are not all that far behind :doh: well, i'd argue they are ahead of not following their own scriptures...

[alexander]

I do mean to be synical, but don't take anything i say offensively, i am really hot-headed when it comes to discussing war, especially when the term "good" or "justified" comes...

 

We have no excuse for invading Iraq, the Iraqi war was based on nothing but lies!

as opposed to what excuse for Afghanistan?

 

They took down the Twin towers and crashed a plan into the pentagon.

DONT equate Afghan people to Islamic terrorists, that's worse then calling all Americans rednecks (redneck is not an incriminatory term, terrorist is), and per capita, there are many more rednecks in the US as there are terrorists in Afghanistan!

 

Why would oil or global importance be a reason to go to war?

Agreed, but on the flip side, why would the fact that some of the people involved in Sep 11 were from the region be any better of a reason then global importance or oil?

 

If we had helped them back in the 80's with more than weapons we might not be in this situation now.

Couldn't agree more with that one :)

[Michaelangelica]

Would the proposed Oil Pipeline though Afganistan and recent USA geophysical survey of the county have anything to do with the war?

[sanctus]

Please explain what could have been done to avoid WW2, assassinate Hitler before he was in power? Attack Germany before they built up their military? Simply surrendered Europe to Germany and helped them round up all the Jews for orderly disposal? Let me know how this war could have been avoided.

The signs were there of what was going to happen, just an example: have you seen Charlie Chaplin's "Dictator"? It came out in 1939...

I do not propose the solution, I do not know enough of all the events that time, but if the symptons can be seen they can also be fought against before the real disease starts.

 

 

We went to war against the Taliban because they attacked us, call this revenge if you want but it's the truth.

Supporting is not being part of it (but I agree almost as bad!), as Alex said, they did not attack you. Now, I would prefer that you would say it was something good because the regime was really bad, than that it is just a revenge. What do you called if not revenge, in ypour point of view it was answer to an attack ergo the definition of revenge...

Yes it does, if you attack me I am going to retaliate, no other solution could stop the Taliban and their desire to spread their brand of Islam and terror around the world.

So you really believe that a violent counter-attack is the only possible answer to a violent attack? The taliban were in power since the eighties as already said, until 2001 they did not much of spreading you are saying, did they?

What abnout understanding, or trying to, why I attacked you and then change the premises which led to the attack?

 

I'm not aware of the United States exploiting workers in Afghanistan or their meager resources, we did try developmental help it went into flying airplanes into the world trade center.

If we really did try (I say we because Europe is as much in fault there as the US) then there wouldn't be people starving anymore. We have enough resources now to feed the world. But you know we all want to keep our standard of living, then it is hard to make good development help, because then we rely on the cheap labour in the poorer world. Ok, I do not know if a part from heroin something comes/came from afghanistan to the western world, but my reasoning also holds without it.

 

o you guys deny that going to Afghanistan started (ok, continued after 9/11 if you want) the spirale of violence. Isn't it up to the western world who has more means to try other ways than violence?

Yes i deny it, the violence probably would have been much worse if the Taliban hadn't been confronted. doing nothing is what allowed WW2 to engulf the entire world. Sometimes you have to intervene before the entire world is in flames. Yes we might be wrong but it's better than being right and not doing anything. Santus you are being naive, countries don't act like reasonable humans beings they act more like small children. Religious fundamentalists act more like rabid dogs. Reasoning with fanatics is like trying to pet a rabid dog, no matter how sweet you are to it you are going to get bit and become a rabid dog too.

So you deny that there were other ways or that it kept well alive and fed the spirale of violence. It seems to me that doing the wrong thing is better for you than doing nothing. But there was not even a try to do something non-violent. Don't you agree that the western world has more means than Afghanistan and Islamic terror groups? Don't you agree that this implies more options?

 

About your children analogy: it is time to educate them, the child who has most means (intellectual, material, etc) should hence educate the others.

You call me naive, I call myself a believer in mankind...

 

 

Actually it had more to do with both sides tiring of the violence and realizing it wasn't working. The Irish simply got tired of funerals, that and many of the hard liners were killed or imprisoned.

So do you want to wait until the next 20 towers in the US have fallen and the next 20 islamic regions have had war, until half of the terrorists are in Guantanamo, the other half killed and just as many people from the western world killed by falling towers?

Why not learn exactly from that small scale example in Ireland? Doesn't it show cleary that decennies of violence didn't solve anything? Why wanting to do the same on bigger scales then?

[sanctus]

As an analogy - If someone breaks into your house and kills some of your family, you are justified in sending them to jail. There can be no 2 ways about that. The argument can be made that prisons don’t reform criminals. The person we sent to jail may become even more violent. It could even be said that jails in general instill violence in the population. But, this is a separate issue from the justice of detaining the criminal.

 

To say that locking up a criminal is unjustified because prisons make people violent is blurring two different things. Similarly, to say that the response to 9/11 was unjustified because war doesn’t bring about international peace is blurring two things.

No you can't compare these 2, sending to jail and attacking/revenging is something completely different. So I don't think I blurred anything.

The response to 9/11 against certain parties in Afghanistan was as justified as any war can be. Maybe all war is bad and evil, and maybe all war has awful consequences. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with those statements. But that doesn't detract from the justification of the international response to 9/11.

Modest, as said in my first post a war can only very, very rarely be justified. An answer to an attack surely never justifies a war, which then is nothing else than an act of revenge. I would like it if at least all the war-against-Afghanist-supporter here would agree that it is an act of revenge and nothing else. I mean anyway what else could it be?

You say that "(...)that doesn't detract from the justification of the international response to 9/11." in my view it does, you realize that what you said above can be interpreted as that you can justify something bad and evil with awful consequences. I'm interested how you justify it.

 

I'm tempted to argue that turning the other cheek doesn't always pacify or appease someone who's attacking you. But according to the thread's title, that's not the issue.

Have we ever tried?

The issue is the justification of hitting back.

 

~modest

Which I haven't got yet :)

 

 

ANYWAY, you (=modest,moon,etc.) might know now why I stopped posting in this forum, about a few years ago. My views very rarely are such that I don't get carried away in long arguments. Hope you don't take my tone as too aggressive.

[modest]

No you can't compare these 2, sending to jail and attacking/revenging is something completely different.

 

Right. The motivation for jail is different from the motivation for revenge. The character of arresting someone is different from the character of enslaving them. The action of a jury passing sentence is different from a mob tar-and-feathering a fella. Shooting someone who is running toward you with a knife is different from throwing a grenade into a crowded market.

 

They are different. The difference is justice. So, why is the response to 9/11 unjustified?

 

Modest, as said in my first post a war can only very, very rarely be justified.

 

How was Afghanistan different from the very, very rare war you're thinking of?

 

I would like it if at least all the war-against-Afghanist-supporter here would agree that it is an act of revenge and nothing else.

 

I’m sure you would. I too would be pleased if everyone agreed that there was no choice after 9/11 but to destroy Al-qaeda and oust the Taliban using whatever force necessary to accomplish those goals.

 

I mean anyway what else could it be?

 

"what else could it be"? It could be justified. The UN resolutions approving of the war and the overwhelming amount of international support and participation means that it is assumed justified. If you have reasons to disagree with the rest of the world then I am interested to hear them.

 

You say that "(...)that doesn't detract from the justification of the international response to 9/11." in my view it does, you realize that what you said above can be interpreted as that you can justify something bad and evil with awful consequences. I'm interested how you justify it.

 

I was hoping you’d ask. War is not inherently good. It should always be a necessary evil. It should not be “oh good, we’re going to war, good things are going to happen”. It should rather be the lesser of 2 evils. Either we stop them by force or they keep killing our innocent civilians. Neither choice is good. It's the lesser of 2 evils... war should be the lesser of 2 evils. That’s how I feel.

 

turning the other cheek doesn't always pacify or appease someone who's attacking you.

Have we ever tried?

 

They tried to bring the twin towers down in ’93 and we turned the other cheek. The president said don’t attack them because civilians could be hurt. Bin Laden gained support. He announced to a collection of international press “And by God's grace, we are going to have a successful result in killing Americans and getting rid of them."

 

They attacked the USS Cole, killing seventeen sailors and nearly sinking a U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer. We turned the other cheek!

 

While we were busy turning the other cheek, they had built themselves into an army. They issued the order: “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it”

 

Al-qaeda forces then attacked the buildings that they had failed to bring down the first time. Two thousand nine hundred and ninety eight people died. So, yes, we did try turning the other cheek. It didn't work.

 

The assumption you make about appeasing them so that they will stop murdering us is not right. Successful al-Qaeda attacks attracted recruits who had training camps to go to and organization to follow. Their only purpose was to learn how to kill as many people as they could. And, they were getting better and better at it.

 

The issue is the justification of hitting back.

 

Which I haven't got yet :naughty:

 

Luckily, over 20 countries did get that justification and they sent troops to act on it.

 

ANYWAY, you (=modest,moon,etc.) might know now why I stopped posting in this forum, about a few years ago. My views very rarely are such that I don't get carried away in long arguments. Hope you don't take my tone as too aggressive.

 

Likewise. I think you know how much I respect you. I don’t expect we’ll resolve our differences on this issue, and that’s ok. It’s good to hear other opinions different from my own especially on an international issue such as this. So, no worries mate :eek_big:

 

~modest

[questor]

Sanctus, on 9/11 we were attacked and 3000 of our citizens died. We answered this with an attack against the Taliban, not as revenge, but in an effort to eliminate those who had participated in the training of our attackers.

It seems to have worked so far, we haven't had a repeat attack. If someone

hits you, it is prudent to hit them back or seeing your cowardice, they may try to hit you again. In order to understand this, answer truthfully, what would you do if someone slaps you in the face and appears ready to slap you again?

[Michaelangelica]

9/11 was mostly funded and planned by Saudi Arabians, especially the Bin Ladens.

Is US Geography that bad?

[freeztar]

9/11 was mostly funded and planned by Saudi Arabians, especially the Bin Ladens.

Is US Geography that bad?

 

It doesn't matter what their country of origin was. The training camps were in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan.

[questor]

War in Afghanistan

 

The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001, was launched by the United States and the United Kingdom in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was the beginning of the War on Terror. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda.

 

It's good to learn a little history to go along with your expertise at geography.