Afghanistan: The Other War
- Thread starter AFA
- Start date
So why do say openly say "we will have a spring offensive"? America could have learnt something from the Vietcong there. Just imagine what would have happened if they had announced their Tet-Offensive to the whole world...
Anyway, the War in Afghanistan is as illegal as the one in Iraq - maybe even more!
Anyway, the War in Afghanistan is as illegal as the one in Iraq - maybe even more!
Frontline is the best news program in my book, worth a watch!
They did, they just didn't tell us!
So, which were the "legal" wars?
WWII for Instance. War is only legal in self defense (including helping other nations who have been attacked by foreign Troops).
By that rational, the US had no reason to fight Germany. After all the Germans weren't the ones that attacked Pearl Harbor. The war in Afghanistan is very much legal, if it weren't why would NATO (not just America) be there? We were attacked by Al Qaeda, they were (still are) allies of the Taliban. Therefore, if you compare WWII with what we have in Afghanistan, you get this: Al Qaeda = Japan; Taliban = Germany.
Germany declared War on the U.S.A. shortly after Pearl Harbor. And they supported England who were being attacked . As I stated Al Qaeda are not Troops - they are a Terrorist Organisation! And to get hold of a bunch of Terrorists America needs to go to War on Afghanistan? Don't get me wrong, I don't like the Taliban. They are religious fundamentalists who live in the middle ages. But they have not attacked the U.S.A.! Surely the U.S. Special Forces are able to get one man out of a country if they wish to... They have done that with civilians from other countries very sucessfully in the last years. And those Warlords that rule the North of Afghanistan aren't the nicest people I have ever heard of. They are big Drug Dealers. 85% of the World's Heroin comes from Afghanistan at the Moment.
In fact 15 of the 9/11 assholes were saudis... And Osama bin Laden also. But directly after 9/11 20 of his Family members (close friends of the Bush Family) were flown out of the U.S. None of them was even asked if they knew where Osama was!
To me a War on Saudi Arabia would have been much more logical (although war is always bad). A War on Afghanistan was unnecessary and illegal.
In fact 15 of the 9/11 assholes were saudis... And Osama bin Laden also. But directly after 9/11 20 of his Family members (close friends of the Bush Family) were flown out of the U.S. None of them was even asked if they knew where Osama was!
To me a War on Saudi Arabia would have been much more logical (although war is always bad). A War on Afghanistan was unnecessary and illegal.
We're not at war with Afghanistan. In fact, we've been doing what we can to help them stabilize themselves and form a somewhat centralized government.
We're at war with terrorists. If you want to get technical, no they are not troops in terms of a state sponsored military. They do claim to be soldiers of God in a holy war though, don't they? Whatever label you want to put to them, they are our current enemy.
Illegal... maybe I haven't seen the world law books... could you cite that particular law that we've broken? We've been at this for 6 years and I haven't heard of any global entity coming to arrest the great white law breaking devil.
ps... AFA.. I missed the show by about two hours. I don't see a repeat of it in my TV listing either.
We're at war with terrorists. If you want to get technical, no they are not troops in terms of a state sponsored military. They do claim to be soldiers of God in a holy war though, don't they? Whatever label you want to put to them, they are our current enemy.
Illegal... maybe I haven't seen the world law books... could you cite that particular law that we've broken? We've been at this for 6 years and I haven't heard of any global entity coming to arrest the great white law breaking devil.
ps... AFA.. I missed the show by about two hours. I don't see a repeat of it in my TV listing either.
Philbert
Banned
pathfinder74: please don't confuse the werewolf with rational thought and facts.
I had the pleasure of spending some time in Afghanistan pre-Soviet conflict, and that is an unbelieveable place... three distinct races of people, and Pashtun tribesmen, who later became the main ranks of the Taliban.
While the Hindu Kush are the foothills of the Himalayas, they are in the Himalayas! High, twisted and ancient mountains...hard terrain to wage a war.
No one had defeated them since Genghis Khan, it took their own people to do that.
I stood in front of the three Bhuddas in Bamiyan, 12 stories high and carved out of the mountain; there were steps inside to climb to the head and look out over the valley; originally covered with ground Lapis Lazuli "paint", they were considered one of the greatest treasures from ancient times...blown to pieces by the maniac Taliban.
Most Afghans are 180 degrees from the wild hill tribes, and willingly assisted in their defeat.
There was no war against Afghanistan, their was and is a war in
Afghanistan.
I had the pleasure of spending some time in Afghanistan pre-Soviet conflict, and that is an unbelieveable place... three distinct races of people, and Pashtun tribesmen, who later became the main ranks of the Taliban.
While the Hindu Kush are the foothills of the Himalayas, they are in the Himalayas! High, twisted and ancient mountains...hard terrain to wage a war.
No one had defeated them since Genghis Khan, it took their own people to do that.
I stood in front of the three Bhuddas in Bamiyan, 12 stories high and carved out of the mountain; there were steps inside to climb to the head and look out over the valley; originally covered with ground Lapis Lazuli "paint", they were considered one of the greatest treasures from ancient times...blown to pieces by the maniac Taliban.
Most Afghans are 180 degrees from the wild hill tribes, and willingly assisted in their defeat.
There was no war against Afghanistan, their was and is a war in
Afghanistan.
Oh, I'm sorry but it was an Attack War on a country that had not attacked another Country before wasn't it?
And that is - according to international laws - illegal. I don't know why the U.N. and the rest of the NATO backed it, but it was an Attack war, no doubt.
Believe me, I would have liked to see those Buddha Statues too... Taliban are definitley assholes but we had no right to come int their country and attack them!
And of course in the nineties the "Northern Coalition was - for a short time - governing Afghanistan. The people were not that much better off...
So Pathfinder, if they are enemy soldiers why aren't those who are imprisoned given POW status? A country (especially a Democracy ) can't have a prison like Guantanamo and at the sime time say "our moral standards are higher - we are the good guys"
And that is - according to international laws - illegal. I don't know why the U.N. and the rest of the NATO backed it, but it was an Attack war, no doubt.
Believe me, I would have liked to see those Buddha Statues too... Taliban are definitley assholes but we had no right to come int their country and attack them!
And of course in the nineties the "Northern Coalition was - for a short time - governing Afghanistan. The people were not that much better off...
So Pathfinder, if they are enemy soldiers why aren't those who are imprisoned given POW status? A country (especially a Democracy ) can't have a prison like Guantanamo and at the sime time say "our moral standards are higher - we are the good guys"
You're right. We ARE the white devil and should pay dearly. You win the argument. Feel better?
No, they were done there a while back. Not sure where they are now. Haven't kept in contact.
Actually, it was well predicted in some regards.
And Tet was a flop strategically/militarily, although not politically.
Know your history!
FDR initially debated with Churchill whether or not the US should enter the European theater.
FDR felt there was no justification, despite the fact that both FDR and Churchill agreed that it was in their combined interest to resolve the European theater simultaneously.
Luckily Hitler declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor, making it simple for FDR.
Know your history! Not just what you ass-u-me!
Indeed!
FDR initially debated with Churchill whether or not the US should enter the European theater.
FDR felt there was no justification, despite the fact that both FDR and Churchill agreed that it was in their combined interest to resolve the European theater simultaneously.
Luckily Hitler declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor, making it simple for FDR.
Know your history! Not just what you ass-u-me!
Know your history!
And what demands did NATO make of the Taliban before declaring war?
Know your history!
That's the problem in many cases -- and the reason we caught Saddam but not Bin Laden.
We underestimated intelligence on Iraq in 1995, and paid dearly for it in the Security Council when we didn't fight the French and Russians who blocked several actions, only to catch the Iraqi's red handed in 1996 thanks to key defectors.
So then we over-estimated intelligence in 2003, already based on faulty intelligence believed in 1998, largely because of the under-estimates of 1995 -- including those of Hans Blix himself, which he's had to admit to (it's not all about "Bush lying").
So where do you get the faintest idea that we have this "perfect intelligence" for our special forces?
I thought you, of all people, wouldn't assume this, based on your past rhetoric--er, viewpoints.
Intelligence is only as good as the what people inform us, and we've screwed up plenty of times!
In fact, some of Clinton's closest aids have been rather taken back how much credit Cllinton tries to deflect today, especially given his administrations documentation, actions and planning in 1998 which was used, unmodified and directly, in 2003.
So didn't Clinton "illegally" attack various countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan, during his administration too?
How far does this go under your "definitions"?
You should read the 9/11 report, among other things.
Until then, I can't take you seriously based on these statements, especially that last one.
These Saudis are pretty much outcasts, and there's a reason why they were in Afghanistan and not Saudia Arabia.
Oh, that's right, we attack their parent families/ancestors, who have nothing to do with what their outcast off-spring have done.
Good show!
Know your history!
Umm, who was ruling Afghanistan?
And what demands did NATO make of the Taliban before declaring war?
Know your history!
If the have sound and accurate intelligence on the man and his location.
That's the problem in many cases -- and the reason we caught Saddam but not Bin Laden.
We underestimated intelligence on Iraq in 1995, and paid dearly for it in the Security Council when we didn't fight the French and Russians who blocked several actions, only to catch the Iraqi's red handed in 1996 thanks to key defectors.
So then we over-estimated intelligence in 2003, already based on faulty intelligence believed in 1998, largely because of the under-estimates of 1995 -- including those of Hans Blix himself, which he's had to admit to (it's not all about "Bush lying").
So where do you get the faintest idea that we have this "perfect intelligence" for our special forces?
I thought you, of all people, wouldn't assume this, based on your past rhetoric--er, viewpoints.
Intelligence is only as good as the what people inform us, and we've screwed up plenty of times!
In fact, some of Clinton's closest aids have been rather taken back how much credit Cllinton tries to deflect today, especially given his administrations documentation, actions and planning in 1998 which was used, unmodified and directly, in 2003.
So didn't Clinton "illegally" attack various countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan, during his administration too?
How far does this go under your "definitions"?
Umm, more rhetoric -- clearly Michael Moore inspired.
You should read the 9/11 report, among other things.
Until then, I can't take you seriously based on these statements, especially that last one.
These Saudis are pretty much outcasts, and there's a reason why they were in Afghanistan and not Saudia Arabia.
So what "radical group" did we need to take out in Saudi Arabia?
Oh, that's right, we attack their parent families/ancestors, who have nothing to do with what their outcast off-spring have done.
Good show!
NATO gave the Taliban, ruling in Afghanistan, an ultimatum. Bin Laden and his conspirators or else. They decided to ignore it.
Know your history!
Re: Know your history!
:eek: For once I agree with the Prof!! :eek:
Umm, who was ruling Afghanistan?
And what demands did NATO make of the Taliban before declaring war?
Know your history!
If the have sound and accurate intelligence on the man and his location.
That's the problem in many cases -- and the reason we caught Saddam but not Bin Laden.
We underestimated intelligence on Iraq in 1995, and paid dearly for it in the Security Council when we didn't fight the French and Russians who blocked several actions, only to catch the Iraqi's red handed in 1996 thanks to key defectors.
So then we over-estimated intelligence in 2003, already based on faulty intelligence believed in 1998, largely because of the under-estimates of 1995 -- including those of Hans Blix himself, which he's had to admit to (it's not all about "Bush lying").
So where do you get the faintest idea that we have this "perfect intelligence" for our special forces?
I thought you, of all people, wouldn't assume this, based on your past rhetoric--er, viewpoints.
Intelligence is only as good as the what people inform us, and we've screwed up plenty of times!
In fact, some of Clinton's closest aids have been rather taken back how much credit Cllinton tries to deflect today, especially given his administrations documentation, actions and planning in 1998 which was used, unmodified and directly, in 2003.
So didn't Clinton "illegally" attack various countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan, during his administration too?
How far does this go under your "definitions"?
Umm, more rhetoric -- clearly Michael Moore inspired.
You should read the 9/11 report, among other things.
Until then, I can't take you seriously based on these statements, especially that last one.
These Saudis are pretty much outcasts, and there's a reason why they were in Afghanistan and not Saudia Arabia.
So what "radical group" did we need to take out in Saudi Arabia?
Oh, that's right, we attack their parent families/ancestors, who have nothing to do with what their outcast off-spring have done.
Good show!
NATO gave the Taliban, ruling in Afghanistan, an ultimatum. Bin Laden and his conspirators or else. They decided to ignore it.
Know your history!
:eek: For once I agree with the Prof!! :eek:
I do not know if the attack on Afghanistan was legal or not. I personally think it was more 'legal' then the attack on Iraq in 2003.
However, I do think that little will be accomplished there by NATO troops except kill some Taliban, many civilians (by mistake, I assume) and get allot of themselves killed in the process.
