babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Ain't Quite the Middle East

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Ain't Quite the Middle East
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 15 July 2004 07:23 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
Afghanistan isn't really in the "Middle East." (Personally, I extend the boundary of that concept to the Iran-Afghanistan border.) But this seems like as good a place as any ...

There is a debate [at "Hitchens on Moore": Rabble Columns/Features {i don't remember}] as to the merits of bush jr.'s invasion of Afghanistan.

VoT put forth the plausible notion that the fall of the Taliban should be celebrated at least. Most agreed that that was a good thing, but the invasion killed thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million souls, and the detestable Taliban was replaced by the equally detestable warlords.

Others have argued that the invasion was legal according to international law. I disputed this, but then conceded the fact.

But many (myself included) continue to insist that the invasion was not morally justified. Others, equally adamant, insist that it was justified on more than legal grounds.

Sadly, the debate has continued to fester. Perhaps it can fester here ....


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 15 July 2004 07:44 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
For Example:

posted 15 July 2004 07:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I agree with everything Mass says, except the word "moot".
"Moot" means unimportant, or not necessary to decide.

But the fact that the Taleban had failed to comply with numerous UN resolutions concerning Bin Laden is quite important."

Not really. The US and Israel, (to mention two culprits well-known to lazy leftists such as myself) also fail to comply with UN resolutions. I'm sure there are others who thumb their noses at the institution. In this context, the Taliban's negligence is understandable ... but ...

"And the fact that they allowed their territory to be the site from which murderous, intentional attacks on civilians occurred is the ONLY reason they faced invasion."

I'll agree that they were 'murderous, intention attacks on civilians.' Not disputed. But I can think of US satellites during the "Contra" wars with Nicaragua, US harboring and protection of Haitian serial killers (now part of paul martin's "nation-building" efforts in Haiti).
Furthermore, Saudi financing of these murderers has gone unpunished.
Perhaps another one of Michael Moore's potshots has landed. The Taliban was being difficult about a pipe-line. They had to go.

"The US has too much military power; and it throws its power around too much."

Agreed.

"But in this particular instance they were right."

Completely and totally wrong. Read the links I provided in the original thread and then start in again about the righteousness of the slaughter in Afghanistan. Those people were innocents, with nothing to do with their government's harboring of the Al Qaedah, let alone Al Qaedah itself.

"Those who decry the attacks on Afghanistan"

ie., the callous disregard for human life of the invasion ...

"should tell us how they would have prevented an October 11, a November 11, and a December 11th."

this is akin to the nonsense that US Senators believed that Saddam Hussein had an Atlantic Fleet, protected from radar presumably, from which he could have launched his balsa-wood drones and their deadly neuro-toxins hundreds of miles into mainland USA.

Bin Laden's attacks always took months and months to prepare and carry out. The US could have insisted that he be placed under house arrest at least, to restrict his abilities to make more plans.

Bin Laden's organization isn't a goddamn airforce. You know, one that can run a bombing sortie, return to base, fuel-up, reload, and bomb again. And jeezizmurphi!! If 9-11 was carried out by Saudi residents within the US, carrying x-acto knives onto passenger planes, how the hell is bombing remote Afghanistan supposed to prevent a retaliatory 10-11??? Words are starting to fail me at this point ...

"And how they would have prevented a Michigan Militia Presidency when Bush failed to take action against those responsible for killing Americans."

hyperbole in the extreme.
answer: I dunno? Kill the Michigan Militia candidate? Like Clinton and Reno always did? Make people know that the only fascists who are going to usurp the US Constitution are already on the job?

Or, maybe, explain to the American people that the people of Afghanistan are innocent and shouldn't be the targets of a bombing campaign because of the foolishness of their gov't?

Or just not kill zillions of people for reasons of electoral politics?

We (the Western Democracies) are supposed to be the good guys after all. [not that that matters to the bush jr. regime, but it oughta matter to us.]


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ray Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4178

posted 16 July 2004 11:03 AM      Profile for Ray Peterson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Country on right path, Afghans say
quote:
In the most comprehensive survey to be held in Afghanistan 64 per cent of those polled said they were satisfied with the direction the country was taking, two and a half years after the American invasion removed the Taliban. Only 11 per cent said they were dissatisfied.

The survey, commissioned by the Asia Foundation, an independent, privately funded American charity, showed that 81 per cent of people planned to vote in the presidential election in October, with 77 per cent of them believing the vote, and a parliamentary poll next April, would "make a difference".



Seems like things are slowly getting better.

From: Hinkley Hills | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 16 July 2004 11:08 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Regardless of the numbers, I would think that women who want to be educated and men who do not want to be hauled away because their beard is deemed insufficient are quite relieved that the Taliban is no longer in power.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 July 2004 11:12 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Regardless of the numbers, I would think that women who want to be educated and men who do not want to be hauled away because their beard is deemed insufficient are quite relieved that the Taliban is no longer in power.

Which men and women outside of Kabul who no longer get tortured or killed for those offences would you be thinking of, josh?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 16 July 2004 11:28 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I understand what you're driving at, even if it were only in Kabul, which I somehow doubt, that in itself would be progress.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 July 2004 11:45 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Progress? Uh, no. That would represent a return to the general state of affairs during the Soviet occupation, which most of us -- well, me, anyway -- objected to for other reasons, mainly involving the general slaughter being visited upon Afghans elsewhere in the country, mainly by the Soviets but more and more indirectly as a result of incompetent USian meddling.

That's not to say that other categories of persons weren't being tortured or summarily strung up in Kabul itself by the Soviets -- they were. As they are now, under USian occupation. If you go to the RAWA site I linked to in the previous thread and bother to watch the slide show put together by those Afghan women, one of the earliest shots you will see is a photo taken this year of a summary street execution in Kabul.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 16 July 2004 11:50 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, due mostly to no fault of their own, progress appears to be quite a relative term in Afghanistan.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 16 July 2004 06:02 PM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Was the invasion meritorious? No. Because of the way that the world abandoned Afghanistan after the invasion and was ignored the please of Karzai's pleas for decent NATO support and even the most minimal levels of aid. Countries made big promises, but largely haven't followed through.

Invasions must be judged on the living standards of citizens and whether they unambiguously improve post-regime change. Sadly, that's not the case in Afghanistan.

If countries-especially the United States-had been as concerned with the Afghan state as they were with hunting UBL, then the invasion would have been a success.


From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 17 July 2004 08:09 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If countries-especially the United States-had been as concerned with the Afghan state as they were with hunting UBL, then the invasion would have been a success.

The invasion was about neither. Ask yourself; why would the US refuse to accept the Taliban's offer which would probably guarantee his and his associates capture, quick trial, and pay-per-view execution shortly before the election, but instead take the risk that not only would their main suspect escape, but also that his criminal organization would be left intact, functioning and growing? Why did they insist on doing it the hard way, and failing so badly?

As for the invasion's legality:

America has declared itself above international law. It has declared the UN useless and irrelevant. It cannot then turn around and argue for the legality of an invasion on the grounds of international law and UN resolutions.

Israel has refused to abide by UN resolutions for over 30 years, yet enjoy the unconditional material and moral support for their brutality from that same nation who claims to be enforcing UN resolutions in Iraq and Afganistan. So it is clear that their (the US's) motives are not to preserve the integrity and authority of that international body.

I'd also like to address the question of evidence of Bin Laden involvement in the 911 attacks. Jeff House pointed to a videotape supposedly found in a hut in Afganistan. First, he can fund the flight training of several kamikaze pilots, but can't afford quality video gear? But more to the point, where is the video where he clearly and unequivically states that he and his organization take full responsiblity for the attacks? It's an easy enough thing to do. It would garner much support from his target audience. It would give him enormous credibility in his fight against America. It would seriously piss-off the Americans. And it is pretty much SOP for violent political organizations to claim responsiblity for their acts, otherwise they are pointless. The IRA did it. Even the FLQ crowed about their pissant pipe bombs. So why would OBL not take responsibility for the most devastating attack on the US mainland?

The second bit of "evidence" was Connie Rice's "historical" document about Bin Laden determined to strike US. I hate, no despise, agreeing with Rice on this, but that isn't evidence for any attack. That is the conjecture, speculation and analysis put forward on possible events, not the blueprint for forthcoming action. That memo wasn't like a captured plan of attack, or an intercepted set of instructions to operatives. It wasn't evidence of anything but intelligence analysis. I'm sure they have similar documents for other organisations, like say Greenpeace or Earthfirst, but that doesn't mean that those organisations will actually do anything.

What it comes down to is that the US invaded a sovereign country that did not attack them, destroyed its quite brutal and criminal government, put in place a different bunch of criminals, gangsters and drug dealers, and abandoned the rest of the people to the invisible hand of the heroin market and depleted uranium, all without accomplishing any of their stated objectives. They did this not to uphold international law (to which they are not subject), and not because of self-defense (since they were in no immediate danger), but mainly because of a cultural bloodlust that demands immediate carnal, spectacular, and merciless retribution upon not those who wronged them, but upon those whom are most unable to defend themselves and those whose culture, religion, and race is sufficiently different from thier own to justify inflicting the most horrible savagery imaginable.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca