War-Losing Faction

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Well, that all depends on whether you subscribe to the concept of international law, or simply the idea that might is right. If you subscribe to the idea that Might is Right, then no you do not need UN approval, or indeed any other sanction, in order to invade any country you want. You have a natural right, as the most powerful nation on earth to attack or invade any other sovereign nation at any time and with any objective.

By doing so however, you vacate the moral highground which as a country you seem to want to occupy. By vacating that moral highground you lose credibility on the international scene and any potency you may have had when attempting to persuade other aggressive nations not to engage in unwarranted invasions.

*nodding*

Originally Posted by DanaC

All depends on how you see yourselves of course. Do you still see yourselves as the strong, moral, defender of freedom?

The 'administration' does obviously

Originally Posted by DanaC

Or are you the aggressor whom the rest of the world needs to defend against?

I am feeling like we are looking this way.

Originally Posted by DanaC

What makes America's aggression different to any other nation's aggression?

To at least half of Americans we don't see any difference. There is an 'administration' at work here. They have too much power to do too many wrong actions with the wrong thinking behind it. I think the American people tried to take some of that power away by making Democrates the majority in both governing branches. At least we might have some accountability after a while.

[Undertoad]

When you so dearly respect the sovereign rule of tyrannical dictators, who maintain their sovereignty by killing their own people with nerve gas and feeding them into industrial shredders, you actually honor the concept of "might is right" and are first to vacate that moral high ground.

The will of the people is still the only valid source of sovereignty.

[DanaC]

The will of the people in Iraq was not taken into account. What was taken into account was the will of the Whitehouse. This is not a defence of Saddam's sovereignty, it's a defence of Iraqi sovereignty. More to the point it is a denial that any single nation has the right to determine another nation's political or developmental path.

That a country is run by a dictator is not, in and of itself, a justification for invasion and occupation. It may however, be a justification for exerting international pressure. When South Africa was run under the system of apartheid, in which the larger part of its population was utterly subjugated, the west did not invade. When Afghanistan was under the rule of the Taliban and they were burning down the girls' schools and subjugating their entire female population, the West did not invade until after America had been attacked. There are vicious dictators the world over, it has never been seen as an acceptable rationale for invasion and enforced occupation by another sovereign power.

[Undertoad]

Will of the coalition, fellow coalition partner.

But not by accident, the Iraqis did vote and then did vote again, in numbers higher than in our own countries. With the recognition that it doesn't matter if it all falls back into totalitarian control, there is still currently more recognizable sovereignty than there was in Saddam's Iraq. And more grounds for optimism that, even if it breaks into three parts, the voters will demand their role in each part.

Not in and of itself a justification for invasion and occupation. I agree. Certainly not if something better can't replace it. But one notices that tyrannical "big man" dictators don't give two shits about international pressure, and when they go to the UN they make demands of it, not ask for even the slightest forgiveness from it.

[DanaC]

Well put Kitsune.

[Undertoad]

Agree or disagree, good times or bad, I am not dropping my we.

[DanaC]

Sky, I don't think anyone really believes that America is wholly united behind Bush and the war. That just isn't how countries work generally. There's a spectrum in every country, every polity. Just for the record, when I personally refer to 'America' doing something, I am referring to the polity not to the individuals or diverse camps within it.

[Aliantha]

As noble as your comments are here Bruce, I doubt the outcome for Afghanistan would have been any better than it has been for Iraq. The political system there is very much the same, with western influences declaring a land mass a country without consultation with the different factions within those borders.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

As noble as your comments are here Bruce, I doubt the outcome for Afghanistan would have been any better than it has been for Iraq.

The Taliban were so hated that it took five years of doing nothing for the Taliban to return in strength. But again, that fundamental fact from military science 101 is repeated. Without plans for the peace, then a military victory is lost. We promised to build a water distribution system for Kabul. America did not even do that. America did nothing - essentially zero - to 'nation build' in Afghanistan. America did nothing to get bin Laden. Even Iran was desperately asking to help because Iran's so hates the Taliban. Of course everyone knows why Iran so hates the Taliban - I need not post the most obvious example. Only wacko extremists among us did not learn that news.

An extremist American president stifled any assistance from Iran, from Pakistan, NATO, etc until it was too late to save Afghanistan. So how much of Afghanistan is controlled Taliban? 10%? 20%? From 2005 and 2004:
Understanding terrorism
Let Him Run Free

Today we measure our fruits planted many years ago. Afghanistan was so ready for assistance that it sat waiting for 5 years. Sat waiting longer then America's entire involvement in WWII. Today, NATO needs on the order of hundreds of thousands to restore what has been lost. So George Jr is sending another 3,000. Just enough so that Afghanstan is not lost under his watch? Deja Vue Nixon.

Do you realize how extensive and how long America's denial has been? Of course you have read every week since 2001 this question: "When do we go after bin Laden." Why not? How extensive is this denial?

Afghanistan can still be saved. Iraq is now lost. Read previous warnings about violence in Kirkuk - and today's news.

Of course 'bean counter' politicians are still ignoring the ISG and discussing body counts in Iraq rather than admit reality - deja vue Vietnam. To save Afghanistan means at least 100,000 in country this spring. Nothing new are numbers defined in military doctrine. What is necessary will not happen. Our leaders are so in denial as to even ignore the Iraq Study Group. To even stifle a Senate vote. Anything to obstruct a solution for a poltical agenda. We have the wacko leaders that we wanted. Ironic are similarities between George Jr's agenda - and posts from Ronald Cherrycoke & Urbane Guerrilla.

Meanwhile Afghanistan was so ready to become stable that it took 5 years for Afghanistan to welcome back the Taliban. So when do you finally decide to go after bin Laden? That question defines the intelligence of George Jr and those who are his brown shirt supporters.

[Aliantha]

Your memory isn't serving you correctly tw. The Taliban never left Afghanistan. They just stayed quiet and let GWB's administration create a war in another country while they sat back watched.

As to Afghanistan being able to be saved, well, if you believe that, you'll believe just about anything.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Not many of the Taliban are Afghanis. It's primarily a foreign force taking advantage of the wide open spaces and lack of opposition/law enforcement. They fill the void created by the lack of a national government that rules more than the capitol.

Unlike Iraq, the bad guys are fairly easy to spot because they aren't fading into the local population. Although they do fade into the mountains and wilderness, they move as a force, large and small groups. More like a non-uniformed army or militia.

There's no urban massacres because there's no urban. It's a whole different world from Iraq, in infrastructure, lifestyle, wealth and simply because there's no civil war going on. Lack of hostilities, if not cooperation, can be attained and maintained between religious and secular factions, unlike Iraq where multiple religions are competing for power.

The Afghanis don't generally have clean water, electricity, sanitation, schools and medical care, but unlike Iraq, they didn't have it before we got there. We didn't deprive them, just failed to aid them.
Afghanistan can still be neutralized as a training/staging area and cash cow for terrorists, but the door is closing quickly.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Your memory isn't serving you correctly tw. The Taliban never left Afghanistan. They just stayed quiet and let GWB's administration create a war in another country while they sat back watched.

Correct that the Taliban were still in Afghanistan because Taliban - an organization from Afghanistan tribal regions (mostly tribes in southern Afghanistan) was all but eliminated. Clear majority opposed the Taliban - strongly disapproved of what the Taliban did to their country. Taliban - the organization - mostly disintegrated. People called Taliban quit - returned to their tribes. Those people still existed. Organization mostly did not. Remnants fled to places such as Pakistan. Afghanistan would be peaceful for first of the past five years while American promises - ie nation building - did not happen. As a result, the people called Taliban have reconstituted an organization called Taliban.

We can argue minutia all day. Taliban was all but dead with little hope of reconstitution IF Americans leaders were intelligent. If wacko extremist political agendas were ignored and if planning for the peace was executed (as military doctrine demands), then a Taliban organization would not reconstitute. But American leaders and their right wing wacko supporters so hated America as to not even ask this question - "When do we go after bin Laden?"

A conquered nation with no program for the peace will rebel after 6 months or one year. Distaste for Taliban rule was so strong that it took five years for Taliban to become popular again. One need only look at highest levels of America's government to appreciate why Taliban have returned.

Aliantha, the Afghan war - a war justified by a smoking gun - is still winnable. However an Afghan victory is becoming less likely with each month. Situation is deteriorating quickly. Why? Well look at the intelligence of an American president, wacko extremism of the real boss Cheney, and an intransigent ideology of those here who support those scumbag leaders.

Iraq is done. Last chance we had to win required 500,000 troops last summer. The Iraq Study Group has simply defined how to get out - an exit strategy - with minimal losses. Afghanistan is now quickly going the way of Iraq. Massive deployment is the only way Afghanistan can be 'saved'.

Deja vue Nam. Whereas the Wise Men in 1968 defined Vietnam as lost; Iraq Study Group in 2006 has defined how to minimize an Iraq defeat. American wacko extremists simply massacred another 30,000 American soldiers in Nam to protect the legacy of an anti-American president. That war ended in 1975. How many years will Americans be massacred in Iraq to protect George Jr's legacy?

In both cases, an American president ignored facts so that the defeat did not happen under his watch. In both cases, the president (and his wacko supporters) worried more about the president's legacy than about supporting the troops.

And so Afghanistan will also be lost. It could be saved if the president was patriotic - admitted defeat in Iraq. But he will not do that. He would rather have both Iraq and Afghanistan lost under some other president's watch. And then 'big dics' Urbane Guerrilla and Ronald Cherrycoke will rewrite history to blame that other president.

We are pretending Afghanistan does not exist. Afghanistan is a war justified by a smoking gun. Because of Iraq (as Aliantha accurately notes), American will lose its first 'justified' war. Special thanks to our 'big dics' who will say anything to support the mental midget and his unjustified war.

We all are not asking the only important question that 'big dics' fear: "When do we go after bin Laden." When was the last time you asked that question of Urbane Guerrilla, Ronald Cherrycoke, and George Jr? Having not asked that question weekly, we all contribute to a defeat in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan can still be won. But the door is closing fast. Why? Where do American patriots ask every day, “When do we go after bin Laden?” You know that ‘big dics’ will not ask that question. It is THE question that separates patriots from ‘big dics’.


No urban in Afghanistan? Afghanistan population was about 30 million. Iraq population was only 26 million - including the 2+ million that have since left Iraq. Where does Afghanistan put all those people if major urban centers do not exist?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Kabul - 3,120,963
Kandahar (Qandahar) - 401,395
Mazari Sharif - 314,915
Herat - 278,209
Jalalabad - 208,960
Kunduz - 166,824
Ghazni - 149,998
Bamyan - 131,233
Balkh - 126,553
Baghlan - 111,902
Not very urban.

I've been trying to get a shisha & tea bar around here for ages!

[Phil]

there is a diamorphine shortage in the UK. with Afghanistan's poppy crop there could be a legal trade in heroin but of course, the chicken-shit politicians would never go for it.