Skip to main content

View Diary: Afghanistan (323 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Noone, just stating the obvious (0+ / 0-)
    1.  The laws of war have long supported an invasion upon an unprovoked attack.  As much as I might want to agree with you that 9-11 was more of a criminal act than an act of war, it was the largest attack on the US since Pearl Harbor.  Note that NATO invoked Art. 5.
    1.  I consider the 9-11 Commission Report as a legitimate (if incomplete) investigation.  Do you?
    1.  The someone in Afghanistan who planned the attack was OBL.  He was not part of the Taliban, but was being sheltered by them despite intl efforts to have them peacefully hand him over to some appropriate authorities.  That's history.  Yes, none of the hijackers were Afghans, but he was there with their support.
    1.  As far as the last point, yes, I hate that so many civilians get killed and blame the Bushies for much of how the war was screwed up.  
    1.  As for leaving, maybe.  It all depends on what Obama thinks can be done and if it is worth the cost/effort.  I think, based on what he has been saying in public since he began running for president, that he wants to try to fix it first.  If the "surge" fails, then i think he'll withdraw regardless of political pressures.  but that's just what I think he might do...

    To stimulate wildly weak and untrained minds is to play with mighty fires. W.E.B. DuBois

    by dizzydean on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:17:14 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for the reply. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I rarely get to converse with someone who thinks like you. Do you get all your information from corporate media?

      First, so what that NATO invoked Article just refers to "armed attacks" on member states.  I'm not sure that airliners should be considered as "arms," but surely NATO was not acting logically anyway.

      Second, I find it amazing that anyone who has enough facility with a computer to log on to a website, would find that the 9/11 Commission was "legitimate."  Did you know that Chairs Hamilton and Kean wrote in their book "Without Precedent" that the Commission was "set up to fail?"

      Third, the government of Afghanistan tried on two occasions (in 1998 and in 2001) to deliver OBL to some independent third-party.  Of course, after 9/11, in response to a request for evidence that OBL was actually guilty, Bush responded "we don't need to give you proof."

      The real difference in our perspectives seems to be that you trust the US government when it comes to the proffered reasons for armed conflict, and I don't.  From the Mexican-American War, through the Spanish-American, through the Gulf of Tonkin, through Bush I's invasion of Panama, to Bush II's attack on Iraq, our government has lied us into war.

      And, of course, now that we're in these occupations (I'm quaint like that, "war" can only be declared by Congress), the government will lie to keep us there, because it will profit the same war pigs who filter our choice of politicians in the first place.

      •  Ok, but let's keep it civil (0+ / 0-)

        so, here goes as a response..

        1.  As far as my sources, no i don't just use the corporate media...I'm here, aren't I?  
        1.  Let's remember that 9/11 caused more casualties than Pearl Harbor.  Unless you are a "truther", what other response would you expect from us than going into Afghanistan where OBL and his organization was?  I accept most of the 9-11 Commission report, but even if you think it did not live ujp to expectations, can you come to any other conclusion than that the Taliban and OBL were in cahoots and that OBL was in Afghanistan when 9-11 took place?
        1.  To my knowledge, there were attempts by third parties to get Afghanistan to cough up OBL, but the Taliban refused.  Can you point to something that indicates that the motive force came from Afghanistan?
        1.  Yes, I trust our govt, for the most part.  I think it has to be part of the Democratic ideology that govt is a force for good in the world and can be a real agent of change for the better.  Of course, there is lots of stuff that happens to undermine this and don't get me started with the republicans' ideology...
        1.  As for war, we are not perfect and have blood on our hands for interventions that were imperialistic and unjustified.  However, I also understand that some of the conflicts were motivated for reasons beyond hidden theories.  Vietnam is McNamara has repeatedly said, we were in the Cold War.  Unless you understand that mentality (and our misunderstandings of what the Vietnamese actually wanted), it is hard to gauge why we did what we did in Vietnam.  W's attack on Iraq was totally unjustified and I've said so in many forums.  

        To stimulate wildly weak and untrained minds is to play with mighty fires. W.E.B. DuBois

        by dizzydean on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:43:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And, btw, if you want to do this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          over a day or so, that's wife is demanding my attention...

          To stimulate wildly weak and untrained minds is to play with mighty fires. W.E.B. DuBois

          by dizzydean on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:06:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  LOL...had the same demand from my wife! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Sorry for not responding sooner.

            Honestly, and with genuine (vs. "all due") respect, I think our world-views are so different (and my typing skills are so poor) that I don't think that we could help each other anymore through an exchange on DKos.

            I'll leave it at this:  I hope your favorable view of our government is more accurate than my jaundiced view.

            Thank you again for your time and thoughtfulness.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site