|
Why are we fighting the Taliban?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
Why are we fighting the Taliban? They never attacked us nor intended to attack us. And here we are, fighting an insurgency in a country in which no foreign power has ever been able to control. What are we fighting for? Democracy in Afghanistan? :rolleyes: We'r fighting those who never attacked us which should cast doubts in anyone's minds of why we'r occupying such a god-forsaken country as Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda is not an insurgency. It is an underground political organization which employs terrorism to achieve its political goals. This is not something you go to war with. And it's obvious, that's why we'r fighting the Taliban and not Al-Qaeda. In fact, ask any general in Afghanistan, or enlisted soldier for that matter, if they'v ever seen an "Al-Qaeda fighter", and the answer is going to be no.
So why the hell are we there? Apparently, it's not to fight terrorism, because the Taliban are not terrorists. It's not to bring democracy to Afghanistan because that is impossible in a country run by corrupt war lords. Never mind the fact that the British and the Soviets were routed and they had several times as many troops as we have now in the country.
Two things must be present in a justified war. First, we must know who our enemy is. Second, we must know why we are fighting them. Well, our enemy is Al-Qaeda but we are fighting the Taliban. That doesn't make sense. And why are we fighting the Taliban? Because they are terrorists? No. Most likely I will be told, "They harbored Al-Qaeda." My answer is 'so?' They offered to hand him over if they received evidence of his crimes. This was never given. Additionally, we come back to the premise that the Taliban never planned to nor carried out any attack on America, so deposing them was unjustified.
What is my solution? Withdrawal from Afghanistan and help for the Pakistani government to maintain security. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
This is a "war on terra"
Terra is in Afghanistan apparently. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
What is my solution? Withdrawal from Afghanistan and help for the Pakistani government to maintain security. |
Easier said than done. It's not like we haven't already pissed off the entire Asian continent. We owe China trillions of dollars, we barged into the wrong country and declared victory, killed thousands of our own soldiers along with perhaps millions of theirs. Now Middle Eastern leaders aren't even willing to compromise with a new U.S. President. Osama Bin Laden hasn't been caught, and the leaders of those countries don't really seem to care about fighting insurgents or eliminating the Taliban. What should we do? Say "forget it" and leave? That would be an absolute prime opportunity for terrorists to attack us. Afghanistan harbors more terrorists than any of the other middle eastern countries, so we should try to shut it down from the source rather than piddle around in countries that we shouldn't be in. Why would you assume that everything will be all hunky dory if we immediately pack up and leave Afghanistan? |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Why are we fighting the Taliban? They never attacked us nor intended to attack us. And here we are, fighting an insurgency in a country in which no foreign power has ever been able to control. What are we fighting for? Democracy in Afghanistan? :rolleyes: We'r fighting those who never attacked us which should cast doubts in anyone's minds of why we'r occupying such a god-forsaken country as Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda is not an insurgency. It is an underground political organization which employs terrorism to achieve its political goals. This is not something you go to war with. And it's obvious, that's why we'r fighting the Taliban and not Al-Qaeda. In fact, ask any general in Afghanistan, or enlisted soldier for that matter, if they'v ever seen an "Al-Qaeda fighter", and the answer is going to be no.
So why the hell are we there? Apparently, it's not to fight terrorism, because the Taliban are not terrorists. It's not to bring democracy to Afghanistan because that is impossible in a country run by corrupt war lords. Never mind the fact that the British and the Soviets were routed and they had several times as many troops as we have now in the country.
Two things must be present in a justified war. First, we must know who our enemy is. Second, we must know why we are fighting them. Well, our enemy is Al-Qaeda but we are fighting the Taliban. That doesn't make sense. And why are we fighting the Taliban? Because they are terrorists? No. Most likely I will be told, "They harbored Al-Qaeda." My answer is 'so?' They offered to hand him over if they received evidence of his crimes. This was never given. Additionally, we come back to the premise that the Taliban never planned to nor carried out any attack on America, so deposing them was unjustified.
What is my solution? Withdrawal from Afghanistan and help for the Pakistani government to maintain security. |
The taliban became our enemy when they decided, instead of handing over those who planned 9/11, to fight and kill american soldiers. We continue to fight the Taliban, because even though they are not Al-Qaeda, they currently have similar goals (to kill american soldiers and force our military out of afghanistan). Sometimes appearances are important also. This case would be a prime example. The US withdrawing from Afghanistan, without at least catching Osama, would appear to be a victory for al-qaeda, which would support their recruiting efforts even more (because it makes them look even stronger - people like to associate with strong parties).
walking away isn't always the best solution, even if it means some lives will be saved in the short term. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Lol Krypton, you sound like Susan Sarandon. Obama supports it, so it must be the right thing to do, nuff said.:o |
|
|
| Q5echo |
I'd argue there is no short term. We r fighting a radical expansionist ideology that doesn't recognize the subtle nuances (<--sarcasm) of a short term. You fight them now on your already committed terms and gains (no matter how insignificant you think those gains are Krypton) or you surely risk much greater cosequences on their terms if you had chosen not to.
And please let's not think for a second, Krypton, our motivations are radical and expansionist. The moderate secular Islamic governing authority is the accepted international standard today, not the hiney spankers. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
Easier said than done. It's not like we haven't already pissed off the entire Asian continent. We owe China trillions of dollars, we barged into the wrong country and declared victory, killed thousands of our own soldiers along with perhaps millions of theirs. Now Middle Eastern leaders aren't even willing to compromise with a new U.S. President. Osama Bin Laden hasn't been caught, and the leaders of those countries don't really seem to care about fighting insurgents or eliminating the Taliban. What should we do? Say "forget it" and leave? That would be an absolute prime opportunity for terrorists to attack us. Afghanistan harbors more terrorists than any of the other middle eastern countries, so we should try to shut it down from the source rather than piddle around in countries that we shouldn't be in. Why would you assume that everything will be all hunky dory if we immediately pack up and leave Afghanistan? |
What's so hard about loading up and getting the up out of there? I also don't believe for one second that Afghanistan and Pakistan is somehow an epicenter of terrorism. That's a joke. Does terrorism go on? Yes. But that's without the context of the situation over there. Where there is war, there is terrorism, and in Afghanistan/Pakistan, there war, and therefore, terrorism. The Pashtuns are strongly independent, and to think, NATO, or ISAF, or America can subdue them, or force democracy on them, is a laughable proposition. Unfortunately, we'r spending hundreds of billions of dollars at such a useless cause as democracy in Afghanistan. I'm disgusted. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
The taliban became our enemy when they decided, instead of handing over those who planned 9/11, to fight and kill american soldiers. We continue to fight the Taliban, because even though they are not Al-Qaeda, they currently have similar goals (to kill american soldiers and force our military out of afghanistan). Sometimes appearances are important also. This case would be a prime example. The US withdrawing from Afghanistan, without at least catching Osama, would appear to be a victory for al-qaeda, which would support their recruiting efforts even more (because it makes them look even stronger - people like to associate with strong parties).
walking away isn't always the best solution, even if it means some lives will be saved in the short term. |
Actually, the Taliban offered to hand over OBL if they were provided evidence. You know, when a country asks another for an extradition, usually they ask for the evidence. It's only standard procedure.
You say, 'if we leave AQ becomes strong.' Ok, well, they also said during the Vietnam War, 'if we leave, communism will spread unfettered and become stronger.' Sounds much like a slippery slope fallacy. We can still fight AQ without having to occupy entire countries and waste our resources in a hopeless cause that is democracy in such a backwards country as Afghanistan. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
I'd argue there is no short term. We r fighting a radical expansionist ideology that doesn't recognize the subtle nuances (<--sarcasm) of a short term. You fight them now on your already committed terms and gains (no matter how insignificant you think those gains are Krypton) or you surely risk much greater cosequences if you had chosen not to.
And please let's not think for a second, Krypton, our motivations are radial and expansionist. The moderate secular Islamic governing authority is the accepted international standard today, not the hiney spankers
vt |
You think we can fight ideologies militarily? Or occupy a country like Afghanistan with any favorable outcome to us? I do believe we can fight terrorism without having to occupy entire countries. I also find it sad that we'v killed far more people directly/indirectly than were killed on 9/11. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Actually, the Taliban offered to hand over OBL if they were provided evidence. You know, when a country asks another for an extradition, usually they ask for the evidence. It's only standard procedure. |
if you believe they would have handed him over you are extremely naive. The taliban wasn't going to hand over osama because he had tribal support.
| quote: |
Not long after 9/11, one senior Taliban official told me Osama bin Laden was a pain in the backside. Hard to control, intent on doing his own thing. The only reason they didn't turn him over was out of fearsome ethnic tribal loyalty known as Pashtunwali. Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are at opposite ends of the ultra-conservative corner of Islam they occupy. Not natural bedfellows. |
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/a...html#cnnSTCText
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
You say, 'if we leave AQ becomes strong.' Ok, well, they also said during the Vietnam War, 'if we leave, communism will spread unfettered and become stronger.' Sounds much like a slippery slope fallacy. We can still fight AQ without having to occupy entire countries and waste our resources in a hopeless cause that is democracy in such a backwards country as Afghanistan. |
it's not a slippery slope argument at all (for your future benefit, a slippery slope argument starts with a minor action causing a string of future events leading to the claim A leads to Z).
The argument is simple. (1) We leave Afghanistan, (2) Al Qaeda claims victory (which they obviously will do). (3) This makes them look stronger to other islamic extremists (who were on the margins before), who will more willingly join the causes because it doesn't look nearly as futile as it may have (to that person) prior to the US withdrawal. The only way this could possible be a slippery slope argument is if:
(1) Leaving Afghanistan is considered a minor event (which isn't the case),
(2) 3 events is sufficiently long to be considered a slippery slope (unlikely),
(3) Al Qaeda wouldn't actually claims victory if we leave (not a chance), and
(4) marginal extremists aren't emboldened by perceived successes of other extremists (please).
while 3 and 4 may be unproven, i would love to hear you provide you reasoning on why they wouldn't be true. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
You think we can fight ideologies militarily? |
you gotta start somewhere. but no one has ever said thats the end of it.
Musharaff kept at least a semblence of control militarily. say what you will about the guy, he was a dictator, yeah, but he wasn't a madman.
| quote: |
Or occupy a country like Afghanistan with any favorable outcome to us? |
3 million girls are going to school for the first time in a generation. im sorry, if just one Afghani girl graduates to the 6th grade while risking acid being thrown on her face at her bus stop or otherwise risk being hauled out of her classroom and summarily shot in the street then honestly dude i don't give two s wtf you think about your country.
| quote: |
I do believe we can fight terrorism without having to occupy entire countries. |
do you have any evidence of that being successful?
| quote: |
I also find it sad that we'v killed far more people directly/indirectly than were killed on 9/11. |
9/11 was one battle. it wasn't the first battle. it wasn't the last battle. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
I'm not fighting the Taliban.
Whatever are you talking about? |
|
|
|
|
