is it a good idea to get involved in the Libyan civil war?

[redbreegull]

The US had the right to hit al-Qaeda back for 9/11. The problem with Afghanistan is that the mission goal kept expanding and becoming more convoluted, and now our goal is not to get Osama bin Laden but to defeat a massive grassroots insurgency movement of very loosely affiliated elements, a task that is basically impossible since we can't legitimately offer the Afghans more safety than they had under the Taliban.

[mercurial]

good point eb. without diaries the country would surely fall into complete disarray
i'm going to write a letter to Warehouse Stationary

[Trotskilicious]

yes afghans do consume a lot of milk and cheese on their rock farms

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

The US had the right to hit al-Qaeda back for 9/11.

That isn't at all obvious. But if you concede this, then most Middle Eastern countries have the right to bomb the US into the fucking ground, but they would have to wait in line behind South America and a host of African and Pacific and Asian countries.

In fact, if counties have the right to strike back by launching devastating invasions, the US got off pretty light with 9/11.

[Trotskilicious]

i dunno the monroe doctrine helped out a lot of s. american countries

[Eric Blair]

1. Monroe doctrine
2. Fund violent right wing guerrillas and/or invade
3. ???
4. Profit

[Order 66]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

It destroyed that country even more for basically no reason. The Bush administration was willing to risk half a million civilian casualties for no better reason than revenge. It also significantly increased the threat of future terrorist attacks. I don't really think this war has too much of a grey area.

i do think the US made a lot of mistakes in its 2001 offensive.

for one they probably would've captured bin laden at tora bora had they not trusted the native allies so much. pretty unforgivable since that was one of the biggest lessons of vietnam. and like i said earlier in the thread iraq should have never been touched. critics of the afghanistan war grouse about how we've been there 10 years but reality its like we're seven years behind because of diverted resources

so with more focus and competence there probably wouldve been an better outcome. i don't think it was just a matter solely of american bloodlust, which is what iraq was

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

1. Monroe doctrine
2. Fund violent right wing guerrillas and/or invade
3. ???
4. Profit

FREEDOM

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Order 66

i do think the US made a lot of mistakes in its 2001 offensive.

for one they probably would've captured bin laden at tora bora had they not trusted the native allies so much. pretty unforgivable since that was one of the biggest lessons of vietnam. and like i said earlier in the thread iraq should have never been touched. critics of the afghanistan war grouse about how we've been there 10 years but reality its like we're seven years behind because of diverted resources

so with more focus and competence there probably wouldve been an better outcome. i don't think it was just a matter solely of american bloodlust, which is what iraq was

you know i know you troll a lot but this is how i view afghanistan

it's funny because with this rash of demonstrations it may have come to pass that Saddam would have been the Lybia situation if we never invaded which would have worked out to our advantage anyway, or they would be at the same time and we could just be shooting rockets at these dudes to stop being shitbags. you know like Milosevic. That worked, why can't this?

[PkPhuoko]

we bombed their SAM and Radar facilities so another countries jets could fly over and impose a no fly zone. Entirely different level of involvement than the Afghan war.

We effectively destroyed the entire Afghan military and government infrastructure before it hit CNN. That happening was blatantly obvious we were invading another country.

Disabling military targets yet not going after the core of their military is a completely different implication at our intent militarily.

[PkPhuoko]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

you know i know you troll a lot but this is how i view afghanistan

it's funny because with this rash of demonstrations it may have come to pass that Saddam would have been the Lybia situation if we never invaded which would have worked out to our advantage anyway, or they would be at the same time and we could just be shooting rockets at these dudes to stop being shitbags. you know like Milosevic. That worked, why can't this?

that's a more logical comparison. Kosovo had a resistance already established. We toppled the fight in favor of one side and peacekeeping troops took over.

[Trotskilicious]

yeah exactly this is so much like the nato bombings of serbia but people keep going IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ

[Eric Blair]

No, but I don't think Afghanistan should have been invaded at all. I don't really care whether the war is being mismanaged or not. That is beside the point.

For a start, there were a lot of other avenues that could have been pursued. Invading an entire country and bombing it back to the stone age to capture a single man is insane. I mean, it is the exact definition of a war crime.

I mean, you do remember that they agreed to hand Bin Laden over if they were provided proof that he orchestrated 9/11 (still not convinced on that point) but every response to the US ultimatum was ignored. I mean, everything about this invasion was despicable.

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by PkPhuoko

that's a more logical comparison. Kosovo had a resistance already established. We toppled the fight in favor of one side and peacekeeping troops took over.

A significant proportion of the worst ethic cleansing took place after NATO involvement so I really, really hope Libya is not like Serbia.

[PkPhuoko]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

No, but I don't think Afghanistan should have been invaded at all. I don't really care whether the war is being mismanaged or not. That is beside the point.

For a start, there were a lot of other avenues that could have been pursued. Invading an entire country and bombing it back to the stone age to capture a single man is insane. I mean, it is the exact definition of a war crime.

I mean, you do remember that they agreed to hand Bin Laden over if they were provided proof that he orchestrated 9/11 (still not convinced on that point) but every response to the US ultimatum was ignored. I mean, everything about this invasion was despicable.

Afghanistan wasn't really bombed back to the stoneage. The majority of our missions were bombing mountains. So it'd be more like bombing colorado into south dakota. Still shitty but not as shitty as you're making it out to be. It's not like we blew up their skyrises and starbucks, this was the definition of a third world country. (that sounds a bit heartless, didnt mean to be)

The idea that we could have done anything diplomatic with the Taliban is false. I think our biggest mistake was underestimating how vital the Taliban's infrastructure was to the lives of your average Afghan.... and instead of just destroying every ounce of their infrastructure we likely should have taken out key leadership and promoted from within a moderate.

Wouldve likely bit us in the as later on but truthfully wouldve been fair trade in the long run for the mess we're in now.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

A significant proportion of the worst ethic cleansing took place after NATO involvement so I really, really hope Libya is not like Serbia.

yeah it was late but we got rid of the jr. fascists.

just because it wasn't handled perfectly didn't make it a failure. That region is stable and democratic now.

[Trotskilicious]

i mean what are you saying that if nato didn't get involved the milosevic regime would have killed all the muslims slower? or what...

[Eric Blair]

I'm saying that the bombing was pretty unnecessary and killed a bunch of civilians. NATO should have sent troops in, I guess, but Clinton's actions were pretty off. I don't know, I still find it hard to know what I think about it, to be honest.

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by PkPhuoko

Afghanistan wasn't really bombed back to the stoneage. The majority of our missions were bombing mountains. So it'd be more like bombing colorado into south dakota. Still shitty but not as shitty as you're making it out to be. It's not like we blew up their skyrises and starbucks, this was the definition of a third world country. (that sounds a bit heartless, didnt mean to be)

The idea that we could have done anything diplomatic with the Taliban is false. I think our biggest mistake was underestimating how vital the Taliban's infrastructure was to the lives of your average Afghan.... and instead of just destroying every ounce of their infrastructure we likely should have taken out key leadership and promoted from within a moderate.

Wouldve likely bit us in the as later on but truthfully wouldve been fair trade in the long run for the mess we're in now.

This is all wrong. Every single word.

I mean, you say it isn't meant to be heartless, but you are more or less saying "who cares if we destroy a few livelihoods, they were already totally in the shit because of hundreds of years of Western interference and tribe warfare anyway." Which is a horrid thing to say. For another thing, they weren;t mainly just bombing mountains.

Also, diplomatic routs were proposed by the Taliban themselves so I don't know where your objection is coming from.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

I'm saying that the bombing was pretty unnecessary and killed a bunch of civilians. NATO should have sent troops in, I guess, but Clinton's actions were pretty off. I don't know, I still find it hard to know what I think about it, to be honest.

So you basically just kind of figure everything can be solved with talking, tea and cucumber sandwiches?

[Eric Blair]

I'm pretty sure the post you quoted contains the answer to your question.

[Trotskilicious]

So the answer is yes.

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

NATO should have sent troops in

.

[Trotskilicious]

civilians die

[Trotskilicious]

it is impossible not to kill citizens

[Trotskilicious]

because it's just so much FUN

[Eric Blair]

Let's put our differences aside and try to get Banana banned. Let's make this thread useful.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

That isn't at all obvious. But if you concede this, then most Middle Eastern countries have the right to bomb the US into the fucking ground, but they would have to wait in line behind South America and a host of African and Pacific and Asian countries.

In fact, if counties have the right to strike back by launching devastating invasions, the US got off pretty light with 9/11.

Professor Shithead acts like a prick in another thread, I'm shocked

It doesn't have to be obvious, it's my personal opinion. I'm not asking you to agree with it fuckstick. And since you seem to be trying to make an analogy between 9/11 and the US' transgressions against other nations, it might actually be helpful if you explained what events you are referring to

Furthermore, I never said that we had the right to invade Afghanistan, I said we had the right to retaliate against the terror organization that carried out the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban did not carry out the 9/11 attacks. The Afghan people did not carry them out. It was al-Qaeda. In fact, I actually addressed the way in which our mission goals in Afghanistan have become continually larger and broader over time. When the US first made the decision to retaliate, setting up a new government and engaging in a lengthy occupation were never mentioned as mission objectives.

[Eric Blair]

Cool. Good for you.

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

it might actually be helpful if you explained what events you are referring to

lol