http://www.theonion.com/content/point/this_war_will_destabilize_the

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=217698

Of course you are correct about this, and as you say it is human nature to show more alarm for your own tribe than for others.

Regardless, an attack upon civilians is an outrage no matter who conducts it, and who it is conducted against. It may or may not be a cause for “war”. I would say if George Bush were to order the bombing of the Tower of London it would be justification of war by the UK against the US. If George were to order the bombing of schools in Nigeria, it would be justification of war by Nigeria against the US. Whether it would be a practical option for Nigeria to conduct such a war is a secondary question. The response would be justified.

Look, Juan, you know I think the world of you (well, your TP persona at least), but although I understand your point I think it goes a little too far. There is no question that the US government, at various times, has implemented very poor policy and conducted very questionable operations. I do not defend such actions, or the nearsighted ignorance displayed be neocon trolls.

Routing the hideous Taliban in response to 9-11 simply cannot be seen in the same category. That’s all I’m saying. Certainly other regimes are equally hideous, but at the same time, we aren’t (I hope) the world’s police.

The Afghanistan government was not only the most openly hostile, it was also providing full cover and training grounds for Al Queda and headquarters for that group’s leaders. The governments of the other countries that you mention cooperated in light of 9-11.

Clearly, this problem is a complex one, and the relationships between US power brokers and the oil sheiks is fundamentally corrupt. I am not ignoring or excusing it. But the case for routing the Taliban and Al Queda was compelling.

Again, not the complete solution (not even remotely close), and not taken to effective conclusion, but still compelling.

In the complete solution, in my opinion the military should play only a limited supplementary role. You may feel it should play no role. The trolls think it should play the only role.

Dont mean to offend, really. I know it is a loose generalization, but, come on, one American dies in the most remote corner of the world and there is this huge quest for knowing what happened. Now, make that a Nicaraguan…good luck.

I have to go. Hope to read you further.

And I have nothing particularly against you. Romans felt they were the belly bottom of the world, as French, etc. Soon, the Chinese…it is a human behavior, not an American one.

Take care.

Sorry, Juan, I have to call BS on this one. First of all, shame on you for lumping all US citizens into one group. Second, shame on you for the hyperbole of equating all actions that are taken against the US.

There is no possible defense or rationale for flying commercial aircraft full of innocent civilians into buildings full of other innocent civilians. None.

The US has withstood many attacks without going to war. Attacks against military targets in particular have a different response. Attacks against non-military targets are at an entirely different level.

“So, just to put things on perspective, dozens of countries should be making war to the US in response of acts of terrorism”

Actions against civilians are wrong and should be condemned, no matter who is the source. Without hesitation or reservation, I condemn any actions intentionally taken by the US against innocent civilians. Civilized people in the Islamic world need to take the same clear stand against Islamic terrorism.

What about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Morocco and Indonesia? Why not invade them too?

Read my response to Badger. According to Afghanistan-ok supporters, dozens of countries should have engaged war against US. Even China when its embassy was destroyed by US missiles.

First of all, I don’t buy into the notion of GWOT. Civilized people always have been and always will be in a struggle against fanatics. The best solution is to lead by example with enlightenment, freedom, and fairness, three counts on which the US government has failed in recent years. However, while altruism is necessary, only the truly naive would consider it sufficient. It has to be backed by wise security, strong defense, and effective intelligence. Again, three failures for the recent US Administration.

The fact is, some people in the world are quite beyond reason. Almost always, these people are religiously motivated. Religion, by definition, is a matter of faith and not reason. Because faith is generally the antithesis of reason, religious fanaticism leads naturally to the irrational. Combining that with endless arms and fueling it with economic injustice, the result is the insanity represented by the Taliban and Al Queda, as only two examples. Fringe Christian nuts in the US are of the same ilk, but gain less traction because the institutions here are stronger (though stressing under Administration attack).

So, yes, I do consider the invasion of Afghanistan and the routing of its Taliban government and Al Queda allies to be entirely justified action in light of the unprovoked and indefensible actions of 9-11. Whether the invasion was done properly is a different matter.

The observant will recognize that while I consider religious fanaticism either the root cause or catalytic agent for the vast majority of historical mayhem, I have also vocally opposed those who would attack Mecca or other religious locations, shrines, or artifacts. The world would be far better off without religion, but religion is best killed off by the persistent light of reason, and not by bullets and bombs.

So, I don’t believe on a GWOT. I believe there is a GSARF (Global Struggle Against Religious Fanatics), and the enemy exists not only in the mountains bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also in the White House and other locations.

Now, what about the bombing of Lebanon by a CIA vehicle in 1982? The blowing of a Venezuelan plane full of Cubans supported by the CIA? The complete destruction of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos? Ok…Im drifting, but do you see the point?

So, just to put things on perspective, dozens of countries should be making war to the US in response of acts of terrorism, performed by US govts, according to your logic.

Juan…I think the attack on Sept. 11 was an act of war against America. Afghanistan was not providing safe haven for terrorists, they were providing safe haven for Bin Laden and Al qaeda. I think America was justified in threatening the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden or else. As I stated in an earlier post, my opinion is that the Taliban are EVIL.
You are probably right about pipelines, opium, and Iran…BUT…if Bush would have toppled the Taliban, caught or killed Bin Laden, and brought most of our troops home safely….he would now be welcomed to campaign with the Republican Candidates…instead of being treated like a leper.

Comment by Juan C

No, but it can sure be given a major boost by those invasions… and continued illegal occupations!

How many countries do you need to invade that are currently providing safe haven for terrorists (whatever their motives are)?

Afghanistan is all about pipelines, opium and surrounding Iran. Terrorism cant be fought by invading countries.

Justification for bombing Mecca:

Percentage of population agreeing with such action: surely less than 10%, hopefully less than 1% – only the most deranged inbred redneck hosebags, otherwise known as TP trolls.

I respectfully respect your respectful disagreement.

I’m not going to argue the details of how Afghanistan was carried out. My point is there is a distinct and profound difference between the action in Afghanistan and the one in Iraq, or the proposed bombing of Mecca.

Let’s quickly review the obvious distinctions between the basis for each action.

Afghanistan – there was a clear link between Al Queda and 911 (allow me to ignore conspiracy theories); there was a clear link between bin Laden and Al Queda; the Taliban is providing safe haven and training grounds for OBL and Al Queda; the Taliban was a stanky and odious regime of theocratic, jihadist, mysoginist lunatics without positive merit; the vast majority of the international community was in sympathy to the actions taken; military not otherwise engaged, available at full strength.

Iraq – oil; daddy; PNAC wet dreams; international support from a handful of toadies; diminished military capacity for protracted engagement.

I suspect that 75% of the population would agree that the Afghanistan engagement was justified and 75% would agree that the Iraq engagement was not. I guess I fall with the majority on this. The trolls clearly live in the gutter-dwelling 25%. Many TPers no doubt live in the upper 25% of idealists.

If I’m going to join forces with one extreme or the other, the choice is fairly clear. I’ll go with the respectful ones.

Comment by upside00 — August 4, 2007 @ 2:14 pm

Hopefully they’ll fade into complete obscurity everywhere – including on this site. The sooner we rid our country of useless bigots, the better.

He and his followers are very pathetic, and I hoope their ilk soon fade into the minority in his District.