Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Arcus on March 10, 2013 at 12:40pm

Well, you see, back in 2001 there was an attack on the US, which then went on to invoke Article V of the Washington treatment. The government of Afghanistan subsequently refused to hand over those accused of the attack, upon which time war was declared. 

While you obviously want to separate populations from their governments, that's not technically feasible, notwithstanding liberal interventionist doctrine propaganda to the contrary. The only time it's been even remotely successful was Libya, with "only" a thousand or so killed. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on March 10, 2013 at 4:24pm

Back in 2001, how many of the hijackers were Afghans?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on March 10, 2013 at 4:42pm

Zero, but that is besides the point. They were trained in Afghanistan and their backers received shelter from the Afghan government.

It's the same as asking why the US would attack France in WW2.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Obfuskation on March 10, 2013 at 5:35pm

Most of the hijackers were Saudis.  The money that funded them came from Saudi Arabia, and was routed through Germany.  They trained in Afghanistan, Europe, and the United States.  The Afghan government was willing to turn over OBL if evidence was supplied of his guilt; no evidence was ever supplied.

The large scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (among others) are the result of incompetence, ignorance, and arrogance.  Technology isn't the problem; tools have no intent.  It's the shoot first, cowboy mentality of the people using them that has been causing our problems for some time now.

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on March 10, 2013 at 6:05pm

@ Arcus,

I tried to help ya but I can't, maybe Obfuskation can.

Permalink Reply by Arcus on March 11, 2013 at 4:45am

Where the hijackers are from is irrelevant. Where they trained is relevant only as far as official sanctioning of the training for the purpose of terror acts. And why on earth would the US turn over evidence to the Taliban? Firstly the US didn't recognize them, secondly the Taliban was already in violation of UNSC resolutions.

Permalink Reply by Ed on March 12, 2013 at 3:18pm

I would prefer that all current and future wars be mandatorily fought with swords and bow and arrow. Perhaps it wouldn't be nearly as popular in resolving conflict.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 12, 2013 at 3:20pm

Even more effective would be to induct all of our legislators into the armed forces with the assurance that any war they vote in favor of would put them out on the front lines.

Seeing a few legislators coming home in coffins might tone down their rhetoric quite a bit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on March 12, 2013 at 4:19pm

Now you're talking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 10, 2013 at 10:54am

Perhaps we should go back to the days where you went out onto the field of battle with a sword and hacked at each other as if we were sides of pork hanging from a hook in an abattoir. Drones are used to deliver the goods in a relatively focused way. One can kill a target, taking out relatively few innocents with a drone vs. using a thermobaric bomb or block buster dropped from a B52. One could be more surgical by sending in a Seal team as we did to kill Bin Laden, but that risks valuable soldiers' lives and not every target has a high enough value to justify such a strike. It's not the President's job to risk American lives unnecessarily. Quite the opposite.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 10, 2013 at 2:32pm

Without the exposure to the horrors of war,  We may not try to resist, and have a complacency in war.

Reminds me of the inverse of Santayana's famous quote, the inverse being "If we don't repeat history, we are condemned to forgetting it."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M.M. on March 10, 2013 at 5:40pm

@ Blaine Leavitt, Great episode!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page