Soldiers died for us.

[leftace53]

So whenever I strike up an argument with a right wing, and the topic of me troop support comes up, and I say that I don't support the troops, the "rebuttal" is always something like "they died for your freedom" or "if you're not behind them, then stand in front of them" etc... Now, I'm all for the actual people who may join the army because of financial issues and what not, and its not personal against the individuals, but imperial troops are not something to support. Yet, I don't know how to properly argue against this sensationalist point.

How do my fellow comrades handle the whole "they died for you" thing?

I suspect this belongs here in learning? Yes.

[Red Commissar]

In the US I go on two lines

How does supporting a war in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq relate to your freedoms?

More so, the best way to "support the troops" is to go against wars that get many of them killed for no real reason.

The only people who can say "soldiers died for us" are war profiteers.

[leftace53]

How does supporting a war in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq relate to your freedoms?


Theres ones that reply with something along the lines of terrorism, or how they attacked first, or how they will eat your babies.


The only people who can say "soldiers died for us" are war profiteers.
No argument there.

[TheSamsquatch]

If you want to die for somebody that oppresses you, for quarrels among the multi-national uber rich politicians, if you really want to be a pawn like that, and die for an absurd american notion such as freedom, do NOT expect any form of respect or recognition from me. Our freedom has not been really in jeopardy for years, so that argument is asinine. On so many levels i completely loathe the military.

[Terminator X]

I can't have a rational conversation with these people because they are obviously radical nationalists, where "patriotism" is seen as the ultimate in service to one's country. The "you're either with us or against us" line also gets spouted frequently.

I can't completely write off the actual troops however, as many of them were likely either forced or tricked into joining the military, thanks to the vile recruitment methods employed by the US Armed Forces.

[AnthArmo]

I don't recall ever being in this argument before, but I had an idea that might come in handy. Put the onus of proof on them, always. If you go off your head blabbermouthing about Imperialism or whatnot, you'll just sound crazy.

Whenever they tell you "They died for your freedom!"
Simply reply with "How am I more free because of war?"
Any half baked response will be easier to rebutt and will be at least grounded in reality to some extent.

[soyonstout]

Another thing to consider is this whole notion of the state as the guarantor of freedom. America is supposed to be the "land of the free" but nearly every state has some shit in their official rhetoric about freedom, so the question is what freedom does the government actually provide.

More important though are points already made, that workers aren't free (other than free to sell their labor in order to stay warm and well-fed) no matter who runs the state, period. It's also something of an absurdity for people in the US to fear invasion which hasn't happened (in fact no war has occurred on american soil since) in 198 years, and the nation state that did that is currently the US' main ally in many ways. But I think this is more of a specific answer--the real question is, what do working people gain/lose based on what language their exploiters speak or what religion they profess or whatever? the identification with the nation-state is the real thing that needs to be brought into question, more than the relative security of the US as a nation-state

-soyons tout

[#FF0000]

If you want to have their ear at all don't go on the "Dead American soldiers is the best thing" warpath like I love to do. A lot of people have soldiers in their families and so it's a very emotional subject, which makes it hard, but not impossible to reason with them. Talk about how soldiers might honestly believe they are doing good work but are being exploited and used to further the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

Don't even bother with Marines, though.

[Joemakerman]

Don't even bother with Marines, though.
My brother is going into the marines, I can second this. There's no way in hell I could convince him in the slightest that what he is doing is a lie, nor his buddies.

[NGNM85]

So whenever I strike up an argument with a right wing, and the topic of me troop support comes up, and I say that I don't support the troops, the "rebuttal" is always something like "they died for your freedom" or "if you're not behind them, then stand in front of them" etc... Now, I'm all for the actual people who may join the army because of financial issues and what not, and its not personal against the individuals, but imperial troops are not something to support. Yet, I don't know how to properly argue against this sensationalist point.

How do my fellow comrades handle the whole "they died for you" thing?

I suspect this belongs here in learning? Yes.

I'd venture if you asked a few simple questions their whole thesis would collapse like a flan in a cupboard. For example, as has been suggested "Who died for my freedom?" "When was my freedom threatened?" "Who was threatening my freedom?" I can't think of any justifiable answer unless perhaps if you go all the way back to WWII. I every subsequent military conflict the US was the aggressor. (Not even counting the numerous proxy wars and dictatorships we propped up.) Any thorough historical study will reveal this.

Admittedly, there was no negotiating with the third reich. However, this doesn't negate the fact that war is hell and we're better off without it, but also suggests we might very well be better off without nation-states as well. This infantile, psuedo-religious sense of team affiliation nearly led to the extermination of the human race in 1962. In the atomic age nationalism will be the death of us all, 'one world or no world', as it goes.
I always say; "I am an an American, but I'm a human being, first and foremost."

[HEAD ICE]

For example, as has been suggested "Who died for my freedom?" "When was my freedom threatened?" "Who was threatening my freedom?" I can't think of any justifiable answer unless perhaps if you go all the way back to WWII. I every subsequent military conflict the US was the aggressor. (Not even counting the numerous proxy wars and dictatorships we propped up.) Any thorough historical study will reveal this.

This. When I get into these type of arguments, I do my best to try to relate to the person. Even how fun it is to own someone, owning people doesn't change minds. Often, relating to people does. I ask, "what was the last military action our government has taken since WWII that was in defense of you?" Pose your points in questions rather than statements so they come to the realization themselves.

They will try to think this through and they will, 99% of the time not have an answer. They may say "Afghanistan", but kindly point out that our own generals Patreaus and McChrystal both say that there are less than 100 Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. If the goal was to "defeat the terrorists" than our mission has apparently been realized. Then why are we still there? Why do we have dozens of permanent bases in Afghanistan? Why would we want permanent bases in Afghanistan?

Also ask, what country poses a threat to us? It would be a laughable joke if China attempted a ground invasion of the USA. Mention how we spend more on our military than the whole world combined, and if we cut our budget precisely in half we would still be spending more than the whole of Europe.

Once they realize that we haven't been fighting our freedoms, they will wonder what we are fighting for. This is the easier part.

[The Ben G]

There are only a few Justifiable wars in American History. Maybe if they were talking about the Revolution, 1812, War of Succession (Debatable), or the World Wars, than that would be accurate. But, these wars for imperialism (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc.), are just the aggressive American government invading because they 'harbor Terrorists', have a different system, or have weapons of Mass Destruction that Reagan sold them to help out the Contras, etc..

[AK]

No, they didn't die for us. They died to ensure the wealth and property of their rulers - and to give the victorious faction of the upper class the freedom to exploit more workers and natural resources.

[AK]

There are only a few Justifiable wars in American History. Maybe if they were talking about the Revolution, 1812, War of Succession (Debatable), or the World Wars, than that would be accurate. But, these wars for imperialism (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc.), are just the aggressive American government invading because they 'harbor Terrorists', have a different system, or have weapons of Mass Destruction that Reagan sold them to help out the Contras, etc..
America's entry into WW1 and 2 were inevitable. The US, like most other states, was looking to expand it's empire. The sinking of Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbour were merely justifications. In WW1, if America truly wanted to fight for freedom and all that crap, it would have invaded Europe in 1914. In WW2, if America truly wanted to defeat fascism, it should have fired it's first shot in 1939. Instead, it waited for a long time - on both occassions - until entry into the wars were justifiable.

[infraxotl]

Do this enough and you'll realize the only way to preserve your sanity is to make them feel as horrible as you can in as few words as possible because even the most "rational" of jingoistic individuals cannot be reasoned with. Dismantle their beliefs with the patience and understanding of a saint, and in the end they'll still believe what they want to and assume you're a smooth talking LIEbral jack ass.

[Hexen]

Remember "freedom" is highly a subjective word, it would probably make sense if a wealthy capitalist was saying that soldiers was dying for their freedoms to exploit and drain resources/wealth for themselves while the rest are USian working classes are just repeating it like parrots since it's another propaganda technique of projecting bourgeoisie vocabulary/ideals into the working classes which they'll mistakenly think it's for them despite reality...

Perhaps I made a peferct analogy/metaphor about the Parrot thing (imagine the bourgeoisie being the pet owner while the USian working classes are the parrots picking it up and repeating it mindlessly what they (the capitalists) were bickering about without thinking what they actually mean...)

Just like how socialism/communism/anarchism/feminism/etc have become loaded words because USian working classes overheard what the bourgeoisie was bickering about and picked it up and started repeating thinking it also applies to them despite reality...well also kinda like cargo cult politics actually..

[El Rojo]

the stop the war coalition in the UK has a phrase

"support the troops, bring em home"

viz the whole, 9 11 justification for everything, i tend to point out that it would never have happened if it wasnt for years of US and western nasty economic policies, and or drawing up boarders in the middle east.

those who dont try and understand the roots of terrorism are doomed to have it repeated

[GPDP]

Those kinds of statements ("they died for your freedom," etc.) are known as "thought-terminating cliches." Instead of fostering rational debate, they are fired as a cheap and easy way to get the last word and end an argument. Such statements carry little to no intellect behind them; they are meant solely to shut you up.

That's not to say you can't argue back, of course. The problem with arguing with warmongering nationalists, however, is debates with them usually consist of them spouting little more than this kind of loaded sound bites and evasive one-liners, usually requiring several minutes to debunk their statements, only for them to fire off another one, which requires more in-depth debunking, and so on, until you realize you value your sanity over trying to convince a close-minded idiot who can only think and argue in cliches.

It really depends, however. Some war-supporters can be left speechless, while others will remain adamant. Army soldiers, for example, can sometimes be convinced or at least left to think about your position, while Marines and Air Force goons tend to be much more jingoistic. Expect the latter to rain down thought-terminating cliches at you for all infinity.

[Invincible Summer]

I wonder what some of our Army comrades have to say about this

[Bombay]

This is what Kissinger said of US soldiers:
"dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy.

[ArrowLance]

This is a common thing as I see it. Those without class awareness don't recognize the difference between themselves and the bourgeoisie. Without this distinction the soldiers very much do seem to be dying for them, as they are actually dieing for the bourgeoisie. We see this in politics with people supporting republicans or democrats or whatever parties apply to your locality.

[mikelepore]

This is the sort of history we have of the military fighting for "our freedom." In 1893 the U.S. Marines were sent to Hawaii to overthrow the tribal government, based on the complaint by U.S. sugar companies that were not being allowed to conduct sugar business in Hawaii. In 1910 the U.S. invaded Nicaragua to put U.S. mining companies in control of the mines there. In 1954 the U.S. military overthrew the elected government of Guatemala because that government announced a plan to take over unused land owned by the United Fruit Company, with compensation according to that company's own estimate of the land's value. A pattern begins to appear to anyone who is even barely conscious.

[Barry Lyndon]

There are only a few Justifiable wars in American History. Maybe if they were talking about the Revolution, 1812, War of Succession (Debatable), or the World Wars, than that would be accurate. But, these wars for imperialism (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc.), are just the aggressive American government invading because they 'harbor Terrorists', have a different system, or have weapons of Mass Destruction that Reagan sold them to help out the Contras, etc..

In my view the only completely just war the United States has ever fought has been the American Civil War- which involved the real and tangible liberation of millions of brutally oppressed human beings. It's ironic that the bourgeoisie acts as if this is also the one war that we have to be sad and remorseful about- it being 'brother against brother' and all that, or this disgusting revisionist campaign to claim that the moral center of the war-slavery-was unimportant. It is ironic that I, a communist, am more patriotic when it comes to the American Civil War then a lot of so-called 'patriots'. I have a huge picture of Abraham Lincoln on my wall, along with Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Che, Castro, Ho Chi Minh and Mao.

Even World War II is problematic-the Soviet Union really did the heavy lifting when it came to defeating Nazi Germany, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in my view is one of the greatest crimes against humanity of the 20th century. Plus World War II opened the door to decades of American hegemony, which has destroyed literally millions of lives all over the globe.

[anton black]

A couple of points on this issue--
The imperialists use this whole support of the troops thing to legitimize their wars and constrain opposition to a more or less loyal level.
They also use this to control the troops themselves along the lines of they owe it to the people to do what they are told.

Some of the importance of this issue is that the troops themselves, when they do go into opposition, can be a key element in opposing war and imperialism and in revolutionary struggle. (U.S. troops vs Vietnam War, Russian revolution, Germany 1918)

--Anton

[Devrim]

In Turkey they don't tell you so much that they died for you, but that they died for the country. There was an incident in a pub when we bumped into a woman from work whose boyfriend was a professional soldier, back on leave from serving abroad.

Anyway we sat with these people and her boyfriend was a totally obnoxious nationalist idiot continually going on about the nation, and after hearing about how is was prepared to die for the nation for about the fortieth time, I told him to fuck off and do it then, got up and left.

Anyway six days later he actually did (die for the nation), which made for a bit of a frosty atmosphere at work.

Devrim

[The Red Next Door]

I try to talk people out of join the military and i have no luck, so i just say fuck it especially the jartard wanna be's.

[#FF0000]

I have friends in Colorado who just beat the shit out of their friends who join the military when they come home.

[this is an invasion]

So whenever I strike up an argument with a right wing, and the topic of me troop support comes up, and I say that I don't support the troops, the "rebuttal" is always something like "they died for your freedom" or "if you're not behind them, then stand in front of them" etc... Now, I'm all for the actual people who may join the army because of financial issues and what not, and its not personal against the individuals, but imperial troops are not something to support. Yet, I don't know how to properly argue against this sensationalist point.

How do my fellow comrades handle the whole "they died for you" thing?

I suspect this belongs here in learning? Yes.

I don't tell people that I support or not support the troops. The "troops" are an extremely mixed group of people. There are some that join up because they genuinely believe they are doing good, there are some that join because they don't really have any other way, there are some that join up simply to shoot people, etc. etc. I certainly "support" (although empathize may be a better term) with the first two types.

You could always bring up ways the US government has actually curbed freedoms in the name of "fighting terror." Or just point out that neither Afghanistan or Iraq are, were, or ever will be in any position to cause serious damage to US freedoms or it's global power.

[MarxSchmarx]

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. he won it by making the other dumb bastard die for his country.

Gen. George S. Patton, US Army

[Agnapostate]

My brother is going into the marines, I can second this. There's no way in hell I could convince him in the slightest that what he is doing is a lie, nor his buddies.

So am I. I haven't encountered jingoists so much as people who need money for school, but that branch definitely attracts the most hardcore victims of propagandistic brainwashing.

What's been said by others here is true. U.S. troops haven't engaged in defensive action since World War II, and even that involved an attack on a target far out in the Pacific itself acquired through governmental imperialism and removal of the Hawaiian monarchy. When was the last time that U.S. troops defended the country from invasion? You'll certainly receive the "we have to fight them there so that we don't fight them here" response, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and almost every single insurgent threat to the U.S. population was provoked by the actions of one ruling administration or another. Individual military personnel aren't to blame or scapegoat so much as the administrators.

[Agnapostate]

Army soldiers, for example, can sometimes be convinced or at least left to think about your position, while Marines and Air Force goons tend to be much more jingoistic.

Really? The Air Force is regarded as the "softest" branch, since it's the most "civilian." Just on the anecdotal level, one of my uncles is an AF veteran and never mentions or discusses military issues, but is a standard Democrat, and another uncle who's a Navy veteran is more of a jingoist and repeats the same asinine cliches. We've had really intense arguments before, actually, though never physical fights or anything.

[Invincible Summer]

In Turkey they don't tell you so much that they died for you, but that they died for the country. There was an incident in a pub when we bumped into a woman from work whose boyfriend was a professional soldier, back on leave from serving abroad.

Anyway we sat with these people and her boyfriend was a totally obnoxious nationalist idiot continually going on about the nation, and after hearing about how is was prepared to die for the nation for about the fortieth time, I told him to fuck off and do it then, got up and left.

Anyway six days later he actually did (die for the nation), which made for a bit of a frosty atmosphere at work.

Devrim

TBH I don't feel sorry at all for soldiers who die. They knew the risks when they decided to become a military person, and they met their end in the manner expected from soldiers.

I don't get why people seem to mourn military personnel more than anyone else, it's sort of infuriating. A rapist is caught and put in jail, everyone "knows" this is what happens. A soldier is willing to die for his country, and he dies, and everyone acts like it's some huge deal.

[4 Leaf Clover]

i support only red army :lol:

[FreeFocus]

Personally, I don't waste my time debating. Fuck these people.

[Devrim]

TBH I don't feel sorry at all for soldiers who die. They knew the risks when they decided to become a military person, and they met their end in the manner expected from soldiers.

In much of the world soldiers don't 'decide' to join up. They are conscripted.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

In much of the world soldiers don't 'decide' to join up. They are conscripted.

Devrim

But a lot arent....The way the army spilt in Germany in 1918 and less so in 1919 is very instructive...Most professional armies carry their own "ethos" and its one that is pretty removed from the ICC's. I dont understand why a lot of the left is very anti-police but is okay with soldiers and prison officiers...Frankly I would take a police man over a professional soldier or a prison guard anyday.

[Palingenisis]

Personally, I don't waste my time debating. Fuck these people.

Honestly I dont think thats a wise attitude...as much for our own sake as theirs. Former British soldiers went onto fight in the IRA for instance. I think we always have to be open to people without betraying principles.

[Palingenisis]

I have friends in Colorado who just beat the shit out of their friends who join the military when they come home.

Regardless of their opinion on things afterwards?

If so thats fucked up.

[Invincible Summer]

In much of the world soldiers don't 'decide' to join up. They are conscripted.

Devrim

This is true. Although, maybe you can tell me, are most of these conscripted soldiers in it because the country forces them to serve for (time period), or are some even conscripted indefinitely?

Even so, I suppose my comment is in reference to Western (maybe even just N. America) countries where enlisting is voluntary. It'd definitely be interesting to see a gung-ho military man (with all the HOO-AH! personality of a US Marine) from a non-imperialist nation.

[Devrim]

This is true. Although, maybe you can tell me, are most of these conscripted soldiers in it because the country forces them to serve for (time period), or are some even conscripted indefinitely?

A time period, for Turkish citizens it is 18 months, less if you have a degree and even less if you are rich and can buy your way out of it.

Tsarist Russian used to have 25 years.


It'd definitely be interesting to see a gung-ho military man (with all the HOO-AH! personality of a US Marine) from a non-imperialist nation.

I'm not sure what you mean by non-imperialist nation, but I am pretty sure that most countries have some gung-ho nationalists in the military.

On the other hand, the only ex-US marine I know is a pretty cool, relaxed, non nationalistic sort of guy.

Devrim

[NecroCommie]

"if soldiers were to think, they would not be soldiers..."
- Some dude who was king of Prussia

[4 Leaf Clover]

In Turkey they don't tell you so much that they died for you, but that they died for the country. There was an incident in a pub when we bumped into a woman from work whose boyfriend was a professional soldier, back on leave from serving abroad.

Anyway we sat with these people and her boyfriend was a totally obnoxious nationalist idiot continually going on about the nation, and after hearing about how is was prepared to die for the nation for about the fortieth time, I told him to fuck off and do it then, got up and left.

Anyway six days later he actually did (die for the nation), which made for a bit of a frosty atmosphere at work.

Devrim

i almost thought , he actually did fuck off :lol:

[Robocommie]

In the United States, the argument I usually use is whether or not this government is actually worth dying for.

Nobody, conservative or liberal, likes the government. Nobody, conservative or liberal, likes politicians. Some of them come back with, "It's not the government I want to fight for, it's the people." Just press them on that. "Yeah, fair enough, the people are worth fighting for, but is it the People who are going to be giving you their orders and deciding where you fight? Or the government?"

If they yammer on about how the government is democratic, ignore them. They haven't figured it out yet, and don't have the requisite amount of cynicism to be a socialist. :lol:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Somewhat over half our US federal income tax goes to the military. This has no discernable benefits to the American population (arguments about "keeping our bases open" not withstanding). As other people have said US military expenditure exceeds all other countries combined.

This money could be spent on a national healthcare system (instead of Obama's giveaway to the corrupt insurance industry). More Americans die each year because they don't have access to medical care than were ever killed by jihadists. Money could be spent on free university education, like many European countries. Money could be spent on a decent public education system instead of destroying it w/"charter schools". Money could be spent on rebuilding US infrastructure-bridges, highways are collapsing around the country because of lack of maintainance. But naw, its better to spend billions each year in devastating the rest of the world.

The list of countries where the US has intervened for the profit of the ruling class is endless.

People who join the military are often not exposed to alternate points of view.Recruitment commercials play on machisimo, a sense of "honor" and the prospect of playing a real life video game.

Antidotes to this could be explaining real life geopolitics and class struggle. Smedley Butlers famous anti-imperialist speech may be helpful in this regard.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm

Americans in general have relatively little knowledge of other countries. Often the only opportunity many working class Americans have to travel abroad is though the military.

An explanation of recent Middle Eastern history esp that of Iraq and Afghanistan, other directions those societies could have taken and why these were blocked is important. Virtually any book by Noam Chomsky would be helpful to.

In addition there is the epidemic of PTSD and similar disorders returning soldiers suffer and the shabby care these people receive by the gov't.

People who claim that soldiers "fight for our freedom" never define the term. Freedom from what and for what? Many soldiers quickly come to see they actually fighting for US control over the oil supply and US hegemony. A few articles by almost any socialist group can point this out.

[Ocean Seal]

They have died to protect freedoms in some cases. But how does the War in Iraq help my freedom. If they want to use cliches fire some back. Whose freedom did we protect when we dropped the atom bomb, how about when we napalmed the Vietnamese Forests, or we when installed Pinochett. Simply avoid stating that you don't support the troops but rather that you don't support the war. Without war I see no reason to support the troops.

[The Guy]

I question the existence of the war itself. I understand that soldiers are fighting an enemy, but their is more evidence out there which suggests that the war is a hoax rather than a justified cause.

Here are some statements which are often aimed in my direction and my response to them:

S: We must invade Iraq/Afghanistan to kill the Taliban!

A: Firstly, the Taliban are an organisation, not a government which is currently in power, so there is no land which the British/American army should invade and/or control. Secondly, do you not question why we haven't kill the Taliban as of yet? It strikes me how it took merely 6 years to defeat an army 20x bigger than the world's greatest evil, the Axis, and it's taken 9 years to push into Afghanistan against an organisation which is probably 20x smaller. The world leaders must really need this oil!

S: We know where Bin Laden is though, so we'll get him soon!

A: The army also said that in 2001, but we're still looking for him, or so we're told -- it's funny how the media suddenly tell us how we're looking for the leader then suddenly he's forgotten. Also, you have no idea where he is whatsoever. The reason I think this war is so fallacious is because of the lack of knowledge and common sense behind it. In WWII, the allies understood the some positions of Nazi Germany's locations. In a war which has been going for more than 9 years against an organisation which consists of less people than Liechtenstein's population, we're still struggling to even locate the so called enemy, thus resorting to the idiotic and pathetic excuse: "he's hiding in the hills". If your army is high and mighty, doesn't at least one soldier have enough braincells to bomb the mountainous area(s) where they suspect he might be hiding, if he's real, that is?

S: The Taliban are a threat to our country!

A: Is that so? Well, the country which I unfortunately live in, England, has been prone to many attacks from terrorist organisations, has it not? Please don't preach about how the Taliban, Al-Qaeda or any other so called terrorist group is a threat to me or my family.
Firstly, where are the battle ships, humongous armies and deadly jet fighters which could prove an actually threat to the soil I stand on right now? Of course, the media feeds you with crap about people blowing their selves to smithereens and how they are classed as the enemy, but you're supporting a government which has forced them to take deadly actions due to invasion; raping natural resources from their homelands; killing innocent men, women and children and abusing their country via capitalism, so who's the real terrorist here I ask?
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the IRA carried out numerous successful attacks in England, did they not? Because of this, did we then invade the Republic of/Northern Ireland, take their natural resources, kill innocent people and oppress them via military domination for 9 years? No, Britain did not. So, please, don't blame the Taliban, blame yourself.

You're supporting a government which is killing millions each day just so you can stuff your face and complain about how hungry you are afterwards, what makes these deaths you've helped to cause so significant in your life?

Although I can't find it at the moment, an ex-French intelligence officer admitted that the war was nothing more than a hoax/propaganda act in order to obtain resources and force the American public into relying/gaining trust in their government.

[Agnapostate]

It couldn't be honestly said that the Taliban ever posed any threat to U.S. targets, civilian or military. They were an authoritarian de facto government in Afghanistan, and made the region unpleasant. Their command staff (namely Mullah Omar), also disapproved of Al Qaeda leadership's campaign against U.S. targets, though they did not object to their attacks on Israeli targets (few Muslims do).

They deserved to be removed through military force because of the repressive nature of their governance, but U.S. governmental foreign policy has never primarily been determined by the respect of other governments for civil liberties and human rights. They've installed the Northern Alliance and regional warlords that adhere to rigid fundamentalism in place of the Taliban.

[Agnapostate]

It couldn't be honestly said that the Taliban ever posed any threat to U.S. targets, civilian or military. They were an authoritarian de facto government in Afghanistan, and made the region unpleasant. Their command staff (namely Mullah Omar), also disapproved of Al Qaeda leadership's campaign against U.S. targets, though they did not object to their attacks on Israeli targets (few Muslims do).

They deserved to be removed through military force because of the repressive nature of their governance, but U.S. governmental foreign policy has never primarily been determined by the respect of other governments for civil liberties and human rights. They've installed the Northern Alliance and regional warlords that adhere to rigid fundamentalism in place of the Taliban.