Do you agree with the war right now?

[EponineKe]

In Afganistan. I always thought that it was bad, because it's over oil, but aren't they stopping the taliban? Isn't that a good thing? Let me know if you think that this is a good war, or a stupid one, and explain why. Thanks!

[cynicles]

It has a huge amount of minerals, it particularly notable for its oil but it does have that aswell, so there is a resources component but the conflict is definately not about stopping the Taliban. Stopping the Taliban is impossible for them, the US cannot uproot a native force, and regardless of how repugnent they are they are still a native movement. At this point I can't imagine that most serious US policy makers haven't figured this out.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

In Afganistan. I always thought that it was bad, because it's over oil, but aren't they stopping the taliban? Isn't that a good thing? Let me know if you think that this is a good war, or a stupid one, and explain why. Thanks!

I'm sure everyone here will agree that both American imperialism and the Taliban both kind of suck ass.

[Ostrinski]

Socialists oppose any and all wars levied by bourgeois states.

[Questionable]

Many dictatorships in the Middle East resembling the Taliban were put there by the CIA.

[#FF0000]

Yeah, what the US replaces the Taliban with isn't going to be much better. I used to say this a lot but the problem in the middle east isn't "radical islam" so much as it is "imperialism".

[Althusser]

Western imperialists love instability. The middle east is in its current state because of the C.I.A., as Questionable said above. The reaction to our Shah in Iran that put the Ayatollah in power, the crimes of Saddam's regime we supported, the Iran-Iraq war, the overthrowing of Saddam's regime killing hundreds of thousands to secure our oil and US dollar, the 6 billion dollars we gave to Osama Bin Laden (a CIA tactician) and his Islamo-fascist group the Mujahideen to fight off the soviet union in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda's use of this power to completely buy out the Afghani taliban government, to hundreds of thousands killed in Afghanistan for a fucking Halliburton pipeline....

and that's just the middle east

Nothing is worse than western imperialism. The reactionary forces of the middle east aren't ideal, but god-fucking-damnit we need to fight the source of imperialism in order to end the reaction to it in oppressed nations.

Edit: My tone is a bit harsh, it's totally not directed at you or your vaild question. The subject just gets me heated, for good reason. I used to be pretty apathetic because of how reactionary the islamic forces of those places are, then I realized why they exist and have so much support in the homeland... live impoverished while your resources are stolen by the west or get your kids killed by a western bomb, and you'll happily join a reactionary militant fringe group.

It's kind of like how Hitler came to power... in a time of inflation, desperation, and absolute humiliation (unintentional rhyming) you could easily sell a racist, sexist, and nationalist ideology to a beaten people.

[Let's Get Free]

The American occupation of Afghanistan served the purpose of setting up a new government that would be amenable to Washington's international objectives- military bases and electronic listening stations and the running of secure oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan from the Caspian Sea region to the Indian ocean. The American oil barons had been quite open about this, giving frank testimony before congress on the matter.

In addition to causing the death of tens of thousands of Afghans, countless homes and other buildings have been destroyed, the reactionary warlords have returned to extensive power, opium production is booming again, and violence and crime are once again a daily fact of life in cities and neighborhoods.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If anyone here actually supports the war, they're kinda missing the point of revolutionary politics.

[Blake's Baby]

Many dictatorships in the Middle East resembling the Taliban were put there by the CIA.

Weren't the Taliban put there by the CIA, after the USA and Pakistani Intelligence (and China) armed them against the Soviet Union? My memory of this may be a little cloudy, but I think that the US still saw Afghanistan as an allied country as late as May 2001, and even after the shooting war started, they were reluctant for the Northern Militia (allied to France) to take Kabul because they wanted their allies in the south, round Quandahar, to rally a national unity government including 'moderate Taliban', whatever that means.

That's how I remember it, anyway.

[jookyle]

Yeah, I mean, blowing up hospitals, tossing grenades into orphanages, and leveling residential areas are totally stopping the Taliban and liberating the Afghan people. Being reduced to ash is liberating, right?

[sixdollarchampagne]

If anyone here actually supports the war, they're kinda missing the point of revolutionary politics.

But lots of opponents of the endless war (Obama's, now) in Afghanistan will be voting for the Prez next month, and there is no indication that the US Commander in Chief intends to withdraw; in fact, press reports indicate that GI's will be (dying) in Afghanistan for years to come.

I would say that anyone who backs Obama in November is missing the point of revolutionary politics also, since Obama was always a big fan of the war in Afghanistan; in fact, there were leftists in the "antiwar" movement here that, at one point, wanted the incipient anti-war movement (against the war in Iraq) not to oppose the war in Afghanistan, for fear, apparently, of alienating some Democrats. (Anyone who doubts that can contact me, and I will be happy to tell you who those leftists were.)

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I wrote this a while ago. It goes into detail about Afghanistan.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/end-afghanistan-war-t171108/index.html?t=171108

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=7817

[blake 3:17]

It was and remains a stupid senseless war disguised as revenge for 9/11. Hundreds of us came out in Toronto to protest it the day it happened. It has been fueled by racism and has nothing of any good of it.

[Marxaveli]

The only war that matters is the class war.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

No, it's not about stopping the Taliban and they're not even really doing that. The war should be opposed by everybody, this isn't the "good" war.

[Prinskaj]

Weren't the Taliban put there by the CIA, after the USA and Pakistani Intelligence (and China) armed them against the Soviet Union? My memory of this may be a little cloudy, but I think that the US still saw Afghanistan as an allied country as late as May 2001, and even after the shooting war started, they were reluctant for the Northern Militia (allied to France) to take Kabul because they wanted their allies in the south, round Quandahar, to rally a national unity government including 'moderate Taliban', whatever that means.
That's how I remember it, anyway.
While you are primarily correct, I would like to nitpick a little bit.
It wasn't the Taliban that they funded, since they didn't exist at that time, it was the Mujahideen. Though the Taliban is a breakout faction of the original Mujahideen, a moderate one faction compared to the original group. This comes to show, in that when the Taliban came to power, the afghan people were happy, because at least they brought some stability to the place.

[Blake's Baby]

You're right, they armed the Mujihadeen, passing money via Pakistani Intelligence through the al Q'aeda network, if my memory serves.

[Ocean Seal]

In Afganistan. I always thought that it was bad, because it's over oil, but aren't they stopping the taliban? Isn't that a good thing? Let me know if you think that this is a good war, or a stupid one, and explain why. Thanks!
How has that being gone for them over the past 11 years?

[l'Enfermé]

The Taliban was never a breakout faction of the original Mujaheddin, the Talibs came from Pakistani madrasas(religious "schools"). They weren't moderate in the least compared to the Mujaheddin(which wasn't a single movement but a collection of 7 sunni pashtun-based(with the exception of Rabbani's Jamiat-i-Islami which was Tajik-based) political Islamist and traditionalist factions, like Hekmatyar's Hezbi Islami, Gailani's National Islamic Front, Sayyaf's Islamic Union, etc, etc). Compared to the Taliban, the Mujaheddin/Peshawar Seven were enlightened secularists. And yes, the Afghans were very happy with the Taliban. I believe they especially enjoyed the Taliban's kidnapping of women to sell them as sex slaves in Pakistan, the closing of schools, the public floggings and public executions in former football stadiums, the ban on employing women, etc, etc. Nice stuff.

OP: They're stopping the Taliban? Really? Doesn't look so. It kind of looks like if the Americans withdraw, the Taliban will overthrow the current government within a few years. Maybe if this was a real "humanitarian war" and not NATO persuing it's geopolitical interests, maybe it would be worth supporting. But genuine "humanitarian wars" never happen. The only one I can think of was Vietnam's liberation of Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge.

[Lowtech]

how does one "agree" or "disagree" with a blatantly unnecessary war?

I agree that once we're there, we have a responsibility to all involved to repair damage WE have caused. but the fact we're there at all is a joke. there has been no legitimate war since world war II. Taliban, although horrible have no proven ties to 9/11. Bush administration was very opportunistic about the situation. Investigation of 9/11 was half assed. since when are cases open and shut based on a video confession alone?

I don't even need to bring up Operation northwoods.

then there's troves of Americans already racist who NOW think they have validation for their idiocy.

lets blow everything up that has profit potential and "nation build" a duplicate of McDonald's America in it's place.

[redstarradical]

no. Self defense, like when the reds were fighting the whites in russia. But imperialist wars are all bad.

[Prinskaj]

And yes, the Afghans were very happy with the Taliban. I believe they especially enjoyed the Taliban's kidnapping of women to sell them as sex slaves in Pakistan, the closing of schools, the public floggings and public executions in former football stadiums, the ban on employing women, etc, etc. Nice stuff. I never meant happy as jumping around in joy, but then the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, that ended the epoch which Human Rights Watch describes as "The blackest in the history of Afghanistan". I never meant to say that people liked the Taliban, clearly they did and do not, and if it came across that way, then I apologize.

[Crimson Commissar]

I never meant happy as jumping around in joy, but then the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, that ended the epoch which Human Rights Watch describes as "The blackest in the history of Afghanistan".

Oh my, that's some mighty hypocrisy from those guys right there.

I can quite clearly see how the relatively tame and progressive Socialist Afghanistan was a "blacker period of history" than the Taliban regime which negated decades upon decades of social change and reform in the country. :rolleyes:

Stability isn't worth anything I'm afraid if it means sending your society to the dogs of Islamist tribalism. I recall a documentary from the 80s in which one of the religious leaders of the Mujahideen came out and said quite plainly that they were fighting against the government because "God has decided who is poor and who is rich, and this should not be changed". Something along those lines at least. Just shows what kind of great and freedom-loving revolutionaries the US was supporting back in the day.

[barbelo]

Strategically it's a great war.
Usa is building a permanent base- like Germany or Japan- in central Asia, close to Russia, China and Iran.
They are interfering directly in the Shangai Cooperation Organization, they are strengthening their ties to Pakistan, they are creating an ally in a very important region.

And they are doing all this by playing a very different game from Soviet Union and their war in the 70's and 80's. Usa is doing this without an army of conscripts, most of the personnel are teachers and medics; they are applying in a perfect way the counter-guerrilla principles of Robert Thompson: (a) "The people are the key base to be secured and defended rather than territory won or enemy bodies counted" and (b) "There must be a clear political counter-vision that can overshadow, match or neutralize the guerrilla vision".

Fortunately in the future we'll see Afghanistan growing with the same wealth and freedom as South Korea, West Germany and Japan; I sure want to listen some rubab musicians.

All people who talk about imperialism, oil or minerals should grow up and stop this reasoning so typical of people who posts in stormfront, i. e. a jew owns a newspaper so the jews control all the media hurdurr. This bullshit association of things only to force a vision it's not only retarded, it's immature.
Many bourgeois, nationalistic and authoritarian forces worldwide used the support of the left only because they were vaguely against "western imperialism". How these cases ended? Would you say Angola is the workers paradise instead of a chinese oil colony?

[Blake's Baby]

Weakening ties with Pakistan. Pakistan was a key ally against the USSR-Indian alliance, with American bases and American support to the military (as was China). After the break-up of the Soviet Bloc, the anti-Russian forces in Afganistan took power; but, geopolitics being what it is, China moved from being an enemy of the USSR (and therefore the enemy of the US's enemy) to directly challenging US hegemony. It's only since the mid-'90s that Pakistan has begun to move out of the US orbit (and increasingly since 2003). It's only a small-time (though strategically important) player in the conflict between America and China.

Imperialism, oil and minerals are important. Why do you think they're not? But the Chinese are imperialist, the Indians are imperialist, the Pakistanis are imperialist - they only difference between states is their capacity for imperialism, not the dynamic to imperialism. So, yeah, Angola is a Chinese oil-colony...

[Geiseric]

Strategically it's a great war.
Usa is building a permanent base- like Germany or Japan- in central Asia, close to Russia, China and Iran.
They are interfering directly in the Shangai Cooperation Organization, they are strengthening their ties to Pakistan, they are creating an ally in a very important region.

And they are doing all this by playing a very different game from Soviet Union and their war in the 70's and 80's. Usa is doing this without an army of conscripts, most of the personnel are teachers and medics; they are applying in a perfect way the counter-guerrilla principles of Robert Thompson: (a) "The people are the key base to be secured and defended rather than territory won or enemy bodies counted" and (b) "There must be a clear political counter-vision that can overshadow, match or neutralize the guerrilla vision".

Fortunately in the future we'll see Afghanistan growing with the same wealth and freedom as South Korea, West Germany and Japan; I sure want to listen some rubab musicians.

All people who talk about imperialism, oil or minerals should grow up and stop this reasoning so typical of people who posts in stormfront, i. e. a jew owns a newspaper so the jews control all the media hurdurr. This bullshit association of things only to force a vision it's not only retarded, it's immature.
Many bourgeois, nationalistic and authoritarian forces worldwide used the support of the left only because they were vaguely against "western imperialism". How these cases ended? Would you say Angola is the workers paradise instead of a chinese oil colony?

Wow what horse shit, millions of innocent people and children are being killed for this liberal rhetoric, and the resources. It's nonsensical to think that we'd honestly invade somewhere for "freedom." I mean how blind can you be? And you're ignoring all of the resources that are being extracted as we speak, and the U.S. corporations profiting from it.

Afghanistan would be a better place without the Taliban which was supported by the U.S. and i'm vehemently against the bourgeoisie of any country interfering with the politics of any other nations, seeing as it's 100% of the time for the good of profit.

[Lowtech]

Strategically it's a great war

...

All people who talk about imperialism, oil or minerals should grow up and stop this reasoning

This guys is a one comment warrior, knows he's wrong, drops a vomit comment and doesn't come back to defend his obviously incorrect views. why he's still here, and tolerated is beyond me.

every major military action the US has taken since world war II have firstly not been any kind of self defense measure as we've been under no segnificant threat. there's an entire industry that's grown behind our military establishment. There's more money in war than there is anything that can be used to ronanticize it. And anyone that does romanticize war and ignore its underlining economic factors is both an idiot and crazy.

Call it what you want, but to use military clout to assimilate resources and people, is to excercise imperialism. There is a reason the term exists.

a good refrence would be the ancient Roman empire. really rudimentary study of economics and politics reveals this. unless of course I turn out to be wrong and the entire span of historical and political scientists are a bunch of "immature" unpatriotic people that perpetuate the left wing idea of imperialsm.

gotta love the vomit comments from this guy.

[barbelo]

This guys is a one comment warrior

No, I'm not and I'm afraid you severely misunderstood my post.
I didn't said Afghanistan wasn't an imperialistic war, I only said the rhetoric and reasoning to oppose it are bullshit.

And they are not "assimilating" any resource in this war, you probably know that besides minerals Afghanistan is a fucking landlocked wasteland, being only historic relevant as a trade route, a flash-point between empires. It's no surprise the only thing they got going was poppy.

Iraq war was a war about resources, Libya too; Afghanistan war is a counterinsurgency war which is being mostly positive to Afghanistan, a country surrounded by 'empires' and threats.
If Usa and Afghanistan interests converge, and finally after 9/11 Usa have a justification to be in a region so close to Russia and China, what is wrong?


i'm vehemently against the bourgeoisie of any country interfering with the politics of any other nations, seeing as it's 100% of the time for the good of profit.

It's this I'm talking about, how can ideology blind people to the fact that Afghanistan was a poor and isolated country ruled by some crazy medieval islamic sect and that things are going better for them now?
You realize that if not for the "bourgeoisie of Usa", things would be working for another party and they would be profiting instead?

I'm... Not sure if the word party fits properly in the former phrase, I'm trying to convey the meaning of "side", as in sides of a conflict.

[Lowtech]

No, I'm not and I'm afraid you severely misunderstood my post.
I didn't said Afghanistan wasn't an imperialistic war, I only said the rhetoric and reasoning to oppose it are bullshit.

And they are not "assimilating" any resource in this war, you probably know that besides minerals Afghanistan is a fucking landlocked wasteland, being only historic relevant as a trade route, a flash-point between empires. It's no surprise the only thing they got going was poppy. the reason we're there is to give overall military presence in the region a false appearance of legitimacy. they want you to take it out of context the way you have with such a narrow view allowing it to become false evidence that we aren't "imperialist."
Iraq war was a war about resources, Libya too; Afghanistan war is a counterinsurgency war which is being mostly positive to Afghanistan, a country surrounded by 'empires' and threats.
If Usa and Afghanistan interests converge, and finally after 9/11 Usa have a justification to be in a region so close to Russia and China, what is wrong?
what justification? our joke of an investigation didn't resolve any questions, dispite its obligation to the families of 9/11 victims and US citizens. Instead our best answer is more bloodshed. Damn idiots.

The entire situation after the fact justified impeachment of w. Bush, but we couldn't get that right, so how can we assume we make a positive impact on the rest of the world? You can't justify war. its either a last resort in protecting your home land or its a tool for domination, there's no gray area unless you are a propagandist.

If you can admit that we live in an advanced feudal society that still fights over resources and tolerates mass economic subjugation, then have your wars, justify it all you want, but don't pretend we're a civilized people.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Strategically it's a great war.
Usa is building a permanent base- like Germany or Japan- in central Asia, close to Russia, China and Iran.
They are interfering directly in the Shangai Cooperation Organization, they are strengthening their ties to Pakistan, they are creating an ally in a very important region.Yes, stratigically for them and I think you are right about their reasoning - pipelines and other things are frosting on the cake, this war was not about war-spoils but encircling Iran, creating a base in an important crossroads (and the US now has bases in most of the surrounding countries due to the "coalition of the willing bribes/threats" it made at the beginning). In addition the war was also just to establish the US's "right" in the post Cold War era to invade where it wants with or without the UN and Nato.

But what are the possible ramifications on workers in the US? Well a slight drain of resources, but without a fight that money wouldn't help us anyway. But it does create a much volatile situation where the US is in an aggressive position to be able to engage in conflicts to maintain its imperial dominance even if its economic dominance slips.

It's a foot in the door for WWIII.


And they are doing all this by playing a very different game from Soviet Union and their war in the 70's and 80's. Usa is doing this without an army of conscripts, most of the personnel are teachers and medics; they are applying in a perfect way the counter-guerrilla principles of Robert Thompson: (a) "The people are the key base to be secured and defended rather than territory won or enemy bodies counted" and (b) "There must be a clear political counter-vision that can overshadow, match or neutralize the guerrilla vision".Not really, they control some of the capital and have cut deals with regional powers within the country. The US never was able to offer a "counter-vision" or win the "hearts and minds" of people in Iraq or Afganistan - they are playing on power dynamics within these countries because their "reshaping" project didn't pan out.


Fortunately in the future we'll see Afghanistan growing with the same wealth and freedom as South Korea, West Germany and Japan; I sure want to listen some rubab musicians.Except that Germany and Japan were already industrial powerhouses - US imperialism didn't create that.

[barbelo]

what justification?

I meant justification as a causus belli.


If you can admit that we live in an advanced feudal society that still fights over resources and tolerates mass economic subjugation, then have your wars, justify it all you want, but don't pretend we're a civilized people.

I don't agree with this humanistic perception that history have ended, everyone should accept the status quo and whoever doesn't accept is a barbarian. And you speak as if the world was at the brink of a revolution instead of being the same old arena of competing oligarchies.

It is really surprising to see many americans in the internet criticizing their country foreign policy and read their anti-war discourse; I know it's a cheesy thing to say but their country is a benevolent force in the world and the criticism seems very destructive instead of constructive. What would you do as the head of the federation instead? Wouldn't you occupy central asia too? Why a war like Afghanistan is bad, where schools, airports and hospitals are being built, and Grozny war, where the city was fucking hazed to the ground only for some crappy pipelines, isn't? I never see people criticizing the later.
Just look at a country like Brazil, which doesn't start a war with it's neighbors for more than 100 years, lost Uruguay, lost Paraguay, almost lost the southernmost state, have a lack arable land, is dependent on foreign energy sources, was threatened by Argentina time and time again; yet they doesn't even have a permanent seat at the UN. Such is the case of a "civilized" and "non-imperialist" country.

Trying to summarize: I don't think the anti-imperialism argument is valid. It's always too much arbitrary and too gratuitously anti-western.


Except that Germany and Japan were already industrial powerhouses - US imperialism didn't create that.

Now you got me, I never thought of this. Maybe Afghanistan will end like a Pakistan 2.0.

[sixdollarchampagne]

Excuse me!? Barbelo wrote that the US "is a benevolent force in the world and the criticism seems very destructive instead of constructive."

Hey, tell it to the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Laotians, anyone whose country got carpet bombed by the US military! I read, years ago, that in the Korean war, every single building in North Korea got bombed. Everyone knows about the massive bombing of Hanoi, over a Christmas, and throughout South Vietnam. Heaven help any country that arouses the interest of the US government.

And the war in Vietnam, in addition to causing massive loss of life and untold suffering in Indochina, just like the more recent US military interference in Cental America, was also a domestic disaster for the US population, in terms of drug addiction in the US. So criticism of US military intervention anywhere is constructive, not destructive. Barbelo has reality exactly ass backwards, and, given his pro-imperialist views, it is amazing he is still a part of revleft.

[Lowtech]

I don't agree with this humanistic perception that history have ended, everyone should accept the status quo and whoever doesn't accept is a barbarian.this comment makes little to no sense being that the current or existing state of affairs is very pro-war. the players that don't need war at all use it with little regard to it's negative implications
And you speak as if the world was at the brink of a revolution instead of being the same old arena of competing oligarchies.science and philosophy have far exceeded our failed economic system and obsolete propensity for war.
It is really surprising to see many americans in the internet criticizing their country foreign policy and read their anti-war discourseyou imply patriotism requires hypocrisy; the founding fathers of the United States were called traitors and unpatriotic because they were. you dishonor them with your corporate fascism and conformism.
; I know it's a cheesy thing to say but their country is a benevolent force in the world passing itself off as the greatest country in the world while dishonoring it's own virtues and abandoning diplomacy for acquiring what it want's through military clout is somehow benevolence to you? the US obviously has a God complex and you're not very successful at downplaying it at all.
and the criticism seems very destructive instead of constructive.if that were truly your position on anything, you wouldn't support war
What would you do as the head of the federation instead?you're obviously not interested in humanistic alternatives to war and market economies, why would i waste my time explaining it to you?
Just look at a country like Brazil
...
Such is the case of a "civilized" and "non-imperialist" country.

a "civilized" country at the mercy of those with a stronger military within a larger global situation of artificial scarcity and failed ability for governments to cooperate validates your pro-war attitude how? if you want to shoot people, you don't need an excuse at all, let alone one so inadequately formulated.

[The CPSU Chairman]

Imperialist meddling is exactly what made Afghanistan what it is today. The only reason the Taliban even exists is because of the U.S and its regional proxy states destroying Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s. The Taliban leadership is comprised of former Mujahideen from that war. Mullah Omar, for example, lost his eye fighting the Soviet army. The U.S and its allies backed the most ultra-reactionary fundamentalist filth they could find and loaded them up with guns and money in an effort to destroy the socialist revolution in Afghanistan, ruining one of the few opportunities Afghanistan has had to become a developed, progressive industrialized nation. It's the United States' fault that Afghanistan is the smoldering ruin it is today. More occupation is not going to help; it's just going to make things even worse.

This war is most definitely not about "stopping the Taliban". It's about consolidating imperialist control over the resources of central and southern Asia and propping up a loyal puppet regime that facilitates that. And in actuality, this war is precisely what's keeping the Taliban alive. The Taliban were nearly obliterated as a military force not long after this war started, but they've since been reborn because a lot of Afghans who are pissed about being occupied and bombed by the U.S have been joining the Taliban because the Taliban is the main force fighting the occupation. If it weren't for this occupation, the Taliban would probably have ceased to exist by now. The continuation of this war is precisely what is ensuring that the Taliban organization will survive and may even take over Afghanistan again.

Leftists should never support imperialist wars. There's no such thing as an imperialist war waged for an altruistic reason. Haven't the Afghan people suffered enough yet? The only way Afghanistan is ever going to be able to rebuild itself (which will take decades; Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are STILL recovering from their little encounter with the U.S) is for this war to end right the hell now and for the imperialists to leave Afghanistan. This idea that U.S occupation is what's needed to make Afghanistan a decent place stinks of colonial-era racist paternalism. Dropping bombs on the place isn't helping Afghanistan; it's pushing it further and further away from any kind of progress.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Taliban were a strong force in Afghanistan before the invasion, having consolidated its power over most of the country.

I'm not sure how well they were going against the Northern Alliance though, i could imagine well, having access to most the the countries resources (including population), and support from Pakistan and the very influential Al Qaeda.

[The CPSU Chairman]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Taliban were a strong force in Afghanistan before the invasion, having consolidated its power over most of the country.

I'm not sure how well they were going against the Northern Alliance though, i could imagine well, having access to most the the countries resources (including population), and support from Pakistan and the very influential Al Qaeda.

I meant right after the war began, not right before it. The Taliban controlled about three quarters of the country right before the war. When the war started, the Northern Alliance rolled right over the Taliban in late 2001. Seems to me this was before any U.S ground troops, aside from small bands of special forces, had even set foot in the country. The Taliban was near oblivion after that, but has since been reborn due to the growing numbers of angry Afghans joining them just to fight the occupation. So the argument of the guy I replied to, that we should support the U.S occupation because it's keeping the Taliban out of power, doesn't work because the only reason the Taliban is a major force again is because of this brutal occupation.

[Lowtech]

Leftists should never support imperialist wars. There's no such thing as an imperialist war waged for an altruistic reason.
I agree. However, wars are excused with altruism, but are never actually done for altruistic reasons. Like many other bazzare human behaviors, it occurs only because it has exchange value, allows aquisition of resources, people to assimilate and countries are subject to artificial scarcity as with anyone within a capitalist, market economy. They are compelled to goto war because the global economy fails to sustain the majority and governments fail to cooperate, they goto war essentially as an expression of rhe fact current society lacks the intellect to best utilize resources and accomidate all who work.

[Lowtech]

Duplicate

[Blake's Baby]

... Why a war like Afghanistan is bad, where schools, airports and hospitals are being built, and Grozny war, where the city was fucking hazed to the ground only for some crappy pipelines, isn't? I never see people criticizing the later...

What the fuck? Who ever said that the war in Chechnya wasn't bad? Of course it was, it was monstrous. And plenty of people said so at the time and have condemned Putin and Russian imperialism for their actions. Thing is, in the west, if you condemn Russia, you get a whole load of people shouting 'it's easy to condemn other governments but you never condemn your own!' and now we get people complaining that we don't condemn other governments, we only condemn our own.

If we're pissing off that many people, I guess we're doing something right.

In case you missed it: all nations are imperialist and can kiss my fucking hairy arse. None of them is worth a piece of shit, all should be destroyed, all politicians of whatever stripe are fucking vampires, and their wars serve no-one but their corporate fuck-buddies - I don't care if they're British German French American Vietnamese Peruvian Angolan Tadjik Dutch Venezualan Egyptian Chinese Moldovan Guatamalan Israeli Ugandan Moroccan Thai or Greek - fuck the lot of the self-serving murderous bastards. All their states and the world capitalist system needs to be destroyed.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I get the feeling that this OP is a one-hit pony. Or a car that drives through a store-front, reverses, and leaves, while the people inside start arguing.

[The CPSU Chairman]

I agree. However, wars are excused with altruism, but are never actually done for altruistic reasons. Like many other bazzare human behaviors, it occurs only because it has exchange value, allows aquisition of resources, people to assimilate and countries are subject to artificial scarcity as with anyone within a capitalist, market economy. They are compelled to goto war because the global economy fails to sustain the majority and governments fail to cooperate, they goto war essentially as an expression of rhe fact current society lacks the intellect to best utilize resources and accomidate all who work.

It's not about a lack of intellect to best utilize resources for the benefit of the majority. It's about the lack of incentive to best utilize resources for the benefit of the majority, next to the overwhelming incentive to do the exact opposite. These wars aren't driven by scarcity, not even by artificial scarcity. They're driven by the bourgeosie's desire and need to exploit the resources of the world for their own profit to the maximum possible extent.

[Lowtech]

It's not about a lack of intellect to best utilize resources for the benefit of the majority. It's about the lack of incentive to best utilize resources for the benefit of the majority, next to the overwhelming incentive to do the exact opposite. you're close. workers do what they are economically compelled to do to survive, while capitalists are compelled to retain value others have produced
These wars aren't driven by scarcity, not even by artificial scarcity. They're driven by the bourgeosie's desire and need to exploit the resources of the world for their own profit to the maximum possible extent.the bourgeosie produce artificial scarcity by consuming more than they produce. In effect, they force artificial scarcity on workers so that 80% of the value produced by those workers are transferred to them.

It's refered to as artificial scarcity because it is scarcity the workers experience that doesn't coincide with the real amount of value propagated in the economy, or real abundance. this real amount of value, that is produced by the workers is retained by the rich, via over pricing of commodities and underpaying workers.