Obama says ''send more troops to afghanistan''

[Dr Mindbender]

Just wondered what everyone thought of obama's hint earlier today that he would increase the U$ military prescence in afghanistan.

Looks like the 'liberal emperor' has no clothes on.

[GPDP]

He's been saying this stuff for a while.

Only the typical uninformed voter and the most politically naive liberals could possibly support him now.

Well, they and the liberal segments of the bourgeois, of course.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The USA had every right and justification to invade Afghanistan and take out a terrorist supporting regime.

Without resorting to the typical communist cliches, explain why the Afghanistan invasion isn't justified.

[Dr Mindbender]

The USA had every right and justification to invade Afghanistan and take out a terrorist supporting regime.

Without resorting to the typical communist cliches, explain why the Afghanistan invasion isn't justified.

what other than the utter hypocrisy of the USA supporting bin laden when it was politically convienient for them to do so? (the mujahadeen vs soviet conflict?)

[Trystan]

The USA had every right and justification to invade Afghanistan and take out a terrorist supporting regime.

Without resorting to the typical communist cliches, explain why the Afghanistan invasion isn't justified.

Nah man, the market would have killed the Taliban if only we had allowed it to!

[danyboy27]

what other than the utter hypocrisy of the USA supporting bin laden when it was politically convienient for them to do so? (the mujahadeen vs soviet conflict?)

the us supported the mujadeen, but back then the mujadeen where not has fucked up. Massoud was with the pasthun, and if that guy would have been in power in afghanistan instead of the taleban stuff would have be different.
when the taleban took power, massoud and the northen allience fought bin laden and the taleban.

Seriously,i dont care why they invaded afghanistan, what really matter to me is the regional influence of fundamentalism is somehow contained what suck is There where too much civilian killed for that. seriously i think major civilian casuality in afghanistan are mainly caused by our overconfidence on technology, and also, beccause of the lack of peoples on the ground.
when you are 200 000 men short to occupy a territory you are kinda trigger happy beccause that the easy way to do thing when you dont have ground forces to do the job. There is also an overconfidence on airpower and its accuracy.
But overall, people here are doing what they can.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

what other than the utter hypocrisy of the USA supporting bin laden when it was politically convienient for them to do so? (the mujahadeen vs soviet conflict?)
I don't see how two wrongs make a right. Something being hypocritical or a u-turn does not make it wrong. That is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

[synthesis]

You're ignoring the context. The mainstream American political narrative does not include the concept of "imperialism." For Obama to say that America should not have invaded Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks would be political suicide in this country. He's making a political point with this - that Bush's "War on Terror" ultimately focused on taking out Hussein, who the mujahideen hated as much as anyone else.

[Dr Mindbender]

I don't see how two wrongs make a right. Something being hypocritical or a u-turn does not make it wrong. That is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

i think my point was the part pretext of america invading afghanistan was to 'liberate' the 'poor afghans' from the taliban when in fact it was really about revenge for 9/11.

They werent so worried about the liberty of the afghans whenever they were propping up the regime against the soviets.

[Pawn Power]

The USA had every right and justification to invade Afghanistan and take out a terrorist supporting regime.

Without resorting to the typical communist cliches, explain why the Afghanistan invasion isn't justified.

Define "every right and justification"?

Do you think it would be "justified" if China invaded the US after a group of extremist Minutemen bombed Beijing financial building in response to Chinese immigration and influence as a "threat" to their way of life?

Would China have the "right" to bomb Houston and Phoenix?

[Zurdito]

what's new? he has already said he wants to "concentrate more" on Pakistan and Iran and that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, somehting not even Bush said.

the thing is most of his petty bourgeois supporters will not mind this, as they pretty much as elitist regarding foreigners as the neo-cons are. they just think the neo-cons are stupid and do not use quite enough diplomacy. they are certainly not against war. just ask the Serbs.

[Zurdito]

The USA had every right and justification to invade Afghanistan and take out a terrorist supporting regime.

Without resorting to the typical communist cliches, explain why the Afghanistan invasion isn't justified.

because it is a mass murderng looting of a society already devastated by the regime which the CIA (among others) imposed on them, which benefits no-one except corporate and political interests. regarding terrorism, a better way for the US to discourage terorrism would be to stop having a terrorist foreign policy itself.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The USA had every right and justification to invade Afghanistan and take out a terrorist supporting regime.

Without resorting to the typical communist cliches, explain why the Afghanistan invasion isn't justified.

The decades-old right of national sovereignty, have you forgotten about that? It's a motif that Bush and Cheney have superseded.

The Taliban offered extradition if they could validate that Bin Laden was indeed the culprit of the attacks. Washington did not give a damn about that, they said: 'hand him over, or we're going to bomb the shit out of you'. Before Kabul could respond, the U.S. air force began attacking, and extending patronage and bribery to warlords.

[pusher robot]

i think my point was the part pretext of america invading afghanistan was to 'liberate' the 'poor afghans' from the taliban when in fact it was really about revenge for 9/11.

That is incorrect. Virtually 100% of the stated purpose and justification of invading Afghanistan was to destroy its ability to harbor the terrorists that attacked the the United States. That the ruling Taliban were vicious bastards was just an added bonus.

[pusher robot]

The Taliban offered extradition if they could validate that Bin Laden was indeed the culprit of the attacks. Washington did not give a damn about that, they said: 'hand him over, or we're going to bomb the shit out of you'. Before Kabul could respond, the U.S. air force began attacking, and extending patronage and bribery to warlords.

It was a bluff. They didn't have Bin Laden and the U.S. knew it. They were also unwilling - and probably unable - to wipe out all the terrorist encampments, which was the primary goal of the United States. The Taliban had months to cooperate, and the didn't make the slightest attempt to do so.

[synthesis]

These characterizations are false. The government of Afghanistan prior to the invasion was well-known for allowing mujaheddin training camps to operate in their borders.



Would China have the "right" to bomb Houston and Phoenix?This analogy would only work if the U.S. government had an open policy of collaboration with their radicals.


extending patronage and bribery to warlordsI think the more you know about the region you know why you wouldn't expect anything else from any occupying power, let alone the American government.

Afghanistan was, and probably is, pretty much run by warlords who used a backwards interpretation of Islam as a way of justifying their total rule. Even the mujaheddin who operated from Afghanistan privately expressed their disgust with the interpretation of Shariah law used by the Taliban and other warlords before them.

Occupying forces generally have a hard time completely revolutionizing the power structure of any given area; that was how the Soviets fucked up there back in the day and why America fucked up in Iraq.

Either way, for Obama to argue that America should have "turned the other cheek" towards Afghanistan would be incredibly stupid for his political ambitions, given that swathes of American retards already think he's some kind of Muslim radical.

[Zurdito]

That is incorrect. Virtually 100% of the stated purpose and justification of invading Afghanistan was to destroy its ability to harbor the terrorists that attacked the the United States. That the ruling Taliban were vicious bastards was just an added bonus.

he said part of the pretext. are you saying this is incorrect? if we search for all the justifications coming from the US government, will we not find them using, even once, the pretext of liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban? Really?

[Zurdito]

Either way, for Obama to argue that America should have "turned the other cheek" towards Afghanistan would be incredibly stupid for his political ambitions, given that swathes of American retards already think he's some kind of Muslim radical.

yep, and Obama's poltiical ambitions are what matter to us...:confused:

[Labor Shall Rule]

It was a bluff that the U.S. would not invade if Osama was handed over. Bush replied (a day after the Foreign Minister said they'd turn bin Laden over) that there'd be "no negotiations or discussions..there's no need to discuss innocence or guilt...we know he's guilty." The Pakistanis, likewise, agreed with Kabul that they'd hand over bin Laden to an Islamic court in Peshawar, but Musharref vetoed the plan. Washington clearly did not treat it as a bluff–Bush himself admitted that they'd be invading whether diplomacy could stop it or not.

America–which has allowed reactionary terrorists such as Luis Posada Carriles to stay free–is not bombed by Cuba.

[Lost In Translation]

He's been saying this stuff for a while.

Only the typical uninformed voter and the most politically naive liberals could possibly support him now.

Well, they and the liberal segments of the bourgeois, of course.

That all adds up to a huge number.

And they call us 'the lunatic fringe' :rolleyes:

[Killfacer]

He is better than the other freak though, so he must be worth voting for?

[Lihualee]

just my two centsbump

[pusher robot]

he said part of the pretext. are you saying this is incorrect? if we search for all the justifications coming from the US government, will we not find them using, even once, the pretext of liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban? Really?

Yes, I'm saying that's incorrect. It was never a justification, it was an additional benefit. Elimination of the terrorists was all the justification that was necessary.

[Dr Mindbender]

Elimination of the terrorists was all the justification that was necessary.

yes, absolutely. To hell with the fact that they probably multiplied the number of prospective 'terrorists' as a result.

:rolleyes:

[BashTheFash]

Didn't Obama say when he first started campaigning that he would pull all U$ troops out of Afghanistan?

[Dr Mindbender]

Didn't Obama say when he first started campaigning that he would pull all U$ troops out of Afghanistan?

he probably did, just to win over the leftist electorate.

Now he knows he's almost got his foot in the door he wants to appease rightist middle america.

I think he is going to do a 'tony blair' to the US.