If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
BTW : I no longer think the soviets are the threat they were once seen to be.
Firstly, I didn't say tha Afghanistan attacked the US, in fact I didn't comment at all suggesting that I didn't need to.
But, out of interest, why isn't it as clear cut?
No, it isn't.
Now try and take the WMD off of them..
There is no doubt that 11/9 has given the US the political will to act, something they previously lacked.
If anything, the fact that they haven't acted previously gives lie to many of the anti-war argument. As a consequence of their refusal to felx their muscles previously, the US has actually given Iraq four years to come to a diplomatic solution. Cofi Annan has visited Iraq oon several occasions and met only with more prevarication.
I know you didn't say it. I said it, as part of my point. What makes you think I implied you said it?
As far as I could tell you were responding to a post saying lots of Muslim countries had been attacked by the US. For all the other countries in question you gave responses, along the lines of America didn't actually attack them etc. For Afghanistan you didn't comment. I'm not sure why not. The implication I got was that it was obvious why the US attacked them (if that wasn't what you meant, I apologise, but would ask you to clarify what you did mean).
The reasons for it not being as obvious and clear cut as that are the same as I mentioned in the original post. I suggest you re-read that. But basically, the reason it wasn't obvious and justified that the US should attack Afghanistan, is simply the fact that Afghanistan didn't attack the US.
Well, from these posts it appears you basically agree with me, so why you couldn't just say that I don't know!!:)
I never said I thought Saddam shouldn't be dealt with in some way, my concerns were the reasoning behind deciding to attack now. It appears to be highly politically motivated. They're using 9/11 to justify this, when it isn't connected. It's also very much a vote winner for Bush in a time of economic and financial uncertainty back in the US. It seems designed to get him a second term basically.
To go to war with someone with these as major factors is very worrying.
Apologies, I have re-read the post now. I stand corrected..
No, lets look at the facts then.
The US was attacked by Al Qaeda. Al Quaeda were protected by the Afghan "Govt", and were trained within their borders.
The US asked for them to be handed over.
The Afghan "Govt" refused, thus underlining their support.
By supporting the terrorists the Afghan "Govt" becomes a sponsor, and is therefore a legitimate target.
I'm not sure why there is a problem with that
I'm not saying there's a major problem with it (although I'm sure others might argue) I was just saying I don't think it's as clear cut as being able to not comment on it. I think a comment such as you have just made was necessary to show why you felt it was a justifiable attack.
There is certainly an argument there that war was an extreme measure against a country which hadn't actually committed an act of war itself, and that's why I was saying it wasn't clear cut - again, I wasn't saying I disagreed, just that there is room for some debate on that.
Hiding, protecting and training the people who carried out the attack, is an act of war.
Cartainly there is an argument about "conspiracy" there, and that is enough to justify an retalliatory attack...