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.
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
Perhaps I also think that you should also balance that with minimising civillian risk. Conservative estimates put the collateral damage at a couple of thousand.
It is debateable as to whether the US has killed more of the enemy than it has innocent civillians
to be honest. I don't think we are that far apart on our thinking. The difference being that I class myself as a moderate with dove-ish tendancies. And you seem to be a moderate with hawkish leanings.
I don't disagree with the principle of war (although I abhorr it). I just find the US justifications and the means, rather shaky.
Clever idea, but it doesn't serve any purpose. It's a different argument and not strictly relevant.
Had the Taliban been expansionists, built up a mass arsenal. marched into Pakistan/India/Iran and taken it over, adopted a genocidal policy, then war would have been the only option.
However, they were not. I don't think Mullah Omar had any realistic aims of invading other countries.
I'm surprised that anyone does, to be honest.
The fact that the US has waited 11 years either shows that they have exercise restraint, or that there wasn't the political will to do something before hand. Either way I don't think that we should criticise them for acting now. The fact that they only push around weaker nations (ie nearly everyone else) shows that they act where they can. Again, I cannot fault them for that.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't really.
As for the Taliban, I know that Afghani still aren't as free as we are, and that they still don't trust the west. But it is still better than the position they were in before hand.
There are several murdering dictators in Africa who could do with a bit of a kick up the arse. But the US won't act because it doesn't have significant commercial interests in the region.
I have also wondered why Libya is on the list. Have they not kept their heads down over the past 10 years?
I don't think that they have. They emphasise their own agenda, but point out the benefits for other countries too, because they want support.
To be honest, they are more than capable of doing it for themseleves and there is fuck all anyone could do about it.
I'm sure than many people would oppose that more.
The point I was trying to make is about ifs and buts. Its no use saying this wouldnt have happened if not for this happening. It did happen and theres no changing that. You can apply that thinking to anything you want and it moves blame around nicely.
The US has never said they removed the Taliban solely because they werent very pleasant people. Its always been about them protecting Al-Queda. The fact that they are murderous thugs was just a side issue and removing them for this reason was a bonus, not the objective.
Well I think its more to do with the fact that they would be ripped apart by the world liberal community. They are constantly accused of imperialism at the moment, god knows how bad it would be if they started messing around in africa.
The US doesnt have the right to remove a government simply because they are nasty to their own people, nor have they ever claimed to have that right.
Actually, economic means have proven to be rather effective in dealing with China. Maybe you've noticed?
Different situations, different solutions. Saddam isn't going to cooperate with arms inspectors regardless of what he says today. Actions speak louder than words. His actions have spoken loud and clear.
By the way, maybe you didn't notice, but it was Afghanis who defeated and unseated the Taliban.
The Afghans/Afghanis did not 'defeat' the Taliban.
It was the US and its carpet bombing of the country which defeated the Taliban.
The civil war had been raging since 1996, and the opposition manged to progress to owning around 5% of the territory in six years.
They may have marched into Kabul, although if you want to be a pedant it would techincally have been John Simpson who liberated the city, but thats a symbolic thing.
I think the fact that the Taliban probably lost a few hundred to the hands of the NA and a few thousand to US bombs tells you who toppled the Taliban.
Hasn't the US signed a trade agreement with China? Their human rights record is still appalling.
Well thats where we will have to agree to disagree. I think if Bush had been honest up front and said, we want to attack Iraq because we hate Saddam and we want to protect oil interests, then he would have more respect in many eyes.
But he didn't. As has been mentioned, he changed the goalposts behind any planned attacks.
I think your point about only refraining from intervening in other conflicts because of the liberal community is wide of the mark.
The US will only get involved in a conflict if it will further their interests or agenda. The US public is always nervous about their boys going into areas that don't conern them.
Coupled with the fact that it seems the US is fully prepered to attack Iraq without a UN mandate if needed, leads me to believe that it doesn't care what people think of it and it could intervene in any conflict if it actually wanted to.
Again, I don't have a problem with self serving interest. But don't disguise it.
Reminder - it already has a mandate. The ceasefire terms and the 23 (of 27) UN resolutions which Saddam has failed to abide by.
Its the "doves" who want more resolutions because they would rather discuss something in committee than actually do anything. Remember many of these people were the very ones who argued for sanctions before the Gulf War...
Carpet bombing has never won a war. Not one. But it would take some understanding of military operations to actually have a clue what you were talking about. You don't have that. As for the casualties, you're wrong. That simple. "the fact"? The fact is that the Northern Alliance was winning, slowly but steadily, and a relatively small amount of aid tipped the balance heavily to their side. You might want to read AARs instead of editorials when you want facts about military operations.
A whole lot better than what it was. And the continual changes have come about because of wanting the "American standard of living", not because of your whining. And what kind of pressure will that trade agreement allow the US to bring?