Is the USA uncivilised?

[Robert_S]

As long as non-Marxist governments and/or ruling classes are complete dicks, there will be a threat from Marxism.

Why did Marxism take root in Cuba? Because it was the fittest ideology at the time and place. Capitalism could have adapted, but chose not to.

[Seth]

Seth

The USA was not invited into Iraq, and nor was it cleaning up a mess. It was creating a worse mess.

Lie.

George Bush senior had the smarts to carry out a minimal action, to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, and then stop.

And negotiate a cease fire with Saddam. Which Saddam refused to abide by for 12 years and 14 UN resolutions demanding that he do so. So we had to go back in and slap him down again.

George Bush junior was a nutter who could not stop there, and played the school year bully.

Lie.

He mired Iraq and the USA into a terrible war, which cost literally millions of lives. I would like to see Dubya hauled up before the international court on a charge of crimes against humanity.

Fat chance.

The American intervention in Afghanistan was another crime.

Lie.

A response to Al Qaeda after 9/11 was justified, but not an attack on the Afghani people, who were innocent of that crime.

Which people? You mean the Taliban who were terrorists in their own right and were supporting and harboring Al Qaeda and who could have stood aside while we looked for Osama but chose instead to attack our troops, which required a response from us? Or do you mean the Afghan government and millions of Afghans who asked for our help and thank us for being there?

As I pointed out, the USA and other nations have, in fact, launched an attack on Al Qaeda by means of undercover operatives, and surgical strikes against their leaders.

Fucking right we have.

This is slowly destroying Al Qaeda, and represents intelligent action.

Is it? Maybe.

But the invasion of the country, Afghanistan, was utterly unjustified, and terribly, terribly damaging to the soldiers sent there, and to the Afghani people.

It was completely justified by the fact that the Taliban were hiding Osama at Tora Bora and refused to hand him over, and when we went in to get him ourselves, which was completely justified, they attacked us and defended Osama, which made them our enemies, so we fucked them up big time, to the benefit of the rest of Afghanistan, whose government welcomed us and asked us to stay and help them quell the terrorist threats.

Dubya should be arraigned for crimes against humanity for Afghanistan also.

You're more likely to be charged with crimes against humanity than he is. And probably more appropriately too.

[Blind groper]

Seth

You have a very warped view of recent history. The US attack on Afghanistan had nothing to do with invitations from the Afghani government. The government at the time was Taliban, and they certainly were not going to invite any Americans.

No, what the USA did was to support a rebel group, the Northern Alliance. This was very definitely a minority group, not supported by more than a tiny part of the Afghani people.

The Taliban, of course, are not nice people. But so what? There are dozens of governments around the world that are not nice people, and the USA ignores them. The American government attacks those who give it a selfish advantage for such an attack. In the case of Afghanistan, it was political. The only reason for that attack was the fact that Dubya wanted to get re-elected, and the voters were screaming for drastic retaliation at the time. Dubya did, in fact, get re-elected, whch shows that his strategy worked, at the small cost of tens of thousands of human lives, including American soldiers. No practical advantage has been realised from this action. For this reason Dubya should be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity. I know it will not happen, but that would be the course of justice.

The fact that some members of Al Qaeda were hiding inside Afghanistan at the time is irrelevant. Lots of other members were hiding in a whole raft of other places as well, but the US government chose to attack just Afghanistan.

Hosting a criminal is not a cause to attack the host. If I had a guy staying with me who went out and committed assault, then the police should go catch the guy, arrest him, and haul him up in court, where he gets sent to prison. That is correct action. But just because I was his host does not mean I should also get punished. Nor should the Taliban have been seen as guilty because a bunch of Al Qaeda were living in Afghanistan. That is screwed up logic.

[Seth]

Seth

You have a very warped view of recent history.

No, you do. Warped to the point of delusion.

The US attack on Afghanistan had nothing to do with invitations from the Afghani government. The government at the time was Taliban, and they certainly were not going to invite any Americans.

The Taliban was not the government of Afghanistan, it was a bunch of terrorists who walked into the power vacuum, nothing more. We're not obliged to recognize just any group of insane religious fundamentalists who claim to be in power anywhere on earth.

No, what the USA did was to support a rebel group, the Northern Alliance. This was very definitely a minority group, not supported by more than a tiny part of the Afghani people.

Horse and shit.

The Taliban, of course, are not nice people. But so what? There are dozens of governments around the world that are not nice people, and the USA ignores them. The American government attacks those who give it a selfish advantage for such an attack. In the case of Afghanistan, it was political. The only reason for that attack was the fact that Dubya wanted to get re-elected, and the voters were screaming for drastic retaliation at the time. Dubya did, in fact, get re-elected, whch shows that his strategy worked, at the small cost of tens of thousands of human lives, including American soldiers. No practical advantage has been realised from this action. For this reason Dubya should be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity. I know it will not happen, but that would be the course of justice.

What would be justice is if some Al Qaeda terrorist blows your ass a thousand feet into the air so you can get a taste of what your Chamberlainesque ignorance is supporting.

The fact that some members of Al Qaeda were hiding inside Afghanistan at the time is irrelevant. Lots of other members were hiding in a whole raft of other places as well, but the US government chose to attack just Afghanistan.

That's where Bin Laden was. At Tora Bora. We missed him by a gnat's whisker.

Hosting a criminal is not a cause to attack the host.

Yes, it is. Harboring terrorists is an international crime in case you missed it.

If I had a guy staying with me who went out and committed assault, then the police should go catch the guy, arrest him, and haul him up in court, where he gets sent to prison. That is correct action. But just because I was his host does not mean I should also get punished. Nor should the Taliban have been seen as guilty because a bunch of Al Qaeda were living in Afghanistan. That is screwed up logic.

If you know the guy committed assault and you deliberately and with specific intent conceal and protect him against being found and taken into custody by the police you're damned sure going to be charged as an accomplice after the fact and with harboring a fugitive. If you shoot at the police when they come to arrest him, which is exactly what the Taliban did, then the police, or the military, are going to correctly and legally lump you in as a co-conspirator and blow your ass sky high, which is perfectly lawful under the international laws of war.

[Clinton Huxley]

Hey, Chamberlain was doing the best he could with a shit deck of cards! He knew we weren't ready to poke the Hunnish wasps nest.

[JimC]

Blind groper wrote:

Hosting a criminal is not a cause to attack the host. If I had a guy staying with me who went out and committed assault, then the police should go catch the guy, arrest him, and haul him up in court, where he gets sent to prison. That is correct action. But just because I was his host does not mean I should also get punished. Nor should the Taliban have been seen as guilty because a bunch of Al Qaeda were living in Afghanistan. That is screwed up logic.

I partly agree with your assessment, in that a long, futile war in Afghanistan has become a disaster.

However, the Taliban were not accidental hosts of Al Qaeda. They cheered them on, and gave them material support. They deserved to have their rule in Afghanistan smashed. However, the US should have then pursued a quick exit strategy after an initial powerful strike, even if it meant leaving the country in a state of chaos. Let the Afghans sort it out, with a clear message that credible intelligence of support for groups targeting the West would lead to heavy air attacks, until the lesson was learned...

[Seth]

Blind groper wrote:

Hosting a criminal is not a cause to attack the host. If I had a guy staying with me who went out and committed assault, then the police should go catch the guy, arrest him, and haul him up in court, where he gets sent to prison. That is correct action. But just because I was his host does not mean I should also get punished. Nor should the Taliban have been seen as guilty because a bunch of Al Qaeda were living in Afghanistan. That is screwed up logic.

I partly agree with your assessment, in that a long, futile war in Afghanistan has become a disaster.

However, the Taliban were not accidental hosts of Al Qaeda. They cheered them on, and gave them material support. They deserved to have their rule in Afghanistan smashed. However, the US should have then pursued a quick exit strategy after an initial powerful strike, even if it meant leaving the country in a state of chaos. Let the Afghans sort it out, with a clear message that credible intelligence of support for groups targeting the West would lead to heavy air attacks, until the lesson was learned...

I agree with you. We should have thrown the full force of our military at the Taliban and Al Qaeda, destroyed them quickly and gotten the hell out.

But that's always been our problem, we're far too nice and we feel like we have to nation-build. Fuck that. Ordinarily I'd say bomb them back to the stone age and then keep them there, but in Afghanistan's case they are already at the stone age so there's really nowhere to go with that.

Must suck donkey dick to live in a country where telling the difference between an occupied village and one that's been Arclighted is difficult.

[Clinton Huxley]

Wishy washy Guardian reading lefty that I am, I was still not too upset at the Taleban being given a good hiding. Shame it's all gone a bit tits up and they'll be back in power as soon as NATO have left.

[Blind groper]

As I said, the Taliban are not nice people. But that is not an excuse to attack them. Nor was the fact that some Al Qaeda were living among them. Al Qaeda live across many nations and always have. Bin Laden was Saudi, but the USA has never threatened to attack the Saudi's, and they are every bit as nasty as the Taliban.

Can we expect another US attack in Somalia? We know that Somalia shelters a hell of a lot of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda affiliated people. But it will not happen (nor should it) because there is no selfish advantage to be gained thereby.

In other words, the attack on Afghanistan was hypocritical - done for purely political advantage by a president who should be facing the international court for his evil actions.

[Clinton Huxley]

Hmmm....all of mankind is my concern. Ergo the Taleban deserved a damned good British-style thrashing.

[Warren Dew]

As I said, the Taliban are not nice people. But that is not an excuse to attack them. Nor was the fact that some Al Qaeda were living among them. Al Qaeda live across many nations and always have. Bin Laden was Saudi, but the USA has never threatened to attack the Saudi's, and they are every bit as nasty as the Taliban.

Al Qaeda never had massive training camps - essentially military bases - in Saudi Arabia, and the government of Saudi Arabia has always been very good about tracking down Al Qaeda elements and prosecuting them.

[Seabass]

The only reason for that attack was the fact that Dubya wanted to get re-elected,

Jumpin' Jehosaphat, man, if you actually believe that, you really are off your nut. Either that or you are the most cynical motherfucker who ever lived. We're talking near truther levels of insanity here.

[pErvinalia]

Blind groper wrote:

Hosting a criminal is not a cause to attack the host. If I had a guy staying with me who went out and committed assault, then the police should go catch the guy, arrest him, and haul him up in court, where he gets sent to prison. That is correct action. But just because I was his host does not mean I should also get punished. Nor should the Taliban have been seen as guilty because a bunch of Al Qaeda were living in Afghanistan. That is screwed up logic.

I partly agree with your assessment, in that a long, futile war in Afghanistan has become a disaster.

However, the Taliban were not accidental hosts of Al Qaeda. They cheered them on, and gave them material support. They deserved to have their rule in Afghanistan smashed. However, the US should have then pursued a quick exit strategy after an initial powerful strike, even if it meant leaving the country in a state of chaos. Let the Afghans sort it out, with a clear message that credible intelligence of support for groups targeting the West would lead to heavy air attacks, until the lesson was learned...

I agree with you. We should have thrown the full force of our military at the Taliban and Al Qaeda, destroyed them quickly and gotten the hell out.

But that's always been our problem, we're far too nice and we feel like we have to nation-build.

What a load of bollocks (what Seth just said, not Jim; I agree with what Jim said). The main reason the US hangs around is to fight for the right of US corporations to get first dibs on new and/or opened markets and reconstruction etc, and to make sure a government that is compliant to US neoliberal ideology is installed.

[FBM]

They need an excuse to keep funnelling truckloads of cash to Haliburton.

[JimC]

As I said, the Taliban are not nice people. But that is not an excuse to attack them. Nor was the fact that some Al Qaeda were living among them. Al Qaeda live across many nations and always have. Bin Laden was Saudi, but the USA has never threatened to attack the Saudi's, and they are every bit as nasty as the Taliban.

Al Qaeda never had massive training camps - essentially military bases - in Saudi Arabia, and the government of Saudi Arabia has always been very good about tracking down Al Qaeda elements and prosecuting them.

Agreed, although the reason for that is that Al Qaeda has called for jihad against the Saudi government and royal family for being too cosy with the west, and not pure enough in its fundamentalism.

And BG, it is disingenuous to the extreme to say "some Al Qaeda were living among them", in the same offhand way I might say "there are some Maoris living amongst the good citizens of Sydney"

The Taliban were a national government providing clear material and ideological support to a group of terrorists. Any national government that does that risks attack by a nation attacked by said terrorists, and the attacks have every justification under international law.

Your Somalian analogy doesn't hold water. The current Somalian government, ineffective, corrupt and chaotic though it may be, does not support Al Quaeda. Drone strikes can be launched against their training camps, without attacking purely Somalian facilities.