Howard Zinn: No one wins in a war

fuck

a bit old, but an excellent article nonetheless.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/07/17/memo_to_obama_mccain_no_one_wins_in_a_war/

know1

Wow - something I can agree with Howard on (the title of the thread, since I didn't read the article)

fuck

know1 wrote:

I didn't read the article

I never thought you did.

know1

_outlaw wrote:

I never thought you did.

I know you are but what am I?

fuck

what do people think of this part of the article:

"In Afghanistan, the United States declared "victory" over the Taliban. Now the Taliban is back, and attacks are increasing. The recent US military death count in Afghanistan exceeds that in Iraq. What makes Obama think that sending more troops to Afghanistan will produce "victory"? And if it did, in an immediate military sense, how long would that last, and at what cost to human life on both sides?

The resurgence of fighting in Afghanistan is a good moment to reflect on the beginning of US involvement there. There should be sobering thoughts to those who say that attacking Iraq was wrong, but attacking Afghanistan was right.

Go back to Sept. 11, 2001. Hijackers direct jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing close to 3,000 A terrorist act, inexcusable by any moral code. The nation is aroused. President Bush orders the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan, and the American public is swept into approval by a wave of fear and anger. Bush announces a "war on terror."

Except for terrorists, we are all against terror. So a war on terror sounded right. But there was a problem, which most Americans did not consider in the heat of the moment: President Bush, despite his confident bravado, had no idea how to make war against terror.

Yes, Al Qaeda - a relatively small but ruthless group of fanatics - was apparently responsible for the attacks. And, yes, there was evidence that Osama bin Laden and others were based in Afghanistan. But the United States did not know exactly where they were, so it invaded and bombed the whole country. That made many people feel righteous. "We had to do something," you heard people say.

Yes, we had to do something. But not thoughtlessly, not recklessly. Would we approve of a police chief, knowing there was a vicious criminal somewhere in a neighborhood, ordering that the entire neighborhood be bombed? There was soon a civilian death toll in Afghanistan of more than 3,000 - exceeding the number of deaths in the Sept. 11 attacks. Hundreds of Afghans were driven from their homes and turned into wandering refugees.

Two months after the invasion of Afghanistan, a Boston Globe story described a 10-year-old in a hospital bed: "He lost his eyes and hands to the bomb that hit his house after Sunday dinner." The doctor attending him said: "The United States must be thinking he is Osama. If he is not Osama, then why would they do this?"

We should be asking the presidential candidates: Is our war in Afghanistan ending terrorism, or provoking it? And is not war itself terrorism?"

RolandTD20Kdrummer

It's only terrorism if the empire says it is....

or else!

know1

_outlaw wrote:

what do people think of this part of the article:

"In Afghanistan, the United States declared "victory" over the Taliban. Now the Taliban is back, and attacks are increasing. The recent US military death count in Afghanistan exceeds that in Iraq. What makes Obama think that sending more troops to Afghanistan will produce "victory"? And if it did, in an immediate military sense, how long would that last, and at what cost to human life on both sides?

The resurgence of fighting in Afghanistan is a good moment to reflect on the beginning of US involvement there. There should be sobering thoughts to those who say that attacking Iraq was wrong, but attacking Afghanistan was right.

Go back to Sept. 11, 2001. Hijackers direct jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing close to 3,000 A terrorist act, inexcusable by any moral code. The nation is aroused. President Bush orders the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan, and the American public is swept into approval by a wave of fear and anger. Bush announces a "war on terror."

Except for terrorists, we are all against terror. So a war on terror sounded right. But there was a problem, which most Americans did not consider in the heat of the moment: President Bush, despite his confident bravado, had no idea how to make war against terror.

Yes, Al Qaeda - a relatively small but ruthless group of fanatics - was apparently responsible for the attacks. And, yes, there was evidence that Osama bin Laden and others were based in Afghanistan. But the United States did not know exactly where they were, so it invaded and bombed the whole country. That made many people feel righteous. "We had to do something," you heard people say.

Yes, we had to do something. But not thoughtlessly, not recklessly. Would we approve of a police chief, knowing there was a vicious criminal somewhere in a neighborhood, ordering that the entire neighborhood be bombed? There was soon a civilian death toll in Afghanistan of more than 3,000 - exceeding the number of deaths in the Sept. 11 attacks. Hundreds of Afghans were driven from their homes and turned into wandering refugees.

Two months after the invasion of Afghanistan, a Boston Globe story described a 10-year-old in a hospital bed: "He lost his eyes and hands to the bomb that hit his house after Sunday dinner." The doctor attending him said: "The United States must be thinking he is Osama. If he is not Osama, then why would they do this?"

We should be asking the presidential candidates: Is our war in Afghanistan ending terrorism, or provoking it? And is not war itself terrorism?"

If that's the article, then it's typical of what I've seen of Zinn - close-minded, biased, and made up of attacks but offering no solutions.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

i agree the 'war on terrorism' is a bullshit slogan. what it is a war against taliban and Al-qaeda (or at least thats what it should be), and its a morally exceptable one to me. dont get so caught up in political speak. everyone knows eradicating 'terrorism' is a stupid idea. its just a stupid slogan.

oh and point #2: does this mean Zinn doesnt thing 9/11 was an inside job either? ouch another nail in the coffin of the 9/11 truther bullshit.

fuck

know1 wrote:

If that's the article, then it's typical of what I've seen of Zinn - close-minded, biased, and made up of attacks but offering no solutions.

Do you even know who Howard Zinn is?

fuck

MrSmith wrote:

oh and point #2: does this mean Zinn doesnt thing 9/11 was an inside job either? ouch another nail in the coffin of the 9/11 truther bullshit.

irrelevant to the topic.

know1

_outlaw wrote:

Do you even know who Howard Zinn is?

Yes.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

_outlaw wrote:

irrelevant to the topic.

yeah

sj.brodie

know1 wrote:

If that's the article, then it's typical of what I've seen of Zinn - close-minded, biased, and made up of attacks but offering no solutions.

It's called idealism and hope. So i suppose you think Vedder's lyrics are 'close-minded' and 'biased' too?

Cheer up

know1

sj.brodie wrote:

It's called idealism and hope. So i suppose you think Vedder's lyrics are 'close-minded' and 'biased' too?

Cheer up

I disagree.

Yes - some of Eddie's lyrics are close-minded in my opinion, but then again I don't view them in general as very political either.