Japan vs Iraq

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

bin laden and his al qaeda captains declared war on the US, and they were fully supported by the taliban. You don't consider that the same thing as the taliban declaring war on the US? And, heh, I thought I was talking to Roland when I typed that.

I don't see it that way. If you wanna go after Bin Laden, I think there's better ways of handling that than invading Afghanistan....which did nothing to get Bin Laden or stomp out Al qaeda.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I don't see it that way. If you wanna go after Bin Laden, I think there's better ways of handling that than invading Afghanistan....which did nothing to get Bin Laden or stomp out Al qaeda.

But, if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had stayed in Afghanistan, then the invasion would've been justified you're saying.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

But, if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had stayed in Afghanistan, then the invasion would've been justified you're saying.

No. I said it would have been justified if Afghanistan declared war on the US. That did not happen.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

No. I said it would have been justified if Afghanistan declared war on the US. That did not happen.

But, if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had stayed in Afghanistan, then they would've been "stomped". In which case, from the way you make it sound, the invasion would've been justified.

Your only problem with the invasion, from what you've been saying, is that it "wasn't the best way" to get Bin Laden and stomp out Al Qaeda.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sponger wrote:

so why do so many americans and europeand disagree with you on that stance i wonder.

More than agree with me? Curious would you say an antiwar stance is not only impossible but foolish?

sponger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

More than agree? curious would you say an antiwar stance is not only impossible but foolish?

Yes, but we're looking at possibly electing a president who has promised to take that stance as though it were not impossible or foolish.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

But, if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had stayed in Afghanistan, then they would've been "stomped". In which case, from the way you make it sound, the invasion would've been justified.

Your only problem with the invasion, from what you've been saying, is that it "wasn't the best way" to get Bin Laden and stomp out Al Qaeda.

This whole 'get the big bad terrorist' shit has never been something I've bought into so I'm already giving you that point for argument's sake.

(IF) we were justified in going after Bin Laden and Co then we should have taken him out covertly without declaring war or invading a whole country in the process killing thousand of civilians. We've conducted secret assasination plots and funded rebellion groups etc many times in the past. I just don't believe that we couldn't take this guy out and round up known terrorists in a much more efficient manner.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

This whole 'get the big bad terrorist' shit has never been something I've bought into so I'm already giving you that point for argument's sake.

(IF) we were justified in going after Bin Laden and Co then we should have taken him out covertly without declaring war or invading a whole country in the process killing thousand of civilians. We've conducted secret assasination plots and funded rebellion groups etc many times in the past. I just don't believe that we couldn't take this guy out and round up known terrorists in a much more efficient manner.

Were you aware that Al Qaeda had a vast network of training camps and supply routes throughout afghanistan that were being protected by the Taliban...not something that can be eliminated by a simple assassination.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

Yes, but we're looking at possibly electing a president who has promised to take that stance as though it were not impossible or foolish.

Well I don't view that stance as foolish or impossible. Violence is always the irrational way to handle problems. And no one has ever said self defense was off the table.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Well I don't view that stance as foolish or impossible. Violence is always the irrational way to handle problems. And no one has ever said self defense was off the table.

So you believe the self-defense approach is plausible then? And if you believe that violence is "always" irrational, then how do you use self-defense as justification?

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

Were you aware that Al Qaeda had a vast network of training camps and supply routes throughout afghanistan that were being protected by the Taliban...not something that can be eliminated by a simple assassination.

Yes, I've heard that. It wasn't handled too damn well your way either.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yes, I've heard that. It wasn't handled too damn well your way either.

My way? Who said it was my way?

What I'm getting at is that you're not really against the invasion. You actually support such an invasion. It's just that you think the invasion was poorly planned. A lot of people have a really hard time differentiating between those two viewpoints.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

So you believe the self-defense approach is plausible then? And if you believe that violence is "always" irrational, then how do you use self-defense as justification?

Yes. But I don't think invading Afghanistan is an example of that.

It's not irrational to protect yourself when in danger.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yes. But I don't think invading Afghanistan is an example of that.

It's not irrational to protect yourself when in danger.

Actually, you do think Afghanistan is an example of that.

You said if the Taliban declared war on the US, the invasion would be justified.

I said the Taliban supported Al Qaeda, who declared war on the US.

Your response to that was that it was "not the best way" to wipe out Al Qaeda.

Therefore, if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda hadn't run away from Afghanistan, invading Afghanistan would've in fact been an example of self-defense.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sponger wrote:

Yes, but we're looking at possibly electing a president who has promised to take that stance as though it were not impossible or foolish.

At some point, in some way, there has to be an alternate path to mankind's destiny. This one leads to destruction.

I think this can be cleared up, but it will take a whole new approach to Presidential speeches with emphasizing an outpouring of copious good will and clearly stated intentions followed up by economic aid, societal programs etc...

I wouldn't say people like myself and Abook are confused so much as trying to find a way to put good will to practical use. Peace and harmony is what we believe in. These are highly coveted core values to living a happy life.

We are not confused or lost about that....we are just trying to find a way to incorporate a positive change to an obviously very complex and deep rooted problem.


So I would have to disagree a little with your assessment of being confused and not understanding the problem entirely.

One path is of hope. The other is of hopelessness. My instincts guide me towards hope.

It would seem apparent that to eliminate war and destruction at some point we have to actually stop doing it.

I think a new global precedence can be set. The alternative is to stop trying altogether and embrace war as our ultimate answer to everything.

sponger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

At some point, in some way, there has to be an alternate path to mankind's destiny. This one leads to destruction.

I think this can be cleared up, but it will take a whole new approach to Presidential speeches with emphasizing an outpouring of copious good will and clearly stated intentions followed up by economic aid, societal programs etc...

I wouldn't say people like myself and Abook are confused so much as trying to find a way to put good will to practical use. Peace and harmony is what we believe in. These are highly coveted core values to living a happy life.

We are not confused or lost about that....we are just trying to find a way to incorporate a positive change to an obviously very complex and deep rooted problem.


So I would have to disagree a little with your assessment of being confused and not understanding the problem entirely.

One path is of hope. The other is of hopelessness. My instincts guide me towards hope.

It would seem apparent that to eliminate war and destruction at some point we have to actually stop doing it.

I think a new global precedence can be set. The alternative is to stop trying altogether and embrace war as our ultimate answer to everything.

Well, if the two of you weren't confused, then you both did an excellent job of acting like you were. Take a look at your posts and try to understand how the two of you continuously fumbled over your own supposed points of view.

And you say that you didn't have a lack of understanding of the issue, yet midway through the discussion you had to wiki a few facts to help you to your final opinion on the situation in afghanistan.

Look, it sucks to look confused and uninformed, but IMO it's even worse to try to play it off when the proof is right here in this thread. There's nothing wrong with not knowing what you're talking about. It's the belief that there is something wrong with that which causes people to talk out of their assess with the desperate intention of not appearing stupid.

"I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive...I've seen it all, I was here first" -Kurt Cobain

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

Actually, you do think Afghanistan is an example of that.

You said if the Taliban declared war on the US, the invasion would be justified.

I said the Taliban supported Al Qaeda, who declared war on the US.

Your response to that was that it was "not the best way" to wipe out Al Qaeda.

Therefore, if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda hadn't run away from Afghanistan, invading Afghanistan would've in fact been an example of self-defense.

The disconnection is where you say the Taliban supported Al qaeda so it is self defense to invade Afghanistan. Just because they supported them doesn't mean we invade them. The only justifiable group to attack is the one who attacked you, no one else. And as I've already stated, that could be done without invading Afghanistan.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sponger wrote:

Well, if the two of you weren't confused, then you both did an excellent job of acting like you were. Take a look at your posts and try to understand how the two of you continuously fumbled over your own supposed points of view.

And you say that you didn't have a lack of understanding of the issue, yet midway through the discussion you had to wiki a few facts to help you to your final opinion on the situation in afghanistan.

Look, it sucks to look confused and uninformed, but IMO it's even worse to try to play it off when the proof is right here in this thread. There's nothing wrong with not knowing what you're talking. It's the believe that there is something wrong with that which causes people to talk out of their assess with the desperate intention of not appearing stupid.

"I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive...I've seen it all, I was here first" -Kurt Cobain

Your stance is the easier way out. Ours is the harder more noble path to follow...the one that has no one has found an answer to, and one that has no historical examples to read about and follow. For this I believe we cannot be faulted and should not be criticized for.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

Well, if the two of you weren't confused, then you both did an excellent job of acting like you were. Take a look at your posts and try to understand how the two of you continuously fumbled over your own supposed points of view.

And you say that you didn't have a lack of understanding of the issue, yet midway through the discussion you had to wiki a few facts to help you to your final opinion on the situation in afghanistan.

Look, it sucks to look confused and uninformed, but IMO it's even worse to try to play it off when the proof is right here in this thread. There's nothing wrong with not knowing what you're talking about. It's the belief that there is something wrong with that which causes people to talk out of their assess with the desperate intention of not appearing stupid.

"I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive...I've seen it all, I was here first" -Kurt Cobain

Quit being an ass. I've explained my stance and you just disagree with it. But if it boosts you up to resort to petty insults, have at it.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The disconnection is where you say the Taliban supported Al qaeda so it is self defense to invade Afghanistan. Just because they supported them doesn't mean we invade them. The only justifiable group to attack is the one who attacked you, no one else. And as I've already stated, that could be done without invading Afghanistan.

You said "take out Bin Laden and Co"

"Bin Laden and Co" amounted to a very large force situated in Afghanistan in the form of numerous training camps protected by the Taliban.

Therefore, the only way to "wipe them out" at the time was to invade.

Al Qaeda and the training camps ran away from Afghanistan.

That's why you support the invasion, but think it was poorly planned.