You Can End the Wars Today

Afghanistan wasn't a misadventure. (4.00 / 2)

The Taliban sheltered the terrorists who attacked us. There are relatively few more legitimate wars in human history than the one we embarked on in Afghanistan; as shown by the nearly unanimous world support for our mission there (as well as contributions from those of our allies who were wise enough to NOT support us in Iraq).

Just as it was a mistake for the right-wingers to conflate Iraq and Afghanistan as equally necessary; it's a mistake for left-wingers to conflate them as equally wars of 'choice'.

---

by: m1ek @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 17:50:25 PM UTC

Well, no (0.00 / 0)

First, The terrorists who attacked us all died.  Second, they were all Saudi nationals, and yet not only didn't we attack Saudi Arabia, Bush actually made sure his family friends, the bin Ladens, were allowed to fly out of the country (back to Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan) before they could be questioned by the FBI. And no, this isn't a "conspiracy theory," merely a fact in search of an explanation that has never been offered.

The war in Afghanistan, like all wars in Afghanistan this century, is primarily about who controls the worldwide opium/heroin trade.

---

by: lassiter @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 18:33:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry, no. (5.00 / 1)

I'm the first guy behind you about putting the screws to the Saudis, but the Afghans were justifiably the first on the list. They protected bin Laden; didn't turn him over; and, frankly, deserved what they got.

You want to lose centrists and enable the right-wingers to take control back? Keep up the ridiculousness about the only justified war we've been in since WWII.

---

by: m1ek @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 20:31:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, what about now? (0.00 / 0)

I opposed the war in Afghanistan because I believe in the power of nonviolence.  However, even if it was necessary then, what is the solution now?  There is no exit strategy.  Are American troops going to be fighting insurgents indefinitely?  When will "victory" be achieved?   These issues need to be addressed instead of just funded without question.

---

by: jfung79 @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 20:00:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't care (0.00 / 0)

What was the exit strategy when Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor? Or with the Nazis?

Yes, we should have had overwhelming force in Afghanistan like we did in that war. No, Obama's not going to do it either. That is still a long ways from the implication of the anti-war left that it's just another Iraq.

---

by: m1ek @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 20:32:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not even close to analogous (0.00 / 0)

Japan and Germany were conquering territory outside their borders.  World War II was a very traditional war.

---

by: jfung79 @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 21:20:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your analogy machine needs service (0.00 / 0)

So your argument is that we should never fight back when the attacker isn't actively trying to conquer territory?

Really?

An exit strategy is important for a war of choice. A war of necessity, by definition, does not require such a strategy. And doing nothing to Afghanistan, which a small fraction of the lunatic left apparently still thinks was the right path, would have led others to think they could attack us, or shelter those who do, with no penalty. In that light, the Afghan was seems pretty necessary to me.

None of this excuses the piss-poor prosecution of the war after the early days or the shameful shift to Iraq. But still. All you do with this "all war is bad" tripe is convince people that the Republicans were right on everything.

---

by: m1ek @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 14:25:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lassiter (0.00 / 0)

Could we please have a legitimate debate on the topic, not you regurgitating talking points from Fahrenheit 9/11...

---

by: TexasReb @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 18:43:22 PM UTC

Shut up, he explained? (0.00 / 0)

I would think that the then-president's family having a close business relationship with the family that spawned Osama would be a topic worthy of discussion (not debate, since the relationship itself is not in dispute).  I'd imagine that if FDR had owned joint investments with the Schickelgrubers we'd still be discussing that in history classes today.

But I also find it interesting that neither the right nor the left care to bring up the topic, even though we have boys dying in Afghanistan for what will likely  turn out to be as illegitimate a series of reasons as our involvment in Iraq.

---

by: lassiter @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 22:19:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shut up, I explain (0.00 / 0)

If FDR had just had tea with the Japanese emperor before Pearl Harbor, it'd still have justified us declaring war.

Likewise, while I blame Bush for being too tight with the Saudis to do anything effective beyond Afghanistan; that doesn't change the fact that by invading Afghanistan, we were unquestionably doing the right thing - as shown by the fact that essentially all of the world had our backs. Until, of course, Cheney convinced that idiot that we should move on to Iraq.

---

by: m1ek @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 13:55:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]