The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Afghanistan: can we justify being there? > Comments

Afghanistan: can we justify being there? : Comments

By Scott MacInnes, published 19/10/2010

There have to be very good reasons to justify what would otherwise be regarded as murder.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The author's legal and moral criteria befit a lecturer but not the politicians, commanders and official who are responsible for our country's defence and security policy. While he presumes legal and moral are immutable criteria I don't think they are considerations valued by the terrorists that need to be disabled.

The legal/moral was tailored to such august bodies as the League of Nations and ineffectual UN.

The author might like to know, in any case, that the legal trigger for Australia's initial involvement in Afghanistan in 2001 included the ANZUS Treaty with the US. The US was attacked by foreign elements in 9/11 and those al Qaeda attackers were principally based in Afghanistan. ANZUS is a legally important consideration the author should be aware of.

National interests, national security and alliance maintenance are important to Australia.

Meanwhile quoting a figure of "50" al Qaeda in Afghanistan is putting over reliance on minimalist estimates. Al Qaeda is a political feeling and terrorist stratgy. Stab in the dark estimates of numbers who who adopt it is rather simplistic. In any case Afghanistan shares an open border region with Pakistan where thousands of Muslim terror specialists are temporarily based. They would be quite happy to return to the Afghani free fire zone once Western pressure is removed.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 11:52:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article26521.htm
The cost of killing one Taliban is $50 million US.Who are making money out of this filthy war? The US Fed loans the money to the Govt who buy from the Military /industrial complex.The tax payer foots the bill and suffers the debt,while the people of Afghanistan languish in war and poverty.

This time we are the war criminals who support a totally immoral war against a contrived enemy called terrorism.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 12:14:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plantagenet,
With the excuse you give for invading Afghanistan;
*The US was attacked by foreign elements in 9/11 and those al Qaeda attackers were principally based in Afghanistan.*
Surely you are joking?
It was not a legitimate reason, as most people well know. For a start most of the so-called attackers were from Saudi.
The attack was planned in Germany.
This was more on a par with the so-called Polish troops attacking the radio station on the German border in 1939.
Manufactured to suit the paranoid leader of a country, being led well off course.
The true facts will probably not ever be known but a large percentage of people are pretty sure that it was “helped along” by the Bush gang to enhance their claim for a “new Pearl Harbour”.
Australia and the UK were also dragged into this mess because of the delusions of their respective leaders and one day they may, with luck, face a court for war crimes.
Posted by sarnian, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 12:42:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am really surprised that any writer who addresses the problems of Afghanistan does not mention one of the highest motivations of such a war, the 90% of the world's poppy fields that are the source of revenues for the weapons used by the Taliban that are killing our soldiers, twenty one to date and likely to rise.
The following article also covers the end use of this money in the US political scene, long since trying to disguise the involvement in the buying of support for compliant Zionist Congressman, now a known and undisputed fact.

Read the Veterans Today article by Gordon Duff.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/10/18/gordon-duff-how-drug-money-is-buying-our-new-congress/

Yes, it is a US website, staffed by veterans of US wars, some from the Afghanistan charade. They should have a clue or two on the inner machinations of the US military and their motivations. They do NOT include, national security, the elimination of terrorism, the provision of a democratic government in Kabul, the education of the Afghanistan people and the elimination of al Qaeda, very few in number.

Why?

The less said about al Qaeda the better, latterly a figment of the imagination of those parties that have something to gain in the maintenance of such a fearsome group whose leader, Osama bin Laden, has probably been dead for 7 years.
The reason for the involvement of Australians in this 'engineered' war, a war that the might of Russia could not win either, was the sycophantic behaviour of John Howard, always anxious to build up some credit with the feckless George Bush, historically reqarded as America's worst President, manipulated by Zionist Neocons and directly responsible for many thousands of American deaths.
Now twenty one Australians as well, on the rise.

So our 2010 Parliament of professional protagonists including those with vested interests, will promote the idea that those who raise concerns about Afghanistan as a war environment for Australians are disloyal. They will probably win the day, so weak is our resolve for the value of Australia's position in the world as an independent country, accepting us forever as a US lackey.
Posted by rexw, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 12:42:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How sad that it is only the Australian body count that determines when we've had enough. Even more sad is that we will have "had enough" only when Murdoch decides that this is so.
Here we have a blatant resources war that benefits the arms manufacturers, the mercenaries (sorry "contractors") and harms almost everyone else.
I believe that "defence forces" should be for defence, and that can be no holes barred. This "killing for US mate ship" is so ethically barren that I feel disgusted whenever our politicians role out the weak excuses. Fighting terror? By bombing villages and treating locals like dirt? The US wars only create terrorism. Killing families tends to do that.
It's about energy and war profits. Who would support such a thing?
I'm hoping that the Greens have some uncomfortable facts for the debate, and the media actually reports them!
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 1:11:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sarnian

Afghanistan's Taliban gave bin Laden a relatively safe place to live and may do so again.

Afghanistan also hosted a large number of al Qaeda/JI training camps. JI bombers in Indonesia (Bali I) Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and terrorists visiting Australia also were taught to use explosives in Afghanistan. Pakistan currently hosts many of the terrorists but this comes with strings attached. The JI who kill Australians in Indonesia would prefer the safety and anonymity of Afghanistan for their training.

9/11 required long term basing and plans which was provided to bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. Yes the 9/11 bombers mainly came from SA and the UAE. Germany was also a place where some Saudi pilot/bombers lived as was Maryland in the US, all temporarily.

I wouldn't downgrade the importance of Saudi money to again make Afghanistan the centre of terrorist training once Western forces leave.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 4:30:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spot on, Pete
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 19 October 2010 5:25:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mind Numbingly 'secular/progressive/socialist' and thus totally innappropriate article.

McInnes (a 'human rights' consultant=socialist/green) says:

"because a decision to go to war involves a decision to justify killing people, the primary threshold question should always be whether it can be regarded as legally and morally justifiable."

This is incorrect.. it's plain wrong. The PRIMARY question must always be, "Do we need to be there, doing that, for the sake of OUR national security"

So... the legal/moral justification is to SAVE Australian lives and sovereignty from an already proven threat.

That's it...why waste more time every discussion the babble of this erring and political/socialist article?
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 6:07:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rexw spells out the truth once again.Iran was a lie along with Afghanistan and if Israel has it's way,we will soon be attacking Iran.

It is all about power,war and profit at the expense of people in resource/energy laden countries and the death/misery of our soldiers.

They are talking about 10 yrs or more of war in Afghanistan.There is also $ 65 billion pa of drugs for your children there being protected by US soldiers.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 6:08:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ozandy "I'm hoping that the Greens have some uncomfortable facts for the debate,"

any facts from the greens would be most welcome, they seem to just blather in circles every time I see or hear them .. now that they get more attention than a sound bite, they are revealing themselves as the geese they are.

Did you hear Bob Brown on the 7.30 report? What a confused man, if ever there was an uncomfortable fact it is that he should be in a retirement village

uncomfortable facts .. what sort of uncomfortable facts are you hoping for ozandy?

That terrorism doesn't exist?

Or evidence, that Murdoch is running the war? conspiracies like that and the other one I heard that the US banks are running the war, or the oil companies are running it are just fodder for the greenie blog sites .. when you go to these weird reasoning's about why things happen, you lose sight of what these evil bastards have done .. remember Bali?

when I read your rants like this ozandy, I can't help feeling that some of our scientists, as you claim to be, have lost or are losing the plot - you clearly have an eco leftist stance, and I suspect that influences your work, it certainly influences your arguments.
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 6:08:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg,ozandy is almost right.Murdoch is just the messenger for the Military/Industrial complex the JFK warned us about in the early sixties.He spoke of secret societies who have power and influence our pollies.The reality is there for you to see.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 6:20:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Does anyone really believe we would be in Afghanistan if the US were not?>>

Nope, we would not. And Gillard actually stated that one reason Australia is in Afghanistan is because of our US alliance.

Now actually that's the only valid reason I can see for being in Afghanistan. However I think in this case it's doing us more harm than good. Therefore I think we should leave.

However, Scott MacInnes and others who want us to pull out, I AM NOT GOING TO LET YOU OFF THE HOOK THAT EASILY.

When (not if) the coalition pulls out life for Afghan women will become HELL ON EARTH. It is bad enough now but it will become infinitely worse. The relationship between Afghan women and the Taliban is like the relationship between Jews and the Nazis except that the women are needed for breeding purposes and therefore cannot be exterminated.

When we left Vietnam million of Vietnamese were forced to flee. They were the original boat people.

I doubt the women of Afghanistan will even have that option.

I think we should leave because protecting Afghan women is not the job of the Australian military. Its job is to protect us.

But I don’t think we should be any doubt of the consequences. Our presence gave Afghan women hope things could be better. Abandoning them to their fate falls into the category of what I would call CRUEL BUT NECESSARY.

Gillard is a feminist. I wonder to what extent her decision to stay is coloured by understanding of the CONSEQUENCES of a pull-out for the women of Afghanistan.

So yes, let’s leave. BUT A LITTLE LESS MORAL POSTURING PLEASE. We will be doing a terrible thing to Afghan women.
Posted by lentaubman, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 7:44:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pete,
al Qaeda also has training camps in many other countries and as they are found, they tend to move on again. Do you recommend that “we” the coalition of the bemused, invade every country they might be in?
The other point is that, if Australia had not joined the US & UK in this ill-conceived invasion, we might not now be targets of the extremists.
The truth of the matter is that the US did not learn from Viet Nam that you couldn’t EVER win against dedicated fighters, if they think they are defending their homeland against an occupying force, especially if that force treats the population brutally.
Posted by sarnian, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 9:04:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL Sarnian

>>…dedicated fighters, if they think they are defending their homeland against an occupying force, especially if that force treats the population brutally.>>

I agree that we should exit Afghanistan for the reasons I stated in my previous post which boils down to that what happens in Afghanistan is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

But the way you frame the issue is RIDICULOUS. If anyone treats the Afghan population brutally it is the TALIBAN.

So far as I can see the Afghan people don’t want a return of the Taliban anymore than the South Vietnamese wanted to be ruled by the Communist North. Remember Vietnamese refugees were the ORIGINAL “BOAT PEOPLE”. They fled the by the million. For reasons of geography most Afghans won’t even have that option. Certainly the poor women won’t

Having spoken to Afghan women I get SICK TO MY STOMACH at the thought of their fate at the hands of the Taliban.

The Taliban are not freedom fighters defending their homeland. They are not even “war criminals”. They are monsters.

So yes argue we should leave but can we PLEASE have less moral posturing. It is going to be VERY UGLY for the Afghans generally and for the WOMEN in particular.
Posted by lentaubman, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 9:23:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lentaubman,
I agree that the Taliban are the pits but if you’re not ever going to win, what is the point of throwing more lives away?
I recently posted on this to another article and this may cover your objections to "leaving the woman"

* For what it costs to keep the Nato coalition in Afghanistan perhaps a solution would be to spend that amount on providing a system for allowing the people who want to opt out of the Afghan conflagration to other countries. Any one who did not want to leave would be left in Afghanistan to tough it out with whoever is left to run it, after the inevitable civil war.
I am sure that if the amount of population that wanted to leave could be absorbed into all of the countries worldwide,*
Posted by sarnian, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 9:34:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sarnian, then what happens when everyone left is a taliban, after the inevitable civil war, or wants to be a Taliban, and then people from all over the world start arriving to be trained and be a Taliban.

then all these trained thugs decide they need something to do with all their training and new found charm and skills.

So they spill into the next country and you decide, hey let everyone who doesn't want to be there leave it to them and be absorbed into the next country .. and so it goes

so eventually you have abandoned countries to thugs and terrorists who get it now, that you can win against the west by getting them to abandon regions because they are threatened and can't be bothered doing anything about it .. essentially you reinforce that the west is weak, and has no moral fortitude, just like their holy books tell them

this is how small armies become large armies and eventually a horde .. read your history, if you don't stop people like this, they will eventually roll you up

hey, you could try building a wall .. oh
Posted by Amicus, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 10:04:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for the article, it is important to focus on the morality of the latest western invasion of Afghanistan.

The only point I would make is that when the author discusses "our national interests" or "our troops" or "Afghanistan's security" etc, there should be a critical view of such statements.

WHOSE INTERESTS are are we talking about?

A critical view of an overwhelming number of wars would discover the beneficiaries are a small number of elites, on both sides of the conflict. The LOSERS continue to be the common people, soldiers, workers, mums and dads, and children workers of both sides.

Let's distinguish for whose interest (financial, power and otherwise) the invasion and current occupation of Afghanistan are.

- International war corporations, substantially subsidized by the taxpayers of western countries( at the expense of investment in health and education)
- High level military planners, commanders with open links to the same corporations and politicians approving war
- Multinational Corporations which stand to profit from a western takeover of Afghan markets and natural resources
- Western politicians with open links to corporations set to benefit from the takeover and Afghan politicians in collaboration with them.

The above extreme minorities decide on war by weighing the benefits to THEMSELVES against risks to THEMSELVES, for example that war could result in economic losses.

These minorities then using the marketing arm of their corporations, the mass media to sell TO US a plausible reason for the upcoming invasion.

Risks to us, the average people(for example CIA admissions that Afghan and Iraq wars will increase risks of terrorist attacks against westerners (NOT decease), are obviously not part of the equation, let alone risks to poorly equipped solders , let alone the increased RISKS of millions of innocent Afghans continuing to be malnourished, dying of preventable disease, made homeless or out rightly killed.

Let's be clear about whose INTERESTS the current invasion of Afghanistan is, and LET US the common people unite to say NO TO WAR AND TO MURDER OF INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN in OUR NAME.
Posted by Nigel, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 10:54:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nigel..'who's interests ? well 'ours' of course :)

"our/we" being free Australians.(and Americans and Brits)

You, along with various others seem oblivious to the potential for a nuclear Islamic holocaust against the West (America primarily) if the Taliban ever got hold of Pakistans Nukes..and if you think they aren't interested.. you are living in lala land.

Refer my earlier post.. about the true situation and strategic interest.
Nuff said.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 1:05:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sarnian wrote:

lentaubman,
>>...but if you’re not ever going to win, what is the point of throwing more lives away?>>

As I've already said, we should leave. TODAY if possible.

I simply object to any characterisation that even hints the Taliban are "freedom fighters" fighting against an "occupation".

In fact the Taliban are largely a creation of Pakistan’s ISI – the Pakistani equivalent of the CIA. Pakistan set the Taliban to conquer Afghanistan in order to checkmate their strategic rival, Iran, in that region. In effect the Taliban is a Pashtun based occupation force supported by Pakistan. I doubt if even Afghan Pashtuns want the Taliban in power.

The reason the Taliban can win and the coalition can’t is not because the Americans are so “brutal” as you stated; it’s because the Taliban are MORE BRUTAL than anybody else in the field in Afghanistan.

Get that?

We are not losing because we're too brutal.

We're losing because, quite rightly, we don't have the stomach to be brutal enough.

Notably the Taliban hide among women and children so that killing them always involves civilian casualties. It is they, not the Americans, who are the biggest war criminals in Afghanistan.

Please note the wording of Article 28 of the Fourth Protocol to the Geneva Convention:

“The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”

To put it in crude terms if the Taliban operate from an orphanage that orphanage becomes LEGITIMATE TARGET for bombing. I’m not suggesting one should actually bomb an orphanage under those circumstances. I’m simply pointing out that in and of itself that would NOT be a war crime.

When the America-haters on OLO get on their high-horses and accuse the Americans of war crimes and brutality they somehow seem blind to the war crimes of the Taliban.

Yes we should get out of Afghanistan and abandon the Afghan women to their fate.

But we should also avoid any moral posturing
Posted by lentaubman, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 3:03:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hope no one in Afganistan reads the tripe written by some of you lot.
They would recon they are being helped by a mob of skwibbs.
Full time soldiers would be ashamed of what is said as well as their families.
Career soldiers no what they are in for. They enjoy the conflict. If they didn't want the situation they wouldn't be there.
You want a nation of terrorists; you should be up for treason.
That sort of talk comes from yellow bellies..
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 3:51:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lentaubman writes:

"I simply object to any characterisation that even hints the Taliban are "freedom fighters" fighting against an "occupation".

One of many recent public opinion surveys of Afghans themselves may shed light on what they think about the war. (see http://www.icosgroup.net/modules/reports/afghanistan_relationship_gap/press_release) found:

70% of the Afghan men we interviewed felt that the military operations in their area were bad for the Afghan people.

55% believe that NATO-ISAF are in Afghanistan only for their own benefit, to destroy or occupy the country, or to destroy Islam,”

75% of interviewees stated that they believe foreigners disrespect their religion and traditions,

68% believe that NATO forces do not protect the local population”.

The survey also supports the obvious fact, despite conflicting Afghan Opinions on the Talaban, that as the main opposition to the Western occupation, they are receiving SIGNIFICANT AND INCREASING LOCAL SUPPORT.
Posted by Nigel, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 4:09:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rather than address all the comments, (opinions can be rightly held without criticism) the following are important to remember as they are facts, not opinions.....

*When Russia was fighting the Taliban (and all the warlords were on the US payroll) the Taliban were making bullets by hand, one by one for their fighters. Relevance? They can now buy whatever they want from their drug sharing profits. Where do they buy them? Check Israel, France and the UK.
*In those same days, Russia was burning the crops of poppies when they could. Result? No big drug sales; no weapons, not much future for the Taliban.
*Then the same warlords (with American assistance) became politicians and are now running the country under the banner of the Government of Afghanistan, the most corrupt entity in the history of the world. Have they an interest in change? Hardly.
*In 2010, not one hectare of poppies has been destroyed. How do they distribute the drugs? I can't give the registered numbers of the aircraft in which they are transported (and it's not Airlines of Afghanistan) and it certainly isn't by camel train.

Let's not even ask who distributes them throughout the world, eh? But let's assume it isn't the Afghans.

One could go on forever as this not one of the most intelligent comment offerings on OLO but just dwell on the above for a minute. Just digesting the website from Veterans Today in one of the early comments was enough to make me realise that once again we have been conned by the likes of Howard and of course the easily manipulated Gillard, so sincere, so patriotic, so hypocritical and not a compassionate bone in her body. As time passes, I am confident that she will reign over the worst management structure in Australia since the days of McMahon.

And in the hands of those knaves are our young soldiers, sadly for them and their families.
Posted by Rhys Stanley, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 4:58:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nigel

Re the opinion poll you quoted.

And of course Afghan women were freely able to express their opinions?

Get real Nigel!

Here's the REALITY.

If the people interviewed think that NATO will prevail they will express a preference for NATO.

But if the coalition announce their intention to start withdrawing and the people on the ground feel the Taliban will ultimately prevail they will express a preference for the Taliban.

Similar polls were conducted during the Vietnam war. Many South Vietnamese expressed support for the Viet Cong when they thought the Communists were going to win. But once the communists took over as many as could fled.

As for ICOS - I know nothing about them. However I have noticed that people who conduct these sorts of polls in war zones have a way of GETTING THE RESULTS THEY WANT.

Now here's the funny thing Nigel. Occasionally the people of Pakistan get to vote in a free and fair election. When they do the people in the tribal areas adjoining Afghanistan always seem to prefer the secular parties, not the Taliban type parties, by an overwhelming margin.

Now what do you expect me to believe. An “opinion poll” conducted by a group that may have an agenda? Or the indications of actual free and fair elections in the region? Or, for that matter, WHAT AFGHAN WOMEN HAVE TOLD ME?

BTW if the Taliban truly felt they enjoyed such overwhelming support there was nothing to stop them participating in the recent elections in Afghanistan.

In the end it DOES NOT MATTER what the Afghan people think because it’s NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

So never mind the opinion polls. We should just get out of there ASAP even though it means abandoning Afghan women to their fate.

But you should not be kidding yourself – or trying to SALVE YOUR CONSCIENCE – by quoting silly opinion polls conducted in war zones by organisation that probably got the result they wanted.
Posted by lentaubman, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 5:24:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kevin Bracken,the President of the Victorian Trades Hall said that the destruction of the towers of 911 was due to controlled demolition.He as was reported in all the major media.Even Julia Gillard weighed into the debate calling portarying him as a lunatic conspiracy theorist.

If Kevin is such a nutter,then why does he illict such derision from the media and Julia Gillard?

Surely it would have been wiser to ignore Kevin Bracken's comments than to make an issue of a perceived conspiracy lunatic fringe element.

I think that the neo-con facists are hedging their bets,thus revealing partial truths via their derision.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 7:22:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lentaubman

I want to congratulate you for your balanced posts on this thread. I think your analysis is spot on.

Some people are so unhinged in their hatred of America that they assume anybody who opposes the Yanks must be numbered among the good guys even if it’s the Taleban.

There are indications that some elements in the Taleban are prepared to negotiate with the Kabul government. That could at least prevent those people you rightly call monsters from gaining absolute power. Not that the Karzai government is anything other than a gang of thugs but they may (just) be preferable to the Taleban.

So perhaps the coalition owes it to the Afghans to stick around a short while longer and hold the ring while we see whether some kind of deal is possible. I am not hopeful but after all these years it may be reasonable to postpone a pullout for just a few months.

The really scary issue is nuclear Pakistan. If that becomes “Talebanised” we’re all in trouble.

Arjay

Yes it probably would have been wisest to ignore Kevin Bracken. Usually it is best to deprive the nutters of the oxygen of publicity.

On the other hand I can understand Gillard’s “He said what??” reaction.

LOL.

BTW the specific issue Bracken raised about the temperature at which jet fuel burns has been thoroughly dealt with on many occasions. In fact it would be no exaggeration to say it has been dealt with ad nauseam. I shan’t bother to repeat the explanations here. It is not possible to have a rational exchange with conspiracy nuts.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 8:06:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stevenlmeyer,alas there are now so many of us nutters like Kevin Bracken and myself, who believe that 911 was a controlled demolition,you lot are looking like a minority group. http://ae911truth.org/
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 8:15:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL Arjay

Newsflash.

In case you hadn't noticed I AM a member of a minority group. Have been all my life. I'm used to it.

In fact for most of my life I've been in the minority on most issues where I've taken a stand.

But guess what Arjay? Reality is not decided by majority vote or by the opinion of even so august a personage as (gasp) THE PRESIDENT OF THE VICTORIAN TRADES HALL.

In the end it is what it is. And the notion that the twin towers were imploded is so preposterous on so many levels that I don't know where to start.

For one I find it vastly improbable that any administration let alone the most incompetent one since World War 2 could have kept something like this secret. By now someone with credible evidence that they were PART OF THE PLOT would have blabbed.

But why I am wasting time trying to explain things to a conspiracy nut??

I'm obviously over tired. And so to bed.

Exit stage right laughing maniacally.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 8:43:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of conspiracies, that is the process of breathing with others, why not Google: deformed children Iraq.

Admittedly it seems to be a different topic. But in my opinion it is all very much inter-related, and what is revealed there is only the tip of a future very big world-wide iceberg.
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 21 October 2010 6:00:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Ho Hum ,I'm fully aware of so called depleted uranium which is killing/deforming both Iraqis and US soldiers.

The real facists live in our midst.It is a game of money and power for psychopaths who live in constant insecurity.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 22 October 2010 7:51:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scott Macinnes, in his thoughtful essay, makes an important contribution to the debate by reminding us of the difference between interests and values in justifying war. The distinction is important in the philosophy of the social sciences; it is also a matter of common sense, even if its use in this context is unfamiliar. Sadly, none of the comments shows any evidence of having read the paper; they could all have been tacked onto any online article on the Afghanistan War.

This paper goes to the heart of the problem and is worth another look, perhaps after reading Richard Flanagan’s moving account in The Drum, which expresses the loss and suffering any attempt to justify war in moral terms must respond to. Each in his own way poses a version of the question Ivan asked Alyosha in ‘The Brothers Karamazov’; whether it is possible to advance the happiness of mankind by torturing a small child.

Scott’s distinction is seen in a contrast between two other articles in The Drum, the first tries to justify war by citing our interests, the second condemns it by arguing from legal and moral values. The first is by two directors of the Lowy Institute, Michael Fullilove and Anthony Bubalo; their main concern is that, if Australia pulls out, the US might return to a unilateral posture. The second is a careful analysis of the relevant international law by Kellie Tranter, a lawyer, writer and human rights and environmental activist.

International law, because it is still the best account of the shared values all nations profess to respect, is critical. But the genesis of a Law of Nations rests on the prohibition of discretionary war, that is, all wars fought for national interests, including interests in long term security and in good trading relations with a powerful ally. Otherwise nations could, like school bullies, justify war simply by pointing to the spoils.

This is one of those rare articles which throw light on an issue; but it deserves to be read with a good deal more care and reflection.

Maxat
Posted by maxat, Sunday, 24 October 2010 10:21:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy