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. Page 5
  7. All
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. Page 5
  7. All

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