Protesting the War in Afghanistan

roybatty

Just wondering about something. I?ve been reading articles about the 9/11 panel and their investigation of the events leading up to that tragic event. In hindsight, something should have been done and we could argue all day long if it?s Clinton?s fault or if Bush should have done something. But I?m wondering one thing, especially from all the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war people. How would you have felt if Bush would have ordered troops into Afghanistan prior to 9/11 and justified this because of their harboring Al Qaeda and viewing their threats (and actions) as a threat to the US. Had he done this early enough it just may have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Would we have heard ?oh, there goes the old warhawk, only a couple of month in office and he?s already starting a war.? I have a feeling that all the protests about the war on Iraq would have instead been protests about the invasion of Afghanistan. People world-wide would be protesting, chanting anti-Bush slogans and asking what threat was Afghanistan to the US.

blacksheep

"I have a feeling that all the protests about the war on Iraq would have instead been protests about the invasion of Afghanistan. People world-wide would be protesting, chanting anti-Bush slogans and asking what threat was Afghanistan to the US."

Good point...and, absolutely true. bin Laden, Al Queda, and the Taliban certainly were NOT household names before 9/11.

DevonMcBride

I think this goes beyond Clinton and Bush. Terrorist groups started to cause big problems in Europe and other parts of the world during the mid-eighties. The groups were much smaller and it should have been nicked in the butt back then.

Devon

Atilla

Yes, it's a slippery slope and no doubt, had it been either Bush or Clinton, a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan would have been strongly resisted. However, looking back, we now know that the war in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary where as the war in Iraq is somewhat murkier. So, I think it all comes back to bad intelligence.

roybatty

However, looking back, we now know that the war in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary where as the war in Iraq is somewhat murkier.

But when would the war in Iraq HAVE been necessary? After they had a nuke? After they set off a "dirty" bomb in the US? Again, I really believe that if the US had gone into Afghanistan prior to 9/11, all the same arguments that we're hearing against the war in Iraq would have been said about the war in Afghanistan (what threat is Afghanistan to the US? where are the WMD? etc)

Atilla

I just don't think you can compare the two Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq was somewhat under control where as Afghanistan was completely giving us the middle finger. Plus, a preemptive strike against Afghanistan could have been seen as a more humanitarian operation with less ambigious conflicts of interests such as oil, etc. Either way, I think the idea of a preemptive war against either country before 9-11 would have been political and international suicide. Sadly, when we embarked on this new program of preemptive warfare, it was based on very bad intelligence which somewhat limits our options in the future. I say fine, get rid of Sadamm but it could have been handled a lot better. It's good to see Sadamm gone but at what price for taking future action when we think the situation is truly dire for our protection.

Simon

But then it goes back to prevention being better than cure.

How about if the CIA had not setup and funded Al Quida and Osama Bin Laden?

Face it ... you created the problem. Doesn't seem like such a brilliant idea now though does it?

The **real** solution is not to create the mess in the first place. People who objected to the war would also have objected to the things that caused the reasons for the war, ie. arms trade, exporting terror around the world, underminding foreign governments etc ...

Country Girl

Fanatical religion knows no earthly boundaries. These are people that consider it an *honor* to die for the cause.

Like usual, might makes right, at least in an earthly sense. We *dont* have any right to force our type of political structure on them. It doesn't work. Our political structure is based on the fact that all men (and women) are created equal, and have certain inalienable rights granted to them by rite of birth. These are called human rights. They can't FORCE their way of life on us, and we shouldn't force our way of life on them.

Their political structure is based on their religion. The two just absolutely cannot mix. You can't have equal rights when half your population, by religious law, is considered as not having ANY rights. You can't have a humane Democratic society when half your population, by law, can't vote. It just doesn't work. It's like mixing water and oil. *and* we are not even certain they WANT this. We are just forcing it on them.

On the other hand, our culture is invading them. Several cultures that are totalitarian and isolationistic have reported the influx of new trends, thoughts, etc. merely because of Western culture. Their own PEOPLE are asking for the rights they feel they need, and that is a good thing. How that will be implemented against the old laws I dunno. My bet is that the old religions will just assimilate it eventually if enough people just decide they want the western way of life and abandon the old way of life. But there is still the old hard-line that will not give up until the last command center is burned out. That's the ones we have to watch out for. They are in EVERY country, on every island, everywhere, just waiting for their cue.

CG

roybatty

But then it goes back to prevention being better than cure.
How about if the CIA had not setup and funded Al Quida and Osama Bin Laden?
Face it ... you created the problem. Doesn't seem like such a brilliant idea now though does it?
The **real** solution is not to create the mess in the first place. People who objected to the war would also have objected to the things that caused the reasons for the war, ie. arms trade, exporting terror around the world, underminding foreign governments etc ...

I must have missed all the protest in the '80s when the CIA was training "Afgan freedom fighters" against the Soviets. It's always hindesight, isn't it? Again, I'll ask, would people have been protesting the Afgan War had Bush sent in troops before 9/11?

L_A_Big_Dawg

But then it goes back to prevention being better than cure.
How about if the CIA had not setup and funded Al Quida and Osama Bin Laden?
Face it ... you created the problem. Doesn't seem like such a brilliant idea now though does it?
The **real** solution is not to create the mess in the first place. People who objected to the war would also have objected to the things that caused the reasons for the war, ie. arms trade, exporting terror around the world, underminding foreign governments etc ...

The real solution is that the Soviets shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I agree with roybatty, the protests from the left were conspicuously absent.

Protesting the War in Afghanistan

Share this