So when is war acceptable in Afghanistan?

[Pauly]

I see all the folks going on about the anti-war protests. I have a simple question for these protesters.

At what point is war acceptable in Afghanistan? I think we have reached that point.

 

[THAsoundOFdarkside]

DUCK!!!!!

 

[johnwisehammer]

Pauly: when there's a point; when it would help the population of Afghanistan or the UK; when Tony Blair could please explain the fucking objectives; when there was no other way to resolve a genuine crisis and that crisis would be solved by a war.

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Pauly.

All this has been discussed may times before. So I would like to put a new angle on it.

Let us turn your question round:

At the moment, a lot of Arab people are saying that they've reached the point where, given American policies in the Middle East, there should be a war against America along the lines of what happened to the WTC.

Defend America.

 

[nomoney]

Pauly
All wars are in the interest of the rulling class and never dispossed class.
Are you by any chance representative of the former?

John Rubbish
All wars create even more problems than they intended to solve. No any problem can be really dealt with the violence.

They are the tool of opressure not liberation.

 

[Pauly]

PatelsCornerShop: Ok you want me to defend that there should be a war against America along the lines of what happened to the WTC.

Fine -- The Government of Afghanistan has already committed a war attack on the US (and the world) by means of sponsoring terrorism such as the WTC. When attacks are committed on the US the they are free to fight back. The US did not start the war the Taliban did!

 

[Pauly]

nomoney: I am by no means a member of the "ruling class". I find that comment to be typically British since your class structure is quite pronounced.

The vast majority of the WTC could not be considered members of the "ruling class". Nor will the next set of victims.

You state that "All wars create even more problems than they intended to solve". I point out that WWII with the Japanese seems to have solved that problem. I agree that war on its own does not solve problems. However, after winning a war with unconditional surrender then you have the opportunity to solve the problems. It does create an environment where problems are solved or further enflamed. See Japan WWII for the former and Germany WWI for the later.

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Pauly.

Prove that the Government of Afghanistan have declared war when:

1. There has been no declaration of war from anyone but Bush and Blair. And even then it has been a funny declaration - 'The War Against Terrorism' (or T.W.A.T for short).

2. There is no legally recognised Government of Afghanistan. Who do you mean?

3. Both Bush and Blair have stated that this isn't a war against Afghanistan, and so Afghanistan couldn't have declared a war anyway, through its government or otherwise.

4. And where is your evidence to show who was behind all of this?

 

[johnwisehammer]

Nomoney, naemates:

I can't think of any circumstances in which the above would be fulfilled. If he was a member of the ruling class, I hardly think that he'd be pissing around here!

Pauly:

Lots of people think that the US government (as the sponsor of dictators, the Iraqi National Congress, the CIA and Israel) harbours and sponsors terrorists, and that there should be a war against the US. Do you agree with this logic?

Do you think that it will be possible and desirable to win a war in Afghanistan with unconditional surrender, bearing in mind there is no menaingful state system to speak of? Do you think that it's democratic to impose an American version of government on local peoples after you have conquered them?

The class system is global, by the way. (Tee-hee, I just wrote 'class struggle' just then - how terribly Freudian and totally incongruous for me!)

"find that comment to be typically British"

For a troll, that's such a good comment, and you don't even know why yet!

 

[Pauly]

JWH: To comment on your points...

**help the population of Afghanistan or the UK;

The abolishment of the Taliban will greatly help the Afghan people. As for helping the UK I would assume that the UK as an ally would help the US. When Canada entered WWII to help England there was no selfish reason for Canada to enter the war.

**objectives -- easy -- unconditional surrender.

**no other way to resolve a genuine crisis

Are you implying that the murder of 7000 civilians is not a genuine crisis. How many more need die for this to become a genuine crisis?

 

[johnwisehammer]

The Taleban are unquestionably cunts but things can get worse, you know.

So would you support a war against Burma/Myanmar? Because they would be much better off without their government. North Korea. Cuba. Azerbaijan. Pakistan.

Unconditional surrender...from who?

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Pauly. I look forward to your answers to my questions. In the meantime, here are some others.

1. What is the minimum number of people needed to be killed before something becomes a genuine (as opposed to a false) crisis?

2. If you can come up with a number, then tell me why above that number, it's a genuine crisis, and below that number, it is not a genuine crisis.

P.S. These are not trick questions. I just want to see where you're coming from.

[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]

 

[Pauly]

PatelsCornerShop:

*There has been no declaration of war from anyone but Bush and Blair.

When Germany invaded Poland in WWII there was no declaration of war by Germany yet England declared war on Germany. Was this wrong?

*There is no legally recognised Government of Afghanistan.

If you are going be abide by international law you would hope that the enemy will also. This enemy has no respect for any law or morality. When Hitler disbanded Germany's parliament then how could we have declared war on Germany?

*Afghanistan couldn't have declared a war

Who is the ruling group and controls the resources of 90% of that country. That is who we are at war with. I will leave the nomenclature for the legals -- from a laymans perspective it is pretty clear to me.

*evidence to show who was behind this

In WWII when Germany invaded Poland they claimed that Poland attacked Germany. Where was the proof to dispel this claim? Note that those against humanity are not oblivious to law and they will use the laws of civilization to seek protection for their uncivilized acts. You cannot tie yourself while they are unfettered.

 

[Pauly]

PatelsCornerShop:

We are thinking along the same lines because I ask you if 7000 killed in one act is enough to constitute a genuine crisis. I look forward to your response.

I personally believe that any death is a crisis. Does one death mean that a country should go to war? I do not know I believe it needs to be taken on a case by case basis.

I believe that there are two types of wars -- Political and Absolute. I despise the political wars where war is a tool of international diplomacy -- Vietnam as an example.

Absolute War is required when the capabilities of diplomacy have been defeated. There is no negotiation with the Taliban -- they just want to see their power and anarchy to the rest.

The two prominent examples of Absolute War include WWI with Japan and Germany. There was no means for negotiation. Although Germany did negotiate with the US to stall its involvement so as to improve Germany's chances of success.

Anyway back to death and crisis. I look at the recent downing of the jet by the Ukranians. This is a crisis, but it has been resolved through diplomatic means. How can one resolve the death of 7000 through diplomatic means?

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Sorry. That just won't do. You've selectively answered my questions or not answered them at all. So for the benefit of doubt:

1. Bush and Blair do not recognise any Government of Afghanistan. So how can you use the words 'Government of Afghanistan'?

2. Bush and Blair have specifically stated that this is not a war on Afghanistan. So how can you say it is war on Afghanistan?

3. Bush and Blair have both stated that there is evidence that Bin Laden was behind these attacks. Where is this evidence?

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Pauly:

Do you believe that we should declare war on terrorists and all those States that harbour and support them? As President Bush has declared?

 

[Pauly]

JWH: Ok I am just about caught up with the replies...

* the US government harbours and sponsors terrorists, and that there should be a war against the US. Do you agree with this logic?

I agree that the US has not been pristine with its foreign policy. I think they were isolationist in WWII, in the 50's they have an awful record in South/Central America, in the 60's they had no reason to be in Vietnam, the 80's had further foolishness in Central America. Here the US used the military as an extension of foreign policy.

However, recently I have found the US to be more understanding of their previous errors and as a young democratic nation they are working to improve their foreign policy.

To answer your question I believe that foreign policy needs to be negotiated through diplomacy. If countries have a problem with the US then use diplomacy. If diplomacy fails then war may very well be the result.

*Do you think that it will be possible and desirable to win a war in Afghanistan with unconditional surrender?

Yes! I envision that the Taliban will be abolished and should be banned as an organization in the future.

*Do you think that it's democratic to impose an American version of government on local peoples after you have conquered them?

It is not democratic -- but it is necessary and one of the benefits of an unconditional surrender by the ruling party. Bear in mind that I do not expect that the Taliban leaders will surrender -- they expect to die as Hitler did. I expect the lesser ranks of the Taliban to surrender.

It was not democratic of General MacArthur to institute the present Japanese form of government. But it was needed to prevent another war and that should be the goal of this war.

*"find that comment to be typically British" For a troll, that's such a good comment, and you don't even know why yet!

Having worked in the UK I have some insight

 

[Pauly]

PatelsCornerShop:

* Bush and Blair do not recognise any Government of Afghanistan. So how can you use the words 'Government of Afghanistan'?

Why cannot I use the words 'Government of Afghanistan'? Although I may not be so learned as to use the term in a proper legal sense I define the 'Government of Afghanistan' as the ruling power that controls 90% of the country and its resources.

*So how can you say it is war on Afghanistan?

I see this as a war on the Taliban -- the rulers of Afghanistan. I may improperly take liberties to shorten this down to Afghanistan. For the brevity of the boards I shorten phrases and I would be happy to clarify if you miss the meaning of what I say.

To head-off comments of my reference to war on Germany during WWII, I really mean the Nazi party of Germany. I am sure that there were many German opposition members and innocents during WWII.

*Where is this evidence?

I am sorry that this response will take ages to formulate because of all the evidence that I have seen through public means. The taped calls, the money trail, the declared war by OBL, the USS Cole bombing, the embassy bombing. You may not believe that this is enough evidence, but I certainly do.

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

So basically, you're justifying it because you believe it to be the case.

Fair enough. Just wanted to know where you were coming from.

So now for the other question while we're waiting for your answers:

If you can justify what you say purely on the basis of your beliefs, why can't Bin Laden justify what he says on the basis of his beliefs?

 

[Pauly]

JWH:

*Taleban -- things can get worse

I think things will get worse if you leave them be. Imagine if they get nuclear weapons. There is no choice but to take them out. And the Taliban is who will surrender.

*So would you support a war against ...

I am not looking to formulate foreign policy. I am a simple fellow that sees a simple very obvious problem. The Taliban must go! I will leave the other issues for the "experts".

I will say that if there are other countries that need to change their ways so to prevent the calamity of the WTC then I suggest that the "protesters" focus on these problems.

I say to the protesters that you failed, through peaceful means, to solve the problem of the Taliban over the past 10 years. Your failure has led to this war. Be proactive -- focus to prevent the next possible war. A protest of the war on the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan is reactive and I do not know what you are trying to achieve other than some nebuous negative goal. There is no choice now but to war the Taliban of Afghanistan.

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Pauly.

While I'm waiting for an answer to my most recent question. I have to say this -

Don't you say that you're a simple person. Thats what some people want you to believe. You're not. You have a brain and if you can come on these boards to discuss something, you sure as hell can do a lot of reading up about it as well.

Just a thought.

 

[Pauly]

PatelsCornerShop:

*If you can justify what you say purely on the basis of your beliefs, why can't Bin Laden justify what he says on the basis of his beliefs?

Sure, but when he kills 7000 people in the WTC, and plans to kill more, then his beliefs have caused a horrid escalation. This needs to be stopped and therefore he needs to be captured, "Dead of Alive"

Dinner time for me so I must depart for now. Unfortunately I still do not know what some people are protesting for I only know what they are protesting against.

So the question is, "What do you think the US, the UK & the civilized world should do?"

 

[Taxman]

Your questions are probably to weird too answer.Blair and Bush recognise no government,its not a war on afghanistan...they are frankly insane points to bring up a week after bombing has started.
Nice to see however that death and mayhem serves the same purpose for you as it does for most people:something interesting to talk about.

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Pauly. You're not making any sense.

Subjective beliefs are not Right or Wrong. They just are beliefs.

If you can justify everything on the basis of your beliefs, irrespective of the facts (and on the facts, you are very, very wrong but we'll leave that for now - for example there is no PROOF that Osama was behind these attacks, although he is seriously disturbed) and America can justify her foreign policies and so-called 'wars' which have killed MILLIONS of innocent people, then you can't blame people like Bin Laden for justifying his Jihad against the West on his beliefs.

You're both as bad as each other. At least Osama has the excuse that the presence of American troops on his homeland and American interests in the region are ruining it, and has caused massive problems for the Arabs. So why shouldn't the Arabs be justified in declaring war against the States, which they believe is justified?

PS. George Bush has repeatedly asked the Taliban for Bin Laden, after which he says that he will stop bombing Afghanistan. So if this is official American policy, why do you still insist that there is some sort of 'war' against the Taleban?

Read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1599000/1599443.stm

[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Taxman. If my questions are insane, then what is the original posting? At least Pauly had the courtesy to answer them in his own way so I really don't see what your complaint is.

 

[vimto]

I'm not having a go at the American or indeed the British warmongers, (oops nearly forgot about the Canadian).

For fuck's sake can you not see that the only way forward is to have a wee chat every now and again with those that you disagree with??

I can see no difference between the extremism of the bombers of the WTC, and the extremism of the USA when they done...blaahhh...blaahh...blaa..Oooopps.

Just remembered. Never forgot.

1982, how many Palestinians were murdered by the Christian Phalange in the two camps in the Lebanon?

Who allowed them in?

 

[Taxman]

Sorry PCs.You posed three questions.The first was about the legal recognition of Afghan gov.The second was about whether there was a war with something called afghanistan.Though the terms certainly arent interchangeable posing them is a bit(modifying my language here)mad.The US and coalition are engaged in a war1)against the leaders of afghanistan2)in a country called afghanistan.The first point must be a greater motive for attacking them.It can hardly be a lesser one.That they say theyre not waging war on afghanistan itself is by way of a promise to the people their that they can live unmolested in their own country if others can live unmolested elsewhere.Its specific to certain visitors within their country not about spheres of influence,excepting russsia perhaps,nor concerns of territory.

 

[vimto]

errrmm....'twas Guess who??

Ariel Sharron washes whiter than a fuck off right wing Nazi cunt.

Shalom to Israel. Shalom to Palestine and overall, Shalom to the world.

Peace be with you PCS

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Taxman.

I can't make sense out of most of your reply (please make it clearer) but if you're going to go on about not molesting Afghans then recall that the Taleban and OBL were manufactured by America and Pakistan.

Also, not molesting people means not killing them with bombs as well. Whether it is accidental or otherwise. The end result is death.

The above are good examples of morals that operate on the basis of hypocrisy.

As regards the rest, I think most people want to see evidence of this being OBL's work, and not use the WTC events merely an excuse to attack Afghanistan, which the Americans were planning to do a few months back I believe. A request for evidence shouldn't be difficult to fulfil - not if you really believe in democracy and fair play.

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Salaam, Peace and Shalom to you Vimto, and to everyone, and especially those people who believe in this so-called 'war'. They need Peace the most.