Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
There are 3 reasons to be allowed to commit military action in another nation:
1. You've been invited/allowed by the official government, or an overwhelming majority of the people, AND there is an absolutely known direct threat against us which has attacked us from that nation.
2. That nation (ie the government officially, or an overwhelming majority of the people) performed the attack against us.
3. That nation (ie the government officially, or an overhwleming majority of the people) has launched attacks against other nations who did not first attack them AND the global community has agreed to commit to war against them to cease such actions.
That's it. Anything else is an illegal act of war, and the entire world should band together against the aggressor.
In 2001, we loudly announced a fourth reason to the entire world. If a nation houses or supports
Al Qaeda and refuses to hand them over to us, we will take care of the issue ourselves.
Based on that criteria Afghanistan is questionable at best, Iraq is flat out wrong.
In Afghanistan, America and NATO are in an honorable and just war against the Taliban and AQ. Period.
Iraq was wrong, yes.
We can work against ideologies we don't agree with, in lawful ways. We can reach accommodation with those who are willing to do so. We can contribute to solving the problems which create such groups in the world. We can commit to social and economic sanctions, and encourage others to do the same. With enough global pressure one of two things must occur: the offender will cave partially or completely, the offender will violate us in a manner already covered in the reasons for war above. This will not always work, but will diffuse a large percentage of issues. The rest is simply the cost of existing with others on the same planet.
We must do all of the above
and hunt down and destroy AQ wherever they pop up. Failing to do so would be a tactical blunder beyond comprehension. Unlike you, I am not willing to sacrifice innocent lives, without recourse, simply as a "cost of existing with others on the same planet."
You are essentially justifying the existence of terrorist sanctuaries which is entirely unacceptable.
Having caused so much damage already, leaving could cause extensive problems. However, done correctly, it could also alleviate many problems. Staying WILL cause problems, as has already been demonstrated clearly. Leaving at least returns us to a position of ideological superiority.
There is no doubt that we can leave Iraq "correctly," but doing so may take eight years.
See how that works?
Unfortunately, leaving tomorrow is not an option.
Moreover, with proper social and economic support it should be possible to accomplish much of the positive goals of our invasion, without as much cost, losses, invoking of anger, etc. It is always best to lead by example, not by force.
true... but, now that we're there, both methods are required.
If any nation is taken over by any ideological group, it presents issues. The situation you suggest would be no worse than any other, such as neo-cons taking over control of the USA, as already demonstrated. Again, the way to handle it, like anything else, is through negotiation and compromise. In extreme situations you implement sanctions and gather global support. That either forces a change, or leads to acceptable warfare.
you... just... don't... get... it.
Countries like Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, etc, do not have centralized governments that are capable of controlling their own entire territory. Al Qaeda has taken advantage of that fact for more than a decade. they have used such places to establish safe havens from which they operate and export terror throughout the entire free world.
It sounds as though you would encourage such safe havens to exist by tying our hands. How would sanctions or negotiations with the central governments of those nations have
ANY impact on the existence of AQ safe havens within their territories?!
I would go considerably farther than the original plea by extending this 'hands-off' attitude to all covert operations as well (with the possible exception of information gathering). In other words, no more school of the americas, no more cia overthrows, etc. It only goes badly for everyone involved. All such actions are at LEAST as bad as overt military engagements.
You're a pacifist, plain and simple.
Good luck with that. I'll be over here ensuring you have the right to stay that way...
Facebook
Twitter