Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

[hippz]

Okay, so we technically didn't INVADE Afghanistan, but the US did, and we're helping them. If their congress didn't declare war, then this is an invasion. We're just helping them invade a country.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Okay, so we technically didn't INVADE Afghanistan, but the US did, and we're helping them. If their congress didn't declare war, then this is an invasion. We're just helping them invade a country.

I guess you're OK with Afghanistan not giving up Osama Bin Laden after he claimed responsibility for 9/11?  Or do you think 9/11 was carried out by the U.S. government and their allies?

I'm done here - enjoy your time here, hippz, as long as it lasts.

 

[Journeyman]

Okay, so we technically didn't INVADE Afghanistan, but the US did, and we're helping them.

The same UN mandate applies. Either we're both invaders (hint: not) or we're both abiding by the UN and Afghan government's calls for assistance.

 

[hippz]

milnews.ca - I never said anything like that, I actually acknowledged that the Taliban still carried out the attacks, I am speaking as to why. Please read everything before trying to be arrogant.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Okay, so we technically didn't INVADE Afghanistan, but the US did, and we're helping them. If their congress didn't declare war, then this is an invasion. We're just helping them invade a country.

Well, if we're going to be technical, that's not so, either.

I'm guessing you are getting your information from e.g. rabble.ca which relects the beliefs of people who:

a. are stupid; and/or

b. uninformed.


Edit; it's not nice call anyone, not even Judy Rebick, a liar - even though she is an old communist and almost all communists with IQs above 0.03 had to lie - so, as my old Mother would have wished, I changed it.

 

[hippz]

Lololol!!! No, I get my information from international law and the United States constitution. If the US Congress did not officially declare war, they are invading and occupying illegally. End of story.

 

[Journeyman]

milnews.ca.....Please read everything before trying to be arrogant.

I don't believe he was being arrogant; I took it as mocking.

Just sayin'



Wow, that's a whole whack of MilPoints over a 10 minute period.
"My son's the only one in step." 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Lololol!!! No, I get my information from international law and the United States constitution. If the US Congress did not officially declare war, they are invading and occupying illegally. End of story.

Please specify and list your readings so we can read it also for rebuttal purposes................

 

[hippz]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

 

[hippz]

Might I also suggest giving Ron Paul a listen. Maybe check out his arguments in the 2008 Republican Presidential Debates?

 

[George Wallace]

Lololol!!! No, I get my information from international law and the United States constitution. If the US Congress did not officially declare war, they are invading and occupying illegally. End of story.

???

Let me get this straight; they would not have been invading and occupying illegally if Congress HAD officially declared war?

The US Congress did not declare war on Haiti, yet thousands of US troops were in Haiti to help after the earthquake.  Does this constitute an invasion force illegally occupying Haiti in your eyes?

You mind must be the example shown in the frying pan.

 

[hippz]

They didn't bomb the capital city of Haiti...

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

They didn't bomb the capital city of Haiti...

hippz......first warning.

 

[hippz]

And what am I receiving one for, if I may ask?

 

[Searyn]

I have a question I feel is relevant to this discussion.

Do invading forces usually rebuild schools, hospitals etc for their captive populations to use freely? Do they dig wells for anyone to use without needing to bribe to a guard in the local mafia? Do invading forces usually spend hundreds of millions of dollars on their captive populations economy in an attempt to get them back to a self sufficient state?

Don't invading forces usually just destroy everything in sight in an attempt to scare the locals into a state of submission and once said submission-state has been achieved, don't they usually suck the resources of the area completely dry leaving the locals to basically die due to the elements?

Just wondering.

edit: typo

 

[hippz]

That's not the same as randomly bombing a city..

 

[George Wallace]

That's not the same as randomly bombing a city..

There is no such thing as "randomly bombing" a city. 

 

[PMedMoe]

That's not the same as randomly bombing a city..

Do you have a source to quote for this "random" bombing?

 

[Searyn]

Did they randomly bomb a city? or did they believe (based on available intel) that there was enough of a risk/gain ratio to justify bombing portions of the said city.

I can't because I'm not privy to ALL the intel they had. Are you?

 

[hippz]

I don't mean randomly choosing the city, I mean killing people without knowledge of them being civilians or insurgents.

And no, I have as much intel as any other civilian. The death reports speak for themselves.

A dossier released by Iraq Body Count, a project of the UK non-governmental non-violent and disarmament organization Oxford Research Group, attributed approximately 6,616 civilian deaths to the actions of US-led forces during the "invasion phase", including the shock-and-awe bombing campaign on Baghdad.

- Wikileaks (unfortunately): "Shock and awe"