Raphael Alexander: The left's moral bankruptcy on Afghanistan By: Interested Observer (37 replies) March 2, 2009 - 7:36pmMust Leave, will respond By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 11:11pm) Interested Observer wrote: By: Cueball (Mar 2 2009 - 11:12pm) I will, but can't you still By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 10:58pm) Nothing encourages tyranny By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 10:56pm) Well, maybe that's the By: Frustrated Mess (Mar 2 2009 - 10:57pm) Frustrated Mess By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 10:51pm) Re: Raphael Alexander: The left's moral bankruptcy on Afghanista By: Cueball (Mar 2 2009 - 10:44pm) Okay, what was it? By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 10:42pm) Quote:In the case of By: Frustrated Mess (Mar 2 2009 - 10:41pm) The latter. By: Cueball (Mar 2 2009 - 10:40pm) yes, to which question? By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 10:39pm) Re: Raphael Alexander: The left's moral bankruptcy on Afghanista By: Cueball (Mar 2 2009 - 10:33pm) There really is no definity By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 10:37pm) Frustrated Mess wrote:Quote: By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 10:25pm) In for a penny in for a By: Cueball (Mar 2 2009 - 10:23pm) Cueball wrote:These By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 10:22pm) Interested Observer wrote: I By: Cueball (Mar 2 2009 - 10:21pm) I agree that war is hard to By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 10:11pm) Quote: Do you see the By: Frustrated Mess (Mar 2 2009 - 10:07pm) These situations are not at By: Cueball (Mar 2 2009 - 10:05pm) Yes, hitlers invasion of By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 9:32pm) Quote:The problem I have By: Frustrated Mess (Mar 2 2009 - 9:11pm) Interested Observer wrote: By: Cueball (Mar 2 2009 - 8:56pm) Is it right-wing drivel? I By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 8:53pm) Okay, imagine this By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 8:45pm) By: Webgear (Mar 2 2009 - 8:19pm) Interested Observer By: Banjo (Mar 2 2009 - 8:05pm) Interested Observer wrote: By: Cueball (Mar 2 2009 - 8:05pm) We could. Do you want to By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 8:00pm) That's a good quote you By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 7:58pm) Re: Raphael Alexander: The left's moral bankruptcy on Afghanista By: Cueball (Mar 2 2009 - 7:56pm) It only mentions the harper By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 7:53pm) “Naturally the common By: Cueball (Mar 2 2009 - 7:50pm) This really belongs in By: M. Spector (Mar 2 2009 - 7:44pm) FYI: There are hidden links By: Interested Observer (Mar 2 2009 - 7:38pm)
- Raphael By: Fidel (Mar 2 2009 - 11:27pm)
- Re: Raphael Alexander: The left's moral bankruptcy on Afghanista By: Frustrated Mess (Mar 2 2009 - 11:16pm)
I am assuming you agree with that IO, so tell me then, when is military intervention justified? Do you have a set of criteria by which we could argue a military response could be justified? Will I find it in your hypothetical situation? Let's see ...
I guess you not, but let's take this:
It was obviously a terrible mistake. The Taleban start to rule and force all into submission. They have weekly killings in polo fields for political opponents and women who fail to wear burkhas, etc. They commit other atrocities such as defacing ancient rock carvings of buddha, etc.. people are outraged by this once they hear about it.
Now obviously, The US is in the wrong, and we can talk about their intentions, their frequent use of mass killing bomb runs over civilian areas that they thought were targets, and frequent incidents of 'friendly fire' ever since WW2.
But were they not justified in removing a regime that actively supported people who flew planes into buildings full of people? Were they not justified in responding to the atrocities committed by the taleban? Were they not justified in removing a regime they put in by mistake, and were therefore responsible for the results?
So you say 1) The Taliban were funded and supported by the USA in a cyncical cold war ploy; 2) the result of that cynical cold war ploy was the imprisonment of the nation under a tyranical religious regime and the people were abandoned by that same USA; 3) And you say the USA uses mass killings and has since WWII. And then you conclude that the USA is correct in killing Afghanis to correct their record of mistakes and evil geo-politcical maneuvering. Is that how your logic works?
If we apply the logic of your own and your National Post author, the world should be waging war against the disease, the USA, rather than the symptoms, the Taliban and Afghanistan, wouldn't you agree?
So why isn't your rightwing commentator all, concerned about left wing politics, and yourself agitating for global war against America? Why don't you put your mouth where your hypocrisy is?