.

Karnal wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2019 at 9:18pm:


using wikipedia figures:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2...

The initial bombing campaign by the US caused a humanitarian crisis during the winter of 2001-2, in which estimates put the death toll due to starvation and exposure to a bare minimum of 3 thousand and as many as 10 thousand. This is on top of the 1000-1300 directly killed by the US bombardment. To date there have been over 31000 documented civilian deaths due to the war and about the same number of wounded. If we include indirect deaths (people who died but otherwise would not have because of the war), the toll is obviously going to be a lot higher. This doesn't even include the huge toll in Pakistan where the war has spilled over into.

Obviously one has to weigh this toll against any potential toll resulting from a continuation of the pre-invasion situation. Very difficult of course, but I propose a scenario in which the US, backed with all the goodwill of the world behind them due to 9/11 sympathies, could have been a genuine peace maker. They could always do their "shock and awe" demonstration of their awesome power thing against bin Laden, which as I have argued, even the taliban could have got on board with - if it meant the quid pro quo was an assurance their regime could continue (with conditions of course). A peace agreement with some sort of power sharing deal  between the taliban and the so called 'northern alliance' could have been brokered by the west. Such an agreement is actually not that far fetched - as the taliban had been holding talks with Massoud and other warlords on and off to negotiate just that. Yes they ultimately fell through, but the fact that they happened at all indicated good will on both sides.

Yes, it would require us to hold our noses and work with a brutal Islamofascist regime who had been harbouring (albeit reluctantly) international terrorists. But the reason we must hold our noses is because of the tragedy that unfolded indicated by the above figures. unleashing war invariably sets off something far worse. It is why the Nuremberg court judged unleashing war itself - not the unspeakable war crimes that happened during the war, and not even the holocaust - as the "supreme crime", from which all other war-related crimes spawn from.

We pretend that 'war as a last resort' is our modus operandi, but in reality it is not. Too often it is our first resort, and launched far too eagerly without thinking of the consequences. We need to trully and honestly adopt a "war as a last resort" attitude if we are serious about building a better world.

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2019 at 12:40pm:


You'll forgive me FD, if I don't see any actual attempt to address any of my arguments.

And with respect, I haven't changed any of my arguments, I believe I've been consistent all the way through. But I'm not going to go back on well worn territory and address all that again.

So I take it your final answer is that invasion, regime change and endless occupation that kills 10s of thousands and counting - was the only option worth considering at the time?

Actually nothing I said was in defense of the taliban FD.

Sometimes you have to do deals with the devil in order to prevent something far worse - which war almost always is.  Its not as if this is something the US is averse to doing - hence why Saudi Arabia still stands, and we send them weapons and logistical support to carry out their genocide. I happen to think the invasion, occupation and ongoing suffering caused by the invasion was the worst imaginable humanitarian course to take. Even if we propped the taliban up and gave them free bombs and guns to massacre the hazaraz, in return for a quick, surgical removal of AQ - its difficult to imagine that would have a worse humanitarian outcome than what we see today in Afghanistan.

Also, you haven't answered my question - is your final answer that the invasion, regime change and occupation of Afghanistan was the only viable option to take in your view - even without the benefit of hindsight?

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2019 at 7:01pm:


No FD, I did not.

Can we at least start with the facts? 

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 26^th, 2019 at 10:20am:


Hold our noses? G, George W had a barbecue for the Taliban in the Texan Governor's mansion. He wanted them to sign a billion dollar gas pipeline deal for his father and their friends.

If Bush could do this as governor, why could he not negotiate with the same people as president?

I'd ask FD, but he won't say. He's still cheering on the Bush family's lucrative deals with Saudi Arabia.

You know, the ones that bring us all Freeeeedom.

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2019 at 8:56pm:


You can always refer back to what I actually said FD. And indeed I suspect that doing that would be a good remedy against coming out with such out and out untruths as claiming I said the taliban treated women better than the Saudis do. That would at least save me the trouble of having to correct you all the time.

Not that its a useful point to debate on this topic anyway.

What interests me far more than playing such amusing games as 'guess what gandalf said - without looking at his actual quotes', is to address the actual point in this debate: which is whether or not you think that after bin Laden launched his war against the US, there was any other way for the US to prosecute that war besides invasion, regime change and a seemingly endless (17 years and counting) and catastrophic occupation? 

Quote:


Would you say the Saudis treat women better than the Taliban did?

Would you deny that shooting 8 year old girls in the back of the head for the crime of learning to read might cause them to self censor? Or would you break my sentence up into one word at a time and deny that each word causes self censorship?