On previous comments made by me

[Malliki Tosha]

My point was, in a way, that innocent people are killed by both sides. Whether or not that is intentional matters little.

[Harvey Steffke]

Innocent people always get kill in war. Always. I'm not sure why you're making a big deal about it in this particular instance.

[Daniel Farewell]

War is sad.

[Malliki Tosha]

Because it seems like some people tend to forget that those that died in 9/11 weren't the only innocent people killed in this war.

[Daniel Farewell]

All deaths are tragedies. What happened in 2001 in New York was tragic. The Taliban regime, I remember, promised to hand-over Usama bin Ladin to a neutral country or international body where he could be tried, but the United States and its allies refused that option and chose to invade Afghanistan with UN backing. And Usama bin Ladin has yet not been found, 9 years after the invasion.

In hindsight, things could have been done differently... Or should have been done differently.

And how Iraq was in line with the war on terror I have yet to understand.

[Aurangzeb Khan]

Because it seems like some people tend to forget that those that died in 9/11 weren't the only innocent people killed in this war.

No-one has forgotten that, but 9/11 was an act of aggression which legitimated America and NATO's retaliation in Afghanistan and around the world. People seem to be pathologically uncomfortable with the notion of America/NATO/"The West" acting as global policeman, I suggest that they will be nostalgic for it when in a few decades time the global hegemonic power is that paradigm of sublime ethics and pacifism otherwise known as the Peoples' Republic of China.

But that is to get away from the main point. Yes, civilian deaths are regrettable, reprehensible even, when they could have been avoided but on the whole the policy of the US has been to minimise civilian casualties wherever possible. Quite aside from ethical considerations there is a sensible operational justification for this, it makes collaboration easier for the Afghans to justify to themselves and helps to minimise adverse publicity back home (and the exorbitant costs and sporadic fatalities amongst servicemen are already bad enough for that in a media saturated and skittish society). Al-Qaeda, and to a certain extent the Taliban, are the antithesis of this - civilian mass casualties are a requirement, the qualifying criteria for a successful operation, intended to sow fear and discord, sometimes these tactics work - the Madrid Bombings which induced the incoming Spanish Government to bale out of the Coalition, and the attempt at nudging Iraq into a sectarian civil war, being foremost examples. Other times however, resilient and determined states shrug off these efforts. None of this particularly troubles Al-Qaeda and its affiliates since they have become locked into a world view where Jihad comprises the mass-murder of infidels and apostates and where they, the Salifis themselves, are the only true believers, just about anyone is a legitimate target. In optimum conditions such as Iraq and Algeria (no American forces there incidentally, ever, tends to invalidate the theory that if we just leave them alone maybe they'll settle down) they will murder and murder until all they succeed in doing is turning the civilian population against them, eventually leading to their increasing marginalisation and destruction. In Afghanistan the Taliban are better able to determine how the insurgency is run, and so the involvement of AQ et al, tends to be limited to the role of advisor and provider of specialists (such as, obviously enough, suicide bombers). That said, the Taliban are unspeakably ghastly and murderous primitives who ought not to be countenanced as being left in charge of even a half-civilised country.

The Taliban regime, I remember, promised to hand-over Usama bin Ladin to a neutral country or international body where he could be tried

If I recall it was quite a weaselly offer, that Osama would be handed over to some other authority for judgement under Sharia Law, which was entirely consistent with the Taliban's limited comprehension of the world but wholly inadequate in view of the magnitude of the crisis he had engendered; the United States was entirely within its rights to demand his extradition without preconditions to face American justice and the UN Security Council was entirely within its rights to sanction the armed intervention to topple the Taliban Regime that cooperation was not forthcoming.

And Usama bin Ladin has yet not been found, 9 years after the invasion.

Yes, the small problem of a nuclear armed and chronically unstable Pakistan seems to prevent a neat solution to that little problem, unless you believe the stories about Osama currently living a life of gentile reclusion interspersed by falconry as the guest of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - which, if true (doubtful), would make for an even graver crisis with Tehran - and besides, as nice as it would be to kill the bastard he isn't the most important issue any more. It really is inconceivable that after 9 years of war the United States, Britain and the rest should just withdraw from Afghanistan and let a bunch of 13th century throwbacks like the Taliban find their place in the International System again. The game now is to bolster the Afghan Security Forces to the point where they can carry on killing off recalcitrant Pashtuns without (too much) external assistance.

And how Iraq was in line with the war on terror I have yet to understand.

Badly cocked up geopolitics and a genuine misapprehension about the state of Iraq's chemical and biological warfare programmes. The Iraq War merged seamlessly into the "War on Terror" during the ongoing insurgency phase. A bit a mess, and damned expensive too. Still on the plus side it is better by far that the wannabe ghazis get themselves killed in Mesopotamia rather than in Europe.

[Daniel Farewell]

If I recall it was quite a weaselly offer, that Osama would be handed over to some other authority for judgement under Sharia Law, which was entirely consistent with the Taliban's limited comprehension of the world but wholly inadequate in view of the magnitude of the crisis he had engendered; the United States was entirely within its rights to demand his extradition without preconditions to face American justice and the UN Security Council was entirely within its rights to sanction the armed intervention to topple the Taliban Regime that cooperation was not forthcoming.

Ah! I don't say they were wrong in invading Afghanistan, I just find it regrettable that the country is still not stable after almost 10 years. Ten years after the victory over the Axis powers, Japan, Italy and Germany were almost thriving. And the people there are probably poorer now, than then. While they may have secured more rights and freedoms than under the previous regime, an outright occupational government under the US administration combined with greater funds for rebuilding the country they just bombed into shatters (or bombed whatever was left of Afghanistan into shatters).

But ah, well... Afghanistan is quite fucked up at the moment. I don't trust their giovernment one bit. And the Talibans are getting more support than ever. It's like the Israelites in the desert... the people yearn for what was good under previous regimes.

[Icebreaker]

HURF DURF POLITICS

[Aurangzeb Khan]

Ten years after the victory over the Axis powers, Japan, Italy and Germany were almost thriving

Well, even when in ruins Germany and Japan were at a higher state of economic and societal development than Afghanistan is, was or ever will be. The Axis Powers were built on sound industrial foundations, well maybe not in Italy's case but you get the picture. The Marshall Plan in Europe revitalised a devastated industrial economy. In Afghanistan there is no industry, there is hardly any economy, there is just devastation dating back to the Soviet era. All Afghanistan has to offer the world in terms of a viable cash crop is opium. That's hardly a happy set of circumstances to begin from. In the past we could just leave such places to fester, and in Africa we still can, but as it is, Afghanistan is probably going to remain a perennial headache for the wider world for a long time to come.

[Hesam Jayatar]

I suppose this wouldn't be the best time to offer the alternative to fighting brushfire wars in developing countries. The alternative where all of us loose our relatively high standard of living, safety, wealth, health and knowledge and become the sick-brother to a new order where the west hasn't the power to ensure these benefits for its people. I dislike the fact that my good life comes at the cost of others, but I am grateful that I've got it. Are we an exploitive civilization? Of course. Name me one that isn't or wouldn't be given the chance? The utopian state is of course always the ideal. I'd love to be able to maintain a high standard of living whilst simultaneously being environmentally friendly, respectful of less developed societies, without being exploitive, being war-free and having an internal social system that allows for the well being of all. Unfortunately, that is not possible at this point in time. Blaming world controllers, captains of industry, the PRC, terrorism, religion or any other major variable is neither going to improve the situation or change it in the slightest. Whether we are exploitive by nature is also irrelevant. The issue at hand is that the world is as it is. Considering that of the 10,000 years of human civilization, 9,850 of them have been highlighted with the construction of excremental brick huts, disease, ignorance, rape and murder, this system doesn't seem all that bad. Yes, its extremely depressing, yes war is complete hell, yes its unfair that the artwork in St. Peter's Basilica or Roman Abramovich's yacht is worth more than the GNP of most third world states, but we try to work with what we've got. I'm not being dismissive, I'm just trying to be realistic. Incremental change is the rational path. Any social shift lasts hundreds of years before its effects are worked out. Finally, when it comes down to it, until people take personal responsibility and universally respect each other on an individual level, there will always need to be an organ of oversight to ensure we aren't constantly fucking each other over.

Speaking of which, I've kindly reported Ardy to interpol with accusations of human trafficking and weapons dealing. That'll teach you to write so eloquently...

[Gman Russell]

Interpol will get right on that... in a couple years.

[Jacobus Loki]

Incremental change is the rational path.

Amen.