War Crimes - Afghanistan

[Je suis Omar]

Because I wasn't part of those discussions - what part of AG's response do you disagree with ? Do you think that no response was required ? Do you think that the US shouldn't have responded or should have responded differently ?

Is it too impertinent to suggest that the USA does what other rule of law nations like Cuba and Nicaragua do when confronted by terrorist attacks from that same USA, present their case before the UN.

Nicaragua versus the USA

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986) ICJ 1 is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.[2

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

[Big Guy]

To Michael - I could write a tome about my views on this issue, a presentation not acceptable in this medium. I will try to make it short:

I believe that American foreign policy and greed for oil revenues were the basis for the chaos that exists to-day in the Middle East. We have learned that once an outside country gets involved in local conflicts then it changes the dynamics - temporarily. Most often, that external involvement results in a power void. Power voids are soon filled by local radicals.

I could give examples from the Taliban taking power after the Soviet Union left to Libya when we took out Gaddafi - and all Western "expeditions" in between.

I believe all this meddling has worked to unite the radical Muslims of the world, give them a focus at which to consolidate their efforts and resulted in the creation of all these anti-West organizations.

I believe America is quite free to do their thing but Canada also has the right to look after our best interests.

I believe that if we had stayed out of Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Syria we would have had no shootings in Ottawa and no terrorist dangers here. If someone wants to go somewhere to go kill their perceived enemies then we let them go, wave goodbye and ban them from again entering Canada. I suspect that the only reason we pretend to keep them here is because we have no way of keeping them out later - publicizing our inadequate immigration procedure. We have no idea of how many illegals are here (est 65,000 to 500,000) and they just keep coming. But that could be another thread.

I can remember a time when any traveller from Canada would make sure they had a Canadian flag easily visible when they left this country to tour anywhere in the world. That flag is not longer treated with the respect it had in the past.

We continue our involvement in the Middle East. Our involvement continues to build resentment from those countries and the radicalization becomes easier as young people keep streaming to ISIS from around the world. I do not see the direction changing.

[Rue]

There we have it.If we hide from the world, the boogy man won't get us.The boogy man only attacks bad people never good people. To be good we just hide. Let's live in denial and pretend we live in isolation and our lack of involvement makes us safe.

What a crock of self centered, pampered, sheltered, silver spoon crap. This world has not survived because men/women have chosen to be cowards and hide from evil.It survived because they chose to confront and battle the very demons that would strip us of all the freedoms and privileges Big Guy thinks exist independently-our freedoms just came out of nowhere-there was no sacrifice for them-they didn't come at a price presto they were there and evil out there is only evil if you confront evil.Bad things only happen to bad people. Ignore evil and poof it has no problem with you,

Go stay under the bed Big Guy. Some of us don't have that luxury.

[Big Guy]

The previous post Michael is why I am reluctant to explain my positions into the never, never land of an opinion board. I have found my discussions with Army Guy to be interesting, I respect his/her opinion and respond accordingly. Michael is obviously experienced poster, attempts at neutrality and performs that function well - and is rewarded with an "official position" on this board. Good for you. You deserve that respect.

For that reason I responded to Michaels questions using the language and attitude of civil questioning implied by him. The end result, as exhibited above, some wacko, with a history of whacko responses (my term) poster decides to use my honest response as an attempt to demean my response to you.

Please understand if I do not reply to your inquiries in the future.

[Je suis Omar]

There we have it.If we hide from the world, the boogy man won't get us.The boogy man only attacks bad people never good people. To be good we just hide. Let's live in denial and pretend we live in isolation and our lack of involvement makes us safe.

Canada most assuredly [doesn't] live in isolation. It has long been passively supporting, recently changing to actively supporting, USA (and UK) war crimes and terrorism around the globe.

You post long diatribes on this forum, Rue, but there's never any factual basis for the things you so readily spout. Nor are there ever any sources from you to back your opinions. When you are faced with the facts you disappear, only to surface down the road to, like Old Faithful, spout some more.

Funny you should talk about boogeymen, the favoured ploy of the USA. All those years and none of their boogeymen ever showed up.

But for the less fortunate of the world, who hadn't, couldn't cozy up to número uno war criminal/gangster/terrorist nation, things haven't gone so well.

248 armed conflicts since WWII and the USA initiated 81% of them.

How does it feel cozying up to the equivalent of the Nazis?

[Army Guy]

..nor have you commented on how this conflict was illegal.

Obama's Af-Pak War is Illegal

...

In 1945, in the wake of two wars that claimed millions of lives, the nations of the world created the United Nations system to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. The UN Charter is based on the principles of international peace and security as well as the protection of human rights. But the United States, one of the founding members of the UN, has often flouted the commands of the charter, which is part of US law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq, many Americans saw it as a justifiable response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The cover of Time magazine called it "The Right War." Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war but escalating the war in Afghanistan. But a majority of Americans now oppose that war as well.

The UN Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan.

Operation Enduring Freedom was not legitimate self-defense under the charter because the 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity, not armed attacks by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after 9/11, or President Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN General Assembly.http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2009/12/obamas-af-pak-war-is-illegal.html?m=1

You continue to use this same quote as if it is the magic bullet.....you also dismiss the fact that the Taliban regime used the Al Queda network as part of it's own military network....my direct question would be would that not make it part of the talibans net work, acting under the the authority of the Taliban. Or the afghanis government at the time. Because that would change everything would it not.....

My second question is did Bin Ladin come out publically and say OK that would be our last attack on the US.....in fact I'm sure he said something very different....so how did the US government know for sure that no more attacks were forth coming meaning 100% that there would be no more attacks coming....

The wait for 3 weeks has been claimed as not enough time to make a decision on matters as large as this....and yet the Taliban did come to a solution, serveral infact. Just not the ones that the U.S. wanted to here. They wanted BIN Ladin to stand trial in the US....

The fact that the attackers are from Saudi means what exactly, that this attack was the responsabiltys of the Saudi government , that terrorist have to be declared that way regardless of who they work for. Which at the time was Bin Ladin, another Saudi, but under the Talibans cloak.....I'm pretty sure the law does not work that way.

[Rue]

Big Guy you want to come on this board and state opinions and then whimper when I challenge them go ahead. Your position is everything I hold in contempt. You believe that if you isolate yourself from terrorists they won't harm you. It's there for all to see and I find it pathetic you believe the world came about because people hid from evil and did not resist it.

Your freedom is the result of people dying.

Whacko? Why because unlike you I acknoldge freedom has come with a price and that price was the blood of good people who chose unlike you to do something?

Whacko? Presenting yourself as a victim on this forum beause I challenge your opinion? Lol.

You are no victim, stop presenting yourself as one.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Rue

[Army Guy]

To Army Guy - I now do recall our previous disagreements. I continue to respect and disagree with your point of view. Thanks for answering.

Sorry big guy, it was late and I was tired, I did nt mean to brush you off, as I do enjoy our conversations.

[Army Guy]

I have wonder what the would be like if you could wave your magic wand and the U.S. adopt an total isolationist policy as it once had. The U.S. has reluctantly been pushed into the worlds policemen, because of all its resources it has at its disposal, i wonder how many US presidents have pondered the idea of pulling all her troops home, and leaving the police men's job to those that do most of the complaining. And finally enjoy those peace bonds everyone else did.

Would the other world power houses follow suit or would they take advantage of this new situation.....countries like Russia, yes let's not forget about the Cold War, which was all about keeping Russia out of Europe.....funney how soon we forget the sacrifice of throwing back the nazi's who tried to do the same thing. Without the U.S. direct action here Russia would have taken Europe long ago....and what of China, do we think they would follow suit, disarm and forget about lost chunks of its empire.

I wonder how long it would be before someone comes knocking for assistance, assisting one nation would mean making an enemy of another.....what would the world do then if it could not condemn the U.S. for something.

[Big Guy]

I too wish I had a magic wand. I have no problems with the USA doing what is good for the USA. That is why people elect leaders - to protect them and do things to make things better for them.

I am a Canadian. I would expect that our government would do things that are best for us. We are tied at the hip with the Americans as to foreign policy and military protection. I have no qualms about Americans giving their blood and treasure up for glory and conquest while we also get the benefits. Why do we need a military if we will never be involved in a conflict in which the USA is not involved and when the USA is involved we will use our military the way they tell us to.

Empires come and go. I have been alive long enough to see the British Empire go through that transition. I believe that we are in the dissolving stages of the American Empire. I also think that Europe and/or Asia will be the next empire. Already international agreements and groups are being organized excluding the USA. Fortunately, I will not live long enough to see it but it will be interesting to see if another empire could do a better job at world peace than the American Empire.

I do not think that complete isolationism is the answer since global trade forces entanglements with other countries. But I do believe in allowing local cultures and peoples solve their own problems. Currently, the Caliphate of ISIL is almost identical to a map of Sunni populated areas. Is that a coincidence? If the West did not separate the Pashtuns into Afghanistan and Pakistan would those conflicts have continued there?

Sometimes it reminds me of a mixture of oil and water. Keep shaking it and it is a mess. Leave it alone and it will separate itself into its two components.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Big Guy

[Army Guy]

I to think that there is going to be a change in the US, only because of Americas frustration with the rest of the world,

I find it alittle confusing when you state that complete isolation is not the answer, then you go on to say we should allow cultures to solve their own problems, and leave them alone.

At what piont do we take any action, I mean your example of ISIL is a good piont, when do the human rights of others meaning The people ISIL are targeting when do we stand up for them, or do we close our eyes and let natural selection take its path. It's a catch 22 , we will deal with this when it hits our shores, or risk being condemned by the world for take sides.

[GostHacked]

I to think that there is going to be a change in the US, only because of Americas frustration with the rest of the world,

I find it alittle confusing when you state that complete isolation is not the answer, then you go on to say we should allow cultures to solve their own problems, and leave them alone.

At what piont do we take any action, I mean your example of ISIL is a good piont, when do the human rights of others meaning The people ISIL are targeting when do we stand up for them, or do we close our eyes and let natural selection take its path. It's a catch 22 , we will deal with this when it hits our shores, or risk being condemned by the world for take sides.

'Non interventionist' is the term you are looking for. Not isolationism. A nation can be non-interventionist while still doing business with the rest of the world.

[Big Guy]

It is a difficult line to walk. What are insurgents? What are freedom fighters? What is the difference between a civil war and suppression by the government?

I believe that life is not fair. Might is right and the strong win over the weak. We might not like it when the weaker have the moral high road but as soon as we intervene (thank you GostHacked) we become part of the process. I believe that the Western decision makes mistakenly feel that we can be "catalysts" in foreign conflicts - come in to create a change and then leave without leaving any part of us there. We cannot. When we get involved then we own the problem. As soon as we change the natural direction in which an area is heading then we create more problems than we think we are solving.

I would like to use Iraq as an example. I believe that ISIS is the old Saddam Republican Guard. It mysteriously disappeared a few years ago when Saddam went down. I believe that this force of about 75,000 special military was the elite of Sunni Iraqis and is now the basis of ISIS. The West seems surprised at the professionalism, organization and sophistication of ISIS. I am not. The same people that ran Saddam's propaganda machine are running the very successful and sophisticated ISIS social medium network. While Saddam was a vicious dictator are the people of Iraq better off to-day than they were under his control? I do not think so.

Somewhere along the line we became the keepers and enforcers of human rights - what we consider to be human rights. When did we become the conscience of the world?

Thank you for your question - "Do we stand up for them or do we close our eyes and let natural selection take place". If standing up for them creates more problems for them and us then my answer would be to let natural selection take place. As cruel as that may be this world is very messy in places. What is happening in the Middle East is minor compared to what is happening in Africa. Are we prepared to go there?

I do not have the answers but our current approach is a mistake. The more we get involved, the worse that whole situation is happening in the Middle East. If I did have that chronology magic wand I would wave it and bring us back to the point before the American invasion of Afghanistan. But hindsight is always 20/20.

I think Bin Laden read the attitude of the West and used 9/11 to set a trap for the us. We then proceeded to walk into it.

[Army Guy]

'Non interventionist' is the term you are looking for. Not isolationism. A nation can be non-interventionist while still doing business with the rest of the world.

US draws critics for doing bussiness as well.

[Army Guy]

Then we need a whole new set of locals and values, we need to stop preaching this through out our lives to our children.....by changing our morals and values who do we become, what do we become, will we stop watching those sad commercials about children in thrid world countries, stop sending money, because we just don't care any more ?

I think while we have not perfected our methods to effect change , that is who we are, and well our intentions have not produced the results we look for. I don't think we can sit on the side lines either. Perhaps some where in the middle.

Do I think we have effected changed that has helped, I'd like to think so.....

[GostHacked]

US draws critics for doing bussiness as well.

It's all in the HOW they do business. Which is about as crooked as the rest of the planet.

[Je suis Omar]

US draws critics for doing bussiness as well.

You have been subjected to long streams of the most successful propaganda system the world has ever witnessed, AG.

The USA doesn't do business. The usa's success has largely come from the theft of other countries' wealth, garnered after slaughtering whatever number of people was necessary to stick in their own brutal right wing dictator. The USA has been ( there's no better description) raping and pillaging Central and South American countries since 1898.

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 19021912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

-- Smedley Butler

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

Why, AG, do you think the Latin American countries have created their own political organization that specifically excludes the USA and Canada?

Edited May 12, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

It's all in the HOW they do business. Which is about as crooked as the rest of the planet.

That is true, GH, but interestingly, the USA are the good guys, the saviours of the oppressed, of the downtrodden.

Doesn't anyone think it odd that when the USA sets out to save the oppressed millions of them die at the hands of their "saviours"?

[Je suis Omar]

AG: What is happening in the Middle East is minor compared to what is happening in Africa.

The Startling Size of US Military Operations in Africa

The Pentagon's Africa Command will tell you there's one military base on the entire continent. Don't believe them.

Nick Turse on Fri. September 6, 2013 6:00 AM PDT

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/us-military-bases-africa

[Big Guy]

To Army Guy - I believe that most of the things we do are with good intentions - but - we do not consider the consequences of our acts. The good people get involved, change the process and condition of evolution within an area and then create major problems for the future. There are millions of children in the world who are dying of hunger. In most cases it is because the area cannot sustain the population. We get involved, children who would not survive do survive and as teenagers, demand the same lifestyle as the West. Violence erupts. Is that heartless? Perhaps.

I remember those rock concerts to generate and send money to starving nations. How often do the agencies on the ground complain that this unexpected influx of food and money undermine their programs for long term stability through population control?

I think I remember being taught about an experiment with deer on an island. The deer will reproduce up to the point at which the environment can maintain the numbers. Any more and they die off through starvation or disease due to over crowding. Introduce an outside food source and the numbers soar then remove the outside food source and all hell breaks loose.

Yes we have morals, ethics and a conscience but if/when we mess with mother nature, then we better be prepared to follow through the consequences of our meddling.

[dre]

Because I wasn't part of those discussions - what part of AG's response do you disagree with ? Do you think that no response was required ? Do you think that the US shouldn't have responded or should have responded differently ?

Theres absolutely no question that the GWOT has put us all in greater danger... even our own intelligence agencies have told us that. So definately "nothing" would have been better than what was done. Not to mention trillions of dollars would not have been wasted, and tens of thousands of western soldiers killed for nothing.

As for other possible responses... Some of the things that were done had merit. Trying to choke off their funding made sense. Covert op's to disrupt their operations make sense. Improving our human intelligence gathering would have made a lot of sense too, and thats still notoriously bad.

[Shady]

As for other possible responses... Some of the things that were done had merit. Trying to choke off their funding made sense. Covert op's to disrupt their operations make sense. Improving our human intelligence gathering would have made a lot of sense too, and thats still notoriously bad.

That is what the GWOT essentially is.

[Je suis Omar]

Gee, imagine that, a USA installed dictator doesn't care for the people of his country. Now where have we seen that before?

And why would Uncle Sam, that ole staunch defender of freedom of speech, refuse Ms Joya a visa?

Malalai Joya, Noam Chomsky Denounce US Occupation of Afghanistan

March 26 -

In two jam-packed appearances this weekend, Afghan feminist leader Malalai Joya reached at least 1500 people with her denunciations of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. She spoke with Professor Noam Chomsky to 1200 people at Harvard's Memorial Church Friday night and to 300 in Jamaica Plain this afternoon. The Harvard event was the largest single Boston area event focused on opposing the Afghanistan war since the war's start almost ten years ago.

The U.S. State Department initially denied Joya a visa, even though her publisher, Simon & Schuster, and antiwar groups had lined up a three week speaking tour with dozens of speaking engagements coast to coast. After letters from at least a dozen Members of Congress, the American Civil Liberties Union, American Association of University Professors, and PEN, as well as 3000 online petition signatures and a phone-in day to the State Department last Wednesday, the U.S. Embassy relented and granted Joya a visa.

Joya said that the Administration did not want to give her a visa because her message exposes the lies that justify the U.S. war in Afghanistan. She told her audiences that after 10 years of U.S. occupation and "development aid", Afghanistan ranks next to last among all countries on the UN Human Development Index, and that the conditions of Afghan women have not improved.

Warlords and drug lords dominate Parliament and the Karzai government, Joya said, while U.S. troops kill civilians and rain destruction from the air. Afghan women and democratic people are caught between three enemies: the misogynist Taliban, the fundamentalist and misogynist warlords and Karzai regime, and the U.S. occupation forces. If the U.S. occcupation forces leave her country, Joya said that it will be easier, because Afghans will only have two enemies to fight, instead of three.

Joya said that the U.S. in Afghanistan for its own regional strategic interests, and not to help the Afghan people. She said that U.S. forces do not plan to leave by 2014, as President Obama has promised, but plan to stay a long time.

...

http://warisacrime.org/content/malalai-joya-noam-chomsky-denounce-us-occupation-afghanistan

Edited May 12, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

That is what the GWOT essentially is.

Fatuous, fatuous and did I mention, fatuous. The GWOT is a new set of USA lies to replace the communist bogeyman lies. This kind of nonsense works on little children and adults with less than the thinking capacity of little children.

The USA, the leading terrorist group on the planet, cannot have a war on terror without a major major house cleaning of its own.

"The phrase 'war on terrorism' should always be used in quotes, cause there can't possibly be a war on terrorism, it's impossible. The reason is it's led by one of the worst terrorist states in the world, in fact it's led by the only state in the world which has been condemned by the highest international authorities for international terrorism, namely the World Court and Security Council, except that the US vetoed the resolution."

-- Noam Chomsky

[Shady]

Fatuous, fatuous and did I mention, fatuous. The GWOT is a new set of USA lies to replace the communist bogeyman lies. This kind of nonsense works on little children and adults with less than the thinking capacity of little children.

The USA, the leading terrorist group on the planet, cannot have a war on terror without a major major house cleaning of its own.

"The phrase 'war on terrorism' should always be used in quotes, cause there can't possibly be a war on terrorism, it's impossible. The reason is it's led by one of the worst terrorist states in the world, in fact it's led by the only state in the world which has been condemned by the highest international authorities for international terrorism, namely the World Court and Security Council, except that the US vetoed the resolution."

-- Noam Chomsky

We can agree to disagree then.