Are We At War Or Not?

You guys all know what I think about our current war situation. You know that I think we were misled in a purposeful fashion. I don’t want to rehash that entire issue, but I have two questions. Are we really at war? If so, why aren’t we trying to win?

The government told us that Osama’s men from Afghanistan hijacked some planes and hit the Twin Towers, Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field. America waged the War on Terror and has been sacrificing our young men and women for the cause. If the safety of our country is at stake, why didn’t we take out the 100+ Taliban members congregating in the sight of our drone?

In a statement released Wednesday, the U.S. military in Afghanistan said the picture “” a grainy black-and-white photo taken in July “” was given to a journalist to show that Taliban insurgents were congregating in large groups. The statement said U.S. forces considered attacking.

“During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of (the) cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day,” the statement said. “A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time.”…

…NBC News had quoted one Army officer who was involved with the spy mission as saying “we were so excited” that the group had been spotted and was in the sights of a U.S. drone. But the network quoted the officer, who was not identified, as saying that frustration soon set in after the officers realized they couldn’t bomb the funeral under the military’s rules of engagement.

What?? I am neither hawk nor pacifist, but either we are at war because our country is in peril or we are playing war games. I have no military experience and am by no means even textbook educated on the rules of war, but it seems to me that if we have to protect ourselves, we should do it decisively. If our government can justify bending the rules to “fight the terrorists on their lands instead of ours” why is this “rules of engagement” thing such a big deal?

America is experiencing a mindblowing assault to the very liberty she is to protect. The assault, from within our own government, is disguised by this war on terror. The information coming out of D.C. would have us trembling in fear, and yet our government is pussyfooting around over on our enemies’ turf. It kind of makes one think that our enemies aren’t so dangerous. I am seriously asking for someone to explain the reasoning here because from my viewpoint, something seems a little off in the Land of the Free.

posted by michelleshinghal
  • disinter

    But if we kill all the boogie men, then we can’t have a perpetual boogie man war… can we?

  • Michael Hampton

    The rules of engagement define what the military is and is not allowed to do in various battlefield situations.

    For instance, we don’t bomb even the enemy’s ambulances, the Red Cross, etc.

    Apparently there’s such a rule saying that we can’t bomb funerals.

  • Lenny Zimmermann

    I expect Michael is right that funerals, or possibly cemeteries (like churches) are off-limits as military targets.

    When all is said and done it’s all about the concept of “civilized warfare”. We could argue all day long about whether or not there could ever be such a thing, but at this time our society overall proclaims that military targets are the only truly appropriate targets for military action. Conceptually the idea is simply that we agree not to destroy hospitals and areas primarily considered civilian in nature in order to maintain the moral high-ground should our enemies decide to ignore those “rules of engagement”.

    (cont.)

  • Lenny Zimmermann

    (cont.)

    Personally I think it’s a fairly good idea to stick maintaining the rules of engagement. For one because it can provide a baseline for military leaders to follow to at least attempt to limit the damage caused by those “boys and their toys”. Perhaps more importantly, though, it also provides a solid, moral, baseline which can be tremendously important diplomatically.

    P.S. What is up with the character limits. Seems to me we all just work around it anyways, therefore not accomplishing the stated goals of reducing post lengths. All it seems to accomplish is being an annoyance (and possibly making us all a bit grumpier in our positng language. ;)) Don’t you guys know that prohibition doesn’t work! :p

  • Stuart Richards

    Yeah, we’re not just fighting a war, we’re fighting a guerrilla war. The rules to these are way different… even if the Geneva Conventions didn’t exist, we still wouldn’t want to bomb this place. In a guerrilla war, the true objective is the loyalty of the people. The guerrillas can accomplish that loyalty through love or fear… the ruling regime is usually only limited to love. Especially in these days, when human rights violations are a big deal (and rightfully so).

  • http://360.yahoo.com/pong_god Robert Mayer

    Funerals, no way. But weddings? Bombs away, baby!

  • Michelle Shinghal

    Are we technically fighting a standing army? Are the ROE from our own playbook? Is there some standard? I may be incredibly naive on this matter, but it seem to hear over and over that we are dealing with a new kind of enemy. It was that reasoning used to preemptively strike Iraq, right? If we are involved in unconventional warfare, why use conventional ROE? If the enemy is as dangerous as they tell us, so dangerous that Bush & Co wish to strip away liberties, why not remove the threat when the opportunity presents itself? For all the “dead or alive” and “mission accomplished” talk, letting 190 Taliban members go seems pretty weak. Seems like a mixed message to me.

  • Stuart Richards

    It’s not a mixed message… do some research on guerrilla warfare. Without the support of the civilian population, a guerrilla army cannot field, feed, clothe or otherwise supply its soldiers. This means that Afghan civilian opinion of both the Taliban and the United States is crucial in this war… if they really like us, that’s basically the same as cutting off all the Taliban’s supply lines.

    However, if we do something to piss those civilians off… like, say, disrespecting their dead, then they’ll think more highly of the Taliban, as the force that wishes to save Afghanistan from these blasphemous Western devils or whatever.

  • IanC

    Michelle — I get what you are thrusting at here, I suspect.

    So… I’ll summarize:

    1) It is right, and proper, to follow rules of engagement when involved in military conflict, where-ever possible.

    2) Were the rhetoric of Mr. Bush & Friends to be believed, it would not be possible to obey the rules of engagement; for the threat is so dire we must overcome all obstacles and hope that our efforts were sufficient to survive.


    End summary

    So… personal thoughts? This should be touted as a victory of clear-headed thinking in the military *OVER* the evil that is Mr. George Walker Bush, Jr.

    As an atheist who does not ascribe to the beliefs of good or evil, Mr. Bush still qualifies, for me. His is a world I will die before entering.

  • disinter
  • Michelle Shinghal

    IanC- Exactly.

  • Michelle Shinghal

    from the transcript of Bush’s 9/11 speech:
    And we know that, if they were able to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, they would use them against us.
    We face an enemy determined to bring death and suffering into our homes.
    America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over. So do I.
    But the war is not over, and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious.

  • Lenny Zimmermann

    I think Ian has the gist of what I think is the argument that is being presented. So while I think it is certainly something I might actually expect the Bush administration to admonish those soldiers for doing (by NOT going in and taking out a group of Taliban, even if it would be disrespectful of the religious beliefs of the local civilian population), even so I call this good news that at least somebody out there has a clear enough head on their shoulders to recognize the disastrous effects of taking that kind of action. Even if the administration’s general conduct suggests they would be too stupid and full of their own rhetoric to see it.

  • Sandra Kallander

    Again, as a person who believes in respecting the individual, I would not refer to “they” so often.

    “They” are just like “us.” “They” have pacifists among them. “They” probably have libertarians among them. Most of “them” just want to go to work and to school without getting killed.

    I don’t want them judging me by what “my” president, “my” Congress and “my” armies do; I didn’t vote for any of those people and I don’t want to be lumped with them. The least I can do is not do the same to people of another country, especially if it isn’t a democracy or democratic republic (but even if it is; my fellow voters don’t represent me).

    I remember reading one of Osama’s explanations for his actions and thinking it was indistinguishable from George Bush’s.

    If we would treat each other as individuals, wars like this simply wouldn’t happen. “We,” people willing to live and let live, need to stick together.

  • Timothy West

    Sandra, cant make any money that way. Almost all war is fought by young men fighting for he rights of old men to make money.

    WW2 is about the last war that could be described as ‘just’. Hitler n Naional socialism was evil encarnate. Everything since has been total Military-Industrial complex controlled, including the Cold War, Vietnam, and Iraq.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AbYzEB6qqY

    When you have no ememy, you cant sell weapons. Republicans must have a enemy, or they would cease to exist. Without the permanent war footing provided by conflict, they would dry up and blow away.

  • Julian

    We are not at war. I don’t know what to call what we are doing. It is absolutely disgusting with all the “rules of engagement” that must be followed so we are engaging in a civilized manner.

    War is not a civilized act. It is savagery. If I were calling the shots we would be done with our enemies. I would have no “rules of engagement”. It would have been to kill as many of them as possible and destroy all their assets even the food and water until they all died of war wounds, thirst, starvation or just outright fright. Now that is the way to fight a war if one must be fought.

  • paulie

    I agree. Starve, frighten and kill the Bush Crime Family, the Blair gang and all the rest of our terrorist enemies who hate us for our freedom and attacked us on 9/11 and ever since.

  • http://360.yahoo.com/pong_god Robert Mayer

    As much as I hate to say it, thankfully George W. Bush is in charge and not Julian.

  • paulie

    dubai-ya ain’t in charge of anything more than reading the teleprompter, and isn’t even any good at that

  • Bill

    Hey Julian, you forgot to salt their land!

  • IanC

    Bill — that’s because he’d rather colonize it.

  • Julian

    IanC

    Not colonize, just make them submit or die as they would have us submit or die as their religion teaches.

    Tit for tat, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Fight them just as they have chosen to fight us, no holds barred.

    It will not be long before they attempt an assassination on the Pope and may even succeed. That will prove they are truly a religion of violence, a religion of the sword just as the Koran is written.

    If you do not believe, I suggest you read the Koran and other writings by their “holy” men during the past 1200 years.

    In their minds, they have technically been at war with the rest of the world, primarily Jews and Christians since the founder of Islam, the pedophile bloodthirsty Mohammad falsely claimed to be a prophet of God.

    Until you that are not true believers of the false prophet Mohammad believe they truly want you dead or Muslim, we are doomed. Wake up, you dumb asses. Quit laughing at and cajoling those like me that are right.

  • Bill

    Hey Jullian, looks like the government propagandists have you pretty wound up. The Muslim would is not some huge monolithic entity that’s gonna invade Colorado tomorrow.

    The fact is that if we’d stop our interventionist foreign policy and our one sided backing of Israel the Muslim and Arab people would go back to killing each other and wouldn’t give us a second thought. But when we base our troops on their soil, prop up corrupt dictators who rule them, give Israel billions in weapons and then invade Iraq we UNITE them against us.

    Why the hell can’t you see that? Because you listen to too much Faux News and GWB news conferences.

  • Julian

    Bill

    I watch what??????? My conclusions come from reading, not from trash TV and government propaganda. You are off base, not me.

    If you love Islam so much, why don’t you convert from atheism and become a Muslim. Since you are a Jew hater, that will now give you a mental license to eliminate a few of them.

    Have another drink and smoke another joint tonight. I’m sure that is your area of expertise. Your ability to write and spell has collapsed. That is certainly not your strong point.

  • Michelle Shinghal

    I wrote this piece to demonstrate that we are not really fighting for our lives, liberty and honor. The libertarian platform has always called for non-aggression but libertarians are not pacifists. My understanding of our philosophy is that we would defend until death the rights of individuals against those who seek to do us harm. If we are truly in a war against those who seek to destroy us because of our freedom, then we should water the tree of liberty with blood. If what is at stake is that which is reported, ROE should not apply. If a thief breaks into my home and the choice is my safety or his life, I choose my safety. No ROE is going to get in my way. (Though I would have to use a kitchen knife because of my husband’s gun ban.) The same reasoning should apply in a guerrilla war situation. You are fighting for life or you are fighting over bullshit. If it is life, you take the opportunity to win. If it’s BS, you pussyfoot.

  • Bill

    So I’m a pot smoking, Jew hating, atheist drunkard because I’m against the government stealing money from hard working Americans (i.e. taxpayers) to pay for bombs for the government of Israel, to keep hundreds of thousands of American soldiers on hundreds of bases throughout the world, to give handouts to corrupt dictators and to invade countries half a world away on false pretenses? So I am all the things you say I am because I’m against our corrupt, incompetent government stealing my money to make enemies for the American people?

  • Bill

    And Julian, I don’t hate Jews and I NEVER advocated killing Jews. You know that.

  • Stuart Richards

    But Michelle, we ARE taking the opportunity to win, as I’ve been pointing out.

    We are fighting a guerrilla war, and this is how a guerrilla war is fought. This is why the British didn’t burn down entire American cities even though American civilians were harboring minutemen behind the British lines. To have any success at winning a guerrilla war, you must win the hearts and minds of the civilian population. Doing that means not bombing their ancestors, among many other things.

    We are rightfully in Afghanistan, I believe, and we need to finish the Taliban for good. And this is the best way to do that, so I support it.

  • Stuart Richards

    It’s not even a question of effectiveness versus concern for the laws of war. If bombing that cemetery would have helped us win, I would have supported it.

    But killing 200 Taliban fighters in that way would have raised up 2000 more against us. That’s not how you win this sort of war.

  • Julian

    I have problems with all the foriegn policy and tactical warfare experts on this site. What the hell are you doing on a site like this when you have the expertise, experience, education and knowledge to be a great leader or at the least a general, Secretary or Defense or Secretary of State?

    Why not start with a Simple Simon job such as Congressman (or Congressperson for you foolish politically correct). Maybe, just maybe none of you have enough education or life experiences to even express an opinion about anything including what kind of dog food to feed your curs or bitches.

    Go back to your coffee shops or student centers and access other websites that is more tuned in to your wild ass ideas about peace, love, drugs and “let’s hide from the truth” mentality.

    I practice the Constitution every day. Oh, Paulie, I know you, as an anarchist believe it is just a “gd piece of paper” that is a hindrance to true personal liberty.

    I’m not Republican or Democrat but libertarian.

  • Stuart Richards

    Why aren’t you the Secretary of State then, Julian? Clearly you are far above the simple intellect of us foolish mortals.

  • http://360.yahoo.com/pong_god Robert Mayer

    Julian, since you are obviously so learned about foreign affairs and why “they hate us”, why don’t you attempt to make a reasoned rebuttal rather than always resorting to the lame ad hominem attacks?

  • Hank

    Hey Julian, since you’ve got military experience and believe the Muslims or Arabs (or whoever the hobgoblin dejour is) will kill us all unless we kill them first why don’t you get over to Iraq or Afghanistan and join the war effort?

    Here’s someone in their 50’s who got killed over there:

    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=494632

    It would appear that you’re not too old to get shot at.

  • Hank

    >We are rightfully in Afghanistan, I believe, and we need
    >to finish the Taliban for good.

    Really? Then get your ass over there and fight’em. Sounds like you’ve been Bushwashed if you believe that shit.

  • Julian

    Hank

    I volunteered to go. I was turned down but am still trying. It would be an honor and pleasure to go anywhere where I could kill some of the bastards, even here if the chance comes my way.

    Don’t question me about my not being there. Why aren’t you, you coward? Oh, you must be one of those punks I have heard say “this country is not worth fighting for”

    I stand up for what I believe in even being arrested at an antiwar demonstration as a pro war, kill the bastards demonstrator. This is verifiable. When have you been arrested at an antiwar demonstration?

    By the way, the guy I kicked the hell out of was 22 and a weak punk that could not fight back because of muscle atrophy from sitting on his ass all his life. I was 57 at the time and it was the greatest feeling to know I still have what it takes.

    The event took place in Colorado Springs, CO. The irony, I am on the terrorists watch list because the word “terrorist” was used against me in the police report 4 times

  • Julian (Van Dyke)

    I believe the event and my continuing to return to challenge those cowards every week (the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Center demonstrators) is what galvanized the rift my son, Stephen Van Dyke and I experience today in how we perceive the war.

    He is rabidly antiwar and anti government and most likely anarchist in his philosophy while I am pro war and minimal government. We agree on most other libertarian issues, though.

    I do believe if we were still in the same town we would face each other down on opposite sides of the issue at antiwar demonstrations. So be it. Benjamin Franklin and his son had the same sort of rift.

  • Stephen VanDyke

    I think we’re more alike than not, so it’s best if you don’t try to put words my my mouth. I’ve learned to have strong beliefs, weakly held… meaning I am a strong supporter of my positions, but am willing to learn from a debate.

    I’ve never been an anarchist, and closely resemble a minarchist in my views of government.

    As for the war, my best eye-opener has been listening to Bill Peirce here in Ohio, who has made me come to a different understanding. Here’s his view on Iraq:

    I opposed going into Iraq. More generally, I believe that Congress should declare war before we go to war. However, we are now there. We must fight this war to a successful conclusion for the sake of all of those who have allied themselves with our side. (Please note that most Libertarians favor rapid withdrawal of our troops, but I just don’t see how we can do it yet.)

  • Hank

    “I am pro war and minimal government.” Julian

    “War is the health of the state.” War always leads to increases in government power. (See Robert Higg’s work.) You can’t be for war AND for minimal government.

    “The irony, I am on the terrorists watch list…”

    That’s rich! The same government you so badly want to kill for considers you a potential terrorist who must be on a watch list.

  • Stuart Richards

    Really? Then get your ass over there and fight’em. Sounds like you’ve been Bushwashed if you believe that shit.

    Oh, what? Just because I’m not some “9/11 truth” conspiracy theorist wackball means I’m brainwashed? Fuck that noise, cowboy.

    I actually volunteered for the military back when we were just fighting the Taliban, thank you very much. I’ve got asthma really bad-they wouldn’t take me.

    But even if I didn’t have asthma, I wouldn’t join up now and take a major risk at fighting a very unjust war (Iraq) just to take a shot at fighting a just war (Afghanistan).

    Anyway, if your bullshit dichotomy is to be believed, it’d have been impossible for anyone to have supported World War II unless they were actually over there fighting; even after Pearl Harbor. Or the Revolutionary War, either. If you happen to have been born far too late or early or the wrong gender to fight Nazis? STFU, your opinions don’t matter.

  • Stuart Richards

    Hey, wait, you don’t support the Revolutionary War. Your ass isn’t out fighting the British, now is it? Being born in the wrong century’s no excuse, you chickenhawk. Get out there and shoot redcoats! NOW!

    “Chronologically impaired” my ass…

  • Hank

    Stu you’re hilarious. You always did crack me up.

    I think you’re 100% right about Afghanistan. I mean instead of grabbing Bin Laden and smashing Al-Qaeda lets dick around with the Taliban and nation build for 5 years. And lets get Nato and the UN involved. Yeah, that’s the ticket! A just war indeed! I’d be willing to die for that cause.

    I think you and Julian would make a hell of a team in Afghanistan going after the Taliban. You could smoke ‘em out and Julian could kill’em.

  • paulie cannoli

    Just because I’m not some “9/11 truth” conspiracy theorist wackball

    That’s impossible. The regime’s conspiracy theory is still a conspiracy theory. Unless you believe the planes crashed coincidentally, or that the people who took them over knew nothing of each other’s plans, you’re a 9-11 conspiracy theorist. Welcome to the club!

    a just war (Afghanistan).

    In what way, shape or form is it just? Suppose we postulate the regime’s conspiracy theory as a given, even though it’s preposterous. If that is the case, all the Taliban asked Bush to do was provide eveidence that it’s true before handing Osama over. Wouldn’t the US regime do the same if a foreign regime demanded a resident of the US be handed over to them? The citizens of Afghanistan, more of whom have been killed than Americans on 9-11, and far more made homeless, wounded, raped, tortured, etc – did not choose their government, current or former.

  • paulie cannoli

    I opposed going into Iraq. More generally, I believe that Congress should declare war before we go to war. However, we are now there. We must fight this war to a successful conclusion for the sake of all of those who have allied themselves with our side.

    You should both be smarter than to fall for this line of nonsense, which is “throwing good money after bad”. So how many more hundreds of billions or trillions of Americans’ money must be extorted to perpetuate a mistake? How many more thousand American troops killed, wounded, left with post traumatic stress disorder? How many more hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed? How many more made homeless, raped, tortured? How many more people taught to hate America – including those of us who had nothing to do with it? How many more future terrorists and martyrs created?

    What’s a succesful conclusion to this war? The people of Iraq do not want to be occupied, and until the occupation ends they will resist. […]

  • Belinda

    I wonder how many of you who think we should be fighting for the government of Afghanistan are aware that their post-Taliban constitution states clearly that no law can contradict Islam. That’s why in March, 2006, Abdul Rahman faced the death penalty for merely converting to Christianity.

    Sure, he ultimately escaped execution after being granted asylum in Italy. But the law still permits execution of those who convert to Christianity and the fact remains that American and Canadian soldiers are dying to protect an undemocratic country ruled by Islamic clerics. Given that in Afghanistan, Islamic law trumps the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is difficult to understand why young Americans and Canadians are dying for this country.

  • paulie cannoli

    […]

    They do not like the US regime, and they don’t want the type of regime the US regime would like. They don’t like each other, either – as long as they are forced to live under one regime, they will fight over who controls it. Only a dictator like Saddam could stop that. This is what’s known as a quagmire and continued US presence will only keep making things worse.

    (Please note that most Libertarians favor rapid withdrawal of our troops, but I just don’t see how we can do it yet.)

    It’s really not all that complicated.

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/11/17/exit_strategy

  • paulie cannoli

    By the way, the guy I kicked the hell out of was 22 and a weak punk that could not fight back because of muscle atrophy from sitting on his ass all his life. I was 57 at the time and it was the greatest feeling to know I still have what it takes.

    Note how Julian is proud of beating up someone much weaker, apparently just for holding different opinions. This is disgusting. Such hatred for free speech and the willingness to initiate force to silence opposing views are incompatible with a love of liberty.

  • paulie cannoli

    I have problems with all the foriegn policy and tactical warfare experts on this site. What the hell are you doing on a site like this when you have the expertise, experience, education and knowledge to be a great leader or at the least a general, Secretary or Defense or Secretary of State?

    Why not start with a Simple Simon job such as Congressman (or Congressperson for you foolish politically correct). Maybe, just maybe none of you have enough education or life experiences to even express an opinion about anything including what kind of dog food to feed your curs or bitches.

    Or, perhaps more plausibly, since our views are different from that of the regime, and the public has been largely brainwashed into voting for regimist parties, they won’t elect or appoint us to such positions. After all, I would not expect to be elected to the Mafia commission if I oppose its activities.

  • paulie cannoli

    I practice the Constitution every day.

    This is impossible for a non-government employee. The Constitutions spells out the powers of the federal government, sets up its branches and general procedures and divides power between them. That is ALL it does. Even the Bill of Rights only (redundantly) stated natural rights we already had. It hasn’t worked, the regime violates it each and every day.

    Oh, Paulie, I know you, as an anarchist believe it is just a “gd piece of paper” that is a hindrance to true personal liberty.

    Of course, but why single me out? There’s plenty of other anarchists here.

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2006/09/17/international_ignore

    http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/09/17/international_ignore

    I’m not Republican or Democrat but libertarian.

    The second part is a lie, as numerous of Julian’s posts have amply demonstrated, including the one above where Julian takes pride in beating up someone much weaker for disagreeing with the war.

  • paulie cannoli

    WW2 is about the last war that could be described as ”˜just’.

    As Robert Higgs pointed out on LRC this weekend:

    “Even if we set aside such clear-cut innocents and consider only persons in the upper echelons of the conflicting sides, it is rare to find all angels on one side and all demons on the other. In World War II, for example, the Allied states were led by such angels as Winston Churchill, who relished the horrific terror bombing of German cities; Josef Stalin, one of the greatest mass murderers of all time; Franklin D. Roosevelt, of whose moral uprightness the less said the better; and Harry S Truman, who took pleasure in annihilating hundreds of thousands of defenseless Japanese noncombatants first with incendiary bombs and ultimately with nuclear weapons. Yes, the other side had Adolf Hitler, whose fiendishness I have no desire to deny, but the overall character of the leadership on both sides sufficiently attests that there was enough evil to go around. […]

  • paulie cannoli

    (cont) “..As for the ordinary soldiers, of course, everyone who knows anything about actual combat appreciates that once engaged, the men on both sides quickly become brutalized and routinely commit atrocities of every imaginable size and shape.

    So, it is far from clear that war is always or even typically “not as hideous as the things it can stop and prevent.” On many occasions, refusal to resort to war, even in the face of undeniable evils, may still be the better course. When World War II ended, leaving more than 62 million dead, most of them civilians, and hundreds of millions displaced, homeless, wounded, sick, or impoverished, the survivors might well have doubted whether conditions would have been even more terrible had the war not taken place. …”

  • paulie cannoli

    “….The dead were unavailable for comment.) To make matters worse, owing to the war, the monster Stalin had gained control of an enormous area stretching from Czechoslovakia to Korea; and soon, because of the defeat of the Japanese Empire, the monster Mao Zedong would take complete control of China and impose a murderous reign of terror on the world’s most populous country that cost the lives of perhaps another 60 million persons (as many as 77 million, according to one plausible estimate). It is difficult to believe that the situation in China would have been so awful even if the Japanese had succeeded in incorporating the Chinese into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs48.html

  • paulie cannoli

    It’s not a mixed message”¦ do some research on guerrilla warfare. Without the support of the civilian population, a guerrilla army cannot field, feed, clothe or otherwise supply its soldiers. This means that Afghan civilian opinion of both the Taliban and the United States is crucial in this war”¦ if they really like us, that’s basically the same as cutting off all the Taliban’s supply lines.

    However, if we do something to piss those civilians off”¦ like, say,

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt223.html

    Extrapolate these numbers to the difference in population between Afghanistan and the US. How would you like it if some foreign regime did that here? I’m sure you would think about welcoming them as liberators, right?

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis37.html

  • paulie cannoli

    Tit for tat, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

    Will soon leave everyone blind and toothless.

    If you do not believe, I suggest you read the Koran and other writings by their “holy” men during the past 1200 years.

    Religious bigots find similar statements in the Old Testament and Talmud, and in the writings of the popes, etc. So what?

  • paulie cannoli

    We must fight this war to a successful conclusion for the sake of all of those who have allied themselves with our side.

    That’s brilliant. Let’s keep up this immoral, evil, murderous war for the sake of regimes such as Poland and Kazakhstan willing to take bribes of money extorted from American tax victims by the USSA regime to join a phony coalition (to mask the fact that just about, if not every, country in the world, including this one, has a strong majority opposing this war).

    I am deeply ashamed that we have LP candidates who support this war, that the LP could not pass Bush impeachment and (real) antiwar resolutions, and how this is even a question among “libertarians” is bizarre, to say the least.

    Even the general public is 2/3 opposed to this war now. This should be an easy one; either you support this war or you call yourself a libertarian, but noth both; they are diametrically incompatible.

  • Julian (Van Dyke)

    Paulie Cannoli

    Would you even try to defend yourself in a one on one fight for your life? I cannot figure you out. You are not consistent.

    I enjoy pissing you off, reading your illogical reasoning and limp attempt to dominate all discussion.

    I am a libertarian. You are a loser anarchist that is so marginalized you have to sleep under bridges, mooch a couch to sleep on and beg for handouts. Why don’t you give something to society instead of just being a taker?

    What a waste of human life. You are taking up space and breathing air someone else may want to use.

  • disinter

    I see Julian has resorted to ad hominem – what a surprise. I take it he has lost the debate once again?

  • paulie

    Certainly, as is obvious. But some of his stuff is truly out of left field. I sleep under bridges and beg for handouts and wouldn’t defend myself? bwahahaha where does he come up with this shit? The funniest thing is he thinks he is pissing me off but actually I just get a laugh. I feel bad sometimes like I’m making fun of a mental patient, but it’s addictive.

    If he’s a libertarian, I’m Harry Houdini.

  • paulie

    However, you’ll note no ability to demonstrate anything illogical in what I said….just more silly horseshit from a basket case, how sad, yet true…it would be nice if the ad hominem was at least based in fact. For example:

    When not flaming, beating up peace protestors, issuing semi-veiled death threats, making money off mass murdering corporate-government collusion or pretending to be a libertarian, Julian likes to dress up in leather and hang out with all-male groups reliving their glory(hole) days.

    He enjoys physical contact with men and pretending that his opponent is a woman. He has also admited that he is insane and has a “peanut brain”.

    Easy, huh?

  • paulie

    Would you even try to defend yourself in a one on one fight for your life?

    Not only would but have on a number of occassions.

    I cannot figure you out.

    Don’t despair, this should help

    http://www.rif.org/

    http://secure.hop.com/

    You are not consistent.

    How so? Examples, please…

  • paulie
  • Hank

    From Afghanistan: Time for Truth

    Last week, Canadian and British commanders boasted they were about to annihilate Taliban forces “surrounded” around Panjwai and Zahri. They crowed an “estimated 500 Taliban,” had already been killed.

    A storm of bombing and shelling did kill many Afghans, but most of the dead “suspected Taliban militants” turned out, as usual, to be civilians. NATO failed to show bodies of dead enemy fighters to back up its absurd claims.

  • Hank

    From From Afghanistan: Time for Truth

    When NATO forces entered Panjwai after weeks of air strikes and shelling, the supposedly “surrounded” Taliban had vanished. Embarrassed British and Canadian commanders admitted “we were surprised the enemy had fled.” Surprised?

    Doesn’t anyone remember the Vietnam War’s fruitless search and destroy missions and inflated body counts? Don’t NATO commanders know their every move is telegraphed in advance to Taliban forces? Don’t they see what’s going on now in Iraq?

    Did Canadian officers making such fanciful claims really believe Taliban’s veteran guerillas would be stupid enough to sit still and be destroyed by US air power?

  • Hank

    From From Afghanistan: Time for Truth

    A final point. US and NATO forces are not fighting “terrorists,” as their governments claim. They are fighting the Afghan people. In the 1980’s, I saw mujahidin too poor to afford shoes strap 110 lbs of mortar shells on their backs, and climb 6”“8 hours over mountains through snow to bombard a Communist base, then trudge home. These are the people we are fighting. Anyone who knows Afghans know they will not be defeated, even if they must resist for an entire generation.

  • Stuart Richards

    I don’t care about nation-building, and just because I approve of the war doesn’t mean I approve of the way it’s being fought.

    We need to kill bin Laden, or arrest him at least. We need to destroy al-Qaeda. I agree with you on the nation-building stuff, but you’re saying we can’t fight a war because the tactics are wrong.

  • Hank

    >We need to kill bin Laden, or arrest him at least. We
    >need to destroy al-Qaeda.

    The current war in Afghanistan is doing neither but it is making us plenty of new enemies and costing a fortune.

  • paulie

    We need to kill bin Laden, or arrest him at least. We need to destroy al-Qaeda. I agree with you on the nation-building stuff, but you’re saying we can’t fight a war because the tactics are wrong.

    What’s that got to do with Afghanistan? By most accounts he’s in Pakistan, a USSA ally. If he was arrested, who would the US regime make the next Emmanuel Goldstein?

  • belinda

    Am I the only one who cares that the “democratic” Afghanistan we are “defending” is a Mullah-controlled theocracy (despite the US puppet Karzai) with laws permitting execution of those who convert from Islam to Christianity or Judaism? Seems that those who support the invasion of Afghanistan conveniently choose to ignore this and other human rights violations merely because the government is ostensibly a US ally.

  • paulie

    It’s not really a country where any of the sides are the good guys. Communists, opium lords, tribal warlords, taliban…pick your poison. Sounds like one to stay out of. Where’s the upside? They’ve been fending off empires for millenia through attrition and perserverance. They’ve known nothing but guerilla war all their life, and their whole culture and ancestors. They defeated the Brits and the Soviets; those who don’t learn from history…

  • paulie

    Hank post 63 sums it all up.

  • Julian

    Hank

    comment #62: Do you remember Vietnam? If so, were you there? Is so, where, when and what unit? Show me where to look for proof you are correct about the inflated body counts in Vietnam.

  • Stuart Richards

    Am I the only one who cares that the “democratic” Afghanistan we are “defending” is a Mullah-controlled theocracy (despite the US puppet Karzai) with laws permitting execution of those who convert from Islam to Christianity or Judaism? Seems that those who support the invasion of Afghanistan conveniently choose to ignore this and other human rights violations merely because the government is ostensibly a US ally.

    Yeah, intervening in Afghanistan’s internal affairs isn’t terribly libertarian, even if their government sucks at life. We’re there to defend America, not to build up Afghanistan.

    If he was arrested, who would the US regime make the next Emmanuel Goldstein?

    Whoa… a 1984 reference? HERE?!

    You’re too clever for my dull wit, sir.

  • Belinda

    Stuart
    “We’re they’re to defend America, not to build up Afghanistan.”

    So far, I’d say we’re defining fine on the latter goal but not on the former.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    We’re there to defend America,

    From whom? Al Qaida bases itself in many countries including this one. The Taliban is certainly not a threat to America.

  • http://www.lpalabama.org/blog/14 paulie cannoli

    Whoa”¦ a 1984 reference? HERE?!

    You’re too clever for my dull wit, sir.

    Actually I meant that seriously.

    btw the US regime is also failing to build up Afghanistan, but as for defending America, it’s only creating future terrorists.