Check in thread for DUers wanting to end the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

This war has been going on for way too long. Time to end it.

Oh and this isn't a copycat thread, more of a companion thread.

:thumbsup:

...and they don't mean or do shit. And how courageous and edgy - protesting the war anonymously, on a progressive website. After seven years.

"Woo several dozen liberals are against the war - guess everyone's coming home tomorrow. Nobel Peace Prizes for you all."

You're right - only large street marches that stay in the street and disrupt business as usual have a chance to stop the war machine (and it will probably years, as we know from history). But what are your posts accomplishing?

People are here to give their opinions, one way or another, including a shocking number of war supporters.

:P

I don't care about opinions, I even agree with some of them - but this whole "recommend the thread if you agree with my opinion" is just, embarrassing really. More for those responding than for the OP, because at least the OP is getting a Greatest Page spot out if it.

Because, as you point out, it does not matter an *atom* what people think if they don't DO anything...and it's been my experience that "activists" on DU think they're doing something if they merely recommend a thread.

Yet you care to share yours.

Hmm.

What exactly does that achieve?

Many people are intimidated and discouraged, because of the ongoing bullying. That has an impact, and people have a right to fight back so that everyone is not driven away or beaten into silence, and so that people know they are not alone.

If this thread doesn't matter, why are you here? It seems to matter very much to you, and you are quite aggressive in mocking and trying to discourage people.

If it doesn't matter what we say here, then why do you say anything?

The conservatives among us are extremely motivated to post, as though their lives depended upon it. They seem very concerned lest any left wing talk might happen, and try to break that up whenever possible and insert conservative talking points whenever they can. Then they tell others "it makes no difference what we say here."

Nothing matters more, nothing is more powerful and important in politics then the ongoing national discussion, and this most definitely is a part of that.

Why do those who say this is a waste of time and will accomplish nothing do so much posting themselves? Why do those who say it doesn't matter what we say here act as though it matters very much what we say here?

end these bogus illegal occupations now.

:thumbsup:

War is over, if you want it!

...on gettin' out of those places.

Sending 17,000 more fodder units* ain't gonna cut it...

*George H.W. Bush's term for military personnel.

:shrug:

The Afgan government said they would hand him over if the evidence was presented. The FBI hasn't listed him as involved. The invasion was to install an oil pipeline they were not in agreement to at the time. (my consideration, I don't have a link at my fingertip now)

bombings when they told the entire world community to go fuck itself in 1999.

And, it was a natural gas pipeline. That Bush didn't care about, since he never lifted a finger to get it built.

which have not first attacked your nation violates international law.

Look into it.

And if you think the nation of Afghanistan attacked us on 9-11 I have some WMD to sell you.

We didn't bomb downtown Kabul.

The target was al-Qaeda and its allies, and we were fully within our rights to attack the people who attacked us.

We didn't attack Afghanistan per se?

We invaded the country and installed a former Conoco executive as President. We presently occupy the country and try our best to run the place. If a foreign power did the same to the USA would you claim we weren't attacked?

This is actually a compcat thread or a copypanion one.

And does nothing but destroy, make money for the MIC and kill millions for profit.


K&R!

NT!

Ending it is easy - doing something that isn't a complete catastrophe for us and Iraqis and Afghans is the part that requires intelligent choices.

I'm very anti military-industrial complex and all the violence & waste it spawns.

for what they've done.

That certainly includes committing treason, abusing our military, and bringing about a worldwide economic crisis that they are still profiting on-even after leaving the offices they were installed in by the coup of 2000.

No Specific Military Objective + No Exit Strategy = Quagmire

The only CHANGE is that OBama now owns the Quagmire.

Not only must we withdraw our troops from Iraq and Afgan, but also from most of our military bases abroad.

Withdrawing our troops from only those two countries will do little to the implement the real Rx for what ails us:

the drastic reduction of the military industrial complex.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kSltiLiK3sM/Rc9S0yS1QkI/AAAAAAAAABs/6m78drpAALs/s400/Budget+Pie.jpg

We need our troops and money here at home.

We getting ready to be invaded?

If Occam Bandage supports it, that makes it legal?

"Yeah, I dont want to necessarily invade and bomb Nicaragua but... they fucked us up. I dont know how, but they fucked us up."

The Iraq War was in clear violation of the UN charter. The Afghan War was not; we claimed self-defense (allowing us to bypass the need for a resolution), NATO agreed it was self-defense, and the UN did not raise any objections to this claim. Both occupations (though what is occurring in Afghanistan and Iraq are not occupations) had UN backing, making them legal regardless of the legality of the invasion. Current operations have the express support of the Afghan and Iraqi governments, both of which are recognized by the UN, and therefore both are legal.

under international law, to unilaterally declare our actions "self defense."

Simply because we install a puppet government to manage our occupations doesn't make them legitimate. The UN didn't raise any objections to our actions but most member nations did. The only reason the body as a whole did not is because we have veto power. Of course you know these things.

But thanks for keeping the Bush doctrine alive on DU. Someone has to carry the torch. How else can we keep creating new enemies to fight if we don't try to rule the world?

that self-defense is an inherent right to all nations, and that UN authorization is not necessary for any act in self-defense. Until the UN declares an action to be aggression, a claim of self-defense stands.

You can complain about "puppet governments" and "veto power," which might well be valid claims as to the fairness of international law, but which are not related to the legality of actions under international law. Both the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (and the continuing operations in both countries, which are not occupations) were legal and authorized explicitly by the UN.

Righteousness and legality are not the same thing. It is not supporting Bush's claim of righteousness to dispute a baseless claim of illegality.

in Afghanistan. We are also violating the Geneva Conventions and the relevant provisions of the eleven International agreements dealing with the suppression and control of terrorism.

The UN does not need to "declare" our actions to be aggression for them to violate international law. It is we, under every historical legal interpretation of the UN Charter, who must prove that our actions were indeed in self defense. And we can't do that, because they weren't. Article 51 gives Member States the narrow power to defend themselves against a continuing armed assault until such time as the Security Council intervenes to maintain and restore peace and security. Article 51 does not create any right to make retaliatory attacks or to engage in the use of force to repel anticipated armed attacks.

And The UN Charter specifically prohibits the use of force to topple foreign governments (Article 2), which we indisputably did in Afghanistan. This applies even in situations where a case for self-defense has been made, which in the case of Afghanistan it has not.

Furthermore, The Geneva Convention Protocol 1 prohibits indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminate attacks are defined as including: attacks by any method or means that will either strike military and civilians objects without distinction or cause death and injury to civilians disproportionate to the "concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." The US has clearly violated this Protocol in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

And that's just for a start.

The war on, and occupation of, Afghanistan is neither righteous NOR legal. And yes, regardless of your application of the Occam Bandage/Nixon rule, it is an occupation.

Maybe you should do a little more homework next time before you recite your neocon talking points in defense of American militarism.

You're ruining the fantasy.

Afghanistan was justified. Iras was not.

And that was true realism at work. What was the UN going to do, occupy New York?

either through the Indian Wars or through the Mexican-American war (and often both). That doesn't mean that the Navy base in San Diego is an "illegal occupation."

And yet we're still aiming towards Afghanistan with the foot on the pedal.

It needs to stop. Now.

My fondest wish is that the worldwide economic collapse might finally spell the end of the rule of the warmongers.

sw

And when was the last time economic instability decreased the influence of the military-industrial complex? That was sometime around never, I think.

It's rather the opposite; bombing the shit out of other people's countries tends to leave a lot of those people starving outdoors.

And I see no harm in wishing for a more enlightened future for humanity, no matter if the odds are against it. Maybe if enough people get fed up with mass murder for the sake of enriching the wealthy and powerful few, this could be an opportunity to end their misrule.

sw

One was a fuckup, at best, from day one.

The other was a war crime and a crime against humanity.

Both need to end now, and those responsible for starting them in the first place need to face judgment in The Hague.

:patriot:

After a few years, $12-$14 billion a month is burdensome.

So is the $3+ trillion cost of these adventures.

And we can't learn from Iraq? Pack it up, pack it in. Declare victory and leave. Now.

We voted for Obama on what he was saying. How about you?

otherwise I would have preferred Kucinich.
bring the troops home now and end the goddamned wars for profit.

I never agreed with what Obama was saying about Afghanistan, but what choice was there?

People never cease to lecture those of us on the left that "the perfect is the enemy of the good". So, we went along with accepting the less-than-perfect in hopes of some good being achieved.

We gave our support fully intending to remain actively engaged in fighting against expanded militarism, no matter who won the election. Just because it's a Democrat doing it doesn't make it any more acceptable.

sw

K&R

Fat fucking chance, the deal is done. No one gets to the 'finals' without being thoroughly vetted by the 'ptb'. Omaba's trajectory was clear a year ago, all those who were aware of it and supported it are complicit, those who were not aware are fools or were fooled.

And let's get out NOW!!! Then we can use that money to help everyone in THIS country! And while we're at it, let's investigate those that made money off these unnecessary wars.

I was against the invasion of Afghanistan, because I actually knew some FACTS about the country:

1. The Soviets didn't INVADE Afghanistan. The indigenous Marxist government invited them in to help suppress a revolt by Islamic fundamentalists (aided and abetted by the U.S. BEFORE the Soviet troops came in) who were opposed to modernization, especially women's rights. You'd know that only if you were reading non-US media at the time. There was a reason that arch-conservative Margaret Thatcher didn't support the 1980 boycott of the Moscow Olympics.

2. The Mujaheddin, whom Reagan glorified as "freedom fighters," were the precursors of the Taliban.

3. The Soviets abolished veiling of women and provided equal educational opportunities in the Central Asian territories (which were already part of the Russian Empire at the time of the Communist revolution.) The women of Afghanistan (in whose name all the apologists for militarism plead their case) would have been much better off if the Soviets had been allowed a free hand. But rule number one of American policy was that no newly established Marxist-oriented government must be left free of Western interference.

4. After the Soviets left, there was civil war among the Mujaheddin factions. The CIA actually preferred the Taliban, because they were the most disciplined and were judged to be the most capable of organizing the country.

5. The Left was aware of and opposed to the Taliban years before the Bushies suddenly "discovered" the plight of Afghan women in the months leading up to the invasion.

6. Afghanistan did not instigate 9/11. They even volunteered to turn over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. if there was proof that he had masterminded the attack.

7. In any case, no one thinks that Osama bin Laden is still in Afghanistan. He's either dead or somewhere else.

8. The Taliban have been gaining strength and poppy cultivation is increasing as the economy continues to be wrecked by war. Boy, we've accomplished a lot, huh? (We could buy the whole poppy crop for much less than the price of this military action, sell some of it to pharmaceutical companies to make legal sedatives and analgesics, and destroy the rest.)

The BIg A needs some attention. IT is a debacle now, because Bush pulled crucial unconventional personnel, weapons platforms and other tools from Afghanistan in early 2002.

Iraq is not worth anymore soldiers lives at this point.

I'd say let's stay in that poor country.

or...if we sent a number of experts over there to help them get their agriculture up and running (besides opium) - and it weren't so damned dangerous - that would be a good thing.

The Taliban is an evil bunch and should be destroyed - but it's becoming evident that it may be impossible at this time.

:sarcasm:

They deserve some kind of Marshall Plan, perhaps run by the Peace Corp.

The best way to beat the Taliban and other terrorists is to promote economic prosperity among the masses. A strong middle class. Give people hope so they don't get attracted to extremist thugs.

And that's my peace plan.

And the Bush administration abandoned them after promising to help.

The problem is Peace Core volunteers or Marshal Plan II organizers (which I would whole heatedly support by the way)would not last long in a Taliban resurgent Afghanistan. They would be killed, probably along with anyone who worked with them. We are dealing with people who threw acid in a girls face for going to school. They wont hesitate to torture and kill foreign aid workers if they think it will advance their cause.

To do their work the people would have to be protected and that will take a military presence. That's why I hope for an international surge of both troops and aid to Afghanistan.

I cant ethically accept just leaving. I remember too many of the pleas for help, photos and film smuggled out by RAWA during the Taliban rule. We cant stand by while people are oppressed and tortured that way and still be the nation I want us to be, that's why I don't favor a pull out.

And do NOT let bankruptcy courts take the home of any veteran if their service to our country resulted in lost income.

As Afghanistan is what we should have finished with out invading Iraq.

Osama Bin laden and his cronies are still on the loose.

The Afgans and Iraqi's do not have to become just like us.They do not have to become crass capitalist marketplaces.They don't need jesus either.Leave them alone.End both of the wars over all this bullshit, NOW.

Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan is top priority! Count me in.