The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by pol pot noodles
How is the war in Afghanistan unjustified?


Afghanistan is not now, and has never been, British territory which we have a duty to protect. The Afghans do not want us there and most Brits don't want us there either. The only reason for us being there is the idea that, by beating down enough of the insurgents, we would reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks in this country. It is largely accepted now that, when we pull out, that risk will not have significantly declined, Afghanistan is almost sure to descend into civil war and all at the cost of a great many lives and vast sums of money.

How can you suggest it's justified?
Original post by kingsholmmad
Afghanistan is not now, and has never been, British territory which we have a duty to protect. The Afghans do not want us there and most Brits don't want us there either. The only reason for us being there is the idea that, by beating down enough of the insurgents, we would reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks in this country. It is largely accepted now that, when we pull out, that risk will not have significantly declined, Afghanistan is almost sure to descend into civil war and all at the cost of a great many lives and vast sums of money.

How can you suggest it's justified?


The war in Afghanistan is not about any 'duty to protect'. That's mission creep. The aim is, as you say, to beat down the insurgents. We all saw on 9/11 that Al Qaeda is capable and willing to bring the fight to our doorstep. The fact that the war has become a public relations nightmare is irrelevant to the justification of entering the war and continuing to be there.
Original post by 2ndClass
This isn't the 1980s any more. The Argentine military is a much more equipped force than it was in 82. The country itself now has the financial resources to support a war effort as opposed to 2 decades ago. The geographical accessibility is much more favourable to Argentina and it would be a logistical nightmare to resupply the British army if the Argentines do indeed capture the Island given the regional hostility to what they perceive as imperialism..


You're right, this isn't the 1980's any more. This is 2012, where Britain has invested heavily in the defence of the Falkland Islands.
Back in '82, Britain had 70 Marines on the island. Now we have 1,200 troops, 3 warships, Rapier air defence missiles and 4 typhoon fighters, as well as RAF Mount Pleasant for rapid response reinforcements by air.
Talk of British difficulties of recapturing the islands are moot, because Argentina is never ever ever ever ever ever ever going to successfully defeat the garrison.

Original post by 2ndClass

This is indeed true but that muscle takes a lot of resources to be flexed, something Britain doesn't have at the moment. Argentina itself has modernized its military exponentially over the last two decades and if it does enter into a conventional war with Britain, the toll both human and financial would be incredibly costly.


I don't know where you've gotten that idea.

The Falklands War was 30 years ago. "But in military terms it is 100 years ago," says [Professor Michael] Clarke. British forces have advanced about 60 years in sophistication, but Argentine forces have barely improved, still using military hardware from the 1970s and 80s. [Lt Col Ewen] Southby-Tailyour says they no longer have the landing craft to make an amphibious landing possible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373


Original post by 2ndClass
Not only is the British public unwilling to send more soldiers into war, I don't think there is the political will to justify it hence the lack of sabre rattling from Britain. I don't even think the Argentine public would support Kirchner in a war.


You have absolutely no basis to make that claim. The British public generally does not appreciate sending troops to fight seemingly never ending wars in the Middle East, but the Falkland Islands is British territory populated by British citizens that is being threatened by a foreign hostile power. The idea that the public would not support military action to protect our bethren is ludicrous. The reason there is no sabre rattling from Britain is because, I hazard to guess, the Foreign Office is attempting to give the impression that Argentina's petty, whiny, bitchy antics are beneath us.
Troll6.jpg


I know you're trolling, you've made it obvious you're trolling and yet, sadly, I just can't stop myself.

Original post by pol pot noodles
The war in Afghanistan is not about any 'duty to protect'. That's mission creep. The aim is, as you say, to beat down the insurgents.

If it's mission creep, it is at least giving marginally more justification to our presence there. Otherwise, what you are saying is that we have no higher purpose there than to slaughter a bunch of natives.

We all saw on 9/11 that Al Qaeda is capable and willing to bring the fight to our doorstep. The fact that the war has become a public relations nightmare is irrelevant to the justification of entering the war and continuing to be there.

Yes, and having invaded their land and killed their people, without justification, we have now given them a lot more reason to "bring the fight to our doorstep."

I'll ask you again, how does that justify our being there?
Original post by kingsholmmad
Troll6.jpg


I know you're trolling, you've made it obvious you're trolling and yet, sadly, I just can't stop myself.


Oh dear, someone can't handle a debate. Even though I haven't said anything offensive or aggresive, I've expressed a different opinion to the mighty kingsholmmad, so I must be trolling :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Original post by kingsholmmad

If it's mission creep, it is at least giving marginally more justification to our presence there. Otherwise, what you are saying is that we have no higher purpose there than to slaughter a bunch of natives.


No, that is not what I'm saying at all in anyway slightest.

Original post by kingsholmmad

Yes, and having invaded their land and killed their people, without justification, we have now given them a lot more reason to "bring the fight to our doorstep."

I'll ask you again, how does that justify our being there?



Without justification? Their former government harboured an organisation that flew two planes into the twin towers, one into the pentagon and crashed another one, killing 3,000 civilians. That was just one of numerous attacks committed by Al Qaeda on 'the west'. The Taliban then refused to hand over the leaders of this organisation to American authorities. If you pull your head out of your naive hippy commune ass, you'd see that that is pretty reasonable justification to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban regime.
Original post by pol pot noodles
Oh dear, someone can't handle a debate. Even though I haven't said anything offensive or aggresive, I've expressed a different opinion to the mighty kingsholmmad, so I must be trolling

Yeah, like I say, sad innit?

No, that is not what I'm saying at all in anyway slightest.

So precisely how do you propose to "beat down the insurgents" (your words as well as mine) without killing natives?



Without justification? Their former government harboured an organisation that flew two planes into the twin towers, one into the pentagon and crashed another one, killing 3,000 civilians. That was just one of numerous attacks committed by Al Qaeda on 'the west'. The Taliban then refused to hand over the leaders of this organisation to American authorities. If you pull your head out of your naive hippy commune ass, you'd see that that is pretty reasonable justification to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban regime.

If it's about harbouring terrorists, first stop should have been Saudi Arabia. However, I shall take the unmitigated liberty of assuming that we both know why the US (and therefore the UK) didn't fancy having a pop at the Saudis. What's more, if one major and a few minor terrorist attacks are justification for enforced violent regime change, how much more justification does a decade of concerted, ineffective military carnage wreaked by a hated foreign power provide for a few more terrorist attacks? The West's overbearing, arrogant attitude is exactly what caused 9/11; isn't what we've done in Afghanistan almost certain to cause exactly the same thing again?

Besides, you've never seen my ass; I can tell you it's not a naive hippy commune one and, for all you know, it could be a beautiful creamy-white, silky-smooth one. I bet yours is all hairy and wrinkly.
Original post by kingsholmmad
Yeah, like I say, sad innit?


What's sad is the fact that you can't handle a debate without crying troll. I suggest you actually look up the meaning of the word.

Original post by kingsholmmad

So precisely how do you propose to "beat down the insurgents" (your words as well as mine) without killing natives?


We're not there to 'kill the natives'; that implies indiscriminate murder of all Afghans. We're there to defeat the Taliban, Al Qaeda and related groups.

Original post by kingsholmmad

If it's about harbouring terrorists, first stop should have been Saudi Arabia. However, I shall take the unmitigated liberty of assuming that we both know why the US (and therefore the UK) didn't fancy having a pop at the Saudis.


We both know the politics of why we don't just up and invade Saudia Arabia, and the fact is that the Al Qaeda operation itself was primarily based in Afghanistan. Not Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.

Original post by kingsholmmad

What's more, if one major and a few minor terrorist attacks are justification for enforced violent regime change,


You think the Madrid bombings were minor? The African embassy bombings were minor? The USS Cole attack was minor? And you have the nerver to call me a troll? What do you think we should have done, write a strongly worded letter asking them if they could please stop?

Original post by kingsholmmad

how much more justification does a decade of concerted, ineffective military carnage wreaked by a hated foreign power provide for a few more terrorist attacks?


The fact that the Americans have once again failed to grasp the concept of hearts and minds, and the fact that the war has become a public relations nightmare is irrelevant to the whether or not there is justification for fighting it. If Britain had lost WW2, that wouldn't have changed the fact that on Sep 3, 1939, it was justififed in declaring war on Germany.

Original post by kingsholmmad

The West's overbearing, arrogant attitude is exactly what caused 9/11; isn't what we've done in Afghanistan almost certain to cause exactly the same thing again?


What overbearing, arrogant attitude? Do you even know why Al Qaeda is at war with America? Because it had the nerve to defend Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, and had the nerve to station troops there afterwards at the request of the Saudi regime. What overbearing arrogance, eh?

Original post by kingsholmmad

Besides, you've never seen my ass; I can tell you it's not a naive hippy commune one and, for all you know, it could be a beautiful creamy-white, silky-smooth one. I bet yours is all hairy and wrinkly.


Yeah, sure.
Reply 127
I think:
957-come-at-me-bro.jpg
Would be the best response. (and watch them not do anything)
Original post by pol pot noodles
What's sad is the fact that you can't handle a debate without crying troll. I suggest you actually look up the meaning of the word.

I was quite surprised to find that "troll" is listed in the quite extensive dictionary that I have of archaic words. Evidently "troll" is one of the many English words to have gone out of fashion before regaining popularity. In its archaic sense, it was a verb meaning "to trundle". How apt. You've been trundling all around this debate, doing all you can to avoid answering as many of my questions as you can.

In my defence I would suggest that I have directly answered a much higher percentage of the questions asked of me than you have and I've done so without having to resort to the slightly desperate tactic of dragging your erogenous zones into the matter.


We're not there to 'kill the natives'; that implies indiscriminate murder of all Afghans. We're there to defeat the Taliban, Al Qaeda and related groups.

You've said yourself that anything beyond beating down Al Qaeda and the Taliban was mission creep so I'll ask you again; how do you intend using the military to defeat the Taliban, Al Qaeda and related groups without killing natives (bearing in mind that that is precisely what most of them are)?


We both know the politics of why we don't just up and invade Saudia Arabia, and the fact is that the Al Qaeda operation itself was primarily based in Afghanistan. Not Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.



You think the Madrid bombings were minor? The African embassy bombings were minor? The USS Cole attack was minor? And you have the nerver to call me a troll? What do you think we should have done, write a strongly worded letter asking them if they could please stop?

I am assuming that you are not attaching any greater value to Western lives than to any other human life. If that is the case then, yes, those instances you provide are pretty minor. Violent events on that scale take place every day in Africa or the Middle East. Our media just doesn't give them the same coverage. I'm trusting you to be sufficiently knowledgeable to be aware of that so, yes, I call you a troll and no, I don't suggest a strongly-worded letter. Though, to be fair, that would have been a much, much cheaper and faster way of achieving exactly the same as this decade-long war has achieved.


The fact that the Americans have once again failed to grasp the concept of hearts and minds, and the fact that the war has become a public relations nightmare is irrelevant to the whether or not there is justification for fighting it. If Britain had lost WW2, that wouldn't have changed the fact that on Sep 3, 1939, it was justififed in declaring war on Germany.

The "hearts and minds" argument is entirely central to the war because the Americans' previous history in that area. They have repeatedly proven themselves utterly incapable of anything so subtle, especially with a people so different and so opposed to themselves. They knew it wouldn't work therefore they knew it would end in fighting rather than persuading therefore they knew their military presence could only be justified if they could guarantee a military solution. And they couldn't.

If Britain had acted unilaterally in that way, we would have been universally condemned for our imperialist, colonial attitude. However, since you would probably have apoplexy were I to suggest that the Americans were empire-building, I won't bother.

The fact that you choose to use a fascist-instigated total war of self-defence as justification for a right-wing-instigated counter-insurgency overseas offensive just furthers my belief that you're trolling me. And that's trolling in one of its contemporary senses (though I am currently unable to prove that you are not also a cave-dwelling dwarf).


What overbearing, arrogant attitude? Do you even know why Al Qaeda is at war with America? Because it had the nerve to defend Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, and had the nerve to station troops there afterwards at the request of the Saudi regime. What overbearing arrogance, eh?


Yes, one fairly convenient example. Perhaps you could explain how there is no arrogance in America's practice of preaching to the world about human rights whilst keeping Guantanamo open? Or, since you've introduced WWII, the justification for America's military presence, even now, in Germany and Japan?

All of this, however, is pretty much irrelevant to the original question. If the operation of Guantanamo is not arrogant, then Britain choosing to defend her own territory is even less arrogant. If invading and attacking a foreign people in a foreign land can be justified, how much more easily can defence of Britain's own people in Britain's own territory be justified.
Original post by kingsholmmad
I was quite surprised to find that "troll" is listed in the quite extensive dictionary that I have of archaic words. Evidently "troll" is one of the many English words to have gone out of fashion before regaining popularity. In its archaic sense, it was a verb meaning "to trundle". How apt. You've been trundling all around this debate, doing all you can to avoid answering as many of my questions as you can.


Troll, in the modern new age internet sense, is someone who goes onto an internet forum and posts inflammatory and offensive material for the sole purpose of angering people. Since you posted a 'don't feed to troll' sign, that's the meaning of troll you were going for. So, exactly what that I posted was inflammatory and offensive?

Original post by kingsholmmad

In my defence I would suggest that I have directly answered a much higher percentage of the questions asked of me than you have and I've done so without having to resort to the slightly desperate tactic of dragging your erogenous zones into the matter.


In my defence, you're talking out of your arse. Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean I haven't answered. You've already shown that you can't handle the concept of debating without dismissing the other side as a troll.


Original post by kingsholmmad

You've said yourself that anything beyond beating down Al Qaeda and the Taliban was mission creep so I'll ask you again; how do you intend using the military to defeat the Taliban, Al Qaeda and related groups without killing natives (bearing in mind that that is precisely what most of them are)?


You've evidently phrased it as 'killing natives' to imply the indiscriminate killing of all Afghans or something more sinister than what is actually happening, because otherwise obviously any war involves technically 'killing natives'. Coalition troops aren't killing members of these orgainsations because they are Afghan, they are killing members of these organisations because they are members of these organisations.


Original post by kingsholmmad

I am assuming that you are not attaching any greater value to Western lives than to any other human life. If that is the case then, yes, those instances you provide are pretty minor. Violent events on that scale take place every day in Africa or the Middle East. Our media just doesn't give them the same coverage. I'm trusting you to be sufficiently knowledgeable to be aware of that so, yes, I call you a troll and no, I don't suggest a strongly-worded letter. Though, to be fair, that would have been a much, much cheaper and faster way of achieving exactly the same as this decade-long war has achieved.


Of course I attach a greater valute to 'western lives', I live in the West. I place the greatest value of all to British life. Any guesses why?
Again, I ask you, what do you propose we should have done? Because violence happens on a daily basis in the middle east, does that mean we should just ignore it when it happens to us, and we know who the perpetrators are?


Original post by kingsholmmad

The "hearts and minds" argument is entirely central to the war because the Americans' previous history in that area. They have repeatedly proven themselves utterly incapable of anything so subtle, especially with a people so different and so opposed to themselves. They knew it wouldn't work therefore they knew it would end in fighting rather than persuading therefore they knew their military presence could only be justified if they could guarantee a military solution. And they couldn't.


They knew it wouldn't work, did they? You're a mind reader, are you? Or are you basing that on the well known stereotype of America's can't do attitude? :rolleyes:

Original post by kingsholmmad

If Britain had acted unilaterally in that way, we would have been universally condemned for our imperialist, colonial attitude. However, since you would probably have apoplexy were I to suggest that the Americans were empire-building, I won't bother.


No, we wouldn't, you silly naive person. You might dismiss 3,000 civilian deaths as nothing to cry about, but it means something in international diplomacy. Was Britain labelled an imperialist when it intervened in Sierra Leone? No, so why would be labelled as such when we have an actual casus belli?

Original post by kingsholmmad

The fact that you choose to use a fascist-instigated total war of self-defence as justification for a right-wing-instigated counter-insurgency overseas offensive just furthers my belief that you're trolling me. And that's trolling in one of its contemporary senses (though I am currently unable to prove that you are not also a cave-dwelling dwarf).


Do you even read what you write? Fascist-instigated total war? Right-wing-instigated counter-insurgency overseas offensive? And you call me a troll? Seriously? You are evidently one of those pretentious liberals who has the delusional idea that a liberal point of view is automatically correct simply because it is liberal, and anyone who doesn't agree with them must be intentionally trolling, because the idea that they simply have a different point of view is ridiculous, isn't it?
As Winston Churchill said 'The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists.' Me, have a different opinion to the mighty kingsholmmad? Yes, that must make me a troll!

Original post by kingsholmmad

Yes, one fairly convenient example. Perhaps you could explain how there is no arrogance in America's practice of preaching to the world about human rights whilst keeping Guantanamo open? Or, since you've introduced WWII, the justification for America's military presence, even now, in Germany and Japan?


What are you talking about? How exactly has this got anything to do with the war in Afghanistan? The question here is 'do you think that Al Qaeda has a genuine grievance with America? Do you think that America was wrong for defending Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, and continuing to garrison the country at the request of the Saudi government?' Believe it or not, but I don't think Osama bin Laden actually cared much about America's military presence in Germany and Japan when he concocted the plan for the 9/11 attacks.


Original post by kingsholmmad

All of this, however, is pretty much irrelevant to the original question. If the operation of Guantanamo is not arrogant, then Britain choosing to defend her own territory is even less arrogant. If invading and attacking a foreign people in a foreign land can be justified, how much more easily can defence of Britain's own people in Britain's own territory be justified.


The original question was, How is the war in Afghanistan unjustified?
Your ramblings about what goes on in Guantanamo Bay somehow being the standard by which Britain can and can not defend it's own territory and can and can not wage war is neither relevant nor wanted.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by I do
Who needs a military power close to its territory? specially country which whom they had a war with! Imagine Argentina makes an military base somewhere on the Isles of Scilly


I'm pretty sure the Falklanders would not be requiring a British military presence there if Argentina hadn't invaded it. We've only had military bases there since the 80s, it's not like we've been intimidating them for hundreds of years.

Your Scilly Isles analogy does not work because there is an established community there, whereas the Falklands never had anything other than naval outposts. You are being too simplistic.
Reply 131
Original post by anarchism101
I'd say they have more of a claim having their entire country near than the UK does because it settled a few people there a long time ago purely for the purpose of getting resources like this whose descendants happen to still be there.


Is that not how Argentina itself came into fruition, however instead of settling an uninhabited island, the native people of what is today Argentina were massacred?
Reply 132
Original post by 2ndClass
This isn't the 1980s any more. The Argentine military is a much more equipped force than it was in 82.


No this is untrue, the Argentine military has actually regressed and compared to the days of the military junta is much less powerful than it was in the 1980s, nor can it rely on the large numbers of conscripts like last time.
Original post by patrickinator
The Argentine government is now looking to take back the Falklands creating more political pressure and instability between us the the Argies. What do you think the UK government should do now??

SORRY TITLE SHOULD BE ARGENTINA NOT ARGENTINIA SORRY!!!!



Its time we the people - Argentinian and British - stop our leaders leading us into these pointless bloody disputes where we lose our friends and family members and the only people that win are the arms dealers.
I just think (as in our government and possibly the Argentine govt) want a war, as Thatcher did, to boost their popularity. Nothing like a war in a recession. I've just got back from Argentina - lovely people - I hate to think of some stupid political dispute causing more people to get killed. There is no doubt a diplomatic solution - whether our leaders (both Argentinian and British) want a diplomatic solution I don't know - war is big business.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 134
Concede the islands?

Notably, the dominant view in the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at Cambridge is that the British title to the territory is unfounded, and that the islands should be subject to Argentinian sovereignty.
Original post by pol pot noodles
Troll, in the modern new age internet sense, is someone who goes onto an internet forum and posts inflammatory and offensive material for the sole purpose of angering people. Since you posted a 'don't feed to troll' sign, that's the meaning of troll you were going for. So, exactly what that I posted was inflammatory and offensive?

That's why I like English. It's such a dynamic, changing language; it's like a living thing. The speed at which it's changing at the moment, however, means that there is almost always room for confusion or misunderstanding. My understanding of "troll", in its modern sense, is someone who posts something which they know to be wrong or ignorant, purely to gain a reaction. But, being an old fogey, I'm probably wrong. I don't believe that you have posted anything inflammatory or offensive (well, apart from your fixation with my arse).


In my defence, you're talking out of your arse. Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean I haven't answered. You've already shown that you can't handle the concept of debating without dismissing the other side as a troll.




You've evidently phrased it as 'killing natives' to imply the indiscriminate killing of all Afghans or something more sinister than what is actually happening, because otherwise obviously any war involves technically 'killing natives'. Coalition troops aren't killing members of these orgainsations because they are Afghan, they are killing members of these organisations because they are members of these organisations.

True enough. However, any military tactician with the slightest relevant knowledge (eg the Americans planning this campaign) would know that, in the sort of action they started in Afghanistan, there would be civilian casualties, probably significant numbers of them. With reference to the original question, I still don't understand how you can consider the Afghan "collateral" as more justified than that which would be incurred in the Falklands when that could not possibly be worse, even in the worst-case scenario.



Of course I attach a greater valute to 'western lives', I live in the West. I place the greatest value of all to British life. Any guesses why?
Again, I ask you, what do you propose we should have done? Because violence happens on a daily basis in the middle east, does that mean we should just ignore it when it happens to us, and we know who the perpetrators are?

Yer see, the mistake I've been making is crediting you with the basic human decency (or nasty, hippy liberalism, depending on point of view) of treating all human life as equal. Careless of me. And, yes, again I say that we should have responded. I just don't see that the Americans having run out of things to keep their soldiers occupied as justification for sacrificing our soldiers and our money.



They knew it wouldn't work, did they? You're a mind reader, are you? Or are you basing that on the well known stereotype of America's can't do attitude? :rolleyes:

No, I'm basing it on America's historical record of always failing to win hearts and minds when they need to.

No, we wouldn't, you silly naive person. You might dismiss 3,000 civilian deaths as nothing to cry about, but it means something in international diplomacy. Was Britain labelled an imperialist when it intervened in Sierra Leone? No, so why would be labelled as such when we have an actual casus belli?

You are entirely correct to attribute importance to 3,000 civilian deaths since that is pretty much exactly the quantity, according to latest figures, who die in Afghanistan every year.

Do you even read what you write? Fascist-instigated total war? Right-wing-instigated counter-insurgency overseas offensive? And you call me a troll? Seriously? You are evidently one of those pretentious liberals who has the delusional idea that a liberal point of view is automatically correct simply because it is liberal, and anyone who doesn't agree with them must be intentionally trolling, because the idea that they simply have a different point of view is ridiculous, isn't it?
As Winston Churchill said 'The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists.' Me, have a different opinion to the mighty kingsholmmad? Yes, that must make me a troll!

No, as I said, using WWII as justification for the Afghanistan war is what makes you a troll.


What are you talking about? How exactly has this got anything to do with the war in Afghanistan? The question here is 'do you think that Al Qaeda has a genuine grievance with America? Do you think that America was wrong for defending Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, and continuing to garrison the country at the request of the Saudi government?' Believe it or not, but I don't think Osama bin Laden actually cared much about America's military presence in Germany and Japan when he concocted the plan for the 9/11 attacks.




The original question was, How is the war in Afghanistan unjustified?
Your ramblings about what goes on in Guantanamo Bay somehow being the standard by which Britain can and can not defend it's own territory and can and can not wage war is neither relevant nor wanted.

No, the original question was what the UK should do about Argentina and, frankly, I would prefer to get back to that because you are no more likely to convince me of our justification for being there than I am to convince you that we're going to lose. And, since we've come back to the original question, I still haven't heard why you consider it so wrong (or, at least, pointless) for Britain to defend our own territory.
We should do nothing. We should merely ensure that their measures against the Islands fail - attempt to offset Argentinian sanctions against the Island. That means we have kept the high ground and Argentina remains the aggressor.
Original post by Augustine Leudar
Its time we the people - Argentinian and British - stop our leaders leading us into these pointless bloody disputes where we lose our friends and family members and the only people that win are the arms dealers.
I just think (as in our government and possibly the Argentine govt) want a war, as Thatcher did, to boost their popularity. Nothing like a war in a recession. I've just got back from Argentina - lovely people - I hate to think of some stupid political dispute causing more people to get killed. There is no doubt a diplomatic solution - whether our leaders (both Argentinian and British) want a diplomatic solution I don't know - war is big business.


There is NO diplomatic solution to this.
Original post by kingsholmmad
That's why I like English. It's such a dynamic, changing language; it's like a living thing. The speed at which it's changing at the moment, however, means that there is almost always room for confusion or misunderstanding. My understanding of "troll", in its modern sense, is someone who posts something which they know to be wrong or ignorant, purely to gain a reaction. But, being an old fogey, I'm probably wrong. I don't believe that you have posted anything inflammatory or offensive (well, apart from your fixation with my arse).


Oh dear, you prove my point that you are nothing but a prententious liberal who believes that their point of view is the only point of view. Believe it or not, but not everyone has your political beliefs. Just get that into your brain, because your arrogance and ignorance is both startling and embarrassing. Please point me to exactly where in the Book of Life has the idea of being pro-war in Afghanistan been debunked as certified wrong and 'trolling'?

Original post by kingsholmmad

True enough. However, any military tactician with the slightest relevant knowledge (eg the Americans planning this campaign) would know that, in the sort of action they started in Afghanistan, there would be civilian casualties, probably significant numbers of them. With reference to the original question, I still don't understand how you can consider the Afghan "collateral" as more justified than that which would be incurred in the Falklands when that could not possibly be worse, even in the worst-case scenario.


So basically, your a staunch pacifist, and you oppose all war in general. Because people tend to die in war. That has no bearing on whether an incident is a casus belli for war and that war is 'justified'. I don't know why you are referencing the Faklands; I never said that I wouldn't support the defence of the Faklands.

Original post by kingsholmmad

Yer see, the mistake I've been making is crediting you with the basic human decency (or nasty, hippy liberalism, depending on point of view) of treating all human life as equal. Careless of me. And, yes, again I say that we should have responded. I just don't see that the Americans having run out of things to keep their soldiers occupied as justification for sacrificing our soldiers and our money.


I obviously made the mistake of crediting you with the oversight to understand the concept that the whole world isn't pacifist, nor has pacifism been accepted as the mainstream 'correct option'.
I support war when we have a genuine greivance. I belive that the 9/11 attacks warranted the invasion and toppling of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. That, in my opinion, makes the war 'justified'. You can't just dismiss that point of view because you think that war in general is wrong.

Original post by kingsholmmad

No, I'm basing it on America's historical record of always failing to win hearts and minds when they need to.


That doesn't mean they didn't try, nor does it mean that they don't have the arrogance to think that they can this time.

Original post by kingsholmmad

You are entirely correct to attribute importance to 3,000 civilian deaths since that is pretty much exactly the quantity, according to latest figures, who die in Afghanistan every year.


And how many are the direct result of the Coalition? Because there was and is a bilateral civil war going on between the Northern Alliance (now the current Afghan government) and the Taliban. Don't let facts get in your way though. It's all the fault of evil western imperialism!

Original post by kingsholmmad

No, as I said, using WWII as justification for the Afghanistan war is what makes you a troll.


I didn't say that WW2 was justification for the war in Afghanistan. The WW2 analogy was in reference to this idea that because the war is so unpopular or that we might 'lose', that makes the decision to invade in the first place retrospectively unjustified. Your inability to grasp and process different threads of logic without dismissing them as trolling is really quite remarkable.

Original post by kingsholmmad

No, the original question was what the UK should do about Argentina and, frankly, I would prefer to get back to that because you are no more likely to convince me of our justification for being there than I am to convince you that we're going to lose. And, since we've come back to the original question, I still haven't heard why you consider it so wrong (or, at least, pointless) for Britain to defend our own territory.


That's the original post, the original question was the side debate regarding the justification of the war in Afghanistan.
And you haven't heard why I consider it so wrong and pointless for Britain to defend the Falklands because I didn't post that. Infact I have never posted that, I have never said that, thought that or indicated that position in anyway ever. People who know me would tell you that I am the most pro-'defence of the Falkland Islands' person in the entire God-damn world. You are clearly mixing me up with another user.
Original post by pol pot noodles
Oh dear, you prove my point that you are nothing but a prententious liberal who believes that their point of view is the only point of view. Believe it or not, but not everyone has your political beliefs. Just get that into your brain, because your arrogance and ignorance is both startling and embarrassing. Please point me to exactly where in the Book of Life has the idea of being pro-war in Afghanistan been debunked as certified wrong and 'trolling'?

And you prove my belief that the introduction of name-calling to a debate is invariably inversely proportional to the validity of the argument of the one doing the name-calling.


So basically, your a staunch pacifist, and you oppose all war in general. Because people tend to die in war. That has no bearing on whether an incident is a casus belli for war and that war is 'justified'. I don't know why you are referencing the Faklands; I never said that I wouldn't support the defence of the Faklands.

War is necessary; I have not said anything other than that; that's (partly) why I have been saying all along that, if it proves to be the best option, we should not hesitate to take military action in the Falklands. I am referencing the Falklands because that is what this thread is about.


I obviously made the mistake of crediting you with the oversight to understand the concept that the whole world isn't pacifist, nor has pacifism been accepted as the mainstream 'correct option'.
I support war when we have a genuine greivance. I belive that the 9/11 attacks warranted the invasion and toppling of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. That, in my opinion, makes the war 'justified'. You can't just dismiss that point of view because you think that war in general is wrong.

Pacifism is frequently self-defeating and does not appeal to me. I have no problem with getting rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, it can't happen soon enough. My problem is that I cannot see how spending a decade killing thousands of innocent civilians so that we can then walk away with the Taliban still in charge, is the best way of achieving that. Your problem is that you consider (as you have repeatedly said) that action justified.

I don't pretend to know what the best answer is. The White House and Downing St combined obviously don't know, so how can I? I just don't believe what they've been doing is it.


That doesn't mean they didn't try, nor does it mean that they don't have the arrogance to think that they can this time.

No. It means they haven't learned their lesson.


And how many are the direct result of the Coalition? Because there was and is a bilateral civil war going on between the Northern Alliance (now the current Afghan government) and the Taliban. Don't let facts get in your way though. It's all the fault of evil western imperialism!



I didn't say that WW2 was justification for the war in Afghanistan. The WW2 analogy was in reference to this idea that because the war is so unpopular or that we might 'lose', that makes the decision to invade in the first place retrospectively unjustified. Your inability to grasp and process different threads of logic without dismissing them as trolling is really quite remarkable.



That's the original post, the original question was the side debate regarding the justification of the war in Afghanistan.
And you haven't heard why I consider it so wrong and pointless for Britain to defend the Falklands because I didn't post that. Infact I have never posted that, I have never said that, thought that or indicated that position in anyway ever. People who know me would tell you that I am the most pro-'defence of the Falkland Islands' person in the entire God-damn world. You are clearly mixing me up with another user.

Yes and it's the original post ie the theme of this thread that I'm trying to get back to. Though why we're still talking is not immediately apparent if your position is so in favour of defending the Falklands that it implies you would look favourably on a pre-emptive strike.

Latest