Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
1) So you don't think Saddam trying to hit a former president was enough of a reason to invade Iraq? How many American citizens would he have to have killed to justify a US invasion?
|
An attack on our homeland that kills a large number of Americans, coupled by a serious continuing threat to our nation, is sufficient to justify an invasion of a foreign country. We had that with Afghanistan -- we did not with Iraq.
Quote:
|
2) So prior to 9-11 you would have supported an invasion of Afghanistan if we suspected they had WMDs? What if we didn't suspect they had WMDs and they had not pulled of 9-11. Would you have supported an invasion?
|
Prior to 9-11? Maybe or maybe not. The hypothetical is too incomplete to really answer, although I tend to think that something like 9-11 was required to provide the perceived moral justification for our actions -- which was actually very important both domestically and internationally.
As a practical matter, I don't think we can make it policy to invade nations where possible to stop them from developing WMD. I also think it won't produce the desired result. Look at the effect such "'deterrence"had on Iran.
Quote:
|
3) Why do you think a screw up in Iraq would be so much worse than a screw up in Afghanistan. Couldn't have afghanistan turned into a bloody nightmare just like people claim Iraq is.
|
As to your first sentence: Location, location, location. Power and resources of the nations involved, their technology, etc.
As to your second sentence, you may have misunderstood me -- I suppose Afghanistan could theoreticaly have been a bloody nightmare -- but I wasn't talking about military costs, I was talking about long term costs of failed policy.
Quote:
|
Look what happened to the Russians when they got involved in an Afghan civil war. It really turned out awful for them, but turned out pretty OK for us. The only difference is they put in more troops than we did, and they supported a sitting government where we supported rebels.
|
No. I think there are lots of other differences.
(a) The Russians financed and supported a Communist insurgency that knocked over a reasonably popular and stable/legitimate Afghani "monarchy" in the 1970s -- then invaded and seized power to preserve that regime.
We united a whole bunch of groups -- including existing rebels to knock over an increasingly unpopular religious authorian state. The Taliban laid the groundwork for us.
(b) The Russians invaded solely to maintain power in their "sphere of influence". They were the only foreigners in the equation, and they wanted to keep control.
We invaded because -- and this is how we sold it in Afghanistan -- "Those al Qaeda fuckers (also foreigners) attacked us, and the Taliban (who you dislike anyway) supports them, gives them sanctuary in your country and won't/can't kick them out."
"So, we're coming to get those motherfuckers, and we want your help, and here are VAST piles of money to buy your help, Mr. Chieftain/Warlord. And we are foreign infidels, but after we're done killing those bastards we'll get the hell out and leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis."
Would you disagree that the Afgahnis understand and respect revenge and power?
(c) The entire Muslim world united in support of the Afghan cause and against the Soviets in the 1980s-- calls for jihad rang out and the Saudis opened up a huge spigot of cash (and we helped out a LOT in the mid to late stages).
Because of 9-11, most of the Muslim world (at least the governments) more or less decided that Al Qaeda -- who opposed them as well -- and the Taliban had it coming So, they either shut up and stayed out of the way or provided quiet support. And nobody (except elements in Pakistan) helped the Taliban.
Just my 2 cents.
S_A_M
