HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Second week in a row, no ...

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:00 PM

Second week in a row, no soldiers kill in Afghanistan (or Iraq)

Argue all you want about policies and how we got here and where we are going, but this is great news for the soldiers and their families. May this trend continue.

24 replies, 1260 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Second week in a row, no soldiers kill in Afghanistan (or Iraq) (Original post)
nobodyspecial Feb 2013 OP
SidDithers Feb 2013 #1
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #2
MadHound Feb 2013 #3
nobodyspecial Feb 2013 #4
MadHound Feb 2013 #5
ProSense Feb 2013 #7
MadHound Feb 2013 #9
ProSense Feb 2013 #14
ProSense Feb 2013 #8
MadHound Feb 2013 #10
ProSense Feb 2013 #15
MadHound Feb 2013 #17
bhikkhu Feb 2013 #19
customerserviceguy Feb 2013 #11
MadHound Feb 2013 #13
Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #20
customerserviceguy Feb 2013 #24
Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #6
customerserviceguy Feb 2013 #12
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #16
Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #18
nobodyspecial Feb 2013 #21
11 Bravo Feb 2013 #22
nobodyspecial Feb 2013 #23

Response to nobodyspecial (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:01 PM

1. DU rec...

very good news.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:19 PM

2. Excellent!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:39 PM

3. Hmm, how many Afghan civilians were killed?

 

What about their families? How much further damage did we inflict? How many more orphans and widows did we create?

Rah, rah, no dead soldiers. Yet we continue to kill and destroy in Afghanistan for absolutely no good reason. It is past time that we brought our soldiers home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:45 PM

4. As I said in my OP, argue all you want

This was just focusing on the fact that no soldiers died. Sorry if you can't celebrate that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:49 PM

5. Great, no dead soldiers,

 

But that doesn't tell the whole story. You need to include the casualties from the other side as well.

Our presence in Afghanistan is illegal and immoral, and we need leave now, if not yesterday.

You want to see me celebrate, bring our troops home, then there will be no deaths of our soldiers, and no deaths of Afghan citizens. Then I will celebrate. Until then, I cannot celebrate our ongoing massacre of an entire people for no good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:56 PM

7. Why

"Our presence in Afghanistan is illegal and immoral, and we need leave now, if not yesterday."

...is it "illegal"? Congress, including some of it's biggest critics like Dennis Kucinich, voted to launch the war. Congress has not voted to withdraw. The President has set a timetable for withdrawal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:05 PM

9. Here,

 

"The U.N. Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the Sept. 11 attacks and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; and the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information. In addition, it urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism.

The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the charter because the attacks on Sept. 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after Sept. 11, or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly. "
http://www.alternet.org/story/93473/afghanistan%3A_the_other_illegal_war

"Though President Obama has frequently spoken of “renewing our commitment” to international law, he escalated military action in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan has been illegal from its inception, contrary to conventional wisdom that the horrific crimes of 9/11 and the Taliban’s “safe haven” for Al Qaeda justified full-scale war. America’s use of military force to punish, seize, kill, or dismantle Al Qaeda and the Taliban violates the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, and key provisions of eleven international agreements dealing with the suppression and control of terrorism.3 U.S. and NATO actions constitute war crimes pursuant to the Rome Statute, the 2002 treaty establishing the International Criminal Court to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.4

The UN Charter prohibits the use and threatened use of any force in member states’ international relations; states must settle their disputes by peaceful means. It prohibits the use of force to topple foreign governments. Article 2 of the Charter prohibits the use or threatened use of forces against another state. The Article 2 prohibition applies to all force and is a rule of customary international law. Professor Francis Boyle reminds us,

Bush Jr. went to the UN Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. He failed. You have to remember that. This war has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council . . . . It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan.5

Article 51 of the Charter, which defines member states’ right of self-defense, does not create any right to make retaliatory attacks or to engage in the use of force to repel anticipated armed attacks. Former Guild President Marjorie Cohn explains that Operation Enduring Freedom was not legitimate self-defense under the Charter because the 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity, not armed attacks by another country. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the U.S. after 9/11, and the necessity for self-defense must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”6 President Bush stretched traditional notions of self-defense by assigning the Taliban regime responsibility based on “harboring” Osama bin Laden and his operation.

Not only was the war unjustified, but there is mounting factual evidence that the war is “demonstrably criminal in its execution,” says Canadian military veteran John McNamer. In a brief sent to members of Parliament, McNamer documents substantial allegations of illegal torture; illegal and abusive detainments – sometimes leading to deaths in custody; civilian deaths from bombing and other indiscriminate use of force, and collusion with illegal “renditions” of individuals to and from other countries for purposes of torture.7 All national and international law forbid the killing of non-combatants. Total civilian deaths caused by U.S. led military actions are estimated at 8,991 to 28,583 direct and indirect deaths.8"
http://www.nlgmass.org/2011/02/war-on-afghanistan-is-illegal/

You want me to keep going, or do you get the idea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:21 PM

14. Is it your understanding

"The U.N. Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the Sept. 11 attacks and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; and the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information. In addition, it urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism.

The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the charter because the attacks on Sept. 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after Sept. 11, or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly. "


...that Congress can only declare war if the U.N. is on board? Who was the government of Afghanistan? How exactly did the U.N. see these resolutions being enforced with the Taliban in power?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:00 PM

8. Another thing:

"You need to include the casualties from the other side as well. "

...Non-Americans are still dying in Iraq.

"You want to see me celebrate, bring our troops home, then there will be no deaths of our soldiers, and no deaths of Afghan citizens. Then I will celebrate. Until then, I cannot celebrate our ongoing massacre of an entire people for no good reason. "

Are you celebrating that the troops are home from Iraq? No soldiers are dying there, but Iraqis continue to be killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #8)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:07 PM

10. Why are you trying to change the subject?

 

I was speaking about the war in Afghanistan, yet now you are trying to twist my words, why? Because you find it difficult to defend our illegal, immoral war in Afghanistan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:23 PM

15. "was speaking about the war in Afghanistan"

I asked about Iraq, which is also mentioned in the OP. You appear to want to ignore Iraq because it destroys your argument.

The war in Iraq was illegal, it was based on a lie. The country had no WMD and had no role in the 9/11 attacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:25 PM

17. And what argument is that pray tell,

 

The one you're having in your own head?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:49 PM

19. The Taliban has been killing civilians as a matter of policy for years



I don't see current numbers available, but the trend there is pretty clear.

I'm encouraged about the ongoing withdrawal of troops, but have no illusions that the killing of civilians will decrease; very little of it has to do with us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:09 PM

11. See, that's the problem you face by starting your OP

Some here feel that dead soldiers make war more "fair", and they also have the irrational belief that if we expose more troops to being killed, then we'll be less likely to make war. Five thousand years of human history have firmly refuted that.

I share in your celebration of this milestone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:11 PM

13. It isn't a matter of "fair", or exposing more troops to death,

 

It is the fact that we need to pull out our troops yesterday, to stop them from being killed, and sparing the Afghan population from our deadly presence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:57 PM

20. So....why did we leave Vietnam?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #20)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 09:06 PM

24. The body count got too high

and those who do not celebrate with the OP mourn the fact that the body count is not growing fast enough to get us out of Afghanistan any faster.

Don't get me wrong, I think both of them were a mistake, but only because we are not able to fight a war in the same way we did in WWII ever again. Thus, we should not get involved. I applaud the President's decision to keep us out of Syria, it's their thing, let them settle it with their own blood and treasure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:51 PM

6. War without the Butcher's Bill....

It's like "As long as drones don't kill US citizens...."

It'll come home one day. It always does. Yet another unpayable debt we're leaving our kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Junkdrawer (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:10 PM

12. You mean just like the Japanese

never really got over Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:24 PM

16. Time to get out while the gettin's good, then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:35 PM

18. It's convenient that we can have the Afghans doing the dying for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:52 PM

21. I should have known such a simple acknowlegement

that no soldiers have died in two weeks would meet with such controversy around here. Yes, there are still many issues but I'm glad no other soldiers have died in two weeks. You think we would be able to come together in celebrating that fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #21)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:28 PM

22. The "Lefter-than-thou" crowd would be comical if they weren't so fucking tiresome and predictable.

This former grunt is happy that no US troops were killed in the past fortnight, and appreciative of the policies of the President who has made it possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Reply #22)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 08:21 PM

23. Thank you

Sometimes I feel so alone here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread