Julian Assange, Swedish Law and the unholy alliance of the left and right!

And clearly their history shows they frequently have been invaded primarily because of their location through which armies have passed to attack someone else or have occupied to prevent such attacks. We're no worse than the other invaders and are definitely better than the Russians who scattered explosive devices that looked like toys and blew arms off of many children.

If a US military presence makes it easier on some of the locals, that's great. But if it doesn't I really don't care. Militarily we should only invade a country if it is in our interest to do so. If it's in our interest to be in Afghanistan, then go get 'em, tiger.

That's not how this works, Dexter. First you tell me what country had the manpower and logistics to successfully invade the US in the '60s and then I'll tell you if it would have been justified. We and our allies had the power and means to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. The only remaining question is was it in the US best interest to do so? A Republican administration thought it was in the best interest of this country to invade those countries, and a Democratic administration apparently considers it in the best interest of this country to have maintained US forces in those countries for the past 2 years and for some time into the future.

dont go getten butthurt rufnek when folks accuse the USA of Empire building then.

So, anything goes so long as it serves the American way, is that it now?

just so I'm clear on your stance on things.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

Yeah, I was surprised at that, too. Clearly there need to be objective standards of conduct that govern nations beyond raw self-interest. I suppose ruf might suggest this is naive, or never happens. If so I wouldn't agree, though more than that, I wouldn't condone the attitude even if it is, in fact, universal.

If a US military presence makes it easier on some of the locals, that's great. But if it doesn't I really don't care. Militarily we should only invade a country if it is in our interest to do so. If it's in our interest to be in Afghanistan, then go get 'em, tiger.
If a US military presence makes it easier on some of the locals, that's great. But if it doesn't I really don't care. Militarily we should only invade a country if it is in our interest to do so. If it's in our interest to be in Afghanistan, then go get 'em, tiger.



I think you both are misunderstanding what rufnek is saying. I don't believe he is saying the U.S. can be justified in invading any country if it can find a reason that selfishly justifies it. But of course we are in Afghanistan because it is in our self interest and that was the reason given for invading Iraq, that they had weapons of self destruction, which isn't in our interest or the rest of the world. Our self interest can also be and usually is in the interest of other nations as well. Al Qaeda not only threatens us, but moderate Arab countries and Western European nations. Of course we shouldn't invade another country for imperialism. But rufnk said earlier we don't get involved in wars for that reason so he doesn't believe it either.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Could be. I did think that read pretty callously, so I may have misinterpreted it. I'm sure ruf will clarify what he meant when he pops back in.

He probably means what he says in terms of "keeping America safe" instead of some sort of sinister pseudo-colonialism. There is an implicitly narrowed meaning to "self interest". My reading is that he's also not stressing the fullest logical extent of that sort of viewpoint but the bare minimum of it.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

I quoted rufneks post word for word.

keep in mind, when you say "your self interest", do you mean the Country itself, or the Corporations that have been making billions?

because the Country itself is doing nothing but sinking in to debt levels unheard of.

So again, maybe Rufnek owns stock in Haliburton or KBR, in which case his view makes sense.

Otherwise its cold war thinking, my team is better than your team because its mine.

Where are the billions to be made in Afghanistan? Are the corporations taking over the cocaine trade?

I've read rufnek enough times to know he isn't advocating what is good for General Motors is good for America.

180 billion dollars to date has been spent to security firms providing services that used to be done by the US military.

Cocaine? Will are you making this up as you go along?

The poppy fields are under the control of the USA military though if that's what you mean.

You think we're staying in Afghanistan to keep the security companies solvent?

If the army controls all the poppy fields how come they are doing such a miserable job of controlling the rest of the country?

thats a good qiestion.

whats your answer?

one might be an extended engagement is very profitable for those in the business of War.

what do you think will?

The question you are avoiding is,,,if it is in fact true that the Military is in control of the poppy fields, how is it that heroin exports from afghanistan is up 80% from before the invasion?

I don't accept your assumption the U.S controls the poppy fields. And I don't believe we are staying in Afghanistan because of security companies.

I don't deal in Assumptions Will.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103002117.html


http://rainbowwarrior2005.wordpress....-poppy-fields/




these are your tax dollars at work Will not mine. Keep your head in the sand if that makes you feel better i guess.

What I want you to do? If we really want to win against the Talibans I think winning the support of the civilians is essential. This means focusing on protecting the lives and the land of the civilians, building schools and keeping boys and girls safe in the schools, building up the infrastructure and the institutions of society (government, police, health care, agriculture). I would put more resources into good will. In short, I would make "our" alternative that much more attractive than the Taliban alternative (which is financed by the opium trade, i.e. no lack of financial funds).

As it is now, first there is a battle taking place in or around a village. Then, after the fighting is over, the civilians are being compensated for family members or land or cattle lost. We should putting our efforts into preventing this from happen, to above all secure the lives and land of the civilians. If the Afghan society is allowed to be reconstructed and to function as a normal country, being gently pushed against a development into a modern democracy, then I think the Afghan people will begin to view Americans and other westerners as allies - and Talibans as medieval terrorists.

Afghanistan has been tormented by colonization, civil wars, guerilla warfare and regular wars for hundreds of years. What all alien forces have had in common is that they haven't paid much attention to what happens to the civilians. I think the Afghans are quite cynical by now. Is it possible that faced with the option of making all women wear burkas or to live in constant fear of your life, they'll choose the burka?

The number one reason for America invading Afghanistan was 9/11. I think you could almost say that was the only reason. Why America is staying in Afghanistan is much more complicated. Humanitarian reasons? Sure. But it's pretty far down the list. If public opinion didn't exist, it wouldn't be on the list at all. The reasons higher up on the list, then. I think, by now and above all, for America it's a matter of prestige. Bin Laden hasn't been found. The Talibans haven't been crushed. If America pulled out now it would look like failure. And then I think it's a matter of big business. With a defense budget of nearly 700 billion dollars you can't have an army that sits around doing nothing.

I am not that concerned with the reasons right now, though. It's how things are being done. Even if you, like some people in this thread, don't give a damn about the civilians you can't argue with the fact that maybe it would gain American interests to think things over a bit. To put it very simple, if you keep the civilians happy - perhaps the desired result will be realized. If you keep the civilians unhappy - there's a risk they'll join the Taliban team. If destroying property and killing people is not an isolated incident but something that happens on a regular basis - how will you ever convince the civilians that what you're doing is good for them? Here, consulting the best PR-wizard alive won't help you because fact remains; it's NOT good for them

I'm all for discussing the effects and merits and putting the intentions aside for a while.

If the reason for going into Afghanistan was to protect American lives by decreasing the number of terrorist, to chase the Talibans out and to stabilize the Afghan nation - I think the result has been meagre. I think these tactics have resulted in more terrorists since war, poverty and suppression cultivate hate and create extremists. The Talibans haven't been chased out and, as I understand it, are quite well established in some Afghan areas. And, I think we can agree on that Afghanistan is not stable. In fact, it's chaotic.

Have American lives been spared? American soldiers have died - perhaps they paid with their lives so Americans civilians can be safe. My problem, though, is that Afghan civilians are paying a a far too high price for the safety of Americans. And it's possible that some time in the future they'll be sending the check to America.

If "minimize casualties" means "not killing more civilians just because you can" - then I agree with you. I think the lines deciding who's on "our side", who's neutral and who's an enemy are pretty blurry for a soldier. I would guess that the strategy of shooting first and asking questions later is not so uncommon. And the Collateral Murder video - although it's from Iraq - shows that American troops are not concerned about minimizing casualties at all. Judging by the reactions and behavior of the soldiers communicating over the radio it appear as this is a not an uncommon way of doing things, and that their concern for the civilians isn't more solid than the enemy's concern. Which various documents revealed by Wikileaks confirm. And that's why I think, in many cases, the positive aspects of "the work" of Wikileaks outweighs the negative ones.

What you are implying is that these terrorist bases and despots simply popped out from nowhere and took control over things. Even the most hardened war hawk can't deny the complicated and, actually, quite tragic history of these regions or the roles that USA and Europe has played in the growth of insecurity and instability in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why things are the way they are is very complicated. Looking at history though, it's remarkable how British or American corporations, military and intelligence organizations always seem to be present in countries that today harbor, or are suspected of harboring, terrorists.

It is not solely the fault of US troops. But in one post someone said that Wikileaks is a bad thing because it endangering the lives of American troops. I pointed out that American troops are endangering the lives of Iraqi and Afghan civilians. I support the fight against the Talibans - but I think this strategy does more damage than good - especially for the Afghan civilians.

Yeah, those VC were bad. How could they?

How much of the fault? I don't know... 50 %? Would you agree?

I don't have that breakdown or those statistics but if you know anyone who has, please feel free to share them with me. Again, perhaps Wikileaks could help to shed some light over this.

My source is, unfortunately, John Pilger who I've lost some confidence in lately. But if you check this up on Wikipedia it links to a Lancet paper stating that the number of excess deaths among civilians during the Iraq war is 600 000 - 700 000. Around 70 000 Iraqi combatants have died, so that would mean that 80 - 90 % of the Iraqi casualties are civilians.

According to Iraq Body Count there's been 98 000 - 108 000 documented civilian casualties due to violence between 2003 - 2010. That would mean that around 60 % of the casualties are civilians. It depends on how you count. And who's counting.

I don't know what an acceptable breakdown between deaths caused by US troops and deaths caused by others would be to you. Whatever the reasons for the deaths are, it is still horrible.

What are your thoughts? What responsibility would you say that USA have in this? I get the impression that you would say "none". How many Iraqis have you met? Before Sweden shamefully closed the borders for Iraqi refugees about 15 000 came here every year. How many did USA accept? The problem is that you don't see the effects of these wars because you are unaware or careless of the victims.

Counting like that even 100 % would be a terrific figure.

Actually, yes it showed one American soldier rescuing a badly injured girl from the van, running with her to get her to a hospital.

Have you seen the video? You "sound" as you haven't.

In all fairness, joining the military is completely voluntarily. And since USA is involved in armed conflicts most of the time it couldn't have come as a big surprise to them.

This is a matter of definition, of course, but I'm sure there are examples of the opposite.

But. They didn't stop it. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have died since the Allies entered the scene. Can't you even begin to understand the consequences this means for the people living in these countries?

That says it all. I'm officially declaring you an ignorant idiot.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

We can't just build up the infrastructure and build up the economy and be peaceful because the other side is fighting and killing and blowing up stuff. There can't be peace until the other side gets peaceful

I didn't notice this before, but can we pleased stop this pretence that the US aren't and never have been empire builders. It's absolute bollocks and I don't know if it's self denial or self delusion, but it's about time it stopped.

It seems there's two main reasons that the US doesn't build empires the way the British and all other empire builders did before them. One is that they've never been able to convince large amounts of Americans to leave the US to 'colonise' somewhere else. Secondly, the US can make money and obtain power (the reason for having an Empire) without physically being there. I think you'll also find a lot of US military bases in these countries.

The United States is not empire building. I'm not sure how this is disputable, unless you're prepared to mangle what that phrase has generally meant, historically. Which it seems you are, since you say "you'll also find a lot of US military bases in these countries" as if this is even in the same universe as annexing a sovereign nation.

So annexing is empire building? Because we could start with the vast majority of what is now the USA. The push westward from 1783 onwards was nothing more than glorified empire building. Then there's the Spanish–American War with Guam, Puerta Rico and the Philippines.

As for the military bases. How can you see over 700 military bases outside of the US and all over the world as anything other than garrisoning the world? Why would someone do that? To keep everyone in the region in line. Trust me, I'm English. The last 1000 years of my county's history has been about doing this. I knows it when I sees it.

I don't know if I'd say empire building is only annexing, but it strikes me as the most important part of it, yeah. If you want to make the case that the U.S. was empire building much earlier in its history, that's another issue entirely. But I think it'd be tough to make that case, too; it wasn't conquering sovereign lands, or even significantly populated ones. The push westward can be called many things, not all of them nice, but I wouldn't say empire-building is among them.

Ditto for the Spanish-American war; people were uprising long before we got involved at all, and in the aftermath we obviously exert no control over Cuba as a result, and Puerto Rico and Guam are both largely autonomous, unincorporated territories. If we're expanding "empire building" to refer to any kind of involvement or influence on other countries.

A country would have military bases all over the world for many of the same reason they would have embassies all over the world, I expect; They're not exactly places that can be used from which to stage an invasion, and I'm betting in most cases they're there with the consent of the host country. If all these sorts of things fall under "empire building," then I think the phrase will have ceased to be a particularly powerful accusation.

The United States did get into a minor imperialism phase with the Spanish American War, but it was never broadly accepeted by Americans and pooped out far ealier than was the case with Britain which was forced to give up its foreign territory. We did it willingly. I don't know what the deal is with Guam, but Puerto Rican people have had the option of becoming completely independent or becoming a state and they keep voting for the status quo as a territory. Personally, I don't like territories and wish they'd go away as their territory status makes them a taxpayer drain.

This is from some website:

Puerto Rico became a U.S. territory at the end of the Spanish-American War. Those born on the island were granted U.S. citizenship in 1917 and Puerto Rico gained commonwealth status in 1952.
Today, Puerto Ricans serve in the military but can't vote in presidential elections. They do not pay federal income tax on income earned on the island.
In the last referendum, "none of the above" garnered 50 percent of the vote, topping the other options, including statehood at 46.5 percent and independence at 2.5 percent.


No other nation would give a country that kind of a deal. Some imperialistic power we are.