I can only too well remember attending some press conferences in Pakistan in the winter of 2001 and seeing the unbearably smug expressions on the faces of various human rights and "relief" spokesmen who were concerned lest the military operation against the Taliban should disrupt their relatively modest efforts. They failed or refused to see that the removal of the Taliban was a necessary precondition of any serious relief and reconstruction. It's heartening to learn that, almost a decade later, they are at least open to the awareness that the Taliban is the worst offender. The next stage—may it come soon—will be the realization that the Taliban does not "violate" human rights, but entirely lacks the concept of their existence. Christopher Hitchens
How many were dying/being tortured and having their Human rights violated (Especially women)by the Taliban before the invasion? Why do you think I said the ends justify the means? The People of Afghanistan are no better and no worse than the people of Syria who also need protection from an imposed tyranny. If Nato decided to attack Syria to overthrow their government I would support it, same as I did the Afghan deployment. I don't expect people to agree with me, it's just my opinion.
If they continued for a hundred years they still wouldnt have killed as many as have been killed in the war, and the end was supposed to justify the means??
Dev it's a different country and culture. Who are we to impose our ways on anyone else? There is no way that war is to free anyone from despots. Just like the invasion of Iraq was not for that reason. If the west were interested in those things then some of their closest friends would be first for the wrecking ball. Don't get me wrong, I know I benefit from these invasions but it stinks to the high heavens.
Dev, there is alot worse than what was happening in Afganistan, going on in parts of Africa, yet no one is interested in going in there. Why? Becuase there is nothing to gain. You know deep down you are deluding yourself by thinking that the treatment of woman had anything to do with invading Afganistan.
Maybe not, there is simply no way of knowing is there? Who could have predicted the rise of Pol Pot, or Mao or Stalin? Who knows how many countless millions could have been saved if someone had stepped in and taken out any of those three? As I said we'll never know so we can only wonder "what if". Maybe NATO had ulterior motives when they went into Afghanistan but I don't doubt for a minute that they had honorable motives too, like removing the Taliban. They were not doing us any harm (apart from 120 odd militant training camps) but the fact that they were only harming their own people should not disbar the West from doing the "Right" thing, even if it meant criticism from some quarters.
I don't necessarily agree with that last sentence Eddie (re Dev deluding himself I mean) but the rest is spot on. Where the **** is the world's policeman when it comes to Zimbabwe?
exactly ciaran, its none of our business america think all the worlds recources are rightfully theirs
They arent angels but they have, for the past 3/4 of a century, been the only roadblock in the way of the world according to America
