Morn'ng Rhavin,
I am nearly agreeing with most of your post. I too was unsure that invading Afghanistan was FULLY wrong back THEN. But, evidence before us, who can argue it was the right course NOW. But here are some nitpicks that stick with me:
Rhavin writes:
The Afghan government was a well-known state sponsor of an established terrorist group
Hmmm. Before accepting that statement, a closer look at WHO is calling Afghanistan a sponsor of terrorism should be reviewed.
A little history . . .
The Reagan Doctrine
Following the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Carter administration began providing limited covert military assistance to Afghanistan's mujahideen. This strategy was later expanded under Reagan to openly oppose the global influence of the Soviet Union and continued into the administration of George H. W. Bush. By facilitating the transfer of weapons and by training military leaders, the Reagan Doctrine actually contributed to "blowback" by strengthening some political and military movements such as al-Qaeda.
Reagan Doctrine - Wikipedia
By America supporting/training a known VIOLENT FANATICAL group, the mujahideen, America helped spawn Osama Bin Laden. It is important to remind Americans that America has a propensity to back the wrong horse with catastrophic consequences. When Americans blindly point their fingers at other countries, it acknowledges America still haven't learned the lesson that will prevent the next 9/11.
Fast forward to 1997. . .
Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline
A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company, Unocal, that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
In 1997, Enron [another energy company], announced that it was going to spend over $1 billion building and improving the lines between the Dabhol plant and India's network of gas pipelines.
There was one gotcha: It looked like the trans-Afghan section of the pipeline might never be built. Afghanistan was controlled by religious extremists who didn't want to cooperate.
From 1997 to as late as August 2001, the U.S. government continued to negotiate with the Taliban.
The company hired for studying the pipeline construction was Enron. If that pipeline were to be constructed, it would be built by Bechtel and GE Capital Services.
Alternet.org - 404 Not Found
From 1974 to 1982 George Schultz, former United States Secretary of Treasury and future Secretary of State, was president and director of Bechtel. The late former U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger was general counsel for Bechtel in the late 1970s. Former deputy Secretary of Energy W. Kenneth Davis was Bechtel's vice-president. Riley Bechtel, the company's chair, was on President George W. Bush's Export Council. Jack Sheehan, a former senior vice-president of Bechtel, was a member of the U.S. Defense Policy Board. The Clinton Administration also appointed senior Bechtel managers to senior positions.
Bechtel - Wikipedia
Enter George W. Bush. Bush's long and personal relationship with Enron's former CEO Kenneth Lay is now well known.
Enter Dick Cheney. Vice President Cheney has his first [among many others] secret meeting with Ken Lay and other Enron executives. A chief benefactor in the trans-Caspian pipeline deal would have been Halliburton, the huge oil pipeline construction firm which was previously headed by Cheney.
The U.S. tried to negotiate the pipeline deal with the Taliban as late as August, 2001. The Bush Administration attempted to get the Taliban on board and believed they could depend upon the regime to stabilize the country.
The Taliban had demanded that the U.S. should also reconstruct Afghanistan's infrastructure and that the pipeline be open for local consumption. Instead, the U.S. wanted a closed pipeline pumping gas for export only and was not interested in helping to rebuild the country.
In turn, the U.S. threatened the Taliban during the negotiations. The directive of "we'll either carpet you in gold or carpet you in bombs" was bantered about in the press to underscore the emerging willfulness of the U.S.
Alternet.org - 404 Not Found
Re-read the last paragraph above and then juxtapose it with any of your terrorism definitions you last supplied. At this point, which country is acting most like a terrorist?
Rhavin writes:
When the international community agrees that a given state poses a threat to international security and diplomatic tactics are having no effect, military force is an option."
Hmmm. So just what "diplomatic tactics" have American governments been practicing on Afghanistan for the past 30 years? How has American humanitarianism been extended to the Afghan people for the last 30 years? Please be specific.
Rhavin writes:
Even without evidence specifically linking bin Laden or AQ to 9/11, a reasonable request for extradition for even past terrorist activity (which should have been well documented) should have been honored.
Why should Afghanistan be honor-bound when the US isn't honor-bound . . .
The US refuses to extradite terrorists even when their guilt has been well established. One current case involves Emmanuel Constant, the leader of the Haitian paramilitary forces that were responsible for thousands of brutal killings in the early 1990s under the military junta, which Washington officially opposed but tacitly supported, publicly undermining the OAS embargo and secretly authorizing oil shipments. Constant was sentenced in absentia by a Haitian court. The elected government has repeatedly called on the US to extradite him, again on September 30, 2001, while Taliban initiatives to negotiate transfer of bin Laden were being dismissed with contempt.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm
Rhavin writes:
I don't necessarily disagree with the invasion of Afghanistan in principle, as I still think the Taliban had demonstrated themselves as a real danger to international security.
Again, I nearly agree, but moral truism demands you FIRST ask how your own country demonstrates itself to be or not to be a danger to international security.
Rhavin writes:
but the fact remains that our legally elected representatives legally voted to legally spend that money,
Wait a second, was there fraud/lies/propaganda in getting the "legal" votes? I am NOT a lawyer, but I tend to remember that you cannot create a legal contract based on illegal actions (like fraud or diress). Let's revisit Kucinich's articles of impeachment against GW Bush. Please be aware we are mostly talking about Iraq right now, but for the sake of this argument . . . :
Article I: Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War against Iraq.
Article II: Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
Article III: Misleading the American People and MEMBERS OF CONGRESS to Believe Iraq Possessed an Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV, Misleading the American People and MEMBERS of CONGRESS to Believe Iraq Possessed an Imminent Threat to the US.
kucinich.us/impeachment/articles.pdf
Bottom line: our legally elected representatives legally voted to legally spend money on ILLEGAL/FALSIFIED information. I understand you may still assert that this is all perfectly acceptable, and I am still incorrect about this. Ok.
Rhavin writes:
But that doesn't mean that tax dollars spent on programs you or I disagree with constitutes theft.
Again, not so quick. I am not a lawyer, so again, I won't press my assertions/evidence, but . . .:
Article V: Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression
Article XVI: Reckless Misspending and Waste of US Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors.
"Waste, fraud, and abuse appear to be the rule rather than the exception". "A waste of taxpayers money" In all of these actions and decisions, President G W Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, G W Bush, by such conduct is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
kucinich.us/impeachment/articles.pdf
Per articles of impeachment, these "misspending" actions are clearly illegal. But I'll concede to you that the term "theft" or "stealing" may not be the very best way to describe them.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
34th president of US
Note the word "theft"
Rhavin writes:
I don't think that invading Afghanistan was necessarily unjustified.
To conclude: In light of American policies/interference in Afghanistan for the past 30+ years, I am in less agreement with you that invading Afghanistan was possibly justified. At the very least, the UN alone should have pushed for the invasion, not a highly biased, mentally-slow, and immorally-driven Bush Jr Adm. This all but guaranteed that more innocent Afghan civilians would ultimately suffer.
Really, with Bush Jr. in charge, who couldn't have predicted that civilian lives would be targeted and the entire invasion would turn into a debacle? . . .
I invite you to read articles from
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.. Every other week it reports human right atrocities perpetrated by American soldiers in Afghanistan like:
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.. Really, is anyone surprised by these stories? This is exactly what one expects when frustrated soldiers are put into an environment where friend or foe are difficult to tell apart. I believe, this reason alone, is sufficient reason against invading Afghanistan based on a "terrorist" charge.
Edited by dronester, : fixed/clarified quotes
Edited by dronester, : added "theft" quote
™ Version 4.2
(1)