h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"There has never been such a large coalition of nations as exists now."

Please offer evidence for this assertion. This sounds like something you heard or read somewhere, and I'd like to know where.

"It has garnered the support of the vast majority of nations, including some of those with a vested interest the other way."

Please name a nation with "vested interest the other way" that supports military action against Afghanistan.

"Bear in mind that the Taleban has been funded by Bin Laden to the tune of millions of dollars. If he falls, Al Qaeda falls with him."

Again you're trying to argue that attacking money will be a major way to harm Bin Laden or the terrorists, as if this backs up your point that military force is necessary. I agree that freezing assets or attacking their bank accounts will be an effective, justifiable act. But stopping the flow of money is not a military action. This point does nothing to prove that military intervention was necessary.

In fact, if we actually prevent Bin Laden from using his money, then he won't be much use to them alive either. Maybe we don't even need to kill him in order to make him economically useless, if that's all you think it takes to topple Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, I think these terrorists will still operate with little or no money, with no official support from whatever nation they choose as a base. If there are any plots similar to the Sept. 11 attacks underway right now, surely the plotters aren't stupid enough to be waiting in Afghanistan still. They're probably sitting in Newark right now, or phoning ahead to check the prices on whores in Boston. It's really silly to imagine that even wiping Afghanistan clean of all living matter right now would eliminate much or most of the threat from the kind of terrorists who would plan an attack for years.

"Iraq is one man's self-love." ???

And what will we do if Bin Laden or a large number of terrorists relocate there? Bomb there too, I suppose, maybe take out Saddam while we're at it. Gallup poll says three-quarters of Americans would favor striking Iraq right now anyhow. It wouldn't be a great tragedy killing them, but it would be against international laws in the same way that this attack is, and the collateral damage will be a tragedy. I mean those civilians that Tony Blair and George Bush keep eerily assuring us will eventually be killed, though they try everything possible to "minimize" the number.

I didn't mean to imply that the terrorists would need a country to welcome them or support them like Iraq or Sudan might. I meant that terrorists will be able to operate in some nation where they will not be noticed. Maybe buy some farmland in Uruguay. I don't have your idealistic faith in the military to dispatch most of the terrorists tidily in Afghanistan, or for the "intelligence" community to root them out in other countries where they may hide.

Re: idealism and pragmatism.

Ugh. Thank you for not mentioning age limits ("everyone's an idealist at 20 and a pragmatist at" 30, 40, whatever). I was able to retain my dinner, barely.

Accusing your opponent of being an idealist really proves nothing about the points being argued. Everyone thinks himself a "pragmatist," so it's not a very helpful label.

Autumn,

A great post. It's telling that none of the war supporters here have substantially responded to any of your points.

It is, isn't it!

Hey, whoever it was that made the comment about "prolefeed" - don't you realise that the vast majority of people believe every word the media feeds them?

And what is democracy supposed to be if not majority rule?

Fine, if the evidence is so weak, let him vcome to America and stand trial. He'll be acquitted, and we can go about the business of finding the actual guilty party.

I see no reason to reveal intellisgence information to a potential enemy. It's stupid.

There's an outstanding warrant for the arrest of Osama bin Laden. If he wants to clear the air, he and his lieutenants should offer themselves up for trial.

Because we want liberty. We don't want to be opressed by a governmnet. We don't want to be pressed by a majority.

People who carry concealed weapons aren't really violent people. I've carried a concealed weapon for years. I still haven't shot anyone. You seem to be trying to create a false stereotype.

From the UN's website...
"8 October – The States carrying out their military action in Afghanistan have set it in the context of the determination expressed by the Security Council immediately after the 11 September attacks to use all means to combat threats to international peace and security caused by terror acts, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said today.

In a statement released at UN Headquarters in New York this morning, the Secretary-General said the ongoing action must also be viewed in the light of the Council reaffirmation of the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence in accordance with the UN Charter"

The General Assembly recently undertook a 5-day discussion of Terrorism, ending with a resolution supporting necessary action supported by 167 states. These are what I meant by such a large coalition.

Re:- pragmatism and idealism. You're right. In retrospect it was a bit cheap of me. Sorry. Fifteen all?

A nation with a vested interest the other way? Jordan. Also..
"The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which represents all the world's Muslim countries, simply urged America to avoid civilian casualties." - (The Economist, October 12th)

Bin Laden contributes more than money to Al Qaeda. Freezing whatever bits of money that can be found is

In his post, Austin attacked the "Dossier" released by the British Government. I agreed, but added that it was simply war propaganda. Nobody claimed that it contained a valid criminal case, or that it contained all the evidence. I think it's an irrelevance. Austin also argued that the Taliban were willing to negotiate the handover of Bin Laden, and proposed an international tribunal. (This tribunal was to be made of 3 Islamic nations, BTW). The Taleban have no right to negotiate on this issue:- they have refused to extradite Bin Laden in the past, and this is exactly the reason the UN imposed sanctions on Afghanistan last December. There HAS been legal and diplomatic action over Bin Laden, and it has gained nothing. Why should anyone think that it would work now?

Geoff,

Your quotes show that the Secretary-General interprets US/UK attacks as consistent with "self-defense" outlined in the UN Charter. This is not the same as the UN authorizing the use of force. Again, if you could point to a resolution where they specify that the use of force is appropriate?

(We may have to look at the Charter again to find how they define self-defense, and maybe email our findings to Sec-Gen Annan.)

If this is the largest coalition ever formed, it is strange that only a few nations are directly providing troops. So far we have US and UK air force involved. I've heard Canadians and South Koreans may participate in some way. Is this really more impressive than the number of nations who sent troops to fight WWII, or even NATO forces in Kosovo for that matter?

"The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which represents all the world's Muslim countries, simply urged America to avoid civilian casualties." - (The Economist, October 12th)

According to the article "Islamic States Caught in Crossfire" dated October 10th from the Christian Science Monitor (still available on the web, though tricky to find it), the recent communique from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference rejected "targeting any Islamic or Arab state under the pretext of fighting terrorism."

Sounds like the Economist and the Christian Science Monitor would not agree on what the OIC stated.

"Why should anyone think that [negotiations with the Taleban] would work now?"

Because the threat of using military force against the Taleban was never imminent before Sept. 11. I think the Taleban showed clear indications that they would have reached a compromise on extraditing bin Laden, because they were taking all this sabre-rattling seriously. Bush and company never made any serious attempts to negotiate after Sept 11. But you can accept that and I can't, so I guess we should drop that point.

If you can't see how negotiations could have been successful after Sept 11, and if you think that a nation can claim "self-defense" against a country that is not currently attacking, then I don't think I have the faculties to convince you why this war is wrong.

TBTPM,

"Fine, if the evidence is so weak, let him vcome to America and stand trial. He'll be acquitted, and we can go about the business of finding the actual guilty party."

This is a very simplistic, black and white view of how things should work. Either Bin Laden should agree to turn himself in, or else the US should be allowed to wage war on the nation that he's hiding in? I don't think it's a logical progression.

"I see no reason to reveal intellisgence information to a potential enemy. It's stupid."

But isn't it common to give evidence to another nation if you expect them to extradite a criminal? You've already painted the Taleban as an enemy, so it's almost as if you've washed your hands of any kind of diplomatic actions with them long before. No need for negotiations because we have simply decided that military action is necessary. This is not the way things should work. We should not tolerate this from our government.

TBTPM,

Re: gunslingers stereotype. I meant that bit to be more humorous against us paranoid liberals, but I guess it didn't come out right.

Let me rephrase it then: I find it strange when Conservatives argue that citizens need the right to use a gun, but giving them a more substantial role in their government would be dangerous. But again, I'm venturing into territory that you didn't bring up, not really related to our discussion. To bring it back on track, I think it's not a wonderful think that the US is a republic instead of a democracy.

Under The UN Charter, Chapter 7, articles 39, 41, & 42, the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to peace, and shall decide what action, including military action, shall be taken to negate the threat.

Security Council 1373 (28/09/01) reaffirms the need to "combat by all means" threats to international peace from terrorism under Chapter 7.

The permanent members of the Security council (UK, US, China, Russia and France) are all on public record as supporting the current military action.

The way I read things, the military action has been officially sanctioned by the UN.

Subcom, it is clear that we are not going to agree on this.
I suggest that we put our energies elsewhere now. Thanks for the discussion, and I'm pleased that we could largely keep our passions in check.



GEOFF

If there's one thing I've learned from the community of h2g2, it's that an argument or debate feels better in the end when you can still get along with your adversary. Sorry if I've been too nasty during this. Thanks for not holding it against me.

Later,
Deidzoeb