What are we accomplishing by bombing Afghanistan?

[Diogenes]

Somebody explain it to me.  

What the fuck are we really accomplishing, except killing innocents and giving even more people reasons to hate us?  

[Billy_Yank]

At the moment we seem to be destroying artillery units and improved infantry defensive positions in the perimeter facing the Northern Alliance.

If you don't have the stomach for it, then turn off your TV, go to bed, and pull the covers up over your head.

[pedro2112]

To add to Billy yanks post.. during the first couple of weeks we destroyed the Taliban's command and control centers and their air defenses. It seems as though the majority of our efforts in the last few days are of attacks against front line positions of the taliban.

[Diogenes]

Billy_Yank said:

At the moment we seem to be destroying artillery units and improved infantry defensive positions in the perimeter facing the Northern Alliance.

If you don't have the stomach for it, then turn off your TV, go to bed, and pull the covers up over your head.

I meant what are we accomplishing in the big picture, in relation to our stated goal of making the world safe from terrorism.  

After a sustained bombing campaign, which has killed hundreds, if not thousands (the true figure will obviously be known only later, if ever), of innocent Afghanis,  are we any closer to that supposed objective at all?

Mr. Billy Yank, in regards to your insulting comment, this Johnny Reb will stack his personal bravery against yours any day.

Give me a friggin break.  As if sitting back in the safety of the US, cheering on the bombing of people unable to put up any real resistance at all makes you a brave or admirable man.  

Please.  Now I do feel sick on my stomach.  

[Belecthor]

The simple fact of the matter is that ORGANIZED terrorism has to have a safe haven to function for any length of time. This was true during the 80's when, in addition to Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen etc., the countries of the Warsaw pact also provided bases, support, diplomatic passports, etc. to terrorist groups(although the aforementioned Soviet client-states were very secretive about it and hid it as best they could)

Yes, yes you literalists out there, I realize that if someone wants to create some havoc, they can accomplish it without all of that, however, to operate with the impunity that many of them do, they need governmental support.

We are eliminating that support base.

[Lord Bane]

Ok guys, read this article and then try again to answer Dio's question.

www.observer.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1501,578021,00.html

[pedro2112]

That is one man's opinion. As usual with nihlists, he offers no alternative. We have destroyed far more dangerous and committed enemies than the Taliban. I don't predict and easy or quick victory, but victory will be ours.

[Lemernis]

Instead of highjacking four planes what if Al Qeuda had highjacked 20 and flew them into the Capitol building (perhaps during Bush's address to Congress), the White House, etc?  

What if they eventually were to obtain nuclear weapons?  

All the freedoms you enjoy, Dio, your freedom to expound all the contrarian positions you at times enjoy taking on a public forum like this... none of that would be tolerated by the Taliban/Al Queda.  The ability to dissent that you clearly enjoy--they genuinely hate that about our society.  You, my friend, dissenting with the mainstream on a public electronic forum is the sort of thing Islamic extremists wish  to rub out.  

The reasons for stopping them are so patently clear it is astonishing to me that anyone can question that military force is necessary.    

I would be very surprised if you are suggesting that military action isn't needed.  If you do accept that military force is needed, then you must also realize that in order to stop them it is required that the military action be prosecuted with full force.  In the course of such action, as has always been the case in any war throughout history, civilians will die.  So I'm a little confused where you're coming from.

It sounds almost like you're suggesting that the U.S. is killing civilians either purposefully or recklessly.  If you are, I highly doubt that is true.  It would serve us not the slightest bit to do that, and it could only be counterproductive.    

I know it sounds like a rhetorical question, I do also ask this sincerely Dio... do you feel that you are morally superior to folks who are not as (outwardly) deeply troubled as you by the fact that civilians are dying in a war?

[Feraess]

Dio, it hasn't reached thousands yet, still gradually rising through the hundreds (disregarding non-impartial accounts).

I would tend to suggest that this argument is a waste of time, since the coalition of Pedro, EM and Billy will never agree that the bombing is in anyway bad. I tried for weeks:)

One last try:

1. The US is definately reckless in its targetting, as shown by all of the misguided bombs and missiles. Its a straight choice between imcompetant and simply immoral.

2. Yes, wars do generally kill civilians, but does that mean we don't try and avoid them as best we can?

3. I haven't heard anyone say that military force is not necessary. Every time it is mentioned that the bombing is not a good way to proceed, people overreact and believe that they are saying that no action should be taken, which is blatantly wrong.

4. Yes, the bombs have destroyed some military targets (Pedro's command control centres, control command centres and centres for controlling and commanding come to mind ) but it is in doubt wether blowing up an ammunition dump is worth doing if it kills the entire village surrounding it.


Lemernis, this war does not require 'full force'. Would it be appropriate to 'nuke' the whole country? Surely 'full force' means use every weapon at your disposal.
Assuming for a second the use of 'nukes' isn't necessary, on what basis do you draw the line? Civillian casualties? Then how is it different from killing civillians with normal bombs? The ratios won't be much different.
If you say 'nukes' would be appropriate, well, there isn't much of an answer to that, except to ask where you keep your morals?

[Lemernis]

Sorry, but raising the spectre of nukes doesn't get it as a possible reason to avoid fighting.  The possibility of escalation to nuclear weapons will be there in any war from now on.  Nuclear weapons are clearly a last resort.  I would say, though, that if the U.S. has developed nuclear weaponry that doesn't cause the mass destruction on the scale of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and if such smaller precision nukes will end the war sooner, then I would say, yeah, fine.  But that is strictly from a military standpoint.  It would never happen for political reasons.  And certainly not in a war of this kind, under these circumstances.  The nuclear capability only comes into play if we are hit first.

Also, I didn't intend to single Dio out with the querry about moral superiority.  I ask that of anyone who also holds the basic position he set forth.  I sense a distinct attitude of what for lack of a better term could be described as 'moral superiority' in the posts of those who condemn the U.S. government/military's actions.  I really don't mean to be antagonizing by use of that term.  I just want to understand better what drives this sense that the U.S. is wrong in what it is doing presently.    

[Blizzard]

Diogenes said:

Somebody explain it to me.  <br>
What the fuck are we really accomplishing, except killing innocents and giving even more people reasons to hate us?  <br>

*shows diogenes a US bomb; writen on the side it says: "To whom it may concern: Don't fuck with us cause we'll fuck you up worse."*

[ElricMorlockin]

Dio, one thing to keep in mind, is the Taliban propensity to lie out their ass about downing aircraft etc. We have lost two helicopters in the area due to weather/mechanical problems yet they claim to have shot both down. As a matter of fact, a called in airstrike took out the second copter.
 Also, the "thousands" that have died is likely more propoganda since they know that we have people over here that are completely "knee jerk". Case in point, was the "Baby Milk Factory" that we "evilly" bombed in desert storm. The funny thing is this; the main language in Iraq is Arabic which includes how they spell their words. Funny how on camera, Iraqian "technicians" were running around with the words "Baby Milk Factory" on the back of their overalls written in English!
  The one thing to remember militarily speaking is that this whole circumstance isnt a damned video game, that you can reset if you dont get the end result that you like or save until you feel like playing it again. I for one am glad that the campaign has been as plodding and deliberate as it has, perhaps it will teach the American public some patience.

[Diogenes]

Lemernis said:

I know it sounds like a rhetorical question, I do also ask this sincerely Dio... do you feel that you are morally superior to folks who are not as (outwardly) deeply troubled as you by the fact that civilians are dying in a war?

Interesting question, I will try to give it the detailed answer it deserves.  I am answering this part separately, intending to address the other issues raised in this thread in another post (doh! so much to respond too, in this thread and others ;-))  <br>
I think that all humans, every single one of us, have the potential for both great good and evil inside of us.  I do not consider myself different in this regard than anyone else.  So, no, I do not generally go around thinking myself somehow inherently morally superior to other humans.  <br>
However, I do think that individual actions are of greater or lesser morality, I do consider the unnecessary killing of civilians to be immoral, and I do consider the current killing of civilians in Afghanistan to be unnecessary.  <br>
I am not approaching this issue in the way your question suggests.  It is the action of the unnecessary killing itself which I consider to be immoral.