Christian Democrats in the United States
Global Issues - AfghanistanWas the U.S. invasion necessary, if any wars are ever necessary? Maybe NATO should have invaded in 1998, after the theo-fascist Taliban started locking up their women, beheading nonconformists and destroying religious art. Those are more honorable intentions than private profit on the "silk pipeline" from Saudi Arabia to China. J did say some wars (and rumors of wars) were necessary, they were the "birth pains." Was this one? Forgiveness is a more difficult struggle than a terrorist jihad or a military occupation, but meanwhile, killing just keeps on killing.
The People won't take getting their buildings smashed. But the FBI strongly suspects a trusted U.S. military scientist of prodding the People's fear after 9/11. If you think the U.S. was tricked into Afghanistan on 9/11, well, then we're really in trouble. We respect the right of free thinkers to consider that possibility. Consider which major powers in the region benefit from the stabilization of this central asian trade, transportation and energy transmission nexus. The question is, why are we paying for it? Or rather, why are we borrowing for it?
The truth will set us all free. All people must be free to share their view of the truth for the truth to become known. Afghanistan was not free. It was a prisoner of many foreign interests using their peoples' pursuit of God to turn them into soldiers for life. The late twentieth century war (world war 3) was not cold. Was a hot war in Afghanistan, Vietnam and everyone else a necessary evil? Look within the heart and find that no evil is necessary. Love is all you need.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]on the other hand, how do you reconcile
On the other hand, how do you reconcile with people who would stop a civilian bus and execute the women and children inside? This is nuts - it does not make sense why anyone would do such a thing.That's just the problem of war. It makes no sense when the Taliban kill a bus full of civilians, just as it makes no sense when NATO drops a bomb on a house full of civilians. Neither action serves any goal except the perpetuation of conflict.
This is a reflection of a crisis of leadership. Leaders in the United States, Afghanistan's government and the Taliban leadership are all drawn up in this thirst for blood, too concerned with pleasing the various mobs under their tenuous grasp than with doing the right thing to bring an end to bloodshed and embrace a future in which all people can live in harmony. Is this mostly the Taliban's fault, or mostly NATO's fault, or whose? Despite the atrocious mis-aimed bombings of civilians, I would tend to say it's the Taliban's fault.
However, from actions like this, it's clear that the Taliban leadership, who are probably intelligent people in their own way, themselves have little to no control over the groups of psychotic, drugged-out murderers whom they have recruited in the war. These afghan women and children were not involved in the conflict. Their deaths serve no strategic purpose.
If done as a response to the death of Afghan civilians in aerial bomb attacks, it makes even less sense. If your enemy makes a mistake, you do not emulate the mistake in order to prove your superiority. All that proves is common stupidity.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< HomeArchives May 2007 / August 2007 / August 2008 / October 2008 / May 2009 /