Do you consider the violence in Afghanistan to be; terrorism, war on terrorism, or civil war?
Does this belief hold the same for Iraq?
2006-09-26 11:16:35 · 6 answers · asked by rmagedon 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
coragryph my friend - you are nothing if not consistent.
2006-09-26 13:41:21 · update #1
Consistency is applying the same process or formula to each set of facts. Not necessarily coming to the same conclusion or result.
The US presence in Afghanistan is support of one side in a civil war, against the former Taliban regime which is designated a terrorist group. So, it would be part of the war on terrorism and partially (in the past) involvement in a civil war.
The US presence in Iraq is support of one side in a multi-way civil war, and originally constituted a largely unprovoked and illegal attack against an established government who was not currently attacking the US. So, by definition, the initial attack it would considered an act of unprovoked aggression, for the purpose of destabilizing a country, which is arguably itself terrorism. The continued presence later would be participation in a civil war.
Same formula, different factual situations, so different conclusions.
2006-09-26 11:27:47 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the violence in Afghanistan seems to be at much lower levels... at least as far as body counts go... so it probably couldn't be considered a civil war...
but the fact is... Afghanistan had clear 9-11 links in the 9-11 Report... and still probably has some... we're working on that... so it's part of the war on terror... terror links=war on terror
Iraq never did... maybe some very low level links... but no more than almost any country in the area and much less than most... not really any terror links=not really war on terror... and something like 20,000 civilian deaths I think it was in the past year (I don't remember exactly, but it was the last DOD report I think), may point toward a civil war... at least the beginning...
I think we should all look at both differently, because we didn't go into both for the same reasons and they don't have anywhere near the same links to terror... apples to oranges...
2006-09-26 11:23:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes..terrorism, war on terrorism, and maybe civil war too...or not. I feel the same way about Iraq...I think..well, maybe
2006-09-26 11:19:44 · answer #3 · answered by rockdeboat 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's WAR ON TERRORISM for the soldiers and the good people who hate the terrorists.
It's TERRORISM if you're Taliban....
See?......It's all relative.
2006-09-26 11:25:07 · answer #4 · answered by Joey Bagadonuts 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Quagmire. Yes, definitely Iraq. There is not right answer at this point, only a million wrong ones.
2006-09-26 11:30:06 · answer #5 · answered by Teacher 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No matter what you call it war is war and people kill each other.
2006-09-26 11:19:03 · answer #6 · answered by daljack -a girl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋