topic Re: Afghanistan in Community Spirit

Afghanistan

*crikey*mate* — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:16:07 GMT

Is the presence of the US and subsequently Australia in Afghanistan, by invitation or force?

Re: Afghanistan

spotweldersfriend — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:19:01 GMT

Force.The taliban certainly didn't invite them

Re: Afghanistan

amber-eyed-girl — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:29:25 GMT

the Russians were not invited either

Afghanistan has a long history of uninvited guests

Re: Afghanistan

*crikey*mate* — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:35:19 GMT

@spotweldersfriend wrote:
Force.The taliban certainly didn't invite them

In which case, we must be in breach of International law, mustn't we?

Cos in 1945, the UN made a law saying it was illegal to invade a country by force.

Seems to me this was on the back of WWII, and that made me wonder if this is why there has not been a WWIII yet, but then I thought about the other smaller wars.

So, are we there illegally, or did someone invite us?

Re: Afghanistan

amber-eyed-girl — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:40:25 GMT

The Russians went in

The Taliban were the "good" guys

They were helped to power

the inevitable happened...

then the West went in to clear up the mess that started when the Taliban was helped to power...

the legalities of each step might be considered questionable, but it is like all wars

interests at play determine what happens

Politics, money, and then the legalities are a process of convincing the U.N. that other avenues are exhausted

Re: Afghanistan

lyndal1838 — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:41:46 GMT

Isn't it a bit late for this discussion...the Australian troops have been withdrawn from Afganistan after 12 years?

Re: Afghanistan

amber-eyed-girl — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:43:49 GMT

That might be what triggered the question 🙂

wars, the rights and wrongs, are talked about long after their conclusion

Re: Afghanistan

the_great_she_elephant — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:50:22 GMT

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:
The Russians went in

The Taliban were the "good" guys

They were helped to power

the inevitable happened...

then the West went in to clear up the mess that started when the Taliban was helped to power...

the legalities of each step might be considered questionable, but it is like all wars

interests at play determine what happens

Politics, money, and then the legalities are a process of convincing the U.N. that other avenues are exhausted think you'll find that the Russians had their own Puppet Government which was opposed by the Us and when the Russians pulled out the Taliban took advantage of the vacuum.

I think you'll find the Russians actually indstalled their own puppet government in Afghanistan - which was opposed by the US. when russia pulled out the Taliban took advantage of the power vacuum.

Re: Afghanistan

the_great_she_elephant — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:54:26 GMT

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/russia_invasion_afghanistan.htm

Re: Afghanistan

amber-eyed-girl — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:03:49 GMT

I did not mean the Russians helped the Taliban to power if that is what you were thinking.

Except indirectly.

the Taliban succeeded them, as you say.

which is how they were considered the better option, rather than a Russian-backed government.

it is worth having a look at how far back the U.S. May have been interested in Afghanistan, and how the Taliban was viewed at the time the Russians were in.

Re: Afghanistan

*crikey*mate* — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:26:08 GMT

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:
That might be what triggered the question 🙂

wars, the rights and wrongs, are talked about long after their conclusion

nah, well p[artly - I just learned about the UN law about aquisition of land by force when I was studying MABO and GOVE etc today.

Then my mind wandered, as it does.

Re: Afghanistan

spotweldersfriend — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:02:06 GMT

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:
@amber-eyed-girl wrote:
The Russians went in

The Taliban were the "good" guys

They were helped to power

the inevitable happened...

then the West went in to clear up the mess that started when the Taliban was helped to power...

the legalities of each step might be considered questionable, but it is like all wars

interests at play determine what happens

Politics, money, and then the legalities are a process of convincing the U.N. that other avenues are exhausted think you'll find that the Russians had their own Puppet Government which was opposed by the Us and when the Russians pulled out the Taliban took advantage of the vacuum.

I think you'll find the Russians actually indstalled their own puppet government in Afghanistan - which was opposed by the US. when russia pulled out the Taliban took advantage of the power vacuum.

The Russians weren't the first though to mess with the middle east In 1953 the CIA with the help of the Brits overthrew the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leader of Iran,Mossadeq and installed the tyrant The Shah. Mossadeq was nationalising the oil industry but had made concessions to US, British and French oil companies.If they didn't meddle in that country's affairs,things might be a lot different today.It all comes back to bite you in the end I have no problem with the US entering Afghanistan after 9/11 to go after the culprits.It was sanctioned by the UN.What rankles me is the unsanctioned and illegal invasion of Iraq,the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians,all based on a litany of lies.And the culprits,including John Howard & co.knew it was a lie.These guys should be in the dock facing war crimes charges.Plain and simple..

Re: Afghanistan

the_great_she_elephant — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:13:38 GMT

What rankles me is the unsanctioned and illegal invasion of Iraq,the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians,all based on a litany of lies.

My concern is that the regime that eventually takes power once the troops have gone and the internecine struggle have died down will almost certainly be as bad if not worse than that of Saddam Hussein.

Re: Afghanistan

**meep** — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:20:51 GMT

@crikey*mate wrote:
@spotweldersfriend wrote:
Force.The taliban certainly didn't invite them
In which case, we must be in breach of International law, mustn't we?

Cos in 1945, the UN made a law saying it was illegal to invade a country by force.

Seems to me this was on the back of WWII, and that made me wonder if this is why there has not been a WWIII yet, but then I thought about the other smaller wars.

So, are we there illegally, or did someone invite us?

What was the legal basis for UN military action in Korea, Iraq and Kuwait?

Re: Afghanistan

spotweldersfriend — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:39:06 GMT

Iraq invaded Kuwait.That's why the UN sanctioned military action. Lots of Iraqis who'd escaped Husseins regime were living and working in Kuwait.They were promptly rounded up and many were tortured and killed.
After the war Iraqis were expelled from Kuwait,the allies continued using force including enforcing a no fly zone.
It is estimated that after the US withdrew they left around 600,000 pounds of depleted uranium behind. There were later reports of a spike in cancers among the Iraqi populace which were attributed to the use of uranium depleted shells.The same sort of weapons were used during the next war.

Re: Afghanistan

*crikey*mate* — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:05:35 GMT

@**meep** wrote:
@crikey*mate wrote:
@spotweldersfriend wrote:
Force.The taliban certainly didn't invite them
In which case, we must be in breach of International law, mustn't we?

Cos in 1945, the UN made a law saying it was illegal to invade a country by force.

Seems to me this was on the back of WWII, and that made me wonder if this is why there has not been a WWIII yet, but then I thought about the other smaller wars.

So, are we there illegally, or did someone invite us?

What was the legal basis for UN military action in Korea, Iraq and Kuwait?

Don't know, I am genuinely emquiring.

I've been studying the establishment of Native Title in Australia, and that UN law from 1945 came up (hence it was OK to take land by force before 1945). It was key in the High Court's Decisions in Gove, and Mabo 1 &2 - it just got me thinking, that's all, it;s not school related.

Re: Afghanistan

the_hawk* — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 22:13:38 GMT

@amber-eyed-girl wrote:
the Russians were not invited either

Afghanistan has a long history of uninvited guests

neither were the poms and so far history has it that no invader has ever won.

Re: Afghanistan

**meep** — Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:05:06 GMT

So, are we there illegally, or did someone invite us?

I'm not an expert on international law but I don't think it's as simple as that.

In 2009 President Obama said:

"The United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks" I'm pretty sure he was referring to the UN Resolution after 9/11. The resolution does not explain what is meant by "all necessary steps". Another legal justification for the military action was "self defense"

From "The legal basis for the invasion in Afghanistan" - Author: Ben Smith and Arabella Thorp - International Affairs and Defense Section:

"....Despite the problems outlined above, the UN and many states seemed to accept that the attacks on Afghanistan were legitimate self-defence. In a speech on 8 October 2001, the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, stopped short of endorsing the air strikes but did not condemn them, acknowledging that states have a right to individual and collective self-defence. The ISAF (International Assistance Security Force) operation has a full mandate in the form of Security Council Resolutions."

Hope that helps.