Talk:Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)

message: Post-September 11 anti-war movement is writtern in a POV editorial orriginal reasearch fasion. I belive that this partly steams from the title which sets the article up to present an editorialised content. 
To solve this problem I want to propose merging the content of the article into this page and the following pages Anti-war, Protests against the invasion of Afghanistan, Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, Protests against the 2003 Iraq war and The Left and war and then deleting Post-September 11 anti-war movement.--JK the unwise 13:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Hamid Karzid and Afghan's feminist and anti-Taliban movements opposed the US and British led NATO opperation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Afghans

message: The fact that U.S. and Afghan authorities want to build a pipeline is not disputed. But the idea that the sole reason for the attack on Afghanistan was to build a pipeline, and not to fight al-Qaeda and their Taliban sponsors, is a view only embraced by a lunatic fringe who have no real evidence to prove this is the case. No maintream observers think this is true. In fact, the only way it can be true is if you believe that the government was involved in or complicit in the 9/11 attacks to provide an "excuse" for the war. It should be characterized as a conspiracy theory.
The length of the war is highly irrelevant. The fact that there have been past wars in Afghanistan is not relevant to an article that deals only with the 2001 war. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate content 

message: Consult Template:POV, template usage notes. Tag applied in April contravened every one of the template's usage notes. Removing as indicated by Template:POV. Similar misuse of Template:OR and essay template, removing as indicated by Template:OR.
Length observation reviewed. The readable prose length is still within guidelines, and as the guideline states for a subject involving so many factors, "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time". 65.94.87.133 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of tags 

message: The Malalai Joya military occupation comment is representative of the cornerstone view held by opponents of the war, both in Afghanistan and in NATO countries, that this is a foreign military occupation. She is notable as one of the first and only female parliamentarians in Afghanistan, and as one of the key Afghan voices of opposition to the war. Rather ironic how many supporters of the war try to sell it as giving Afghan women a voice, but then try to silence their words the moment they speak up.
Elections that "have touched on" the war is actually a very far cry from being able to vote on the war. In so many countries, voters have had no ability to vote on the issue because the main establishment parties offer them no choice. In the US, for example, the choice was McCain or Obama who repeatedly promised to turn Afghanistan into the main war and to send even more troops. Same non-choice in Canada, Australia, the UK, etc. The elections end up being decided on numerous other issues (economy, healthcare, etc.) because voters are presented with no viable options on the issue. There is seriously no shortage of news articles about how leading parties in all these elections went of their way to avoid making the war an election issue. 
From just two weeks ago:
"For an electorate concerned first about the economy and unemployment, the war in Afghanistan barely registered as an issue in congressional elections this year. In a Pew Research Center poll just before Election Day, 5% of voters cited Afghanistan as the most important issue in determining their vote, compared with 39% who named jobs, 25% health care and 17% the deficit."
 
70.51.33.9 (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malalai Joya 

message: The article claims suicide attacks were "virtually unheard of in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 invasion" yet this is factually untrue. For instance, Massoud was killed by al-Qaeda suicide bombers...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.221.46 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not state that not a single suicide bomb attack ever occurred in Afghanistan before the invasion - The article correctly and factually states that they were virtually unheard of in Afghanistan before the U.S. invasion. Since 2005 they have become a frequent and widely heard of practice. 174.93.217.200 (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide attacks unheard of in Afghanistan? 

message: The criticism are all fine and well written enough but there is absolutely no counter-arguments not even disputing the more conspiratorial criticisms or far  fetched blow back theories etc(like blaming the Soviet War on USA). Shouldn't there be counter arguments. Alot of section could also be shortened. For example you have polls displaying opposition to the US involvement even though mots display support. You mention the increase of suicide bombing but don't mention that US invasion has helped the return of millions of refugees and and massive reduction of violent deaths etc. That is what I mean bu counter arguments. They are desperately needed.88.104.220.55 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter Arguments 

message: Please add to Draft:Pacifism in the United States. Thanks. M2545 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New draft: Pacifism in the United States ‎ 

message: This article has been tagged with multiple issues for years now. I have made a major bold edit. If editors feel I've gone too far, please revert (ideally bit by bit rather than in toto) or discuss. I will post on the war's page in case any of the deleted material should be moved there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a good change to me Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This article still needs a lot more work, but cutting out the cruft is a good start! Bonewah (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold edit