posted on November 13, 2001 04:14:09 PM
So REAMOND, do you believe that with the Northern alliance in Kabul all the terrorism will stop? What have we done to stop the hatred of Americans and the end of terrorism?
posted on November 13, 2001 04:54:47 PM
The military action wasn't meant to end hatred of Americans. As for ending terrorism, it won't do that either. But it will deter the Taliban from recruiting and providing Al Queda with terrorists. And eventually, will neutralize Bin Laden and his organization. Will someone else be there to step in and take his place? Yes, probably so. But it took him years to build his network. And it will be an ongoing battle to try to stop whoever takes his place. But terrorist organizations of this sort will at the very least no longer have carte blanche. At the very least, it will take much more effort in the future to wreak their havoc.
Interestingly, my newspaper today was filled with pictures and articles of Afghan men having their beards shaved, and women who had uncovered their heads. One anecdote told the story of a man who, when he heard of the Taliban retreat, dug up his 17 inch television set from his yard and put in an old cassette of "Titanic". Inspiring, but at the same time, pathetic. But for a chance of birth and geography, our lives could be so much different.
posted on November 13, 2001 05:56:59 PM
Bought a gang of mercenary cutthroats to trade one screwy for sale regime for another at a cost of one billion a month.
And aren't the people free now, and rejoicing in the streets?
posted on November 13, 2001 06:51:40 PM
Been too busy to watch the news lately but I did hear a story on NPR I enjoyed. One of the signs that the Taliban had indeed abandoned Kabul was some music store had reopened and was playing music on speakers outside the store.
Just think about it, now it is legal to sing Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya...
posted on November 13, 2001 09:13:18 PM
As if it matters at all in the 'war on terrorism'.
What was accomplished? The war against terrorism is a fraud. After three weeks' bombing, not a single terrorist implicated in the attacks on America has been caught or killed in Afghanistan. Instead, one of the
poorest nations in the world has been terrorized by the most powerful. For what?
The attack on Afghanistan ... is a "necessary evil" (Wait! I thought THEY were the evildoers?) for which hundreds maybe thousands of innocent Afghan civilians have paid the price,"
A necessary evil? Haven't I heard those words before? But what if American civilians are as complicit as their government in the military occupation of Saudi Arabia, in the sanctions related deaths of Iraqis, in support of the Israeli military occupation of Palestine. Did George Bush say that? No, he talks about them, Osama bin Laden talks about us. Is there really much difference? Just in which side of the fence you're on. Killing civilians is perfectly justifiable -- a necessary evil. Which one said that? What the heck, it's a push --they both said that.
Just what is to be gained by bombing Afghanistan? What objective was this necessary evil committed? The capture of
Osama bin Laden? A few days ago Donald Rumsfeld said aloud that bin Laden may never be captured. Finding the Saudi-exile, he said, is like finding a needle in a haystack. Does it make sense then to put millions of wretched Afghans at risk of starvation, to force countless numbers from their homes, to kill thousands, to pursue a goal whose achievement is as likely as finding a needle in a haystack?
The Taliban, it should be recalled, offered to hand bin Laden over to a third country for prosecution, if Washington would present evidence that bin Laden had ordered the Sept. 11 attacks. George Bush fired backed, "No
negotiations." The bombing began soon after.
Earlier, Washington backed off a promise made by Secretary of State Colin Powell to present its evidence that bin Laden was behind the attacks on Washington and New York. To date, the White House has presented no evidence at
all. And while British Prime Minister Tony Blair presented a long brief to justify his country's participation in the attack on Afghanistan, what was most noticable about the brief is that it had not a single shred of concrete evidence linking bin Laden to the Sept. 11 atrocities. Blair later admitted that what evidence he had wouldn't stand up
in court. Which means, he, and his master, George W. Bush, are killing innocent civilians, and adding to the misery of
millions more, to pursue a man they have little hope of capturing, who, moreover, they have no evidence was behind Sept. 11. Could anyone, therefore, be blamed for concluding the war on Afghanistan is a fraud?
Most people recognize that politicians lie, that they are capable of saying one thing then doing another...But when it comes to...foreign policy, many of us retreat from that judgment. Suddenly we find it hard to believe that (our) leaders would lie to us about their intentions in the world?
But they've lied before. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin affair? A new book by historian Michael Beschloss, 'Reaching for Glory', cites secret tapes and the diary of former president Lyndon Johnson's wife, Lady Bird, to show that Johnson admitted the incident he used to win congressional approval for the Vietnam war was a fake. And how about the Bay of Pigs? The secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia? The illegal funneling of arms to the Contras? What about Tony Blair declaring he had overwhelming and incontrovertible proof that bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11 attacks, and then, when he was challenged, having to confess the evidence wouldn't stand up under legal scrutiny? Somehow it's different now?
While we think an heroic struggle against terrorism is being waged, a struggle that requires the escalation of the misery of an already miserable people as a "necessary evil," what's really happening is that our leaders are making sure their considerable investment in the pipeline map and politics comes out right. Bush only siezed the opportunity, or rather Cheney did. It's been his plan for a decade.
posted on November 13, 2001 11:19:01 PM
Only to bug you. The United States Government has issued me a license, good for life, authorizing me to tell you to kiss my ass.
posted on November 14, 2001 04:47:23 AM
I guess you weren't here, potato, but uaru gave us a picture of himself in business attire back when he held a job.
"The bombing that didn't work....Anyone care to argue further that the bombing in Afghanistan wouldn't work ?"
First, we need to define the war objective in order to determine if bombing has "worked." Many goals have been mentioned and not a single one met. First, wasn't getting Osama the definition of success? If deterring terrorism is the goal, that certainly hasn't "worked". The terrorists hate us with a new intensity and the war goes on.....No victory....In fact, this is just the beginning.
So, what's next? The US can't just drop the bombs and leave. What a mind boggling mess.
Now, the Pakistani's are faced with the ominous prospect that the Northern Alliance will now be their "neighbors" and the fighting will continue between the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and the Pakistani's.
We have suceeded in reducing the rubble in Afghanistan to dust. That's all.
posted on November 15, 2001 01:20:11 PM
I have to agree with reamond. Until a few weeks ago, afghanistan was a country with a government devoted to our destruction (interesting quote just now from Mullah Omar: “We are hopeful for God’s help,” he added. “The real matter is the extinction of America. And, God willing, it (America) will fall to the ground.”). They had free reign to serve as an unimpeded training ground and launching pad for terrorist attacks. Note the papers recently found in Kabul on construction of nuclear devices. Do you really think you can just let these folks go about their business, "hoping" that nothing will happen?
Now, the Taliban are almost kaput, and perhaps Osama will get away, but organizing large-scale attacks are a heck of a lot harder when you have to move every night, when your communications are monitored, when your money is traced, etc.
will the "new gang" be better than the old? Well, seems like many of the people there are happier, and the women (50% of the people last I knew) are just about completely happier about it. Will afghanistan be better off in 5 years? who knows? Who knows if it would have been under the Taliban either. Its not like they are particularly kind, compassionate people who are completely devoted to the physical and mental well being of the people.
"After three weeks' bombing, not a single terrorist implicated in the attacks on America has been caught or killed in Afghanistan"
Well, we know the al qaita organization was behind the attacks, and we know a bunch of them are dead. Of course we don't know if any of the relatively few people who have been specifically identified (since al qaita is reluctant to give us a detailed roster of their organizational structure) are dead right now, since, again, they are reluctant to give us a roster of the dead, but I'm quite confident that some of the people who participated in the various attacks over the years are now "in paradise". And I wish them well there.
And as far as the bombing campaign having "reduced the rubble to dust", from what I've seen, there seems to be relatively little additional damage to civilian areas (given the condition it was in when the bombing started). Unlike the saturation bombing of cities in WW2, for example, the amount of ordinance that hit civilian areas is pretty miniscule, at least from the video/pictures I've seen, its still pretty intact.
"Could anyone, therefore, be blamed for concluding the war on Afghanistan is a fraud? "
Yes, no problem blaming anyone for that. Just because the evidence "wouldn't stand up in court" (not sure if that's really true, but I'll grant that for sake of argument) doesn't mean you don't know who the guilty party is. The Taliban and al quita are out to "eliminate America", through any means possible, and the war on afghanistan is greatly reducing their ability to do that. I don't know about you, but when I see someone buying a gun and telling me that they intend to shoot me, I don't wait for "evidence that can stand up in court" before I defend myself. That results in someone whose last thought is "at least I followed the proper procedure..." )
posted on November 15, 2001 02:58:25 PM
I would add that the "new gang" in Afghanistan is much better than the old. First, they're not trying to destroy America through terrorist attacks, and second they treat woman much better.
If you're looking for perfection in U.S. foreign policy or third world governments, no matter how they came into being, you're on the wrong planet.
The initial objectives of the action have been met and done with percision bombing, with few ground troops in harms way, and few non combatant casualities.
President Bush thus far gets an A+. But it aint over yet. There will be more challenges with windows for failure. But unless you are an irrational, unjust zealot, you must give credit where credit is due.
posted on November 15, 2001 10:05:11 PM
I haven't heard anymore from bin Laden and crew about the U.S. being a "paper tiger" lately either.
That "paper tiger" sure inflicted some awesome "paper cuts" on the Taliban and al Qaeda too.
As far as bombing Afghanistan and leaving, the U.S. and Great Britain have pledged to stay on and aid the people of Afghanistan.
However, our main obligation, objective, and interest is to bring about safety and security to the U.S., not nation building.
But if it's true about the U.S. being interested in using Afghanistan for an oil pipeline, then perhaps we will stay on. In fact, it is rumored that most of the "bunker buster" bombs were actually used to dig trenches for the pipeline.
