[scaught]

all i want to know is, are we going to know whether or not we actually hit someone who was even remotely involved with the attack on the 11th? i reckon we wont, has anyone heard? i know we supposedly hit some radar station or something but i havent heard much other than that.

[seanyepez]

Yeah...

They still can't tell?

[cheerios]

There's a whole section in the NY times... has a map of bombing sites, and what was bombed... something about some recently used training facilities, a couple airports... some military guy... I don't recall and the newspaper is under Juan's bed and I'm too lazy to get it, but that's a start for some research... hope it helps!

[cdhostage]

The NYT this morning said the targets were all military in nature, but not enough names of sites were given... I hope that that's true, and no innocents have been killed.

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: cdhostage ]

[applenut1]

Originally posted by cdhostage:
<STRONG>The NYT this morning said the targets were all military in nature, but no names of sites were given... I hope that that's true, and no innocents have been killed.</STRONG>

why's that? I don't want thousands of innocent people killed but if a few do in the process it's not a big deal. it's hard to bomb a nation and not have a few innocent people die.

[MikeM32]

all i want to know is, are we going to know whether or not we actually hit someone who was even remotely involved with the attack on the 11th? i reckon we wont, has anyone heard? i know we supposedly hit some radar station or something but i havent heard much other than that.

While it would be great to get the exact people involved, Bush said this would be an attack on all terrorists and thier supporters.

Besides the ones that crashed those planes into the WTC on 9/11/01 are already dead.

Now it's just a matter of hitting them all where they "live".

Mike

[daimoni]

.

[RWoelk]

BDA is always on a continuum. They'll let you know more details as time goes by.

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by scaught:
<STRONG>all i want to know is, are we going to know whether or not we actually hit someone who was even remotely involved with the attack on the 11th? i reckon we wont, has anyone heard? i know we supposedly hit some radar station or something but i havent heard much other than that.</STRONG>

This hasn't been about getting the actual people involved in the 11th almost from the start. It's about getting terrorist that train and plan to kill people. It's about stopping them before they strike, again. Taking down the whole network. Doesn't matter if they had a hand in the 11th or not. They are terrorist so we'll kill them.

The Taliban did a bad job of running their country. They aided the terrorist. They're also on the bottom rung of human rights abuses. So they're goners. Bye Bye Taliban. Don't cry for them.

Don't be lazy and think this is some kind of "response" to the 11th. It�s much more than that. It's about cleaning up the world. It's doing the job the Taliban refused to do. It's about making the world safe. If we just get the "11th" people we will fail to stop the next "11th".

This part is easy. Toss the Taliban and get bin Laden and pals in Afghanistan. The next part is very hard. Getting the terrorist in other countries. That wont be fun. But we can�t let them operate any more.

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: Nile Crocodile ]

[MacFan]

I love the idea of expending $600,000.00 tomahawks to take out structures that cost 1/100th the cost and probably can be rebuilt in very little time.

And now Bush wants to expand the conflict? What a moron! Go in quick, get the job done, and get out. Expanding will only get us into something that we will not get out of anytime soon. And I am sure that Bush's support will quickly deteriorate with civilian and US G.I. casualties.

[Troll]

Well, scaught ol' buddy, you hit someone. Your clinically precise Tomahawks can add to the Chinese Embassy in Kosovo and the Sheraton lobby in Baghdad while CNN is reporting from the roof, another brilliant "act of war". The first deaths in "America's New War" to be confirmed by a civilian are those of the most fearful of heinous criminals: the UN deminer!

UN employees killed

United Nations spokeswoman Stephanie Bunker called for innocent civilians to be protected as she confirmed that four local employees had been killed in the raids.

She said the four Afghan staffers had "died on the spot" when an American missile struck a building in Kabul belonging to the largest UN-funded agency which clears mines in Afghanistan, the Afghan Technical Consultancy."

(from the BBC)

Now, I want to see every person who gave a dollar to those poor people who went to work in NYC on 11 September giving a dollar to the poor people who went to work in Kabul on 8 October. And I want to see Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts and Celine Dion and Arnold Schwarzenegger in a telethon raising another $150 million for these poor UN workers. Forgive me, I'm still getting over the fact that Band Aid raised less for millions of starving Africans than that telethon.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Troll:
<STRONG>Well, scaught ol' buddy, you hit someone. Your clinically precise Tomahawks can add to the Chinese Embassy in Kosovo and the Sheraton lobby in Baghdad while CNN is reporting from the roof, another brilliant "act of war". The first deaths in "America's New War" to be confirmed by a civilian are those of the most fearful of heinous criminals: the UN deminer!

(from the BBC)

Now, I want to see every person who gave a dollar to those poor people who went to work in NYC on 11 September giving a dollar to the poor people who went to work in Kabul on 8 October. And I want to see Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts and Celine Dion and Arnold Schwarzenegger in a telethon raising another $150 million for these poor UN workers. Forgive me, I'm still getting over the fact that Band Aid raised less for millions of starving Africans than that telethon.</STRONG>

The difference being that the United States has given warning and taken care to limit civilian casualties. Nobody in the world can claim to be surprised that the U.S. is bombing Afghanistan.

On Sept. 11, one month ago today, there was a surprise attack with the specific intent of killing as many civilians as possible.

To compare the two is laughable and wrong.

[groverat]

I love the idea of expending $600,000.00 tomahawks to take out structures that cost 1/100th the cost and probably can be rebuilt in very little time.

Who is going to rebuild them?
Your argument assumes that the Taliban has the ability to rebuild as quickly as we could. Many of the buildings destroyed in the 80s by the Soviets are still in ruins.

And now Bush wants to expand the conflict? What a moron! Go in quick, get the job done, and get out.

What if the bad guys are in other places?
I don't think Shrubs is looking at a map thinking, "Wouldn't it be sooooo cool if we bombed. . ."

Expanding will only get us into something that we will not get out of anytime soon.

I believe the brass of the US has said that this will not be over anytime soon. Dubya said that during his address to Congress weeks ago. It's not meant to be over soon.
This is going to take effort, something foreign to us but we'll remember eventually what effort really is.

And I am sure that Bush's support will quickly deteriorate with civilian and US G.I. casualties.

This isn't Somalia. I will happily take bets on this.

[scaught]

Originally posted by Troll:
<STRONG>Well, scaught ol' buddy, you hit someone. Your clinically precise Tomahawks can add to the Chinese Embassy in Kosovo and the Sheraton lobby in Baghdad while CNN is reporting from the roof, another brilliant "act of war". The first deaths in "America's New War" to be confirmed by a civilian are those of the most fearful of heinous criminals: the UN deminer!

(from the BBC)

Now, I want to see every person who gave a dollar to those poor people who went to work in NYC on 11 September giving a dollar to the poor people who went to work in Kabul on 8 October. And I want to see Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts and Celine Dion and Arnold Schwarzenegger in a telethon raising another $150 million for these poor UN workers. Forgive me, I'm still getting over the fact that Band Aid raised less for millions of starving Africans than that telethon.</STRONG>

wow thats great. war is so effective. im sure after all this bombing is done that we'll never see a terrorist attack again! the world will love us even more for bombing every country that could possibly be holding a terrorist back to the stone age.

"As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore"

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by scaught:
<STRONG>

wow thats great. war is so effective. im sure after all this bombing is done that we'll never see a terrorist attack again! the world will love us even more for bombing every country that could possibly be holding a terrorist back to the stone age.

"As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore"</STRONG>

War is effective. Look at Germany and Japan. Would you stand by and do nothing while 6 million people went into the ovens? Will you stand by and do nothing while 6000 more people are killed at work?

I'm sure if we do nothing we will see another terrorist attack. bin Laden's been getting ballsier with each new attack. He wants nukes very bad. That's why we need to stop him. Once the air raids take out the air defense we'll see (or wont see) special forces go on a fox hunt. It may take a while but they'll find him. In the mean time the NA and others will oust the Taliban and restore some bit of normalcy to that area with the help of the US and the UN.

This is a good thing we're doing. For the US, rest of the world and very good thing for the people of Afghanistan. People will die. Bombs will miss their targets. But on balance restoring order to that area will be a very good thing to do. Once thing are under control the world will help them rebuild and life will be much better there.

I read a news report at NYT where a woman was running from the sound of jets flying overhead. She wasn't afraid of the American jets. She was running from what she thought was Taliban jets coming to kill the civilians. Get it? These people need our help.

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Nile Crocodile ]

[Troll]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>

The difference being that the United States has given warning </STRONG>

So warning people that you are going to kill them makes the act of killing justifiable? You're a 50 year old Afghan living in Kabul, Dave and the US says they are going to bomb your city because a government you never elected that maintains power by public hangings likes a guy you have never heard of and who is suspected of having somehow assisted savage bastards kill innocent people in the US. You feel sorry for those people in the same way Americans feel sorry for Angolans on buses killed by terrorists but what do you do? Rise up against the government before it has been proven guilty of anything and wind up dangling from a crane? Leave the few things you own and leave? Where to? All the borders are closed?

I guess you sit there and hope you don't get hurt. And if you survive but your kid is killed? I guess you get pretty upset and maybe, you start to think the people that killed your kid really are bastards and maybe you have some money that you give to a terrorist group to avenge the killing, or feed a terrorist, or learn to fly a cropduster ...

and taken care to limit civilian casualties. Nobody in the world can claim to be surprised that the U.S. is bombing Afghanistan.

How do you justify ANY civilian casualties, Dave? These UN people weren't Taliban supporters; they were there to try and stop civilians, children, from having their legs blown off by mines that were built in the USA and the USSR and put there years ago by people the superpowers sponsored.

For so long as people think there is a right and wrong in these conflicts, there won't be a solution. Look at Israel; look at Ireland. These people go back and forth responding with violence to the last bit of violence till nobody remembers where it started and it's impossible to end. The US has wasted an opportunity to rethink some of their actions and to broker meaningful peace not only in the region but in its own country.

[christ]

Originally posted by groverat:
<STRONG>

...Shrubs...</STRONG>

Oh look - Crock - quick - he's being mean to your wonderful and estimable, world renowned leader. Shout at him, quick before it spreads!

[scaught]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>

War is effective. Look at Germany and Japan. Would you stand by and do nothing while 6 million people went into the ovens? Will you stand by and do nothing while 6000 more people are killed at work?

I'm sure if we do nothing we will see another terrorist attack. bin Laden's been getting ballsier with each new attack. He wants nukes very bad. That's why we need to stop him. Once the air raids take out the air defense we'll see (or wont see) special forces go on a fox hunt. It may take a while but they'll find him. In the mean time the NA and others will oust the Taliban and restore some bit of normalcy to that area with the help of the US and the UN.

This is a good thing we're doing. For the US, rest of the world and very good thing for the people of Afghanistan. People will die. Bombs will miss their targets. But on balance restoring order to that area will be a very good thing to do. Once thing are under control the world will help them rebuild and life will be much better there.

I read a news report at NYT where a woman was running from the sound of jets flying overhead. She wasn't afraid of the American jets. She was running from what she thought was Taliban jets coming to kill the civilians. Get it? These people need our help.

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Nile Crocodile ]</STRONG>

nazi germany's attempted genocide is an incomparably evil event.

i agree. there are serious problems in afghanistan. but there is no such thing as a "violent solution". violence begets more violence. what the hell are our "take your gun to school day" kids going to glean from this situation?

these people have needed our help for many years. where were we then? iraq has needed our help for the past ten years as an estimated million people died due to sanctions which starved and diseased its people, where were we then? oh ya. those were US imposed sanctions.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Man, unbelieveable!

If there had been the same technology, and such a bored, spoiled population back during D-Day, I wonder if people would have been sitting around going "Did we hit anything yet? They sent all these landing craft up onto the beach... the navy shelled the beaches, the airforce went in, what's with all these bombers? It takes a fleet of 1,000 of them just to hit a few little targets?... what's it all about? Did we kill every Nazi yet!? This is so stupid...we should just "get in and out", like I do when I play my Nintendo!"

2 freakin' days of mild strategic bombing, and people expect that this is all it will take? Man, I do indeed think people are going to be in for a shock when they realize the long haul we're in for on this one.. not just going after a few nutjobs in Afghanistan, but punishing other terrorist sponsors as well. I think our detractors are correct... many Americans aren't going to have the stomachs for what needs to happen.

It's called WAR. I know we've been through about 15+ years now of politically correct BULLCRAP where everything is dumbed down, watered down, called something that's more paletable than what it really is for people who can't hold their reality down... but it's called WAR. It's not 'a police action' or 'intervention' or merely a 'conflict'. It's WAR. There is no politically correct protective layer that can adequately be put over it to protect your delicate little sensibilites. People die. Things get blown up. Targets and the enemy's ability to fight back and kill people on our side, must be sought out, and destroyed. Supply lines on the opposing side must be cut. That means hitting supply dumps, anti-aircraft batteries, missle sites, radar and communication equipment, bunkers, etc. etc. It takes strategy. It takes planning. It takes time. It takes a little more effort than you flipping some buttons on a joy stick until the screen says 'Game over'.

Not only do we need to thouroughly take care of business in Afghanistan, we're going to need to take care of business all over the world. After this, I hope we go get Saddam and end his horrible regime in Iraq. Guess what, that won't always be a pretty little picnic either, and it won't take just a couple days bombing, or a nice pretty "get in and get out, so I can go back to watching Ricki Lake again".

These days, we can strike individual targets with precision that's just about as good as it gets in a war situation. Still, that's not good enough for people. "Oh my! What if someone *gasp* actually get's hurt!"

It's a no brainer that the Taliban will drag out pictures of dead women and children after the bombings... probably in many cases, people they themselves forced into target sites, or even killed themselves. Or women and children that the cowardly a-hole excuses for 'men' over there left behind to die while they fled. What the Taliban needs is propaganda, so they can appear to be victims in all of this, leading to more idiots excusing the next round of terrorism. Sadly, I'm sure they know how to manipulate the Western media, and the kinds of morons that will be watching. What's really sad, is how many stupid people will fall for every bit of the propaganda hook line and sinker.

Mark my words, the next time there's a terrorist incident, we'll actually have some of the terminally politically-correct-insane trotting out crap like "Well, they were justified because we bombed innocent people in Afghanistan! I saw the pictures of dead women and children on CNN! Wahhh!"

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Troll:
<STRONG>

How do you justify ANY civilian casualties, Dave? These UN people weren't Taliban supporters; they were there to try and stop civilians, children, from having their legs blown off by mines that were built in the USA and the USSR and put there years ago by people the superpowers sponsored.

For so long as people think there is a right and wrong in these conflicts, there won't be a solution. Look at Israel; look at Ireland. These people go back and forth responding with violence to the last bit of violence till nobody remembers where it started and it's impossible to end. The US has wasted an opportunity to rethink some of their actions and to broker meaningful peace not only in the region but in its own country.</STRONG>

I have not justified ANY civilian casualties. I simply said that the US is doing it's best to avoid them. We are not carpet bombing Kabul.

This is one of the times where there is a clear choice between right and wrong. By your reasoning, we should have just let Hitler do what he wanted to do because we might have ended up hurting a civilian German in the process or liberating most of Europe.

Usama bin Laden used the example of the US dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII as an act of terrorism. Regretfully, many people were killed by this act. However, it occurred during a war, in which many more people would have been killed had the land war gone on, island to island.

My separation was drawn between the INTENT of the terrorists and the US attacks. The intent of the terrorists was clearly to kill as many people as possible. The intent of the US is to limit the abilities of the Taliban and terrorist forces, so that the people of Afghanistan and the world can live free.

George W. Bush did not want to have to use force against the Taliban, but they refused his demands, which were reasonable. It has been well documented that the Taliban is a group that is willing to commit heinous acts to keep power. (Burning dogs, destruction of 5000 year old monuments of another religion, selling tickets to watch executions and the chopping off of hands and feet.)

It seems to me that many people who are against the use of force are somehow jealous of the people of the 60s. VietNam was a war that should have been fought against. But not ALL war is bad. Sometimes you need war to make peace. Peace at any cost is not something we can afford.

[scaught]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
<STRONG>Mark my words, the next time there's a terrorist incident, we'll actually have some of the terminally politically-correct-insane trotting out crap like "Well, they were justified because we bombed innocent people in Afghanistan! I saw the pictures of dead women and children on CNN! Wahhh!"

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]</STRONG>

so you dont expect there to be a backlash to this?

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by scaught:
<STRONG>

nazi germany's attempted genocide is an incomparably evil event.

i agree. there are serious problems in afghanistan. but there is no such thing as a "violent solution". violence begets more violence. what the hell are our "take your gun to school day" kids going to glean from this situation?

</STRONG>

You're not getting it. Civil disobence and pacisfit tatics work in some situations. Ghandi in India was up against the Birts. The Brits were (and still are) a civilize demoncracy. There was a free press in India to record the deeds of the Brits. Ghandi shamed them into doing the right thing. Please note that Gahndi STFU when the Brits were at war.

MLK was a civil rights leader in a civilize demoncracy. There was a free press to record the missdeeds in the south. He shamed them into doing the right thing.

This is not the case today. We are not dealing with a civil rights issue. We are not dealing with civilized govenment. For years we've been asking for bin Laden. The Taliban refuse hand him over and allowed him to operate in a way that lead to 6000 dead people. Diplomacy has failed. The pressure of the entire world has failed. The Taliban have failed in their managment of their country. They refuse to stop what they are doing. So in self defense will remove them from power. There is no other way. The people of Afgahnastan are begging for new leadership. To do any less or allow this to drag out any longer is cuel to the people there. They started it and we will finish it.

The whole "violence begets violence" is fine for an internal stuggle between two groups. But when you have a forigne army training terrorist to kill people in other countries that solution will not work. It only leads to more dead. The best thing to do is fight and win in a way that gets it over fast so the rebuilding can begin.

[/qb]these people have needed our help for many years. where were we then? iraq has needed our help for the past ten years as an estimated million people died due to sanctions which starved and diseased its people, where were we then? oh ya. those were US imposed sanctions.[/qb]

We have given them help. The US sent 44 million in aid there. We DIDN'T give it to the Taliban but to UN and other aid organizations. What they need now is military help. They need the US to defeat the Taliban for them. Maybe we shouldn't have pulled out 20 years ago. Hind site is 20/20. Shoulda coulda woulda doesn't defeat the terrorist today.

The sanctions on Iraq are UN ones. Not US ones. We could argue over who runs that place though. All Iraq needs to do is stop the chem and bio weapons. They need to stop trying to make nukes. But no. Their leaders don't care about the poor in their own country. You make it sound like the US does this for no other reason to be mean. Maybe we should have gotten Hussian (sp?) the first time? Maybe we'll have to do that soon too? Either way it's not our fault they have an evil despot as a leader.

[scaught]

id like to thank you all for keeping this conversation civil and not resorting to personal attacks.

your logic is sound and you make some great points, however, i still dont believe that violence is the answer. its always been a short sighted solution at best in my opinion.

[Troll]

I think you might argue that WWII is an example of a good war, but we have an entirely different situation here. WWII was a war; it was a conflict between nations, it was declared, it was winnable, it was clear who the aggressor was and the majority of German people supported Hitler. On September 11 a crime was committed. No matter what Bush wants to call it there was no war. WWII was 60 years ago; the world is an entirely different place today; we have weapons of mass destruction, we have the global village, we have international media, we have hopefully evolved. We should also recognise that the US sat back and watched for most of WWII and only got involved when it got too messy for them to stay out of it. Millions had died before their humanitarianism was stirred.

The problem with bombing Afghanistan is that it doesn't address the problem. These terrorists are normal people who do not subscribe to the West's idea of how the world should be. They've had it with colonialism, meddling, Western sponsored conflicts, the rape of their raw materials and they're sick and tired of being second class global citizens. The fundamentalists are the radicals. Their world view won't prevail either, but somewhere between what they think and what the US thinks is a middle ground that isn't being explored because the US prefers to use violence to impose its version. This US violence only gives the radicals more ammunition to prove how evil the West is and that only widens the gap between different cultures ultimately creating more violence.

"if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998" Unicef, 12 August 1999.

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, The Independent, 15 October 1998

[Troll]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I have not justified ANY civilian casualties. I simply said that the US is doing it's best to avoid them. We are not carpet bombing Kabul.

If you know that civilian casualties may be a byproduct of your actions and you continue, you are justifying the casualties. If you say you don't justify casualties, then you need to say, "if it's possible that a single civilian will get hurt, then we won't drop any bombs on Kabul."

My separation was drawn between the INTENT of the terrorists and the US attacks. The intent of the terrorists was clearly to kill as many people as possible. The intent of the US is to limit the abilities of the Taliban and terrorist forces, so that the people of Afghanistan and the world can live free.

I think you have completely misunderstood the terrorists' intent. Their primary intention was not to kill 6,000 people. It was to to get Americans to take notice, to communicate a message, to provoke. The 6,000 people were the medium not the message.

[VRL]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>

We have given them help. The US sent 44 million in aid there. We DIDN'T give it to the Taliban but to UN and other aid organizations. What they need now is military help. They need the US to defeat the Taliban for them. Maybe we shouldn't have pulled out 20 years ago. Hind site is 20/20. Shoulda coulda woulda doesn't defeat the terrorist today.

The sanctions on Iraq are UN ones. Not US ones. We could argue over who runs that place though. All Iraq needs to do is stop the chem and bio weapons. They need to stop trying to make nukes. But no. Their leaders don't care about the poor in their own country. You make it sound like the US does this for no other reason to be mean. Maybe we should have gotten Hussian (sp?) the first time? Maybe we'll have to do that soon too? Either way it's not our fault they have an evil despot as a leader.</STRONG>

Well said.

And again, I would go a step further - Afghanistan is a "world leader" in the illegal drug trade (opium). How many thousands of civilians are dead and suffering because of this? How much crime is directly related to these illegal activities?

CNN has posted some good articles:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/ret...ugs/index.html

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by Troll:
<STRONG>I think you might argue that WWII is an example of a good war, but we have an entirely different situation here. WWII was a war; it was a conflict between nations, it was declared, it was winnable, it was clear who the aggressor was and the majority of German people supported Hitler. On September 11 a crime was committed. No matter what Bush wants to call it there was no war.
</STRONG>

How many times does bin Ladin have to say "war" and how many people does he have to kill before it's a war?

No matter what you call it, it is a war. A group in another country is training people to kill Americans. The local government supports them. They seek to destroy our way of life. That's war my friend. War war war. He wants war? Well now he has it.

[Millennium]

nazi germany's attempted genocide is an incomparably evil event.

i agree. there are serious problems in afghanistan. but there is no such thing as a "violent solution". violence begets more violence. what the hell are our "take your gun to school day" kids going to glean from this situation?

As some of you here know, I practice martial arts. And yet, I strongly dislike combat.

I know this probably sounds strange to most of you. Why would someone who doesn't like to fight go and practice fighting? The reason is this. One of the cardinal tenets of most martial arts is that if you have to fight, you have already failed. So if you must fight, then you owe it to your opponent to finish the fight with the absolute least amount of force that is necessary.

This stems from the belief that violence is almost never the answer. There is only one situation, and it's a very rare one, in which the only viable solution is combat. In any other case, diplomatic solutions, or even walking away, should prove sufficient. But there is one time when that will not work.

That is when your opponent is insane. And even then, not always. Only when that insanity leads them to desire to harm you, and the resolve to stop at absolutely nothing short of death.

If you try talking to such an opponent, he won't listen. If you walk away, he will pursue you. If you do nothing, he will simply hurt you more. It is perhaps the only time when the only way to stop an opponent is to fight, and render him incapable of hurting you anymore.

The Taliban, at least the quarter or so who are actually in their forces willingly (most are conscripted), is such an opponent. As for their leader, even his own doctors will testify that he's completely out of his mind.

War is regrettable, to say the least. I'd be more inclined to say reprehensible, myself. But sometimes, it really is necessary. These situations are supposed to be very rare, but this makes one of three or four cases in the last fifty years: Hitler and the Axis, Hussein (I suppose he's arguable; in any event he's the least of the four), Milosevic, and now the Taliban. I don't pretend this isn't outright depressing, even frightening. But every once in a while, the time comes when there is no other way. Violence is never the right means, but once in a blue moon, it is the only means.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by scaught:
<STRONG>

so you dont expect there to be a backlash to this?</STRONG>

What would scare me FAR more than any 'backlash' is living in a nation that's too paralyzed by fear of a 'backlash' to ever stand up for anything.

I’m coming to see that there are 2 distinct beliefs as to what creates ‘peace’ and how people define it. I think one belief is; that peace=the absence of all violent conflict.

The second belief seems to be: that peace is achieved ONLY though an ability to protect oneself, and that given the violent reality of human nature and imperfection, conflict- many times violent- is inevitable, and must be prepared for and dealt with head on, with the use of violence.

Of course I happen to believe the latter. I also think it’s necessary a LOT more than we may want to think. Try going out on a ride with virtually any police officer in any large city and rounding up hardcore crimminals sometime, if you don’t believe that.

As for ‘backlash’, I dunno. What was the backlash to years of bombing Germany? Nuking Japan? Leveling Vietnam?(although there's good argument that we shouldn't have been involved in Vietnam). But do we live in fear of those nations today?

I believe we can’t avoid doing what needs to be done out of a fear of ‘backlash’. We won’t achieve ‘peace’ by being afraid either.

[Nile Crocodile]

This "backlash" idea is just a theory. We can assume that bin Laden wont see 2002 and his network in Afghanistan will be wiped out. So this is "backlash" is based on the idea of a type of retaliation from Al Quada OR the idea that we'll piss more arabs/muslims off and create a new bin Laden.

To counter here are some facts.

bin Laden and Al Quada are terrorist and have killed 1000s of Americans for the last 8 years. We can take it as fact that they will not stop. We can be sure that the next attack was being planned before 9-11. Look at all the people rounded up targeting more embassies. The next attack is coming no matter what.

So with the next attack almost a certainly what are we to do? Arrest as many as we can here and in Europe and hope nothing happens? Allow bin Laden to train and export more terrorist? Pull out of the middle east and tell Israel to FO?

OR We can fight. Put the terrorist on the run. Destroy the camps. Over throw their protectors. Freeze the money. Not allow them to do business as usual!

I prefer the latter.

[VRL]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>
OR We can fight. Put the terrorist on the run. Destroy the camps. Over throw their protectors. Freeze the money. Not allow them to do business as usual!

I prefer the latter.</STRONG>

"The best defense is a good offense."

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>
bin Laden and Al Quada are terrorist and have killed 1000s of Americans for the last 8 years. We can take it as fact that they will not stop...</STRONG>

Exactly. Bin Laden was involved in the killing of our Rangers in Somalia. Did we go to war? No. What happened? Bin Laden was involved in the embassy bombings in Africa. Did we go to war then? No. What happened? Bin Laden's organization was involved in the suicide bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. Did we go to war then? No. What happened? Bin Laden was involved in the Sept. 11 hijacking of 4 U.S. airliners... well, you know the rest.

Really, the burden of proof rests heavily on the other side of this argument. Here's a pacifist who believes we must fight this war.

<font color = red>WHEN WE MUST FIGHT</font>

Even Pacifists Must Support This War
Those who refuse are reminiscent of the Oxford Union in 1933.

BY SCOTT SIMON
Thursday, October 11, 2001 12:01 a.m.

Pacifists often commit the same mistake as generals: They prepare for the last war, not the next one. Many of the peace activists I have seen trying to rouse opposition to today's war against terrorism remind me of a Halloween parade. They put on old, familiar-looking protest masks - against American imperialism, oppression and violence - that bear no resemblance to the real demons haunting us now.

Pacifism has never been exactly popular. But when I became a Quaker as an adolescent in the late 1960s, pacifism seemed to offer a compelling alternative to the perpetuity of brute force. Mahatma Gandhi had overthrown an empire and Martin Luther King had overturned a racial tyranny with nonviolent marches, fasts, and boycotts that were nervy, ennobling and effective. Pacifism seemed to offer a chance for survival to a generation that had been stunted by the fear of nuclear extinction.

I worked as a war reporter, but I never saw a conflict between this and being a Quaker. If my reporting was sometimes drawn more to human details than to the box-score kind of war coverage, those details struck me as critical to explaining war. I never covered a conflict - whether in Central America, the Caribbean, Africa or the Middle East - that seriously shook my religious convictions. In fact, most conflicts seemed to prove how war was rotten, wasteful and useless. El Salvador's civil war killed 70,000 people over nine years. It was hard to see how the political compromise that ended the conflict could not have been reached after just six months.

But in the 1990s, I covered the Balkans. In Sarajevo, Srebrenica, and Kosovo, I confronted the logical flaw (or perhaps I should say the fatal flaw) of nonviolent resistance: All the best people can be killed by all the worst ones. I had never believed that pacifism had all the answers; neither does militarism. About half of all draft age Quakers enlisted in World War II, believing that whatever wisdom pacifism had to give the world, it could not defeat the murderous schemes of Adolf Hitler and his cohorts...

[daimoni]

.

[grok420]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>

We have given them help. The US sent 44 million in aid there. We DIDN'T give it to the Taliban but to UN and other aid organizations. What they need now is military help. They need the US to defeat the Taliban for them. Maybe we shouldn't have pulled out 20 years ago. Hind site is 20/20. Shoulda coulda woulda doesn't defeat the terrorist today.

The sanctions on Iraq are UN ones. Not US ones. We could argue over who runs that place though. All Iraq needs to do is stop the chem and bio weapons. They need to stop trying to make nukes. But no. Their leaders don't care about the poor in their own country. You make it sound like the US does this for no other reason to be mean. Maybe we should have gotten Hussian (sp?) the first time? Maybe we'll have to do that soon too? Either way it's not our fault they have an evil despot as a leader.</STRONG>

Unfortunately, the UN and other aid agencies can't get the food to people that need it because of the bombing. The entire afghan population is on the run from urban centers. UN can't get drivers or convoys to where they need to be. Ironcially, the UN and other agencies were feeding almost 5 million people a day before the military action forced them to bail. Also, now the UN is seen as a western entity is being targeted by outraged people. We can write all the checks in the world, but actually helping the Afghani people will actually take some work. With the oncoming winter, some 7.5 million people are threatened with starvation and trucks won't be able to reach them. Bush has dropped 37,000 meal packages from 20,000 feet. How noble. Do the math on that. Not even Jesus could feed 7.5 million refugees on the run with 37,000 flying happy meals. Let's not forget that we're airdropping food at night, from 20,000 feet over the most land-mined country in the world. Very clever and merciful. The US is about to be responsible for a catastrophic loss of human life unless they take their finger off the button and actually try to something meaningful. Nothing will end the Taliban's regime faster than a clothed, fed, watered and empowered Afghani population. Don't forget, most of the Taliban aren't even from Afghanistan.

The sanctions against Iraq are the result of the US and it's western allies. It's been condemned by plenty of other nations, but we walk out of any meeting that tries to do anything about it. The entire Muslim world wonders how Americans sleep at night knowing that 500,000 children under the age of 5 have starved as a direct result of those sanctions. Is Sadaam hungry? We've single handedly ensured his total control over his oppressed and innocent people.

Not our fault? You seem to have forgotten that the US helped Sadaam Hussein gain power and then armed and trained his army to fight Iran. The Taliban are made up of Mujahadeen fighters from all over the arab world that were trained, funded and armed by the US during the 80's. It's easy to bomb the terrorist camps because the CIA built them for 'freedom fighters' not too long ago. After the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, the US stopped helping. The vacuum created a bunch of factions fighting for power.......

Getting the picture yet?

Nothing can justify what Bin Laden and others like him have done. They need to be stopped, and military action might be required to accomplish that. You can't negotiate with a lunatic. But what we're doing now is making a bad situation worse. How affective will commando units be on the ground in an Afghan winter? This is so not thought out it's ridiculous...

So how do we get peace in the middle east? How about using the same policy that has been the greatest cause of peace in the 20th century......The Marshall Plan.

Sigh. Wake up, America! We're better than this!

[grok420]

Originally posted by VRL:
[QB]

Well said.

And again, I would go a step further - Afghanistan is a "world leader" in the illegal drug trade (opium). How many thousands of civilians are dead and suffering because of this? How much crime is directly related to these illegal activities?

QB]

Oh yeah, did you know the US gave the Taliban tens of millions of dollars from the 'war on drugs' coffers because they issued a statement that growing opium was 'un-Islamic'? Of course, they still collect a tax on opium so.........

Typical short-sighted US policy. Support anyone anywhere regardless of their REAL agenda as long as they help a couple of politicians gain some points in the Polls for their pet agenda, i.e. war on drugs..

Exactly the kind of policy that has created this whole mess in the first place...

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by grok420:
<STRONG>

Oh yeah, did you know the US gave the Taliban tens of millions of dollars from the 'war on drugs' coffers because they issued a statement that growing opium was 'un-Islamic'? Of course, they still collect a tax on opium so.........

Typical short-sighted US policy. Support anyone anywhere regardless of their REAL agenda as long as they help a couple of politicians gain some points in the Polls for their pet agenda, i.e. war on drugs..

Exactly the kind of policy that has created this whole mess in the first place...</STRONG>

WE DID NOT GIVE THE TALIBAN ANY MONEY. THAT IS A LIE THAT GETS REPEATED OVER AN OVER. WHAT WE DID DO IS GIVE $44MIL TO THE UN AND OTHER AID GROUPS FOR HELP FEED THOSE PEOPLE. GET IT STRAIGHT!

Your ignorance of this speaks volumes. Go read the news.

[grok420]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>

WE DID NOT GIVE THE TALIBAN ANY MONEY. THAT IS A LIE THAT GETS REPEATED OVER AN OVER. WHAT WE DID DO IS GIVE $44MIL TO THE UN AND OTHER AID GROUPS FOR HELP FEED THOSE PEOPLE. GET IT STRAIGHT!

Your ignorance of this speaks volumes. Go read the news.</STRONG>

Yes and no. I was wrong to imply we wrote the Taliban a check, but they did get the money directly to promote a ban on opium.

To the Taliban's credit, there was success in the early stages of the program, but suspicions starting running high when the opium tax was quietly reinstated to help the Taliban fight the NA. Their war on drugs commitment was secondary to maintaining brutal control of their country.

My point was that we aren't always very careful who we enlist to help us in our 'causes'. We have a habit of backing the wrong horse for the wrong reasons that results in blowback down the road.

[Millennium]

You know, I was thinking about something recently. A lot of apologists will use this idea that "we created the Taliban" or "we put the Taliban into power". I'm not sure exactly what their point is, but it seems to me almost as though they're trying to say we shouldn't be protecting ourselves from them because of this.

The fact that neither of these statements are true is not all that relevant. But for the sake of argument, wouldn't most people here agree that even if those statements were true, all that does is give us a moral obligation to try and set things right, to undo as much as possible the mistakes that the US has made in the past? I would argue that those statements would strengthen the argument for military action, rather than weaking it. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[grok420]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>You know, I was thinking about something recently. A lot of apologists will use this idea that "we created the Taliban" or "we put the Taliban into power". I'm not sure exactly what their point is, but it seems to me almost as though they're trying to say we shouldn't be protecting ourselves from them because of this.

The fact that neither of these statements are true is not all that relevant. But for the sake of argument, wouldn't most people here agree that even if those statements were true, all that does is give us a moral obligation to try and set things right, to undo as much as possible the mistakes that the US has made in the past? I would argue that those statements would strengthen the argument for military action, rather than weaking it. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?</STRONG>

I agree with you. I think the difference lies in our approach to 'making it right'.

Nothing can excuse the 911 attack. There can never be justification for it. You can't negotiate with OBL, he's a crack-pot.

Far from being 'apologists' I would say that those talking about our own culpability in the Taliban's rise to power, or any of the other shady deals in the past, are simply trying to make us more careful about the choices we make now.

Specifically, this idea of helping the NA seems very ill-conceived. The timing of the bombing couldn't be worse. It could be there was no alternative to forceful action against the Taliban, but to start bombing RIGHT after we announce a commitment to humanitairan aide, it just smacks of hypocrisy to the very people we're trying to reassure and bring together against a common enemy, i.e. terrorists. If we further alienate the Muslim world, we will never acheive security no matter how 'sustained' our military action is.

As I said in other threads and in here, the administration did everyting almost perfect.........right up to the start of the bombing. We should have waited to solidify our support in the Muslim world and let our humanitairan efforts in the region defuse things while we continued our Inteliigence, Police, Financial, etc assault. Then if we have to bring in the guns, we are totally vindicated and can't be accused of "crusading".

Now that the bombing is underway we better move fast. The potential for catostropic loss of civilian life is quickly becoming a reality. Our next step is so critical, we can't afford to screw it up....

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by grok420:
<STRONG>

As I said in other threads and in here, the administration did everyting almost perfect.........right up to the start of the bombing. We should have waited to solidify our support in the Muslim world and let our humanitairan efforts in the region defuse things while we continued our Inteliigence, Police, Financial, etc assault. Then if we have to bring in the guns, we are totally vindicated and can't be accused of "crusading".

Now that the bombing is underway we better move fast. The potential for catostropic loss of civilian life is quickly becoming a reality. Our next step is so critical, we can't afford to screw it up....</STRONG>

You couldn't be more wrong. If we waited the rest if the world would have forgotten. Had we started 3 months from now the rest of the world would say "why start now". Our first goal in this military action is to protect America by destroying terrorist and those that protect them in Afghanistan. "Inteliigence, Police, Financial" wont to crap to get bin Laden and pals. We have to go there and kill them. We can't worry too much about the civilians there. We have to worry about the civilians here. Yes it cruel but our government acts for the benefit is US not THEM. You want to worry about civilians worry about the victims of the next terrorist attack HERE!

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>You know, I was thinking about something recently. A lot of apologists will use this idea that "we created the Taliban" or "we put the Taliban into power".

... all that does is give us a moral obligation to try and set things right, to undo as much as possible the mistakes that the US has made in the past? I would argue that those statements would strengthen the argument for military action, rather than weaking it. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?</STRONG>

I have to agree with this. However, I also very much hope that the President was completely serious when he said we will no longer be in the business of "nation-building".

[grok420]

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
<STRONG>


You couldn't be more wrong. If we waited the rest if the world would have forgotten. Had we started 3 months from now the rest of the world would say "why start now". Our first goal in this military action is to protect America by destroying terrorist and those that protect them in Afghanistan. "Inteliigence, Police, Financial" wont to crap to get bin Laden and pals. We have to go there and kill them. We can't worry too much about the civilians there. We have to worry about the civilians here. Yes it cruel but our government acts for the benefit is US not THEM. You want to worry about civilians worry about the victims of the next terrorist attack HERE!</STRONG>

Sigh.

That policy has worked beautifully for Isreal hasn't it. Glad it's so simple as killing them one by one. Luckily no one ever joins their ranks so we can just get our 22 guys on our list of baddies and be done with it. What a relief.

I'm sure you're right. Some civilians are better than others. Some people have more of a right to peace, security, water and food. It was silly of me to think Afghani children shouldn't starve because their government is corrupt and mine isn't.

Of course, because innocents died here they should die there too. It's only fair. The only victims of 911 are the civilians that died that day, not the ones who will die in the coming war. Totally different.

&lt;/sarcasm&gt;

Well, one thing we do agree on. There are lots more terrorist attacks to come and we should get ready.

Now I'm going to go do something worthwhile. Keep safe, everyone. Good luck to all of us.