Slashdot Mirror
Afghanistan Is Like Nothing You've Ever Seen
DaHuNt writes: "A well written article about Afghan experiences by the Soviets... Food for thought... 'When Igor Lisinenko entered what he was told was an Afghan rebel base in 1982, he wasn't sure what to expect. It was, after all, his first assignment...'" Very good article. Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
Chechnya was a war against terrorism wasn't it? Its funny because the war was condemned by the US and the UN. As far as I know its still going on, but you don't hear word one about it.
that the only option is a massive Desert Storm type of invasion? What I hear military people talking about is using special ops people for small targeted operations. At most we would have a division, the 82nd probably, sieze a small easily secured area to use as, in effect, a large firebase. Or possibly use the Northern Alliance areas. Anyone who thinks we are going to try and conquer Afghanistan is an idiot.
Best Slashdot Co
CNN is curently running a special on Afghanistan. It's a muslim woman's journey describing what the taliban has done.
Women aren't allowed to work. If they don't have husbands they have to beg for food.
They have a soccer stadium built with international funds. The taliban use it for executions. They actually had shots of the taliban executing people. They also interviwed one of the taliban officials why it's not being used for soccer. He said if the international community would give them funds to build a new execution facility tehn they would use it for soccer.
Beneath the veil is a special on CNN. It shows just what an oppresive regime the Taliban is. It airs at 11:00pm eastern tonight and I think 7:00 tomorrow.
--Joey
I learned most of what I know about Afghanistan from CNN's amazing Beneath the Veil. It's filmed from within Afghanistan. I saw a Commercial for it a few hours ago and it's being aired again at 7 EST, I think Sunday, though I'm not 100% sure of the date.
The US is not out to control anything in this war, we are out for revenge. I really don't think that the US Armed Forces are going to care if the "rebel base" they bombed was civilian or not, so long as there's Afghani bodies around. The Russians and Brits were trying to hold together control of the native population, while the US won't really care if the population is under control or not, so long as they're not in the way of us getting Bin Laden.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
In the soviet campain, we aided the rebels with money and weapons, much like the soviets and chinese did for the vietnamese. With out support from the outside, rebel groups will not be as tough. America also has much more spirit for this campain, and there is an awareness of vietnam and its mistakes. I believe, militarily at least, that we will win.
then the US is going to have an even harder time ousting the terrorists out than the Soviets did, if they are going to apply conventional warfare. The suggestions made in the article raise some good points, but the Taliban regime controls most of Afghanistan and the methods suggested in the article are unlikely to appeal to them.
The Russians interviewed in the article are quite right when they say, "The lesson they learned in Afghanistan is that actions to stop terrorism more often have the opposite effect."
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
are doomed to watch others repeat it.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
How do you know we (U.S.) haven't learned?
After all, we haven't done anything terribly rash and stupid in Afghanistan in the last 10 days.
Colin Powell was in Vietnam, and learned a thing or two, and remembers. Bush of course was not, but he seems (so far) to have the sense to listen to his betters.
--S
"I used to be a dilettante. Then I thought I'd try something else for a while."
The implications of a war on Afghanistan are, as this article raises, quite scary. Even if, in a sustained bombing campaign or a land war victory, we "win", what next?
Afghanistan will need a government to replace the Taliban... The Afghanis will doubtless harbor a deep hatred for Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and others who might aid us in such a war. This could easily lead to a much larger scope Middle East conflict.
It's just amazing to me how little perspective the average American has in situations like this (even our leaders), and how short and selective our memories are.
The Russians remind us that a war in Afghanistan is largely unwinnable by US standards. Our own history in Vietnam should clue us in as well. Will we never learn?
'Wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains' an article from the Globe and Mail. Rudyard Kipling's Kim tells of the Great Game, the secret war an otherwise peace-loving British raj conducted against sinister forces of disorder located across the northern passes -- in Afghanistan, to be precise.
If yo uwant an unjaundiced and somewhat approachign abalnced view my advice is don't watch CNN or network news, or for that matyter listen to NPR. They all have prety severe slants oenw ay or the other.
The only vaugely balanced POV I've seen so far is the BBC. Among other reports they did an excellent report on the hsitory of AlQeda and OSama Bin Laden called "Behind the terror."
One thing they explianed was that the core of AlQaeda are merecenaries with no other modern job skill that **we** trained to fight a modern guerilla war ebcause we needed them to defeat the soviets., After the soviets were puished out of Afghanistan we lost interest.
With out us paying them its only natural they found someone new to pay them to keep fighting.
People angst all the tiem abotu left over cold war weapons-- the most DANGEROUS left over weapons are the human ones we made. We need to be VERY careful not to do the same thing all over again...
-Move Israel to Utah
-Level Jerusalem
No more conflicts.
"Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes."
How do we know that the United States military isn't learning from British and Soviet mistakes?
The British attempted to take Afghanistan over 100 years ago, and you can not compare an army before aviation, remote sensing and mechnization to a modern army.
Same goes for the Soviets. The Soviets were an army of conscripts and as Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam show you, a conscript army isn't the same as a volunteer army. Also, the Soviets hadn't fought since WW2 or 1959-60 against the Chinese, albeit in Bridgade sized clashes. And like the Americans in Vietnam, an army that rusty will have problems.
Micheal should look to the SAS's exploits in Iraq in '91 and the Desert Rats in '40-'41 for examples of what a small cadre of highly trained and motivated fighters can do againt increadable odds. Or even look at Blackhawk Down for an indication of what Rangers and Delta Force can accomplish in a poorly planned mission. I'm sure that all the lessons learned in Afghanistan in the 80s by Delta Force and CIA as well as those lessons learned in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia and Sierra Leone by the Rangers, Delta, SAS, Force Recon and SEALs will be taken to heart.
Back when Desert Storm was still Desert Storm, all you heard were bags o' wind talking about how the United States Military was a paper tiger and couldn't invade Iraq because Iran couldn't invade Iraq in 8 years of fighting. Then when it turned into Desert Storm, they told us how many thousands of men would die because the M-1 used too much gas and was too complicated to use or because it was designed for Europe. Same thing is going on now, people are declaring the United States and United Kingdom beaten before they've had a chance to fire a shot back in anger. It's FUD.
All those soldiers are volunteers, give them a chance to prove themselves or be beaten.
I saw the last stanza quoted in an op-ed piece: from Rudyard Kipling's The Young British Soldier
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Personally, I'd like to sit back and watch Michael Caine's and Sean Connery's fine performances in The Man Who Would Be King again, but I'd like to throw a little historical perspective into the current crisis. I think the Afghans have been pissed off at the West ever since it was conquered by some Greek dude named Alexander. Of course the British didn't help the West with it's more recent activities either. Afghanistan really has a fascinating history, just as much as Iraq does. It's too bad they are both ruled over by despotic regimes. I am particularly taken with the first paragraph from this essay on Kipling's Imperialism:
And while you're at it take a gander at Kipling's Imperialist apologist masterpiece The White Man's Burden
This war on terrorism is going to require of us a true understanding of our enemies and not to make the same mistakes others have before us in dealing with them. I will close my comments with the last stanza of that poem as well (believe me, the irony is not lost on me).
Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Yeah, But this time we will hopefully use
tactical nuclear warheads with the bunker buster
missle. And also the Nuetron Bomb to waste the
Taliban. if we don't then it's our own fault.
6,000 Americans = 600,000 Afgas/Terrorist/Iranians/Iraqs/or whatever you want to call them.
In order to stop terrorism we can't stop short of
extermination of these scum.
I am all for chemical interrogation of these pigs. Chemical Interrogation uses Sodium Pentathol, Herion, and LSD. Using these chemicals
we can extract the information we need to bust up the cell terrorist organization.. but we need
to get Bin laden. Shoot him up with Sodium Pentathol, if he does not talk, get him hooked on Heroine. , then string him out. when he begs for a fix shoot him up with heroine and sodium pentathol, if we are carefeull not to kill him from the dosage, we will get the information we want, no matter how strong his will is.
When we get the information we want we should take
him for a trip to the New York Zoo (Don't publicize this that way no one will think he's a martyr), don' feed the Lions for 2 weeks and throw the bastard in the cage.
Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
This is the sort of nonsense comment that really turns me off slashdot at times. As best as I can tell we have not repeated any of the Russian or British mistakes in Afganistan, nor is it likely that we are going to try to make Afganistan a colony or territory like the Russians and British tried.
Sure, nobody said this is going to be an easy job. But it is quite clear that it is not going to be done solely through military means, nor would it even be possible to do solely through military means.
I wish people would STOP WHINING about "learn from Russia and Britain". We must pay for freedom once in a while, and our payment is/was obviously overdue, so thats what we're gonna do.
Our aim is not to occupy afghanistan. there is no real national interest there. the aim is to get rid of bin laden and his cronies, and the rest of the bastards that might try and do this again.
so, stop whining about "we haven't learned". We know what we're doing. We are doing this with sufficient intelligence unlike in the years of president dangle.
I heard this in my local paper, it is from an Afghany woman "I dont care if the US strikes and kills me and my six kids, I have nothing to live for." This is really sad, These Afghan people are so poor that nobody there cares about their own lives. This is really sad.
Gaming Shizzle
Before I start, I'll quote something I'm sure lots of you have seen before, its Colin Powell to then President Clinton, considering the invasion of Bosnia; "We do deserts, we don't do mountains". America's armed forces are good at tabletop warfare, where the enemy is easy to see, has clear assets that can be targeted, and thus can be defeated. Fighting the Afghan terrorists is /nothing/ like this - its a lot more like Viet'nam, where you have an elusive enemy who you cant properly target because he when you try to, he just drops back into the terrain and you've lost him. Their tactics are the same as used by the IRA in Ireland and the VC; strike hard and fast, then withdraw before and disappear before the counterstrike. This is /not/ a war that can be won "American style". If you want to achieve victory in this, you'll have to do it on *their* terms. That means small, special forces units, hitting hard and hitting fast, removing the targets one war or another, and getting out. You have to learn from the Soviets and British - even if their objectives were territorial acquisition rather than revenge; a broad campaign doesnt stand a chance, but a series of well-planned raids does.
First, give their women a better lot in life.
Gain territory. Then make the territory safe. Then give the people within that territory everything their hearts desire. Food. Clothing. Shelter. Jewelry. Television. McDonald's.
Build them a beautiful mosque. Allow them to pray. Give them a world where they need not fear, where they are defended by the United States military.
When the Taliban tries to assert itself, it will find itself against its own population, who will have found the security and freedom we Americans usually tend to take for granted, and will sacrifice all to defend.
You'll have difficulty keeping the defectors to your side out -- just as the USA today has difficulty accepting everyone who wants to immigrate here.
You win by conquering the way Rome did. You make the conquered territory more blessed than your opponents' territory.
Those few who infiltrate will grow accustomed to the softness of the new lifestyle, and be unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to fight their cause.
You ask them what they want, and then give them more than they asked for.
I posted a MLP to Kuro5hin earlier this year with an excellent photo-report from Chechnya made by a Polish journalist. Here is the story. Unfortunately the main link no longer works but I posted a comment which has direct links to all images. The body of the story contains the picture titles.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Before the US decides to provide justice, maybe it should consider its own house of terror first. It needs to teach tolerance (aggresivly) to its ppl of not targeting ppl who tend to have brown skin or not targeting ppl just because they wear a turban (mostly Sikhs who are neither muslim or from the middle east). Currently its convienent to hide behind the harrasment because of the ignorant "security threat" excuse. But it too is terrorism - sure you are not blowing anything up in most cases - but you leave your vitims in terror none the less. Or will it take fifty years later and an moument to say we were wrong as it was done with the Japanese Americans.
Sure this is a rant - but it also thoughts a person who is afraid not of terror from outside the border, but within.
That's all I have to say.
The Guardian a few days ago had an interesting item from a former SAS member sent there:
"We were there to assess their fighting capability and to retrieve Soviet equipment. It was 1979 and the Afghans were fighting a superpower with tactics they had used against the British before the first world war..."
troodon.net
Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
Good thing we've people like you around to make smug comments.
As much as everyone likes to cry for revenge, that will not be the primary goal of these missions. The primary goal is to disrupt these global terrorist organizations. If terrorists are busy scurrying from cave to cave and village to village, they will be too busy to plan assaults on other countries.
The British and Russian experiences taught us that conquering and maintaining government in Afghanistan is near impossible. Who is currently conquering and trying to maintain a government in Afghanistan? The Taliban, that's who. They will be impossible to wipe out. But they should be relatively easy to destroy as an effective government.
There are myriad possible responses and actions the US will take. It's possible, if they're dumbass, that this'll turn into another Vietnam. It's possible that they'll perform their special ops supremely competently, and a more Western-friendly government will impose itself. What's perhaps most likely is they'll succeed in disrupting the Taliban regime and the bin Laden terrorist organization, at the cost of most years of hellish civil war for the Afghan innoccents. If the Afghan militants are busy fighting each other, they'll be unable to aid global terrorism networks. (In theory, anyway.)
But what's certain is the US government knows far more about the possible consequences of actions there than anyone here. Whether that knowledge turns to wisdom and they actually figure out the right thing to do will have to be seen.
Certainly, we should do what we can the understand the situation. But smartass armchair quarterbacking from computer geeks who only know what the media tells them isn't helping anyone.
And that's one of many reasons I ain't too interested in heading into Afghanistan.
by the way, if you flattened out the mountains in Afghanistan it would be a LOT bigger than Texas.
You have to remember, the USSR went in there to "pacify" what they considered their territory.
The US has no such intentions or illusions.
Consise Backgrounder Linkage:
Pakistan 1
Pakistan 2
Afghan 1
Afghan 2
Solutions for telling who the good or bad people are in afg. Before you flame me realize i think that we should do none of these things.
1) The vietnam method (wait for them to start shooting you and then fire back)
2) Find a better name than Internment camps (After all if they find a catchy name people wont get upset)
3) Ah who cares just kill them all
Anti-American sentiment is high throughout the region, and military action against the Taliaban and bin Laden will only serve to further agravate that and lead to more people joining the terrorists to fight 'the great satan'. Also, there is a risk that the governements in pro-western Middle Eastern countries and Pakistan could be toppled by popular uprisings in support of the Taliban and bin Laden.
This would be especially worrying in case of Pakistan as they possess nuclear weapons and delivery platforms for them (missiles). While all sane governments would hesitate before using nuclear weapons, I can't say the same for a Taliban like regime.
Why do so many Americans believe that our military can enter Afghanistan and come out with bin Laden?
Frankly I don't get it. As far as I can tell, all of past and current military history indicates that Afghanis are among the best guerilla fighters in the world, even they're even better on their home turf! So, could someone please tell me how America's experiences are going to be any different? The Soviets had Special Forces units too, you know.
Yes, we need to kill al-Qaida, but we will have to discard our American bluntness and be more subtle. For example, the US government could strike a vital blow against the Taliban with a most unorthodox tactic: dropping $10 million in hundred-dollar bills on Kabul.
This cunning suggestion would lift many Afghanis out of poverty, force the peasants to work with the outside world (because how else will they spend they money otherwise?), and subvert the Taliban by giving the peasants another source of income besides the government.
And even better, giving alms is a basic part of the Muslim faith--it is one of the Five Pillars of Islam--and this charitable act will win friends throughout the Islamic world! Finally, it will cost more than $10 million to wage this war and cost many lives--our soldiers and innocent Afghan peasants as well. So why not?
Hey President Dubya, drop $10 million US on Kabul!
Deep in the ocean are treasures beyond compare; but if you seek safety, it is on the shore.
"Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes"
Like he knows what we are doing? The first order of business is to destabilize the enemy with FUD. To give disinformation is a standard strategy. Therefore I can assume with absolute certainty that you do not know what measures the US government is taking.
Get a free ipod.
Ask yourself, if you wrote the arguments out in logical form, how much would your validation for a strike against the terrorists differ from their justification for the attack in the first place?
The problem is not the argument, but the dogmatic system in which we exist. Both arguments are invalid, but neither side is willing to see it in their own reason.
By counterstriking, we are not getting to the heart of the problem, but in fact, we make it stronger. The situation is caused by fanaticism, dogma, hatred, and irrational violent action. We in the west are just as guilty of this as the terrorists.
Shouldn't we step back and ask not what we can do for our country, but what we can do for humanity?
For once I agree with the NRA; guns don't kill people, but nor do people. Religious hatred motivating weak people kills people. Fight dogma and religion, not people and guns.
-- The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
For Slashdot would-be Generals:
http://www.bdg.minsk.by/cegi/N2/Afg/Waraf.htm
Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
And the US mistakes - training Osama Bin Laden, and supporting the Taliban against the USSR, and giving them money as part of the "War Against Drugs"...
The phrase "Hoist by your own petard" springs to mind.
"Information wants to be paid"
1. That is still just as greedy as the western capitalist societies. It's just greed-by-proxy and they want money for nothing and 80 chicks and a harem for free in the next life
2. Their leader, Bin laden, is right up there on this. He is a multi-multi-multi-millionaire from oil. Obviously he REALLY believes in poverty in this life for a better next one. Or else his excuse is that this IS his next life.
Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better
> Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
Isn't America in this problem partly because of its failure to notice parts of the world outside of its borders?
Ironic.....
--
Are you modding this down because you are American?
-- Mike
Anyone seen a carrot? $40 billion in war chest funds could buy a lot of carrots. That is about $1,500 per Arab in Afganistan or about 6 times their GNP per capita. Twice the total value of everything in the country. Lots of carrots. A trust fund would instantly tripple their standard of living. Lots of tractors, roads and telephones or 80 million sheep. 3 sheep for every man woman and child in Afganistan. All we have are sticks. I guess we could start by killing all their sheep. They each have one now. We might have to give carrots to everyone who threatened terrorism against us though.. Yes, blasting them to glass is a much better solution than being held hostage to terrorist.. Something to think about.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Even though the US objective is a little ambiguous, the objective is not to "overthrow" or "occupy" Afghanistan. The so called plan is to hunt down some individuals. Russia, and Brittan had more ambitious plans. This won't make the mission any less dangerous, or less difficult.
It's too bad to many young people have a knee jerk reaction to war with a Vietnam flashback. We aren't just fighting for "freedom" we are fighting for our OWN LIVES!
nohup rm -rf ~/. >& zen &
Reasons why conventional war is not effective:
1) See my good bad comment
2) Creates terrorists. Many of these groups exist in very poor countries and our the only source of food and protection for the honest people who live their. (would you starve or take food from someone who you think is evil?)
3) Most of our mil tech is meant to fight heavy armor ground vehicles and planes.
More to follow if people are interested
This email has been making the rounds, and happened to meander my way:
Dear Colleagues,
As we reflect upon the tragic events of this week and an appropriate
"response," I thought you might like to see this letter from my college
roommate, Tamim Ansary, who grew up in Afghanistan. I think he offers an
interesting perspective on Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Afghanistan.
Toivo Kallas
Department of Biology & Microbiology
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 10:14:27 -0700
Dear Friends,
Yesterday I heard a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the
Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio allowed that this would mean
killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity,
but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage," and he asked,
"What else can we do? What is your suggestion?" Minutes later I heard a
TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about these issues especially hard because I am from
Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost
track of what's been going on over there. So I want to share a few
thoughts with anyone who will listen.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no
doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in
New York. I fervently wish to see those monsters punished.
But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the
government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics
who captured Afghanistan in 1997 and have been holding the country in
bondage ever since. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a master
plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden,
think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the
Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people
had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the
perpetrators. They would love for someone to eliminate the Taliban and
clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country.
I guarantee it.
Some say, if that's the case, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow
the Taliban themselves? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted,
damaged, and incapacitated. A few years ago, the United Nations
estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a
country with no economy, no food. Millions of Afghans are widows of the
approximately two million men killed during the war with the
Soviets. And the Taliban has been executing these women for being women
and have buried some of their opponents alive in mass graves. The soil
of Afghanistan is littered with land mines and almost all the farms have
been destroyed . The Afghan people have tried to overthrow the Taliban.
They haven't been able to.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.
Trouble with that scheme is, it's already been done. The Soviets took
care of it . Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level
their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble?
Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their
infrastructure? There is no infrastructure. Cut them off from medicine
and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only land in the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at
least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the
Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away
and hide. (They have already, I hear.) Maybe the bombs would get some of
those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have
wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be
a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it
would be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the
people they've been raping all this time
So what else can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and
trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground
troops. I think that when people speak of "having the belly to do what
needs to be done" many of them are thinking in terms of having the belly
to kill as many as needed. They are thinking about overcoming moral
qualms about killing innocent people. But it's the belly to die not kill
that's actually on the table. Americans will die in a land war to get
Bin Laden. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their
way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than
that, folks. To get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through
Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would
have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where
I'm going. The invasion approach is a flirtation with global war between
Islam and the West.
And that is Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants and why he
did this thing. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right
there. AT the moment, of course, "Islam" as such does not exist. There
are Muslims and there are Muslim countries, but no such political entity
as Islam. Bin Laden believes that if he can get a war started, he can
constitute this entity and he'd be running it. He really believes Islam
would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can
polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion
soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in Muslim lands, that's a
billion people with nothing left to lose, even better from Bin Laden's
point of view. He's probably wrong about winning, in the end the west
would probably overcome--whatever that would mean in such a war; but the
war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but
ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden yes, but anyone else?
I don't have a solution. But I do believe that suffering and poverty are
the soil in which terrorism grows. Bin Laden and his cohorts want to bait
us into creating more such soil, so they and their kind can flourish. We
can't let him do that. That's my humble opinion.
Tamim Ansary
Rather than to have an aerial bombing, do this. This is a very very good strategy. First of all, Taliban only control 95% of the area. US can cooperate with the remaining 5% and show them that US is their hero. Protect them and treat them good. Build mosque and school. Show your sympathy. Treat their wounds and relive their cities. Preferably near the border.
This will definitely make them shocked and have a mixed feeling. Thus, Laden's fatwah on fighting US will be utterly dissed. Other moslem will see the good deeds US has done and thus won't go jihad.
More over, copy their way. Don't build bases. Rather, stay at people's houses. Treat them good. Build underground meeting places to assemble the attack.
Direct confrontation will draw more enemy and will not succeed. I recall one of the ancient Chinese great strategist, Sima Yi, also have this strategy. They teach people how to plant crops and make them happy. Because of that, the top strategist at that time, Zhuge Liang, lost his patience!
This will quicken other territories to surrender too! If you do treat them good, you will earn top-notch spies from them. Remember that Asian values moral more and can easily get "indebted" by someone's grace. Use this fact!
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
That would be nice if there were anything other than a ghost of an abstract noun to go to war with.
Find a real enemy, find a real target, find an opponent.
Don't show me ghosts.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
For another excellent, and far more detailed summary, an Iranian filmmaker has written about his experiences in Afghanistan. The site does not always seem to be up, and if you have problems, there is a mirror of the article available as well.
I think the US goverment is getting ample warning about the problems of fighting in Afghanistan, we'll have to see what they make of them. Clearly, the poverty and horrible living conditions there suggest that sending food rather than bombs might be far more effective with regard to the general populace. Catching the terrorist is likely be better done by spies and intelligence than simply sending in the Marines.
It's too bad that the terrorists didn't learn from Japan and Germany's mistakes. How many innocent American civilians must be slaughtered before a military response is used? Retribution is due. If you think otherwise, you may as well have been flying one of the planes.
- - - If the sun is a star, why can't I see it at night?
If the Excited States of America had examined French experiences in Vietnam, that whole fiasco could have been avoided as well.
Then again, when has the Excited States ever listened to anybody anyway?
I just hope it's different this time. Afterall, it was George W.'s father that is largely responsible for the Taliban's success in Afghanistan. Maybe the father can give the son some advice about how to proceed with his former allies.
Or hopefully, the smarter minds on Bush's cabinet can point of the futility of conventional military activity in Afghanistan, and they'll decide on the French-style covert stuff.
Not that war should *ever* be commonplace, everyday, or mundane... but if this article is correct, if we are facing warriors that live in homes with very little to lose...
It seems that the counter to terrorism then is hope. While it seems... stupid... to those screaming for blood and violence, helping the country rebuild and strengthen itself may work to our advantage on several fronts. 'Occupy' the territory and help them build infrastructure (in the name of troop facilities and such, perhaps?)
Such as power facilities, communications channels, transport infrastructure, buildings, etc. Pour money into the country in such a way that the people are no longer hopeless and no longer believe the have nothing to lose?
Educate the people. Not indoctrinate them, but give them the tools necessary to change their own lot, rather than forcing change upon them. Reading, science, math, communication. More hope.
It sounds a whole lot better than fighting with guns and tanks, doesn't? Fighting terrorism with hope and life.
GPL Deconstructed
I know the Afghanistan==Vietnam analogy has been made a million and one times, but consider this...
Machiavelli said when you vanquish a nation, you must kill it completely or you must kill it with kindness. To take middle road and leave it wounded but alive is suicide. It will come back for your blood.
WWII was caused because the Allies took the middle road after WWI. (WWI should never have happened in the first place but that's another story.) After WWI, Germany was left to pout by herself, poor and humilated. She was given time to raise a generation of zealots filled with hatred for the Allies. Hence Germany's receptiveness to Hitler, hence WWII.
The Allies learned thier lesson, however, and killed Germany with kindness after WWII. Germany and Japan are now two of the US's best and most powerful allies.
The lesson was forgotton by the time the Gulf War rolled around. The Coalition did not destroy Iraq's forces completely because then Iran would have moved in and the situation would have been worse.
It also didn't have the spine to impose national marshal law and try to improve the poor standard of living that had allowed a despot like Hussein to remain in power. So killing it with kindess was out as well.
Instead it took the middle road and left Iraq humiliated. It applied sanctions that assured millions or Iraqi children would grow up without food or education, or otherwise die needlessly; thus somewhat justifying their claim that the US is evil. Most of all, the move gave Hussien a common enemy against which he could rally all of Iraq, thereby guaranteeing his continued rein.
So here we are today reaping the fruit we have sown.
It is possible (although somewhat improbable) that we can physically destroy Osama's organization. However, in doing so we will be fanning the very fires that are burning us now. Osama and Hussein are only in power for exactly the same reason Hitler was. Their people are poor, humiliated and are reliant on thier governments for stability and information.
So long as they are poor and humiliated and all their information indicates the US is evil, we will have terrorists attacks. When we wage war there, all three of these things will be perpetuated.
The only solution is to improve the standard of living in these nations and do trade with them. Make them reliant on our money, not their government's guns.
The actual lesson here to be learnt here is not about what kind of war to fight or not fight in Afghanistan but to be extremely careful about who you give "aid" to in a conflict. The US gave aid to the Muhaja... and this eventually backwired.
Even if you keep feeding a snake everyday, one day the snake will turn back and bite you.
Anyway in the grand scheme of things I hope humanity learns from its mistakes and raises its consciousness.
The duality weakens
Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
Could you back this up with evidence that the US is following previous British and Soviet models? Or perhaps, just perhaps, you might consider the remote possibility that the people running this operation aren't as stupid and ignorant of history as you seem to think they are.
How in the hell was this crap modded up to "Interesting"??
"Flamebait" or "Troll" or simply "Idiot" more likely!
"...But only slightly more well known than this; 'Never start a ground war in Asia!'"
...is the constant chime of the news media that "the US is preparing their military strike against terrorism" (translated quote from German radio news, just minutes ago).
The US is acting like a big, very angered 900 pound gorilla, screaming out "whoever did that, come out and show yourself so that I can beat you up!" Yet, nobody showed up so far. And the investigation has shown quite a few false leads so far, including publishing a list with suspected kamikaze terrorists who are still alive and just happen to have had their passports stolen...
Of course, something must be done. But who is the enemy, really? Bush promised that he would give proof in his (hollywood-taylored *) speech, he didn't. I still don't know who the US and their allies are going to fight and how troops in Afghanistan will help fighting terrorism.
Everybody agrees that "terrorism" is a bad thing and that we should fight it. But isn't it just a catchphrase to drum up the support for this military campaign? (Oh, sorry, it's "America's new war", of course, as trademarked and repeated again and again by CNN.)
So far, a military campaign against the state of Afghanistan is still on a shaky ground. "Bomb these bastards to oblivion," says the general public, but I can't help that I feel bad about it.
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
Hearing about the Afghan people fighting reminds me of the US when they were at war with Britain for independence; basically, the average person could fight and the british army was so rigid that inevitably the US beat them.
The NVA fought with rifles. The farmers and villagers had antiquated handguns and knives. The VC had a few grenades and bombs. The few large factories and power plants and other traditional targets of war were always located in or near civilian centers, which, for political reasons, were deemed off-limits. So for 10 years the US bombed the hell out of bamboo bridges, huts, and broken-down trucks. It had no effect because the Vietnamese are resourceful, clever people and were determined to win. They were the ultimate distributed network - take out one part, and another will step up to replace it while a small crew repairs the damaged area.
Contrast this with the US - large, highly visible targets of obvious importance. Choke points and centers of strength. With a few million dollars' worth of bombs you could easily lower Americans' standard of living by half. The US is well-equipped to fight a war against a similar enemy - like the Soviet Union of yesteryear. It is ill-equipped and inexperienced to fight a lengthy guerilla war, on foreign soil, against people who are at once civilian and military, against people with radically different values and standards than our own. The Geneva convention is likewise unable to cope with this reality - killing civilians is illegal, but who qualifies for this protection? If a man shoots at enemy aircraft from his home while his unarmed wife and children are present, how can the pilot justify shooting back? How can the pilot justify *not* shooting back?
This, I believe, was the fundamental question during Vietnam. And as we're thankfully starting to see, it will be the fundamental question in Afghanistan and wherever else the US may elect to demonstrate its might. In guerilla and terrorist warfare it is difficult or impossible to distinghuish innocents from combatants. Even the Israelis, who have dealt with this problem for many years, have never found a solution that permits both humanity and security. The US, in 10 years in Vietnam, never did either.
But philosophical discussions aside, if I honestly believed that dropping bombs on Afghanistan until 6,333 people died would cure forever the prospect of terrorist attacks, I would suck it up, pray a lot, and give my government the green light. It wouldn't be right, but at least it would be equitable and most importantly effective.
Of course, killing people, even killing the right people (and there's no real way to be sure who are the right people), has yet to solve anything. Executing the Nazi war criminals did nothing to prevent the atrocities committed by Pol Pot, Stalin, and others. Killing a few VC guerillas did nothing to prevent the fall of Saigon. And killing every Afghani in all the world, and parading bin Laden's head on a platter, will not assure Americans or anyone else of their security.
And that, my friends and countrymen, is why going to war over this is pointless. War is a great evil, a last desperate measure when there is simply no alternative. If a nation is to make the decision to go to war, then there must be a clearly-defined objective, and the actions of war must be suitable for reaching it. This situation, like Vietnam, fails both tests. The government has never made clear any specific objective for action against Afghanistan - to get bin Laden? (We won't present any evidence against him, so what right do we have to demand his extradition?) - to punish the Taliban for being naughty? - to simply exhaust some grief and rage against some people unloved by many and mostly unable to retaliate? In no case has anyone actually pretended that even a 100% successful war against Afghanistan would prevent terrorism, but then one would really have to wonder why do it at all. In any case, even if we were to settle on one of these objectives, there is no clear evidence that even a successful war would achieve any of them. It's difficult enough to support killing when it's truly deserved. Witness the debates over capital punishment. It's even difficult, though perhaps less so, to support killing when it's truly necessary. But senseless killing to achieve no defined goals, with no clear purpose, of people who cannot be clearly identified as "enemies" is entirely unacceptable in a civilized society. And we are one, right? Right?
We are about to show the Taliban that we can utterly destroy a $10.00 tent with a $2,000,000,000.00 cruise missle.
./ .... not original, but good none the less)
(quote found on
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Note the mention of groups of guerrilla soldiers, including Osama Binladen, being funded by the CIA. I know that the CIA was later prohibited from hiring terrorists, and I have to wonder whether section 815 of the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001 isn't exploiting the emotional response after a terrorist attack to weaken or completely remove restrictions on funding the type of people who hijacked these planes; to supposedly combat a terrorist leader who was apparently trained and strengthened by the same funding. The only discrepancy I see is that 815 allows this practice for 'intelligence' purposes, but forgive me for thinking it could easily be abused as a loophole to fund terrorists for any purpose. If it were, you can bet it'd be 25 years later before an FOIA request had the CIA's activities declassified.
Now, there are those who will say "remember, they don't want matterial comforts the way Westerners do" or some such. But I think they are missing the point. True, they may not want Linux PDAs or whatever, but I'll bet good shoes would be appreciated.
Those few who infiltrate will grow accustomed to the softness of the new lifestyle, and be unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to fight their cause.
There is some evidence of this already, in that it now appears that there may have been other hijackings planned that didn't happen because the hijackers backed out.
Build them a beautiful mosque. Allow them to pray. Give them a world where they need not fear, where they are defended by the United States military.
And most importantly, what we really have to offer isn't material comforts, it's freedom. This is the kind of thinking--using American strengths rather than letting the opposition choose the terms of engagement--that might really get us somewhere.
-- MarkusQ
Am I the only one who wasn't a tad surprised to see that Michael was the one writing dumb commentary?
That's why we need to exterminate with tactical nukes and the nuetron bomb. They deserve it.
THEY is not the Afghanistan people, it is (probabily) the OBL. and friends. Keep that in mind.
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
Do you really think our military commanders are that dumb? There are two things that our military does better than anyone else:
Don't think our troops are innovative and flexible? Go read something by Stephen Ambrose on WWII.
Don't think our commanders have prepared the troops for this kind of combat? Wrong. Units have been training for years for just this type of conflict because they know that since the Gulf War no one in their right mind would dare face our mechanized troops
We employ more Special Forces troops than any other nation. And they are damn good at what they do. I don't know how they do it and I don't want to. Remeber what happened in Somolia? A massive failure right? Do you know how many enemies those guys faced (and killed)? It was a failure becaue we lost soldiers at all.
We will lose men. Good men. But I'll tell you what, they will make a good counting for themselves. They will do their job and put their lives on the line so after some of them have died you can say it was a 'mistake'.
The Soviets lost 15,000 troops in ten years? We just lost 6,000 civilians in one day. We cannot and will not allow that to continue.
Read some Tom Clancy, do some research. Show some respect. And do not call something that hasn't happened yet a mistake. Especially when you seem to be completely blind to the fact that we have no intention of fighting the same kind of war the Soviets did. Or to the fact that the Northern Alliance is begging to help.
My apologies but I am sick and tired of the this feeling that the people who's job and life's work it is to make keep this country safe doesn't know how to do it as well as some guy who reads slashdot.
Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
Yes, a whole sale invasion of Afghani soil with the purpose of controlling the countryside either without [1] air support or precision guided munitions or [2] while fighting an army backed with money and training from another super-power would be stupid. But unless I've been in a coma for a couple of weeks and its not really the 22nd of September, no one has suggested that yet.
Not like I've ever been known to just go off, but one of these days I'm seriously going to have an aneurysm or hemmorage or something if people don't stop assuming that there are only two sides to any story. Our options are not "invade Afghanastan" or "stay at home and be safe". Its not that easy. Not doing anything doesn't make you safe, and doing something doesn't mean sending thousands of people to needless deaths. The issue is a little bit more complex, especially since no military action and millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to most of the Middle East up to September 11 sure did a lot of good at stopping terroism.
As long as there are *governments* that sponsor terrorism, monetarily, with training, or with physical protection, you will not be safe.
I trust the leaders of my country. I trust our military. And if my country calls me to service, you can bet your ass I'll be at the recruiting station in 15 minutes. I'm not willing to sacrifice my freedom so that you can be self-righteous about how much you love peace or how you are so smart since you passed a few history classes and managed to watch CNN. I will sacrifice my life so that we call live free from fear in the liberty our grandparents died for.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
It was moderated up because of the reference to sodium pentathol, of course. This intriguing compound begs for a google search it seems.
Look at whats going on in the media, Bin Laden is being turned into the Darth Vader of terrorism. When in reality he is nothing but a figurehead, a symbol for terrorists to rally around. He isn't the evil mastermind the media creates/wants him to be. Most likely he sits in a cave reading old newspapers and checking the box scores of the Yankees game. He has little to do with planning and the financial funding. That 300 million dollars? He blew most of it away while partying in college.
However the American public is convinced that Bin Laden is behind all this and want his head on a plate. The military will most likely do some visible actions to keep the American public happy. These moves will be the least efficient in winning the war against terrorism, however they will be the most effective in keeping American support. They are PR moves, propaganda, to make it look like we are doing something. In reality the war is being fought in the shadows and this is where we will win. The military is stuck in a situation where it must keep American support but the REAL victories are ones that can not be made public. So the military puts on 'parades' for us, sure bomb some so called 'training camps'. Hell, we might even go after Bin Laden and capture/kill him. Yet, the truth is these are fronts/images/advertisements/propaganda to keep the ball rolling in the REAL war which most of us will never see/hear about.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
The U.S. doesn't want to invade and occupy Afghanistan... the British and Soviets did. The U.S. wants to go in, get their man (or men), and "deal" with them... whether be by trial or shot to the back of the head. This is the fundamental difference.
;)
Our technology is also greater than it was 20 years ago (when the Soviets tried). We have stealth, night vision, heat vision, etc... such things change the balance of odds. This is why we were able to take out Iraq so fast. Technology allowed us to be a few steps better, given that their troops were just as equipped, trained and skilled as our troops (which probably isn't the case)... and I'm sure isn't the case here.
On a similar note, the Taliban has about 50,000 men. Currently, the U.S. military consists of 3.5 million men and 3.5 million reservists. Obviously, we outnumber their forces significantly... I don't think we'd have a problem wiping them out if we wanted. I think if they even took out like 250,000 of our troops we'd just turn it into a parking lot and wipe our hands of it.
It's clear to anybody who has seen the latest decades' history.
Yes, go and kill Bin Laden ant take several thousands of "colateral casualties" with you.
Next day, all the radical muslim people form all the countries of the world (Note, not only muslim countries, muslim people it's spreaded A LOT!!) will enlist themselves in the nearest Terrorist corpuscles.
What would you do then?
All countries will have a new terrorism in their countries that we never had... In fact we are trying hard to integrate this people only because we don't want this things happen.
You will go to Spain (In my case) and clean all by yourselves?. Then in France? in Germany?
We are trying hard to integrate our inmigrants, fighting racism, controlling their number, and now that things are beginnig to go well, you came with all this shit....
We have a lot of victims of our own terrorism, (only about 1000 sorry) and never wanted to implicate other countries in our things.
I know you will do wathever you want, afterall, the rest of the world doesn't exists for the most of you.
==
That's the time harvesters,that's the time to be care
get back all this people, so ostentatious and arrogan
This is NOT going to be a traditional war, like Desert Storm, nor is it going to be a police action, like what the USA went through in Vietnam (or the Soviets in Afganistan)
The Israeli Mosaad have been killing the al Qaeda people for quite some time, using covert activities like car bombs, etc.--but they have limited resources to track them down, and the planning must be meticulous, and the target really is rather ephemeral.
It's important to remember who we are, and what we are up against.Our goal must be supporting and protecting the innocent, while (literally) killing the guilty.
That means the Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan radical islamic strongholds will, over time, have to be identified and...sterilized...with the help of moderate elements in those nations.
It's hard to beleive we might need the help of Saddam Hussein's secret police, perhaps while he looks the other way, this time around, but think about it:
If the moderate muslims don't ante up, now that they have said that those responsible for the tragedy are not true muslims, then next time it might be gas, bio or nukes on our soil, or the soil of israel.
I think we have policies in place...that state a nuclear attack on israel or the USA will result in nuclear retaliation against the most likely agressor, period. It would be a shame to see tens or hundreds of thousands of moderate muslims get nuked because of a few hundred radicals. They say we would never do it, don't bet on that, ever.
Bush is right on this one...the Arab world needs to decide whether they want these radicals around in the future, and they better decide to give them up...covertly or overtly..because this needs to be taken care of now.
The leaders in the muslim world are politicians like elsewhere. There are moderates and radicals in their governments. Let's hope the thousands dead died for nothing, that the moderates help us clean house, and when it's over the more hateful elements of islam end up a historical footnote.
We need the moderates to help us, or we're doomed.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
From the referenced story, Afghanistan Is Like Nothing You've Ever Seen, Soviet Vets Say:
First, there are no real "bases" for terrorists, they say. Fighters live in ordinary villages. Air or artillery strikes against them will invariably kill civilians.
Moreover, there are few targets other than villages, the veterans warn. There are few bridges, no factories. Most of the country's infrastructure has been destroyed in decades of civil war.
"Even in Iraq you had something to bomb," Lisinenko said. "But there are no targets in Afghanistan. There's nothing there to bomb."
I'm very happy that Slashdot is covering this. If the U.S. government starts a huge war, it will affect our computer jobs. Not only that, if I did not read Slashdot, I would never have seen the article.
The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people: What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
If we try to arrest terrorists, then we'll be committing racial profiling, so we can't do that. If we try to respond to them militarily, then we'll obviously do it exactly the same way as the soviets did, which will get several innocent people killed, so we can't do that.
Stand proud and don't let the terrorism bother you, for you are politically correct, which is the most important thing of all.
man did you guys ever see passenger 57? Whew, sweet movie!
Discussion overheard between two nations:
USA: Since you've refused to stop supporting Mr. Laden, we're going to attack you. We're thinking about an all-out invasion with ground troops.
Taliban: Oh, you'll regret that. You'll lose just like the Russians and the British. No ground invasion works here.
USA: Damn! OK, then we'll fly over and carpet bomb you. Ha!
Taliban: Oh, didn't we tell you, we live in very deep caves that are not affected by bombs.
USA: Damn again! What if we fight a long, protracted war with special forces, spys and other sneaky things?
Taliban: Your college students will revolt and your people will not like you. You will be very, very unpopular and the United Nations will make fun of you. Hollywood will make movies describing you as bloodthirsty Nazis. Even your children will spit on you.
USA: Damn it again! You've got me stumped. Hmm... well I guess there's only one thing left... (click... poof... boom!) Hello? Get me India. Tell them I've just made a nice big parking lot for them to their north.
You've never heard of sodium pentathol? 'Truth serum' sound any more familiar to you?
One other thing the Taliban did, was ban the use of opiates. They simply killed addicts, but it dissuaded all new addicts. This year, they extended the ban to growing poppies. In one summer, Afghanistan went from the worlds largest opium producer to producing NO opium. They won their war on drugs. It also had the effect of driving the general population into terminal starvation, since they couldn't grow much food because of the drought, and they couldn't buy their food, no cash crop of opium.
All of Afghanistan's bridges, mosques, hospitals, schools, markets, you name it have been destroyed in the last 20 years. There ain't nuttin' left. Nothing. Along comes a person who feeds them, buys medicines, drives out the raping Northern Alliance, and they are grateful. That benefactor is bin Laden. Shows you the power of foreign aid.
The LATimes article points this out.
That these terrorist attacks could get even scarier soon?
5 951,00.html
"...U.S. law enforcement officials have found a manual on the operation of cropdusting equipment while searching suspected terrorist hideouts, government sources tell TIME magazine..."
For the full article, see http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,17
I really like this idea, but I wonder what other Muslim states would think. Would they be peeved that they, who hadn't bombed us, weren't getting as much aid? Would they resent the US incursion into their territory, viewing it as Israel II?
I'd love to think this idea could work, though.
What about our mistakes can we say "Vi-et-nam" not to mention various other failed incursions.
The Soviets and the British were fighting wars of occupation and control. The Soviets wanted a stable satellite state. The British wanted to expand their empire and control the land routes from India (already controlled) back to Europe.
We don't want control. We are not looking to occupy. We don't give a shit if the Afghans harass the Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Tajiks, Russians, etc. We are going in to kill some people and destroy some military equipment & training camps.
No, Afghanistand does not have major infrastructure -- no television, radio or internet; no major roads; no centralized anything.
They DO have airports (a couple), tanks and planes that are used to fight the "Northern Alliance". They encourage locals to grow and export poppy products (heroin & opium) to the point that Afghanistan is the #1 supplier of those drugs worldwide. Only 10% of their land is arable, and 90% of that is used for poppy production. This results in the vast majority of the gov't income.
Destroy what military we can find, and let the freshly supplied Northern Alliance fight on the ground. (It IS their land, after all.) Destroy a few crops of poppies; freeze all their remaining assets and seal the borders as much as possible and their income will dry up. Can't afford bullets, guns or bombs.
Funnel aid (actual food & medicine, not money) through the Northern Alliance.
Yes, people are going to die. Yes, civilians are going to die. They entire damn country was starving before (over 2 million refugees in Pakistan and 1 million in Iran before all this started -- that's 15% of Afghanistan's reported population). Maybe once the Taliban is gone something can be done. It sure as hell wasn't when they were in power.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Um, yeah. It's good that you can see clearly. Obviously you are upset with the events of september 11. But not to marginalize the severity of what happened, I hope that you, and everyone can actually ask themselves why it happened and why America is responding the way it is. And before you leap and say that they are blood-lusted maniacs... fine the 20 cells of terrorists, that actually are the targets for vengence, most likely are twisted souls acting only to cause havoc. But there are about a billion (not exageratting) people in the world who dislike the USA. Ask yourselves why again. My answer to myself is that the America is one of the most arrogant countries in the world. America is responding with "infinite justice." That scares me just as much as the attacks did. The US could have quite easily had "justice" exacted on themselves for their past attacks. The way the USA acted treated New Zealand for not allowing US subs into their habours was completely absurd. Other things come to mind as well... Hiroshima... Nagaski... Vietnam... The US doesn't seem to realize that people have different views on life. And the "correct" view doesn't HAVE to the American one. Witness this excerpt for the link: "I asked an old man, 'Why do you live in such conditions? Don't you want to do something to improve your lot?' " Lisinenko said. "But the man replied, 'Don't you understand that the worse we live in this world, the better our lives will be in paradise? We don't want the same things in life that you want.' " Please, think for a minute. About the dead. About those who will die. And WHY.
Afghanistan is nothing compared to what we had to deal with in WW-II. It is a small festering boil on the ass of the world. It has a primitive culture with the people oppressed by a vicious minority - many of whom are foreigners (arabs).
When a nation has been hit with a massive attack such as we took, the rules change dramatically. A massive attack reques an equally powerful reaction. Retaliation, in a situation like this, is not vengeance and is not done for satisfaction, although it may provide that. It is deterrence. It is to make it too painful for our enemies to use these tactics again. A nation must unsheath "a terrible, swift sword" after this kind of attack, or forever lose the trust and respect of its citizens and its enemies.
It was no accident that The Battle Hymn of the Republic was plaid at the first memorial service. That song is symbolic of America wreaking vengeance in the name of freedom. And we shall do so again.
Given the modern world of asymmetric warfare, it doesn't mean we go out and bomb their civilians the way we did in WW-II. We have moved beyond that, thank goodness. But it does mean we take a lot of action. We kill or capture a lot of people. We destroy a number of hostile governments, or we allow them to castrate themselves if they wish to survive.
Few are alive today who previously experienced a situation of this magnitude, and thus few have come within an order of magnitude of appreciating the situation. For example, compare Afghanistan to our first major military action of WW-II (our = US): Guadalcanal. Read up on that horrible fight, and realize it was just one relatively small part of just the US part of that war. And there, we were fighting a much better armed, much larger and at least equally suicidal enemy. And we lost thousands - on that one little island. And we kept going and did it again and again. (I say we, but really my parents generation).
And our allies did the same sort of thing. Churchill had to sacrifice the civilians of Coventry to protect one cryptographic secret.
The citizens of London suffered through the blitz, which killed tens of thousands of civilians.
Today we are used to thinking of war as little police actions like Kosovo, or constrained theatre operations like the Gulf War I, or at worst cold war proxy fights like Korea, Vietnam or (for the USSR) Afghanistan-I. Today, there is no cold war which allies nuclear powers with our enemies. Today, we have been struck as badly as with weapons of mass destruction, and will probably avoid using nuclear weapons only because we don't need to But if they were needed to win this war, I have no doubt they would be used, and should be. This is some serious stuff.
What has been done to us (and all free nations of the world), unprovoked, gives us a motive far different than what we had in Vietnam or Korea or Iraq. It is more like what the British had in World War II: war leading to unconditional surrender or destruction of organized enemies of ours who were responsible for this or who have provided sanction either to those who did this or those who could have done it.
This means that if, for example, Syria doesn't allow us to take out, by air AND ground, the terrorist bases they support, the current Syrian government will be replaced - at whatever the cost! This is just one example. War is hell, and we have just experienced a taste of it. Now we must give it to those despots and psychopaths who have been preying on innocent civilians for too long.
Another thing war means: if the press discovers a military or intelligence secret, they keep it a damned secret. If they don't, at the least the citizens should be outraged enough to make the reporter and organization very sorry.
It also means that acts of domestic terrorist such as those carried out by Earth First! or McVeigh be treated as acts of sabotage in war, with appropriate penalties.
Give up a few freedoms? We don't have a choice. We just had them taken from us by a bunch of vicious thugs supported by evil despots who oppress their own populace, spread hate against us and what we stand for, and support those whose goal is to take innocent human life. We just lost the freedom to travel freely. We just lost the freedom to feel secure in our country. We just lost the first battle of World War III.
And even with all of this, I suspect that most Americans, no matter how much they whine about it, will lose far fewer freedoms than were lost in WW-II. Most Americans will not be drafted, but in WW-II, 30,000,000 of the men of the US were in the armed services. Think about that! That is the sort of sacrifice that had to be made then, and the sort of power we could generate today. Thank goodness most of us won't have to. And thank goodness there are still a few among our number who volunteer to put their lives at risk to keep this from happening again, and to punish those responsible.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Please, STFU and let people who have a better understanding of what they're talking about comment.
The U.S. hasn't even FIRE A FUCKING SHOT YET! They may very well really botch it, but until we even know WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE DOING, STFU!
Damn... fucking idiot
What good is high karma if you don't burn it off... ; )
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
and let the little piece of the world rot.
Take the $100 Billion that we are going to spend and develop commercial fusion and other non-fossil fuel based energy source. Cut all aid, trade and dimplomatic ties to all non-democratic states in the region.
Bomb, missiles, tanks, Special Forces will only create another generation of suicide terrorist. Their religion is base on violence and they still reliving the dark ages. Someday, perhaps a century from now, they will experience the age of enlightenment and will join civilized society.
As someone who went to Afghanistan to visit, I can say it is a beautiful place. The people are beautiful, as well as the scenaries.
What some people should understand is that if America went to ground war, we will not be fighting Afghanistan. We will be fighting the Taliban. Big distinction there. The Northern Alliance (their leader was killed a few weeks ago - this should have been a wake up call for what happened in the US) are going to help the US with intellegance and ground about 20,000 ground troops.
The war would be easier if countries cut off sending aid to the Taliban...
They are fighting against the taliban and oppression of women in Moslem countries: RAWA.
what the fuck dudes what the fuck is up llamas fu biatchs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
or you are badly misinformed. Mostly the Afghanis are not the bad guys. Many of the extremists, such as Bin Laden, are foreigners from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan and a host of other Arab countries.
The Taliban are an even more special case. They are a joint creation of Pakistan and guess who, the CIA. They are fanatical misfits originating in Pakistani refugee camps where they were trained in Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist tactics. Then the CIA came along and said, "We must defeat the Russians at any cost". Remember that this is the same CIA who claimed that Russia was as dangerous as ever, even after the USSR collapsed, so it's easy to see why they were so desperate to defeat the Russians even though the Russians had already almost defeated themselves.
As a consequence, the CIA took a look at the Taliban and Bin Laden and said, wow, "These are the kind of people we can work with!". The CIA opened the floodgates with all the small arms the Taliban could use, including even Stinger Missiles. I heard an interview just a few days ago with a CIA official who vehemently insisted even now that they had made the right decision. Of course their intelligence on the strength of the USSR was, however, a little off (my comment).
Much to the dismay of the USA and in particular, the CIA, these people did not leave Afghanistan after the Russians left. It was a wondergful haven for terrorist training camps. There motto now seems to be first the USSR, now the USA.
The fanatics in Afghanistan are the creation of American foreign policy and the CIA. This is one of the reasons why they feel such contempt for the USA. They must feel that anybody who can be manipulated that easily must truly be corrupt and decadent.
didnt you read the article?
The poverty was more than he could fathom. There was no furniture. No light. The only object inside was a copy of the Koran, tucked into an alcove. "I asked an old man, 'Why do you live in such conditions? Don't you want to do something to improve your lot?' " Lisinenko said. "But the man replied, 'Don't you understand that the worse we live in this world, the better our lives will be in paradise? We don't want the same things in life that you want.' "
im sure some would want to be corrupted, but many would reject capitalism even more.
Check out this link:
www.time.com/nation
The bastards are planning to crop dust us with poison. So:
Kill all the Muslim fanatics and sympathizers now!
The nuetron bomb doesn't leave any residual radiation when it's done.
damn I wish I hadnt just spent my last mod point! This is an opinion I agree with - and one that - even living outside the US - doesnt come up in the media hardly at all.
Serioualy, I like America and I like Americans - but they (and us, the British as well) do a lot of things with the rest of the world that dont make them popular. In fact, they've done a whole lot of stuff to seriously piss a lot of people off.
I'm in no way advocating terrorism in any way, shape or form, but I hope some change in foreign policy comes out of this.
(this applies to a lesser degree to the UK as well)
I understand, you KNOW the US hasn't learned from the experience of the British and Soviets because of your privileged access to the top secret briefings going on in Washington. Nice to know that the crack Slashdot editorial team has top secret, eyes only access.
Oh, right, forgive me. You are relying on your vast military experience. You numerous years in the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines. Your hight rank. I forget, did you retire as an Admiral, or as a General? Or was it both?
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm mistaken. You are relying on the broad, but also deep, education you received on your way to a Ph.D. in both political science and history.
Or is it that you have no idea what you are talking about.
to be thinking so fuzzily about such matters.
What sets us apart from the Islamic "fundamentalists" (i.e., lunatic fringe is more like it) that apparantly perpetrated these horrible cowardly attacks?
Might it be that we make a distinction between innocent civilians and combatants in time of war? That we seek out those individuals and groups actually responsible for such crimes, rather than blaming and oppressing entire ethnicities and countries full of innocents? Surely this is the case.
I understand your pain and outrage, but throwing our weight around while abandoning our civilized values will only play into bin Ladin's hands - that's what he wants! For us to overreact in an oppressive and bloodthirsty way. Then, we'll have the entire Islamic world rightly howling to dismantle our so-called civilzation and drink our blood. Congratulations - go have about six more drinks instead of posting more of your bloody jingoistic drunken ravings here to expose your lack of either strategic understanding or basic humanitarianism. Or better yet, just go sleep it off, you gargantuan fool!
The worldwide assumption is that americans have no experience fighting a war against a people with a value system like the afghanis... the rather unfortunate truth is that americans do. They know very well how to conquer and repress such peoples, and have done so with hideous effectiveness in the past. The trick is not to study the history of the vietnam conflict, or Iraq, or the russian or british experiences in afghanistan. Americans need to look to their own personal history for effective strategies and tactics against such a foe... Which means look to the history of the indian wars of the 19th century.
Look at the above website for the view of someone who has been there.
In today's Guardian (England) there was an article that stated that this past June the US sat down Russia, Pakistan, and some other countries in the region and told them that if the Taliban didn't hand over bin Laden we would bomb the hell out of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Did we tip our hand and the Taliban then launch a preemptive strike because they were going to get it anyway? Who knows, but if the Moslem world believes the article, then this becomes a War Against Islam.
George the Elder did something like this. Our ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein it was OK by us to take Kuwait.
Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
Excuse me, what exactly are we supposed to have learned? That because Afghanistan is a tough opponent we should just allow them to harbor terrorists who strike at the US? We should only consider military action against countries that are obvious pushovers?
We haven't entered into military action with Afghanistan yet, so it's too soon to tell whether our military will fare better than the British or Soviet armies. It's not even a sure thing that we will engage in a ground action against Afghanistan, so it's not a foregone conclusion that we've made any mistakes.
It's amazing how quickly some people have lost their spines when it looks like we might actually have to engage in a real war, as opposed to a campaign of bombing helpless troops and conducting a war from a distance. Have you forgotten that this is a country whose government harbors a terrorist connected with several other strikes against the US, and who is likely tied to the murder of several THOUSAND innocent people of multinational decent?
Do you harbor some illusion that if we do nothing, that the terrorist actions will cease? I don't know what could possibly give that impression, since we've no concrete message from the terrorists what prompted this strike.
We should certainly take heed at what the British and Soviets have learned in actions against Afghanistan. Remember, we equipped the Afghanis in the first place against the Soviets...
I don't think that the Taliban government should be let off the hook. Yes, American soldiers will be killed in a ground action and that's a horrible thing. But it's a even more horrible thing to allow this attack on innocent people to go unpunished and wait in fear for the next attack. I have faith that we can win a war with Afghanistan if we have to. And if it's a prolonged war I'll be happy to sign up if they'll take someone my age. (I'm 31 and I'm pretty sure the cut-off is 26, though I'm not 100% sure of that since this is the first time I've been moved to consider serving with the armed forces...)
People always bring up Vietnam anytime America
begins a military action. The same types of stories were printed up 10 years ago for Desert Storm.
I'd say its a little silly to think that the american military has forgotten the Vietnam war,
after all, we lived it. If you dont think we learned from the experiance, check our track record.
There is a large difference between the goals that Russia had in Afghanistan and the American goals. Russia wanted to control the region, to make Afghanistan a part of the USSR. America doesn't want Afghanistan.
Once we have what we are there for, we're gone.
I started with nothing and I still have most of it.
Attack the states, and they root out the terrorist. It's the same way oranized crime is pressured when they kill police.
nohup rm -rf ~/. >& zen &
You're obviously a graduate of mcdonalds hamburger college. Why not try some of what you prescribed on yourself and see how you like it. Hell even if I didn't know anything I'd be smart enough to lie and say anything to get the morons interrogating to shoot me. Read the article because you obviously don't realize they care nothing about death. They freely embrace it because they think their lives will be better in death than in life. So you'd be interrogating suicidal religious fanatics, I doubt you'd be able to keep them alive too long.
People seem to have visions of massive armies and hundreds of thousands of troops. Get real! You don't hunt a couple hundred people like that. You need special forces to go in and do recon and take them out. And another thing, people keep comparing us to the Russians and British... well, who says we DIDN'T learn from their mistakes? Throwing up your hands and sounding the bell of defeat isn't an option here guys. It's not like we can just go home anymore.. these people are on our shores hiding among us like the pathetic luser cowards they are.
We need to revive Hitler, give him an army, and let him loose in the Middle East.
Try here and here for more information of this sort. Both are good CNN articles about the difficulties of an Afghanistan war.
Ok, lets look this one over:
The british failed because the british troops had no real reason to fight other than the glory of england. (let me tell ya, that does not get you very far against anybody who is fighting for their homeland).
The russians failed because the US saw an excellent opportunity to accelerate the collapse of the soviet empire. After all, do you really think that the afghans found that many AK-47's on the battlefield? Didn't think so. The US gave the resistance lots of weapons. This is the same group that would become the taliban a few years later. We also gave them billion US dollars in aid to make sure that they had the supplies that they needed.
Of course, the big error made by the US. After the war, we just got up and walked away. We created a vacuum, the taliban filled that vacuum. And now that you have a country of folks who only know how to do one thing well (other shoot a US made stinger missile), it is hard to get them to suddenly do something else (like rebuild a nation).
Had the US poured a few of those billion into the country in the form of humanitarian aid, we would not have this problem today. Then again, we expected the local countries to do their part in assisting the afghans. (lesson #2, The Saudi's don't give a shit about the afghans)
So, how do we get out of this mess?
We can start by using special ops to get at a few of the more popular targets (bin laden, a few of the camps). However, the real victories will not be shown on CNN in an arcade like display: finding the money trail, arresting folks before they get a chance to carry out their plans, etc, etc. The last thing that we should do is launch a land war and try and occupy the country. Unless we want to throw a few million americans at the problem, we don't have a chance in hell of making it work.
In the end, the US will have to take a long term view of the area, something that we have never done and try and get ourselves out of the area as soon as possible. After all, we judge a company based on their quarterly results, what makes you think that we will start to ask the question "but what happens in 10 years"
Lets hope that the US gets a clue this time and takes care of the problem and not just the symptom. After all, I'm a capitalist pig who likes all of the things that a healthy economy can get me and that economy does not like having large buildings blown up.
airheaded remarks like this from timothy. It's pathetic that he even has to chime in with inane uninformative, neo-political remarks. Oh tell us great timothy, to what classified planning information are you privy to? Stick to your realm, "news for *NERDS*" and you'll be okay.
;))
And now for some information that is relevant to the potential action in Afghanistan. I have been reading extensively on terrorism and been propping my eyelids open watching the "experts" on TV and reading Hackworth etc. and so forth. Anyways, the U.S. plan isn't to invade Afghanistan to occupy the nation as the Russians did. The plan will be to knock out the terrorist mid-level managers to disrupt the organization long enough to nab the head honchos. That way the suicide bomber gets neither training nor orders not unlike a soldier in the field cut off from command and control. That is the educated guess of the guys "in the know."
And by the way, there has been atleast one successful invasion and occupation of Afghanistan but that was by Alexander the Great.
Oh, and about the CIA backing the Taliban. Wrong, wrong, wrong. A bulk of the guys backed by the CIA in the 80s have been killed by the Pakistani backed Taliban. Yep, Bin Laden was part of the group backed by the CIA but a small part. We were fighting the Cold War and trying to prevent the Soviets from expanding their empire. They were indeed looking to add to their collection of sattelite states.
And there are two regions of Aghanistan that are good for armored/mobile warfare in Afghanistan. The first is along the border with Pakistan and the other is above the Hindu Kush next to the old Soviet Union. Those two regions are flat land desert much like that of Nevada and Iraq. I was told that first hand by someone who was a relief worker in Afghanistan.
And overwhelm them with kindness sound kinda nice but it ain't gonna work. In countries such as Iran they raise kids from birth to be suicide bombers! This is state sanction and paid for by the state. I watched a show about terrorism on Discovery and they showed a clip of a 6 or 7 year old boy screaming jubily that he will eat the flesh of the American satan infidel dogs and his family was cheering around him. Doesn't sound like you can buy this kid a teddy bear and he'll like you.
Sorry - the US military has stuff that will prevent the ambushes and such that the Soviets went through. For instance, night vision technology that let's you see people 2 miles away. The Soviets had nothing of the sort.
The Afghans better not get too cocky because they might just end up being night ducks in a US pond.
We can Win in Afghanistan (and everywhere else in the Middle East) simply by liberating their women! Women in these countries are kept in virtual bondage with Taliban's treatment of women being far and away the most repressive. The female half of the country has a surely long memory and would be happy to finger the various terrorists and Taliban stooges to inquisitive American agents as they try to sneak out of the country into Pakistan. They would also like to wear a dress, get a job, go to school, walk down the street, use a telephone, play a record, travel abroad, go to a doctor, meet a friend in a restaurant or do the hundreds of other things that Western women take for granted.
The US would also gain a great deal of trust by rebuilding roads, hospitals, schools, markets, water treatment and electrical and communication infrastructures; all things we are quite good at.
It doesn't have to be a debacle, give 'em linux and cellular and send 'em on their way....
Have you seen the poor people in Afghanistan? Women are forbidden to study, teach, work, etc.
I say we have no choice, we need to eliminate the Taliban menace and restore peace to this country. It's our duty to rescue those poor people. I don't encourage war but unfortunately we don't have much of a choice this time.
Vietnam was a war of attrition in which the US tried to hold small bases around the country and fly into hot spots to 'get rid' of viet cong.
This did not work because the people we were trying to help didn't want us there. It would be a very similar and disturbing situation to Afghanistan.
It is very different from the US invading France or the Phillipines in WWII, or even Kuwait in the Gulf War. Those were areas held by a clear foreign force which wanted to be liberated.
You can't go liberate a country of people who don't want to be liberated.
Invading Afghanistan would only solidfy resistance against the US by the populace. Trying to use special ops teams to take out these cells would be seen as an invasion. Much like vietnam was officially a 'police action' to help the supposed democratic south vietnamese.
The only real way to deal with this is to do what we did with Germany and Japan in WWII. Take military control of the country for a good ten to fifteen years and help them to build cities, roads, factories, bridges, farms, etc. In effect, create a free market capitalistic country that will be our friends after we democratize and capatilzie them.
Part of my job involves performing research that supports simulation and training for the Army, so in the days after the September 11 attacks, I began to research the history of military engagements in Afghanistan to try and gain an understanding of the Army's near term simulation and training requirements. The parent article was new to me, but there are several other related articles I found that may be of interest:
This link covers the history of the first anglo-afghan war, culminating in the wintertime British retreat from Kabul of 16,500 soldiers and camp followers, of which only one person survived.
An excellent "lessons learned" overview of the recent Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is given here, written by a General of the Soviet Army of Afghanistan. One of the most striking revelations are that disease incapicated far more Soviet soldiers than Afghan bullets. Demoralization of the Soviet soldier also played an important role in the eventual failure of the operation, making the regular soldiers more likely to shield themselves behind massive but ineffective artillery fire, without engaging in the close-in infantry fighting that was necessary for success. Operations of the Spetsnaz (Soviet special forces) generally met with better success. A very interesting preview to tactics that are likely to be employed, vs. those tactics that are likely to be avoided by the US Army.
This article on Artillery tactics provides a detailed review of the success and failure of Soviet artillery tactics in Afghanistan. Conclusions are that the Soviets too often attempted to substitute firepower for ground maneuvers, and that such tactics, while sometimes appropriate for conventional warfare, are ineffective in battling guerilla forces in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan.
One of the best overall analysis I have found of the military and political history of Afghanistan is given in the article "Afghanistan as a Rentier State Model: Lessons from the Collapse". The thesis is that Afghanistan is a "rentier state", a nation that cannot survive without economic support from external sources. In recent times this support has come from the Soviets, and then the US and other western sources. After the support was withdrawn, the expected disintegration of the Afghan state occurred, until support from the Pakistanis allowed the Taliban to become a unifying force. Highly recommended reading if you want to get a better understanding of the internal politics of Afghanistan.
Finally, on a related note, the first three chapters of an English translation of the Russian historical novel "Assault on Grozny Downtown" can be accessed here. The Russian version is written by former Russian Captain Vyacheslav Mironov, describing his experiences in fighting the Islamic fundamentalists in Chechnya. The translations are provided by volunteers, and more volunteers are needed to finish the translation. More than anything else I have read recently, this piece most accurately communicates what I imagine to be the horrors of urban warfare in which no quarter is given and none is received.
http://stileproject.com/nwo.html
Just a little food for thought.
Why are you posting as an AC? Are you ashamed of what you are saying here? Yes, that must be it.
Yeah, let's nuke Afghanistan. That'll teach them. Never mind that most of bin Ladin's operatives are in other countries far from there (Middle East, but also Germany, France, Switzerland, the UK, US, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America). Many aren't even Afghani, but from other Islamic countries (Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Sudan.).
Afghanistan is a very poor country with no infrastructure remaining to speak of, where 95% of the area is controlled by a fanatical organized banditry that comprises at best only 5% of the population. And you're willing to drop nuclear bombs on 100% of the country and people just to wipe out that 5%? Unbelievable. You still need five more stiff drinks to wanker off into babbling unconsiousness. Thank God they'll never let you anywhere near a US weapons system - you're far too unstable.
The reason we've had an unprecedented 55 years peace in europe since WW2 is not because of the bomb, not because of the cold war, not because we beat Hitler, certainly it had nothing to do with Ronald Regan .... it's because we followed up with the Marshall plan .... we made it so that the germans and japanese citizens had comfortable lives and have too much to lose by going to war again - we need to do the same all over the world - it's very simple: middle class people don't start wars - that's the real key to world peace
We may not have a "traditional" war, but on my way home today in east Texas, I passed a very long train fully loaded with hundreds of tanks. It appears that someone does indeed have plans for a ground war.
Keep Austin Weird!
I'm currently reading a book that includes some history of the conflict in Chechnya, which apparently started when the Russians invaded about 250 years ago. Yeah, that's right - 250 years worth of conflict.
Shortly after WWII, Stalin finally got sick of the mess in Chechnya and ordered the entire population of Chechnya moved. So they loaded 400,000 people into boxcars and hauled them out to the middle of nowhere in Soviet middle Asia. He moved the whole freakin' country. Several years later, when the people were allowed to return, apparently they weren't any less pissed off, because at the next opportunity (1990 or so) they started to make their attempted break from Russian control. At some point - and the rumors are, the decision involved lots of alcohol - the Russians decided to make Chechnya see the error of its ways by force. Again. With the same results they've always gotten. You'd think they'd try some different tactics after 250 years.
The example of Chechnya should be compared and contrasted with, say, the Marshall plan. Not saying the Marshall plan would work in Chechnya, the point is, trying to change a population's mind using only applied force does not tend to work.
That's a lesson we should all be considering these days.
The problem with articles like this, is that what the soviets objectives, and what our objectives are will be nothing alike. The soviets attempted to control the big cities and then use those cities as bases of operations for attacks into the country. The US has said time and time again, we are not interested in taking/holding ground. Apparently the media still has the same selective hearing the world has come to expect. I would think there will be noticable differences between a village an a military training camp. And that is NOT to say that is the objective of any mission the US embarks upon. Remember how the media played up the "elite republican guards" in Iraq, and how they were "battle hardened veterans of the Iran wars" and then how they lined up to kiss the boots of GI's as they rolled over them?
Don't let the media dictate what our military is capable, or not capable of.
If Americans just give up a little bit of freedom for security, they will have less chance of being attacked in the future.
What makes you think that you know anything about the CIA? You're a computer drone like everyone else here. You're full of yourself.
Lose the ego, Neo.
That the US is sending over all these troops to propagate the facade that we are going to bomb them into oblivion to cause a large percentage of the population to run to pakistan like they are doing right now so that our collateral damage will be reduced? I seriously hope that we don't go about this in the traditional sense(large miltary campaign).
It is truly sad that 6000 innocent people died.
But remember well that they could have been saved simply by keeping armed marshalls on large aircraft and providing genuine security in airports used by large aircraft, such as Logan Field in Boston.
But that would not have been in the spirit of airline de-regulation, would it?
Come to think of it, why do none of those erstwhile Ayn Rand fans tell us lately about the wonderful panacea of government de-regulation?
All I read about lately are more and more regulations and cries for revenge.
And after benefiting from de-regulation, airlines now want a bailout, no doubt as a reward for the wonderful job they have been doing on airline safety.
If American foreign policy is going to to cause white-hot hatred against the USA, then it should be obvious that MUCH MORE EFFORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT INTO SECURITY AND THIS IS A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY; you know, INTERNATIONAL airports and NATIONAL defense!
Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes.
What an ignorant comment! We have not sent in a single troop yet, and yet you feel you have a basis for making this claim?
Guess what? We have Russian advisors assisting us in our military planning. Just because the English and Soviets failed does not mean the lesson is "Don't touch Afghanistan". It certainly is not "Don't touch Afghanistan even if they harbor terrorists who kill 5,000 of your citizens."
If you haven't yet listened to or read President Bush's speech to Congress, I highly recommend doing so.
I'm getting the distinct impression that Bush is planning on liberating Afghanistan. There are even reports that this is the case. Combine that with the ongoing British diplomacy with Iran, Iran's calling for an international fight against terrorism, and unprecedented sympathy towards the terror attack victims. And note how we haven't dropped any bombs yet, 11 days after the WTC mass murder. It looks like we're going to do the job right this time.
Peace with Iran, the liberation and rebuilding of Afghanistan... it's going to be tough to pull off, but if it can be done, wow...
Yes, the Chechens are bandits. They've been bandits for decades, if not centuries. But lately they've tried to expand their influence outside their borders - they've become expansionist bandits.
What the US objected to was the Russians descending to the level of their unscrupulous opponents in that policing operation. Although it was an extremely strenuous and brutal exercise, they didn't need to torture captives or brutalize civilians. But they did, and the US objected to those practices.
Now, what was your point again?
Someone take this all the way up to Bush's ear. We need some reason in this whole fucked situation.
Any ground operations will almost certainly be carried out by the Northern Alliance with the aid of special forces. Read Tom Clancy's book "Special Forces" for an idea of what these guys do. Also we need to remember that the Soviets had such a hard time because of American support!!! They Afgahns don't have that kind of weapons, logistical and intelegence resouces that they had with the aid of America. It will be nasty but if it takes people coming home in body bags to begin the process of ridding us of terrorists then so be it. I call anybody that's not willing to support that a coward!!
A lot of what I've heard is along the lines of "you can take the cities, but you'll be forever deviled by hordes coming out of the high valleys".
You also hear a lot of stuff like "there is no beach-head" and "this is a different kind of war".
OK, so the proper response to a different kind of war is a different kind of fight. Instead of taking the cities and then trying to "mop up" the notoriously difficult mountains, why not do it in reverse?
I've been thinking that we should check out these valleys and make sure that a small defensible area is clear. Then, you drop troops and supplies in that area to establish a "valley-head". You do this several places. The choices would be based on how much you can see, and what routes you can see. The mission of these forward bases is to shoot anything that carries a weapon, and to gradually explore and secure the area around the base, eventually establishing checkpoints, or "chokepoints" if you prefer. These guys eventually have to come out of their holes, and we can run surveillance on them day and night.
Once this is accomplished, then, and only then you invade the cities. If they are in the cities it is not so bad because urban fighting is historicly our strength. Once a city is captured, it is secured by house-to-house search for any and all weapons and contraband.
Once the country is controlled, it then becomes a matter of figuring out what government to install and/or how to partition the country. That is a more difficult problem. Expanding the former Soviet republics might not be such a bad idea since there are many ethnic Tadziks, Uzbeks, etc. already there. However, there would probably still have to be some kind of Afghanistan and we may not want to expand Pakistan or Iran.
Imagine a "United States of Islam" or "Islamic Union". That could be much, much worse, especially if it took on the characteristics of a quasi-fascist megapower like China. Then again, it might also be tranquilized by the desire for trade. That is a tough call.
The other worry is that if we stay there too long we could end up building infrastructure that might later be used by China to move troops into the oil fields of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Remember, this is the old "silk road" we are talking about here. As China becomes more and more industrial we have to be wary of what they are going to do when they have the same thirst for oil that we have. So, regardless of what plan we execute we should be careful not to build a modern silk road.
To a great extent this whole mess all started with the US fighting the Soviet Union by proxy. So much for the Cold War being over.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
don't you understand that they hate us to begin with? So they blow up two of our buildings and kill thousands of innocent people and you expect us to GIVE them new temples, food, and other items?
FUCK THEM
Carpet bomb the whole damn country. Use neutron bombs and make it totally lifeless. Dead people can't do much of anything.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I am a white, Australian atheist. Not Jewish, Christian or American. I feel compelled to write here, to get the message across, that the muslims of our World are far from innocent.
Here in Australia, muslims (esp. Lebanese), have been getting out of hand for the past few years, with gang warfare, thefts, home invasions, vandalism and general terror in the streets against ANYONE who does not appear to share their beliefs of Mohammad. Over a period of about the last year or so, a particular group of Lebanese Muslims, had set up a safe-house, with supplies of condoms. They were systematically abducting non-Muslim girls from Sydney, taking them to this house and pack raping these girls, who have stated that when they asked these Muslim men why they were doing this, the reply was that "because you are Australian". These Lebanese immigrants, perhaps looking for a better life over here, instead of bringing hope for a brighter future, have brought extremely barbaric beliefs and attitudes to our peaceful and once almost utopian society where many different races were welcomed by the people and government of Australia. Australians are on the whole NOT racists, as the World media seems to be purporting in the past, which is proven in the failure of our "One Nation Party" becoming elected into a position of power. "Aussies" "take the piss" (joke about) with others, but most importantly "we take the piss out of ourselves". We have a larakin nature, that should not be mistaken for racism. Although, these girls that were abducted at knife point and pack raped (70 rapes), did not fit the stereotypical "anglo Aussie" image, of the ones I have seen, they appear to be of mediteranean origin, perhaps Italian or Greek. These Muslims don't care for anyone but themselves.
These Muslims in Australia have shot up Sydney police stations with Uzi sub machine guns. They trade in drugs, guns and stolen goods and wish to use force to instill thier beliefs onto us. Muslim students in our schools cheer in the schoolyards at the news of what occured in NYC. We non-Muslim Australians are peacefull! We don't bomb or shoot them, let alone do anything like this because they are Muslim. A friend on mine (Egyptian origin), fled Egypt, because he and his family were Christian. He was told, become Muslim, or die. Look at what the Taliban did to the peacefull Budhists and thier shrines in Afganistan! Anyone remember the mass killings of a bus load of Greeks in Egypt? Killed because they are most likely Orthodox and not Muslim.THIS IS NOT A WAR AGAINST THE US CAPATILISTS, THIS IS A WAR AGAINST ALL NON-MUSLIMS. If anyone thinks, for one moment, that Israel is not justified in thier war against Palestine, they are simply either ignorant of the facts or are Muslim. I've seen Muslim mothers loudly state, "I want my son to die! For Allah!". These weak bastards follow the tradition of brainwashing this mental disease called Islam, into thier sons, who they then send in to attack and fight on front lines against Israel, and then some morons of the World look on Israel in shame for having to "kill children". You think Israel has a choice?
Here is a little bit of history for you to chew on.
In the 7th century, a merchant by the name of Mohammed preached that, "There is no god but Allah.", which brought him conflict with the citizens of Mecca. In 622 he left to live in Medina, which is when the Arab world starts its calendar. The word "Islam" means "submission". Mohammed taught that Christians and Jews where "people of the book" and that they and thier religion should be treated with respect, but would have to accept Muslim rule, but not be persecuted or converted by force. Persia fell to the united Arabs and Byzantium was pushed back. Jerusalem fell in 638. It looked like Constantinople would fall in 717 but the Arab armies were driven back from the city walls. At this stage the Arabs controlled the Near East, North Africa and the whole of Spain. They were even crossing the Pyrenees, going into the plains of Europe, where they found the cold weather too hard to bear. They carried the beliefs of Islam with them throughout this, Christianity disappeared from North Africa. In 750, the rulers of Islam moved the capital to Baghdad. In the 11th century, for 300 years, Arab civilization would be subjected to assaults by Christians from Europe and nomads from Asia, who were much more threatening, and brought the days of Near Eastern civilization to an end.
They, are far from innocent. And seeing what they are willing to do to completely innocent men, woman and children of other civilizations, I beleive that the time has come, to erradicate completely, the Muslims of our World. Now we should turn the books on them, instruct them to burn their Korans and give up their faith, or suffer absolute genocide. I am feel sorrow for their innocent children, but if the question is their children or ours, then the choice should be obvious.
I, as an innocent victim in my own land, am willing to carry out mass murder of these animals and support the US and our allies. The time has come to rid the World of this cancer, I hope for a nuclear retribution against this evil.
It is all FUD. As a former Army vetern ( 10th Mtn. service in Bosnia ) I can assure you our military can handle these people. We are being handed anti-US military propaganda by different people right now ( former hippies with a bone to pick, old communist cells that reappear just to promote anti-US military FUD, etc...) Even though the Clinton Administration destroyed much of the military, we are still a VERY formidable force. British SAS is the premire SPECOPS unit in the world ( US SF may disagree but just read Bravo 20), and ours ain't too shabby also.
Trust me, we can handle these guys. We may take some casualties, these guys did fight the Ruskies for 10 year, but we are extremely motivated for this mission. Remember, EVERY THING YOU READ IS NOT FACT! Examine the source. Many of these people that you are seeing on the tube latley have no serious credentials, other than starting an anti-shoplifting company in Tampa or somewhere. They are just seeking face time, and have absolutely no credible expertise in this area. Anyone who does is making 90k$/year with one of the alphabet soup agencies, has a Top Secret clearence, and isn't saying shit to the media. I have seen far too many "terrorism experts" saying we can't win. FUD. If we eliminate Osama, we have already taken a major step, he is their bank. Sure we may have some dirt poor people in Pakistan and Afganistan pissed at us, but we will have seriously degraded the Tango's capabilities by killing Osama. Rest assured, evil will not win, and we will prevail. God bless America, and God help our enemies.
Spazdot-1 in 10 insightfull articles, and 1 in 10,000 insightfull comments ain't bad.
I would like to know of their view of the northern alliance.
Can they be trusted to be better then Taliban?
What are their aspirations?
If they do belong on the "good guys"(TM) camp, how do you suggest that the west can help them overthrow the government (it appears they are perfectly capable of it) with minimal ground troops intervention?
If you do nothing else, watch the bin Laden recruitment video:
What percentage of folks know that the CIA sponsored Bin Laden? How many imagine he was an angel then but only turned into what he is now when he turned against the US?
Or perhaps, assasination, throwing acid in the face of civilian women and so forth ONLY BECOMES TERRORISM WHEN THE TARGETS ARE AMERICANS??
What do you think?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Bay Area radio host Ronn Owens got a bunch of copies of this email, and decided to have Mr. Ansary on his show. The interview was pretty insightful, and is available on-line:
http://www.sftalk.com/tamim/tamim.ram
Last time I researched the mission of US Army Special Forces, it was to perchute behind enemy lines, recruit local people and launch missions intended to harass the enemy.
Special Forces leverages the resources of surprise, disguise and all the "tricks" of warefare. The problem is now there are no tricks and no trick surprise. They are called "special" because their mission is to do unusual, clandestine and otherwise unexpect actions.
The problem is they are currently expected.
Special forces only have their special value when they are doing those unusual things. They aren't supermen. No one is superman. I know of Soviet Marshall Art and Shamanic healers who was knocked out by a landmine in Afghanistan. Sure, he was Soviet Special Force equivalent. Didn't stop the landmine. American special forces don't have Jedi mind tricks to make them immune to bullets. They just are Special Forces. If they become the only thing, they will loose. If skill irregulars, which is the special forces, become the main tool, they cannot maintain their strength, they will have a hard time even maintaining their moral.
The US lost in Vietnam because it failed to fight the political war. The US is already loosing the political war with the riots in Pakistan.
US special forces are designed with the political war model - just a disfunctional one. THEY CREATED BIN LADEN. Keep in the front of your mind - also, they creat POL POT.
Now, letting loose special forces would certainly widened what is already likely to be regional war. Imagine Vietnam on ten times the scale.
Remember, US army supply lines depend on friendly nations in the area. If Pakistan become unfriendly, life gets hard, if the Saudis become unfriendly, life gets very hard.
The scenarios unfold and unfold. Even the cleverest ideas simply start to look so much quick-sand.
We're toast. I'd suggest we drop the Bomb, but with George "Short Bus" Bush in charge we'd probably hit Wyoming by mistake. Is it too late to defect to Australia?
If the US were to sit and make Afghanistan it's whipping boy, like Iraq already is, that would be fine with the American public but it would create a serious hemoraging in the Midlle East. Indeed, what we've seen is ALREADY A SERIOUS HEMORAGING IN THE MID-EAST.
Afghanistan by itself is nothing. The Islamic fundamentalism coming out of it is everything. And that cat is out of the bag. The entire project has the quality of fighting crime with nuclear missles - sure it works but the price will gradually destroy you.
I don't think there is any reason to conquor large amounts of territory, but what we do after any millitary action is important. We certainly can not leave a power vaccuum behind. Nor would I expect that western luxuries would be to the taste of many Afghans and Pakastanis in the region... it would offend the religious sensibilities of some.
Many people there have nothing, and live in fear. Food, safety, and shelter would add a lot to win over people suspicious of our motives. Public works type projects to rebuild things that have been destroyed not only by our millitary actions but by civil war and Soviet actions would show many that we are not anti-Muslim, only anti-terrorist.
Killing Afghanis is not the answer, just like killing Vietnemese was not the answer. How can you take from a people that have nothing? The answer is not to take, but to give. Give the people of Afghanistan something to live for, give them something to fight for, clear the line between those who are with us or indifferent and those who are against us.
We should move into Afghanistan and build a citadel of protection, of liberty. Pick a place in the geography, one that is large but easily defended. Move our troops in there, protect them, and then do not attack anything. As the Taliban and the terrorists run for the mountains, we begin to build. We build airstrips, and entrenchments and walls and checkpoints. We build a fortress. And then, we build hospitals, and schools and mosques and housing. We fly food in, and medicine and clothing. And then we invite all those who want it, to come and get it. We respect there idealogies, their way of life. We don't impose. We give them what they need to live and we protect them. With some clauses:
- Everyone who comes in is checked for weapons, bombs and other items of war. None will be permitted.
- Once you are 'in' you are 'in'. There is no leaving until a future date when the situation is more 'under control'. Those who want to leave, will be allowed to, but can never come back.
And then, we wait. We wait to see if they will come. If the people who have nothing, will come to get something. And once they come, we welcome them with open arms. After a while, it becomes clear who is with you and who is against you. We build military bases and begin hunting the mountains for those who are against us. Encourage those who have sided with us to help us. We've driven out the government, and now the people will be empowered to govern themselves. We'll help them.
What resort will the terrorists and the Taliban have then? Attack the fortress, which is filled with Muslims wanting only food and shelter and medicine? Kill their fellow Muslims...that will most certainly not gain them support, will not unite the 'nation of Islam'. Give those who do not agree with these extremists a chance to voice it.
This approach is just on variation on a common concept that is the only way to overthrow despotic governments. I'm not saying that it is militarily possible, but the ideal holds true. Empower the people. Protect them. Be their friends. Allow them to fight their own battles.
As someone who's been in the military, and now does programming for a defense contractor, I see how uninformed the media can be.
Best Slashdot Co
"I have no problem destroying villages..."
Perhaps the war is easier for you because you are thinking of watching it on television while you drink a beer.
Bush's education improvements were
From "The Young British Soldier":
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
This will not been another "Desert Storm". Lots of soldiers will be going in and some will be come back in body bags. That is war.
pherris
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
I'm not sure why everyone keeps calling them cowards. Afterall, you've got to be pretty ballsy to do the kamakasi thing. Besides, what are they going to do, invade the US? What other options do they have?
If we use military force against Afghanistan, we might end up using Pakistan as a base for some of our operations. This article, altho a bit dated, has interesting information about Pakistan and the 'Jihad Schools' located there. It helps shed some light on how our troops might be thought of and treated if they were stationed in Pakistan. Sounds like it would be a pretty hostile environment
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
I haven't even bothered to read all of the typical /. responses, even though I noticed that the top Score:5 more or less shores up what I'm about to say.
NEWS FLASH:
This isn't the Crimean War. This isn't WWI, nor WWII. This certainly isn't even Vietnam. For those of you who were asleep about 10 years ago, the Gulf War wasn't Vietnam, either. And finally, this isn't the Soviet occupation of the late 70's and early 80's, either.
I suppose that on the very crust of this issue, one could claim that this will be very very different because none of those conflicts involved destroying lower Manhattan.
Dig a little deeper, and you'll find that aside from the United States' sheer fury, the coming conflict between America and those nations that "harbor" terrorism will be akin to bringing a pea-shooter to a gunfight. At least during the Gulf War, Iraq saw fit to bring a knife, whole lot of good that did them.
America is poised right now with its military deployment to the region, nay -- THEATER, and is basically going one step beyond the "you're with us or against us" rhetoric, and in the next few days will be telling the Taliban (as they are the almost singular dissenting political voice internationally) to basically "Freeze! We've got you covered."
This will most surely change into, "One false move...", as I'm paraphrasing crime dramas here. I say this because I don't expect the Taliban to concede to the United States' wishes.
And then, when we move in, we'll be telling Afghanistan (or the reigning powers there) to "make a hole, and make it wide". For those of you who don't know what this means, it's a military euphemism for getting out of the way.
I doubt that the United States, if engaged in land warfare in Afghanistan, will befall the same fate as Victorian England or the Soviet Union. Why?
Because we're not interested in holding, annexing, or occupying Afghanistan. We're only interested in destroying whatever terrorist networks that might remain there, and secondarily interested in making sure that the Taliban (if and only IF they actively support terrorism against the western, if not modern and civilized world) can't support these terrorist camps.
If you haven't noticed yet, terrorism has now become the new feudalism, with new warlords like bin Laden able to operate without geo-political borders.
With that, I suggest those who believe that a victorious war against an enemy without borders is folly read up on the military philosophy of General George S. Patton -- to wit, "Now, I've heard a lot about 'holding on to territory'. The only thing we're going to hold on to is the enemy. We're going to hold him by the nose, and kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him, and go through him like crap through a goose."
Jingoism, to be sure. But there's a kernel of truth underneath it all. We do, in this day and age, have the power to DISCRIMINATELY wage war, anywhere on the globe.
I'd prefer the coming conflict to be resolved politically and economically, but I seriously doubt it. In fact, I'm more or less of the mind that for whatever fucked up reason, it can't be solved in any other way.
So while the future looks dim, please let's all look at the future instead of the past.
This is as pretty much all can agree, a new kind of war, let's not try to compare it to past kinds of war.
IF.cmg
Who's shown to be giving quarter to the Taliban. Do we nuke them? Can they nuke us back?
I know what you are trying to say, that all life is precious and has the same potential. And I agree. But, and I qualify this heavily, a person filled with ideas of equality and freedom is worth more to the future of this planet than someone who is filled with hate and authoritarinism. Hopefully we can subvert their evil culture and replace it with somting better without 'killing them all.'
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
I will say that the US Army wasn't technologically superiour in Vietnam.
The US Army and Marines were switching standard battle rifles (M-14 to M-16) while the NVA were using long-time standard rifles (AK-47). The United States Army was using a new APC (M-113) and a new Light Tank (M-551 Sheridan), both of which had bad teething problems.
The early M-16s were junk, very easy to jam and the full auto feature caused alot of problems in green troops. Since then the M-16 and M-4 have become very high quality battle rifles.
The Army was also learning how to use helicopters in a gunship and APC mode, which also caused alot of problems, that and the fact that the early UH-1s and AH-1s were single engined and had no armor. And at the time the United States had very limited UAV and remote sensing abilites.
Since Vietnam the US has done the following.
1. Established Mountain or Light Infantry units. The 10th Infantry at Fort Drum New York are veterans of Somolia and Bosnia.
3. The UH-60 Blackhawk and AH-64 Apache/Longbow are not your father's helicopters. Both are twin engined and armored to withstand 14.5mm direct hits and 23mm flak, lessons of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Both have "high/hot" capabilites the Vietnam era helos didn't have.
4. Special Forces have evolved very far since MACV-SOG/Seal Teams and Desert One. Every special forces operation teaches them many things.
5. Fort Irwin and the National Training Center - The Afghanis know how to defeat a Soviet style army, the United States has the "Best Regiment in the Russian Army" at the NTC. The United States knows how to defeat Soviet doctrine and how to fight Soviet style, and helped fight them for 8 years, they know what the Afghanis know and what the Afghanis can do.
6. Remote Sensing - The United States and NATO have made increadable strides in remote sensing in the last 30 years. Mortars fired can be targeted and counter battery fire can land on the attacker before his shells have hit the ground. Night vision will allow helos and ground troops to operate at night and in the snow where the Soviets buttoned up at night.
This isn't your father's war.
Sure, we were soooo great during the Gulf War. That's probably why Saddam Hussein is still alive and governing Iraq.
Besides, as the name indicates, Desert Storm took place in a desert. Flat land, few landscape features. Afghanistan is a country of freaking mountains. The natives know the landscape, and we don't. A little troop of snipers can hold a valley against a company. They can hide in caves you don't know of. They can take those mountain paths you don't know of.
Before you go all "we're great and strong and we're gonna kick their ass", just ponder this: Switzerland was never invaded, and even the Taliban didn't make it into the most mountainous parts of Afghanistan.
Sorry for being harsh, but it's really not the right time to brag about how great we are. It's not FUD. It's war. War is about not underestimating what we're undertaking. Not about bragging around.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Hmm. Would a person filled with ideas of equality and freedom set himself up to judge who is "more valuable" like that?
He who fights monsters must take care that he does not become a monster himself.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"To desire the end is to desire the means: if you are not prepared to do what is necessary to achieve your goal, then you never wanted it at all."
Hopefully our nation will be able to live up to those sentiments in this our hour of need, rather then give in to limp-wristed gutlesness. Victory or death!
Dubya should listen to a man that's seen military lives senslessly away on a political whim - Powell. And listen to a man that won a major war quickly and decisively - Powell.
But he's going to listen to Mr. Low I.Q., Rumsfeld. Let's just kill our sons now. Save the Afghans the trouble.
Sorry for the non-post. I can't say it any better than rfayre.
Mozilla
Isreali militarist politicians like to bomb things. It makes them look effective against terrorists. They also know plain well, that it creates many more terrorists for every one they kill. This creates further demand for their services, and keeps them elected. Sounds like a plan to me.
Let us also threaten Arab countries with Nukes. That will make them our new "Best Friends". They will turn over every stone to help because they like to be threatened over something they have little control over. Terrorism won't stand a chance then will it?
The Middle East is so peaceful. Hardly any bombs go off there. We've got to get us some of that peace.
---
We need the moderates..., or we're doomed.
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda isn't just about US Foreign Policy or the US support of Israel.
It's something much more. It's about a cluster of dangerous persons that have a dangerous agenda. Al-Qaeda wants to overthrow Islamic nations and establish an very dangerous form of extreme Islam on a billion people. The Taliban is throwing signs on the clothes of Hindus just like the Nazis did to Jews, Quakers and homosexuals.
The Taliban does things to women that would make Himmler and Gobbels go white with shock.
It is about Good and Evil. Sorry but you need to check your facts.
It's not any different than the days of the cold war. There is a certain advantage for the liberals in our government and for countries that are less than friendly toward the US for predict failure and loss. First, it's good for their supports to see them standing the line. Second, it actually supports those that would injure our way of life by giving attempting to erode confidence in our military.
Yes, there will be losses. Yes, it will be expensive. Yes, we probably didn't help the situation with our support in de-stabalizing the region in the late 80's and early 90's to thwart the attempt to hinder the spread of the USSR.
What we will not do is stand by and let these radical islamic fundamentalist rock us to the core. There is a price that this organization of terrorist will pay. They will find out what that cost is; it may not be tomorrow or the next day. But, guaranteed they will pay the price for their aggressions.
TimeOut
TimeOut
With modern technology and an open world the only way civilized societies can be safe is if the punishment for acts of terror goes far enough to make them unthinkable to the possible terrorists. That's not done by occassionally arresting someone and putting them on trial. Instead it's done by making clear that anyone in their neighborhood who doesn't help in eradicating them will go down with them; while neighbors who turn them in will be richly rewarded. Even if the terrorists themselves are irrational, most human beings everywhere care enough for their future to respond to a good combination of bribes and threats.
Our government is neither ignorant nor divided. Never heard of good-cop-bad-cop? Watch this go down. Pakistan will make out very well indeed by selling out the Taliban - who were becoming dangerous to Pakistan too. And Pakistan has had military advisors in all the Taliban campaigns - they can completely betray them. Afghanistan didn't want to be part of the Soviet empire, so resisted that thoroughly. Most Afghans would be happy to have their country rebuilt on a UN/US model - these people are starving, their women being stoned to death for religious violations. And we're not trying to continue colonial administration like we did in Nam - they know they'll be free after we restore the country. Hell, even the Vietnamese like Americans now.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Screw the rest, think of all the Catholic and Christian soldiers who will be killed in this war, the usual suckers when it comes down to it, i dont particulary care about other religons jews muslims islamic whatever religon it is, the christians go fight their war or try and set things right, and in the end we always get shit, accept your dead because he died for honour and served his country. FUCK THAT.
Agreeed. Thats the truly hard part - I hope we live up to our own ideals. I hope our democracy dosen't get caught in a feed-back cycle - were we elect jerks and slowly become jerks, then we elsect evil and become evil. But right now, in general, and in my own dumb opinion, the life of a free citizen is more precious and treasured than that of an enslaved subject. The world could use some more free people.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
I just got back from a dinner conversation from an antrhopologist from India (just came to the US three weeks ago to visit). He talked about Packistan and the dictator (Musharraf) there and about how the elected official (who was ousted?) is in Saudi Arabia. He talked about how easy it would be for this regime to topple, especially if he bends too far to the US.
Then my guest explained how this gets worse. There is real tention between India and Packistan. And the Kasmir border distpute is just one part of it. And with both India and Packistan having nukes, if one side gets twichy there could be some serious fallout. Things are already tence enough my guest underscored.
There's a theory going around that the whole Bin Laden thing is a setup
The suggestion is that he is not really the big cheeze in the terrorist network, just the bait placed to sucker the US into an expensive and futile land war in Afganistan while the real masterminds operating in Europe and the US carry on their dirty work.
The U.S. government has heavily influenced Saudi politics in favor of the house of al Saud. There are Saudis who would like a more representational government. There has been a lot of U.S. government meddling in Saudi politics that does not appear in the news.
The CIA trained Osama bin Laden: What Should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Sorry Mike, but you're just plain wrong.
/.ers) know about. I was bullied a long time in school. I never did anything about it. Why? I don't like to fight.
The Soviets wanted to conqurer Afghanistan, the US has no intention of doing this. The US on the otherhand simply plans to destoy as many terrorist bases as possible. Once their dead, we move on.
Secondly, the motivation of the armies completely different as well. The US has one of the strongest motivations that exists: revenge. The Soviet army went because of the Greater Glory of the Soviet Union; not really something that rallys the troops.
The circumstances around the military actions are completely different.
And now for something completely different...
I've heard alot of talk about "We need peace now!" or "We should attack. Violence only leads to more violence!" and whatnot. As proud liberal let me say, this is utter bullshit.
Economic-political actions (ie sanctions) simply don't work. Can anyone honestly name one regime that sanctions alone brought down? So you're left with military action.
Now with that said, does this mean I like war? No, I don't. I'd much rather not fight. I don't like having to fight, but there comes a time when you have no other choice. And when that choice is made, you fight hard, and you fight win. Unfortunately this is one of those times.
Terrorism is nothing more than a scaled up version of bulliing. Bullying is something that I (and sadly too many other
There was this guy that set next to me in english class, and evey day when the teacher would leave he would take something off my desk. It didn't matter what it was, he'd just do it to screw with me.
Eventually I had it. I stood up in the middle of class coldcocked son of a bitch. I quite literally knocked him out of his chair on to his ass.
You know what, no one messed with me after that.
So yes, violence does sometimes solve problems.
fooled be not.. Afghanistan feeds your voracious appetite for your golem press.. bin laden is a helluva handsome target, after all.. 6'5" tall.. big hands.. pure illusion.. "a schoolboy" compared to the mastermind, a psychotic Lebonese named Mughniyeh, financed by Iraq..
You are a plain stupid rassistic idiot !
Wars aren't won in the air, they're won on the ground. Sure planes are good at support and softening targets etc..., but they can't hold ground (besides by expending massive ordinance continuously...which would deny the ground to friendly troops as well).
Aviation tech is cool and all, but in the end the ground troops win it or lose it.
Personally I'd rather lose some accuracy and have a durable weapon that doesn't jam too often, than a pinpoint-accurate gun that jams when you walk too hard...but that's just me =P
--Jubedgy
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
"Too vagina bad we aren't learning from the British pussy and Soviet mistakes vagina."
How cock do we know that cock the vagina United States military isn't penis learning from pussy Briti
sh and Soviet
mistakes?
The British cock attempted to take Afghanistan pussy over 100 years twat ago dick, and you can not co
mpare an penis army cock
before aviation twat, remote sensing and mechnization dick to a modern army pussy.
Same pussy goes for the cock Soviets. The dick Soviets cock were an army vagina of conscripts and as
Afghanistan, Iraq
and Vietnam vagina show you, a vagina conscript penis army twat isn't pussy the same as dick a volunt
eer army. Also pussy, the Soviets twat
hadn't dick fought since cock WW2 or 1959-60 against the Chinese, albeit in Bridgade sized clashes. A
nd
like the twat Americans in Vietnam, an army that rusty dick will have pussy problems.
Micheal pussy should look to the SAS's penis exploits twat in cock Iraq in twat '91 and the Desert Ra
ts in '40-'41 pussy for cock
examples of vagina what penis a penis small cadre of cock highly trained and dick motivated fighters
can do againt vagina
increadable pussy odds. Or cock even look at twat Blackhawk Down for an indication cock of vagina wha
t Rangers dick and Delta
Force can cock accomplish in a twat poorly planned mission. I dick'm twat sure that all the lessons p
enis learned in
Afghanistan in twat the vagina 80s by Delta Force cock and CIA twat as well as dick those lessons twa
t learned in pussy Iraq vagina,
Somalia, Bosnia and Sierra twat Leone by vagina the Rangers vagina, Delta, SAS, Force Recon and penis
SEALs will be
taken vagina to heart.
Back when Desert pussy Storm was cock still cock Desert dick Storm twat, all penis you heard were bag
s cock o' wind talking about pussy
how the twat United cock States vagina Military was a paper vagina tiger and couldn't twat invade Ira
q pussy because Iran
couldn't vagina invade Iraq twat in dick 8 years of twat fighting. Then when penis it turned cock int
o dick Desert Storm, they told
us how many thousands pussy of cock men would dick die because the penis M-1 dick used too much cock
gas and penis was too
complicated vagina to use or cock because it twat was designed for twat Europe. Same cock thing vagin
a is going pussy on now, people
are declaring penis the United States and United Kingdom beaten before they've dick had a chance to f
ire
a twat shot back in twat anger vagina. It's FUD penis.
All pussy those soldiers are volunteers, give vagina them a dick chance to prove penis themselves or
twat be beaten.
Ad Astra vagina Per Aspera "A Rough Road Leads to the cock Stars twat".
---sublim.sh---
cat $1 | perl -pe 's/(\w+)/$1.(" dick"," cock"," penis"," pussy"," twat"," vagina")[int rand 24]/eg
But... I doubt you'd be brave enough to actually go fight them yourself. You're the type to sit behind your computer pontificating to the wind.
I know of only two ways to stop terrorists. One is to totally surrender to all of their demands. In the case of bin Laden and his kind this is the same as suicide. The other way is to kill every terrorist that exists in the world. All you terrorists in the world please identify yourselves so we may kill you.
Neither extream is a viable option, therefore what will happen will fall someware in between. Should it? Orson Scott Card has created the concept of the Hierarchy of Foreignness (_Xenocid_) that might apply. Utlannings - strangers from our own world. Ramen - strangers of another species, but capable of communicating with us, capable of co-existance with humanity. Varelse - an alien life form that's capable of destroying all of humanity. The debate should be first if bin Laden and his kind can be negotiated with to satify their percieved justifacation of their actions. If he won't negoiate then, by their actions, we have no choice but to judge them Varelse and set about the task of identification and total destruction of them. There can be no middle ground or terrorism will never end.
zenray
Well dumbass or troll or whatever kind of supid idiot you are ...
Have you ever thought of ... ... these terrorists might be relatives to some victims of some blatantly ignorant, arrogant and stupid secred US Operation which has killed about 60 or more people in the name of USA before ? ... these terrorists might have thought 100 US for each killed one of their own kinsmen means 6000-7000 of US folks ? ... what the consequences are on your stupid logic applied to all the innocent victims the USA has caused and will cause ?
You are an excellent example for the dumb ignorant stupidity which is generally linked with the USA and it's Inhabitants around the world and whicht causes the many enemies it has.
And if you believe, your country is democratic or intelligent, why did a stupid dumbass like G.W.Bush have any chance to get president ?
Michael may be afraid, and think we should let the terrorists off, but I don't think the world should be so easily intimidated. It is mostly British troops already there, and ready for action. They are by a long way the best trained army in the world. Much as I don't trust Bush, I trust our military leaders (we, the British, lost hundreds in the terrible attack). All my support, and best wishes, are with them no matter how long this may take. Anyway, how can he criticise our actions before we've taken any?
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Come off it. There are films of bin Laden calling for exactly this sort of action. There are films of his camps training soldiers for this sort of action. There are training manuals he's published. His own country, Saudi Arabia, where his family is quite close to the royals, has kicked him out because they acknowledge he's been involved in this stuff for years.
What do you figure, bin Laden and his friends will be converted if we just shower them with Christian tolerance and forgiveness? When there are well-armed psychopaths who want to kill you, have announced they want to kill you, and then 6000 are killed, you don't just try to get the right psychopaths, you try to get all the psychopaths.
And the very nature of a successful cell-based terrorist action is that you don't leave full proof of who did it, the way a normal military campaign does. Does this mean we surrender on a legalism? Like, someone is out raping and killing women, your sister has just been raped and killed, someone - who may or may not be the same person - is bragging about raping and killing women, the pleasure of it, and teaching others how to do it successfully. Now, what do you do? Leave him free because you can't prove by the standards of a court of law in some particular jurisdiction that this is the who's guilty?
Or do you think you Germans will be left alone by the terrorists if you just continue to be nice about hosting them? Bullshit, man, you'll just be blackmailed forever if you take that sorry path.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
i don't know why.. maybe because somehow
frank herbert used arabic words adjacent to the desert freiman warriors.. the freiman warriors
sound exactly like the afghans..
" they will throw your babies at you and fight till their deaths " ??? remember this ??
Smart man say:
(Though some lesbian and bi women I know seem kind of hooked on Xena, but that's a different story.)
I reply:
Really, who isn't?
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
First off, lets all just accept the fact that there will be civilian casualties. This cannot be avoided. These are terrorists who hide amongst common civilians. If a village has 1,000 people and 100 of them are terrorists, and we can't tell the terrorists from the common citizen, then we have no choice but to bomb the whole place.
There is no other way to do it. To leave these villages untouched is simply sticking our heads in the sand. Who will be next? Britain? France? Germany? America, again?
This is the harsh reality. You can't sit on the fence. You can't ignore it and hope the choice goes away. You either do what it takes to eradicate the threat, or through your complacency you risk the lives of your own citizenry. Every day these terrorist bastards are alive is another day they can hijack an aircraft and turn it into a cruise missile.
I, for one, know who's side I'm on. I'm a liberal, but this isn't about politics. It is about protecting the free world and protecting our way of life.
The Germans remember to this day when the Quakers came over to feed German children after WWI (Herbert Hoover was in charge of that commission). Okay, so why not send in the Quakers *first* instead of last?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
"We need another Vietnam to thin out [Generation X's] ranks." - Bart Simpson
You may get your wish, Bart...
Lemesee, the Taliban/Mujahadeen killed 16,000 Soviets over 10 years by hiding in caves and with massive support from the US CIA.
The Viet Cong, OTOH, had far less Soviet support, killed 58,000 US soldiers over 10 years and HAD TO DIG THEIR OWN CAVES (tunnels).
Given the choice, I'd much rather face the Taleban.
There already have been 6000 civilian casualties and they where american.
The Afghan war was an example of a small country beating a super power. Vietnam is another, The US in 1776 over Great Britain is yet another. The reason this happens is because of two things, One in these three cases the super powers was not able to use there full military power, Great Britain, Soviet Union, and the US had more important military commitments, when fighting these wars you need very large forces, all three was under maned. Second and most important a small country can beat a super power if the small country has a super power as a friend. This means given weapons, training, and Intel. The US did not beat Great Britain the US, France, and Spain did. North Vietnam did not beat the US North Vietnam, China and the Soviet union did, Afghanistan did not beat the Soviet Union Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US did. The taliban in Afghanistan have no friends to help them and the US can put as many forces it wants there. It may be ugly but eventually the taliban will run out of fuel, bullets, and food. In the end the Northern alliance will defeat them because they will get the supples they need. If we can catch Geranimo it is possible to catch anyone.
First of all, this article must have been written the same week of the attack, because it presumes that we would have to conquer Pakistan first in order to attack Afghanistan. We now know that Pakistan has agreed to every major request we've made, INCLUDING a staging area on Pakistani soil. Face it, Pakistan has been bought off (much to bin Laden's chagrin, I'm sure).
Secondly, what would we get out of killing innocent civilians? Like he says, they already hate the Taliban, just feed them and arm them, and let them take back their country. The Taliban don't even have control of the entire country; about 10% belongs to rebel groups. Our objective is probably going to be to knock the Taliban out of power and help the Afghanistans rebuild, and make an ally out of them. That's our history, anyway. Whenever we beat the living crap out of a country's leadership, we always go back in to help them rebuild.
Third, I don't think we are going to make all of the mistakes that were made in Vietnam by us and Afghanistan by the Russians. Say what you will about "military intelligence" being an oxymoron, but I think that the Gulf War was proof that we have adapted. There's plenty of history on Afghanistan for our military leaders to study, and the fact that we haven't yet fired a shot is good; we're obviously doing our homework first.
If the States, Russia, China, take Afganistan and setup a joint democratic (lol) government, that would effectively wipe out terrorism. The problem is that Russia and China don't want the States there - that land is their bitch. They want us to stay on our side of the pond. Proper diplomatic relations with the remains of those former superpowers will ensure the manifest destiny... and us Canadians will just follow along as our pissy government always does.
There are tall mountains in Afghanistan. They look scary. I guess we should just roll over and let these people continue to murder us, because you know, those mountains are quite rugged.
This isn't my opinion, its my friends (I havent quite figured out what i think about how to retaliate).. but seeing as kabul is fenced by mountains... a nuclear blast would be nice and contained (according to him.) The russians, reportedly, said after they withdrew that if they were provoked, they'd juke nuke em all and let Allah sort 'em out.
Antiproliferation can only possibly work through coercion, since "moral authority" means absolutely nothing to immoral regimes such as Iraq and North Korea! The whole silly idea that we can talk our way into a non-violent world has just been thrown on to the ash-heap of history.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Ah, the utopia.
0 8/image/12.JPG (taken from a French/German programme on geopolitics). The arrows are possible exportation ways for the HUGE gas and oil ressources of Turkmenistan. One is through Russia via Kazhakstan, one is through Iran, and one is through Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is useful to know that the US forbids commerce and investments in Iran. That leaves two ways out, one of which is through Russia. So the 'logical' route for the US to the oil of Turkmenistan is through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Of course, it takes a stable politic situation there, and you can bet your ass that's why the CIA funded the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban.
Unfortunately, it wouldn't work. You want to replace their own old culture with your American ways. It's not going to work. Chances are that'd only help stir that anti-American sentiment, and make us come across as careless imperialists. Which we would indeed be.
Besides, you're leaving out a very, very important side of how people think in Afghanistan: the interethnic rivalry is extremely strong, to the point that even in freaking refugee camps, Ouzbeks won't go anywhere if there are already Pashtoons there, and vice-versa. They won't wait together for the doctor -- the doctors have to schedule a Pashtoon day, then a Tajik day, etc, no matter how serious and urgent a given person's case might be. And there are more than just two tribes in Afghanistan. You can't bring peace to Afghanistan if you fail to give them a government that will please them all. Good luck. No chance that'll happen, unless you dig out the old way they did it themselves, through tribal federalism, where each tribe has its own leaders.
Now, of course, that'd also be leaving out the US' interests in the Great Game. What the US want is, no matter how, a stable political situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Check out this map: http://www.arte-tv.com/hebdo/dessouscartes/199808
So, while I really, really like the way your idea is generous, it will simply not happen. Too many conflict vectors (ethnics, religion, geopolitics) are pointed toward Afghanistan, and I can't see how it couldn't be very ugly there before long. But you can still, and should, pray for them. They're gonna need it.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
The last time the US had a sensible way out of Middle Eastern policy was its backing of the Shah. Since then, affairs in the region have almost always forced a reluctant US to act, and has often softened to appease parties whose interests aren't the US's interests. If you look at the tenor of debate in the Israeli/Palestinian debate, the US was taking a firm middle ground between both parties.
You've got a dead link there amigo. Could be part of a government cover-up. :)
Keep Austin Weird!
Building them a US Army regulation mosque and a McD's will not endear you to these people. They despise Western culture (yet are also strangely drawn to it), which they see as degenerate, and they would look upon an extnerally imposed rewriting of their culture as the ultimate affront - you would be making war not on terror but on Islamic culture itself, thus drawing in to the conflict many other Islamic nations.
It will be a long time before i will get on an airplane with a towel head on it. You never can tell and the attitude that the US has about "trust everyone" is what got us here in the first place. I had to fly home from Phoenix today and had there been one raghead on that plane, he would have got off or I would. I will not apologize for what is a reasonable concern in this current world atmosphere.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
> So...
> 6,000 x 100,000 = 600,000 muslim fanatics.
100,000
x 6,000
=======
600,000,000
First off, if you haven't read it yet, go read The Bear trap here http://www.afghanbooks.com/beartrap/
The Soviets went in with very poorly trained conscript soldiers. These soldiers only served in the military for 2 years, they hardly got any training, and moral was at an all-time low. They also tried to go in and completely dominate the country.
As is stated in the book, a small force of highly trained highly mobile soldiers could do much more damage than all the soviets ever hoped to accomplish. We would station some commandos in camps just inside uzbekistan and azerbajian. Augmented by naval based air units these forces would perform quick in and out operations against key military positions, particulary terrorist training camps.
Here's an example of what a common mission in afghanistan would be like:
Afghanistan has many moutains and valleys. Most of the camps are located in these very tight valleys in the mountains. The valley would be fuel-air bombed(fuel-air bombs are equivalant to a tactical nuke, but without the nasty radiation) first. Shortly after that, an hour at the most, a unit of ground personal would land at one end of the valley and work their way out to the other side. This whole time helicopter gunships would be standing gaurd at the other end cutting off the escape. The russians main strategy when they did go on the offensive(which was rare), was to carpet bomb, then send a ground force to recon, but being conscripts they were afraid to leave their vehicles and wouldn't engage the enemy. They also failed to cut off the line of escape. The afghanis would sit in deep underground caves a la iwo jima and as soon as the bombing stopped they would head for the mountains and move to a new camp.
The afghanis that fought the soviets also had up to the minute cia intelligence as to the current positions of all soviet forces. They new exactly when a convey was heading down the road, they new when would be the best time to attack it, and they new how to inflict maximum damage with minimum force. In vietnam the vietnamese had comprable inteligence coming in from soviet sources. Without this inteligence they will lose a lot of their power.
Also, one of the key points to winning a guerrila war is to have a place to regroup and recouperate. In Vietnam is was laos, cambodia, or north vietnam. In afghanistan in the 80's it was pakistan. As much as people would like to believe, it just isn't possible to fight a lengthy war against a much stronger opponent unless you have a place to run to when you are beat. Remember when you played tag as a kid? When you got winded the nearest metal pole was always "base" where you could rest as long as you wanted. Same idea applies here, only in this was Bush has made it very clear that there are no "bases", all your base are belong to bush...sorry, this is long and I couldn't resist.
To all the people who claim this is the next vietnam and is going to destroy america, study history. Its not going to be as bad as some people are saying.
I hear this crap a lot.
"We must have the belly to do what must be done".
Tell you what Bubba, let's drive around in a Muslim neighborhood in the US. Now let's kidnap the first little girl we see. We put her in a room behind heavy glass tied up, a grenade tied to her leg. You have the detonator in your hand. You have to look her in the face and push that button and watch her leg get blown off. Maybe she lives, maybe not, but you also have to stay there and listen to her scream for a few hours. Is it so easy now?
It seems very goddamned easy for people to talk blithely about acceptable civilian casualties when they are only talking abstractly about supporting the idea of someone elese pushing a button to drop a bomb from a plane. Are you ready to see the results of that close up? I would guess not.
You're not a liberal, you're a typical pansy who wants Mommy Gov't to take care of you and do all your killing for you, preferably on CNN where you can watch the BombCam and don't have to see the results close up.
I am a white, Australian atheist. Not Jewish, Christian or American. I feel compelled to write here, to get the message across, that the muslims of our World are far from innocent.
Here in Australia, muslims (esp. Lebanese), have been getting out of hand for the past few years, with gang warfare, thefts, home invasions, vandalism and general terror in the streets against ANYONE who does not appear to share their beliefs of Mohammad. Over a period of about the last year or so, a particular group of Lebanese Muslims, had set up a safe-house, with supplies of condoms. They were systematically abducting non-Muslim girls from Sydney, taking them to this house and pack raping these girls, who have stated that when they asked these Muslim men why they were doing this, the reply was that "because you are Australian". These Lebanese immigrants, perhaps looking for a better life over here, instead of bringing hope for a brighter future, have brought extremely barbaric beliefs and attitudes to our peaceful and once almost utopian society where many different races were welcomed by the people and government of Australia. Australians are on the whole NOT racists, as the World media seems to be purporting in the past, which is proven in the failure of our "One Nation Party" becoming elected into a position of power. "Aussies" "take the piss" (joke about) with others, but most importantly "we take the piss out of ourselves". We have a larakin nature, that should not be mistaken for racism. Although, these girls that were abducted at knife point and pack raped (70 rapes), did not fit the stereotypical "anglo Aussie" image, of the ones I have seen, they appear to be of mediteranean origin, perhaps Italian or Greek. These Muslims don't care for anyone but themselves.
These Muslims in Australia have shot up Sydney police stations with Uzi sub machine guns. They trade in drugs, guns and stolen goods and wish to use force to instill thier beliefs onto us. Muslim students in our schools cheer in the schoolyards at the news of what occured in NYC. We non-Muslim Australians are peacefull! We don't bomb or shoot them, let alone do anything like this because they are Muslim. A friend on mine (Egyptian origin), fled Egypt, because he and his family were Christian. He was told, become Muslim, or die. Look at what the Taliban did to the peacefull Budhists and thier shrines in Afganistan! Anyone remember the mass killings of a bus load of Greeks in Egypt? Killed because they are most likely Orthodox and not Muslim.THIS IS NOT A WAR AGAINST THE US CAPATILISTS, THIS IS A WAR AGAINST ALL NON-MUSLIMS. If anyone thinks, for one moment, that Israel is not justified in thier war against Palestine, they are simply either ignorant of the facts or are Muslim. I've seen Muslim mothers loudly state, "I want my son to die! For Allah!". These weak bastards follow the tradition of brainwashing this mental disease called Islam, into thier sons, who they then send in to attack and fight on front lines against Israel, and then some morons of the World look on Israel in shame for having to "kill children". You think Israel has a choice?
Here is a little bit of history for you to chew on.
In the 7th century, a merchant by the name of Mohammed preached that, "There is no god but Allah.", which brought him conflict with the citizens of Mecca. In 622 he left to live in Medina, which is when the Arab world starts its calendar. The word "Islam" means "submission". Mohammed taught that Christians and Jews where "people of the book" and that they and thier religion should be treated with respect, but would have to accept Muslim rule, but not be persecuted or converted by force. Persia fell to the united Arabs and Byzantium was pushed back. Jerusalem fell in 638. It looked like Constantinople would fall in 717 but the Arab armies were driven back from the city walls. At this stage the Arabs controlled the Near East, North Africa and the whole of Spain. They were even crossing the Pyrenees, going into the plains of Europe, where they found the cold weather too hard to bear. They carried the beliefs of Islam with them throughout this, Christianity disappeared from North Africa. In 750, the rulers of Islam moved the capital to Baghdad. In the 11th century, for 300 years, Arab civilization would be subjected to assaults by Christians from Europe and nomads from Asia, who were much more threatening, and brought the days of Near Eastern civilization to an end.
They, are far from innocent. And seeing what they are willing to do to completely innocent men, woman and children of other civilizations, I beleive that the time has come, to erradicate completely, the Muslims of our World. Now we should turn the books on them, instruct them to burn their Korans and give up their faith, or suffer absolute genocide. I am feel sorrow for their innocent children, but if the question is their children or ours, then the choice should be obvious.
I, as an innocent victim in my own land, am willing to carry out mass murder of these animals and support the US and our allies. The time has come to rid the World of this cancer, I hope for a nuclear retribution against this evil.
by the way the israeli's like to kill muslims and so do WE, hey pathan gay power, WE HINDU'S ARE THE MANLIEST, READ THE ARTICLES ON THIS WEBSITE ABOUT THE MUSLIM GENOCIDE, AND HOW WE LOVE TO HARASS AND RAPE MUSLIM WOMEN,
We created pakistan for you bastards and we will not rest till each and every muslim motherr fuker is wiped out of INDIA.
JAI HINDU RASHTRA(brahmans, dalits, kshatriya, vaishnav's, buddhists, jain's, sikhs)
WUAHHAHAHAHA wuahahhahahaha later loserssss!!!!
Watch CNN's special: "Beneath the Veil: Inside the Taliban's Afghanistan". Saira Shah is a freelance journalist who was born in Britain, of an Afghan family. She went back to Afghanistan in order to chronicle the absolute terror that the Taliban is causing. She filmed the story under cover, under pain of death, because the Taliban has forbidden anyone from filming the country. She documents the plight of women who are unable to work or find education or even apply makeup. How do widows survive? They cannot work, so they must beg in an already impoverished nation. Music is banned, and public executions are carried out in the football stadium that the international community built for Afghanistan. Never have I seen such moving footage, and it is deeply disturbing to me that the world community has done nothing about it until now. Unfortunately I can't find a web page on the site that corresponds to this special report, though CNN does have a transcript of a chat she gave in August: click here for the chat. This report is something that everyone must see, and everyone must act on.
"We now know that Pakistan has agreed to every major request we've made, INCLUDING a staging area on Pakistani soil."
Just because the military government of Pakistan as agreed to co-operate (or else) with the American government, doesn't mean the people are going to. From what I've seen reported from the streets of Pakistan, I would say demonstrations against American forces at the least, are a cert.
And then what happens' when Pakistani radicals are shot by American soldiers while attempting to deliver a car bomb.
Remember, this isn't a war about land, or commodities, or resources, this is about good versus evil. And these people see America as the manifestation of Satan himself on earth.
I wish I could think of a witty Sig. Sigh!
uh, hmm, whuh... I don't think you've done much study on the affairs of Israel. The bottom line is that the U.N. (read U.S. and U.K.) created the State of Israel and to this day they receive more aid from the U.S. than any other country by far. To quote the State Department's website:
Aside from the creation of Israel, the U.S. and the U.K. drew up borders for a number of other States in the region, many of which had no cultural or historical basis, i.e. Jordan or Kuwait. Sometimes, they would even invent a monarchy or aristocracy so that the newly minted nations could be more easily controlled. Standing up for democracy... right.The humanist excuse for the crimes of humanity. Watch/read about Islam or any other religion which has its fanatic fringe (including christianity): these people may try to justify themselves by religion, but it really isn't about religion.
While I agree that the underlying problem's are present in both the middle east AND west (fanaticism, dogma, hatred, and irrational violent action), I think that is because of the nature of humanity. As someone said above, the "weak" (i.e the basic response of the human psyche IMO) response involves retaliation, the "strong" reaction would be one of restraint and intelligence.
Guns kill people because PEOPLE kill people and choose to use guns. Eliminate religion and patriotism (US?) will take its place. Eliminate patriotism and racial purity may step up. These are not the ROOT causes but the latest device by which people divide each other. Some of them are truely pure negativity. But most of the religions I know of religions do stress PEACE, LOVE, UNITY, FORGIVENESS, TOLERANCE, etc. I don't think atheism is the "solution".
I'm sure you read my post, but I'm not sure you understand it.
In this situation modern weaponry will provide advantages. Airmobile (Helicopter) helicopter forces will make the rugged nature of the geography less of an issue that pundits would have you believe. FLIR/Nightvision and drones will give the Allied forces advantages that the Afghanis do not have, nor did the Soviets or British. The Soviets tried to use Airmobile forces in the 80s, but it was thier first time and they didn't learn from the US in Vietnam. By contrast, the US have used massive helicopter assaults for the last 30 years (Operation Pegasus in Vietnam, Granada, elements of Just Cause in Panama, Desert Storm and bi-annual Bright Star exercises in Egypt.)
Since Vietnam the United States has worked hard on Light Infantry, the 25th Infantry (Light) and the 10th Infantry (Mountain) have considerable experiance in rough terran, operating in Hawaii, Korea, upstate New York, Bosnia and Kosovo. I'll wager that those "Light Fighters" from the 10th can climb mountains with the best of the Taliban, and the British bring the Gurkhas to the table, and those fellas grewup climbing mountains that make Afghanistan look like foothills.
The Gulf War was not a "phony war" Saddam made the same choices he made against Iran, choices that worked against hordes of infantry and American tanks, and I'm sure that he had some leftover Soviet advisors tell him that's the way to beat the Americans. But they didn't understand mobility, navigation with GPS or Nightvision. On the first nights of the War, Iraq did try to contest the air, but he got knocked down, F-15s and F-18s will do that to you, but the Taliban only has some claptrap MiG-21s...not an issue there.
You can always learn from the past. Even operations like Just Cause and Somolia will have taught the United States and Allies many things about mobile warfare and anti-insurgant fighting.
Mines
Imagine taking over a land that has been at war or in hostile hands for the last 30 years, where all the forces involved strew millions of mines with no recovery plan or deactivation capabilities.
If the US really plans invading this god-forsaken place on groud, or furthermore, setting up a legitimate government, then they better have an extensive mine-clearing program.
Mines are very hard to deal with once they are planted. I should know, that was part of my job description when I did my stint in the good ol' US army (MOS 12B). Often, once-cleared areas will be "reset" when a large rainstorm or monsoon repositions the land.
Makes me wonder what this whole operation is going to result in...
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Why don't we just nuke the world completely and get rid of all current terrorists and future ones by causing a nuclear winter. If we wipe the world of all human kind then there will be no one left to terrorize or be terorized, it is the ultimate solution. It solves so many problems at once. It stops hunger, causes world peace, oil will no longer be needed, terrorism will be at an end, no longer will communism be present, and many more benifits that aren't coming to mind. With all these advantages and only one disadvantage why should we not persue this solution to the current problem and end all suffering at once, plunging the world into an almost utopian state where everyone lives in peace, there is no hunger, no want, and most of all everyone is happy.
And they don't.
End of fucking story.
The Afgan rebels are hard-core light infantry based around tribal alliances. But when push comes to shove, it's a bunch of guys with AK-47's. AKM's if they're lucky.
Conquering the country would be difficult.
Stomping all over the Taliban and wiping out a few terrorist training camps would be much simpler.
Also, keep in mind that to be succesful, any gurilla movement needs outside aid and a safe haven. If the USA can prevent that, guerilla campaigns are very winnable.
I have to point out that "moral authority" is just another way of saying "guilt trip". The entire concept of right-wrong/good-evil is a fiction. What anyone really means by right/good is "tends to support my world view and perpetuate my society". This is why different cultures can see exactly the same events and come to such different conclusions.
If the Talliban could nuke the U.S. into glass it would be considered by them to be moral and the will of Allah.
The BBC reported that the US has been planning to invade Afghanistan for a while now. They said in July that it would happen by October latest. I saw on the news today that Tony Blair admitted the advance military buildup in the Gulf, but said they were preparing for wargames at the time.
... The first is the extent to which the administration of Bill Clinton actively encouraged its former cold war allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to assemble and finance a tribal military force to end the misrule of the mojahedin in the post-Soviet years. The second - of greater sensitivity - is to provide a coherent explanation for the studied incompetence of the FBI, CIA and other American intelligence agencies in addressing the alleged threats posed to the US by Osama bin Laden and his network. Bush's links with the US energy industry, most notably Unocal, are, regrettably, more likely to restrict the current state of knowledge about US policy in Afghanistan in the late 1990s, than to enlarge it."
According to the Times of London, the CIA is investigating unusual short selling of industries likely to be hurt by the bombing in the three weeks leading up to Sept 11.
And The Guardian writes: Oil itself has long been a factor in the "great game" of Asian geopolitics, one which brings the other big player in the blowback scenario, Russia, into the picture. As Afghan expert Michael Griffin puts it in Reaping the Whirlwind: The Taliban Movement in Afghanistan (Pluto, £19.95): "A trans-Afghan pipeline would undermine Russia's control of energy prices from Central Asia".
Griffin argues that the US under Clinton trimmed its opposition to the Taliban to gain an advantage in oil politics. By that time,in this high-stakes game of snakes and ladders, Clinton's successor was effectively already in the picture, as the son of aman with close ties to the oil company Unocal, which wanted to put a pipeline across Afghanistan. Among their partners in theventure were BP and the Saudi royal family. The future was beginning to cast as heavy a shadow as the past.
Griffin's introduction was penned seven months ago, but what he has to say still makes sobering reading.
"The accession in the US of President George W Bush... may shed yet fresh light on at least two central mysteries of the Taliban
Appalling as they are, this week's events may yet begin to force some dark secrets out into the light.
From the LA Times: Our intelligence agencies--the CIA and its rivals in the Pentagon--have a history of creating neologisms to describe our world that cover up more than they reveal. There have been lofty coinages like "host-nation support," meaning foreign countries pay to base our troops on their soil, and military jargon like "low-intensity warfare" that repackages the most brutal strife in antiseptic language.
Every now and then, however, a useful new word emerges from the labyrinth of our secret services. The American media recently started to use the term "blowback." Central Intelligence Agency officials coined it for internal use in the wake of decisions by the Carter and Reagan administrations to plunge the agency deep into the civil war in Afghanistan. It wasn't long before the CIA was secretly arming every moujahedeen volunteer in sight, without considering who they were or what their politics might be--all in the name of ensuring that the Soviet Union had its own Vietnam-like experience.
Not so many years later, these "freedom fighters" began to turn up in unexpected places. They bombed the World Trade Center in New York City, murdered several CIA employees in Virginia and some American businessmen in Pakistan and gave support to Osama bin
Laden, a prime CIA "asset" back when our national security advisors had no qualms about giving guns to religious fundamentalists.
In this context, "blowback" came to be shorthand for the unintended consequences of U.S. policies kept secret from the American people. In fact, to CIA officials and an increasing number of American pundits, blowback has become a term of art acknowledging that the unconstrained, often illegal, secret acts of the United States in other countries can result in retaliation against innocent American citizens. The dirty tricks agencies are at pains never to draw the connection between what they do and what sometimes happens to those who pay their salaries.
So we are supposed to believe that the bombings of American embassies in East Africa in 1998, the proliferation of sophisticated weapons, not to mention devices of mass murder, around the world, or the crack cocaine epidemic in American cities are simply examples of terrorism, the work of unscrupulous arms dealers, drug lords, ancient hatreds, rogue states; anything unconnected to America's global policies.
Perhaps the term "blowback" can help us to re-link certain violent acts against Americans to the policies from which they secretly--as far as most Americans are concerned--sprang.
>From refugee flows across our southern borders from countries where U.S.-supported repression has created hopeless conditions, to U.S.-supported economic policies that have led to unimaginable misery, blowback reintroduces us to a world of cause and effect.
We also might consider widening the word's application to take in the unintended
consequences U.S. policies may have for others. For example, even if the policies that our government fostered and that produced the economic collapse of Indonesia in 1997 never blow back to the U.S., the unintended consequences for Indonesians have been staggering. They include poverty, serious ethnic violence and perhaps political disintegration. Similarly, our "dirty hands" in overthrowing President Salvador Allende in Chile and installing Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who subsequently killed thousands of his own citizens, are just now coming fully into the open. Even when blowback from our policies mainly strikes other peoples, it has a corrosive effect on us, debasing political discourse and making us feel duped when the news finally emerges.
The United States likes to think of itself as the winner of the Cold War. In all probability, to those looking back at blowback a century hence, neither side will appear to have won, particularly if the United States maintains its present imperial course Chalmers Johnson is president of the Japan Policy Research Institute and author of "Blowback: the Costs and Consequences of American Empire" (Metropolitan Books, 2000) Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times
Something to remember about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is the Soviets were trying to take over the country. This is not and should not be the US's aim. Also the Soviets were not above terrorist acts themselves. One tactic was to drop small bombs disguised as toys. I wonder if the girl mentioned in the article found one of these...
BBC America and the Discovery Channel are airing a program that has some history about the CIA and Afghanistan.
One interview has former President Carter's national security advisor talking about how the US helped Afghanistan make Russia's Vietnam. 10 years of fighting and nothing.
Oliver's army is here to stay Oliver's army are on their way And I would rather be anywhere else But here today
The Soviet experience in Afghanistan isn't entirely relevant. Their presence there was for a different purpose with different requirements. They needed to hold ground and fortify within Afghanistan, which is difficult to do in any classical military fashion there.
Some of what they learned there may be useful if we're going to try charging in there guns ablaze. I doubt there will be any deterrents to taking military action against Afghanistan and maybe other states that we "discover" are in league with the terrorists responsible for the WTC tragedy.
The parable of the well-oiled army machine against the warrior-tribes of the People is fascinating. But let's not get too ahead of ourselves: the Soviets were trying to hold Afghanistan, not blast it to smithereens. While a sustained ground war is likely, I doubt that it will be the primary mode of attack.
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
Afganis live in houses, and protect themselves using innocent people as shields.
One of the basic, most problematic aspects of fighting guerillas is that many guerillas don't carry rifles. In a perfect world, the american army would respond in kind to the Afganistan attack with the same regard for civilian life, but that, for some reason, would make the US the criminals.
Using the Russian or the Vietnam conflict as an example is a little inappropriate. The US lost Vietnam because of the sticky issues of Laos and Cambodia, and Russian and Chinese involvement.
In Afganistan, American troops are using remote-controlled intelligence drones, cruise missiles, sattelite imaging, carpet-bombing B52s and FAE-Penetration bombs. Add to that the support of NATO, Pakistan, Turkey, India, and Saudi Arabia, and things become markedly different then the russian and british campaigns.
War is full of trajedy: Afganistan will be no different then France in WW1, Germany and the South Pacific in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. While the American capability for precision has no doubt increased, I expect the US Army will see no shortage of wannabe-terrorists hiding behind the lives of innocent, just as real terrorists do.
Afghans aren't at all the same as Arabs, you fscking idiot.
I can't believe these idiotic college students.
The US has already given Afghanistan $125 million in humanitarian aid in 2001. The UN bypassed the Taliban and distributed $36 million worth of food aid donated to Afghanistan by the US in May. The US has been the leading donor of aid to Afghanistan for the last two years. It sure looks like it helped out. I doubt dropping $10 million dollars on the capital of a starving country is going to help when $125M worth of food and other stuff hasn't.
BTW, the BBC has just reported that the Taliban are concentrating their tanks and artillery around their southern military command bases. Sounds like they are making a nice fat target for us.
you are an example of why so many around the world hate the u.s.
I keep seeing all this "you can't bomb forces that you can't find stuff", and "remember the Russian experience and Vietnam. Here are some replies to what I've seen posted here
1) Bombing
A)There ARE concentrations of Taliban troops, they are in the North fighting the Northern Alliance.
B) Israel has fought in regions like this, the Baca Valley in Syria for one, and found that standard bombing and Napalm were quite effective.
C)The Taliban have no real air defense, so they can be bombed as long as we like, their stinger missiles are useless against high flying aircraft. And remember, we dropped more tonnage of munitions on Iraq then in Vietnam, that does have an effect.
D)There is plenty to bomb, it has been said again and again how deep the caves the terrorists and Tailban hide in are, we can and do remove mountain tops when it suits us.
2)How different the Afghan are
A)If we do this anything like right, we should be able to avoid the Afghan people.
B)From what I hear the Afghan people has little use for the Taliban, so will they fight us?
C)Several years of studying Anthropology I tend to think people aren't that different all over the world.
3)Losses
A)Okay lets see, apx 15,000 Russian losses vs 1,000,000 Afghan, that's about a 66 to one loss ratio, Not good.
B)Vietnam Losses: 6,000 American, 2,000,000 Vietnamese loses, that's about 333 to one loss ratio, just terrible. Remember, that is with the Militaries hands tied behind their back.
C)Iraq 200,000 to 40, that's about 6000 to one, no matter how tuff the Afghans are, how long can they sustain these sort of loss rates?
I'm not suggesting that any of this is good, it is just to point out that the "facts" being tossed about my not be what they seem.
The evil soviets don't have the kind of satellite imagery we have in 2001. There's really no need for surveillance crafts to be sent in like the soviets did and what we did in vietnam. And about that little drone plane we sent in the other day, it was just to see where some of their anti-aircraft missiles are positioned.
You are completely incorrect. Egypt (a one time opponent of Israel) routinely receives the same degree of aid that Israel does, and in the last decade Egypt has more than once been the single largest recipient of US aid. The reasoning is simple - as the only stable Arabic democracy, the status of Egypt is key to the Middle East, and the US wishes to keep it from being turned into an Islamic state.
That said, my initial statement was correct - prior to the WTC incident, the US was taking unprecedented actions to create a plausible support for some Palestinian positions. These are a matter of historical record, they are not subject to your opinion.
If I wanted higher Karma I could say something like "Yeah! Let's Kick some Terrorist A$$!", but I'd like to think that the people reading this are a bit more inteligent then that.
Personaly, I've found myself saying "Why can we have anyone else but Bush..." under my breath these last few days-- I realise this may anger alot of his supporters, but I have no respect for this, clearly politicaily driven, man. First he get elected from a campaign he knows he can't live up to (read: education--the federal government has little control over; and huge tax cut--the government has no 'extra' money, are we forgeting the national debt.?), that I could look over, the fact that I'll never see the cash I dump into Social Security, I can live with-- But when we have such a tradgidy (this is a somewhat extream way to put it when you consider these things are a daily routine in the middleeast) and all he can say is "we will engage a war on terrorisim, the people are united, and united we stand..." in his smooth Texan accent-- Many people don't see the danger in this-- Insted of pointing out how we will get revenge twice every day since the incident-- couldn't he offer some insight, something that will look good in history books? killing innocent people isn't the answer, when timithy mcveaugh (sp?) did the olklahoma bombing he was trying to point out this very thing-- it wasn't right, but in his trials he used a phrase the militairy often uses for mass murder "clateral damage."-- is that what non-americain human life is? clateral damage? have we turned into the horrific leader we fought so determined agains in world war 2? There are way's to handle these things in secret, with little amouts of man power on the front lines-- but I supose beafing up the militairy and sending our neighbors sons and daughters to this 'war'--so bush can play with his toy solders (read: send thousands into a death trap to place more national hate on your enemy then tell everyone "they were heros who died for there country"--and award the dead metles of honor to shut up the families) We've seen by the presidents actions alredy that he is triger happy, what with his beafing up of the militairy-- proposing a to fix a miscle defence system that couldn't posibly save us if it worked-- when people are hungry for vision, they take the first thing they get, unfortinately not the right thing. What works out beter for Bush? a covert operation to eliminate the suspected-- or declareing war and overiding our elected officials in any descessions they make-- sucking as much money as he pleases, and playing his game.
So what would I like-- for starters; I would like to actualy see us go to defcon 1, send everything we have to afganistans borders-- throw white flowers on the them, and leave. Militairly, they are no match for us-- take the hint, take the warning, do it again and suffer the concequences. --maybe, just maybe... a president who can tell the people something besides "we will have our war".
When will people wake up-- Holy War? there is no such thing. Beware self-proclaimed leaders of faith.
Sorry, Needed to get things out. (excuse the typo's i'm very tired)
Learn from mistakes? The US isn't going to inavde Afghanistan to conquer it and make it part of the United States like the Soviets tried. The US will likely attempt to topple a very unpopluar government, with help from the Northern Alliance, and possibly restore the Monarchy.
The difference is, Afghans will ultimately rule, not a foreign invader like the USSR. There is less incentive for the average Afghan to rise up and attack the US if he knows that we are going to run the dreaded Taliban, as opposed to the imperialistic goals of the Soviets in 1979.
Agree with US policy or not, the two situations are quite different.
Wonder where they're headed.
Thanks lameness filter the world is safe without the ability to link to pictures! bleh.
like saying that Hitler did bad things to the environment. Wearing veils is the least of the problems caused by the Taliban, typical liberal CNN being PC. It's like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500:
Forget CNN, get The Real Scoop on Afghanistan.
A score 1 interesting for this shit? Is this the only sick and twisted shit you can think of? Come on, I can do better. Maybe I'll get 5 for insightful and make you hurl at the same time. I want to know why you don't fucking nuke the world except for america, so that you won't have any conflict with anyone else. That'll bring a whole new meaning to america or bust.
Richard Schmalensee. More info on him here if anyone is interested.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Who says I was doing a haiku? You have a very small mind.
and some grips about any peace protesters in this forum
For the past several days and reading from many news articles, I hope that in a prospective invasion of Afghanistan we do the following:
FIrst, we don't bomb, at least not in the beginning anyway, the Soviets/Russians used some pretty heavy stuff and still didn't make a dent.
Second, we heavily use Special Forces to track Osama bin Laden, but only after getting more infomation about the terrain, caves, etc. This is when we start losing american lives. However, about seeing approx 6,333 perish in a bombing attack . . .
Third, we enlist the aid of the Northern Alliance. Though their human rights record isn't much better than the Taliban, the Alliance, which is a collection of Afghanistan's minority groups are clearly the lesser of two evils.
Fourth, we (via the United Nations and NATO ; Maybe get some cash from the Saudis [wink])help build roads, schools, infrastructure, first in the Northern Alliance held territories then once more territory is acquired.
Fifth, we make a effort single out the Taliban. Remember, the Afghan people already are tired of the Taliban's oppressive laws so all we need to do is remind them that our "beef" is with them. In fact, we shouldn't consider this a "US v.s Afghanistan", but a "US v.s Taliban/Osama Bin Laden".
Sixth, make sure Pakistan,Iran, and the other countries surrounding Afghanistan keep them borders seal so none gets out and noone gets in, I mean other fundamentalist who want to join the fight against any US invasion.
Seventh, follow through on the freezing of any financial assets belonging to bin Laden or any terrorist group for that matter.
Given this, what the opinions I've been hearing in this forum are disturbing. It hasn't been a week and 5 days and now I'm hearing about Peace demonstations against any military solution. Have you all forgotten that these people killed 6,333?! What a way to honor their memories ; Just implement some security measures and hope that the terrorist leave us be?! Make no mistake, while its your right to demonstate and state your opinions, these terriorists are working to take away those rights! Americans today live in place when we get life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, where all the folks here can practice any religion, they can even choose not to believe in god/allah! That is what's at stake! Who ever you are may be, you need to realize that Freedom Isn't Free, once in a while, you must prepared to pay to keep it, mostly in blood. And to think I was getting sick of the sudden "patriotism" happening after the bomings, now I think I'm going to buy a American Flag too!
This post is in response to many posts, and I didn't know what to attach it to. So I've made it a new post.
While I'm inclined to agree with many people that the Taliban isn't the greatest group of guys to be running a country, removing folks from power isn't easy. Therefore, I find it difficult to support such an action. Consider our stellar record of using stuff that comes to mind:
1) Fidel Castro
2) Muammar al-Qaddafi
3) Saddam Husein
4) Slobodan Milosevic
You might argue that we were successful in #4. However, it was the civilian population that forced his removal -- a civilian population that had something to lose if he stayed in power.
It's not clear to me that the million-or-so internally-displaced Afghans care at all what happens to the Taliban. It's not clear that they want prosperity, or that they care much about military conflict.
If you want to find a sympathetic ear in Afghanistan, maybe we should quit terrorizing them with threats of attack, get the aid agencies *back* into the country they were forced to evacuate because of our threats, and make some *friends* in Afghanistan. We have a chance to show them that we are *civilized*, by *helping* them do things like *eat* and *stay warm*. And be sure to leave your bible at home, and hope the Taliban doesn't find any new excuses to jail aid workers.
Once the people like us, we have a chance of the population telling the Taliban to get out of their lives. A government is nothing without a people to govern, and if those people turn against the Taliban, they'll be effective. They don't need guns, they just need a better alternative (which of course means we need to understand their priorities -- I doubt that getting bombed or invaded by special forces is high on their list of priorities).
It has been estimated that half of Afghanistan's population may be internally-displaced at the end of winter if we don't get the aid agencies back into Afghanistan. Think of this as an opportunity to befriend half of Afghanistan's population. A different slicing of their population: It shouldn't be hard to win some friends among the females in Afghanistan, either. The hard part will being doing something to help the females in Afghanistan without being sent to jail.
-Paul Komarek
THE SOVIET WAR IN AFGHANISTAN: HISTORY AND HARBINGER OF FUTURE WAR?
The problems and losses documented in this in-depth article about Russia's experience in Afghanistan are staggering. From 1/4 to 1/3 of a unit's strength was often sick with hepatitis, typhus, malaria, amoebic dysentery, and meningitis. 15,000 dead, 415,932 troops fell victim to disease, 73 percent of the overall force, who were wounded or incapacitated by serious illness. Soviet equipment losses included 118 jets, 333 helicopters, 147 tanks, 1314 armored personnel carriers, 433 artillery pieces or mortars, 1138 communications or CP vehicles, 510 engineering vehicles and 11,369 trucks.
It scares the sh*t out of me to think that the US could attempt something similar.
where Americans won? :-)
Billions of $$$'s spent.
They can't do jack shit.
Sept 11th sure has brought out all the macho posers like you hasn't it?
So why don't you shut the fuck up and go on down Monday morning and enlist into the military service of your choice, and walk your macho bullshit talk?
Of course you won't .
Fuckin' bigmouth Loser...
"From the safest places, come the bravest words."
Peace
The Sunday UK papers are claiming the SAS and CIA are already active and fighting. They note that 82nd, 101st are in bases in Pakistian. Aircraft and assult forces appear to be in some of the Central Asian states and things have started...
- Ti mes/frontpage.html?999
Example from Washington Post:
But tonight, according to the Russian Interfax news agency, two C-130 cargo plane
s arrived at a former Soviet air base near Tashkent, the Uzbek capital, unloading equipment and approximately 100 U.S. military personnel. Interfax said official sources would neither confirm nor deny the planes' arrival.
Agence France-Presse quoted "Uzbek military sources" as confirming the arrival of an unspecified number of U.S. warplanes at the airport outside of Tashkent, and said that U.S. attack helicopters were still there in the wake of joint Uzbek-NATO exercises in the region earlier this month.
Defense Department officials disclosed last week that the Pentagon had begun deploying forces not just to traditional U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean but also to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The officials said the deployment to Uzbekistan would be public, while operations in Tajikistan would be kept hidden at a remote base
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/Sunday
Actually check out most of the Sunday UK papers.
Some even went off the deep end and claimed that the SAS was in about 4 different countries operating behind the lines. The only problem with that is that it would require more people than various sources claim are in the SAS. Choose what to believe....
I absolutely assure you that both Clinton or Gore or Nader would have known the answer to this question.
You say both but go on to name three people. Loser.
Who has a volunteer army? Not us, our soldiers get PAID. We have a professional army. There is a big difference between a volunteer and someone who is being paid for their services. Many of the people who have enlisted normally go for the GI bill and things of that nature. If we truly had a volunteer army, the amount of soldiers would be a small fraction of a professional army. I guess the Marines, Special OPs etc would remain because they are so dedicated they probably wouldnt mine not being paid.
In the case of history, it tells us much that invading Afghanistan is nothing like Iraq or Vietnam. First, Alexander the Great had much trouble in this part of the world. Mostly from guerilla fighters who knew the terrain very well. It was only the supreme loyalty of his troops that in end allowed him to win out.
The second and last time that Afghanistan was sucessfully invaded was by the Arabs in the 8th century. What makes this interesting is that the Arab armies were very poor quality and considered by their foes to be 'primitive warriors'. However these 'primitive warriors' were able to defeat the highly disciplined and organized armies of Byzantium and Persia. The simple reason why was their great determination fueled by Islam. These warriors felt that no matter what they were going to win because they were on side of Allah. This never-ending blind faith of victory is very hard to overcome. This is the major motivator for the Afghanistan soldier.
This site shows in great detail the many problems the Soviets faced while fighting in Afghanistan.
The major problems are:
1. We will be fighting a highly motivated guerilla force. In guerilla warfare the side with the most moral committment will be victorious. The Afghani warriors have shown they are almost unmatched in this catagory.
2. A professional army trained in conventional warfare must be retrained to fight in a guerilla conflict. Many of our soldiers have not be faced or trained against such an enemy as the Afghanis. Learning in the field will mean thousands of additional casualties. While the Afghanis are already battle-hardened and remember the lessons learned from the Soviet conflict.
3. The Persian Gulf War saw very little casualties, is America ready to pay the price in the thousands? This is yet to be determined. When an expected 2 week campaign turns into 2 years will the moral committment still be there?
4. Technological superiority has little influence on a guerilla conflict. Guerilla warriors do not come out in the open and fight. They will appear and disappear. Our technology is designed to help with a conventional warfare conflict. How do you fight an enemy that does not play by your rules?
I know the Taliban has very little support inside and outside Afghanistan. However this could rapidly change. An invasion of Afghanistan could rally Taliban support. The Afghanis will see the Taliban as defending their homeland from outside invaders. The 50,000 troops of the Taliban could quickly turn into 500,000. Also if the Afghanis make some progess and win some victories, outside help would not be hard to find. America has many enemies and if the Afghanis show promise, expect outside help. Much like in our own War of Independence it took some victories to turn some heads our way.
All this said, I believe a small special ops centered attack will work. Simply go in, attack the training camps and get out. This coupled with air attacks will increase the probability of a victory. Yet, this will not bring down the Taliban but only destroy major terrorist operations within Afghanistan. And isn't that what we want?
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Afghanistan is the ghetto of the world. We've sealed up the escape routes and may be about to send in the death squads.
I think the troop movements are all posturing. However the cruise missle attack on Afghanistan under Clinton shows just how narrow minded the government can be. 100 million spent on cruise missles would have bought a lot of sympathy instead.
How someone wins Afghanistan is simple, don't.
Cause just enough caos for the local peasents, peons, farmers etc to rebel...
I don't see the Taliban interested in turning a civil protest into a group of civel marters
(ala what happened in persia to alexander at the hands of the romans)
or even the peseans in america to redcoats.
And what will that accomplish? Give more reason for people to blow up even more civilians?
Maybe you should do this to the people who created Mr. bin Laden, the US foreign policy.
The Chechen nation was never asked to join the USSR, or Russia. They were told they were joining. At the point of a gun. When the USSR collapsed, they never had the option of being free, like all the other provinces.
Why shouldn't they be free? Well, there's oil there, a lot of it. Russia needs that oil. Plus Chechnya is a lot smaller than a lot of the other breakaway republics, and it's relatively unknown. Plus, it's Arab and Muslim, so it's easy to demonize the inhabitants. So yea, it's easy for Russians to get away with bullying it. I have no doubt in my mind that Russia would have done the exact same thing with Ukraine and Poland if they had the resources.
In fact, Chechnya got a lot of help, material wise and with manpower from people in other breakaway republics, such as Ukraine and Kazakhstan. The people there felt like Chechens were their little disadvantaged cousins, who were still stuck with the big bully. And frankly, I don't blame them.
If anything, the war in Chechnya has much more in common with the American Revolution than anything else. Sure some terrorism must have happened, but don't let that fool you, the vast majority of the fighting in Chechnya was done right on the battlefield, like any normal modern war.
Americans should take their hats off and pay some respect to the Chechens, even though it's not politically expedient to do that!
For shame!
Probably an American, they don't care about things that doesn't directly effect them.
Pretty damn pathetic if you ask me!
Thanks for the information, whoever posted it.
First of all that news story was very ONE sided. The entire story revolved around the opintion of a single soviet soldier. Secondly, we are familiar with Afganistan and countries like them. We've fought in the bloodiest of wars publicly, and special ops (SEALs, Green Berets) have been fighting in places like this (in secret) since their conception... that's the reason behind their being. If you go back and look at the history of what REALLY happened when the Soviets occupied Afgan you'll find that the Soviets were completely owning the war until the United States stepped in and provided finanical and technological backing to the islams. In reality it was not the Soviets vs. Afgan, it was Soviets vs. United States. We stepped in because the Soviets we're being their typical selves in trying to force their communist rule over the entire world. As Americans we shouldn't give a rats ass what anybody in Russia has to say "politically" about what we're doing. They do not support freedom, they opress it, so who gives a damn what he says. Obviously rushing towards some military strike without thinking about it ahead of time would be stupid... and that's why no bombs or even bullets have been fired thus far. This attitude of turning the other cheek is absolutely ridiculous and lacks common sense. "The Afghans will stop fighting each other and join together to fight you," said Izmailov, former battalion commander. "You need courage, but not to drop bombs. What you need courage for is to not drop bombs. Otherwise, your war will be endless." No crap, that's what their whole goal is, can't you see that? Saddam tried to do the same thing back in the Gulf War... and here we are again preparing for battle against what is the same damn group of people, don't kid yourself. Let me ask you something. If some guy down the street wants to fight you, can you prevent it? You can dance around the inevitable for only so long. Eventually you're gonna have to throw down with the guy and that's just the way it is... that's the way the world works. Even in our "civilized" society with police, they can't stop a guy from picking a fight with you... after doing something action can be taken but unless you want you're ass kicked you're gonna have to kick his. And just as in a domestic conflict, the nature of the fight is and always will be decided by whoever is willing to be the ugliest. Unless you're willing to get as ugly as the other guy you WILL LOSE. This can be proven in by looking at thousands of wars fought in the past. The German invasion of Russia is a GREAT example. Are we as ugly as them? These people are so ugly that they hijacked civilian airliners with innocent women and children, would WE ever even THINK of doing something like that? India announces U.S. support and what does the Talliban do? They shoot a 10-year old kid at school in India. Would WE ever even consider doing something like that? No, we wouldn't. But if we're going to win a fight against someone that's that dirty then we're going to have to be as well. "First, there are no real "bases" for terrorists, they say. Fighters live in ordinary villages. Air or artillery strikes against them will invariably kill civilians." Who cares? If a population allowes something to go on it's because they support it. 6 million Jews died at the hands of a few thousand German murdurers. No offense to the Jews but they are responible for what happened to them. They did not pull the trigger but they stood there and let it be pulled. Calling the civilians of countries harbouring and supporting these terrorists "innocent" is riddiculous. Just like in Japan when the bombing starts the population will say "Ok, maybe we're wrong. Maybe our leaders are wrong... let's rethink this". The only way this could turn into another Vietnam is if it becomes a political war because of crap like this. Vietnam was a trajety becuase of politics, nothing more. It was a failure from day one when John F. Kennedy got us into it. Being soft in responding to attacks like this against us will do nothing but lead to more dead Americans in the long-run. Taking your approach we may be able to put it off for another few years, maybe even twenty, thirty, or fifty... which is a laughable number, but none the less all you're going to do is push a resonsibility that's yours onto your kids or grand-kids. That is the height of selfishness.
This may be slightly OT, but I'm going to post this anyway.
Here is a section from a letter I wrote to someone very close to me. It's regarding a dinner I had with someone this weekend. I got trapped in Milan when my flight was cancelled and I met a nice gentleman from the Middle East and we ended up having an interesting conversation over dinner when they herded us into the dining room for our complementary meal. He turned out to be an Iraqi. I'm an American. The person I wrote to is very conservative and was scared I was being "recruited" by this guy and told me to start getting my news from Fox News (for those who don't know a very conservative news source in the States):
...
I cannot be "recruited" by anyone. However I do think that people who don't like to think for themselves and take a certain point of view just because it's given out by a certain group that they affiliate with are at a much higher risk for being "recruited" because they are basically already brainwashed themselves. Therefore it should be easier to brainwash them the "other way" than someone who likes to actually understand issues and form his/her own opinions based on informing him/herself.
As a general rule I think it's necessary to understand people's points of view for there to be any sort of solution to any problem, and that if you start thinking with your emotions then whatever conclusions you draw will not necessarily be very "fair".
If you see all Iraqis as evil terrorists then I don't think you are thinking very clearly. Right now their population is suffering and when innocent civilians suffer it's wrong. Who's at fault is another matter. I tend to think it's Saddam. Arabs seem to see it as being the USA, even though it's the UN that has imposed the sanctions (obviously with very strong US support). And anyway I am not an expert but my understanding is that Iraq should be able to get all the food and medicine and other supplies it needs with the "oil for food" program. But that doesn't change the fact that the Arabs see the suffering there and children dying there as being our fault: they see a huge injustice caused by the USA. They don't see it as Saddam's fault. But the fact is when innocent civilians suffer and die like they are in Iraq it is wrong. And if Arabs see it as being our fault, then it's also easy to understand why they would have negative feelings towards us. That's called understanding the other side.
In general it's obvious that we need to improve relations with the Arab world. Obviously terrorists and their supporting networks are legitimate targets for any kind of action.
But in this "war" there are two problems with harming innocent civlians. The first is that it of course is wrong. If you look at another human being and say that it's acceptable that he or she die because he got in the way of a bullet, a bomb, or a cruise missile and its terrorist target then in order to not be a hypocrite you have to say that it's OK if you also are killed in the same way for the same reason. If you can say this then I would say that you have less respect for life than I do. Secondly, if innocent civilians start dying then more Arabs will feel wronged by us and will start hating us. Those Arabs who already hate us will hate us more and feel more justified in hating us, and those who do not hate us and maybe even like and support us will start hating us. This will cause more terrorism, and for what? For killing some innocent civilians? Is that worth it? I don't think so. Clearly if we look at what we're trying to accomplish, to eliminate terrorism in the world, then this is a step which will take us in the wrong direction.
Is this a war of civilizations? Is this Islam vs. The West? It clearly should not be, but may turn out to be depending on how we react. Anybody who sees it that way is not only playing directly into the hands of people like Bin Laden, but is just as ignorant and closeminded as the stereotype they say represents the other side.
If you see people as being inferior because they are poorer (i.e. Afghanis == dispensible because Afghanis == dirt poor) then you have bought into the whole "money == human worth" attitude which is a horrible value system to adopt.
Those are my personal opinions. That Iraqi guy did not change my mind on anything. I have had those views since before I talked to him. Don't worry about that guy. I will never see him again. However he was an interesting guy and it was an interesting conversation.
Also, regarding accessing Fox News on the internet, I will look at what they have to say. I expect them to give out the conservative US point of view so I can read that site and understand what conservative Americans are thinking. But for me the international opinion is very important. In this issue it's critical, so I'll continue to get my news from all over the place to try and maintain a reasonable and fair and objective as possible view of the situation based on facts and my own principles and not emotions.
And like I said before, because I do that, and because I consider myself a person that's difficult to lie to, I think worrying about me being "recruited" is pointless.
...
Anyway I hope that most Americans agree with me and that Colin Powell will be allowed to take the lead in whatever reaction the US makes with its old and new allies in the "war" on terrorism.
Otherwise the situation will escalate to a real war, and in that war there will be no "good" side and "bad" side; both sides will be wrong.
David Nichols
Another appropriate quote:
There is bitter fruit in Afghanistan. I hope the decision-makers in Washington are not being reckless.
Read "When the Odds Were Even."
I can't believe that people that are so intelligent in many other respects are so absolutely stupid when it comes to this "war".
Has anyone actually considered the following? From scanning through the comments, it appears not.
First of all, in response to the story, does it MATTER if the Afghanis are difficult to attack? Why the hell are they being attacked in the first place?
Before you go on a CNN-induced rant about terrorism, consider the following statement, fundamental to "The American Way": "All suspects are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY by a JURY of their PEERS". Somehow, bombing (or otherwise killing) [hundreds of] thousands of civilians doesn't match up to that.
Or will vengance be reached by killing so many non-american civilians? If that's the case, just look to Iraq (hundreds of thousands of civilians dead by American ammunition), Vietnam (hundreds of thousands), Laos (hundreds of thousands), and so many more I'd prefer not to mention... Enough innocent civilians are already dead. Stop fighting, for Christ, God, Allah, Linus' sake!
If you don't, I'll just have to hunt you down and kill you (and your family, your school, and anyone you've ever met, by example of the Unrestrained Slaughterers of America)
With regards to the present war, there's lessons to be learned from the US loss in Vietnam and the Soviet failure in Afghanistan, but the lessons in question are not what many want to hear.
The reason that neither the United States nor Russia won their respective wars was not because they were unwinnable, but because neither country was willing to apply the ruthlessness necessary to achieve victory.
In Vietnam, 15 properly spaced 2-megaton airbursts would have been sufficient to
end the war on US/S. Vietnamese terms. Between direct damage and the following famine and plague, about 90% of the population of the North would have been wiped out. The military, with the appropriate NBC gear, would then move in to capture and hold the non-irradiated areas while the nuclear subs would patrol the coasts of China as a warning of what they could expect if they decided to intervene ala Korea.
Likewise Afghanistan: the generous use of tactical nuclear weapons along with nerve gas pumped into the tunnels/caves would have quickly put paid to any Mujahadeen resistance, Stinger missiles or no. Upward of 60-65% of the population would have been dead, but oh well--the USSR would have emerged victorious and would still be around today. In the final analysis, that is all that counts.
Inhuman, you say? Cruel and horrific? Well, yes, but that's why it's called war. There is an old saying: "To desire the end is to desire the means: if you are not prepared to do what is necessary to achieve it, you never wanted it at all." This is an unpleasant fact of war, which many refuse to see, especially in a country as soft and decadent as the US has become. But it's still true. We ignore it at our own peril.
Drop it from orbit.
Keep doing it until Afganistan is as level as
a mirror.
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
i ne /0,8782,175617,00.html
7 3, 174890,00.html
and read the afghanistan related papers to read about the involvement. Obviously the agencies were instrumental in fanning the religious passions to encounter the communism beast which was ignored over the years becuase other countries suffered it.
Please also read the informative articles
http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/datel
http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/daily/foc/0,87
Now is the time for democracies to eradicate the conditions which help create these kind of people. We can blame each other later on. I certainly don't want to be part of yet another generation resposible for the global war and make huntington happy about his predictions. There will hopefully long term rethinking in major power centers about the proper distribution of wealth or more tolerance for other cultures. The terrorists have to be taught lesson that they can't take us for cowards and give into their demands. America was just symbol but basically anybody (nation) can be attackedd at will.
and think of it few months back I was at a place where somebody was mentioning we will be ruled by the cokes and nikes and nation state are on their way out.
Benjamin Franklin once said, and I am paraphrasing here, that anyone who would give up any of his civil liberties in the defense of freedom deserves NEITHER. And another well-known commie pinko subversive by the name of Thomas Jefferson once said, and again I paraphrase, that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance against those who would take our freedoms away.
Michael Moore intentionally misrepresented the facts in that story.
The fact is that the Bush administration provided over $40 million of humanitarian aid ... most of it in food and medical supplies. These goods were put into the hands of relief organizations and UN people who then distributed it to the people in need, bypassing the Taliban government altogether.
Somewhere along the way Powell made mention that the U.S. was pleased that the Taliban would ban opium harvesting. And then a liberal pundit puts the two together to try and disparage Bush. A worthy act if -- only it were true :-)
[Disclaimer] I'm a moderate Independent who voted for Gore. But I despise made-up stories which undermine the credibility of the rational-left.
Opinion pieces are not facts. Read the CNN story
Refusing to take up arms has nothing to do with cowardice. Believe me, refusing to do what the majority of people take granted and going to jail for that is much harder a choice than going into the lemming mode and grabbing a gun.
It's called freedom of conscience. Unlike the government and military would like us to believe, we are not slaves or automatons who ought to go and do nasty things just because we're told it's OK. I simply don't accept that some authority takes away my human rights and starts dictating my morals.
My conscience says that killing is wrong. It's even more wrong when it's done in the systematic and pre-meditated way like the military does it. I will have nothing to do with it.
> The Chechen nation was never asked to join the
> USSR, or Russia. They were told they were
> joining.
Which was back in the beginning of XIX century, with czar's attempts of conquering the Cacusus.
> Well, there's oil there, a lot of it. Russia
> needs that oil.
Actually, oil is not *there* but Chechnya is a much better route for the oil pipe, if that's what you are referring to...
While I don't approve of what has been done in Chechnya (or *how* that has been done), I don't think that you are objectively looking at the situation. After 3 houses were demolished in Moscow and Volgodonsk -- do you think Russians were supposed to just stand there and do nothing?
You also are, apparently, anaware of what has been happening there (the Cacusus) after the fall of SU: all the mostrosities of essentially prosecuting Russians (which well included Ukrainians, Belorussians, etc.) who lived in Chechnya, Azerbaidjan, other Cacuasian republics.
One may call it a "rebound" of what Soviet Govt had done there over the 70 years of ruling -- still no excuse to rapes and murders inflicted on innocent people of a more Nordic stance than natives. And this is not a media impression -- this is from those living and being there I know.
So, before you rush to concluding that Chechens were heros and should be praised -- there are no saints there. All of the "field commanders" that are fighting on Chechen's side were trained on the same terrorist "bases" as bin Laden's terrorists.
--AP
You're presupposing that there is some Duty (given by God) that everybody's supposed to be ready to do. That's just false. Just like our morality code, the percieved duties of the people are human creations. There are no absolutes. Morality does not come from God or nature (like the gay bashers seem to think). Morality and duties are re-invented and re-evaluated every second by the people who are ready to think for themselves. Of course you can resort to being intellectually lazy and rely on the old existing dogma that your parents instilled in you without asking yourself if the ideas are still valid. Too bad that's they way wars get started.
These are a matter of historical record, they are not subject to your opinion.
Who taught you that the "historical record" is not subject to opinion? Even a little research into the history of history will tell you that's a pretty naive view. Just read any history or geography textbook that's more than thirty years old. And concerning the history of Israel itself, just try to find impartial information on the events that surrounded it's creation. It's pretty hard.
There will always be nuts... but most don't act on their crazy thoughts. We have nuts here in the U.S. If we trained a few Charles Mansons, MC veighs , and jeffrey dommers from birth to kill and put them over there they would be mind fucked, blown up, and then eaten for dinner.
At least USA $10m/month fee for Iridium will be usefull now for GIs
We have nuts here in the U.S. If we trained a few Charles Mansons, MC veighs , and jeffrey dommers from birth we could drop them off over there they would be mind fucked, blown up, and then eaten for dinner.
1) You like to kill people by using dildos?
2) You like to kill people who have dildos?
I have to say that saying to not trust a non domestic source of news is just plain mad. It is that kind of xenophobia that is really freaking me out.
/ ne ws.html
In fact, I am putting up a bunch of news from various sources just so you can get an alternate viewpoint, and see things that CNN and the ilk wont show you.
While yeah the Times and the Post are fine sources, the guardian UK for example has things to say, and I would think that they might know some news as well, since they are quite heavily involved in this mess we are in.
more news sources and stories in yummy list form:
http://www.propaganda-arts.org/propaganda/world
"Village councils take decisions, every household is well armed, and Pashtun leaders live in fortified compounds, often defended by anti-aircraft guns and heavy artillery." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4 261728,00.html
"Darra Adam Khel is perhaps the only town in the world entirely devoted to the manufacture of weapons. Its narrow, dusty streets are lined with small wooden booths where soot-faced boys sit by hand-pumped furnaces and old grinding wheels."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4 262802,00.html
Why would we learn from the Soviets mistake? We are not attempting to annex Afghanistan as a barrier country as the Soviets wanted to. We are trying to root out terrorism, not colonize.
Mike
btw, apple seeds contain cyanide, so ground up 1000s and make a killer
The Sunday Times (of London) has a report of what it is like to fight in Afghanistan by a member of Britain's SAS (special forces). This guy trained the mujaheddin and taught them how to fight the Russians in the 1980s. It's an incredible story. Perhaps the most important thing is that, in his view, fighting once the snow comes--in October--is likely to have one main effect: loss of Western troops.
Invasion of Iraq ? Nobody but the brits will support that. Most other western nations oppose the US policy regarding Iraq and are in favor of lifting sanctions (which, just like Cuba, just kills more civilians than anything else).
US won't do anything against Iraq because everyone knows Saddam is not responsible for what happened, and there would be massive internationnal oposition.
On the other hand, nobody likes the Talibans very much...
Same kind of blind shitheadedness put Japanese-Americans in internment camps back during the '40s. I don't suppose you'd care to face the fact that many of these "ragheads" as you so charmingly call them are as American as your stupid ass? Ah fuck it, I'm wasting my time with you. Go back to your Klan unit. Oh, and what fuckwit moderated this 2-bit bigot up to Score: 2? Lick my ass, slashdot.
No, but you are.
In Ukraine's last (failed) war for independence, which lasted for about 10 years after world war 2, it's documented that 3 or 4 thousand KGB special forces were dispatched to appear as Ukrainian freedom fighters, and then went on to rob and murder ordinary Ukrainians, in order to discredit the genuine freedom fighters. I have no doubt much of this was done in Chechnya as well. Sure, Russia is a "free" democracy now, but the generals now are the same ones who existed during communist times.
I'm sure there are a lot instances where chechens did use terrorist acts, but no more or less than the Russians. It's just as easy to point out that there are 2 sides to every coin. Random terrorist acts of hatred against Arabs are already occuring in the USA. The point is the degree to which it is happening, and people in the west only hear Russia's side.
Just more fuel for the fire, or thoughts to think about, depending on your preconceptions.
>Actually, oil is not *there* but Chechnya is a much better route for the oil pipe, if that's what you are referring to...
Get your facts right, there IS OIL in Chechnya
>After 3 houses were demolished in Moscow and Volgodonsk -- do you think Russians were supposed to just stand there and do nothing?
No proof was offered, no person was blamed. What you are saying is just a proof of your total lack of knowledge on Chechnya. Do you know that more than half a million people have been killed by russians in the past 5 years?!! As of today approx. 6000 people have been confirmed dead in NY attacks. We are ready to bomb afghanistan and everyone in it to smithreens. Going by this same logic (illogic) the rage felt by chechnyans should be 83 TIMES MORE!!! should they go ahead and bomb Russia to Stone Age?? But I don't think you will understand that since that would require not letting your biases do the thinking for you but rather using your grey cells.
Thomas
A human life is a human life, and an innocent American is not worth more than an innocent Afghani or Iraqi.
Very soon we may be forced to make some hard decisions like that... there's collateral damage in any war. I do not relish the thought of dead innocent civilians, but I WILL spend their lives in the effort to protect ours... because they are ours.
If prefering Dead Brand X to Dead Americans makes me some kind of nationalistic freak -- so be it.
(I am not saying the whole conflict boils down to that, of course. But it is one aspect of it, and I'll support it unflinchingly as long as it's getting results.)
Man, this is gonna be a CRAPPY war, isn't it?
Afghanistan has seen nothing but destruction and fanatism in the last 15 to 20 years. The people growing up there and taking up weapons have learned nothing but war, and they have nothing anymore to lose.
/this/ world.
The key sentences from the article are:
He learned this his first day in Afghanistan when he entered a family's hut. The poverty was more than he could fathom. There was no furniture. No light. The only object inside was a copy of the Koran, tucked into an alcove.
"I asked an old man, 'Why do you live in such conditions? Don't you want to do something to improve your lot?' " Lisinenko said. "But the man replied, 'Don't you understand that the worse we live in this world, the better our lives will be in paradise? We don't want the same things in life that you want.' "
If the US want to win their war in Afghanistan, they should adapt and retry a strategy that has worked before, in my country. It could even work with minimal killings on all sides: Go there, rebuild the country, build schools, hospitals, roads, power plants and factories. Create a local industry, and local people that actually have something to lose in
People who have something to lose in this world will not wage war on their country, and will not tolerate terrorists near their homes. They will instead want the same things in life as you want, they will in parts copy your values and culture, and as time goes by, they will become another and peaceful version of you.
It worked in Germany before.
Reminds me of some European war against heresy back in the Dark Ages, where some commander was asked how you could identify who were heretics and who had the "right" faith.
The answer? "Kill them all, and let God sort it out".
I assume you will give the same advice when figting crime in the USA? "This block most likely holds ten armed robbers - let's torch it!"
our way of life.
Your way of taking life, you mean. You're justifying killing civilians - that puts you very close to the terrorists you claim to be against.
You have airplanes, spy satellites, drones and zillions of high-tech stuff to draw a war in Afghanistan and drop them to the Stone Age. Do you think this will help you? Personally I doubt. Because Afghanistan LIVES in the Stone Age.
I heard several stories on the Afghan war. And Soviet Union made a high-tech war there. Much more high-tech than the US in Vietnam. Because only that way they could have some little confidence they could control anything. For the Soviets, Afghan land was something like a mining field. Most of the travel, intelligence, combat, transport was made through the air. Through land you could only travel on columns with tanks and artillery. And, as the soviet war veteran pointed, you could not rely on what afghans told you. Well in fact you could not even rely on official afghan sources. So intel had a very high component of high-tech and satellites.
Afghans didn't have no bases, airfields, not even tanks. A large group of afghans didn't have even modern AK-47s and relied on old weapons, some of which were left behind by the Brittish 100 years ago. And still they managed to turn Afghanistan into a wasp nest. Why? American help? Well that helped them a lot but it was not the crucial factor. The crucial factor were the harsh conditons of Afghanistan.
You go through a mountain in a super-modern high-tech heli, all over you see rocks, sand, more rocks, more sand. There are not even bushes. And suddenly a Stinger kisses you out. You go down and your companion tries to guess where the shot came from. He goes around and around, ready to smash up the hideout with is overpowerful Gatling gun. Nothing. And, in front of your face, a small hole appears and a shotgun blasts your cabin.
Two helis down, a small afghan comes out from a small hole covered with straw and sand, and happily goes down the valley to see if he can get an head for his collection.
In case you don't learn our mistakes, that's the war you will have to fight in Afghan.
Note: Blasting mountains with rockets doesn't do a shit to those mountains. Napalm, powerful vacuum bombs, nukes, the Hell in flames are also helpless. Like in Vietnam, you will just kill a few rats and snakes and, if you are lucky, smoke out one or two warriors.
reading from alternative news sources, like papers from other countries yeilds different viewpoints, some radically different from the stories we get from our 'mainstream' sources of news.
I state that as obvious.
"It is much more difficult to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and formal censorship is absent."
--Herman & Chomsky
What is with the comment "Very good article. Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes."?
We're not yet in Afghanistan--which means we haven't made any mistakes yet to determine if we have or have not learned from past British and Soviet mistakes in the first place.
But I'm not really surprised.
Stop crying, please.
/usr/bin/laden is dead, the problem is solved?
What you don't understand is this: terrorism is not something that is taught by the Islam, a disease that is spread by sperm, blood transfusions or food, it's a result of being in a bad situation for a long time. People have the bad habit to find for ANY reason why they are in that bad situation and try to do something about it. Most of the times they choose the wrong cure though... like the terrorists who attacked the US and now the US who is eager to kill every muslim in Afghanistan. Read the damn article! Fighting them is not the answer. In Northen Ireland, the brits are fighting the IRA for what, 30 years? Did it help? No. What DOES help is solve the bad situation the people are in. So there is no BASE for people to find a solution why they are in a bad situation in the first place.
It's a long way, but you don't need 1 gun to succeed. You don't have to kill 1 person, and it brings you the best possible solution for the future. Because do you really think when
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
The debt was from spending, as well as tax cuts.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Asshole...
Hah! Americans should take their bombers off and pay a visit to you filthy Chechen bastard.
USA need differend kind of strategies.
We "The Turkish People" live with terorism more than 20 years. Our situation much like that Afganistan. So I want to share my knowladge to all slashdotters.
1-) More than %75 percent of land mass is mountain. Means your Abrams'es,Bradley's, hummers wont work there.
2-) Altidue is too high. Mean your Cobras, Apaches, Commanches is useless. They like turkey. Easy to shot down.
3-) Bombing is not easy, not effective.
So that 3 factors means US Military must use the Ground troops against Afgan Mucahits. But these actions create high casatulses. Is US people ready to Lost 10.000 Men in Afganistan. Also lost 10.000 man is not guaranteed the victory.
High Casatulses. Why ?
Because.
1-) You are fight against Muslim's. Our religion says "Who died in battle of the "Way of Allah" direcly going to Allah Paradise. This is the reward from Allah.". They fight agains US Troops at all costs. That means this people does not retreat. Not Fear from Death.
Their Ulema ("Religion Advisors") telling to every one "Fight Against to USA is order of Allah"
2-) For most Afgan noting to loose. Look the US troops. They had Families, Homes, Cars, Food, Money etc. Losing USA troops rises the Anti War efforts in USA. Losing Afgans rises the revenge efforts in all Muslim Country's. Day by day Your troops lose their concantrate. They thinks "Whatta hell around here, why I'm fighting here?". There is no Rambo.
3-) Afganistan is not paradise area. Everything is enemy. They come in night hit your bases, kill your troops. And retreat.
Then your troops counter attack, but they did not found anything to destroy. Mucahit's hide. Then next night.....
4-) Sending Elite forces is mean less. Because there are no real Target. No base, near noting.
We "Turkish People" Fight Agains Terorist PKK in our country, for our LANDS, for our Unity. It took 20 years. We lost 35.000 peoples on mountains. This war cost our economy 100 BILLION Dollars. But don't forget. This is our COUTRY. This is our UNITY. This is our LAND. But Afganistan is not your Country.
You May ask, is there any real solution ?
Yep I believe there is one.
One of our People, (He is not from Turkey but He is Turk, also he supported by our Nationalists) General DOSTUM (Mean General Friend) is the Leader of the Ozbek Turks, in Afaganistan, He and his people against the Taliban. Also after the disaster he began fight agains Taliban, he already capure more than 11 point in Norhten Afganistan.
So he need support. I thing USA goverment shoud contact and support him.
General Dostum can fight against the Taliban, General Dostum WANTS against to fight Taliban and USA give them Air Support. in 2 years thats come to end. Taliban vill destriyed. New and Better Afgan Regime can born.
Otherwise. Lost Many Lives of USA Military. Many many dollars of your economy. And invading Afganistan not ending of Terorism.
Ah also President Bush can forgot 2. chance of became president.
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
One attack on a Moscow block of flats was foiled when the police stepped in.
The people setting it up turned out to be working for the government (they were secret service agents).
They claimed that it was an exercise to see if the police were being as alert as they should be.
The Chechens had no sensible reason (ok, that does not always count for a lot) to be going for Moscow at the time, but Putin (yup, ex secret service) founded his bid for the Presidency on his 'counter attack' in Chechenia.
Conspiracy theories are usually garbage. Some are real.
The next source of Muslim extremists is Algeria, the government are using 'Ukranian tactics' there against the Muslims.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Chechen war is to a great extent provoked and fueled by members of russian authorities themselfs. Do not forget that in the first chechen war chechens were fighting with the weapons left unattended (sic!) by russian army that withdrew no more than a year before the beginning. So many awful and overwise exteremly stupid things happened there with russian army forces, that it can be explained only by betrayal and collaboration with chechens for egoistic reasons. The secretary of the official Russian security counsil (Berezovskii) was reported in press funding chechen rebells, and he never replied.
I think there are a couple of things that could favor the US in its fight against bin Laden's forces.
First, we have the ability to monitor all ground movements of bin Laden's fighters around the clock using a combination of Predator UAV's, U-2's fitted with real-time satellite links and the JSTARS plane. That means we have real-time monitoring, and bin Laden's forces will be extremely vulnerable to attack above ground even if they move at night or bad weather.
Second, we can use highly-mobile special forces such as the Rangers, airborne divisions, and SEALS that can operate in very small teams and deliver a very deadly punch. This means bin Laden's forces will have almost nothing to shoot at in terms of return fire. People forget that later in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan they used Spetznaz special forces with deadly efficiency against the Afghan fighters.
Finally, even caves may not be the best place to hide. The US has the GBU-28, a guided bomb powerful enough to collapse many cave systems (think of it as the modern equivalent to the British Tallboy bomb of the 1940's).
Bombing an embassy on purpose is a deliberate act of war on foreign soil. Doesn't matter where the embassy resides, that is foreign territory. So, of course the U.S. had to officially state it was an accident and offer reparations to the Chinese government and the families of those killed for our "mistake". But if you honestly think the intelligence community mistargetted that embassy because of out "of date maps" (whoops!) you are horribly naive. They did it on purpose, for a reason, and I'm certain that bombing sent a desired message to the Chinease government (though I don't know why or what that message entails).
It is my opinion that the U.S. Government NEVER commits military resources unless the stated objective has direct tangible benefits to the U.S. or it's economy. Period. If you think we're going to do this to "fight the evil-doers" of the world, again, you are horribly naive. This latest war will be about responding to an attack on home turf and maintaining control of the Persian Gulf oil supply. DUH!
The high areas Afghanistan go up to 24,500 ft. Thats too high for lots of things to work properly. Training at altidude occasionally is much different than living there. The high mountains of Afghanistan are part of the the same range as K2. I don't think the Taliban have much control in the high mountins so they may not even be a military target.
Most of the U.S. public are drones.
To Michael:
"Afghanistan Is Like Nothing You've
Ever Seen:"
Where have you been for the last 20 years
Michael?
Although a military response may be justified
I am dismayed but not surprised at the apparent stupidity of the U.S. to not ask:
Would the people responsible for these acts of war please contact us. We would like to use communication to try to settle our differences
and stop future fatalities on both sides . At least by public or diplomatic channels for dialogue might stop their future plans and NATO might gain some information about who did it and/or how these people think.
What do you think?
Thanks.
I think that the political situation in Pakistan is an even greater danger - not only to the success of the retaliation mission - but to the stability in the whole region.
Remember that the Pakistan government had to be "convinced" by an US ultimatum to join the anti-Taliban coalition and have no reason to particularily like the US because of the (now lifted) sanctions. If inner state opposition - let alone a civil war - causes a change in Pakistan policy, then the US troops who might use the land as a staging area for the upcoming operation - will be in real trouble.
I'm from Europe, and even here - acoording to the latest gallup poll - 80% of the population is against a miltary US punitive expedition (and yes, it is viewed as a punitive expedition as the US didn't even bother to negotiate, get a full UN mandate, or at least show some proof of Bin Laden's guilt, as they would have to do in any proper extradition process) - extrapolate that to a muslimic country and you might get an inpression on how thin the ice really is.
As for my personal opinion: I think that the whole rethoric of war is misguided: Terror is basically organised crime (with the objective of killing people rather than making money) - or does the US really think that the suicide pilots qualify as soldiers? I guess that would do them too much honor.
This should really be a matter of the courts, the police, the CIA and - if necessary - a military police operation to get hold of the suspects after all proof is on the table. This is how crime is handled in a constitutional state and I think the US owes it to itself to play by its own rules here, esp. because - as the only remaining superpower - it can get anway doing otherwise.
Fear is an important factor in all this. For example in WWII Germans who were against Hitler and his whole regime were sent to the conentration camps. When you know the consenquences of admitting your stand you end up keeping very quiet. In Afganistan there is a similar situation, where people are too scared to openly act against the Taliban. There are 'underground' schools and everything, but there would be a price to pay if the Taliban ever found out.
It should also be pointed out that these people do not have access to the weapons and the money that the Taliban has access to. For this reason they probably feel that it is almost better to stay alive than to do anything against the Taliban.
The people who would love to get rid of Osma Ben Laden are not in power and don't have the leverage necessary to reveal his location.
Another point is how do you target someone hiding out in a network of underground caves and where all the houses look the same?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
If it isn't abundantly clear by now, the powers that /. are about as far left as you can get. IMHO
/. they can spout
be on
they are bleeding heart commies, but since this is
still America and they do 'own'
off whatever nonsense they want. I used to think
that they were just naive, but its got to be more
than that.
In regards 'making the same mistakes' as Britain
and Russia... don't you think that the whole Russian
campaign has been detailed and disected and studied
for 10 years now by the CIA/DIA/DOD? They thrive
on case studies and 'what went wrongs'.
I hope we do.
Look. There isnt a fully unified Islam. Yet. Do we go to war and make one, and hopefully crush it? I hope so.
Iran and Iraq both are developing nuclear weapons proograms. Accourding to an article I read in Janes, neither is much further than 5 years away from being able to build warheads. Do they launch them at us with missles? Nope. They give them to various people and they go stand in the middle of cities, and go boom. Say they took the top 10 cities in the US. Just by population. Just do a google search. I got them as being
New York (8 million)
Los Angeles (3 and a half million)
Chicago (3 million)
Houston (2 million)
Philiedelphia (one and a half million)
Phoenix (1.3 million)
San Diego (1.2 million)
Dallas (1.2 million)
San Antonio (1.1 million)
Detroint (950 thousand)
so that is what 23.8 million people? That is less than a tenth of the population, right? We could stand that. It wouldnt destroy the United states, right?
As far as I can tell, that is wrong. As Far as I understand it, you take out that much of the US, you take out those crucial parts of our national infrastructure, we wouldnt have the organizational capacity to rebuild very well.
See, when people are calling for the destruction of the great satan (Iran, Iraq, Most terrorist organizations sponsored by them, Syria, Afghanistan, Large numbers of the people in power in Pakistan, even if not the official arm of the government) and are developing the means to destroy the great satan, I think it behooves us to destroy them first.
It wont be a pretty war like desert storm. That is true. We didnt really occupy any territory in desert storm. We didnt go through the bloody horrible mess of occupying land and destroying governments that would be neccessary if you want to do away with the possiblity of waking up one moring with our top ten cities gone. Do I have a beef with Iran? Its govenrment, yes. Its people, probably not. 77% of Iran in the last election voted for economic nad social reform. Unfortunately, the government is in large part controlled by the "Council of Guardians" which gets to dissawlow certain people from running for office, can veto any law seen as corrupting Islam, and happens to contorl the military.
I think that in order for the US to not wake up one morning with its ifrastructure destroyed (incidentally, if we did wake up with a nuked infrastructure, how long could our ships stay out at sea? Could we even organize a war, let alone manage to excute it, if we cant pay for food for soldiers and all the people who support them?) it MUST have the stomach for such a war. We have for years been listening to people calling for our destruction. We have read reports on how they are building the means to destroy us. Woe unto us if we do not listen to those warnings. Woe unto us if we do not take the opportunity preseted when the number of dead are counted in the thousands, and not the millions to prevent the count from reaching the millions.
Am I saying that it will be a pretty war? No, it will be horrible. Thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of americans will die. We will be sattelite beamed courtesy CNN live footage of their bodies being torn into pieces. We will be told of the horrors of all the awful awful things americans do to unarmed civilians. "Oh the horror!" we will hear. And it will be a horror. But that horror will prevent waking up and having a tenth of our population from being flash fried, and our infrastructure being destroyed. When a political leader says, and creates the availability to "Destroy the great Satan", and you are the great satan, it is ill advised to ignore that leader. Far better off are you, killing him, and his followers.
I am sick to death of hearing people say violence breeds violence. There is no family feud if I kill your whole family. A little violence breeds violence. Japan and germany are not very violent vis-a-vis the US or britain, last I heard. Will innocients die? Certainly. Do I like that? No. Will it be horrible? Yes. Do I rather that then wait around till the state sponsored terrorists have nukes? you betcha. Look at Pakistan. If they have a civil war, wear will their nukes be? Who will control them, who will aim them? I dont know, and I dont really want to find out.
Is it enough to destroy govenrments? No. Again, look to germany and Japan. Something must be put in the place of the old oligarchic regieme (they are all oligarchies). History seems to say that democracies dont want much other than goods and money and coke. Lets make sure they have those things. But first, lets make sure they cant take them away from us.
It is amazing how people are talking about how to storm Afghanstan. No one even mentions the facts that Bin Laden and his group are SUSPECTS. There has been no single evidence that they have commited that horrendous act.. and yet every one forgots that as they talk about how to wage a war. They have forgotten "why". They are forgotting now "is it the right target?"
I am not going into some long rhetoric. Just read the facts below.. and tell me why no one made an issue of them yet?
Of the 19 people listed bhy FBI as those responsible for the hijacking, some are alife. They were not even in the US.. yet we still hear about this list and no one makes an issue. Read below..
Of those 19:
* Amir Bukhary: He died more than a year ago!
* Abdulaziz Al Omari: He is alive and was not even in the US at the time of the bombing.
* Saeed Al Ghamdi: He was in Tunisia at the time of the incident. Sorry, the link I have is in Arabic.
* Ziad Jarrah: This is a playboy. Furthest thing from a Muslim, let alone a fundamentalist. and might have been just a passenger.
* This is not offically confirmed yet, but Abdullah Al Shahri's father said that his son is alife and was not in the US (according to AFP news.)
* In the media reports, several of the guys in that list of 19 were reportedly seen drunk in public pubs a few days prior to the hijacking. Is this the behaviour of a respectable Muslim.. let alone one who supposedly wants to "martyr" himself!!
It seems most of these guys were just victims who happened to be Arabs. The FBI jumped on this chance to point the blame at Bin Laden and his group. Either because they could not find the actual people behind this crime or because they did find them but thought that this was a golden chance to get Bin Laden once and for all while the world stands behind them.
What is more, read this news item regarding a taped phone conversation between a flight attendant one board on of the planes that hit WTC and a colleague. particularly, pay attention to what she said in regards to that the seat numbers for the actual hijackers do not match with the seat number of the suspected hijackers.
Why is everybody still convinced that it was Arabs/Muslims who hijacked the planes. Why does the US government want to invade Afghanstan despite this very shady allegation and the very reasonable request by the Afghans that they be shown a proof that Bin Laden was responsible?
Something very fishy is being cooked. The Afghans, and probably even Bin Laden seem to be victims here as much as those people who died in the WTC and the other tragedies.
The ability of the American populace to find the actual truth and to find (and revenge against) the acual perpetuators of this crime are dying out with the media propaganda being waged now. Guys, do you want to kil innocent people and send your countrymen to Afghanstan to probably die trying to kill those innocent people?
You claim you have freedom of speech. I respect that, yet, with the media machine running full speed and glossing over the facts in favor of the "official line". Can't you stop for a moment (at least in respect for those who died in the tragedies) and ask: Are you revenging against the right people?
One more thing. I read unconfirmed reports that more than 4000 Israelis/Jews who work in the WTC did not report to work at the day of the attack. Can any one confirm?
Actually, it's tough question... is US "aid" is real aid to the people. Or it's just another type of aggression, which kills local production (it still exists) to keep everyone is poverty and dependent on it. You simply can't compete with freebees and market laws still work there, no matter who rule the country. Humanitarian aid is like drug -- you take it once and you have to take it more and more, until your body (country) dies.
Your post was interesting because at least you,
are asking questions that are not asked by the
the U.S. public.
Here's another scenario:
If a crime occurs at a residential location,
is it not normal protocol for the police to
question the primary resident of the location?
Given that George Bush was not in the White House
when the plane crashed into the Pentagon, why
are not people asking :
1. Why wasn't President Bush in The White House
at the time of the crash?
2. If President Bush was not in The White House
at the time of crash, did or did he not have
knowledge of an impending attack on New York
or Washington, D.C.?
Let's not forget that OSAMA BIN LADEN is as american as apple pie ! He was trained by CIA to fight the Soviet Union ..and when the war was over USA just left the out on the rain instead helping them to rebuild their country(like in europe after WWII)...
... for Afghans, death is a blessing...Afghanistan is a hellhole they don't even have water to drink there
...and that really scare the sh*t out of me!
well guess what ? They are still alive and kicking
and they are REALLY PISSED OFF!!!!
How can you threat a person that doesn't care about his own life???
they are willing to die but they will take as many americans as possible
this war will be known as VIETNAN II
God help us all!
"Too bad we aren't learning from the British and Soviet mistakes."
Your assuming the US has forgotten the lessons of Vietnam. The souders of that era are the commanders of this one. My thoughts and prayers are with the SF & SAS to whom this job falls.
I'd like an order of free speech, hold the spittle please.
whole family.
There are more than 1.5 Billion muslims in the world. Do you seriously suggest they should all be executed because some terrorists are Muslims? How about all Catholics? Protestants? (Religous terrorists in Great Britain). You're right, though: when you start killing people just because they belong to some group, you can't stop until the whole group is dead. This is why it's important to identify people with actual guilt and treat the beyond-reason fanatics different than you treat reasonable people.
Middle-Eastern isolationism is a Cause, just like Irish separatism, animal rights, or freedom of speech. Every Cause attracts people who lack a clear understanding of societal boundaries (like "no killing"). We negotiate with the reasonable people, extract justice from the criminals, and do nothing to people who aren't involved. It's no more fair to lump "Afghanistan" or "Muslims" in with bin Laden and Taliban than it is to lump "Christians" with David Koresh or "Nicaraguans" with Manuel Noriega.
Michael, you are such an expert, I am truly in awe. You know what mistakes were made from an article. You know what mistakes Americans have and haven't learned from through ESP or fortune telling. You must have some significant security clearance because you apparently know what America is planning to do, because all indications point to us engaging in nothing like what the Russians engaged in, yet you think it will be more of the same.
I wish I could be like you.
A very important value in Middle East cultures is
pride. Any negotiation in this region can
succeed only if your opponent's pride is preserved
or enhanced. This takes much time and patience.
In this conflict it is important to recall what
the real pride of Middle Eastern cultures and religions are. The active voice and support of neighbouring countries is essential. It is also
essential that the Afghans (not the Talibans) are provided the means to hear that the World is on their side... but they must eat!
Why the fuck should Afghanistan be invaded? For what fucking reason? What have they done? The suicide hijackers were all from Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. Not Afghanistan. All had lived for long periods (10 years, in some cases) in Germany and the United States. Not Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is Saudi Arabian, not Afghani. To date, there has been no proof given that he masterminded or directly supported the WTC bombing. He is hiding out in Afghanistan, which is full of Taliban, who are some of the most unlikeable people on Earth, but a in country with 1 million expected to die of starvation this year few Afghani's can be expected to give a fuck about bin Laden either way. Don't you get it? The terrorists who killed 4000 innocent civilians, the guys who actually did all that shit were not from Afghanistan, had never been to Afghanistan. Bin Laden may or may not have backed them; no evidence is yet forthcoming: but bin Laden is not an Afghan. He's holed out for the moment in Afghanistan, but he could just as well be hiding in any number of other sorry beaten-up anarchic excuses for States.
On this microscopic shard of "justification" you mini-Hitlers, all hyped up from watching CNN, are prepared to invade\colonise\destroy\sterilise\terrorize 20 million Afghani citizens already suffering from the effects of 20 years of civil war and famine?
YOU SICK FUCKS!
Re: 6'000 = 600'000 Afgas/Terrorist/Iranians/Iraqs
As an Iranian (and a Canadian), I hope someone blows your fucking head off... (next time, use grammar)
ps. replying to stupidity with stupidity (and anger) 6000 people died during one attack, during the Iran/Iraq confrontation (twice daily bomb raids), for which Iraq was being funded by the US, half my classmates died each year, get a sense of perspective.
Damn that USA, they always get in our way with their charity and aid. DAMN THEM!
So come on everybody, join in the fun and jump on our little hypocritical bandwagon. Lets hand these murderers a laurel and let them date our daughters.
Even better, lets condemn selective (very selective) hate/racism from over 150 years ago that NO ONE is alive that experienced either end of it, yet make excuses for a group of extremists that have published releases that say, "I call on all true Muslims to take up Allah's sword and righteour cause and seek out and kill Jews wherever they are... and kill all those that harbor or aid them, including the Great Satan (USA)"
Fucking liberals, your stupid shit is ALWAYS destorying everyones chances to live free. Your hypocricy is what gives us the double standard of 'feel good' for one group, even though they advocate violence, genocide, and/or mass murder (at the very least they advocate intollerance to the extreme by forcing their views on everyone else).
Please die, please die now. Fuck you and your hypocricy.
from Kandahar to Kabul (losing a nasty one in the south though).
But they decided it wasn't worth keeping hold of. What has afghanistan got apart from Lapis Lazuli and opium poppies?
The World is a Dangerous Place. Sometimes, you have to be Dangerous Back.
"I'm not a violent person and I'll kill anyone who says I am."
I think that sums up US foreign policy.
I'm so smart, i'm so smart, S-M-R-T ! D'oh
That's not how it goes. It's: I am so smart, I am so smart, S-M-R-T - I mean, S-M-A-R-T.
Read Terror in the Mind of God by Mark Juergensmeyer. Especially chapter 6, which covers the Aum Shinrikyo machinations in the Tokyo subway involving nerve gas. They're an offshoot of Japanese Buddhism.
There's a bit in the text on some Hindi militants, too. (Though I've seen some folks argue that Hinduism isn't pantheistic, but rather multifarious ways of approaching the same thingy...)
Perhaps the monotheistic violence takes center stage due to the prevalence of monotheism in the world?
http://www.trga-gate.net/dejavu/
WTC hardly qualifies as an unprovoked attack. The Americans have been hitting them for the last 50 years now, albeit through proxies such as Israel, The Shah, The house of Saud, Saddam... They've had their houses taken away and demolished, they've been bombed, shelled, gassed, tortured, starved,... It's a wonder they didn't hit back sooner. Yes, they are trying to make it painful for the Americans to impose their greedy, self-serving, brutal, oppressive, and sometimes genocidal "foreign policy" on them. You want to find the real enemy of the American people, look to those so-called leaders who have put Americans in danger by fostering hatred of Americans through their meddling. The name Henry Kissinger is very high on that list. If you really want to end terrorism, you might start with with putting him on trial in the world court for crimes against humanity.
Oh, I forgot. Americans think they should be exempt from such things... Can you say hipocrisy?
You're using her as bait, Master!
.
Was this post supposed to be satire? If so it was not very funny.
even if their objectives were territorial acquisition rather than revenge
I think to state that the US motive here is revenge is oversimplistic and unfair. Emotions aside, rationally thinking, an extremely important primary motivation is not revenge but self-defence - quite simply, if no action is taken, the terrorists will strike again, and it will be worse next time (e.g. maybe weapons of mass destruction). The situation is far more complex than just "revenge", presenting such an oversimplified view is an insult to the victims and to the decision-makers involved. By stating that revenge is the only (or primary) motive, you imply that not doing anything might be an acceptable (or perhaps even noble) course of action to take. Actually, doing nothing would be a really stupid course of action to take.
war
0 1/ 09/23/stiusausa02036.html
0 ,1 373,556643,00.html
- 20 01330376,00.html
0 ,1 373,556734,00.html
0 1/ 09/23/stiusausa02042.html
, 36 04,556224,00.html
- 20 01330450,00.html
1 08 04-2001Sep22.html
0 ,1 373,556634,00.html
0 ,1 373,556684,00.html
t e1 =9/22/2001
SAS Troops Clash With Taliban Unit Deep Inside Afghanistan
(the British papers are full of leaks from government and military sources)
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/20
The March to the Brink of Battle
http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/
Shock Troops Prepare for the Descent to Battle
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001320012
Revealed: British Plan for Afghan Onslaught
http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/
Bin Laden Hiding in Central Afghanistan: Iran Radio
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/subcont.htm#storya
MI6 Spies Find Evil Bin Laden
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/4326959
Poised to Strike as Never Before
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/20
"fighting is likely to be mostly at night, at close quarters by elite forces"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0
Kabul Looted as Order Disintegrates
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001320012
Emirates Give Taliban 24 Hours to Leave
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/lead.htm#b
First US Planes Land at Uzbek Air Base
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A
CIA Gets Go-Ahead for a Return to Murderous Cold War Tactics
http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/
Gun Law in the War Bazaar
http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/
US Plans to Install Puppet Regime in Kabul
(we take for granted now that a paper in NW Pakistan will be online in English)
http://www.frontierpost.com.pk/main.asp?id=4&da
youre going to have your fill of american soldier and enemy soldier deaths very soon until youre sick to the stomach of seeing body bags piled with the corpses of american soldiers shipped home. wars are ugly - you *will* learn that its irrelevant who dies. everyone gets hurt and death is nasty.
think 6,000 civilians is bad ? wait till you see 60,000 dead american soldiers or a 100,000 dead american civilians because someone decided to nuke an american city with a soviet warhead smuggled in.
if you want death, youre going to get what you wish for.
Maybe the Russian gentleman should have told us also about the more inventive Soviet strategies employed to break the Afghan spirit: dropping colorful plastic toy mines in the form of little dinosaurs and cars, designed to blow off the hands of (but not kill) children.
OK. The 1.5 billion people dont want to kill me. Heck, the 77% of Iran doesnt want to kill me. I am not sure about the 23%. I am quite sure about the Government of Iran.
The govenrment of Egypt doenst want to kill me. A large section of its population does. There arent any serious groups in egypt that will kill me, though. They dont receieve state sponsorship, so they tend to stay relatively small. There are agroups in Iran who want to kill me. They may yet be able to. I would prefer to kill them first.
Look, when you go to kill another government, the governent either has to unconditionally surrender (Japan) or be destroyed (Germany). If Neither of those things happen, you will have a cycle of violence. If you utterly destroy a government, and then route out various organiztions, and dont allow state sponsored organized terrorism, terrorism will end. At least on a large scale.
The ability to destry me requires state sponsorship. Am I saying you need to kill 1.5 billion muslims? Heck no! Do you perhaps need to destroy the organizational structure supporting 700 million? Perhaps.
Incidentally, given the choice between killing 1.5 billion of them, and having my top ten cities destroyed, I would have to go with killing 1.5 billion of them. At the end of the day, I want to be alive. Currently, that is being threatened. Think about it. Once a state who is saying "we will destroy you" has about 200 pounds of weapons grade nuclear fuel, and proper machinig tools, and a good deal of understanding of how explosives compress things, how hard is it to follow up on that threat? So as long as somone is saying "I will destroy you" and going about doing things to make that possible, I find it my responsibility to destroy them soundly first. Do I think that means "Go Around killing everyone" hopefully not. Does it mean a whole heck of a lot of "collateral damadge"? Unfortunately, I think so. I dont think you can destroy a government without a majority of the people being killed being stupid boys age 15-23 who dont know any better. Does that mean I dont want to? No. As long as those regiemes exist, my life is in danger. Will I do my best to minimize loss of life? Mostly, I would hope so. Does that mean I shouldnt go ahead and try to destroy the snake ifI cant conviniently get to its head? Yes. Is the situation horribly complicated in a relegiously zealous country where the relegious leaders tend to hold great political power? Yes. Does that mean I can turn away from the threat to me? I dont think so.
Look. People understand war. People can get over things. Organizations dont. Organizations perpetuate hate forever. You have to utterly destroy the organization that wants to kill you. However many people that takes, are unfortunate.
We didnt destroy saddams organization. It would have ben ugly, and GBI didnt want to look ugly. So now he is stronger than in 1990. Politically. I dont know enough about his military. Destroy the organization. If you dont give hate the structure to manifest, and dont CONTINUE providing reasons for somone to hate me, then people will get over it. EVEN if I killed their little brother. At least most will. If I kill their little brother, and leave in place organizations which thrive on that hate. Then the older sis will keep tryin to kill me.
Why not just bunch that together with homosexual/feminist/ethnic minority?
I think he did.
nope. Not satire. What part of ten 50 kiloton nuclear detonations doesnt scare you? What part of governments developing nuclear programs and announcing a will to destroy the united states doesn terrify you? Or is it just cause you think no-one would ever do it? That it couldnt happen here, in the good ole USA?
Telling the world your battleplan in advance makes as much sense as writing "the root password is XXXXX" on the door of the can.
The SAS gave the Mujahedin a lot of in-the-field training in the 1980's. The Soviets never learned; if you read Tom Clancy's non-fiction work "Into The Storm", co-written with Gen. Fred Franks, the US Army sometimes does learn.
A list of names of people to kill is being made; a strategy for checking the boxes next to those names is being devised by people who recognise those people qualified to offer advice, and heed them. Afghanistan has its own civil war already in progress; perhaps it just needs to be run through the Ft Bragg optimiser.
Why was it necessary to murder so many people? Hideki Tojo's insult killed a third as many, and they were mostly US servicemen at a military base, not men and women and children at desks. Hideki Tojo's insult was answered with atomic weapons, and it was Tojo's insult that pushed the US into war, and the atomic-weapon building 9and inventing) business.
Osama: If you say you weren't responsible, we don't believe you. We think of ourselves as decent upright and honorable people; if you can show it wasn't you, we will acknowledge this, amd the world's attention will focus elsewhere, away from you. Have you any idea what you started?
I have my own views on 'Nam. The US involvement was justified, in ways that French colonial involvement was not; it was the way the US armed forces conducted that war that was at fault. How many 2nd Lieutenants during the Somalia affair are now Majors in staff appointments?
Don't you think that troops that know that their home territory has been severely attacked are much more motivated than those that are fighting for obscure political goals?
If the US-led Alliance really started a full-scale invasion in Afghanistan (which is anyway rather unlikely), they would not fight against an ideology, they would fight for the safety of their peoples at home!
Most of the FUD against the war against terrorism is based on the assumption that the terrorists are much better motivated because of their religion. Let's stop this over-mystification and remember those passengers who prevented one of the hijacked planes from crashing into a city!
The "lame westerners" can fight, if they need to! A civil culture with low-profile military is not defenceless!
I agree. The ideal scenario would be to give these people the resources and the freedom to build the scoiety that they wanted. It wouldn't be what they have now, but it probably be wouldn't be what we wanted either.
The intent isn't to kill civilians. The intent is to take out the terrorists. There is a difference. Perhaps, you might have us simply lay down and do nothing? Oh no... diplomacy, I bet. That's your answer. Be diplomatic with the people who flew jetliners into our buildings killing thousands.
That's real good, man.
You analogies are useless. They do not relate.
The terrorists attacked us with the sole intent of killing civilians. That is a much different objective than we have. You can't even compare the two.
War is hell. You'd better get used to it.
Yep, that's nationalism in a nutshell. "We arew the true chosen people, and if others get in our way and get crushed, too bad." Source of most of the evil of the past few centuries.
It's one thing to love your country - sure, I love the USA. But I love it the same way I love Maryland - I don't think that the life of a Marylander is worth more than that of someone from Montanna.
Ain't no other kind, my friend.Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Huh? Just hop on to google and type:
"hindu militants" church
and
"hindu militants" mosque
Or just plain "hindu militants"
I've got a lot more respect for Buddhists - a lot fewer buddhist militants according to google.
So I guess we deserved to have 6000 civilians killed? There are always those who blame the free nations for the atrocities of the brutal dictators that we must put up with. I guess that since our foreign policy isn't to install the governments you approve of, it's okay to have our civilians slaughtered!
To make any sort of moral equivalence between what we have done in our foreign power and what was done to us is beyond ignorant... it is disgusting.
Oh, BTW...
Can you say hipocrisy?
Yeah, and I can spell it too: hypocrisy
The only good weather is bad weather.
Aside from the fact that the facts are true, it's also effective propaganda, designed to get everybody on the same 'Page'.
That is, provide a second reason to prepare the public for a nice round of American Empire Building. On the 11th we were hit with the first reason, "They Knocked Down Our Towers! Bastards! They Must Be Stopped!"
And now the selling of the second reason, "Look at the Horrors Those Bastards Inflict Upon the Poor Afghanis! They Must Be Stopped!"
Kids. Listen up & Grow up. It's about Oil and Opium:
Fact #1: Afghanistan is key to exploiting a vast & untapped oil field under the region. Access to the oil, (one of the largest deposits ever found,) is difficult, but with Afghanistan and Pakistan put into line, there would be a U.S. controlled pipeline opened and led to the only year-round port in the entire region. Whoever controls this source can set the price of oil, and rest comfortably in the knowledge of their being self sufficient in terms of energy; something the U.S. has never been able to do in the past. That's why the Soviets wanted Afghanistan, and that's why the U.S. wants it now.
And if these are not reasons enough, consider this:
Fact #2: 70% of the Heroin consumed by the U.S. came from, (Until this last Febuary), you guessed it, Afghanistan. The I.M.F. and other global assessment sources estimate that $250 to $300 billion dollars from Heroin trade ends up on Wall Street. If you're feeling the pinch of recession, it's not because people are not buying enough twinkies and widgets. It's because the Taliban destroyed this year's bumper crop of opium.
In Febuary, the Taliban burned 3000 tons of opium as an all out attack on the U.S. economy. This stuff is happening. Just because the CNN reporters have been well programmed and herded, does not mean that this isn't a reality that the Government knows about and needs to address. A large portion of the U.S. economy is based on the Drug trade. But if the U.S. succeeds in taking Afghanistan and dealing Pakistan into U.S. control, then the path of the Heroin becomes much shorter and cheaper, (it will go instead through the same channels as the hoped for oil, rather than across Asia and Europe.)
The U.S. stands to make a LOT of money by taking Afghanistan. And even when people find out about some of this evil crap, they will be willing to look the other way because of the 'Recession' (which has also been engineered artificially; the Taliban were paid off for destroying the Heroin. True. The U.S. Government in May PUBLICLY rewarded the Taliban regime $43 million for 'taking a bite out of Drugs'!) Sneaky maneuver.
THIS is why the WTC drama was engineered/allowed to happen as a joint project between the Mossad and U.S. intel.
Stop sucking up the propaganda. There are NO noble reasons for taking Afghanistan. It's about Drugs and Oil and the Dream of Empire. And probably about a little genocide along the way; (you think that any able man with brown skin will not be labeled 'Taliban' by the well programmed eager beaver U.S. forces? Think again.)
-Fantastic Lad.
As a former USAF guy, I'm all for bombing them back to the stone age (Curtis LeMay [xrefer.com]), only... it seems like they're already there.
What I think might have more long-term effect would be to air-drop Big Mac's, Levi 501 jeans, and bottles of Pepsi. Later we can send in ranks of solar-powered CD players with stacks of WEA cut-outs (start with Michael Jackson's latest flop). It'll be more effective than the M-1942 Liberator Pistol [gunnery.net].
In short, corrupt their youth with Western consumer goods, like we did with the Soviets. It'll take 20 years, but we'll end up with a new market for our goods, a pliable populace, and no terrorists.
apparently. People thinking like you will wipe out the human race, if we don't speak out and put the most violent of you behind bars. Mind you, the terrorists (and NOT the Afghans, and all the other people you misspelled), think the same way you do. They just flip the equations.
Don't forget things like dumbing the studentd down with political correctness, multi-culturalism, a welfare state, burdensome taxation and ever encroaching government.
When a nation going to face US attach, they try to tell US and the world that there will be another Vietnam. But from Iraq, Panama, Yugoslavia, the Vietnam story never repeat. Good luck to afgan.
I read this article as well, and found it illuminating. Basically, this SAS guy agrees with the russians that fighting in afghanistan will be a disaster.
Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond
[root@pentagon]# rm -rf /bin/laden
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!
Yeah and you think the terrorists will fight you in Afghanistan?
Doh. They'll fight you in the USA.
If you guys can't keep out tons of illegal immigrants, drugs and contraband what makes you think you can stop terrorists without turning USA into a police/military state?
You guys better not create more terrorists, for your own good.
The Taliban probably had nothing to do with the recent terrorist acts, and they have asked for proof of Osama's complicitness. The US have not given any proof to them. We can suspect Osama for all we want but the US has not provided any proof to them.
A significant number of muslims believe that if they die in a holy war they will go straight to heaven despite all their past evil acts. Remember these guys normally aren't guaranteed a place in heaven - it's a graded kind of thing for them, and there are only a few ways to get automatic top of the class 'A's. Being a syahid/martyr in a holy war is one of them.
Right now most don't hate the US that much, and they don't believe there's a holy war against the US. Many just dislike the US. So they'll just live their lives and get on with it.
But if the US screws things up badly, the number of potential holy warriors could increase drastically.
If just 1 million people all around the world start thinking that fight the USA is a holy war, you guys are in trouble. There are lots of muslims in the world. So it just takes a 1% fringe.
And these guys don't even need to be organised to hurt the USA badly. They just have to get into the USA and do something suicidal. Just one or two a week is enough.
The US might have to change totally. Osama will be laughing.
Also remember you guys still need oil from Arab nations. So banning all Arab looking people from entering the US is going to be a bit difficult eh? Even if you do that Osama has probably got many Indonesians and Filipinos waiting in the queue for martyrdom. If the US handles things badly, there'll be even more muslims of different nationalities filling the queues.
Maybe you guys can take over Afghanistan, but would that stop the terrorists from ruining the USA?
You have to convince most of them that you are not the ultimate bad guys and shrink the "talent pool".
Saying "if you are not for us, you are against us" is sure going to help... Attacking Afghanistan and kicking the Taliban out will sure help too...
Yeah George Bush is helping Osama a lot these days.
Cheerio,
Link.
The last people to starve in a famine are the ones with guns. You could starve out the Talibans, but only after the other 24 million Afghanis died first.
That would be a genocide 4 times as big as the Holocaust. I don't think it would stop people from hating the US.
Likewise, there is no evidence whatsoever that Osama bin Laden, or anyone in Afghanistan for that matter, had anything to do with WTC bombings.
82nd is just an ordinary infantry division which is dropped from the aircraft. They don't do the commando stuff.
Jesus CHRIST people. It's a fucking desert! Why in the world are we fighting and complaining so much about a huge desolate WASTELAND? That's as bad as the Africans complaining that they're starving while at the same time living in the middle of yet another god damned desert. Praying to Allah or whatever the fuck Islam teaches isn't going to change the fact that YOU LIVE IN A DESERT. Don't get pissed at us because we happened to grab a good spot of fertile land for our nation. You're the ones that want to stick around in the desert because of some stupid religious shit that supposedly happened there thousands of years ago. Get a life people. Move to habitable land. Many many many of your Arab cousins moved to Europe or the United States and can become quite prosperous as New York City cab drivers. Much better than starving to death, shooting Jews, and bitching about the US. Face it, we want the oil in the region for our cars and industry. Just give it to us and we'll give you food and shit. Leave us the hell alone with your terrorist crap. We just want to barter goods for services. Take Mohammed and fuck him in the ass.
Ummm, Iraq is allowed to sell billions of dollars a year in oil for humanitarian reasons. If the citizens of that country are dying and starving to death then I think you should place the blame where it belongs, the ruthless dictatorship funneling that money to rebuild the military.
As far as the WTC, I think the only thing that is going to work in the long run is to round up all the Arabs living in the US and build them some decent accomodations to stay in while we fight our overseas war. We can't go off to fight a foreign battle when the enemy is already on our soil. We're pretty positive that Muslim fundamentalists did this so round 'em all up. There's about 3 million Arabs in this country. We could easily construct some nice accomodations in the Arizona desert to shelter all of them for their own protection. We need to protect them from a backlash during the war as much as we need to protect ourselves from them. Ever see "The Siege"? It's sort of like that but that was more cruel. I'd like to build them at least huts so that 3 or 4 families could have a roof over their head in one.
Unlike the Russians, the British, while having Gen. Elphinstone lose a > 12,000 man army the first time around, actually whupped
the Afghan tribes something good, blew up their main mosque, then left, having made their point.
They were not trying to take over territory, but rather to prop up a suitable puppet capable of keeping the Russians from moving in and threatening India in their desire
for a non-isolated warm-water port.
As Afghanistan, under the English-installed kings was actually quite stable from 1847-1965-ish, at which point the British were no longer in India, and with an Indian government in power which was friendly to the soviets, one might conclude that they were pretty
successful.
So none of this untameable tribal barbarian stuff, please. It's a fairy tale.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
If that happens, it happens. In not afraid of it. It will be the END of Islam if it happens.
They and you, simply do not understand the depths of our wrath if they do this. THEY WILL ALL DIE.
If they put it to us like that, then they are saying it's us or you. We will agree and choose us. You have no idea how powerful we are. They will think Allah himself has come to them, and indeed they will be correct.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/howthe.htm This article certaintly gives a lot of information about Afghanistan, the Taliban and a bit of their history. I can't decide whether or not to believe some of the things it says. It certainly gives an interesting perspective on America's early interaction with the Taliban.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
I've been thinking that we should check out these valleys and make sure that a small defensible area is clear. Then, you drop troops and supplies in that area to establish a "valley-head".
The technical term for this strategy is the "Dien Bien Phu Waltz." Really, it is more of a funeral dirge, for the guys in the valley. Never cede the high ground.
Dave
Interesting link which I missed at the time, thank you. Vlad.
It makes sense. I do not see how according to the definition of terrorism anyone could be correct in arguing the United States is not terrorist.
I think you have been watching a little too much CNN. The US government and our media would like you to believe we are being impartial, but we are not at all. Consider the fact that the US recently suffered the humiliation of being voted out of the UN Human Rights Commission, while even China remains a member. We stand behind Israel when most of the world thinks we should not. That needs to change or we will continue to piss off the rest of the world.
I don't think that Bush could have a better cabinet to wage a war on terrorists and the nations that sponsor them. As for going after Iraq, the only real reason we'd have to do that is if we had credible evidence that it and/or Saddam Hussein were behind this attack or sponsoring terrorists in general. After we are finished with the middle east, terrorism will be nothing but a bad dream, as will the conflict between the Israelis and the rest of the region. After we are done the people of that region are no longer going to be forced to live under regimes such as the taliban. Afghanistan is not going to be the targe of a war against the afghani people, rather we are going to do away with the Taliban and then work to help the afghani people with food and other aid. In the end we are going to rescue that country more than conquer it. I for on couldn't be happier about it.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Hmmm. "Czarny Kozak". "The Czar's Cossack".
I have no doubt where your loyalties lie.
Last we heard, NZ was still getting the shit over the ban on nuclear warships in our waters. Why? Because Helen Clarke (and yes, I agree she is a left wing hippy) said we wouldn't invoke the ANZUS treaty, as we weren't an operational member. (For those who don't know, the US basically kicked us out after 1986, for the nuclear ban).
And now, I've seen a lot from [american] people who don't know the facts saying we are obviously against the US, and urging an NZ boycoutt.
It's bad when at a time like this some US citizens are doing their best to stir up anti-US feelings everywhere possible.....
To make any sort of moral equivalence between what we have done in our foreign power and what was done to us is beyond ignorant... it is disgusting.
I can see how to a hypocrite, that would be "disgusting". Americans are known for having two standards: one for themselves, and a different one for everyone else.
Actually though, on further reflection, you are right; there is no moral equivalence. What Americans have done and are proposing to do is worse given that have proven false to and are continuing to prove false to the very moral standards they claim to uphold...something at least the terrorists haven't done.
Can you say hipocrisy?
Yeah, and I can spell it too: hypocrisy
It's a shame that though you can say and spell it, you don't know what it means.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Atrocity is the name of the game in war. If the Soviets had had the guts to use tactical nukes and nerve gas, they would have won the war.
Is it really? And where exactly did we have a chance to practice this strength?
Oh dear, how do they ever manage?
Mountains usually have snow and ice on them, so you'd get a million reflections. Not to mention this would kill off all animal and civilian life. Or that this laser would signal very clearly where you are to anyone with hostile intentions.
I agree with most of what you said. I, myself totally hate the idea of the draft, and the Orwellian notion of "Big Brother" style government, which I fear the US is inching closer and closer toward every day. I will, however, say this about the military. The military is a necessary evil of sorts (I myself believe that Afghanistan should be turned into a US Atomic Test Site, but that's a whole other can of worms entirely). The armys of the world's nations, I believe, do not represent murder as much as they represent the inability of humanity to govern itself without war. Even if we did eliminate the militarys of every nation on earth, there's bound to be a Saddam Who's Insane who's bound to come along, raise an army, and start the killing anew. Love it or hate it, the US (and every other country for that matter) needs their armies simply to keep each other in check. Human nature would have it no other way.
PizzaOfHut's Infinite Wisdom #28: Life is anything that dies when you stomp on it.
Where did u get that information about Ukraine ? it's all false !!! Maybe that tactic u describe did happen, but not in that time and place. And i don't think that u exactly know what happened to KGB, its links with FSB, Mafia and such companies as Gasprom... and with Putin. As for the tactic, i doubt it would have been possible with chechens, who are arabic, muslims, and most of the fundamentalists. They aren't easy to infiltrate (same problem with talibans btw), not to talk about "simulate". U don't know what u're talking about, and ur post is troll.
Moreover, it's a "detail", but Russia should ask the return or Crimea to Russia, since it was transferred by Kroutchev (ukrainian guy, btw), from Russia to Ukraine in the 50's.
I'm becoming very very dissillusioned with the american government and a very large portion of it's people. I have yet to see one scrap of hard evidence pointing to Bin Laden OR the Talibann, both of whom have denied involvement by the way. If they can prove that he was involved (I.E. funded or planned) the attack, then I'm all for reducing the Talibann and Bin Laden to molten slag.
But there is no proof, and if there is, the american people sure as hell aren't seeing it. We can't go off destroying countries and shooting civillians just because we think we might possibly have a vague clue about who we SUSPECT did it, that kind of crap doesn't hold up under any kind of investigation. Until I see proof, I don't want one single bullet fired at afgahnistan OR any other country in the middle east, anyone who says otherwise is just a sheep.
FYI -- those numbers are for the city proper only. The metropolitan area in most cases is significantly larger (10M in LA, 7M in Chicago, etc.)
I have no respect for day dreamers. And I have no respect for people who think it's MY job to prove anything. Try and wrap your head around this:
Your level of awareness is YOUR problem. It's YOUR JOB to educate yourselves. Not mine.
There's plenty of material out there regarding the Oil and Opium stories, but you have to take the time to look it up. It's certainly not going to be on the front page of USA Today.
Ignorance is forgivable when you've been victimized by propaganda, but it's NOT forgivable when somebody opens the door for you and you refuse to walk out of the cage.
Now go do some google searches, and don't come back until you've done your reading. Until then, you're dangerous; you're a part of the problem.
-Fantastic Lad
Okay, it's in the US category, but since this is becoming more of a political web site you might add an Afghanistan category, so the appropriate flag can be used.
sulli
RTFJ.
Ok people need to realize we are not the russians. The war they fought was completely different and 20 years ago. Sure the terrain is tough and the afgans know it better. The difference is the soviets were up against EVERY afgan citizan. We are not. Most of them don't want the taliban there either. We can attack at night with superior technology and firepower. Night vision and infrared at night and we can pick off a single soldier on a remote mountain. The russian's didn't really have a reason to be there either. Their casualty rate was 15,000 russians to 1,000,000 afgans. They didn't pretty well even if they were forced out. We will succeed. The taliban is so out of touch with reality they sadly don't have a clue what they'd be up against if we choose to eliminate them.
Given the world's population, there is the
possibility that many people have the same
names. For example, how many people with the
last name of Smith live in the United States.
Perhaps, it is the same with other parts of
the world.
The questions about where Bush was and what he may (not) know about information pertaining to the attacks might be used to strengthen your case
about an alternate group of perpetrators.
What I don't understand is if there's any real proof Bin Laden is guilty, and if these proofs have been facilitated to the Taliban govenment or not?
The information I have reed seems to say there aren't any proofs yet. Will hundrends or thousands of american and afghans die for a mere suposition?
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
>>Actually, oil is not *there* but Chechnya is a much better route for the oil pipe, if that's what you are referring to...
> Get your facts right, there IS OIL in Chechnya
Not much. There is an oil pipeline though. Anyway that isn't the point. If Chechnya is let go, Russia would fall apart. Including some places that do have goodly amounts of oil and whatnot.
>>After 3 houses were demolished in Moscow and Volgodonsk -- do you think Russians were supposed to just stand there and do nothing?
>No proof was offered, no person was blamed. Not much.
No individual was blamed, no. About as much proof was offered as there has been up till now in the WTC case. That might of course soon change according to the BBC.
I agree. And the out-of-date maps explanation is especially ridiculous considering that the Embassy was the only building that's ever stood in that location.
From the CIA website:
Afghanistan Transnational Issues
Disputes - international: support to Islamic militants worldwide by some factions; question over which group should hold Afghanistan's seat at the UN
Illicit drugs: world's largest illicit opium producer, surpassing Burma (potential production in 1999 - 1,670 metric tons; cultivation in 1999 - 51,500 hectares, a 23% increase over 1998); a major source of hashish; increasing number of heroin-processing laboratories being set up in the country; major political factions in the country profit from drug trade.
Then read news from June on Poppy politics:
village voice
And then a link to a news story about how we planned to remove Taleban from June:
US, Russians, India
and to check up on the story. Same story from BBC:
BBC
More like this on my website:
beyond Insightful
QED
do we have any evidence?
especially when there's not a whole lot of concrete evidence. lets hope the US of A isn't a patsy in all this
So I guess we deserved to have 6000 civilians killed?
deserve is not the word, but try this one...
So I guess we caused 6000 civilians to be killed?
don't think US foreign policy does not affect the US
pouring money into countries that use it for warfare puts you on a hit list
the friend of my enemy is my enemy too
being a financial backer of a war makes you part of it
just like Osama Bin Ladin, who helps fund the Taliban
The funny thing is, you say we can do it, but provide no evidence of this because we would need "Top Secret clearance", LOL. So here we go again with the "faith", we should trust and have faith in our government and let them go off and do their own thing (another way to say it "dont vote or pressure your politicians because your an ignorant baboon who will just screw things up more then help").
I found this from google doing a search for [taliban "48 million"]... I dont want to spend the time to sort it out though maybe you can...
I :w ww.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0bd08b7265.htm+taliba n+%2248+million%22&hl=en
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:JBBaMeeofl
...Maybe Micheal Moore was reading this.
Further down in some of the discussions its said that its from the LA times, but no reference to the LA times article, and some in there said that the story there is diffrent from the story in LA times. So it seems the Sheer fellow (who is said to be related to Clinton through marriage) is the one who put out this information.
There are bad men in the world, Virginia.
They are not Afghani. They are not Arabic. They are not Muslim. They are...just...bad.
They are here because no one has had the courage to ferret them out and kill them. It now it is our turn to face that choice...
But it's not America's job to avenge the deaths of the thousands gone in New York. Or those lost in Washington. It is our job to make sure the whole world knows it is awfully unwise to do what these jackals did. To aid and abet them. To sing their praises. To hold them safe...
Awfully unwise...
I can't believe what I read. Nobody remembers that Chechen bandits kidnapped Russians, Americans and other innocent western civilians? They do commit murder on civilians. If it is true that Chechen movement has much in common with American Revolution, I must say American founding fathers were terrorists, which I do not believe.
The US did not take out the Iraqi army with technology. They took it out with a superior strategy against a strategically inept foe. The US destroyed the Iraqi C&C and intelligence functions, and then used a simple encirclement in force which would not have been possible without destruction of C&C. They could have accomplished similar results with WWII technology.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
What makes you think the US won't use those experiences?
This won't be the same sort of war.
The US will most likely start with a massive bombing campaign, blowing up military, government (and "accidentaly" civilian) support structures with laser guided GBU-15's, etc. Electricity stations, telephone exchanges, fuel depots, water supplies, hospitals ("whoops"), barracks, destroying runways, ammo stores, etc. They just won't stop until all the enemy soldiers are hungry, weak and ill-equiped.
That terrain is perfect for AH64 Apache's shooting hellfire over mountains with a ground troop painting targets with his laser mounted rifle.
They may be good with their AK's (which probably don't have much rifling left, what with all the joyous shooting full-auto into the air every five minutes), but they won't know what hit them when ally soldiers with night vision are shooting at night. Allied soldiers with digital crypto frequency hopping comms, satalite links, super accurate GPS, spy satelite info, etc.
How could the Soviets win with low tech and low numbers. This is not the same type of war, and soon, Afganistan, will be known as Pakistan.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
>Too bad... We have nukes for a reason.
Can you think of a country that develop
nuclear weapon without a reason(their reason)?
Man, Slashdot is just 0wn3d by the trolls! Well, no use complaining--I'll just start moderating from now on and use my points to take losers like the above down to -1 where they belong, along with the Aryan Nations types who moderated them up in the first place.
See a posting by an Afghan in America that seems to sum up the situation in Afghanistan quite well.
Or, alternatively, you could simply STOP BEING THE "GREAT SATAN!" This is a much cheaper - not to mention humane - solution instead of exterminating a good quarter of the earth's total population. The solution itself also has some excellent side benefits. By not declaring war on every heavily cratered, third-world country in sight, or imposing crushing economic sanctions that keeps said countries from feeding their populace like some kind of wicked god smiting the common people for pure entertainment, I think you might find that the people in these countries will lose their will to fight. They will actually acieve some semblance of happiness. They won't be blaming all their problems on the bastards that rightly deserve the blame.
Most of the world hates the US. And it's certainly not because you're number one, that you're living high on the hog and they're not, as you commonly claim. Do you hear about terrorist bombings in Germany? (with the exception of American military bases there) Or Italy? Or Britain? Or even Canada, who you blame repeatedly for letting the terrorist in? These countries are all among the seven richest countries in the world, each with a standard of living easily rivaling America's. The reason they're not being labelled as "The Great Satan" is because they don't use their armies to chastise bad little countries that don't do what Daddy tells them to.
It's time for America to put away its paternal feelings towards the rest of the world. It is not the Father Of All That Is Goodness And Light.It is not the world's policeman. It is not the protector of the Free World(tm), and there is no evil domino effect ready to snatch it up if Canada turns communist. So if you don't mind so much, could you kindly stop meddling with the internal affairs of other countries and let us get on with our lives? Thank you.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
I am sick to death of hearing people say violence breeds violence.
No, it's not just that, violence-breeds-violence is just a special case of a generic law of cause and effect that underlies everything we do.
Anything you do, any cause you make in your life will "breed" a response from your life. So, if you take actions that make certain causes, such as being greedy and buying a big lunch (or living a greedy life) - in this case, by being violent, and killing people, you will get a direct effect in response. So a greedy person might have the effect of being hungry, or being fat, and a violent person might have the effect of having violence done to them, or of being killed.
I'm not saying wether the law of cause and effect is true or not, but when people talk about violence breeding violence, this is what it's based on. It's also what buddhism is based on, and perhaps a few other (mostly modern) religious currents too.
In this sense, it's a matter of faith, because the law doesn't imply that there's a government or god that come and impose an effect of any action on you, but that this is simply something we manifest naturally ourselves, and inherent in life in general.
Buddhism teaches that we can overcome our impulses for violence, and potentially avoid ever having wars again, by all people (not necessarily just buddhists) taking action that prevents there being wars again. In another post you spoke of organisations fostering hatred. In reality, we can break this powerful stronghold of hatred by changing the organisational culture, but this has to happen with each person inside the organisation. An example might be making sure that peace treaties (eg: the versailles treaty) are truly satisfactory to both sides of any truce. In the versailles treaty for example, it is said that the strong measures used to keep Germany from starting other wars, were the precise reasons for hitler acquiring such a strong following for world war II. On the other hand, it's said that the resolutions after the second world war were much more fair on countries (perhaps apart from the creation of the state of israel, which has been seen as the start of the current middle-east problems), which was the reason for lasting peace between western countries in the second half of the twentieth century.
I'm interested to see someone who does not understand "violence breeds violence" as a fact of life: please mail me if you want to talk further.
Ale
Vietnam, you idiot.
... or rather declare objective achieved and run away.
This particular powder keg (Afghanistan/Pakistan/India/Nukes/Iran/Iraq) should produce some pretty fireworks.
Reward Pakistan's cooperation by asking to much and destablising their fragile system of government. Pro-Taliban elements should then be able to take over, and sell those nuclear bombs to Baghdad.
Who will attack who at that point? Who knows. India/Pakistan, or Iran/Iraq, or both.
I fear that at this time violence will be the first resort, because pride determines that some one must pay for September 11th.
Russian Planes and Helicopters didn't have infravision attachments. We can get those to EVERY single soldier to see heat patterns. We can see heat coming out of CAVES. We can see EVERYTHING with our modernized army. They will not last. We will weed them out. As long as they are alive we will see their heat and we will extinguish it all.
> Jesus CHRIST people. It's a fucking desert!
It's a desert, just like Nevada. So what?
Q: Why are most americans stupid, clueless, flashy morons?
A: Too much beef, like in burgers (and that's why they are fat slobs, too)
C. M. Burns
...the US military has been characterized by one quality. They are almost completely unpredictable.
But don't just take a US history teacher's word for it. Here's more expert opinion:
"The reason the American Army does so well in wartime is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices it on a daily basis." -- from a postwar debriefing of a German general
"One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine... -- From a Soviet junior lieutenant's notebook
Finally, a personal note: My late father earned a commendation from his artillery battery commander after responding to a shortage of howitzer firing pins (the replacement firing pins had been sent to the bottom by a U-boat). Having worked as a civilian tool-and-die maker manufacturing howitzers at Picatinny Arsenal prior to being conscripted in '43, Dad simply and expediently went to the nearest intact machine shop he could find, broke in, found the right kind of stock, and was busily turning out firing pins on a machine lathe when the gendarmes arrested him -- and a few hours later, the battery commander sent MPs to recover him.
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
Don't you think that if this pacifistic "build mcdonalds and shower them with love approach" actually worked, we would have done it by now? Many of these people are happy living in ignorance. Many would much rather spit at our offers of assistance, bomb our mcdonalds, and curse at our troops then even spend a minute second to acknowledge our kindness. Everyone's quick to bad mouth the "all out war" idea with some antiquated hippy notion of "make love, not war." These people DONT WANT US THERE. They WONT welcome us with open arms like we're saviors. Don't make it sound like a "peaceful, caring" route is really that simple. Frankly, I think its even harder than finding Bin Laden.
From a slavic history professor at my university. And from numerous accounts of individuals who were there.
Where did you get your information?
Prove It.
If you want us to buy into your oddball conspiracy then you're going to have to come up with some evidence. The burden of proof is on you.
This is a bowel disruptor, and you are just full of shit. - Spider Jerusalem
From numerous accounts of individuals who were there, and saw nothing like u say.
Kids. Listen up & Grow up. It's about Oil and Opium
Give us a break there, daddy-o. Don't you have a hemp-rally to go to or something?
The 43 million was a mixed bag of humanitarian aid for the Afghan people suffering from a 3 year drought. We did not reward the Taliban with 43 million dollars for burning poppy fields. This aid bypassed the Taliban entirely.
Seeing how effortlessly your self-righteous conspiratorial fragile egg-shell mind wrapped itself around this little nugget of pop counter-cultural 'wisdom', I can only imagine the degree of veracity your other claims hold.
But I've been Duped by the Conspiracy, so what the hell do I know???
; )
43 Million Dollars?
**>>BELCH
Nebraska with hills.
I can imagine the look of fear as the bombers fly over Kabul and out drops hundreds of parachuted bundles of food. Would the Afghan people appreciate this joke on the Taliban? It might convince a few people that we're not trying to kill the Mulims - just encourage peace throughout the world, as they also espouse.
Of course, it should not be Big Macs but the food they are already accustomed to. Dropping more and more food and medical supplies all over the country might eventually make them dependent on us, but that should not be our long-term goal either. Once the Taliban are kicked out by well-fed but fed-up Afghans, then we should help them rebuild their country however they want to.
Daniel LaLiberte https://www.facebook.com/daniel.laliberte
Manuel Noriega was the leader of Panama, not Nicaragua.
Hey, hey. The Boston Globe reports Pentagon planning to aid Afghans! So they liked my idea, not that they got it from me. This gives me confidence that they really are trying to do the right thing, if they could just figure out what it is.
Daniel LaLiberte https://www.facebook.com/daniel.laliberte
tsst
-SilverTK