Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the we-don't-know-much dept.
Several people have reported that the US has begun military operations in Afghanistan. Bush is talking on CNN live right now. Bombing has begun on Kabul. More as we know it. Here the word
a on CNN and The CBC.
Food and Supplies
by
Bonker
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't know if it's Bush, but *somebody* has their thinking cap on.
One of the real reaons the Soviets failed was because they were waging an all-out war to subdue Afghanistan.
Apparently, we're intent on pacifying the populace in the literal sense rather than the military sense. This will make a *Big* difference when U.S. tanks and personell carriers start rolling through for any kind of ground activity.
BBC has some pretty good graphics, including some maps of possible targets:
I agree, it's extremely sad people innocent people will die in Afghanistan. However, I disagree that air-strikes are any less discriminate than ground troops - remember Vietnam, where of thousands of women were raped by American troops?
I'm an atheist, and as such I don't feel qualified to comment on the whole god aspect of your comment, but I feel that one certainally cannot sit idly by. I'd need more information on the nature of the attacks to say whether or not I support them - at the moment details are rather sketchy. Certainally the current reports (military installations and an airport taken out) don't seem to be unreasonable.
-- Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
Re:This sucks
by
Convict6446
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yes, I think this will be a messy conflict. However, it is something we had to do. Afghanistan has basically told us to go screw ourselves since about the 12 of September. They've tried to dictate terms to the most powerful nation in the world, and we weren't having any of it. What we were asking was real simple...extradition of somebody involved in crimes committed in the US.
Before you as for evidence linking him to the attacks on the 11th of September, that doesn't matter. We don't NEED evidence of that. Bin Laden has already been indicted for previous attacks, and has claimed credit for them. So whether he was responsible for recent attacks or not (which it is fairly reasonable to think he was), he was responsible for previous attacks, and for that alone he should be extradicted.
As a member of the military, I have no problem with what is going on. These guys have spit in our face, then smiled. So now we're going to punch them in their collective mouths. I love this country, and I hate to see it pushed around. I have no problem risking my life to do this.
I suggest everybody do this: tape a video of the World Trade Center falling. Stick it on the shelf. Any time you have second thoughts about our involvement in any of these operations, put it in, watch it, and remember that there are a few thousand Americans dying on your TV screen.
And final note to morons: not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Muslims support terrorists. Muslim Americans, especially, do NOT tend to support terrorists. Just as not all Christians supported Hitler. And no, I am not Muslim.
Suppress enemy air defenses (always step 1 of an air campaign)
Destroy Taliban military forces near Kabul from the air (hard, they're dug in)
Assist Northern Alliance to capture Kabul
(they're stuck about 30km away)
Declare victory.
Bin Laden may survive this. But that may not matter. Just getting the message across that allowing terrorists to attack the U.S. from your country means your government gets crushed may be enough to deter state-sponsored terrorism for a while.
* Suppress enemy air defenses (always step 1 of an air campaign)
* Destroy Taliban military forces near Kabul from the air (hard, they're dug in)
* Assist Northern Alliance to capture Kabul (they're stuck about 30km away)
* Declare victory.
Declare victory ?! You've got to be kidding.
I think from there it would go something like this from there:
Capture and secure a military base outside of Kabul
Use that base to launch close range reconaissance and special operations rapid strike capability throughout Afghanistan
Systematically secure every enemy cave, bunker, training camp, meeting place etc...
Eliminate all Taliban methods of mass-communication (radio, news, etc...) and begin massive Psy-Ops campaign
Step up humanitarian relief campaign, encouraging refugees to move back into central Afghan territory
Develop a robust Afghani human intelligence network to ID Taliban and Al Qaeda members
Use seek and destroy Special Ops strikes against all Taliban leaders, centers of resistance, Al Qaueda strongholds, etc...
Have the Afghani King return, and draft a Constitution based on a broad based democratic government
Schedule elections and implement a "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan".
Bin Laden may get killed in one of the Special Ops raids or he might flee the country. In any event, he'll be the CEO of a much smaller operation at this point.
Even this is not the end, though. At this point, we'll turn to other terrorist groups and probably pick a fight with Iraq.
Re:It is time...
by
Trekologer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The Taliban offered to try Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Oh, sure. That would work. (sarcasm off) The Taliban believe in the same extreme Islamic teachings that bin Laden uses to promote attacks against the United States. If tried by the Taliban, he would probablly be found not guilty. And he would still have refuge under the Taliban's regeime.
By the way, British Prime Minister Tony Blair released a 21 page report tying bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. Plus there are the attacks on the USS Cole and the American embasies in East Africa. The Taliban has said that they will declare a Jihad* against the West if attacked. That mean that they've declared a war on YOU. Do you still think we should sit back on our hands on hope this all "blows over"?
* Most followers of Islam believe that "Jihad" means a holy war against one's self to find truth of existance. Using "Jihad" to demand violence is cosidered by most to be a basterization of the religion.
Re:It is time...
by
YU+Nicks+NE+Way
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No, you aren't the person who remembers it, but you may be the only person who believes it. The Taliban already have sufficient evidence to absolutely require they extradite bin Laden: the public record of the trial of the bombers of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania six years ago. His associates were tried and convicted of that act, and the evidence used in that trial, which also implicated bin Laden, was presented to the Taliban three years ago, along with a demand for his surrender to the US to face trial for his own crimes in that matter, as well as in the matter of the bombing of the USS Cole in 1998.
Re:It is time...
by
Jon+Chatow
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Oh, for gods' sakes. This is exactly the kind of 'rhetoric' that attracts such hatred towards you Americans - you seem to have this unerring feeling that your position is absolutely correct.
[...]our government has looked for the most peaceful solution possible Please excuse the language, but, put simply, 'bollocks'. The United States has looked for no solution whatsoe'er - demands on a non-negotiable billet do not come close to being an action of looking for a solution.
As a friend of mine put it, they call it 'collateral damage' because 'dead innocent civilians' doesn't have the same ring to it - and collateral damage is going to occur, to both sides, to a great extent, because the 'mission' is not clearly definied, but only a misguided and vague effort supported by dodgy morals and an apparent committment to aid which doesn't really fit with the action being taken. The monopoly of the state as the only body with legitimate use of violence, the boundaries of morals, and the state of global governance are what is at question here. Acts are only called 'terrorism', and not military action by a foreign power by the difference in the percieved legitimacy of their perpetrators - 'fighting terrorism' is about keeping states the sole executors of, well, physical power, to the extent of executions.
Personally, I find it very sad that a country full of such a great many people who could contribute so much to the world at large are generally not only conceited, arrogant and selfish, but somewhat stupid (by this I mean their actions as a mob, rather than individually, for at least most of them).
-- James F.
Blair's the man
by
ColGraff
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I just have to say, I listen to Blair's speech a few minutes ago, and I douub the United States could have any better friend than Britain and Tony Blair himself. He was with us the day of the attack, he's been with us since, and he's with us now, and Britain's soldiers' lives are on the line along with ours.
I'm not normally a religous man, but I have to say: God bless the UK and Tony Blair.
-- I'm the stranger...posting to/.
Re:It is written
by
JohnG
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Are you talking about the United States? I'd say we make damn fine fruit. The internet being a prime example, world's leading PC processor manufacturers, world's leading Graphics card manufacturers, worlds leading Aircraft manufacturers, a big contender in the automotive and motorcycle industries.
Or perhaps you were referring to the fruits we give to starving kids in countries whose own governments that don't give a damn about them like Afghanistan, so that they may not go hungry or die from what over here are simple illnesses.
Perhaps I'm reading your post wrong, but if I had to choose an American apple over an Afghan apple, I'd take the American apple every time.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-Hermann Goering, Hitler's #2 man
Re:Whose war?
by
_Sprocket_
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I don't think our leaders had to tell us that the country was attacked. The jumbo jets flying into the skyscrapers did that just fine.
We all witnessed the jets flying in to buildings.
But who witnessed the banners reading "Al'Quida sponsored"? Or maybe it was the public statements from the terrorist pilots just before impact? Or maybe even a statement from Bin Laden claiming responcibility?
We are still relying on our government leadership to tell us who did the act. That it was an attack that constituted an "act of war" (note: terrorist activities have always been considered ciminal acts up to now - there's a big difference between war (military) and criminal (civil) acts).
I personally have fairly high confidence in our current leadership. But it is our duty (for both civil and military citizens - and there IS a difference) to be critical of our leadership. It is possible to be both supportive and critical at the same time.
It's just bizarre. Why the heck do it, if you don't take claim of it? What the hell did they gain... except, perhaps, to start WWIII?
IMHO, I think this was done in a rallying call by OBL to build up support for an Arab-led war against American/European colonialism. I think that the primary perpetrators, however, didn't expect the solidarity that nearly all countries showed towards the US.
OBL and other terrorists probably thought the USA would strike back swiftly and deadly against Afghanistan and other Arabian suspected countries. Taliban and other radical fundamentalist Muslim groups could then unite, using recent US attacks as the rallying cry for a Jihad. However, instead of retaliating immediately, the USA slowly built up an anti-terror coalition, diplomatically and systematically. As the coalition included all of the Americas and Europe, slowly the Arab nations joined as well, possibly for fear of being seen to support such terror. I think OBL didn't see this global coalition coming by any reckoning, and is now shitting bricks. Taliban's actions seem to imply this, as they themselves are calling this a US-led war against Islam, which it clearly isn't, especially as the USA has the support of other several Islamic countries.
So, I think that OBL or others would have claimed it if there hadn't been such worldwide sympathy and support for America. I think if they admitted to it while nearly all countries were officially condemning the attacks as atrocities, the terrorist group(s) would lose most of the public support they had hoped to gain.
I might just be cheesy here, but is anyone else reminded of "The Grinch who Stole Christmas" regarding the 9/11 attacks? Whereas the Grinch, being an inherent prick, basically struck at the small mountainous town to cause strife and discord, by stealing their 'Christmas'. Yet, though their physical Christmas was gone, the townspeople still banded together and sang, because their inner spirit couldn't be stolen. So too did these terrorists try to destroy something in America, either our safety, our sense of security, or try to destroy our status amongst other nations. However, the solidarity Americans showed after the attacks was incredible. Every block I walk down, there are flags and patriotic banners. Not people just calling blindly for revenge (well, some are) but there's definitely a feeling of unity here that I haven't really felt before (I'm 26, maybe it was like this in WWII or similar). Okay, just my 2 cents.
--
make world, not war
Re: America will never learn
by
Panaflex
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If we could just go and arrest those responsible, then it would be done. However, people are protecting a man who is at the very least accessory to the murder of thousands of people. If bin Laden was innocent, why not make an international appeal? Trial in a country where the justice system is corrupt would be fraut with stupidity.
This IS different. There are goals. If you believe in freedom, you must accept justice.
Showing the Taliban the "evidence" could mean death for many who provide information to the USA. Some of these people are supporters of democracy, we don't know. Do you trust the Taliban to extridite bin Laden, at the risk of loosing all information sources and their lives?
Why don't you go over and arrest the man? Even if you did it for the money (Now at 30M USD) you could easily pay for the trip and equipment.
Critical thinking is in short supply.
Pan
-- I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Re:It is time...
by
YU+Nicks+NE+Way
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
What do you mean? Do you mean that there's no evidence that bin Laden was implicated in the WTC terror attack, or that there is no evidence against bin Laden himself which should have been adequate to justify his being bound over for trial?
The first is irrelevant in this case, and I haven't spoken to it. Look back at what I said: that I didn't believe the Taliban would turn bin Laden over for any evidence. I deliberately confined the evidence I mentioned to previous requests for the extradition of bin Laden and his lieutenants, and all the evidence that I mentioned is in the public record. More than that, it's in a trial transcript, and it's been available for years.
The question of the presence or absence of evidence in the WTC attack is a red herring. Sheik Omar had more than adequate reason to extradite bin Laden without any reference to the WTC attack. He could and should have done that years ago. The fact that he and his cadre have refused to do that for years discredits their more recent charm offensive.
Re:Legitamacy of anger/hate
by
rodgerd
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Funny thing is that on the non-US information sources (BBC, etc) that go into New York, there seems to be little appetite amongst those who lost people for revenge. That's mostly among the people outside NY - in the midwest and West Coast.
US sources, OTOH, barely seem to be talking to the New Yorkers affected. CNN, in particular, quickly abandoned coverage of the victims in favour of beating the drums of war (and marketshare).
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance
by
LS
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Your analogy is one of the worst I have ever seen. There are more holes in it than I wish to address, but I will point out a few:
* A single person commiting an act of unprovoked violence is not comparable to a complex political situation that sometimes involves violence.
* The US is the puncher, not the receiver of the punch. Our cold war and oilinterests cause us to meddle in the affairs of almost every country in the middle east. We aided Osama Bin Laden and put the Taliban into power. They used to be called "freedom fighters" in the past. Our sanctions in Iraq have caused the deaths of over 500,000 CHILDREN. We sponsored and trained terrorists in Nicaragua that resulted in over 30,000 civilian deaths. The list goes on. Now who is the aggressor here?
* A true pacifist is willing to die before hitting back. If someone thinks violence is evil, how can you combat evil with violence?
* And why would anyone take advice and learn lessons from an asshole who punches peaceful people in the face?
Turn your radio dial away from Rush Limbaugh and start finding out the true story, instead of knee-jerking off.
-- There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
It's time, but for what?
by
melquiades
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Our country is at war now, even if it is undeclared one.
I agree, in some sense, we're at war. But as Bush and everyone else keep pointing out, this is not really a "war" in any conventional sense: we are not fighting a nation, a territory, or even a definable coalition or group. We are fighting this nebulous thing called "terrorism".
When people use all this language about the "War on Terrorism", I can't help thinking of how similar it is to the "War on Drugs"... which has been a dismal failure. It's cost us huge amounts of money, damaged our freedom, and claimed high collateral damage (i.e. killed innocent people). And guess what? People still do drugs, buy drugs, sell drugs... a lot.
Think of the attack on Noriega, and how little that accomplished. We nailed one of the biggest names in the drug-smuggling world, and there was no noticable effect on the drug supply. The fundamental problem is that as long as there's money in drugs, if you strike down one criminal, ten will suddenly appear ready to take their place.
The war on terrorism is going to be the same way. We'll wipe bin Laden's organization out. But for every terrorist we kill, ten will rise to take their place. Only this time, it's worse than the drug war: the fuel which drives terrorism is not money but anger, and these strikes actually increase the supply of this fuel.
So yes, I agree, it's high time we did something. Wake up: military strikes don't work in these nebulous modern quasi-wars. We need to figure out what turns people into terrorists (and no, it's not W's simplistic "hatred of our freedoms" -- get real!), and stop terrorism at the source. And no, that is not what these strikes are doing.
Is this the right kind of war?
by
gotan
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's a war against sationary targets. Some buildings will be destroyed with high precision. But will that work against terrorists who are in hiding, maybe not even in the country and who travel light? Or against a government, that has no scruples to hold their own people as well as the american people hostage, and that is not bound to locations like administrative buildings and the like?
Also what damage will be done to relations with arabic countries? The early (and probably long prepared) press statement shows, that bin Laden has expected, even wanted this to happen, to kindle a "holy war". It's probably even hard to find a building in afghanistan that's worth more than the bombshell that hits it. But it gives bin Laden and other radical fundamentalists the means to polarize the islam peoples, and probably get even more followers. The war is only a few hours old, and we will only later see, what was achieved by bombing of some buildings and, on the other hand, by accusing the americans to attack the islam people of afghanistan.
I don't know how to do it better, but the aim should be, to isolate bin Laden and other fundamentalists, to rob them of support, support from neighbouring countries, and support from their own people, to show them as the warmongers they are, and to show, how they misuse religion for their own personal goals. The point is, that the "resources" of the terrorists are people, and support from people, and not some buildings. And bombings are the wrong tools to hunt down people.
-- "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance
by
ruin
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Looks like he forgot a step.
10) As campus security is escorting you away for assaulting someone, muse upon the differences between justice and retaliation.
--
share and enjoy
Re:Doesnt look that big right now
by
SubtleNuance
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Should the U.S. not retaliate or otherwise defend itself
NO, the US is attacking them. Someone committed a crime, not and act of war, and the US is responding by making war.
its always wrong.
perceive this as an attack on Islam
You do understand America has been backing the slaughter of Muslims in Isreal for 40 years. The Jewish feel for some reason that they deserve to displace Muslims because they are not Jewish. The Americans have been supporting religious-state politics all this time, they have been violating their own constitution by supporting Zionism - you are most certainly wrong when you say this is NOT an attack on Islam - it most certainly is.
America has backed anti-Muslim policies, politics and 'apartheid'(sp?)
America is not blameless.
Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance
by
Chris+Y+Taylor
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"Nope. But I do believe that they were driven by revenge. (as if it's not obvious!)"
Then you are an idiot. Or at least I'll grant that you are just politically naive. The attacks on 9-11 have nothing to do with revenge. They were not "crimes of passion." The terrorist leaders may toss around the word "revenge" in the propaganda they use to recruit throw-away agents, but the fact is that such terrorist acts are cooly calculated attempts at political manipulation.
To quote the DOD definition, terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to [cause] fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological... In other words, terrorism is a psychological act conducted for its impact on an audience."
The leaders of Al-Qaeda seek to establish a unified Islamic gov't over the entire Middle East. Is that evil? Well, they want a gov't where women are considered property, where the political leaders are also the religious leaders, where practicing a religion other than the "state religion" is punishable by death, and not incidentally where THEY are those revered religious/political dictators. I think that qualifies for evil in my book. Even if you don't believe in "good vs. evil" political simplifications, then surely it is an end result which almost all civilized people would not want to see occur.
So why would Al-Qaeda attack the World Trade Center if it really wants to take over Arabia? Because as long as the United States maintains a strong military presence in the region then any attempt to "unify the Muslim world" will almost certainly come to a swift failure. Al-Qaeda's first step is to drive the U.S. out of the region that they want to conquer and to sufficiently damage us that we would not have the resources to ever come back in. Al-Qaeda is manipulating the hatred and jealousy toward the United States among the many Muslims to further their own goals of political/military conquest. They murdered thousands of civilians in a surprise terrorist attack in an attempt to provoke the United States gov't into taking rash action that will further increase their political base (something Bush's advisors obviously foresaw, considering the huge emphasis that Bush and his administration are placing on winning the "hearts and minds" of the Afghans and other Muslim people) and also as the first step in convincing the public and the leadership of the United States that we must withdraw our forces from the Mid-East (like we withdrew from Lebanon and Somalia after terrorist related casualties in those areas) so that it will be ripe for their conquest. Sounds close enough to "evil" in my book.
As the song says "everybody wants to rule the world." Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri might actually be satisfied with just the Middle and Near East... maybe. I'm sure they don't see themselves as "evil." I'm sure they would tell you that they keep women uneducated and oppressed because that is their proper place in society... not because they hate them. I'm sure that they would explain that they execute people preaching other religions because they care about their citizen's souls and want to protect them from temptation. Then again, I'm sure that the Communists would have told you that they were doing what they did only because they cared so much for the Working Class. I'm sure that the National German Worker's Party officials would have explained that their actions were taken to bring back the pride and sense of self worth among the much maligned German people and to free them from the unfair terms of the Armistice Treaty forced on them by the evil French.
I will not try to argue that the United States is perfect. We have used ruthless means to achieve our ends. We have manipulated nations. We have supported oppressive leaders simply because they were the enemies of our enemies. It is a cruel world. International politics is a brutal jungle where the only rules are the ones that you can enforce. We have played by those "rules of the jungle" and perhaps in some ways we mirror the evil we try to fight. But aside from some (thankfully) rare acts by misguided leaders, our ends are generally good. If you can't agree with that, then I submit that they are at least better than the ends pursued by our enemies, whether those enemies are Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussien, or the Chicoms.
Some people are upset that the United States is never perfect. The choice is not "which side is perfect." The choice is "which future do you want to live in?" The future the United States is fighting for will not be a utopia... but it will be better than the alternative. It is time to choose sides. And don't forget the saying "The Perfect is the enemy of The Good." If you wait for a perfect society to support, then you will never find it. It is time to throw in on the side of "The Good." As long as you argue that the calculated conspiracy of an oppressive, tyrannical fanatic is morally equivalent to the calculated conspiracy of the powers of Western Civilization to promote global stability and the continued existence of liberal, capitalist, democratic society, then you are on the wrong side... and you are being just as manipulated by Al-Qaeda's propaganda as are the poor, ignorant youths who they recruit to be "throw away" agents.
P.S. All the people who feared a stupid, rash, and vengeful retaliation by the United States need only look at the huge effort being put into helping the Afghan people and building alliances with local, freedom-loving Afghanis to see how wrong those expectations were. I am very proud of Pres. Bush and his administration. www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/ret.bush.radio/ index.html (remove the space before "index")
Re:the next step...
by
bwt
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Apparently you are not very up to date on contemporary guerilla warfare. If you want to see what a small number of psychotic troops fighting for their homeland can do, take a look at the ass-beating the USA took in Vietnam.
The US kill-to-loss ratio in Vietnam was something like 9 to 1. Assuming that this ratio maintains itself, it would cost the US 5000 military causualties to kill all 45000 Taliban troups.
If anything, we will do much better than we did in Vietnam or the Soviets did in Afghanistan because
We have virtually uncontested air superiority
We are not facing an enemy who can replentish their arms from a rival superpower
Our night-vision technology is a disruptive technology in guerilla warfare, and
The US public supports, in fact demands, victory at any cost
22 years of civl war and 4 years of draught leave our enemy weak and weary
Precision munitions are a disruptive battlefield technolgy.
Our military force is 100% volunteer, whereas our enemy conscripts 12 year olds
Our enemy is totally diplomatically isolated
Re:the next step...
by
DickBreath
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I see a bunch of people saying what they mean, and meaning what they say.
Taliban (on an even numbered day): This is holy war!
Taliban (on an odd numbered day): We want to negotiate.
Taliban (on even numbered day): The americans are getting what they deserve!
Taliban (odd numbered day): We will release the hostiges (er... I mean foreign detainees) if you stop threatening us
etc., etc., etc.
So what do they mean?
I think we have a better track record of doing what we say we'll do.
I don't see what we expect to achieve with airstrikes.
Have you been paying attention? We expect to send in ground troops. We expect this to take a long time. Before you do that, you first get control of the airspace. That is probably most easily accomplished with airstrikes against selected targets. It is incomprehensible to me to not understand what we expect to accomplish with airstrikes.
What we are doing is PR fluff. It's putting some big bangs on TV to get the reruns of the WTC off the screen.
I completely disagree. We are trying to eliminate possible future attacks at their source. There may be some vengance motivation, but I think the real goal is to not let this stand and to not let it happen again. It will change what plays on TV -- but I think that has just about zero weight in the minds of the people planning this.
--
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:It is time...
by
Chris+Y+Taylor
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"How can you say doing nothing will simply cost us more lives, as the terrorist attacks continue? Have they continued in the weeks to now? Everything happened on one day and nothing since."
In 1983 terrorists attacked the Marine barracks in Lebanon. We pulled our forces out, and the attacks stopped... for a time.
In 1993 one of Al-Qaeda's first acts was to ambush and kill American soldiers engaged in "nationbuilding" in Somalia. We pulled our forces out, and the attacks stopped... for a time.
If we pull troops out of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan now, then the attacks will stop again... for a time.
We have taught these people that if they bloody our nose, then we will do what they want.
Why are we surprised that they attack us again?
If we keep giving them what they want every time the attack us then we teach the world that terrorism works. If we keep following that road, then evenutally it will mean the end of America as a free nation. At some point we have to stand up and say: "No" No matter how much they hurt us, we can't give them what they want. We have to hurt them worse. We have to show the world that attacking the United States is a VERY BAD IDEA. It will mean more attacks in the short term, but it is the only way to stop them in the long term.
Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris
by
strider
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think you use several very faulty lines of logic here and I will attempt to demonstrate them individually. I'd like to note that I think generally we would be on the same side regarding foreing policy, but I think in this instance I must firmly disagree.
First you imply that this is our fault, or deserved because of our funding of the Mujahadeen during the exuberant battle against the "evil empire" of the cold war. While I agree this was a mistake, let's not use that to claim that in any way justifies the current situation in that country. The Soviet Union invaded and we helped the rebels gain independence. This done we stopped helping them. They would have liked more money to set up a regime but we cared little after we won our battle. So we didn't help as much as we could/should have, is this reason to bomb us? NO. It does not follow that, since we declined to continue aiding the Mujahadeen as they set up a government we wronged them in such a way as to deserve 9/11. We helped create this monster yes, but isn't that all the more reason for us to step up to the plate and end it?
Next you have the bombing 1 nation every two years argument. Firstly few of these terrorist are victims of bombing. That aside, I wonder how many more peoploe would have died if we had not have dropped a bomb in the last 30 years? It sounds paradoxicall but unfortunately their are some seriously fucked up people in this world and sometimes you have to kill them. The US made mistakes, yes. But it made mistakes while generally *trying to do the right thing*. Explain to me how Somalia or Kosovo can be construed as the US profiteering from bombing? Come on. Perhaps our motives or our analysis haven't always been perfect, but they rarely have been purely economic profit. America had made mistakes like everyone else. You might want to research how much culpability Pakistan has in all this. Their crusade for Kashmire has caused them to fund some unsavory charecters. We all do stupid things. That does not mean the present situation is one of them or that America is evil.
Thirdly there is the profiteering from arm sales argument. This argument has been arround since after world war I where it gained popularity as an explanation for the horific wanton destruction from that war. Because a group stands to profit from a course of action does not mean that they are responsible for it. It is sometimes good grounds for suspicion but it nothing like positive evidence. I think your argument here is much stronger on issues like the missle defense system than on this. I really don't think Bush's main goal right now is "what do the defence contractors want me to do" regardless of how he may think on other occasions.
In the end I think this act is justified for one reason only; it may prevent future suffering. Terrorism like any other act of violence causes suffering. This action may create less suffering than it ends.
-- The preceding passage has been checked for spelling,
you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris
by
Guppy06
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"Please look beyond what you are being told. This is not an adult video game."
... and yet you try so hard to make it cut-and-dry...
""Abu Sayyaf... train[ed] terrorists in the methods taught by the CIA...""
Unfortunately, you seem to have neglected to mention that they've skewed quite far from the terrorist methods that they were taught. Back then, terrorist organizations tended to be married to one intelligence service or another, have clear and announced political goals, and took credit for an act immediately so that their victims could mull over why they had been attacked. Their goal is to motivate their victims through the use of terror.
On the other hand, what we have here is a lose network of terrorist organizations that do not rely on any one source of funds too heavily, have relatively obscure, religion-oriented goals, and tend not to immediately take credit. Instead, as we saw with the kamikaze attacks in New York and DC, it was more important for these people to do good by their God than to make a political statement.
In short, terrifying Americans and swaying their opinion one way or another is now only a secondary goal. Literally killing as many Americans as possible has moved up to #1.
If you think the CIA would teach the Afghanis what they did to us last month, I ask you this: If Afghanis hijacked an Aeroflot jet and flew it into the Supreme Soviet, is there any doubt in your mind that they would have sent in the full brunt of the Red Army into Afghanistan (complete with their NBC weapons) instead of the trickle we saw?
"Afghanistan is the 15th country the U.S. government has bombed in 30 years, an average of 5 countries bombed every 10 years. Will there be 5 more countries in the next 10 years?"
Would you rather we stay focused on one target and slowly grind it into the dust before moving on to the next?
When somebody threatens American insterests (like, say, blow up a few hundred of our Marines stationed abroad with the consent of the host government, or bomb airliners, or attack US-flagged oil tankers, etc.), it is both necessary to respond and to respond with the appropriate amount of force. If the amount of force is too little, the US is considered to a bunch of push-overs, with everything we own essentially up-for-grabs.
To quote Heinlein's Starship Troopers:
If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off? Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an axe. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is
controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want to do. Not killing...but controlled and purposeful violence.
If you think that we've been too violent in the past, where do you think we should draw the line marking where we respond violently (and how violently) and where we don't? If you can think of a better answer, maybe you should run for office. Or easier still, vote.
"The U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in that time."
That's an interesting figure you have there. I don't know where you got it (and I'm curious about it), but I have a feeling you've padded it with questionable sources. Sources like:
A Palestinian throws rocks and Moletov cocktails at an Israeli soldier. The soldier feels threatened and shoots the Palestinian. The gun used was an M-16, so therefore the US killed the Palestinian.
Iraq's government is busy threatening its neighbors, developing (more) NBC weapons, and trying to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders. The US government is squeamish about giving aid to such a regime, especially when its doubtful such aid would actually reach those that need it ("The Republican Guard needs that food more than you do."), but is willing to send such aid if Iraq demonstrates that it neither owns nor is developing weapons of mass destruction. Because Iraq considers its own weapons stockpile more important than the health and well-being of its people, the US is responsible for all deaths in Iraq due to starvation
Sound familiar? It's a real shame that you're not the only one that believes that the US is the prime cause for all of these deaths.
As for the rest, those that were bombed were given ample warning and the chance to back down from doing what they shouldn't have been doing ("Lybia, stop trying to claim international waters as your own." "Cuba, stop trying to take over Grenada." "Iraq, don't invade/get out of Kuwait." "Serbia, stop butchering Muslims."). However, they made a decision to invite attacks by US forces instead. If anything, these should serve as examples that soetimes words are just not enough.
... and now you all but flat-out say "Boeing helped the hijackers."
"Weapons making is EXTREMELY profitable."
... while getting executed for treason is not. Your name, your family, and your life aren't worth the billions you might make, especially when you're already rolling in it. You don't stay that rich for that long by taking risky chances like that.
On top of that, such companies also lose money on their consumer goods as the civillians who used to buy cars and planes and televisions and everything else say "Hey, there's a war going on. Maybe we should save our money..."
"There are people who do hidden things to push the U.S. government into conflict because they want the money."
Do you have proof? Do you even have circumstantial evidence? Do you have anything more than some shady website run by a certifiable paranoid?
"In the past ten years, parties to 45 current conflicts have taken delivery of over $42 billion worth of U.S. weaponry."
Was the US actively involved in any of those 45 conflicts through shady dealings? Was the US actively involved in any of those conflicts period?
Better yet, is there any reason to believe that those conflicts wouldn't be happening right now if US companies weren't selling them weapons? I've yet to see a gun that comes complete with the desire and will to kill another person.
It sounds to me that the US is the cause of all ill-will everywhere. If somebody wants to kill somebody else, it's probably because the CIA was beaming "hate waves" into them from a satellite in LEO...
You start your post stating that we all should "look beyond." But no amount of looking, no matter what you're looking at, is a substitute for thought and analysis. Perhaps you should consider that before you lazily pick up that "The US is the source of all evil!" banner that somebody else made for you.
Re:It is time...
by
paul7e
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Let me explain.
The Taliban have stated that he's a "guest" in their country. When one hosts a guest, one has a responsibility to not have their guests bother the neighbors with loud parties and such.
Or, say, when your guest happens to murder a few thousand civilians at the neighbors place, in a polite society one would ask him or her to depart.
They have not done so, so it appears that they have changed the relationship from "guest" to "protectee". As the terrorists have shown that violence is their preferred method of social interaction, the Taliban must realize that when the neighbors call the police to come in to try and get their "guest" to be more quiet, there might be some additional damage to their home.
It's unfortunate, but it happens.
-- Silly Rabbit, sigs are for kids.
Re:It is time...
by
NMerriam
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You're right, the world has been a horrible place since the Unites States invented hate and misery. We really shouldn't have done that, everyone on earth was happy and smiling before 1776...
While his people starve at the hands of the 'dreadful sanctions from the West', Saddam has managed to do much to rebuild his army and infrastructure, all the while very successfully (as witnessed in the parent post and all the drooling support it has garnered) using the sanctions as a perfect excuse to starve his own people into a frenzy of racial hatred and win the support of bleeding-hearts in America itself.
He has barely scratched the surface of what he could gain for his people with the Oil for Food program as it would eliminate the unofficial but worldwide support he gets as a 'poor victim' who only needs to pose occasionally for the camera with his hands in the air saying "My poor people. What can I do against these terrible impositions from the West?"
Wake up for Chrissakes, and stop playing into their hands like a bunch of puppets.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if it's Bush, but *somebody* has their thinking cap on.
/ newsid_1556000/1556588.stm#map
One of the real reaons the Soviets failed was because they were waging an all-out war to subdue Afghanistan.
Apparently, we're intent on pacifying the populace in the literal sense rather than the military sense. This will make a *Big* difference when U.S. tanks and personell carriers start rolling through for any kind of ground activity.
BBC has some pretty good graphics, including some maps of possible targets:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
I'm an atheist, and as such I don't feel qualified to comment on the whole god aspect of your comment, but I feel that one certainally cannot sit idly by. I'd need more information on the nature of the attacks to say whether or not I support them - at the moment details are rather sketchy. Certainally the current reports (military installations and an airport taken out) don't seem to be unreasonable.
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
Yes, I think this will be a messy conflict. However, it is something we had to do. Afghanistan has basically told us to go screw ourselves since about the 12 of September. They've tried to dictate terms to the most powerful nation in the world, and we weren't having any of it. What we were asking was real simple...extradition of somebody involved in crimes committed in the US.
Before you as for evidence linking him to the attacks on the 11th of September, that doesn't matter. We don't NEED evidence of that. Bin Laden has already been indicted for previous attacks, and has claimed credit for them. So whether he was responsible for recent attacks or not (which it is fairly reasonable to think he was), he was responsible for previous attacks, and for that alone he should be extradicted.
As a member of the military, I have no problem with what is going on. These guys have spit in our face, then smiled. So now we're going to punch them in their collective mouths. I love this country, and I hate to see it pushed around. I have no problem risking my life to do this.
I suggest everybody do this: tape a video of the World Trade Center falling. Stick it on the shelf. Any time you have second thoughts about our involvement in any of these operations, put it in, watch it, and remember that there are a few thousand Americans dying on your TV screen.
And final note to morons: not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Muslims support terrorists. Muslim Americans, especially, do NOT tend to support terrorists. Just as not all Christians supported Hitler. And no, I am not Muslim.
Bin Laden may survive this. But that may not matter. Just getting the message across that allowing terrorists to attack the U.S. from your country means your government gets crushed may be enough to deter state-sponsored terrorism for a while.
The Taliban offered to try Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
Oh, sure. That would work. (sarcasm off) The Taliban believe in the same extreme Islamic teachings that bin Laden uses to promote attacks against the United States. If tried by the Taliban, he would probablly be found not guilty. And he would still have refuge under the Taliban's regeime.
By the way, British Prime Minister Tony Blair released a 21 page report tying bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. Plus there are the attacks on the USS Cole and the American embasies in East Africa. The Taliban has said that they will declare a Jihad* against the West if attacked. That mean that they've declared a war on YOU. Do you still think we should sit back on our hands on hope this all "blows over"?
* Most followers of Islam believe that "Jihad" means a holy war against one's self to find truth of existance. Using "Jihad" to demand violence is cosidered by most to be a basterization of the religion.
No, you aren't the person who remembers it, but you may be the only person who believes it. The Taliban already have sufficient evidence to absolutely require they extradite bin Laden: the public record of the trial of the bombers of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania six years ago. His associates were tried and convicted of that act, and the evidence used in that trial, which also implicated bin Laden, was presented to the Taliban three years ago, along with a demand for his surrender to the US to face trial for his own crimes in that matter, as well as in the matter of the bombing of the USS Cole in 1998.
Oh, for gods' sakes. This is exactly the kind of 'rhetoric' that attracts such hatred towards you Americans - you seem to have this unerring feeling that your position is absolutely correct.
[...]our government has looked for the most peaceful solution possible
Please excuse the language, but, put simply, 'bollocks'. The United States has looked for no solution whatsoe'er - demands on a non-negotiable billet do not come close to being an action of looking for a solution.
As a friend of mine put it, they call it 'collateral damage' because 'dead innocent civilians' doesn't have the same ring to it - and collateral damage is going to occur, to both sides, to a great extent, because the 'mission' is not clearly definied, but only a misguided and vague effort supported by dodgy morals and an apparent committment to aid which doesn't really fit with the action being taken. The monopoly of the state as the only body with legitimate use of violence, the boundaries of morals, and the state of global governance are what is at question here. Acts are only called 'terrorism', and not military action by a foreign power by the difference in the percieved legitimacy of their perpetrators - 'fighting terrorism' is about keeping states the sole executors of, well, physical power, to the extent of executions.
Personally, I find it very sad that a country full of such a great many people who could contribute so much to the world at large are generally not only conceited, arrogant and selfish, but somewhat stupid (by this I mean their actions as a mob, rather than individually, for at least most of them).
James F.
I just have to say, I listen to Blair's speech a few minutes ago, and I douub the United States could have any better friend than Britain and Tony Blair himself. He was with us the day of the attack, he's been with us since, and he's with us now, and Britain's soldiers' lives are on the line along with ours.
I'm not normally a religous man, but I have to say: God bless the UK and Tony Blair.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Are you talking about the United States? I'd say we make damn fine fruit. The internet being a prime example, world's leading PC processor manufacturers, world's leading Graphics card manufacturers, worlds leading Aircraft manufacturers, a big contender in the automotive and motorcycle industries.
Or perhaps you were referring to the fruits we give to starving kids in countries whose own governments that don't give a damn about them like Afghanistan, so that they may not go hungry or die from what over here are simple illnesses.
Perhaps I'm reading your post wrong, but if I had to choose an American apple over an Afghan apple, I'd take the American apple every time.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-Hermann Goering, Hitler's #2 man
If we could just go and arrest those responsible, then it would be done. However, people are protecting a man who is at the very least accessory to the murder of thousands of people. If bin Laden was innocent, why not make an international appeal? Trial in a country where the justice system is corrupt would be fraut with stupidity.
This IS different. There are goals. If you believe in freedom, you must accept justice.
Showing the Taliban the "evidence" could mean death for many who provide information to the USA. Some of these people are supporters of democracy, we don't know. Do you trust the Taliban to extridite bin Laden, at the risk of loosing all information sources and their lives?
Why don't you go over and arrest the man? Even if you did it for the money (Now at 30M USD) you could easily pay for the trip and equipment.
Critical thinking is in short supply.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
What do you mean? Do you mean that there's no evidence that bin Laden was implicated in the WTC terror attack, or that there is no evidence against bin Laden himself which should have been adequate to justify his being bound over for trial?
The first is irrelevant in this case, and I haven't spoken to it. Look back at what I said: that I didn't believe the Taliban would turn bin Laden over for any evidence. I deliberately confined the evidence I mentioned to previous requests for the extradition of bin Laden and his lieutenants, and all the evidence that I mentioned is in the public record. More than that, it's in a trial transcript, and it's been available for years.
The question of the presence or absence of evidence in the WTC attack is a red herring. Sheik Omar had more than adequate reason to extradite bin Laden without any reference to the WTC attack. He could and should have done that years ago. The fact that he and his cadre have refused to do that for years discredits their more recent charm offensive.
Funny thing is that on the non-US information sources (BBC, etc) that go into New York, there seems to be little appetite amongst those who lost people for revenge. That's mostly among the people outside NY - in the midwest and West Coast.
US sources, OTOH, barely seem to be talking to the New Yorkers affected. CNN, in particular, quickly abandoned coverage of the victims in favour of beating the drums of war (and marketshare).
Your analogy is one of the worst I have ever seen. There are more holes in it than I wish to address, but I will point out a few:
* A single person commiting an act of unprovoked violence is not comparable to a complex political situation that sometimes involves violence.
* The US is the puncher, not the receiver of the punch. Our cold war and oil interests cause us to meddle in the affairs of almost every country in the middle east. We aided Osama Bin Laden and put the Taliban into power. They used to be called "freedom fighters" in the past. Our sanctions in Iraq have caused the deaths of over 500,000 CHILDREN. We sponsored and trained terrorists in Nicaragua that resulted in over 30,000 civilian deaths. The list goes on. Now who is the aggressor here?
* A true pacifist is willing to die before hitting back. If someone thinks violence is evil, how can you combat evil with violence?
* And why would anyone take advice and learn lessons from an asshole who punches peaceful people in the face?
Turn your radio dial away from Rush Limbaugh and start finding out the true story, instead of knee-jerking off.
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Our country is at war now, even if it is undeclared one.
... which has been a dismal failure. It's cost us huge amounts of money, damaged our freedom, and claimed high collateral damage (i.e. killed innocent people). And guess what? People still do drugs, buy drugs, sell drugs ... a lot.
I agree, in some sense, we're at war. But as Bush and everyone else keep pointing out, this is not really a "war" in any conventional sense: we are not fighting a nation, a territory, or even a definable coalition or group. We are fighting this nebulous thing called "terrorism".
When people use all this language about the "War on Terrorism", I can't help thinking of how similar it is to the "War on Drugs"
Think of the attack on Noriega, and how little that accomplished. We nailed one of the biggest names in the drug-smuggling world, and there was no noticable effect on the drug supply. The fundamental problem is that as long as there's money in drugs, if you strike down one criminal, ten will suddenly appear ready to take their place.
The war on terrorism is going to be the same way. We'll wipe bin Laden's organization out. But for every terrorist we kill, ten will rise to take their place. Only this time, it's worse than the drug war: the fuel which drives terrorism is not money but anger, and these strikes actually increase the supply of this fuel.
So yes, I agree, it's high time we did something. Wake up: military strikes don't work in these nebulous modern quasi-wars. We need to figure out what turns people into terrorists (and no, it's not W's simplistic "hatred of our freedoms" -- get real!), and stop terrorism at the source. And no, that is not what these strikes are doing.
It's a war against sationary targets. Some buildings will be destroyed with high precision. But will that work against terrorists who are in hiding, maybe not even in the country and who travel light? Or against a government, that has no scruples to hold their own people as well as the american people hostage, and that is not bound to locations like administrative buildings and the like?
Also what damage will be done to relations with arabic countries? The early (and probably long prepared) press statement shows, that bin Laden has expected, even wanted this to happen, to kindle a "holy war". It's probably even hard to find a building in afghanistan that's worth more than the bombshell that hits it. But it gives bin Laden and other radical fundamentalists the means to polarize the islam peoples, and probably get even more followers. The war is only a few hours old, and we will only later see, what was achieved by bombing of some buildings and, on the other hand, by accusing the americans to attack the islam people of afghanistan.
I don't know how to do it better, but the aim should be, to isolate bin Laden and other fundamentalists, to rob them of support, support from neighbouring countries, and support from their own people, to show them as the warmongers they are, and to show, how they misuse religion for their own personal goals. The point is, that the "resources" of the terrorists are people, and support from people, and not some buildings. And bombings are the wrong tools to hunt down people.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
10) As campus security is escorting you away for assaulting someone, muse upon the differences between justice and retaliation.
share and enjoy
Should the U.S. not retaliate or otherwise defend itself
NO, the US is attacking them. Someone committed a crime, not and act of war, and the US is responding by making war.
its always wrong.
perceive this as an attack on Islam
You do understand America has been backing the slaughter of Muslims in Isreal for 40 years. The Jewish feel for some reason that they deserve to displace Muslims because they are not Jewish. The Americans have been supporting religious-state politics all this time, they have been violating their own constitution by supporting Zionism - you are most certainly wrong when you say this is NOT an attack on Islam - it most certainly is.
America has backed anti-Muslim policies, politics and 'apartheid'(sp?)
America is not blameless.
"Nope. But I do believe that they were driven by revenge. (as if it's not obvious!)"
/ index.html (remove the space before "index")
Then you are an idiot. Or at least I'll grant that you are just politically naive. The attacks on 9-11 have nothing to do with revenge. They were not "crimes of passion." The terrorist leaders may toss around the word "revenge" in the propaganda they use to recruit throw-away agents, but the fact is that such terrorist acts are cooly calculated attempts at political manipulation.
To quote the DOD definition, terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to [cause] fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological... In other words, terrorism is a psychological act conducted for its impact on an audience."
The leaders of Al-Qaeda seek to establish a unified Islamic gov't over the entire Middle East. Is that evil? Well, they want a gov't where women are considered property, where the political leaders are also the religious leaders, where practicing a religion other than the "state religion" is punishable by death, and not incidentally where THEY are those revered religious/political dictators. I think that qualifies for evil in my book. Even if you don't believe in "good vs. evil" political simplifications, then surely it is an end result which almost all civilized people would not want to see occur.
So why would Al-Qaeda attack the World Trade Center if it really wants to take over Arabia? Because as long as the United States maintains a strong military presence in the region then any attempt to "unify the Muslim world" will almost certainly come to a swift failure. Al-Qaeda's first step is to drive the U.S. out of the region that they want to conquer and to sufficiently damage us that we would not have the resources to ever come back in. Al-Qaeda is manipulating the hatred and jealousy toward the United States among the many Muslims to further their own goals of political/military conquest. They murdered thousands of civilians in a surprise terrorist attack in an attempt to provoke the United States gov't into taking rash action that will further increase their political base (something Bush's advisors obviously foresaw, considering the huge emphasis that Bush and his administration are placing on winning the "hearts and minds" of the Afghans and other Muslim people) and also as the first step in convincing the public and the leadership of the United States that we must withdraw our forces from the Mid-East (like we withdrew from Lebanon and Somalia after terrorist related casualties in those areas) so that it will be ripe for their conquest. Sounds close enough to "evil" in my book.
As the song says "everybody wants to rule the world." Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri might actually be satisfied with just the Middle and Near East... maybe. I'm sure they don't see themselves as "evil." I'm sure they would tell you that they keep women uneducated and oppressed because that is their proper place in society... not because they hate them. I'm sure that they would explain that they execute people preaching other religions because they care about their citizen's souls and want to protect them from temptation. Then again, I'm sure that the Communists would have told you that they were doing what they did only because they cared so much for the Working Class. I'm sure that the National German Worker's Party officials would have explained that their actions were taken to bring back the pride and sense of self worth among the much maligned German people and to free them from the unfair terms of the Armistice Treaty forced on them by the evil French.
I will not try to argue that the United States is perfect. We have used ruthless means to achieve our ends. We have manipulated nations. We have supported oppressive leaders simply because they were the enemies of our enemies. It is a cruel world. International politics is a brutal jungle where the only rules are the ones that you can enforce. We have played by those "rules of the jungle" and perhaps in some ways we mirror the evil we try to fight. But aside from some (thankfully) rare acts by misguided leaders, our ends are generally good. If you can't agree with that, then I submit that they are at least better than the ends pursued by our enemies, whether those enemies are Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussien, or the Chicoms.
Some people are upset that the United States is never perfect. The choice is not "which side is perfect." The choice is "which future do you want to live in?" The future the United States is fighting for will not be a utopia... but it will be better than the alternative. It is time to choose sides. And don't forget the saying "The Perfect is the enemy of The Good." If you wait for a perfect society to support, then you will never find it. It is time to throw in on the side of "The Good." As long as you argue that the calculated conspiracy of an oppressive, tyrannical fanatic is morally equivalent to the calculated conspiracy of the powers of Western Civilization to promote global stability and the continued existence of liberal, capitalist, democratic society, then you are on the wrong side... and you are being just as manipulated by Al-Qaeda's propaganda as are the poor, ignorant youths who they recruit to be "throw away" agents.
P.S. All the people who feared a stupid, rash, and vengeful retaliation by the United States need only look at the huge effort being put into helping the Afghan people and building alliances with local, freedom-loving Afghanis to see how wrong those expectations were. I am very proud of Pres. Bush and his administration. www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/ret.bush.radio
The US kill-to-loss ratio in Vietnam was something like 9 to 1. Assuming that this ratio maintains itself, it would cost the US 5000 military causualties to kill all 45000 Taliban troups.
If anything, we will do much better than we did in Vietnam or the Soviets did in Afghanistan because
I see a bunch of people saying what they mean, and meaning what they say.
Taliban (on an even numbered day): This is holy war!
Taliban (on an odd numbered day): We want to negotiate.
Taliban (on even numbered day): The americans are getting what they deserve!
Taliban (odd numbered day): We will release the hostiges (er... I mean foreign detainees) if you stop threatening us
etc., etc., etc.
So what do they mean?
I think we have a better track record of doing what we say we'll do.
I don't see what we expect to achieve with airstrikes.
Have you been paying attention? We expect to send in ground troops. We expect this to take a long time. Before you do that, you first get control of the airspace. That is probably most easily accomplished with airstrikes against selected targets. It is incomprehensible to me to not understand what we expect to accomplish with airstrikes.
What we are doing is PR fluff. It's putting some big bangs on TV to get the reruns of the WTC off the screen.
I completely disagree. We are trying to eliminate possible future attacks at their source. There may be some vengance motivation, but I think the real goal is to not let this stand and to not let it happen again. It will change what plays on TV -- but I think that has just about zero weight in the minds of the people planning this.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
"How can you say doing nothing will simply cost us more lives, as the terrorist attacks continue? Have they continued in the weeks to now? Everything happened on one day and nothing since."
In 1983 terrorists attacked the Marine barracks in Lebanon. We pulled our forces out, and the attacks stopped... for a time.
In 1993 one of Al-Qaeda's first acts was to ambush and kill American soldiers engaged in "nationbuilding" in Somalia. We pulled our forces out, and the attacks stopped... for a time.
If we pull troops out of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan now, then the attacks will stop again... for a time.
We have taught these people that if they bloody our nose, then we will do what they want.
Why are we surprised that they attack us again?
If we keep giving them what they want every time the attack us then we teach the world that terrorism works. If we keep following that road, then evenutally it will mean the end of America as a free nation. At some point we have to stand up and say: "No" No matter how much they hurt us, we can't give them what they want. We have to hurt them worse. We have to show the world that attacking the United States is a VERY BAD IDEA. It will mean more attacks in the short term, but it is the only way to stop them in the long term.
I think you use several very faulty lines of logic here and I will attempt to demonstrate them individually. I'd like to note that I think generally we would be on the same side regarding foreing policy, but I think in this instance I must firmly disagree.
First you imply that this is our fault, or deserved because of our funding of the Mujahadeen during the exuberant battle against the "evil empire" of the cold war. While I agree this was a mistake, let's not use that to claim that in any way justifies the current situation in that country. The Soviet Union invaded and we helped the rebels gain independence. This done we stopped helping them. They would have liked more money to set up a regime but we cared little after we won our battle. So we didn't help as much as we could/should have, is this reason to bomb us? NO. It does not follow that, since we declined to continue aiding the Mujahadeen as they set up a government we wronged them in such a way as to deserve 9/11. We helped create this monster yes, but isn't that all the more reason for us to step up to the plate and end it?
Next you have the bombing 1 nation every two years argument. Firstly few of these terrorist are victims of bombing. That aside, I wonder how many more peoploe would have died if we had not have dropped a bomb in the last 30 years? It sounds paradoxicall but unfortunately their are some seriously fucked up people in this world and sometimes you have to kill them. The US made mistakes, yes. But it made mistakes while generally *trying to do the right thing*. Explain to me how Somalia or Kosovo can be construed as the US profiteering from bombing? Come on. Perhaps our motives or our analysis haven't always been perfect, but they rarely have been purely economic profit. America had made mistakes like everyone else. You might want to research how much culpability Pakistan has in all this. Their crusade for Kashmire has caused them to fund some unsavory charecters. We all do stupid things. That does not mean the present situation is one of them or that America is evil.
Thirdly there is the profiteering from arm sales argument. This argument has been arround since after world war I where it gained popularity as an explanation for the horific wanton destruction from that war. Because a group stands to profit from a course of action does not mean that they are responsible for it. It is sometimes good grounds for suspicion but it nothing like positive evidence. I think your argument here is much stronger on issues like the missle defense system than on this. I really don't think Bush's main goal right now is "what do the defence contractors want me to do" regardless of how he may think on other occasions.
In the end I think this act is justified for one reason only; it may prevent future suffering. Terrorism like any other act of violence causes suffering. This action may create less suffering than it ends.
The preceding passage has been checked for spelling, you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
... and yet you try so hard to make it cut-and-dry...
""Abu Sayyaf
Unfortunately, you seem to have neglected to mention that they've skewed quite far from the terrorist methods that they were taught. Back then, terrorist organizations tended to be married to one intelligence service or another, have clear and announced political goals, and took credit for an act immediately so that their victims could mull over why they had been attacked. Their goal is to motivate their victims through the use of terror.
On the other hand, what we have here is a lose network of terrorist organizations that do not rely on any one source of funds too heavily, have relatively obscure, religion-oriented goals, and tend not to immediately take credit. Instead, as we saw with the kamikaze attacks in New York and DC, it was more important for these people to do good by their God than to make a political statement.
In short, terrifying Americans and swaying their opinion one way or another is now only a secondary goal. Literally killing as many Americans as possible has moved up to #1.
If you think the CIA would teach the Afghanis what they did to us last month, I ask you this: If Afghanis hijacked an Aeroflot jet and flew it into the Supreme Soviet, is there any doubt in your mind that they would have sent in the full brunt of the Red Army into Afghanistan (complete with their NBC weapons) instead of the trickle we saw?
"Afghanistan is the 15th country the U.S. government has bombed in 30 years, an average of 5 countries bombed every 10 years. Will there be 5 more countries in the next 10 years?"
Would you rather we stay focused on one target and slowly grind it into the dust before moving on to the next?
When somebody threatens American insterests (like, say, blow up a few hundred of our Marines stationed abroad with the consent of the host government, or bomb airliners, or attack US-flagged oil tankers, etc.), it is both necessary to respond and to respond with the appropriate amount of force. If the amount of force is too little, the US is considered to a bunch of push-overs, with everything we own essentially up-for-grabs.
To quote Heinlein's Starship Troopers:
If you think that we've been too violent in the past, where do you think we should draw the line marking where we respond violently (and how violently) and where we don't? If you can think of a better answer, maybe you should run for office. Or easier still, vote.
"The U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in that time."
That's an interesting figure you have there. I don't know where you got it (and I'm curious about it), but I have a feeling you've padded it with questionable sources. Sources like:
- A Palestinian throws rocks and Moletov cocktails at an Israeli soldier. The soldier feels threatened and shoots the Palestinian. The gun used was an M-16, so therefore the US killed the Palestinian.
- Iraq's government is busy threatening its neighbors, developing (more) NBC weapons, and trying to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders. The US government is squeamish about giving aid to such a regime, especially when its doubtful such aid would actually reach those that need it ("The Republican Guard needs that food more than you do."), but is willing to send such aid if Iraq demonstrates that it neither owns nor is developing weapons of mass destruction. Because Iraq considers its own weapons stockpile more important than the health and well-being of its people, the US is responsible for all deaths in Iraq due to starvation
Sound familiar? It's a real shame that you're not the only one that believes that the US is the prime cause for all of these deaths.As for the rest, those that were bombed were given ample warning and the chance to back down from doing what they shouldn't have been doing ("Lybia, stop trying to claim international waters as your own." "Cuba, stop trying to take over Grenada." "Iraq, don't invade/get out of Kuwait." "Serbia, stop butchering Muslims."). However, they made a decision to invite attacks by US forces instead. If anything, these should serve as examples that soetimes words are just not enough.
... and now you all but flat-out say "Boeing helped the hijackers."
"Weapons making is EXTREMELY profitable."
... while getting executed for treason is not. Your name, your family, and your life aren't worth the billions you might make, especially when you're already rolling in it. You don't stay that rich for that long by taking risky chances like that.
On top of that, such companies also lose money on their consumer goods as the civillians who used to buy cars and planes and televisions and everything else say "Hey, there's a war going on. Maybe we should save our money..."
"There are people who do hidden things to push the U.S. government into conflict because they want the money."
Do you have proof? Do you even have circumstantial evidence? Do you have anything more than some shady website run by a certifiable paranoid?
"In the past ten years, parties to 45 current conflicts have taken delivery of over $42 billion worth of U.S. weaponry."
Was the US actively involved in any of those 45 conflicts through shady dealings? Was the US actively involved in any of those conflicts period?
Better yet, is there any reason to believe that those conflicts wouldn't be happening right now if US companies weren't selling them weapons? I've yet to see a gun that comes complete with the desire and will to kill another person.
It sounds to me that the US is the cause of all ill-will everywhere. If somebody wants to kill somebody else, it's probably because the CIA was beaming "hate waves" into them from a satellite in LEO...
You start your post stating that we all should "look beyond." But no amount of looking, no matter what you're looking at, is a substitute for thought and analysis. Perhaps you should consider that before you lazily pick up that "The US is the source of all evil!" banner that somebody else made for you.
Let me explain.
The Taliban have stated that he's a "guest" in their country. When one hosts a guest, one has a responsibility to not have their guests bother the neighbors with loud parties and such.
Or, say, when your guest happens to murder a few thousand civilians at the neighbors place, in a polite society one would ask him or her to depart.
They have not done so, so it appears that they have changed the relationship from "guest" to "protectee". As the terrorists have shown that violence is their preferred method of social interaction, the Taliban must realize that when the neighbors call the police to come in to try and get their "guest" to be more quiet, there might be some additional damage to their home.
It's unfortunate, but it happens.
Silly Rabbit, sigs are for kids.
You're right, the world has been a horrible place since the Unites States invented hate and misery. We really shouldn't have done that, everyone on earth was happy and smiling before 1776...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
While his people starve at the hands of the 'dreadful sanctions from the West', Saddam has managed to do much to rebuild his army and infrastructure, all the while very successfully (as witnessed in the parent post and all the drooling support it has garnered) using the sanctions as a perfect excuse to starve his own people into a frenzy of racial hatred and win the support of bleeding-hearts in America itself.
He has barely scratched the surface of what he could gain for his people with the Oil for Food program as it would eliminate the unofficial but worldwide support he gets as a 'poor victim' who only needs to pose occasionally for the camera with his hands in the air saying "My poor people. What can I do against these terrible impositions from the West?"
Wake up for Chrissakes, and stop playing into their hands like a bunch of puppets.
**>>BELCH