forgive me for taking a cowards position but there might just be something to all of this talk of negotiation.. for instance.. i would be willing to negotiate with Oslama Bin Ladin at this point.. if he gives himself up, he can choose how he wants to die, rope or bullet.. if he reveals ALL of his associates, we negotiate not to torture him excessively.. America will not be free of terror attacks by negotiation and "feeling the pain" of those who wage war against us.. the reason that our enemy attacks us is not relevant, the fact that they do makes them worthy of only a grave.. because we are a free society, we will always have weak members who fear war and like a battered wife will find a way to blame America and somehow excuse the behavior of the aggressor.. we need to send a message to the world that if they kill our citizens, we will hunt them down without regard for reason or mercy, and send them to their death.. any by the way, for those who think these people are not afraid of death, could you please explain to me why Bin Ladin is now cowering in a cave? i wonder why he doesnt hijack a plane himself and wreck it into a building? come on Osama, be strong, be brave.. show your ugly face.. -qwik
I've pulled this off another board but i think its worth reading From an Afgani: Mir Tamim Ansary on Afghanistan I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, 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. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done." And I thought about the issues being raised 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 going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing. 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 agree that something must be done about those monsters. 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 took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a 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 exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country. Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan , a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. 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? Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that. New bombs would only stir 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. 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 only be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time So what else is there? What 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. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. 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. Because 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. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West. And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. 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 those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else? Mir Tamim Ansary
tuna, Very illuminating post. I think the West is risking another Middle-Ages type of Crusade if this war on terrorism gets out of hand. Do we really understand the full implications of military engagement in Afghanistan? Are we, not just Americans but Europeans and the rest of world, really ready to swallow the consequences? stockoptionist
nick, I enjoy your posts and feel no animosity towards you. But I must reply. When I was in law school, I was told that when the facts are on your side, you argue the facts, when the law is on your side you argue the law and when nothing is on your side, you pound the table and make a lot of noise. Which is what you just did. Your previous posts use the old defense attorney trick of telling the jury, the defendant shouldn't be punsihed b/c he grew up under such terrible circumstances and that we (society) should be ashamed that we allowed this poor defendant to turn into such a monster. In your recent posts you brought up a lot of less than perfectly successful operations. (Some no doubt because of people arguing for restraint during a war) Henry Kissenger was challenged with the same question on the news today. He explained rather cogently that there is a huge difference between attempting to occupy and hold a territory and causing a terriorist to be on the run while you hunt him down. You really did not address my concerns about the imminent threat of a much greater death toll after a biological, nuclear or chemical strike. We know these guys are willing to kill us, shouldn't we attempt to close them down. How can we think it is smart to sit back and let them get more angry and more capable. Let us say we take your approach and ask them how they feel and buy them some cofffee. When even apologize and perhaps leave Saudi and let them think we won't even help Isreal anymore. Do you expect their leaders to say to their people HEY WE JUST NEGOTIATED WITH THE U.S. and they are cool now and not the problem. And, the reason you are dirt poor and mostly uneducated is because we your leaders are criminal, insane, greedy secrewups. NO we will always be the excuse and the terror will not end. It is our job to wipe out their abilty to create mass destruction. WE MUST DO IT SOON. Do you not see the experts on TV doing their best to avoid telling us how dire the situation really is. These retired military guys are scared out of their minds and do everything they can from informing us about how bad it is. The doves have let this problem get out of hand. We must destroy the terror infrastructure.
past the talking stage Rigel he needs to be taken out. Just how it gets done is going to be the BIG decider. I don't thinks ladens alone on this one,bit more to what meets the eye so far i think. Posted this on the 13th ........................................................................................................ "Glick explained to his wife that the plane had been taken over by three Middle Eastern men wearing red headbands. The terrorists, wielding knives and brandishing a red box they claimed contained a bomb, ordered the passengers, pilots and flight attendants toward the rear of the plane, then took over the cockpit." Sure this is out of the press but does "red head bands" ring any clues with anyone?? ........................................................................................................ saw on a program today Red head bands is sh'i musslim......Ladan is sunni musslim May or may not point to s/thing
Great post, Tuna. That's the thing with why without really understanding cause/effect plus long term cost/benefit relationships you just keep moving in endless circles, but not forward, and that's actually also the stuff without which no trader stands a chance of making more P than L in his/her P/L over time. Take what's happened now, WE took action 20 years ago by helping recreate the notion of islamic holy wars amongst the mujahedin in Afghanistan against their then Soviet occupiers, an instrument that had lain somewhat dormant until then - see the article from THE ECONOMIST - and WE helped build up the Taliban and Bin Laden, or WE rained down loads of bombs on Bagdad killing lots of civilians BUT without ridding the Iraqis of their oppressor Saddam, but then we profess SHOCK when the monsters we ourselves created get out of hand? Come on, you can ride a horse, but you better not fool yourself into believing you can ride a tiger and be able to have control over the inevitable consequences. Or as in WE were instrumental in getting the Israelis their state and defending and funding them, which is fine, BUT did not at the same time force through a state for the Palestinians against all the BULL back then, even though with enough determination from us that really would have been feasible at the time, but, nope, we took the easy way out and thought the problem would go away by itself, nor did we ensure the SECURITY of the Arabs, which would also have been perfectly feasible if straight away we would have maintained a massive security force down there to keep things chilled between Israelis and Arabs, plus that would have been loads cheaper in the long run than having to spend what we've spent the last 50 years on the total chaos they have down there, BUT which WE have to pay up for, that's then not too hard to understand that the Arabs would then harbor certain grudges against us, and some of em even extreme hatred, never a good advisor, particularly when they believe that we have not always been the honest broker. THAT is what cause/effect is all about. And that's why we should get it right this time for a change. Go grab Bin Laden without turning him into a martyr in the process and subject him to the JUSTICE that he deserves, start getting REAL about knocking some heads together in Israel AND the Palestine Authority, but if we want to evade the above scenario, we better not start a big war of retaliation in territory like Afghanistan, because then Vietnam will really have been a piece of cake by comparison.
jem, Good rebuttal to Nick and the other doves. I see they haven't attempted a reply to your most cogent points. You have rendered them speechless... Way to go counselor.... Bucky Lee
bucky, the reason why there has been no reply to jem is that (s)he is not really in disagreement with anything "doves" have said. because, to recap, what the "doves" are saying is: 1. terrorists must be taken out; 2. not all arabs are terrorists, nor is terrorism limited to arabs; 3. casualties among arab civilians should be avoided, because that would be immensely beneficial to terrorists; 4. besides the short term military action we should think about long term solutions; 5. the only effective long term solutions are those that disable and demotivate terrorists in the long term; 6. (fear of) violence is NOT a demotivator for terrorists; 7. furthering peace process in the mid-east would be an effective demotivator, however. unless one is directly affected by recent horrible events (and therefore in the understandable "kill all muslim pigs" mindset), i think these points can be easily agreed upon. - jaan
jaan, You failed to mention THE most important factors: LOW IQ's and RELIGION They are the biggest contributors to these absurd events. They go hand in hand. Where you find the first, You find the second. Bucky Lee