Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

War in Afganistan is not a farce!

  • 12-11-2001 2:00pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34764

    Where are all you posters now? Osama has publicly admitted doing the Sept 11 attacks.

    Osama and the Taliban is the farce. First it was he didnt do it, then it was he isnt even in Afghanistan, then it was OK he's here but we dont have any idea where he is, then it was Ok maybe he hes done it , then it was maybe hes here....and on and on.

    Now hes admitted doing it are any of you eating crow?


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    I was wondering how long before someone posted this.

    OK. First off, no I am not eating crow. When the US went in, I questioned the war on the basis that they had not explored every avenue beforehand, such as supplying proof to the Taliban as requested, and allowing bin Laden to be tried in a neutral international court.

    His admission of guilt does not lessen the fact that the invasion was carried out before evidence was supplied. The fact that Sky News and others are reporting that this new evicdence is to be included in the proof that the west supplies throws doubt on how credible their proof was before this.

    Secondly, the Americans have already expressed doubt that bin Laden will be captured or killed in the current mission.

    This is unbelievable because the whole argument presented for going into Afghanistan was supposedly about getting this one man.

    Thirdly, the stated objectives were to get bin Laden, to quell Al Qaeda, and only to go against the Taliban in order to achieve these first two goals. It was further stated that there was no desire to usurp the Taliban.

    I have dealt with the first of these objectives, and to date have seen or heard nothing about the allioes taking on Al Qaeda. I have heard more and more reporting about deposing the Taliban - something which goes against the stated objectives. Worse, the Northern Aliance are being consistently reported as brave allies of the west, etc. etc. despite them having a track-record for brutality almost on par with that of the Taliban.

    This admission may retrospectively show that the US was right in its allegations, but does not change the circumstances under which the war was begun. I never doubted that bin Laden was guilty....but I do not believe it is acceptable to invade a foreign power for refusing to hand over a suspect without supplying said power with sufficient evidence to indicate that there is a case to be made. The US did not do this, which I objected to.

    The US is not attacking Al Qaeda, it is attacking the Taliban. Its level of success has been terrible, as evidenced by the constant media attention for the UK and US to remind us all how terrible the Taliban are....as if somehow this is the reason that the attack on Afghanistan is being carried out.

    The Taliban refused to hand bin Laden over without proof. Since then, "their" nation has been attacked by foreign nations who have time and again stated that the time for talking is past, and they will no longer even consider negotiations.

    I cannot blame the Taliban for refusing to hand over bin Laden initially, as they played by the international rules which we expect civilised nations to play by. The US then threw that playbook away because it didnt suit, and have acted like a belligerent warmonger. Since then, I cannot blame the Taliban for refusing to cooperate with them either.

    The Taliban are an unjust regime. They are guilty of assocaition with and harboring of terrorists. Sure. This does not excuse the US' actions where they have shown a complete lack of disregard for international policies simply because they could get away with it, nor does it excuse the manner in which the US attacks are being carried out.

    Eating crow? I think not.

    Next?

    jc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Bonkey,

    whilst I respect (if not agree with) your view, can I just make a couple of comments??

    Originally posted by bonkey


    OK. First off, no I am not eating crow. When the US went in, I questioned the war on the basis that they had not explored every avenue beforehand, such as supplying proof to the Taliban as requested, and allowing bin Laden to be tried in a neutral international court.

    The Taliban had stated that they could not hand Bin Laden over to a non-Islamic government. Since Islamic nations tend to stick together more often than not, any trial in such a case would quite possibly be SEVERELY questionable in its conduct and outcome.


    The US is not attacking Al Qaeda, it is attacking the Taliban. Its level of success has been terrible, as evidenced by the constant media attention for the UK and US to remind us all how terrible the Taliban are....as if somehow this is the reason that the attack on Afghanistan is being carried out.

    The taliban are the chief supporters of Al Queda. It makes sound tactical sense to take them out to weaken this organisation. Liken it to sealing an offending party in a room, then sucking the air out. You still kill them by denying them something necessary for surival.


    The Taliban refused to hand bin Laden over without proof. Since then, "their" nation has been attacked by foreign nations who have time and again stated that the time for talking is past, and they will no longer even consider negotiations.

    I cannot blame the Taliban for refusing to hand over bin Laden initially, as they played by the international rules which we expect civilised nations to play by.

    The Taliban are tied VERY closely to certain pakistani groups and also recieve a LOT of man-power from pakistan and other nations, this could be seen as interfering in the civil politics of a soverign power. So how they can claim international rules seems a bit dubious to me.

    That said .. 2 wrongs most certainly don't make a right, and the US could have handled things a little differently I'm sure.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by Lemming
    The Taliban had stated that they could not hand Bin Laden over to a non-Islamic government. Since Islamic nations tend to stick together more often than not, any trial in such a case would quite possibly be SEVERELY questionable in its conduct and outcome.

    OK fair point. I wasnt aware that they had stated it would have to be an Islamic nation.
    The taliban are the chief supporters of Al Queda. It makes sound tactical sense to take them out to weaken this organisation. Liken it to sealing an offending party in a room, then sucking the air out. You still kill them by denying them something necessary for surival.

    This is a common notion which I have never seen any evidence for. Al Qaeda is a multi-national organisation, known to comprise of terrorist groups from at least 29 nations. How Afghanistan (the Taliban support) can be seen as the key to all of this is beyond me, and I have yet to see a single argument as to why removing their support will fold or cripple Al Qaeda.


    The Taliban are tied VERY closely to certain pakistani groups and also recieve a LOT of man-power from pakistan and other nations, this could be seen as interfering in the civil politics of a soverign power. So how they can claim international rules seems a bit dubious to me.
    I'm not sure what youre point here is...the Taliban never "claimed" international rules. What I said was that they played by the rules during this incident - to their advantage, I'm sure, but they never took an unacceptable international stance that I can see. The US, on the other hand, decided that this didnt suit them, so they invaded.

    jc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Originally posted by bonkey

    This is a common notion which I have never seen any evidence for. Al Qaeda is a multi-national organisation, known to comprise of terrorist groups from at least 29 nations. How Afghanistan (the Taliban support) can be seen as the key to all of this is beyond me, and I have yet to see a single argument as to why removing their support will fold or cripple Al Qaeda.

    The loss of the Taliban and their ability to safely house training camps in thier[taliban] territory would most certainly be a VERy painful sting for Al Queda. Whilst I completely agree it will not fold them, it would at the very least deprive them of a lot of resources and facilities.

    Again I'll use an analogy. I'm in a fight. First thing I'll do is go for the nose. Why?? It breaks easy, causes pain, and floods the eyes so my opponent can't see well for a few moments. Enough for me to cause further, far more measured damage. Apply the above to the whole Al Queda/Taliban situation.


    [QUOTE
    I'm not sure what youre point here is...the Taliban never "claimed" international rules. What I said was that they played by the rules during this incident - to their advantage, I'm sure, but they never took an unacceptable international stance that I can see. The US, on the other hand, decided that this didnt suit them, so they invaded.
    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry about that. I had a feeling I wasn't clear on that point. Simply, that the Taliban cannot take any form of "acceptable" stance, since they have no right to be where they are as it stands. They are intervening directly in the affairs of a soverign nation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,564 ✭✭✭Typedef


    Errm Yanklink, I hate to burst your bubble but.

    When I started that thread on the same day Osama Bin Laden had professed publicy for the first time his innocence, the US had been at war with Afghanistan for near two months. Wether or not Osama Bin Laden is culpabale for the bombing of the WTC, a trial in an impartial country should tanspire, not a war against an enfeebled and poverty stricken nation, acts like that against the Afghani people (who enivatably die) are the most repugnant thing of all.

    The Appauling part of this apart from the wholesale carnage US style was that the war was ostensibly being fought to capture one and his so-called "terrorist network". The US would not even talk to the Taliban and George Bush had his sound bytes all over the news "there will be no negotiation, period".

    So in summary the worlds foremost power was dictating terms to the Taliban under the threat of war, and the US would not even talk to the Taliban, no, instead the US demanded the unconditional surrender of Osama Bin Laden and anyone else the US branded as a terrorist under threat of war, so that those people could be put on trial in the US!

    Wether or not Osama Bin Laden is guilty, one of the principal foundations that western so called "society" lectures regiemes like Pakistan on is, due process for criminals and equality of rich and poor in the eyes of justice. Funny how when public opinion is inflamed, politicians and media alike can simply disgard our vaunted principals and support military dictators like General Musharaf, quote Tony Blair to General Musharaf, "You are doing the right thing". I wonder now that Musharaf is calling for an end to bombings of Afghanistan if Tony Blair would be so quick to clap him on the back and call him brother? The message we send to the world and civilisation at large when in times of "crisis" we can abrogate our principals of due process is that "The end justafies the means", which is just a sick interpolation of "might is right". Even if Osama Bin Laden is guilty of the attacks and is not just attempting to become a kind of iconaclastic symbol of Muslim resistance, in this country and in all so-called "democracies" gulity people have just as much right to a fair trial as innocent people, end of story, no, if's and's or but's. That principal exists to protect the innocent, which is the aim of the law and judicial system, it is not an instrument of lynching,retribution and revanche, that's what war is, so this campaign of "infinite justice" is a farce.

    Why would the Americans not negotiate and acquiesce to the Taliban offer to hand over Osama Bin Laden to an impartial country? Does the man get no due process? Why is a trial in the Hague good enough for Slobodan Milosevic but, somehow is beyond the scope of the "Land of the Free and the home of the Brave"? What does America have to fear by putting Osama Bin Laden on trial much like the Lockerbie bombers were put on trial, in a Muslim country and tried under American law? Could it be that after years of lecturing regimes like China on human rights, when the US's back is to the wall the rules book goes out the windowz and we see their true colours?

    The fact is, this entire war is a tool to feed and nourish the bloated US military complex, nothing more, the hawks and warmongers saw an opportunity and seized it.

    Lets review some of the highlights of the US over the last hundred years shall we? No, not the propaganda Hollywood would have us believe but some facts ok?

    1912: US marines invade Nicaragua and occupy till 1933
    1914: Mexican refusal to salute US flag spurrs US to shell and occupy the city of Veracruz.
    1942: America enters the second world war.
    1945: US drops two atomic weapons on the civilian populations of the Cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, total deaths number upwards of 500,000 people mostly civilian.
    1950: US participates in Korean war.
    1954: CIA engineers the overthrow of the government of Guatemala.
    1961: US attempts the overthrow of Fidel Castro in the bay of pigs fiasco.
    1965: President Johnson sends 22,000 troops to fight in the Dominican Republic
    1963: US begins long and bitter conflict in Vietnam
    1973 CIA helps overthrow the government of Chile.
    1981: Regan begins contra war against Nicaraga
    1983: US invades and usuprs the government of communist Grenada.
    1989: US invades Panama to arrest Manual Noriega(sound familiar?)
    1990: US riggs the Nicaraguan general election
    1990: George Bush goes to war to protect it's oil interests in Kuwait from IRAQ
    1993: US goes for man-hunt for Aideed in Somaila (sound familiar?)
    1999: NATO Launches strikes against Yugoslavia.
    2001: George Bush junior goes to war to seek "infinite justice" from "terrorists". However thousands of civilians are in the process of being murdered at the hands of US weapons.

    1948-Presentday
    Total aid from the US to Israel to date $91 billion.
    $1.2 billion a year "economic aid"
    $1.8 billion a year "military aid"
    19 seperate UN resolutions regarding Israel have been vetoed by the US to date, 36 attributable to US intervention in total.
    http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

    This country is not the land of freedom or bravery, where is the trial for Bin Laden? At the other end of a cruise missile, no negotiating with a missile that is launched from a Destroyer is there?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭yankinlk


    Originally posted by Typedef


    So in summary the worlds foremost power was dictating terms to the Taliban under the threat of war, and the US would not even talk to the Taliban, no, instead the US demanded the unconditional surrender of Osama Bin Laden and anyone else the US branded as a terrorist under threat of war, so that those people could be put on trial in the US!


    As I said in my post (the first one at the top) the Taliban are a farce to talk with. They lied, back-tracked, and lied again and again and again.

    I just wish you posters would give as much consideration to America as you do to any "underdog" out there. Just because America is the most powerful nation in the world it doesnt always make it wrong.

    That is all.

    Funniest thing I heard today:
    Gerry Ryan on the radio this morning taking the piss out the Sky News pontificators:

    In a Heavy Rich English accent: (Yesterday on SKY) It will take a very long time for the Anti-Taliban Force to make any further headway in the War in Kabul.

    (Today on SKY) Everything I said yesterday was a load of old shíte...

    Hehe, Gwan Gerry...always


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Originally posted by Typedef
    Why would the Americans not negotiate and acquiesce to the Taliban offer to hand over Osama Bin Laden to an impartial country? Does the man get no due process?

    Typedef .... Since the Taliban publicy stated that they could never hand Bin Laden over to anything OTHER than an Islamic country ... that rather defeats the purpose of an impartial country doesn't it now??

    Anyway .... does some moderator wish to close this thread, least TypeDef start another post designed to inflame americans and anyone with any ounce of sense as he did with the other related thread this this one??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by yankinlk
    I just wish you posters would give as much consideration to America as you do to any "underdog" out there. Just because America is the most powerful nation in the world it doesnt always make it wrong.

    No - nor does it make it right.

    The biggest problem here is that the "pro-US" faction are constantly falling back on this "you're just picking on the US again" attitude, which is just so much smoke and mirrors.

    I am criticising America's actions in the current events. I am not referring to their previous actions where they are not relevant.

    I believe the US foreign policy in the middle-east has historically been very poor, and is partially responsible for the current situation.

    I believe the US reaction to September 11 was ill-chosen, has been poorly executed, and is little more than a media circus.

    For these reasons I do not agree with the US' actions. Even if the Taliban were lieing, backtracking etc etc, this does not give the US or any nation a mandate to ignore international procedure. Furthermore, pretty much all of the backtracking and lying has come to light after the attacks started. As I have said before, being proven correct in retrospect does not justify an action.

    Others are looking at the US history. While lemming believes that TypeDef's argument is deliberately inflammatory, I happen to think he is at least making a valid point with most of his hostorical timeline - showing a continuous trend of foreign intervention by the US, using methods which are questionable at best.

    So - getting back to the "picking on America" one last time. I am picking on America - yes. Not because they are the US, not because they are the last superpower, the (self-appointed) guardians fo the free world, and whatever else you wish to call them. No - I am picking on America because I believe they are wrong.

    I am not saying that the Taliban are the good guys, nor am I saying that I support them in any way. I dont. However, two wrongs do not a right make.

    Great Gerry Ryan quote BTW....

    jc


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,564 ✭✭✭Typedef


    Originally posted by Lemming


    Typedef .... Since the Taliban publicy stated that they could never hand Bin Laden over to anything OTHER than an Islamic country ... that rather defeats the purpose of an impartial country doesn't it now??

    Well if the Lockerbie bombers could be tried under Scottish Law in the Hague which is obviously an agreed position the British and Lybians arrived at, then why can the Al-Queda organisation not be tried in the same way? War is not justice, war is war, war is indescriminate death, war is little Afghani children blown to bits by American bombs. Why will the US not even negotiate? Under what set of circumstances is the US endowed with the sceptre of fortitude that it may dictate when, where and how a trial takes place? Like I say, one of the lynchpins of western society is due process and once we start to abrogate that we move ever closer to a police state.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭Loomer


    Ahh finally! Thank you Typedef. It is nice to see another person who is able to read between the lines.

    Oh and yankilnk after your masterful diatribe I admit I am a shadow of my former self. It will difficult to join in any more discussions knowing that I may be beaten down by your amazing grasp of logic. LOL!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Originally posted by Typedef


    Well if the Lockerbie bombers could be tried under Scottish Law in the Hague which is obviously an agreed position the British and Lybians arrived at, then why can the Al-Queda organisation not be tried in the same way? War is not justice, war is war, war is indescriminate death, war is little Afghani children blown to bits by American bombs. Why will the US not even negotiate? Under what set of circumstances is the US endowed with the sceptre of fortitude that it may dictate when, where and how a trial takes place? Like I say, one of the lynchpins of western society is due process and once we start to abrogate that we move ever closer to a police state.

    You keep harping on about western society. The Taliban stated they would ONLY hand Bin Laden over to an ISLAMIC country. Now, since most Islamic countires have a tendency to stick together any trial would be questionable indeed in its conduct and outcome.

    The major sticking point to bring Al-Queda to justice seems to have escaped you. They are fanatical, irrational religious followers, supported by same. Trying to have then extradited/whatever for fair trial would be met with a swift "f*ck you imperialist pig, what are you gonna do now?!"

    As for american bombs .. you seem to be forgetting what transpired on Sept.11th in New York? Those people gave scant regard for the lives of innocents. Indeed, they went against the very faith they supposedly fight for (which forbids the killing of innocents in jihad). And there are many more just like them lining up. Do you suggest that the west roll over and play dead for them??

    As someone else (MagWitch I think) said elsewhere "I have yet to hear ONE anti-war person suggest an acceptable alternative course of action" (or something to that effect anyway)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by Lemming
    As for american bombs .. you seem to be forgetting what transpired on Sept.11th in New York? Those people gave scant regard for the lives of innocents.
    Dangerous argument.

    If you infer that the Americans are justified in killing innocents because their innocents were killed, you end up in a vicious cycle where the killing of innocents is perfectly acceptable, in which case the Sep 11 attacks were not an atrocity.

    Alternately, if you suggest that the US lower itself to the same level as those who carried out the Sep 11 attacks in order to retaliate, you lose the moral high ground, and admit that the US are no better (or worse) than those who carried out the Sep 11 attacks.

    The innocent people being killed in Afghanistan are no more involved than those working in the towers on the morning of Sep 11 are, yet the deaths of one group is "unfortunate" while the deaths of the other group is a terrible tragedy.

    There are sound strategies which could have been used which did not involve the use of daisy-cutters (the poor mans nuke), cluster bombs, and continued long-range bombing, without risking allied soldiers' lives, and without reducing the strategic effectiveness of their attacks, but at the same time not risking and taking as many innocent lives.
    Do you suggest that the west roll over and play dead for them??

    Here we go again....the old attitude that "attacking is the wrong option" actually means "do nothing". This has been addressed and answered time and time before. I'm not going into it again.

    Followed up by old faithful....
    As someone else (MagWitch I think) said elsewhere "I have yet to hear ONE anti-war person suggest an acceptable alternative course of action" (or something to that effect anyway)

    GIven that people like myself and Occy have consistently come back with alternatives and paths which were never walked down before going to war at all, I am at a loss as to how this line can still be trotted out in almost every thread concerning the war.

    I am not rewriting all the same old stuff again - I would suggest that if you havent seen the replies to this in the previous threads then you should either go and re-read them, or else stop complaining that you havent seen alternatives suggested because you obviously havent been following the discussions.

    Not once, incidentally, can I recall any of these alternatives being addressed by the pro-war faction, detailing why they were not acceptable or practical.

    jc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    I'd like to see a transcript of the public admittance of Osama's guilt relative to the Sep 11th disaster.

    Anyone got an address of the full interpretation? I am fed up with dotted quotes and paraphrases held under ambiguous contexts.

    thx


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    As for American bombs .. you seem to be forgetting what transpired on Sept.11th in New York? Those people gave scant regard for the lives of innocents

    Er, most people seem to forget that the people who gave "scant regard" on 9/11 are already dead, they blew themselves up (which makes the idea of punishing these people ludicrous, how do you punish people willing to die or already dead). The vast vast majority of people in Afghanistan had nothing to do with it. So why are the US bombing the crap out of them? Well to quote Simpsons "ya got to nuke something". America with out a Evil Empire to fight is like a dog with out a tail. When Tim McVay blew up half of Oklahoma, did the US army invade his home town and start shooting anyone who did not help them "find those responsible"? Of course not. But it is easy to fight a backwards country in the middle east thousands of miles away.

    It is painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain that America is fighting a "war" against shadows. These people (the terrorists) can't be caught cause the enemy is not a person. It is an idea, the hatred of America ...capture Bin Ladin and another will spring up, capture him and a thousand more will take his place. What American has to do is take a long hard look at is't foreign policy and ask it's self why are we doing this. How many new enemies willing to die while attacking American soil, has the US made in the last 2 months...I would be too afraid to even guess....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,564 ✭✭✭Typedef


    Umm the fact is if there had been some negotiation then a middle ground could have been found, but the US refuses to negotiate. At one stage Lybia said they would not hand over the Lockerbie suspects and the British said the trial had to happen in Scotland, neither got their own way but the suspects got their day in court and the British got their trial.

    The fact that the US will not even talk to the Taliban, instead preferring to bomb their way to "justice" is a damning inditement of the two-tier system of US attitudes regarding themselves and what is acceptable and the rest of the world and what is acceptable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭Gargoyle


    Originally posted by Lemming

    Anyway .... does some moderator wish to close this thread, least TypeDef start another post designed to inflame americans and anyone with any ounce of sense as he did with the other related thread this this one??


    Hehe, I'm American and I don't care about typedef's rants. I think its funny. Reminds me of Mel Gibson in conspiracy theory. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Originally posted by bonkey

    Dangerous argument.

    If you infer that the Americans are justified in killing innocents because their innocents were killed, you end up in a vicious cycle where the killing of innocents is perfectly acceptable, in which case the Sep 11 attacks were not an atrocity.

    You're absolutely correct there on that point onkey. That wasn't my intention to state they were justified in killing innocents. Sorry!


    There are sound strategies which could have been used which did not involve the use of daisy-cutters (the poor mans nuke), cluster bombs, and continued long-range bombing, without risking allied soldiers' lives, and without reducing the strategic effectiveness of their attacks, but at the same time not risking and taking as many innocent lives.

    Here we go again....the old attitude that "attacking is the wrong option" actually means "do nothing". This has been addressed and answered time and time before. I'm not going into it again.

    Well ... name some sound strategies which would have yielded results if you don't mind my asking.

    I might add had the US NOT used some sort of military strength in response, the Al-Queda network (and anyone else) would simply have become more daring and take an attitude of "We can do what we want now - they wont attack us".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by Lemming

    Well ... name some sound strategies which would have yielded results if you don't mind my asking.

    OK...ignoring that I am against the entire invasion/war/strike in the first place, lets look at how it could have been done....regardless of whether or not the mission is actually deposing the Taliban...

    After the first set of strikes, the US had essentially crippled any military might which the Taliban had. Since then, they have continued bombing....but what are they bombing?

    If the Taliban forces are "in the field", then there is no civilian implication, and therefore we can accept these targets as "legitimate" under any military action.

    However, attacking the urban-based centres is not an effective option. Why? Well - what does it achieve? Any ordinance stored in an urban location is effectively not involved in the current conflict. Therefore, it is not a threat. Should it ever leave the urban area, it is then a threat, and a target. So - while its in the cities, its not a problem.

    Now - of course - a country is really controlled by the cities. By this I mean that ultimately, to capture or oust the Taliban, you need to gain control of the cities. This is not going to be any easier now than it would have been if the urban targets hadnt suffered continued bombing. If urban fighting becomes a necessity, then the general populace will presumably have the smarts to get out of the way. If they do, then it is safe to use heavy ordinance again. If they dont evacuate, well, you will have lost nothing by waiting anyway.

    If we accept the alleged quality of US intel (satellite imagery etc) then there was no true military need to destroy targets before it was necessary to do so, as this intel is supposed to be good enough to allow them to identify moving targets. On the other hand, if we question the quality of the intel, then we straight away must question the wisdom or "correctness" of using heavy ordinance in urban areas against "unsure" targets.

    I'm sure that the counter argument will be that the Taliban would have hidden this stuff in the hills and been able to use it later had it not been destroyed, but this is a non-issue. First of all, the US has already engaged in a series of "bomb the hills" missions as they locate this hidden ordinance. Secondly, if it is in the hills and out of play, then it does not cause a problem to the current mission. Thirdly,if it were ever taken out of the hills again, it is a legit target away from urban areas, and we loop through the same arguments all over again....

    On a similar note....

    I also find some of the stuff that Skynews reported about the fall of Kabul to be rather unusual. They reported that the Taliban HQ in the city had lost its guard, and the lights were out for the first time since the conflict began. Now, if this is the case, why was the building still standing? If the US can drop bombs on villages because they see a truck, surely one of their smart bombs could take out a command post which they *know* is of strategic importance?

    Its this inconsistency which galls me. The only thing I can possibly think up to excuse it is that the US know their missiles and bombs are NOT accurate enough for that type of mission, in which case we must again call into question the wisdom of their current actions.

    Basically put, the US appear to be suffering either from bad Intel, bad equipment, or bad people - ultimately causing "accidents" such as the bombing of UN depots and the loss of innocent life. We have been told time and time again that this will take time. If that is the case, why was more time not taken to be sure and to get things right?
    I might add had the US NOT used some sort of military strength in response, the Al-Queda network (and anyone else) would simply have become more daring and take an attitude of "We can do what we want now - they wont attack us".
    Unfortunately, I think it equally (or more) probable that the current actions have stirred up even more anti-American hatred aroudn the world, and that you will end up having an even larger problem as a result.

    jc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    A good post bonkey, and some of it certainly is food for thought. That said there is some things I don't agree with

    Originally posted by bonkey

    After the first set of strikes, the US had essentially crippled any military might which the Taliban had. Since then, they have continued bombing....but what are they bombing?

    The first set of strikes were aimed at taking out air defenses if I recall, so that the air force could send in whatever they liked without havingto really worry about being shot down.

    If the Taliban forces are "in the field", then there is no civilian implication, and therefore we can accept these targets as "legitimate" under any military action.

    However, attacking the urban-based centres is not an effective option. Why? Well - what does it achieve? Any ordinance stored in an urban location is effectively not involved in the current conflict. Therefore, it is not a threat. Should it ever leave the urban area, it is then a threat, and a target. So - while its in the cities, its not a problem.

    Ordinance is a problem no matter where it is. If its being used, then its a problem for obvious reasons. If its not being used, there's the danger that you can expend significant effort to get rid of what's currently active, only to face new ordinance. Would you rather your opponent had reserves (which you knew about) so that he could slink off and then come back another day?? Better to take out his reserves BEFORE it becomes a problem.


    On a similar note....

    I also find some of the stuff that Skynews reported about the fall of Kabul to be rather unusual. They reported that the Taliban HQ in the city had lost its guard, and the lights were out for the first time since the conflict began. Now, if this is the case, why was the building still standing? If the US can drop bombs on villages because they see a truck, surely one of their smart bombs could take out a command post which they *know* is of strategic importance?

    Certainly one to think about that!!


    Unfortunately, I think it equally (or more) probable that the current actions have stirred up even more anti-American hatred aroudn the world, and that you will end up having an even larger problem as a result.

    The only thing it did was make what hatred was there already more visible and public, such as the protests in pakistan, etc. Bearing in mind these people are brought up from birth being told that america is the "great satan" himself, how do you combat that??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭Sharkey


    Originally posted by bonkey
    I was wondering how long before someone posted this.

    His admission of guilt does not lessen the fact that the invasion was carried out before evidence was supplied. The fact that Sky News and others are reporting that this new evicdence is to be included in the proof that the west supplies throws doubt on how credible their proof was before this.
    You act as if the U.S. just had a lucky guess. No the U.S. didn't supply all of its evidence to every miscreant -- but everyone who saw the evidence seemed to be convinced.

    Secondly, the Americans have already expressed doubt that bin Laden will be captured or killed in the current mission.
    Well, little is certain in war. Doesn't mean we should just give up just because it'll be difficult and take a long time! Who do you think we are -- the French?

    This is unbelievable because the whole argument presented for going into Afghanistan was supposedly about getting this one man.
    Bullsh!t. It has ALWAYS been about erradicating the entire Al Qaeda network. Haven't you bothered reading a paper?
    Thirdly, the stated objectives were to get bin Laden, to quell Al Qaeda, and only to go against the Taliban in order to achieve these first two goals....
    Hey look! You just contradicted yourself one statement to the next.

    I have dealt with the first of these objectives, and to date have seen or heard nothing about the allioes taking on Al Qaeda.
    Get thee to a paper -- In case you didn't notice, one of the first things we did is to call for the Taliban to hand over the Al Qaeda -- the second thing we did is bomb the al Qaeda bases to smithereens.

    I have heard more and more reporting about deposing the Taliban - something which goes against the stated objectives. ...
    Get thee to a paper ...

    Worse, the Northern Aliance are being consistently reported as brave allies of the west, etc. etc. despite them having a track-record for brutality almost on par with that of the Taliban.
    I haven't heard anything about the virtues of the NA -- but you are correct -- the NA are probably no better.

    This admission may retrospectively show that the US was right in its allegations, but does not change the circumstances under which the war was begun. I never doubted that bin Laden was guilty....
    Reasonable people can disagree. Perhaps the US felt it necessary to act a bit sooner than you would have.

    The US is not attacking Al Qaeda, it is attacking the Taliban. ....
    Get thee to a paper. Out of comity, I hesitate to call you a liar, but there's more than a bit of proof that we've gone after the al qaeda


    Its level of success has been terrible, ....
    Get thee to a paper. The Taliban has lost control of 50% of the country in only a month.

    The Taliban refused to hand bin Laden over without proof. Since then, "their" nation has been attacked by foreign nations ....
    Get thee to a paper. Bin Laden and most of the al Qaeda are not Afghani.

    I cannot blame the Taliban for refusing to hand over bin Laden initially, as they played by the international rules.....
    Hahahahhahahaaaaaaaagh. International rules my shiny white arse. The Taliban has sponsored al Qaeda bases, which were KNOWN international terrorist. Sponsoring international terrorist is hardly "playing by the rules". Get thee to a paper.

    This does not excuse the US' actions where they have shown a complete lack of disregard for international policies simply because they could get away with it, nor does it excuse the manner in which the US attacks are being carried out.
    Name a single "international policy" that the US has violated!!!!!!

    Obviously, we've got the support of every major government in the world. This would seem to refute you contention

    The only people screaming such nonsense that the US is violating international policy are people who dont quite understand the law -- typically college/university students and left-wing ideologues.


    0,1011,752259,00.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by Lemming
    The only thing it did was make what hatred was there already more visible and public, such as the protests in pakistan, etc. Bearing in mind these people are brought up from birth being told that america is the "great satan" himself, how do you combat that?? [/B]
    Ummm - you definitely dont combat it by sending in an army to "prove" them correct.

    Flippantry aside, the solution must come from both sides.

    The US must sooner or later acknowledge that its foreign policy is severely flawed, and must look long and hard at how to address that problem.

    The "US-haters" at the same time must not only see that the US is changing, but also look to themselves for improvement.

    That said, theres no benefit in both sides sitting back waiting for the other to make the first move. The US constantly tells us how it is a world leader....heres the perfect opportunity. Show us what leadership is. Acknowledge your own flaws, seek to redress them, and then seek to allow these changes to help others improve their lot as well.

    Pointing a gun will not make you friends, it will only make your enemies hide.

    jc


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭Sharkey


    Originally posted by bonkey

    Dangerous argument.

    If you infer that the Americans are justified in killing innocents because their innocents were killed, you end up in a vicious cycle where the killing of innocents is perfectly acceptable, in which case the Sep 11 attacks were not an atrocity.

    jc
    I think the argument goes like -- we have the right to defend ourselves by removing hostile terrorist who seem intent on mass murder.

    To obtain this objective, we must use force. Harsh language will not suffice. Bin Laden and his cowardly apes kill innocent civilians, then hide in civilian centers to save their cowardly butts -- they know that the U.S. will not intentionally bomb civilians -- a fundamental behavioral difference between us and them.

    To say that war is never justified because innocent civilians will die is an inane argument -- period. So lacking in intellectual substance is this argument that there is not a single country that abides by this concept. In fact -- from a Utilitarian perspective, this war on the Taliban and bin Laden is easily justifiable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 932 ✭✭✭yossarin


    article

    they seem as bad as the taliban, based on previous campaigns.

    i did hear that in the captured cities they were introducing reforms, allthough this might just be sugar for their allies...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭Sharkey


    Originally posted by bonkey


    Pointing a gun will not make you friends, it will only make your enemies hide.

    jc

    A bit of simple logic. First, one never points a gun unless one is prepared to use it -- certainly not against a friend.

    Second. Pointing a gun can make you friends. Ask anyone who was ever saved from victimhood by a gun-toting and determined man.

    Third. pointing a gun can do a bit more than make our enemies hide. It can subdue them, wound them and kill them. It can take life and break things -- the fundamental processes of war.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    My niece this morning said this (she's pretty young).

    (sic)
    "You know how because Afganistan is all poor and can't afford real houses? Well all of thier huts are made of sticks. I think the US should set fire to all thier houses"

    I asked why she would say such a thing like that and her answer is "Because of what the Afganistan people did to the US".

    The Afganistan people didn't do anything to the US, however for some reason it has been changed to broadcast that fact and if a 9 year old kid gets that idea that's what it is all about then I would have to say yes the war is a farce.

    Quite simply dropping bombs on another country does nothing to stop terrorist attacks. Heck the US people are in a worse state then they were two months ago.

    Knowing two months after the fact doesn't justify the war (if you can call it that, war assumes that the other side can actually fight back). Not to mention that the Northern Alliance as just as bad as the Taliban and they are what's going to be installed as the new goverment?!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭Canaboid


    Sharkey are you saying that these terrorists launched attacks for no reason ? Are you saying you don't believe that the U.S. has done anything to provoke them ? Are you saying they don't have grievences with U.S. foriegn policy ?
    I'm not interested in arguing the nuances of every detail in this conflict (nor do I possess sufficient knowledge to do so). I do however know this - The only way this conflict will be resolved is if the U.S. stops interfering in territories in which it has no business. The U.S. has become a self appointed global police force however time and again it has involved itself in conflicts only when there is some benefit to itself, most usually oil.

    So 50% of Afghanistan has fallen ? They've probably already started building the pipeline.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,564 ✭✭✭Typedef


    Originally posted by Sharkey

    I think the argument goes like -- we have the right to defend ourselves by removing hostile terrorist who seem intent on mass murder.

    By the same logic.

    The Us sends over 3 billion dollars a year to Israel nearly 66% of this is military aid, therefore Muslims who feel they have an afinity by way of religion or ideology may say, the US and Israel are regiemes which rule by force/terror, therefore if the US and israel may use force to protect their interests, so may we.

    QED

    So lets move away from this vicious circle of fortitude and say that violence will not solve this problem as the US may never quell all anti-US sentiment by force and the anti-US sentiment has no chance of outright military victory.

    Ergo, war is self defeating if you are trying to gaurantee security and freedom

    QED


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭Sharkey


    Originally posted by Canaboid
    Sharkey are you saying that these terrorists launched attacks for no reason ? Are you saying you don't believe that the U.S. has done anything to provoke them ? Are you saying they don't have grievences with U.S. foriegn policy ?

    Perhaps you can tell me what grievance a Saudi billionaire like bin Laden has against the US?

    Whatever grievance bin Laden and the al Qaeda has, it certainly didn't justify mass murder of civilians.

    I'm not interested in arguing the nuances of every detail in this conflict ...

    Then perhaps you should aquaint yourself with at least the basics.

    The only way this conflict will be resolved is if the U.S. stops interfering in territories in which it has no business. ...

    If it were only that simple. Can you name me any nation other than the floundering third world that doesn't extend its influence or piss someone off?

    The U.S. has become a self appointed global police force however time and again it has involved itself in conflicts only when there is some benefit to itself, most usually oil.

    First -- I might agree with the assessment that we should let the more of the rest of the world fester and die by their own hand, rather than involve ourselves. On the other hand, when we don't involve ourselves sufficiently, e.g., Rwanda, we get criticised.

    BTW, there's no oil in Israel, Yugoslavia or Bosnia. there's no viable oil interest in Somalia or Afghanistan. No oil in Nicaragua Grenada, Cuba ...

    And those places with oil, e.g., Kuwait -- I don't hear the Kuwaitis complaining. I also seemingly remember practically EVERY OTHER NATION siding with us on that one.

    So 50% of Afghanistan has fallen ? They've probably already started building the pipeline.
    You lack of character is showing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭Sharkey


    Originally posted by Typedef


    By the same logic.

    The Us sends over 3 billion dollars a year to Israel nearly 66% of this is military aid, therefore Muslims who feel they have an afinity by way of religion or ideology may say, the US and Israel are regiemes which rule by force/terror, therefore if the US and israel may use force to protect their interests, so may we.

    Oy! What a quagmire the middle-east is. Have you ever been to Israel ... or does the BBC feed you their garbage exclusively? Do The average Israeli wants peace, but they are willing to fight for their lives. The last peace accord was sabotaged by the PA.

    QED

    So lets move away from this vicious circle of fortitude and say that violence will not solve this problem as the US may never quell all anti-US sentiment by force and the anti-US sentiment has no chance of outright military victory.

    Violence may not solve ALL our problems, but violence WILL sove a few problems worth solving -- like the erradication of a major terrorist network prone to mass murder.

    QED


    Ergo, war is self defeating if you are trying to gaurantee security and freedom
    QED

    No single war guarantees a single thing, but that does not mean that we shrink from war when we need to do otherwise. Think WWII. Should we have just said to Hitler "Gee -- war won't guarantee us a single thing -- certainly not our freedom and security, ergo we wont go to war with you guys"???

    I think not. your argument is silly


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭Canaboid


    Sharkey, I don't post much here anymore mostly because I'm sick of the point scoring school debate style arguments whereby the poster thinks that mud slinging is a legitimate means of "winning" an argument. I think this has been pointed out to you before. Quote "You lack of character is showing." Well Sir, right back at you.
    I've had my say (for what it's worth) and I won't reply again so you may have your, no doubt witty, rejoinder.

    "Theres none so blind as those that will not see"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭yankinlk


    http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011113/ts/attack_afghan_christians_dc_2.html

    These guys arent a Government and it shows, when they run off with hostages they prove they are merely criminals and have always been. I dont need to tell you that you know it, you just like to argue.

    The US and all the countries providing support (not criticism) have done a great job so far and I think you will continue to eat crow as the situation in the future is handled delicately.

    The US didnt revenge bomb the TAliban or Afghanistan right after this happened as many posters to this board feared, they took thier time and you still criticised them.

    Now they are on the brink of actually helping to replacing the Taliban (before winter set in ffs!!) which will hopefully lead to a more stable situation where the US can come in and maybe arrest, detain, hunt out the perpetators of the awful crime that was commited and prevent god knows what else from happening and you still sit on your fence and lob insults and accusations and conspiracy theories.

    All IM saying is you jump to conclusions as to what you think the US will do a lot of time. They are still surprising me everyday as to how they are handling this, especially that character Georgie Bush, he's a hick of the highest order but he aint that bad.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,564 ✭✭✭Typedef


    Originally posted by Sharkey

    Oy! What a quagmire the middle-east is. Have you ever been to Israel ... or does the BBC feed you their garbage exclusively? Do The average Israeli wants peace, but they are willing to fight for their lives. The last peace accord was sabotaged by the PA.

    QED

    [/b]
    Violence may not solve ALL our problems, but violence WILL sove a few problems worth solving -- like the erradication of a major terrorist network prone to mass murder.

    QED




    No single war guarantees a single thing, but that does not mean that we shrink from war when we need to do otherwise. Think WWII. Should we have just said to Hitler "Gee -- war won't guarantee us a single thing -- certainly not our freedom and security, ergo we wont go to war with you guys"???

    I think not. your argument is silly [/B]

    Wow , what an enlightened attitude
    Might is right, right on, good for you!

    Oh and had the French not been seeking revanche for the war in 1870 at the Treaty of Versailles then WW2 would not have happened.

    See how these fortitudious bloodbaths degenerate into a cyclical festival of carnage? Oh, and do you notice how it is never the people who push nations into war, the George Bush's of this world who end up fighting and duying in these wars?

    Wake up and get a grip my man, you only gaurantee reprisal by military action, look at the North of Ireland of 30 years of tit for tat killings if you need proof.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,275 ✭✭✭Shinji


    Ah yes, the triumphant jumping up and down of the pro-war crowd now that the so-called "coalition" has managed the significant PR exercise of taking Kabul from the Taliban...

    ... Well, not so much taken from the Taliban as that the Taliban carried out a retreat to their traditional power-bases that they've been planning since before September 11...

    ... And, er, not so much the coalition forces as the Northern Alliance acting against the express wishes of the coalition...

    ... oh, and, the Northern Alliance are all of a sudden not looking like such a good bet either, given that some western media is finally prepared to start pointing out that actually, they're not a whole hell of a lot better than the Taliban...


    A couple of pertinent factoids for those of you leaping up and down at the "capture" of Kabul.

    1) The Northern Alliance don't oppose the Taliban because they oppress the people of Afghanistan. They oppose the Taliban because they lost the last civil war with them, which was a war between warlords of traditional tribes and nothing to do with human rights or international terrorism.

    2) The Taliban "supports" al Quaeda. The Taliban is not the same organisation as al Quaeda. The "coalition against terrorism" has so far succeeded in destabilising the Middle East, replacing a repressive government with carpet bombing and a situation of total anarchy governed by warring tribal factions, all of which actually benefit al Quaeda's international operations more than they damage them.

    3) Western warmongers shout and cry because the Northern Alliance backed by coalition forces took Kabul with such ease. Well here's a thing - so did the Soviets. A few years later in 1989 with the blood of thousands of soviet soldiers staining the sands of Afghanistan and the skinless corpses of their captured brethern rotting under the middle eastern sun, they turned tail and fled.

    4) Those of us in the west who find this war stupid, pointless and dangerous aren't going to decide that it's a good thing just because we're apparently "doing well". It's not a matter of being on the winning side in the war, it's a matter of Doing The Right Thing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭Sharkey


    Abusive drivel deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭Sharkey


    oops


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 146 ✭✭Sharkey


    Originally posted by Typedef


    Wow , what an enlightened attitude ...
    I don't claim any "enlightened attitude". I simply state some practical realities.

    See how these fortitudious bloodbaths degenerate into a cyclical festival of carnage?
    No -- apparently the US got its fill of Civil war 140 years ago. Apparently, the Americans and British have put aside any little disagreements from that little 1812 skirmish. Germany and Japan don't seem bent on genocide and taking over the world. Sometimes war is an ugly, but necessary, path.

    ... you notice how it is never the people who push nations into war, the George Bush's of this world who end up fighting and duying in these wars?

    first -- George W. bush didn't push us into this Afghan thing -- it was some A-hole who ADMITTEDLY killed thousands of innocent civilians.

    BTW, George W. Bush was in the National guard as a pilot... although he was never called to serve in combat.

    However, George H. W. Bush joined the WWII war effort at age 17 (lied about his age), served as a pilot and had two bombers shot from beneath him in fierce battle.

    Guess you were just a bit in error, eh. I guess the George Bush's of the world are wiling to die in battle.

    Wake up and get a grip my man, you only gaurantee reprisal by military action, look at the North of Ireland of 30 years of tit for tat killings if you need proof.
    The dysfunction of NI has been going on for far longer. Regardless, I dont see where Japan or Germany are making any military threats on the US these days ... do you? there goes your theory


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    first -- George W. bush didn't push us into this Afghan thing -- it was some A-hole who ADMITTEDLY killed thousands of innocent civilians.

    No Mr Bush didn't push you into a war but it's very shortsighted and naive to say that the planes crashing into the WTC is the start of it all.

    Kind of strange also how the US lets the interview where he admits to it being shown yet for some reason his other interview a month or more later is banned from being shown (at least in the US).

    BTW, George W. Bush was in the National guard as a pilot... although he was never called to serve in combat.

    Heh, heh you do know there is an ongoing investigation that states that his military career was in fact doctored. I believe at least two Vietnam Veterans groups are offering awards of up to $2K to find the missing portions of his career.

    Although that's the only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his military career.

    However, George H. W. Bush...

    Yes but he isn't running the country now is he? ... or is he? Hmm.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Originally posted by Sharkey

    Do you have a single iota of evidence suggesting that the US is involved in any oil exploration or development in Afghanistan? If so, then I apologise. If not, you're a petty snipe devoid of character. [/B]

    Here's a thought, try not to insult people even if you think they are wrong.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/25/world/world9.html

    http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by Sharkey
    Bullsh!t. It has ALWAYS been about erradicating the entire Al Qaeda network. Haven't you bothered reading a paper?
    <snip>
    Get thee to a paper -- In case you didn't notice, one of the first things we did is to call for the Taliban to hand over the Al Qaeda -- the second thing we did is bomb the al Qaeda bases to smithereens.

    Oh dear.

    First off, I will point again, for the umpteenth time in the umptenth thread that Al Qaeda is an international organisation spanning a known 29 nations. Attacking Afghanistan is not, never was, and can never be about eradicating the Al Qaeda network.

    It *may* be about damaging it, crippling it, wounding it, limiting its capacity. It *may* be a first step along the path to stamping out Al Qaeda (but how they will do the rest is beyond me - invade another 28 nations?)

    I would suggest that the papers you put so much faith in are feeding you propaganda which you are blindly swallowing.

    I would also point out that in every interview with a senior American official yesterday, they all stated that while the withdrawal of the Taliban from Kabul is a positive sign, at best it is somply clearing the way to allow them to begin to go after AL Qaeda - which would seem to imply that they havent been after them up until now - which is exactly what I was arguing.

    Get thee to a paper. Out of comity, I hesitate to call you a liar, but here's a bit of proof that we've gone after the al qaeda
    Get thee to a dictionary :)

    A liar is one who knowingly terlls an untruth. You have been consistently telling me I am underinformed. Now you are verging on telling me that I in fact am deliberately spreading misinformation in the knowledge that it is indeed untrue...implying that I know the truth.

    If theres one thing on these boards that pisses me off more than abusive language, its the idiotic allegation of "liar" I see thrown around so often in place of "you are mistaken" or "you dont know what you are talking about".

    I'd also like to see the "bit of proof" you mentioned, cause you seem to have forgotten to include it...

    Get thee to a paper. The Taliban has lost control of 50% of the country in only a month.
    To the Northern Alliance. Not to the bombing runs of the US.

    In either case, I would call managing to bomb 3 (or was it 4) UN depots pretty terrible. Note also that all bar one of these occurred after the UN issued the coordinates to the US. Add to that the other allegations of poor "marksmanship" and the use of cluster bombs in urban areas....

    Would you call it successful if the US bombed Kandahar off the face of the planet, removing the Taliban that way? I doubt it. Success is not just measured in terms of ground taken.

    On a slightly different slant, while most analyists are positive about the "liberation" of Kabul, they are admitting that the Taliban never had a strong hold on the North and that this is far more likely a strategic withdrawal to make their continued resistance to the Northern Alliance / allied attacks more effective.

    Get thee to a paper. Bin Laden and most of the al Qaeda are not Afghani.
    I never said they were. I mentioned the Taliban, many of whom are in fact Afghani. You will also notice the use of quotations around the word "their" implying that it is not perhaps entirely correct to say that it is their nation.

    As a matter of fact, most of Al Qaeda are not even based in Afghanistan - again something which you and many other seem to be completely overlooking.

    Hahahahhahahaaaaaaaagh. International rules my shiny white arse. The Taliban has sponsored al Qaeda bases, which were KNOWN international terrorist. Sponsoring international terrorist is hardly "playing by the rules".

    Once again...as I pointed to Lemming earlier in this thread...if you argue that the US do not have to play by the rules because the Taliban dont, then you legitimise or condemn both sides actions together. If you accept the US not playing by the rules, then you must also accept the other side doing similar, which means that the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon were, in fact, perfectly legitimate....

    Name a single "international policy" that the US has violated!!!!!!
    Extradition policy for a start. Yes, yes, I know that there is no extradition treaty between the US and Afghanistan. but even in the absence of one, extradition can be sought from a nation, and there is a way of going about it which the US patently did not follow.

    And before you fall back on the notion that the Taliban are not recognised as the leaders of Afghanistan, I would ask who the US does recognise as the leaders, and whether or not these people were approached concerning extradition.

    Obviously, we've got the support of every major government in the world. This would seem to refute you contention

    The only people screaming such nonsense that the US is violating international policy are people who dont quite understand the law -- typically college/university students and left-wing ideologues.
    You have the waning support of most governments. In a recent poll, the German people were in excess of 60% against the current policy, which is currently causing speculation that the German govt will need to rethink its position in the very near future.

    As for it being nonsense...you believe that the US has the right to invade a foreign nation because the current ruling faction is believed to support terrorism? With that stance, you will also agree that the US should be allowed to invade Somalia, Iran, Iraq, and many other nations? Oh - and why stop at terrorism - surely the sponsoring of guerrila wars to bring governments down in foreign nations should be grounds for invasion as well? Oh - no - hang on - that one is OK, because the US have a history of doing it themselves.

    jc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭yankinlk


    Originally posted by Shinji


    2) The "coalition against terrorism" has so far succeeded in destabilising the Middle East, replacing a repressive government with carpet bombing and a situation of total anarchy governed by warring tribal factions, all of which actually benefit al Quaeda's international operations more than they damage them.


    Oh Sorry Shinji, I hadn't realized that the Middle East was stable before, must remeber to make that my next holiday destination.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Yep shinji yankinlk is right the Middle East has been in turmoil ever since Herr Sheron goose-stepped around the Temple Mount days before an agreement between the then Isreali government of Barak and the PA was to be signed.

    One other point here. It seems that Bin Ladens terrorist organisation has most of its support from Saudi Arabia (weren't at least 11 of the 19 hijackers Saudi Citizens) why didn't the US & co go after the undemocratic Saudi's?

    Remember girls keep the arguements clean and do not start resorting to name calling or you will be MODERATED ! Also if you ask for proof it might be an idea to back your arguement up first with proof as well (just a suggestion).

    Gandalf.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭Loomer


    Originally posted by Gargoyle



    Hehe, I'm A moronican and I don't care about typedef's rants. I think its funny. Reminds me of Mel Gibson in conspiracy theory. :)

    Good for you. Once again your forcing me to quote that great Texan, Bill Hicks (R.I.P.)...

    "So there, we have figured it out, go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed America, here's American Gladiators. Here's 56 channels of it. Watch these pituitary retards bang their ****in skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America, you are free... to do as we tell you. You are free, to do as we tell you."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭Loomer


    Sharkey, Afghanistan as a nation state has done nothing to warrant carpet-bombing. America can't wait till there is a "friendly" government in place as Afghanistan is a central point to surrounding countries that are estimated to have 15 billion barrels of proven oil reserve.

    http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/CJ06Dj01.html

    Do you know what though, the funniest thing is, the whole thing is going to blow up in there face down the line. They are unable to stop the Northern Alliance from moving into successive towns. Whats going to happen when this disparate bunch of 6 different tribes of muslims takes control of the country. What if they turn out to be similar to the Taliban. Is America going to come up with yet another bogus excuse to bomb this set of unfortunates.

    -Nuff Said-


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭Gargoyle


    Abuse deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭Loomer


    Abuse deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    I think the attached image says an awful lot about the people that the US has allied themselves with. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

    Gandalf.

    1050201.jpg

    BTW Loomer & Gargoyle stop the name calling or your posts will be edited/deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    Thread locked due to it descending into yet another muppet-fest of pathetic name calling and unbackedup views that make posters on all sides look like morons.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement