posted on November 1, 2001 03:47:21 PM new
Declaring war on terrorists and those that support them is exactly what was said and exactly what we are doing.
posted on November 1, 2001 04:15:31 PM new
If you can't figure out why we named bin Laden first and then later the Taliban, I fear it wouldn't make any difference how much information you could be given, you would still be confused.
posted on November 1, 2001 05:41:01 PM new
Newsflash! Americans have the attention span of a turnip. What? It's not OVER yet? But the emmys have been postponed TWICE and all this terrorist stuff is cutting into my weekly ration of Ally McBeal and Friends. Bah.
Bush couldn't "declare" war on the Taliban, because 1) only Congress can declare war, and 2)the United States never did recognize the Taliban as the "official" state government of Afghanistan.
Robin, ya know I loves ya, but the military action in Afghanistan hasn't begun to really get into gear. Yet. It's going to be a down and dirty war, and yes it is a war, and somewhere down the line Congress WILL declare "war" although I'm doubting it will be against Afghanistan. And the simple fact is that these people fight dirty. Gentleman's rules are out the window. They don't know the term. And that's an anathema to the West. We learned a little bit about down and dirty in Viet Nam, but we aint seen nothing yet. Gentlemen's rules will not win this "war". We will need to get as down and dirty as them. Call it a "cultural" thing if you want, but our greatest danger is allowing our political correctness to get in the way of being the last man on the mountain. The fundamentalist muslims defined "their" rules on September 11th, although to be fair, they have said all along the way they were playing the game. It's just that nobody listened until then. Well their game rules have finally sunk in. As for the Taliban being terrorists, it's well documented that they have allowed and encouraged terrorist training camps in their country, accepted financial remuneration for what little infrastructure they invested in their country after their last civil war. They had every opportunity to at least show Bin Laden "the door" if they didn't actively want to protect him. But yes, they are ultimately pawns. Stupid pawns. What more can you expect of self proclaimed "leaders", essentially ignorant village peasants who never learned basic math, but pride themselves on their ability to quote extensive passages of the Koran with JUST the right arabic accent. They have no clue that they are stupid pawns in a game being manipulated by middle eastern countries vastly more knowledgeable about more practical matters than arabic accents.
It's going to be down and dirty. And we are going to have to be "downer and dirtier". Do we have the stomach to do it? I hope so.
posted on November 1, 2001 05:41:51 PM new
Well, I have concerns about whether we are striking the right enemy. Our government doesn't really provide us with all the secret info. Though I guess you only have to scratch the surface to see that Bin Laden is in Afghanistan, supported by the Taliban (or running the Taliban if you prefer).
The terrorists themselves don't comprise an army. They don't wear olive green or black berets. They hide in towns among civilians, women and children. We knew the first thing we'd see in this war would be pictures of injured civilians, and sure enough there you have it. If you believe those photos, you're a fool.
If we're going to send in ground troops, a sustained air attack first is the ONLY proper course of action. I am willing to wait and see how this plays out. I sincerely hope that the Taliban is just an opening gambit.
This is the 21st century, and we should be bringing the rest of the world into a global democracy. At gunpoint, if necessary. If we continue to ignore the world's ills, we can expect more of the same from terrorists.
posted on November 1, 2001 05:48:58 PM new
Let's see...
Maybe we could sue the terrorists. Nah, that wouldn't work.
Perhaps if we ignored them, they'd get tired of terrorizing us and go home in a huff. Nope, that won't work either.
Believers could pray for them. No, that's not gonna stop them.
Maybe we should draw a line in the sand. What's that you say? They keep crossing such lines? Darn...
We could grovel before them & beg them not to terrorize us anymore, but that probably wouldn't do any good--they've already said they want to destroy us.
How 'bout falling in with those who think we should just ignore the thousands of dead Americans and do absolutely nothing for fear of harming those the terrorists are hiding behind, while crying out that it is all a plot to get oil and denigrating our own country? Sorry, not a option.
posted on November 1, 2001 05:54:13 PM new
Precisely Twinsoft. And the first step is going to be to bring these third world countried into the global markets through modernization. It is the only thing that will break the cycle of poverty and ignorance which breeds fanatical forms of religious fundamentalism. Of course with the religious fundamentalists in power they will go kicking and screaming. Ignorance is what keep these autocratic and dictatorial governments in power. And they know it. These countries are so poor and depressed that they have absolutely no regard for human life, let alone their own. Knowledge is power. That's why they restrict it.
posted on November 1, 2001 06:29:30 PM new
You might be surprised KatyD, to know that I agree with a lot of what you say. I don't really mind taking out the Taliban, they are a** holes and deserve what they are getting, I just would like to be told the TRUTH about what we are doing and why. I would like the story to not change at every news cast.I would really like to know why the Republicans felt they HAD to be in there now.[maybe they are saving us from something and I should be grateful] What did they know? Something just seems fishy and I am not a conspiracy theory type person. I am not so fragile that I can't handle the truth. I don't believe most Americans are.
Kraftdinner, I can't really tell what the action plan is now and I am not privy to any confidential information the higher ups have so there is no way I could tell you what is a better plan.
posted on November 1, 2001 06:34:31 PM new
Don't be lulled into thinking we are dealing with just some ignorant goat herders.
Many of the hi jackers were very well educated. The terrorist networks are sohpisticated, and with the benefit of the doubt, their anthrax is weapons grade.
The Taliban is made up of Islamic scholars. What they lack in knowledge of the sciences, they more than make up for in how to motivate and manipulate the populace.
posted on November 1, 2001 06:38:12 PM newI would really like to know why the Republicans felt they HAD to be in there now.
Not JUST the Republicans, Rawbunz. The military action in Afghanistan is unanimously supported across party lines in Congress. We have no choice. As for simple humanitarian aid to solve the problem... well, we saw where that got us in Somalia. Oh wait! That was the Clinton Administration. I forgot.
posted on November 1, 2001 06:53:49 PM new
I would disagree KatyD. Sheik Omar, who is the leader of the Taliban, is nobodies pawn.
The Taliban and al Quieda have the same goals, and after seeing what the Taliban is willing to do to their own people leaves little doubt of their complicity in terrorism with al Quieda.
posted on November 1, 2001 07:05:05 PM new
Oh dear. I have to disagree that the Clinton administration got us into Somalia. That was a dirty trick of Daddy Bush. He got us in there just a tiny bit before he left office. A little something to bog the Democrats down for a while. Of course this military action would be supported by all of congress, they all want to be re-elected and Americans are pissed off right now.Justifiably so. Anyone going against a WAR AGAINST TERRORISM would not be seen in the best re-election light.Does it mean they all really totally agreee? Who knows. They are nearly all slime balls so who can tell? If it weren't for politics and politicians [from any place not just here in the USA] there wouldn't be many wars.
posted on November 1, 2001 07:25:58 PM new
Reamond, I disagree that Mullah Omar isn't a pawn. He uses Bin Laudin for security, Bin Lauden uses him for a safe harbour, and the Taliban were friendly with Pakistan. Pakistan did recognize the Taliban as the official government. And Chechnya is not too far away. Remember, back in 94, the Chechnyan President got fundamentalist Islamic help in the fight against the Russians. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
We are living in fear of the new and incredibly destructive instruments of modern warfare....nuclear, chemical and biological . Unless some solution is found to the problem of war, the world will be engulfed in a holocaust that will affect all of us and destroy civilization as we know it.
How will victory be defined in the military action that we are involved in now? Although we are bombing Afghanistan into oblivion nothing has been accomplished yet. We are still threatened by terrorists in 60 other countries including our own.
posted on November 1, 2001 10:59:33 PM new"Although we are bombing Afghanistan into oblivion nothing has been accomplished yet. We are still threatened by terrorists in 60 other countries including our own. If bombing is our solution, when will it end?"
Well said!
That's exactly the point I was attempting to make earlier.
posted on November 2, 2001 12:39:47 AM new
Yes, and mine. Even if the taliban could deliver bin laden, it probably would take time to arrange. Yet bush has three times refused to respond to taliban requests for talks without, as far as I can see, bothering to see what they want to say. Except for the first time there's no indication that they had been attempting to negotiate anything. So what's left to conclude other than that the intent of the bombing goes beyond merely obtaining the evildoer? Clearly the demands that terrorist camps be open to inspection to assure that they are not being used is irrelevant now, and the coupled demands that they
"Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned".
"Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country".
"Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and hand over every terrorist and every person in their support structure to appropriate authorities" are moot.
How could the taliban be expected to protect foriegn journalists, diplomats, and aid workers now when the US is blowing all three to smithereens? Aren't the americans previously held now returned by the Alliance who had them? And what are 'appropriate authorities' for handing off support in no longer existing camps?
Today 'stick bombing' (this is a very awesome thing, and is not dropping sticks) by B52s took place without regard, by the statements made, for any humanitarian concern but supposedly directed by special forces on the ground within Afganistan. Don't assume that any of that can be directed away from anything. It is 'blanket bombing' or 'saturation bombing' depending on your choice of war, and obliterates everything within wide and long areas of land. My use of the word 'supposedly' above was because the nature of this bombing procedure disallows that anyone be anywhere near a target zone. The reason that this has begun given is that these alliance leaders complained that previous bombing had been "too light". So alliance leaders are directing US efforts to their purpose in a civil war. Is that the intent of the demands above?
posted on November 2, 2001 12:50:36 AM new
I am new here and would normaly wait a while to post but this grabed my attention. While I am a liberal I am by no means a dove and I am always confused by the people in this country that are always convinced that we are in the wrong. The idea of a clean war is a pipe dream, brought about by a collective guilt from past conflicts. There is no such thing, no matter how smart the bomb the shrapnel will go where it pleases. That being said at least we are trying to avoid the mass civillian casualties that our foes seek to inflict. This is NOT a war that we started, although some of our foriegn policy may be flawed we did not deserve this. This was a war brought to us, not one that we want to fight but one that we must fight, for if you believe that the terrorists are willing to talk this out you are either naive or a fool... I DO NOT THINK that anyone here is a fool. As far as did the taliban deserve this, yes. The aurgument that if we bomb them we should bomb all the countries that did not hand him over is moot. He is not in the other countries. If the Taliban wanted to stop the bomings all they have to do is hand over bin laden..... if they can't then they could get out of the way .... but no, his stance is their stance. To turn their backs on him would be to turn their backs on themselves. So yes they will fall, and yes the northern alliance has said they will hand him over.
My rant has caused me loose my train of thought, so I leave you with this... America seems to have forgoten how to fight a war when right is on our side, might does not make right, but being right does allow us to use our might.
Here is to hoping that my 2nd post is about something that is much more light hearted or mundane... This post was not meant as an attack against anyone, but a discussion ....
Chris
posted on November 2, 2001 06:12:50 AM new
The bombing will end when either the ground targets have been reduced to the max for the safety and support of ground troops or the Taliban meets our demands.
The Northern Alliance is not calling the shots on our bombing. We have people on the ground for this purpose. We are also taking measure to prevent the NA from gaining total hegemony in Afghanistan.
Not negotiating with the Taliban is exactly how the matter should be handled. The U.S. has made it crystal clear what the Taliban needs to do. The Taliban itself claimed that it "controlled" bin Laden when they stated that they knew where bin Laden was and did not allow his movement or communication. Later they "lifted" his travel and communication ban in order that he may facilitate Jihad.
Claiming that the Taliban is not complicit with al Quieta is nonsense and at a tangent with the facts.
posted on November 2, 2001 07:00:44 AM new
The goal?
I doubt that the real goal is to find bin Laden. That would be foolish since he is only one man in a world network of others qualified to take his place. We don't know where he is and I doubt that he would reveal his location to the Taliban government.
I wonder if the goal is revenge. But if the goal is revenge, what is the purpose of bombing a poor country of ignorant fundamentalists into oblivion? Afganistan is not responsible for the sophistocated acts of terrorism perpetrated on the US.
I wonder if the goal is political. If that's the case, Bush is losing the confidence of America and the bombing is battering our coalition to pieces. Blairs pitiful efforts at diplomacy this week is evidence of that.
posted on November 2, 2001 07:07:20 AM new
reamond, are you in some sort of state of panic? You haven't got a clue, and you spout out fox news distortions like a crazed person. You've been doing that ever since sept 11. Before that I had thought that you had some sense.
The bombing has failed. The administration is finally admitting that, even while again changing their tune to say that the overthrow of the taliban isn't necessarily their goal. (LoL!)
The onset of B52 strikes is a desperate act to try to hold the support of even one small segment of the northern alliance, done only to assist them, and not to convince the taliban to give up bin laden. It's come to bush wanting some arab faction to fight for us, but they fight only for themselves.
I'm going out now or I might flood you, but here's a little sample of the things that your sources won't tell you for fear of making the boss unhappy. Even if they did tell you something, think about how many times they've gotten the weather right.
posted on November 2, 2001 08:42:59 AM new
I have read through these posts since the beginning and now I just have to add my two cents worth.
We have let public opinion sway us from completing the task on nearly every front--from fighting terrorism to fighting wars--for the past 40 years. American and foreign support does seem to wane quickly as time goes by. As a result, we have become a country to be hated, laughed at, and ridiculed. Not feared.
And FEAR is the only thing that kept us safe. 50 years ago any country that dared to try to invade our homeland would have been wiped off the face of the earth, and they knew it. For that reason, and that reason only, no one attempted what they are doing today!
There's a country song titled "Life As We Knew it" and the one line is-- Life as we knew it ended today. Even though the song is about a broken marriage that phrase just keeps flashing through my mind since the Sept. 11 tragedy!
If we back down from this fight then Heaven help us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edited to add that I agree with everything Reamond has said!
Edited again to correct spelling.
[ edited by nevadatexan on Nov 2, 2001 08:45 AM ]
[ edited by nevadatexan on Nov 2, 2001 08:46 AM ]
[ edited by nevadatexan on Nov 2, 2001 08:48 AM ]
posted on November 2, 2001 10:15:47 AM new
A simple matter of fact
1: The Taliban Regime were asked to hand over bin Laden and company
2: The humanitarian aid workers that are in the Taliban regimes prison
3: they were given near a month do to this
4: Why did we start bombing Afghanistan?
Because of all of the above and Afghanistan and the government there; the Taliban Regime, supports terrorists there and trains terrorists from about 40 countries around the world, and have been for years
And as a footnote: this last summer they destroyed 1800 year old Buddhist statues, when orginizations around the world offered the Muslim Gov't in Afghanistan millions of dollars as humanitarian aid to NOT destroy them. Those statues were there for that long, and Muslims have ruled that country for about 700 years, and never had an issue with 'idol' worship (that is what the Taliban Regime says; Idol worship) before these fanatics, ie; The Taliban Regime came into power. But they went ahead and destroyed them, and let their people starve.
posted on November 2, 2001 10:27:12 AM new
If anyone is interested I have some leftover shots of the Iranian "baby milk factory" bombing.
Ho-hummm.
Funny, how is it that the muslim network's photos differ from the foreign correspondent's reports??? I keep seeing these guys shove microphones in some Afghan's face during a raid and these people are going about their business, unconcerned because "they are not bombing US".
It is fine to "extend an oliver branch out to them", or educate their children, or buy them all a new Mercedes, but the simple truth is that this stuff has never worked in recorded history. You simply have no understanding of the mindset of these people. You would "negotiate" with Hussein as he gases his own people??? The only thing you can do is inflict upon them more damage than what they gain. This is why it is important to include "the countries that support them". You have to make the next sponsor of these murderers think twice.
posted on November 2, 2001 05:53:36 PM new
OK. So these people on the ground have to have KNOWN since early September that the US was going to bomb the (feces) out of their country. Yet they stand around and then act amazed when they are blown to hell. It just doesn’t make sense, unless they are truly happy to die and don’t mind seeing the last their mud homes forever.
And for all those people who are feeling sorry for these folks – here’s a News Flash: they don’t want to live in suburbia and drive a Ford Expedition. They want to destroy America and anything and everything having to do with “evil” western ways and culture. They want to kill your sons and daughters and totally disrupt your way of life.
So while you are trying to have a “dialog” with them to get them to understand your reasoning, they will cut your heart out and shove it down your throat. If you are western, an Israeli, a Christian, a Jew - or a Muslim who doesn’t side with Osama bin Laden, you are marked for death.
Reason with that!
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
