posted on March 23, 2002 07:53:23 AM new
As I've mentioned before, many of my best friends are Afganie refugees. The Taliban had torn the hearts out of them and they loudly cheered each time the TV showed a bomb dropping on Taliban forces or Taliban forces being routed, or hoping beyond hope that Osama would turn up dead one way or another. In my experience, Afgaine people have a lot of pride in their country, but tend to be some of the nicest people on earth - if you're a friend, of course.
While Bush's heart was certainly not to free an extremely repressed people, or, questionably, even to punish Al-Queda/Taliban/Osama by bombing them into oblivion, there was indeed a lot good to come from it. While our troops may be fighting and dying for Big Oil once again, you have to keep in mind that it is helping a devastated people who have bourne too many tears.
posted on March 23, 2002 10:50:04 AM new
Yes, I believe it was worth it
My daughter is dating a guy that was on the Carl Vinson. He came over when they came back from there. He said all the guys on the ship were all for it, and he was proud of what they did accomplish there. He's not new to the navy, he's been in 6 years.
We're lucky to have a good military, and I'm proud of all the men and women that went there.
posted on March 23, 2002 01:51:30 PM new Posting this without having read your link...
How are we supposed to measure a war fought against a largely ununiformed, multi-national enemy, especially when the (stated) purpose of doing battle was to prevent future acts of terrorism on our -- not Afghanistan's -- soil? How are we supposed to know if the killing, the freezing of reputed Al Qaeda assets, the toppling of the Taliban, did or did not at least somewhat achieve U.S. goals? If there's never another Al Qaeda-based act of terrorism in America, do we say we won? If there's another Al Qaeda-based act of terrorism in America tomorrow, do we say we failed?
At one point in our justification for bombing Afghanistan and unseating the Taliban, we cited its treatment of women and other human rights violations. So, where's our concern for women in other countries -- specifically the country that gave us bin Laden: Saudi Arabia? Here's a hideous story from Prince Abdullah's realm but I bet we won't be marching into his country anytime soon. Nor will we allow this ongoing mutilation of young girls to force us onto our moral high horse and refuse further aid to the dozens of poor countries inflicting it, or (perish the thought!) boycott Saudi oil 'til this "religious" practice ceases.
I had read that in the paper. You know in a lot of the "kill the Aay-Rabs" threads you chastise people because you say it's a different culture and we have to understand them, talk to them, etc. Now in this instance you urge retaliation. You know it is the PEOPLE there that do all of that, it's their "culture". The sheiks are a bunch of boozing whore-mongers that would build solid gold casinos. The only thing stopping them is they're afraid of their hold on the people being loosened.
Your question about stopping future terrorism is not the point. We went to Afghanistan not to "destroy" Al-Qaeda, but simply because it was their largest haven. Bush made it quite clear the intent is a long range assault on these people. It doesn't matter if you have nukes, millions of men, etc. You can threaten all you want, but if the enemy doesn't believe you, you're just the goof of the week. We have to tell them there is no harbour and we will respond to any attack. And when the time comes we have to project the power we possess.
posted on March 23, 2002 04:20:18 PM new
Egad, DeSquirrel, it should've become abundantly clear to you by now that I am not for wholesale killing no matter who or what the crime. I was merely pointing out in my post above that there's a certain hypocrisy to our "reasons" for fighting anywhere -- and that the "success" of our campaign in Afghanistan is impossible to measure, because it is impossible to cite things that never took place (i.e.: future acts of Al Qaeda terrorism) as victories. Can't prove what hasn't happened, in other words.
I also sought to point out that we've adopted a less-than-systematic approach to rooting-out Al Qaeda (and other) terrorists wherever they may dwell. Several of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Nationals, for example. Since "Bush made it quite clear the intent is a long range assault on these people," why is it that we haven't stormed into Saudi Arabia to flush out other Al Qaeda members who may be housed there?
In fact, why has our mainstream media gone overboard to allow Saudi-favorable propaganda onto the television airwaves to deflect criticism from the Saudi government itself, not to mention the bin Laden family, and the "quiet" complicity of both in harboring (even breeding!) "these people"?
"Your question about stopping future terrorism is not the point."
Huh? Isn't the whole point of this war about doing just that???
I'd respectfully suggest that you missed my point, but will stop short of assuming that you did so on purpose.
posted on March 23, 2002 05:34:05 PM new
No dear I meant invading Afghanistan was not to stop the terrorism, it was to destroy the haven there. And I didn't say you supported "killing" Saudis, I was saying you wanted to retaliate (in whatever form) because of a particularly barbaric "cultural" difference that pushed your buttons hard. Don't get me wrong, my answer to those that say "Who can say what's right?" is "We can."
posted on March 23, 2002 05:53:03 PM new
And so it goes, dear, that while you may not have purposely missed my point, you missed it (and continue to do so). I'm now willing to let one of the other name-callers take over at this juncture and express in terms you'll readily understand what an ignoramus you sometimes are.
posted on March 23, 2002 09:01:36 PM new
Really dusquirrel, I think if you take your time and read very slowly there is a chance that you may realize what a fool you've made of yourself.
How can it now be that evidence of the worth of the Afganistan 'campaign' is so difficult to discern that we must try to use examples of supposed renewed hopes of equality, humane treatment, and educational advantage which result from it, when a like amount of money spent in programs of aid in that country would surely have provided more benefit than have the bombs dropped?
If though our bombing intention all along was to benefit the remaining populace so much as is decribed here why have we refrained from providing that same benefit in other parts of the world as much in need as was Afganistan? Have they not yet earned our considerations? No doubt they will work toward earning it, for what nation could deny it's people all of the wonders of our work as shown in this presented justification?
Is that fair? Or is that a hypocrisy?
Oh, the intent was not to do these good deeds? Well then, this thread might as well be closed. It was to "deny the haven" you say? Well, you can say that if you like but that is not the stated intent of the administration. THEIR intent was to penalize the people who refused to turn over a person wanted by this country without suficient evidence of his guilt. That's what the man said, you'll recall. ( "pay the price", remember? )
When you chose to dismiss the thought of another by the sort of sexist assumptions you exhibit in "I was saying you wanted to retaliate (in whatever form) because of a particularly barbaric "cultural" difference that pushed your buttons hard" I can view it in silent disdain for you. But when you so clearly indicate that because of those notions you have utterly misinterpreted what that other has said I cannot. Where, if you don't mind, do you read any desire in plsmith's posting for retaliation at all? Unless I've missed what you've seen I think plsmith only asked for consistency.
posted on March 24, 2002 07:00:52 AM new
Who said you Can't Please All of the People All of the Time
(I know, just thought I'd throw that up there for ya)
While everyone has valid points in their opinions on why these bombings occured, they did happen, some good came out of it, intended or not.
If the Man did not do a thing, the people of this U.S. would be angrier than hell, but he did do something and still people are not happy, most I would guess do approve (which most posters here would probably disagree) but its been done, its been started.
No one expected such a large attack on our own country, and the impact it had... I believe in response to it, it was done quickly and rightly so
posted on March 24, 2002 08:23:59 AM new" and I'm proud of all the men and women that went there."
Of course, NearTheSea, we're all proud of our millitary. That's what angers us. It is the THUGS like Bush & Co. who badly and illegally misuse them and get them killed purely for private and personal gains. Our millitary is to be used soley for defence and the occasional attack, but ALL in the name of saving our country from enemies. In which case, they should be going after Bush and the GOP.
