> If anyone thinks George Bush and John Ashcroft are heroes in
> this, they need a reality check. If they think Bill Clinton is
> responsible, they need a brain transplant.
Every U.S president since Carter has some degree of responsibilty in the way they handled terrorist attacks, in terms of national defense.
Let's not forget the U.N. either who put enormous pressure on the United States to back down from seeking Saddam Hussein when it had the perfect chance to do so.
If anyone here stil thinks that international courts and diplomatic pleading is going to effectively destroy violent regimes, well, you're a very imaginiative soul.
As for the terrorist themselves, well, they are repsonsible for thier actions alone, and blaming anyone for their violent expression is rather pathetic.
>>If anything, GWB and JA helped to perpetuate this mess. cheer as our rights are taken away and war crimes are being
> committed in one of the poorest countries in the world.>I wonder how quickly the oil pipeline will be installed once this mess is over?
> What's this all about financial incentive. I thought you were
> all for the $150 million dollar a day bombing campaign. Or did
> we already hit all of the Red Cross buildings and hospitals?
> That'll show them!
As the bombing has been a brilliant success, I'm hoping
for a new and better government to emerge from the negotiations
in Germany which America made possible.
I found a nice editiorial in the Washington Post...
========
Despite the Naysayers
By Michael Kelly
Wednesday, November 28, 2001; Page A35
A month ago, the anti-war and the anti-American elements of the left in the United States and in Europe were howling that war in Afghanistan was unjust because: The attacks of Sept. 11 were mere criminal acts, to be properly dealt with by the police and the courts; war would likely cause the deaths of millions of innocent Afghans through bombing and through a bombing-induced famine; war was unlikely to succeed against the never-say-die Taliban; and war would not buy America peace but only more war.
What have we learned since? We have learned that it would have been impossible to extract Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda from Afghanistan without war. Some had presumed that the Taliban could hand over bin Laden and his lieutenants for extradition and trial. But al Qaeda was symbiotically integrated with the Taliban, with al Qaeda the militarily and financially superior force. The Taliban could no more turn over al Qaeda than they could turn over themselves.
We have learned conclusively that the Taliban were not the government of the Afghan people. They were a foreign tyranny imposed on the Afghan people. The power that came from the barrel of a gun in Afghanistan came ultimately from guns held not by Afghans but by tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries imported by the Taliban and al Qaeda. Destroying Afghanistan's occupiers did not mean killing innocent Afghans but freeing them from fascist oppression.
We have learned that bombing did not result in the death of millions, but in the rescue of millions. Thanks to liberation, food is pouring into Afghanistan now, and the millions of refugees who fled the Taliban are beginning to return home.
We have learned that the Taliban would rather switch than die. We have learned that al Qaeda had constructed in Afghanistan a system for training, dispersing and financing thousands of anti-American terrorists now at large in the world.
In light of the refutation of almost every major criticism and alarm from the left, what have we heard from the peacemongers? Well, mostly, a determined silence. And where the silence is broken, it is to obfuscate.
James Carroll, a writer with a long pedigree as an anti-warrior, argued in the Boston Globe yesterday that it remains the case that, as the headline put it, "This War Is Not Just." He makes three main points.
The first point is that we (although not Carroll) are too "ignorant" to pronounce on this war: "The United States government has revealed very little of what has happened in the war zone. Journalists impeded by restricted access and blind patriotism have uncovered even less." But a glance at the Globe's news section on any given day proves this false. Afghanistan is swarming with reporters who are working independently and free of any U.S. restraints. These journalists have been, and are, reporting daily from every liberated area of Afghanistan and frequently from areas where fighting continues. Six, so far, have been killed on the job.
The "massive bombardment" of Afghanistan, writes Carroll, has been "to what effect?" We just don't know, he suggests. Yes, we do. Again, reporters have filed stories on the bombing effects from all over Afghanistan, including almost every bombed city. Leaving aside the gross libel in the suggestion that American reporters' "blind patriotism" has kept them from fully revealing the truth, what about the many foreign reporters covering the conflict? Has their blind love for America also led them to hide awful realities?
The second point is that "the celebrated results" of the war -- "collapse of the Taliban, liberation of women -- are welcome," but "are relatively peripheral outcomes, unrelated to the stated American war aim of defeating terrorism." But this is also manifestly not true. The collapse of the Taliban is not a "peripheral outcome." It is in fact one of the two "stated American war aims" of the war in Afghanistan (the other is the collapse of the Taliban's partner, al Qaeda, which is being effectively pursued). And, it would seem evident, the collapse of the government that provides state-sanctioned support for the world's largest and most dangerous terror network is indeed integral to "the stated American war aim of defeating terrorism."
The third point is the Old Original Canard that this all should have been handled by "police action, not war. The criminals, not an impoverished nation, should be on the receiving end of the punishment." But the criminals -- the murderous fascists of al Qaeda and the Taliban -- are the ones being punished. "The impoverished nation" is composed of the Afghan people, who have been for weeks thanking us for rescuing them from the tyranny of the criminals.
Carroll bemoans the criticism his camp has come in for. "Next, we will be called 'kooks,' " he writes. No, no, not at all.
> What's this all about financial incentive. I thought you were
> all for the $150 million dollar a day bombing campaign. Or did
> we already hit all of the Red Cross buildings and hospitals?
> That'll show them!
It amazes me that there are people out there who actually believe that you can extract a regime and a massive terrorist sect by treating it solely as a "police matter."
This implies that you can walk into the country and simply extract those you need to extract without engaging in any such military combat by those who you are attemtping to capture, and who have an army themsleves.
Here's a little tip for those of you who are still leaning in this direction philosophically: When you are faced by an army, you have to treat the matter militarily, because you are being faced by an opposing military.
This is just naivete in its most spectacular form. Quite amazing.
There is a reason that you bomb someone and destory artillery caches, and that's because those things are going to be used against you when you attempt to engage those opposing you.
If anything a military effort is the only kind of effort that allows a police effort to be even remotely possible.
Let's just hold an internationl hearing, gather all the proper papers, collect non-existent intlelligence, allow those who we are seeking time to gather themselves, plan, and do what it is they want to do, because they know we are going to be tied up in "civilized" beaurocracy for quite a while.
You simply can't approach violent armies in this manner.
And then, when you are ready to go get who you want, how exactly do you get them? And not just them, but all of those involved? What if those wanted are in the thousands, and are all gathered in one area ready to attack you when you arrive to "arrest" them?
You know how police treat this? With an army. It's called a swat team. The same thing of relative scale that the military applies to its own operations.
When bombs and artillery shells are flying your way, do you still treat I like a police matter?
If that is realistically the case then we could spend less money and less time, and capture all the violent offenders we happen to desire.
The term "kooks" is much too placid to describe such thinking.
> Now the Republican Administration is offering US citizenship to
> any afghani's who cooperate.
It's a wonderful idea, can you deny it? Oh wait, I forgot, we have to wonder if you actually WANT terrorists brought to justice....
The tribunals: Although constitutional, I don't support them in the manner Bush wants them, and feel Bush sometimes lets his high poll ratings go to his head. I would support them if they were subject to civilian review and narrowly applied to...well, people like bin Laden rather than some small fry in Minneapolis.
I hope congress steps in for some fine tuning. It's a difficult issue not just because of national securtity concerns in a time of war, but also because the judge in the 1993 terrorist trial remains to this day in need of 24 hour a day security.
I don't expect you comrades to be thoughtful on the complexities, as you guys are always knee-jerkingly and boringly in condemnation of everything America does.
> If only we had a press corps that cared or was unbiased.
No such thing as unbiased. The majority of the press
right now is biased against mass murdering fascists. A small minority, however, agree with the comrades here. After all,
that's where you guys get all your material from, so you can't honestly argue they are being silenced. It's just that most people
view those voices as extremist kooks who wish ill upon the people
and things they hold dear, so they are pushed to the fringes,
such as silly web sites like www.zmag.org. I guess that's
democracy at work. And are they wrong to feel that way? I see the influence of those elements in the press on this board when our own Margitrichert can barely contain her admiration for 4000 people murdered. You have the freedom of press (in America
anyway) but you don't have the right to force people to listen. And isn't that what really bugs ya?
> Every U.S president since Carter has some degree of
> responsibilty in the way they handled terrorist attacks, in
> terms of national defense.
I didn't wanna reply to DL's comment, because only a very small person would let partisan politics interfere with their evaluation of the success of the bombing campaign.
Anyway, it's likely that the same brilliant and rational bombing campaign would likely have been followed had Gore been prez.
I can't praise Bush's war on terrorism enough (so far anyway!),
but if this crisis is over by the next election it is highly unlikely
I will vote for him.
There's just so many knee-jerk reactions on this board it's pathetic.
You call us commies while the current "appointed" administration with no mandate is making a power grab ignoring the other branches of government and you support that. John Ashcroft has a history of taking away civil liberties but he is an American Patriot?
Congress is trying to step in for fine tuning as you say but JA is too busy too answer for what he is doing. What do you think about that? They are re-writing the Bill of Rights and don't care to answer for it.(But he has time to strike down an Oregon law for Doctor assisted suicide because it doesn't gel with his religious beliefs). The man annoints himself in Crisco oil, he's admitted it.
You support tribunals ...
That are secret.
With no appeal.
Where you are not permitted to face your accusers.
Where heresay is allowed.
Where evidence does not need to be produced.
Where your conversations with your defense attorney are recorded.
Where a 7-5 decision can put you away as opposed to a 12-0 decision?
Where the jury is not made up of your peers.
And you call us commies? Oh please.
The ways they are written, they could put you away for life and there is nothing you can do about it.
As far as the citizenship for imformation deal, what are your opinions on this...
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011130/ts/attacks_investigation.html
As far as my opinion for the biased news, Hell even the AP was publishing stories based on White House Script before they happened. It's happened three times this year. A story would come out at 1:30am in the morning describing events that are supposed to take place at 8:00 am.
Let's see...the whole goal was to get OBL. 2 Billion dollars later, thousands of innocent people killed...soon to be near 7.5 million innocent people killed, war crimes and atrocities committed, Russia has a more secure footing in the region, we piss off a whole generation of Muslims, we are allied with a faction that cares as much about women's rights as the last one...oh wait...we'll have that wonderful new pipeline soon!
Oh give me a break. The right harped on that "aspirin factory" for years and I make a sarcastic joke about our so called smart bombs hitting hospitals and red cross buildings and you make that to be my whole argument.
The whole point was that...some of the people here portray their arguments that bombing and military action are the final, best, or only solution. Then someone who "I assume" thinks along those lines, brings up "financial incentive" as an alternative. Then you criticize me for thinking there might be alternative solutions. Why don't you tell loafing Oaf that financial incentives and other alternatives will never work?
> Every U.S president since Carter has some degree of
> responsibilty in the way they handled terrorist attacks, in
> terms of national defense.
Agreed. But some are more guilty than others. The worst things were helping them to develop biological and chemical weapons programs, and selling them advanced weaponry, and the killing squads in South America and Asia.
> Let's not forget the U.N. either who put enormous pressure on
> the United States to back down from seeking Saddam Hussein when
> it had the perfect chance to do so.
They wanted to get him. They took the chance that his own people would overthrow him. At the time I supported the action taken against Iraq. I felt it was a mistake that we didn't go in and get him. What pressure did the UN give that so scared the US that hasn't really seemed to work at any other time?
> If anyone here stil thinks that international courts and
> diplomatic pleading is going to effectively destroy violent
> regimes, well, you're a very imaginiative soul.
Well, when countries only use them to their own advantage and ignore them otherwise then of course. But there are still other alternatives than this and large scale military action.
> As for the terrorist themselves, well, they are repsonsible for
> thier actions alone, and blaming anyone for their violent
> expression is rather pathetic.
Not sure which point you are discussing here....so no comment.
> Hmm, yes, I see. Our newly elected president is immediately
> responsible for helping to motivate the terrorists. I'll chalk
> this up to an emotive statement, for I am fairly sure you would
> be unable to rationally explain it in any sane way.
Our newly selected President is using this to bolster support for most of his hard line agenda while doing something Pakistan, India, and France have all reported we were going to do anyways.
> I'm no Bush supporter outside of this military effort, but such
> a statement makes little sense whatsoever. If anyhting, Bush's
> cabinet is doing the best possible job in cleaning this mess up.
> i'll give credit where credit is do.
I'll have to agree to disagree. Out of curiosity, who do you support?
> What "war crimes" are bng comitted?
The executiuon of prisoners that are surrendering.
Door to Door killing squads
> IIn fact, I dare you to explain.
Look at non-US reports of what happened at the prison.
> And this is the primary issue that is being kicked around by
> anti-war protesters now that there is little in the way of
> justifiable and sensible critique of the military effort.
You must watch the Factor.
> However, if this sudden, surreptitious pipeline conspiracy
> somehow arises in the future (and it's not as simple as that)
> I'm sure the natural resource bargaining table would be much
> preferred to the former concerns fo the country.
There's nothing sudden about it.
> If this is the best you and people like you can do in terms of
> critiquing the intitiaitve, you will have to find a much more
> dire consequence than the idea of a pipeline being constructed.
Yes, billions of dollars is no reason at all. It's all about saving those Afghanis and eliminating the terrorism. I wonder if we will do any better than we did with the war on drugs? We could do as Ann Coulter demands and convert them all to Christianity.
> Though, again, ridding a country of a violent regime as a
> byproduct of one's own national defense effort seems to be of
> little consolation to you. If only we could start over again,
> and treat this with international diplomacy alone.
Yes, didn't we help Iraq a little while back with a violent regime? Oh, they're much better off now. Come to think of it, didn't we help Afghanistan out way back when. Well I'm sure the 7.5 million Afghanis that starve/freeze to death this winter will be happy we saved them.
> Things would be so much better that they are now.
To tell you the truth I would be happy to discuss with you and go into details on all of these issues that we may or may not disagree on. If you wish to do it here, then lets narrow this down to one issue or topic at a time and I'll discuss to your heart's content. The problem with these forums is that these debates get astronomically big and it takes too much time to properly respond for your or my own content. You pick the topic.
If you want to know where I look get some of my insane information, well you can look at...
If you want to find some sites with people who have the time and will be happy to debate your every question/point/opinion/fact/etc. let me know and I will be happy to provide.
> You call us commies while the current "appointed"
> administration with no mandate is making a power grab ignoring
> the other branches of government and you support that. John
> Ashcroft has a history of taking away civil liberties but he is
> an American Patriot?
See my message titled "You should cheer my cheering their cheering,"
where I clearly state my dsilike for Ashcroft. I believe I called
him a dangerous man who must be kept in check.
I don't know what you're saying I support. You have a very active imagination.
> Congress is trying to step in for fine tuning as you say but JA
> is too busy too answer for what he is doing. What do you think
> about that?
I clearly stated the legislative branch should go over the tribunals
and take out the excessive aspects.
>They are re-writing the Bill of Rights
No they aren't. The Supreme Court held such tribunals to be constitutional.
> You support tribunals ...
> That are secret.
> With no appeal.
Are you stupid or something? You apparently have the reading
comprehension of a 6 year old. I clearly stated I would only
support military tribunals if they are subject to civilian review.
That means appeal, dummy. And I had other stated requirements
for my support as well. What I support is a comprise to a middle
ground, which takes into account the legitimate concerns and problems on both sides if and when we bring those who commited not crimes, but illegal acts of war against us.
> And you call us commies? Oh please.
I don't recall calling anyone a communist.
> As far as the citizenship for imformation deal, what are your
> opinions on this...
>
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011130/ts/attacks_investigation.html
I'll check it in a few minutes, whatever it is.
> Don't you care about 7.5 million innocent lives?
> Oh give me a break. The right harped on that "aspirin
> factory" for years and I make a sarcastic joke about our so
> called smart bombs hitting hospitals and red cross buildings and
> you make that to be my whole argument.
> The whole point was that...some of the people here portray their
> arguments that bombing and military action are the final, best,
> or only solution. Then someone who "I assume" thinks
> along those lines, brings up "financial incentive" as
> an alternative. Then you criticize me for thinking there might
> be alternative solutions. Why don't you tell loafing Oaf that
> financial incentives and other alternatives will never work?
Reading Is Fundamental.
The financial incentive is for encouraging the post-Taliban Afghan tribes to rise above their past and take responsibility for building
a better country now that America's bombs have removed their fascist
regime.
> Let's see...the whole goal was to get OBL. 2 Billion dollars
> later, thousands of innocent people killed...soon to be near 7.5
> million innocent people killed, war crimes and atrocities
> committed, Russia has a more secure footing in the region, we
> piss off a whole generation of Muslims, we are allied with a
> faction that cares as much about women's rights as the last
> one...oh wait...we'll have that wonderful new pipeline soon!
Oh dear. Weren't you the one asking for an "unbiased" media?
Apparently that means CNN standing for the Chomsky News Network. Deranged fanaticism, conspiracy theories, and anti-American
hate-mongering 24 hours day.
> The financial incentive is for encouraging the post-Taliban
> Afghan tribes to rise above their past and take responsibility
> for building
> a better country now that America's bombs have removed their
> fascist
> regime.
> Oh dear. Weren't you the one asking for an "unbiased"
> media?
> Apparently that means CNN standing for the Chomsky News Network.
> Deranged fanaticism, conspiracy theories, and anti-American
> hate-mongering 24 hours day.
Sorry, lets keep bombing them until infinite justice is carried out in our crusade against the evil-doers and those who support terrorism.
> It amazes me that there are people out there who actually
> believe that you can extract a regime and a massive terrorist
> sect by treating it solely as a "police matter."
I don't actually believe all of them give two sh*ts about defeating
the enemy, so nothing amazes me.
The clock is turned back ten years, but with the added lessons learned over that time, as well as the eyes of the world focused upon them. It's hope and a chance for something better. Apparently you'd prefer condemning them to the Taliban forever,
which would only kill thousands of Afghans as well as thousands of the rest of us.
I saw an Afghan woman in Germany today demanding a female voice
in the new government. She's not given up. She quite clearly
feels there is now hope.
Re: Of mice and Oil men
