Treeman, You know it could turn out that hopefully we have learned from our mistakes in the Gulf War and Vietnam. We avoid a purely military approach and avoid killing huge numbers of noncombatants and our troop loss is also still small. We actually clean up the big mess we create and we don't lose the post war political picture either. Urging that this be kept primarily in mind is not unpatritotic or wanting us to lose the war. Sorry, another moral, moderate and to you complex thought. It was always almost impossible that we could actually lose the military part of the war on terrorism. As was true with Iraq we probably overestimated the strength of our enemies to make our victory look greater and I maintain to keep up the military industrial complex. Thinking opposed to yours by myself and others could actually help insure that we don't lose the public relations aspect of the effort either. You know, from the tone of your posts, I'm beginning to think public relations and diplomacy is not your strength.
glynch: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I relish the thought of killing noncombatants. No one does. But I would not propose that we not defend ourselves just because there will be some collateral damage. You appear to think that if a single noncombatant might get killed, then we should just call the whole thing off. That is a good way to lose the war. I am under no illusions that war is pretty, or that it can be made to be clean. I am even aware that while the Gulf War looked antiseptic (and many Americans seem to think that it was a "clean" war), the reality was different. From the air it looked clean and orderly, from the ground it was horrifying. And that was a so-called "clean" war. There is no such thing, and I know that. I just have a very hard time understanding how you could be so against our defending ourselves. Either you really don't understand that these people mean us harm and the only way to deal with them is through force, or you want to see us lose this war. Or you are , well, reality-challenged and lack a fundamental understanding of human nature. Or you're just trying to stir up controversy. One of those has to describe you. As for the PR aspect - that is precisely the part of our war effort that you are working against. Every single post you have made on this subject has been critical of our effort, and not a single one has been critical of the enemy. I have to wonder why that is. Tone of my posts? You mean because I won't bend over for our enemies??? There is a time for diplomacy, and there is a time for war. You do not seem to understand that war is sometimes necessary, and that it is not won by holding the enemy's hand. You need to understand that "the way the world should be" and "the way the world is" are two totally different things, glynch. And only one of them exists.
He is harboring a world wide fugitive, a fugitive who is financing him. He is defending a murderous group, and is willing to kill for that group THAT is why he is as guilty as Osama bin Laden. If you allow a murderer to set up base in your house and plot his murders, and you know and willingly let him do this, you're as guilty as he is in my eyes. The Taliban may not have carried out what has happened but he is protecting the people who did it, thus letting them pull off ANOTHER tragedy. It's one thing to harbor a fugitive, it's another to protect them. Do you think that if a guy committed a murder, hid out in my house, and the police came to my house to get him and I pulled out a gun and said "I don't care if he killed thousands of people, you'll have to kill me to get him", that they wouldn't consider me an accessory to murder? Guilty by association.
Treeman, you have a pattern of shooting your mouth off. Making statements like there is no such things as an atrocity against captured Taliban, constantly saying people should be executed or nuked or invaded and I believe, in at least one case, tortured. Calling fellow posters morons, cowards, traitors, communists, Taliban lovers etc. Later you write a more reasoned post, trying to explain the statements away. Others are probably right, you aren't worth responding to. Fortunately your namecalling and extreme statements discredit your warmongering ideology. I'm plan to be much more selective in my responses to you.
Then put me on your ignore list, you commie Taliban-lover. When you understand that we're at war, and that you can't win a war by acting like a humanitarian, give me a call. But as long as you keep posting nonsense like your call to halt the bombing, I'm going to call you on it.
Oh, BTW glynch, now that the cities are in allied hands, the humanitarian shipments are quadrupling. Just one more thing you were completely wrong about...
life is better in kabul than it was just one week ago. btw -- how funny is the whole "we'll fight to the death" thing now..."we'll spill american blood and eat them alive!" yeah, is that before or after you run like little girls? just like the iraqi republican guard and the "mother of all battles" promised by Saddam. idiots.
The war's not over yet, MadMax. It just entered the guerilla phase, that's all. But the Taliban is no longer in control, and that's a very, very good thing.
You've created a different scenario now. By pulling out a gun, you've in essence committed an act of war & would probably be shot by the police at the scene. If you surrendered without firing a shot, then it would still have to be proven that you somehow assisted the murderer before the act was carried out. My previous response was under the assumption that you had surrendered & were put on trial for harboring a fugitive. While you might get a sentence for the charges of harboring a fugitive & threatening a peace officer, unless it can be proven that you actively participated in the planning of the murder, had knowledge of the plan before it was executed, or participated in the execution of the murder, then there is no way that I could see you going to the death chamber, even if the murderer lived in your house prior to committing the act. Damn, that sounds like a defense attorney's argument. My original response to Treeman was in response to him condoning the reprisals & atrocities against the Taliban. Since we are currently engaged in a war with them, they would've had to of already surrendered in order for the acts to be called "reprisals & atrocities". That's what the original article that I posted was referring to & what I am against. I have never, nor would I ever suggest that we shouldn't kill the Taliban as long as they keep fighting us. However, if they surrender, they should be given all the rights provided under the Geneva Convention.
Hottoddie: You heard about those 100 or so Taliban who were "executed" by the Northern Alliance in the school at Mazar-I-Sharif, right? Did you hear about the negotiators that the Northern Alliance sent in to get them to surrender peacefully? And how the Taliban (who were all foreign Taliban, BTW) murdered the negotiators? No, you didn't hear about that part, did you? Most of these guys are being killed by angry Afghan civilian mobs, anyway. Are we to blame for their behavior, too? Again, the situation is almost exactly the same as when the concentration camp inmates killed the Nazi prison guards at the end of WWII. They deserved it. And the odd thing about these guys is that they actually want to die. If they die peacefully, then there's no guarantee that they go to heaven, but if they die fighting for Allah then they are guaranteed a spot in heaven, and a front row seat at that. They chose to stay behind and die rather than flee with the rest of the Taliban. And again, I have no sympathy for these guys, since their group is responsible for 5,000 dead Americans and the hole in the Pentagon. Rumsfeld today when asked about these reports said that he didn't mind - that the Geneva Conventions don't apply when dealing with an enemy who ignores them. That's the way it worked in WWII - the rules were ignored by all sides - and that's the way it works in this one. And that's the only way to win this war. Fight terror with terror, assassinate the terrorists, take no prisoners - that is the only way to beat these guys. But that's all beside the point. The Taliban has never shown any mercy, and IMO has in return earned none. They will get what they deserve.
Treeman, I took your advice & did a little homework. I found this article written by the United States Institute of Peace. It's a long article, but you might want to read it. It looks like it may have been written in October of 1998. Especially read option #3, under U.S. Policy & Possibilities for International Action. It is exactly what we're doing. Now, back to my homework assignment. In regards to your comment, A large portion of the Taliban is Arab and Pakistani. Al Qaeda, which hosts the Taliban's "crack" 055 Brigade, is inseparable from the Taliban and is entirely foreign. And of the 12,000 troops who two days ago were on the front lines around Kabul, 9,000 of them were Pakistanis. The Northern Alliance has always regarded them as a foreign invader, and there's a reason for that. They are. , I've found conflicting information in this article by the USIP. Now, while the report appears to have been written in "98", I do realize that things can change. Where did you get your information on the numbers & ethnic makeup of the Taliban? Here's the link to the article & it's a very informative article about the conflict throughout the region. Simce the article is so long, I've only copied the part dealing with the ethnic makeup of the Taliban. http://www.usip.org/oc/sr/sr_afghan.html#taliban For more than twenty years, war has consumed Afghanistan. In 1979, the Soviet Union launched an invasion of the country in order to prop up a pro-communist regime in Kabul. The United States and Pakistan played leading roles backing various Afghan guerrilla forces, known collectively as "mujahideen" (religious warriors), which gradually wore down the Soviet occupying force. Afghanistan's civil war continued after a Soviet pullout in 1989 as various mujahideen factions fought to fill the power vacuum. In the past four years, a newer group called the Taliban has gained control of most of Afghanistan. The Taliban, whose name means "students," have their roots in the Pakistan-based seminaries established for Afghan refugees during the Soviet occupation. The movement got a significant boost from the Pakistani intelligence agency, ISI, which reportedly provided extensive organizational, logistical, and material support to the Taliban militia. The core of the Taliban are from the Pashtun ethnic group, the largest single group in Afghanistan but still a minority of the population. Pashtuns are also a significant ethnic group in Pakistan, where they are heavily represented in the military.
Hottoddie: Glad to hear you're actually doing research. I have tried to get others to do it (glynch), but some people don't want to learn anything they won't like... Thanks for the article, I'll read it in the morning (I'm an insomniac, but even I have to sleep). I read that particular number (9,000) at Jane's a few weeks ago, but I can't find that particular article now. I did find this: http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw011022_1_n.shtml Major Taliban and allied concentrations, including several thousand Arab, Pakistani and other foreign militants, are grouped along the Shomali front north of Kabul; and in a wide defensive arc west of the Kokcha River screening the northeastern town of Taloqan, which the UF lost in September 2000. It doesn't give troop #s in this one, but you get the drift. If you really want to dig around at Jane's, I'm sure you can find the one I'm refering to. At any rate, no one is really sure the exact composition of the Taliban, as they don't reveal such information to outsiders, but it is widely acknowledged that a large number of them are Pakistanis (mostly) and Arab fanatics. And Al Qaeda - which is intimately linked to the Taliban, even intermingled with the Taliban - is entirely foreign. Taliban - which does mean students - refers to students who were educated in madrasas. Koranic education in Pakistan. The Afghans are ecstatic to finally be getting them out of the country. One way or another.
No, we are not to blame for their anger & desire for revenge. However, this ties back in to my first post to you. If we stand by & let this happen, then we are condoning their behavior & that's the part that I'm dead set against. We, as the most powerful & influential country in the world, have a responsibility to not let this happen while we are still engaged in this war. After the war is over & we bring our troops back home, then it becomes a matter of an internal civil war in which we should only get involved in, to protect our national interests. If you get a chance, you should really read the article from the USIP that I posted in my previous post. If you study the bible at all, it gives indications that the Armageddon will begin in the middle east. That article makes me realize just how close we may be to that time.
One more, and then I sleep... What exactly do you believe we can/should do about it? There's nothing we can do. We can't suddenly tell them "we don't want to be your friends anymore, and we're not going to bomb the Taliban until you stop". They're allies, like them or not, and we need them as much as they need us. Without their help we will have to put a large land army in there to finish off the Taliban and hunt down Osama and his cronies, and that means dead Americans. I for one am not willing to trade living Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorists for Americans - not a single one - and the Northern Alliance is all we've got. But frankly, I think you're making too much out of all this. This has almost certainly been the most bloodless transition of power in Afghan history. It is usually far more violent than this. And again, these guys are terrorists. If they were trained in Al Qaeda's camps (and they were), then they're terrorists in my book, and they deserve death. I am usually not to happy when people get killed, but in this case I am not bothered in the least by it. These guys deserved it. And look at how the Afghans are reacting - life is actually returning to normal in Kabul. And I mean normal, not Taliban-normal: women are walking around without burqhas, music is playing, men can shave, women can go back to school now... They have been liberated. I read some of that article(s), looks like good stuff. I'll finish it tomorrow morning... I'm not a Christian, BTW, although I've always thought that the NT was a great work - minus Revelations.
