Didnt you already nuke them in the gulf war with depleted uranium shells? Most babys born there are deformed from this and the people there have no medicine or anything becuase yanks blocked there trade. And wasnt it the US that amred sadam and the Taliban and gave Iraq chemical weapon capaplities? Wake up you morons, cant you see what your goverment is doing? they make bad guys so they have a reason to go to war and once they over take the country the can do what they want, like strip it of rescources.
<b>subatomic</b>: Didn't we informally give them 2 weeks or so and formally two weeks to agree to turn over bin Laden? How do you negotiate that? He is either in custody or not. Did they ask for more time? No. That would be a negotiation. Refusal to comply is no negotiatiion. You can't turn over half a man. They couldn't keep their story straight about what they did and didn't know. They taunted the world with their thinly-veiled lies and, in the end, they didn't deliver or even promise an intent to deliver the figurehead of these atrocities. <b>boy</b>: Who wants to try Kissinger?
First, I want to thank you for being the first person to disagree with me that provides actual evidence that I'm wrong on some of my points. I was unaware of the info from the CIA and the French court. Of course, I believe both these pieces of evidence deserve greater scrutiny and wish our press had given this evidence more attention. Still, this information hardly proves that the Taliban knew or participated in what was going to happen on September 11. Not that I think they're innocent in this mess (I don't), but we can't just go blowing up everyone who we suspect of anti-American sentiment. There'd be nothing left of the world if we did that. Whether the negotiation offers from the Taliban was stalling or genuine, Bush should have met with Taliban leaders, if only to make the US look good. Bush claims this is a war on terrorism, not just Bin Laden. If he's serious, then he should take the measures that will ensure greater success in the future. And there is no way we'll be successful in the future if we now give the impression to other countries (especially ME countries) that we won't negotiate. Sometimes in order to get the job done you have to compromise. In this country, we regularly have trials outside the jurisdiction of the crime to insure that the accused has a fair trial. Why not do the same in the present scenario? The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to a third party. Personally, I would much rather have Bin Laden in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia than where he is now (hidden away in Afghanistan). First, these countries would probably be more inclined to work with the US. Second, we'd win major points in the public worldview. Because the more it looks like that the US is out for justice and fairness, the more support we're going to get from the rest of the world (especially those countries who are uninvolved in this matter). And while there will be countries that will always refuse to cooperate, do you really think they'll respond any more favorably to hardball tactics? Your parallel to harboring a murder is good, but things don't necessarily work the same between different countries. Please refer back to my analogy with France and the Earth Day founder/murderer. We didn't bomb France. And we gave them much longer than 2 weeks to turn him over (to answer your question RichRocket). When countries disagree, they negotiate. Once again, I don't think negotiation = cowtowing to the Taliban so NCstate fan, you can take your lapdog references and shove them up your a$$. There are long-term benefits to restraining our desire to have everyone meet our terms. And while I have no pity for what's happening to the Taliban or Al-Qaida, I have enormous sympathy for the people of Afghanistan. They're been invaded and oppressed for so long and now the US is having its turn by bombing their land. Like I said, when a bomb hits you on the head, you're not going to feel any better if the bomber says "Oops we were actually aiming for someone else." Actually, you'd be lucky to feel anything at all.
Let’s see lapdog, so far you state any evidence the U.S. has is BS. Also, that we should send our president into negotiations with perpetuators supported by an organization that on 9-11 attempted to send a plane into the vicinity of his location. And d@mn, when did I miss the news story that the Alqueda was looking to negotiate with the U.S. prior to slamming several planes into our own buildings killing thousands. You sound more and more like the Taliban lapdog.
subatomic -- your mastery of history revision (considering history is roughly a month ago) is astonishing! They didn't offer to turn him over to a 3rd party....they said, "show us the evidence, and then we'll turn him over!" Yeah..we know just how that works. "what..what evidence?? we don't see it, sorry!" Pakistan demanded that they turn bin laden over time and time again. they would not. so stop revising history!! geez, at least wait a few years before they get it in the history books! We gave them ample time to come up with something. We didn't start striking for roughly a month after 9/11. Please! Second -- the Unicorn Killer in France...could there be a worse analogy? Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda declared war on the US back in 1998. 9/11 was not the first military action they took against this nation....it was not even the first on US soil, as they tried to bring the WTC down with bombs in 1993. comparing a US citizen who fled the country after murdering a teenage girl and Osama Bin Laden is absurd. world court??? please! Great...so we try him and send him to prison..or give him the death penalty. Does that stop his cronies from stepping up and doing the same thing again months from now?? Hell, no! This is a war declared by them on the US. There is only one way to win a war...and it ain't through the courts. Negotiation -- this idea makes me want to tear my hair out..the idea that you actually believe that these madmen can be reasoned with is mind-numbing. The closest Hollywood enemy I can think of regarding bin laden are the aliens in Independence Day. They make no demands...they just want you dead. sure, bin laden NOW says he's so concerned about his brothers in palestine (maybe he should have used his wealth to assist them then, instead of developing plans to kill innocent people in office buildings). All the talk over what the man wants is pointless..he wants you dead...there's the bottom line. Will they respond to hardball tactics??? they will or they'll be dead..that simple. Otherwise we risk them targeting our civilians AGAIN! Trust me...life for the Afghan people will be far better after the Taliban are destroyed.
Mad Max, please reread my post and note that I never said or suggested that we negotiate with Bin Laden or Al-Qaida. I am not so naive to believe that we can talk things out with people who are bent on the destruction of the US. So pretty much most of your post is pointless. What I believe is that Bush should have met with the Taliban leaders and negotiated. The Taliban offered to meet with Bush and negotiate turning over Bin Laden to a third party (most likely a Muslim country). I also made several points for why this would be in the US's best interest (good PR, the 3rd country would probably cooperate with the US more). If the Taliban failed to make an acceptable offer to the US in the course of the meeting, then at that point Bush had every right to issue an ultimatum and act upon it. But upon hearing the Taliban's offer to meet, Bush said "NO NEGOTIATION." And I think that's going to come back and haunt him in the future. If we want to win this war on terrorism, we have to get the people of the Middle East (who, despite the rantings of treeman, are not all terrorists) on our side. Otherwise, it's going to be a vicious circle of attacks and retaliations by both sides. Maybe you are idealistic enough to believe that we can destroy all terrorism by bombing the countries, but I am not. Because whether you like to admit it or not, every bit of "collateral damage" resulting from our current bombings significantly increase the likelihood that another generation views the US as an aggressor. We further alienate ourselves from the Middle East when Bush displays an attitude that he can't be bothered to meet with their leaders. And Donald Rumsfield's recent scoffing at the idea of pausing the aerial attacks during Ramadan is a perfect example of how the US continues to shoot itself in the foot when dealing with the Middle East. Are the Taliban scumbags? I think so, but not everyone in the Middle East agrees with me. So to win those regular citizens (again, NOT the terrorists) who see the Taliban as legitimate, we at least have to show some modicum of respect to the Taliban. Will we win all of them over? I wouldn't think so, but we might win over just enough to save us future grief. Finally, do you really think we can kill off every terrorist? Again, I'm not so idealistic. I'd much rather try the leaders in court. Trying them keeps them from becoming martyrs. Let the whole world see that Bin Laden and his associates are not super-criminals, but just some cowardly freaks hiding behind a gun. Show them in handcuffs being led away. Let the victims have a chance to see the terrorists in court and express their anger at them. And if we do execute them (as I would imagine we would), let them die mundanely with a needle in their arms and not gloriously with a gun in their hands.
subatomic: 1. the taliban and osama are interrelated. he is the largest "donor" to their goals and since that time has largely been running the show for them. they're a "government" that is only recognized by two countries in the entire world. they most certainly had a hand in 9/11. negotiating with such people is futile. see neville chamberlain. again..pakistan offered to be that 3rd party nation more than once...taliban leaders refused. good bye, taliban. 2. it is not good policy to negotiate with nations that support and harbor terrorists. didn't you see air force one!?? my point is serious, though. you don't validate those countries by negotiating...negotiation invokes give and take on both sides. this nation was in no mood to give after 9/11...and it should not do so. i'm thinking 6,000 lives was sacrifice enough 3. i too worry about the creation of the next generation of terrorists. but in an effort to not be too short-sighted, i'm far more concerned with the current generation of terrorists that have declared war on my country. 4. applying american rule of law to arabic cultures is pointless. it does not work...it does not make them any less of a martyr to their people whether they die in prison because of a US mandated lethal injection or a US mandated bombing raid. 5. no, i don't believe air strikes will do the trick...no i don't believe we can kill every terrorist. i do believe a combination of air strikes, forensic accounting and the good work the secretary of treasury is doing in monitoring banks around the world, and ground troops can substantially limit the role of terrorism in the world. that is, quite frankly, my only hope. if we fail, eventually these jackasses will end up using nuclear weapons, i believe. at one time in this country the mafia was a controlling power. no one in the 30's in Chicago would ever think they could be eliminated or restrained. today the mafia exists, but it is a shell of its former existence. the same could be said of the kkk. i hope the same will one day be said of terrorist organizations like al qaeda.
subtomic, We tried your idea of trying the terrorists already. 9/12 was to be the day of the sentancing of the man who bombed one of the embassies in Africa. In respone to our use of the rule of law, Osama and his buddies decided to crash a couple of jet airliners into the WTC. Maybe doing the exact same thing all over again isn't the best course of action.
I don't think the Taliban is just guilty of anti-American sentiment. If they were just anti-American I think we'd be pretty happy with that as opposed to what they're doing. They are providing safe harbor for an indicted murderer. The embassy bombings and the Cole bombing all took place before 9-11. Bin Laden actively trains terrorists in Afghanistan. That's decidedly different from one person who kills another and escapes to France. Bin Laden is responsible for an entire network of terrorists all around the world who are targeting and have targeted the US. Bin Laden is a threat to US and even world security. He's more than the common killer who escapes American jurisdiction and fights extradition to stand trial. He's on a whole different level. As far as Taliban negotiations are concerned, things are always more complex than they look on the surface. The only country in the entire world that recognizes the Taliban as the rightful rulers of Afghanistan is Pakistan. The UN doesn't even recognize the Taliban's right to exist. They're basically the black sheep of the world because of their ruthless policies and treatment of Afghans. Any negotiations with the Taliban would be a feather in their cap because that would mean the US would have formal relations with them. They would LOVE to drag the US into some crooked negotiations where they could get press about any number of propaganda issues. It's a trap and Bush was wise to simply dismiss it for what it was. The Taliban wants the world to see them as these fair handed rulers who are willing to negotiate and have relations with the rest of the world, even though they're murderers and thugs to an unbelievable degree. On the jurisdiction issue, it's true that trials are moved to other locations to try to get a more impartial group of jurors to choose from. I don't think the US has ever sent a trial overseas to find an impartial jury though. If a trial needs to be moved for bin Laden I'm sure we could find somewhere on US soil, Guam for instance. I think most Americans would consider accepting a trial in an Islamic court to be a kiss ass move that's completely unacceptable. If that's hardball then the world can sit on it because American security interests are much higher on our importance totem pole than being liked by crackpot religious fanatics around the world.
timing - you must find two other posts tonight so you can hit 1000!!! i just creeped one closer with this one!
Good responses Max and Hydra. I will respond to your posts in reverse order. I have not read a single account that indicates these attacks were in response to the sentencing of those responsible for the African embassy bombings. While it certainly seems likely that was one motivation, I would be greatly surprised if something like the events of Sept. 11 was solely a reaction to the sentencing. Moreover, our miltary attacks against terrorism have failed to defeat terrorism as well. If we are stuck with two imperfect solutions, I'll go with the legal system. I totally disagree that Bin Laden will be a martyr if we take him to court and convict him. Maybe there will be some wackos who will glorify him, but the average Muslim will see him as a pathetic footnote. The Mafia was weakened because our government was able to exploit the very cause of their existence - greed. When the right price was offered to the right people, our legal system was able to win convictions against the crooks or find them in situations that allowed them to shoot them down. I cannot imagine that would work with a group like al-Qauida, but I'm open to suggestions. The Taliban and al-Qaida are certainly not strangers, but they are not one and the same. And many people in the Middle East see the Taliban as very legitimate. Remember, the average Middle Easterner views most of the leaders in the Middle East as corrupt oil sheiks (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) or corrupt military dictators (i.e. Pakistan), but the Taliban is seen as an Islamic government (do I need to explain why they have greater respect). If the US negotiates with the Taliban, the people in Middle East will have less of a rational reason to oppose US actions. Afterwards, unfortunately, plenty of them will ramain irrational (just as we have our share of irrational folks in this country - like me ) but maybe we can cut down on the number leaving Pakistan to fight a US ground invasion (see the other thread). Finally, I agree that the nuclear weapons scenario is terrifying, but unless we occupy every unstable country in the world, we cannot stop terrorist groups from forming and seeking to attack the obvious scapegoats (i.e. the top dog). What I feel is our best hope against terrorism is improved intelligence. It would be really hard for anyone to get a bomb into this country if we always knew when and from where they were coming. And one way to improve intelligence is to get agents into these terrorists cells. But let's face it, in a group like Al-Qaida, your average American is going to stick out like a slug in a 100-meter dash. So we need to have the people of the Middle East view us in the best possible light. Even if it means negotiating with governments that are less than US friendly. Like I said, if the Taliban gave us a BS offer in the middle of our meeting, then by all means, open fire. But let them make that mistake first.
once again...the taliban is not a legit govt recognized by the rest of the arab world, as you say. it is recognized by only 2 nations in the world. 2. pakistan attempted to broker a deal (how many times do i have to post this!!??)...the taliban flatly denied. they were give a period of time within which to give him up...they didn't. but certainly you're not naieve enough to think that they didn't know whether or not osama was behind this or not?? !! again..osama essentially controls the taliban and has for some time now. he's their "white knight" because he has financial resources they don't have. i'm not saying al qaeda and the taliban are one...i'm saying that essentially the leader of al qaeda has become the de facto leader of the taliban. so for all practical puposes, they're integrated, even if kept distinct in some ways. more importantly, i have a hard time believing the taliban has no culpability in 9/11...the guy had 9 terrorist training camps in afghanistan...and he had immense influence. they knew, and they did nothing to stop it...most of the leaders likely encouraged it. negotiating with such a group is ridiculous. you're speaking as if the taliban has no culpability here...i think you're just wrong on that. they're not just some third party who happens to know where the guy is. 3. the mafia stayed in power for years after prohibition. that was not their sole lifeblood...frankly, they had their hands in just about everything (labor unions included). the fight was taken to them, and ultimately they lost. i think there are parallels here. but even still, the kkk controlled local govts in the south for a long time. when people came to grips with what that meant, they did something about it. now they're a joke. keep in mind, this is my hope. 4. bin laden dead at the hands of the us govt is all he needs to become a martyr...doesn't matter how that happens. if he's imprisoned, they'll be rallied around that in the same way. 5. agreed that intelligence is crucial...but putting a stranglehold on these groups (as mentioned in my previous post) is the obvious goal of good intelligence. preventing them from being as solidly organized as they might otherwise be...
