All of these profs (left, right, whatever...) want to be guaranteed to say whatever they want and to soak up as much taxpayer jack as they want. If Graglia wasn't canned for his politically incorrect views at UT, I doubt that Jensen will have anything happen to him.
John Rocker is the perfect example of the consequences of exercising your freedom of speech. Rocker is allowed to voice his backwoods cousin marrying opinion and the general public is allowed to voice their opinion of what an utter moron he is, JUST like they are doing to Jensen. Both expressed an extremely idiotic opinion, which is their right, and now they are paying the consequences.
The problem, of course, is the employer. Jensen is employed by the government. Thus, if he was to be fired, that would be an action by the government. The Constitution was meant first and foremost to apply to government action, so that is where a problem might lie. In the case of Rocker, much like Bill Maher, they have private employers and while they are entitled to the right to express their opinion, they are not necessarily entitled to their jobs. They did retain their jobs (though Rocker was eventually shipped to Cleveland and Maher's show lost some sponsors), most likely because their employers decided that they were still worthwhile to their organizations. I'm in favor of the idea that free speech entitles you to voice your opinion, but that if a government cans an employee because of their opinion, that does not violate their right to speak. Jensen can still voice his opinion whether or not he is a UT prof, right?
Glynch, It is generally agreed that Afghanistan will have a new government in place after the US action is concluded in that area. The US, Russia, Iran and Pakistan all agree on the point that change is needed. It seems that the Taliban are the only <i>government</i> ignoring that future event. Is it because they think that the US forces can be defeated or because they are on a jihad that will serve as an inspiration to others around the world? If they think that victory is possible, then they are even more foolish than previously thought and need to be removed as quickly as possible. If their aim is serving as martyrs for others, they are harming the needy in Afghanistan by their selfish act of prolonging the conflict. Neither you or boy offer alternatives to the Taliban-US conflict without their removal by armed force. After the events of September 11, 2001, do you expect the US and other countries to be in a giving/humanitarian mood when it has been proven that the same Taliban that support bin Laden also impede aid shipments? If the US decided to follow the antiwar path and let the Taliban remain in power, they would continue to interfere with aid shipments and distribution as noted in my previous post. Since only a handful of countries had/have recognized the Taliban government, isn't that an indication that something is terribly wrong at the core level? The Taliban rode to power with training and support from the Pakistan military which is now being stopped by the US action in Afghanistan. General/President Musharraf of Pakistan has been assured that the next government will have a broad reach with Pushtan participation which is the core ethnic group of the Taliban. The Taliban/Pushtan have a strong following in the adjoining border areas with Pakistan and that reassurance was one of the conditions to obtain Pakistani government support. There are still open lines of communication between the Taliban and Pakistan government and the Taliban are foolish for prolonging the inevitable endgame and not cutting a deal with the US. Will more deaths occur because of the escalation in military action action? Maybe in some areas, but it should be offset by increased aid and infrastructure in other areas of Afghansitan that the Taliban have been ignoring. There are numerous sources (pre 9-11-01) available noting the millions in peril this winter due to drought and continued strife in Afghanistan between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. boy wrote: <i>yeah only a couple hundred thousand kids will die this winter due to no food. thats all. food shipments have to start NOW. Winter will begin in a few weeks............ </i> The ideal solution to the humanitarian crisis is for the Taliban to cut the best diplomatic deal possible and turn over their airfields to the US forces to allow massive humanitarian airlifts from other countries. Only the US has the infrastructure, equipment and manpower to facilitate that needed effort. Will the Taliban take that initiative and do the right thing for their countrymen? How can I find facts to counter boy when all he provided was a prediction? Do you and boy think that ultimately more Afghanistani lives would be saved by allowing the Taliban to stay in power and continue to obstruct humanitarian aid? Mango
Mango, much of your post is devoted to saying the Taliban is bad ( I agree). You argue for force to get bin Laden and his terrorists. I agree. I agree, provided we are extremely serious about limiting the collateral damage and that includes preventing needless starvation. You do make some good points regarding food which is what I'm talking about. I agree that if in the long run the US shows a sustained interest in Afghanistan after the Taliban are defeated they could improve the food situation compared to what it was before the current war when the Taliban was in power. After the defeat of the Soviets we had a chance to do so, but did not. We didn't do enough to be real efective before 911. But things are different and we are trying to court Arab public opinion, now so I am hopeful. As you state with the Taliban removed, more countries might want to contribute to the relief effort. Your article from AID showing that the taliban interfered with food shipments was not very strong, though it did showsome periodic interference. A reasonable argument could be made that the immediate effect of this war given the depleted of the people and the impending winter would exceed any interference by the Taliban. (I am not defending the Taliban, just talking about one issue the number of people dying of starvation,) You also say: Will more deaths occur because of the escalation in military action action? Maybe in some areas, but it should be offset by increased aid and infrastructure in other areas of Afghansitan that the Taliban have been ignoring. This is arguably and hopefully true, but I haven't seen anyone else assert this. I don't think this argument puts the priority on the fate of the starving tht I'm urging. Many relief workers who are concerned about the Afghan starvation are urging a break in our bombing to allow massive food shipments by truck in before the winter sets in. If we intend to actually save these people after the war, why not start now? This provides a reality test for our priorities. From a strictly military point of view it would delay our inevitable victory. It would also save many lives and would provide some solid evidence that we really do care about Afgahans and Arab lives. With the Taliban devoid of air power and afraid to come out in the open it should be possible to continue many aspects of our war effort while actually protecting the food convoys. I believe that we would do this if the people were Europeans or viewed of great strategic importance to us. Talk and tiny pr food drops are cheap. The actual proof of our humanitarian concern provided by break in the war for serious food relief would even greatly help in combatting the hatred of the US in the region which is one of the underlying causes of the terrorism. What do you think about at least a partial break in our war effort to allow the food in?
glynch, I would rather the Taliban quit now than have a temporary recess in the military action. Why are the Taliban prolonging this? OK.....we will go with your concept of a break in action to allow aid agencies to operate in that country. If the Taliban interfered with aid in the past (pre 9-11-01), what makes you think that they will suddenly become benevolent and allow the relief agencies to perform unencumbered now? The US should be able to get aid to areas not controlled by the Taliban, but who protects aid agencies in Taliban areas? glynch wrote: <b> Your article from AID showing that the taliban interfered with food shipments was not very strong, though it did showsome periodic interference. A reasonable argument could be made that the immediate effect of this war given the depleted of the people and the impending winter would exceed any interference by the Taliban........ </b> I have links that mention taxes, vehicle theft and other devious actions by the Taliban against aid agencies post 9-11-01, but was waiting for your associate boy to acknowledge my first post in this thread that refuted his assertion of lies. More links you want? Here you go: <A HREF="http://www.db.idpproject.org/Sites/IdpProjectDb/idpSurvey.nsf/1c963eb504904cde41256782007493b8/ccc2811ddf333031c12569190047eafa?OpenDocument">Tajik minority faces harassment and forced displacement </A> <i> As part of a policy of forced displacement, Tajiks' houses and agricultural infrastructure have been burned and destroyed. 8,000 children and women have reportedly been separated from the men and relocated and held prisoner in a camp near Jalalabad. They have later been transfered to the ex-Soviet Embassy. "In August [1999] the Taleban systematically burned the houses and crops and destroyed the agricultural infrastructure of Tajik civilians living in areas north of Kabul as part of a policy of forcible displacement. Hundreds of children and young men were reportedly recruited by the Taleban from destitute families in Kabul and elsewhere to cut Tajik-owned vine trees and to seal their irrigation tunnels. Among the tens of thousands of Tajiks from the Shamali plains forcibly displaced in August were some 8,000 children, women and elderly men reportedly separated by the Taleban from their male relatives and sent to the deserted Sarshahi camp near Jalalabad where they were effectively held prisoner by Taleban guards. Following international concern about their situation, the Taleban moved them to the bombed-out former Russian embassy in Kabul. Tens of thousands of Tajik families who fled to the Panjshir valley received meagre assistance from the international community until late November when the Taleban agreed to the despatch of UN humanitarian aid from Kabul." (AI, January 2000) </i> <A HREF="http://www.isn.ethz.ch/infoservice/index.cfm?service=cwn&parent=special50">Taliban seize de-mining vehicles</A> <i> Taliban seize de-mining vehicles On Wednesday a UN spokeswoman said the Taliban have seized three UN vehicles in the militia's southern stronghold of Kandahar and have been seen driving them around the city. UN coordinator's office spokeswoman Stephanie Bunker said the vehicles, which had been used for mine clearing operations, were appropriated this week after the Taliban took over the UN office in Kandahar. The Taliban seized the UN offices in Kandahar and placed a communications blackout on other UN operations late last month following the pullout of international aid workers. Bunker said Afghan UN staff that remained now had only minimal communications inside the country, which is in the midst of a deepening humanitarian crisis. The UN has warned the Taliban that vital relief efforts might have to be stopped in the areas affected by the communications blackout. There have been other reports of groups of armed men raiding aid agency offices in the capital Kabul and trying to steal four-wheel-drive vehicles as the Taliban mobilize their forces for possible US attacks. </i> <A HREF="http://www.islam-online.net/english/News/2001-01/22/article8.shtml">Taliban Deny Massacre in Central Afghanistan</A> <i> Taliban Deny Massacre In Central Afghanistan KABUL (News Agencies) - The Taliban in Afghanistan rejected Sunday reports from U.N. officials that soldiers of the ruling militia massacred some 100 civilians after recapturing a central Afghan town from the opposition. Senior spokesman Abdul Hai Mutmaen said Taliban soldiers did not target the local population in Yakawlang in Bamiyan province after they retook the district last month. "We did not need to confront the local population. They are our supporters," Mutmaen said. Speaking from the Taliban's Kandahar headquarters in southern Afghanistan he acknowledged that some people had been killed after the fighting, but he blamed the retreating opposition for murdering them to defame the Taliban. "The opposition troops are used to these things. They have supporters and adversaries there. They kill their own old rivals," Mutmaen said. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, reportedly accused Taliban forces of massacring non-combatants in Yakawlang. In a statement released over the weekend, Annan said the U.N. had received numerous reports that the Taliban had deliberately attacked and killed civilians in this remote and impoverished part of the war-torn country. "Since then there have been numerous credible reports of widespread summary executions of Hazara civilians by the Taliban who apparently accused the local population of supporting the Hezb-e-Wahdat," the statement said. Ethnic Hazaras are mostly Shiite Muslims while Taliban are Sunni Pushtuns, Afghanistan's majority ethnic group. "The Secretary General is very concerned about reports that civilians were deliberately targeted and killed during [the] recent fighting," the statement said. "It appears that more than 100 people may have been killed, including Afghan humanitarian workers. In addition, a United Nations local staff member is missing," the statement said. Annan urged the Taliban to control their soldiers and bring those responsible to book. The Taliban spokesman said it was possible that the opposition had killed local aid workers in order to steal their vehicles. Yakawlang, which the anti-Taliban Hezb-e-Wahdat faction briefly seized last month is now quiet and the local population is able to continue with normal daily life, he said. </i> Again I ask, who will provide security for aid agencies in Taliban areas? Mango
You just don't get it. Send in any food right now - even if we halt all bombing - and 1) the Taliban will intercept the convoys and steal the food, and 2) they will likely assault the aid workers and steal their vehicles. It is simply not safe to run convoys yet. The reality is that we are moving the campaign forward very slowly - we're only attacking at about 10% of our capacity. This disturbs me. We could defeat the Taliban decisively within 3 days if we laid it on full force, but instead we are holding our punches and prolonging the war. We are, of course, doing this because we want a coalition government (and not just the Northern Alliance) to be in place when the Taliban is finally defeated, but it makes more sense to me to get rid of the Taliban and then form a coalition govt. That would of course also permit aid convoys to run earlier. Of course, we're waiting on the Afghani tribal chiefs and the UF to agree to this coalition govt... I wonder how worried they are about a famine? The Taliban will be dispersed to the mountains by winter, and the famine - which was going to happen whether or not we attacked - will largely be avoided. Those pockets of Taliban-supporting areas that still remain by then may not get any aid... But the humanitarian disaster will be averted. And quit worrying about collateral damage so much. The Afghanis should be thanking us that our bombs are so accurate. Accidents will happen, but we are about as good at avoiding them as you can get. BTW, did you hear about the Taliban plan to poison food shipments from America? So that when their own people ate it and died they could blame America???? The sooner they are gone the better. Halting the bombing will not get them out of power any faster.
Mango, You said: I would rather the Taliban quit now than have a temporary recess in the military action. Your argument essentially is the Taliban interfere (always?)with food relief, therefore no point in trying major food relief till they are overthrown. You offer proof that they have massacred people and destroyed crops of an opposition ethnic group that is the core of the Northern Alliance, that they interfered with demining. (I assume you would join me in criticizing the US for being against the land mine convention at the UN). The Taliban actions you cite are all crimes against humanity, and typical of many wars, but not that supportive of your argument that they interfere with all food aid, so why try till they're deposed. The Taliban would argue the same as many in the US. Military and political objectives first. The starvation was just collateral damage that they could not prevent because they were fighting a civil war. They would get around to food policies after the war ended. Again, I'm not trying to defend the Taliban. I'm talking about our actions. In the past many Americans would in response to any criticism of the US would say well "at least we're better than the Russians." True, but not really conducive to progress. It is still a matter of priorities. Risk massive starvation during the winter or risk that elements of the Taliban and bin Laden survive till the winter. My position is let's put the priority on preventing starvation, we are going to get bin Laden and the Taliban relatively soon anyway.
glynch, Just so you don't overlook this question again, this post is short and sweet. <b> Who will provide security for aid agencies in Taliban areas? </b> Mango
News Flash: the famine was projected before 9/11 - it is not going to be caused because of our attacks. Say it with me: three year drought. Oh yeah, 20+ years of internal civil war and a Soviet invasion. And oh yeah, instead of growing wheat they've been growing opium poppies... If it does happen it was going to happen anyway. If it does not happen then you can credit that to our intervention. How many times will these simple facts need to be pointed out to you?
Treeman, you said: The reality is that we are moving the campaign forward very slowly - we're only attacking at about 10% of our capacity. This disturbs me. We could defeat the Taliban decisively within 3 days if we laid it on full force, but instead we are holding our punches and prolonging the war. Are you talking about a full scale nuclear attack? ? Your 3 day statement seems to be at odds with all public statements of the President and our military leaders. I've heard the initial charges by the Taliban that we are poisoning the food and the countercharges in response by the US. that they they will poison the food. Just so there is no misunderstanding. I don't believe the US would poison the food. The Taliban might, however. At this point much more likely that the US is leveling poisoning charges to stir public support against the Taliban. One can support the US military action without blindly believing every propaganda statement.
No, no nukes necessary, glynch. We dropped 10 bombs yesterday on the frontline positions north of Kabul. We could easily have dropped 10 times that amount. Three days and the UF could be in Kabul, we could have taken Kandahar, and the Taliban troops in the field could be leaderless and in disarray. I am actually a bit disappointed that we didn't keep the Kandahar airbase in that Ranger raid. We took control of it and then just left when we found the intel we were looking for... Three days if we wanted to. As for the poison allegation, that was apparently discovered in that very raid. They raided Omar's base (which happens to be at the military airfield at Kandahar) and stole all of his notes... I don't think it was propaganda.
Mango, First, where is your proof that aid agencies can't work at all in Taliban areas? They were working before we started our war. Are you worried about the food falling into the Taliban's hands? Are you arguing better to let 10 starve than to feed one Talibani sp? Remember the last to starve will be the Taliban, food aid or no food aid. Second, the US owns the air so it can provide security on the main highways, even in Taliban areas. In addition the food agencies who want the cessation already have working relationships with the Taliban. Why not let them decide if they can do it instead of making your assumptions and denying them the opportunity. Third, you're tough and fun to argue with but I really have to do some work today. I think we have beaten this horse to death.
First off, air cover cannot provide escort to a civilian convoy. What do they do when the Taliban start pulling the drivers out of the trucks, bomb the trucks (and the drivers)? Only ground forces can do convoy escort. Second, 'working relationship'? It's a pretty one-sided relationship, as the Taliban have enforced a communications blackout, occupied their offices, and assault them (and stolen their vehicles). The aid workers aren't going to be safe until the hostilities are over, and a break in the bombing would only prevent an accident by our forces - not a confiscation by the Taliban. The Taliban probably have some idea of what's coming, and they are going to need a lot of food to survive the winter. So if you want to prolong the war into next spring, then go ahead and send the convoys before we have the ground routes secured. I guarantee the Taliban will take the food, because aid convoys are going to be their only source of food this winter.
You don't think that the warhas caused a change in environment? Would you allow aid workers from a country that is bombing the hel out of you into your country? Would you not think of ways you could use that against said country? If the war stopped for a while, the Taliban would be stupid NOT to disrupt aid, take hostages, etc. The US's rel crime with this issue is that, once the Soviets ended the war, we no longer had use for Afghanastan. Instead of working to help them recover and regain some of ther many progresses pre-invasion, we left them in the wind. Criticising the US's lack of ground aid at this specific moment is silly. The only option now that the war has started is to do what they can with minimal losses on both sides, and then make up with the people, in order to mitigate any more anti-US sentiment.
glynch your entire point of criticizing the U.S. for not giving food support on the ground is silly. This isn't some kids game, this is war. You don't think they'd kill the aids workers? The Taliban has already shown he doesn't care about his people, at least above his own interest, so of course he would take the food, blow up trucks, and take hostages. Do you SERIOUSLY think that the Taliban would let the U.S. get these supplies in there? Just when the war started the Taliban threatened to execute any aid workers who stayed in the country, what do you think they would do now?
most of the aid workers are afghani. they work for foreign aid agencies though. thats how they get food to go in right now. drivers are afghani.
glynch, Just getting you current on things since we last discussed them. <A HREF="http://www.paknews.com/main.php?id=2&date1=2001-11-09">Bin Laden Granted Afghan Nationality</A> After reading that article, seems doubtful the negotiating idea that you advocated will work. <A HREF="http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/08/top11.htm">Taliban fighters taking shelter in refugee camps: UNHCR</A> <A HREF="http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/08/top13.htm">WFP starts food airlift to northern Afghanistan</A> Mango
Mango.,interesting sites. You are probably right they weren't discussing the extradition in good faith. However we will never know. We had a month buildup prior to the start of our attacks. We could have used the buildup time time to also find our one way or the other. This is common sense, not complicated. We rejected the offers immediately so we just won't know. It would have even been smart from a world opinion viwpoint to have discussed the offers for a time limited period. What were the downsides? Do you advocate no negotiations ever with enemies? After we started the war, and refused any discussion of extradition to a third country they made him a citizen. The citizenship is not exactly proof that they would not have turned him over. It is slightly relevant, though. Things change once war starts. Positions harden. Do you not agree that US positions toward the Taliban also changed when we were attacked? Do you argue that they are not human and normal human dynamics don't apply to them in any aspect? So the Taliban is trying to capture food and thereby disrupting food relief efforts. This doesn't change the fact that once we started, the war and bombing itself disrupted the food relief. So at best we have both the Taliban and the US responsible for disrupting food supplies. Don't you expect better behavior from the US than the Taliban? I'm glad they have resumed food shipments in Northern Afganistan. Better late than never. Why not the South? where I believe most of the poulation lives. Are you advocating using food at a weapon? Trying to starve the Taliban and the Pushtuns out? Won't this lead to more hatred of the US? By the way, I haven't investigated it yet, but doesn't that Dawn newpaper seem pretty anti-taliban? How does this square with theflat out assertion that Pakistan is not our ally?
I find it humorous that Jensen cries it is our 'duty' as citizens to be involved in government and policy, except for those 'citizens' who involve themselves in the process with the aim of getting his punk ass fired. It would seem that as a citizen and taxpayer, sitting down and writing a letter to a public official (UT President), advocating a specific course of action (Jensen's firing) and support of a general policy (don't be devisive when we're at war), IS THE VERY INVOLVEMENT Jensen claims to support.
