1) What exactly is my track record? 2) What exactly is my track record? 3) It was an an-al-o-gy. I thought that I could use an obnoxiously asinine set of comments to make a point to Space Ghost. I think I may have succeeded. BTW, aren't you the person that agreed w/ Robertson and Falwell after they made utterly hateful comments at a time of national tragedy? Was that you? That couldn't have been you. If it were, I'd have to tell you to go **** yourself you hypocritical schmuck. As such, since it wasn't you... I can say nice things like "all my best", or "yours", Achebe.
Hundreds of thousands of Afghans to die due to Operation Enduring Peace Let's quit quibbling over 20 or 400. Hundreds of thousands will die due to needless starvation aggravated by the war In Afghanistan. Before I present my proof/argument below I would like to know from the hardliners if you could have avoided say a half million Afghan deaths, but had to wait a year or two to bring bin Laden and gang to justice would you have done so? The raw data from the UN program which tries to get food to starving people. http://www.wfp.org/index.asp?section=2 An argument from "the professor" Jensen at UT. http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen7.html Note: I'm convinced that there will be that amount of collateral damage. Sorry, that is just the way things work. In our civil war most died of infections not guns or cannons. In a country where they're on the verge of starvation anyway, the travelling around fleeing figthing and disruption of what little order alrady existed is enough to finish off large number of the poulation who were already completely destitute and weakened. When the US got Pakistan to close down their border it prevented among other things the bulk of the food support. Inconvenient for feel good PR purposes, yet true. I'm not sure I buy all of Jensen's argument regarding us goading the Taliban into war.
Jesus, glynch. You're really starting to stretch it now... For starters, there's been a drought in Afghanistan for the past three years, and that is the primary reason that people are starving there. There has also been one war or another going on there for over 20 years - long before we got there - which contributes to the starvation. In addition, it is a known fact that the Taliban regularly steals the food aid workers attempt to dispense to the people; we will put an end to that. If we don't intervene (which seems silly to speculate on, since the intervention has already started ) then hundreds of thousands of people will starve. But if we do then we can start bringing in food convoys and not have to worry about the Taliban stealing it all before it gets to the people it's supposed to get to. You might as well give up your America-bashing and anti-war rhetoric, because in case you haven't noticed, the war has already started, and it will continue whether you like it or not. And incidentally, for the hundredth time, we didn't start this war, but we'd be fools not to finish it.
US response to the Taliban: Bring us evidence that 20 civilians have been killed by US bombs. US pilots do not have the capability to kill civilians. The pilots are a "guest" of the United States. We have taken away their planes and their bombs and their cell phones. We have confined the pilots to house arrest. If there is any evidence of a crime, we will try the pilots in our own country with our own jury. Sound good to you? Sincerely, George W. Bush
Treeman, you and I both admit that the previous war and drought contributed to the starvation. It is the addition of the new war and disruption that will starve hundreds of thousands more. Even though the war has started it is not too late to stop the mass starvation. To do so will require about 100 times the small fig leaf food drops that are being publicized. It is true that some of the food will get to the taliban. Again how many civilians are you ready to starve to keep any food from going to the taliban? A victory over the taliban and bin Laden is not predicated on starving the taliban, who have the guns and will be the last to forgo a meal. Even though the US can temporarily cover up how many die needlessly during our war the facts will come out and will create more hatred of the US. Note how our role in the killing of children in Iraq has been well known in the Middle East for a long time and is even becoming more widely known in the U.S. Likewise, a massive food relief effort (to the point of being effective) by the US would be known, too and would lead to not only less loss of life but a real public relations victory in the Middle East, not just a temporary one in the US. Oh well, I don't think conservatives have the will to fight terrorism on this level. They hate government spending and taxes unless it is on armaments.
glynch, you just don't get it. Once we have taken the lowland towns, villages, and cities we can start bringing in convoys of food and medicine, and aid agencies can send their people in without having to worry about the Taliban. Until we take those towns on the ground all we can do is make air drops, and we're doing as much of that as we can. But any convoys we send on the ground right now will be intercepted by the Taliban, as they usually have been in the past. We are not going to keep feeding the Taliban. As for Iraq, you appear (again) to be a victim of Saddam's propaganda machine, which happens to be intimately tied wo the Palestinian propaganda machine. The fact of the matter is that the Kurds in the north eat better and are better cared for in terms of medicine and general health care than the southern and central portions of Iraq. Look at WHO stats if you don't believe me. And guess why they're healthier? Because that's the sector where we are responsible for their health. It is a well known fact that Saddam hoards the food and medicine that has been sent to his regime to be distributed to the people. And Iraq makes plenty of money in the oil for food program - it actually sells more oil than it did in 1990. Where do you think all that money is going? WMD programs are expensive. Iraq will be much better off when we remove Saddam. But first things first: let's remove the Taliban and liberate Afghanistan.
liberate the afghanis and put the northern alliance in power? do i need to mention again their track record on drugs and sex slaves? by the way these arguments are kind of what was said by kipling in the white man's burden. because our western values and civilization is a lot better then what they have..and it doesn't really matter if they like it or not but we know its best for them. no one needs to 'liberate' them. we just got to stop having these horrible foreign policies. we need to stop supporting the 'lesser' of the evils. terrorists are terrorists. dictators are dictators. it doesn't matter who's side their on. and power corrupts everyone that desires it. and sure the kurds might be better off (i have no clue if they are or not) yet the fact remains we did back out from the commitment of helping them overthrow saddam. and the hundreds of thousands of kids in iraq that have died are direct results of the 'terroristic' sanctions. period. you can't get around it. and did it get saddam out of power? what did it accomplish? nothing. the hospitals in iraq don't have bleach because bleach can supposedly be used in chemical warfare. they also do c-sections without anesthesia. that money goes to a central account. and only selected companies can sell them whatever. every item is checked by some group which deems amonia a dual purpose item hence its not allowed to buy it or at least no amount that would be needed. plus since only selected companies can sell items that means they can jack up the price all they want.
Do I need to mention again the Taliban record on drugs (largest producer of opium in the world, who has vowed to flood the streets of America with heroin) and sex slaves (which includes ALL women under their rule, since they aren't allowed to do anything else)? How about their record for public executions? How about their record for persecution of ethnic and religious minorities? How about their mass censorship of the media? How about their sponsorship of terrorism ??? The Northern Alliance will be much less oppressive than the Taliban, any way you look at it. And we will be looking over their shoulders to make sure that they are. Your Taliban buddies are history, boy. As for Iraq, we should have taken Saddam out in 1991. That is a mistake we will not repeat this time. We should not have abandoned the opposition in 1991. That is a mistake we will not repeat this time. Hundreds of thousands of people have died not because of the sanctions - that is Saddam's propaganda; their deaths are an integral part of his propaganda. Hundreds of thousands of people have died because Saddam's Ba'ath party has refused to distribute the food and medicine we send him. We send him food and medicine for his people, and he gives it to his army and puts the rest in warehouses - that is a fact. And when little kids die because he didn't give them the medicine and food that was intended for them, he uses their deaths as a propaganda tool to say "Look! The evil US is killing innocent Iraqi children!", when in fact those innocent children are deliberately killed by him in order to stir up hatred for the US and get the sanctions lifted - so he can fully rebuild his army. You apparently want the Taliban to remain in power. I'm guessing that you also want Saddam to rebuild his army? I think it would be alot safer for everyone if those two pimples were removed from the face of the earth. How you can apparently believe that their continued existence will have a stabilizing effect on the world is beyond me.
