We lost innocents too. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
**
As seen by yesterdays events, America is already quite villified.
**
We would still have plenty of friends. We didn’t lose much international ground when we nuked those Japanese.
**
Simple: just bomb the shit out of any third world country building nukes. Race over.
**
I don’t feel too secure now.
**
If we are crazy enough to do this, countries like China and Iraq would think twice before ever fucking with us.
Terrorism appears to be a contagious disease. It turns mild mannered citizens into madmen.
I was under the impression that Afghanistan was deliberately harboring Bin Ladin and not allowing the US to attempt to find him. If so, then Mr. Bush has already said we would treat the governments that harbor the perpetrator as if they were the perpetrator. That means direct assault on Afghanistan regardless of whether they want to turn him over at this point or not. I expect Bin Ladin would get the hell out of there and continue his activities elsewhere, but he would be handicapped by not having any government protecting him, and any government found protecting him would be attacked. This could get really ugly, or large parts of the world might step up and support us on this. Or we could back off our statements. Too many variables to figure out yet.
My point is, we don’t have to extract Bin Ladin from Afghanistan. If we can prove he’s behind the attack, then Afghanistan will be held responsible. I saw a clip on the news of and afghan politician refusing to cooperate with the US request to extract Bin Laden last year. They acknowledged his presence in their country but would not take action or allow others to take action. This is what is called harboring a fugitive. If they hurry, they could volunteer to disband all of their military and submit to US inspection etc. and then we would have to extract Bin Laden but with the use of bases IN Afghanistan. Whatever else happens, if we confirm Bin Ladin did it, then Afghanistan is screwed.
I heard a guy who was touted as a leading expert on terrorism state that Bin Ladin, though he is wealthy, is not wealthy enough to fund this operation entirely on his own. I’m not sure how costs were calculated, he didn’t say. He said, though, that there was almost certainly some “support from the state level”. If this can be proven, it was an act of war by a foriegn power and we can act appropriately.
I am being told by MikeG on the phone that for every person we take down, three will stand up in reaction to our acts. In some ways I disagree. I think that some will stand in our support. However, I do agree that some will stand against us. Many young Palestinians, for example, will feel greater hatred toward the US. But, they will be untrained and poor and will have to find training and money from somewhere. Any way we can strike against the power base that supports these misguided individuals makes the world a safer place, regardless of how many people we piss off doing it.
I do not advocate intentionally selecting civilian targets. I advocate defending ourselves from acts of war. I advocate telling any attacking government that they must turn over their governments to wiser individuals and submit to US military presence in their countries. As a person who would much prefer peace, I would suggest we investigate the viability of extremely strict embargoes and constant barrages of propanganda. How long can Afghanistan feed itself and maintain a military without international trade? Can we enforce such an embargo? Perhaps we cannot. If not, then can we surgically destroy the government and the military? I hope so. Will this make the Afghan populace hate us? Probably. I suggest that we build schools. I suggest we build schools all over the world and teach people as much as possible about history and all cultures. Give them access to as many versions of history as we can. Let’s teach them ways to research who is telling the truth. Let’s do everything we can to wipe out ignorance worldwide. A little understanding goes a long way toward eliminating hatred. We could start right here in the cities fo the United States where our schools are sadly lacking.
I agree Iran would not likely provide any direct help, but bear in mind they are not at all fans of the Taliban (they almost went to war a couple years ago) or Bin Laden. And there have been tremendous social changes in Iran over the past few years. Perhaps they would provide some clandestine support to our efforts. This could be an opportunity to bury the hatchet over our support of the Shah / their hostage taking once and for all.
Just trying to find some cause for optimism in this mess.
Actually Arab countries don’t like the Taliban much either from what I can tell.
Erek
Oh, how philosophical and profound. I guess that would make Harry S. Truman a genocidal imperialist for nuking Japan, too.
Or was it a way to prevent an estimated 1 million American casualties in a land invasion of that country, just as the nuclear option would prevent America from getting itself involved in another VietNam like USSR did when it invaded Afghanistan?
Oh, and by the way I was NEVER mild mannered! 
When the US was supporting the Afghani side in that war, were we supporting the Taliban? I mean directly, not indirectly.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ace_Face *
**
[QUOTEI agree Iran would not likely provide any direct help, but bear in mind they are not at all fans of the Taliban (they almost went to war a couple years ago) or Bin Laden. And there have been tremendous social changes in Iran over the past few years. Perhaps they would provide some clandestine support to our efforts. **[/QUOTE]
You’re quite right, we might be able to get some clandestine help from Iran. But I do think we can forget about Iran offering its territory as a staging base for invasion as the Saudis so kindly did in 1990. Public feelings are still too bitter, on both sides probably, for that to happen.
Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that; the Taliban clearly doesn’t want to fight a conventional war, so perhaps a peaceful solution is still possible.
After reading up on the Taleban in Afghanistan I’d say they deserve a little smacking around in their own right. No wonder even other diehard Islamic states don’t like these guys very much. They’re real creeps. Here’s just a few of the things that are common practice in Afghanistan now:
[ul]
[li] Amputation for theft[/li][li] Crushing under a wall for sodomy[/li][li] Flogging for drinking alcohol or minor sexual offenses[/li][li] Stoning for sexual impropriety (an affair for example)[/li][li] Public beating for women walking unescorted (escorts must be a relative)[/li][/ul]
Most of the above can be gleaned from Amnesty International’s website.
And so on and so forth. Frankly I hope the Taleban holds firm and gives the US a reason to stomp on them. I can respect religious differences to a point but these people are beyond belief. I knew they were tough but geez…
That said the OP asked about how you fight a war in Afghanistan. The one of the pages to Amnesty (linked above) had this to say about Afghanistan:
So, while the Taleban controls some 80% of the country that 80% is comprised of a very loose coalition. In addition 15% of the countryside is controlled by an opposition group enagaed in armed conflict with the Taleban(I don’t know about the other 5%).
It would seem to me that Afghanistan is a singularly unstable place. It is certainly understandable to me now why they won’t give bin Laden up. They can’t…they simply don’t have the control to do so. However, some of these groups seem a bit mercenary so some money here, some weapons there and FOOM, Afghanistan descends into turmoil. Not a very good place to conduct terrorism operations when you have to constantly defend yourself from neighboring warlords.
The Taleban is between a rock and a hard place and they have to know it. They don’t have the power to give him up but failure to do so may seem them destroyed.
They can’t be very pleased with bin Laden right now for bringing this crap to them.
No. Taliban didn’t even exist until circa 1995. In fact, they overthrew the Mujahidin coalition, the guys America had been supporting. The one Mujahidin commander who had continued fighting the Taliban all this time was (the late?) Ahmad Shah Mas‘ud. The USA had once supported him against the Soviets.
Interesting post, Whack-A-Mole. I would say there is a good chance that we could enlist some of the greedy warlords and stage some kind of a commando action to get bin Laden. Assuming he is guilty, of course.
Though I remember having read a long article, some years ago (and since long time after the soviet left) explaining why the US were still supporting the Taliban (at this time in war with several other factions, including Massoud and also the shias supported by Iran) indirectly, through Pakistan. I can’t remember the specifics, but I do remember it was somehow related to ensuring the security of an important pipe line which was to be build somewhere in this region. If someone remember some more specifics elements or can point me to some link, I would be interested.
On the other hand, my understanding was that Bin Laden was very close to the Taliban leader. If it’s actually the case, I suppose it would be quite easy to find him.
However, my understanding is that there are a struggle for power amongst the talibans, between two factions. The first one want to establish a muslim regime in Afghanistan and their main goal is to insure their control of the country, while the other one is “internationalist” and want Afhganistan to become the head of the islamic movement accross the whole muslim world.
It seems to me that the latter is supported by a number of foreign volunteer fighters who came in Afghanistan to help the taliban fighting their war, and who benefit from a lot of support and funding from Saudi Arabia and the UAE in particular (I don’t mean by the governements of these countries, though I don’t know for sure, either).
Taking out bin Laden would not be enough. His organization, as diffuse as it is, needs to be taken out as well. That will require time for intelligence gathering and action against it. Whatever immediate retaliation the USA takes, I expect that the world is in for a sea change in how the USA deals with terrorism in the long term – probably a much more proactive and covert approach.
No nuclear weapons ahould be used. That will invite nuclear terrorism. Past that, a steady campaign of bombing will do the trick. We could even be nice and limit civilian deaths by allowing them to evacuate their cities before we reduce them to rubble.
If their cities are their only infrastructure, take them out. Make the Afghani people suffer for their complicity in such an atrocity. If another attempt is made, repeat the same policy until there is no longer a need to.
How have Bush Incorporated and America treated the Taliban in the last year? Have a look.
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm
We supported the Taliban with money directly. Officially it was “aid”, but most of the money didn’t go to people in need.
Afghanistan does not have the resources to evacuate cities. And the Taliban would not care about limiting civilian deaths.
They have no infrastructure, as discussed above. And the people of Afghanistan are starving to death. And the country is mostly rural anyway.
The Afghani people have not been complicit in any atrocity. The Afghani people are starving, have no medical supplies, and are cowering in fear of being massacred by the Taliban. Still, I doubt that any amount of facts would matter to you members of the “bomb first, think later” school of thought.
The Taliban are a sorry case. They are hated all over the Arab and Muslim world. Iran actually expressed readiness to “combat terrorism” in Afghanistan; it sees the Taliban as a threat that should be neutralized. The Taliban leaders seems to be hate figures among the Iranis.
Their only sympathizers seem to be the Pakistanis, and this is more because of geographical and cultural proximity than because of political affiliation.
IMHO, the most likely scenario is an invasion of Afghanistan over the Russian border (across CIS states, of course). It’s the chance for the Russians to exact revenge for their earlier defeat.
But be warned - Afghanistan has been said to be one of two countries in the world that CANNOT be occupied because of its arid mountainous terrain (the other one is Yemen). The British were defeated there before the Russians. It won’t be easy, and it won’t be quick.
I am shocked at Vinnie Virginslayer’s reply. I can understand grief and shock cloud one’s judgement, but how can you justify the nonsense below??
The Taleban is a terrorist organization that has taken over most of Afghanistan by force. The people of Afghanistan are not the enemy here–god knows they have endured enough war so far. Your suggestion to nuke Afghanistan is idiocy for reasons that are too evident to discuss. The US, certainly NATO may have learned a lesson from bombing Serbia.
Perhaps you haven’t heard the famous reference quoted by various Moslems these past couple days, that killing innocents is just plain wrong? It’s wrong no matter what religion you are.
It is foolish to take the actions of a few men and make them representative of large groups of people, entire nations, ethnic groups, or religions. Particularly when you know nothing yet about who is behind this. Most nations and most relevant organizations have expressed sorrow and condolences about the atacks. From what I have seen on the media, there has been a global show of support for the US following these atrocities, quite the opposite from vilification.
The Japanese were a known, organized, and relentless enemy nation that was at war with the US and several other nations. That’s why it was called a World War, and that’s why it warranted two nuclear strikes. Not to say they were morally right.
No, if anything that would mean America over, if not by military means, by economic ones. But this is as stupid a suggestion as I have heard yet in a couple of days of very stupid suggestions, and I doubt it is serious!
That is the nature of terror. You don’t know where it will strike from. You don’t even know who is responsible. Terrorism is a problem that often cannot be equated to a specific country or target, at least not until you identify exactly who was responsible. The security of decades of arms control has nothing to do with cowards who lurk in shadows. We’re trying to move forward here, not undo all the work that has been done so far.
What a strange and simplistic worldview you express. I hope this is your anger talking. It is sad to say this, but the terrorist attacks were probably targeted at such might makes right attitudes as you have expressed. That doesn’t justify the terror, any more than your comments are justified.
These are difficult times, and the world is not going to get by on ignorance. As Ehud Barak said, this is a time to unite against terrorism. it is not a time to slander ethnic or religious groups that are considered controversial.
I’m still shaking my head in disbelief at this.
Absolutely unbelievable.
From here: