Collounsbury, with all due respect, please notice that last line in my OP. While I am certainly proposing ideas, I do try to remain receptive to new ones as well. My invitation of them was not decorative. I seek solutions to some of the thorniest issues with my inquiries. As is far too common at these boards, people feel free to criticize without making any valid suggestions of their own. You display a competent knowledge of the politics surrounding this mess, so I would like to ask you a few questions that I consider pertinent to this entire issue.
A) Do you think that the Taleban should be allowed any active role in the future government of Afghanistan?
B) Do you think that the Taleban’s ultrarepressive and violent treatment of women is not on the scale of war crimes?
C) Do you not see the Taleban and their participation in terrorism as a continuing threat to the stability of the entire region and potentially the globe?
D) What are the alternatives to detaining the Taleban in order to neutralize their effect upon the region?
E) What redress should be sought against the Taleban and its supporters?
F) Are you unwilling to draw comparisons to the violently antisemetic dogma of the Taliban and their callous disregard of human life with the doctrine or conduct of the Nazis?
In closing, the Nazis certainly required some re-education. It is a process that Germany is going through to this day as it continues to confront the ugly reality of remenant Nazism within its borders. I have an extremely difficult time seeing how we can blithely release the Taleban and its adherents back into the Afghan population’s mainstream without instantaneously inviting a repeat of what has gone before.
PS: While you might be rude or aggravating at times you at least seek to balance it with the inclusion of knowledge. For that reason alone I am willing to put up with quite a lot of the former. Dissemination of information is far more precious the maintaining decorum in such important matters.
The site to which you linked put the allied ground forces at 45,000 and the Taleban forces at 50,000. That is about 3 divisions, each. Not enormous by normal military analysis. In addition, standard military theory has long proposed a 2 1/2 to 1 ratio for an invading force to overwhelm a defending force (moving to 4 to 1 if the defenders are entrenched). Our 45,000 is smaller than their 50,000. Technology will go a very long way toward enlarging the apparent size of our forces, but we are still not looking at anything resembling an enormous build-up.
Granted, the issues concerning stability in the region are pertinent to the OP, but you are making assertions based on your opinion and pretending them to be fact, especially in re Pakistan’s stability. And by blathering on about Rambo, you only reveal your own predisposition to the American public.
Come on, you were wrong. Is it so difficult for you to admit that?
So this is the “correct understanding” of military goals? The strategy is not concieved (sic) to break up any al-Qaeda cell in the US, but to destroy “a part of future capacity”? What does this mean? To destroy future capacity in the US, thus disrupting the terrorist networks there (as I stated)? Or to destroy future capacity elsewhere, thus disrupting terrorist networks around the world (also noted)? I don’t see how this differs from my “incorrect understanding”, but it was a nice attempt at a jab to divert attention from your ridiculous statement (“invading Afghanistan…does nothing to break up al-Qaeda in the USA”).
From Naval Postgraduate School:
“[al-Qaeda] also serves as a focal point or umbrella organization for a worldwide network that includes many Sunni Islamic extremist groups such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad, some members of al-Gama’at al-Islamiyya, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and the Harakat ul-Mujahidin.”
These are not “more or less one in the same.” They are different terrorist groups with some crossover acting in different regions of the world. And the fact that al-Qaeda is considered a “focal point or umbrella organization” implies its importance may be different and greater than the others - thus a group we’ve never dealt with resulting (hopefully) in a ripple affect when destroyed.
Again, can’t you just say, “Gee, I guess I was wrong. We’s got a whole shedload of army folks over der”?
Sigh. Again, no one brought up Rambo except you.
I don’t understand why this is a “radical transformation of Afghan mores”? Who should run Afghanistan after the Taliban has (hopefully) been dismantled? Someone has to. And the OP wasn’t talking about a “radical transformation”, it was talking about giving the Taliban a bit of its own medicine. And while I agree it’s highly unlikely, I don’t see it as being a “radical transformation”, just a little revenge, esp. for women. And I’m sure I don’t have to tell you how women are viewed by Islam compared to how they are viewed by the Taliban. Right?
Um, so which is it? [“Snort”]
This I don’t follow at all. Never heard it before, either. You’re suggesting we fly through Russian airspace - way up North - in order to get to Afghanistan? Why would we do that when there are already bases in Turkey and Kuwait? Because of Muslim sentiment? Hmmm. And if we did set up bases in the “Stans”, we still wouldn’t be flying through Russian airspace.
But it’s sooooooooo easy.
“Invading Afghanistan…does nothing to break up al-Qaeda in the USA.” Fact or fiction?
“To do so would require a base. Pakistan is the only real choice for that. Pakistan is not going to allow that, if the government did so…” Fact or fiction?
“When you hear talk of al-Qaeda cells, it means GIA, it means al-Gamaa al-Islamiya.” Fact or fiction?
“Enormous.” Nuff said.
“Everybody’s stupid except me. I know everything there is to know about this.” (paraphrase)
I know this hurts your ego, but you are wrong. Live with it.
Ideally, we provide the people of Afghanistan with a viable, stable society they can support and in which they can flourish – as should have been done after the Soviet war concluded. Easier said than done.
However, I think it’s worth noting that goal (apparently) remains high on the agenda given the circumspect nature of the bombing campaign – bombing, at this point, being used as a tool to exert pressure and see what emerges (by way of an alternative leadership) rather than to defeat the Taliban. As well as, of course, satiating domestic demand for big bangs within the US (keep taking the pills President Musharraf).
Almost everything we are doing (and that’s a whole range of things besides bombing) appears to me to be designed to generate an indigenous alternative and I think that’s where you’re confusing two objectives, Zenster. Seeking the perpetrators of 9/11 and those who shelter them is one thing (and has the support of the international community, including the tepid support of much of the Islamic world), targeting the Taliban because we don’t like what they are doing internally in Afghanistan is another game all together – we should remain clear thinking about the perspective we need to spin to the Islamic public.
So (as per your OP), talk of internment camps, of humiliating the Taliban by mocking fundamentalist Islam and of breaching the base tenets of our belief system in relation to Human Rights is not impressive and achieves very little indeed, save for an emotional quick fix.
The goal is to seek justice for 9/11, by extension, to destroy the terrorists organisations using Afghanistan as a base and to stabilise the country. Sure, the Taliban leadership will have to be dealt with but as serious are the 1,000’s of Arabian and Pakistani OBL/ al-Qaeda imported hard-core fighters. Outside of those groups, the regular (Afghani) Taliban militia are believed to bend with the wind. They form an important part of the future of the country.
Of course, in this case dealing with the perpetrators (assuming we do have genuine evidence of culpability) necessarily means finding an alternative future for the country. And on that, frankly, we are f*cked because, apart from crossing our fingers, we have no viable end game – the ultimate sin and nightmare in any modern war fought in the media spotlight.
But back to your OP: Occupation and re-education will not be acceptable - under any conceivable, to me, circumstances - to anyone in the region, including Pakistan, Russia, China and India – or to the 10,000’s of Muslims across the world motivated to Jihad by the very notion (it wasn’t just ‘Afghanistan’ that defeated the USSR/Russians, it was 1,000’s of fresh fighters streaming across the Pakistan border from up to 50 Muslim countries armed with CIA goodies). Remember, it’s Bin Ladin’s methods that have gained us support for this current Alliance. However, his message is widely supported, many would put it much stronger than that. Repeating the mistakes of the 79-89 war is not an option.
IMHO, forget occupation (save for a temporary air base or two) and re-education and quick. That is a can of worms we dare not even touch for its repercussions are immeasurable. And, incidentally, if you believe the UK is on board (so fully) simply because of some folksy we-all-friends-together reason, putting occupation on the agenda would quickly cure you of that overly simplistic allusion.
But I say to you again, don’t get the war objectives confused with the loathing you have for the ways of the Taliban and the thirst for revenge because in doing so, you compromise the West’s value system as well as offend much of the Islamic world even more so than has been done in the past.
In relation to your OP, the ultimate goal is to defeat the Taliban by providing a popular, stable alternative: One that is West-friendly, acceptable to the Islamic world, one in which justice will be administered internally and in which al-Qaeda (especially the Arabs) will be expelled – unfortunately, IMHO, we have not the first idea about how to achieve that.
One’s mind is starting to drift to the UN (20th century revisited) and even the possibility of former-Yugoslavia style divided administration. But, in all honesty, I don’t think anyone knows what the future holds.
BTW, nice to see you around Coll.
My apologies, Erislover, I somehow missed your post in the crunch this morning. I really appreciate you responding with at least some sort of suggestion. You are the first to actually do so.
To respond to your own questions quoted above, it is why the opening line of the OP includes, “…the Taleban should all be rounded up and imprisoned for life in order to prevent them from infecting the minds of Muslim youth…” However much I would like to envision some sort of rehabilitation of their monstrous treatment of women, I don’t see it happening anytime soon. Your refutation of that possibility is spot on. I really have no choice but to merely advocate life imprisonment for them. I have also advocated immediate execution for them as well but was attempting to moderate my stance somewhat for the sake of the OP. I really do feel as though there should be applicable portions of international law that could be used to establish their complicity in war crimes against women. Their desire to degrade all women is something so vile that it cries out for justice.
Zenster, for the last time, discriminating against certain people by denying them access to medical care provided by a particular gender of doctor, or by denying them education, or by making them wear burqas, or by refusing to allow them to vote, is not genocide, I don’t care how much you want to rant and rave and foam at the mouth about it.
I am a compassionate person, and I am moved by the plight of the Taliban’s women. However, I am also moved by the plight of the Falun Gong in China, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s America’s job to go over to Beijing and root out the Evil Communists and destroy them utterly, so that the Falun Gong can be free.
I’m actually glad you were offended by my rendition of the Wannsee Conference minutes–your slavering, hysterical, emotional need for a “final Taliban solution” is just as revolting as the Nazis need for a “final Jewish solution”.
Think about it.
You used to be a fun kind of guy, Zenster, but ever since 9/11, you’ve changed–horribly.
Assertions based on my opinion? Well, certainly I have formed opinions based on a rational analysis of the data as I know it based on my expertise in risk analysis, political and economic and on-the-ground experience working in the region. In return, you’re quoting the assertion of the White House in re Moucharraf’s stability as refutation of my analysis? Have you slightest idea about public affairs and international relations? Of course the White House is going to say that. It would be destabilizing to say otherwise? Do you think they’re morons? Do you think they’re fucking idiots? One does not declare one’s key ally faces serious internal stability issues on fucking national news? Good lord, do you understand anything about this situation? Thank God the President et al know better.
Then you may desire to read this http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3216--238499-,00.html
in regards to internal stability and further this analysis http://www.lemonde.fr/rech_art/0,5987,233555,00.html in regards to the internal threat and the nature of his relations with the generals and the security services. One should also consult this article http://www.lemonde.fr/rech_art/0,5987,235552,00.html in regards to the same issues. This older note gives a sense of the progression http://www.lemonde.fr/rech_art/0,5987,234032,00.html . This more or less matches what I have read in al-Hyaat and the sense I have gotten through al-Jazeerah. I presume I shouldn’t bother with those. However, of interest is this report from BBC Arabic Service: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/arabic/news/newsid_1625000/1625001.stm “Pakistan: Armed (Tribesmen) Occupy Military Airport Ma’zoul.” “Reporting based on eyewitnesses and regional aviation officials, they stated that numbers of armed Pakistan tribesmen occupied the Pakistan Air Forces Airport “Mazoul” in the border region northwest, bordering Afghanistan.” There’s more encouraging material after that. Not that this is per se dangerous for the government, but it is indicative of an unstable situation.
I’m sure you can translate the Le Monde using an online service. Or are we limited to Yahoo news for our information?
But to take pity on those who depend on press releases by the government we do have some NYTimes articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/27/international/asia/27STAN.html which conveys indirectly something of the issue, note Moucharraf’s call for an end to bombing…. Do you believe he’s publicly putting pressure on the USA because of humanitarian concerns? Note, for example some details in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/26/international/asia/26TALI.html little actual closure of borders, continued links between security officials and the Taleban, etc. I am sure one can turn up some analyses
Part of the problem here is American news organizations have utterly inadequate reporting on the region, be it Central Asia or MENA. Budget cutbacks, lack of international focus etc. hamstring their reporting. If you want actual news, check BBC. They have a well developed network of correspondents who, horrors of horrors, actually have some background and training in what they cover and even – just for the novelty of it – know local languages.
I further refer you to the Economist of 18 October “Uneasier, but not yet explosive” and
that of 11 October, “Musharraf on the tightrope” for further analysis in re the delicate situation in the region and Pakistan. Further, if you’re truly interested, I would find myself somewhere to consult the Economist Intelligence Unit Reports.
Yeah, Pakistan is a fucking picnic. No risks, everything’s just fine.
Rubbish. It is a weak link, the internal situation is a concern. I don’t believe the governmental will fall if policies are careful. However, the scenario of massed Western troops invading Afghanistan is right out.
Nope, I wasn’t wrong. My statement was too strong as worded, however in the context to what I was responding to and in general the essence of my analysis remains the same: destroying al-Qaeda in Afghanistan does not solve the problem of al-Qaeda cells here. Local intelligence action, intelligence in the region, that will contribute.
It means what it says. Destroying the ability of ObL to use Afghanistan as a safe springboard from which to plan attacks in the future. Folks already in place are not of necessity effected by that. It strikes me as quite clear.
Distracting attention? Bah, my comments were addressing what I thought were near term concerns giving pantom’s wording. If you want to shift the discussion fine, but that’s not what my original comments were about.
Yes, indeed. Al-Qaeda has become a kind of nexus for these groups, very much inspired by the ideology, methods and structures of al-gamaa al-islamiya and related groups.
Kha. Perhaps I shall defer to your expertise?
Al-Qaeda does not exist without the backbone of al-gamaa and the related organizations. Personnel and methodology are derived from the same. Moreover, the links are already in place. I know of no one with an expertise in the region and the issue who believe that if vaporizes if ObL is whacked. Indeed, look to Rumsfeld’s direct comments on the same.
Until you learn a bit about the history of these folks (history, not the last six months of news) their origins and structure, you’re not going to have a clue.
Why would I? We’ve a few divisions on the ground in Ouzbekistan and units apparently in Pakistan. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an “enormous” buildup. See Tom’s comments also. Naval and airforces don’t occupy territory. Ground forces do. If you want to have a whole different discussion, that’s great, but my comments were and are directed at the OP scenario.
Indeed, perhaps you have not grasped my usage and the implied critique of folks lack of grasp of this quite as yet.
Are you capable of understanding what I am writing? Or what Zenster has written? Bloody hell. Zenster’s suggestion was to take the Taleban and “reeducate” them into whatever bloody vision of modern feministly correct society he seems to hold is a universal value. As to who’s going to run Afghanistan in the future? Just as I said, it seems likely to be a multi-ethnic coalition, perhaps under the former king’s aegis with a significant Pashtun element, meaning conservative folks whose vision of life ain’t that far from the Taleban’s in many respects – e g the burqah. Abstract theologically correct place of women is not, in the end, the real issue. Nor the fact other Muslims have much better views and treatment of women. The issue in the end is local Afghan mores that just are not going to change over night, and trying to do so, overnight, is going to get one into a bloody mess.
Fucking basics.
Well, perhaps you can trouble yourself to actually read what I wrote around those quotes you’ve ripped out of their context. I see you’ve had trouble with joined up reading comprehension so let me make it real simple:
Quote #1 was in regards to the hypothetical invasion & occupation of Afghanistan, requiring no small number of troops. Quote # 2 was in regards to Pakistan’s green light to using its bases for air sorties and special ops.
I am sure if you ponder the issue for a moment or perhaps somewhat longer, you will realize, rather like the Taleban leadership versus the Taleban en masse, they are separate issues or better different places along a scale of decisions. To permit 2 does not mean the Paki government can permit 1.
Now, again, if you desire to debate something beyond the OP, then you should feel free to separately and clearly define what scenario you are discussing, rather than tearing my statements out of their context and managing not to comprehend them at the same time.
In regards to my statements on establishing a large-scale military presence in the Central Asian Republics, notably in Ouzbekistan and in the context of Pakistan not allowing large scale ground action from its territory:
Oh it is rather clear you don’t follow at all. Painfully, pitifully clear. I know Americans are weak on geography so let me make this more clear for you:
First, of course to make sure that you understand me – fruitless as that might be – , I was and am referring to the troop problem not to airpower – although if Pakistan begins to balk at giving flyover permission during Ramadan, then one does face a similar issue. Transporting troops to Ouzbekistan would require timely movement. I am presuming direct from continental US via an air bridge, as well as from Western Europe where we maintain to my knowledge substantial material. In any case, even if I had been solely referring to airbases, they need to be supplied.
The shortest air route to the Central Republic is through Russian airspace. Great circle and all that. Now, take a moment and consider further. Kuwait, flights have to go through what airspaces to get to Ouzbekistan? Well, certainly not Iranian on a regular basis. Not Iraqi. Hmmm, well of course there is Pakistani airspace, but rather adds some miles. Not all that useful then, is it? Turkey, again, we have this tiny problem of intervening airspace to move troop transports through. A wee problem there. Can be worked out if one is careful but again, the safest most effective method for airlifting material and troops to Central Asia from the US or Europe is through Russian airspace.
Thus the statements and scenario I sketched out.
Now in regards to my evidently futile request for some substantive critique on your part, you give me the following list:
So, then:
(1) Fact. Invasion of Afghanistan in the short term does not break up already present threats. Ergo, the FBI and CIA’s substantial efforts and alerts for near term threats.
(2) Bad paraphrase and out of context: For a substantial invasion and occupation, Pakistan is indeed the best and only effective choice. Launching from hard to supply bases along the narrow border of Ouzbekistan into the mountainous zone to the south without the ability to invade southern Afghanistan would be incredibly stupid. As for Pakistani stability and allowing such an invasion, see today (or yesterday’s?) demand by Moucharraf to stop bombing and find a political solution. Also learn a bit about current and past problems in Pakistan and read up the links provided for critical assessments of the situation and potential risks. Try not to base your understanding on White House press conferences.
(3) Fact. (although the GIA I would place somewhat more distant on further reflection.)
(4) Yes, rather enough said.
(5) Sensitive, aren’t we?
Ah yes, the man who quotes me a White House press conference on Pakistan stability tells me I’m “wrong” on this basis?
Hee hee…this is absolutely hilarious. But I’m afraid we may have to take it to the pit soon…
Oh, Collounsbury, round and round we go, eh? “Don’t tell me the facts, my mind’s made up.” Unfortunately, this will have to wait cause I have work to do. But perhaps later…
Until then, I leave you with this: If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest — in the world.
Facts, leander? Do you actualy know any? I seem to have missed your providing a single relevant one. Accusing me of ignorance is rather rich. Good night, next weekend.
Leander, please stop baiting. I am hoping for substantial debate, not tit for tat. As an excercise, please feel free to address the set of questions I posed for Collounsbury in my earlier post. I’m hoping that he will address them at his next opportunity as well. I appreciate your contributions, but please limit them to constructive discussion. I suppose in all fairness I must also ask that Collounsbury might relax a bit too. However, from all that I have read of his postings, there is a substantial amount of detailed information listed that can only come from direct experience. I am not sure if your own data flows from such a position. Please correct me if I am wrong. Let us continue to address the facts here.
Collounsbury, if I had used a substantially less loaded term like “rehabilitate” instead of “re-educate” would you have felt at all differently? Also, please do not accuse me of some overweighted preference for feminist causes. However much Afghan men are being oppressed by the Taleban, their misfortune is minute by comparison to that of the Afghan women.
Zenster - my apologies, you’re absolutely right. I just hate arrogant ignorance.
As to the questions, I’ll take a whack:
First, however, in our discussion I think we should separate “Taliban Leaders” from the “Taliban.” I believe that a large portion of the Taliban are merely following what their leaders tell them and should not be punished, but perhaps re-educated. The question is how and by whom.
If we’re talking about the Taliban leaders, then no, absolutely not. They should be tried as war criminals for (a) their support of terrorist networks and (b) their human rights violations. Members of the Taliban who are not in leadership postions, e.g., soldiers, civilians, etc. should be re-integrated into society. Society, that is, which is governed by a coalition of Afghani groups.
Yes, crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, it has taken an attack on America to bring this to a head. I think any state-sponsored violence and oppresion of a nation’s peoples ought to be condemned by the world community. And acted upon, whether economically, militarily or otherwise. But yes, there must be repercussions to this form of national barbarism.
Again, absolutely. They need to be removed from power. That’s what we’re doing now. Will that solve all the problems? No, but it’s a damn good start.
None, but I think the new government will have a very difficult job in bringing the people together in Afghanistan. One of the reasons the Taliban was accepted was that people were tired of the constant fighting and turmoil and were willing to accept anything for a little stability. Hopefully, the new government will be assured of no hostile intervention from outside forces once the Taliban are removed from power. I think the US et al. will do everything they can to promote a stable coalition within Afghanistan, and hopefully without having to deploy a temporary US government (a la Haiti).
Don’t know about redress, but stringing them up by their balls would be nice, no? Seriously, I think we should separate the Taliban leaders from the followers, much like the nazis or Milosevic’s bad boys. Then prosecute (and persecute) the leaders while integrating the followers back into society. Milosevic’s regime is a very good example - you may live within the bounds of a democratic society (run by your own people), but if you are personally responsible for war crimes, you will go to jail.
Yep, and there’s nothing “feminist” about it. Any deliberate persecution of a group based solely on their race, creed, religion, or sex is absolutely and equally inhumane and criminal.
Finally, I actually liked your OP, though I didn’t think you were entirely serious. The sentiment is right on, though. It would be nice to give these scumsuckers a taste of their own medicine, but alas I’m afraid America will consider itself “above” such vengeful stuff. Shame, but they’re probably right. We should be better than that. But damn if it wouldn’t feel good, eh?
And IMHO re-education is a fundamental part of our mission - to get the people of Afghanistan to understand the wickedness of the Taliban. And, of course, “teach a man to fish…” As for women, they were doctors and lawyers in Islam back when we were stumbling around in the Dark ages. The interpretation of women in the Koran is as open as it is in the Bible, but human rights are human rights no matter where you live or what religion you follow. I think (and hope and pray) the world will see this soon.
Pray tell, this ‘war crimes’ you bandy about: Under the jurisdiction of which Court would the Taliban be tried and under what particular legislation ?
The War Crimes Tribunal ? – a Court founded on Western legal principles and composed of Western judges ? Unfortunately, I can’t see where the Taliban fall under the jurisdiction of that court given that they exercise their version of the Islamic Code (a version, it would seem, not vastly different from that practiced by those good friends of the US, the Saud Family):
http://www.un.org/icty/basic/statut/stat2000.htm#5 - Article 7 and then Article 5 might be the way to go.
The International Criminal Court ? – Unfortunately, we still don’t have one of those and that’s in no small measure because of the reluctance of the US Congress to permit its military to be tried by any other than err…the US Military.
I’m running out of options…okay, how about the Taliban leadership being extradited to the US by a third-party nation ? - Nope, not if that third-party is signed up to the Human Rights Declaration – can’t be done while the US still has the Death Penalty.
Would the Taliban be convicted by an ad hoc Muslim Court as per the Allies at Nuremberg ? - Nope.
I await further enlightenment ?
BTW, isn’t talk of ‘Human Rights’ violations something of a hostage to fortune given the HR record of both the US and it’s friends around the world: Indonesia, Israel, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc., ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Tables/4_col_tables/0,5737,258329,00.html
I’m not quite sure the retrospective imposition of a piece-meal supported Western value system on an Islamic Code is really very legitimate, nor, I suspect, would it hold much credence. But I’m sure they’d appreciate the West’s new found selective and keen interest in their internal affairs.
Why would it have jurisdiction? My guess is that the ratification of the Geneva convention binds Afghanistan to International Humanitarian Law. I don’t think exercising “their version of the Islamic Code” excuses them from the law. (And their version is much different from the Saud Family.)
Geneva – concerns POW’s
The Hague War Crimes Tribunal – concerns Human Rights as they exist within the context of military operations – as does the legislation you refer to with regard the Rights of women.
I don’t see how either are applicable if you are trying the Taliban for what they have done prior to 9/11 (or after, depending on your definition of ‘war’ given the stated target is “terrorists and those who harbour terrorist” and not the Afghani people).
What you are objecting to is the means of punishment for breach of the law of the land (in Afghanistan) – you don’t have to agree with it but it is their law. Just as, for example, the other Western democracies oppose the death sentence as practiced in the majority of US States, especially as it is applied to minors and retarded people. But, again, it is the law of the land.
You might, I guess, have a leg to stand on if the Court wasn’t based on the Western value system and inhabited by Western jurists but there is no such Court.
Nor do I don’t quite see the relevance of Resolution 1267 to the current conflict – we all know OBL is a wanted man in the US because of the Embassy bombing in 1998 but the Resolution itself forms no legal basis (for prosecution). It’s a diplomatic communiqué decrying human rights abuses (riding on the back of the Embassy bombings), something that could be put together in relation to very many nations – look again at this link:
Indeed, I’m not sure how the US can prosecute anyone for breach of the Declaration of Human Rights when no US citizen can avail themselves of said legislation – to prosecute others yet, at the same time, deny your own people of those same rights seems to lack credibility. And yes, the US has ratified the Convention but it is subject to contrary (domestic) US legislation i.e. its adoption is meaningless.
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/usa/ (the link appears to be currently down but it’s from Human Rights Watch > USA)
Having said all of that, there may, may, be a case made for breach of (general) international law regarding some of their activities in relation to foreign journalists in the past, but that’s a different kettle of fish entirely from what you advocate.
Since Colounsbury continues to bring up the issue, I feel I must address his ongoing ignorance.
First, what is a Moucharraf? Is that a type of cheese? The name is Musharraf. Your spelling is as bad as your grammar. Hey, mine ain’t perfect, but for someone who actually walks around thinking they are an intellectual giant, it is particularly sad (as others have pointed out).
My point, in re Pakistani situation, was it is not nearly as bad as you say. I’ll try to explain this slowly:
The media, both American and British, tends to sensationalise the news. Perhaps you didn’t realise this, though it’s not a new phenomenon. Leaders tend to downplay a crisis in order to appease the masses. The truth, I imagine, is somewhere inbetween.
However, since you seem to love my White House quote, perhaps you will enjoy this one as well:
Now, since you seem to think you know everything about the region (and pretty much everything else), then I’m sure you are aware of the instability which has become part and parcel of their daily lives. Are they sitting on a nuclear powder keg which will definitely explode, bringing the world to an end. No. Is it a tense, precarious and unstable situation? Of course. I never argued otherwise; what I did say was that the situation is not the beginning of Armageddon, as you seem to imply. It is not, in my opinion, as terrible as you say.
As to your continued problems with geography, I’d love to see a cite where someone actually addresses the issue of crossing Russian airspace. Did the troops and equipment we now have in place travel your proposed route? Since you seem to think all other routes are out (and you spend quite a bit of time blathering on about it), I would really like to know how all these guys got there? And that was a pathetic and cheap shot about all Americans…but you’re displaying more and more of your true self here.
Finally, let’s get back to my points ONE LAST TIME. I’m not going to go over this anymore - you obviously have serious issues with admitting your errors, so it’s really pointless. Ignorance doesn’t just fight back - it ignores knowledge as well.
We weren’t talking about “short term threats” and you know it. Your original quote was simply, “Invading Afghanistan…does nothing to break up al-Qaeda in the USA.” This is unfounded and ignorant. Stop qualifying every erroneous thing you say in a feeble attempt to sound correct. You ain’t - deal with it.
I love all your red herrings. But seriously, the quotes weren’t taken out of context. I think that’s pretty obvious. You said one thing, it was wrong; you were corrected, didn’t like being corrected; you tried to distract from that, didn’t work; life sucks. Get over it.
This is my favorite - you state it as fact and then backpedal in the next sentence. Beautiful.
This one’s nice, too. Correcting my English brought giggles of irony out again.
No, just annoyed at arrogant, sophomoric ignorance. Your attitude makes it very hard to listen to anything of substance you may actually have to say. And when you are wrong you really must put that fragile ego away and live with being a flawed human being.
Oh, and in re the other thread (“It is helpful when clarifying to get it right”), please show me how I didn’t get it right. Please.
I would like to say, notwithstanding all the silly bile and nonsense you’ve spouted in this thread, I find many of your comments in other threads quite insightful. I just wish you could put away some of the “I know everything” attitude and discuss things like most people on this board. I, for one, am sorry that I have been baited into this boorish kind of rhetoric. It is beneath us all. And I hope, despite my own silly rants, that in the future we can debate and disagree without all the bullshit.
Translating from a different language and alphabet produces different valid transliterations. As has been pointed out Taliban and Taleban are both acceptable. So is Koran, Quran, and Qur’an. Or Khaddafi and Qaddafi ( or a dozen different variants ). Same situation applies to the above.
You are misreading Collounsbury’s comments. I believe his point was just that Central Asia is a piss-poor place to use as a significant staging area ( i.e. a handful of special forces are not significant ) because of logistical difficulties ( of several types ). I happen to agree and have argued that same point in other threads.
And he admitted that his statement was too strong ( and it was ). But I agree completely with his qualified remarks. They are not unfounded and ignorant. His analyses may turn out to be wrong - We won’t know until this whole thing is over, however log that may take. But as far as I can tell they are both well-founded and intelligent.
I have yet to see any point in this thread where he has “spouted nonsense” ( bile yes, nonsense no ).
Look leander, I’m glad you’re trying to extend the olive branch, but it’s obvious you have some problems with the way Collounsbury expresses himself. That’s fine. Not everyone loves everyone else. But in the future, if you feel the need, why don’t you take the direct accusations of ignorance to the pit where they belong. This kind of sniping is technically verboten in this forum and all the baiting is very distracting. Not that Collounsbury is a saint either, mind you. But you seem to be doing more in they way of insults.
