We tried to actually work out a peaceful solution. I just ran a small search the earliest I could come up with is http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/edtb09202001.htm
which has the phrase, now mantra of the Bush admin “action not negotiation” so by sept 20, 9 days after the crash, we know who did it and have done all the dimpolmacy that is needed to be done.
We are dropping Aid to help the people. The Aid is a pure PR move, with us over here and the people over there.
Bin Laden has been proven guilty. What has come out is some circumstancial evidence implying his guilt from the UK press, the white house said para"I don’t think the american public wanted or asked for proof"
side note:
Extradition treaties agreed to by the United States
require evidence that would show the accused to have
violated the laws of both the United States and the
demanding country.
dang I gots to get going, don’t have time to pull off 4 and 5 from my ass
They’ve been constantly trying to use diplomacy to solve the problem up until the bombing started about a week ago. Just about every one of Bush’s speeches included a little “Hey, Taliban… you can still save your ass by turning over Bin Laden!”
Point 1: We’ve been sending aid to the Afghanistan people for months now, long before the WTC attack.
Point 2: Who cares if it’s a PR move? They’re still getting food and medicine, aren’t they?
Of course he hasn’t been proven guilty. We haven’t had the chance to sit him in front of a jury and hold a trial.
But there is enough evidence for us to believe that he is the one responsible. He has the means, the motive, the whole attack matches his MO, and we have numerous pieces of evidence tying him with the hijackers. We know that SOMEONE did it, and we know that the list of people who were capable of pulling it off is very, very short.
We haven’t been using dimplomacy, we have made demands.
They have made offers to us, and we have this zero tolerance attitude where we just recite the “action not negotiation” mantra.
They ask to see evidence (Like we would if some other country wanted one of our people) we go NO, it isn’t time for negotiation
They ask for him to be tried in a 3rd party country (I think this is a fair request, I think an american trial would be biased)
we go NO, it isn’t time for negotiation
They are getting some, but it isn’t what is needed. My main problem with it is the intention behind such actions, once again we don’t car about these people, we are just using them for our own means. (aka support for the war)
The evidence released so far has not conclusively(SP?) linked Bin Laden to the attacks on the WTC.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Neurotik *
**
[QUOTEHere’s the problem, Vinny. In those wars we knew who the enemy was by sight. They were the ones in the German and Japanese military uniforms and the ones sitting in Japanese and German cities. My point here is that not only will the same tactics not work because we can’t identify the people in the terrorists organizations on sight like we could with the German and Japanese military. Also, there’s no city objectives. We can go through and take control of Afghanistan, and the terrorists will just slip across the border into Tajikistan or Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan or Iran. There is no real home base for the terrorists like there was for the Germans or the Japanese. And they don’t rely on huge factories for munitions, so we can’t really target those to help cut back on stuff. To put it bluntly, terrorists are not the same as another state. They cannot be fought effectively in the same way. Nukes and conventional weapons will not work. You need special ops, infiltration and changes in our foreign policy that help other states establish stable governments and a good educational/economic infrastructure to reduce the ability of terrorists to recruit. **[/QUOTE]
First, the Dresden isssue. Nazi Germany would have done the exact same thing to an American city if they had the chance, would have rounded up all Jewish and non-white Americans, and killed them in concentration camps if they had the opportunity. Remember the Nazis perfected the concept of the Blitzkrieg, not us, they set the rules.
While I don’t think the firestorm that incinerated Dresden was quite wht we had in mind when we bombed it, no doubt it was one of the events that scared the shit out of the Nazi leadership that made them realize that, well, it’s kind of over.
Next, we need to make it clear to other governments: It is up to you to do the following:
Patrol your borders
Track down terror subjects
If you can’t locate or capture them, but suspect they are in your country, allow American troops into your country to apprehend them by any means neccessary.
Root out elements in your government that support terror
OR:
You are the weakest link. Goodbye! Prepare to pay a horrible, horrible price for your non-cooperation.
It’s because the Taliban are simply not serious about it. We’ve been asking them to turn over Bin Laudin since the First World Trade Center bombing. It is simply a delaying tactic. Even if we were to accept the offer, the evidence we offer would be dismissed or the the 3rd party nation requested would be Iraq or some other nation the US would object to.
You are simply assuming that we don’t care about these people because it fits into your own mindset about the evil intentions of the US. You have no proof that we don’t care. The fact that even before Sept, 11th the US was the world’s largest provider of aid to Afghanistn is proof against your assumption.
Many folks are also overlooking that the US airdrops are just a small part of the total aid being distributed. The air drops are only for those Afghanis that cannot otherwise be reached. Much more aid is going to those that are accessible by land.
If someone tells you that they are going to kill you, would you believe them? Or would this not be enough evidence for you that the person plans to act against you?
Well, first of all, “blitzkrieg” does not refer to the strategic bombing of cities; it was a term referring to the use of massed armor to punch through front lines and overwhelm rearguard defences - which is pretty much the standard tactic for every mobile army today. It was unique in 1940, though.
And secondly, “Well, the Nazis would have done it!” is a really, really bad excuse.
Well, no. The Nazi leadership didn’t give up until Hitler was dead and Berlin was overrun, and that was pretty much the only thing that would convince them.
Hmm, how does this prove that we are at war with the Aghan people? How is this relevant at all, curious george? Let us suppose that the U.S. was only dropping food packets, not bombs, on Afghanistan. Would we still be “at war with the Afghan people?”
llamasex
People are right when they say Americans have short attention spans and no sense of history. If you are over the age of 9, llamasex, I’m sure you remember the first WTC bombing in 1993. I’m sure you also remember the African embassy bombings and the U.S.S. Cole. Osama bin Laden has been at war with the United States since at least 1993. We started fighting back in October 2001 (well, not completely accurate - we did one-off cruise missile strikes in 1998). I really can’t think of another event in world history where a nation waited so long and relied so long upon diplomatic negotiations (with the Taliban concerning the surrender of bin Laden), multilateral non-military action through the UN (sanctions on Sudan and the Taliban for their support of bin Laden), and other means to react to attacks as has the United States in this case. So, the mantra of “action not negotiation” of the Bush administration on September 20 was made approximately 2100 days, not 9, after bin Laden first started targeting and killing U.S. citizens.
yes, then you look up someone, anyone who lost a son, daughter, husband, wife, friend when america bombed afghanistan, and explain to that person FACE TO FACE what YOUR position is. ask them why they felt their loved ones needed to die.
i don’t get you americans. you speak all this shit about democracy when all you really seem to want to do is erect a big scoreboard in nyc displaying:
america: 7000
afghanistan: only 6800 to go!
(extras: 4 un workers, a couple of red cross workers… of little importance really)
keep up the good work, team u.s.a!
and yes, if you do want to get picky, the figures are generalisations.
oh, and apparently, i’m not allowed to be against something unless i apply for the job of u.s president and actually change something. well, sorry, i don’t know what to do, but i know the u.s certainly shouldn’t be stomping around pretending it’s the saviour of the free world.
they found an impartial place to trial milosevic - i think it was the netherlands. if they can find a place to trial him, i’m sure they can manage to find a place where they can trial bin laden.
bush saw an oppurtunity and he took it. he didn’t have to engineer the whole thing for it to be a factor in his politics.
and if you’re after the exact part where the five biggest lies addressed the destruction of the world trade centre, it was right here
try and seperate the wtc atrocity from america’s reaction to it. they’re different things.
and, re: alternate solutions… although i do not have a fully formulated plan - i am not a politician, i’m not the one supposed to be upholding democracy; if dubya wasn’t so great at antagonising foreign nations pre-sept 11, he mightn’t find himself in the situation he’s in now.
i shall just go exhume joseph mccarthy and his un-american activities committee for you. i didn’t know that freedom of speech was so un-american these days. actually, i should have guessed.
I see you are using the Taliban’s figures for civilian casualties. Good source there, fromthe people who told you that Osama didn’t do it, then said Osama wasn’t here, then said Osama couldn’t be found…
What, with the world behind him against a batch of mass-murderers?
I love this “if you had been better before 9/11, none of this would have happened.” I understand that people tell battered wives the same thing.
Well, I’m a Canadian, but even I can see this is a straw man argument. Americans don’t want to “Even the score.” They want bin Laden stopped before he does it again. Which he unquestionably will.
Any individual, group, or state is entitled to use reasonable force in self-defense. The United States was attacked, and in all likelihood will be attacked again. They are entitled to use force to prevent it.
The war isn’t about “we need to kill innocent people to make it even.” It’s about stopping further terrorist attacks.
I didn’t notice the USA claiming they were doing this to be “Saviour” of the free world. It seems to be they’re acting in self-defense, which is the right of all human beings.
Slobodan Milosevic did not commit murder in the State of New York, or in the United States, so your point here is irrelevant. Milosevic is accused of war crimes committed within his own state. It’s reasonable to try him elsewhere. bin Laden is accused of murder in the United States; it makes no sense to try him elsewhere, unless you’re saying every country should export all their accused criminals for trial.
What politics? The country was attacked. Its government has a duty to defend its citizenry from attack.
There’s no “opportunity” being taken here; Bush is doing his job at a most basic and fundamental level. If the government of the United States DOESN’T act to stop bin Laden, then just why the hell does it even exist? I can’t think of any more fundamental purpose for having a government than defending the populace from armed aggression.
This is the standard “Sept. 11 was the Americans’ fault” line, and it’s stupid. Bush’s foreign policy obviously had nothing to do with the attack, since the attack and other like it were likely planned well in advance of Bush becoming President. Do you really, honestly think this would not have happened if Al Gore were President? Do you think Osama bin Laden would have said, “Hey, I like Al Gore. The Americans aren’t so bad after all! Call off the attacks!” I think not.
I see you are using the Taliban’s figures for civilian casualties. Good source there, fromthe people who told you that Osama didn’t do it, then said Osama wasn’t here, then said Osama couldn’t be found…
I love this “if you had been better before 9/11, none of this would have happened.” I understand that people tell battered wives the same thing.
So basically we are suppose to stand up against a wall while someone shoots at us and do nothing? It’s a war. people die in wars. I hate them. But we’ve pretended that we were not in one for far too long. Bin Laudin has been killing us since 1993. To do nothing is to simply accept our fate at his hands.
The Afghanis know all about war and death. They don’t need our explanations for it. But there is hope that when this over, a chance for real and lasting peace may emerge in Afghanistan.
It’s quite clear that you don’t understand us. It’s quite clear that you have no desire to. As for your scoreboard comment, we are not running a body count game over here. If you want to pretend that we are celebrating the deaths of innocent Afghanis, well that’s your own sick thinking. It’s not true.
It’s easy to be critical of something. It’s just frustrating when someone is critical of the only option available. Do you criticize water too? After all floods kill thousands every year. You should take a stand!
No, because they insist he be tried under the the extreme intrepretation of Islamic Law that they envision.
And this “opportunity” helps us Americans how?
Strange, despite your protestations that free speech isn’t allowed, I can see and read your post. Or are you just upset because others are free to point out your arguements are biased and unthought out?
Keep in mind the American public has still not been given conclusive evidence that either 1) bin Laden was behind the attack, or that 2) bin Laden was even actually in Afghanistan (I know the Taliban seems to say he is, but since everyone thinks the Taliban is a bunch of liars, we can all assume they’re just trying to cover their ass here, right?). So we’ll have to assume that the casaulties we’re inflicting are justified.
Not that the public seems more interested in having an ethical justification than just taking some degree of brutal action, whatever its form.
Blah, blah, blahblahblah. I keep hearing this, and it makes no more sense on repetition. Why, pray tell, would the US guvmint be going after bin Laden if they didn’t have “conclusive evidence” that bin Laden was behind the attack, from 1993 through the present?[sup]1[/sup] They need a scapegoat? If that’s the motivation, the obvious person would be Saddam. Everyone already hates him, he is much easier to get at, we already had a large force ready to engage him, and Iraq has real military targets that would make much cooler explosions on CNN. Besides which, he is the bigger long-term threat.
Why yes, you are correct, sir. I have an orgasm every time I read the New York Times about the previous day’s attacks.
Sua
[sup]1[/sup] [sub]Once more, for the record - we have conclusive, public proof, including confessions, that bin Laden was involved in the African embassy bombings. We don’t need proof about WTC to have justification and need to go after him.[/sub]
Agreed, but I think we can agree that the Nazis took the concept of total warfare to a new level.
**
The Nazis would have done it and MORE is what I said. I don’t remember us rounding up every blonde haired, blue eyed German we could get our hands on and putting them in concentration camps and gassing them when we took over Germany. Okay, we rounded up the Japanese, but that was a misguided security effort, and we sure as hell didn’t slaughter them.
Well, no. The Nazi leadership didn’t give up until Hitler was dead and Berlin was overrun, and that was pretty much the only thing that would convince them. **
[/QUOTE]
I’m quite positive our total warfare tactics and wholesale destruction of his country contributed to Hitler’s decision to kill himself.
lucky you.