My excuses in advance if I hurt someone’s feelings but weren’t you fighting terrorism? I ask this because in day one terrorism is the enemy first target Osama Bin laden. In day 5 also all countries that support terrorism, first target Afganistan. Day 34 the enemy is the taliban regime who oppresses it’s own people and you are “liberating” them. Osama? Terrorism?
My guess is that your generals needed an enemy to defeat, you can certainly defeat terrorism but as your president pointed only with a long struggle. Public opinion needed to be “soothed” then a traditional enemy (that is a country) was needed. Poor afgans, you needed an enemy with whom you could use all your arsenal, not terrorists they are elusive you can’t send an aircraft carrier agaisnt them. All the rest followed
From what I can discern from that nonsensical gibberish, is that the U.S. has strayed from its initial objective of fighting terrorism, to killing civilians and threatening other countries. I will try and assume that your question is why or how did this happen. I don’t see a debate here because the logical sequence to achieve our objectives would be.
Go to Afghanistan to get soma.
Break up Al-quad (which is all over the world)
Go after any other country that is known to harbor terrorists
So to answer the op
“Nothing at all happened, we are doing what we set out to do”
You know, I’m sure that even in countries south of the Equator, the news media has printed or broadcast the points that bin Laden is hiding with the support of the Taleban, that most of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan have been conducting searches for bin Laden, and that it is harder to search for someone when an armed force is providing protection. If you have missed those points, perhaps you should pay more attention to the details of the stories, rather than merely the headlines.
The U.S. is not above criticism even after the events of September 11 (and I have launched some criticisms, myself), but I’m afraid that the OP looks like a knee-jerk “Anyone who fights warfare is evil” sort of rant.
I doubt that anyone will get their feelings hurt by an inarticulate rant that ignores some basic facts.
What happened is that I thought this thread was going to be about the new big duck computer virus… I guess I’ll just go back to playing with my pizzle… carry on with whatever it was this was about (I am still not sure)…
The threats against other countries are against only those which have the possibility of doing terrorist acts. For example, the recent threat against Iraq. If we don’t know what they have, they could surprise us in a terrorist like fashion.
It seems I hurted some feelings. I guessed I also needed to apologize in advance for not expressing my ideas properly, you should know that sometimes it is hard to express them in a completely different language. The impression I got is that you think I am one of those “enemies” of the E.E.U.U. who don’t like anything you do.
That is not true, I also read the news published “south of the equator” which is a good thing considering the lack of objectivity your press (of course this is a generalazation) is showing this days. What I tried to express obviusly with not much success is that this war started as a war against terrorism. Fighting terrorism is very difficult and that as an argentinian know so much better than you, for instance the enemy is elusive it could be your neighbourgh and that is scary. That’s why it’s very difficult to fight.
To win you have, I think, two options. First the difficult one, recognizing the problem and try to solve it. You can’t deny that those planes didn’t hit the brandenburg gate or the flavio coliseum. That people obviusly have a problem with america. Othe people more inteligent that I has written a lot about why they hate you.
The second one, the easy. Is to call them evil (funny they same about you) and destroying anything that stands between thema and you, the judge them in a militar court (no one else has a problem with this?) and shot them. In the process loosing what made you the greatest country on earth, your civil liberties. Again as an argentinian I know what that means. In order to achive a jsut end (destruction of terrorism) the state transform itself in a terrorist, the result… those who knows what happened “south of the equator” knows the rest.
Finally my argument was simply that in this war the objective was.
Ending terrorism, first target Osama
Then attacking Afganistan to make them deliver Osama
Overthrowing the Talibans
How did we get from 1 to 3? No it seems step 4 is attacking Irak because as someone on this thread said “they might be preparing something against us”, Ok who says who are the good guy and who are “evil one”. As your president in a very diplomatic way “either your are with us or you are against us” said it seems, U.S.A. Not the U.N. not special group of countries, only you.
Don’t worry, there are huge debates raging within the States about a few matters that you bring up. For example, we’re seriously examining what civil rights we have needed to give up to ensure our safety. Also, the talk about going after Iraq is just that–talk. And it is far from a sure thing that Bush’s ideas about military tribunals will ever come to pass.
There’s a LOT of Americans who oppose Bush’s stance on these issues. It seems as though many foreigners don’t understand the power, or lack of same, of the presidency. Just because he says he wants to do something sure as hell doesn’t mean that it will happen. Let him talk his talk; until it translates into action, it’s harmless. We promise to keep an eye on him.
In the meantime, our efforts in Afghanistan are directed towards turning up–or killing–all members of Al Qaeda. I think the WTC attacks justify this. It’s ironic how little people outside our borders care to recognize our right to act in our own self-interest. We know that that makes us evil, in some people’s eyes (and there are plenty of examples that justify this), however no one has proposed a better solution. And I’m at a loss to understand what we did that could possibly justify the actions of Al-Qaeda.
Remember, the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon happened just 2 1/2 months ago. Nerves are still raw here; we’re not used to seeing soldiers stationed in airports with semiautomatic weapons. America is in a period of adjustment and the jury is still out on where we will end up.
jonfromdenver, that was low. Did you miss the part where the OP states he’s Argentinian? And thus writing in a foreign language?
I think Airblairxxx has a pretty good take on the situation. I have also been confused about the apparent shifts in objectives from the time the war started to today. However, I do see a clearer line from your 1 to 3.
1) Ending terrorism, first target Osama
Correct. 2) Then attacking Afganistan to make them deliver Osama 3) Overthrowing the Taliban
I think that the overthrowing of the Taliban is more of a (from my perspective) extremely fortunate side-effect of that regime not turning over Osama to begin with. They were asked repeatedly, and forcefully, to hand over bin Laden, and repeatedly and forcefully said no. So we attacked the Taliban, hoping to pressure them into giving up Osama. The Taliban refused to relent, and now they’re in pieces.
I think the Taliban, as a government, was evil. I don’t extend that label to Afghani citizens, and all civilian deaths in Afghanistan caused by the US were tragic. Numerous other threads on this Board, and countless newspaper articles, magazine articles, and TV/film features released well before September 11 have amply illustrated the many failings, hypocracies and horrors of the Taliban regime. I’ll give you that our press now seem to lack objectivity, but the gross human rights violations taking place in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 are well-documented in international press.
As for the potential 4) of invading Iraq, it really is just talk at this stage. I doubt it will progress, and certainly don’t support it.
I don’t think that American civil liberties have been seriously threatened yet. Ashcroft is coming under fire for several of his recommendations, and the checks and balances of power in this country are such (or should be such) that liberties cannot be compromised. Time will tell.
no, actually he said he was argentinian in his second post. but no, i didn’t miss it. i just thought his rambling made no logical sense but didn’t care enough to take the time to voice my opinion, so i crack a short joke in efforts to keep anyone from taking this opinion seriously. so sue me. learn how to take a joke.
John from Denver, I wonder how well you do in a foreign language say perhaps Italian, Spanish, chinese. The problem is not just grammar the way the ideas are expressed are totally different that was why I seemed “to ramble”. In my second post I tried to be more precise, I don’t know if I managed. For your lack of comprenhension on idiomatic difficulties I guess you only speak english.
About Irak all said is pure talk and I will grant It hasn’t happened yet so we’ll have to wait and see.
I also know that the Taliban regime is as bad as it gets (John from denver that expression I took from the movies, my excuses in advance if it is not the correct one) but the “northern aliance” is just as bad, remember they were there before and they committed the same atrocities as the Taliban. What will happen in the future? But I am afraid.
Estilicon, you are talking about too many things to have a Great Debate, or even an average one.
First, there is the issue of exactly how to fight terrorism. Second, there is the perseption of the U.S. by other nations. Third, there is the (Hi Opal!) idea that Bush wants military tribunals. And a handful of other stuff thrown in. Then you bring up the fact that you are Argentinian (is that the proper form of the word?), which can spark a whole other debate about Argentinian vs. U.S. Cowboys!
This is simply too much for one thread. I’ll coment on a few of the items:
Before you can condemn the attempts to find bin Laden, first give them a chance. We may have to go through a few layers, but it’s not a done deal that we WON’T get him with this approach. The fact that the Taliban got in the middle of this is their doing - they refused to hand over a criminal, claiming they needed proof of his guilt, but the fact that NATO saw the evidence as convincing was not enough for them. I’d say they got themselves into this box.
Who WE call evil is our business - you are not obliged to agree, but I think people who slam airplanes into building full of people can be safely called evil. (I think that Bush may choose other words, but the meaning is fine).
Your english is not a problem, just slow down, take a breath. Yo no puedo hablar en Espanol, pero su Ingles no es mal.
BTW, Argentina is supposed to be a good place to buy beef - send me a t-bone, medium rare.
…for all of us north of several borders for the attacks on your usage of English.
The problem is that so many native speakers of English are incoherent that the rest of us have a knee-jerk reaction. I too made the assumption that your OP was from a semi-literate American who had had all his life to learn English and still hadn’t perfected it. I am sorry.
For what it’s worth, any time I try to speak or write in ANY other language, my wife–who speaks several languages perfectly-- rolls on the floor laughing. She even corrects my English, which is embarassing as it’s not her native language.
In regard to the subject of your OP… What, are you afraid that next we’re going to target Al-Gaucho?
Why it is that anytime you are criticized by a member of the brotherhood of the third world you always speak “of the perception you have of u” or “third world vs U.S.A”.
I don’t like that kind of generalazation I don’t know how the argetinans feel about this war, this one is against it the objective I like but to revenge 4000 deads causing possibly (I underline the last word) many thousands more doesn’t seem right.
In fact I will be honest I know that in a recent poll 81% were against it but consider that, I seem to recall, that 71% of europeans are too. We all want the responsables in jail or dead (I am against the death penalty but with Osama I can renounce my ideals for a second, the second it is needed to fry him) but I repeat not at that cost.
Finally this war is not, and I quote “your buissness” this is a globalazed world you don’t live in it alone and certainly you are not the first, or the last, to suffer a terrorist attack. For example we suffered two (1992 amd 1994) Colombia, Spain, Israel, etc. We are all in the same bus and if the driver mades a wrong turn we will all end up in the hospital or worse
It’s not just the third world. I’m in Canada here, and although I feel Osama bin Laden needs to be brought to justice, and though I hate the Taliban, when I worry for the ordinary people in that country who have to suffer more simply because their dictators are evil, I get accused of being callous by many Americans.
I think most of us outside the US, and a lot of people inside it, know quite well that if the situation had been reversed, and it was the US who attacked another country, klled civilians, then said “the other country is the enemy, not the civilians,” America would feel perfectly justified in that situation also.
Actually, it’s done exactly this, on quite a few occasions. But whenever someone brings up Vietnam (to name just one situation of dozens), most simply list America’s reasons for killing an uncounted number of foreigners.
And whenever anyone suggests charging Henry Kissenger for war crimes, most Americans seem to just roll their eyes – as if people killed for American foreign policy didn’t leave behind family and friends, too.
I’m afraid it looks pretty obvious to me. As was noted in a couple of the early posts, the only way to get to bin Laden was to go through the Taleban. Any effort to go through them involved destroying their power. Once their power was destroyed, others began to rush in to fill that power vacuum.
The U.S. is currently supporting efforts of the United Nations to get Afghanis to work out their own new government without the civil war that occurred the last time there was an empty government. The U.S. is also trying very hard to not get involved in putting their own puppet government in place. So what are you actually criticizing? That an oppressive regime happened to be removed from power because they shielded the most prominent leader of a world-wide terrorist organization? I’m afraid that I am not receptive to simple bashing. Your OP claimed that we invented the war simply to give our generals something to do. That is not a reasoned review of the events that have taken place–not even as portrayed in the “unbiased” news media of the rest of the world.
As to Iraq: bin Laden is not the only person who contributes money and guidance to the world-wide al-Qaeda network. There are a number of indications that Iraq has supported that network. In addition, since al-Qaeda is based on a cellular structure, even destroying bin Laden does not guarantee that al-Qaeda will collapse. The current speculation regarding which supporter(s) of al-Qaeda should be faced next is centering on Iraq.
Is this true? I don’t know. Is it possible that Bush simply regards Iraq as an embarrassing legacy from his father and intends to trump up some charges to rationalize an assault on Iraq? It is possible. On the other hand, unless someone has genuine information that exonerates Iraq from any connection with al-Qaeda, I think it is premature to simply assume that the U.S. has decided to play its own version of rogue nation.
I have no problem with people trying to keep us honest; I do have a problem with people who simply assume that anything the U.S. does is misguided, merely because it is the U.S. who is doing it.
