What exactly is an appropriate response?

[tw]

Originally posted by Nothing But Net
Then if our demands are not met, we go in full force, align with the Rebels (who I would now call Freedom Fighters), and lay waste to the land, but attempting killing as few innocents as possible.

Perchance are you related to Curtis LeMay? Exactly the concepts he would have advocated.

[jaguar]

Lets go thougha bit of history and a few naffacts.

a: HT emiddle east was warved up into artifiucal states by the allies after WW2.

b: THese often didn't work with tribes, as in africa.

c: THere is alot of tribal fighting in afghanistan.(which is why half of afghastian hate the other half but get on with the pakistanies)

d: the us gave weapsona nd moeny to the talibanand other to fight thier ideological war.

e: then they just let them rot

suprised, combined with other results of ameican actions on the arab world, including keeping very ugly leaders in pwoer for thier own political benifit that they hate the us???

And the Northern Alliance dosen't have a squeaky record by along shot...please keep that in mind, read salon too.

[Hubris Boy]

Dammit, Jag. You made me choke and splurt tea out of my nose.

Lets go thougha bit of history and a few naffacts.

Yes. Let's do that.

a: HT emiddle east was warved up into artifiucal states by the allies after WW2.

Actually, the map of the Middle East as we know it today was carved up into artificial states after WW1. It was done in a half-assed attempt to clean up the wreckage of what had been the Ottoman Empire. (The utterly corrupt and hopelessly silly Ottoman Empire having foolishly backed the losing team in the recent hostilities.) Most of the carving, by the way, was done by the Europeans, especially the British and the French, not by the United States.

Sure, there were some minor changes to the map after WW2. Iran's borders got shoved around some to keep Stalin happy, and I've NEVER understood where the hell Kuwait came from. But most of the changes were changes of government, not territory. (With the enormous and unfortunate exception of Israel, but that wasn't our fault either.)

b: THese often didn't work with tribes, as in africa.

True enough. Again, you can thank the Europeans for that.

c: THere is alot of tribal fighting in afghanistan.(which is why half of afghastian hate the other half but get on with the pakistanies)

Yeah... but it's always been that way. Afghanistan has been the monkey house of southern Asia for over 2,000 years. You aren't trying to suggest that this is a recent development, are you? Or somehow attributable to anything the US has done?

d: the us gave weapsona nd moeny to the talibanand other to fight thier ideological war.

Well... yeah, that's true, as far as it goes. We gave weapons and money to the mujahideen so the mujahideen could fight their ideological war. We were busy trying to bankrupt the Soviet economy by forcing them to compete in an insane arms race that they couldn't afford, and this seemed like a "buy-one-get-one-free" deal for us. And I'm sure that, at some level in the US government, people were REALLY enjoying the irony of watching the Soviets use conventional troops to fight a guerrilla war. (Jesus! Didn't those dumb bastards learn anything from watching the US wallow around in Vietnam a decade earlier?)

e: then they just let them rot

I wouldn't go THAT far, Jag. The US has been the largest contributor of foreign aid to Afghanistan since they gave the Soviets the boot in '91. And that aid continued to flow even after the Taliban took over most of the country. As far as I know, most of our aid to Afghanistan has had very few strings attached... why should it? There's really nothing there worth having. We're just trying to feed people, and maybe proselytize a little western-style consumerism while we're at it.

suprised, combined with other results of ameican actions on the arab world, including keeping very ugly leaders in pwoer for thier own political benifit that they hate the us???

As opposed to what? Replacing them with a different set of very ugly leaders? We've never dabbled in Syrian politics, for example, and the result was Hafez Assad. In Saudi Arabia, the western-supported House of Saud is surely as unsavory a group of thugs and scumbags as you're likely to find anywhere, but what would you replace them with? Some things just won't fix, Jag, and it's a little unfair to blame the US for the native inability of certain regions of the world to build themselves a civil society.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
As opposed to what? Replacing them with a different set of very ugly leaders? We've never dabbled in Syrian politics, for example, and the result was Hafez Assad. In Saudi Arabia, the western-supported House of Saud is surely as unsavory a group of thugs and scumbags as you're likely to find anywhere, but what would you replace them with? Some things just won't fix, Jag, and it's a little unfair to blame the US for the native inability of certain regions of the world to build themselves a civil society.

The US cannot be blamed in any way, shape, or form, as to HOW this all started. Britain and France are the real culprits. ("Okay, France, you get Syria and Lebanon. Britain, you get Palestine, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Transjordan.") But we can't deny that we added fuel to the fire, particularly after the formation of Israel.

(And this is why I get so irritated at the French's attitude. They were the worst when it came to colonization. They got run over in WW2, and driven out of Indochina. And now they get all pissy when the US wants to go on a crusade. I don't get it...At least Britain steps right in, as witnessed in this situation and Kosovo.)

At least from what I've seen, there has been a sense of "enlightenment" as a whole on the part of the US, Israel, and the Arab world in the past decade. Assad's son, who is now in power, is not nearly as big of a hard-ass as his father. King Hussein mellowed after the Gulf War. King Abdallah is rather moderate. And it doesn't hurt that Queen Noor (or rather the former Queen Noor) is an American. Kuwait is the most westernized Arab country, with maybe the exception of Turkey. (Hell, Turkey is trying to join the EU!) At this point, both would probably do anything to help the US (particularly Kuwait). Iran (although not Arab) is lightening up under Khatemi(?). Arafat has moved to diplomacy. Israel has given the Palestinians more control over the West Bank and Gaza (although that is currently strained).

And our Baltimore buddy made a good point--Afghanistan has been a mess since forever. The British fought over it in the 19th century. Then infighting. Then the Soviets. Then more infighting.

No, the Northern Alliance does not have a squeaky clean record. NO ONE has a squeaky clean record anymore. And I fear we'll only use the Northern Alliance as a pawn in the end.

[Nothing But Net]

I'm no Curtis LeMay, but someone did say if you want to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, bomb them with FOOD, not explosives.

Huh? In the past day I have seen pictures of Afghan refugees amassed near their borders. One was a young man sleeping on hundreds of sacks of rice clearly marked 'GIFT OF JAPAN'. Another showed an Aghani woman sitting on a can of vegetable (cooking) oil, labeled 'GIFT OF U.S.'. Yet this country has the means to arm practically every loyalist (and his kid) with an assault rifle?!

Our quarrel is not with the innocents. But the Taliban is something different. This is undoubtedly the most repressive regime since Saddam, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, the list goes on and on.

I am going to post a link that should convince you of who we're dealing with here. WARNING! It a very disturbing video of an Afghan woman being executed for the (alleged) crime of adultery. Do not click it if you are faint of heart.

http://www.consumptionjunction.com/c...ew.asp?ID=6138

How do you deal with animals with guns?

NBN

[jaguar]

Pardon my earlier post, terribly written, terribly worded, full of spelling msitakes and i mixed up WW1 and 2...*reminds self nto to write for at least 2 hours after geting up* I literally did get out on the wrong side of bed(which is why i promptly hit a wall then fell down) and it wasen't my bed either, forgive me for that pile of trash.

If you go though that though, i never at any point suggested any of those in particualr except for thsoe that were directly related to the US were the US's fault. As for not letting them rot, they certainly did nothing to assit is the setting up of some kind of organised goverment afterwards which is why thier weapons turned inwards. Although at the same time i know that is not an easy thing to do, particaurly politically when you still have to beat the godless commie scum.

What i blame the US for mostly is meddeling in the affiars of the middle east continually for either ideological or economic gain (particualry oil countries), and this meddeling has often resulted in loss of lives, in exchange for easier access to bessed oil, which says something for their value on arab life, clearly the US thinks american life is far ore valuable that the lives of arabs. (unfair i know but true) It is this meddeling that has most of the arab world royaly pissed off, they feel marginalised and powerless, big bad america can just wade in and fuck them up whenever it suits them, hell i'd be pissed too

I agree entirely that taliban should be removed, and removed fast but the ROOT cause has always been outside interference. Manby countires in that reigon want a taliban-style clensing as they cause it. That kind of extremism exists because they are
a: living in poverty
b: powerless
People don't do suicide runs when they have a decent standard of living, extrmeisim requies certain conditions whcih the US has at least done(and the rest of the western world is equally t5o blame) nothing to fix, if not artifically kept in place for gain. As for propping up the anti-soviet forces that was as bad as Vietnam, jsut not as politically dangerous. Having been to vietnam i swear whoever ordered that should be forced to say sorry to all the horribly malformed kids that are a result of agent orange then have him walk though a ricepadd full of landmines.

The Northern alliance may be another taliban if it gets cocked up again. I fear they're gonna run in there, knock off the leaders etc then piss off again and let it fester. The US and other western economies rely on exploitation of third world coutries and now hat one group of those has a common banner, money nad organisation (Jihad/Extremist Islamic) its like a gurilla French Revolution.

Marxist Class war on a global scale. 'nuff said.

BTW NBN, Iran et al are jsut as bad when it comes ot public executions....Do you support the death penalty? Just out of question.

[tw]

Originally posted by Nothing But Net
In the past day I have seen pictures of Afghan refugees amassed near their borders. One was a young man sleeping on hundreds of sacks of rice clearly marked 'GIFT OF JAPAN'. Another showed an Aghani woman sitting on a can of vegetable (cooking) oil, labeled 'GIFT OF U.S.'.

In a country where the literacy rate is 31%, do we think they read what is on the can? Furthermore, what language is written on the can?

[Chewbaccus]

Jag, until I get into office, this is gonna go on going on. We support one revolutionary faction because it supports our interests. A generation later, we support a new revolutionary faction to counter the old one. A generation from now, the same thing will happen.

I'm serious, first thing I do if I get elected is to put up a huge freakin' brick wall around the country. If my administration got involved with anyone else, it would be after due consideration, and if it was a situation where we were needed.

Kosovo, and the problem with the genocides there: Needed.
Desert Storm: Not really needed.

Desert Storm was about political gain. Poppa Bush, I'll wager, wanted to have some American presence there, regardless of size. He was with Reagan, he knew of the Contras and US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war. All the same, had we just stayed in that night, ordered some pizza or something, played Atari, Desert Storm might not have been needed. Iraq would have been weaker, Iran would have been weaker, and because we sayed out of the whole thing, they wouldn't have come after us.

(NOTE: This is armchair political science going on here. If you have to blast me...make it one head shot, quick and clean. Thank you.)

When it comes to how things are, one quote looms foremost in my mind. From "Jurassic Park" of all places. I might get the wording wrong, but the core idea is the same. I leave you with this:

"You were so preoccupied with if you could, you didn't stop to think if you should." - Jeff Goldblum

Mike in...hmm...2020 sounds like a nice year. There we go. "Mike in 2020. Together, we can leave them the hell alone."

~Mike

[jaguar]

Well......Personally i think the people we shoudl put a wall around its the fuciing administration, although ill admit thier handeling was better than i expected and better than clinton with the embassy bombings.

The porblem is of course meddeling often seems to be needed to uphold wahtever laws we feel like (liek human rights)

NOw i you took one stnad you could sasy we shoul *never* intervine because we are simply imposing our standards on other pople, and in some cases, that would be a better course of action, in others, itobviously woudl not.

The UN, not the should step into places like bosnia and help out, but hte US should not fuck around in the middle east to play with oil prices.

Minimal interference in other peoples affiars, no ideological wars like vietnam, no keeping in for instance the egyptian leader for political benifit. I mean the only reason Hussien is still there is because they fear an Islamic revolution there if they remove him.

While it will never really be done we must tackle the roots of this hatred, which is impoissble to overcome inequality. Idealsitc as it is exploitation of the rest of the world by the big western ones *must* stop. Time will eventully do this mostly, and i believe Nanotech will completely nuke what is our economy/society today when it finally comes to fruit. Oh fuck im' gonna live though all this...

I hold big hopes that nanotech will break the back of corperations and the stranglehold they have today, god knows everyhting else is failing. (-1 Offtopic, Troll)

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaguar
Minimal interference in other peoples affiars, no ideological wars like vietnam, no keeping in for instance the egyptian leader for political benifit. I mean the only reason Hussien is still there is because they fear an Islamic revolution there if they remove him.

I've heard that said about Hussein, but who really knows for certain. Apparently, the US government thought Hussein's own people would take him down, or so it has been said. When asked about taking Hussein, Bush and Schwarzkopf have said that the main objective of Desert Storm was ridding Kuwait of Iraq, not to take Hussein. Given their progress on the ground, and given what has happened since, perhaps it should have been done. But hindsight is 20/20.

[jaguar]

You seen three kings?
THe point in that is true, rebels in Iraq thought they were gonan get US backing, the nthe US left and they got slaughtered. HUssien is sane, they can control him pretty wel lif not as well as they'd like and he won't do anyhting too serious. Another Taliban is a much bigger royal pain in the ass.

[Griff]

Thats a good point Jag outside of creating the no fly zone we left the Mudan (?) hanging.

On the point about controling Hussein... according to a piece Alexander Cockburn did for the New York Press Madeline Albright gave the fundementalists a huge public relations tool, when she maintained in an interview that yes controlling Hussein was worth the lives of 1/2 a million Iraqi kids. I'm not sure what show Leslie Stahl had back then maybe the CBS 60 minutes? His background piece is well worth the short read. Cockburn has something that much of the left IMHO lacks, consistency. He is a hardcore leftist and peace activist who opposed the Bush I Gulf War and Clintons Balkan foolishness. Anybody got a reliable source on a KLA bin Laden connection?

http://www.nypress.com/14/39/news&co...ildjustice.cfm

I'm gonna look for the transcript on that Stahl interview, if anyone has a suggestion of where to look speak up.

[russotto]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy


Sure, there were some minor changes to the map after WW2. Iran's borders got shoved around some to keep Stalin happy, and I've NEVER understood where the hell Kuwait came from.

The emirate of Kuwait became independent in the mid-1700s, IIRC.

[russotto]

Originally posted by jaguar

on arab life, clearly the US thinks american life is far ore valuable that the lives of arabs. (unfair i know but true)

I'd expect the US govt to value US lives over the lives of foreigners; US lives are to some degree the US govt's job to protect. Nothing wrong with that.

I agree entirely that taliban should be removed, and removed fast but the ROOT cause has always been outside interference.

And what outside interference would that be? The Taliban took Kabul in 1996. The Soviet Union had been gone since 1989, and with it American backing for anti-Soviet forces. No, the Taliban is a strictly local phenomenon.

Just because Bin Laden and the Taliban blame America for the troubles of the Islamic people doesn't mean there's a whit of truth to their claims. America is just a convenient scapegoat. Neither the USs support for Israel nor the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait harms anyone in Afghanistan.

[jaguar]

Rusotto....go lower...far.lower.
Socioeconomic differences. You don't see many extremists in irst world counties, wonder why...

Extremism requires certain conditions, such as poverty and much of the povery in the middle east could have bene avoided if the US wasen't so interesting in playing games to its advangeage. As for afgansitan, leaving a country awash with arms after youv'e won another point on the ideological scoreboard probably didn't help.

Islamic extremism is the rallying point for this anti-first world anger. Thsoe reasons you listed down the bottom further my point, the real anger isin't about anyhting that petty, its about being made powerless fools by the first world. People don't liek when thier nation has its strings pulled.