ForumGarden

Jester;843250 wrote: Welp, we'll see wont we!:)


Sadly we will - at what price I ask

Hope6;843251 wrote: so it sounds like you're not saying they wouldn't still do it, just that they wouldn't get away with it?


That seems a central aspect of criminality and the law, don't you think?

spot;843256 wrote: That seems a central aspect of criminality and the law, don't you think?


yes it is,

but, i think what's so horrible about this story is the fact there are people who would want to do something like this to there fellow man, even if they were caught and punished doesn't change the fact that they were capable of it in the first place.

Hope6;843263 wrote: yes it is,

but, i think what's so horrible about this story is the fact there are people who would want to do something like this to there fellow man, even if they were caught and punished doesn't change the fact that they were capable of it in the first place.


Remove the reason that the local community joins the fanatics then. Killing their cousin obliges them to take up arms against the invaders and that's surely true the world over. The leaders of the resistance are fundamentalist Islamic fanatics because that's who the US empowered with all that money and weaponry. What a silly billy President Reagan's administration was, look at what came of their damnable belligerence.

Jester;843258 wrote: A better world, the price tag is always high in war, but the war is necessary to stop whats happening now.

Not doing anything and waiting for the hero to rise from within each indigionous group will only get more innocent people disembowelled and ripped asunder.

I've been a live for 42 years, for thousands of years of history before me, and I have no reason not to believe that for thousands of years after me, good men will fight evil men, it is the way of mankind. Man has not changed and will not change. We can have relative peace for a time, but for all of time so far there has been factions and fighting all over the planet continuously.

Im only sorry the US is not the world police, as Im sure your glad the US is not.


Just for once, Jester, do me the courtesy of explaining where my logic is wrong. Instead of just calling what I've written bullsh!t, tell my why you disagree with what I'm saying. Personally, I do not think that :-

The world can go screw yerselves then, everylast one of you who think we lost the moral highground, what total BS..is good enough.

I'll repeat myself :-

The Taliban did not have the capability to pursue Bin Laden and company - with all of their men and equipment the Coalition did not have that capability so how do you imagine the Taliban did.

The invasion of Afghanistan was the point at which America lost the moral high ground and the sympathy of world opinion after 9/11 and became the Big Bad Wolf.

After 9/11, the US acted quickly, on 9/20 they demanded that the Taliban give over the person of Osama Bin Laden and allow their troops in to inspect whichever sites they wanted to ensure that no terrorist training sites existed. Having refused to meet moderate Taliban members in Pakistan to negotiate a solution they invaded on 10/7 - just over two weeks after their first demand.

Far from going after Osama Bin Laden, they started by bombing Kabul and Kandihar. Is it any wonder that Mullah Omar ran? What would you do? What would the FBI have GWB do were America invaded.

As for the UN sanctioning the invasion, could you show me where? Having searched I've come up with UNSCR 1373 of 09/28 which imposed financial sanctions but did not sanction invasion and UNSCR 1378 of 11/14 which calls on the Afghan people to refrain from acts of reprisal but is after the invasion. I think we agree that, after 9/11, the US held the moral high ground.

Could you tell me how, from an non-US point of view, the way that the demands against the Afghan government were made was fair and the action against the that government was just.

This is nothing to do with going after Osama Bin Laden - there were ways and means that could have been taken which would have carried the world's sympathy with it. It is nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the government in power in the country. This is totally about the demands that were made on another country's government, whether they were reasonable and whether non-compliance with those demands justified invasion directed, not against Osama Bin Laden but against that government.



You've called it total bullsh!t - now, from your oh so moral high ground, explain why it's bullsh!t and how you expect Bush's demands to have been met.

Whilst you're about it, also explain what the US reaction would have been had the demands been made the other way.

The U.S. has taken on the Taliban where they nest. Two places that were the most available targets. The world sit's on it's hands and watches with neither the financial ability, technical knowledge or guts to wipe out this outrage to humanity.

Yet they sit until it is to late. And lay blame on the defenders of freedom.

I believe the U.S. has done much in bringing them down. The problem is that we live in a fast food world where results are tallied in days and not in years.

librtyhead;843299 wrote: I believe the U.S. has done much in bringing them down. The problem is that we live in a fast food world where results are tallied in days and not in years.The US has been fighting in Afghanistan for more years now than they fought in World War 1 and 2 combined.

There are more anti-Western fundamentalist Islamic fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan now than there were before the invasion. "Done much in bringing them down"? The US is creating more of them as each month passes.

I'd have scoured my Homeland to discover who'd allowed it to happen and I'd have fired them with a lot of publicity.

As for the first two questions, securing your borders and defending your Homeland would be great achievements toward which the deployment in the Middle East is contributing nothing at all.

Jester;843326 wrote: not the best way to gain friends.You wrote that seriously meaning it? Jester, the US hasn't made friends out there, they've bought a few warlords who keep asking for more cash. The day the US stops paying them is the day they'll shrug their shoulders, remember they're not Americans and look out for their own interests. Rather urgently, I imagine.

spot;843268 wrote: Remove the reason that the local community joins the fanatics then. Killing their cousin obliges them to take up arms against the invaders and that's surely true the world over. The leaders of the resistance are fundamentalist Islamic fanatics because that's who the US empowered with all that money and weaponry. What a silly billy President Reagan's administration was, look at what came of their damnable belligerence.


yes you're right, killing someones family is the surest way to cause them to take up arms aganist invaders, i look to my own Native American ancestry as proof of that, but this act was not done as revenge on Americans it was done to one of their own for a completely different reason.



i'm sure our government has made mistakes in the past, but the same can probably be said for any country's government. but i have always believed that if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan when we did we probably would have been attacked again and possibly worse than 9/11!

JAB;843334 wrote: So you ascribe to the belief that one should only defend their homeland if the fight is within it's own boundaries? Do you not believe that a preventative force can have as much if not a greater impact than the battle itself?


Look about you. You're sowing one of the biggest crops of ill-will the planet's seen in my lifetime. You're generating far more long-term hatred than you're eliminating. Where's the safety in that?

The Afghan and Iraqi governments were always incapable of ever threatening the US Homeland - what's been prevented?

The US has turned what should have been a crime investigation into a collective bankruptcy and a complete loss of world influence.

Hope6;843335 wrote: i'm sure our government has made mistakes in the past, but the same can probably be said for any country's government. but i have always believed that if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan when we did we probably would have been attacked again and possibly worse than 9/11!
My understanding from Condoleeza Rice's testimony was that none of the administration could have possibly believed that an attack like that could be mounted against the US, and that if they'd been warned properly they'd have prevented it. What could possibly get through if the Homeland were being defended adequately? What is this "possibly worse than 9/11" you're hypothesizing that the US couldn't avoid if it took the trouble to pay attention and defend its borders adequately?

Jester;843338 wrote: Then we had better stay and keep helping them huh.


They're nasty people who are interesting in personal power and wealth at the expense of everyone else, they're quite like your current administration in that respect. Why would you want to help them?

Jester;843344 wrote: you listen to too much MSNBC, and CNN tripe.I don't know where you get these ideas. They're TV stations? Radio broadcasts? I've never wittingly watched or heard either in my entire life. I quite respect BBC reporting, their news carries far less editorial slant than I understand is typical of US broadcasters.

JAB;843347 wrote: Oh I believe there was and is still an ongoing crime investigation. You just happen to disagree with the punishment being meted out. Punishment? There are more than a million fewer Iraqis alive today than would have been had the US not invaded their country, and one in ten of those still alive are currently displaced refugees. What on earth did they do to warrant "punishment", and what possible right has the US to impose it?

If you seriously think the crime scene was treated as such you have strange opinions.

Lots of people in the Middle East have died because the US administration chose to follow the obviously mistaken PNAC domino theory. How difficult is it to decide who's wrong?

spot;843340 wrote: My understanding from Condoleeza Rice's testimony was that none of the administration could have possibly believed that an attack like that could be mounted against the US, and that if they'd been warned properly they'd have prevented it. What could possibly get through if the Homeland were being defended adequately? What is this "possibly worse than 9/11" you're hypothesizing that the US couldn't avoid if it took the trouble to pay attention and defend its borders adequately?


i think that we can TRY to defend our borders adequately, but the chance of something or someone getting through will still always be there. I don't think there's a way to stop everything. i'm afraid that one day they still may succeed again.

Hope6;843357 wrote: i think that we can TRY to defend our borders adequately, but the chance of something or someone getting through will still always be there. I don't think there's a way to stop everything. i'm afraid that one day they still may succeed again.


What a pity you're all out killing people instead of building bridges then. Where's the sense in strengthening your enemy the way you're doing? It baffles me why anyone in their right mind would support that sort of folly.

JAB;843360 wrote: [quote=Scrat]What in the hell else are they going to do in the long term? Build an invasion fleet and invade the continental US and force all of the women to wear burkhas?Don't give them any ideas but left unchecked, yes I think they would.


That's sheer madness. What can you possibly base that suggestion on?

JAB;843366 wrote: As their goal is to convert all to Islam, why shouldn't we think the Taliban's ultimate goal is for us to submit to their intrepretation of it?What has that to do with "Build an invasion fleet and invade the continental US "?

spot;843361 wrote: What a pity you're all out killing people instead of building bridges then. Where's the sense in strengthening your enemy the way you're doing? It baffles me why anyone in their right mind would support that sort of folly.


all out killing people? i'm not out killing anybody, i'm here concerned for my family, wondering if the next time i take my baby to the mall, or somewhere if we're gonna make it back home again! i'm all for building bridges but i think the best defense is to stop them where they live before they have the chance to find a way in here again!

Hope6;843372 wrote: all out killing people? i'm not out killing anybody, i'm here concerned for my family, wondering if the next time i take my baby to the mall, or somewhere if we're gonna make it back home again! i'm all for building bridges but i think the best defense is to stop them where they live before they have the chance to find a way in here again!


This mistaking of you-personal with you-the-US is the bane of communication on forums. What reasonable basis would I have for thinking you-personal is killing anyone? What sand-pit would I have to bury my head in not to know that the US is out killing people in the Middle East? Stopping "them" where they live is a policing problem, not a cause for wrecking the US economy and turning its good name into one that's synonymous with terror and mass death.

Jester;843377 wrote: Excellent thoughts Hope, May God grant both you and the common middle eastern mother the same protection you desire.


thank you Jester, i hope God grants us both protection as well.