This place sure goes in "spurts"

[Odd]

David Sanders wrote:
> 2009/7/21 Robert Holtzman <holtzm at cox.net>:
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, David Sanders wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/7/21 Odd <iodine at runbox.no>:
>>>> Taliban was in control of Afghanistan at that time,
>>>> and they refused to hand over bin laden. So they
>>>> had it coming.
>>> Oh yes of course. A whole country down the toilet because of damaged
>>> pride. Way to go America, example of modern democracy and humility to
>>> us all.
>>> Now I'll let you get back to annihilating the arab world.
>> Out of curiosity, what response would *you* advocate?
>>
> 
> Well certainly one that fell within international law (such as it is)
> for starters.
> 
> It was certainly not a proportionate response to invade a sovereign
> state when only a small section (if any) of that state were involved
> in an act against the USA. It was, as has been made clear even by the
> perpetrators, not an act of war by Afghanistan, but by a small group
> of fundamentalists.

Supported by the Taliban, the rulers of Afghanistan at the time.

> Destabilising the region certainly wasn't going to create less
> extremists, and indeed if the primary goal was the capture of OBL,
> then perhaps a full-scale war wouldn't have been the first thing that
> came into my mind.

Invading Afghanistan did not destabilise the region. It was
already f*cked up from before.

> So, the real option would have been to apply international pressure
> towards forcing the Afghan taliban to cough up the whereabouts of OBL
> and his supposed Al Qaida "army", if indeed they knew, and to rely on
> the international sense of outrage felt to bring together a
> multi-lateral UN force to bring structure to the feudal taliban armies
> and improve conditions in Afghanistan.

Taliban did not care one bit about "international outrage".
Also, they did know where bin Laden was. They just refused
to deliver him to the U.S.

> Improved conditions and education will stop extremism, not blowing
> people up with helicopter gunships.

The multi-national forces that are there today ARE trying
their best to improve conditions. Many schools have been
built, for instance.

As for blowing up people, it's ok as long as it's the Taliban
or Al Qaeda. Blowing up innocent civilians is not ok, but
mistakes will be made and war is hell.

> I get the feeling from speaking to my American friends that this is
> also a view shared by many people in the US, but as usual the
> politicians will appeal to the lowest common denominator emotions when
> attempting to win public support. It's funny how many people will
> think outright war is a good idea when the government tells them so.
> So many people seem to have forgotten Vietnam, and now there are two
> Vietnams in progress even as we speak.

Bullshit. The U.S. just turned over the responsibility of Iraqi
cities to Iraqi authorities. The situation there is stabilising. There
is no comparison with Vietnam. As for Afghanistan, the situation
is murkier, but Vietnam it is not.

-- 
Odd