This place sure goes in "spurts"

[Odd]

Please don't send me mail off-list, send to the list.

David Sanders wrote:
> 2009/7/21 Odd <iodine at runbox.no>:
>> 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.
> 
> For one thing, evidence please.

You can find it easily on the net. But if it's diifcult for you
to google here is one link with references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Relationship_with_Osama_bin_Laden

> For seconds, they were not the "rulers" of Afghanistan, they're

Sure they were. Read the link above from the top.

> several groups of fractious and feudal peoples. This is like the "Al
> Qaeda" argument - there's no such thing, it's just a bunch of people,
> not all of them very nice, but they're not some sort of Government or
> organisation you can write a letter to.

You're right about Al Qaeda.

>>> 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.
>>
> Whatever - it was certainly not a utopian democracy, but in fact
> you'll see that now it's basically the same, but with several hundered
> thousand dead.

The number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan is nowhere near
that number.

>>> 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.
> 
> That is such an outrageous thing to say from someone who's obviously
> never lived in a warzone. How dare you judge the lives of other human
> beings as "mistakes will be made"? This is just the type of arrogant
> drivel I can't abide from a proportion of westerners.

I didn't judge anyone but the scumbag Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Civilian deaths are regrettable, but it's a fact of any war. You
have a problem with facts, take it up with your god.

>>> 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.
> 
> No - the US just upped and pulled their forces out.

 From the cities..

> Iraq is still a
> severely crippled country with hardly any infrastructure outside of
> the major cities. Now it is left without any semblance of hope in

I don't subscribe to your pessimistic view of Iraq's future.

> coming to terms with it's hugely fractious factional history. Let's
> see what happens to the Kurds over the next few years.

Yeah, let's see.

-- 
Odd