Looking forward to seeing Bin Laden in a bodybag

[Otto]

AAAAHHHHHHH Make up your mind PCS. So we embargo Afghanistan, which had already been done anyway, and eventually they'll play nice? Then you'll be bitching about starving children. THE TALIBAN CANNOT BE REASONED WITH!!! How hard is that to understand?

I don't have the patience to repond to the rest of Afghaistan line of reasoning simply because it is to inconsistant with reality to merit response.

I agree with you on Saudi Arabia, but apparently we have a deal. They keep pumping oil, and we don't interfere in their internal politics and keep Saddam from invading them. Sounds fair enough to me. Doesn't US non-involvement in local politics appeal to you.

Frankly, the goatherds in the whole region should be glad the western world told them there was oil under the sand, drilled wells for them and paid them for it. They've turned out to be more trouble than they're worth. Back in the day, Euro colonialists would have simply killed the locals, sunk some wells and called it a day. Ahhh, nostalgia.

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Bruise,

To answer your question, there are a wide range of views on these boards over a number of things.

I'm what you would describe as 'right wing' and libertarian and most other people who have indicated are libertarian but on the 'left'.

Discussion on any topic is OK as long as it's well-informed and people make an effort to argue politely and show respect, if its a serious issue.

On some topics there really isn't any discussion. Like this one. Most people are agreed on the causes of terrorism and how NOT to deal with this particular incident. A few extreme (war-mongering) views are contrary, which is why you get threads like this one.

This probably doesn't answer everything you want to know, but it's a start.

 

[Otto]

Given the picture in his profile, PCS is clearly not the prettiest fucker i've evr dealt with. But does pk really look like Ed Harris?

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

Otto,

I'm sure the 'not' in 'not the prettiest fucker' was a typing error and what you meant to say was 'definitely'....

Now did you notice any bitching from me about starving children in Afghanistan before September 11th?

No you didn't. How the US trades with other countries is entirely up to the States. But it will come in for criticism when it can't make it's own mind up. Like funding extremists one minute and then imposing sanctions on them the next. The Taliban weren't pissed off at the States imposing sanctions. They were pissed off that the States promised to help rebuild the country after the Russians were dealt with, but they didn't. Instead they made totally inadequate token payments like the $43 million I referred to - right in the middle of sanctions.

Seeing that the States can make a difference, it might be worthwhile it's leaders to stop being so hypocritical and actually working with the Taliban to make real changes. Sure, have your economic blockade, but also have that carrot handy in case the Taliban will want to talk.

The only other alternative is to fight with them if you disagree with them. And why would you be doing that in the first place? Is it out of the goodness of your heart for the poor children and women - we didn't hear a peep before - or is it to preserve American interests? The latter won't work. It'll rebound on America.

And yes, the Taliban can be reasoned with. If they could be reasoned with to fight against the Russians, they can be reasoned with. Nobody who looks after his best interests cannot be reasoned with. We don't really have a choice in this matter.

Your comments about the Saudis are ill-informed and follow spurious logic. The Saudis virtually bankrupted themselves buying American weapons for use on the local populace. They're still doing it. And if you interfere with their neighbours, then you're affecting them through your own actions. So far from being non-involved, America is propping up a hated and repressive regime. Not to mention the presence of American soldiers on Saudi land.

Which is what got Osama really rattled in the first place, wasn't it?

[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]

 

[D]

Head's up, folks:

bruise queried:

"what is the usual range of opinions on the boards?"

I don't view my response to otto's posts as an effort to "argue with someone who will disappear", but rather as a response to a text. Whether Otto sticks around here or flees is of relatively little interest to me, what's more interesting are the words he appends to the site.

I question how useful (or relevant) my general answer to your question above will be, but I'll offer it:

The usual range of opinion is varied. This is to say, on the whole urba75folk express socially liberal opinions and vocal criticism of prevailing neoliberal understandings of geopolitics and economics.

There are no fixed range and no fixed "membership" in this online community (two of the bulletin board 'community''s strongest assets).

My 'take' on the situation is - in this moment - inquisitory, which is either the savviest or the most cowardly approach, depending on one's epistemology.

I'm in a very hawkish climate and I find myself increasingly swayed by an opinion expressed earlier by pk. I'm in favour of disempowering the Taliban, but, like PCS, I struggle to find a means of so doing without the use of arms. I'm not in favour of channelling additional uncontrolled arms into Afghanistan, propping up the Northern Alliance, or killing civilians.

Re PCS's suggestion to provide an incentive for change: I don't think the provision of economic incentives for "progressive policy changes" to the Taliban would accomplish anything. The $43 million for the cessation of poppy cultivation didn't do much and that was on an issue around which there was ostensible normative agreement between the US (anti-drug) and the Taliban (anti-drug). Furthermore, if one takes Bin Ladin's views (as expressed on Al-Jazeera and elsewhere) to be representative of a strain of Islamic fundamentalism, it's unlikely that his adherents would be ready to embrace continued US military occupation and funds (as were part and parcel of the Marshall Plan).

Tell me, further, if you can (I wouldn't begin to speak for his adherents myself) the extent to which Bin Laden's adherents would differentiate "progressive policies" (and their attendant values) from "Western policies". It seems to me that, on some level, you're advocating liberal imperialism without the military force.

I would love to see a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan (and elsewhere), but I don't think that would solve 'the problem' (multifaceted as it is…is "the problem" the Taliban and its inhumane regime? or the spread of anti-American terrorism? or the proliferation of fundamentalist perversions of Islam? or the state-sanctioning [whatever the state, be it Afghanistan, Honduras, or - as some would suggest - the US] of violence (against civilians)? Or some combination of these factors and others?)

My biggest fear, initially (and it hasn't been satisfactorily quelled by any means), was that the war cries and the dominant policymaking trends were setting the world up for a profoundly untenable foreign policy scenario: an ever-expanding war with massive casualties that ended only after the US's military resources had depleted or everyone had died.

Another fraught question on the "is this viable?" front: Sandinistas are classified as terrorists by the State Department, yet the leader of the Sandinista party in Honduras is likely to be *democratically* elected president in the near future. Does this mean -- according to the new foreign policy goals -- that the US is *obligated* (in its grand fight against terrorism) to go to war with Honduras?

On the one hand, it's sensible to view the action in Afghanistan as an isolated military response -- a retaliation for the Taliban's support of the Al Qaeda terrorist network. On the other hand, we know that it's not an action in isolation. It is, ostensibly, part of an emergent revision of US foreign policy objectives.

***

PCS's characterisation of the Saudi regime is sound. A friend recently said something to the effect of, "it's as though someone sat down and designed the Saudi government to be as farcically appalling as possible." He, of course, is a Bush supporter, and so neglected to comment on the relevance of the (pre-Bush and current) US government's sustained suckling at the Saudi teat (Saudi business parties the Washington DC cocktail party circuit like it's 1999, let me tell you).

***

I'd like to see a long-term focus of US policy not only on domestic security measures, but also on solutions to the global refugee situation (and, specifically, the Afghanis who have been and will be displaced as a result of this war) and on the development of alternative energy sources. Not only have US funds to Afghanistan potentially propped up the terrorism-supporting (heretofore not-recognised-by-the-United-States-as-a-nation-state) Taliban "government", but the copious sums of money paid to Saudi oil profiteers may have also gone to bolster the efforts of international terrorist networks.

I hope you weren't expecting a compact narrative in response to your question, bruise.

***

Back to Otto --

Whether urban75 meets your unspecified standards of political diversity is really beside the point. I don't see anyone trying to convince you that urban75 is an online community descriptively or substantively representative of the masses resident in cyberspace.

Whether urban75 is full of lefties, self-conflicted liberals, or rabid rightwingers should have (and apparently does) have little impact on your opinions. If you actually want to convince people that your opinions are correct, it's in your best interest to take the political proclivities of your 'audience' (and you obviously have a rapt one) on board. Why do you waste your time here if you're so convinced that the place is so full of "nitwits"? I'm certainly not going to stop you from being combative. I'm more interested in discussion -- diatribal, conciliatory, whatever -- than I am in shitslinging.

"How do you know what else I read on this board?" I don't know, but I have to assume that the answer is "very little", otherwise you wouldn't bleat on about everyone holding the same opinion, as a multitude of opinions on a myriad of topics are expressed elsewhere.

***

Kissthecat -- That's highly distasteful.

 

[D]

An addendum ('cause I'm ever so fond of those):

I've noticed how swept up I've become in the language of "killing civilians". The truth is, I'd like to avoid actions that kill anyone -- civilians or otherwise (and, as I think JWH may have questioned someplace else, where is the line between a civilian and a non-civilian, especially when we're dealing with militias as opposed to authorised state forces?).

***

It's hard to think outside the language of judicial review in this context -- e.g., is there _evidence_ that Bin Laden was responsible? is military retaliation _self-defence_ or pre-emptive or a _deterrent_ or a _punishment_? (and who made the US the global arbiter? but isn't that a perennial question...).

It's also easy to see why the conventional realist discourse of state interests isn't the most useful here.

What kind of terminology (oh, I can hear the cries of "pedant, pedant") do y'all find most helpful?

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

D. I think the carrot approach would only work with sustained sanctions. If that. There really aren't any other alternatives, except for fighting. And if we wanted to do that, would it be because we were fighting terrorism, or simply because we don't like the Taliban - a major shift in objective?

If the latter, a sanctions policy would have to have not only the legal, but the moral backing of the international community, otherwise it would be useless. Which means that it would have to be be consistent against all aggressors, including Israel, and not cause undue hardship out of spite, like it has done in Iraq.

But if we're bombing Afghanistan simply because the Taliban refuse to hand over Bin Laden, then we should show what evidence against him we have to the Taliban so they can extradite him to Pakistan, which they've agreed to do so, on the evidence which is admittedly sketchy.

Dealing with the Taliban needs to be done on an international level as part of a global whole. If the States takes action against the Taliban in isolation, this opens it up to charges of hypocrisy and people will naturally assume it has an ulterior motive, or simply a desire to pick on a weak victim for revenge. This will have all sorts of unpleasant side-effects.

Personally, I don't think that things will happen according to some sort of a Utopian Grand Plan set out for the world by the world's leaders. Their interests conflict too much. And being a human trait, I don't think its something we are going to get rid of.

[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]

 

[kissthecat]

Taste was never my strong point D

 

[rasrave]

we know, kissthecat...

 

[Whowhere]

I am still here, but things like uni, and going out do mean I can't sit here all day, sorry to disappoint.

all your talk about churchill is still a load of bollocks, demoralising the enemy, at the time was still seen as a good way to end a war. Without PEOPLE, you have no SOLDIERS, or are you still blind to see that?
Churchill was voted off so fast because while he was a great wartime leader, he wasn't a good peacetime leader, if everyone hated him so much why did he get a full state funeral when he died? I don't recall any other prime ministers getting one.

As for Russia winning the war, I wish you had a grand parent who fought to hear you say that, as it spits on everything they fought for. You must surely know about the futility of fighting a war on 2 fronts, the only reason it wasn't us doing the ass kicking is because we happen to have an expanse of ocean seperating us. And it hadn't been for the USA, we would have had a much harder time of it.
You also forgot to mention the fact the Russians did a "better" job is because they threw their soldiers away, they just chucked them into the meat grinder. If that isn't a perfect example of communism in action I don't know what is.
You all hate the USA, and our government so much because you are jealous. You are jealous of the lifestyle everyone but you manages to lead. You'd never even given two shits about Afghanistan before now, why the hypocrisy? Like I said before, it's quite sad that you place their well being above that of your countrymen, especially when those people you are so readily about to jump into bed with, probably hate you and everything you believe in.

 

[William of Walworth]

Otto and WhoWhere, read my previous posts.
The contents of which you have conspicuously FAILED to address

Can you obnoxious, insulting people please stop TROLLING here by being SO FUCKING RUDE about us? And stop being so ARROGANTLY, BULLYINGLY INTOLERANT of people here DARING to express an opinion, or more accurately a hugely diverse range of opinions, that vary from yours? We're a damned sight less homogenous in our opinions than you choose to imagine.

This goes out to both Otto and WhoWhere. Is Nottingham twinned with Marietta, Ga. now?

Last time I was Trentside the people I met there were very nice. Lucky I didn't encounter WhoWhere's attempt to up the nastiness.

And spare me from gung ho Yanks who demand (rudely) absolute compliance with every last full stop of the "American Way" You're not selling it to me Otto baby because you're being a twazzock brained insult fountain.

W of W

All the above : Justifiable reponse principle Pt. III

Why are the right so HORRIBLE as people?

W of W

 

[bruise]

I don't view my response to otto's posts as an effort to "argue with someone who will disappear", but rather as a response to a text.

It's also easy to see why the conventional realist discourse of state interests isn't the most useful here.

What kind of terminology (oh, I can hear the cries of "pedant, pedant") do y'all find most helpful?

OK: "pedant pedant"
D, This comes dangerously close to some kind of deconstructive discourse analysis, but then perhaps the bulletin board is the ultimate pomo experience?

Thanks for the substantive points, though. I take on board (sic) the two main points - but weirdly transience ends up in some kind of permanent record - for any who can be bothered to read old threads anyway (might that be sad?)

D, Please hold onto your 'liberal' instincts - there's no situation that's made better by US/UK millitary bullying. Most likely it'll be a messy drawn out everybody-loses. Even if they had the surgical 'win' they want, what happens then? The US installs the first alt.gov't that comes to hand (Northern Alliance or geriatric monarch? Per-lease), which will create decades of similar oppression, and "set the economy on a sound footing", code for neo-liberalism, equals rape by the corporations. How has US involvement helped Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Israel/Palestine, Iraq...

For example, the left in the UK have been concerned about the plight of the Kurds for decades. Some welcomed the US/Alliance involvement as it might mean saving their lives, finding a permanent political solution. Has it? Has it fuck? They're now just another forgotten people.

I don't know why pk is talking such gung-ho bollocks - s/he's the poster I find most confusing as s/he seems to swing wildly from pro-war to pro-war bater, and elsewhere seems to be main party-guy - but I really don't think you should follow his lead.

PCS - if you are so r-wing, how come I agree with every comment you make?! OK, maybe we'd ultimately disagree with the nomoney/JT point that only socialism will ultimately solve everything (yawn/also true) but for a real world solution given current realities, the view you last put forward is the most coherent alternative to doing-nothing or waging war I've heard here (or indeed on any media). PCS for UN General Secretary (you heard it here first!)

I don't agree with D's only criticism for why it wouldn't work - everybody's now saying that the N.Alliance controls 90% of the heroin trade - possibly a good reason why giving Taliban money to end the trade was ineffective (though of course the Taliban wouldn't have pointed this out at the time).

Dear pro-War-Red-baiters, if the Taliban were so unreasonable, why did the US prop them up/create them in the first place (out of the ashes of the Mujaideen (sp?)), why did they release that Daily Tel journalist, why did they offer to deliver bin Laden up directly or to a third country in return for nothing more than being supplied with evidence? (Sure they could have been lying, or playing for time, now we'll never know.)

Meanwhile - look at the effect on the muslim world. Do you Yanks really wanted to be hated and despised in EVERY area of the globe? There's demonstrations in OMAN, fer christ sakes! That takes some doing. Pakistan is now thoroughly destabilised: the likely outcome? A millitant islamicist gov.t. Well done, folks, that was clever. Let alone Indonesia, gulf states...

Respect to Longdog, WoW, well red, JWH, frogwoman...

Hey, FRANCIS, you discovered irony! Well done dude <pats on head>. How about discovering some humanitarian concern for your fellow human being along with your first faltering steps into more intelligent modes of discourse?

(D'you like it? The kind of flame D would create if she were into such things?!)

 

[johnwisehammer]

"They keep pumping oil, and we don't interfere in their internal politics and keep Saddam from invading them."

Well, that's just patently untrue, just as PCS has said - the USA has a massive military presence in the KSA, a startling amount of which is located not near the Kuwaiti border, but near population points. The USA trains and equips a huge machinery for internal surveillance, and the USA desperately props up the morally and politically bankrupt monarchy against the liberal and Islamist opposition in Saudi. You are simply ignorant on this point.

"As for Russia winning the war, I wish you had a grand parent who fought to hear you say that, as it spits on everything they fought for."

Well, my grandad was a blacklisted Commie shop steward who fought in WW2 (among other things) as a response to the mass killings and repression of Jews and socialists in Germany under the Nazis. Three years later, British and American soldiers were taught they were fighting soldier to soldier with Soviet troops. Funnily enough, he didn't sign up to advance US neoimperialism and domination. In fact, after a few years, he saw the purges of McCarthy and the persecution of Cuba - and felt that was really spitting on everything he fought for.

"You all hate the USA, and our government so much because you are jealous. You are jealous of the lifestyle everyone but you manages to lead."

I don't hate the USA - it's a fabulous place with wonderful, varied people. The government acts in a completely unconscienable manner, especially in foreign policy, the crimes of which are too legion to need to discuss here. Get this straight, fuckwit: it's not because of the "lifestyle" (whatever the fuck you mean by that - did you mean wealth?) - it's because the interests of a tiny minority are cynically manipulating the mechanisms of the richest state on earth for their own enrichment.

There are concrete political and economic arguments against US government policy - you don't have to agree with them (thank God), but you don't even seem to be hearing them. Start listening, or stop being surprised that you can't understand things!

 

[well red]

Whowhere - once again, if you knew your military history you would be aware that after the bombing of Dresden (which killed possibly 100,000 people in one night) that even Churchill got cold feet at the ruthless and pointless area bombing campaign and attempted to stop "Bomber" Harris from continuing it. Dresden was not a military or industrial target but 46 square miles of it were destroyed to impress Stalin who was just up the road, and to prove to Air Command that incendiary-based area bombing could do such a terrible thing. Long after the RAF proved it could carry out precision bombing, "Bomber Harris" went back to his area bombing hobby-horse in an attempt to deliberately wipe out German civilians. Now you either give a shit about civilians, or you don't. If you care about the civilians in the WTC but not about Afghani or German civilians that makes you a hypocrite, and a stupid one at that. "Without people you have no soldiers" Is that really your justification for the indiscriminate mass salughter of women and children. Get a grip you fucking ghoul.

Unluckily for you, one of my grandparents was in fact a Lancaster pilot in World War 2, that's one of the reasons I know about area bombing - my grandad was one of the lucky ones who made it back whilst 55,000 other aircrew were killed. The continuation of mad schemes like the area bombing of Berlin (with its radar-guided anti-aircraft guns) in the face of more effective precision attacks, probably added a large number to that total. My other grandad was killed in Greece, trying to wipe out Communist partisans at the end of the war. The man was a fucking hero, but killing partisans for trying to organise a different political system wasn't the reason he went off to fight.

If you want to talk about fighting Fascism go back a few more pages of your "Uni" history book, to 1936. When Anarchists and Communists fought the Fascists in Spain - without any help from any of the Governments of countries you now trumpet as stopping us from "speaking German". Whilst your precious British and American Governments were doing deals with the nazis, with Henry Ford and King Edward popping over to Hitler's for a chat, my predecessors were fighting and dying in the people's war against Fascism. Strangely enough, if World War 2 was about fighting Fascism, you would have thought they might have done something about Franco after he beat the Left and established a dictatorship in Spain for 40-odd years (in the same way that the dictatorships all round the middle east don't appear to offend the West in the same way that Irag does). And if you look around you now - who is it that is out fighting Fascists in the streets of Britain? Is it pathetic reactionary shitheels like you, or is it actually people like us, the Anarchists and the Left, once again who are out there clocking BNP and NF Fascists over the head with lumps of 2x2? Your pointless and stupid American arselicking is just another symptom of your tedious and unimaginative life. I think you should probably leave "Uni" and go and get a fucking job, you ponce, coming here and trying to tell us about the "real world".

You insult us by saying we'd never given 2 shits about Afghanistan before Sept 11th. That would be because you're a fucking moron. People on this site have been posting about, and actively supporting RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan) way before OBL even got a mention here. There are people posting here from all over the world (even Nottingham now!), many people posting here from the UK also have links with people all over the world. Don't reflect your own shallow, narrow-minded concerns on everyone else, open your eyes and look around, you are not some kind of superman because you're English, you're just an ordinary person like everyone else in the world. You don't have some inbred superiority over other nations, that gives you the right to throw their lives away to make a point. Unlike you, most of the people on here place people's lives on parity with each other, not placing one above another to justify their slaughter. You say we are jealous of the USA and Tony Blair. Are you sure you are at "Uni"? You sound like you are still in primary school.

 

[D]

A few responses:

PCS wrote:

“:And if we wanted to do that, would it be because we were fighting terrorism, or simply because we don't like the Taliban - a major shift in objective?”

I am unfamiliar with any effective non-military strategy for combatting expansionist-revisionist regimes, which is, in effect, what the Taliban and their ilk aspire to be. Furthermore, we couldn't have a Marhsall Plan (or any such thing) in the area without a disarming of the Taliban (and here's an important and, I fear, umprobable point) AND the Northern Alliance.

Feminists in the US have been principally responsible for isolating the Taliban as an unjust regime in US discourse over the last few years. I would hate to see compulsory dove-ishness or, worse, on-the-fence-ness result in a diminishment of this commitment to dismantling the Taliban regime. I don’t know if it’s a shift in the objective, per se. I think there’s an equation of Talib with terrorist in the dominant discussion and maybe that equation needs to be teased apart a bit.

***

Is there ever a point at which those unequivocally opposed to military action in Afghanistan (or, ostensibly, anywhere in the Muslim world) could be seen as national defence (as opposed to offence)? Otto ranted something to the effect of "Muslim extremists are out to kill me" and I have to say that -- propaganda, hyperbole, and hysteria considered -- he's not altogether wrong.

Al Qaeda has issued a declaration of war (and I’m sure it’s another perversion of the term “jihad”) against the United States. An open question: is there ever a point at which you would condone the use of pre-emptive force?

***

The Taliban and its supporters don't hate the United States purely for the things that moderate critics of the US government and culture find contemptible. They appear to loathe some of the things I cherish the most -- individualism, secularism, the advancement of women. In short, PCS's "if only the US would pack up and leave Israel, none of this would happen" rhetoric is unconvincing to me.

***

bruise wrote:

“The US installs the first alt.gov't that comes to hand (Northern Alliance or geriatric monarch? Per-lease)”

There has been some discussion of introducing a League of Nations-style (basically colonialist) post-war (re)construction effort. Some people are now advocating for the establishment of a sovereign, multilateral interim government to set up state infrastructure (the autonomy is what distinguishes this sort of thing from, say, a peacekeeping force). I'm not sure that this would go down well or that it would ultimately lead to the emergence of Afghanistan, per se, as a non-theocratic, sovereign nation with women and non-Muslims at the table, but I think it may be one sign that the US and the UK won't be able to haul ass (the “international community” – a dubious phrase – won’t have it) after they've finished the military action.

Any thoughts on this one? Any other possibilities for opening up the discussion about post-military-action options?

 

[D]

I feel I should better explicate this sentence:

"[The Taliban] appear to loathe some of the things I cherish the most -- individualism, secularism, the advancement of women."

First of all, add some other values like free speech, education, a vigorous civil society, the list goes on...

Do not misconstrue "individualism" to be an embrace of shameless exploitation. Additionally, my mention of "secularism" does not imply compulsion to abandon religious culture. I mean to say something more like "freedom" or "liberty" than I do "secularism" and "individualism".

I couldn't possibly argue that military action is the ideal way to promote freedom, but I'm struggling to envisage a strategic foreign policy that advances these values, but bases itself *exclusively* on non-arms resource provision and education instead of deterrent force.

***

Every state consists of a certain degree of controlled (or uncontrolled) violence -- the military is an extension of the kind of authority that paradoxically seeks to prevent violence while perpetrating it. I fear that we may have to reimmerse ourselves in the human nature debate in order to ascertain whether it's possible to protect freedom without giving it up.

***

I should also concede that my representation of PCS's analysis re the role of the US's involvement in Israel may be inaccurate. I'd welcome any clarification from PCS.

[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: D ]

 

[D]

There's more:

I don't know whether I'm correct in my characterisation of the Taliban as expansionist (or how helpful such a classification really is)...

Is dismantling the Taliban akin to liberal imperialism in the same regard that ending fascism in Europe was akin to it?

 

[chemhead]

Whowhere I think the truth of your argument just came out in that post. The reason that you don't mind the bombing of afghnistan is because you don't believe afghani lives are worth as much as british/american lives. You might not give a shit about them but some of us do give a shit. In the same post you ask us to have sympathy for the lives lost on sept 11 th and then tell us that you don't give a shit about afghani's. You are able to justify this argument by tellin us that they are not real. Im sorry but afghanistan is just as much part of the real world as the UK. Maybe someone should fly you out there four a while and then maybe you'd realise that those people on TV are just as real as you and me.

 

[pk]

Whoa, what have we here... a right pillowcase full of vipers.

Bruise, since you addressed me last, I'll answer to your points. First, my gung-ho attitude is just that, an attitude. And Otto, I fucking well am Ed Harris.
Look at my cigar, fer Christ's sake.

I could be guilty of being gung ho if I didn't believe in the horrors the people of Afghanistan have suffered in the last six years, and on a more moderate scale for many years before that.
One good thing to come out of war (and there has to be some things
) is that people yearn to learn, and in this info age we can log in here and elsewhere, read up on the world situation as it happens, hear accounts of atrocities, attacks, and take in as a digested form world news, plus opinions and backgrounds from all over the political and geographical spectrum.
Shame there's no way in hell the average Afghan will be able to log in to U75 in the near future.
(BTW, where are all the Aussie regulars?)

These are scary times. Lets not get too personal, everyone has space for a say, anger will only cloud your aim.

*troll: a habitual poster who only serves to insult or provoke, without any specific thing to say about anything. A wind-up merchant. Of low intelligence. I don't think anyone on this thread can really be accused of that. We all have to start somewhere.

 

[pk]

I didn't really answer your points at all there Bruise, did I.
I'll have another read and get back to you.
So many threads, so little time...

 

[pk]

I don't know why pk is talking such gung-ho bollocks - s/he's the poster I find most confusing as s/he seems to swing wildly from pro-war to pro-war bater, and elsewhere seems to be main party-guy - but I really don't think you should follow his lead

I hardly think someone like D will be following my lead, Bruise. Really.

I mean, give her some credit!

 

[Otto]

So, y'all decided to get all long-winded on me now. Ok.
First, PCS, that $43 million to the Taliban shit is an myth debunked long ago. Read about it here. Now shut up about it.

Second, The US involvement with the Taliban during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan is well explained here by the generally liberal New Republic. So now shut up about that too.

Third, the idea of "reasoning with the Taliban" is the stupidest thing I've heard on this board yet. Check with some of the people the Taliban has reason with so far, and see how they came to agreement. At the end of a club or hung by their toes by bailing wire. They viciously oppress all women, gays, liberals, card players and TV watchers. What's to reason with fool?

Fourth, as far as the Saudi's are concerned, as long as those goatherds keep pumping oil, I don't care if they stay, lay, or pray, just keep it over there. The basic fact is that Islamic culture is fundamentally unprepared for the modern world. Oil money does nothing but exacerbate the issue. Good background on this issue is found here.

PCS your absolute refusal to entertain force and physical violence as a viable, (and probably only), solution to the extremist and terrorist onslaught only exposes your own "narrowmindedness." The fact is that in the course of human relations, violence between individuals, groups, and nations is necessary. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" isn't just one way, it's the only way.

D, with regard to the "diversity of opinions" on this site, I am the diversity, along with a small group of others who are relentlessly abused for their different take on issues and events. Debating whether socialism is a good idea or a great one is not diversity. Debating if it is a good idea or a stupid one is. The anti-american sentiment on this board is virulent, yet hollow in it's one-sidedness. There is absolutely no discussion of Soviet or Chinese foreign policy, which formed the other sides of the Cold War picture. No discussion of local political and cultural issues that are the context of specific US foreign policy actions. While I do not support or condone EVERY US foreign policy action, I make the effort do understand them in the context in which they occurred. The US does not operate in a vacuum, and is not the sole perpetrator of situations everyone else in the world reacts to. When context is added, the issues are far less cut and dried.

FYI, I have tried numerous approaches to discussion on this board. Extended and detailed reasoning is generally ignored. Sympathetic accomodation lead to a huge waste of time researching a bunk-ass management philosophy parading as economic theory fantasy called PareCon. Invective seems to be the most effective. When in Rome...

W of W, no, no one reads your past posts, just as they don't read mine. Resign youself to repeating yoursel ad naseum. Never mind, I see you have.

The issue that is most misunderstood or disregarded by the left is human nature. The point of human existance is not, and will never be absolute moral or ethical fairness, conservation of resources or efficiency in their use. It is happiness. Some people's idea of happiness conflict with others. The outcome is sometimes violence. It's the way human beings relate to one another. Period. The things that lefties "admire" about America are intimately related to our political and economic systems. Without them, the admirable things would not exist. Compromises are made and bad comes with good. Things will never be perfect or optimum. The idea that if everyone just "understood" things we would all agree is simply not true. Fortunately, the pacifict, socialist, anarchist point of view is generally in the minority. God help us all if they ever get the chance to put their half-baked philosophies into practice. They are in for some rude surprises.

 

[pk]

So, y'all decided to get all aggresive on us now. Ok.
First, Otto, that article about $43 million to the Taliban shit is an mythical piece of shitty tabloid scribble in a shitty little Boston local paper. Read about some of the Afghani perspectives, BEFORE THE WTC DISASTER here.
Now YOU can shut up about it, you cheeky fool.
You don't know anyone here, and we will certainly NOT shut up for your benefit.

You're really, really making yourself look stupid now Otto.

 

[Otto]

Maybe PCS would prefer this response to the Taliban.

 

[D]

Operation pudding missile - yum!

 

[well red]

When the going gets tough...

... the tough resort to the old chestnut about human nature and a ragbag of untrue assumptions about the Left.

I'm ho-o-o-o-o-o-o-ome Otto! Didya miss me?

 

[D]

Along the lines of the pudding missile offensive, a friend received a call from his father in New York with the following question,

"What are the chances that the US government will drop Afghan takeaway over the Upper West Side of Manhattan?"

Very slim, we all thought.


[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: D ]

 

[Otto]

pk, since when is the LA Times a tabloid? Liberally full of shit? Obviously. But not yet a tabloid. I'm sure Robert Scheer will be shocked by this revelation. Read the article before you mouth off about it.

well red, I did miss you. Like a big,red burning rash. Old chestnuts are the tastiest and the truth is still a bitch. Which of my assumptions about the left are untrue? I'll be happy to correct them given sufficient evidence.

 

[Chuff]

 

[Otto]

Here's some follow-up for pk, as well as some sense from a Canadian. Who'd of thunk it?