War

[Smokin]

Originally posted by Briedis
Smokin,

I hope you ARE right and that the bombing is doing something to stop terrorism.

One question though. If the Taliban have SEEN the evidence against Bin Laden, why would they continue to ask for the US to produce it? I can understand why they wouldn't take their enemy's word for it.

I find it hard to believe the US news as it is riddled with propaganda. As I am sure is the Talibans. They are hardly going to say the whole thing is not working are they? Normally I would check the BBC for a more balanced view, but they would be tainted as well in this conflict. Just be aware that what we are fed here via the news is going to be biased in favour of the US.

I never said the Taliban have seen the evidence.

When you know you are guilty, and somebody has the evidence - you wont take it if you dont have to.

Thats all they are doing.

All news is tainted. By watching all news, ie CNN, BBC, Sky, Local Australian, reports from Middle Eastern countries, the taliban etc. you can work it all out yourself in your own head. Just like footy news - everything that goes in the paper is the same. Nobody takes it 100% seriously, but common sense, different reports and views are what footy fans use to come to their own conclusions about things. Which generally forms a pretty well informed opinion on an issue.

Id like your opinion - what do you suggest the US should have done/do in the future? According to you this was done to help Bush's political standing. What should have been done then after Sept. 11?

 

[Briedis]

Originally posted by Smokin



I never said the Taliban have seen the evidence.

When you know you are guilty, and somebody has the evidence - you wont take it if you dont have to.

Thats all they are doing.

All news is tainted. By watching all news, ie CNN, BBC, Sky, Local Australian, reports from Middle Eastern countries, the taliban etc. you can work it all out yourself in your own head. Just like footy news - everything that goes in the paper is the same. Nobody takes it 100% seriously, but common sense, different reports and views are what footy fans use to come to their own conclusions about things. Which generally forms a pretty well informed opinion on an issue.

Id like your opinion - what do you suggest the US should have done/do in the future? According to you this was done to help Bush's political standing. What should have been done then after Sept. 11?

I know what you mean about news "filtering", but I'm not sure if the common sense approach can work in this case as the reports seem to be completely biased one or the other it just ends up confusing you more!

My opinion? Well, I'm no world leader, but to me it would have made a lot more sense for the Americans to go underground with their war against terrorism and not report every move on CNN. The US controls world economics and telecommunications these days so I am sure they could have done something to hurt the operations of these terrorist "cells". Also, undercover operations to eliminate terrorists could have been used.

At the moment the whole world is waiting for the SAS to go into Afghanistan and will meet heavy resistence. Most battles are won because of the "element of surprise". (Read BSA's Six Day War thread for a REALLY good example) There is no such thing here.

All I can see that the bombing has done is weaken the ties with the nations allied with the US. Most of the Arabic nations have be very tentative with their support. If more innocent people die...they will lose that.

In the longer term, the US could try to become less dependant on oil. It is the problem of oil supply that has the US involved in the politics of the Middle East any way, so if they became less dependant on oil, perhaps they could "mind their own business" a little more and let the middle eastern people go back to fighting amongst themselves.

But, I doubt any US government will ever have the guts to take on the US oil companies.

 

[Smokin]

Originally posted by Briedis


I know what you mean about news "filtering", but I'm not sure if the common sense approach can work in this case as the reports seem to be completely biased one or the other it just ends up confusing you more!

My opinion? Well, I'm no world leader, but to me it would have made a lot more sense for the Americans to go underground with their war against terrorism and not report every move on CNN. The US controls world economics and telecommunications these days so I am sure they could have done something to hurt the operations of these terrorist "cells". Also, undercover operations to eliminate terrorists could have been used.

At the moment the whole world is waiting for the SAS to go into Afghanistan and will meet heavy resistence. Most battles are won because of the "element of surprise". (Read BSA's Six Day War thread for a REALLY good example) There is no such thing here.

All I can see that the bombing has done is weaken the ties with the nations allied with the US. Most of the Arabic nations have be very tentative with their support. If more innocent people die...they will lose that.

The US is doing all that. They are giving very little away to TV, ie CNN this time around. Everybody has acknowledged that. What they are giving away is the obvious. Most of this attack is underground, not what is seen on the news. Everyone knows that.

Thats the problem - too many simple people think this bomb attack is THE attack - its not! This war is being played on many fronts, air attack being one.

The US is protecting itself and its allies before anybody else. Sure, they dont want to endanger innocent people, but if that is what must be done, it must be done. Remember, we dont live in a perfect world. It would be great if we did, but unfortunately, we dont!

They will concentrate on a ground attack when they believe they have done everything thats needs to be done from the air - ie crippling the talibans defense structure. This means that when the US step up their ground attack, they will be fighting a softened target. This leaves less risk at Americans, Aussie, poms, whoever getting killed.

They US must, and is, systematically breaking down the necessities these terrorist organisations need to operate. Defense is only one. This current air attack is not the be all and end all.

Nations supporting the US who may be a little on the fence, or who seem to be on the fence, will, when push comes to shove, be 100% behind the US.

While they want to be seen as with the US, they dont want to be seen as against the "muslim" or "innocent" world. What some nations are saying is pure politics, and they dont make sense.

However, once the US spotlight shines on them, just like Pakistan, watch them jump in line.

The US must use military/air force as one front against terrorism.

Remember, bloodshed of this level would never have happened if it wasnt for the governing body in afghanistan making the decision they did. They had a choice to make, go with right or go with wrong. They were given a month to decide.

Dont blame America for the lives lost of the innocent. Blame those, who in effect, are completely responsible. Thats not the Americans.

The air attack is achieving what it set out to do.

 

[Briedis]

Originally posted by Smokin

The air attack is achieving what it set out to do.

....Which is to show the American people that Bush is doing something to get revenge, but little else....

I'll side with you on the bombings for a second and ask you -

1) How do they know that Bin Laden is still in Afghanistan?

2) If he is, where?

I would hate for the SAS teams to be running around Afghanistan getting killed when Bin Laden is in another country....

He has outrun the US for 10 years, I think he would have some contingency plans for this kind of attack by the US as it is so OBVIOUS.

 

[AlfAndrews]

Originally posted by Briedis
... In the longer term, the US could try to become less dependant on oil. It is the problem of oil supply that has the US involved in the politics of the Middle East any way, so if they became less dependant on oil, perhaps they could "mind their own business" a little more and let the middle eastern people go back to fighting amongst themselves ...

Congratulations, Briedis. This is the most sensible comment I have heard on this whole subject in the last month or so.

For world peace to ever be possible, the affluent nations have to find more sustainable ways to support their affluence. Either that, or be prepared to relinquish some of that affluence.

But what are we doing?

Building more bloody freeways.

Insanity is making the same mistakes ... and expecting different results.

As unpalatable as it may be to some of us ... WE ARE RESPONSIBLE for the madness that is afflicting the world today. The problem is much bigger than the collapse of the World Trade Centre or the bombing of Afghanistan. Eradicating a few Muslim fanatics will achieve nothing if we keep on trying to sustain the unsustainable.

For God's sake, Western civilisation ... GROW UP OR DIE.

 

[Mobbs]

Smokin' there was a decent sized convo here somewhere a while ago about alternatives to the current slather.

I'm off to dig it up for your comment. I could never claim to know the answer, but the cynicism is deeply ingrained, and I just can't trust them. I hope to God that you're right.

 

[iceman]

In my opinion, Bin Laden is probably not even in Afghanistan anymore

Just some points id like to make:

- A lot of Arab nations have grudges against America and now that the US wont show the Taliban the evidence of Bin Ladens guilt, its increasing the tension

- America has told the main Arab satelite network "Al-Jazeera" to stop showing any interviews with any of the Taliban or Bin Laden (by doing this, the US is going against its own policy of freedom of speech)

- Im worried that America will start bombing other Arab nations in the belief that Bin Laden is hiding there, if this happens, then this thing will escalate

 

[Smokin]

You guys dont get it.

They are not bombing "bin Laden"!

The US has openly stated that even if they got him today, that the war would NOT stop there.

Bin Laden is as useless as you or I in regards to terrorism (if we wanted to be global terrorists) without the support he is getting and lives on.

They wont just start bombing another "arab" nation because they think Bin Laden is in there! With all due respect, thats something a kid would say! Forget the racism argument first, its not about that. Second, If Bin Laden was in Australia, would they just start bombing us? Hell No, only if Australia would do a Taliban, and refuse to help the US and protect Bin Laden, then yes. In all likelihood, Australia would work WITH the US to flush him out of the country. Not against them like the Taliban. Australia would have a choice, just like the Taliban did! There arnt many governments in this world who openly support terrorism, ie fund terrorist camps. The Taliban is one who does. That is the main reason they are getting attacked, not because Bin Laden just happens to be in the bloody country!

Obviously what I am thinking isnt potraying itself correctly in words.

I know what I am trying to say, but I dont think Im saying it right.

I will give up!

Peace fellas!

One last note - Alf, the allocation of resources of affluent countries has nothing to do with this. America, just like any other country, can do what it likes. Should that action pi$$ off some people or a nation, declare war on them! thats fine. If the war destroys the US - so be it. This isnt about that - what happened isnt even "TERRORISM" if you want to get technical. Political motives are basically out of the question! Why? because if the people who did what they did in NY had a political motive, they would have done what they did differently. Again, this wasnt "Terrorism" - it would be fallacy to make a political assumption on this issue. We dont know why they did this - and obviously, they dont want us to know either!

Maybe some of these countries should worry about their own allocation of resources. Why? Because when a country has members who are absolute billionaires , with the ability to live however they want to live, then have a large percentage of THEIR population living below the poverty line, then THAT country has a problem. Not anybody else.

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by Smokin
Because when a country has members who are absolute billionaires , with the ability to live however they want to live, then have a large percentage of THEIR population living below the poverty line, then THAT country has a problem.

THAT one I agree with!

Sorry, the missus forced me off the PC for the evening, so I couldn't dig up the thread ... its now 6am next day and I'm looking for yer.

 

[Mobbs]

OK I looked back 14 pages without luck ... so stuff it!

 

[Briedis]

Originally posted by Smokin
I know what I am trying to say, but I dont think Im saying it right.

I will give up!

Peace fellas!

Thanks for the sensible discussion. Even though we had very different opinions it never got out of hand. I really appreciate that.