:eek:

i hate to be an alarmist in a situation like this but after seeing the events transpire i've grown more and more worried at what this could lead to.the american government and nato as well is no long simply talking about retaliation against afghanistan but a 'war on terrorism',now a war on terrorism sounds like a great idea on paper but if this war does take place you can bet that there will be more countries invovled (mainly moslem supporting countries)we're talking about syria,sudan,iraq,palestine,afghanistan and possibly more.
now that alone is enough scare any human on the face of the earth but the implications could be more,look at the countires invovled i'm honestly scared to death that we'll see another holy war(muslims vs zionists and supporters) not only would this war take place in the craddle of civilization or as some believe the original place of our occupation of this planet,these lands have countless ancient structures that could be destroyed by war,these loses would be invaluable to the history of the human race,not only that but the implications of a war like this would easily set off a global knee-jerk reaction in just about every religous sect possibly beginning a chain reaction that some refer to as exodus(exit-us),no matter what religion/race/country you come from these actions could effect us all.indeed these are troubling times we're in,already in america we've seen people reacting violently to muslim communities and churches simply because of their race/religion....


just something to think about.

As Bowser said: Let's find and destroy those who are responsible and all those who would wage war on us. Let's bomb back to the stone age those countries who harbor and support terrorism.

Actually, our President Bush has a good plan to get all the civilized world to our side. Let us hope there are some moderate Arab countries in the plan. I hope it works.

It may work, kmguru, but I doubt it will work the way anyone wants it to. It's silly to think that we can make some military strikes, kill all the current terrorists, and then everything will be better and we can go back to life as we know it.

I'm starting to think this is going to get much bigger and much worse than the governments and people of the world anticipate.

Originally posted by felix
It may work, kmguru, but I doubt it will work the way anyone wants it to. It's silly to think that we can make some military strikes, kill all the current terrorists, and then everything will be better and we can go back to life as we know it.

I'm starting to think this is going to get much bigger and much worse than the governments and people of the world anticipate.

You may not know, how close to the truth you are. As I have said many times on this forum - there is a solution, but the solution is very complex due to the nature of the problem. I hope, our government is smart enough to solve it. It will require a Marshall type plan. I hope Colin Powell is upto it. He is the KEY to solve this.

Originally posted by kmguru


You may not know, how close to the truth you are. As I have said many times on this forum - there is a solution, but the solution is very complex due to the nature of the problem. I hope, our government is smart enough to solve it. It will require a Marshall type plan. I hope Colin Powell is upto it. He is the KEY to solve this.

Are you saying it will take Marshall law in the United States? I hope not. I'm not sure I'd be willing to stand for that.

I do agree that the solution is extremely complex. But if marshall law in the US is part of the option, our government is DEFINITELY going to have major problems WITHIN this nations borders.

felix, just a simple confusion on your part. Marshall Plan as in George C. Marshall:

Secretary of State George C. Marshall's speech at Harvard University on 5 June 1947, launched one of the most generous and effective foreign policy initiatives in world history. This speech initiated the post-war European Aid Program commonly known as the Marshall Plan. The Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, predecessor to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, was created to co-operate with the government of the United States in planning for the distribution of the aid.

Read his speech at: http://www.oecd.org/about/marshall/speech.htm

For more about Marshall Plan do a search at Google. You will understand what I am trying to convey....

Hi kmguru,


I hope Colin Powell is upto it. He is the KEY to solve this.

You seem to be putting a lot of faith in an ex-general to prevent an armed conflict ;).

Bye!

Crisp

As you know, armed conflict is the effect of a cause rooted in misperception of reality....it takes discipline and tenacity to mold the cause into a constructive venture.

I'm glad I misunderstood, kmguru. And I think you're right. I also think an ex-General whose been in armed conflict could be the best one to prevent it; most who have seen war do not want to see it again. However, I think you have more faith in Colin Powell and the rest of the US government than I do. I don't think the collective political ego of the US government is going to allow the pursuit of a peaceful solution. At least not until a lot of people die from non-peaceful attempts to solve the problem. I don't think they're willing to admit either to themselves or to the American people or both that they/we have played a large roll in creating the problem.

<i>"I don't think they're willing to admit either to themselves or to the American people or both that they/we have played a large roll in creating the problem."</i>

Interesting. Explain that premise to me.

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/bushcheney.html

Originally posted by Bowser
<i>"I don't think they're willing to admit either to themselves or to the American people or both that they/we have played a large roll in creating the problem."</i>

Interesting. Explain that premise to me.

Well, I've explained before, but I'm happy to do so again.

The US government has a long standing practice of training, supplying and financing the very organizations that wage war in a terroristic manner. We do this because it helps destabalize other countries and keeps us comfortably at the head of world economics. And along with that, we have to face that we are the conquerers, and there are always going to be those amongst a conquered people that are willing to fight back.

Not that we're the ONLY problem. But we have happily kept fuel on the fire wherever we can, because it's met our economic interests. Now it's finally come full circle. Our government is reaping what it's sowed for long time now. And as a result, the Americans get to reap it too.

Very interesting. I brought Colin Powell's name because, next to the president, he is a logical choice to carry out the logistics. As it turned out in the last two days, he is taking a leadership role - and I am glad.

Based on the past record of Pres. Bush, I can say that he does listen to his advisors. So hopefully together they can do the right thing and solve the problem.

Everything I/we discussed on this forum came out in CNN latenight show in the last two days. So, this time, we have some smart people coming up with good ideas - and we just might solve this problem without an extended conflict.

Disclaimer: Good idea is one thing, implementation is another story.

<i>"The US government has a long standing practice of training, supplying and financing the very organizations that wage war in a terroristic manner."</i>

We have caused change. I'm certain that it has been a mix of good and bad. It should be said that often where our influence has diminished the political and living conditions have also diminished. Also, we have had to support some ugly characters in order to maintain stability within various regions. I think it is often a choice between two evils. If you had to choose between a strong dictator who offers some security to the populace or waring factions, which would you choose and which would better serve a people?

I think it's an ugly world that lives beyond our shores. The rules that we hold true here do not exist there. Hmm...hard reality.

Colin Powell...now that is a smart fellow.

kmguru and bowser, you both have excellent points. I hope we do have people in our government who are capable of coming up with and willing to implement a reasonable plan.

If we end up sending troops into Afghanistan to fight, I think we're in for a rude awakening. The terrain there makes the deserts of Iraq and the jungles of vietnam both look like the virgin f**king islands. The people we'd be going in to get are not going to give up without a fight like the Iraqi national guard did, and they have shown that they are capable of taking on a super power before. And that super power was the Soviet Union who had more conventional machines of war than we ever did, shared a border with Afghanistan (so they didn't have to transport everything half way around the globe), and their troops were more used to dealing with that kind of climate. This could get really, really messy in a lot of different ways.

You won't see an American attempt to occupy the country. We might send in strike forces to punch out specific targets, but it won't be an invasion force. Most likely, we will work with those opposed to the <a href = "http://www.rawa.org/killings.htm">Taliban</a>.

We can talk about plans of attack and everything else, but I think that ultimately the most dangerous aspect of this 'war on terrorism' is who are the terrorists?

If the US is just going after those responsible for the WTC attack then that's fine - if they can track them down and get them (perhaps a 'Munich 72' policy - hunt down all involved and assassinate - moral question here, but I digress). But Bush seems to be declaring war on terrorism in general.

Here he will find backing from almost every government in the world, and these government's are genuine when they pledge this. All countries are agreed that terrorism should be stopped - it is a term almost synonomous with 'evil'.

The problem is, not everybody is agreed with what constitutes a terrorist. To the US, Afghans were freedom fighters when fighting Russian occupiers. These same people are now 'terrorists' after having bitten the hand that fed them and truning their guns towards the US.

Contras were 'terrorists' to the Sandinistas, but freedom fighters as far the US was concerned. Many people would agree that Chile under Pinochet and Indonesia under Suharto ran 'terror' regimes. The US currently supports, directly or otherwise, groups in Iran, Iraq, South America and Central Asia that others would consider 'terrorists'. To most Arabs Hizbollah is a resistence group, to the US it's a terrorist group. And Arabs see Israel as aterrorist regime. This is a genuine point of debate, and leaves the US open to attracting even more international hostility.

Here's another read regarding the Taliban:
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0498/9804047.html

<i>"Contras were 'terrorists' to the Sandinistas, but freedom fighters as far the US was concerned. Many people would agree that Chile under Pinochet and Indonesia under Suharto ran 'terror' regimes. The US currently supports, directly or otherwise, groups in Iran, Iraq, South America and Central Asia that others would consider 'terrorists'. To most Arabs Hizbollah is a resistence group, to the US it's a terrorist group. And Arabs see Israel as aterrorist regime. This is a genuine point of debate, and leaves the US open to attracting even more international hostility."</i>

I think that is a good point, CC. And maybe this war will be a healthy thing when more points of that nature are made. I think the parallel falls, however, when you question the motives.

I found this article today. It says what I've been trying to say, only a lot better than I say it.

________________________________________



Afghanistan could present challenge for U.S. military
Terrain, tactics may favor guerrillas \

By MOLLY MOORE and KAMRAN KHAN

Washington Post

ISLAMABAD, Afghanistan -- In a war against Afghanistan, the world's only superpower would be aligning the most sophisticated, high-tech military weaponry ever developed against mud barracks, mountain caves, a few hundred artillery pieces and a savvy foe able to melt into the khaki folds of a devastated landscape.
In all the war-gaming of military academies and Pentagon planners, the U.S. armed forces would be hard-pressed to have invented a more intractable military scenario than waging combat operations in this impoverished, bedraggled land against a radicalized guerrilla force and its most infamous resident -- Saudi fugitive and accused terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden. U.S. officials have pointed to bin Laden as the chief suspect in last week's terror attacks in New York and Washington.
Afghanistan is an ethnically fragmented country with some of the most rugged and isolated terrain in the world, an infrastructure that has been almost completely devastated by two decades of continuous war, and a population struggling to survive in the face of drought, famine and endless cycles of violence.
Unlike the multinational coalition attacks on Belgrade and Baghdad over the last decade, fought with high-precision weapons aimed at selected targets, there are few major command and control networks to be hit in Afghanistan, where guerrilla battles are usually fought with artillery barrages and mortar fire. Neither requires the orchestration of First World combat.
The militant Islamic Taliban movement, which controls 90 percent to 95 percent of the country, has amassed an eclectic arsenal of aging tanks and other equipment left over from the Soviet Union's failed occupation. It also nabbed some overused aircraft from various warring Afghan factions defeated since the Taliban began its takeover of Afghanistan in 1994. More recently, new weapons, mostly automatic rifles, machine guns and mortars, have been supplied by bin Laden and other wealthy Saudi benefactors.
There are enormous logistical hurdles to an attack on the Taliban and bin Laden.
In Afghanistan, U.S. surveillance satellites will see no sizable power grids, no vast military bases, no major bridges and highway networks as targets -- there are none. Special forces would land in a war zone that has changed little from the desert country of nomadic tribes and medieval-looking villages British troops invaded more than two centuries ago. Land forces, with virtually no access to local supplies, would be treading through one of the most densely mined countries on the globe.
While Pakistan has given the United States permission to use its airspace for missile assaults and aerial bombardment of Afghanistan, the easiest military targets already have disappeared, according to Pakistan intelligence reports.
The Taliban has emptied its training bases, arms depots, command and government headquarters and has scattered its military hardware. Bin Laden has gone into even deeper hiding than usual and has dispatched his family to a variety of locations, Pakistani intelligence sources said.
Even if the military destroys the Taliban's empty training centers -- most of which are relatively unsophisticated complexes of concrete or baked-mud buildings that accommodate a few hundred men at a time -- they could be rebuilt with relative ease and would do little damage to the movement's military apparatus, which is accustomed to training under Spartan conditions.
But it is the guerrilla tactics of the Taliban that make the militia a formidable foe. Those tactics were instilled in what is now Taliban leadership by Pakistan, with CIA backing during the rebels' successful attempt to oust the Soviets, and more recently honed by bin Laden's Arab soldiers.
"You yourself (the United States) trained them to be the best guerrilla force in the world," said a former Pakistani intelligence official who said he advised Islamic freedom fighters under CIA-sponsored programs during the rebels' war with Soviet forces in the 1980s. "Some of these Taliban were the CIA's superstars."

Don't you think that this could be solved economically? I can't think that these religious zealots aren't conscious of monitary values. Look at our Christian right wing celebrities. What if we paid bounty hunters - instead of choosing sides and helping one side or the other let them turn on themselves for money and power...gangster style. Kind of a radical solution...advocating killings.

I suppose that's possible, monolith. But for the most part, no, money is not going to change their minds. These people do not think like Americans. They are very dedicated to their cause and motivated to action. And they have been so since long before we were aware the continent of North America even existed. Even the new-found resolve of the American people (which I'm happy to see) is like holding a candle to the Sun when compared to the resolve of these people.

America may be a giant, but we are a soft one.

<i>"The Taliban has emptied its training bases, arms depots, command and government headquarters and has scattered its military hardware. Bin Laden has gone into even deeper hiding than usual and has dispatched his family to a variety of locations, Pakistani intelligence sources said."</i>

Cool, they are on the run already. Forcing the Taliban back into their caves may prove to be a relief for the peasantry of Afghanistan. I say we take our time and prepare for a war of opportunity. Feed and educate the poor, making allies within their own borders.

Rightly so...

Did you guys actually read that article? It doesn't sound like it. They are smart enough to know that they can't face us on a "front line" and win. That's why they use guerilla tactics. They've scattered not just to hide. If and when allied troops head into Afghanistan to try to dig people out, they are going to start dying in much greater numbers than the enemy. They are just fine with drawing us in and forcing us to meet them on their terms. They believe (and with good reason) that we cannot beat them on their turf. I hope our leaders and military units are not sitting by as smuggly as you are, thinking that they are scattering and hiding because they're scared to death of us. Sending troops into afghanistan is no f**king joke. And while helping the people of afghanistan is a noble thought, do you actually think the enemy is going to sit idly by while we do it? If that's what you think, you are only fooling yourselves.

Felix - What is it that they want? All Americans out of the Middle East? All Americans dead? Either way - do they not see how fragile the world economy is and how dependant we truly are on each other? Are they like the band "Rage against the Machine" - just raging to rage?! Aren't we actually helping them focus their anger? IF there is one foe - they will unite...much like the feeling in America now. We've hyperfocused our hatred and bonded with each other - gay, white, black, hispanic, asian. We are all Americans now - tighter than before - won't our acts of war tighten the Muslim community as well?

That's why I am suggesting to keep them scattered - place bounties on the heads of those we think are responcible. It doesn't matter who kills them - the hunter gets the prize money. Maybe they could get world TV coverage - have the "Survivor Guy" set up a show for it. [okay, maybe that's a little too far] But we want to "see" someone pay. Maybe the "game show" isn't far fetched - it's definately "extreme" enough for all the vouristic television shows that are so popular now. If every American contributed a dollar - think of the amount of bounty we could set up...

There is a bounty on Osama. So far no takers...

Monolith,

I couldn't tell you EXACTLY what they want. I'm sure they want all Americans out of the middle east. I'm sure Americans are not the only "ALL" they want out of the middle east. Someone also pointed out that they want the world to be Islam, so in that case, they very well MAY want all Americans dead (possibly minus Islamic Americans), along with everyone else non-Islamic, but I can't say that for certain.

You are dead bullseye on the fact that this will help unite more of them under a common enemy.

But I don't think they're very concerned over world economics.

Keeping them scattered didn't work for the Soviet Union when they tried to occupy. We will not be able to just move in, set up camp and bring in a game show. Even if we tried the bounty thing, what good would it really do? We could never raise a big enough bounty to match the funds available to American and allied troops, and even if we COULD, could we really find people that are more capable of going in to get them than those troops? If we go in treating them like a joke, we're going to have our asses handed to us.

They know the terrain. Therefore, they will be able to move with greater speed and stealth than we will.

They know where water sources are.

They know where caves are.

They have food, weapons and ammunitions stores scattered all over the place.

And this is a fight they have fought before.

Our greater technology is not going to make a big enough difference to tip the scales, because they know we have it.

They already have spys all over the US. They already know exactly what they're up against. Although, we have people that know exactly what we're up against too...I just hope those people's advice is heeded.

I'm not saying that I think it's an impossible task, but I think it's the most difficult one we could decide to take on right away. It's going to be a statregical nightmare to really get Osama bin Laden, his organization and the taliban. Airstrikes aren't going to do anything but stir up the rubble that's already there, and probably kill some civilians. In fact, if we see air strikes, rest assured that it's for show...some destruction to appease our anger. And that's if they can find anything that it really looks worth bombing. Ground troops are the only way we're getting them out of there.

Sending troops into afghanistan is no f**king jokeWe may have the best military in the world, but there's something worth noting here. The Taliban threatened to wage war against any of their neighbors who aid the US in their quest; I laughed at that. The Taliban don't have the strength or wherewithal to maintain a prolonged offensive anywhere outside their borders.

But we do not want to invade on the ground. It will be worse than Vietnam. Our "crusade" could take years, says the president; I hope that this is out of caution to ensure correct action. If our "crusade" takes years because it's a hard fight, we will lose many of our soldiers, and see little result.

I'm a pacifist, but I'm also an American. The American part of me screams for a fast carpet of fire from border to border, raining from heaven. The pacifist part of me reminds me that if we kill large numbers of civilians whose only crime was to not overthrow their government and expel a terrorist guest from its borders, we will have justified in part the action taken against our citizens by terrorists.

One must walk a careful line, decide what (who) is important, and act quickly and not afford remorse.

I saw the CNN blurb that Saddam Hussein has "warned" that the US should not resort to violence in its quest for justice. As a prideful American, I think we should drop a few on Baghdad just for good measure.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Hi tiassa,

It's good to see you here. Sometimes I have to stay away from the religion forum. That place makes me nuts sometimes.

I don't know about dropping bombs on baghdad. At least not right now. I do, however, think we should form a plan to take down Sadam and his regime. But I thought that at the end of Desert Storm too. I couldn't believe we just left him there. But that's a different soap box.

And I agree that getting bin Laden and his network quickly would be the best thing. But I just don't think that's possible outside of getting really, really lucky. And I think you're right that we don't want to go in on the ground, even though that may be the only way to go in and get him/them. And that would probably take a lot of intelligence preparation to really stand a chance.

And I think it's dangerous to completely dismiss the ability of the Taliban to cause a lot of trouble for it's neighbors. Maybe not a sustained campaign, but most of their neighbors aren't in much better shape than afghanistan. Pakistan, in particular, is in pretty bad shape and we definitely don't want the Taliban and/or Osama bin Laden getting a hold of nuclear weapons. Hopefully they can't get a hold of weapon's grade plutonium either. We need to be ready to help, if, and when the Taliban decides to make trouble. Even if it's only for honor's sake.

This is a sticky, sticky situation we're talking about creating.

By the way, it's good to see another American who can cool off and really take a look at the implications of our retaliation. Good to see you again too.

Oh! we can be nasty too. I am sure we have stuff that has not been used in Gulf war. A lot of innocent people (percentage basis)may get hurt, but the job can be done.

If we support Pakistan, they can smoke these people out. Intelligence is a two way street. Russia did not have anyones support. Here we have support of a lot of Afganis too.

I hope you're right about having the support of afghani's, kmguru. I'm not sure I'd be too fired up about supporting us after the way we used and screwed the Iraqis who gave us support during Desert Storm. We certainly can be nasty, that's definitely not in question. But that could be part of the problem too. We've been nasty before, and part of that has been toward the people that helped us. You can bet Pakistan is sweating in it's boots right now over this thing.

I feel sorry for the Pakistanis, Afghanis and Americans alike right now.

You're right that the Soviet Union was in a bit of different situation than we are. But that doesn't necessarily make the job any easier.

And I don't think it's really going to matter what stuff we have and didn't use in Iraq. Most of the stuff we DID use in Iraq will be completely useless in this mission. There are no targets to strike at in a war-like fashion. The targets are individuals who can easily blend into the general population. Technology isn't going to help us find them. Good human intelligence is. Hence the reason I hope you're right about having the support of Afganis.

It is so true, felix. We start out with a bang but then everything fizzles out. Unlike all other times, this time it happened in our front yard. So, the media will make sure, we do the stuff right.

Another problem though. Unless we protect the Arab-Americans, Indians, Pakistanis, Sikhs right here in USA, we will divide this country and create homegrown terrorists. Then Osama and his holding company will have a great place to work within - with superior capabilities and brain power. It is a serious matter and needs a lot of media attention.

You're right about that, kmguru. Well, I hope you're right about the media making sure we do things right, but I know you're right about protecting ALL Americans.

In fact, that's another ONE of the things that's bothering me about this whole buisiness. We already have terrorism in the US, but for some strange reason, when the KKK bombs a black church, or "pro-lifers" bomb an abortion clinic, etc., etc., we call it "hate crimes". We even stopped calling the bombing in Oklahoma City a terrorist attack once we found out it was an American that did it. We are not ACTUALLY strangers to terrorism, and terrorism does not only come from Islamic organizations or the middle east.

The truth of the matter is, most of our geniuses are fat and happy. It is very easy to create terror in a society. We have enough freedom that these people have no need for making a statement. But if we lose our freedom, watch out. These people can send us to stone age without a single life being lost.

As I say - never underestimate the capacity of human mind...