Barry the Sprout,

I think that your article was well-written. And while I think that it's probably obvious that I would disagree with you, I cannot honestly say that I think the acticle was well-thought out.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
I would point out that one of the central reasons for my opposition to the war is that it will probably create another hundred Bin Ladens in its wake. This action, even from the point of view of UK and US citizens is likely to make the world a much more dangerous place for years to come.
<hr></blockquote>

1. If the enemy's propoganda is to be believed on this point, there are already plenty of nutjobs ready to step in and replace Bin Laden. Hopefully, the war is eliminating large numbers of these wackos.

2. The world became a more dangerous place after the jets were flown into the buildings, NOT because we (the US, et.al.) are responding. Do you and your ilk seriously think for a nanosecond that had we not responded that the bad guys would stop their attacks on the West?


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Whilst I believe that this is an Imperialist war ...
<hr></blockquote>


GIVE ME A ***bleeping*** BREAK!!! Hey, comrade, the West doesn't give a rat's behind about conquering Afghanistan! We aren't even forcing a government of our design on them. Yes, we (the West) are booting out the Taliban and hunting down Al-Queada, but we're letting the various factions get together and hammer out their own government. I'm sure that we're probably letting them know what we think. I'm sure that we're pushing them to some degree to not dilly-daddle.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
But I would ask if the Taliban needed removing this badly, why didn't we do it earlier? I might almost go so far as to say that we shouldn't have put them in power. ... It would appear that the only gain of the war so far is to have removed a regime with a terrible human rights record, which we put into power in the first place.
So what do we replace it with?
<hr></blockquote>

1. And on what grounds would be have booted the Taliban out earlier??? We cannot go running around the world attacking any country whose government wasn't treating their population "properly". If the US or the West in general were to follow such a policy, the level of anti-US and/or anti-West sentiment would probably go ballistic!!! And no doubt the anti-US, anti-Imperialists such as yourself would simply have been able to start complaining about Western Imperialism that much earlier.


2. We did NOT place the Taliban in power. No country in the West even recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Only 3 countries world-wide recognized the Taliban. "So what do we replace it with?" Whose this "we"? "We" are letting the various Afghan factions (Taliban excluded) form their own gov't.

3. Hopefully, the non-Taliban Afghans will be able to form a successful coalition government.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
We are at present creating a large guerrilla force with a hatred of the west merely fuelled by our seeming occupation of their country.
<hr></blockquote>

And I suppose that we should have let that self-same "large guerrilla force with a hatred of the west" continue to run Afghanistan and protect Al-Queada and its training camps? Not an option.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
Opposition from the left has a habit of being labelled "anti-American", something I find particularly ironic in this case as the editor of the STW newsletter is an American himself.
<hr></blockquote>

Barry, plenty of Americans inside the USA have been called "anti-American" for their left-wing opposition.

I know that my comments are most unlikely to change your mind. I do hope that you'll think about your views a little more deeply. While you may not think of yourself as anti-West, your language and many of your written thoughts says otherwise to those that disagree with you.

If you're appealing to an audience that basically already agreeing with you, then I suppose that what you've written doesn't really matter. BUT if you're attempting to appeal to a wider audience, you need to use language that doesn't alienate (i.e. the use of the word "Imperialistic", for example) and make arguments that appear to be better thought out and have a better chance to appeal to the wider audience.


I'm sorry if you don't like or appreciate my comments, but you did ask for some feedback.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:
I'm sorry if you don't like or appreciate my comments, but you did ask for some feedback.<hr></blockquote>

I always appreciate feedback Magness. I have thought about all those points and I am sorry if it appears that I am anti-American. Pretty much the whole article was dedicated to trying to stop people thinking that. This is definately not intended simply for people who agree with me as the majority of the University do not. It was also not intended to persuade people to my viewpoint. As the first paragraph said: it was intended to iron out the misconceptions that people at the University have about the beleifs of the Stop the War coalition.

As for the "I" word. Sorry I included it but I would be lying if I didn't. The article is supposed to convey my ideas and they do include that. The US has no strategic interest in Afghanistan? Just like the Gulf War I assume, or the support of Isreal. The list goes on. That is not anti American as lots of other countries do it as well. It is mostly anti capitalist as I think that is the reason for these kind of aggresive policies.

Now do you see what you've done? I'm supposed to be keeping out of here! :D

Barry,

I disagree with your first post. The focus of the U.S is primarily on getting Al Quaeda (for which the news media is gleefully criticizing the U.S.), NOT the Taliban. We have good reason, but I'll get to that. As for what kind of government gets put in place, let's not forget that what they're working on here in Europe is an INTERIM government, and that the Afganis presumably will call an assembly to decide a more permanent government, unless the press is grossly misrepresenting the situation again. Here's the catch, as has been reported IN THE MEDIA, the Afganis themselves (outside of the cities) do NOT think of themselves as a NATION. Everytime I switch on the TV, it's Pashtun this, Uzbek that, and let's not forget the "foreign" Taliban. Let's not forget the reports by CNN (way to go, CNN) about how surrendering Taliban ask to keep their weapons to defend themselves from rival tribes. Hm, I'll fall over in amazement if the Afganis pull this off (of course, we'll get blamed when everything falls apart).

As for the reason for going after Al Qaeda, here's an excerpt from a fatwa issued by OB himself in 1998:

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson. Go here for the full translation. We didn't take it seriously then, but are doing so now.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sojourner:
I disagree with your first post. The focus of the U.S is primarily on getting Al Quaeda (for which the news media is gleefully criticizing the U.S.), NOT the Taliban. We have good reason, but I'll get to that. As for what kind of government gets put in place, let's not forget that what they're working on here in Europe is an INTERIM government, and that the Afganis presumably will call an assembly to decide a more permanent government, unless the press is grossly misrepresenting the situation again. Here's the catch, as has been reported IN THE MEDIA, the Afganis themselves (outside of the cities) do NOT think of themselves as a NATION. Everytime I switch on the TV, it's Pashtun this, Uzbek that, and let's not forget the "foreign" Taliban. Let's not forget the reports by CNN (way to go, CNN) about how surrendering Taliban ask to keep their weapons to defend themselves from rival tribes. Hm, I'll fall over in amazement if the Afganis pull this off (of course, we'll get blamed when everything falls apart).<hr></blockquote>

You missed my point but thanks for responding. What I meant with my emphasis on the taliban is this:

We have been at war for quite some time considering the weapons we have used. For all the death (which may be a minimum, but is still too much IMO) we have not killed OB. We have nothing concrete to show for it with regards Al-Queda. Ok so we have destroyed a couple of bases but because of the way Al-Queda is formed that makes very little difference.

The real problem of this level of fanatiscm is that a member of the organisation can be completely unknown to the police as a radical. He can have no apparrent contact with the group at all. And then he can walk onto a bus and blow himself to pieces along with all the passengers. We can't find this man before it happens, we have no way of stopping him being able to produce the bomb (the IRA taught us that with explosives made from fertiliser). So this method of bombing can't damage Al-Queda all that much.

So a new gain has to be offered up to the dual-god that is the media and the electorate. The leaders of the coalition scratched their heads for a few weeks and then suddenly all the emphasis of the press reports was on the new found freedom of the Afghanis without the Taliban. It wasn't me that put the emphasis there. I just decided to play with the serve I was given so to speak.

Also when you talk about the blame for the inevitable government collapse after the war falling on America I agree with you. I think it will probably work like that. But frankly I think the US and the UK deserve it. First my country ("my" said with extreme reluctance) used Afghanistan as a colonial outpost for years. Then the Russians decided they wanted a go. America and Britain realised that that couldn't be allowed so they financed one group against the other. No thought for the future of the country - it just suited us at the time to do so. Now once again we are intervening with little regard for the future of the nation in question (the last few paragraphs of the article go into more depth on this). When are we going to admit that as a western world we have gone wherever we liked and done whatever we liked. And then complained when the blame gets apportioned to us.

Frankly "Hands off Afghanistan" (the slogan of the British Stop the War coalitino) is a brilliant slogan IMO. For the last 200 years someone has been in that country. Its time we gave it back to the people who actually live there.

I don't think we can do this with an interim government and then an assembly. If we truly do leave the people to decide on their own government then it will most likely include a fair portion of the Taliban. After the recent fuss (see above) that would no way be allowed. So we will once again intervene and enforce a government. And then it will be unpopular so we will have to prop it up with our own military. And so the Afghan people will not have peace or a government of their choosing. And yes we will get the blame. But only because we deserve it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Frankly "Hands off Afghanistan" (the slogan of the British Stop the War coalitino) is a brilliant slogan IMO. For the last 200 years someone has been in that country. Its time we gave it back to the people who actually live there.

I don't think we can do this with an interim government and then an assembly. If we truly do leave the people to decide on their own government then it will most likely include a fair portion of the Taliban. After the recent fuss (see above) that would no way be allowed. So we will once again intervene and enforce a government. And then it will be unpopular so we will have to prop it up with our own military. And so the Afghan people will not have peace or a government of their choosing. And yes we will get the blame. But only because we deserve it.<hr></blockquote>

Those we supported in Afghanistan in the 80s ended up fighting on different sides after the Soviets left. We left them alone, and they broke into factions. The Northern Alliance had power first, without our support, and then were over thrown by the Taliban, without our support.

As to the interim government, leaving them to decide who should be included in the new government would not result in a large amount of Taliban in the government. 25,000 Taliban ruled this country of 25,000,000. Were their Afghan's who shared the beliefs of the Taliban? Yes, about 100,000 out of the 25,000,000. It's not only the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban, it's also the many tribal factions in the south who suffered under the Taliban. The small number of Taliban, foreign Taliban, and Al Queta are fighting the rest of their countrymen.

The Taliban were favored in the beginning because they restored order to the country after years of Civil War. They were welcomed, at first, but soon the welcome began to wear out. The Taliban were less interested in the country's well being than enforcing their own radical religious beliefs on the population. The Taliban leaders also took huge cash bribes from Osama, according to former Taliban leaders. Nothing was done to feed the hungry, nor address human suffering except through the actions of other nations(UN). At least see that that problem can now be addressed, and the Afghans can begin to help themselves with our help.

The Taliban were an illegal, unrecognized government in the eyes of the world, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and UAE, from the time they took control of the country until a few weeks ago. Now they are recognized by no one.

The UN will support this effort and that has never been done before in Afghanistan. Yes, they were sent aid, but they were never empowered to help themselves. With the world behind them, this is the best chance for peace these people have had in generations.

Barry because bad things happened before doesn't mean they will always continue to happen. The world view is not completely static, but it is slow to change. The world can learn from it's mistakes. Inaction is not the only way to help people decide their own destiny.

I am on the opposite side of the arguments from you frequently in this forum, but I will admit it is possible that this situation may not work. I believe it can, if done properly, but I don't completely disregard the fact that it may fail. I don't believe my way is the only true way or the complete truth, should you? ;)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AzureWolf:


I couldnt help answering back at this one [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Yes America didnt get where it is today because it backed down, instead it trod roughshod over the bodies of lands of native indians.<hr></blockquote>


Yep...peace through superior firepower...how every major international conflict has been solved throughout history. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

BTW...Where are you from Az? I'm sure that whereever it is, it has a few nasty skeletons in its closet too. So dont shake the finger *too* hard.

EDIT: Sorry...meant to post this too. Excellent article Barry. Although, you probably know that I, too, disagree with many of your points, the article itself is excellent. If I have more time on my next break, I will post something a bit mroe substantial.

Laters

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AzureWolf:
Yes America didnt get where it is today because it backed down, instead it trod roughshod over the bodies of lands of native indians.<hr></blockquote>

American history is sad when it comes to native Americans. My wife is native American and her paternal grandfather lived on a reservation in SD. Many of her other relatives live there today.

I don't dispute that greed for land caused the US government (in it's desire to please the population) to break every promise it ever made to the native Americans, except the one to take their land, but that situation doesn't relate to the one in Afghanistan. We don't want their land. We don't want to "settle" Afghanistan.

Our only interest in Afghanistan in the 80s was to keep the Soviets out. We weren't interested in the conditions of the Afghan people. Today I think it's different. It is for me anyway. I want Osama captured, I no longer want their country to be used by terrorist, and I want peace and food for the Afghan people.

In the 80s, the American public thought things would be "OK" for the Afghan people if the Soviets were ousted. It obviously wasn't that simple. It will take more, and I think most Americans feel this now and are committed to it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Nachtrafe:



Yep...peace through superior firepower...how every major international conflict has been solved throughout history. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

BTW...Where are you from Az? I'm sure that whereever it is, it has a few nasty skeletons in its closet too. So dont shake the finger *too* hard.


Laters<hr></blockquote>

Originally New Zealand and now Australia. Both countries are no exception to the rule as the euro settlers when they came slaughtered Maoris and Aboriginies in much the same fashion as the native indians were.
Nowdays New Zealand and Australia in a lesser respect have started to give large chunks of land, money back. New Zealand now is one of the most advanced moralistic countries in the world. I would say more than America or Australia [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


American history is sad when it comes to native Americans. My wife is native American and her paternal grandfather lived on a reservation in SD. Many of her other relatives live there today.

I don't dispute that greed for land caused the US government (in it's desire to please the population) to break every promise it ever made to the native Americans, except the one to take their land, but that situation doesn't relate to the one in Afghanistan. We don't want their land. We don't want to "settle" Afghanistan.
.<hr></blockquote>

I know my statement above wasnt directed at the Afghan situation so much as replying to the statement that America never backs down. Its not always a bad thing to back down.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
I am on the opposite side of the arguments from you frequently in this forum, but I will admit it is possible that this situation may not work. I believe it can, if done properly, but I don't completely disregard the fact that it may fail. I don't believe my way is the only true way or the complete truth, should you? ;) <hr></blockquote>

Point taken Mr Bman. I do always admire your openmindedness. I admit that I will have egg all over my face if my predictions are wrong. I just think we can wait and see on that score, I'd be smug were it not for what that entails.

As for the Taliban they are recognised by most Pashtun as their leaders. That is about 60% of the population. You are right - they have lost a lot of support from their policies. But they have also gained it in some areas. And they were also put into power due to the horribleness of the Northern Alliance, not just the civil war. There was a reactionary movement against the people we now consider friends.

But yeah. It could work if people are happy without the Taliban. But from what I have read about the area that is unlikely. There is the possibility of peace, I will give you that Ronn!

BTW Thanks Nachtrafe!