I'm talking hypotheticals here.

I imagine it is very fortunate that bin laden is centered in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban. Afghanistan is probably the easiest target in the Middle East.

I wonder if all the bombing would have taken place if he was holed up in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Each of these places could have been home base for bin and I wonder if we would have been so ready to attack any of these.

I imagine if it was Iraq there would have been no problem.

I also saw on CNN that there was a conference of terrorist leaders in Iran in April of this year. Makes me wonder which terrorist sympathizing nation is next on our list.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for a fight against terrorism. But how can we possibly war on all the nations that have terrorist groups in them? How can we possibly afford all the bombs?

I think this will continue on and on until Mr. Bush is re-elected to second term. Bombing for votes, eh! http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...miles/wink.gif

Mark

Iran, probably. Pakistan, maybe. Saudi Arabia, sticky situation. But what about Ireland? Malaysia, the Phillipines, etc.? Hell, even the US has terrorists lurking in the shadows (not that we everyday-joes know about them,of course. But the hijackers of 911 lived here for a while, so in essence we were unwittingly 'harboring' them)

Where do you draw the line?

(hmmm, seems that question is being asked a lot lately.....)

Garnet

Exactly! Which is why a can't understand how some people (high ranking officials, too) feel like this is all cut and dried! Will separate states in the US, holding anti-government militias, be targeted. Will this turn into attacking not just groups against America, but groups that oppose the US Government (sometimes thought of as 2 very different things).

Mark

Not only harboring them, but 'growing' them ourselves, too.
Edit: Oops! You beat me to the punch, Skywalker. http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...miles/wink.gif


[This message has been edited by DragonMage (edited 10-18-2001).]

First of all, the President (right now) only has the mandate to go after the individuals involved in the 9-11 attacks. Noone else.

I think that the whole idea of going after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them came about to get the population going. The population wanted action and stating that we would go after the countries that harbor them ment action. It's all political.

The only problem is that, as some of you pointed out, some of those terrorists were on US soil legally. Some of them were actually known terrorists and still obtained a valid US Visa using their real identity. Which means that the US we harboring their own terrorist and the the administrations that let them in (and let them stay in) should be held as equally accountable for the attacks of 9-11.

Now, as many of you also pointed out, what to do with the other countries? Iraq and Pakistan are easy: same approach as Afghanistan. Saudi, we cannot touch for two reasons: Mecca and Oil. But what about the others? In another tread I listed a few countries that served as bases of operations for Muslim Terrorists. I remember most of them from a counter-terrorism class that I took in university. So, what do we do about the US, Canada, UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Poland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Monaco, Spain, Ex-Yougoslavia, Switzerland, Sweeden, Ireland, Finland, Italy, Moroco, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Congo, Ethiopia, Eritria, Mozambique, Philippines, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, UAE, Ajerbajan (sp), Turjikistan (sp), Russia, Bello-Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Israel, Egypt and a few other countries who's name I just can't remember right now.

Well, I guess Mr Bush "greatly misunderestimated" the issue when he made the comments.

------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 10-18-2001).]

Trusting Pakistan so readily and eagerly after the attacks could expose our flank. In August they were on the "harboring terrorists" list and had full diplomatic and economic relations with Afganistan, cultures blurred at the borders. A military coupe there would change the game in an instant. I'll almost bet that Iraq is on our list. Bush has hinted threats and the airstrikes there never stopped, we have our forces in place.

I believe that there would probably be no bombings if another country was Bin Laden's hiding place, because most other countries would probably cooperate with the U.S. and hand over Bin Laden.

I dont know why people keep taking these things in directions that are totally off base.

Pretty much what it means is, If we are going after someone, and you know about him and keep him from us and his organization and offer them protection... you will be considered as harboring him.

Thats a pretty easy concept.

Most of the countries you listed already do turn them over when they get them or execute them themselves. Egypt is really wicked on terrorists. They even sentence them to death in absentia.

The only one that may be able to get away with it is indeed Saudi Arabia. But If I were the rest of the world, I wouldnt count on anyone else getting away with it.

and as far as Saudi Arabia goes...they already kicked Bin Lauden out of their country, that's why he's an exile in Afghanistan. He's not allowed in that country.


Prime

No terrorist will be extradited from a member state of the EU to the US as long as there is a chance that they will be executed.

Should I buy a new tin hat for the winter?

------------------
http://www.wheatsheaf.freeserve.co.uk/roastspurs.gif
Save Chip - Don't let Sarah win!
Official Titterer of the Laughing Hyenas
Don't mention the score - I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it!