Cluster Bombs and Food Packages

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


hehe I see your agenda, Ronn_B, you want mother AND daughter......

You might be able to bite it off, - the question is, can you chew it??

---

I can only try, but I'll promise to try as long as my body's supply of enamel lasts...lol.

See, here's another reason for the war forum, it can be "exciting".

*shakes his head realizing how depraved he has become*

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Neb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


hehe I see your agenda, Ronn_B, you want mother AND daughter....

You might be able to bite it off, - the question is, can you chew it??

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

---

Maybe he should be more afraid of whether they can bite it off and chew it.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:


Maybe he should be more afraid of whether they can bite it off and chew it.

---

OK, now you're starting to scare me

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:



OK, now you're starting to scare me

---

If I wasn't a cuddly hug bunny with a peaceful agenda I would say 'be afraid. Be very afraid.'

But I am, so I won't. And anyway, at the end of the day in this very best of all possible worlds, I hate cliches!!

[Gaelic]

Holy schniekies! I go have dinner and the forum turns into the set of a porno flick! This is clearly the result of too much "adult" supervision.

SC, I will leave only this comment. What is happening now is part of the political and diplomatic process. Like it or not, the military is a legit tool of the government. It sometimes must be used to respond to those who know nothing other than force. No talking will bring Osama to trial. No diplomacy will crush his organization and others like it. No conversation will prevent criminal regimes from backing terrorists. Appeasement does not work. Just ask Poland. The only hope is a zero tolerance policy and a devotion to the utter obliteration of terrorists and their associates.

[Barry the Sprout]

I hate to resurrect this discussion but I am not sure I agree with the last post by Gaelic. The Taliban did offer to hand Bin Laden to a nuetral country. If the US et al had just have let it stand at that and bought him to trial there then a lot of people would still be alive. Also we wouldn't have 4 million people abandoning their homes.

History appears to have taught us that stamping down on terrorism just earns you a sore foot. The IRA and the PKP are both cases in point. A shoot to kill policy on the IRA just increased membership and activity. Everytime a tank rolls into the Gaza Strip the PKP just get more stones and go and throw them at Israeli soldiers. I know that in both of these cases there were different objectives for the terrorists than Al-Queda have, but the same logic applies to how we deal with them. Just because they do not share objectives with the IRA doesn't mean they won't get angry if we shoot them. By attempting to wipe out this generation of terrorists we are creating a new one right in front of our eyes. There is no deterrant with Al-Queda. They will gladly die for their cause. And even if the objective is to wipe out every member how do you expect to do that? As has been said time and agian, they are not stupid by a long way.

There was a rather gruesome cartoon in Private Eye this week. A bit of a mickey-take on "Wheres Waldo?" called "Wheres Osama?". The picture was of an Afghan village with lots of people and the caption was:
"Can you find Osama without killing everyone in the picture?".

Now, I don't know if we can. But I don't really want to try it for myself to be honest. As I said at the top, there were other ways of solving this that didn't kill people.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
I hate to resurrect this discussion but I am not sure I agree with the last post by Gaelic. The Taliban did offer to hand Bin Laden to a nuetral country. If the US et al had just have let it stand at that and bought him to trial there then a lot of people would still be alive. Also we wouldn't have 4 million people abandoning their homes.

---

The Taliban suggested they might be willing to hand him over to another Muslim country only when it became obvious there would be military action and that most of the world wouldn't support them. They didn't actually agree to do it, they suggested they might.

Maybe they were serious, or maybe it was a delaying tactic. The point is they defended him, sponsored him, and refused to even consider turning him over because he couldn't have done it (dispite his subsequent admission), and without consideration to his previous actions and current threats until they realised the Muslim world would not stand behind them.

Keep in mind, many of those who abandoned their homes did so before this conflict to escape the Taliban. Now many are able to return home that couldn't have otherwise.

The latest UN figures cut the number of refuges in half, thereby reducing it to the pre-coalition effort levels, and in addition, states that due to the safety provided by coalition forces they think they can feed them all, which wasn't happening before September 11th.

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]