posted
Well, since I've calmed down a little and am no longer in favor of the 'wholesale' destruction of entire cities, I say our message should go something like this:
"The United States has no desire to wage war on the people of Afghanistan, nor on any Muslim nation.
All we want are the terrorists responsible.
If you give them to us, we will go away and leave you in peace.
If you do not, we will come and take them.
Those of you who stand aside will be left alone.
Those of you who stand in our way will die.
We will not attack anyone who has not attacked us, but anyone who does attack us will be utterly and mercilessly destroyed.
Decide now."
Personally, I don't know if Hamas is stupid or suicidal enough to want to take on both us AND the Israelis, since if we had left the Israelis to their own devices instead of asking for restraint they might have killed them all by now. But if they are... we go to the Israelis: "Here's all the weapons you need, all the money you need, all the tech you need. Have a party."
I remember tales from my youth about corporations fielding their own private mercenary armies in places like South America... I wonder if some of those companies that were hurt by the WTC bombings might not feel like pooling some funds to get their own justice... can't you just see some big corp buying some 'surplus' Soviet hardware and using it with their own hired guns? (The Third Wal-Mart Air Wing drops an old Russian A-bomb?)
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
Them's fightin words. I agree with your statement. the world is too pansey-wansey, and weak. if people wanna help the terrorists, then they ARE terrorists. and for that they deserve to get the crap beaten out of them. they knew the risks when they decided to harbour them. we're doing a unit on nationalism and romantism in history class. and this is a perfect example of religious nationalism and romantism. bin laden and his fellow terrorists are fighting what they percieve as an injustice towards thier respective countries. and they seem to find something romantic about being an outlaw, and a criminal.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
Except they don't see themselves as criminals. Brave-little-guys-going-against-the-flow, perhaps. So I guess one could link their frame of mind to that of romantic revolutionaries.
Except, to my knowledge, Percy Shelley never killed 5000 people in cold blood.
Anyway, the plot continues to thicken. The Taliban are getting downright nasty, and it looks like they're directing their comments at Pakistan and Tajikistan:
quote:Taliban Say May Attack Neighbors Helping U.S. Strike
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Afghanistan's ruling Taliban said on Saturday they might attack any neighbor which gave assistance to U.S. strikes on their country, the Afghan Islamic Press reported.
"If a neighboring country allows its soil or its air to be used in an attack against Afghanistan...in that case the possibility cannot be ruled out that we attack that country," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement issued in Kabul.
"We'll be forced to send our mujahideen into their territory...they will be responsible for the consequences."
This is a whole new can of worms. As I mentioned above, the situation in Pakistan is especially volatile, given the fact that there is a very strong faction that strongly endorses the Taliban and is very anti-West. Might we see a situation similar to Vietnam, with Taliban mujahedeen serving as Viet Cong, crossing into Pakistan, gaining support from fundamentalist Pakistanis and leading an attack on their government?
Although my knowledge of Tajikistan is a bit sketchier, they have recently wrapped up a civil war there, again between a moderate government and a fundamentalist rebel group. Tajikistan's governent has been firmly behind the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and so is probably quite likely to make itself one of the "enemies" of the Taliban. So I imagine they're facing a similar situation to the one I envisioned for Pakistan.
At a guess, airstrikes will be launched from India and from carriers in the Arabian Sea, with Pakistan providing flyover rights (actually landing planes there might be too risky, and could further undermine civilian support for the Pakistani government.) India has already volunteered the airbases, anyway. Can the area be reached from West-friendly bases in Qatar or Saudi Arabia, out of curiosity? The Russians and their CIS allies will continue pushing on the Tajikistan - Northern Alliance corridor, although exactly what sort of response theirs will be is a bit uncertain. I can't see Russian tanks rolling into Afghanistan after the first American missiles hit.
India's involvement also raises the ugly prospect of Kashmir becoming part of the conflict, especially if there is an armed and militarized fundamentalist army in Pakistan. Remember, when these two get pissed at one another, the nuclear clock's hand gets moved.
The final question mark is Iran. Where do they fit in? Iran is faced with the reality of hating the US and the Taliban roughly equally. They've already made perhaps the most pro-US gesture since the revolution in condemning the attacks. Might there be a silver lining from this tragedy that could bring Iran out of its shell and into the global community?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
KABUL (Reuters) - The legendary anti-Taliban guerrilla leader Ahmad Shah Masood died in an Afghan hospital from wounds suffered in a suicide bomb attack this week by two Arabs, a spokesman said on Saturday.
"Yes, he sadly passed away last night and preparations for his burial will be made at some stage today," Engineer Baryalay, a spokesman for the opposition, said by satellite telephone from the opposition capital, Faizabad.
Masood was the main military obstacle to the Taliban goal of rule over all of Afghanistan and his fate had been unclear ever since the announcement on Sunday that he had been the object of an assassination attempt by two Arabs posing as journalists.
Additionally, Bush and Powell, in perhaps their most intelligent foreign policy decision since attaining office, are actively lobbying Israel to declare a truce with the Palestineans so an anti-terrorist coalition consisting of the West, Israel, and Arab states can be formed. Sharon's being a bitch, but that's to be expected. Perez seems determined to still talk peace with Arafat, though. Good on him.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
posted
Well there's also Uzbekistan, which is pretty prosperous in comparison to other former Soviet Republics. However, it also has a small, but apparently vocal fundamentalist sect. The problem with any of these neighboring countries seems to be a) they don't want their own fundamentalist dudes rising up and fighting a war, and b) they don't want afghanistan to attack them, if indeed they are able to attack much of anything.
I think Jimmy Carter would laugh his ass off if Iran lent help. Then of course be carted off to the crazies institute.
-------------------- "Tragedy is when I cut my finger, Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die."-Mel Brooks
But I think if US gonna do this half assed like so many other "limited" warfares that the Americans were involved with in the past, then they're gonna pay big, maybe even losing the war. The only way for the US to win this war is to do this with full effort, totally annihilate their enemy and throw away the stinking rule of "zero casuality".
And let us not forget what happen to the States in Vietnam, Korea and several special missions where they were over confident. After all, Afganistan will prove to be a worth enemy because they're battle hardened, well trained garrila combat soldiers who are more then happy to die for their religious believes, and their track record with the "almighty' USSR just prove more to this point.
[ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:After all, Afganistan will prove to be a worth enemy because they're battle hardened, well trained garrila combat soldiers who are more then happy to die for their religious believes, and their track record with the "almighty' USSR just prove more to this point.
Which is why, if we learn that Bin Laden is responsible (remember: he's just the prime suspect now) and we decide to go after Afghanistan's Taliban government, our goal will not be too occupy the country, but simply to get in, destroy the Taliban, either kill or capture as many terrorists as possible, and probably as much of their military infastructure as possible. Then get the hell out.
I can't speak for the Northern Alliance, but it seems to me that they wouldn't mind the U.S. of A. coming in and giving them a really big helping hand in overthrowing the Taliban. I for one really appreciated them attacking Kabul Tuesday night.
[ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
posted
I don't think the US would actually be staging another Desert Shield/Desert Storm thing out of Pakistan, the area's not exactly friendly, secure, etc. Besides, I think the US will be using mostly hit and grab operations with special forces for this thing, rather than regular troops. Afghanistan isn't somewhere where you want to based ANY troops longer than a few days, just ask the Russkies.
If they want to destroy the Taliban, they can do that from the air. The question is whether or not the Pakistanies can give US over flight permission without getting themselves into trouble. Maybe they can turn their radar off and look the other way every night...
[ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: David Templar ]
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think you can remove the Taliban from power from the air. Destroy their infrastructure, maybe. But they've spent the past five or six years destroying Afghanistan's infrastructure on their own.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
