So what do you guys think about US bombing Afghanistan?

[mikal]

Originally posted by U2girl:
Not to justify terrorist actions, just to point out how complicated things are.
But back to the topic: is bombing the right way to deal with it?

As much as I hate the use of military force, I think this is the only option we have(unfortunately).

------------------
Schabow

[U2girl]

Originally posted by DrTeeth:
If people are poor and live in war-torn coutries, they are more susceptible to the doctrine of people like Bin Laden, Hitler and Bush ( ).

I know that the Afghanistani children are trained and all, but if i child sees bombs falling down on his hometown, and if that's the only impression he gets of America, it will probably increase his belief and affirm what he's been told about "dirty, evil America and the West".

ps: Hitler took advantage of the economic situation in Germany before WW 2 big time, people thought he'd get the country out of the economic crisis. He did-but at a horrible price. Also, he manipulated with the crowds, blaming the Jews for everything that was wrong.
People bought it because they were poor, and tired of it. I'm not saying that was the only reason, but it helped.


------------------
"It's about finding your way into the music." - Edge

"Something inside said this could be everything in your life." - Bono

"U2 as a band does things nobody one else can. I think that is a very powerful thing." - Larry

"Adam believed in the band before anyone did." - Bono



[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 11-12-2001).]

[U2girl]

Originally posted by speedracer:
But capitulating entirely to bin Laden's demands would be unreasonable.)

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 11-12-2001).]

What demands did he made?
As far as i know, he's always spitting rage and anger about fighting the "dirty" Western civilization.

[U2girl]

Originally posted by U2Bama:
Bombing their infrastructure and intensive cave/bunker network is the most practical way to drive them out and force a surrender or, worst case, make a ground war more feasible. We are NOT targeting civilians and I do not think the civilian casualities are going to be as high as many of the anti-bombing interests are telling us. Also, remember that in a nation like Afghanistan where the official, internationally-recognized government is in exile elsewhere, the line between "civilian" and "military" is quite blurred, as the ruling regime pretty much forces whomever they can round up into some standing militia.

And we have been closing their accounts since shortly after 9/11.

They do not acknowledge/recognize "diplomatic pressure." Please remember that Al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa, and embassies are the structural symbol of "diplomacy."

No, we will not be able to destroy all of the terrorists, but this is a start.

And yes, special forces have been on the ground and more willbe going in soon.

But we can't just round them up and bring them to some prison; that is when their buddies hijack more planes and use their imprisoned goons as ransom for civilian airline passengers. Terrorism, if you will.

~U2Alabama

Like i said in one of my earlier posts, the guy said "Arabs", but my guess is he meant Palestinians.

I doubt that the Taliban will surrender due to bombing. From what i understand, for those people dying for their cause is a honorable, noble death (so killing him is not really a punishment). And i seriously doubt they will be caught alive if they can prevent it.

Besides, they probably have caves or underground hideouts so bombs are not likely to drive them out.

I know that the civil victims are not intentional, but there's a diffence between the regime (Taliban) and the opressed civilians.

There are special forces on the ground? I remember reading about it-for reconaissance purposes or an actual manhunt on Bin Laden and the leaders of Al Khaeda?

Isn't prison where any possible POWs will be sent to (especially the leaders)?
So they can go to court and face the consequences?
(let's not forget US uses death penalty)

Don't you think the terrorists would try to strike back either way-sending the leaders to court or shooting them right there in Afghanistan? Or try to free the captured ones?
(with the new tighter security on airports, i think that would be hard for them to do)



[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 11-13-2001).]

[TheU2]

Originally posted by U2girl:
Like i said in one of my earlier posts, the guy said "Arabs", but my guess is he meant Palestinians.

If that guy was mistaken, I really don't think he was an "expert on Middle East affairs."

CK

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by U2girl:
Like i said in one of my earlier posts, the guy said "Arabs", but my guess is he meant Palestinians.

Then, as TheU2 said, he is hardly an expert if he published such an error.

I doubt that the Taliban will surrender due to bombing. From what i understand, for those people dying for their cause is a honorable, noble death (so killing him is not really a punishment). And i seriously doubt they will be caught alive if they can prevent it.

I doubt they will either; that would be a "best-case" scenario, while a ground war, which is more likely, is the worst-case. But I do not see killing him as merely a punishment but also as an elimination of him - and I KNOW that doesn't eliminate terrorism as a whole, but it eliminates one son-of-a-bitch that this world does not need.

Besides, they probably have caves or underground hideouts so bombs are not likely to drive them out.

That is the reason for the type of bombs that have been dropped in the past two weeks: they have the ability to penetrate these caves and underground hideouts, and if not drive them out, to kill them.

I know that the civil victims are not intentional, but there's a diffence between the regime (Taliban) and the opressed civilians.

Agreed.

There are special forces on the ground? I remember reading about it-for reconaissance purposes or an actual manhunt on Bin Laden and the leaders of Al Khaeda?

Yes; we have been hearing about it after-the-fact; there may even be more to it than recon missions, and there definitely will be more to it now in order to curb any autonomous surge on the part of the Northern Alliance.

Isn't prison where any possible POWs will be sent to (especially the leaders)? So they can go to court and face the consequences? (let's not forget US uses death penalty)

Don't you think the terrorists would try to strike back either way-sending the leaders to court or shooting them right there in Afghanistan? Or try to free the captured ones? (with the new tighter security on airports, i think that would be hard for them to do)

I think this would all best be settled on the battlefield. Somehow, I don't think that Miranda Rights, due process and the right to a speedy trial are that important to The Osama.

~U2Alabama

[U2girl]

Originally posted by U2Bama:
I think this would all best be settled on the battlefield. Somehow, I don't think that Miranda Rights, due process and the right to a speedy trial are that important to The Osama.

~U2Alabama

Maybe, but who's to say Bin Laden is still in Afghanistan? I mean, after the reports of bombing and ground troops coming in, isn't it more likely he escaped?

Those things you mentioned may not be important to him, but they are important to the coalition.
Everyone deserves a fair trial, right? And everyone is innocent until proven guilty. (including the worst of criminals)

ps: True, killing a terrorist ("eye for an eye" logic is never good) is definitely a way of eliminating him. But so is putting him away in prison for life.
Some people believe they should torture them to death. That is inhumane, plus scums like that are not worthy of any kind of trouble of dealing with them. Just put him away for good.


------------------
"It's about finding your way into the music." - Edge

"Something inside said this could be everything in your life." - Bono

"U2 as a band does things nobody one else can. I think that is a very powerful thing." - Larry

"Adam believed in the band before anyone did." - Bono

[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 11-14-2001).]

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by U2girl:
Maybe, but who's to say Bin Laden is still in Afghanistan? I mean, after the reports of bombing and ground troops coming in, isn't it more likely he escaped?

I don't know if he is. Nonetheless, I am hppy that the Taliban is falling like they should. I do not know that he has escaped, but if he has, we need to persist and find him.

Those things you mentioned may not be important to him, but they are important to the coalition.
Everyone deserves a fair trial, right? And everyone is innocent until proven guilty. (including the worst of criminals)

If he surrenders himself without incident, he will get a trial. If his thugs try to resist as we (or whomever) are about to aprehend him, it pretty much eliminates the chances of him living to see a courtroom.

ps: True, killing a terrorist ("eye for an eye" logic is never good) is definitely a way of eliminating him. But so is putting him away in prison for life.
Some people believe they should torture them to death. That is inhumane, plus scums like that are not worthy of any kind of trouble of dealing with them. Just put him away for good.

Unfortunately, the problem that this poses is him being used as some type of ransom or bargaining tool for future terrorist acts. We learned this in the 1970s and 1980s.

~U2Alabama

[TheU2]

What Bama said.

CK

[The Wanderer]

I think it's worked nicely.