Al Qaeda growing stronger?

[meltdown 0]

You make some good points. I think Americans can learn a lot from Europeans. And vice versa. I think Europeans (and other non-Americans) are more in tune to things like environmental protection, but to a fault in some cases (like Kyoto). As far as security issues, I believe that many outside the US have become complacent living under the military/security umbrella provided in large part by the US. This umbrella, paid for mostly by the US taxpayer, has allowed them to expend their welfare/socialist programs. The threats, however, have not gone away, but have become more organized in the wake of the cold war. It almost seems as if non-Americans think that the threats will go away if we just "act nice". There has been a religious war going on for centuries, and to simply blame US foreign policy does not adequately address the problem. Appeasement does not work. We must seriously face the threats against us. It's easy to hate the "big bully", but it's a messy world, and someday they may once again come to rely on us to save their asses. I hope not, but we must be ready for that. Even if they don't like us for it. That said, it would be damn nice if every American suburbanite didn't drive such a big ass SUV. They could also take some lessons in moderation - we're gettin' awful fat as a society.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Did you personally favor letting the Russians exterminate the Afghans or giving them weapons to defend themselves?

Well, the Russians (Soviets at the time) were not exterminating Afghans. They had put a "friendly" Government in place because they saw Afghanistan as strategically important. They were engaged by and fought insurgents who did not want to accept a communist government. These insurgents were hard line Muslims amongst them many foreign fighters like OBL. (see any similarity with recent events?)

The US supported these fighters because they wanted to strategically weaken the USSR and reduce its influence. After years of bloody fighting with the well equipped insurgents the USSR finally gave up, withdrew its troops and those fighters established the Taliban regime. The foreign fighters amongst them established AL Qaeda with the aim to spread the fundamentalist fight around the world.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

So whats wrong with the Kyoto accord?
Not challenging, just interested to see how it is perceived over there.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[happythoughts 0]

I agree with almost everything you said. The US was always fighting the USSR using these types of "proxy wars" to change the sphere of influence of each country.

Quote

They were engaged by and fought insurgents who did not want to accept a communist government.

Ok, they weren't killing all of them, just some. But, machine gunning a group of people on horseback from a helicopter is exterminating that group.

Quote

The foreign fighters amongst them established AL Qaeda with the aim to spread the fundamentalist fight around the world.

Agreed, the US provided some training and weapons. Eventually, the weapons run out. No new supplies. However, OBL was tossed out of Saudi Arabia for promoting his own agenda. He is way beyond rich. That is the reason that AQ has grown. He has the resources to make it happen.

It would have happened with/without the US involvement in Afghanistan. Fundamentalist groups have existed for years. OBL provided a lot of cash to make it happen.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"It would have happened with/without the US involvement in Afghanistan."

You can't play 'if' and 'and' like that with history.
For example if the US had not supported the Mujahadeen (sp?), who's to say what might have happened? OBL and Zarkawi (again sp?) might not have survived the conflict, and we might not be talking about this now.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[meltdown 0]

So whats wrong with the Kyoto accord?
_________________________________________
Well, it exempts many heavy polluting countries, it is based on what many in the scientific community consider junk science (or unreliable at best), it doesn't take into account many factors which can affect the temperature of the earth's surface/atmosphere, it costs tons of money to implement, the potential benefits are sketchy at best, etc. I'm no scientist, but I've read differing points of view on the subject, and to bet the whole enchilada on this thing seems pretty foolhardy.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

I'd disagree with some of your points, but thats a topic for another time.Cheers for the quick reply.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Ok, they weren't killing all of them, just some. But, machine gunning a group of people on horseback from a helicopter is exterminating that group.

Well, they were better equipped then you think. Including stinger missiles which shot down the helicopters. "group" is not all Afghanis – so the term exterminating Afghanis is not really correct (or you would have to say the US is currently exterminating Iraqis) . The soviets did actually also a lot of good in Afghanistan. They gave women rights and improved education and health care. Again, see any similarities with current events?

Quote

However, OBL was tossed out of Saudi Arabia for promoting his own agenda. He is way beyond rich. That is the reason that AQ has grown. He has the resources to make it happen.

Well, yes it is correct that OBL's money was important. But it has become more clear that Al Qaeda have been financed by a wide range of organizations and networks in the Muslim world. I think they are less financially dependent on OBL then what many people think.

Quote

It would have happened with/without the US involvement in Afghanistan. Fundamentalist groups have existed for years. OBL provided a lot of cash to make it happen.

Difficult to speculate. Would the Soviets have won if the US had not supported the insurgents? Would Al Qaeda be such a factor if Israel and the Palestinians had reached and implemented a peace agreement in the early nineties? Who knows....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So whats wrong with the Kyoto accord?
_________________________________________
Well, it exempts many heavy polluting countries, it is based on what many in the scientific community consider junk science (or unreliable at best), it doesn't take into account many factors which can affect the temperature of the earth's surface/atmosphere, it costs tons of money to implement, the potential benefits are sketchy at best, etc. I'm no scientist, but I've read differing points of view on the subject, and to bet the whole enchilada on this thing seems pretty foolhardy.

Don't forget the inference of who gets the foot the bill for everyone.......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Don't forget the inference of who gets the foot the bill for everyone....... "

We'll definitely come back to this one at a later date.
The sun is shining and its beer time, manana muchachos.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Well, they were better equipped then you think. Including stinger missiles which shot down the helicopters.

US Stingers. That would be after someone made the decision to go there. Before that, they were easy targets.

Quote

The soviets did actually also a lot of good in Afghanistan. They gave women rights and improved education and health care. Again, see any similarities with current events?

I agree. However, to the Muslims, educating women and womens rights are not an "improvement". Iraq has actually been ahead of a lot of the Muslim world in that respect. They allow women to teach at a university level. In other countries, nothing beyond high school.

It seems that you agree that it is impossible to foretell the future. I agree with your reasons why the US went to Afghanistan. Regardless of the reasons for supplying the Afghans with arms to fight the USSR, it was impossible to foresee the current situation.

The foreign policy problem is this:
People scream that something must be done about . Decisions are made based on the world at that time. Something is done. Some people want a guarantee of perfection for 100 years. I think that is huge fantasy.

[billvon 2,998]

>People scream that something must be done about .
> Decisions are made based on the world at that time. Something is
> done. Some people want a guarantee of perfection for 100 years.

I don't think anyone wants a guarantee of perfection. They just want good decisions. In retrospect, some of our decisions have been bad. People will vote for people who learn from those mistakes and use them to make better decisions in the future, rather than people who defend everything done in the past with the following arguments:

-the US is a force for good, therefore everything we do is good (or at least better than everyone else)

-we could not have possibly done anything differently

-we're just not smart enough to see the long term results of our actions

-we cannot be perfect so it's silly to ask us to even be reasonably smart

When voters see politicians saying things like this, they worry that they will charge into the future making exactly the same poor decisions.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

When voters see politicians saying things like this, they worry that they will charge into the future making exactly the same poor decisions.

Unfortunately many voters don't. Those that do will vote for Kerry.

[billvon 2,998]

>Unfortunately many voters don't. Those that do will vote for Kerry.

I don't think that's literally true. Per recent polls, people will not vote for Kerry because they think he will do a good job, they will vote for Kerry to get Bush out of office. I don't think Kerry would stand a chance against a good president.

[PhillyKev 0]

I agree. I was reponding to your comment that people will expect Bush to make the same poor decisions.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

-the US is a force for good, therefore everything we do is good (or at least better than everyone else)

There's a flip side, the people who say everything the US does is bad. It's opinion. I think it is more mature to do a little of both. People seem to blindly support/criticize Bush or Clinton.

Quote

-we're just not smart enough to see the long term results of our actions

The "smart" choice is a matter of debate. Examples, Afghanistan or Clinton's Somalia policy or Clinton's OBL policy.

-we cannot be perfect so it's silly to ask us to even be reasonably smart

It seems that people are asking us to be perfect in retrospect. That isn't a smart expectation. The world changes.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

-we cannot be perfect so it's silly to ask us to even be reasonably smart

It seems that people are asking us to be perfect in retrospect. That isn't a smart expectation. The world changes.

A lot of us are on record opposing Bush's actions in Iraq from the beginning, and predicting that just this situation would arise. It didn't take genius. Check the archives.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[happythoughts 0]

I never understood the reason for being there.

GB didn't have any conclusive evidence of WMD. Of course, there is no reason at all to believe SH when he said he didn't have them. He ran the country and had plenty of time to hide them. They may still have WMD regardless and they haven't been found. Who knows?

I don't think that oil is the issue because we can get it from other places. I usually look for a financial or market-control reason.

I think SH is a regionally destabilized force, but considering the region, what's one more?

[billvon 2,998]

>There's a flip side, the people who say everything the US does is bad.
> It's opinion. I think it is more mature to do a little of both. People
> seem to blindly support/criticize Bush or Clinton.

Agreed. I see a lot of people who respond to criticisms of Bush by saying "well, at least he didn't get a blow job in the oval office!" (or responding to criticisms of Kerry in a like manner.) It almost seems that they must prove that their side is always superior, rather than discussing the good and bad things that both sides have done.

>It seems that people are asking us to be perfect in retrospect. That isn't a
>smart expectation. The world changes.

Right, but even in the 80's, a reasonable person might have concluded that giving radical Islamic terrorists billions in money and weapons might be a bad idea. It would be a bad idea today, too - hopefully we learned from that mistake.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I never understood the reason for being there.

GB didn't have any conclusive evidence of WMD. Of course, there is no reason at all to believe SH when he said he didn't have them. He ran the country and had plenty of time to hide them. They may still have WMD regardless and they haven't been found. Who knows?

I don't think that oil is the issue because we can get it from other places. I usually look for a financial or market-control reason.

I think SH is a regionally destabilized force, but considering the region, what's one more?

The latest word on the street is that the administration was taken in on the WMDs by the Iranians feeding false information through Chalabi, thus ridding the region of Iran's #1 enemy. Farking funny if it's true.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Will there be an inquest into this whole debacle, over there? I'm pretty sure there will be one over here, but I'm not sure how public that enquiry will be.
I'd really like to see the evidence (contrived or otherwise) that led our leaders into this fray.

I want to be able to trust our leaders, but right now, I don't have a lot of faith in their decision making processes.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Keith 0]

You mean this?

-----------------------

The CIA is in possession today of "rock-solid" evidence that Ahmad Chalabi is an agent of the Iranian government, that he used his position with the Bush administration to push false data upon the gullible hawks in Washington...
"The implications," writes Borger, "are far-reaching. Mr. Chalabi and Mr. Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war. 'It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner,' said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. 'Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi.'

Iran's motives are crystal clear. Iraq has been a mortal enemy of Iran for decades. The process engineered by Chalabi has destroyed that enemy, and opened the way to a Shia-controlled Iraq that would be a natural ally of Shia-controlled Iran. In the process, Iran has come into possession of national security secrets so important that only a select few American officials were cleared for them. As a side benefit, Iran has watched the United States flail like a beached whale in Iraq, squandering billions of dollars and thousands of lives while shattering its reputation around the world.


George W. Bush and his people delivered this boon to Iran on a silver platter. Let us recap:
The Bush administration, enamored of Chalabi, threw the American intelligence services under the bus, leaving us blind, deaf and dumb;
The Bush administration barnstormed us into a catastrophic war in Iraq on the word of Chalabi, giving Osama bin Laden the kind of rallying point he had previously only fantasized about;
Because the Bush administration trusted Chalabi so completely, he was able to give our national security secrets to Iran, while simultaneously feeding Bush's people disinformation about Iraq, which they were all too ready to hear and act upon;
Because Chalabi was working for Iran, and because he has coughed up the deep national security secrets he gained via access provided by the Bush administration, there are more than 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq whose lives are in far greater danger than anyone previously imagined;
The Bush administration paid Chalabi $340,000 a month to do this, over and above whatever he earned from Iranian intelligence for selling us down the river.

The damage all this has done is incalculable.

The hawks will try to put all the blame for this on Ahmad Chalabi alone, and will claim they were "duped." The truth, however, is that Bush's people have been courting Chalabi for years, long before they became a part of this administration. He is their creature. The truth is that Bush's people wanted this Iraq war, and were willing to do whatever was necessary to get it. Chalabi was their vehicle, and in using him, they have betrayed us all.

The truth is that George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the neo-conservatives are personally responsible for the delivery of our most precious national security secrets into the hands of Iran, a nation that has believed itself to be at war with us since the Carter administration. The method of that delivery, this Iraq invasion and occupation, has made the entire world a more dangerous place by orders of magnitude. Thousands are dead, and more will certainly die, because of this.

-------------------------

Funny? No. F'd up? Yes. I think our current administration is unfortuanate, but I don't (although deep down I'd like to) find solice in this.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[mikkey 0]

One more point Re Chalabi. There is a warrant for his arrest in Jordan (bank fraud). This fact was known by the US administration all along. It did not seem to concern them that he had a reputation as a fraudster.....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Funny?"
That depends on your sense of irony, and knowledge of global political manipulation.
Not that I find war and human suffering amusing in any way.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[newsstand 0]

Quote

...As far as security issues, I believe that many outside the US have become complacent living under the military/security umbrella provided in large part by the US. This umbrella, paid for mostly by the US taxpayer, has allowed them to expend their welfare/socialist programs. The threats, however, have not gone away, but have become more organized in the wake of the cold war. It almost seems as if non-Americans think that the threats will go away if we just "act nice". There has been a religious war going on for centuries, and to simply blame US foreign policy does not adequately address the problem. Appeasement does not work. We must seriously face the threats against us. It's easy to hate the "big bully", but it's a messy world, and someday they may once again come to rely on us to save their asses. I hope not, but we must be ready for that. Even if they don't like us for it. ...

Our foriegn policy did create a large part of the problem That and the arrogance of the average American traveling overseas. You are right that "making nice" is not going to make the current problem go away but we have to begin making fundamental changes in how we do business.

As to troops in Europe, I was one. the official line is that we are not there to protect them but to offer joint defense capabilities. I would have no problem with bringing the troops home from Europe and the rest of the world but I doubt you would find any support in any US administration. Without our large and obvious presence those guys might get even crazier ideas about running their parts of the world the way they want to and we would have a real hard time stopping them.

In addition to being about oil the invasion of Iraq is about having a place to stage US troops to keep an eye on the middle east. Bush and Powell have made some interesting commitments lately about sticking to the schedule of turning over power and about leaving Iraq if they ask us to. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes