We'll have to deal with this, but not now.

1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #23,300 by marlowe 1/6/02 1:56:23 PM Reply	We'll have to deal with this, but not now. First order of business is destroying al Qaeda. Then we can try to kill the roots of the evil. Anyway, they're not measurably worse off for our interefernce in their affairs. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #23,314 by Simon_Jester 1/6/02 6:37:18 PM Reply	Isn't that what we always say? That we'll get to it? (We do eventually...normally after it's burned us once or twice.)
Post #23,315 by JayMehaffey 1/6/02 7:33:53 PM Reply	Better not wait to long We had better not wait to long though. The original reason the Taliban was able to take control was they offered order and harsh law. If we wait to long people will start wanting the Taliban back, and then we have a real problem. This whole mess is exactly why the politicians didn't want the military to crush the Taliban to fast. And for once, they where correct. Without a strong central government to replace it, the country is just falling back into caos. Jay

Afghanistan today, better off then under the Taliban? - (bluke) - (7) - Jan. 6, 2002, 08:36:57 AM EST

We'll have to deal with this, but not now. - (marlowe) - (2) - Jan. 6, 2002, 01:56:23 PM EST

Isn't that what we always say? - (Simon_Jester) - Jan. 6, 2002, 06:37:18 PM EST

Better not wait to long - (JayMehaffey) - Jan. 6, 2002, 07:33:53 PM EST

Oh yes, and once again . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2) - Jan. 6, 2002, 02:06:13 PM EST

Alas, probably an all too true analysis -NT - (wharris2) - Jan. 6, 2002, 02:38:30 PM EST

Yes, they appear to be as immune to past folly as - (Ashton) - Jan. 6, 2002, 04:36:33 PM EST

Depends on who you are in Afghanistan - (gtall) - Jan. 8, 2002, 12:03:09 PM EST

[E.T. finally dies... general clapping and hurrahs]
59 ms