Re: Correction...

Post #18,015 by TTC 11/13/01 8:34:03 AM Reply	Re: Correction... >...we do not want the NA to take power That's not how it appeared, and it appears now that the NA has taken power. >And just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean there is not proof. Something must have been offered to the leaders of the major members of the coalition that convinced them that this was the correct course. Like I said, that's another thread... don't want to get into that... but it seems quite a number of folks share the opinion that the US should have "conceded" to the Taliban's request to produce proofs and THEN will the US have the moral high ground when it then went ahead to attack the Taliben. I share that opinion too. >Just think...the French government is still in support. That would take proof...considering they wouldn't even return a convicted murderer to the US because they thought convicting him in absentia was "bad form"...even though there was ample proof of guilt. That's relatively easy. It's NOT them that's at the receiving end, no? :)
Post #18,048 by bepatient 11/13/01 11:15:26 AM Reply	I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground" And neither are the Taliban. And if, by chance, the Taliban were shown proof (the debate over its existence aside), they would have rejected it (naturally) and the intelligence sources used to gather that proof would have been forever compromised. Sorry...in war...which this is...I don't think trading strategic info for moral high ground is a very good idea. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #18,518 by TTC 11/16/01 3:58:05 AM Reply	Re: I don't think we're interested in "moral high ground" BP, I hope you understand what I'm trying to get here. I've never defended the terrorists' action. Nor do I support any nation that "harbour" terrorists and "support" terrorism KNOWINGLY. I believe folks with sanity will probably have the same stance. What we differ in is the way things are being handled, or rather mishandled. 9/11 was a tragedy. However, a little introspective will reveal that such a tragedy was one that was waiting to happen in view of US foreign policy, past and present. Justifiable, no. To be expected, yes. After the 9/11, the US could have had a legitimate WAR against terrorism. Instead, it has become a "hand over OBL or we'll bomb you, fuck the proofs" "terrorist action" in the eyes of many. Almost every nation denounced terrorism. Whether they are paying lips service or not, we won't know. Is the US really against terrorism itself if it wasn't the victim? Nevertheless, many "allies" in this war are allies because they can't afford to be in the "against US" category, economically and militarily. So are they victims of terrorism? "You're with us, or you are with the terrorists" (and you know what we will do to the terrorists, don't you?) And then, the biggest irony of all, the US "ally" itself with the NA, a bunch of looters and rapists no less, which is at war with the then-ruling regime in their civil war, thus again ignoring the sovereignty of another nation and propping up the US-preferred faction. So does the end justify the means? How really different is the US from the terrorists of 9/11?

Welcome to IWETHEY!