I've got mixed feelings about that.

Post #18,565 by marlowe 11/16/01 1:19:32 PM Reply	I've got mixed feelings about that. It's a horribly messy situation, and I feel the temptation to just leave proxies or the UN or something and wash our hands of the mess. But I don't think it's wise to yield to such temoptation. We have an interest in what happens everywhere on this shrinking planet. We need to follow through, to be sure the threat to our safety really is neutralized. And I don't feel comfortable about leaving Muslims in charge. They haven't done such a great job in the past. We really need to hcnage the way these people think, so they won't send more suicidal loons at us in a few years. Ram democracy and civil liberties down their throats. The UN, maybe? They can't fight a war worth a damn, but they seem to be an adequate police force in places like the Balkans. Maybe bring them in after the war is over. But keep an eye on them. I don't entirely trust the UN. Too much non-democratic membership. And if the Northern Alliance refuses to yield control, then the war isn't over. I'm not complaining, mind you. Better the Northern Alliance than the Taliban. All things considred, this is an improvement. [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 #18,622 by gtall 11/17/01 7:45:45 AM Reply	Not a fix, but... 99.9% of Afghanis are Muslim. I think it is time the U.S. remind the Muslim nations of this and demand to see some of the peaceful intentions they keep telling us exist in Islam. If anything else, we should at least expose the fraud that somehow Islam is some peaceful force that can be used by people to in learning how to live together. It's a crock, we should label it a crock, and we should advertise it as a crock of shit. I'm not enthusiastic about letting any of the Taliban zealots live. We should in no way encourage any deals that allow them to leave Afghanistan with their boots on. Wherever that misbegotten lot wind up and still alive, they will continue to cause problems for us. I don't think there is a way for us or any other outside group to govern Afghanistan. Pakistan tried, but could only succeed by using the Taliban as proxies. The tribal leaders are living life 20 centuries ago, the whole concept of living together to get enough development to afford swimming pools, brew pubs, and vapid television shows is beyond their ken. They are only interested in power and to make sure their name is forever etched in the foreheads of their enemies. How does one fix that? If any modern groups should have been able to get over it, it would have been the Israelis and Palastinians, and we see how far they've come. The U.N. has no teeth, they'd be lambs in slaughter if they were allowed to "keep the peace" in Afghanistan. We might think to buy peace by offering rewards to those willing to accede to live with their neighbors. But then their neighbors would get jealous, so we'd have to buy them too. And in 10 years, we'd have a welfare country fighting over the spoils we deal out. In short, I don't think there is a solution. Maybe give them all enough arms to be really dangerous, seal the borders, and tell'em we'll be back when they have killed off each and everyone one of their Muslim brothers. Gerard Allwein
Post #18,628 by JayMehaffey 11/17/01 12:30:15 PM Reply	Sealing will not help Trying to seal the border to Afganistan won't help. If you try to seal the border you will leave them with only viable buisness, the drug trade. The drug trade will move goods across the border no matter what you try and do. Forming a coalition government to rule Afganistan seems to me to be the only course of action that has any hope of actually solving the problem. Not that I think it likely to work, but all the other solutions I can think of are worse in the long run. Like it or not, the coalition has to include some (ex)Taliban members simply because they are too large a group to ignore. If we try to push them out entirly we will just create a new oppressed minority to overthrow the government down the road. Over the short term, the coalition will have to be dictatorial in nature. But the long term goal must be to transistion it into a democratic government. By the same token, we have to invest a lot of money into building and rebuilding the infrastructure of Afganistan. Essentially we can only achive long term peace by civilizing the region. Jay
Post #18,965 by mhuber 11/20/01 1:00:56 PM Reply	Whether it's a crock or not doesn't matter We have to say Islam is about peace. In my limited experience, there are a number of followers of that faith who demostrate great personal gentleness. I don't have the arrogance to say what Islam is about or not about. I have a hard enough time with Catholicism, and seeing as that's my religion, I've studied it more. But as a national position, we have to make it very clear that we are not at war with Islam. As ObL is learning, the biggest single factor in victory is to choose ones enemy wisely. We can (almost have) crush the Taliban. We might even be able to make certain types of state-sponsored terrorism unworkable. But if we are at war with Islam, we will lose. A nation cannot defeat a major religion. And Islam is quite major. Not only would we fail, but we would be very, very wrong (both in an absolute moral sense and in directly violating what we are about) in the attempt. ---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
Post #19,056 by CRConrad 11/20/01 9:55:32 PM Reply	The usual "consistency" from rabid Merka-Uber-Alles faction: Marlowe: We have an interest in what happens everywhere on this shrinking planet. And conversely, we in the rest of "everywhere" often have an interest in what happens in the richest, most powerful country in the world... Logical, no? But just listen to you guys squeal whenever anyone suggests you should listen to any of us when it comes to what you do _at home_! Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything

Welcome to IWETHEY!