Re: This bit quoted, seems quite wrong.

Post #19,199 by dmarker2 11/22/01 2:00:59 AM Reply	Re: This bit quoted, seems quite wrong. "What the events of the past few days have starkly revealed is that the US had only one interest in this war in Afghanistan, capturing Bin Laden and destroying al-Qaida; that imperative outstripped all considerations of Afghanistan's future." The above seems to be to be a dangerous opinion entirely from the journalists own mind. I wonder what proof she has that justifies the insinuation the quote makes. The pace of events was always open to fate. Surely even with half a brain, that would be obvious ?. If the US now walks away from Afghanistan, she might be able to justify such a remark but from the evidence she is so far off target she loses credibility. Cheers Doug M
Post #19,213 by wharris2 11/22/01 9:24:11 AM Reply	gawd, agreeing with dm? If the US now walks away from Afghanistan, she might be able to justify such a remark but from the evidence she is so far off target she loses credibility. The food drops would seem to demolish the brain-dead "the US has only one interest in this war" argument. If the only interest we had was bashing bin Laden and the al-Qaida, we'd have carpet bombed everything in sight. We do have other interests. We are seeking (to an extreme) to avoid civilian casualties. We are supporting efforts to organize, if not a "great" according to our standards, an effective and organized government. If this were a purely military engagement, to demolish bin Laden and al-Qaida, Kabul would no longer exist. The cities currently held by the Taliban would have been bombed into rubble. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #19,217 by TTC 11/22/01 11:41:20 AM Reply	Re: gawd, agreeing with dm? >If the only interest we had was bashing bin Laden and the al-Qaida, we'd have carpet bombed everything in sight. We do have other interests. We are seeking (to an extreme) to avoid civilian casualties. We are supporting efforts to organize, if not a "great" according to our standards, an effective and organized government. If this were a purely military engagement, to demolish bin Laden and al-Qaida, Kabul would no longer exist. The cities currently held by the Taliban would have been bombed into rubble Is US at war with Afghanistan? Or terrorists? OBL or Taliban? You do know that Taliban is being "invited" to be part of the new government, don't you? Did you happen to even take into consideration how US (a sovereign nation, member of the UN) has broken internation laws and treaties by bombing Afghanistan? If it's not OK for the terrorists to attack US homeland, what makes it OK for US to bomb Afghanis'? Because you're going after OBL? The terrorists were also going after your leadership, it just happens that Bush took off when the bombing began, oh wait, so did OBL... And if the US was really concerned with Afghanistan, why the NA? And still, where's the proof? As for the food drops, I'd say token gesture at best. I could be wrong.

Welcome to IWETHEY!