"Original" being the key word.

Post #28,550 by Arkadiy 2/15/02 5:38:27 PM Reply	"Original" being the key word. When they refused to surrender ObL, they became a target. targets.push(Taleban), you see?
Post #28,552 by Brandioch 2/15/02 6:10:08 PM Reply	And that makes sense to you? Terrorists fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon. We say ObL is behind it. We focus on ObL. We find an obstacle to our "getting" ObL. The new focus becomes the obstacle. ObL becomes "a nice side effect". Allow me to quote from your earlier post: War's target... was Taleban. ObL would be a nice side effect,..... I'm sure you can understand my confusion as to what the "objective" of the "war" is. Particularly when, as you say, it changes depending upon whom we think is opposing us. ....but the prime directive was to remove Afghanistan as his base.
Post #28,569 by Arkadiy 2/15/02 8:32:07 PM Reply	Taleban was not just an "obstacle". They actively cooperated with ObL. They used his expertise (e.g., in killing the head of Northern Aliance). And he had resources of Afghanistan at his disposal. Those resources are small compared to US. But it really, really helps to have a country (no matter how poor or unrecognized) where every "policemen" is your friend. So, the first step toward neutralization of ObL became obvious. Remove the only governement that openly supports him. That's what we've done.It was a necessary first step. And for the duration of that step, ObL became a side target. Now that we think we are done (whether we really are is a different question), we can restore bin Laden's status of primary goal. Except that now we have no clue how to get him - not even first step. Well, time will tell.
Post #28,575 by Brandioch 2/15/02 9:33:56 PM Reply	Well, that was going to be my point. Except that now we have no clue how to get him - not even first step. It's called "focus", Grasshopper. So, we have the evil mastermind still out there. He still has his international network of terrorist cells. Not to mention the "Axis of Evil". Sorry, I just have images of all the James Bond movies where Jimmy goes chasing after the retreating goons so he can arrest every one of them while the guy with the world destroying weapon saunters over to his waiting jet and leaves the island.
Post #28,590 by wharris2 2/15/02 11:59:29 PM Reply	Maybe we'll be lucky Rumor was that binLaden was in the throes of (what was it, kidney or liver?) disease. Of course there are LOTS of rumors about everything. Dangit, I've got hiccups again. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt, from his Recluse series
Post #28,634 by gtall 2/16/02 7:50:26 AM Reply	What IS your point, Grasshopper? That the U.S. should have left bin Laden his base of operations because it couldn't nail him without killing civilians? Or is your point that we didn't get him because we "weren't focused"? What was your grand scheme to get the guy, presuming you do indeed want to get him? And if you never really wanted to go to Afghanistan to take away his base of operations, what number of Americans are you willing to sacrifice in the next terrorist incident? How many Afghanis are you willing to sacriface to the Pashtun -led Taliban? Why don't you explain to us how many Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, etc. you are willing to have tortured and killed by the Taliban and Al Qaeda because there might be civilian casualities if the U.S. tried to stop it? Gerard Allwein
Post #28,691 by Brandioch 2/16/02 8:52:30 PM Reply	You've missed the moral high ground. What was your grand scheme to get the guy, presuming you do indeed want to get him? I think I've been over that enough times. And if you never really wanted to go to Afghanistan to take away his base of operations, what number of Americans are you willing to sacrifice in the next terrorist incident? Well, you see, >MY< goal was to STOP the terrorist attacks by not creating NEW terrorists. And that requires that >WE< do not kill innocent civilians. How many Afghanis are you willing to sacriface to the Pashtun -led Taliban? As many as it takes for THEM to decide to change. Remember, >WE< were supporting the Taliban before. Which gets back to my points about us not fucking with their politics. Sometimes, you do have to let them sort themselves out. Why don't you explain to us how many Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, etc. you are willing to have tortured and killed by the Taliban and Al Qaeda because there might be civilian casualities if the U.S. tried to stop it? Again, as many of them as they are willing to accept. This isn't about us. This is about them. The only reason we were involved is that we want the oil. Which is also the reason that we switched from targeting ObL to replacing the government in Afghanistan. And don't try telling me that we're there to help the Afghan people. Where were we last year? Do you think they didn't stone women last year? Or the year before? Or the year before that? We aren't there to "save" any Afghans (or Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, etc). We knew about how they were treating their people years ago. We did nothing. Don't try to claim moral high ground now. You just look stupid.
Post #28,725 by gtall 2/17/02 7:03:30 AM Reply	Re: You've missed the moral high ground. The only reason we were involved is that we want the oil. So, Afghanistan is a major oil producer? And don't try telling me that we're there to help the Afghan people. Where were we last year? Do you think they didn't stone women last year? Totally beside the point, fact remains we removed a pimple on the ass of the world. We knew about how they were treating their people years ago. We did nothing. Yes, the U.S. was busy listening to moral authorities like you. Hopefully the U.S. has gotten over it. Gerard Allwein
Post #28,736 by Brandioch 2/17/02 1:19:34 PM Reply	sigh www.google.com +bush +oil +afghanistan +pipeline Totally beside the point, fact remains we removed a pimple on the ass of the world. Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer. Yes, we did something to help some people. But >WHY< we did it is the issue. Remember, we were >SUPPORTING< the Taliban before. And we didn't give a FUCK about the Afghan people before the attacks. We're in it for the oil. That is the >WHOLE< point. Yes, the U.S. was busy listening to moral authorities like you. Hopefully the U.S. has gotten over it. Really? So we've reduced our dependance upon their oil? Ohhhh, I don't think we have. Was that the best insult you could come up with? Maybe I should give you more time? I really love the way you ill-educated fascists try to elude responsibility. Remember what I've posted before. Step#1: Reduce our oil imports from that region by 1/20'th each year for 20 years. Once we've done that, you and your fascist buddies can make all the claims you want.

Welcome to IWETHEY!