Plane Crashes Into World Trade Centre

[legend]

Well, Afghanistan is the largest supplier of opium in the world, so I would guess they would be well backed. IMHO, the odds are stacked against the U.S and they are facing another Vietnam. The terrain is inhospitable and the enemy alreayd has the advantage through superior position. If Bin Laden and his troops are in the mountains then you would be looking at a ration of at least 10-20 Allied troops to one Bin Laden troop. Bush and his govt face an crisis of titanic proportions. The other question is how do you know what your enemy looks like?

 

[meltiger]

Legend,

They can't possibly send ground troops in... To fight in Afghanistan would be HARDER than vietnam.

Surely they aren't that stupid to do it again ?

 

[legend]

So does that mean the U.S would be responsible for the mass genocide of millions of Afghani refugees? The U.S has the ability to air drop heavy armored tanks and trucks and I think they will use it to get inside along with the special forces. The geographical location works very heavily against the U.S. Either way, we are looking at a massive loss of life.

 

[Willow]

Loss of life and human suffering. Unimagineable human suffering.

 

[legend]

Willow, I can't see any other way around this issue and, unless Bin Laden is handed over by the Taliban we will wee massive devastation and destruction on a scale unthinkable. I don't want to see innocents slaughtered but maybe the U.S can overthrow the Taliban at the same time. To me, the U.S will evaluate their campaign on the cost of one U.S soldier versus one Afghan refugee and that is very sad. I have no idea how you would solve this problem without a massive loss of life.

 

[mud n blood]

F*ck 'em .... the yanks didn't start this one. These clowns picked the fight, now they can bear the consequences. How long do the yanks have to put up with attacks on their civilians by these middle-eastern dickheads ? And over religion ? Come on ..... you're joking aren't you ?

I'm far from being a yank-lover, and I certainly don't believe all the propaganda they sprout. However, I believe this is a fight that has to be fought now, or more will die in the long run if it's let be.

Remember, it hasn't been the yanks hijacking and blowing up middle-eastern civilian aircraft during the last 30 years. This is why countries have military forces in the first place ...... may as well use them.

 

[legend]

Mud, there have been reports filtering out of Pakistan that U.S Airborne troops are massing along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Your wish looks to be coming true. My main concern is the majority of people in Afghanistan are too poor to own a tv and very few would have had any idea that NY was bombed last week. The majority of these people do not support either Bin Laden or the Taliban and I can't see any justification in killing these people, but at least with troops they have a better chance of hitting an enemy target and avoiding civilians than a F-18 dropping a bomb. Soldiers a re paid to defend their country, civilians are casualties of war.

If anyone wants an indication of the situation, my brothers wifes uncle has just been called up to active duty in the army in Australia.

 

[legend]

Could this be a solution?

Opposition 'can find bin Laden'
<table align=right width=250> <tbody> <tr> <td>&lt;!-- SectionID: -->&lt;!-- SectionID: --></td></tr></tbody></table>From AFP
19sep01
THE 15,000-strong Afghan opposition movement is ready to confront the country's ruling Taliban militia and knows the hiding places favoured by terror suspect Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan's United Nations ambassador has said.
But Ravan Farhadi said US officials planning retaliation after last week's terrorist strikes have not consulted with opposition forces who are active in northwest Afghanistan. "I don't have any sound information on any kind of talks between our side and between United States," Farhadi said. Bin Laden, who is protected by the hardline Taliban, is seen by Washington as operating a global terror network and has been designated the main suspect in last week's attacks on America. While the Taliban militia currently controls most of the country, Afghanistan's seat at the United Nations is held by the former regime of President Burhannuddin Rabbani - even though his forces control only a 10th of the national territory. "We have to be consulted," Farhadi stressed. "We will give our co-operation and we will give our views on how it is possible for our side to take care of Osama bin Laden." In the aftermath of Tuesday's attacks, Washington has made it clear that countries harbouring terrorists were legitimate US military targets, raising speculation that an operation against Afghanistan was being considered. But Farhadi warned against a US air raid on Kandahar, the Taliban stronghold south of the capital Kabul. "To bomb Kandahar - this is useless," he said. "We have 15,000 people on our side who are ready to fight and are trained for fighting the Taliban. They have done this job for five years. "We know where Mr bin Laden can hide."

 

[imported_Jackal]

"My main concern is the majority of people in Afghanistan are too poor to own a tv and very few would have had any idea that NY was bombed last week"

Legend ,

All televisions and radiosto civilians have been outlawed by the Taliban government for quite a few years now. They say their reason for this is abiding by Islam and its way. Which is crap of course. Manipulation is what it is.
The only way people in Afghanistan know of happenings outside their country is if they're Taliban members, and through the grapevine.

 

[legend]

Thanks for that info mate. Even as I type this my stomach churns and is in knots at the loss of life we are facing. Those poor people will have no idea what is going on if they see a U.S warplane or U.S troops.

 

[Willow]

Well Mud, you seem to know who the 'enemy' is. For that, you're doing better than most.
It goes without saying that we have no idea and I doubt very much if the answer lieswith comments like "middle-eastern dickheads "

Legend: I still hold out hope that the conflict will not escalate. But if it happens, we'll get sanitised reports.
"Soldiers a re paid to defend their country..."
Quite true. However, I think it's worth noting at this point that in the event of an invasion of Afghanistan, the soldiers who will be defending their country will not be Americans. They will be Afghan soldiers. Anyone will tell you that a soldier defending his home soil has no where to retreat to and will always fight harder.
"civilians are casualties of war." Lets get this straight just so we're not mincing words here. By casualties, we're talking about the rape and torture of defenceless people. We're talking about homelessness and famine. We're talking about children dying.
Sorry if that sounds a bit strong but I think it's time we all rememebered just half of what 'casualties of war' actually means.

 

[imported_Jackal]

"By casualties, we're talking about the rape and tortureof defenceless people. We're talking about homelessness and famine. We're talking about children dying."


I don't know Willow, but part of that statement sounds awefully like what happened and eventuated since the Twin Towers and Pentagon were attacked.


"defenceless people" ... "children dying" ... "torture" ... "homelessness" ...

 

[Willow]

Jackal, I'm not sure what your point is. Sorry, I like to answer any query directed at me but there's a bit of ambiguity there.
Are you suggesting that the horror of the WTCcatastrophe is somehow lost on me?
If you are then I'm afraid your sadly mistaken.

 

This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

 

[imported_Jackal]

Apologies Willow, as I should of cleared it up further.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all.
What I was refering to is, in terms of innocent lives which will inevitably be lost if the US do attack Afghanistan, how is this any difference to what we saw in the East Coast of the US a week ago?

The only difference will be the body count.
The US will be retaliating against terrorist attacks. The terrorists just comitted cold blooded murder.
IMHO, an act of crime with a reason and purpose behind it, is far more understandable than an act of crime for no reasoning at all. The US, if they decide to attack, have a reason and purpose to carry out their actions. The terrorists had none whatsoever.

I hope that came out right ...
)

 

[imported_Jackal]

Legend,

If you re-copy the article and then remove the HTML code before re-pasting it, we can avoid scrolling across the page to read this thread.
)

 

[legend]

Sorry guys, I deleted the large post. I will use links instead. Both are well worth the read.


http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/18/ret.russia.afghanwar/

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/09/19/pakistan.address/

 

[Willow]

No worries Jackal. Sorry for the curt reply.

Your point is a common one about the need for US retaliation. I just think all other avenues need to be explored first.

 

[imported_Jackal]

"I just think all other avenues need to be explored first."
Amen to that Willow.
No problems mate ...

)

 

[TheSaint]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11463

Here is an interesting link about America's involvement in Terrorism.
www.michaelmoore.com is another site with a few interesting oppinions and links