????????????

[Wombat]

Originally posted by GinoCyber

Do you have a better explanation as to why over 4000 jews didn't goto work that day other than the Mossad new about that day and warned the U.S. gov't along with warning their people?

I haven't heard this as anything more than a conspiracy rumor. What kind of facts are there to back this up?

How many movies each year do you see about what happened to the Poles, Russians, Gypsies......?

I just saw <I>Enemy at the Gates</I> a few months ago. That was a story about the German invasion of Russia.

We all know what happened to the Jews and we've all seen the tv specials, movies, etc. Why hasn't Hollywood put that much effort to the other genocides, war veterans, etc?

Uhhh, <I>what</I> other genocides? There's nothing else quite on that scale. There were some real atrocities in Serbia and Bosnia, but that wasn't too long ago, and it will take time for the facts to come out. People still talk about things like the Rape of Nanking too, but it wasn't the extermination of 6 million people.
What war veterans are being ignored? There are tons of WWI, and WWII movies, but I guess that must be something about them being <B>world</B> wars and all. There are tons of great movies about Viet Nam, and we're starting to see a few about the Persian Gulf.

[KvHagedorn]

Stalin killed over 7 million Ukranians before WW2 and almost no one knows about it. He didn't bother setting up camps though.. just sent the army down to take all their food away before winter set in.

I don't know of any Ukranians who are big Hollywood producers though. Spielberg never won the Oscar til he got all political and made Schindler's List, either. It really says something when the Hollywood wackos would not reward his best movie (Jaws) but waited until he made that..

[Gurm]

Stalin was an equal opportunity killer. He killed ALL of his own people, regardless of their ethnicity.

As for the 4000 Jews who "didn't go to work" this is just a LIE. It DIDN'T HAPPEN. If you think it did, you're seriously deluded. All my relatives and friends lost relatives and friends in that bombing. Lots of Jews died.

And Omega - I don't feel that Europeans are all Nazis, and I'm sorry if I ever made you feel that I really felt that way. I _do_, however, feel that y'all are a little quick to sympathize with the badguys, as evidenced by all the Europeans in recent months saying "well we should be moderate..." and "why are you guys bombing Afghanistan, that makes no sense" and "you dumb Americans, dropping bombs instead of food can't you even get anything right" and all that crap.

There, that was HALF an apology. Can we call it even? *wink*

- Gurm

[omegaRED]

Yeah we`re even

I can speak in MY name (not for all Europeans), when i say that Western foreign policy (EU,NATO,US) SOMETIMES has double standards. We (as in Macedonia/FYROM, whatever you like) were constantly *asked* (if you call threatening with not giving loans or that we wont get into NATO or EU, not that that will ever happen, asking) to act "moderately", to respond "proportionally" to Terrorist actions (meaning fire ONLY when shot upon, and if they attack with infantry weapons, respond with infantry weapons ONLY, not Mi-24s, artillery or tanks). Javier Solana event pressed Ukraine to stop selling weapons to us .

Now, the US is bombing Afghanistan. I dont have a problem with that. IF that really solves the problem, i really dont have a problem with that. Why werent we allowed to deal with the terrorists? Why were we told we must seek a political solution, and not a military one? Even if they started the war? And no, they arent freedom fighters. Freedom fighters do not carve their innitials on the bodies of civilians, they do not strap explosives to the bodies of night guards and then blow them up along with the hotel, they do not blow up a 14th century monastery, they dont kidnap 50-odd civilians, then kill 20 of them and bury them in a mass grave for *FREEDOM*.

I, for one, am not sympathizing with the 'badguys'. Not with Bin Laden, nor Taliban.

I feel that defeting the Taliban, while using the Northern Alliance as infantry is a BAD strategy. I know that that will decrease the number of US casualties as opposed to sending a large number of US troops there, but the US will have responsibility for Afghanistan if the Northern Alliance comes to power.

Now maybe you can understand my frustration when we heard Solana, Robertson etc say 'Try to find a common language, find a political solution' etc. We were attacked, either from Kosovo or from inside, and we were told HOW we should defend ourselves. Whenever an offensive by our forces was launched, Solana, Robertson, James Pardew or whoever would come and pressure our government or defence minister into cancelling the operation and 'seeking a political solution'.

What i`m saying is this : Every country should be allowed to deal with terrorists. If this is valid for the US, it should also be valid for ANY other democratic country.

[Wombat]

I don't think that the US should be responsible for Afghanistan if the NA comes to power. After all, they were the gov't in place before the Taliban took over the country. We were perfectly happy to let them have their civil war. But the Taliban made the mistake of making too many enemies, and now they can't hold their territories because of it.

[Joel]

Freedom fighters do not carve their innitials on the bodies of civilians, they do not strap explosives to the bodies of night guards and then blow them up along with the hotel, they do not blow up a 14th century monastery, they dont kidnap 50-odd civilians, then kill 20 of them and bury them in a mass grave for *FREEDOM*.

I could not agree with you more. I believe that how the innocent and dead, of a war, are treated shows alot about the character of the fighters. That's not to say that innocent people will not get killed but treating them with dignity, and that inculdes the bodies of our enemies, is very important.

And I also agree with you about the Northern Alliance. If it wasn't for their bickering between each other in the first place and the civil war that it caused, after the Sovients pulled out, the Taliban would not have been able to come to power. At the time the Afghan people saw the Taliban as a means to end the 20 years of conflict so they supported them. But now they see the true nature of the Taliban and want them gone. But be honest what do they have to look forward to?

Joel

[omegaRED]

Wombat:

Well yeah, but the US/Coalition is actively helping the NA. That practically means that the US is going to place them in power in Afghanistan.

Its different if the coalition just went there, bombed the Taliban, got Bin Laden and left, without making "friends". Who knows what the NA is really like? They may turn out to be as bad as the Taliban. Are you saying that you wont feel responsible if your "friends" turn out to be ruthless murderers, and you helped them?

[omegaRED]

Originally posted by Joel

But be honest what do they have to look forward to?

Joel

Exactly ...

[Wombat]

We're helping the NA because we're now anti-Taliban. The Taliban have shown that they will help Osama, or whomever takes his place, so now they face the music. We can't leave them in power if they're not going to stop actively helping our attackers. The NA may be no better for the Afghans than the Taliban, but I doubt they can be any worse. But the rest of the non-Islamic-radical world will probably be better off without the Taliban in control.

[omegaRED]

Originally posted by Wombat
We're helping the NA because we're now anti-Taliban.

But werent the Taliban anti-Soviet back then? The keyword is "now". You`re thinking for the moment ...

[Wombat]

Only if the "moment" is the one where the WTC collapsed. Being stabbed in the back can change attitudes.

And no, the Taliban were not "anti-Soviet". That's anachronous. For the record, there are mujahadeen on both sides of the fight right now, both Afghans and Afhanis.

[omegaRED]

Look Wombat, i`m not pro-Taliban, i`m just saying that it wouldnt be good to jump into bed with the NA.

My enemy`s enemy isnt automatically my friend.

Who are Afhanis BTW?

[Rags]

Why do you think we are jumping into bed with the NA? We have been very careful not to just prop them up to do the fighting. But we also have to be careful to not bomb and kill those who are trying to help us. We cannot pick and choose who will side with us on this.

I also think your idea that we are using the NA to keep American soldiers lives safe is BS.

Rags

[omegaRED]

Adm. Stufflebeem (sp?) (or was it Gen. Franks?) said a few days ago that the US will keep bombing Taliban front lines in order to, among other, enable the NA forces to take Mazar-E Sharif and other key points in Afghanistan.

My arguement was that US should not get involved with the NA in any way, but since you are, you might as well use them as infantry.

Besides, i doubt that the airstrikes alone could achieve the objective. So ground troops may be needed. Wouldn`t you rather have it that a NA mujahideen dies instead of your brother?

[KvHagedorn]

In WW2 we were allies with Stalin (who was arguably worse than Hitler) because we had a common enemy. If Russia had declared war on us instead of Germany, then we would have been Germany's ally.. That didn't happen, basically because only a raving nutcase like Hitler had become would want to take on two superpowers at once. What was so scary about Stalin was that he was that evil without being a raving nutcase..

So let's just deal with one enemy at a time and not worry about what we can't change right now. Once the Taliban are defeated, we really do need to be a major part of the ground forces though, so we can have a say in the transition process. We don't want to make the decision as to the new government, but it can't just be the group of thugs with the most guns. The Afghan people need to be free to choose and hold elections.