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

[Rags]

Originally posted by 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.

This means we are jumping into bed with them? Please give my intelligence more credit than that.

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.

I don't think we have any choice but to get involved with them. They happen to live in the same country, are hell bent on overtaking the same people we are trying to destroy. If we pretend they don't exist, then we have to bomb them along with the Taliban, because if we just don't bomb where they are, the Taliban will go to where they are eventually and we will have to bomb them both. I prefer not to kill anyone we don't have to.

Besides, i doubt that the airstrikes alone could achieve the objective.

You aren't alone. Our military believes the same thing, and our own president has been telling us since day one this is not like Iraq.

So ground troops may be needed. Wouldn`t you rather have it that a NA mujahideen dies instead of your brother?

I would prefer no one get killed. I addressed this above.

Rags

[Joel]

The Afghan people need to be free to choose and hold elections.

But there is a problem there KvH. Islamic Religious law doesn't allow that.

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said.

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

Joel

[Wombat]

I really don't expect elections in Afghanistan. They aren't ready for them. One of the reasons the region is so volatile is because Afghans have no national identity. It's just the land that a bunch of different tribes live in and squabble in. That's part of the reason that the Taliban swept the country: nobody cared who the "head of state" was.

An Afghani, in that usage, is a word that describes Arabs who went to Afghanistan to help fight off the Soviets. Osama bin Laden is an Afghani.

[omegaRED]

Are you denying that there is a cooperation between the US and the NA? If the term "jumping into bed" has some other meaning other than "cooperating", "helping" etc., then i`m sorry i chose the wrong term.

I want to ask you a question. In your oppinion, should the US stay (militarily, financially) in Afhanistan after the defeat of the Taliban, or should the US just enter, get Bin Laden and leave?

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?

I didnt say this as if that is a brilliant thing only i knew, and you KNOW that. I said that in response to you saying that using the NA as infantry is BS.

So lets rephrase that.

Ground troops will be needed (we all know that). So, wouldn`t it be better for the US if NA fighters were the majority of those ground troops, and still get the job done?

[Rags]

Originally posted by omegaRED ]Are you denying that there is a cooperation between the US and the NA? If the term "jumping into bed" has some other meaning other than "cooperating", "helping" etc., then i`m sorry i chose the wrong term.

Just because someone is offering help or assistance doesn't mean they are jumping into bed with them. Most of the time when you hear someone has jumped into bed with someone, it means they are cooperating with their full purpose.

I want to ask you a question. In your oppinion, should the US stay (militarily, financially) in Afhanistan after the defeat of the Taliban, or should the US just enter, get Bin Laden and leave?

Personally I want us to get the job done and leave. But that would be too mean, so for sure we are going to stay and try to help rebuild, offer assistance, etc, and we will be bitched at for that. It's damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Ground troops will be needed (we all know that). So, wouldn`t it be better for the US if NA fighters were the majority of those ground troops, and still get the job done?

Actually I would prefer we do our own dirty work. I was just raised that way. It's too bad that anyone has to be killed.

Rags

[GinoCyber]

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

http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/170583.html

Remember that I never said this was true or not. I just wanted Gurm's explanation. This article doesn't confirm the 4000 jewish workers that didn't show up but it does give extra suspisions that an un-disclosed amount were warned in advance.

Here's more:

http://www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/Haine/Israel_did_it3.htm

http://www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/Haine/Israel_did_it2.htm

http://www.crescentlife.com/heal%20the%20world/did_israel_attack_wtc_&_pentagon.htm

http://americandefenseleague.com/israwtc1.htm

Here's one that's off topic a bit but soft of back ups some of the links I posted http://www.washington-report.org/bac...93/9306019.htm

Now, I'm neither Jewish nor an Arab. Tell me why I shouldn't beleive what is being said becuase I don't see any proof that it isn't true.

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

That's 1. Compare that to how many movies Hollywaood has done about a holocaust survivor.


'Uhhh, what other genocides?'

What do you think the turks did to the greeks and armenians in the early 1900's?

'There's nothing else quite on that scale.'

Not true. Jewish holocaust is in 2nd place http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/

So where are all these movies from Hollywood?

Plus, how does the world know that 6.5 million is the actual death toll? I don't doubt it but this check these links out

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/resistance/holocaust/

http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/General/VictimsEngl.html

[KvHagedorn]

How can you say that the Ukrainians are not a people? A race? An ethnic group? True, the forced famine was not aimed at destroying ALL Ukrainians it could lay hands upon, but merely as many as possible, primarily the Kulak farming class. Hitler was an equal opportunity killer as well, killing political enemies of any ethnicity, including nordic Germans. He also killed Gypsies, homosexuals, Poles, etc.. I wonder indeed if there have been no films made about the forced famine because the abject horror of mass forced starvation would eclipse even the horror of Nazi gas chambers. The left wing nutballs in Hollywood also wouldn't want to criticise one of their own, and would rather focus on horrors commited by those on the far right..

Hollywood people disgust me. They make ridiculous sums of money and leave nothing for the poor theater owners who show their movies. These businesses can barely pay high school students part time minimum wages and have to survive off of concession sales while sending almost all of the $10 per ticket admissions back to Hollywood. Ever notice how rare money problems are in Hollywood films? It's because those guys cannot conceive of the problems the rest of us face every day. They are mostly pampered and spoiled to the point of being worthless as human beings, with very few exceptions.

Stalin was probably the most evil dictator since Ghengis Khan, and yet when Jay Leno went out and asked people on the streets who this was, no one knew Joe Stalin.. Everyone knew Joe Camel. And this is a nation where all of these people get to vote? No wonder people in the media are so damned smug. They know the power they have to influence the stupid masses, even with extremely subtle things.. If evil is defined as being only on the right, the politics of the whole country will shift. Which is why we have such deplorable people as the Clintons in the white house for 8 years, and an extremely moderate Republican like George W. Bush is stridently painted as some stupid reactionary kook.

P.S. Thanks for the link, Gino.

[KRSESQ]

Gino

You'd better try harder to find reputable links. You quoted two or three reputable news stories, then listed sites so biased and blatently racist ("Resistance"? "American Defense League"? What the hell is that s**t?) whatever arguement you were trying to make lost all credibility.

Anyway, it gives us some idea of where you're coming from.

Kevin

[spoogenet]

Weren't there also 2 million Catholics killed in the Holocaust? They rarely get any notice.

And about the Jews not complaining, well, maybe you aren't, but I've seen a little coverage in the last 2 years or so about a bunch of reparation court battles. Not to mention how some guy was trying to sue IBM (I think the case was thrown out of court eventually) for selling classification systems to the Nazis that were used to kill Jews.

Notice I am NOT saying anything about whether it's justified or not, I'm only trying to point out that Jews seek reparation just like others do. Every group always tries to seek reparations eventually. Whether they deserve it or not varies case by case.

However what I do think is that, after a certain amount of time, reparations become meaningless. People are just looking for money and an easy way out, but money doesn't really make you happy. The only good argument to civil law is that the loss of money inflicts pain on the company and is likely to prevent them from doing such things in the future. However delayed punishment isn't effective.....delayed by 50 years, especially, it's totally new management, new employees, new markets, etc etc etc.

On the "who's shacking up with who" debate....well, let's just take a look at our history for a sec. We trained trash bin Laden, no? Who are we trying to kill now? We trained Noriega, no? Who did we go and try to throw out?

Focusing on one enemy at a time isn't exactly a great strategy. While it works in the near term, near term planning is the downfall of many decisions that have been made in the past....for example, bin Laden and Noriega. Long term planning is the way to go. While it takes longer to devise good strategies, and may require constant revision, and takes longer to see results, I feel the results in the end will tend to be better than simply making a bunch of near term decisions. Many education systems in the US are prime examples of near term planning replacing long term planning, and they are going down the drain at an alarming rate.

Another significant indicator of problems with helping the NA is that the NA isn't clearly defined. It seems as though defectors are constantly going back and forth, both confirmed and unconfirmed reports.....I take the unconfirmed reports with a grain of propaganda salt (much tastier than margharita salt). However with these defections, while we are helping our enemy's enemy, we are also helping our enemy.....so just what do we accomplish?

Another factor to consider, and I would post the name/author of the paper if I could remember it.....is the general hypothesis/theory of the oppressed becoming the oppressor. While I can't provide a plethora....or any, really, specific details and instances of aforementioned cases, this author could....much evidence of the oppressed becoming the oppressor, cases where the oppressed turned around and was worse than the previous oppressor.

Point being, under the assumption of the credibility of this paper, I think we would see the NA become even worse than the Taliban with the absence of external influence.

Anyhow, this compilation of ramblings was supposed to make sense....but it probably doesn't.

Nighty night.

b

[Joel]

You'd better try harder to find reputable links. You quoted two or three reputable news stories, then listed sites so biased and blatently racist ("Resistance"? "American Defense League"? What the hell is that s**t?) whatever arguement you were trying to make lost all credibility.

You have to realize that this is the s**t that is being spread through the ME and since the Arabs hate the Jews so bad they are believing it. You and I can see it and take it with a grain salt but their haterd is so great that it clouds their judgement plus this is about the only kind of BS that the Islamic governments will allow to be aired.

Joel

[Jammrock]

The US is holding back ground forces for several reasons that I see. 1) The US does not want to anger any other Arab nation (except Iraq, cause we don't care what they think). Yes, it probably has a lot to do with the oil, but the US does not like making enemies if at all possible. If the Afghanistan thing requires mass US group troops in the future, we will use them no matter what others say.

2) The average US soldier is not capable of fighting in most of the Afghan combat terrain, especailly now that winter is approaching. Only special forces could really put a hurt on Taliban forces without sustaining heavy casualties. I wouldn't doubt for a second that US special forces have done more than raid that airbase and command center a few weeks back. I know some people in the military and the US is gearing the army for mountian combat, so they are preparing for possible ground action.

3) The NA already has forces on the ground, ready to fight the Taliban. And they have been fighting the Taliban before they even came to power. All they have asked (at least that our gov and the media has said) is that the US provide air support, strategic help and supplies. As far as I know they have not asked for mass troops assistance, so why put our troops on the ground when the NA doesn't need more help at the present than we are already giving them?

Despite what most people think, the US likes to be isolationists, except when making money is involved (hey, it's the American dream). We help when we think people need help, but besides that we try and keep to ourselves. Try, being the operative word... and I never said we succeed at it these days.

Jammrock

[Jammrock]

Hollywood, war and genocide - Two words: Steven Spielberg! If more prominent directors were of other ethnic and cultural backgrounds, I'm sure we'd see movies about other genocides and aspects of war. As it stands there is a group of Jewish Hollywood directors that make movies, and they often choose the Holocaust as their topic. It's that simple. Their movies make money, so Hollywood lets them do it. Hollywood is only a repector of one type of person: Moneymakers!

Holocaust and genocide - There have been so many holocaust's and genocides throughout human civilization, it's impossible to say which one was the worse. They're all bad! But quite honestly, the Jews get picked on the most at a global level. It just seems like everyone hates them for one reason or another. Off the top of my head I can think of 6 times in Jewish history that were slaves to/taken over by another nation, 5 times that they have been targeted for extermination and the slander against them never ends, and I'm not even Jewish.

And in reality, almost every culture and nation has been subject to another. Every super power has done stupid things (the fabled Ancient Greek society had an estimated 16:1 ratio of slaves to citizens, the Roman's were worse). The Russians used to be slaves to Mongols. According to Snorri, the Scandinavians used to be Syrain slaves for 500 years that revolted and fled to the North (led by Odin, which is were the king of the Nordic gods got his name from). The Chinese have been beated up by the Japanese and vice versa several times.

Chinese also seem to be their own worse enemy. Mao Tse-dung killed an estimated 100 million of his own people to take power. That's 15x the number Jews killed in the holocaust. Stalin killed an estimated 40 million of his own people throughout his riegn, the Forced Famine was just the biggest mass killing. And after 2 world wars the war that has still killed more American's than all other wars combined...the US Civil War. And speaking of the US and genocide...what about the Native American's? Talk about getting the bad end of a deal. Of all the stupid things the US has done, this is still the worse by any measure, even worse than African slavery (blacks could vote before Native American's could).


What is all boils down to is: The Human race is a bunch of evil bastards! Always have been, and apparently always will be.

Jammrock

[The PIT]

Why does the mankind just suddenly take on itself to suddenly kill Millions of people. What is the trigger? Is it just nature saying theres too many people it's time to reduce the population or is just evil corrupt people. A friend on my said theres too many people in the world and theres soon going to be another world war. That was said about 10 years ago and we've certainly come close and we've certainly got a more nervous world now.

[KRSESQ]

Pit:

I think population stress is a definite factor. In any animal population, when there are too many for the environment to comfortably support, mechanisms come into play to reduce their numbers. Virulent diseases run amuck. Parents start killing their offspring, and adult individuals lash out violently against their neighbors for no apparent reason. Animals starve. Eventually the population of natural predators increases to bring things back into equilibrium. But Humans don't have any natural predators except for themselves.

Add to all that the fact that humans seem to have a stronger instinct for dominating their fellows than any other species on Earth, and you have the makings for what could be an even more interesting century than the last one was. [Insert foreboding music here.]

Jamm:

What is all boils down to is: The Human race is a bunch of evil bastards! Always have been, and apparently always will be.

The ultimate irony is that the religions we have created to try to unite us and get us to stop killing and hating, have CAUSED so much killing and hating! (In the hands of greedy, unscrupulous leaders, that is.)

Kevin

[Gurm]

Gino,

You need to get a clue. I open the first of your links, and see "the company will not disclose what was in the messages", "the exact time of the messages is unknown", "the FBI will not comment", and "the employees are unnamed".

GREAT. So it's ... wait for it ... a RUMOR.

Ok, then I open up the NEXT link. And I see a French Journalistic tagline, followed by "a Muslim leader says that..." and I'm supposed to BELIEVE this?

The next few links are from radical groups and bullshit sites.

Thanks. Find me a REAL, CONFIRMED link. No rumors, no conjecture, and no propagandizing by Muslims.

- Gurm