WAR LIES!

[telebob x]

SEE CAPS BELOW


>The big lie is that we aren't trying to do "nation-building" but are merely
>trying to break the grip of the TAliban so the Afghan people will be free 
>to
>conduct their business in a civilized manner.
>
>Face it, we're nation building, as the quotes below prove beyond a doubt.


IF WE BUILD A NATION THAT IS NOT RUN BY THOSE (I USE THE PHRASE AGAIN) 
ATAVISTIC MONSTERS...THEN I AM HAPPY THAT WE CAN HELP DO IT.  (WAS THE 
MARSHALL PLAN 'NATION BUILDING"? IT IS ABOUT TIME WE DID SOMETHING FOR THIS 
PART OF THE WORLD BESIDES HELP TEAR IT APART THROUGH 'OUR' (READ WESTERN 
MODERNITY) CARELESSNESS.
>
>(And likewise we're lying about not showing bin Laden on US TV for fear he 
>might
>transmit code through his dress somehow. And we drop 37,000 food packages 
>as token
>TV propaganda where millions are starving and malnourished.

ALWAYS SO READY TO BLAME THE US FIRST EH ROGER...?
THE REAL REASON WE ONLY DROPPED 37,000 MEALS READY TO EAT IS BECAUSE WE 
DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SEND THAT WAS BOTH VEGETARIAN AND PRE-PREPARED. 
  THEY ARE WORKING TO REMEDY THAT TOO, BUT THIS CAUGHT THEM BY 
SURPRISE....THUS THE AFGHANIS END UP WITH 'BEAN BURRITOS'...BUT AT LEAST NO 
ANIMAL PRODUCTS IN THE INGREDIENTS....

Meanwhile the one good
>thing about this war is that we know just where to send the cruise missiles 
>because
>the CIA helped set up the training camps).
>
>Meanwhile, here is the American Prospect link and a snip that explains why, 
>in
>the opinion of experts familiar with Afghanistan, why "nation-building" 
>probably
>won't work.
>
>What did we learn from Vietnam?; a country that wasn't surrounded by 
>dominos
>ready to fall?
>
>-- Roger
>
WE LEARNED THAT NATIONALISM IS A VERY IMPORTANT FORCE AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT 
INTERVENE IN INTRA COUNTRY CONFLICTS OF NATIONAL DETERMINATION.  AFGHANISTAN 
IS HARBORING CRIMINALS LIKE WE HAVE NOT SEEN SINCE HITLER AND POL POT...IF 
POL POT HAD DONE 9/11 DO YOU THINK THE USA WOULD NOT HAVE GONE IN AFTER HIM? 
WE DO NOT WANT TO TAKE OVER AFGHANISTAN....WE WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO HELP 
THEM ONCE RID OF TALIBAN AND THE OTHERS.  I DO NOT USUALLY TOUT "NEWSWEEK", 
BUT THE ARTICLE IN THIS WEEK'S ISSUE WITH THE "ROOTS OF ARAB RAGE" BY AN 
ARABIC WRITER IS VERY GOOD...INTERESTING HOW HE DOES NOT SEE US AS THE ENEMY 
SO MUCH AS THE INABILITY OF THE MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES TO ADAPT TO MODERNITY 
AND IS SO FRUSTRATING TO THEM.
>        ************************************************
>
>http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2001/10/vest-j-10-01.html
>
>
>"...But wariness of Pakistan should not be limited to matters of 
>intelligence. "Putting
>U.S. troops into a place like Peshawar [the largest Pakistani city near the 
>Afghan
>border] would be similar to [putting a] Marine barracks in Beirut," says 
>Dienstag.
>"I do not share others' confidence that this is a workable partnership. Be 
>prepared
>for Pakistan to implode. The cancer of extremism there has advanced to the 
>terminal
>stage."
>
>The mere presence of U.S. troops will inflame public opinion and political 
>intrigue,
>adds O'Donnell. If there's any notion of using a city like Peshawar as a 
>secure staging
>area for U.S. soldiers, particularly ground troops, forget it. The area, he 
>says, is
>awash in all manner of small arms and artillery, as well as Taliban-style 
>Islam. About
>a third of Taliban cadre were taught in madrassas (religious schools) in 
>Pakistan's
>Northwest Frontier Province near Peshawar, and the madrassas have continued 
>to send
>recruits. They also have entrenched Talibanism on the Pakistan side of the 
>border,
>effectively erasing the border.
>
>"Everything west of Peshawar to the border, going north and south, is 
>called the
>'Federally-Administered Tribal Area'. When we were there, we referred to it 
>as the
>'Tribally-Administered Federal Area,"' O'Donnell says. "The British could 
>never
>control it; the best they could do is get a treaty that gave them 
>jurisdiction over
>the roads. The Pakistani government inherited that agreement, and they 
>don't go in
>there without troops, and they don't stay for long. If we try to go in 
>overland from
>Pakistan, it's a logistical nightmare, and a tactical one as well. Taking 
>any armor
>through the tribal areas would be ill-advised. And while we could get in 
>with
>helicopters, troops would have a world of hurt waiting for them in Pakistan 
>after
>they got back from a mission."
>
>Appreciate that getting rid of Osama Bin Laden will not "win the war," and 
>a war on
>Bin Laden's organization, Al Qaeda, means a war with the Taliban. The 
>intelligence
>analysis submitted to the Secretary of Defense maintains that Bin Laden's 
>"death would
>demoralize his followers although by itself [it] will not destroy his 
>organization."
>Anthony Davis agrees with the last part but takes issues with the first. 
>"Either the
>Taliban decides to hand him over, he gets snatched, or he gets killed," 
>Davis says.
>"Paradoxically, any of these could be the worst options. He will become 
>either a martyr
>or more of a cult figure than he already is. At the same time, his whole 
>infrastructure
>will remain behind. And the Taliban will say, 'You've got what you wanted, 
>but now you
>want more, so it's not about Bin Laden, but about Afghanistan and Islam.'"
>
>"We have to acknowledge that this so-called 'war' is pointless unless we 
>aid the process of rebuilding the country now," says a senior intelligence
>official. "But in situations like this, this is always the hardest thing to 
>do, or the thing that gets lost in the shuffle."...
>
>
>-- Roger
>
>
>                ***************************************
> 
>October 4 -- NOT "NATION-BUILDING"
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/04/international/04ASSE.html?searchpv=past7days
>
>
>"...Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain has spoken clearly on the subject, 
>telling
>a Labor Party conference in Brighton this week that the Taliban must 
>"surrender the
>terrorists or surrender power."
>Sometimes President Bush has sounded just as firm, but he has also insisted 
>that the
>United States is not interested in using its military for "nation-building" 
>— a
>reference to the American misadventure in Somalia and the long-running 
>peacekeeping
>mission in the Balkans — and other senior officials have used murkier 
>language.
>Clearly, one of the problems is that Mr. Bush must speak to several 
>audiences at the
>same time.
>Tough talk goes down well at home and, to varying degress, in Britain, 
>France and
>  Germany. But for many in the Islamic world, anything that smacks of a 
>generalized
>anti-Islamic operation, as opposed to a concerted campaign to bring down 
>Osama bin
>Laden and company, is not only distasteful but dangerous..."
>
>           *************************************
>
>Oct. 9  -- NOT "NATION-BUILDING"
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/09/international/09ATTA.html?pagewanted=2&searchpv=past7days
>
>"...The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said it was ``not the job of 
>the United
>States to engage in nation building'' by seeking to orchestrate the shape 
>of a future
>Afghan government. He reiterated administration policy, saying, ``We do not 
>want to
>choose who rules Afghanistan, but we will assist those who seek a peaceful, 
>economically
>developing Afghanistan, free of terrorism.''
>
>Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, 
>said that
>``the Taliban is effectively already gone.''...
>
>
>                   **************************************
>
>
>Oct. 10 -- WE'RE NATION-BUILDING AFTER ALL!!!!!!!!!
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40263-2001Oct10.html
>
>Thursday, October 11, 2001; Page A01
>
>JABAL SARAJ, Afghanistan, Oct. 10 -- Afghan opposition forces said today 
>they have
>agreed to delay a crucial offensive to take control of Kabul until an 
>interim government
>can be established to replace the ruling Taliban regime, a decision that 
>could prolong
>military action in Afghanistan for weeks.
>
>The guerrilla commanders of the Northern Alliance postponed an assault on 
>the capital
>after negotiations with U.S. and international officials who fear chaos and 
>bloodshed
>if rebel warlords seize the city before a functioning government or 
>security forces are
>in place.
>
>In a bid to forestall any advance by the rebels into Kabul, U.S. and 
>Pakistani officials
>said, the United States and Britain are holding off aerial bombardments 
>against the
>thousands of Taliban and Arab troops arrayed in three defensive lines on 
>the plains north
>of the capital. Instead, the U.S. and British warplanes and missiles are 
>attacking
>airfields, artillery batteries and other targets to assist the Northern 
>Alliance in
>capturing key northern and eastern Afghan cities.
>
>Airstrikes against the forces around Kabul -- including an estimated 4,000 
>to 6,000 Arab
>troops financed and armed by accused terrorist Osama bin Laden -- would be 
>necessary
>before any offensive toward the capital, which lies 40 miles to the south 
>of the rebel
>front line, the officials said. "U.S. forces have not targeted Taliban 
>artillery and
>other military hardware positioned around Kabul," said one Pakistani 
>military official.
>"Hitting the Taliban artillery now [would] mean giving the Northern 
>Alliance a walkover."
>
>The decision to temporarily allow Taliban fighters to retain their 
>positions defending
>Kabul underscores how the U.S.-British military campaign has moved far 
>ahead of efforts
>to organize a post-Taliban government...
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp