Nice point Stelios!
Bin Laden was a useful tool in the fight against communism but now he is a well trained and well financed thorn in their side.
His influence is like a cancer spreading amongst his fanatical followers, just taking him out of the equation is no solution, it has to be all or nothing because there will be several waiting to replace him.

 

'Allegedly' Bin Laden's followers number as many as 20,000 and may included as many as 100 separate terrorist cells. As mentioned above just removing Bin Laden (should it be one of his disciples) wouldn't be enough, in fact it would probably make him a bigger hero!

 

We all agree that this is a terrible tragedy and something MUST be done.

Equally, we cannot ignore the strong possibility that these terrorist actions are as a result of the US government (as distinctly opposed to its people) meddling in many matters over a number of years which have not been their concern.

America has been more fortunate than many other nations in that it has not been the focus of terrorist activity until now.

There is an unfortunate degree of hypocracy here, as, unfortunately, the human race in general shows more and more often.

What really gets to me, though, is that there have been terrorist attrocities carried out all over the world for many years, each as bad as any other. The only difference here is that its America.

No one was suggesting war against Lybia after the Lockerbie PAN AM bomb. Britain didn't go to war with Eire when London was bombed by the IRA. No one has suggested war against the perpetrators or harbourers of terrorists on other occasions.

None of the superpowers is going to help the Rowandan innocents and no one helped the thousands who were killed in Bosnia.

So why now? Probably for nothing more than political survival.

Sorry for the rant, but why should this particular attrocity be any different to any other. Since when was one human life worth any less than 10,000???

Proaction is needed for the future, not just reaction.

D

[This message has been edited by Diablo (edited 14 September 2001).]

 

Sorry to keep harping back to this, but yeas, why was the invasion/annexation of Czechslovakia any less important than the invasion of Poland?

Why was Pearl Harbor more important than the invasion and rape of China?

Why is this more likely to cause war than before?

Because like the other examples, it is the straw that has broken the camel's back.

 

The Ayotolla (terrible spelling, didn't attempt his name!!) was as big a threat as Bin Laden, in his day.

After his death, the new regime proved to be less interested in wiping the western world off the map and today we do not regard them as such a threat. Much of this will have come from aid and trade, negotiated with the new regime. They are still a deeply Islamic country with fundamentalist policies, but there is no longer a figurehead telling everyone to kidnap foreign workers, or highjack planes. So they don't.

Bin Laden is reputed to be worth $300,000,000. That buys a lot of weapons and trains a lot of suicide bombers.

I'm not saying that removing him will end all the world's problems, but when people this powerful use their influence to bring terror to innocent people something must be done.

The Roman Empire did not succeed because of its power, it succeeded because it won the hearts of the indiginous people in the lands it conquered. Their presence brought wealth, education and the rule of law. The Americans failed in Vietnam, because they did notwin the support of the local people.

The Vietcon did.

Removing the exponents of terror and then winning the hearts and minds of the people, to let them practice their religon in peace, is the only way for a lasting solution.

As Pakistan has nuke capability (and would physically suffer from any such strike) lets hope that the action is measured for success and not CNN viewer ratings.

 

Uh, I'm gonna have to disagree that the Vietcong won the hearts of the Vietnamese people. I certainly don't regard going into villages and killing all of the officials, teachers, and intellectuals a matter of "hearts and minds" - unless the intent is to instill fear into them..

As an american, I too have heard a lot of the "nuke them all" rhetoric - but I'm sure saner heads will prevail when it comes to choosing a method of retaliation. Nukes were never meant to be used - the effect on the planet is far too damaging.

Basil

 

I really cant imagine the US even contemplating wholesale invasion of Afghanistan. For a start surely US generals read their history books. No-one has ever had a good experience invading that country. Any invasion would have to be mounted from Russia or Pakistan. Cant see either of those allowing the large scal US presence reuqired for a land invasion (as Saudi did for the Gulf). Either of those countries would require land/air transport of all equipment. You really need Ships for tha amount of kit required.

If the russians failed over 10 years and they're next door and not exactly short of resource at the time, Can't see the US doing any better!. Invade a country and make no mistake they will al ressist you, Bin Ladens mates or not.

My money goes on Special forces and Airstrikes. Mutiple places around the world simulataneously. Afghanistan, Libya, Bekaa Valley. Anywhere that has had a hint of terrorists in the last 20 years.

 

Basil, that is the way the west initially saw it.

But history shows if you feed, educate and create employment for a people (even if it is education of your own doctrines and employment in your army) they will support you.

And they will not care that you have killed their equally corrupt and oppresive officials.

The US army did not speak the language and distrusted every villager. The Vietcong offered food and protection for information and help. If the offer was rejected, they killed them all.

Both sides committed unspeakable attrocities, but that's war.

In the eyes of the indiginous people, the Vietcong's PR was better, if only because the villagers could understand them and there were instant, tangible benefits.

Just like the US in Vietnam, its exactly why the Russians failed in Afganistan. No amount of military hardware will defeat an enemy that cuts off your supply lines, using people you thought you had just liberated.

Its a lesson that must be understood and learnt from, before any troops are committed to Afganistan.

This is a job for Special Forces, whatever the TV crews and Press Secretaries want.

 

I still can't say that I agree with ya, Pete - having spent a semester studying the mess in Vietnam (oooh, I took a class.. ), I pretty much came to the conclusion that the VC were particularly viscous when it came to re-education. They liked to make examples, and did so often. Maybe we're talking about the North Vietnamese themselves - remember the Viet Cong where the guerillas, and pretty much ceased to be an effective force after Tet - it's widely believed that the North used them up during Tet because they felt the VC were a risk to themselves.

Anywho, no need to argue history - I fully agree with your view that this is a special forces job. Everyone's very upset right now (understatement of the year), and that's why the mobilization is taking place. Once things calm down (they'll never return to normal), it'll be special forces that delivers justice.

Basil

[This message has been edited by Basil (edited 14 September 2001).]