|
The internet
is primarily
a communication tool... |
|
...it allows people who would not normally interact to debate topics and hear opposing views in a relatively non-hostile environment. Arabs and Jews. White Supremacists and Blacks. Anarchists and Nationalists...etc Obviously there are varying ammounts of tolerance to opposing views - but then there are a multitude of forums and sites from which to choose. The best forums are the ones that allow ideological divergence within the framework of their topics. -The internet is changing the way we think and interact- |
|
An Australian Military based forum used an article
on our site to start a topic: "I am always amazed at the ability of left wing, liberal types to find conspiracies and ulterior motives in just about everything. So was it all done for the oil?" http://www.country-liberal-party.com/pages/timor-genocide_p3.htm |
| This has led to some interesting (and occasionally heated) discussion... |
|
This is a section of a thread (6 to 10 November) from this forum on a topic I started with D'Hage's article from the Age. D'Hage vision... I am maintaining anonymity for the forum and it's members - because they have discussed and overcome - a 'reluctance' to allow my contributions... respect being a two-way street. Hope this inspires people of whatever ideological persuasion to go into forums that are 'oppositional' - Such cross-fertilization of views has to be a win-win situation for everyone. |
|
Military Contributor 1 - OK, so for a variety of different reasons, the Northern Alliance are dodgy and the Taliban are dodgy, neither of them being fit to form a representative or responsible government. So, what is the alternative? How are the best interests of Afghanistan to be served?
Should we try and impose some other basis of government on them?, should
it become a UN mandate? As always, it's easy to analysis these things
critically, far more difficult to come up with viable alternatives. To
my mind, at this stage the Northern Alliance are, at least, the lesser
of two evils. |
| Military Contributor 2 -
I hope that the UN will set up a new government. In an environment like Afghanistan, where new and old warriors alike, have been raised in what we would call "babaric" society, we cannot expect a civilised (in the West's definition) government to be formed by itself (did that make sense?). No, neither the Taliban nor the UF are fit for just rule. There should be a constitution drafted with the help of the UN, and a UN-backed democratic election, much like what is happening in East Timor now. And hopefully, Afghanistan will return to peace. |
|
PARIAH - "Dodgy" is not a word that
adequately describes the excesses of the Taliban or the Northern Alliance.
The ends (especially when we have no idea what they are) do not justify
such means. They never have. _______________________ What should have happened? It also explains why a wider analysis
- incorporating 'before and after' scenarios is essential to put this
situation back into a logical framework. One that can weigh the potential
danger of 'terrorist acts' with the far greater danger of exchanging freedom
for 'security'. |
| Military Contributor 2
- What are you suggesting? I'm not asking what you said, but just trying
to deduce a realistic alternative to the "war on terrorism". Sit on our hands and do nothing? Withdraw US presence in the Middle East and allow ruthless dictators to invade and conquer the region? The entire Middle East ruled by Saddam? By Osama bin Laden? The entire Middle East constantly in civil strife (I know that many of them have been in civil strife, but for that to extend to countries where civil order is present, would not be good)? To me, drastic action needs to be taken. For too long, countries such as America has been the target of ideological violence. Some say that the reason why America is hated by Middle Easterns is because of its foreign policy in the region. I don't think so. The reason why America is hated is because it is powerful, and it supports individual freedoms, which fundamentalist governments hate. The biggest organised religion in America is Christianity, which is also hated by fundamentalist Muslims. Official Taliban texts show this ideological hate very clearly: "...it is the duty of every Muslim to rid the earth of the Great Satan that is America, and to kill every zionist infidel..." (quoted from memory). America isn't fighting against Afghanistan. At least for the moment, it is fighting against Al Queda, and the Taliban government which supports it. Later, it will extend to other international terrorist organisations. The end is not clear, but if we had to have a clear end for everything we do, then we will achieve nothing. The war against crime? Does it have a clear end? But most of us can sleep in peace, because we know that there are people out there who is fighting the seemingly endless battle against crime. So it is also with international terrorism. There may never be an end, but all the peace-loving people of the world will be safer that affirmative action is now being taken against terrorists. But that's just my opinion.... Regards |
| Military Contributor 3 (U.S.A.) -
You question weather Bush is the legitimate winner of the US presidential
election. As a citizen of the US, I can answer that one for you. He won the election in Florida in EVERY recount, even those that favored Gore in every way. Winning in Florida give him the win in the Electoral College, which is the ONLY legitimate way to win the presidency in the United States. Quite legitimate, and quite legal. He certainly was not placed into power by Pakistan, which is how the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan. And I am going to let you in on a little secret. Before we are done, a new government is going to be in power in Afghanistan. After which we will as usual go about rebuilding the country. From what I see over here, the vast majority of Australians favor what we are doing, and this time the majority is not going to stand idly by and let misguided anti-war morons dictate to the rest of us what we should do. It only takes ONE side to declare war, and that happened many years ago. If a gnat buzzes around you might ignore it. If it bites you, you squash it, and the Taliban regime and any other government who wants to take a bite is on notice. The flyswatter is moving. It may move slowly, but it will get there. |
|
PARIAH - To MC 2 - I thought I answered
this... "Militarily and diplomatically, America has jumped the gun. Again, either solution would have been greatly enhanced, by 'allies' with the courage to advise and act objectively." You are asking me to suggest plans based on an already flawed response. Note for - MC 3 (U.S.A) Re: "anti-war moron." Where in the above do I argue against an intelligent military response? Where in my tract - do I question Bush's legitimacy as President? I could care less about how your puppets are installed? The approach I suggested would have been legal and more forgiving of troops and civilians. You rushed in - because you are poor strategists and arrogant to boot. As in - "Instead we pandered to a tantrum by an outraged Superpower." In chess it's called a forced move. Bluster and 'gnat analogies' will not change that. To MC 2 - "America isn't fighting against Afghanistan." Tell that to the relatives of dead Afghanistani children. |
|
Military Contributor 4 Quote: "To me, drastic action needs to be taken." I think the US has gone about this the wrong way.
There is a clear need for force, but the US are playing to the Taliban's
and Al Qaida's strengths. What did work were methods such as planting a small
ammount of explosives in the telephone handset in the terrorists home,
or sending small numbers of special forces into the training camps and
HQ's. This should have been how the US retaliated, and it initially looked
like this is how they would retaliate, but they seemed to have reverted
to their old ways. |
|
Military Contributor 5 ""To
CIC - ""America isn't fighting against Afghanistan."" |
|
Military Contributor 2 Sorry. I should have worded myself better. What I'm asking is: what are your "tenable solutions", if you were the UN? Although you have given answers to the question, they're very vague. Anyone can think up such common sense responses, and not receive critique. Put yourself in the position of the president of the US, or the UN's decision makers, and present us your solutions. Not because I'm picking on you, I'm just interested to hear what you think America should do specifically, especially since you present views of a different ideological perspective. Quote: The US should have taken a look at the Israeli approach to terrorism. Massive bombing campaigns do little to end terrorist threats. Israel learned this the hard way in Lebanon, despite their earlier successes. What did work were methods such as planting a small ammount of explosives in the telephone handset in the terrorists home, or sending small numbers of special forces into the training camps and HQ's. This should have been how the US retaliated, and it initially looked like this is how they would retaliate, but they seemed to have reverted to their old ways.Well, I'm definitely not suggesting that mass military campaigning is a good idea. I'm very much against coventional warfare on Afghanistan. However, it has already started, and will probably continue for some time, while all we can do is discuss and debate about it. One can only hope that in the near future, the war on terrorism will take on a much more discrete form, with HUMINT and covert ops, rather than large conventional wars. |
|
Military Contributor 4 Quote: Afghans are dying. So be it. They chose to stay. They chose not to oppose the Taliban. Quote: "Oh, but wasn't that a TERRIBLE thing to have happen, BUT you know, the USA has only itself to blame". How many times has that crap been written, by the media, by professors, by diplomats? |
| Military Contributor
1 - At the start, it looked like the US was going to go
at this with an intelligent military response - but the longer the bombing
goes on the more I feel it isn't the answer and is probably becoming counter
productive. But, I don't feel the campaign is a 'knee jerk' reaction and
I don't dispute the US's RIGHTto retaliate directly rather than try and
orchestrate something through the UN. Obviously, in the war against terrorism Bin Laden is public enemy number one and the Taleban / Afghanistan is the main focus. However, I think the 'war' would be more credible if it was a broader fight against terrorist organisations in the world today which is what I believe most of us would 'sign on' for. OK, I know, ones man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, it's a Pandoras Box. I just think that if we could see that action was being taken against terrorism in other places as well, claims that it is a war on terrorism, not a war on Afghanistan, nor islam etc, would be far more credible. Perceptions are important. And maybe things are happening elsewhere as well but we just don't hear about it. I don't just mean the ongoing investigation into the WTC attacks. Don't know whether the above makes much sense - I just think it needs to be visibly much broader based than it seems at the moment. |
| Military Contributor 4
- Couldn't agree more! I think the Ranger/Delta mission highlighted that the US still hasn't learned the error of trying to go for casualty-less operations, even when troops were on the ground. So far the US has not shown that it is willing to fight this war the way it needs to be fought, or the way they said they would before it started. |
| PARIAH - Terrorism:
The systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies
or governments. ______________________________________ We have laws (ideally) to protect the weak from the strong. America has no right to demand *suspected* 'terrorists' be delivered up. No extradition treaty. Even in Texas the use of fatal force is a last resort against a *convicted* criminal. Dropping bombs on a country and killing innocent people is a monstrous perversion of Domestic and International law. There is no legal justification. ______________________________________ International law means everyone. A situation that would benefit a truly democratic America. Herein lies the problem. We are seeing a Pan-Americanism emerging that only recognizes that Might is Right. ______________________________________ As to my so-called partisanship - That uncle I mentioned (previously) who fought in Korea, lives with his extended family in New York... and prior to September 11 - I was made a member of a New York institution. humanists.net/wasm/fanny.htm Apart from this I do not agree with killing innocent people. Nor that some lives are worth more than others. However as an invasion of America by the Taliban does not seem likely and given my knowledge of the American government's responsibility in this affair, I must take this stand. It makes life hard. ______________________________________ Extending this war on terrorism is an absurdity. Who defines the terrorists? The people with the nuclear powered aircraft carriers? How else can these people fight America? People are motivated by circumstances. It is less costly to change those circumstances than it is to go to war on very shaky moral ground. My solution. Iraq is an example of why people are prepared to die in terror acts against America. One of many such examples. http://www.answering-christianity.com/iraqi_torture.htm I do not agree with all the views on the site - but I can empathize with the anger against America of an Iraqi person who sees such children. Then there are the other 500,000 Iraqi children dead from hunger and disease. (UN stats) ______________________________________ "I am not in anyway defending Saddam Hussein and his barbaric regime." - Quote from site. ______________________________________ It was an American president Truman? who coined the phrase Industrial/Military combine to describe what he saw as a threat to American democracy. This combine is threatening planetary democracy now. ______________________________________ The military options should have been defined within International law. As to tactics? Have to say it again and not as a cop out. "A critique is worthless if limited to specific military objectives and short-term political gains. It's the mindset that got us into this mess in the first place." ______________________________________ I believe UN pressure would have been far more effective and I doubt the Taliban would have wanted to take on the planet. Bases would then have been available and personnel plentiful. ______________________________________ Unfortunately the US want to perpetuate a militaristic Pan-Americanism for their own economic purposes and have no intention of planetary unification/interference on any issue. Oil. ______________________________________ The greatest hope for the planet still lies with the American people. How scary is that? ______________________________________ One other point - the religious - is not what this is all about. That is just another way to define otherness for racists. The USA has done plenty of arms deals with Muslims. The religion that dominates this planet is still money. Bush's daddy supported Saddam Hussein. ______________________________________ Mick Lambe |
After a flurry of posts - no reply
to this one yet...
|
I believe our military come out of this on the credit side - I'd hope some of the American military posts on this forum ("Final Solution" - I kid you not) are aberrations and not typical of the US Military. The "Diggers" make short work of such input. |
Information on the Taliban and Northern Alliance
Other Sources on effects of depleted uranium in Iraq
|
MAIN MENU
|
||||||||||
| Recent Articles | ||||||||||
