there are a great many things we are not told
I know... but I'd like to know that there are plans even if I don't know the detail. What I suspect is that we're winging it - hence the demur over who or what coalition might rule... this should be more carefully planned than the military assault, IMO, because it's harder and will make more difference in the long run.
Anyway, of course we back the US on this one. You're right and in the right. And - as I've said, going about things the right way - Afghan civilian (even Taliban) casualties are minimal, considering, and the political consensus is admirable.
By whom? By bin Laden? Islamic Jihad? Hisbollah?
The first, no. That's why we wipe him out.
Most of the Palestinian groups over the last ~15 years, certainly since the withdrawal from Lebanon, have (or had until *very* recently) a policy of acting only within Palestinian lands, specifically so that they can class themselves as freedom fighters on their own turf. IMO they'd agree.
And the external groups would have very little joy if most Palestinians accepted what they had - a state(let) truly of their own, with protected boundaries. So I think they'd be greatly weakened, having neither a valid pretext nor noticeable popular support.
Better. Not blindly optimistic, but better than now...
I'm sure they could justify not doing so if they felt it better suited their national interests.
LOL, I agree with you there... but I think both would be happy enough seeing a stable ME. They're neither of them in the business of exporting the world revolution to overthrow capitalism, not any more...
this was a war between peoples, not governments- -that the governments could make whatever peace agreements they wished; they would mean nothing because his people would not make peace.
Fine point. ME governments are not representative. But if there is no longer a Palestinian cause of any note, the extremists are that much weakened. A few may call for the destruction of Israel nonetheless, but if the Palestinians themselves have independence I honestly think that will reduce the anti-Western groundswell to manageable levels.
The uncle example, BTW, was referring to the IRA murder of Louis Mountbatten - the Queen's uncle - followed by the attack on the Cabinet in Brighton.
None of their bombs has managed to kill 6000, or even a tenth of that - so would the WTC have been OK if only 600 had died? Of course not. And don't think they wouldn't have if possible... I recall bombs planted in central rail stations in rush hour, not to mention the destruction of Bishopsgate - earlier than planned, on a Sunday as I recall.
And the Irish (and even the US) were extremely reluctant to extradite even wanted criminals, or prison escapees convicted of terrorism and the murder of soldiers and innocents alike... co-operation didn't really get going until the 1980's. |
