Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (359)	9/19/2001 9:20:55 AM
From: Condor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Would a concerted effort by a worldwide coalition of governments supporting anti-terrorism to invade Afghanistan and install a responsible government not be responsible? If we are to believe that those harbouring terrorists and supporting them ( surely this is the case in Taliban Afghanistan) are unacceptable to the building global coalition then it would seem acceptable to convene a Global force to remedy this. I obviously see this approach as frought with danger but it would be interesting to see global reaction to this proposal. It would certainly seperate the wheat from the chaffe as reaction came in fom the global community of countries. I think the feel good statements of support from countries such as Iran and the likes are very very suspect. C

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (359)	9/19/2001 10:50:09 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Art; Your analysis is appreciated, as is your prior service. Do you think Bin Laden will get upset when his ISP is cut off and he can't get to his favorite "XXX-70 hot teen virgins on green pillows" streaming video site? More seriously, the part I wonder about is isolating for 2 years. TWO YEARS?! Considering the disparate opposition elements and the odd coalitions forming, can you see the unity lasting that long? And the 'dead or alive' statements by Bush... the 'head on a platter' comments by Powell.... doesn't that suggest a more aggressive approach? Not that I condone the repeat of the Soviet errors. BTW, do you see any other targets you think we'll pursue with the same resolve? I had wondered if there was an electronic way to block or scramble electronics to stop wireless, satellite and similar signals. And is there any merit to the concept of CARE-type drops of food & medicine to areas of Afghanistan where Al Qaida is scarce, that it can benefit the Afghani citizens? The blockade/siege approach has merit, but I'd hate to see a repeat of Iraq, where the larger Afghani populations suffer even more...

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (359)	9/19/2001 10:52:56 AM
From: FaultLine	Respond to of 281500

Good morning Art, Welcome to the thread - it will certainly be interesting to read your seasoned analysis as this situation unfolds. Best regards, --ken/fl

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (359)	9/19/2001 11:13:52 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks for identifying your credentials in the field, Art. They certainly add weight to your comments. But <gg>, >> That means no trade, no imports, no exports, no water, electricity; and more important, no phone/fax service, and no travel in or out, including no flights into or out of the country. Sounds like a siege of Castle Afghanistan, but hasn't that approach been a failure with Iraq? Why do you think it would be more effective here? uf

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (359)	9/19/2001 11:54:08 AM
From: HG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Art, Let me begin by stating that I agree with your views on most part.... <<<there must be a complete isolation of the Taliban, as long as they refuse to hand over the goods. That means no trade, no imports, no exports, no water, electricity; and more important, no phone/fax service, and no travel in or out, including no flights into or out of the country. Isolating the terrorists and their sympathizers creates communication problems in contacting outside cells>>> This part is what I have trouble with. The entire population of the Middle East favours and sides with Afghanistan, never mind what their governments say or do. This sympathy makes it extremely difficult to implement the isolation strategy. Bear in mind that Iraq/Kuwait crisis was different in the sense that the Moslem states were divided there, and that helped achieve a fair amount of isolation for Iraq, not total though coz Jordon tried but failed. In this case, a very large %age of the Arab population would feel they are fighting a common 'enemy'.....and IMO would provide aid to Taliban surruptiously, making the quaranntine strategy ineffective. Taliban is a very different breed than the average Arabs. They are the warrior breed. They are not even Arabs, being of Pushto and Pathaan descent. To club them with Arabs would be a mistake. They are much more stubborn, resiliant and intelligent than an average Arab. IMO, they would prefer to die hungry, fighting rather then bear the indignity of surrender. It is their creed, and it would be a mistake to ignore this difference. And besides, they have already shown a total lack of concern for their public......so I am not sure isolation would be a good enough strategy. Besides, it will be hard to maintain a coalition support for 2 or 3 years. Eventually the Moslem states are going to weasle out, even politically. I presume infiltration, however hard to achieve, would be the only solution. SWAT teams targetted at removal of the taliban brass. I doubt if anything else would work for the people, for the region. BWDIK ?