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: zonder who wrote (60859)	12/10/2002 11:12:15 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

zonder, I am sorry to say that this post really puts you into the fringe. Its not about educated disagreements. If you actually believe that Afghanistan was about oil - you are just another conspiracy theorist. Afghanistan has no oil or no natural gas of any significance. I will give you that one oil company once considered a pipeline there, but it wasn't built and won't be - its too unstable to support one (and was more profitably built elsewhere). On 9/11 we were attacked, partly because of our culture and partly because of our actions in the Middle East. However, the Palestinian situation was only exploited by Al Queda after the Afghanistan war. If Oslo had worked and Palestine and Israel were living in harmony - it would not have prevented bin Laden. His agenda has always been elsewhere and involves restoring the Caliphate. Spin your 'truth' and tell me how Somolia, Bosnia, Kosovo or Haiti involved oil. The fact is that post-cold war we are no longer just supporting tyrants because they are on our side (against the Soviets). The reason the Arab street is getting used now is that their dictatorships are scared to death of and know that what you will call a puppet regime in Iraq will spell their eventual doom. John

To: zonder who wrote (60859)	12/10/2002 9:20:39 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think we did kill thousands of Taliban and Al Qaida combatants in Afghanistan. I know there were civilian casualties by mistake - I remember a wedding party that was hit because the firing of weapons in celebration was mistaken for hostile fire. I'm sure there may have been other examples. However most of the hostilities occurred in the countryside and I think there were not so many civilian casualties. So I don't know about your characterization of "thousands of civilians" is accurate. So can I clarify your views on Afghanistan - do you think we were justified to intervene there or not?