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: cnyndwllr who wrote (183460)	3/13/2006 2:25:47 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Hawk your post is filled with poorly reasoned speculation, mistatements and non-sequitors. And your facts are extremely shoddy and reek of historical revisionism: The Taliban gave Bin Laden sanctuary in 1996, the same year they managed to capture Kabul and establish their domination of Afghanistan. In fact, Bin Laden was a major financier and logistical supporter of the Taliban. infoplease.com In August of 1996, Bin Laden DECLARED WAR upon the United States: The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." We chose to ignore his declaration of war. So yes.. WE DID HAVE THE RIGHT TO WAGE WAR AGAINST AFGHANISTAN PRIOR TO 9/11. Just like we have the right to execute an arrest warrant to apprehend someone admitting a conspiracy to commit murder takes refuge in the house of an friend or ally. Where did that come from. Does 9/11 justify any silly, counterproductive and brutal action on the part of America? Even when there is NOOOOO connection? Although I can't comment on potential ties between Saddam's IIS and Al Qai'da (both in Afghanistan and Iraq), YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT AL QAI'DA FORCES, INCLUDING ANSAR AL SUNNAH.. ETC ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING IN IRAQ. Though one maybe you'll be able to see some of the stuff I saw about Saddam's pre-war activities with AQ, what is IMPORTANT is that AQ has launched a COUNTER-INVASION of Iraq and our mission is to eliminate them and prevent them from gaining control over Iraq. I have REPEATEDLY STATED that the authorization for US action against Saddam's regime is based upon UNSC 678, 687, and 1441, all of which Saddam fail to comply with. The fact that Saddam only admitted to own Generals in December, 2002 that he didn't have any WMDs is EVIDENCE that he attempted to CONTINUE to AVOID his obligations under those BINDING resolutions. Upon Saddam's downfall, the US mission changed to stabilization and reconstruction, as well as hunting down and eliminating any pockets of AQIZ cells that might exist in Iraq. I agree that there was insufficient evidence AT THE TIME to establish a link between Saddam's regime and Zarqawi. But that is irrelevant to the original authority for overthrowing Saddam. However, the fact that Zarqawi made a play (or acted as a proxy for exiled and local FRE leadership) for turning Iraq into an AQ ruled Islamic State IS justification for continuing operations against his organization WHERE-EVER THEY ARE. So get a grip Cnyndwllr. I could care less what spin the MSM wants to perpetrate, the facts are clear that Saddam was NOT in compliance with UNSC binding resolutions and had violated his cease-fire obligations. And nothing within UNSC 1441 required another unanimous resolution to authorize actual military action to enforce the previous resolutions. Individual members of the UNSC/UN were entitled to take the actions they deemed necessary under those authorizations. Game, set, match (with regard to the legal argument).. Hawk

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (183460)	3/13/2006 2:40:51 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

You and I grew up through the cold war. We had 20,000 Russian nuclear warheads on hair trigger our entire lives ( actually, we STILL have 5000 or so ). Vietnam made more sense than Iraq, and it's dominos made little sense. These neocons with their irrational, overblown fears of the ragtag jihaddis are just really manipulating the fear to justify war. They're warmongers, and fearmongers, like Hawkie. The people that buy their crap, like Mikey, are frightened pussies. 9/11 really happened. Being in Iraq won't stop it from happening again, it might actually encourage it. Bush's foreign policy is the greatest recruiting tool the terrorists have. The hammer lives for the nail, and has no brain at all.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (183460)	3/13/2006 2:51:17 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<The Taliban took over without our offering any opposition>> You think we had the right to intervene in Afghan politics BEFORE they cooperated with Bin Ladin and conspired in the attacks on 9/11? You think "our" opposition would have been effective and legal? > Ed, if I remember rightly, the USA was supporting Islamic Jihad in Afghanistan against my great and estimable idol Gorby. Even in recent times, the Taleban received $70 million to help get rid of opium. Which is such a joke because my theory for years has been that Islamic Jihad will deliver [and quite possibly did so quite some time ago] a nuclear bomb [not of dirty type, but of actual big bang variety] buried in a stack of opium which would be smuggled into the USA with the usual payoff to a customs officer or three. The customs officers wouldn't let in a bomb, but they wouldn't mind some opium; a Trojan Horse trick from the good old days. A veritable Russian doll. The container would say "Computers from Taiwan". Inside most of the boxes would be computers. Inside some would be opium. Inside the opium would be small nukes. In New Zealand, customs officers have already been convicted of being in a drug smuggling conspiracy. Of course foxes work hard to get jobs in charge of the hen house. It's quite obvious that such a strategy has probably been in place for a very long time. Suppose you were the USSR and had to prevent a USA first strike. You want a guaranteed response. You have invented little tactical nukes which can be moved around with ease. Big ones on ICBMs are vulnerable as they can't run away to another location or be hidden very easily by a couple of people. Also, with President Raygun's Shiny Pebbles Star Wars, there was a risk that ICBMs would be blasted before doing any damage [or might simply fail to launch successfully]. I don't see why the USSR wouldn't deliver bombs and leave them in place in rented apartments or warehouses or storage sheds in suitable locations around the USA. Heroin was very common in the USA in the 1980s and a lot of opium was grown in Afghanistan and was through the 1990s too, which is why the USA paid the Taleban to stop it, which they largely did. The heroin got to the USA from Afghanistan. While some would have been carried in passenger baggage, I'm sure that bigger business was done in bulk [just as cocaine arrives in bulk]. When there are $billions for payola from such a profitable business as cocaine and heroin, it would be very surprising if there aren't some well-paid routes through USA anti-drugs systems. A customs officer could do a couple of deals, leave the job, go bush for a while, change his name, then reappear as a rich guy. Or even not change his name, just start spending it a year or three later when the coast's clear [so to speak]. I guess that with so much money sloshing around, some could go to buying mini-nukes. I'd be surprised if all the nukes the USSR had have been accounted for. Hiding them would have been a good idea - remember "Trust, but verify" said President Raygun, so hiding them would be wise. Hiding means not telling many people and making them small. Then, in the chaos of USSR collapse, I imagine that not all nukes were secured by the right people. It wouldn't take a lot of money to get them into the "right" hands. If somebody was holding one, and had no pay from their previous employers and was trying to survive the shambles, I can see that a stack of cash would get rid of the problem for them rather than just chucking it over a bank or into a river. So, the USA will have been instrumental in their own demise. Just as they were with 911, having funded Osama during the 1980s against that nice bloke Gorby and funding the Taleban to get rid of heroin, which cash helped the Taleban/Osama tag team. The USA was chuffed about the USSR collapsing and Osama winning against Gorby, and even claims to have caused the collapse [which is not the case and wasn't really all that great from the USA's point of view]. Well, the outcome could well be that Osama has acquired mini-nukes from USSR military refugees and has delivered them to the USA where they have lain in wait for the Big Bang. Osama has already warned that the next attack will make the 911 attack look small. He doesn't seem given to completely idle threats and bluff. He offered a truce. He will get only one more bang, so needs it to be at the right time. The good news is that while a big hole might be made in New York or Los Angeles or Chicago or Washington, or all 4, even such a strike would, in the long run, not be anything worse than a lot of countries have suffered and the USA would be shocked, but recover quickly enough. Some cynics would even say that if the centre of Washington was removed, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. It was daft to support Osama against Gorby. Both you and Hawk have got it wrong. Mqurice