Mid east

[Longinius 1]

"Anyways I don't know why we support israel.If israel was in europe though and palestine was some country in europe ,i bet you some money that we would have already bombed israel.But it's just not the USA fault for the problem in the middle-east.It's everyones fault,if the germans didn't kill the jews like they did ,jews will still be living in europe,if middle-east would atleast talk to israel,maybe they can work out a deal,palestine has no leader,they have groups of people that want to kill people,mostly civilians."

Get a clue Foxer. Like you admitted openly, you don't know much about the US and Israel relation, or Israel itself. I am quite sure that the foundation of Israel was not caused by the Holocaust. Israel would exist regardless if the German nazis killed jews or not.

As for US not being at fault or not. Ofcourse its not their fault alone, but they are one of the major players there stirring up trouble. Thats not bashing, thats a fact.

And middle east vs Israel. Well, both sides are to far gone for thr situation to get anywhere. "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering". Yoda said that, but you could almost bet he visited the middle east when hearing it.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ May 22 2002,20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Women are still opressed in Afghanistan and they were worse off before the Taliban. The opression of women in Afghanistan is not a Taliban thing, its a cultural thing<span id='postcolor'>

Longinius. As a matter of fact just 2 days ago there was a 30 minutes report on BBC only about the women movement in Afghanistan. I can only repeat what I saw. In the sixties women in Afghanistan were highly emancipated, basically ruling the educational system, and enjoying western-style respect within their community. So you are just wrong, by fact, not by my opinion.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ May 23 2002,04:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wasn't going post in this thread,but damn too much USA bashing going on here.Sure USA ain't perfect,but who is ? Why  do you bring stuff the USA did 50 years(or longeR) ago ? Do we say "fucking german and their nazis" ,"let go get all the arabs and throw them in an oven. ".No,but you people bring stuff back from vietnam days,and other crap.When the USA falls soo will europe,soo keep wishing when the USa falls,you'll be with us.Back then is not now,the world is not the same.Soo when you say america did the same in the past and it was wrong,what makes it right now ? I hate to say you people just want to bash the USA.

Anyways I don't know why we support israel.If israel was in europe though and palestine was some country in europe ,i bet you some money that we would have already bombed israel.But it's just not the USA fault for the problem in the middle-east.It's everyones fault,if the germans didn't kill the jews like they did ,jews will still be living in europe,if middle-east would atleast talk to israel,maybe they can work out a deal,palestine has no leader,they have groups of people that want to kill people,mostly civilians.

Anyways who cares.I sure don't,probably going be my last post in this thread ,unless i see alot more USA bashing.<span id='postcolor'>

This time I must agree with you. I have the impression that people stick to their position due to resentiments. The discussion has rather frozen. I dont like it like that.

[bn880 5]

Well, remember I agreed with you on various points Albert. I actually thought we understood each other in the last posts.

I was going to say that your teaching kids from our mistakes paragraph was something to consider and further discuss, when Ikonboard seemed to crap out.

Either way, I will continue to bash USA untill it remains the "axis of evil". The USA has a bunch of "evil doers" in power. Hail Bush.

How does that feel? This is what USA goes around saying to other countries who can have thousands of years more history than them.

All of you should realize this thread probably should be locked, otherwise the Ikonboard server will run out of room. There is no end to Israeli discussions, never will be........

The entire world is too split up on business vs human rights. There won't be decisive action in either direction.

I'm not going to post in this thread for a while, I realize there is no point trying to explain some things to so many people who made up their minds depending on where they were born and spent their lives.

Adios

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Yes Albert is right , it often seems rather Childish-

They need something like South Africa (without the crime rate) or Northern Ireland

Where people agree to move on- to let the actions of the past slip away from control of the future, maybe not to forgive- but at least to try or at worst to stop the cycle of

violence

anyway

Many (at least) non governmental Palestinian bombers deliberatly target civilians.

IDF do not target Palistinian civilians. They may target 'things' houses cars etc. (claiming their abuse by terrorists)

but not people. Israel is also democratic. These are important points, not minor details.

There needs to be a more powerful Palestinian gvernment, without that nothing will get better.The US govt. must recognise this and if necessary push Israel into accepting it.

The EU can provide the funds if necessary( as they have before)

But the government MUST be accountable, MUST be concretly (to use Pukkos phrase) AGAINST  civilian attacks (by its own people).The central EU 'authority' has seemed reluctant to recognise this.

there is a vacuum of power in the West bank Gaza etc.

Arafat cannot stop the terrorists whether he wants to or not.

A strong Pali. state must be set up. Elections must be held.

Pali. president must be held accountable (to an international body if necessary).

Pukko is wrong. Concrete actions ARE important(beyond the popularity value he imbues them with)

. Those who have turned to deliberate civilian targetting must be militarily (or in a police action preferably) rooted out.

And must be SEEN to be rooted out. There can be no sanction against the depths of violence to which some palistinian fighters have sunk.

Or else there is a moral vacuum in which any behavior becomes permissable and any violence part of the 'legitimate struggle'.

If the pro-terrorist fighters see the state they are allegedly fighting for created and then,turn on their anti civilian violence- then they will be in a vulnerable position and most will abandon their methods.

With democracy ,accountability and a strong palistinian state most Palistinian peoples sense of desperation would disappear, there would be more of a balance of power.

Pukko and Longinius, You are wrong about the Taliban.

Where are you getting your information from? Guessing?

Sure Taliban members have 'human faces' motivations etc, but that is no excuse for their actions. Those of them that commited atrocities were not 'better than what came before'

or better than the Northern Alliance (though thats a far from perfect organisation- it has at least SOME international accountability)

Thats utter boXXocks. The choice was between tribal warlords who commited genocides in particular areas in an atmosphere of chaos

or the Taliban who commited atrocities throughout the country

in the atmosphere of a fascist regime

Sure the relative order may initially have attracted SOME people to them- but only till they realised just how terrible the Taliban were becoming.

Thats not to say All former Taliban should be killed/imprisoned -some were just kids,(who commited no atrocities) if they abandoned the regime when it became possible -then so be it-

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ May 23 2002,18:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pukko and Longinius, You are wrong about the Taliban.

Where are you getting your information from? Guessing?

Sure Taliban members have 'human faces' motivations etc, but that is no excuse for their actions. Those of them that commited atrocities were not 'better than what came before'

or better than the Northern Alliance (though thats a far from perfect organisation- it has at least SOME international accountability)

Thats utter boXXocks. The choice was between tribal warlords who commited genocides in particular areas in an atmosphere of chaos

or the Taliban who commited atrocities throughout the country

in the atmosphere of a fascist regime

Sure the relative order may initially have attracted SOME people to them- but only till they realised just how terrible the Taliban were becoming.

Thats not to say All former Taliban should be killed/imprisoned -some were just kids,(who commited no atrocities) if they abandoned the regime when it became possible -then so be it-<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with Pukko and Longinius. I guess it must be a Swedish thing

Anyway you asked where they got the information from. Ask yourself that.

You say that all the talibans comitted atrocities.. hmmm... what makes you think that? What do we know about the Taliban? Eh.. well what we see in CNN.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

No Denoir - i did NOT say 'all taliban' commited atrocities,

i said 'the' taliban-

and then later clarified that it was >some<.

Yes some Taliban commited terribe acts?

sources?

the BBC , Channel 4

(another British channel- usually with another angle to the BBC - they would report if the BBC or CNN were lying- but they had their own documentary on Taliban atrocities)

, Associated Press, CNN, The Times of London, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Observer, The Daily Mail (though its usually crap), New York Times, Time magazine, Reuters ,Amnesty International,etc etc

DO you really want me to go on? There are more and ALL OF THEM concur that the Taliban have commited atrocities and many detail some of the specific episodes... need links?

And what are your sources 'The Stockholm news'?

The Hassleholm Times?

The Taliban Express?

LOL

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir-From Amnesty International (those well known US government supporters )

"Taleban forces burned homes, destroyed orchards, wheat fields and irrigation systems and forcibly displaced more than 100,000 mainly Tajik people. The UN imposed financial and aviation sanctions on the Taleban for not surrendering Osama bin Laden to stand trial for his alleged involvement in US embassy bombings in August 1998. Women, children, human rights defenders, members of ethnic groups, people accused of homosexual activity, and refugees were systematically targeted by the Taleban and other warring factions on the basis of their identity. Taleban courts imposed sentences of death, amputation and flogging after apparently unfair trials"

"at Taleban checkpoints, non-Pushtun travellers could frequently only proceed at the behest of fellow Pushtun travellers or on payment of a bribe.

In August the Taleban systematically burned the houses and crops and destroyed the agricultural infrastructure of Tajik civilians living in areas north of Kabul as part of a policy of forcible displacement. Hundreds of children and young men were reportedly recruited by the Taleban from destitute families in Kabul and elsewhere to cut Tajik-owned vine trees and to seal their irrigation tunnels.

Among the tens of thousands of Tajiks from the Shamali plains forcibly displaced in August were some 8,000 children, women and elderly men reportedly separated by the Taleban from their male relatives and sent to the deserted Sarshahi camp near Jalalabad where they were effectively held prisoner by Taleban guards. Following international concern about their situation, the Taleban moved them to the bombed-out former Russian embassy in Kabul. "

It goes on- you want more???

"Systematic killings and house burnings in Bamiyan

As the Taleban moved into Bamiyan in April to capture the area from Hezb-e Wahdat — a party which draws its support from the Hazara minority — many who did not, or could not, flee were deliberately killed. Estimates varied widely, but hundreds of men, and some young women and children, who were separated from their families and taken away, remained unaccounted for at the end of 1999."

Theres a lot more if you want links

Your refusal to accept anything at all that you havent seen

no matter how overwhelming the evidence borders on the neurotic.

i have an interest in the idea that nothing can be accepted and everything is subjective- but mostly theoretical-. Its no way to run a government or society in an imperfect world.

Maybe its just that world renouned and hyper truthful Swedish Media that has made you so much better informed than us and caused you to rise above such trivialities as values (everything being subjective), beliefs (being causes of 'bias' ) , or the willingness to act (actions being provocative)

Oh yes what a great model for the world  

-----     -----     -----     -----     -----     -----     -----    

-I.T.Y.J.W.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ May 23 2002,18:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No Denoir - i did NOT say 'all taliban' commited atrocities,

i said 'the' taliban-

and then later clarified that it was >some<.

Yes some Taliban commited terribe acts?

sources?

the BBC , Channel 4

(another British channel- usually with another angle to the BBC - they would report if the BBC or CNN were lying- but they had their own documentary on Taliban atrocities)

, Associated Press, CNN, The Times of London, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Observer, The Daily Mail (though its usually crap), New York Times, Time magazine, Reuters ,Amnesty International,etc etc

DO you really want me to go on? There are more and ALL OF THEM concur that the Taliban have commited atrocities and many detail some of the specific episodes... need links?

And what are your sources 'The Stockholm news'?

The Hassleholm Times?

The Taliban Express?

LOL<span id='postcolor'>

First using British media as a reference for Afganistan related info is unreliable. They were an active part of the Afganistan campaign, so you can expect exaggeration and propaganda spin on things. The other thing is that most of them get all their news from Reuters and AP anyway.

Secondly, the point that Pukko and Longinius were trying to make was that the Talibans wern't worse than many other regiemes in the world. This was said in the light of explaining that the Afganistan campaign had nothing to do with the suffering of the Afgan people. It was about assigning blame and getting revenge for WTC. They couldn't get Osama, so they went after what they considered was the closest they could get. Nobody in the world gives a fuck about the suffering of the Afgans, Rwandans or Kuwaities. They are simply used to justify military operations.

And that's fine. Facts of life. The annoying part is people who are trying to convince me and others that NATO/US/Whoever's military operations are done out of altruistic reasons.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ May 23 2002,19:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir-From Amnesty International (those well known US government supporters )

´

----Snip----<span id='postcolor'>

Nobody denies that the Talibans were major assholes. It's just that there are so much worse regiemes in the world. What a coincidence that the US decided to free the Afgan people and then it turned out that the Talibans were probably hiding Osama! Yeah right.

In Rwanda one milion Rwandans were killed in three months in 1994. What did the world do?

Nothing.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 23 2002,19:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ May 23 2002,199)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir-From Amnesty International (those well known US government supporters )

´

----Snip----<span id='postcolor'>

Nobody denies that the Talibans were major assholes. It's just that there are so much worse regiemes in the world. What a coincidence that the US decided to free the Afgan people and then it turned out that the Talibans were probably hiding Osama! Yeah right.

In Rwanda one milion Rwandans were killed in three months in 1994. What did the world do?

Nothing.<span id='postcolor'>

WTC is where 3000 people died.This ain't about evil regimes ,we both can agree that africa has some of the worst regimes,and no one does anything to help them.This is an american war,not a Middle-east war for oil,not a Europe war,not some war we have nothing to do with.Can we americans just fight a war when one group kills 3000 americans.You know when a america soldiers dies in afghanistan,i don't hear all over the media about "why are we in this war".This is about bin laden,and guess what he lives in afghanistan.Can't america just fight a war for us ? If you think europe can do better in wars,why don't they take care of the problems then ? Like kosvo,bosnia,others(newer ones).I'm not saying all europe countries,just some.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir- "First using British media as a reference for Afganistan related info is unreliable. They were an active part of the Afganistan campaign, so you can expect exaggeration and propaganda spin on things."

Rubbish!

Maybe in the second world war but not now.

All British media/government are in collaboration? Yeah right! Maybe in Sweden, but in this country they are only too happy to point out when the others make mistakes.

Take the Guardian , thats often a more left leaning non -patriotic type newspaper- but they agreed with the others about the Taliban that they werent exactly good guys-

Show me who exaggererated(though it doesnt take a war for some media to do this).... Show me who lied......wheres YOUR proof?

Im not suggesting that the US went to war to help the Afghan people, noone in the US government or outside suggested that- it was always to get Bin Laden

Destroying the regime of the Taliban was just a major beneficial side effect- what exactly is the problem with that?- You think the -UN endorsed- Hamed Karzai is worse than the Taliban?

You Swedish really do never seem to stop criticising, and yet what does your government do? What did they do to remove the Taliban?

Even if the US did it half by accident and with provocation they still did more to remove a violent regime than your government can say they did...

Why dont you criticise your government who did NOTHING in this case to remove the Taliban, rather than the governments who did SOMETHING in this case even if for other reasons

(and not in other cases around the world.)

-not enough is better than nothing.

unless you agree with Pukko that the Taliban werent such bad fellow after all-(a bit of Genocide never hurt anyone)

you already seem to have changed your mind once....

[foxer 0]

can't see my post.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I can see your post

Anyway. Maybe sometimes the expression: "war on terorism" is stating too expressively the intentioned strategy: defeating terorism with war.

Somehow this seems to narrow peoples views of the misery this world is in and the possible solutions we got. Wars is always considered as the last solution, but also as a successful but hurting solution. People who are afraid of teror are happy that this effective strategy is proposed by the US. In the middle East war hasnt solved anything but hurted a lot. The blindness to get rid of Saddam has costs 100`000 peoples death (starving and medical undersupply due to sanctions). And the one and only rapid solution that comes to our minds are once again bombs. It is ashame that we dont know any other solution. I would realy like to establish a cost estimate for undertaking such a war. Including the amount of soldiers that we need to pay for life-time since we never know when we move into war, and the money we invest to rebuild the destroyed country. This is a hell lot of money....

But simply paying money doesnt realy help either. Somalia was a good example. Simply sending money would have only increased corruption, the military action didnt help though either.

On the other hand: screw you arab countries that you dont support the peace-process at all. Fucking rich arab nations just support the leaders of Syria, Iraq and palestine with propaganda, weapons, business contracts. But concerning the social health of the population, nothing!!! Many of the leaders in the middle East consider political standpoints more important than peoples fates.

Anyway, I dont like half-hearted solutions. The last Iraq war was a total desaster. Not because the US lost any battles but because they failed bringing the story to its end. That was the real "cyancaly pill" for the Iraquis. A few bombs would have hurt less then those silly sanctions. Objective not reached. Or maybe they didnt care if it was reached, at least as Saddam no longer had the power to occupy important oil-resources. So ZERO humanitarian objectives at those times!

I dont realy mind the US once again attacking the Iraq, but this time only with clear objectives and a positive outcome for the civillian population of the opponent!

[foxer 0]

WE can agree the USA messed up in Iraq.Back then we knew they had chemical weapons,and working on nukes.But now we don't know if he has them or don't have them,i have a feeling that we didn't go all the way into iraq because of chemical weapons.Anyways he still probably has chemical weapons,and if uses them on soldiers ,i'm probably(if theres a draft) going get screw and sent to some hell hole in the world.

IS there really a solution though for iraq ?If we take sanctions off,he probably can rebuild his army quicker,and his other stuff we don't know about quicker.

About Somalia,Do you know after U.S. troops pulled out soo did UN forces ,because they couldn't control the warlords and the people,If Somalia did work i bet alot more africa nations would be help by western force.But after Somalia americans got reminded of vietnam.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ May 23 2002,20:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WE can agree the USA messed up in Iraq.Back then we knew they had chemical weapons,and working on nukes.But now we don't know if he has them or don't have them,i have a feeling that we didn't go all the way into iraq because of chemical weapons.Anyways he still probably has chemical weapons,and if uses them on soldiers ,i'm probably(if theres a draft) going get screw and sent to some hell hole in the world.

IS there really a solution though for iraq ?If we take sanctions off,he probably can rebuild his army quicker,and his other stuff we don't know about quicker.

About Somalia,Do you know after U.S. troops pulled out soo did UN forces ,because they couldn't control the warlords and the people,If Somalia did work i bet alot more africa nations would be help by western force.But after Somalia americans got reminded of vietnam.<span id='postcolor'>

Damm Somalia, unfortunately that has convinced many countries that there is no way to interfer in african countries. But maybe we should try to bring those countries to peace from a different direction. If you cant improve the situation in Somalia cause it is just too risky, maybe we should try to first develop all surrounding countries. This could be less risky and bring, as a final result, peace, as a spin off, to somalia. This is more time-consuming, but in contrast to Iraq we seem to have the time.

Iraq is realy realy challenging. Especially since now we face the pure opposite situation to that of desert-storm. Now we actually have to fear the allied countries around Iraq and no longer the army of Iraq. We have cultural barriers that prevent us from being able to estimate the the grief of arab nations towards the western world (simply a different culture).

We risk to eliminate possible mass-destruction weapons but on the other hand maybe to foster fundamentalism (and suicide bombers (because they will hate us more for our western arrogance).

I see the one and only solution realy to include Arab leaders into the peace-process. They need to understand the seriousness of the situation, the possible consequences for the whole region, the determination of the americans, and the risk of causing a cultural century-war. They gotta learn to take responsibility for two sides.    

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ May 23 2002,19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir- "First using British media as a reference for Afganistan related info is unreliable. They were an active part of the Afganistan campaign, so you can expect exaggeration and propaganda spin on things."

Rubbish!

Maybe in the second world war but not now.

All British media/government are in collaboration? Yeah right! Maybe in Sweden, but in this country they are only too happy to point out when the others make mistakes.<span id='postcolor'>

Gwahahahahahah! You are a funny one.¨

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Show me who exaggererated(though it doesnt take a war for some media to do this).... Show me who lied......wheres YOUR proof?

<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, I can give you proof if you like. Let's see what BBC has to say on Kosovo. Ok, here are two good ones:

1: '20 killed in Kosovo massacre'

2: No ground troops in Kosovo

I was last spring in Kosovo under COMKFOR in a group that wrote a SKIE (Special KFOR Intelligence Estimate) titeled "Serbian military and paramilitary actions and capabilities before and after Operation Allied Force". So I know what I am talking about on this point. Most of the stuff is declassified so if you are interested, I can give you the reference numbers of the reports I am refering to.

If we take report number one from the BBC that says that 20 albanians have been killed by Serb forces in Goden. This has its source in a UN memo. The authors of that memo are however DIA employees that 'helped' the UN interview albanian refugees. This incident was reported world wide as a Serbian massacre of refugees. When later KFOR troops later took control of that area (MBE) they did a proper investigation and found that indeed refugees had been killed. But not by Serbian soldiers but from a NATO GBU-24 bomb. There was never any Serb activity in that area at all. This has been publicly released. I can get you the memo number if you want. Of course none of the news agencies picked up on that one and if you look around for info on "Goden" you'll see that they all say that it was the Serbs who did it.

Ok, number two. It is just a general one. NATO and media reported of the highly successful bombing campaigns.

The fact is that of an estimated 550-600 Serbian MBTs 18 were destroyed during the bombing campaigns.

Another fact that is often witheld is that the NATO bombing killed more Albanians then the Serbs did (during Operation Allied Force). Another fact is that the real wave of refugees came after the bombing campaign.

The worst thing is that Milosevic came out as a winner in a way. He got rid of the Albanians (few have returned) and he managed to stay in power for another year because of the national support he got during the war. He would have been kicked out of power earlier if it wasn't for Kosovo.

These are things that have been well-documented and are not classified, but are never reported in the main stream news. These were just two very typical examples. There is a lot more where that came from.

[Longinius 1]

"Longinius. As a matter of fact just 2 days ago there was a 30 minutes report on BBC only about the women movement in Afghanistan. I can only repeat what I saw. In the sixties women in Afghanistan were highly emancipated, basically ruling the educational system, and enjoying western-style respect within their community. So you are just wrong, by fact, not by my opinion."

So, you are trying to tell me the women had it worse right before the Taliban came when warlords ran rampant and raped and pillaged? And you are also trying to tell me the women in Afghanistan are no longer oppressed? They have it better, yeah. But they still wear burqas, the man is still in charge at home and they still have little to no say in most matters. That is oppression.

"IDF do not target Palistinian civilians. They may target 'things' houses cars etc. (claiming their abuse by terrorists)

but not people. Israel is also democratic. These are important points, not minor details."

Nazi Germany started out as a democracy aswell. Democracy does not equal goodness or fairness. Those are all relative concepts, always in the eye of the beholder.

"Pukko and Longinius, You are wrong about the Taliban.

Where are you getting your information from? Guessing?"

No, not guessing. From media. Where did you get yours? Media? I doubt you saw it by your own self.

IsthatyouJohnWayne, all I ever said was that the war in Afghanistan is not about how the Taliban treated the people. They treated them lousy, but it was slightly better than how it was before they came. You make it sound like the Taliban had Afghanistan in an iron grip, when in truth, they didn't have actual control of the majority of the land. They controlled the major cities and such but that was about it. And the Taliban burnt down villages and displaced people. So what? The US did the same in the Balkans, in Vietnam and so on. Russia did it in Afghanistan and in Chechnya. Israel has done it to the Pals. But all of a sudden, its terrible when the Talibans do it? Sure, its more crude having to chase the villagers with AK's than to use napalm or bulldozers. But the end result is the same, civilian suffering.

"This is an american war,not a Middle-east war for oil,not a Europe war,not some war we have nothing to do with.Can we americans just fight a war when one group kills 3000 americans.You know when a america soldiers dies in afghanistan,i don't hear all over the media about "why are we in this war".This is about bin laden,and guess what he lives in afghanistan"

This war is also about oil, have no doubt about it. As for Usama Bin Ladin living in Afghanistan, that doesn't give you the right to bomb the shit out of it.

"Im not suggesting that the US went to war to help the Afghan people, noone in the US government or outside suggested that- it was always to get Bin Laden"

Yeah, right. Sure it was. Then why havent they gotten him yet if it was only about him?

"You Swedish really do never seem to stop criticising, and yet what does your government do? What did they do to remove the Taliban?"

I know what we did and are doing. Do you?

"Why dont you criticise your government who did NOTHING in this case to remove the Taliban, rather than the governments who did SOMETHING in this case even if for other reasons "

Because we did do something. Our "something" didnt envolve fueling up planes and bombing people though. Which is also the reason commercial airliners are not crashing into buildings in Stockholm, btw.

You can either help people through education, funding and support or you can force aid on them with the use of weapons. Sweden uses the first option. It is slower than the second but it doesnt cost as many lives on the side of the helpers and it ensures good relations so aidworkers are fairly safe. It also means you are treated with respect rather than fear. I'd rather be respected and be accused of working slowly than be feared and be accused of being hotheaded. Because hotheads that are feared usually get a bloody nose, sooner or later.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ May 23 2002,19:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">unless you agree with Pukko that the Taliban werent such bad fellow after all-(a bit of Genocide never hurt anyone)

<span id='postcolor'>

SOB   Poor bastard.....

(BTW. I have bee logged on here for 8 hours now catching up all the 'serious' post made today, whilst doing other things too indeed. But I read all serious post slow and carefully, 'read between the lines' and considering all opinions. So Im a bit weary now....)

Anyway:

I do not defend the Talibans, but neither do I defend 'western society'....

I live in the 'western' country Sweden, that has rumors of it being relatively (and in many cases even 'the best' ) peaceful, tolerant and so on nation. *I* do am glad that I live here, but then I was born here. If i was born in Afganistan I recon most of my values in life would have been completely different; probably would'nt just long for a even faster computer and other things we 'westeners' hold high. Therefore I reserve myself not to say that their entire life is but crap; I'm quite sure they have many things we dont have - maybe like a social life were 'prestige' is not the most important thing and so on. Things we cannot appreciate because we want only what we are used to (and by socialisation forced to appreciate) get here..

But I dont give a crap about that I happen to live (and never could learn to appreciate an entire different lifestyle) in a 'relatively' good country. I will probably continue my way to be a social scientist, because I cannot accept all the awful shit we live in here. We really do live in a primitive society; I really cannot explain in detail all abstract concepts and theories I base this on, but they are to be found at your local University if you are curious.

There are many other things I could comment on, but I will spare you of that for now. You can accuse me for writing 'intellectual bullshit' - well, if you do, so be it. There do not exist anything as a definite truth, but you can take as a rule that the more it hurts thinking about something, the closer you are. 'News' do not hurt...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IsthatyouJohnWayne, all I ever said was that the war in Afghanistan is not about how the Taliban treated the people. They treated them lousy, but it was slightly better than how it was before they came. You make it sound like the Taliban had Afghanistan in an iron grip, when in truth, they didn't have actual control of the majority of the land. They controlled the major cities and such but that was about it. And the Taliban burnt down villages and displaced people. So what? The US did the same in the Balkans, in Vietnam and so on. Russia did it in Afghanistan and in Chechnya. Israel has done it to the Pals. But all of a sudden, its terrible when the Talibans do it? Sure, its more crude having to chase the villagers with AK's than to use napalm or bulldozers. But the end result is the same, civilian suffering.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can either help people through education, funding and support or you can force aid on them with the use of weapons. Sweden uses the first option. It is slower than the second but it doesnt cost as many lives on the side of the helpers and it ensures good relations so aidworkers are fairly safe. It also means you are treated with respect rather than fear. I'd rather be respected and be accused of working slowly than be feared and be accused of being hotheaded. Because hotheads that are feared usually get a bloody nose, sooner or later.<span id='postcolor'>

2 really good points Longy (amongst many others posted by you, Denoir and others here). The last one puts the finger on the power of 'abstract' actions; even if one could mention many more, that ofcourse are done all over the world (even to large extent by USA )

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ May 24 2002,04:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can either help people through education, funding and support or you can force aid on them with the use of weapons. Sweden uses the first option. <span id='postcolor'>

2 really good points Longy (amongst many others posted by you, Denoir and others here). The last one puts the finger on the power of 'abstract' actions; even if one could mention many more, that ofcourse are done all over the world (even to large extent by USA )<span id='postcolor'>

Sounds so beautifully peaceful! But in many countries is just simply does not work. Basically most swiss organisations were kicked out / inhibited in Sudan and Somalia. Now the problem is obvious: the funding becomes problematic, since you no longer got the channels to distribute your financial aids. So you got a give it to local authorities. Of course this would mean that 100% of the money invested would end up in corrupted hands and in the end probably even help funding the war-lords. So countries need be forced to peace before you can arrange constructive solutions to rebuild it. (anyway often the problem is that "you heal what is going to be wounded tomorrow again"). Armed Peace-keepers are very important indeed (especially soon in palestine). War is devasting most of Africa and this since decades, it is not that an UN army would bring war to a peaceful country, but peace to a country at eternal war.

[Longinius 1]

"So countries need be forced to peace before you can arrange constructive solutions to rebuild it. (anyway often the problem is that "you heal what is going to be wounded tomorrow again"). Armed Peace-keepers are very important indeed (especially soon in palestine). War is devasting most of Africa and this since decades, it is not that an UN army would bring war to a peaceful country, but peace to a country at eternal war. "

Agreed. But that is the responsibility of the UN, and not one single entity like NATO or the US. Sweden has always supported peace keeping efforts with troops, funding and equipment. We have not supported, nor will we I reckon, forced peace actions like bombings of infrastructure. Peacekeepers are intended to protect civilians and keep combatants seperated, not to chose sides and blow up a nations infrastructure. That simply doesnt help much.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

which infrastructure in Somalia? The problem are those war-lords, they dont like another force moving into their territory undermining their authority. So in the end any peaceful UN army will be forced into a heavy conflict. Those warlords have a lot to loose (e.g the power over diamond-mines) and the life of a black-soldier of theirs doesnt realy count as long as they stay in power. I dont realy know how you want to get rid of them, not even with military force.

The

[Longinius 1]

"which infrastructure in Somalia? The problem are those war-lords, they dont like another force moving into their territory undermining their authority. So in the end any peaceful UN army will be forced into a heavy conflict. Those warlords have a lot to loose (e.g the power over diamond-mines) and the life of a black-soldier of theirs doesnt realy count as long as they stay in power. I dont realy know how you want to get rid of them, not even with military force."

You get rid of them by helping local leaders with acceptable politics to power. Only the citizens can make their country a good place to live. That is why we should support those that try to do good instead of go in, drop bombs and go home. That changes nothing.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ May 30 2002,13:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"which infrastructure in Somalia?    The problem are those war-lords, they dont like another force moving into their territory undermining their authority. So in the end any peaceful UN army will be forced into a heavy conflict. Those warlords have a lot to loose (e.g the power over diamond-mines) and the life of a black-soldier of theirs doesnt realy count as long as they stay in power. I dont realy know how you want to get rid of them, not even with military force."

You get rid of them by helping local leaders with acceptable politics to power. Only the citizens can make their country a good place to live. That is why we should support those that try to do good instead of go in, drop bombs and go home. That changes nothing.<span id='postcolor'>

acceptable politics of power? Which politics? The only way you can bring them to power is by buying them guns. There is no other political system in place to support an honourable way to power. Buying guns has turned out to be the wrong strategy. Dropping bombs would be silly and has never been tried in Somalia anyway.

But moving into the country with a respectable military force, establish peace, take power from all local forces, Reestablish a new political fundament, and secure stability untill the changes have settled in the heads. This is without a military mission of 20 years!

[Longinius 1]

"acceptable politics of power? Which politics?"

Any form of organised government that recognises basic human rights is acceptable to me. How about you?

"The only way you can bring them to power is by buying them guns. There is no other political system in place to support an honourable way to power."

So fighting for freedom isn't honorable? I didn't say we shouldn't buy them guns. I said we shouldnt just drop bombs and think that does the job. Arm those that fight for freedom and human rights. Train them. Sponsor them. And hope they dont turn out to be a new Bin Ladin

"Dropping bombs would be silly and has never been tried in Somalia anyway."

Why are you so hooked up on Somalia? It was done in the Balkans. In Iraq. And it did nothing but cause additional suffering to an allready strained population.

"But moving into the country with a respectable military force, establish peace, take power from all local forces, Reestablish a new political fundament, and secure stability untill the changes have settled in the heads. This is without a military mission of 20 years!"

That doesnt work, as proven in Vietnam, Somalia and so on. You can't take foreign troops to an area and expect the bulk of the population to rally behind you. Local talents backed by your troops however can do it.