Afghanastan feels our pain....

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:55 am

One could get into the situation of Afghanistan trading with Iraq, would that be good? I think that the issue of cutting off their supply is worth exploring, but Afghanistan is fairly poor anyway, so cutting them off is not going to effect things that much IMHO.

@routines LOL

I know what you mean, at about 1:00 every day i come on spam for an hour and then return to work

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 am

Maharlika, are you forgetting what a problem Iraq still is today?

All those actions have only glorified Hussein in the public's eye, even though he is the sole reason for the embargos.

If we do the same thing to Afghanistan it'll only bring the public view there to support terroristic acts - more fuel for bin Laden's 'army'.

Iraq was a case where taking out Hussein could cause more trouble than it ends. bin Ladin is not the same case.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 5:01 am

Originally posted by Quark:

Iraq was a case where taking out Hussein could cause more trouble than it ends. bin Ladin is not the same case.

I heard from an unreliable source that Hussein is in fact dying of cancer.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 5:35 am

@Quark: You said
"Maharlika, are you forgetting what a problem Iraq still is today?
All those actions have only glorified Hussein in the public's eye, even though he is the sole reason for the embargos.

If we do the same thing to Afghanistan it'll only bring the public view there to support terroristic acts - more fuel for bin Laden's 'army'.

Iraq was a case where taking out Hussein could cause more trouble than it ends. bin Ladin is not the same case."

No, haven't forgotten that. But if you will read my previous post I never mentioned any country. Though things tend to point Bin Laden and company as the culprits, I'm not going to conclude that Afghanistan is the host country.

But for the sake of argument, let us suppose that OBL is indeed the Master of Disaster...

Mr. Sleep mentioned that Irag and Afghanistan are two different countries if you talk about their GNP and PCI, with Iraq at the better side of the tracks.

Sure, Saddam is still regarded as a hero amongst the majority of his people. That is because they still have the money (they do have oil, right?) to purchase stuff to keep most of them with a full stomach --- somehow. I would think that despite the embargo, Iraq could still manage to covertly "pull some strings from its deep pockets." Therefore, Saddam manages to still win his people over because despite being "ganged upon" by most countries he still somehow gets to "take care of his people."

Afghanistan, as mentioned by Mr. Sleep, is unfortunate to have such resources. If you will notice, there is an influx of people away and into the borders. These would likely reflect that these people are not too happy about it but sure as hell they won't stick around to see those missiles coming straight at their craniums.

Public support? I don't think so.

Hmmm... guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the perception that the Taleban regime is not popular even among their people.

If that is the case, then some of the locals themselves might even cooperate to bring down the Taleban government.

@Mr. Sleep: Isn't SPAM a brand name for some meatloaf?

Spam is good for breakfast, you know...

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 5:54 am

Spam is made from pork, it is sort of like corned beef.

@your points. Well, IIRC the taleban are only in place through force, any nation that is ruled and governed with force will eventually revolt (IMHO) against the agressors, this conflict might cause a major change in that country which might be for the better. One can only hope that some good might come from all this

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:29 am

Originally posted by Maharlika:
, collateral damage (I HATE this term )

I wholeheartedly agree. It's a politically (IMPO in)correct term for civilian casualties. All wars have casualties, and the fact that the western world at least do their outmost to minimize the number of civilian deaths is commendable. It's still a horrible term for a horrible phenomenon.

Unfortunately, the collateral damage from this conflict is already being done to the civilians in Afghanistan. It is just a matter of time before the Afghanistani people start dying, by large numbers I might add, of starvation.

However, it just dawned on me... is it possible that instead of using force, can we just ostracize/embargo/isolate the country involved from the rest of the international community? Like no communication/trade whatsoever?

Unfortunately, embargos don't always have the effect you would want. If you were to incur an embargo on, for instance, Italy or the UK, the effects on the country would be catastrophic, since they are highly interdependent on the rest of the world. Countries that are largely selfsufficient and/or with lower living standards won't be hit as hard. The Talibans don't care too much about the wellbeing of their citizens, so sanctions will cause much worse "collateral damage" in the form of mass starvation, while having quite the opposite effect on the Talibans. Already, the Afghan people is starving, and all aidworkers (including the Red cross!!!)have been forced to leave the country.

MPO is that the best thing that could happen to Afghanistan is that _UN forces_ completely eradicate the Taliban government and then quickly go in with an extensive aidprogram through some other Islamic state. My guess is that the money can't come directly from the US (or the rest of us either for that matter), because of the view that the US (western world) corrupts the moral values in the Moslem world. I think Saudi would be the obvious choice, considering their status among Moslems (after all, they have Mecca within their borders).

What I still can't believe is that I'm actually supporting a violent solution to this problem. I guess I'm getting old and reactionary.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:54 am

@Silur: You said (sorry haven't figured out how you guys do the quotes

)

"The Talibans don't care too much about the wellbeing of their citizens, so sanctions will cause much worse "collateral damage" in the form of mass starvation, while having quite the opposite effect on the Talibans. Already, the Afghan people is starving, and all aidworkers (including the Red cross!!!)have been forced to leave the country."

Geez... can't figure out the Taleban. How could one be a government when you've got nothing to govern?

Well, the US and its allies can use the misery of the Afghan people to their advantage (sheesh, that line somehow sounds disgusting, but let me finish...) by finding ways to have them at a safe place where they can be fed and properly taken cared of. And for those locals who are still capable, they could serve as guides or intelligence sources. Afterall, they know the terrain. With that, the US can be hitting three birds with one stone: Get OBL, help liberate the Afghanistani from the Taleban regime, and minimize civilian casualties.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 7:03 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
@your points. Well, IIRC the taleban are only in place through force, any nation that is ruled and governed with force will eventually revolt (IMHO) against the agressors, this conflict might cause a major change in that country which might be for the better. One can only hope that some good might come from all this

Unfortunately, you don't fight very well when you are undernourished, and the Talibans are seasoned warriors. I wouldn't put too much hope in a revolt in Afghanistan.

I just hope the UN takes the lead on this, if for nothing else than taking the heat of Pakistan. I know the chance is slim, but it makes the risk of this turning into a "us" (western world) against "them" (Islamic countries) fight smaller. I really hate it when that happens, and as far as I can make out, this is what the Talibans and Israel are trying to turn this into.

A question I tend to ponder on from time to time is

"Why can't we just get along?"
Jack Nicholson, in Mars Attacks.

and why does this question always end up being the _last_ resort, instead of - as it should be - the first?

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 7:34 am

Originally posted by Maharlika:
Geez... can't figure out the Taleban. How could one be a government when you've got nothing to govern?

Well, it isn't easy. I think a lot of it has to do with the fatalism of Islam (and Christianity as well, btw), that is "God's will be done". Since they put their trust in God, everything that happens is Gods will. If everyone starves to death, then that was gods will. It seems that they consider the fall of the USSR to be Gods will and that it had to do with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. I think the reasoning goes:

USSR attacks Afgh. -> Mujahedin were good Moslems -> God breaks USSR.

My guess is that the same reasoning goes today:

US attacks Afgh. -> Talibans are good Moslems -> God breaks US.

The logic is infallible, don't you think? Somehow, I don't think they're just going to lie down and surrender to the US. They'll be fighting to the last breath of the last man in their ranks.

Also, if you die while fighting/struggling/suffering for Islam, you go to heaven and get all kind of benefits, since you are a martyr. Thus, people starving to death are just good Moslems. In this case, the Talibans do the fighting while the people do the suffering. Same story as in all totalitarian states.

Taliban's interpret the Quran quite differently from the majority of Moslems, my guess is, even differently from most fundamentalists. Their goal is/was to turn Afghanistan into the most true and pure Islamic state on earth. The suffering of the people is a minor concern.

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Silur ]

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 2:27 pm

Originally posted by Silur:
Well, it isn't easy. I think a lot of it has to do with the fatalism of Islam (and Christianity as well, btw), that is "God's will be done". Since they put their trust in God, everything that happens is Gods will. If everyone starves to death, then that was gods will. It seems that they consider the fall of the USSR to be Gods will and that it had to do with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

That may be how the muslims look at things, but that is not how most Christians view things.

First, you semi-quoted a peice of the Lord's Prayer.

Lord's Prayer:
Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.

That is not a statement of what happens, it is a 'request' for that to happen. We pray that God's will be done. Notice that it is not past tense(even though done is past tense). It is "be done." That is speaking of the future.

I do not know for sure because I don't know a whole lot about the muslim religion, but my best educated guess would be that they view it in the same way. In this case, the 'fanatics' think that God's will was done, but they were probably praying for something like this to be done in the first place.

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 2:31 pm

Originally posted by Quark:
Maharlika, are you forgetting what a problem Iraq still is today?

All those actions have only glorified Hussein in the public's eye, even though he is the sole reason for the embargos.

If we do the same thing to Afghanistan it'll only bring the public view there to support terroristic acts - more fuel for bin Laden's 'army'.

Iraq was a case where taking out Hussein could cause more trouble than it ends. bin Ladin is not the same case.

Bin Ladin, doesn't have any army. They are nothing, but a bunch of thugs. They rather hide, than fight face to face. Wimps hiding behind the Afghanastan army.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:50 pm

Hence the 'army' - not army.

They may not be an army, but they are 13,000 strong. That's not including the Taliban's forces.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Tue Sep 18, 2001 2:59 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
That is not a statement of what happens, it is a 'request' for that to happen. We pray that God's will be done. Notice that it is not past tense(even though done is past tense). It is "be done." That is speaking of the future.

Actually, what makes it fatalistic is the fact that it speaks of the future. Im not saying that it is *the nescessary* interpretation, but it is a *common* interpretation in both religions. It is not inherent in either religion, just an effect of interpretation.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Sep 18, 2001 4:46 am

Originally posted by Silur:
Actually, what makes it fatalistic is the fact that it speaks of the future. Im not saying that it is *the nescessary* interpretation, but it is a *common* interpretation in both religions. It is not inherent in either religion, just an effect of interpretation.

They may be the common interpretation in the muslim religion, but not in Christianity; at least, not in Protestant Christianity. Are you a Christian?

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Tue Sep 18, 2001 7:07 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
They may be the common interpretation in the muslim religion, but not in Christianity; at least, not in Protestant Christianity. Are you a Christian?

Speaking of protestants, here's a protestant website that warns for the possibility of "divine fatalism".

[url="http://protestantism.about.com/library/weekly/aa011298.htm"]http://protestantism.about.com/library/weekly/aa011298.htm[/url]

Another example of fatalism is the constant "end of world" prophecies. Looking back, quite a number of these have been of Christian origin. Ref. coming.

Gotta run. I'll get back later.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Sep 18, 2001 7:52 am

Originally posted by Silur:
Speaking of protestants, here's a protestant website that warns for the possibility of "divine fatalism".

[url="http://protestantism.about.com/library/weekly/aa011298.htm"]http://protestantism.about.com/library/weekly/aa011298.htm[/url]

Another example of fatalism is the constant "end of world" prophecies. Looking back, quite a number of these have been of Christian origin. Ref. coming.

Gotta run. I'll get back later.

The entire book of Revelation, except for the first few chapters, prophecies the end times. But there is a difference between that and believing that God made the tragic events of Tuesday happen. Bad things do happen. They are not caused by God, but God is there to carry us through the bad times.

I ask you again, are you a Christian?

Happy Evil · Post by **Happy Evil** » Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:10 am

Originally posted by Jodmos:

...Most of them are at places where you cant bomb em out, or force them to leave with a mighty military strike.

And later posted by Jodmos :

...Just think about it, everyone on earth knows, after doing something like this you are dead meat because the US will to everything they can do bring you down.
And nobody on this planet has the power to hide from them or keep them at bay with arms...

Huh??

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Happy Evil ]

Jodmos · Post by **Jodmos** » Tue Sep 18, 2001 11:01 am

@ Happy Evil

The first statement was meant for other, smaller terrorist groups that wont be able to cause such kind of damage like what hit the WTC, but they have other options.
Carbombs for example, thats terrorism too.
Most of these groups are not religious motivated but political and live directly among us (McVeigh and his supporters, the eta in spain, ira in ireland and so on).