US Rejects Afganistans offer.

[StageLeft]

While we're on the topic of social relativism I think its a crock of sh*t. When I studied it in university I was like "yeah I can appreciate that", but in actual fact just discounting something as "part of their culture" undermines my belief system. I think its wrong to treat women like crap and I can't simply shrug it off if another culture does it because "thats just how things are". For some things fine. If its part of your culture to wear sweaters all summer go ahead. I think thats silly but I respect your beliefs. If, on the other hand, your culture believes its ok to treat women like crap, and its ok to sew up women's vaginas, and whatever else, well thats wrong. I believe in a master set of morals that all humans should understand (including things like cold blooded murder being wrong). I think its wrong to force abortion on a woman as her babie's head is just sticking out (China), and I think its barbaric to stone people to death.

You want to eat fish for 3 months out of the year because its your belief system fine, but if you want to stone people to death for stealing a cart of groceries that isn't fine and I can't condone it.

 

[compuwiz1]

The Taliban attacked us either directly, or indirectly, by condoning / harboring terrorists in their country. Now they want to negotiate with us....what for, so they can maintain control, we back down, and them do this attocious act again? No thank you! IMFO, this is not a negotiable situation!! I see a bigger picture, and yes, some people are going to lose their lives, but the message that will be clearly sent, is that nobody can attack America and get away with it. Nobody! Now, I am concerned at the passiveness that some people display....or is it spinelessness. Retaliation is the only acceptable option. We cannot let this stand. If Afganistan rejects our terms...F*ckem, they should pay a dear price. :|

 

[sandorski]

Hmm, I hope the US is just stalling on negotiations in order to put more pressure on the Taliban. Meanwhile, it'll be months before the US is ready to invade Afghanistan, if indeed that's what is going to happen. Refusing to negotiate is a bad move IMO, after all it is Bin Laden that the US demanded. If the Taliban can be convinced through negotiation to surrender him, why not negotiate. Perhaps the Taliban are stalling, but while they are stalling the US can be building up their invasion force.
Of course once the force is there and the billions are spent establishing them there, I doubt the US would just pack up and go home if the Taliban agreed to surrender Bin Laden. Which makes me think that the US will not negotiate.

I dunno about you guys, but I wish some aliens would abduct me and take me somewhere where they finished doing this kinda sh1t millenia ago!

 

[Dangermouse33]

Screw Afghanistan. Turn that darn country in a parking lot! We should have helped the Soviets instead of them!



jk

 

[prontospyder]

I agree with what John McCain said yesterday....

We should keep the terrorists on the run....and punish any countries that support terrorists. If there's no safehaven for terrorists to plot and grow, there will definitely be lesser attacks.

If we just sit back and do nothing.....the terrorists will win and we'll lose our freedoms/way of life.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

<< WTF do you expect from a culture that buries alive the widows of it's war dead? >>



ARE YOU SERIOUS? LIKE WOAH.

 

[minus1972]

<< You don't go shag the first girl that you see walking down the block. And you don't go bombing countries without undisputable evidence that they are at fault. >>



When the police are working on a case, do they reveal every clue and detail to the public as soon as they get it? no. I think the problem here with the whole "proof" issue is that because we're not seeing every shred of evidence against Bin Laden we don't think we have anything. Has it occoured to anyone that this information may be needed to capture other terrorists who are still loose in the US?

Personally I think that Bin Laden was not solely responsible, but that this was a collection of terrorist groups. The US isn't too popular in the middle east and I think we may be rushing headon into another Vietnam simply because we can.

minus $.02

 

[Pocatello]

If the US do nothing, we will be attack again and again, until we are no more.

 

[etech]

It is longstanding US policy not to negotiate with terrorists.

I'll see if I can find the news blurb again, it was on Yahoo. The Taliban was demanding that the US recognize them as the legitimate government of Afghanistan before they would negotiate. I don?t think the US will do that, especially considering their human rights record.

 

[b0mbrman]

You are missing the entire point of the military operation.

That is so true

 

[Napalm]

We have VERY compelling evidence that bin Laden is connected to this.

LOL, AmusedOne. I still remember a senior white house official a couple of years ago blabbering on about how the white house had "compelling" evidence that a certain pharmaceutical plant was involved in producing chemical weapons - do you recall this? Then they went and bombed the thing to to the ground (mind you, at least they did it when very few people were inside). As it turns out, and as this guy has now admitted, this pharmaceutical plant was 100% legit.

bin Laden is a lightweight - he wasn't even on the US radar screen up until a couple of years ago. It is not beyond reason to assume that some other extremist muslim is directly responsible for this and that Afghanistan is getting a raw deal here (mind you, the Taliban could use a couple of raw deals IMHO).

Cheers,
Napalm

 

[Pennstate]

THe GOAL of Islamic fundementalists is to make Islam the one and only religion of the world. They envison every country being ruled by an religious Islamic government. Until they reach that goal, there will always be terrorist attacks. Religious tolerance is incomprehensible to these fanatics.

 

[sandorski]

Hmm, every prosyletizing(sp) religions goal is to convert the whole world. That in itself is a moot point.

My concern with attacking the Taliban is simply that it appears that it's only connection to Bin Laden is the fact that they allow him to reside within Afghanistan. If they are willing(yet to be determined) to hand over Bin Laden, can they be rightly accused of "harbouring" him? If they come forward with Bin Laden and say, "Here, take him!" and the US attacks Afghanistan anyway, it will only solidify the Muslim world against the US.

That said, I still don't think the Taliban will hand him over. I'm just doing the "What if?"

 

[Oalex]

hungrypete:


<< They had already declared jihad >>



If I'm correct they said IF the US attacks THEN its jihad, don't jump the gun.

NFS4


<< I think that the US just WANTS to get in a war:| >>




<< What is bombing a couple of mole hills and huts gonna do?? Just piss them off so they can come over here and make life a living hell for us AGAIN (hijacking MORE plains, busses, trains; launching/setting off nukes, etc). I think that war at this point is just an emotional response that will end up biting us in the ass in the long run. >> >>



I know you are a quit respected part of this forum (actualy with the most posts), but don't go saing a thing like that, you will get flamed, hell some might even say you are anti-american. Ohh guess the later might not happen cause you live there.

 

[nEoTeChMaN]

This is a good excuse for the US government to go to war because there is plenty of oil there.

 

[Oalex]

nEoTeChMaN:


<< This is a good excuse for the US government to go to war because there is plenty of oil there. >>



Your ANTI-AMERICAN!

 

[ar15guy]

I say lift the ban on political assisaniations.

I know i cant spell