> > There's quite a heap of evidence that Iraq was behind this, or at least, > offered FAR MORE support to AQ than the Taliban ever did, but we're not > bombing their children, are we? >
Everything that I read indicates that AQ is actually in Afghanistan and is strongly interlocked with the Taliban. Evidence for this is the fact that many governments, including Pakistan who also backed the Taliban agree that the interrelationship is there. The US government have given the impression that they would like to find a smoking gun in Iraq's hand. Multiple sources, from a variety of perspectives, indicate that none has been found. Where is the heap of evidence that Iraq was behind the Sept. 11 attack? The only evidence I know of is one meeting. Contrast this with the numerous bases that flourished in Afghanistan, the existence of AQ fighters on the front lines in Afghanistan, and the known existence of the AQ leadership in Afghanistan. As for accusing the US of bombing children, I think that such hyperbola is not helpful. The US bombed military positions, and errant bombs killed civilians. Everything I've seen indicates that significant effort was made to minimize civilian casualties. Unfortunately, they are as unavoidable as friendly fire casualties in war. As far as I see it, our choices in Afghanistan were really to do nothing or to attack. I recall a statement of the problem with diplomacy is that there is nothing in between a stern note and a military attack. Reliable numbers for civilian casualties are not know, but even the latest Taliban figures are far below the US civilian casualty numbers. I think it is reasonable to assume that they overstate the casualty figures. Dan M.
