Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > 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.
..so because a government like Pakistan that was threatened by our President agrees with us, we should go bomb Afghanistan? You know, a whole bunch of people used to agree that the earth was flat, but that didn't make it true. > 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. There's plenty of information pointing to this being a state-sponsored attack rather than any terrorist organization, there's the saber rattling towards Iraq from the most hawkish of the president's father's men, etc. If its valid to believe that just because Pakistan thinks AQ and Taliban are one in the same then its just as valid to believe the evidence that points towards an Iraqi role in all this. Of course, I'm not advocating we go drop more bombs on Iraq - that obviously isn't doing any good. > 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. You are correct, and I withdraw the statement; however, hyperbole such as "you're wid us or ag'n us" isn't helpful either, but its what our "elected" officials are spouting. > 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. Attack? There's no reason for us to attack Afghanistan other than Bush Jr's sagging poll numbers - he had to strike out.. Americans want blood for 9/11, and aren't going to be happy until they get it. > 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. Why is it always assumed that the enemy lies and we tell the truth? -j- -- "O! for a Muse of fire, that would ascend, The brightest heaven of invention!"
