NA back to their old ways of raping, excecuting and pillaging

[mindseye]

Is Iraq a better place after the Gulf War?

Um, shouldn't you be asking: "Is Kuwait a better place after the Gulf War?"

[Ted Striker]

What mindseye said.

Also, US/UK controlled areas of Iraq are doing quite well right now.

[blackice]

Neville Chamberlain
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
September 1938
after signing the Munich Pact with Hitler

"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe.

"We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again."

Wild cheers erupted, the crowd reiterating, reverberating the last syllables of the Prime Minister's statement. He continued.

"We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."

Later at 10 Downing Street, he added,

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

http://www.btinternet.com/~alexandergrant/quotes/snevnazi.htm

After the invasion of Poland he said:

We shall enter it with a clear conscience, with the support of the Dominions and the British Empire, and the moral approval of the greater part of the world.

We have no quarrel with the German people, except that they allow themselves to be governed by a Nazi Government. As long as that Government exists and pursues the methods it has so persistently followed during the last two years, there will be no peace in Europe. We shall merely pass from one crisis to another, and see one country after another attacked by methods which have now become familiar to us in their sickening technique.

We are resolved that these methods must come to an end. If out of the struggle we again re-establish in the world the rules of good faith and the renunciation of force, why, then even the sacrifices that will be entailed upon us will find their fullest justification.

Neville Chamberlain - September 1, 1939

Markl learning from history is sometimes more important than creating it repeating it is pure foolishness...

[Eli]

So, when we will see Bush charged for war crimes?

Never? You mean that only one country gets all the **** when such stuff happen? Surprise, surprise.

[Giancarlo]

Mark L, I trust the Northern Alliance more than you. Hell, if they want to put the bullet in some Taliban's head then do so. The Taliban deserve it. Mark L, you really are ignorant... the people of Kabul can listen to music, shave of their beards and be free... do you really think that should be taken away?

[drake]

Not many that optimistic eh?

I think that Afghanistan will improve after this little scuffle is over. With new leadership, the country can only go up. Look where they are now. It will get better....just wait.

[Giancarlo]

A ton of money will flow into the country, economic and reconstruction money. So you can expect a reconstruction process. It doesn't matter what you think about the war, which is coming to a conclusion because Kandahar is about to fall... it has been a victory for the Bush adminstration. Now with tech and industrial markets reviving, this will ensure a second term for Bush.

[Saint Marcus]

I've had CNN on contstantly the past few, days, and the reports of looting were about people LOOTING TALIBAN GOVERNEMENT OFFICES.

I take it you're watching CNN USA, and not CNN International. Cause the latter was reporting war crimes in towns like Mazar-e Sharif.

I would rank the Taliban who were dragged through the streets and ripped up as remarkably restrained for the typical Afghan victory...

Yes, I know they are barbaric thugs. And yes, they could and will do a lot worse. But that's an explanation, not an excuse.

NA took the bulk of casuaties. Shouldn't they be compensated by letting some anger out on the Talibans? It's better than US Army doing the killing.

So we are watching our hands in innocence while we look the other way and let "our friends" (as bush calls them) to kill and loot? How terrible noble of us.

NA Is better than the Taliban, the Taliban is closer to Holland.

I hope I'm not supposed to take anything Bob writes seriously, cause I don't think I can

CNN is not the same as CNN International. One is respected news agency which tries to report facts more objectively, the other is for us Americans.

Ah, there you have it Ted. Watch CNN International please for more objective reports.

To be fair to you, however, the report of the massacre in Mazar-i-Sharif is of 100 Taliban prisoners.

When I watched the report was of 600, and today's paper also reports of 600 confirmed excecutions.

The NA has a habit of killing prisoners of war, which is a war crime, btw.

It is a war crime indeed, and people have went for prison for less. This is not something we can tolerate, yet that's exactly what we are doing.

The NA are in many ways worse than the Taleban.

Exactly. But why are we "civilized" countries supporting the NA thugs?

The NA, for the most part, seem to be killing Arab and Pakistani Taliban fighters. The Pashtun Taleban seem to have the option of switching sides.

Yep. But if the Pashtuns don't defect they'll suffer the same faith as the Arabs and Pakistani. Torture, humiliation, and probably excecution.

(ever notice US media spells it with an 'i' while the Brits use an 'e')

It's pronounced Taleban in english, that's why. It's usually spelled as Taliban though, but english speakers seem to have a problem with pronouncing the I as an E.

Markl thugs or no thugs the right way to do things is starting it also involves allowing the people to do their own sorting out.

So it's ok for them to kill, but it's not ok for the Taliban to kill?

So now what markl you have an idea lets hear it?

Easy, we should never have supported the NA (I warned about that from the start). But it's too late now, and the Afghani people will have to suffer for our mistakes once again.

I would like to hear it markl you seem to think you know more that the entire international community so shoot...

Didn't the Pakistani warn about this happening? Musharaf warned about not trusting the NA. And he wasn't the only one. So what "entire international community" are you talking about?

So, MarkL - are you saying an all-foreign US force should be fighting on the ground, after we first fight the NA to get them out of the way, and thereby lose basing rights with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, rendering the whole point moot?

We shouldn't have bombed Taliban forces who were fighting with the NA. We also shouldn't have supplied weapons to the NA. Instead, we should have basically ignored the whole NA and fought the Taliban ourselves (for those that thing war is going to solve this situation that is). Without active coalition support the NA would never have gotten this far. Gen David Grange (ret) also holds the same opinion.

You guys always have all the answers, so I'd like to hear what yours is, for once?

For one, we should have listened to the Pakistani president. That certainly would have been a good start.

In the real world, if you want to get something done, you have to get your hands dirty sometimes. It is unrealastic to expect one side in any civil war to show full and complete respect for human rights, that wasn't even the case in the US civil war.

Did the Geneva Convention even exist during the American Civil War? Also, that happened 150 years ago. And if war crimes are inevitable as you say, then why are we prosecuting Slobo and his gang? And why shouldn't OBL just say the same thing? This makes us little better than he is, and it's sickening. We can't differentiate between the war crimes our enemies do and we (and our allies) do. We can't differentiate between American deaths and Afghani deaths. We claim to be civilized nations, so why don't we act civilized? And letting "our friends" commit war crimes is not a sign of "civilization".

And by the way, Mark, isn't your country also involved in helping the NA?

Yep we are. Notice I used the word "we" and not the word "USA" most of the time. I am very much against what the coalition governements are doing, including my own governement. I'm thinking about voting for another party in the next elections, since Labour is supporting this whole thing. I'm thinking about voting for the Greens, who are against the war, at least the way it's fought now. They were in favor af an attack on afghanistan, but not in the way it was carried out. So I'm thinking about voting for them in the next national elections.

MarkL you're just desperate for some **** to throw. But we don't care what you think. You can get buttlock for all we care.

If people don't care, why do they post here?

We are attacking the Taleban for sponsooring terrorists who attacked us.

I don't think I need to remind you that Al Qaida is active in 68 nations?

We wouldn't be in Afghanistan otherwise.

Blair, Powell, Rumsfeld and Bush have said that an objective is to bring peace, democracy, (relative) wealth and freedom to the Afghani people and make life better for them.

Um, shouldn't you be asking: "Is Kuwait a better place after the Gulf War?"

How would we know? The Iraqis were only there for a very short period of time. And Kuwait does have an autocracy/aristocracy. The people aren't free there either. But that's a different matter.

Also, US/UK controlled areas of Iraq are doing quite well right now.

Huh? Don't you read papers or watch TV? Starvation and epidemics are very common there, especcially in the south (Basra I believe the city is called). It used to be one of the richest areas in the middle east, now it's as poor as Afghanistan and people are suffering.

So, when we will see Bush charged for war crimes?

Never? You mean that only one country gets all the **** when such stuff happen? Surprise, surprise.

For his sake I hope Bush doesn't visit Belgium too often. Remember that Sharon has been charged with war crimes there.

the people of Kabul can listen to music, shave of their beards and be free... do you really think that should be taken away?

Tell that to the people who's brains are covering the walls in Mazar-e Sharif.

Hell, if they want to put the bullet in some Taliban's head then do so. The Taliban deserve it.

How terrible civilized of you. OBL says the USA deserves it too. But then again, you never seem to know what you are talking about and change your opinion every two seconds, so I'll just leave it at that

It doesn't matter what you think about the war, which is coming to a conclusion because Kandahar is about to fall...

God you are stupid aren't you? A. Russia captured all Afghani cities yet still lost the war. B. OBL isn't caught still and we have no idea where he is.

it has been a victory for the Bush adminstration

You're awfully quick to draw conclusions, shouting victory before any objective has been met. LOL. moron

Now with tech and industrial markets reviving, this will ensure a second term for Bush.

US' is in a recesion, world economy is going downhill, OBL is still on the lose, terrorism is still continuing, and you are saying it's going great? What have they done to you poor Giani? Have you been brainwashed by the CIA? LOL

[Lefty Scaevola]

Given a either or choice, similar to what is present in much, but not all, of Afghanistan do to limited choice, which would be be worse for you home MarkL, for you, for your people, to be administered by the Taliban, or to be administered by the Northern alliance. I hope none of you relatives are women or barbers.

[Saint Marcus]

frankly, it doesn't matter at all if people are oppressed by governement A or by governement B. The people are still oppressed. Granted the NA aren't as anti-female as the Taliban, but instead they are very anti Pakistan/Arabia. They don't beat women, now they just beat pakistani and arabs. It's a brave new world alright.

[blackice]

Easy, we should never have supported the NA (I warned about that from the start). But it's too late now, and the Afghani people will have to suffer for our mistakes once again.

That is a poor excuse for an answer to the question at hand. I'll bite and reiterate who then, how, what etc...

Didn't the Pakistani warn about this happening? Musharaf warned about not trusting the NA. And he wasn't the only one. So what "entire international community" are you talking about?

Certainly not Pakistan they supported the Taliban. TV news is not the god all to end all, read about the IPI and their involvement...

For one, we should have listened to the Pakistani president. That certainly would have been a good start.

Say no more this simply shows how uninformed you really are.

Your opinion seems to be based on news and warm feelings for human life that is good so was Neville Chamberlains read the facts.

While it is not good these people exact swift justice it is the Muslim way their law... care to change a religion in the process?

[drake]

The people in the northern alliance aren't perfect, but they represent the common man a lot better than the holier than thou Taliban.

The people of Kabul sure seemed to be happy to see those f*cks go.

Their opinions count in this situation in a much stronger way than ours...after all it's their lives we're arguing about.

So mark, are you saying that these people shouldn't be happy? Do you think you know what they want? You think you know what is best for them?

I sure wouldn't pretend to know as you do, but from what we've all read, it sounds like the PEOPLE OF KABUL, AFGHANISTAN are pleased to see the current developments.

We've heard over and over that we're breeding more terrorists, which in some regards, may be true, I havent a clue, but isn't it also possible that we're also gaining a lot of support for the future?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Actually, very few NA troops have entered Kabul, most are staying out as arranged, and those who have entered are mostly those trained and uniformed as military police. Who was it who complained about looting?

As for rapes in Mazar-e-sharif: Very unlikely that this is widespread, as that city is ethnically Uzbek, and was under Taliban occupation. Armies of liberation rarely rape their own people.

We can't be sure, but I think the ones most likely to execute the Taliban are the people they have oppressed for so long: the citizens of Mazar and Kabul. This is probably revenge.

And there ARE stories emerging of numerous Srebrenicza-style "ethnic cleansing" massacres by the Taliban during their occupation of various towns and villages. The NA are not "worse".

[Jack the Bodiless]

I'd also like to remind certain people of what happened after the Gulf War. The coalition left Saddam in place and encouraged his own people to rise up against him, but we gave minimal help other than enforcing a no-fly zone and hitting SAMs and radars. Many of those that rose up were slaughtered.

This time, I am glad to see that the US has supported its local allies.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
A ton of money will flow into the country, economic and reconstruction money.

Like all the money that flowed into Nicaragua and El Salvador and Guatamala and Panama, and Kosovo, and Serbia (not that they've tossed Milosevic), etc..

Oh wait, there was none! All of those countries are now economic basketcases.