The USA's terrible failure

[vox]

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, the USA launched a deadly bombing campaign against the citizens of Afghanistan. I was against that action. However, we were told that it was to keep us "safe."

Now, the authorities in the Bush administration are warning that there is going to be another attack, but they don't know where or when. Now, Osama bin Laden has, rather conveniently, popped back up.

So I have to wonder: did killing three thousand or more civilians in Afghanistan really do anything but make a lot of people dead?

Oh yeah, I forgot, we get an oil pipeline in Afghanistan now.

Follow the money, folks.

vox

[IHP]

"Oh yeah, I forgot, we get an oil pipeline in Afghanistan now."

Wow! how did they get away with that? do you have a link to a site regarding this?:) it sounds very interesting. I should have guessed that such a move would take place.

--IHP

[MegatroN]

I'm sure Bin Laden is dead, the Bush Administration only keep him alive as a way to divert the public's attention.

[vox]

Here are a couple pieces about the history of the proposed pipeline in Afghanistan:

The Deadly Pipeline War (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1208-04.htm)

A Creeping Collapse in Credibility at the White House (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0111-05.htm)

The main point I wanted to make, though, was that the bombing of Afghanistan was supposed to make the world "safer." Now we find that bin Laden is, so we're told, back in business. So we have three thousand dead civilians in Afghanistan, and a lot of refugees, and absolutely nothing to show for it.

I was against attacking Afghanistan after Sept. 11. Looks like my fears have proven true. Nothing but more dead people, and they call it justice. That wouldn't be the word I'd use.

vox

[Akbar]

((( So I have to wonder: did killing three thousand or more civilians in
Afghanistan really do anything but make a lot of people dead? )))

you a fool

what you want amerika to be doing? sitting and not doing anything?

so buy your thinking, if someone punches you and you fall down you will stand up and do nothing? then they punch you again and you do nothing again?

you a girle man

you weak and dumb

i not for eye for eye but when attackd you must fight back. the amerika attack talibans in afganastan not the innocent people of the afaganis

[vox]

Well, Akbar, it was the civilians in Afghanistan who ended up dying now, wasn't it? You bet it was, and we know that to be true.

As far as I can tell, Afghanistan didn't attack the USA. Indeed, the people who did attack the USA were not even from Afghanistan. The gov't of Afghanistan was not popularly elected but largely supported by the USA in a proxy war against the USSR. Yet somehow killing innocent civilians was considered the right thing to do.

What kind of logic is that?

I have to wonder about you, Akbar. You call me a "girlie man." Does this mean you think that foreign policy should be based on a doctrine of machismo? How utterly ludicrous. But that's the kind of "thinking" that has won: appeal to the most base desire of the human condition.

The US supposedly attacked Afghanistan not for revenge, but to protect itself. Now the leaders of the US say we're under threat from the same people as before. If that's not a failure, I don't know what is.

vox