On 30 Jul 2002 at 13:07, Hermit wrote:
>
> A couple of hundred million in aid at any time prior to beginning (maybe
even post) killing in excess of 2:1 Afghans in revenge (?!) for 911 would
have solved the problem without the killing.
>
Of course, most US citizens were not dismayed to see us strike back at
our attackers, but the main reason that we dismantled the Taliban base
of Al Quaeda was so that it could not be used to launch further attacks
against us. This is also why we are pursuing Al Quaeda members
around the world; so we can apprehend them before they reorganize
sufficiently to plan and execute more holy terror.
>
> But it appears that the US prefers spending billions killing the uninvolved
after a crisis has developed than spending a couple of hundred million
helping them before.
>
After the USSR pulled out of Afghanistan, we stopped supplying the
rebels with weapons. They still had plenty of money from the Saudis
and plenty of training from the Pakistani ISI. Our mistake was in fact in
NOT more actively seeking to dictate the future direction of the country;
what emerged is what they did with what we left them. And in fact, we
have been very successful in eliminating Al Quaeda and taliban forces
while minimizing civilian casualties. I remember your claiming that a US
success in Afghanistan was impossible, that many millions would starve
and we would lose masses of soldiers in a long-term unwinnable
quagmire. I disagreed with you then, and subsequent events have
borne my position out, not yours.
>
> Perhaps the reason that the billions are required is
the degree of training need indicated by their apparent military
incompetence. After all, US "own casualties" in Afghanisatan exceed all
those killed by the Taliban and al Quaeda combined.
>
This is due to our vastly superior firepower, combined with the close
degree to which our special forces operated with indigenous resistance
and laser-targeted assets on the ground.
>
.Still most countries
improve their forces' readiness and capability without needing to kill the
citizens of other countries. Why should the US be permitted to be an
exception?
>
We were not doing what we did to "improve readiness and capability',
but to destroy a terrorist threat that had already killed thousands of our
civilian citizens within our borders.
>
> As it is, despite the lesson currently in progress, if we sum previously
made US commitments to foreign aid, it exceeds the 0.1% budget cap
recently placed on aid. Which do you think is going to prevail? Hell, it is
possible that we spend more destabilizing other countries than we do
assisting them. Besides, the US is far to fond of saying, "We'll give you
money, but only if you spend it on American weapon systems."
>
I would like us to be more selective about to whom we sell our
weapons, taking into account their form of government as well as
whether or not it is tilting in our direction at the time. But having said
that, every sovereign nation has the right to make or purchase arms to
defend its citizens and borders.
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25860>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT