Prisoners of War, War Criminals or Terrorist???

[goose]

crom-dubh

As I stated before I don't really agree with much of what the U.S. gov't does but...

They do not condone the support of the IRA and yes they do try to cut down the money supply to them - 2 things that the Taliban didn't do.

If you want to blame anyone for the situation in Ireland blame the correct gov't - the British - whatever happened to the mighty "British Lion", they are in an equal footing with the U.S in the fight against terrorism now. They should DEMAND that all funds to the IRA be cut off or all support for the U.S. led campaign against terrorism will be revoked. This would cause the U.S. to look like they we waging a one-man conflict as opposed to a coalition conflict.

The U.S. and U.K gov't is not targeting the Afghan people, as a matter of fact they have gone out of their way to avoid collateral damage. It would be a hell of a lot easier (and cheaper) to carpet bomb the whole country as opposed to wasting expensive smart-bombs in pinpoint missions.

The Afghan people are one of the most oppressed people in world - agreed - however when the cities where "liberated" by the Northern Alliance I saw people going to the barber, listening to music and flying kites - all stuff illegal under Taliban rule. So as far as I can see they are at least better off than they where this time last year.

goose


P.S. as far as slavery goes talk to me about all the slaves/servants of the old British Raj. Also it may have been the white man who brought the slaves to the U.S. however it was his fellow African who helped round them up and deliver them to the boats.

 

[cjohns]

Originally posted by goose
crom-dubh

As I stated before I don't really agree with much of what the U.S. gov't does but...

They do not condone the support of the IRA and yes they do try to cut down the money supply to them - 2 things that the Taliban didn't do.

If you want to blame anyone for the situation in Ireland blame the correct gov't - the British - whatever happened to the mighty "British Lion", they are in an equal footing with the U.S in the fight against terrorism now. They should DEMAND that all funds to the IRA be cut off or all support for the U.S. led campaign against terrorism will be revoked. This would cause the U.S. to look like they we waging a one-man conflict as opposed to a coalition conflict.

The U.S. and U.K gov't is not targeting the Afghan people, as a matter of fact they have gone out of their way to avoid collateral damage. It would be a hell of a lot easier (and cheaper) to carpet bomb the whole country as opposed to wasting expensive smart-bombs in pinpoint missions.

The Afghan people are one of the most oppressed people in world - agreed - however when the cities where "liberated" by the Northern Alliance I saw people going to the barber, listening to music and flying kites - all stuff illegal under Taliban rule. So as far as I can see they are at least better off than they where this time last year.

goose


P.S. as far as slavery goes talk to me about all the slaves/servants of the old British Raj. Also it may have been the white man who brought the slaves to the U.S. however it was his fellow African who helped rounf them up and deliver them to the boats.

Thanks for explaining that to him. My point wasn't coming across right I guess.

 

[crom-dubh]

I did not say that the American government condones the IRA I said that they do nothing about it. Also the main weapon used by the US was B52 bombers. Not very precise I mean more Us Soldiers were killed by their own airforce in the Gulf as well as Afghanstan. So can you tell me that not one innocent was killed?

Why should the british government have to get tough on the US about the IRA? Shouldnt the US do this without being forced?
Oh and I do hold the British government in contempt too. We also have our skeletons India, South Africa etc. What I was pointing out about the native americans and slaves is that the "eye for an eye" argument is bollox. How far do you go back?

So what happens when the Northern Alliance cause even more attrocities? Will the US stop them? No they wont. The US set up and trained the Mujhadeen and when they were no longer of use, dumped them. The same will happen now. How long will the aid to Afghanistan last? The US has a history of helping freedom fighters until a time when it suits them. The Kurds in Iraq are one good example of this.

 

[cjohns]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
I did not say that the American government condones the IRA I said that they do nothing about it. Also the main weapon used by the US was B52 bombers. Not very precise I mean more Us Soldiers were killed by their own airforce in the Gulf as well as Afghanstan. So can you tell me that not one innocent was killed?


Why should the british government have to get tough on the US about the IRA? Shouldnt the US do this without being forced?
Oh and I do hold the British government in contempt too. We also have our skeletons India, South Africa etc. What I was pointing out about the native americans and slaves is that the "eye for an eye" argument is bollox. How far do you go back?


So what happens when the Northern Alliance cause even more attrocities? Will the US stop them? No they wont. The US set up and trained the Mujhadeen and when they were no longer of use, dumped them. The same will happen now. How long will the aid to Afghanistan last? The US has a history of helping freedom fighters until a time when it suits them. The Kurds in Iraq are one good example of this.

The main weapons used by the U.S. on Al Queda were precision guided munitions. I know because I built some of them and watched them fly down range. Only after critical military targets were taken out by precision guided munitions did the B52's start carpet bombing the caves that Bin Laden might have been hiding in. There are always going to be accidents in war and there will always be innocents killed as well.

Maybe the British government should ask for military help in the fight against terrorism in Ireland.

I am glad that you can predict the future. We have a new president now and he is a different president than we have had before. So don't go by the past actions of the U.S. and wait and see what President Bush does.

 

[goose]

crom-dubh

I agree with a lot of what you say. The reason that the situation in Afghanistan became what it is, is because the U.S. deserted them after the Soviets left - but as cjohns asks - can you predict the future??

If anything due to what is happening I think the coalition will crack down on any attrocities committed by the N. Alliance.

I am also not saying that innocents will be killed - but what about the 3000 innocents in the WTC?? If the airforce is killing their own - well unfortunatley that is the price that is paid when you are defending a country - and I can tell you this, while every one of the deaths are tragic - the soldiers where doing their job, and they know the risks and they take them.

As far as the British Gov't getting tough with the U.S. - damn right they should. If you have a problem in your house, take the appropriate measures to fix it, don't wait for the handyman to come along on his own.

goose

 

[TheRo0sTer]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
I did not say that the American government condones the IRA I said that they do nothing about it.
And in a Previous post! --->
What happened on Sep 11 was a terrible thing but what the US and UK government did to the Afghans was in a way just as bad.

About what we did to the Afgahns... You mean helping the Country instate a New and For the people government was wrong?

About us not doing anything about the IRA... Well I am thinking if the Prime minister of the UK asked the US to help they would! But you see I have never heard Mr Blair or previous prime ministers ask the US. Even if we did help all that would do is get the US bad mouthed by the same people slandering us for helping in Kuwait, Somolia, Bosnia, Vietnam, Korea and any other country that turned to the US for support. Bring it to me!!!

 

[TheRo0sTer]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
So what happens when the Northern Alliance cause even more attrocities? Will the US stop them? No they wont. The US set up and trained the Mujhadeen and when they were no longer of use, dumped them. The same will happen now. How long will the aid to Afghanistan last? The US has a history of helping freedom fighters until a time when it suits them. The Kurds in Iraq are one good example of this.

I didn't know the Northern Alliance was given total control of Afganistan. I thought they choose people from all over Afg. to become part of the new government!

NO the US did not DUMP these people. No the US does not back out when it suits them. What happens there comes a time when the US figures the counrties government or who ever they are supporting have become strong enough to survive on thier own. Then someone bigger and badder than the left on thier own come in an take over. Then the blame gets pointed back at the US. When does the US say enough is enough though? When is the right time to bring the 100's of thousands of American Soldiers back to US soil? Probably never because the US is to busy being the Politcal leaders they are an help when asked by the UN or other countries struggling to Survive!

 

[crom-dubh]

OK i was wrong to predict the future and I hope that Mr Bush does a better job than the presidents before him.

My argument were mainly about the "eye for an eye" theory.

Can anyone really condone that?

QUOTE]Originally posted by TheRo0sTer


Yes it is!!! You hit me I hit you back! You kill thousands for no reason and well maybe we should have killed that many back! But fortunately for them SAPS in prison, the numbers won't compare! So the Taliban should feel fortunate some got away with thier lives! [/QUOTE]

The above is applying that the US should have killed thousands of innocent Afghans. And I was implying that thought is fundamently wrong hence the native american/slavery thing.

 

[cjohns]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
OK i was wrong to predict the future and I hope that Mr Bush does a better job than the presidents before him.

My argument were mainly about the "eye for an eye" theory.

Can anyone really condone that?

QUOTE]Originally posted by TheRo0sTer


Yes it is!!! You hit me I hit you back! You kill thousands for no reason and well maybe we should have killed that many back! But fortunately for them SAPS in prison, the numbers won't compare! So the Taliban should feel fortunate some got away with thier lives!

The above is applying that the US should have killed thousands of innocent Afghans. And I was implying that thought is fundamently wrong hence the native american/slavery thing. [/QUOTE]

I do agree with you on the eye for an eye theory, but I think what Rooster was implying was that the taliban hit us so we are going ot hit the taliban back. Not the Afghani people.

 

[TheRo0sTer]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
QUOTE]Originally posted by TheRo0sTer


Yes it is!!! You hit me I hit you back! You kill thousands for no reason and well maybe we should have killed that many back! But fortunately for them SAPS in prison, the numbers won't compare! So the Taliban should feel fortunate some got away with thier lives!

The above is applying that the US should have killed thousands of innocent Afghans. And I was implying that thought is fundamently wrong hence the native american/slavery thing. [/QUOTE]

Actually if you would have read it instead of looking deeper than intended I said the Taliban should feel fortunate! They the ones who are in prison and the ones that evaded capture were fortunate as well as the members of Al Queda that got away! Where in there did I say Afgans? No where did I say Afgans you put words into my statement! The war was never directed at Afgans it was directed at the Taliban and Al Queda network!