If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
just like Dresden!
It may seem childish but the Germans were bombing civilians in Britain since the very start of the war..We didnt switch from military targets until later in the war. Its precisely because we bombed civilians in Germany that you can sit here and condemn those very bombings.
Again, you move off the subject...If bombing is such a horrific failure then what should we be doing instead? There is NO other option.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
We could apologise for the horrific attrocities, and then invite them all over here for some free money and housing.
All I can say is that I think that we need to look deeper into this whole situation, negotiation has not been tried, a war has been declared on Afghanistan for reasons other than the fact than bin Laden is holed up there.
I don't want to fight in the war
I don't want to kill
You can bang on about bombing being the only way, or grandfathers fighting for our freedom all you like
but basically we will never agree.
You have formed youe opinion of me as a lefty liberal coward - well there we go - whatever you want to think.
As long as I like myself, you like yourself, we agree to disagree and I give you the freedom to fight while you give me the freedom not to - that's great.
Did you miss the period of almost a month since the WTC attack when the various governments negotiated to try and get Bin Laden handed over? One month of negotiating with the taliban and getting absolutely nowhere. They resolutly refused to hand him over..No leeway whatsoever. You cannot negotiate with fundamentalists..They DO NOT COMPROMISE by their very definition.
Im confused as to your second comment. We arent at war with the taliban because of bin laden? Please tell us then, why we are at war. Why did we attack following the WTC attack and not earlier if it was down to some sinister motives? Please explain this comment further.
Thats fine but as this is a discussion board it would be nice to hear why you dont agree. You havent put up any valid arguments against the bombing and youve put forward not one single alternative.
I wouldnt call you a lefty liberal coward..Maybe a left liberal with a screwed up rosy, schoolyard view of the world but not a coward. Youve already conceeded that you can see a circumstance where killing is necessary(self defence).
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
Ten years of war and sanctions against Iraq that continue to this day have given the U.S. an occupying force in the Gulf Region, including aircraft carriers, bases and 30,000 U.S. troops. The bombing of Yugoslavia anchored a similar occupying force in the Balkans — the largest U.S. base since the Viet Nam war is being built today in Kosovo.
This latest war campaign is a first step in securing a permanent U.S. military presence in Central Asia — completing an new, armed ring of bases stretching from Yugoslavia to Afghanistan, and designed to give U.S. companies the upper hand. As of this week, thousands of U.S. troops and equipment have been stationed in Uzbekistan.
As in past wars, the Pentagon claims to bomb only military installations. But those wars always targeted civilian areas and infrastructure, and this time is no different. Using a heavily racist campaign focused on demonizing one person, Osama Bin Laden, Washington's warplanes are dropping bombs on thousands. The results of this campaign will range from outright murders to the dislocation of millions of Afghanis, suffering now from extreme malnutrition after years of drought and war. Afghanistan is a country already reduced to rubble by 20 years of continuous warfare, fed incessantly by U.S.-supplied weaponry.
Air-dropping 37,000 meals per day can't begin to replace the interrupted food relief efforts, which had been feeding up to 5 million people per day. Aid organizations like Doctors Without Borders, GOAL, Concern and Trócaire have issued statements criticizing U.S. actions as crippling the already overburdened food relief efforts: "This situation is in breach of international conventions governing the position of refugees and of civilians in times of warfare," said Trócaire's statement. Doctors Without Borders directly attacked the Pentagon's food-drop publicity stunt, saying the operation "isn't in any way a humanitarian aid operation, but more a military propaganda operation, destined to make international opinion accept the U.S.-led military operation."
A wide-ranging bombing spree will not bring security to the people of the U.S., who are still reeling from the after-affects of the horrendous loss of life on September 11. This war can only be seen by the hundreds of millions of oppressed people of the world as an act of aggression, arousing far greater anger and stimulating the broad anti-U.S. protests raging from Palestine to Pakistan to Egypt.
But the bombs are bound to damage what little civilian infrastructure is left in Afghanistan (the Soviet Union bombed most of it into the Stone Age in the 1980s) and kill a lot of innocent civilians. It will also create exactly the kind of political backlash that bin Laden and his associates want – and quite possibly spur further terrorist attacks on the United States. This will spur President Bush to even further military action, which will escalate the cycle again. Bombing, in other words, is playing right into the hands of the people who want to draw the United States into a bloody and extended holy war.
Most of the residents of Afghanistan don't support the Taliban. But every person killed by an American bomb will leave behind a family – fathers, sons, mothers, sisters, uncles, and aunts – that will have one more reason to hate the United States and one more reason to be sympathetic to the words and acts of bin Laden.
It's not as if the United States has an exemplary record in that country to date. As Robert Fisk wrote in the London Independent , "Instead of helping Afghanistan, instead of pouring our aid into that country 10 years ago, rebuilding its cities and culture and creating a new political center that would go beyond tribalism, we left it to rot. Sarajevo would be rebuilt. Not Kabul. Democracy, of a kind, could be set up in Bosnia. Not in Afghanistan. Schools could be reopened in Tuzla and Travnik. Not in Jaladabad. When the Taliban arrived, stringing up every opponent, chopping off the arms of thieves, stoning women for adultery, the United States regarded this dreadful outfit as a force for stability after the years of anarchy."
The bombing has already created a human and political disaster in a very unstable part of the world. By some estimates, half a million refugees have already crowded into Pakistan or are congregating at the border – and the United States has air-dropped food for maybe 10,000. The military government of Pakistan is already pretty shaky, and protests against the regime's support of Bush's bombing campaign, combined with the flood of refugees, could spark serious problems in a country that has nuclear weapons.
All of those problems will just get worse if Bush goes beyond Afghanistan and starts bombing other countries. Syria and Iraq are on deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz's list, for reasons that may not be entirely related to the Sept. 11 attacks – bin Laden's operation is, by most accounts, active in dozens of countries, and most of them aren't being targeted for military retaliation.
There is, another approach: The United States could do what progressive commentators around the world have been suggesting, and treat the attacks of Sept. 11 as crimes against humanity, not acts of war. That would involve two things: a new approach to U.S. foreign policy, emphasizing cooperation with the United Nations and international law, and patience. Bringing bin Laden (or whoever was responsible for the attacks) to justice in an international tribunal, through concerted diplomatic and multilateral police action, won't happen overnight. It will take time. It would almost certainly save thousands of lives.
At the same time, the United States simply has to ask the difficult question, Why do so many people hate us?, and start addressing the root causes. That means taking a deep, long, hard look at a long list of U.S. policies, including our disdain for the United Nations, our reliance on imported oil and all the problems it creates in the Persian Gulf, our continuing military and economic attacks on Iraqi civilians, our refusal to push Israel to back away from its settlements in the occupied territories and reach a real peace agreement with the Palestinians, our insistence on using military, not diplomatic, solutions to international problems, and a whole lot of other things.
But none of that is possible if we continue down the military road Bush has chosen. So the message coming out of the peace movement in the Bay Area should be clear and simple: First, stop the bombing.
Where did you copy that from? Its polite to quote sources when you copy&paste someone elses articles on a public board.
So thats the only other option is it? So we should just let Bin Laden continue his attacks until we bring him to justice which 'wont happen overnight'..You think that if nobody made any moves to capture him, he would just see the light and stop the attacks on the USA? Unless he is contained immediately he will launch more attacks on the US and probably the UK.
As for that rubbish about the oil...One question...why now? They could have invaded Afghanistan anytime they wanted. They could have launched an invasion on the back of the USS cole attack or the embassy bombings. They could have gone in on a 'humanitarian' mission which would have assured support. Sorry but the author of this article is talking rubbish, if it were only about an oil line then why didnt they do it sooner?
The reason we are going after bin laden is because he just murdered 7000 people in cold blood. The reason we are going after the taliban is because they protect and train bin laden and his group.
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
yep - I think I missed that, from what I saw it went something like this-
US: Hand over Bin Laden
Taliban: Show us evidence
US: No, hand him over
Taliban: Show us evidence and we'll hand him over to a neutral country
US:NO, when we said no negotiation, we meant no negotiation, hand him over
Now who was it you said was unwilling to negotiate?
well, I think the action being taken at the moment will only increase the chances of terrorist attack, seeing as they're over here already, they have their orders and are just waiting for the right time.
Should have said.
I was asked to justify my belief that bombing is wrong and these happen to be arguments I think may have a point.
It is always scary when you have to think about the different reasons behind the actions of governments, sometimes they do things for the wrong reasons, and it can be frightening to think that they don't have all our interests at heart.
The second article - I think gives another view (a more humanitarian one) on why bombing should be stopped.
[This message has been edited by byny (edited 17-10-2001).]
great!
You've got it
although not quite that simple that is indeed how the negotiations went. Can you suggest how it could have been done differently?
Sorry but even before the attacks on afghanistan there was a 100% chance of another terrorist attack. Bin Laden stated as much...You cant very well make something more than 100% likely to happen.
byny,
Im not fan of the govt. I dont think I can think of a single war that western govts have been involved in that didnt have a single bit of self interest in..I dont buy the oil thing being the main reason in this one. They could have gone into afghanistan years ago..This is genuinely a war against bin laden and the taliban..
"Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
How much of that redcross food do you think would have made it to the civilians?
In a war, soldiers come first, civvies second. It's a sad reality of life, the way I see it, one warehouse of food gone means one taliban armoured division going without rations for a few days.
don't try to feed the Afghans, we'll only be helping the Taliban?
Do you seriously believe that any of that food is actually making it to the people that need it?
Reports are coming from officials in the area that Taliban troops are looting the food for themselves, leaving nothing for the civilians.
It is there that I ask, why do we bother? All we are doing is feeding the people we are trying to overthrow, if I could be sure that the food was reaching the people then fine, but it isn't so we shouldn't send it.
Aid plane flies in (wherever) aid on sale later that day, a very tiny amount gets to who needs it.
The Taliban WILL be using the Redcross food for themselves and not the "people" again they may allow a small amount out to be seen by the west for the taliban propagander.
The UN, Redcross etc WILL NEVER tell you the truth about how much aid gets through, because if they did most people would not give money or help.
For every £1 you give most will go towards paying the wages of the staff and keeping the top dogs in luxurious offices etc etc maybe a couple of pence goes for real aid and then most of that aid gets nicked anyway.
The most aid that gets through is the aid given/dropped by the armed forces as it cuts out all the middle men and corrupt officials.
If you don't belive me find the address for the main aid agencies and then go and look at their lovely offices and working conditions.
There is NO doubt that the aid agencies do help people who need it but remember they have to play ball with the corrupt Gov'ts to exist in the places they help.
Pchild
A problem made worse because the aid is piling up in warehouses, because the drivers and labourers aren't prepared to risk themselves while America might decide that the lorries look like they could be being used by the taliban, and bomb them for lack of any better target. Your government tells you it is, how dare you be antipatriotic in this time of struggle and suggest otherwise... <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/tongue.gif">
Truly superb!