h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Lentilla,

"Personally I don't like the idea that they can threaten us with violence, and in return we'll give them what they want."

Similar to what Perium wrote on this thread a few days ago:
"Every time someone who had some kind of problem with America they would know they could just bomb us and then find us on our knees at the negotiating table."

To which I replied: No, they would know that they could bomb us, and we would negotiate conditions for the extradition of the people responsible for that bombing, so that person or group could be brought to justice. What kind of conditions are you expecting them to negotiate here? Like we're going to pay them an extra $400 million or send them some [more] weapons? It's not like we would be appeasing Hitler by negotiating the conditions for extradition of bin Laden or Al-Qaeda.

"It's quite obvious that our current methods of war are ineffective, so offering that as a threat if they didn't comply wouldn't have worked."

I disagree. Evidence that the threat of war was already working was that they gradually made some concessions, like the idea of having bin Laden tried in another country but not by the US. If the threat of war had meant nothing to them, then they would have refused from the start, suggested no compromises, would not have asked for any evidence, etc.

"We don't have economic sanctions to levy upon them."

I'm not sure what's going on with money between US-Afghanistan. I thought there had been sanctions against them already, but there was something six months or a year ago where the US gave Taliban a bundle of money as incentive to reduce or stop opium in Afghanistan. Isn't that something else we could have held over their heads? I don't know the details.

"You seem awfully sensitive... you don't like Jell-O, or what?"

You're right. I was being ornery about the jello bomb suggestion. Thanks for trying to keep the temperature of our conversation at "warm" instead of "flaming broil." (Try orange jello made with club soda instead of water. Tiny, effervescent bubbles trapped in mid-jello!)

Re: the International criminal court, I read something in The Spectator or The New Statesman a few days ago (only because I work at a place that makes microfilm, and we get hundreds of journals every day) about the U.S. and Israel rejecting the International Criminal Court because it could nip them in the butt. They want to be able to break international laws anytime they want, and something like an international court could hamper their current freedom (their current lawlessness).

apologies Lentilla - I must have taken what you wrote the wrong way.

> "...and the Taliban for not alerting their citizens to the danger."

Really? The citizens of Kabul were already starting to panic and build air-raid shelters and run to the hills only 24 hours after the attack began. I commented at the time that the USA had probably indirectly killed a few hundred innocents from the increased panic and starvation and homelessness without even lifting a finger.

On the other hand, I do agree that deliberately hiding in mosques and such is deeply unpleasant, as is forcing civilians to carry arms (and so making them into 'legitimate' targets for the US). I'll buy your joint responsibility for civilian casualties now that the war has started, though I still reckon that the US carries the blame for starting the war in the first place.

In the spirit of the recent posts, I'll tone my reply down a little....

I still think negotiations with the Taliban would have been a bad idea. There would be nothing to bring to the table on our side.

They have their list of demands including pulling out of their country(never mind that they are not the government of the country) tied with the implied threat that they can just bomb our planes or send over some bio-chemical nightmare or just about anything until we concede to their demands.

This guy is not a country. He to my knowledge does not represent his country. So where does he get off making demands of us.

The taliban.

I myself find it interesting that the USA did not hand over the evidence of Osama's implied guilt. Why not? Two reasons really are all I can think of.

1)The Taliban is just as guilty as Osama.
2)The USA felt that by telling the Taliban of the evidence against Osama, the information would find its way back to Osama.

I don't know that the Taliban had it in its power to turn over Osama, however at least that could have agreed to help. Turn over whatever knowledge it did have about him. Maybe connect our intel people with theirs. I mean, gee I don't know, cooperate with us. The guy attacked a civilian target on purpose using 3 different commercial aircraft because he feels he's been wronged by our foreign policy. Surely there are other ways to handle one's angst.

Again I make the statement that I think the bombing is a bad idea. I understand it, I understand civilian casualities as a possiblity/certainty, I understand the thinking behind bombing military targets first then attacking with ground troops, I even understand the humanitarian gesture(for gesture is all it really is if the stats are to be believed), but I still think the entire thing could have been handled differently. I still think a snatch-grab would have worked better. Let the diplomats go and negotiate all they want. We snatch him, try him, if guilty fry him. His group needs to be neutralized in every sense of the world. If nothing else to protect us from their fanaticism and willingness to kill our people.

I think this is as black and white as I can make it. You want to change our foriegn policy, negotiations are the way to do it. Even if it takes all your life, this is how great changes are made peacefully.

But if you want to attack us using a display of force or terror....then expect it in return. There is no reason for the USA to negotiate with terrorists. There is no reason to negotiate with someone who harbors terrorists. Does anyone really believe that once we get our hands on this guy that we won't try him? Much as I'd like to see him in a chair w/an I.V. drip instead of on his way to O.J. like fame, I don't think that we'll do that. We'll try him as a war criminal, lock him up and keep him there. In my opinion.

And one little reply that I just have to say.....
As to justifying civilian deaths....No I'll come out and say it. Our bombs are causing death over there. However, it is my belief(and maybe this is where it all comes from) that the role of a government is to protect its people. If it does not, I cannot/will not say that it obsolves us of responsiblity for their deaths, but the ultimate responsiblity lies with the government. In this case the Taliban. Here is a government forged on the rebellion against Russia. They believe that they can/will survive whatever we throw at them. They've faced a super power before. They'll do it again. They didn't care about civilian life before, they won't again. Who is responisble ultimately for the loss of civilian life? I'd say the Taliban. Our bombs, their policy.

Think about it. If the Taliban, even at this stage came out and said, "hey look, we don't know where he or his group is, we'll tell you what we know," even if Bush was hell bent on making afghanistan rubble, he'd have to back up and say, ok, the bombs stop now, I'll send my intel people to talk to your intel people.

If he doesn't and continues to bomb them, then we've got a big problem that I hope never happens. Then we've got a warmonger.

I'm sure I've given enough fuel to the fire.

> "There would be nothing to bring to the table on our side."

Our demands would be the six things that Bush has mentioned, but subject to negotiation and compromise.

We could offer various forms of aid, a cease or reduction of bombing, official recognition of their govt, a cease or reduction of sanctions, a peace-keeping force to end the civil war (ala Cyprus), better relations with neighbours, esp. Pakistan, and much more besides.

Seems to me that there's quite a lot on the western side of the table. A few million lives, for starters.

> "I myself find it interesting that the USA did not hand over the evidence of Osama's implied guilt. Why not? Two reasons really are all I can think of."

1)The Taliban is just as guilty as Osama.
2)The USA felt that by telling the Taliban of the evidence against Osama, the information would find its way back to Osama.

(1) makes no sense to me - presenting people with the evidence against them is a fairly basic standard in most legal systems. (2) seems more likely.

> "I don't know that the Taliban had it in its power to turn over Osama, however at least that could have agreed to help."

They offered to negotiate, and an offer of help might well have come out of that negotiation. But that offer of help would not be sufficient to satisfy Bush's "non-negotiable" demands, and so would not have stopped the bombs from falling. Why would the Taliban make an offer that would weaken them politically and militarily when Bush has said several times that he's not interested?

Bush has not behaved in any way that would make me think he would be reasonable in the face of the limited co-operation the Taliban could possibly offer. The oil companies paid for his entry into the white house, and the same companies have for decades wanted an excuse to overthrow the Taliban and build a pipeline. The only thing you could do is trust in the innate goodness of Bush's soul, and even most westerners wouldn't stake their lives on that bet.

> "If he doesn't and continues to bomb them, then we've got a big problem that I hope never happens. Then we've got a warmonger."

Indeed. On the other hand, the Taliban leaders would have a much bigger problem: they'd have a life expectancy of a matter of weeks, from Al-Qaeda or internal divisions or civilian uprising or military coup or assasination by a newly informed USA war machine. A shame they won't trade their lives on the off-chance that Bush can be reasoned with. Especially given how he's repeatedly said that he can't be reasoned with.

Oh, and I can't pass your post over without contrasting:
> "never mind that [The Taliban] are not the government of the country"
> "the ultimate responsiblity lies with the government. In this case the Taliban."

Oh, and I can't pass your post over without contrasting:
> "never mind that [The Taliban] are not the government of the country"
> "the ultimate responsiblity lies with the government. In this case the Taliban."


Never mind that Osama and his group are not the government, the Taliban is.....

Lentilla - something you said in your long posting floored me - honest, i am down on the ground in disbelief! You say (not an exact quote, I can't do that cut-and-paste thingy without Jimmy here to advise).. but - "I suggest that the Taliban might have wanted the US to pay reparations for civilian deaths and it was one of the reasons they didn't accede to the US demands in the beginning" How convoluted! So, the Taliban see literal $$$$ signs, and think "let's see, if we *make* them bomb us, they'll kill 100s of civilians, and then when the dust clears, we can ask for compensation. Oh, goody, money".
If this is what you meant, I am gobsmacked! This is the way Ron Brierly, Roger Douglas, Donald Trump or any given billionaire - but for all their admitted faults, I can't ever see the Taliban as greedy Mammmon-worshippers! So, was gibt?

Perium - you want a flaming broil? That's toning it down a bit? Lately, Jimmy has been going around saying Americans are evil- and I am having a hard time convincing him I mean it when I say that you can't hate or condemn an entire nation/race/culture, and that hate is wrong.
You talk about Osama being in a chair with an I.V., line... With great restraint, I would refer you to my Guide entry/Post article on capital punishment. We people of nations outside the US and the Middle East are entitled to ask ourselves what we can believe of what we hear from either side. The US has *never* given anyone (except,supposedly Tony Blair) *any* *evidence* of Bin Laden's guilt.Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I think Bin Laden innocent, all I'm saying is, that none of us outside the US military-industrialcomplex have, or have seen any evidence. At all.

Just a few points to clear up

I think any government like the Taliban should ideally be unseated. In the West we wouldn't stand for our people being treated the way the Afghans are, why should they have to live under tyrants whilst those most opposed to tyranny in the West debate points of "international law" etc? It's simply unfair and illiberal.

As for your "end doesn't justifty the means" claim, I agree. As I have pointed out earlier, I am in favour of the war (reluctantly) but against the way it is being waged. Bombing is not only cowardly but maximises civilian deaths. Apparently, the US is also using cluster bombs - designed to main people not machinery.

As for Iraq - it will be good if Saddam is unseated. I think this can be done without an invasion, the US just needs to support a coup and bingo! no more Saddam. They haven't done this, instead they keep bombing Iraq and kill thousands of Iraqi civilians. The sanctions starve many more. It is true that Saddam prevents food from reaching his people but the US absolving itself of all responsibility this way is moral ineptitude. The thing is, the lifting of the sanctions will allow Saddam to build up his military again. The only solution is Saddam's removal. There are questions of soverignty, but since Saddam is in power without the approval of the Iraqi people (and it's their country, not his) I think this can be waivered in these circumstances.

As for your last point. I think the best thing, internationally, that could occur in the next 100 years would be for the US to reduce it's activities on the world stage. It has been an atrocious "world policeman" (a job no single country should be allowed) and it's isolationist psychology make's it poorly suited to the job anyway. We may soon see a "multi-polar" world once more, where regional (democratic) powers oversee security in the region, with the blessing of the UN. The current European-led NATO operation in Macedonia points towards this future.

"If this is what you meant, I am gobsmacked! This is the way Ron Brierly, Roger Douglas, Donald Trump or any given billionaire - but for all their admitted faults, I can't ever see the Taliban as greedy Mammmon-worshippers! So, was gibt?"

Della, you're right - it is convoluted, tangled, and mightily suspicious of me. I'm sure I'm being paranoid... but at the time I wrote that, I was strongly reminded of a cartoon I'd seen once - the characters needed some money, so decided to found a country, then start a war with the U.S. Their plan was to lose the war and rake in those reparations. The cartoon was funny, but the idea isn't!

I believe that the Taliban, Al-Queda, and Osama are much more straightforward - and much more devious than we give them credit for. I don't believe that they would really start a war just to get reparations. I think they really believe in their cause - getting the U.S. the heck out of the Middle East, and so far, they're willing to do just about anything to accomplish that. If we were going to see any deviousness, it would be for the cause - not for money.

If you think about it, money is what this war is really all about. The Afghan aggression towards us began with our financial backing of Israel. Now we're throwing money at them in various forms - food and bombs. Gun in one hand, honey in the other. No wonder we're having public relations problems!

Re: cut-and-pasting copy
I just drag the mouse across the screen and highlight the type, then hit apple-c to copy. On the Microsoft-based machines, I think it's control-c.

Remember: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!

Howdy, gang! I've been doing a little research on economic sanctions against the Taliban... and I've found out some interesting stuff. This is all according to our beloved U.S. government. Some of the language seems a bit propagandistic, but it rings true. These sanctions have been in place since 1999. That's something I didn't realize - they were levied because of the opium trade, the lack of rights for women, and because the Taliban makes a practice of harboring terrorists. The recent attacks have escalated matters, but they were already pretty serious.

• There are sanctions currently in place, and they are specifically against the Taliban - nothing made by the Taliban shall be exported into the U.S., and nothing from the U.S. shall be imported into the area of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban. All financial dealings with the Taliban are prohibited. The sanctions target only the airport, bank accounts, and other financial assets of the Taliban.

• The UN Resolutions (UNSC Resolution 1267) is solely focused on terrorism, and 'explicitly states respect for the sovereignity and territorial integrity of Afghanistan."

• They're also saying that the sanctions should not stop the humanitarian activity and private trade. Almost all trade in Afghanistan is conducted by the private sector, not by the Taliban, so the civilians shouldn't be affected. "Traders are free to continue to import medicine and medical supplies into Afghanistan." The government's also saying that the Taliban refused to supply minimal health care to its citizens, spending the resources on the civil war instead.

• One of the sanctions include banning the export of acetic anhydride (used in making heroin) to Afghanistan.

• Finally, they say that the trade in foodstuffs is handled almost exclusively by the private sector. The UN sanctions don't prohibit private trade, and nothing says that they can't deliver humanitarian aid to the Afghan people. They're throwing more money at the problem; $1 million now, and in this past year,over $70 million has been spent to help - not to mention the $47 mil for the Red Cross.

I get the impression from the UNSC fact sheet that the UN has been demanding custody of Osama since January...

Fact Sheet on UNSC 1267:
[URL removed by moderator]

If this URL is removed, go to Yahoo and type in 'UNSC Resolution 1267' - it'll be the first hit. It's certainly worth the effort to take a look.

Impact of economic sanctions:
[URL removed by moderator]

Sanctions against the Taliban:
[URL removed by moderator]

If these URLs are removed, type in 'economic sanctions against the Taliban' and you'll find them both, plus plenty more.

Lentilla wrote: "...and the Taliban for not alerting their citizens to the danger."

Lucinda replied, "Really? The citizens of Kabul were already starting to panic and build air-raid shelters and run to the hills only 24 hours after the attack began."

To which I would add: Afghans were streaming toward the closed borders and refugee camps before bombing began, like a week after Sept. 11, because they had already heard Bush declaration war against some country which he would not yet name.

"Does anyone really believe that once we get our hands on this guy that we won't try him?"

Bush cleared that up when he said bin Laden should be considered "Wanted: Dead or Alive."

"But if you want to attack us using a display of force or terror....then expect it in return. There is no reason for the USA to negotiate with terrorists. There is no reason to negotiate with someone who harbors terrorists."

It's hard to take all this talk about "those bad terrorists" seriously when you know the kinds of terrorist acts that the US has perpetrated, supported, and continues to support. If you look at the actions taken in the recent past by the US, supporting the government of Israel that admittedly uses assassination as a policy, bombing Iraq to protect the Kurds while ignoring the fact that our ally Turkey still attacks and allegedly bombs the Kurds, then there is no reason for the USA to be a pot waging war against kettles for being black.

"Terrorism," as defined by the US govt and most US media, means attacks on US citizens or allies by smaller nations. But when you pin somebody down and demand a definition, most people would say that "terrorism" means the threat or use of violence against civilians for political purposes. If that's the definition, how can the US continue to be good buddies with Turkey, Israel, give China most favored trade status, and how can the US continue to enforce sanctions against Iraq when we all know that sanctions kill Iraqi civilians?

Let he who is without terrorism cast the first bombs in the War On Terror.

Zagreb,

"It is true that Saddam prevents food from reaching his people..."

I'm not sure how true that is, but I know Saddam is not the one blocking chlorine and spare parts from reaching water treatment plants in Iraq. Some of the parts and chemicals necessary for water treatment are included in the sanctions against Iraq, because they could supposedly be used to produce chemical weapons. Considering that US military had reports since before the Gulf War predicting major increases in diseases if we bombed their water treatment facilities, knowing it would affect civilians, it seems reasonable to understand this as intentionally killing large numbers of civilians.

"In the West we wouldn't stand for our people being treated the way the Afghans are, why should they have to live under tyrants whilst those most opposed to tyranny in the West debate points of "international law" etc? It's simply unfair and illiberal."

Right, we're too busy debating international law when we should be simply unseating any government as we see fit, and installing a new one. Bringing in the old king of Afghanistan, or maybe holding an election and giving the new regime a 30 day trial to decide if we want to unseat them next.

What if we have a U.S. Foreign Sovereignty court, where specially appointed judges decide which foreign governments are democratic enough, and which are too evil to continue? Maybe the nations in question could present lawyers and arguments to convince the judges. In the end, we would unseat any regime that we decided undeserving of rule. Saddam would be high on the list, then Qadaffi, maybe the Communist Party of China, the state of Texas, maybe take some advice from Amnesty International on who's been naughty and who's been nice.

After that, we should go after any monarchy still hanging around. They may seem to be running democratically now, but it really doesn't meet our criteria for what makes a democracy. No, wait, democracy is too dangerous according to a lot of Americans, all that fear of "mob mentality," how could we the people really be trusted to rule ourselves? So a properly democratic representative republic is what we're looking for. UK should probably get an Electoral College system, because the current process may be much too dangerously democratic. (Yes, we will unseat you next.)

No, all this is just silly talk. What we really need is an International Court for Deciding National Sovereignty. Get as many nations together to ratify an agreement about this court, make sure it doesn't appear to be totally dominated by the rich countries. Then the IC4DNS can decide which regimes are worthy of ruling, and which ought to be unseated.

...And don't forget to mail in your warranty card, or else the newly installed regime is only covered by 30-day in-store return policy.

Forget the warranty card joke. I think I've finally reasoned out the problem with this idea.

If the US or UN or NATO gets to decide which tyrants to unseat in Afghanistan or Iraq, then how do we convince the people of those countries that we are not simply invading their country? This is the crux of the matter. It would be nice to be able to pick and choose, or claim that we're helping all the peoples of Afghanistan by clearing out their wicked government. But how can we possibly accomplish that without looking like we're just invading their country and putting our pals in control there?

Ideally the civilians oppressed by the Taliban or Qadaffi or China would thank us for removing their tyrants. But any outside force coming to do it on their behalf looks like an invasion force.

"Right, we're too busy debating international law when we should be simply unseating any government as we see fit, and installing a new one. Bringing in the old king of Afghanistan, or maybe holding an election and giving the new regime a 30 day trial to decide if we want to unseat them next."

You're missing the point. I'm not saying the West should be able to decide who runs a country. I'm saying the people of said country should be able to decide. If the West unseats a government that has not been elected or is opposed by the majority of the people in the nation what, morally, is wrong with that? I'm personally against the restoration of monarchy in Afghanistan because monarchy is what the Afghans were slowly moving away from before the Soviets installed their puppet-government. Even *that* was a closer step towards democracy than what had come before. Like I have said before, what we expect in the West is what we should allow for the Afghans.

> "Never mind that Osama and his group are not the government, the Taliban is....."

My apologies: when I read the following I assumed that the 'they' in the second paragraph referred to the Taliban. Thank you for clarifying that it in fact referred to Al-Qaeda. Clearly my telepathy filter is on the blink.

> "I still think negotiations with the Taliban would have been a bad idea. There would be nothing to bring to the table on our side."
> "They have their list of demands including pulling out of their country(never mind that they are not the government of the country) tied with the implied threat that they can just bomb our planes or send over some bio-chemical nightmare or just about anything until we concede to their demands."

Could I humbly suggest a refresher course in English grammar?
-Xanthia

Hmm, that was snappish.

Yeah it was, but no more than some of the other replies that I get.

I was typing on the forum instead of working. So I typed my piece as quick as I could and then moved on.

Not an excuse....just a reason.

As to the possiblity that Americans are evil....

Evil I think is all to often subjective. Am I evil because people don't like what I'm saying. I wouldn't call you evil, but you say things I don't like sometimes.

Evil is the hijacking of three commercial airliners and crashing them into buildings just so you can make a point about US involvement in the middle east. If this isn't evil, at the very least it's demented.

It would be just as easy to say all Arabs are evil when clearly they are not.

As far as capital punishment is concerned, I support it. Have always supported it. But as this is not a debate about capital punishment I'm not going to go into the subject.

I will read the article however, I put my comments there. In the meantime, defer that argument to another day

Perhaps the another reason why the evidence hasn't been shared is that the fear of comprimising an agent. A spy in other words may be working in Afghanistan-perhaps several. Less is better if this is the case.

Speculation of course.

This post has been removed.