Wanna speculate...?
Just heard an NPR report, on the Saudi royal family, what a piece of work that bunch is!!
and so, being full of coffee & in a speculative mood....
i had an idea...a "what if" if you will...

what if the "enduring Freedom" campagin were carried out, differently,
i,e, what if the US & coalition members, focused on Al Kaida and Bin Laden, rather than conducting military strikes, on the Taliban.
The enabling resource for Bin Laden, besides his nihilistic aggresion, couched in religious ferver, is Saudi based $$$.
I would speculate, that, that same Saudi based $$ could be used to flush out Bin Laden, or provide him, personally, the opportunity to die, as a "martyr"

A bounty fund, of several hundred million $$
should be established, and maintained by the World Bank. Saudi's are to be, should be "convinced" to be, the primary contributors

A multi-national, special operations force, should be mustered, to actively seek out, individuals who may have specific knowledge & access to Al Kaida/ and or Bin Laden, on the ground. The special operations personell should be able to use deadly force, as they move, to act on information obtained, thru intelligence gathered from any creditable source. If and when located, Bin Laden and Al Kaida should be summarily executed,
Only that military deployment needed to support
special operations should be maintained.
The fate of the Taliban should be left to indigenous & neighboring people, with financial & material assistance, from coalition member nations.
Saudi Arabia, and other nations anywhere, must see that greivances by their people, may not be exported in lethally, symbolic ways.....when that happens, the homeland GOVERNMENT !, of those directly involved, shall share responsibility.
any thoughts, folks??

Money doesn't talk, it swears! -Bob Dylan-

It's a bit deep for me, bumper. I have no actual idea at this point if that has any merit or if it's just the coffee talking. I'll try reading after a few more cups of tea.

Seriously, though, I don't know what is going to happen with Saudi Arabia long term, but like many women, I really feel that since we got an invite to go to Afghanistan we shouldn't leave until the Taliban is out of power there. There was quite a lot of feeling that we should "do something" about them before any of this happened. Now that we've started, I think we need to finish.

Bull-shit does walk tho Larry!


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Now that we've started I think we need to finish.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With a little help from our friends. I hope visiting there in 10 yrs. it's as friendly as Viet Namn. And forgivness. That has to come from both sides, in any conflict.

Bumper,
I didn't see your post until lunchtime, and probably won't have a more reasoned reply until tomorrow morning, 'cause there's no way to think about anything important at work--too many interruptions. Besides, if I got caught <u>thinking</u> at work, they'd start expecting it all the time!

Off the top of my head, though, I think we need to be sure the Afghanis are freed from the Taliban, no matter how it's done. And I hope the fate of every single Taliban member is determined by the women of that country when they are free to say what they think. More on this later.

Ceashel

--edited once for a typo by Ceashel

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Ceashel on Nov 01, 2001 ---</FONT></center>

Well, the US has had a bounty of $5M on Bin Laden for some time, and after the attacks, a German private citizen offered up $10M. No one has claimed any of that money yet.

Maybe more money would help, but from the profiles of the people involved, I doubt it.

As far as the Taliban....well, I too tend toward the "let other countries' sort out their own messes," at least when we can. But sometimes, morally, we can't stay out of it anymore. World War II was one such case - I wonder how many lives could have been saved if we had gotten involved sooner. And I've read that many of the death camp surviviors, when they were liberated, asked why we hadn't bombed the camps. They felt that it would have been better to lose some of those in the death camps...themselves included....than to have let the camps go on the way they were.

I think this is another case where we should be involved - that we can't turn our back on what is being done there.

If the stories of women being opressed, and of them being killed for very minor infractions doesn't move you, perhaps this will....


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001370005-2001380262,00.html

well, it certainly is coffee talk, Pat. and yet...
In reading what I posted, I erroneously left unsiad, the need for Taliban removal, andthe need to insure the human rights of all Afghanis, as well as the provision, of material & financial aid, to a post-Taliban Afghanistan.
Perhaps a Muslim summit, to identify what civil rights are, as defined by religious leaders, particulary for Muslim women, and, if those do not match those of the rest of the world, bust em!

Just speculating, I imagine our gov't would love to tell the Saudis et al. that they should use some of their disgustingly hugh piles of money to go after the terrorists and to relieve the problems of the people in Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., instead of expecting us to do it. But since we're the bastion of Free Enterprise and Your Own Bootstraps, they might be worried the idea would make it back over here and threaten our Rich. And then Woody's songs would be in the Top 10 or 100 and they'd have to deal with Populism or the S-word or something again, so they probably won't suggest it.

Surely--surely they are working on more than one level and are chasing down B-L and Al Quaeda in ways we don't know and never will know. But for that to be effective, they can't tell us. And we're back to the James Bond shit and government above the law. But to not go after them that way as well would be beyond stupid.

I think the women have to be part of planning the rebuilding. They have more than earned that right, and a summit of Moslem religious leaders wouldn't include them and couldn't begin to address civil rights for them. They should also be <u>well</u> represented on the juries when there are trials. That would not have to be a result of us imposing change on their religion, either. As happens in Christianity (!), their fundamentalists have twisted and misrepresented the teachings of Mohammed regarding women to further their own secular ends.

Last night we were watching the part of Band of Brothers where they get to a concentration camp, and we had to turn it off; what the Germans did was too much like what the Taliban's doing and we just couldn't watch it anymore. I just do not understand why everyone can't be left alone to tend their own vineyards in peace! Is that a childish and simplistic outburst? Yes. Are childish and simplistic bad?

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Ceashel on Nov 02, 2001 ---</FONT></center>

Since our own Pres. Shrub works best by saying and doing what advisors tell him to say and do, I think he'd been even more effective if he added a Blunderite Advisory Panel. We've already got a good start on what to say to him.

(See, Larry, I don't stop at telling Arlo what to do, I'm aiming for no less than telling Shrub what to do! Does this get me points toward my Bitch status? )

Been up half the night; time to get some . 'Night, all!

Oddly enough, it's not so far off from what the Saudi government has been saying through unofficial channels. They seem to be a little upset -- miffed, even -- that the US didn't allow (let alone request) that more be done directly and immediately by the Arab Emirates when it came to Bin Laden and the Taliban. It speaks well of their restraint that they aren't saying it through official channels, since a lot of the Arabic world is very obviously taking offense on the subject.

Before we get to what the US should "make" other countries do, I'm open to the idea of seeing what would happen if our government allowed for the possibility that other nations are quite capable of making the right decisions without being told (by us, naturally) what those decisions have to be. Should we be involved? Absolutely. But I do think that our government (and quite a few of our people) tend to be a bit on the arrogant, self-righteous, bossy side. Being involved doesn't necessarily have to mean taking over and running everything for everyone else. It can also mean providing back-up, and a host of other helpful actions. If we're going to help, let's make sure that what we're doing is actually helping, and not adding to the problem or creating it in the first place.

Playing the role of "big brother knows best" is little more than obnoxious, at best, when the siblings in question are already grown up and have lives of their own they're trying to live, as it were.

I'd say that our involvement (including our initial non-involvement) in WWII is a prime example of what's wrong with our foreign policy -- still. And the shame of it is that we still haven't learned anything from history, by the looks of it.

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by muffy on Nov 02, 2001 ---</FONT></center>

I was going to edit my last post rather heavily -- since it sounds brash, arrogant and bossy, even to me -- and that's not the tone I was looking for at all. Instead I'm going to post this -- uh -- disclaimer of sorts.

I love the posts that went before, and should have just said so, instead of ranting away on my own tangent. Some of what's there is OK, but some of it ... well, I got a little carried away, I guess. It wasn't meant to be an answer to the other posts, so much as my own viewpoint's extension of what was being said in them. As long as it's read as that, and not as a stand-alone... Otherwise, I'll just delete the whole thing. Which I'm also considering.

I should never, ever, write first thing in the morning. I have too much energy then.

Ceashell, that's exactly what's missing, in all this mess, child-like simplicity.
My concern is that the US is pretty short on credability, thruought the Mid-east, especially in Afghanistan, which may limit our success in "nation-building" Apparently we were willing to train & pay anyone who would aim weapons at Russia, including Bin Laden & the Taliban. Once Russia pulled out, so did we. I also am a bit skeptical, that our military & diplomatic interests there, aren't somehow co-mingled, with corporate interests in a future Afgnaistan.
I also believe those same corporate interests are downplaying the degree to which Saudi Arabia has fostered Bin Laden and his network, fianancially
I can't imagine a more desperate, abandonned feeling than that felt by Afgani women now....
too much Machevelian manuvering, too much "spin management" too much gender oppression as a means of maintaining power, too much nihilistic terror, couched in relgious fanaticsism
too little child-like simplicity

Muffy, I will sort of disclaim here, as well. I was more in a wishful thinking mode when saying what should be done, not meaning that we should really stomp in and run things by ourselves after it all. But I do also think part of our mistake after wwii was backing off too quickly and not pushing the notion that all of the people of a country should have a say in how it is run.

That post does come across as arrogant, self-righteous, and bossy. What can I say? I resemble that remark!

I wrestle with that too, sometimes, Muffy. I often read my posts, after posting them, & while I "agree" with what Iv'e written, i miss the ampliflication of inflection & supportive non-verbal communication.
My posts, often, read, as "lectures" as if I alone, have "answers". I do not! I have feelings, beliefs & intuitions...
My desire, is to share those, with others, to stimulate dialog, so that we, who choose to, remain, active and engaged & don't just "stew in our juices" as the world events unfold.
I value Arlo.net, as a place to engage this way, and am sad, about any restrictions, that may potentially limit the dialog