Subject:
|
Re: Hold your fire?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Oct 2001 15:36:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
270 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,564137,00.html
> >
> > Is (was?) this analysis correct? What do people think? Is today's action
> > likely to undermine any Taliban crumbling, or is it more of a "take out the
> > air defenses so the aid aircraft won't get shot down" that won't strengthen
> > Taliban resolve?
> >
> > I think it's an interesting article but I am not sure. I am also not sure
> > that a Northern Alliance led government is likely to be any less barbaric.
>
>
> Read around Larry, they are little better. They are know to rape women in
> the towns they capture.
<snip good ref material>
My point exactly. They're just different thugs, not necessarily *better* thugs.
If I had 4 choices:
1. do nothing and hope for the best.
2. politicoeconomic campaign that causes the Taliban to eventually fall (as
the Guardian was hinting was happening if we let it) but puts the NA in.
3. Limited military campaign that maybe captures some terrorist networks if
lucky, causes the Taliban to fall, uses few ground troops, but puts the NA in.
4. Much more extensive/expensive campaign that costs lots of ground troops
but results in a new democraticaly selected nation that doesn't contain
either the Taliban or the other thugs unless they were voted in.
(I think those basically (at that level of detail) are all the choices that
were available on Saturday, but I'm open to other choices if they exist)
I honestly don't know if I'd choose 2 or 4. I lean toward 4. 3, which I fear
is what we are embarked on, seems a rehash of the "don't quite do the
political job" Colin Powell approach to the Gulf War.
What would you choose, had you the power to choose?
Just so there's no confusion, that's a direct question which can be answered
with a digit 1-4 or "none of the above, my choice is X" followed by a crisp
definition of what X is. (I think giving it to the UN is kind of a "1")
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hold your fire?
|
| Hello Larry, (...) 2, even though I am NOT sure whether it actually will work. But maybe we are lucky and the current path of 3 turns out to be 4 with less military effort ;-) Greetings Horst (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hold your fire?
|
| (...) Read around Larry, they are little better. They are know to rape women in the towns they capture. More here: (URL) many Afghans are anxious to see an end to Taliban rule, they remain feaful about the prospect of a return of the Northern (...) (23 years ago, 8-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
