posted 11-14- 01:02 PM            

Hopefully we can get aid in there now, before winter sets in. Hopefully a Government can be formed from the people which also believes in liberty and tolerance.

posted 11-14- 01:30 PM               

I like seeing the guys shaving their beards... but after seeing some of them, maybe they should leave their beards on... WHOAAA!

posted 11-14- 11:18 PM               

I am happy for those folks who feel liberated and free now to express themselves, but it may be a bit soon for them to celebrate. And there is still the small matter of getting the guy we went there to get.

posted 11-15- 12:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by nealg:
I'm sure greater minds than mine have already taken this into consideration, but it's been my thinking that a retreating enemy that doesn't surrender can be a very dangerous enemy.

---

Like the Iraqi army on the highway of death?

posted 11-15- 12:58 AM               

I tend to disagree with you Jerry, before the Gulf War Iraq had one of the biggest mechanized armies in the world (4th largest, I believe). Even if most of the equipment was a couple decades out of date, it was still more 'modern' than Datsuns with RPGs mounted on the back. I'm sure the bombing will take out heavy pieces and the odd Taliban tank, but frankly I think their strength lies in the number of otherwise indistinguishable Afghans with Kalashnikovs in their ranks. Look how few armed Palestinians it takes to keep destabilizing the peace process in the Middle East, and they don't have the cave infrastructure. When I hear about the number and complexity of the caves in Afghanistan, I can't help but think they must be like the NVA/VC tunnels, deluxe-style.

Werner

posted 11-15- 03:45 AM               

My memory of Desert Storm may be a bit faulty, but I think by the time the 'highway of death' incidents occurred, quite a bit of the Iraqi 'army' had already surrendered. I may be mistaken, though. I tend to relegate Desert Storm to a different type of war altogether, as we never went after the enemy 'base' in full force. In a way, I am glad for our military personnel sometimes that we didn't go on to Bagdad - it might have gotten very ugly, and might still be going on.

But as I said, I am sure better minds than mine have already considered it. I would hope there is a way to neutralize the Taliban completely, but if there is, it might be very difficult. I just don't want to see people's joy turn to sorrow, as I am sure there are plenty of decent people in Afghanistan who sorely deserve to have this yoke lifted. To know that it can't be put back, then is reason to really celebrate.

But mainly, to know that this first strike at terrorism is hard enough to send a message to all of them would be a great reason to celebrate. Somehow, I don't feel that has been accomplished yet. So, I tend to be a bit cautious.

posted 11-15- 10:15 AM               

Well, in other news they've put the PPCLI (my city's regiment, until they got moved to save money) on 48 hours notice, 1000 troops in all. The word "Peacekeeping" or derivations thereof haven't crossed the lips of anyone in Ottawa either, so it looks like they could be joining troops from the UK, Denmark and elsewhere in some sort of police action.

Werner

posted 11-15- 12:26 PM               

Now everyone is complaining about how dangerous they are when retreating and hiding in the hills. If they are reduced to a handfull of guerillas hiding in caves with no popular support, who cares? Untill we get bin Laden, the caves are going to be targets so let them suffer the consequences.

After letting Iraq off the hook, I don't think the US is going to let them run away with all their weapons to start another war later. If nothing else, we want to show other governments what will happen to them if they continue supporting terrorism. My guess is that we will make an example of the Taliban for all the world to see.

Did anyone read Clancy's book about the ebola attack on the US? Remember what happened to the bin Laden type guy behind the whole thing? Let's just say his end wasn't covert, the whole world was watching. Same thing here. Mark my words.

posted 11-15- 07:25 PM               

As for Iraq... It serves our strategic interest as Middle-East-oil-dependant Western countries to have Saddam in his little cage where we can toss a few bombs at him every couple of weeks and have a perennial bad guy in the area so the fence-sitters like Saudi Arabia stay on side. As brutal as it is to say it, from a strategic point of view we need Iraq as a whipping boy more than we need it for oil. I think a better solution would be to become more self-sufficient for oil instead of relying on those countries as much as we do, because on the long term that kind of policy is what leads to the Osama bin Ladens of the world. The trouble with knocking off Saddam is that none of the people who would replace him are any better... better the devil you know than the devil you don't. As for our oil dependence, the Oilsands in the Athabaska region for instance, hold more oil than all of Saudi's reserves. Trouble is they're a bit harder to access, but companies like Shell and Suncor are changing that.

Werner

posted 11-15- 08:14 PM            

We will have to live with a residual level of terrorism from groups too small to notice before they act. This could come from a Mosque in Jersey City, an apartment building in Berlin, or a cave in Afgahnistan.