NP Afghanistan

[jbor]

millison at online-journalist.com wrote:

> rj/rjackson/jbor/?
>> Did you actually read what those leaflets which the U.S. planes dropped were
>> saying to the Afghani people? We're on their side.
> 
> I guess the people believe the bombs, not the leaflets.

Or, they believe the Taliban propaganda. The bombs are targetting military
installations. The people who have stayed in the cities realise this.

http://rawa.false.net/strikes.htm

They are still fearful, however, and understandably so. They don't have
access to the media reportage we do; and more start to believe the
propaganda every time a bomb goes astray. The pamphlets were a sincere
attempt to reassure the Afghanis, unlike the propaganda which the Taliban is
spreading, and which you constantly echo.

The situation since Sept. 11 is nothing like Vietnam.

> A cry
> went up around the world in the wake of September 11, begging the US not to
> pursue this kind of attack,

A considerably wider "cry" was going up for Afghanistan be nuked to
oblivion. *That* was the worry.

> given the fact that Afghanistan, one of the
> world's poorest countries, had already been devastated by more than two
> decades of war -- but Bush and his backers have persisted.

With admirable restraint, and just intent.

> Here's a more humane solution:  stop the bombing, start trucking in the aid
> in amounts that will prevent the humanitarian tragedy that is now in the
> making, send in peace-keepers as necessary to protect the refugees, foster
> a dialogue between the various parties in Afghanistan that want to form a
> new government, 

This is dependent on putting the Taliban down. Until that has been achieved
none of the rest can be done, but I agree wholeheartedly that this is what
should happen. The Taliban are stopping international aid workers from going
to the cities, and have commandeered existing supplies. There is no way that
they are going to willingly enter "into a dialogue" about forming a new
government. Surely this obvious?

> continue investigation and police action as necessary to
> bring to justice 

What is meant by "police action"? Who are these "police"? Isn't it just a
euphemism for military intervention from outside? Isn't this just what the
international coalition is attempting to do???

> (and not the summary execution in the field that the Bush
> Administration is said to favor)

Always with the innuendoes and passive voice manipulations: "is said to
favor" ... By whom? By you, that's who.

> the perpetrators of the Sep 11 attacks and
> the perpetrators of the anthrax terrorism.

It may yet turn out that the two things are not connected. If so, there
could be a whole 'nother "situation" after this one. But I agree with you,
and I think that the solutions you've proposed are pretty much in line with
what is happening.

best