NP Afghanistan (Was Re: _GR_, 2001

[jbor]

[Though Quail has already covered the rebuttal thoroughly, I'll still
forward my reply to your arguments.]

tiarnan.o'corrain at cmg.nl wrote:

>> Jbor wrote:
>> 
>> Doug, it was the Taliban who refused to negotiate. The U.S.
>> simply asked
>> that Osama be turned over, which was a reasonable demand.
> 
> And the Taliban simply asked for evidence that Bin Laden was
> involved in the Sept 11 attacks. An eminently reasonable request.

By the time that Osama's right hand man was saying "There will be more plane
attacks" not even Al Qaeda was using this defence.

>> That the Taliban
>> refused to accede to this request, made on several separate occasions
>> through various diplomatic initiatives, proved the regime's
>> complicity.
> 
> Incorrect. That the United States refused to supply a shred of
> evidence indicates that they don't have any. A sovereign nation,
> no matter how obnoxious (the Taliban, the USA, take your pick)
> doesn't extradite someone without being given good reasons.

They certainly supplied enough evidence to convince the other world leaders.
Is your point that Osama is not the chief suspect? If so, what is your
proof? Who else should we be (more) concerned about?
 
>> They declared war on the U.S., after all.
> 
> Who did? Where's the declaration of war?

Public announcements of war were made, both by Osama and the Taliban.
 
>> Had the Taliban handed over Osama then no military action
>> against them would have occurred.
> 
> Not so sure. That Caspian Sea sure is full of oil.

So you see it as the U.S. using the bombings of September 11 as a covert
imperialist gambit to procure oil fields that they have never before had
anything to do with? How, exactly, does that work, particularly considering
the fact that Afghanistan doesn't border the Caspian Sea, nor does the
Taliban have any control over the oil fields there?
 
>> That would have been a great pity, because the Taliban
>> leaders are monsters, and by putting them down the West is
>> doing the Afghani people a huge favour.
> 
> Indeed. The Afghans would probably be happier without the
> Taliban, under the peaceful rule of the Mujahadeen, when songbirds
> sang in verdant fields and little fauns dipped their ivory hooves
> in plashing rills.

Who said anything about reinstating the Mujahadeen? Did you also know that
before 11/9 one in four of the world's refugees was Afghani.

> I'm sure the Afghans are *very* grateful to the US for this kind
> favour.

Sarcasm isn't a solution.
 
> Tiarnan