AC
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 02:27:11 +0100, "David Flood" <NOSPAMmaoltuile@utvinternet.ie>wrote:

David Flood
"AC" <spam@nospam.com>wrote in message news:3cba28bb.19174921@news2.randori.com...

AC
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 01:06:39 +0100, "David Flood" <NOSPAMmaoltuile@utvinternet.ie>wrote:

David Flood
"AC" <spam@nospam.com>wrote in message news:3cba15df.14347500@news2.randori.com...

AC
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:03:55 +0100, "David Flood" <NOSPAMmaoltuile@utvinternet.ie>wrote:

David Flood
Whatever happened to the point of the war in Afghanistan?

AC
The Taliban are shattered, Al Qaeda seriously crippled. That was

point. Now it is just trying to preserve an interim government to:

a) Give the Afghanis even a small chance to build a civil society. b) Prevent the lunatics from regaining control and again start

international terrorists.

David Flood
Al'Qaeda's top men appear to have gotten away , and God only knows

resources they have available to them, or who the next target country

might

be (unguarded Russian nuclear stockpiles, anyone?).

AC
Oh yes, the nuclear bogey man.

David Flood
This is no laughing-matter. Are you *completely* unaware of

affairs, and of how bad a condition Russia's military is in?

AC
Not completely. However, building a nuclear device isn't quite as easy as some journalists have tried to intimate. Otherwise, Saddam would have had the capacity years ago.

Perhaps you're right. We should have left the Afghani people to be terrorized by murderers so that the problem would be contained.

David Flood
Well... I hate to have to point this out, but GWB & Co. obviously didn't give a shit about how fundamentalist or murderous the Taliban were, pre-Sept. 11th.

AC
Funny, I seem to remember Clinton launching missiles at them, so somebody in Washington cared.

David Flood
In fact, I believe from several mainstream news sources that a Taliban delegation was flown to the US by the Bush administration to discuss an important new pipeline route across Afghanistan, the month before the

Towers attack.

AC
Please cite the sources. The pipe line rumor has been circulated around, but I have yet to see anybody come up with something concrete.

David Flood
I think we can safely assume (after all that effort) that they 'wined and dined' them, and didn't spoil the intended effect by mentioning

little things like disapproval of their religious nutter fundamentalism

their casual attitude to killing women.

AC
So, what is your position on the destruction of the Taliban regime?

David Flood
Meanwhile, GWB appears to be intent on linking Muslim fundamentalist terrorism to Iraq, to justify another oil war.

AC
Uh huh. Perhaps he will do what his old man should have done and tossed good old Saddam out of power. I can't imagine Saudi Arabia being none too sad about his departure.

David Flood
Or Iran, to which he acts as a buffer of secularism. That is, after all, what endeared him to the Reagan/Bush administration during all those long fun-lovin', genocidal years before he got too greedy for his own good.

Saudi Arabia, btw, being another deeply unpleasant 'state' which will undoubtedly go 'rogue' sometime in the future as well - the inevitable result of supporting King Fahd and the rest of his despotic family, who

really *quite* comfortable promoting militant Islam, you should know.

AC
All nasty, no doubt about it. But when Hussein decided he was going to create his own personal Arab empire, I don't think too many people had a choice. Besides, I thought that annexing sovereign states was bad.

David Flood
The reality of these selfsame Muslim fundamentalists probably being

as

eager to do Saddam 'in' is something that people ought to consider,

pondering this new Bush policy direction.

AC
So, we should leave Saddam in place?

David Flood
America doesn't seem to have a problem with ruthless dictators _per se_, only ones who come to impinge on "vital strategic interests". I think

should ponder why *this* one, above all others, overnight went from 'our sonofabitch' to an obsession for oilmen Presidents named Bush.

AC
To discount oil is extraordinarily foolish. It is the center of the world economy, whether you particularly like it or not. But I suppose you think it was right and proper for Hussein to invade and annex a sovereign state.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Iraq did gain control of even more oil.

What exactly is your policy on Islamists? What would you have done?

David Flood
You mean, of course, "Islamic fundamentalist terrorists" rather than

as such (I hope). Killing them won't solve the problem: it never does, you'll simply create more by your actions. The only policy which stands

snowball's chance of success is to address the *genuine* grievances of

Muslim world, such as your support of nasty, dictatorial regimes and kingships.

AC
IslamISTs, you know, extremist Muslims. And if you believe that IslamISTs will create some Muslim utopia then you're living in a dream world.

David Flood
And then of course, you could also *actually* become an honest broker in Palestine, rather than pursuing the policy of propping up Israel simply

regional proxy for American power. This won't get rid of all the terrorists, but it'll leave them with miniscule support, which is what'll truly beat them in the end.

AC
The problems are helluva lot deeper than Israel. There have been problems in the region since the Ottoman Empire collapsed (and, counting the Wahabi, even further back).

David Flood
I'm offering this advice for gratis, free; as someone who's done a lot of long study on the subject (in an Irish context), and observed a number of current and former paramilitaries at close hand and heard their 'philosophies' at length.

AC
Ah yes, everything resembles Ireland.