We can't fix Islam, and we sure aren't required either morally or legally to rebuild Afghanistan or to ignore it when it is controlled or is harboring people who want to kill Americans. The Afghans have a female general over there now. She's an ex-communist or maybe a current communist; if the former, good for her, if the latter, she's probably useless, but she's a general nonetheless. Afghans have some women in their equivalent to our congress. Women and girls are able to go back to school as students or as teachers now and widows are able to work in Afghanistan and provide for their families, something the Taliban didn't allow. . They can leave their homes to go to the market without an escort. There are still problems but only a fool would think that things are 'still the same.' There is food now and with law and order on the rise there is more opportunity for them to become self-sufficient again and not require massive infusions of US food.
Nothing is better now.
Millions of smiling Afghans prove you are wrong. Granted, it would be better is there was no such thing as Islam, but we can't change their religion by force and we can't give them the benefit, overnight, of hundreds of years of western thought on the subject of individual liberty, so it is up to them to figure it out We can only give them the freedom to choose freedom. If they make a mistake and choose not to accept freedom, they have only themselves to blame from here on.
Wasn´t this only a senseless strik full of revenge?
No.
Thoise kinds of have laid waste to Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the place would hadropped a nuNUKED The US doesn't act out of revenge. We act because strecgth prevents more violence.
Obviously we don't act against Afghanistan out of revenge. If we were interested in something as silly as revenge, we would not have sent special forces to do surgical strikes and would not have risked our own troops trying to keep the damage limited to just the bad guys. If we wanted 'revenge' we would have used nuclear weapons and Kabul, Pakistan, Syria, Iran and so on would no longer exist. And everyone would be stunned and afraid; they would keep their mouths shut with no whining from Europeans... the Europeans would instead be tripping all over themselves to get on our good side and would beg for their lives and our goodwill just as they cowered to the Nazis decades ago. They'd probably even offer us their European first-born as a sacrifice. (Jews first, in European tradition, of course...) If we were after revenge we wouldn't have bothered with getting the Northern Alliance to join up with us, we wouldn't have bothered to fly in tons upon tons of food to feed people, we wouldn't have bothered to help them set up a functioning Afghan government to reestablish some semblance of order, and we wouldn't have bothered with putting troops in harm's way when we have the ability to turn the entire country into a shiny glass parking lot. .
Who would we take revenge on in Afghanistan, anyway? The country wasn't ruled by Afghans- it was ruled by Pakistanis and Arabs who were occupying Afghanistan against the will of the Afghan people. We get our 'revenge' from killing any al Qaeda who don't surrender and if we add Arafat and the PLO and Hamas and Hezbollah to the list that's OK with me too. BUt if we were getting revenge we wouldn't be taking prisoners, letting the Red Cross talk to them, and we wouldn't be feeding them halal meals or 'Froot Loops' children's cereal or fretting about whether their butts are pointed the right way when they pray. To say things 'have not changed' in Afghanistan though, is simply ridiculous.
Aparently not. People assume that because the US helped Afghans fight the Russians back when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, that we must have trained EVERYONE who fought the Russians. This is not true. We did train many Arabs as well as Afghans to fight the USSR, but I've seen no proof nor had reason to believe that bin Laden was one of them. Bin Laden already despised Americans by that time and he wanted nothing to do with the US even then - the feeling was mutual. His connections may have been useful, though- or maybe not. Bin Laden was funded by Saudis and other Arab countries and by his own dad's ample resources; he was a follower of Azzam, a Palestinian cleric, and his people for the most part trained with them, which is another reason why the Palestinians are so intertwined with this current conflict. Azzam to be sure found recruits in America, but he too was always anti-American and always preached against the US even while he was within it. He made good use of american tolerance for speech, even speech against America. Bin Laden was a financier, not a fighter and he did not require military training to be a financier. It seems pretty clear that he didn't have western training at all since he couldn't even hold his gun correctly. (He holds nothing but dirt, now.) Bin Laden did, however, value good training and his group recommended that its people seek out training wherever they could find it, either privately or by joining militaries both in the middle east and in Europe and the US. This would be true of any agents of espionage since it is most useful to know one's enemy from first hand experience. as a result, a number of al Qaeda members had joined if only for a short time, the US armed forces.
6. The Taliban were good enough for keeping th >>MUllahs<< in Teheran silent for biulding a pipeline for America,
I have no idea what you're talking about now. The Taliban didn't get along with the Mullahs in Iran and indeed, the mullahs in Iran tried to assassinate the Taliban Mullah Omar with a very large car bomb back in the late 1990s, so I don't think they really like one another. Traditionally, Wahhabbists and Shiiites don't get along, although in my opinion they will make temporary alliances when they seek to fight something they hate more than each other, like the US or Israel, or the Russians. There is no Iranian 'pipeline for America' nor was there a Taliban-Afghan 'pipeline for America' either, so I think you are just reading propaganda off of some French web site or from that assinine French book that was published recently. It has addled your brain.
so the Talibans were supported by the government in the USA.
Nope. The Clinton administration tried over and over again to get the Taliban to turn over bin Laden. They probably offered the Taliban some incentives but in any case, they were rebuffed, as bin Laden was never turned over to the US and the Taliban were never sufficiently afraid of Bill Clinton to risk turning bin Laden over; they were more afraid of bin Laden. And for good reason since Clinton was a coward without the will to risk his political career to do the right thing and bin Laden was willing to to kill people he didn't get along with.
The Taliban's closest buddy was Pakistan and their next best friend was the PRC, otherwise known as the People's Republic of China. The PRC and the Taliban were in negotiations at the time of the attack on New York, which is one reason we found so much Chinese material hidden in those caves over there. Did you forget about that? The PRC was also deeply involved in Pakistan during the time of the Taliban and were involved in improving the main highway that leads from the Chinese border to a port on the Indian Ocean to which China very much wanted access.
Europe and China have a much greater interest in natural gas and other fuels in that part of the world than the US ever would in oil from there. We get the bulk of our oil from Venezuela. Venezuela, for those who aren't familiar with it, is in the WESTERN hemisphere and we don't need any Iranian or Afghan pipeline to get to it any more than we would need and Iranian or Afghan pipeline to get to ANWR in Alaska. The pipeline myth sounds good to those who dislike America because it implies that the US is morally equivalent to everyone else's countries- but it just doesn't hold water.
What do you think about that?
7. Robert Dole said, that there´s only one reason, that the Americans want to bomb Saddam: OIL. Is that true? I thin it is?
I have not heard Bob Dole say any such thing, and I've heard him discuss Iraq recently and he said no such thing then. Care to provide a valid SOURCE for your information?
The US's interest in Iraq certainly has nothing to do with the US 'getting' Iraqi oil- the US has never taken any country, nor expressed any interest in taking any country to get its oil. Were that true, Iraq would have been made a US state back around 1992 and Saudi Arabia and Iran would have been part of our union for a long time. If you want to see who is interested in Iraqi oil, you would have to look to Europe for the answer. Iraq sells most of its oil to places like Germany and France, which may very well explain why Germany and France are willing to let Saddam use mustard and VX gas on his fellow Iraqis, specifically, the Kurds. After all, the Germans have gassed people before - even their own citizens, so should we be shocked to find out that Germans are willing to turn the other cheek while more people get gassed by an evil dictator? And the French have willingly sided with the Germans who gassed Jews and dissenters and experimented or conducted vivisections on living people in order to save their own sorry French butts. Remember Vichy France, so willing to sell even their own kin down the line to be loaded onto cattle cars? So I would expect a German or a Frenchman to be all for supporting Saddam Hussein in gassing Kurds and enemies of the state...particularly when Saddam Hussein's nuclear program is such a good customer for German centrifuges, employs German technicians, and particularly when Iraq buys so many French weapons. Yes indeed, the French and Germans have a lot to lose if we take out Saddam Hussein. Heck, in a few more years France and Germany will be Muslim countries anyway so it's best not to offend your own kin, right?