btw, kurdish guy, one possible situation is that the yanks give up on holding all of iraq, and settle for remaining in 'kurdistan', where they will be 'welcome'. inviting prospect, huh?

then the yanks discover wmd in syria and lebanon, and tie together their client states from iran to egypt. ah, to be a kurd- every time is 'interesting times'.

VKUA33,

Is it any wonder the left is falling to pieces when you're response to the legitimate points raised in my criticism is personal slander.

Truly, debate my points, ignore them altogether, don't waste your post with a silly, pointless comment.

It only reveals that either you:

(a) can't argue

(b) know it's the truth, or

(c) are angry because your a religious leftist

Whatever it is, argue against my points or not at all. You do your insane cause no good by responding in such a juvenile way.

Try arguing against the logic in one of my statements. Are you ignorant of the severe persecution Christians - although it's the same for all non-Muslims, face on a daily basis?

Do you really think to report on this brutal treatment is racist to Muslims? Isn't it racist to ignore the racism of Islamists?

It's all about education. Learn about Islam, learn about it from their sources, their holy books.

Don't take my word for it.

Be sceptical of Muslims who ask you to read what Islam is by a non-Muslim too, such as the vile Karen Armstrong, an ex-nun who so hates the church she supports supremacist Islamic dogma, beginning with the classic 'it's a religion of peace'.......just as in 1984 'war is peace'....

Learn yourself.

Xoddam,

It is extreme cynicism to suggest that the war in Afghanistan was about central Asian gas and oil. Get off your high horse. Afghanistan was harboring and refused to give up al Qaeda, the group which murdered over 3000 innocent people in one morning. Al Qaeda terrorist training camps were set up all over the country. These people declared war on the US and by extension the west. The Afghans were give a chance to give these people up and chose not to. It seems that the Afghan people are not all that sad to see them go.

... had to wait a few hours before being allowed to post again.

Paul L says my post is cynical to claim that attacking Afghanistan was to secure resources rather than wreak revenge. For anyone to suggest that it was done purely for the sake of escalating violence seems -- to me -- even more cynical (on the part of the commentator).

Military deployments *are* cynical, and always have been; the only exceptions are when you're defending your own territory from an immediate threat. The Bush/Cheney administration is a little more cynical than most, and a little more obsessive about petroleum resources than most.

To be fair (to Bush and Paul L alike), attacking Afghanistan was not really necessary to ensure the pipeline; the contracts were as good as signed in 1997 but (allegedly partly due to "pressure from women's groups") the major American player Unocal had withdrawn.

It was part of Cheney's brief to resurrect the deal, and military action was one option considered -- and chosen, when the opportunity arose to sell a war to the public. A petroleum industry representative was duly installed at the head of the puppet government.

Attacking Afghanistan was not at all necessary for obtaining the head of bin Laden; the Taliban offered in September 2001 to extradite him to Pakistan.

To suggest that the Afghan people are happy the Taliban are gone is pretty presumptuous on your own part. No doubt some are, but others certainly aren't. Before and after the rule of the Taliban, Afghanistan was riven by warfare the proxy armies of foreign powers and by warlords, exploiting ethnic differences and blood vendettas while giving the country nothing. The little islands defended by the US Army do nothing to help the populace as a whole.

The Taliban were vicious Islamist fundamentalists; under their rule Afghanistan was a medieval country where girls weren't allowed to go to school. But it was, for seven brief years, a medieval country at peace, in contrast to the 15 years before and the six years since when it has been a general bloodbath.

Oxddam,
You can call it revenge or escalation of violence if you need to use emotive terms but the invasion of Afghanistan, whilst it met other objectives, was necessary for two reasons. To deny a safe harbour to an enemy who had declared war on the US/west by driving them from the country. This wasn’t tit for tat retaliation but an attempt to make the US and its allies more secure. And two, to show the enemies of the west that military action was the inescapable consequence of attacks of this nature.

The offer by the Taliban to give up Osama Bin Laden came very late and it seems likely to me that that it was a delaying tactic and that it was never intended at all. The Nth Vietnamese and their Communist backers won the war at the negotiating table by practicing the talk and fight strategy. Even Sadam Hussein tried it. Even assuming the surrender of Osama was in good faith this would hardly have dismantled Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Are you really suggesting that the attacks of September 11 2001 were received in the Whitehouse as a great opportunity to finally sign an oil deal.

I also take exception to the claim that Afghanistan has been a bloodbath for the past six years. Casualties in Afghanistan are small when compared with the war in Iraq. Sometimes it is necessary to fight for things which are important. Violence should never be the first option but nor should we shy away from it when circumstances dictate. The possibility of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan seem achievable when held against a similar aim in Iraq.

Benjamin, you said "I believe the war on terror is really a war on fanatical Islam, and rightly so."

I agree with the first part, but I am not too sure about the rest.

Then you said, "Pakistan, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, all need to be brought into this war."

Whose side do you think they should be on?

Looks like you want to embark on the Fourth Crusade. I might remind you that on the Third Crusade, Richard got to within sight of the walls of Jerusalem and then decided that he didn't have the resources to continue, so he made a pragmatic decision and went home. I suspect that is about the situation where George Bush currently finds himself, and if he has any brains (which is debatable) he and the "Coalition of the Willing" will retire gracefully.

David