Terrorized by 'War on Terror'

[ScottSA]

Do you think that there was any chance that a Taliban government would have extradited Bin Laden from Afghanistan?

Yes, I do.

In fact it was offered.

Link Please?

[M.Dancer]

There was a hardneresque kind of offer...one that was designed not to be accepted.

[DogOnPorch]

Yeah...I seem to recall that Taliban mouthpiece being anything but cooperative re: handing over Bin Laden.

------------------------------------------------

A lot of holes in the desert, and a lot of problems are buried in those holes. But you gotta do it right. I mean, you gotta have the hole already dug before you show up with a package in the trunk. Otherwise, you're talking about a half-hour to forty-five minutes worth of digging. And who knows who's gonna come along in that time? Pretty soon, you gotta dig a few more holes. You could be there all f**kin' night.

---Nicky Santoro: Joe Pesci, Casino.

[kuzadd]

Do you think that there was any chance that a Taliban government would have extradited Bin Laden from Afghanistan?

Yes, I do.

In fact it was offered.

Link Please?

Just for you!

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/stor...,573975,00.html

U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret....iban/index.html

October 7, 2001 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Sunday rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to try suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan under Islamic law.

no offer would be acceptable, when the attacking party wants/needs/ hungers/drools /obsesses for war.

ANY offer would have been deemed unacceptable.

[ScottSA]

The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, made the offer at a news conference in Islamabad. Zaeef said the Taliban would detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the United States makes a formal request and presents them with evidence.

That's not an offer.

[Wilber]

The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, made the offer at a news conference in Islamabad. Zaeef said the Taliban would detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the United States makes a formal request and presents them with evidence.

That's not an offer.

It certainly isn't. Here is the country which sheltered him and allowed him to operate his training camps offering to try him for crimes committed in and against other countries. A real offer would be to have him tried in Holland by an international court like the Lockerbie bombers.

[M.Dancer]

The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, made the offer at a news conference in Islamabad. Zaeef said the Taliban would detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the United States makes a formal request and presents them with evidence.

That's not an offer.

It certainly isn't. Here is the country which sheltered him and allowed him to operate his training camps offering to try him for crimes committed in and against other countries. A real offer would be to have him tried in the Holland by an international court like the Lockerbie bombers.

That is an offer to ...try him....not extradite him. The first offer was an offer to dicuss extraditing him after the US hands over all the evidence....to in fact, the regime complicit in the crime.

There wasn't an iota of a chance that the TAleban would hand Ladin over. He had just did the Taleban a big favour by ordering a suicide attack on the leader of the Northern Allaince

[kuzadd]

The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, made the offer at a news conference in Islamabad. Zaeef said the Taliban would detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the United States makes a formal request and presents them with evidence.

That's not an offer.

whatever, there was an offer, you weren't even aware of. sheesh.

Any offer would have been rejected, irregardless!

The US WANTED to invade Afghanistan, just like the US WANTED to invade Iraq, and would have/ DID use any means to accomplish it.

That is the simplest, plainest and most obvious FACT.

as I already stated :

no offer would be acceptable, when the attacking party wants/needs/ hungers/drools /obsesses for war.

ANY offer would have been deemed unacceptable."

therefore anything else you or i would have to say, is irrelevant, the US wanted to attack, NO MATTER WHAT

(capitalized for emphasis)

[obsidian]

Zbigniew Brzezinski is a hypocrite. The creators of the New American Century cite "The Grand Chessboard" as part of their inspiration for PNAC. Although his article contains true information, which needs to get out, it goes with what he said needs to be done. Brzezinski said that America needs to secure geopolitical assets to maintain its hegemony, and that's exactly what they're doing.

[Canadian Blue]

whatever, there was an offer, you weren't even aware of. sheesh.

Any offer would have been rejected, irregardless!

The US WANTED to invade Afghanistan, just like the US WANTED to invade Iraq, and would have/ DID use any means to accomplish it.

That is the simplest, plainest and most obvious FACT.

as I already stated :

no offer would be acceptable, when the attacking party wants/needs/ hungers/drools /obsesses for war.

ANY offer would have been deemed unacceptable."

therefore anything else you or i would have to say, is irrelevant, the US wanted to attack, NO MATTER WHAT

(capitalized for emphasis)

Afghanistan was a justified invasion, and it was sanctioned by the UN. This wasn't merely due to the fact the US wanted Afghanistan to become another American puppet state. Iraq was unjustified, and in general, I'd agree that it has proven to be a waste of lives, resources, and time. The US should have concentrated on getting the job done in Afghanistan, and have accomplished nothing from occupying Iraq.

[GostHacked]

Canadian Blue

Afghanistan was a justified invasion, and it was sanctioned by the UN. This wasn't merely due to the fact the US wanted Afghanistan to become another American puppet state. Iraq was unjustified, and in general, I'd agree that it has proven to be a waste of lives, resources, and time. The US should have concentrated on getting the job done in Afghanistan, and have accomplished nothing from occupying Iraq.

100% agreed on this one. Iraq is a distraction and a debacle for the war on terror. Afghanistan should have been worked on until the job was done before starting a bigger useless job.

[kuzadd]

whatever, there was an offer, you weren't even aware of. sheesh.

Any offer would have been rejected, irregardless!

The US WANTED to invade Afghanistan, just like the US WANTED to invade Iraq, and would have/ DID use any means to accomplish it.

That is the simplest, plainest and most obvious FACT.

as I already stated :

no offer would be acceptable, when the attacking party wants/needs/ hungers/drools /obsesses for war.

ANY offer would have been deemed unacceptable."

therefore anything else you or i would have to say, is irrelevant, the US wanted to attack, NO MATTER WHAT

(capitalized for emphasis)

Afghanistan was a justified invasion, and it was sanctioned by the UN. This wasn't merely due to the fact the US wanted Afghanistan to become another American puppet state. Iraq was unjustified, and in general, I'd agree that it has proven to be a waste of lives, resources, and time. The US should have concentrated on getting the job done in Afghanistan, and have accomplished nothing from occupying Iraq.

why in your opinion was Afghanistan a justified invasion??

Because it was UN sanctioned?

"This wasn't merely due to the fact the US wanted Afghanistan to become another American puppet state."

I am going to disagree with you, that is exactly what the US wanted, hence the need to invade and occupy.

The whole thing with OBL is BS, to invade an entire country, for one man, whom , BTW is still free, CLEARLY demonstrates OBL was not the priority, only the excuse.

The US has rid themselves of "persona non grata" previously, numerous times, WITHOUT, invasion and occupation, vis a vis ASSASSINATION. THEREFORE, the only rational realistic reason the US invaded Afghanistan and occupied, was because that was the intent all along.Same as Iraq.

( end of story)

[bush_cheney2004]

100% agreed on this one. Iraq is a distraction and a debacle for the war on terror. Afghanistan should have been worked on until the job was done before starting a bigger useless job.

If such a high priority, why didn't Canada "work harder" on Afghanistan?

The USA is also in Korea, Japan, Italy, and Germany after more than 50 years. Didn't take any "three word mantra".

[Canadian Blue]

If such a high priority, why didn't Canada "work harder" on Afghanistan?

Because Canada doesn't have a military budget as large as the American's.

America also has much more manpower than the Canadian Forces if you didn't know.

[Catchme]

100% agreed on this one. Iraq is a distraction and a debacle for the war on terror. Afghanistan should have been worked on until the job was done before starting a bigger useless job.

If such a high priority, why didn't Canada "work harder" on Afghanistan?

The USA is also in Korea, Japan, Italy, and Germany after more than 50 years.

Canada should not have been anywhere near Afghanistan either.

The USA has bases in Italy and Germany, and is not actually "there" occupying or preventing war.

Japan and the US have completed a multi-billion dollar deal to get some of the 50,000 or so American troops out of Japan.

They're calling it a historic agreement – a 'roadmap' for the two countries' future military co-operation.

That includes missile defence shields, joint military bases, and a bigger role for Japanese troops in international missions.

As Shane McLeod reports, both at home and in the surrounding region, the plan has plenty of critics.

SHANE MCLEOD: In the agreement it was the big ticket item. The plan to move 8,000 US marines and their families out of Japan's island of Okinawa was also one of the main sticking points.

The problem was paying for it – an estimated price tag of $10 billion was something Japan didn't want to get left with.

After insisting it wouldn't pay any more than half, Japan eventually compromised and accepted around 60 per cent of the bill, just in time for regular talks in Washington between the foreign and defence ministers of both countries.

US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: We have no better friend than Japan. We share most of all values. But increasingly we share global responsibilities as well.

Yep no better friend than Japan, that's why they got 40k worth of military there!

[bush_cheney2004]

Because Canada doesn't have a military budget as large as the American's.

America also has much more manpower than the Canadian Forces if you didn't know.

Nice try....but regardless of force size, why didn't Canada commit more of it to Afghanistan if so important compared to Iraq? Where were the tactical aircraft (CF-18s)? Why ony 2,000 - 2,500 troops, and only after NATO rotation, from a force structure of about 62,000 active and 27,000 reserve?

If one uses such logic, be prepared for hard questions.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada should not have been anywhere near Afghanistan either.

The USA has bases in Italy and Germany, and is not actually "there" occupying or preventing war.

Shoulda...coulda...woulda...Canada is there fulfilling its obligation as a member of NATO.

False....they are "there" to prevent war and facilitate war. Example: Aviano Air Base was used to pound Serbia during NATO's Allied Force in 1999.....Canada purchased bombs from the American depot with Ottawa's credit card. OTOH, 30,000 troops in Korea have effectively stalemated the DPRK.

[Canadian Blue]

Nice try....but regardless of force size, why didn't Canada commit more of it to Afghanistan if so important compared to Iraq? Where were the tactical aircraft (CF-18s)? Why ony 2,000 - 2,500 troops, and only after NATO rotation, from a force structure of about 62,000 active and 27,000 reserve?

Well first of all, the Canadian military is stretched to the limit right now. We usually find ways of spending money on stuff other than a ray gun. But to say that 2000 to 2,500 troops isn't that big of a deal is fairly disingenuous when looking at the big picture. It also doesn't take into account the rotation's our troops have done.

As for the reserves, it is a part time force, and serving on a tour is usually voluntary.

You can't really compare the Canadian Forces to the American Military. America will always have more resources, however they should have stayed in Afghanistan. I don't really know what point there was to Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well first of all, the Canadian military is stretched to the limit right now. We usually find ways of spending money on stuff other than a ray gun. But to say that 2000 to 2,500 troops isn't that big of a deal is fairly disingenuous when looking at the big picture. It also doesn't take into account the rotation's our troops have done.

As for the reserves, it is a part time force, and serving on a tour is usually voluntary.

You can't really compare the Canadian Forces to the American Military. America will always have more resources, however they should have stayed in Afghanistan. I don't really know what point there was to Iraq.

The point, which you choose to ignore, is obvious. It has nothing to do with force levels. One cannot credibly criticize the Americans for not throwing all available resources into Aghanistan while not willing to do the same, regardless of force levels. Canadian Forces have demonstrated capability and resolve in Afghanistan, but the political leadership has been no more committed than the Americans, even taking time to whack some Haitians.

[Canadian Blue]

How do you propose the Canadian Forces up the ante in Afghanistan. First of all, there are alot of people who still need to be trained, and if they are to be deployed require pre-deployment training. Second we still require a number of troops to still be within Canada in case anything happens, not to mention personnel who can handle any administrative functions and day to day business.

If you can tell us how to send more soldiers to Afghanistan without burning out members of the Canadian military I'm all ears...

[bush_cheney2004]

How do you propose the Canadian Forces up the ante in Afghanistan. First of all, there are alot of people who still need to be trained, and if they are to be deployed require pre-deployment training. Second we still require a number of troops to still be within Canada in case anything happens, not to mention personnel who can handle any administrative functions and day to day business.

If you can tell us how to send more soldiers to Afghanistan without burning out members of the Canadian military I'm all ears...

Start by passing law to support activated reservists fearing loss of pay and/or employment:

One officer interviewed for this story returned from a tour in Afghanistan in early 2004 to find that his job with the Ontario government had been given away.

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/art...4_132006_132006

Then go to work on the defense budget... years before PM Harper has to step into the breach. Modernize the CF-18s so they can actually be interoperable with NATO strike aircraft and tankers.

Develop heavy airlift capability....etc., etc.

In other words, if the Americans are guilty of blowing billions on Iraq, Canada is guilty of not "blowing" billions at all.

[Canadian Blue]

So then you agree that in the last 5 years with the current budget and resources we couldn't have done much else correct?

[bush_cheney2004]

So then you agree that in the last 5 years with the current budget and resources we couldn't have done much else correct?

No, I believe that force levels have been purposely and systematically reduced, underfunded, and under-deployed at political whim during not only the past 5 years, but the past 25 years. If the Americans had the political will to invade Iraq, the Canadians had the political will to make sure that fewer resources were available or volunteered.

CF rotation levels and op-tempo have not been at the current level since 2001, so where did the resources come from? Were the Leopards recently discovered in an old Oshawa warehouse?

[Canadian Blue]

Actually, I think funding has increased in the past 5 years. Same goes with recruitment into the CF, when I was at St Jean the place was packed with new recruits.

Were the Leopards recently discovered in an old Oshawa warehouse?

Because Leopards were needed in southern Afghanistan. I don't think their would have been much of a point to bringing in Leopard tanks in the relatively peaceful north.

If the Americans had the political will to invade Iraq, the Canadians had the political will to make sure that fewer resources were available or volunteered.

Well, I guess all of those lives lost in Afghanistan in the past year show how much of a lack of will we had in Afghanistan because of Iraq. Even before the move to the south, Canadian's contributed a fair chunk to the NATO mission, I have seen no evidence that we made sure fewer resources were available simply because of Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I guess all of those lives lost in Afghanistan in the past year show how much of a lack of will we had in Afghanistan because of Iraq. Even before the move to the south, Canadian's contributed a fair chunk to the NATO mission, I have seen no evidence that we made sure fewer resources were available simply because of Iraq.

Force levels have fluctuated with mission and rotation...from early JTF2 to ISAF to forward engagements in the south. More criticism is due NATO partners that won't permit combat missions for their deployed forces or have very limiting ROE's. Easier to just blame the Americans and their adventure in Iraq.