Hell no! Omar and his fiends to be assured safety as Khandahar is surrendered starting tomorrow.

[StageLeft]

WTF



<< Zaeef told CNN that the Taliban leadership, including Omar, would be guaranteed safety and allowed to go home under the agreement. In Washington, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reiterated Thursday that the United States would oppose any agreement that gives amnesty to Omar. >>



Damn right. Am I the only one who thinks that there is no way in hell this will happen? What WILL suck is if the interim gov't says "Look, we made this deal - the US and others can't undermine it by seizing Omar and other's associated with him."

 

[MrDingleDangle]

funk dat...he be goin down

 

[MichaelD]

No!:| We must finish the job. I am pro-Bush (both Father and Son) but, George Bush Sr. funked-up 10 years ago when the USA pulled out of Iraq without beheading Sadam-baby first. Sadam is still a threat to us, he is still funding terrorism and don't be surprised if somehow Bin Laden himself is hiding out in Iraq.

If we do not "finish the job" in Afghanistan, Laden and his psycho-killer followers will be back worse than before. Damn, i hope they don't let these guys get away. They should be shot on live TV, right there in the street, then have the camera show a closeup of their eyes-wide open dead corpses as proof that they are dead. We must send a message here. I'll keep my fingers crossed that "something goes wrong and they were all killed when the building collapsed a scant 3 minutes before the scheduled surrender."

 

[SuperTool]

<< WTF



<< Zaeef told CNN that the Taliban leadership, including Omar, would be guaranteed safety and allowed to go home under the agreement. In Washington, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reiterated Thursday that the United States would oppose any agreement that gives amnesty to Omar. >>



Damn right. Am I the only one who thinks that there is no way in hell this will happen? What WILL suck is if the interim gov't says "Look, we made this deal - the US and others can't undermine it by seizing Omar and other's associated with him." >>



I don't think it should happen, but if they want to let him go, not much we can do except cut off aid. What are we gonna do, bomb he northern alliance? Bottom line, these guys don't want to lose more of their own lives to take Kandahar. I am sure if the US offers to use it's troops to siege the city, they won't mind that. I don't see what the big deal with this Omar guy. He is not an Al Qaeda official. Let him go, hunt him down later. To destroy a city to take one guy who is only peripherally connected to Al Qaeda seems overblown.

 

[DDCSpeed]

Interesting....

I wonder how this happened?

 

[SuperTool]

<< Interesting....

I wonder how this happened? >>



What's there to wonder. We want an Afgani army to fight a war for us, and then we wonder why they have their own personal interest ahead of ours.
Their interest is to not unnecessarily lose their own troops, and to not destroy their own Afgani city that they will later have to rebuild. All that to get one man. Now if it was OBL, maybe it would make sense, but Omar is nobody without Taliban, so he is really a non-issue for them. If we were in their place, we would do the exact same thing. You accomplish the important goals, which is getting OBL, and then decide if it's worth sacrificing for the secondary goals.

 

[StageLeft]

I don't see what the big deal with this Omar guy.

In the same note of MichaelD's post. This guy has to be made an example of. I was so happy when milosevic was shackled up and sent to jail. You let Omar go and it says this:

Lead a brutal regime supporting terrorism and being a general pain in the ass. When death is knocking at your door make a deal with the people knocking to limit deaths on both sides and you get to live a life of dignity safely.

NO - that is just unacceptable. If the new Afghanistan gov't lets this guy go he should be assasinated. He is leading gov't that was at war with the US for supporting terrorism, and now you could tolerate him being let go?

Yes the NA helped out a lot but they are glad the US was there. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. They knew why the US was there and it was not to allowed Omar, the Taliban leader, so sit in peace after his gov't is toppled. I bet Hitler would have been nothing without his army and supporters as well. What if some freedom movement in Germany at the end of WWII made a deal allowing Hitler to live there in peace?

 

[SuperTool]

<< I don't see what the big deal with this Omar guy.

In the same note of MichaelD's post. This guy has to be made an example of. I was so happy when milosevic was shackled up and sent to jail. You let Omar go and it says this:

Lead a brutal regime supporting terrorism and being a general pain in the ass. When death is knocking at your door make a deal with the people knocking to limit deaths on both sides and you get to live a life of dignity safely.

NO - that is just unacceptable. If the new Afghanistan gov't lets this guy go he should be assasinated. He is leading gov't that was at war with the US for supporting terrorism, and now you could tolerate him being let go?

Yes the NA helped out a lot but they are glad the US was there. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. They knew why the US was there and it was not to allowed Omar, the Taliban leader, so sit in peace after his gov't is toppled. I bet Hitler would have been nothing without his army and supporters as well. What if some freedom movement in Germany at the end of WWII made a deal allowing Hitler to live there in peace? >>



Well, that's true that he should be made example of, and assasinated. But you are asking Afghanis to destroy one of their cities and sacrifice their own troops to set an example of this Omar guy. You can't blame them for not wanting to do that. THey have their interest in mind. They already fought a war on US behalf that left their country destroyed, and we did nothing to help them rebuild. Now we are asking them to do it again and are suprised they don't want to do it.
If you want a job done right, you do it yourself. But I don't think even the Pentagon would send US troops to siege Kandahar just to get Omar. He is just not worth it. Our target is OBL.

 

[StageLeft]

Fair enough but I hope that there is kind of an unspoken agreement that says that they will make no efforts to protect him and will perhaps even offer intelligence on his whereabouts just to "keep a tab" on him, when in fact it will let us know where he is to cap his ass!

 

[Spagina]

The Northern Alliance seems to forget that they could not have made the advances they did without the U.S. support. Before we got involved in Afghanistan, the NA had trouble enough just getting out of their little pocket in Northeast Afghanistan. Now that we have aided them to take over the country, they are almost to the point of completely repelling against the U.S.'s interests in this campaign as well. One great example of this was their marching on Kabul despite repeated objections by the U.S. saying that we wanted Kabul to remain an open city for the new government to be installed in. In my opinion, based on what I've read and seen, the Northern Alliance is no more a friend in this campaign than the Taliban, but they were more convenient than any other faction since they had the hardware and the troops. Like my father said, we'll bomb the Taliban, and then eventually end up bombing the Northern Alliance, and the government after that, it'll be one vicious cycle.

 

[Pocatello]

The Northern Alliance has nothing with this. Omar is surrendering to the local Pashtun leaders, specifically the warlord by the name of Hamid Karzai. The Taliban spokeperson said that Omar will be able to live freely, but he certainly had stated a lot of BS before.

 

[lepper boy]

Does anyone think that if the gov't. does NOT get ol' omar that they are not going to tell us about it?