<< Thanks for editing out the part of your post where you labeled me an idiot. >>
Crap, I didn't mean to edit that part out, I wanted to add not subtract. Sorry.
<< First off, just because I condemn the US aid to the Islamic militants who fought the Soviets doesn't mean I support the Soviets. There isn't anyone in their right mind who will defend the actions of 9-11, but this doesn't mean that everyone has to support what the Bush administration has done so far. >>
Your criticism centered around the U.S. support of the Mujahideen (which was started by the Carter administration), not with the Bush administration.
<< The Northern Alliance is a rag-tag bunch of warlords who have nothing in common except that they are all blood thirsty villians. >>
And the consensus is they are FAR better than the Taliban. Its not that they are angels, but they are unquestionably the lesser of two evils. That was our only realistic choice insofar as a counter-Taliban force went.
<< So I don't think its right to say that the Northen Alliance and the Taliban both arose from the Mujahideen. >>
So ignore fact if it suits you. They are afghans. Whether they are the Afghan majority has no bearing on the fact they are AFGHAN. All Afghan factions can claim Mujahideen who fought against the Russians, thus benefitted from US support in one way or another.
It certainly can be NO MORE erroneous to say the NA and Taliban arose from the Mujahideen than Al Qaeda was a 'remnant' of US involvment.
<< As far as lots of countries funding the Mujahideen, that may be the case, but the CIA was certainly in charge of the operation. The CIA setup all the training camps the US is now destroying, and like you said provided them with military training. I think it would be naive to think that the CIA didn't also fund them. >>
The CIA didn't set-up all of the training camps and bunkers, but a fair number. Bin Laden was erecting them at the same time. In fact, THAT is how he gained the attention of the CIA.
<< What is happenning here is similar to what happenned with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He's been a tyrant the whole time he was in charge of Iraq. Before 1991, he was the US's "guy" even though he was gassing tons of Kurds. It was only when he disobeyed or misubderstood the US's orders, that we then villianized him. I think in the same way the US supported Bin Laden until he started to have his own ideas about the US military being in Saudi Arabia and the Palestine issue. >>
The two issues are nothing alike except to say "the U.S. supported someone, somewhere, who turned out later not to be such a nice guy." That's a little too vague to get at the nature of why we were supporting who.
<< Like I said before, I don't support the Arabs. I'm not pro-communist. I just find fault with the way the US conducts its foreign policy. In this case, I think the US should have gathered evidence of Bin Laden's involvement, presented it to the World Court, and let that body do what it was created to do. >>
I'm pleased the U.S. didn't let the World Court get in a word edge-wise. Though many nations suffered loss, it happened on OUR soil and the US paid the brunt of the cost both in human and financial terms. The most appropriate response to 9/11 is no more for a court of law to deal with than it would have been to rely on some World Court to defeat the Third Reich. We will prosecute those who are still alive after we finish with them militarily, just as we did at Nurembourg. I don't hear anyone crying because the U.S. bombed first and prosecuted later during WWII.
<< Instead, the US has bombed many innocent vixtims of the Taliban and caused thousands of others to starve. >>
The U.S. hasn't "caused" anyone to starve. The United Nations was warning back in August this winter would prove to be the most brutal on record due to the culmination of three years of drought (not the US bombing which wouldn't occur for another two months). The U.S. has been the single GREATEST contributor of food aid to Afghanistan for the last few years. If anything, the U.S. has SAVED more people from starvation because the World Food Programme and other humanitarian NGO's have not been able to get food into many unstable and unsecure regions of Afghanistan, which they are now reporting success at reaching however limited, nor were they particularly comfortable operating in Taliban controlled areas, who always ensured adequate assistance was diverted for Taliban purposes FIRST before anyone else got fed.
Any unintended loss of life is regrettable, but was a necessary price to pay for the future stability of Afghanistan and the security of the United States. This was not our problem to begin with, but we were forced to solve it. Had Russia been allowed to have its way with Afghanistan, it would be yet another failed communist state replete with hungry masses and economic ruin not much different than Afghanistan is today - except perhaps with more standing buildings.
<< The Taliban did say that if the US presented evidence then they woud give up Bin Laden. >>
The Taliban's offer was a ploy. They would simply conclude the US had no evidence Bin Laden was responsible, despite the fact that EVERY modern nation on earth concluded he was. This would facilitate denial of Bin Laden's involvement, solidify doubts of Bin Laden's involvement among Bin Laden sympathizers (or US detractors), and bolster those already convinced of Bin Laden's innocence (or supportive of his actions). The US would be put on the defensive, forced to publicize potentially sensitive information in order to counter the Taliban's propaganda.
The Taliban KNEW Bin Laden was responsible, only a fool could believe otherwise given the manner Bin Laden and his associates have been gloating over their handywork, the almost unanimous international consensus that Bin Laden is in the business of international terrorism, the irrefutable evidence that his primary goal is to target U.S. interests, and his PUBLIC CONFESSION that he considers U.S. civilians fair game.
The question has never credibly or honestly been about "what evidence do you have that Bin Laden was involved?", the question was "how on earth could anyone not believe Bin Laden was involved?" What part of 'To kill Americans is to please Allah" is so f-cking hard for people to understand?
Of course, it isn't hard to understand. Its rather obvious. Those wanting 'proof' of Bin Laden's involvement are either confessing their rote stupidity, or they are disguising their support of Bin Laden's act and contempt for the U.S. with a false and deceptive appeal for 'proof'.
<< I know this would never happen because the US doesn't recognie the authoruty of the World Court or the UN. >>
The U.S. is a permanent member of the UN security council and probably commits more resources to the UN than any other nation. Its not that we don't recognize the authority of the United Nations. Its that we reserve the right, just as every other nation does and our UN charter acknowledges, to part ways with the United Nations when we believe that not doing so may be contrary to US interests.
Standard operating procedure, many countries do it. Even more would do it if they were in a position to. Its not as if other countries 'respect' the UN more, its that they don't have the clout to protest too much.
But, you're right we don't take the World Court too seriously, and thank goodness for that.