[lbo-talk] Re: Anybody But Kerry the Dole of 2004?

[snitilicious at tampabay.rr.com]

At 03:09 PM 5/7/2004, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>Kelley wrote:
>
>If some terrorist outfit is holed up in the
>inaccessible mountains of Afghanistan, how do you get
>inside Afghanistan if Afghanistan doesn't want
>you in? Before 911 Clinton shot 66 missiles at the
>mountins trying to al Qaeda. They were doing it with
>technology that let them track ObL's movements as if
>you could see him across the street.
>
>
>==========
>
>
>Is it true the Taliban government of Afghanisan could
>not be negotiated with to deal with al Qadea?  This is
>what the Bush administration says (and the Clinton
>admin before it) but how can we be certain?

oh for love of the dead guy on a stick. I didn't say that. i said IF.

IF IF IF! subjunctive mood, 'k? :)

I should have come up with neutral example, but I really don't see why 
people have to assume the worst--like Carl did. can you not imagine plenty 
of instances, especially now, of countries not wanting us anywhere at all 
inside their country?

in our OWN country, we sometimes can't get police forces in one state to 
work with the other! for pity's sake. if you can't get cooperation IN the 
u.s. why on earth would you get what you need on the world stage?

i used the Clinton example because we were already using this kind of 
"limited" action and worse.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&theme=afghanwar

I think it's all bullshit. The only answer to terrorism is to eliminate the 
conditions that foster it. that is why i didn't back going into 
afghanistan. my response was: bring it to us. fuck'm.

if I had my way, I'd probably follow the SAnte Fe Institute's fish tank 
experiment. It's computerized war gaming. What artificial, digital species 
was the evolutionary winner?

The one that had two rules:

1. always cooperated and played nice with all the other fish.
2. if the another fish fucked with it, swift annihilation followed.

the most important rule is 1., in which case you may be truly be justified 
in being outraged at an attack. but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

overposters anonymous here i come,

Kelley

p.s. thanks for other reponse. i'm chilling out and trying not to think 
about that situation at the moment. hence, reading to much lbo and other 
political lists.