It contradicts the invasion of Iraq, that's what's wrong with it. It also contradicts the invasion of Afghanistan. Of course, I'm used to the administration saying one thing and doing another.
Um... perhaps in that Bush set Deadlines with each of the governments (or regimes... take your loaded-word pick) that were originally running these countries?
RE: Afghanistan - "Give us Osama by X date or we start bombing" - to which the Taliban responded "Sure, give us some proof he did what you say and we'll discuss handing him over." To which we replied: "Give us Osama by X-1 date or we start bombing". Funny thing is - the main problem was here that the Taliban wasn't being obstinate, just following religious law. One of the central concepts of Islam as a social structure is Hospitality (one of the "5 Pillars of Islam") in accordance with that, they were defending someone who had been made a guest in their home, and as such are to be protected as would a memeber of the family, in some cases even more so. But, the corollary here is that if someone has a greivance with the guest and gives ample proof of that guest having offended them, the host then has the right to refuse that guest. So, if we had played along and given the Taliban the proof they kept asking for, realistically it probably would not have made much impact on their ultimate decision, they being just as extremist as Osama claims to be... but it WOULD have at least established further credibility for the U.S. in the eyes of the world. Credibility that is beyond - "well, they've been hurt and are rightfully going after the person who did it." Adding that extra element of "just cause" could have also added to that "And look, they are still remaining rational enough to justfify their actions."
But then again, given the administrations track record on reasons for doing things, rationality (the fact based reality type, not the "because I said so" type this administration loves so much) is a rare commodity.
First, those deadlines were ultimatums and not timelines for our strategy. Bush is not obligated to keep a strategy timeline dangling out there in full view for everyone to see. That would simply be stupid.
Second, it's all well and good that the Taliban wants to abide by Islamic law and treat guests hospitably. Unfortunately, it's hard to defend your guest when he's using your guest bedroom as a terrorist training camp. The Taliban knew darn well that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks and their calls for evidence was such a load of crap that it must've greatly offended Allah, judging by the Taliban's speedy demise.
First, those deadlines were ultimatums and not timelines for our strategy. Bush is not obligated to keep a strategy timeline dangling out there in full view for everyone to see. That would simply be stupid.
Second, it's all well and good that the Taliban wants to abide by Islamic law and treat guests hospitably. Unfortunately, it's hard to defend your guest when he's using your guest bedroom as a terrorist training camp. The Taliban knew darn well that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks and their calls for evidence was such a load of crap that it must've greatly offended Allah, judging by the Taliban's speedy demise.
First, those deadlines were ultimatums and not timelines for our strategy. Bush is not obligated to keep a strategy timeline dangling out there in full view for everyone to see. That would simply be stupid.
Second, it's all well and good that the Taliban wants to abide by Islamic law and treat guests hospitably. Unfortunately, it's hard to defend your guest when he's using your guest bedroom as a terrorist training camp. The Taliban knew darn well that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks and their calls for evidence was such a load of crap that it must've greatly offended Allah, judging by the Taliban's speedy demise.
7 comments:
What's wrong with that statement?
It contradicts the invasion of Iraq, that's what's wrong with it. It also contradicts the invasion of Afghanistan. Of course, I'm used to the administration saying one thing and doing another.
Where is the contradiction?
Um... perhaps in that Bush set Deadlines with each of the governments (or regimes... take your loaded-word pick) that were originally running these countries?
RE: Afghanistan - "Give us Osama by X date or we start bombing" - to which the Taliban responded "Sure, give us some proof he did what you say and we'll discuss handing him over." To which we replied: "Give us Osama by X-1 date or we start bombing".
Funny thing is - the main problem was here that the Taliban wasn't being obstinate, just following religious law. One of the central concepts of Islam as a social structure is Hospitality (one of the "5 Pillars of Islam") in accordance with that, they were defending someone who had been made a guest in their home, and as such are to be protected as would a memeber of the family, in some cases even more so.
But, the corollary here is that if someone has a greivance with the guest and gives ample proof of that guest having offended them, the host then has the right to refuse that guest.
So, if we had played along and given the Taliban the proof they kept asking for, realistically it probably would not have made much impact on their ultimate decision, they being just as extremist as Osama claims to be... but it WOULD have at least established further credibility for the U.S. in the eyes of the world. Credibility that is beyond - "well, they've been hurt and are rightfully going after the person who did it." Adding that extra element of "just cause" could have also added to that "And look, they are still remaining rational enough to justfify their actions."
But then again, given the administrations track record on reasons for doing things, rationality (the fact based reality type, not the "because I said so" type this administration loves so much) is a rare commodity.
RE: Iraq - well, we all know that story.
First, those deadlines were ultimatums and not timelines for our strategy. Bush is not obligated to keep a strategy timeline dangling out there in full view for everyone to see. That would simply be stupid.
Second, it's all well and good that the Taliban wants to abide by Islamic law and treat guests hospitably. Unfortunately, it's hard to defend your guest when he's using your guest bedroom as a terrorist training camp. The Taliban knew darn well that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks and their calls for evidence was such a load of crap that it must've greatly offended Allah, judging by the Taliban's speedy demise.
First, those deadlines were ultimatums and not timelines for our strategy. Bush is not obligated to keep a strategy timeline dangling out there in full view for everyone to see. That would simply be stupid.
Second, it's all well and good that the Taliban wants to abide by Islamic law and treat guests hospitably. Unfortunately, it's hard to defend your guest when he's using your guest bedroom as a terrorist training camp. The Taliban knew darn well that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks and their calls for evidence was such a load of crap that it must've greatly offended Allah, judging by the Taliban's speedy demise.
First, those deadlines were ultimatums and not timelines for our strategy. Bush is not obligated to keep a strategy timeline dangling out there in full view for everyone to see. That would simply be stupid.
Second, it's all well and good that the Taliban wants to abide by Islamic law and treat guests hospitably. Unfortunately, it's hard to defend your guest when he's using your guest bedroom as a terrorist training camp. The Taliban knew darn well that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks and their calls for evidence was such a load of crap that it must've greatly offended Allah, judging by the Taliban's speedy demise.
Post a Comment