про Америку: мнение о том, что будет в Афганистане

[avva]

bbb и так хорошо цитирует всякие важные газетные статьи. А я буду сюда кидать интересные личные свидетельства и мнения, которые попадаются.

Вот это письмо прошло на рассылке переводчиков. Сначала оно мне особенно понравилось, теперь немного меньше (думаю, автор всё-таки слишком оптимистичен), но всё равно по-моему интересно.

From: Ron Kerr
Subject: WTC: On Bombing Afghanistan - long

I have been quiet through the exchanges on Lantra and IML and have no
complaint about the many opinions expressed. This is an enormous tragedy and
it's understandable that many opinions should be expressed and that often
pre-existing bias or long-held beliefs would define our reactions. We are
all human and that is human behavior.

However, I would like to address Susan and others who clearly fear some sort
of intense bombing of Afghanistan. I have a bit of military experience, a
little knowledge of recent and past military history and a little
understanding conveyed by a high-ranking relative at the Pentagon (who
survived).

1) Susan and others should have a little understanding that the people in
our military are not stupid and maddened warmongers. Not to get into a
defense of past events, suffice it to say that they also understand who and
what Afghanistan is and how desperately poor and oppressed are it's people.
They know the lessons taught to Alexander the Great, the British and the
Russians and don't plan to repeat their mistakes.

2) The people that will/are planning the US response work in the same
building that saw two hundred of their colleagues die horribly this past
week. On the one hand a case may be made for them being too close to the
tragedy but frankly they are doing what they have spent their life doing,
only this time if there is only a PR result without any actual justice
visited upon the guilty, they will know about it. They know about the plight
of the Afghan people and they know who is responsible for this and other
terrorism acts. Do you really think they would find it acceptable to take
their grief out by killing more innocents? The answer is a resounding no!
The term "collateral damage" means unavoidable damage. It doesn't mean that
if will assuage their guilt. The only targets that have any relevance to the
avowed mission of punishing those responsible for this awful terrorism as
well as many other such acts are the terrorist training camps, the people
who support and run them and the Taliban government that protects it and
sponsors it. After the embassy bombings, cruise missiles were used against
these camps, unsuccessfully. Don't expect such a remote controlled and timid
method of punishing them to be used this time. There will be troops on the
ground, Helicopter gunships and ground directed fighter bombing. No civilian
targets of any sort not directly involved in the terrorist training camps or
the Taliban government will be hit. Choice of Taliban targets will be chosen
to minimize civilian casualties and maximize the destruction of this Islamic
"Pol Pot"-type regime. The intelligence info from Pakistan and India and
Russia and others will help in conjunction with long-term satellite
surveillance.

3) The major thrust of America's response will be to form an international
community that will act in concert to eliminate the ability of these
cell-based terrorists to move freely. There will be an unprecedented
exchange of intelligence identifying who has been and continue to be
involved with terrorist activities. This is the only hope for the future.
This is an important effort and is the only way that we can make any inroads
into preventing ever more tragic events. The world will benefit from this
program and it will be the major activity of the US government post
Afghanistan incursion to come.

4) Anguish and anger, threat and promises of cataclysmic destructive
response is just America's way of trying to cope with the unthinkable. Don't
mistake that for actual events. Susan, please have the smallest faith in
your government and it's military. They are not monsters and criminals. Your
fears are understandable but they are apparently not backed up with any real
understanding of the US Military. There are two sides to every criticism of
America I have read in Lantra and IML. The ongoing and quite childish
criticism of President Bush, similar to the same type of lampooning that the
US does for all of it's Presidents (remember Ford's fall coming out of the
airplane) should not be confused with his actual ability to govern.

5) Anti-Americanism is a fact of life. It has shown up as a subtext in some
of the discussion and reasoning on these lists. That is not unexpected and
since I have been living outside the US for several years, I have some
understanding of what drives it. It will always be with us, but again,
unnecessarily colors some of the discussion. Early on, there was intense
discussions of US attacking the Palestinians, even though their only
involvement in the situation was celebration of the barbaric event.
Something predictable and experienced in other Islamic countries. We have
been demonized by the fanatical elements of Islam and a blow to us is a blow
for God. Expecting that to change due to our pain is unrealistic and naive.
It is also not a cause for military destruction.

6) America is not responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian enmity. In fact in
the US, Israel had been steadily losing ground in the public opinion of the
US people, just because of the harsh and murderous way they were dealing
with the situation. The Palestinians were the biggest loser over this
tragedy as they have always been perceived since Munich by the US people as
embracing terrorism to further their goals. They in fact have many important
and compelling truths on their side but this tragedy has completely undercut
the ability of the US people to care. Sharon knows this and is now pressing
his advantage of a freer hand to dictate to Arafat. Arafat on the other
hand, who spent his life in and around terrorism without any discomfort has
embraced condemning this tragedy as a necessary effort to try and salvage
some public opinion for his cause and offset the ridiculous celebrations of
his more ignorant followers, even to the point of a PR staged donation of
blood. He knows his cause has lost all gains of the struggle over the last
couple of years because of this tragedy and they will suffer, not because
the US will involve themselves in the struggle with Israel, but precisely
because it's unlikely that we will involve ourselves, behind the scenes
urging restraint of Sharon.

7) I am the closest thing to a pacifist and haven't raised my hand in anger
since 1963. With my study of war and history as well as serving in the
reserve as an officer, I have a pretty good understanding of the costs to
all of war. My brother has spoken on a deeply personal level about the cost
to him and his friends during his time as a front-line combat marine in Viet
Nam. I don't advocate destruction of innocent people. I do strongly advocate
the destruction of any terrorist networks, training and planning facilities
and the leadership of any government that sponsors and protects terrorists
such as the Taliban. If we had gotten involved in Cambodia during the Pol
Pot regime, millions of Cambodians might have survived. The Taliban is
destroying the Afghan people and by any international measurement is a
horrible and destructive, non-elected pseudo-government. This obscene act
must have a measured and intelligent response that will effectively punish
those who do plan and devote their life to destruction with innocents
included in that destruction in order to hurt their perceived enemy. I will
put my trust in my government's desire to do the same and I will stand back
and judge my government by their actions. To not respond to this attack is
just not an option. No intelligent human being should suggest that once we
know who sent these criminals to us that we should not bring them to
justice. Justice in the shadowy world of professional terrorism means
destruction of the people who aimed the gun and those who paid for the gun
and those who helped in any way to point this gun at the head of the 5000+
slaughtered people in our country.

I know this is long-winded and at times rambling but it reflects my need to
ask and answer the question of what is coming in Afghanistan or at least
discuss the foolishness of expecting the US to commit some horrible bombing
of a poor oppressed people. The use of cruise missiles after the embassy
bombing is still ridiculed by the press as a stupid response by Clinton. How
can anyone think we would destroy a people because of the guilt of a few
leaders and institutional criminals? The pain and anguish of the American
people, expressed in opinion polls should be view as exactly what it is - a
form of grief and not a national policy. Bush said we are at war - we are,
but I read his statements and don't find anything in there to suggest a
blood-thirsty plan to kill innocents. It takes a fearful person, like Susan
or some of the anti-American persons I have read on this list, to suggest
that we could indiscriminately bomb civilians. We will have justice but we
will not bring the pain and suffering to other innocents that we are
experiencing as a result of this obscene act of murder.

Ron Kerr

Comments

[zanuda.livejournal.com]

Õîðîøåå ïèñüìî

[yan.livejournal.com]

"Pol-Pot type regime" ýòî õîðîøî ñêàçàíî. ßðêî.

[stas]

Îäíàêî íå óïèñòèë âîçìîæíîñòè ïíóòü Èçðàèëü, êîçåë... Murderous and harsh ìû åìó, âèäèòå ëè. Ðàçóìååòñÿ, íàì íàäî áûëî ïðîñòî âñåì çàñòðåëèòüñÿ è âñå áûëî áû ïðåêðàñíåíüêî.

Takes the biscuit.

[sova.livejournal.com]

Especially this part:

Susan, please have the smallest faith in your government and it's military. They are not monsters and criminals.

Last time I checked, anyone who trusted his government and military was called names; like "naive" or "senile". And while I agree that they are humans, mostly without criminal record, they are politicians, before whom the monsters bow and the crminals blush.

Re: Takes the biscuit.

[avva.livejournal.com]

What's called for here is not trust, but a reality check. While politicians lie often, they don't do it senselessly. There's nothing wrong with "having the smallest faith" in your government, and really, is it too much to ask? Nobody asked to trust them blindly.

Cynicism is only good until it's not too extreme; then it clouds your vision of reality. You can't trust the U.S.Government not to mess up, they do that too often (not that anyone else doesn't). But you can trust them, for instance, not to drop an nuclear bomb until if it's not absolutely vital to the country's existence.

Sex animalier Sex friends film

[(Anonymous)]

Watch porno Sex films : Sinon, il n'y aurait ni porno, ni prostituees? Bises a toi, mon amiede parties d'echecs, what else: [url=http://www.adultevideotribe.com]streaming film porno[/url] L'autre main parcourt ses fesses et ses reins puis Sophie, passant sous ses jambes, se glisse a present dans son dos avant de se coller a elle= Il faudrait avoir l'occasion de s'y rendre pour avoir un avis? Sex bresilien Gouine porno