Actually, I don't think it was an "offer" at all, but to threaten that retributions will occur if you (the Taliban) don't offer up Osama Bin Laden seems to me to be an unbelievably idiotic threat considering the fact that the US has officially announced that anyone helping terrorists in any way is as much to blame as the perpetrators themselves.

What if the Taliban gave us Osama Bin Laden? What then? We have as much determined them ( the Taliban) to be as much of a terrorist benefactor as anyone. What does "give him up or else...." really mean, when we have already determined them to be terrorist backers and have vowed retribution against such people and states? To me, this is means we will go after them no matter what, so why in heck should we even bother to ask that they hand him over, unless they are so naive as to believe that our government will not take action against them if they do hand him over. Surely they can't be THAT naive!

Surprisingly, I haven't seen any media references to this subject, which puzzles me further. If anyone has a logical explanation, I would surely appreciate it.

-- Leslie A. (lashkani@hotmail.com), September 18, 2001

Answers

Several issues,

First The president keeps saying were at war. The president CANT!!!! take us to war. It takes Congress to declare war.

We have told another country to give us a citizen because we say so. We have offered no proof Bin Laden has done anything. Lots of conjectures but no proof.

What if they do give him to the US, will that be enough? What are we going to do with him? Public hanging? No, A trial in world court, where he will never be executed for what crime he might have done. If guilty he will be put in prision for life and serve as a living marter to his followers.

-- Gary (gws@redbird.net), September 18, 2001.

I would like to know what those who are always critizing the governments response would do? Remember the goal is to stop terrorism satisfy 300 million U.S. citizens anger and still hold up our heads in the world community.

-- Del (dgrinolds@gvtel.com), September 18, 2001.

I hope are special forces get him .If left to the whissy washy people here the sob will live or at worse die a painless death .If special forces go after him , he'll come in a body bag !There is enough proof he did this and many other acts .

-- Patty {NY State} (fodfarms@slic.com), September 18, 2001.

I thought it was Pakistan which made that statement to them, not the U.S. The only one in the administration which seems to be directly accusing bin Laden is Secretary of State Powell. The rest seem to be saying someone on the order of, well, the roads do head in that direction.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), September 18, 2001.

Go to this site (Washington Post) and see why we can't win a war Afghanistan and why we will probably never be able to get to Bin Laden. Very interesting!! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41121-2001Sep16.html

After that go to this site to see where the reach of Bin Laden extends and why we won't be able to put an end to that: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/nation/graphics/attack/investigation_8.html

Makes you realize all the facts involved rather than the hype!!! Scary stuff!

-- Karen (db0421@yahoo.com), September 18, 2001.

Upon reading this morning's paper, I stand corrected on both points.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), September 18, 2001.

How do you wage war against someone who doenst have cities to bomb, doesnt have an army to kill, doesnt have an airforce to down, doesnt have a navy to sink?

-- Gary (gws@redbird.net), September 18, 2001.

You wage war against someone like that by letting the WORLD know that any city, town, country, etc. that harbors those we are at war with will have THEIR buildings, military, cities and whatever else we can aim at brought to rubble! But the action has to be quick and decisive - showing that we really mean business with this mess and aren't going to form committees and talk about it and discuss it and disect it and maybe someday we'll shoot an M-16 round at your border and call it a show of force.

Not only America, but the entire world has to be on the OFFENSIVE with this deal or we won't win. If we pussy-foot around with this, we will live in terror for years to come!

-- Cap'n (cptnktal@yahoo.com), September 18, 2001.

Hi Gary: I found that last post pretty interesting to ponder " ... no navy to sink, no planes to shoot down..." etc. You are right; exactly HOW do you fight a country with apparently no standing army?

We learned some lessons from Vietnam though. Just because you lack an army doesn't mean your country is necessarily defenseless. The Russians learned this the hard way during the early '80's in Afghanistan. With our help, those sheep herders did a pretty damn good job convincing the Russians to leave.

And the Russians weren't the first. These people have taught invaders over the years that defeating a fighting spirit is much more difficult than fighting an army. These are a people who will not quit.

Do we give up? Hell no; according to the state department, Bin Laden has been accused of several terroristic attacks, including two U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, the barracks truck bomb in Saudi Arabia, and now this . . . WE CAN'T ALLOW TERRORISTS SAFE HAVEN ANYWHERE! The most important lesson of Vietnam: If you allow your enemy a safe retreat where you will not go, you will never defeat him. The Taliban is a religious state of mind, not just some guys in charge here.

-- j.r. guerra (jrguerra@boultinghousesimpson.com), September 18, 2001.

I think that we as Americans have of view of war from the stand-point of what we have seen in movies. Yes there are conflicts such as WWII where we had all out "War". Other conflicts have not been that direct. World War II had the entire nation standing behind it. Remember that Viet Nam was never a declared "War" yet involved military power. Desert Storm involved a massive military power yet it was nothing like WWII or Viet Nam. The battle field was different and as far as I know it was not a declared "War" either. Or what about "The War on Drugs"? When we talk about a war on terrorist we are talking about a war that may or may not involue tanks and jets. There may or may not be armies to fight. There may or may not be national borders to cross. (Let us realize that the second major terrorist attack in this country was conducted by an American.) But it seems that it will be a WAR to stop the invasion of our sense security and our way of life.

-- Tom S. (trdsshepard@yahoo.com), September 18, 2001.

Wouldn't it just be easier to put a bounty on Bin Ladens head? say $10million and then $1million for each of his followers? or $20 million and $5million for followers? the Dollar figure shuld be enough for his own people to rat him out :)

The other thing is to rain Pig Poo or Pig Fat or Pig something on him and his group. Pig Bombs! wouldn't have to kill them just cover them in the stuff, even touching Pig anything makes them unclean. Don't we have lots of Pig Poo polluting our ground water? gather that stuff up and Boms Away!!!!

Don't they have to like kill themselves or get stoned to death if they become unclean?

-- lurkylu (lurkylu@yahoo.com), September 18, 2001.

I believe the situation is that the 'offer/threat' regarding handing over Osama bin Laden or facing retributions was with an unspoken "from this day forward" attached. That's the only way it makes sense to me.

As to an attack against Afghanistan's fixed assets, most are already rubble. We can bomb the capital of Kabul but generally speaking are only going to turn rocks into gravel. Certainly we were and are capable of strategic strikes there which would terminate communications and power distribution there. Besides some feeling of gratification at having done 'something,' I wonder about the validity of that in terms of accomplishing a military goal.

I also wonder about our nation having the three requisites to successfully prosecute an action as will be required. We certainly have one, that being the military assets. I believe we absolutely possess another, that being the resolve to commit US lives to this quest as there will be military casualties and, I'm sad to say, many more civilian casualties as well.

The thing I question is whether or not we, as a nation, have the staying power to prosecute a war like this over the period of time I believe it will last. Will we be able to maintain the resolve it takes to be involved in such a war for two, five or even ten years or more?

This is not going to be something akin to the Gulf War of four days or an invasion of Grenada. This will be a war more like Viet Nam in terms of time involved. Time will tell.

-- Gary in Indiana (gk6854@aol.com), September 18, 2001.

There has been a 5 million dollar price on Bin Ladin's head the past three years, I don't think increasing it to 10 million would have any effect.

Going to war, yet again, is not the answer, the Russians couldn't even gain a foothold in Afganistan, why do we think we are any different? We must approach this a problem to be solved with alternative thinking, not bloodshed, THERE ARE NO RIGHTEOUS DEATHS, have you all forgotten the Ten Commandments???

There are ways to deal with this, the first is do all we can to prevent this from happening again, the FBI and CIA were really "asleep" at the wheel on this one!!! Next, we must do all we can to know our "enemy" and learn how he thinks and why, and start to do all we can to change why they think like this.

Which choice appeals to your sense of responsibility more, having your sons and daughters fight a bloody war that cannot be won (think Vietnam with more forbidden mountains and much colder climate) where they will die horrible deaths, or dealing with the matter at it's source, and correcting it there.

-- Annie Miller in SE OH (annie@1st.net), September 18, 2001.

Actually, the Tuliban does have a mechanized Army and Air Force. Within the past couple of months they had a military parade in Kubul which impressed the foreign observers there. Yes, they had fighters riding in pickups, but also tanks, armored personnel carriers and fighter jets acquired somewhere. As I remember, it wasn't a circle the block three times such as the USSR use to do for their May Day parades.

Get in, kick ass and then get the hell out.

Say they were weakened to the point the opposition in the north could make major advances. Say they take Kubul. The Tuliban simply head to the hills and conduct guerilla warfare. But, the situation would be different if they were not resupplied by other countries.

During their war against the USSR we actually supplied the guerillas with mules. The local ones were dying of some disorder. The U.S. bought just about every U.S. mule they could, vaccinated them and airlifted them to Pakistan to be turned over to the rebels.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), September 18, 2001.

I think Tom S. has hit the nail on the head. As Amercians we want our wars like a story, with a clear beginning, middle and end and a nice neat made-for-TV plot line to follow. The only thing we've got here so far is an awful beginning. The rest I think is going to be drawn out, dirty, have multiple fronts, be very unconventional and may not have a clear ending. I'm hoping that we don't put ourselves into a drawn out land occupation with conventional troops. I think that would be a mistake, the same one the Russians made.

-- Susan (smtroxel@socket.net), September 18, 2001.

That mule story ought to give you some idea of what kind of terrain there is in that part of the world, I don't think Hum-Vees will make it. Of 16,000 British soldies retreating from Kabul through the Kyber Pass, in the late 19th century, one soldier survived.

-- hendo (redgate@echoweb.net), September 18, 2001.

I agree that you can't put a price on Bin Laden, because there already has been one on him for some time. The language barrier is a problem I would guess. Osama can fill everyones head with whatever facts he wants, he is rich enough, and has had plenty of time. Also, if you step on the toes of everyone over there they will not help. I think we need to at least go through the motions like we are giving them (Afgan) a chance to do right. Maybe we figure they will not do it, but would you have our leaders say that, when the countries all over are watching every word we say? No. Just "ask nicely and carry a big stick." They are not stupid, and to assume that would be an error. They just do not think like the free America we know. I for one am out of patience and think we should press them, but Bush knows what resources we have and where they are, and how secure we are, etc. He may know that there are more threats, and as soon as he moves, they will mess with America from the inside again. They have had plenty of time to get situated. I think Sadam Hussien (sp) has had the small pox virus for a while. WHo knows what will happen next. I would not want to jump on something like a greased pig and have it backfire on us. They are taking a vague stand to do the same thing, buy time. Access what they have and how they can do us damage. It is war, even if there are no countries mentioned. Someone is out there trying to crumble our nation and kill Americans, we just can not give in to them and run scared. We are better than that.

-- notnow (notnow05@yahoo.com), September 18, 2001.

I am not a political expert...but I do know that while an official declaration of war has not been made...a new kind of thing that is just about the same thing, but works when what you are going to war with is not a country by a 'thing ' (terrorism)...there was a unanimous resolution passed by congress and the house last week (Thursday I think) that gave the president the goahead to use whatever means needed from military to financial to fill in the blank, to get rid of this plague of terrorism and get retalitation etc for Tuesdays attacks and bring the world peace. Iwould have to search for it-but the text is interesting to read.

The proclamation made-is all that i needed for this new style of war- and I have heard some say for a new century, a new millenium, that we have to have this new style of war-the old is antiquated.

But I also see what the original poster was saying (I think) it seems ridiculous to say-give him up or else! I think the "or else" is exactly what the taliban and others want...

Sarah

-- sarah (heartsongacres@juno.com), September 18, 2001.

Does anyone remember Viet Nam??? A war that had bankrupted France and after 100 years or so they gave up and went home? The Afganees have fought wars forever and with bin laden's help and the USA's help they defeated the USSR! They have no fears of a war with a super power or fighting the USA. The terrorists are in many many countries and many of the Moslim factions have already declared a "holy war" "jihad" on this country. This in not going to stop, it is only going to get worse!! My main fear is that they can afford atomics and will not mind using it on us, even if it destroys them as well. They are capable of almost anything now so take care.

-- Karen in Kansas (kansasgoats@iwon.com), September 18, 2001.

I think we need to go in and overrun the country. Capture all the talibans and tattoo on their foreheads "Pig". Then make them wear a vael and tell them that they are uglier than their women. Afterwards I would tell all the islamic women that they don't need to hide their beauty, to throw away their vaels. That from now on when they have a child that they should train the male child to wear a vael.

-- r.h. in okla. (rhays@sstelco.com), September 18, 2001.

Actually, when I posted this thread I was after a response to a very simple question which I'm afraid I worded in an unintelligible way. I really just wanted to know if anyone else sees the request to the Taliban to hand Bin Laden over to the US as asinine, since the US would surely try to destroy them whether they do or don't hand him over. I mean, there couldn't possibly be an incentive attached to that request. I'm guessing it was just a formality.

Anyway, I don't mind in the least having people talk about other aspects of the situation, I just wondered if anyone else views this request to hand over Bin Laden in the same light I do?

-- Leslie A. (lashkani@hotmail.com), September 18, 2001.

See your point Leslie. I do have another question though, sorry. does anyone else out there see what the congress is doing? Or not doing. They have not officially delcared war on terrorism. All they did was give the OK for the Pres to persue this. This means that congress is not behind him and everything that goes awry is going to be his fault! This worries me and should be corrected. Either you formally declare "war" or you putz around with it.

-- Little Quacker (carouselxing@juno.com), September 18, 2001.

Yes I do agree with you Leslie.

Yes I do and so do the good people of Afghanistan. I wish more people would understand what the woman of Afghanistan suffer from the taliban...Sex mutilation to girls as children is nothing to those rulers..

Go to the RAWA home page site and get a real look as to what is happening in that part of the world.

www.rawa.org

love me jr

-- JR (jr3star@earthlink.net), September 18, 2001.

Does anyone seriously think that the Taliban has bin Ladin? They couldn't hand him over anyhow. The other day they said they had him under house arrest. Yeh, sure, right. About a day after this utterance, surveillance picked him up on the move in Kandahar. As for the Afghans fighting the Russians. Yeh, terrain from hell, but did the Russians have anything to be fighting for? And anyhow, this will take place in many other locations other than Afghan. This absolutely will not be a conventional war.

-- vicki in NW OH (thga76@aol.com), September 18, 2001.

I doubt the U.S. government actually wants Bin Laden back, they want him dead, and not right away. What would you rather, open season on all world terrorists or everyone claiming "you have the man responsible, deal with him"?

-- Dawg (BigDawg@not.com), September 18, 2001.

r h in okla. Im behind you all the way...wayyyyyyyyyyy behind. Hope everything works out for you. Let us know when you get back. :)

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), September 18, 2001.

i find a lot of what goes on in the world and in the government really stupid, so this is just being added to my list....

-- marcee king (thathope@mwt.net), September 18, 2001.

I didnt say we should go after the person(s) who bombed attacked us, but we need to first know who they are and second have to know where they are. Its pretty easy to say we will go after Bin Laden when he is in afganastan. What if he was in China and they refused to let him go. Would our government be so ready to go to war? The US is not ready for war. We might have some sea and air support, but Aganistan is going to be a foot soldier war. Tanks will not survive the mountains. Againistan has never been overrun in modern times, They fought and kept the better equipted russian army.

Again, I am all in favor of protecting our people and angry at the attack, but I am also willing to face facts were not ready for war.

-- Gary (gws@redbird.net), September 19, 2001.

I've been reading stuff about our mustangs (horses) as we plan to get one again next year, and noted that in past wars where horses were still being used, mustangs were captured by the hundreds for use as Army mounts. Perhaps they ought to get busy capturing and training mustangs for our Army to use over there! (This is tongue-in-cheek, by the way.)

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), September 19, 2001.

Kathleen, don't give those idiots in power any wild ideas to use my precious mustangs!!!! ;>)

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), September 19, 2001.

Diane, military types are so dependent on their high-tech toys that I doubt that horses (or mules) would even occur to them -- with the possible exception of my nephew, who was responsible for the Army's mule mascot at West Point for a while! But hopefully he won't say anything!

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), September 19, 2001.