Our reader Jonathan Fraser: A prediction of what is likely to happen in the following months

As U.S. led strikes continue in Afghanistan, the possibility of retaliatory strikes on the United States grows by the hour. In the presence of a massive hostile threat to its sovereignty, an ultimatum was issued (but not reported by Western media)by the N.G.O's of the Moslem world similar to that issued by the then U.S. President, J.F.K, "An attack on Afghanistan, would be seen as an attack upon the Moslem world, and would require a full retaliatory response, upon, the United States". Lets examine the position the respective governments faced with that ultimatum. The Soviet Union decided to act with restraint, in accordance with the detent'e policies of that time. It was a wise decision, considering that nuclear war may have resulted, and did what was asked. The United States however, reacted with belligerence, in the face of massive threat, and has most likely started what will be at least bad publicity, and at worst, full conventional conflict and the sceptre of nuclear war.

The American National Security Advisers and other planners in the Pentagon didn't stop to think that the name Operation "Infinite Justice" may be offensive to Muslems. What else had they not thought of?

Here's a prediction of what is likely to happen in the following months.

• Attacks upon Afghanistan continue, with U.S. recitient to send in ground troops, and not capturing Osama Bin Laden.
• Further terrorist strikes occur in major U.S. cities.
• Many Islamic fighters join in the holy war against the U.S.
• Attacks intensify against Iraq. The Moslem governments issue a sharp edict, but do nothing.
• Provoked by the events in Iraq and religion, military divisions in Pakistan, stage a coup-de-tat in support of the Taleban.
• Syria sends military assistance to Iraq to support Saddam Hussein. In response to what it sees as hostile threat, Israel sends troops back into Lebanon.
• The U.S. sends finally commits to a ground war, and easily occupy the main cities, but are beaten back in the Afghani mountains.
• Moderate European governments still agree to combat terrorism, but are increasingly against the attacks.
• Pakistan joins in on the side of the Taleban. To earn favour with the U.S., India declares war on Pakistan.

Once this final stage is reached, nuclear war is a definite possibility. Is this what we want the U.S. to lead us to?

The way the American administration had handled this crisis looked like it may have been good, until it started issuing ultimatums of its own. "You are either with us or against us", "We make no distinction between those who (supposedly) committed the terrorist acts and those whom harbour them". These two ultimatums are very inflammatory. The first one implies that we are invincible, compared to anyone else, so if you don't co-operate entirely with everything we want you to do, "we will come and kick your commie ass". It was never established to the public how the terrorist attacks were directly linked to Bin Laden. Maybe the first ultimatum was issued as their reasoning. Also, even if Bin Laden did perpetrate these attacks, he would have likely expected the U.S. to retaliate in this kind of way, and built up a massive force in Afghanistan that the Taleban could not control if it wanted to. Maybe the Taleban is at war with Bin Laden also, but does not want to lose face by saying it can't control its own territory.

So it is unfair to use the second ultimatum against the Taleban, without proof that they are actually condoning what Bin Laden does, I mean you don't arrest Bob's father, if Bob was arrested for drug dealing and living at home, do you?

It wasn't Bob's Dad that did it, was it?

What the U.S. government should really do, is find out why (they would actually already know if they pulled their heads out of their arses, instead of shoving it in further) some nations hate them. Perhaps they could re-examine their foreign policy? There is a reason why Americans are hated, and instead of making more enemies by "bombing the shit out of the bastards", should actually leave these countries to mind their own business, and not sell them weapons either.

Just finally, I like to use the analogy that "America treats the world like it is the most popular person in a class in a school". Imagine that the U.N. is the teacher, and can't really do anything about how America acts. Other students want to be 'cool' like America, and America picks on unpopular students. Occasionally, a threat might arise to America, like Russia. Russia was making friends after a long time having none. Fellow students could see she was honest. But she was poor, and because she didn't have all of the label clothing, her group of friends became the "nerds". America thought she was a threat to her, because Russia was righteous. So she upped the stakes. She made life so uncomfortable for Russia and her friends that they had watch their backs wherever they were. Finally, most of Russia's friends got so sick of being criticized that they went to join America's side. Russia became so upset and had almost no friends. She has had to lose her principles and morals so she fit in like America, and sometimes America is still mean to her. Now though, America can pick on anyone she likes without having the risk of told on, for the risk of retaliation is much too high.

Jonathan Fraser Student Youth Alliance Party of New Zealand