Whom precisely are we trying to help in Afghanistan?

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,757
11,585
113
Low Earth Orbit
Tuesday, 18 September, 2001, 11:27 GMT 12:27 UK
US 'planned attack on Taleban'

By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Russian troops were on standby


Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.

Bin Laden would have been "killed or captured"


He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.
He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Ok... I read the article and NO WHERE does it say that the US planned the invasion before 9/11. But here is the article...
Sorry, that is where I ended up by following that link in post#8

An interesting thing in that article (anyways) is mention of the Northern Alliance. Wasn't their commander assassinated (bomb in a fake TV camera) very close to when the US became 'allies' with them? Did their policy change any after that change in command. (they weren't all that gentile with the public either, just another thug like the Taliban.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Tuesday, 18 September, 2001, 11:27 GMT 12:27 UK
US 'planned attack on Taleban'

By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Russian troops were on standby


Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.

Bin Laden would have been "killed or captured"


He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.
He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.

A. This is not Jane's... it is the BBC
B. This is just one Pakistani speaking

Nothing factual... just one guy getting some ink at the BBC.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Sorry, that is where I ended up by following that link in post#8

Understood and that is why Petros said it was planned before 9/11. But when reading the article it says no such thing.


Thanks for directing me.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
oh, "Whatreallyhappened" dot com, thats non-biased reliable site. Why not just link to global research or timecube?


As a side note, we talk about Afghanistan like its some hideous quagmire and all hope is lost.

There is very little combat going on, and most of the country is calm and quiet. Acting like hte Taliban have some kind of massive Afghan support is ridiculous.

1.) They hated the religious minorities, which is why Iran nearly invaded a few years before we did, as Shia are the minority (a sizeable one)

2.) There are ALOT of secular and atheist Afghans, you just don't hear about them much these days.

3.) As proof in fact, The Taliban never ran the WHOLE country.

There is very little combat going on, and most of the country is calm and quiet.

Huh??? I guess we read different news sources. There isn''t alot of "conventional" battles in the classic sense. There never have been. The country is far from "calm and quiet" and there is a real fear that the Taliban is experiencing a resurgence

Maybe Al Queda is pretty much a footnote, but the war still rages
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Took me awhile, I had to type in 'taliban visit texas' in a search engine, do you need all the pages of links?
Oil barons court Taliban in Texas

This seems factual albeit from a biased website but I do not dispute it's authenticity.

Why would the US Govt. invade over this when it seemed the deal could have been struck w/o bloodshed? By invading, a pipeline is nothing more than a pipedream now.

We must have invaded for other reasons don't you think?


Is search and capture the prime objective or not?
Went for a capture but ended up owning the place, who could have seen that one coming?

We surely don't own Afghanistan and he hasn't been captured yet.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,757
11,585
113
Low Earth Orbit
Understood and that is why Petros said it was planned before 9/11. But when reading the article it says no such thing.


Thanks for directing me.

MSNBC - Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001

President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. ... The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity. [MSNBC]
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
Oh BULL. The same old garbage. There is no oil to be had and no pipeline in Afghanistan. The same old "No War for Oil!" trash.

We are there because of 9/11. If there was no 9/11 we wouldn't be there.

Bull.

Prior to 9/11 there was a concrete plan to go after "terrorists" (or freedom fighters depending on your reference)

The spots to go after them were selective based on doctorine

No once was Saudi Arabia, Indonesia or Pakistan attacked or invaded. Why not?

April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.
January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.
April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.
September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).
December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.
June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.
After a let-up, the attacks then restarted: Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, 224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 and 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
For what? Afghanistan is a wasteland with no value whatsoever. None. Poppies...that is what they have...poppies.

Ahhh. So you would imply that the intent of all US led illegal invasions are based on value? Interesting

What was the value in Grenada? Beach front condo's?
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
If you are invading someplace to "own it"
you generally do it for value.

Making such a statement is not the same thing as saying "We invade places to own them", you are just trying to make issues from logic.

Thieves don't break into your house to steal the kitchen garbage, that doesn't mean I am a thief nor that I endorse stealing.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
If that is the case, why did you plan the invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11?

Because the military has people that do nothing all day but plan for stuff. The US (and it's NATO allies) have plans for all types of things. Hell, the US has plans for the invasion of Canada. The military doesn't sit around waiting for sh*t to happen and then figure out what to do. That would be stupid.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
Because the military has people that do nothing all day but plan for stuff. The US (and it's NATO allies) have plans for all types of things. Hell, the US has plans for the invasion of Canada. The military doesn't sit around waiting for sh*t to happen and then figure out what to do. That would be stupid.

So... Someone sat around and "planned" an invasion of a backward, dirt poor country that is marginally in the 21st century?

Does someone do the same for, Uruguay or New Zealand... Pitcairn Island?

They have nothing to do all day (as you say - I beg to differ), I'm pretty sure they have more important issues.