Whom precisely are we trying to help in Afghanistan?

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
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.

That is something else entirely. I'm talking about solid plans with definite times and dates. There is more than enough evidence that Bush knew he was going to invade Afghanistan long before 9/11.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
That is something else entirely. I'm talking about solid plans with definite times and dates. There is more than enough evidence that Bush knew he was going to invade Afghanistan long before 9/11.

Clinton wanted to invade Afghanistan and Afghanistan is in an important part of the world. There really is nothing new here.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Ahhh. So you would imply that the intent of all US led illegal invasions are based on value? Interesting

Not at all. I would refute the claim that there was something of value causing us to go in to a wasteland except for the events on 9/11.

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

Perfect example. We went in to get rid of the Cubans who decided Grenada would be a nice addition. We weren't fighting Grenadans...we were fighting Cubans. Now why would Cuban soldiers be in Grenada? Any uproar from Canadians of the illegal Cuban invasion of Grenada?

Doubtful.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Not at all. I would refute the claim that there was something of value causing us to go in to a wasteland except for the events on 9/11.



Perfect example. We went in to get rid of the Cubans who decided Grenada would be a nice addition. We weren't fighting Grenadans...we were fighting Cubans. Now why would Cuban soldiers be in Grenada? Any uproar from Canadians of the illegal Cuban invasion of Grenada?

Doubtful.

Maybe to help kick out colonialists? Would you have heard anything but approval if there was an uproar?
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
Not at all. I would refute the claim that there was something of value causing us to go in to a wasteland except for the events on 9/11.



Perfect example. We went in to get rid of the Cubans who decided Grenada would be a nice addition. We weren't fighting Grenadans...we were fighting Cubans. Now why would Cuban soldiers be in Grenada? Any uproar from Canadians of the illegal Cuban invasion of Grenada?

Doubtful.

We went in to get rid of the Cubans who decided Grenada would be a nice addition. We weren't fighting Grenadans...we were fighting Cubans. Now why would Cuban soldiers be in Grenada? Any uproar from Canadians of the illegal Cuban invasion of Grenada?

You really gotta lend me the history text you get this from

The cubans were "asked" by the Grenadian gov't to help defend the island.

Grenadian casualties

45 military and at least 24 civilian deaths; 358 wounded.

The invasion was highly criticised by the United Kingdom, Canada and the United Nations General Assembly, which condemned it as "a flagrant violation of international law

But hey, Stormin Norman got his feet wet and the US got to test a whole whack of new toys i.e. AC-130 Spectre Gunships....
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
I would take Clinton's word long before I would take the word of some Fox news hack.

So then you believe that Clinton's intention or invasion plans had absolutely NOTHING to do with a silly pipeline and EVERYTHING to do with the embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.

That is what he said...true?
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
Clinton wanted to invade Afghanistan and Afghanistan is in an important part of the world. There really is nothing new here.

I guess you proved everybody's point. The invasion was planned before 9/11

btw. Afghanistan really isn't that important. It has no strategic resources or markets. What makes you think it's "important?"
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
So then you believe that Clinton's intention or invasion plans had absolutely NOTHING to do with a silly pipeline and EVERYTHING to do with the embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.

That is what he said...true?

Careful .... you're dangerously close to supporting the "oil war" conspiracy....
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
We went in to get rid of the Cubans who decided Grenada would be a nice addition. We weren't fighting Grenadans...we were fighting Cubans. Now why would Cuban soldiers be in Grenada? Any uproar from Canadians of the illegal Cuban invasion of Grenada?

You really gotta lend me the history text you get this from

The cubans were "asked" by the Grenadian gov't to help defend the island.

Grenadian casualties

45 military and at least 24 civilian deaths; 358 wounded.

The invasion was highly criticised by the United Kingdom, Canada and the United Nations General Assembly, which condemned it as "a flagrant violation of international law

But hey, Stormin Norman got his feet wet and the US got to test a whole whack of new toys i.e. AC-130 Spectre Gunships....

Defend the island from who? America? We invaded because the Cubans were there and were up to no good. Now why would Cubans be enlarging an airstrip that would eventually be able to receive Soviet Military transport aircraft?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
I guess you proved everybody's point. The invasion was planned before 9/11

That was a point but not the whole point. I now concede that there may very well have been plans. Unlike some I admit when I am wrong which sets me aside from folks like you.

But the plans were NOT for oil or a future pipeline.

btw. Afghanistan really isn't that important. It has no strategic resources or markets. What makes you think it's "important?"

Please clarify and I'll answer.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Maybe to help kick out colonialists? Would you have heard anything but approval if there was an uproar?

The island of Grenada had already been independent of British Colonial Rule since the early 70's. To prove the point they suffered through two bloody coups prior to the invasion w/o any outside interference if I am reading this correctly.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,568
11,513
113
Low Earth Orbit
The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski 1997


"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii)

"It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

"How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

“The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

"The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power.” (p. xiii)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (p.30)

"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)

"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)
[Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance] "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)

"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)

"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people.” (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to
America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy." (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
That was a point but not the whole point. I now concede that there may very well have been plans. Unlike some I admit when I am wrong which sets me aside from folks like you.

But the plans were NOT for oil or a future pipeline.



Please clarify and I'll answer.

Afghanistan is in an important part of the world.

The question was for Cannuk. What's so important about Afghanistan?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
That is something else entirely. I'm talking about solid plans with definite times and dates. There is more than enough evidence that Bush knew he was going to invade Afghanistan long before 9/11.

Well from the interview that Spade posted Clinton said that he was the only one who did anything or attempted to do anything. He said Bush had 8 months to do something about Bin Laden and didn't do a thing.

Is he lieing now?

Do you still believe him as you said in a previous post?