Whom precisely are we trying to help in Afghanistan?

[MHz]

Hmm nobodies dropped "women going to school" yet, the hawks need their talkin points refreshed methinks

Actually just before the USSR days Afghanistan was the leader in that part of the world for the 'progress of women to work and contribute to the administration of national and international issues within the framework of growing freedoms to a once suppressed member of society'. Other than that what points need to be brought forward?

 

[Machjo]

I'd just like to clarify from a previous statement in this thread that I do not wish for us to 'lose' the war in Afghanistan. And certainly the Taliban is best gone. My issue is with the way our troops deal with hearts and minds campaigns in Afghanistan.

As for the lack of fighting, perhaps our tropps are not being killed on a regular basis, but they do see firefights on a regular basis. That's been covered a number of times on the CBC, a few times with real footage of front-line firefights. And even on those videos you can see how the soldiers walk through a village keeping their distance from all the locals. How does that make for positive and trusting relations.

As for the Taliban, I realise that not all Afghans support them, but we souldn't assume that all who oppose the Taliban welcome us. Ever hear of a two-front-war? How do we know that all those Afghans who oppose the Taliban trust us any more? I'm not saying I know the answer to this, but does anyone here know? I think it is a legitimate question when in fact enough Afghan civilians have beenkilled by our troops already. To be fair, I acknowledge that civilians will sometimes suffer in a war. My question though, is are at least some of those casualties more preventable by trying to build closer ties and communication between our troops and the locals beyond the odd PR photo-op we get now and then?

Again, I'm not saying I know the ansers here, but from what I've seen so far, it appears that this might be a big problem, and a neglected one at that. After all,if we kill an Agfghan, no guarantee he'll join the Taliban, but even if he doesn't join the Taliban, that doesn't stop him from opposing us. Are we in fact sure that the Taliban is the only enemy there, and thate we aren't in fact fighting a few factions who might even be fighting one another?

 

[Colpy]

If you didn't make this war, who the hell did? I'm guessing that the same party started the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. I wonder who that was.

You know what puts the lie to the "War for Oil" and the "US Aggression" lines?

One thing: all the lunatic Taliban had to do was hand over bin Laden.....or allow and help US Special Forces capture him......and they would still be in power in Afghanistan.

 

[lone wolf]

You know what puts the lie to the "War for Oil" and the "US Aggression" lines?

One thing: all the lunatic Taliban had to do was hand over bin Laden.....or allow and help US Special Forces capture him......and they would still be in power in Afghanistan.

Do you suppose Bush and Co would have accepted a photo or effigy if Bin Laden wasn't there? You have to admit ... the US isn't shaken from an idea once it filters into mind ... and anyone who disagrees with their belief or denies has to be a liar until proven innocent.

 

[Machjo]

You know what puts the lie to the "War for Oil" and the "US Aggression" lines?

One thing: all the lunatic Taliban had to do was hand over bin Laden.....or allow and help US Special Forces capture him......and they would still be in power in Afghanistan.

That is true, and the Taliban prooved foolish or something there. Again, I'm not sure I'm opposed to the war per se, but rather to how it was handled. First off, making it NATO-led can raise concernes of bias (after all, NATO doesn't represent the international community, but a select group of nations, NATO itself originally born as an alliance against another specific alliance). Making it NATO-led just wasn't good for PR owing to NATO's history and associations in many people's minds. Had it been UN-led, perhaps more countries would have felt comfortable helping out, and that might have helped provide the necessarily qualified troops to handle the local population more effectively. Neighbouring countries that are not NATO-members could then have become involved too.

 

[EagleSmack]

Since people far more knowledgable than you have come out to say the war is "unwinnable", I'll take your comments once more as so much sorry tripe

They are?

 

[#juan]

You know what puts the lie to the "War for Oil" and the "US Aggression" lines?

One thing: all the lunatic Taliban had to do was hand over bin Laden.....or allow and help US Special Forces capture him......and they would still be in power in Afghanistan.

All they had to do was hand over Bin Laden so he could be lynched like Saddam Hussein was. Did the U.S. hand over the Shah when Iran wanted to try him for his crimes? Saddam Hussein was not one of my heroes, but he was no worse than the Shah. That the Taliban would still be in power is pure speculation. I doubt anything could have stopped Bush's invasion of Afghanistan.

 

[Zzarchov]

All they had to do was hand over Bin Laden so he could be lynched like Saddam Hussein was. Did the U.S. hand over the Shah when Iran wanted to try him for his crimes? Saddam Hussein was not one of my heroes, but he was no worse than the Shah. That the Taliban would still be in power is pure speculation. I doubt anything could have stopped Bush's invasion of Afghanistan.

Seriously?

The Shah? He was a legitimate ruler you know, in a line of about 2,500 years worth of Shahs of continuous rule.

He also never committed Genocide, nor did he invade and attempt to annex neighbouring nations.

Yes, some of the horrible things he did do:

End feudalism and give Persian Serfs (90% of the population) ownership of their land.

Free and compulsory education (things like reading and writing)

Women's Suffrage

Health Care

A social safety net to mothers (this one, as it allowed unwed mothers aid, is what most pissed off the clergy)

All in all this pissed off the clergy who used to have complete dark ages control over rural areas. They decided that the shah must be a "Secret Infidel Jew" to try and modernize Iran.

Now

In his later years he definately went nutty, a few assasination attempts later he banned multiparty and set up a dictatorial state. Which wasn't what pissed off Iranians, because 4 years later they overthrew him for a new dictatorial state with priests instead of a monarch.

The early 1950's coup attempt as some "Western Plot" against Iran is also pretty spurious.

The first PM who opposed oil nationalization on the grounds "We dont' actually have anyone who can run the oil", was assasinated. Alot of support for Nationalization from the Tudeh (Communist) party who had their own plots with the Soviet union who desperately wanted Persia a warm water port and had for years.

The Shah had in this case decided to side with being a western pawn rather than a communist pawn.

Considering the majority of the country were devoutly religious..this wasn't a bad choice.

The guy had alot of problems, especially later on.


But to claim he's as bad as a genocidal megolomaniac? You just want him to be because your world view is based around the western nations being demonic.

 

[Tyr]

You know what puts the lie to the "War for Oil" and the "US Aggression" lines?

One thing: all the lunatic Taliban had to do was hand over bin Laden.....or allow and help US Special Forces capture him......and they would still be in power in Afghanistan.

In a single word. No.

The Taliban had virtually zero control over Al Queda. Bin Laden wasn't a sovereign entity unto himself and the invasion of Afghanistan was in the works long before 9/11

to wit, "would the Taliban still be in power today". Probably not. They would have self imploded on their own and right now, Afghanistan would be in the midst of a civil war.

Is that better than being illegally invaded? Definitely. Afghani's would have the right to self determination vs. a US backed puppet gov't

No doubt the Afghan situation would have been fought by Afghni's but with various factions heavily financed by world powers.

It's difficult to dust off a crystal ball and give a "what if" scenario, but whatever it would have been, it would be better than what is taking place there now

 

[Tyr]

They are?

In your case, the llist goes on infinatum

 

[Zzarchov]

Side note:

Why does everyone forget the Taliban WERE in a civil war when we showed up? They also didn't run all of Afghanistan and never had.

 

[EagleSmack]

In your case, the llist goes on infinatum

llist? l-l-l-list. What do you stutter on forums too?

It's "infinitum". For someone who likes to correct other people's typos and spelling you sure are not very careful with your own.

 

[ironsides]

In a single word. No.

The Taliban had virtually zero control over Al Queda. Bin Laden wasn't a sovereign entity unto himself and the invasion of Afghanistan was in the works long before 9/11

to wit, "would the Taliban still be in power today". Probably not. They would have self imploded on their own and right now, Afghanistan would be in the midst of a civil war.

Is that better than being illegally invaded? Definitely. Afghani's would have the right to self determination vs. a US backed puppet gov't

No doubt the Afghan situation would have been fought by Afghni's but with various factions heavily financed by world powers.

It's difficult to dust off a crystal ball and give a "what if" scenario, but whatever it would have been, it would be better than what is taking place there now

Did the U.S. need any reason to plan going after Al-Qaeda before 9/11, Of course they did.. Al-Qaeda started attacking the U.S. and others in 1992. 9/11 was the last straw as far as Al-Qaeda in concerned. It was nice we had a contingency plan in the works, to bad we relied on the UN to finish up for us. The Talaban and Al-Qaeda were allies.

The first terrorist attack that Al Qaeda carried consisted of out three bombings which were targeted at US troops in Aden, Yemen, in December 1992. Two Austrian tourists died in the bombing.
They claim to have shot down US helicopters and killed US servicemen in Somalia in 1993. It is was suggested that they were involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Al Qaeda members Ramzi Yousef, whom was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Youssef was arrested.

 

[Tyr]

Did the U.S. need any reason to plan going after Al-Qaeda before 9/11, Of course they did.. Al-Qaeda started attacking the U.S. and others in 1992. 9/11 was the last straw as far as Al-Qaeda in concerned. It was nice we had a contingency plan in the works, to bad we relied on the UN to finish up for us. The Talaban and Al-Qaeda were allies.

The first terrorist attack that Al Qaeda carried consisted of out three bombings which were targeted at US troops in Aden, Yemen, in December 1992. Two Austrian tourists died in the bombing.
They claim to have shot down US helicopters and killed US servicemen in Somalia in 1993. It is was suggested that they were involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Al Qaeda members Ramzi Yousef, whom was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Youssef was arrested.

The Talaban and Al-Qaeda were allies.

Uh. No. The Taliban had no use for Al Queda.

Do you just make this shiiit up as you go along?

 

[EagleSmack]

The Talaban and Al-Qaeda were allies.

Uh. No. The Taliban had no use for Al Queda.

Do you just make this shiiit up as you go along?

Seriously... this is a joke right? Are you the new Dark Beaver? Logic 7? Quandry?

 

[Colpy]

The Talaban and Al-Qaeda were allies.

Uh. No. The Taliban had no use for Al Queda.

Do you just make this shiiit up as you go along?

Talk about making up **** as you go along!

Are not the Taliban and al quada both Islamo-fascist organizations? Are not both primarily Sunni? Do they not share the same aims?

And perhaps you could explain to me their current alliance set to destroy the government of Pakistan? Or the Taliban offer of refuge to Osama bin Laden when he was booted out of the Sudan? Or the fact that al qaeda was considered part of the Taliban ministry of defense in Afghanistan? Or the fact Mullah Omar refused to give them up?

Geez, with enemies like that, who needs friends?

I await your smart-ass one line evasion of the question.

 

[EagleSmack]

Never mind that it was Al Queda guys who blew up (and themselves of course) the main leader of the Nothern Alliance while posing as camera men.

No USE WHATSOEVER! :roll:

 

[Tyr]

The Taliban kept Al Queda at arms length due to the fear that the US was still funding them. They didn't want to be compromised


Al-Qaeda attacks were "blowback" from the American CIA's "Operation Cyclone" program to help the Afghan mujahideen is a matter of some debate. Robin Cook, former British Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, has written that al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were "a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies," and that the mujahideen that formed al-Qaeda were "originally ... recruited and trained with help from the CIA

 

[EagleSmack]

Arms length... they were in Afghanistan!

What a dolt you've become.

 

[Colpy]

Never mind that it was Al Queda guys who blew up (and themselves of course) the main leader of the Nothern Alliance while posing as camera men.

No USE WHATSOEVER! :roll:

I have a buddy, a professor of history and a proud Irish-Canadian....spent a lot of time in Northern Irelan during the troubles.....after 9-11 a couple of Lebanese students (who suddenly were proudly wearing their crucifixes OUTSIDE their shirts ) asked him what he thought of al qaeda.

"They need to go to Ireland" Why?

"So the morons can learn that it is possible to blow something up without hurting themselves"