Top 15 Reasons to Get Out of Vietghanistan

[davidswanson]

1. The planning of 9-11 was done in hotels and apartments in Germany and Spain, and flight schools in the United States. Even Paul Pillar, former CIA deputy chief for counter-terrorism will tell you that an al Qaeda base in Afghanistan would not significantly increase threats to the United States.

2. If the Taliban had control of Afghanistan, it would likely not allow al Qaeda in. Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. president's guy in Afghanistan, will tell you the same.

3. The Taliban would not necessarily gain full control of Afghanistan if the United States left. It never had it before, and appears unlikely to be able to take it now. These three points, as Robert Naiman has pointed out, make the leap from US withdrawal to an al Qaeda attack on the United States quite a large one.

4. Occupying and bombing Afghanistan is actually making us less safe. It is enraging people against the United States, building the Taliban and other resistance.

5. The occupation is also damaging the rule of law. Our engagement in this illegal enterprise makes it more difficult to prevent other nations from engaging in wars of aggression.

6. The occupation is not benefitting the Afghan people. It is not protecting their rights or their lives. It is brutally taking their lives with bombs and imprisoning them without charge or trial or the rights of prisoners of war.

7. The Taliban is made up of poor people fighting in order to eat. They need aid, diplomacy, jobs, education, and resources, not bombs and troops and mercenaries. We're paying tens of thousands of Afghans to fight as mercenaries. We could pay them to rebuild their country and have money to spare.

8. That we are supposedly succeeding against al Qaeda when arguments are needed to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, but supposedly failing against al Qaeda when it's time to continue or escalate wars is insulting, not credible.

9. The citizens of the United States oppose the war, and it's our money and our kids, and our country being placed in danger of blowback.

10. The people of Afghanistan, according to an ABC News poll, want the United States to withdraw. It's their country, and you cannot impose democracy on them without obeying their majority opinion.

11. If we've been through eight years of this and not been able to even devise a rough description of what a "success" would look like, what are the chances that it will be identified and achieved in year nine?

12. It's called the graveyard of empires for a reason.

13. Our states' militias, the national guard, is needed at home and cannot constitutionally be sent abroad to fight for empire.

14. US soldiers signed up to defend the United States, not to commit war crimes in distant lands.

15. There is nothing worse than war that could conceivably take its place. Killing people is the worst thing there is.

Has your congress member committed to voting No on all war money, to cosponsoring Jim McGovern's bill for an exit plan, to cosponsoring Betty McCollum's bill to defund criminal government contractors, and to cosponsor Barbara Lee's bill to block funding for an escalation?

Have you asked them? Have you asked them face-to-face? Have you used the local media? Have you gone to their office, sat down, and refused to leave?

[Joanne98]

1. K&R

[ShortnFiery]

2. I love clear and concise. Kudos! eom

[bernynhel]

3. How about: The enemy we went there to engage left?

So when did the mission shift to fight the Taliban? When al Queda went to Pakistan. The Taliban is a parochial problem (not our business!) that Afghanis are used to dealing with. The U.S. involvement at this stage is stirring up the hornets nest that is the Taliban that locals would just as soon leave alone to settle down to the managable levels they are used to dealing with on a daily basis and have been for years. The U.S. out of Afghanistan would end the insurgency and therefore any need to counter.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

44. What Shift?

From the very start, the Taliban were targeted, so I'm not sure you can argue there's been some shift in the mission.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. Point #8 bears repeating

They tell us anything to herd us into whatever little corral we're supposed to be in.

If they have to contradict themselves to do it, that's okay with them.

OR: When someone's lying to you, stop believing them!

[RT Atlanta]

6. So does #12

It's called the graveyard of empires for a reason.

[FiveGoodMen]

7. Completely agree.

Do you suppose our current President is unable to grasp that?

I figure he's smart enough to understand it...

Which means he's either so proud that he thinks it will be different under his rule...

Or else he's lying about why we're there.

Bad news either way.

[RT Atlanta]

9. I wish I knew...

Obama otherwise impresses me as one of the smarter folks in the room, and certainly a student of history, so why he and some of his team ignores that history, and especially the more recent history with the Soviets in Afghanistan as late as the 80s, surprises me.

All the $$$$ blown on the "wars" the last 8 years could have been used to make significant strides to ending poverty, hunger and homelessness in our country. As always, Dr. King was spot-on with his commentary 40 years ago:

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." from 1967

"It is a tragic mix-up when the United States spends $500,000 for every enemy soldier killed, and only $53 annually on the victims of poverty.”

[FiveGoodMen]

10. WOW! $500,000 v. $53 -- That's ... really something!

[RT Atlanta]

14. Those were late 60s figures too

who knows how high the figure is now....

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

46. This Isn't a Repeat of the 1980s

Is this situation really comparable to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, at time when the Mujahideen were receiving funds and weaponry from much of the Western world?

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. No kidding. People seem to think that Afghanistan is some mystical

evil Mordor that destroys all who enter.

We fed the mujahadeen weaponry, and the soviets lost 10,000 soldiers in under 10 years. We've been there for 8 years, and lost 800. I'm not diminishing those lives lost, but the conflict is NOT the same.

Bushco made plans for permanent bases in Iraq. But even THEY didn't want to occupy Afghanistan. It does nothing for us. That being the case, the only reason we are there is the stated reason of getting al Queda. So let's do it, then get the hell out.

The strategy should be to separate the Taliban from the people, and Al Queda from the Taliban. Narrow the focus to where the local will actually want to help us get the Arab foreigners out of their country and stop fucking it up.

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. He's lying to himself if he thinks the outcome of this 'war' will be any different

under his 'rule'. Bit of an ego problem, there.

[humbled_opinion]

25. Exactly...

Note to Obama you would not be dealing in defecits and you would have plenty of money and political capital to spend on Healthcare for all Americans under a single payer plan if you would just get us out of these expensive and potentially bankrupting wars of choice.

Sure keep the military strong and when a country comes and bombs us or attacks us then we can defend ourselves since that is what it is for not fighting wars of choice that some past idiot decided was in his interests.

Don't become the 21st century Nixon.... ala vietnam.

[Individualist]

5. K&R

[TexasObserver]

8. But ... but ... but ... if Vietn ... er, Afghanistan falls, the other dominoes will fall.

And the VC ... I mean, the Taliban, will be all over the region.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

48. A Question

Do you consider the threat posed by the Taliban to the government in Pakistan to be legitimate? Because the Pakistani government certainly did.

[TexasObserver]

57. Answer: Don't care.

I have this quaint notion that it isn't the business of the US government or its citizens to work out all the problems between citizens all over the world.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

58. Really? Because...

Pakistan's problems with the Taliban and our problems with the Taliban, as well as al-Qaeda, are linked.

[TexasObserver]

59. That's bullshit.

Our main problems in the Middle East are from sticking our nose into too many tents.

I'd suggest that you worry more about your town and less about what tribal Muslims are doing to each other in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I don't believe the hysteria about the Taliban or AQ as justification for our being in Afghanistan. Even Charlie Wilson said it's time to get the hell out.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

60. How so?

We weren't acting in a hostile nature towards Afghanistan until it became clear we were being consistently attacked by an organization whose leadership is based there. So tell me, just how far do we have to run to be in the clear with these guys? Out of the Muslim world as a whole? And why in God's name should we when it's pretty clear that they're religious crackpots who don't have much broad based support in the region?

Also, take this however you want but Charlie Wilson's opinion doesn't mean a lot to me.

[TexasObserver]

61. Stop believing fairy tales.

We are not threatened by Afghanistan or the Taliban.

And the threat of AQ has always been grossly overstated.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

69. We are clearly threatened by international terrorism.

Our country has been consistently attacked by an organization whose leaders are in the Pakistan-Afghan region. If your plan doesn't include bringing those people to justice, I'd like to know what it DOES entail... I'm all ears.

[TexasObserver]

73. There was nothing wrong with our intel in 2001.

The problem was the complete refusal of the Bush admin to act on the intel that was all around it.

Even if one accepts the ridiculous official story of the events of 9-11, the cause was incompetence of the Bush admin to react when it learned of serious and obvious threats. Our defense against terrorism does not require us to attack peasants in Afghanistan.

My plan is for the US to stop being such a candy ass and to stop acting as if some ban of irregulars in the mountains of the Mideast was a real threat.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

74. Bureaucracy.

It seems to me, in a vast bureaucracy there are always going to be problems with either communicating the urgency of certain intelligence or even the basic facts of said intelligence. No system works perfectly all of the time, which is why when a group consistently attacks your nation, you can't sit back and insist you'll catch on before they're once again successful in their efforts (which seems to be your remedy). It's completely unrealistic to think that way.

What strikes me as so shocking about your plan is that it entails no response whatsoever to the attacks that have been leveled against our country.

[TexasObserver]

75. Your posts remind me of things I hear tea baggers say on TV.

Your grand rationalizations to support the incompetence of the Bush administration, for one.

And your slavish devotion to the myths of 9-11, for another.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

76. I notice that you're not refuting my point.

Which, in itself, is quite telling.

How do you explain your apparent complete unwillingness to hold al-Qaeda, as a whole, responsible for the attacks it has carried out against our country?

[TexasObserver]

78. If I want to argue against your right wing talking points, I'll go to a GOP board.

This is a progressive site. I'm not going to spend any more time arguing with someone who lacks any of the ideals appropriate here. Take it to a GOP board, where your positions are popular.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

83. Cop Out

That's a cheap cop out and you know it. You can't refute my argument so you're attacking me personally.

[samrock]

11. If you are wrong about points 2 and 3 ..

We will have to go back in.. I want to make sure when we leave it will be for good.. I am espically doubtful about point #2..

[davidswanson]

15. once you condede #1

#2 and 3 don't get you anywhere

[cali]

12. I want us out of Afghanistan but the apologism for the Taliban is beyond disgusting.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. I feel the same way about Iraq.

All the Saddam Hussein supporters and Baby Incubator Unpluggers on this site sicken me.

[davidswanson]

16. the what?

got a link?

[cali]

17. #7 on your list.

The Taliban may be mostly poor but they're also a cruel oppressive bunch of assholes. And that's not being brainwashed that's doing some reading. Anyone who thinks that we should be giving them aid is a wholesale fool.

[Kajsa]

40. Read your point #7, David.

" poor people fighting in order to eat" ?


That's it?

That's how you describe a group that condones the beating
and shooting of woman in public arenas for "offenses" that
include exposed ankles, venturing out of the house alone
and fabricated, fictional charges of adultery?

Disgusting doesn't begin to cover it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. sigh

1) 9/11 was plotted and funded through Bin Laden's camps, and the participants had nearly all, if not all, trained in those camps. The fact that they polished the plans in Germany is immaterial.

2) Granted, but only if we make the effort to maintain a split between the Taliban and AQ.

3) The fact that the Taliban did NOT have complete control of the country is what enabled Bin Laden to create the camps in Afghanistan to begin with. The Taliban allowed the camps because a) Bin Laden helped THEM, and b) they couldn't do anything much about them even if they wanted to. So how does the Taliban not being in control this time make it any different?

4) Occupying AND BOMBING - we are working on a change of tactics which (I should hope) would call for an end to indiscriminate bombing of the populace which was Bush's failed tactic.

5) Has the UN declared our war against Al Queda to be illegal? Is it a violation of the Geneva Conventions or the UN Charter? Or has the UN been behind this from the very beginning? Please, how is it 'illegal'? Afghanistan is NOT Iraq.

6) It is not an 'occupation'. It is an on-going conflict. Of COURSE it is not good for anybody. That doesn't mean it is not necessary.

7) The Taliban is made up of poor people fighting to eat. That's a bullshit statement - how does fighting help them eat? Or is it, they are being paid, like mercenaries, by poppy barons? So turning the country over to drug lords is preferable to having a central government?

8) The arguments of 'success' against Al Queda in favor of re-authorizing the patriot act were bogus, and we all know it. If they were bogus, how does that conflict with saying the failures in containing Al Queda are a reason to our continuing presence there. This argument might be believable if anybody actually believed that the patriot act was keeping us safe. You obviously don't, so you are undercutting your own argument.

9) It was our turning our backs on Afghanistan in the 80s that created this situation to begin with. How does abandoning the fight against Al Queda improve our security, particularly with Bin Laden still alive (or at least, not proved dead)? Isn't an intact terrorist organization a greater danger? Define 'blowback'.

10) Your first valid argument. And they'd likely be a lot more amenable to us staying if we don't bomb anymore funerals and weddings, and actually concentrated on getting Bin Laden and tamping down the Taliban. You think the people of Afghanistan really want to go back to public beheadings in the soccer stadium?

11) Eight years of failed Bush policies. New administration, new policies. A 'win' defined by a conclusive defeat of Al Queda, with the death or capture of Bin Laden and his upper management, and an acknowledged split between the Taliban and Al Queda. A narrow focus on Bin Laden is all it takes.

12) We are not there to conquer and possess it. Immaterial. Once we have Bin Laden, we're gone.

13) Actually, constitutionally, they CAN be federalized. They have been, in every war since the civil war. Say rather, they SHOULDN'T be. They are needed here.

14) Are you SERIOUSLY calling our soldiers war criminals?

15) Something worse? Like leaving Al Queda to fester in the borderlands, watch it rebuild, then see them get their hands on an old Soviet nuke, or seize one of Pakistan's nukes? You sure about that? Boy, would you be red-faced when that thing goes off in New York harbor.

Just because Bush's policy allowed for tremendous fuck ups, that doesn't mean we can't fight Al Queda intelligently.

[Mithreal]

21. Ridiculous spin and confusion. No one needs read further than point 12

to realize the weakness of these counter points.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. You think we really are there for the enhancement of the American Empire?

Or do you think, maybe, that there is something Mordorish scary about Afghanistan that reaches out and DESTROYS everyone who dares enter?

WTF?

It is only the 'graveyard of empires' as a rhetorical device. Alexander conquered it. The Mongols conquered it. Britain and Russia both foundered there, but they actually wanted to establish a permanent presence for geopolitical reasons.

We went there for one reason. To get Bin Laden. If it was the pipeline that was the deciding factor, it would have been far easier to deal with it without war. We don't intend to make Afghanistan a client state - that would be a futile endeavor.

So WTF are you talking about?

[defendandprotect]

39. Looks more to me like US is "destroying" everyone -- !!!

And, further, catch up with Brig. Gen. Smedley D. Butler who tells you quite clearly

that capitalistic ventures are protected and kept in place by using American military!


Also -- get to the know the history of capitalism -- a system intended to move the wealth

and resources of a nation from the many to the few. And, it does that quite well!


You also have to awaken to the use of religion as a tool to subvert and suppress other

nations and even our own citizens.

It's been used everywhere to suppress and destroy nations -- and it's exactly what US/CIA

has done in creating Islamic JIHAD in Middle East --




FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE TEXTBOOKS AND THE EFFORT TO CREATE ISLAMIC JIHAD --



The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i ... ...


---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h ...

[mike_c]

42. eight years and counting....

No, occupying Afghanistan has nothing to do with imperialism. Really. Oh look-- a shiny object. Over there.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

50. Is the Number of Years Relevant?

The eight years is irrelevant when one considers we were fighting a hold action for six of those years.

[mike_c]

51. exactly....

Hold action = occupation and control. That's American imperialism. There isn't any coherent foreign policy strategy EXCEPT hold the country and control its people, and hopefully, its resources.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

52. Uhm.

What control of the population are we exerting, if I may ask? Are we choosing their religion for them? Telling them who can and cannot attend school? What, exactly?

By holding action what is meant is that we weren't fighting to win. Nothing more.

[mike_c]

66. please....

If you can't figure out why they're trying to kick us out of their country, I won't waste time detailing it for you. Imperialist powers don't necessarily choose religion or run day-to-day society in occupied countries. Whatever gave you the impression that they do?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

70. Puhleeeze.

Why don't you? After all, I'm merely asking you to articulate your position. That's not a lot to ask of a person, especially on a politically oriented website.

While you're at it, define imperialism for me and explain how our actions in Afghanistan fit the bill.

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. What resources? Afghanistan has NOTHING we want or need.

Empires do not prosper by seizing and holding worthless land. If they did, why aren't there armies scattered across Antarctica?

You don't understand the concept of 'empire' do you.

[mike_c]

65. LOL-- of course I "understand the concept of empire...."

I didn't say it was a well conceived occupation! :rofl:

But seriously, Afghanistan's primary resource of interest to the U.S., other than heroin, of course, is its strategic importance in the region. Location, location, location.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

71. Ufta.

Is heroin a "resource" that we've been exploiting?

Afghanistan is strategically important to the region, however, that doesn't negate the fact that al-Qaeda deserves to be crushed.

[mike_c]

81. you just don/t understand, do you?

It makes no difference at all whether Americans think "al-Qaeda deserves to be crushed." We're (supposed to be) a nation of laws, and under international law and U.S. treaty hating someone, even with justification, is not sufficient to justify war. Afghanistan did not invade the U.S., nor has it ever been a threat to the U.S. or any of its allies. Al-Qaeda is itself mostly a U.S. construct, assembled during the cold war to embarrass the Soviets. Most of its support comes from U.S. allies, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan. Does this sound like a recipe for just war or for a geopolitical clusterfuck? The White House justifies the war because "it is in the national interest" or "for U.S. security" without ever defining the interest or explaining what a medieval tribal nation with few resources, on the other side of the globe, has to do with U.S. security. But I'm betting that energy has something to do with it. And MIC profits, of course.

The U.S. has no business in Afganistan, except for the business of empire and militarism. Eisenhower warned us about this, if you'll recall.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

84. Okie Dokie

1) International law allows a nation to relatiate after being attacked (as we repeatedly have been).

2) If you'd like to discuss the roots of the Taliban, that's fine and dandy, but that has absolutely no bearing on point #1.

3) How a well funded terrorist organization can be a threat to the United States and other countries around the globe is unclear to you? I'm really not trying to be rude here, but what about this is so hard to grasp? What's unclear to you? A terrorist organization doesn't need a vast amount of infrastructure in order to be a threat. We know this, because many terrorist groups have traditionally trained in remote locations (the IRA in Libya, for instance).

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. C'mon. Seriously. What the fuck does that shithole have to offer us?

Or do you believe the US government is actually controlling the worldwide heroin trade?

Because there is NOTHING other than poppies and some really good hashish that comes out of Afghanistan. What, there, could possibly make it worth what it is costing?

Russia wanted it because it was a link to Iranian oil and southern salt-water ports. Russia has been interested in Afghanistan for centuries. Britain wanted it because it was blocking Russian access to Iranian oil and southern salt-water ports - the Crimean war fought for the same reasons - and it also bordered their prize jewel of Empire in India, and could possibly destabilize that holding.

What geo-political purpose does Afghanistan have for us?

None. Nada. Zilch. The ONLY reason we went there was to get bin Laden, but the idiots in the Bush administration fucked that up. That is the ONLY reason we have for staying there. We don't need to keep Russia away from Iranian oil - they produce more oil than Iran. With global warming, Russia has all the salt-water ports it wants. So why would an american empire WANT Afghanistan?

[Mithreal]

63. Failure of imagination is not proof of anything.

I could use the same arguments about our troops that are still in Germany or Japan.

Resist equating the excuse used to get us in there with what is keeping us there.

[Truth2Tell]

64. Afghanistan is a crucial transit route

between Central Asia and the Far East/Indian Ocean. It has been for centuries.

Right now the crucial trade from Central Asia is Energy. Natural gas. Declining energy supplies worldwide and a changing dynamic in South America and the ME make access to Central Asian energy resources a major requirement of the American Empire over the next decade. It's no accident the Afghan "President" is a former CONOCO executive.

The Empire also just needs a war. A massive self-perpetuating military industrial monster has intertwined itself with the American economy and political system. It has a large appetite and needs to be continually fed or it might turn on it's host.

[mike_c]

67. I never said it was a well conceived occupation...

...but presumably Afghanistan falls under the uber-imperialist PNAC objectives for U.S. force projection into and from strategic global regions. It started as a neocon project, after all.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

49. Then Demonstrate Their Weaknesses...

Then perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a few minutes to demonstrate their weaknesses? Surely that's not too much to ask.

[Mithreal]

62. That RW screed deserved a general rebuke.

If it had been well thought out and well presented I would be more likely interested in a discussion.

However, since you make yourself available, care to argue the specifics?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

72. Sure. Why not?

[Mithreal]

79. Alrighty, pick a point and defend it. nt

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

85. This Might Work Better If....

This might work better if you singled out one you had a particular problem with.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

86. This Might Work Better If....

This might work better if you singled out one you had a particular problem with.

[Mithreal]

88. I already did previously. I don't like repeating. nt

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

89. Yeah, I've Looked. Still Not Seeing It.

[defendandprotect]

38. Wake up!! US/CIA created Taliban/Al Qaeda and the Islamic JIHAD in ME . . .

FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE TEXTBOOKS AND THE EFFORT TO CREATE ISLAMIC JIHAD --



The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i... ...


---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h...

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. In case you hadn't noticed, that was thirty fucking years ago.

Brzezinski was a moron for thinking there would not be any blowback for creating islamic terrorists. I'm sure it never occurred to him that a quarter of the worlds population is Muslim, and it is a real bad idea to start a religious war with a quarter of the worlds population. That was purely a product of cold war thinking.

The fact that we started it doesn't mean we want to keep it going. Worldwide jihad does NOT enhance US power or influence. We simply saw them as a tool to use against the soviets - and there were few people in the government more anti-soviet than Brzezinski.

There is nothing in Afghanistan we want. Nothing except Al Queda and Bin Laden - I know, they are now based in Pakistan, but they are getting pressured by the Pakistanis and if we leave Afghanistan they will return.

There are American imperialists - we've had them for the last 8 years, and even THEY knew there was nothing in Afghanistan for the Empire. That's why they abandoned the hunt for bin Laden and went into Iraq. So don't believe the shit about it being 'for the American empire'.

[defendandprotect]

68. It took the GOP 40 years to overturn the New Deal . . . probably longer .. . !!!

I'm not sure you read the second part of the info --

And, what does "30 fucking yeas ago" have to do with 9/11???????????

And our "war on terrorism" today????????????????

Further, the ran their little scheme in Afghanistan vs the Russians . . .

while Carter lied about what was going on and took us out of the Olympics!! . . .

because they "hoped to give Russia a Viet-nam type experience." That is, we lost a

war -- we were defeated by Asians under 5' tall -- and it was embarrassing!!!

They wanted to try to look less like the only losers!


Second part -- THE MESS GOING ON NOW IN AFGHANISTAN AND THE CHRISTIAN CRUSADE WE HAVE

GOING ON IN IRAQ NOW, IS ALL PART OF WHAT WE DID IN OUR CREATION OF THE ISLAMIC JIHAD

MOVE. IT'S FAKE -- IT'S PHONY -- ALL OF THE RELIGIOUS ISLAMIC NONSENSE YOU'VE HEARD

OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS!


"30 years ago -- wake up to what's happening NOW because of all of this!"

:eyes:

[Mithreal]

80. Americans had to have an enemy as big as the former USSR.

Looting the treasury while everyone is watching would be trickier without the distraction.

And really, put yourself in the shoes of the Military contractors. Their lifestyles don't come cheap. Would you rather everyone suffer in America's new economy.

[defendandprotect]

90. Great post . . . !!

Agree . . . amazing what can be done behind a war!

The thing that gets me though is how readily the public is willing to go along
with this "terrorist" threat being a big thing! Where were they when
"The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!" ......???

In fact, if you had told Americans that the Russians did 9/11, they wouldn't have
believed it! They'd still be laughing!

Further, the Pentagon told Bush that our problems with Global Warming are more
serious than "terraism" -- a greater danger to the nation!
Scare people and evidently every other thought flies out of their minds!?


:)

PS: IMO, everyone connected with the Bush administration and Blackwater, KBR, etal
should be in jail -- as well as any member of Congress who votes to privatize our military!

[FiveGoodMen]

91. "everyone connected with ... Bush ... should be in jail"

How do we apply that to those who are blocking the prosecution of the Bush crime family and are continuing its terrible policies?

I won't mention any names...

[defendandprotect]

19. k i c k

[Mithreal]

20. K&R, for your last 2 paragraphs especially.

Did you intentionally leave out mission creep and spill over into neighbors?

[The Court Jester]

23. No foreign power has EVER been able to successfully occupy that land

Anyone who has ever learned of the history of that piece of Earth knows full well that attempting to occupy that region by force is a Fool's Dream. Those people are so unwilling to submit to authority that in the entire history of the land there has never been a single Afghan leader that has survived his term in power. They have killed each and every one of them.

When the Russians tried to occupy that area back in the late 70's and 80's, they got their butts handed to them. In the end, all the Russians could do was circle their tanks close to villages and try to survive. One of the tricks the Afghans used against Russians that they captured, was that they would burn off the captives genitals with a blowtorch and then turn them lose to go back to their comrades and tell them what happens when they catch you.

One other little detail that might explain why we are there, is that the Taliban had almost completely stopped the Opium production. And there are people who don't like that notion one little bit.

[debbierlus]

24. No. 15 needs to be repeated often.

[crispini]

26. "The Taliban is made up of poor people fighting in order to eat."

:puke:

The Taliban is made up of a bunch of brutal, beheading, hand-chopping-off, woman-hating, fundamentalist assholes.

[ProSense]

27. A favorite among some people.

Disgusting.

[Overseas]

37. I agree. But again, that is Mission Creep. Like Sadaam being a vicious tyrant.

Mission Creep--
We gotta invade Iraq because they've got Al Qaeda links. Don't believe that? OK
We gotta invade Iraq because they've got WMD. They don't? OK
We gotta invade Iraq because Sadaam is a brutal tyrant. We ousted him, hung him, and are still there.

So ditto
We gotta invade Afghanistan to chase Al Qaeda. They'll just regroup from Pakistan? OK
We gotta keep warring in Afghanistan because the Taliban are vicious fundamentalists? True.

BUT WHO PUT US IN CHARGE? George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They'd like the Obama Administration to keep fighting there. That will drain the resources he could otherwise use to push his "socialist" agenda.


I voted for President Obama in part because he recognized that building schools, hospitals and other infrastructure to improve the lives of the poor is a far more effective technique than warring.

The "collateral damage" of warring creates more terrorists.

[deaniac21]

28. love them

[grahamhgreen]

29. Also, it's an Islamic republic, how many Americans die for an Islamic republic?

[bertman]

30. K & R for getting out of Vietghanistan.

[johnaries]

31. Point by point refutation. David, although I respect some of your previous work you have

truly "jumped the shark".

1. The planning of 9-11 was done in hotels and apartments in Germany and Spain, and flight schools in the United States. Even Paul Pillar, former CIA deputy chief for counter-terrorism will tell you that an al Qaeda base in Afghanistan would not significantly increase threats to the United States.

- Bullshit. Maybe the details were ironed out in the US, but the original plan was hatched in the al Qaeda headquarters located at that time in Afghanistan. There is video released of bin Laden and his subordinates bragging over it. Further, Clinton tried to take out bin Laden in his camps in Afghanistan but failed. Regardless, al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. Period.

2. If the Taliban had control of Afghanistan, it would likely not allow al Qaeda in. Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. president's guy in Afghanistan, will tell you the same.

- Excuse me? When the Taliban had control of Afghanistan, they harbored and protected al Qaeda. That has never been in dispute. If the Taliban take control again, there is no doubt they will harbor and encourage al Qaeda again.

3. The Taliban would not necessarily gain full control of Afghanistan if the United States left. It never had it before, and appears unlikely to be able to take it now. These three points, as Robert Naiman has pointed out, make the leap from US withdrawal to an al Qaeda attack on the United States quite a large one.

- Please review history of just a decade ago. Do you not remember the images of the Taliban measuring beards to make sure they were long enough, or destroying centuries-old statues of Buddha in Afghanistan mountainsides? Revisionsit history is a Republican trait. It doesn't become you, David.

4. Occupying and bombing Afghanistan is actually making us less safe. It is enraging people against the United States, building the Taliban and other resistance.

-Although this was true in Iraq, and it is also true in Afghanistan when we accidentially bomb innocent citizens or "collateral damage", the level of "collateral damage" has greatly decreased as we have become more careful about the strikes and the Afghan people have come to see us as "protectors" to a much larger extent than the Iraqis saw us as "invaders". This was a very valid argument against the Iraq War. Not so with the Afghan War.

5. The occupation is also damaging the rule of law. Our engagement in this illegal enterprise makes it more difficult to prevent other nations from engaging in wars of aggression.

-Again, this was true of the illegal Iraq War. Not of the Afghan War.

6. The occupation is not benefitting the Afghan people. It is not protecting their rights or their lives. It is brutally taking their lives with bombs and imprisoning them without charge or trial or the rights of prisoners of war.

-This is true of any war. However, we are trying to help them rebuild their infrastructure to some extent. And this time, we are making a serious effort rather than granting contracts to Halliburton cronies. Or are we? Perhaps this would be an area you could explore and bring back some serious information instead of the bullshit you've been peddling so far.


7. The Taliban is made up of poor people fighting in order to eat. They need aid, diplomacy, jobs, education, and resources, not bombs and troops and mercenaries. We're paying tens of thousands of Afghans to fight as mercenaries. We could pay them to rebuild their country and have money to spare.

- The Taliban are NOT "poor people fighting in order to eat". The Taliban are made up of religious extremists who seek power over anything else. They will torture and force anyone to become suicide bombers if they can. David, this claim is especially heinous to me because you are playing into the RW memes. They claim that we Liberals justify bloody extremism by portraying the truly evil as simple "hungry". Which is what you just did. <b>I will never trust you or anything you ever have to say again</b>. I no longer consider you a Liberal. I consider you an opportunist. I think you are simply trying to sell "copy". <b>You are a fucking sell-out. If there is a Hell, I hope you rot in it just like all the self-serving Republicans that you are aiding by "proving" them right. </b>

8. That we are supposedly succeeding against al Qaeda when arguments are needed to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, but supposedly failing against al Qaeda when it's time to continue or escalate wars is insulting, not credible.
- who is saying we are "succeeding"? You are having flashbacks.

9. The citizens of the United States oppose the war, and it's our money and our kids, and our country being placed in danger of blowback.
- they oppose the war because W fucked it up. Period.

10. The people of Afghanistan, according to an ABC News poll, want the United States to withdraw. It's their country, and you cannot impose democracy on them without obeying their majority opinion.
-other polls show they want us to stay. Again, this is Afghanistan, not Iraq.

11. If we've been through eight years of this and not been able to even devise a rough description of what a "success" would look like, what are the chances that it will be identified and achieved in year nine?
-because we have new leadership who is actually looking at the reasons we went in to begin with. We have been off-mission for 8 years. It's time we get back on-mission.

12. It's called the graveyard of empires for a reason.
-partially because we helped drive the USSR out.

13. Our states' militias, the national guard, is needed at home and cannot constitutionally be sent abroad to fight for empire.
-we are not fighting for empire. Iraq was fighting for empire. Afghanistan harbored the leaders who attacked us on our soil. Part of the reason they were allowed to gather there was because we ignored them after the USSR pulled out. We cannot afford to make the same mistake twice.

14. US soldiers signed up to defend the United States, not to commit war crimes in distant lands. - Again, NOT Iraq.

15. There is nothing worse than war that could conceivably take its place. Killing people is the worst thing there is. - no argument. The Taliban killed many people. they harbored al Qaeda which also killed people. Our job is to stop the killing.


We invaded Iraq illegally. The invasion of Afghanistan was not only legal but warranted. We were distracted from the job that needed to be done in Afghanistan by the illegal war in Iraq.

<b>Afghanistan is NOT Iraq!</b> Try and get that through your closed mind.

[InfiniteThoughts]

32. nope ...

1a. Some part of the planning was made in Pakistan. The approval was received in Afghanistan. The place of planning is not as important as the various leaders who were involved in the planning.
1b. If AQ base in Afghanistan would not be a threat, why did 9/11 happen?

2. News to you - Taliban had control of Afghanistan when they welcomed Bin Laden. They weren't going to give him up, as many believe post-9/11 & pre-Afghanistan invasion. And by the way, the relationship was symbiotic - AQ & OBL gave Taliban it's financial muscle in return for protection.

3. You might have forgotten history. After USSR left, Pak used ISI to exert more influence in Afghanistan. Taliban was thus born. The Taliban leadership has not been eliminated, ISI rogue elements still remain and Pakistan will wish to exert major influence in Afghan matters. So, i see no reason how Taliban will be happy to side on the sidelines after US leaves for home.

4. I agree that bombing civilians is making them very unhappy & turning them into the recruitment ground for Taliban.

5. How is the occupation against law? Taliban was recognized by just 3 countries as legitimate govt - UAE, Saudi & Pakistan. UAE & Saudi withdrew recognition post 9/11. US is removing an illegal govt. UN sanctioned ISAF in Dec 2001.

I don't have a contrarian point of view on other aspects that you outlined. The closest example that US needs to get familiarity is in the same region - Pak encouraged terrorism in Kashmir valley. It's been 2 decades since the low-level conflict started (1989). For the first 8-10 years, the support of the local people was with the militants who saw some of them as freedom fighters. However in the last 10 years, the tide has turned. People have recognized the true nature of these proxy fighters. In parallel, the Indian govt has spent a lot of money to build infrastructure in Kashmir. All this is yielding results. Calls for independence or attaching themselves to Pakistan has reduced dramatically. This is the same solution for Afghanistan.

* Set objectives to fight corruption. Winning the battle against corruption would win half the battle.
* Spend $50 bn/5 years on infrastructure. The contracts should be given to Afghan people and the US should ensure transparency from bid to implementation so that money isn't siphoned off.
* Prepare for a low level conflict. That would mean (1) Replace US, NATO troops with UN Peace Keepers (2) Train Afghan army. Ask for help from the local neighbours - Pakistan, India, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and maybe even Iran.

[tomp]

33. pardon me, but isn't the taliban a reactionary religious organization?

point # 7 involves material backing of the taliban which i cannot support, unless i am mistaken about who they actually are. of course, i support feeding people.

[defendandprotect]

41. Most people are mistaken about who Taliban/Al Qaeda really are . .. ???

Brzezinski was bragging about this first part on O'Reilly's show about three years ago -
and discussed in his book - think it's "The Chess Game" -- all common knowledge now.

Also, US/CIA worked to create the myth of Islamic JIHAD in Middle East --
see second part

-------------------------------------------

FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE TEXTBOOKS AND THE EFFORT TO CREATE ISLAMIC JIHAD --



The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i ... ...


---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h ...

[tomp]

77. i ask again: are the taliban a reactionary religious organization or not?

your first section has been frequently posted on du and i am familiar with it.

the second section is new to me and interesting but begs the question. the taliban could very well be a reactionary religious organization that gets its books (and god knows what else) from the corrupt u.s. govt. (or god knows who else).

if i read david correctly he is proposing giving material support to the taliban. I don't know why anyone would want to do that, especially in light of what you just posted.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Unfortunately, the politicians and pentagon are too chikenshit to admit they lost another war again.

So, they'll continue to fund it, send more troops to kill & die, kill even more civilians, and keep on telling us about the fierce bogeyman that's going to come here and force our mamas to wear burqas.

[AzDar]

35. K & R

:kick:

[ProSense]

36. "The Taliban is made up of poor people fighting in order to eat. "

Gimme a T-A-L-I-B-A-N! Go Taliban!

Next up, a Taliban appreciation thread.

Digusting!

[mike_c]

43. hate much...?

How is your hatred of the taliban for their militant interpretation of islam any different than their hatred of western values? Is it just more OK when Americans hate the WOGS?

on edit: you also seem to forget that all the moral outrage in the world is not sufficient justification for war under international law and U.S. treaty.

[Echo In Light]

47. Rec

[ieoeja]

82. Five out of Fifteen. Good enough for baseball!

I will give you points 1, 4, 8, 9 and 10. The rest make little or no sense.


2. Makes no sense. The Taliban let al Qaeda in last time. What has changed? The leader of the extremist Taliban element is still bin Laden's brother-in-law.

3. Makes no sense. The Taliban was so close to taking full control of Afghanistan that they had already begun incursions into neighboring nations to the north.

5. Makes on sense. Almost every country in the world believes the US occupation is justified. This point was just stupid.

6. Makes little sense. The occupation is certainly not benefitting all the Afghan people. But is just as certainly benefitting some of the Afghan people.

7. Makes no sense. The idea that the Taliban is just looking for a meal is so stupid, I don't see any reason to even comment.

11. Makes little sense. The Worst President Ever was in charge for the first seven of those eight (not nine) years. His replacement has only just begun to consider the definition of "success". It is sensible to predict he might not succeed, but assuming he can not because the Worst President Ever did not succeed, makes no sense.

12. Makes no sense. Afghanistan has been under indigenous control about 100 years out of the last 2300 years. Of the half dozen empires to rule them, they only managed to kick out one of them. All the others ruled for centuries only to be outed, not by the Afghans, but by the next empire to rule the area for centuries.

13. Makes no sense.

14. Makes no sense.

15. Makes no sense.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

87. Just Trying to Eat

The Taliban are made up of poor people just trying to eat? Is that why they're targeting crowded markets for suicide attacks - to create a diversion so they can go in and grab some snacks?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

92. Bump