some seem to think the Afghanistan war is more just than the Iraq war

[mopaul]

some seem to think afghanistan had it coming after nine eleven, because we were instantly told it was bin laden, and he was in a cave over there.

and still, many cling to the notion that although the iraq war is unjust, the afhanistan war a good thing overall.

maybe they're right, hell i don't know, but the way they keep hawking it as a huge success bothers me.

[whistle]

1. More poppy growing and heroine production most certainly...

<snip>
159 EC 03 E - THE DANGER OF NARCOTRAFFIC FROM AFGHANISTAN FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Victor VOITENKO (Russian Federation)

Special Rapporteur


TABLE OF CONTENTS


I. INTRODUCTION

II. AFGHANISTAN IS ONE OF THE DRUG COUNTRY LEADERS

III. DRUG - TRAFFIC ROUTES FROM AFGHANISTAN

IV. THE RUSSIAN FRONTIER GUARDS AGAINST THE DRUG THREAT

V. ONLY IN COOPERATION IS IT POSSIBLE TO FIGHT AGAINST THE DRUG THREAT

VI. CONCLUSIONS



I. INTRODUCTION


1. The world community entered the 21st century with a lot of unsolved and negative problems of global character.

2. Among them drug abuse and drug crime, financing terrorism and extremism, corruption, money laundering, spreading Aids and other diseases - all these make up a far from complete list of the threats which brings to the humanity the illegal drug abuse. The analytical research conducted of late in the sphere of drug abuse by different international organizations and national special centres show that trans-national drug syndicates increase their activities, "embrace" more and more new regions and territories for cultivating and producing drugs. At the same time they perfect the routers and ways of trafficking the fatal cargo. They involve in their business different layers of population, whole ethnic groups and in general a great number of people. The process of illegal turn over of drugs knows no racial or sex, religious, national aspects. It is the main value-human life - that most often undergoes the danger of this disaster. Every year the drug abuse brings danger to millions of people in the world. Approximately over 200 million people take drugs of different king and the consumption enlarges every year.

3. Human organism gets accustomed to drugs quickly and to get rid of it is practically impossible. The majority of addicts are as a rule younger than 30, and they do not live up to be 30.


<more>
<link> http://natopa.ibicenter.net/default.asp?SHORTCUT=374

[FloridaPat]

2. Since learning what I've learned about 9-11, I believe the

invasion of Afghanistan was another international wrong. That invasion was planned for October of 2001 in May of 2001. * wined and dined the Taliban trying to get them to agree to an oil pipeline built by American companies. Seems the invasion plans started after the Taliban gave the contract to a S. American company.

According to Pravda, the US invaded Afghanistan with enough troops to take over the capital and the pipeline route. We had no intention of freeing Afghanistan from the Taliban.

Reports from US soldiers that duringt he battle of Tora Bora, fight was stopped, planes from Pakistan came in were Osama was, left and when the fighting started, there was no one there.

Then there were all the bombings and no bodies. Or bodies of wedding people. The reason for no bodies according to the military was they were bombed out of existance.

As with Iraq, it looks like we wanted a puppet government to do our bidding. We weren't interested in real democracy, getting Osama, or helping Afghanistan. Plus, according to fromthewilderness.com, the poppy production of Afghanistan supports the CIA covert operations. The money from running drugs is washed through the stock market. Our government wanted poppies back in production.

[DemonFighterLives]

12. That is the way I understand it as well

Good post!
:thumbsup:

[LynnTheDem]

23. "International wrong"? The vast majority of the entire world said HELL NO

The only "international" about it was the US & UK.

[geek tragedy]

83. And Germany. And France. And the entire UN security council.

In fact, how many governments actively campaigned against the US action in Afghanistan?

All of this is kinda besides the point, because people in South Africa and Indonesia don't have veto power over the US defending itself.

[thebigidea]

3. kinda hard to call it a success with OBL and Zawahiri making videos, eh?

[leesa]

22. Those aren't real videos. They are made by us.

The "confession" video didn't look anything like OBL...different nose, different eyes, different mouth, about 40# heavier.
We were simply told yet another lie by BushCo and Americans swallowed it whole.

The Afghanistan invasion in October was announced in July 2001, and published in BBC News. They wouldn't go along with our pipeline deal so we said we were going to bomb them and we did. Nothing to do with 9-11.

[democracyindanger]

49. And we never landed on the moon.

[Monkie]

86. bin laden DENIES doing 9/11: Interview published 28th September, 2001

http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle"

[Solly Mack]

4. and some of us never supported either

and still don't...

[LynnTheDem]

24. Amen!

:thumbsup:

[Todd B]

5. No one of Afghani descent was a hijacker on 9/11, right?

Just because he is living over there doesn't give anyone the right to go to war with that nation. We should of negotiated with the Afghani government to help look for him (or coordinated with the UN), since, IIRC, none of the 9/11 hijackers were of Afghani descent.

But that is just my thoughts on the matter; I'm no expert and would certainly not claim to be one.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

78. No Afghans, and no Iraqis among the hijackers.

[KlatooBNikto]

6. I see a natural progression.

1.Afghanistan was a just war.
2. Iraq was just a war.
3.Iran will be just another war.
4.Syria will be just another war.
5. Lebanon will be just another war.
6. Kazakhstan will be just another war.

All wars we wage will be just wars.Nothing more. Get used to wars 24/7/365.

[bahrbearian]

7. Hell ,at least we secured an Oil pipline Route in Afghanitstan

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. My grandfather fought in Afghanistan in the 1890's.

In the British Army. A long line of would be conquerers from Alexander the Great to the USofA has made attempts to "stabilize" Afghanistan. It, and it's bandits, are still tossing them out and getting back to business.

[drdon326]

9. I sure as hell do !!

iF AFGHANISTAN had turned over bin laden and his band of murderous jihadists , then attacking afghanistan would have been unneceessary.

And quite frankly afghanistan was the most pathetic country on the face of planet earth at the time.....although that was not the reason to invade them.

[bvar22]

15. You seem to believe that the Taliban...

...could somehow turn over Bin Laden!

It is quite possible that Bin Laden out gunned the mainly clerical tribal militias of the Taliban.

[drdon326]

17. They were hosting those murderers.

They allowed those murderers to run training camps in their country.

They didnt try because they loved what bin laden had done.


Fuck the Taliban...the most reactionary regime in recent memory.

I wouldnt piss on them if they were on fire.


You sir can shed tears over this REACTIONARY regime's loss of power......I wont.

[bvar22]

20. I think you need to document your claims.

I am not supporting either Bin Laden or the Taliban, but I have seen NOTHING to support your assertions that the Taliban were "hosting" Al Qaeda. Bush* promised to provide the links and proofs shortly before we invaded Afghanistan, but he NEVER did. There has been NO DOCUMENTATION.

Afghanistan was THEN and is NOW a war torn governmentless territory dominated by tribal sects and WarLords. The TALIBAN was THEN and is NOW a loosely knit confederation of fundamentalist clerics with individual militias who happened to claim central governmental authority because they were the current bullies-in charge of Kabul.

No one has documented how much authority the Taliban really had in the interior wild country of central Afghanistan where Bin Laden had his training camps. Bin Ladin, with his Billionaire Saudi financiers, may have dictated terms to the Taliban if he had any contact at all. Bin Laden was well financed, well armed, and well organized. The Taliban was an ill equipped, poorly organized force led by fundamentalist preachers and pirates.

It is like saying that the US Government was hosting the pirate Jean Lafitte in the early 1800s. Though the US Government was MUCH better organized and MUCH more powerful than than the Taliban, they were totally incapable of catching, removing, or controlling the Pirates of South Louisiana.

A documented a LINK between the Taliban and Bin Laden has NEVER been produced by the US Government or anyone else. Unless you can do so, your claims are popular, but spurious.

[bvar22]

26. A better illustration:

3 Years ago, George Bush promised to KILL or CAPTURE Bin Laden, and destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

With ALL the POWER and TECHNOLOGY of the US behind him, with an Invasion and OCCUPATION of Afghanistan, with a $50MILLION Dollar bounty on Bin Laden, he and the USA has failed.

The USA is now in control of Afghanistan, and yet AlQaeda and the Taliban have recovered and are still active in Afghanistan.
Does this mean the the USA is HOSTING Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

[drdon326]

30. G'head.....dismiss this......;The Fall of Kabul

The rapidity of their retreat tells us something about the relationship of the Taliban to the Afghan people: When it came down to it, very, very few Afghans were willing to defend the Taliban's regime. Other than the Pakistanis and Arabs, most of the Taliban's support appears to have melted away.

But the speed of the fall also tells us a great deal about the relationship between the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaida. Or perhaps "relationship" is the wrong word: When it came down to it, the Taliban refused to give Bin Laden away, even though it meant they were utterly routed. Indeed, it now looks as if they didn't give him up because they couldn't give him up. The Taliban were not just completely sustained and supported by Bin Laden, the Taliban and al-Qaida had become, effectively, the same organization. Without al-Qaida, the Taliban could not have held on to power at all.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2058684/

................................................................

Cant wait to hear your response.

[drdon326]

31. (whistling repeatedly)

hello ?

on edit

Pray for peace
Act for peace

But if they want to kill you,kill them first.

[bvar22]

79. I am puzzled by the documentation you provided.

It supports my hypothesis...not yours.

You said:

The Taliban "hosted" Bin Laden and Al qaeda in Afghanistan.


I responded:
The Taliban was a disorganized group of religious clerics and not really capable of hosting Al Qaeda or Bin Laden who were better organized and better armed than the Taliban.

I especially like this quote from the editorial you cited:
"Indeed, it now looks as if they didn't give him up because they couldn't give him up."
Gee, That is EXACTLY what I said, and is very, very far from "hosting Al Qaeda."


Your source at Slate Magazine(like yourself) also offers NO DOCUMENTATION, but only her opinion that since the Taliban melted away so quickly, they MUST be the same as Al Qaeda (no documentation, no sources, only her opinion). There is another explanation for the lack of opposition offered by the Taliban. It could be that:
"The Taliban was a disorganized group of religious clerics and not really capable of hosting Al Qaeda or Bin Laden who were better organized and better armed than the Taliban."

In fact, it is much more probable that there was little or no contact between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
You and George Bush* are the ones insisting that there is a connection. It is up to you and George Bush* to provide the documentation.

Sorry, but an undocumented opinion piece in a magazine which loosely speculates on a connection doesn't qualify as documentation. My hypothesis is much more probable than Annie Applebaum's.

We (you, me, the United States) invaded a country, killed thousands of their citizens (men, women, children), maimed thousands or others for life, installed a puppet government in Kabul. So far, there is NOT ONE SINGLE DOCUMENTED LINK between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban (evil as they are). Under International Law, regime change is NOT a valid reason for invading a sovereign nation.

George Bush* promised the PROOF.
George Bush has NOT YET provided the proof (or even anything that remotely suggests a link.)
Neither have you.

[LynnTheDem]

34. How come bush calls the Kuwaiti-Pakistani guy sititng in Pakistan's jail

the 911 mastermind? You know, the 911 mastermind guy that was never in Afghanistan in the first place?

Why didn't we attack Pakistan, the origin of al Qaeda as well as the location of the 911 mastermind?

Where's the proof OBL had anything to do with 911?

How come BUSH funded and supported the Taleban right up until 911 when a handful of SAUDIS attacked us?

How come bush is once again ready to support the Taleban?

How come there's still a raging war in Afghanistan 4 years later?

How come Afghani people are worse off now than they were before bush attacked their country?

Drop Everything else you're doing an answer me RIGHT AWAY or I'll have to be rude and post "whistling repeatedly"!

[drdon326]

39. My pleasure

How come bush calls the Kuwaiti-Pakistani guy sititng in Pakistan's jail the 911 mastermind?....cause bush is a jerk


You know, the 911 mastermind guy that was never in Afghanistan in the first place?.....no answer

Why didn't we attack Pakistan, the origin of al Qaeda as well as the location of the 911 mastermind?.....see slate article above

Where's the proof OBL had anything to do with 911?...better question, wheres the proof he WASNT.

How come BUSH funded and supported the Taleban right up until 911 when a handful of SAUDIS attacked us?...CAUSE bush is a jerk

How come bush is once again ready to support the Taleban?....cause bush is a jerk

How come there's still a raging war in Afghanistan 4 years later?...cause bush is a jerk


The Taliban can rot in hell afaic....and so can osama and all the little murderers with him.

How come Afghani people are worse off now than they were before bush attacked their country?.....i doubt they are worse off....and if you think the taliban were so wonderful, you are in dreamland.

[LynnTheDem]

40. You doubt they're worse off. You doubt the experts and the Afghani people

Well that's not a surprise is it, as you also believe, wrongly, that the world supported our attacking Afghanistan.

Again, learn the FACTS first, instead of sitting in your "dreamland".

[drdon326]

41. I really wish I could be as insulting and ....

as condescending as you are.







KMA

[LynnTheDem]

44. You are; I used your very own insults.

Plus I posted facts; the world did NOT support attacking Afghanistan, and the Afghani people say they are worse off now than they were 4 years ago.

[drdon326]

42. DUPE

[Sparkly]

61. What would a "documented link" look like?

Both US and Afghan sources had said for years that he was there. BushCo, however, tried to play down OBL (in favor of a renewed emphasis on "ICBMs from rogue nations," = defense contractor windfalls for starwars, and war in Iraq).

Here's one article from May 2001:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/564810.asp

[geek tragedy]

84. You can't be serious.

Did you read the papers at the time?

Did you know that the Taliban were under UN sanctions before 911 because they refused to turn bin Laden over for the embassy bombings in Africa?

AQ was running training camps in Taliban-controlled territory.

Jeebus.

[bvar22]

90. Serious as the unnecessary deaths of innocent civilians.

You insist that the training camps were "in Taliban controlled territory", and seem to take for granted that since the Taliban were in Kabul and were the organization that was accepting money from the bush* administration that somehow they controlled Afghanistan.
The Training Camps were in the very wild interior of Afghanistan that was NOT UNDER THE CONTROL of a central authority. Control of the interior has been in the hands of various Warloards who may or may not have had contact with Bin Laden.

Since you obviously didn't read the post upthread, I will repeat myself just this one time for your benefit.

I am not supporting either Bin Laden or the Taliban, but I have seen NOTHING to support your assertions that the Taliban were "hosting" Al Qaeda. Bush* promised to provide the links and proofs shortly before we invaded Afghanistan, but he NEVER did. There has been NO DOCUMENTATION.

Afghanistan was THEN and is NOW a war torn governmentless territory dominated by tribal sects and WarLords. The TALIBAN was THEN and is NOW a loosely knit confederation of fundamentalist clerics with individual militias who happened to claim central governmental authority because they were the current bullies-in charge of Kabul.

No one has documented how much authority the Taliban really had in the interior wild country of central Afghanistan where Bin Laden had his training camps. Bin Ladin, with his Billionaire Saudi financiers, may have dictated terms to the Taliban if he had any contact at all. Bin Laden was well financed, well armed, and well organized. The Taliban was an ill equipped, poorly organized force led by fundamentalist preachers and pirates.

It is like saying that the US Government was hosting the pirate Jean Lafitte in the early 1800s. Though the US Government was MUCH better organized and MUCH more powerful than than the Taliban, they were totally incapable of catching, removing, or controlling the Pirates of South Louisiana.

A documented LINK between the Taliban and Bin Laden has NEVER been produced by the US Government or anyone else. Unless you can do so, your claims are popular, but spurious.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda have regrouped and are active in Afghanistan.
It has been over 4 years since the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan. With all the technology and might of the Worlds only Superpower, the US has failed to capture Osama OR destroy his organization.
What makes you believe that a band of religious clerics with a hodge podge band of undisciplined militias (the Taliban) had the ability to control Osama, much less capture him?....because bush* said so?

Please provide a LINK or Documentation for your claims that Osama was operating in "Taliban controlled Territory". Simply because Al-Qaeda was operating within the geographical boundaries of Afghanistan IN NO WAY supports your claim that the he was under the control of or even under the minor influence of, or operating with the permission of the Taliban!

The USA went to WAR against the Taliban (a thoroughly disgusting group of pirates) and the country of Afghanistan because of the attack on the WTC. Without documentation of a LINK between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, it is very possible that the Taliban were no more responsible for 9-11 than Saddam and Iraq.

This documentation is critical. Thousands have been killed. Bush promised to provide the PROOF... he NEVER did! If you want to take bush* at his word, then do do. I don't trust him, and want PROOF. Do you have PROOF that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are connected?... or just an unsupported opinion based on a belief that since they are all ragheads, they must be working together.

[geek tragedy]

91. The Taliban refused to expel bin Laden AFTER the UN demanded

they do so.

That means one of two things:

1) They were the functional government, but chose to suffer international sanctions in order to protect the world's most notorious terrorist; or

2) There was no functioning government in Afghanistan at all, and the only way to take AQ out was by military force from outside Afghanistan.

Either way, the invasion was perfectly justified and entirely legal, despite what some folks on the fringe try to assert.

And you must not have read many accounts of the Taliban and AQ if you haven't seen any documentation of links between the two.

Here's one OBVIOUS link between the two:

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101011105-181591,00.html

[LynnTheDem]

25. Speaking of those "training camps"...guess who BUILT them?

Guess who FUNDED them?

Guess who helped TRAIN them, including OBL?

That would be us.

And which nation was "hosting" all 19 hijackers, including graduating from universities?

That would be us.

As for "most reactionary regime in recent memory", that would be ours.

[drdon326]

28. WOW !!

YOU really think the US is one of the most reactionary regimes in recent memory ??

Youre not just using hyperbole....you really think that??

How often do you wash your "burka"??



OH...I agree....we have and are helping fund some people who have later made us wish we hadnt.

[LynnTheDem]

33. Yep I really do believe that.

And "burka" has nothing to do with it.

"Helping fund some people" my arse.

The US, including George W. Bush supported and financed the Taleban right up until a group of SAUDIS attacked us on September 11, 2001, and BUSH is AGAIN ready to support the Taleban, or did you miss his "amnesty" call for the Taleban to join in and take part in the "political process" of Afghanistan?

[drdon326]

35. I am sorry you feel that way.

The US has alot of 'splainin' to do and needs a regime change but is a whole lot better than most of the world.


Sorry again you feel that way.

I suspect you might feel different if you were unfortunate enough to live in N. Korea, taliban controlled afghanistan or that women-friendly Saudi arabia.

[LynnTheDem]

37. I'm sorry you're unaware of the FACTS.

That you think the world supported our attacking Afghanistan shows you are unaware of the facts.

Learn the FACTS before you feel sorry for others. ;)

[geek tragedy]

85. That's because you're either a moderate or a liberal, not a fringe

leftist.

Karl Rove's lie was to lump liberals in with the folks who were strongly opposed to taking the Taliban out.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. I never supported it, but once they were in, I thought they

should have spent the money being wasted in Iraq to rebuild Afghanistan.

Getting rid of the Taliban was a good thing--although the Bushies were willing to trade with them for oil pipeline rights, which leads me to suspect that Afghan women could have been under house arrest forever as far as the Bushies were concerned, if only the Taliban had consented to the oil pipeline and handed Bin Laden over.

In an impoverished country like Afghanistan, $87 billion would have been more than enough to rebuild that shattered country. They could have put all the unemployed men to work rebuilding roads, public buildings, and public utilities, thus eliminating the need for people to grow opium poppies to survive. They could have put all the children, both boys and girls, in school. They could have sent in Peace Corps workers to set up cottage industries for the war widows and orphans.

Spending the $87 billion that way would have won the U.S. worldwide acclaim. "Magnanimous in victory," as they said after World War II.

But the longer I live, the more I see that greed ultimately makes people stupid.

[LynnTheDem]

27. And now bush called for amnesty with the Taleban, wants them "involved"

with the "political process" in Afghanistan.

Hey America, ya been PUNK'D. Twice.

[kentuck]

11. An exccellent point mopaul...

Most Americans, including DUers, have bought into the "Afghanistan was OK to invade because they attacked us" excuse. But we should ask ourselves, Was it really just and right to go into Afghanistan? Was there another way to bring the "terrorists" to justice? Was this not a free pass to continuous war?

[drdon326]

18. Let me answer , pleeeeeeeze??

YES
NO
NO

[bvar22]

80. And I will also answer:

No.
This invasion was also illegal under International Law.
The killing of many thousands of Afghanis who HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 911 is also immoral and a War Crime.

Yes.
There were and are better ways to take out Al Qaeda which is distinctly different from the country of Afghanistan.
The invasion and occupation was a miserable failure. Bin Laden still free, Al Qaeda still killing Americans.

Yes.
The WAR continues and innocent people are being killed every day because of bush*s cowboy over reaction to a Criminal Act.
Bush* responded to a Criminal Act with his own Criminal Act, unfortunately, we are all accessories.

[bread_and_roses]

13. I never supported it and never will

Another example of random slaughter as far as I am concerned, killing children and illiterate villagers for political/economic gain.

[KharmaTrain]

14. There Was Already A "Liberation" Movement

Our real "investment" in Afghanistan wasn't big at the start and many knew it. I think the support initially was more for supporting the Northern Alliance (especially after their leader was killed by bin Laden) and to let them do the dirty work...we'll just fill in the gaps.

Afghanistan was a feel-good war since it was mostly special forces and a small number of troops. It was that "mean, lean Army-of-one" image at work. Iraq is a whole different animal.

How can anyone say Afghanistan is a success when troops remain there and corpses are still coming out of there? It's a success compared to Iraq, but that's like saying Korea was a success compared to Vietnam.

Lately, I've done some reading into the Soviet mess in Afghanistan and the similarities to the U.S. misadventure into Iraq are astounding. Remember, the Soviets overwhelmed that country and was bled dry over the next 8 years. Many of the tactics developed there are now being perfected in Iraq. Good going, Junior!!

[The2ndWheel]

16. Afghanistan was the diversion

bin Laden was the diversion. We couldn't just go straight to Iraq, which is where these guys wanted to go for years. That would be too obvious, I guess.

[Toots]

19. Well on 9-11 a gang of criminals murdered almost 3000 American

They were killed by their actions. Supposedly they belonged to a gang called Al Qaeda that holed up in the hills of Afghanistan. Our cowboy sheriff decided he was going to put an end to that gang so asked the government to turn over the gang members to us or we would come and take them. They refused so we decided to oust that government and blow up the country because we were angry. Meanwhile the gang escaped into an adjoining country that protects it and yet we won't go into that country and get the gang leaders. Instead we attack another country entirely and the reasoning appears to be a hoax. Aren't we glad the adults are in charge.

[JohnyCanuck]

29. The Taliban allegedly did offer to turn over Osama to a third country

The Taliban, on several occasions, offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to a third country for trial, once the case against him was made known. The Bush administration rejected this outright, making no effort to explore that possibility or to negotiate. Would it not have been far more preferable to at least try that solution rather than proceeding to bomb, causing untold deaths of civilians, jeopardizing the lives of U.S. troops, alienating a large proportion of the world's population, and risking a wider world war?

Terrorism and oil

By putting various pieces of the puzzle together we begin to get a picture of what really is going on. For example, we see that the groundwork for the current U.S. military actions in Afghanistan was being built up for several years. What comes into focus is that the September 11th terrorist attacks have provided a qualitatively new opportunity for the U.S., acting particularly on behalf of giant oil companies, to permanently entrench its military in the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia, and the Transcaucusus where there are vast oil reserves-the second largest in the world. The way is now open to jump start projects for oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan and Pakistan to Karachi on the Arabian Sea-the best and cheapest route for transporting those fuels to market. Afghanistan, itself, also has considerable amounts of untapped oil and gas, as does Pakistan. (3)

Some say Washington is motivated by the necessity of guaranteeing a steady supply of oil for U.S. consumers which explains its interest in Central Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. In reality, the U.S. relies heavily on domestic sources and on Venezuela, which is the biggest source of U.S. imports. Fifteen percent of imported oil comes from Africa. (4) No. This is about oil corporation profits which can be greatly enhanced by selling to energy-hungry South and Southeast Asia, and by outflanking China and Russia for that Central Asian-Caspian Sea Basin oil and natural gas. Newly discovered huge oil reserves in Kazakhstan could easily be piped through existing conduits traversing Russia. Bypassing, and thus hindering, Russian petroleum operations which rely heavily on European customers, would provide western corporations another benefit. They would gain greater access to the European market. Building the Afghanistan pipeline would also mean spurning an even more direct route to the Persian Gulf through Iran. This helps to thwart the growing cooperation between Iran and Russia. The "Great Oil Game"

All of this echos "the great game" played over the petroleum resources of this region between British and Russian empires in the 19th century. The modern version-the "new great game"-is a major agenda behind the current war. This is sharply delineated in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled "Energy Future Rides on U.S. War, -Conflict centered in world's oil patch," by Frank Viviano.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TAL111A.html

According to several British newspapers, the U.S. was planning military action against Afghanistan well before September 11.

In an interview with the BBC, Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani diplomat and foreign secretary, said that he was told by senior American officials in mid-July that the U.S. was already planning an attack against Afghanistan. He received this information at a UN sponsored conference on Afghanistan in Berlin. This would seem to corroborate the “carpet of gold, carpet of bombs” speech claimed by the French authors. According to the BBC, Mr. Naik claimed that the U.S. objective was to capture bin Laden and install a moderate, Western-friendly government in Afghanistan. He added that the attack would take place from bases in Tajikistan, where military advisors were already in place, and that it would occur by mid-October at the latest.

The presence of the military in Central Asia is confirmed by the British newspaper The Guardian. According to it, a U.S. department of defense official, Dr. Jeffrey Starr, visited Tajikistan in January, and U.S. Rangers were training special troops in Kyrgyzstan. The head of the current Afghan war, General Tommy Franks, visited Dushanbe on May 16, 2001, calling Tajikistan “a strategically significant country.”

This does not, by itself, indicate any guilt. It is entirely possible that the United States had tired of bin Laden’s games, and decided to eliminate the danger once and for all. It is possible bin Laden got wind of this and decided to launch a preemptive strike. It would be an amazing coincidence, however, if the U.S. had planned to attack Afghanistan last October no matter what, and then terrorists loyal to bin Laden committed the worst terrorist atrocity in world history upon New York City only one month prior to the scheduled assault. A pre-emptive strike? Perhaps. But the pilots had been training at U.S. flight schools for more than a year by that time.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/archive/04-19-02_Molson_-_Pt_2.pdf
(PDF requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)

[LynnTheDem]

21. As unjust, as immoral, and wrong, and as big a lie as Iraq.

And one day, sooner or later, the majority of Americans will realize what the vast majority of the entire world realized before bush attacked Afghanistan.

And then the American majority will be in step with world majority on Afghanistan as they are now on Iraq.

WRONG THING TO DO.

[drdon326]

32. Yeah......

just cause every dem in the senate voted to go into afghanistan....

just cause 99% of dems in the house voted to go into afghanistan...

just cause the world was with us to go into afghanistan.....

OBVIOUSLY they are all wrong and YOU ARE RIGHT .

[LynnTheDem]

36. OBVIOUSLY you are unaware of the FACT the world OPPOSED

our attacking Afghanistan.

Only TWO NATIONS supported us attacking; India and Israel.

And that's a provable fact.

Get your FACTS STRAIGHT first, before you try mocking others and ya won't make a fool of yourself. ;)

So yes, OBVIOUSLY they were wrong, just as they were wrong about Iraq and I was right.

[Sparkly]

64. That's not true.

The U.K., Australia, Canada, and the Northern Alliance supported the initial October 2001 attack, although it was carried out by the US and Brits. By "Operation Anaconda" in March, the coalition included France, Germany, Norway, Denmark, etc... I'm looking up links...

On edit -- Links:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/campaign/withus/map.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan#Nature_of_the_coalition (incomplete/inaccurate)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oef-anaconda.htm

[LynnTheDem]

67. Yes it is true. You're talking governments, not populations.

World opinion opposes the attack on Afghanistan

The biggest poll of world opinion was carried out by Gallup International in 37 countries in late September (Gallup International 2001). It found that apart from the US, Israel and India a majority of people in every country surveyed preferred extradition and trial of suspects to a US attack.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/Polls.asp

Blair should read the polls
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,562309,00.html

Poll support opposed Support for strikes which cause civilian casualties

MORI 43 46 19.9

ICM Scotland 40 45 19.9

Gallup 21 62 20.9

MORI 45 47 17.9

http://staff.stir.ac.uk/david.miller/publications/opinion-polls.html

IPS; Polls question global support for military campaign

Washington, DC — US President George W. Bush, in announcing Sunday’s missile and air strikes against Afghanistan, told US citizens, “we are supported by the collective will of the world.’’ International opinion polls conducted in the preceding three weeks cast doubt on this assertion.

To the critical question of how to respond, however, the majority of people interviewed in 32 of 35 countries polled said they rejected military action and favored a criminal justice response - namely, finding those responsible for the Sep. 11 attacks and bringing them to trial. Likewise, most respondents said they opposed any action that would result in civilian casualties.

The three countries where a majority of people interviewed favored military action were the United States, India, and Israel.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Military-Campaign-Polls.htm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Has anybody noticed that Al Queda is still around?

The same one that we went into Afghanistan to destroy? That OBL is probably holed up in Pakistan? That is, our good ally Pakistan? That same Pakistan that sells Newkular material Iran?

Does anybody remember that most of the funding for Al-Queda came/comes from our other good friend Saudi Arabia? Or, that as far as human rights go, Saudi Arabia is just a wealthier version of the Taliban run Afghanistan?

Has anyone noticed that our troops are still fighting the Al-Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan? And, that it's about as "stable" as Iraq is? The diffence being that it's civil war involves warlords, druglords, bandits, and various religious fanatics including the Taliban instead of the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds.

Does anybody know if "quagmire" is spelled the same in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[mopaul]

43. and the Afghanistan war is barely mentioned by comparison

all the press goes to iraq, i rarely see any reports out of war A.

some americans get the impression that we were victorious in war A and have moved on. some don't even realize there are two wars going on.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Both are equally unwinnable. Both have become civil wars.

Thanks to our noble efforts to "spread democracy".

[LynnTheDem]

48. Afghanistan news feed

Sampling from yesterday:

Afghan fighting toll mounts
Net, Qatar 13:50

UN warns on security
Reuters 07:33

Germany begins deportations of Afghan refugees
WSWS 04:52

Taleban kill election candidate
The Peninsula 00:09

Cholera in Afghanistan, WHO
Medical News Today - Home 23:58 24-Jun-05

Foreigners among dead in clashes in south Afghanistan
Monsters and Critics 20:34 24-Jun-05

Tapped communication reveals head Taliban leaders' locations
The Vindicator, Ohio 16:28 24-Jun-05

Raid fails to net Taleban chiefs
BBC 15:54 24-Jun-05

Afghan patience wears thin
BBC 09:11 24-Jun-05

Afghanistan reshuffles 4 key governors
Japan Today 03:06 24-Jun-05

Top Taleban Elusive as Offensive Winds Down

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/newsfeed/?name=Afghanistan

[mopaul]

50. you are certainly a dutiful worker

and you are in your element.

that press conference last month with the new afghanistan leader standing next to bush seemed sappy enough, although bush had to scold and correct the guy once in public.

[LynnTheDem]

54. Yes, that poor Mayor of downtown Kabul.

The bush-puppet. With the background in oil.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Good work.

More, much more, needs to be brought to the attention of the apathetic American people.

[mopaul]

46. all this foreign intrigue starts to melt the brain trying to keep up

it's impossibly complex. just reading this thread makes the head swim, almost as if it were all designed that way. to deliberately not make sense.

[mopaul]

47. Rudyard Kipling on Afghanistan

"When you're wounded and left,
On Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out,
To cut up your remains,
Just roll on your rifle,
And blow out your brains,
And go to your Gawd,
Like a soldier."
Rudyard Kipling

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Which is pretty much how my grandfather described it.

When he and his colonialist cannon fodder were chasing Pathans on the Northwest Frontier in the 1890's. Being captured was not an option.

[Renew Deal]

52. The Afghan war was just and overdue.

It was overdue on some level. Afghanistan was a mess. They abused women and people of other religions. They even abused muslims for not being muslim enough. 9/11 sealed the deal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Nigeria, etc, next?

How about Iran? Yemen? Somalia? Pakistan? Sudan?

[Renew Deal]

58. Nope

We have been fighting Iran for years, but I still think there is potential for good there. There will be no good while Bush is in charge.

[mopaul]

56. the brits and the ruskies tried and failed there

now we fail

[Renew Deal]

59. We will fail because of policy

not because of ability. Bushco really made mistakes in Afghanistan. They sent 10,000 troops to Afghanistan and 150,000 to Iraq. Figure that one out.

[LynnTheDem]

70. Just like the Brits tried & failed in Iraq.

As we are.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

75. Secret UK troops plan for Afghan crisis May 22 2005

still trying apparently :(

Secret UK troops plan for Afghan crisis

BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR


DEFENCE chiefs are planning to rush thousands of British troops to Afghanistan in a bid to stop the country sliding towards civil war, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

Ministers have been warned they face a "complete strategic failure" of the effort to rebuild Afghanistan and that 5,500 extra troops will be needed within months if the situation continues to deteriorate.

An explosive cocktail of feuding tribal warlords, insurgents, the remnants of the Taliban, and under-performing Afghan institutions has left the fledgling democracy on the verge of disintegration, according to analysts and senior officers.

The looming crisis in Afghanistan is a serious setback for the US-led 'War on Terror' and its bid to promote western democratic values around the world.

Defence analysts say UK forces are already so over-stretched that any operation to restore order in Afghanistan can only succeed if substantial numbers of troops are redeployed from Iraq, itself in the grip of insurgency.

more - http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=559872005

[LynnTheDem]

57. So we attacked and made them worse off. WAY TO GO!!!

How "just" and "overdue"!

[Renew Deal]

60. Are they worse off?

Are they really worse off in Afghanistan? They were the worst of the worst. Narco-economy. Terrorist training ground. Safe haven for Osama. Religious and gender oppressive government. Some of that has receded and some investment is being made. It's not all bad there. Bush has really fucked up fixing Afghanistan for the long term and they are in danger. It's a shame.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. The narco economy is expanding. Still a terrorist training ground.

Not to mention the continuing civil war.

The Taliban were/are monsters, no doubt, but they live in a region of monstrous governments very similar to them that get a pass from us because they are allegedly our "allies".

Also, as awful as they were, they pale in comparison to our own long history of oppression, crime, and slaughter. Which is still going on.

[Renew Deal]

63. We have really fucked up.

It's not good. I worry about Afghanistan. I worry about their people. I think Iraq will work itself out the hardway if we leave, but Afghanistan would be much worse. The people can't fight for themselves as well.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. We certainly agree on that.

The "unexpected consequences" factor is at work in both Afghanistan and Iraq and has yet to reach it's full bloody potential.

The Soviet Union actually had much better grounds for invading Afghanistan than we did. And, they used much of the same rationale:

Harboring terrorists (funded by the CIA)
Exporting terrorism into the USSR.
The backwardness of the nation.
Oppression of women.
etc.

At least Alexander the Great didn't bother with hypocritical rationalizations when he tried his hand at subduing them. With the same results as we are encountering.

[LynnTheDem]

65. Yes it's worse. "Narco-economy", lol! Now they're setting world records.

British Foreign Office Notes Record Opium Crop In Afghanistan

"The opium harvest in Afghanistan this year will be one of the biggest on record," the British Foreign Office said July 27, 2004, triggering "a flood of heroin on Britain's streets."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=545400

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Opium_economy_in_Afghanistan

CBC News: Opium production surging in Afghanistan
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/18/opium041118.html

UN Says Afghan Opium Crop Up Almost Twenty-Fold over 2001
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/261/afghancrop.shtml

Afghanistan Opium Production Reaches Record High For 2004
http://www.narcoterror.org/afghanistan.htm

Osama bin Laden wasn't the 911 mastermind; the mastermind is sitting in jail in Pakistan. Got any proof OBL had anything to do with 911? Bush SAYS he has proof. He's just not shown it to anyone yet.

Was America giving safe haven to the 911 hijackers, who were living in America, graduating from American universities, taking flying lessons in America from American instructors?

Afghanistan so much worse after US invasion
http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=990

Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghan: Afghan Women No Better Off
http://www.rawa.org/election-w.htm

'We Were Better Off Under the Russians'
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501020617-260745,00.html

Human Rights Watch World Report 2004: Losing the Peace in Afghanistan
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/5.htm

Afghanistan: Women Still Under Attack - A Systematic Failure to Protect; Amnesty International, 30 May 2005.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGASA110072005

Operation Enduring Freedom: Why a Higher Rate of Civilian Bombing Casualties
http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html

Secret UK troops plan for Afghan crisis
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=559872005

[Sparkly]

68. It's a mess, because BushCo treated it as a distraction from Iraq.

And, BushCo apparently thinks the military is the entire solution, rather than a part of an effort that includes political strategy, diplomacy, and ongoing cooperation with other countries.

The fact that they screwed it up so badly doesn't mean that ousting the Taliban and going after bin Laden were bad ideas, imho.

[LynnTheDem]

69. It was not our place to decide for the people of Afghanistan.

It will NEVER be our place to decide what governments other countries can and cannot have.

Ousting the Taleban WAS a bad decision because it was OUR decision, not the decision of the Afghani people.

And now bush has offered AMNESTY for any of the Taleban who want to "participate" in the Afghanistan government.

So we killed and are still killing a whole bunch of innocent people...and the Taleban are still in control of whatever areas the warlords don't control, and both the Taleban & the warlords are back in government and are being invited back into government.

Afghanistan Offers Amnesty to Wanted Taliban Rebels
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/10/news/afghan.php

Taliban coming in from cold

President Karzai offered an olive branch to rank-and-file Taliban fighters last year and said all but a core group of 150 militants wanted for human-rights violations would be able to rejoin the political process.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/p01s03-wosc.html

Gee good idea.

[Sparkly]

71. Which people?

The Northern Alliance (not that they were pillars of virtue) wanted the Taliban out. And surely many Afghan women wanted them out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women

That's not to say that the invasion was motivated by concern for human rights for the people in Afghanistan. But neither do I think that concern for the Taliban's right to abuse people should have *prevented* the invasion.

I agree we shouldn't kill innocent people, and I agree the situation in Afghanistan now, including politically, is a mess.

[pox americana]

72. "low hanging fruit"

is how I heard it described. An easy target of post 9-11 outrage, just to give us righteous yanks a taste of blood so we'd be willing to keep the "war on terror" moving to bigger and better targets.

Heck I fell for it. Call me sheep but I think we got fleeced.

[mopaul]

77. millions fell for it, and millions are slowly realizing something stinks

[Zhade]

73. Yes, I'm really proud of the Afghan Massacre.

What? You say a lurker doesn't know that we trucked POWs in sealed metal containers into the desert, forcing them to drink each others' sweat and blood to stay alive? There are actually people who don't know that the POWs begged for air, and our boys responded by firing into the containers so the one who didn't die from gunshot wounds could desperately suck oxygen from the bullet holes?

Is it possible there are some who don't know that our soldiers stood by while a couplefew thousand POWs were gunned down by our "allies" and buried in a mass grave in the desert?

Yeah, we're doing a bang-up job there.

:sarcasm:

[mopaul]

74. those buried alive incidents happened very early on

and were utterly forgotten, though i've brought them up a few times here. that was when i started throwing the word nazi around without apologies.

[Disturbed]

76. Most Amerikans do not like complicated situations.

It is much easier to just accept the simple concepts of their Govt. There are goody guys and bad guys. Anyone that Amerika is against are the bad guys. Case solved.

"They refused." Well, no they actually did not outright refuse. They demanded proof that Osoma was behind the 911 Attack. It was the Bush Regime that refused to provide that proof. The Bush Regime could have gone after al Q. in Afghanistan but left that up to the Northern Alliance. A war on the Taliban was not necessary in order to hunt down al Q. yet the Bush Regime wanted to colonize Afghanistan and put Karazi, a former Unical Exec, in power. He is now the Mayor of Kabul. The rest of the country is controlled by Drug War Lords.

Most Amerikan refuse to admit, as do most DUers, that the Amerikan Govt. is Fascist and Imperialistic. Amerika always wears the white hat. We are the good guys. Don't say otherwise, Goddamnit!

[Karenina]

81. Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore.

;-) Great post, Disturbed! :toast:

[mopaul]

82. just because our president said it doesn't mean it's necessarily true

i'm discovering more and more every day

[malmapus]

87. I think I've gotten really cynical over Afgan.

I admit I bought 9/11 hook line and sinker. Even before anyone said anything I came to the judgement that it was Islamic extremists. I don't use terrorists, I just know that there are people out there who feel very wronged by us (and not without reasons). I guess I kinda thought that we would have something along the lines of 9/11 coming our way. Just never thought it would be in my lifetime I guess.

I even threw my support behind Bush when he said that this war would be fought differently. I applauded and *cough*praised him*cough* :puke: when he actually used Special Operations like it is suppose to be (I still resent Clinton for allowing us to be put under UN control in Haiti, Special Forces should NOT be manning toll booths!).

But yeah, now...I just don't know anymore. I don't know what to believe. Espicially the more I hear all the MIHOP / LIHOP theories. I'm trying to reserve my judgement, but its getting harder to do.

[Terran1212]

88. Ask the millions of Afghans who fled the bombing

One of the poorest people in the world being tortured and killed over this...

Almost no one trying to say "No!" and propose a more peaceful and just solution.

Just so wrong.

[Cocoa]

89. they've actually become silent on Afghanistan

except for an occasional statement preparing us for an upcoming escalation of carnage.