Afghanistan - What is the objective?

[S.A.M.]

Ah I did not know you too, like the Buffalo, were a collaborator type. No one is searching for bin Laden. You can forget that fairy tale.

[Baron Max]

Ah I did not know you too, like the Buffalo, were a collaborator type.

Huh? What are talking about? I thought you were the one that lumped all Americans into your hatred of the west. Are you saying now that you reserve some special hatred for some, and lesser hatred for other Americans? You're confusing, SAM.

No one is searching for bin Laden.

And you know this ....how?

Baron Max

[countezero]

Does it have a legal definition, other than W&Co's assertions?

I believe it does, but I am not sure. I think it was established in US v. Milligan, but I need to look it up.

Soldiers do not have to be "uniformed" to fall under Geneva protections.

They need only be part of an organized military force under accountable command, and bear arms openly. They do not have to be in uniform.

But they have to be part of a state, I believe. And being part of a foreign terrorist organization is also a problem, legally speaking. Look, the Arabs killed their wounded in WW1 precisely because they knew the Turks would treat them awfully, because they weren't protected by Geneva. I'm aware Geneva was updated in the late 1940s, but the US never signed that version, I think.

No extradition request was ever filed by the US, or anyone else, for OBL. The US invaded Afghanistan within a month of 9/11, without attempting actual diplomacy.

You've played this tired song several times with me, and it holds no more water now, so why waste your breath?

The US never recognized the Taliban as the govt. of Afghanistan, so it had no formal extradition with them. The US -- and everyone else -- had tried diplomacy for years, it didn't work. And as I told Straw, we had to move quickly, so we didn't have time for protracted talking. We needed to capture terrorists, because they were already running, and we were worried about additional plots. Serious or not, and you've no proof the US efforts weren't serious, just your bullshit opinion, I've no problem with the invasion. Neither does the UN, NATO or the Afghan. It's only Leftists, like you who have their panties in a twist.

OBL had enemies within the Taliban, and even without formal extradition request the Taliban had offered to turn him over to various third parties including Saudi Arabia. These offers were refused, by the US and by Saudi Arabia.

OBL killed Ahmed Shah Massod days before Sept. 11 for the Taliban; he was close to the leaderhsip, and if he had enemies, they weren't heard. The Taliban offered him to the Saudis at the last minute, and it was intepreted as a stalling tactic. Regardless whether that's true, we had thousands dead and we wanted him. Giving him to his Wahhabi patrons was not an option -- and I'm surprised you view that as something reasonable.

Saudi Arabia recognized it. And where is AQ supposed to be "slipping away" to - this serious army with huge stockpiles of weapons ? What weaponry is significant, that they would be stockpiling in a couple of months under US satellite and air surveillance?

They fled their camps before the attacks. Many went to the mountains, others to Pakistan. As for surveillance, prior to Sept. 11, the US didn't have many assets paying attention to Afghanistan. There certainly weren't round the clock satellites, and even if there were, al Qaeda knows how to avoid that well enough.

Speaking of bullshit. OBL isn't even Pashtun.

And what the fuck does that have to do with the price of tea?

He is Wahhabi and the Taliban is Wahhabi.

Both are Jihadists and revere Sayyid Qutb and believe in the same radical brand of Islam.

The idea that 9/11wrecked the worldwide financial markets and forced an entire country to change its way of life is goofy on stilts.

I admit the "change" associated with 9/11 is often overblown, but it did cause shorterm turmoil in the markets, and today I took my shoes off at an airport. And within foreign policy circles, both the Left and Right agree it was a seminal moment.

And you have never produced the slightest evidence that anyone in the Taliban had any idea that things like 9/11 were being planned at all, let alone in Afghanistan. Florida was as much a "staging ground" as Afghanistan.

I don't think the Taliban knew, and it doesn't matter. Look up and read the USC section that I have sighted about material support for terrorism. The Taliban, unlike your Floridians, knew exactly who they were dealing with and exactly what they had done (Embassy bombings and Cole attack). They got into bed with them anyway. What's more they took money and material from them, and provided both in return. This is all fact.

Plus, you continually try to gloss over the fact that Afghanistan was al Qaeda's base, and as such, is where the plot was laid out, coordinated and approved. How do you wage war without attacking the other side's base?

[QUOTE=iceaura;2198192] To act as the US has acted recently is hardly competence and wisdom. QUOTE]

The only problem with what the US did is the execution. That is, it mucked up its nation building in Afghanistan and has pursued foolish policies there. If all were well there, you'd have no argument and your ideas would be even more kooky and isolated than they already are. But sadly, Afghanistan is a wreck, and so you cloak your foolishness with a cheap veneer of I-told-you-so kind of widsom. This doesn't make you right.

[DiamondHearts]

OBL killed Ahmed Shah Massod days before Sept. 11 for the Taliban; he was close to the leaderhsip, and if he had enemies, they weren't heard.

LOL. And you call us conspiracy theorists. I would like to see some prove for this. This is the MOST ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

While you are at it, can you tell which other leaders this ghost man supposedly killed?

[GeoffP]

Again, irrelevant

Again, your argument is incompletely substantiated. Most of the top nations cited as recipients are not at war with anyone. You have not demonstrated how the US is a comparatively horrible nation based on arms sales, because you avoid discussing what other nations are selling.

I pity you.

[Baron Max]

LOL. And you call us conspiracy theorists. I would like to see some prove for this. This is the MOST ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

bin Laden is a suspect charged in the destruction of the Twin Towers and the subsequent murder of over 3,000 Americans. If the Taliban would surrender that suspected murderer, we could put him on trial and prove or disprove the charges.

Ah, but the Taliban, and most Muslims apparently, don't believe in the rule of law! Apparently they believe in personal revenge and personal retribuition. And as such, they're some 300 years behind the times. This is the 21st Century!

Baron Max

[S.A.M.]

bin Laden is a suspect charged in the destruction of the Twin Towers and the subsequent murder of over 3,000 Americans.

No, he's never been charged. The FBI has no "hard" evidence.

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

[Baron Max]

No, he's never been charged. The FBI has no "hard" evidence.

I'll say it again, SAM, try to read it this time, okay? .....bin Laden is a suspect charged in the destruction of the Twin Towers and the subsequent murder of over 3,000 Americans.

Baron Max

[S.A.M.]

Feel free to show me when he was charged and by whom.

[Arsalan]

What hilarious naivety in this thread! People actually thinking the US wants to capture Bin Laden!

There have been numerous reports of soldiers from various countries having the location of Bin Laden and getting ready to move in when orders came in from US forces to stop. Hell, there's even been a French documentary on this.

The US goal in Afghanistan is pretty simple: pipeline, getting soldiers some real on the ground action and weapons manufacturing and distribution. Nothing else. No, they aren't there to attack the Taliban, the people they helped into power against the Soviets. Why not? Because apparently they are going to pay and support the "moderate Taliban" against the "evil Taliban". Kinda like they did before against the Soviets.

Also, it's easier to attack a weak country and come off all powerful than it is to attack a powerful country, hence we've had the Iraq and Afghanistan war and the Iran war still seems a bit distant.

[GeoffP]

Wow. This thread has been some impressive supposition. Thank goodness we don't ask for verification on this forum, or some wholly spurious arguments would already have been shot to pieces.

[Arsalan]

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/Art...342268,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/wo...html?ref=world

Among others.

And stop being a kid Geoffp, I'm not gonna hold your hand and walk you through Google

[S.A.M.]

An excellent article on Afghanistan in TomDispatch:

Unknown Afghanistan

Want a billion dollars in development aid? If you happen to live in Afghanistan, the two quickest ways to attract attention and so aid from the U.S. authorities are: Taliban attacks or a flourishing opium trade. For those with neither, the future could be bleak.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1750...wn_afghanistan

And another in the Times

What worked in Iraq won't help Afghanistan

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5920064.ece

[Arsalan]

Tomdispatch = awesomeness

The Times = stupid crap

[GeoffP]

I think you have that backwards. You need a reading tutor.

Article 1: Erroneous report or order delay

The French military, however, said that the incidents never happened and the report was "erroneous information."

The documentary, due to air next year and seen by Reuters on Tuesday, says the troops could have killed the al-Qaeda leader in Afghanistan but the order to shoot never came, possibly because it took too long to request it.

"In 2003 and 2004 we had bin Laden in our sights. The sniper said 'I have bin Laden'," an anonymous French soldier is quoted as saying.

The documentary 'Bin Laden, the failings of a manhunt' is by journalists Emmanuel Razavi and Eric de Lavarene, who have worked for several major French media outlets in Afghanistan. A cable television channel plans to air the documentary in March.

Razavi said the soldier told them it took roughly two hours for the request to reach the US officers who could authorize it but the anonymous man is also quoted in the documentary as saying: "There was a hesitation in command."

Article 2: Nothing about oil or bin Laden. Nothing about a conspiracy.

Nuff said. Funny though: fight the Taliban, Americans bad. Negotiate with the Taliban, Americans bad.

[Arsalan]

Ah yes, the army would just go out in the open and admit to not giving the order to take out Bin Laden And article 2 was about supporting the Taliban against, well, the Taliban.

[S.A.M.]

Tomdispatch = awesomeness

The Times = stupid crap

Rory Stewart makes some good points. I shall read his The Places In Between before rendering an opinion.

[Arsalan]

Rory Stewart makes some good points. I shall read his The Places In Between before rendering an opinion.

While the Times does still have some good contributors, it's mostly turned into right-wing idiocy

[John99]

I can agree with Arsalan on one thing- the U.S should not have got involved in the Soviet war. And then the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam perhaps should have been viewed from the sidelines as well.

Pipeline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

The pipeline will be 1,420 millimetres (56 in) in diameter with a working pressure of 100 atm.[3] The initial capacity will be 27 billion cubic meter (bcm) of natural gas annually of which 2 bcm will be provided to Afghanistan and 12.5 bcm to both Pakistan and India. Later the capacity will increase to 33 bcm.[4] Six compressor stations are to be constructed along the pipeline.[3] The pipeline is expected to be operational by 2014.[5]
The cost of the pipeline is estimated cost at US$7.6 billion.[2] The project is to be financed by the Asian Development Bank.[6]

[vhawk]

I'll say it again, SAM, try to read it this time, okay? .....bin Laden is a suspect charged in the destruction of the Twin Towers and the subsequent murder of over 3,000 Americans.

Baron Max

bit pointless to charge a man outwith the jurisdiction. I wouldn't bet your house on him ever being captured, you'd have to catch him to charge him