Afghanistan - What is the objective?

The US doesn't buy the majority of Saudi oil. Look it up. The US is interested in protecting Saudi oil because it determines the world price, which impacts the economy. If we didn't do it, someone else would. Saddam was a perennial threat to the region. The problem is not his toppling, but the ridiculous aftermath that was mismanaged.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I never said it bought most of its oil from Saudiland. But you cant deny that Saudiland has massive oil fields and that the only thing keeping the House of Saud in power is the US military there. This was most evident during the Siege of the Grand Mosque.

Saddam was as much a threat as any of the other countries. Attacking a country that never attacked and never planned to attack the US and then leaving that country open to the vultures of big US and international firms and basically committing daylight robbery is what makes me angry. Then you get idiots suggesting the Surge was effective, showing total disregard for the fact that most people had been killed or fled, and then effectively advocating a similar Surge in Afghanistan makes it all sound so sad but hilarious at the same time.

But it doesnt end there, no sir, what we are then subjected to is to hear over and over how our "heroes" are fighting those "damn terrorists". Yes, you heard it, our soldiers, who were sent to invade a country that never attacked us or planned to attacked us are heroes while the people defending their country from invasion are the terrorists.

But it doesnt matter. Keep on waging wars against half of the world. Sooner or later youre gonna run out of money to finance those wars, let alone your own internal security which is worseneing by the day with wild and baseless rhetoric from the right wing nutjobs which has already led to a handful of terrorist actions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Once again you misread history. The siege had little to no support inside Saudi Arabia, most of which never even knew what was happening until it was all over. It was a fringe attack from a fringe group that was Shia-based (see their obsession with the Mahdi).

Lots of people have then and since crowed about the fragility of the Saudi regime, but the so-called "cracks" have never widened. And it's certainly not the US military keeping it in power. Your siege showed how loyal the armed forces are (as the Gulf War did). The US backing, per the Carter Doctrine, only deals with external threats. The Saudi regime has a firm enough grip on the domestic situation. It doesn't need US help there.

Saddam was more of a threat. He was the only Arab still waging state-to-state war in the modern era, having attacked both his neighbors. In retrospect, one can argue against the intelligence of toppling him, but that doesn't remove the problem he represented: That is, if we left Saddam alone, would he not have to be deal with 10 or 15 years down the road? Or what about when he died and one of his sons took over? Would the US not have to deal with that, too? In other words, Iraq was a problem, no matter how you cut it.

Idiots like David Petraeus?

Seriously, post something that backs all this malarkey up.

The surge, by most accounts, has worked. Violence is down. Certainly the early success of cleansing had something to reductions in violence, but pretending this accounts for the entire drop is nothing more than a fine example of parsing reality to fit you argument. The Sunni also gave up attacking US and Iraqi forces. Zaraqawi was killed and his group was broken and alienated from the populace.

And none of this has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

Iraq had been attacking the United States ever since the Gulf War ended. From the attempt on Bush 41's life to the constant harassment of coalition aircraft, a state of undeclared war existed between the two countries. And this says nothing about the degradations of the Oil-for-food program and the numerous UN resolutions Iraq had violated.

And I don't think anyone is calling the insurgents in Iraq terrorists. I think they are calling them insurgents. The only time they are referenced as terrorists or as performing terrorism is when they undertake an attack that fits the UN definition of terrorism.

The only "wild and baseless rhetoric" around here is yours. Little of what you have written in this thread has been substantiated. Most of it stands in stark contrast to reality and fact (much of which I have posted).

The US is "gonna run out of money". Not for awhile. As I told Sam, defense spend is a drop in the bucket.

The US internal security is "worsening"? What grounds do you base that on?

And what are these "handful of terrorist actions" you speak of?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated by rival Pathan tribes, which during the civil war period he tried to pacify by wide-scale massacres of their villages. Those who killed him were Afghanis who were avenging their honor and the death of their relatives. The mere fact that CIA try to pass this off as another Alkaeda incident is preposterous.

Anyone who knows the history of Afghanistan knows how much Ahmad Shah Massoud was hated by the majority Pathan ethnic group in the country. Furthermore, it is known he worked with the enemies of Afghanistan against the interests of unity, i.e. the Indians, Russians, Iranians, and the Americans. All these countries have a stake in keeping Afghanistan backward and unstable. The Indians have already started clandestine operations against Pakistan using Afghanistan. Numerous agents were caught in North Pakistan providing weapons to separatists, most recently in Peshawar a few months ago.

Furthermore, the seizure of the Grand Mosque was not the work of Shia groups, but a heretic group who used violence to force the people of the city to side with them. Obviously there goal failed, but unfortunately many people were killed in the indiscriminate violence from this heretic group. The teachings on the Mahdi are not limited to the Shia or Sunni, but all Muslims believe in him. In addition to being a Syed (of the lineage of the Prophet), he must also be a righteous man who genuinely cares for the Muslims, at a time when they are being exploited and occupied by all nations of the world under the army of the Anti-Christ (Ad-Dajjal), the one eyed one. Imam Mahdi will join forces with Hazrat Isa (Jesus) after his return, peace be upon him, who will eventually kill the Anti-Christ. This is a very limited synopsis, it is much more detailed.

Your understanding of the Islamic world is abysmal. Where do you get your information? You cannot believe everything you read from journalists or media personalities who are agents of the occupation of Afghanistan, and accomplices in its upheaval. The best thing to do is read different sources, Afghani, Pakistani, Iranian, and Arab papers not attached to the governments of these countries. Unless one has these resources, it is almost impossible to know the complete story. There are numerous English newspapers from this region, as well, so there is no excuse.

 

Bullshit.

They were no Afghans. They couldn't have been, for starters, because they were posing as NON-AFGHAN JOURNALISTS. If they were Afghans, they never would have got near the man. The attackers: "were two Arabs, Dahmane Abd al-Sattar and Bouraoui el-Ouaer, who claimed to be Belgians originally from Morocco. However, their passports turned out to be stolen and their nationality was later determined to be Tunisian."

This is backed up by numerous sources I have already alluded to.

The CIA has nothing to do with it.

When are you going to actually READ what I post to learn that I am not quoting CIA? I am quoting independent journalists. And more than one. Of course, per your addled thinking, they're probably just dupes of the CIA right? Or on the payroll?

Yes, but 12ers are largely Shia. The Sunni do no believe in a 12th Imman, unless I am mistaken? So they was a Shia component to the seizure, which is why the Saudis initially believed Iran was behind it.

 

It {enemy combatant definition} wouldn't have been established in a US Court independently of the signed treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions.

No, they don't. Even more ridiculous is the idea that they have to be part of a state recognized by the violating military .

You repeat your nonsense about extradition and good faith negotiations, and I restate the simple physical circumstances. It's a loop.

It seemed to be working very well up until the pipeline deal fell through in '97 and '98.

It was blown off, and the invasion launched immediately.

Calling the bluff is unreasonable? The only downside I can see would have been an exposure of the Saudi complicity in 9/11 - far more involvement than the Afghanis.

So who were we attacking ?

Probably true - Clinton's urgency and attention in the matter (rockets, etc) had not been taken up byW&Co. But we weren't talking about that - we were talking about the lack of diplomatic initiative after 9/11.

OBL was not and never has been a leader of the Taliban. He has always been mistrusted by many Taliban. Hes not one of them - he's a Saudi arab.

Like most things attributed to 9/11, shoe removal at airports traces to another event.

Ok, it doesn't matter.

Good question. Maybe you rethink your acceptance of propaganda terms such as "war on terror", at least to the extent that you quit planning actual military operations on the fantasy basis of what amount to advertising slogans.

Notice how "coordinated" has slipped in - as if 9/11 had been run, day by day up to the day, from Afghanistan.

It isn't at all ridiculous - why do you find it so? Surely you can see the similarities in technique and the motivation pointing to AQ?

It's not racist, necessarily, but it doesn't mean what you use it to mean. My guess is that English is not your home language - slang in strange languages is always tricky.

They burned civilians with them, fired them into populated areas, etc.

We were badly in need of some base sites we could operate openly and aim at the Caspian Basin. Thew Saudis wanted us out, not expanding.

That's irrelevant.

A majority of the citizens in exactly two countries found Saddam to be a threat in 2003: Israel and the US. The Iraqi oil fields, properly developed, would control the world price of crude oil.

No actual evidence of any of that, especially that alleged assassination attempt. As far as "harassing" coalition aircraft - the US was doing military and spy plane overflights of Iraq, bombing and rocketing targets in Iraq, etc. A little harassment kind of comes with that territory.

Because whenever the US news comes on someone puts a bag over your cage and you go to sleep?

What percentage of newscasters and pundits and commentators in the US are you claiming to know the UN definition of terrorism?

I've seen Iraqis who lay mines to blow up the military vehicles of an invading army called "terrorists". I've see that every week for years now.

So these Shia groups who are heretics aren't Shia groups?

Some of it from you. For example, Muslim fundies talk a lot like Christian ones.

 

Allah will claim you all! Your weak culture will be cured of its evils!

 

If Muslims believe that everything is the will of Allah, then why are Muslims fighting so hard against things that they don't like or want? Wasn't it the will of Allah that the US invaded Afghanistan in the first place?

Baron Max

 

Fortunately the Prophet provided a quotation just for such an occasion:

"There will come the day when other nations will fall upon you like hungry eaters upon a bowl of food." When asked whether this would be due to lack of numbers he said "No. On that day you will be so many, but (quality wise) like the froth on the surface of the torrent."

 

What the fuck does that mean???? That Muslims will be like the cream on a cup of hot coffee?? Or that Muslims should keep the hungry people from eating ...and thus starve millions???

And what if those other nations are Muslim nations? ....they should starve those other Muslim nations?

Duh?

Baron Max

 

I'll have to look through his quotations. But anyway, the reason why Muslims will always fight when invaded is because most Muslims are unaware that they are supposed to give up when the going gets tough. They submit only to God, so anyone else is out of the question.

 

So like in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Muslims who are fighting the Muslims will continue to kill each other in the name of Allah? ...until there's only one Muslim left in the entire country?

What does the prophet say about Muslims killing other Muslims?

Baron Max

 

What I posted has nothing to do with the Prophet. It is the basis of Islam, ie submission to God.

Most Muslims conveniently ignore the Prophet when they like.

When Muslims ignore the Prophet

 

Ah, so then why do we ever talk about Muslims and/or Islam when we talk about Iraq or Afghanistan? If Muslims can do anything they want, and Americans can do anything they want, then.....?

It all comes down to "I'm right, you're wrong.", huh?

Baron Max

 

Pretty much, yeah, it does.

You can see the difference representation does, between Desert Storm and the Iraq War

 

Yes, but you blamed OBL for this. he's no way involved. The Pathans (Pashtuns) have been trying to kill the murderer Ahmad Shah Massoud for nearly 20 years. Alkaeda means absolutely nothing. All these journalists are western journalists who know nothing of the ground reality in Afghanistan. Only Afghanis and neighboring countries would know of the ground reality, especially since the US army censors Western news coming out of Afghanistan.

The CIA were one of the main supporters of Ahmad Shah Massoud, that mass murderer, butcher of Pathan people. The CIA is always attached to any story of Alkaeda, because they were the ones who originally found conclusive proof of their involvement in 9/11 and similar false flag operations.

Yes, you are correct. This, however, has nothing to do with the Ithna Ashari (12ers) or Shias. The group was more similar to a Sunni group, though they were heretics, which means they are no longer Muslims by the concensus of most Muslims.

Sunnis don't believe in the 12th Imam, but they believe in the Mahdi. There is no Imamate to Sunnis. The Shias believe the Mahdi is the 12th Imam. All Muslims believe in the Mahdi.

Perhaps the Saudis assumed it was the Iranians due to their shooting of peaceful Shia protesters in Northern Saudi Arabia immediately after the revolution. Maybe they saw this is a retaliation to it, but actually the group involved was a native Saudi heretic group.

 

Whether the Siege had any support outside Saudiland is not the issue, the issue here is how it was ended. With the Saudis immediately calling in overseas troops to handle the situation. Besides, the Mahdi is not just a part of Shia religious belief. Besides, numerous people believe that the House of Saud was responsible, in part or in whole, for the whole debacle.

After the Siege the House of Saud had free reign as to what new law to implement. It was their version of taking advantage of disaster policy law making. After the overseas forces had cleansed the Mosque on their orders, and any remaining witnesses were shot down while returning home in airplanes, the House of Saud introduced various laws that tightened their grip on the country. The creation of various police forces being chief amongst them. Slowly but surely the US has been training these forces, military and non-military to deal with any situation to the point that the Saudis now have numerous US trained killers. Ofcourse, their work in Saudiland finished, they moved to Qatar and various other neighboruing locales, especially after the invasion of Iraq, but not before leaving a handful of US troops back to keep on training the Saudi forces. The threats to the House of Saud were internal and were crushed with the help of US forces. Any force of change or possible force of change was crushed. And now, the House of Saud has its own killers, operating almost independently from US forces.

The Iraq-Iran war was fought with US weaponry with the US providing both sides with weapons and the knowhow to build chemical and other WMDs. And after he invaded Kuwait, he said he was prepared to surrender and withdraw, but this was rejected out of hand because some people were itching to get some action and make some money. And lets not forget the bombing of various plants and factories by Israel before the war broke out, which forced Saddam to act in irrational ways. How many wars have the other countries in that region started and or been involved in if we go by your definition?

Me? Believe David Petraeus? I stopped believing US military men after witnessing Powels incredible, Oscar-worthy performance in front of the world. The surge has worked? I doubt it. Want to see evidence to back up that malarkey? Ok, here you go:

Source: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/did-the-surge-w.html

Source: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2277

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/23-3

Source: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/61396/

Source: http://www.juancole.com/2007/09/shiites-strike-in-friday-over-killings.html

Source: http://www.juancole.com/2008/09/sunni-baghdad-dark-on-satellite-kagan.html

Source: http://www.juancole.com/2008/07/social-history-of-surge.html
Even Congressmen in the US acknowledge it has failed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y81boJ0xO50

So ya, the “Surge” was a piss poor excuse to pour in some more troops and antagonise the Iraqis but make some nice profits for the big corporations and the mercenaries for hire. Its like they think more weapons and and fear will solve everything. It wont. And the same will happen in Afghanistan.

I suggest you read Seymour Hersh’s article “A case not closed” in which he argues that there is no real concerete evidence that Iraq and or Saddam was behind that assassination plot. A few choice excerpts:

Harassment of coalition aircraft? So Iraq didnt like aircraft invading its airspace to bomb its people? Understandable.
Oil for food program? Set up by the world because they needed Iraqs oil. So we give a destroyed Iraq food if they give us their oil. A disgusting program.
Violations of UN resolutions? You mean the 10 or 11 UN resolutions that demanded Saddam to stop making WMDs? Oh yea, what ever happened to those? I guess after all these years, we did the right thing by going looking for those damn WMDs right? Because after all, those UN resolutions were passed because he had those right?
And yes, people do call them terrorists.

Nice patting yourself on the back there. Although you might want to take a look at the right wing nutjobs in the US before you claim I am talking nonsense:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/03/maddow-wonders-if-we-have-been.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/03/maddow-wonders-if-we-have-been.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/03/will-ex-military-patriots-form-more.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-motivated-florida-gunman-to-open.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/02/we-can-see-why-bernie-goldbergs-book.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/02/know-this-if-nothing-else-this-was-hate.html

Add to that the gang problem which, if what those gangs did in “Muslim” countries what they do in the US they would be labelled as “Islamic Terrorism”, continues to claim all sorts of victims. And then there are people like Madoff.

Its not just defense. Leaving aside the fact that it is mercenaries for hire that are fighting the war for the US right now, the US has incredible debts with its economic dying. Lets hope it gets better soon because as much as I despise the actions of the US government, I dont want to see poor people hungry and without any shelter.

 

Nothing "forced" Saddam to act in irrational ways, and the major pressure on him was the people who had bankrolled his Iranian ventures calling in as loans what he had taken as gifts. He was acting according to type, as ambitious tyrants have throughout history, with the circumstance that Kuwait really was stealing his oil and the US had given him tacit permission to do something about it.

That this whole scene was being helped along by some people who wanted Saddam removed - that he was set up - has occurred to several chroniclers. That he was driven to irrational flailing by Israeli bombs seems much less likely.

 

So you're saying if the nuclear facility in the US is bombed, the Americans will not react irrationally?

Or that Saddam was somehow more mature and far thinking than the US government?

 

You are comparing "Americans" to Saddam.

I don't think Dick Cheney or W or Obama would act irrationally in the current sense (attacking random neighbors) - in light of their own priorities and designs - if a nuclear reactor were bombed in the US.

And if they did, the bombing would not be sufficient excuse. They would not have been forced.