any thoughts on Afghanistan?

[kai]

was the invasion justifiable?

why do you think it seems to be a stalemate?

What do you think of the Taliban?

Very soon we should see an escalation in this war and i can see any way for the Afghans to handle security on their own when northern Pakistan is being slowly overun by the Taliban. Seriously i can see US and ISAF forces entering Pakistan.

The US is almost daily attacking targets in northern Pakistan does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Does anyone have any thoughts on whats happening in Pakistan ? there seems to be a concerted terrorist offensive going on.



P.S. Do you think the Northern borders of Pakistan are more "imaginary" than actual borders. Pakistan and Afghanistan seem to be getting more and more entwined. maybe they always have been?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6301815.ece

 

[Mr Spinkles]

kai,

I have some disparate thoughts...

Increasingly, I'm not sure the invasion of Afghanistan was justified, or legal by international law.
The supposed justification was that the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden without evidence.

My impression, from what I have seen both on corporate and independent news, is that it is a stalemate because Afghanistan is a gigantic country composed of a bunch of tribes. The tribes don't care about the central government, which primarily has authority in Kabul only. I don't think they particularly love the Taliban's extremism, but they do want security and prosperity, which in some cases they believe the Taliban can provide better than the central government.

I am angry that the media does not report more on the US air-strikes that occur in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. Every time I hear a report, it seems more civilians are killed in these air-strikes than suspected Taliban fighters!

I also think we need to remember why we are there: we are there to capture Osama Bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. That's all. We are not there to impose Western-style democracy, capitalism, and secularism on people who don't want it.

If we want to prevent another attack, we should help the people in Afghanistan and Pakistan achieve the security and prosperity that all people deserve.

If we want to oppose Islamic extremism, again we should focus on a political and diplomatic solution, and only use violence in defense.

It seems to me the aggressive violence we are using is wrong, because we don't have the right to kill 10 civilians in order to take out 1 suspected Al Qaeda guy; and it's counter-productive, because (obviously) it will only make them think the U.S. is their enemy.

On the other hand, from the statements of Jihadis that I have read on the internet and from news sources, it is clear that some people who follow an extreme form of Islam really can't coexist peacefully, not even with Muslims who don't share their extreme views.

 

[sandandfoam]

My thoughts on Afghanistan are partisan. I don't want the British army to take a hammering there and I am afraid they might.
I don't see a happy ending to this.

 

[sandandfoam]

was the invasion justifiable?

Unlike Iraq I think so

why do you think it seems to be a stalemate?

I think it's worse than a stalemate, I think the Taliban are gaining

What do you think of the Taliban?

I think they are oppressors. I think they are ruthless and I think they are a serious challenge to those fighting them.

Very soon we should see an escalation in this war and i can see any way for the Afghans to handle security on their own when northern Pakistan is being slowly overun by the Taliban. Seriously i can see US and ISAF forces entering Pakistan.

I can too. Scary.

The US is almost daily attacking targets in northern Pakistan does anyone have any thoughts on this?

I think they need to get on top of the Taliban fast before this spirals out of control. I have heard Obama compared to LBJ - I hope this doesn't go the same way as Vietnam.

Does anyone have any thoughts on whats happening in Pakistan ? there seems to be a concerted terrorist offensive going on.

This is serious stuff. It scares me.

P.S. Do you think the Northern borders of Pakistan are more "imaginary" than actual borders. Pakistan and Afghanistan seem to be getting more and more entwined. maybe they always have been?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6301815.eceAren't all borders imaginary?

 

[kai]

kai,

I have some disparate thoughts...

Increasingly, I'm not sure the invasion of Afghanistan was justified, or legal by international law.
The supposed justification was that the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden without evidence.

My impression, from what I have seen both on corporate and independent news, is that it is a stalemate because Afghanistan is a gigantic country composed of a bunch of tribes. The tribes don't care about the central government, which primarily has authority in Kabul only. I don't think they particularly love the Taliban's extremism, but they do want security and prosperity, which in some cases they believe the Taliban can provide better than the central government.
Its a Stalemate because the Taliban are mainly Pashtun whos territory span Afghan and Pakistan territory, so we leave our bases engage the Taliban who basically retreat to Pashtun Pakistan, we but dont have enough troops to hold so we pull back to our bases and on and on the cycle goes.
I am angry that the media does not report more on the US air-strikes that occur in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. Every time I hear a report, it seems more civilians are killed in these air-strikes than suspected Taliban fighters!
Indeed! i agree the media silence is deafening i beleive intervention in the Northern provinces of Pakistan is enevitable

I also think we need to remember why we are there: we are there to capture Osama Bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. That's all. We are not there to impose Western-style democracy, capitalism, and secularism on people who don't want it. Of course but in my opinion Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan he is in "Pakistan"

If we want to prevent another attack, we should help the people in Afghanistan and Pakistan achieve the security and prosperity that all people deserve.
Agreed but not enough troops on the ground
If we want to oppose Islamic extremism, again we should focus on a political and diplomatic solution, and only use violence in defense.
Agreed but again not enough troops to hold areas cleared of Taliban or Alqueda

It seems to me the aggressive violence we are using is wrong, because we don't have the right to kill 10 civilians in order to take out 1 suspected Al Qaeda guy; and it's counter-productive, because (obviously) it will only make them think the U.S. is their enemy.
Agreed but what do you think we could do about Taliban and their allies bases in Pakistan
On the other hand, from the statements of Jihadis that I have read on the internet and from news sources, it is clear that some people who follow an extreme form of Islam really can't coexist peacefully, not even with Muslims who don't share their extreme views.

Agreed! and the Taliban are just such an extreme

 

[kai]

Unlike Iraq I think so

I think it's worse than a stalemate, I think the Taliban are gaining


I think they are oppressors. I think they are ruthless and I think they are a serious challenge to those fighting them.



I can too. Scary.



I think they need to get on top of the Taliban fast before this spirals out of control. I have heard Obama compared to LBJ - I hope this doesn't go the same way as Vietnam.



This is serious stuff. It scares me.





Aren't all borders imaginary?

agreed but some borders are more imaginary than others, Pakistan holds little sway in the North.

 

[maro]

I also think we need to remember why we are there: we are there to capture Osama Bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. That's all.

Are you sure that ' that's all ' ? !

There are some interesting stuff in here :
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/Heritage.htm

And also ' Resources for building a nation' from here : http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/feb02/feature_afghan.html

It seems to me the aggressive violence we are using is wrong, because we don't have the right to kill 10 civilians in order to take out 1 suspected Al Qaeda guy; and it's counter-productive, because (obviously) it will only make them think the U.S. is their enemy

I guess you mean thousands of civilians and millions of refugees

 

[maro]

Unlike Iraq I think so

unlike Iraq , the raised ' motto ' was very digestible by the masses..but the Greed and the colonialistic mentality 'behind the mottos' are the same , unfortunately

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Are you sure that ' that's all ' ? !

What I meant to say was, that was supposed to be all.

There are some interesting stuff in here :
Is an Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan?
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/Heritage.htm

And also ' Resources for building a nation' from here : Geotimes - February 2002 - Afghanistan Geology

Thanks I'll look at these...

I guess you mean thousands of civilians and millions of refugees

In Afghanistan? Sources?

 

[kai]

Are you sure that ' that's all ' ? !

There are some interesting stuff in here :
Is an Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan?
What Is The Heritage Foundation?

And also ' Resources for building a nation' from here : Geotimes - February 2002 - Afghanistan Geology

Hi Maro

so what are you trying to say here that ,Its all about OIL, I dont agree with you entirely but it could be a factor in the regional importance ,lets say that was true , whats your problem with the west trying to stabilise a country in order to obtain trading rights.its the whole bedrock of society to trade , should we ignore the possibility of natural resources? keep it a secret? declare a conflict of interest and refuse to invest or buy? After all all OPEC countries sell to the west .If there are natural resources that would benefit the Afghans then thats great news isnt it?

I guess you mean thousands of civilians and millions of refugees

you would have to provide a source for that please, do you mean Afghanistan or the current situation in Pakistan?

Theres also something you should realise in western governments they have "Thinktanks" people that think out every given situation, so at any one time our Prime Minister or his Ministers will have access to all kinds of reports and scenarios, some influence decisions some dont. but all kinds of people will be developing all kinds of scenarios right now for what is happening in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, now what western governments want overall is stability, because we literally live off trade, So a stable Afghan Goverment that can handle its own security is the goal here. If the Afghans have access to natural resources such as OIl then thats Fantastic news for the Afghans it means they ,under a stable government could raise themselves up from the abject poverty that the vast majority live in.

 

[AbuKhalid]

unlike Iraq , the raised ' motto ' was very digestible by the masses..but the Greed and the colonialistic mentality 'behind the mottos' are the same , unfortunately

I certainly agree with this. The US had their eyes on Afghanistan for some time before 9/11 and where waging an all out propaganda offensive. Russia was also planning to invade and there is evidence which suggest that the two countries where planning to invade together. I will try to find this evidence and post it.

For those who say that the invasion was justified based on Osama Bin Laden being in Afghanistan, would you therefore support an invasion and occupation of the US by Latin American countries based on the US harbouring of international terrorist Posada Carrile? If you wouldn't support such an invasion then why support it in the case of Afghanistan?

 

[AbuKhalid]

For the last 18 months, the CIA has been working with tribes and warlords in southern Afghanistan, and the division's units have helped create a significant new network in the region of the Taliban's greatest strength.

Bob Woodward, Washington Post, September 18 2001
washingtonpost.com

That would suggest the CIA where in Afghanistan since at least March 2000.

 

[kai]

I would have thought the US has been involved in Afghanistan for decades particularly during the Soviet Occupation.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

For those who say that the invasion was justified based on Osama Bin Laden being in Afghanistan, would you therefore support an invasion and occupation of the US by Latin American countries based on the US harbouring of international terrorist Posada Carrile? If you wouldn't support such an invasion then why support it in the case of Afghanistan?

Very good point. I am only vaguely aware of Posada Carrile, and I think most Americans are completely unaware of him. I agree with you, it's a double standard.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Bob Woodward, Washington Post, September 18 2001
washingtonpost.com

That would suggest the CIA where in Afghanistan since at least March 2000.

In fairness, however, that doesn't mean they intended to invade Afghanistan. It was well known that Osama Bin Laden was being protected by the Taliban, and even before 9/11 Bin Laden had declared war on the U.S. and killed Americans in several terrorist attacks, including the first bombing of the World Trade Center in the early 90's. Bill Clinton had tried to kill Bin Laden with an airstrike in the late 90's and said that the US needed to get him before another attack. So it's not surprising that there were CIA in Afghanistan in 2000. Bin Laden was there and he was an internationally wanted criminal.

 

[maro]

In Afghanistan? Sources?

it's on the wiki...not a secret ,really

civilian causalities :War in Afghanistan (2001–present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Refugees :Afghan refugees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[maro]

Hi Maro

so what are you trying to say here that ,Its all about OIL, I dont agree with you entirely but it could be a factor in the regional importance ,lets say that was true , whats your problem with the west trying to stabilise a country in order to obtain trading rights.its the whole bedrock of society to trade , should we ignore the possibility of natural resources? keep it a secret? declare a conflict of interest and refuse to invest or buy? After all all OPEC countries sell to the west .If there are natural resources that would benefit the Afghans then thats great news isnt it?

you would have to provide a source for that please, do you mean Afghanistan or the current situation in Pakistan?

Theres also something you should realise in western governments they have "Thinktanks" people that think out every given situation, so at any one time our Prime Minister or his Ministers will have access to all kinds of reports and scenarios, some influence decisions some dont. but all kinds of people will be developing all kinds of scenarios right now for what is happening in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, now what western governments want overall is stability, because we literally live off trade, So a stable Afghan Goverment that can handle its own security is the goal here. If the Afghans have access to natural resources such as OIl then thats Fantastic news for the Afghans it means they ,under a stable government could raise themselves up from the abject poverty that the vast majority live in.

Really ,what 's my problem with the west trying to stabilize afghanistan ? :sarcastic what's my problem with the west trying to stabilize Iraq ? what the hell is my problem ? :bonk: what's wrong with me ? I should be thankful to them...is this how their favour is met ? with ingratitude ?..they are trying to make the natural resource available for the afghanis and iraqis so that they can trade with them ! :yes:

sorry ,kai...I am having a hard time with my conscience for what i thought and said about our guardian angel ,the west...I even thought that their long hisory in stabilizing our countries is no more than 'colonialism ' sugarcoated by childish hypocritic 'excuses' .

btw ,is it trying to stabilize palestine too ? :areyoucra

 

[maro]

I think they are oppressors. I think they are ruthless and I think they are a serious challenge to those fighting them.

comaprison :

How the worst government in the world treat its captives :Welcome Back To Islam - Yvonne Ridley: From Captive to Convert

How the civilized american troops treat their captives :More evidence of US war crimes in Afghanistan: Taliban POWs suffocated inside cargo containers

 

[AbuKhalid]

Increasingly, I'm not sure the invasion of Afghanistan was justified, or legal by international law.
The supposed justification was that the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden without evidence.

An interesting side note is that on the FBI's most wanted list Osama Bin Laden still isn't accused of 9/11. I would assume this is because they don't have the evidence to link him.

FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive - Usama Bin Laden

 

[AbuKhalid]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]15 March 2001:India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries' collaborative effort.[/FONT]

India joins anti-Taliban coalition - Jane's Security News

26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action"
against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime.

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10∓ctg=policy

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | US 'planned attack on Taleban'

President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. ... The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

U.S. planned for attack on al-Qaida - Security- msnbc.com