Political Crossfire Forums

[foadi]

This poll was sparked by comments in this thread. Were you opposed to US intervention in Afghanistan way back in 2001?

[lilwolf]

I was not opposed to the invasion of afghanistan at all, for numbers of reasons. The opression is what did it for me and the way the general population was treated by the taliban and others.

Still not opposed to us being there either.

[CommiepinkoLefty]

'Twas a while ago, our invasion... but I distinctly remember agreeing with it. It was one of those things we had to do in order to disrupt Al-Quieda. Even though the government failed to completely destroy Al-Quieda, enough damage was done that it can be considered worthwhile. I was also impressed by the small ammount of killing that was needed in order to oust the Taliban.

Besides, we did a good thing for the Afghan people, ousting an extremely oppressive government that banned just about anything fun. While that's not reason enough to invade, it makes what we did far more worthwhile, and I just hope our government understands our work there isn't done, and puts must needed money into starting up their economy.

[sLiPpY]

I would have supported a limited engagement in Afganistan. i.e. Taking out the terrorist training camps, attempting to take out bin Laden. I would have supported that type of action before September 11th, simply because of the USS Cole and other incidents.

Do I support being there now? Since it's NATO, and to help stabalize and there are other nations participating yes.

Do I support unilateral nation building? Absolutely not.

[Kumar]

The invasion and subsequent occupation by NATO forces was and is flawed, as usual placing far too much emphasis on direct combat while relegating crucial anti-poverty and development initiatives to the backburner. As the NATO commander said a few weeks ago, drastic improvements in the lives of the Afghan people need to be made over the winter or they will settle with the Taliban, choosing that tyranny to ceaseless and useless conflict. In his words, even an extra 10,000 troops would then do absolutely nothing to stop the Taliban.

[foadi]

Kumar wrote: The invasion and subsequent occupation by NATO forces was and is flawed, as usual placing far too much emphasis on direct combat while relegating crucial anti-poverty and development initiatives to the backburner. As the NATO commander said a few weeks ago, drastic improvements in the lives of the Afghan people need to be made over the winter or they will settle with the Taliban, choosing that tyranny to ceaseless and useless conflict. In his words, even an extra 10,000 troops would then do absolutely nothing to stop the Taliban.
The Taliban has been relatively quiet during the last two winters. If the Taliban is going to gain any more ground, it will be in the spring, I think.

[sLiPpY]

Kumar wrote: The invasion and subsequent occupation by NATO forces was and is flawed, as usual placing far too much emphasis on direct combat while relegating crucial anti-poverty and development initiatives to the backburner. As the NATO commander said a few weeks ago, drastic improvements in the lives of the Afghan people need to be made over the winter or they will settle with the Taliban, choosing that tyranny to ceaseless and useless conflict. In his words, even an extra 10,000 troops would then do absolutely nothing to stop the Taliban.

The mission has taken too long to be effective, and part of the problem is that there are Taliban and other elements crossing the border to attack Afgani's who support and appear to be prop'd up by these external forces.

[CatStevens]

The Taliban said they would hand over Bin Laden with bows in his hair, if we could provide some proof that he was involved.

Our goverment has still not indicted Bin Laden for 9/11.

[US Retard]

^^^ Bush's buddy Musharraf (leader of Pakistan) apparently prevented the extradition of bin Laden just after 9/11. The Taliban offered to extradite Osama bin Laden on Oct. 1, 2001 (with bin Laden's approval).

The Daily Telegraph wrote: The proposal, which had bin Laden's approval, was that within the framework of Islamic shar'ia law evidence of his alleged involvement in the New York and Washington attacks would be placed before an international tribunal. . . .

Gen Musharraf and Wendy Chamberlain, America's ambassador to Pakistan, were told of the mission beforehand and yesterday Qazi met the Pakistani president to relay the proposal.
Milan Rai wrote: There had been earlier indications from the Taliban that it was willing to extradite its troublesome guest. There were three striking features of this report. Firstly, extradition was not only possible, it had actually been agreed. Secondly, the deal is said to have had 'bin Laden's approval'. Finally, breaking with earlier offers from the Taliban, it was stated that extradition to the United States (previously anathema) would have been a real possibility.
The US response:

Milan Rai wrote: If bin Laden's extradition had truly been the key goal in Washington and London in the aftermath of 9/11, Blair and Bush would have praised this opening, publicized it, sought to support it with inducements. Instead, we had only silence. This was consistent with the rebuffs delivered to every Taliban overture.
"Who Killed The Deal?"

Milan Rai wrote: Why did the deal not go ahead? Despite being agreed by Mullah Omar, head of the Taliban, the extradition was apparently vetoed by Pakistan's President Musharraf, on the grounds that he, Musharraf, 'could not guarantee bin Laden's safety'. An implausible suggestion.
The fact is, Bush doesn't want bin Laden and this "war on terror" is BS. According to WhiteHouse.gov, President George W. Bush said of Osama bin Laden on March 13, 2002:

Quote: "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.
…

And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
Afghanistan
Knowing now that this WoT was a huge joke, it's easy to condemn Bush's wars. I was never a fan of war-without-proof though.

Here's an interesting tidbit. International support for the war in Afghanistan was a tiny minority.

Noam Chomsky wrote: It is commonly alleged that the US-UK reaction was undertaken with wide international support. That is tenable, however, only if one keeps to elite opinion. An international Gallup poll found only minority support for military attack rather than diplomatic means.[32] In Europe, figures ranged from 8% in Greece to 29% in France. In Latin America, support was even lower: from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama. Support for strikes that included civilian targets was very slight. Even in the two countries polled that strongly supported the use of military force, India and Israel (where the reasons were parochial), considerable majorities opposed such attacks. There was, then, overwhelming opposition to the actual policies, which turned major urban concentrations into "ghost towns" from the first moment, the press reported.

[32] [http://www.gallup-international.com/terrorismpoll-figures.htm]; data from Sept. 14-17, 2001.
(This poll data has since been removed from the Gallup website. I believe this poll is the same one.)

Why was there so little international support for the war?

The Starvation of 3-4 Million Afghanis

Frontline wrote: According to The New York Times, there are seven to eight million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. That was true before September 11. They were surviving on international aid. On September 16, The Times reported that the United States demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population. As far as I could determine, there was no reaction in the United States or for that matter in Europe to the demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people. The threat of military strikes around that time forced the removal of international aid workers that crippled the assistance programmes.

The World Food Programme, the U.N. programme, which is the main one by far, was able to resume after three weeks, in early October. They began to resume, at a lower level, food shipments. They don't have international aid workers within, so the distribution system is hampered.

After the first week of bombing, The New York Times reported on a back page, inside a column on something else, that by the arithmetic of the United Nations, there will soon be 7.5 million Afghans in acute need of even a loaf of bread and there are only a few weeks left before the harsh winter will make deliveries to many areas totally impossible. But with bombs falling, the delivery rate is down to half of what is needed. Casual comment. Which tells us that Western civilisation is anticipating the slaughter of three-four million people or something like that. On the same day, the leader of Western civilisation dismissed with contempt, once again, offers of negotiation for delivery of the alleged target, Osama bin Laden, and a request for some evidence to substantiate the demand for total capitulation. On the same day, the Special Rapporteur of the U.N. in charge of food pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to try to save millions of victims. As far as I'm aware, that was unreported.

Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide. It also gives a good deal of insight into the elite culture, the culture that we are part of. It indicates that plans are being made and programmes implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next few months.
As usual, the intellectuals defend any atrocity their government commits, and that includes the media. Fortunately, the US let up on the bombing after Chomsky's speech (Oct. 18, 2001) and the genocide of 3-4 million innocent civilians was averted.

[justpassingthrough]

I thought it was a good idea and I still think it is a good idea. I'm no isolationist, sry. There are nations out there in very, very bad shape and I think that it is our duty as human beings to help others and if that means leaving the safety of our borders to do so, then so be it.

However, if you asked me whether they are doing a good job of running the entire operation, well, I would have to disagree.
























WAIT A TICK: changed living to leaving, my bad.....

[sLiPpY]

justpassingthrough wrote: I thought it was a good idea and I still think it is a good idea. I'm no isolationist, sry. There are nations out there in very, very bad shape and I think that it is our duty as human beings to help others and if that means living the safety of our borders to do so, then so be it.

However, if you asked me whether they are doing a good job of running the entire operation, well, I would have to disagree.

Why should I care if other nations are in bad shape? Exactly what do the folks immigrating have to contribute to America? excepting the dilution of our culture? A further taxing of our resources. The creation of additional polution?

A lowering of our standard of living....

Why should America say, ok..our borders are open. You people let your own nations devolve into a living hell. You didn't try and make your own homes better...so come here! Commit your crimes and speak your languages that we don't understand, while not paying taxes...but gaining the benefits of our social welfare system.

Should we let entrepenuers in? sure. Should we let educated professionals from all over the world come here? well sure. Should we let skilled labor in? yes Unskilled labor? nope we've already got more than enough of that.

Should we let South America, and other nations dump their prisoners and refugee's here?

I don't think so.

[justpassingthrough]

sLiPpY wrote: justpassingthrough wrote: I thought it was a good idea and I still think it is a good idea. I'm no isolationist, sry. There are nations out there in very, very bad shape and I think that it is our duty as human beings to help others and if that means leaving the safety of our borders to do so, then so be it.

However, if you asked me whether they are doing a good job of running the entire operation, well, I would have to disagree.

Why should I care if other nations are in bad shape? Exactly what do the folks immigrating have to contribute to America? excepting the dilution of our culture? A further taxing of our resources. The creation of additional polution?

A lowering of our standard of living....

Why should America say, ok..our borders are open. You people let your own nations devolve into a living hell. You didn't try and make your own homes better...so come here! Commit your crimes and speak your languages that we don't understand, while not paying taxes...but gaining the benefits of our social welfare system.

Should we let entrepenuers in? sure. Should we let educated professionals from all over the world come here? well sure. Should we let skilled labor in? yes Unskilled labor? nope we've already got more than enough of that.

Should we let South America, and other nations dump their prisoners and refugee's here?

I don't think so.

I hope that little correction makes it a bit more clear.

While I have no problems concerning immigration with Canada, the United States I believe is already growing out of control. Canada on the other hand, needs more people in order to keep its numbers up so I would encourage more people to come here. That said, there needs to be changes in order for that to happen and for this country to truly become a multicultural nation.

[US Retard]

justpassingthrough wrote: I thought it was a good idea and I still think it is a good idea. I'm no isolationist, sry. There are nations out there in very, very bad shape and I think that it is our duty as human beings to help others and if that means leaving the safety of our borders to do so, then so be it.
I see your point and I agree, but there's a fundamental principle in the field of medicine: first, do no harm.

Hippocrates wrote: Declare the past, diagnose the present, foretell the future; practice these acts. As to diseases, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least to do no harm.

Hippocrates, Epidemics I, xi. Translated by WHS Jones. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995
So yes, I think we should helped the people Afghanistan by paying massive reparations for the nation we (and the Russians) obliterated. We should support democracy, reform, and we can do that without bombs.

Keep in mind we were sending aid to the Taliban ($245 million from 2000-2001) before we bombed them with love.

[sLiPpY]

justpassingthrough wrote: sLiPpY wrote: justpassingthrough wrote: I thought it was a good idea and I still think it is a good idea. I'm no isolationist, sry. There are nations out there in very, very bad shape and I think that it is our duty as human beings to help others and if that means leaving the safety of our borders to do so, then so be it.

However, if you asked me whether they are doing a good job of running the entire operation, well, I would have to disagree.

Why should I care if other nations are in bad shape? Exactly what do the folks immigrating have to contribute to America? excepting the dilution of our culture? A further taxing of our resources. The creation of additional polution?

A lowering of our standard of living....

Why should America say, ok..our borders are open. You people let your own nations devolve into a living hell. You didn't try and make your own homes better...so come here! Commit your crimes and speak your languages that we don't understand, while not paying taxes...but gaining the benefits of our social welfare system.

Should we let entrepenuers in? sure. Should we let educated professionals from all over the world come here? well sure. Should we let skilled labor in? yes Unskilled labor? nope we've already got more than enough of that.

Should we let South America, and other nations dump their prisoners and refugee's here?

I don't think so.

I hope that little correction makes it a bit more clear.

While I have no problems concerning immigration with Canada, the United States I believe is already growing out of control. Canada on the other hand, needs more people in order to keep its numbers up so I would encourage more people to come here. That said, there needs to be changes in order for that to happen and for this country to truly become a multicultural nation.

Thanks for the clarification. :-D

Growth here is out of "control" and it's not sustainable...unless we want to become as India and China.

[justpassingthrough]

US Retard wrote: justpassingthrough wrote: I thought it was a good idea and I still think it is a good idea. I'm no isolationist, sry. There are nations out there in very, very bad shape and I think that it is our duty as human beings to help others and if that means leaving the safety of our borders to do so, then so be it.
I see your point and I agree, but there's a fundamental principle in the field of medicine: first, do no harm.

Hippocrates wrote: Declare the past, diagnose the present, foretell the future; practice these acts. As to diseases, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least to do no harm.

Hippocrates, Epidemics I, xi. Translated by WHS Jones. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995
So yes, I think we should helped the people Afghanistan by paying massive reparations for the nation we (and the Russians) obliterated. We should support democracy, reform, and we can do that without bombs.

Keep in mind we were sending aid to the Taliban ($245 million from 2000-2001) before we bombed them with love.

That's more or less my point. I believe in helping others and I don't think we have done as good of a job as we could have in Afghanistan, or Iraq or that matter. That said, both countries will be better off with their previous governments disposed of........at least in theory over the next few years/decades..........

.....See what I mean when I said they really aren't doing a very good job?

[[Bible]Monkey]

US Retard wrote: ^^^ Bush's buddy Musharraf (leader of Pakistan) apparently prevented the extradition of bin Laden just after 9/11. The Taliban offered to extradite Osama bin Laden on Oct. 1, 2001 (with bin Laden's approval).

The Daily Telegraph wrote: The proposal, which had bin Laden's approval, was that within the framework of Islamic shar'ia law evidence of his alleged involvement in the New York and Washington attacks would be placed before an international tribunal. . . .

Gen Musharraf and Wendy Chamberlain, America's ambassador to Pakistan, were told of the mission beforehand and yesterday Qazi met the Pakistani president to relay the proposal.
Milan Rai wrote: There had been earlier indications from the Taliban that it was willing to extradite its troublesome guest. There were three striking features of this report. Firstly, extradition was not only possible, it had actually been agreed. Secondly, the deal is said to have had 'bin Laden's approval'. Finally, breaking with earlier offers from the Taliban, it was stated that extradition to the United States (previously anathema) would have been a real possibility.
The US response:

Milan Rai wrote: If bin Laden's extradition had truly been the key goal in Washington and London in the aftermath of 9/11, Blair and Bush would have praised this opening, publicized it, sought to support it with inducements. Instead, we had only silence. This was consistent with the rebuffs delivered to every Taliban overture.
"Who Killed The Deal?"

Milan Rai wrote: Why did the deal not go ahead? Despite being agreed by Mullah Omar, head of the Taliban, the extradition was apparently vetoed by Pakistan's President Musharraf, on the grounds that he, Musharraf, 'could not guarantee bin Laden's safety'. An implausible suggestion.
The fact is, Bush doesn't want bin Laden and this "war on terror" is BS. According to WhiteHouse.gov, President George W. Bush said of Osama bin Laden on March 13, 2002:

Quote: "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.
…

And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
Afghanistan
Knowing now that this WoT was a huge joke, it's easy to condemn Bush's wars. I was never a fan of war-without-proof though.

Here's an interesting tidbit. International support for the war in Afghanistan was a tiny minority.

Noam Chomsky wrote: It is commonly alleged that the US-UK reaction was undertaken with wide international support. That is tenable, however, only if one keeps to elite opinion. An international Gallup poll found only minority support for military attack rather than diplomatic means.[32] In Europe, figures ranged from 8% in Greece to 29% in France. In Latin America, support was even lower: from 2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama. Support for strikes that included civilian targets was very slight. Even in the two countries polled that strongly supported the use of military force, India and Israel (where the reasons were parochial), considerable majorities opposed such attacks. There was, then, overwhelming opposition to the actual policies, which turned major urban concentrations into "ghost towns" from the first moment, the press reported.

[32] [http://www.gallup-international.com/terrorismpoll-figures.htm]; data from Sept. 14-17, 2001.
(This poll data has since been removed from the Gallup website. I believe this poll is the same one.)

Why was there so little international support for the war?

The Starvation of 3-4 Million Afghanis

Frontline wrote: According to The New York Times, there are seven to eight million people in Afghanistan on the verge of starvation. That was true before September 11. They were surviving on international aid. On September 16, The Times reported that the United States demanded from Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population. As far as I could determine, there was no reaction in the United States or for that matter in Europe to the demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people. The threat of military strikes around that time forced the removal of international aid workers that crippled the assistance programmes.

The World Food Programme, the U.N. programme, which is the main one by far, was able to resume after three weeks, in early October. They began to resume, at a lower level, food shipments. They don't have international aid workers within, so the distribution system is hampered.

After the first week of bombing, The New York Times reported on a back page, inside a column on something else, that by the arithmetic of the United Nations, there will soon be 7.5 million Afghans in acute need of even a loaf of bread and there are only a few weeks left before the harsh winter will make deliveries to many areas totally impossible. But with bombs falling, the delivery rate is down to half of what is needed. Casual comment. Which tells us that Western civilisation is anticipating the slaughter of three-four million people or something like that. On the same day, the leader of Western civilisation dismissed with contempt, once again, offers of negotiation for delivery of the alleged target, Osama bin Laden, and a request for some evidence to substantiate the demand for total capitulation. On the same day, the Special Rapporteur of the U.N. in charge of food pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to try to save millions of victims. As far as I'm aware, that was unreported.

Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide. It also gives a good deal of insight into the elite culture, the culture that we are part of. It indicates that plans are being made and programmes implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next few months.
As usual, the intellectuals defend any atrocity their government commits, and that includes the media. Fortunately, the US let up on the bombing after Chomsky's speech (Oct. 18, 2001) and the genocide of 3-4 million innocent civilians was averted.


Most of that information is fairly one-sided, enough to be mostly wrong, think, U.S retard. I've skimmed through your links, I've seen countering evidence and arguements for most of them, although I don't feel like rounding them all up, a laziness on my part that will make this post examining the other side of the coin more apparently weaker than it should be if we looked at the full range of the facts.
This is an important sentence ( towards the end of the article )in your first Telegraph link
Quote: The plan's chances will have been undermined by the fact that bin Laden's presence in Pakistan would provide a focus for bin Laden's Pakistani supporters and further threaten the country's stability.

Musharif is a dictator that took over Pakistan in a coupe in '98, handing bin laden over to him ( and the pro bin laden elements subservient to him) as a sort of tertiary solution is not a solution. This fact is further strengthened when we look at the pardon handed out by Pakistan to Pakistani scientist Khan-the fellow responsible for giving nuclear centrifuges to Iran, N Korea, and Libya, among others.

People pointing to the 'Pakistan solution' should research it, and I think you'd come to the conclusion that despite some slanted or superficial articles referencing it, it was not a viable option towards justice, but rather would be an obstruction of it.

On the bottom of your Telegraph link is an interesting article from Oct 3 '01
Quote: US presents evidence against bin Laden

By Ben Fenton in Washington and Ambrose Evans- Pritchard in Brussels
(Filed: 03/10/2001)

AMERICA yesterday offered its allies in the anti-terrorism coalition evidence of the complicity of Osama bin Laden in the September 11 attacks, paving the way for military action to begin.

As dozens of diplomatic cables were speeding from Washington around the world, the material was said to highlight the fact that four of the 19 suicide hijackers were trained at camps in Afghanistan operated by bin Laden's al-Qa'eda network. Officials also cited intercepted communications.

Lord Robertson, the Nato secretary general, said that proof provided in a confidential briefing by a senior counter-terrorism officer to member countries made it clear that the attacks were orchestrated outside America.

He said the evidence was "clear and compelling" and permitted him fully to invoke Article Five of the Washington Treaty that set up the alliance, allowing all 19 countries to give military assistance to America

I realize the article referencing evidence without displaying it is a circular arguement, but the NATO commander on viewing it felt justified in invoking article 5.

What someone ( less lazy than me :-D ) should try to find is the three basic principles that the Taliban said that they were standing on-I recall reading about it, but I forget what they are called, one was related to being religiously unable to turn over a "guest" seeking asylum, and two other principles that were diametrically opposed to the Americans ( justifed, in my view) demands to hand him over. That's relevant, but I'd have to research it to make the point relevant.

With respect to your Oct 18 Chomsky speech ( final item in your post ) I recall reading that very speech on these boards , and seeing valid links which substantially proved that , as events turned out-after Mr. Chomskys dire predictions-the Afghanistans who had been starving after twenty years of war and three years of extreme drought were in fact saved from starvation through massive international aid, most significantly the massive American air-drops. Basically Mr Chomsky was ( validly perhaps) forewarning of a potential disaster, but it in fact never came about.
(Edit_ Oh yeah, you already said that (: )

I have a recollection that there was a tactical reason for not wanting those trucks through-can't remember, but it may have been because of looters, or not wanting more ( than the already 3 million ) Afghanistani refugees in already over burdened Pakistan. That doesn't sound right-I'll look into that more if I have time.

[Akajjred]

No, Afghanistan was harboring terrorists that directly attacked us. I'm liberal, but yea military force was necessary, apparently ever other NATO country agreed to, and it was the first time Article V was ever used. Come on Kumar, Foadi, and US Retard why should the US not have invaded Afghanistan. It has become clear that the US military is inept at handily guerrilla warfare, but you couldn't know that beforehand as a politician.

[bigstick61]

Actually, we are not inept as you think. Nearly every small war we have fought has been a success. Vietnam was fought using the wrong tactics and discarding the lessons learned fighting small wars. Iraq, while not as bad a repeat, has many of the same problems. We've won every other guerilla conflict ( the term guerilla in Spanish means "small war") we've fought in the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries, Russia 19-18-1920 excepted (for political reasons regarding President Wilson). There's even a manual that tells you how to fight such wars successfully, the Small Wars manual, based upon the lessons learned from a few decades of constant fighting of guerilla conflicts and other small wars, as well as a book on the subject written by the British Army based on their experiences in the colonies. When followed, we have been successful, when not, or when the tactics are allowed to be implemented only on a minor scale, we tend not to do as well.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: There's even a manual that tells you how to fight such wars successfully, the Small Wars manual, based upon the lessons learned from a few decades of constant fighting of guerilla conflicts and other small wars, as well as a book on the subject written by the British Army based on their experiences in the colonies. When followed, we have been successful, when not, or when the tactics are allowed to be implemented only on a minor scale, we tend not to do as well.

The problem though, no one has come up with successful tactics in Afghanistan. The place is the biggest pain the a** in the history of warfare.

Also the lack of a clear cut victory does not mean defeat. At the moment the Allies are stopping the Taliban from retaking control of the country. That is the politcal and military objective, and as such it is being achieved

[bigstick61]

The tactics do still apply. The problem is the lack of usage, although they are used to a greater extent in Afghanistan than in Iraq; however, certain conditions in Afghanistan have helped us greatly in fighting the conflict, such as the attitude of a sizeable part of the populous to American and Allied troops.