Printable View
Actually Zbignew Brzezinski who is the Obamamama's chief foreign policy adviser wrote a book during the time when he served on the Carter administration where he explicitly detailed the importance of securing the gas fields in central Asia. This "war" is not about Osama....or routing or terrorists...it's a natural resource war. Always was....always will be.
I.S.A.F. is N.A.T.O. led and incorporates ONLY two nations that have no ties to it. The American troops in the east of the country are there to control the border with Pakistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by tstv_lover
This is a clash about different cultures, initiated as Hippi quite rightly said by 9/11 and a desire for vengeance. The hijackers were mostly Saudis' but were trained in Afghanistan, because the interests of the Saudi Royal Family are more Western than Islamic. The reverse was most definitely the case in Afghanistan before it was invaded. The "bright idea" that was Gulf War II has served to inflame things further in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Add to that the natural reluctance for any people to be occupied, particularly the Afghanis', and you have the current quagmire.
It's a similar situation to Vietnam and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and as with that conflicts it will take a lot, lot more body-bags coming home for any President to pull out without any resemblance of success, which is a relatively stable and unthreatened democracy. Those are indeed the stated aims in the link you've given, and why there are also still troops in Iraq. Study history and animal behavior and you will always find a similar explanation for the way things are today.
Brzezinski isn't chief of anything or advisor of any kind in the current administration. He hasn't had any clout for 30 years. Afghanistan doesn't have any gas or oil to speak of. They're just between Iran & China, so any pipelines have to go through there, or through the even more unstable former Soviet republics.Quote:
Originally Posted by beandip
You're right that this was never about Osama binLaden. We seem to know all about al Qaeda, to hear some tell it. Hell, we kill the #2 or #3 guy every other week, right? I'm starting to think #1 is a myth. His name started popping up within hours of the plane crashes, but I haven't seen any actual evidence that he ordered 9/11. I have serious doubts whenever a face is put on an undefined enemy.
So, it sounds like the US is in Afghanistan either to secure natural resource routes or to destroy the Taleban, who pose no threat to the US and were not involved with 9/11.
The spectre of Osama bin Laden is being used to justify the actions which, given the large number of US forces, inevitably results in civilian casualies. These civilian casualties, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, cause local populations to hate the US.
Osama bin Laden (assuming he exists) may or may not be found as part of this exercise, but President Obama's statements yesterday made no reference to Osama bin Laden.
More troops and funding will continue until "success" is achieved, although no-one is really clear why the US troops are there or what success constitutes.
Have I got that about right?
Yup. That's about the situation. A total clusterfuck.
Onward to "victory", in "the good war".
I do know Cheney went to Khazakstan several times to cut a deal over their crude oil. He came back emptyhanded. Bribery, blackmail and intimidation didn't work.
Economy of war. You get into a war, drop bombs, yet you need to replenish your stock of weapons for the next war, so you need people to work in different industries to create new bombs. Every person involved in the whole process receives a salary with which he/she can buy stuff that is produced by others who are receiving your money as their salary. In the process, the economy moves on and the big vampires of war and death receive the biggest chunk of the gold bar. You see how easy it is making money on top of the skulls of others?
Don't read this unless you have a LOT of time on your hands: http://www.civicworldwide.org/storag...rt%20final.pdf
I agree with that. What's more is the Taliban had actually brought a semblance of order to a place that had known only drug fueled wars and warlordism. What we brought back was more warlordism, and a less stable orderly situation....didn't improve anyone's rights for the most part. They all believed in the Salafi/Wahabi interpretation of Sharia. To top it off these people have known only war and death and so are callous to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
All we have done is bomb rubble and broken buildings until they were dust...then build new buildings and roads only to bomb them again. Ultimately we will leave and whoever we placed in power will fall anyway.
As for Bin Laden he needs kidney dialysis .... in all likely hood he as been in either Pakistan, Egypt, or someplace where he could get his medical care. I don't think he is in Afganistan anymore.
Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline... dummies