Afghanistan war un-winnable?

[bush_cheney2004]

.....I am still amazed at how people like Eyeball can see people burned alive in the WTC and tubes being blown up in London and simply shrug and say he doesn't care.

Such opinions have plenty of company, happy to live with such cognitive dissonance even as they live and thrive in the evil "West".

[eyeball]

Let me guess, you get them from a Lyndon Larouche site.

Wiki in this case.

Eyeball, read a goddamn history book before you start spouting off about blowback. The fact you can't even tell us why Osama Bin Laden hates us is laughable.

Did you even click on the link I provided?

Here it is again in case you missed it. I'll make it bigger this time so you don't miss it.

Link

[Canadian Blue]

Eyeball, let's look over your statements:

Actually no, within 20 minutres or so I do recall asking myself "why would anyone attack a country that was so kind and gentle"? The answer was pretty clear within a matter of hours. Blowback

The blowback was commonly blamed on the US intervention on behalf of Kuwait in the first Gulf War. Yet when you're asked whether or not we should have let Iraq control Kuwait, here is your answer:

QUOTE

Are you saying that Iraq should have been given complete control over the region when Kuwait was invaded?

No.

So it's exceedingly obvious that you have no clue what goes on in the region. Thus far you're just repeating a few tired old left wing cliches, unable to grasp the fact that their is extremism in Islam, and that the United States is the sole target of these terrorists despite attacks in Bali, Mumbai, Madrid, and London.

[Canadian Blue]

Wiki in this case.

Did you even click on the link I provided?

Here it is again in case you missed it. I'll make it bigger this time so you don't miss it.

Link

I did read the article, and I pointed out that the intervention on behalf of Kuwait was considered "blowback" artard. I then asked whether you disagreed with the intervention, you seemed to state that you did not. Therefore you likely supported repelling Saddam from Kuwait and are now responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Way to go, you just proved it's all your fault!!!

[Canadian Blue]

Such opinions have plenty of company, happy to live with such cognitive dissonance even as they live and thrive in the evil "West".

Don't forget that in Eyeballs twisted view of the world Bali was also justified because it was simply blowback.

I love how he dodges the question of whether or not any action was warranted after 9/11.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[eyeball]

The blowback was commonly blamed on the US intervention on behalf of Kuwait in the first Gulf War.

Commonly in your universe maybe.

[Canadian Blue]

Commonly in your universe maybe.

Do you think that Iraq was correct in invading Kuwait, yes or no?

Do you think the US was justified in liberating Kuwait from Iraq, yes or no?

Stop dodging the goddamn questions and answer them for Christ sakes. If you state that terrorists are justified to attack us because we helped arm the Afghans against the Soviet Union or because we repelled Saddam from Kuwait then just say so.

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't forget that in Eyeballs twisted view of the world Bali was also justified because it was simply blowback.

Right.....in their minds no place on the entire earth is safe because of justified "blowback" it would seem.

[Canadian Blue]

Commonly in your universe maybe.

So you're stating that the war in the Persian Gulf and American actions after that war had nothing to do with September 11th?

For someone who kept on telling us that the United States is responsible for September 11th you aren't too sure of your case.

[scorpio]

Really, so what you're saying is that Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with September 11th.

The FBI don't think so. source

Edited March 7, 2009 by scorpio

[ToadBrother]

You do realize that many proponents of blowback argue that one of the reasons the United States is hated is because of it's participation in the first Gulf War. What you're basically saying is that you blame the United States government for 9/11, however at the same time you state that you would have supported fighting Hussein in Kuwait, which happened to piss off many Islamic radicals.

I always thought the radicals were pissed off because they had some sort of delusional idea that they should take on Hussein. There was also a matter of the Coalition launching air strikes from the Prophet's Land.

At any rate, one thing you can remember about fanatics is that they'll happily take your aid one day (booting the Soviets out of Afghanistan) and then stab you in the back the next (9-11). The other thing you can count on is that real live fanatics don't give up, ever. They're on a Mission from God to kill the infidel.

I'm not saying the US didn't make a lot of errors, particularly in walking out of Afghanistan and letting a pack of homegrown fanatics (which they had been happy to do business with during the Soviet occupation) take the country over.

Eyeball, you have stated before that the US government is responsible for 9.11, you are then absolving Osama Bin Laden of guilt and arguing that he was justified in attacked the trade towers. You've stated that the United States shouldn't have even reacted to such an attack.

I am still amazed at how people like Eyeball can see people burned alive in the WTC, buses being blown up in London, train stations attacked in Madrid, tourists being killed in Bali, and Mumbai under attack, while arguing we shouldn't defend ourselves against such actions.

I think it would be foolish to say that US actions had nothing to do with 9-11. They clearly did. In the eyes of the fanatics, the US is an evil power that supports corrupt and wicked rulers. To some extent, the fanatics are even right. The US had been quite chummy with some pretty nasty guys in the Middle East, out of the necessity of protecting energy supplies and trying to undermine the USSR. The problem, to some degree is perspective, the fanatics think they're the center of the universe, and that all deeds done should have been to serve them, while the US"s perspective since the end of WWII has been to contain the Communist threat. Neither side is entirely right or entirely wrong on those points.

I honestly don't know what the US could have done differently during the Cold War that would have made the fanatics happy, whilst simultaneously keeping the Soviets in check. It was the choice of lesser evils, as is so often the case. We'd all love it if the West would have said to SOBs like Saddam Hussein and the House of Saud to piss on a rope and start treating their citizens with dignity, or else, but that simply could not be done. Sometimes alliances have to be made with nasty people. You didn't see Churchill telling Stalin "Well, I know Hitler has invaded, but, you know, you're not a very nice man, and you really have done a lot of harm to your country" (well, in a way Churchill did, reminding Stalin that the USSR had been shipping steel to Germany right up until the day of the invasion). Instead Churchill, knowing full well the kind of man he was dealing with, gladly accepted an alliance. There was no room to stand on principle.

At any rate, I guess my point is, just because the US can probably wear some of the blame, I can assure all the crazy Lefist reactionaries that the alternatives would have been much much worse, and they should damned glad they weren't the ones sitting in the Oval Office having to weigh all these factors and chart a course through the difficult waters. As Isaac Asimov once said, never let your sense of morality get in the way of doing what's right.

Edited March 7, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Canadian Blue]

Great post Toadbrother.

[eyeball]

Don't forget that in Eyeballs twisted view of the world Bali was also justified because it was simply blowback.

I love how he dodges the question of whether or not any action was warranted after 9/11.

I never said no action wasn't warranted, just the action that was taken.

[eyeball]

Instead Churchill, knowing full well the kind of man he was dealing with, gladly accepted an alliance. There was no room to stand on principle.

Perhaps if Churchill had stood his ground the cold war might never have happened and America might not have been tempted to ignore its principles.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps if Churchill had stood his ground the cold war might never have happened and America might not have been tempted to ignore its principles.

America was minding its "principles" just fine, but it seems that one Empire jolly well wanted it to add blood and money to the cause. God Save the Queen and all that jazz.

Edited March 8, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Canadian Blue]

I think what should have happened immediately after World War 2 is that we should have been far more firm with the Soviets. We at that time had the atomic bomb which yielded a considerable advantage, not to mention the fact that Soviet POW's were begging not to be sent back to Stalin.

World War 2 was both a success and a failure in my books.

I never said no action wasn't warranted, just the action that was taken.

What kind of action would you have wanted then?

[Moonlight Graham]

So if they are one of the poorest countries in the world - how could they be a threat.

Afghanistan is only a threat because the Taliban gave safe haven for Al-Qaeda. But the Taliban did not attack the U.S. on 9/11. Of the 19 hijackers on 9/11, none of them were Afghanis and none of them were members of the Taliban.

What we've done in Afghanistan over the last 8 years has actually made things worse for our security. We've gone from having al-Qaeda having safe haven in a poor, lightly armed country like Afghanistan and have pushed them into Pakistan, a very unstable (both polically and economically) nuclear-armed country. And we've done so while spending ridiculas sums of money, having hundreds of thousands of people dead, and giving Arabs in the region even more reason to hate the West. Brilliant!

[Moonlight Graham]

Actually it's always been policy that the Canadian Forces will stay in Afghanistan until the ANA and Police are ready to deal with the Taliban themselves. We've been helping with training since 2005.

This is a joke. The ANA and police forces will never be able to handle the Taliban. How can they do this when the strength and numbers of the Taliban is growing much faster than the ANA and Afghan police? If the Soviets, the U.S., and NATO have been whooped by the Taliban, do you think these Afghan police have a chance?

[Moonlight Graham]

Well, I'm certain that the United States wouldn't have thought fondly of us if we didn't commit ourselves to the NATO alliance.

Who cares. Canadians determine their own foreign policy. The U.S. didn't think kindly when we didn't join them in Iraq and Vietnam either.

So what you're saying is that when the two planes hit the towers the United States should have sat around and done nothing about it? This might be a surprise to you but usually if a nation is attacked sometimes that nation will react.

You are right, the U.S. had to react after 9/11. You can't just let someone kill thousands of your civilians without any consequences. However, a full-scale invasion and occupation of the country wasn't necessary. I think air strikes targeting al-Qaeda within Afghnaistan would have sent enough of a message. Unfortuntely, the American publics' lust for bloody revenge and having Bin Laden's head on a stake would have made such a response likely political suicide for Bush.

[Moonlight Graham]

Not at all, it was blow-back from years of questionable American foreign policy practices that finally blew-back is all. There's nothing mysterious about what happened or why.

You are 100% correct.

Yet many people, actually i would say most people, still have the dillusion that al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. simply because "they hate our Western values".

[bush_cheney2004]

Who cares. Canadians determine their own foreign policy. The U.S. didn't think kindly when we didn't join them in Iraq and Vietnam either.

Partially true....Canada still made a bundle on Vietnam with war materials production and policies that favored South Vietnam.

You are right, the U.S. had to react after 9/11. You can't just let someone kill thousands of your civilians without any consequences. However, a full-scale invasion and occupation of the country wasn't necessary.

You mean like in 1998 when Clinton delivered Tomahawks to Al Qaeda training camps in A-stan....that sure worked...huh!

I think air strikes targeting al-Qaeda within Afghnaistan would have sent enough of a message. Unfortuntely, the American publics' lust for bloody revenge and having Bin Laden's head on a stake would have made such a response likely political suicide for Bush.

There is no shortage of opinions on what the Americans should have done. Seems that politics in Canada agreed on the course of action at the time.

[Oleg Bach]

I think what should have happened immediately after World War 2 is that we should have been far more firm with the Soviets. We at that time had the atomic bomb which yielded a considerable advantage, not to mention the fact that Soviet POW's were begging not to be sent back to Stalin.

World War 2 was both a success and a failure in my books.

What kind of action would you have wanted then?

Never forget that black and white photo of Stalin, the American president and Churchill - they all looked like they just knocked off a bottle of Vodka and were smiling like Cheshire cats. The three leaders looked like they were having to good a time playing war. You are correct when you say that WW2 was a failure in your books to some extent. The concessions granted the Russians were absurd - but going back to the photo - it sure looked like they were having fun - they should have had Uncle Hitler there in the flesh to make the whole thing complete - His dream was to have all of Europe under his thumb under National Socialism - well....His dream did come true in a belated fashion - the European Union of today is proof of that.

When Ronald Ragan like an naive idiot belted out the pharse _"Mr Gorbechoff tear down that wall" - I was shocked having come from a Russian heritage...How quickly they forget - the re-uniting of east and west Germany was in effect the re-attatchment of the dragons head to the body. Germany should never have been made whole again. What they did as Germanic anglo saxon stock was horrific - and I am sure that the dream of National socialism was passed down intergenerationally...far as I am concerned when you hear reports that the Bush fortune that was partly responsible for the installation of George W - would and could never have taken place with out the 40s financing - that consisted of his Grand father Prescot selling arms to the Nazis - weapons and bullets that killed Americans - Ironic and discusting. War is buisness - toss out the ideology that is dispersed for public consumption - Afghansitan is no different - some one is drinking blood and sustaining wealth at our expense.

[Moonlight Graham]

Which policies exactly? Yes, the Iran-Iraq War was a massive f%$k up, however the United States also helped the Afghans fight against the Soviets.

Bin Laden wasn't "justified" in attacking the U.S. It was a horrific & inexcusible act of violence. But hardly suprising.

But if you want to know why he attacked the U.S. and why many Muslims resent the U.S. you can start with Operation Ajax which was a covert CIA coup in Iran where the U.S. disposed of Iran's democratically elected government and reinstalled the pro-U.S. Shah as ruler in order to secure oil interests, which ultimately led to the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Probably the biggest factor in Bin Laden wanting to attack the U.S. was the U.S. using Saudi Arabia soil to launch attacks against Iraq during the Gulf War. Saudi Arabia is a sacred land for Muslims because it is the location of the two holiest sites in Islam, Mecca and Medina. This not only PO'd Bin Laden, but a great many Saudi's and Muslims.

There are many other examples of U.S. covert (and overt) military operations in the Muslim world & them interfering in Muslim affairs. Is it really any suprise to anyone that somebody, somewhere took offense to this and decided to attack the U.S.?

[Oleg Bach]

I could swear that the Saudis who financed the 9 11 attack were in a sense given the go ahead - "He Cheney - you mind if we have a bit of fun?" - I doubt very much that Bin Ladin was the planner and executer .. I watch a video where he sits with his friends marveling at the collapse of the WDC - I could tell that he was like a school boy and he himself did not have the screwdness or the intellectual capcity to do such a thing - His face and words were telling - He reminded me of a groupie admiring a rock band called Terrorist. No one will ever know who and why this attack was facilitated..and who made it easy to take place and why....I assume it was for the entertainment value of some spoiled rich f***s...and boy did they sure turn a profit on the security industry not to mention removing most of Americas civil and human rights.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Probably the biggest factor in Bin Laden wanting to attack the U.S. was the U.S. using Saudi Arabia soil to launch attacks against Iraq during the Gulf War. Saudi Arabia is a sacred land for Muslims because it is the location of the two holiest sites in Islam, Mecca and Medina. This not only PO'd Bin Laden, but a great many Saudi's and Muslims.

But I guess he didn't mind a Canadian field hospital in Saudi Arabia or squadrons of CF-18's attacking Iraq from Doha, Qatar.

There are many other examples of U.S. covert (and overt) military operations in the Muslim world & them interfering in Muslim affairs. Is it really any suprise to anyone that somebody, somewhere took offense to this and decided to attack the U.S.?

Terrorist attacks in the USA are hardly new....why should there be any surprise except for scale?