USA planned the invasion of Afghanistan MONTHS before 9/11

Inqvisitor said:
If they stop invading and return home. But otherwise they are enemy combatants, and a defensive war is a just war...
Moderator Action: Even with your repeated warnings and with bans, you still continue to advocate killing. Only by the grace of all the moderators and Thunderfall may we consider you to return anytime soon, if at all.

To all others on this board, please do not continue to quote and continue the argument. We do not need any more.

Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
tomsnowman123 said:
We have plenty of problems here in the US that need to be faced. War should never be a priority, period.

There's plenty of problems everywhere and no solution in sight... Either way we should do what we can.
 
It may be a little late in the thread for this question, but let's get one thing straight, Zulu:

Do you think the Taliban was a legitimate government, even before September 11th (an act they were, obviously, supporting before it happened)? Would you rather the Taliban had been invaded before September 11th, or the Taliban exist today?

It's disgusting the depths to which liberals will go...
 
Another question for Zulu and company--a question I've never heard anyone ask before:

Is it okay to allow an oppressive regime such as the Taliban to use its nation's oil revenues for whatever ends it pleases? (For the Taliban, that would be enforcing its wide array of extremely oppressive religious laws).

It's very possible that oil was a primary motivation for the invasion of Afghanistan. Was taking that money out of the hands of the Taliban a good thing, or a bad thing?
 
BasketCase said:
Another question for Zulu and company--a question I've never heard anyone ask before:

Is it okay to allow an oppressive regime such as the Taliban to use its nation's oil revenues for whatever ends it pleases? (For the Taliban, that would be enforcing its wide array of extremely oppressive religious laws).

It's very possible that oil was a primary motivation for the invasion of Afghanistan. Was taking that money out of the hands of the Taliban a good thing, or a bad thing?

Afghantistan don't have much oil. However, I wouldn't oppose a war against Taliban before 9/11, since they supported US embassy bombing in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, 200 injured (I forget how many died) and US has bombed Taliban on this issue.

If ever the war went wrong, blame the military headquauter.
 
THe Taliban was never the recognized government of Afghanistan seeing as how they took power with violence and were recognized by only the three countries which funded them (no prizes for guessing).

I fail to see the 'oil' argument since there is hardly any in Afghanistan and to believe that some vague imaginary pipeline across one of the most unstable and ungovernable parts of the world was the reason for invading, is simply a bad case of spending too much time on internet discussion fora such as this.

These guys did not have popular support, ruled in a manner making Stalin seem like friendly Uncle Joe and supported and harboured egomaniac terrorists. Even without 9/11, I would have supported US/NATO action against these guys. Even accepting the whole 'USA=evil empire' line of thinking, how does it make the Taliban good merely because they are at the wrong end of an M-16?
 
allhailIndia said:
I fail to see the 'oil' argument since there is hardly any in Afghanistan and to believe that some vague imaginary pipeline across one of the most unstable and ungovernable parts of the world was the reason for invading, is simply a bad case of spending too much time on internet discussion fora such as this.

You criticize the Taliban and then admit that Afghanistan is 'ungovernable'.

And you deny that an oil pipeline is a sufficient reason to go to war. Maybe for you and me it is, but since the OP proved that the attack on Afghanistan was underway before 9/11, so that removes the other possible alternative.
 
I fail to see how advisors being in foreign countries proves that the US was ready to invade Afghanistan. Advisors could mean anything, from Private Security Contractors to Special Forces (who happen to do things such as this ALL THE TIME). We have advisors in quite a few places. Such as the Phillipines, Columbia, Kuwait, etc. Just because we had advisors in Turkmenistan or whatever doesn't suddenly correlate with OMG BUSH PLANNED 9/11 OMG!!!!.

Of course we were planning on taking military action against Afghanistan. The Taliban were harboring known enemies of the US, who, by the way, had already launched several deadly attacks against the US or US interests abroad. That's a no brainer that we were gearing up to kick some Taliban Ass. Then *gasp* they attacked us again. Big shocker.

I can see people getting bent out of shape about the government saying they had no idea it was coming, but I have a phrase for you. Saving their own asses. Notice the big Intelligence community reformation going on? Ever thought that's because we grossly underestimated the capabilities of Al-Quaeda (however the hell you spell it)? Now, we have more human intelligence (last I heard we were just fifty short of the recommended number of field agents) then we did then. I wonder why?

Why aren't you questioning what Clinton did? He bombed the hell out of Iraq and launched quite a few cruise missles at other countries during his administration, but suddenly, Bush does the right thing and gets boots on the ground, so he's either A. An Evil Mastermind bent on taking over the world or B. An old guy with Altzhiemers who's being used like a pawn (not to mention the fact I've met him in person and he's about one of the smartest, well-spoken people I've talked to in private, but hey, let's just all gather 'round the campfire and call him a moron, while we're singing some Neil Young songs and taking hits off a bong.) Seriously, which is it? Is a some kind of evil, conniving, genius who has masterminded the first great war of the 21st Century, or is he some kind of rejected dolt that's being used like a play toy? You can't have it both ways, you can't change it with each little waaaay out there argument you make. Make up your mind. Either he's a genius, or he's a ******. Quit switching back and forth whenever it suits your latest conspiracy theories.
 
Xenocrates said:
You criticize the Taliban and then admit that Afghanistan is 'ungovernable'.

And you deny that an oil pipeline is a sufficient reason to go to war. Maybe for you and me it is, but since the OP proved that the attack on Afghanistan was underway before 9/11, so that removes the other possible alternative.


ungovernable by outsiders....if you know ANYTHING about the history of Afghanistan....

So what if the planning was underway? The US probably knew that they couldn't get directly involved yet, so why not help those with at least a modicum of sanity in trying to rule the place? 9/11 and the role of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban's firm insistence that Osama would not be handed over only hastened things in that direction.

Hell if the US wanted oil that badly, they would have just assassinated Hugo Chavez, put a puppet dictator in his place and the world would have cast a bored glance at the six mm papers would have given the story before turning the page to the comics..:p

If the US was that concerned about the oil, why not get ole buddy Pakistan or good chums Saudi Arabia to cut a deal with the Taliban? The former were the prime movers and moneybags behind the Taliban anyway, so why go after a messy invasion and irritation with the Muslim world over the invasion..
 
If the US really wants oil so bad, all they have to do is drill for it off most of our coastline, not fruitlessly spend billions of dollars on trying to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan in the hope of sometime in the future cashing in on oil wealth.
 
allhailIndia said:
ungovernable by outsiders....if you know ANYTHING about the history of Afghanistan....

I'm British I should know about trying to impose Government on Afghanistan.

PS the US don't want to use their oil first when the price is low, they want to save it until price is much higher.
 
Maybe it's just me, but right now, in the US, gas is pretty high. High enough that its really starting to hurt all the politicians on Capitol Hill.
 
If there is a single action the US government have taken in the last decade that I supported, it was removing the Taliban regime, with or without 911. This regime was a shame.
 
Fox Mccloud said:
Strange. I haven't seen any "invade Iran" propaganda, and I sometimes watch Fox News.:mischief:
You kiddin'? It's all over the place. People are constantly mentioning "should we invade?" "should we drop nukes?" Here's a tiny example:

Danger Iran poses

Nuke Iran

Iran is a grave national security concern

Cheezy the Wiz said:
It is our duty to free the opressed citzens under autoritarian regimes from their rule, and to establish a system of free elections and democratic rule. I'm sorry you don't feel the oblgation to help someone other than yourself
It's NOT our duty. I DON'T want the US involved in perpetual war.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
It is our duty to free the opressed citzens under autoritarian regimes from their rule, and to establish a system of free elections and democratic rule. I'm sorry you don't feel the oblgation to help someone other than yourself

So you'd be for an invasion of Saudi Arabia?
 
It is our duty to free the opressed citzens under autoritarian regimes from their rule, and to establish a system of free elections and democratic rule. I'm sorry you don't feel the oblgation to help someone other than yourself

Actually, this is 100% true. If there is an atrocity, you have a moral obligation to stop it.

However, killing an innocent person is never morally acceptable. This means that anyone who advocates action which kills innocent people (as an unintended, but forseeable, consequence) is crossing an unpermissable line.
 
usarmy18 said:
If the US really wants oil so bad, all they have to do is drill for it off most of our coastline, not fruitlessly spend billions of dollars on trying to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan in the hope of sometime in the future cashing in on oil wealth.

The president doesn't want oil. He wants to drive up oil prices, so his buddies (who have literally tons of oil) can sell them for an elevated price.
 
Back
Top Bottom