USA planned the invasion of Afghanistan MONTHS before 9/11

[MobBoss]

Another Zulu non-issue post.

We, (the US Military) pretty much have canned plans to invade any nation on earth that could possibly be a threat. It pays to think of such things in advance.

We also have military advisors all over the world serving in many different capacities. That in of itself, is hardly a forcast of invasion.

 

[allhailIndia]

I read the main articles again, and nowhere are the words 'invasion' used. Any military action the US contemplates is not 'invasion' just as firing random Tomahawks at camels does not count as an 'occupation' It speaks of, of all things, the UN, Russia and even India collaborating in an effort to get rid off the Taliban and helping the Northern Alliance gain control.

And I have still not been shown that there is any OIL in Afghanistan that is even worth the trouble the conspiracy theorists are making it out to be...

 

[BasketCase]

The impression I got from the OP was that the U.S. (and a few other nations) were already involved in trying to contain/smack the Taliban, and the discovery of Osama in their midst simply caused us to ramp up the effort.

 

[garric]

I read the main articles again, and nowhere are the words 'invasion' used. Any military action the US contemplates is not 'invasion' just as firing random Tomahawks at camels does not count as an 'occupation' It speaks of, of all things, the UN, Russia and even India collaborating in an effort to get rid off the Taliban and helping the Northern Alliance gain control.

And I have still not been shown that there is any OIL in Afghanistan that is even worth the trouble the conspiracy theorists are making it out to be...

Most liberals don't care if there's oil in Afghanistan or not - because Oil is the reason we invaded Afghanistan to them, whether it is true or not.

 

[Lord Malbeth]

Why does everybody have to argue about these things? (Oh well, its human nature) But if the USA decided to take out Bin Laden, then they should have gone for it. He was a terrorist before 9/11. And besides, all you people that are nagging at the government, if it was as easy as you make it sound, then don't you think someone would have figured it out yet. Being in the Military/Government/Etc. is hard work.

Just my opinion.

 

[Vietcong]

regardless of 9/11, radical islam must be stamped out.
its not about what goverments are opresive, for ex i dont give a crap about the north korean ppl. but radical islam is a pleag, that spreds and threatns not just the united states, and our ideals, but the world.
it must, at any cost, be smashed.

 

[Lord Malbeth]

I agree with Vietcong.

 

[Xenocrates]

There's two important things that people are forgetting:

1) It's illegal to mess around in another sovereign state, regardless of whether you approve of the government or not. Prior to 9/11 there was no UN mandate for action in Afghanistan as far as I recall.

2) There was no radical Islam before the Afghans were used as pawns in the cold war and Israel refused to give up the occupied territories. The Taliban leadership comprised of people who had been seriouisly scarred by the war against Russia (many losing limbs).

If it's OK for the US to arm drugs barons in Afghanistan to overthrow the Government there, or to prepare for an invasion, then it's OK for everybody to do the same. The US is NOT a special case.

 

[cgannon64]

1) It's illegal to mess around in another sovereign state, regardless of whether you approve of the government or not. Prior to 9/11 there was no UN mandate for action in Afghanistan as far as I recall.

In what way was the Taliban a "sovereign state"? That's an easy term to bandy about, but what does it mean?

2) There was no radical Islam before the Afghans were used as pawns in the cold war and Israel refused to give up the occupied territories. The Taliban leadership comprised of people who had been seriouisly scarred by the war against Russia (many losing limbs).

And who's fault is it that the Afghans were used as pawns? Russia, for invading, or the United States, for arming them against Russia?

 

[blackheart]

In what way was the Taliban a "sovereign state"? That's an easy term to bandy about, but what does it mean?

That's a tricky term. Take Israel for instance, some countries recognize it, some don't, but who determines it? Probably the guys with the most international muscle. But I think we can conclude that the Taliban was the sovereign government of Afghanistan, because a few days before 9/11 wasn't there a Taliban delegation in America?

And who's fault is it that the Afghans were used as pawns? Russia, for invading, or the United States, for arming them against Russia?

Both are at fault.

 

[cgannon64]

That's a tricky term. Take Israel for instance, some countries recognize it, some don't, but who determines it? Probably the guys with the most international muscle. But I think we can conclude that the Taliban was the sovereign government of Afghanistan, because a few days before 9/11 wasn't there a Taliban delegation in America?

That's a legitimate position, but it is a kind of atheistic one. I think a much more workable idea of 'sovereignty' is that it is derived not from recognition, but from the people. Did the Taliban meet this standard? Absolutely not.

Both are at fault.

Not at all. One nation invaded Afghanistan; the other (for motives less than pure, perhaps) rose to its defense. Who is at fault? Clearly the aggressor.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think blackheart's point is that we can't blame anybody else for our equipping/training of Afgani soldiers in the Soviet invasion. It's a shame we had to do that, and a shame that oneof our weapons came back for us (Osama), but the other option was basically giving the Middle East to the Communists; i still think we made not only the right choice, but the necissary one, in the best interest of the world. Hindsight is 20/20, so its easy to look back and say "well giving the Afganis munitions was a bad idea, i mean look at 9/11," but im sure they werent thinking about that when they did it, it was probably just the oppoiste ( i wasnt alive during the Afgan war). I mean, i thirty years, we may look back on something most people regard as a bad idea - invading Iraq- and think "well how could we NOT have done that?" its just impossible to tell what the future holds

 

[cgannon64]

I'm not so sure that was his point - but if it was, then I agree with him.

 

[Brian_B]

There's two important things that people are forgetting:

1) It's illegal to mess around in another sovereign state, regardless of whether you approve of the government or not.

I'd wager nearly every nation on earth has a finger in the pie of some other sovereign state in one form or another.

 

[blackheart]

That's a legitimate position, but it is a kind of atheistic one. I think a much more workable idea of 'sovereignty' is that it is derived not from recognition, but from the people. Did the Taliban meet this standard? Absolutely not.

Then only true democracies could even be considered sovereign.

Not at all. One nation invaded Afghanistan; the other (for motives less than pure, perhaps) rose to its defense. Who is at fault? Clearly the aggressor.

Cheesy the Wiz got it. We did what we had to do to prevent the spread of communism, but what we did wasn't out of pure concern for the Afghani government/people but rather it was in our best interest to make sure the Soviets failed. Hence both sides use Afghanistan as a pawn.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I'd wager nearly every nation on earth has a finger in the pie of some other sovereign state in one form or another.

That doesn't give us the right to mess around with other countries, we should not do it.

 

[cgannon64]

Then only true democracies could even be considered sovereign.

Yes, that's exactly it. Less-than-sovereign nations could still be respected, of course, when it seems they are heading in the right direction.

Cheesy the Wiz got it. We did what we had to do to prevent the spread of communism, but what we did wasn't out of pure concern for the Afghani government/people but rather it was in our best interest to make sure the Soviets failed. Hence both sides use Afghanistan as a pawn.

I'll agree with that. However, even if both sides used Afghanistan as a pawn, both are not responsible for the bad results the battle there had. That is the fault of Soviet Russia, and Soviet Russia alone.

 

[Brian_B]

That doesn't give us the right to mess around with other countries, we should not do it.

It's nice to think that in theory, but the world is a messed up place. Quite frankly, the U.S. government would be derelict in their duties if they didn't.

 

[blackheart]

Yes, that's exactly it. Less-than-sovereign nations could still be respected, of course, when it seems they are heading in the right direction.

Being democratic doesn't determine whether sovereignty. The Sauds are widely accepted as the sovereign rulers of Saudi Arabia, and they aren't popularly democratic. Neither is the King of Nepal, Brunei, Morocco, etc.

I'll agree with that. However, even if both sides used Afghanistan as a pawn, both are not responsible for the bad results the battle there had. That is the fault of Soviet Russia, and Soviet Russia alone.

The battle itself didn't have any "bad" results, the Soviets withdrew. The following instability, however, can't be attributed to the Soviets because by that time the USSR was no more.

 

[cgannon64]

Being democratic doesn't determine whether sovereignty. The Sauds are widely accepted as the sovereign rulers of Saudi Arabia, and they aren't popularly democratic. Neither is the King of Nepal, Brunei, Morocco, etc.

You're confusing "widely accepted" and "sovereign." You may consider those terms synonymous, but I don't. The Sauds are accepted because deposing them would be counterproductive, not because the rest of the world respects them. The King of Nepal is an interesting example, because no one thinks he's sovereign. The West may not have swooped down to end his regime, but no one is shedding any tears at his loss of power now.

The battle itself didn't have any "bad" results, the Soviets withdrew. The following instability, however, can't be attributed to the Soviets because by that time the USSR was no more.

Of course it can! If the Soviets destabilized the place, they're responsible for what happens after they're gone - even if they weren't around to see it end. If I instigate a battle to the death with you, and I die first - but you die of your wounds later, am I responsible?