USA planned the invasion of Afghanistan MONTHS before 9/11

[blackheart]

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.

I refer you to the definition of "sovereign".

sov·er·eign
n.

1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:
1. A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
2. A national governing council or committee.
2. A nation that governs territory outside its borders.

adj.

1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.
2. Having supreme rank or power: a sovereign prince.
3. Paramount; supreme: Her sovereign virtue is compassion.
4.
1. Of superlative strength or efficacy: a sovereign remedy.
2. Unmitigated: sovereign contempt.

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?

So it leads me back to my point that both the USA and USSR were responsible. The USSR for invading and destabilizing Afghanistan, the USA for supplying various factions with weapons and not sticking around after the USSR had fled and collapsed to ensure a stable government.

 

[tomsnowman123]

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.

Is it the U.S. governments duty to try to fix problems back here at home? Or is that an unimportant issue?

 

[Brian_B]

Is it the U.S. governments duty to try to fix problems back here at home? Or is that an unimportant issue?

Sure it is, but so is national security and a large part of that is foreign relations and espionage. Assuming you are a Civ IV addict like me, you probably know the quote good ol' Spock reads when you discover... oh... is it Military Tradition? I don't think it's Gunpowder that's the Capone quote.

Anyhooooo, it's "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." and it's attributed to Mao Tse Tung. As crass as it is, it's 100% accurate. Although in the 21st century the world community is generally more civilized and refined than it has been in the past, what backs up all the negotiating and international law is brute force.

Now, I do agree that many times the U.S. gets involved in situations it probably shouldn't because some misguided lackey in the Executive branch thinks it's essential to ensuring the hegemony of democracy over communism, facism, terrorism, sun spots, whatever. However, I think it's unrealistic to be completely isolationist in today's world.

If intelligence reports show Osama Bin Laden and friends get their kicks by seeing Americans die and are currently hiding in Afghanistan training more people to do so, yes, the U.S. is going to come knocking at their door. They asked the Taliban government to hand them over and they politely said, "go fly a kite," and so they got the hammer.

Above all other issues that voters care about I would argue that staying alive and not getting killed off by terrorist elements probably ranks before everything else. If I'm the President of the United States and it's my job to protect American lives and I know a person who is responsible for having just killed 3,000 or so of my citizens is sitting free as a bird in a country where he is doubtlessly planning to do the same again then, yes, it's time to meddle in some sovereignty if said sovereign refuses to do anything about it on their own.

Now, it's open to debate whether a full scale invasion was warranted versus a snatch and grab or assasination; however, it's not -- in my opinion -- an option to sit and do nothing when you know it is highly likely he'll just sit and plan something else if left to his own devices.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Sure it is, but so is national security and a large part of that is foreign relations and espionage. Assuming you are a Civ IV addict like me, you probably know the quote good ol' Spock reads when you discover... oh... is it Military Tradition? I don't think it's Gunpowder that's the Capone quote.

You assume correctly.

Now, I do agree that many times the U.S. gets involved in situations it probably shouldn't because some misguided lackey in the Executive branch thinks it's essential to ensuring the hegemony of democracy over communism, facism, terrorism, sun spots, whatever. However, I think it's unrealistic to be completely isolationist in today's world.

I am against globalization, although I wouldn't mind seeing worldwide green-anarchism connected through a Global Ecovillage Network (the whole world may be too much).

Unfortunately, I think the war in Iraq (I know this is about Afghanistan) is fueling terrorism against the USA.

 

[Brian_B]

I am against globalization, although I wouldn't mind seeing worldwide green-anarchism connected through a Global Ecovillage Network (the whole world may be too much).

Indeed. And although I find that a perfectly laudable goal I just don't see it as viable given that there are too many... shall we say... defective people out there who will always wish violence on others and look to exploit their fellow man for their own personal gain. I certainly don't contend that everything the government does is moral. Even saying it's "justified" might be a bit of a stretch. Still, I just feel it is necessary given the world in which we live.

Unfortunately, I think the war in Iraq (I know this is about Afghanistan) is fueling terrorism against the USA.

I don't disagree. The reason Bin Laden started hating the U.S. was because the "infidels" were walking all over the holy land back when Saudi Arabia let them stage from there during the first Gulf War. It is also true that Afghanistan was in the situation it was in because of U.S. intervention back when they were fighting the Soviets. However, just because you might have caused the problems doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything to about them even at the risk of creating more problems. You still have to do something, you just hope you tailor your response/solution such that it makes less waves than the initial response. As for myself, I personally think the recent Iraqi war and occupation wasn't really the best response they could have come up with and, unfortunately, yes it will just lead to more problems and hatred of the U.S. by dangerous terrorists. Terrorists which, eventually, will have to be dealt with and hopefully in a better fashion.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Indeed. And although I find that a perfectly laudable goal I just don't see it as viable given that there are too many... shall we say... defective people out there who will always wish violence on others and look to exploit their fellow man for their own personal gain. I certainly don't contend that everything the government does is moral. Even saying it's "justified" might be a bit of a stretch. Still, I just feel it is necessary given the world in which we live.

I can always hope for the best.

As for myself, I personally think the recent Iraqi war and occupation wasn't really the best response they could have come up with and, unfortunately, yes it will just lead to more problems and hatred of the U.S. by dangerous terrorists. Terrorists which, eventually, will have to be dealt with and hopefully in a better fashion.

Quoted for truth, although I would be interested to know what your "better fashion" means.

 

[cgannon64]

I refer you to the definition of "sovereign".

You don't solve this sort of question by throwing the dictionary at me. It's obvoius that I disagree with that definition - it's also obvious that that definition is untenable, if one considers all interference in sovereign governments' affairs illegal.

So it leads me back to my point that both the USA and USSR were responsible. The USSR for invading and destabilizing Afghanistan, the USA for supplying various factions with weapons and not sticking around after the USSR had fled and collapsed to ensure a stable government.

One is a sin of omission, one of commission. There's a difference.

 

[zulu9812]

As we can see by the invasion of Iraq, the US government probably has plans drawn up (and the desire) to invade every country on Earth that has vast amounts of oil. Is there propaganda to invade N Korea? No. Is there propaganda to invade Iran? Yes!

Once again, people seem COMPLETELY UNABLE to get past this contingency plan thing.

THIS WAS NOT A CONTINGENCY PLAN!

We were all told that the reason for the war in Afghanistan was in response to 9/11. Now we find out that that was all bullfeathers and that there were US troops in Afghanistan as early as June.

 

[zulu9812]

Wait a minute. It just seems to me to be lies to cover up amazing incompetence, not lies to cover up deliberate negligence. In other words, the government made mistakes which indirectly aided the attack on September 11th, not deliberate negligence which aided the attack.

You don't seem to get it. How could the official government line be that they had no idea that someone would think about flying planes into buildings, when they were doing drills on that eventuality that very morning? That's like saying "I don't know anything about football" after playing a game of football earlier on that day.

 

[zulu9812]

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...

It is disingenuous to defend the US government's actions by denigrating the Taliban, when it was the US who supported the Taliban in the first place. Thid thread is not about the wider issue of "Well, who do you want? American fundamentalists or Islamic fundamentalists?". Nor is it a question over whether the motives for invasion were to spread human rights or to secure an oil pipeline for an international (but primarily US-Saudi) conglomerate. This thread is about whether or not the US government abused people's grief over 9/11 to drum up support for something that they wanted to do anyway. I am trying to encourage people to look with a critical eye at any future attempts at invoking the spirit of 9/11 in order to justify another invasion (as happened with Iraq, for example).

 

[zulu9812]

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.

But an act of war is an act of war.

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...

Despite the fact that several people have explained, and that it is alluded to in the articles of the opening post, you have still failed to grasp this.

There is no oil in Afghanistan. But Afghanistan is a gateway to other oil-rich countries. Building an oil-pipeline through Afghanistan from, in this case, the Caspian Sea was why the US originally supported the Taliban. The prime benefactors of this pipeline are a US-Saudi conglomerate: the principle US player being Unocal. But when the Taliban wouldn't play ball anymore, they were deposed and their leader replaced by the US with Hamad Kharzai, who used to work for...Unocal.

 

[Brian_B]

We were all told that the reason for the war in Afghanistan was in response to 9/11.

We were?

It is disingenuous to defend the US government's actions by denigrating the Taliban, when it was the US who supported the Taliban in the first place.

It is? The U.S. took a calculated risk in supporting them in the interest of preventing the Soviets from gaining a foothold in the middle east, a legitimate foreign policy goal if you are the other major super power on the planet. So, rather than adapt with the situation the U.S. should just do nothing and say: "Well, we'd be hypocrites since we armed them. Let them continue to shelter Bin Laden." Anyway, the U.S. wasn't really after the Taliban, per se. They asked them to hand over Bin Laden, they didn't, they get smashed.

This thread is about whether or not the US government abused people's grief over 9/11 to drum up support for something that they wanted to do anyway.

Abuse people's grief? Um... Bin Laden was behind the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, yes? He admitted to it, yes? Why would the U.S. need to play off of people's grief? Seems pretty logical to me: Terrorist X admits to attacking your nation and killing 3,000 or so citizens, you go after terrorist X regardless of how teary-eyed people are.

I am trying to encourage people to look with a critical eye at any future attempts at invoking the spirit of 9/11 in order to justify another invasion (as happened with Iraq, for example).

Perhaps, but you go about it in a manner obviously calculated for maximum dramatics and hyperbole as witnessed in your "Separation of Powers" thread that has nothing to do with Separation of Powers at all.

But Afghanistan is a gateway to other oil-rich countries. Building an oil-pipeline through Afghanistan from, in this case, the Caspian Sea was why the US originally supported the Taliban. The prime benefactors of this pipeline are a US-Saudi conglomerate: the principle US player being Unocal. But when the Taliban wouldn't play ball anymore, they were deposed and their leader replaced by the US with Hamad Kharzai, who used to work for...Unocal.

I take it you don't drive a car? Or use electricity? The computer you log into must be powered by a hamster wheel or something. I don't know why people hem and haw over the U.S. having a vested interest in keeping a "pipeline" open to a region that supplies them with a product that is currently pretty vital to the operation of the country and has a profound effect on the nation's economy. This isn't the middle ages. We don't just do things out of chivalry. So they went after a terrorist and his organization that admitted to killing 3,000 American citizens and they get some oil out of it as well. *Gasp*

 

[zulu9812]

Brian_B,

You're entire post is based on the incorrect assumption that Bush & Co. were really serious about capturing Usama Bin Lade. In February 2002, 4 months after the invasion began and only 5 months after the WTC attack, Bush publicly said that Bin Laden was "not a concern" and 'did not occupy his thoughts that much". From the evidence presented in the opening post, it is reasonable to suggest that the USA was already planning on invading Afghanistan (they had even pencilled in a start date of October 2001, in June 2001) and use the War on Terror to drum up popular support. As someone has already pointed out, the USA was prepared to cooperate with Uzebekistan, Iran (!), Russia, etc. to secure this oil pipeline. This kind of operation would not have allowed the US to secure adequate human rights for the Afghan people (which, incidently are still not in place) - so we can also discount human rights as a reason for the invasion. 9/11 gave an excellent excuse for saying that America had to do a full scale invasion largely by itself - thus justifying massive increase in public expenditure on the military, the primary benefactors of which being the Carlysle Group (I'm sure you know who they are). Afghanistan was fought to benefit Bush & Cheney's cronies in the military-industrial complex - oil companies, weapons manufacturers, security companies (read: mercenaries), and so on (again, almost all of them coming under the umbrella fo the Carlysle Group).

I do keep saying this, but I strongly suggest that you read The War on Freedom by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed.

 

[zulu9812]

I take it you don't drive a car? Or use electricity? The computer you log into must be powered by a hamster wheel or something. I don't know why people hem and haw over the U.S. having a vested interest in keeping a "pipeline" open to a region that supplies them with a product that is currently pretty vital to the operation of the country and has a profound effect on the nation's economy.

Vital to the UK's economy? The UK only recently (within the last 2 years) became a net importer of power - and that's coming from a Ukrainian state-owned company.

 

[allhailIndia]

But an act of war is an act of war.



Despite the fact that several people have explained, and that it is alluded to in the articles of the opening post, you have still failed to grasp this.

There is no oil in Afghanistan. But Afghanistan is a gateway to other oil-rich countries. Building an oil-pipeline through Afghanistan from, in this case, the Caspian Sea was why the US originally supported the Taliban. The prime benefactors of this pipeline are a US-Saudi conglomerate: the principle US player being Unocal. But when the Taliban wouldn't play ball anymore, they were deposed and their leader replaced by the US with Hamad Kharzai, who used to work for...Unocal.

You bandy the word 'support' very loosely, but do not give a shred of evidence to show that they got direct military, financial or diplomatic backing from the USA AFTER they took power in Afghanistan. The prime backers of the Taliban, if I may enlighten u a bit on South Asian politics, was Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who found a nice way to keep funamentalists out of their own countries by sending them to Afghanistan. Where the American connection comes into this is something NO ONE has been able to show..

Second, as I already mentioned before, Afghanistan has never enjoyed any amount of stability in the medium run to make it safe or worthwhile to put up an oil pipeline right in the middle, running into another country known for its safety and stability, Pakistan, esp, the most safest and stable part of pakistan, NWFP. Clearly, one will need high dosages of mind altering drugs to spend millions in building a pipeline running through the most dangerous places int he world and then believing that putting a handful of 'advisors' somewhere there will provide security.

Thirdly, hamid Karzai was not even the first choice to be the President of Afghanistan upon the Taliban being kicked out. It was Ahmad Shah Masood who fought against the Taliban ALL his life before he was killed by Al Qaeda with suicide bombers. The second choice, Gul, if I am not mistaken, was also killed by the Taliban just before the US operation and therefore Hamid Karzai was put up as a candidate. All these people have actively opposed the Taliban ever since the latter took power and would be very chary of joining forces with the US, if the US had been seen to be supporting the Taliban at any time.



Last, and let me repeat the point I was making again. Taliban was never the recognized regime in Afghanistan. They were vicious, fundamentalist murderers who took power because their adversaries were disunited and a perennially squabbling lot. To clarify the position in International law, the Taliban and the Northern Alliance were belligerents in a civil war where the Northern Alliance had a modicum of legitmacy in international law because they were recognized by the UN. In effect, supporting the more legitimate government against ruthless oppressors is always OK in my books, especially when the latter are somebody like the Taliban.


I do realize this long post is thoroughly useless in changing your opinion anyway, but I suppose some of the more open-minded Civfanatics do appreciate the facts once in a while...

 

[plarq]

@allhailIndia: I agree with your analyze of Taliban. Unlike Saddam Hussein, Taliban was never supported by US authority. Bin Laden and his warriors only received US aid in the war against Soviet AND in the name of mujihadeens. Later the mujihadeens splat, civil war occured. Taliban, a branch of mujihadeens, gained power.

Unlike war in Iraq, which tore the West apart further, the war in Afghanistan brought the West closer against a vile authority (not "terroists", too general). It would be naive to say that US were altruists in liberation of Afghanistan, but it would also be naive to say "Afghanistans would be happy living under Taliban than they're now."

@Zulu, there's a huge difference between War in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Morally speaking, one is legal and the other illegal.

 

[Xenocrates]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US try to get a pro-Western government in Afghanistan to lure the Russians in?

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/afghanistan.htm

In Christmas 1979, Russian paratroopers landed in Kabal, the capital of Afghanistan. The country was already in the grip of a civil war. The prime minister, Hazifullah Amin, tried to sweep aside Muslim tradition within the nation and he wanted a more western slant to Afghanistan. This outraged the majority of those in Afghanistan as a strong tradition of Muslim belief was common in the country.

About the pipeline:

The nations in the Caspian region—notably Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan, and to a lesser degree Russia, Iran, and Uzbekistan—are believed to be sitting on what amounts to 10% of the earth's potential oil reserves.

The Caspian Sea is landlocked and the surrounding nations are distant from the largest energy markets. Transportation must at least begin by pipeline, followed in many cases by tanker travel through the shallow and already congested Bosporus straits. All pipelines from the Caspian region completed before 1997, except those in northern Iran, were routed to Russia and designed to link the former Soviet Union internally.

In other words the US MUST, if it's companies want the oil, control one or more of the countries from which Oil can be exported by sea. If that country is Pakistan, a pipeline must be constructed through Afghanistan. The best option, of course, is a pipeline to Iran.

The US is already in Afghanistan and is soon to be in Iran. I read somewhere that there are 11 trillion dollars worth of oil at stake, but don't quote me on it.

Actually control of Afghanistan is extremely important to India, who would also like a drop of Caspian oil. We've see the US cosy up to India recently so it's not implausible that US policy is largely targetted against China.

 

[Xenocrates]

Clearly, one will need high dosages of mind altering drugs to spend millions in building a pipeline running through the most dangerous places int he world and then believing that putting a handful of 'advisors' somewhere there will provide security.

11 trillion dollars is enough to make people, greedy people, try something like this though isn't it? 11 trillion dollars can buy a LOT of mind-altering drugs!

 

[allhailIndia]

Again, where have you come up with the fantastic figure of 11 trillion dollars...which if I am not mistaken is about the size of the US economy?

and what is the relevance of the 11 trillion dollars again...

 

[Xenocrates]

and what is the relevance of the 11 trillion dollars again...

It's enough to buy a huge stash of mind altering drugs.

It's also one estimated $ value of the oil that the Afghan pipeline could potentially transport. Although I doub't that all of the oil could flow through Afghanistan, a large part of it could.