USA planned the invasion of Afghanistan MONTHS before 9/11

[cgannon64]

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).

I knew you would say this! God, this is the worst case of doublethink I've seen on the forum yet.

So, the United States was supporting the Taliban - and planning invasion at the same time?

 

[Xenocrates]

So, the United States was supporting the Taliban - and planning invasion at the same time?

It's not inconceivable that the US was trying to seduce the Taliban at the same time as preparing for the event that the seduction fails. In fact that wouldn't be unusual.

It's not my theory, but not quite as crazy as it might appear.

 

[cgannon64]

Much more likely is that the United States was, rather than "seducing" the Taliban, simply tolerating them until the end of their regime could be brought about.

 

[Xenocrates]

Much more likely is that the United States was, rather than "seducing" the Taliban, simply tolerating them until the end of their regime could be brought about.

I don't know. Maybe they believed (or were hoping) that the Taliban could be bought.

 

[Phlegmak]

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.

No, I got it from the beginning. There were troops in Saudi Arabia before the first Gulf War started too.

I just think that you're making it sound so much more surprising than it really is.

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.

No, I got it quite clearly. The person who said we'd never expected terrorists to hit buildings with planes (the President) was lying about it, to cover up his own stupidity.

You're entire post is based on the incorrect assumption that Bush & Co. were really serious about capturing Usama Bin Laden.

This is the only part in all of your posts that surprises me. In hindsight, it should be obvious, because after a while, Bush himself said they weren't searching for him any longer. And also this humorous video:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/06.html#a8191

 

[Vietcong]

i have noticed some of u are america bashing.

but what is a biger threat to your lifestyle, your ideals, and your nation?
the united states?
or radical islam?

i vote for the seconed.

rember, theas are the ppl that plant bombs in cars outside your local clubs, take school children hostage(and KILLS them), leaves back packs of explosives on trains and subways, and kill ppl for things like, not being muslim, being gay, not surporting thear goverment/cause, not wearing the "appropriate" clothing, or women for walking the street alone/ talking to a man.

theas are the ppl trying to get ahold of nuclear bombs. and to do what with it?? use it, in new york, london, berlin, paris, moscow, any major city.. thay dont care! as i said earlier, it must be stoped. it threatns the world and its order. imagin, how whold u like to live in a world like the one thay wish to creat? i doubt thay chold actually take us over, but thay chold certanly kill us, the ones we love, and create anarchy.

 

[Xenocrates]

Come on man, the US were training and arming a militia to kill and maim the Taliban. As they have in dozens of countries over the last half a century or more.

Morality can only be bought in 'one size fits all'.

 

[MobBoss]

Come on man, the US were training and arming a militia to kill and maim the Taliban. As they have in dozens of countries over the last half a century or more.

Morality can only be bought in 'one size fits all'.

Invasion was not imminent until after 9/11. Period. The issue of US advisors is moot - we have advisors in countries all over the world in a wide variety of roles.....it certainly doesnt mean we will be invading them all anytime soon.

As for the afghan pipeline conspiracy theory...you will only buy into that if you are truly paranoid. The USA can drill offshore or up in Alaska and get oil much easier than some plan for a long extended and UNPROTECTED pipline from the Caspian Sea. There are so many logic holes in that argument, it looks like swiss cheese.

 

[Brian_B]

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).

In a capitalist society someone is going to profit from the greater access to oil. Am I suprised it's Bush's friends? No. Does the fact that it is change the fact that it still provides America with a better supply of a vital resource? No.

 

[Brian_B]

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.

I'm no economist but I'd wager I could find one that could make a strong argument that the economies of the U.S. and U.K. can affect one another. Even if that isn't the case, so be it. I'm an American, and I have a vested interest in the United States having access to middle eastern oil. The American government doesn't operate for the benefit of Great Britain or its citizens.

 

[allhailIndia]

Come on man, the US were training and arming a militia to kill and maim the Taliban. As they have in dozens of countries over the last half a century or more.

Morality can only be bought in 'one size fits all'.

The Taliban's main existence was based on killing and maiming...they were not going to be dissuaded from these activities through finger wagging and grave frowns affecting serious disapproval. Get that into your head!!!

If there was any regime in the world that needed to be unburdened from the onerous task of brutal misrule, it was the Taliban. PLease stop believing that any crackpot bunch of homicidal murderers are angels in disguise merely because the US started killing them....

As far as the rest of American activities are concerned, yes they are wrong and they had to be carried out 'covertly'.....None of those activities were aimed to try and maximize the death of civilians as far as possible. None of those were aimed at a people and their lifestyle. Please appreciate these nuances before climbing the high horse of 'one-size-fits-all' morality..

 

[Xenocrates]

Attacked on two fronts again.

1) Mobboss - the assumptions you're making are that the US government is acting in the interests of the American people and not their buddies. It was postulated that they want to deny Caspian oil to the Chinese and the Russians as well as taking it for themselves. Sure there's easier oil, but they want all of it and you don't get to be President of anywhere without a ruthless and greedy streak do you?

2) AllhailIndia - Let me take a surprising angle here and support the Taliban. They were a popular uprising, and therefore the Taliban are the Afghan people. Of course they couldn't govern a country, but nor could a popular uprising in India or the UK. OK I don't support the Taliban, but I support their right to try to make their country as they want it to be without interference from me or my cousins across the water. I don't know where this killing and maiming stuff comes from, but my recollection of the Taliban was one of simple uneducated folk trying to apply Islamic law, about which they knew little because most of them couldn't read, to their country.

 

[Brian_B]

Attacked on two fronts again.

1) Mobboss - the assumptions you're making are that the US government is acting in the interests of the American people and not their buddies. It was postulated that they want to deny Caspian oil to the Chinese and the Russians as well as taking it for themselves. Sure there's easier oil, but they want all of it and you don't get to be President of anywhere without a ruthless and greedy streak do you?

When you play Civ IV and see an iron resource square sitting over by Catherine or Mao or Napoleon are you going to let them have it or are you going to spit out a settler and get your butt over there claiming that lovely iron for yourself despite the fact you already have one? If they want it, they can trade you some silk for it? Amirite?!?!

Civ IV = Global Politics 101!

 

[MobBoss]

Attacked on two fronts again.

1) Mobboss - the assumptions you're making are that the US government is acting in the interests of the American people and not their buddies. It was postulated that they want to deny Caspian oil to the Chinese and the Russians as well as taking it for themselves. Sure there's easier oil, but they want all of it and you don't get to be President of anywhere without a ruthless and greedy streak do you?

What you fail to understand is that China and/or Russia getting more oil is actually A GOOD thing for the United States...why you ask? Because anything that helps meet the rising need of oil in those countries in turn eases pressure on the United States by lessening global oil demand. Part of what is driving up the cost of oil today worldwide is increased demand from Russia, India and China. More production for those counties out of the Caspian area helps decrease oil prices worldwide, NOT just for the USA.

And unless you mean to say that ALL of the US Presidents to date have been ruthless and greedy, I say your allegation is incredibly narrow minded and quite shallow.

 

[allhailIndia]

2) AllhailIndia - Let me take a surprising angle here and support the Taliban. They were a popular uprising, and therefore the Taliban are the Afghan people. Of course they couldn't govern a country, but nor could a popular uprising in India or the UK. OK I don't support the Taliban, but I support their right to try to make their country as they want it to be without interference from me or my cousins across the water. I don't know where this killing and maiming stuff comes from, but my recollection of the Taliban was one of simple uneducated folk trying to apply Islamic law, about which they knew little because most of them couldn't read, to their country.

Plain ignorance... please stop posting about the Taliban before you betray your ignorance any further..

The killing and maiming stuff comes from the ruthless way in which people who did not follow Islamic law were treated; beheadings, amputations, whippings,...

Women were not allowed to work, not allowed to leave the house, not allowed to show their faces in public, not allowed to be part of public life in any way possible.

The Taliban had a hardcore Wahabbist understanding of Islam that preached intolerance of all other faiths, all other interpretations of Islam, and punished people arbitrarily and violently.

There was no 'popular uprising' and they only came to power because they were not opposed unitedly by the then Afghan government. People welcomed them at first because they thought they would bring in some modicum of stability until they realised what sort of homicidal maniacs they had brought into power..

The Taliban has been and continues to be controlled by the hardline elements in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who still propagate the intolerant, unbending, harsh version of Islam.

If you support the Taliban's 'right' as you call it, then I also suggest that we tear up the UDHR, tear up the ICCPR and the ICSER and all notions of human rights and freedoms, since any government can do what it wants to its own people anyway and it is some vague 'right' irrespective of the manner in which the government has come to power...

To call the Taliban the Afghan people is to spit in the face of the ordinary Afghan who suffered years of misrule and barbarism under them. It is to spit in the face of the several hundred thousand who fled their regime in fear of persecution and under the pain of death.

 

[Xenocrates]

I don't see your point.

There was a law in Afghanistan and it was applied. If you were on the wrong side of it you'd be punished. Seriously punished, but many other countries have the death penalty. Many other countries cut off limbs as punishment. Many countries treat women like dirt (if you know what I mean).

Afghanistan was particularly barbaric because the people there had been brutalised by a long war. But until such time as a UN resolution is passed to go in there, it's none of our business. Afghanistan has been misruled forever, pretty well, I don't see how you expect ordinary uneducated people to make a liberal country in a few years from the mess that Afghanistan was. If you happen to be standing in the wrong place you'll be vapourised by the US in Iraq right now. They have excuses, but the Taliban don't?

If the UN had agreed the invasion of Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons I'd agree with you, but it didn't, so I don't.

There's a good article here about the Afghan war:

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/boyle.htm

I really don't see your point.

And PS: the Taliban were the Afghan people, not, as you would have me believe all Saudis or Pakistanis. But you seem to be supporting illegal US intervention there but not Pakistani! I say one law for all.

 

[Oerdin]

If it matters, the Pentigon is tasked with planning the invasion of every imaginable war so that if a surprise like 9/11 occurs then there is a premade plan. I'm sure we also have plans on the best way to invade Canada or the PI or any other country on Earth.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

There was a law in Afghanistan and it was applied. If you were on the wrong side of it you'd be punished. Seriously punished, but many other countries have the death penalty. Many other countries cut off limbs as punishment. Many countries treat women like dirt (if you know what I mean).

This is one of the most insane posts I have read on this forum ever. I realize you are trying to make a particular point, but your comparison is equivalent to comparing the murder of a human being to the killing of a banana by picking and eating it.

Having spent a little time in Afghanistan, I can say conditions give a new meaning to words like barbaric. Women were not allowed to go out alone...at all...they had to be escorted by a male relative. Since many of them lost their husbands and all other male relatives to war, they had no way to feed their children. In desperation many of them were killed doing the basic thing of trying to find food and water for their kids. There were so many orphans in Kabul (and throughout the areas I traveled) it was eerie in the extreme and still haunts my dreams today.

Afghanistan was particularly barbaric because the people there had been brutalised by a long war. But until such time as a UN resolution is passed to go in there, it's none of our business.

B.S. in a big way. The UN only does what the big five in the security counsel agree to doing. We let genocide like killing occur in Rwanda, Bosnia and most recently the Sudan. Some nation should have stopped these earlier, but go ahead and sit in your nice house and conjecture about why we shouldn't until the mighty UN says we should.

 

[Xenocrates]

This is one of the most insane posts I have read on this forum ever.

Thanks. The purpose of the post was to ensure that people didn't rewrite history and pretend that the justification for the Afghan war was humanitarian.

Having spent a little time in Afghanistan, I can say conditions give a new meaning to words like barbaric. Women were not allowed to go out alone...at all...they had to be escorted by a male relative.

Pakistan is the same. I spent some time there two years ago and there were no women on the streets at all. In India, women can be raped and then forced to marry the rapist. Both India and Pakistan are said to be US allies at the moment, so lets, not play 'protector of the World's morals'. It doesn't stand up.

B.S. in a big way. The UN only does what the big five in the security counsel agree to doing.

It's our duty to make the kind of UN that is capable of policing these situations. The US had NO case against Al Quaeda or against the Taliban as far as 9/11 was concerned. They used the terrorist attack to justify war, then they realised they couldn't and redefined the attack as 'war' and their invasion as self defence. This is how the invasion happened. People are now pretending that history was something else. Using your logic, before the black liberation movement had some small success anyone could have invaded the USA!

Sure none of here may like the way the Taliban did things, but that's not the point is it?

 

[BasketCase]

I don't care if the justification for the war was humanitarian or not. The Taliban is gone. The results are humanitarian.