[arnoob]

(Original post by Vikitora)
Do you know ANYTHING about Afghan history'? man, who SUBSIDISED the Talibans in the first place "to let the Russians bleed"?

Additionally, I believe that the majority of you guys have been majorly brainwashed by society. Think about it. You seem to have forgotten how to question things....

Who armed the mujaheeden to fight the Russians?

[Vikitora]

yeah, and who gave them the money? 50% USA, 50% Saudi Arabia.... and fighting the Russians was oh so important... read the revisionist theory, it's far less biased than the conservative one.

[Sweyn Forkbeard]

(Original post by Vikitora)
yeah, and who gave them the money? 50% USA, 50% Saudi Arabia.... and fighting the Russians was oh so important... read the revisionist theory, it's far less biased than the conservative one.

Times change and with them, the objectives of a government. The climate of the Cold War meant the American administration thought funding partisans against the Soviets was a good idea. Perhaps it was a good idea for America in the short term as it achieved immediate objectives. Now the situation is much changed and America has suffered from the long-term effects of financing particular kinds of partisan and learned that sticking to the old saying of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", can have bad consequences.

[Clez]

(Original post by Vikitora)
Yes, they are afraid of terrorists and yes, it is all about preventing Afghanistan to attack America. It is not about promoting democracy or protecting other countries or even preventing a fictional(!) cold war. It's about "rebuilding" a country by enforcing western ideals onto it so as to prevent America to be attacked.

its not about that at all, Afghanistan itself is a "goodie" - the previous president was a "goodie" who tried to warn the West about the terrorist uprisings and they all told him to piss off and then he got killed and America got blown up - the Taliban are a rival political group and Al Quaeda is a defence network routed in islamic extremity - the fact is if America packed up and left there wouldnt be a problem

[arnoob]

(Original post by Vikitora)
yeah, and who gave them the money? 50% USA, 50% Saudi Arabia.... and fighting the Russians was oh so important... read the revisionist theory, it's far less biased than the conservative one.

I think you'd find that the US funded more than 50% , fighting the Russians was important at the time. I have read both theories.

[hamzazulfiqar]

(Original post by Ajay12)
They are there to prevent the Al-Quaedas using the taliban as base and launching attacks from that base you idiot!. As long as we keep killing Aghans them Al-qaedas can't hide in any of the houses and get on any planes or launch dirty bombs on London England. They also have Iranians connections which destabiliseses the region and uses proxy wars to spread the foreign figheters which hate the west.

There is also the problem of undemocratic forces killing Aghans first thb...if we don't burn their children to death it will destablise the M.E and cause a new cold war.

Your a puppet that watches the news too much. Of the telly please.

[Vikitora]

Exactly. Nonetheless, it's impossible to say that the American tactic has become more refined. They are merely trying to alter the given, so that it becomes more positive, or rather, more neutral, but this only towards themselves as singular country. It's still a policy of might which is behind their strategy.

That which you state does not proof that a prolonged stay of the American forces in Afghanistan is justified.

[Vikitora]

(Original post by Clez)
its not about that at all, Afghanistan itself is a "goodie" - the previous president was a "goodie" who tried to warn the West about the terrorist uprisings and they all told him to piss off and then he got killed and America got blown up - the Taliban are a rival political group and Al Quaeda is a defence network routed in islamic extremity - the fact is if America packed up and left there wouldnt be a problem

I agree! Afghanistan is a "goodie" as you call it. I expressed myself wrongly, I think. I did not mean "Afghanistan" as attacking America.. but I meant the single groups resident IN Afghanistan.. and I also believe that there would be no problem.. it simply is the case that there have been attempts to "westernise" the country and instate a "democratic" government. But that so as to control the "dangerous" groupings....

[Dreamer1257]

Honestly, I'd like to know why too...citizens are different than politicians. There's a difference in IQ
...I mean no offense to politicians and what- nots, please take a joke.

[Vikitora]

(Original post by arnoob)
I think you'd find that the US funded more than 50% , fighting the Russians was important at the time. I have read both theories.

According to the US it was - but was it really? Because if you really think about it, you come to realise that they made a lot of their reasons up. In connection with the reform of Currency in Germany as example for American capitalism and considering the amount of supported dictatorships so as to expand; also, thinking of the Sovietunion's fear about the respective position amongst the world's powerful and their as such binded "satellite states"; -
is it really legitimate to take sides? To state that the American policy of the open door should be supporteed more (or less) than the Sovietunion's clinging onto whichever might they had left after the German invasion in WWII?

[LiterallyInsane]

I am no supporter of the Taliban but I will just stare what I have been told from a young age the Taliban men are strong warriors who fought for their lands even the Soviet Union at its best could not beat the Afghans, have rich history of not giving up. The west should instead use it's money here in Europe to better their own.
It is obvious the west fear a strong Afghanistan with the Taliban in power hence why they put so much money and man power to control the Afghans and force their values upon the people. A lot of people might not know this but Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 and Osama Bin Ladan was not an Afghan.

[Aj12]

(Original post by criminal)
America has no right to be in Afghanistan. Why are they even there? They are escalating the situation.

GET THE F OUT OF AFGHANISTAN. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS YOU IDIOTS.

Discuss.

Mind your own business? lol wut? Lets not ignore the reason they are there. Because the Talban government was allowing the presence of al Qaeda training camps and al Qaeda leadership that had carried out attacks on America for over a decade and had been involved in the murder of thousands. Had tthe Taliban handed over Bin Laden or refused to protect al Qaeda they would not have invaded.

They are still there because you cannot just leave a country once you have invaded. Its not that sinple. WOuld you rather they just destoryed the government bombed the hell out of the country and left? Or would you rather they stayed and attempted to rebuild it and try to leave a stable Afghanistan?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Clez)
because America have never had an empire

What do you think they've been doing the last 70 years then?

(Original post by Sweyn Forkbeard)
As I recall there was almost unanimous support for it in 2001.

You recall wrong. Polls in late September found that majorities of those polled opposed war in most countries. The only countries where majorities supported war were the USA, Israel and India.

The initial objectives were to capture/kill Osama bin Laden and to topple the regime which had harboured and supported him (i.e. the Taliban).

The US made no attempt to go after OBL or Al Qaeda until months after the initial invasion.

In what sense had the Taliban 'harboured' him? The USA didn't even request his extradition before invading. For all the propaganda, the relationship between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda wasn't that close before the invasion.

America and NATO I believe had good intentions in going into Afghanistan

Well that's a given isn't it? It was obviously good intentions, because NATO were doing it, the state and media treat that as if it's the only possibility. NATO and the US claim to have good intentions everywhere, as do all invaders and empires.

[Pitt1988]

Trying to install governments sympathetic to that of the West in geographically important locations; for natural resources etc. Same trick they were pulling in the Cold War, aggressive foreign policy; the only way America knows how. The aim of American expansionism and influence, cloaked with the title of world security and the support of free peoples.

Lets not forget that the American government armed the Mujahadeen (don't know if that's spelt right) in the 10 year war against the Soviet Union; effectively the same people they have gone over to fight now.

However, pulling out immediately, when the job isn't finished, would be politically disastrous at home and on the global scene. Too much time, money and lives have been spent; the public backlash would be immense. Even though many people share your sentiments that we should leave, the public have too much respect (rightly so) for the lads that are getting blown up on the front line, it would be a complete waste.

[marshymarsh]

They are there because they are a member of the UN and NATO.

[ReTurd]

There is clearly a motive for them to be there other than to tackle terrorism. how can a country like the usa which spends trillions on defence not defeat a bunch of afghans who have nothing other than the aledged money and weapons from pakistan alone. usa could easily defeat pakistan, so i dont understand how the little help pakistan is giving to afghanistan is capable of holding usa from defeating the taliban, its not like pakistan is making any huge investment which can stop the us

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by anarchism101)

You recall wrong. Polls in late September found that majorities of those polled opposed war in most countries. The only countries where majorities supported war were the USA, Israel and India. .

Yeh right lol, source of this mystery 'poll'? Thats why there has been nearly 35 different countries with operations in afganistan

(Original post by anarchism101)
The US made no attempt to go after OBL or Al Qaeda until months after the initial invasion.
.

No, Of course not .....

(Original post by anarchism101)

In what sense had the Taliban 'harboured' him? The USA didn't even request his extradition before invading. For all the propaganda, the relationship between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda wasn't that close before the invasion. .

In the sense that they actualy did harbour him and then told the US f off wehn they asked them to give him up. Partly due to the fact and he bin laden threw money at the taleban for a place to be based. Hence the US went over there with an armed force and got him. Makes perfect sense when you think about it.

[harmony_01]

Fact of the matter is it was never about human rights and that load of balls, otherwise, we would be focusing right back at home- torture camps. Women get a load of rubbish everywhere, including the United States of America, help them first. Help the lot that are suffering domestic violence and also the female troops suffering from sexual abuse on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, if we were so utterly concerned about educating Afghan women, we didn't need to spend billions on a war- what ludicracy?!- instead push the Muslim world together to go help them build and construct schools. Far easier to win their hearts and minds than have a Non-Muslim country bolster their image as an aggressive coloniser across the Muslim world because that is the reality. Our mates in Saudi Arabia are stinking rich with money. Shouldn't we place a motto over them to go and actually start ''protecting Muslim interests''? Yet nothing is said or done.

In any case, how can it help anything when it coincides with the fact we support Western-backed dictatorships and lest we forget, warlords coupled with a thoroughly corrupt government in Afghanistan- is that a stable prosperous country you want educated youth to be raised up in?

As for this excuse of terrorism:
Al Qaeda boogeyman has popped up in 14 Muslim countries. It's a bit like a ball game now, insert Muslim country__________they're the epicentre of terrorism- let's go bomb liberate them!
Fine, let's give this claim a bit of credible limelight, what's happened in Afghanistan- both anti-Western sentiment has increased and terrorism has increased across Afghanistan and Pakistan. Astronomical fail.

[I Persia I]

(Original post by Ajay12)
They are there to prevent the Al-Quaedas using the taliban as base and launching attacks from that base you idiot!. As long as we keep killing Aghans them Al-qaedas can't hide in any of the houses and get on any planes or launch dirty bombs on London England. They also have Iranians connections which destabiliseses the region and uses proxy wars to spread the foreign figheters which hate the west.

There is also the problem of undemocratic forces killing Aghans first thb...if we don't burn their children to death it will destablise the M.E and cause a new cold war.

You're a retard why've you made a fake Aj12 account?

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by harmony_01)
Fact of the matter is it was never about human rights and that load of balls, otherwise, we would be focusing right back at home- torture camps. Women get a load of rubbish everywhere, including the United States of America, help them first.

None said it was about human rights, it was about killing islamist terrorists, that muslim countires didnt want to do anything about.

But as regards your comment about womens rights, as far as im aware, america hasnt ever ruled raped women have to marry their rapist or go to jail, as in certain islamic countries.