Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varsity)
    Getting Bin Laden was always a secondary objective (if that), the objective was and always has been to deny terrorists a safe haven and a training ground.


    That's all very well and good, but do you honestly think imposing a western style political or legal system would work? Its a slow process mate.

    Has it? I thought people had constantly tried to conquer Afghan where as we are simply aiding the domestic government with the overall aim of getting them to a state where they can defend their own country from the Taliban with minimal help from the West... I'm fairly sure that's never been tried.
    I am sick of everyone using 'terrorism' as an excuse for our colonial invasion of Afghanistan. After the 9/11 attacks it was found the predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame. The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics with them.

    The recent French publication of bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth revealed our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two authors, the economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. military threats against the Taliban. It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to "nation build" in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire. The crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to replace the government of Afghanistan. Since we don't even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive of him, our concentration on this Taliban "target" remains suspect by many.



    Why? Do you have any idea how hard it is to find someone who doesn't want to be found?
    Tell you what, go find me Neville Cheeseman, from Glasgow, go on.
    Easy eh?
    Again, a very weak and inconsequential argument. During the battle of Tora Bora, American forces came within a whisker of capturing Bin Laden, however he fled across the border into Pakistan. Instead of collaborating with the Pakistani forces to make a swift capture which they had hoped to do, we, just threw a whole lot of money at them to catch him themselves without our help, which they promptly didn't do. The American and later British forces however, instead turned to this so called "nation building" which i mentioned above.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Aeolus talks 100% sense children, listen to him.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I am sick of everyone using 'terrorism' as an excuse for our colonial invasion of Afghanistan.
    It's not a colonial invasion, no country involved in Afghanistan have any territorial claims or intentions to control the country beyond that of the stated UN goals.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    After the 9/11 attacks it was found the predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame.
    Nationality has nothing to do with what is an ideological struggle, that's like saying you need to be Russian to be a communist or German to be a Nazi.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics with them.
    The difference between the Taliban and Saudi/Pakistan is we have an active dialogue with Saudi and Pakistan, and a fairly long history of negotiation.
    The hardcore elements of the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden or help with the destruction of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan so made an enemy of the west, it was their choice.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The recent French publication of bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth revealed our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two authors, the economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. military threats against the Taliban. It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to "nation build" in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire.
    Balls!
    Your taking a very basic fact, being the geographical location of Afghanistan, and making vast assumptions on recent events.
    Its no surprise companies have looked at Afghanistan for oil pipelines, and indeed moving every other product the world has to offer, that's the whole reason Afghanistan has been fought over so many times, its a gateway between the east and west.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to replace the government of Afghanistan. Since we don't even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive of him, our concentration on this Taliban "target" remains suspect by many.
    Everyone including the Taliban and Bin Laden himself have confirmed he was in Afghanistan, and there are mountains of documented evidence that Bin Laden and his hardcore used Afghanistan to set up training camps and provide support for a wide range of militant groups.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Again, a very weak and inconsequential argument. During the battle of Tora Bora, American forces came within a whisker of capturing Bin Laden, however he fled across the border into Pakistan.
    They came close once (and even this is arguable), this does not mean finding him is easy, and even if they did it wouldn't change much.
    You like many others seem to place too much an emphasis on Bin Laden, he is not the leader of some massive world wide terror organisation and its a stretch to even call him a figure head.

    Al-Qaeda is not a terror organisation in itself, it is an ideology, killing Bin Laden would do nothing to damage it.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Instead of collaborating with the Pakistani forces to make a swift capture which they had hoped to do, we, just threw a whole lot of money at them to catch him themselves without our help, which they promptly didn't do.
    This makes no sence to me, can you please clarify what you are saying.


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The American and later British forces however, instead turned to this so called "nation building" which i mentioned above.
    With a UN mandate, and why is it 'so called'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varsity)

    Balls!
    Your taking a very basic fact, being the geographical location of Afghanistan, and making vast assumptions on recent events.
    Its no surprise companies have looked at Afghanistan for oil pipelines, and indeed moving every other product the world has to offer, that's the whole reason Afghanistan has been fought over so many times, its a gateway between the east and west.
    Balls? Vast assumptions? I have provided you with a credible source on events that actually happened pre-9/11. Truths that perhaps are too hard for people like yourself to swallow?

    Just to clarify:

    The recent French publication of bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth revealed our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two authors, the economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. military threats against the Taliban. It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to "nation build" in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire. 9/11 must have been christmas come early for western leaders, just as the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were the best thing that could have happened to Bin Laden and Al qaeda.


    They came close once (and even this is arguable), this does not mean finding him is easy, and even if they did it wouldn't change much.
    You like many others seem to place too much an emphasis on Bin Laden, he is not the leader of some massive world wide terror organisation and its a stretch to even call him a figure head.

    Al-Qaeda is not a terror organisation in itself, it is an ideology, killing Bin Laden would do nothing to damage it.

    And yet Bin Laden was the reason given to American congress to pursue an undeclared war in Afghanistan.


    This makes no sence to me, can you please clarify what you are saying.
    If America had complied with a willing Pakistani military, after Bin Laden had crosssed the border, he would have been caught. Instead America threw money at Pakistan and withdrew, choosing instead to forge ahead withh the so called nation building.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Balls? Vast assumptions? I have provided you with a credible source on events that actually happened pre-9/11. Truths that perhaps are too hard for people like yourself to swallow?

    Just to clarify:

    The recent French publication of bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth revealed our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two authors, the economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. military threats against the Taliban. It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to "nation build" in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire. 9/11 must have been christmas come early for western leaders, just as the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were the best thing that could have happened to Bin Laden and Al qaeda.
    First off, people like me? What does that mean?

    How much as the military mission in Afghanistan cost in blood and treasure? It's cost to benefit in my opinion, and it has cost far too much so far if their only real justification was an oil pipeline or indeed any grab for resources.

    Frankly this sounds like a very silly conspiracy theory.





    (Original post by Aeolus)
    And yet Bin Laden was the reason given to American congress to pursue an undeclared war in Afghanistan.
    Indeed, because it is easier to think of Al-Qaeda as a group with a firm leadership structure and a chain of command rather than an ideology.

    The US at all levels is only just coming to grips with what it is fighting.




    (Original post by Aeolus)
    If America had complied with a willing Pakistani military, after Bin Laden had crosssed the border, he would have been caught. Instead America threw money at Pakistan and withdrew, choosing instead to forge ahead withh the so called nation building.
    Bin Laden fled to the tribal region of Pakistan, an area Pakistan has little to no central control over and they most certainly would not have been able to conduct an interdiction operation at short notice.

    The Pakistani military simply couldn't be trusted and didn't have the capabilities.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varsity)
    First off, people like me? What does that mean?

    How much as the military mission in Afghanistan cost in blood and treasure? It's cost to benefit in my opinion, and it has cost far too much so far if their only real justification was an oil pipeline or indeed any grab for resources.

    The US at all levels is only just coming to grips with what it is fighting.
    Exactly! But it will not accept it made a mistake. The Bush administration thought that the long term good would outweigh the short term bad. A horrid prognosis yes, especially as the shorterm bad would be the deaths of our young men and women.

    Here is an example of American thinking regarding the Middle east:

    In 1996, after five years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent bombings, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked the American Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright, a simple question: "We have heard that a half million children have died (as a consequence of our policy against Iraq). Is the price worth it?" Albright's response was "We think the price is worth it." Although this interview won an Emmy award, it was rarely shown in the U.S. but widely circulated in the Middle East. Some still wonder why America is despised in this region of the world!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The taliban are very well trained and battle hardened fighters, they don't care if they die, in fact they want to die.

    The only reason soldiers have died recerntly is because the UK has launched an offensive, therefore more conflicts are happening.

    Our soldiers are there, but they're not doing anything.. they're in their bases 90% of the time.. We're not really fighting in afghanistan, if we actually wanted to win there, thousands would die every year.

    If we want to win, there has to be an offensive 24/7 365 days of the year. Soldiers would die, but we'd win.

    Now you have to ask yourselves, what do we gain from winning? Do we want to win?

    We do not want to win, we'd happily sit around and put the taliban into power if they said they'd be pro west..
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)
    The taliban are very well trained and battle hardened fighters, they don't care if they die, in fact they want to die.
    Not true, the Taliban are not a group who seek to gain entry to heaven by being killed in a Jihad, they believe they are fighting a larger cosmic struggle (on behalf of god, or at least with it) that will take until the end of time to win.

    Most believe it is through continuing to fight that they will eventually win (As in God will win the struggle, or the correct interpretation of gods will would win), they are not scared of death in many cases, but they do not go looking for it.

    (The exception being suicide bombers, but they are a small element.)

    (Original post by Bateman)
    The only reason soldiers have died recerntly is because the UK has launched an offensive, therefore more conflicts are happening.
    Not strictly true, the larger offensive is the backdrop for the recent casualties, however the casualties taken this month were not part of Panthers Claw, it was just a coincidence.

    (Original post by Bateman)
    Our soldiers are there, but they're not doing anything.. they're in their bases 90% of the time.. We're not really fighting in afghanistan, if we actually wanted to win there, thousands would die every year.
    Totally false, particularly for the infantry out there.

    Most live in the field practically the entire time they are in theatre.

    It is true we operate from FOB's but these should not be confused with some kind of impenetrable base where troops stay locked away for great periods of time as you are implying.

    (Original post by Bateman)
    If we want to win, there has to be an offensive 24/7 365 days of the year. Soldiers would die, but we'd win.
    That sort of thing would not work, because the Taliban would simply put down their weapons as we rolled through their territory, then pick them up again when our front lines were miles away and they had a free hand.

    You are almost describing non manoeuvre warfare, not coin ops.

    (Original post by Bateman)
    Now you have to ask yourselves, what do we gain from winning? Do we want to win?

    We do not want to win, we'd happily sit around and put the taliban into power if they said they'd be pro west..
    You find this a surprise?
    Afghanistan is like a business deal, we want an end result (a state that wont help people to harm us), whoever makes the best offer would probably get our support simply because its 'cheaper' and makes sense.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The ammounts of "not true" are shocking. I will not even bother responding to you.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 16, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.