US want do friendship with Taliban!

[Shahreaz]

Nato's top commander in Afghanistan has said increased troop levels could bring a negotiated peace with the Taliban.

US Gen Stanley McChrystal told the UK's Financial Times newspaper that there had been "enough fighting".

He said a political solution in all conflicts was "inevitable". His remarks came as the top UN envoy in Kabul said it was time to talk to the militants.

Afghan and Pakistani leaders are in Turkey to discuss tackling the Taliban-led insurgency in their countries.

This is the fourth such meeting initiated by Turkey, which has offered to broker talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

Both Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his Pakistani counterpart, Asif Ali Zardari, will attend an international conference on Afghanistan in London on Thursday.

'Focus on the future'

"I'd like everybody to walk out of London with a renewed commitment, and that commitment is to the right outcome for the Afghan people," Gen McChrystal told the Financial Times.

He said the arrival of the extra 30,000 US troops pledged by President Obama and the additional 7,000 troops promised by other Nato countries should deliver "very demonstrably positive" progress in 2010.

But he warned that the level of Taliban violence could increase sharply this year.

The Taliban wanted to create the perception that Afghanistan was on fire, and that President Karzai and his Western allies could not cope, Gen McChrystal said.

However, if the new US-led strategy was successful, the militants "could look desperate" in a year's time, he said.

"I think they will look like an entity that will be struggling for its own legitimacy... I think they will be on the defensive militarily, not wiped out."

On the issue of reconciliation, Gen McChrystal said: "I believe that a political solution to all conflicts is the inevitable outcome. And it's the right outcome."

Asked if he thought senior Taliban could have a role in a future Afghan government, he said: "I think any Afghans can play a role if they focus on the future, and not the past.

"As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there's been enough fighting," Gen McChrystal added.

'Time has come'

In an interview with the New York Times, United Nations special representative Kai Eide called for some senior Taliban leaders to be removed from a UN list of terrorists, as a prelude to direct talks.

"If you want relevant results, then you have to talk to the relevant person in authority," Mr Eide said. "I think the time has come to do it."

President Karzai recently told the BBC that he planned to introduce a scheme to attract Taliban fighters back to normal life by offering money and jobs.

He said he would offer to pay and resettle Taliban fighters to come over to his side.

Mr Karzai said he hoped to win backing for his plan from the US and UK at the London conference.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8478076.stm

[abu salaahudeen]

sounds like desperation

what ever happend to no dialogue with "terrorists"?? Looks like people will never learn

[Life_Is_Short]

I don't understand why they couldn't think of friendship with Taliban earlier? It's little too late considering how many people have been killed in Pakistan, Afganistan and Iraq. These issues have generated so much hate during the past year. No one can undo the damage.

May Allah help us, guide us, and bless us all. To Allah belongs all praise.

[جوري]

Afghanistan was the final nail in Russia's coffin and soon to be the final nail in the U.S coffin...

you should never bring amateurs to take on age old stoics...
and now a dialogue? funny stuff..

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[abu salaahudeen]

after all the money they wasted and the soldiers they allowed to be annhialated its pointing towards a certain direction . . . The imminent end of once upon a time superpower

mark my words

[S<Chowdhury]

Afghanistan was the final nail in Russia's coffin and soon to be the final nail in the U.S coffin...

you should never bring amateurs to take on age old stoics...
and now a dialogue? funny stuff..

True that, but hopefully Afghanistan will not return to Taliban regime and some sort of middle route should be established but that's hopeful thinking lol

[Trumble]

after all the money they wasted and the soldiers they allowed to be annhialated its pointing towards a certain direction . . . The imminent end of once upon a time superpower

mark my words

Hardly. Afghanistan was, and is, a pinprick prepared with both resources committed to and lives lost in Vietnam and the US was still a superpower after that.

However, a negotiated peace is always a good idea. As long as that peace is what the what vast majority of Afghans want, or at least can support. In all honesty I see the Taliban being far more reluctant to accept such a deal than the Americans or current Afghan government. If the Americans left tomorrow the Taliban would just seek to take power again, against the wishes of the majority, in the way they did before - violence and intimidation.

[Supreme]

Hardly. Afghanistan was, and is, a pinprick prepared with both resources committed to and lives lost in Vietnam and the US was still a superpower after that.

However, a negotiated peace is always a good idea. As long as that peace is what the what vast majority of Afghans want, or at least can support. In all honesty I see the Taliban being far more reluctant to accept such a deal than the Americans or current Afghan government. If the Americans left tomorrow the Taliban would just seek to take power again, against the wishes of the majority, in the way they did before - violence and intimidation.

I agree with this. The 'good' Taliban, the ones who are fighting just to keep bread on the table, need to be seperated from the 'bad' Taliban, the leaders who advocate torture, murder, terrorism and the like. I also agree that Afghanistan is hardly comparable to Vietnam. It's a worm when compared to the elephant of Vietnam, and the US remained a superpower after 'Nam, despite losing it. It's just a distant war, hardly on the forefront of the agenda of the majority of Americans, partly down to the low US casualty toll and partly down to the lack of care Americans have towards a distant land controlled by nomadic tribes and religious fundamentalists.

[titus]

I don't understand why they couldn't think of friendship with Taliban earlier? It's little too late considering how many people have been killed in Pakistan, Afganistan and Iraq. These issues have generated so much hate during the past year. No one can undo the damage.

There have been overtures earlier. Realize, though, that the Taliban's main interest is not the welfare of the people, but gaining power. If the Taliban was given the option of having a happy population that voted on their government or having the Taliban in power with no guarantee of happiness I have no doubt they would choose the latter. The US, on the other hand, does not want to run the country. They want to stabilize it and get the hell out.

The Taliban does not want stability. Stability right now would be detrimental to them gaining power. That is why they continue to kill the citizens of Afghanistan in droves (around 1600 last year).

after all the money they wasted and the soldiers they allowed to be annhialated its pointing towards a certain direction . . . The imminent end of once upon a time superpower

Wishful thinking.

The only thing that will end the US being a superpower is the rise of another superpower. The next likely candidate is China.

You look forward to that one?

[Chechnya]

I agree with this. The 'good' Taliban, the ones who are fighting just to keep bread on the table, need to be seperated from the 'bad' Taliban, the leaders who advocate torture, murder, terrorism and the like. I also agree that Afghanistan is hardly comparable to Vietnam. It's a worm when compared to the elephant of Vietnam, and the US remained a superpower after 'Nam, despite losing it. It's just a distant war, hardly on the forefront of the agenda of the majority of Americans, partly down to the low US casualty toll and partly down to the lack of care Americans have towards a distant land controlled by nomadic tribes and religious fundamentalists.

and what of those who are fighting because their nation has been attacked by a bunch of invaders?

which category do they fall in to?

[Italianguy]

Soooooo......are you all in support of the Taliban??

The Taliban should be either closed down and or disbanded and restarted with only the true souldiers, fighting only for the good of Afghanistan.

Leaving the Taliban under it's own corupt rule will only hurt the people of Afghanistan. There is too much corruption in the Taliban. Not to say that any government isn't corrupt in some way.

[جوري]

The taliban isn't going anywhere..
I am telling you there is something the 'great superpowers' discount when engaging in these futile battles whatever their purpose maybe and we all know it isn't for the good of mankind but to disband whatever is left of a strong Muslims hold, you maybe able to sway a few of worldly riches or phony slogans of freedom and progress and naked women or mislead a few others, but there will ALWAYS be those who hold on to the true sunnah and you can't extirpate what is from the hearts of true Muslims, with worldly lure.. We all know we have two lots.. those of us who beautify one lot will hate the second.. but those of us who are good at math know not that even a hundred years denotes anything in the face of eternity. Religion isn't a relic to be visited on a sunday or saturday .. it is a life time preparation for the lot to come..

it is good to take notice if you value this life, that to others this is no more than the wing of a fly, and you can't take or offer much to folks who have no use for material goods!

[Italianguy]

The taliban isn't going anywhere..
I am telling you there is something the 'great superpowers' discount when engaging in these futile battles whatever their purpose maybe and we all know it isn't for the good of mankind but to disband whatever is left of a strong Muslims hold, you maybe able to sway a few of worldly riches or phony slogans of freedom and progress and naked women or mislead a few others, but there will ALWAYS be those who hold on to the true sunnah and you can't extirpate what is from the hearts of true Muslims, with worldly lure.. We all know we have two lots.. those of us who beautify one lot will hate the second.. but those of us who are good at math know not that even a hundred years denotes anything in the face of eternity. Religion isn't a relic to be visited on a sunday or saturday .. it is a life time preparation for the lot to come..

it is good to take notice if you value this life, that to others this is no more than the wing of a fly, and you can't take or offer much to folks who have no use for material goods!

You refferenced he 2 lots. Can you explain? Just wondering.

So you support a good Taliban, or all? From what i was told, the Taliban started as a good freedom fighting orginization, funded by the US? I forgot what Taliban stands for....I think ....students, or freedom fighters? not sure.

Peace and blessings.

P.s. I like your last qoute.

[جوري]

You refferenced he 2 lots. Can you explain? Just wondering.
.

two lots meaning this house (world) and the eternal house (hereafter).. if you beautify one and neglect the other, obviously you won't want to move there when seasons change!

all the best

[Italianguy]

two lots meaning this house (world) and the eternal house (hereafter).. if you beautify one and neglect the other, obviously you won't want to move there when seasons change!

all the best

Ok thanks. Very well put.

Peace and blessings.

[Supreme]

and what of those who are fighting because their nation has been attacked by a bunch of invaders?

which category do they fall in to?

Well, I'd suppose good. But if the Taliban used their initiative, if they actually had two brain cells to rub together, they'd disband, surrender, wait for the NATO forces to leave and then regroup and engage in civil war. I don't fancy their chances even then, but it's unlikely the West will be bothered to become involved again. Perhaps Iran might lend the anti Taliban forces in Afghanistan 'a hand'.

[titus]

and what of those who are fighting because their nation has been attacked by a bunch of invaders?

Are they the same ones who wanted to harbor Al Qaeda. which was undertaking attacks on the country that invaded them? Then yes, they are the bad ones.

[Shahreaz]

I'd recommend everyone to watch this documentary first then decide who is real terrorist in Afghanistan, the Taliban or Al Qaeda or US/UK.

Award-winning journalist John Pilger investigates the discrepancies between American and British claims for the 'war on terror' and the facts on the ground as he finds them in Afghanistan and Washington, DC.

In 2001, as the bombs began to drop, George W. Bush promised Afghanistan "the generosity of America and its allies". Now, the familiar old warlords are regaining power, religious fundamentalism is renewing its grip and military skirmishes continue routinely. In "liberated" Afghanistan, the U.S. has its military base and pipeline access, while the people have the warlords who are, says one woman, "in many ways worse than the Taliban".

In Washington, Pilger conducts a series of interviews with William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and leading Administration officials such as Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. These people, and the other architects of the Project for the New American Century, were dismissed as 'the crazies' by the George H. W. Bush Administration in the early 90s when they first presented their ideas for pre-emptive strikes and world domination. Pilger also interviews former presidential candidate General Wesley Clark, and former intelligence officers, while raising questions about the real motives for the 'war on terror'.

While President Bush refers to the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq as two 'great victories', Pilger asks the question - victories over whom, and for what purpose? He describes Afghanistan as a country "more devastated than anything I have seen since Pol Pot's Cambodia". He finds that Al-Qaida has not been defeated and that the Taliban is re-emerging and questions "Victory" in Iraq.

Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror - Download here | Watch it

[Al-Indunisiy]

Taliban: Reconciliation Plan, West's Trickery

Taliban on Wednesday rejected the Afghan government's plan to bring reconciliation with the Taliban. The members who lay down their arms would get economic security, decent work, for the sake of a better Afghanistan. But reconciliation appeal was referred to by the leaders of the Taliban as a Western ploy.

President Hamid Karzai will announce details of the reconciliation plan with thousands of Taliban insurgents lower-middle class. Today in London Afghanistan Summit has been opened and held, the countries associated with Afghanistan gathered to discuss ways to end the armed conflict in Afghanistan.
However, the pro-Taliban website (alemara.co.cc), the Taliban said the plan was a "trick" and the Muslim guerrillas will not be weak to face this worldly deceptions. "They feel the mujahideen (Afghanistan) will be tempted by money or position, such thoughts is in vain and not true," as written in the website alemara .

Currently there are more than 110,000 international troops, mainly from the U.S., placed in Afghanistan. Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan since 1996, has waged a rebellion since ousted from power in that country by US-led invasion in 2001 for allegedly being responsible for attacks on American soil that killed about 3,000 people on September 11, 2001.

The NATO led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) numbered more than 84,000 soldiers from 43 countries, is still trying to quell the Taliban insurgency. 2009 was the deadliest year for Afghan soldiers, policemen, civilians, and also international forces fighting the Taliban. Most of the violence occurred in southern provinces like Kandahar and Uruzgan.

U.S. President Barack Obama announced in December, sending 30,000 additional soldiers to Afghanistan to join U.S. forces and NATO-led ISAF in the country to combat the guerrillas. NATO countries were also sending an additional 7000 troops to the country. Eight years after the overthrow of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, more than 40 countries preparing to increase the number of soldiers in Afghanistan to reach approximately 150,000 people within 18 months.

Around 520 foreign soldiers have died during 2009, which made that year as the deadliest year for international troops since the US-led invasion in 2001 and made the Western public support for war drops. (ant)

Source: http://sabili.co.id/index.php?option...nal&Itemid=198

Note: Material originally in Indonesian, translated via Google Translate.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Lol funny "The Us wants to be a kind helpful friend with the Taliban"
Khayrrrr ALLAHU ALAM

[Supreme]

Are they the same ones who wanted to harbor Al Qaeda. which was undertaking attacks on the country that invaded them? Then yes, they are the bad ones.

Also, a lot of the Taliban aren't even Afghan, believe it or not. They have Pakistanis, Arabs, Uighurs- heck, I heard some Chechnyans were in there believe it or not. So it actually wasn't their country that was invaded at all- if anything, they're just as much invaders as the West!

[nocturnal]

Well, the proponents of this engagement policy with the Taliban claim that those lower-ranking fighters in the movement aren't there because of ideological affiliation, but because its the only way to earn a living and senior figures in the Taliban are happy to return the favour by granting them stipends for their military services.

Im not sure if all that is just coalition propaganda or if there's actually substance to that arguement, but nothing else seems to be bringing the situation under control. Let's face it, beyond the limits of Kabul, the federal government totally lacks any effective control of the situation and the coalition cannot stay there interminably. Something has to give at some stage. Either Karzai and his lackeys get overthrown by the Taliban, or their impoverished fighters abscond in droves at the thought of receiving cash payments and employment opportunities.

[Argamemnon]

Are they the same ones who wanted to harbor Al Qaeda. which was undertaking attacks on the country that invaded them? Then yes, they are the bad ones.

The real problem is that the U.S. was attacking Muslims long before "Al Qaida" showed up. While I don't support attacks on civilians, I would certainly support any group attacking western government and military institutions that are hostile towards Muslim countries.

[Lynx]

Also, a lot of the Taliban aren't even Afghan, believe it or not. They have Pakistanis, Arabs, Uighurs- heck, I heard some Chechnyans were in there believe it or not. So it actually wasn't their country that was invaded at all- if anything, they're just as much invaders as the West!

This is a good point. Many Afghans just want to be left alone. There is too much foreign meddling in Afghan fairs and this has been the case for a very long time. The pakistanis, arabs, etc. are just as meddlesome as NATO.

[Woodrow]

Hardly. Afghanistan was, and is, a pinprick prepared with both resources committed to and lives lost in Vietnam and the US was still a superpower after that.

Sadly you are correct. I say sadly because it is an example of just how calloused we have become over war loses. When I look at the USA war loses that occurred in my lifetime, the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan has been insignificant in terms of American cost. The first day of the Normandy Landing in WW2 was considerably more expensive than the total cost for both Iraq and Afghanistan has been to date. Vietnam has been our most costly recent conflict, yet it was negligible when compared to our own civil war of 1860-1865.

While even the loss of one life is too high of a price, the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan is probably the least expensive conflict the USA has ever been involved in.

Sadly, because we have become calloused we have trouble in understanding that while it has been low budget in terms of military cost, it may be the most expensive in terms of innocent lives lost.

Roughly 5000 USA troops have been killed in ten years of Afghanistan during this same time period at least 400,000 Americans were killed in automobile accidents in the USA. If Just 10% of them were American Soldiers that means 40,000 soldiers died in car accidents during those 10 years, or another way is to say an American soldier is 8 times more likely to be killed in a Car Accident in the USA than to be killed in combat in Afghanistan. A US Serviceman is safer in Afghanistan than on the roads of America.

I don't think enough Americans are aware of how many innocent lives Afghanistan has cost, because it's price has been very minute in terms of the US military budget and past costs of war.

The majority of Americans have not been affected by Afghanistan and the majority do not personally know even one person who has died in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has not had any personal impact on most Americans.

[sur]

They NEVER fight these wars to win... Vietnam was not ment to be won either.... Ppl in control of these wars just want these to linger-on because they make profit out of these, while securing israel as much as possible, at the same time... The day war stops their profits will fall...

With all might of US it was not difficult to defeat iraq in 1st gulf war in 30 min(as they claimed), but they slowed it down to make the most out of Kuwait & Saudi Arabia in addition to tax money of Americans.... same with Afghanistan & 2nd gulf war.... Same with letting usama loose under their eyes, so they would have an ongoing excuse to keep going with so-called war...


The other thing is that so-called negotiations with taliban are in fact cover name for buying/recruiting so-called-taliban a.k.a fenatics to work for them against Pak-istan...

When Pak govt. was doing peace deals with taliban, US was enraged...

[Supreme]

The real problem is that the U.S. was attacking Muslims long before "Al Qaida" showed up. While I don't support attacks on civilians, I would certainly support any group attacking western government and military institutions that are hostile towards Muslim countries.

How was it showing hostility to Muslims? The USA had a rather good relationship with the Muslim world until 9/11, and the USA played a significant role in helping the Mujahadeen to victory against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

This is a good point. Many Afghans just want to be left alone. There is too much foreign meddling in Afghan fairs and this has been the case for a very long time. The pakistanis, arabs, etc. are just as meddlesome as NATO.

Indeed. For such a barren and poor land, Afghanistan has been raped by foreign armies over the years because of her East-West geographical positions and the strategic importance this brings.

[aadil77]

Also, a lot of the Taliban aren't even Afghan, believe it or not. They have Pakistanis, Arabs, Uighurs- heck, I heard some Chechnyans were in there believe it or not. So it actually wasn't their country that was invaded at all- if anything, they're just as much invaders as the West!

good excuse, just shows how many 'brain cells' you have

[aadil77]

Well, I'd suppose good. But if the Taliban used their initiative, if they actually had two brain cells to rub together, they'd disband, surrender, wait for the NATO forces to leave and then regroup and engage in civil war. I don't fancy their chances even then, but it's unlikely the West will be bothered to become involved again. Perhaps Iran might lend the anti Taliban forces in Afghanistan 'a hand'.

It doesn't work like that, there isn't any surrender in jihad, its obligatory to fight till death or till its over. Anyone coming into our lands with an army and oppressing our people gets fought, doesn't matter what the chances are, look at the chances of your own armies right now, all you seem to hear about is bodies piling up and nothing being acheived.

[Supreme]

good excuse, just shows how many 'brain cells' you have

Oh yes, I stated researched fact! What a stupid thing to do!

It doesn't work like that, there isn't any surrender in jihad, its obligatory to fight till death or till its over. Anyone coming into our lands with an army and oppressing our people gets fought, doesn't matter what the chances are, look at the chances of your own armies right now, all you seem to hear about is bodies piling up and nothing being acheived.

I know it's never going to happen, I was suggesting what if. The Taliban aren't educated, because if they were educated, they wouldn't be Taliban in the first place. They're too stupid to ever surrender.

[aadil77]

I know it's never going to happen, I was suggesting what if. The Taliban aren't educated, because if they were educated, they wouldn't be Taliban in the first place. They're too stupid to ever surrender.

You missed the point again, they're not meant to surrender or are you saying our beliefs are 'stupid'

[Italianguy]

You got to give some respect to anyone who fights for what they believe in. Wether or not you , I or anyone else agrees or disagrees they are right or wrong, we are not there. All we hear is the media's rendition of events that happen abroad. I have respect for anyone, who fight's justly for a cause they believe is correct. On the other hand you have some who are just taught and or forced to fight without even knowing what for:hmm: That's the sad part.

God be with them.Amen

[جوري]

afghanistan is sitting on a goldmine, of course they want their friendship...

friendship comes IDF style of course:

[Lynx]

You missed the point again, they're not meant to surrender or are you saying our beliefs are 'stupid'

You're right. The Afghans are entitled to fight against the oppressors which includes the Taliban themselves who are largely foreign x). The Taliban are Pakistani and Arab puppets.

[جوري]

Muslims don't have nationalities..the only thing largely foreign are the defecates dropped by the U.S and its allies to reek havoc and steal afghanistan's natural resources.

Also, natural resources belong to all Muslims, not some elected officials or a royal family. They should go immediately to beyt al'mal and be available to every needy Muslim as is decreed religiously.. of course we all know when the scum of the earth will sink their tentacles there as they have every where else and feign being good.

[Lynx]

Muslims don't have nationalities..the only thing largely foreign are the defecates dropped by the U.S and its allies to reek havoc and steal afghanistan's natural resources.

Also, natural resources belong to all Muslims, not some elected officials or a royal family. They should go immediately to beyt al'mal and be available to every needy Muslim as is decreed religiously.. of course we all know when the scum of the earth will sink their tentacles there as they have every where else and feign being good.

Ideally there would be no racial boundaries or ethnic boundaries or nationalistic boundaries between Muslims. A quick look at their passports would say otherwise, unfortunate as it may be. Nevertheless, Afghanistan's history is full of foreign occupation and the Taliban are just as bad as the NATO forces. Oppression is oppression even if it is your 'Muslim brothers' who are the oppressors.

[جوري]

Ideally there would be no racial boundaries or ethnic boundaries or nationalistic boundaries between Muslims. A quick look at their passports would say otherwise, unfortunate as it may be. Nevertheless, Afghanistan's history is full of foreign occupation and the Taliban are just as bad as the NATO forces. Oppression is oppression even if it is your 'Muslim brothers' who are the oppressors.

Given that you don't know much about the taliban save what your media feeds you, I'd refrain from passing freely the confident labels.
The whole reason the Muslim world is dismantled to begin with, is because of the benevolent west.. Now even if the taliban were the evil monsters they are portrayed to be, I am sure the locals can handle them personally.. kindly take your troops and interests out of the entire Muslim world and keep your good will and cheer toward man internally. You have miserable folks right in your backyard that need help.. don't waste your effort, your breath or the ink of your pen advocating for folks who don't want you. As we all know the reasons that yours are there are less than honorable!

all the best

[Lynx]

Given that you don't know much about the taliban save what your media feeds you, I'd refrain from passing freely the confident labels.
The whole reason the Muslim world is dismantled to begin with, is because of the benevolent west.. Now even if the taliban were the evil monsters they are portrayed to be, I am sure the locals can handle them personally.. kindly take your troops and interests out of the entire Muslim world and keep your good will and cheer toward man internally. You have miserable folks right in your backyard that need help.. don't waste your effort, your breath or the ink of your pen advocating for folks who don't want you. As we all know the reasons that you are there are less than honorable!

all the best

The Taliban were oppressors. You can take a look at Afghan media prior to the invasion if you'd like but most Taliban sympathizers don't actually..know anything of the Taliban except 'they're Muslim so I must support them over the evil Ferangi!". Of course I do agree with you that the Invasion by the West is solely for the West's benefits and not the Afghans. It's the same as the Cold War where Afghanistan was used by the West to stop Soviet expansion. And yes, a lot of why the Muslim world, with the exception of a few places, is in ruin is because of the West (Muslims don't know how to get along themselves so that didn't help much even since the time of the Fatimids or even prior, the Ummayads). The West out competed the Islamic countries. Capitalism = buy everyone out. But at the very least, globalization is going to take the Muslim out of the gutter, albeit, without their culture intact. But that's just speculation

[Supreme]

You missed the point again, they're not meant to surrender or are you saying our beliefs are 'stupid'

No, I was calling the Taliban stupid. Obviously, this isn't true for all the Taliban insurgents, but these people are fighting because they were never educated and don't have good jobs in the first place, and the Taliban pays rather well. Add to that the poverty and general lawlessness of Afghanistan, you're in business, you can go about killing and maiming left, right and center for money whilst using ideals and beliefs as an excuse.

Muslims don't have nationalities..the only thing largely foreign are the defecates dropped by the U.S and its allies to reek havoc and steal afghanistan's natural resources.

Well, as long as the people torturing Afghanis, stealing from Afghanis, occupying Afghanis, blowing up Afghani civilians and indiscriminantly killing Afghanis are Muslims.

Well, why didn't you say so? It makes oh so much more moral now!

[Argamemnon]

How was it showing hostility to Muslims? The USA had a rather good relationship with the Muslim world until 9/11, and the USA played a significant role in helping the Mujahadeen to victory against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Dear Supreme,

May I ask what the name is of the galaxy you live in? It seems that we live in separate galaxies :hmm:

The U.S. has been torturing Muslim countries for decades. Shall I give just two examples? First, they support and protect Israel, the brutal occupying power in the Middle East which is inflicting unimaginable suffering and death on Muslims. The U.S. has been torturing Iran since 1953. Toppling their regime, installing puppet regimes, placing sanctions, threatening with invasion etc. If you don't submit to total U.S. domination, you will be considered an enemy and have to deal with threats, brutal sanctions, secret CIA operations, invasions and much more.

What they have done in Iraq is even worse. The sanctions alone killed over half a million people (at least). Don't you think this is a very serious act of hostility? Saddam was their best friend when this relationship served their interests. There is so much more to say. Please read "Killing Hope" by William Blum, and "Hegemony or Survival - America's quest for global dominance" by Noam Chomsky.

[tango92]

this is good news for us. it seems the west is getting desperate and realising they cant win. they wouldnt be negotiating peace talks if they thought they could overthrow them.

but then i just fear they dont pull a vietnam or hirsohima on it and withdraw. like the cowards do when they get beat...

but nah. theres something special about afghanistan that drew them there and they obviously havent got it yet.

[Supreme]

Dear Supreme,

May I ask what the name is of the galaxy you live in? It seems that we live in separate galaxies :hmm:

The U.S. has been torturing Muslim countries for decades. Shall I give just two examples? First, they support and protect Israel, the brutal occupying power in the Middle East which is inflicting unimaginable suffering and death on Muslims. The U.S. has been torturing Iran since 1953. Toppling their regime, installing puppet regimes, placing sanctions, threatening with invasion etc. If you don't submit to total U.S. domination, you will be considered an enemy and have to deal with threats, brutal sanctions, secret CIA operations, invasions and much more.

What they have done in Iraq is even worse. The sanctions alone killed over half a million people (at least). Don't you think this is a very serious act of hostility? Saddam was their best friend when this relationship served their interests. There is so much more to say. Please read "Killing Hope" by William Blum, and "Hegemony or Survival - America's quest for global dominance" by Noam Chomsky.

I don't think it's fair to say that America's been hostile to the Muslim world because of Israel. Before 9/11, Americans supported Israel, not because they were Islamophobic, but because they were pro Jewish.

As for Iran, it's nothing special. America's been doing the same in other countries for years, irregardless of what faith the majority adheres to. It's part of the American desire for dominance, it's in their nature.

However, post 9/11, I would agree America has become increasingly hostile to Muslims.

[Argamemnon]

I don't think it's fair to say that America's been hostile to the Muslim world because of Israel. Before 9/11, Americans supported Israel, not because they were Islamophobic, but because they were pro Jewish.

It's precisely because of unconditional U.S. support that Israel can sustain this occupation and rejects any peace initiative, Arab or International.

As for Iran, it's nothing special. America's been doing the same in other countries for years, irregardless of what faith the majority adheres to. It's part of the American desire for dominance, it's in their nature.

It is 'special' for those who are suffering. As Muslims we are obliged to defend ourselves. Should we just allow them to do what they want? Why? Does or did America or Britain ever turn the other cheek?

[Woodrow]

this is good news for us. it seems the west is getting desperate and realising they cant win. they wouldnt be negotiating peace talks if they thought they could overthrow them.

but then i just fear they dont pull a vietnam or hirsohima on it and withdraw. like the cowards do when they get beat...

but nah. theres something special about afghanistan that drew them there and they obviously havent got it yet.

Sadly, they just may have achieved their goal. The goal being to keep the region unstable. There is no desire to bring peace to the region. At this time the purpose being to make in unfeasible for China to mine the Aykan Copper Deposits near Kabul and keep it too costly for China to put pipelines and railroad tracks through Afghanistan.

I believe the USA sees China as being the greatest threat to the USA in terms of economics and military strength. China is winning the economic war as China businesses now own nearly 1/3 of the USA bussinesses and is the largest portion of the National debt is owed to China. China is the only country with sufficient man power to occupy the US. The one thing China lacks is sufficient fuel resources to launch and invasion against the USA.

China has signed some of the largest oil leases in history with Iran and Iraq. But to get the oil is going to require pipelines and rail roads through Afghanistan and Pakistan. If China is going to build up it's mechanized military it needs the oil. The key to getting the oil is Afghanistan.

The easiest way for the USA to keep China from getting the oil, is to keep Afghanistan unstable and in turmoil. The USA has no need for Afghanistan, but it has a need to keep China out.

I see this as a war between China and the USA, but we are fighting it by using Afghanistan as the battlefield. Economically it is less costly for the USA to stay in a state of war in Afghanistan for 100 years, than to have an open war with China for one week.

I suspect the USA will remain in Afghanistan until Afghanistan becomes worthless to China.

[MSalman]

How was it showing hostility to Muslims? The USA had a rather good relationship with the Muslim world until 9/11, and the USA played a significant role in helping the Mujahadeen to victory against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

I don't know how hostility is defined in your dictionary but all we have to do is look at the foreign polices of the USA and west in general to refute your dreamy comment.

1 - Supporting corrupt leaders and regimes
2 - Trying to liberalize Muslim world
3 - Supporting Israel occupation
4 - Aiding in wars to cause disunity among Muslims
5 - Supporting media propaganda against Islam and Muslims

If this is not hostility then I wonder what it is!? And then you people wonder why Muslims hate you

All of this was happening before 9/11; 9/11 was simply an excuse to go out with the full plan. If we open our eyes we can see this but if we want to remain blind and pretend that it is not happening then that is a different story.

It is funny that on one said these kuffaar will bash about bad things in Muslim world but on other side they will support the people who are cause for all of bad things. What an irony!

[Italianguy]

I don't know how hostility is defined in your dictionary but all we have to do is look at the foreign polices of the USA and west in general to refute your dreamy comment.

1 - Supporting corrupt leaders and regimes

2 - Trying to liberalize Muslim world
3 - Supporting Israel occupation
4 - Aiding in wars to cause disunity among Muslims
5 - Supporting media propaganda against Islam and Muslims

If this is not hostility then I wonder what it is!? And then you people wonder why Muslims hate you

All of this was happening before 9/11; 9/11 was simply an excuse to go out with the full plan. If we open our eyes we can see this but if we want to remain blind and pretend that it is not happening then that is a different story.

It is funny that on one said these kuffaar will bash about bad things in Muslim world but on other side they will support the people who are cause for all of bad things. What an irony!

1.) they don't start off corrupt
2.)That could be true
3.)Of course
4.)If there is disunity, that is amonst themselves
5.)What media propaganda against Islam? Can you provide a link so i can see?

So, Muslims do hate me, and all of Christianity?? All the Muslims I am friends with say the opposite:hmm:

I don't know how to do the qoute box thing? Sorry for the bad reply

[aadil77]

Well, as long as the people torturing Afghanis, stealing from Afghanis, occupying Afghanis, blowing up Afghani civilians and indiscriminantly killing Afghanis are Muslims.

LOL I couldn't have regurgitated that media fed crap better myself

[Argamemnon]

5.)What media propaganda against Islam? Can you provide a link so i can see?

All western media is spreading false information about Islam and Muslims. Portraying all Muslims as terrorists and inciting hatred against us etc. Was that question meant as a joke or something?

[Lynx]

All western media is spreading false information about Islam and Muslims. Portraying all Muslims as terrorists and inciting hatred against us etc. Was that question meant as a joke or something?

Do you even watch Western media? It does not sound like you do.

LOL I couldn't have regurgitated that media fed crap better myself

Any Afghan living in Afghanistan would testify that the Taliban did/do such things. :) But Muslims are too self righteous to ever criticize what the Muslim world does IF they have the chance to badmouth the West. It's quite sad.

[Argamemnon]

Do you even watch Western media? It does not sound like you do.

Is that another joke? We have a lot of jokers here...

[Argamemnon]

@ italianguy

Western media always portrays resistance movements such as Hezbollah as "terrorist" organizations. Could you tell me why your media does that? Do you believe such claims? If your answer is yes, then it means you are brainwashed by western media like most people, it's as simple as that. Why is Hezbollah considered a terrorist organization when they were fighting to end Israeli occupation of south Lebanon - and in 2000 succeeded in doing so? I assume Hezbollah driving Israeli occupying forces out was an act of terrorism? Because according to rogue states such as Israel, the United States, the UK and the Netherlands that was terrorism! How dare we protect our lands, shame on us!!! The sheba farms in Lebanon are still under Israeli occupation. Hezbollah's creation was a direct result of Israel's actions. We must and we will continue with jihad, even if westerners hate it... actually that is a motivating factor..

Peace

[Argamemnon]

Any Afghan living in Afghanistan would testify that the Taliban did/do such things. :)

Muslims know very well who the real enemy is, don't you worry. We know very well what you're doing to our people.

Peace!

[Lynx]

Muslims know very well who the real enemy is, don't you worry. We know very well what you're doing to our people.

Peace!

I think people like you are an insult to Muslims suffering in Afghanistan.

[MSalman]

Do you even watch Western media? It does not sound like you do.

are you for real? Please tell me you were joking!?

1.) they don't start off corrupt

that is not true; they always pick the people who will serve their agendas.

4.)If there is disunity, that is amonst themselves

correct to a certain extent but Americans always add more fuel and aid the side which will benefit them in their future plans of occupations. Have you watched this?

So, Muslims do hate me, and all of Christianity?? All the Muslims I am friends with say the opposite:hmm:

Not every single non-Muslim is same and addressed in same manner. You are sincere and I personally have lots of respect for people like you and I ask Allah to guide you to Islam, ameen.

As far your question, then generally speaking, yes, we do hate non-Muslims because of their disbelief in Allah, His last Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) and His message. I don't want to go in details on this as it is off topic.

[Italianguy]

All western media is spreading false information about Islam and Muslims. Portraying all Muslims as terrorists and inciting hatred against us etc. Was that question meant as a joke or something?

Not a joke at all. But I still haven't seen any media portraying Islam as a hated religion? Like I asked before, do you have a link or article that is circulated around the US that is directly against Muslims?

[Italianguy]

are you for real? Please tell me you were joking!?

No ...actually I don't watch too much tv, so maybe i miss some:hmm:. I only watch some Christian channels, and I found a Islamic channel I watched for awhile, A show called "The Deen Show" ....I think thats what it was called? But now I cant find the channel?

that is not true; they always pick the people who will serve their agendas.

I can't say yes or no I'm not there.

correct to a certain extent but Americans always add more fuel and aid the side which will benefit them in their future plans of occupations. Have you watched this?

Yes, i won't say that America doesn't like to play with gas, if you know what I mean.

Not every single non-Muslim is same and addressed in same manner. You are sincere and I personally have lots of respect for people like you and I ask Allah to guide you to Islam, ameen.

Thanks bro!:D

As far your question, then generally speaking, yes, we do hate non-Muslims because of their disbelief in Allah, His last Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) and His message. I don't want to go in details on this as it is off topic.

Does Islam teach hate of Christians? or non-believers? Just asking

Sorry, i didn't see this response before i replied before. Thanks for the respect:D

[Argamemnon]

I think people like you are an insult to Muslims suffering in Afghanistan.

You are an Islam hater, what are you doing here besides insulting Muslims? Go join some anti-Islam forums....

[Argamemnon]

Not a joke at all. But I still haven't seen any media portraying Islam as a hated religion? Like I asked before, do you have a link or article that is circulated around the US that is directly against Muslims?

Sorry I fail to understand what you fail to understand. There is massive anti- Islam propaganda on internet and media in general. I'm totally baffled by your response.

[Woodrow]

Sorry I fail to understand what you fail to understand. There is massive anti- Islam propaganda on internet and media in general. I'm totally baffled by your response.

I doubt if a non-Muslim would recognize what we view as anti-Islamic unless we point out specifically what we see as being anti-Islamic.


Prior to the Civil Rights movements of the 1960's those of us in the USA who were not black, did not realize how much we did and said was anti-black. It took education and seeing the pain of black People that we finally gained some insight as to how much pain we were guilty of spreading.

So it is today us Muslims are facing the same issues. We have to first break the stereotypical views and show those are false and from there point out specifically what we find offensive. Some examples being the way the news media handles any crime involving a person with an Arabic Sounding name. The story automatically carries the assumption the person is Muslim and the person is called Muslim, even if it has no bearing to the story or it is even verified the person is Muslim.

Another thing is the news stories about mistreatment of non-Muslims in Islamic Countries, they seldom if ever mention the person committed a crime, which is what brought on the alleged mistreatment.

To get people to understand why we feel maligned in the media, we have to point out specific examples and state why we find it offensive.

[Argamemnon]

I doubt if a non-Muslim would recognize what we view as anti-Islamic unless we point out specifically what we see as being anti-Islamic.


Prior to the Civil Rights movements of the 1960's those of us in the USA who were not black, did not realize how much we did and said was anti-black. It took education and seeing the pain of black People that we finally gained some insight as to how much pain we were guilty of spreading.

So it is today us Muslims are facing the same issues. We have to first break the stereotypical views and show those are false and from there point out specifically what we find offensive. Some examples being the way the news media handles any crime involving a person with an Arabic Sounding name. The story automatically carries the assumption the person is Muslim and the person is called Muslim, even if it has no bearing to the story or it is even verified the person is Muslim.

Another thing is the news stories about mistreatment of non-Muslims in Islamic Countries, they seldom if ever mention the person committed a crime, which is what brought on the alleged mistreatment.

To get people to understand why we feel maligned in the media, we have to point out specific examples and state why we find it offensive.

Good points.

[Supreme]

I don't know how hostility is defined in your dictionary but all we have to do is look at the foreign polices of the USA and west in general to refute your dreamy comment.

1 - Supporting corrupt leaders and regimes
2 - Trying to liberalize Muslim world
3 - Supporting Israel occupation
4 - Aiding in wars to cause disunity among Muslims
5 - Supporting media propaganda against Islam and Muslims

If this is not hostility then I wonder what it is!? And then you people wonder why Muslims hate you

All of this was happening before 9/11; 9/11 was simply an excuse to go out with the full plan. If we open our eyes we can see this but if we want to remain blind and pretend that it is not happening then that is a different story.

It is funny that on one said these kuffaar will bash about bad things in Muslim world but on other side they will support the people who are cause for all of bad things. What an irony!

1) As I said, that is for the the whole Earth. The US has been doing that in many countries, from South Korea to South Vietnam. It's not exclusively an Islamic thing.
2) No offense, but I hardly think that America is much interested in liberalizing the Middle East. It hardly cares that much for the people of the region. All the US wants to do is have friendly countries to it in the Middle East and countries that will flog US goods. America doesn't care whether a government is liberal or totalitarian, so long as it keeps friendly and allows a free market.
3) I'd agree with this, I would also say it's the most valid reason on the list.
4) Which wars? The Iran-Iraq war is all I can think of, and the US didn't play a very large role in that at all. I think from memory a US war ship was destroyed. That's as far as it went.
5) Really? Are there many examples of this pre 9/11? I'd love to see them if there were.

LOL I couldn't have regurgitated that media fed crap better myself

Do you ever get tired of such lacklustre comments? It seems all you really ever seem to add to a conversation is claims the media is corrupt and biased and that the Taliban are actually lovely people, despite all the killing and stuff (all, it should be noted, without any sources or facts!) I suppose that's a characteristic of you: even in the face of overwhelming defeat from members posting sources and facts, you still persist in such trivial commentaries!

[Asiyah3]

All the US wants to do is have friendly countries to it in the Middle East and countries that will flog US goods.

lol ;D

-------------

[MSalman]

1) As I said, that is for the the whole Earth. The US has been doing that in many countries, from South Korea to South Vietnam. It's not exclusively an Islamic thing.

this shows the nature of your character and lack of insincerity. Instead of admitting your mistake and trying to be humble sometime you play with irrelevant points just to prove that 'I won as I was right". People like you operate on two principles

1) I am always right
2) If I am wrong go back to 1

Now to tackle your point, so what if USA has been attacking other countries beside Muslims? Who was even saying that USA is hostile ONLY to Muslim countries!? You constructed your argument on a flawed straw man point. You said that USA has been pretty friendly with Muslim countries before 9/11 but we just proved you wrong. The argument is not whether USA is only hostile to Muslims rather the argument is whether USA became hostile to Muslims after 9/11.

2) No offense, but I hardly think that America is much interested in liberalizing the Middle East. It hardly cares that much for the people of the region. All the US wants to do is have friendly countries to it in the Middle East and countries that will flog US goods. America doesn't care whether a government is liberal or totalitarian, so long as it keeps friendly and allows a free market.

then you live in a diseny land world. The whole war on terrorism was based upon this idea of liberalizing Muslim world so that the Muslim 'barbarism' ideals, i.e., jihad, hadoud laws, etc., are eradicated. This is has been admitted by top authorities of USA. Why do they support and bring corrupt leaders so that crooked domocracy can be forced on people instead of Shari'ah? Would USA want jihadis in power and rulers who will rule their people by Shari'ah?

3) I'd agree with this, I would also say it's the most valid reason on the list.

good, so this proves that USA has been hostile to Muslims even before 9/11.

5) Really? Are there many examples of this pre 9/11? I'd love to see them if there were.

amount is irrelevant here; it doesn't matter whether few examples or many examples. And I personally don't have the time to do the research and hopefully those who are into politics can find something for you.

[MSalman]

No ...actually I don't watch too much tv, so maybe i miss some:hmm:. I only watch some Christian channels, and I found a Islamic channel I watched for awhile, A show called "The Deen Show" ....I think thats what it was called? But now I cant find the channel?

bro, just in case you didn't notice, that was not directed to you.

I can't say yes or no I'm not there.

that is fine but they are always bringing intellectually challenged people like current president of Pakistan, the guy who on paper proved that he was insane few years ago to save himself from money theft and fraud. Or dictators like previous President of Pakistan and many other similar kind of leaders who are corrupt from top to bottom. They support these kinds of people for two reasons 1) Shari'ah is not implemented in its true sense and 2) their agendas of plundering resources and occupation are served

Does Islam teach hate of Christians? or non-believers? Just asking

bro, I have answered this question. I said: "As far your question, then generally speaking, yes, we do hate non-Muslims because of their disbelief in Allah, His last Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) and His message."

Sorry, i didn't see this response before i replied before. Thanks for the respect:D

no worries, :)

[aadil77]

Any Afghan living in Afghanistan would testify that the Taliban did/do such things. :) But Muslims are too self righteous to ever criticize what the Muslim world does IF they have the chance to badmouth the West. It's quite sad.

Yeah? Who is the taliban according to you? Do you know that the actual taliban have disassociated themselves from groups that have done things against shariah, such as drug traffickers etc

Maybe you're blind but you'll find plenty of threads critising the 'Muslim world' on here alone, nearly every muslim country has been critisized here for their faults, its only places like afghanistan that have our support because of the muslims there wanting to implement and live by true islamic law

[Lynx]

Yeah? Who is the taliban according to you? Do you know that the actual taliban have disassociated themselves from groups that have done things against shariah, such as drug traffickers etc

Maybe you're blind but you'll find plenty of threads critising the 'Muslim world' on here alone, nearly every muslim country has been critisized here for their faults, its only places like afghanistan that have our support because of the muslims there wanting to implement and live by true islamic law

I know Muslims criticize other Muslims but they only do that when they don't have a Western force to criticize instead. In any case I was just making a general statement that was partially a joke. Partially.

And by the Taliban I am referring to the group in general. I know there are good and bad in the Taliban but they as a military/political group are oppressors AND they are just as much of a foreign pest that NATO is. Taliban are Pakistani/Arab puppets.

[Woodrow]

Just my own opinions based only what I see happening. The purpose I see for the USA to be in Afghanistan:

1. Fear of China, China is the country with the greatest ability to cripple the USA economically and militarily. It is the only country with enough man power to occupy the USA.

2. To keep China from becoming a mechanized military power is to keep them from having the fuel sources to run such

3. China has signed some of the largest oil leases in History with Iran and Iraq

4. To get the oil to China will require railroads and pipelines through Afghanistan

The USA goal is to stop China from getting the oil.

This can be done by keeping Afghanistan in turmoil and no major agreement on a central government. Some possible ways to do this:

a. Keep a USA military presence in Afghanistan.

b. get the Taliban mad enough at foreign intrusion that they will fight any Chinese presence in Afghanistan

Plan b seems to be the attempt now. Give the Taliban ongoing military equipment and even pay the Mujaheddin, keep the Taliban convinced that Chinese invaders will be even worse than American invaders. Negotiate a treaty with the Taliban in which the Taliban will get get both monetary and military equipment support from the USA. Pull the USA out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban fight the Chinese, thereby avoiding any military confrontation between China and the USA.

The Taliban gain the appearance of being the Victors

The USA avoids war with China

The Taliban and the USA are both happy with the result.

Afghanistan remains in turmoil as Chinese workers attempt to build pipelines etc.

No pipelines get completed.

Life for the average Afghanistan resident remains a life of warfare. Only losers are the innocents, again.

[Argamemnon]

As far your question, then generally speaking, yes, we do hate non-Muslims because of their disbelief in Allah, His last Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) and His message.

No, we hate their rejection, but we will treat them with respect if they are not hostile to Muslims. To believe or reject is their choice.

[titus]

Woodrow,

While the effects on China may be a (very) minor factor, I don't believe that they are a major factor by any means. I don't know anyone personally that would even bring up China when talking about why we are there, and I don't think either administration looks at this pipeline as of such huge importance that we needed to invade a country over it. You would need a conspiracy of massive proportions to be over there for that reason and yet have the mainstream press completely oblivious.

[Woodrow]

Woodrow,

While the effects on China may be a (very) minor factor, I don't believe that they are a major factor by any means. I don't know anyone personally that would even bring up China when talking about why we are there, and I don't think either administration looks at this pipeline as of such huge importance that we needed to invade a country over it. You would need a conspiracy of massive proportions to be over there for that reason and yet have the mainstream press completely oblivious.

I have not seen any other logical reason for the US to be there. The US has no need for the minerals there, and it would have been much cheaper to have bought the mineral rights. the US does not make any profit from the mid east oil, it is the big 7 oil companies that make the profit. Stupid for the US to be spending all this money unless there is something desperately needed or will serve the US government. There is nothing needed, the only concern for the region I can see, is it's location as a route for China to get oil.

None of the Presidents involved have petitioned congress for war time powers to increase the number of troops he can deploy into combat. It appears all that is being done there is to keep the country disrupted.

Afghanistan is a very strategic region if China is going to get the Iraq and Iranian oil, it has contracted to buy.

China is now committed to many billions of dollars, just a few of the deals, and all of these require a pipeling through Afghanistan.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_387140.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov16.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021701117.html

http://www.payvand.com/news/09/jun/1031.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/wo...st/29iraq.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/08/...eal/index.html

http://www.iraqoilreport.com/oil/ira...ith-china-278/

http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News...28-195050.html

It is not in America's Best interest for China to get the oil, There are not many ways to stop them. The best way would be to turn the people in the area against China, second best way would be to keep the region in a state of war.

[titus]

I have not seen any other logical reason for the US to be there.

The Afghanistan government was harboring people that attacked the United States and killed thousands of people. They were allowing camps that were training people to coordinate and carry out further attacks. It would be illogical to not try to and stop this.

The fact that the president has not asked for wartime powers is not evidence that they are doing this to keep the country disrupted. In fact it would be a political bonanza for the president if he could claim victory and have a stable Afghanistan.

Not every war is based on economy.

[Woodrow]

The Afghanistan government was harboring people that attacked the United States and killed thousands of people. They were allowing camps that were training people to coordinate and carry out further attacks. It would be illogical to not try to and stop this.

Assuming that was all true. There should not have been any need for ground troops.

The fact that the president has not asked for wartime powers is not evidence that they are doing this to keep the country disrupops.ted. In fact it would be a political bonanza for the president if he could claim victory and have a stable Afghanistan.

Seems like the desire would have been to avoid another Vietnam. We should have learned from the Russians, that any conflict in Afghanistan would have to be fought and either won or lost within a month. If the fire power was not going to be used, it was a fool hardy to even go in.

There is no indication there was any intent for this to be anything except long term involvement and instability for Afghanistan. We went into Afghanistan in 2001. China signed the first oil leases with Iraq in 1997. Yet has not been able to fully access any oil. the only purpose being accomplished in keeping Afghanistan and Iraq unstable is all plans for pipelines can not be completed.

Not every war is based on economy.

True, but every war impacts the economy. Right now outside of Afghanistan and Iraq another country being affected is China, which is facing a serious oil crunch soon. china needs an economically means of getting the oil they bought.

[titus]

Assuming that was all true. There should not have been any need for ground troops.

The Taliban government was hostile and helping groups that were attacking the US. Surgical strikes would have done nothing, and neither would diplomacy.

Right now outside of Afghanistan and Iraq another country being affected is China, which is facing a serious oil crunch soon. china needs an economically means of getting the oil they bought.

The country being hurt the most economically by these wars is not China. Not even close.

It is the United States.

The United States has gone from having a budget surplus before these wars to having a budget deficit of over $1 trillion.

Trillion.

Do you really think that the US government is so afraid of China getting a pipeline that they willingly put their whole economy in the toilet and massively increased their national debt in order to do it?

If you want conspiracy theories then wouldn't it have been much much cheaper just to sabotage the pipeline every now and then with surgical strikes rather than start two wars as a cover?

[Woodrow]

The Taliban government was hostile and helping groups that were attacking the US. Surgical strikes would have done nothing, and neither would diplomacy.



The country being hurt the most economically by these wars is not China. Not even close.

It is the United States.

The United States has gone from having a budget surplus before these wars to having a budget deficit of over $1 trillion.

Trillion.

Do you really think that the US government is so afraid of China getting a pipeline that they willingly put their whole economy in the toilet and massively increased their national debt in order to do it?

If you want conspiracy theories then wouldn't it have been much much cheaper just to sabotage the pipeline every now and then with surgical strikes rather than start two wars as a cover?

Except after the pipeline is constructed, it would be Chinese property the surgical strikes would be directed against.

Rather than posting a bunch of links. Here is a blog with links to the sources I would be quoting from.

China has oil interests in Eurasia as well as in sub-Saharan Africa, which encroach upon Anglo-American oil interests.

What is at stake is the geopolitical control over the Eurasian corridor.

In March 1999, the U.S. Congress adopted the Silk Road Strategy Act, which defined America’s broad economic and strategic interests in a region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia. The Silk Road Strategy (SRS) outlines a framework for the development of America’s business empire along an extensive geographical corridor.

The successful implementation of the SRS requires the concurrent “militarization” of the entire Eurasian corridor as a means to securing control over extensive oil and gas reserves, as well as “protecting” pipeline routes and trading corridors. This militarization is largely directed against China, Russia and Iran.

Take a look at the maps above – then note how the army bases are in prime positions to protect the oil and gas pipelines.

That is what this ‘war’ is about.

The Afghanistan war is about securing the territory through which the oil and gas pipelines will have to pass through in order to ensure Russia, China and Iran are outmanouvered in the last great wars for the last of the global oil supplies on the planet.

Only yesterday the Independent reported that the Peak Oil process is even close than the ‘experts’ have been so far admitting.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...t-1766585.html

Source for blog: http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009...l-pipelines-2/

Regarding the national debt, It would be helpful to get China out of our hair.

What Nation do we owe the most money to?

HINT: http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

[VizierX]

The Afghanistan government was harboring people that attacked the United States and killed thousands of people. They were allowing camps that were training people to coordinate and carry out further attacks. It would be illogical to not try to and stop this.

And the US harbours war criminals like Dumbya and thousands of soldiers that have murdered scores of Muslims. What's your point? The Taliban were willing to negotiate to hand over Bin Laden and his associates. But the US started bombing them instead.