Did the US conspire to start an Afghan War?

outtagetme

Hillary seems to think so:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31276.htm


Gotta LUVVIT!


So.....it's about "controlling" Central Asia......not spending trillions of dollars so that teenage girls don't have to wear a burkha.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

charlemont

I think they done it to control the Heroin trade..

Sterling Archer

Yes... Now move along, Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.

Torakx

And i suppose 9/11 was an inside job..pull the other one.

outtagetme

Torakx wrote: »

And i suppose 9/11 was an inside job..pull the other one.

Who cares? What came after was a conspiracy. Didn't "Condi" come on telly and call 911 an opportunity

Torakx

Sorry my post above was the most sarcastic,dryest comment ive made in years lol
I actually believe 9/11 was an inside job to create said opportunities.
I was more posting sarcastically for the opposition who are probably tired of arguing this CT

The 9/11 comment was my way of saying that what hillary is talking about is connected.

superluck

The Afghan war is nearing an end and despite what the CT'rs say, it has been a spectacular success.

The Taliban are removed from power, no longer able to terrorise local population. For the first time ever, people are able to partake in free elections.

Certainly, there was great loss of life but in the end, atleast the Afghan people now have a chance.

And last but not least, we got Bin Laden...now it's time to go after Kony.

Jonny7

superluck wrote: »

The Afghan war is nearing an end and despite what the CT'rs say, it has been a spectacular success.

The Taliban are removed from power, no longer able to terrorise local population. For the first time ever, people are able to partake in free elections.

Certainly, there was great loss of life but in the end, atleast the Afghan people now have a chance.

And last but not least, we got Bin Laden...now it's time to go after Kony.

Nope, any "peace" is very fragile, its sadly a mess to say the least. The suffering of the Afghans is far from over.

The Kony hipsters with guns club were about 10 years too late. Although some say better late than never I suppose.

Border-Rat

charlemont wrote: »

I think they done it to control the Heroin trade..

Afghanistan is also rich in cobalt, gold and lithium, as well as being a means of holding strategical leverage over Iran. Note that taking advantage of these depend on strategical control of Afghanistan first. Failing to do so risks destroying the US economy. Its a gamble, could reap huge benefits or go the opposite direction.

They lost.

Torakx

superluck wrote: »

The Afghan war is nearing an end and despite what the CT'rs say, it has been a spectacular success.

The Taliban are removed from power, no longer able to terrorise local population. For the first time ever, people are able to partake in free elections.

Certainly, there was great loss of life but in the end, atleast the Afghan people now have a chance.

And last but not least, we got Bin Laden...now it's time to go after Kony.

Let us be ealistic here.
If they were really just after Kony now,then they would have intervened many years ago.

I consider this same dynamic to be true with regards the afghan situation.
Fair enough the farmers are allowed to grow tons of poppies and in doing so make, im guessing an ok living supplying the worlds heroin etc.

But there are also victims on the other end of that.

golden lane

Border-Rat wrote: »

Afghanistan is also rich in cobalt, gold and lithium, as well as being a means of holding strategical leverage over Iran. Note that taking advantage of these depend on strategical control of Afghanistan first. Failing to do so risks destroying the US economy. Its a gamble, could reap huge benefits or go the opposite direction.

They lost.

the usa lost.....the day it decided that they should help the rest of the world..

they should have stuck to looking after number one............


they fed their future enemies..........and still do....

Border-Rat

golden lane wrote: »

the usa lost.....the day it decided that they should help the rest of the world..

they should have stuck to looking after number one............


they fed their future enemies..........and still do....

Help the rest of the world by having an outside intelligence agency (Mossad) assist in the murder of 3,000 civilians... to serve as an excuse to invade other Countries?

Odd definition of 'help' there...

Monty Burnz

superluck wrote: »

The Afghan war is nearing an end and despite what the CT'rs say, it has been a spectacular success.

The Taliban are removed from power, no longer able to terrorise local population. For the first time ever, people are able to partake in free elections.

Certainly, there was great loss of life but in the end, atleast the Afghan people now have a chance.

And last but not least, we got Bin Laden...now it's time to go after Kony.

Ah now, this is a ridiculous post, wrong on just about every point. The war has been a disaster, cost tens of billions and thousands of lives, has entrenched the view in the Islamic world that the US is out to get them, and has done little or nothing to improve the lives of the Afghan people or the 'security' of the US.

Hurray, they got Bin Laden - but the man was largely an irrelevance by now. I'm going to assume the Kony reference was a joke.

Jonny7

Border-Rat wrote: »

Help the rest of the world by having an outside intelligence agency (Mossad) assist in the murder of 3,000 civilians... to serve as an excuse to invade other Countries?

Odd definition of 'help' there...

OOkaaaayyy..

Putting the "theory" in "conspiracy "theory" there, care to explain who planned and executed this, dates, full details, etc?

eyescreamcone

Yes...by building the twin towers!

outtagetme

superluck wrote: »

The Afghan war is nearing an end and despite what the CT'rs say, it has been a spectacular success.

The Taliban are removed from power, no longer able to terrorise local population. For the first time ever, people are able to partake in free elections.

Certainly, there was great loss of life but in the end, atleast the Afghan people now have a chance.

And last but not least, we got Bin Laden...now it's time to go after Kony.

:pac::pac::pac:

If the Taliban are so "removed" from power then why are the US trying to hold talks with them? To ask them not to come back? Why are the US paying them not to attack supply convoys across the Khyber Pass? If it's such a success then why is 90% of the world's heroin now being harvested under the guidance of these "out of power" Taliban when it was eradicated under their rule? In fact how come the Taliban rule all of Afghanistan outside of Kabul similar to when the Soviets occupied the place?
Tell me, if I was to say to you in 2001 "we're going to spend over $1 trillion, kills tens of thousands of people, lose thousands of troops to death, dismemberment and insanity, we're going to take 15 years to do this all to oust a bunch of tribal mountain men on the other side of the world. And when we leave, there's no guarantee that they won't move back in and take over again, but it's worth a shot......what would you have said? "HELL YEAH! Sign me up!??

Because if that's your idea of a spectacular success, I'm itching to see your definition of total failure.

outtagetme

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ah now, this is a ridiculous post, wrong on just about every point. The war has been a disaster, cost tens of billions and thousands of lives, has entrenched the view in the Islamic world that the US is out to get them, and has done little or nothing to improve the lives of the Afghan people or the 'security' of the US.

Hurray, they got Bin Laden - but the man was largely an irrelevance by now. I'm going to assume the Kony reference was a joke.

I'm baffled to know why "improving" people's live is always trotted out. Why would the US want to improve people's lives? It makes ZERO sense. Why would you give a sh!t about people in other countries when you couldn't give a fcuk about them at home? Why is this "improve lives" gibberish even contemplated or entertained?

Jonny7

outtagetme wrote: »

I'm baffled to know why "improving" people's live is always trotted out. Why would the US want to improve people's lives? It makes ZERO sense. Why would you give a sh!t about people in other countries when you couldn't give a fcuk about them at home? Why is this "improve lives" gibberish even contemplated or entertained?

The same way the governments of Sweden or Scotland or Australia or almost any stable country cares about their citizens and the fate of people in other countries.

Why do you think that when a country like Iran has a serious earthquake the US gives aid and support?

I'm pretty jaded with career politicians and corruption, but in fairness a large amount of them just do their job and some to the very best of their ability. Considering human nature and history over the last few centuries quite a bit of progress has been made, not perfect, but slowly getting there.

superluck

It depends on what you define a success.

For me, it's about getting the bad guys and creating jobs in the process to do it.

You seem to think that $1 trillion was spent on nothing.
Many people received some of that money throughout the 10 years.

Don't forget, war is business which creates jobs and as long as you're not stuck in the middle of some drone bombing you or being shot at by US troops or mercenaries, why should you care?

At the end of the day, we got Bin Laden and now it's Africa time.

We need to invade the DRC to get Kony and also see an end to the bloodshed in Sudan, these are highest priority for Obama right now.

It's unstoppable.

Jonny7

outtagetme wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac:

If the Taliban are so "removed" from power then why are the US trying to hold talks with them?

Because the US are desperate and so are the Taliban, both for different reasons. Military progress is very limited.

If it's such a success then why is 90% of the world's heroin now being harvested under the guidance of these "out of power" Taliban when it was eradicated under their rule?

The mission isn't to fight a war on drugs, its a very different war.

When the US tries (tried) to shutdown the opiate production very bad things happened, the warlords, the locals, the farmers turned and this was creating huge difficulties. The US and NATO didn't really have any option but to hesitantly allow them to continue or turn a blind eye. For example Sunni militant groups in Iraq temporarily aligned with sworn enemies US forces to fight against Al Qaeda groups. Such is the nature and complexity of these conflicts.

RobbingBandit

I assumed it was a strategical back door into both Russia and the Middle East.
Also wasn't Bush a secret fan of chasing the dragon.

outtagetme

Jonny7 wrote: »

The same way the governments of Sweden or Scotland or Australia or almost any stable country cares about their citizens and the fate of people in other countries.

Why do you think that when a country like Iran has a serious earthquake the US gives aid and support?

I'm pretty jaded with career politicians and corruption, but in fairness a large amount of them just do their job and some to the very best of their ability. Considering human nature and history over the last few centuries quite a bit of progress has been made, not perfect, but slowly getting there.

So when was the last time that those in positions of power in Sweden or Scotland or Australia witheld funding from the populations of their countries in order to slaughter millions in another country under the guise of improving their lives?

You bring up natural disasters like earthquakes in Iran and the "oh so generous" purse strings of Washington. Why then does the US refuse medical aid offered free of charge to the victims of Katrina by Castro's legions of brilliantly trained doctors? Why does Washington refuse Chavez's free fuel to impoverished and freezing Americans?

And the 500,000 British C-ration packs delivered to New Orleans to sustain those who were starving? Could it be pride? Could shabby US offers of aid to stricken areas be an exercise in trying to look good or at least con the gullible into thinking that they mean well?

Nah! Course not.
It's like a guy who routinely beats his wife and then announces to all and sundry that he's a super fella cos he's donating a few quid to the Rape Crisis Centre.

Might fool you....but not me.

Altruistic? Don't make me laugh.

Jonny7

outtagetme wrote: »

So when was the last time that those in positions of power in Sweden or Scotland or Australia witheld funding

Sweden - Afghanistan
Scotland (Britain) - Afghanistan
Australia - Afghanistan

You bring up natural disasters like earthquakes in Iran and the "oh so generous" purse strings of Washington. Why then does the US refuse medical aid offered free of charge to the victims of Katrina by Castro's legions of brilliantly trained doctors? Why does Washington refuse Chavez's free fuel to impoverished and freezing Americans?

Because they decided not to. Bush wasn't exactly the most popular president and he handled Katrina very badly.

And the 500,000 British C-ration packs delivered to New Orleans to sustain those who were starving? Could it be pride? Could shabby US offers of aid to stricken areas be an exercise in trying to look good or at least con the gullible into thinking that they mean well?

It was aid for a natural disaster.

Monty Burnz

superluck wrote: »

It depends on what you define a success.

For me, it's about getting the bad guys and creating jobs in the process to do it.

You seem to think that $1 trillion was spent on nothing.
Many people received some of that money throughout the 10 years.

This again is hilarious. You think it makes sense to pile billions into making weapons to bomb mountain ranges and driving tanks around in circles? Why not just employ millions of people as public jugglers in the USA, if job creation is the strategy?

Seriously, I can't begin to explain to you how ludicrous your claim is in economic terms.

outtagetme

superluck wrote: »

It depends on what you define a success.

For me, it's about getting the bad guys and creating jobs in the process to do it.

You seem to think that $1 trillion was spent on nothing.
Many people received some of that money throughout the 10 years.

Don't forget, war is business which creates jobs and as long as you're not stuck in the middle of some drone bombing you or being shot at by US troops or mercenaries, why should you care?

At the end of the day, we got Bin Laden and now it's Africa time.

We need to invade the DRC to get Kony and also see an end to the bloodshed in Sudan, these are highest priority for Obama right now.

It's unstoppable.

"Now it's Africa time"

So what exactly is your problem with Africa that hasn't existed for the last 150 years? And why does that problem exist?
Your spew out cliches and slogans about Africa and just about any other place on the planet like you've overdosed on low-rent Hollywood movies and episodes of 24.
Are you going to go to fight these so called thugs or are you going to encourage your kids to sign up, march to Uganda or Kenya or Congo and save the world? I doubt it.
Easy to talk about fighting to the last drop of someone else's blood, isn't it?

outtagetme

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This again is hilarious. You think it makes sense to pile billions into making weapons to bomb mountain ranges and driving tanks around in circles? Why not just employ millions of people as public jugglers in the USA, if job creation is the strategy?

Seriously, I can't begin to explain to you how ludicrous your claim is in economic terms.

:pac:

Very good Monty!

Better still.....according to his logic it would be wise to inject polio and ebola into everyone to employ medics, hahaha.

outtagetme

Jonny7 wrote: »

Sweden - Afghanistan
Scotland (Britain) - Afghanistan
Australia - Afghanistan



Because they decided not to. Bush wasn't exactly the most popular president and he handled Katrina very badly.



It was aid for a natural disaster.

You brought up Scotland, not me. Now you're trying to deflect that the Brits are the ones who care.

As for Swedes and Andorrans and Samoans who went to Afghanistan, or rather did so because they were threatened that if they didn't they would suffer the consequences, I can't recall any of them bombing the sh!t out of people and telling their citizens that this was to keep Swedes or Cape Verde or Tonga citizens safe whilst helping Afghans or Iraqis. In fact in 2006 I believe there was ONE Dutch soldier in all of Iraq....ONE. Wandering around Baghdad just to keep another flag on the "coalition"


Regarding refusing aid....you said "because they decided not to". What kind of a statement is that? And then you bring up Bush and his unpopularity.....huh? I can't recall a day that went by when Bush wasn't bleating about helping Iraqis "map their destiny" or "struggle towards freedom" or Afghan women "not having to wear a fcuking burkha" (which incidentally they have been wearing long before the Taliban....in fact long before ISLAM), or people moving towards "democracy" or some other such crap.....yet the guy refuses aid for his own people?

Are you being serious now or just taking the urine?

SlyBacon93

superluck wrote: »

It depends on what you define a success.

For me, it's about getting the bad guys and creating jobs in the process to do it.

You seem to think that $1 trillion was spent on nothing.
Many people received some of that money throughout the 10 years.

Don't forget, war is business which creates jobs and as long as you're not stuck in the middle of some drone bombing you or being shot at by US troops or mercenaries, why should you care?

At the end of the day, we got Bin Laden and now it's Africa time.

We need to invade the DRC to get Kony and also see an end to the bloodshed in Sudan, these are highest priority for Obama right now.

It's unstoppable.

Is this guy serious?

Jonny7

outtagetme wrote: »

You brought up Scotland, not me. Now you're trying to deflect that the Brits are the ones who care.

The Scots took part.

As for Swedes and Andorrans and Samoans who went to Afghanistan, or rather did so because they were threatened that if they didn't they would suffer the consequences,

Who threatened them and with what consequences?

Did they get to each of the governments in Germany, France, Canada, Poland, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Belgium, Norway, Denmark? there are a dozen more. Involved in or were involved with multiple conflicts/humanitarian missions.

I can't recall any of them bombing the sh!t out of people and telling their citizens that this was to keep Swedes or Cape Verde or Tonga citizens safe whilst helping Afghans

Recall or not, it happened.

Regarding refusing aid....you said "because they decided not to". What kind of a statement is that? And then you bring up Bush and his unpopularity.....huh? I can't recall a day that went by when Bush wasn't bleating about helping Iraqis "map their destiny" or "struggle towards freedom" or Afghan women "not having to wear a fcuking burkha" (which incidentally they have been wearing long before the Taliban....in fact long before ISLAM), or people moving towards "democracy" or some other such crap.....yet the guy refuses aid for his own people?

Are you being serious now or just taking the urine?

You sound very familiar

outtagetme

Jonny7 wrote: »

The Scots took part.



Who threatened them and with what consequences?

Did they get to each of the governments in Germany, France, Canada, Poland, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Belgium, Norway, Denmark? there are a dozen more. Involved in or were involved with multiple conflicts/humanitarian missions.




Recall or not, it happened.



You sound very familiar

When?

Jonny7

outtagetme wrote: »

When?

Well 57 countries took part in "withholding funds from their people" to take part in Afghanistan. Shouldn't blame be spread?