Can someone remind me, why are 'we' in Afghanistan?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Can someone remind me, why are 'we' in Afghanistan?

Post by chrismb »

I seem to recall that there were 3 stated reasons for entering Afghanistan with military force; to get rid of the Taliban, to find Osama, and a third one I can't recall [..anyone?].

The first we appear to have failed, now that there are, variously, 'approved negotiations' with Taliban leaders - thus implying failure on the first point, the second is obviously not a winner, and the third....

So then we have changes... what are the current objectives, and when were those decided, and by whom?

I was taught [what I was told was] a NATO standard way of giving a brief, one part of which was to state the objectives to ensure you knew what the frik you were doing, and to be able to stop yourself going off doing something else.

If one's military has a way of doing things and you [as a civilian authority] agree to that method, but then change it all sometime down the road, then are you not, really, just asking for a bit of back-mouthing?

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by zapkitty »

Afghanistan was the only credible source of the 9/11 attacks that could be presented as a legitimate invasion target to the public... at least the only one that wasn't a big-oil "ally" named Saudi Arabia...

Basically no one wants to admit the situation is screwed up beyond repair and our troops are going to leave a hell of a ,mess behind instead of returning as liberating heroes.

But Bush et al were already concentrating on lying our collective asses into Iraq even as we ramped up for Afghanistan and the corporate footstools of the oligarchs were already reeling in their promised multibillion dollar no-bid contracts right and left ... so any faint chance to make actual improvements in the lives of the Afghan people was left in the dust.

The Afghan people were under religious theocrats and warlords and then they were invaded and their infrastructure smashed as they were occupied by Western wannabe-theocrats and carpetbaggers who paid off the warlords and the druglords... and now as the Western carpetbaggers and wannabe-theocrats fight to stay on despite agreements to the contrary the Afghani face a future under native theocratic drug warlords...

Heckuva job...

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

zapkitty wrote:Afghanistan was the only credible source of the 9/11 attacks that could be presented as a legitimate invasion target to the public... at least the only one that wasn't a big-oil "ally" named Saudi Arabia...

Basically no one wants to admit the situation is screwed up beyond repair and our troops are going to leave a hell of a ,mess behind instead of returning as liberating heroes.

But Bush et al were already concentrating on lying our collective asses into Iraq even as we ramped up for Afghanistan and the corporate footstools of the oligarchs were already reeling in their promised multibillion dollar no-bid contracts right and left ... so any faint chance to make actual improvements in the lives of the Afghan people was left in the dust.


What exactly was Bush et al lying about? I certainly recall hearing no lies, and I paid far more attention to this issue than most people did. This "Bush LIed, People Died" is a slogan from the kook fringe. Repeating it just aids in the propaganda efforts of the vilest people in America.

zapkitty wrote: The Afghan people were under religious theocrats and warlords and then they were invaded and their infrastructure smashed as they were occupied by Western wannabe-theocrats and carpetbaggers who paid off the warlords and the druglords

Really? What Western Theocrats and Carpetbaggers? Last I heard the unstructured country left behind after the Russian Invasion (thank you Jimmy Carter) was taken advantage of by home grown Theocrats and Saudi Wahabist jihadists. Who were these "Western" Theocrats and Carpetbaggers that i've never heard of? ( You are aware that "Western" Theocracy would be some form of Christianity? )

zapkitty wrote: ... and now as the Western carpetbaggers and wannabe-theocrats fight to stay on despite agreements to the contrary the Afghani face a future under native theocratic drug warlords...

Heckuva job...

History lessons must be really interesting where you come from. Did all of this take place on Planet "Hoth" in the Degoba system?

zapkitty
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:13 pm

Post by zapkitty »

If you didn't want to hear it then chances are you didn't happen to hear it. Humans are funny like that, including me... :)

This article talks about a study of a few samples of such deceptive statements. The referenced list is only an introduction to the subject, of course... there's much more detailed work that has been done:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Kitty, I always enjoy your posts but I have to say, noting 232 false statements made by many different people, all based upon a single false understanding about Saddam having WMD's; is nothing like a condemning observation. All the advanced intelligence agencies of that time agreed that Saddam still had such weapons and for all we know, they're still buried in the sand (like those fighters were.)

They were false statements but they were not intentionally false.

Makes a difference.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Under the current circumstances, I would say that this is severe thread drift, on the basis that it is exactly this kind of objective-drift that is the situation I am bemoaning.

9/11 may well have been driven by Afghani-related parties. Any such argument along those lines must therefore go on to show a) it was ONLY Afghani, and b) that the action would objectively 'fix' Afghanistan in a way that 9/11 would be prevented indefinitely hereafter. Again, both clearly are false, so the objectives you would derive from your comment would also be falsified.

C'mon,... if the civilian authorities cannot bring themselves to apply military logical objectives to the situation then we need to do it for them. If the military weren't bad-mouthing the civilian authorities, then they would be going down in my estimation of them! Could McCrystal not've saked Obama? :wink:

Post Reply