There was a Conspiracy to mislead US citizens into war with Afghanistan and Iraq

[ConspiracyKiller]

I bet you have equally interesting views about the war in Vietnam.

I do believe that the Gulf of Tonkin incident which was false as now admitted by the US government was used to gain the peoples support for war in Vietnam.

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

It certainly makes more sense than thinking that the longest war in the history of the world’s currently GREATEST EMPIRE was solely (or even primarily) because of a pipeline that not only hasn't been built, but is having trouble getting funding more than a decade after the war's start, with no regard for any Geo-political interest or fall out.

Its never had trouble getting funding the US has said it is funding the project with taxpayer dollars.

Regarding OBL why didn't the US simply do the same thing it did in Pakistan, (where OBL was being harbored and protected), instead of entering into a costly decade long war that has disgraced the US and only angered the occupied afghans into fighting the US?

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

The Taliban harbored Al Qaeda.
Stop defending the Taliban for crying out loud. Its not as if they were/are really swell people anyway.

You still haven't answered my question though - why did you come back after a year and a half, and why are you just hammering the same argument that was destroyed back then? Is it because new people such as myself didn't get to do it back then?

By your logic the US should enter into a long and costly war with Pakistan for harboring and protecting OBL instead of doing what was less costly in both blood and treasure.

Cant you see that if the US invaded simply for the reasons you suggest then the US would have invaded Pakistan for the same reason. But there was nothing to gain in invading the country that was harboring and protecting OBL, (Pakistan), like there is/was in Afghanistan.

 

[NoahFence]

Tell you what.

Just send me a PM when any of your theories actually happen, so I can ignore the fluff between here and there.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Robrob]

Do you actually believe that the longest war in the history of the world’s currently GREATEST EMPIRE was to go after one man with no regard for any Geo-political interest or fall out?

Of course not. Since your description doesn't match the reasons why we are in Afghanistan, maybe you are thinking of different conflict?

I do believe that the Gulf of Tonkin incident which was false as now admitted by the US government was used to gain the peoples support for war in Vietnam.

This is what happens when you substitute conspiracy blog information for actual historical fact. On August 2, 1964 the USS Maddox engaged three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron. This is not debated. On August 4, 1964 the USS Maddox (and the USS Turner Joy) fired on what they thought were additional NV ships. Almost immediately, the US Navy realized their ships were shooting at nothing more than "ghosts" within hours of the second incident. Both incidents were used to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Regarding OBL why didn't the US simply do the same thing it did in Pakistan, (where OBL was being harbored and protected), instead of entering into a costly decade long war that has disgraced the US and only angered the occupied afghans into fighting the US?

Because we missed getting him at Tora Bora and didn't know where he was until 2011?

 

[A'isha]

Regarding OBL why didn't the US simply do the same thing it did in Pakistan, (where OBL was being harbored and protected), instead of entering into a costly decade long war that has disgraced the US and only angered the occupied afghans into fighting the US?

Because in Afghanistan, we didn't know where he was, and everyone knew the government there did know where he was (so that when we told them to turn him over, they had no excuses).

Neither of those things were the case regarding bin Laden and Pakistan, ten years later.

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

Because in Afghanistan, we didn't know where he was, and everyone knew the government there did know where he was (so that when we told them to turn him over, they had no excuses).

Neither of those things were the case regarding bin Laden and Pakistan, ten years later.

When you say no excuses do you mean like when all other governments ask for evidence, (the same evidence the UN security council asked for), to be presented before they extradite someone?

Especially if that person is considered by the Afghan people the great war hero who helped defeat the soviet empire and caused its eventual collapse do to going broke from such a long drawn out war.

Had the Taliban government not asked for evidence like all other governments do before extraditing someone, the Afghan people would have turned on them instead of supported them. Especially when OBL kept insisting he had nothing to do with 9/11.

Are you saying that the Taliban did not agree to hand him over when presented with evidence and then agreed to hand him over without evidence?

Also the US had several other options available but chose the most difficult and most costly method in both blood and treasure to arrest one single old man.

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

Of course not. Since your description doesn't match the reasons why we are in Afghanistan, maybe you are thinking of different conflict?

This is what happens when you substitute conspiracy blog information for actual historical fact. On August 2, 1964 the USS Maddox engaged three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron. This is not debated. On August 4, 1964 the USS Maddox (and the USS Turner Joy) fired on what they thought were additional NV ships. Almost immediately, the US Navy realized their ships were shooting at nothing more than "ghosts" within hours of the second incident. Both incidents were used to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Because we missed getting him at Tora Bora and didn't know where he was until 2011?

The first incident was justified warning in response to the US intentionally violating their water space and the second which was supposed to have happened in international waters, (Justifying a military response), did not happen at all.

It is not debated that the US was intentionally trying to aggravate them into a military response so as to start a war.

So once the US had found out that Pakistan had been giving intelligence support, logistical support, and even harboring OBL the US decided NOT to invade but to use less costly methods to deal with OBL and then give Pakistan billions for a pipeline.

There definitely seems to be a difference in handling and execution of same situation/mission in Pakistan compared to Afghanistan.

 

[A'isha]

There definitely seems to be a difference in handling and execution of same situation/mission in Pakistan compared to Afghanistan.

Yes.

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

Yes.

Does that mean the US is saying if you REALLY DO have WMD's the US will not invade you, even if your hrboring known terrorist, but if you don't have WMD's your basically toast and need to start licking US boots ASAP?

Isn't that hypocritical?

That should make everyone realize the only way to truly be safe from US invasion is to obtain WMD's.

 

[BStrong]

The first incident was justified warning in response to the US intentionally violating their water space and the second which was supposed to have happened in international waters, (Justifying a military response), did not happen at all.

It is not debated that the US was intentionally trying to aggravate them into a military response so as to start a war.

So once the US had found out that Pakistan had been giving intelligence support, logistical support, and even harboring OBL the US decided NOT to invade but to use less costly methods to deal with OBL and then give Pakistan billions for a pipeline.

There definitely seems to be a difference in handling and execution of same situation/mission in Pakistan compared to Afghanistan.

There sure was/is.

Afghanistan was a failed nation run by nutjobs.

Pakistan, for all it's faults, is a functioning nation.

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

There sure was/is.

Afghanistan was a failed nation run by nutjobs.

Pakistan, for all it's faults, is a functioning nation.

So if it was a failed nation why has the US been defeated and embarrassed so thoroughly by a few nutjobs who are out gunned and out numbered and who have to rely on outdated equipment?

According to the BBC, the report also describes “unprecedented interest” by Afghans, including members of the Afghan government, to join the victorious Taliban.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16821218

The U.S. military said in a secret report that the Taliban, backed by Pakistan, are set to retake control of Afghanistan after NATO-led forces withdraw, raising the prospect of a major failure of Western policy after a costly war…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2322130/

1. The Taliban survived the near-annihilation inflicted on it by the US in the immediate aftermath of 9/11;

2. Between 2005 and 2009 the Taliban increased in strength and capacity, despite an annual increase in American and later NATO troop strength;

3. After General Stanley McChrystal warned in 2009 that we were in danger of losing the war, we surged a combined 40,000 additional US and NATO troops, bringing the total number of uniformed ISAF personnel to more than 150,000;

4. Despite this surge of men and material, the Taliban weathered this storm also and somehow managed to continue increasing both in terms of number of attacks and numbers of casualties inflicted on NATO;

5. Taliban suspends peace talks with U.S.
“The problem with the talks is that the U.S. is talking from the position of a winner, but we are in the position of victors, so the U.S. should meet our demands.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...d-shut-up.html

6. “The Taliban also believe that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is in disarray and their hardliners want to take advantage of that by launching a new fighting season.” http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...html?nopager=1

7. The Taliban CURRENTLY has more of Afghanistan under their control than they did BEFORE the US invasion.

8. This is why the US is complying with all of the Taliban’s demands. No matter how you look at it the US has lost the war. So despite that Obama had already come to the conclusion that victory against the Taliban was not possible he knew that the surge could at least help the U.S. achieve it original goal in the geo-political energy war to secure the TAPI pipeline.

 

[BStrong]

So if it was a failed nation why has the US been defeated and embarrassed so thoroughly by a few nutjobs who are out gunned and out numbered and who have to rely on outdated equipment?

According to the BBC, the report also describes “unprecedented interest” by Afghans, including members of the Afghan government, to join the victorious Taliban.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16821218

The U.S. military said in a secret report that the Taliban, backed by Pakistan, are set to retake control of Afghanistan after NATO-led forces withdraw, raising the prospect of a major failure of Western policy after a costly war…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2322130/

1. The Taliban survived the near-annihilation inflicted on it by the US in the immediate aftermath of 9/11;

2. Between 2005 and 2009 the Taliban increased in strength and capacity, despite an annual increase in American and later NATO troop strength;

3. After General Stanley McChrystal warned in 2009 that we were in danger of losing the war, we surged a combined 40,000 additional US and NATO troops, bringing the total number of uniformed ISAF personnel to more than 150,000;

4. Despite this surge of men and material, the Taliban weathered this storm also and somehow managed to continue increasing both in terms of number of attacks and numbers of casualties inflicted on NATO;

5. Taliban suspends peace talks with U.S.
“The problem with the talks is that the U.S. is talking from the position of a winner, but we are in the position of victors, so the U.S. should meet our demands.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...d-shut-up.html

6. “The Taliban also believe that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is in disarray and their hardliners want to take advantage of that by launching a new fighting season.” http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...html?nopager=1

7. The Taliban CURRENTLY has more of Afghanistan under their control than they did BEFORE the US invasion.

8. This is why the US is complying with all of the Taliban’s demands. No matter how you look at it the US has lost the war. So despite that Obama had already come to the conclusion that victory against the Taliban was not possible he knew that the surge could at least help the U.S. achieve it original goal in the geo-political energy war to secure the TAPI pipeline.

Because coin warfare is the most difficult situation to deal with - the taliban lost their lease fast, pulled a fade into the valleys and mountains, and lived to fight another day. They're not stupid, they're fanatics.

PS - any details for your "defeat and embarrasment" assertion? The talis have the ability to attack at a place of their choice, but do not even begin to have the ability to force U.S./ NATO forces to withdraw or face annihilation, which the talis are absolutely subject to on their recieving end - they know that if they stand and fight, they die. Case closed. That's why their only option is to run the Afghan version of coin warfare.

ETA - Hey CK your links are fubar "Whatever it is you were looking for has been moved or never existed!"

ETA II - only the BBC link works. All others -0-

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

Because coin warfare is the most difficult situation to deal with - the taliban lost their lease fast, pulled a fade into the valleys and mountains, and lived to fight another day. They're not stupid, they're fanatics.

PS - any details for your "defeat and embarrasment" assertion? The talis have the ability to attack at a place of their choice, but do not even begin to have the ability to force U.S./ NATO forces to withdraw or face annihilation, which the talis are absolutely subject to on their recieving end - they know that if they stand and fight, they die. Case closed. That's why their only option is to run the Afghan version of coin warfare.

Finally, this is the point I have been talking about what would make the US decide to invade the graveyard of empires when it new that it would be an extremely expensive and bloody task? There were so many other methods available to the US that were much easier less costly and would have produced more information on the details regarding 9/11.

So who benefited from an invasion of Afghanistan, who was asking to invade before 9/11 and who was asking to invade after 9/11?

Obviously it was determined that taking the most difficult route = full scale invasion occupation was worth it. But to whom and why?

The only explanation for not using the many easier and less costly methods was because the invasion served other geo-political interest for the US to make it worth the unnecessary invasion.

 

[Reactor drone]

So if it was a failed nation why has the US been defeated and embarrassed so thoroughly by a few nutjobs who are out gunned and out numbered and who have to rely on outdated equipment?

...

1. The Taliban survived the near-annihilation inflicted on it by the US in the immediate aftermath of 9/11;

2. Between 2005 and 2009 the Taliban increased in strength and capacity, despite an annual increase in American and later NATO troop strength;

3. After General Stanley McChrystal warned in 2009 that we were in danger of losing the war, we surged a combined 40,000 additional US and NATO troops, bringing the total number of uniformed ISAF personnel to more than 150,000;

4. Despite this surge of men and material, the Taliban weathered this storm also and somehow managed to continue increasing both in terms of number of attacks and numbers of casualties inflicted on NATO;

5. Taliban suspends peace talks with U.S.
“The problem with the talks is that the U.S. is talking from the position of a winner, but we are in the position of victors, so the U.S. should meet our demands.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...d-shut-up.html

6. “The Taliban also believe that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is in disarray and their hardliners want to take advantage of that by launching a new fighting season.” http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...html?nopager=1

7. The Taliban CURRENTLY has more of Afghanistan under their control than they did BEFORE the US invasion.

8. This is why the US is complying with all of the Taliban’s demands. No matter how you look at it the US has lost the war. So despite that Obama had already come to the conclusion that victory against the Taliban was not possible he knew that the surge could at least help the U.S. achieve it original goal in the geo-political energy war to secure the TAPI pipeline.

So why, if the TAPI pipeline was a main objective, did they waste so much time and manpower invading Iraq when they could have just thrown all that effort into Afghanistan and accomplished their goals?

 

[BStrong]

Finally, this is the point I have been talking about what would make the US decide to invade the graveyard of empires when it new that it would be an extremely expensive and bloody task? There were so many other methods available to the US that were much easier less costly and would have produced more information on the details regarding 9/11.

So who benefited from an invasion of Afghanistan, who was asking to invade before 9/11 and who was asking to invade after 9/11?

Obviously it was determined that taking the most difficult route = full scale invasion occupation was worth it. But to whom and why?

The only explanation for not using the many easier and less costly methods was because the invasion served other geo-political interest for the US to make it worth the unnecessary invasion.

Are you inclined to answer my questions or are you going to continue to make assertions?

 

[bynmdsue]

Do you not think that if the US really wanted Afghanistan for a pipeline that they couldn't kill 90% of the population before sunrise tomorrow? Or are they not that evil? They seem to be showing an awful lot of restraint for imperialist forces. Why is that? Is it possible the mission and its causes are different than the pipe-dream you're floating?

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

Are you inclined to answer my questions or are you going to continue to make assertions?

Hey I'm going as fast as I can. I had to Google the links.

Thanks for the heads up on the links.

I fixed them for you and anyone else interested.

And added one that is a must read. I'll go back and fix them on the post to.

The U.S. military said in a secret report that the Taliban, backed by Pakistan, are set to retake control of Afghanistan after NATO-led forces withdraw, raising the prospect of a major failure of Western policy after a costly war… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/taliban-afghanistan-pakistan_n_1246234.html

5. Taliban suspends peace talks with U.S.
“The problem with the talks is that the U.S. is talking from the position of a winner, but we are in the position of victors, so the U.S. should meet our demands.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...i-and-taliban-to-u-s-go-away-and-shut-up.html

6. “The Taliban also believe that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is in disarray and their hardliners want to take advantage of that by launching a new fighting season.” http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-...al-afghan-security-forces-zabiullah-mujahid/3

An interesting observation that is difficult to explain: General Stanly McChrystal warned in the famously leaked 66-page report in September 2009 that we either surge more troops or we risked losing.


In order to understand what led General McChrystal in part to arrive at this stark conclusion, let’s look at the casualty rate comparing January-September 2008 to January-September 2009. What we discover is that in fact the total casualty rate jumped 48% from 2008 to 2009. When you look at the numbers making up that percentage increase, however, and compare it with the number of casualties we’ve suffered in the two years since, you discover that that the rate of US casualties have increased by 80%; http://armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

Do you not think that if the US really wanted Afghanistan for a pipeline that they couldn't kill 90% of the population before sunrise tomorrow? Or are they not that evil? They seem to be showing an awful lot of restraint for imperialist forces. Why is that? Is it possible the mission and its causes are different than the pipe-dream you're floating?

If the US is not interested in the pipeline, (for humanitarian reasons etc.), then why are tensions escalating between China, Russia, Iran and the US regarding the pipelines? All the big players are trying AT ALL COSTS to win the prize = the Turkmenistan gas and oil reserves.

China has also struck a one-on-one gas import deal with Turkmenistan, the price settled by the two countries is a telling factor in determining the cost that Pakistan would have to pay in the running of this project. Reports tell that China has agreed upon $7.7/mmbtu, which is quite expensive by any standards.

Russia has agreed to finance the Iranian-Pakistan-India, (IPI) pipeline and also agreed to finance the rehabilitation of Guddu and Muzaffargarh power plants. Pakistan is submitting a draft of the Russian agreement for financial and technical assistance for the IP pipeline though the Russian side already assured financial assistance for the pipeline. A Chinese bank is also offering money for the IPI in hopes to stop the US backed TAPI pipeline.

But the US has threatened sanctions against the IPI pipeline and has been aggressively trying to persuade China to withdraw its funding for the IPI while the US has been pushing the TAPI pipeline to drive Pakistan away from the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project as well as isolate Tehran. The US has also told Pakistan that IT WILL FINACE THE TAPI PIPELINE? http://tribune.com.pk/story/389966/o...eline-project/

 

[NoahFence]

Do you not think that if the US really wanted Afghanistan for a pipeline that they couldn't kill 90% of the population before sunrise tomorrow? Or are they not that evil? They seem to be showing an awful lot of restraint for imperialist forces. Why is that? Is it possible the mission and its causes are different than the pipe-dream you're floating?

And that's the funny part people like him ignore. If the US really wanted to decimate them, they easily could without a single boot on the ground, using only a single carrier group.