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

Classic strawman sour grapes.

Strawman. Not "most" of those posting on this topic, much less "most" of those posting on JREF. Many posters on JREF (myself included) feel the US had many options other than invading Iraq.


1) You continue to conflate the reasons for going to war in Afghanistan and the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

2) The second half of your sentence is a logical fallacy (Correlation does not Imply Causation).

Strawman.

Claim based on facts not in evidence.

You continue to conflate Iraq and Afghanistan. You do realize they are different countries, right?

Undecided?

Continued conflation.

Argument from Popularity.

OK, that's Iraq - so what about Afghanistan?

One thing I can see is your tap dancing argument between Iraq and Afghanistan. Two different wars, two different causes.

Which war? You keep changing.

Since your argument incorporates 9/11, it's certainly more appropriate in that forum than in with the Bigfoot and debates about creationism.

So it's our fault you can't provide a coherent POV or evidence/facts to support it?

Continued conflation as well as claim based on facts not in evidence.


The title of this thread is:

There was a conspiracy to mislead US citizens into war with Afghanistan and “IRAQ”!

This thread was about WHY the US had a desire and made plans to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan before 9/11 for geopolitical interests that dealt with energy, regional influence, Russia, Iran, and etc.

Despite that the Taliban government and the Iraqi government had nothing to do with 9/11 it was the most influential excuse used to justify the invasion of both. How we know this is from dozens of US military polls which showed that the majority of US troops believed the lies that the Taliban and/or Iraqi government were involved in the 9/11 attack.

Since we know that the Iraqi and Taliban governments are not Al Qaeda and were not involved in the 9/11 attack, (US officials insist the Taliban is not an enemy), the Idea of this thread was to discuss all the geopolitical interests/reasons that outweighed all the reasons NOT to invade and if the geopolitical reasons to invade are still worth continuing to shovel cash to both occupied countries and if the geopolitical reasons are worth still continuing to have a large and expensive private contractor/mercenary presence with the currently smaller US military presence or not.

Unfortunately such a discussion cant take place if no one on this thread can except that there were/are other strategic goals involving US geopolitical interests in the region such as surrounding Iran, energy, ending Russia's monopoly, and etc, other than OBL.
 
This thread was about WHY the US had a desire and made plans to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan before 9/11 for geopolitical interests that dealt with energy, regional influence, Russia, Iran, and etc.

I must have missed that bit. Where did you demonstrate that the US had a desire and plans to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?
 
This thread was about WHY the US had a desire and made plans to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan before 9/11 for geopolitical interests that dealt with energy, regional influence, Russia, Iran, and etc.

1. You have no proof a plan to invade Afghanistan
2. I'll bet the US has plans to invade Canada if necessary for geopolitical interests.

Your ideological diatribes are tolerable to a point--I guess as tolerable as those types of things can be to this moderate--but when you start trying to suggest that 9-11 was an inside job you loose my interest quick. You stop connecting dots to dots and start connecting dots to chickens and chickens to granite and then back to dots again.
 
1. You have no proof a plan to invade Afghanistan
2. I'll bet the US has plans to invade Canada if necessary for geopolitical interests.

Your ideological diatribes are tolerable to a point--I guess as tolerable as those types of things can be to this moderate--but when you start trying to suggest that 9-11 was an inside job you loose my interest quick. You stop connecting dots to dots and start connecting dots to chickens and chickens to granite and then back to dots again.


Do you have anything substantive to add to the thread?
 
I must have missed that bit. Where did you demonstrate that the US had a desire and plans to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?

I must have missed it too. Why on earth would anyone want to invade Afghanistan if it was not necessary? Contrary to the OP, the oil/natural gas reserves of the "stans" was already being exploited via pipelines routed west. As Pakistan had already learned, Afghanistan was/is too volatile for a pipeline and everyone understood that no foreign power could "occupy" the place (British and Soviet Union as recent examples). We sent nowhere near the number of troops that an "occupation" would have required, so I reckon that alone pretty much destroys the OP. So sounds like an [/thread] to me.
 
I'm sure there are many things that the Afghans do that goes against western sensibilities.

But just like westerners have learned to understand and negotiate with, for example, the Japanese and their unusual traditions, beliefs and codes of honor despite that they are in many cases thei opposite of what western traditions and beliefs are.

So the same understanding needs to be had when negotiate with the Afghans and other different cultures in the world.

A westerner cant decide that just because other cultures have different traditions, laws etc, that they should be KILLED, BOMBED, EXTERMINATED, and OCCUPIED for over a DECADE.

I guess you have a point here, but there were basic human rights that were denied to many Afghans.

Women for example. Even by Muslim standards the way women were treated was horrific.

:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women

Or the fact that Afghanistan was a breeding ground for terrorism and training camps. I mean, that's perfectly ok isn't it?
 
Last edited:
I must have missed that bit. Where did you demonstrate that the US had a desire and plans to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?

Here we go in circles again. Now you say that Bush did not want to oust the Taliban before 9/11 and then after reviewing the evidence you'll say that Bush did want to oust the Taliban but it was because of OBL despite that Bush repeatedly said he did not care about OBL and he had many available options to apprehend or kill OBL but decided to invade and occupy the grave yard of empires instead.

Talking about how crucial securing Afghanistan was when giving a speech to to oil and gas executives Cheney said;
"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as
suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian"

And when giving a speech about the graveyard of empires and if the US should invest in it Cheney said;
“The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is.”

Condoleezza Rice told the 9/11 commission that Bush okayed the plans that he had ordered to be drawn up for military operations in Afghanistan on September 4, 2001. A WEEK BEFORE 9/11!

May 2001: US Military Drafts Scenario for Afghan Operation http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0501kernan#a0501kernan

The man who was most influential in the plans to occupy Afghanistan was himself a former Unocal exec and was responsible for picking Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, as head of the interim government who subsequently was elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomed the first U.S. envoy—-Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—-also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq.)

Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia) passed on a message from Bush officials threatening military action against the Taliban. He later says,
“I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.”
[Guardian, 10/26/2001] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/26/afghanistan.terrorism4

Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik says he is told by senior American officials that military action to overthrow the Taliban is planned to
“take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.”
[BBC, 2001] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/22/afghanistan.september113

US Officials Threaten Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued.
[Source: Calcutta Telegraph] http://www.salon.com/2002/06/05/memo_11/

The Taliban can choose between “carpets of bombs”—-an invasion—-or “carpets of gold”—-the pipeline.
[Brisard and Dasquie, 2002] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560254149/centerforcoop-20 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/08/15/forbidden_truth/index_np.html

Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik contends that Tom Simons (former US Ambassador to Pakistan), made the “carpets” statement. Simons claims,
“It’s possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can’t resist the temptation to be mischievous.”
[Salon, 9/16/2002]

In a last ditch attempt to secure a pipeline deal the Director of Asian Affairs at the State Department, secretly meets the Taliban ambassador in Islamabad,. Around the same time, US embassy officials in Islamabad hold secret talks with Taliban security chief Hameed Rasoli.
[Washington Post, 10/29/2001] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...itics/feature/2002/02/08/forbidden/index.html

The US is working with India, Iran, and Russia “in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime.” India is supplying the Northern Alliance with military equipment, advisers, and helicopter technicians and both India and Russia are using bases in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan for their operation.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml

The Guardian reports in June 2001 that
“reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan exist by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/26/afghanistan.terrorism4

India Reacts -
American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JUNE 2001.
http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10&ctg=

In this article published in India in the summer of 2001 the Indian Government announces that it will support America's PLANNED military incursion into Afghanistan.
“Indian officials say that India will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.”

BBC -
American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.

US 'planned attack on Taliban'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm

“The wider objective was to oust the Taliban”

By the BBC's George Arney
“The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taliban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.”

In early August, a senior Taliban official in the defense ministry will tell journalist Hamid Mir that
“[W]e believe Americans are going to invade Afghanistan and they will do this before October 15, 2001, and justification for this would be either one of two options: Taliban got control of Afghanistan or a big major attack against American interests either inside America or elsewhere in the world.”

MSNBC Reports that President Bush went to sign detailed plans for military operations in Afghanistan two days BEFORE Sept. 11 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/ns/us_news-security/t/us-sought-attack-al-qaida/

Condoleezza Rice told the 9/11 commission that Bush okayed the plans that he had ordered to be drawn up for military operations in Afghanistan on September 4, 2001. A WEEK BEFORE 9/11!

General William Kernan, commander in chief of the Joint Forces Command, later mentions:
“The details of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan which fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, were largely taken from a scenario examined by Central Command in May 2001.”
[Agence France-Presse, 7/23/2002] http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0501kernan#a0501kernan

The US government officials admit that they have been working on TAPI since before 9/11 and they now say it should move forward on the basis of this past month's agreement. http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/12/tapi_pipeline_bigger_is_not_better

The money that the US has been shoveling into the TAPI pipeline is from the US TAX PAYERS.

“The US GOVERNMENT MADE financing from GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the US Export-Import Development Bank, available.” http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TAPI...sdadwal_020511

Since before 9/11 up to today the US has spent BILLIONS on securing the TAPI pipe line, not counting military expenditures on Operation Enduring Freedom.

And the US has just committed billions more to Afghanistan but I guess you simply think its all money spent just to insure the Taliban continue to NOT BE A US ENEMY and has nothing to do with any other geopolitical interests in the region.
 
The title of this thread is:

There was a conspiracy to mislead US citizens into war with Afghanistan and “IRAQ”!

This thread was about WHY the US had a desire and made plans to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan before 9/11 for geopolitical interests that dealt with energy, regional influence, Russia, Iran, and etc.

Which is why all of your "evidence" is about Iraq and none about Afghanistan?:confused:

Do you have anything substantive to add to the thread?
Other than the OP is wrong?

Here we go in circles again. Now you say that Bush did not want to oust the Taliban before 9/11
No, as has been explained here to you multiple times - there is ample evidence the administration wanted to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. Zero evidence the administration wanted to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11. A dozen posters have told you this. Why do you continue to ignore them?

...then after reviewing the evidence you'll say that Bush did want to oust the Taliban but it was because of OBL despite that Bush repeatedly said he did not care about OBL and he had many available options to apprehend or kill OBL but decided to invade and occupy the grave yard of empires instead.

It's interesting how you mix time-lines to better conform to your POV. Bush was very eager to kill or capture OBL. Or did you miss the whole "wanted dead or alive" thing? That's why we invaded and tried to knock out the Taliban. After Bush failed to kill/capture OBL (Tora Bora) and lost track of him, yes he began to minimize the previous importance of kill/capture. What else would you expect a politician to do after trying and failing to accomplish the thing he said he was going to do above all else?

Condoleezza Rice told the 9/11 commission that Bush okayed the plans that he had ordered to be drawn up for military operations in Afghanistan on September 4, 2001. A WEEK BEFORE 9/11!
As you've been told before here, every nation on the planet draws up invasion plans for every other nation on the planet. It's what the military does - prepare plans. The US has plans to invade Israel and Great Britain. So your point is...?

The man who was most influential in the plans to occupy Afghanistan was himself a former Unocal exec and was responsible for picking Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, as head of the interim government who subsequently was elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomed the first U.S. envoy—-Mr. John J. Maresc a, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—-also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq.)
Which proves, what exactly?

In this article published in India in the summer of 2001 the Indian Government announces that it will support America's PLANNED military incursion into Afghanistan.
Strangely enough, you neglected to post the entire in context quote. So why would you cherry pick?

India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime. Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan. Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban-controlled areas”
So when exactly did India and Iran help the US and Russia push the Taliban back to their 1998 position, 50km from Mazar-e-Sharief? Funny how the plan in no way resembles what actually happened in 2002. Funny how you edited your quote to avoid mentioning this fact.

In early August, a senior Taliban official in the defense ministry will tell journalist Hamid Mir that “[W]e believe Americans are going to invade Afghanistan and they will do this before October 15, 2001
Well debunked claim.

MSNBC Reports that President Bush went to sign detailed plans for military operations in Afghanistan two days BEFORE Sept. 11 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/ns/us_news-security/t/us-sought-attack-al-qaida/

Condoleezza Rice told the 9/11 commission that Bush okayed the plans that he had ordered to be drawn up for military operations in Afghanistan on September 4, 2001. A WEEK BEFORE 9/11!
All of your above links document unfinished plans to disrupt al Qaeda which were interrupted by the 9/11 attack. It's not like any of that was a secret. Clinton bombed them in 1998 in retaliation for the first WTC attack.

And the US has just committed billions more to Afghanistan but I guess you simply think its all money spent just to insure the Taliban continue to NOT BE A US ENEMY and has nothing to do with any other geopolitical interests in the region.
Begging the question. Out of curiosity, in the decade we've been involved in Afghanistan, how's that pipeline going? How's the price of gas? Why is every conspiracy seemingly run by inept stooges?
 
@Robrob
You seem to be mixing up the order and time line of events so I will simply walk you through them in the correct order.

In 6 easy steps I will demonstrate that there was motive to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban government BEFORE 9/11. And the individuals and corporations with motive to overthrow the Taliban had used their vast resources to influence and lobby congress to do so. Including many of the self-proclaimed neoconservatives who were members of PNAC (which desired world domination by securing strategic energy reserves) and were also influential members of the Bush administration serving in several key positions and whom also had made it clear their early desire to invade Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11. Therefore establishing both the political and cooperate will to secure Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11.

FIRST:
Bush ordered plans to be drawn up in May 2001 for the invasion of Afghanistan. The May 2001 plan to oust the Taliban called for military operations to begin in OCTOBER 2001 and was coordinated by Khalilzad who previously worked under Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz when he helped him write the controversial 1992 plan to control strategic energy reserves for US world domination and was a member of the neoconservative think tank “Project for the New American Century” which also called for the US to forcefully take control of strategic energy reserves in order to become THE world leader/empire.

Khalilzad who coordinated the May 2001 US invasion plans to oust the Taliban, (by beginning military operations in OCTOBER 2001), had previously pushed for the overthrow of the Taliban 2 years earlier with other members of Unocal after he conducted the risk analysis for Unocal (Union Oil Company of California) for the infamous proposed $2 billion, 1,500 kilometer-long Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan [TAP] gas pipeline.

Khalilzad the former Unocal exec, was responsible for picking Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, as head of the interim government who subsequently was elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomed the first U.S. envoy—-Mr. John J. Maresc a, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously, (with other members of Unocal including Khalilzad), to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—-also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad had since become Ambassador to Iraq which was phase TWO of securing the US’s geopolitical goals in the region which included surrounding Iran, ending Russia’s pipeline monopoly, establishing bases, and etc.)

Because of the vital importance of the TAPI pipeline, one of the first things the new Afghan/Unocal government did was sign the TAPI pipeline deal with Turkmenistan and Pakistan. But the TAPI plans have stalled along with the Afghan war do to the Taliban continually increasing its rate of inflicting US casualties while maintaining a strong resistance/insurgence in the key areas the pipeline must travel through thus making it, (like Afghanistan), impossible for the US to secure.

SECOND:
I have already posted a dozen news reports BEFORE 9/11 from around the world that were “ALL” accurately reporting in June 2001 that the US was preparing to launch military operations to oust the Taliban and that the US had even told other countries in June 2001 that the May 2001 plan for US military operations would begin in Afghanistan in OCTOBER 2001. Even according to Condoleezza Rice, testifying before the 9/11 commission, Bush AUTHORIZED ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 to begin the May 2001 plan for military operations “against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics.”

Some people on this thread have suggested that the reason Bush Authorized on SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 the May 2001 plan for military operations to begin in OCTOBER 2001 against the Taliban was to get OBL but I have shown evidence that Bush did not care about OBL BEFORE 9/11 when he approved on September 4, 2001 to begin military operations for the October 2001 attack “against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics.”

THIRD:
For example there was a huge rift between the Taliban and OBL and the Taliban desperately wanted to get rid of OBL. An e-mail from two leading Arab jihadists in Afghanistan to Bin Laden in July 1999, later found on a laptop previously belonging to al Qaeda in and purchased by the Wall Street Journal, referred to "problems between you and the Leader of the Faithful (Mullah Omar) " as a "crisis".

The e-mail, published in an article by Alan Cullison in the September 2004 issue of The Atlantic, said, "Talk about closing down the camps has spread." The al Qaeda jihadists feared the Taliban regime was going to "kick them out" of Afghanistan.

The Taliban was so fed up with OBL that they had a shootout with OBL’s bodyguards when they took OBL from his home in Kandahar and had him taken to an isolated house in the country while they attempted to get rid of him.

FOURTH:
The CIA station Chief Robert Grenier confirmed the Taliban offered to hand OBL over and Elmar Brok, a German member of the European Parliament, confirmed that he helped Kabir Mohabbat, (who also confirms Taliban tried to hand over OBL), make contact with the US government after the Taliban had arrested OBL. All three confirm that Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil told the US officials “You can have him (OBL) whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him.” But according to the German member of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok, and Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan a “political decision” was made by US officials not to except the Taliban offers.

CIA station Chief Robert Grenier, said about the meetings; “They were saying, ‘Do something to help us give him up.’… I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck.” The Taliban also proposed to hold bin Laden, who was at this time a prisoner, in one location long enough for the US to locate and kill him. According to Kabir Mohabbat and Elmar Brok the Taliban became so frustrated that they even offered to pay the US for the missile strike on Bin Laden. However, this offer was also refused by US officials. Despite that Clarke had been pushing for several months that the US use predator drones to collect data in Afghanistan and take out/kill OBL but Tenet said the only way the CIA will operate the predator drones was “over my dead body.”

FITH:
Because Tenet did not want to use drones and because he continually turned down missile strikes and the use of Special Forces and etc, to kill or apprehend OBL. Bush might have had no choice but to have the May 2001 plans drawn up, vetted and finally approved on 9-4-01 to begin military operations in OCTOBER 2001 against the Taliban. As Tenets refusal to use predator drones, missile strikes and etc, does explain why the Bush administration repeatedly denied the Taliban all of their many requests for the US to conduct a missile strike, special force op, or etc, (including their offer to pay for a missile strike), on the Taliban’s prisoner location of OBL and thus help remove what had become a major pain in the neck for the Taliban.

Either way there was a plan to oust the Taliban BEFORE 9/11 and that plan had been openly supported for years by many of the self-proclaimed neoconservatives serving in key positions of the Bush administration. Their reasons for invading and securing Afghanistan had to do with securing strategic geopolitical interests of the US in the region.

SIXTH:
The excuse used to suggest that Bush had authorized the invasion of Afghanistan a week before 9/11 because he wanted to apprehend OBL for the USS Cole attack has also been debunked. Do to the FACT that before 9/11 the CIA was illegally withholding crucial information from the USS Cole investigators and Rice and Tenet were saying before 9/11 that the USS Cole investigation was still ongoing and that there was currently NO evidence indicating that OBL had planned, ordered, or sanctioned the USS Cole attack. Yet according to Condoleezza Rice, testifying to the 9/11 commission, Bush authorized on September 4, 2001 the May 2001 plan for military operations “against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics.”.

But after a decade of trying unsuccessfully to oust the Taliban US officials now insist that the Taliban are not enemies of US interests, (TAPI pipeline), so therefore the US should/has included the Taliban in the negotiations and the US is desperately trying to pay off the Taliban, through its currently corrupt Afghan puppet government, by offering to pay the Taliban a share in dollars for every cubic foot of gas that goes through the TAPI pipeline so that the Taliban will help to secure the pipeline/Afghanistan instead of acting as an enemy of US interests/pipeline.
 
Last edited:
You seem to be equating "military action" with "full-scale invasion and occupation". This most blatant (as Robrob pointed out) in your use of a source that explicitly describes "limited military action" being planned against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The US, for example, certainly took "military action" against "leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics” targets in Libya. And, as I'm sure even you can tell, the US never actually invaded or occupied that country.
 
You seem to be equating "military action" with "full-scale invasion and occupation". This most blatant (as Robrob pointed out) in your use of a source that explicitly describes "limited military action" being planned against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The US, for example, certainly took "military action" against "leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics” targets in Libya. And, as I'm sure even you can tell, the US never actually invaded or occupied that country.

The "military action" as you call it was for the explicit goal of removing or ousting the Taliban government.
If the US could achieve that goal with no US troops, (like Libya) I'm sure they would have.

But clearly the US thought they had no choice but to occupy Afghanistan in order to secure it from the Taliban.

My point of this thread is to show that the US could have used much smaller less costly-in blood and treasure, light military operations like missile strikes or drone attacks or special force operations to accomplish the stated goals of the US. But the reason why the US tried to occupy Afghanistan for over a decade is because they wanted to secure it for OTHER geopolitical goals that required boots on the ground = occupation.
 
My point of this thread is to show that the US could have used much smaller less costly-in blood and treasure, light military operations like missile strikes or drone attacks or special force operations to accomplish the stated goals of the US. But the reason why the US tried to occupy Afghanistan for over a decade is because they wanted to secure it for OTHER geopolitical goals that required boots on the ground = occupation.

No, it's because they had just suffered the most devastating terrorist attack in the nation's history, and were completely uninterested in playing geopolitical chess with the Taliban regarding their sheltering and support of the perpetrator of said terrorist attack.
 
No, it's because they had just suffered the most devastating terrorist attack in the nation's history, and were completely uninterested in playing geopolitical chess with the Taliban regarding their sheltering and support of the perpetrator of said terrorist attack.

The US is desperately trying to pull out of Afghanistan is that because the US has succeeded in its goal of eliminating the Taliban who had NOTHING to do with 9/11?

Your claiming that the US occupied Afghanistan for over a decade only to finally insist that the Taliban are NOT the enemy of US interests and to defend/support their claims that the the Taliban are not enemies of US interests the US government officials bring up the fact that the Taliban did not get along with OBL.

But If the Taliban are NOT enemies of US interests, as is claimed by many US government officials who also bring up the fact that the Taliban had a terrible relations with OBL and wanted to get rid of him, why did the US occupy Afghanistan instead of just use missiles, drones, special forces and etc?

There was a huge rift between the Taliban and OBL and the Taliban desperately wanted to get rid of OBL. An e-mail from two leading Arab jihadists in Afghanistan to Bin Laden in July 1999, later found on a laptop previously belonging to al Qaeda in and purchased by the Wall Street Journal, referred to "problems between you and the Leader of the Faithful (Mullah Omar) " as a "crisis".

The e-mail, published in an article by Alan Cullison in the September 2004 issue of The Atlantic, said, "Talk about closing down the camps has spread." The al Qaeda jihadists feared the Taliban regime was going to "kick them out" of Afghanistan.

The Taliban was so fed up with OBL that they had a shootout with OBL’s bodyguards when they took OBL from his home in Kandahar and had him taken to an isolated house in the country while they attempted to get rid of him.

The CIA station Chief Robert Grenier confirmed the Taliban offered to hand OBL over and Elmar Brok, a German member of the European Parliament, confirmed that he helped Kabir Mohabbat, (who also confirms Taliban tried to hand over OBL), make contact with the US government after the Taliban had arrested OBL. All three confirm that Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil told the US officials “You can have him (OBL) whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him.” But according to the German member of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok, and Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan a “political decision” was made by US officials not to except the Taliban offers.

CIA station Chief Robert Grenier, said about the meetings; “They were saying, ‘Do something to help us give him up.’… I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck.” The Taliban also proposed to hold bin Laden, who was at this time a prisoner, in one location long enough for the US to locate and kill him. According to Kabir Mohabbat and Elmar Brok the Taliban became so frustrated that they even offered to pay the US for the missile strike on Bin Laden. However, this offer was also refused by US officials. Despite that Clarke had been pushing for several months that the US use predator drones to collect data in Afghanistan and take out/kill OBL but Tenet said the only way the CIA will operate the predator drones was “over my dead body.”
 
The US is desperately trying to pull out of Afghanistan is that because the US has succeeded in its goal of eliminating the Taliban who had NOTHING to do with 9/11?

No, the US is pulling out of Afghanistan because it's a) tired of 10 years of war, and b) governed by an entirely different set of people than the ones who started the war in the first place. US foreign policy desires and goals (and American popular opinion) have changed in the decade since the invasion.

This kind of thing happens (the people who escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War were not the same people who ended it, for instance), so I have no idea why you find this either surprising or in any way suspicious.
 
This kind of thing happens (the people who escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War were not the same people who ended it, for instance), so I have no idea why you find this either surprising or in any way suspicious.

I suspect because he finds even the most mundane and explainable things suspicious if they support his world view.
 
The US is desperately trying to pull out of Afghanistan is that because the US has succeeded in its goal of eliminating the Taliban who had NOTHING to do with 9/11?

Okay, what planet are you speaking to us from? The Taliban are anything but eliminated. If the goal was to eliminate the Taliban, then we failed miserably. The very fact that we did NOT send in the number of troops required to occupy the country effectively makes your OP moot. And to conclude the thread with such a blatant misrepresentation of reality is rather sad.
 
No, the US is pulling out of Afghanistan because it's a) tired of 10 years of war, and b) governed by an entirely different set of people than the ones who started the war in the first place. US foreign policy desires and goals (and American popular opinion) have changed in the decade since the invasion.

This kind of thing happens (the people who escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War were not the same people who ended it, for instance), so I have no idea why you find this either surprising or in any way suspicious.

Yes it's true that “US foreign policy desires and goals (and American popular opinion) have changed in the decade since the invasion.”

But try for a moment to assume that the Bush administration was not made up of a bunch of idiotic cowboys looking for a fight but instead was made up of many intelligent people who knew:

#1. That many in the Bush administration wanted to invade Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11.

#2. That they wanted to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11 and they knew if they invaded Afghanistan they were still going to put much of their resources (military) into invading Iraq.


#3. That they ALL were aware of the extreme risks and costs of TWO wars.

#4. That they ALL were aware of the risk and costs of invading the graveyard of empires to occupy and secure it from the Taliban.

#5. Yet despite all the above they, (Bush admin), thought that the possibility of success in eliminating the Taliban was worth all the risks, blood and treasure.

Now let’s say that Bush succeeded in eliminating the Taliban what would make his success worth the risks, blood and treasure? Nothing! For even if Bush had succeeded in securing Afghanistan from the Taliban the costs in blood and treasure alone is not worth the elimination of the Taliban (or the US would stay).

But if there was more to be gained by the US securing Afghanistan from the Taliban like securing strategic US geopolitical interest in the region that makes it worth all the risks and costs in blood and treasure for now and into the future then I can understand why the Bush administration was willing to put so much at stake and risked invading the graveyard of empires.

The Bush admin were not a bunch of idiotic cowboys looking for a fight and neither were the self-proclaimed neocons. The Bush admin knew ALL the risks yet they STILL decided that eliminating the Taliban was going to be worth the enormous risks and costs. How do you explain that?

For even if Bush had succeeded in securing Afghanistan from the Taliban the costs in blood and treasure alone is not worth the elimination of the Taliban (or the US would stay).
 
Okay, what planet are you speaking to us from? The Taliban are anything but eliminated. If the goal was to eliminate the Taliban, then we failed miserably. The very fact that we did NOT send in the number of troops required to occupy the country effectively makes your OP moot. And to conclude the thread with such a blatant misrepresentation of reality is rather sad.

My point is that the Taliban are STRONGER than they were before the US invaded and the Taliban now control more of Afghanistan than they did before the US invaded despite that the stated goal for the US military operations in Afghanistan was, (since the May 2001 plan), TO OUST THE TALIBAN GOVERNMENT.

It was even widely reported by a dozen news reports from around the world that back in JUNE 2001 the US told other countries it was going to begin military operations in OCTOBER 2001 to eliminate the Taliban.

But now US government officials are saying the Taliban are NOT the enemy. So if the Taliban are not the enemy of the US why did the US want to oust the Taliban BEFORE 9/11?
 
Last edited:
The "military action" as you call it was for the explicit goal of removing or ousting the Taliban government.
Not according to the previously posted link:

"India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime. Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan. Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban-controlled areas”
And you still haven't explained how this above scenario in any way resembles the actions taken in 2002+

If the US could achieve that goal with no US troops, (like Libya) I'm sure they would have.
Argument from ignorance. Did you not read the part stating, "if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime?"

But clearly the US thought they had no choice but to occupy Afghanistan in order to secure it from the Taliban.
Facts not in evidence.

My point of this thread is to show that the US could have used much smaller less costly-in blood and treasure, light military operations like missile strikes or drone attacks or special force operations to accomplish the stated goals of the US. But the reason why the US tried to occupy Afghanistan for over a decade is because they wanted to secure it for OTHER geopolitical goals that required boots on the ground = occupation.
Out of curiosity, what sort of background do you have in military, economic or international relations?

For example there was a huge rift between the Taliban and OBL and the Taliban desperately wanted to get rid of OBL.
Hyperbole presented as fact.

Because Tenet did not want to use drones and because he continually turned down missile strikes and the use of Special Forces and etc, to kill or apprehend OBL. Bush might have had no choice but to have the May 2001 plans drawn up...
Of course you conveniently ignore the reasons given for not using them - incomplete intelligence and the danger of civilian casualties.

Either way there was a plan to oust the Taliban BEFORE 9/11
No, there was a "plan" if the economic sanctions didn't work to take military action and push the Taliban back to their original lines. Or did you not read your own link?

The US is desperately trying to pull out of Afghanistan is that because the US has succeeded in its goal of eliminating the Taliban who had NOTHING to do with 9/11?
1) Strawman. The goal has never been "eliminating the Taliban." The goal has always been driving al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and depriving them of a terrorist safe haven. You remember al Qaeda, the ones who staged 9/11?

Your claiming that the US occupied Afghanistan for over a decade only to finally insist that the Taliban are NOT the enemy of US interests and to defend/support their claims that the the Taliban are not enemies of US interests the US government officials bring up the fact that the Taliban did not get along with OBL.
Please feel free to show where anyone here has claimed the Taliban are not the enemy of US interests?

That many in theBush administration wanted to invade Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11.
Fantasy presented as fact.

My point is that the Taliban are STRONGER than they were before the US invaded and the Taliban now control more of Afghanistan than they did before the US invaded despite that the stated goal for the US military operations in Afghanistan was, (since the May 2001 plan), TO OUST THE TALIBAN GOVERNMENT.
Stronger and control more of Afghanistan than WHEN THEY WERE THE GOVERNMENT AND OWNED THE ENTIRE COUNTRY?!?!

:jaw-dropp
 

Back
Top Bottom