Afghanistan Crisis

[GordonS]

There's a lot of guff here that would embarrass a student debating society.

Did the US spend $2 trillion, lose 2,500 soldiers and 4,000 contractors for one oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea which they don't control and which was never built? Or was it maybe, y'know, Al Qaeda killing 3,000 people on American soil in one day and bringing down two of New York's most iconic buildings.

It's a head-scratcher.

There's always the gas pipeline, but that doesn't really fit with the conspiracy theories because the Taliban were fine with that passing through their territory.

Surprised we've not had aViAtioN fUeL canT mElT sTeEl yet.

[GordonS]

24 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

..and live in a country that won't fight back. All very noble, wee man, but when you exclude Saudi and China from your crusade because, well, reasons, you undermine youself. 

This is one of the perennial shit takes.

"You can't do everything so you shouldn't do anything! I am very clever."

[Zetterlund]

Has there ever been a better example of "that aged well..."?

[The Moonster]

13 minutes ago, GordonS said:

There's a lot of guff here that would embarrass a student debating society.

Did the US spend $2 trillion, lose 2,500 soldiers and 4,000 contractors for one oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea which they don't control and which was never built? Or was it maybe, y'know, Al Qaeda killing 3,000 people on American soil in one day and bringing down two of New York's most iconic buildings.

It's a head-scratcher.

There's always the gas pipeline, but that doesn't really fit with the conspiracy theories because the Taliban were fine with that passing through their territory.

Surprised we've not had aViAtioN fUeL canT mElT sTeEl yet.

Sorry, do you genuinely think this all started with an out-the-blue attack on the Twin Towers, and our occupation of Afghanistan was to avenge that attack?

[GordonS]

6 minutes ago, Zetterlund said:

Has there ever been a better example of "that aged well..."?

It wasn't even good at the time. In fairness to Robert Fisk he wouldn't have written that silly headline. But this is the kind of thing that comes from assuming everything the Americans say and do is suspect - what Fisk dismisses here as the "Western embassy circuit in Khartoum" - so their enemies are probably goodies. 

[welshbairn]

8 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Sorry, do you genuinely think this all started with an out-the-blue attack on the Twin Towers, and our occupation of Afghanistan was to avenge that attack?

Pretty much. They would have probably tried to destroy Al Qaeda in Afghanistan anyway after the African embassy bombings and the attack on the US Navy ship, but they wouldn't have bothered occupying the country without it. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by welshbairn

[The Moonster]

Just now, welshbairn said:

Pretty much.

They just woke up one day and thought "we're going to steal some planes and fly them into US buildings" - nothing had happened before that to bring us to this situation?

[GordonS]

2 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Sorry, do you genuinely think this all started with an out-the-blue attack on the Twin Towers, and our occupation of Afghanistan was to avenge that attack?

9/11 was far from out-of-the-blue. It was the culmination of a long line of terror attacks on US and western targets, which were motivated in response to western intervention in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, Iraq... well, the entire Middle East, really. 

The invasion of Afghanistan was absolutely definitely a direct response to 9/11 and I can't take seriously anyone who claims otherwise. It wasn't just to "avenge that attack", as you put it, it was to stop Afghanistan being used as a base for international terror, which it's beyond question that it had been under the Taliban. It's pure denialism to claim otherwise. You have to take the evidence and then ignore everything that doesn't fit your pre-existing opinions to believe these things.

I wonder how many of the people who make those sorts of claims have adult memories of that time.

I don't subscribe to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Those who choose to believe in them usually do so because they think rejecting a mainstream narrative is a sign of intelligence. It's not, it's a sign of failing to weigh up evidence.

[GordonS]

1 minute ago, The Moonster said:

They just woke up one day and thought "we're going to steal some planes and fly them into US buildings" - nothing had happened before that to bring us to this situation?

That's not related to the actual question you asked.

[NotThePars]

There's a lot of guff here that would embarrass a student debating society.

This is cute given your histrionics about the “insult” to the families of 9/11 if we hadn’t invaded Afghanistan on the other thread.

[welshbairn]

The American government thought they had to show the folks back home some serious payback, not just as Dubya put it, "Firing a million dollar cruise missile through a tent in the desert and up a camel's ass." Afghanistan proved too easy with the Taliban just dispersing and going home for while, so to show how angry they were they invaded Iraq just for the hell of it, or at least used 9/11 as a bogus and convenient excuse to do what the neocons were itching for anyway. Meanwhile the Taliban quietly took back most of the country.

Edited August 18, 2021 by welshbairn

[101]

Government getting flack from all sides for being a lap dog, but the Prime Minister, Home Sec and Leader of the House have all pissed off for lunch. Leaving perm-a-shambles Rabb to rep the government.

[vikingTON]

13 hours ago, Jinky67 said:

I’ve found myself dragged into a few Facebook “debates” over this very point against my better judgement. A lot of people forget the fact or just aren’t aware that 9/11 meant NATO invoked article 5 meaning that an attack on any NATO member is essentially an attack on them all and as such they are obliged to assist the US in their response. That response was to go after AQ in Afghanistan which couldn’t be done without going to war with the Taliban. 

That simply underlines the complete stupidity of NATO, whose leaders believed that states could declare a conventional war on a terrorist group (then more broadly, 'Terror' itself). Article 5 was never invoked on behalf of any previous terrorist atrocity: whether in Turkey or the far left bombings in Italy. Doing so 'because America and 9/11' still did not justify regime change and the destruction of Afghanistan as a sovereign state as a credible policy outcome, en route to completing NATO's crusade against an abstract noun..

The organisation is a dangerous Cold War anachronism that should be wrapped up. 

[dirty dingus]

Lot of angry Tories in the debate, probably raging they didnae get a chance to make a skim out of Afghanistan before it fell.

[Left Back]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

That simply underlines the complete stupidity of NATO, whose leaders believed that states could declare a conventional war on a terrorist group (then more broadly, 'Terror' itself). Article 5 was never invoked on behalf of any previous terrorist atrocity: whether in Turkey or the far left bombings in Italy. Doing so 'because America and 9/11' still did not justify regime change and the destruction of Afghanistan as a sovereign state as a credible policy outcome, en route to completing NATO's crusade against an abstract noun..

The organisation is a dangerous Cold War anachronism that should be wrapped up. 

America didn't want to be seen to be stamping it's feet and policing the world on its own.

[101]

3 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

Lot of angry Tories in the debate, probably raging they didnae get a chance to make a skim out of Afghanistan before it fell.

I wonder if we could send Dido Harding over there to "help"

[WhiteRoseKillie]

36 minutes ago, GordonS said:

This is one of the perennial shit takes.

"You can't do everything so you shouldn't do anything! I am very clever."

Not wanting to lower the tone, here, but..

If that's what you took from that exchange, your comprehension skills need work.  I can maybe be persuaded that China is too big a nut to crack, but to advocate the permanent occupation of Afghanistan, as ad lib has, while ignoring the massive influence Saudi Arabia has (while enjoying favoured status in the West), cedes any moral high ground. Especially now we've inevitably moved on to usoing 9/11 as justification for, well, anything the Yanks (and, shamefully, the UK) feel like doing. 

[The Moonster]

13 minutes ago, GordonS said:

9/11 was far from out-of-the-blue. It was the culmination of a long line of terror attacks on US and western targets, which were motivated in response to western intervention in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, Iraq... well, the entire Middle East, really. 

That's fine, just the way things were being suggested was as if we'd just been innocently minding our own business and those crazy Afghans blew up New York. 

[vikingTON]

37 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The American government thought they had to show the folks back home some serious payback, not just as Dubya put it, "Firing a million dollar cruise missile through a tent in the desert and up a camel's ass." Afghanistan proved too easy with the Taliban just dispersing and going home for while, so to show how angry they were they invaded Iraq just for the hell of it, 

Readers should note the sleight of hand that goes on here and throughout much of the Western commentary.

The Taliban did not actually attack the United States. The state of Afghanistan also did not attack the United States. 

'Dispersing the Taliban' was easy. But the US didn't actually deliver payback to the leader of Al Qaeda - whose organisation did attack the United States - for nearly a full decade, in a compound under the nose of a different government. 

It is this sort of completely muddled thinking - fed to the public over twenty years - that leads to disastrous foreign policy outcomes. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by vikingTON

[Zetterlund]

9 minutes ago, virginton said:

That simply underlines the complete stupidity of NATO, whose leaders believed that states could declare a conventional war on a terrorist group (then more broadly, 'Terror' itself). Article 5 was never invoked on behalf of any previous terrorist atrocity: whether in Turkey or the far left bombings in Italy. Doing so 'because America and 9/11' still did not justify regime change and the destruction of Afghanistan as a sovereign state as a credible policy outcome, en route to completing NATO's crusade against an abstract noun..

The organisation is a dangerous Cold War anachronism that should be wrapped up. 

Yup, NATO is now nothing more than an arms lobbyist's dream, beating the war drums and siphoning public money into corporate bank accounts. Desperate times with no Red Scare.