[kEiThZ]

are you sure the Taliban were heavily courted by Western Oil Companies...

That does not mean they were sanctioned by governments. There is nothing stopping private companies from striking deals with any group. This is the same problem unfolding in Africa today where insurgent groups are fighting for control of oil resources in Sudan, Chad and Nigeria to name a few.

And all this is aside from the point that there is no oil in Afghanistan. A few shrill voices will argue about the TAPI line. Though, that is just as much a left field theory. Why would the west arm militants, then fight against the same militants, sacrifice thousands of lives all to pump oil to....India? Those who keep raising the Afghan war for oil theory never really clarify that point. What interest does the west have in non-existent Afghan oil to which the west would never really have access to anyway?

Sadly, this is the exact claptrap that makes reasoned and rational debate on how to help Afghanistan hard. How do you argue with conspiracy theorists whose arguments are based on irrational premises? How do you debate someone who is in not grounded in reality?

In this very thread you have urbandreamer who says we should do nothing since 9/11 was an inside job, and jade_lee who can't quite string together sensible sentences to argue what his/her viewpoint is (other than that we should not help the Afghans), and cuzzin_elias who thinks that the Afghans were better off under the Taliban.

 

[afransen]

For what? The lakes of oil in Afghanistan?

No, for the conveniently un-Russian route for oil/gas pipelines from the 'Stans.

 

[kEiThZ]

No, for the conveniently un-Russian route for oil/gas pipelines from the 'Stans.

Yes, the un-Russian route...to where? Take your pick of Afghanistan's neighbours....Iran, Pakistan and China. And two of those countries have direct borders with Central Asian 'stans. How exactly would that line benefit Shell or Exxon?

The only pipeline seriously under consideration is the TAPI. And that one cannot be built until the security situation seriously improves in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. And that would still bring oil from Central Asia to India....again no benefit to the West.

 

[afransen]

I thought it was more about weakening Russia's hold on petroleum transportation in general.

Forgive me my cynicism about US foreign policy. This century has proven that there are not many lows they won't stoop to in order to achieve even relatively small objectives (I'm thinking their many and illustrious misadventures in Central/South America).

 

[kEiThZ]

Fair enough. But it does not answer how a pipeline to Afghanistan would stick it to Russia. The BTC pipeline was a real threat to Russian economic power. Afghanistan would not achieve anything in that regard even if it were secure enough to build a pipeline through some of the most rugged terrain on Earth.

 

[lordmandeep]

argue what his/her viewpoint is (other than that we should not help the Afghans), and cuzzin_elias who thinks that the Afghans were better off under the Taliban.

I find it weird how people think we should love and like the world and when troubles comes they say "screw them."


Very hypocritical...

 

[cuzzin_elias]

Are you serious? You really think that the Afghans were better off under the Taliban? The same group that used soccer stadiums for public executions, banned women from working, and blew up millenia old statues and harboured Al Qaeda. The Afghans were better of with them instead of NATO???

By every standard by which you measure quality of life, it was better under the Taliban. Gunpoint Democracy never works, if the people of Afghanistan want to live under Sharia rule then it's their choice. It may seem brutal to you for murders & rapists to get executed in a football stadium, but that system worked for them, and it was one of the safest countries in the world under Taliban rule.

But hey to each his own. You prefer the Taliban, a Pakistani imposed theocracy for Afghanistan. I prefer to work towards helping the Afghans create a stable Central Asian democracy that might give them some peace and stability after 3 decades of conflict.

That's my point. You say you're helping give peace & stability, but this war has only achieved the opposite with no end in sight. Under the Taliban you had peace & stability after decades of war. So tell me what the real goal is? I doubt it has anything to do with democracy or Saudi Arabia would be next.

 

[kEiThZ]

By every standard by which you measure quality of life, it was better under the Taliban. Gunpoint Democracy never works, if the people of Afghanistan want to live under Sharia rule then it's their choice. It may seem brutal to you for murders & rapists to get executed in a football stadium, but that system worked for them, and it was one of the safest countries in the world under Taliban rule.

Show me your stats to prove this. Even aside from the fact that your assertion regarding QOL is simply untrue, saying that the Afghan people chose Sharia rule under the Taliban is particularly egregious. They never chose it. It was imposed on them by an ISI led cabal of Deobandi Islamists and warlords. Talk to any Afghan you know and they will tell you the exact same thing. As to their judicial practices. They were quite selective. I am absolutely appalled that you think the Taliban made Afghanistan one of the safest countries in the world....your ignorance shows by your comments. All that happened was that they got to terrorize people instead of the bandits. If you were a member of the Taliban, you were never condemned. None of them got stoned or shot for keeping young boys as 'company'. In fact, the practice was so widespread, that parents still routinely ask for Canadian military personnel to help get boys back. One of the Taliban's motivations for fighting is that they get to pick up lads from orphanages. Apparently, for you, these parents chose to have their sons used as sex slaves in the name of Islam.

That's my point. You say you're helping give peace & stability, but this war has only achieved the opposite with no end in sight. Under the Taliban you had peace & stability after decades of war. So tell me what the real goal is? I doubt it has anything to do with democracy or Saudi Arabia would be next.

I've already detailed this out....Read above in this thread. What should we have done after 9/11? Bombed the crap out of them? The west recognized that revenge was not the answer. Afghanistan needs a stable government so that it does not harbour terrorists again. Since the Taliban had no compulsion against harbouring terrorists the West removed them from power. Had they not given shelter to AQ, it's unlikely anybody would have bothered with them. Now NATO is helping set up a legitimate government that will bring governance to everyone not just a theocratic oligarchy that used the Koran as a convenient excuse for any and every action they wanted to commit.

We're not out to spread democracy around the world, but we certainly will not tolerate governments who decide to harbour those who wish to kill westerners by the thousands. In case you've forgotten, after 9/11 came Bali, London, Madrid and near misses on Germany and Scotland. Let's not forget the Taliban lovingly accepting the hijackers who committed murder on an Indian Airlines flight. The Taliban cast their lot with AQ and other thugs. They deserve their fate. We'll help a legitimate Afghan government setup a free and prosperous society that sees no need to harbour murderers.

Since you seem so sure of yourself....you tell me what you think the West's goals are in Afghanistan. And feel free to tell us what should have happened after 9/11...try not to skirt that latter question.

 

[Hydrogen]

No, for the conveniently un-Russian route for oil/gas pipelines from the 'Stans.

To where? Hardly any help to Western countries.

Afghanistan is a rough country for building a pipeline.

Forgive me my cynicism about US foreign policy.

What about the Russian policy for European dependency on Russian oil and gas? And all of this at a time when Europeans can't shut down their coal plants fast enough.

 

[cuzzin_elias]

Show me your stats to prove this. Even aside from the fact that your assertion regarding QOL is simply untrue, saying that the Afghan people chose Sharia rule under the Taliban is particularly egregious. They never chose it. It was imposed on them by an ISI led cabal of Deobandi Islamists and warlords. Talk to any Afghan you know and they will tell you the exact same thing.

http://www.rense.com/general19/kabul.htm

even their own president says its getting worse
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/af...rse-says-karzai/2007/08/06/1186252630711.html

I've already detailed this out....Read above in this thread. What should we have done after 9/11?

Nothing, 911 wasn't our problem, nor was it done by Afghans.

Now NATO is helping set up a legitimate government that will bring governance to everyone not just a theocratic oligarchy that used the Koran as a convenient excuse for any and every action they wanted to commit.

That's rich. Karzai has brought more corruption and nepotism to government than anyone before him. Opium production is at an all time high. Afghans are being tortured under his watch.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/24/afghan-karzai-drugs.html
http://www.dawn.com/2007/11/14/int13.htm

We're not out to spread democracy around the world, but we certainly will not tolerate governments who decide to harbour those who wish to kill westerners by the thousands.

No, you're out there to build an oil pipeline which the Taliban refused to allow. I know many simple neo cons can't see past these bush talking points of spreading democracy, but that argument fails on many points. When has america ever changed governments for humanitarian purposes?

In case you've forgotten, after 9/11 came Bali, London, Madrid and near misses on Germany and Scotland. Let's not forget the Taliban lovingly accepting the hijackers who committed murder on an Indian Airlines flight. The Taliban cast their lot with AQ and other thugs. They deserve their fate. We'll help a legitimate Afghan government setup a free and prosperous society that sees no need to harbour murderers.

Are you really that numb? Al Queda != Taliban. Do you really think dead broke, backward taliban mullahs were behind these bombings? Hezus Cristo this is like teaching algebra to a carrot.

And feel free to tell us what should have happened after 9/11...try not to skirt that latter question.

What should have happened after 911? America should have taken a hard look in the mirror and re-evaluated it's foreign policy.

You act like America is the only country in the world who has suffered a 'terrorist' attack. Did France attack any sovereign nation during the bombing campaigns of the 70s & 80s?

I suggest you read what America has done to nations like Panama, Ecuador and Indonesia to see how your great nation operates in 'spreading democracy'

 

[Hydrogen]

If you support a Taliban regime and everything they stand for, go live with them.

No, you're out there to build an oil pipeline...

To where?

Are you really that numb? Al Queda != Taliban. Do you really think dead broke, backward taliban mullahs were behind these bombings? Hezus Cristo this is like teaching algebra to a carrot.

The Taliban allowed AQ to set up in Afghanistan. They were well established there. Both have a philosophy that is quite similar in outlook. Does your hands-off attitude towards AQ and the Taliban suggest sympathy for them on your part?

 

[cuzzin_elias]

Typical juvenile neo con tactic: accuse others who disagree with you of supporting the enemy.

One thing that strikes me as incredibly bizarre -and continues to- is how we continue to throw large public celebrations while our troops are dying in Afghanistan. No one gives a shit here, not even the "support the troops" crowd. Life continues as normal. Keyboard warriors like keith & hydrogen, who've probably never fired a gun in their life, are gung-ho about sending other lives to their deaths to support some warped ideology of democracy. But if there were a draft these guys would be the first fleeing the country.

We've become so desensitized to sending troops to foreign countries and getting involved in wars, the peanut gallery round here don't care to stop their daily routines anymore for a period of self-reflection. As long as I get my triple Big Mac meal for lunch today and catch tonight's episode of Dancing With The Stars, and as long as I can take out a loan I can't afford so I can flaunt my artificial wealth at people with my new Benz, then that's all that really matters.

 

[kEiThZ]

http://www.rense.com/general19/kabul.htm

even their own president says its getting worse
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/af...rse-says-karzai/2007/08/06/1186252630711.html

I never said Afghanistan wasn't struggling. You said Afghanistan was better under the Taliban. You still haven't proven that. All your link shows is that Afghanistan has degraded in recent years...well past the invasion.

Nothing, 911 wasn't our problem, nor was it done by Afghans.

I never said 9/11 was done by Afghans. The Taliban harboured AQ who committed the 9/11 atrocities. You seem to have trouble understanding subtleties.

That's rich. Karzai has brought more corruption and nepotism to government than anyone before him. Opium production is at an all time high. Afghans are being tortured under his watch.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/07/24/afghan-karzai-drugs.html
http://www.dawn.com/2007/11/14/int13.htm

I agree that corruption is a problem. So what's the solution? Yours would be to abandon Afghanistan, let the government collapse, allow a return of the Taliban and throw the Afghan people under the bus. My preference is to work with them and help them to rehabilitate over time. Besides, find me a government without corruption. Even in Canada, in recent memory, we had various Liberal and Conservative scandals. Now imagine applying the same standard to Afghanistan where there are no advanced accounting, computer systems, etc and you are dealing with tribal power structures and customs, etc. It will take time.

As to the record opium crop...yes it's happened....in Taliban infested areas. The opium is fuelling their war with NATO. Perhaps you should talk to them about switching crops.

No, you're out there to build an oil pipeline which the Taliban refused to allow.

I'll bite. Oil pipeline to where? At best there's TAPI which would benefit India, not the west. So why would the west have gone to war with the Taliban over a pipeline through the most rugged terrain in the world, which in the end would not benefit any western country. Explain that to me.

I know many simple neo cons can't see past these bush talking points of spreading democracy, but that argument fails on many points.

I am not a neo con. I just believe in seeing a Canadian commitment to help the Afghan people through to the end.

When has america ever changed governments for humanitarian purposes?

You're right never for purely humanitarian purposes....perhaps Kosovo...but we do change governments when they start attacking us....Germany, Japan, Italy, Iraq, etc.

Are you really that numb? Al Queda != Taliban. Do you really think dead broke, backward taliban mullahs were behind these bombings?

I never said the Taliban did the 9/11 attacks. The provided a safe haven from which AQ could operate. Harbouring terrorists is something we in the west frown upon. Would you allow a murderer to live in your house?

Hezus Cristo this is like teaching algebra to a carrot.

You seem to have a strange obsession with teaching inanimate objects algebra.

What should have happened after 911? America should have taken a hard look in the mirror and re-evaluated it's foreign policy.

You act like America is the only country in the world who has suffered a 'terrorist' attack. Did France attack any sovereign nation during the bombing campaigns of the 70s & 80s?

There was that little affair of French counter-insurgency ops in Algeria....just preceeding that period. The also subverted many more civil rights of their own citizens in fighting terrorism. That's what made them so effective:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,176139,00.html

I suggest you read what America has done to nations like Panama, Ecuador and Indonesia to see how your great nation operates in 'spreading democracy'

They act in their self-interest, just like any other nation. And those weren't attempts to spread democracy. How is that different from the Soviets invading Afghanistan, the French fighting in Algeria, the Indonesians holding onto East Timor, etc? Every nation acts in its own self-interest. And indeed, Canadians get to be rather smug when we benefit from them. Who do you think protected us through the cold war?

The Americans help the mujahideen fight off a soviet invasion. Then when AQ sets up in Afghanistan and hits the US, it's all their fault for helping people who came asking for assistance?

Yes, I agree they should re-evaluate their foreign policy. The should stop the billions in foreign aid. They should withdraw their foces from the Middle East and Europe and let those places descend into chaos and anarchy. They should also cancel NORAD and force Canada to actually take responsibility and spend billions more for our own defence.

Typical juvenile neo con tactic: accuse others who disagree with you of supporting the enemy.

And typical of your type to accuse those who disagree with you of being a neo con

Keyboard warriors like keith & hydrogen, who've probably never fired a gun in their life, are gung-ho about sending other lives to their deaths to support some warped ideology of democracy.

As a serving CF Captain I have fired more than my fair share of guns. And no I am not gung ho about sending friends and comrades into combat. Every military officer does so with the gravest of reservations. But we lead our men into battle and put our lives on the line because we believe it is the right thing to do. And because we believe that serving our country, defending her interests and fulfilling the will of our nation is an honourable and noble thing to do.

You obviously would have no clue what that life entails....

But if there were a draft these guys would be the first fleeing the country.

I've signed up....what are you still doing on your couch?

We've become so desensitized to sending troops to foreign countries and getting involved in wars, the peanut gallery round here don't care to stop their daily routines anymore for a period of self-reflection.

I go to work every morning, dreading to hear the morning ops report, hoping everyone of those brave souls made it back from their patrols and that none of our strongpoints has taken casualties. You're the only one who is desensitized to conflict.

As long as I get my triple Big Mac meal for lunch today and catch tonight's episode of Dancing With The Stars, and as long as I can take out a loan I can't afford so I can flaunt my artificial wealth at people with my new Benz, then that's all that really matters.

Guys like me don't eat big macs and watch dancing with the stars. I prefer going for morning PT with my unit and sharing a beer at the mess with some real heros.....

 

[Brian69]

Looks like someone walked right into that response.


There is no justification for leaving alone the Taliban and their Al Qaeda friends simply because the alternative is a run of the mill corrupt Western-supporting regime.

"Yeah, Karzai is a bit of a crook but hey, those Taliban are all right--they got some kind of law and order policy that knocks Harper 's wimpy stuff all to hell, and they have cool friends as well who travel the world spreading their message."

No, I'll take the fox over the wolf any day of the week.

And if we leave Afghanistan alone to the Taliban/Al Qaeda we will leave Pakistan more destabilized than ever as long as training and attacks come from along the Afghan-Pakistan border. America's presence may be pissing off Pakistan but there is no indication the resulting vacuum from a lack of an American presence would be filled by an adequate military response from Pakistan.

And this doesn't even include actually raising the standard of living for the Afghan people as has been demonstrated in areas that are until firm control of the Coalition forces.

 

[cuzzin_elias]

What we're fighting for?

The TAPI has been on the drawing board since the mid-1990s, with a venture lef by Unocal who -along with Gazprom- withdrew due to regional instability. Could this be what we're fighting for?

India spreads its net for gas, any gas

Following the decision by Myanmar to supply gas to China, India is now making swift maneuvers to ensure that the US$1 billion Myanmar-Bangladesh-India (MBI) gas pipeline materializes. And significantly, India has virtually decided to join the US-backed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) pipeline, in part because of the geopolitical difficulties involved in the $7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline that Washington opposes.

Paradoxically, New Delhi has found an uncommon ally in Islamabad, which is pushing for India's involvement in the TAP as well as the IPI.

Gas on TAP

This month, Delhi for the first time took part as an observer in a meeting of the steering committee of the TAP project. Now it appears ready to sign on as a participant in the Washington-backed $3.5 billion gas pipeline as an alternative to the IPI.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had discussed the IPI proposal with Petroleum Minister Murli Deora and his Pakistani counterpart, Amanullah Khan Jadoon. Jadoon reiterated Islamabad's commitment to the IPI, despite US misgivings, and at the same time extended support for India's bid to join the TAP.

People are asleep, those impartial right wing media conglomerates that hydrogen and keith fantasize about should be front paging this and quizzing Bush and Cheney about both these wars being about energy and taxpayers money being wasted freeing up gas fields for India.......

The reasoning behind this is Bush and the Neo Cons are profit skimming with their stakeholdings in energy & mil contract companies...the energy supplies need not come to the US, these war criminals are only interested in making a buck for themselves and their backers!