world

Karzai effectively handed 2nd term as Afghan president

63 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

63 Comments
Login to comment

Karzai's brother is the largest heroin trader in Afghanistan and on the CIA payroll. -but who cares. Whatever it takes to build this pipeline.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What pipeline? Please enlighten us with all your knowledge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Karzai's brother is the largest heroin trader in Afghanistan and on the CIA payroll. -but who cares. Whatever it takes to build this pipeline."

Anyone who has knowledge of a pipeline that somehow moves heroin (liquid heroin?) from Afghanistan needs to get the word out. Who built it?Or should I say who did bushco pay to build it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the Obama adninisration's efforts to decide whether to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan to battle the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies"

Lessee... send the troops in and defeat the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies, but look like warmongers... draw down our military presence in Afghanistan and let the Taliban and their al-Qaida allies take over, but look like the Nobel Peace Prize winner that I am...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, three posts in a row from people without a clue.

Regarding the pipeline, refer to the following links:

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipelines.htm http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/front.htm

Only a real dupe would claim that the Taliban has "been defeated." All they did was to scurry and lay low until they could regroup and figure out the most effective ways to attack their new enemy. Besides, a great percentage of the insurgency now fighing the Americans and NATO allies are non-Taliban Afghans who don't want any more foreign troops in their country.

It is a plain historical fact that the only stability Afghanistan has known in the past half-century, as sad as that is, came under the rule of the Taliban. Anyone who believes that the underlying U.S. motive is to bring a better life to the Afghan people is kidding themselves, and they are supporting the needless maiming and killing of Afghans and the western troops who now attempt to occupy the country.

The U.S. motive is to make Afghanistan a reliable partner for the interests seeking to have some control over the vast energy resources in the land-locked nations that lie to the north of the country. And by "reliable partner," that means a nation willing to take on the debt needed for the construction projects to bring that "better life" about.

The Afghan people are growing to hate Karzai and seeing him better for what he truly represents. Abdullah's decision to drop out of the election is a shrewd one in that it increases the controversy and attention on the corrupt Karzai regime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"All they did was scurry and stay low until..."

Until the Obama administration came to power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits, my brother, that was a great link. But it hasnt been updated in 7 tears. How much oil were bush and Cheney able to move out of Afghanistan?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But it hasnt been updated in 7 tears [sic].

Neither has Afghanistan.

How much oil were bush and Cheney able to move out of Afghanistan?

LOL! You actually believe that their failure to realize their plan means that the plan wasn't and isn't in place?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Until the Obama administration came to power.

So it appears that Bush didn't "defeat" them after all. (Just to those who dupe themselves into believing such tripe.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

[Besides, a great percentage of the insurgency now fighing the Americans and NATO allies are non-Taliban Afghans who don't want any more foreign troops in their country.]

Look who doesn't have a clue. Mr. Yabits doesn't. He quotes worldpress.org which looks like such an amateur site full of opinion and read like one. Actually Mr. Yabits from people I know that have served in Afghanistan it seems that you are wrong and it is actually the Taliban and non-Afghan muslim extremists that are fighting to take back control of the country so they can terrorize the general population into their form of sharia paradise where the jihadis of the future can train to attack the Great Satan. But your attempt to use such a low quality news site to back up your claims was fairly entertaining.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually Mr. Yabits from people I know that have served in Afghanistan it seems that you are wrong and it is actually the Taliban and non-Afghan muslim extremists that are fighting to take back control of the country...

The people you know who served in Afghanistan numbers less than 10. Among those people, probably not one knows the country or any of the many languages spoken there.

And yet, you try to present this flimsy base of support as some kind of trump card. Instead, it's a Joker.

Matthew Hoh, who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan as a Marine captain, and who resigned this week in protest as special envoy to Afghanistan, has received HUNDREDS of supportive emails from both U.S. military serving there as well as many from the Afghan community in the U.S., agreeing that the U.S. needs to leave there post-haste. Hoh understands the country; you and your buddies do not.

The Afghan situation is now a 35-year civil war among the Pashtuns, and the U.S. finds itself on the same side of that war as the Soviets. I am sure that you types are very entertained by the prospect of more Americans getting killed and mained for no good cause, other than recruiting more disillusioned young Afghans to the cause of the extremists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...conclusion : Karzai 2-term President of Afghanistan defeats indecisive first term President Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rort.Is this democracy then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What pipeline? Please enlighten us with all your knowledge.

oil pipeline dude, its why we went there in the first place. If you think we are there because of 9-11 then think again. Remember that the taliban were once funded by the US. Just like Karzai was handpicked to lead the new afganistan

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oil.html

just some info on the pipe lines.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey, diggerdog, there are some dupes out there who actually believe that Afghanistan's stategic location to oil and gas resources has nothing to do with why the United States is there. From your third link:

"The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war." That was 1998, and the civil war continues, with the United States now getting more and more embroiled in it.

This "election" is basically a sham and window-dressing. Karzai is now viewed as a willing stooge for western interests and his reign is certain to further inflame the forces against him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hasn't the US installed enough puppet dictators recently? I bet this one will turn on them just like Saddam.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't see any good news in this article. And nothing in the article talking about what this decision will really mean to Afghans.

The guy is stepping out of the election because he said no fair election is possible. This will be seen by his supporters as confirmation that Karzai is corrupt and that their votes are not being considered.

It is likely that this creates a whole new division in the already fractured fabric of the polical world there. And it will render Karzai's goverment incapable of achieving much.

A new election is really the only option. But first, something has to be done to render the Taliban to be less of an active threat. Time to work more closely with Pakistan and get the Taliban under control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A new election is really the only option. But first, something has to be done to render the Taliban to be less of an active threat.

The Taliban is not the greatest (and growing) threat to the Karzai regime. That threat is the insurgency growing out of the split among the Pashtun group. Afghanistan has never in its history been a unified country. Among the Pashtuns, there is a very small percentage of educated elite -- those who try to run the country today, and who the Soviets also installed to try to run it -- and a very large majority of non-educated rural dwellers. That civil war has been going on for over 30 years now, and attacking the Taliban is going to do absolutely nothing to quell it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh my god!! My apologies to yabits and diggerdog. They have shone the light on me and now I can see that the BBC has spoken in 2002 and told us that the pipeline will be built to get oil to India and Pakistan. Of course the Taliban and Insurgents are upset that they are not getting their fair share of stolen Turkmenistani oil. They should be concentrating on attacking India and Pakistan if not only for one fact. There was a US company involved according to this Bill Sardi revelation. That is why they were attacked. Because of this oil company conspiracy headed up by a US company!! And we all know what that means don't we? CIA!! I'd like to thank yabits and diggerdog on opening my eyes to these conspiracies and now I have been enlightened that this Karzai character is only a puppet until they realize their dream. Just one thing boys? How far along is that pipeline? Any recent articles you can throw my way?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits. True Afghans have never been truly united. But they have had periods where governments has successfully run things and kept the country going.

The key to Afghanistan is working with the rural people. Any government attempting to rule must do the following.

Provide security so that rural communities can get back to living and stop worrying about Taliban. The best way to do this is to empower local groups to manage security with tribal leaders as the heads of these efforts. This is the reality anyway but they need more economic support to do this.

Work with locals to bring in new ways for communities to support themselves. otherwise pay from Taliban or from drug lords will wipe out any government efforts. It is important that we remember that the locals do not like the Taliban or the drug lords. But they need their money and protection. This has to change.

We have to respect the local customs. Efforts to modernize these people will fail. Efforts to unify them with other groups will fail. Afghans only come together when the have a common foe. So make the Taliban their common foe. Then let them go back to their separate existences.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

The taliban don't exactly drop off someones back yard and are in Afghan right? They are locals too, right? So by suggesting local customs, it might be worth rethinking how you term lords, right? Or is this all about setting up standard lifestyling? Thank goodness rural Afghan are so strong for so long....I mean when talking about pipes being built from here in Japan, those dams that are real slow come to mind.....This article is interesting in how it presents the US and Karzai, but as everybody watching must realize, and can only possibly be concluded is, Abdullah is also righteous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I may be a real d*ck, but the taliban, dont exactly drop off someones back yard and are in Afghan right? They are locals too, right? So by suggesting local customs, it might be worth rethinking how you term lords, right? Or is this all about setting up standard lifestyling? Thank goodness rural Afghan are so strong for so long....I mean when talking about pipes being built from here in Japan, those dams that are real slow come to mind.....This article is interesting in how it presents the US and Karzai, but as everybody watching must realize, and can only possibly be concluded is, Abdullah is also righteous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why Obama is NOT comfortable with Karzai while Bush was. whether it is karzai or Abdullah2 , both have to be corrupt as is Zardari or any other leader whether in democrasy or dictatorship. But Obama should not have cancelled the first round without doing his homework with abdullah and Karzai and this shows the failure of US foreign policy establishment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

illsayit. You are incorrect about the Taliban. While there are local fighters working with them, mostly for pay, the vast majority of Taliban are from the refugee camps of Pakistan and not from rural Afghanistan.

This movement was formed in the Soviet era camps around Peshawar. Yes they have new followers but again and again they are found to be people who are pressed into service or paid to fight. The actual number of devoted Taliban is quite small. Thus the need to disuade people from joining.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

let me clarify. Most are Pashtun, but most were born in the camps and not at home in Afghanistan. That is a big reason why they have never been seen as a local movement by the general popuplation of Afghanistan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Provide security so that rural communities can get back to living and stop worrying about Taliban. The best way to do this is to empower local groups to manage security with tribal leaders as the heads of these efforts. This is the reality anyway but they need more economic support to do this.

There is no way you are going to force that to happen. The reality is this, according to Matthew Hoh:

In any region or district of the country, there are hundreds upon hundreds of isolated valleys, each with its own local customs and often local language, and perhaps most importantly, their own economy. When the representatives of the Kabul government move in to "provide security," they soon impose taxes on the local communities, which drains from their autonomy and economy. These local communities are not asking for "protection" from the Kabul government; it is being forced on them. The reaction of these independent village units towards the kind of intrusion into their affairs by a distant central government backed by foreign occupiers should be easy to grasp for Americans who know their own history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have to respect the local customs. Efforts to modernize these people will fail. Efforts to unify them with other groups will fail. Afghans only come together when the have a common foe. So make the Taliban their common foe.

How do you propose to "make the Taliban" the common foe of all of those isolated village-units -- who already perceive the common foe as being the Kabul government with their foreign backing?

It is too late to change that impression. And certainly no Kabul government representative or massive infusion of more foreign occupiers is going to change it. As one Afghan tribal leader told a writer for The Economist: The Americans can stay here for 50 years and they will accomplish nothing.

Does that sound like the kind of place you want to pour more money and lives into?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just one thing boys? How far along is that pipeline? Any recent articles you can throw my way?

It is rather obvious to anyone with more than a 3rd grade ability to read that the pipeline project is on hold until the country can be pacified enough to undertake it. Pacifying the country so that big infrastructure projects like the pipeline can be built is why the Americans are there.

What? You think we are there out of a special love for the Afghan people?

It is a pattern the U.S. has employed throughout the rest of the world. There is no reason why Afghanistan should be any different. Karzai is just a puppet put in place to help make it all happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it is rather obvious to anyone with more than a 3rd grade ability to read that the pipeline project is on hold until the country can be pacified enough to undertake it.

Good Jab Yabits!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pacifying the country so that big infrastructure projects like the pipeline can be built is why the Americans are there.

So the other countries involved are assured to get at least a cut? How does that work?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That Afghanistan pipeline project is starting to look like Iraq's WMD.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Implicit criticism of Bush, Sarge? I never thought I'd see the day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the other countries involved are assured to get at least a cut? How does that work?

It works like this: The "friendly" government of Afghanistan applies for a loan to the World Bank, IMF, or other US-backed institution to build the pipeline. Since the Afghans don't have the technical expertise to build or operate the project, the money will be transfered to the Bechtels and Halliburtons, et.al. The principle and interest payments for the loan will have to come from the Afghan people -- through whatever means their government devises to tax them to get it.

If the Afghan government falls short, as they almost certainly will, there will be other ways devised to "help" them return something: Support for military troops (to "protect" the pipeline), bases, intelligence, support for US-sponsored policies for the region, etc.

As the comment implies, the pipeline will transit Afghan territory and the Afghans themselves will get little if any "cut" of the gas. Since the pipeline is built primarily to support the former Soviet "-stans" through access to the growing market in India, the same wonderful "deal" applies to the "-stans" too. They will also line up for loans to fund the project, and pay for ongoing protection once it is built.

This is how the United States has dealt with South American and Middle Eastern nations for decades. Why should the U.S. change its usual M.O. for Afghanistan? A special love in the hearts of Americans for the Afghan people? Give me a break.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't understand why it should seem so difficult to believe or understand why the U.S. wants a permanent military presence in the region to protect its "interests." And one of those interests has been some leverage over the region's energy resources.

After all, members of the Bush administration were telling the American people that Iraqi oil, when it started to flow again, would underwrite the cost of the war to "liberate" Iraq. I believe that more than one Bush official touted the intent by saying that "the war would pay for itself."

For it to do that, there had to be plans in place to transfer Iraqi energy wealth to the coffers of the U.S. military-corporatocracy. Or maybe the ones here who are so dubious of the facts actually believe that the Iraqis would transfer wealth to the U.S. out of the goodness of their hearts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One only needs to have stamina for long enough and cheat openly until the political enervated opponents are giving up. And, hey presto, you have already achieved your goal and won the "election".

Long live the free and democratic Afghanistan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Afghanistan is to the Americans only springboard into the Central Asian states to implement their NWO in the framework of its Silk Road strategy, and establish itself as a hegemon. You cannot have a country, whose culture still lives in the Middle Ages, convert from today to tomorrow into a modern democracy. One has tried it once, with Japan from 1855. It took 100 years, three civil wars, three international wars (Korea, 1896, China 1898, Russia 1905) and two world wars to create it halfway - half because the yakuza has its say too. So even this example should warn.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You cannot have a country, whose culture still lives in the Middle Ages, convert from today to tomorrow into a modern democracy. One has tried it once, with Japan from 1855.

Good points. Japan in 1855 was a much more homogenous and unified society than Afghanistan is today. There were a great many within Japan at the time who wanted to absorb and understand the technology and ways of the West, and who had a strong desire to modernize their nation. Afghanistan is just nowhere near that level of development.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was a cowardily act for Abdullah to withdraw from the runoff election. UN watchdog would have been more careful to see if the runoff election was fair or not. They were never given that chance. And if the runoff election was rigged, I believe the UN watchdog will again void a lot of votes. And Kazai will than be forced to make more changes for maybe another runoff election. By withdrawing from the runoff election, we will never know. Abdullah's action was just unjustified and cowardily. Abdullah just delayed the democratic process of Afghanistan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow Yabits you are a true voice of the people. Look at how many nations oil has destroyed!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits: It works like this: The "friendly" government of Afghanistan applies for a loan to the World Bank, IMF, or other US-backed institution to build the pipeline. Since the Afghans don't have the technical expertise to build or operate the project, the money will be transfered to the Bechtels and Halliburtons, et.al. The principle and interest payments for the loan will have to come from the Afghan people -- through whatever means their government devises to tax them to get it.

I'll ask again...what do the other countries involved get? Do they get some kind of stake in the companies? Or they just buy stock like everyone else with the inside knowledge of this future pipeline as their payoff?

This is how the United States has dealt with South American and Middle Eastern nations for decades. Why should the U.S. change its usual M.O. for Afghanistan?

Ah, I see. You hate the business end of foreign dealings for resources. You're not talking about 9/11 or fighting the Taliban or Al Queda. You kind of went off on a tanget there, but I can forgive and forget. You can even respond to me with even more off-topic tangents if it makes you feel good to let it all out. I'm here to help.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll ask again...what do the other countries involved get?

A handful of the elites within those countries get very wealthy. The ordinary people get a load of debt and the results of any environmental impact the mining and drilling activites may have. The nation "accepts" an ongoing relationship in which they kowtow to U.S./Western government and corporate policy directives as to how to "develop" their country according to our image of how they should be.

Or they just buy stock like everyone else with the inside knowledge of this future pipeline as their payoff?

LOL!!!

Ah, I see. You hate the business end of foreign dealings for resources. You're not talking about 9/11 or fighting the Taliban or Al Queda.

Al Qaeda formed largely as a counter to the American-led efforts to increase western hegemony over the resources of the region. The 9/11 attacks were in response to U.S. troops being sent to the heart of Islam's most revered sites to protect oil from a former U.S. cohort, Saddam Hussein. The history of U.S. dealings with Saudi Arabia -- home of nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers -- follows the same M.O. previously described. The U.S. has propped up the corrupt and cruel Saudi regime for decades. Afghanistan is just another piece of that geopolitical strategic pie.

The business "dealings" are the reason that trumps all others for U.S. involvement there -- something only a very foolish, disingenuous, and/or ignorant person would attempt to characterize or brush aside is as tangential. (Readers who understand will excuse such people after having a good laugh.) Those "dealings" primarily involve the exchange of debt for resources AND acceptance of U.S. "friendship" in the form of military bases and support for corporations and policy directives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Al Qaeda formed largely as a counter to the American-led efforts to increase western hegemony over the resources of the region.

Of Course that was the reason! A radical view of Islam had nothing to do with it.

The 9/11 attacks were in response to U.S. troops being sent to the heart of Islam's most revered sites to protect oil from a former U.S. cohort, Saddam Hussein.

I thought it was a response for our support for Israel but you know better.

The history of U.S. dealings with Saudi Arabia -- home of nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers -- follows the same M.O. previously described.

We invaded Saudi Arabia?

The business "dealings" are the reason that trumps all others for U.S. involvement there -- something only a very foolish, disingenuous, and/or ignorant person would attempt to characterize or brush aside is as tangential.

Darn those Capitalist pigs!!!!!!!

Those "dealings" primarily involve the exchange of debt for resources AND acceptance of U.S. "friendship" in the form of military bases and support for corporations and policy directives.

American Imperialism gosh I hate my country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of Course that was the reason! A radical view of Islam had nothing to do with it.

The vision of an Islamic-based caliphate/empire to counter the empire which encroaches and spreads non-Islamic values is only "radical" to someone who has no respect or understanding of the history of the region. The U.S. vision of a democratic Middle East is far more out of touch with reality, i.e. "radical."

I thought it was a response for our support for Israel but you know better.

Well, you got the last half right at least. It was a response to the fact of the boots of tens of thousands of Zionist-supporting infidels treading in the vicinity of Mecca and Medina.

We invaded Saudi Arabia?

The new form of colonialism, practiced by the American corporatocracy since the end of WWII makes invasions necessary only in the event when local leaders will not play along. The Saudi royal family has always played along.

American Imperialism gosh I hate my country.

When you allow evil to be committed in your name, you must accept paying the price for that. The people who truly love their country are the ones who are willing to stand up and speak out on the evil that their own nation commits. People who have invested themselves in wrongdoing have to defend their postion, starting with denial of truth. This is just as true of the American supporters of their corporate miltary machine as it is of the supporters of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Al Qaeda formed largely as a counter to the American-led efforts to increase western hegemony over the resources of the region.

Garbage. Al Queda formed from a small movement to assist fighters against Russia in Afghanistan. Later it bloomed into global jihad. Al Queda isn't fighting to protect oil, they're fighting to make people submit to their brand of Islam. They are at war with everyone which is why the list of countries they've attacked is getting longer every day with the US becoming one of the least recent attacks.

The 9/11 attacks were in response to U.S. troops being sent to the heart of Islam's most revered sites to protect oil from a former U.S. cohort, Saddam Hussein.

Again, you're looking at the situation as if it's only the US va. Al Queda. It's not. Al Queda has killed people in dozens of countries that have nothing to do with the US. Your problem is that you can't get the US out of your scope so your points read as if Al Queda didn't just slaughter hundreds of Muslims over the last month.

The history of U.S. dealings with Saudi Arabia -- home of nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers -- follows the same M.O. previously described. The U.S. has propped up the corrupt and cruel Saudi regime for decades. Afghanistan is just another piece of that geopolitical strategic pie.

You said we were there because of an oil pipeline. 9/11 and other terrorist attacks planned and practiced in Afghanistan don't seem to appear anywhere on your radar. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

The business "dealings" are the reason that trumps all others for U.S. involvement there -- something only a very foolish, disingenuous, and/or ignorant person would attempt to characterize or brush aside is as tangential. (Readers who understand will excuse such people after having a good laugh.) Those "dealings" primarily involve the exchange of debt for resources AND acceptance of U.S. "friendship" in the form of military bases and support for corporations and policy directives.

Again, you said the only reason we were there was for the pipeline. I won't argue that the pipeline plans don't exist or it's something that they're working on, but you completely ignoring 9/11 as a cause for sending in troops is just absurd.

Until you're willing to take the blinders off and look at the global nature of Al Queda, what their future plans are, and who they've attacked, you're just swatting a fly with chopsticks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The vision of an Islamic-based caliphate/empire to counter the empire which encroaches and spreads non-Islamic values is only "radical" to someone who has no respect or understanding of the history of the region. The U.S. vision of a democratic Middle East is far more out of touch with reality, i.e. "radical."

There's a difference between people who want to see the US out of the Middle East and people who are willing to blow themselves up to do it. People who do the latter are indeed radicals. You shouldn't romanticize them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Al Queda formed from a small movement to assist fighters against Russia in Afghanistan. Later it bloomed into global jihad. Al Queda isn't fighting to protect oil, they're fighting to make people submit to their brand of Islam.

Baloney. The U.S./western presence, especially the desire for the molding of Islamic nations along western models so as to make them reliable partners for resource extraction is why the U.S. is there. Along with this molding comes influence and behaviors viewes as non-Islamic by certain strands of devout Moslems. Al Qaeda was formed to rid the Islamic world of non-Islamic influences.

The U.S. is now the primary enemy. Those who help the U.S. are seen as enemies as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You said we were there because of an oil pipeline. 9/11 and other terrorist attacks planned and practiced in Afghanistan don't seem to appear anywhere on your radar. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

Yes, you do not appear to understand. Prior to 9/11, the U.S. was hosting representatives of the Taliban in Texas (among other places) in an attempt to gain the go-ahead for the massive infrastructure project, which happened to be a gas pipeline. (Any large project requiring the leaders of a nation to put their country in debt would have worked nicely.) After 9/11, the main thrust of the military effort was not where those who attacked the U.S. were holed up (Afghanistan), but where greater and easier-to-get-at resources were located: Iraq. That is why the principle leaders of Al Qaeda are still running free after 8 years.

The primary reason for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan from the start has been to achieve the stability needed to gain leverage over the resources located in the region to the north of the country. (It is why we were supporting Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups against the Soviets during their occupation.) It is most certainly not about the defense of the United States or for promoting democracy. That is just window-dressing. Something to tell the families of the troops sacrificing themselves over there.

One of your problems appears to be that you think of history as isolated points of time, rather than as a continuum or process that flows in a logical sequence. It's why you keep throwing up the second attack on the WTC as though it should eclipse everything else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

s a difference between people who want to see the US out of the Middle East and people who are willing to blow themselves up to do it. People who do the latter are indeed radicals. You shouldn't romanticize them.

I can feel more respect for someone who is willing to sacrifice his own life for a cause than for someone who can blow away innocent Afghan people from an unmanned drone thousands of miles from harm's way and then go home to a nice dinner shortly after that. (Even Karzai had to protest loudly, since that makes his position as the U.S. buddy far less tenable to his own people.)

I know better than to romanticize either one of them. Both are deluded fools.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Until you're willing to take the blinders off and look at the global nature of Al Queda, what their future plans are, and who they've attacked, you're just swatting a fly with chopsticks.

The simple fact is that, with less than 3% of the world's population, the profligate U.S. lifestyle demands that we continue to consume 25% of the world's non-renewable energy. THAT is the way of life that Americans have chosen that compels us to act the way we do, and, as a result, to have created the enemies we have.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits, I congratulate you on your great intuition of the nasty nasty world order the US of A is trying to impose on the peoples of the world. So maybe oil hasn't made your 3rd world country rich and you feel left out thinking somehow America has caused you some debt. This is proof that they are evil and deserve to be at war with Al Quaida. Is AQ at war with all those other countries that have companies that are also contracting to take oil from these poor poor countries? And I must really congratulate you on taking the upside down ice-cream cone crown from Smitty as our most "intellectual" poster. I'm sure he's wishing ol George could be back in office so he might have a chance at winning that crown back.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits: Al Qaeda was formed to rid the Islamic world of non-Islamic influences. The U.S. is now the primary enemy. Those who help the U.S. are seen as enemies as well.

Everyone is seen as the enemy who does not follow Al Queda. The US could drop off the the map tomorrow and their war would not change. You're just looking for an excuse to validate them by describing their actions as a result of someone else's actions. The far left's, as Martin Luther King said, is that they pretend true evil doesn't exist.

Prior to 9/11, the U.S. was hosting representatives of the Taliban in Texas (among other places) in an attempt to gain the go-ahead for the massive infrastructure project, which happened to be a gas pipeline. (Any large project requiring the leaders of a nation to put their country in debt would have worked nicely.)

Are you talking about the meeting with Unocal? Last I checked Unocal doesn't represent the US government nor do they control the US military. Nor do they have a voice in deciding if other countries participate in conflicts in the Middle East.

The primary reason for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan from the start has been to achieve the stability needed to gain leverage over the resources located in the region to the north of the country.

The primary reason for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is 9/11. Without that there would be no U.S. involvement in Afghanistan just like on 9/10. You can talk about business deals that have happened as a result of the US going into Afghanistan since 9/11, but claiming that that was the purpose for the invasion is beyond belief.

(It is why we were supporting Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups against the Soviets during their occupation.)

The US did not support Al Queda during Afghanistan any more than we supported Al Queda after Saddam attacked Kuwait. Two separate entities sharing the same goal is a far cry from two entities working together and supporting each other.

I can feel more respect for someone who is willing to sacrifice his own life for a cause than for someone who can blow away innocent Afghan people from an unmanned drone thousands of miles from harm's way and then go home to a nice dinner shortly after that.

Here we go again... Are you on autopilot now? Obviously you'll only mention terrorists when you can compare them to the US. But my guess is that if the article were about the US killing innocents you wouldn't rush to remind everyone of what the Taliban does. You don't like it when a terrorist is called a terrorist. You need someone to else to blame or someone else to deflect criticism onto.

The simple fact is that, with less than 3% of the world's population, the profligate U.S. lifestyle demands that we continue to consume 25% of the world's non-renewable energy.

And the US also produces roughly the same amount of the world's GDP, and US consumer also drives the economic engine for the entire world.

Look, it's obvious you aren't here to have any kind of honest conversation about Al Queda or The Taliban. You just hate US business practices so Afghanistan is just a way for you to get on your soapbox and lecture others about "what's really happening." On one side you have the rich/evil US government, and on the other you have the poor locals who need a protector, and that would be Al Queda. It's a simple rich vs. poor debate to you and you want to feel good and sided with the poor even if they're terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everyone is seen as the enemy who does not follow Al Queda.

The vast majority of Moslems do not follow Al Qaeda. One would have to be crazy to believe that they are seen as enemies.

as Martin Luther King said, is that they pretend true evil doesn't exist.

True evil exists within everyone, and is closer to the surface among those who try to justify violence. One would have to be mentally deranged to believe that, by attempting to understand the motives for violence, one is justifying violence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

primary reason for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is 9/11. Without that there would be no U.S. involvement in Afghanistan just like on 9/10.

Well, that is just not very bright. The U.S. was involved in Afghanistan long before 9/11. You are conflating one brief military operation in 2001-2002 to represent the sum total of U.S. involvement. Not even close.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obviously you'll only mention terrorists when you can compare them to the US. But my guess is that if the article were about the US killing innocents you wouldn't rush to remind everyone of what the Taliban does. You don't like it when a terrorist is called a terrorist.

If we are going to call people "terrorist" who hold a few dozen people hostage or blow them up, what are we going to call people who hold entire nations hostage, and launch military actions against them -- killing and displacing hundreds and thousands -- at will?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The vast majority of Moslems do not follow Al Qaeda. One would have to be crazy to believe that they are seen as enemies.

I was talking about the situation from Al Queda's point of view. They don't care if you're American or not. They kill other Muslims, American, Europeans, Asians, Africans, anyone. But all of your posts point to the problem as exclusively America vs. Al Queda.

One would have to be mentally deranged to believe that, by attempting to understand the motives for violence, one is justifying violence.

And one would have to be naive to think that rushing in to "explain" the violence doesn't blur the lines with justification, especially if you refuse to condemn it. Again, when the US has collateral damage, do you only speak of understanding the motivation? Do you remind us of Al Queda's violence? Or is it a one-way street that always ends with indicting America and "explaining" the Taliban no matter who kills?

You are conflating one brief military operation in 2001-2002 to represent the sum total of U.S. involvement. Not even close.

And you're ignoring 9/11 entirely as a motivation for being in Afghanistan. Not even in the ballpark.

If we are going to call people "terrorist" who hold a few dozen people hostage or blow them up, what are we going to call people who hold entire nations hostage, and launch military actions against them -- killing and displacing hundreds and thousands -- at will?

Call them whatever you want. I really don't care. Just make sure you say how much you respect their power and be sure to say that they're a force to be reckoned with. Oh, and don't forget to explain their actions and refuse to condemn anything. And if someone else bring up the violence by said country, have some good examples of Taliban violence to force into the conversation so we can mute any criticism of the other party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And one would have to be naive to think that rushing in to "explain" the violence doesn't blur the lines with justification, especially if you refuse to condemn it. Again, when the US has collateral damage, do you only speak of understanding the motivation? Do you remind us of Al Queda's violence? Or is it a one-way street that always ends with indicting America and "explaining" the Taliban no matter who kills?

If you invade another person's country, as the U.S. has Afghanistan, especially when you are announcing it as a way to "keep the fight over there," it is far more understandable to me why people over there want to resort to violence to take the fight to you to defend their turf. On 9/11, the U.S. got a taste of the kind of treatment that we, through the past 60 years, have all too often dished out to others, both directly and through our proxies.

When you point a finger at someone else, you've got four more pointing right back at you. I can not endorse evil on either side. But I honestly perceive that the ledger of evil weighs far more heavily on my country's side. You appear to prefer to deny and whitewash the greater evil in your attempt to amplify the lesser acts of evil -- as heinous as those are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why not just cut to the chase and say those with power are always guilty and those without power are always victims? Obviously this is more about your own personal hangups about a class struggle than anything else.

You're not even making sense anymore. "Defending their turf"???? Sure, by burning down schools and cutting off the heads of girls. And that's all you have to say...? Defending their turf?

Jeeze, why not just get in there and join the fight yourself. Show those rich Americans a thing or two... Just think of how you could do you part to right the wrongs of the past 60 years with your Taliban brothers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why not just cut to the chase and say those with power are always guilty and those without power are always victims?

Because that would not be literally true. Power corrupts, and the greater the power the greater the corruption. Within Afghanistan, those without much power -- women especially -- are nearly always victims. Karzai's political position of authority has certainly not made him any less corrupt.

To imply that the United States, being the most powerful nation, is somehow too "superior" to be corrupted by its power is to fall prey to the kind of extreme folly that begets very great evil. Your attempt to brush it off as personal hangup only demonstrates how unaware you are. (A person who tries to justify violence committed by a superpower should not go around quoting from King.)

You're not even making sense anymore. "Defending their turf"???? Sure, by burning down schools and cutting off the heads of girls.

Such are the tactics employed against those who do not scare easily, deplorable as they are. Ultimately, it is a philosophy that is inspiring people to commit these acts -- and minds have been known to change. The greater evil arises when people start to act on the belief that someone else's mind can not change. Those who thirst after (or want to maintain) greater power especially in the guise of "security" are particularly subject to that bent.

We Americans have been shown a thing or two, or ten. We don't seem to learn, however, and send ourselves further down the tubes traveled by every empire that has crumbled in the past. If we truly did attempt to apply values that are more fitting with the Judeo-Christian values we often profess with our mouths, the philosophy of groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda would find very few takers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If we truly did attempt to apply values that are more fitting with the Judeo-Christian values we often profess with our mouths, the philosophy of groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda would find very few takers.

Blowing up and targeting innocent civilians on purpose is wrong......The Taliban and AL Queda do it on purpose and revel in it, they have taken to it they have taken pretty good Yabits don't you agree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Blowing up and targeting innocent civilians on purpose is wrong......The Taliban and AL Queda do it on purpose and revel in it, they have taken to it they have taken pretty good Yabits don't you agree

There is an awful lot of wrongdoing in the world today, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda represent a tiny fraction of it. I question the motives, morality, and wisdom of expending thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars to go after that tiny fraction. What is really stupid and immoral is blowing up the danger that those ragtag groups represent as though it were an existential threat to the United States.

Those groups' greatest threat comes from within themselves. All it takes is one person of influence to deviate from what some other person thinks is right and soon you've got a schism that tears the group apart. The only force that can really prevent that from happening and pull them together is giving them a common enemy.

In understand why those who have enriched themselves by the wars over there want this latest one to continue forever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Am I to understand that our drones firing missiles are only killing people that we've targeted? Since Obama administration there have been over 40 drone flights and the biggest majority killed were women and children. I personally think it's time to pack up and leave the country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

maybe we are ignoring the fact that america doesnt really want to wipe out AQ. Just look at all the things that they are blamed for and all the things that we can do by having them as a constant threat. AQ have become synonymous with terrorism and fear and are supposedly a constant threat to our freedom and world peace. When ever bush wanted to do something all he had to do was whip out the AQ and terrorism card. Just look at him talking before the iraq war, how many times did he mention AQ and terrorism even though AQ had nothing to do with iraq. AQ will never be stopped because it isnt in the USAs advantage to do so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites