Taliban hosted Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda was created by Osama bin Laden, who was created by the Mujaheddin, who were supported by the U.S. to counter the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden's Family was rich, and Osama had an agenda/cause/money/and chip on his shoulder and created Al Qaeda.

Chickens roosting anyone?

Also is it only me or does anyone else think the West's support of the ousting of Musharraf in Pakistan was as bad a move as letting Diem get assasinated?

The sad thing about this is that the war in Afghanistan could have been won in a matter of months, if the talibans would have been taken seriously.
Back then US had all the cards in the hand. People all over the world supported them. At home the country was united and would have had no problem to send enough troops to do the job right.
They blew it all when they packed and went to Iraq without finishing the job.
The lack of action after the initial campaign, greatly increased taliban morale. That's why the insurgency got such a momentum. They realized US won't engage seriously.

quote:

Al Qaeda was created by Osama bin Laden, who was created by the Mujaheddin, who were supported by the U.S. to counter the Soviets.

This is a frequent claim but actually I believe that bin Laden had nothing to do with the US/CIA-trained and -funded pro-West mujaheddin, he was part of a more extremist anti-Soviet cabal that was funded by Arabs rather than the West. It's complicated though.

quote:

They blew it all when they packed and went to Iraq without finishing the job.

Yup.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaws2002:
The sad thing about this is that the war in Afghanistan could have been won in a matter of months, if the talibans would have been taken seriously.
Back then US had all the cards in the hand. People all over the world supported them. At home the country was united and would have had no problem to send enough troops to do the job right.
They blew it all when they packed and went to Iraq without finishing the job.
The lack of action after the initial campaign, greatly increased taliban morale. That's why the insurgency got such a momentum. They realized US won't engage seriously.

Afghanistan has always and I mean, always been an incredibly hard target to subdue. Just about everyone with a smattering of history know this... for hundreds of years. Going in `early` would`ve made little difference. The taliban were already prepped by the Soviet attempts. they were probably dying for another developed country to help unite and focus them again, and now they have it. I don`t think there was any fool proof way to conquer it save dropping a nuke on it and that is unthinkable.

IMHO, Bush and crew thought, `We have the tech, we can do it where others failed` rather than learn from history`s previous failed attempts.

As much as I hate to say it, you gotta hand it to the Taliban. They are incredibly stubborn, fierce and tough and against far superior forces too. You gotta hand it to them, to have lasted this long to multiple opponents over decades, whatever you think of them. An enemy to be respected.

quote:

Originally posted by fabianfred:
...and what did the teleban have to do with 9/11.....
and when is Bush going to be brought to justice for the 9/11 inside job?

That is just such pure unfiltered horse manure... That idiotic theory has been disproven on multiple fronts..

quote:

Originally posted by Jaws2002:
The sad thing about this is that the war in Afghanistan could have been won in a matter of months, if the talibans would have been taken seriously.
Back then US had all the cards in the hand. People all over the world supported them. At home the country was united and would have had no problem to send enough troops to do the job right.
They blew it all when they packed and went to Iraq without finishing the job.
The lack of action after the initial campaign, greatly increased taliban morale. That's why the insurgency got such a momentum. They realized US won't engage seriously.

That is one of my biggest beefs with the previous administration... and it really kills me because when it was done so many people were actually cheering the decision.. many of those same people find no good whatsoever with the current administration..

Whether or not Afghanistan will become the next Vietnam remains to be seen.. The two situations are entirely different... I do think that it is good that for the U.S. at least the CIC is not making hasty shoot from the hip poorly thought out decisions.. Irregardless to what some of the military may say... In Vietnam.. the mantra was also "We got this in the bag.. we just need more trops.." so I am glad that President Obama is being more thoughtful. The place is a nightmare... and I dont think anyone will "win" over there... I think that the best we can do is leave the place more stable than it was when we went in there.. if we can do that.

This is telling.In other words,we'll keep your soldiers to prop up our corrupt regime,but don't tell us what to do:

Afghanistan reject UN, foreign criticism of Karzai

(AFP) – 1 hour ago

KABUL — Afghanistan Saturday rejected criticism of President Hamid Karzai by foreign leaders and the senior UN official in the country, accusing them of disrespecting the country's sovereignty.

Kai Eide, the UN's special representative to Afghanistan, was among those who this week warned Karzai that he could lose international support unless his new government tackled endemic official corruption.

The Afghan foreign ministry issued a statement rejecting such criticism, saying it breached "accepted international norms" and "violated respect for Afghanistan's national sovereignty".

On Saturday the foreign ministry in Kabul issued a statement rejecting such criticism, saying they breached "accepted international norms" and "violated respect for Afghanistan's national sovereignty."

Afghanistan is rated by watchdog Transparency International as the world's fifth-most corrupt country, and Karzai's government is widely seen as riddled with graft that ensures the country remains mired in poverty.

Leaders of Western nations with over 100,000 troops fighting insurgents in Afghanistan have urged Karzai to ditch the warlords and drug-runners in his government and clean up corruption if he wants their continued support.

After vote organisers this week declared him re-elected, Karzai promised to launch a campaign to eradicate corruption.

Massive fraud uncovered after the August 20 presidential election highlighted the scale of corruption in Afghanistan's government and has led to enormous international pressure on Karzai to clean up graft.

On Friday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Karzai's government had become a "by-word for corruption."

"Cronies and warlords should have no place in the future of a democratic Afghanistan," Brown said.

At a news conference Thursday Eide called for a "vigorous fight against corruption, efforts to improve the justice system and remove the culture of impunity."

In its statement, the foreign ministry said Eide's remarks "regretfully crossed the accepted international norms and his authority as an impartial international authority".

"Fighting corruption and strengthening a rule of law are preconditions for the creation of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan.

"Over the last few days some political and diplomatic circles and propaganda agencies of certain foreign countries have intervened in Afghanistan's internal affairs by issuing instructions concerning the composition of Afghan government organs and political policy," it said.

"Such instructions have violated respect for Afghanistan's national sovereignty.

Back on topic:

Calling Afghanistan the new Vietnam muddies the waters, and helps nobody. While both countries are/were in a state of civil war, the nature of the 'beef' so to speak (and the backers) are very different (as are the initial causes of the conflict, to say nothing of the reasons for continuing the fights...).

Vietnam essentially boiled down to the US not wanting to be percieved on the international stage as being weaker than the Soviets and their system. Thus, the need to prop up every anti-communist regime/government that was around (including such fun neighbors as the South Africans...). The Vietnam conflict simply was escalated by the actions of the NV and SV governments to the point that by the time it reached the American masses, it was already too late for the US to get out without being seen as cutting and running.

On the other hand, Afghanistan was the result of a direct attack on American interests, with clearly defined goals. I don't know anybody that can honestly make the claim that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan.

Yes, both countries are in a civil war. However, in the case of Vietnam, it was funded by a third national entity (NV), and possibly more (some, but not much, help from the soviets/chinese). On the part of the NV .gov, this was to unify the country. For others, it was to give America a black eye. Conversely, the Taliban remnants are supported by trans national fund raising and soldier raising .orgs. On the one hand, they don't have nearly the level of equipment that could be provided by a nation-state. Making up for that though is the fanaticism of the soldiers that they do have.


,...I had more to say, but 1:30 in the morning isn't a good time to try to think straight about stuff. Basically though, it boils down to this: treaty Afghanistan like Vietnam certainly won't help the situation, and it could even make it worse.

While the situations are not identical, I would argue there are many similarities to Vietnam.

Similarities to Vietnam:

-Both involve an ancient culture ((s) in Afghanistan's case) proud of their own identities that have recently seen foreign occupation -- and defeated said foreigners

-Both see the involvement of outsiders and their own agendas (which understandably creates a natural distrust of outsiders)

-Both involve regimes that are arguably really more corrupt on the 'good guys' side than the the 'bad guys'

-Both involve a strategic situation in which we really don't lose any battles, but we just can't seem to win the war

-Both involve an enemy that know matter how altruistic or just our motives appear, we will never bring to our point-of-view

-Both involve a U.S. and allies homefront that is not 100% behind the war

-Both involve us trying to fight the war on the cheap / we never gave 100% to winning Vietnam and we aren't even giving 10% to winning this one

-Both involve way to much decision making from politicians and even military higher ups (I experienced this one first hand flying in afghanistan)

-Both involve an unwillingness on our part to strike at the heart of the enemy; North Vietnam in Vietnam's case and Northwest Pakistan in Afghanistan's case

quote:

Originally posted by PanzerAce:
I don't know anybody that can honestly make the claim that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan.

err , because the taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 ?

because some of the taliban were getting fed up with the arab foreigners & wouldnt have been averse to getting rid of them ?

bombing the rocks gave the military something to do , but the mission was a failure - OBL still lives out among those rocks . the taliban were galvanised into protecting him

the only winners have been ammo makers - a win that can be counted in trillions

We can't even trust the alliances over there. What a cluster*****K.

My two cents....

Don't call it a war, unless you're gonna fight it like a war...example: Dresden, Tokyo and even..Hiroshima...

quote:

Originally posted by huggy87:
While the situations are not identical, I would argue there are many similarities to Vietnam.

Similarities to Vietnam:

-Both involve an ancient culture ((s) in Afghanistan's case) proud of their own identities that have recently seen foreign occupation -- and defeated said foreigners

-Both see the involvement of outsiders and their own agendas (which understandably creates a natural distrust of outsiders)

-Both involve regimes that are arguably really more corrupt on the 'good guys' side than the the 'bad guys'

-Both involve a strategic situation in which we really don't lose any battles, but we just can't seem to win the war

-Both involve an enemy that know matter how altruistic or just our motives appear, we will never bring to our point-of-view

-Both involve a U.S. and allies homefront that is not 100% behind the war

-Both involve us trying to fight the war on the cheap / we never gave 100% to winning Vietnam and we aren't even giving 10% to winning this one

-Both involve way to much decision making from politicians and even military higher ups (I experienced this one first hand flying in afghanistan)

-Both involve an unwillingness on our part to strike at the heart of the enemy; North Vietnam in Vietnam's case and Northwest Pakistan in Afghanistan's case

Good objective post.

quote:

Originally posted by Badsight-:

quote:

Originally posted by PanzerAce:
I don't know anybody that can honestly make the claim that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan.

err , because the taliban had nothing to do with 9/11?
because some of the taliban were getting fed up with the arab foreigners & wouldnt have been averse to getting rid of them?
bombing the rocks gave the military something to do , but the mission was a failure - OBL still lives out among those rocks . the taliban were galvanised into protecting him
the only winners have been ammo makers - a win that can be counted in trillions

I agree with some of that.. but at the time the intelligence that said Bin Laden was in Afghans=istan was much more substantial .. than the evidence of WMD in Iraq.. which makes the move into Iraq even more appalling... and again.. all those who cheered that move on waving their flags are some of the main voices blasting the currtent administration for taking a more measured approach to a solution to this mess. At this point the U.S. cannot just up and leave from Iraq or Afghanistan.. the consequences for the region and the world would be very very bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Pudfark:
My two cents....
Don't call it a war, unless you're gonna fight it like a war...example: Dresden, Tokyo and even..Hiroshima...

Yes but in the cases you have mentioned we were at war with the official governments of the places you mentioned.. we are not at war with Afghanistan.. we are at war with the Taliban and AlQaida.. and if I am not mistaken we did not originally go in there to overthrow the Taliban.. we went in there primarily for AlQaida but we had to go through the Taliban..

Wait a minute; I thought that El Salvador was going to be the new Vietnam.

Or was it Grenada?

Or Panama?

Oh, wait, it was Iraq--no, Iran.

It's all the same old sh!t, just like the press' insistance upon hanging "-gate" on the end of every political scandal involing the White House. They just want to re-enact the high water mark of their profession (reporters and radicals alike).

The reason the troops want to get the hell out of Afghanistan is that they doubt that the current Administration is commited to winning, and no one wants to end up being killed or maimed in a no win, business as usual, political face saving/@ss covering situation. Besides, it really sucks to be there, and it smells worse than Iraq (which is apparently quite an accomplishment).

cheers

horseback

I think Iraq was hopefully considered a 'quick win.' We'd flank Al Qaeda with the secular liberation of a terrible dictator, impose Wilsonian doctrine on a colonial construct, and all Islam would thank us. Would've worked in 1991, perhaps, but we really missed the boat on the decline of secularism in the Arab world and completely underestimated the almost tectonic antagonism between Sunni and Shiia that Saddam'd kept locked for over thirty years. The Neo-Con's Iraq was meant as the foil to the lure of islamic extremism, but instead it turned into a friggin' nightmare. I can see, and sympathise, with what they hoped to acheive. Instead were almost certainly further back than we were in 2001.