Why Are We In Afghanistan?

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

You know, the killing of civilians is murder. Plain and simple.

If you bomb an area populated by civilians, you are commiting a war crime.

How many more thousands of innocent men, women and children have to die before the 'objectives' (actually, does anybody know what the objectives actually are?) are met?

Our leaders are a bunch of twisted perverts.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

That is a fair point, however as genetic modification becomes more common it isn't outside the releams of possibility that something like this could be considered.

They cannot destroy the opium harvest because the economy there (what's left of it) would implode, driving even more people into armed insurgency.

[athom]

They cannot destroy the opium harvest because the economy there (what's left of it) would implode, driving even more people into armed insurgency.

I don't think that's true, the money in opium is in the dealing not the growing. The farmers ie. the large number of people, would get bugger all for it, while a few warlords would get rich. They can afford to lose their rich warlords. Unless they're counting on the trickle down effect.......uncanny isn't it

As it had happened under the Taliban the country will not fall to bits without the opium trade but as someone on this forum mentioned the bigger problem might be in the rest of the world when the opium trade loses 75% or it's production. To be honest preventing that is looking like one of the most logical reasons why we're there.

[Leroast]

Your line of er thought if taken logically to conclusion, would indicate you wouldn't have attempted to go to the aid of the French in two world wars or our British territory, the Falklands.

No, the Falklands fall under UK sovereignty, so that war was quite clearly an act of self-defence. In the first world war, the UK declared war in defence of Belgium - a country where each end talks a different language and doesn’t like the other end. The second WW was fought to save the Poles from Hitler but instead delivered them together with most of Eastern Europe to Stalin (something the 'appeasers' pointed out would happen).

The British stand in September 1939 was no doubt heroic: but it was heroism mainly at the expense of others. The British suffered comparatively little during six years of war. The Poles suffered catastrophe during the war....In 1938 Czechoslovakia was betrayed. In 1939 Poland was saved. Less than 100,000 Czechs died during the war. 6,500,000 Poles were killed. Which was better - to be a betrayed Czech or a saved Pole? I am glad Germany was defeated and Hitler destroyed. I also appreciate that others paid the price for this, and I recognise the honesty of those who thought the price too high.

A Taylor The Origins of the Second World War

All 3 conflicts can be easily categorised according to Butlers principle - although he would probably have disagreed with the Falklands, since he did not believe in defending Hawaii militarily because of the prohibitive cost.

[Leroast]

As far as I know the Taliban government was never recognised as legitimate, and therefore any UN conventions regarding use of force on sovereign nations would not be applicable. In any case, cleverer legal minds than ours have looked at this and decided that it was legal for our troops to go to Afghanistan, not to mention the fact that it is the wish of the current Afghan government, which whilst far from perfect, is a better representative of the people than the Talibs ever were.

I know where you're coming from with this and I have my reservations about our involvement, but I do not accept your assertion that our Armed Forces are no better than war criminals.

As they did with Iraq.

Arguing that the Taleban did not represent the legitimate government of Afghanistan is disingenuous as they were courted by American officials prior to 9/11. Irrespective of their legal status, the international conventions on terrorism provided the framework for an appropriate response - as seen by the rulings of the Security Council in the weeks following the attacks. The US launched its massive aerial bombardment of Afghanistan in "self-defence" some days after the Security Council resolutions (which would have provided a legal reference point for the military).

The Taleban also tried to negotiate handing OBL over to a third country so the evidence could be reviewed. The Americans refused - for good reason.

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb [Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI] said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.â€

Link

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Thanks for those excellent contributions Leroast.

[Leroast]

Thanks gruffy

He's a Pacifist, he sleeps under the blanket of freedom others have fought and died for so he can have the freedom to express his views.

Come the day of the race they usually throw their hands up in the air and shout: "I'm a Conscientious Objector, I don't fight!"

(Meaning let some other poor ba5tard do it for me.)

But not actual freedom

Butler was no pacifist. You are confusing pacifism with isolationism.

Our fleet, bound by this Peace Amendment to stay close to home shores, would be on hand to repel such invasion at sea: if, through some serried of unforeseen circumstances and disasters, an enemy army did succeed in landing on our shores - the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico or the Pacific - the entire man power of this nation would spring to arms. Every American, every man and boy, would be ready, without conscription, without pleading - every American would be ready to grasp a rifle and rush forth to defend his home and his county.

Yes, everybody would be in that rush. Even the "peace at any price" people. They would forget their scruples. The pacifists would be among the first in line. The Quakers, the Mennonites and the members of other religious faiths which are opposed to the bearing of arms would be in that rush to protect our children and womenfolk.

S Butler War is a Racket

[Leroast]

And General Smedley Butler is what some kind of world authority on why people go to war is he?

Butler was one of Americas most highly decorated combat soldiers. He follows the money...

An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:

There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.

If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won't.

Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had the radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in the utmost secrecy.

When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."

Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of a democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy."

S Butler War is a Racket

[Leroast]

Butlers "Peace Amendment" comprised of the following (and is still as valid today as in the 1930s):

1. Conscript industry and labour. A few profit - and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parlays at Geneva. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation - it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted - to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages - all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders - everyone in the nation to be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war.

2. A limited plebiscite to determine whether war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and the dying. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

3. A third step is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defence only.

At each session of congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation" Oh, no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate our 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defence purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce manoeuvres in the Pacific. For defence. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the manoeuvres be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The manoeuvres will be two thousand, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the US fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern, through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of live. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defence purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go farther than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

[Leroast]

In his book, Butler talks about the threat of Hitler to the States and dismisses it as propaganda:

...it's all a question of supply - this invading business. Men and munitions always run out before the supply of men are exhausted.

Just figure it out for yourselves: For every man at the front, you must ship every day of the year from your home depot a thousand pounds of supplies: food, ammunition, gasoline, clothing, medical supplies, engineering supplies, spare parts, etc. If you have 200,000 men at the front, you will have 800,000 supplying them from the rear - and you will have to send them 100,000 tons of supplies every day.

Remember also that for every thousand miles you go across water on an invading expedition into a hostile land, you must take with you ninety days' stores of all kinds. It is over 3000 miles across the Atlantic - three times ninety is two hundred and seventy days - nine months. No, the supply of a European Army in America is out of the question, that is, an Army big enough to land here.

There is another thing to remember:

No fleet can operate more than 1500 miles from it base and Germany proper would be the base of a Hitler invading flee. No. He couldn't get his fleet over here, or get it home again, if he did. But - they say - he might build a base somewhere in South America. Well my friends, those who thought up that little idea overlooked the fact that it is farther by a good deal from Berlin to South America than from Berlin to New York, why invade America via South America? It doesn’t make sense, for when Hitler got to South America, he would be a good deal farther away from us, than if he had come straight over from Berlin.

Now, what about an aerial Invasion? Well, Colonel Lindbergh and Eddie Rickenbacher, the two foremost fliers we have, already have told us it's ridiculous to talk of an invasion by air or to talk or think of bombing New York from Berlin. But suppose they do invent a plane that might be able to do it...we have enough brains in this country to make some sort of machine that will destroy it...And don't forget that we have an air force of our own, and a fine one too. So let's take one thing at a time.

[Leroast]

...millions of Europeans...would have paid with their freedom.

But they did. Millions of Europeans fell under Stalin. The myth of ww2 and Hitler is something which I believe is central to perpetuating the "exceptionalism" culture, as John Pilger called it in recent speech, of the UK and US.

(and you for that matter)

The myth of Hitler. A key argument used by warmongers like Bush and Blair to justify their wars of agression. Again, exceptionalism; and what I actually find most hypocritical about British involvement in ww2 was that we declared war on Germany for violating the self determination of the Poles when there we were, a global empire based primarily on stealing other peoples lands. Maybe, concientious objectors have a logical and moral point?

Dunkirk and the so called "halt order" provides an good example of the mythologisation of ww2.

This was reported by General Blumentritt to Liddell Hart, and I feel it is necessary to quote extensively from Blumentritt’s narrative:

“Hitler was in a very good humor, he admitted that the course of the campaign had been ‘a decided miracle,’ and gave us his opinion that the war would be finished in six weeks. After that he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be free for an agreement with Britain.

“He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying.’ He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church, saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere. He remarked that the colonies were primarily a matter of prestige, since they could not be held in war, and few Germans could settle in the tropics.

“He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honor to accept.â€

An incredible tale, and yet, it fits with the admiration Hitler expressed for Britain in Mein Kampf. Hitler offered peace to the British twice during World War 2, and also, according to Liddell Hart, displayed uncharacteristic timidity in planning an invasion of England, once Churchill made it plain his nation would not agree for peace.

["At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the 'Battle over Britain' had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations, and for weeks did nothing to spur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia" (p140)]

A strange attitude for a leader to have in a war, true, but then, Hitler was a strange man with strange ideas, and a very complex personality.

General Blumentritt’s tale is confirmed by Leon Degrelle, of the Belgian Waffen-SS, who Hitler greatly admired, and occasionally confided in. During one discussion with his Fuhrer, Degrelle states: “We talked about England. I asked him bluntly: “Why on earth didn’t you finish the British off at Dunkirk? Everyone knew you could have wiped them out.†He answered: “Yes, I withheld my troops and let the British escape back to England. The humiliation of such a defeat would have made it difficult to try for peace with them afterwards.â€

Some may protest Degrelle’s testimony, since he was one of the very few who attempted to defend Hitler at all after the war. But Liddell Hart argues that men like Blumentritt had no plausible reason to invent such a story, and in fact would have impressed their conquerors more by portraying themselves as the ones who attempted to preserve British security and survival. Instead, they told the story that the generals wanted to crush the British for good, and end the war, while Hitler’s dithering cost them a great, perhaps decisive, victory. If this is true, it certainly calls into question the idea that Hitler intended to conquer the whole world. I have argued, and the evidence here, from Hitler’s own mouth, seems to confirm that his goal was to establish German hegemony on the continent of Europe, and leave themselves free from outside (particularly British) interference.

Link

[Leroast]

German rearmament, another myth...

The first World war shattered all the Great Powers involved, with the exception of the United States, who took virtually no part in it; maybe they were all foolish to go on trying to be Great Powers afterwards. Total war is probably beyond the strength of any Great Power. Now even preparations for such a war threaten to ruin the Great powers who attempt them. Nor is this new. In the eighteenth century Frederick the Great led Prussia to the point of collapse in the effort to be a Great Power. The Napoleonic wars brought France down from her high estate in Europe, and she never recovered her former greatness. This is an odd, inescapable dilemma. Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a great war, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one, or to fight it on a limited scale. This was the secret of Great Britain's greatness so long as she stuck to naval warfare and did not try to become a military power on the continental pattern. Hitler did not need instruction from a historian in order to appreciate this. The inability of Germany to fight a long war was a constant theme of his; and so was the danger which threatened Germany if the other Great Powers combined against her. In talking like this, Hitler was more sensible than the German generals who imagined that all would be well if they got Germany back to the position she occupied before Ludendorff's offensive in March 1918. Hitler did not however draw the moral that it was silly for German to be a Great Power. Instead he proposed to dodge the problem by ingenuity, much as the British had once done. Where they relied on sea power, he relied on guile. Far from wanting war, a general war was the last thing he wanted. He wanted the fruits of total victory without total war; and thanks to the stupidity of others he nearly got them. Other Powers thought that they were faced with the choice between total war and surrender. At first they chose surrender; then they chose total war, to Hitler's ultimate ruin.

This is not guesswork. It is demonstrated beyond peradventure by the record of German armament before the second World war or even during it. It would have been obvious long ago if men had not been blinded by two mistakes. Before the war they listened to what Hitler said instead of looking at what he did. After the war they wanted to pin on him the guilt of everything which happened, regardless of the evidence. This is illustrated, for example, by the almost universal belief that Hitler started the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whereas it was started by the directors of British strategy, as some of the more honest among them have boasted.

A Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War

Epic failure on the part of Churchill.

[Guest X-QUORK]

The Taleban also tried to negotiate handing OBL over to a third country so the evidence could be reviewed. The Americans refused - for good reason.

There's a world of difference between the kind of evidence which would stand up in Court and what is known through Intelligence. Is it your belief that he had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks?

By the way, is this "admission" by the FBI reported on anywhere else other than that one-man band news website you linked?

[Guest X-QUORK]

German rearmament, another myth...

Epic failure on the part of Churchill.

I think it's fair to say you're quite a radical revisionist.

[Executive Sadman]

Another one lost.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...en-Farrell.html

I could understand if it was an aid worker or medic, but why are send a troop to his death for a bloody journalist?

[JonoP]

I think we are in Afghanistan mainly for oil related reasons. However, it has nothing to do with pipelines.

Ultimately, Al-Qaida want to overthrow the House of Saud and take control of Saudi Arabia. That would leave them in control of the bulk of global oil reserves. This is a huge strategic threat to the US/Western World. What could we then do? Invade Saudi Arabia, home to Mecca etc? That would make us very popular with the global Muslim world....

Afghanistan was one of the few countries globally that would allow Al-Qaida to plan this activity and undertake things like large scale training of military forces. If they are prevented from ‘using’ Afghanistan for this purpose, they will need to find another country with a sympathetic regime, and there really are not that many of them.

Thus, in Afghanistan, we are fighting a proxy war for the control of Saudi Arabia.

We invaded Iraq as a plan B in case we lost the war for the control of Saudi Arabia.

[Guest X-QUORK]

I often wonder what NATO with a mandate for defence is doing in a landlocked sovereign nation nowhere near the north Atlantic.

I believe it had something to do with NATO having the existing command infrastructure. Rather from starting from scratch the participating nations agreed to take advantage of an organisation which already had the military connections in place. That said, I think another factor was that NATO were starting to suffer an identity crisis and needed something to justify their existence.

[1929crash]

I think we are in Afghanistan mainly for oil related reasons. However, it has nothing to do with pipelines.

Ultimately, Al-Qaida want to overthrow the House of Saud and take control of Saudi Arabia. That would leave them in control of the bulk of global oil reserves. This is a huge strategic threat to the US/Western World. What could we then do? Invade Saudi Arabia, home to Mecca etc? That would make us very popular with the global Muslim world....

Afghanistan was one of the few countries globally that would allow Al-Qaida to plan this activity and undertake things like large scale training of military forces. If they are prevented from ‘using’ Afghanistan for this purpose, they will need to find another country with a sympathetic regime, and there really are not that many of them.

Thus, in Afghanistan, we are fighting a proxy war for the control of Saudi Arabia.

We invaded Iraq as a plan B in case we lost the war for the control of Saudi Arabia.

Al Qeda only exists in the fevered imaginations of politicians anxious to scare you.

[Quagmire]

I think we are in Afghanistan mainly for oil related reasons. However, it has nothing to do with pipelines.

Ultimately, Al-Qaida want to overthrow the House of Saud and take control of Saudi Arabia. That would leave them in control of the bulk of global oil reserves. This is a huge strategic threat to the US/Western World. What could we then do? Invade Saudi Arabia, home to Mecca etc? That would make us very popular with the global Muslim world....

Afghanistan was one of the few countries globally that would allow Al-Qaida to plan this activity and undertake things like large scale training of military forces. If they are prevented from ‘using’ Afghanistan for this purpose, they will need to find another country with a sympathetic regime, and there really are not that many of them.

Thus, in Afghanistan, we are fighting a proxy war for the control of Saudi Arabia.

We invaded Iraq as a plan B in case we lost the war for the control of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is well armed and wealthy, "Al-Qaida" (even if it was a real organisation) couldn't overthrow the regime there.

There is no noble cause behind our occupation of Afghanistan. Theres a host of political and economic reasons.

War is good for business and government.

[Kazuya]

I think another factor was that NATO were starting to suffer an identity crisis and needed something to justify their existence.

[JonoP]

Saudi Arabia is well armed and wealthy, "Al-Qaida" (even if it was a real organisation) couldn't overthrow the regime there.

There is no noble cause behind our occupation of Afghanistan. Theres a host of political and economic reasons.

War is good for business and government.

The House of Saud would fall as a result of internal dissent rather than military invasion. Al-Qaida is looking to inflame that internal dissent, and their military activities would involve training indigenous Saudi males in guerrilla warfare tactics rather than building an army for a conventional invasion.

If you are unhappy with the term Al-Qaida then just replace it with Militant Wahhabi Islamists. Or are you telling me that does not exist either?

[Guest X-QUORK]

If that is the case then it looks like NATO are mercenaries involved in a job creation scheme.

NATO has no mandate of its own, it only acts on the instruction of member Nations.

[Guest X-QUORK]

WTF?

[1929crash]

NATO has no mandate of its own, it only acts on the instruction of member Nations.

i.e. the US

[Guest X-QUORK]

i.e. the US

No, not just the US. All member Nations.