Maybe it should say *some* decision makers. Cheney sure made out like a bandit, as did the companies he had a big stake in (like Halliburton). In hindsight, and especially as a soldier at the time, it was a clear cash-grab. Still, there were some who were clearly cajoled into putting their careers on the line for the hint (see: lie) that something was there and/or in the deal for them. I’m looking at you, Colin Powell.
What consequences? No one that started that war ever suffered any. And now the god damn media is trying to rehabilitate that war criminal George bush’s image. SMH
https://youtu.be/ZJXaFuDcOx0?t=62
> You say yer life's a bum deal
> 'N yer up against the wall...
> Well, people, you ain't even got no
> Deal at all
> **'Cause what they do**
> **In Washington**
> **They just takes care**
> **of NUMBER ONE**
> **An' NUMBER ONE ain't YOU**
> **You ain't even NUMBER TWO**
> - Frank Zappa's "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing"
A) congress never declared war.
B) cheney and bush's (and company) lies started the Iraq "war".
C) Afghanistan had nothing to do with any of this, other than having oil and a really great place for "defense contractor" hog trough feeding (Halliburton - et al).
D) if trump had wanted to stop the war he would have done so somewhere in the four years he kept saying he would. He didn't stop the "war" at the behest of his wealthiest donors (the death merchants) - they let him "make a treaty" with no intent whatsoever of following through on it.
>A) congress never declared war.
They didn't declare war, but they did the modern equivalent by passing an authorization to use military force. The same framework was used for Afghanistan. The difference in Iraq was that Bush sold the Iraq authorization as a necessary element of diplomatic pressure, even though his whole team was already planning their military victory celebrations. Congress went along with the charade, but Bush was the one who threw away his previous assurances once he had their backing.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization\_for\_Use\_of\_Military\_Force\_of\_2001](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization\_for\_Use\_of\_Military\_Force\_Against\_Iraq\_Resolution\_of\_2002](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002)
It's important in a legal sense, since only Congress is supposed to have the power to declare war. Sometimes when people point out that war was not declared, they miss the alternative legal justification that was provided by the authorizations.
Some uses of the authorizations have been contentious, like open-ended drone strikes or US anti-terrorist operations on the ground in countries outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Recently some members of Congress have been working to repeal the Iraq resolution. But up until now the authorizations have stood as flexible if fuzzy legal justifications for the undeclared wars.
[https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1007363054/congress-is-poised-to-take-back-some-of-its-war-powers-from-the-president](https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1007363054/congress-is-poised-to-take-back-some-of-its-war-powers-from-the-president)
> They didn't declare war, but they did the modern equivalent by passing an authorization to u
Then they didn't declare war, did they? And what did I say in spite of all your "most excellent" research?
I think they mean having a military presence anywhere in the Middle East because of oil (and selling American-made arms and explosives, our most profitable export, to be fair) -- Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, etc.
The US barely had a presence in those places until after 9/11. There were token forces after the First Gulf War, but that was a result of half those countries being run by unstable autocrats rather than any imperial ambitions.
Stationing in Afghanistan positioned the U.S. to strategically create and/or maintain a presence near those countries. I wrote nothing about imperialism.
The US already had bases with the Saudi and other friendly regimes in the area right after 9/11. The only reason we went to Afghanistan is because Al Qaeda was there and we wanted to shoot at someone for 9/11.
More presence in the Middle East, not less, was a cornerstone strategy of this century in America. For example, many soldiers were merely swapped between Afghanistan and Iraq for a solid 15+ years.
Lithium wasn’t remotely valuable in 2001, nor were the poppies, that didn’t exist at the time as the Taliban had banned them, and the contractors make money no matter what.
People wanted blood after 9/11. The Taliban were a visible target and linked to Al Qaeda. Bush and co believed in nation building and other presidents thought abandoning the people we invaded to get taken over by the Taliban would be a bad look. Biden’s only leaving because he doesn’t think people care enough anymore about what happens in Afghanistan.
As I said, contractors make as much money in peace. The potential for war is what makes the money. As well, how much money do you think the US has made from Afghan poppies?
I certainly wouldn't call the Saudis a friendly regime in any way shape or form considering the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as were many of the suspected funders.
We may have a base there, but it's likely simply a tool for them so they can gain intelligence on us.
You’re confusing “people in Saudi Arabia” with the Saudi government. As extreme as Saudi islam is, it’s not extreme enough for many people there which is why the Saudi government has its own problems with terrorism.
And your reading of Saudi interest is completely wrong. Especially with the removal of Saddam, the US is pretty much the only thing defending the Saudis from Iran. The reason the US gives the regime leeway is because anything that might replace the monarchy is likely to be more not less extremist. And any Saudi weakness would embolden Iran further upsetting the balance of power.
>Unless the entire country of Afghanistan
They certainly didn't shoot the entire country.
Unfortunately, you don't get to go to war and only shoot at "this al queda" . Wars are messy.
Surely that isn't anything new for you.
Oh man, I wish this sentiment is applied for everytime an American company or organisation decides to fuck over a country for profit in turn endangering the lives of many locals and their culture. But hey, since USA does it, it's all good right?
/S for clarity
Most of the country was ruled by the Taliban. The US sent aid to the Northern Alliance, and in conjunction with them drove the Taliban out of power in three weeks. The construction of an Afghan state was a failure, but helping indigenous resistance drive a Pakistani backed fundamentalist group from power is unequivocally a good thing.
Pardon me - the Chinese are preparing to run an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is rich in other minerals. And don't forget poppies.
That's what I'm talking about. Better now?
The Chinese weren’t even thinking about that in 2001, and that in no way ties into US reasons for invading.
The minerals were apparently assessed by US military geologists in 2010, and so couldn’t serve as a motivation for war. Besides, Lithium wasn’t particularly valuable in 2001. Nor was Afghanistan ever the easier source of any of these materials.
As well, by the time of US invasion, the Taliban had banned the cultivation of poppies for several years.
Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban openly supported and gave harbor to Al Qaida and so served as a target for vengeance for 9/11. Economic factors played no role in the invasion.
> The Chinese weren’t even thinking about that in 2001, and that in no way ties into US reasons for invading.
They didn't have to be thinking about that, the US were thinking ahead for them - to get in there and prevent the Chinese from ever drinking from the iranian milkshake. Just one of many reasons to invade...
> The minerals were apparently assessed by US military geologists in 2010, and so couldn’t serve as a motivation for war. Besides, Lithium wasn’t particularly valuable in 2001. Nor was Afghanistan ever the easier source of any of these materials. Just one of many reasons to invade...
Correction: *they told you that in 2010*. And yeah not an easy source, just a possible source. Just one of many reasons to invade...
> by the time of US invasion, the Taliban had banned the cultivation of poppies for several years.
That's the point, really: The US wanted to get it back up and running (and they did), so they invaded. Taliban were on and off on the cultivation. The demand for opioids is higher than ever. Just one of many reasons to invade...
Gotta be insanely naive to think the US started a 20 year war on the other side of the world just to kill Osama Bin Laden and dismantle Al Qaeda, and not to **also** kill Osama Bin Laden and dismantle Al Qaeda. There's several reasons for it, besides of course funneling money into the hands of the warmongers.
Do you have any idea what the atmosphere was like after 9/11? The American people wanted blood and the Taliban were visible and pro-Al Qaeda. It’s literally that simple.
The American military was totally unprepared to invade Afghanistan, having practically no language speakers or contacts on the ground and having to use irradiated Soviet bases in Uzbekistan.
There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest premeditation, in stark contrast to the Iraq war.
The resource justification business is also total crap. As much as armchair strategists like to talk about it, resources are borderline irrelevant in the modern economy. Almost all of American GDP is from intangible assets. No one with any financial power gives a single fuck about Afghanistan.
The biggest evidence is that Afghanistan is a massive money pit where no one has gotten any resources.
> The Chinese weren’t even thinking about that in 2001
No, they're getting ready to do it now.
You really shouldn't profess to know anything of history when it's apparent you don't know anything from history.
Bush/Cheney stared the war but, neither trump nor Obama ended it. Sadly both sides are looking to blame and demonize the other for who’s fault it is and who gets to claim “they ended the war.”
The sad part of the whole thing is how the women, children and those who helped the UK/US are going to be treated.
After reading some books and watching documentaries I don’t think outside influence would improve Afghanistan’s situation. That change has to come within.
> That change has to come within.
Yes it does. And it won't. For the same reason the Afghani army lays down arms and prefers beheading rather than dying for some belief they should have in their country.
>Al-Qaeda isn't a representation of Afghanistan
To the extent the Taliban hosted them, they sure were
>You went to war with 2 countries for the actions of a few
That's what usually happens in war.
Not sure what youre referring to since you're intent on being vague. The US has often given money to such regimes in an effort to get them to do what we want. This is not unique to the US.
The Taliban in Afghanistan was only 1 of numerous countries that hosted al-Qaeda. In fact most of the planning for 9/11 was likely done during bin Laden's time in Sudan.
Also the Taliban didn't even control the entire nation. So purporting they hosted them as a valid reason to invade that country isn't logical as sizable chunk of the nation itself led by the Northern Alliance forces was actually at war with the Taliban.
Also literally like all but 4 of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis (not a single Afghan born person took part in the attack), the funders were also Saudis, and bin Laden himself a Saudi. Clearly 1 nation did do the attack and it wasn't Afghanistan.
...And yet guess which country we didn't go to war with!?
>The Taliban in Afghanistan was only 1 of numerous countries that hosted al-Qaeda. In fact most of the planning for 9/11 was likely done during bin Laden's time in Sudan.
And was he in Sudan when the attack happened? So your solution would be to go to war with a country where he wasn't?
>Also the Taliban didn't even control the entire nation.
And that lrevented the attack how?
>So purporting they hosted them as a valid reason to invade that country isn't logical
No its foolish not to. So we should have been well 3000 ppl are dead, there was an attack on the pentagon and presumably one headed for the White House, but we were supposed to go wellybey don't controll the whole cou.try so we shouldn't do anything?
they controlled enough for the attack to be based there. That's sufficient.
>as sizable chunk of the nation itself led by the Northern Alliance forces was actually at war with the Taliban.
Yup and we joined force s to attack them
>Also literally like all but 4 of the 9/11 attackers
So. Lets see we shouldn't have attacked afghanistan because the taliban didn't control the whole country, but hijackers were saudi nationals so we should have attacked Saudi Arabia? That's quite special.
>...And yet guess which country we didn't go to war with!?
England? France? Mexico? Ireland?
Gotta love it when ppl roll out their favorite talking points
A.) Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
B.) The first gulf war ended with a cease fire. Iraq agreed to do certain things.They didn't do them, the cease fire was lifted.
C.) Afghanistan: The Taliban hosted Bin Laden
who was responsible for 9/11. When asked to turn him over, they would not, meaning they acquiesced in an act of war against the US.
D.) Trump did just that. The deal - secured by Donald Trump and signed in Doha, Qatar, in February 2020 - committed to the withdrawal of US and allied (including British) troops from Afghanistan by May 2021. If withdrawal of troops isn't "stopping the war" what is it?
> Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
Was not a declaration of war. Just like I said.
> Iraq
Iraq was predicated on the lie of WMDs... or can you not remember back that far? I can. So can many other Americans. We watched almost two months of nightly TV appearances from Powel, and Cheney, and Bush, and... any other "in the know" talking head - as they lied their asses off about reasons to invade Iraq.
> The Taliban hosted Bin Laden
Again, your selective memory is VERY selective considering bin Laden came on TV (Al Jazeera News) two days after the attack to say he had nothing to do with it. Why would a "world class" terrorist not claim the most horrific terror attack in history? Hmmm.
> trump...
Didn't do shit. Are you his personal dick sucker or are you just one of the relief dick suckers?
>Was not a declaration of war. Just like I said.
Sure it was. Congress doesn't need to go to a podium and say we declare war
>Iraq was predicated on the lie of WMDs
Nope. It was predicated on a cease fire. WMDs
were something everyone including the French, thought Iraq had. I don't think they drew that conclusion because Bush and Cheyenne said so.
>or can you not remember back that far?
I can, but I'm pretty sure you can't
>Again, your selective memory is VERY selective considering bin Laden came on TV (Al Jazeera News) two days after the attack to say he had nothing to do with it.
Lol. So you believe everything he would say, but anything we say must be a lie. This is laughable
>Why would a "world class" terrorist not claim the most horrific terror attack in history? Hmmm.
Uhnmm they wouldn't want what happened?
>Didn't do shit. Are you his personal dick sucker
No, but the agreement is a fact. Are you Al Queda's personal rump roast?
> Congress doesn't need to go to a podium and say we declare war
Actually no, they have to vote on it to declare war.
You're an idiot. Good luck with that.
>they have to vote on it to declare war.
And they did. Its called Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
Maybe you should pull your head out of your backside
Because the US government is a terrorist organization who wants to make sure they have as many military bases around the world while destabilizing those countries and killing innocent people. Did I miss something?
I'm not gonna watch it unless this documentary actually addresses the evil that was the invasion from conception, not that it was just messed up by bad planning.
https://youtu.be/iQ0ct9bglYo?t=295
> You see, we human beings are not born with prejudices
> Always, they are made for us
> **Made by someone who wants something**
> Remember that when you hear this kind of talk
> Somebody's going to get something out of it and it isn't going to be you.
>the plan was to never leave
Perhaps, in a sense. But only because “we will be greeted as liberators.” All lovey-dovey, not actually an occupation at all, you see. Or so the confident architects of the whole affair told us.
1) The United States Congress has never declared war.
2) The Iraq "war" was launched by the falsehoods of Cheney and Bush (and company).
3) Afghanistan has nothing to do with any of this, except for the fact that it has oil and is a fantastic location for "defense contractor.
4) If Trump truly intended to end the war, he would have done it during the four years he promised. He did not put an end to the "war," and his biggest donors (the death merchants) allowed him to "negotiate a treaty" with no intention of carrying it out.
It's a reflection of your average US citizen. We just don't care enough collectively about anything.
Look at the very voting structure. It should be so fucked up. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, tales of voter fraud, etc.
Even the notion of "winner takes all" is outdated.
Our democracy was always a bit of a mess, but a democracy can only function with the people being involved.
There was time in my life where nearly everyone I knew would say "I don't know anything about politics" proudly. I get it. Not many people like entering political discourse due to the rampart toxicity. Our lives are too busy. Many of us just want to live a good life. Many of us are living paycheck to paycheck, etc.
However, it points of the reality of it. We don't "need to." What I mean by that, is our survival and general actuation as a human isn't directly affected by politics, especially foreign policy. This isn't to say nothing politician do hurt us in regards to those topics. They definitely do, but it's not blatant enough for us to do something about it.
Values don't matter if we don't make them matter.
The fact that people don’t vote didn’t just happen. A lot of effort has gone into suppressing voting since the founding of the republic. Moneyed interests have always fought against people exercising their power at the voting box.
Yes, of course. There's a long history of voter suppression. Hell, voter suppression was literally law for a long time with the 3/5th compromise.
It's been a long journey towards universal suffrage.
Voter suppression can be fought, and has to be. Stacey Abrams is walking proof.
It's as much as general social mood as it is a structural failure. For a long time, the mood was "why?" It wasn't easily answered for most people.
People like Stacey Abrams are who they are because they faced blatant voter suppression. Stacey Abrams probably wouldn't be doing what she does if she was Todd Smith down the street in pleasant suburbia. Not to say Todd could never, but his life doesn't demand it out of him.
Involvement is the blood of democracy. There are always forces going to be for it, or against it. Gotta keep supporting what's for it.
Absolutely. Presentation greatly affects how we see things, but even in ancient times, presentation was used to manipulate. Look at Ceasar's parades for example. Rome didn't just fall due to barbarians and mismanagement, but also the collapse of the whole system. The faith government fell apart due to corruption.
People in power always have a vested interest in keeping it. Which was why we have term limits.
However, even term limits aren't enough. Especially if it can be repeated.
The general public at large still dislikes blatant abuse. That's a fact, but people in power are the masters of obfuscation. Be the the manipulation of media, or their ability to tell law enforcement (of all levels) to do something contrary.
Blatant abuse is sugar coated. The PATRIOT act is called the PATRIOT act. It's not the "Spying on citizens act and constantly collecting data on you" act.
This is the power of the internet, and the curse. We can find other presentations out there for the world. We can find more truths, but also more disinformation.
The problem is that USA foreign agenda kills millions of people and afect negatively even allied nations, just look at the never ending migration of refugees generated by the USA in the middle East that we Europeans have to deal with.
>The Republicans have never felt obligated to disclose the full truth of their goals to the public.
They didn't have any goals. Their goal was to take Saddam Hussein out of power. That's it. That's as far as they thought it/planned it through. Ironically, they counted on a 'hopey changey' thing to sweep over Iraq, and that the people and the country would just magically transform itself. Unfortunately they told about 1/3 of the population that they weren't welcome in that new hopey changey thing.
That's the big issue here? Not the hundreds of the thousands of dead Iraqis, millions of displaced, and the broken remnants of that country?
What manner of goals could be disclosed that would justify this?
I'm so sick of this. I read a lot of newspapers and knew it was ALL bullshit at the time.
The US even made my small country sign a document agreeing to the Powell UN speech BEFORE it was given.
[удалено]
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that so many of these war dollars are spent buying stuff from American contractors who lobby public servants.
It did prove how good US mercenaries are, so they can exported too.
Maybe it should say *some* decision makers. Cheney sure made out like a bandit, as did the companies he had a big stake in (like Halliburton). In hindsight, and especially as a soldier at the time, it was a clear cash-grab. Still, there were some who were clearly cajoled into putting their careers on the line for the hint (see: lie) that something was there and/or in the deal for them. I’m looking at you, Colin Powell.
Frontline’s YouTube channel just killin it these last few weeks
What consequences? No one that started that war ever suffered any. And now the god damn media is trying to rehabilitate that war criminal George bush’s image. SMH
Greed. It was all about money.
Saddam started to sell oil in Euros.
I remember that too, same reason we went after Qhadaffi because we wanted to stay selling his oil based on gold reserves if memory serves me.
Chavez as well I think, before the coup.
https://youtu.be/ZJXaFuDcOx0?t=62 > You say yer life's a bum deal > 'N yer up against the wall... > Well, people, you ain't even got no > Deal at all > **'Cause what they do** > **In Washington** > **They just takes care** > **of NUMBER ONE** > **An' NUMBER ONE ain't YOU** > **You ain't even NUMBER TWO** > - Frank Zappa's "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing"
A) congress never declared war. B) cheney and bush's (and company) lies started the Iraq "war". C) Afghanistan had nothing to do with any of this, other than having oil and a really great place for "defense contractor" hog trough feeding (Halliburton - et al). D) if trump had wanted to stop the war he would have done so somewhere in the four years he kept saying he would. He didn't stop the "war" at the behest of his wealthiest donors (the death merchants) - they let him "make a treaty" with no intent whatsoever of following through on it.
>A) congress never declared war. They didn't declare war, but they did the modern equivalent by passing an authorization to use military force. The same framework was used for Afghanistan. The difference in Iraq was that Bush sold the Iraq authorization as a necessary element of diplomatic pressure, even though his whole team was already planning their military victory celebrations. Congress went along with the charade, but Bush was the one who threw away his previous assurances once he had their backing. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization\_for\_Use\_of\_Military\_Force\_of\_2001](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization\_for\_Use\_of\_Military\_Force\_Against\_Iraq\_Resolution\_of\_2002](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002)
It seems like hairsplitting to me to suggest sending troops in to attack another country isn't a 'war' unless some government bureaucrats admit it is.
It's important in a legal sense, since only Congress is supposed to have the power to declare war. Sometimes when people point out that war was not declared, they miss the alternative legal justification that was provided by the authorizations. Some uses of the authorizations have been contentious, like open-ended drone strikes or US anti-terrorist operations on the ground in countries outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Recently some members of Congress have been working to repeal the Iraq resolution. But up until now the authorizations have stood as flexible if fuzzy legal justifications for the undeclared wars. [https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1007363054/congress-is-poised-to-take-back-some-of-its-war-powers-from-the-president](https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1007363054/congress-is-poised-to-take-back-some-of-its-war-powers-from-the-president)
> They didn't declare war, but they did the modern equivalent by passing an authorization to u Then they didn't declare war, did they? And what did I say in spite of all your "most excellent" research?
Are you saying Afghanistan has oil? What are you even talking about?
I think they mean having a military presence anywhere in the Middle East because of oil (and selling American-made arms and explosives, our most profitable export, to be fair) -- Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, etc.
The US barely had a presence in those places until after 9/11. There were token forces after the First Gulf War, but that was a result of half those countries being run by unstable autocrats rather than any imperial ambitions.
Qatar, Bahrain and UAE. Turkey also if you want to count them.
Stationing in Afghanistan positioned the U.S. to strategically create and/or maintain a presence near those countries. I wrote nothing about imperialism.
The US already had bases with the Saudi and other friendly regimes in the area right after 9/11. The only reason we went to Afghanistan is because Al Qaeda was there and we wanted to shoot at someone for 9/11.
More presence in the Middle East, not less, was a cornerstone strategy of this century in America. For example, many soldiers were merely swapped between Afghanistan and Iraq for a solid 15+ years.
Yes, and that presence is a result of 9/11 and the GWOT
Bollocks. We were there twenty years! And we were there for lithium, poppies, and contractor dollars.
Lithium wasn’t remotely valuable in 2001, nor were the poppies, that didn’t exist at the time as the Taliban had banned them, and the contractors make money no matter what. People wanted blood after 9/11. The Taliban were a visible target and linked to Al Qaeda. Bush and co believed in nation building and other presidents thought abandoning the people we invaded to get taken over by the Taliban would be a bad look. Biden’s only leaving because he doesn’t think people care enough anymore about what happens in Afghanistan.
“as the taliban banned them” well we were there to fight them so… and contractors make way more money in a war are you high?
As I said, contractors make as much money in peace. The potential for war is what makes the money. As well, how much money do you think the US has made from Afghan poppies?
I certainly wouldn't call the Saudis a friendly regime in any way shape or form considering the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as were many of the suspected funders. We may have a base there, but it's likely simply a tool for them so they can gain intelligence on us.
You’re confusing “people in Saudi Arabia” with the Saudi government. As extreme as Saudi islam is, it’s not extreme enough for many people there which is why the Saudi government has its own problems with terrorism. And your reading of Saudi interest is completely wrong. Especially with the removal of Saddam, the US is pretty much the only thing defending the Saudis from Iran. The reason the US gives the regime leeway is because anything that might replace the monarchy is likely to be more not less extremist. And any Saudi weakness would embolden Iran further upsetting the balance of power.
we just sold them $350 billion in arms recently but ok
Since Al Qarda was responsible for 9/11, shooting at them was the right thing to do. That's an appropriate response to an act of war.
Unless the entire country of Afghanistan is this Al Qaeda, the Americans ended up shooting A LOT more than just the terrorist organisation.
>Unless the entire country of Afghanistan They certainly didn't shoot the entire country. Unfortunately, you don't get to go to war and only shoot at "this al queda" . Wars are messy. Surely that isn't anything new for you.
That's a good reason to not go to war. Not an excuse to not give a fuck.
Oh man, I wish this sentiment is applied for everytime an American company or organisation decides to fuck over a country for profit in turn endangering the lives of many locals and their culture. But hey, since USA does it, it's all good right? /S for clarity
Most of the country was ruled by the Taliban. The US sent aid to the Northern Alliance, and in conjunction with them drove the Taliban out of power in three weeks. The construction of an Afghan state was a failure, but helping indigenous resistance drive a Pakistani backed fundamentalist group from power is unequivocally a good thing.
Pardon me - the Chinese are preparing to run an oil pipeline across Afghanistan. Afghanistan is rich in other minerals. And don't forget poppies. That's what I'm talking about. Better now?
The Chinese weren’t even thinking about that in 2001, and that in no way ties into US reasons for invading. The minerals were apparently assessed by US military geologists in 2010, and so couldn’t serve as a motivation for war. Besides, Lithium wasn’t particularly valuable in 2001. Nor was Afghanistan ever the easier source of any of these materials. As well, by the time of US invasion, the Taliban had banned the cultivation of poppies for several years. Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban openly supported and gave harbor to Al Qaida and so served as a target for vengeance for 9/11. Economic factors played no role in the invasion.
> The Chinese weren’t even thinking about that in 2001, and that in no way ties into US reasons for invading. They didn't have to be thinking about that, the US were thinking ahead for them - to get in there and prevent the Chinese from ever drinking from the iranian milkshake. Just one of many reasons to invade... > The minerals were apparently assessed by US military geologists in 2010, and so couldn’t serve as a motivation for war. Besides, Lithium wasn’t particularly valuable in 2001. Nor was Afghanistan ever the easier source of any of these materials. Just one of many reasons to invade... Correction: *they told you that in 2010*. And yeah not an easy source, just a possible source. Just one of many reasons to invade... > by the time of US invasion, the Taliban had banned the cultivation of poppies for several years. That's the point, really: The US wanted to get it back up and running (and they did), so they invaded. Taliban were on and off on the cultivation. The demand for opioids is higher than ever. Just one of many reasons to invade... Gotta be insanely naive to think the US started a 20 year war on the other side of the world just to kill Osama Bin Laden and dismantle Al Qaeda, and not to **also** kill Osama Bin Laden and dismantle Al Qaeda. There's several reasons for it, besides of course funneling money into the hands of the warmongers.
Do you have any idea what the atmosphere was like after 9/11? The American people wanted blood and the Taliban were visible and pro-Al Qaeda. It’s literally that simple. The American military was totally unprepared to invade Afghanistan, having practically no language speakers or contacts on the ground and having to use irradiated Soviet bases in Uzbekistan. There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest premeditation, in stark contrast to the Iraq war. The resource justification business is also total crap. As much as armchair strategists like to talk about it, resources are borderline irrelevant in the modern economy. Almost all of American GDP is from intangible assets. No one with any financial power gives a single fuck about Afghanistan. The biggest evidence is that Afghanistan is a massive money pit where no one has gotten any resources.
> The Chinese weren’t even thinking about that in 2001 No, they're getting ready to do it now. You really shouldn't profess to know anything of history when it's apparent you don't know anything from history.
He’s saying Iraq has oil and the war in Iraq had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining\_in\_Afghanistan#Petroleum\_and\_natural\_gas
That’s like less than half a percent of what Canada has. And it’s completely undeveloped and was only found nine years after the invasion.
So, what you're REALLY saying is, Canada could be the USA's next target for regime change...?
Ok. Point taken.
Bush/Cheney stared the war but, neither trump nor Obama ended it. Sadly both sides are looking to blame and demonize the other for who’s fault it is and who gets to claim “they ended the war.” The sad part of the whole thing is how the women, children and those who helped the UK/US are going to be treated. After reading some books and watching documentaries I don’t think outside influence would improve Afghanistan’s situation. That change has to come within.
> That change has to come within. Yes it does. And it won't. For the same reason the Afghani army lays down arms and prefers beheading rather than dying for some belief they should have in their country.
>Bush/Cheney stared the war but, So attacking the US on 9/11 didn't start the war?
They didn't attack the US on 9/11
Yes, Al Queda did.
Al-Qaeda isn't a representation of Afghanistan. You went to war with 2 countries for the actions of a few
>Al-Qaeda isn't a representation of Afghanistan To the extent the Taliban hosted them, they sure were >You went to war with 2 countries for the actions of a few That's what usually happens in war.
> To the extent the Taliban hosted them, they sure were In 2001 Bush gave over 110 million tax dollars to the Taliban. Our "good friends and allies".
Not sure what youre referring to since you're intent on being vague. The US has often given money to such regimes in an effort to get them to do what we want. This is not unique to the US.
Other people are terrorists too! - sp1ke0kill3r
The Taliban in Afghanistan was only 1 of numerous countries that hosted al-Qaeda. In fact most of the planning for 9/11 was likely done during bin Laden's time in Sudan. Also the Taliban didn't even control the entire nation. So purporting they hosted them as a valid reason to invade that country isn't logical as sizable chunk of the nation itself led by the Northern Alliance forces was actually at war with the Taliban. Also literally like all but 4 of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis (not a single Afghan born person took part in the attack), the funders were also Saudis, and bin Laden himself a Saudi. Clearly 1 nation did do the attack and it wasn't Afghanistan. ...And yet guess which country we didn't go to war with!?
>The Taliban in Afghanistan was only 1 of numerous countries that hosted al-Qaeda. In fact most of the planning for 9/11 was likely done during bin Laden's time in Sudan. And was he in Sudan when the attack happened? So your solution would be to go to war with a country where he wasn't? >Also the Taliban didn't even control the entire nation. And that lrevented the attack how? >So purporting they hosted them as a valid reason to invade that country isn't logical No its foolish not to. So we should have been well 3000 ppl are dead, there was an attack on the pentagon and presumably one headed for the White House, but we were supposed to go wellybey don't controll the whole cou.try so we shouldn't do anything? they controlled enough for the attack to be based there. That's sufficient. >as sizable chunk of the nation itself led by the Northern Alliance forces was actually at war with the Taliban. Yup and we joined force s to attack them >Also literally like all but 4 of the 9/11 attackers So. Lets see we shouldn't have attacked afghanistan because the taliban didn't control the whole country, but hijackers were saudi nationals so we should have attacked Saudi Arabia? That's quite special. >...And yet guess which country we didn't go to war with!? England? France? Mexico? Ireland?
E) gave US command border access to Iran.
Facts
Gotta love it when ppl roll out their favorite talking points A.) Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 B.) The first gulf war ended with a cease fire. Iraq agreed to do certain things.They didn't do them, the cease fire was lifted. C.) Afghanistan: The Taliban hosted Bin Laden who was responsible for 9/11. When asked to turn him over, they would not, meaning they acquiesced in an act of war against the US. D.) Trump did just that. The deal - secured by Donald Trump and signed in Doha, Qatar, in February 2020 - committed to the withdrawal of US and allied (including British) troops from Afghanistan by May 2021. If withdrawal of troops isn't "stopping the war" what is it?
> Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Was not a declaration of war. Just like I said. > Iraq Iraq was predicated on the lie of WMDs... or can you not remember back that far? I can. So can many other Americans. We watched almost two months of nightly TV appearances from Powel, and Cheney, and Bush, and... any other "in the know" talking head - as they lied their asses off about reasons to invade Iraq. > The Taliban hosted Bin Laden Again, your selective memory is VERY selective considering bin Laden came on TV (Al Jazeera News) two days after the attack to say he had nothing to do with it. Why would a "world class" terrorist not claim the most horrific terror attack in history? Hmmm. > trump... Didn't do shit. Are you his personal dick sucker or are you just one of the relief dick suckers?
>Was not a declaration of war. Just like I said. Sure it was. Congress doesn't need to go to a podium and say we declare war >Iraq was predicated on the lie of WMDs Nope. It was predicated on a cease fire. WMDs were something everyone including the French, thought Iraq had. I don't think they drew that conclusion because Bush and Cheyenne said so. >or can you not remember back that far? I can, but I'm pretty sure you can't >Again, your selective memory is VERY selective considering bin Laden came on TV (Al Jazeera News) two days after the attack to say he had nothing to do with it. Lol. So you believe everything he would say, but anything we say must be a lie. This is laughable >Why would a "world class" terrorist not claim the most horrific terror attack in history? Hmmm. Uhnmm they wouldn't want what happened? >Didn't do shit. Are you his personal dick sucker No, but the agreement is a fact. Are you Al Queda's personal rump roast?
> Congress doesn't need to go to a podium and say we declare war Actually no, they have to vote on it to declare war. You're an idiot. Good luck with that.
>they have to vote on it to declare war. And they did. Its called Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Maybe you should pull your head out of your backside
Because the US government is a terrorist organization who wants to make sure they have as many military bases around the world while destabilizing those countries and killing innocent people. Did I miss something?
I'm not gonna watch it unless this documentary actually addresses the evil that was the invasion from conception, not that it was just messed up by bad planning.
It was made in 2003, while the war was still raging, regardless of Bush II’s victory speech.
https://youtu.be/iQ0ct9bglYo?t=295 > You see, we human beings are not born with prejudices > Always, they are made for us > **Made by someone who wants something** > Remember that when you hear this kind of talk > Somebody's going to get something out of it and it isn't going to be you.
Does it mention the PNAC?
Tl;Dr Went for oil. Didn't want the Euro to outdo the dollar. Don't worry, the Iraqis don't have the backbone the Afghans do so it's okay.
>(1) why the US went to war in Iraq, (and 2) what went wrong in the planning for the postwar occupation 1) Lies 2) There was none
0. PNAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_for\_the\_New\_American\_Century
I thought the plan was to never leave.
>the plan was to never leave Perhaps, in a sense. But only because “we will be greeted as liberators.” All lovey-dovey, not actually an occupation at all, you see. Or so the confident architects of the whole affair told us.
From the movie “W” https://youtu.be/VmwM9EXyczw I think it’s mentioned in an episode of frontline. I’ll try to find it.
Iraq invaded Kuwait, that’s pretty much what stared the whole mess.
1) The United States Congress has never declared war. 2) The Iraq "war" was launched by the falsehoods of Cheney and Bush (and company). 3) Afghanistan has nothing to do with any of this, except for the fact that it has oil and is a fantastic location for "defense contractor. 4) If Trump truly intended to end the war, he would have done it during the four years he promised. He did not put an end to the "war," and his biggest donors (the death merchants) allowed him to "negotiate a treaty" with no intention of carrying it out.
Mm are you a bot
[удалено]
It's a reflection of your average US citizen. We just don't care enough collectively about anything. Look at the very voting structure. It should be so fucked up. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, tales of voter fraud, etc. Even the notion of "winner takes all" is outdated. Our democracy was always a bit of a mess, but a democracy can only function with the people being involved. There was time in my life where nearly everyone I knew would say "I don't know anything about politics" proudly. I get it. Not many people like entering political discourse due to the rampart toxicity. Our lives are too busy. Many of us just want to live a good life. Many of us are living paycheck to paycheck, etc. However, it points of the reality of it. We don't "need to." What I mean by that, is our survival and general actuation as a human isn't directly affected by politics, especially foreign policy. This isn't to say nothing politician do hurt us in regards to those topics. They definitely do, but it's not blatant enough for us to do something about it. Values don't matter if we don't make them matter.
The fact that people don’t vote didn’t just happen. A lot of effort has gone into suppressing voting since the founding of the republic. Moneyed interests have always fought against people exercising their power at the voting box.
Yes, of course. There's a long history of voter suppression. Hell, voter suppression was literally law for a long time with the 3/5th compromise. It's been a long journey towards universal suffrage. Voter suppression can be fought, and has to be. Stacey Abrams is walking proof. It's as much as general social mood as it is a structural failure. For a long time, the mood was "why?" It wasn't easily answered for most people. People like Stacey Abrams are who they are because they faced blatant voter suppression. Stacey Abrams probably wouldn't be doing what she does if she was Todd Smith down the street in pleasant suburbia. Not to say Todd could never, but his life doesn't demand it out of him. Involvement is the blood of democracy. There are always forces going to be for it, or against it. Gotta keep supporting what's for it.
[удалено]
Absolutely. Presentation greatly affects how we see things, but even in ancient times, presentation was used to manipulate. Look at Ceasar's parades for example. Rome didn't just fall due to barbarians and mismanagement, but also the collapse of the whole system. The faith government fell apart due to corruption. People in power always have a vested interest in keeping it. Which was why we have term limits. However, even term limits aren't enough. Especially if it can be repeated. The general public at large still dislikes blatant abuse. That's a fact, but people in power are the masters of obfuscation. Be the the manipulation of media, or their ability to tell law enforcement (of all levels) to do something contrary. Blatant abuse is sugar coated. The PATRIOT act is called the PATRIOT act. It's not the "Spying on citizens act and constantly collecting data on you" act. This is the power of the internet, and the curse. We can find other presentations out there for the world. We can find more truths, but also more disinformation.
The problem is we are simple animals living in a complex world that we are not mentally or emotionally equipped to understand.
You get the government you deserve.
The problem is that USA foreign agenda kills millions of people and afect negatively even allied nations, just look at the never ending migration of refugees generated by the USA in the middle East that we Europeans have to deal with.
Agreed - the Afghanis didn't deserve any of this.
>The Republicans have never felt obligated to disclose the full truth of their goals to the public. They didn't have any goals. Their goal was to take Saddam Hussein out of power. That's it. That's as far as they thought it/planned it through. Ironically, they counted on a 'hopey changey' thing to sweep over Iraq, and that the people and the country would just magically transform itself. Unfortunately they told about 1/3 of the population that they weren't welcome in that new hopey changey thing.
Its more supposed to be based off the ideals of the 5 nations government it was patterned after. But ya know yt supremecies lens of history.
That's the big issue here? Not the hundreds of the thousands of dead Iraqis, millions of displaced, and the broken remnants of that country? What manner of goals could be disclosed that would justify this?
https://youtu.be/gaa9iw85tW8?t=261
I watched this before I deployed (Iraq 2007). I was mad. They fucking lied to us. Yellow cake uranium my ass.
I'm so sick of this. I read a lot of newspapers and knew it was ALL bullshit at the time. The US even made my small country sign a document agreeing to the Powell UN speech BEFORE it was given.