Related Information to Afghanistan vs USA

Afghanistan vs USA - Page 6

Nighthawk, I think that is a very harsh assessment.

The Taliban were never completely driven out of Afghanistan, they were just dispersed. They were forming well before the US decided to pull forces out of the south.

I think this is another case of a terribly planned invasion by the Coalition and an impotent Afghani Government that does not have the ability to run a democracy, let alone a country. The Afghanis make no secret of the fact they need international forces to secure their country and aid to help rebuild it.

There was clearly no exit strategy by the Coalition when it invaded Afghanistan. The country has not once been secured by these forces. Large parts of Afghanistan are controlled by warlords, as was the case before Taliban rule. What has the US done about the Northern Alliance and all their atrocities since the Taliban was defeated?

I don't believe the UN should fight this ridiculous "War on Terror". Can anyone here actually tell me what a war on terror is? It is not the role of peacekeepers to fight somebody elses war. And terrorism is not something that can be stopped or solved with more violence. The US led this "War on Terrorism" and they are the ones who should continue in this role. You don't start conflicts and then cut and run when it is politically convenient to do so.

I know my remarks are going to be labelled anti-American, but in truth this is a political decision by the US Government, not its people, which I am opposed to.

Maybe you should tally up the human rights abuses by Coalition forces during the Afghanistan invasion and compare this with the number of abuses by UN forces over a similar period. I think you will be surprised at which side comes out on top.

As for the UN sending Afghanistan to the Dark Ages. Which country helped the Taliban fight off the Russians then did nothing about their rise to power, their atrocities against the people of Afghanistan and their strict draconian Islamic rule, until after September 11? In fact the US was secretly in negotiations with the Taliban during the Clinton era. The Taliban would probably not even exist if the US and others hadn't backed them to defeat the Russians for fear of the spread of communism. It's a touch hypocritical they should take the high ground on matters involving this group.

Edited: arvhic on 5th May, 2006 - 1:18am

USA Afghanistan

So, what you are saying is that since the US screwed up, the UN should just encourage the Taliban to take over again. You are criticizing the US for letting the Taliban become strong, then criticizing the US for taking action, then criticizing the US once again for not planning well enough, then criticizing the US again for fighting against the use of terror throughout the world.

What, exactly is it, that you want the US to DO about Afghanistan?

As for the UN, and their peacekeepers, they failed to stop the genocide in Rwanda (running and hiding for the most part), have been shown to be totally inept in the Balkans, and have a wretched history of ever being of any effect, anywhere. At least US forces can win a battle.

What, exactly, are they going to do in Afghanistan? Are they going to participate in the rapes of women and children like they did in Bosnia? Are they going to stand by while the Taliban and Al-Qaeda roar through towns killing every man? Are they going to celebrate when the incredible economic recovery that the cities of Afghanistan have experienced is completely destroyed?

Afghanistan vs USA History & Civil Business Politics

Do you have any proof of this? Furthermore, did the UN participate in the rapes of woman and children as much as the US did in Vietnam? I highly doubt it. Don't throw stones in a glass house.

The US doesn't care about the Taliban. Why was the US negotiating with the Taliban during the Clinton era? I'll give you a tip, "GAS PIPELINE." All the US cares about is the US. Do you honestly believe they got involved in Afghanistan to free the people? What a load of rubbish. The US has known about what goes on in Afghanistan for decades. They only chose to get involved when it was politically convenient to do so. Let me ask you this question. If September 11 had never happened, would the US have invaded Afghanistan? Would the Taliban still be in power?

If Iraq had no oil, would the US have invaded? Would Saddam still be in power?

And how on earth are the US fighting terror? They are half the reason why lunatics in the Middle East want to use terror. They are inflaming terror, that is the end result. Do you think terrorists are scared of the US? Do you think if the US minded its own business and left the Middle East that these evil terrorists would continue to target US interests out of boredom? You can't fight terror with terror. Just ask the protestant Irish. When will the US learn this very simple lesson?

Incredible economic recovery? You mean in poppy fields, which of course the Taliban banned.

Page 6 USA Afghanistan

Yes, the US used diplomacy with the Taliban - under Clinton. Not GWB. Hmmm.

OK, so if the US just left the rest of the world alone, then international terrorism would just disappear? Is that right? The Taliban and Al Qaeda would just let the women continue to own businesses in Afghanistan, private ownership of property and business would continue to thrive in the cities, infrastructure would continue to be built. Right?

In the US military where I served, if anyone raped or murdered local citizens, they were prosecuted and imprisoned. A lot of things happened in Vietnam. A lot of the bad things were punished, as well. Yes, glass houses and all that, but the UN has a worse record of success than even the French by themselves. Yes, there were, and are, abuses in Bosnia, by the UN Peacekeeping force. And no, I am not going to do the research for you.

I assume from your tone, that you are perfectly fine with the continued rape, murder, torture, terror, and general bestial behavior of the Taliban, as long as the US doesn't interfere. Well, it looks like that is just what will happen in Afghanistan. I welcome the UN to do better than the US. I also look forward to more terror to come out of Afghanistan under the gentle auspices of the UN.

I guess that the US should just let the whole world go their own way. We will stop trying to protect the oil fields. After all, isn't the US the CAUSE of the horrible prices in the oil industry now? Hey, the world's economy all runs on oil, so if we just leave it to the French, Russians, and Chinese, I am sure that life will get better in the US, in Australia, and in Afghanistan. We KNOW that the French, Russians, and Chinese are all so much more interested in protecting liberty, protecting the strategic resources that the world runs on, etc.

Whatever. Keep your conspiracy theories about how the US is responsible for everything. Afghanistan is going to get a LOT worse now, under the UN. I feel very sorry for the people there.

Offtopic but, Oh, yes. Vietnam is SO much better off now that the US is no longer raping, pillaging, and murdering. Only a few of their people have been murdered now. Right?

USA Afghanistan

I am not saying the US is responsible for everything that has happened in Afghanistan, I never once said that.

But they sponsored the Taliban initially in a war against Russia. They weren't the only ones who did that. Once the "threat" of Russia was defeated, which was the US's only concern, they allowed the Taliban to impose strict Sharia rule for decades without even a hoot. The US and the International community did nothing. Can I also add the Afghanistan Government pre-Taliban was heavily backed by the Russians.

Now, in a knee-jerk reaction to one terrorist attack, the Taliban are enemy number one. Where was the US all those years when Afghanis were being deprived education, tortured and oppressed by the Taliban?

My whole point is the US doesn't care about what happens to Afghanistan. It only cares about US interests. You are insinuating that the US is in Afghanistan to free the Afghanis. That is plain wrong. The reason was to fight unknown terrorists and remove the Taliban from power because they had been harbouring terrorists. It has nothing to do with the people. Freedom was suppose to be a by-product of the conflict and in some places this has occurred. Kabul is a much better place. But in other parts of the country it's just more of the same with different terrorists.

The Taliban's removal from power is a good thing for the people, but it needs to be replaced with something that is better. And if the Coalition have gone in and removed the Taliban they must stay there and ensure the power vacuum is properly filled. If the US leaves, the country will collapse, which isn't fair. The UN does have a role to play to secure the country, but they should not get actively involved in the war on terror. In my opinion, Afghanistan is a situation that must be solved largely by the Coalition and Afghan people.

I don't agree that the US has a right to use force to secure foreign resources. That is a problem I have with a lot of these battles, they are for the wrong reasons. If the Middle East had no resources there would be no US involvement. I am not saying the US are alone on this. Europe, Russia, China and all the powerful countries do the same thing as you have suggested. Even Australia is doing it with with East Timor. But this topic is specifically about Afghanistan.

I think the US does have a very important role to play in international security. But it has to be exercised for the right reasons.

At what human cost should our lives be made more comfortable? Should it cost thousands of innocent lives being killed? I am sorry, but cheap oil prices is not worth the blood of innocent people. You don't see the human cost of oil, you just see the end price of this product.

The economy is not so important that we should go into countries and do as we please to become richer and wealthier. I will never support commercial greed over human rights, that is just how I was brought up and it is a personal position.

Offtopic but, I fail to see what Vietnam has to do with Afghanistan. My simple point was that you can take any conflict and just about any Army and there will be cases of atrocities committed by troops.

Offtopic but, QUOTE OK, so if the US just left the rest of the world alone, then international terrorism would just disappear? You cannot solve terrorism by using more terrorism. You cannot kill every terrorist in the world. History has shown time and time again that the only way to solve terrorism is by fixing the reasons for it. This generally involves diplomacy.

Edited: arvhic on 7th May, 2006 - 3:27am

You cannot solve terrorism by using more terrorism. You cannot kill every terrorist in the world. History has shown time and time again that the only way to solve terrorism is by fixing the reasons for it. This generally involves diplomacy.

Afghanistan vs USA

Western projects are bleeding Afghanistan dry, says minister

Samihullah is just the kind of returned refugee his country needs. Aged 30, with a wife and two children, he was well educated in the camps across the border in Pakistan. After the Taliban were pushed out in 2001, he returned home and joined the Afghan Ministry of Education, where he helped to rebuild the higher-education sector. But not any more.
Ref. https://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...ticle485894.ece

Afghanistan USA - Page 6

I am surprised by this news. Why after so many years does an all out assault of such a magnitude need to happen in an occupied country? Is it that outsiders are coming in to help. Is it that the Taliban simply re-grouped under the eyes of the US? What is the reason?

Afghanistan USA Politics Business Civil & History - Page 6

PM DISMISSES CRITIQUE OF AFGHANISTAN MISSION

Canadian soldiers are dying while enforcing failing U.S.-led policies to stomp out the illegal opium trade in Afghanistan, says a report that has received a cool reception from Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...tan-canada.html