Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Why are we in Afghanistan      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 feeltobefree
Joined: 10/6/2006
Msg: 1
Why are we in AfghanistanPage 1 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Hi all,

Well I have been having a hard time trying to find and figure out why we are in Afghanistan?
What is our purpose there and what is our goal? Are there any objectives? Or is this just an open ended war to 'fight terrorism'.. If it is when do we leave? What are the checks that are in place?

Thanks.
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/12/2007 1:56:58 PM
If we weren't there there would never have been any "justification" for the subsequent invasion of a sovreign nation that had no part in attacking us.

I think we should invade all countries that cut time zones in half.
 gentalltheway
Joined: 9/9/2006
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/12/2007 4:53:25 PM

Under international law that constitutes an act of aggression which the U.S. was perfectly within its rights to respond to.


Actually, under international law, it was deemed as an illegal attack/war. Since Afghanistan never executed an armed attack against the United States, the US had no rights whatsoever to attack a soveign nation. By bombing Afghanistan, the United States and the United Kingdom are committing acts of aggression, which is prohibited by the U.N. Charter.
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/12/2007 6:00:33 PM
.

Its the only way we can steal the oil from the poor. Oh yeh and the poppy crop I hear has a great bumper crop this year!

Notice they want to let 20,000 drug dealers out of prison 2 years early? LOL

.
 gentalltheway
Joined: 9/9/2006
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/13/2007 9:01:20 AM

Afghanistan , as a failed nation state, and incubator of Bin Laden and Co (who wound up there only because they were failures in achieving their desired Islamic revolutions in their home countries, and had the support and protection of both the Taliban and Pakistani intelligence service) was a logical target.

That's why.


That's why???

Let me remind you that on September 20 2001, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer. On October 1, six days before the bombing began, they offer was repeated, and their representative in Pakistan told reporters: "We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems." Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on our time."

Basically the start of “you are either with us or against us” bullshit.

The demands made by the Taliban at the time were more than justifiable just as it would've from any other sovereign nation.

If Bush would've handled proof of the accusations back then or better yet paid to get him, we wouldn't be in this mess today. But then, it wasn’t part of the plan to start with.

No negations were even attempted by the bushie terror league. Why? Because they needed the war as a steppingstone for Iraq. Proof? In December 2001, the rangers located Bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora and asked for 800 men to block routes and capture Bin Laden. The request was denied!

Wouldn’t you agree that it would’ve been the end of it?

Bottom line, catching Bin Laden was NOT and NEVER was a priority.

That's why we are in Afghanistan.
 Mike72801
Joined: 10/28/2007
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/13/2007 10:46:36 AM
We are fighting the war on terror to keep the terrorists from attacking us.

Based on the number of terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 it is hard to say it is not working.
 gentalltheway
Joined: 9/9/2006
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/13/2007 12:45:27 PM

Well, the truth is (and it's a quite human one, not to mention a political one) that it was going to have to be payback time for anyone found connected to it , or supporting those who did.


Agreed but...who else did except for Bin Laden's followers/al quaeda?


The psychological impact of that day could not be taken without retaliating in a strong manner.


Again...agreed but since Afghanistan wanted to negotiate the release of the bad guy to the US...you know...the one the US specifically asked for? Why do so?


It's not just our reptilian brain at work, but also a valid need to show the NEXT guy thinking about it (or those supporting such an act) what was in store for them. Failure to do that would only lessen safety for all.


I fail to see the logic in your quote. Afghanistan was ready to give away the man requested by the US in exchange for a simple and minor request. Are you saying that killing thousands who had absolutely nothing to do with 911 justifies the aggresive acts?


I think the nuclear missile attack analogy is a good one.


It is actually...considering that it did get the bad guy.

This is not the case...right?
 gentalltheway
Joined: 9/9/2006
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/14/2007 9:10:53 AM

I think that is misleading. They responded to the request in precisely the same way in which every country does when it wants to reject an extradition request - show us the evidence, and if we find it convincing we will be glad to hand him over. That is the response you give when you have no intention to do so, such as the Russians responding the British in the recent assassination case.


How is that misleading? Did the Taliban attempted to negotiate the release of Bin Laden...yes or no?
Didn't the Taliban made the first move to a negotiation only a few days before the attack...yes or no?
Did the US refused to negotiate even when approached by the Taliban...yes or no?

Wouldn't any reasonable person sit and think for a moment that if the Taliban had no intentions to give away Bin Laden, they certainly wouldn't take steps to negotiate in the first place moreso because they knew very well that they didn't have to because of any treaties between both countries...right?

Also, wouldn’t it be fair to assume that if (and that’s a HUGE if) Bush would’ve at least TRY to negotiate, we wouldn’t be is this mess right now? How about for just one day? After all, we are talking about attacking a sovereign country here so a day of negotiations doesn’t sound like much, particularly once it’s the Taliban who are making moves, right? How about an hour? Minute??? The fact is that Bush had no intentions to even try to bring Laden in as it was NOT what he wanted in the first place. It would’ve taken just a bit of pressure towards the Taliban and they would’ve offered Laden on a silver platter. The problem with that scenario was that the US had no reasons from that point on to attack…well…anyone. That was just not part of the plans.

Let's say that Bin Laden was in another country such as Russia (where there's no extradition treaties with the US), it would've been ok for the US to attack them? How about China? Basically any other country that do not have an extradition treaty with the US? I don’t think so.


A country without an extradition treaty or convention, has NO authority to surrender a fugitive criminal to a requesting foreign government, unless that foreign government is of a country to which the fugitive can rightfully be deported. In some circumstances, therefore, countries may, if they wish, grant perpetual asylum to the most heinous of criminals.


Now bear in mind that back then, Afghanistan had no extradition treaties with the US therefore the US had no authority over them. Saying this, it was the Talibans who approached the US just days before the attack to negotiate the release of Bin Laden. Sure tells me that they seemed honest and willing to work with the US.

Simply put...there are international rules in regards to extradition that are respected by all countries...well except for one that is. Furthermore, refusal of an extradition is NOT a motive to attack a sovereign nation no matter what the accusations were and it is also illegal under international laws to do so.


Bin Laden had been paying the Taliban millions of dollars in hard currency. They were not going to part with him.


You seem to forget that the US did as well. In fact, they gave another 43 million just 4 months before 911. Now think about it for a minute...why would the US give so much money to a country/Taliban who's harbouring one of the most wanted man in the US? Weird!
 Mike72801
Joined: 10/28/2007
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/14/2007 5:32:03 PM

'warriors'?

grunts for the corporate elite


We get it. We knew that all the talk about Liberals supporting the troops was a lie.
 Mike72801
Joined: 10/28/2007
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/14/2007 6:03:51 PM
You have repeatedly posted insults an derogatory comments about our troops. When you get called out you want to say you support the troops?

Your credibility is zero.
 Mike72801
Joined: 10/28/2007
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/15/2007 4:17:55 AM
They are doing it for the right reason. They all volunteered or reenlisted since this war began.

You called them paid killers for the corporate elite. Your distain for the troops is clear.
 MacKevinized
Joined: 2/15/2006
Msg: 12
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/15/2007 10:29:51 AM
I think we're there because no one wants to napalm all the poppy over there. I would take about 2 days and eliminate the need for having inordinate amounts to flow without audit.
Without poppy, there could be no puppet government supported with our military with out it.
Then we don't need to pay 40,000 mercenaries $30,000. 00 a month to shoot civilians at random because of a hangover.

This economy of poppy has worked for a long time, why mess with it? The Taliban was cutting us out of our opium profits and getting more weapons to protect their point of view.
 gentalltheway
Joined: 9/9/2006
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/15/2007 3:37:45 PM

Would also like to remind a few posters, there is nothing illegal about Nato actions in Afghanistan. We are there with the full approval of the United Nations.

Aww the old bullshit rises to the top once more.


The war against Afghanistan is illegal. The US, assisted by Canada and Britain is bombing Afghanistan and will perhaps use additional force with ground troops for the stated purpose of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and others associated with his organization and of toppling the Taliban government.

No international or national law or policy legalizes these attacks on Afghanistan. No resolutions of the United Nations' Security Council or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization could provide a legal justification for these attacks and none do.

The war against Afghanistan violates international law including the Charter of the United Nations (The Charter), the Geneva Conventions and the relevant provisions of the eleven International agreements dealing with the suppression and control of terrorism. The attacks by bombing and the use of other military force are war crimes pursuant to the Rome Statute.


That’s when the war started. Which was ILLEGAL!!!

Why do you think that Bush league made changes to the constitution so that it would be impossible to charge the present government with war crimes? They had nothing better to do on that day?

Now, if you want to argue, please contact the UN and the Geneva Convention.

NATO was asked by the puppet government installed by the US for protection. It was the only way to get an international force working legally within the occupied state.


Reason we went there ? Direct reaction to the attacks of 9/ 11 . The Taliban were sheltering, aiding and abetting Al Quadea


That was not a reason for an attack against the country which is why it was deemed…ILLEGAL! Again, take it with the UN and the Geneva Convention.


Reason we are still there? To support the democraticly elected government of Afghanitsan and keep the Taliban out .


Democratically elected government??? You must be kidding right? Opposition parties declared terrorists and banned, ballots rigged, and warlords massively bribed? Democratically my as s! It was published through different medias around the globe and even Canadian ones on just how it was set-up.


Afghanistan is basically an attempt to stop / downsize terrorism.


Come on! Spending over a trillion dollars to stop and prevent a few hundred men living in caves from attacking us with the dreadful box cutters? Just writing the words makes me feel stupid.


The underlying question: what wouyld you be doing to stop / downsize terrorism?


A very valid question. Here’s your answer: it’s an impossible task!

Most terror attacks are based as an act of revenge on groups or governments who killed innocent families, women and children. Saying that, I suppose another question should be, who is really responsible for terror groups to develop in the first place...right?


No, a reasonable person understands that they way to not give somebody up is to engage in diplomacy, insisting on being satisfied with the evidence. The posture is the same whether one is sincere or not. Diplomacy is the most effective tool for neutralizing activity that there is.


You are in title to your own opinion. I disagree with you as we are suppose to be living in a diplomatic world where talk is always a priority over violence.


Do you really believe that Russia, for example, is sincere in negotiating the extradition of Lugovoy and Kovtun? Or that Bush was sincere when he pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty, saying there needed to be more consultations and evidence?

Quite different stories if you ask me. Russia requested the extradition of several terrorists in 2003 to which England refused. Expecting Russia to extradite two Russian citizens 2007 was a little naïve from England. Furthermore, there’s no extradition treaties between the two countries which would’ve made it difficult for Russia to extradite a citizen in the first place.

Bin Laden story is quite different. First, he is not a citizen of Afghanistan and second, it’s the Taliban who approached the US a few days before the attack to negotiate. Bear in mind that those two countries don’t have any treaties either therefore for the Taliban to make a move, it had to be a serious one.

As far as Bush goes, I’m sorry but I just can’t possibly insert the word “sincere” in anything with Bush involvement. Bush and Sincere just don’t go together.


There's no checklist on when it is ok and not ok, short of unilaterally saying that it is never ok to start a war.


Actually there’s a checklist/rules that can be found at the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention.
 Mike72801
Joined: 10/28/2007
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/15/2007 5:11:30 PM

How the hell COULD you miss it?

What information? I missed it?

I did read the 9/11 Commision report.
 gentalltheway
Joined: 9/9/2006
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/15/2007 7:57:14 PM

Quote from a poster who ignores the facts


Actually it’s the other way around. Or is it because you just don’t get it???

How difficult is it for you to understand that NO RESOLUTIONS WERE PASSED UNTIL DECEMBER 21, AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE??? That’s DECEMBER 21 2001!!! That was once the US had their puppet government asking for help!!! Every time you argue on this issue makes you look quite dumb. Do I need to write slowly??? All attacks before that date were deemed ILLEGAL!!!


When attacked, a country doe not need to wait till the UN approves prior to commencing hostillities.

Sure if it was an act of war. Afghanistan never attacked the US…period!


The bombing of Afghanistan is not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the Charter because: 1) the attacks in New York and Washington D.C. were criminal attacks, not “armed attacks” by another state, and 2) there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the U.S. after September 11.
Even if the U.S. was authorized on September 11 to use military force under article 51, that license ended once the Security Council became “seized” of the matter, which indeed it did on September 12, by passing Resolution 1368, and reaffirming in Resolution 1373 on September 28 that it “remains seized” of the matter. By bombing Afghanistan, the United States and the United Kingdom are committing acts of aggression, which is prohibited by the U.N. Charter.


Again, why do you think that Bush changed the constitution so that no one can file war crimes charges to the present government??? Jesus!!! Is it that difficult to understand???


Some fantasy, eh! Notice the resolution was unanimous, so guess a lot of us around the world were conned. Also pretty plainly spells out that Nato is operating completely with in its mandate there. This is completely legal, and well justified


You do realize that you are quoting resolutions passed in 2003, right? Naaaa you obviously didn’t! Hey…wake up…it happened in 2001. That is two years before...


Need a good laugh, just love reading those loonie theroies


Reading is one thing...understanding what you read is quite obviously NOT your forte. Hey, at least you have fun with it…good for you.



Geneva conventions being broken ? Pray please mention some specifics.

It’s called the Geneva Convention rules of war. Look it up when you have time. Hey, who knows, you just might get another great laugh out of that as well.

Well we have to since he's the reason for us to originally be in Afghanistan. Mind you, he never was a target and never will be.
 gentalltheway
Joined: 9/9/2006
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/16/2007 12:40:50 PM

As I mentioned in my thread, when countries are attacked, they are not required to wait until Un Sanctions are in place before counter attacking. learn to read please , also you are wrong, sanctions ignored by the Taliban go back to 1996.


You just proved once more that you are either uneducated or just plain ol dumb. I choose number 2. It's been established time and time again over the years and repeated in here that Afghanistan never attacked the US therefore any attack on them would be deemed illegal. Even when I type slowly, you still cant get it! You do realize that other people can read what you write/paste right?


So you dont like the Karzai " puppet govt ? The Afghan people do, Karzai has a 70 % approval rating, that is based on a poll by the left leaning CBC.


Right! In a country controlled by the US and his puppet controled government with a vast media propaganda machine saying to people just how better life is everyday. Now there's a big surprise!

Also, it is far from the truth according to a March 2007 survey conducted by Integrity Watch Afghanistan, it was revealed that about 60 percent of Afghans think the current administration is more corrupt than any other in the past two decades.


You want the Taliban back in ? Come right and say which you think is better for the people of Afghanistan ! Come right and say which you think is better for the people of Afghanistan !


You are a moron Sir as you can only come up with one possibility.

You are not even worth the time of day as once you are proven wrong, you still very poorly attempt to argue and then since it's not working, try to change the direction of the thread.

I personnaly think that Canada should change it's direction in Afghanistan by not following U.S. foreign policy.


Canada should support the democratic-minded people in Afghanistan and focus more on peacekeeping. U.S. foreign policy is making a mockery of democracy and a mockery of the war on terror.


I couldn't agree more.
 IslandDreams56
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/18/2007 1:37:46 PM
Dunrich:
I'm a little surprised you have posted this without checking the facts.
The Taliban supported Bin Laden because he helped them finance their
bloody rule. Once they realized how deeply he had compromised their security
they tried to jettison him. Too little, too late. I don't believe they had any prior knowledge of his plans to attack the
US and if they had, I think they would have turfed him out.

They may be religious fanatics, but they are not stupid.
 gentalltheway
Joined: 9/9/2006
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/18/2007 4:21:06 PM
It's amazing how the history regarding the invasion is being distorted in this thread. Here is the wikipedia account, which I think is accurate:


Wikipedia? Accurate??? Are you kidding me? I can make all the changes I want in Wiki right now if I wanted with absolutely no one to stop me... Didn't you know that? If you want to be taken seriously, try to move away from Wikipedia as a source of information. But thank you for the laugh.


The UN Security Council did not have to authorize the use of force in the NATO-led military operations in Afghanistan as it was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter


Here we go again...


The bombing of Afghanistan is not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the Charter because: 1) the attacks in New York and Washington D.C. were criminal attacks, not “armed attacks” by another state, and 2) there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the U.S. after September 11.
Even if the U.S. was authorized on September 11 to use military force under article 51, that license ended once the Security Council became “seized” of the matter, which indeed it did on September 12, by passing Resolution 1368, and reaffirming in Resolution 1373 on September 28 that it “remains seized” of the matter. By bombing Afghanistan, the United States and the United Kingdom are committing acts of aggression, which is prohibited by the U.N. Charter.


That must be on difficult statement as some just don't seem to understand it.

Another piece that WIKI doesn't show is the fact that the Taliban warned the US of an attack only a few months before 911.

June-Aug 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA that Middle Eastern terrorists are training for hijackings and targeting American interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin alerts the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on US targets. In late July, a Taliban emissary warns the US that bin Laden is planning a huge attack on American soil. In August, Israel warns of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. [Fox News, 5/17/02, Independent, 9/7/02, CNN, 9/12/02, more]


For anyone to think that the Taliban/Afghanistan were involved, need to have their brains checked.


Are you making this up? If not, I'd like a pointer because I can find no checklist.

That one was in reference to killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan. It's got something to do with war crimes or something. The nerve of them calling it war crimes!!!

That is the part of the Geneva Convention I was mentioning. WAR CRIMES!

For the US and the UK to attack a nation without provocation and deliberately aiming at civilians is seen as terrorist acts. But then, the US should be use to it by now considering that they are in my view and in many others around the globe, the number one terrorist state ever recorded.

The bush league will have to deal with countries that will want to prosecute them for war crimes as soon as they will not have diplomatic immunity. Canada will be one of the first in line. Hell we tried some years back but diplomatic immunity cancelled the case. Sure the US will never hand them over but then, they will all be extremely limited in their travelling.



 tireofbeinglonely2
Joined: 2/24/2007
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/22/2007 9:56:48 PM
"For thousands of years the fight in the Middle East has been, and still is about religion and land.....Its not even ours to fight over!!!...we are just borrowing it. How much space does one need to be happy? "

I too apreciate your post. Thanks. The extreme hatred that you felt so deeply that it caused you such great saddness, I was touched at how that might have felt. What I don't understand is your last sentence, you said its not our fight its not our land... My heart sunk and I read it again. I knew that even you that experience the hatred so deeply still missed it. You can't possibly make the connection.. Why?

Why did those men fly planes carrying innocent AMERICAN's into buildings holding Thousands of AMERICANS? You don't see that same hatred towards a culture or religion ? Its our culture and our religions they hate it was our land!!!! Our planes!!!! Our Lives!!!!...It is our fight!!!!!! It is very much our land and our people who have been murdered in the name of HATE! If you don't see this then your blind.. All the planning it took the money that funded it was all traced back to Bin Laden and Al Qaida and Afghanistan.

What ever conspiracy theories have bubbled up to make our movements in Afghanistan seem unjust are just that.. nothing.. I truly can say of all the threads I have wasted my time reading in this forum .... This particular thread has left me disgusted.. I have lost some faith in the people in our own country and bordering countries that choose to give shelter to the hate that killed so many... I don't care what any of you think and I thank God every night that truth will have victory over hate. Those of you that covet the hate will never see truth. I am very sad for you.
 exodusi1
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/22/2007 10:18:15 PM
Yes, we should have gone into Afghanistan to take out the terrorists who attacked us. Almost all Americans agree with that premise.

Unfortunately, President Bush decided a war for profit was more important than a war for cause. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Therein lies the problem. All too often the neocons lump the two together.

Remember 14 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

This is what happens when you elect morons. For the Love of God, please STOP nominating idiots!
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 21
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/24/2007 3:45:38 PM
most if not all of this has been coverend in another post on afghanistan on what the media is failing to report in afghanistan.
interestingly enough, posters whose positions were clearly shown to be wrong - for example, that the us 'created' bin laden - are now here, hawking the same tripe as if no one ever proved otherwise. the other myth i'm seeing repeated here, by some new posters but also by some who bloody well know better know, is that the us in in afghanistan for oil, another issue that was clearly disproven.
excuse me while i go find the people who had the facts on this and ask them to post here - i think it's about time the left wing posters who keep putting out this garbage started getting chased around these forums until people know them for the propagandists that they are.
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/24/2007 9:13:14 PM
.

most if not all of this has been coverend in another post on afghanistan on what the media is failing to report in afghanistan.
interestingly enough, posters whose positions were clearly shown to be wrong - for example, that the us 'created' bin laden - are now here, hawking the same tripe as if no one ever proved otherwise. the other myth i'm seeing repeated here, by some new posters but also by some who bloody well know better know, is that the us in in afghanistan for oil, another issue that was clearly disproven.
excuse me while i go find the people who had the facts on this and ask them to post here - i think it's about time the left wing posters who keep putting out this garbage started getting chased around these forums until people know them for the propagandists that they are.


I for one have not seen any proof so if you have a link lets take a peek at what you are calling "proof".
 exodusi1
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/25/2007 1:59:18 AM

When you think Afghanistan Imagine

Where 20 years of war has totally crippled the economy, and you must try to somehow survive day-by-day by scrounging enough food to feed your children. Where people do not have the facilities to receive an education. Where people do not have the facilities to receive treatment at hospitals. Where, on average, men die at 40 years of age and women at 43. Where hundreds of thousands of people are maimed, disabled, or blind because of war and land mines. Where you face a high chance of becoming blind or crippled because of the lack of fresh fruit and vegetables, causing vitamin deficiency. If you are blind or crippled, no one can help you because those that are not blind or crippled need help as well

http://www.afghanistans.com/



That is from what appears to be the official Afghanistan website.
 gottobeme
Joined: 4/2/2006
Msg: 24
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 11/25/2007 9:14:23 PM

There is a nice thread in the science/philosophy group arguing that the moon landings were faked - you might feel quite comfortable there.

I don't have the time - or bandwidth, I'm currently travelling south on a sailboat and using wifi to connect from an anchorage - to go to the thread, which is under current events, positive things in Afghanistan- what mainstream media is not reporting, and copy all of what is there. However, all of the silly conspiracy theories, war for oil theories, all of the usual bunkum which I'm seeing repeated here, has been thoroughly shown for what it is - crap being recycled by people who are too lazy to bother looking up the facts.
If anyone is truly interested, look up the posts in that thread by dunrich, or motownmaniax, or mssquirrly- verifiable, solid, credible information on why we're in Afghanistan, plus the debunking of all the nutty theories brought out by the left wingnuts, who can't see past oil - there is none to speak of in Afghanistan - or whatever other silly theory these propogandists are currently spouting.
 IslandDreams56
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Why are we in Afghanistan
Posted: 12/22/2007 5:53:18 AM
GTBM:

Again you have shoved your foot halfway down your throat.
You seem to be able to talk around it. Just how big IS your mouth?

Afghanistan, once again.....has no oil.

None.

That is not the prize in Afghanistan. The issue is whether the US
or Russia has control of the conduit for East Asian oil.
If you are still trying to get your brain around that fact, I feel sorry for you.

Your education has slowed lately, too many margaritas?
I hope you can apply your wit and wisdom to a reply, without resorting
to meaningless drivel and personal attacks.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Why are we in Afghanistan