Taliban flee battle using children as shields: NATO

Status
Not open for further replies.
Prince_James said:
Russia != USSR. Apparently you are unaware of a little thing we call "the fall of the Berlin Wall"?

Or how about the "break up of the Soviet Bloc"?
Click to expand...

Sam doesn't read all that shit she/he posts, for god's sake! Those links are selected by her handlers or employers to post ....she's/he's given certain vague outlines so as to know which link to post concerning what topic is being discussed. She's/he's a propagandist, not one who is as well-read and knowledgeable as it would seem to those who read her/his bullshit links!!!

Baron Max
 
Bells:

Certainly, the actions of a few deranged soldiers, who are going to be going to the gallows for their crimes, cannot speak of the state of the United States military as a whole. The gang-rape and murder of civilians committed by this platoon will result in them being killed by the military very shortly, as they were in violation of every principle of the United States military at the time.

Unless you can tell me which general or other high-ranking officer has asked the soldiers to act as such.

In regards to Abu-Graib: Though I am against the activities purely on the level of "American honour" and "image in the world", I think it would be difficult to prove that what the United States did there was against the geneva convention. It seems the worse they were subjected to was being piled up in a naked pyramid and hooded. Considering the enemies we are currently facing are: 1. Not protected by the Geneva Convention (insurgencies and other non-state entities are NOT signatories or participants within the framework of the Geneva Convention). 2. Are war criminals who abduct, imprison, and execute civilian and military personale alike, as well as mass-murder civilians in purposeful terrorist actions against civilian centres. The United States cannot be blamed for actually treating them MUCH harder than they have been.

By all rights, the Iraqi insurgency should be sent to gulags.
 
Prince_James said:
Russia != USSR.

Apparently you are unaware of a little thing we call "the fall of the Berlin Wall"?

Or how about the "break up of the Soviet Bloc"?
Click to expand...

USSR may not be equal to Russia, but the fact remains that the mujahideen were divided into two factions the Taliban (supported by the US) and the Northern Alliance (supported by the Russians). Until Sept 11, when the US switched sides and started fighting the Taliban and supporting the NA.

Of course, both the Taliban and the NA are different factions of the mujahideen (although the Taliban are the Pashtuns while the NA is made up of the Tajiks Hazaras and Uzbeks.)

The Taliban when it formed the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was recognised by three states, the UAE, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (all US allies believed to be still supporting the Taliban, just more discreetly).

The mujahideen overthrew the secular government of Najibullah and formed the Islamic Jihad Council in 1992. Due to the lack of Pashtun representation in the government, the Taliban was formed and rose to prominence. The US supported the Taliban against the Afghanistan government and led to its destabilisation. Once they came to power in 1996 (forming the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) they oppressed the minorities and implemented an extreme version of Islam which destroyed the fabric of Afghan society. At this time they were best friends with the US
In 1997, the Unocal vice president in charge of the pipeline project was quoted as saying that his company had provided "non-cash bonus payments" to members of the regime in return for their cooperation.

"We basically had to 'pre-sell' them on the idea of this pipeline," says Thatcher. "Some of them didn't understand the idea of profit motive. We had to educate them."

The approach seemed to work. By late 1997, a Taliban delegation visited Unocal's offices in Sugarland, Texas to meet with company executives. A few days later, the Taliban's minister of mines met with the State Department's top official for South Asia. The visit, which came just a month after then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright chastised the regime for its human-rights record, was arranged by Unocal.

"US interest in the lucrative gas pipeline... gives the appearance that while democracy and women's rights are defended in public, commercial interests may really drive US policy toward the Taliban," the Washington Times' Toni Marshall and Tom Carter opined at the time
Click to expand...

And the rest is history.
 
The problem in Afghanistan is that the US has lost credibility ( they supported the Taliban when the NA was in power then supported the NA when the Taliban was in power) plus the Pashtuns (the Taliban) are the major ethnic group and have the most support in terms of funds (from KSA, UAE and their Pashtun friends in Pakistan) so this war is already lost to the West. Its extremely unlikely that the other tribes will continue to fight the Taliban much longer. What is much more likely is that they will reach an accord with each other. Al-Qaeda has already moved to Iraq and Sudan.
 
SamCDKey:

USSR may not be equal to Russia, but the fact remains that the mujahideen were divided into two factions the Taliban (supported by the US) and the Northern Alliance (supported by the Russians). Until Sept 11, when the US switched sides and started fighting the Taliban and supporting the NA.
Click to expand...

Might you show us when the United States supported the Taliban?

As far as I am aware, the United States' support of the mujahideen ceased after the Afghan-Soviet war, and that the United States, as well as the rest of the world, was against the Taliban during the period when it consolidated power and became an insane theocratic dictatorship.

The Taliban when it formed the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was recognised by three states, the UAE, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (all US allies believed to be still supporting the Taliban, just more discreetly).
Click to expand...

The US' allies != The US.

Also, I fail to see how US oil deals mostly negotiated by private companies, have anything to do with "support of the Taliban"?

The problem in Afghanistan is that the US has lost credibility ( they supported the Taliban when the NA was in power then supported the NA when the Taliban was in power) plus the Pashtuns (the Taliban) are the major ethnic group and have the most support in terms of funds (from KSA, UAE and their Pashtun friends in Pakistan) so this war is already lost to the West. Its extremely unlikely that the other tribes will continue to fight the Taliban much longer. What is much more likely is that they will reach an accord with each other. Al-Qaeda has already moved to Iraq and Sudan.
Click to expand...

The United States, at any time, could field more troops in Afghanistan and do what they did very easily in 2001: Crush the Taliban. The fact remains that as the Taliban are a minor guerilla force in the mountains, that the United States would have a relatively easy job with their superior airpower and employment of helicopters and other quick-air transport, which would allow far more rapid mobilization.
 
Prince_James said:
SamCDKey:
Might you show us when the United States supported the Taliban?

As far as I am aware, the United States' support of the mujahideen ceased after the Afghan-Soviet war, and that the United States, as well as the rest of the world, was against the Taliban during the period when it consolidated power and became an insane theocratic dictatorship.

The US' allies != The US.

Also, I fail to see how US oil deals mostly negotiated by private companies, have anything to do with "support of the Taliban"?

The United States, at any time, could field more troops in Afghanistan and do what they did very easily in 2001: Crush the Taliban. The fact remains that as the Taliban are a minor guerilla force in the mountains, that the United States would have a relatively easy job with their superior airpower and employment of helicopters and other quick-air transport, which would allow far more rapid mobilization.
Click to expand...


Yeah yeah.:rolleyes:
 
spidergoat, please post were the electoral process wasn't followed to the letter, please provide more proof that you humble opinion, because you definitely don't know shit about the electoral process of this country.
 
Nickelodeon, hay dumb ass read the:

Euro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The euro was introduced to world financial markets as an accounting currency in 1999 and launched as physical coins and banknotes in 2002. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro

Check the Fact in the real world, the Euro didn't exist as a real bank note or coin untill Jan. 2002.

From Wikipedia

The euro was introduced to world financial markets as an accounting currency in 1999 and launched as physical coins and banknotes in 2002. It replaced the former ECU at a ratio of 1:1. the bank noted and coins were not released untill Jan. 2002.


And at that Saddam was under U.N. sanctions in 1999, and those sanctions dated from 1991, long before the Euro was even dreamed about, and it was the U.N. making the decisions on what currency the oil was sold under.
 
Last edited:
samcdkey,

So you are comfortable with the double standards?
Click to expand...

No double standard as every country operates the same way, if it is in their best interest they will deal with the devil himself, even your beloved India.
 
Last edited:
Yes sam even India and it is called on the carpet by one of its own, Ashish's Niti

Is India an useful idiot?
This post was sparked by a post on Madhoo's blog about India's involvement in Sudan's oil business.
As usual, any mention of our unethical behavior has to somehow end-up with discussion on US hypocrisy!

The US did actually support many dictators, both before and after the Cold War and even today it supports some! However, there is difference between support of dictators and actually opposing liberation of people under dictatorial rule. We opposed liberation of Iraqi people, atleast symbolically! So citing US support of dictators does not help. The correct response is that US opposed liberation of Bangladesh from dictatorial Pakistan!

The difference between US opposition of Bangladesh liberation and India's opposition to liberation of Iraq is that atleast US did it because of her self-interest. There is a logic for US support of dictators, a logic of self-interest! US support of dictators benefitted US: either in monetory terms (Saudi Arabia) or in fight against USSR. Or atleast that was the plan at the point of time! What did we gain by opposing US liberation of Iraq? We went against US (although benignly but symbollically) emotionally and were just following rest of the world blindly. France and Russia atleast benefitted by dealing with Saddam.

When I look at India's support of dictators it looks purely emotional or symbolic to me! The benefit that we are getting is negligible but we end up legitimising dictators. Heck, Nehru even rubbed shoulders with Egypt's Naseer.

Our policy has been to support any dictator who thumbs his nose against "imperalism" or Capitalism! Many on the left had been (atleast during Cold War) convinced that socialism (or communism) will win over Capitalism and Western imperalism. The belief was very strong (afterall Karl Marx "proved" "scientifically" that Capitalism cannot sustain itself)! I bet when we refused to support Israel during her formative years we were sure that Israel will not last long enough! Did Nehru invest in building NAM without believing that we will have to atleast live side-by-side with Communism? Just try to understand the logic behind NAM! As if Communism was morally and strengthwise equivalent with Western capitalism!

Even today, the belief is that terrorism (and especially Islamic terrorism) will last forever. So, it is better to accomodate with the reality. US is working with Pakistan in short-term because Musharraf is atleast helping them fight terrorism. I am not defending US here but stating their own arguments. We may not agree with those reasons but atleast they are valid from US point of view. Long-term goal of US policy is to get rid of dictators (atleast stated). Bush has made spread of democracy and freedom his administration's official policy in order to prevent terrorism from taking roots. Is our long-term goal to get rid of dictators like Fidel Castro, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabhe, Iran's mullah's (heck, we invited their President for our Independence Day) and so on? Was our long-term goal the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein (after our short-term beneficial relationship with him was over)? Does our official policy includes the spread of democracy and freedom? How we intend to fight terrorism in the long-run?

Either we should gain from unethical relationships or oppose such things based on principles! I prefer the second option! We are doing exactly reverse! We are not gaining anything significant from dictators but nevertheless support them on an ideological basis! I remember having read somewhere that Fidel Castro calls such people or institutions as useful idiots! That's what we have been!
 
Since the utter lack of moderation has led to an full scale threadjack, I might as well get down here in the sandbox and play with the kids.

Wouldn't it be sad if there was a place where the proverbial "rags-to-riches" story was not just unlikely, but more to the point, was explicitly forbidden?

Oh, wait, there is a place like that. And it's the second largest nation on the planet. I guess the U.S. has a long way to go to compete with India when it comes to prejudice. But hey, we love competition.
 
15ofthe19 said:
Since the utter lack of moderation has led to an full scale threadjack, I might as well get down here in the sandbox and play with the kids.

Wouldn't it be sad if there was a place where the proverbial "rags-to-riches" story was not just unlikely, but more to the point, was explicitly forbidden?

Oh, wait, there is a place like that. And it's the second largest nation on the planet. I guess the U.S. has a long way to go to compete with India when it comes to prejudice. But hey, we love competition.
Click to expand...

Dhirubhai Ambani
 
timmbuktwo said:
Times change , when the US supported the Taliban in the 80's it wasn't like it is now in the 00's.
Click to expand...

That's comforting.

Pashtuns have survived a turbulent history over several centuries, during which they have rarely been politically united. Pashtun martial prowess has been renowned since Alexander the Great ran up against them in the third century BCE.[14] Their modern past began with the rise of the Durrani Empire in 1747. The Pashtuns were also one of the few groups that managed to impede British imperialism during the 19th century.[15] Pashtuns played a pivotal role in the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979–89), as many joined the Mujahideen. The Pashtuns gained notoriety with the rise and fall of the Taliban, since they were the main ethnic contingent in the movement.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtun
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top