Why not? Historically speaking, 9/11 stacks up pretty well against reasons for going into other wars. I'm not sure we ever had more Americans killed in such a precipitating event.ThomasT said:So, fapp, I guess I'm asking the same question as the thread title. I really don't have any firm opinion on it. But my guess is that it couldn't just be Bin Laden and the terrorist thing.
I just think there's more to it than that. But, of course, I don't have any way of knowing.russ_watters said:Why not? Historically speaking, 9/11 stacks up pretty well against reasons for going into other wars. I'm not sure we ever had more Americans killed in such a precipitating event.
A look at Map I perhaps illustrates matters more clearly. 'What Mackinder called in 1904 the "pivot area", he subsequently called the "heartland" by 1919. The "heart" of Mackinder's theory is contained in a famous and succinct dictum:
Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland;
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island'
Who rules the World-Island commands the World
"For the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short-term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasingly institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."
—Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard[13]
It's a wonder the Soviet Union didn't win the cold war. They didn't even survive it. This is the reason we don't invade Canada?H. Mackinder said:Who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland;
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island'
Who rules the World-Island commands the World
I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.
The United States is waging a global campaign against al-Qa’ida and its terrorist affiliates. To disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qa’ida and its affiliates, we are pursuing a strategy that protects our homeland, secures the world’s most dangerous weapons and material, denies al-Qa’ida safe haven, and builds positive partnerships with Muslim communities around the world. Success requires a broad, sustained, and integrated campaign that judiciously applies every tool of American power—both military and civilian—as well as the concerted efforts of like-minded states and multilateral institutions.
We will always seek to delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out. Yet this is not a global war against a tactic—terrorism or a religion—Islam. We are at war with a specific network, al-Qa’ida, and its terrorist affiliates who support efforts to attack the United States, our allies, and partners.
The al-Qaeda brand had become a problem, bin Laden explained, because Obama administration officials “have largely stopped using the phrase ‘the war on terror’ in the context of not wanting to provoke Muslims,” and instead promoted a war against al-Qaeda. The organization’s full name was “Qaeda al-Jihad,” bin Laden noted, but in its shorthand version, “this name reduces the feeling of Muslims that we belong to them.” He proposed 10 alternatives “that would not easily be shortened to a word that does not represent us.” His first recommendation was “Taifat al-tawhid wal-jihad,” or Monotheism and Jihad Group.
Bin Laden ruminated about “mistakes” and “miscalculations” by affiliates in Iraq and elsewhere that had killed Muslims, even in mosques. He told Atiyah to warn every emir, or regional leader, to avoid these “unnecessary civilian casualties,” which were hurting the organization.
“Making these mistakes is a great issue,” he stressed, arguing that spilling “Muslim blood” had resulted in “the alienation of most of the nation [of Islam] from the [Mujaheddin].” Local al-Qaeda leaders should “apologize and be held responsible for what happened.”
Afghanistan Holds Bounty of Rare Earths and Minerals
The USGS's exploration time has been strictly limited due to the deposit's location in the most dangerous part of the country, near the southern border with Pakistan. The geologists were delivered to the site in Black Hawk helicopters, and armed soldiers watched over them as they scoured the ground for clues.
My theory has just as much evidence.edward said:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan-holds-enormous-bounty-of-rare-Earth's
I can't help but believe that the recent rare Earth discoveries in Afghanistan have something to do with all of this entangled web.
shashankac655 said:It doesn't take an expert to figure out that similar things are happening today, for example Libya except that didn't have a democracy(a good excuse for invading),
And countries like Syria don't get invaded when people are being killed even today, like you have said it in your own thread.
Right now the US is in talks with the rebels about rebuilding the infrastructure for oil extraction which was destroyed in order make libya depend on foreign investment, i don't know about all the decisions that will be taken in the future , if i find out ,i will tell you.Office_Shredder said:So who's the dictator that we installed in Lybia?
Office_Shredder said:Isn't Syria the kind of place we would love to have a dictator who's friendly to us in? Explain the logic of why we don't overthrow him and install our own puppet government
.Syria is a middle-income country, with an economy based on agriculture, oil, industry, and tourism. However, Syria's economy faces serious problems and challenges and impediments to growth, including: a large and poorly performing public sector; declining rates of oil production; widening non-oil deficit; wide scale corruption; weak financial and capital markets; and high rates of unemployment tied to a high population growth rate.[18]
Chess is still chess.the World was a very different place 60 years in terms of technology perhaps, not very different in terms of morality.
Indeed some things just don't seem to change.not very different in terms of morality"
Who is "we"? Saddam Hussein gained a leadership position in the Bath'ist party in 1968, and took over the government in 1979. Please provide a source showing how "we" placed Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq. US CIA communication with Hussein during the cold war, if it occurred, or even tacit support of Hussein by the Kennedy administration is not the same as placing a dictator in power.jim hardy said:Iraq was the beach-head for Western influence, like Normandy. It was the only place left with a dictator who we'd put in power so was an expedient choice. Its neighbors wanted him gone and didn't object terribly..
Please provide a source showing how "we" placed Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq.
There was a coup in Iraq in 1963. What do we know about the U.S. involvement in that coup?
The U.S. involvement in the coup against Kassem in Iraq in 1963 was substantial. There is evidence that CIA agents were in touch with army officers who were involved in the coup. There is evidence that an electronic command center was set up in Kuwait to guide the forces who were fighting Kassem. There is evidence that they supplied the conspirators with lists of people who had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success. The relationship between the Americans and the Ba'ath Party at that moment in time was very close indeed. And that continued for some time after the coup. And there was an exchange of information between the two sides. For example it was one of the first times that the United States was able to get certain models of Mig fighters and certain tanks made in the Soviet Union. That was the bribe. That was what the Ba'ath had to offer the United States in return for their help in eliminating Kassem.
No, I am not interested in everyone's point of view on the internet. I am interested in those that can be backed up with some valid arguments and main stream sources. You don't seem to be able to do either, so no I'm not interested.shashankac655 said:I feel like i am arguing with politicians (people who think their point of view is the only point of view and they don't even provide any good argument(or evidence) for the dismissal other points of view)...
Well, the solution to that particular problem might entail the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Which, apparently, is going to happen in the next two years.mheslep said:I suspect most the citizens of most Western countries that have had troops on the ground in Afghanistan (now ~2800 killed) are aware of the poppy/heroin problem in Afghanistan. If you or others have some recommendation to improve the problem in the context of the current reality I'm sure it will add productively to the thread.
Me either. As far as I'm concerned nobody is scheming or conspiring ... wrt anything. Especially not anybody affiliated with the US government, or any government for that matter.mheslep said:This does not mean I am interested in hearing yet another conspiracy tale ...
ThomasT said:Well, the solution to that particular problem might entail the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Which, apparently, is going to happen in the next two years.
I'm not saying there's a connection between the US occupation of Afghanistan and that country's rate of opium production. But the numbers suggest that that might be the case.
How would the removal of US/NATO troops make the heroin/poppy problem better? If the Taliban takes over again, they *might* return to banning Poppy and chopping off the hands/legs/heads of the growers. Is that better?ThomasT said:Well, the solution to that particular problem might entail the removal of US troops from Afghanistan. Which, apparently, is going to happen in the next two years.
I'm not saying there's a connection between the US occupation of Afghanistan and that country's rate of opium production. But the numbers suggest that that might be the case.
Posts: 19,305
Ok...re-opened with a reminder that conspiracy theory is not allowed here.
__________________
www.russsscope.net
Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage
Oy, thanks for pointing that out! I had a credit card # stolen a few weeks ago and haven't updated the website in a year since getting a new email address, so they couldn't notify me I hadn't paid my bill! Hope i don't lose my domain name!jim hardy said:and the universe replied,
russ_watters said:Well I guess our reputation is improving: usta be assumed that the Evil Americans were invading to steal the resources. Now the Evil Americans are invading for the priveledge to buy the resources! :rofl:
One need not attach any altruistic motive to the US's actions in Afghanistan*. While the potential outcome of the US's actions (if successful, of course) for ordinary Afghans is awesomely awesome, it isn't any reason - much less the primary one - for the US to still be there. It is nothing more than a recognition that it is in our long-term national security interest to see our conquered enemies become stable and prosperous. A stable, prosperous Afghanistan means no Taliban, no al Qaeda and a populace that has a good enough standard of living that they are too busy enjoying life to be hateful and look for people to blame for their poor quality of life. This isn't a new or unique idea:BobG said:Helping Afghanistan become economically self-sufficient is about the only good thing Western countries could do for Afghanistan. (Not that Afghanistan's economy should the primary reason for the US military to throw out the Taliban - the military should be used to further US strategic objectives; not some other country's economic objectives.)
Fixed!jim hardy said:and the universe replied,
Your points are taken. Whether US departure would lower opium production is an empirical question, which, it seems, we'll learn the answer to within 3 to 4 years.BobG said:Opium production is one of the means insurgent groups raise money for their insurrections (and not just in Afghanistan).
The Taliban made it a point to crack down heavily on opium production to starve its rival groups of money and was surprisingly successful. But their success would be the exception; not the country's rate of production during the US occupation.
And, of course, now that the Taliban is one of the insurgent groups, it relies on the same drug trade it had managed to suppress.
Long term, there has to be an economic alternative to opium production for rurual Afghanistan residents. The lack of that economic alternative is a reason that country is in the state its in.
Major crackdowns (such as the Taliban's) only work temporarily and wouldn't work well at all for an outside force (such as the US or NATO). A major crackdown by an outside force would just be invaders oppressing the residents and driving them into poverty.
Opium production is a sign of how effective or ineffective the US occupation has been. But, suggesting a US departure would lower opium production is a gross overstatement.
Don't know. Just wondering. There seems to be a positive correlation between US occupation of Afghanistan and that country's opium production.mheslep said:How would the removal of US/NATO troops make the heroin/poppy problem better?
Better than what?mheslep said:If the Taliban takes over again, they *might* return to banning Poppy and chopping off the hands/legs/heads of the growers. Is that better?
I do think that individuals sometimes exhibit what might be called altruistic behavior. But I don't think that countries, wrt national policies and actions, ever do this.russ_watters said:IMO, that's just an assertive twist on the of the passive position we currently hold that has resulted in us entering perhaps a half dozen mostly altruistic wars over the past 20 years.
ascension777 said:We need to defeat Al-Qaeda and the Talibans of course! They have done enough evil in this world. They have themselves to blame, they should never have flewn those planes into the twin towers to start with!