Why is the US still in Afghanistan - Minerals?

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
LOL.

But to be fair, whilst having other reasons, they have tried to set one up there, as with Iraq and elsewhere in recent years. Democracy isn't exactly an easy thing to get going, though.
It's easy enough to lose though.
 


O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
15,562
Maybe, but only if its their democratically elected guy :lol:- as with the US democracy its not just the counting of votes, its all the shenanigans that goes on in the background
Again, not really in modern times. During the Cold War and Banana Republic days, much more so.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,370
Of course it has something to do with 9.11 and other AQ attacks...the Taliban harboured them.

It's not just the US there...it was even UN authorised and has had an international coalition there since 9.11.

9.11 was no fake nor are they in bed with AQ...c'mon.
The Taliban was the Govt of Afghanistan -harbouring is a load of nonsense. Did Leeds harbour the 7/7 bombers in London?
Any training camps were routed/destroyed back in 2002.

Yes the US is allied with Al Qaeda in Libya to kick out Gadaffi and in Syria to destroy the Assad Presidency & State. In 1979 the were allied with Al Qaeda to kick the USSR out of Afghanistan even though the USSR were invited to be there by the Afghan Govt. This is no secret. As for 9/11, 9 of the 19 hijackers were trained in US military bases. 11 were housed by a businessman who shares a business in London with the Son of the King of Saudi Arabia. Go figure.

Did I mention that the US, UK and France landed Libya with the debts of their bombing campaign?

As for legality: the US and UK did not have a legal basis to invade Afghanistan -it was retrospectively given when they had already invaded. The US is in NATO to dilute the criminality of their own actions. Even the degenerate numbskulls in Australia share the blame for bombing 100 Syrian Soldiers in Syria in the middle of a ceasefire to de facto bolster an ISIS attack.

These wars are illegal to the core. Murdering filth, lowest of the low. Lower than crocodile piss.
 
Last edited:

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
15,562
It's easy enough to lose though.
Democracy is indeed easy to lose enough, especially with little or no history with it. It's a learning experience to put it kindly. Even then, it's obviously still imperfect, if not for the rest of the alternatives.

We had enough hardship with it with the new FS, resulting in the Irish Civil War and followed by ethnic and theocratic nationalism with all sorts of notions about the 'pure Ireland' that was Roman Catholic, Gaelic and agricultural, etc. The US went through all sorts of problems too in evolving it. And these are examples where democracy had inroads before independence. The French and Germans as we all know had disastrous experiences with it following the loss of their monarchies (Reign of Terror, Weimar collapse into Nazism, etc). Today they're okay within the range of democratic benefits and drawbacks.

Not an easy field to cultivate at all...democracy is herding cats for starters, and then there's the lobbying interests, demagogues, etc.
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,348
The CIA's connection to the hard drug trade is well documented.

Well, it is said drug money was what helped keep the banking industry from bankruptcy during the global financial crisis. And banking is the most important industry of the Empire.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Well, it is said drug money was what helped keep the banking industry from bankruptcy during the global financial crisis. And banking is the most important industry of the Empire.
Which shows how sick of a joke it is. Banking isn't strictly speaking an industry. It produces nothing.
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
15,562
The Taliban was the Govt of Afghanistan -harbouring is a load of nonsense. Did Leeds harbour the 7/7 bombers in London?
Any training camps were routed/destroyed back in 2002.

Yes the US is allied with Al Qaeda in Libya to kick out Gadaffi and in Syria to destroy the Assad Presidency & State. In 1979 the were allied with Al Qaeda to kick the USSR out of Afghanistan even though the USSR were invited to be there by the Afghan Govt. This is no secret. As for 9/11, 9 of the 19 hijackers were trained in US military bases. 11 were housed by a businessman who shares a business in London with the Son of the King of Saudi Arabia. Go figure.
The British government does not harbour Islamist terrorists by intention. The Taliban did, and that made them a legitimate target for global intervention and their removal from government. This is not just US policy...it's UN and customary international law policy now and has been since 9.11.

And that was a positive development in state responsibility in international dealings, just like international norms were developed after WWII holding states responsible for crimes against peace that were used for UN authorisations for interventions for things like North Korea's invasion of South Korea and Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

The US was certainly not allied with AQ in Libya. That intervention was UN authorised and involved an international coalition. In fact, it didn't lead the charge, and before the US agreed to get involved, it insisted upon UN and international approval and an international military coalition so it wouldn't get dirty work, the costs and the blames where convenient as you're doing. The UN authorised international force provided air assistance for the rebels. Amongst them, there were some Islamists. Many AQ came after. But it's hardly the whole story there about the rebels as a whole that toppled him nor the story of Libya's present and future despite its growing pains.

The US was not involved with AQ when it assisted the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. It didn't even exist at the time. Nor did it deal with OBL who wasn't even on their radar back then (OBL denied receiving US aid years before 9.11).

IMO, you're getting this stuff from fringe sources. The US is as pure as driven slush like most nations, but let's not take that into the mists.
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
15,562
Well, it is said drug money was what helped keep the banking industry from bankruptcy during the global financial crisis. And banking is the most important industry of the Empire.
Drug money is always an issue, whether it's in the US or anywhere else. It's a huge earner and loser depending on your interest in it, and I don't just mean for the dealers. One reason there's a huge First World opioid problem is that chemists, pharmas and doctors have loved passing off the scripts for that sh!t. Law enforcement gets a huge employment and budget for it, as do the courts and prisons and court ordered rehabs, etc. The alcohol trade doesn't want the competition if legalised, etc.

It's a main reason why I approved of legalising cannabis/marijuana. That would strip the cartels of a huge amount of profit and save the taxpayers a huge amount in government funding dedicated to go after its users and suppliers. As a twofer, the savings would be better applied to focus upon dangerous narcotics whilst cannabis/marijuana can be taxed.

After all, how many casual heroin users do you know? How many potheads rob homes and stores and suck dicks to get their weed? But how many do that for their heroin and other narcotics? How many potheads are sprawled out on the streets compared to those addicted to narcotics?
 

IvoShandor

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
7,296
Twitter
yes
The Taliban was the Govt of Afghanistan
No, they were'nt any sort of government. They were just one faction that controlled the most territory.

-harbouring is a load of nonsense. Did Leeds harbour the 7/7 bombers in London?
Idiocy! They knew they were there, they had contact with them.

Yes the US is allied with Al Qaeda in Libya to kick out Gadaffi and in Syria to destroy the Assad Presidency & State. In 1979 the were allied with Al Qaeda to kick the USSR out of Afghanistan even though the USSR were invited to be there by the Afghan Govt.
The government? February's government or March's government? One bunch of thugs or the bunch of thugs that murdered the first bunch? Al Qaeda didn't even exist in 1979. Your knowledge of even the most basic facts of history is beyond pathetic, fool.
 
Last edited:

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,348
The British government does not harbour Islamist terrorists by intention. The Taliban did, and that made them a legitimate target for global intervention and their removal from government. This is not just US policy...it's UN and customary international law policy now and has been since 9.11.

And that was a positive development in state responsibility in international dealings, just like international norms were developed after WWII holding states responsible for crimes against peace that were used for UN authorisations for interventions for things like North Korea's invasion of South Korea and Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

The US was certainly not allied with AQ in Libya. That intervention was UN authorised and involved an international coalition. In fact, it didn't lead the charge, and before the US agreed to get involved, it insisted upon UN and international approval and an international military coalition so it wouldn't get dirty work, the costs and the blames where convenient as you're doing. The UN authorised international force provided air assistance for the rebels. Amongst them, there were some Islamists. Many AQ came after. But it's hardly the whole story there about the rebels as a whole that toppled him nor the story of Libya's present and future despite its growing pains.

The US was not involved with AQ when it assisted the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. It didn't even exist at the time. Nor did it deal with OBL who wasn't even on their radar back then (OBL denied receiving US aid years before 9.11).

IMO, you're getting this stuff from fringe sources. The US is as pure as driven slush like most nations, but let's not take that into the mists.
Trump admitted American weapons were going to Al Qaida in Syria.
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
15,562
Trump admitted American weapons were going to Al Qaida in Syria.
And he's spinning to the point of lying, as his personal attacks were behind that. He's full of dirty personal motives that always put his own immediate self-interests first rather than the country's, including with the Russians that very well may wind up having him rendered a modern American Benedict Arnold too.

Context is key. Anytime there's conflicts of that kind, sometimes weapons get into the wrong hands. Just the way it is. Sometimes it's because they misjudged someone's intentions, other times it's captured, etc. To claim the US as an ally of AQ simply is calling white as black. They've been hitting AQ and its ISIS spinoff there for a long time and elsewhere, and vice versa AQ and ISIS have been attacking the US and Western nations and locals they deem enemies.
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,348
As stated, he's an eejit by saying such stuff. He's also full of dirty personal motives including with the Russians that very well may wind up having him rendered a modern Benedict Arnold too.

Context is key. Anytime there's conflicts of that kind, sometimes weapons get into the wrong hands. Just the way it is. Sometimes it's because they misjudged someone's intentions, other times it's captured, etc.
You're acting retarded now. The President of the USA admitted it. End of discussion
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
15,562
You're acting retarded now. The President of the USA admitted it. End of discussion
In fairness, you're the one that's acting retarded. Are you seriously suggesting that because Donald Effin' Trump of all people said so then it must be true? End of discussion.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,917
Miller said that the national security risk would be eliminated if the US opened up bidding to companies worldwide, which would still benefit Afghanistan's economy too.

Opening up bidding, however, would risk American lives and treasure to help build Afghanistan's economy — something Trump said he opposed during the election."
The best way for the US to exit is to leave a strong Afghanistan and that can only be done with a strong Afghan economy.
 

*EPIC SUCCESS*

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2016
Messages
3,087
Drugs, gas pipelines, keeping an eye on Pakistan and their nukes, keeping an eye on Russia - take your pick.

And if they have to work with child raping, torturing and killing local warlords and facilitate drug addiction around the globe then that is what they will do.

Because they are the 'good guys'.
 

IvoShandor

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
7,296
Twitter
yes
You're acting retarded now. The President of the USA admitted it. End of discussion
The President of the United States now, is it? Not the fat, incompetent, mendacious fool, the joke, the misogynist, the racist of last month!

Because they are the 'good guys'.
Would you prefer the Taliban back, Or Islamic State?
 
Last edited:

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
23,399
The Pipeline is also an incentive to stay I guess?
I keep hearing about this mythical 'pipeline'. Funnily enough the conspiraloons used it a lot when talkabout the Iraq war, and then they simply transferred this mythical pipeline motive to the Afghan war.

Where is this pipeline going to and from where is it coming - and more importantly what is it supposed to be carrying. If you could use credible sources to explain it would also be a great help.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top