BS: Afghanistan

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 08:38 AM

What Iran keeps asking why the international community (the UN and the west) not concerned about the Israeli nukes, and send in inspecters to look at their nuclear program? Why is it one sided?
Is this not a good question? If not, why not?

That question has never been addressed. Few doubt that Israel has access to nukes (directly or through others). If you believe the cold war reasoning, two sides having nukes ensures that they will not be used - because it would be the end of both if either uses them.

Iran also says that it is illogical to believe Iran would ever use a nuke, as they would be hit with 5,000 weapoons if they ever used one. I suspect they do not hjave a death wish, so does this not make sense? If not, tell me why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 02:01 AM

Any substantive evidence of Israel EVER doing that?

The Interview with the Israeli minister that Ed linked to. Bibi the baby demanding a "red line" for Iran from the US. Israel controlling the borders of Gaza and the West Bank. One could list these things all day.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 01:22 AM

"Israel continues to demand control of the Middle East."

Any substantive evidence of Israel EVER doing that??

The only thing I know that Israel has both demanded and defended since it was recognised as an independent sovereign state in 1948 is it's right for it's State and it's people to exist in peace.

It does not matter a jot what whichever Iranian leader said, if that statement was misinterpreted it is encumbent upon the leadership of Iran to clarify what it both said and meant - Iran having made a statement must address Israeli fears and concerns - To date it by word and by deed has done neither.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 05:43 PM

My statement says 'continues to demand', not that it is doing it.
An increase from its current bullying to attempted control would bring even more strife and death.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 05:18 PM

> Israel continues to demand control of the Middle East.

If so, isn't she doing a damned poor job of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 03:12 PM

""Every word from the "mainstream media" is carefully crafted to promote their political agenda."'

Glad you picked up on that one, pdq, I was hopeful that someone would:) Of course many in the mainstream media are biased, and easily led. Or at least their bosses or "organ" owners are.

And, a related question, who (from what political agenda and nations) controls much of the mainstream media?

OK, a puzzling question:

Why would people on this site, who are likely at a minimum, of moderate awareness and should know the difference (a simple GOOGLE can assist), promote such "fabricated bunk" - fed to them by the biased mainstream media to promote a cause? What purpose does it serve for the "garden variety" folk music lover?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 02:32 PM

Thanks, Ed T, for bringing up the actual statements by Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah.
Iran should have the same rights to nuclear technology as Pakistan, India, and-   Israel.

Israel continues to demand control of the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:29 PM

Mr. Ed sez: "...why would the mainstream media (normally concerned with accuracy)..."

What planet does this guy live on?

Every word from the "mainstream media" is carefully crafted to promote their political agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:07 PM

""Not that odd, because of its inconsistency with more frequent, more bellicose statements against Israel, combined with the nuclear program and disregard of the UN. Which would it be more prudent to believe?""

So, if their other statements are all that bad, (and I am not sayingthet they are are are not) why would the mainstream media (normally concerned with accuracy) need to fabricate and retain something that is untrue and clearly inflames the situation, as it is repeated by many folks to justify the Israel (and US) case against Iran. Why not use these "actual" quotes, rather than the fabricated ones? Because they are not bad enough?

""Talk in international relations is cheap"".
Yes, I suspect so on all sides.

""There is no reason other than fear for its own existence for Israel to attack Iran, which is many times its size.""

True, but Israel has powerful friends and Nukes to boot. And, it has attacked others before, for similar reasons. Additionally, Iran (from the history of intervention) has good reasons of its own to feel isolated, and fear these "Israel relationships" and feel a need to defend itself. When folks feel threatened, with their backs against the wall (as both nations do) they take whatever action they feel necessary to protect themselves. I suspect with Iran the attitude may be "if our ememies have nukes, we also need them to protect ourselves and restore our place in the world-like with India, and Pakistan" (But, we really don't know that they are producing them, for as you state, they are often inconsistant).

As to the distrust of the UN, were there not cases in the past where UN inspectors were proven to also be spying for other nations-just wondering.

""Iran can protect itself and the entire region by cooperating with the UN, laying off the hostile rhetoric, and ending the enrichment of uranium beyond internationally recognized peaceful requirements. The cost to Iran? Virtually nothing.""

Being closer to the action, Iran seems to disagrees with your assessment. Personaly<,I am not privy to internal information, so my assessment would not be useful to any of the parties directly involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 11:30 AM

> Odd that this statement does not get equal treatment in the media?

Not that odd, because of its inconsistency with more frequent, more bellicose statements against Israel, combined with the nuclear program and disregard of the UN. Which would it be more prudent to believe?

Talk in international relations is cheap.

There is no reason other than fear for its own existence for Israel to attack Iran, which is many times its size. Iran can protect itself and the entire region by cooperating with the UN, laying off the hostile rhetoric, and ending the enrichment of uranium beyond internationally recognized peaceful requirements. The cost to Iran? Virtually nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 11:14 AM

Israeli Minister Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel 'Must Be Wiped Off the Map'



NY Times

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 10:21 AM

Most of the analysis I have read indicates that Ahmadinejad did not make the "much quoted, wipe Israel off of the map" statement. That a mistranslation occured - and that he was quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini, "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

While that may seem like a similar statement, a closer look at his speech and other statements indicates it may not necessarily be so. Other elements of his speech leads many to believe that Ahmadinejad seemed to be refering to other rewgeme changes (Soviet Union) and was calling for "some type of regime change", with greater democratic involvement of Palistinians, "in Palistine", not military action. You be the judge?


Regardless, I agree that supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has most of the power in Iran and later said "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state." Odd that this statement does not get equal treatment in the media? Could the same media forces be in play to spread mis-information to the willing (for one reason or another), that was seen before and during the Kuwait mission?

I link a site below. Maybe it is propaganda, maybe it is not. But, it seems reasonable not to take everything at face value, as we are faced with alot of propaganda from all sides, to promote various causes. In weighing out who to believe and in what ballance, I sometimes ask, who has been best at spreading propoganda in the past?

Fabricated?

On another front-angle, I havent read much of it yet, but there is a lot of information on this site that relates to the 1953 Iranian Coup and possible impacts to today.

Info related to Mossadedh

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 09:21 AM

On CNN last night, Ahmadinejad backed off slightly from his threat to "wipe Israel off the map" (which, BTW, he didn't deny saying):

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/24/world/meast/iran-ahmadinejad-interview/index.html

Now what he's saying is that only the Israeli occupations and other alleged Israeli practices should be "wiped out." He went further to suggest that Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state would solve the problem.

Just words. The nuclear program forges ahead. However, the words suggest a more conciliatory attitude and might herald a shift in Iranian policy. Or maybe not. The point is they're something new, whatever they might finally mean.

It's worth remembering too that Ahmadinejad is not the ultimate arbiter of Iranian policy. That would be the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who more than once has described Israel in Hitleresque terms as a "cancer" and a "tumor that must be excised." He seems not to have suggested explicitly that Iran should do the excising.

No combatant would have much to gain from an Iranian-Israeli war. Air strikes would set back the nuclear program, but they wouldn't end it, and the Iranians might well retaliate with an all-out terror campaign against both Israel and the U.S. Which would likely result in more military action against Iran to no long-range constructive purpose.

The only wild card that could lead to an Israeli attack is the combination of Iranian rhetoric, Iran's enthusiastic sponsorship of anti-Israeli terrorism, and its blockage of the UN nuclear inspectors (like Saddam Hussein in one of the stupidest mistakes of the century).

Actions will speak louder than words.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 08:05 AM

""So Ed T the reason that the NATO alliance was formed originally must be cast in stone and the raison d'être can never be altered to reflect current times and changing threats?""

I never said that, or made that reach, Broda' - you did. A bit defensive today are we?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 01:21 AM

So Ed T the reason that the NATO alliance was formed originally must be cast in stone and the raison d'être can never be altered to reflect current times and changing threats? What a "special" world you must live in.

Israel not a friend of Iran?? Were it not for Israel and the USA Iran would have lost the 1980 Iran/Iraq War. A fact conveniently forgotten by most. As to what has been said or not said regarding "wiping Israel from the map", the only perception of what has been said that matters is the Israeli one - they after all are the ones specifically mentioned, so if the leadership od Iran is speaking figuratively then it is encumbent upon that leadership to convince Israel and the rest of the world that it does not intend to actually wipe Israel off the map - so far they have made no move in that direction at all and their state sponsorship of both Hamas and Hezbollah and their willingness to flood South Lebanon with thousands of medium range tactical rockets in defiance of UN Resolutions realistically can do nothing whatsoever do dispel Israeli misgivings about the situation.

I think that the IAEA has stated that Iran is not abiding by the terms and conditions of the Treaty - the main charge being that Iran has consistently acted in such a manner that IAEA inspectors cannot do their job (North Korea played the same game while it was a signatory of the nuclear NPT)

"The treaty says that "countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament; countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them; and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy."

Some reports that I have read indicate that the USA is slated to upgrading their nukes (likely followed by China and Russia). Would this not be a violation of the treaty?"

Here we have your compartmentalisation effect again - all of the about are connected - the major nuclear powers have in fact reduced their stockpile of nuclear weapons by over 65% - Upgrading something does not automatically mean any increase in numbers, size, or capability.

"let's not forget majors who have not ratified and have obtained nukes (Pakistan and India) outside the treaty, (who are friends of the West) who also pose a threat to world peace."

Ah so whilst Pakistan was regarded as a pariah state by the US and India was closely tied to the USSR, i.e. in the time both those counries acquired their nuclear weapons - they were not a threat to world peace?? How come? And what was that you said at the beginning? - Oh yes:

"if what you see as an enemy of yours has superiour military power (and most likely likely nukes,) and you see them as a threat is it completely illogical that you would seek the same?"

So while nations with a recent history of hostile intent are acquiring nuclear weapons you wish everybody else to get rid of them?? Are you totally barking mad?

Stringsinger: "one thing for sure, they rid themselves of the Russians and they will do the same for Americans."

Well not until 2024 at least according to recently signed bilateral agreements between Afghanistan and the USA - and US businesses get the contracts to re-equip the ANSF.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 04:50 PM

NATO's original role was to "deter Soviet expansion, stop nationalist militarism in Europe, and encourage European political integration".

The role now seems quite broadened and flexible to cover a variety of threats to its members interests.

NATO

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 03:45 PM

Is there really a reason for NATO to exist at all?

Afghanistan is a stranger to democratic values. It's tribalism and compartmentalized societies make it unworkable to influence culturally or politically but one thing for sure, they ridded themselves of the Russians and they will do the
same for Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 07:37 AM

Don't get me wrong, I do not see any one nation as the "bad guy" in this area of the world. I am just trying to "see through the massive "bs" from all sides (and there is alot in this area of the world) to get a more realistic picture of what is actually happening.
Sometimes, looking at what has happened in the past (at least, what has been unearthed) can give a lens, though cloudy, as to what is most likely to be happening now.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 07:29 AM

As to the distrust and nukes - if what you see as an enemy of yours has superiour military power (and most likely likely nukes,) and you see them as a threat is it completely illogical that you would seek the same?

While Iran certainly is no friend of Israel, and likewise Israel is not a friend of Iran (over the Palistian issue) there are reasonable doubts as to the translation of what was said about Iran"threatening to wipe out Israel". There is no doubt that some have promoted the interpretation that was mentioned below.


My understanding is that the UN nuclear watchdog has never actualy said that Iran violated the treaty?


The treaty says that "countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament; countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them; and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy."

Some reports that I have read indicate that the USA is slated to upgrading their nukes (likely followed by China and Russia). Would this not be a violation of the treaty?

And, let's not forget majors who have not ratified and have obtained nukes (Pakistan and India) outside the treaty, (who are friends of the West) who also pose a threat to world peace.

Another good question is do some of the countries who have signed the treaty (for example Turkey) hold weapons owned by other states? If so, would that not be a violation? Is Turkey is a nuclear power?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 01:40 AM

No Guest Tony you stated the 25% figure as an "official" US estimate (Note estimate not actual) for Taliban infiltration but provided no reference as to which US Government Department issued that estimate - you quoted an ex-US Ambassador as saying that he thought that it was higher.

The other false assumption that you and many others make is that every so-called "Green on Blue" incident is "politically" motivated, thet every incident involves a "Taliban sleeper" - They don't

Outrage at US "killing squads", at US Marines urinating on corpses, at acts of desecration involving the Koran, offensive cartoons and films could all provoke acts by individuals that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Taliban. Another explanation in some cases amounts to personal animosity, stress and somebody just snapping.

Your 25% figure is a crock, were it true then ISAF could not operate, they have operated extremely effectively in Afghanistan for the last six years (since they assumed responsibility from the US-OEF forces)

"For the British, one of the main aims of Operation Qalb is to reinforce security around Gereshk, the busy town that accounts for more than half of the people in Nahr-e Saraj. Having driven the insurgents out of Gereshk, street by street, building by building, this is one of the military's showpiece legacies.

The bazaar here used to look like a bomb had hit it, or several probably. Now that it is vibrant and comparatively calm, business has begun to take root. In the last two years, 500 shops have been built in the town, and all have been bought.

Talking to Afghans who live there, it is obvious they are grateful for being in the security bubble. They also admit feeling apprehensive about what will happen when Isaf leaves.

Bahlool Khan, who has just been re-elected as chair of the Gereshk local council, said: "In the past there was a lot of fighting. There was a lot of bloodshed and people were killing each other. There was no education, no health. People were hiding behind walls. Nobody trusts the insurgents. People have not forgotten." - Guardian - 20th September, 2012

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 09:48 PM

Thanks, Mr. Ed. Your article is reasonably neutral. Here is the core part about 1953:

"In 1949, Mohammad Mossadeq formed the National Front Party, with the aim of upholding the 1906 Constitution. One of the main goals of the National Front was to nationalize Iran's oil industry; the British continued to control most of Iran's oil revenue through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. In 1951, the Shah appointed Mossadeq as prime minister. Mossadeq followed through on his plans to nationalize the oil industry, and the National Iranian Oil Company was formed. For many Iranians, Mossadeq became a nationalist leader. To some Western leaders with economic interests in the Middle East, his actions set an unwelcome precedent. In 1952 Mossadeq was named Time magazine's Man of the Year. In 1953 the British MI-6 and the CIA undertook Operation Ajax, which toppled Mossadeq from power. To many Iranians, Mossadeq became a symbol of yet another moment in history when foreign intervention played a pivotal role in thwarting a democratic movement in Iran. Meanwhile, as Iran emerged from the political unrest of the 1950s, its economy was in tatters."

At least this version correctly shows The Shah appointing Dr. Mossadeq. He was originally voted Prime Minister by the parliament, but was dismissed by The Shah when he nationalized British oil interests and caused the country's economic collapse.

The Shah was forced to re-appoint him due to Communist-backed riots as well as nationalist fervor. Note who has the power: the monarch, not the appointed Prime Minister. Note also, Mossadeq was voted into the parliament by the people in one district, but never faced an election as Prime Minister except that of his buddies in a stacked parliament, not a general election.

Dr. Mossadeq was a medical doctor and a likeable chap, but he was hopelessas as a leader. Several factions wanted him as Prime Minister becauase they saw ham as maleable. His replacement, General Zahedi, was very loyal to the Pahlavi family, having served in military campaigns with Shah I, father of the better known Shah.

Sadly, about 90% of the sites on the www present a version of the 1953 insurrection and call it a coup against Mossadeq. The account comes from a pathelogical liar name John Perkins, but as absurd as it is factually, the Perkins rubbish serves the political purposes of a great many people.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 09:35 PM

> is it odd that they distrust those from the outside?

After thirty-plus years, "distrust" is one thing. Repeatedly threatening to wipe out another nation (with no conceivable designs on Iranian territory), while evidently working on a nuclear bomb to do it with, is quite another.

And the UN Security Council has decided seven times that that's what Iran seems to be doing, in violation of its signed and ratified commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 09:16 PM

With the conflicting colononial interests over the past hundreds of years or so in Iran, is it odd that they distrust those from the outside?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 09:09 PM

This brief history gives another perspective (Interesting, though I cant vouch for the author, or the accuracy):
A Brief History of 20th-Century Iran

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 08:23 PM

NOW we are getting somewhere with this discussion! Excellent posts!

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 01:59 PM

What reference are you quoting?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 01:16 PM

Reforms initiated by the shah of Iran in 1963

Iran's ruler, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (r. 1941 - 1979), in January 1963 launched a series of reform policies that he called the White Revolution. The domestic aim was to undermine the political appeal of an influential but diffuse opposition movement by appropriating programs such as land tenure reform that it long had advocated. There also was an international objective: to win favor with Iran's principal foreign ally, the United States, which then was a major source of economic and military assistance. During the administration of John F. Kennedy (1961 - 1963), U.S. policy supported economic and social reforms in countries such as Iran as a means of undercutting the appeal of antiregime movements that were perceived as being allied with the Soviet Union. Thus the major element of the shah's White Revolution was a land reform program (actually begun a year earlier) that eventually would redistribute about one-half of private agricultural land to peasants holding traditional sharecropping rights (approximately one-half of all village families).

Five other programs also comprised the White Revolution at its outset. These included the nationalization of forests; sales of shares in (some) government-owned industries; plans for workers to share in profits of large factories; voting rights for women; and the formation within the army of a literacy corps of draftees assigned to villages as teachers. Later, the literacy corps model was extended to a health corps (for draftees who had college-level training in medicine) and a development corps (for college graduate draftees). By the mid-1970s the White Revolution comprised a total of eighteen programs.

The results of the White Revolution were mixed. On the positive side, about half a million peasants obtained adequate land under the land reform program to engage in profitable farming, primary schools were established in several hundred villages that previously had none, and small towns and rural areas benefited from various government development initiatives. On the negative side, perhaps the most serious deficiency of the White Revolution was the raising of popular expectations that remained unfulfilled. With respect to land reform, for example, one-half of all rural families received no land at all; among those obtaining land, about 73 percent got less than six hectares, an amount sufficient only for subsistence farming. The net result was the creation of widespread disillusionment in villages. This pattern - some benefits accruing to a minority but overall disappointment for the majority - characterized many of the White Revolution programs by the early 1970s. At the same time, a class devoted to the White Revolution became part of the required curriculum in Iran's high schools. Criticism of the White Revolution - or any other policy of the shah - came to be regarded as a punishable political offense. As expressing praise for the White Revolution came to be associated with professing loyalty to the shah's regime, and, conversely, criticizing it came to be associated with opposition, any objective assessment of its actual achievements and failings in the years leading up to the 1979 Iranian Revolution became virtually impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 12:02 PM

The Shah tried to force a "White revolution", with the aid of the Secret police, the SAVAK. Islamic leaders, especially Ruhollah Khomeini, gathered resistance and the government collapsed in 1979.

He was a reformer, not loved but hated by large factions. Another want-to-be dictator.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 11:33 AM

"Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi succeeded to the throne of Persia in 1941..."

Not only that, the Pahlavi Monarchy was established in 1925 with Shah I. The man we knew as The Shah of Iran was actually Shah II. The monarchy that the Pahlavis replaced had deteroriated to the point that a 12 year old disturbed creep was made king.

The people of Iran loved The Shah, and his wife is still the most beloved figure in Iran to this day.

The Shah wanted to let the people have more power so he set up a parliament that served at his pleasure. They decided to elect a president when they did not have any power to do so. Various extreme Muslim groups, organized crime as well as a large of group of Soviet-backed Reds joined the new president to threaten The Shah.

He fled until army factions, supported by the USA and, yes, the CIA, helped The Shah get back to his position safely. The Shah was a real reformer and led an honest secular government. Muslims extremests, crime cartels and Communists hated the Shah and alwasys posed a threat to the Pahlavi manarchy. It fell in 1979, thank to a push from Jimmy Carter's ineptitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 11:15 AM

Little to support the 25% or more statement. Who made the statement? Referring document?

Lighter's statement about the compossition of the Afghan force seems to be correct, but it also illustrates a problem in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Pashtun in Afghanistan are nor integrated into the forces and the government there will be no peace. In the days of the shahs, the Pashtun south was left pretty much to itself. It looks like cooperation among the contenders is but a dream.

In Iraq, the Shia are in and the Sunni out, reversing the Sunni dominance under Saddam. The Kurds i the north want no part of either. The bombings will continue, with cooperation only a dream.

We are witnessing an attempt to kick out the ruling minority in Syria, but there will never be full integration, whatever happens.

Yes, Muslims are killing Muslims, but the contending Muslim factions are as far apart as the Catholics and Protestants of many years ago- it was some 200 years or so before they could live together.

It was the Allies after WW1 who divided up the Ottoman Empire, which had been moderately successful in keeping peace. Loss of Ottoman control also guaranteed continuing upheavel in the Balkans, where many of the populace had adopted the Muslim faith.
Territorial divisions were made in the Middle East to push Western dominance and "split the spoils" that threw unlikes together and guaranteed strife, especially as weapons became cheaper and more available.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 08:12 AM

quote: The Austrians didn't invade Serbia and the Germans didn't make war on Belgium, Luxemburg, France, and Serbia's ally Russia, expecting to strike oil.
Lighter, are you arguing against a ridiculous statement you think someone made, or just showing off your knowledge of history?

Teribus, you're getting foul-mouthed again, and not making any clear point. You also haven't yet said anything to support your claim that the Afghan people are happy about what US intervention has done to their country in the last 30 years. I did give one indication to the contrary, and in fact did say Who in the US estimated Taliban infiltration at much higher than 25 percent, an estimate that you chose to ignore in your quote and the accompanying math. Perhaps you could re-read my short post more carefully, or find someone in a calmer frame of mind to read it for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 03:48 AM

"Well, there may be some complaint implied in the fact that at least 25 percent of the Afghan army are Taliban infiltrators. The 25 percent is the official US estimate."

Oh dear, just because something is an estimate does not make it fact. But let's take a look at this "fact" of yours or rather of the US (Who in the US by the way?).

Current ISAF troop levels in Afghanistan at the moment are ~101,000.

Current strength of the ANSF is ~350,000.

So if your "fact" is indeed a "fact" then Taliban infiltrators account for ~87,500 men.

So what on earth are they waiting for? Each man could rise up tomorrow and kill one "foreign infidel invader" a piece, the really quick could kill two or three and it would be "game over".

One thing goes against this "fact" of yours - the ANSF are predominantly Uzbek, Tajik and Hazarra - very few are Pashtuns.

Your "fact" or more accurately this "estimate" is a complete and utter crock.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 03:39 AM

"Yes, Al Qaeda (or someone) definitely tried numerous attacks on the USA prior to 911, but they had very definite historical reasons for doing so."

Most certainly Al-Qaeda Little Hawk - they admitted responsibility for the attacks mentioned. And yes according to Osama bin Laden they did have very definite historical reasons for attacking the USA - but considering that the first Al-Qaeda attack on the USA was in 1993 maybe "historical" is the wrong word to use. Osama bin Laden's main grievance held against the USA? The fact that when threatened by Saddam Hussein in 1990 the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia turned to the International Community fordefence rather than accept Osama bin Laden's offer of using his "Mujahideen". Osama bin Laden was a rich little Saudi - and rich little Saudi's have never given a damn about Palestine, or anyone else - mind you it does come in handy as an excuse and it "plays well" in the "muslim world". Osama bin Laden's view of the world "as it should be", i.e. the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate under Sharia law through Jihad, is what drove him and his organisation - nothing else.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi succeeded to the throne of Persia in 1941, which means that your contention that he was placed there by the CIA and MI6 in 1953 complete and utter rubbish. It is not odd at all that you concentrate on US involvement in the downfall of Mosaddegh, whilst completely ommitting any mention of the Soviet backed Iranian Tudeh Party. If memory serves me correctly the Shah introduced a series of economic, social and political reforms with the stated intention of transforming Iran into a global power and modernizing the nation by nationalizing industries and granting women suffrage. Since the fall of the Shah Iran has gone backwards on all fronts. Again if memory serves me correctly Iran still maintained its parliamentary rule after 1953.

"I'm not at all sure that Al Qaeda was the principle actor in the various World Trade Center attacks"

That is rather an odd position to take seeing as KSM admitted it. That admission being backed up by supporting evidence and intelligence gathered from and by others.

"the vast majority of victims from the fallout of that plan have [been? fallen?] amongst Muslim populations. That's not surprising."

Not surprising at all - but you completely fail to mention that the the bulk of muslim deaths have been caused by Muslims killing Muslims - they tend to be very good at doing that and historically they always have been.

"If there is an Al Qaeda, it was American and UK policies that gave it a reason to exist."

Ehmmm No - try the Soviets, their invasion of Afghanistan, the Balkans, the breakup of Yugoslavia and Chechnya.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 05:26 PM

The Austrians didn't invade Serbia and the Germans didn't make war on Belgium, Luxemburg, France, and Serbia's ally Russia, expecting to strike oil.

And it was the oil-rich Turks who started up the war in their own part of the world several months later by bombarding the Russian port of Sebastopol. Nobody had attacked them.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 03:34 PM

quote: You will hear very little complaint from the people of Iraq
So Cheney was right after all? They should have asked him to speak at the Republican convention, to gloat about his prediction that we will be greeted as liberators.

quote: You will hear very little complaint from the people of Afghanistan
Well, there may be some complaint implied in the fact that at least 25 percent of the Afghan army are Taliban infiltrators. The 25 percent is the official US estimate. Former ambassador Crocker says it's much higher.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 03:31 PM

quote: the USA and UK have been interfering in their lands ever since the end of WWII

Since 1908 when oil was discovered in Iran, followed shortly by the German attempt to construct a railroad from Berlin to Baghdad, and then, purely by coincidence I'm sure, World War I against Germany and its ally the Ottoman Empire (which controlled the mideast oil fields in 1914).

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 03:15 PM

Birdfeathers.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 03:05 PM

"Why 2001 Little Hawk??" Why indeed, Teribus? ;-)

Well, I decided to take it back only that far for simplicity's sake, but I could have taken it all the way back to just after WWII when the USA and the UK decided to knock off the democratically elected government of Iran and replace it with an absolute monarchy ruled by the Shah. This effectively ended Iranian independence in any real sense.

Or I could have taken it back to the overthrow of Salvador Allende's democratically elected government in Chile and its replacement by a military dictatorship under Pinochet...after which a long series of other coups were engineered in Latin America for the benefit of USA business interests.

Both those takeovers in Iran and Chile were engineered with the help of the CIA.

Yes, Al Qaeda (or someone) definitely tried numerous attacks on the USA prior to 911, but they had very definite historical reasons for doing so. They didn't do it because they hate our freedoms, our democratic institutions or any other pretext like that...they did it because our governments have been attacking and dominating their societies ever since the end of WWII.

They did it because the USA and UK have been interfering in their lands ever since the end of WWII, propping up various dictatorial regimes (those which were compliant with USA and UK interests), supporting Israel almost no matter what Israel did, plotting the overthrow of Middle Eastern and Latin American governments who did not kowtow to American/UK business interests, etc.

It's a very old story. People who resist the neocolonialism practiced by the USA and the UK are now called "terrorists" in our media. I'm sure that the Russians call the people who resist their neocolonial efforts "terrorists" too. Well, everyone thinks the other guy is a terrorist, it seems. It's like calling someone a "nigger", kind of. Or an "anti-semite". It condemns in a single word...but it does not look beyond the word to the motivations and reasons and rationale of the people involved.

It is not surprising that some angry individuals in Muslim nations have responded with violence to the massively orchestrated instutionalized violence that has descended on them from the UK and America through the apparatus of war and business and high finance.

Anyone else would respond the same way, given the same situation.

But...I'm not at all sure that Al Qaeda was the principle actor in the various World Trade Center attacks. You have to look at who stood to gain something they wanted from those attacks. Those who wanted carte blanche to fight some wars in the Middle East gained what they wanted. Or...those who wanted to provoke the USA into a series of wars in the Middle East got what they wanted.

And that might have been Al Qaeda. Possibly. Or it might have been some highly placed people in the USA and the UK. Or it might have been Israel. Or it might have been a combination of the above 3.

Whoever it was, the vast majority of victims from the fallout of that plan have amongst Muslim populations. That's not surprising. We, the western powers and Israel, are the people who really have the WMDs, after all...and in my opinion, we (our military and politicians and big business people) are the primary terrorists.

The fact that we run up against periodic acts of resistance from the impoverished people our policies oppress is as natural and predictable as that a dog will sometimes attempt to bite you when you beat it with a baseball bat. And occasionally the dog will draw blood. Our reaction to that seems to be to yell, "Mad dog!" and shoot it with a shotgun, but the dog is not mad...it's simply defending itself.

If there is an Al Qaeda, it was American and UK policies that gave it a reason to exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 11:36 AM

Teribus, I welcome and applaud your new more controlled style of posting. Still a bit long, but readable, and with no personal insults.

No one would question the harm done by the USSR in Afghanistan. But it takes two to decimate a country. The mujahideen insurrection would have been easily suppressed without US support, avoiding the extreme destruction you detailed and the subsequent Taliban takeover.

You're entitled to your opinion that the US government backed a rebellion halfway around the world for humanitarian reasons, i.e. because they thought a destroyed country would be better than a country living under communism. I continue to think that the US government doesn't care what system rules another nation, as long as they play ball with the Free World corporate team. The Taliban tried to do that with the Unocal pipeline negotiations, and their system was acceptable as long as they did, as are the theocratic monarchies in several Muslim nations and the communist regime in China.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 10:53 AM

Very informative, Teribus, as always.

The challenges remain: what to do next, how to persuade the public to support it, how long to do it, with what likelihood of success and what penalties for failure. Because of the all-volunteer military, public pressure in the U.S. to withdraw completely is muted and neither presidential candidate supports withdrawal now. That is despite Obama's well publicized lowering of troop levels, which may be premature.

Unpredictable developments elsewhere will (not *might*) affect any policy.

Of course, those who see the Afghan war as a simple, sinister plot of the U.S. government and its Allies will insist on immediate withdrawal because whatever would happen next would be so much "better" for the region (and for the rest of us) than "imperial" Western "interference."

Not likely, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 10:48 AM

Drift (as opposed to - bla, bla, blah:)-

Cash-strapped Iceland to host "private army" – and Russian jets:



Drift-but, an odd story?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 10:37 AM

Afghan War: "Payback Time"

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 10:35 AM

Blah, Blah, blahblahblah, Blah!

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 10:33 AM

From a 2003 interview-how much of it transpired?

Russian war analyist-2003

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 10:07 AM

Why 2001 Little Hawk?? In 1993 Al-Qaeda carried out an attack against the WTC that didn't quite come off, they then attacked US personnel in the Khobar Towers in 1996, US Embassy in Nairobi in 1998, US Embassy in Dar-es-Salaam in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000. The President of the United States during this period was Bill Clinton - He didn't go to Congress - He didn't go to the UN - He just started throwing Cruise Missiles about (Damn near starting a nuclear war between Pakistan and India in the process in 1998 - only very quick talking averted it) Would he be up there on trial with the rest of them??

The Taliban in their own totally inept, incompetent and corrupt way "ruled" parts of Afghanistan between 1994 until they were driven out and back home to Pakistan in 2001. The ONLY year they ever made any move against the growing of opium poppies in Afghanistan was in 2000, the reasons for doing this were as follows:

- To qualify for UN aid programmes
- To maintain market price for stocks of raw opium and manufactured heroin already held
- To reduce and damage the economic and financial base of their opponents.'

In the Taliban's eyes there is nothing wrong with growing opium poppy, there is nothing wrong with producing raw opium, there is nothing wrong with making and selling the heroin that comes from it. This after all is how they currently fund their insurrection. What they see as being wrong is for "good Muslims" to use the stuff.

The Khalq faction of the Communist PDPA took over in Afghanistan in April 1978, in their first six months they had murdered over 38,000 Afghan civilians including ~12,000 members of the Parchami Faction of their own party. Their appeals for Soviet assistance began almost immediately on them taking over, the Soviets were in Afghanistan in Brigade strength long before the US got interested and well over six months before the Soviets sent in their 40th Army in December 1979. Between the Afghan Communist PDPA and the Soviet 40th Army between 1978 and 1989 they managed to reduce the total population of the country by one-third. They destroyed the agricultural base of the country causing widespread malnutrition and disease, they had reduced the two largest cities in Afghanistan to ruins and reduced their populations by 90%, the 15 million landmines indiscriminately sown throughout the countryside to "deny it" to the "enemy" ofcourse made things very easy for those driven from the cities to seek shelter in the countryside.

You will hear very little complaint from the people of Iraq who for the previous 24 years had seen their wealth dissappear with Saddam Hussein's grandiose schemes while they themselves were being murdered at an average yearly rate of around 102,000. Still no signs of Iraq breaking up or descending into civil war as many on this forum predicted - and no "Arab Spring" for Iraq as there has been in Syria - wonder why? Maybe because everything that the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria protested about and demonstrated for was "given" to the people of Iraq in 2003.

You will hear very little complaint from the people of Afghanistan they had been slaughtered at a yearly average rate of almost 109,000 over the period from April 1978 to October 2001 - even with the ongoing insurrection that average yearly death toll has been reduced by 97%. Massive investment - investment NOT aid - is flowing into the country. Massive progress has been made to improve the lives of Afghanistan's population.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:19 PM

As for all the oil? Q can probably tell us but seems to me they produce zero oil (hashish and opium not included) and exploration was just beginning to be explored.

Forgive my ignorance but wasn't it all about opium and a pipeline route lately? And battle training toops and field testing weapons, of course, under the guise of fighting terrorism and the Taliban, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:09 PM

Right, opium. That's been glossed over. But I remember that before the US invaded Afghanistan the Taliban had cut opium production down to near zero. And then a year after the invasion there was a record crop.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:51 PM

> Nobody said that formulating an international policy is simple, easy, foolproof, fair, or cost-free.

I might have added, "or ever gives optimal results."

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:01 PM

... and opium.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:45 PM

I'm gonna rephrase that for you, Lighter.

Nobody would be getting killed in Afghanistan today if two great nations...Russia and the USA....would have long ago renounced violence and stopped playing imperial games on other people's land.

But it won't happen. A few oligarchs, ambitious politicians, and corporate CEOs follow business and political principles that forbid compromise with anybody, and that involve taking over various Muslim lands for the purposes of extending empire and gaining control of strategic resources such as oil and natural gas.

Should the West continue subjecting Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine and parts of Pakistan and various other places in that region to a brutal fate? Or should the West mind its own business, stop fighting wars on other people's land, stop sending a steady flow of arms and foreign fighters into Syria to cause regime change there, and pay reparations to the many people whom its wars of choice have devastated in the past couple of decades?

The Western leaders who attacked Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 should be arrested and put on trial as war criminals. That would include Tony Blair, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and numerous others. More recently, it would also include Barack Obama for numerous illegal acts of war he has authorized in regards to drone attacks and other covert operations all across the region. The biggest of those covert operations is the one presently underway in Syria...through Muslim proxies...many of whom are jihadists, religious fanatics of the most extreme type. The USA apparently doesn't care who it uses to destroy Assad, as long as they can bring down another uncooperative secular regime, the same as they brought down Gadhafi's secular regime in Lybia. Gadhafi's only real crime, in USA-corporate terms, was that he wasn't 100% subservient to American corporate and imperial objectives. The same goes for Assad.

None of it was about anyone's freedom. And it never is. It's about empire. And who are the real opponents in the great game of empire? Not the Muslims. Russia and China. The Muslims are just the unfortunate people who happen to be in the crosshairs of the imperial guns...and sitting on all that oil.