Can someone PLEASE tell me why we're still in Afghanistan?

[garybeck]

At least with Iraq, there was a lie on which we could explain our presence.

With Afghanistan, I can't even find a lie to explain us sending our troops to die there.

There's no boogieman there
There's no false imminent threat
There's no made up connection to 9/11.
There's no fake yellow cake

Nothing.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. I was going to ask the same thing.

you beat me to it.

[timeforpeace]

42. Hopefully President Obama can. Ask him.

[conscious evolution]

2. When oil is involved

no explanation is really needed.

[taterguy]

4. Well, yeah but if it's about oil we'll have to reconsider our lifestyles

And since that's such a drag I'll keep looking for other explanations

[garybeck]

7. but that's what Iraq was about and they made up all kinds of lies and excuses

with Afghanistan there is nothing to even latch on to, to think that maybe they really believe in some lie that is explaining our presence.

if it really is oil, and we really stay there, and send more troops, I hate to be a "one issue" guy, but if that happens, I'm done.

[conscious evolution]

12. Iraq also served as a nice distraction from Afghanistan.

Plus,a lot of people still believe Bin Laden was responsible for Sept 11.
Even here on DU.

[madeline_con]

72. There's plenty to latch onto. A consortium of oil companies

wants to construct a pipeline between the Dauletabad oil field near the Caspian Sea and Asian markets.

[bigwillq]

3. Oil (nt)

[mike_c]

5. the MIC has not yet bankrupted the U.S., so we need to be at war SOMEWHERE....

The wars against Iraq and Afghanistan are BOTH wars for MIC profits and for political gain.

[garybeck]

10. hmmm. oil or MIC ?

either one, I really would have thought that Obama was above this kind of crap. I *really* hope he doesn't send more troops.

[waiting for hope]

41. It's the MIC - believe it... PNAC may not

be viable at the moment, but someone/something is still pulling at those purse strings. Here's PNAC's "mission statement":

* we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
* we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
* we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
* we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Number one on that list is the main reason, everything that follows is a justification.

[Skink]

6. It wasn't going so well when they told us it was going really well.

Now people that really are from the seventh century are winning and would like to expand to Pakistan.

[polichick]

8. To feed the mic and to save face. nt

[Mari333]

9. $$$$oil$$$$

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/oil-pipelines-are-the-new_n_178715.html

[sandnsea]

11. What planet do you live on

One can disagree with the need, but to say there's no connection between Afghanistan and 9/11, well that's just cuckoo.

[Mari333]

13. facts please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA_mu9v9iJs

[sandnsea]

24. I don't do youtubes

Tell me your opinion or skip it.

[Mari333]

28. ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/oil-pipelines-are-the-new_n_178715.html

[bemildred]

16. So why are we not occupying Saudi Arabia?

They had a heck of a connection to 9/11, but nobody seemed to want to go there.

[sandnsea]

23. As much as Iraq did

Funny how all the people who opposed the war in Iraq because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, now oppose that war for any reason they can concoct too.

It's fine to be anti-war simply because you're anti-war. Stick to that. Concocting conspiracy theories does not help anything.

[bemildred]

30. The point is that it was as much as lots of places did.

There was no particular reason to attack Afghanistan except the incorrect assumption that it would be a slam dunk, and pipelines of course, and the need to retaliate against someone or other.

[sandnsea]

34. Bin Laden is really "no particular reason" to you?

Really??

[bemildred]

36. Pretty much.

One should not invade and occupy foreign countries out of a misguided desire to get some particular person. It was stupid, as the evidence shows, and foreign policy ought to be guided by informed reason, not anger or hate or the fear of looking "weak" or similar sixth grade schoolyard motives.

[sandnsea]

39. It wasn't stupid. It was badly implemented

Whether there is any opportunity to salvage it is the question.

After the Embassies, the Cole and the WTC - it was time to take military action.

[bemildred]

40. It was stupid.

There is no opportunity to salvage it, we can quit now or throw more money down the rathole, getting a worse mess in return. Being stupid is not a good response to terrorist attacks, and no amount of wishful thinking and pretending will make it so. Sometimes you just have to take your lumps and wait for a better opportunity. Some problems cannot be dealt with by fantasies of taking decisive action to put an end to it once and for all. Sometimes you just have to grow up or pay the price for your immature behavior, until you get over it and decide to cut your losses.

[sandnsea]

44. No answer to the terrorism problem there

I already said we may well have to abandon Afghanistan so 90% of your post is pointless. It doesn't have a single answer to the issue of the Embassies, Cole and WTC. At some point, you do have to respond directly when under attack. As I said previously, it's fine if one is 100% anti-war and so never supports military action. If that's the case, make that argument. But something needed to be done about Afghanistan and the world agreed at the time.

[bemildred]

45. Being stupid and reactive is indeed not an answer to the "terrorism problem", as the facts show.

Conventional military invasion and occupation do nothing to address terrorism, rather they promote it.

[sandnsea]

46. Still no answer

Even Medea Benjamin gets it:

How can we stop Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan from being a training ground for militant fundamentalists? How can we bring those involved in terrorist attacks to justice, and prevent future attacks, without waging an open-ended war? Should we advocate a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and if so, based on what criteria? How can we work with the peace movements in NATO countries to have a more unified and effective position?

What should we call for in terms of development aid to Afghanistan? How can the Afghan economy be weaned from opium? How can we truly support Afghan women? What will happen to them if the Taliban take over again?

This debate is long overdue. We can't put it off anymore and knee-jerk slogans won't work.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/the-peace-movement-needs_b_114707.html

[bemildred]

47. Indeed, I agree with Ms Benjamin, who also thinks open-ended war is no answer.

I am all for efforts to improve the situation in Afghnaistan, the problem is that invasion and military occupation does not do that, cannot do that.

[sandnsea]

49. You just said Afghanistan wasn't relevant

There was no particular reason to even be there.

Now you say you agree with Medea.

I think you just kneejerk along with the crowd the way 90% of DU and the left does.

[Egnever]

78. .....

:applause: :applause:

[bemildred]

90. And now you stoop to name calling. nt

[sandnsea]

91. You're calling me names

I said your action in this thread indicates that you just kneejerk with the crowd. That's a political observation, not namecalling. You, on the other hand, stooped to truly slandering me by saying that I verbally attacked you when I didn't.

[Flaneur]

107. Oh, aren't you special.

If you think "the left" and 90% of DU just kneejerk along, maybe you're in the wrong place.

[sandnsea]

108. This is Democratic Underground not Green Underground

I'm in the right place. And yes the left kneejerks along just as much as the right does. The only thing I really have in common with the left is we're going to the same mountaintop. They just keep thinking you can get to the top by demanding you be lifted there.

[Hannah Bell]

76. he's dead. emanuel goldstein is dead. or maybe never really existed.

[NoSheep]

95. Because they cooperate with us?

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

52. Afghan, said show us the EVIDENCE and we will hand over Bin Laden

But Bin Laden was on CIA payroll, and there was no evidence linking him to 9/11. It was a pipeline they wanted to build, and the bases there are along the proposed pipeline. I wonder how that project is going??? any reports?

(recall the carpet you with gold or bombs statement before 9/11?)

[timtom]

61. "Cuckoo" -- a painfully obvious rhetorical device.

Falls under the general argumentative fallacy called "ad hominem."

Try "woo woo" or "batshit insane."

[Hannah Bell]

75. lol

[Orsino]

89. That still doesn't answer the OP's big question.

The connection, as you say, is inarguable. But is fighting this war measurably productive? Most importantly, what have we gained, or what do we expect to gain, by killing, dying, bereaving, paupering and terrifying people in Afghanistan?

Is there coherent arithmetic that says we should be staying or even escalating our participation?

[sandnsea]

93. "One can disagree with the need"

I specifically did answer the OP's question. I don't know that combat troops can provide any solutions in Afghanistan at this point. We need a comprehensive strategy that meets all the challenges of the region, cultural and political, or we need to get out.

But to say there was no connection to 9/11, or worse that Al Qaeda is a CIA operation, is just cuckoo.

[Orsino]

94. Yes, you did answer one of the OP's questions.

Perfectly well, too. I was addressing the subject line.

[sandnsea]

97. That was the extent of my comment

One can disagree on the need to be in Afghanistan. One can't disagree that there is a connection to 9/11 unless one intentionally decides to be cuckoo.

[Orsino]

98. I'm not arguing with you.

Just pointing out that the connection that existed eight years ago is perhaps an outdated bit of info, and is far from the only factor to be considered as we plan an exit or escalation.

[sandnsea]

102. Not really

The same circumstances exist in those mountains as existed 8 years ago. We can't get Israel to move off of its insistence on the wall and settlements and military action. We've made no serious effort to get off of foreign oil. Iran is still troublesome. We've still got Clintonian foreign policy when we need Kerry foreign policy. All of that indicates the continuation of terrorism and Afghanistan remains a likely base for that activity.

[Orsino]

104. And yet they're not blowing up our skyscrapers lately.

One of our big motivators for war was the need to bomb somebody, anybody, in the wake of 9/11. We've also had eight years to begin to learn the futility of war in Afghanistan.

The connection you spoke of isn't vanishing, but war (or whatever this failpile is) is obviously not a solution to the problem. We need to ask ourselves exactly what it is we want to get for the blood and money we pour down that particular sink.

[sandnsea]

106. I disagree with the bomb anybody motivator

And as I said, people can disagree about the path forward. But there really shouldn't be any disagreement as to why we got there in the first place or what the goals are, ultimtately. It's really another example of why even though the left is often right on general direction, they aren't listened to because they go so far left that they make erroneous arguments and are ignored.

9/11 is connected to Afghanistan and Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan with the knowledge of the Taliban. Al Qaeda is not a CIA operation, although the CIA did create the mujahideen. You can't refer to the CIA created mujahideen and then pretend the US had nothing to do with the defeat of the USSR. You can't say we took our eye off Afghanistan for 8 years, and then go anti-war the second we put our eye back on it.

The left desperately, desperately, needs to get a grown up cohesive message. The world really needs it.

[Orsino]

110. Most of us here, presumably, disagreed with the bomb-anybody motivator.

Team Bush's exploitation of 9/11 hysteria made it an easy enough sell, though it would not fly today. A majority were willing to cheer, or to shut up and play along, in the first year or three.

Without fresh blood on American soil, though, the fake war on Iran they want isn't getting much traction. The war pigs are getting defensive, and finding that a majority are openly questioning even the need to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq. They don't have a coherent enough message to keep us there forever, but have determined at least to profit from our indecision for as long as possible.

[sandnsea]

111. It's really not that simple

While the rightwing certainly is hand in hand with defense industry, it is not true that we are in Afghanistan just to make them money. Iraq wasn't even that simple. As simple as controlling oil to control power, yes. Not as simple as going to war just to make defense and oil companies profit.

I don't think most people who supported invading Afghanistan expected them to fuck that up as badly as they did either. I think most people expected a short invasion and show of force - followed by a Marshall type plan like we did in Germany and Japan. Failing to make life better for the people, and respect their culture at the same time, is almost a bigger stain on the US than the Iraq war lies.

But you still can't dismiss the problems of the world as the military industrial complex and that's the end of it.

[Orsino]

112. I don't dismiss the world's problems.

The pigs who start wars for profit do--and they are among the world's biggest problems.

[mdmc]

14. we can't admit defeat

[Orsino]

100. Yes. We need an excuse to leave...

...and then a decade or two to prepare for some sort of grudging admission of defeat.

[kenny blankenship]

15. Controlling the chessboard of Central Asia

keeping Russia out of the USSR's former republics there, especially ones with natural gas reserves. Bottling up China in the Far East to prevent them from cultivating influence with aforementioned former republics of the USSR. Controlling pipeline routes. Getting a lock on the Afghan opium trade. And not least because Bushler so drastically overcommitted in his bid to declare and consolidate an empire in that region of the world that to leave Afghanistan now with people still shooting at us will be interpreted as retreating, and will be seen as heralding the collapse of Uncle Sam's global empire. We have access and basing rights to some degree or another in many of the Central Asian "'stans". Russia has basing rights in some. Some of the Stans play one big power against another, but Afghanistan IS ALL OURS. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan can kick us out tomorrow but not Afghanistan. There's no govt to speak of there, and what's there dares not to kick us out. We invaded it fair and square, which means we can use it any way we wish to project power in the region. That's a big attraction. For example, while we remain in Afghanistan, Iran has to worry about US forces on its borders, both East AND West.

"We are where we are" as the war hawks like to say. And as another one said "Where the German flag is planted, there it stays. Not one step back!"

[Mist]

17. I thought the reason they gave was Al-Qaida. Or maybe oil. Or, oh yeah, "stabilizing" the Middle

East.

As for any connection with 9/11--don't think there is one, with Afghanistan. Most of the hijackers were Saudi nationals, weren't they?

[Mari333]

19. 15 of the 19, yep. nt

[emulatorloo]

29. Al Qaeda had training camps there, Bin Laden was supposed to be hiding out there.

The taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, Bush invaded to get him.

Then Bush got all distracted and fucked it all up.

[timtom]

62. No, no.

The Taliban said, "Show us your proof that bin Laden did it, and we will gladly hand him over."

Now, that seems fair, doesn't it?

(I've always found it more than curious for someone who supposedly had just pulled off the biggest jihadist coup de grâce ever would categorically deny any involvement and lose all the propaganda values.)

It just doesn't add up, somehow...

[eridani]

85. So what? Not a single one of those training camps featured flying lessons

They got that training right here in the US.

[emulatorloo]

96. Yeah, but the "flying lesson" guys were dead already. n/t

[eridani]

113. All the more reason not to bother with Afghanistan, other than going after bin Laden

--and then getting the hell out.

[stray cat]

18. A real connection to 9-11, a real connection to Osama bin Laden

[truedelphi]

20. Because we are an oligarchy, and sometimes we are ruled by the Party of the

Nutsy Koo Koo Nazis, known as Republicans, and sometimes by the "Gee we'd like to change things, really we would, but we have to be sure that the other side would let us" wimps.

So it all boils down to the fact that we are owned by The One Big Money Party, and it will go on and on until we take to the streets.

[Mari333]

21. watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA_mu9v9iJs

[timtom]

64. Karl Schwarz used to post here

But I haven't heard from him in a couple of years.

Thanks for the link, Mari333.

[pokercat999]

22. We have lost in Afghanistan, never really had a chance to

"win" (whatever that means) there. How many Russians fought and died there for how long and they lost. The Russians were ruthless and did things we would never do to win and they lost. Like following the French into Vietnam following the Russians in Afghanistan is stupid, crazy or both. President Obama is neither so I've got to think he is on the take, if not in actual cash payouts then in favors and political support from the MIC. One other reason President Obama might be acquiescing to the MIC is the demonstrated threat of assignation by the powers that be. If that sounds too "tinhat", I only mention it because I'm so confounded by the lack of logic in remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[EFerrari]

57. The Afghans gave us about four years before they gave up on us

and turned back to the Taliban for all kinds of things.

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. I don't think anyone really knows. Neither do I think there is a clear vision for what "win" means

in the context of Afghanistan.

All I hear is that the staunchest of President Obama's supporters say "he TOLD us he was going to esclate". So, we're expected to go along with actions taken with NO CLEAR GOALS.

What if some Taliban dude got on TV tomorrow and said "Hey, we surrender!"?

I hear rumors that there are plans for an oil pipeline though, but I'm SURE President Obama wouldn't pursue a war or non-war or occupation or whatever it's called just for an oil pipline.

Would he?

[Mari333]

26. yes, he would.

[sandnsea]

38. That is a legitimate point

Which is being debated in Congress and the Administration, and in the country for that matter.

Nobody has said you have to go along with Afghanistan. All anybody has said is that to attack Obama as a liar on Afghanistan is, itself, a lie. Attack the war on legitimate points, that's fine. But to attack him because he doesn't agree Al Qaeda are undercover CIA operatives is going to be called looney tunes, because it is.

As to the pipeline, that's been part of the equation since Clinton so I imagine it will continue to be. It would be good for people to start talking about it instead of ranting about warmongering and broken promises.

[Subdivisions]

27. Oil, nat-gas, and pipelines. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Like LBJ before him, it's to show the right wing that our president is tough.

It's very embarrassing for a president to acknowledge a lost war. So, rather than risk that, the killing is continued to prevent bad PR.

[Mari333]

35. yep. sad isnt it. they throw our kids into a hellhole to save their own asses.

and anyone on here who is for this lousy occupation should get their sorry arse down to the enlistment office asap.

[Swede]

32. The Taliban were headquartered there.

Osama bin Laden was there.

[Sebastian Doyle]

53. Where's the evidence that Bin Laden was there in 2001?

Because Chimpy said so?

[eridani]

86. So what? The hijackers were just about all Saudi. Not a single Taliban involved

Bin Laden was also in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. To stop the Taliban for retaking control

[EFerrari]

59. Too late. They've been moving back in for years.

And you have to wonder how many of the billions that CIA gave to ISI wound up in their hands. The ISI used some of that money to interdict AQ but they used some of it to track Musharraf's political opponents and some of it to keep the Taliban in hand.

[Robb]

37. It is DEFINITELY NOT OIL.

It's natural gas. :)

[dysfunctional press]

43. you mean pipeline-istan...?

look at a map.

there's a lot of oil in the stans north of afghanistan, and a port facility for it in karachi, in pakistan.

[earth mom]

48. Great question-but few on DU care anymore-because it's "all good" when Obama does it.

:argh:

:puke:

[flyarm]

56. no kidding..and it disgusts me! eom

[earth mom]

79. Me too and it also disgusts me that people would unrec this thread down to 6 recs.

:grr:

[unhappycamper]

81. Not me.

Like I said after last November's elections - if Obama keeps the occupations going I'll be out on the streets again.

[madville]

50. I often wonder what a President Al Gore would have done n/t

[timtom]

67. Does Al Gore have any ties to the oil industry?

[madeline_con]

73. Yes. He uses too much electricity. n/t

[earth mom]

80. Gore uses geothermal and has solar panels.

FYI:
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/03/30/al-gore-responds-earth-hour-accusations-disputes-johnson/

[timtom]

84. That's it?

He has no connection to Occidental Petroleum?

[Truth2Tell]

51. ...

[TexasObserver]

54. To appear tough in the campaign, Obama made Afghanistan his HAWK war.

He did this so as not to be labeled the peace candidate, since his big claim to fame was his early opposition to the war in Iraq. That gave him the cred he needed with many activists in the primary season.

Married to the mantra he had spoken so often, the new president has had to make good on his rhetoric. He'd rather keep fighting a bad war than be accused of being soft on terrorists.

And THAT is the answer to your question.

[flyarm]

68. why just on this rhetoric..he hasn't followed through on hardly anything else!! eom

[Skittles]

99. CORRECT

[flyarm]

55. Nope can't tell you..but i remember reading something last fall about the banks that were floated

and kept from the brink for some time ..on drug money..i wish i could find where i read that..but i would suspect..the drug money from Afganistan is a partial good reason..also the Oil maps that Cheney had took the oil pipelines through Afganistan..now with Karzai in as pres and his supposedly working with or for UNOCAL ( edit to add: never confirmed that i know of) it would make all the sense in the world why we are in Afganistan..Plus Karzai's brother it has been suggested deals in narcotics..

Poppy fields could be part of the reason we are there..the corrupt bankers of the world love drug running..along with our very own shadow government. And rest assured our congress and White House , no matter the leaders are damn sure well aware of it all and complicit in it all..both parties are whores to the drugs and the oil money.

[EFerrari]

60. CIA is never going to just walk away from those poppy fields. n/t

[flyarm]

65. nope ..never..neither will either party in our government!! The complicity is killing this country!!

In every way.

and in every family!

heyy you!!:hi: how are u doing? good i hope!

fly

[DepletedCranium]

63. Here's a great big hint

Unholy Alliance

[flyarm]

66. absofuckinglutely!..great film! thanks..n/t

[WCGreen]

58. I think they are looking for the lost Ark...

[wickerwoman]

69. Because an unchallenged Taliban in Afghanistan

would destabilize Pakistan, which really does have nuclear weapons and can barely be convinced not to use them as it is.

[flyarm]

70. ahhh but Pakistan is harboring Al Queada ..as we are so told..if Pakistan was going to

be destabalized it would come from Al Queada ..don'tcha think? and yet they are now living and residing.. we are told... almost completely in Pakistan!

We helped create the Taliban during the soviet war with Afganistan..as well as the mujahadin run by Osama Bin Laden..which is now Al Queada.

helping Pakistan stay stable..by staying in Afganistan is another bogey man .

[wickerwoman]

71. Pakistan is not a monolithic entity.

They have a weak government being propped up the US and they have Taliban rebels in some provinces (driven out of Afghanistan) who are "sheltering" al Qaeda. The government is threatened by the Taliban and if they are defeated then we are well up shit creek without a paddle.

If we abandon Afghanistan, the Taliban will move back in and take over. With supplies and support from Afghanistan, they could succeed in toppling the Pakistani government giving them access to nuclear weapons.

That is why we will not be leaving Afghanistan until the international community is certain that the Taliban will not regain control there.

[flyarm]

74. how is that international community working now or still?Japan 'will end' Afghan mission

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8304072.stm

Japan 'will end' Afghan mission

snip;

Japan will end its refuelling mission in support of the US-led military operation in Afghanistan, Defence Minister Toshimi Kitazawa has said.

Mr Kitazawa said the mission would end "based on the law" when its current legal mandate expires in January.

But he suggested Japan could continue to provide support for the mission in an alternative form.

Japan's government won August elections on pledges to pursue a foreign policy with greater independence from the US.

The eight-year-old Afghan support mission - which provides fuel and logistical support for US forces in the Indian ocean - has long been contentious.

Some critics say Japan's involvement in the mission violates the nation's pacifist constitution, which strictly limits its military activities.

[wickerwoman]

77. And New Zealand is sending troops back in

now that the coalition is no longer being led by an illiterate fuckwit with a transparent energy agenda.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/newz-a12.shtml

"New Zealand Prime Minister John Key announced on Monday that his government was redeploying elite Special Air Service (SAS) troops to... Afghanistan. The decision follows a request from the Obama administration.

The latest SAS deployment marks the fourth time the highly-trained specialist fighting squad has been dispatched to Afghanistan. The Helen Clark-led Labour government first sent the squad in 2002 following the initial US-led invasion, and it completed its last tour of duty in 2005."

Japan was never happy about being in Afghanistan. They've been strictly demilitarized since the end of WWII and many (including myself) were extremely unhappy to see that policy changed. They were only supplying refueling support, not troops. Other countries can take over that kind of a supporting role.

[Hansel]

103. Finally someone who gets it.

I would add that the risk of nuclear weapons being launched will take place JUST BEFORE the Taliban takes over. India is chomping at the bit to attack Pakistan and the US is the only thing holding them back.

India will not allow the Taliban to get anywhere near controlling Pakistan's nuclear weapons and once they stop holding back all hell is going to break loose. That will completely destroy not only millions of innocent civilians but will most assuredly destroy the global economy and create world chaos.

You have to be pretty naive to believe this is about gas and oil at this point. This is much much bigger than that thanks to the ingenious Bush administration and his idiotic Neo-Cons. I think Obama, Gates and Clinton are trying very hard not to create the panic that would inevitably follow if the American people really understood how serious this situation is. This is a huge mess and probably the most dangerous one this world faces.

Progressives need to stop nipping at Obama's heels on this. We need him and Clinton in control of fixing this mess, both who are brilliant and have great analytical minds, and one who is the calmest most pragmatic person I've ever seen. We have the right people in place at this very critical time. Let them do their jobs without pretending they are as stupid as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice.

[western mass]

83. ...ah, Domino Theory. '00s style.

Do we get to call this Vietnam-istan yet?

[wickerwoman]

105. If you can't see the difference between the importance of

"stopping the spread of communism" and securing a nuclear arsenal smack in the middle of the single most politically unstable region on earth then I'm afraid I don't know what to say.

[western mass]

115. Nope, I can't see the difference between

60's fearmongering bulls* and 00's fearmongering bulls*.

[forum slut]

114. looks like the Taliban and Al Queda are trying to build a new home in pakistan already btw.

Oh yeah, and then there's the global heroin trade that they stand to inherit in Afghanistan which should nicely compliment the highly enriched uranium that they'll obtain in Pakistan. Oh, what am I saying? I forgot, there is no bogey man in Afghanistan.

[western mass]

82. Defense contractors needs to gets paid $$

[L0oniX]

87. The Martians have a secret base there.

[Soylent Brice]

88. The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

you know, the same as usual.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

92. Timeline of Competition between Unocal and Bridas for the Afghanistan Pipeline

This timeline owes a great debt to Ahmed Rashid's excellent study Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil & Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Yale UP, 2000). Wherever possible, the information has been cross- checked against Unocal and BP Amoco Argentina's archive of press releases, the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Platt's Oil and Gas Bulletin, Oil and Gas Magazine, Moscow's Interfax News Agency, and Moscow newspaper Pravda's Central Asia pages.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/119.html

[Romulox]

101. War is big business. nt

[Obamanaut]

109. We haven't used up all our money or credit yet. nt