Why does Washington want a continuing military presence in Afghanistan?

[yurbud]

Poll question: Why does Washington want a continuing military presence in Afghanistan?

Regardless of what you think Obama may or should do, why do you think their is DC establishment pressure to stay in Afghanistan?

[Maat]

1. Good poll.

I happen to have been married for 25 years to a guy who knows a bit about the desired pipelines, the opium is probably good revenue for illicit CIA and other covert operations, and there's no doubt that the Powers That Be want to keep up the military-industrial complex thing.

So, I voted for the combination.

[valerief]

2. Poppies!!!! And not the Poppy Bush kind. nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Quite a loaded poll

Every one of them seems to presuppose some nefarious motive for wanting to remain in Afghanistan (not to say that governments don't ever have ulterior/nefarious motives for their action but I always thought that dislodging the Taliban and Al-Queda from Afghanistan after 9/11 was and is still the right thing to do- Bush just got bored with it and invaded/occupied Iraq). Making sure the Taliban don't come back in and take over and once again be in the position of providing sanctuary for Al-Queda and/or any other troublemakers- which is the main reason Obama has articulated- isn't a valid reason? I have my concerns about remaining involved militarily over there too and want Obama to be cautious but I think we have a completely valid reason for being over there. Iraq? Not at all- and the sooner we can leave there the better.

[Pastiche423]

4. Where is the proof that either the Taliban or Al Qaeda

was responsible for the attacks on 9/11?

Did I miss it? Do you have links?



I voted for the combo!

[Fire1]

5. Then who was it, the boogeyman?

[Mari333]

6. 15 of the 19 hijackers were from saudi arabia

why arent we attacking them?

[Occam Bandage]

8. Who cares what the hijackers' nations of origin were?

[Fire1]

13. They are/were still alqaeda conspirators and where is

home base for Al Qaeda?

[eridani]

15. Home bases for the plotters of 9/11 were London, Hamburg and Kuala Lumpur

And they got their flight training right here in the US.

[Fire1]

20. There are/were 'cells' all over the world. AL QAEDA IS

ORIGINATED OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fire1]

21. ......AND the 9/11 commission has yet to confirm the

relationship between the hijackers and the Saudi government.

[yurbud]

23. who funded and protected them? It was Saudi & Pakistan. Afghanistan was just their flophouse

Blowing up Afghanistan over 9/11 makes as much sense as blowing up the trailer park where Tim McVeigh lived instead of going after those who helped him.

Saudi

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/02/probe-this-sen-bob-graham-said-two-911.html

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2008/03/foia-doc-shows-911commission-lied-about.html

Pakistan
helping Al Qaeda
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/01/28/020128fa_FACT

connection to Daniel Pearl's killers (he contacted them through Pakistani intel and his kidnappers demanded US deliver F-16's to Pakistan as ransom before they killed him).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4462107,00.html

[Fire1]

24. Apparently, it still is their flop house that protects OBL as he

transits between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

[yurbud]

29. it is difficult to take anything said about bin Laden seriously

[Fire1]

37. That's because the 'truth' has yet to be divulged. I would

imagine just from what the public has been allowed to piece together that there are many dots to be connected. However, I agree with President Obama that this is where the culprits will be found and where we should have been all along. Either way, assistance in Afghanistan is essential to establishing peace in the region and some form of government. Continued lawlessness is a large part of the 'terrorist' problem.

[yurbud]

38. I have a sick feeling that rather than assisting Afghans, we are pursuing some private business

interests and taking sides in the drug trade to make sure the ''right'' people profit.

[Fire1]

39. I'm sorry but I just can't fathom THIS president KNOWINGLY and

willingly assisting private enterprise in the name of peace and the reconstruction of government. The drug trade and cartels are going to persist no matter who the president is, imo. That is not going away as long as their is a profit to be made by somebody or anybody.

[yurbud]

40. Read your history. The aggressors in wars want land, resources, markets, or cheap labor

We are the aggressors in Afghanistan.

We wouldn't be occupying the whole country if we were only concerned about exterminating the guys responsible for 9/11, al Qaeda, & Dr. Evil.

[Fire1]

41. As I mentioned a couple of posts up, the cause in this case

is just, imo. The cause is not only capturing culprits but bringing peace, law and stability to the region via some form of government. Our history also includes assistance in rebuilding countries/land that has been ravaged by war and strife. Again, I don't think THIS president has any intention of taking advantage of the devastation but peace in this region is essential to international well being.

[yurbud]

46. we picked a president who worked for the oil companies, once he started standing up for his own...

people, we called him weak and ineffectual.

Do you believe the pirates in the Pirates of the Caribbean ride are real too?

[Fire1]

48. I've never called him 'weak and ineffectual.' Because I

don't mistake kindness for weakness doesn't mean I live in a fantasy world.

[yurbud]

49. I meant the president of Afghanistan not Obama--I still have hope for him.

[yurbud]

42. connecting Wall Street banks to drug traffic is like playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon...

with five fewer degrees.

Wall Street buys known drug money laundering banks and Wall St. execs move in and out of high government positions, including head of the CIA
http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/052401_slatkin_story.html


They set up banks like BCCI to launder drug money.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=bank_of_credit_and_commerce_international

For a fun project, pick a big bank and google their name and drug money laundering and see what you get.

Britain did this more openly with Afghanistan opium in the 19th century, even igniting the Opium War by trying to import opium to China, who understandably didn't want to have a nation of drug addicts.

In the Information Age, this stuff has to be done under the table to avoid public backlash--and avoid taxes and liability lawsuits from drug addicts too.

[Fire1]

43. If this is a reply to my post, I think my statements about

drug trades and cartels indicate that I am in agreement but this has nothing to do with the president aiding and abetting this kind of activity.

[yurbud]

45. Obama may not like it, but if he intends to stay in Afghanistan, that's who he will be helping, not

Afghans.

Unless you count being killed at weddings and schools as help.

[Fire1]

47. I think that's part of his 'clean up' plan. Where there is no

government you can't expect much more.

[yurbud]

50. it's tough when we are not perceived by the locals as the clean up crew but as the wrecking crew

[Fire1]

51. Ha! It's already wrecked and what did you think they'd say

where lawlessness abounds??

[yurbud]

52. so if you live in a crappy house, and someone breaks in and kills your family, you're glad to

have them run your life because it wasn't going well anyway.

[eridani]

32. It did not. It was originally bin Laden's thing, and he is Saudi

As were all but one of the hijackers.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. Since you're not satisfied with the reams of evidence already available

then anything that I produce will probably be equally unsatisfactory. Although Michael Moore does ask some good questions in "Dude, Where's My Country" about who was responsible for the attacks and asks about the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, I haven't seen or heard any evidence (so far) that anybody but Al-Queda planned, organized, and executed the hijackings/crashings. Anyway, just because the hijackers were Saudi Arabian doesn't necessarily mean that Saudi Arabia necessarily might have had something to do with the attacks. Muslims for several different countries are members of Al-Queda. That doesn't mean that those countries support Al-Queda's activities. It's entirely possible that Al-Queda selected so many Saudi Arabians for the hijackings because, thanks to our then(still?)-lax immigration requirements for Saudi citizens, they could get in easier?
Leaving aside their culpability for 9/11 (which apparently is still in question by some people), there were several other attacks for which we had evidence of their involvement: WTC 1993, Kenya & Tanzania bombings, USS Cole- more than enough for any reasonable person IMHO to conclude that Al-Queda was/is a threat to us and in fact, after the bombing of the USS Cole, Clinton had Richard Clarke draw up plans to take out Al-Queda that more or less amounted to everything that Bush did (or should have done) between 2001-2002.
Although there is no evidence AFAIK that the Taliban did not have a direct role in the 9/11 attacks, they were, at the very least, responsible for sheltering/assisting Al-Queda within the areas of Afghanistan that they controlled- making them at least indirectly culpable for the attacks and I don't believe that they provided any assistance to us in tracking down and eliminating Al-Queda after the fact.

[Pastiche423]

11. I knew it

NO LINKS because there are NONE!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. I'm sorry I don't have time to gather up links to news stories, etc. from the past 7-8 years

And I certainly don't have access to classified CIA intercepts and other material so I guess we'll just have to disagree on this particular point. Based on a preponderance of the evidence that I've been exposed to (or brainwashed to believe- I'm really not sure), I believe that Al-Queda was responsible for 9/11. I do, however, try to be open-minded and would be quite interested to hear about what your theories are about who was REALLY responsible the 9/11 attacks and read any links that you might be able/willing to post. MIHOP? LIHOP? Something else? :shrug:

[Pastiche423]

14. Not even one?

How much time does it take to find one link?

Then what about that preponderance of evidence that you have been exposed to?


I'm going w/the brainwashing choice.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. O.k.

What about the 08/16/01 PDB? Phoenix FBI memos (Kenneth Williams)? Zacarias Moussaui? 9/11 Commission findings? What other organization (other than a State) had the resources and organization to pull off the attacks?

[Pastiche423]

26. I have not been asking who it might have been

My point is, that no proof, no evidence of any kind has have been presented to anyone, anywhere. The * administration told everyone what to think for their own purposes. They made sure that no answers would be forthcoming by labeling anyone that questioned the events of September 11, 2001, a traitor, unpatriotic, a commie pinko, etc.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels



In the immediate days following 9/11/2001, Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, indicated that the Taliban might turn over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. if presented with evidence of his guilt. He also suggested that a Taliban trial of OBL was possible.


"Osama will not be extradited without evidence: Taliban"
The Hindu (India's National Newspaper), Thursday, September 13, 2001

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/13/stories/0313000b.htm



CBS News, September 23, 2001:
"Taliban Won't Turn Over Bin Laden"
"...Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml



'Asked whether the Taliban would allow a trial of Bin Laden in another country, he said: "We are willing to talk about that, but the first is that we must be given the evidence." The Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) quoted Mullah Zaeff as saying: "If America is not satisfied with our trial of Osama, we are also ready to find another Islamic way of trying him."'

source: "The Guardian, Taliban 'will try Bin Laden if US provides evidence'"
Friday October 5, 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,563965,00.html



Here's one that include Bush's response:

'The United States has turned down Taliban offers to negotiate. Bush repeated that stance Tuesday. "I have said that the Taliban must turn over the al-Qaida organization living in Afghanistan and must destroy the terrorist camps. They must do so, otherwise there will be a consequence," he said. "There are no negotiations. There is no calendar."'

source: CourtTV, Oct. 2, 2001, "Taliban still says: no proof, no bin Laden"


http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/1002_nobinladen_ap.html



By October 17, 2001, The Guardian was reporting that the Taliban was
offering a deal that didn't require evidence.

"For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said. But US officials appear to have dismissed the proposal and are instead hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership. The offer was brought by Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban foreign minister and a man who is often regarded as a more moderate figure in the regime."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,575593,00.html



It's been seven years and seven months since 9/11 and the Tailban have stiil received no proof or evidence that OBL was responsible for the attacks.

Why did our government begin bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age in October 2001 and why are we still there?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

27. First off, Afghanistan had pretty much already been bombed back to the stone age already

Second, most of our military efforts were aimed at supporting the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, as well as destroying the Al-Queda training camps and capturing or killing Bin Laden and other top level leaders of Al-Queda. That is, of course, what we were told by the * (mis-)administration and, yeah, they were a sack of liars (and worse) to be sure. However, their stated justification for us being over there seemed to make sense to me and AFAIK that was what we were really doing over there and have continued to do, with diminishing success (mostly due to the redeployment of our resources to Iraq in 2002-2003), since 2001. Of course, being an average citizen with no access to classified intelligence, briefing papers, or anything else that our leaders use to make their decisions, I guess I do not have the means to corroborate anything personally. None of us do, really, if you think about it. :shrug:

As for why we're still there now, well, my understanding is that, like I said before, to help keep the Taliban and Al-Queda from coming back into Afghanistan (via their hideouts along the Afghan-Pakistani border) and setting up shop there again. That is what Obama said he wants to do there during the campaign last year and I trust Obama to stick with that plan. Now, once again, the rest of us don't have independent means of corroborating this so I guess we could all be getting taken on some kind of wild ride and that Obama, our military, and/or other shadowy actors are really just keeping us there for some other less justifiable and/or nefarious reason(s). Maybe my trust is misplaced and maybe none of us should really trust ANYTHING we see or hear anywhere but if we don't- or can't- trust anything or anybody then how are we to be able to function in society? I guess we all need to be in government to really *know* anything? :shrug:

Who do you trust and what do you believe and what makes you think that your sources or more trustworthy than other sources?

[Pastiche423]

28. What sources?

[yurbud]

16. did you miss the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11's findings about Saudi gov't involvement?

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/02/probe-this-sen-bob-graham-said-two-911.html

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2008/03/foia-doc-shows-911commission-lied-about.html

[Occam Bandage]

7. Just to irritate you, really. nt

[Mari333]

9. Pipelinestan

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/911_attack/news.php?q=1216405258

[DireStrike]

17. Drug trade!

[cali]

19. I lie pie. I don't like push polls. no matter what they're pushing for.

[leftstreet]

22. K&R

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. Can you cite some of this "DC establishment pressure?"

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. The same reason Nixon stayed in Vietam. Acknowledging a lost war is bad PR.

Better, to kill a lot more people, and "sacrifice" more GI's, than lose face.

[NeedleCast]

31. You should write push polls for a living, your'e good at it

[Echo In Light]

33. Combo of opium, oil, militarization and empire

[ForrestGump]

34. Sounds like George W. Bush's idea

of a good weekend...

[Echo In Light]

36. It never boils down to the whims of individual presidents

It's that the system only puts up "electable" candidates whose lives have been tailored to abide the real covert agenda and aims of the corporations that dictate policy, and benefit from empire.

[L0oniX]

35. Nuclear Taliban goats are coming!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. and Iraq?