Taliban-U.S. peace talks look more likely; military worried

Originally posted by nenothtu
Yes. Alternate Universe. I didn't stutter. Your scenario is plausible in no real world, given the facts on the ground of the Northern Alliance vs. the AQ - Taliban axis in Afghanistan. There is no real world situation in which your scenario would have come to pass of the Northern Alliance refusing to hand over bin Laden had it been within their power to do so.

A-L-T-E-R-N-A-T-E U-N-I-V-E-R-S-E.

Yeah, because I'm really considering Osama bin Laden as a factor here. That was nothing but a show. CIA operative Tim Osman ring a bell?

uh huh. I'm sure you must have some sources or evidence to back that assertion up, right? You know, Pentagon planning documents or something, anything, other than trying to back ONE speculation up with another... right?

It's established fact. PNAC was the product of neo-con republicans joining together to form their prospects for the US in the 21st century. Most of those same top neo-cons ended up in Bush's government. Even back in the 90s, they were hawking at Clinton to invade Iraq and look what happened in 2003.

I am absolutely against democracy - and all other forms of socialism - and will fight them to my last breath. Democracy is incompatible with individual freedom.

I don't know about that. If you mean Western Democracy, which is a system designed by the elites for elites to always win in line with a pre-determined agenda, then you are right. But democracy itself is so much more than what the West has designed, and democracy can exist on all levels. And when it comes to socialism, well, socialism is the highest form of democracy in the sense that it puts all people on the same social level with equal opportunity to step up and influence the direction of the community (and any social organization elects its own leaders, if not even on an informal level).

Karzai was more than "practically" a CIA asset - he WAS a CIA asset at one point, and a troublesome one at that

What I meant was the American strategy to gain "hearts and minds" in Afghanistan during the initial invasion; it involved paying off warlords to support the invasion, and Karzai and his faction were cooperative.

The Soviet Union made two major mistakes in Afghanistan that the US should have learned from, and did not. One was installation of a government into a culture you have no understanding of, and thinking that will be acceptable. It won't be. Ever. That is the fault of politicians with no understanding pf political or cultural realities or the relationships between the two.

While this is true to some lengths, it must be understood that those fighting against the Communist Party were feudalists that could have been delt with much like the the US did with the Taliban, except in the Soviet example it was the Americans who turned the rebels into vicious fighters. It would have been a different story if the Americans did not interfere (especially since the Soviets new first about the vast mineral deposits in that country).

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Yeah, because I'm really considering Osama bin Laden as a factor here. That was nothing but a show. CIA operative Tim Osman ring a bell?

What has Tim Osman to do with Afghanistan? He had no more to do with it than Donny Osmond. Osman and bin Laden were not the same person, despite several nebulous claims otherwise, all based on a single badly forged document.

In any event, Osman has nothing to do with the notion of whether the Northern Alliance would have handed over bin Laden.

It's established fact. PNAC was the product of neo-con republicans joining together to form their prospects for the US in the 21st century. Most of those same top neo-cons ended up in Bush's government. Even back in the 90s, they were hawking at Clinton to invade Iraq and look what happened in 2003.

Established fact. OK.

At the risk of repeating myself, if it's established fact, some evidence or verification of it should be easy to provide. I'll wait while you run and get it.

BTW - back in the 90's, they DID invade Iraq. I'm not quite clear on what that has to do with your scenario, though.

I don't know about that. If you mean Western Democracy, which is a system designed by the elites for elites to always win in line with a pre-determined agenda, then you are right. But democracy itself is so much more than what the West has designed, and democracy can exist on all levels. And when it comes to socialism, well, socialism is the highest form of democracy in the sense that it puts all people on the same social level with equal opportunity to step up and influence the direction of the community (and any social organization elects its own leaders, if not even on an informal level).

Democracy is democracy - western, eastern, northern, or southern. any way you cut it, whatever direction you travel, it's mob rule, and inimical to personal liberty, just as I said, and I'll work against it until I no longer draw breath.

You're right in saying that socialism is the "highest form" of democracy, which should tell people everything they need to know about both.

What I meant was the American strategy to gain "hearts and minds" in Afghanistan during the initial invasion; it involved paying off warlords to support the invasion, and Karzai and his faction were cooperative.

You're evidently not all that familiar with the "initial invasion". I suppose it depends on what you mean by "paying off warlords". Karzai was not in Afghanistan for that event. He was in exile.

While this is true to some lengths, it must be understood that those fighting against the Communist Party were feudalists that could have been delt with much like the the US did with the Taliban, except in the Soviet example it was the Americans who turned the rebels into vicious fighters. It would have been a different story if the Americans did not interfere (especially since the Soviets new first about the vast mineral deposits in that country).

Americans didn't turn the Afghans into anything. they have always been vicious fighters, as long as they have been Afghans. Just ask the British. No, the story would have been the same, just drawn out longer. The Communist Party would never have flown for any length of time in Afghanistan, any more than a "western style democracy" will. Afghans are not culturally suited to either system.

About those "vast" mineral deposits - why do you suppose has no one ever developed then, particularly in light of the fact that the warlords are all about money?

reply to post by neo96


What do you suggest Neo? You stay there until you have killed every Afghanistani, losing more of your own soldiers in the process, in a war you can no longer afford to be fighting. Osama Bin Laden is dead, the hijackers on 9/11 were predominantly Saudi.

Leave Afghanistan be. We were never there to change their cultural practices no matter how abhorrent.

Originally posted by nenothtu

It's established fact. PNAC was the product of neo-con republicans joining together to form their prospects for the US in the 21st century. Most of those same top neo-cons ended up in Bush's government. Even back in the 90s, they were hawking at Clinton to invade Iraq and look what happened in 2003.

Established fact. OK.

At the risk of repeating myself, if it's established fact, some evidence or verification of it should be easy to provide. I'll wait while you run and get it.

BTW - back in the 90's, they DID invade Iraq. I'm not quite clear on what that has to do with your scenario, though.

I take it that you do not have any formal education on the subject, because the information is available in abundance. PNAC (it's origins and agenda) has been mentioned in many books that I've had to study by modern political philosophers and international lawyers, a lot of these authors being well informed patriotic Americans as well.

And really, you don't need to be some high official in the dark echelons of the Pentagon to know what the grand American strategy is. It's been stated many times. The problem is that most people simply lack the perception to understand the geopolitics behind it, and instead they maintain the usual populist stances like "it's all about oil" when the situation is far more complex.

From the fact that you're asking me for sources, it is clear that you also lack the perception to understand the greater strategy because it is fully available for all to see already. All you have to do is open your eyes and it is clear; you don't even have to read any sources to even realize the greater objectives.

But if you insist, then here's a list of authors that you should look into:

- Zbignew Brzezinski
- Noam Chomsky
- Chalmers Johnson
- Micheal Byers
- David Peterson
- Edward S. Herman
- Marjorie Cohn
- Erna Paris
- Naomi Klein
- Linda McQuaig
- John Isbister
- Barry Sanders

From reading work by these authors, you should grasp the same fundamental aspects of geopolitics of the post-Cold War era, specifically the expansion of the American Empire, its objectives and what it has done to acheive them. From learning this, you will also have an inclination into understanding what is really going on in current events as well where the reality is skewed by the media and lied to us by government.

And I do realize that you (and most others on ATS) will probably never look into my provided sources, either because they aren't prepped for public consumption by the ruling establishment or because they aren't a bunch of easy-access internet links. And I don't really care either, because this stuff is the real deal and people won't understand it until they actually put the effort into it.

IMO, he wants his troops out ready for Iran. Fighting two wars in the same region has the possibility of aligning your enemies together to fight against you.