Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. The Taliban had taken over Afghanistan and were effectively the government. Under their leadership, they supported and allowed Al Qaeda to operate and plan attacks on the US. If we allowed them to take control again, another attack would be probable. They were the conquering force; we are defending the rightful government - not a small detail.
You have your facts mixed up bud. The Taliban were the government, and were entertained by our government on 3 separate occasions after they seized power. The world does not rely on the US to say who is and isn't a real government. Courted by Unocal they had awesome visits to the states which included visits to the Houston zoo, the NASA space center, a Super Target, and a Unocal vice presidents home. While our government would never officially recognize the Taliban as the governing power in Afghanistan, they sure didn't mind bringing them here and treating them to a good time. Not to mention the CIA's support of freedom fighters in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. We weren't there because we cared, we were there to make sure the Soviets couldn't corner that county's oil and gas market. Their location puts them right in the middle of the best track for our pipelines. When the deal with Unocal went sour, we suddenly had all kinds of problems with the way they treat women and everything else under the sun. But before that, we turned a blind eye just because we thought we were going to get something out of it. And we are not there defending the "rightful" government, we are there to make sure our pipelines run through as planned. The Taliban were not going to allow this to happen, so we have placed in power a government who will do what we say. Just as we have done in Iraq. So please stop placing us in the role of saviors, we are more the war profiteers. Its just a shame that so many of our honorable troops have been sacrificed for a very dishonorable cause.
You have your facts mixed up bud. The Taliban were the government, and were entertained by our government on 3 separate occasions after they seized power. The world does not rely on the US to say who is and isn't a real government. Courted by Unocal they had awesome visits to the states which included visits to the Houston zoo, the NASA space center, a Super Target, and a Unocal vice presidents home. While our government would never officially recognize the Taliban as the governing power in Afghanistan, they sure didn't mind bringing them here and treating them to a good time. Not to mention the CIA's support of freedom fighters in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. We weren't there because we cared, we were there to make sure the Soviets couldn't corner that county's oil and gas market. Their location puts them right in the middle of the best track for our pipelines. When the deal with Unocal went sour, we suddenly had all kinds of problems with the way they treat women and everything else under the sun. But before that, we turned a blind eye just because we thought we were going to get something out of it. And we are not there defending the "rightful" government, we are there to make sure our pipelines run through as planned. The Taliban were not going to allow this to happen, so we have placed in power a government who will do what we say. Just as we have done in Iraq. So please stop placing us in the role of saviors, we are more the war profiteers. Its just a shame that so many of our honorable troops have been sacrificed for a very dishonorable cause.
Not only was the Taliban not recognized by us, they were not recognized internationally (U.N.) as the rightful government of Afghanistan. They took over by force.
Yes, the support against the Soviets was a strategic move.
I'm not saying we went there to act as saviors. We went because they harbored the people that attacked us, despite what you may like to say about oil. You're saying we're an invading force. The Taliban took over by force and were not the rightful government. Our taking them out was to go after Al Qaeda and it also happened to benefit the people of that country that were being mistreated.
it also happened to benefit the people of that country that were being mistreated.
That's it! I wish people to stop pointing out how other countries benefit from US invasions. I'm sorry, I can't take pride in killing innocent civilians of a foreign country and justifying that as part of overall benefit. Even if it's just one civilian.
That's it! I wish people to stop pointing out how other countries benefit from US invasions. I'm sorry, I can't take pride in killing innocent civilians of a foreign country and justifying that as part of overall benefit. Even if it's just one civilian.
You might want to try placing the statement in the context of the conversation.
Every time I read the newspaper there is a story about our troops killing another 100 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. What did that accomplish? If we kill 100 of their fighters over there each week, how does that make me safer over here?
I suspect it makes me less safe because the money we spend on the war against the Taliban could be spent on infrastructure to make our roads and homeland security safer here in America.
It'll make you safer. The more Taliban there are in Afghanistan the more Tali's there are to crowd onto those airplanes. The more Tali's on an airplane the easier it will be to hijack and fly into malls. The more malls destroyed the more the 'merikan enconomy sinks. So you run to options of loss here...
You can get killed in a mall or lose your job. Courtesy of the Taliban.
You might want to try placing the statement in the context of the conversation.
Oooops, you mean to tell me that your partial statement was taken out of context. I thought that's the way things work - criticize what you don't like not necessarily the entire subtext
Oooops, you mean to tell me that your partial statement was taken out of context. I thought that's the way things work - criticize what you don't like not necessarily the entire subtext
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
