Taliban declare 'defeat' of U.S., allies in Afghanistan

Wouldn't the above make the British fair game?

 

Of course.

 

I can't deny that "To the victor in war, goes the spoils." This has generally been true, and led to WWII(German Reparations.) But I think we changed our mindset in geopolitics after WWII. The Allies realized "If we antagonize the Germans(or the AXIS in general), it'll just end up repeating." So, what they did was single out the Nazis, not the Germans per say. Through the Marshal Plan, we generally dictated a few things but otherwise allowed them to rebuild on their own terms. Save for Soviet(with its own ambitions), it was probably the first time in a long time that the English Empires didn't claim any territory from the war.

We gained something far more valuable: Powerful allies who were once enemies. Today, we have the UN, the G-7(it was G-8 until Russian exclusion. Something that on second thought, I disagree with. We can't encourage Putin to rebuild the Iron Curtain. Russia in isolation is far more dangerous than Russia openly about in the community)

If the Terrorists, etc were Nations and had diplomats and if they had the same type of geopolitical mindset that a political leader does, there would be points of emphasis. If they truly wished not to be colonized and to be independent, they wouldn't attack U.S citizens, instead they would seek out common alliances in self-defense.

Their independence is more than welcome, up to the point where their independent(and by this we mean violent) action disrupts their neighbors and the neighbors of the world. Is a good portion of this war in the interest of Capitalists and other INTL. dirt bags who want people to fight wars for them? Yes, but a good part of it is also the necessity of ending the threat against Western Civilization, it's also a threat against their own civilization.

The English Colonies eventually developed into the U.S. India was once a British Colony, now it's a thriving country. Nation Building can work, as long as we understand that that's precisely what we're doing. It's not something that can be done half-assed. If the Marshall Plan was effective in history, we can reduplicate that success in the M.E

 

No one said different.

You would do better in the conspiracy section, I have not interest in such nonsense.

 

We rid the al Qaeda training camps they supported, removed them from control of government and elected a new one. Those were the goals. Obama lost that and allowed the Taliban and ISIS to grow in power and now almost take over the country again.

 

Yeah, we can - if we can stop alienating them for a minute.

In fact, most of these countries were Europeen colonies and, before that, some were Turquish colonies. Everything went relatively well but for two incidents:

1- Zionism and
2- The toppling of Mossadegh.

With hindsight, I am pretty sure the CIA wouldn't repeat the Mossadegh fiasco, but at the time, monarchy (and the islamic uprising it would ultimately cause) seemed indeed preferable then secular communism.

So yeah, they can be brought in the 21th century... but before that happens, we've got a lot to mend. Maybe China will achieve that, it is a more neutral broker. These ME people have a long memory.

 

????? 'Cause"? The Shaw kept Khomeini out of Iran, and it was his absence that permitted him to return. Khomeini and his followers would have been equally opposed to secular communism.

 

What are you writing about about? The Shah was desposed by the Islamic revolution in 1979. Of course Khomeini was opposed to secularism, commie or else.

I would rather prefer we discuss events that happenned in this reality, no matter how interesting the alternate one you suggest seems.

 

I hear some Russians still think they won the Cold War.

 

I, of course, was disputing your claim that the removal of Mossadegh "caused" the Islamic uprising.

 

Not everyone associated with al Qaeda is a terrorist and, in fact, most are not. Few of those associated with al Qaeda are actually involved in conspiring to commit acts of terrorism or in carrying out acts of terrorism (i.e. terrorists) although the political ideology has supported the use of terrorism as one tactic rationalized as a means of opposing Western tyranny against Muslims.

Just because someone associates themselves with al Qaeda does not establish they are criminals (i.e. terrorists) anymore than a person being a member of the KKK doesn't doesn't establish the person is a criminal. A person is not guilty based merely upon association with a group even if the group engages in criminal activities.

I would also point out that members of the Taliban were NOT members of al Qaeda.

 

No one claimed they were. Scampering off for another strawman to hide under already?

 

OH like we weren't involved before. We saved yours and the Soviets arse's and that started long before the Axis declared war on us, we only had to get in because you faced defeat. And then it was your greatest general that almost lost the war entirely because he was too scared to fight and when he did showed total incompetence and was left with nothing but his whining.

 

Yea and when you get caught throw the race card, how juvenile.

 

I am under no obligation to repeat myself but suggest you read the ILA and ATUMF for both. And yes the region is more dangerous than ever because of the lack of leadership under Obama and his putting partisan campaign promises ahead of our national security.

 

I was under the impression that no one really gave a damn what the islamofascist Taliban had to say about anything, really.

 

There's so much stupidity and ignorance in this it isn't worth responding to. You "saved" nobody. Everything we got from you was paid for in hard cash.

 

I suppose you think Nixon handed a victory to North Vietnam as well.

 

"throw the race card"? Is the fact that Obama is black like some giant elephant in the living room we're not allowed to talk about? Are you honestly trying to say that there is NOT an element of racism in the overall dislike of Obama by those on the right? Really???

 

Only the equipment given to you was paid for, eventually. You didn't pay anything for all the equipment, effort and lives we expended.

 

In response to the question "what terrorists?" you responded with:

Apparently your first reply had zero meaning because "al Qaeda" is not a person and membership does not establish that a person is a terrorist.

 

Not the sharpest crayon in the box. Since the question was "what terrorists" and the answer was Al Qaeda, the answer would refer to those members of AlQaeda who are terrorists and not those members of Al Qaeda who are not.

 

Okay, which members of al Qaeda did the US (or international community) provide evidence warranting the arrest and prosecution by the Taliban for?

The only person I'm aware of that the US had an indictment against was Osama bin Laden (for the 1998 African Embassy bombings but not for 9/11) but the Bush Admisntration refused to furnish the evidence for the indictment to the Taliban government that requested it.

Were there any other "terrorists" that the US government might have been furnishing evidence to the Taliban government that would have warrented their arrest? We didn't provide the evidence on bin Laden that would have warranted his arrest by the Taliban so was there someone else you had in mind?

We're back to the question of "which terrorists" because the arrest could only have been based upon evidence being provided to the Taliban government warranting the arrest but the Bush Adminstration refused to provide any evidence warranting the arrest of "terrorists" to the Taliban.

 

Tell me something since you seem to think so highly of the ICC, give me the top 5 convictions they have gotten as the court in which war crimes and genocide and other crimes by countries and leaders on their people are to be prosecuted.

 

The ICC can press all the charges they want, the US is not members of the ICC and the charges would be virtually irrelevant.

As for CAT

Seems a little limiting, based on our own definitions.