US apologises for war in Afghanistan

I can't find the article where it mentions the third country specifically being Islamic, but what I can find are several articles that mention the third country offer in general.

Here's one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

As for your questions about Bush's motivations for his actions, I honestly have no idea. I doubt we'll ever really know.

 

Its was only 10 years ago and you seem to have already had a lapse in historical accuracy. Tell us how the conquest of A-stan went?

A few spec-op units and B52s? Small footprint invasion? Troops were only surged a year or two ago and theres already a drawdown plan in place. Seriously dude..think about it.

There was no referendum on democracy but amazingly enough folks embraced a chance to choose their leaders didnt they? Despite the very real chance of being murdered for simply casting a vote.

There wasnt attempt at conquest, was there? Since youre the one making such a ridiculous statement Id have to say the onus is on you to show us some evidence.

Theres nothing there worth conquest, the only thing worth the effort is making things better for the people there. Maybe you forgot how awesome Afghanistan was under the Taliban?

As far puppets go, I heard the same bs about Iraq, when its clear there are no puppets in Iraq...otherwise we'd be swimming in crude oil wouldnt we?

 

Let me help you out.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A3483-2001Oct28

Bushs motivation was simple....3000 folks had just been killed by AQ on 911,he was aware of the games the Taliban had been playing for years and years and he knew Bin Laden was the culprit.

This also more or less scuttles the idea the "negotiations" werent covered by the American MSM.

 

Yes, I am aware they wanted him handed over to a third party nation, to be tried, I never said anything other than that.

My issue was with your statement that they specifically demanded an 'Islamic nation'.

I think they were well within their rights to want him tried in a third party nation, to be honest.

Bush was going around saying that he ALREADY knew Bin Laden was guilty, well, you know what, if he KNEW that, he would have had no issue at all in bringing out the hard and conclusive evidence, would he, Bin Laden would have been tried, and if the evidence, if it was of any merit, would have convicted him.

Would you hand yourself in to the cops and authorities, if they had already decided you were guilty? Without a trial, or court worthy evidence? And if the same cops and authorities had pre con for simply murdering the accused, would you walk right in and go 'Here I am lads'? Or if they had pre con for simply locking people away, without charge or trial, would you give yourself up to them?

You would be crazy to do so.

However, you might consider agreeing to a trial carried out by anyone who was not those particular cops and authorities.

 

Well, Relevant found the kind of article I was looking for. It was a specifically Islamic country they demanded as a third party.

I see what you're saying, but apparently, most of the world's leadership was ok with invading Afghanistan.

 

On behalf of the American people I would like to apologize to the World for our failure to extirpate Pashtunwali.

 

I really don't see what the big deal is here. Anyone who believes the war was one that we should have won is delusional. We were not there to win a war, we were there to capture and kill those who harbored and helped plan the 911 attacks. If you set that as the goalpost, then we succeeded, however if your idea of winning was that we were to kill every Taliban/AQ insurgent then we did not win. That was never our goal. Now, we are into the phase of appeasement, where we try and negotiate some kind of power sharing deal between the old Baird and the new in order to prevent Afghanistan from falling in to the hands of a religious extremist again.

 

The US war in Afghanistan isn't about imposing democracy. It is not happening for the sake of the Afhans. It is now, and has been from the beginning, about 2 things. Protection of the American people from Islamic terrorism originating in Pakistan andor Afghanistan. Preventing al Qaeda from using the stateless territory (since no formal state would ever allow them) as a place to have training camps for terrorism (bombmaking, etc), and as a force to pressure the government in Pakistan from allowing their nuclear weaponry to fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists - al Qaeda, the Taliban, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, Hizb-ut-Tahir, Lashkar-e-Taiba, etc.
Afghanistan is not a war that can be won. It is a war of containment. To keep the Islamist terrorist bottled up. It could go on for decades, and America has nothing to apologize for, and the rest of the world has a lot to thank America for, since their contributions, relative to America's, have been minimal.

 

Ray, I can see right through you pal. And I am amused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

No one in America is interested in your hateful little country.

 

Given it is America's fight...I can't see why other countries should even have had minimal participation...and I certainly never thought we should.

We now suffer terrorism we didn't have before and it has actually spread terrorism to more countries than it has ever been in before. Terrorist activity and violence has grown worse, not better since 11 September 2001. Average levels of terrorist violence that would have been considered extreme in the period prior to 9/11 have become the norm in the years since. Up to 2006, there was, removing 9/11 and without including the terrorism due to Iraq an 80% increase in incidents....and including Iraq a 300% increase......and it had spread to 12 countries previous relatively or completely

But then if we are being targeted..America is not......which is the purpose of the game, isn't it.....?

 

Why don't you just go ahead and side with them?

 

Americans whining about being bombed-that's rich! Would you like a list of all the countries America has bombed, invaded, destabilised and generally screwed-over? Shall we look at the last 60 years? No?

 

Perhaps you might want to ask that nice Mr. Bush why the (*)(*)(*)(*) he went and invaded the wrong bloody country then! 911 was financed by the Saudis, but oil and Saudi money is far too precious so, hey, go invade someone totally unrelated, just so the gullible American Idiot believes that his government is doing something...

 

Sorry, I have not seen this.

Did most of the World's leadership endorse it?

Which nations did, and which didn't?

Besides, do you rely on the state to tell you what is right and wrong.

Is that what it has come to - waiting for the state to tell us what our opinions should be, rather than do our own thinking?

Sounds like an Orwellian nightmare.

 

That wasn't my point, Jack.

I just find it odd that people try to act like this is all our fault. If what we did was so wrong, then I guess that means that the majority of the world was wrong too -- including the U.K.

At this point, I don't see much point in debating a war that is finally coming to an end.

 

I am just going to throw out a dart at the board here, but maybe the reason the World sort of thinks it's the fault of American elites, is because they are, you know...those at fault.

No one has ever said that British political poodles didn't lick their boots, they did.

The US were going into Iraq and Afghani, no matter if Britain were or not, or anyone else, they were going on no matter what the UN said, the American politcal elites decided this, organised it, and actioned it.

I've already said Blair should be tried as a war criminal, along with his cabinet of the day, so I think that sort of demonstrates that I do not discriminate.

Jack

 

Well, if that's your argument, I guess that makes it more understandable when we assume that our opinion is the only one that matters.

If all of the other governments that agreed to join us in Afghanistan are just simply in our pocket, then I guess we really do run the world.

I don't personally subscribe to that idea.

I think there were definitely motivations that involved trade interests, but overall, our allies make their own decisions.

France is still our ally despite refusing to join us in Iraq, for example. Germany is our ally despite staying out of Libya.

So it's not like we forced anyone to join us. Clearly, a lot of foreign governments believed that entering Afghanistan was the right thing to do.

In hindsight, entering Afghanistan was probably a bad idea, but it's kind of a moot point now. The same goes for Iraq.

I wonder if we'll be seeing the same threads about Libya soon. Somehow, I doubt it.

 

I side with neither of you, because regarding complete and utter useless arseholism, it is a toss-up....though you have interfered in more Muslim/Arab/Middle East countries since WWII than Muslim/Arab/Middle Eastern countries have interfered with you, have you not? Heck, you have even managed to p1ss off Pakistan, on top of everything else!

Actions have consequences...but unfortunately the consequences do not always land on those who initiate the actions...as Afghanistan and Iraq....and those countries outside the Americas have found.

 

Angering Pakistan is as easy as looking at a crazy person funny.

You seriously can't expect them to be stable under any circumstances.

But yes, we have intervened a lot more than we should have. You had your turn at it back in the 1800s.

 

You mean threads with an apology for NATO actions there?

Hey, the rules are ever shifting for the elites, that is what they do, enemies are made, then we are told they are not enemies anymore, and that the true enemy is (whoever), then we are told no, they are not the actual true enemy, it is really (someone else).

There was a lot of BS reasons given for the removal of Gadaffi, if you really like to take the official line. They are less happy when you actually look past their propaganda, and learn for yourself, with an open mind. When you do that, you realise that there may well have been several motives, but absolutely none of them (once again), had a single thing to do with any concern over alleged ill treatment of Libyans. Oh - and the small matter of Libya not having a much less liberal Muslim elite, in charge(so to speak).

 

If by 'we', you mean the American people, no, you'd be right not to subscribe to that - the American people do not run the world, or even America, as it happens.

If by 'we' you mean criminal elites that happen to be American, then yes, in practice, they do 'run the world'.

They routinely demonstrate this, do they not, by the use of their veto during UN actions, and by habitually breaking legislative that they themselves are a part of. So they do it that way politically, and of course, the corporationism that has sadly replaced any last traces of true honest democracy in the US, is a global beast, and exterts power, that way.

Also, at least one US President made a threatening statement that if other nations did not endorse and support the US criminal elite, then they would be considered to be against them. Which in the eyes of said criminal elite would make them 'enemies of America'. Which is utter BS, but a good line for them to feed the terminally stoopid!

 

See - for me, these two lines are so telling.

Serfin' is by NO MEANS a bad person, and tries to at least debate, which is why I feel it more when someone like him, writes this sort of thing.

Once more, the obvious implication here is that Pakistan are quick to anger and somewhat unstable.

And that they are somehow genetically unable to be anything other than that, ....unlike America!

Hey, don't get me wrong, Pakistan doesn't strike me as a good example of very much, but I find it ironic that you can use terms like unstable at Pakistan, when right under your very nose, and a much less stable, much quicker to anger country would be..................

 

I don't understand why Obama wanted to escalate the war in eastern and southern Afghanistan. It would have been much easier to have simply poisoned the Pashtun water sources. I think Obama should apologize to the American people for this oversight.

 

reminds me of a movie scene.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9AnvARnv60"]Better Off Dead - Sorry Your Mom's Face Blew Up Ricky! - YouTube[/ame]