# U.S. Foreign Policy Created the Taliban Problem



## Kevin_Kennedy (May 11, 2009)

> U.S. officials are now concerned not only with a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan but also a Taliban takeover in Pakistan. These problems, however, were caused by the U.S. Empire itself.
> 
> While most Americans now view President Bushs Iraq War as a bad war, the common perception is that Bushs invasion of Afghanistan was a good war (despite the fact that he went to war without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war). The notion is that the U.S. government was justified in invading Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban regime from power because the Taliban and al-Qaeda conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks.
> 
> Theres just one big problem with that belief: its unfounded.



U.S. Foreign Policy Caused the Taliban Problem by Jacob G. Hornberger


----------



## Epsilon Delta (May 12, 2009)

Please Kevin, take your hateful left-wing propaganda out of this board.



> Venezuela and the United States have an extradition agreement. Nonetheless, the U.S. government is refusing to extradite Posada to Venezuela. The reason? It says that it fears that Venezuelan authorities will torture Posada. (Another reason might be that Posada was a CIA operative.)
> 
> But if fear of torture is a valid reason for refusing an extradition request from Venezuela, then why wouldnt the same reason apply with respect to the Talibans refusal to extradite bin Laden to the United States?



Because when _WE_ do it, it's ok, when _THEY_ do it, it isn't. Duh. Didn't this guy learn anything in history class?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (May 12, 2009)

Jeez, seriously, how hateful of America do you have to be to say something like this:



> What would have been the ideal way of handling bin Laden? The same way that the United States handled Ramzi Yousef, one of the terrorists who committed the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Treating that attack as a criminal offense, U.S. officials simply waited Yousef out, relied on good police work, and finally were able to effect his arrest in Pakistan. He is now residing in a U.S. federal penitentiary. No bombs, no missiles, no destruction, no killing of Pakistani wedding parties, and no needless production of new enemies for the United States.



Common sense is a criminal offense. Crucify this so called "Jacob Hornberger"! More like Ayatollah Adolf bin Jughashvili-il!!


----------



## Toro (May 12, 2009)

The Taliban won't take over Pakistan.  The Pakistani army is too powerful and too secular to allow that to happen.


----------



## editec (May 12, 2009)

We have been handling terrorists and insurgents like complete nitwits since I was in the NAV and before.

We're sort of like the Hessians.

We keep fighting the wrong wars on behalf of the wrong people the wrong way for all the wrong reasons.

_But hey!_ ~ such policy mistakes make some very few of us _very_ wealthy, and since only those people matter, we can expect to continue these idiotic policies until the USA is such a third world nation, it will no longer be relevant.

So sunshine patriots will just keep plastering their cars with _support the troops_ bumper stickers and sending their children off to fight wars to make their masters wealthy and to make 12th century Islamic fiefdoms safe from modernity.

Because that's what know-nothing tools do, after all. 

They drink the_ families values_ kool-aid and their sell their souls for a pittance and help their masters turn this nation into the a third world nation.

And they keep telling us this American debate is all about capitalism v. socialism because, after all, that's about how deeply they can fathom these troubled waters we're ALL adrift in.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 24, 2009)

Toro said:


> The Taliban won't take over Pakistan.  The Pakistani army is too powerful and too secular to allow that to happen.



And once the Taliban leaves Waziristan/FATA, they quickly lose their tactical advantage.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 24, 2009)

I don't agree with much of what the OP says, but he's not incorrect in saying that we are culpable for the rise of the Taliban.

On the advice of the ISI-D we exclusively funded Pashtun warlords, the two that received the bulk of the funding were Hekmatyar (of the HIG) and Juliddan Haqqani (who has the captured soldier in his custody now).  We ignored more moderate (and effective) Mujahadeen like Massoud.  

Then, to make matters worse, after we'd allowed the pashtun thugs to build up an army and funded it, we ignored them after the Soviets pulled out.  These Pashtun Warlords would go on to become the Taliban, which were also supported by ISI-D to stabilize Afghanistan.

This might stick in the craw of some people, but it's well documented.  I recommend _Ghost Wars_ by Coll if you are interested in the details.


----------



## Tommy Lucchese (Aug 1, 2009)

Toro said:


> The Taliban won't take over Pakistan.  The Pakistani army is too powerful and too secular to allow that to happen.



The Pakistani military is not secular. Not by a long shot.


----------



## Tommy Lucchese (Aug 1, 2009)

geauxtohell said:


> I don't agree with much of what the OP says, but he's not incorrect in saying that we are culpable for the rise of the Taliban.
> 
> On the advice of the ISI-D we exclusively funded Pashtun warlords, the two that received the bulk of the funding were Hekmatyar (of the HIG) and Juliddan Haqqani (who has the captured soldier in his custody now).  We ignored more moderate (and effective) Mujahadeen like Massoud.
> 
> ...



Basically, we lost interest in Afghanistan after the Soviets collapsed. One of life's little ironies, though admittedly Poppy Bush had much bigger issues on his plate at the time, like restructuring the entire international system.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 1, 2009)

ALL and I do mean ALL of our problems in the Middle east are the culmination of decades of meddlesome foreign policy where we did nothing but bed hop between governments and leaders we sought to control.

The best way to fix it is to get the fuck out of the Middle East and stay out.


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 1, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> U.S. Foreign Policy Created the Taliban Problem





> Instead, treating the capture of bin Laden as a military problem, U.S. officials invaded the country, killed and maimed countless innocent people, wreaked untold destruction on Afghanistan, effected regime change, created new enemies for the United States ... and failed to capture bin Laden.



  And Obama increased the number of troops.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 1, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> ALL and I do mean ALL of our problems in the Middle east are the culmination of decades of meddlesome foreign policy where we did nothing but bed hop between governments and leaders we sought to control.
> 
> The best way to fix it is to get the fuck out of the Middle East and stay out.



Afghanistan is NOT in the middle east.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 1, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ALL and I do mean ALL of our problems in the Middle east are the culmination of decades of meddlesome foreign policy where we did nothing but bed hop between governments and leaders we sought to control.
> ...



Close enough.

And we are fighting in Afghanistan as a direct result of our failed Middle East policies.


----------



## Neser Boha (Aug 1, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> ALL and I do mean ALL of our problems in the Middle east are the culmination of decades of meddlesome foreign policy where we did nothing but bed hop between governments and leaders we sought to control.
> 
> The best way to fix it is to get the fuck out of the Middle East and stay out.



I kinda sorta agree with your statement.  However, don't you think it's a bit fucked up to mess that region up as badly as U.S. did with the help of other countries such as France, Britain, etc. and then just say "oooh, we finally learned our lesson, let's get the fuck out and let the innocent citizens of these countries pay for our criminal mistakes!"  I think that's very damn fucked up...  US can't disengage from that region, but it certainly needs "to pull it's big dick out of somebody else's desert" (Ani DiFranco)... that is for fucking sure.  US and others - such as France, and GB (and possibly many other European countries) have a LOT of fucking atoning to do...  

Now, when somebody starts bitching about all the immigrants and refugees from the Middle East and Africa, I tell them... the reason why they're here is our own damn fault, suck it up, bitch.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 1, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I have an idea. You don't like our country? LEAVE. But just a little warning you dumb ass, If we fall to the Islamic Jihad no where you go will fair any better.

The days we could just ignore the World have been gone a LONG fucking time now. You would think 2 World Wars would wake you dumb as rocks fuckers up to that.

If we just let the thugs, dictators and terrorists over run everyone unable to stop them, who the FUCK do you think we will be trading with after that? You retards are aware , I would hope, that the US is not able to independently do much of anything on its own, we live off a world wide trading system. If we allow everywhere else to fall, we will be paying tribute to those dictators, thugs and terrorists and we will be paying the amounts they dictate. You think foreign aid is bad? Wait till you have to pay off people that actively hate your guts. And how long do you think those that want us to cease to exist will continue doing business with us at any price?

You people have the brains God gave a mite. Dumb as rocks.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 1, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ALL and I do mean ALL of our problems in the Middle east are the culmination of decades of meddlesome foreign policy where we did nothing but bed hop between governments and leaders we sought to control.
> ...



That depends on who you ask, at any rate, I think we understood the point Skull Pilot made, though I don't necessarily agree.  We couldn't allow the Soviets to take over Pakistan (which was their goal after Afghanistan), we had to oppose them.

Where we screwed up was in picking who we got into bed with and then wiping our hands of the matter after we had stopped the Soviets.


----------



## Neser Boha (Aug 1, 2009)

Hartman, Andrew (2002). "The Red Template: US Policy in Soviet-Occupied Afghanistan." _Third World Quarterly_.



> ABSTRACT 'The red template' examines the policies of the United States in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan in the context of the Cold War The available documentation tends to support the thesis of this paper: that US policy in Afghanistan, consistent with US policy elsewhere both during and after the Cold War, is geared to protect US private power and thus US access to oil. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on 25 December 1979, the belief among US foreign policy-makers that the Soviet Union was finally embarking on their longtime mission of advancing upon the oil of the Persian Gulf and the warm water ports of the Arabian Sea was finally supported a propaganda defeat for the Soviet Union. America's response to finance and arm the most fundamental and dangerous Muslims that could be rounded up is a decision that continues to shake the world. The possibilities of the resulting *'blowback' in the form of well-documented terror and the not so well-known heroin trade-were ignored in the drive to support those who would struggle against Soviet-dominated communism*. This paper details the cold calculus of US decision-makers and the negative effects on the people of Afghanistan and beyond. The rise of the Taliban can be directly attributed to this process and America's so-called 'War on Terrorism' is yet another harsh penalty the people of this war-ravaged country must accept at the hands of the world's sole remaining superpower.



PS: I have the full article.  It is not freely available on the net, only through scholarly journals databases accessible only through school accounts, atd.  If you really really wanna read it, lemme know.


----------



## Neser Boha (Aug 1, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Chill the fuck out, man.  Just like criticizing Israeli foreign policies doesn't make one an anti-semite, criticizing US foreign policies doesn't make one anti-American nor stupid.  

While I agree that managing foreign affairs calls many times for allying yourself with the 'lesser evil' against the perceived 'greater evil', there have been some gross mistakes made!  And they weren't made 'in order to create a better world', but simply for OIL!  There are times when you can't just criticize US foreign policies and call it evil, but there are times when US has acted like a mindless plunderer with no foresight and no mind to give a shit about the local population.... and that is FUCKING wrong.

Yeah, it's not all black and white, there are many a shades of gray... and both sides here need to chill the fuck out.

And... overall, I agree with you, US can't just disengage and lay back... there's a lot of shit to be cleaned up...


----------



## editec (Aug 1, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> ALL and I do mean ALL of our problems in the Middle east are the culmination of decades of meddlesome foreign policy where we did nothing but bed hop between governments and leaders we sought to control.
> 
> The best way to fix it is to get the fuck out of the Middle East and stay out.


 

You're spot on with that point, Skull.

Now ask yourself:_ on whose behalf we keep doing these things?_

Here's a clue..it's not for welfare mothers. 

You want to know who benefits?

The very same people that some on this board weap for because they think they pay too high a perrcentage of the overall tax burden.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 1, 2009)

editec said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ALL and I do mean ALL of our problems in the Middle east are the culmination of decades of meddlesome foreign policy where we did nothing but bed hop between governments and leaders we sought to control.
> ...



Envy is such an ugly emotion. Stupidity and envy are even worse. Remind us again commisar, how the US Government should just seize every and anything related to health care, Nationalize and run it forever more.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 1, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Neither World War was a result of America being non-interventionist in the least.  It could be argued that had we not gotten involved in WW1 then WW2 may never have happened.


----------



## publicprotector (Aug 1, 2009)

First off America does not have an Empire, thousands of Mcdonalds does not an Empire make. Secondly although the fuckwits in the CIA may have groomed the Taliban/Muhjadeen and others to fight the Ruskies the historical point remains that the peoples of Afganisatn and its surrounding region have neve been successfully controlled or beaten by anyone.

Americans have ben led to believe that their military can achieve anything, well we all know thats not true don't we, and one does not have to use the historical examples to proved this. No its and age old thing, once you invade a country everyone hates you and wants you out of it. Like long enemies will band together just to get rid of you.

The other action/effect such actions have is that it creates a vaccum of power, into which is drawn forces beyound your control. No I know education statndards are falling in the US but one would think the penny should have dropped by now. I think it has with the people, well some off them but there is the rub. The people are not in control, don't have a say in whats going on and even worse they have donkey brained citizens who actually agree and support such Foreign Policies.

These people are easily recognised, their the ones with the heavy brows, eyes close together and their knucles catch on the ground as they amble along. So while the smart people know what to do unfortunately the monkies are in charge. You can always tell well a country is beaten, it starts shooting its own people, the mind controlled plebs burst forth, Gaysarge being one of them to denounce the true citizens of the nation. 

As for the world wars not happening if the US had not got involved that just speaks volumes of one who has no understanding of how things work. All events are connected, the wise can see this the dumb just keep scratching their arses.


----------



## mystic (Aug 10, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Jeez, seriously, how hateful of America do you have to be to say something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It is hateful of America for someone to say that gratuitous violence and killing of civilians is unnecessary?  What, exactly, do you think America stands for that is being denigrated by this observation? Your logic concludes that your version of America is a nation without ethics or any sort of moral code. 



Neser Boha said:


> And... overall, I agree with you, US can't just disengage and lay back... there's a lot of shit to be cleaned up...



I agree with much of what you said, except for the quote above. Time has shown us that rebuilding efforts have been greatly undermined by corporate theft. If the money for rebuilding was actually used for rebuilding, then yes, I would say that we need to stay. But right now, it just appears to be another way of getting rich off of American taxpayers. I can't remember where I heard this quote, but I find it to be very apt: "War is an excellent way to transfer public funds into private hands and transform private debt into public debt."


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Aug 10, 2009)

mystic said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > Jeez, seriously, how hateful of America do you have to be to say something like this:
> ...




Sir, I'm gonna have to ask you to turn on your sarcasm detector and point it directly at the screen before continuing.


----------



## mystic (Aug 10, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Sir, I'm gonna have to ask you to turn on your sarcasm detector and point it directly at the screen before continuing.



Let me check to see if it's working....*loud banging noises* The damn thing must be malfunctioning. It's usually very fine-tuned and reliable. Terribly sorry for the inconvenience. 

Oh, and for future reference, it's ma'am.


----------



## Yasmin (Aug 12, 2009)

Here is a problem. Each time you say something against America you're anti-America. That's nonsense. Think about it, if you really love America, then admit her failures, which she does very often (but then it is mostly too late to change). If you never question America, you never question yourself. Means you think you're perfect. So you won't learn anything anymore as you won't be open. 

I think Kevin is right. Do not even forget that the Talibans were installed by the American government itself during the cold war to fight the Russians. Now that they try to take over control in their own country America tries to knock them down, by any means. She only profited from them. This behaviour one may really put into question!


----------



## jodylee (Aug 16, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Please Kevin, take your hateful left-wing propaganda out of this board.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yea, only right wing propaganda hatred allowed.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 16, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> > U.S. officials are now concerned not only with a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan but also a Taliban takeover in Pakistan. These problems, however, were caused by the U.S. Empire itself.
> >
> > While most Americans now view President Bushs Iraq War as a bad war, the common perception is that Bushs invasion of Afghanistan was a good war (despite the fact that he went to war without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war). The notion is that the U.S. government was justified in invading Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban regime from power because the Taliban and al-Qaeda conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks.
> >
> ...




Welcome to the 1980's.

Not new news IMO


----------



## jodylee (Aug 16, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



You sound like that insane general in Dr Strange love, your not in the army, get over it you freak. If your so bothered about the geo politaical balance and  stop buying petroleum and walk to work you fat nob stain.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Aug 26, 2009)

Toro said:


> The Taliban won't take over Pakistan.  The Pakistani army is too powerful and too secular to allow that to happen.



really? I've never even met a secular pakistani in Canada... not to say they're not nice people, they really are... but secular? the whole country is VEEERY religious

mind you, they're not taliban-style-crazy religious


----------



## mystic (Aug 27, 2009)

The_Halfmoon said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > The Taliban won't take over Pakistan.  The Pakistani army is too powerful and too secular to allow that to happen.
> ...




Oh yeah....Pakastanis aren't taliban-style-crazy religious.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Aug 27, 2009)

mystic said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



what I mean is, the Pakistanis would probably like an Islamic republic with a proper constitution and all that goes into making a government function

The Taliban want to ban music and disallow the education of women

Pakistanis tend to be VERY faithful, but not extreme


----------



## mystic (Aug 28, 2009)

The_Halfmoon said:


> mystic said:
> 
> 
> > The_Halfmoon said:
> ...



um...I'm going to have to give you another  face.

Taliban are just as much Pakastani as Afghani. Maybe more so. 

I'm really loving picking on you.


----------



## rdean (Aug 28, 2009)

Doesn't anyone remember what actually happened????

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden wanted to bring the Arab world together and drive Saddam out of Kuwait.  Instead, Middle Eastern countries looked to the US to force Iraq to withdraw.  This enraged Bin Laden.  Westerners killing Arabs in Islamic holy lands?  The US was ASKED to oust Saddam.  The US did the RIGHT thing.  We should be proud of that.  

9/11 happened because of an enraged Bin Laden who felt Arabs had been slighted.  9/11 was NOT the fault of the US (or the gays and feminists as the religious right wants you to believe).  9/11 was the fault of a religious zealot.

The Taliban got in the way.  Bin Laden was a "guest" of the Taliban.  According to Arab "custom", it's "rude" to hand over a "guest", so they wouldn't.  Rather than work within the framework of Islamic society, Bush just bombed the hell of out them and then invaded Iraq with the absolutely crazy notion that Saddam and Bin Laden were "friends".  Saddam killed members of his own familiy to stay in power.  To suggest that he would share power with Bin Laden is just nuts.

That is the "real and true" story of 9/11 using simple words.


----------



## mystic (Aug 28, 2009)

rdean said:


> Doesn't anyone remember what actually happened????
> 
> When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden wanted to bring the Arab world together and drive Saddam out of Kuwait.  Instead, Middle Eastern countries looked to the US to force Iraq to withdraw.  This enraged Bin Laden.  Westerners killing Arabs in Islamic holy lands?  The US was ASKED to oust Saddam.  The US did the RIGHT thing.  We should be proud of that.
> 
> ...



You're doing ok but your little history lesson only starts in 1991. I think you need to go back a bit further then that.
And to clarify, Bin Laden was upset that the Saudi Royal family didn't want the protection of his mujahidin army that were so successful against the Russians and instead preferred the backup of the US. It was never about defending Kuwait for us. We could care less about Kuwait. But Saddam started getting a little close to _our_ oil in Saudi so we had to act. 
But 9/11 was more about Palestine, according to Bin Laden. Which, I don't think he cares about Palestine any more then the US cared about Kuwait...or Iraq for that matter.

Bush just made that Bin Laden/Saddam connection to make the illegal war easier for Americans to swallow. There never was a connection.


----------



## rdean (Aug 28, 2009)

mystic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't anyone remember what actually happened????
> ...



Bin Laden's army also recieved aid from us.   The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
And yes, it was certainly about oil.  But the oil fields have names.  One of which is "Kuwait".  

Repulicans who believe that Bin Laden and Saddam were "friends" are in denial.  If they believe we went into Iraq for WMDs, to free the people or any other of those silly reasons given by Bush, they are just credulous.


----------



## The_Halfmoon (Aug 28, 2009)

mystic said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> > mystic said:
> ...



I'm very familiar with the Taliban, but we were talking about the armed forces and the general population... the Taliban is hardly a representation of the Pakistani people


----------

