The Taliban - all-round bad guys or...

ionapaul

Memnoch wrote:

and those that supported him when it was convenient for them and removed him when it wasn't should be remembered as great liberators that brought democracy and freedom to an oppressed people i presume?

Bush has always been a far bigger threat to world peace than saddam ever was and his actions have resulted in a reduction in peace and stability throguhout the world

Ha, I never said anything about celebrating the 'Allied Coalition' as great liberators. However, I personally believe and earnestly hope that the lives of the people in Iraq will slowly improve over the next few years until their standards of living and freedoms are far, far higher than those they endured under Saddam. Maybe this isn't the thread to discuss it in. I also don't agree with your judgement on Bush vs. Saddam regarding world peace - neither of us will convince the other of anything in this regard so lets agree to disagree

ionapaul

Sort of unrelated, but of interest to some maybe:

While in graduate school in the States a few years ago, one of my roommates for 6 months was of American-Pakistan origin, in particular his parents were Pushtun tribespeople from the Pakistan / Afganistan border area. He even had a photo of himself on a trip over to his tribes area, dressed in traditional Pushtun clothing and holding an AK-47 in the air! Anyhow, he was a devout Muslim who covered up a poster I had of some scantily-clad babe and disapproved of my gambling!

One night conversation turned to the Taliban (this was 1999 / 2000 I suppose) and he got very animated, defending them and telling us all how great and progressive they were, building schools everywhere, and how the reports of female oppression were 'bull****'. He also got a kick out of driving around Castro Street (in San Francisco, across the bay from Berkeley) yelling at the guys going around hand-in-hand. In short, he was a right tool (though only in his early 20s so maybe to be expected).

Anyhow, fast forward two years and I was across in Berkeley seeing my college friends, and we ran into him. What a change 9/11 made! He now hated the Taliban with a passion and spent the night giving out about them! They went from being the greatest group in the world to the worst, in only two years. Not only that, he had transformed from a devout Muslim to a real playa, hooking up with as many chicks as possible and drinking like a fish.

Like I said, unrelated but maybe interesting story

Memnoch

ionapaul wrote:

Ha, I never said anything about celebrating the 'Allied Coalition' as great liberators. However, I personally believe and earnestly hope that the lives of the people in Iraq will slowly improve over the next few years until their standards of living and freedoms are far, far higher than those they endured under Saddam. Maybe this isn't the thread to discuss it in. I also don't agree with your judgement on Bush vs. Saddam regarding world peace - neither of us will convince the other of anything in this regard so lets agree to disagree

you mean you rely on you own pre-founded assumptions to create your opinion and therefore cannot be swayed by facts ?

Bush administration's blatent disregard for human rights, including systematic abuse and torture. (according to pretty much every respected human rights group on the planet)
Bush administration's supporting of dictators worldwide. eg. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. As late as 2001 they told everyone that Saddam was not a threat. (and then he became enough of a threat for them to destroy iraq )
Bush administration's attempt to subvert democracy in countries that don't bend to their will (esp those that have oil). Eg. Venezuela.
Bush administration's removal of civil liberties
Bush administration's mass murder of countless innocents in afghanasthan and Iraq.
Bush administration's propagation of muslim religious fundamentalism and terrorism through their actions.
Bush administration's unilateral approach to invasion and war, ignoring world opinion
Bush administration's setting of a dangerous precedent of pre-emptive attacks.
Many brutal regimes world wide using the US's precedent as an example to justify their own torture and maltreatment of human beings.

Yes all this contributes greatly to world peace. Including the rise of christian fundamentalism in the US.

ionapaul

What I meant that no matter what 'facts' you or I post, I am quite sure neither one of us will change our minds. Maybe you will reply and say, 'but no! I have a free and open mind ready to be swayed!'....

..but I don't think it is or will. So let's agree to disagree, shall we?

Memnoch

ionapaul wrote:

What I meant that no matter what 'facts' you or I post, I am quite sure neither one of us will change our minds. Maybe you will reply and say, 'but no! I have a free and open mind ready to be swayed!'....

..but I don't think it is or will. So let's agree to disagree, shall we?

so you don't refute any of the statements i made in my previous notes with regard to the Bush administration's wonderful contribution to world peace?

As for being swayed, you are actually wrong there. I was a strong supporter of the invasion of afghansthan and the war there after 9/11. And a strong supporter of Bush's policies at the time. I was swayed this way. I'm sure if someone could actually provide a logical and reasonable arguement I could be swayed back.

Your problem is that you dismiss anything and everything that doesn't agree with your pre-formed assumption. In this case your assumption is that that bush administration are "the good guys," without any justifiable reason. And you view everything in that context. Whereas if one starts with the assumption that "everyone can be good OR bad" it makes things a lot clearer.

Sand

As for being swayed, you are actually wrong there. I was a strong supporter of the invasion of afghansthan and the war there after 9/11. And a strong supporter of Bush's policies at the time. I was swayed this way. I'm sure if someone could actually provide a logical and reasonable arguement I could be swayed back.

Swayed you say?

I hate the damn genocide commiting americans, and their carpet bombing and their manipulative government and their retarded citizens who don't have a clue... I hope they get what they deserve that their economy collapses and the country falls into civil war. I hate the complete and utter lack of any form of justice in this world.

What sort of odds could you get on having that position "swayed back" to even indifferent? My money would be better spent on the lotto I think.

mycroft

Nuttzz wrote:

The flaw here is that you are assuming that the mujahideen that fought the russians were all Taliban, but that isnt the case. The mujahideen were made up of numerous groups including the Taliban. The mujahideen were all tribal warlords, it was after the support from Pakistan that the Taliban grouping became a serious grouping.

Uh huh and the flaw you're making is that I have a simplistic overview of the Afgan situation, if the Taliban represented the entire population and attitude of the Afganisatan population then we've never have heard of the northern alliance. Or furthermore have had situations like the fact that during the war againist the USSR woman fought alongside the men among the mujahideen.

The next flaw here is that you assume that only the US funded the mujahideen but they were also funded by Pakistan, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Who all had their own interests in seeing the USSR being defeated there.

UH huh and the flaw you're making in my logic this, is that within the fifteen years of the fall the US were proclaiming war on a regieme that they had trained funded; ignored the human rights breaches, ignored the drugs trade, ignored the terrorist facilities , and focused on the oil pipeline.

The USA in the months before sept 11th had the taliban in their country wooing them and in the aftermath were planning to bomb them into the dust of the stone age.

The Taliban were welcomed initally because the people had come war weary and wanted some order in life, however soon public executions and punishments (such as floggings) became regular events at Afghan soccer stadiums.

Women could be shot by officers of the snazzy named "ministry for the protection of virtue and prevention of vice" for leaving their home without a male relative in tow.

Real nice guys alright.

Uh huh and where in my post do I support the taliban ? My point is that every US administration from Regan to Bush Jr supported the taliban and the fact this occured was totally ignored by Bush on his war againist those who harbour terrorists.........

Nuttzz

what bit of

you are assuming that the mujahideen that fought the russians were all Taliban, but that isnt the case

do you get?

regan supported the mujahideen of which the taliban were just one component, the kernel of my point.....

where in my post do I support the taliban

where in my post did i say you did?

Rossonero

Before the Taliban came to power, Afghanistan was riddled with drug trafficking. The war lords were heavily involved in drugs such as opium.
However when the Taliban came to power they immediately halted these dealings, dramatically. Only 5 % carried on.
And since US invaded they paid no attention to the drugs problem. Since the US invaded, drugs have risen by 100+%
Afghanistan now produces 80% of worlds heroin. Fact.

So, thanks Bush.

Frank Grimes

Herr Capitan wrote:

However when the Taliban came to power they immediately halted these dealings, dramatically. Only 5 % carried on.

It wasn't immediate, one link is here
Taliban by Ahmed Rashid is a good book on the subject and for a good general history of Afghanistan check out "Afghanistan: A Short History of Its People and Politics" by Martin Ewans.

Essey

Next thing you'll tell me that Husseiin was a threat to world peace! (What was he gonna do? Throw stones over the border?)[/QUOTE]
I think a few of his neighbors might disagree with your statement which by the way is pretty typical of what goes on at this website. No one would disagree with your right to say what you think - its just the complete level of stupidity you embrace. You are completly capable of grasping any straw if it whiffs of some type of anti-Bush sentiment regardless of how insane that might be. Why dont you use all your Europenan suedo-intellectualism and free time (subtantial while on the dole - I'd imagine) and do some investigative reporting into the Oil for Food program - that should be a hoot.

Hobbes

Essey wrote:

I think a few of his neighbors might disagree with your statement which by the way is pretty typical of what goes on at this website.

Funny, because what I read of the reports sanctions were working very well and Saddam was doing his best to stop them. Plus we know now he did not have WMD at all.

But lets look at the countries...

Kuwait - Attacked because he misunderstood the US ambassador (or the US ambassdor was a complete idiot depending on how you read the transcripts) who more or less greenlighted the attack.

Iran - Saddam was financed by the US to attack them after the failed puppet government (installed by the US) failed in Iran.

Btw did you know that Cheneys company Haliburton has a company inside Iran through a loophole in the Embargo laws is supplying Iranians with goods which any other US business would go to jail for? They are only recently pulling out of Iran (after being there for many years) because a huge contract they won in Iran became public knowledge in the US.

Israel - A large amount of this countries budget (civilian and military) is given by the US. Any country in the middle east that has tried it on with Israel has lost. The only way they could get them is if they nuked them and that would guarantee that the country that did it be glass before the end of the day.

No one would disagree with your right to say what you think - its just the complete level of stupidity you embrace

Hows about backing up how Saddam was a threat then? Rather then name calling. While your at it best to email Bush as well and tell him because I am sure he is looking for proof to show how right he was.

and do some investigative reporting into the Oil for Food program - that should be a hoot.

Indeed, for example you know that *French* company that Bush was going on about.. well it turned out it was a Subsidary of Halliburton. Three guesses who was in charge of Halliburton at that time (I will give you a clue it rhymes with Cheney).

Heres some more reading material..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#Iraq_Controversy

Now you have to ask yourself how a company that helps an enemy circumvent oil-for-food, is allowed sell goods to Iran is then allowed have its ex-leader made vice president and have huge contracts to US military in Iraq. Incidently Cheney still gets up to a million a year from the company he left.

I don't know what you call that in the US but in Europe that is called Profiteering and would generally get you shot or jailed.

But hey I might be ignorant and not know anything. Why don't you bother to investigate to prove me wrong instead of resorting to name calling?

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

I will give you a clue it rhymes with Cheney

Blainey?
Painey?

Shamie?

I give up. This one is too tough.

jc

Essey

Hobbes wrote:

Funny, because what I read of the reports sanctions were working very well and Saddam was doing his best to stop them. Plus we know now he did not have WMD at all.

But lets look at the countries...

Kuwait - Attacked because he misunderstood the US ambassador (or the US ambassdor was a complete idiot depending on how you read the transcripts) who more or less greenlighted the attack.

What didnt he understand - keep your beek outta someone elses property - period!

Iran - Saddam was financed by the US to attack them after the failed puppet government (installed by the US) failed in Iran.

Because the Irans took American hostages!

Israel - A large amount of this countries budget (civilian and military) is given by the US. Any country in the middle east that has tried it on with Israel has lost. The only way they could get them is if they nuked them and that would guarantee that the country that did it be glass before the end of the day.

If Britian didnt leav it in the mess its in - we wouldnt have this problem - also if Europe dealt with Hitler, Britan wont have a problem - Basically we have to solve all you problems.

Hows about backing up how Saddam was a threat then? Rather then name calling. While your at it best to email Bush as well and tell him because I am sure he is looking for proof to show how right he was.

Bush is right - he doesnt need me to tell him. 8 million people just told you what they thought of Saddam - you dont need to hear it from me.

Let talk about the Oil for Food Program!!! you seem a bit mute on that. the Iraqis would call that theft.

Whats the real problem her wiggly hobbly? Trade wars?

billy the squid

Bush is right - he doesnt need me to tell him. 8 million people just told you what they thought of Saddam - you dont need to hear it from me.

Bush was wrong actually. he invaded iraq under the pretence that there were weapons of mass distruction in iraq. there wasnt.

some americans swallowed that one hook line and sinker.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/How-we-bought-the-WMD-lie/2005/01/30/1107020254944.html?oneclick=true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2129-2005Jan11.html

hats the real problem her wiggly hobbly? Trade wars?

not having the respect to use someone's name properly is a problem. it shows a lack of respect.

Hobbes

You think you could format your posts a bit better Essey, they are painful to read.

What didnt he understand - keep your beek outta someone elses property - period!

Did you even bother to check up on the conversation that took place with Saddam and US ambassdor?

Because the Irans took American hostages!

No because of Operation Ajax. Hostage taking was much later. But at least you know why they hate your freedoms (or you would if you could read).

If Britian didnt leav it in the mess its in - we wouldnt have this problem - also if Europe dealt with Hitler, Britan wont have a problem - Basically we have to solve all you problems.

Actually Europe was dealing with Hitler while the US sat on its asses for most of the war. Claiming that the "US saved our asses" is not only factually incorrect, but an insult to all the people who died stopping Hitler.

Bush is right - he doesnt need me to tell him. 8 million people just told you what they thought of Saddam - you dont need to hear it from me.

Ahh so people voting somehow means that Bush was right all along. Thank you for totally clearing that up. That makes so much sense!

Let talk about the Oil for Food Program!!! you seem a bit mute on that. the Iraqis would call that theft.

I already discussed. Prehaps you would like to talk about how your vice presidents company can steal from the oil-for-food program and not get in trouble but you are quite happy to hold the UN to moral highground?

Does being American suddenly make you immune from doing what the heck you like?