|
Pond Scum
|
 |
« on: May 04, 2008, 10:11:29 PM » |
|
I was wondering, if anyone could tell me...........
Why did Russia invade Afghanistan and why was it so important to the USA that they not succeed?
So important that we were willing to give billions of dollars and weapons to scumbags?
Why? What is so important about Afghanistan?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
neorealist
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +31/-27
Posts: 825
Mod of further light
|
|
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2008, 10:46:59 PM » |
|
If Afghanistan was taken and absorbed by the USSR what would have been next? It was a policy of containment and it worked. It prevented the further expansion of the USSR and communism (or at least the Soviets version of communism, which is a bit different than Chinas)
In order to prevent the expansion, we needed to spend....and spend big. Wars (proxy or not) are not cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2008, 05:16:27 AM » |
|
I was wondering, if anyone could tell me...........
Why did Russia invade Afghanistan and why was it so important to the USA that they not succeed?
So important that we were willing to give billions of dollars and weapons to scumbags?
Why? What is so important about Afghanistan?
Pipelines for Caspian oil. As a matter of fact, Afghani Taliban officials were visiting the Whitehouse a week before 9/11 discussing that very topic... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
machioveli
|
|
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2008, 05:35:04 AM » |
|
I was wondering, if anyone could tell me...........
Why did Russia invade Afghanistan and why was it so important to the USA that they not succeed?
So important that we were willing to give billions of dollars and weapons to scumbags?
Why? What is so important about Afghanistan?
first off Russia did not invade Afghan they got thier asses whipped. US looked to Russia not to succeed in Afghan the same way Russia looks to ensure the US does not succeed in Iraq. Its politics....Its all politics.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Factinista
Full Member
Karma: +17/-34
Posts: 210
|
|
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2008, 06:29:55 AM » |
|
I was wondering, if anyone could tell me...........
Why did Russia invade Afghanistan and why was it so important to the USA that they not succeed?
So important that we were willing to give billions of dollars and weapons to scumbags?
Why? What is so important about Afghanistan?
first off Russia did not invade Afghan they got thier asses whipped. US looked to Russia not to succeed in Afghan the same way Russia looks to ensure the US does not succeed in Iraq. Its politics....Its all politics.... actually Russia did pretty well until we starting helping the Afghans shoot down their choppers. And Russia isn't exactly hurting us the way we hurt them, we did way more damage. If anyone is opposing us in Iraq it is Iran, Syria and citizens in Saudi Arabia. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2008, 06:57:44 AM » |
|
I was wondering, if anyone could tell me...........
Why did Russia invade Afghanistan and why was it so important to the USA that they not succeed?
So important that we were willing to give billions of dollars and weapons to scumbags?
Why? What is so important about Afghanistan?
first off Russia did not invade Afghan they got thier asses whipped. US looked to Russia not to succeed in Afghan the same way Russia looks to ensure the US does not succeed in Iraq. Its politics....Its all politics.... actually Russia did pretty well until we starting helping the Afghans shoot down their choppers. And Russia isn't exactly hurting us the way we hurt them, we did way more damage. If anyone is opposing us in Iraq it is Iran, Syria and citizens in Saudi Arabia. The number one opposition to USA in Iraq is Iraqis. No one else even comes close. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pond Scum
|
|
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2008, 07:33:12 AM » |
|
I was wondering, if anyone could tell me...........
Why did Russia invade Afghanistan and why was it so important to the USA that they not succeed?
So important that we were willing to give billions of dollars and weapons to scumbags?
Why? What is so important about Afghanistan?
first off Russia did not invade Afghan they got thier asses whipped. US looked to Russia not to succeed in Afghan the same way Russia looks to ensure the US does not succeed in Iraq. Its politics....Its all politics.... actually Russia did pretty well until we starting helping the Afghans shoot down their choppers. And Russia isn't exactly hurting us the way we hurt them, we did way more damage. If anyone is opposing us in Iraq it is Iran, Syria and citizens in Saudi Arabia. The number one opposition to USA in Iraq is Iraqis. No one else even comes close. While I agree that Afghanistan is all about the pipeline, you are mistaken about Iraq. Ron Paul told us that HALF of the suicide bombers there are from Saudi Arabia, our ALLEGED ALLY. The US and the House of Saud: Arms for Oil, Influence and More?
By PHK
Fraying at the Seams?
On July 15, Ned Parker of the Los Angeles Times broke the story of the American military’s first time willingness to name names and provide numbers as a result of its exasperation with Saudi Arabia’s multi-pronged support for the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.
According to Parker, “the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq” come from Saudi Arabia – not US archenemies Syria or Iran. The figures – obtained from a senior U.S. military officer were apparently the first of their kind released. They indicate that about 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia. 15 percent come from Syria and Lebanon and 10 percent from North Africa. The origins of the other 30 percent are left to our imagination.
The U.S. senior military officer also told Parker that about 50 percent of Saudi belligerents who went to Iraq were suicide bombers and that “nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis.”http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2007/07/the-bizarre-twi.html |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +197/-195
Posts: 3,662
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2008, 10:41:43 AM » |
|
If Afghanistan was taken and absorbed by the USSR what would have been next? It was a policy of containment and it worked. It prevented the further expansion of the USSR and communism (or at least the Soviets version of communism, which is a bit different than Chinas) Well, Afganistan was really the only place that Russia actually used military force in. And our involvement wasn't in the defense of Democracy or the containment of Communism. It was a competition by 2 super powers for control of a natrual resource. Russia used their own weapons. We used other people. ... and then got surprised when Afganies got pissed at us for giving weapons to religous fundies... In order to prevent the expansion, we needed to spend....and spend big. Wars (proxy or not) are not cheap. Even if it meant keeping right wing tyrants in power against the liberal oppisition of the country's entire population. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2008, 02:19:41 PM » |
|
The number one opposition to USA in Iraq is Iraqis. No one else even comes close.
While I agree that Afghanistan is all about the pipeline, you are mistaken about Iraq. Ron Paul told us that HALF of the suicide bombers there are from Saudi Arabia, our ALLEGED ALLY. The US and the House of Saud: Arms for Oil, Influence and More?
By PHK
Fraying at the Seams?
On July 15, Ned Parker of the Los Angeles Times broke the story of the American military’s first time willingness to name names and provide numbers as a result of its exasperation with Saudi Arabia’s multi-pronged support for the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.
According to Parker, “the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq” come from Saudi Arabia – not US archenemies Syria or Iran. The figures – obtained from a senior U.S. military officer were apparently the first of their kind released. They indicate that about 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia. 15 percent come from Syria and Lebanon and 10 percent from North Africa. The origins of the other 30 percent are left to our imagination.
The U.S. senior military officer also told Parker that about 50 percent of Saudi belligerents who went to Iraq were suicide bombers and that “nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis.”http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2007/07/the-bizarre-twi.htmlUm... yeah, the majority of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis. We all new that a week after 9/11. But what does that have to do with Iraq? (dare I ask) As I noted above, the primary opposition to US forces in Iraq comes from Iraqi people. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +197/-195
Posts: 3,662
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2008, 03:33:30 PM » |
|
He's talking about the suicide bombers in Iraq... not the suicide bombers that took part in September 11th (of which [I believe], 9 of the 14 hijackers were Saudi).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2008, 05:48:46 PM » |
|
He's talking about the suicide bombers in Iraq... not the suicide bombers that took part in September 11th (of which [I believe], 9 of the 14 hijackers were Saudi).
Yes, well then, he'd have to show that approximately 64% (9 of 14) of the (US military victim) suicide bombers in Iraq have been Saudis (or even non-Iraqis). He hasn't and can't because it isn't so. By all accounts, the total number of 'combatants' held by US forces from Iraqi operations show an overwhelming majority of Iraqi nationals. Various non-Iraqi nationals make up only small percentages (single digits). This strongly suggests that the vast majority of attacks against US forces are being undertaken by Iraqi persons. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
neorealist
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +31/-27
Posts: 825
Mod of further light
|
|
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2008, 09:13:20 PM » |
|
He's talking about the suicide bombers in Iraq... not the suicide bombers that took part in September 11th (of which [I believe], 9 of the 14 hijackers were Saudi).
Yes, well then, he'd have to show that approximately 64% (9 of 14) of the (US military victim) suicide bombers in Iraq have been Saudis (or even non-Iraqis).He hasn't and can't because it isn't so. By all accounts, the total number of 'combatants' held by US forces from Iraqi operations show an overwhelming majority of Iraqi nationals. Various non-Iraqi nationals make up only small percentages (single digits). This strongly suggests that the vast majority of attacks against US forces are being undertaken by Iraqi persons. isn't that what his bar graph does? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2008, 07:14:38 AM » |
|
He's talking about the suicide bombers in Iraq... not the suicide bombers that took part in September 11th (of which [I believe], 9 of the 14 hijackers were Saudi).
Yes, well then, he'd have to show that approximately 64% (9 of 14) of the (US military victim) suicide bombers in Iraq have been Saudis (or even non-Iraqis).He hasn't and can't because it isn't so. By all accounts, the total number of 'combatants' held by US forces from Iraqi operations show an overwhelming majority of Iraqi nationals. Various non-Iraqi nationals make up only small percentages (single digits). This strongly suggests that the vast majority of attacks against US forces are being undertaken by Iraqi persons. isn't that what his bar graph does? I should think it is pretty obvious that it does not. The bargraph talks about the nationality of 9/11 bombers. So how does that show the nationality of attacks on US Forces in Iraq? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2008, 08:05:24 AM » |
|
I should think it is pretty obvious that it does not.
The bargraph talks about the nationality of 9/11 bombers.
So how does that show the nationality of attacks on US Forces in Iraq?
Are we looking at the same graph Dormouse? The one I'm looking at says on the second line: ORIGINS OF KNOWN SUICIDE BOMBERS IN IRAQ SINCE 2003 ( you need to look at the graph again) The primary opposition may be from the Iraqi people...but the vast majority of suicide bombers are Saudis. There's something about those Saudis that makes them want to die for Allah. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 08:12:59 AM by freethinker »
|
Logged
|
NO Third Term For Bush
|
|
|
|
