Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11?

[TheYellowDog]

Poll question: Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11?

Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11? Tell me your thoughts, and what you think we should have done. Respond below if you want.

[TheYellowDog]

1. I voted yes

n/t

[David Zephyr]

2. No, But A Lot of DU'er Did.

The archives reveal it.

[joeybee12]

4. I voted "other"

I supported it reluctantly. It seemed like we needs to strike back, but, of course, now it appears to have all been a lie.

[blackcat77]

3. Absolutely

I would have preferred that we send in special forces units targeting Al Qaeda camps just as quick as we could have gotten them in place, but in any case, the 9-11 attacks demanded a response.

[Pastiche423]

8. The attacks demanded

that we bomb Afghanistan or some other type of response?

[lcordero]

5. I voted No

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm


Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

46. can we say "caspian pipeline"...or "UNICAL"??

or are our memories waning?

[MrPrax]

110. thx for the Memories...

and the UNOCOL meeting with the taliban in early July in Crawford, where the taliban wanted too much...

and then the US invaded them in October

Say isn't Karzai a former UNOCOL exec.?

Vaguely rem seeing that on his C.V.

[ButterflyBlood]

6. at the time

not sure now

[jiacinto]

7. Yes

We needed to take out the Taliban.

[David Zephyr]

15. You Are Honest.

I give you that. Yes, you did support the bombing and invasion. I am watching to see if some post here who also supported it then will be as honest as you.

I took a lot of shit here for posting against the war in Afghanistan those first days and nights the bombs begin to drop by many people here. It's all in the archives.

[jiacinto]

17. That was a necessary war

Much different than Iraq. The Taliban attacked us and thus we had every right to go in there.

[lcordero]

18. How did they attack us?

[jiacinto]

26. Are you really asking that question?

nt

[buddhamama]

31. if he is not, i am

how did Afghanistan attack us?

[lcordero]

44. Yes I am

I take everything that shrub*, his admin, and his whore media as lies. I have no reason to trust them.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lcordero]

73. So I am an extremist for not buying the "official" propaganda line?

the same line that is spat out by this administration?

on edit: the subject heading was wrong

[scarletwoman]

30. The TALIBAN did NOT attack us!

Are you really THAT misinformed, after all this time on DU?!?!

The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan, they weren't terrorists, they were hardline Islamic fundamentalists. They allowed Al Qaeda to base their camps in Afghanistan, but the Taliban themselves were not plotters. Their interest was strictly in imposing their idea of "pure" Sharia-based government in the areas they controlled.

What people -- thanks our compromised corporate media -- have all forgotten is that the Taliban government even OFFERED to take Osama Bin Laden into custody for the U.S. They made the offer on at least 3 occasions, but our foaming-at-the-mouth macho frat boy fake president just brushed their offers aside.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda are NOT synonymous!

sw

[jiacinto]

35. But they still allowed them to base their camps there

and thus the war was justified on that point alone.

[buddhamama]

38. the hijackers were also in Europe

did we bomb Germany?

[buddhamama]

40. not to mention the fact that,

the U.S. was in negotiations with the Taliban right up until Sept.11 for an Oil pipeline.
we gave them money.

[scarletwoman]

41. So, you conveniently ignore the fact that they offered to arrest Osama.

Whatever... I no longer bother wasting energy on arguing with propaganda-spouting reactionaries who aren't interested in seeking the truth.

sw

[jiacinto]

52. They should have arrested him

They didn't. Thus the war was justified.

[scarletwoman]

66. They asked for the "proof" that the bush cabal claimed it had

Over and over, bushco said they had they "proof". The Taliban said, "Okay, please show us your proof and we will take Osama into custody".

And ya know, funny thing, bushco STILL hasn't ever presented any actual proof, we're just supposed to take their word for it.

I guess you do. Myself, I NEVER will, I see no logic in trusting obvious criminals.

sw

[lcordero]

47. are you aware of what the School of the Americas was all about?

[scarletwoman]

50. MANY people willfully chose to be unaware of anything that upsets their

comfortable world view. They'd rather accuse you of being "anti-American" than take a close look at the truth.

sw

[jiacinto]

59. So what was America supposed to do?

Leave Al Qaeda alone and do nothing?

[David Zephyr]

63. Al Qaeda Was & Is Directed and Funded by Saudi Arabia.

Where have you been for 2 years?

[jiacinto]

65. I've been here

Yeah but Afghanistan allowed them to stay there. What would you have done? Leave them alone to plot more terrorist attacks?

I also think Saudi Arabia should have been targeted.

[buddhamama]

71. answer my posts from up above

what about our negotiating with them right up til Sept.11 for Oil???

what about us giving them money???

what about the terrorists hanging out in Europe, did we go into Germany and bomd them???

[lcordero]

68. Al-Qaeda?

I'm not convinced that Al-Qaeda exists and much less that "Al-Qaeda" did the hijackings. Last time I checked, 7 of the 19 so-called "hijackers" are still alive.

[buddhamama]

37. well said ,well informed ,thank you scarletwoman!

[Patriot_Spear]

42. Your position is ironic Buddhmama...

Considering the Taliban systematically persecuted and destroyed every Buddhist practioner and shrine in Afghanistan; some of the oldest in the world.

Maybe it's not so ironic that a Buddhist would show compassion which was utterly lacking in the Taliban.

[David Zephyr]

54. She Did Not Argue That. Her Point is That the Taliban Didn't Attack Us.

And Buddhmama is correct. And a misplaced revenge-inspired attack on a nation and people that did not attack us could hardly be a concept that a Buddhist would agree with.

Jiacinto's statement is simply wrong.

If the U.S. should have attacked ANY nation at all, it should have been Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan and Iraq. And if the purpose of attacking Afghanistan was to capture Osama bin Laden, then that entire mission was a failure. (It is a failure).

The Saudi attack on the United States on 9/11 is still unpunished.

[buddhamama]

64. thank you,David

for your compassion and understanding. :loveya:

[Patriot_Spear]

74. It was never about revenge for me-

I felt they were a dangerous government from their inception; And I completely agree about the Saudi's- My point was one about the nature of religion- compassion for those who would not offer you the same.

That's all.

[buddhamama]

62. where was the U.S. then

when the Taliban was commiting those acts?
We were negotiating an Oil deal with them.

Compassion i have for the citizens of Afghanistan.
That is why i was informed before Sept.11 of what was going on there and tried in my own little way to stop it.

[Patriot_Spear]

72. You're preaching to the choir...

My point was that the Taliban were and are a repressive theocracy that does not tolerate competing religous views.

Just for my own curiosity- what form of Buddhism do you practice?

[buddhamama]

78. "practice"

Zen

[Patriot_Spear]

80. Renzai, Soto, or Korean?

n/t

[buddhamama]

84. none and all

n/t

[Patriot_Spear]

87. Okay, thanks for the info.

n/t

[sujan]

83. factually incorrect

no buddhists in Afghanistan.

[Bossy Monkey]

116. Not lately. Doesn't mean they can't attack Buddhism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,548474,00.html
Taliban order all statues destroyed

[David Zephyr]

45. The "Taliban" Did Not Attack Us. You Are Wrong, Friend.

In fact, there was not one Afghanistani or Iraqi amongst the 19 hijackers --- but 15 were Saudis.

That's WHO we should have attacked, but George Bush's family has too long of finanical and personal relationships with them, so he allowed the bin Ladens to fly out of the U.S. (two of whom are now linked to the events of 9/11, by the way).

The Taliban did not "attack us", Carlos. How can you, of all people, think that?

[Astarho]

75. The Taliban

was not even the recognized government in Afghanistan (only three countries recognized it as such and the US wasn't one of them).

Afghanistan has been ripped apart by a civil war for about two decades. The Taliban was simply the faction that controlled the most area at the time.

[buddhamama]

77. true enough

but we recognized the Taliban when it came time to negotiate an Oil pipeline.

[robbedvoter]

9. No. Justice, not revenge was our banner in NYC. Gore repeated

this in his speech at the time. The perpetrators of the first WTC bombing were found and punished without bombing countries.

[HEyHEY]

10. Yes

We had to get Al Qaida. Or they would just be over there plotting today too

[Darranar]

11. The invasion was wrong...

action taken against terrorists within would not have been wrong.

After 9/11, I supported it. Now, I am ashamed that I ever did.

[blm]

12. No. I thought it should have been more targeted

as a REAL HEAVY law enforcement action using special forces from the military trained for that type of fighting.

[K-W]

13. I certainly wasn't then,

and still am not anywhere near educated enough in the intricate workings of al queda to either support or oppose a particular plan to eradicate them. And I didnt then nor do I now trust the Bush administration on what will do so or to do so.

Considering the Clinton administrations anti-terror plan called for ground forces in Afghanistan, I will say some kind of force was warrented, but thats about it.

Edit: to clarify that is a no on full scale invasion, but a probably to some sort of more specific military action but I wouldnt trust the Bush administration with it anyway.

[Maple]

14. NO

To this day, no one has seen any evidence whatever on who did it.

And when they do...it will have nothing to do with either Afghanistan or Iraq....and all those innocent people will have died for nothing.

[buddhamama]

16. i agree with Maple 100%

the Bush administration used Sept.11 to get into Afghanistan.

[TheYellowDog]

20. Yes

they wanted the Afghani oil. Oh wait, where is that oil?

[Astarho]

60. You mean that huge reserve

by the Caspian Sea that when they tested it turned out to be low grade crap, not nearly so nice as the barely-needs-any-refining Iraqi oil?

Besides, Afghanistan has plenty of other mineral resources that can be exploited.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

19. if we had dropped bread instead of bombs........

it would have made osama and the taliban moot and shown the world that we really are compassionate and great!

[TheYellowDog]

21. Spoken like a true socialist

n/t.

[jiacinto]

23. Are you kidding

Those people would still hate us. No offense, but you are living in a fantasy world.

[Patriot_Spear]

29. Uuuuhhhh, not really.

Look what happened when the UN tried just that tack in Somalia- the war lords grabbed it for their own little fief's.

It's essential to make sure that when relief is given, it makes it to EVERYONE EQUALLY.

Laudable sentiment though.

[KaraokeKarlton]

22. Yes.

For the most part, we went into Afghanistan the proper way. The war itself was done, I feel, in a way that genuinely tried to limit civillian casualties. There are some problems about how things have gone once we had control. I'm certain there are some prisoners in Cuba who should be released, and I think it's wrong to run things so secretly. I also think we should have stayed on task going after Osama and Al Qaida instead of going to Iraq. We couldn't have just sent in only special forces and ground troops. We weren't fighting a normal army. We were fighting people who fight dirty and our soldiers aren't like that. When push comes to shove, we don't put our soldiers in unneccesary danger. We have to make it safer before they go on the ground. Bush executed that war the right way and did the right thing on that issue. Of course, he does suck on everything else...but credit should be given where it's due, in my opinion, even though I can't stand him.

[Pastiche423]

25. What one shred

of evidence did we have on Ocotber 6 (I think) of who was to blame for the September 11, 2001 attacks?

Can you name just one?

[GreenArrow]

58. So DU munitions are useful in limiting civilian casualites?

Bunker busters and daisy cutters don't differentiate either.

[Patriot_Spear]

24. Yes...

As someone who keeps up with security issues, I'd been railing against the Taliban since President Clinton- their systematic destorying of non-muslim religious sites as well as their opium production were just the most glaring examples of what a monsterous government they were.

The routine execution of those who failed to meet the standards of the 'religious police' (mainly women) personally infuriated me.

Of course Bush* has cocked up any hope of bringing peace and stability to that country by turning it into a lawless no mans land.

[NNN0LHI]

27. No. I wanted proof first. I have been waiting 2 years for that proof

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/5012.htm

Interview on Meet the Press

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Washington, DC
September 23, 2001

<snip>QUESTION: Are you absolutely convinced that Usama bin Laden was responsible for this attack?

SECRETARY POWELL: I am absolutely convinced that the al-Qaida network, which he heads, was responsible for this attack. You know, it's sort of al-Qaida -- the Arab name for it is "the base"-- it's something like a holding company of terrorist organizations that are located in dozens of countries around the world, sometimes tightly controlled, sometimes loosely controlled. And at the head of that organization is Usama bin Laden. So what we have to do in the first phase of this campaign is to go after al-Qaida and go after Usama bin Laden. But it is not just a problem in Afghanistan; it's a problem throughout the world. That's why we are attacking it with a worldwide coalition.

QUESTION: Will you release publicly a white paper, which links him and his organization to this attack, to put people at ease?

SECRETARY POWELL: We are hard at work bringing all the information together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I think, in the near future, we will be able to put out a paper, a document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack. And also, remember, he has been linked to earlier attacks against US interests and he was already indicated for earlier attacks against the United States.

more

[Pastiche423]

39. That white paper has yet to be presented...

two years later.

[NNN0LHI]

55. The FBI doesn't know if the hijackers were ever even in Afghanistan

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/3163998.htm

U.S. finds no paper trail in terror plot

BY ERIC LICHTBLAU AND JOSH MEYER
Los Angeles Times Service

WASHINGTON - For more than seven months, U.S. authorities probing the Sept. 11 attacks have scoured everything from caves to credit cards in the expectation that they would ultimately discover how the 19 hijackers plotted their brazen scheme.

But the global search has produced virtually nothing in the way of hard evidence about the terrorists' planning, and authorities said Monday that they now face the growing realization that they may never know many key details.

That sobering conclusion underscores the skill and sophistication of the al Qaeda terror network in its ability to conceal its activities -- and the equally daunting difficulties that authorities face in heading off another attack, officials said.

''In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper -- either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot,'' said FBI Director Robert Mueller in the text of a speech the FBI released Monday.

His remarks offer the FBI's most comprehensive and detailed assessment to date of its investigation, remarkable as much for what investigators have not found as for what they have.

more

[jiacinto]

28. This proves a point to me

Some DUers are unwilling to go to war under any circumstance. Sheesh, if this were World War II, I am sure the poll back then would have been the same.

I was against the Iraq war, but sometimes you need to use the military. Complete pacifism is never good. Neither is complete militarism.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. You Should Start A Poll

Was America's Entrance Into WW2 justified?

[Patriot_Spear]

34. What was that quote in LOTR?

"Even those that do not wield swords realize that they can still die upon them."

[buddhamama]

51. you're seeing what you want to see

because it is what you'd like to believe about your fellow DUers and your own point of view.

this had nothing to do with justice and does not compare to World War 2, Afghanistan was not a just war.

[jiacinto]

56. I disagree

And I don't understand the sympathy people here have for the Taliban.

[buddhamama]

67. BS and of course you'd disagree

but your post says it all.

you'll never get it because you don't want to.

This isn't about sympathy for the Taliban. this is about a BS excuse for going to war with them. this whole thread is chock full of info and good reasoning as to why it was BS but you don't care.

You accuse others of being everything under the sun blah blah blah BUT it is you Carlos, you are projecting.

[scarletwoman]

81. The sympathy is for the Afghan CIVILIANS!

Do you know that more CIVILIANS in Afghanistan died under our bombs than the number of people killed on 9/11? Is that just fine with you?

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

sw

[buddhamama]

88. stop making sense

rationalizing and being compassionate, it really just confuses the issue. revenge.

[scarletwoman]

90. Nah, I'm incorrigible...

:D It's the Dharma's fault...

sw
:hi:

(edited to corrige my spelling...)

[buddhamama]

93. i am thankful

that you cannot be reformed. and i certainly can't ask you to upset the balance.

:hi:

[David Zephyr]

89. Thanks, Scarletwoman!

Whew! It's getting pretty foggy here, isn't it? :hi:

[scarletwoman]

92. I loved the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz,

but he's the ONLY strawman I'm willing to tolerate.

sw
:hi: back atcha!

[shugah]

33. what a lonely voice

those who spoke against bombing afghanistan! at that time, there was no DU in my life, and i was the only person i knew that didn't think it was the bestest of all idea's ever!

christ, afghanistan was one of the most 3rd world countries! what, in 15 years, they actually had twelve miles of railroad? we were just bombing bombed out rubble...

but, trying to speak to the reality of afghanistan was drowned by the loud cry for blood and revenge.

revenge. someone has to die, blood has to flow in answer to the american lives lost...

a usually reasonable friend of mine, thirsting for that wonderful revenge asked me what i wanted to happen. i said that if our intelligences, and secret service, and national security knew who was responsible--beyond the shadow of a doubt--that there must assuredly be ways to "take care of things" quietly. why the hell did we need bush* with his terrorist chart, and X-marks? (nevermind what a joke that was!)

the first day of watching the buildings burn, i am sorry to confess, i was as rabid as anyone else. but, the next day, i wasn't. i think that afghanistan is as much a mistake as iraq.

:shrug: i just don't think that killing lots and lots of people is the answer.

[David Zephyr]

91. Honest Post.

It wasn't the answer. It was horrible. I appreciate your candor. :hi:

[poskonig]

36. No, but...

in retrospect, it probably was a good idea, if done right.

[Pastiche423]

43. Why?

[poskonig]

57. Several reasons.

I was discussing the Caspian oil reserves a few months before the event in NYC and had the topic fresh in my mind. In addition, since most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the invasion seemed arbitrary.

Now it looks less oil motivated to me and closer to political cover for being asleep at the wheel, in addition to a need to clean out some terrorist sanctuaries. But I don't think bombing the country, putting a few troops in Kabul, and then bribing warlords really gets us anywhere, especially if terrorists insist on operating from Pakistan or Iran.

[Pastiche423]

76. I have read your post

three times and I still do not understand why you think, in retrospect, it probably was a good idea.

[Pobeka]

48. Assuming they knew who the terrorists were, I wanted special ops

to find the heads of cells, and take them out in the middle of the night. No big "media event", but a hell of a message that would tell them that we would target their leaders. Leaders, as a general rule, are the ones most afraid to die, and most likely to back off if they know they truly risk their life for a particular undertaking.

[JanMichael]

49. No. I figured that the Taliban would run.

Which they mostly did.

Gee, now they're coming back as we get bored, who figured that would happen? I did.

I supported Special Forces attacks on specific targets though.

[TheBigGuy]

53. I voted yes, too.

They where the base for Al Queda....so there.

[Wonk]

69. Lest we forget...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/timelinebefore2001.html

So there.

[Blue_Chill]

70. Yes 100%

They could have handed Osama over but refused. I also had no love for the Taliban prior to 9/11.

[aquart]

79. No, but I liked the idea of killing Taliban men.

I'm not a nice person and they'd earned miserable deaths.

If we'd gone in for the sake of the Afghani women, I would have been all for it, but I knew that wasn't the reason.

But I really didn't think it was appropriate to invade Afghanistan until we'd lobbed a few at something in Saudi Arabia like, say, Mecca.

[JanMichael]

86. Oh! You hit the fanatic on the head!

I hated, REALLY HATED, the Taliban years prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. They were, are, miserable excuses for Human Beings, period.

That CNN Special was heartbreaking too...

[pansypoo53219]

82. other

just as in IWaq, the chimperor showed what a pisspoor pResident he is and EVER shall be. Will-nilly we attack Afghanistan and Osama been forgotten gets away with many other Al Qaeda and the head taliban freaks.

Did he take his time(mr. patient man)and plan on how he could get them all? why NOOooooo, of course not because he is a fuckin stupid cowpie.

The Taliban surely needed to removed and just like any other wahabi inspired theocracy, but what was going in its place. Certainly the afghans are happier without the Taliban, but we left them hangin, because the chimperor had to get Sadaam dammit.

[wildwww2]

85. You mean the Carpet of Bombs or Gold Pipeline,Opium Operation?

No. We killed thousands of poorer than dirt innocent civilians to catch Osama and he still got away. But Bu$h`s Oil buddies got their pipeline and their opium. So it was a success to them. If there is a Hell I sure hope Bu$h and his gang of racist maggots rot in it.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[jiacinto]

94. Well

And some people wonder why the Democratic Party may marginalize certain elements. Do you all honestly think that most Americans agree with the position that most of the extremists here support?

[Lars39]

96. Since when does being well informed equal extremism?

[buddhamama]

97. well

and some people wonder why 'we' the certain elements, marginalize those who do not bother to educate themselves, who do not care what others think,have no compassion, and who feel really big and smart cause they can say extremist a buncha times(poor attempt at putting others down i might add)in a thread makes him right.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[buddhamama]

100. hehehe...because if he became a republican

then they'd call him a moderate extremist.

the whining and lack of debate fits their MO though.

[IranianDemocrat]

99. Nope.

Most Duers on this thread represent an extremely radical percentage of american opinion.

[JanMichael]

104. Why don't you repond to this "extremist's" post #49?

Probably because it makes sense whereas the administration's actions were miserably blind. They never intended to stay and "Nation Build"!

Gee, let's see, the most powerful military in the history of mankind is steaming toward you...What do you do? Stand there and get MOAB'ed or make every effort to fade into the dirt?

Just look up the headlines of the last week...Ther're BACK!

Jeez. Go figure:silly:

[GreenArrow]

114. Since when does not agreeing with the majority

equate to being wrong? Frankly, I don't base my opinions on what the majority of Americans think.

Yeah, we're "extremists," like the abolitionists, the suffragists, those who fought for civil rights--all of which were minority positions. When you get right down to it, "extremists" are the only ones who get things done.

[IranianDemocrat]

95. If 3,000 dead people isn't a good reason for war then what is?????

eom

[K-W]

102. Preventing deaths is a good reason for war

avenging them is not.

[IranianDemocrat]

105. Exactly.

Just let them die and go on with our lives. Show the world you can bomb us as much as you want and get away with it.

WOW I'm amazed....

[K-W]

112. International politics and national security

arent some kind of drunken bar fight. Yah lets just run around killing people to save face. That sounds like a great policy. Gee I wonder how anyone could hate America.

When exactly did Afghanistan bomb us? Huh? I must have missed that. Unfortunately for you and Bush terrorism is a bit more complicated than that.

[Alenne]

113. He and Bush will be okay

It is unfortunate for the rest of the world.

[ConsAreLiars]

115. So....

Do nothing or kill thousands of Afghan innocents and unknown numbers of armed fighters. That's the "Either/Or" you pose. Really??? Those are the only options you can comprehend? Really??? Do nothing or do something designed (if not actually intended) to foster more terrorism against the US population. Ever been to Afghanistan? Think they are less than human there? Ever been to Iran even?

[Pastiche423]

106. Uh...

maybe finding out who was responsible for the attack 1st should have been our 1st action.

To this very day, we do not know who was behind the attacks of September 11, 2001.

But you would prefer to bomb innocent people because why?

[IranianDemocrat]

107. Ever heard of al-qaeda?

?

[buddhamama]

108. wait. i know the answer to this Yes

i have heard of them.

ever hear of the Bush Administration?

[IranianDemocrat]

111. Nope Bush what?

...

[Wonk]

109. Read this link.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/timelinebefore2001.html

[maggrwaggr]

101. at the time I supported it 100%

I think it's interesting that so many people, with the gift of hindsight, are able to attack those who admit to supporting the actions.

I remember pacifists being interviewed at the time, and not one of them mentioned the corruption now mentioned here. They all were just saying "violence is wrong" and "war is wrong" and shit like that. What I thought at the time was: "great, but they're not offering any alternatives".

If one ASSUMES that the Taliban harbored Al Queda, and that Al Queda committed 9/11, then it follows that you would probably support the war.

ODDLY ENOUGH: What first got my suspicions up about the Bush administration was the fact that they didn't go in hard enough in Afghanistan! They never invaded, they played buddy-buddy with Pakistan of all fucking people! In Al Queda and the Taliban DID IN FACT ATTACK US, we should have a million fucking troops on the ground over there, FUCK their border with Pakistan, FUCK Mushareff and anybody else who might get in our way, we should be looking in every attic and basement in Karachi .......

Did we do that? No. We stopped short. Let it go .... then started talking about Iraq. WHAT? WTF?

That's what got me to smelling a rat. That's what eventually led me here to DU.

And now I realize that rat is one big honkin' rat and its name is BFEE

[ConsAreLiars]

103. I spent some time

in Afghanistan before The Imperial Power turned it into a CIA-funded training camp for radical fundamentalist terrorism, when it was a remote, generally inaccessible "buffer state" and otherwise ignored. It was a unique place, absolutely unlike the world I knew before. But everyone I encountered was no less fully human, very differently but no less civilized than any other place.

When the US created the Taliban I understood the implications and was saddened, because when there I could see the potential for progressive change -- slowly, over time, but a natural process. When the Cabal made nice with the Taliban and justified it with "anti-drug" propaganda I was disgusted. When BushCo stood by and smirked self-righteously while the Taliban destroyed a part of my human heritage at Bamiyan I was outraged -- twice over, since the US through several gov't's had created this monstrosity and the fundies currently in charge had no more respect for this heritage than the fundies there.

So when the swine controlling the state apparatus of the US turned it against Afghanistan I protested in every way I could. Combatting the terrorism of the BinLadenistas is one thing. War on a sovereign nation, no matter how badly the US has fucked them up in the past, is no solution to anything.

The idea that terrorism can be defeated by military conquest is the most dangerously delusional fantasy that I can imagine.

So, of course, I opposed the invasion.