It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is the US in Afghanistan?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon


That is a fairly accurate assessment of the official story - I think everyone knows that is a load of BS.


No, it is not BS.

It is a fact.

If you know of a major engagement lost by the US military in Vietnam, then name one.




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

The NVA and the VC lost every major engagement against US forces in Vietnam. The record is clear on that.



I don't want to start a pissing contest - but this comment sums up the debate.

The VC could not and did not want to fight a stand up war. So when you say, major engagement - you mean a concentration of forces on both sides.

Anyone who knows a little Sun Tzu can tell you that you never want to confront your enemies concentrated forces, unless you are in a position of complete superiority (even then you must be assured your enemy has an escape route).

The US were better armed and equipped, so the VC used stealth and guerrilla tactics - the only real means they had at their disposal that gave them a chance of success - and they exploited their local knowledge to great effect.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by Amagnon


That is a fairly accurate assessment of the official story - I think everyone knows that is a load of BS.


No, it is not BS.

It is a fact.

If you know of a major engagement lost by the US military in Vietnam, then name one.


I think you are confused as to the content of your own post that I was responding too - my post was in response to your quote from Wikipedia regarding the justification for a war in Afghanistan.

I had no comment on Vietnam and I wasn't alluding to it either. I was simply saying that the official story about chasing Osama and the Al Quaida wasn't the true reason the US committed troops to Afghanistan.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I am astounded people posting here actually believe the crap about Operation Enduring Freedom; what a load of BS. After 8 years they are still spewing the same rhetoric.

They are there to protect future pipelines; it really is as simple as that.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Why is the US in Afghanistan?


So that India, China n' Russia aren't there. Desperate geostrategic gambit to maintain hold on region choc-a-bloc with valuable commodities as our currency caves. Hasn't worked out too bad for the past 6 years if you look at it through the cold dispassionate eyes of history, but I have my doubts about how much longer that can go on.

[edit on 7/19/09 by silent thunder]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I believe this statement by Amagnon holds much truth:


2) Central Asia is rich in natural gas and oil - Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan all boasting reserves. If the US wishes to beat Russia into these rich deposits, they must establish a region of control to allow the extraction. The best method would be a pipeline either directly through Pakistan to the Arabian Sea, or through Pakistan to India.

The Central Asian Bank already has drawn up plans for a pipeline through to India - but Afghanistan is too dangerous to begin a multi billion dollar project, they need to subdue it - and put in a puppet government. Another pipeline for natural gas was also proposed by UNLOCAL - a US oil company - much preferred to allowing the Asian area to profit from its own resources ..


Plus, camping out in Iran's back yard is deemed to be strategic at this point.

The opium trade, I don't buy.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Here's a link to my original post on the subject - the Rothschilds became married into the Sassoon family late in the piece. They were however sponsoring the East India Co long before that - I had a quick look but I didn't turn up any references when I posted this before - as always my posts rely mostly on my memory - once I know things I hate to go reading and reading for hours to turn up references - apologies for that.

The Rothschilds were not on the original list of founding members of East India Co . but I understand they were sponsoring them. I think that their aversion to the spotlight occurred long ago - stuff on the Rothschilds can be hard to find - unless of course it paints them as saints.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Actually Naill Ferguson's book about the House of Rothschild is pretty in depth and well worth a read if you have the time, it goes into great detail about their holdings etc, it is not judgemental but Ferguson, as an economist, does know what he is talking about.

In terms of marriage, Rothschild women were not allowed any part in the family business, nor were any of those that married into the family...not that that precludes the Rothschilds from being involved in Sasson's business, NM Rothschild is pretty much a closed shop in that respect and the tightest family trust known to man I think! But a loan is business, the Rothschild's were bankers and they served Britain's colonial ambitions very, very well...Nathaniel Rothschild was on very good terms with Cecil Rhodes. Around the time of the first war they did begin, with their US partners, to use money to help fund socialist factions in Russia, but again they did this in conjunction with British SIS. BUT, they were still Jews and they were still outsiders, it was not really until Victor (3rd Baron Rothschild and Jacob's father) that they really and truly infiltrated the 'establishment'. I have some doubt as to whether they would have been permitted entry into the East India Co, East India though would have been nothing without Rothschild's money.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Thread fell apart fast (Megamouths ?) after the first 2 or 3 posts


Never mind, most will -- like me -- agree with the intelligent posters and disregard the rest



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by St Vaast
 


Please - share your thoughts with us. All input is welcome. Your opinions and thoughts will be respected.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Al Mujahedeen in Afghanistan captivated a USA soldier in baktika city at 30/5/2009 .
And al mujahedeen did not advertise about this capitive to wait USA advert ,but any advert do not come from USA
although 3 days ago on this event.

And the soldeir is all right,and in excellent health and treated according captivates laws in Islam.

This what told by Islamic Afghanistan Emarit.









posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ray of truth
 



Fixing your video links...








posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
For those who know my feeling on this topic have read my two threads on the topic. For the rest please check out the links in my signature.

Enjoy.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I have a hard time believing the official 'story' about anything anymore. I suppose it doesn't matter. As someone pointed out to me, I'll NEVER know why we insist on the presence in Afghanistan. I've read a lot of good reasons on this site, but I still scratch my ..

It is pretty clear that Bin Laden is either dead, or has long since moved on to Pakistan. So, I suppose we could believe that the presence of US and other countries troops are to further engage and destroy the Taliban.

I just have a hard time, in that scenario, believing that the ends justify the means. I've stated repeatedly that I don't see how thousands upon thousands of lives are worth bringing a couple dozen really bad guys to justice. I suppose my view is probably oversimplistic.

We've probably all played RISK before and know the benefits and/or necessity of having a country close to the eventual target of our ambitions. Thats a hard facet to discount in this conflict.

The major thing that I am having the hardest time swallowing is the fact that we have been in Afghanistan for over eight years. The United States armed forces ARE, IMO the best equipped, best trained and most capable fighting force on the face of the planet. We've tied their hands, limited their ability to engage and destroy targets and again, IMO, have needlessly prolonged an effort that should have been mopped up within a year, on the long side.

This leads my tiny pea brain to wondering about why it is exactly that we are STILL there. I'm not a real smart guy and certainly not overly intuitive, but it seems to me like there is an awful lot more going on than the Taliban.

I really don't know, or really CARE why we are there. I just want our guys to come back home.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join