It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Defence Secretary Aide Quits Over Afghanistan

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 04:18 AM

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by SLAYER69

Before I leave I want to expose your tactic so everyone knows. See when evidence is provided you simply deny that it is an evidence without providing any reasoning behind it or any counter, simply ridiculing the whole idea. It is a tactic used by mmiichael and IDK88. Both I have had very similar discussion that I just had with you. All three use the same tactic, without providing any evidence simply deny the oppositions claim full stop. That is not a discussion that is ranting.

You know that's really considered bad form to attack other members who simply disagree with you and are not here to defend themselves. You call me arrogant. Where does this high handed opinion of yourself come from where you can sit in judgment of others?

I say you need to turn the self righteous eye inward.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 04:27 AM
reply to post by dooper
(cont from above)

2002 - American Dollars to 1 EUR
Average Rates
0.883366 USD (21 days average)
0.870642 USD (19 days average)
0.876638 USD (21 days average)
0.88624 USD (20 days average)
0.916959 USD (22 days average)
0.956135 USD (20 days average)
0.993528 USD (22 days average)
0.978073 USD (21 days average)
0.98063 USD (20 days average)
0.981149 USD (22 days average)
1.00185 USD (20 days average)
1.01941 USD (21 days average)

Last Updated: Monday, 22 December, 2003, 22:36 GMT
Dollar at record low versus euro
The US dollar continued its record-breaking slide against the euro amid concerns about terrorist attacks over the Christmas holiday period.
The dollar slid as low as $1.2450 in New York on Monday, before rebounding slightly.

Tehran: 22:30 , 2005/12/02 Print version Email this to a friend
Preparatory measures taken to sell oil in euros
TEHRAN, Dec. 2 (MNA) - The Chairman of the Majlis Energy Commission, Kamal Daneshyar said here, on Friday, that preparatory measures have been taken to sell oil in euros instead of dollar, adding that such a measure is quite positive and should be taken as soon as possible.
[url]" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">
Oh right, it was fears of terrorism that brought the US$ to a record low. Nevermind that it had been falling throughout most of the previous year. Nothing whatsoever to do with increased demand for €uros & less for US$.

Tehran: 22:30 , 2005/12/02 Print version Email this to a friend
Preparatory measures taken to sell oil in euros
TEHRAN, Dec. 2 (MNA) - The Chairman of the Majlis Energy Commission, Kamal Daneshyar said here, on Friday, that preparatory measures have been taken to sell oil in euros instead of dollar, adding that such a measure is quite positive and should be taken as soon as possible.

Hold on to your belief in terrorism now: next post shows what happens in 2006
(Cont below)

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 04:42 AM
reply to post by dooper
(cont from above)

2006 - American Dollars to 1 EUR
Average Rates
1.21032 USD (21 days average)
1.19393 USD (19 days average)
1.20284 USD (23 days average)
1.22733 USD (20 days average)
1.27662 USD (23 days average)
1.26606 USD (22 days average)
1.26806 USD (20 days average)
1.28105 USD (23 days average)
1.27274 USD (21 days average)
1.26164 USD (22 days average)
1.28895 USD (22 days average)
1.32013 USD (21 days average)
Now dooper, I fully realise that a simple soul like yourself has never had enough money to be needing to keep an eye on international currency markets, but I'm sure that you can see the pattern here: countries sell oil for €uros = the US$ falls in value = US business doesn't like it & gets all in a hissy fit with the POTUS to do something about it.
There is your casus belli.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 07:02 AM
reply to post by dooper

It's people like you who make this site bad. I respected your opinion and all you do is reply by slandering me with personal insults and accusing me of having a learning disorder.

Anyway like i said if you want to believe that the United States didn't lose Vietnam

Then fair enough.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by oozyism

Shucks, oozyism, don't go away mad. I thought he wrote up a nice reply to your posts. Sorry if it doesn't go with what you said, but them's the breaks.

You do seem to enjoy saying, "The US is hiding on their bases". Funny, I think there's a nice large offensive going on right now by the Marines.

Also, if the US was out in force all the time, you'd probably find a reason to complain about that, too. Did it occur to you that maybe the US wants to have a "hands off" approach to the Afghans governing themselves? Try to let them sort things out without US involvement? Seems like a pretty good idea.

Tho, in my opinion, I think the US ought to roll up all these Afghan "men" that seem to get their rocks off abusing women and toss their asses in prison, or worse. Any man that stones a woman, or throws acid on one, really isn't a man, right?

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 03:48 PM
reply to post by oozyism

This is not an isolated case, crime, rape, murder, corruption is on the rise in Afghanistan, none which existed under Taliban]. These warlords are given amnesty due to the fact that they support an American puppet, they can basically do what ever they want.

Are you sure none of this existed under the Taliban. Bold emphasis is mine.

Murder did exist under Taliban as well as crime, rape, beatings, and other abuses. I am also surprised that you say everything is on the rise. Could your version of on the rise be because there is more media coverage coming out of Afghanistan since the war started?

An August massacre of civilians by Taliban troops in Mazar-i Sharif is one of the worst atrocities of Afghanistan's long civil war., Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today.

Here is a PBS article comparing Taliban and after Taliban life for women on certain issues.

In 2006 an assessment of the Afghan public health sector was conducted by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Indian Institute of Health Management, surveying more than 8,200 households in rural areas in 29 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. The study found that public health care in Afghanistan is improving steadily and the Ministry of Public Health is slowly getting closer to meeting its goals. Key indicators of improvement since the fall of the Taliban:

- In line with the Ministry of Public Health’s goal of equitable health care, more female patients than male patients used outpatient services, and the poor were more likely to use public sector services than the non-poor.

-Infant mortality rates have dropped in 2000-2006 from 165 deaths per 1000 live births to 129 deaths per 1000 live births. In the same period, the under 5 mortality rate has dropped from 257 deaths per 1000 live births to 191 deaths per 1000 live births.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 05:14 PM
I know that my replies above were specifically to dooper, but I've read plenty of the people posting in this thread previously support the official line on the reasons for the wars in both Afghanistan & Iraq. Does anyone here actually believe that either the Bush Jnr or Obama administrations gave/give a flying f# about infant mortality or the treatment of women in Afghanistan?
If that were the case, then why aren't there US troops fighting some of the insane regimes in Africa? Gotta get the terrorists? What about Sudan, another breeding ground for extremist Muslim Jihadis with actual genocide going on? How about the many Gulf States where women are brutally oppressed, the poor live in, basically, indentured servitude with high mortality & where the money that supports terrorism comes from? What happened to the idea that, to kill a snake, you cut off its head? I have presented a logical argument that explains why things happened & are now as they are, so what say you "war-for-honourable-reasons" crowd?
(Edit to add paragraph

[edit on 6/9/09 by Bunken Drum]

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by Bunken Drum

Who knows? There are a lot of people that feel the US should have gone into Sudan and Rwanda. I'm disappointed that we didn't.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by Bunken Drum

Hey, if you want to blow some misinformed, factually incorrect, inflated crap past someone, take it to your momma. She may believe your packaged, revisionist sack of dookey, but I dont' because I know better.

Where do some of you come from? On these topics, and certainly this one, some of the most misinformed people show up and spout junk which really does nothing to enhance learning and understanding, but will confuse the hell out of other retards and dumbasses that don't know any better.

We popped our second (and last) nuclear bomb to demonstrate our technology . . . good God Almighty.

BS. The prime, world wide method of communication in that day was radio, and they could have announced their agreement to surrender - and that would have been the end of it.

If we wanted to impress people, we could have dropped two bombs the SAME DAY. But we didn't. We dropped one to demonstrate and emphasize our seriousness about Japan surrendering, and only after they refused, did we drop the second.

The first bomb was dropped, and the Japanese refused to surrender, compelling us to drop the second. (We were the only ones who knew we only had two.)

So much for your "technology demonstration."

So much for your mistaken "surrender in progress."

See how the natural progression of historical fact, chronology, and logic flow? Like Wednesday follows Tuesday, which follows Monday . . .

Yes, the term was unconditional surrender. In other words, zero preset conditions. More akin to "you started it, you got your ass kicked, we're willing to kick your ass some more, for all intents we've won, you'll surrender without any preconditions, and only in that manner.

Take it or leave it."

One other little misinformed mistake. (Do you just read a page or two per book, or what's the learning process here for you, anyway?"

Russia had nothing to do with it, besides jumping in at the end to conduct a land grab, which to this day, they have never returned.

Russia had zero to do with the British/US/Australian/New Zealand/India/Burma effort against the Japanese.

Japan attacked the US.

Less Hollywood? Hey, you're the one making it up as you go along. I'm not the one spouting revisionist history, so the school-kid history must be your thing.

Get some facts together, put them into correct context, use proper chronology, proper historical context, and THEN you won't make such asinine statements.

This silly blowing crap outta your alimentary canal just to be making funny noises is really tiresome.

Get momma to pull your finger.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 06:55 PM
reply to post by dooper

Not that I want to drag this thread too far off track, but people these days do seem to forget it was the Japanese that started the war, not the US.


Hiroshima: 70,000-80,000 dead
Nagasaka: 40,000-75,000 dead

These don't count radiation deaths later in the year.

Tokyo fire bombings: 75,000 - 200,000

Compared to the Rape of Nanking:

300,000 dead
20,000 women raped (includes infants and elderly).

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:11 PM

Originally posted by jerico65 reply to post by Bunken Drum
Who knows? There are a lot of people that feel the US should have gone into Sudan and Rwanda. I'm disappointed that we didn't.
Well, I dont know whats @stake in the Sudan, so since the USA isn't intervening, it may just be that there isn't anything worthwhile there. Then again, someone else may be supporting the Sudanese Govt that the USA doesn't want to antagonise.
Who knows, tho? We all know damn well that whatever the reason, it has nothing to do with the welfare of the people there.
As for Rwanda:

Major General Kagame, who led the RPF insurrection, was supported by the US and Britain.
The official version of the Rwandan Genocide is that it was triggered by ethnic conflict in the context of what was characterised as a "civil war".
According to the testimony of Paul Mugabe, a former member of the RPF High Command Unit, Major General Paul Kagame had personally ordered the shooting down of President Habyarimana's plane with a view to taking control of the country. He was fully aware that the assassination of Habyarimana would unleash "a genocide" against Tutsi civilians.
That links to a page with the whole sorry sordid story, including Kagame's US training, the machetes bought with IMF loan money right under IMF scrutiny & Kagame's getting the UN to postpone intervention so he could basically complete his coup without interference.
It's a good point tho. I wouldn't mind the USA acting as a pseudo-empire, or the US$ as reserve being used as a de facto tax on the rest of the world, if, the oft repeated idea that the USA is the world's policeman were true. If, instead of fomenting conflict & fighting wars by proxy in a never ending covert expansion, the USA did actually prevent conflict, a la Pax Americana, I'd say fair enough, but not this lie.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by jerico65

More died in the fighting for Okinawa than both atomic bombs together killed.

THAT'S why we weren't real anxious to invade mainland Japan.

Millions would have died.

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 09:35 PM
reply to post by dooper
Exactly as I predicted: trying to bog the debate down in minutiae & insults (& I even predicted the stars!). Aren't you embarrassed to be so transparent?
What has Russia to do with it? You may remember that they were part of an alliance, under the terms of which, they had 3 months to declare war on Japan after VE day. In the meantime, they maintained diplomatic relations with Japan. It is inconceivable that the Japanese position, ie that they would surrender if they could disarm themselves & try their war criminals in their own courts, was not communicated to the other Allies.
Now, your position is that international diplomacy is conducted by arrogant blowhards like yourself; that war is a scaled up fight in a playground - "He started it, miss!" Its my contention that diplomacy is conducted by highly intelligent people who only adopt such a stance when their govt wishes to provoke a particular course of action & wants an excuse for their preplanned reaction after the fact.
In this case, particularly since the Japanese were only able to mount a last ditch defence of the home islands, the refusal to enter into negotiation with their starting offer, & instead giving them the Potsdam agreement as an ultimatum, was designed to make it very difficult for the divided Japanese leadership to agree to, specifically so that the USA would have the excuse to drop both bombs.
Even more embarrassing tho is your use of the standard reply to anyone who questions the history as written by the victors, ie the lies,

"Aagh, the revisionists are coming!"
[cue music=hymn-Jerusalem]
Bring me my dogma, of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of sarcasm.
Bring me Fox films, oh pride unfold!
Bring me my chariot of ire!

Perhaps you'd like to get on to the actual thrust of my argument, dooper? After all, if its completely wrong, even a man of your capacity should have no trouble in refutation...

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by jerico65
Thing is mate, it matters not 1 whit who started it, how many were killed, or even if anyone believes the official line on why the bombs were dropped or accepts my interpretation: the bombs were dropped.
The point being that dooper claimed that the USA is in Afghanistan because the when the USA gets into something they stay until the job's done. I say thats not true, that this is a unique departure from normal US practice, & have provided examples.
The significance of the bomb is that @the end of the war in Europe, the USA had all the advantages, but did not press them.
Is anyone going to claim that "the job" that needed doing, from the perspective of the US Govt, included a communist East Germany as an outcome?
I have a pet theory about why this is. Its purely subjective, but so what?
I've known & know quite a few Americans. To some extent, I'd say the stereotypes are based in fact. On average they are a bit more arrogant, slightly brash, overly competitive & insular. However, when they relax in company, then the truth comes out. They are generally really decent people. Wanting to help, generous of spirit & probably bigger hearted than some nationalities. Thus I think that, despite Gen Patton's claim that Americans love to fight, the reality is that not only are they as disgusted by the horror of war as anyone else, the whole business of it, particularly overseas, goes against the very grain of who they are. Therefore it takes an intense & multi-faceted effort to keep Americans supporting any particular conflict.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

When most people here at ATS debate we usually give the other person a chance to respond. Since you obviously have your panties in a bunch. Lets proceed shall we?

Sorry it was a mis-understanding, I gave you many chances to provide your evidence but you simply reply with 2 sentence which would really irritate any one who has put an effort in to their postings.

Taliban massacre of Hazaras

The Taleban have denied the killings, calling the allegations enemy propaganda. They say it is impossible they could have carried out an action so contrary to Islamic law.

And yes it was enemy propaganda, how else are you going to convince the world to bomb one of the poorest nation on earth. It is already proven that USA was planning to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11. And even after 9/11 the Taliban asked for evidence connecting Osama with 9/11 but America refused to do so:

On 21 September 2001, the Taliban responded that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, they would hand him over, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking him to the 11 September attacks.

Country Reports on Human Rights

More propaganda from Washington, this was the pretext for war. This is like you telling me to believe the Iraq war pretext. Not believable. Here is my counter:

"During the Taliban time, you could walk the streets safely day and night. Now we have to sleep with guns for pillows because we can be robbed at any time," said Abdul Haddi, 35, a car dealer. "Now we have the freedom to listen to music, and nobody bothers us about wearing beards, but music does not put food on the table. We prefer extremism to instability."

These are Afghan testimonies, I don't appreciate a link which directs me to the pentagon which tries to justify the war and the deaths of thousands of Afghans in consequence.

Same Source
Same source, pentagon justifying the deaths of thousands of Afghans.
And I showed you statistics that woman's right hasn't improved in Afghanistan, only 4% of Afghan girls get some sort of education if at all:

director of women’s rights for the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, 60% of marriages are forced, and while 40% of children in the first year of school are girls, by secondary school this drops to only 11%. By the age of 15, less than 4% are girls.

During the Taliban era, the school received special permission to teach girls after agreeing to follow strict Islamic rules, with no men allowed on the premises, no music or parties and special curtained buses bringing veiled students to class. Now, the girls said, the atmosphere inside the school is more relaxed, but the conditions outside are far more frightening.

"We are so confused and worried. There are gunmen everywhere, and there is no stability," said Khatira, 18, a nursing student. "I hate guns, and I only want to study. I was born in a time of fighting, and I never saw any stable conditions except with the Taliban. In the time of extremism, I could study safely. Now I can't."

Same Source

See you bringing me pentagon propaganda, I can bring you the opposite propaganda, testimonies of Afghans not Americans.

You can't be that ignorant can you? The increase of causalities are a direct result of taking the fight to them. U.S. launches 'major operation' in Afghanistan

ohh I'm soo ignorant ^^ and if you weren't that arrogant you would know that it means Taliban are still alive, still fighting, and still have their top commanders in hand. As the former ISI chief said, you can't destroy Taliban, you have to destroy the whole nation in order to do that.

You know they are calling everyone who opposes America, Taliban now, but that is another discussion as a whole.

It may do you some good to learn about the bigger picture. You have some good information but that's only really looking at a very narrow part of the vastly more complex situation. I know it may be hard for you to wrap your head around some of the following information. So I typed it really slow. The blue things are links. Click on them and expand your narrow view of the whole.

You are insulting my intelligence. I have read history, it is all there, people just don't read
I am fully aware of the big picture, but our discussion is not regarding the big picture, our discussion is regarding the invasion of Afghanistan, pro and cons.

60 Taliban Killed in Afghanistan as US Deploys More Troops
Which proves my point yet again, they still fighting, still alive and with huge support.

Almost 70% of Afghanistan is controlled and ran by regional chieftains who don't care for the Taliban or the New Government. They were the ones who helped the US over throw the Taliban in the first place. They remembered when we helped them fight off the Soviets. So they returned the favor.

The problem is that many of our generals and troops don't know that history and end up making new enemies of the ones who helped us in he first place. The same goes for Pakistani Tribal Chieftains they don't want the Taliban there either!

And you point is? The soul reason why Taliban came to power was due to these warlords who brought huge corruption in Afghanistan, corruption means that you can get away with any type of crime, whether it be rape, murder etc. Pay money and you are free. So once again, giving these warlords amnesty is a great idea? It will make turn the whole Afghan population against America sooner or later. There is already huge resistance and I expect it to grow.

The World Bank Institute rates Afghanistan as the second or third most corrupt country in the world.

Did you think that by simply joining ATS and coming here to give us your version of events that we would just tuck tail and run away after a few cheap jabs?

No it is good that finally you decided to give me a full response which I deserve. I put effort in my posts and when people post 3 lines to justify their own views pisses me off and it would piss you off too.

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:24 PM
Well, its been a while & none of the "war-for-honourable-reasons" crowd have come back with anything. Specifcally, the mouthiest of all, dooper, has chosen to slink away with his tail between his legs. Therefore I'll paraphrase Napoleon:

I did not usurp history, I found its crown in the gutter & picked it up with my pen. It was the people, the people dooper, who put it on my head. He who saves the search for truth violates no law!

Still, dooper, since you are so clearly a product of arrested development & stuck in the playground, I'll also translate the sentiment into the kind of over-simplification you are used to:

Ner ner nee ner ner!

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:36 PM
reply to post by Bunken Drum

This issue is done

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 05:37 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69
Well, I'll confess that I left it so long this time because I was hoping for someone to come back with something of substance. Still, Slayer, that you felt the need to reply @all, particularly with so feeble a sentiment, does do what I intended: demonstrate my earlier point that an arrogant stance does indeed provoke an ill-thought-out response. Namely, this issue is self evidently not done. Have the troops got out of Afghanistan or Iraq? Has the USA ceased trying to pressure Iran into collapse? Is the USA any less dependent on keeping the world using fossil fuels & paying for them in US$s so that the vast over-supply of US$s do not find their way into the US domestic economy causing hyper-inflation?
The answer is no & until its yes, this issue will never be "done", unless its overtaken by even worse circumstances.

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 06:40 AM

Originally posted by mattpryor
My problem with the Afghanistan war is not the number of casualties but the government's consistent and total failure to explain the conflict to the general populace. I hear now that Brown is launching a "get behind the troops" campaign - this misses the point. People are already "behind the troops", but they're not behind the politicians that sent the troops there.

I understand why we're at war, and I understand why we have to stay there, but that's because I read the news and understand the bigger picture.

But government has to start explaining and advocating for the conflict to the general populace, otherwise anti-war sentiment will grow and they'll end up pulling out (being populist and weak) which will be disastrous for Britain, NATO and our relationship with the US.

My two cents...

It's difficult message because there are at least two major strands to the message.

The problem is the nature of the war and the nature of the threat are two different things.

The war is presented in the msm as a kind of giant police action chasing after insane people. The actual war is more like a series of large-scale flanking/pincer movements into the side of a modern-weaponed, drug & oil-funded, army of religious fanatics whose main goal is the takeover of the government of Pakistan, and the creation of a unified Islamic caliphate which encompasses North Africa, Europe as far as the slav states, the entirety of the Middle East and Asia including India and South East Asia including Thailand, the Phillipines, Malaysia & Indonesia.

They were well advanced in their plans to bring down the Pakistan government by assassination/coup when Afghanistan was invaded.

Now it's very difficult to convey this picture without insulting Islam in general, wouldn't you agree? It's a big religion, and only a small percentage are militants. But the militants and sharia jihadists still draw "tolerance" from mainstream Islam, because they speak a common language - Arabic - and not English. That's one of the big resistance points in Pakistan, in fact, where English is the main language.

The other difficult element to convey is the nature of the threat.

What's so bad about Islamic unification?

If they succeed in unifying these different Islamic countries by taking over Pakistan, they will have in place the infrastructure and expertise required for the formation of an advanced weapon arsenal.

This is difficult to communicate because:

They won't act as a bloc like the Soviets. They'll be thousands of king-like medieval caliphs, who are independant, though under one religious law (sharia).

This is almost impossible to convey to a modern Western society who are used to thinking of threats as coming from countries.

An example: Last July the commander of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Omar, issued an order that beheadings were to stop. Beheadings actually INCREASED in the months since.

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 03:26 AM
reply to post by Bunken Drum

The Japanese attempt at Negotiating with the Russians was a ploy from the very beginning. They invited Russia to join their side! The Russians refused of course as they had their eye on taking the Kurile Islands. The Russians were under no obligation to inform the U.S. of any Japanese terms. As far as intelligent people being diplomats, the Japanese did not pick theirs very well. They wanted to retain some of the conquered territory, keep their military regime in power and try their own war criminals. They were offered an unconditional surrender, they refused and were determined to defend their home islands with every man, woman and child, using sticks and rocks if necessary. After one bomb they still refused, it took the second to convince them. Those two bombs saved more lives on both sides than an invasion of Japan would have cost.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in