US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

No, i'm not. Nor am i willing to be sucked in by your stupid little game, accepting a claim that there is any such thing as global Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism. It's hilarious that you have capitalized the term--does that mean they have monthly meetings, and two weeks training in the summer time?

Let me finish your statement for you.

...to fight against an invasion by communist Russia and to keep Afghanistan a sovereign nation.

Amazing how context changes when you finish your sentences.

You haven't the competence to finish your own thoughts, let alone mine. There was a period at the end of that sentence because that was a complete, discrete thought. Amazing how you've ignored that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to support the sovereign, Marxist government which was in power in 1978. Why don't you try reading the history of Afghanistan since their civil war began in 1963, before you shoot your mouth off again, and display your selective ignorance.

I think it's hilarious that you're concerned that I capitalized the term.

And actually, I do think think They have regular meetings and training sessions.

Well, Set, try to explain such to someone who doesn't know the difference between the USSR and Russia.

It's kinda entertaining, though, Walter . . . them boys is so silly . . .

Actually, there does not appear to be a period at the end of that sentence. Ellipsis points normally consist of three dots. If you had laid down 4 dots in a row, then I would buy your "there was a period at the end of that sentence" claim.

Why the question mark, are you asking me? I certainly am no adept at the art of divination, to attempt to ascertain what passes for thought in your devoted pate.

It appears I was able to fix that error before you posted. Try again?

That you were able to edit and change the question mark to a period before i posted a reply does not alter the evidence which i saw that you're indulging your penchant for stupid diversions when you are unable to answer the arugments.

That I was able to fix it before you responded shows I made an error. Move on, if you are capable.

Why the extra two periods then? Russia, oh, sorry, I had better say USSR to appease Walter, got in way over their heads in Afghanistan propping up an unwanted communist government. They had their own Vietnam-like experience with guerilla warfare from the mujahdeen. The US supplied these guerillas, not directly though, with surface-to-air missiles.

You make it seem as though we opened a wholesale arms depot in Bin Laden's basement. Hardly the case. In actuality, the US provided very little to the opposing forces in comparison with what we could have.

It's not that simple, Setanta. You may very well doubt the validity of official U.S. statements (such as the quoted text below), but the U.S.--Afghan--Arab relationship during that war is difficult to characterize, to say the least. The accepted wisdom about the U.S. "creating" Bin Laden in Afghanistan is almost certainly wrong.



US State Dept

If anything, that war--and the ascendance of the Taliban & al qaeda is a pretty good example of what happens during a post-war power vacuum. In my mind, this should support the notion that an early U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be a bad idea.

"The Great Game," as it was known, began in central Asia in the 1830's, when the English attempted to extend their hegemony to Afghanistan in response to what they saw as the Russian Imperial threat to their empire in India. The results were often disasterous, especially when the Elphinstone expedition was entirely obliterated, saving only one English doctor and two Sepoys, the only ones who managed to escape. Then petroleum was discoverd in Persia, and the race was on with a vengeance. The subsequent discovery of petroleum in what was then known as Mesopotamia, and in the Arabian penninsula made the region of southwest Asia more important than Persian and central Asia. Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty when Jackie Fisher was First Sea Lord, and between them they introduced the oil-fired boilers which gave the new "dreadnoughts" greater speed and cruising range. Suddenly, petroleum producing areas took on a new and terrible significance. When the old Osmali empire was toppled at the end of the Great War, France and England rushed to divy up the middle east. The aging and confused elder statesman, Arthur Balfour was given the task, but his energetic assistant was Winston Churchill, and Churchill quickly assured that the original agreement was modified so that the English took charge of the Arabian penninsula, and Mosul in addition to what they called Mesopotamia--the latter including Baghdad and Basra. Thus began the disasterous attempt to occupy the newly created Iraq by English troops, who faced an insurrection every bit as deadly as the contemporary version.

In the second world war, the English and Americans took over Persia, and set up a puppet Shah to assure both access to Persian petroleum and a supply line to the Soviet Union. When Mohammed Mosadegh set up a popular, leagally-elected government which looked like toppling their puppet Shah, the English, with CIA help, moved in to put Mosadegh out of business and prop up the Shah. Those who rail against the Imams and the fundamentalist government of Iran need to make their complaints in Langley and London. The 1950's also saw the growth in pan-Arabism which lead to the expulsion of King Farouk from Egypt, and the take-over by Nasser and his cronies, al-Sadat and Mubarek. The short-lived United Arab Republic collapsed, and the Ba'at Arab Socialist Party took over in Syria, and after ten years of civil war and coups, was under the control of the Ba'atist, lead by Assad. The original attempt to unite Syria with Iraq, after the execution of the Iraqi King, fell apart, but the Ba'atists took over there, as well, although now a party independent of the Syrian Ba'atists. In 1978, a new Sunni tribal minority took power in the person of Saddam Hussein.

In the meantime, the United States had attempted to extend their hegemony to Afghanistan in the late 1950's, concerned about the influence of the Soviet Union. The settlement in India had left a good deal of the Hindu Kush, then known as Pushtunistan, as a part of Pakistan, and the Aghans were willing to go to war over that. But because of the Soviet aid, Eisenhower refused to provide military equipment to the Afghans. Mohammed Daoud, who had ruled Afghanistan as Prime Minister since 1953 was over thrown in 1963, after an abortive war with Pakistan. The Afghan communist party began to organize in secret, as did a fundamentalist Islamic movement among university students, who called themselves the Taliban. Daoud Kahn takes over with a communist government in 1965, and then is overthrown by another wing of the Afghan communists in 1978. The Soviet "invasion" took place thereafter, to prop up the new government of Taraki. The Afghan Mujahadeen form to fight a guerilla war against the communists and the Soviet military, and a young idealistic fundamentalist Wahabbi from Saudia Arabia shows up to funnel money and fighters into the country, through an organization commonly known as "The Base,"--Al Qaeda. His name is Osama bin Laden, and through his wealthy families contacts with the Bush clan in the United States, he secures money and expert advice and training from the CIA.

But, of course, we're just innocent lambs, it's not our fault if they people of southwest and central Asia hate us, we just want everybody to get along--and hand over their petroleum, pretty damned quickly.

The missing bit of the jigsaw here is that oil trades were never between equals. Set is right that Britain was the first player. We didnt just want oil for the Navy, we insisted on making sure we had CONTROL OVER THE OIL for the Navy. The govt. took a controlling interest in Anglo Persian (now BP) oil put two directors on the board, and awarded it a 20 year (secret) contract. Not content with buying up companies, we used the peace settlement at the end of WW1 to effectively buy up entire countries, draw boundaries on the former Ottoman empire, and install our own carefully selected local sheik, emir etc. as ruler all with a view ultimately to oil.
After WW2 the Americans became the senior partner, but still played basically the same game. In all this of course no one gave a damn for the common people. And therein lies the root cause of Islamist militancy directed at the west imo. Is the US going to allow the Islamists to take over Saudi Arabia? Well why not? All they want to do is sell us oil, just as we want to buy it, apparantly. Oh a further twist...oil is peaking...and people like Osama bin Laden know it too.

The Great Games goes on . . . and doubtlessly, when the petroleum is all drying up, some new Great Game will be deployed to keep the governments and the capitalists on top . . . neither Steve nor i blame the ordinary citizens of England and America for what has happened, but i feel i can safely speak for him when i say for myself that it is the coterie of venal and greedy plutocrats in government and influencing government, for the sake of empire, whether territorial or economic, who are responsible. We don't choose the capitalists, but we elect the bastards who have done this to us, and who will continue as long as we let them . . .

mcg wrote : "You make it seem as though we opened a wholesale arms depot in Bin Laden's basement. Hardly the case. In actuality, the US provided very little to the opposing forces in comparison with what we could have. "

from what i've read, bin laden and his cohorts were surely supplied with more armaments of various types that would fit into a basement (you didn't specify the size of the basement, i notice). whatever they managed to get, it seems to have given them plenty of destructive power.
you then go on to say ..."the US provided very little to the opposing forces in comparison with what we could have. "
i find that a little puzzling. are you implying that the united states should have supplied more to them ?

doesn't seem to make much of a difference now anyway. it's a mess and not likely to get much better soon. (not going to hold my breath - i'm just sorry so many people are losing their lives in this conflict - or is this a war ? has war been declared yet ?). hbg

Most of the history you cited is not on point here. I only took issue with the above statement, which I think is bogus. It simply isn't a statement of fact. It's much disputed, and all official sources have concluded that bin Laden was not directly trained and advised by the CIA. The CIA--at least officially--trained and advised Afghan groups, not foreign groups. Yes, this includes individuals who became the Taliban, so you're free to comment on that mistake. But al Qaeda? That's only speculation.

If you have any source that confirms your statement, I'd gladly read it. Otherwise, we have only Setanta's naked speculation about a "Great Game" tied to some form of an oil conspiracy and ties between bin Laden and the CIA (oil in Afganistan? not much: EIA Source).

steppenwolf : i'm sure you are aware that bin-laden reletives were allowed to fly out of the united states after 9/11 when "officially" all commercial air traffic was halted. co-indedence ?
bin-laden may not have been trained by the CIA "personally or directly", but there seem to be plenty of "unofficial" links that may have made it possible. (you really don't think the CIA would ever say "oh, yea, we trained bin-laden, slight mistake" ?). hbg

You're right, I don't expect a frank admission of error. But speculation is still speculation, and just because it's "possible" doesn't make it so. I have no inside information about why bin Laden's family was flown out of the U.S., but I suspect it was a safety precaution and a matter of international comity. We can speculate otherwise, but what's the likely scenario here? A grand, government-wide, multi-administration, multi-agency, bin Laden conspiracy?