Afghanistan War, what good for?

[Catillina]

So as also Brecht pointed it out, war is never(or extremly rarely) in the spirit to help global population, but only in profit of the rich men, or firms etc. (I'm taking reference to the book, Kaukasischer Kreidekreis/The Caucasian Chalk Circle )
A example would be the Irak War( Imperialistic and and and...)

BUT, my question is: In how far is the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan perforated with Capitalistic self-interest, or is it, in contrary, a war 100% for the global security and so on??

Thank you comrades

[Thirsty Crow]

Global security for global economic interest?

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I think there were two groups involved with the war. The first group was the group that was legitimately worried about global security and it was also the group that wanted revenge for 9/11. The other group is the group that only cared about money, oil, and perhaps power. This is the group that more or less usurped the war in the mid-2000's and made it the mess that it is. Ultimately, if our/America wanted to win the war on terrorism, we would have been in Africa a long time ago chasing down the terrorists and what not. With Iraq, that was a big screw up, though it did turn out okay for the most part, that was tied into the fear generated by the Afghan war. What sickens me is that Iraq and even Afghanistan are now being pointed out as being "liberating wars." But in truth, if America truly cared about liberating the oppress, they would have declared war on the genocidal parts of Africa a long time ago... so tbh, it is all a show now... and what is worse as my Socialist English teacher pointed out to my class last year, the people have been tricked with this trick many, many times starting with Vietnam, yet they have failed to learn...

[Catillina]

Well I found this

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/14/world/main6579799.shtml

As it seems the Afghanistan soil is rich on minerals...a reason for western firmes to be there, and to exploit this country...

[Sam_b]

Its also important or imperialist interest to have a strategic base in the Middle East, and this is for multiple reasons. The most obvious is the area is an important pipeline transit point for oil and as pointed out other minerals. We also need to consider mineral-rich Iran, which occupying forces can put pressure on by having such a base in the Middle East.

[Lyev]

Can't remember where this is from:
In 1997, Unocal led an international consortium -- Centgas -- that reached a memorandum of understanding to build a $ 2 bn, 1,275 km-long, 1.5-meter-wide natural-gas pipeline from Dauletabad in southern Turkmenistan to Karachi in Pakistan, via the Afghan cities of Herat and Kandahar, crossing into Pakistan near Quetta. A $ 600 mm extension to India was also being considered. The dealings with the Taliban were facilitated by the Clinton administration and the Pakistani Inter Services Agency (ISI). But the civil war in Afghanistan would simply not go away.And also, Britain and/or western forces have already invaded the country two or three time before. And with the Soviet invasion the country is in desperate poverty. Average male expectancy is 46-years-old, which is clearly and directly linked to the amount of times the country has been invaded. Britain has spent roughly £12 billion there I think. The US has spent in excess of a trillion dollars I think.

[Fullmetal Anarchist]

As one of the grunts on the ground. Having served there as a member of the British army in 2006. I can honestly say bugger all has changed and it's just going to worse.

[maskerade]

I think the Afghanistan was solely started as an act of retaliation, to show the rest of the world America's strength after 9/11. And then they classified the Taliban as terrorist because they were harboring terrorists. Now, it's just another front on the war on terror - sorry, I mean the Overseas Contingency Operation - though it is a very important geopolitical asset. And let's not forget the oil pipeline and the billions of dollars which will be made by American companies to reconstruct the country after the destruction of this Contingency Operation.

[Lyev]

I think the Afghanistan was solely started as an act of retaliation, to show the rest of the world America's strength after 9/11. And then they classified the Taliban as terrorist because they were harboring terrorists. Now, it's just another front on the war on terror - sorry, I mean the Overseas Contingency Operation - though it is a very important geopolitical asset. And let's not forget the oil pipeline and the billions of dollars which will be made by American companies to reconstruct the country after the destruction of this Contingency Operation.No - it was certainly not "retaliation" - it was the most perfect excuse. Similar, but of course not identical to Pearl Harbour. The US had a inkling that something was going to happen, so started preparing for it, IIRC, both with Pearl Harbour and 9/11.

[maskerade]

No - it was certainly not "retaliation" - it was the most perfect excuse. Similar, but of course not identical to Pearl Harbour. The US had a inkling that something was going to happen, so started preparing for it, IIRC, both with Pearl Harbour and 9/11.

I disagree, the US has never, up until now, been serious about Afghanistan - which is blatant from the mere 10,000 troops which were initially sent there. Going into Afghanistan they were primarily going after Al-Qaeda. My understanding was that they were always planning Iraq, but after 9/11 they had to act quickly and Afghanistan was most justifiably to the American public, and because of this, it provided an ideological opportunity for America to extend control of the former USSR - by placing bases in Uzebkistan etc. Maybe retaliation was the wrong word, but I don't think Afghanistan was ever planned to the same extent as Iraq was - Iraq was meant to be a new addition to empire, whereas Afghanistan wasn't.

And the bombing only started after failed negotiations with the Taliban. I'm not sure, but I don't think anything like this ever happened in Iraq

[Sam_b]

disagree, the US has never, up until now, been serious about Afghanistan

What, funding and arming the Mujahadeen isn't serious?

[maskerade]

What, funding and arming the Mujahadeen isn't serious?

I meant in terms of their invasion, not their puppet governments.

[Sam_b]

That doesn't make any sense. Surely the US intervention of the Soviet Invasion has to be rearded in terms of a proxy war.

[maskerade]

That doesn't make any sense. Surely the US intervention of the Soviet Invasion has to be rearded in terms of a proxy war.

Yea, it does, but I was referring to Operation Enduring Freedom and onwards. Perhaps I should have made that clear.

[Psy]

Afganistan was a war made by stupid imperialists that had no concept of the limitation of US and British imperialism. The idiots thought they could just send in a few occupation troops and the feudal lords that threw out the U.S.S.R would bow down to might of the US and British just out of fear. Instead the Afganistan feudal lords fought back to remain the ruling class as the Afgaintan ruling class (that survived even though they lack a state) is so backwards they refuse even proletrianization as they rather keep their peasents growing opium for them to maintain their fiefdoms.

The fact US and British imperialism has not brought capitalism to Afganistan as Afgaintan remains for the most part feudalist has proved they have totaly failed to impose their bourgeois will on Afganistan.

So why are they still there? Because they don't want to admit they can't impose their will, the idiots imperialist raised the stakes too high and the US and British imperilist can't end the war without looking weak.

[AK]

There's Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, isn't there? They're certainly some of the enemies of coalition forces in Iraq, aren't they?

[HEAD ICE]

Actually, according to Generals McChrystal and Petreaus there are less than 100 Al-Qaeda militants in Afghanistan. Yet we are sending more soldiers and drones there. That kind of speaks for itself.

[The Guy]

I've already posted this elsewhere, but I thought it was relevant to this thread, too.


I question the existence of the war itself. I understand that soldiers are fighting an enemy, but their is more evidence out there which suggests that the war is a hoax rathjer than a justified cause.

Here are some statements which are often aimed in my direction and my response to them:

S: We must invade Iraq/Afghanistan to kill the Taliban!

A: Firstly, the Taliban are an organisation, not a government which is currently in power, so there is no land which the British/American army should invade and/or control. Secondly, do you not question why we haven't kill the Taliban as of yet? It strikes me how it took merely 6 years to defeat an army 20x bigger than the world's greatest evil, the Axis, and it's taken 9 years to push into Afghanistan against an organisation which is probably 20x smaller. The world leaders must really need this oil!

S: We know where Bin Laden is though, so we'll get him soon!

A: The army also said that in 2001, but we're still looking for him, or so we're told -- it's funny how the media suddenly tell us how we're looking for the leader then suddenly he's forgotten. Also, you have no idea where he is whatsoever. The reason I think this war is so fallacious is because of the lack of knowledge and common sense behind it. In WWII, the allies understood the some positions of Nazi Germany's locations. In a war which has been going for more than 9 years against an organisation which consists of less people than Liechtenstein's population, we're still struggling to even locate the so called enemy, thus resorting to the idiotic and pathetic excuse: "he's hiding in the hills". If your army is high and mighty, doesn't at least one soldier have enough braincells to bomb the mountainous area(s) where they suspect he might be hiding, if he's real, that is?

S: The Taliban are a threat to our country!

A: Is that so? Well, the country which I unfortunately live in, England, has been prone to many attacks from terrorist organisations, has it not? Please don't preach about how the Taliban, Al-Qaeda or any other so called terrorist group is a threat to me or my family.
Firstly, where are the battle ships, humongous armies and deadly jet fighters which could prove an actually threat to the soil I stand on right now? Of course, the media feeds you with crap about people blowing their selves to smithereens and how they are classed as the enemy, but you're supporting a government which has forced them to take deadly actions due to invasion; raping natural resources from their homelands; killing innocent men, women and children and abusing their country via capitalism, so who's the real terrorist here I ask?
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the IRA carried out numerous successful attacks in England, did they not? Because of this, did we then invade the Republic of/Northern Ireland, take their natural resources, kill innocent people and oppress them via military domination for 9 years? No, Britain did not. So, please, don't blame the Taliban, blame yourself.

You're supporting a government which is killing millions each day just so you can stuff your face and complain about how hungry you are afterwards, what makes these deaths you've helped to cause so significant in your life?

Although I can't find it at the moment, an ex-French intelligence officer admitted that the war was nothing more than a hoax/propaganda act in order to obtain resources and force the American public into relying/gaining trust in their government.

[28350]

Absolutely nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

[Glenn Beck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Great_Game

[danyboy27]

i think its just fucking pointless to spend all those live and ressources to get something that will never be worth it anyway.

Just like the Iraq war, the american governement will have spent trillion of dollars to have only a fews million back, that ridiculous.

i wonder if they even realize how all this shit is pointless at this level.