US plagued by doubts as it exits Afghan war

[CMNightRider]

I find it interesting that even after all this time they still say "Al-Qaeda's attacks of September 11, 2001" and there is no evidence to prove of disprove it. The powers that be took care of that soon as they could, didn't they. "They" said they did it, but who knows. Yet still every time most of the news media speak about the wars that were started after that date and use that as a loose justification... how many Afghan people, men, women and children, have been murdered who where not even involved in any of that mess or even part of the Taliban!? Of course, an important western power would never be the aggressor would they, and all that collateral damage wouldn't create "freedom fighters" would it? Imagine if the shoe was somehow on the other foot?

Two weeks after the 911 attack, the FBI connected the hijackers to al-Qaeda. Osama bin Ladan and his flea infested senior members of al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility for organising the attacks.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, the Taliban provided safe haven for Osama and his al-Quaeda network. The U.S. government asked the Taliban government to close down a-Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan, and extradite Osama bin Ladan to the U.S. The Taliban government refused.

That is why the United States and Britain invaded Afghanistan. There were a lot of mistakes made by the U.S. and coalition forces but invading Afghanistan was not one of them. What part of this did you miss?

What do you mean, "imagine if the shoe was somehow on the other foot?"

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

None of American interventions all over the world was a success, just more innocent civilians killed, installing corrupted regimes and creating more hatred (with a reason in some cases) towards USA.
All the bullshit of values American politicians seem to be proud of are never defended and praised elsewhere.

I'll never understand this. The UK provided 1/3 of the troops for the initial invasion of Iraq. That's more troops per capita from the UK than from the US.

20 other countries provided troops for the war in Iraq.

How can people continue to be so blind as to blame it all on the US? HOW???

I think people from the UK must just be intentionally blind.

Here's how. None of the other countries, individually or collectively, could have invaded Iraq being as they are military pissants compared to the US. So in short, no US, no invasion. It was the US's call. Simple as that. And the US would have done it alone without the fig leaf participation of the other states had it been necessary (i.e., Tony Blair wasn't in a shoe licking mood).

[ravip]

None of American interventions all over the world was a success, just more innocent civilians killed, installing corrupted regimes and creating more hatred (with a reason in some cases) towards USA.

All the bullshit of values American politicians seem to be proud of are never defended and praised elsewhere.

I'll never understand this. The UK provided 1/3 of the troops for the initial invasion of Iraq. That's more troops per capita from the UK than from the US.

20 other countries provided troops for the war in Iraq.

How can people continue to be so blind as to blame it all on the US? HOW???

I think people from the UK must just be intentionally blind.

How can people continue to be so blind as to blame it all on the US? HOW???

It is just 'follow the leader' or the 'herd' syndrome.

When someone or some nation is perceived to be rich and powerful, automatically it attracts a bunch of followers. The moment the 'power' is lost, the herd vanishes.

[bangon04]

Those who don't heed the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. (Bugs Bunney)

Ask the Soviets.... of course the Taliban were called the Mujahadeen back then, and funded by the US as heroes.... "freedom fighters"

And a hundred years before that the British failed miserably to subjugate the Afghans.....

Edited December 28, 2014 by bangon04

[hansgruber]

Bush only went into Iraq to finish what his father couldn't.

The rest is on Dick Cheney who was the real mastermind of these wars. His link to companies that made billions in profits supplying war weapons and logistics is there for all to see.

USA is the most corrupt nation on Earth, they just have better PR than the rest.

[ravip]

Bush only went into Iraq to finish what his father couldn't.

The rest is on Dick Cheney who was the real mastermind of these wars. His link to companies that made billions in profits supplying war weapons and logistics is there for all to see.

USA is the most corrupt nation on Earth, they just have better PR than the rest.

More corrupt than the RTP?

Seems many heads are buried in the sand?

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Is Colin Powell and all the enraged con's from Republican party who first mentioned WMD.
Blair played role of voice of his master. Nothing more. I am not denying role played by UK and all dictatorial Arab regimes who participated too.

LIke Obama, Tony Blair carried the hopes of a nation. He may have been genuine when he took office but a blowtorch to the testicles sends a powerful message... http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2760

'*** The former Prime Minister of the UK is earning an estimated $5 million per year from private business ventures connected to his role in the illegal wars in the Middle East -- particularly the invasion and conquest of Iraq and Afghanistan. The huge personal fortune which he now enjoys is his reward for years of service to American's imperial strategy, and to Israel through major progress in advancing the Zionist cause. It's a bounty of corruption, war crimes and murder. ***

Whoever wrote this has and agenda and is either stupid or a liar.

America has never been imperialist. Hang that one on the Brits. America doesn't have an imperial strategy as evidenced by withdrawal from Afghanistan.

British imperialism is legendary.

If America went to war over a Zionist cause it would be against Iran which seeks nuclear weapons and has vowed to wipe Israel off the map.

The writer is an idiot.

Well, call it what you will:

Bases
For this question, we turned to an official Pentagon accounting of U.S. military bases around the nation and the world, the "Base Structure Report, Fiscal 2010Baseline."
According to this report, the U.S. has 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries....

[chuckd]

Your link wouldn't work for me. Try this one which is the most current, for 2013.

All 214 pages long. Knock yourself out.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2012/120930_fy13_baseline_dod_bsr.pdf

[Baghdad]

23 percent of US soldiers believe the mission has been a success ( Brain- washed)

[Morch]

a trillion dollar... now imagine how much could have ment that for education or a plan for free universal healtcare, in that other land of free

Of course, in a democracy, your vote gets to decide where the money gets spent. Voters get to choose if that trillion goes to education, health or crumbling infrastructure, or the murder of civilians in far off lands.

Now if only we had a democracy...

In most democracies nothing of the sort ever happens. At best, a representative one voted for gets a say (at least in systems which include some sort of regional/personal candidates). There are no general referendums taken on budgets (or most decisions, for that matter) which allow voters to directly influence matters other than by partaking in general elections. Basically, once you cast a ballot, it is up to the candidate/party voted for to live up to expectations. Guess we all know how this goes....

[mania]

Basically, once you cast a ballot, it is up to the candidate/party voted for to live up to expectations. Guess we all know how this goes....

Which brings us back to that old adage "No Taxation Without Representation" 555

Basically why I left rather than fight it.

[Oziex1]

Everyone can say what they want about this action in the middle east however in truth a lot of good has come out of the intervention. History will be the judge of this.

Please elaborate, what good has come from this?

[joepublic]

None of American interventions all over the world was a success, just more innocent civilians killed, installing corrupted regimes and creating more hatred (with a reason in some cases) towards USA.

All the bullshit of values American politicians seem to be proud of are never defended and praised elsewhere.

I'll never understand this. The UK provided 1/3 of the troops for the initial invasion of Iraq. That's more troops per capita from the UK than from the US.

20 other countries provided troops for the war in Iraq.

How can people continue to be so blind as to blame it all on the US? HOW???

I think people from the UK must just be intentionally blind.

I think the UK public not as mislead as the American public. In the UK, Blair is seen widely as damaged goods by the public and establishment alike, and his legacy is already acknowledged as one of blood and needless war and as a sycophant of Bush. Unlike Bush, not many people want to be associated with him as he has already achieved a pariah status. I would also point to many organised efforts to have him prosecuted as a war criminal.

However, no matter which way you slice it, this was a "US" war, and many countries that provided troops did do at the barrel of a diplomatic gun. Having said that, at the top of the decision making tree, at the apex of power in the US, you will find people whose allegiances are to not to the USA but to a foreign power, to military corporate, and to international finance.

While the USA may take the 'blame', the real culprits are in the shadows and are as American as a Goat Curry.

[LawrenceChee]

It has served the U.S. no real purpose except a huge deal of treasury spent on a war and unachieved objectives as the region has not matured into any real democracy, woman rights , or safety from the Taliban