|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Xerius
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Posts: 29
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:59 pm Post subject: re: Taliban |
 |
|
I'm not going to get into the redundant political arguments on either side as I'm not interested and am tired of hearing them. However, I wanted to jump in to address this point:
| Quote: |
| America created the Taliban and supplied them (and Osama Bin Laden) with truckloads of weapons and millions of dollars during the war with the USSR. America had dealings (surprise surprise - about oil) with the Taliban between 1996 and 2001. |
The United States had nothing to do with the establishment of the Taliban. The Taliban weren't even on the scene when Moscow was entrenched in its war in Afghanistan. On the contrary, the Taliban date back to early 1994 and were established by a small group of Pashtun talibs (that is to say, 'religous students') educated in the medressas of southern Afghanistan and - largely - Pakistan. In their rise to power and storming of up to 90% of the country, they gained most of their political and financial backing from the Pakistani ISI. There were brief negotiations between the Clinton administration and the Taliban in the late 90s - as the U.S. had interests in a trans-Afghan pipeline into Central Asia - but they bore no fruit and were not pursued with much depth. The Taliban were only ever recognized by three countries (all Muslim), and Washington was always pretty wary of dealing with them outright (thereby giving them legitimacy).
Now, the United States certainly was very involved in the funding and support of the mujaheddin. These fractious groups included the Northern Alliance, the forces of Abdul Rashid Dostum (as well as those of the present enemy of the U.S.-led forces there - Gulbuddin Hekmatyar) and numerous non-Afghan (read: Arab) groups. The U.S. also bears responsibility for indirectly contributing to the chaos that rattled the country in the 90s. By abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out, Washington's short-sighted policy led to the power vacuum that the Taliban later took advantage of. But that is not quite the same as creating and funding the Taliban themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
homersimpson
Joined: 14 Feb 2003
Posts: 569
Location: Kagoshima
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
homersimpson wrote:
Let me preface my comments by saying I neither support Bush or the war in Iraq, however, to contend that it is a war for oil is laughable.
Homer, please read this:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2071981/ |
Way ahead of you Canuck. I read Greenberg's article well before you posted, and nowhere in his piece does he contend that the current war in Iraq is based on oil, hence I have no idea how this helps your argument.
| Quote: |
Quote:
There was a personal grudge he had against both Saddam and Iraq (the failure of the first Presdient Bush to remove Saddam cost him re-election; and evidence was later discovered that the Iraqi gov't had tried to assassinate the elder Bush)
Your personal feelings are no reason to be starting a war. If America had really tried (and they didn't) they could have assasinated Saddam and immediately offered the new leadership of Iraq concessions for rejoining the international community - lifting of sanctions, loans, removal of the no-fly zones, re-opening of diplomatic relations etc. |
The G-stringed Avenger, did you even read my post? I never said that Bush's personal feelings justified the war; quite the contrary. I was just trying to cite possible reasons for the war. And if the U.S. had assasinated Hussein you and your ilk would be talking about how America had no right to go around and kill off "freely elected" leaders of foreign countries.
| Quote: |
Quote:
America created the Taliban and supplied them (and Osama Bin Laden) with truckloads of weapons and millions of dollars during the war with the USSR. America had dealings (surprise surprise - about oil) with the Taliban between 1996 and 2001.
The United States had nothing to do with the establishment of the Taliban. The Taliban weren't even on the scene when Moscow was entrenched in its war in Afghanistan. |
Xerius, how dare you inject logic into this debate! America is evil. Never mind the fact that Bin Laden was heavily financed by Saudia Arabia and the Taliban was born out of Russia's withdrawal from Afghanistan. By the way, Bin Laden was aided by the U.S. in order to fight the Soviet invasion; just because he later turned on the U.S. and the West in general, does not make America wholly responsible for his actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris12
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
[color=yellow]
| canuck wrote: |
| homersimpson wrote: |
| Let me preface my comments by saying I neither support Bush or the war in Iraq, however, to contend that it is a war for oil is laughable. |
Homer, please read this:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2071981/ |
[color=white]
Thank you! The article was informative and interesting! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The G-stringed Avenger
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 746
Location: Lost in rhyme infinity
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I and my "ilk" (whoever they are) would not have complained in the least if the US had assassinated Saddam. He is a mass murderer who started 2 wars (even if they were at US instigation) and brutalised his own people for over 20 years.
I would complain if the US assassinated a leader who harmed no-one and posed no threat (read: Salvadore Allende of Chile, killed by the CIA in 1973).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Taliban were one of the anti-Soviet mujaheddin groups during the 80s... they only really came to prominence in 1994.
Doing a deal to build a pipeline - however indirectly - presupposes that there is a legitimate government in place to do the deal with. They didn't complete the deal? Oh, well that makes it OK, then! America's hypocrisy and double-dealing nature when it comes to their precious oil is disgusting. Oil oil oil! How many times do I have to say it?
America funded and supported Osama in the 80s. Why was he fighting the Soviets? Because atheists were occupying a Muslim nation, and he responded to the ideal of a holy war. Seems the Americans should have remembered that before they themselves became the "atheists occupying a Muslim (Saudi Arabia) nation". I'm sorry, but if you create a terrorist, you have to expect that he might turn on you one day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xerius
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the Taliban were one of the anti-Soviet mujaheddin groups during the 80s... they only really came to prominence in 1994. |
I just did. Again, the Taliban didn't exist until 1994. They were a group of Pashtun religious students that rose up against what they saw as the un-Islamic corruption and wicked deeds of the numerous mujaheddin forces. If you want more information, I suggest you read Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia by Ahmed Rashid.
I'm not going to attempt to justify the United States' foreign policy as I have my own (many) issues with it, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a government of any significant power and influence not prone to hypocrisy and double-dealing. Such is the way of the black art of politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryry
Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:57 pm Post subject: my 2 centiums |
|
|
Just to join in this debate (sorry new to the forum):
It seems a little silly to me that people say the US does X and Y just for the oil. I think that is pretty obvious. Oil is vital to the interest of the US and every other industialized nation. Countries act in the international arena, not for the benefit of others, but for their own interests. The US needs the oil in the mideast, and works to make sure that the US has access to it. Sometimes these methods backfire, sometimes they work well (like the deal Eisenhower made with the Saudi's at the end of WWII).
Note that the US does not steal this oil, the US pays for it, and pays what the market asks. Further, the US spends a lot of money on its oil allies defence to encourage them to ally with the US.
Of course the US went into Iraq for the oil, or more precisely to guarantee the supply of said oil to the US and US allies. What else would you expect the US to do?
Ryry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pate
Joined: 08 Nov 2004
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:12 pm Post subject: we are all connected |
|
|
If we see an angry child, scolded by the parent, kick a dog, spurring the powerless dog to run and hide, the chain of violence is apparent. Do you see the similarity in world relations? It seems incredible that people can ignore the direct and secondary effects of world aggression = and if you don't feel it in your daily interactions, you in Asia will definitely feel it in your pocket book, didn't you know how in debt the US is with Japan and Asia? And like how a cardhouse their economies suspend one another standing...but if one falls.... please see economist article http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3372405
and give some more thought to just how we are on this earth together... and consider what you will do when the asian economy takes another dive like 10 years ago....nothing is permanent, not even the value of your teaching salary... food for thought |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
