quote:
Originally posted by Shiroshi:
<snip> <no point in taking up a lot of extra space>
I'm almost sure that the stated goal in Afghanistan was get bin Ladin and remove the that support him. Remember the Taliban saying that they wouldn't give him up? Same with Iraq, remove Saddam and end any WMD programs.
In Afghanistan the question is did bin Laden enjoy the support of the government, or did the goverment just say they would not extradite him on our evidence? And, did we do anything to obtain their cooperation. They said two things that were reported in our media. A) We don't see enough evidence to go after him, and B) there is a good chance we will have a civil war on our hands if we try to get him.
After All, bin Laden did have a lot of armed support, in fact some of the arms were in Afghanistan because we sent them there to help bin Laden himself in his fight against the Communist invaders of Afghanistan, who were driven out with our help, by not directly, we would have been at war with the Soviet Union in that case.
In the case of Iraq, right up until the day we started trying to kill him, we were telling Saddam that if he would just cooperate with the weapons inspectors everything would be hunky dory. Except, WE TOLD THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS TO STEP ASIDE CAUSE WE WERE COMIN' OVER THE HORIZON TO WIPE OUT THOSE NASTY DATE ORCHARDS.
I simply cannot understand how little effort is made by good solid citizens of the USA to think through what they are told.
IT IS SIMPLE...BUSH LIED...THOUSANDS DIED...AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT.[/QUOTE]
I watched a video, before 9-11 of bin Ladin, saying he wouldn't attack the US directly at that time, as his "current hosts" had asked him not to, for fear of counter-attack. This is after he was wanted for the earlier terrorist attacks, and they were protecting him then. Further, the Taliban, were not Afghani, but Pakistani and Arab, under direct control of the Pakistani ISI.
Look at the permanant members of the UN who were most against the invasion of Iraq: China, Russia, France. The French seem to be totally entangled in the food for oil scandal, and if you look at the others you'll see that they too were getting most of Iraqs oil.
Of Saddam's oil vouchers:
Russia got 30%
France got 15%
China got 10%
those three countries got over half of Iraqi oil at below market value. Why would they want that to stop?
How much time should we have given inspectors from the UN? Bush Sr., Clinton, and the included Congresses said that Iraq had WMD's, and should be view as the most pressing treat to the US. Bush Sr. said he stopped outright invasion because of fear of loss of support in Desert Storm. Clinton said the same for Operation Desert Fox. If they both thought it was a growing problem, why wouldn't Bush have thought so in 2003? They all probably misrepresented intelligence reports to defend their personal version of the "truth". Strangely, the two countries we are at war with now are the same two we bombed in the '90s.
The last successful occupation of a country by the United States was WWII, and unless I'm very very mistaken we STILL have troops that some or many of the people of those countries want gone. Just google "Okinawa Protest" 60+ years of "Successful" occupation[/QUOTE]
There is certainly some good evidence that bin Laden had close ties with the Taliban. for one thing, he was exiled from Saudi, and then from Sudan, and he was not really welcome in Afghanistan but the war with the Soviet Union was on, and he brought money, US connections, trained and newly recruited Arab Fighters to that resistance.
In January of 2001 a Pakistani newspaper, "The Nation," reported that one Usama bin Laden was commander of all Taliban armed forces. Some of the Taliban destruction of Buddhist influence may have been a direct result of bin Laden interference, his family was largely responsible for the "Clensing" of Mecca in Saudi Arabia. In August, the same Paper, and the Russian Paper Pravda both reported that bin Laden had been named Minister of Defense for the Taliban Government, but that he was operating out of Tora Bora. Pravda, by the way, had been identifying bin Laden as a powerful "Terrorist" leader, even before the emergence of Al Qaeda as an entity.
I am a little sus-pici-ous (pardon the hyphens, the filter puts **** in the middle of that word) of the figures on Russian Oil Purchases from Iraq. But under the oil for food program, the countries that got oil redistributed it. They were middlemen.
It is personal opinion, based on analysis of the facts, NOT any announcement from any government, that the invasion of Iraq began in March because the UN sanctions were coming up for renewal in May. The vote would have been to continue the Sanction program in total, or to modify it. Failing to pass a resolution extending or modifying the sanctions would have ended them. The single major fact in my assessment is this: France, China, Japan and Russia had all made contingency agreements with the Iraq oil ministry. The contingency was an end to the sanctions. France, China and Russia could have each or in concert Vetoed any continuation of the Sanction Regime.
You are partially correct on the period of occupation of Japan and Germany. German occupation ended in mid 1960 roughly 15 years after the surrender. Japan was released from occupation at about the same time, but I don't have the exact date. TROOPS remained in both countries as part of a mutual defense agreement. In Germany specifically as part of NATO. The Japan agreement is different, again I don't have the specifics. We also have troops permanently stationed in Korea, Turkey, Greece, Spain Poland, Hungary, and a number of other countries, not counting the Marine Security details at all our Embassies. As far as I know, the only country we have withdrawn combat forces from since we "left" Vietnam is Panama. And, we accomplished a Regime change there without occupying the country. China now controls the Panama Canal and is doing a huge construction project to increase the capacity of the Canal.
Final word: check my facts, I base my analysis on them, and they have been gathered, for the most part, from newspaper accounts, not official sources. Errors are a real possibility. I don't consider myself much of an authority.
