Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Nono · May 26, 2007, 08:45 am

Don't believe I've ever heard the columnist Eric Margolis mentioned on Volconvo. A self-described "Eisenhower Republican", he's certainly worth reading on a wide variety of topics.

Last month he neatly put Afghanistan in a nutshell:

"(...) The invasion of Afghanistan was marketed to Americans as an `anti-terrorist’ mission and effort to implant democracy. It was sold to Canadians as a noble campaign of `nation-building, reconstruction, and defending women’s rights.’ All nice-sounding, but mostly untrue.

What we are really seeing is a war by western powers seeking to dominate the strategic oil corridor of Afghanistan, directed against the Pashtun people who comprise half that nation’s population. Another 15 million live just across the border in Pakistan. What we call `Taliban’ is actually a loose alliance of Pashtun tribes and clans, joined by nationalist forces and former mujahidin from the 1980’s anti-Soviet struggle.

Last year, a leading authority on Afghanistan, the Brussels-based Senlis Institute, found Taliban and its allies control or influence half of the nation – roughly equivalent to Pashtun tribal territory. Its study flatly contradicted rosy reports of military success and `nation-building’ from Washington and NATO HQ.

This week, the same think tank issued a shocking new survey based on 17,000 interviews. `Afghanis in southern Afghanistan are increasingly prepared to admit their support for Taliban, and belief that the government and international community will not be able to defeat the Taliban is widespread. (...)"

Eric Margolis | Foreign Correspondent : THE ENDLESS WAR

bishop · May 26, 2007, 11:35 am

geopolitics aside, the afghani/pakistani region is fertile ground for endless war.. the societies are closer to the stone age (symbolized by how the men treat the women), there is no formal economy, there is no education/literacy and weapons are as easy to get a hold of as are rocks..

look at other parts of the world with similar attributes and they too are embroiled in seemingly endless states of war.

and as far as afghanistan goes, when the public begins to voice support for a particular faction that means that they believe that faction will inevitably win. this was formerly the case when the northern alliance was poised to take over, thanks to our military. civilians know that you want to be on the good side of whatever brutal faction ends victorious.

Mozart1220 · May 26, 2007, 12:14 pm

The war in Iraq was not for us, it was ordered by Saudi Arabia, and since the Bush family owes them, and SA owns about 20% of our Nat'l debt, we had no choice.

BTW, where did Bin Laden and most of the alleged 9-11 hijackers come from?

I'm just saying....

Nono · May 27, 2007, 06:27 am

Quote:

Quote by: bishop

civilians know that you want to be on the good side of whatever brutal faction ends victorious.

Yes, because when the Westerners give up and go home, in two or five or however many years, the civilians will still have to live there.

The Decider · May 27, 2007, 11:19 am

Quote:

Quote by: Mozart1220

The war in Iraq was not for us, it was ordered by Saudi Arabia, and since the Bush family owes them, and SA owns about 20% of our Nat'l debt, we had no choice.

BTW, where did Bin Laden and most of the alleged 9-11 hijackers come from?

I'm just saying....

Saudi Arabia owns 20% of US debt? Not according the latest US Treasury Department figures. The US debt owned by all Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia, is $113 billion. The total US debt in March 2007: $2196.7 trillion.

Saudi Arabia may have "ordered" the US to attack Iraq, I really don't know. But debt ownership levels seem unlikely to bolster that case.

Nor is it relevant to the OP, unless the Saudi Arabia-Ordered-It theory extends to the war in Afghanistan.

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

notworthabean · May 27, 2007, 10:06 pm

1) Bishop is right that the reason the civilians are starting to side with the taliban is that they are scared the US will leave.

2) while its true that this area is fertile for a "long war" scenario it wouldn't be a long total war but a war involving a small amount of our special ops guys, to manage local forces we support.

Nono · May 28, 2007, 02:45 pm

Quote:

Quote by: bean

They are scared the US will leave.

They know the US will leave. As it always does.

bishop · May 28, 2007, 11:45 pm

or, as any other country would do in the same situation...

of course, the u.s. isn't the only country in afghanstan. it's a nato-endorsed and supported mission.

brien · May 29, 2007, 01:04 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Nono

They know the US will leave. As it always does.

The sooner the better.

Zhavric · May 29, 2007, 03:09 pm

Here's my take on it.

There's a document online that was written by the Air Force in the mid 90's called "Gulliver's Travails". It's alternative history of the world up until the year 2025. In this history of the future, a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is used to swing the will of the people into going after asian / middle eastern oil fields.

Was our government behind 9/11? Likely. Do I have proof? No.

Have they used 9/11 to their advantage? Certainly.

Think for a moment of the president stating to a news conference, "My fellow Americans. I'd like to invade Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan to make sure they export their oil to us so our economy doesn't collapse."

Think anyone would go with that? I don't.

Going after oil doesn't sell. It smacks of corporations in bed with government and cronyism. A war against terrorism? That's much more agreeable to the American people who, back in 2002, were still mad with grief.

The military plan was simple:

1) Invade afghanistan.
2) Invade Iraq.
3) Consolidate both areas as people run to embrace their liberators.
4) Trump up some stuff about Iran / get Iran paranoid enough to do something stupid / claim Iran is funding terrorism.
5) Invade Iran from two sides. Again, liberate its people with democracy.
6) Control, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan through pupper governments and thus control the last of the low-hanging fruit of the oil tree.

Understand that oil is a limited resource that's tied to everything. The food you eat? It takes oil to produce pesticides, oil to grow & harvest it, oil to make sure it doesn't spoil, and oil to transport it. Same for everything else in your house.

Everything.

Imagine for a moment if the price of a gallon of gasoline went from $3.00 to $300.00 in less than 60 days. The economy would collapse. Chaos on a major scale.

So, there is an end to this war. The war will end when we run out of oil and the global economy collapses.

For more cheery thoughts, check out this site.

May 26, 2007, 08:45 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Nono Throbbing Member Location: Old Europe Posts: 6,760	The Endless War Don't believe I've ever heard the columnist Eric Margolis mentioned on Volconvo. A self-described "Eisenhower Republican", he's certainly worth reading on a wide variety of topics. Last month he neatly put Afghanistan in a nutshell: "(...) The invasion of Afghanistan was marketed to Americans as an `anti-terrorist’ mission and effort to implant democracy. It was sold to Canadians as a noble campaign of `nation-building, reconstruction, and defending women’s rights.’ All nice-sounding, but mostly untrue. What we are really seeing is a war by western powers seeking to dominate the strategic oil corridor of Afghanistan, directed against the Pashtun people who comprise half that nation’s population. Another 15 million live just across the border in Pakistan. What we call `Taliban’ is actually a loose alliance of Pashtun tribes and clans, joined by nationalist forces and former mujahidin from the 1980’s anti-Soviet struggle. Last year, a leading authority on Afghanistan, the Brussels-based Senlis Institute, found Taliban and its allies control or influence half of the nation – roughly equivalent to Pashtun tribal territory. Its study flatly contradicted rosy reports of military success and `nation-building’ from Washington and NATO HQ. This week, the same think tank issued a shocking new survey based on 17,000 interviews. `Afghanis in southern Afghanistan are increasingly prepared to admit their support for Taliban, and belief that the government and international community will not be able to defeat the Taliban is widespread. (...)" Eric Margolis \| Foreign Correspondent : THE ENDLESS WAR "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." -- Viscount Melbourne

May 26, 2007, 11:35 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	geopolitics aside, the afghani/pakistani region is fertile ground for endless war.. the societies are closer to the stone age (symbolized by how the men treat the women), there is no formal economy, there is no education/literacy and weapons are as easy to get a hold of as are rocks.. look at other parts of the world with similar attributes and they too are embroiled in seemingly endless states of war. and as far as afghanistan goes, when the public begins to voice support for a particular faction that means that they believe that faction will inevitably win. this was formerly the case when the northern alliance was poised to take over, thanks to our military. civilians know that you want to be on the good side of whatever brutal faction ends victorious. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

May 26, 2007, 12:14 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Mozart1220 Igneous Magma Posts: 687	The war in Iraq was not for us, it was ordered by Saudi Arabia, and since the Bush family owes them, and SA owns about 20% of our Nat'l debt, we had no choice. BTW, where did Bin Laden and most of the alleged 9-11 hijackers come from? I'm just saying.... Big Jr is watching you!

May 28, 2007, 11:45 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	or, as any other country would do in the same situation... of course, the u.s. isn't the only country in afghanstan. it's a nato-endorsed and supported mission. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

May 27, 2007, 10:06 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
notworthabean libertarian neocon Location: north east Posts: 630	1) Bishop is right that the reason the civilians are starting to side with the taliban is that they are scared the US will leave. 2) while its true that this area is fertile for a "long war" scenario it wouldn't be a long total war but a war involving a small amount of our special ops guys, to manage local forces we support.

May 29, 2007, 03:09 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Zhavric SUSPENDED (1 Week) Posts: 3,571	Here's my take on it. There's a document online that was written by the Air Force in the mid 90's called "Gulliver's Travails". It's alternative history of the world up until the year 2025. In this history of the future, a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is used to swing the will of the people into going after asian / middle eastern oil fields. Was our government behind 9/11? Likely. Do I have proof? No. Have they used 9/11 to their advantage? Certainly. Think for a moment of the president stating to a news conference, "My fellow Americans. I'd like to invade Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan to make sure they export their oil to us so our economy doesn't collapse." Think anyone would go with that? I don't. Going after oil doesn't sell. It smacks of corporations in bed with government and cronyism. A war against terrorism? That's much more agreeable to the American people who, back in 2002, were still mad with grief. The military plan was simple: 1) Invade afghanistan. 2) Invade Iraq. 3) Consolidate both areas as people run to embrace their liberators. 4) Trump up some stuff about Iran / get Iran paranoid enough to do something stupid / claim Iran is funding terrorism. 5) Invade Iran from two sides. Again, liberate its people with democracy. 6) Control, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan through pupper governments and thus control the last of the low-hanging fruit of the oil tree. Understand that oil is a limited resource that's tied to everything. The food you eat? It takes oil to produce pesticides, oil to grow & harvest it, oil to make sure it doesn't spoil, and oil to transport it. Same for everything else in your house. Everything. Imagine for a moment if the price of a gallon of gasoline went from $3.00 to $300.00 in less than 60 days. The economy would collapse. Chaos on a major scale. So, there is an end to this war. The war will end when we run out of oil and the global economy collapses. For more cheery thoughts, check out this site.