Is the US & the West quite simply addicted to ‘intervention’?

[craven]

Originally Posted by Sergio

The Clinton administration did a lot more than just congratulate the Taliban. And based on your vast knowledge of American foreign policy since 1945 you should have known about the Clinton administration and the Taliban. You would have been aware of the drive to engage them and build a working relationship with them. You would have been aware of the Taliban representatives in Texas. You would have heard the name Robin Raphel and understood what it meant in relation to the Taliban. Perhaps you would have known about the repeated diplomatic visits to Afghanistan. Or you might have been aware when and why the real turning point in the US-Taliban attempted relationship came. You would have remembered the campaign against the Taliban in the US because of their treatment of women. Similarly you would have also been aware of the various circles within the State Department which advocated a Taliban victory. Presumably if your knowledge of US foreign policy was as vast as you claim you would not have made such a basic error as to assume I meant the Mujahideen and been so in the dark of those events that someone else had to correct you. Live and learn I guess.

The Taliban were seen as a potential anti-Iranian, stabilising force which would be of use to Unocal. Try looking back at the newspapers at the time which did report some of this. Then again you do not need to as you know so much already. Bin Laden and his terrorist activities, the treatment of women which created a public stir at the time and a growing recognition that the Taliban were not going to control all of Aghanistan were major factors in the shift in policy.

um i was not correcting just proving clarity to your statement

[Sergio]

No problem - clarifying and not correcting it is.

[Ricthofen]

Originally Posted by Trailboss49

So, the West, notably the US, WANTS control over world affairs? Man, you have a very distorted view of the real world. I reckon we should just let the mullahs turn the world back to the 1400s? What, you got something against the only Superpower left in the world? Obviously you did.

Because if the US or NATO doesn't bomb a group of farmers armed with AK47s an ocean and continent away, said group of farmers will take over the world and turn it back to the 1400s.

[Trailboss49]

Originally Posted by Sergio

The Clinton administration did a lot more than just congratulate the Taliban. And based on your vast knowledge of American foreign policy since 1945 you should have known about the Clinton administration and the Taliban. You would have been aware of the drive to engage them and build a working relationship with them. You would have been aware of the Taliban representatives in Texas. You would have heard the name Robin Raphel and understood what it meant in relation to the Taliban. Perhaps you would have known about the repeated diplomatic visits to Afghanistan. Or you might have been aware when and why the real turning point in the US-Taliban attempted relationship came. You would have remembered the campaign against the Taliban in the US because of their treatment of women. Similarly you would have also been aware of the various circles within the State Department which advocated a Taliban victory. Presumably if your knowledge of US foreign policy was as vast as you claim you would not have made such a basic error as to assume I meant the Mujahideen and been so in the dark of those events that someone else had to correct you. Live and learn I guess.

The Taliban were seen as a potential anti-Iranian, stabilising force which would be of use to Unocal. Try looking back at the newspapers at the time which did report some of this. Then again you do not need to as you know so much already. Bin Laden and his terrorist activities, the treatment of women which created a public stir at the time and a growing recognition that the Taliban were not going to control all of Aghanistan were major factors in the shift in policy.

Yeah, yeah, yeah and Uncle Ho Chi Minh wrote a letter to the Prez of the US once upon a time which was never responded to and led to the death of millions.

Both you and the above statement have believers that both were important matters when in the consequence of world matters neither amounted to the piece of dog offal on a shoe which they were.

[Trailboss49]

Originally Posted by Ricthofen

Because if the US or NATO doesn't bomb a group of farmers armed with AK47s an ocean and continent away, said group of farmers will take over the world and turn it back to the 1400s.

You're way past scraping the bottom of the barrel on logic and have now gone over the deep end dredging fantasies up.

[Ricthofen]

Originally Posted by Trailboss49

You're way past scraping the bottom of the barrel on logic and have now gone over the deep end dredging fantasies up.

I'd agree if that'd not been what you said yourself, my friend.

[Sergio]

Originally Posted by Trailboss49

Yeah, yeah, yeah and Uncle Ho Chi Minh wrote a letter to the Prez of the US once upon a time which was never responded to and led to the death of millions.

Both you and the above statement have believers that both were important matters when in the consequence of world matters neither amounted to the piece of dog offal on a shoe which they were.

For you to characterise it as writing a letter to the President of the US and being ignored and so on suggests that you are still unaware of what truly transpired - and that it was American officials who were working to create a relationship with the Taliban.

You are obviously unaware of the facts and more to the point do not want to know anything that challenges your preconceptions. Whether the facts and the incidents are top of the list in terms of world affairs or not is not the point - the fact that they happened is.

The point is also that you also initially claimed none of it happened - your vast knowledge of foreign policy since the the Second World War I believe. Anyways will leave you to your unbigoted, fair and balanced view of history.

[Cyberknight]

Originally Posted by Sergio

For you to characterise it as writing a letter to the President of the US and being ignored and so on suggests that you are still unaware of what truly transpired - and that it was American officials who were working to create a relationship with the Taliban.

You are obviously unaware of the facts and more to the point do not want to know anything that challenges your preconceptions. Whether the facts and the incidents are top of the list in terms of world affairs or not is not the point - the fact that they happened is.

The point is also that you also initially claimed none of it happened - your vast knowledge of foreign policy since the the Second World War I believe. Anyways will leave you to your unbigoted, fair and balanced view of history.

There appears to be only one article, the same appears everywhere, by a supposed Pakistani journalist claiming that Taliban laders visited an oil HQ Texas in 1997 to discuss commercial licensing.

If these Afghans were allowed entry by the Clinton Administration and the State Department it hardly qualifies as racist or bigotted.

If you have links to something more substantial than the usual anti American diatribes, please feel free to enlighten us.

[Sergio]

The Taliban representatives visit to Texas was covered by the BBC-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/36735.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

I think there is a case of crossed wires here - where did I call the Clinton Administration racist and bigoted? My comment about unbigoted, fair and balanced was in response to another poster who had claimed that I had a bigoted view of history.

As to the wider subject of the Clinton Administration's efforts to court the Taliban, the background context of Unocal, CentGas (and Argentinian company Bridis), the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline and the various officials involved in meetings with The Taliban. All of this is a matter of public record - if you want a good solid American take on it (rather than a pesky foreigner) start off with Michael Rubin who as a former Pentagon official and lecturer to the military is presumably not one of those prone to 'the usual anti-American' diatribes.

Ahmed Rashid has written about it as well. And despite his being a Pakistani he is not given to the usual anti-American diatribes. There are plenty of others who have written about this and the info is there if you want it. There is even Dana Rohrabacher who has taken his claims and arguments about the Clinton involvement much further - though that is all debatable of course.

You can argue that the Clinton Administration's efforts to form a working relationship with the Taliban was a sensible political and diplomatic response to reality or something more unpleasant and involved depending upon your outlook. However, you cannot argue it did not happen or the reasons it happened. There are names and information for you to look up in an earlier post and several references in this one. Happy reading.

[Cyberknight]

Originally Posted by Sergio

The Taliban representatives visit to Texas was covered by the BBC-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/36735.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

I think there is a case of crossed wires here - where did I call the Clinton Administration racist and bigoted? My comment about unbigoted, fair and balanced was in response to another poster who had claimed that I had a bigoted view of history.

As to the wider subject of the Clinton Administration's efforts to court the Taliban, the background context of Unocal, CentGas (and Argentinian company Bridis), the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline and the various officials involved in meetings with The Taliban. All of this is a matter of public record - if you want a good solid American take on it (rather than a pesky foreigner) start off with Michael Rubin who as a former Pentagon official and lecturer to the military is presumably not one of those prone to 'the usual anti-American' diatribes.

Ahmed Rashid has written about it as well. And despite his being a Pakistani he is not given to the usual anti-American diatribes. There are plenty of others who have written about this and the info is there if you want it. There is even Dana Rohrabacher who has taken his claims and arguments about the Clinton involvement much further - though that is all debatable of course.

You can argue that the Clinton Administration's efforts to form a working relationship with the Taliban was a sensible political and diplomatic response to reality or something more unpleasant and involved depending upon your outlook. However, you cannot argue it did not happen or the reasons it happened. There are names and information for you to look up in an earlier post and several references in this one. Happy reading.

Clearly some nefarious conspiracy must be involved in a "we will pay you not to blow up our stuff" meeting with the Taliban.

Since the entirity of the message of the Marxists for half a century has been that those with wealth must pay those without it not to blow them up (with weapons supplied by communists), what is the significanc of these meetings? None, of course which is why the story remained so obscure.

[Sergio]

Marxist message? Could you elaborate on what you mean by that and also how it in any way relates to this topic. Unless I am missing a fairly obtuse connection to the Clinton Administration, the ISI, Saudi Arabia and the Taliban I really cannot see what Marxism has to do with this subject.

As for this particular incident - it has been public for a long time and for anyone interested in the recent history of the region who has read a bit it is fairly common knowledge. And if you scroll up to the initial exchange on the Taliban and the Clinton Administration you will see the context in which it was mentioned.

[Trailboss49]

Originally Posted by Sergio

Marxist message? Could you elaborate on what you mean by that...

"Political power comes from the end of a gun muzzle." Chairman Mao in his Little Red Book.

[Trailboss49]

Originally Posted by Sergio

As for this particular incident - it has been public for a long time and for anyone interested in the recent history of the region who has read a bit it is fairly common knowledge. And if you scroll up to the initial exchange on the Taliban and the Clinton Administration you will see the context in which it was mentioned.

Yeah, yeah, yeah and FDR shook hands with Stalin in Yalta. That means he endorsed the USSR killing off 30,000,000 of its citizens?

[Sergio]

I did not say that the Clinton Administration was responsible for the crimes of the Taliban. What I said - and quite clearly - is that there was a serious effort made to build a working relationship with them. There was also a serious and protracted effort to get the pipeline sorted and the deal done - which included bringing representatives to Texas.

If I read what you have written correctly you have shifted your position from claiming that the US had nothing whatsoever to do with the Taliban in its early days, to that it was the Taliban who were making the effort to approach the US (which some of them actually did over the years) to that it was not America's fault. You are either utterly incapable of understanding what I am saying or feel the need to twist the point that has been made. Either way you have been proven to (a) not know the basic background of the subject and moreover be unwilling to learn them as well as (b) be incapable of responding to factual info. So will leave you to it rather than waste more of my time.

[Trailboss49]

Originally Posted by Sergio

I did not say that the Clinton Administration was responsible for the crimes of the Taliban. What I said - and quite clearly - is that there was a serious effort made to build a working relationship with them. There was also a serious and protracted effort to get the pipeline sorted and the deal done - which included bringing representatives to Texas.

If I read what you have written correctly you have shifted your position from claiming that the US had nothing whatsoever to do with the Taliban in its early days, to that it was the Taliban who were making the effort to approach the US (which some of them actually did over the years) to that it was not America's fault. You are either utterly incapable of understanding what I am saying or feel the need to twist the point that has been made. Either way you have been proven to (a) not know the basic background of the subject and moreover be unwilling to learn them as well as (b) be incapable of responding to factual info. So will leave you to it rather than waste more of my time.

Lordy, lordy, lordy as my sainted Grandmother used to say just before she FOFLHAO.

No, what I showed was that you exaggerated the events. Historic events prove that out.

Please tell me, who was the US Ambassador to Afghanistan during the Taliban era? Yep, that's right, didn't find any names googling did you?