Afghani War

2

Comments

  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Canada should never have committed troops to Afghanistan. The Liberal government was pandering to USians. Needless Canadian deaths.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Caissa wrote: »
    USians

    The word is "Americans."
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Caissa wrote: »
    Canada should never have committed troops to Afghanistan. The Liberal government was pandering to USians. Needless Canadian deaths.

    Michael Ignatieff didn't pander to anyone. He is his own man. A liberal interventionist. Like Blair. And me. As was.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Sojourner wrote: »
    North Korea was hardly beaten easily; the conflict dragged on for 3 years and there were many lives lost
    MacArthur had chased them all the way to the Chinese border and then the Chinese intervened to save them.

    The Chinese intervened to save themselves from the Americans on their border.

    The Americans had no plans to go into China
    The Chinese were certainly worried about America being on their border. With USA agreement to support the French retaking Vietnam instead of supporting its independence. Fear of colonialism.

    I'm none too sure how your comment about Chinese worries deals with Telford's point that the US had no plans to invade. To go back a step, the US as such did not have a presence in Korea. Its troops were there as the major component of a UN force there to deal with a North Korean invasion of the South. Although the US provided well over 75% of the UN force (from memory it was close to 90%) it was careful not to act on its own.
  • There's also the question of whether China knew that the UN (and by inference America) had no plans to cross the border - surely it didn't matter what *was* planned, it was what the Chinese *thought* might be planned that was the issue.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    Canada should never have committed troops to Afghanistan. The Liberal government was pandering to USians. Needless Canadian deaths.

    Michael Ignatieff didn't pander to anyone. He is his own man. A liberal interventionist. Like Blair. And me. As was.

    You need to review your history. Ignatieff wasn't part of the government, or even an MP, when Canada commited troops to Afghanistan in 2001. In fact, the Liberals were in opposition for the entirety of his political career.

    Before his entry into politics, I'd wager that Ignatieff enjoyed a higher profile in the UK and possibly the US than he did in Canada. And since his departure, I'd say that's probably once again true.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    Canada should never have committed troops to Afghanistan. The Liberal government was pandering to USians. Needless Canadian deaths.

    Michael Ignatieff didn't pander to anyone. He is his own man. A liberal interventionist. Like Blair. And me. As was.

    You need to review your history. Ignatieff wasn't part of the government, or even an MP, when Canada commited troops to Afghanistan in 2001. In fact, the Liberals were in opposition for the entirety of his political career.

    Before his entry into politics, I'd wager that Ignatieff enjoyed a higher profile in the UK and possibly the US than he did in Canada. And since his departure, I'd say that's probably once again true.

    I'm fully aware of the timing, I regard him as symptomatic of the culture. Liberal interventionism was de rigueur since Palmerston and Wilson in the US as liberal internationalism. 10+ years either side of 2000 it was lashed out wholesale.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Caissa wrote: »
    Canada should never have committed troops to Afghanistan. The Liberal government was pandering to USians. Needless Canadian deaths.

    Canada is a part of NATO. Part of the Alliance Charter says, in so many words, if one country in the alliance is attacked, the other nations will join in its defense. Granted, it was aimed at containing the Soviet Union, but the charter is still there. Remember, when the World Trade Center was attacked, there were also Canadians who died there.

    Nevertheless, as a Yankee, I thank the Canadian people for joining us in the war to eliminate Al Qaida, and in particular, Osama Ben Laden. However, I agree the war went much too long, and the Allied deaths were too high if not needless.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Martin 54 wrote: Michael Ignatieff didn't pander to anyone.

    To which Caissa points out that Jean Chretien was the PM that brought Canada into the war in Afghanistan.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    Canada should never have committed troops to Afghanistan. The Liberal government was pandering to USians. Needless Canadian deaths.

    Canada is a part of NATO. Part of the Alliance Charter says, in so many words, if one country in the alliance is attacked, the other nations will join in its defense. Granted, it was aimed at containing the Soviet Union, but the charter is still there. Remember, when the World Trade Center was attacked, there were also Canadians who died there.

    Was it specifically the NATO Charter that compelled Canada to join? No one else in NATO sent troops when Britain took back the Falklands, for example.

  • stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    Canada should never have committed troops to Afghanistan. The Liberal government was pandering to USians. Needless Canadian deaths.

    Canada is a part of NATO. Part of the Alliance Charter says, in so many words, if one country in the alliance is attacked, the other nations will join in its defense. Granted, it was aimed at containing the Soviet Union, but the charter is still there. Remember, when the World Trade Center was attacked, there were also Canadians who died there.

    Was it specifically the NATO Charter that compelled Canada to join? No one else in NATO sent troops when Britain took back the Falklands, for example.

    I may be misremembering but I seem to recall that most of Britain's overseas territories are not covered by the North Atlantic Treaty, because it covers attacks only in Europe or North America.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    Canada should never have committed troops to Afghanistan. The Liberal government was pandering to USians. Needless Canadian deaths.

    Canada is a part of NATO. Part of the Alliance Charter says, in so many words, if one country in the alliance is attacked, the other nations will join in its defense. Granted, it was aimed at containing the Soviet Union, but the charter is still there. Remember, when the World Trade Center was attacked, there were also Canadians who died there.

    Nevertheless, as a Yankee, I thank the Canadian people for joining us in the war to eliminate Al Qaida, and in particular, Osama Ben Laden. However, I agree the war went much too long, and the Allied deaths were too high if not needless.

    The Afghan deaths exceeded outsider deaths.
    Al Qaeda was not eliminated.
    The country is a mess, a different mess since invasion, and perhaps hard to determine which mess is messier.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    Canada should never have committed troops to Afghanistan. The Liberal government was pandering to USians. Needless Canadian deaths.

    Canada is a part of NATO. Part of the Alliance Charter says, in so many words, if one country in the alliance is attacked, the other nations will join in its defense. Granted, it was aimed at containing the Soviet Union, but the charter is still there. Remember, when the World Trade Center was attacked, there were also Canadians who died there.

    Was it specifically the NATO Charter that compelled Canada to join? No one else in NATO sent troops when Britain took back the Falklands, for example.

    I may be misremembering but I seem to recall that most of Britain's overseas territories are not covered by the North Atlantic Treaty, because it covers attacks only in Europe or North America.

    Wouldn't be much use to Turkey, then, a NATO member for decades.

    The Korean War started with an attack by a Communist dictatorship on a quasi-democratic but militaristic autocracy, itself guilty of massacres of opponents and minorities before the war. It also began less than a year after the declaration of the People's Republic of China, which further scared America who had supported the Nationalists. As the Nationalists retained China's seat on the UN Security Council - and the Soviet Union withdrew in protest - the timing and the odds were too good for the US not to try to roll back the red tide. In making use of this situation, this was going to be the only time (I think) the UNSC would approve sending a UN offensive force as opposed to peace-keeping units. South Korea/Republic of Korea was certainly no picture-book democracy for the West to defend at all costs.

    I don't think there is any doubt that Douglas MacArthur would have invaded China if Truman would have let him, and certainly US support for Taiwan/Republic of China would have pushed for an attack on the PRC which was still establishing control over the whole of the country. Given what the Chinese troops did to the UN/US troops over the course of the war, it may be just as well that MacArthur was fired before he could cross into China.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    If you scroll to the bottom of this article you will get George Bush's take on the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/20/politics/george-w-bush-republican-party/index.html
  • Caissa wrote: »
    If you scroll to the bottom of this article you will get George Bush's take on the withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/20/politics/george-w-bush-republican-party/index.html

    Given his involvement in the whole mess, a 'period of silence from him would be most welcome', preferably until he explains his actions to a higher authority.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    Canada should never have committed troops to Afghanistan. The Liberal government was pandering to USians. Needless Canadian deaths.

    Canada is a part of NATO. Part of the Alliance Charter says, in so many words, if one country in the alliance is attacked, the other nations will join in its defense. Granted, it was aimed at containing the Soviet Union, but the charter is still there. Remember, when the World Trade Center was attacked, there were also Canadians who died there.

    Nevertheless, as a Yankee, I thank the Canadian people for joining us in the war to eliminate Al Qaida, and in particular, Osama Ben Laden. However, I agree the war went much too long, and the Allied deaths were too high if not needless.

    Hail Caesar.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    AA
    stetson wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    Canada should never have committed troops to Afghanistan. The Liberal government was pandering to USians. Needless Canadian deaths.

    Canada is a part of NATO. Part of the Alliance Charter says, in so many words, if one country in the alliance is attacked, the other nations will join in its defense. Granted, it was aimed at containing the Soviet Union, but the charter is still there. Remember, when the World Trade Center was attacked, there were also Canadians who died there.

    Was it specifically the NATO Charter that compelled Canada to join? No one else in NATO sent troops when Britain took back the Falklands, for example.

    The biggest difference between the Falkland war and the War against Al Qaida is the Falklands was a tiny archipelago in the South Atlantic whereas Al Qaida had already proven itself as an international terrorist organization. If the Brits had asked for support, I would imagine the allies would have responded. France did help provide training for the British Air Force on how to fight against the very planes it had provided to Argentina over time. The Yankees helped provide fuel to the Royal Navy at the Azores and inflight fueling for the bombers flying out of the United Kingdom. In addition, USA provided electronic and satellite intelligence to the Brits. Other countries along the west coast of Africa assisted Great Britain in the run-up to the final Falkland battle.

    However, it was also the last gasp of Rule Britannica. There was a great pride to be able to defend its colony.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    A baseball team with in-flight refueling tankers. Will wonders never cease.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited April 21
    Founded by Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda was backed by the CIA from 1979 in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, over by 1989 thanks, in the mind of the Ummah and his, to the hero of jihad. Five years after the 1991 Gulf War infidel America was still overstaying its welcome in the sacred land of Saudi Arabia and he issued his first fatwa calling for American soldiers to leave.

    'In a second fatwā in 1998, bin Laden outlined his objections to American foreign policy with respect to Israel, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War. Bin Laden used Islamic texts to exhort Muslims to attack Americans until the stated grievances were reversed. Muslim legal scholars "have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries", according to bin Laden.'

    Bin Laden's broadcast from a cave, just like Muhammad's humble military origins, didn't penetrate the thick, white, male, arrogant Western skulls in Langley or Quantico.

    Four months after 9/11 he broadcast this,

    'It has become clear that the West in general and America in particular have an unspeakable hatred for Islam. ... It is the hatred of crusaders. Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people. ... We say that the end of the United States is imminent, whether Bin Laden or his followers are alive or dead, for the awakening of the Muslim umma (nation) has occurred'.

    Humble hubris is far more dangerous than the arrogant hubris that provokes it. And doesn't notice. For five years.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »

    Bin Laden's broadcast from a cave, just like Muhammad's humble military origins, didn't penetrate the thick, white, male, arrogant Western skulls in Langley or Quantico.

    What's with the gender angle here? Were women more receptive to Osama Bin Laden's message than men?

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited April 21
    stetson wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    Bin Laden's broadcast from a cave, just like Muhammad's humble military origins, didn't penetrate the thick, white, male, arrogant Western skulls in Langley or Quantico.

    What's with the gender angle here? Were women more receptive to Osama Bin Laden's message than men?

    I wouldn't be at all surprised, but as they were in a power minority in the US intelligence community, we'll never know. That nobody in academia picked up on it is also salient. The same applies in the rest of the 5i's, Germany, France. The West (i.e. Western patriarchy) vastly underestimated Bin Laden's.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Founded by Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda was backed by the CIA from 1979 in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, over by 1989 thanks, in the mind of the Ummah and his, to the hero of jihad. Five years after the 1991 Gulf War infidel America was still overstaying its welcome in the sacred land of Saudi Arabia and he issued his first fatwa calling for American soldiers to leave.

    'In a second fatwā in 1998, bin Laden outlined his objections to American foreign policy with respect to Israel, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War. Bin Laden used Islamic texts to exhort Muslims to attack Americans until the stated grievances were reversed. Muslim legal scholars "have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries", according to bin Laden.'

    Bin Laden's broadcast from a cave, just like Muhammad's humble military origins, didn't penetrate the thick, white, male, arrogant Western skulls in Langley or Quantico.

    Four months after 9/11 he broadcast this,

    'It has become clear that the West in general and America in particular have an unspeakable hatred for Islam. ... It is the hatred of crusaders. Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people. ... We say that the end of the United States is imminent, whether Bin Laden or his followers are alive or dead, for the awakening of the Muslim umma (nation) has occurred'.

    Humble hubris is far more dangerous than the arrogant hubris that provokes it. And doesn't notice. For five years.

    Your details are correct. Bin Laden was indeed the USA's creation against the USSR. Actually Jimmy Carter and his national security advisor Zbignew Brzeznski. Which gave Bin Laden and company, called the Mujahadeen at the time, the idea that they, not Ronald Reagan and company had taken the USSR down. Yup, Bin Laden turned to fighting another Satan, this time the USA. It gave him the same sort of ideas that were popular in the USA at the end of the last century: that the USA was the only superpower and could unilaterally do what it wanted in the world, didn't need to consider other nations. That the USA had defeated the USSR. Except Bin Laden believed that Islam had done it.

    But, no, the west and the USA do not have a hatred is Islam. Religion is not what it is about. It is about geo-political control to make money. There's no other motivation. The British controlled India for centuries and refused to discuss anything other than control of it for the same reasons. (Which is where Churchill showed himself to be racist and very much 19th century in his thinking)
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited April 21
    That feels like hatred to the marginalized in the meat grinder.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Which gave Bin Laden and company, called the Mujahadeen at the time,

    Not quite right. The Mujahadeen are basically a loose organization of War Lords in Afghanistan. Bin Laden never really fit into that group. He was part of the group known as the Afghan Arabs. While the CIA did support the Mujahadeen it was careful not to support the Afghan Arabs because it was felt they could turn their attacks on Israel.

    When the United States and company finally did invade Afghanistan many members of the Mujahadeen also joined in the attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda because they too wanted to expel Al Qaeda from their country.

    The Taliban was a faction of the Mujahadeen that took over Kabul, but there were other warlords in the north that remained opposed to them. Even if the Taliban retake Kabul, the civil war will continue among the warlords.
  • The information suggests more strongly that he was the USA's man (so was Saddam and Noriega, Pinochet). There's a great wish post-Sept 11 attacks to deny this and ill-advised links to other bad people. Read further:

    https://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

    https://newsone.com/1205745/cia-osama-bin-laden-al-qaeda/

    I haven't read this stuff for quite a while. The former neo-can "Project for an American Century" which stated in September 2000 (1 year before the Sept 11 attacks) that the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance. Rebuilding America's Defences, p51, link to PDF via the "way back machine", the document was taken off line and the organization disbanded. The list of involved people is rather startling.

    It is easy to go down a rabbit hole of conspiracies and believe all sorts of things. When there's info about it, then the denial, looks like conspiracy too.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    The former neo-can "Project for an American Century" which stated in September 2000 (1 year before the Sept 11 attacks) that the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance. Rebuilding America's Defences, p51, link to PDF via the "way back machine",
    This is bullshit, which you’ve tried to spread before.
  • The "Project for the new American Century" did exist and was a topic of concern around the time Bush the lesser entered office, and the speculation about the effect of a "Pearl Harbour" event was part of their manifesto. What part are you actually disputing?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Which gave Bin Laden and company, called the Mujahadeen at the time,

    Not quite right. The Mujahadeen are basically a loose organization of War Lords in Afghanistan. Bin Laden never really fit into that group. He was part of the group known as the Afghan Arabs. While the CIA did support the Mujahadeen it was careful not to support the Afghan Arabs because it was felt they could turn their attacks on Israel.

    When the United States and company finally did invade Afghanistan many members of the Mujahadeen also joined in the attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda because they too wanted to expel Al Qaeda from their country.

    The Taliban was a faction of the Mujahadeen that took over Kabul, but there were other warlords in the north that remained opposed to them. Even if the Taliban retake Kabul, the civil war will continue among the warlords.

    You're right @Gramps49. Contrary to my assumption that US support for anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan was seamless. It wasn't. British government sources to the contrary notwithstanding.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    @NOprophet_NØprofit

    Your sources are bogus.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    edited April 21
    The "Project for the new American Century" did exist and was a topic of concern around the time Bush the lesser entered office, and the speculation about the effect of a "Pearl Harbour" event was part of their manifesto. What part are you actually disputing?
    The part that I quoted. They did not say “the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance”. And the document referred to wasn’t a “manifesto.”
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited April 21
    I believe that Brzezinski quote is authentic, but I've read at least one mainstream source that argued he was concocting after-the-fact rationales for what took place.

    One thing I've always found odd about the Brzezinski narrative is...

    Okay, so Jimmy and Zbig were privately high-fiving each other for having given the Soviets their own Vietnam. But meanwhile, the public was villifying Carter for being soft on Communism, as a result of having let the invasion happen on his watch.

    Okay, I get maybe there were national-security reasons that Carter couldn't come right out and say "This is exactly what we WANTED to have happen!!", but still. It really was too bad that he couldn't find some way to communicate to the public that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was(according to Zbig) such a glorious success for US foreign-policy.
  • edited April 21
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    @NOprophet_NØprofit

    Your sources are bogus.

    Not they're not. Please see below
    Dave W wrote: »
    The former neo-can "Project for an American Century" which stated in September 2000 (1 year before the Sept 11 attacks) that the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance. Rebuilding America's Defences, p51, link to PDF via the "way back machine",
    This is bullshit, which you’ve tried to spread before.

    No it isn't. It's quite unpalatable, shocking and awful. But it isn't B.S.

    You and @Gramps49 are completely wrong on this.


    The document itself - is this what you are disputing?
    That the organization existed - is this what you're disputing?
    Note that the USA's Library of Congress has an archive of it: https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0011283/ , which you can read. Unless you also believe that the USA's Library of Congress is bogus and B.S., in which case, perhaps you believe nothing.

    At the Library of Congress site, you can go to their "snapshots" page, choose a date and read the exact same document I linked to above. It's quite a bit slower for me to load than the "way back archive" I used earlier. It is the same document. On the Library of Congress site, after the snapshots page loads, click on "defense and national security" on the Project of the New American Century site page and you will see "View the Project for the New American Century's report, Rebuilding America's Defenses released September 2000.". I randomly chose March 2006 as my snapshot today. Chose another date if you like.

    The quote in question reads (p50-51):
    A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force
    from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence,
    would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American
    allies.

    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.

    This document dates from September 2000.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    edited April 21
    That does not say “the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance”.

    Here’s the full paragraph in which Pearl Harbor is mentioned:
    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.
    They’re clearly expecting their policies to take a long time - they’re neither expecting an attack nor agitating for one.

    Your repeated mention of this one throw-away aside is nothing more than playing footsie with 9/11 trutherism. This was bullshit the last two times you dredged it up, it’s bullshit now, and it will be bullshit the next time you haul it out again.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Anyone who really wants to check the tedious thing can find a much more convenient link here and judge for themselves.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    @NOprophet_NØprofit

    Just because material put out by the Project for a New American Century has a Library of Congress entry does not mean the material was valid. It identified itself as a neoconservative organization that wanted to put the Republican Party on what it saw as the right path (ie America First). In 2006 it declared its mission accomplished. Of course, it has now reformed. But it's premises allowed for seriously mistaken conclusions.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    And counterpunch is a far left publication often linked by the trots I argue with in another place. The articles I see generally begin with a statement of faith in America's evil, before going on to set out the writer's opinion of the particular evil de jour, and then linking it back to the existential evil that is America and Americans.

    It is very like reading Pravda, or watching RT. It is also eerily similar to Fox News, just with different biases. I put Rachael Maddow in that Fox category BTW. Her show is equally myopic.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    That does not say “the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance”.

    Here’s the full paragraph in which Pearl Harbor is mentioned:
    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.
    They’re clearly expecting their policies to take a long time - they’re neither expecting an attack nor agitating for one.

    Your repeated mention of this one throw-away aside is nothing more than playing footsie with 9/11 trutherism. This was bullshit the last two times you dredged it up, it’s bullshit now, and it will be bullshit the next time you haul it out again.

    There is a huge difference between suggesting that the September 11th attacks were faked or a false flag, and saying that the neo-cons exploited the attacks to push agendas they already had in place (e.g. regime change in Iraq). The Pearl Harbour note is indicative not of a desire to see such an attack but of a willingness to use such an attack for their own ends. It's a variant on "never let a good crisis go to waste", or Lenin's conception of war as the "mighty accelerator" of the revolution. The grey area between the two is the possibility that neo-cons ignored warnings of an attack, either (at the most grave end) knowing the scale and planning on using it, or (at the lower end of the scale) expecting another botched attack or relatively minor bombing that would feed their narrative.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    That does not say “the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance”.

    Here’s the full paragraph in which Pearl Harbor is mentioned:
    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.
    They’re clearly expecting their policies to take a long time - they’re neither expecting an attack nor agitating for one.

    Your repeated mention of this one throw-away aside is nothing more than playing footsie with 9/11 trutherism. This was bullshit the last two times you dredged it up, it’s bullshit now, and it will be bullshit the next time you haul it out again.

    There is a huge difference between suggesting that the September 11th attacks were faked or a false flag, and saying that the neo-cons exploited the attacks to push agendas they already had in place (e.g. regime change in Iraq).
    There is - and NP's post is clearly implying the former.
    The Pearl Harbour note is indicative not of a desire to see such an attack but of a willingness to use such an attack for their own ends. It's a variant on "never let a good crisis go to waste", or Lenin's conception of war as the "mighty accelerator" of the revolution. The grey area between the two is the possibility that neo-cons ignored warnings of an attack, either (at the most grave end) knowing the scale and planning on using it, or (at the lower end of the scale) expecting another botched attack or relatively minor bombing that would feed their narrative.

    By "such an attack" do you mean "something like 9/11" or something like "actual Pearl Harbor"? I think it's a mistake to read back into this report an attitude towards something that hadn't happened yet. There's no particular reason to think a reference to "Pearl Harbor" in September of 2000 meant something like "terrorists flying airplanes into buildings." At the time the most salient reference would have been the 1941 military attack by the Empire of Japan. You may think it deplorable that "such an attack" could lead to a transformation of the US military, but I think it's harder to make the case that it shouldn't.
  • I imply nothing. You may infer but please don't infer what I think. It's a document written by powerful conservative men who went on to reshape the middle east. It set policy, gov'ts took advantage of things as they occurred.

    The list of people involved with the project include quite a number of recognizable names internationally as forming USA policies: William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, Francis Fukuyama, Jeb Bush. Full list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#People_associated_with_the_PNAC

    It'd be interesting to know the specific contributions to their documents and position papers. I'm not aware of any repudiation by any of them. Certainly the response to events was shaped by it.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    I imply nothing. You may infer but please don't infer what I think.
    I shouldn't infer what you think from what you write? That's nonsense.

    If you're going to post about 9/11, claim the PNAC report said "the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance", and then say "it looks like conspiracy", you can't reasonably complain when people notice that you're dabbling in 9/11 trutherism.
  • I didn't write it. They did.
    It's obviously something you think about. The word "trutherism" is a new one for me.
    You posted that you thought this group and their document was B.S.

    My point is that the USA had plans for the Middle East, and took any and all opportunity.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    That does not say “the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance”.

    Here’s the full paragraph in which Pearl Harbor is mentioned:
    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.
    They’re clearly expecting their policies to take a long time - they’re neither expecting an attack nor agitating for one.

    Your repeated mention of this one throw-away aside is nothing more than playing footsie with 9/11 trutherism. This was bullshit the last two times you dredged it up, it’s bullshit now, and it will be bullshit the next time you haul it out again.

    There is a huge difference between suggesting that the September 11th attacks were faked or a false flag, and saying that the neo-cons exploited the attacks to push agendas they already had in place (e.g. regime change in Iraq). The Pearl Harbour note is indicative not of a desire to see such an attack but of a willingness to use such an attack for their own ends. It's a variant on "never let a good crisis go to waste", or Lenin's conception of war as the "mighty accelerator" of the revolution. The grey area between the two is the possibility that neo-cons ignored warnings of an attack, either (at the most grave end) knowing the scale and planning on using it, or (at the lower end of the scale) expecting another botched attack or relatively minor bombing that would feed their narrative.

    There was no indication of a most grave end whatsoever. Nobody saw 9/11 coming. Nobody.
  • The @Arethosemyfeet quote is pretty much what I think went on, and thanks @Martin54 for bringing it forward.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    I didn't write it. They did.
    It's obviously something you think about. The word "trutherism" is a new one for me.
    You posted that you thought this group and their document was B.S.
    No, I'm saying that in this post you are spreading bullshit about what's in that document. I'm glad that you now know that "9/11 trutherism" is a common description for the conspiracy theory you're indulging in.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    That does not say “the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance”.

    Here’s the full paragraph in which Pearl Harbor is mentioned:
    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.
    They’re clearly expecting their policies to take a long time - they’re neither expecting an attack nor agitating for one.

    Your repeated mention of this one throw-away aside is nothing more than playing footsie with 9/11 trutherism. This was bullshit the last two times you dredged it up, it’s bullshit now, and it will be bullshit the next time you haul it out again.

    There is a huge difference between suggesting that the September 11th attacks were faked or a false flag, and saying that the neo-cons exploited the attacks to push agendas they already had in place (e.g. regime change in Iraq). The Pearl Harbour note is indicative not of a desire to see such an attack but of a willingness to use such an attack for their own ends. It's a variant on "never let a good crisis go to waste", or Lenin's conception of war as the "mighty accelerator" of the revolution. The grey area between the two is the possibility that neo-cons ignored warnings of an attack, either (at the most grave end) knowing the scale and planning on using it, or (at the lower end of the scale) expecting another botched attack or relatively minor bombing that would feed their narrative.

    There was no indication of a most grave end whatsoever. Nobody saw 9/11 coming. Nobody.

    I strongly disagree with your statement. When Bush was in transition, Clinton's team warned of an imminent strike by Al Qaeda. Foreign intelligence services were telling the CIA of increased activities among Al Qaeda channels. About a month before 9/11 a van carrying Al Qaeda operatives was stopped at the Canadian border in Blaine, WA. Their target had been the Space Needle in Seattle. Just days before the attack the National Security Chief had warned Bush of an imminent attack with potential targets in NYC and Washington DC. To which Bush said, "thanks for your input," and went fishing.

    When the attack happened, he was in Florida about to read to a second-grade class. When his aids told him what had happened he had the look of a deer in the headlights. (See Fahrenheit 9/11).

    Wikipedia has a short outline on its site. But a more detailed story is from Politico here.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    That does not say “the USA needed a "Pearl Harbor" event to rally the people for USA dominance”.

    Here’s the full paragraph in which Pearl Harbor is mentioned:
    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.
    They’re clearly expecting their policies to take a long time - they’re neither expecting an attack nor agitating for one.

    Your repeated mention of this one throw-away aside is nothing more than playing footsie with 9/11 trutherism. This was bullshit the last two times you dredged it up, it’s bullshit now, and it will be bullshit the next time you haul it out again.

    There is a huge difference between suggesting that the September 11th attacks were faked or a false flag, and saying that the neo-cons exploited the attacks to push agendas they already had in place (e.g. regime change in Iraq). The Pearl Harbour note is indicative not of a desire to see such an attack but of a willingness to use such an attack for their own ends. It's a variant on "never let a good crisis go to waste", or Lenin's conception of war as the "mighty accelerator" of the revolution. The grey area between the two is the possibility that neo-cons ignored warnings of an attack, either (at the most grave end) knowing the scale and planning on using it, or (at the lower end of the scale) expecting another botched attack or relatively minor bombing that would feed their narrative.

    There was no indication of a most grave end whatsoever. Nobody saw 9/11 coming. Nobody.

    I strongly disagree with your statement. When Bush was in transition, Clinton's team warned of an imminent strike by Al Qaeda. Foreign intelligence services were telling the CIA of increased activities among Al Qaeda channels. About a month before 9/11 a van carrying Al Qaeda operatives was stopped at the Canadian border in Blaine, WA. Their target had been the Space Needle in Seattle. Just days before the attack the National Security Chief had warned Bush of an imminent attack with potential targets in NYC and Washington DC. To which Bush said, "thanks for your input," and went fishing.

    When the attack happened, he was in Florida about to read to a second-grade class. When his aids told him what had happened he had the look of a deer in the headlights. (See Fahrenheit 9/11).

    Wikipedia has a short outline on its site. But a more detailed story is from Politico here.

    Which again shows that nobody saw it coming. What did the NSC chief know and do about it?
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    The problem, as someone mentioned earlier, is also that the CIA failed to understand bin Laden's propaganda and consequently massively underestimated the threat he posed. The white men of the CIA saw a dude with a beard sitting in a cave rambling about the Quran and thought "kook". They had no idea how an Islamic fundamentalist would interpret those images.

    This has highlighted a rather significant problem with CIA recruitment, which for the most picks the same kind of people all the time, viz white and male. If they'd had a few more Muslims about the place, things might have turned out differently.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    C'était moi.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    I didn't write it. They did.
    It's obviously something you think about. The word "trutherism" is a new one for me.
    You posted that you thought this group and their document was B.S.
    No, I'm saying that in this post you are spreading bullshit about what's in that document. I'm glad that you now know that "9/11 trutherism" is a common description for the conspiracy theory you're indulging in.

    Don't tell me what I think. I never ever said that the Sept 11 attacks were a USA self-done conspiracy. I noted that the USA supported Saddam and Noriega. That there was a strategy to exploit the idea that the USA is the only superpower. You haven't responded if you believe that the Project For A New American Century and the people listed are listed falsely and if you accept the document as their's. The "new Pearl Harbor" content is their's. This seems to have you upset and thinking that this means that people could interpret this as your "trutherism" issue. Suppression of what was said and written is never a good plan about anything. It's their statement and probably the inferred risks is what you fear? But we can hardly deny the group wrote it. That Brzeznski said what he said. About what it means can be discussed.
Sign In or Register to comment.