Yeah, EVEN MY INDOCTRINATING, INCULCATING STATE-SCHOOL told me that.
And don't forget the destruction of the Soviet empire, either!!
Now it is WE who are killing OUR FORMER FRIENDS?
"Cleric evokes history of military failures in Afghanistan; Taliban warn US, allies as attacks mount" by Jason Straziuso, Associated Press | September 20, 2009
KABUL - The Taliban’s reclusive leader said in a Muslim holiday message yesterday that the United States and NATO should study Afghanistan’s long history of war, in a pointed reminder that foreign forces have had limited military success there.
The message from Mullah Omar comes less than a month before the eighth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan to oust the Taliban for hosting Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
Any chance they get to work the dead guy in....
This year has been the deadliest of the conflict for US and NATO troops, and political support at home for the war is declining. Taliban attacks have spiked around Afghanistan in the last three years, and the militants now control wide swaths of territory....
In his message for the upcoming Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr, which ends the fasting month of Ramadan, Omar said the United States and NATO should study the history of Alexander the Great, whose forces were defeated by Pashtun tribesmen in the fourth century B.C. “We would like to point out that we fought against the British invaders for 80 years from 1839 to 1919 and ultimately got independence by defeating’’ Britain, a statement attributed to Omar said.
“Today we have strong determination, military training, and effective weapons. Still more, we have preparedness for a long war and the regional situation is in our favor. Therefore, we will continue to wage jihad until we gain independence and force the invaders to pull out,’’ it said. The statement’s authenticity could not be verified but it was posted on a website the Taliban frequently use.
Now I'm getting a bit suspicious.
Omar is believed to be in hiding in Pakistan but hasn’t been seen in years....
That sounds like another guy we always here about, and he's dead.
Omar’s message said the international community has “wrongly depicted’’ the Taliban as a force against education and women’s rights.
You know that doesn't surprise me at all anymore.
I mean, who are those "Taliban," anyway?
Something of a catchall term for loosely affiliated insurgents without a singular command structure. Often, the Afghan government favors the phrase 'enemies of the state' (New York Times July 24, 2007)."
"The Taliban is growing and creating new alliances not because its sectarian religious practices have become popular, but because it is the only available umbrella for national liberation," says Pakistani historian and political commentator Tariq Ali. "As the British and the Soviets discovered to their cost in the preceding two centuries, Afghans never like being occupied."
Also see: Afghanistan's Other Government
And today, readers?
"More and more, people here look back to the era of harsh Taliban rule from 1996 to 2001, describing it as a time of security and peace."
Oh, oh, oh!!!! I'm so offended by the AmeriKan MSM and its bullshit!
Also see: How I Came to Love the Veil
Now I know that is Afghanistan, but we are talking about an artificial border drawn by the British who NEVER ASKED the PASHTUNS what THEY THOUGHT!!!!!!!
Besides,
"The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. "The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul," adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that," said another U.S. diplomat in 1997."
The TALIBAN was established under U.S. AUSPICES, huh?
We can "LIVE WITH THAT?"
Well, I SURE CAN as long as the KILLING STOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Militant ambushes have become increasingly sophisticated and deadly, and US troops say the Taliban are no longer the ragtag force the military first faced in late 2001.
Civilian deaths and a corrupt Afghan government have turned many toward the militants, who have pushed into northern Afghanistan this year for the first time....
We are SO LOSING THIS THING! It is TIME to LEAVE!
--more--"
Now let's give you the PROPAGANDA VERSION as supplied by my "newspaper" -- with a little truth obfuscated and obscured.
"No more troops to Afghanistan" by H.D.S. Greenway | September 22, 2009
Afghanistan may not be Vietnam, but it has its own river of history that Obama is stepping into. Centuries of conquerors have found that river too swift and the currents too confusing to navigate....
Then again it may. Typical of imperial elitists who consistently grace the opinion pages of the Boston Glob.
In the period known as the “Great Game,’’ it was Britain’s fear of Russian influence that led it to invade Afghanistan, often with disastrous results. In 1842 it lost an entire army, save one man, and was still intervening in Afghan affairs until well into the 20th century. The British were dropping bombs in Kabul as late as 1919.
He acts as if the "game" is over when it is not only continuing, but expanding!
Yeah, I'm tired of this tripe.
When the Russians fulfilled Britain’s nightmare and invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to ensure a pro-Soviet regime, the Americans took up the Great Game, arming holy warriors to harry the Russians out. It took nine years before the defeated Russians left, and Afghanistan sank back into chaos.
Yeah, EXCEPT they INFILTRATED and GOADED the Russians to invade!!!!
BRZEZINSKI BRAGS ABOUT IT!!
Gave THEM their OWN VIETNAM that DESTROYED the SOVIET EMPIRE!
Way more important in history than some charged up "Al-CIA-Duh!"
In this century it was another group of foreigners, this time the mostly Arab al Qaeda, that brought Afghanistan to the world’s attention. The Americans invaded because of Al Qaeda and 9/11, not because of Afghanistan.
For the LAST TIME:
"Who invented Al-CIA-Duh?"
Al-CIA-Duh
Prop 101: Al-CIA-Duh and the OSI
Prop 101: Al-CIA-Duh's Greatest Hits
Prop 101: The "Terrorism" Business
Prop 201 tutorial
New York Times Admits War on Terror is U.S. Creation
Obama may have been right that Afghanistan was a war of necessity after 9/11, and he was certainly right that Iraq was an unnecessary diversion. But that was 2001, and Al Qaeda leaders were allowed to slip away into Pakistan, where it has proved impossible to find them, much less destroy them. Eight years later, Al Qaeda no longer needs Afghanistan. It’s better off in Pakistan.
You GOT THAT, Pak? YOU are NEXT!!!!!
I figure about the same time Israel bombs Iran after YOU BOTH are linked to a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION in the UNITED STATES.
As it was for the British and the Russians before them, Americans found invading Afghanistan was a pushover. In Afghanistan, the trouble has always been getting out, not in.
The capital, Kabul, was not liberated from the Taliban by American tanks, but by Afghans of the Northern Alliance. When I visited the country in 2003, the Afghans did not feel like an occupied people. But as the American footprint grows larger and heavier, and as civilian casualties mount, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates isn’t alone in worrying that the United States will be seen more and more as an occupying power.
We ALREADY ARE SEEN THAT WAY!
Related: "Al-CIA-Duh" Invades Afghanistan
That's not going to help.
America’s new strategy focuses on protecting the population, which is all well and good, but a pacification program as envisioned will cost billions, take decades, and even then might not work.
No, DROPPING BOMBS and MISSILES on INNOCENT PEOPLE and KILLING THEM in VILLAGE RAIDS
In 30 years of war, Afghanistan is much worse off now in terms of literacy and social cohesion than it was before.
Think of it AmeriKa's "gift" to Afghanistan.
There are few institutions on which to build a stable democracy. Afghanistan is a tribal society in which people feel less connected to the state than their own local leaders.
Then LET'S LEAVE THEM ALONE!
We see the Taliban as bad and government forces as good.
AmeriKan narrow-mindedness again. Thanks, agenda-pushing, Muslim-hating, war-promoting MSM!
But Afghans see Tajiks with perhaps too much power in the capital, Uzbeks and Hazaras too with their own interests, while Pashtuns, who form the largest group, feel somewhat disenfranchised. Too many Pashtuns see the Taliban as representing their interests.
Well, DON'T THEY?
Wouldn't a MAJORITY feel that way if THEY were DISENFRANCHISED?
Americans disapprove of war lords because we want to see the state have a monopoly on violence, but to many Afghans, war lords are tribal, regional, and ethnic leaders for whom loyalty seems more deserving than the government in Kabul.
That is WITHOUT A DOUBT on of the most DISINGENUOUS COMMENTS I have EVER READ!
The recent and ludicrously corrupt elections show how hard it will be to instill a sense of what we call democracy for those who say that the traditional loya jirga, or shura, a meeting of tribal elders, is a better way of expressing government by the people and of the people than our style of elections.
When you commit ever more troops to a theater, “force protection’’ - the need to protect your own soldiers - becomes a dominant factor regardless of what those soldiers were supposed to achieve by being there....
One has to ask why, after eight years, our Afghans cannot stand up to the Taliban, any more than Russia’s Afghans could stand up to the Mujahedeen in the 1980s.
Because SOME of them are WORKING for the CIA, duh!
For that matter, why could our Vietnamese not stand up to Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnamese? Could it be that our Afghans are being increasingly perceived as puppets?
Could it be that PEOPLE ARE DEFENDING THEIR HOMES and LIVES?
Obama should not abandon Afghanistan. International efforts to develop the country should continue, and force levels should be kept to the level necessary to keep Al Qaeda from regaining a foothold.
But we stand at a crossroads. We can keep a sustainable military and civilian effort in play in Afghanistan, or we can basically take over the country and face down the growing civil and holy wars that have little to do with the reason we invaded Afghanistan in the first place....
Oh, LOOK at the IMPERIALISTIC HUBRIS!!!!!!!!
I would like to know WHERE we are going to get the TROOPS to "face down" the "enemy?" Or do you just plan to annihilate them all from on high?
Rather than becoming the new Russians who found themselves hated foreigners, we should accept more modest goals. The history of Afghanistan suggests that we are not equipped to make over the country to our liking, and the history of the United States suggests that Americans give up these efforts sooner rather than later....
Yeah, bit the WAR-MAKERS in CONTROL of GOVERNMENT DO NOT!!!!
Americans are not interested in hundred-year wars....
No, but WE ARE GOING TO GET ONE ANYWAY!!!!!!
