The US And NATO Can't Do What The Taliban Didn't

[pitbullfiend5]

its been 2 years since youve made this video and the situation is getting worse. Occupying military forces now number 120,00 or more plus the private contractors such as Blackwater aka Xe which number almost 120,000 plus the Afghan army and police which together total 200,000 or more which hits a grand total of 440,000 people fighting the Taliban and still not making a change. Taliban fighters are estimated from 20,000 to 35,000 in the whole country. Time to get the hell out I believe.

[Hangshai]

Very good video, very solid points. Pity only 600 views though, more people should be exposed to this fact. Oh, and for the record, Pepsi is way better than Coke, hadn't you heard?

[Maggz011]

do you get paid to wear coca-cola branded items?

[scottyross00]

No...I just like wearing shirts that advertise my favorite foods and drink beverages... watch for a t-shirt with "egg nog" coming out, just in time for christmas

[one199]

very very good points. I still maintain that we went in because the conditions there were suited to breed terrorism, and that's why staying there would be advantageous. As being part of NATO, our ally was attacked and we were obligated to strike back, but I think the "nation building" we are doing there IS helping (4th poorest country in the world)and not all Afghanis support the Taliban. the film "Charlie Wilson's War" portrays my point very well if you have ever seen it.

[scottyross00]

Yes, Afghan was the poorest country in the western hemisphere and it still is. You say we went in because Afghanistan was perfect for breeding terrorism, well one of my points of this video was that possibly terrorism cannot be dealt with militarily but perhaps dealt with going after its roots, such as western interferance after the first gulf war.

[scottyross00]

My other point is that Afghanistan is in a worse situation now then it was under the Taliban. As I said NATO has killed thousands upon thousands of Afghan civilians, 3 million Afghan refugees have fled to Pakistan, that's almost 10% of its population. Pashtuns who are associated with the Taliban are being retaliated against by regular Afghans even when they are innocent. Not to mention terrorists are making more money from opium then they ever did under the Taliban.

[scottyross00]

The very fact a government of Afghanistan cannot stand by its own, after 7 years of support, both financial and militarial, illustrates that it most likely will never be able to stand by its own, and indeed there isn't one expert who says it will happen any time soon ie within 10 years. So how can we justify propping up a government that isn't fully supported by the very people were trying to "help"?

[TruthbHeard]

@scottyross00 Good video

plz youtube this guy Micheal Schuerer head of CIA bin ladin unit

he expresses disgust with USA deliberate manipulation of Al -Qaidas reasons for hate of AMerica

1- USA support for Israel and occupation of Muslim lands

2- USA support for police states and dictators in saudi, egypt, pakistan etc which bin ladin is against

3- western exploitation of muslim resources oil etc

[scottyross00]

The Taliban never believed in terrorism. The Taliban is a national Pashtun (largest tribe in Afghan) movement, it believed in Al-Qaedas goal of getting the west out of the middle east but did not agree with its means. After 9/11 the Taliban wanted to negotiate handing over terrorists, but the US didn't want to have it. So by me stating the Taliban knew something we didn't, I mean they felt the west should not go into the middle east because of different ideologies, and never should have in 1990.

[one199]

This war is very different from Iraq, however, but we can't address the issues you are talking about (social etc), if the Taliban refuses to stop bombarding us and the civilians with shells. Not a quote verbatim but: "The combat, and reconstruction roles are inseparable" -- John Manley, former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister.

[scottyross00]

Here's an interesting fact, over 10,000 Afghan civilians have been killed, not by the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, but by NATO troops. In regards to john Manley and that whole line of thought, do you ever wonder why the combat and reconstruction roles are one in the same? Why can't we just help the Afghans without fighting them? I assume you'll say well, we're only fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, okay, where do you think the Taliban and Al-Qaeda get their support?

[scottyross00]

You may say Pakistan, well it's funny if you do, because the very man you quoted, John Manley, offered no plan on closing the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, simply suggested negotiation with Pakistan to crack down on its terrorist ties. So by my assumption of you answering Pakistan being the main support for our enemies, and the very man you quoted giving no urgency to cutting said support, how is that a good strategy?

[scottyross00]

Perhaps you say the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are coming from the Pashtun tribe, a 42 million member tribe that dislikes western ideals and in fact is the body of which the Taliban draws its support. The Pashtuns span the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and comprise more then 25% of the Afghan population. Thus I would argue that NATO is trying implement a form of government hostile to a large portion of the Afghan population.

[one199]

There is a reason the Taliban couldn't get rid of Al-Qaeda: because they didn't want to. It was fairly obvious to me that the Taliban (and I hate to use one of Bush's sound bites) was "harbouring" Al-Qaeda. Indeed the relationship between the two ran deep. So deep that they are now fighting side by side against NATO in the conflict where our troops are dying.

[scottyross00]

Within a few weeks of sept. 11, before NATO went into Afghanistan the Taliban were wanting to negotiate the handing over of terrorists, and when attacked they were saying they wiould hand over Osama. Yet this just shows they could get the terrorists, but then why wouldn't they? Well simply the Taliban agreed with Al-Qaeda goals just not in the means. The Taliban was never a threat to the US, and that's why their not a terrorist organization and were recognized as the Afghan gov.

[scottyross00]

As soon as Al-Qaeda attacked the US and were the number one threat to world security the Taliban were willing to negotiate handing terrorists over. Now I'm not saying the Taliban was good by any means, they were a cruel government; but that's not why we went in. We went in because they harboured terrorists which they willing to hand over. How does that make sense?

[MovingClouds123]

@scottyross00 weren't America plan to Afghanistan before 9/11?

[ExposingBatil]

Well said, thankyou.

[scottyross00]

I'm saying we should really try to look at the roots of terrorism and not its effects. It sounds simple, but no one has done it or acted on it.

[baumnathan]

thats right show evry one how stupid you really are....taliban are the terrorists:

there was an alliance between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda

Several hundred fighters sent by bin Laden assisted the Taliban in the slaughter at Mazar-e-Sharif.

reported marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter

bin laden praised the Taliban as the "only Islamic government" in existence, and lauded Mullah Omar for his destruction of idols like the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

Is this enough???

get your facts

[scottyross00]

The Taliban aren't terrorists and they've never been terrorists. The United States have never had the Taliban on there terrorist list, nether has the UN, or any other organization.

[baumnathan]

does it say on any US list or UN list that you are smart? no !

Means you are stupid!

[scottyross00]

It means you are wrong, the Taliban are and never were terrorists.

[ExposingBatil]

I agree with you.

[drunpakhtun]

The buddahs were destroyed b.c aid was refused for the people but a 30 million dollar plan to restored the buddah's was signed. So wat if he said "only islamic govt"? is that a crime to say that? And so wat they created marriage relations. Bin laden was not behind 9/11 everone knows it, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.i bet u watch fox news dont u?lol the battle of mazar was a revolt agains dostum b/c they knew dostum was going to kill them all, he is infamous for that,convoyof death, watch it

[FringeNorth]

thats a realy interesting perspective... i'm going to bring that up next time i get into an afganistan argument. well done.

[CanadaPetitions]

The CFR is responsible for the war. Its a propoganda associated way to scare everyone into turning blind eyes to there Corruption under "the War on Terror"... We are all being played like a video game. Don't Forget Nato is the Cause of all Private Terror around the would. Payed for by YOU and ME.