And The Award For Uttering The Most Stupid Statement Goes To

Topic locked
  • Reply
And the award for uttering the most stupid statement goes to Dec 22, 2011
Joe Biden!!!! There really isn't much to say about this article other than what a slap in the face to all those mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters of the NATO troops who lost their lives or were injured.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/2 ... 1003/RSS01

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Joe Biden, known for his controversial off-the-cuff remarks, is taking heat for his recent comment that "the Taliban, per se, is not our enemy."

Right-wing bloggers and commentators have attacked Biden's comment, and presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on Wednesday called it "one of the most strange comments ever to be uttered by the lips of a vice president."

"And this vice president, in particular, [has] said some strange things," he added.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his office has been "flooded" with comments and tweets from service members, including one who asked, "If they aren't the enemy, who has been shooting at us all this time?"

"For the vice president of the United States to make a statement like that is an insult to the men and women who are serving today," McCain said on Fox News Tuesday night. "But also, what about the families of those who have been killed by the IEDs that the Taliban have manufactured, the same Taliban that sheltered bin Laden?"

Biden's spokeswoman, Kendra Barkoff, said Biden's statement wasn't incorrect and merely restated the administration's goal to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

"Politicians who criticize his remarks are either ignorant of why we are fighting in Afghanistan or playing politics with issues of war and peace," Barkoff wrote in an email. "Either way, they are profoundly wrong."
Biden made the comment during a Dec. 15 interview, released Monday, with Newsweek contributor Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and Biden's partner in a 2005 plan for a political solution in Iraq.

Biden said it would be "good enough" if Afghanistan were no longer a haven for terrorists set on harming the United States and its allies. But, he added, "We're not there yet."

"Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy," Biden told Gelb. "That's critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests. If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us."

He said the United States is on a "dual track" with Afghanistan to continue targeting al-Qaida and making the Afghan government strong enough to negotiate with the Taliban without being overthrown by them.
"And at the same time," he continued, "try to get the Taliban to move in the direction to see to it that they, through reconciliation, commit not to be engaged with al-Qaida or any other organization that they would harbor to do damage to us and our allies."

In a briefing Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the U.S. invaded Afghanistan because al-Qaida launched its 9/11 attacks from there, not because the Taliban was in power. Biden's comments reflect that "while we are fighting them ... the elimination of the Taliban is not the issue here," he said.
Asked whether Biden's comment was regrettable, Carney said only "when taken out of context."

The Afghan government supports reconciliation with the Taliban, provided the Taliban rejects al-Qaida, renounces violence and supports the Afghan constitution. The Obama administration supports that policy.
McCain said Biden has "some cockamamie idea" that the United States can negotiate peace with the Taliban as troops leave the country. All U.S. combat troops are scheduled to withdraw by the end of 2014.
He referred to news reports that the administration is considering releasing Taliban prisoners from the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"This is the most wrongheaded kind of thing that I have ever encountered," McCain said.

Romney began lashing out against Biden immediately Monday, saying his statement to Newsweek was "bizarre, factually wrong and an outrageous affront to our troops carrying out the fight in Afghanistan."

"The Taliban is clearly a bitter enemy of the United States," he said in a statement. "Vice President Biden's statement to the contrary calls into question the White House's leadership in Afghanistan -- or lack of it."
Biden's comment also gave former Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder another opportunity to argue that Biden should be replaced. Wilder, a Democrat, views Biden as a gaffe-prone liability to the administration. He called last year for President Barack Obama to dump Biden and make Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton his running mate in 2012.

"I fought in Korea, front line," Wilder said Tuesday on Fox News. "I knew who the enemy were. The enemy were the people who were firing at me and shooting at me."

Bora Bora
Dubai OverLord
User avatar
Posts: 8411
Location: At the moment Dubai Forums

  • Reply
Re: And the award for uttering the most stupid statement goe Dec 22, 2011
Well, making an alliance with the Taliban is no different from what the US did in Iraq with the Awakening. They were former Ba'athists and certainly former insurgents the US was fighting for many years.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: And The Award For Uttering The Most Stupid Statement Goe Dec 22, 2011
I watched the Military Awards on TV last night. There was an award given to the pilot of a Chinook. The crew had been called to airlift some injured Afghan children to hospital. When they arrived at the scene they were immediatley fired on by the Taliban. The crew had to make the decision whether to go ahead with their rescue mission or retreat to safety. They didn't hesitate and went in.
The Taliban had thrown a grenade at a group of children, injuring them, knowing full well NATO forces would come to their rescue.
I would have turned round and gone home.

The Taliban don't have any regard for life, not even that of their own people. They are friends of no-one.
Bethsmum
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
Posts: 6601
Location: JBR

  • Reply
Re: And the award for uttering the most stupid statement goe Dec 22, 2011
It says everything I need to know about Afghans if they want or are passive to the Taliban.

I don't see a point in shielding the Afghan people from the Taliban. Screw 'em. They want them they can have them.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: And The Award For Uttering The Most Stupid Statement Goe Dec 22, 2011
I find myself agreeing with eh on this one. First the Afghani's should be free to choose who they want to rule - if they want the Taliban, then they should have the Taliban. I may not agree with many of their actions and views, just like I don't agree with the actions and views of Saudi rulers, Kuwaiti rulers etc.. but it is up to the Afghanis at the end of the day.

Also, let's not forget that at one stage the USA was in active talks with the Taliban - for example in March 2001 a Taliban official was in the USA officially and in talks with the government. He gave a NYTimes interview and explained the circumstances of the blowing up of the Buddha:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/19/world ... 3a&ei=5070

Also, the UN reported that the Taliban's efforts against Opium Poppy growing had led to the almost eradication of the crop in Afghanistan - this report from May 01:

TALIBAN'S BAN ON GROWING OPIUM POPPIES IS CALLED A SUCCESS

UNITED NATIONS, May 18 — The first American narcotics experts to go to Afghanistan under Taliban rule have concluded that the movement's ban on opium-poppy cultivation appears to have wiped out the world's largest crop in less than a year, officials said today.

The American findings confirm earlier reports from the United Nations drug control program that Afghanistan, which supplied about three-quarters of the world's opium and most of the heroin reaching Europe, had ended poppy planting in one season.....



http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n904/a07.html

Also worth remembering that the Taliban did not actually say the would not hand over Bin Laden after 9/11 - IIRC they said they wanted due process to be fulfilled and be shown some proof. They were invaded. They fought back. Now they are being demonised by some.

(Oh, and since the invasion poppy growing has shot back up and indeed is now being used by the Taliban to fund their activities. It is also the main source of income for many rural Afghan farmers.)

I think Biden is just laying down the ground work for the eventual withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan and that it is unlikely that the Taliban will be defeated by the time the US pull out. The Taliban weren't the enemy prior to 9/11 and didn't actually attack any US interests (correct me if I'm mistaken) until the US invaded their country.

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: And the award for uttering the most stupid statement goe Dec 22, 2011
Sure, the Taliban were going to hand over OBL.

And Islamic militants would never attack Sweden.

Your list of talking points are getting shorter by the year.

I guess I can't prove your claim is wrong - it's virtually impossible unless we get Mullah Omar to say he was merely stalling when he made claims he would hand OBL over until his government was overthrown, but it is worth pointing out your usual propaganda points are usually just as hollow and therefore ultimately proven wrong time and again.

Sorry to say, but your current spin is no different. The facts are OBL and Mullah Omar are in-laws and the Afghan Taliban in the all years since the embassy bombings and their subsequent overthrow and retreat back to Pakistan, have never officially split from AQ despite AQ leaders even confessing on video their roles in numerous terrorist attacks.

Admittedly the relationship has been rocky in recent years, but that is to do with AQ inspired groups attacking the Pakistani government, the masters of the Afghan Taliban, than any involvement in AQ's terrorist attacks against the West.

Oh, and the deal that was obviously a non-starter for the US, was to hand OBL over to an Islamic country where he would be tried - only after Omar was "convinced" of the evidence presented against OBL.

Perhaps Omar should have just asked Osama if he was behind the embassy/WTC attacks at a family gathering to see if he was indeed guilty and save everyone the time?
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: And The Award For Uttering The Most Stupid Statement Goe Dec 23, 2011
eh - sarcasm aside, the facts are that the Taliban were the guests of the US government in March 2001 and had they agreed to the pipeline proposal that was being negotiated, they could have been 'our tough guys' in the region, like the Saudis, Hosni Mubarak and Saddam are/were.

The US and UN reports about the effectiveness of the Taliban ban on Opium production I see is conveniently not mentioned.

As for the rest - it seems you're trying to justify the invasion. I've stated in the past that I supported it initially, now I'm among those who aren't sure whether it was worth it. Taliban are going to be back in power after the US leave (I presume they'll declare a victory and then leave), and the cost has been enormous to Afghan and Nato - in men and in material.

The blood of the victims is as much on those that ordered the invasion as it is on those who fought back.

(eh - clear something up for me, am I right in recalling that the Taliban did not carry out any terrorist or foreign attacks before the invasion?)

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: And the award for uttering the most stupid statement goe Dec 23, 2011
As far as I know, the pipeline deal fell through as a result of OBL's presence in Afghanistan.

Strange your theory about the Taliban's potential relationship with the US doesn't live up to the hype. Otherwise the US would have ignored the OBL residing in Afghanistan issue and pushed through with the pipeline.

Those types of facts do get in the way of pleasant conspiracy theories.

As for Mubarak, etc. I think you mean the US was dealing with reality. I'm sorry, but which nations did not have friendly relations with Egypt that I should be aware of?

As for Saddam, he was always in the pocket of the Soviet Union, just as numerous other dictators were. But hey, just with support for Syria today, certain countries seem to get a free pass from wingnuts. Pray tell, why is that?

As for the rest - it seems you're trying to justify the invasion.


Sure, and while you're at it, why don't you find the post of mine where I offer the primary cause for incarceration for Black Americans:

philosophy-dubai/honour-killings-increase-the-t48173-165.html

You remember that incident, don't you?

The blood of the victims is as much on those that ordered the invasion as it is on those who fought back.


Really? So I guess the fault for all those French civilians killed in the D-Day bombings because the pilots dropping their bombs intended for the coasts too late due to heavy cloud cover is at the hands of Churchill and Roosevelt?

Is that your...uhm...brilliant reasoning?
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: And The Award For Uttering The Most Stupid Statement Goe Dec 23, 2011
event horizon wrote:As far as I know, the pipeline deal fell through as a result of OBL's presence in Afghanistan.

Strange your theory about the Taliban's potential relationship with the US doesn't live up to the hype. Otherwise the US would have ignored the OBL residing in Afghanistan issue and pushed through with the pipeline.


Interesting spin. Shame you haven't produced any evidence to back it up.

Here's a well researched piece from May 2001, with loads of links and references, and the clear conclusion is:

We thus see a clear example of how human rights, democracy and egalitarian social development are directly opposed by deliberate Western policies to further the economic interests of Western corporate elites. In this case, a faction whose policies of brutal repression are extensively documented and well known was being covertly supported at the expense of the Afghan people in the name of US strategic and corporate interests. This support only ceased when it became clear that the Taliban was incapable of establishing the sort of conditions necessary for the security of the proposed pipeline.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html#6

And here's another source (and these 2 are just two of many such reports- fully referenced etc):
As documented in the book I coauthored with Guillaume Dasquie, “Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth,” the Clinton and Bush administrations negotiated with the Taliban, both to get the repressive regime to widen its government as well as look favorably on U.S. companies’ attempts to construct an oil pipeline. The Bush White House stepped up negotiations with the Taliban in 2001. When those talks stalled in July, a Bush administration representative threatened the Taliban with military reprisals if the government did not go along with American demands.

http://www.salon.com/2002/06/05/memo_11/

Now, what was your comment about the Taliban effectively ending the Opium production and the fact it increased after the invasion?

May I also ask you again whether the Taliban carried out any foreign terror attacks or attacks against US interests before the invasion?

(Can you try and stay on topic - your distracting tactics are tiresome).

Cheers,

Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: And the award for uttering the most stupid statement goe Dec 23, 2011
This support only ceased when it became clear that the Taliban was incapable of establishing the sort of conditions necessary for the security of the proposed pipeline.


Well, that's a bold claim coming from an article alleging the US funded the Taliban in the 80's before the group even existed.

As documented in the book I coauthored with Guillaume Dasquie, “Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth,” the Clinton and Bush administrations negotiated with the Taliban, both to get the repressive regime to widen its government as well as look favorably on U.S. companies’ attempts to construct an oil pipeline. The Bush White House stepped up negotiations with the Taliban in 2001. When those talks stalled in July, a Bush administration representative threatened the Taliban with military reprisals if the government did not go along with American demands.


Well, hey now. The Taliban did such great work at curbing Opium the US felt they should be rewarded with a pipeline. Even you agree - that's one of your primary arguments in support of the movement.

It wasn't exactly highway robbery for Afghanistan. They would do nothing, have no mineral resources taken from their nation and cash in because some of the pipeline happened to go through their land.

I mean, Afghanistan could have used a pipeline. The US government was doing more for the Afghan people at the time in aid than the Taliban were. A pipeline would have been a great source for extra revenue.

It's not like UAE didn't recognize the Taliban or anything. So what are you complaining about?

As for the "brutal oppression" of the Taliban, the people of Afghanistan "voted". They simply don't care what group of mad religious zealots rule them. Just as Sunni Arab Iraqis don't care and even want Saddam Hussein back in charge of the country.

Unfortunately, the US didn't actually support the Taliban. Sorry, that didn't happen. The US was again dealing with the reality of the situation. But I see that my previous comments and questions have gone ignored. Surprise at that.

Edit: Looks like your second source, which you did not read (apparently), confirms what I said previously:

Until the 1998 al-Qaida embassy bombings, the Clinton administration’s approach toward the Taliban was much the same as Unocal’s: All parties agreed that the political stabilization of Afghanistan was crucial to the region, and was also a way to gain access to oil reserves of the Caspian Sea region. Though bin Laden had been in the country since 1996, the U.S. had not pressured the Taliban to hand him over.

The embassy bombings in August 1998 changed everything. The Clinton administration denounced the regime and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright turned up the heat on Taliban human rights abuses. The United Nations imposed sanctions, freezing Afghanistan’s foreign assets and limiting its citizens’ travel. The U.S. continued to talk to the Taliban, but the emphasis was on extraditing bin Laden in exchange for international recognition; the pipeline was off the table. Unocal, which had been close to finalizing its pipeline deal before the embassy bombings, cancelled it.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: And The Award For Uttering The Most Stupid Statement Goe Dec 23, 2011
eh, you missed the part in red I highlighted for you - that the US government were negotiating with the Taliban in 2001 - which even you can work out is after the bombings in 98.

And indeed, if you had just carried on reading, the very next paragraph after the one you quoted above would have banished your confusion:
When George W. Bush took office in 2001, his administration made new overtures to the Taliban, and the pipeline deal gained renewed support, as an incentive to get the Taliban to make political concessions and form a broader government. U.S. representatives met with Afghanistan’s former King Shah, to see if he might be included in a new government. And American companies began exploring the failed 1998 pipeline project. A report by an Afghan-born Enron manager in July 2001, for instance, illustrates that company’s deep interest in some sort of pipeline deal. Enron had begun funding the same sorts of humanitarian projects as Unocal had three years earlier.

In March 2001, several Taliban officials, including Sayed Rahmattulah Hashimi, Mullah Omar’s personal advisor, were invited to Washington by their U.S. lobbyist, Leila Helms, the niece of former CIA Director Richard Helms.


The big thing point is that the US government, whether under Clinton or Bush, were negotiating with the Taliban and fundamentally agreeing with what Biden said - that they are not, per se, the enemy but a party to make deals with. Indeed the last meeting was August 2001.

That was, of course, before Afghanistan was invaded and the US realised it wasn't going to win the war. Now we are back to preparing the groundwork to get to the point where the Taliban will be partners for negotiations (again).

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: And the award for uttering the most stupid statement goe Dec 23, 2011
Nope, didn't miss what you highlighted.

I said the deal fell through as a result of OBL and that's exactly what your article confirms - even contradicting what your first article claims was the reason the pipeline project was canceled, which is the reason you personally gave in your last post.

Do you remember? You just have to scroll up a few posts to confirm this.

Here's what you write:

shafique wrote:
event horizon wrote:As far as I know, the pipeline deal fell through as a result of OBL's presence in Afghanistan.

Interesting spin. Shame you haven't produced any evidence to back it up.

Here's a well researched piece from May 2001, with loads of links and references, and the clear conclusion is:

We thus see a clear example of how human rights, democracy and egalitarian social development are directly opposed by deliberate Western policies to further the economic interests of Western corporate elites. In this case, a faction whose policies of brutal repression are extensively documented and well known was being covertly supported at the expense of the Afghan people in the name of US strategic and corporate interests. This support only ceased when it became clear that the Taliban was incapable of establishing the sort of conditions necessary for the security of the proposed pipeline.


The second article actually says the support ceased as a result of the embassy bombings and the Taliban's sheltering of OBL.

I wrote:

As far as I know, the pipeline deal fell through as a result of OBL's presence in Afghanistan.


Your second article confirms:

The U.S. continued to talk to the Taliban, but the emphasis was on extraditing bin Laden in exchange for international recognition; the pipeline was off the table. Unocal, which had been close to finalizing its pipeline deal before the embassy bombings, cancelled it.


So, which is it? The pipeline was canceled because " the Taliban was incapable of establishing the sort of conditions necessary for the security of the proposed pipeline" or "the pipeline was off the table" because "[t]he embassy bombings in August 1998 changed everything"?

Your two articles contradict each other. And you provided the first article's account for why the deal fell through - which, again, contradicts what your second article says.

Sorry, you were wrong. Just admit that and move on.

As for Bush overtures, again, you're not reading your articles.

The condition for the pipeline to be built in Afghanistan was for the Taliban to hand OBL over:

Again, the message was that if the Taliban would extradite bin Laden and form a broad-based national government, it could win international recognition and reap extensive economic subsidies from the construction of a pipeline.


Nothing new here. Bush was simply pressing the Taliban again to hand over OBL. Considering how "cruel" the sanctions were on the Taliban, reaching out to persuade them to cooperate with the UN seems like a reasonable thing to do - then Afghanistan could again be open for international business. But the caveat was for the Taliban to hand over OBL - that's what your article says.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: And The Award For Uttering The Most Stupid Statement Goe Dec 23, 2011
I thought I was quite clear:

shafique wrote:The big thing point is that the US government, whether under Clinton or Bush, were negotiating with the Taliban and fundamentally agreeing with what Biden said - that they are not, per se, the enemy but a party to make deals with. Indeed the last meeting was August 2001.


(And c'mon, even you can't really believe the US wanting the pipeline contract to go to US companies was Bush's way to benefit the Afghanis! If you do, I have a bridge that you may be interested in buying.. ;) . Be serious.)


eh - I noticed that you didn't address the other point I made a few posts ago: did I recall correctly that the Taliban had not carried out any foreign terrorist attacks or attacks against US interests before the invasion of Afghanistan?
(And have you e-mailed Diana Nammi at IKWRO yet?)

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

posting in Dubai Politics TalkForum Rules

Return to Dubai Politics Talk