"Still I see no gain from Afghanistan."

Afghanistan has significant and untapped mineral resources. Unocal also wanted to build a pipeline through Afghanistan to get Caspian Sea oil to the Indian Ocean - one journalist suggested this was the main reason for the invasion IIRC. Afghanistan is also centrally located, giving the US military air power throughout all of Central Asia (where carrier-based aircraft can't reach). Afghanistan is also the road to the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia - opening up that large and captive (at the moment) economic market is in itself a ticket to riches. Oh, and don't forget the massively lucrative opium trade. That's five reasons, any of which in and of themselves would be enough to persuade some fairly powerful people of the need to invade and occupy Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was less about destabilizing Russia and more about freeing a country controlled by terrorists who kept it repressed and ignorant and about finding and punishing those responsible for hiding and training Terrorists who killed Thousands of American citizens!

Are you saying our decision to invade Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11?

Tyran, I don't think the USA is an "evil entity" but it shows the same signs that most all empires in the past have shown. Military dominance, domestic dominance, international powerhouse. We've got the capability to wipe out the world if we want to do it. People around the world love America (all I get when I leave the country is questions like "What's it like in America?" and "Is New York as cool as they say?" and stuff like that). And, oh yeah, as much as Americans hate their neighbors, we still beat out most of the world.

In other words, America is trying its best to make its claim as a republican empire. We've already done something amazing and that's 230+ years of democratic rule, the longest such length in human history that we know of. That's something to commend.

America is full of itself though and that'll come back to bite it someday. Nope, we're not as great as the history books (all written by Americans) want us to think we are.

Only if you believe the newsreaders on TV.

Our decision to invade Afghanistan had everything to do with 9/11. Coincidentally, though, the invasion was in itself an unjust act. We were defending against Al Qaida, who Bush was dumb enough to think wouldn't catch onto our neat little tricks. He left Obama with the office of cleaning up the pee on the wall and the pile of shit he left on the floor.

I can agree with you Bo but we are still fighting for our principles in these countries not just oil. That is my arguement

The Taliban were all too happy to sign on to that pipeline deal, and even visited Texas to lobby for it. It was the US who put an end to that deal.

The US wanted to unite the Islamists under their banner, and speed up the encirclement of Russia. Taking Afghanistan means creating an anti-Russia noose comprised of Turkey, the Caucasus, the Baltics, the Balkans, and certain central Asian states - including Afghanistan. From all of these 'bases' the US can easily wage low intensity conflicts all over Russia, destabilizing it in order to carve it up (Hello: Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia).

Andi agree completely bush was a moron and Obama is just trying to fix 8 years of mistakes.

Tyran, if you say that, you aren't agreeing with me.

Spreading our principles is imperialism. Didn't we all grow up to be accepting of other people or did the gun-wielding Teabag Party fascists teach us otherwise? We are making an empire of ourselves, just as the Soviets intended to do in Eastern Europe, and though they failed, we condemned them for that. In the "spreading our principles" regard, we've been doing it for ages, and we're no different than the ones we tend to hate the most for it.

Putin do those insignificant tiny republics not deserve to be free? And we have all seen that Russia can handle the caucasaus they did invade georgia.

"Afghanistan was less about destabilizing Russia and more about freeing a country controlled by terrorists who kept it repressed and ignorant and about finding and punishing those responsible for hiding and training Terrorists who killed Thousands of American citizens!"

Those "terrorists" were given money from the US government as late as 2001.

"The United States has been the single largest donor of humanitarian aid for Afghans for the past several years. In 2000, the United States contributed a total of $113 million in humanitarian aid to Afghans, both inside Afghanistan and in refugee camps in neighboring countries. In 2001, the aid level has already exceeded $184, accounting for some 300,000 tons of food sent to Afghanistan this year."

They invaded Georgia because it was being armed to the teeth and promised NATO assistance if they provoked a war over South Ossetia. That isn't even denied anymore.

"Free" from what? The US turns countries into Islamist hellholes and claims that it's about 'freedom'. No, it's about carving up independent countries and turning them into quisling states.

To say Bush wasn't a moron means you haven't done your research and to say Romney's policies of storing all of the nation's money in the Caymans and wait out the deficit are any smarter is the same (of course that's sarcasm, but considering he hasn't told us of anything he's going to do and instead bashed Obama furiously, it's as likely as anything).

Afghanistan and Iraq are a mess and it's shameful that we're trying to "fix" either nation. We deposed of Saddam; we've weakened the Taliban to the point that the UN can fix it up. I don't see any reason to spend money there in making sure their government is democratic. It doesn't seem to always work out for people anyway.

I do not see how us donating food and money too care for the people of that country has anything to do with us invading to route out extremists who harbor terrorists that attack the U.S.

I agree Bo sox. But if people want democracy we have a responsibility to at least speak out in support of them. Not neccasarily go to war for them.

Aid is not a bad thing. Invasions are a bad thing. World War II should have taught us that empires by military won't happen. Unfortunately, the USA is pretty good at hiding the overarching purpose. The government isn't as nice as people outside the nation tend to think.

Trust me, growing up in a well off house and making my own choice to take to 38th and College (stereotypical ghetto of Indy) makes me care for people that have less than I do. If you look at things realistically, you can actually help people. Trying to tell someone to stop doing heroin isn't going to help them because, by the way, they aren't going to stop doing heroin. On the other hand, giving them a pack of clean needles and telling them to talk to me sometime and take it more gradually might actually get you somewhere.

In this analogy, the US is the one that wants to tell everyone to stop doing heroin and thinks they do good by it. Instead, they need to give those other nations a reason to follow and stop doing heroin rather than just saying "it's the right thing to do."

That is correct. The U.S. isn't going about things the right way. Doesn't mean we are an evil entity that only wants to expand our "empire"

Is it so hard to believe that a capitalist country with unprecedented military superiority would want to expand its resources and control over markets?

The US isn't any more 'evil' than any other empire was. The British Empire took over swaths of Africa and India for the stated purpose of 'ending slavery'. Nowadays nobody looks at that justification and claims that that was only reason why the British went into these places. But for whatever reason critical thinking goes out the window when it comes to a large sector of the American public.

It's hard to believe my country is an "evil entity" I can believe we want to expand our control over the markets but I can't believe that we don't also do things to help people and support democratic and positive ideals like women's rights and free elections.

Some of us got tired of that song & dance the 55th time we overthrew a secular, progressive, egalitarian regime and replaced it with a brutal theocracy or reactionary one. Including the part about 'free elections'. Free elections means the country elects who we want them to elect. As soon as they elect a nationalist, like Chavez, Zelaya or Correa, we call them a 'dictator' and actively work for their overthrow.

tyran, homeworo assignment: watch 30 minutes of fox/cnn and then the same news segment from BBC news, RT news and Euronews.

Reflect on the difference in the quality of the propoganda being produced, the bias in respect of world news events, and how each countires national priorities are reflected in the piece.

Oh, nobody is saying the US is 'evil' and trying to destabilise the world. The want control and power, destabilisation (as caused in Afghanistan and Iraq, and assisted in Libya or perhaps Syria) is merely a means to an end. Having a 'democratic and free' neighbour is less important than having an ally; democratic Egypt may not support the US (even if individual egyptians love America, they can still hate the American government. And equally the Egyptian government can still hate US cultural influences and thus be motivated to undermine them.

Egypt is a great example because it was a US ally, and the US wanted to sit back and see what was going to happen, better still it seems the militrary was not going to interfere and pick either side while it could avoid doing so, because the egyptian militrary was largely loved by the people and they acted in their own interest gaining much power in the process)

America is not evil either - they're doing what every other imperial power has ever done. It could be said to be human nature. Or an emergent feature of human social/power structures.

But if you ignore the propoganda and bias, and then simply look at the behaviour; fundamentally it differs very little from any other empire.

But back to the topic at hand. Does the US ignore white 'terrorists' (with politically motivated murders, even suicidal ones) based on the colour of their skin - and ignore the victims of this terror again based on skin colour; while islamic non-violent Americans are punished for their faith, profiled and treated with suspicion (privacy violations) ?

Will there be an end to these double standards?

^

Fox news makes me want to jump off a bridge...I love CNN though. I'll listen to your advice though

Yes the U.S. does ignore white terrorists in some cases but that's mostly based on popular opinion and the area of the country in my opinion.

I don't think the investigators in the US are biased over skin color, though the people certainly are. Don't know why, but people believe there are no white terrorists sometimes.

There's a man in a Terre Haute max prison (western Indiana) who was complaining recently that the guards wouldn't let him have a prayer sessions with other inmates. He's white but the inmates are mostly Islam and he sued based on suppression of the first amendment blah blah blah.

In short, in some cases, yeah, there is, but you only hear about when there is discrimination. If they told you about every terrorist in prison it would be just a few out of many that are seriously discriminated against for any reason other than the crimes they committed.