thoughts on Afghanistan

[mpjh]

War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

Ohhh, war, I despise
Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives

War means tears
To thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives

I said, war, huh
Good God, y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again


From War by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong

Seemed fitting, after 6 years of war still killing in Afghanistan. Time for another method, don't you think?

[Juan_Bottom]

I vote people start caring? Maybe that would help? Hopefully the troop surge will remind the public that we are in Afghanistan.

The rich are making too much money to pull out just yet. They'll have to be forced; the same as Vietnam. Because I really can't foresee a change in tactic. War is where the real money is.

Although I wonder what, if any, strategic importance there could be to Afghanistan in relation to the China-Russia-Iran alliance. To me it seems like we are trying to bankrupt ourselves off of the world stage.

And truly the public really has no idea why we wen't over there in the first place. And as a whole the nation doesn't really care too much for "activism." Our fighting spirit has really been diluted since the '60s. Instead they voted in Obama. We'll see I guess. I've all but given up on my countrymen. I'm so disenchanted with the system.

[Johnny Rockets]

First off, don't confuse Afghanistan with Iraq.

Iraq is about building contracts and a secure supply of oil.

Afghanistan is about preventing the Taliban, which is the WORST of fanaticism or regaining power.

No music, no schools, nothing but hatred and women being stoned publicly in soccer pitches.

Those bastards need to be stopped because THAT is evil in guise of religion.

Iraq, well......that's an American Bush bullshit Carlyle group fiasco. Nothing good but local genocide will come of that.

I'm proud my country is is Afghanistan, and even more proud that it's not in Iraq.

Go Canada.

JR

[mpjh]

Since when did Canada become the arbiter of what other countries should do in their own sovereign territory? Also, you have your facts wrong. The Taliban are nothing without the tacit support of Pakistan. Canada and Pakistan are allies. WTF is that all about?

[mccallan25]

Since when did Canada become the arbiter of what other countries should do in their own sovereign territory? Also, you have your facts wrong. The Taliban are nothing without the tacit support of Pakistan. Canada and Pakistan are allies. WTF is that all about?

Both of my sons would strongly disagree with you. Between the both of them, they have 9 years on the ground in Afganistan. They dig up weapons all the time from the Russians back in the 80's. The Talibans roots are in Afganistan not Pakistan. I firmly believe in being in Afganistan. I did support Bush twice and I did not want to invade Iraq. I get a kick out of all the mention of it being a war to make the rich wealthier. It has not made my defense stocks go crazy by any means. (made more money in tech and medical then anything) Of course next the uneducated argue it's personal Bush-Cheney oil money etc etc...and that gets a bit more funnier especially since they can't reap any new monetary benefits while their accounts have been basically held in trust with no ability to do any trading while in office. I do not like dictators and I do remember when the Kurds were gassed. So I am glad he's gone none the less. We will withdraw soon I am sure with Obama so not much to talk about with that. MP..I thought you were a military man.

[mpjh]

According to ABC news in June of this year: "The US Defence Department is warning that the greatest challenge to long-term security in Afghanistan is what it calls the insurgent sanctuary in the border region with Pakistan." The Taliban sanctuary in Afghanistan is getting NATO soldiers killed and providing them with a base that now has them in control of virtually all the countryside.

I doubt you sons are setting policy, but the idiots that got them into this situation are incompetent and have left the enemy in the field.

I am a verteran, but not an interventionist. I believe we should let countries solve their own problems and stay out of it. If they want a dictator, that is their problem.

[Juan_Bottom]

Afghanistan is about preventing the Taliban, which is the WORST of fanaticism or regaining power.

That may be the stated mission, but that does not make it the realized mission. Afghanistan and Iraq are actually very similer. America is not in the habit of invading countries to liberate their peoples. Unfortunitly.

I am a verteran, but not an interventionist. I believe we should let countries solve their own problems and stay out of it. If they want a dictator, that is their problem.

I am with you like 60% on this one. But sometimes a people may not have the resources. Or something can be so wrong that you can't just stand by and watch.

[spurgistan]

I totally get your sentiment, JR, but while the common conception is that Afghanistan is "the Better War," that's setting the bar pretty low for what should constitute humanitarian intervention, if that's what I believe your referring to Afghanistan as? For one thing, taking this as having a purpose far removed from Iraq, I got a problem with that. Having a favorable government in Afghanistan is vital to getting natural gas reserves in central Asia to market without having to deal with the Russians. If we wanted to portay this as something else, installing a gas executive as honcho was a bit of a misstep. But of course, you've heard all about that in the liberal media.

Blast, fastposted.

[Juan_Bottom]

Hey I didn't even mention the pipeline or anything, = ).

But of course, you've heard all about that in the liberal media.

And lets not forget that Fox News is conservative; but keeps it's lips zipped too.
But I have strangley noticed that the most outspoken free media is the conservative media.

[PLAYER57832]

Not that anyone seems to remember, but we invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban were supporting Al Quaeda, not because they were nasty ... though they certainly are nasty.

AND, while the multinational forces, mostly U.S. were initially welcomed by many, we have consistantly not rebuilt infrastructure, have supported warlords with their own agendas and generally either walked over or misunderstood locals.

That said, the soldiers over there are doing the best they can under the rules they must follow. It is not a soldier's job to be a peacemaker or even really a cop.

[got tonkaed]

It probably also wouldnt hurt to let Pakistan at least be aware of the fact that we were prepared to help India with their missile defense system a little more openly if they are not prepared to start doing their end of the bargain. I mean we are already doing it anyways, but it certainly wouldnt hurt to let them realize we dont have to be tied into one sided relationships that are not serving our benefit.

[mpjh]

I doubt that would do more than accelerate the arms race, which it is already doing, making both the Pakistanis and the Chinese nervous. I think rather some diplomatic resolution of the Kashmir and Tibet situations is necessary for a long term peace in that area.

[Juan_Bottom]

Not that anyone seems to remember, but we invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban were supporting Al Quaeda, not because they were nasty ... though they certainly are nasty.

That's certainly the story but I don't believe it anymore.



Come now everyone, we have done some good in the country... it's just been very sporadic and isolated. Such as building schools or pump-action wells. It's not something for the whole nation but something for locals.

Although I do remember reading that Afghan schools are responsable for teaching the most people in the world to practice Jihad.

[got tonkaed]

I doubt that would do more than accelerate the arms race, which it is already doing, making both the Pakistanis and the Chinese nervous. I think rather some diplomatic resolution of the Kashmir and Tibet situations is necessary for a long term peace in that area.

i dont disagree with the idea that there needs to be a diplomatic solution, which is still probably a little ways off. It really is a bit more to check Chinese ambitions as much as anything else, but considering we are already doing (its just not something that is that well reported) theres no reason that we shouldnt use it to its full advantage in terms of diplomatic usefuless.

[mpjh]

I don't see any advantage in a regional arms race.

[spurgistan]

Not that anyone seems to remember, but we invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban were supporting Al Quaeda, not because they were nasty ... though they certainly are nasty.

That's certainly the story but I don't believe it anymore.



Come now everyone, we have done some good in the country... it's just been very sporadic and isolated. Such as building schools or pump-action wells. It's not something for the whole nation but something for locals.

Although I do remember reading that Afghan schools are responsable for teaching the most people in the world to practice Jihad.

I don't think the US is building madrassas.

With regards to the India thing.. I feel like the more military aid we give India, the more likely they are (as they are now) to divert troops and resources from the Afghan to the Indian border, the less secure the border region is.

[got tonkaed]

I agree, but if the pakistani gov shows that they cant do the job (which is more or less what they have shown) then we might as well begin on building another relationship in the region, especially in regards to the China aspect of it. If working with Pakistan for the long term causes India to be alienated from us more and more (especially if there were to be more attacks and a greater domestic push in India to do something about it) we end up having less of an ally down the line when that potential issue continues to develop. We cant lose sight of the bigger picture just because we are busy in the region right now. Perhaps we dont have to do it overtly, though i think it has merits, but i do believe the India relationship is more important in teh long term than the Pakistan one.

I think the advantages of building a solid relationship with the second emerging power in that area of the world, justifies our actions. We continue to aid other nations for far less in return that then potential of making another valuable ally in the region. If you give me a choice between who i am going to support if there is an Arms race, i think teh eventual better answer is India.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't see any advantage in a regional arms race.

That's because you're not Korean.
And that is not a joke on Tonka.
I just couldn't say quite the same for Israel or India or anything...

[Backglass]

Of course next the uneducated argue it's personal Bush-Cheney oil money etc etc...and that gets a bit more funnier especially since they can't reap any new monetary benefits while their accounts have been basically held in trust with no ability to do any trading while in office. I do not like dictators and I do remember when the Kurds were gassed. So I am glad he's gone none the less.

And I think it's funny when those wearing their red, white & blue colored glasses brush off Iraq as a simple "do-gooder" mission to rid the world of a bad man. Funny how Castro is still 90 miles off our southern coast and North Korea is TRULY scary, yet we don't seem to have the time for either of these actual "evil doers". Good thing we spent all those trillions though to get a single bad man, though. Rah Rah Rah USA! Your votes for Bush put our country in the state it is in today. Congratulations, I am sure you are very proud.

It is time we took care of our OWN people, in our OWN country. While we waste our childrens future bombing a primitive people, our fine nations backyard rots. We should be ashamed. Hopefully with Obama at the helm, common sense will start to prevail instead of the last eight years of idiocy.

[mpjh]

It is time we took care of our OWN people, in our OWN country. While we waste our childrens future bombing a primitive people, our fine nations backyard rots. We should be ashamed. Hopefully with Obama at the helm, common sense will start to prevail instead of the last eight years of idiocy.

I think you have a point here. However, it is a self evident point, and one that is very perplexing to me. Why do we allow so much poverty in our country? Why to we have incidents like the aftermath of the Katrina hurricane? Why do we write-off so many of our own citizens? I think racism explains part of it but not all.

I think there is a persistent ideological view that if you are poor if is because you want to be poor. I think we extend that ideological view to the rest of the world, and with a bit of racism in the mix, we can justify any violence against any country less developed than us because we can better use their resources than they can.

Basically it is American hubris that is our central weakness and will cause our downfall if we don't get wise to it.

[Backglass]

I think you have a point here. However, it is a self evident point, and one that is very perplexing to me. Why do we allow so much poverty in our country? Why to we have incidents like the aftermath of the Katrina hurricane? Why do we write-off so many of our own citizens? I think racism explains part of it but not all.

I think there is a persistent ideological view that if you are poor if is because you want to be poor. I think we extend that ideological view to the rest of the world, and with a bit of racism in the mix, we can justify any violence against any country less developed than us because we can better use their resources than they can.

Basically it is American hubris that is our central weakness and will cause our downfall if we don't get wise to it.

Yes. Isn't it interesting we get all up in arms over atrocities in other countries, yet when American bodies were rotting in the streets of a great American city (New Orleans) it really wasn't even given much of a thought. It is the typical American way. Point at others and condemn their problems while hiding the skeletons in your own closet. The theory is that by spending billions in these countries we are saving future American lives at home...when 1/10 of that money actually spent at home would be saving American lives TODAY.

[Napoleon Ier]

[
It is time we took care of our OWN people, in our OWN country.

Yeah... this is what I keep saying, but then I get accused of being a wacist impewialist.

[mpjh]

I think you have a point here. However, it is a self evident point, and one that is very perplexing to me. Why do we allow so much poverty in our country? Why to we have incidents like the aftermath of the Katrina hurricane? Why do we write-off so many of our own citizens? I think racism explains part of it but not all.

I think there is a persistent ideological view that if you are poor if is because you want to be poor. I think we extend that ideological view to the rest of the world, and with a bit of racism in the mix, we can justify any violence against any country less developed than us because we can better use their resources than they can.

Basically it is American hubris that is our central weakness and will cause our downfall if we don't get wise to it.

Yes. Isn't it interesting we get all up in arms over atrocities in other countries, yet when American bodies were rotting in the streets of a great American city (New Orleans) it really wasn't even given much of a thought. It is the typical American way. Point at others and condemn their problems while hiding the skeletons in your own closet. The theory is that by spending billions in these countries we are saving future American lives at home...when 1/10 of that money actually spent at home would be saving American lives TODAY.

Yes, sometimes we are very good at looking past our past.

[Caleb the Cruel]

Afghanistan, eh?


Well I don't think anybody in their right mind who loves freedom and doesn't believe those silly 9-11 conspiracy theories would disagree with the War on Terror. Al-Qaeda attacked the citizens of the United States, and citizens from around the world on airplanes or in NYC, on the 11th of September, 2001. Therefore the people of America, and the rest of the world, had and have the right and duty to retaliate against those who caused a massive loss of innocent life, those who weren't even soldiers. In 2001, al-Qaeda(the terrorist group led by Osama bin Laden that arranged the massacres) was being harbored by the Taliban(the group that contolled Afghanistan and also exercised brutal human rights violations). In determination to weaken, if not eliminate al-Qaeda, a coalition of many countries entered Afghanistan and remain there to this day. With recent Taliban and al-Qaeda gains in Afghanistan, it would be naive to leave. Before coalition troops leave Afghanistan, the new democratic government needs to be able to stand on its own and be able to extinguish any hotspots of al-Qaeda activity. If we leave before the Taliban and al-Qaeda are defeated, the people of the world will be attacked again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

-end rant

[mpjh]

Absolute idiocy. You cannot have a war on a tactic. That is like saying "we are going to have a war on ambushes," or "we are going to have a war on pincer movements."