Why is the US in Afghanistan?

[tstv_lover]

Maybe a dumb question - maybe not - but what is the reason that the US has a large (and growing) contingent in Afghanistan?

[thx1138]

To kill people. (Population reduction program)

[Rogers]

Not just the U.S., but N.A.T.O. as a whole. The whole issue of Afghanistan might have already been resolved had Bush-Cheney not had the bright idea of invading Iraq to look for non-existent W.M.D.s'. The longer an occupation of a country goes on the higher the chance that its people will turn against its occupiers. Afghanistan is the type of country that had to "fixed" quickly, though that was quite probably impossible. Anyways, the time for fixing Afghanistan fast has long since passed, and now it can ONLY be a long haul...

[hippifried]

To rotate ordnance.

[tstv_lover]

Yes, I know that NATO has a presence in Afghanistan but the US is also operating outside of the NATO force (Isaf). Isaf seems to have a stated objective - albeit pretty vague - but I'm unclear what the mission objective of the other US troops is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7228649.stm

Is it to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" as President Obama said today (guess that he should know!), to destroy the Taleban, to maintain strategic control in the area, to find Osama bin Laden or something else.

Without understanding the mission objective it's impossible to understand if progress is being achieved and what constitutes success.

[kittyKaiti]

Maybe a dumb question - maybe not - but what is the reason that the US has a large (and growing) contingent in Afghanistan?

Where have you been in the past eight years? Does the name Osama bin Laden ring a bell? Al Qaeda?

[hippifried]

If anybody had really wanted to get Osama binLaden, he'd be sitting in Attica today. It was just an excuse for bombing somebody, anybody, to appease the vengeful mood of the Aerican people at the time.

The Taliban are assholes, but they're their assholes. They never did anything to us. There were no Afghans on the planes. They weren't looking to pick a fight with the US. They couldn't "hand over binLaden" because they never had him in custody. He wasn't engaged in criminal activity there. They said exactly what we say any time someone requests extradition: "Show us your evidence." We bombed instead.

You never know what you don't know, but I've never seen a coherent reason for going in there in the first place, & I see less reasoning for staying there. The war in Afghanistan is a gigantic fuckup. We should admit it & get the hell out.

[kittyKaiti]

The fact that your screen name has the word "hippie" in it automatically voids anything you say.





Conspiracy theorists are so dumb.

[hippifried]

Well the mere fact that you'd say something that stupid, about something you obviously know nothing about, pretty much voids your opinions. So what?

You're right about conspiracy theorists though. That's why it was so blatantly dumb to invade Afghanistan in the first place. Lame conspiracy theories were & are the only excuses for the "war on terror".

[thx1138]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan_pakistan;_ylt=AvAfVvQ5nsMGSMmjcG f4BMCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJyMGEyNmljBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMD kwNTA3L3VzX3VzX2FmZ2hhbmlzdGFuX3Bha2lzdGFuBGNwb3MD MQRwb3MDMwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNmdWxsbmJzcH N0b3I- Will the US run out of money before Afghanistan runs out of people? Stay tuned.

[beandip]

Actually Zbignew Brzezinski who is the Obamamama's chief foreign policy adviser wrote a book during the time when he served on the Carter administration where he explicitly detailed the importance of securing the gas fields in central Asia. This "war" is not about Osama....or routing or terrorists...it's a natural resource war. Always was....always will be.

[Rogers]

Yes, I know that NATO has a presence in Afghanistan but the US is also operating outside of the NATO force (Isaf). Isaf seems to have a stated objective - albeit pretty vague - but I'm unclear what the mission objective of the other US troops is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7228649.stm

Is it to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" as President Obama said today (guess that he should know!), to destroy the Taleban, to maintain strategic control in the area, to find Osama bin Laden or something else.

Without understanding the mission objective it's impossible to understand if progress is being achieved and what constitutes success.

I.S.A.F. is N.A.T.O. led and incorporates ONLY two nations that have no ties to it. The American troops in the east of the country are there to control the border with Pakistan.

This is a clash about different cultures, initiated as Hippi quite rightly said by 9/11 and a desire for vengeance. The hijackers were mostly Saudis' but were trained in Afghanistan, because the interests of the Saudi Royal Family are more Western than Islamic. The reverse was most definitely the case in Afghanistan before it was invaded. The "bright idea" that was Gulf War II has served to inflame things further in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Add to that the natural reluctance for any people to be occupied, particularly the Afghanis', and you have the current quagmire.

It's a similar situation to Vietnam and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and as with that conflicts it will take a lot, lot more body-bags coming home for any President to pull out without any resemblance of success, which is a relatively stable and unthreatened democracy. Those are indeed the stated aims in the link you've given, and why there are also still troops in Iraq. Study history and animal behavior and you will always find a similar explanation for the way things are today.

[hippifried]

Actually Zbignew Brzezinski who is the Obamamama's chief foreign policy adviser wrote a book during the time when he served on the Carter administration where he explicitly detailed the importance of securing the gas fields in central Asia. This "war" is not about Osama....or routing or terrorists...it's a natural resource war. Always was....always will be.Brzezinski isn't chief of anything or advisor of any kind in the current administration. He hasn't had any clout for 30 years. Afghanistan doesn't have any gas or oil to speak of. They're just between Iran & China, so any pipelines have to go through there, or through the even more unstable former Soviet republics.

You're right that this was never about Osama binLaden. We seem to know all about al Qaeda, to hear some tell it. Hell, we kill the #2 or #3 guy every other week, right? I'm starting to think #1 is a myth. His name started popping up within hours of the plane crashes, but I haven't seen any actual evidence that he ordered 9/11. I have serious doubts whenever a face is put on an undefined enemy.

[tstv_lover]

So, it sounds like the US is in Afghanistan either to secure natural resource routes or to destroy the Taleban, who pose no threat to the US and were not involved with 9/11.

The spectre of Osama bin Laden is being used to justify the actions which, given the large number of US forces, inevitably results in civilian casualies. These civilian casualties, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, cause local populations to hate the US.

Osama bin Laden (assuming he exists) may or may not be found as part of this exercise, but President Obama's statements yesterday made no reference to Osama bin Laden.

More troops and funding will continue until "success" is achieved, although no-one is really clear why the US troops are there or what success constitutes.

Have I got that about right?

[hippifried]

Yup. That's about the situation. A total clusterfuck.

Onward to "victory", in "the good war".

[thx1138]

I do know Cheney went to Khazakstan several times to cut a deal over their crude oil. He came back emptyhanded. Bribery, blackmail and intimidation didn't work.

[delimarikita]

Economy of war. You get into a war, drop bombs, yet you need to replenish your stock of weapons for the next war, so you need people to work in different industries to create new bombs. Every person involved in the whole process receives a salary with which he/she can buy stuff that is produced by others who are receiving your money as their salary. In the process, the economy moves on and the big vampires of war and death receive the biggest chunk of the gold bar. You see how easy it is making money on top of the skulls of others?

[thx1138]

Don't read this unless you have a LOT of time on your hands: http://www.civicworldwide.org/storage/civic/documents/afghan%20report%20final.pdf

[BrendaQG]

The Taliban are assholes, but they're their assholes. They never did anything to us. There were no Afghans on the planes. They weren't looking to pick a fight with the US. They couldn't "hand over binLaden" because they never had him in custody. He wasn't engaged in criminal activity there. They said exactly what we say any time someone requests extradition: "Show us your evidence." We bombed instead.

I agree with that. What's more is the Taliban had actually brought a semblance of order to a place that had known only drug fueled wars and warlordism. What we brought back was more warlordism, and a less stable orderly situation....didn't improve anyone's rights for the most part. They all believed in the Salafi/Wahabi interpretation of Sharia. To top it off these people have known only war and death and so are callous to it.

All we have done is bomb rubble and broken buildings until they were dust...then build new buildings and roads only to bomb them again. Ultimately we will leave and whoever we placed in power will fall anyway.

As for Bin Laden he needs kidney dialysis .... in all likely hood he as been in either Pakistan, Egypt, or someplace where he could get his medical care. I don't think he is in Afganistan anymore.

[El Nino]

Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline... dummies

[Rogers]

The Taliban are assholes, but they're their assholes. They never did anything to us. There were no Afghans on the planes. They weren't looking to pick a fight with the US. They couldn't "hand over binLaden" because they never had him in custody. He wasn't engaged in criminal activity there. They said exactly what we say any time someone requests extradition: "Show us your evidence." We bombed instead.

I agree with that. What's more is the Taliban had actually brought a semblance of order to a place that had known only drug fueled wars and warlordism. What we brought back was more warlordism, and a less stable orderly situation....didn't improve anyone's rights for the most part.

Mmm, tell that to the women there...
"If this was happening to any other class of people around the world, there would be a tremendous outcry."
-Eleanor Smeal, President, Feminist Majority Foundation
http://feminist.org/afghan/facts.html

and the Afghan refugees...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_refugees

Guess we could have stood by and watched Hitler persecute the Jews, Gypsys, and Slavs (to extinction) also. And the Serbs do the same to the Bosnians. After all, those wars weren't ours were they? We did sit by and watch the Rwandan Genocide though... but then they were just poor Africans. :x

I would have thought that there would have been a bit more egalitarianism on show on this board, but then again, life never FAILS to surprise me.

... just like me having posted a link to a feminist website. OMFG, hahaha. :shock: :o

[hippifried]

The Taliban was a product of the cold war following colonialism. When Afghanistan (a creation of European colonial powers with no sense of who's who in the region) was in the Soviet camp, & women were making all those strides, The great egalitarian western powers were wringing their hands & sobbing crocodile tears about how mistreated everybody was under the thumb of the "reds". So we pooled our resources & pressed thos folks to rise up & rid themselves of the tyranny of having to think of women as anyting more than chattel. Property to be traded like a commodity. Subhuman.

Careful what you wish for.


Rwanda (another creation of European colonial powers with no sense of who's who in the region)was on the road to genocide once the social order was turned to an ethnic or genetic based heirarchy by the Germans, Belgians, & the Catholic church. Pre-colonization, the Hutus & Tutsis weren't separate tribes. It was just a social pecking order based on ownership of cattle. Whether through ignorance, hubris, or both, Europeans refused to see anything but a system of peerage royalty & reinforced it. It suited their purpose, which was to virtually enslave the populace, take control of all natural resources, & turn as much arable land as possible to the production of export cash crops.

Before the genocide, it was Hutus who were being persecuted. Those were Hutu refugee camps in the surrounding countries. The genocide was rash to be sure. Harsh beyond comprehension. But to call what happened anything other than the backlash to colonialism is a lie. Western "egalitarians" had nothing to offer but more of the same crap. Harsh as the backlash was, it shattered the peerage system. Things are still in Tutsi control, like they always have been. The difference now, as it was pre-colonialism, is that Hutu can aspire to be & become Tutsi. Cattle were the exchange medium & symbol of wealth at that time. I'm sure it's more complex & complicated today.

[Rogers]

Can't do much about the past fraid, Hippi, as time-machines haven't been invented yet. So back to the present, we've got to ask ourselves the following questions:

Were American interests targeted by moslem fundamentalists before 9/11?
Yes or no.

Were the moslem fundamentalists behind 9/11 trained in Afghanistan?
Yes or no.

Was the world's only superpower expected to just shrug off 9/11 without any retaliation?
Yes or no.

Did the Taliban offer any assistance in finding the possible culprits for 9/11 on their soil?
Yes or no.

Do you expect any President to pull out of Afghanistan without either "success" or a lot of casualties?
Yes or no.

Would Afghanistan returning to Taliban control be a good or bad thing?
Yes or no.

[thx1138]

Flashback

December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas

Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban’s policies against women and children ‘despicable,’ appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.” A BBC regional correspondent says that “the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.” [BBC, 12/4/1997; Daily Telegraph, 12/14/1997] It has been claimed that the Taliban meet with Enron officials while in Texas (see 1996-September 11, 2001). Enron, headquartered in Texas, has an large financial interest in the pipeline at the time (see June 24, 1996). The Taliban also visit Thomas Gouttierre, an academic at the University of Nebraska, who is a consultant for Unocal and also has been paid by the CIA for his work in Afghanistan (see 1984-1994 and December 1997). Gouttierre takes them on a visit to Mt. Rushmore. [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 328-329]

[hippifried]

Can't do much about the past fraid, Hippi, as time-machines haven't been invented yet. So back to the present, we've got to ask ourselves the following questions:

(1) Were American interests targeted by moslem fundamentalists before 9/11?
Yes or no.

(2) Were the moslem fundamentalists behind 9/11 trained in Afghanistan?
Yes or no.

(3) Was the world's only superpower expected to just shrug off 9/11 without any retaliation?
Yes or no.

(4) Did the Taliban offer any assistance in finding the possible culprits for 9/11 on their soil?
Yes or no.

(5) Do you expect any President to pull out of Afghanistan without either "success" or a lot of casualties?
Yes or no.

(6) Would Afghanistan returning to Taliban control be a good or bad thing?
Yes or no.The past gives us perspective on the present. Let's look at your questions: (numbers put in by me)

(1) Which ones? American interests are targeted by everybody, including Americans. Muslim fundamentalists run the gamut of loving us to hating us. In general, the answer is no. Specifically, we can all cite instances of tension turned violent, & all sorts of interference with American interests prior to 9/11. But we're supposed to be in the present. Right?

(2) Not really. They got their flight training here. They took over the planes amed with nothing more than some plastic knives, a couple of razor blades, a lame story about a bomb, a whole bunch of chutzpah, & knowlege of what the flying public had been taught to do in a hijacking since D B Cooper, or even Jesse James.

(3) No, but that's what happened. Retaliate against whom? The hijackers were dead. We took a huge leap of faith when we accepted the idea that there was some Dr Evil type mastermind sitting in Afghanistan pulling the puppet strings. Personally, I'm still not convinced, & I haven't seen anything but a lot of declarations. No evidence. I whacked a sidewinder with a shovel once. Not knowing what hit it, it just started coiling & striking, rapid fire in all directions. Our reaction to 9/11 reminds me of that rattler.

(4) Yes. They said "Show us your evidence.". We turned down their request & bombed the city of Kabul. A lot of people died that had no connection at all to 9/11. Nobody knows how many because nobody ever cared. They're not American so they don't count. Besides, to hear everybody tell it, our bombs are so smart that they just kill Talibans & alQaedas. Well, a few Canadians, but they don't count either.

(5) Whew! Finally back to the present. Yes. I expect any President to be smarter than me. Smarter than to think he can keep up a bunch of false precepts & lame excuses forever to keep the perpetual war going. There's already been casualties. There's going to be more casualties regardless of whether we stay or go. Nobody knows what success in Afghanistan means. There's nobody to defeat because we don't know who the enemy is. It could be that guy walking down the street with a cell phone & briefcase, or the woman in the burqa, or the guy on the prayer rug, or the gal in the designer dress on her way to class at the university. They're back where they were when the Soviets held sway, before the late '70s collapse & the soviet invasion. Mission accomplished. Declare victory & get the hell out.

(6) Not for me to say. Not my decision to make, or anybody else's for that matter. But the assumption that the Taliban would automatically take over if we left is pretty far fetched. Was the Afghan populace disarmed while nobody was looking? The Taliban never had complete control, even while they were considered in charge. We need to get over this idea that there's some sovereign nationality of Afghans. Time for a reality check.

[tstv_lover]

According to Stratfor: "If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090511_afghanistan_and_u_s_strategic_debate

Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?

[Rogers]

Can't do much about the past fraid, Hippi, as time-machines haven't been invented yet. So back to the present, we've got to ask ourselves the following questions:

(1) Were American interests targeted by moslem fundamentalists before 9/11?
Yes or no.

(2) Were the moslem fundamentalists behind 9/11 trained in Afghanistan?
Yes or no.

(3) Was the world's only superpower expected to just shrug off 9/11 without any retaliation?
Yes or no.

(4) Did the Taliban offer any assistance in finding the possible culprits for 9/11 on their soil?
Yes or no.

(5) Do you expect any President to pull out of Afghanistan without either "success" or a lot of casualties?
Yes or no.

(6) Would Afghanistan returning to Taliban control be a good or bad thing?
Yes or no.The past gives us perspective on the present. Let's look at your questions: (numbers put in by me)

(1) Which ones? American interests are targeted by everybody, including Americans. Muslim fundamentalists run the gamut of loving us to hating us. In general, the answer is no.

Really?
1993 World Trade Center bombing (a dress-rehearsal for 9/11)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#February_26.2C_1993_bombing
1995 Bonjika plot (another dress-rehearsal for 9/11)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka
1998 United States embassy bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
2000 USS Cole bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
January 2001 Al Qaeda identified as major threat by Clinton Administration
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html


(2) Not really.

Oh really?
Bin Laden (?) at an Al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

Bin Laden and 9/11 pilots at his home in Afghanistan:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article656440.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article656541.ece


(3) No, but that's what happened. Retaliate against whom? The hijackers were dead. We took a huge leap of faith when we accepted the idea that there was some Dr Evil type mastermind sitting in Afghanistan pulling the puppet strings. Personally, I'm still not convinced, & I haven't seen anything but a lot of declarations. No evidence. I whacked a sidewinder with a shovel once. Not knowing what hit it, it just started coiling & striking, rapid fire in all directions. Our reaction to 9/11 reminds me of that rattler.

Ben Franklin (very clever man :wink: ) on the Rattlesnake as a Symbol of America
"a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America"
http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/rattlesnake.html


(4) Yes. They said "Show us your evidence.". We turned down their request & bombed the city of Kabul.

If the Taliban had one collective brain-cell between them they would have figured out very quickly that they had to let U.S. intel and ground troops find any evidence for themselves. But then what should we expect from people who ban T.V., chess, kites, and force women to be nothing more than slaves for breeding.

Saudis secretly funding Taliban (Robert Fisk, 1998)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/saudis-secretly-funding-taliban-1195453.html


(5) Yes. I expect any President to be smarter than me. Smarter than to think he can keep up a bunch of false precepts & lame excuses forever to keep the perpetual war going.

Presidents don't have to be that smart to be elected. Just look at Dumbya, he got re-elected simply because, as far as most are concerned, men in power should never look weak. Obama almost certainly thinks the same way too.


(6) Not for me to say. Not my decision to make, or anybody else's for that matter. But the assumption that the Taliban would automatically take over if we left is pretty far fetched... Time for a reality check.

Yes, it maybe is time for a reality check...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women
Taliban Threat Is Said to Grow in Afghan South
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/world/asia/03afghan.html
Zardari: We Underestimated Taliban Threat
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/13/60minutes/main4800926.shtml
Taliban a threat to Pakistan's 'existence'
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/11/taliban-a-threat-to-pakistans-very-existence/

[Rogers]

According to Stratfor: "If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090511_afghanistan_and_u_s_strategic_debate

Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?

This may prove to be the get-out clause, but it contradicts the stated aims of I.S.A.F.-N.A.T.O..

"Isaf's stated role is to help the government of Afghanistan maintain security across the country by conducting operations in co-ordination with the Afghan National Army. It also mentors and supports efforts by them to disarm illegal militias.

Nato says that the long-term aim is to help establish conditions in which Afghanistan can enjoy a stable and representative government after decades of conflict."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7228649.stm

I.E. To support a democracy!

[tstv_lover]

According to Stratfor: "If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090511_afghanistan_and_u_s_strategic_debate

Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?

This may prove to be the get-out clause, but it contradicts the stated aims of I.S.A.F.-N.A.T.O..

"Isaf's stated role is to help the government of Afghanistan maintain security across the country by conducting operations in co-ordination with the Afghan National Army. It also mentors and supports efforts by them to disarm illegal militias.

Nato says that the long-term aim is to help establish conditions in which Afghanistan can enjoy a stable and representative government after decades of conflict."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7228649.stm

I.E. To support a democracy!

There are plenty examples of countries which have a "strong and representative government" but are not democracies. You want an example? Oh, say China.

The reality is that Karzai has no popular mandate, is only able to travel outside Kabul under tight security, was appointed by Western countries and will disappear when the US/NATO troops leave. I'm not saying that's good or bad - just reality.

The British discovered over 100 years ago what the Russians encountered in 1980s - Afghanistan is a county of tribal leaders with fierce belief in their historic culture.

The word "democratic" is not mentioned in the ISAF mandate. Leaving the issue of democracy aside for a minute do you believe that a deal between the US and Taliban, which will result in them not supporting al-Qaeda, is both achievable and politically acceptable to the US?

[Rogers]

According to Stratfor: "If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090511_afghanistan_and_u_s_strategic_debate

Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?

This may prove to be the get-out clause, but it contradicts the stated aims of I.S.A.F.-N.A.T.O..

"Isaf's stated role is to help the government of Afghanistan maintain security across the country by conducting operations in co-ordination with the Afghan National Army. It also mentors and supports efforts by them to disarm illegal militias.

Nato says that the long-term aim is to help establish conditions in which Afghanistan can enjoy a stable and representative government after decades of conflict."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7228649.stm

I.E. To support a democracy!

There are plenty examples of countries which have a "strong and representative government" but are not democracies. You want an example? Oh, say China.

The reality is that Karzai has no popular mandate, is only able to travel outside Kabul under tight security, was appointed by Western countries and will disappear when the US/NATO troops leave. I'm not saying that's good or bad - just reality.

The British discovered over 100 years ago what the Russians encountered in 1980s - Afghanistan is a county of tribal leaders with fierce belief in their historic culture.

The word "democratic" is not mentioned in the ISAF mandate. Leaving the issue of democracy aside for a minute do you believe that a deal between the US and Taliban, which will result in them not supporting al-Qaeda, is both achievable and politically acceptable to the US?

The terms democratic and representative government are "virtually indistinguishable" today. I did say "I.E." (= in essence).
"today representative institutions and democracy appear as virtually indistinguishable"
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521458919

Here's another one:
"The notion of democracy is the starting point for understanding representative government. The word democracy means “government by the people”, from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule). The city-states of ancient Greece decided issues through public meetings in the market place that all citizens could attend."
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/rules/rep/

Early democracies were pale shadows of what they are today. But all representative governments are "by the people"!

"representative government should be understood as a combination of democratic and undemocratic elements."
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521458919

And since we're trying to be picky about terms here, strong isn't the same thing as stable. You can also have a stable system that is weak. There is both local (weak) and global (strong) stability in systems. I hope everyone is confused now, hahaha.

Karzai's "no popular mandate" as you called it from 2004 (new election later this year):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Afghanistan#2004_presidential_electio n

Sure looks like both a popular mandate and representative DEMOCRACY to me.

Obama will look weak to me and many others if he deals with the Taliban. Do you honestly think you can trust these guys not to co-operate with Al-Qaeda again? FFS, they both share the same political and religious beds. I doubt any American voter is that naive. Al-Qaeda will just throw more money at the Taliban if they have to. This is why the idea is coming from the generals and not the politicans. Cutting a deal with the Taliban may be enough on its own to sound the death knell for Obama's chances of another term. You can try and dress it up anyway you like, but I hope you'll be happy when we see Afghans' flocking to their borders and trying to leave their country again, and all Afghan women forced back in Burkha's when the Taliban come back, once you get your wish. I'm sure we'll see "representative" government in action then. And that WILL be Obama's tombstone.

Now I've said my piece on this thread. I don't see any point in discussing things further with people who are pacifists and appeasers, because I'm not going to change your minds. But I hope you remember what I've said here if the Taliban do indeed return to power.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Winston Churchill

"First they came..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

[tstv_lover]

[quote=Rogers][quote=tstv_lover]According to Stratfor: "If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090511_afghanistan_and_u_s_strategic_debate

Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?

Obama will look weak to me and many others if he deals with the Taliban. Do you honestly think you can trust these guys not to co-operate with Al-Qaeda again? FFS, they both share the same political and religious beds. I doubt any American voter is that naive. Al-Qaeda will just throw more money at the Taliban if they have to. This is why the idea is coming from the generals and not the politicans. Cutting a deal with the Taliban may be enough on its own to sound the death knell for Obama's chances of another term. You can try and dress it up anyway you like, but I hope you'll be happy when we see Afghans' flocking to their borders and trying to leave their country again, and all Afghan women forced back in Burkha's when the Taliban come back, once you get your wish. I'm sure we'll see "representative" government in action then. And that WILL be Obama's tombstone.

Now I've said my piece on this thread. I don't see any point in discussing things further with people who are pacifists and appeasers, because I'm not going to change your minds. But I hope you remember what I've said here if the Taliban do indeed return to power.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Winston Churchill

"First they came..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Not sure why you think that women wearing Burkhas is my wish????

I think you've completely misunderstood the Stratfor article. This suggests that Obama - not the generals - would likely do a deal with the Taliban. The article concludes:

"In the end, there is never a debate between U.S. presidents and generals. Even MacArthur discovered that. It is becoming clear that Obama is not going to bet all in Afghanistan, and that he sees Afghanistan as not worth the fight. Petraeus is a soldier in a fight, and he wants to win. But in the end, as Clausewitz said, war is an extension of politics by other means. As such, generals tend to not get their way."

It really isn't a question of pacificm and appeasment. It's a question of the strategic aim of this operation - hence the thread title. Responses to date indicate that there is no clear, consistent and coherent objective - hence the confusion.

The Stratfor article has analysed the situation and suggested how things will pan out. I understand your disbelief at the mere suggestion that a US President will do a deal with the Taliban, however that is what the article suggests.

I'm not a pacifist but, like Winston Churchill who had great experience of 3 major wars, I believe that "jaw jaw is better than war war".

[NYBURBS]

The terms democratic and representative government are "virtually indistinguishable" today. I did say "I.E." (= in essence).
"today representative institutions and democracy appear as virtually indistinguishable"
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521458919

Here's another one:
"The notion of democracy is the starting point for understanding representative government. The word democracy means “government by the people”, from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule). The city-states of ancient Greece decided issues through public meetings in the market place that all citizens could attend."
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/rules/rep/

Early democracies were pale shadows of what they are today. But all representative governments are "by the people"!

"representative government should be understood as a combination of democratic and undemocratic elements."
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521458919

And since we're trying to be picky about terms here, strong isn't the same thing as stable. You can also have a stable system that is weak. There is both local (weak) and global (strong) stability in systems. I hope everyone is confused now, hahaha.

Karzai's "no popular mandate" as you called it from 2004 (new election later this year):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Afghanistan#2004_presidential_electio n

Sure looks like both a popular mandate and representative DEMOCRACY to me.

Obama will look weak to me and many others if he deals with the Taliban. Do you honestly think you can trust these guys not to co-operate with Al-Qaeda again? FFS, they both share the same political and religious beds. I doubt any American voter is that naive. Al-Qaeda will just throw more money at the Taliban if they have to. This is why the idea is coming from the generals and not the politicans. Cutting a deal with the Taliban may be enough on its own to sound the death knell for Obama's chances of another term. You can try and dress it up anyway you like, but I hope you'll be happy when we see Afghans' flocking to their borders and trying to leave their country again, and all Afghan women forced back in Burkha's when the Taliban come back, once you get your wish. I'm sure we'll see "representative" government in action then. And that WILL be Obama's tombstone.

Now I've said my piece on this thread. I don't see any point in discussing things further with people who are pacifists and appeasers, because I'm not going to change your minds. But I hope you remember what I've said here if the Taliban do indeed return to power.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Winston Churchill

"First they came..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Look at some point one needs to get over the whole looking weak aspect of diplomacy. Unless we're willing to wipe out a good chunk of the billion or so Muslims in the world than we need to do more talking and less fighting.

We should also pause and ask ourselves what is behind the severe level of resentment and anger at the US in many parts of the world. While some of it may be misplaced not all of it is. We have supported countless dictators, "terrorists", rebels, etc; all in an effort to achieve questionable foreign policy goals.

As for ensuring or spreading democracy, that can not be done by force on our part. People have to want that particular form of governance, and be willing to fight for it themselves. The constant cycle of war is bankrupting us, and in the long run it is counter-productive to our own national security.

[Rogers]

According to Stratfor: "If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090511_afghanistan_and_u_s_strategic_debate

Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?

Obama will look weak to me and many others if he deals with the Taliban. Do you honestly think you can trust these guys not to co-operate with Al-Qaeda again? FFS, they both share the same political and religious beds. I doubt any American voter is that naive. Al-Qaeda will just throw more money at the Taliban if they have to. This is why the idea is coming from the generals and not the politicans. Cutting a deal with the Taliban may be enough on its own to sound the death knell for Obama's chances of another term. You can try and dress it up anyway you like, but I hope you'll be happy when we see Afghans' flocking to their borders and trying to leave their country again, and all Afghan women forced back in Burkha's when the Taliban come back, once you get your wish. I'm sure we'll see "representative" government in action then. And that WILL be Obama's tombstone.

Now I've said my piece on this thread. I don't see any point in discussing things further with people who are pacifists and appeasers, because I'm not going to change your minds. But I hope you remember what I've said here if the Taliban do indeed return to power.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Winston Churchill

"First they came..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Not sure why you think that women wearing Burkhas is my wish????

I think you've completely misunderstood the Stratfor article. This suggests that Obama - not the generals - would likely do a deal with the Taliban. The article concludes:

"In the end, there is never a debate between U.S. presidents and generals. Even MacArthur discovered that. It is becoming clear that Obama is not going to bet all in Afghanistan, and that he sees Afghanistan as not worth the fight. Petraeus is a soldier in a fight, and he wants to win. But in the end, as Clausewitz said, war is an extension of politics by other means. As such, generals tend to not get their way."

It really isn't a question of pacificm and appeasment. It's a question of the strategic aim of this operation - hence the thread title. Responses to date indicate that there is no clear, consistent and coherent objective - hence the confusion.

The Stratfor article has analysed the situation and suggested how things will pan out. I understand your disbelief at the mere suggestion that a US President will do a deal with the Taliban, however that is what the article suggests.

I'm not a pacifist but, like Winston Churchill who had great experience of 3 major wars, I believe that "jaw jaw is better than war war".

I've read the Stratfor article in full now. I suspect that Obama is trying to simplify the situation on Afghanistan so that it doesn't become HIS WAR. I agreed with Petraeus on Iraq and now on Afghanistan too, and won't be surprised if he attains high political office someday himself. No matter how wrong the reason for initially invading a country is, you simply just can't leave it in a shambles. Two wrongs never make a right.

The long standing plan for Afghanistan was in the B.B.C. link you posted earlier. I thought everyone knew it. This is why I was suspicious of your motives, and my comments weren't entirely directed at you anyway. I'll still be very surprised if Obama deals with the Taliban for the reasons I've already given. If he does, then he shouldn't expect not to be completely shafted sooner or later. Both the U.K. and France are currently increasing their troop numbers there too. It's a shitty situation, but history is littered with them.

[Rogers]

The terms democratic and representative government are "virtually indistinguishable" today. I did say "I.E." (= in essence).
"today representative institutions and democracy appear as virtually indistinguishable"
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521458919

Here's another one:
"The notion of democracy is the starting point for understanding representative government. The word democracy means “government by the people”, from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule). The city-states of ancient Greece decided issues through public meetings in the market place that all citizens could attend."
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/rules/rep/

Early democracies were pale shadows of what they are today. But all representative governments are "by the people"!

"representative government should be understood as a combination of democratic and undemocratic elements."
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521458919

And since we're trying to be picky about terms here, strong isn't the same thing as stable. You can also have a stable system that is weak. There is both local (weak) and global (strong) stability in systems. I hope everyone is confused now, hahaha.

Karzai's "no popular mandate" as you called it from 2004 (new election later this year):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Afghanistan#2004_presidential_electio n

Sure looks like both a popular mandate and representative DEMOCRACY to me.

Obama will look weak to me and many others if he deals with the Taliban. Do you honestly think you can trust these guys not to co-operate with Al-Qaeda again? FFS, they both share the same political and religious beds. I doubt any American voter is that naive. Al-Qaeda will just throw more money at the Taliban if they have to. This is why the idea is coming from the generals and not the politicans. Cutting a deal with the Taliban may be enough on its own to sound the death knell for Obama's chances of another term. You can try and dress it up anyway you like, but I hope you'll be happy when we see Afghans' flocking to their borders and trying to leave their country again, and all Afghan women forced back in Burkha's when the Taliban come back, once you get your wish. I'm sure we'll see "representative" government in action then. And that WILL be Obama's tombstone.

Now I've said my piece on this thread. I don't see any point in discussing things further with people who are pacifists and appeasers, because I'm not going to change your minds. But I hope you remember what I've said here if the Taliban do indeed return to power.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Winston Churchill

"First they came..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Look at some point one needs to get over the whole looking weak aspect of diplomacy. Unless we're willing to wipe out a good chunk of the billion or so Muslims in the world than we need to do more talking and less fighting.

We should also pause and ask ourselves what is behind the severe level of resentment and anger at the US in many parts of the world. While some of it may be misplaced not all of it is. We have supported countless dictators, "terrorists", rebels, etc; all in an effort to achieve questionable foreign policy goals.

As for ensuring or spreading democracy, that can not be done by force on our part. People have to want that particular form of governance, and be willing to fight for it themselves. The constant cycle of war is bankrupting us, and in the long run it is counter-productive to our own national security.

It has nothing to do with Afghanistan, but everything to do with Gulf War II, America's unconditional support for Israel no matter how many U.N. resolutions they flout, and the emergence of militant islam which has been as a direct result of the Israel-Palestine conflict. No President has been willing to tackle the root of this problem to date. No one blinked an eye when news about Israel's massive nuclear arsenal was disclosed, but Iran trying to develop one is an absolute no-no. Obama started back-tracking on Israel as soon as he was declared Presidential Candidate. Why are people so fucking blind!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878

[Rogers]

The Israel Lobby

"Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation."

"There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had ‘displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns’. Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: ‘All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians – those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire – got the message.’"

"The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: “Help AIPAC.”’"

"Second, Syria had not been on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq war (it had even voted for UN Resolution 1441), and was itself no threat to the United States. Playing hardball with it would make the US look like a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Third, putting Syria on the hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to bring pressure to bear, it made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first. Yet Congress insisted on putting the screws on Damascus, largely in response to pressure from Israeli officials and groups like AIPAC. If there were no Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act, and US policy towards Damascus would have been more in line with the national interest."

"The Lobby’s influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face – including America’s European allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathisers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

[Rogers]

The End of Free Speech?

Criminalizing Criticism of Israel

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

May 7, 2009

"It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity."
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05072009.html

[Rogers]

Obama pays homage to AIPAC after he wins the Democratic Party's Candidacy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw

[Rogers]

Iraq: A War For Israel

"Israel’s spy agencies were a “full partner” with the US and Britain in producing greatly exaggerated prewar assessments of Iraq’s ability to wage war, a former senior Israeli military intelligence official has acknowledged. Shlomo Bron, a brigadier general in the Israel army reserves, and a senior researcher at a major Israeli think tank, said that intelligence provided by Israel played a significant role in supporting the US and British case for making war. Israeli intelligence agencies, he said, “badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons [of mass destruction] existed.” [14]"
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml

Ex-General Says Israel Inflated Iraqi Threat
"Brom held senior positions in Israeli military intelligence for 25 years before retiring from the army in 1998."
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/05/world/fg-isintel5

[hippifried]

Ok Rogers, call me spanked on the alQaeda connection to 9/11. I concede.

That still doesn't justify what we're doing or what we've done. Wars of conquest are unamerican. If we really wanted to go get those alQaeda guys back in 2001, the Taliban couldn't have stopped us or even gotten in the way. We bombed for vengeance & didn't care who it was. We bombed the capital city of a non-Arab country over the actions of Arabs who we knew were not residents of that city. At least that was the excuse & still is. We've been making up excuses ever since.

The Taliban was defeated by the "Northern Alliance" before the US army ever stepped on Afghan soil. We could have declared victory & been out of there in a month. I would still have had a problem with the decision to invade, but there would have been no problem with accepting what's already happened & trying to correct the problems.

There's no military solution to social problems, & the military is not a police force, social services, or diplomatic corps. They're the wrong tool for the job. An extremely autocratic organization cannot promote democracy. That's why the US military is under civilian control & not allowed to carry out military operations within our borders, the southern rebellion notwithstanding. We've put them in charge of something they're incapable of doing, & we've made no move to do things right. Maybe this new guy can dial it down. It's a clusterfuck.

The Taliban is resurging because we're still there. It doesn't matter if we pass out candy bars to kids. We're still a military occupation, & nobody likes being occupied. Nobody. The Taliban are their assholes. We're not. Don't kid yourself. The various tribes of Afghanistan look at us the same way they looked at the Soviet invasion force. Intentions don't mean anything when you're staring down a barrel. This has gone on too long & we need to stop before the Taliban gets too powerful for the Afghan people to stop. It may be too late already. They don't need an army. They need a police force. Same goes for Iraq.

Continuing somebody else's inanity by maintaining the same level of incompetence is not a sign of strength. Just the opposite. If the American people wanted perpetual war, they would have voted differently. Weakness is being afraid to stand by your convictions & lying about it. The "war on terrorism" is bullshit because war IS terrorism.

Israel is irrelevant. It's not our job to promote Judaism or zionism, & we're not at war with Islam.

[NYBURBS]

It has nothing to do with Afghanistan, but everything to do with Gulf War II, America's unconditional support for Israel no matter how many U.N. resolutions they flout, and the emergence of militant islam which has been as a direct result of the Israel-Palestine conflict. No President has been willing to tackle the root of this problem to date. No one blinked an eye when news about Israel's massive nuclear arsenal was disclosed, but Iran trying to develop one is an absolute no-no. Obama started back-tracking on Israel as soon as he was declared Presidential Candidate. Why are people so fucking blind!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878

Look I'm no fan of the influence Israel has in our government, nor do I support giving them military aid. However, while it has been a source of contention with Muslims it is not the sole one. It's a great public relations ploy for them, but it's not the end all and be all. Though I would agree with your point on Iran and their nukes.




The End of Free Speech?

Criminalizing Criticism of Israel

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

May 7, 2009

"It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity."
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05072009.html

Ah I'm not a supporter of hate crime designations either, but that article you just quoted is misleading at best. Have you read the legislation? I'll quote for you the relevant sections:

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1913

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 2, 2009

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

`(I) across a State line or national border; or

`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

AND...

SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

[tstv_lover]

Rogers makes some excellent points. I believe the resolution he's referring to is described by one Israeli newspaper here http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054234.html

Most of the world would like to wave a magic wand and have a 2-state solution in place, with Israel withdrawing from the illegally occupied territory, the Palastinian state (including Hamas) recognising Israel's right to exist and Israel having good relations with their neighbours.

Sadly, we're still a long way from this picture and, while each US administration consistently toes the same line, there is no compelling reason for Israel to compromise on anything. I really don't see any progress on the "middle east" issue at this time.

Back to Afghanistan, Rogers is quite correct that the BBC article explains the objective of ISAF, however it doesn't explain what Operation Enduring Freedom is all about (who comes up with these names??)

The BBC article suggests that there are communication problems between the NATO Isaf mission and OEF. Does anyone really know what OEF is all about?

BTW, I agree with the comment that Afghanistan (and Iraq) need a police force much more than external military force. There's no mention of demonstrations in the US about troops being deployed in Afghanisan. Are people supportive or just apathetic about this?

[hippifried]

Personally, I think there's as much confusion as support or apathy. I don't see a consensus.

[Distance]

If you want an answer to this, simply check very recent history. Why did the Soviets invade Afghanistan? Simply take out the 'warm water ports' out, and you have a winner. :wink:

[TommyFoxtrot]

Yes, I know that NATO has a presence in Afghanistan but the US is also operating outside of the NATO force (Isaf). Isaf seems to have a stated objective - albeit pretty vague - but I'm unclear what the mission objective of the other US troops is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7228649.stm

Is it to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" as President Obama said today (guess that he should know!), to destroy the Taleban, to maintain strategic control in the area, to find Osama bin Laden or something else.

Without understanding the mission objective it's impossible to understand if progress is being achieved and what constitutes success.


Among other things, the U.S. provides security for most of the ISAF troops. The U.S. also duplicates what most of them are doing in training missions.

[TommyFoxtrot]

If you want an answer to this, simply check very recent history. Why did the Soviets invade Afghanistan? Simply take out the 'warm water ports' out, and you have a winner. :wink:

You're saying the U.S. is trying to stop Russia from regaining access to warm water ports?

[TommyFoxtrot]

Rogers makes some excellent points. I believe the resolution he's referring to is described by one Israeli newspaper here http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054234.html

Most of the world would like to wave a magic wand and have a 2-state solution in place, with Israel withdrawing from the illegally occupied territory, the Palastinian state (including Hamas) recognising Israel's right to exist and Israel having good relations with their neighbours.

Sadly, we're still a long way from this picture and, while each US administration consistently toes the same line, there is no compelling reason for Israel to compromise on anything. I really don't see any progress on the "middle east" issue at this time.

Back to Afghanistan, Rogers is quite correct that the BBC article explains the objective of ISAF, however it doesn't explain what Operation Enduring Freedom is all about (who comes up with these names??)

The BBC article suggests that there are communication problems between the NATO Isaf mission and OEF. Does anyone really know what OEF is all about?

BTW, I agree with the comment that Afghanistan (and Iraq) need a police force much more than external military force. There's no mention of demonstrations in the US about troops being deployed in Afghanisan. Are people supportive or just apathetic about this?


Don't take the BBC or the British military in general too seriously. They've been licking their rear end ever since the British commander was left out of the briefing for Al Malakis push into Basrah.

[bte]

Maybe a dumb question - maybe not - but what is the reason that the US has a large (and growing) contingent in Afghanistan?

There was intelligence that said that bin Laden was in or around Afghanistan, so the U.S. & NATO went there. I don't know where you been since Sept. 2001, but now you know and knowing is half the battle.

The question should have been why were we in Iraq? Bad intelligence, revenge, or oil? I don't know, but what I do know is that Iran is out of control.

[Distance]

If you want an answer to this, simply check very recent history. Why did the Soviets invade Afghanistan? Simply take out the 'warm water ports' out, and you have a winner. :wink:

You're saying the U.S. is trying to stop Russia from regaining access to warm water ports?

No, I meant the motives are pretty much the same. The Us are there obviously for oil, the trade route (or pipelines, if you like) natural resources and a straight way into Iran next. Iraq's taken already...Iran's next.

[qqq321]

to protect your faggot ass

[hippifried]

Oh. Another teenage closet queen trying to sound like a tough guy. That's ok. Keep it up, queer queer queer 321. Punks are fun to laugh at.

[tstv_lover]

Where have you been in the past eight years? Does the name Osama bin Laden ring a bell? Al Qaeda?

Yes, of course I know about Osama bin Laden. It's just that the descriptions I've seen of US involvement in Afghanistan - and Operation Enduring Freedom - make no reference to Osama bin Laden.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom-ops.htm

They indicate that OEF was aimed at removing the Taleban from power and "by mid-March 2002, the Taliban had been removed from power and the Al Qaida network in Afghanistan had been destroyed"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom-plan.htm

So, has the original mission morphed into something else? If so, what exactly is the new mission? Why is the US in Afghanistan?

[TommyFoxtrot]

to protect your faggot ass

Pretty much yeah. :lol:

[TommyFoxtrot]

Oh. Another teenage closet queen trying to sound like a tough guy. That's ok. Keep it up, queer queer queer 321. Punks are fun to laugh at.

Yeah but your posts are weak too hippifred. Just sayin'...

[TommyFoxtrot]

Where have you been in the past eight years? Does the name Osama bin Laden ring a bell? Al Qaeda?

Yes, of course I know about Osama bin Laden. It's just that the descriptions I've seen of US involvement in Afghanistan - and Operation Enduring Freedom - make no reference to Osama bin Laden.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom-ops.htm

They indicate that OEF was aimed at removing the Taleban from power and "by mid-March 2002, the Taliban had been removed from power and the Al Qaida network in Afghanistan had been destroyed"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom-plan.htm

So, has the original mission morphed into something else? If so, what exactly is the new mission? Why is the US in Afghanistan?

Next step after removing the Taliban is building out a sovereign government of Afghanistan, so that the battlespace we've won has a much lower chance of being turned back into Taliban controlled territory. As the U.S. progresses with the Security mission, the Afghan Army and National Police can start to stretch its wings and learn to impose sovereignty on Afghanistan. What's been needed for a LONG time is cooperation from the State Department and other agencies with needed civilian skills. The military doesn't have this capability by and large, and has had to grow it during the GWOT. It would be ideal if the liberals in these organizations realized they are supposed to serve the interests of the United States, but they won't. Kind of like all the State Department liberals who refused to go to the Green Zone in Iraq, even though it was probably the safest area in that country, and the government desperately needed them.

Hopefully with Obama in the White House, they will work with him.

[hippifried]

Oh. Another teenage closet queen trying to sound like a tough guy. That's ok. Keep it up, queer queer queer 321. Punks are fun to laugh at.

Yeah but your posts are weak too hippifred. Just sayin'...
Yeah? Well you can say what you like, but I'm not buying any of this shit that I'm being protected. & I stand by my assessment of the mealy mouthed weasel.

Nobody has a clue what's going on over there. The first thing we did was put a king on the throne. Afghanistan has never been a nation. It's just some lines drawn on a map (by the Brits I believe) without regard to the people who live there. We think in terms of central governments & hard boundaries. Do they? Has anybody ever bothered to ask? We yammer on about "the tribal regions", as if they're somehow different than the rest of the region. We're having trouble building an Afghan army because there's never been one. The tribes just get together to repel outside invaders. They've repelled them all, through the centuries. By all reports, the Taliban is getting stronger daily. Why? Because we're there.

Reality is that we don't know who's who. The Taliban don't have a big "T" tatooed on their forehead. Who says they're the ones we should be worried about anyway? There's no uniforms or insignias. We have rewards. So some dude turns in some guy down the street who made eyes at his wife 10 years ago or welched on a bet. He collects the reward & some poor schmuck ends up in Guantanamo & nobody can figure out why. This whole thing is a clusterfuck. It always was. There's no real mission. We should just declare victory & get the hell out while we still can. We're going to do it sooner or later anyway.

[tstv_lover]

I think you're spot on hippifried.

Reading a book on Alexander the Great's military activity in Punjab and Kashmir in 327BC I came across the following:

"After the Bacchic revels, Alexander moved towards the Swat valley where he met fierce resistance. The main regional centre was a place called Massaga. It allegedly had a population of 30,000 and was protected by 8,000 mercenaries from the interior. The city had a long circuit of walls built in the Swat style with boulders and rubble strengthened with wooden beams. The Greeks brought siege-engines and turned the full force of their war machine on the place. The Indians put up a fierce resistance until the leader of the mercenaries was killed: then they sued for peace. The mercenaries were allowed to leave under safe conduct. That night they camped outside the city on raised ground with their baggage, women and children in the belief that they had been permitted to depart altogether. But this was not Alexander's intention. Under cover of darkness he had them surrounded and the next day they were all massacred.

The story was the same up the Swat, a wide and beautiful valley walled to the north by the dramatic snow-capped ranged of the Hindu Kush. Alexander attacked two cities here, Ora and Bazira. Along the whole of the Swat, refugees now fled into mountains around Mount Ilam and beyond to escape the fire and sword of the Greeks, whose mobile columns of mountaineers and crack commando units were mopping up all opposition."

Amazing to think that the US is following in the footsteps of the Russians, the British and going right back to Alexander the Great. The people of that area live in individual communities and only unite when faced with an external mititary threat. To tell the new refugees that they're being given democracy and that this will somehow improve US security is unlikely to soften the blow of losing crops, livestock and housing. There's usually a lot that can be learned by looking to the past.

[Rogers]

I think you're spot on hippifried.

Reading a book on Alexander the Great's military activity in Punjab and Kashmir in 327BC I came across the following:

So, 2336 years ago, right?

Perhaps Afghanistan is a country that needs to be dragged by the scruff of it's neck into the modern world, otherwise it will increasingly clash with a rapidly modernizing world. I'm sure the Taliban and their fundamentalist allies will have learned their lesson and won't want the slightest bit of revenge against us, huh? I'm also sure your average Afhangi is extremely happy to die at the age 42.5, and see many of their kids die long before then too, right?


Amazing to think that the US is following in the footsteps of the Russians, the British and going right back to Alexander the Great. The people of that area live in individual communities and only unite when faced with an external mititary threat. To tell the new refugees that they're being given democracy and that this will somehow improve US security is unlikely to soften the blow of losing crops, livestock and housing. There's usually a lot that can be learned by looking to the past.

What kind of countries were Germany and Japan before they were occupied at the end of World War II? Are they better countries today or not for them being occupied back then? And remember, all three countries were invaded because they provoked conflicts with us and not vice-versa. This is the complete opposite of the times of Alexander, the British, and the Soviet occupations.

[TommyFoxtrot]

Oh. Another teenage closet queen trying to sound like a tough guy. That's ok. Keep it up, queer queer queer 321. Punks are fun to laugh at.

Yeah but your posts are weak too hippifred. Just sayin'...
Yeah? Well you can say what you like, but I'm not buying any of this shit that I'm being protected. & I stand by my assessment of the mealy mouthed weasel.

Nobody has a clue what's going on over there. The first thing we did was put a king on the throne. Afghanistan has never been a nation. It's just some lines drawn on a map (by the Brits I believe) without regard to the people who live there. We think in terms of central governments & hard boundaries. Do they? Has anybody ever bothered to ask? We yammer on about "the tribal regions", as if they're somehow different than the rest of the region. We're having trouble building an Afghan army because there's never been one. The tribes just get together to repel outside invaders. They've repelled them all, through the centuries. By all reports, the Taliban is getting stronger daily. Why? Because we're there.

Reality is that we don't know who's who. The Taliban don't have a big "T" tatooed on their forehead. Who says they're the ones we should be worried about anyway? There's no uniforms or insignias. We have rewards. So some dude turns in some guy down the street who made eyes at his wife 10 years ago or welched on a bet. He collects the reward & some poor schmuck ends up in Guantanamo & nobody can figure out why. This whole thing is a clusterfuck. It always was. There's no real mission. We should just declare victory & get the hell out while we still can. We're going to do it sooner or later anyway.


The good thing is that you won't have to do any of the fighting in Afghanistan, and thankfully you're probably not in a position of responsibility in life. I'll let you know how things are going when I'm back from Afghanistan in 2011.

[hippifried]

Perhaps Afghanistan is a country that needs to be dragged by the scruff of it's neck into the modern worldPerhaps not. That doesn't work. It never works. The Brits & other eurotrash have been using that as an excuse for military adventurism, colonization, & subjugation for centuries. We took it a step further & called it "manifest destiny". We committed genocide against the natives to save them from themselves & bring them into the modern world. There's only about a million left, & we stuck them on reservations with no modernity. Same thing in Canada. Australia too. It's that kind of arrogance that causes all this animosity in the first place. Nobody ever moves into the modern world while they're subjugated by Europeans, eurocentrics, or anybody else for that matter. Anybody will move into the modern world within a couple of generations if all the militarists & skimmers get the hell out of the way & let them do business with the rest of the world.



What kind of countries were Germany and Japan before they were occupied at the end of World War II?They were state of the art modern industrial countries. They just got stupid & thought they could actually accomplish something, anything, with threats, bully tactics, & war. Acting on stupid usualy equates to acting counterproductively.

The occupation of Japan didn't do anything. Those big Japanese companies were already there before the war. Mitsubishi was the target of the Nagasaki bomb. They just retooled, & look where they are today. Did we create the Japanese business model? I don't think so.

The German occupation gave us 40 years of east/west division, the Berlin wall, & a huge barbed wire industry. Meanwhile, the Germans just ignored the bullshit between the US & Soviets, & went back to becoming the industrial powerhouse they were before. We didn't really have a shoot-em-up type problem with Germany. We just got into the European conflict to keep the Brits from totally getting their clock cleaned after they got uppity & in over their head. The European tribes have been fighting each other since prehistory. There was no reason for us to give a shit. Did we create the German business model? I don't think so.




The good thing is that you won't have to do any of the fighting in Afghanistan, and thankfully you're probably not in a position of responsibility in life. I'll let you know how things are going when I'm back from Afghanistan in 2011. I'm pushing 60, but I wouldn't volunteer to get involved in any of that crap anyway. It ain't my fight. I'm not being protected from anything. As an American, I'm getting a target painted on my back by all this silliness, & I don't appreciate it one bit. I can't & won't support it. We would have been better off sending the peace corps.

[tstv_lover]

Perhaps Afghanistan is a country that needs to be dragged by the scruff of it's neck into the modern worldPerhaps not. That doesn't work. It never works. The Brits & other eurotrash have been using that as an excuse for military adventurism, colonization, & subjugation for centuries. We took it a step further & called it "manifest destiny". We committed genocide against the natives to save them from themselves & bring them into the modern world. There's only about a million left, & we stuck them on reservations with no modernity. Same thing in Canada. Australia too. It's that kind of arrogance that causes all this animosity in the first place. Nobody ever moves into the modern world while they're subjugated by Europeans, eurocentrics, or anybody else for that matter. Anybody will move into the modern world within a couple of generations if all the militarists & skimmers get the hell out of the way & let them do business with the rest of the world.



What kind of countries were Germany and Japan before they were occupied at the end of World War II?They were state of the art modern industrial countries. They just got stupid & thought they could actually accomplish something, anything, with threats, bully tactics, & war. Acting on stupid usualy equates to acting counterproductively.

The occupation of Japan didn't do anything. Those big Japanese companies were already there before the war. Mitsubishi was the target of the Nagasaki bomb. They just retooled, & look where they are today. Did we create the Japanese business model? I don't think so.

The German occupation gave us 40 years of east/west division, the Berlin wall, & a huge barbed wire industry. Meanwhile, the Germans just ignored the bullshit between the US & Soviets, & went back to becoming the industrial powerhouse they were before. We didn't really have a shoot-em-up type problem with Germany. We just got into the European conflict to keep the Brits from totally getting their clock cleaned after they got uppity & in over their head. The European tribes have been fighting each other since prehistory. There was no reason for us to give a shit. Did we create the German business model? I don't think so.




The good thing is that you won't have to do any of the fighting in Afghanistan, and thankfully you're probably not in a position of responsibility in life. I'll let you know how things are going when I'm back from Afghanistan in 2011. I'm pushing 60, but I wouldn't volunteer to get involved in any of that crap anyway. It ain't my fight. I'm not being protected from anything. As an American, I'm getting a target painted on my back by all this silliness, & I don't appreciate it one bit. I can't & won't support it. We would have been better off sending the peace corps.

:claps :claps :claps

[Rogers]

Perhaps Afghanistan is a country that needs to be dragged by the scruff of it's neck into the modern worldPerhaps not. That doesn't work. It never works. The Brits & other eurotrash have been using that as an excuse for military adventurism, colonization, & subjugation for centuries. We took it a step further & called it "manifest destiny". We committed genocide against the natives to save them from themselves & bring them into the modern world. There's only about a million left, & we stuck them on reservations with no modernity. Same thing in Canada. Australia too. It's that kind of arrogance that causes all this animosity in the first place. Nobody ever moves into the modern world while they're subjugated by Europeans, eurocentrics, or anybody else for that matter. Anybody will move into the modern world within a couple of generations if all the militarists & skimmers get the hell out of the way & let them do business with the rest of the world.

I think you're completely wrong about people modernizing all by themselves, hippi. To think like that you have to have a complete lack of understanding as to how life truly works. And by life, I don't just mean Homo sapiens. As I've already tried to point out, the war in Afghanistan isn't a land grab... unless you're a conspiracy theorist. :wink: The occupations of Germany and Japan weren't land grabs either, and all three ain't genocides. Please don't mention chalk when we're talking cheese. And by far the largest number of people to be occupied by the colonial British, the Indians, have had the tendency to look at things differently to what you've just said.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1871britishrule.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadabhai_Naoroji

You also stated previously on this thread that, "wars of conquest are unamerican". Now you're saying differently. As well as the wars against the native Americans, there's also that little matter of the war in the Philippines the same time that the British were having their last colonial war against the Boers.



What kind of countries were Germany and Japan before they were occupied at the end of World War II?They were state of the art modern industrial countries. They just got stupid & thought they could actually accomplish something, anything, with threats, bully tactics, & war. Acting on stupid usualy equates to acting counterproductively.

The occupation of Japan didn't do anything. Those big Japanese companies were already there before the war. Mitsubishi was the target of the Nagasaki bomb. They just retooled, & look where they are today. Did we create the Japanese business model? I don't think so.

The German occupation gave us 40 years of east/west division, the Berlin wall, & a huge barbed wire industry. Meanwhile, the Germans just ignored the bullshit between the US & Soviets, & went back to becoming the industrial powerhouse they were before. We didn't really have a shoot-em-up type problem with Germany. We just got into the European conflict to keep the Brits from totally getting their clock cleaned after they got uppity & in over their head. The European tribes have been fighting each other since prehistory. There was no reason for us to give a shit. Did we create the German business model? I don't think so.

So, Japan was a military dictatorship both before and after it's occupation, right? As already intimated earlier on this thread, and for excellent reasons, I tend to look at things quite differently again from you on the matter of World War Two. Also remember that it was Germany who declared war on the States after Pearl Harbor, not vice-versa. And had it not been pretty much solely because of Churchill, an American on his mother's side, the British would have dealt with Hitler after Dunkirk. It's quite possibly the reason why the deputy Fuhrer, Hess, flew to Scotland.
http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/alliedoc.htm

Pacifism is a real nice concept, hippi, but it simply doesn't explain the current reality, or any past one for that matter. As for me, I'm much more interested in trying to understand the way the world does work AND the way it's going, that's all. It don't make me a war-monger, but it does mean I'm not going to agree with either you or lover on the subject of Afghanistan.

I bet you would have voted for McClellan and not Lincoln in 1864. Now be truthful. :wink: How would a victorious anti-war ticket back then have worked out for the slaves, and for America as a whole for that matter? Some good things do come out of wars, and whether you like it or not, war drives civilization. Pacifism and appeasement are just as much extremes as war-mongering is. Hitler would have backed down from the get-go had Britain and France moved to stop him re-occupying the Rhineland.

Lover's sig.:
"Make your voice count - free Aung San Suu Kyi"

Aung's husband died a few years back, a very long way away from her. Aung will quite probably die too before the Burmese get their freedom, and certainly a long time before the Tibetans do, if ever. You believe in freedom and human rights for all, but you don't want nations that believe in them too to fight for them in a country that they've been unwillingly dragged into. I don't know whether to laugh or to scream at that kind of ideology. :banghead

'Hippie' apes like to make war as well as love, reveals new study of human-like bonobos
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1077440/Hippie-apes-like-make-war-love-reveals-new-study-human-like-bonobos.html

[tstv_lover]

I think you're completely wrong about people modernizing all by themselves, hippi.
Pacifism is a real nice concept, hippi, but it simply doesn't explain the current reality, or any past one for that matter. As for me, I'm much more interested in trying to understand the way the world does work AND the way it's going, that's all. It don't make me a war-monger, but it does mean I'm not going to agree with either you or lover on the subject of Afghanistan.

Modernisation is a process, not an outcome. Does Afghanistan qualify as a "modern" country when McDonalds opens in downtown Kabul?
Each civilisation modernised in it's own way, at it's own pace while recognising the communities traditions and values. There are many, many ways in which Moslem communities are modernising differently from western communities. Look at the financial sector as one example.

One of the fundamental principles of the United Nations charter is self-determination. Over and over again we have seen what happens when external entities seek to impose their wishes on indigeanous populations. Look at the French Resistance in WW2, the Americans fighting for independence against Britain, the "freedom fighter" in Afghanistan resisting the Russians in 1980 - although those same people are called "insurgents" when resisting US troops.

There is a natural resistance to any external entity entering a nation. I can't think of any recent examples where such action has achieved anything except death and on-going problems (Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan). Maybe you can think of an example - ANY - to back up your statements.



Lover's sig.:
"Make your voice count - free Aung San Suu Kyi"

Aung's husband died a few years back, a very long way away from her. Aung will quite probably die too before the Burmese get their freedom, and certainly a long time before the Tibetans do, if ever. You believe in freedom and human rights for all, but you don't want nations that believe in them too to fight for them in a country that they've been unwillingly dragged into. I don't know whether to laugh or to scream at that kind of ideology. :banghead


Do you think for one second that Aung San Suu Kyi would want foreign forces invading her country? Absolutely not. It would cause a blood-bath and achieve only destruction.

The Myunmar government has committed to democratic elections in 2010. You may be sceptical about this being achieved - I know that I am - but that's the best way forward for the country. To determine it's own future within the community of nations.

[hippifried]

You're calling me a pacifist? That's a real big assumption. Based on what? My nic? If that's the case, then both you & the unnamed author of the almost story on bonobos don't understand the hippies. Hippies were an anarchist movement. There were pacifists in the movement, but the movement wasn't pacifist.

I have a much bigger problem putting career military people in charge of the civilian government than I have with Lincoln putting down the southern rebellion & ending slavery in the US. It was the right thing to do at the time. The Indian wars are a whole different story.

Do I need to keep answering to lame assumptions or are you done?

Monkeys aren't apes. Eating another species is not canabalism. Chimps & bonobos are not the same species. Hunting is not war. The idea that hunting is a strictly male undertaking is & has always been an unsupported assumption. I still haven't seen evidence that bonobos organize to attack their own kind, although it's not outside the realm of possibility. That would be war. Was there a point to this?

Japan was never a military dictatorship. They were an empire, with an emperor. They were just being imperial, like the Brits. Imperial doesn't necessarily equate to invincible. They got stupid by thinking they were actually superior, & got their asses handed to them. Sound familiar?

That little war in the Philipines was actually the war with Spain. We kicked them out of all of their colonies worldwide in less than a year. I can't help but wonder what kind of world we'd have today if we'd just continued & bounced the rest of the Europeans out of their colonies too. The Brits lost the Boer war. They've been pretty much losing for the last 2 centuries. I don't know why anybody bothers with them. I certainly don't understand why the US keeps making excuses for their stupidity. If the Asian Indians were so happy under British rule, why were they so adament about getting out from under it. They have their share of problems, but at least they've managed to modernize since getting back on their own.

Wars of conquest are unAmerican because they fly in the face of our stated core beliefs. The periodic violation of those beliefs through our history doesn't negate them. At least we have them.

The Brits weren't going to do anything about the Germans. They couldn't. Either time. Didn't have the wherewithal. That's why they had to come begging. If Brazil had allowed the Argentines to refuel & go on their way, they would have sunk the QE II & probably taken back the Malvinas. Personally, I think we should have supported Argentina. There shouldn't be any foreign colonies in the western hemisphere.


Some good things do come out of wars, and whether you like it or not, war drives civilization.No it doesn't. It stifles civilization. Trade drives civilizatiion. War gets in the way. Got a list of those good things?

[Rogers]

I think you're completely wrong about people modernizing all by themselves, hippi.
Pacifism is a real nice concept, hippi, but it simply doesn't explain the current reality, or any past one for that matter. As for me, I'm much more interested in trying to understand the way the world does work AND the way it's going, that's all. It don't make me a war-monger, but it does mean I'm not going to agree with either you or lover on the subject of Afghanistan.

Modernisation is a process, not an outcome. Does Afghanistan qualify as a "modern" country when McDonalds opens in downtown Kabul?
Each civilisation modernised in it's own way, at it's own pace while recognising the communities traditions and values. There are many, many ways in which Moslem communities are modernising differently from western communities. Look at the financial sector as one example.

One of the fundamental principles of the United Nations charter is self-determination. Over and over again we have seen what happens when external entities seek to impose their wishes on indigeanous populations. Look at the French Resistance in WW2, the Americans fighting for independence against Britain, the "freedom fighter" in Afghanistan resisting the Russians in 1980 - although those same people are called "insurgents" when resisting US troops.

There is a natural resistance to any external entity entering a nation. I can't think of any recent examples where such action has achieved anything except death and on-going problems (Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan). Maybe you can think of an example - ANY - to back up your statements.



Lover's sig.:
"Make your voice count - free Aung San Suu Kyi"

Aung's husband died a few years back, a very long way away from her. Aung will quite probably die too before the Burmese get their freedom, and certainly a long time before the Tibetans do, if ever. You believe in freedom and human rights for all, but you don't want nations that believe in them too to fight for them in a country that they've been unwillingly dragged into. I don't know whether to laugh or to scream at that kind of ideology. :banghead


Do you think for one second that Aung San Suu Kyi would want foreign forces invading her country? Absolutely not. It would cause a blood-bath and achieve only destruction.

The Myunmar government has committed to democratic elections in 2010. You may be sceptical about this being achieved - I know that I am - but that's the best way forward for the country. To determine it's own future within the community of nations.

I've already given you examples, Germany and Japan. And their occupations never happened 2,000+ years ago. I'm also sure that the Iraqi Kurds and others are extremely glad that Saddam is gone too.

Have I ever said anything about wanting to invade another country on this board, ever? Please quote me. :lol: Your question was, "why is the U.S. in Afghanistan?", right? All through both of your posts you have tried to skew the debate as to why the U.S. SHOULDN'T be there in your opinion using arguments with little relevance to the actual question at hand, e.g. no links between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, former land-grab invasions of the country dating as far back as two thousand years ago, genocides in North America, etc.. The reality is that the U.S. and many other countries are there for good reasons, at least in the minds of those who count, and they'll most likely be there for sometime to come. Others who have posted on this thread get that as well. If you don't like that, and you clearly don't, well BOO-HOO to you! :wink:

And I still disagree with both of you on the process of modernization. The more contact a culture has with more advanced ones the faster it modernizes. Whether it is done by force or trade it's STILL MODERNIZATION!!! That's why you still have stone-age tribes in the remotest parts of the world, despite them having contact with the outer world. I'm sure those tribes managed to invent the computer and the internet independently all by themselves "within a few generations of trading", right? Go read some anthropology...

[Rogers]

You're calling me a pacifist? That's a real big assumption. Based on what? My nic? If that's the case, then both you & the unnamed author of the almost story on bonobos don't understand the hippies. Hippies were an anarchist movement. There were pacifists in the movement, but the movement wasn't pacifist.

The hippies were a good bit before my time, so I'm no expert on them for sure. The 60's wasn't that great a decade to be honest. The highly overrated JFK nearly blew the world up because he couldn't allow nukes to be based in Cuba, though him having them in Turkey had not been previously a problem. But if you aren't a pacifist, then you've certainly given me a good impression that you are one.


I have a much bigger problem putting career military people in charge of the civilian government than I have with Lincoln putting down the southern rebellion & ending slavery in the US. It was the right thing to do at the time. The Indian wars are a whole different story.

That a YES or a NO? :wink: So something good did come out of at least one war, right?


Monkeys aren't apes. Eating another species is not canabalism. Chimps & bonobos are not the same species. Hunting is not war. The idea that hunting is a strictly male undertaking is & has always been an unsupported assumption. I still haven't seen evidence that bonobos organize to attack their own kind, although it's not outside the realm of possibility. That would be war. Was there a point to this?

The bonobos link is just another example that war-like aggression is a natural trait in the animal kingdom, and that's why pacifism doesn't work. Here are a few more I've posted on this board previously. You seem to have taken the word hippie personally, and that was in no way intentional on my part.
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050209_warfrm.htm
http://www.howardbloom.net/chimpanzees_and_romans.htm
http://www.lessonsforhope.org/abc/show_description.asp?abc_id=47
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3317461/Apes-of-war...-is-it-in-our-genes.html


That little war in the Philipines was actually the war with Spain. We kicked them out of all of their colonies worldwide in less than a year. I can't help but wonder what kind of world we'd have today if we'd just continued & bounced the rest of the Europeans out of their colonies too. The Brits lost the Boer war. They've been pretty much losing for the last 2 centuries. I don't know why anybody bothers with them. I certainly don't understand why the US keeps making excuses for their stupidity. If the Asian Indians were so happy under British rule, why were they so adament about getting out from under it. They have their share of problems, but at least they've managed to modernize since getting back on their own.

A liberation, oh really?
"The U.S. conquest of the Philippines has been described as a genocide, and resulted in the death of 1.4 million Filipinos (out of a total population of seven million)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

America has been an empire since day one, it just tries to make itself look like it isn't one. The real motives of both George Washington (one of the biggest slave owners in the country) and the Boston Tea Partiers (tea smugglers) have always been suspicious.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rrjf-UaANA

The Brits won the Boer War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_War

The Brits occupied India to make money, but their rule was commonly refered to by the Indians as the "sugar knife". I'm going to say it one LAST time, the current conflict in Afghanistan isn't a land-grab or about money.



Some good things do come out of wars, and whether you like it or not, war drives civilization.No it doesn't. It stifles civilization. Trade drives civilizatiion. War gets in the way. Got a list of those good things?

Yup I have. Technology comes on in leaps and bounds both during conflicts and from preparing for them. The classic example is nuclear energy, though you most likely think that's a bad thing. What's currently hardcore military tech ends up benefiting civilians a few years later, e.g. jet engines, satellite T.V., G.P.S. tracking sytems. The internet was originally developed to help keep communications open in the event of a nuclear war. Same goes for medicine and surgery, e.g. penicillin.

Life in general is an evolutionary arms race. War is simply a form of intra-specific competition, and competiton both in and between species is what drives evolution. I'm not saying that war is right, it just will most likely be with us forever. Like Plato apparently said, "only the dead have seen an end to war".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-85114592499103809

The U.S. and N.A.T.O. are in Afghanistan because of 9/11. 9/11 was a direct consequence of America's unconditional support for Israel, and the bases it has/had in Saudi in my honest opinion. The invasion of Afghanistan was a given even if Gore had won the election. Both U.S. and N.A.T.O. troops are staying in Afghanistan for the reasons I've already suggested. It may indeed be the wrong decision, but the question was, "why is the U.S. in Afghanistan?". Not whether you agree with it in terms of moral sensibilities. Wingnuts want to nuke every camel jockey and raghead to death, and moonbats want them to come into the modern world all by themselves… ain’t not happy medium or realism with most.

[hippifried]

I'm not a pacifist, & I've never deliberately given anybody that impression. I don't have a problem with defense. There's assholes in the world, & I accept that reality. I don't want my country to be one, & I especially don't want assholish behavior done in my name. I want smart, & I'm tired of hearing all the lame excuses for being stupid. I do take the word "hippy" personally, because I was part of the movement, & the stereotypes are a lie.

We're in Afghanistan for no other reason than vengeance. After 9/11, somebody had to pay. Afghanistan was an easy target & a connection could be made. The problem was that we invaded. Never needed to happen. Through reorganization of the old Mujihaddin & US air support, the Taliban was already deposed before US troops ever hit the ground there. Osama binLaden was already long gone. It's been downhill since the army showed up. What's been accomplished? & it is a land grab. It's strategic. It isolates both Pakistan & Iran.

What the US did in the Philipines during their overt imperial period was horrendous, although the numbers of dead include the cholera victims. (liberation isn't my word, by the way) It still doesn't negate our basic principles, just because "leaders" choose to ignore them from time to time. That was a dark period in our history, & we're currently in the process of repeating it. The reality is that we're every bit as dismal a failure at imperialism as the Brits. I think it's because the the ideal of imperialism is basically flawed. The only examples of it working is when the population is supplanted.

As for Lincoln: Slavery was going to end regardless of the southern rebellion. Lincoln was forced to put down the rebels because they took up arms & tried to sever a section of the country. That wouldn't have happened if the slavers had thought they were going to be able to hold on to their slaves. Putting down the rebellion was the right thing to do at the time. It wasn't a war of conquest.

Hunting is not war. There's no animosity in a hunt. There's no comparison between the 2. There's competition among the predators, but deliberate hostility is not the norm. Lions & hyenas don't get along at all, & they'll definitely fight, but either of them going out of their way to pick a fight with the other is rare. Both species share the same food supply & both are opportunistic thieves. There's animosity & mistrust, but they still live in close proximity & scavenge off each other. Human beings aren't even natural predators. We're omnivorous & best suited for scavenging. I guess you could make a case that theft is a natural part of our makeup, but extending that to war is a stretch.

Civilization is just people settling into one spot & producing their own sustinence. We're farmers. By the time anybody ever started writing down their thoughts, the only "hunter/gatherers" left on the planet were the aboriginal Australians, & I'm still having a hard time believing they never planted anything. They were so easily subjugated because organized warfare was unknown to them. They've been there for 50,000 years. If war is human nature, how come they weren't doing it?

Tools are developed regardless of warfare. The first metal tool was probably a knife. A knife can be a weapon, but it's chief purpose has always been food preparation. Projectiles like spears & arrows are hunting tools for the gathering of meat. Explosives are tools. They allow the expidited building of roads & rails & tunnels & mines & canals. A tank is a piece of construction equipment that's armor plated with mounted guns. It's a step backwards from construction to destruction. The airplane wasn't developed for war. The helicopter was developed between wars. I wonder if we'd even be flying yet if those primitive hunter/gatherers hadn't invented the airfoil as a hunting tool. The atom had been split before the war & there were scientists all over looking for ways to harness the power. All they did at Los Alamos was weaponize it by releasing the power without control. The computer you're reading right now is a product of trying to reach the moon. The military didn't develop the technology. They did classify it & withhold it from the public for years. The internet isn't new. We had the telephone, telegraph, smoke signals, & there's the drum language in Africa that can send messages across & throughout the continent. What we have is a huge technological upgrade, but the concept isn't military at all. Radio & television are commercial technological developments. Telstar was built by ATT to relay phone calls. All these weaponized toys are just retrofits. Technology development is commercial. War is counterproductive. The military is just a big customer for high & higher tech because we can't seem to get out of this perpetual war mode.

The top of the alQaeda hitlist is & always was the royal family of Saudi Arabia. Saddam Hussein was #2. We did them a favor. We were above Israel on the list. Mostly because of our support of the Saudis & our refusal to get out of the Muslim holy land after Gulf I. It's really not about us. It never was. Like the Brits, we keep sticking our noses into anything & everything that might show a profit. For the most part, military action is just a stifling of free trade, & therefore a stifling of civilized development. It's an economic drain. It's just a memetic mindset. The idea that war might not be a good thing but it's good for you, is just total bullshit. We need to stop looking for & making up lame excuses for bad behavior.

[tstv_lover]

Article on BBC website today:

"'Credibility gap'

Mr Ainsworth (the UK Defence Secretary) - and John Hutton before him - have tried to set out clearly why Britain is in Afghanistan in the first place.

But there is a credibility gap here. Most of the country doesn't really understand why we are there.

Indeed, there are holes in the government's argument too. If we are trying to stop al-Qaeda building bases from which to attacking us - well, al-Qaeda doesn't have proper bases in Afghanistan.

Their bases are on the Pakistani side of the border.

The idea that if you have forces in Afghanistan it'll stop al-Qaeda attacking Britain doesn't completely hold water because ministers have said themselves that 75% of the terror plots in this country are linked back to Pakistan.

Really, it would be more accurate to say Nato is trying to keep al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan, while admitting that it has successfully transplanted itself elsewhere.

Moreover, the very fact that there are Western troops in Afghanistan is an incentive, a recruiting agent, for al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups to go and fight the West and drive them out.

It is certainly quite a complicated jigsaw."

[techi]

The official reasons don't really make sense.

1) Get Osama. nope.
2) Bring Democracy to Afghanistan, nope.

I can see 4 reasons that we could possibly be in Afghanistan.

1) Oil pipeline routes from central asia to India&China.

There's every reason to believe that western nations want control of central asian energy resources. That means either we build and control pipelines from central asia to China&India or we keep the entire region unstable and force energy resources to be shipped to India/China via western controlled sea lanes.

2) Control of world opium production. The naughty Taliban had stopped the growing of poppies the year before they were invaded.

The Bush family, not to mention the British, have a significant history of involvement with drug smugglers. Afghanistan is hands down the biggest opium producer in the world. There's a ton of money to be made pushing opium. So we'd have the CIA&MI6 running the operation while the army gives the beatdown to any producers and smugglers that try to go independant. Overall it would look like we were trying and failing to crack down on the drug trade.

3) Give us an excuse to completely surround Russia with military bases. Crazy neocon Project for a new American Century stuff. Crazy but I really think this is what the neocons want.... sigh.

4) Destablized the asian continent to the point where local wars break out. People that talk about Zbignew Brzezinski and his "grand chess game" think that Zbig wants to get the land powers in asia to fight one another... burn down Russia.

US arms sales would boom. Asian economic development would collapse, leaving the Asian continent as a raw material exporter to the west.

Two things are for sure, American forces now have control of some of the worlds biggest Oil and Opium resources. And the continued US bombing of Pakistan has the potential to destabilize that country beyond the breaking point.

[tstv_lover]

Given the endemic fraud that pervaded the election in Afghanistan, is there really any justification to continue - let alone increase - the US military presence?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8225745.stm

[hippifried]

Even more telling than accusations of fraud is that only 35% turned out to vote in the first place.

[techi]

Given the endemic fraud that pervaded the election in Afghanistan, is there really any justification to continue - let alone increase - the US military presence?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8225745.stm

Oh that's probably to be expected. Tribes, clans, warlords...

But I agree, the US military presence is futile. The Taliban take a 20-30% cut of all reconstruction contracts... rebuilding Afghanistan is rebuilding the Taliban.

A more sensible strategy for rebuilding Afghanistan would focus on bringing together Afghanistan's neighbors to agree on what should be done. Fixing Afghanistan is a political problem and requires a political solution... not a military solution.

[beandip]

Natural resources.

[hippifried]

Ordnance rotation.

[helmetvonzeplin]

Well the mere fact that you'd say something that stupid, about something you obviously know nothing about, pretty much voids your opinions. So what?

That's why it was so blatantly dumb to invade Afghanistan in the first place".

Politickling aside, I have spoken to a number of Afgani's or a recent trip to Kabul and they describe the Taliban as Nazi's, they kill female children attending school, they murder homosexuals, they steal food and material and beat normal people. They are a very ignorant and violent bunch of bible thumpers. Should we be there? Don't matter, we are there. Maybe we can help a bit. American lives are sacred but so are all peoples lives, we cannot ignore situations just because they are unpleasant or dangerous. On a lighter note, do you know that it is popular in Afghanistan in certain areas for men to wear eye makeup to look sexy? We could be saving a nation of future providers!

[trish]

It's true that we cannot ignore the plights of others. The question is whether military solutions are the ones we should employ? Indeed, are military solutions really solutions? Yes, we're in Afghanistan already and while we're there we should definitely help rather than harm. But we don't have to maintain a military presence there. If we have a choice to address the problems in Afghanistan in other ways, it's important we explore and understand them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11rich.html

[hippifried]

I think the biggest trouble with Afghanistan is that it never really existed. Pakistan either. We look at the lines on the map & think, "This is the nation of...", but it isn't. The lines are artificial. They were drawn by people who didn't live there, without regard for the people who did. These are tribal regions. Afghanistan doesn't have a common language. Neither does Pakistan. "Official" doesn't count because all it means to the folks there is this or that murderous crook. These are the regimes we're supporting because we don't deal with anyone but "official national governments". Of course that stance kind of belies this whole "We're fighting alQaeda & the Taliban to save democracy!" routine. & then we act like it's inexplicable that nobody's paying attention to the rhetoric.

These BS borders are a problem that nobody's addressing. Perhaps instead of chasing our tails like we're doing, why not suggest a regional tribal convention to hash out the differences & maybe even redraw the lines. The Brits probably wouldn't like it, but so what? It would negate the Taliban because they don't really represent anybody, & alQaeda too because they're outsiders as much as we are, & have caused those people nothing but grief. Neutral mediator? No problem. How about Nepal, or Bolivia. I bet they'd step up. Gotta try something. What's happening now is a lose lose for everybody, & the only options being floated are more war.

[beandip]

" What's happening now is a lose lose for everybody"


Nonsense....the MIC is loving it.

Your previous post alluded to it.

[luvsthetrannys]

the mass defection of diplomats from EU/Canada and now the US (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7-8TSw7G_wwHY-5sX8TTBjbJhrQD9BJLOH02) who are openly talking about what a pointless waste of life this military adventure is pretty much guarantees every western nation giving up and going home soon. it would've been cheaper for the US to have given every afghani a million USD as compensation for a ruined country after the overkill bombing campaign then packed up and left.

afghanistan is a waste of countless trillions of dollars that could've been spent to hook up every human on earth with potable water. or build a particle accelerator in space.