Barack Obama..............

TShaitanaku said:
What do you perceive as similar between the current situation with regards to what is essentially a civil war in Afghanistan that we are attempting to mediate and control and the D-Day invasion?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114287485
Click to expand...
.

First of all what happens in Afghanistan is of vital importance to our security; as they (taliban) are staunch allIes of al qaeda. Secondly the poeple in Afghanistan do NOT lIke the taliban. SOme of you liberals think Afghanistan is Vietnam. It is not. the big difference is the people of Afghanistan are NOT taliban supporters. And one thing they are united on is that they desire the end of 30 years of the Taliban and war. One way to do that is to send more troops to Afghanistan. i Heard someone say that their son is there and they have to drive 5 hours in Afghanistan from one part to another because there are not enough soldiers there. ALso a Civil war is a war between the people in a country. What is happening in afghanistan is Militants are running around blowing up women and children.
 
lol, if we leave afghanistan prematurely. It will be back under Taliban control within a year. The people in Afghanistan hate the taliban. AL qaeda will once again use it as a training planning ground.
 
Aggie Boy said:
.

First of all what happens in Afghanistan is of vital importance to our security; as they (taliban) are staunch allIes of al qaeda. Secondly the poeple in Afghanistan do NOT lIke the taliban. SOme of you liberals think Afghanistan is Vietnam. It is not. the big difference is the people of Afghanistan are NOT taliban supporters. And one thing they are united on is that they desire the end of 30 years of the Taliban and war. One way to do that is to send more troops to Afghanistan. i Heard someone say that their son is there and they have to drive 5 hours in Afghanistan from one part to another because there are not enough soldiers there. ALso a Civil war is a war between the people in a country. What is happening in afghanistan is Militants are running around blowing up women and children.
Click to expand...

First, none of this addresses the question I asked, though we can come back to the issues you raise. Are you even going to attempt and respond to what I actually asked?

Second, I initially went into Afghanistan back in 2001 and stayed there until my unit was pulled out to go into Iraq. I retired from the US Army shortly after the fall of Baghdad, I am familiar with Afghanistan, the Afghanistan people, the Taliban, and the US situation in these countries. Your descriptions above sound like US media talking head rhetoric, not the realities I saw and hear about from comrades who are now serving fourth and fifth tours of duty in that part of the world.

Finally, did you read the link I offered in association with my initial response. Colonel Hoh sees much what I did and what I continue to hear. whether or not you agree with his position you should hear and read what he has to say. Beyond that, if you wish to calm down, stop the repetition of talking points and actually discuss the US situation in Afghanistan and how we best get from the current situation to one where US national security interests, both mmediate and long-term, are best addressed and we can move to a situation where we aren't an occupying force halfway around the globe, I will be happy to participate in that discussion.
 
Last edited:
Kieth Ellison was on the Bill Press show yesterday to address what Obama should do in Afghanistan. I have stated the same position that Ellison takes several times on this page.

What we do there must be seen by the Afghan people as being done in cooperation with a LEGITIMATE Afghan government. Otherwise, they will not turn their loyalty toward us or the leader who tloerates our presence to ensure his own power.

Nobody con quers Afghanistan. End of discussion.
 
leftysergeant said:
Kieth Ellison was on the Bill Press show yesterday to address what Obama should do in Afghanistan. I have stated the same position that Ellison takes several times on this page.

What we do there must be seen by the Afghan people as being done in cooperation with a LEGITIMATE Afghan government. Otherwise, they will not turn their loyalty toward us or the leader who tloerates our presence to ensure his own power.

Nobody con quers Afghanistan. End of discussion.
Click to expand...

Yes i agree. There needs to be a legitimate Afghanistan Govt in place. What we will probably end up happening is a power sharing deal between Karzai and Abdullah. They both want a power sharing deal. Their differences are how to go about getting it. Karzai wants to be the announced the winner of the election first and abdullah wants the runoff to occur first. anyway that is besides the point. Its not true that "Nobody conquers Afghanistan". The british won their second Afghani war in the 1800's.
 
leftysergeant said:
By what definition? What did they get for it?

Afghanistan is where empires go to die.
Click to expand...
When step zero is wrong, all following logic falls down.

I offer again: why is the set of lines on the map being worshipped as holy in the case of Afghanistan? Why is a viable nation state being assumed?

Yugoslavia broke up, and we seemed to get along well enough with that. Why not loo at Afghanistan through the same lens?

What is so sacred about THAT set of lines on a map? The Pashtun aren't too impressed with the Durand line, for starters ...

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
When step zero is wrong, all following logic falls down.

I offer again: why is the set of lines on the map being worshipped as holy in the case of Afghanistan? Why is a viable nation state being assumed?

Yugoslavia broke up, and we seemed to get along well enough with that. Why not loo at Afghanistan through the same lens?

What is so sacred about THAT set of lines on a map? The Pashtun aren't too impressed with the Durand line, for starters ...

DR
Click to expand...

I agree with your logic, but this does not resolve the security issues, and might even seriously compromise and complicate them. Several independent Afghanistan nations each with their own local warlord/religious/political leadership might be more internationally stable, but would be much more difficult to monitor and negotiate with.
 
Aggie Boy said:
.

First of all what happens in Afghanistan is of vital importance to our security; as they (taliban) are staunch allIes of al qaeda. Secondly the poeple in Afghanistan do NOT lIke the taliban. SOme of you liberals think Afghanistan is Vietnam. It is not. the big difference is the people of Afghanistan are NOT taliban supporters. And one thing they are united on is that they desire the end of 30 years of the Taliban and war. One way to do that is to send more troops to Afghanistan. i Heard someone say that their son is there and they have to drive 5 hours in Afghanistan from one part to another because there are not enough soldiers there. ALso a Civil war is a war between the people in a country. What is happening in afghanistan is Militants are running around blowing up women and children.
Click to expand...
The Taliban has only been around for 15 years, so I don't know what butthole you pulled the 30 year figure out of, but it's wrong. And not everybody in Afghanistan hates them. They were seen as heroes at first for bringing relative peace, and now many Afghans say they're worse off under American presence than they were under Taliban control. I'm definitely not saying that the Taliban is ultra-popular, or still considered heroes, but it's a lot more complex than you're making it out to be.
 
Aggie Boy said:
.

First of all what happens in Afghanistan is of vital importance to our security; as they (taliban) are staunch allIes of al qaeda. Secondly the poeple in Afghanistan do NOT lIke the taliban. SOme of you liberals think Afghanistan is Vietnam.
Click to expand...

That would be somewhat closer than WW2. In practice it's well Afghanistan.
 
TShaitanaku said:
I agree with your logic, but this does not resolve the security issues, and might even seriously compromise and complicate them. Several independent Afghanistan nations each with their own local warlord/religious/political leadership might be more internationally stable, but would be much more difficult to monitor and negotiate with.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of divide and conquer?

Another concept: span of control.

In some ways, it is easier to deal with three of four smaller nations, each somewhat self contained, then on larger nation. Each presents a smaller problem.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
Ever heard of divide and conquer?

Another concept: span of control.

In some ways, it is easier to deal with three of four smaller nations, each somewhat self contained, then on larger nation. Each presents a smaller problem.

DR
Click to expand...

That would be true if our security concerns revolved around dealing with nation-state powers, national armies and such enitities. Our primary security concerns with Afghanistan relate more toward political entities providing cover to activities of non-nation-state entities. And this doesn't necessarily mean just official protection and endorsement, corrupt bureaucrats allowing fund transfers and money laundering, passports, etc., can be just as problematic and would be much more likely and harder to monitor/address in the multiple, small feifdoms,...IMO.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this proposal, however, if you've got any ideas on how to organize and set such up, and the role for the US in such a set up. Perhaps instead of a complete breakup, we look at a looser confederation of largely independent states, but still with some overall limited power national structure,...I can see the potential, especially in Afghanistan, for the people to support such, and over time, history seems to indicate that such systems gradually evolve stronger national governments, but such would be up to the Afghans and would not seem imposed from without.
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
I offer again: why is the set of lines on the map being worshipped as holy in the case of Afghanistan? Why is a viable nation state being assumed?
Click to expand...

Because that is the line that the government of Afghanistan accepts, and the people, aside from the Pashtun along the border, have gone along with it for some time now.

But so what? It is not our place to even address that issue. It's that simple.
 
cisco said:
The Taliban has only been around for 15 years, so I don't know what butthole you pulled the 30 year figure out of, but it's wrong. And not everybody in Afghanistan hates them. They were seen as heroes at first for bringing relative peace, and now many Afghans say they're worse off under American presence than they were under Taliban control. I'm definitely not saying that the Taliban is ultra-popular, or still considered heroes, but it's a lot more complex than you're making it out to be.
Click to expand...



Afghanistan has been enduring 30 years of ceasless violence. If you dont believe me read about someone who was there and speaks of the same violence.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/afghanistan-press-article-270309
 
Ok, maybe I misread you. I thought you were saying 30 years of the Taliban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom