XXX Throw Down!

Remove all ads!

If I were more patient, I would go through old "Americans are imperialists!" threads and skewer a few of you individually, but instead I'll just let this article from the Guardian (a liberal UK newspaper) sit here for y'all to read.

It seems that the Afghanis think we were right to kick the Taliban out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,838892,00.html?=rss

 

Just need to get a moment of proudness and thankfullness, eh Shralp

 

Hell, I didn't do it.

I just like holding people accountable for their foolish statements.

 

AMEN, brother.

And how about that mental image of women in high heels and burkas??

Just because it is time to move on to Iraq does not mean that we should move out of Afghanistan.

 

Interesting result On the other hand it would have been interesting to see who in free afganistan would have said loudly that he has actually liked the taliban rule Not too unlikely he would end up as a terrorist suspect ... and people have always known what to reply to whom to eagerly please

There is the old saying: Who's bread I eat, whose song I sing

[ November 21, 2002, 09:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Unfortenately the Taliban is quitley growing into his old form as we speak, some provinces in Afghanistan are again under their rule

 

No one has really disagreed with cleaning out the talibans, plenty of people around the world thought they should be unseated long before 9/11, it is one of the occasions where military intervention was almost justified. Especially considering the appalleing conditions in the country. It is the methods and forms in which that intervention occured that I have had some issues with, and that many in the american populace seems to think that they afgani people got what was coming to them when they got caught in the middle of the conflict. War is never nice and I will always whine and complain when one is fought as I in my little world always hope for a peaceful solution.

 

Joacquin, that's ridiculous. Most of the world disagreed with the U.S.'s unilateral dismantling of the Taliban until the images of gleeful liberated women started rolling in.

This is the one thing I do not understand about you and your ilk: You ***** and moan when the U.S. starts acting like a "bully," when the results of that bullying are precisely what you and the rest of the pseudo-anarchists desire for the rest of the world...real freedom, sexual equality, plenty of food, et cetera.

You can't have it both ways. Peace is wrested from unreasonable people (and regimes) through, and only through, the barrel of a gun. That is the only language they understand. Thankfully all the big guns are in the hands of a free and enlightened people (though I don't agree with everything they do in foreign affars, particularly as concerns Israel/Palestine), because otherwise you and me both would be in a camp.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the Taliban had had enough nukes to destroy the world?

 

Being the big bully, US should have unseated Taliban long before IMO.

I think the reasoning was a bad call. It wasn't for all the poor children and women in Afghanistan, it was just because US just got a ***** slap and wanted to give a whack back with the baseball bat.

Sure putting the reason on the women and children is a good way to sell the idea, even though you want to smack them for something completely different.

[ November 21, 2002, 01:34: Message edited by: Lokken ]

 

On the contrary, Lokken, I think this was the one of the first times that the U.S. realized that they had a moral as well as a national obligation for military intervention. There's no oil in Afghanistan. Nor is there in Rwanda, and Clinton (rightly, but a bit too late) apologized on behalf of the U.S. for not intervening in that tragedy.

It's funny: The states are condemned when they intervene (Kosovo) and when they don't (Rwanda). Is it any wonder that they act unilaterally?

 

On the other hand, it is considered to be the major route for the oil of Turkmenistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2017044.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1.hi/business/1777890.stm

Also, don't fool yourselves, there is not a goverment in this world, which would start a war for humanitarian reasons.

 

On the other hands the US admittedly have an honest interest in fighting the terrorists of Al Quaida. I wonder why germany isn't more inconsequent here - eventually several hundred (700 to 800 iirc) of the 9/11 victims were germans, working for their companies in the twin towers, the victims of the Djerba bombing were practically german tourists only - must be our chancellor . The war in Afganistan is not so much a humanity or a moral obligation.

Face it: Haven't the Taliban morons granted support for Bin Laden, the US would have given a sh** about human rights violation and discrimination in Afganistan.
The afgans have served well enough to fight the russians in the cold war. After that they were no longer interesting - as was the long year civil war - who would wonder some of them felt betrayed? Afganistan only 'regained' importance by offering shelter to Bin Laden and as a training ground for his terror squads.
This also awakens the interesting thought what might have happened if the US had pumped 10% of the cost of the weapons dropped over Afganistan as aid into the country right after the russians moved away. That, however, would have not solved the problem of the rivalling fractions in the country.
I am very sceptical about the feasibility to 'install' a democratic government in a country without any democratic culture - western democratic achievements are very valuable, but in a country like afganistan stability may be more important.

The US recognize, after having suffered high casualties from terrorists hands, that they have to fight them. This is a clear necessity, based on the need to show strength in face of terror - a US protection guarantee wouldn't be much worth if the US would take a beating from terrorists hands without a resolute response - think about credibility. It is also a question of retribution and prevention - even though it may leave out the problem how US foreign policy/ military action is perceived in muslim states - since the sheer US presence in some muslim states is felt as an insult the few fanatics there aren't likely to change their mind.
As in vietnam the US have to attempt to win hearts and minds of the people there, which I consider a little unlikely - highly difficult at least, as the pessimist that I am. Bombing isn't the right tool for this task.
Some people feel the US think that most political can be solved with military power if necessary. However, some problems only can and probably have to be solved with military force - I doubt that a Saddam can be talked into respecting his obligations without massive military pressure.

This war isn't about oil - yet. What you experience there in Turkmenistan is a nother "big game" - china, russia and the US are interested to ensure the flow of the oil from there to their zones of influence, china to maintain a steady supply for their more and more demanding billion of people, russia to have an additional source for its own disposal and the US to reduce the dependence from the oil producing countries in the persian gulf region.
Considering this it is in Europes best interest to support the US position, followed by supporting russia as a back-up plan However, this game hasn't much to do with Bin Laden, it has started much earlier.

[ November 21, 2002, 10:21: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I had been following the civil war in Afghanistan for some years before it became world news, and was very pleased to see that, at last, there was intervention against the Taliban. But it would be much better if the US (and other nations) could stick by their promises and help to build a genuinely better nation. The promises for aid have simply not arrived, and while Kabul is in a much better state than it was, much of the country is in a very bad state.

This does sound like history repeating itself - the doctrine of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" was what led to the West arming the Taliban (or their predecessors) against the Russians and Iraq against Iran. If we are going to intervene and proclaim a moral purpose, then we should stick to that.

 

Training locals has been a cornerstone of the US military doctrine in the last 60 years. Starting with WW-II where the british SOE and SAS trained the french resistance and the US trained their Kachin mercenaries to fight the japanese. It went on in Vietnam when the US recruited and trained thousands of tribesman from southeast asia to fight the vietcong and it ended in afganistan with training the locals there to do the dirty work. To train locals is one of the exact tasks of an A-Team of the Green Berets.

The major problem has always been that this leaves a large, fairly organized, combat experienced and relatively well armed force after the task has been solved (or not has been solved), destabilizing the post-war situation, frequently leading into a folow-on civil war. That frequently happened in Africa.