|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
[
They weren't burned separately, so that's a non-issue. Also according to the articles I've seen much of that writing was simply religious notes, not secret communications. |
Link? |
"Dad also claimed the investigation had shown that some detainees had written their names, their father's names, their inmate identification numbers and the date they were detained in some of the books that were not destroyed. Some of the books written in Arabic also had definitions of Arabic words scribbled in Dari or Pashto, the two Afghan languages.
"I didn't see anything that suggested that messages were being exchanged between prisoners or with outsiders," he said."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/afghanistan-quran-burnings_n_1318297.html |
| Quote: |
| However, Maulvi Khaliq Dad, a top Afghan religious leader who was on a different panel appointed by President Hamid Karzai to investigate the incident, claimed the burning was intentional. |
So you are suggesting that a top Afghan religious leader is going to say ANYTHING that might be construed as not being 100% for the respect of his Holy Book? This guy is an extremist...you don't get to the top without being an extremist one way or the other.
And you know this person personally and KNOW he's telling the truth? You know for a fact that he wasn't misinformed? You know for a fact that he's not pushing an agenda?
This proves nothing. |
Considering that he was appointed by Karzai, so I'm just saying that we don't know one way or another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| [q Civilian deaths, and especially deaths of children, is a whole different thing. |
Then you should be blaming the Taliban.
http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2010/08/who-is-killing-afghan-civilians-reality.html
| Quote: |
| Overall, there has been "a 31 per cent increase in conflict-related Afghan civilian casualties in the first six months of 2010 compared with the same period in 2009," including a 55% increase in killed and injured children. But this increase is entirely due to the Taliban. In fact, "[c]asualties attributed to Pro-Government Forces (PGF) fell 30 per cent during the same period," due primarily to a new policy of limiting the use of air strikes. Casualties attributable to the Taliban, on the other hand, have escalated dramatically. |
(bolding mine)
Oh and you do know that when the Taliban were coming to power in Afghanistan...that they were killing civilians (including women and children) LONG before the U.S ever became involved right?
Why no bleating about that?
| Quote: |
=> Of course, some people will respond that there would be no war in Afghanistan, and thus no civilian deaths, if the US had not invaded the country in 2001 and overthrown the Taliban. Thus, even the deaths of children executed by the Taliban are ultimately the fault of the US and its NATO allies, and the solution is to "end the war" by pulling out US/NATO troops.
Such people would be wrong. Before the 2001 US invasion, Afghans had already experienced two decades of uninterrupted warfare on a catastrophic scale, including a devastating civil war during the 1990s that culminated in the takeover of most of Afghanistan by one of most viciously repressive, reactionary, and stultifying regimes on earth. During that period, over a million Afghans died and millions more fled the country as refugees. After 2001, millions of those refugees came back home. As bad as conditions have been in Afghanistan since 2001, even since the renewed upsurge in armed conflict since around 2005, it is simply undeniable that the levels of death, destruction, and general misery were much higher during the 1980s or the 1990s. (Even the rates of infant mortality have fallen dramatically since the overthrow of the Taliban regime--from horrifying to merely awful. |
So over a million killed due DIRECTLY to the Taliban and infant mortality (those children you are oh so concerned about) is also down dramatically.
Seems like you should be backing the American invasion. |
Of course I blame the Taliban. But why should I back the U.S. invasion, that's terrible logic. What happens when we leave? All that progress that thousands died for will disappear. We can not stay and maintain it. The progress is not real. When we leave Pakistan will take our place, and things will go back to the way they were before. All those billions and lives lost for things to go back to where they were. The sad joke is that Pakistan is supposed to be our ally, but they are the ones that enable the Taliban.
Please tell me what we have gained by our invasion in Afghanistan. Please tell me what plausible way forward there is? I mean honestly what is the best possible outcome, looking at Iraq I don't see much hope for Afganistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Please tell me what we have gained by our invasion in Afghanistan. |
Well, Karzai's brother (before he got shot) and the rest of the CIA's minions get to traffic hundreds of billions in opium (grown under US army supervision)... and the defense contractors building bombs for all these wars are swimming in a veritable ocean of profits. So at least someone is gaining. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
Of course I blame the Taliban. But why should I back the U.S. invasion, that's terrible logic. What happens when we leave? All that progress that thousands died for will disappear. We can not stay and maintain it. The progress is not real. When we leave Pakistan will take our place, and things will go back to the way they were before. All those billions and lives lost for things to go back to where they were. The sad joke is that Pakistan is supposed to be our ally, but they are the ones that enable the Taliban.
Please tell me what we have gained by our invasion in Afghanistan. Please tell me what plausible way forward there is? I mean honestly what is the best possible outcome, looking at Iraq I don't see much hope for Afganistan. |
Certainly I will tell you. First of all we have gained a dramatic decrease in infant mortality. Is that not gain enough? We have also smashed a terrorist stronghold and spread AQ quite thin. Despite their threats they've not been able to make another dramatic attack on the homeland yet (11 years on).
Also you are claiming that all the progress we've worked for "will disappear". Perhaps you should take that crystal ball to the Pentagon. Point being you can not know this. One factor that argues against this is that U.S. "advisors" ARE STAYING THERE WELL PAST THE POINT OF WITHDRAWAL. So no things will not go back to where they were before...we'll have boots and eyes on the ground reporting directly to Washington.
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_afghan-civilian-deaths-spark-calls-for-us-exit_1661342
| Quote: |
The massacre of 16 villagers by a US soldier has triggered angry calls for an immediate American exit from Afghanistan as Washington tries to negotiate a long-term presence to keep the country from sliding into chaos again.
Just days before Sunday's attack, Kabul and Washington had made significant progress in negotiations on a Strategic Partnership Agreement that would allow American advisers and special forces to stay in Afghanistan after foreign combat troops leave at the end of 2014... |
And comparing Iraq to Afghanistan is quite frankly terrible logic. The two countries are nothing alike in any meaningful ways that would inevitably lead to the same outcome. Different people, different culture, different histories... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vestigia Terrent -- Horace
Said the fox to the sick lion: Those footprints frighten me because all are going toward you, and none are coming back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
Of course I blame the Taliban. But why should I back the U.S. invasion, that's terrible logic. What happens when we leave? All that progress that thousands died for will disappear. We can not stay and maintain it. The progress is not real. When we leave Pakistan will take our place, and things will go back to the way they were before. All those billions and lives lost for things to go back to where they were. The sad joke is that Pakistan is supposed to be our ally, but they are the ones that enable the Taliban.
Please tell me what we have gained by our invasion in Afghanistan. Please tell me what plausible way forward there is? I mean honestly what is the best possible outcome, looking at Iraq I don't see much hope for Afganistan. |
Certainly I will tell you. First of all we have gained a dramatic decrease in infant mortality. Is that not gain enough? We have also smashed a terrorist stronghold and spread AQ quite thin. Despite their threats they've not been able to make another dramatic attack on the homeland yet (11 years on).
Also you are claiming that all the progress we've worked for "will disappear". Perhaps you should take that crystal ball to the Pentagon. Point being you can not know this. One factor that argues against this is that U.S. "advisors" ARE STAYING THERE WELL PAST THE POINT OF WITHDRAWAL. So no things will not go back to where they were before...we'll have boots and eyes on the ground reporting directly to Washington.
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_afghan-civilian-deaths-spark-calls-for-us-exit_1661342
| Quote: |
The massacre of 16 villagers by a US soldier has triggered angry calls for an immediate American exit from Afghanistan as Washington tries to negotiate a long-term presence to keep the country from sliding into chaos again.
Just days before Sunday's attack, Kabul and Washington had made significant progress in negotiations on a Strategic Partnership Agreement that would allow American advisers and special forces to stay in Afghanistan after foreign combat troops leave at the end of 2014... |
And comparing Iraq to Afghanistan is quite frankly terrible logic. The two countries are nothing alike in any meaningful ways that would inevitably lead to the same outcome. Different people, different culture, different histories... |
I wasn't comparing Iraq to Afghanistan, rather I was pointing out the United States recent history with this sort of thing. All indicators suggest Afghanistan will be worse off. Quite frankly the meaningful similarity is the United States invasion and occupation. Where they differ is that Iraq, for all of its many problems, was a lot more modern than Afghanistan. Iraq had better infrastructure, its people were better educated, it has better natural resources. Iran exerts some influence, but nothing like Pakistan has over Afghanistan. Look at Iraq now, kids are being stoned for wearing tight pants with government compliance. If we're lucky Afghanistan will be like Iraq.
The Pentagon knows this. Petraeus agrees with me, and it's not just because we share the same names, our operational goal has been switched from nation building and democracy to "good enough". I mean did you forget that we are at the point where we are trying to negotiate with the Taliban and set up power sharing agreements with them. Does this sound optimistic to you?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/is-us-strategy-in-afghanistan-disintegrating/254323/
What are the advisers and special forces going to do? Rule the entire country from Kabul? The fact of the matter is that we do not have the proximity, interest, or relationships that the ISI have. The ISI will be the de facto one in charge once we leave, and in lots of regions they are pretty close to it already. You mean to tell me that we went to war over infant mortality? We can do that work in other places in a peaceful manner. In our urban communities the infant mortality rates are terrible. As far as AL-Qaeda we spent billions of dollars and lost thousands of men and are stuck in a quagmire, which was their strategy to begin with. Every dollar we spend in Afghanistan, every civilian we kill, we fall in line with their strategy.
What should we do, go full on in Yemen, or how about Somalia, or any other one of the failed states where terrorists can hide. Or what about Pakistan, that's where tons of them hang out. We can't fight wars everywhere there are terrorists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
[q
I wasn't comparing Iraq to Afghanistan, rather I was pointing out the United States recent history with this sort of thing. (1) All indicators suggest Afghanistan will be worse off. Quite frankly the meaningful similarity is the United States invasion and occupation. Where they differ is that Iraq, for all of its many problems, was a lot more modern than Afghanistan. Iraq had better infrastructure, its people were better educated, it has better natural resources. Iran exerts some influence, but nothing like Pakistan has over Afghanistan. Look at Iraq now, kids are being stoned for wearing tight pants with government compliance. If we're lucky Afghanistan will be like Iraq.
The Pentagon knows this. Petraeus agrees with me, and it's not just because we share the same names, our operational goal has been switched from nation building and democracy to "good enough". (2) I mean did you forget that we are at the point where we are trying to negotiate with the Taliban and set up power sharing agreements with them. Does this sound optimistic to you?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/is-us-strategy-in-afghanistan-disintegrating/254323/
3. What are the advisers and special forces going to do? Rule the entire country from Kabul? The fact of the matter is that we do not have the proximity, interest, or relationships that the ISI have. The ISI will be the de facto one in charge once we leave, and in lots of regions they are pretty close to it already. 4. You mean to tell me that we went to war over infant mortality? We can do that work in other places in a peaceful manner. In our urban communities the infant mortality rates are terrible. As far as AL-Qaeda we spent billions of dollars and lost thousands of men and are stuck in a quagmire, which was their strategy to begin with. Every dollar we spend in Afghanistan, every civilian we kill, we fall in line with their strategy.
What should we do, go full on in Yemen, or how about Somalia, or any other one of the failed states where terrorists can hide. Or what about Pakistan, that's where tons of them hang out. 5. We can't fight wars everywhere there are terrorists. |
Okay I will take apart your argument piece by piece. (see the bolded and numbered points.)
1. List of said indicators and why they point to failure please?
2. We are? We have officially and formally offered the Taliban this? Facts please and not speculation. Even so Karzai and Pakistan are like to interfere with this (see link at bottom)
3. Keep a rein on Karzai and provide help and logistics planning to root up stubborn pockets of resistance. As I posted in my links above the vast majority of Afghans have turned against the Taliban.
4. Now now Mr. Leon you are being intellectually dishonest here. The remark about infant mortality was in reply to your question 'what have we gained' not 'why we went to war.' So the point is...is that a gain or not? The remark about doing this in other places is irrelevant since that wasn't part of the original question.
5. Certainly we can't fight wars everywhere there are terrorists. But we don't have to give them the safety and security of a nation state to hatch their nasty little plots in. We did that in 2001...didn't work out for a lot of Americans in the Twin Towers now did it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/01/washington-wishful-thinking-taliban-talks
| Quote: |
| Fourth, even if the negotiations got underway between the US and the Taliban, there is no way that a deal would be struck without interference from key players � especially the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan � whose interests are threatened by a deal. Despite the choreography designed to seek Karzai's blessings for the talks, his government has deep reservations about them, for a power-sharing agreement with the Taliban would leave him at their mercy after US forces depart. Throughout this process, he is likely to follow his normal practice of blustering, making inconsistent demands and engaging in brinkmanship to prevent the US from selling him out in a separate peace with the Taliban. |
Furthermore:
| Quote: |
| Finally, even if the leadership core of the Taliban were serious about a peace deal with the United States, it remains unclear whether the Taliban leadership could deliver on the terms of the peace that they promised. The Taliban is a diffuse movement, which is aligned with local factions and the notorious Islamist alliance the Haqqani network, as well as an array of Pakistani-based Islamist forces. Even though they appear to be making token efforts to include Haqqanis in the negotiations, the extent to which Quetta Shura Council can control their own factions � and reign in those factions from responding to provocations by the Afghan government or other players � is in doubt. Much of the recent violence, conducted by small groups of Taliban, does not suggest that their forces are under tight control. This fact does not bode well for a peace settlement ,which, at best, is likely to be tenuous |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
[q
I wasn't comparing Iraq to Afghanistan, rather I was pointing out the United States recent history with this sort of thing. (1) All indicators suggest Afghanistan will be worse off. Quite frankly the meaningful similarity is the United States invasion and occupation. Where they differ is that Iraq, for all of its many problems, was a lot more modern than Afghanistan. Iraq had better infrastructure, its people were better educated, it has better natural resources. Iran exerts some influence, but nothing like Pakistan has over Afghanistan. Look at Iraq now, kids are being stoned for wearing tight pants with government compliance. If we're lucky Afghanistan will be like Iraq.
The Pentagon knows this. Petraeus agrees with me, and it's not just because we share the same names, our operational goal has been switched from nation building and democracy to "good enough". (2) I mean did you forget that we are at the point where we are trying to negotiate with the Taliban and set up power sharing agreements with them. Does this sound optimistic to you?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/is-us-strategy-in-afghanistan-disintegrating/254323/
3. What are the advisers and special forces going to do? Rule the entire country from Kabul? The fact of the matter is that we do not have the proximity, interest, or relationships that the ISI have. The ISI will be the de facto one in charge once we leave, and in lots of regions they are pretty close to it already. 4. You mean to tell me that we went to war over infant mortality? We can do that work in other places in a peaceful manner. In our urban communities the infant mortality rates are terrible. As far as AL-Qaeda we spent billions of dollars and lost thousands of men and are stuck in a quagmire, which was their strategy to begin with. Every dollar we spend in Afghanistan, every civilian we kill, we fall in line with their strategy.
What should we do, go full on in Yemen, or how about Somalia, or any other one of the failed states where terrorists can hide. Or what about Pakistan, that's where tons of them hang out. 5. We can't fight wars everywhere there are terrorists. |
Okay I will take apart your argument piece by piece. (see the bolded and numbered points.)
1. List of said indicators and why they point to failure please.
2. We are? We have officially and formally offered the Taliban this? Facts please and not speculation. Even so Karzai and Pakistan are like to interfere with this (see link at bottom)
3. Keep a rein on Karzai and provide help and logistics planning to root up stubborn pockets of resistance. As I posted in my links above the vast majority of Afghans have turned against the Taliban.
4. Now now Mr. Leon you are being intellectually dishonest here. The remark about infant mortality was in reply to your question 'what have we gained' not 'why we went to war.' So the point is...is that a gain or not? The remark about doing this in other places is irrelevant since that wasn't part of the original question.
5. Certainly we can't fight wars everywhere there are terrorists. But we don't have to give them the safety and security of a nation state to hatch their nasty little plots in. We did that in 2001...didn't work out for a lot of Americans in the Twin Towers now did it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/01/washington-wishful-thinking-taliban-talks
| Quote: |
| Fourth, even if the negotiations got underway between the US and the Taliban, there is no way that a deal would be struck without interference from key players � especially the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan � whose interests are threatened by a deal. Despite the choreography designed to seek Karzai's blessings for the talks, his government has deep reservations about them, for a power-sharing agreement with the Taliban would leave him at their mercy after US forces depart. Throughout this process, he is likely to follow his normal practice of blustering, making inconsistent demands and engaging in brinkmanship to prevent the US from selling him out in a separate peace with the Taliban. |
Furthermore:
| Quote: |
| Finally, even if the leadership core of the Taliban were serious about a peace deal with the United States, it remains unclear whether the Taliban leadership could deliver on the terms of the peace that they promised. The Taliban is a diffuse movement, which is aligned with local factions and the notorious Islamist alliance the Haqqani network, as well as an array of Pakistani-based Islamist forces. Even though they appear to be making token efforts to include Haqqanis in the negotiations, the extent to which Quetta Shura Council can control their own factions � and reign in those factions from responding to provocations by the Afghan government or other players � is in doubt. Much of the recent violence, conducted by small groups of Taliban, does not suggest that their forces are under tight control. This fact does not bode well for a peace settlement ,which, at best, is likely to be tenuous |
|
Ok, here goes
1. Didn't you read the indicators? I wrote a whole paragraph about the lack of previous development, etc. etc.
2. Of course we haven't done it officially, you think that everything the C.I.A does is on the record. Even Clinton is talking about the negotiations.
3. Karzai is extremely corrupt, so keep a reign on him how so? Considering that theoretically Afghanistan is sovereign is this even a legitimate goal, or are you suggesting that we continually occupy Afghanistan and create a puppet state. I mean look at Iran and Egypt, that strategy always works, right?
4. Ok, sure it's legitimate. There were also some gains in education and women's rights. Is it sustainable, I don't believe so, nor do most commentators, but really it's tangential to most of this.
5. Let's not be naive. The nation states most responsible for those attacks are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two of our supposed "allies". The Taliban is a product of Pakistan, and Al-Qaeeda is largely a product of Saudi Arabia. We can not attack every where there is a possibility that terrorists can gather. Furthermore, the main reason we get attacked is due to our interference in the region. What has been more devastating to the U.S. the initial attack, or being involved in Afghanistan?
While I'm on this riff I'll just say that perhaps one of the best ways to deal with the extremists is to stop turning a blind eye to the Saudi's who practically created this type of Wahhabi (spelling?) ideology and who's millionaire and billionaires bank role it, and stop turning a blind eye to the ISI who bankroll terrorists, train them, and coordinate with them while the military receives U.S. funding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
[q
I wasn't comparing Iraq to Afghanistan, rather I was pointing out the United States recent history with this sort of thing. (1) All indicators suggest Afghanistan will be worse off. Quite frankly the meaningful similarity is the United States invasion and occupation. Where they differ is that Iraq, for all of its many problems, was a lot more modern than Afghanistan. Iraq had better infrastructure, its people were better educated, it has better natural resources. Iran exerts some influence, but nothing like Pakistan has over Afghanistan. Look at Iraq now, kids are being stoned for wearing tight pants with government compliance. If we're lucky Afghanistan will be like Iraq.
The Pentagon knows this. Petraeus agrees with me, and it's not just because we share the same names, our operational goal has been switched from nation building and democracy to "good enough". (2) I mean did you forget that we are at the point where we are trying to negotiate with the Taliban and set up power sharing agreements with them. Does this sound optimistic to you?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/is-us-strategy-in-afghanistan-disintegrating/254323/
3. What are the advisers and special forces going to do? Rule the entire country from Kabul? The fact of the matter is that we do not have the proximity, interest, or relationships that the ISI have. The ISI will be the de facto one in charge once we leave, and in lots of regions they are pretty close to it already. 4. You mean to tell me that we went to war over infant mortality? We can do that work in other places in a peaceful manner. In our urban communities the infant mortality rates are terrible. As far as AL-Qaeda we spent billions of dollars and lost thousands of men and are stuck in a quagmire, which was their strategy to begin with. Every dollar we spend in Afghanistan, every civilian we kill, we fall in line with their strategy.
What should we do, go full on in Yemen, or how about Somalia, or any other one of the failed states where terrorists can hide. Or what about Pakistan, that's where tons of them hang out. 5. We can't fight wars everywhere there are terrorists. |
Okay I will take apart your argument piece by piece. (see the bolded and numbered points.)
1. List of said indicators and why they point to failure please.
2. We are? We have officially and formally offered the Taliban this? Facts please and not speculation. Even so Karzai and Pakistan are like to interfere with this (see link at bottom)
3. Keep a rein on Karzai and provide help and logistics planning to root up stubborn pockets of resistance. As I posted in my links above the vast majority of Afghans have turned against the Taliban.
4. Now now Mr. Leon you are being intellectually dishonest here. The remark about infant mortality was in reply to your question 'what have we gained' not 'why we went to war.' So the point is...is that a gain or not? The remark about doing this in other places is irrelevant since that wasn't part of the original question.
5. Certainly we can't fight wars everywhere there are terrorists. But we don't have to give them the safety and security of a nation state to hatch their nasty little plots in. We did that in 2001...didn't work out for a lot of Americans in the Twin Towers now did it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/01/washington-wishful-thinking-taliban-talks
| Quote: |
| Fourth, even if the negotiations got underway between the US and the Taliban, there is no way that a deal would be struck without interference from key players � especially the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan � whose interests are threatened by a deal. Despite the choreography designed to seek Karzai's blessings for the talks, his government has deep reservations about them, for a power-sharing agreement with the Taliban would leave him at their mercy after US forces depart. Throughout this process, he is likely to follow his normal practice of blustering, making inconsistent demands and engaging in brinkmanship to prevent the US from selling him out in a separate peace with the Taliban. |
Furthermore:
| Quote: |
| Finally, even if the leadership core of the Taliban were serious about a peace deal with the United States, it remains unclear whether the Taliban leadership could deliver on the terms of the peace that they promised. The Taliban is a diffuse movement, which is aligned with local factions and the notorious Islamist alliance the Haqqani network, as well as an array of Pakistani-based Islamist forces. Even though they appear to be making token efforts to include Haqqanis in the negotiations, the extent to which Quetta Shura Council can control their own factions � and reign in those factions from responding to provocations by the Afghan government or other players � is in doubt. Much of the recent violence, conducted by small groups of Taliban, does not suggest that their forces are under tight control. This fact does not bode well for a peace settlement ,which, at best, is likely to be tenuous |
|
Ok, here goes
1. Didn't you read the indicators? I wrote a whole paragraph about the lack of previous development, etc. etc.
2. Of course we haven't done it officially, you think that everything the C.I.A does is on the record. Even Clinton is talking about the negotiations.
3. Karzai is extremely corrupt, so keep a reign on him how so? Considering that theoretically Afghanistan is sovereign is this even a legitimate goal, or are you suggesting that we continually occupy Afghanistan and create a puppet state. I mean look at Iran and Egypt, that strategy always works, right?
4. Ok, sure it's legitimate. There were also some gains in education and women's rights. Is it sustainable, I don't believe so, nor do most commentators, but really it's tangential to most of this.
5. Let's not be naive. The nation states most responsible for those attacks are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two of our supposed "allies". The Taliban is a product of Pakistan, and Al-Qaeeda is largely a product of Saudi Arabia. We can not attack every where there is a possibility that terrorists can gather. Furthermore, the main reason we get attacked is due to our interference in the region. What has been more devastating to the U.S. the initial attack, or being involved in Afghanistan?
While I'm on this riff I'll just say that perhaps one of the best ways to deal with the extremists is to stop turning a blind eye to the Saudi's who practically created this type of Wahhabi (spelling?) ideology and who's millionaire and billionaires bank role it, and stop turning a blind eye to the ISI who bankroll terrorists, train them, and coordinate with them while the military receives U.S. funding. |
1. I saw the post about the lack of development but no other indicators mentioned.
2. Until it's official it's really not a point. And given that there are strong interest in favor of this never happening...it's not likely to happen.
3. We can always threaten to leave and let him deal with the Taliban and Pakistan by himself...let's be real here...it will take years for Afghanistan to be able to stand alone. Karzai knows this no matter how much he blusters and raves.
4. Okay so there have been gains. Are they sustainable with long-term assistance? Maybe and maybe not. But throwing up our hands and walking away NOW all but ensures they won't be.
5. Where did I say that we should attack "every where there is a possibility that terrorists can gather"?
Not seeing it. And no the U.S was attacked not for its involvement in Afghanistan but for having forces in Saudi Arabia at the behest of the governing power there. We can't let terrorists dictate our foreign policy.
And the Saudis are finally getting serious about cracking down on extremists.
| Quote: |
How effectively has Saudi Arabia partnered with the United States to combat terrorism since 9/11?
This is one of the better relationships in the world on counterterrorism. The cooperation between Washington and Riyadh is strong and on the issue of terrorism the Saudis and Americans basically see eye to eye. There is also a regular exchange of information to help both countries prevent attacks.
This was not the case for the first few years after 9/11, as Saudi Arabia did not fully appreciate the problem. But when violence started in Saudi Arabia in 2003, the relationship with the United States on terrorism improved markedly and quickly grew strong. Now there are programs to improve the security of Saudi�s energy infrastructure, training, officials share databases, photos, fingerprints, etc., and there is a great deal of cooperation on Yemen where there are Saudis hiding out and operating with AQAP.
The relationship today shows how two governments can cooperate. If every country was willing to cooperate like Saudi Arabia, the world would be a much safer place. There are two things that are needed to fight terrorism�political will and capacity. Saudi Arabia has demonstrated both. Other countries haven�t. Saudi Arabia recognized that it was at risk of terrorism and then focused a great deal of attention on the problem. |
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2011/09/12/terrorism-out-of-saudi-arabia/53pw |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
1. I saw the post about the lack of development but no other indicators mentioned.
2. Until it's official it's really not a point. And given that there are strong interest in favor of this never happening...it's not likely to happen.
3. We can always threaten to leave and let him deal with the Taliban and Pakistan by himself...let's be real here...it will take years for Afghanistan to be able to stand alone. Karzai knows this no matter how much he blusters and raves.
4. Okay so there have been gains. Are they sustainable with long-term assistance? Maybe and maybe not. But throwing up our hands and walking away NOW all but ensures they won't be.
5. Where did I say that we should attack "every where there is a possibility that terrorists can gather"?
Not seeing it. And no the U.S was attacked not for its involvement in Afghanistan but for having forces in Saudi Arabia at the behest of the governing power there. We can't let terrorists dictate our foreign policy.
And the Saudis are finally getting serious about cracking down on extremists.
| Quote: |
How effectively has Saudi Arabia partnered with the United States to combat terrorism since 9/11?
This is one of the better relationships in the world on counterterrorism. The cooperation between Washington and Riyadh is strong and on the issue of terrorism the Saudis and Americans basically see eye to eye. There is also a regular exchange of information to help both countries prevent attacks.
This was not the case for the first few years after 9/11, as Saudi Arabia did not fully appreciate the problem. But when violence started in Saudi Arabia in 2003, the relationship with the United States on terrorism improved markedly and quickly grew strong. Now there are programs to improve the security of Saudi�s energy infrastructure, training, officials share databases, photos, fingerprints, etc., and there is a great deal of cooperation on Yemen where there are Saudis hiding out and operating with AQAP.
The relationship today shows how two governments can cooperate. If every country was willing to cooperate like Saudi Arabia, the world would be a much safer place. There are two things that are needed to fight terrorism�political will and capacity. Saudi Arabia has demonstrated both. Other countries haven�t. Saudi Arabia recognized that it was at risk of terrorism and then focused a great deal of attention on the problem. |
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2011/09/12/terrorism-out-of-saudi-arabia/53pw |
1. The lack of development is the main one, along with Pakistani influence. Development is major, it means that the infrastructure is lacking, but most importantly it means that social development is also very lacking. Iraq wasn't great, but it was a modern society with a relatively (relatively being the key word) good education system and well developed human capital compared to Afghanistan. Also the lack of oil, and the country being the largest supplier of poppies in the world don't help.
2. I don't believe that it will ever happen, but the fact that it was considered shows how optimistic we are.
3. What's to stop him from turning to Iran or Pakistan? He's already met with Iran several times. They are more natural allies.
4. How long should we stay? Should we become colonialists?
5. Yep, for our involvement in Saudi Arabia. Also Israel/Pakistan. We shouldn't let terrorists dictate our foreign policy, yep we shouldn't let them bait us into quagmires like Afghanistan, I agree one hundred percent. Our foreign policy in the area is terrible. We always prop up awful leaders. Karzai is terrible, and he's the best we have. We need to stop making these mistakes.
Saudi Arabia is doing better with terrorism, but still many of its wealthy finance it. Also its ideology is the de facto terrorist ideology. Foreigners in Saudi Arabia have to live in compounds. The government didn't mind it so much until the terrorists decided they were too decadent and started gunning for them. All that aside it is another example of the United States picking terrible leaders to support, look at Saudi Arabia's human rights records. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| "KABUL, Afghanistan � President Hamid Karzai insisted Thursday that the United States confine its troops to major bases in Afghanistan by next year as the Taliban announced that they were suspending peace talks with the Americans, both of which served to complicate the Obama administration�s plans for an orderly exit from the country." |
I, for one, am looking forward to the next poll asking Afghans whether they support continued U.S. military presence. That 2010 one is looking a bit stale! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| "KABUL, Afghanistan � President Hamid Karzai insisted Thursday that the United States confine its troops to major bases in Afghanistan by next year as the Taliban announced that they were suspending peace talks with the Americans, both of which served to complicate the Obama administration�s plans for an orderly exit from the country." |
I, for one, am looking forward to the next poll asking Afghans whether they support continued U.S. military presence. That 2010 one is looking a bit stale! |
Polling is stupid.
What if someone took a poll in Korea RIGHT AFTER the US Mad Cow beef protests about what Koreans thought about America.
Would you say that public opinion in Korea TODAY would be properly reflected in that Poll data?
I don't think so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Chance
Joined: 30 May 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| "KABUL, Afghanistan � President Hamid Karzai insisted Thursday that the United States confine its troops to major bases in Afghanistan by next year as the Taliban announced that they were suspending peace talks with the Americans, both of which served to complicate the Obama administration�s plans for an orderly exit from the country." |
I, for one, am looking forward to the next poll asking Afghans whether they support continued U.S. military presence. That 2010 one is looking a bit stale! |
Polling is stupid.
|
Take it up with The Urban Myth.
He's the one who always turns these discussions into a 'my survey is best' contest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave Chance wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| comm wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| "KABUL, Afghanistan � President Hamid Karzai insisted Thursday that the United States confine its troops to major bases in Afghanistan by next year as the Taliban announced that they were suspending peace talks with the Americans, both of which served to complicate the Obama administration�s plans for an orderly exit from the country." |
I, for one, am looking forward to the next poll asking Afghans whether they support continued U.S. military presence. That 2010 one is looking a bit stale! |
Polling is stupid.
|
Take it up with The Urban Myth.
He's the one who always turns these discussions into a 'my survey is best' contest. |
Nothing of worth to contribute to the argument at hand?
Didn't think so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
