i do not know
but i do not think that he could be worse than bushco/mcsame - i hope
but i do not think that he could be worse than bushco/mcsame - i hope
is BO right or wrong on iraq/iran/afghanistan
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
PES Activist
PES Activists Dublin
Obama's prescription for Afghanistan is as one-dimensional as McCain's on Iraq. Both candidates prioritise military solutions over other approaches and fail to take account of the reality on the ground in either country.
Obama, if I understand his Berlin speech correctly, wants to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan and have the EU deploy additional troops to that country also. In short, he wants to escalate the conflict in Afghanistan in order to end it, a policy which he ridiculed when Bush proposed it for Iraq. Obama's argument for this escalation rests on his conviction that the front line of the Global War on TerrorTM is to be found in Afghanistan fighting the Taleban and Al Qaeda.
The problem is that the greatest security threat (for Europe at least) emanating from Afghanistan is the record levels of opium production and not islamist terrorism. The military conflict in that benighted country is providing near perfect conditions for opium production, its refinement into heroin and its export to Europe, Russia and China.
Afghanistan has never been a unitary state with a strong central government. Occupiers from the Russians to the English and all the way back to Alexander of Makedon learnt that lesson. A massive escalation in NATO resources in Afghanistan will not make that country a unitary state nor enable the establishment of a strong central government. That's simply not how Afghani politics and society works. Similarly, dropping high-explosives on Afghani village wedding parties from 30,000 feet in the mistaken belief that just because they're wearing turbans and carrying weapons they must be terrorists is doing enormous damage to NATO's credibility and more importantly to that of Prsident Kharzai and his administration. Throwing more troops at the problem will only increase the number of civilian atrocities that arise from the criminal intent or wilful negligence of NATO bombing and will only alienate Afghanis further.
Defeating the Taleban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan and reducing opium production means defeating them politically. Afghan society works through alliances between the centre, powerful regional rulers and the leaders of disparate tribespeople. If we concentrate on making the benefits of co-operating with Kharzai's government greater than the risks of siding with islamists and the costs of opium production higher than the revenues, then we will begin to make headway in Afghanistan.
Problem is that that sort of multi-dimensional thinking appears to be out of fashion with both McCain and Obama.
Obama, if I understand his Berlin speech correctly, wants to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq and redeploy them to Afghanistan and have the EU deploy additional troops to that country also. In short, he wants to escalate the conflict in Afghanistan in order to end it, a policy which he ridiculed when Bush proposed it for Iraq. Obama's argument for this escalation rests on his conviction that the front line of the Global War on TerrorTM is to be found in Afghanistan fighting the Taleban and Al Qaeda.
The problem is that the greatest security threat (for Europe at least) emanating from Afghanistan is the record levels of opium production and not islamist terrorism. The military conflict in that benighted country is providing near perfect conditions for opium production, its refinement into heroin and its export to Europe, Russia and China.
Afghanistan has never been a unitary state with a strong central government. Occupiers from the Russians to the English and all the way back to Alexander of Makedon learnt that lesson. A massive escalation in NATO resources in Afghanistan will not make that country a unitary state nor enable the establishment of a strong central government. That's simply not how Afghani politics and society works. Similarly, dropping high-explosives on Afghani village wedding parties from 30,000 feet in the mistaken belief that just because they're wearing turbans and carrying weapons they must be terrorists is doing enormous damage to NATO's credibility and more importantly to that of Prsident Kharzai and his administration. Throwing more troops at the problem will only increase the number of civilian atrocities that arise from the criminal intent or wilful negligence of NATO bombing and will only alienate Afghanis further.
Defeating the Taleban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan and reducing opium production means defeating them politically. Afghan society works through alliances between the centre, powerful regional rulers and the leaders of disparate tribespeople. If we concentrate on making the benefits of co-operating with Kharzai's government greater than the risks of siding with islamists and the costs of opium production higher than the revenues, then we will begin to make headway in Afghanistan.
Problem is that that sort of multi-dimensional thinking appears to be out of fashion with both McCain and Obama.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
LEGALIZE OPIUM!
PES Activist
PES Activists Dublin
welcome to the insane asylum - a rational reply is rare especially a long one such as yours
i do not think that we have the leadership to solve the problems in the middle east short of turning it into a radioactive wasteland
does anyone really remember why we went into afghanistan
money is the key and opium is money - we promised money to help the agriculture get back on its feet and failed to follow through
too many people think that solutions involve bullets and bombs
come on that is my line except that i want to legalized all vices (short of maiming and killing)
are not adults supposed to be able to make adult decisions and if they do not then let the law step in
PES Activist
PES Activists Dublin
welcome to the insane asylum - a rational reply is rare especially a long one such as yours
i do not think that we have the leadership to solve the problems in the middle east short of turning it into a radioactive wasteland
does anyone really remember why we went into afghanistan
money is the key and opium is money - we promised money to help the agriculture get back on its feet and failed to follow through
too many people think that solutions involve bullets and bombs
Thanks for your good wishes and positive feedback, Don.
I agree. It's distressing how many American liberals have bought the Democratic party's line of Afghanistan being the "good war", and not asked any questions, such as, what the hell are we accomplishing there?
PES Activist
PES Activists Dublin
Exactly, Darla. This is why, in spite of the hero-worship that has attended Obama's tour of Europe, a dizziness that has even affected many members of the European Left, I'm still left feeling somewhat queasy about exactly what an Obama presidency would mean for the international scene.
Don't get me wrong, given the choice, it's a no-brainer in the US presidential elections, but whatever an Obama presidency might mean for the domestic agenda in the US, I do not buy the claim that he represents a significantly different position to McCain on global security.
cawacko
Well-known member
PES, what was your take on Bill Clinton while he was President? I'm not asking this in comparison to Bush but as of 2000 when he left office. I believe for the most part he was popular in Europe but if I have read correctly during interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo he wasn't necessarily the most popular American at the time.
The general consensus I get from Obama supporters in the U.S. is that he will restore our stature in the world. After Bush it won't be hard to make it rise but after reading your comment I guess the question is how much?
This my be a parochial view on my part but I still feel no matter who the U.S. elects there will always be that bit of dislike coming from Europe.
Good job on once again, completely fogging up the issue with the irrelevant observation that "there will always be a bit of dislike coming from Europe", as if , that has anything to do with what Bush has done to this country, and our standing in the world.
Yeah, some of them will never love us - fuck it, let's vote for McCain.
Is SF paying you for these posts? Are you his apprentice? Maybe you should bring up abortion now?
It's not a great choice. Frankly, I can't begin to imagine having to look at that truly ugly, stinky-looking, and dementia-ridden John McCain for four years.
cawacko
Well-known member
Thank you mind reader but my question had nothing to do with voting for McCain. Am I somehow going to convince this gentleman to move to the U.S. and register to vote and vote for McCain in the next two months? If you read his ealier posts the gentleman made comments about Obama's proposed actions in Afghanistan and how they would be viewed in Europe thus the impetus for my question. So I apologize that you didn't like the question but don't yell at me because you're all pissed off about something else.
As an aside, I vote in California. Obama is leading by 24%. I could literally gather every person I know in the world (school, work, family, friends etc.) bring them to California to vote for McCainand Obama would still win the state easily. And I don't see too many people on this board wavering on they will vote for so I have no grand delusions of coming here to convince hundreds of people to vote like me and somehow effect the election. Point being I have no hidden meaning in asking this guy a question.
Have fun with your abortion talk.
Excellent. That's about as much power as you should have.
cawacko
Well-known member
you sure seemed to be worried about it.
No, I just find you to be an irritant on this matter. SF too. I don’t know one person, or even know OF one person, offline, who is under 60 years of age and even considering voting for John McCain. I’m amazed, and pretty disgusted by it.
And I do think that my first estimation of your point on this thread, is on target.
cawacko
Well-known member
Isn't there a new book out about how people in America are dividing themselves and living among people 'they feel most comfortable' i.e. share their beliefs including political?
Voting patterns was one of the examples given by how people seperate themselves so it really is possible one could live with and communicate with only those who think like themselves. I guess this could be an example.
cawacko
Well-known member
So even though PES brought up questions about Obama's positions vis-a-vis how its viewed in Europe it's inappropriate to ask him a question about it? I will still ask him but its good to know your opinion on it.
LOL
Oh, believe me, you've met them. They're just too humiliated to admit it. But trust me, there's about 10 million younger white men who are going to pull the lever for the doddering old fool, and spend the evening of November 5th on their knees praying that Obama is denies the White House.
Well, maybe. Certainly I don’t go out of my way to hang around Republicans. Why don’t we test it out, and the next time you are trying to get laid, tell the girl you are a big McCain supporter?