A Pro-Afghan War Piece

You're argument is flawed. The Taliban, like it or not, was the legitimate government of Afghanistan on September 11, 2001. No government can govern with out the consent of the governed. The Taliban gave it's tacit support to Bin Ladin and Al Qaida who organized and executed the attacks on America. They were given the ultimatum to turn over those responsible for those attacks and refused. That made the Taliban government of the nation of Afghanistan, with certainty, a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.

The taliban offered to give bin ladin to a neutral third country, and bush rejected it. We wanted blood, and there was nothing that was going to stop it. Let's be honest about that. Because I had those same blood lust feelings for a few months after 9/11

Bin ladin is a folk hero in afghanistan. The taliban weren't going to cave 100% to bush's demands. But, I strongly suspect that if we gave them some way to save face, it could have been resolved without half a trillion dollars and a hundred thousand dead people.

The taliban weren't in league with bin ladin's international terrorist agenda. They didn't know anything about the 9/11 attacks, and they certainly weren't involved in the plot. From what I've read, the taliban are a bunch of whacked out xenophobes with simple regional goals. I've never heard anyone make the credible case they they had intentions or designs on attacking the united states let alone wandering outside the confines of their regional concerns.

I don't think their alliance with bin ladin was anything more than simple muslim solidarity with a folk hero who helped drive the soviets from their lands. I don't even think they really cared that much if we assassinated him, as long as they could be seen as looking the other way while we did it. I think it's self evident that we wanted a war, we wanted to invade, we wanted to kick ass. And we weren't going to settle for the hard work of geopolitical intrigue or law enforcement to bring bin ladin to justice. And I blame myself as well for engaging in blood lust.


This alone was more then adequate on both national defense and moral grounds to use military force to defend our nation from the clear and present danger they presented towards our nation. The only purpose our occupation of Afghanistan serves is to restructure their nation, as we did in Germany and Japan, to assure that they no longer present such a threat to our nation ever again. This was the most substantial failing of the Bush administration. By dropping the ball and distracting the nation with Iraq, which was not a clear and present danger, the objectives of our military intervention and occupation of Afghanistan were grossly undermined. Now victory in Afghanistan may be unatainable unless our nation decides to make the major sacrifices required.

The war on terror cannot be won. It's to ambiguous and open ended and was based on an, as we now know, a discredited academic strategy of pre-emption. The war against Afghanistan was, essentially won, based on limited military objectives until Bush snatched defeat out from the jaws of victory.


I still don't understand how a war to get bin ladin became a nine year war against the taliban.

I would bet you a month's salary that if and when we kill bin ladin, it's going to be through covert ops or law enforcement. Our 9 year occupation of afghanistant won't have anything to do with it. Because he's probably not even in afghanistan.

You know what bothers me matt? I'm hearing the same things I heard about the iraq war. We have to stay to stabilize it, just six more months, freedom on the march. Its the same slogans that I never fell for on Iraq. And my bullshit meter is pegging on max.

Afghanistan isn't japan or germany. Those were cohesive nations that had experience with democratic institutions and represnetative government. They weren't really that alien, by our standards. And that was a total war. We inflicted so much pain on them, they had no choice but to submit. They were faced with virutal annihilation. Are we really going to fire bomb kabul, and engage in total war? I don't think so.


The bottom line, is that I don't think this occupation serves any purpose. Unless our original mission to get al qaeda has somehow morphed into some never ending war against some taliban whackos that never engaged in international terrorism.

When we finally deal with al qaeda, and bring them to justice, or kill them, it won't be because we had an army sitting around in afghanistan for ten years.
 
Last edited:
Cypress where are you getting this notion that the only purpose of Afghanistan was to get bin Laden?

It would do precious little good to get him. He would be replaced by another instantly. Afghanistan was a conflict designed to rid international terrorists of a safe haven and training ground.
 
The taliban offered to give bin ladin to a neutral third country, and bush rejected it. We wanted blood, and there was nothing that was going to stop it. Let's be honest about that. Because I had those same blood lust feelings for a few months after 9/11

Bin ladin is a folk hero in afghanistan. The taliban weren't going to cave 100% to bush's demands. But, I strongly suspect that if we gave them some way to save face, it could have been resolved without half a trillion dollars and a hundred thousand dead people.

The taliban weren't in league with bin ladin's international terrorist agenda. They didn't know anything about the 9/11 attacks, and they certainly weren't involved in the plot. From what I've read, the taliban are a bunch of whacked out xenophobes with simple regional goals. I've never heard anyone make the credible case they they had intentions or designs on attacking the united states let alone wandering outside the confines of their regional concerns.

I don't think their alliance with bin ladin was anything more than simple muslim solidarity with a folk hero who helped drive the soviets from their lands. I don't even think they really cared that much if we assassinated him, as long as they could be seen as looking the other way while we did it. I think it's self evident that we wanted a war, we wanted to invade, we wanted to kick ass. And we weren't going to settle for the hard work of geopolitical intrigue or law enforcement to bring bin ladin to justice. And I blame myself as well for engaging in blood lust.
I'm sorry Cypress but you haven't made a point here that's really relevant. It was well known that the Al Qaida was a terrorist organization who had previously attacked other American interest and killed American citizens. The Taliban gave material support to Bin Ladin and his orginization. Refusing to unconditionally turn over Bin Ladin and his supporters, after the 9/11 attacks, was an act of war. It was not we who wanted war. It was they whom declared war with their dastardly, premeditated and cowardly attacks on our nation.





I still don't understand how a war to get bin ladin became a nine year war against the taliban.

I would bet you a month's salary that if and when we kill bin ladin, it's going to be through covert ops or law enforcement. Our 9 year occupation of afghanistant won't have anything to do with it. Because he's probably not even in afghanistan.

You know what bothers me matt? I'm hearing the same things I heard about the iraq war. We have to stay to stabilize it, just six more months, freedom on the march. Its the same slogans that I never fell for on Iraq. And my bullshit meter is pegging on max.

Afghanistan isn't japan or germany. Those were cohesive nations that had experience with democratic institutions and represnetative government. They weren't really that alien, by our standards. And that was a total war. We inflicted so much pain on them, they had no choice but to submit. They were faced with virutal annihilation. Are we really going to fire bomb kabul, and engage in total war? I don't think so.


The bottom line, is that I don't think this occupation serves any purpose. Unless our original mission to get al qaeda has somehow morphed into some never ending war against some taliban whackos that never engaged in international terrorism.

When we finally deal with al qaeda, and bring them to justice, or kill them, it won't be because we had an army sitting around in afghanistan for ten years.
You ask some good question. Can we do more to stabalize Afghanistan or do we have to commit to total war as we did against Germany and Japan? What do we have to do to achieve our strategic objectives and bring our armed forces back home? These are tough question Obama needs to start answering but to state the obvious, the status quo is not working.
 
I'm sorry Cypress but you haven't made a point here that's really relevant. It was well known that the Al Qaida was a terrorist organization who had previously attacked other American interest and killed American citizens. The Taliban gave material support to Bin Ladin and his orginization. Refusing to unconditionally turn over Bin Ladin and his supporters, after the 9/11 attacks, was an act of war. It was not we who wanted war. It was they whom declared war with their dastardly, premeditated and cowardly attacks on our nation.

What in the hell does any of that have to do with the situation in Afghanistan today? We should keep our troops in Japan because they bombed Pearl Harbor!

Moreover, while the war in Afghanistan was justifiable, it does not make it the right policy decision (I think it was) and it sure as shit doesn't resolve what our current objectives ought to be, how best to obtain them and whether the costs associated with pursuing our objectives are worth it.

You ask some good question. Can we do more to stabalize Afghanistan or do we have to commit to total war as we did against Germany and Japan? What do we have to do to achieve our strategic objectives and bring our armed forces back home? These are tough question Obama needs to start answering but to state the obvious, the status quo is not working.

Here are some other interesting questions: (1) What is our strategic objective? (2) Is our strategic objective achievable? (3) If so, at what cost? Total War (as you put it)? (4) Are those costs worth it? (5) Are there alternative strategic objectives that we could live with that are less costly?

These are the questions that no one really wants to either ask or answer.
 
The people who oppose our involvement in Afghanistan today are the same people, or their philosophical heirs, who opposed our military aid to them in the 1980's when they fought against the Soviet Union. Then, as now, the nay sayers long for some humilating defeat of the US or Afghan forces that fight a common enemy. All you do is point at deaths, as if that is the be all and end all of a war. A large number of Afghan people do support us. They still remember who it was that gave them the tools to break the back of the Soviet Union. Without us, they would never have put the Soviets out of their country. And for those that have forgotten or just don't now, the Soviet Union used their HIND helocopters to purposely destroy Afghan villages. It was not from stray bombs or mistaken targets that tens of thousands of Afghans were killed and hundreds of thousands were driven into refugee camps in Pakistan.Ultimately, the Soviet Invasion was responsible for 1 million deaths and 5 million refugees. The unfortunate truth is that after the Soviets left we abandoned the Afghans, we refused to help with rebuilding that country and we left it open to explotation from Pakistan and the Taliban. We have a moral obligation to the people of Afghanistan. Our neglect after the war created the Taliban and if we just up and leave now they will take control of the entire country once again. They will impose Sharia law on the population, a law that punishes girls for being raped if there are not enough male witnesses to confirm that she was raped.

Most people on this board KNOW that I was never in favor of the war in Iraq, but that does not mean I am a pacifist by any means. We MUST help Afghanistan become a country where the people have the ability to choose what their country will become. While I served in the Army, I became acquainted with a number of Kurds, and helped train some of their soldiers prior to the Desert Storm. There were a great many angry soldiers when George HW Bush left their shit to dangle in the wind when he had promised support. I saw in those Kurdish men, a desire to be the authors of their own destiny and I KNOW that there are a great deal of men and women in Afghanistan that have that same desire. To leave them now would be a betrayal. One that we cannot afford if we are to ever win the trust and support of people in the Muslim world. For once I want to see us bring to a solid conclusion a change we began. I am tired of the defeatest who repeatedly want to see us lose and get pleasure from them. We should have never taken our eye off Afghanistan, that is a failure to be laid solely at the feet of George W Bush. I certainly believe the only reason we went to Iraq was becuase "success" was going to be easier there and the fighting not near as hard as it is going to be in Afghanistan.

As I said earlier, the number of, or lack of dead and wounded soldiers is not the measure of success. Were that so we would have left WWII before the job was done. Things done right NEVER come easy, and no one knows that more than a US Soldier. They are prepared to die if need be. For the most part US Soldiers like helping the oppressed, like building schools for kids, hospitals for the sick and yes, even killing bad guys so they can't harm people. They do not always do their jobs without mistakes and civilians die, it has been so since one group picked up rocks and sticks and attacked another group, but the majority of soldiers don't harm civilians purposely. There are sadists in every group, including police and even Highschool Football teams, but we do not judge the whole group by them.

Too many of the people opposed to war of any kind in this country are like the America Firsters that opposed intervension in WWII. Always to worried about their own skin, their own comfort to care about helping other people and defeating bad men. Others are just plain and simple opposed to ANYTHING the US does militarily. They would find fault in liberating a death camp in Germany if it existed today because it would reflect positively on the US and our armed forces. I am tired of people that criticize ANY military action just to be opposed. I was sickened at the deaths of over 4000 service members and tens of thousands of Iraqi's because I felt the war was a sleight of hand pulled off by Bush et al. I was, and remain a supporter of the war in Afghanistan because we owe the Afghan people, we have owed them for 20 years and it is time we paid up.

The first part of this is blatanly untrue. MOST of the people against this misadventure are the same people who were against the Iraq misadventure .. you know .. the people who were CORRECT about everything they said about it and our intentions. MOST AMERICANS were no more than vaguely aware of what we were doing in Afghanistan before 9/11.

OTHER PEOPLE who were aware of what we were doing in Aghanistan were also aware of our intentions .. just as we are aware of our intentions in Georgia and why we paid the president of Georgia a billion US taxpayer dollars for starting a conflict with Russia he knew he couldn't win.

You credulousness about geopolitical issues is just astounding .. absolutely amazing.

If only you could have the Star-Spangled Banner playing with flags a-wavin' while you post was being read .. and while you were in Afghanistan .. it would have been perfect.

Newsflash for you brother .. the Afghan people no more want American invasion in their country than did the Iraqi's, the Panamanians, the Grenadians, or the Vietnamese. That holy crap about poor Aghanis .. who we blow the fuck up at will .. is just bullshit.

Those of us who watched what we were doing there before 9/11 .. you know .. when we created the Taliban and trained and funded Bin Laden .. also watched what we were doing after the Russians left. I mean you are aware of what we were there prior to 9/11, are you not? You are aware of UNOCOL's involvement in the POLITICS of Afghanistan and the installment of one of its executives as our envoy there, are you not? You do know who and what Karzai is, don't you?

I could on much further about our involvement there prior to 9/11 .. but surely that would just bore you and you're already aware .. because if you weren't I could give you the facts .. facts you couldn't challenge .. just get mad because I dare present them.

.. start mumbling shit about "conspiracy theories"

What is more than a bit astounding about your post is your total rejection of history .. the history of your own country .. I'm talking about the REAL one, not the Hollywood version. The Hoillywood one doesn't invade countries and mass-murder people for geopolitical power and oil .. the real one does.

Another newsflash for ya': the rest of the world knows something you don't about our intentions in Afghanistan .. just as THEY knew what Iraq was all about.

There are many Americans like myself who have loved ones in the military. We are not pacifists, we believe in the just excercise of military power .. but we are not blind or dumb enough not to know that war is business in our country. We weren't blind or dumb enough to believe there was any justification for Vietnam .. AS HISTORY PROVES .. nor was there any justification for Iraq .. AS HISTORY HAS ALREADY PROVEN .. nor is there any justification for the invasion of Afghanistan .. as history will prove.

Grenada and Panama was bullshit, but Bosnia had purpose.

As with most pro-war comments, yours fails to deal with some seriously obvious truths.

Exactly how many failures and dead Americans soldiers do you require to recognize THERE ARE LIMITS TO MILITARY POWER.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry Cypress but you haven't made a point here that's really relevant. It was well known that the Al Qaida was a terrorist organization who had previously attacked other American interest and killed American citizens. The Taliban gave material support to Bin Ladin and his orginization. Refusing to unconditionally turn over Bin Ladin and his supporters, after the 9/11 attacks, was an act of war. It was not we who wanted war. It was they whom declared war with their dastardly, premeditated and cowardly attacks on our nation.

The libyan government gave material support to the Lockerbie bombers, and we didn't invade libya.

The iranian government gave material support to hezbollah, who killed hundreds of americans in lebanon, and we didn't invade Iran.

Which is the crux of my point. I don't think the Taliban were allied with the international goals of al qaeda in any substantial way, and they certainly were completely unaware and uninvolved in any of al qaeda's plots against the west.

So, why exactly is it taken as a fact, as a matter beyond rational debate that the only possible response to the 9/11 attacks was to invade a country that didn't attack us, otherthrow a government who wasn't directly engaged in international terrorism, and spend 9 years fighting the remnant insurgents of that government?

The answer, to me, is that we wanted blood. And nothing was going to stop us.

Do you consider it even remotely possible that there was another way to deal with this?

I simply can't accept the assertion that invasion and occupation was the only possible solution.




You ask some good question. Can we do more to stabalize Afghanistan or do we have to commit to total war as we did against Germany and Japan? What do we have to do to achieve our strategic objectives and bring our armed forces back home? These are tough question Obama needs to start answering but to state the obvious, the status quo is not working.


I'm not smart enough to know the answer.

But, I think history and common sense should inform us that occupying muslim countries, blowing shit up, and trying to force them to adopt a quasi-jeffersonian democracy is a dangerous and delustional fairy tale.
 
The first part of this is blatanly untrue. MOST of the people against this misadventure are the same people who were against the Iraq misadventure .. you know .. the people who were CORRECT about everything they said about it and our intentions. MOST AMERICANS were no more than vaguely aware of what we were doing in Afghanistan before 9/11.

OTHER PEOPLE who were aware of what we were doing in Aghanistan were also aware of our intentions .. just as we are aware of our intentions in Georgia and why we paid the president of Georgia a billion US taxpayer dollars for starting a conflict with Russia he knew he couldn't win.

You credulousness about geopolitical issues is just astounding .. absolutely amazing.

If only you could have the Star-Spangled Banner playing with flags a-wavin' while you post was being read .. and while you were in Afghanistan .. it would have been perfect.

Newsflash for you brother .. the Afghan people no more want American invasion in their country than did the Iraqi's, the Panamanians, the Grenadians, or the Vietnamese. That holy crap about poor Aghanis .. who we blow the fuck up at will .. is just bullshit.

Those of us who watched what we were doing there before 9/11 .. you know .. when we created the Taliban and trained and funded Bin Laden .. also watched what we were doing after the Russians left. I mean you are aware of what we were there prior to 9/11, are you not? You are aware of UNOCOL's involvement in the POLITICS of Afghanistan and the installment of one of its executives as our envoy there, are you not? You do know who and what Karzai is, don't you?

I could on much further about our involvement there prior to 9/11 .. but surely that would just bore you and you're already aware .. because if you weren't I could give you the facts .. facts you couldn't challenge .. just get mad because I dare present them.

.. start mumbling shit about "conspiracy theories"

What is more than a bit astounding about your post is your total rejection of history .. the history of your own country .. I'm talking about the REAL one, not the Hollywood version. The Hoillywood one doesn't invade countries and mass-murder people for geopolitical power and oil .. the real one does.

Another newsflash for ya': the rest of the world knows something you don't about our intentions in Afghanistan .. just as THEY knew what Iraq was all about.

There are many Americans like myself who have loved ones in the military. We are not pacifists, we believe in the just excercise of military power .. but we are not blind or dumb enough not to know that war is business in our country. We weren't blind or dumb enough to believe there was any justification for Vietnam .. AS HISTORY PROVES .. nor was there any justification for Iraq .. AS HISTORY HAS ALREADY PROVEN .. nor is there any justification for the invasion of Afghanistan .. as history will prove.

Grenada and Panama was bullshit, but Bosnia had purpose.

As with most pro-war comments, yours fails to deal with some seriously obvious truths.

Exactly how many failures and dead Americans soldiers do you require to recognize THERE ARE LIMITS TO MILITARY POWER.

Your complete fantasy is truly amazing. There is NO oil in Afghanistan. UNOCOL had no intention of building oil pipelines in Afghanistan. Your complete idiocy is again amazing.

Pretending we go around blowing up Afghan people for fun and excitement is moronic. It is the Taliban that deliberately targets civilians. It is the Taliban that wishes to yet again enslave the Afghan people and make the women their property once again. To do with what they choose. It is the Taliban that supported Bin Laden. It was Bin Laden who attacked the US multiple times.

Yes, we trained them and supplied them to fight the Soviets. Yes, we should not have abandoned them after the Soviets tucked tail and ran. But we did. There isn't anything we can do to change that. We can however try to correct the mistake we made.

History has most certainly not, nor will it, prove there was no justification for our actions in Afghanistan. To the contrary, it is already known that it was most certainly justified.
 
"Which is the crux of my point. I don't think the Taliban were allied with the international goals of al qaeda in any substantial way, and they certainly were completely unaware and uninvolved in any of al qaeda's plots against the west.

So, why exactly is it taken as a fact, as a matter beyond rational debate that the only possible response to the 9/11 attacks was to invade a country that didn't attack us, otherthrow a government who wasn't directly engaged in international terrorism, and spend 9 years fighting the remnant insurgents of that government?

The answer, to me, is that we wanted blood. And nothing was going to stop us.

Do you consider it even remotely possible that there was another way to deal with this?

I simply can't accept the assertion that invasion and occupation was the only possible solution. "

Cypress,

Youre misguided about the fundamentalism of the Taliban and its philosophical ties to the aims of ALL orginizations that resemble Al Queda. The Taliban is an islamic fundamentalist movement, the Taliban being in power ENSURES that afghanistan remains a safe haven for extreme violent islamic terrorist organizations. Youre almost suggesting that the Taliban would remove a radical islamic group if it was known that the aims of such a group was to kill Americans. Clearly this is and was a fantasy.

Al Queda had previously trained operatives and was based in afghanistan for terrorist attacks on American facilities, long before 9/11. Does this mean that the Taliban knew about those activities? not at all, but clearly they have no problem giving aid, offering harbor and protection too, and actively supporting the existence of these elements from within their own borders. That is clearly complicity and support. How can you knowingly house and feed a rapist, and then claim that you have no involvement in their crimes? You sustain them, You give them shelter, You protect them and refuse to turn them over, in fact YOU fight the police when they come to your house to get them. Come on Cypress... wheres the common sense?

Who would then blame the police for raiding your house? The police would just be out for blood? Your existence is just as much a threat to society as the rapists because youre moral compass would allow you to seek rapists, offer them sanctuary, provide them with money, food, supplies, etc..

Why would you be confused about why your being arrested and removed from the equation?

Seriously.

In national security concerns in response to such a devastating loss of life, what would you have found acceptable? Sanctions? These were thousands of civilians, not Marines in Beruit on foreign soil, these were just people going to their jobs, living the American way of life on AMERICAN soil. You think there is some sort of acceptable response other than war that would protect the American people from being the victims of acts of war?

The answer is no. There was no other method to deal with such a dramatic attack on American soil than invasion and war. Has it been effective? Of course it has. The goal now is sustainability and further punishment, there are still people left to be killed... and we will kill them. The world now knows we will do this.. precisely what we did not do (as you mentioned) when terrorists carried out successful attacks in the past. The taliban doubted we would do anything as we were the paper tiger... they know different now. Saddam was the same. He knows different now. Libya made the decision on their own... Have you ever contemplated that the leadership in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc... you ever wonder why these nations dont export terrorism to the shores of the United States? Being on the receiving end of the American war machine... as it has been shown and demonstrated, PROTECTS the nation from further attacks. Not only was their justification in our response in Afghanistan, but there are practical and logical effects of our willingness to defend ourselves.

The business of protecting the United States is often times bloody, both in terms of who we kill but also in the Americans that bleed in such endeavors. This conflict without a doubt is justified and necessary, the primary question we face now is how to conclude this campaign and sustain the gains made thus far.

SR
 
See, SR, this is why its nearly impossible to debate with many afghan war supporters.

On the one hand, they cite statistics about how hugely unpopular the taliban are in afghanistan, how virtually no one supports them.

Then, 30 seconds later, it's claimed that if we leave the talbian will take over...... And this assertion is provided as if it is beyond any doubt or debate.

How exactly does that work? How exactly does a movement that is reviled, and has hardly any base of support, just take over when we leave?

See, that's the same kind of shit I heard about Iraq, and it strikes me as spin and bullshit. It's a totally inconsistent argument, and when anyone provides inconsistent arguments that depend or "facts" that appear to be in direct contradiction with each other, my bullshit meter pegs out on max.

As for the taliban, I've never claimed that they weren't lunatic fundamentalists. I never claimed that they would willingly cooperate with us to kill bin ladin. There's not a chance in hell they will ever let themselves be put in the position of collaborating with the united states.

I'm not going to rewrite what I already wrote about the taliban. I think it was clear and conscise. I'm not going to repeat myself.

I see no reason that we can't treat Afganistan the same was we treated Iran or Libya, when they were material supporters of terrorist attacks on americans.

And it didn't require us to invade and occupy Iran or Libya.
 
See, SR, this is why its nearly impossible to debate with many afghan war supporters.

On the one hand, they cite statistics about how hugely unpopular the taliban are in afghanistan, how virtually no one supports them.

Then, 30 seconds later, it's claimed that if we leave the talbian will take over...... And this assertion is provided as if it is beyond any doubt or debate.

How exactly does that work? How exactly does a movement that is reviled, and has hardly any base of support, just take over when we leave?

See, that's the same kind of shit I heard about Iraq, and it strikes me as spin and bullshit. It's a totally inconsistent argument, and when anyone provides inconsistent arguments that depend or "facts" that appear to be in direct contradiction with each other, my bullshit meter pegs out on max.

As for the taliban, I've never claimed that they weren't lunatic fundamentalists. I never claimed that they would willingly cooperate with us to kill bin ladin. There's not a chance in hell they will ever let themselves be put in the position of collaborating with the united states.

I'm not going to rewrite what I already wrote about the taliban. I think it was clear and conscise. I'm not going to repeat myself.

I see no reason that we can't treat Afganistan the same was we treated Iran or Libya, when they were material supporters of terrorist attacks on americans.

And it didn't require us to invade and occupy Iran or Libya.

Cypress,

Excuse me, i had no idea you knew so little about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a nation larger than Texas that consistist of 40,000 villiages. The Taliban or any other group that happens to have guns at that moment TAKES control, the local support is irrelevant to the reality of people with guns on the ground. Seriously..... are you this inattentive to current events?

The Taliban or any other fundamentalist group doesnt give a shit about poll numbers. WE CARE about poll numbers because right now WE'RE the main people on the ground that happen to have guns.. we want the local population to NOT SUPPORT the ideology of the Taliban or the their existence beneath the Taliban. for example we want Afghanis to support the idea of females getting an education. The more fundamentalist muslim you are the less you support this... its a guage of the ability to affect change. If 6% of the population supports the Taliban then that lets us know that given an opportunity most Afghanis would rather not live in 900 AD.

So... as you can see there is a need for guns to be on the ground as a deterrent to the return of outside forces. This is basic common sense Cypress.

And I understand you see no reason to do anything.... ever. To be honest you sort of come across as the guy who's out with his daughter and a guy walks up and rips her top off, punches you in the face and you yell "please.... have her back by sun up". Clearly nothing is enough to justify doing anything other than taking shit forever.

SR
 
You might find this interesting.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/04/the-afghan-phoenix/

More than five million refugees have returned home since the fall of the Taliban. This is one of the most substantial refugee repatriations in history, yet it is little remarked upon because it has largely gone so smoothly.

• One in six Afghans now has a cell phone. Under the Taliban there was no phone system.

• Millions of kids are now in school, including many girls. Under the Taliban girls were not allowed to be educated.

• In 2008, Afghanistan’s real GDP growth was 7.5 percent. Under the Taliban the economy was in free fall.

• You were more likely to be murdered in the United States in 1991 than an Afghan civilian is to be killed in the war today.

Some reading this may be thinking — can this really be right? But do the math: In 1991, almost 25,000 people were murdered in the United States at a time when the American population was approximately 260 million. In Afghanistan today some 2,000 Afghan civilians are killed each year by the Taliban and coalition forces out of a population of around 30 million

SR
 
We are not immune to the fate suffered by previous Afghan invaders.

Every attempt to impose foreign ideals on the proud warriors of Afghanistan has ended in bloody defeat for the would-be conqueror.

The First Anglo-Afghan War was a disastrous Victorian attempt by Britain to forestall the approach of Czarist Russia to the Anglo-Indian Empire.

Likewise, the British tried again in the decades after the Indian Mutiny to establish hegemony over Afghanistan and were only able to gain limited influence.

In the 20th Century, after a decade of bloodshed, the Soviet Union sacrificed hordes of their young men and untold billions of rubles in a vain effort to bring the fierce tribesmen under their sway. Before they withdrew in defeat, they admitted they were unable to maintain their puppet ruler Babrak Karmal and were forced to replace him with Dr. Najibullah Ahmadzai, who was castrated and assassinated by the Taliban. Many believe the ill-starred Afghan campaign was the death knell of the Socialist superpower.

Now the tribesmen, primarily the Pashtun, tire of the Bush-imposed puppet in Kabul. The harsh climate and severe winters are on their side, as is history.

We would be wise to exit before Karzai suffers the fate of all Afghans who gained power in consort with foreigners.
 
We are not immune to the fate suffered by previous Afghan invaders.

Every attempt to impose foreign ideals on the proud warriors of Afghanistan has ended in bloody defeat for the would-be conqueror.

The First Anglo-Afghan War was a disastrous Victorian attempt by Britain to forestall the approach of Czarist Russia to the Anglo-Indian Empire.

Likewise, the British tried again in the decades after the Indian Mutiny to establish hegemony over Afghanistan and were only able to gain limited influence.

In the 20th Century, after a decade of bloodshed, the Soviet Union sacrificed hordes of their young men and untold billions of rubles in a vain effort to bring the fierce tribesmen under their sway. Before they withdrew in defeat, they admitted they were unable to maintain their puppet ruler Babrak Karmal and were forced to replace him with Dr. Najibullah Ahmadzai, who was castrated and assassinated by the Taliban. Many believe the ill-starred Afghan campaign was the death knell of the Socialist superpower.

Now the tribesmen, primarily the Pashtun, tire of the Bush-imposed puppet in Kabul. The harsh climate and severe winters are on their side, as is history.

We would be wise to exit before Karzai suffers the fate of all Afghans who gained power in consort with foreigners.

DNC,

Are you suggesting that civilized peaceful co-existence with the world is a foreign ideal, unable to be embraced by afghanis? Are you suggesting that Afghanistan can only exist as a sanctuary for radical violent islamic extremist?

SR
 
Putting more American lives at risk to pursue a failed policy is an unpalatable idea.
 
Back
Top