So it appears that the President is going to campaign for the next election in part on the fact that he has withdrawn a vast majority of troops from Afghanistan. My question is -- is that necessarily a good thing? The recent videotaped execution of an Afghani woman who was suspected of carrying on relations with two senior Taliban commanders (who themselves were later murdered by a third, unrelated Taliban commander) and instead of handling it like adults, the two men agreed that the woman should be accused of adultery and slaughtered like a pig.
Here's what I don't understand -- for the vast majority of people who are anti-war, it seems they would agree that there are certain situations and circumstances that would justify American military intervention. If that is a legitimate assumption, is not Afghanistan the shining example of a place where, at the very least, the US has a humanitarian imperative to remain to prevent the return of the Taliban to power? What would that mean for women's rights and/or the education of young women in that country?
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
So it appears that the President is going to campaign for the next election in part on the fact that he has withdrawn a vast majority of troops from Afghanistan. My question is -- is that necessarily a good thing? The recent videotaped execution of an Afghani woman who was suspected of carrying on relations with two senior Taliban commanders (who themselves were later murdered by a third, unrelated Taliban commander) and instead of handling it like adults, the two men agreed that the woman should be accused of adultery and slaughtered like a pig.
Here's what I don't understand -- for the vast majority of people who are anti-war, it seems they would agree that there are certain situations and circumstances that would justify American military intervention. If that is a legitimate assumption, is not Afghanistan the shining example of a place where, at the very least, the US has a humanitarian imperative to remain to prevent the return of the Taliban to power? What would that mean for women's rights and/or the education of young women in that country?
Here's what I don't understand -- for the vast majority of people who
are anti-war, it seems they would agree that there are certain
situations and circumstances that would justify American military
intervention.
i agree. WWII was a good example.
If that is a legitimate assumption, is not Afghanistan the
shining example of a place where, at the very least, the US has a humanitarian imperative to remain to prevent the return of the Taliban to power
absolutely not, not even remotely close. shit like this is happening in many countries throughout the middle east and africa. we can't police the world. it sucks that this shit happens but we aren't stopping it. afghanistan is a shining example of a quagmire and little else. why should our people die and our taxes go up forever for a pipe dream that we are going to protect these people in the many countries where this occurs all too often?
based on our history in these countries, what makes anyone think we'll be successful in getting rid of the current regime and then replacing it long term with a regime that does things the way we want them to? and how long will that take, how much will it cost and how many young americans must die as a price tag?
0
Here's what I don't understand -- for the vast majority of people who
are anti-war, it seems they would agree that there are certain
situations and circumstances that would justify American military
intervention.
i agree. WWII was a good example.
If that is a legitimate assumption, is not Afghanistan the
shining example of a place where, at the very least, the US has a humanitarian imperative to remain to prevent the return of the Taliban to power
absolutely not, not even remotely close. shit like this is happening in many countries throughout the middle east and africa. we can't police the world. it sucks that this shit happens but we aren't stopping it. afghanistan is a shining example of a quagmire and little else. why should our people die and our taxes go up forever for a pipe dream that we are going to protect these people in the many countries where this occurs all too often?
based on our history in these countries, what makes anyone think we'll be successful in getting rid of the current regime and then replacing it long term with a regime that does things the way we want them to? and how long will that take, how much will it cost and how many young americans must die as a price tag?
OK then let's flip it around CD -- if not a humanitarian rationale for staying in Afghanistan, what about the rationale that the second we withdraw significant forces, the Taliban will re-appear and again re-assert control over the country and thereafter continue to provide a safe(r) haven for fundamentalists who are camped out in Waziristan? It boggles my mind how, prior to the war, we all (as a country) recognized the threat the Taliban posed.... and now we are negotiating with them to see how much power they will have when we leave?
0
OK then let's flip it around CD -- if not a humanitarian rationale for staying in Afghanistan, what about the rationale that the second we withdraw significant forces, the Taliban will re-appear and again re-assert control over the country and thereafter continue to provide a safe(r) haven for fundamentalists who are camped out in Waziristan? It boggles my mind how, prior to the war, we all (as a country) recognized the threat the Taliban posed.... and now we are negotiating with them to see how much power they will have when we leave?
OK then let's flip it around CD -- if not a humanitarian rationale for staying in Afghanistan, what about the rationale that the second we withdraw significant forces, the Taliban will re-appear and again re-assert control over the country and thereafter continue to provide a safe(r) haven for fundamentalists who are camped out in Waziristan? It boggles my mind how, prior to the war, we all (as a country) recognized the threat the Taliban posed.... and now we are negotiating with them to see how much power they will have when we leave?
that's an argument but wouldn't be enough for me by any stretch. one, the taliban, al qaeda, etc aren't going away as long as we maintain our current foreign policies. we can't kill them all. and the world is big enough and has enough people we've pissed off that they will hang out somewhere. so, from a practical standpoint, we won't be successful and it's not worth the lives and money to put a permanent bandaid on afghanistan, i.e. treat the symptom and not the cause.
unless we think we can kill them all, which is a joke to me, the only solution is to have a foreign policy that limits their desire to strike us and gets us out of these situations with no end. obviously, that's not a simple solution and if i had the answer, i wouldn't be here on a degenerate gambling forum. but can't we all agree that our current policies of interfering in all of these countries, regime building, staying around forever, wastes lives and money and sees no discernible, permanent results other than to piss people off and cause more problems, creates the need for more wars, occupations, etc.?
in other words, just what our politicians want so the people can be manipulated to keep them in power and they can maintain the give and take between them and the lockheed martins out there.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
OK then let's flip it around CD -- if not a humanitarian rationale for staying in Afghanistan, what about the rationale that the second we withdraw significant forces, the Taliban will re-appear and again re-assert control over the country and thereafter continue to provide a safe(r) haven for fundamentalists who are camped out in Waziristan? It boggles my mind how, prior to the war, we all (as a country) recognized the threat the Taliban posed.... and now we are negotiating with them to see how much power they will have when we leave?
that's an argument but wouldn't be enough for me by any stretch. one, the taliban, al qaeda, etc aren't going away as long as we maintain our current foreign policies. we can't kill them all. and the world is big enough and has enough people we've pissed off that they will hang out somewhere. so, from a practical standpoint, we won't be successful and it's not worth the lives and money to put a permanent bandaid on afghanistan, i.e. treat the symptom and not the cause.
unless we think we can kill them all, which is a joke to me, the only solution is to have a foreign policy that limits their desire to strike us and gets us out of these situations with no end. obviously, that's not a simple solution and if i had the answer, i wouldn't be here on a degenerate gambling forum. but can't we all agree that our current policies of interfering in all of these countries, regime building, staying around forever, wastes lives and money and sees no discernible, permanent results other than to piss people off and cause more problems, creates the need for more wars, occupations, etc.?
in other words, just what our politicians want so the people can be manipulated to keep them in power and they can maintain the give and take between them and the lockheed martins out there.
As someone who has been there, this is truly a quagmire. There is no immediate remedy to this. Too many elements at play here most of which have been mentioned already. However I feel that Afghanistan can't be "democratized," until Pakistan gets it's act together. We're looking at generations down the line before real changes can truly take place. And those changes need to take place in Pakistan first as they have significant pull on their weak sibling neighbor to the northwest.
0
As someone who has been there, this is truly a quagmire. There is no immediate remedy to this. Too many elements at play here most of which have been mentioned already. However I feel that Afghanistan can't be "democratized," until Pakistan gets it's act together. We're looking at generations down the line before real changes can truly take place. And those changes need to take place in Pakistan first as they have significant pull on their weak sibling neighbor to the northwest.
You have a radical Muslim country whose major export is narcotics. You have a guerilla style enemy that is embedded deeper than a tick and largely indistinguishable from civilians.
This wasn't "winnable" in the first place. The goals put forth were ludicrous from the start. The only winners here are the defense industry and those in our government that would strip away every civil liberty if given the chance.
0
You have a radical Muslim country whose major export is narcotics. You have a guerilla style enemy that is embedded deeper than a tick and largely indistinguishable from civilians.
This wasn't "winnable" in the first place. The goals put forth were ludicrous from the start. The only winners here are the defense industry and those in our government that would strip away every civil liberty if given the chance.
Oh yeah, I forgot the most obvious result, something I've stated many times before.
THE BIG WINNER IS THE TALIBAN. They induced the US to divest vast resources in a futile effort. They helped show the US public what real fear is. I am not talking about radical Islamic "terrorism," I'm talking about not being able to provide for one's family.
0
Oh yeah, I forgot the most obvious result, something I've stated many times before.
THE BIG WINNER IS THE TALIBAN. They induced the US to divest vast resources in a futile effort. They helped show the US public what real fear is. I am not talking about radical Islamic "terrorism," I'm talking about not being able to provide for one's family.
Oh yeah, I forgot the most obvious result, something I've stated many times before.
THE BIG WINNER IS THE TALIBAN. They induced the US to divest vast resources in a futile effort. They helped show the US public what real fear is. I am not talking about radical Islamic "terrorism," I'm talking about not being able to provide for one's family.
Alexander the great ------- Nope
Genghis Khan --------------Nope
Timur-------------------------Nope
Mughal Empire-------------Nope
Russian Tsars--------------Nope
British Empire--------------Nope
Soviet Union----------------Nope
US/NATO -------------------Looking like nope
Afghanistan 8 Invading forces 0
Although people could argue that Outside interests have comprised the vast bulk of the Taliban vast invading armies get their ass kicked through wars of attrition.
0
Quote Originally Posted by slikstiks99:
Oh yeah, I forgot the most obvious result, something I've stated many times before.
THE BIG WINNER IS THE TALIBAN. They induced the US to divest vast resources in a futile effort. They helped show the US public what real fear is. I am not talking about radical Islamic "terrorism," I'm talking about not being able to provide for one's family.
Alexander the great ------- Nope
Genghis Khan --------------Nope
Timur-------------------------Nope
Mughal Empire-------------Nope
Russian Tsars--------------Nope
British Empire--------------Nope
Soviet Union----------------Nope
US/NATO -------------------Looking like nope
Afghanistan 8 Invading forces 0
Although people could argue that Outside interests have comprised the vast bulk of the Taliban vast invading armies get their ass kicked through wars of attrition.
some good points. rick, it's not like we didn't have other examples of failed attempts in afghanistan to dissuade us. heaven forbid we learn from others rather than make out own mistakes.
silk, i think you can find some excerpts from interviews with bin laden where he talks about luring the US into various conflicts that we couldn't win that would only cost us a lot of money and lives and seriously fuck with our economy and standard of living. not groundbreaking intelligence but he drew it up pretty clearly and our politicians were too dumb to understand it or maybe they didn't care because they and their special interest groups got their piece.
you can imagine there probably isn't much diference in how the taliban and al qaeda, the enemy leadership, manipulate their people to give everything up to fight the evil americans while our leaders manipulate our country to give up so much to fight the evil brown people.
0
some good points. rick, it's not like we didn't have other examples of failed attempts in afghanistan to dissuade us. heaven forbid we learn from others rather than make out own mistakes.
silk, i think you can find some excerpts from interviews with bin laden where he talks about luring the US into various conflicts that we couldn't win that would only cost us a lot of money and lives and seriously fuck with our economy and standard of living. not groundbreaking intelligence but he drew it up pretty clearly and our politicians were too dumb to understand it or maybe they didn't care because they and their special interest groups got their piece.
you can imagine there probably isn't much diference in how the taliban and al qaeda, the enemy leadership, manipulate their people to give everything up to fight the evil americans while our leaders manipulate our country to give up so much to fight the evil brown people.
Although people could argue that Outside interests have comprised the vast bulk of the Taliban vast invading armies get their ass kicked through wars of attrition.
Dammit Boi!(Foghorn Leghorn voice) 1st time I've ever agreed with you!
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
Alexander the great ------- Nope
Genghis Khan --------------Nope
Timur-------------------------Nope
Mughal Empire-------------Nope
Russian Tsars--------------Nope
British Empire--------------Nope
Soviet Union----------------Nope
US/NATO -------------------Looking like nope
Afghanistan 8 Invading forces 0
Although people could argue that Outside interests have comprised the vast bulk of the Taliban vast invading armies get their ass kicked through wars of attrition.
Dammit Boi!(Foghorn Leghorn voice) 1st time I've ever agreed with you!
As someone who has been there, this is truly a quagmire. There is no immediate remedy to this. Too many elements at play here most of which have been mentioned already. However I feel that Afghanistan can't be "democratized," until Pakistan gets it's act together. We're looking at generations down the line before real changes can truly take place. And those changes need to take place in Pakistan first as they have significant pull on their weak sibling neighbor to the northwest.
That is a very good assessment.
You want to know what is currently happening in Afghanistan? Talk to people who have sons stationed there. I have. This is a quagmire where we can control specific locations like airports, but we cannot control the vast majority of other locations. Consequently we continue to suffer IED attacks where many American casualties are not being accurately reported by the media.
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
0
Quote Originally Posted by kickinA:
As someone who has been there, this is truly a quagmire. There is no immediate remedy to this. Too many elements at play here most of which have been mentioned already. However I feel that Afghanistan can't be "democratized," until Pakistan gets it's act together. We're looking at generations down the line before real changes can truly take place. And those changes need to take place in Pakistan first as they have significant pull on their weak sibling neighbor to the northwest.
That is a very good assessment.
You want to know what is currently happening in Afghanistan? Talk to people who have sons stationed there. I have. This is a quagmire where we can control specific locations like airports, but we cannot control the vast majority of other locations. Consequently we continue to suffer IED attacks where many American casualties are not being accurately reported by the media.
You want to know what is currently happening in Afghanistan? Talk to people who have sons stationed there. I have. This is a quagmire where we can control specific locations like airports, but we cannot control the vast majority of other locations. Consequently we continue to suffer IED attacks where many American casualties are not being accurately reported by the media.
i watched the nbc news last night. the main story was about how it's hot in the summer. the next story was about where obama and romney were and then they interviewed 4 people about who they were going to vote for. it was pathetic even for that program. they need to rename the show and call it something other than news.
0
Quote Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose:
That is a very good assessment.
You want to know what is currently happening in Afghanistan? Talk to people who have sons stationed there. I have. This is a quagmire where we can control specific locations like airports, but we cannot control the vast majority of other locations. Consequently we continue to suffer IED attacks where many American casualties are not being accurately reported by the media.
i watched the nbc news last night. the main story was about how it's hot in the summer. the next story was about where obama and romney were and then they interviewed 4 people about who they were going to vote for. it was pathetic even for that program. they need to rename the show and call it something other than news.
The Afghanistan incursion is a reflection on the nature of global supremacy and how it was about to transform in the new millennium. If times past serves as the lengthy march towards how a global power can be assigned to history as the world map is redrawn, Washington have attested themselves as sharp businessmen who do not foresee this unstable region a burden that yields few financial returns, but a geographical advantage with the intent of making full use of Afghanistan’s desirable geographical position, a territory that offers a significant strategic counter-weight to expansionist Chinese trade. However, correspondingly, the American citizenry’s faith in the notions of humanitarian intervention has diminished as counter-terror spending measures have become dead weight in the midst of the misunderstanding about what exactly the military presence in Afghanistan was there to accomplish, and how success can be judged. The American populous has lost the stomach for global supremacy and question Washington’s generosity of endless financial assistance, but the reality is that foreign aid is predominately of assistance to the hand that gives it, creating a market for American products. Foreign aid more times than not is a “financial cancer” on the receiving nation that breeds and drives extremely complex politics that favour the giver. Foreign aid is not the act of kindness Washington would have you conceptualize.
The Pentagon has projected its detection of rare earth deposits in Afghanistan worth in excess of seven-billion dollars. This in all probability means the U.S. military will not allow peace to emerge. Washington’s duplicitous tactics in Afghanistan can be liken to circumventing the course of the Holy Roman Empire during the age of discovery that was destined by geography to fail to benefit on the colonial era and faded away in a steep decline as markets repositioned elsewhere. While the global trade map was being redrawn, it permitted other nations to re-invent themselves, while Rome became anachronistic.
0
The Afghanistan incursion is a reflection on the nature of global supremacy and how it was about to transform in the new millennium. If times past serves as the lengthy march towards how a global power can be assigned to history as the world map is redrawn, Washington have attested themselves as sharp businessmen who do not foresee this unstable region a burden that yields few financial returns, but a geographical advantage with the intent of making full use of Afghanistan’s desirable geographical position, a territory that offers a significant strategic counter-weight to expansionist Chinese trade. However, correspondingly, the American citizenry’s faith in the notions of humanitarian intervention has diminished as counter-terror spending measures have become dead weight in the midst of the misunderstanding about what exactly the military presence in Afghanistan was there to accomplish, and how success can be judged. The American populous has lost the stomach for global supremacy and question Washington’s generosity of endless financial assistance, but the reality is that foreign aid is predominately of assistance to the hand that gives it, creating a market for American products. Foreign aid more times than not is a “financial cancer” on the receiving nation that breeds and drives extremely complex politics that favour the giver. Foreign aid is not the act of kindness Washington would have you conceptualize.
The Pentagon has projected its detection of rare earth deposits in Afghanistan worth in excess of seven-billion dollars. This in all probability means the U.S. military will not allow peace to emerge. Washington’s duplicitous tactics in Afghanistan can be liken to circumventing the course of the Holy Roman Empire during the age of discovery that was destined by geography to fail to benefit on the colonial era and faded away in a steep decline as markets repositioned elsewhere. While the global trade map was being redrawn, it permitted other nations to re-invent themselves, while Rome became anachronistic.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
