When are we going to get tough with Pakistan and tell them to do something about the lawless western provinces?

[Random Variable]

I'm starting to believe strongly that the Bush administration has very little desire to capture bin Laden and his Egyptian doctor friend because they're afraid that such an event would somehow signal an end to the war on terror.

What do you think?

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Vespasian
I'm starting to believe strongly that the Bush administration has very little desire to capture bin Laden and his Egyptian doctor friend because they're afraid that such an event would somehow signal an end to the war on terror.

What do you think?

I think one of the reasons for invading Iraq was to draw attention away from the failings of the REAL "War on Terrorism". I don't think capturing Bin Laden would end the actual war on terrorism, but it would be more of a symbolic end in the eyes of the American public, and as a result there would be less interest in continuing further "War on Terrorism" adventures. If that happens, people might start noticing domestic issues such as the economy and that would put heat on Bush as his crapiness as a president would become ever more apparent.

 

[Mrburns2007]

People forget that "we" can't change other nations overnight if at all. Also "we" can't fight the entire world all at once. Let's try and get Iraqi up and running first.


The others nations in the world bear a responsibilty to themselves!

 

[fluxquantum]

whatever happened to that country by the name of afghanistan?

 

[BarneyFife]

I was watching Fox news and they have this Pakistani guy on there that is there middle eastern specialist (whatever his title is). He said that Bin Laden is in Pakistan and if the US really wanted him, they could put their foot down and Pakistan would find him instantly. For some reason the US hasn't done that.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: fluxquantum
whatever happened to that country by the name of afghanistan?

You know, I've brought that up a hundred times and no one says anything. After all, isn't it the perfect example of how we "liberate" countries and give their people better lives?

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I was watching Fox news and they have this Pakistani guy on there that is there middle eastern specialist (whatever his title is). He said that Bin Laden is in Pakistan and if the US really wanted him, they could put their foot down and Pakistan would find him instantly. For some reason the US hasn't done that.

Wouldn't surprise me, like I said earlier in this thread, he's the symbol they need, running wild and still a threat, to keep taking the "war on terrorism" in any direction Bush chooses.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: fluxquantum
whatever happened to that country by the name of afghanistan?

You know, I've brought that up a hundred times and no one says anything. After all, isn't it the perfect example of how we "liberate" countries and give their people better lives?

A hundred times? Ok. You really should learn how to use google. You wouldn't have to beg for information so many times.



The situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international peace and security Source: UN Security Council

General Assembly
Fifty-seventh session
Agenda item 37

Security Council
Fifty-eighth year

Report of the Secretary-General

Summary

The present report describes the ongoing implementation of the Bonn Agreement by the Afghan Transitional Administration, supported by the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA). The report emphasizes the importance of tangible progress in reconstruction efforts and calls for sustained international commitment to Afghanistan.

The report notes progress made on the consolidation of government authority by the Afghan Transitional Administration, in particular through the adoption of a national development budget, the successful completion of a currency reform operation, and the ongoing implementation of national programmes to provide clear, tangible economic benefits to the Afghan population.

The report also describes key political processes to further the transition towards a multi-ethnic, gender-sensitive, and fully representative Afghan Government. These include the Afghan-led constitutional process, by which a draft constitution is to be prepared by March 2003, public consultations are to be held in April and May 2003, and a Constitutional Loya Jirga is to be held in October 2003. Another key process is the preparation of national elections to be held in June 2004. The Electoral Assistance Division of the Department of Political Affairs of the Secretariat is currently working with UNAMA to define the modalities for assistance, as per a request to the Secretary-General from President Hamid Karzai.

According to the report, security remains the most serious challenge facing the peace process in Afghanistan. Re-establishment of the rule of law, elimination of human rights abuses, reconstruction and political transformation are all impeded by the uncertain security situation. The report notes, however, some progress in security sector reform, namely, the rebuilding of a national army and police, the rehabilitation of the justice sector, the implementation of a disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programme and the curbing of the production and trafficking of illegal narcotics. Despite ongoing security concerns, the report notes progress made in the fields of human rights and gender issues as well.

Relief, recovery and reconstruction are also addressed, with a focus on the generally successful winter response programme, challenges posed by the return of refugees and internally displaced persons, as well as successful immunization and education programmes.

As the submission of the report coincides with the proposed renewal of the UNAMA mandate, the report contains proposed adjustments of the UNAMA structure. The most important of these concern small additions to the military and police adviser's units, and the establishment of an electoral section headed by a senior expert and supported by an appropriately sized team.
... "

Basically it looks as if they still have some security concerns but overall the situation seems to be improving.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Vespasian
I'm starting to believe strongly that the Bush administration has very little desire to capture bin Laden and his Egyptian doctor friend because they're afraid that such an event would somehow signal an end to the war on terror.

What do you think?

I think one of the reasons for invading Iraq was to draw attention away from the failings of the REAL "War on Terrorism". I don't think capturing Bin Laden would end the actual war on terrorism, but it would be more of a symbolic end in the eyes of the American public, and as a result there would be less interest in continuing further "War on Terrorism" adventures. If that happens, people might start noticing domestic issues such as the economy and that would put heat on Bush as his crapiness as a president would become ever more apparent.

I think you are new here, so I will be easy on you.

Please, and I mean please, don't try to bring logic into ATOT. You will only get flamed by people that disagree with you. They aren't interested in points beyond their own beliefs.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Vespasian
I'm starting to believe strongly that the Bush administration has very little desire to capture bin Laden and his Egyptian doctor friend because they're afraid that such an event would somehow signal an end to the war on terror.

What do you think?

I think one of the reasons for invading Iraq was to draw attention away from the failings of the REAL "War on Terrorism". I don't think capturing Bin Laden would end the actual war on terrorism, but it would be more of a symbolic end in the eyes of the American public, and as a result there would be less interest in continuing further "War on Terrorism" adventures. If that happens, people might start noticing domestic issues such as the economy and that would put heat on Bush as his crapiness as a president would become ever more apparent.

I think you are new here, so I will be easy on you.



Please, and I mean please, don't try to bring logic into ATOT. You will only get flamed by people that disagree with you. They aren't interested in points beyond their own beliefs.

Beleive me, I've learnt.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: fluxquantum
whatever happened to that country by the name of afghanistan?

You know, I've brought that up a hundred times and no one says anything. After all, isn't it the perfect example of how we "liberate" countries and give their people better lives?

No it has been responded to, numerous times actually.

What the US is doing in Afghanistan today.

The fact is we were one of their largest aid donors until the soviet invasion. We financed their fight to overcome occupation and we returned to them the right to self rule. They chose the Taliban, who in turn made alliances with Al-Queeda.

Were they better under soviet occupation? Where they better under the taliban? Take a look at that link, what is anyone else doing? I have a link handy where the UN blasts the EU for failing to help after the soviet occupation was over, so fire away. Historically it has been the Russians and the US who have always supported Afghanistan with the MAJORITY of their aid, difference being we have freed them twice while russia invaded and destroyed their nation, economy, and culture and did nothing to reapair the damage.

 

[steell]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Vespasian
I'm starting to believe strongly that the Bush administration has very little desire to capture bin Laden and his Egyptian doctor friend because they're afraid that such an event would somehow signal an end to the war on terror.

What do you think?

I think one of the reasons for invading Iraq was to draw attention away from the failings of the REAL "War on Terrorism". I don't think capturing Bin Laden would end the actual war on terrorism, but it would be more of a symbolic end in the eyes of the American public, and as a result there would be less interest in continuing further "War on Terrorism" adventures. If that happens, people might start noticing domestic issues such as the economy and that would put heat on Bush as his crapiness as a president would become ever more apparent.

I think you are new here, so I will be easy on you.



Please, and I mean please, don't try to bring logic into ATOT. You will only get flamed by people that disagree with you. They aren't interested in points beyond their own beliefs.

Beleive me, I've learnt.

Logic? Logic is based on "factual evidence", try starting Here.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Curious you would use the US AID website to claim it provides a summary of what is actually going on in Afghanistan. Kinda like using Abu Dhabi TV as your primary news source for Iraqi events . . .

There's little doubt that many Afghanis are better off than they were last year or two years ago but as warlords re-establish their dominance over much of the nation (akin to pre-Taliban) the country will be in a condition comparable to that which led them to embrace the Taliban in the first place.

As for the Bush admin . . . OBL is dead or irrelevant. If you think otherwise, clearly you are just a troublemaker . . . disinterested in the great deeds of America but focused on fostering disinformation and malcontent amongst US citizens and the world at-large. If you don't like America you should move to (take your pick): China (with the commies and SARS), Cuba (with the socialists and murderous Castro), Russia (with the ex-commies and crappy military), North Korea (with the commies and pygmy dictator), or France (fromage manger le singe de reddition).

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Curious you would use the US AID website to claim it provides a summary of what is actually going on in Afghanistan. Kinda like using Abu Dhabi TV as your primary news source for Iraqi events . . .

There's little doubt that many Afghanis are better off than they were last year or two years ago but as warlords re-establish their dominance over much of the nation (akin to pre-Taliban) the country will be in a condition comparable to that which led them to embrace the Taliban in the first place.

You see, that is what I was saying. Some people here thing we "liberated" them from the Soviets in'89. We did no such thing, we armed them to fight the Soviets who were out enemies and then we left them. After the war they had no social or governmental structure and the country fell into anarchy leaving the most powerful, the eventual Taliban, to take control.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Curious you would use the US AID website to claim it provides a summary of what is actually going on in Afghanistan. Kinda like using Abu Dhabi TV as your primary news source for Iraqi events . . .

There's little doubt that many Afghanis are better off than they were last year or two years ago but as warlords re-establish their dominance over much of the nation (akin to pre-Taliban) the country will be in a condition comparable to that which led them to embrace the Taliban in the first place.

As for the Bush admin . . . OBL is dead or irrelevant. If you think otherwise, clearly you are just a troublemaker . . . disinterested in the great deeds of America but focused on fostering disinformation and malcontent amongst US citizens and the world at-large. If you don't like America you should move to (take your pick): China (with the commies and SARS), Cuba (with the socialists and murderous Castro), Russia (with the ex-commies and crappy military), North Korea (with the commies and pygmy dictator), or France (fromage manger le singe de reddition).

Curious I would use a link to the US department in charge of the operation, what source would be better? If you want to know the UN's role in something they have similar information, in both cases they are the most reliable sources.

Nice of you to try to twist the facts LilB, we were the ones who aided them BEFORE occupation, and aided their resistance, you are going to blame us for leaving them with the right to self rule? Make up your mind. Do a google search on UN aid after the soviet invasion, and before, you obviously don't know who has helped them more so than anyone in modern history.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So your contention is that US AID is doing the majority of the work in Afghanistan?

 

[Alistar7]

NO I am saying hisotrically we have been one of their largest donors in aid, before the soviet invasion we were the 2 largest, that obviously changed after they invaded. I have provided links that show what the US govt. is doing,that doesn't include public and private charities and business efforts, how about showing me what everyone else is doing.

Do you want the link where the UN blasts the international community for it's lack of aid AFTER the soviet occupation?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The UN blasting the international community for a lack of aid is directed just as much at the US as any other nation. Don't confuse US AID numbers with what is actually going on. Karzai came to America not long ago with his hat in hand . . . the US Congress said, "see ya . . . you are so last year, Dude. Get busy on that gas pipeline then maybe we can talk."

Dude, US AID is FOS.

Strenghtening Governance

USAID is funding programs that enhance the nascent government's credibility and provides it with the tools and technical assistance to govern effectively. These efforts include dismantling the opium market and providing opportunities for legitimate commerce and trade.

The opium trade is the ONLY industry that's shown growth in Afghanistan. The shady Taliban all but eradicated opium production within the borders.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Historical relevance is in the eye of the beholder . . . Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, US favoring invader Iraq over Iran, US favoring ANYONE fighting Communism, Musharraf overthrowing the elected government and most recently barring the leading opposition from participating in the election . . .

 

[Alistar7]

Historical fact is not debatable either, we have been one of Afghanistan's largest and longest standing donors of aid. We had supported them equally with the Russians until their invasion. We financied and armed their freedom, allowing them to create the Islamic nation they WANTED. Did we continue our level of aid after this, no, did the international community pick up the slack we and Russia had shared for the bulk of the century, no.

They were given the right to self rule, the Taliban were their choice, the reason MOST EU countries would not deal with them either was because of AL-Queeda. This was nothing new as they didn't help the people of Afghanistan before the soviets invaded, or do anything to help them regain their freedom. That is the only period in which we did not support them fully with the MAJORITY of the international aid they recieved.

I asked for evidence of what the rest of the international community was doing there now....?

While you are looking that up, find out how things are going for the UN in Haiti since the US restored a democratically elected leader to power and turned things over to the UN.

 

[Alistar7]

to keep this thread on topic, they (beloved patriot) recently arrested more Al-Queeda members and have been instrumental in capturing many of the top leaders taken so far.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Dude, that's like saying Columbians catch a lot of cocaine dealers . . . I heard a rumor that a lot of Indians are arrested in Delhi.

 

[Alistar7]

Thanks again for the links that outline the aid efforts the rest of the international community is and has made in Afghanistan, your desire for factual debate is only highlighted by your efforts to make it a reality.....

What part of your rambling about coke dealers was supposed to be the point and what was supposed to be it's supporting fact or logic?

I don't think any of the Al-Queeda arrested in Pakistan have been Pakistani anyway, my point was to show they are doing more than MOST of the other countries in helping us track down Al-Queeda, unlike this link suggests.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Before I start . . . you do remember that Bush's budget included $0.00 for Afghanistan? The only reason Afghanistan is getting US funding is the Congress put it back.

Christian Aid
The World Food Programme (WFP), which supplies most of the emergency wheat stocks to Afghanistan, has already reported major breakdowns in its 'food pipeline', as some international donors fail to deliver on promises made earlier this year. The WFP states 12 months ago the figure for Afghans 'highly vulnerable' to food shortages was just over five million. In October 2002, WFP stated that the figure of 'highly vulnerable' Afghans had reached 5.8 million, most probably due to the massive return of refugees from neighbouring countries. It says that it is currently short of $100 million of pledged funds, and estimates that there is a shortage of 250,000 tonnes of wheat for the year to next June. What happens in the coming weeks and months will be crucial for the country.

Some $1.8 billion was pledged for the current year at the Tokyo conference in March, of which only $1 billion has been committed. But a recent Afghanistan government report says that of this only $560 million has actually been disbursed, of which only $90 million has been given directly to the government to support its operations. 'The Government urgently needs the pledges in Tokyo to be turned into cash to support the operating budget. This will allow a focus on reforming the administration and delivering basic services rather than fundraising,' says the report.

This appears to be a classic chicken and egg situation: the international community is nervous of committing resources to a fragile new state and administration that does not fully control its territories. But if the international community continues to hold off, the state is doomed to failure. This is because its legitimacy rests not just on security apparatus but on its capacity to deliver essential services and to oversee the rebuilding of institutions and infrastructure. An act of faith is now required of the international community, albeit with careful monitoring of funds through the new administration.

Let us be clear that the sole reason the international community went into Afghanistan was to attempt to capture Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda members; if people in Afghanistan have benefited it is a side-effect of the war on terror. This has not been achieved. What has been achieved is the removal of the Taliban from government and the creation of an interim (although very precarious) administration. There is a real, almost tangible sense of hope among Afghans, something they have not had for a long time. The hope is that after more than two decades of bloodshed and instability there is a real chance of building a lasting peace and a united nation, in an environment in which people can lead secure lives and make a reliable living.

Tokyo pledges
Tuesday, 22 January 2002: International donors meeting in Tokyo 21-22 January 2002 pledged more than US$1.8 billion to rebuild Afghanistan in 2002, and US$ 4.5 billion over five years. Some donors made multi-year pledges and commitments of various time-frames. In addition, a number of countries offered support in kind, without specifying a monetary value.