• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why didn't Afghanistan's "democracy"

Originally posted by: Aimster
Is it because nobody gives .02 about the future of Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

Nah I think its more likely because Afghanistan was more of a success than anything.The US with the help of the Northern Alliance and other warlords were able to drive out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda regime with ease compared to the insurgency in Iraq.Iraq is a big deal because we are in there and we have way more force there than in Afghanistan which has been at 18,000 troops for sometime.
 
IMO, Afghanistan and Iraq receive attention to their "democracy" in proportion to the number of U.S. troops deployed.

Iraq = ~150,000 U.S. troops. Afghanistan = ~11,000 U.S. troops.

Afghanistan = 0.07333333333333 percent attention of Iraq.

Bush has more of his "political capital" invested in Iraq than Afghanistan so Iraq is where the majority of America's attention on "democracy" is focused.

 
Originally posted by: Beowulf
Originally posted by: Aimster
Is it because nobody gives .02 about the future of Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

Nah I think its more likely because Afghanistan was more of a success than anything.The US with the help of the Northern Alliance and other warlords were able to drive out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda regime with ease compared to the insurgency in Iraq.Iraq is a big deal because we are in there and we have way more force there than in Afghanistan which has been at 18,000 troops for sometime.
Click to expand...



Actualy there was the same complaints we are hearing today about iraq, in afghanistan before their election. After their election, the country has largely quieted down and is continuing the move forward.

Lets hope the elction in iraq has similar results.
 
Originally posted by: Beowulf
Originally posted by: Aimster
Is it because nobody gives .02 about the future of Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

Nah I think its more likely because Afghanistan was more of a success than anything.The US with the help of the Northern Alliance and other warlords were able to drive out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda regime with ease compared to the insurgency in Iraq.Iraq is a big deal because we are in there and we have way more force there than in Afghanistan which has been at 18,000 troops for sometime.
Click to expand...

If you think Afghanistan was such a success, ask Karzai why he doesn't wander outside of Kabul. 😉

 
Originally posted by: Aimster
I keep hearing Kabul is free while the rest of Afghanistan is still run by Warlords/Taliban.
Click to expand...



while there are still problems wth warlords in afghanistan, that would be a largely false statement.
 
I have a friend from the 173rd Airbourne Brigade "death from above" and they go all around Afghanistan with ease the dangerous parts he says are the mountain areas especially near the Pakistan border.In fact they arrived at Kandahar rolled around took pictures with locals and spent the night in towns near by before heading into Kabul.
 
Death from above. Nice.

That's what I call bringing freedom and democracy. :roll:

The U.S. let the Taliban and the warlords of Afghanistan off the hook for 9/11 and ran off to Iraq. One barometer of the extent of lawlessness in Afghanstan, heroin production is at record high levels. Did we bring freedom to grow poppies?

 
The majority of people supported us going into Afghanistan so we didn't need "bringing democracy and freedom" as an excuse.
 
Originally posted by: BBond
Death from above. Nice.

That's what I call bringing freedom and democracy. :roll:

The U.S. let the Taliban and the warlords of Afghanistan off the hook for 9/11 and ran off to Iraq. One barometer of the extent of lawlessness in Afghanstan, heroin production is at record high levels. Did we bring freedom to grow poppies?
Click to expand...

The taliban is gone as are most of the warlords. While poppies are being grown again, I would say that is not a sign of lawlessness, but a sign of poor farmers trying to make a living.
 
Originally posted by: BBond
Death from above. Nice.

That's what I call bringing freedom and democracy. :roll:

The U.S. let the Taliban and the warlords of Afghanistan off the hook for 9/11 and ran off to Iraq. One barometer of the extent of lawlessness in Afghanstan, heroin production is at record high levels. Did we bring freedom to grow poppies?
Click to expand...

Bro,they are based in Italy and they decided the name as a motto for his company it's not some name attached to them by the US Army.The warlords of Afghanistan were key allies to US special forces once they entered to get support from ppl on the ground to pin point Al-Qaeda camps and Taliban regime locations.Remember that area is new to democracy too and Karzai is gaining support with certain warlords to stablize certain regions and the drug problem.Al-Qaeda left Afghanistan quickly through the mountain borders most likely traveled via warziristan and from there who knows they have alot of support from the Sunni community.Yes I'd like to see Taliban's Mullah Omar dead but he is likely hiding out in Pakistan with help of sympathizers.
 
News networks get money based on ads.
Ratings = more ads viewed = higher charge for ads = more net income.
If it is not sensational, they don't care.
Afghanistan is not sensational.
 
Agree with TheBDB. After 9-11, everybody was gung-ho to get OSB and AQ who were operating out of Afganistan (at least it appears that that intel has held up). GWB sold us and the world a fake bill of goods on Iraq, and is now desperate to show how it was a good thing after all. Besides, Afganistan has no oil and we have no intention of building or leaving behind much of a country when we leave, so there is not much to brag about there. Bush and co. likely don't even want to call any attention to the country at all because we're not going to look like we cared very much about the country and its people by the time we leave.

We are spending a fortune in Iraq to prove that GWB really is a good guy. Bush wants a friendly government in Iraq (if it's a democracy, just icing on the cake) that will allow us to keep bases there and maybe allow us some leverage with OPEC.
 
It's because the invasion of Afghanistan was more or less justifiable without falling back on 'rent-a-reason #32'.

When everything else failed in Iraq, Bush and friends had to pretend that the reason for the invasion was to 'spread freedom' so they have to make a big deal out of it.
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
It's because the invasion of Afghanistan was more or less justifiable without falling back on 'rent-a-reason #32'.

When everything else failed in Iraq, Bush and friends had to pretend that the reason for the invasion was to 'spread freedom' so they have to make a big deal out of it.
Click to expand...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...002/10/20021002-2.html

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949; Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"; Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688"; Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Click to expand...
Yep, Bush had to "pretend." Apparently, so did just about everyone in Congress.
 
@TLC:

This has been spun ad nauseum for over 2 years now. If you really believe that liberating the Iraqi people had anything whatsoever to do with the invasion, then you're a lot less rational and intelligent than I thought.

If you really do believe that, ask yourself: why Iraq? Qhy not Iran, Syria, S.A. or any of a dozen nations around the world where people had fewer rights and freedoms, where they were more enslaved by religious law, etc. The answer is that Iraq could not possibly be 'target number one' under the scenario you now claim to believe.

Revisionist history is like that - it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
It's because the invasion of Afghanistan was more or less justifiable without falling back on 'rent-a-reason #32'.

When everything else failed in Iraq, Bush and friends had to pretend that the reason for the invasion was to 'spread freedom' so they have to make a big deal out of it.
Click to expand...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...002/10/20021002-2.html

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949; Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677"; Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688"; Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Click to expand...
Yep, Bush had to "pretend." Apparently, so did just about everyone in Congress.
Click to expand...




As always, TastesLikeChicken, you have an overly simplistic view of history.

The US cajoled, bullied and bribed the Security Council into supporting the final resolution.
To think that Angola, Guinea, Cameroon, Mexico, Chile, and Pakistan weren't influenced by economic leverage would be a naive view of the world.
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
@TLC:

This has been spun ad nauseum for over 2 years now. If you really believe that liberating the Iraqi people had anything whatsoever to do with the invasion, then you're a lot less rational and intelligent than I thought.
Click to expand...
Right. That other stuff was put in the resolution just for filler. Or did that sneaky Karl Rove surrepticiously slide that verbage in there after the fact and then use some mental trickery to convince everyone is was there before?

If you really do believe that, ask yourself: why Iraq? Qhy not Iran, Syria, S.A. or any of a dozen nations around the world where people had fewer rights and freedoms, where they were more enslaved by religious law, etc. The answer is that Iraq could not possibly be 'target number one' under the scenario you now claim to believe.

Revisionist history is like that - it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
How is anything revised? The revision and oversimplification are by those constantly banging their heads against a wall like obsessive/compulsive children and droning on with their never ending mantra that this was only about WMDs. Then, when they are shown facts to the contrary, they accuse others of revising history. LOL.

The facts of what actually was said are staring you right in the face. Go ahead and deny it profusely despite it being in black and white. It doesn't make you right.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
@TLC:

This has been spun ad nauseum for over 2 years now. If you really believe that liberating the Iraqi people had anything whatsoever to do with the invasion, then you're a lot less rational and intelligent than I thought.
Click to expand...
Right. That other stuff was put in the resolution just for filler. Or did that sneaky Karl Rove surrepticiously slide that verbage in there after the fact and then use some mental trickery to convince everyone is was there before?

If you really do believe that, ask yourself: why Iraq? Qhy not Iran, Syria, S.A. or any of a dozen nations around the world where people had fewer rights and freedoms, where they were more enslaved by religious law, etc. The answer is that Iraq could not possibly be 'target number one' under the scenario you now claim to believe.

Revisionist history is like that - it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
How is anything revised? The revision and oversimplification are by those constantly banging their heads against a wall like obsessive/compulsive children and droning on with their never ending mantra that this was only about WMDs. Then, when they are shown facts to the contrary, they accuse others of revising history. LOL.

The facts of what actually was said are staring you right in the face. Go ahead and deny it profusely despite it being in black and white. It doesn't make you right.
Click to expand...


You're more full of it than a Christmas turkey.


We were preached WMD's and threatening WMD's and that Iraq wasn't disarming and WMD's and WMD's and more WMD's. This is all fact, not conjecture as Powell said.

You say you're not a Bush supporter, but you sure spend 95% of the day on here with your head up Bush's butt spitting out the crap afterward. The war was a farce with flavor of the month for reasons given after WMD's couldn't be found, because they WERE NOT THERE and produced an egg to the face of the Bush regime. :|

Most expensive election in history at $300 Billion TAXPAYER dollars and counting. BLAH! :|
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
@TLC:

This has been spun ad nauseum for over 2 years now. If you really believe that liberating the Iraqi people had anything whatsoever to do with the invasion, then you're a lot less rational and intelligent than I thought.
Click to expand...
Right. That other stuff was put in the resolution just for filler. Or did that sneaky Karl Rove surrepticiously slide that verbage in there after the fact and then use some mental trickery to convince everyone is was there before?

If you really do believe that, ask yourself: why Iraq? Qhy not Iran, Syria, S.A. or any of a dozen nations around the world where people had fewer rights and freedoms, where they were more enslaved by religious law, etc. The answer is that Iraq could not possibly be 'target number one' under the scenario you now claim to believe.

Revisionist history is like that - it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
How is anything revised? The revision and oversimplification are by those constantly banging their heads against a wall like obsessive/compulsive children and droning on with their never ending mantra that this was only about WMDs. Then, when they are shown facts to the contrary, they accuse others of revising history. LOL.

The facts of what actually was said are staring you right in the face. Go ahead and deny it profusely despite it being in black and white. It doesn't make you right.
Click to expand...
What can I say? I always thought you were pretty bright.

Apparently you're nothing but a sheep. It's unfortunate.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top