• 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.

Will inaction on Iran swing the Jewish vote?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Afghanistan is beyond Government. Tribes, etal.

So, while we have stuck a lot of money and lives in Afghanistan, they don't quite understand it because there are roads they would never use.

Iran, possibly the most free of the Islamic states, as little as 1o years ago, is now deeply under the thumb of the Islamic Law.

No chance for freedom. The countries that were on the edge of freedom are now deeply involved in Taliban bullshit.

This, is Obama's Legacy.

-John
 
Last edited:
Hayabusa Rider said:
In concise and specific terms, what are my policies regarding Afghanistan? Note specific. What actions by the US do I support and what do I not?
Click to expand...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As maybe your response here is exactly your egotism problem Hayabusa. Just look at the way you framed your response, as you think the larger US foreign policy questions are only about you, you and you. While at the same time, you Hayabusa claim to be the smartest person in the room because you invariably support the US foreign policy wisdom articulated by people like JOS, GWB&co, Dumsfeld, Roberts, and now Leon Pinhead and Obama. While at the same time taking no critical positions either way that will pin your position down. And then claim, see, I have been right all along.

As I will stand by my posted record, since I joined this forum, in 2005, in giving highly specific reasons why our foreign policy is not working.

But when you Hayabusa take the position that you are the smartest guy in the room while advocating nothing but current failed policy, you have a credibility gap a mile wide and infinitely deep.

Quite frankly Hayabusa, taking no specific position is not a credible position or platform to assert your own wisdom. Especially when your general position is 100% on the wrong side of events and results.
 
Lemon law said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As maybe your response here is exactly your egotism problem Hayabusa. Just look at the way you framed your response, as you think the larger US foreign policy questions are only about you, you and you. While at the same time, you Hayabusa claim to be the smartest person in the room because you invariably support the US foreign policy wisdom articulated by people like JOS, GWB&co, Dumsfeld, Roberts, and now Leon Pinhead and Obama. While at the same time taking no critical positions either way that will pin your position down. And then claim, see, I have been right all along.

As I will stand by my posted record, since I joined this forum, in 2005, in giving highly specific reasons why our foreign policy is not working.

But when you Hayabusa take the position that you are the smartest guy in the room while advocating nothing but current failed policy, you have a credibility gap a mile wide and infinitely deep.

Quite frankly Hayabusa, taking no specific position is not a credible position or platform to assert your own wisdom. Especially when your general position is 100% on the wrong side of events and results.
Click to expand...

So you keep saying that I'm wrong but you don't know what I support. You mention supporting Rumsfeld but can't say how. I'm now one of the hobgoblins of your mind where you don't know my positions but I must be wrong. You don't know what I support and do not although I've gone over it before. It isn't about me, it's about your inability to understand what's going on and what people say. Since you don't know what my positions are, which you keep saying are wrong, I'll do what you cannot and list them tonight. In the meantime you might list specific actions you would have taken if you were Bush, and what you would do if you inherited this like Obama. "Using honey" is not an answer, nor is pontificating on the real or imagined wrongs done by NATO. I'm asking what specific actions you would have taken and then I'll do the same and see how much we support what others have done.
 
Zorkorist said:
Afghanistan is beyond Government. Tribes, etal.

So, while we have stuck a lot of money and lives in Afghanistan, they don't quite understand it because there are roads they would never use.

Iran, possibly the most free of the Islamic states, as little as 1o years ago, is now deeply under the thumb of the Islamic Law.

No chance for freedom. The countries that were on the edge of freedom are now deeply involved in Taliban bullshit.

This, is Obama's Legacy.

-John
Click to expand...

You are dillusional. Afghanistan WAS the taliban's state until Bush went in and took them out, but then Bush went gallivanting to Iraq and left Afghanistan to rot.

Obama is doing the best that is possible with Iran and Afghanistan. I would be interested in what you think he should have done.
 
Last edited:
Agent11 said:
You are dillusional. Afghanistan WAS the taliban's state until Bush went in and took them out, but then Bush went gallivanting to Iraq and left Afghanistan to rot.

Obama is doing the best that is possible with Iran and Afghanistan. I would be interested in what you think he should have done.
Click to expand...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is you who are delusional, Agent11, and on both points.

1. No country, be it Afghanistan, Iran, the USA, Russia, China, Vietnam, or who ever, belong to any particular governmental theory. While maybe certain American patriots involved in winning the American revolution, first uttered the flowery language that any government requires the consent of the governed, but its always been how its worked out all through human history. Look at say France for example, that was originally governed and " civilized" by Rome. Before that, much of Northern Europe was totally as tribal and much like Afghanistan today. But only after Rome fell of its own weight, did much of Europe
evolve into feudalism, which led to Europe starting the long slow road of uniting into countries with separate national identities. In the case of France, it was unified by a war lord named Charlemagne. As his decedents became became the Royal ruling family of France for almost a thousand years. And then poof, in July of 1789, that Royal family was gone in an instant because the benefits of that Governmental system did not help the bulk of France's population. And one day, the people had had enough. Look at the Russian tsars who ruled Russia for almost that same thousand years. Like in France, the signs of decay and decadence, had been evident for at least 50 years. Then one day, in 1917, communism became the ruling mantra. But it still took years of bloody civil war to consolidate their rule. And 70 years later, communism was tossed on the scrap bin of history because it no longer met the needs of the people of Russia. Then we can talk about Afghanistan that had not had a single even semi-stable government since 1937. And had been ruled instead by merry go round of various competing thugs and war lords until the Soviet Union tried to take over. As Uncle Sammy then decided to train Afghan terrorists, we called them freedom fighters, and armed them with State of the arts missiles. As one the freedom fighters we hired was a fellow named Osqama Bin Laden. Soon the Soviets were sent packing, Uncle Sammy abandoned the people of Afghanistan, as the Afghan people fell into another long period of anarchy and Civil war. Then came the rise of the Taliban, as the Taliban won and won for a reason. Because the Taliban with all their nutty ideas, warts and flaws, offered a chance to end the anarchy and the even more reprehensible rule of the warlords. The Taliban were still consolidating their rule, when Ossama, came back as a somewhat national Afghan hero, and without the knowledge or consent of the Taliban decided to launch the 911 attack which was largely planned and executed else where. As the USA came in guns blazing, allied with the hated war lords. chased the Taliban and Al-Quida out of Afghanistan, even if they slipped away in Tora Bora. Normally that might have been end of the Taliban, if GWB&co had an ounce of brains.
But instead, GWB&co put the same hated war lords, thugs, and drug runners back in charge
creating the same conditions that caused the rise of the Taliban in the first place. And here we are 10 years later, and can't possibly understand why the people of Afghanistan place more trust in the Taliban than in the USA and Nato. Or understand the Taliban and the Afghan resistance has evolved and the US and Nato have not. As the new Afghan resistance is mainly now mainly led by the freedom fighters we trained who never had much use for nutty primitive Taliban ideals.

2. Then Agent11 doubles down on totally delusional by stating, "Obama is doing the best that is possible with Iran and Afghanistan." When that is exactly crux of the matter. As Obama's delusion and total fantasy, is that he can use GWB tactics, and get better results than GWB did. Here were are, 10 years later, and each and every year we are further from victory than we were when we started. There are some obvious reasons for that, which I have been on long written record articulating, but at least many of had hoped Obama would be smarter than GWB, and now we find he is equally as dumb. And with time running out on the 2014 promise to get out, IT NEVER SEEMS TO OCCUR TO MANY OF US,
WHEN WE HAVE A PROVEN LOSING STRATEGY, THINGS WILL NEVER IMPROVE UNTIL WE CORRECT THE GLARING FLAWS IN OUR OWN STRATEGY.
 
qliveur said:
I'm confused. Hasn't JoS been repeatedly outed as a fraud?
Click to expand...

So how long have you been around?

Why don`t you post links where you believe that JoS has been outed......
It`s quite obvious that you know very little about my friend JoS!!

But to answer your question --Lemon law has been repeatedly outed as a fraud based on his predictions that never come true.....

Are you and Lemon law brothers.......
 
Last edited:
JEDIYoda said:
So how long have you been around?

Why don`t you post links where you believe that JoS has been outed......
It`s quite obvious that you know very little about my friend JoS!!

But to answer your question --Lemon law has been repeatedly outed as a fraud based on his predictions that never come true.....

Are you and Lemon law brothers.......
Click to expand...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I can only say qliveur, welcome to JOS and JediY style unreasoning that is older than dirt.

Pardon me if I note, JediY question #1, is incredibly stupid, as Anand tech records show you joined this forum in 2007.

I joined this forum somewhat earlier, and may better remember the JOS, and Palehorse contentions circa 2005 and 2006. As both contended the key to victory in Afghanistan must lie in killing every Taliban member. And when our own General Petraeus publicly said, that the kill every Taliban member strategy not only would not work, it would never work. JOS went ballistic in denial. As he self elected himself, as a British junior junior officer, to the exalted rank legend in his own mind, as the smartest military thinker in the "entire free world." But now, some five or six years later, JOS is back in England, and is eagerly awaiting that call that never comes, from her majesties government to redeem and solve the Afghan problem he failed at when he was later yet sent home by the British Government.

Yes, qliveur, I would have to say JOS has been totally outed, and in addition, JOS is far beyond that rehabilitating powers of JEDIY who charmingly states JOS must be correct, simply because JEDIY agrees with JOS. Simply circular reasoning on steroids.

But still, qliveur, I don't want to see you to be tarred with the same brush I have been tarred with. Maybe I at least don't see myself, as endlessly self important, unlike JediY, EK, Hayabusa Rider, JOS,and so many others. When we are all nothing but keyboard warriors, commenting on the issue of the day. When the end arbiter of what we now advocate will be in the end results. As I am somewhat resentful that JediY is infinitely impatient, and demands my predictions to be instantly realized. When history and its end results judgments occur at a far slower rate.
 
Last edited:
Lemon law said:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is you who are delusional, Agent11, and on both points.

1. No country, be it Afghanistan, Iran, the USA, Russia, China, Vietnam, or who ever, belong to any particular governmental theory. While maybe certain American patriots involved in winning the American revolution, first uttered the flowery language that any government requires the consent of the governed, but its always been how its worked out all through human history. Look at say France for example, that was originally governed and " civilized" by Rome. Before that, much of Northern Europe was totally as tribal and much like Afghanistan today. But only after Rome fell of its own weight, did much of Europe
evolve into feudalism, which led to Europe starting the long slow road of uniting into countries with separate national identities. In the case of France, it was unified by a war lord named Charlemagne. As his decedents became became the Royal ruling family of France for almost a thousand years. And then poof, in July of 1789, that Royal family was gone in an instant because the benefits of that Governmental system did not help the bulk of France's population. And one day, the people had had enough. Look at the Russian tsars who ruled Russia for almost that same thousand years. Like in France, the signs of decay and decadence, had been evident for at least 50 years. Then one day, in 1917, communism became the ruling mantra. But it still took years of bloody civil war to consolidate their rule. And 70 years later, communism was tossed on the scrap bin of history because it no longer met the needs of the people of Russia. Then we can talk about Afghanistan that had not had a single even semi-stable government since 1937. And had been ruled instead by merry go round of various competing thugs and war lords until the Soviet Union tried to take over. As Uncle Sammy then decided to train Afghan terrorists, we called them freedom fighters, and armed them with State of the arts missiles. As one the freedom fighters we hired was a fellow named Osqama Bin Laden. Soon the Soviets were sent packing, Uncle Sammy abandoned the people of Afghanistan, as the Afghan people fell into another long period of anarchy and Civil war. Then came the rise of the Taliban, as the Taliban won and won for a reason. Because the Taliban with all their nutty ideas, warts and flaws, offered a chance to end the anarchy and the even more reprehensible rule of the warlords. The Taliban were still consolidating their rule, when Ossama, came back as a somewhat national Afghan hero, and without the knowledge or consent of the Taliban decided to launch the 911 attack which was largely planned and executed else where. As the USA came in guns blazing, allied with the hated war lords. chased the Taliban and Al-Quida out of Afghanistan, even if they slipped away in Tora Bora. Normally that might have been end of the Taliban, if GWB&co had an ounce of brains.
But instead, GWB&co put the same hated war lords, thugs, and drug runners back in charge
creating the same conditions that caused the rise of the Taliban in the first place. And here we are 10 years later, and can't possibly understand why the people of Afghanistan place more trust in the Taliban than in the USA and Nato. Or understand the Taliban and the Afghan resistance has evolved and the US and Nato have not. As the new Afghan resistance is mainly now mainly led by the freedom fighters we trained who never had much use for nutty primitive Taliban ideals.

2. Then Agent11 doubles down on totally delusional by stating, "Obama is doing the best that is possible with Iran and Afghanistan." When that is exactly crux of the matter. As Obama's delusion and total fantasy, is that he can use GWB tactics, and get better results than GWB did. Here were are, 10 years later, and each and every year we are further from victory than we were when we started. There are some obvious reasons for that, which I have been on long written record articulating, but at least many of had hoped Obama would be smarter than GWB, and now we find he is equally as dumb. And with time running out on the 2014 promise to get out, IT NEVER SEEMS TO OCCUR TO MANY OF US,
WHEN WE HAVE A PROVEN LOSING STRATEGY, THINGS WILL NEVER IMPROVE UNTIL WE CORRECT THE GLARING FLAWS IN OUR OWN STRATEGY.
Click to expand...


Nice wall of text. Here is a history of the Taliban http://middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/ss/me080914a.htm

" Religious indoctrination in Pakistan’s madrassas and Omar’s campaigns against rapists alone were not the light that lit the Taliban fuse. The Pakistani intelligence services known as the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI, the Pakistani military and Benazir Bhutto, who was prime minister of Pakistan during the Taliban’s most politically and militarily formative years (1993-96), all saw in the Taliban a proxy army they could manipulate to Pakistan’s ends.
In 1994, Bhutto’s government appointed the Taliban as protector of Pakistani convoys through Afghanistan. Controlling trade routs and the lucrative windfalls those routes provide in Afghanistan is a major source of lucre and power. The Taliban proved uniquely effective, swiftly defeating other warlords and conquering major Afghan cities.

Beginning in 1994, The Taliban rose to power and established their brutal, totalitarian rule over 90 percent of the country, in part by leading a genocidal campaign against Afghanistan’s Shiite, or Hazara."

Many countries have been meddling with Afghanistan for a very long time. None of that is Obama's fault though. He said he was going to pull out of Iraq, but reinforce Afghanistan when he ran for president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"In the 18 months since the surge began, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset – Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact.

That’s why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war. Now, Prime Minister Maliki’s call for a timetable for the removal of U.S. forces presents a real opportunity. It comes at a time when the American general in charge of training Iraq’s Security Forces has testified that Iraq’s Army and Police will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq’s security in 2009. Now is the time for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq’s leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests."

As a matter of national pride and human decency I think we should stay in Afghanistan and make it a 'shining city on the hill' for all those backwards middle eastern hell holes to look up to.

To make a state that embraces modern enlightenment to replace one of theological oppression is worth doing.

There is a real threat in the Taliban in Afghanistan that needs to be addressed. Personally I think we should call a draft put a few million troops in Afghanistan. There are proven ratios and strategies for occupying a country and maintaining order. I think we should follow them.

That isn't very politically viable though.
 
Last edited:
Lemon law said:
But still, qliveur, I don't want to see you to be tarred with the same brush I have been tarred with. Maybe I at least don't see myself, as endlessly self important, unlike JediY, EK, Hayabusa Rider, JOS,and so many others. When we are all nothing but keyboard warriors, commenting on the issue of the day. When the end arbiter of what we now advocate will be in the end results. As I am somewhat resentful that JediY is infinitely impatient, and demands my predictions to be instantly realized. When history and its end results judgments occur at a far slower rate.
Click to expand...

You tarred yourself with your own brush with all of your FAILED predictions w/ respect to the Israeli/Palestine situation.

You specifically provided dates and actions that would be taken by both Israel, the Arabs, Turkey and the Palestinians.

Those never came true.

A little sample.
Turkey will be an enemy of ISrael because of the boarding - yet Turkey asked Israel for assistance.
The world will setup an economic blockade of Israel.
There will be more attempts at blockade running - escorted by Naval vessels.

Palestine will have membership in the UN in 2011

New Egyptian government will open the gates to Gaza.

Now w/ respect to Central Asia
your fears have been correct because of failed implementation; not that they were right.

TPTB refused to allocate the resources needed to exterminate the Taliban; believing like you do that they can be convinced to behave.

And the US/CIA never supported OBL
 
Last edited:
Lemon law said:
As one the freedom fighters we hired was a fellow named Osqama Bin Laden.
Click to expand...

There were two groups fighting. One was supported by the CIA and the other by the Saudi's. Bin Laden was a Saudi creature.

Lemon law said:
Soon the Soviets were sent packing, Uncle Sammy abandoned the people of Afghanistan, as the Afghan people fell into another long period of anarchy and Civil war. Then came the rise of the Taliban, as the Taliban won and won for a reason. Because the Taliban with all their nutty ideas, warts and flaws, offered a chance to end the anarchy and the even more reprehensible rule of the warlords.
Click to expand...

Incredibly wrong. The Taliban laid siege to Kabul, starved 160k Afghanis by denying them UN food, deprived women of all rights, and tortured or murdered outright all opposition. The Israelis who you liken to the most evil of nations are like the UK Hand Knitting Association by comparison if the scope and breath of atrocities are compared.
Your wart.

It's not like there weren't better options to be had. Not even close to your Taliban.

Lemon law said:
The Taliban were still consolidating their rule, when Ossama, came back as a somewhat national Afghan hero, and without the knowledge or consent of the Taliban decided to launch the 911 attack which was largely planned and executed else where. As the USA came in guns blazing, allied with the hated war lords. chased the Taliban and Al-Quida out of Afghanistan, even if they slipped away in Tora Bora. Normally that might have been end of the Taliban, if GWB&co had an ounce of brains.
Click to expand...

The Taliban was wiping out all resistance they were allied with Al Qaeda and the ISI in attacking Massoud, who was incredibly progressive in his stance on how women ought to be treated. After 9/11 they played the all too common game of "What? I don't understand, derp de derp", pretending Bin Laden wasn't around, or wasn't proved guilty, or was having a coffee in the donut shop at the time or whatever. We gave the Taliban fair warning and they screwed around too long. That's when we went in.
Lemon law said:
But instead, GWB&co put the same hated war lords, thugs, and drug runners back in charge
creating the same conditions that caused the rise of the Taliban in the first place.
Click to expand...

If anyone reads they'll see this is also wrong. No one was more hated than the Taliban. No one was more effective in destroying opposition more than they. No one abused people more. The rise of the Taliban was because Pakistan, Al Qaeda, and to some extent the Saudi's wanted them to destroy any chance of having a humane government for their own purposes. As far as chasing the Taliban out, what was to prevent their return? The best hope for Afghanistan was killed by people backing your "warts", there was a huge power vacuum with nothing to fill it. They would simply have walked back in.

Lemon law said:
And here we are 10 years later, and can't possibly understand why the people of Afghanistan place more trust in the Taliban than in the USA and Nato. Or understand the Taliban and the Afghan resistance has evolved and the US and Nato have not. As the new Afghan resistance is mainly now mainly led by the freedom fighters we trained who never had much use for nutty primitive Taliban ideals.
Click to expand...

The people of Afghanistan don't trust anyone. They've been in conflict so long that one abuse seems like the one before.

Freedom fighters we trained?
Again from wiki with references in the article.
The south and eastern parts of Afghanistan are the most dangerous due to the flourishing drug trade and militancy. These areas in particular are often patrolled by Taliban insurgents, and in many cases they plan attacks by using suicide bombers and planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs) on roads. Kidnapping and robberies are also often reported. Every year many Afghan police officers are killed in the line of duty in these areas. The Afghan Border Police are responsible for protecting the nation's airports and borders, especially the disputed Durand Line border which is often used by members of criminal organizations and terrorists for their illegal activities. Reports in 2011 suggested that up to 3 million people are involved in the illegal drug business in Afghanistan, many of the attacks on government employees and institutions are carried out not only by the Taliban militants but also by powerful criminal gangs.[202] Drugs from Afghanistan are exported to Iran, Pakistan, Russia, India, the United Arab Emirate, and the European Union. The Afghan Ministry of Counter Narcotics is dealing with this problem. Recently, the people mustered courage and took to streets in Kabul to protest against gruesome killing of a woman accused of adultery by suspected Taliban in the Parwan province.[203]
Click to expand...

There are your "freedom fighters."

So here we are now and you cite that we're doing the way Bush did. Well there was a hell of a lot done wrong and I can state them and I can also argue that we find ourselves in a situation where we have limited options, the best for the US leaving ASAP. I didn't buy Biden's ignoring the question of waiting to pull out, but you claim the right way.

Name it, but your fantasy history cannot be the basis for it. The Taliban is far far worse than the Israelis you despise. If Israel acted as the Taliban there would be no Palestinians to return. You'll most likely divert on this one, but the facts of the Talibans history are out there, warts and all.

Let's hear your solution, not a lecture on what might have been, a history lesson or diversions with what other nations not currently involved in TODAY'S situation.

You say you've identified a problem, now let's hear how you would fix things if you were in charge and "don't do what we're doing" isn't a plan. Be specific, because as much as you hate them, that is what a plan calls for.

Go, if you can.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
So you keep saying that I'm wrong but you don't know what I support. You mention supporting Rumsfeld but can't say how. I'm now one of the hobgoblins of your mind where you don't know my positions but I must be wrong. You don't know what I support and do not although I've gone over it before. It isn't about me, it's about your inability to understand what's going on and what people say. Since you don't know what my positions are, which you keep saying are wrong, I'll do what you cannot and list them tonight. In the meantime you might list specific actions you would have taken if you were Bush, and what you would do if you inherited this like Obama. "Using honey" is not an answer, nor is pontificating on the real or imagined wrongs done by NATO. I'm asking what specific actions you would have taken and then I'll do the same and see how much we support what others have done.
Click to expand...

Well you haven't said anything so I'll make plain my thoughts and compare them with what's been done so we can lay the boogeyman to rest.

First,
We supported Pakistan which in turn is the parent of the ISI. They funded the Taliban and provided troops and other material support to them. Al Qaeda also backed the Taliban and so they were all happy bedmates in this regard. In 1996 the CIA became aware of Bin Laden. We also knew about the ISI and their role in the region.

So for purposes of discussion I begin with Clinton. Clinton had been against the excesses of the intel agencies especially the CIA as perpetrated by Ron R. There's little question that Reagan abused covert ops in the extreme and so Clinton made a very bad choice. For LL, when I say "bad choice" that means I don't support it. When I say words to the effect of "what should have been done" that is a point of variance between me and what I mention, and so I present an alternative that I think would have been better. That should go without saying but so much should and apparently needs pedantic detail.

Anyway, what Clinton did was effectively gut the intel agencies, putting them in retreat not just from active covert ops, but cutting human intelligence resources. High tech can replace men. No they can't. So we have phase one of "Operation Failure" as I'll call our overall engagement in Afghanistan. Blind ourselves. Phase two is not realizing that because someone supports Islam does not make them worth fighting on first principle. What Clinton and virtually all American Presidents from Carter on did not do was to evaluate the relative principles outside of religion and what was in the best interest of the people in individual nations. Masoud was Islamic. That's bad- See Iran. The Taliban was bad- See Iran. Al Qaeda was bad. See Iran.

All sides were "bad" so Pakistan being a secular nation and their military leader being our puppet, we decided to hang our hat on them so to speak. That the ISI was fairly evil didn't matter. They were evil serving our good, which was to play off one side against the other thereby creating constant chaos.

Well that logic was always flawed, but institutionalized thinking is hard to undo, so it was repeated. What should have happened and did now was to consider Iran. Iran is as it was because of our unseating of an elected leader for Churchill who was pitching for British Petroleum. That lead to the creation of all sorts of unsavory characters and events leading up to the fundamentalist state of Iran. We looked at the end result of extreme muslims coming to power, not the chain of events which made it possible.

This is the key reason for our situation and an everlasting monument to foolishness in foreign policy. Playing Machiavelli without understanding is a path to destruction.

So we allowed the area to be contested without realizing that one day one side or the other would win. What was not done and should have been is to assess which side would have been more beneficial to the people of Afghanistan and court it to make it favorable to us. That would have been Massoud, but again he was one of those Islamic guys and we didn't get beyond that. Trust would have been hard to win, but since he promised the only real alternative for a lasting peace it would have been best to go with him. We didn't.

So the Taliban wins, you know the guys who do the impression of Vlad the Impaler all too well, and in return provides a home for Al Qaeda and terrorist training camps while they are playing around by helping women be safe in their homes by effectively locking them in, and relieving them of trivial concerns such as having a say in society.

Now it's 9/11 and Bin Laden strikes. He's protected by the Taliban, and while it's true that in large part it's the wrong actions of the US which allowed this to happen, that's too bad if you are the current President. We were attacked and the enemy hides behind the skirts of the Taliban. Bush offers the Taliban life, however that is with a cost, and that's ending the support of terrorists and handing over Al Qaeda, especially Bin Laden. So far he's doing the right thing with the hand he's dealt, but that means we have to follow through when the Taliban thumb their noses at us. We go in. Yes I support that action. We kick ass. Good. The Taliban leaves. Good.

Now Bush has fried all his neurons with this effort and The Terrible Three as I'll call them, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz act and that is to use Afghanistan as a stepping stone into Iraq. Almost overnight Al Qaeda and terrorists which exist in and immediately around Afghanistan are no longer important, but Saddam is. A sharp left into a brick wall ensues. Forgetting that for now because we're talking Afghanistan, it still must be mentioned that our forces are sharply cut, have no clear mandate, have no real civilian leadership and markedly fewer resources. Welcome to Afghanistan soldier, you're on your own. That was completely wrong, so when you LL claim I back Bush policy you are so wrong about so much. Yes I agree with what was done by him to this point, but after? No. This is also why I back the troops, because they were given a nebulous mission and left pretty much on their own. They didn't have much to go with, a force which requires a chain of command, but which was broken. That was not their doing.

So we flounder around, build roads because there's no real policy and people need something to do. We installed Karzai because a power vacuum wouldn't work and expected the people to embrace democracy and apple pie and the like, as you do. Massoud understood that it would take a generation to unlearn old traditions and create a cohesive people with a sense of nation, unlike you and Bush, which curiously you seem to support in this. That however requires a leader who wants such a thing in reality, and not a murderous gang like your Taliban. All such men I know about are dead.

THAT is why there is no solution now. All such men are dead. What puppet do you plan on replacing Karzai with? What change of heart has come over the worst of people, the Taliban, so they do not once again commit the travesties against their own people known throughout the world? Name him and we'll have a look.

Are there options? There are two non-fairyland ones. First is get the hell out and the poor bastards in Afghanistan fall back into chaos. I don't like that. The other is to do as Agent11 said and don't play around. Muster a force not seen since WWII with one mandate. Kill the Taliban wherever they are. If they retreat into Pakistan, kill them and the Pakistani army if necessary. Be as brutal as those who attacked us. Be quick, minimize collateral damage, but get them, every last one.

After that? We stay there forever and break our troubled treasury. No, that never will happen. They'll come home and another power vacuum results. What works? Install another dictator and arm him. Make another Saddam, and kick the can down the road so we can have another Iranian Revolution in twenty or so years. Better pick a young tyrant.

I don't want that either.

Since you won't be able to answer my challenge for a way to buy the Taliban a Coke and sing of harmony, those are the two I see.

In that case the best possible course of action is to prop up the current puppet best we can and get out now. We use our technological advantages to strike overt terrorist targets, randomly bomb Taliban outposts and military facilities, and restore the intelligence agencies to what they should have been all along, and use covert ops with restraint and bring back the art of human intelligence.

That is the solution of all based in reality that I endorse, my "policy." Doesn't look a thing like Bush's.
 
Hayabusa, in all your long wall of text, you seek to portray the Taliban as evil incarnate, without looking at the other even more evil alternative of rule by the war lords and drug dealers. I never sought to defend the evils of the Taliban, because I agree with you, the Taliban are a very bad alternative. But when you Hayabusa, ignore and wall paper over the even worse evils in the rule by war lords, thugs, and drug dealers, your reasoning premises are badly flawed. Then you make two giant mistakes. (1) You look at Afghanistan and Pakistan only through your own basically American eyes and then pretend that we in America are the deciders. When in fact it will be the Afghan people themselves that will decide who to side with. (2) Only an ignorant idiot would seek to prop up the virtues of the Northern alliance headed by Massoud. Simply because the Northern Alliance had previously formed an Afghan government that swiftly fell because it was totally corrupt. But those are folks GWB&co decided to side with , which doomed the Nato occupation to start with.

After that Hayabusa, your interpretation, Agent 11 version, and my version look much the same.

But what you ignore is as plain as the nose of your face. With the current strategy Nato has, NATO CAN NEVER WIN. And in my mind, there is something totally evil and rotten about a USA that dooms some 40+ million people, and leaves them in a state of total and perpetual anarchy.

But even then, You, I, and agent11 agree, if we in Nato want to win, we are going to have pony up the 620,000 + troops needed, and start proving the benefits of modernity can deliver positive improvements to lives of all Afghans. Exactly what the reactionary myths of the Taliban can not deliver. But sadly all Nato has proved thus far, is that the Taliban is right, that all modern ideas have delivered to Afghanistan is new and better ways to kill the Afghan people.

As my closing thesis is, given Nato will not pony up the development money and troops needed, we should get out now. And thereafter the Taliban will probably win out in the end. or maybe the same thugs, warlords, and drug dealers will keep Afghanistan in a State of semi perpetual thugocrasy.

But when we compare those two alternatives, Afghanistan and the larger world will be better off if the Taliban wins. Simply because there is a probable hope that the Taliban
will moderate and be forced to modernize their wacky ideas in future, while a thugocracy never changes.

Taliban type takeovers of failed governments are frequent occurrences in world history, and normally only have a shelf life of a decade or two. Before their own leaders realize their own ideas are not working and they moderate and abandon the worst of their own policies. Sadly if there is some outside force, such nutty Taliban type governments tend to last much longer.
 
Lemon law said:
Hayabusa, in all your long wall of text, you seek to portray the Taliban as evil incarnate, without looking at the other even more evil alternative of rule by the war lords and drug dealers.
Click to expand...

I don't see where I said they were good. I did point to resources which explained what the Taliban were. As far as the Northern Alliance, note I didn't mention that, but Massoud. Here is a tidbit about him.

Area of Massoud
Massoud directly controlled the Panjshir, some other parts of Parwan and Thakar province. Some parts of Badakshan were under his influence while others were controlled by Burhanuddin Rabbani with whom Massoud had some non-violent disputes. (Badakshan is the home region of Rabbani).
Human Rights Watch cites no human rights crimes or abuses for Massoud's troops in the period from October 1996 until the assassination of Massoud in September 2001. Massoud created democratic institutions which were structured into several committees: political, health, education and economic.[12] In the area of Massoud women and girls did not have to wear the Afghan burqa.[12] They were allowed to work and to go to school.[12] In at least two known instances Massoud personally intervened against cases of forced marriage.[12] While it was Massoud's stated conviction that men and women are equal and should enjoy the same rights, he also had to deal with Afghan traditions which he said would need a generation or more to overcome. In his opinion that could only be achieved through education.[12]
Hundreds of thousands of refugees fled the Taliban to the areas of Massoud.[51] There was a huge humanitarian problem because there was not enough to eat for both the existing population and the refugees. In 2001 Massoud and a French journalist described the bitter situation of the refugees and asked for humanitarian help.[51] see video
Click to expand...

You want to explain how the Taliban was comparable? How about this?

In early 2001 the United Front employed a new strategy of local military pressure and global political appeals.[39] Resentment was increasingly gathering against Taliban rule from the bottom of Afghan society including the Pashtun areas.[39] In total, estimates range up to one million people fleeing the Taliban.[40] Many civilians fled to the area of Ahmad Shah Massoud.[19][41] National Geographic concluded in its documentary "Inside the Taliban": "The only thing standing in the way of future Taliban massacres is Ahmad Shah Massoud".
Click to expand...

We're not yet done.

At the same time he was very wary not to revive the failed Kabul government of the early 1990s.[39] Already in 1999 the United Front leadership ordered the training of police forces specifically to keep order and protect the civilian population in case the United Front would be successful.[12] In early 2001 Ahmad Shah Massoud addressed the European Parliament in Brussels asking the international community to provide humanitarian help to the people of Afghanistan.(see video)[40] He stated that the Taliban and Al Qaeda had introduced "a very wrong perception of Islam" and that without the support of Pakistan and Bin Laden the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for up to a year.[
Click to expand...

That was who we should have supported but we funded the ISI with money we paid Pakistan. Corruption followed chaos, when the Taliban backed by Pakistan (who fielded more fighters than the Taliban itself), after Massoud was killed by suicide bombers connected to Al Qaeda, the brothers of the Taliban, and when no substantial help was found on the part of the rest of the world. That is my lament. Another wasted opportunity. You want to say that the level of support I mentioned, the cutting off of Pakistani aid at least until they withdrew, was something Bush did? What did he do to support the million who fled the Taliban who did not flee those others you mention? That's not to say the wardlords and drug dealers would not cut your head from your bodies, but they did not do so to subjugate an entire people. They went about their evil business for profit and had no interest outside of petty squabbles and drug turf issues to waste resources.

But I am genuinely glad you have mentioned what your think the correct approach is, and that's to raise a huge army and rout the Taliban. That's something with meat to chew on and a material position we can discuss both virtue and vice.
 
Again, Hayabusa, I can found some common ground, if we only want to talk about Massoud, as a person. But you are somewhat asserting, one good apple can fix a barrel of rotten apples. Maybe if Massoud would have survived he might have provided a better Afghan model as a charismatic leader, with the right stuff, but he was assassinated and NONE of his followers could reunite the Northern Alliance using Massoud principles. In short all you are doing is crying wouda coulda shouda, when the reality became, without Massoud the Northern Alliance, the Northern alliance reverted back to the same set of corrupt thugs they always were. As GWB&co rearmed the Northern Alliance to provide the force on the ground, while Nato provided the air support to rout the surprised Taliban and Al-Quida types all the way to Tora Bora Mountains. And then the Nato leadership got another brilliant idea, why should we let our few Nato boys die in droves rooting out the Taliban and Al-Quida leadership now entrenching in excellent natural defenses, when we can let the Patriotic wogs of the the Northern alliance die instead. As Nato instead discovered, the Northern Alliance has no beef against Al-Quida, and once the Northern Alliance got rid of the Taliban, they all raced back to Kabul to reset up their corruption rackets at their same old stands. As for Al-Quida and the Taliban, they simply disappeared into the wilderness of the law less
Tribal areas. While they relearned Guerrilla war tactics, learned for their mistakes, and now the Taliban is almost as strong as its ever been.

But still Hayabusa, you might have been on a roll, until, you showed your total stupidity in saying, " But I am genuinely glad you have mentioned what your think the correct approach is, and that's to raise a huge army and rout the Taliban. That's something with meat to chew on and a material position we can discuss both virtue and vice."

As you instead prove how totally clueless you are. Simply because an army of 620,000 can't rout the Taliban who look exactly like the Afghan people, Nor is the Taliban again going to flee in a huge group, as they just do an end around, and watch the 620,000 army disappear into the trackless wastes of the tribal areas or the Stans to the North. As you Hayabusa, simply don't understand Guerrilla war 101.

As instead 620,000 is just the minimum opening ante in how to win a military occupations. And somewhat only part A in a multi part strategy. And the reason why Nato is losing and losing badly in Afghanistan. Even if we accepted the somewhat flawed premise that the Afghan people want to side with Nato, under present reality that becomes impossible for at least 95% of the Afghan people. If they side with Nato, Nato may say thank you very much, but five minutes later, Nato will be chasing off somewhere else and may not revisit the same area for a year. And when Nato comes back to revisit their Afghan supporter, they find they were killed by the Taliban a year ago. Nor is that the half of the delicious dilemmas the Afghan people face. Even if they avoid be killed by the Taliban, they can be killed by Nato drone strikes, and even better, they can be robbed of killed by Afghan warlords and thugs. And if they are forced to grow opium by drug lords, if the Afghan government burns their crops, they starve to death. Or if lucky them, they are visited by their own Afghan army, they are likely to be robbed of everything they own. And when a Afghan family appeals to Afghan courts, they will discover Afghan courts function only by bribes if they function at all. Of course none of that is on the Hayabusa radar screen, Hayabusa knows the Afghan people should side with Nato from the safety of the USA.

NO NO NO Hayabusa, the 620,000 troops are needed to protect the people who side with the USA and the billions in development money is then needed to demonstrate and hit the Taliban where they live, as we can then prove the benefits of modernity can improve the lives of the Afghan people. As its not a battle of bullets, its a battle of ideas, and a battle we in Nato can't win if we run all over the place playing wackomole while never staying in any given place and building anything
 
Agent11 said:
Nice wall of text. Here is a history of the Taliban http://middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/ss/me080914a.htm

" Religious indoctrination in Pakistan’s madrassas and Omar’s campaigns against rapists alone were not the light that lit the Taliban fuse. The Pakistani intelligence services known as the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI, the Pakistani military and Benazir Bhutto, who was prime minister of Pakistan during the Taliban’s most politically and militarily formative years (1993-96), all saw in the Taliban a proxy army they could manipulate to Pakistan’s ends.
In 1994, Bhutto’s government appointed the Taliban as protector of Pakistani convoys through Afghanistan. Controlling trade routs and the lucrative windfalls those routes provide in Afghanistan is a major source of lucre and power. The Taliban proved uniquely effective, swiftly defeating other warlords and conquering major Afghan cities.

Beginning in 1994, The Taliban rose to power and established their brutal, totalitarian rule over 90 percent of the country, in part by leading a genocidal campaign against Afghanistan’s Shiite, or Hazara."

Many countries have been meddling with Afghanistan for a very long time. None of that is Obama's fault though. He said he was going to pull out of Iraq, but reinforce Afghanistan when he ran for president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"In the 18 months since the surge began, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset – Iraq’s leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact.

That’s why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war. Now, Prime Minister Maliki’s call for a timetable for the removal of U.S. forces presents a real opportunity. It comes at a time when the American general in charge of training Iraq’s Security Forces has testified that Iraq’s Army and Police will be ready to assume responsibility for Iraq’s security in 2009. Now is the time for a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraq’s leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests."

As a matter of national pride and human decency I think we should stay in Afghanistan and make it a 'shining city on the hill' for all those backwards middle eastern hell holes to look up to.

To make a state that embraces modern enlightenment to replace one of theological oppression is worth doing.

There is a real threat in the Taliban in Afghanistan that needs to be addressed. Personally I think we should call a draft put a few million troops in Afghanistan. There are proven ratios and strategies for occupying a country and maintaining order. I think we should follow them.

That isn't very politically viable though.
Click to expand...

And the very first person they had better Draft is your ass.
 
I'm 29 and registered, so I most likely would be.

Look at Japan and Germany, both are responsible members of the world community now. If we want to go into these countries we should put enough troops in to do the job correctly.
 
Last edited:
Lemon law said:
As you instead prove how totally clueless you are. Simply because an army of 620,000 can't rout the Taliban who look exactly like the Afghan people, Nor is the Taliban again going to flee in a huge group, as they just do an end around, and watch the 620,000 army disappear into the trackless wastes of the tribal areas or the Stans to the North. As you Hayabusa, simply don't understand Guerrilla war 101.
Click to expand...

I was trying to figure out what your were saying, but I know how guerilla warfare works. That's ops 101. Also learned would be that a standing army in a foreign land is a sitting duck. We won't be liberators, we will have upped the occupation, and that's precisely how it will be sold to the Afghan population. I suppose if we stand around dying long enough they might change their minds, but there's the matter of people losing their family matters in a police action. Asymmetric warfare tactics put us at a distinct disadvantage in such a case. Further, cost of occupation will dwarf what we've spent since it will take years upon years above what we've already spent. People aren't up for another multitrillion dollar escapade. As far as routing the Taliban, it depends on how merciless we decide to be. That's as problematic as any other option because Americans generally frown on the level of prosecution necessary. Read bloody and brutal. I'm not a fan of that either.

So if you plan on a 600k to a million man occupation force (or whatever you want to call them) you have to sell it to a financially strapped nation and convince them that sacrificing their sons for yet another indefinite period is a good thing. Plus you'll have to bring back the draft because our forces would all be committed to one task. Can you sell that not to me, but the American public?

I'm not sure how you would sell this to the American people or Europe for that matter. I think that's what you are asking for, but if not you'll have to be more specific.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top