Afghanistan, your opinion...

[reefraff]

From what I understand the Taliban is charging the poppy growers "protection" money. As far as us helping create the taliban that would be like saying curing a person of cancer later killed them when they died of a heart attack. True if the first event hadn't occurred the second wouldn't have either but hey, "stuff" happens. There is nothing we could have done to prevent the Taliban that wouldn't have lead to even worse circumstances.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3155996
From what I understand the Taliban is charging the poppy growers "protection" money.
They did, that's why I said they weren't entirely opposed to it. The fact remains that is was in Taliban controlled territory where opium production fell most substantially when Mullah Omar declared its production Un-Islamic. Production began increasing again as soon as he was ousted.
As far as us helping create the taliban that would be like saying curing a person of cancer later killed them when they died of a heart attack.
Didn't say we created them. OBL was one of our allies during Soviet war as well.
This is part of the trouble in believing that the war can be won on a level that we, as Westerners understand. Allegiances in the region are far more flexible than they are among Western nations. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an important concept to bear in mind when practicing diplomacy in the Mid-East. There is no friendship to be had in that statment, merely greater or lesser degrees of enemies. For better or worse, it's a cultural difference that needs to be understood when attempting to define victory.
True if the first event hadn't occurred the second wouldn't have either but hey, "stuff" happens. There is nothing we could have done to prevent the Taliban that wouldn't have lead to even worse circumstances.
Like the one we're in now.
The one thing we could've done was leave well enough alone from the beginning, but we chose not to do that. Instead, we chose to play the role the Soviets did w/ us in Viet Nam. We were the enemy of their enemy. We are not now, nor were we ever their friends.
My prediction is that the Afghan situation will end similarly to Viet-Nam.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3156009
They did, that's why I said they weren't entirely opposed to it. The fact remains that is was in Taliban controlled territory where opium production fell most substantially when Mullah Omar declared its production Un-Islamic. Production began increasing again as soon as he was ousted.
Didn't say we created them. OBL was one of our allies during Soviet war as well.
This is part of the trouble in believing that the war can be won on a level that we, as Westerners understand. Allegiances in the region are far more flexible than they are among Western nations. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an important concept to bear in mind when practicing diplomacy in the Mid-East. There is no friendship to be had in that statment, merely greater or lesser degrees of enemies. For better or worse, it's a cultural difference that needs to be understood when attempting to define victory.
Like the one we're in now.
The one thing we could've done was leave well enough alone from the beginning, but we chose not to do that. Instead, we chose to play the role the Soviets did w/ us in Viet Nam. We were the enemy of their enemy. We are not now, nor were we ever their friends.
My prediction is that the Afghan situation will end similarly to Viet-Nam.
Leaving Russia in Afghanistan would have been a disaster. OBL, at the time he received indirect US aid wasn't known as a terrorist, he was a member of a well known Saudi family. There was no reason to look at him as an enemy at the time.
I wish people in this country would learn the lessons of Vietnam which is don't start any war you aren't ready, willing and able to complete. Afghanistan may be too backwards to fix. When the majority of your population is basically in the dark about what is going on it is very easy for a group like the Taliban to step in and take over. We had to break up the Taliban but I think perhaps we should just bomb the snot out of the training camps as they rebuild them and call it good.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3156063
Leaving Russia in Afghanistan would have been a disaster. OBL, at the time he received indirect US aid wasn't known as a terrorist, he was a member of a well known Saudi family. There was no reason to look at him as an enemy at the time.
I agree to an extent. You're slightly missing my point however. OBL certainly was known as a terrorist - to the Russians. He was not our enemy at the time. Neither were we his friend. We were the enemy of his enemy, period. There is no doubt in my mind that he used us as a means to his end, which was to get the Russians out. Once that goal was achieved, his objectives changed.
He is a perfect example of one man's freedom fighter being another's terrorist.
I wish people in this country would learn the lessons of Vietnam which is don't start any war you aren't ready, willing and able to complete.
You are more trusting of the Government and its intentions than I am. I'm not so sure the result in VietNam wasn't by design.
Afghanistan may be too backwards to fix.
More importantly, you cannot fix what they do not percieve to be broken. If they don't want it "fixed" it ain't gonna happen. We can bomb them into the stone age (oh - wait - they never left) or turn Afghanistan into a 21st century digital mall (which would cost a damn sight less than the war has so far), and they'll continue to resist us or whatever governmant we install in our stead. The point is, they don't want to change. The Brits tried and failed, the Russians spent 10 years and failed, the Taliban tried to establish a central gov't and failed, we're closing in on 10 years there, and I give us a 2% chance of success. That's the last 75 years or so. The previous 2000 or so were spent the same way they were after Alexander the Great failed to take them over: goatherding and growing pumpkins.
When the majority of your population is basically in the dark about what is going on...
Are you talking about the Afghanis, or Americans?

 

[mantisman51]

I agree with uneverno here. I want us to crush the Taliban and Al Qeada like the cockroaches they are, but turn Afghanistan into a real democracy-no way. But, what do I know?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3156209
I agree to an extent. You're slightly missing my point however. OBL certainly was known as a terrorist - to the Russians. He was not our enemy at the time. Neither were we his friend. We were the enemy of his enemy, period. There is no doubt in my mind that he used us as a means to his end, which was to get the Russians out. Once that goal was achieved, his objectives changed.
He is a perfect example of one man's freedom fighter being another's terrorist.
You are more trusting of the Government and its intentions than I am. I'm not so sure the result in VietNam wasn't by design.
More importantly, you cannot fix what they do not percieve to be broken. If they don't want it "fixed" it ain't gonna happen. We can bomb them into the stone age (oh - wait - they never left) or turn Afghanistan into a 21st century digital mall (which would cost a damn sight less than the war has so far), and they'll continue to resist us or whatever governmant we install in our stead. The point is, they don't want to change. The Brits tried and failed, the Russians spent 10 years and failed, the Taliban tried to establish a central gov't and failed, we're closing in on 10 years there, and I give us a 2% chance of success. That's the last 75 years or so. The previous 2000 or so were spent the same way they were after Alexander the Great failed to take them over: goatherding and growing pumpkins.
Are you talking about the Afghanis, or Americans?

If the people have no idea what is going on in their country, or the rest of the world for that matter how do you convince them there is a better way? To try to develop their infrastructure we would indeed have to install a government. Yep, that would go over really well.
Maybe we should turn Archer Daniels lose over there and contract with the people to grow crops. None of these governments have been able to solve the problem, give private business a shot. Once the government gets stable enough they can just nationalize what we developed for them. Worked with oil fields in enough places, why not wheat fields

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3156254
I agree with uneverno here. I want us to crush the Taliban and Al Qeada like the cockroaches they are, but turn Afghanistan into a real democracy-no way. But, what do I know?

The problem is if we blow the bejesus out of everything and leave the Taliban will just take it back over. You can't just leave it a vacuum, thats how the Taliban took over in the first place. If the UN wasn't such a waste they could assemble a peace keeping force made up of neighboring countries. Unfortunately that wont happen.

 

[mantisman51]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3156317

The problem is if we blow the bejesus out of everything and leave the Taliban will just take it back over. You can't just leave it a vacuum, thats how the Taliban took over in the first place. If the UN wasn't such a waste they could assemble a peace keeping force made up of neighboring countries. Unfortunately that wont happen.
I agree Reef. That's why I am torn. If we leave, the training camps get set up all over again, women and girls will stoned for exposing their ankles and those that support us will be slaughtered. We bombed North Vietnam into oblivion (Operation Linebacker II)and then walked away when they no longer had the capacity to fight, then after a year and a half of Russia and China rebuilding them, they marched into Saigon. We don't have the capacity to bomb the Taliban into dust, and we can't just walk away. What a mess.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3156315
Worked with oil fields in enough places, why not wheat fields
Well, first off, it hasn't worked with the oil fields. Most of the countries that supply us with oil are brutal dictatorships (whom we support, whether outright or clandestinely), not democracies. Those we count among our "friends" are good military clients like the Saudis - who gave us how many of the 19? Those we count among our enemies are those who want nothing to do with us, like Iran and Venezuela - but we'll still buy their hydrocarbons... The one "democracy" we're currently involved in enforcing (no oxymoron there), has so far resulted in such a drastic reduction in oil production that it's a trickle of what it was under its former Baath dictatorship.
Brutalize your friends and castigate your enemies. Hardly a sensible way to run a business - unless there's something we're not being told...
Secondly, only 12% of Afghanistan's land is arable. They have no other natural resources worth exploiting. They can barely grow enough food there to feed the population, let alone make a profit on whatever miniscule surplus they can squeeze out of it. Wheat goes for what - $5.00 per bushel in the US? So what would we pay them in order to maximize profit on the commodities exchange - 12¢ per bushel? Meantime, what's opium/heroin or hash go for?
These people whom you claim to live in the dark under a bushel basket have a pretty good grip on economics. How are they to become upstanding members of the "Society of Nations" when they have nothing of "societally acceptable" monetary value to offer in return? Capitalism has no answer to that question.
Thirdly, define "better way." They're not so stupid that they're completely unaware of our lifestyle. Maybe they just reject it. Do they have the right to self determination? Do we have a right to force our will upon them? Is it, as Henry Ford said of the Model T: "You can have any color you want as long as it's black?"
Lastly, if it's in our best interest for our Government to enforce our way of life upon someone else, how long will it be before that same Gov't assumes it's OK to enforce its will upon us?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3156367
Well, first off, it hasn't worked with the oil fields. Most of the countries that supply us with oil are brutal dictatorships (whom we support, whether outright or clandestinely), not democracies. Those we count among our "friends" are good military clients like the Saudis - who gave us how many of the 19? Those we count among our enemies are those who want nothing to do with us, like Iran and Venezuela - but we'll still buy their hydrocarbons... The one "democracy" we're currently involved in enforcing (no oxymoron there), has so far resulted in such a drastic reduction in oil production that it's a trickle of what it was under its former Baath dictatorship.
Brutalize your friends and castigate your enemies. Hardly a sensible way to run a business - unless there's something we're not being told...
Secondly, only 12% of Afghanistan's land is arable. They have no other natural resources worth exploiting. They can barely grow enough food there to feed the population, let alone make a profit on whatever miniscule surplus they can squeeze out of it. Wheat goes for what - $5.00 per bushel in the US? So what would we pay them in order to maximize profit on the commodities exchange - 12¢ per bushel? Meantime, what's opium/heroin or hash go for?
These people whom you claim to live in the dark under a bushel basket have a pretty good grip on economics. How are they to become upstanding members of the "Society of Nations" when they have nothing of "societally acceptable" monetary value to offer in return? Capitalism has no answer to that question.
Thirdly, define "better way." They're not so stupid that they're completely unaware of our lifestyle. Maybe they just reject it. Do they have the right to self determination? Do we have a right to force our will upon them? Is it, as Henry Ford said of the Model T: "You can have any color you want as long as it's black?"
Lastly, if it's in our best interest for our Government to enforce our way of life upon someone else, how long will it be before that same Gov't assumes it's OK to enforce its will upon us?
I was being halfassed sarcastic about the oil fields/wheat fields. I do think as far as developing their infrastructure allowing private industry to come in and exploit the situation for evil financial gain might be the ultimate answer.
Don't confuse ignorant with stupid. When you have people living in sparsely populated places with little or no contact with the outside world, no radio, TV etc. they are ignorant as to what is going on in the world. People who support Obama are stupid

Pushing a country into a democracy is a good thing but like W said about Iraq we can't expect their version of democracy to look like ours.

 

[mgatdog]

Sorry to say it's a war that we'll never win.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3156432
I was being halfassed sarcastic about the oil fields/wheat fields. I do think as far as developing their infrastructure allowing private industry to come in and exploit the situation for evil financial gain might be the ultimate answer.
Fair enough to the first sentence. To the second, it's their choice. If K-Mart wants to set up shop, let them. Just don't use the US Marine Corp to defend said shop.
Don't confuse ignorant with stupid.
I don't. I've lived in the third world. People there are far less ignorant and far better informed than most Americans are.
When you have people living in sparsely populated places with little or no contact with the outside world, no radio, TV etc. they are ignorant as to what is going on in the world. People who support Obama are stupid
Perhaps, perhaps not. The comparison is a non-sequitur. The media spin when they don't outright lie. Those who have no access to the media are also not exposed to spin. What they know is what they live.
Pushing a country into a democracy is a good thing but like W said about Iraq we can't expect their version of democracy to look like ours.
See, here, I'm confused. We're going to push democracy on a tribal society that has no concept of what democracy is?
A) Enforcing democracy is not democratic
B) The surrounding nations need to be taken into account. E.g. Poland was carved up by the Germans, Russians and Austro-Hungarians because its democracy was a threat to their empires.
How, why, how is it in my interest and, more importantly in my soldier's best interest, to pay for that? What is the end game? Define victory. When will our government feel the situation is secure enough to leave? What's the plan to accomplish that? How is it being implemented?
Who's answering those questions? All I've heard for 8 years is that controlling Afghanistan is a matter of National Security.
In a way Clinton had it right. Shooting a cruise missile into a tent is the equivalent of using a hammer to kill a wasp. It's ineffective, expensive, causes more damage than it repairs, and it pisses the wasp (who then goes and tells his buddies) off.

 

[reefraff]

There are about three thousand people who would have liked for Clinton to have done more than shoot a missile at a tent.
How is pushing them into Democracy good? If you don't understand that without having to ask I got nothin for ya.
So you think people with little contact from outside their village are more informed than people exposed to several different forms of media, spun or not, Telephone, E-mail, easy transportation to other areas etc. ??? Again, got nothin for ya %%

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3156948
There are about three thousand people who would have liked for Clinton to have done more than shoot a missile at a tent.
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but let's take the argument at face value. How many of the hijackers were Saudi again? Why are we not at war with the terrorist's sponsors rather than their clients? Sockems, let me think...
How is pushing them into Democracy good? If you don't understand that without having to ask I got nothin for ya.
What I don't understand is how Democracy can be pushed at all. Pushing something upon someone is, by definition, the antithesis of Democracy. I.e. Democracy cannot be enforced.
So you think people with little contact from outside their village are more informed than people exposed to several different forms of media, spun or not, Telephone, E-mail, easy transportation to other areas etc. ??? Again, got nothin for ya %%
No, you're putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that I've lived in remote places in the 3rd world and the people where I've lived are well informed. The major difference between them and us in terms of information reception is that theirs is not instant. They get the news a week or so later than we do if no-one in the village has a shortwave radio.
Now, I can't speak to Afghanistan in particular, never having been there, but I seriously doubt they're completely cut off from news of world events. Information travels differently, but it still travels, just like it did here before radio, tv, email, and easy transportation. Villages are generally built on trade routes, meaning, people from other places transit them...
Do you imagine there was anyone in Afghanistan who didn't know about the WTC attack within a week of the event?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3157033
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but let's take the argument at face value. How many of the hijackers were Saudi again? Why are we not at war with the terrorist's sponsors rather than their clients? Sockems, let me think...
What country were the terrorist training camps Al Qaeda operated in again? If we had disrupted their training it is likely 9-11 wouldn't have happened.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3157033
What I don't understand is how Democracy can be pushed at all. Pushing something upon someone is, by definition, the antithesis of Democracy. I.e. Democracy cannot be enforced.
No, you're putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that I've lived in remote places in the 3rd world and the people where I've lived are well informed. The major difference between them and us in terms of information reception is that theirs is not instant. They get the news a week or so later than we do if no-one in the village has a shortwave radio.
Now, I can't speak to Afghanistan in particular, never having been there, but I seriously doubt they're completely cut off from news of world events. Information travels differently, but it still travels, just like it did here before radio, tv, email, and easy transportation. Villages are generally built on trade routes, meaning, people from other places transit them...
Do you imagine there was anyone in Afghanistan who didn't know about the WTC attack within a week of the event?

Dont know about since we've been there but at the time we invaded the Taliban was controlling a large section of the country so the people only heard what they were allowed. I think there were only like 12,000 telephone lines in the whole country of what, 20 million? Not sure about other media but the majority of the population is in rural areas so there couldn't have been much in the way of media even in the area's the Taliban wasn't in control of.

 

[mantisman51]

An aside, if I may. This is why I support the kick in the butt that the Dems are trying to give us toward alternative energy. For the last 20 years the Saudi's have been playing both sides. Sponsoring these terrorists to keep them from going after the house of Saud. The sooner we don't need them, the sooner they go back to goat herding on the sand dunes.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3157185
An aside, if I may. This is why I support the kick in the butt that the Dems are trying to give us toward alternative energy. For the last 20 years the Saudi's have been playing both sides. Sponsoring these terrorists to keep them from going after the house of Saud. The sooner we don't need them, the sooner they go back to goat herding on the sand dunes.
Unfortunately there is no alternative energy solution that doesn['t include nuclear and they wont hear of that.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3157181
What country were the terrorist training camps Al Qaeda operated in again? If we had disrupted their training it is likely 9-11 wouldn't have happened.
Known, or unknown?
What we knew of (assuming our "intelligence" was correct) was: The Sudan (Darfur), Somalia, Yemen (North and South), Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Nigeria, Niger, Lybia, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Mali, Malawi, The Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, The Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangla Desh, ... Other unknowns - shall I speculate?
Better yet - how you gonna control that? Seriously.
Dont know about since we've been there but at the time we invaded the Taliban was controlling a large section of the country so the people only heard what they were allowed.
mmmm - OK. So filtering the news has an influence on society? Absolutely, I agree. That's why I garner my information from multiple sources. The truth, I find, is somewhere in between what I believe and its opposite.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3157188
Unfortunately there is no alternative energy solution that doesn't include nuclear and they wont hear of that.
Ufff - - - - I call BS.
There are plenty of alternatives. First and foremost, solar. After that, wind, tidal, even biological.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3158081
Known, or unknown?
What we knew of (assuming our "intelligence" was correct) was: The Sudan (Darfur), Somalia, Yemen (North and South), Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Nigeria, Niger, Lybia, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Mali, Malawi, The Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, The Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangla Desh, ... Other unknowns - shall I speculate?
Better yet - how you gonna control that? Seriously.
mmmm - OK. So filtering the news has an influence on society? Absolutely, I agree. That's why I garner my information from multiple sources. The truth, I find, is somewhere in between what I believe and its opposite.
Without a strong base to operate out of, which was in Afghanistan, the group would have had a much harder time planning their activities. Had we been striking them at their main base of operations would they have had the time and resources to still pull of 9-11? It's possible but I doubt it. Clinton made the same mistake George the first in in the Gulf war. He let a bunch of elitist eurotrash and 3rd world dictators (aka the UN) convince him we had to play nice with the Arabs lest we make them mad at us. That really worked out %%
As far as media I couldn't agree more. I watch FOX because no other media source I have seen does a better job at bringing in people from opposing view points to debate an issue so you get to see things from both sides. Even so I don't take things I hear there at face value and look to other sources like AP or local papers to confirm it if I hadn't heard it elsewhere. CNN has actually gotten better at providing other perspectives on certain programs. BSNBC had actually been following the FOX formula before they decided to get in the tank for Obama.
Before Chris Matthews decided to go full out for the left my viewing schedule was Matthews who was just a tad left of center, Oreilly who was/is a tad right of center, then Hannity and Colmes. It was a great way to get info. Neither Oreilly or Matthews was in the tank for either party then you got two partisans going nose to nose.