 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
Measuring a war by kill ratios: why, it was such a successful policy in Vietnam, lets bring it back! Stick with what works, no?
LoTM:
Impresive effort, and yet misguided. Why are your opinions better? You ask for Fisk to source. Fine question, but you don't source either. So its your set of opinions vs. his. Which moves the discussion nowhere as you presented no more facts than him, only a different interpretation.
I think the basic point of the Fisk article stands: it has been more then a year since this war begun and many many months since we declared it won. onefootinthe grave presented a very good set of links none of you anti-Fiskers have yet taken on. Most of the links have nothing to do with Fisk, but everything to do with the topic, the state of Afghanistan. And they don't paint a pretty picture.
So let me make AH' point (or what I see as his point) again, in a more direct way:
When you imagined where Afghanistan would be at this point after the war, did you envision this sort of situation or did you expect (and perhaps state here in these posts) a different, more "rosy" notion of where the admin. would put us by now? To simplify that: Did the Bush admin. do as well as you expected it to do? Did it do better? Worse? and would you care to answer how you came to that assesment?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I think the basic point of the Fisk article stands: it has been more then a year since this war begun and many many months since we declared it won. onefootinthe grave presented a very good set of links none of you anti-Fiskers have yet taken on. Most of the links have nothing to do with Fisk, but everything to do with the topic, the state of Afghanistan. And they don't paint a pretty picture.
|
Well, if things really get worse, you would expect more refugees fleeing from Afghanistan. But the truth is that millions of refugees are returning home.
If we look back in history, what was Germany like in 1946? Did anyone think back then that Germany would have a "Wirtschaftswunder" coming up in a few years?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Just curious...
Why don't all the compassionate and caring Europeans and Australians go to Afganastan and actually help the situation there instead of sitting in their armchhairs and writing clever columns about evil Americans?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:25
|
|
The war in Afghanistan is going about like I expected. Taliban and Al Qaida were the paper tigers I expected in a conventional fight, and their popularity isn't enough to put the whole country in play via guerilla warfare. To pacify the country requires troop numbers that no one can afford, not to mention supply. The only way to bolster the effectiveness of the troops is to increase the popularity of the political program, and that is difficult in a country as riven by internal dissention as Afghanistan.
As long as we retain sufficient forces in Afghanistan to continually disrupt attempts to re-establish terror infrastructure, I am satisfied that we are accomplishing the vital portion of our mission. People keep comparing this to Viet Nam, when so far it's been more comparable to the "Mayaguez Incident". The key IMO is to break the country into ethnic regions where we may pursue different tactics. This allows us to develop a political program that fits each group as best it can, which will maximize this critical aspect of pacifying the country. As Karzai's government grows in power (or perhaps if it grows in power) we can turn over these areas to Afghan Army control.
Honestly, I hope that Al Qaida people keep going to Afghanistan, because it's a lot easier killing them there where they die unlamented and unremembered rather than in their home countries where they can operate much more effectively, and with the cover of civilians and their own governments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
Measuring a war by kill ratios: why, it was such a successful policy in Vietnam, lets bring it back! Stick with what works, no?
LoTM:
Impresive effort, and yet misguided. Why are your opinions better? You ask for Fisk to source. Fine question, but you don't source either.
LOTM: uh yeah, well im not the professional journalist being paid by The independent to write this stuff. Im just a poster to Poly responding when someone posts Fisk as authoritative. Sorry GePap, i dont have time to source everything. I got a life. I will try to post individual links when i can. Most of what i did you will note was take Fisks own facts and show that they paint a different picture then Fisk says they do. If you think there are any PARTICULAR facts I stated that you dont believe that would help me.
So its your set of opinions vs. his. Which moves the discussion nowhere as you presented no more facts than him, only a different interpretation.
LOTM:since what Fisk did was to wrap a tendentious interpretation around a limited set of facts that seems the appropriate way to deal with him. Do you think his interpretations were more reasonable than mine.
I think the basic point of the Fisk article stands: it has been more then a year since this war begun and many many months since we declared it won.
LOTM: False, we did not declare it won.
onefootinthe grave presented a very good set of links none of you anti-Fiskers have yet taken on. Most of the links have nothing to do with Fisk, but everything to do with the topic, the state of Afghanistan. And they don't paint a pretty picture.
LOTM:Its enough responding to fisk, icant respond to everyone who posts here.
So let me make AH' point (or what I see as his point) again, in a more direct way:
When you imagined where Afghanistan would be at this point after the war, did you envision this sort of situation or did you expect (and perhaps state here in these posts) a different, more "rosy" notion of where the admin. would put us by now?
LOTM: How did i, in October 2001 invision afgan in Feb 2003? good question - i guess i expected (70% chance )that it would be about like this. i feared (25%chance) that it would be far worse - US casualty counts of hundreds if not thousands, stingers hitting our helo's, no control outside of the towns, roads impassable, etc - i guess i was reading stratfor too much. i hoped (5%) that it would be better than this.
All in all its gone better than I expected.
If someone has the patience to search for the opinions i expressed on poly re the above (i do not) i would be interested in seeing them.
/QUOTE]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The question LoTM is not whether things are as bad as they could be, but whether we are anywhere near as good as we were told we would be by the admin. when asked in the aost how it would handle the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Did the services provided match the sales pitch? yes, or no? |
I agree with you that things could be better. Our commitment to Afghanistan is not as good as it should be. But again, I see the glass as half full as opposed to half empty.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-02-2003 00:46
|