 |
| |
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
In due time? IIRC, the US has tried bribery, which doesn't seem to be working. The US isn't reinforcing either, so how will it disarm the warlords?
I reckon the US attacked in great haste without a comprehensive post-war plan. That was understandable in light of 9-11 attack. However, it's not even an excuse more than a year after Taliban has been kicked out. |
Disarming the warlords isn't the key to stability in the country. Somewhere down the line yes, but in the next 5 years, NO.
The US and the warlords had to work together to kick out the Taliban. They are our allies. There are even some scumbags mixed in there but they are our allies regardless. Sometimes to kick the biggest scumbags on the block out, you have to work with some other scumbags to get the job done. The US/UK working with the USSR to destroy Nazi Germany and Japan is the most prime example of this. But the US just didn't turn around and then obliterate the Russians (even though Patton wanted to) just because we didn't like they way they ran business. That would have meant an even bigger mess.
The problem the Soviets had in Afghanistan was that they came in and tried to run the whole place in the way that you are advocating. And it led to a complete disaster.
YES, 1 year IS an excuse.
No not enough is being done in Afghanistan, but, compared with the last 20, I'd say that's damn good progess. 
Last edited by Ted Striker on 10-03-2003 at 09:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
In due time? IIRC, the US has tried bribery, which doesn't seem to be working. The US isn't reinforcing either, so how will it disarm the warlords?
|
Now you want us to attack the warlords, but not Saddam? Eventhough the warlords haven't done any bad things to us and don't hate us as much as Saddam?
quote:
I reckon the US attacked in great haste without a comprehensive post-war plan. That was understandable in light of 9-11 attack. However, it's not even an excuse more than a year after Taliban has been kicked out. |
Regardless how you twist the fact here, the truth is that Afghanistan is getting better, and that's what counts.
I could also go on an endless tirade about how corrupt Chinese government is and how much China still sucks. But I won't do that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002
time: 22:26
|
|
Oerdin:
quote:
LM: Don't bother Urban Dullard with logical consistancies. He's not good at that. |
Can the insults be left in the abandoned thread, at the very least, please?
Following UR from thread to thread to call him a "dullard" seems a little over the top, no?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
Disarming the warlords isn't the key to stability in the country. Somewhere down the line yes, but in the next 5 years, NO. |
With the warlords running around, that the government is not obeyed outside of Kabul, there's not really a country is it?
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
The US and the warlords had to work together to kick out the Taliban. They are our allies. There are even some scumbags mixed in there but they are our allies regardless. Sometimes to kick the biggest scumbags on the block out, you have to work with some other scumbags to get the job done. The US/UK working with the USSR to destroy Nazi Germany and Japan is the most prime example of this. But the US just didn't turn around and then obliterate the Russians (even though Patton wanted to) just because we didn't like they way they ran business. That would have meant an even bigger mess. |
That's silly, comparing warlords with countries.
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
No not enough is being done in Afghanistan, but, compared with the last 20, I'd say that's damn good progess. |
I am not so sure. At least under the Taliban, 95% of the country had law and order. Maybe it wasn't the kind of law you like, but law nevertheless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
I saw a huge half hour piece which NPR did on him at the time. I have no idea where you got the idea he was ignored but it is obviously not a good source. As I recall there was some controversy during Karzai's visit because he asked for more money but several high ranking Democratic senitors told him he'd have to publicly admite that the Afghan state would be unable to proform its duties without more aid money.
Of course the Dems were fishing for an issue to hammer Bush on and I think it is ugly partisianship at its worst that they'd try to tie support to Afghanistan to domestic politics. I'm disguested but not surprised... |
Actually, I understand that several Republican senators told him the same thing - that he couldn't sugarcoat things and ask for more aid money at the same time.
It reminds me of a story told by Kissinger, about Viet Nam. - Seems on one tour of the RVN, a local official, talking about the "pacification" programs in the province, told the US officials that things were going great, the province was 90% pacified. Then a year later, another group, and the same guy told the US officials that things were going great, the province was 80% pacified. 
As far as hamming Bush, that isn't hard - we have the economy, unemployment, gasoline prices, deficits, the DPRK crisis, the new revelations about Iran's nukes program, and all sorts of things we could hammer Bush on. The biggest problem the Dems have is getting someone who will hammer effectively, but you can be the Dems emphasis won't be on hammering Bush over Afghanistan, but on the domestic agenda - it's what allowed Clinton to beat Bush's daddy, so the Dems will try to work the same thing.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-2003 06:00
|