 |
|
WRangler Rhymer
|
|
Hey Fez the warlords are not hostile to the U.S. or Karzai. I think it is more likely that the Afghani troops would reach some argreement with the warlords, maybe they make them the Afghani militia, or have them move to a more desolate spot in Afghanistan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
WRangler Rhymer
|
|
He you like that yeh, but of course if the warlords turned they will most likely face death.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
WRangler Rhymer
|
|
That is a good point. The warlord will most likely decomision themself as more cities and places to go spring up. When it grows more urbanized the warlords will abolish themself as they find something else to do like joining the Afghani army or working at the Kabul Burger King. Karzai Also has some green brets helping protect him and the city of Kabul.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ecthelion
Fez, why are there not as many troops in there then? everyone promised to build a new Afghanistan before they marched in 
even some of my "friends" (   ) here told me so, and I always knew it was bullshit. not that I mind. sometimes you need to bullshit people to bam bam, bam test some cool weapons. I liked the Iraq show, a bit too distant though |
it was always the strategy not to have too many US troops on the ground there - in order to avoid being seen as the occupying power in a nation that has traditionally turned on its occupiers, in both the Soviet and British cases. Ergo, we took the country with the minium possible US troops, and have since maintained less than 10,000 troops there, mainly hunting AQ and Taliban.
While it might be good to have more non-US troops there ( and Karzai has asked for more) there dont seem to be many available. Meanwhile the country is building its own army, and slowly rebuilding infrastructure. We probably should have put more money in earlier though. So should everyone else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
That should be conforting to the Iraquis also... so much for "Iraqui Freedom" if the true intention is just deposing a regime and installing a new one giving not a rat's a s s about anything else... typical though, I couldn't expect less from such an elightened and benevolent nation under an idiot like Bush... |
the strategic situation of Iraq and Afghanistan are profoundly different, as are their potential for democracy.
Strategy - afganistan is not particularly strategically located, its sole importance to AQ was as a failed state that could serve as a remote hideout. Strategically, we only need to insure it does not revert to that status.
Iraq, OTOH, is an arab state, in a central portion of the mideast, with borders on Syria, Iran, and Saudi. Establishing a democracy there shows the Arab world a way out of their dead end, and puts pressure on Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. This is called the
"reverse domino effect" and is based on the experiences of east Asia, latin america, and eastern europe in the 1990's.
Potential for democracy - Iraq is more urban, more connected to the outside world, and has historically had a more educated, modern population than Afganistan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Strategy - afganistan is not particularly strategically located, its sole importance to AQ was as a failed state that could serve as a remote hideout. Strategically, we only need to insure it does not revert to that status.
|
Sorry lotm, if someone doesn't do something about those poppy fields soon, the US is going to lose all credibility for actually caring what Afghanistan is up to.
More at stake in the country than AQ - much more. I walk past junkies on the make almost every day, and it's infuriating to think where that junk ultimately comes from.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
It is very clear that many warlords are playing on both ends. It's another thing which side they like more, but they have the power to play the game, maybe most of them are just getting support and money from Karzais gov or something. The enemy would be pretty much finished if warlords were united and against them, but clearly they are NOT. So, I see nothing wrong with ultimatum, if they want to change the system, they must get rid of warlords and such. They should stop being nice about it and say step down or die. |
In fact the taliban are mainly operating in the south and east. In the warlord-run north and west there are no taliban. Those warlords, Ismael Khan and Dostum, are playing there own games, but are certainly not playing on the side of the taliban. The warlords in the south east are pretty much small potatoes, except for Shirzai in Kandahar, and are being supplanted by Karzai appointed governors. Ive never heard that Shirzai was playing both sides - have you?
Basically the reason hasnt been easy to crush the taliban/AQ is that they can run over to the Pakistan side of the border. Pakistan does not exercise effective control over the tribal border zones, and never has (as the Brits before them never did) Given that, coalition forces, including afghans, are doing a pretty good job.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rev
|
 |
Boulder, CO USA
Apr 2001
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
I am sure if the Afghan Army is fully trained it will deal with it. |
With what money?
Afghanistan's reconstruction was completely left out of Bush's annual budget. The one billion being proposed will help, and it sure sounds like a lot, but in the grand scheme of things it's not very much. As someone else has already noted, we spend that much a *week* in Iraq.
Bush is not a "nation-builder". He's said it himself, he campaigned on it, and he was elected (at least partially) on it. 9/11 changed a lot of things, but it probably won't make a nation-builder out of a staunch conservative.
But that's what people wanted to hear after 9/11: eliminating our foes and reaching out to the world. Since then, we've gotten rid of some of our foes, but we haven't exactly reached out to the world and, in doing so, we're sowing a whole new row of foes.
quote:
What counts is the US has got those ****ers on the run... and that is all that counts. |
No, what counts is whether or not we've stopped or slowed the threats posed by bin Laden's terrorist group. We may have slowed it in the short-term, but we're giving Osama bin Missing a lot more of a field of people to choose from -- people who are even more livid at the US.
Plus, Osama was on the run for quite some time. Even Clinton had a nuclear submarine armed with cruise missiles in the Indian Ocean waiting for good intelligence on Osama's location.
quote:
And? The taliban are now gone. |
Are they?
Surely they've been diminished, but they're not entirely *gone*. They will never be entirely gone because they are not a finite group. We've declared war on an entire strain on beliefs that will not die unless we cut to the root of it.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-07-2003 02:09
|