^ Only because the women wouldn't get to vote.

From everything I've read, there's no such thing as "Afganistan". There's tribes who've been grouped together on a map and could give a rats ass about working together.

Tajiks & Uzbeks in the North don't give a shit about Talibs and Pashtuns in the South unless they're being killed by the Coalition forces, at which point they celebrate. I've read articles that claim Taliban mujahideen under one commander sit around idly while another group of Taliban mujahideen are in a fierce fight with Coalition forces, just because they're from another tribe or their commanders got into an argument.

The only reason for the US to be there, other than denying the Taliban widespread operational control, is the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline. Pakistan and India are huge markets for natural gas and a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan would allow Chevron/Unocal to move oil & natural gas from it's fields in Turkmenistan to these markets while avoiding Russia & Iran.

Given our poor relations with both Iran & Pakistan, it appears they've both decided to say 'fuck you' to the U.S. and build a pipeline directly between Iran and Pakistan. The only thing stopping them at this point is that because of the sanctions on Iran (because of their 'nuclear threat') no development banks will finance the project.

AlohaChris wrote:

Tajiks & Uzbeks in the North don't give a shit about Talibs and Pashtuns in the South unless they're being killed by the Coalition forces, at which point they celebrate.

For some reason that made me think of America

Some posts seem to have disappeared, Peter Brown - the Taliban aren’t creatures from some alien planet though, but fellow Afghanis – if, as the Russians discovered and AlohaChris notes as well, there even is such a thing.

Lieutenant-Colonel Daniel Davis traveled across the country for a year, last month “issuing a grim assessment and accusing his superiors of covering up the harsh realities that plague the mission.”

“What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by US military leaders about conditions on the ground,” Davis wrote in an article published in Armed Forces Journal, a private newspaper not affiliated with the Pentagon.

“Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level,” he wrote under the headline, “Truth, lies and Afghanistan: how military leaders have let us down.”

Local Afghan government officials were failing to serve the population and their security forces were reluctant to fight insurgents or were colluding with the Taliban, he wrote.

“How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding and behind an array of more than seven years of optimistic statements by US senior leaders in Afghanistan?” he said.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030

Maybe it’s high time to let them resolve their own problems?

Like some Middle East academics, I also simply don’t think that democracy works in tribal societies like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria or Egypt or any other Arab country – they simply don’t respect the sort of co-operative style of government operating in western countries.

In Libya some tribal groups are presently already busily jockeying for their own share of the oil reserves. Egypt overthrew its regime yet its heartland is not Cairo but the countless villages along the Nile, almost all overwhelmingly ultra-conservative Muslims.

And remember Iraq? How many died in the name of establishing democracy?

Sectarian bombings continue to sweep Iraq, with many moderate Iraqis asking themselves what the US occupation was meant to achieve, or how their lives are now supposed to improve for the better. Many fear that the country is teetering on the brink of another long wave of sectarian bloodshed; more than 500 died during January alone. And it’s not simply between Sunni and Shia either, but also between factions within each, not forgetting the Kurds.

Meantime the Government is cracking down hard on freedom of expression and assembly, using beatings, intimidation and arbitrary detention. The US intervention didn’t create so much a stable democracy as a budding police state.

This is a forum for thinkers and rational people? When did this happen? I must have missed it! All things are relative I suppose . . .

Rick wrote:

And remember Iraq? How many died in the name of establishing democracy?

oh is that the reason du jour? There's been so many explanations given for why we invaded and killed and mutilated all those men, women and children that I tend to forget whats fashionable.

Rick wrote:I also simply don’t think that democracy works in tribal societies like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria or Egypt or any other Arab country – they simply don’t respect the sort of co-operative style of government operating in western countries.

Only, it's not just "democracy" is it. There is a lot that goes along with that. It's a package deal. To say "democracy won't work in 'tribal' societies" is the same as saying that their society won't work in the west. Of course it won't "work". It's being imposed by the largest military in the world.

sandinista wrote:

Rick wrote:I also simply don’t think that democracy works in tribal societies like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria or Egypt or any other Arab country – they simply don’t respect the sort of co-operative style of government operating in western countries.

Only, it's not just "democracy" is it. There is a lot that goes along with that. It's a package deal. To say "democracy won't work in 'tribal' societies" is the same as saying that their society won't work in the west. Of course it won't "work". It's being imposed by the largest military in the world.

That... and people tend to forget that the Praised Democracy in our part of the world has been a few 100 years in the making.
They expect culture and tradition to change over night to accommodate us.
Wont, and wont work.
Hell it even takes decades to make people wear seat belts. Democracy is slightly more difficult than that.

Sure, sandinista, millions of young Arabs think that democracy will do away with corruption, and moreover, that once gotten, it will somehow miraculously deliver western-style economic opportunities and prosperity.

Well, who knows, and good luck to them - maybe in some cases it even will, but I don’t think I’ll hold my breath, especially in respect of the latter, since democracy and economic prosperity don’t necessarily equate.

For what it’s worth, and because of historical development mostly, I disagree that Afghani aversion of strangers is no different to that of other Muslims.


I thought I’d better observe political correctness, biscuit . . .

Maybe it’s high time to let them resolve their own problems?

I agree, the terrorists brought the war to us, we killed a number of leaders and camps, mission done time to go until the next time they cross the line.

But my point in this thread was a man goes crazy we should recognise that he did indeed go insane. Now he is just being used as a political tool or condemned without regard to his insanity.

If traders want to exploit Muslim nation’s resources well they have to learn to do it without the guns of external big governments.

This is a forum for thinkers and rational people? When did this happen?

It's all in the banner top of the page bro

Peter Brown wrote:

But my point in this thread was a man goes crazy we should recognise that he did indeed go insane. Now he is just being used as a political tool or condemned without regard to his insanity.

If indeed he did,maybe he just got angry.

And really, any sympathy I have in this situation goes to the families of the dead.

Kinda funny, but now the US, and the right over there can use the catchphrase of the apologists:
He misunderstood the mission.
He is not representative of the majority.
He is a lone nutcase.
This was an individual incident, please do not tar the rest of us with the same brush.
Hell, perhaps the majority will even remain silent as regards condemnation.
He was insane.


Oh the ironing!

Stublore wrote:Kinda funny, but now the US, and the right over there can use the catchphrase of the apologists:
He misunderstood the mission.
He is not representative of the majority.
He is a lone nutcase.
This was an individual incident, please do not tar the rest of us with the same brush.
Hell, perhaps the majority will even remain silent as regards condemnation.
He was insane.


Oh the ironing!

Everybody tries to blame the ironing.

There is no taliban and in fact no Afghanistan. Its just a geographic area of different tribes who have nothing in common

Peter Brown wrote:I agree, the terrorists brought the war to us

what? You mean the attack was unprovoked? False. It was a case of the chickens coming home to roost. You can only push so much before someone pushes back.

Peter Brown wrote:we killed a number of leaders and camps, mission done time to go until the next time they cross the line.

Next time they cross the line? Why doesn't the US stop "crossing the line". The best way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it.

Stublore wrote:Kinda funny, but now the US, and the right over there can use the catchphrase of the apologists:
He misunderstood the mission.
He is not representative of the majority.
He is a lone nutcase.
This was an individual incident, please do not tar the rest of us with the same brush.
Hell, perhaps the majority will even remain silent as regards condemnation.
He was insane.


Oh the ironing!

You mean hypocrisy. Everything that comes from the US regime is laden with hypocrisy.

Peter Brown wrote:

Maybe it’s high time to let them resolve their own problems?

I agree, the terrorists brought the war to us, we killed a number of leaders and camps, mission done time to go until the next time they cross the line.

But my point in this thread was a man goes crazy we should recognise that he did indeed go insane. Now he is just being used as a political tool or condemned without regard to his insanity.

If traders want to exploit Muslim nation’s resources well they have to learn to do it without the guns of external big government.

It’s doubtful the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11, Peter.

I don’t think the sergeant is being condemned out of hand at all – he’s to be examined and tried by the US military. The fact that he also shot a two-year-old doesn’t strike me as epitomizing exemplary sanity.

Countries have always used military might for protecting and extending their overseas economic interests, and I doubt things will chance. You’ve probably also heard of the Carter Doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Doctrine

On the other hand, I seem to remember that when Russia went into Afghanistan, some in the US crowed how it was digging its very own Vietnam – how clever then to follow suit!

The Taliban link was probably casual in that you can’t set up a terrorist camp in a field without the local chief getting tribute in kind, so to speak. But you know, being paid for favours is like the everyday culture it seems.

Which is why I feel the "war on terror" there is over until they (the Taliban) get a new tribute and let terrorist set up shop again. Which I again guess is why our armies are still there, to leave Afgan forces (run by our bribed officials) in a position to stop terrorist cells re opening camps?

Schools for girls, which is how MP’s sell Brit troops over here to us, no doubt was to add icing on the cake for the liberals and reformers. The spin now is 400+ troops dead, let’s keep the troops there so more troops can die so the 400 didn’t die in vain. But like I wrote, it wasn’t a glorious task, just kill a few terrorist, bust a few camps, and jobs done, all troops did their job fantastically, well done, time to go.

Rick wrote:

On the other hand, I seem to remember that when Russia went into Afghanistan, some in the US crowed how it was digging its very own Vietnam – how clever then to follow suit!

ah the good old days when the US were so outraged by a country invading Aghanistan they were moved to boycott a whole Olympic games...oh the hypocrisy!

biscuit wrote:

Rick wrote:

On the other hand, I seem to remember that when Russia went into Afghanistan, some in the US crowed how it was digging its very own Vietnam – how clever then to follow suit!

ah the good old days when the US were so outraged by a country invading Aghanistan they were moved to boycott a whole Olympic games...oh the hypocrisy!

Well, that's how many Americans think. The U.S. assumed that nothing would be a bigger political statement than boycotting a SPORTING EVENT. I imagine that they expected the Soviets to run home out of sheer terror of what the U.S. might do next.

sandinista wrote:

Stublore wrote:...
Oh the ironing!

You mean hypocrisy. Everything that comes from the US regime is laden with hypocrisy.

>_>

<_<

The US has Bin Laden with Hypocrisy Indeed.

400 eh, Peter – It makes me angry! What a waste of young lives!

Anyway, I respect all of the western soldiers that ended up in that hellhole.

Yet what brilliant strategy to let the Taliban know that we’d moving out in a couple of years anyway!