24
   

GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 08:43 pm
@JTT,
Calm down and we can do without the gutter language. Its my opinion, okay, you have yours and I have mine. I just think Obama is a political animal more than he cares about America.
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 08:51 pm
@JTT,
if the U.S. and other western nations think that afghanistan is a cornerstone of world security , they'll have to pour plenty of money and manpower into afghanistan ... but where is that money going to come from ?
from the "ordinary" citizens , of course !
so if we all vote for a heavy tax increase to finance the afghan security operations , let's go !
anyone stepping forward and voting for a tax increase ???
or do we want it done "on the cheap" ? - that likely won't work .
i think it's just a lot of talk about the afghan security threat .
in the meantime the afghan government and a few chieftains will suck up the money and supplies .

i wonder if karzai has already stashed away money in switzerland or some other safe heaven ?
(in the name of afghan security , of course ! )
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 09:00 pm
@hamburgboy,
Quote:
i wonder if karzai has already stashed away money in switzerland or some other safe heaven ?
(in the name of afghan security , of course ! )


I have a lot of respect for your intelligence, I doubt very much that you are that Naive. Of course he has stashed money way, the real question is does it figure into the tens of millions or is it rather hundreds of millions?
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 09:04 pm
@okie,
I knew my post would get a response, but my purpose was to merely remind everyone of what Obama said, what his policy would be, and all I am asking is for the man to be held to account, to find out if he meant what he said, if he has changed his mind and why, or just what he intends to do? You see, I did not buy what he said then, because I think it was merely a political stance for polticial purposes, not because he believed it and would follow it up with actual policy. I remember the man saying repeatedly in every debate he participated in, that Bush had "taken his eye off the ball," and so forth and so on, this was a central point to his entire candidacy, but did he believe what he was saying then or was it merely a political stance for political purposes? I think we are seeing now that I was right. After all, if he cared, he would at least have talked to his commanders more than a few minutes over a period of months. I think it is merely viewed as a political problem, not a national security problem.
0 Replies
 
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 09:09 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Of course he has stashed money way, the real question is does it figure into the tens of millions or is it rather hundreds of millions?


it'll probably help him through some "lean years" . after all , he's entitled to a reasonable standard of living , i assume .
he perhaps also has some IOU's in his pocket - to be cashed at a convenient time .

(in the end , does it really matter if it's tens or hundreds of millions ?
ALL the money was meant to "secure" afghanistan and help the afghan people on their way to "freedom" - i incorrectly assumed ) .

i'll stop worrying right now Drunk
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 09:04 am
@hamburgboy,
i notice that no one seems to be in favour of spending more money/resources on the afghan "conflict" . at least there are no comments posted here .
am i to assume that the afghan conflict is not to be taken too seriously ?
there are probably more important matters to be concerned about .

in the meantime karzai has been "re-elected" president .
congrats president karzai !
how much more money should we send you . just say " STOP " when it's enough .
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 12:06 pm
@okie,
Your ideas are of the gutter, the sewer and whatever's lower than that.

You don't give a rat's ass about anyone but your greedy little self. Your opinion is nothing but "gimme more, **** the rest of the world! If they get in our way, mow 'em down."
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 03:39 pm
@JTT,
Grow up, JTT.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 03:46 pm
@okie,
You deleted your post, you little piece of chicken scratch.

I addressed your "opinions", the tripe you raised, the perpetual whining about 9-11. You and your ilk have rained much much greater death and untold volumes of terror on countless countries and peoples around the world and you have the temerity to whine like you do.


revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 03:59 pm
@hamburgboy,
Didn't the runner up in the election stepped aside because he felt a second run would not end up any fairer than the first one? In what way could we have prevented that from happening? I am pretty sure there has been wide spread voiced disapproval about the election since Karzai fraudulently won it, but other than merely voicing disapproval, what else can one do? Should we arrest Karzai on grounds of corruption and just take over the government of Afghanistan temporarily and have another election without Karzai involved? Do the Afghans want outsiders to intervene in some sort of manner like that?

I haven't mentioned Afghan too much lately because I am hard pressed to say anymore what the answer is all things considered; such as the problem of Pakistan and the Taliban. We can't ignore that problem just because things are bad in Afghanistan's "government" in fact it makes it all the more imperative that we don't just run off and forget about it.

This article is pretty informative in how western leaders are putting a good face on the Afghan election . I found the following of particular interest.

Quote:
At the same time, however, the White House is indicating that Mr. Obama may look to circumvent the national government by stepping up relations with provincial governors and tribal leaders. Last week, officials say, Obama requested a rundown of Afghanistan's provinces, including which have the most reliable leaders capable of working with the US and the international community on providing security and basic services to local populations.

More of a bottom-up approach to Afghanistan gets points from experts who say that a heavy focus on the centralized leadership of a historically decentralized country has been one of Washington's " and the West's " biggest mistakes.

"A localized approach would be a step in the right direction, if only because it would better recognize Afghanistan for what it is " a very divided and decentralized country," Ms. Innocent says. "But it's not going to solve the pervasive problems like a lack of local justice systems that are pushing the local populations into the arms of the Taliban."


okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 05:08 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

You deleted your post, you little piece of chicken scratch.

Yes, I decided to try to not descend into the mire any further where you are.

Quote:
I addressed your "opinions", the tripe you raised, the perpetual whining about 9-11. You and your ilk have rained much much greater death and untold volumes of terror on countless countries and peoples around the world and you have the temerity to whine like you do.


You addressed the points without counter points, but instead with unfounded and baseless accusations that are essentially so bizarre as to not even worth discussing. I don't even know why I am answering your posts, as it is a totally fruitless pursuit.
0 Replies
 
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 05:13 pm
@revel,
revel wrote :

Quote:
I haven't mentioned Afghan too much lately because I am hard pressed to say anymore what the answer is all things considered; such as the problem of Pakistan and the Taliban.


revel ,
i think you've put your finger on it : PAKISTAN !
no matter what the western powers do in afghanistan , if pakistan continues to play its game in afghanistan , i see little hope of a solution in afghanistan .
and we don't know how to deal with pakistan either .

i find it interesting that countries such as japan , india , saudi-arabia ... ... pay hardly any attention to what's going on in afgh.
do these countries just want the west "to bleed" , while it's "business as usual for them " ?
or do they know something that the west doesn't know ?
it all looks and sounds very strange to me .
0 Replies
 
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 05:32 pm
@revel,
revel ,
the new japanese government is ready to do additional "infrastucture" work in afgh. , but they will not participate in any military actions .

a little googling for "japan + afghanistan" brings up plenty of info .
here is one of the latest reports :

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iYrNDKnqyVcY4mlJW_G-FYjCgTKA

Quote:
Japan to fund infrastructure in Afghanistan: report
(AFP) " 2 days ago

TOKYO " Japan will fund a programme costing up to five billion dollars to help build roads and boost agriculture in conflict-torn Afghanistan, a newspaper reported on Saturday.

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has outlined the proposal, which would include water control and irrigation technology, the Nikkei business daily reported.

The five-year programme, starting next year, would also help provide job training for former Taliban with stipends of 100-200 dollars a month, while giving time with Japanese companies in Japan, the newspaper said.

Hatoyama plans to announce the initiative, which would be on top of existing financial support for Afghanistan, when US President Barack Obama visits Japan in mid-November, it said.

Hatoyama's centre-left government, which won a general election on August 30, has already told the United States it will end a naval refuelling mission that supports the war in Afghanistan.
Hatoyama has repeatedly said he planned for new, non-military support for Afghanistan such as job training for former Taliban as a possible alternative to the refuelling mission.

The Indian Ocean mission -- which began in December 2001 and was periodically renewed by Japan's previous, conservative government -- provides the US-led coalition with fuel and other logistical support.

Obama has invested much political capital in the promise to root out Islamic extremists from Afghanistan and is weighing a request from his own military to send more US troops there.

While in opposition, Hatoyama's Democratic Party of Japan briefly forced a halt to the mission through parliamentary manoeuvres, arguing that Japan -- officially pacifist since World War II -- should not abet "American wars."

Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.


seems to me that the japanese don't want to burn their fingers .
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 05:42 pm
@revel,
revel ,
and here a little news item from india re. pakistan/afghanistan/saudi-arabia :

http://trak.in/news/pak-rejects-us-claims-of-afghan-taliban-presence-in-balochistan/19412/

Quote:
Islamabad, Nov. 2 (ANI): Pakistan reportedly told US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that members of any Afghan Taliban Shura were not hiding in Balochistan, against whom the US had demanded a crackdown.

According to The Nation, during her recent visit to Islamabad, Clinton pushed Pakistan for a crackdown but to her sheer disappointment, the demand was rejected for lack of evidence.

Pakistan, however, accepted the US request to help accelerate process of dialogue with the Taliban elements in Afghanistan.

The Obama administration had requested Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to help Washington initiate a dialogue process with the Taliban in Afghanistan as part of its ‘talk to the Taliban’ strategy.

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari has sent Director General ISI, Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha to Saudi Arabia as his special emissary to discuss the renewed US proposal.

Sources said that Gen Pasha called on Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz in Riyadh the other day and conveyed the message of resident Asif Ali Zardari. Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz also attended the meeting. (ANI)



i do find these little snippets of news rather interesting ( of course , they may be meaningless in the overal game being played ) .
0 Replies
 
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 06:08 pm
@revel,
president obama is telling president karzai to stop the corruption in afgh.
that's like telling a bulldog to "please stop chewing that bone" imo .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8339108.stm

Quote:
Obama urges 'new Afghan chapter'
US President Barack Obama has urged Afghan leader Hamid Karzai to "write a new chapter" in governing Afghanistan, after its disputed presidential poll.

Mr Obama said that in a phone call, he had also asked Mr Karzai to intensify efforts to eradicate corruption.
He was speaking after the Afghan president had been declared winner of August's fraud-marred election.

Earlier, poll officials scrapped a planned run-off following the withdrawal of Mr Karzai's challenger.



i like the word "intensfy" being used in this context .
does that not mean that karzai is already eradicating corruption and just needs to "intensify' the process ?
one can hope , of course (and i DO HOPE a solution can be found !!! i sure wish the afgh people can enjoy peace some day ) .
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 08:48 pm
@hamburgboy,
Quote:
president obama is telling president karzai to stop the corruption in afgh.
that's like telling a bulldog to "please stop chewing that bone" imo .


Wink

(though a sad-ish wink, hamburger. What happens now? What next?)
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 09:17 pm
@hamburgboy,
This is probably as far as the Japanese constitution allows them to go. I haven't read it, but I recall hearing something along those lines in the Gulf War. For myself, I'm not entirely sure I would want to see Japan fully armed and adventuring. In too many battles in WWII, the ratio between surrenders and casualties was really inspirational. Even more so when compared to similar ratios involving British and Italian surrenders in North Africa, Corrigador in the Philippines, and Singapore.
hamburgboy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 05:39 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
What happens now? What next?


ever read "rumpole of the bailey" - the crusty old lawyer ?
he said : "never ask a question unless you know the answer already " .
of course , this would not apply to someone truly looking for knowledge , i'd think , but to lawyers (and politicians) .

i assume things will just go on until one side - or both - get weary .
the u.s. eventually left vietnam and now claims they are friends with vietnam . many , many lives could have been saved if that thought would have occured earlier .

j k galbraith - the u.s. ambassador to india - , a personal friend of president kennedy , had pleaded with the president to stay out of vietnam .
kennedy told him : ` ìt`s out of my hands `.
the full account can be found in `` AMBASSADOR`S JOURNAL `- A FINE BOOK IMO .

http://www.amazon.ca/Ambassadors-Journal-Personal-Account-Kennedy/dp/1557780714

book review :

Quote:
Galbraith was the USA ambassador to India from 1961 to 1963, most of the time that John F. Kennedy was President of the USA. This book is his diary of those years, with little subsequent editing. The writing is crisp, usually clear, and enjoyable to read. Two examples: "The latter [alligators] are a priceless asset for they will greatly discourage waterskiing." "Professor Friedman is the world's foremost friend of the free market. I suggested to him that nowhere in the world, the Soviet union excepted, would he do less damage than in India."
One marvels at Galbraith's constitution that survives one party after another, interspersed with meetings and speeches. One also marvels at the number of dignitaries present in India. Much will be of no interest to the average reader. One can pick this book up at just about any point and leave it at any other. It is a challenge to read all six hundred pages, but if you succeed you will almost certainly be discouraged from ever wanting to be a U.S. ambassador.
There are of course tidbits of interesting information; how to deal with the hawks in the administration and Galbraith's thoughts on Vietnam. The most interesting are the chapters on the border wars between China and India, in which the USA was prominently in the background with Galbraith much involved. At the same time there was the question of how to resolve the conflict between Pakistan and India over Kashmir, an apparently irresolvable problem.
0 Replies
 
hamburgboy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 05:54 pm
@roger,
roger :
the japanese are actually reducing their involvement . they don`t even want to allow re-fuelling any more .
imo the japanese are realizing that a war is very , very costly . they seem to prefer to use industrial strenght instead - and perhaps make a profit in the bargain .
can afghanistan really be that important - and IF IT IS , it`s not possible to win in afghanistan with the present , minimal effort - just my opinion .

if we are afraid that radical muslims will take over the world from vietnam , we better find another polish king and general to save the western world .
sobieski , polish king and general , saved vienna and europe from the turks ( and muslimdom ) in 1683 . the pôlish troops came just in the nick of time .

see :
http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/EastEurope/ViennaSiege.html
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 06:03 pm
Does Karzai=Diem?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 08:34:47