GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Quote:
...the truth doesn't always sound encouraging .

No, sadly it really doesn't, does it hamburger?

I am by no means an "expert" on Afghanistan, though I do try to keep track of developments through various news outlets ...
.. but I do wonder about the quality of the lives of women & girls there now. (Not too much reporting on that lately.) I've come across a number accounts, via literature & media reports, suggesting that the biggest improvement in the opportunities open to women was during the Russian occupation & that most gains were lost after the Russians withdrew....

Does that include the thousands of Afghan civilians that the Russians attacked deliberately from the air, or the babies who picked up Soviet bombs disguised as toys?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

I guess you didn't notice. We attacked the Taliban and drove them from the country. We killed many of them. Now we should move on.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

I was enquiring about the situation for Afghan women & girls now, Brandon ... which has not been exactly 100% wonderful (!) no matter which particular group has controlled the country.

I am not an an apologist for the Russian invasion & occupation, any more than I support such any such actions in most countries ... including the US invasion of Iraq.

2 Replies

@msolga,

... specifically I'm interested to know more about their current education opportunties, how much freedom of movement is allowed & their economic circumstances (which can be dire, if women cannot leave the home & work, even when husbands & fathers have been killed in the ongoing conflicts).

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

I was enquiring about the situation for Afghan women & girls now, Brandon ... which has not been exactly 100% wonderful (!) no matter which particular group has controlled the country.

I am not an an apologist for the Russian invasion & occupation, any more than I support such any such actions in most countries ... including the US invasion of Iraq.

So you're comparing the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, in which they deliberately strafed civilians on the ground regularly, and deliberately manufactured bombs to look like toys, with a punitive action against a dictator who had repeatedly violated a prior surrender treaty, and been warned to comply many times, and in which civilians were not deliberately attacked?

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

B, you never said how many casualties the USA may take before the fight in Afghanistan is no longer worthwhile.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

I guess you didn't notice. We attacked the Taliban and drove them from the country. We killed many of them. Now we should move on.

Great idea except for the fact that the enemy is back in the country in force. I guess you're the one who didn't notice.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/27/world/main4687823.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4687823

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

B, you never said how many casualties the USA may take before the fight in Afghanistan is no longer worthwhile.

In general, it's in our interest to win the wars we participate in, particularly when they have significance beyone that particular battle. The casualties are a small fraction of what we sustained in WW2. I'm more concerned with winning and defeating people who sheltered terrorists who deliberately attacked and murdered thousands of our civilians in our country. Does anyone doubt that Bin Laden would have used chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against us if he had had them? We have a perfect right to retaliate against an attack on our country, particularly when civilians were the primary, intended target.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

We retalliated for 911 and got what few we could. Bush's team let bin Laden and some others escape. This war has moved beyond 911. It is too long and costly for 0 net gain, even if we did manage to win it sometime over the next decade or two.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

We retalliated for 911 and got what few we could. Bush's team let bin Laden and some others escape. This war has moved beyond 911. It is too long and costly for 0 net gain, even if we did manage to win it sometime over the next decade or two.

You're aware, of course, that militant Islam in the world will continue to attack us, whether or not we unilaterally shut down?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Of course. And I favor keeping a multitude of retaliatory options in place at all times, also overtures to Muslims of good faith in an attempt to isolate them in their own communities.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Of course. And I favor keeping a multitude of retaliatory options in place at all times, also overtures to Muslims of good faith in an attempt to isolate them in their own communities.

This is retaliation.

You only seem to want to retaliate, no matter how heinous the crime, if it's easy and quick. Potential allies and potential enemies would certainly note the fact, if they haven't already, that the US lacks the will to defend it's interests.

One cannot engage in a world-wide, long term idealogical struggle with a clever, resourceful, and determined enemy solely with defensive measures, especially if one even lacks the will for those.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

You have to pick and choose your shots in a war against terrorism, just as terrorists do. Besides, that war is creating more terrorists than it kills.

1 Reply

The time has come for us to sit down with all the parties, including the Taliban, and work out an accord.

Endless warfare is killing our country.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

The time has come for us to sit down with all the parties, including the Taliban, and work out an accord.

You go over there and meet personally with the Taliban and you will either join them or they will kill you.

These parties do not possess a civil, logical mind set. You can not negotiate with them.
Every time will back off they regroup and strengthen their efforts to kill innocents.
We must not let up even for a second.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Will, say, 50,000 USA causualties in Afghanistan be enough? Or do you feel that there should be limit on our cost?

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Why would any sane person set a pre determined number or limit on how far one would go to protect his or her life?

For a nation to do as you suggest is to ensure defeat and humiliation.

No thank you.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

What is victory? Say we somehow pacify the country and, two days after we leave, there is a civil war that wipes out all our gains. Well, I guess you could say we were not humiliated.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

No, that's not at all what I'm saying, you silly goose! And you know it. Try reading my posts.
And I'm not going to repeat what I said again.

1 Reply

the commander of the british forces in afghanistan , brigadier gordon messenger , summed things up quite nicely recently :

"good enough" is the best that can be achieved here - "It's not second best, it's realistic.

Quote:

New realism in Afghanistan rhetoric

By George Alagiah
BBC News, Lashkar Gah, Afghanistan

When the commander of British forces in Afghanistan tells you that "good enough" is the best that can be achieved here, you have to sit up and listen.

Brigadier Gordon Messenger is every inch a military man, which makes it all the more surprising to hear him settle for something that sounds suspiciously close to second best.

He would deny that characterisation of his words, but accepts there are limits to the Afghanistan project.

The Afghanistan British troops leave behind - and no-one is willing to commit to any timeline other than to repeat the mantra that it will take "many years" - is going to be an imperfect state.

Parts of it may well remain beyond the reach of central government in Kabul, and some of those responsible for the mayhem of the last 30 years could well retain much of their power and influence, perhaps even their militia.

New realism

It is a far cry from the beacon of democracy some had hoped for.

"I don't think it will be recognisable in Western Europe, but Afghanistan will be something which will provide good enough security for the people. I think good enough should be what we look for," the brigadier said.

"It's not second best, it's realistic.

read full report :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7747145.stm

since NO country - not even the U.S. - is willing (or able) to commit "unlimited" resources to afghanistan , there will be an acceptance of reality .

the U.S. had to accept the reality in vietnam - and it doesn't seem have to harmed the U.S. in any way (it may have hurt the pride of the U.S. , but that's a small price to pay imo ) .
the U.S. and vietnam are able to co-exist quite well , perhaps the U.S. and afghanistan will be able to co-exist some day too - even if the U.S. has to accept "reality" - nothing new here , it seems to me .
hbg

0 Replies

GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know