24
   

GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 05:02 pm
It is interesting that the monster who heads Nam was entertained by Bush in the White House.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 05:43 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

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.

If retaliating against am extremely evil foe, for murdering our civilians in our home, in our cities and on our planes engenders enemies, then so be it. Good thing that the Taliban's suicide bombings didn't make them any enemies.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 05:44 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

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.

Mostly because of people like you wailing over and over about how it's killing our country.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 05:46 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

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

Do you mean to say, "considering that they gave aid and support to terrorists who came to our home and murdered our civilians by the thousands intentionally?" Is that what you're asking him?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 05:46 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

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.

Yes, why bother to do anything, even when attacked?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 05:47 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

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.

Fine, but you shouldn't mention our invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the same breath, lest someone think that you were calling them comparable.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 06:00 pm
@Brandon9000,
Sigh

.. then that someone didn't read my (2 prior) posts correctly, Brandon. I repeat: I was enquiring about conditions in Afghanistan for women now. I am not going to explain what I said any further - not again.

Sorry for calling you a silly goose, but you keep misrepresenting what I actually enquired about.

0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 06:17 pm
@Advocate,
Out!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 06:18 pm
@Brandon9000,
I've had my say. I don't think we can see eye to eye on this issue.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 06:27 pm
@Advocate,
advocate :

here is what president bush said when he visited vietnam in nov. 2006 :

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/print/20061117-7.html

Quote:
President Bush Exchanges Toasts at State Banquet in Vietnam
International Convention Center
Hanoi, Vietnam

PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. President, and Madam Chi, the reason I'm smiling is because I'm really happy to be here. And so is Laura. And we thank you for your warm hospitality. First, I want to congratulate you for your success on hosting APEC. I'm confident our fellow leaders will have the same sense of gratitude and respect that we feel from the Vietnamese people.


Vietnam is a remarkable country. For decades you had been torn apart by war. Today the Vietnamese people are at peace and seeing the benefits of reform. The Vietnamese own their own businesses, and today the Vietnamese economy is the fastest growing in Southeast Asia. Vietnamese students have great opportunities here at home and abroad. The Vietnamese people are traveling around the world and sharing this ancient culture with peoples of the world. And the United States, as well as other APEC partners, look forward to strengthening our ties.

The American people welcome the progress of Vietnam. And we want to continue to work together to better our relations. We will work with you to help combat avian flu and HIV/AIDS. We have signed agreements to protect religious freedom. We strongly support Vietnam in the World Trade Organization.

Vietnam is a country that's taking its rightful place as a strong and vibrant nation. Mr. President, your leadership is helping your country succeed. I can see it as I drive on the streets, the people of your country have hope. And I hope they know as a result of my visit they have the friendship of the American people.

And so, Mr. President, I would like to propose a toast to you and Madam Chi and to the fine people of Vietnam. (Applause.)


very civil , i'd say !
U.S. troops left vietnam rather hastily , yet not a single word about communist dictatorship was said .
no fear of vietnam wanting to destroy the world .
very civil , indeed .
hbg

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/images/20061117-7_p111706pm-0442-515h.jpg
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 05:03 pm
The US' meddling in Vietnam was like so much pissing in the wind.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jan, 2009 05:20 pm
@InfraBlue,
The Afghanistan conflict reminds me so much of Nam. Like when we were in Nam, we are being told that we are fighting in Afghanistan for our freedom. What rubbish!
Fountofwisdom
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2009 04:54 pm
The Moral of the story of Vietman is Americans don't help. But you can always make a film showing how you actually won the war.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2009 06:22 pm
@msolga,
msolga wrote on dec 30 :

Quote:
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. I also recall, in the early days of US intervention in Afghanistan, that the desperate plight of women & girls received wide sympathetic publicity. The presumption being that their lives would be directly improved as a result of US & allied efforts. Can anyone enlighten me on how things stand for them now?


i have thought about your question - trying to come up with sensible answer is pretty difficult .
we all read certain reports that we either agree or disagree with - depending much upon our own personal ideas of right and wrong , i would say .

i do have a friend (born and brought up in poland) who travelled through afghanistan sometime in the 60's - when he was still somewhat younger - he is about 70 now . he said that the afghans were the most hospitable people he ever met . of course , he was willing to accept their customs and way of life .
he had not gone to change their way of life or preach any kind of western "values" - he was simply a traveller and guest .

afghans seem to have a small and well-educated elite - many of which have left the country during the last 30 years or so . no doubt the loss of the well-educated people has been a great disadvantage to the country as a whole .
much of afghanistan seems to be a feudal and paternalistic society - perhaps somewhat like europe during the 15th and 16th centuries (i'm sure you've heard about the 30 year war that devasted much of central europe) .

just like it took several centuries to bring emancipation to the women of europe (and america) , i think it will also take much more time for the women of afghanistan to see much improvement in their lives .
giving help to all afghans WITHOUT trying to impose western "values" upon them will likely benefit the afghans (and the world as a whole) over time .
i doubt that we can force them to adopt even the best of western values upon them .

as a source of information for both current news about about afghanistan but also to learn about the history about the country , i use the attached BBC website quite a bit . with a bit of digging , much information can be gained from it .
some might object that it gives too much of a british flavour to its information , but i don't think one can expect completely "impartial" reporting and information from anyone . we all bring our own particular point of view into all kinds of discussions and even (what we call) facts .

here is the BBC website i use :

http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?uri=%2F&scope=all&go=toolbar&q=afghanistan

i hope we can continue this discussion and exchange of ideas , msolga .
(i hope not too many spelling and other errors sneaked into this post - i often find them only when i look at my posts several days later - too late for a correction).
looking forward to your reply .
hbg
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2009 07:14 pm
@msolga,
msolga :

here is a bit more about afghanistan .
one thing - an important one imo - that i omitted was : shiites vs. shias - and i understand there are many sub-groups within those major classifications of islam religion .
and of course there afghanistans many "friends and neighbours" all trying to carve out a slice for themselves , no doubt .

Quote:
Influence Peddlers
Saudi Arabia may be making more than just peace with the Taliban.

Greg Bruno, Council on Foreign Relations
Dec 11, 2008 | Updated: 6:38 p.m. ET Dec 11, 2008
Reports of Saudi-brokered talks between Afghan officials and the Taliban in late 2008 prompted a new round of speculation about the role Riyadh might play in the future of Afghanistan. Amid U.S. calls for a regional approach to the Afghan crisis, observers and politicians--including President-elect Barack Obama during the U.S. presidential campaign--have said Saudi intervention could shape the success of the Western-led mission, from fostering talk with militants to encouraging Pakistan to help stabilize Afghanistan. But some analysts say Saudi brokering is motivated by more than just a desire to bring peace to Afghanistan. Following the reported September 2008 talks, only Iran condemned the negotiations; some believe the Afghan war zone has become a battleground for influence (ISN) between Riyadh and Tehran, as it was during the 1980s and 1990s.

Saudi Arabia's ties to Afghanistan exploded into view on September 11, 2001. Saudi national Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 mastermind and al-Qaeda chieftain, was given refuge by the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the kingdom's connections to Afghanistan predate the U.S. terror attacks. Beginning in the late 1980s, Saudi Arabia--along with the United States, Pakistan, and others--began supporting the Afghan resistance movement against the Soviet occupation. Saudi Arabia funneled money and fuel directly to Afghans, as well as through Pakistan's covert intelligence agency, the ISI. Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid writes in his 2000 book, Taliban, that the Saudis gave nearly "$4 billion in official aid to the [mujahadeen] between 1980 and 1990, which did not include unofficial aid from Islamic charities, foundations, the private funds of Princes and mosque collections." [/quote/

complete article :
http://www.newsweek.com/id/173828
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 12:58 am
@hamburger,
Thank you very much , hamburger. I will read the link you've provided - with great interest.

Yes, I fully acknowledge that trying to come up with a sensible, all encompassing, "answer" is difficult. (If not impossible.) Which is partly why I asked: to see if others might have access to information I wasn't aware of.

I would like to say (another! Very Happy ) thank you, h, for your persistence in supplying information (& food for thought!) relating to Afghanistan on this forum.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 08:39 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

The Afghanistan conflict reminds me so much of Nam. Like when we were in Nam, we are being told that we are fighting in Afghanistan for our freedom. What rubbish!

I think we're being told that we invaded Afghanistan because they gave harbor and support to terrorists who attacked America and murdered thousands. Sounds like a pretty good reason.
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 11:23 am
@Brandon9000,
i wonder if brandon has any suggestions as to what should be done about
SAUDI ARABIA and its leaders ?
since the saudi leaders were early supporters of terrorist groups - and are still continuing to support them (perhaps no longer quite as openly) - is it time to take on saudi arabia ?
just wondering ... ...
hbg

Quote:
The Sunday Times - November 4, 2007

Saudi Arabia is hub of world terror
The desert kingdom supplies the cash and the killers
Nick Fielding and Sarah Baxter, Washington

It was an occasion for tears and celebration as the Knights of Martyrdom proclaimed on video: “Our brother Turki fell during the rays of dawn, covered in blood after he was hit by the bullets of the infidels, following in the path of his brother.” The flowery language could not disguise the brutal truth that a Saudi family had lost two sons fighting for Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
.......................................

King Abdullah was surprised during his two-day state visit to Britain last week by the barrage of criticism directed at the Saudi kingdom. Officials were in “considerable shock”, one former British diplomat said.
.................................................

Yet wealthy Saudis remain the chief financiers of worldwide terror networks. “If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia,” said Stuart Levey, the US Treasury official in charge of tracking terror financing.
.............................................

An analysis by NBC News suggested that the Saudis make up 55% of foreign fighters in Iraq. They are also among the most uncompromising and militant.
..........................................................
And while prominent members of the ruling al-Saud dynasty regularly express their abhorrence of terrorism, leading figures within the kingdom who advocate extremism are tolerated.
..................................................

According to Levey, not one person identified by America or the United Nations as a terrorist financier has been prosecuted by Saudi authorities.
...........................................
This year the Saudis arrested 10 people thought to be terrorist financiers, but the excitement faded when their defence lawyers claimed that they were political dissidents and human rights groups took up their cause.

.............................................................
As long as foreigners were the principal targets, the Saudis turned a blind eye to terror. Even the September 11 attacks of 2001, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, could not shake their complacency. Despite promises to crack down on radical imams, Saudi mosques continued to preach hatred of America.

The mood began to change in 2003 and 2004, when Al-Qaeda mounted a series of terrorist attacks within the kingdom that threatened to become an insurgency. “They finally acknowledged at the highest levels that they had a problem and it was coming for them,” said Rachel Bronson, the author of Thicker than Oil: America’s Uneasy Partnership with Saudi Arabia.

Assassination attempts against security officials caused some of the royals to fear for their own safety. In May 2004 Islamic terrorists struck two oil industry installations and a foreigners’ housing compound in Khobar, taking 50 hostages and killing 22 of them.
.....................................................
Yet the Saudis’ ambivalence towards terrorism has not gone away. Money for foreign fighters and terror groups still pours out of the kingdom, but it now tends to be carried in cash by couriers rather than sent through the wires, where it can be stopped and identified more easily.

A National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad, a nongovernmental organisation that was intended to regulate private aid abroad to guard against terrorist financing, has still not been created three years after it was trumpeted by the Saudi embassy in Washington.

Hundreds of Islamic militants have been arrested but many have been released after undergoing reeducation programmes led by Muslim clerics.

According to the daily Alwa-tan, the interior ministry has given 115m riyals (£14.7m) to detainees and their families to help them to repay debts, to assist families with health care and housing, to pay for weddings and to buy a car on their release. The most needy prisoners’ families receive 2,000-3,000 riyals (£286 to £384) a month.

Ali Sa’d Al-Mussa, a lecturer at King Khaled University in Abha, protested: “I’m afraid that holding [extremist] views leads to earning a prize or, worse, a steady income.”
..........................................................

Ali al-Ahmed, director of the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs, said: “The Saudi education system has over 5m children using these books. If only one in 1,000 take these teachings to heart and seek to act on them violently, there will be 5,000 terrorists.”
..................................................

“Do we really want to take on the Saudis at the moment?” asks Bronson. “We’ve got enough problems as it is.”


link to article in full :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2801017.ece?print=yes&randnum=1231088239586

from what i read , there has been no major change in the saudi governments policies towards terrorism .
as one of the princes interviewed by an american reporter said when pressed about the problems with terrorists :
"we do not like terrorism but we have to listen to our own people before taking any strong actions : we are all brothers ! " .

'nuff said .

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 11:59 am
@hamburger,
hamburger wrote:

i wonder if brandon has any suggestions as to what should be done about
SAUDI ARABIA and its leaders ?
since the saudi leaders were early supporters of terrorist groups - and are still continuing to support them (perhaps no longer quite as openly) - is it time to take on saudi arabia ?
just wondering ... ...
hbg

Well, wonder no more. The Afghans harbored and gave direct support to terrorists (e.g. bin Laden) who used Afghanistan as a base from which to launch an attack on our country. We then asked them to turn the culprits over to us and they refused. By what bizarre logic do we not have the right to retaliate for a direct military attack on our country? This is not the same thing as some vague support for groups.

When the Saudis allow terrorists to use their country as a base from which to plan an attack on us, and then, after the attack, refuse to turn over those responsible, we should indeed consider it an act of war and retaliate militarily.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2009 12:07 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Well, wonder no more. The Afghans harbored and gave direct support to terrorists (e.g. bin Laden) who used Afghanistan as a base from which to launch an attack on our country. We then asked them to turn the culprits over to us and they refused. By what bizarre logic do we not have the right to retaliate for a direct military attack on our country? This is not the same thing as some vague support for groups.


Expect a whole lot more "justifiable" attacks on the USA, Brandon, for all the illegal attacks on Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia, ... it would be much easier to list the ones that don't "have the right to retaliate" if I could think of one.

And y'all will just have to sit on your hands.
 

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 0.07 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:41:18