28
   

Can we just !/$$!?$?! leave now?

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 03:56 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Is there an officially stated reason for us to still be there?

And what is the "real" unofficial reason why the US is still there?

I can't believe that any US administration is completely mindless in its choices. But I do believe that there are unspoken motives which they believe will have some benefit for us (the US). I wonder what those unspoken motives are.


Like most invaders who have, or like to appear to have, a conscience, the USA likes to leave saying that they fixed it. Even if that only lasts for five seconds.

I think the US government/military will need to have a "fix" that they can present without any of the people spinning it that way in the government actually vomiting or collapsing in fits of devastating hollow laughter which ends only with death or running from the scene, on live television.

It's like a terrible, horrible joke upon humanity.

All I can think of to say is, as Yossarian said upon receipt of Snowden's horrific secret in Catch 22, a heartfelt and truly empathic "There, there."

I am so sorry. Especially for all Afghani females and the ideologically ravaged and human nurture deprived men and boys and all the soldiers from so many nations sent there over such a long period of time.

RAWA said this from day one.

wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 08:10 am
@dlowan,
U.S. forces should have left Afghanistan years ago, but I do not see the United States as an "invader." In 2001 I supported sending military forces to Afghanistan because the United States was responding to an attack on our own soil.

Still, the length of U.S. involvement seems ridiculous.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 08:58 am
@wandeljw,
For the sake of a short-hand description of my political leanings from back in the '60s - '70s, I would categorize myself as a 'dove'. That being said I'm also a veteran of USAF from '70-'74.

I feel that once the military has asserted its presence, there should be some clear-minded and achievable goal...a game plan.. a mission. Without a clear mission or goal, no good or short involvement can EVER result. Bankrupting the economy is hardly justifiable - not mention the immorality of such an effort.

With Osama bin Laden dead and gone what is the mission? To spy on Taliban..Al-Qadah?

Can it be the surveillance of the Taliban? Perhaps, but is that worth committing 50-100k troops? Is that number of troops needed to man the listening stations? No way!

If the goal is nation-building I feel that history will show (and has shown) that effort is doomed to failure. Is the goal to sway the hearts and minds of the locals with their presence? If that effort was the intent, it was effectively torpedoed by this sick massacre - PERMANENTLY.

But...I think that no such mission statement has been made if the alleged goal is meant to curtail the drug-smuggling. It's a well-known area for opium. That would almost be a worthwhile justification for the presence ...BUT...? Would doing so cut off the money supply to the Taliban and other bad actors? No need to mention the fact that CIA supported the drug cartel in this area and Columbia as well.

Also, I've never heard such a justification or goal statement come out of anyone's mouth in an official position in Wash DC or from any talking heads.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 09:14 am
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:
I feel that once the military has asserted its presence, there should be some clear-minded and achievable goal...a game plan.. a mission.


And an exit strategy with a much faster timeline than what we're seeing here.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 09:17 am
@JPB,
Agreed.

And, after all, wasn't that Obama's mission statement (to end that war and draw down the troops) when elected ... in his previous platform from which he ran for the office? Hell - and I voted for him!
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 09:21 am
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

I met an afghan prince many years ago, or so I thought. He dated a friend of mine. This was early sixties, in Los Angeles. The three of us went to some hollywood show (by definition not my idea, theater engages me but more often aggravates me, even back then) and he was pulled up on the stage and made a fool. She liked him but it didn't last, she being very virginal at that time.

I think he was probably not a poser re who he was. I wonder about him once in a while.


Interesting. I have met a couple of Afghan rugs in the past. I wasn't impressed with their level of self-esteem, since they allowed me to walk all over them.

What's interesting to me is that, as a child in the middle of the 20th century, the world that I was aware of did not include the countries now in the news. It was so easy to be an Earthling then, with just news about the western powers.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 09:28 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

It's not that easy to just leave. The Afghanistan war, unlike Iraq, was supported by NATO members and withdrawing troops has be a joint decision. Although they agreed upon to leave Afghanistan by 2014, it will probably take longer than expected.

The amok run of an US soldier will probably have renewed violence escalating. The Taliban have vouched already to retaliate against Americans - civilians and military alike.

The United States cannot leave Afghanistan, even if they wanted to!



Are you putting the cart before the horse, so to speak? I mean that without the Soviet Union as a protagonist for NATO, do they just disband? Perhaps, NATO is getting a degree of "make-work" jobs, so it can be available in the future when it might be necessary for some essential purpose? Plus, those NATO troops have families to support. "Peace" can make many a Christmas tree have fewer gifts underneath!

Also, the past efforts to get the NATO countries to truly think as a band of allies should not be trivialized. Why throw the baby out with the bath water. [Foofie loves trite sayings.]
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 09:38 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
You weren't that bothered about the Afghan people prior to 9/11, quite the opposite in fact.

Quote:
Oil barons court Taliban in Texas By Caroline Lees

THE Taliban, Afghanistan's Islamic fundamentalist army, is about to sign a £2 billion contract with an American oil company to build a pipeline across the war-torn country.

The Islamic warriors appear to have been persuaded to close the deal, not through delicate negotiation but by old-fashioned Texan hospitality. Last week Unocal, the Houston-based company bidding to build the 876-mile pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, invited the Taliban to visit them in Texas. Dressed in traditional salwar khameez, Afghan waistcoats and loose, black turbans, the high-ranking delegation was given VIP treatment during the four-day stay.

The Taliban ministers and their advisers stayed in a five-star hotel and were chauffeured in a company minibus. Their only requests were to visit Houston's zoo, the Nasa space centre and Omaha's Super Target discount store to buy stockings, toothpaste, combs and soap. The Taliban, which controls two-thirds of Afghanistan and is still fighting for the last third, was also given an insight into how the other half lives.

The men, who are accustomed to life without heating, electricity or running water, were amazed by the luxurious homes of Texan oil barons. Invited to dinner at the palatial home of Martin Miller, a vice-president of Unocal, they marvelled at his swimming pool, views of the golf course and six bathrooms. After a meal of specially prepared halal meat, rice and Coca-Cola, the hardline fundamentalists - who have banned women from working and girls from going to school - asked Mr Miller about his Christmas tree.

"They were interested to know what it was for and what the star was," said Mr Miller, who hopes that Unocal has clinched the deal. "The first day, they were stiff and cautious. But before long they were totally relaxed and happy," he said. Unocal, which heads an international consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Japan, has been bidding for the contract since vast oil and gas reserves were discovered in Turkmenistan, one of the southernmost states of the former Soviet Union, in 1994. The fuel has so far been untapped because of Moscow's demands for high transport fees if it passes through Russian-controlled territory. The quickest and cheapest way to get the reserves out is to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.

It will supply two of the fastest-growing energy markets in the world: Pakistan and India. The Unocal group has one significant attraction for the Taliban - it has American government backing. At the end of their stay last week, the Afghan visitors were invited to Washington to meet government officials. The US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children "despicable", appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract. The Taliban is likely to have been impressed by the American government's interest as it is anxious to win international recognition. So far, it has been recognised only by the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Unocal has promised to start building the pipeline immediately, despite the region's instability. There is fighting just 87 miles from the planned entry point of the pipeline in the northwest of the country. The Taliban has assured Unocal that its workers and the pipeline will be safe, but it cannot guarantee that it will not be attacked by opposition forces.

The consortium has also agreed to start paying the Taliban immediately. The Islamic army will receive tax on every one of the million cubic feet of fuel that passes through Afghanistan every day. Unocal has also offered other inducements. Apart from giving fax machines, generators and T-shirts, it has donated £500,000 to the University of Nebraska for courses in Afghanistan to train 400 teachers, electricians, carpenters and pipefitters. Nearly 150 students are already receiving technical training in southern Afghanistan.

But it was the homely touches which swayed the Taliban. When the delegation left Texas, one of their entourage stayed behind. Mullah Mohammad Ghaus, the former foreign minister and a leading member of the Taliban ruling council, remained in Texas for medical treatment. Years on the front line damaged his eyesight. Unocal bought him a battery-powered magnifying glass and are paying for him to go to an optician.


http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/war111901a.htm
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 11:01 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Who the fark cares about his defense? The damage to and our impact on Afghanistan people far outweighs.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 11:49 am
@JPB,
A newspaper article this morning with the headline on page 1, "Faster Afghan War exit on table."
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 02:36 pm
@joefromchicago,
Yes. Untill he gets in and is preassured by the generals and the military industrial complex. He after a conservative no matter how he percieves himself.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 02:44 pm
@ossobuco,
This means the money taken from the military industrial complex couldent be spent on bridges, roads, waterplants, and sewer systems in the U.S.. All these things would make U.S jobs rather than Mexican and Japanese jobs.
RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 02:50 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The most sensible post so far.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 02:59 pm
@izzythepush,
I wasn't, and how would you know?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 03:11 pm
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

U.S. forces should have left Afghanistan years ago, but I do not see the United States as an "invader." In 2001 I supported sending military forces to Afghanistan because the United States was responding to an attack on our own soil.

Still, the length of U.S. involvement seems ridiculous.


It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else believed or believes about the rightness of what was done, we still invaded Afghanistan.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 03:20 pm
@JPB,
That's fine, but remember why we went there. It wasn't to help them build their country, it was to fight the taliban there instead of here.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 03:21 pm
@rosborne979,
1. Fight taliban there instead of here.
2. Feed the war machine.

0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 03:22 pm
@JPB,
How'd that remove the taliban think go?

We need to learn that we can't form the world in our image.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 03:23 pm
@IRFRANK,
Only if you consider The Taliban and Al-Qaeda to be the same thing.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Mar, 2012 03:24 pm
@IRFRANK,
Well, ah, they pretty much removed themselves - to our good allies in Pakistan.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 04:08:30