 |
Sinfest
welcome to the fest
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
zeezee
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 4410
Location: saint louis
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Major Tom wrote: |  |
thanks for this, tom! i snatched it for facebook...
_________________
dogs have owners
cats have staff
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Him
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3959
Location: Strange planet
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| E-boy wrote: | | I don't believe in throwing bodies at problems for the sake of honor, but assuming we were there for a good reason in the first place it does matter. |
Found that Osama guy yet?
_________________
"Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice. " - Thomas Paine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
E-boy
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1545
Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nope, and if we walk out of afghanistan now it'll be a bigger terrorst breeding ground than it ever was before. Sadly it'll probably contribute some terrorists one way or the other. Perhaps if it's not a complete nightmare of instability though folks will find something better to do than kill other folks.
I don't agree with everything that's been done or the way it's been done, but the fact remains we've made a huge mess and we need to clean it up. By that I simply mean not leave a power vacuum with a corrupt unstable goverment and shattered infrastructure just waiting to be pushed over by just about anyone.
Finger waggling about what the Bush administration did right or wrong (mostly wrong in my opinion) doesn't change the fact that we need to try and make things right.
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Him
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3959
Location: Strange planet
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| E-boy wrote: | nope, and if we walk out of afghanistan now it'll be a bigger terrorst breeding ground than it ever was before. Sadly it'll probably contribute some terrorists one way or the other. Perhaps if it's not a complete nightmare of instability though folks will find something better to do than kill other folks.
I don't agree with everything that's been done or the way it's been done, but the fact remains we've made a huge mess and we need to clean it up. By that I simply mean not leave a power vacuum with a corrupt unstable goverment and shattered infrastructure just waiting to be pushed over by just about anyone.
Finger waggling about what the Bush administration did right or wrong (mostly wrong in my opinion) doesn't change the fact that we need to try and make things right. |
Yeah those pesky terrorists and their US training. Sure, stability would be nice. Problem is the US (and NATO) idea of stability involves supporting warlords in the area. If I remember correctly not even the US observers said the elections were fair and democratic. That's not gonna cut it I am afraid.
And unfortunatly US presence have not and can not do anything of the sort. Sad but true. Instead the US are digging itself deeper and deeper down a hole. 8 years gone, billions spent, thousands dead and what for?
_________________
"Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice. " - Thomas Paine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10432
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| so you do or you don't think they'd be better off alone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Him
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3959
Location: Strange planet
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael wrote: | | so you do or you don't think they'd be better off alone? |
Who are "they"? The Warlords? If they would ever defeat the Taliban, with US help as it seems now, they will start tearing at each other the moment that threat is eliminated. So yes I think if you by they mean the afghan people would be better off without US backing of the warlords in the area. The "you broke it, you bought it" policy does not apply to countries. Of course there is a way out, but it has nothing to do with neither the warlords nor the US. One of the most fundamental problems in Afghanistan, seeing as they produce up around 80-90% of the worlds heroin is that the farmlands are under control by warlords. The very same warlords that now receive US support to create "stability". The warlords power can be broken when peasants can afford to not grow opium, and to do this they will, without a doubt, organize themselves and be able to defend themselves. The US, NATO, is not going to do this. They must do it themselves, because in the warlords power, the farmers and the opium fields, lay also the force strong enough and able to defeat them, and the taliban, and create a democratic and free Afghanistan. This might seem like a tough call, but the fact of the matter is that a) the US presence is generally opposed, primarily because b) they support the corrupt government made up of warlords which leads to c) the taliban suddenly get more support. An alternative must be created.
_________________
"Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice. " - Thomas Paine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gally912
Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 661
Location: Afghandi-land. Like candy-land, only not as nice.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Has anyone ever told you that you have no idea what you are talking about?
cause, yeah.
_________________
Things are seldom as they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sojobo
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2393
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Him wrote: | | Who are "they"? The Warlords? |
No. "They" are not the Warlords, and you know perfectly well what he meant.
| Him wrote: | | So yes I think if you by they mean the afghan people would be better off without US backing of the warlords in the area. |
No. He didn't mean that either. And you know perfectly well he didn't mean that.
Can't you simply answer the question honestly instead of being disingenuous and bending everything toward a party line rant?
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Monkey Mcdermott
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 2730
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sojobo wrote: | | Him wrote: | | Who are "they"? The Warlords? |
No. "They" are not the Warlords, and you know perfectly well what he meant.
| Him wrote: | | So yes I think if you by they mean the afghan people would be better off without US backing of the warlords in the area. |
No. He didn't mean that either. And you know perfectly well he didn't mean that.
Can't you simply answer the question honestly instead of being disingenuous and bending everything toward a party line rant? |
No, he cant
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Him
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3959
Location: Strange planet
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sojobo wrote: | | Him wrote: | | Who are "they"? The Warlords? |
No. "They" are not the Warlords, and you know perfectly well what he meant.
| Him wrote: | | So yes I think if you by they mean the afghan people would be better off without US backing of the warlords in the area. |
No. He didn't mean that either. And you know perfectly well he didn't mean that.
Can't you simply answer the question honestly instead of being disingenuous and bending everything toward a party line rant? |
Okay to out this in as plain terms as possible, maybe so the point won't even escape Monkey here (although I admit it is unlikely he'd ever get it). The us army are supporting the Afghani government, th afghani government is effectively the warlords. Warlords =/= afghani people.
_________________
"Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice. " - Thomas Paine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam the Eagle
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 2276
Location: 192.168.0.1
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Half serious here.
Being burned by Gally? Seriously Him, I thought better of you.
_________________
Meu aerobarca esta cheoi de enguias |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mizike
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5120
Location: Iowa City
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam the Eagle wrote: | Half serious here.
Being burned by Gally? Seriously Him, I thought better of you. |
Really?
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Him
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3959
Location: Strange planet
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mizike wrote: | | Sam the Eagle wrote: | Half serious here.
Being burned by Gally? Seriously Him, I thought better of you. |
Really? |
Wait, since when is "you don't know what you are talking about" an effective burn?
_________________
"Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice. " - Thomas Paine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gally912
Joined: 03 Nov 2008
Posts: 661
Location: Afghandi-land. Like candy-land, only not as nice.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Him wrote: |
Wait, since when is "you don't know what you are talking about" an effective burn? |
When it's true.
_________________
Things are seldom as they seem. In my experience, they’re usually a damn sight worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 8840
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Him wrote: | | Michael wrote: | | so you do or you don't think they'd be better off alone? |
Who are "they"? The Warlords? If they would ever defeat the Taliban, with US help as it seems now, they will start tearing at each other the moment that threat is eliminated. So yes I think if you by they mean the afghan people would be better off without US backing of the warlords in the area. The "you broke it, you bought it" policy does not apply to countries. Of course there is a way out, but it has nothing to do with neither the warlords nor the US. One of the most fundamental problems in Afghanistan, seeing as they produce up around 80-90% of the worlds heroin is that the farmlands are under control by warlords. The very same warlords that now receive US support to create "stability". The warlords power can be broken when peasants can afford to not grow opium, and to do this they will, without a doubt, organize themselves and be able to defend themselves. The US, NATO, is not going to do this. They must do it themselves, because in the warlords power, the farmers and the opium fields, lay also the force strong enough and able to defeat them, and the taliban, and create a democratic and free Afghanistan. This might seem like a tough call, but the fact of the matter is that a) the US presence is generally opposed, primarily because b) they support the corrupt government made up of warlords which leads to c) the taliban suddenly get more support. An alternative must be created. |
The afghanistan situation is a very complex and convoluted mess and the most common erroneous interpretations I see of that mess are erroneous because they engage in gross oversimplification of many of the complex cultural, sociopolitical, and military facets and concerns currently facing that region.
You have provided a fresh new angle to interpreting Afghanistan erroneously, as far as I can see, because instead of simplifying anything, you have simply replaced the real complex and convoluted mess with another complex and convoluted mess anticipating a 'clear solution' which is neither clear nor appears to be a workable solution at all.
I mean, exactly what are you working with here? A pastiche of paint-by-numbers projectable marxist resolutions veneered over the afghan social climate? The peasant proletariat rising up against the poppy-producing bourgeoisie? I don't think your appraisal of the situation is very clear at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
