What was your opinion about Afghanistan conflict?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

They cant even pay for police, army, etc. Thats why the country is going back into anarchy. Everyone is running to the warlords, because at least they will get paid there.

[Drake Tungsten]

So, you admit that the US doesn't want to nation-build Afghanistan?

Of course. Why would we want to? It's a costly and uneccesary endeavor. All we wanted to do was stop the use of Afghanistan as a base for al Qaeda. Now we want to keep al Qaeda from coming back. We don't need to build a strong state in Afghanistan to do that; all we need is a government in Kabul that will allow US troops to deal with any al Qaeda groups that try to sneak back in the country.

I'm not saying that we're doing nothing to help Karzai, but we trying to do it on a shoestring budget. Building the Afghan army is the main project the US is engaged in, which may help the central government exert some more control over the country in the future, but will take a while to achieve any success. We're trying to achieve success with as little investment as possible, mainly because it doesn't really matter much in the greater scheme of things if this endeavor fails.

[Az]

wow.

[RGBVideo]

The US is contributing some $650 million a year to rebuilding the country. True, other countries said that they would contribute, but haven't come through with actual money.

!
Big news, for me.

Your source?

[Ted Striker]

Azazel, I disagree with Drake on this one.

Nation building has a big upfront cost but pays dividends in the long run.

For the US to "just set up camp there" makes no sense.


Oh and all you "sky is falling Afghanistan is in chaos" wishers it simply isn't going down like that. *Waits for someone to paste a sensationalistic AP or Reuters piece*


Plus now we can hook up 2 pipelines and get 50 cent gas.

[Dis]

I admit I was kind of scared at first. back then I was a pansy ass liberal. of course all liberals are pansy asses . Their policy is based on fear. I heard the same thing with the Iraq conflict. We will create 100's of Bin Ladin's etc etc.

I once believed we should avoid conflicts like that to avoid stirring up more terrorism. But what options does that leave? Bill Clinton did a pretty good job not stirring up terrorist, yet they kept bombing during his watch.

Now I am no longer a liberal (I am NOT a conservative mind you), and I realize the terrorists sensed a weakness in the past two presidents (president Bush sr. and Clinton), and they were intent on pushing their attacks to break the U.S. Now I realize how great it is that we have a president who isn't afraid to stand up to the world to protect the U.S. Sure he may have done it for the oil, but the end result is the same.

[Drake Tungsten]

Nation building has a big upfront cost but pays dividends in the long run.

I agree with you on this, so our positions aren't that far off. The difference is that I don't believe that nation-building in Afghanistan has the potential for success, at least at a price that is reasonable for the amount of gain the US will get from it. Afghanistan is ****ed-up; terrible terrain, no resources, full of ethnic divisions. It would be a huge task to fix that country and I can't really think of a good reason for the US to accept that burden. What are the dividends that will accrue to the US in the long run? I can think of a few, but they hardly justify a long and extremely costly nation-building project in the armpit of Asia.

I agree with the plan seemingly in effect in Afghanistan; don't abandon the country, but don't expend a lot of blood and treasure fixing it either. Try to rebuild the country on the cheap and hope things fall in your favor.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
*Waits for someone to paste a sensationalistic AP or Reuters piece*

Al Qaeda Member's Nephew Captured in Pakistan
Thu May 1, 2003 08:47 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A nephew of senior al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was among six people detained this week in Pakistan, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

The nephew, Ali Abd al-Aziz also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is in his mid-20s and was captured by Pakistani authorities in a raid that also netted a suspected mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000, U.S. officials said.

Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacked plane attacks on the United States that killed about 3,000 people, was arrested in Pakistan on March 1 and handed over to U.S. custody.

His nephew was probably privy to any al Qaeda plots that Mohammed may have been working on, officials said.

The nephew had "some of the experiences, connections, knowledge and wherewithal to continue some of KSM's terrorist plans," one U.S. official told Reuters.

Time magazine on its Web site, citing U.S. officials, said Aziz funneled nearly $120,000 to ringleader Mohammed Atta and other Sept. 11 hijackers to finance their flight lessons and living expenses in the United States.

Aziz was believed to have provided the hijackers with about a quarter of their financial support and could expose details of secret financial channels used by al Qaeda, Time said.

A U.S. official said Mohammed's nephew was on a lower rung in al Qaeda than Waleed Muhammad Bin Attash, suspected of involvement in the USS Cole bombing in Yemen and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, who was rounded up in the same raid in Karachi on Tuesday.

But the nephew was probably in the line of succession to al Qaeda leadership, the official said.

"He would have been in the position to continue some of the work his uncle was doing before his capture," another official said.

[Ted Striker]

Hey thanks DD.

[Az]

Drake: why may I ask the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan? it has proven to be a potential source of major trouble, as well.

[Ramo]

why may I ask the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan? it has proven to be a potential source of major trouble, as well.

Even more. Iraq is a much tougher nation-building project, particularly due to the external situation, thus the gov't can be trusted to act responsibly that much less in Iraq than it has in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan wasn't a failure; the US achieved its goals. The only way the operation can be viewed as a failure is if you attribute goals to the operation that never really existed (see Ramo's POV).

I never said it failed according to Shrub's criteria for a just war. It failed according to mine. There are actually people who care about liberty beyond using it as a convenient casus belli, if you can believe it.

[Ned]

I personally was very please that we no had a president that was willing to do more than fire a few dozens cruise missles and call it a victory. Of course, Bill Clinton probably would have gone after the Taliban as well given the severity of 9/11. But one is not sure.

Revenge is sweet.

[Ted Striker]

I admit it, I enjoy the revenge.

[chequita guevara]

I was not opposed to the war in Afganistan, but how it was conducted. The war was unexpectedly short and the winter was unexpectedly mild. A major humanitarian crisis was thus averted by chance. It culd have just as easily been different, and a million people could have starved to death during the winter. Regardless of our right to take down a country which had aided the massacre of 3,000 Americans and others, in addition to hundreds of Africans, it could have been a counter-attrocity on our part.

That said, I have mostly felt that because of the nature of the clerico-"fascist" threat, that the US was justified in tracking these ****ers down and making greasy spots out of them. Imperialism is progressive compared to the societies envisioned by the Wahabbists. Capitalism and socialism may be enemies, but they are both products of the Enlightenment. Wahabism is pre-Enlightenment and anti-Enlightenment. It is an enemy of human progress and should be obliterated.

[Ramo]

Figures.