The US hasn't forgotten Afghanistan

[Giancarlo]

Stop messing up my thread, this about the progress the US is making Afghanistan, not about Hamas or anything else in the middle east. I don't want you euro-coms coming here and distorting the reality. The facts are this, if the US didn't get involved in the middle east all hell would break lose. Stop blasting the US for the good things it has done.

[TCO]

Crud, I really don't give a **** how you sound. Move on to something more interesting. And beleive me, I can be way more incindeary. This ain't ****. Would you be sitting there complaining about what kinds of words the American Revolutionaries used? Who cares? what matters is if we are right or wrong. Not if we don't extend our fingers while we drink tea, old chap.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Fez
Stop messing up my thread

Who? Me or TCO?

Originally posted by Fez
this about the progress the US is making Afghanistan

Agreed, but YOU wouldn't just sit there if someone slags you, so don't expect other people to.

Originally posted by Fez
, not about Hamas or anything else in the middle east.

If people use the language of hate, they should be reminded who else uses it.

Originally posted by Fez
I don't want you euro-coms coming here and distorting the reality.

OH, you did mean me. Official folks, anyone that disagrees with viewing US policy as PC is a communist.

Originally posted by Fez
The facts are this, if the US didn't get involved in the middle east all hell would break lose. Stop blasting the US for the good things it has done.

Point me out a quote that says this - don't remember blasting the US at all.

I do remember blasting TCO, and after the inflammatory ****witted comments he came out with, most sane people would.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Fez
Stop messing up my thread,

Sorry Fez. Zen Fezzed it before Cruddy got here. DEirect you anger toward him.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Flame War!

Here are my two cents.
**** the war. Legalize drugs, that way the Afghani farmers can survive. Pull our military out of everywhere. Stop subsidizing rich ass farmers who farm the government instead of the land. And drop all tariifs.

[WRangler Rhymer]

Hey Fez the warlords are not hostile to the U.S. or Karzai. I think it is more likely that the Afghani troops would reach some argreement with the warlords, maybe they make them the Afghani militia, or have them move to a more desolate spot in Afghanistan.

[Ted Striker]

what he said.

[WRangler Rhymer]

He you like that yeh, but of course if the warlords turned they will most likely face death.

[Pekka]

Fez, I'd really appreciate if you woudlnt' call everyone eurocom, as you mean it in a negative way. I take that as a racist remark to every European, which you are yourself btw. It's not anything personal, I just don't like that term when I see it, no matter who uses it if it's not humor or something. My 2 European cents.

If you however decide to use this term over and over again in negative way, please include disclaimer that says *term eurocom does not apply to Pekka*. Thanks.

And to the subject, I think the key is abolishing the whole warlord thing. They have too much power to make these things work, and we don't know for sure if they're playing with us or the enemy. There is no place for such positions in democracy. Change the system.

[WRangler Rhymer]

That is a good point. The warlord will most likely decomision themself as more cities and places to go spring up. When it grows more urbanized the warlords will abolish themself as they find something else to do like joining the Afghani army or working at the Kabul Burger King. Karzai Also has some green brets helping protect him and the city of Kabul.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by TCO


Typical liberal misdirection. We are talking about Afghanistan in this thread. You jump up and down like a little kid who thinks he's found a fault with Daddy. Get a clue, yellowjacket.

Typical conservative ad hominem.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Fez, why are there not as many troops in there then? everyone promised to build a new Afghanistan before they marched in

even some of my "friends" ( ) here told me so, and I always knew it was bull****. not that I mind. sometimes you need to bull**** people to bam bam, bam test some cool weapons. I liked the Iraq show, a bit too distant though

it was always the strategy not to have too many US troops on the ground there - in order to avoid being seen as the occupying power in a nation that has traditionally turned on its occupiers, in both the Soviet and British cases. Ergo, we took the country with the minium possible US troops, and have since maintained less than 10,000 troops there, mainly hunting AQ and Taliban.

While it might be good to have more non-US troops there ( and Karzai has asked for more) there dont seem to be many available. Meanwhile the country is building its own army, and slowly rebuilding infrastructure. We probably should have put more money in earlier though. So should everyone else.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Master Zen


That should be conforting to the Iraquis also... so much for "Iraqui Freedom" if the true intention is just deposing a regime and installing a new one giving not a rat's a s s about anything else... typical though, I couldn't expect less from such an elightened and benevolent nation under an idiot like Bush...

the strategic situation of Iraq and Afghanistan are profoundly different, as are their potential for democracy.

Strategy - afganistan is not particularly strategically located, its sole importance to AQ was as a failed state that could serve as a remote hideout. Strategically, we only need to insure it does not revert to that status.

Iraq, OTOH, is an arab state, in a central portion of the mideast, with borders on Syria, Iran, and Saudi. Establishing a democracy there shows the Arab world a way out of their dead end, and puts pressure on Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. This is called the
"reverse domino effect" and is based on the experiences of east Asia, latin america, and eastern europe in the 1990's.

Potential for democracy - Iraq is more urban, more connected to the outside world, and has historically had a more educated, modern population than Afganistan.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Strategy - afganistan is not particularly strategically located, its sole importance to AQ was as a failed state that could serve as a remote hideout. Strategically, we only need to insure it does not revert to that status.

Sorry lotm, if someone doesn't do something about those poppy fields soon, the US is going to lose all credibility for actually caring what Afghanistan is up to.

More at stake in the country than AQ - much more. I walk past junkies on the make almost every day, and it's infuriating to think where that junk ultimately comes from.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pekka
It is very clear that many warlords are playing on both ends. It's another thing which side they like more, but they have the power to play the game, maybe most of them are just getting support and money from Karzais gov or something. The enemy would be pretty much finished if warlords were united and against them, but clearly they are NOT. So, I see nothing wrong with ultimatum, if they want to change the system, they must get rid of warlords and such. They should stop being nice about it and say step down or die.

In fact the taliban are mainly operating in the south and east. In the warlord-run north and west there are no taliban. Those warlords, Ismael Khan and Dostum, are playing there own games, but are certainly not playing on the side of the taliban. The warlords in the south east are pretty much small potatoes, except for Shirzai in Kandahar, and are being supplanted by Karzai appointed governors. Ive never heard that Shirzai was playing both sides - have you?

Basically the reason hasnt been easy to crush the taliban/AQ is that they can run over to the Pakistan side of the border. Pakistan does not exercise effective control over the tribal border zones, and never has (as the Brits before them never did) Given that, coalition forces, including afghans, are doing a pretty good job.