more turmoil in Afghanistan

[joncha]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Not at all. This new group is proving to actually be more stable. But they won't be in power much longer since Karzai is getting more and more power. And Karzai is not a warlord, he is a really down to earth pragmatic guy who is very popular in his country. As long as the military he controls continues to grow so will his power over the warlords.

The Taliban controlled most of the country. Karzai, how ever much he is loved in the West (and he is a snappy dresser, I'll admit!) controls only Kabul. As far as puppet governments go, this is on par with what the Soviets were able to achieve. And we all know how that turned out.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
And Karzai is not a warlord, he is a really down to earth pragmatic guy who is very popular in his country.

Reminds me of George W

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


Yes, obviously.

And what was exactly going on before the taliban were overthrowned? A civil war. I mean there is still fighting but nothing close to the intensity of what happened during the taliban years. Man you can quote that article all you want.. it is not changing your ignorance.

Joncha: B.S

Karzai, how ever much he is loved in the West (and he is a snappy dresser, I'll admit!) controls only Kabul. As far as puppet governments go, this is on par with what the Soviets were able to achieve. And we all know how that turned out.

Karzai is actually quite popular with his people and the ability to send troops to other parts of the counrty shows your statement is abhorrently false. He isn't a puppet government either, but a well established one. And the US has been able to keep a relative stability with only what.. 13,000 international troops there? The Soviets couldn't even do it with 100,000.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
And what was exactly going on before the taliban were overthrowned? A civil war. I mean there is still fighting but nothing close to the intensity of what happened during the taliban years. Man you can quote that article all you want.. it is not changing your ignorance.

Whoa, the ignorance of history seems to be yours. The 20 years of Afghanistan's civil war was ended by the emergence of the Taliban as the national power. They had pushed the Northern Alliance out of 95% of the country and had achieved a great deal fo stability in the country. Sure, it was a murderous, evil, rotten government, but it was a stable one that held the country in a relatively peaceful state after gaining power. There wasn't remotely the kind of chaos we see today post-Taliban, whatever we may think of the necessity/rightness of ousting them from power.

[Hueij]

People, people, look at the bright side... Opium production under the new government has reached pre-Taliban levels

[Boris Godunov]

Well, now that we're not giving $100s of millions in bribe money to the Taliban to stop the opium production, that was bound to happen.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


And what was exactly going on before the taliban were overthrowned? A civil war. I mean there is still fighting but nothing close to the intensity of what happened during the taliban years. Man you can quote that article all you want.. it is not changing your ignorance..

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by ErikM

Woo-hoo, Karzai sent HIS OWN troops! In a country where pretty much an entire population armed to the teeth, it is hard not to have at least a couple of guys loyal to somebody, including Karzai.

The point is that these are the troops of the government of Afghanistan. Not the troops of some warlord.

You were probably one of those guys who said that Karzai couldn't project power outside of Kabul, weren't you? And here they are doing just that?

Hmmm...sounds like a step forward. Afghanistan keeps moving forward.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Whoa, the ignorance of history seems to be yours. The 20 years of Afghanistan's civil war was ended by the emergence of the Taliban as the national power. They had pushed the Northern Alliance out of 95% of the country and had achieved a great deal fo stability in the country. Sure, it was a murderous, evil, rotten government, but it was a stable one that held the country in a relatively peaceful state after gaining power. There wasn't remotely the kind of chaos we see today post-Taliban, whatever we may think of the necessity/rightness of ousting them from power.

I just got back from eating a buffet and this is what I get. The civil war didn't end with the emergence of the taliban. It was still going on. The Northern Alliance was still fighting. Like Haiti, both sides are terrible. I don't like the Northern Alliance. Also I did mention that the taliban did stabilize the country but they were supporting Al Qaeda and had to go. It doesn't matter what you think. And the majority of people even here on apolyton supported the overthrow of the taliban.. as I saw in a recent poll.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
The Northern Alliance was still fighting.

Yes, in the 5% of Afghanistan they still held. The Taliban had them boxed in. The other 95% of the country was virtually free of strife and very much under the control of the Taliban. While it may not have been pleasant, it was stable.

[Ted Striker]

So what?

I can't believe how "great" some of you guys think the Taliban were.

Glad you support torture of women though.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
So what?

I can't believe how "great" some of you guys think the Taliban were.

Glad you support torture of women though.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Sure, it was a murderous, evil, rotten government

I'm not sure at what your reading comprehension failed. Probably at the start, eh?

I seem to also be on record as supporting the invasion of Afghanistan. Hell, I was calling for the government to take harsher measures against Taliban before September 11th, even before Americans had heard of Osama bin Laden, precisely because of their horrific human rights abuses. So I can out self-righteous you here if you like.

But the point was academic--GC's claim that Afghanistan was less stable prior to the invasion is a lot of nonsense, and such distortions don't serve to advance an argument.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yes, in the 5% of Afghanistan they still held. The Taliban had them boxed in. The other 95% of the country was virtually free of strife and very much under the control of the Taliban. While it may not have been pleasant, it was stable.

So you think the stadium executions were fine to continue because the taliban stabilized the country? Wake up man, I did say the taliban stabilized the country.. in fact they were a welcome change in the beginning when they were a lot more moderate but they took a radical turn and started executing people in stadiums. I think right now the best thing is to support Karzai and increase his power by increasing the size of his military (last I heard it was around 20,000?? I think).

[alva]

TED:
I can't believe how "great" some of you guys think the Taliban were.

Boris:
While it may not have been pleasant, it was stable.

Boris:
Sure, it was a murderous, evil, rotten government, but it was a stable one that held the country in a relatively peaceful state after gaining power.

EDIT: Boris was faster...

[Ted Striker]

My point exactly.

The stability argument has absolutley no value whatsoever.

Nazi Germany was also very stable.