NA back to their old ways of raping, excecuting and pillaging

[rev]

You're right, I can't, just the same as you can't prove that you weren't. Why? Because you made an after-the-fact statement saying you were 'joking'. Har, har, har; when pressed for proof, it becomes a 'joke'. Doesn't look too good, G-lo.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by rev
You're right, I can't, just the same as you can't prove that you weren't. Why? Because you made an after-the-fact statement saying you were 'joking'. Har, har, har; when pressed for proof, it becomes a 'joke'. Doesn't look too good, G-lo.

Do you actually think I am saying that I think the US supports terrorism? Stupid... Stainball.

[blackice]

Remember


It's the soldier, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It's the soldier, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It's the soldier, not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to demonstrate.

It's the soldier, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trail.

And it's the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives the protester the right to burn the flag.

[rev]

You use that 'insult' every time you need to prove that you're 'better' than me ("I'm the son of a Diplomat, Steinball. I'm better than all of you"). At least find some creativity and come up with a new one.

"Do you actually think I am saying that I think the US supports terrorism?"

Well it does/did. So you're either denying the truth or you're trying to say that the US *did* support terrorism, but after September 11 it magically stopped (without providing any evidence of this statement). Choose your weapon.

[rev]

Cute poem. So what you're saying is that if we take away those rights, we're disrespecting the sacrifices (some mortal) of millions of our soldiers? I agree.

[blackice]

Freedom of all kinds are generally won on the battlefield. Let's hope the Afganis take this opportunity to excercise their right to such freedoms...If for anything they should do it for their children...

[Admiral]

A democratic society in Afghanistan? Is that an oxymoron... even I thought about the difficulties of setting up such a government.

Is it even remotely possible?

Currently. it would be hard to implement, but we can at least set p the means for implementation, and a different form of government than a NA dictatorship would be a start toward democracy.

The US does not obviously support terrorism now, but it supported anti-Communist terrorism in the past. If you consider terrorism against supposedly communist targets a legitamite extension of politics, than the US does not support terrorism.

"Freedom of all kinds are generally won on the battlefield. Let's hope the Afganis take this opportunity to excercise their right to such freedoms...If for anything they should do it for their children..."
Exactly. Why would we fight a war in Afghanistan and upon its conclusion let Afghanistan revert to the 1992-96 period? For revenge? Does revenge mean killing an equal number of Afghani civilians for no discernable purpose? I hope not...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Admiral
The true test will come if we do allow the NA to take over without US/UN/Coalition advisement. If they don't set up a dictatorship i will be very surprised.

I doubt the NA leadership is so dumb as to be unaware of how quick and how hard they'd get ****ed the moment we stopped supporting them. The alliance is only one of convenience against a common enemy, and the rivalry between Uzbeks and Tajiks is very long standing. They are small minority ethnic groups, with almost no presence in the majority Pashtun southern plains, and loyalty is the scarcest commodity of all in Afghanistan.

Most of the same leaders and groups who've risen against the Taleban in the last few days are the ones who rose against and contributed to the NA's rout starting in 1996.

The real problem prior to the Taleban taking over wasn't the brutality of the NA as a cohesive organization, it was the component groups of the NA fighting each other (and attacking rival ethnic civilians who were the base of support of their enemies) in an extension of old tribal warfare. The situation was one of virtual anarchy, and the NA isn't far from that now, without the presence of all that external support they have now.

I agree with GP that the specific military mission is not nationbuilding, but the long term political and grand strategic goals of a war on terrorism must include some serious aid and nationbuilding efforts. We have the examples of political decision making after the world wars - the Treaty of Versailles, and the Marshall Plan. Which was more effective?

[KrazyHorse]

If the US doesn't want an American body count arising under the perennially unpopular auspices of "peacekeeping" after the war, then go ahead and simply let a responsible UN force do it, while supporting them with air power. This looks to be what's going to happen, given the recent Sec. Council declaration.

If nobody keeps the peace then the resulting chaos and new dictatorship will likely not be in the US's best interests, in addition to harming further the US's international credibility/popularity.

[TCO]

That's a reasonably stated option, KH. There are down sides/risks with staying around as well as with leaving. I would really want to know more about the details on the ground before making a commitment to protect a UN occupation force. (That's what it ends up being in effect.)

[KrazyHorse]

"Peacekeeping" sounds much more friendly than "occupation", though.

[drake]

Well the NA just freed those aid workers.

The Taliban said they were going to return them, but , we know how good their word is.

http://news.excite.com/news/ap/01111...ks-aid-workers

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
"Peacekeeping" sounds much more friendly than "occupation", though.

You'll go far in business, young man...

[MichaeltheGreat]

KH - the only trouble with that is the UN doesn't want to go (or stay) anyplace where there's real fighting. They like to kid themselves that if you take outdated equipment, paint it white with UN logos on it, ridding yourselves of heavy weapons, you can tell warring local groups what to do, and they'll do it out of sheer respect and admiration for the UN Charter.

I don't want to see a UN occupation force at all unless they've seriously rethought their abysmal approach to such missions.

On the humanitarian side of things, fine, but I think most of the military aspects should be worked out among the six plus two group, with additional participation by India (as the main regional power not in the six plus two) and Turkey (as a reliable US lackey Islamic source of occupation troops who will definitely be the baddest mother****ers in the valley*)


* from the grunt's version of the 23rd Psalm

[TCO]

The Turks are defintely bad ass soldiers. My old man worked with them in the Korean war and as an advisor in the early 60's...