Karzai visits Washington, nobody cares

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
In due time Urban.

In due time? IIRC, the US has tried bribery, which doesn't seem to be working. The US isn't reinforcing either, so how will it disarm the warlords?

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The US worked WITH the warlords to whoop Taliban ass. We can't just turn around and impose ourselves on them yet without the whole place falling apart.

That's the mistake the Russians made.

I reckon the US attacked in great haste without a comprehensive post-war plan. That was understandable in light of 9-11 attack. However, it's not even an excuse more than a year after Taliban has been kicked out.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Regardless, it is appropiate to compare Afghanistan with Iraq.

I dont know about that. They are two very different circumstances. In Afghanistan we never had many troops on the ground, in Iraq we will have a quarter million... vague plans are already sketched out about a massive occupation, unlike the skeleton that is in Afghanisran.

[Kramerman]

oh, back on topic... aauh... i lack the energy...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


In due time? IIRC, the US has tried bribery, which doesn't seem to be working. The US isn't reinforcing either, so how will it disarm the warlords?



I reckon the US attacked in great haste without a comprehensive post-war plan. That was understandable in light of 9-11 attack. However, it's not even an excuse more than a year after Taliban has been kicked out.

Disarming the warlords isn't the key to stability in the country. Somewhere down the line yes, but in the next 5 years, NO.

The US and the warlords had to work together to kick out the Taliban. They are our allies. There are even some scumbags mixed in there but they are our allies regardless. Sometimes to kick the biggest scumbags on the block out, you have to work with some other scumbags to get the job done. The US/UK working with the USSR to destroy Nazi Germany and Japan is the most prime example of this. But the US just didn't turn around and then obliterate the Russians (even though Patton wanted to) just because we didn't like they way they ran business. That would have meant an even bigger mess.

The problem the Soviets had in Afghanistan was that they came in and tried to run the whole place in the way that you are advocating. And it led to a complete disaster.

YES, 1 year IS an excuse.

No not enough is being done in Afghanistan, but, compared with the last 20, I'd say that's damn good progess.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


In due time? IIRC, the US has tried bribery, which doesn't seem to be working. The US isn't reinforcing either, so how will it disarm the warlords?

Now you want us to attack the warlords, but not Saddam? Eventhough the warlords haven't done any bad things to us and don't hate us as much as Saddam?

I reckon the US attacked in great haste without a comprehensive post-war plan. That was understandable in light of 9-11 attack. However, it's not even an excuse more than a year after Taliban has been kicked out.

Regardless how you twist the fact here, the truth is that Afghanistan is getting better, and that's what counts.

I could also go on an endless tirade about how corrupt Chinese government is and how much China still sucks. But I won't do that.

[Dinner]

LM: Don't bother Urban Dullard with logical consistancies. He's not good at that.

[Drake Tungsten]

I could also go on an endless tirade about how corrupt Chinese government is and how much China still sucks. But I won't do that.

I will!

Just give me the word...

[cinch]

Oerdin:

LM: Don't bother Urban Dullard with logical consistancies. He's not good at that.

Can the insults be left in the abandoned thread, at the very least, please?

Following UR from thread to thread to call him a "dullard" seems a little over the top, no?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by cinch
Oerdin:



Can the insults be left in the abandoned thread, at the very least, please?

Following UR from thread to thread to call him a "dullard" seems a little over the top, no?

no... and im not abandoning that thread!

[Dinner]

hmmm, ok. I'll let it die even if his behavior continues...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Disarming the warlords isn't the key to stability in the country. Somewhere down the line yes, but in the next 5 years, NO.

With the warlords running around, that the government is not obeyed outside of Kabul, there's not really a country is it?

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The US and the warlords had to work together to kick out the Taliban. They are our allies. There are even some scumbags mixed in there but they are our allies regardless. Sometimes to kick the biggest scumbags on the block out, you have to work with some other scumbags to get the job done. The US/UK working with the USSR to destroy Nazi Germany and Japan is the most prime example of this. But the US just didn't turn around and then obliterate the Russians (even though Patton wanted to) just because we didn't like they way they ran business. That would have meant an even bigger mess.

That's silly, comparing warlords with countries.

Originally posted by Ted Striker
No not enough is being done in Afghanistan, but, compared with the last 20, I'd say that's damn good progess.

I am not so sure. At least under the Taliban, 95% of the country had law and order. Maybe it wasn't the kind of law you like, but law nevertheless.

[cinch]

hmmm, ok. I'll let it die even if his behavior continues...

Wow, I was half-expecting you to take my head off. This makes me very happy.

See, folks, we can all just get along!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Now you want us to attack the warlords, but not Saddam?

Are you always so violent that, whenever you see the word "disarm," your only reaction is "attack?"

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Eventhough the warlords haven't done any bad things to us and don't hate us as much as Saddam?

1. What did Saddam do to the US?
2. How do you know the warlords don't hate the US?

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Regardless how you twist the fact here, the truth is that Afghanistan is getting better, and that's what counts.

Better in what sense?

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
I could also go on an endless tirade about how corrupt Chinese government is and how much China still sucks. But I won't do that.

Go right ahead, if you can show it is relevant.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I saw a huge half hour piece which NPR did on him at the time. I have no idea where you got the idea he was ignored but it is obviously not a good source. As I recall there was some controversy during Karzai's visit because he asked for more money but several high ranking Democratic senitors told him he'd have to publicly admite that the Afghan state would be unable to proform its duties without more aid money.

Of course the Dems were fishing for an issue to hammer Bush on and I think it is ugly partisianship at its worst that they'd try to tie support to Afghanistan to domestic politics. I'm disguested but not surprised...

Actually, I understand that several Republican senators told him the same thing - that he couldn't sugarcoat things and ask for more aid money at the same time.

It reminds me of a story told by Kissinger, about Viet Nam. - Seems on one tour of the RVN, a local official, talking about the "pacification" programs in the province, told the US officials that things were going great, the province was 90% pacified. Then a year later, another group, and the same guy told the US officials that things were going great, the province was 80% pacified.

As far as hamming Bush, that isn't hard - we have the economy, unemployment, gasoline prices, deficits, the DPRK crisis, the new revelations about Iran's nukes program, and all sorts of things we could hammer Bush on. The biggest problem the Dems have is getting someone who will hammer effectively, but you can be the Dems emphasis won't be on hammering Bush over Afghanistan, but on the domestic agenda - it's what allowed Clinton to beat Bush's daddy, so the Dems will try to work the same thing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
hmmm, ok. I'll let it die even if his behavior continues...

Yes, you will.