Dancing in the streets!

[MichaeltheGreat]

The US wan't obligated to intervene.

If you think people will be "grateful" when we invade, kill a few of them, leave a good portion of their infrastructure in shambles, and then leave, saying "hey, we paid for a lot of stuff we dropped on you, you should be grateful" then you'd better look to your security and disaster preparedness plans.

The US has certainly in many, many instances done quite well aiding and abetting corrupt leaders in return for nice, lucrative contracts for politically connected American companies. (United Fruit and M. A. Hanna being the two biggest in this hemisphere)

So yeah, if we choose to intervene by force in what we designate to be a problem to our security interests, we'd better either pay to clean up the mess, and maybe even improve it a bunch, or else accept that a lot of pissed off people with long memories will want to stick it to us in any way they can.

[Q Classic]

no, what he's saying is that the US promised a whole package of aid for rebuilding, very little of which is forthcoming.

The fact that the country has devolved into tribal groups again, is a stark advertisement for the benefits of unilateral action, rather than the failed multilateral approach that the UN brings.

which would have done nothing to dispel fears of us imperialism...

what it boils down to is that the US either did not have or was unwilling to commit enough resources to occupy and rebuild both iraq and afghanistan.

the UN's failure is indeed a large part due to its inability to function without the US, and the US's behavior of only going to the UN to rubberstamp its actions has done nothing to help either the UN or the US.

democracy seems to be all well and good, so long as only american opinions are voiced, nee?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
The US didn't have any choice. The UN set up the meeting for the Afgani opposition, and then ratified that opposition.The Afghans are responsible for their own internal security and political cohesion.

The fact that the country has devolved into tribal groups again, is a stark advertisement for the benefits of unilateral action, rather than the failed multilateral approach that the UN brings.

Actually, that's far more a matter of US policy than the UN. We chose to operate on the ground primarily through proxies, strengthening our "allies" from the NA with equipment, money, and training.

We then paid lip service to the central government, which had no tax base, since there was no infrastructure, no employment base and no industrial base. The Karzai government was paralyzed to begin with.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So yeah, if we choose to intervene by force in what we designate to be a problem to our security interests, we'd better either pay to clean up the mess, and maybe even improve it a bunch, or else accept that a lot of pissed off people with long memories will want to stick it to us in any way they can.

Man, I'm getting all these funny feelings for MtG now.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The US wan't obligated to intervene.

If you think people will be "grateful" when we invade, kill a few of them, leave a good portion of their infrastructure in shambles, and then leave, saying "hey, we paid for a lot of stuff we dropped on you, you should be grateful" then you'd better look to your security and disaster preparedness plans.

The US has certainly in many, many instances done quite well aiding and abetting corrupt leaders in return for nice, lucrative contracts for politically connected American companies. (United Fruit and M. A. Hanna being the two biggest in this hemisphere)

So yeah, if we choose to intervene by force in what we designate to be a problem to our security interests, we'd better either pay to clean up the mess, and maybe even improve it a bunch, or else accept that a lot of pissed off people with long memories will want to stick it to us in any way they can.

Afghanistan was a problem. The UN agreed with us. Pretty much every civilized nation in the world is dealing with terrorists. The US, as per usual, did the heavy lifting, yet again... and then went with the consensus on the administration of Afghanistan.

In all the UN's wisdom, they installed this regime, then let them get on with it. There isn't any amount of cash that could have helped this devolution to tribalism.

The UN needed to keep their hands on the reins, to deal with the situation when it got out of hand.

You can't put a security band-aid after the fact.

The US is looking to be involved in the Iraqi administration... they've learnt the error of trusting the UN now.

Also, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are corporate profit centers.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov




Man, I'm getting all these funny feelings for MtG now.

Poor some ice water on it, commie.

[spiritof1202]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Actually, that's far more a matter of US policy than the UN. We chose to operate on the ground primarily through proxies, strengthening our "allies" from the NA with equipment, money, and training.

We then paid lip service to the central government, which had no tax base, since there was no infrastructure, no employment base and no industrial base. The Karzai government was paralyzed to begin with.

First, I see no problem with having allies or "proxies", as long as it is in our security or economic interests.

Regarding Afghanistan... it wasn't our administration to meddle in. We'd already ratified the administration. Afganistan, although its "broken", isn't a current security threat to the US. We only need to use UNSC's resolution to solve those issues.

[Sava]

Also, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are corporate profit centers.

Have you been living in a cave?

In Afghanistan, there is talk of constructing an oil pipeline from the Caspian Region into Karachi. And in Iraq, well, $4 trillion dollars in oil speaks for itself.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
Afghanistan was a problem. The UN agreed with us. Pretty much every civilized nation in the world is dealing with terrorists. The US, as per usual, did the heavy lifting, yet again... and then went with the consensus on the administration of Afghanistan.

Of course it's a problem - it had been one for years, and mostly ignored. We could have confined attacks to al Qaeda targets and their immediate Taleban support, without really giving a **** about Qandahar and Mullah Omar.

In all the UN's wisdom, they installed this regime, then let them get on with it. There isn't any amount of cash that could have helped this devolution to tribalism.

The "regime" had to be installed, but it didn't have to be emasculated by a withdrawal of force, coupled with a lack of money. The food supply of the whole country comes from two valleys/plains areas, one around Qandahar heading southwest almost to Iran, and the other in the Khowst-Ghazny area that's a real hotbed of Taleban / al Qaeda activity, due to proximity of Hekmatyar's forces and the road to Parachinar.

Establishing effective occupation forces in the major cities and the open, food producing regions, while funding and stepping up training of Afghani national police and military forces would have helped a lot.

The UN needed to keep their hands on the reins, to deal with the situation when it got out of hand.

You can't put a security band-aid after the fact.

Occupation forces piss people off - especially armed people with nothing in particular to live for.

The US is looking to be involved in the Iraqi administration... they've learnt the error of trusting the UN now.

The US wasn't looking to the UN for "guidance" in dealing with Afghanistan - we wanted to hand it off and wash our hands to the greatest extent we could get away with it.

Also, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are corporate profit centers.

Iraq has a ****load of oil, Afghanistan is a major potential conduit for oil and LNG from ex-Soviet republics, and also had quite a large market share in a number of gemstone markets - Lapis, certain opals, etc. Enough to make decent livings by third world standards for quite a few people. They don't need much, and don't expect much, but 24 years of "degraded" targets and facilities is a lot to overcome.

[gsmoove23]

Don't forget the heroin. Comin back with a bang!

[Lincoln]

The United States went into Afghanistan because they were harboring terrorists. It wasn't supposed to be a nation building excersize. But they can be grateful that is was the US that was offended and not some other less generous people. In any case they are better off than they were before regardless.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov




Man, I'm getting all these funny feelings for MtG now.

Am I clear on what you guys are saying? You think America must stay engaged after the security threat has been removed? So, if the new government in Iraq begins to come apart at the seems, we can put it all back together again?

As to reconstruction: I understand the problem is the damage caused to the oil infrastructure by the UN sanctions. I'll be damned if I will support the US picking up the entire tab for UN failures.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by spiritof1202


First, I see no problem with having allies or "proxies", as long as it is in our security or economic interests.

Our proxies are among the *******s that are part of the current problem.

Afganistan, although its "broken", isn't a current security threat to the US. We only need to use UNSC's resolution to solve those issues.

Afghanistan was never a security threat to the US. It was a power vacuum in which a mobile security threat was able to fluorish.

By that token, Iraq is not a security threat to the US, so we could just pack up and go home. Until the next time...

We spent around 110 billion on this war, in less than a month of fighting, and a few months of buildup. (Counting the current supplemental budget request)

That's more than we've spent in unilateral foreign aid in more than a decade. Hell, even the administration admits the root causes (and necessary solutions) are economic and political. We can spend the rest of our national existence fighting fanatic barbarians at the gates, or we can do something about the root causes of the problems, and maybe, if we're real smart, create some marketplaces for something besides weapons.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The United States went into Afghanistan because they were harboring terrorists. It wasn't supposed to be a nation building excersize. But they can be grateful that is was the US that was offended and not some other less generous people. In any case they are better off than they were before regardless.

And that sort of attitude is what will make it once again a haven for fundamentalist terrorists who will once again want to express their "gratitude."

Unless you're prepared for perpetual "war" or genocide, better start thinking about root causes.

[Lincoln]

Well I am. The root cause in this instance was that they rammed a few jetliners into some buildings...