Leaving Afghanistan

[dannubis]

Hey ********, feudalism ended in Europe gradually with the emergence of other industries besides simple, labor-intensive agriculture.

Is that enough for you to put two and two together and understand my ****ing point?

No ****head. Feudalism ended with the advent of the nation state.

[Al B. Sure!]

No ****head. Feudalism ended with the advent of the nation state.

And why the hell do you think this 'nation state' developed?

A de-emphasis on agriculture, the growing urban bourgeoisie, the depopulation effects of the Black Plague which raised wages, the 'commonalization' of the means to fight wars with gunpowder which weakened the military power of knights, etc. etc.

The common undercurrent in all of that is the ECONOMY. Learn some historical processes. Learn about the economic origins of political systems, ****head

[dannubis]

The nation state as a concept developed under the rule of Richelieu and Louis XIII. That is what ended feudalism. This is about 200 years before productivity was drastically increased by your "industrial revolution". If ghetto-man would like to say something sensible about European history, ghetto-man would do good do get out of the ghetto first.

****head

[Zevico]

The reason the intervention in Afghanistan is not creating a stable central Afghan government can be summarised briefly as follows. First, the Taliban insurgency is backed by Pakistan. It has little reason to surrender. Second, we're not attacking Pakistan and we have no plans to do so. Third, as long as Pakistan can back the insurgency, the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the failure of the Afghan government to secure popular support, means that the Taliban is a viable alternative (in Afghan eyes) to Afghan central government rule. As long as this set of circumstances continue, there is little reason to suppose that the intervention will achieve its primary objective.

[dannubis]

I guess the coalition failed to win "the minds and hearts of the people".

Fact is, the majority of the Afghans would rather see us gone yesterday. In these circumstances I don't think it is possible to be successful.

[giblets]

Majority of Americans not concerned that U.S. will be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks if the U.S. pulls out of Afghanistan

[BeBMan]

If the Taliban were clever they could have ended the war long ago by playing the US anthem 24/7, esp. in battle:

Military law requires all vehicles on the installation to stop when the song is played and all individuals outside to stand at attention and face the direction of the music and either salute, in uniform, or place the right hand over the heart, if out of uniform.

Well, they would knew this hadn't they banned all non-religious and non-Taliban music.

[Zevico]

So you'd rather give up than press on.



Why are they lumping in age deaths?



Seems to me that the same old gang of mijiheeden idiots are still killing people. Probably because they figure that the harder they push, that Obama's not going doo crap all. And they are right.



So you'd rather have the Taliban take over? That's not going to help things, and will make things worse.

If you're going to intervene then the obligation is to fix things up before you leave. You just don't bail after intervention.

Yes, it is expensive, but then that should have beeen decided before going in. I believe I wasn the only realist who said that the US would be there for a long time. As in 50 years.

The problem with "pressing on" is that our objective ("a stable, anti-Taliban Afghan government") isn't being achieved by our current strategy. Pakistan is funding and arming the Taliban. The Taliban's Pakistani Pashtun compatriots are assisting the Taliban. Bush tried to dissuade the Pakistani state and Obama probably did too, but both failed. For whatever reason, Pakistan's elite has decided that its future is tied to the future victory of the Talibani insurgency.
Staying in Afghanistan, with any prospect of success, means dealing with Pakistan. Negotiations, concession and diplomacy have failed. War with Pakistan is not on the cards. There simply isn't anything left for us to do in these circumstances. Is it a happy outcome? Do I wish that there was no porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan? Do I wish that Afghans conceived of themselves as a people rather than a collection of warring tribes? Or that the Pashtuns on each side of the border didn't subscribe to a backward tribal code and belief system that facilitated and propped up the Taliban and Al Qaida? Of course I do.
Let me give you a not-so-hypothetical. Build a school in one village? Great. It was bombed last weak. Collateral damage means the locals hate the Americans; and when the Americans rotate to another village to "build and secure", the Taliban comes back to the first village. This is not "progress." Farmers growing crops instead of opium? The Taliban burns down the crops. And all the while Taliban propaganda blames the US.

I would much prefer it if we could win under the present circumstances, but until one of these factors changes for the better--and there's little reason to expect that any of them will--there's no reason to continue the intervention.
If there were some other means by which we could achieve our goal in Afghanistan I would support it. But if there is, it isn't apparent to the military or the politicans involved in the intervention throughout the world. And that means that to our knowledge, our current intervention just isn't doing enough long term good for American (or broader Western) interests to continue unabated.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

If the Taliban were clever they could have ended the war long ago by playing the US anthem 24/7, esp. in battle:



Well, they would knew this hadn't they banned all non-religious and non-Taliban music.

Almost as effective as: (warning do not read more than one word at a time as passage can be damaging to your health)

Spoiler:

Joke Brigade: (together) Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

[Al B. Sure!]

The nation state as a concept developed under the rule of Richelieu and Louis XIII. That is what ended feudalism. This is about 200 years before productivity was drastically increased by your "industrial revolution". If ghetto-man would like to say something sensible about European history, ghetto-man would do good do get out of the ghetto first.

****head

****HEAD

I'm not talking about industrial revolution. Does it sound like I'm talking about the industrial revolution?

A de-emphasis on agriculture, the growing urban bourgeoisie, the depopulation effects of the Black Plague which raised wages, the 'commonalization' of the means to fight wars with gunpowder which weakened the military power of knights, etc. etc.

[dannubis]

You are simply not worth the time. You have clearly no clue what happens outside of the ghetto you choose to burry yourself in. I would say get ****ed but you can't even do that properly.

[Al B. Sure!]

You are simply not worth the time. You have clearly no clue what happens outside of the ghetto you choose to burry yourself in. I would say get ****ed but you can't even do that properly.

I don't have the time to sit here and explain the nuisances of historical processes in 14th-17th century European history.

How the hell do you think your 'nation-state' was 'advented' if not as a predictable reaction to economic stimulus? Where do you think it came from? From God? **** you

[Al B. Sure!]

I guess you think Richelieu just thought up one day, "Hey, let's do this different way of organizing all of France! And here's every step and every change required to change not only an entire country's socio-economic and political structure but also dramatically alter the distribution of social, economic, and political power in France... oh and here's what to do so it gets largely accepted and not blow up in our faces... yeah, I just thought this all up so let's get to work"

What do you think this is? Civilization and Richelieu was the player?

That's not how the world works.

[giblets]

You are simply not worth the time. You have clearly no clue what happens outside of the ghetto you choose to burry yourself in. I would say get ****ed but you can't even do that properly.

But he can post marxist theories of how societies develop!

[giblets]

I don't have the time to sit here and explain the nuisances of historical processes in 14th-17th century European history.

How the hell do you think your 'nation-state' was 'advented' if not as a predictable reaction to economic stimulus? Where do you think it came from? From God? **** you

Did you mean nuances? Nuisance?