[Hydrogen]

Well, if no one knows what to do, then nothing gets done. In the case of Afghanistan, that would have meant - for the foreseeable future - an on-going civil war, sizable portions of the country being run by "misguided" religious beliefs, poverty, starvation, depopulation, criminal mistreatment of females and the hosting of terrorist training camps established with an intent to destabilize governments or societies considered religiously inferior.

Among people I know, I find it odd that so often there is an anger that Western countries do nothing in Darfur, and a similar anger for doing something in Afghanistan. There is a presumption from the outset that Darfur could all be cleaned up quickly with a few troops and a pile of aid. Alternates to what is happening in Afghanistan usually include daydreams of aid without security. Idealistic oughts rarely turn out to be reality.

In the end, I begin to find more respect for people who hold a position that we do nothing for other countries - not because I like that position or even believe in it - but because it is clear. All too often, liberally minded idealists eat their ideals out from the inside until the find themselves actually opposing what they once so valued.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

i have no issue with removing the taliban, etc. this is something that has to be done. such ruthless people shouldn't be allowed to exercise authority over anyone and should be prevented from operating. the issue i have is that the government we the west have propped up over there doesn't always adhere to humane values, even for the most trivial things...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_(convert)

 

[Mot]

I am not advocating doing nothing, just not more of the same ineffective military action taken over the last 7 years. When what you are doing is not working, doing more of the same is stupid.

I am really tired of strawman liberal bashing arguments. I don't see any liberal on here making such claims Hydrogen. However, Darfur is a regional conflict in Western Sudan and would be easier to control than the entire nation of Afghanistan. Doing nothing in Darfur and spinning our collective wheels in Afghanistan is helping no one.

 

[kEiThZ]

I am not advocating doing nothing, just not more of the same ineffective military action taken over the last 7 years. When what you are doing is not working, doing more of the same is stupid.

How do you know it's been ineffective? By what measure and standard? Who knows what heights AQ would have reached had their sanctuary not been taken down.

Again this goes back to the question, "What would you have done on 9/12?" In my books, we (the west) did the right thing. We destroyed AQ's safehaven reducing the likelihood of further attacks and we stayed behind to help rebuild so that Afghanistan would not remain safe harbour for the baddies. So what should we have done differently?

In my books, the only strategic mistake that has happened has been the neo-con distraction with Iraq. Had that not happened the US would be dedicating far more resources to Afghanistan and we would have been much further along. Obama's administration now has to make up for lost time.

I am really tired of strawman liberal bashing arguments. I don't see any liberal on here making such claims Hydrogen. However, Darfur is a regional conflict in Western Sudan and would be easier to control than the entire nation of Afghanistan. Doing nothing in Darfur and spinning our collective wheels in Afghanistan is helping no one.

These aren't Liberal bashing arguments. They are sensible arguments. As a person in uniform, I am sick and tired of folks like you assuming that any peacekeeping mission is a piece of cake while Afghanistan is an impossible nightmare. Darfur would be a challenging mission...not in the least because the reasonably well armed Sudanese government has implicitly threatened to attack 'white' forces that deploy the region. People also forget how big Darfur is....it's the size of France. It's not going to a simple task to control a region that big without putting in significant forces.

There's also the quibble about the UN. Can you explain how you'll get around China's backing for Sudan at the UN? While there's international consensus for the mission in Afghanistan, there is no virtually no support in the Middle East and North Africa, and from a good chunk of the rest of the developing world for western intervention in Darfur. How do we build consensus, when many countries fear this would set a precedent for intervention in their lands when they are harsh with their restive regions?

None of this is to say that I don't believe that we should do something about Darfur. But I want people to understand that a Darfur mission would be difficult and in many ways more challenging than Afghanistan.

 

[Hydrogen]

I am really tired of strawman liberal bashing arguments. I don't see any liberal on here making such claims Hydrogen.

Mot, I've encountered many liberals who are upset that nothing is being done in Darfur. However, because too many can't articulate exactly what they want done, they too often neglect the reality that security must be established before aid can be consistently and properly distributed. Security means force being applied against those carrying out fighting. Inevitably that means shooting and killing - not because it's desired, but because there is a war going on, and some people would quickly see those security forces as a hated enemy.

Similar things are going on in Afghanistan. There are many people in that country who recognize the need for security (and need it), but there are also the warlords and Taliban who deeply resent those security forces because they have usurped their previously unchallenged control of the population. Before infrastructure and civil institutions can be rebuilt for the people of Afghanistan, the threats against those things must be stopped.

And please, don't stake a special claim to liberal ideals solely on the basis of your specific point of view. There is considerable disagreement on a number of issues among liberals. There always has been. Try to recognize that saying you believe in the rights of the Afghan people and doing something to achieve that turn out to be two very different things.

I prefer that we at least try to help - even if some believe that effort to be misguided. There are the beginnings of a civil society emerging in that country, but it remains very fragile. Will it succeed? Who knows? But at least there is an effort to try to do something.

 

[jade_lee]

"An operation the American military at first described as a "precision strike" instead killed 13 Afghan civilians and only three militants, the US said yesterday, three days after sending a general to the site to investigate."

"The US military originally said 15 militants were killed Tuesday in the Gozara district of Herat province. Civilian casualties have been a huge source of friction between the United States and Afghan President Hamid Karzai"

oops they did it again???????


It's never one particular story of violence that exposes war as a crime (the manslaughter of innocent civilians) but instead it's the review of the past several years in Afghanistan, where NATO leadership including the rhetoric of Hillier, prove that the Afghanistan invasion was a knee jerk response to a dreadful terrorist attack where the death of civilians is too high of a cost for the action that has taken place since 911.

The war machine continues to be exposed as irrational people with weapons who spin and spin and give up when too many people are dead.

 

[Brian69]

"An operation the American military at first described as a "precision strike" instead killed 13 Afghan civilians and only three militants, the US said yesterday, three days after sending a general to the site to investigate."

"The US military originally said 15 militants were killed Tuesday in the Gozara district of Herat province. Civilian casualties have been a huge source of friction between the United States and Afghan President Hamid Karzai"

oops they did it again???????


It's never one particular story of violence that exposes war as a crime (the manslaughter of innocent civilians) but instead it's the review of the past several years in Afghanistan, where NATO leadership including the rhetoric of Hillier, prove that the Afghanistan invasion was a knee jerk response to a dreadful terrorist attack where the death of civilians is too high of a cost for the action that has taken place since 911.

The war machine continues to be exposed as irrational people with weapons who spin and spin and give up when too many people are dead.

How 'bout responding to the last time you put your foot in it rather than blundering forward with another one.

 

[kEiThZ]

How 'bout responding to the last time you put your foot in it rather than blundering forward with another one.

Yep,

jade_Lee = Empty Rhetroric + Zero Solutions = Zero Credibility.

 

[jade_lee]

How 'bout responding to the last time you put your foot in it rather than blundering forward with another one.

I understand that you disagree with me but I really don't understand your comment.

This war is going badly because NATO has never known what direction to take. Any "road" they have taken leads to the wrong place as apparent in this failed war. Obama is a bright guy and he will figure this out but lets hope it's sooner rather than later. His comments of late that allude to war not being the answer in solving the problem of Afghanistan gives me hope. It's far too late for NATO to save face on this war adventure!

 

[kEiThZ]

I understand that you disagree with me but I really don't understand your comment.

This war is going badly because NATO has never known what direction to take. Any "road" they have taken leads to the wrong place as apparent in this failed war. Obama is a bright guy and he will figure this out but lets hope it's sooner rather than later. His comments of late that allude to war not being the answer in solving the problem of Afghanistan gives me hope.

Obama's comments of late reflect the advice that have been given to him by his senior commanders and policy advisers. Contrary to your assertion that he does not believe in successfully finishing the war, his authorization of 30 000 more troops for Afghanistan speak to his real intentions. He understands that you cannot negotiate with the Taliban except from a position of strength. Not unless we are willing to let them resume their old ways (you know beheading people in stadiums, sheltering terrorist groups...stuff you support). He is now doing what commanders have been advising for years: stepping up the war and stepping up the aid. It's the right course of action to turn course of the conflict around.

 

[kEiThZ]

How 'bout responding to the last time you put your foot in it rather than blundering forward with another one.

Brian's right. You still have not presented your plan for Afghanistan. You keep on and on about how bad the war, but you offer no alternative. Is nagging your life's vocation or do you ever actually offer real and concrete ideas?

 

[jade_lee]

The commanders change their minds with each exposure of their incompetence.
The troops Obama wants to send to Afghanistan don't exist at the moment.
The war machine clings to any lifeline but civilian death tolls always beats their asses and gets them to end their foolishness.
My plan has never changed, get NATO the hell out of Afghanistan cause they are doing more harm than good.
I love your tag team approach!

 

[kEiThZ]

The commanders change their minds with each exposure of their incompetence.
The troops to send to Afghanistan don't exist at the moment.

Says you. As someone who had the opportunity to meet the NSC staff, I assure you that Obama fully intends to add troops in Afghanistan. And they have the troops. Care to provide evidence that they don't or are you gonna continue spewing more baseless trash?

 

[kEiThZ]

The war machine clings to any lifeline but civilian death tolls always beats their asses and gets them to end their foolishness.

So remind me again why you are on UT if all you are gonna do is spout gibberish like this. Shouldn't you be at an anti-war rally or on some ultra-leftie love convention or blog? You aren't really contributing anything here and the more you post the more you lower credibility.

 

[kEiThZ]

My plan has never changed, get NATO the hell out of Afghanistan cause they are doing more harm than good.

And what pray tell do you have in mind for the Afghans after we leave. So your plan is that we hand over the Afghan people back to the Taliban. Beheadings, no education for girls, harbouring terrorism is okay with you. Got it.

I love your tag team approach!

We aren't tag teaming you here. We all think you're nuts. It's just that simple. If you actually read our other posts, you'll notice we all disgaree on many topics. But when it comes to your posts, there's unanimity that's very rare here on UT.