PDA

View Full Version : Breaking new: Afghanistan Another Key Assassination.....



MMC
07-17-2011, 01:10 PM
CNN is now currently breaking news that another key Karzai supporter has been assassinated. This is the second top influential ally of Karza, that has been taken out as they US has begun to draw down troops.

Moreover the US has now got word out to the Taliban to come and talk to end the war. This marks Karzai Ally in the South and now the West that has been removed from the pciture. I don't think the Taliban will stop until they get Karzai. Thoughts?

Conley
07-17-2011, 01:17 PM
Afghanistan was never going to be saved. That was just typical US arrogance. I agreed with us going in, eliminating Taliban and hunting down OBL/AQ, but the idea of installing a western style democracy was laughable. These people were in the stone ages under the Taliban, and it will take a while for their society to recover. As soon as we finish pulling out I think the current government will collapse. Karzai is not popular, he is seen as a western puppet. Hopefully his replacement is still a moderate but has the support of the people. We never had a chance of policing that outland, no one has ever been able to. Practically speaking our best efforts should be on Iraq and the oil supply, and maintaining security around Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. We have been spread way too thin for years now.

MMC
07-17-2011, 01:35 PM
Yeah well Currently we have Iran Surrounded too.....This week Petraeus will now pass over Command to the next general there and take Conrol of the CIA. Plus we have passed off some of the Security to the Afgahni's. So one can expect that there will now be more bomobings. Just as yesterday they blew up a police car in some public place killing 10.

Mister D
07-17-2011, 03:34 PM
I don't give the current Karzai regime much chance either. I disagree that this was simply US arrogance. The neocons and their supporters really believed this nation building stuff and this nonsense about all peoples yearning to breathe free. The sooner this demon is exorcised from body politic the better. Hopefully some valuable lessons have been learned.

Conley
07-17-2011, 04:09 PM
Agreed...I believe you are correct about the neocons, but in my mind it is partly hubris to believe that one can engineer such changes so easily (welcomed as liberators, the war will pay for itself, etc.).

Mister D
07-17-2011, 05:11 PM
Agreed...I believe you are correct about the neocons, but in my mind it is partly hubris to believe that one can engineer such changes so easily (welcomed as liberators, the war will pay for itself, etc.).


I agree with that if by hubris we mean a loss of a sense of reality and of our limitations. I honestly believe that Bush et al were doing not only what they thought was the right thing for the US but also for the Afghans and Iraqis. Yeah, the propaganda about "freedom" etc. may be insulting to a lot of us but there was a very real idealism in their ranks, IMO. They weren't trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The adventures in the Mid East stemmed from a genuinely held belief that western style representative government and all that entails are the right way to live and that anyone given the choice would freely choose to live as we do.

I don't know. You may disagree but, IMHO, it's this idealism more than anything else that distorts our foreign policy. While I respect the right of Arabs to self-determination I don't care about how they live and I do care about what happens in the sandbox only in so far as it affects our economic interests . That may sound cruel but on short notice I'm not sure how else to say it. May as well be direct.

I supported both wars and it has taken some time for me to reach the positions I now hold. I was distracted, as I think too many of us still are, by the conservative versus liberal paradigm. The wars became a partisan and ideological battle and I got swept up in it both intellectually and emotionally. I'm not proud of that but at least I've learned from it.

Conley
07-17-2011, 05:27 PM
Well said.

I agree with what you are saying about the motivations of W. and the neo cons in the administration and surrounding it.

I think our foreign policy in the region continues to be short sighted and inconsistent. It's absurd to me to target some dictators and give others a free pass, promote democracy in Iraq while at the same time supporting oppressive regimes like the Saudi Royals...you were brief and I will be too. The whole thing comes down to oil.

Without oil our country ceases to function. So there should be a long term policy in place not only to find alternate energy sources but also to ensure peace and stability in the region until that oil ceases to flow. Half-heartedly encouraging revolutions in Egypt and Syria don't accomplish that goal, and don't do anything for the people living there who end up being killed by their own government and police forces. Libya is another example where we tried yet another approach (military engagement from a distance).

I know it's complicated, but I would like to see a consistent policy of encouraging / rewarding stable democracies and not this scatter shot approach. I suppose the real argument you will get is that with free democracies in the Middle East oil prices would skyrocket. OPEC and the participating governments keep an iron grip on the prices to keep it in that sweet spot where they get as much as they can but not enough to drive more funding into alternate fuel research. For example, when they dropped the price of a barrel as low as $38 / barrel back in 09 -- that does a good job of wiping out those kinds of projects.

Conley
07-17-2011, 05:39 PM
Agreed...I believe you are correct about the neocons, but in my mind it is partly hubris to believe that one can engineer such changes so easily (welcomed as liberators, the war will pay for itself, etc.).


I supported both wars and it has taken some time for me to reach the positions I now hold. I was distracted, as I think too many of us still are, by the conservative versus liberal paradigm. The wars became a partisan and ideological battle and I got swept up in it both intellectually and emotionally. I'm not proud of that but at least I've learned from it.


I also agree very strongly with this section and think we would all be well served to learn that lesson and remember it well in the coming years. We cannot continue to get swept up in these partisan battles or our country will continue to decay. I believe there are more concrete differences between liberals and conservatives...as for the differences between federal Republicans and Democrats well, they are both guilty of raping this country and they would prefer you pick a side without looking too closely.

Mister D
07-17-2011, 05:51 PM
Is an inconsistent foreign policy truly a foreign policy? ??? I'm more inclined to suggest that we lack a coherent foreign policy altogether and have since the end of the Cold War. You're right that it simply makes no sense to coddle the sheiks but condemn Libyan regime. It also makes no sense to offer encouragement to revolutions whose end results won't be known for some time! Honestly, I think the rest of the world must be as confused about our "foreign policy" as we are now. There is a clear lack of principle today. I know some people say the same thing about the Cold War but our goal during the Cold War was to resist communism wherever it showed itself. If it meant supporting anti-democratic regimes we didn't shy away from doing so. Now we say we support "democracy" and I'm not sure I understand what that even means. Self-determination regardless of how it turns out? Representative government of some kind? The adoption of a western institutional framework? Our support for the revolution is Egypt seems to be a case of allowing the will of the people to triumph regardless. Iraq started out with the expectation that they would adopt a form of government similar to our own. How's that going? Afghanistan? :D

Very true about the importance of oil and I can't deny that without our oil concerns we simply would not be heavily engaged in the region. There is a reason we don't pursue democracy in other parts of the world.

Mister D
07-17-2011, 05:54 PM
Agreed...I believe you are correct about the neocons, but in my mind it is partly hubris to believe that one can engineer such changes so easily (welcomed as liberators, the war will pay for itself, etc.).


I supported both wars and it has taken some time for me to reach the positions I now hold. I was distracted, as I think too many of us still are, by the conservative versus liberal paradigm. The wars became a partisan and ideological battle and I got swept up in it both intellectually and emotionally. I'm not proud of that but at least I've learned from it.


I also agree very strongly with this section and think we would all be well served to learn that lesson and remember it well in the coming years. We cannot continue to get swept up in these partisan battles or our country will continue to decay. I believe there are more concrete differences between liberals and conservatives...as for the differences between federal Republicans and Democrats well, they are both guilty of raping this country and they would prefer you pick a side without looking too closely.


Live and learn they say.

There are definitely differences between libs and cons. What I mean is that plans for war shouldn't be seen primarily through that lens.

MMC
07-17-2011, 09:24 PM
Bottomline is the Neo-Cons dropped the ball on Afghanistan.....the Taliban was not the enemy. Not much oil in Afghanistan. Now running pipelines thru Afghanistan that is another story.

Mister D
07-19-2011, 11:23 AM
Bottomline is the Neo-Cons dropped the ball on Afghanistan.....the Taliban was not the enemy. Not much oil in Afghanistan. Now running pipelines thru Afghanistan that is another story.


I was all for smacking the bejesus out of the Taliban. Why we are still there is another issue...

MMC
07-19-2011, 03:33 PM
Why D?

Mister D
07-19-2011, 03:58 PM
Why D?


For creating a sanctuary for AQ.

MMC
07-19-2011, 05:27 PM
But the whole time AQ was where it began in Africa and it was dominately in Yemen moreso than Afghanistan......also there is the factor that 1/3rd of the Taliban were or had worked with the CIA.....to convienent for loose ends to be cleared up while engaged in War. Don't you think?

Mister D
07-19-2011, 06:01 PM
But the whole time AQ was where it began in Africa and it was dominately in Yemen moreso than Afghanistan......also there is the factor that 1/3rd of the Taliban were or had worked with the CIA.....to convienent for loose ends to be cleared up while engaged in War. Don't you think?


But the men who planned 9/11 operated out of Afghanistan. As for working with the CIA, good. It was worthwhile supporting them. We were fighting a proxy war with the Soviets.

MMC
07-19-2011, 06:36 PM
Yes while true.....they were Saudi. The same Sunni bastards that we keep playing games with.

Mister D
07-19-2011, 06:55 PM
Yes while true.....they were Saudi. The same Sunni bastards that we keep playing games with.


Wouldn't matter to me if they were Danes. Bombs away! >:D

Mister D
07-19-2011, 07:01 PM
You seem to have issues with the Afghan war. What are they specifically? I don't thin we should be there building nations or anything else. A military is for destroying things and killing people. I agree there.

Conley
07-19-2011, 07:04 PM
You seem to have issues with the Afghan war. What are they specifically? I don't thin we should be there building nations or anything else. A military is for destroying things and killing people. I agree there.


That's my impression too, we shouldn't be asking anything different from our armed troops...asking them to be ambassadors, peace keepers and other jobs they are not trained for is bull. But having never served myself I look forward to MMC's reply...

Mister D
07-19-2011, 07:08 PM
You seem to have issues with the Afghan war. What are they specifically? I don't thin we should be there building nations or anything else. A military is for destroying things and killing people. I agree there.


That's my impression too, we shouldn't be asking anything different from our armed troops...asking them to be ambassadors, peace keepers and other jobs they are not trained for is bull. But having never served myself I look forward to MMC's reply...


I'm thinking this may have something to do with his experience in Vietnam which is cool. I'm just asking him to elaborate.

Conley
07-19-2011, 07:10 PM
understood.

MMC
07-20-2011, 01:26 AM
Well for number one.....one does not start a war and then back away from it to conduct another war elsewheres. We went in to go after Bin laden then took our eye off the ball to go after Saddam. One does not start a war to be defensive.

You are both right on the aspect of the Military. Thats what we do, kill and destroy the enemy. We are not UN Peace-Keepers. We are not Ambassadors. We are not there to build infrastructure. We are there to Kill and destroy. Winning the hearts and minds of those people. How so? The only way this could be done is to liberate them from some occupying force or some despotic Madman that has gain control thru Military force.

As for myself I don't like that we are fighting these conflicts with our hands being tied. Personally I think one should go to war for some sort of gain. That there should be some sort of treasure. War is about conquest. Tell me what are we getting for Afghanistan. Because if one was looking for peace of mind this was not the way to go about it.

Also we did not walk in the door going after the Taliban nor did we even declare them terrorists. Militant.....now theres a difference is there not.

What is your take on Afghanistan and now remove AQ from the picture?

Mister D
07-20-2011, 09:32 AM
Well for number one.....one does not start a war and then back away from it to conduct another war elsewheres. We went in to go after Bin laden then took our eye off the ball to go after Saddam. One does not start a war to be defensive.

You are both right on the aspect of the Military. Thats what we do, kill and destroy the enemy. We are not UN Peace-Keepers. We are not Ambassadors. We are not there to build infrastructure. We are there to Kill and destroy. Winning the hearts and minds of those people. How so? The only way this could be done is to liberate them from some occupying force or some despotic Madman that has gain control thru Military force.

As for myself I don't like that we are fighting these conflicts with our hands being tied. Personally I think one should go to war for some sort of gain. That there should be some sort of treasure. War is about conquest. Tell me what are we getting for Afghanistan. Because if one was looking for peace of mind this was not the way to go about it.

Also we did not walk in the door going after the Taliban nor did we even declare them terrorists. Militant.....now theres a difference is there not.

What is your take on Afghanistan and now remove AQ from the picture?


1) I don't disagree but that's not an argument against the war in Afghanistan. It's an argument against Iraq.

2) I agree.

3) I agree. I don't think we should be nation building. We should have devastated that shithole and sent the message that thsi is what happens when you give refuge to our enemies.

4) We went after the Taliban simply because they privided a sanctuary for Osama and Co.

I don't think we should still be there but I do understand the POV of those who say we now have a moral obligation to try and clean things up a bit before we leave. Nation building? No.

MMC
07-20-2011, 01:23 PM
The other point in contention is that not all of the Taliban are or were ever conncted to AQ So truly it can be said that Most of the Taliban was not the enemy......

Mister D
07-20-2011, 01:26 PM
The other point in contention is that not all of the Taliban are or were ever conncted to AQ So truly it can be said that Most of the Taliban was not the enemy......


The regime that gave him sanctuary needed a spanking. I support that fully.

MMC
07-20-2011, 02:21 PM
Well the proof is that the Paki Taliban was more involved in secluding him than the Afghanis were. That also the Pakis ISI was involved in his whereabouts the whole time. I think that has been established now.

Mister D
07-20-2011, 02:24 PM
Well the proof is that the Paki Taliban was more involved in secluding him than the Afghanis were. That also the Pakis ISI was involved in his whereabouts the whole time. I think that has been established now.


Until we arrived all of Afghanistan was a sanctuary but it is true Pakistan has helped him.

Conley
07-20-2011, 02:31 PM
Well the proof is that the Paki Taliban was more involved in secluding him than the Afghanis were. That also the Pakis ISI was involved in his whereabouts the whole time. I think that has been established now.


Until we arrived all of Afghanistan was a sanctuary but it is true Pakistan has helped him.


Good points by both of you...I imagine he was at Tora Borah and the intel now suggests he was at that residence in Pakistan for many years, correct? Pakistan can go fuck itself, we should disarm all of their nukes and take the material with us on our way out of the country. Leave them to collapse under the radicals like they so richly deserve. It won't take much for that place to fall to Afghanistan's level...they are always in a race with India and could do well to learn some lessons from big brother about how to conduct themselves.

MMC
07-20-2011, 03:11 PM
Now were talking.....Pakistan was the shit-heads that was helping Bin Laden all along. Afghanistan is nothing more than a conduit. Got some mineral resources, barely any oil. Bin Laden had the money to fund the Saudi's himself. Which he did and he took credit for it.

My point and one that has been completely forgotten was that we were working with Saudi Intel. Saudi Intel had the means or knew who these perps were that had disappeared and went underground to cell. Here in the US. While I am sure no one will be able to review any intel reports for many years to come. Something did not jive right.

I do not go for all the conspiracy shit with 911.....but there was something on about the use of encrypted radio. Which if that was the case. Then someone here in the us had to be listening and I am not talking about any ole citizen.

We have had several Administrations going back to Nixon that mark the change with the US in our approach with the Saudis. Which going back to that time. They were not so prevalent in ME Politics. The Egyptians and the Turks were dominating the scene. Since then it has not mattered which Political Party in the US has been in power. Both have catered to and bent over for these Bastards which the Sunni cannot say it is all their OIL in the first place. As they themselves have not always been in power.