In other news....Follow

Of course not. He's the first possible moderate president ever, certainly within my lifetime. He wants to listen to what everyone wants to do (an admiral quality) but had a tough time getting stuff done.

Edited, Sep 8th 2009 4:21pm by Pensive

Well what I think he needs to do and what you think he needs to do are almost certainly opposed.

But I do want him to do things. I mean honestly I'm okay with him in office right now because he's not taking away my rights: he's just not giving them to me. The last repub admin were working to strip them away. However, if he doesn't start doing thigns good for the country, no matter the political affiliation, he won't get re-elected, and there will be democrat hatred, etc. putting my in an even worse place than before (possibly.)

That's not true, really. I mean, the occupation ends eventually, obviously, but everything is transient. By the same token, you could say nation states are doomed because they're all eventually broken down further or made into part of an empire. The soviet occupation of Afghanistan did everything wrong - it's hardly evidence that Afghanistan is, as a country, impossible to occupy. Guerrillas are harder to defeat than, say, a dictator with a third rate army stupid enough to engage in a pitched battle, but they're not invincible. This spattering of violence is only dangerous to the long term security of the country in that it makes it easier for the USA to do what it always does and bugger off before the job's done.



Maybe we should invade Israel!

It's rare that I start literally laughing out loud at my work computer. Thanks.

Spose

It is, though. Comparing the military budget of the US now and the USSR shortly before collapse is absurd.

You just have to use the right type of bombs.

Good plan!

Iraq is pretty much under the control of the Iraqis while our troops continue to supervise them, train them, & help them out.

Neglecting Afghanistan to go searching for WMDs was a bit of a misdirection which has led to the Taliban regrouping in Pakistan & coming back just as strong.

Right now, the solution the generals seem to be asking for is "more troops". The million dollar question for Obama: At what point does he say "no"?

W's administration did a whole lot, when it came to the initial invasion of Iraq, with a lot less troops than anyone ever thought would work. Historically, this was quite an accomplishment. Well, it would have been if there was a plan for after the invasion...

Anyhoo, sometimes "more troops" isn't the answer. Hopefully Obama can use his international-cred to get more NATO troops in there to help out.

And, of course, some actual mission parameters would help too.

First of all, I think it's only fair to point out that anyone who thought the US would turn Iraq or Afghanistan into a stable, peaceful, Western country because of the invasion was either crazy or extremely ignorant.

Having said that.



Relatively speaking, I think Iraq is going pretty well. The occupiers are leaving, the Iraq government is trying to control its country, its not too bad. Obviously there is till some violence, but how could we expect otherwise after such a long and bloody conflict? All things considered, though, it's going in the right direction, which is to say, its being controlled by elected Iraqis. That on its own it pretty good.



I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that Afghanistan is an unsolveable mess. The elections were clearly rigged, Karzai is highly dubious, opium production is going strong, the Talibans are doing rpetty well... It's not stable, but when has Afghanistan been stable in the last century?

There is nothing to "win" there. We won't transorm it into a democratic state, we wont beat the warlords, nor will we destory the extremely rigid form of Islam they have over there.

I think the best we can hope from Afghanistan is that the Talibans will be sufficiently weak militarily so that they cant control the whole country again. That's the best we can realistically hope for. It doesnt mean they will be gone, or that Afghanistan will be safe, secure, stable, or peaceful. Its really about "who's the least evil guy we can put in power and fund?". And by "evil", I mean "opposed to our interests", of course.

There is one thing about Afghanistan which I dont get though, and I'd be grateful if some of the more knowledgeable members of our board could enlighten me. Basically, we all know that the Talibans get lots of money to buy arms from the opium/heroin trade. It's ironic because while we fight the opium trade, they help to cultivate it, package it, and sell it to Europe and the US. So basically, it's Western drug addicts which are funding the Talibans. Which is fine, it was the same in Columbia with FARC.

What I dont get is that some countries (Turkey being one of them, I think), are legally entitled to grow and sell opium for pharmaceutical purposes. Wouldnt it make a lot of sense to allow Afghan farmers to produce opium for pharma purposes? Then they would have a good livelihood, we would stop turning thema gainst us by destroying their crops, and we would deprive the Talibans of money. Why on Earth don't we do that?



Yeah, that is fucked-up. But what did we expect? Netanyahu is a cunt, his foreign minister is Lieberman, and there is no way that administration will ever do anything which would favour peace.

Most ridiculous of all is the fact that when the Gaza war was happening, people were saying "Well thats what you get for electing Hamas!!!!". And yet, in the West Bank, you have a perfectly legitimate, peaceful, non-violent and stable administration. They have done everything asked of them. For years now. And how does Israel treat them? By building more illegal settlements on their land. How is that justifiable? How is that not an act of war? How can Israel whine about "peace partners" when they've had one in front of them for years and reward them by first ignoring them, and then building settlements on their land? And then they'll act all surprised when there is a violent reaction to this later on. Disgraceful...

One thing I find interesting while combing through data, not necessarily relevant, is that a fisherman has a greater chance of death while on the job than a soldier on active duty.

Edited, Sep 10th 2009 11:54pm by Timelordwho

And far more likely to be murdered by a fellow serviceman than killed by enemy fire.



I disagree. The key to taking Afghanistan is to shoot anyone who steps up, without effecting any large atrocity for anti-American sentiment to latch on to, until people stop stepping up. Make it clear that the coalition isn't going anywhere soon, is capable of protecting Afghans who cooperate and will shoot anyone who goes around killing people. Get local elites on side, by quickening succession if necessary. You're not going to get stability over night, and smooth democracy's going to take even longer, but it's perfectly possible to do. That's not to say that the coalition won't **** it up by pulling out in a couple of years, leaving the country to rot, but it's certainly possible.

P.S. Do you have a degree in economics, Red?

Edited, Sep 11th 2009 5:12am by Kavekk

Well, there is the little bit about the US supplying and arming the Afghanis with all the armor-busting equipment they needed. Do you think Russia is going to return the favor and ****-block us this time?