[paraclete]

Phantom fear of Taliban is driving the war in Afghanistan - CNN.com

Here is a voice of reason on Afghanistan and yet why are such voices of reason so far from being listened too by those involved in fighting the Taliban. Only today even ex Australian Prime Minister John Howard was saying that Australia must say in Afghanistan to the end. But what end do such people perceive? The utter devistation of the place so it resembles Germany at the end of WWII, or the deforestation of Vietnam? Perhaps they should look and see what a shambles the place is now.

The article above suggests that the US and ISAF is fighting an idea in Afghanistan, but the Afghans are fighting an invader. How many hearts are won by the report of a serious friendly fire incidenthttp://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/as...obe/index.html and guess who got the heavy end of the incident; Afghan forces, the very people needed to secure the country. How much money and effort was wasted by the destruction of trained forces by careless tactics and gun happy forces.

So here is the tactic, the new direction, so eagerly sought, give Afghanistan back to the Afghanis, replace the military aid with civil aid and leave it to them. I venture to suggest much of the Pakistani Taliban problem would be solved if there was no war in Afghanistan

[tomder55]

I bet the fear of the Taliban by your typical Afghani woman is quite real.

[paraclete]

I bet the fear of the Taliban by your typical Afghani woman is quite real.

And I wonder what they have done for the last 1200 years? Haven't you noticed that women in the Muslim world are tending to revert to the older forms of clothing? I see women in full burga here, there is no reason to fear the Taliban here. Actually when I was in Pakistan I found the form of women's dress there took the display away and it was somehow better.

I think we fear what we don't understand, these people appear to be right over the top to us because we have no understanding of their culture

[galveston]

There was no war and no invaders while Afghanistan was a training center and refuge for Al Quaida, was there?

It seems that many people think all this started after 9/11, but that is just not so.

If you think the long range view is other than either victory or defeat (for both sides) then you don't understand the issue.

Islam has decreed that it will have world domination. It has pursued that policy whenever and wherever possible ever since its beginning. Just because not all Muslims are supportive does not change that fact.

The Islamic fundamentalists will never give up this goal.

I think that if the crusaders had not stopped Islam in their generation that is is possible that we would all be under Shi'ra law today.

The problem with the West is that if the problem is not solved within 12 months, we will give up and quit.

[paraclete]

There was no war and no invaders while Afghanistan was a training center and refuge for Al Quaida, was there?

It seems that many people think all this started after 9/11, but that is just not so.

If you think the long range view is other than either victory or defeat (for both sides) then you don't understand the issue.

Islam has decreed that it will have world domination. It has persued that policy whenever and wherever possible ever since its beginning. Just because not all Muslims are supportive does not change that fact.

The Islamic fundamentalists will never give up this goal.

I think that if the crusaders had not stopped Islam in their generation that is is possible that we would all be under Shi'ra law today.

The problem with the West is that if the problem is not solved within 12 months, we will give up and quit.

We in the west have been fighting Islam for 1,400 hundred years. What we have achieved in that time is to push it back into an enclave defined by what is known as the 10-40 window. What happens in Afghanistan will not define the fight against Islam, but continued pressure there might cause an intensification of Islamic expansionism. We are fortunate that those we fight in Afghanistan are Islamic fundamentalists with an agenda most Muslims find unacceptable. We are giving Islamic fundamentalists the ammunition to spread their ideas, if we take the attention away from them they will wither away back to the few they really are.

The crusaders didn't stop Islam, Islam actually reached the gates of Vienna and southern France long after the crusaders lost Jerusalem. The great difficulty with Islam is that it is not only a religion it is also a political force.
I actually think what stopped Islam was terrain.

I know the Islamists seek world domination but the world is more than they know. They are not the cohesive force we think them to be. We are being laughed at by a few thousand islamic tribal fanatics in back woods Afghanistan and we are disillusioned enough to think this really matters. That the fate of western civilisation hangs in the balance. We have lost perspective and there isn't a statesman among us. The barabrians are not at the gates

A little shariia Law might have stopped some of the excesses we see in western society today, but then remaining true to Christian principles would have done the same. When we stop trying to solve our problems at the point of a gun we might find the problem isn't as big as we think it is.

You seek an answer to Islam. Secularisation and prosperity is what Islam cannot overcome. Just like in Christian countries, when the population becomes prosperous they turn to secular pursuits. A couple of generations and the Jihad is forgotten. However you are right we don't have the long term perspective

[inthebox]

Your first sentence states it has been 1400 years, and in your last sentence you state that it will go away in a couple of generations? Which is it?

I think Charles, the hammer, Martel would have disagreed with your assessment of what stopped Arab invasion of Europe.

"a little sharia law" what western excesses would it have stopped? Women walking in public without approved male escort? Public acknowledgement of homosexuality? Freedom to practice any other religion or no religion at all?


G&P

[inthebox]

The ironic thing is, it is the secular humanists PC crowd that serve as jihadist apologist that would suffer the most under sharia law.


G&P

[paraclete]

Your first sentence states it has been 1400 years, and in your last sentence you state that it will go away in a couple of generations? which is it?

I think Charles, the hammer, Martel would have disagreed with your assesment of what stopped Arab invasion of Europe.

"a little sharia law" what western excesses would it have stopped? Women walking in public without approved male escort? Public acknowledgement of homosexuality? Freedom to practice any other religion or no religion at all?


G&P

I spoke of radical Fundamentalism not the whole of Islam. Every empire reaches a stage where logistics take over and expansion is stemmed not so much by the enemy but by the shear effort needed to prosecute the war.
We are beginning to see this in Afghanistan, the terrain and the enemy's ability to use it is overcoming our will to build and maintain the effort. Ah Yes Martel certainly consolidated Christian Europe and checked the Muslim advance but it took 700 years to remove them from Europe. It is doubtfull that Charlemange would have done anything about them if they had not attacked the franks.

What excesses?; well you only have to look around you. A society awash with alcohol, drugs, prostitution, theivery of every kind, licensiousness of every kind, hedonism. Shariia Law isn't just about women and homosexuals but you ignored the other part of my answer, we have lost Christian values too

[inthebox]

By your word choice you think the US is an empire? Afghanistan is suppose to be a territory of the "empire?" At the rate in which the US gov has been spending money for the past 30-40 years, the trillion dollar healthcare bill, and not Afghanistan, may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back.


G&P

[paraclete]

By your word choice you think the US is an empire? Afghanistan is suppose to be a territory of the "empire?" At the rate in which the US gov has been spending money for the past 30-40 years, the trillion dollar healthcare bill, and not Afghanistan, may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back.


G&P

Yes the United States is an empire, part of which it acquired from Spain. What is an empire if not a collection of states under one rule. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have been annexed for all intents and purposes.

Health care might break the budget but at least you will be spending money on the welfare of your own people, an admirable objective, where as waging war in the remote places of the Earth is not. America is too dependent on the military economy. Without a war somewhere the economy would stagnate

[galveston]

Did I miss something?

Was Reagan a wartime president?

PS: I think I see your problem. It is revealed in the link to
CNN News.

Oh, well!

[paraclete]

Did I miss something?

Was Reagan a wartime president?

PS: I think I see your problem. It is revealed in the link to
CNN News.

Oh, well!

Hey Gal what has this to do with Reagan. I checked the link it pulls up an article on a recent friendly fire incident so the problem isn't mine

[galveston]

I refer to your remark about our economy stagnating unless we are in a time of war.

Did I misunderstand you?

[paraclete]

I refer to your remark about our economy stagnating unless we are in a time of war.

Did I misunderstand you?

Not entirely, it is apparent that your industries need the stimulus that a war provides. If it had not been for the Iraq war you would have been in recession years ago, As I said you are too dependent on the military economy. The US is a very large arms provider to the world and ever since the Civil War, war has been good for business
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0106-12.htm
I am not alone in this contention, here is the single most important statement in the article below
"At the rate we're going, then, the military budgets will preempt the building of a green infrastructure and economy. Unless the military budget is reined in, it will be very difficult to find the resources to create the "green engine," to quote Barack Obama, that "can drive growth for many years to come."
Converting the permanent military economy to a green economy | Grist

[ETWolverine]

So your suggestion is that we pull out and do nothing... while the Taliban retakes Afghanistan, turns it back into a training facility for terrorists, and launches more attacks against the West.

Or do you deny that they would do these things?

Your solution is to hide your head in the sand and hope that their next attack doesn't encroach on Australia. Withdraw. Don't fight terrorists. Let millions of women be raped for the pleasure of Taliban men. Let the country fall back into oppression. Give Al Qaeda a secure place to hide and reform so that they can attack again. Break faith with the Afghani people to whom we have made promisses of maintaining security and liberty. Give the enemy a victory that they can brag about and recruit more terrorists. Show the enemy that terrorism is a technique that works and can win wars. Give them an incentive to want to attack the western world again, because they will know that we won't stick it out and fight them... even if we attack them in return, we'll just eventually withdraw. And show the rest of the world that the USA will never keep to any mutual defense agreements we sign onto, which I'm sure will inspire confidence in us for the future.

What a brilliant solution, Paraclete. I wonder at your military brilliance. Such great military minds as Alexander the Great, Ghenghis Khan, Napoleon, Klauswics, Patton, Sherman and MacArthur would all bow down to your brilliance.

Actually, they'd be doubled over in laughter at the idiocy of such a plan.

Elliot

[excon]

So your suggestion is that we pull out and do nothing...
Actually, they'd be doubled over in laughter at the idiocy of such a plan.

Hello again, Elliot:

Nobody is suggesting that we pull out and do nothing... THAT'S a distortion you war mongers make. The fact is, we have no idea what the mission IS in Afghanistan.

Do I think Al Quaida might sneak back in?? Sure. So, why didn't the dufus kill Bin Laden when he had the chance? Should we destroy other countries where Al Quaida might sneak in? Why don't we make war on the countries where Al Quaida actually IS instead of where they MIGHT be? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense from a war mongers point of view? A short list of 'em would include Bali, Yemen, Somalia, and The Philippines just to name a few??

Nope, the dufus HAD the chance to end it. Really, he HAD the chance and blew it BIGTIME. Do you think there are NO consequences for blowing it BIGTIME on the worlds stage?? Of course, there is. One of them, is what to do about a war, where the dufus DITHERED for 8 freaking years??

Don't you get any of that?

excon

[tomder55]

By the way . The President after months of agonizing Hamlet-like angst has come to a decision. He decided to give General McCrystal the troops he requested.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

Nobody is suggesting that we pull out and do nothing... THAT'S a distortion you war mongers make. The fact is, we have no idea what the mission IS in Afghanistan.

YOU don't know what the mission is. I know just fine what the mission is, and I have laid it out several times. You just refuse to accept the answer.

Just because YOU are confused about the mission doesn't mean anyone else is.

Do I think Al Quaida might sneak back in?? Sure. So, why didn't the dufus kill Bin Laden when he had the chance?

First of all, we couldn't find him. Could have something to do with the ROE that our soldiers were saddled with by the idiotic politicians on the left that kept them from acting. So the question becomes why didn't CLINTON kill him when he had the chance and the shooters on site to do it?

Second of all, if OBL was dead, would that mean that AQ would cease to exist? Why are you equating the assassination of OBL with the demise of AQ? You seem to be the only person doing that. Do you really think that if OBL was dead, all the other terrorists would simply lay down their suicide belts and go home?

Should we destroy other countries where Al Quaida might sneak in?

Nope. We should support those countries in their efforts to keep AQ out.

Why don't we make war on the countries where Al Quaida actually IS instead of where they MIGHT be?

You mean we should go to Iraq and Afghanistan? What a great idea.

A short list of 'em would include Bali, Yemen, Somalia, and The Philippines just to name a few??

All good targets... all in good time.

Nope, the dufus HAD the chance to end it. Really, he HAD the chance and blew it BIGTIME.

Yep... he really blew it when he sent the US military to Afghanistan and Iraq, and Al Qaeda sent all their terrorists to those places too... and our soldiers mowed them down in droves. Yeah... I can see why you would call that a missed opportunity...

Do you think there are NO consequences for blowing it BIGTIME on the worlds stage??

I think that IF Bush had blown it then yes there would be terrible consequences. But he didn't. He went where the terrorists were, had the military blow the sh!t out of them, and they ended up running away... those that were left.

Or are you saying that there were no AQ terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan... despite the fact that they trained in Iraq and operated in Afghanistan where OBL was hiding.

Of course, there is. One of them, is what to do about a war, where the dufus DITHERED for 8 freaking years??

Oh... that's simple. We should actually start FIGHTING the war, just like we did in Iraq... y'know... where we won despite your attempts to spin victory into defeat.

Don't you get any of that?

Excon

I get all of it. I just think its BS.

Elliot

[excon]

First of all, we couldn't find him. Could have something to do with the ROE that our soldiers were saddled with by the idiotic politicians on the left that kept them from acting.

Hello again, Elliot:

So, the dufus couldn't WIN because, even though he was commander in chief, and even though he had majorities in BOTH houses of congress, some lefty congressmen stopped him?

Dude! Do you ever listen to yourself?

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

So, the dufus couldn't WIN because, even though he was commander in chief, and even though he had majorities in BOTH houses of congress, some lefty congressmen stopped him?

Dude! Do you ever listen to yourself?

excon

Actually, what I mean is that he won DESPITE all of those things.

As for your comments... Obama has majorities in both houses, is commander in chief, and some righty senator named Lieberman is going to kill health care?

Dude, do you ever listen to yourself?

Majorities ain't everything.

Elliot