Well, if we're to leave Afghanistan and it gets taken over by the Taliban again, I guess we're just going to have to shut that whole region down to trade with the west, immigration, refugee claims, international travel, and access to our aid and resources. If Pakistan doesn't make an honest, all-out effort to prevent this situation, I think the same restrictions should apply to them as well, and if they want to threaten us with nukes in response, we can get a whole lot nastier than we've been so far. They don't trust us? Fine, we don't trust them either.
I don't think you would find the Taliban complaining about that. Or China. Or Pakistan. Or the major heroin importers, for whom such an embargo would be a minor hassle. Chevron, on the other hand, might have some strong objections. And the people in charge of propping up the dollar.
That your news isn't news. So the Pakistanis are aggrieved? So what? The Pakistanis are Pashtun and they helped create the Taliban and they brought Islamic fundamentalism to that area. Now that it's biting them in the ass, thanks, in part, to American action in the region, I have no doubt that the feelings you described are their feelings. Whether they are accurate is another matter. Is that a rhetorical question? I love how people like you can dismiss energy concerns so quickly, as if lives, economies and security matter not driven by what happens in the energy sector. Meanwhile, I think the US -- and its voters -- "might have some strong objections" if American property and Americans are attacked by the terrorists who will take up residence in Afghanistan should the Taliban come to power. There's also regional politics to consider. A radical Afghanistan, sitting where it does, destabilizes an entire region and threatens the security of a nuclear power (Pakistan). But of course, such concerns aren't important to you, right?
Well, if they have an alternative proposal in mind that they think would be more fair, I'm all for hearing it. But if they want to whine to us about why it's fair to support or impose a barbaric medieval rapist militia on their neighbours, I honestly don't give a flying fork what they think. If China wants to empower such savagery, our favourable relations with them would have to be reconsidered as well. At this point I'm sure plenty of westerners are perfectly willing to re-evaluate just how much they've actually benefited from outsourcing their industries to the Chinese. How would China like it if we started weaning them off our investments and spending money on their hated Indian rivals instead? Is it really so worth it to them to preserve a corrupt Cold War relationship with Pakistan? India has been warm and generous towards the west for decades, we love them and they seem to love us too, why shouldn't we start re-balancing our trade ties to reflect our stated ideals?
I think that would be fine. Inspite of your royal "we", I think Afghanis would prefer not having anything to do with the Americans. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2363002/us_air_raid_fuels_afghan_anger_27_jan_09/
I'm sure they would, Sam. But the problem is they (and we) are stuck. If America and NATO goes, then the Taliban, which polls even below the US, returns.
Who would you prefer in your country - the neocons or a foreign military? The Afghanis are not stuck. They will outlast the destruction of your society.
The westerners most directly concerned have made hundreds of millions. Walmart is what, the largest employer in 23 states? India has no oil. India has no huge stockpile of US dollars. India is at war with Pakistan, and the US (the interests directly concerned) needs Pakistan in the Middle East and the Caspian Basin. The US is not going to dump China for India, and if it did the biggest winner would be China. I just suspect that Chevron et al might not have the best interests of the US a heart, here. So does an occupied Afghanistan.
I made no claim that they did, but your dismissal still stands. In numerous conversations, you seem unable to tolerate the fact that policy must make a lot of room for energy concerns. You even seem to squirm when energy concerns play a large role in decisions. It is, after all, your claim that the US is in Afghanistan largely to secure pipelines, right? And even if that were only a minor factor -- as opposed to your belief that it is a major factor -- one gets the sense you would still be "outraged," as if some state of being exists where it should not be a factor at all. So what's the answer, Ice? What's your policy proposal? Let's hear it... If your formulation, essentially, is that things are just as unstable with a US presence as without, then I pick the US presence, because as least so long as we are there, the country is not a haven for transnational terrorism.
Fixing the US passport and visa system would not require killing so many people, and committing such ugly evils at such great cost in lives and wealth.
But it does not address the fundamental problem a pre-9/11 Afghanistan posed to the region and the world. Try again.
It addresses the fundamental problems Afghanistan posed to the US - except for the pipeline issue, of course.
But it does not address the fundamental problem a pre-9/11 Afghanistan posed to the region and the world. Try again.
A better solution is to give the Taliban a nuclear missile with short range capabilities. They will likely shoot one into India and kill a few million people. The world will judge the Taliban and issue an ultimatum to countries harboring them (as well as any other Islamic extremists). Externimate your extremists now or the world is going to nuke all of you.
