So, that's $750,000,000 down for aircraft for an Afghan regiment of helis. Good call, there. That's total crap. They won't be left sitting on the runways. They'll be turned over to the Taliban. The Afghans will fold like a cheap suit about a week after the Americans pull out.
Well under a George II regime I would agree with you. But I think the Obama administration is a bit savvier and way more competent. My bet is the Obama administration has a friendly warlord or a friendly Taliban in mind to replace Karzai once US combat forces withdraw next year. US operations and influence in Afghanistan will not end when the troops go home next year. This is not Vietnam. In my opinion, Karzai’s government will be numbered in hours after the US troop withdrawal. Karzai does not strike me as competent or brave.
"Friendly Taliban"? Oh, my. As well proclaim that the glow from Pennsylvania Avenue will somehow make them braver. You really drank all the Koolaid, didn't you? Couldn't leave any for anyone else? Tsk.
LOL, yeah friendly…friendly ones that can be bought, you don’t think we can buy a few Taliban war lords? You don’t have to look too far back in history to see that tactic work in Afghanistan. What doesn’t work is what George II committed the US to doing in Afghanistan some 12+ years ago – no Kool-Aid needed. The Kool-Aid drinkers are those who think the country can be easily managed as we have been attempting to do for the last dozen years. At any rate, none of that changes the fact that the US will continue to be involved in Afghanistan for a very long time. And it is the US who will be responsible for the maintenance of those Russian helicopters. And it will be the US who funds and controls whatever military infrastructure remains in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of US combat troops from that country. Corruption works, it always has – especially in places like Afghanistan.
Buying religious fanatics only works so long, as we've already seen. Also, why is it exactly that we must buy these religious fanatics off? To what end, the endless quantities of money sunk into dictators, Islamic or otherwise? We have problems enough here, now. I'd thought that corruption was the alleged reason for the Arab Spring; committing to more seems counter-purpose in the long term.
If they were religious fanatics, they wouldn’t take bribes. Corruption works in Afghanistan. It’s hard to argue with that fact. And you cannot logically compare Afghanistan with Egypt or Syria or Libya. Aside from being Islamic, there really isn’t much else they have in common. Afghanistan has for the most part always been a country of feuding war lords and so it will likely remain. People tend to get friendly when you start flashing dollars and are a broker of military power. So it is not unreasonable to expect the US to pick up a few friendly wars lords in the region. In all likelihood we already have a few in our pocket. The US has no intention of leaving Afghanistan. The US does not want the country to become a harbor for terrorists like Bin Ladin. That is why the US will continue to have a presence in the region. Going forward, the US will be spending much less money in the region and fighting a smarter and more effective war. Instead of spending trillions we will be spending a few million. We won’t be spending a million dollars per year per troop as we have been for the last 12+ years. That is a big improvement.
America shouldn't spend anything in Afghanistan because there's not going to be any "progress" there when the military leaves and the Afghanistan military takes over. It will soon fade away because Afghanistan has nothing in the way of INCOME or REVENUES (taxes) to pay for its own military let alone its own police force. So America will watch as turmoil takes control once again as it has before America was there and the country turns back into a war lord controlled society once again. America shouldn't spend anything there once it leaves because the politicians are all corrupt and will only embezzle the money and take it away with them when they buy a new home in America.
Until the next Taliban comes along, which it did. I hope that this Obama administration really is clever enough to avoid this idea, although I couldn't say what their plan actually is. I certainly can: the badly awry Arab Spring (someone on this site predicted it would go that way once; I wonder who that could be?) was based on the same essential premise of corruption in the semi-secular/militarist governments controlling those nations until the rise of an Islamist counter-revolutionary movement. I hope you don't really mean to say that Obama is going to try the same approach yet again. What do they say about those who repeat the same actions hoping for a different result? It will continue to produce them, possibly at an accelerated rate because of the continued presence. Islamic terrorists will probably point to Afghanistan and say "Look! The Amrikees want to create another puppet state, like they did in Iraq, like they did in Egypt with the millions of dollars in guns and tanks they gave away to Morsi! [It matters not a whit that Morsi would be more or less on their side; while this statement is merely conjecture, it illustrates the way in which propaganda works and always will work among people with a natural bent towards hatred of the target] This is what they always do! Only under us can you be free enough to have your freedom restricted!" etc etc, ad nauseum. How is Obama going to handle this blowback, if this is indeed his plan? (I suppose he's not, as he'll be long gone, but how will his successors handle the main fallout?) Less money, yes. 'Smarter' or 'more effective'.... probably not. (Example: Pakistan.) As you say, corruption works in Afghanistan. But primarily on the government side; not so much on the Taliban side. This isn't the 1980s, and the invaders in the region are now you, not the Soviets. What will happen is that you'll get a new, Islamist 'Northern Alliance' which will function either on the main (taking Kabul at some point) or in the background. That's a very relative perspective. You're describing the situation as if the US needs to be there, as if there can be no alternative but to be there: "we have to have cars, but by driving them slower, we'll save more lives, which is a big improvement." Do we need to be there? How will it work? Afghanistan is not Iraq, as you know.
And just who made those predications and where is the material to support that allegation? Yes you are free to make all the unfounded and unreasonable and untrue statements you want to make, but don’t be surprised when you find you are not credible. Additionally, other than Islam, there is virtually no similarity between the Arab spring and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan rule by feudal warlords has been the norm for most of recorded history that has not been the case for Egypt, Libya or Syria, etc. And the Arab Spring countries had better educated populations and higher standards of living and better infrastructures. Two, the Arab Spring were civil wars and rebellions against the government and not wars against foreign invaders (i.e. the US and allied forces) as was and is the case with Afghanistan. The Arab spring was a civil rebellion against autocratic rule. That is not the case in Afghanistan. In fact the reverse is true. So you can make all the ridiculous statements you desire, but it won’t make them true. What approach again? Since the Afghanistan invasion, the US has had until recently one strategy in Afghanistan…more and more troops…to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda with overwhelming military force…spending a million dollars a year for each and every troop we stationed in the country. Yes thankfully that tactic is changing in favor of a much reduced footprint. Well that is what they have been doing these last 12 years with the Afghanistan occupation and Karzai governments. And those making those accusations have had a very large US force stationed in the country to point to in order to support their allegations. Those forces will no longer be there for terrorists to point to under the new US Afghan policy. The US not going to stop some people from blaming the US for everything from the common cold to harboring extraterrestrials no matter what it does or does not do, hell we have Americans who believe the same thing. Additionally, the level of financial support we will be rendering to Afghanistan war lords will not in any way be comparable to the billions we in foreign aid we have provided to Egypt. We spent no money supporting the Kaddafi government. We spent no money supporting the Syrian government. The only Arab Spring government we provided financial assistance to, was Egypt and it wasn’t money dumped on someone’s table like we have done in Afghanistan. The American money provided to the Egyptian government – not war lords - was trade credit for US made goods. And if you recall, the US supported the Arab Spring, the rebels in Libya, Egypt and Syria. In the case of Syria and Libya we support the rebels with military assistance. This linkage you are trying to make between the Arab Spring and Afghanistan just does not make sense and it is not founded in fact or reason.
Hehe. Look around, look around. Pretty sure I mentioned it more than once. Oops. Gave it away. When you think that's happened, please let me know and I'll inspect your arguments. Except for the installation of US-backed military overlords that generated a reaction from religious extremists, I suppose there really is no similarity between your/Obama's plan and the Arab Spring. Aside from that central concept. And still fell to religious fascists. Why would Afghanistan be any different? You can't postulate that Afghanistan 'will be different' just because their system of governance was different: you're still considering the same system that the Bushies and Reagan and Clinton and all the rest perpetuated, thinking somehow that it will work out differently. It won't. Why would it? It is precisely the exit strategy you're proposing: creating new autocrats in Afghanistan. So how is it different? I'm listening: you tell me how you think it differs and I'll consider it. So you're not proposing that a couple friendly warlords should take over, setting up precisely the same situation? If I do make any, I trust sensible members of the forums will stop by and so inform me. Installing military overlords, leading to corruption (a character trait that your proposition relies on implicitly, as you state above). This corruption will then become the target for a 'popular' Islamic revolution. (Shit, I totally forgot about Iran here too.) Is your benchmark for the proposed success of this venture the fact that you think a Democrat is proposing it? The Brotherhood and the Iranians had no US troops stationed in-country to support such allegations, yet they managed to spot the invisible American hand... simply by the money involved. The rest of the Arab Spring countries managed the same. Your plan is exactly the same thing: buying off a warlord to repress Islamists. Why will that work now and not in Egypt before the revolution, or in pre-1979 Iran? That won't matter to religious reactionaries. The fact thereof will be sufficient: foreign governments buying off a controlling domestic power base to prevent the 'free' expression of these same reactionaries. They won't particularly care that the Yanks are doing it on the cheap now. You kind of missed the point there. You're welcome to think so, I suppose, but it doesn't stand up to the facts. :shrug:
Hehe and I am pretty sure you are making stuff up again. That is why you cannot prove your claim. Just like you don’t’ have to constrain yourself to fact and reason, you don’t have to respect my arguments. And I am not asking you to respect my arguments. But I am pointing out your errors of fact and reason. So according to you the US is and has backed the military overlords in Libya and Syria which caused the Arab Spring…really? Whose planes enforced the no fly zone over Libya? Which country lost an aircraft enforcing the US imposed no fly zone over Libya? Who is arming the rebels in Syria? Who called for the leaders Syria, Libya and Egypt to step down during the Arab Spring uprising? The Arab Spring countries were countries with a long history of autocratic and rule by a central government. The Arab Spring was a rebellion against those central governments. And in most of the Arab Spring countries the US had no involvement in the direct financing of those governments and it is also the case that the US military forces have not occupied any of the Arab Spring countries since WWII when the US and her allies fought and liberated those lands from the occupying Axis forces. That is not the situation in Afghanistan. That hard unpleasant fact for you is that the equivalence you have drawn between Afghanistan and the nations involved in the Arab Spring is fundamentally wrong. “Obama’s Plan” for Afghanistan is to cut with the grain rather than against it. It’s based on the notion that after US combat troop withdrawal Afghanistan will return to its natural state, feudalism. That is really not such an unreasonable conclusion. And it’s not unreasonable to expect the US to resort to working with regional war lords to ensure the country does not become training and support base for international terrorism as it was before 9/11. Egypt did not fall to religious fascists. Just look at what is happening in Egypt today. Egyptian streets are filled with protestors protesting against what they see as religious extremism. The Egyptian revolution is far from over. Revolution is rarely ever and overnight event. It normally takes years for a successful democracy to take hold. And that was true of The United States as well. So it is very simplistic and unrealistic thinking to think that revolutions and mass social changes can be efficiently and effectively rendered overnight, within a fortnight or within months or years. And I suggest you go back and reread what I have written; I have written that after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, I expect the country to return to a more normal/historical state, a state of rule by regional war lords. And the US will utilize and finance those war lords to keep the country free of threats to the US. Installing military overlords, leading to corruption (a character trait that your proposition relies on implicitly, as you state above). This corruption will then become the target for a 'popular' Islamic revolution. (Shit, I totally forgot about Iran here too.) Is your benchmark for the proposed success of this venture the fact that you think a Democrat is proposing it?[/QUOTE] Nobody said anything about the US installing overlords. That is you taking liberty with the facts again. What you seem to be unable or unwilling to understand is that states like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Syria have a long history of rule by a central government. That is not the history of Afghanistan. You also don’t seem to understand that corruption is the norm in Afghanistan. It is not the exception. It is now business is done. It is the expectation. If at some future point in time, should social and economic changes occur, then US policy should change too. Instead of trying to fit square pegs in round holes we should do something infinitely more reasonable, use the appropriate tools for the job. For the last 12 years or Afghanistan policy has been analogous to pounding square pegs into round holes. My benchmark of success is what works, not who occupies political office. My success benchmarks are pragmatic and not ideological as yours seem to be. You are back to making illogical and nonfactual comparisons and conclusions. On the contrary, I think it is you who have consistently missed the point and the facts. You seem to think that the sole reason for the Arab Spring was government corruption. When in fact there were many reasons for the Arab Spring, chief among them was autocratic rule coupled with an educated population and a developing economy. Autocratic rule is not a problem for Afghanis. It is the norm. It is what they expect and it appears to be what they want. The US has forced Afghanistan into a democracy of sorts which as I have said before I do not expect to last long after US combat forces withdraw from the nation. The democracy we forced on Afghanistan has not worked. Afghanistan is just not ready for democracy nor do Afghanis appear to want a democracy. When most of the country is involved in subsistence agriculture as is the case in Afghanistan, all they want to do is live to see another day. They really don’t care about who is ruling them as long as they can survive another day. That is not the case in places like Libya, Syria, Egypt, Iran, or Syria where you have more advanced economies and a more educated citizenry. There are tremendous economic and social and educational differences between the nations involved in the Arab Spring and Afghanistan (i.e. cultural, social, educational, political and historical). Your steadfast refusal to acknowledge same is not going to change those hard facts. Should the social, moral, and national aspirations of Afghanis change in the future, then US policy will need to change accordingly. But until then, we will need to work with the country as it is, not as we want it to be or would like it to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Causes
Hehe - I don't think you understand grammar very well. For there to be an 'again', there'd have to be a first time. No, it's true! Look it up. Anyway: yup, I called the Arab Spring a while back. Bells gave me shit for it, as I recall. What errors of fact and reason? You haven't posted any! Did I say Libya and Syria... really? =D Please, keep making stuff up. This is going to be a golden meltdown. That isn't helping your cause, here. It certainly will be, if they actually put such a lump-headed plan into effect. Who's doing American foreign planning these days, Elmer Fudd? You'll create another situation for a Taliban - or the Taliban - to raise a revolution. But hey - 80s retro was coming back, for a while there. Oh, for fuck's sake: yes, it did. Are you an idiot? The streets are filled with protestors protesting against the religious fascist government in Egypt. That is why they are protesting. Holy shit. Really? And I suggest you go back and reread what I have written: that in this new era, such a plan will condemn Afghanistan to a restart of the Taliban cycle. In short, it won't work. It's a bad idea, and I hope this isn't actually Obama's plan. Also, do you actually know anything about Afghanistan? Just warlords - or in your earlier posts, warlord, singular - holding the military power in Afghanistan, paid off by the American government. Well, that doesn't sound like Egypt or Iran or a goodly chunk of the Middle East for the last couple decades at all. (That's sarcasm, BTW.) Well, then I guess the warlords the Taliban overthrew were deeply mortified at the rejection of this convention by the Taliban to their, uh, corruption: But I thought that Afghans didn't mind corruption so much. You told me they expected it. But in fact, they were pissed off at the corruption of the warlords (plural). Huh. So in effect, you're proposing to create the same situation again. Clearly not. It was a stupid idea in the Bush years, and it's a stupid idea now. Your support is dictated by who you think might propose it, which is the worst kind of fanboy excess, if you ask me. Tell you what: show a period when something similar worked and we can discuss it. Then the support that drove the Taliban to success was deeply, deeply abnormal, apparently. All they need do in this next round is be slightly less extreme, and they've won for good. Look, joe, you can make up as much crap as you like to support an initiative that, so far as I know, hasn't even been proposed by Obama's Administration. But it doesn't change the fact that it's the same feckless crap that got the Western world into hot water already. I'm sure it will cost less, of course... for now. It's a shame that your partisanship has you so strongly blinkered. You seem to be saying that in defense of a presumed strategy of your ideological group, the Afghans ought to stay uneducated and undeveloped. You understand that Afghanistan has actually undergone periods of reform and regression? That it hasn't always been under this miasma of darkness you postulate? https://www.google.com/search?q=afg...fL_ep4APV2IGADg&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1467&bih=686 https://www.google.com/search?q=afg...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Well, in point of fact, you won't be working with the country in any sense whatsoever, and you don't appear to know what the actual plan is; I am thankful for the former and unsurprised by the latter. Hopefully it will fall to wiser heads, though I predict not. (I'm available for a reasonable fee, of course.)
LOL, how about some rational fact based discussion instead of manufacturing ad hominem? No, but you have made many and they have been pointed out to you and are pretty obvious. You brought up the subject of the Arab Spring, are you now backing away from your previous Arab Spring comments? You do know the countries involved in the Arab Spring? And you are the one who made the equivalence between Afghanistan and the nations involved in the Arab Spring. It was the core of your argument. No. The religious warfare in Syria is between the Sunni and Shia – two Islamic factions – and a secular government. In Egypt, it is a nation trying to create a working democracy. The Taliban is not by any stretch of the imagination a democracy or democracy advocate. Ok, you think American foreign policy is “lump-headed”. Why? Where is your rationale, where is your evidence? And what would work better? And where is your supporting evidence? The fact is you don’t have any. All you can and all you have done is make grandiose complaints supported with a host of fallacies. You have to have a fact in order for it to be hard, soft or otherwise. Duh, how about paying attention? As I previously pointed out to you Egypt has not fallen to religious extremists as exhibited by the fact the streets of Cairo are filled with demonstrators exercising their right to protest government policies. If Egypt had fallen to a Taliban type government those folks would not be protesting. They would be dead. Use that stuff that is supposed to be between your ears and do something radical like think! Oh and why would it not work? It worked well when the US first invaded Afghanistan. It worked well until George II decided he was going to rebuild the country. So why would it now work now? It is how the country has always worked. By the way the Taliban is not our enemy. Radical Islamic terrorists are our enemy. And before the Taliban the country was ruled by a number of regional war lords. When the US leaves there is no reason to expect the country will fall back into some configuration of rule by various warlords. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/06/30/taliban-talks-crocker-afghanistan/2473695/ No it doesn’t. Egypt is a long standing secular Republic. It is not ruled by tribal warlords. And as I told you previously, the aid provided to Egypt by the was in the form of foreign aid credits...not cash dumped on someone’s lap like the US has done in Afghanistan. The US provided no aid to other Arab Spring nations like Libya and Syria. So your notion that somehow US support of Arab Spring nations caused the Arab Spring is just nonsense and not supported by fact or reason. The US was never a friend to Libya. Hell they blew up an American airliner over Lockerbie Scotland killing hundreds of Americans. Nor has the US been a friend to Syria. The bottom line here is that your rational for why the US should not work with Afghani warlords in order to fight terrorism is deeply flawed and based on incorrect claims and analogies. You think the Taliban is not corrupt? What do you call the money Bin Laden paid to the Taliban for protection? What the US is doing and will be doing in the future is doing what works in Afghanistan...using tactics that have been used successfully for centuries in Afghanistan…using tactics al-Qaeda used successfully prior to the US invasion. So in your reality, when the Taliban takes bribes from al-Qaeda for protection, it is not a bribe and it’s not corruption. But if the Taliban or other Afghani warlords take money from the US for similar purposes it is bribery and corruption? Ah…interesting. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...in-Laden-paid-68m-for-loyalty-of-Taliban.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/25/afghanistan-corruption-study_n_884483.html As I previously stated, it was an idea that worked for George II until he decided to engage in nation building and inflict democracy upon a nation that didn’t want and was unwilling to support a democracy. It was a tactic used successfully by al-Qaeda. Well if you had been paying attention you would know the US doesn’t intend to leave the region next year when it withdraws all combat forces. And instead of projecting your partisanship onto me I suggest you take a long hard look at the facts which have been discussed in this thread and the many holes and fallacies you have used in an attempt to support your claims. Repeating those fallacies will not make them less false. You have accused me of making stuff up, now is your time to prove it. It is one thing to make crap up as you have consistently done in this conversation, it is quite another to prove it. Now is your time to prove it. The Bush II administration followed by the Obama administration tried for 12 plus years and spent over a trillion dollars and sacrificed thousands of American lives in order to instill a democracy in the country. It didn’t work. Instead of continuing to do what has not worked, the US is switching to what has worked. It makes perfect sense no matter how much you dislike it. Further, it doesn’t matter if Afghanistan “hasn't always been under this miasma of darkness you postulate”. It matters what it is today. What matters is what works in the country today and what doesn’t. Americans don’t want to spend endless treasure and blood propping up the country – especially one that does not appreciate the sacrifice. The US wants to ensure that Afghanistan will never again be used as a base for terrorist attacks against citizens of The United States and that is a perfectly legitimate interest. It appears I know the plan better than you. It is not that difficult to find publically available material on the subject. Instead of making bizarre analogies and erroneous claims and supporting them with a host of fallacious argument perhaps you should do some reading and contemplation first. The US presence will not vanish in Afghanistan for years to come. Going forward the US will be fighting a smarter and less expensive war in Afghanistan – a war that is less expensive in both blood and money. I call that smart. And you think that is dumb. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/09/afghanistan-hamid-karzai-us-nine-bases-withdrawal
You mean like when you accused me of making stuff up again? Tsk. Tell you what: I'll keep being patient with you, and wait for you to start that. ?? Where's this then? I don't think you really understand those points. You're sort of throwing out the names of countries that underwent the revolution, without understanding the context in which I mention them. I'm at a loss as to how I could make it simpler. Let me ask again, since your comprehension is fading: when did I say Libya and Syria, and in what context? You do know the countries involved in the Arab Spring? You know that it was more than just Libya and Syria? The level of intellectual disjunction in your arguments is impressive. I don't think I've ever quite seen the like, and I've seen a lot of really horrible stuff. Let's examine below: The religious war, as you say, represents two factions trying to create a religious state, and the humanitarian crimes they've committed against innocent communities in Syria sort of sadly illustrate the kind of religious state they want. Unfortunately, the Obama administration appears to be shipping them weapons. If the Obama Administration's plan really is to buy off the more powerful (read: worse) Afghan warlords to control Afghanistan, this would be kind of a badly-thought-out pattern. I'm not actually sure if weasel wording is against site rules or not. In any event, please try to be exactly and perfectly honest: Egypt is a fledgling religious dictatorship. There is currently a widespread protest - possibly in the millions if the Arab press is right - to oust him. The United States has been supplying arms to the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Egyptian government. By weaseling around, you denigrate the discussion. So, I'm asking you to stop. Oh yes. Err - with respect to the Middle East/the Arab World/Afghanistan, were you alive for the latter part of the 20th century? You should definitely check that shit out. Oh. So American Middle East policy has been a success. My mistake. Silly grandiose statements, unsupported by a history of seemingly endless policy debacles. You really think even the Taliban could manage to suppress a truly popular prolitarian protest? I think you give these guys a little too much credit. Give the hamster a kick, there. Which immediately fell into peace thereafter, and which has not required in an ongoing campaign against terrorists there. Also, I thought you said Georgie II didn't try that shit. Make up your mind please. Sadly, authoritatively, wrong. That's really strange, because I recall the Americans going over there and kicking the shit out of the Taliban for a few years. Were... were they the wrong guys? Again? Is it some kind of misplaced rage thing, where you mean to get one group, but accidentally smack down another. Like Iraq? Come on, you can tell me. Again: do you know anything about Afghanistan? In point of fact, it was much a junta abetted by the military, which is kind of why the first round of the revolution occurred. Do you know anything about Egypt? How exactly do you mean "caused"? American hegemony was sure as hell a factor motivating the revolution. They might well be, but it's not what one expects of religious fascists a priori, and it's kind of irrelevant. They managed to seize power anyway - and the pursuit of this absurd tactic would certainly start that cycle over again. If you want chaos in the region, I'm sure that's one way to do it. Then, when the Taliban come back, they'll play it a bit smarter. I love it when you resort to trying to put words in other people's mouths to argue a context that no one except you has bought into. Except in the context of, you know, relatively recent history. No matter how much you dislike that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It sure as hell does, both to your sadly ignorant exposition and to the future of that nation. You're ignoring the traditions of intellectual pursuit and societal reform that existed not long before your country fucked this area up (with some assistance from the Soviets, of course) in pursuit of a narrative that says they can be nothing better. I would think better minds might find a way to achieve the successes of the 1920-1980 period, but I suppose I will be disappointed if I'm asking you. Oh, so the Afghans are ingrates. I see. Then it appears you are, again, shooting yourselves in the foot. Good call. I'm sure there are no immediately obvious and negative historical parallels that could be found in about thirty seconds of a shotgun internet search. Ah ah ah - front the cash and I'll see what I can do. But in the end, joe, you can freely throw out the words 'fact' and 'reason' and 'evidence', but the fact is that the strategy isn't based on reason, for the evidence of the past fifty years. You don't understand these words, you don't grasp what they mean beyond the partisan narrative that you clutch like a life preserver in a rough sea. And that's the fact of it. :shrug:
Yeah, you will keep making me laugh. Observations of facts are facts, not accusations. Read, it does a body good. That is 100% bullshit. You used the Arab Spring to justify your contention that bribing local warlords in Afghanistan would not work. It would cause another Arab Spring and foment religious extremism. And I have repeatedly pointed out your errors in that argument. First, the US didn’t bribe any of the officials involved in the Arab Spring. Nor did the US financially sponsor those governments. The US has not had friendly relations with most of the nations involved in the Arab Spring. Not only were your reasons for the Arab Spring wrong, you were also wrong in comparing those nations with Afghanistan. You are back to those fallacious arguments again. The US didn’t start the Arab Spring began in Syria long before the US began providing weapons to the rebels…minor details again. And the US did not bribe warlords in Syria…which is after all the context in which you raise the Arab Spring and Syria. So what we have here is a mindless dump on you part in order to obfuscate. Ok, where is your evidence to support your claim that Egypt is a fledging religious dictatorship? Like all of your other claims, you have absolutely zero evidence to support that notion. The fact that people are protesting in the streets shows that it is not a dictatorship. Just because it has a leader with a strong religious bent, it does not follow that it is a dictatorship. Using your logic, you would have to classify Turkey as a religious dictatorship as well. I think most rational folks understand that Egypt and Turkey are not fledging religious dictatorships. Morsi was elected and he is obeying the law. As I said before, if he were a dictator those people demonstrating in the streets would be dead…just like the demonstrators in Iran. Per my previous posts, the US has been providing military aid to Egypt for years now. That is not the same thing as paying for protection and bribing warlords as the US has done in Afghanistan and will continue to do in the future. But you don’t seem to have the intellectual horsepower to see the difference. There is no word weaseling, none required. We are not talking about the latter part of the 20th century. We are talking about Afghanistan…one of them minor details again. You are trying to obfuscate again. Please keep a lid on your biases and stick to the topic under discussion. And I will repeat myself again. I am repeating my challenge, if you don’t like US policy in Afghanistan, what would you do? This time leave the ad hominem and the obfuscation out if it. The discussion here was about Egypt, not the Taliban. The Taliban does not exist in Egypt. You have been repeatedly challenged back you your claims that Egypt is no longer a democratic republic. And you have repeatedly obfuscated and refused to answer the question, probably because you have no evidence to back up this rather grandiose claim. Please pay attention; I get tired of repeating myself. You like to ignore facts you don’t like as if they might magically disappear. George II’s policy of bribing local warlords worked well until he discontinued the practice and tried to modernize the country and implement a western style government. That is why the US has reverted to bribing warlords. That is why the US wants talks between the Karzai government and the Taliban. If it is authoritatively wrong as you claim, then where is the authority? Who is the authority? No it is not strange at all. Americans kicked the shit out of Germany, Italy and Japan too. And now they are our best friends. Just because we were once enemies, it does not follow that we must always be enemies. This is something I learned in first grade. Is there a point to that? I obviously know more than you my friend. Apparently I know more than you. Egypt was declared a republic in 1953. I suggest you look up the definition of republic while you are at it. Why are you asking me? You are the one who made the assertion. You asserted that bribing and working with local warlords in Afghanistan would only foment an extremist religious backlash in Afghanistan similar to that we saw with the Arab Spring uprising. Have you forgotten the topic of this discussion? Have you forgotten what it is you have been arguing? Don’t look now but your anti-American underwear is showing; American hegemony had nothing to do with the Arab Spring. And you have no evidence to support this notion. Many of the Arab Spring rebels actively sought American backing (e.g. Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc.). So once again the evidence does not support your rather grandiose claims and you have absolutely zero evidence to support your contentions. Let me bring you back to the discussion here. The issue is corruption and that it is the normal course of business in Afghanistan, and your assertion that corruption (i.e. bribes) won’t work in Afghanistan when in fact it has worked. You attempted to claim the Taliban was not corrupt, when in fact it is. The Taliban takes bribes. Bin Ladin successfully bribed the Taliban. That is a fact, one of the many facts you like to ignore. Let’s put this into context, this is what I wrote, “So in your reality, when the Taliban takes bribes from al-Qaeda for protection, it is not a bribe and it’s not corruption. But if the Taliban or other Afghani warlords take money from the US for similar purposes it is bribery and corruption?” I wrote that to point out the illogical and nonfactual position you were taking with respect to the Taliban and corruption. You had held up the Taliban as a paragon of religious virtue. By bet is you didn’t know the Taliban takes bribes. You didn’t know as much about Afghanistan as you would like to think you know. That is nonsense, you are back to making stuff up again. The US has spent a trillion dollars and lost thousands of lives in Afghanistan trying to build a western style government with little success. What works is what the US is now doing, a smaller foot print and working with local warlords. If you think you can support your assertion here with something resembling facts, now is the time to do it friend. I wrote, your assertion that Afghanistan was not always “under this miasma of darkness” was not relevant. Because it is not, what is relevant is the Afghanistan of this century. And you respond with this load of crap? A host of fallacies packed into one paragraph is not going to save you from reality. Two, I have made no prognosis about the future of Afghanistan. That is you making stuff up again and creating a straw man – another one of them fallacies of which you are so famous for creating and using. What I have repeatedly done is comment about the future of the US Afghanistan relationship. I have said nothing about the fate of the nation. That fate is in the hands of the Afghanis. This seems to be another case of your inability to muster enough intellectual horsepower to discern the difference. Do you really think Americans are loved or appreciated by the Afghanis for trying to rebuild the country? I suppose that explains all of the IED’s. Uh, you had claimed that US intentions were not clear. And that clearly is not the case. A quick Google search disproves that notion. This is your responses to my question? I asked you if you didn’t like US policy in the region, which you apparently don’t, what policies would you like? What would you like the US to do in the region? And this is your answer? I think this discussion clearly does not support any of your contentions. Unfortunately, you have only been able to project your insecurities and attempt to mask your lack of knowledge and reasoning skills with a barrage of fallacies.
Well, then it should be easy to find all these times I've made stuff up, then. Unless you're lying, of course. How would you know? Calm down, joe. You don't have the context of my comments, apparently, since you couldn't locate it when I asked you to. When did I ever mention Libya? And in what context did Syria come up? You know what context is, right? It'd be pretty hard to put the label of "bullshit" on it if you'd bothered to check that out. I'll explain it to you again: the difference between a system of warlords and a military republic in this context is irrelevant. It's like saying 'well, the one is further west of Israel, and the other is East of it, so you're fucking wrong, Geoff!' You're talking about bribing a warlord - your term - to keep a lid on the Islamists in Afghanistan. Well, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but this is a major part of the popular grievances cited during the revolutions in Egypt, in Bahrain, hell, in Saudi Arabia, in Iran during the Shah years. It's cited by Islamists (Sam comes to mind) who decry Islamic hegemony in several other nations: Jordan, Turkey. Bribing these nations to keep the pot from boiling is almost exactly the same thing as what you're describing. It isn't rendered different because the Afghans have had warlords for a couple decades - the corruption of the Afghan warlords is one of the reasons the Afghans supported the Taliban. But you - and the Dems, whoa - are proposing the same thing. It's not going to work, and the historical record - in the same country, mind - shows that. Do you see what I'm saying here? Come on, this isn't a tricky one. Don't slap other unrelated arguments on it to scrabble a point together. Again, context, joey. I didn't make those comparisons in that context. You're trying to drag everything into a big "Syria bag" in order to deny the events behind the Arab Spring in several of the nations in which it occurred. When I brought Syria into it - and I see you've dropped Libya, which I hope means you dialed in to the fact that I didn't use them as an example - I was talking about the US supplying arms to the Islamist rebel bloc there, not US support of Syria prior to then. It was a Soviet client for frigging years, joe, which I think everyone knows. I sure as hell did. What's the point of this line? Holy shit: no, you moron, people protesting in the street shows that it is a fledgling (not "fledging") religious dictatorship. Otherwise they wouldn't be out on the street, would they? I said fledgling. Now you're pretending it's all the way gone. And you make the same mistake with Turkey. Read the papers much, Joe? Nor does it have much to do with whether Morsi is obeying the law. He's turning the nation into a neo-theocracy. Do you understand the difference? It's precisely the same thing on a different scale. Do you really not get this or are you pretending not to? It's not biased to point out that US policy has largely had sex with its own arse in the last few decades, and particularly so in the ME. Now: you asked me "Why? Where is your rationale, where is your evidence? [for making such a statement]" and I pointed the above out to you. Joe, I can't keep dragging you back to the discussion. You have to read and remember what's been written before. Otherwise this isn't going to work. Do you really feel that the errors of American policy in the latter part of the 20th century has no bearing on the outcome of this new plan? Really? Because if your answer is 'yes', you need a serious refresher course in logic and consequence. Don't know what you're referring to about ad hominem (it's not ad hom to point out the flaws in another's logical process) but again: front some money and we'll talk. I get paid for my work, and finding a solution that would help the US out of the shit-jam it's got itself into over yonder qualifies as work. Sorry, chief. Had enough ideas stolen over my life. You pay to play. Most of the rest of your post is intellectual disjunct: Uh, no shit. I thought you said before they were going to the bribes because making war on the Taliban was too expensive. Now it's Westernization - which Afghans had no problem with before 1980. Doesn't this suggest other factors? Historyis the authority of that little fact. You claimed warlords is how the country has always worked. You sort of left out the part from 1920-1980, when it authoritatively didn't work like that. Are you really this stupid? See, this is what I'm talking about also: you rope-a-dope on a phrase that you didn't read and don't understand, and ask for constant clarification of that which is clear to most literates. Well, now that you're in second grade, I'm curious to know what this has to do with the discussion we're having here. I was asking about the US going after the wrong people, again, which was a political joke that you have turned into... actually I have no idea what you've turned it into. Digression, again? Or did they extract your sense of humour in kindergarten? That might explain it. Oh, and by the way, the Soviets did in the Germans. You were completely irrelevant in that theatre. You don't seem to know that Afghanistan wasn't ruled by warlords for about half of the 20th century. So my suspicion is that you're just another party hack, and that you don't know too much, which is why you're holding up the flag for this shitboat of an exit policy. That's some fascinating name-looking-up, joe. Good job. Joe, have you heard of the Muslim Brotherhood? So you don't know too much about it then. You also contradicted yourself from above: So you went from "not the sole reason" to "not a factor". Changing benchposts. You just lied. Check the thread. Find where I said they weren't corrupt. Let's put this into actual context: I had no truck whatsoever with your ass-headed attempted parallel, without even getting into the kind of corruption each side illustrates and what that means to the public and, therefore, public support. But by all means, keep having this conversation with yourself. I laughed when I read this one. Yes, a paragon of religious virtue, sure. That's absolutely what I was saying. Not until the people that saw that better Afghanistan are dead, no, it isn't. Why are you such a moral coward on this issue? More run and cover? Jesus, I'm starting to respect the Republican platform a little more reading this crap, so you know it is not selling well. Situation's a bit more complex than that, joe. You have to stop thinking in this binary contrast kind of way. It's hurting your nation. Bad. And where am I supposed to have said this? Let's see if you can find that cat in the coalhouse. Yeah. Knowledge isn't free, joe. I charge for it. I'd be honestly happy to share my ideas: dead honest. You call up your district head or what have you, have them cut me a check, and I will genuinely study that shit and come up with a reasonable alternative. Hell, I might even back the Obama Administration on this one if that's where the evidence goes, although I doubt it. Yeah, but this is your classic run-and-cover approach, joe: 'you don't know nothing', 'you's using faaaallacies', 'you's masking stuff', and so on. This is what you do when you bump up against reasonable counter-propositions: duck and cover while claiming your opponent don't know a-nothin'. It doesn't wash. If you want to discuss the issue, discuss it. You don't need to play turtle.
Sure can. We bought the Mujahideen. Of course fast forward 20 years and that led to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. It might be worthwhile not repeating that particular mistake.
That is a perfect example of the slippery slope fallacy! Using that example, Hitler’s mother was guilty of mass murder and all the crimes and atrocities committed by her son. Therefore women should not give birth to children as one could become a mass murder. Here is another example of your fallacy; some people die from allergic reaction to medicine, therefore people should not use medicine. That claim of yours makes absolutely no sense. Here is the truth. The US supplied the Mujahedeen with weapons to overthrow the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and it worked extraordinarily well. After the war was won, the US withdrew from the region. So your assertion that the US strategy to fund local warlords to defeat the Soviets, it just wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_withdrawal_from_Afghanistan
No it is not, I have documented it line by line, paragraph by paragraph for several pages now. LOL, how many times do we have to around on this issue? You made an analogy between Afghanistan and the nations of the Arab Spring. Libya was one of and is very representative of the nations involved in the Arab Spring. I demonstrated the error in your analogy country by country. And instead of admitting your error you have engaged in a campaign of obfuscation. A couple of things, you had asserted that the reason for the Arab Spring was US bribery of those governments therefore it wouldn’t work in Afghanistan. And that was clearly had not been the case. We are not talking about local governmental problems. We are talking about the US using the purse strings to control local Afghanistan war lords. We are not talking about bribing Arab Spring leaders. You don’t seem to be able or willing to understand the difference. Instead you are obfuscating and praying for relief. The facts are, per my previous posts and evidence, bribes work in Afghanistan. I never suggested using bribes in any of the countries you have named throughout this thread with the exception of Afghanistan. And you are wrong to draw equivalence between the nations of the Arab Spring and Afghanistan for all the reason that have been previously proven and put to you. Throwing up a bunch of chaff in order to distract from your errors of fact and reason just is not going to work. Two, I pointed out to you the reasons for the Arab Spring in a previous post and provided the references. Not one of those reasons listed involved US using money to influence local government officials. I also pointed out to you that some Arab Spring nations actively sought US intervention in their lands (e.g. Libya, Syria, and Egypt). Ah yes you did, when you made the erroneous comparison between Afghanistan and the nations of the Arab Spring. And I have used not only Syria but other nations of the Arab Spring to debunk your comparison.
I had tried to condense this discussion into a few salient points, since much of it is repetitive refutation, and who really has the time? Unfortunately, there were fresh errors of commission and omission in joe's post, and so here we are. Where? I haven't seen any evidence of that. It's one of them, yes, but not one that I mentioned and was selected by you. Sorry, but much of the Arab Spring reaction resulted from American interference. I've posted links to this effect - and the same can be found in a simple internet search - but you have not acknowledged them. For exactly two countries. That's a bit misleading, joe. Moreover, I've presented counter-evidence on the same number. Sounds like American interference certainly was a factor; and see above. I bolded the error in the above: not the reason, but a reason. You have asserted, at different points in the discussion, that it was a factor, and that it had nothing to do with the Arab Spring at all. The latter is certainly not believable. Off grammar aside, how exactly is either of these things 'local governmental problems'? What are you talking about? OK, a couple errors here: first off... bribing Arab Spring leaders? What are you talking about? I'm referring to the US 'using the purse strings' to control Islamic nations over the years: Iran, Egypt, Bahrain, Turkey, Jordan, Afghanistan, and so forth. Why do you think this refers to the leaders of the Arab Spring? If instead you mean the US bribing Arab/Islamic governments which end up being repressive dictatorships or implementing ongoing security measures, then no, there's not much difference between bribing Afghan warlords and political/military cliques except at the level of complexity of organisation. Ad hom aside... "praying for relief"? This would assume that I thought you were fixable via prayer. I can assure you, I don't think that. Who the hell suggested you had? And who do you think helps prop up those regimes, joe? Who provides about a billion dollars in military aid to the Egyptians alone? It's not Santa Claus. Military intervention from a new governmental administration, yes. That was an impressive bit of intellectual disjunct there, joe. Seek help. I bolded the key word here. I think you'll find the vast majority of people are as uninformed as you are, joe. Morsi did screw up this time - but a federal organisation can wield power independent of the military in such nations, joe, and they can mass public opinion. Islamic terrorist groups are also already making statements about supporting Morsi. It's no surprise that a Brotherhood-backed government Turkey, Egypt, Syria. Sure sure. I'm not sure about your previous commentary, but this idea is not going to work. So you again ignore - deliberately - the 1920-1980 period. Did I call you illiterate? Look, it's not ad hominem to objectively report on your strategy and position, is it? It's not ad hominem to object to your flawed process. It's clear you're literate - you can read this website. Nor is it ad hominem to call you on argumentative fallacies. For example: = changing goalposts. = fallacy of definition. You again take the position that Morsi's goals have been accomplished, ignoring my specific comment. Even if he had completed his work and turned Egypt into a theocracy, revolution would still be possible. You're willing to overlook the fact of his actual work so far, and the polarization of Egyptian society. Or else you don't read your own comments, above, in the same post. And then asserted that I said the Taliban weren't corrupt. So that's two lies for you so far: you have misrepresented me, and then yourself. Is that corruption? You should apply to become an Afghani warlord: I hear some positions might be coming up. No, this is a bunch of gibberish: Words mean things, joe. Your use of language is extremely loose, and because it jives so often with your need to try to make a point, suspiciously so. At no point had I "held up the Taliban as a paragon of religious virtue". It's a bit more complex than IEDs alone, joe. Just a smaller, warlord-driven corrupt government. Joe, I'm not sure how your sense of personal grandeur is situated, but I certainly wasn't offering paid opinions to the likes of you, personally. Oh, and also, you used 'slippery slope' incorrectly, above. It's a parallel that's being described here, not a procession. That's a freebie; no charge.
