Should the U.S. troops leave afghanistan ?.

Discussion in 'World Events' started by mike47, Jul 31, 2009.

?

Do you think the U.S. should pull off Afghanistan ?.

  1. Yes

    33 vote(s)
    57.9%
  2. No

    24 vote(s)
    42.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Interesting, as the greatest advancements in technology have come about directly from the needs of warfare.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    Those who invade sovereign nations , kill innocent men, innocent women and innocent children are the real terrorists . Therefore the US Administration is a real TERRORIST for it did and still doing in both Iraq and Afghanistan .
    It does not take a genius to see the truth and the whole truth in spite of the propaganda barrage from both the US administration and its over zealous media .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Not the needs of warfare, but a mistaken focus on it. Its quite possible to focus on peaceful uses of any technology, just harder to get funded for it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Tell that to the Wives, children, mothers, ETC of the Victim's of the Twin towers, Pentagon and Flight 93. That the people that killed there loved ones where not terrorists and that they were never in Afghanistan for training. And that Afghanistan was not harboring the Prick that orchestrated the whole thing. Iraq well that is another story sure there were no WMD's there but really Saddam was a real asshole that committed Genocide and needed to be taken care of before he got WMD's. Lets focus on the real problem the pricks that want to rid the world of the infidels they are the problem not the Coalition forces.
     
  8. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    DH covered the ethnic (Pashtun) border situation on numerous occasions.
    No, the US actively bullied Pakistan into fighting their Afghan conflict spillover in Pakistan for them. They threatened, that if Pakistan did not fight the Taliban in Pakistan, the US would.
    No, this occurred when the US drone attacks intensified and the Taliban escalated their struggle against the invaders.
    There you go. There is a direct correlation. I am far from the only one drawing these conclusions.
     
  9. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Well said friend Fed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    eace:
     
  10. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Jibberish. Feel free to post in your own language. :m:
     
  11. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Come on Buff. Along with the zillion deaths created by said "technology".
    Lets just say human nature is programmed to kill each other.
     
  12. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    Just another US pretext to steal the resources of those who are weak, poor and can not defend themselves . There was no real investigation on who did what and why vis a vis 9/11 tragic events . 60% of the members of the committee said they were put in a situation whereas their inquiry ends in failure . If you believe G.W. bush, Dick Cheney, Paul wolfowitz, Donald Rumesfeld and their gangs then you have serious problems because their lies are well documented. wake up, wake up , wake up and see the truth as it is and not as told by the Us Administration propaganda and their war hungry media ...!!!!.
     
  13. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Sure. But we (the public) don't really know how serious the attempts were, or what happened with them. The information about that won't be publicly available for decades, if ever.

    There are "plans in place" for the invasion of every country in the world, including longtime allies like France and Canada. That's what military planners do.

    That's not the same thing as a political decision to invade. Which we can see from the examples I gave. Do you really imagine that the US is secretly planning to invade Canada? Or do we simply consider it prudent to have plans prepared for any eventuality?

    No. We (i.e., the public) have no way of evaluating that question. We don't know whether a negotiated solution was practicable, or even what the prospects of an agreement were.

    We don't know that either. For all we know, serious, good-faith negotiations were pursued and failed. The relevant details of these sorts of sensitive diplomatic dealings are not publicly available, and probably will not be in our lifetimes (if ever).

    And yet, their core leadership still operates in Afghanistan/Pakistan, AQ still maintains tactical, strategic and ideological ties to the Taliban, etc. If they were, in fact, to leave Afghanistan, and the Taliban were to make their return unwelcome, I'd be the first person to call for bringing the troops home. But that hasn't happened, and there seems little prospect that it ever will.
     
  14. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Yes, granted. From the available public records, it seems the attempts were rejected out of hand.
    In this instance, military planners were provisioning oil. :m:
    So democracy is dead. We, the public, are content to be kept in the dark?
    Why would this not be reported? What is sensitive about stating publicly, along with rational reasons, why dialogue had broken down, and that war is the only option? Alas, history is slowly revealing the truth.
    Where is the evidence for this?
    Its clear that the invasion was directed at the Taliban and regime change all along. Hence the consistent focus (going on 9 years now) was not against AQ, but against the Taliban and, with no end in sight.
     
  15. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    It also seems that said attempts were not serious in the first place. But again, the only ones we know about are the public grandstanding that occurred after the decision to invade had already been taken. The real negotiations occurred before that, in secret.

    So? AQ had been attacking the US for years, by that point. It is not exactly crazy that a concrete plan to force an end to that situation would be at hand.

    Don't be melodramatic. The officials are still accountable to the electorate, and will be voted out if the public feels their trust has been violated. That doesn't imply that secrecy has no role in statecraft, but rather that voters need to support candidates they can trust.

    And for the record, I never trusted Bush and didn't support him. My best guess is that he didn't seriously pursue a diplomatic solution. It's also my best guess that no such solution would have been possible anyway. But those are all guesses. We are not able to make definitive claims about this stuff.

    Plenty of things. All manner of sensitive intelligence could be compromised, for one. And anyway, at that point it is not a matter for public debate, and so treating it like one is counter-productive. We'd have a direct democracy if we wanted to piss away our lives settling matters of urgent national security import in protracted public debates.

    In the public record.

    Sure. That was a publicly stated goal of the invasion.

    The two goals are not mutually exclusive. The stated goal was to aprehend top AQ leadership, destroy the AQ organization, and remove the Taliban from power. The reason for the third goal was that the Taliban provided shelter and support to AQ.
     
  16. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Fair enough.
    Yes, still, international criminal prosecution could have been pursued.
    Who does one trust in politics? But a fair point.
    Yes, valid conjecture. History will provide retrospective perspective.
    Perhaps, but with the potential for a slide towards fascism and criminality as seen with the Gitmo abuses. And, regarding Iraq, a public debate/referendum may have saved a million Iraqi lives.
    Only after Bin Laden was not captured dead or alive.
    Unfortunately, there were and still are clear issues around the legality of the invasion. In the words of Francis A. Boyle, Professor in International Law.

     
  17. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Generally, not anyone who's been in office for any length of time. Power corrupts, and all that.

    The value of democracy is that it lets you throw out the corrupted guys fairly regularly, and replace them with clean guys. They, of course, also get corrupted after a while, but the point is to keep the assembly line churning, and so not let any one set of politicians become too entrenched.

    Are you kidding? A public referendum back in 2003 would have overwhelmingly favored invasion. The people were pissed and ready to kick some ass back then. Bush didn't need to fool or override anyone: he simply capitalized on the extant sentiment and channeled it towards a specific target.

    No, this was prior to the invasion.

    So? I'm not one of these children that needs to pretend wars are about "law" or whatever, if that's where you were headed. Wars are crimes, and the world is a jungle. If some group of fuckers on the other side of the world wants to come over here and butcher my people by the planeload, them and anyone who stands with them are going to get stomped in return. And the Taliban deserved to have their teeth kicked in anyway, barbarous as they are. Does that suck for Afghans caught in the crossfire? Absolutely. Also for Americans caught in the crossfire. Is that "moral?" I doubt it. So what?
     
  18. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Well when you consider how much everyone is spending on warfare somethings gotta come out of it.

    But if you are making an arguement for why we should continue to have wars and to continue killing people than you make a very poor point.
     
  19. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    thank you.
     
  20. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    But it is also human nature to herd together, more so than anything else. Violence is just programmed in in order to hunt, gather, defend. but herding together is one of our foremost instincts.

    And I find it abhorrent to believe that in order to come out with the next leap in technology thousands more will have to die. I think we can make those leaps without death and suffering.
     
  21. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    That sounds just about right. :deal:
    Yes, I think you are right in this regard. The "war on terror" fearhype was consistently employed to instill fear and thus compliance on the American public.
    I see. So in principle you agree its fair if innocent Afghans (non AQ, non Taliban) who have suffered slaughter at the hands of US forces, perpetrated retaliatory attacks on US soil and innocent US citizens were killed as a collateral effect?
     
  22. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    I am with you 100% friend Fed. I remain optimistic that altruism will ultimately prevail.
     
  23. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    I also happen to believe, due to the breadth of our solar system, we reduce human population by 1/10th each generation, and by 9/10ths at Singularity. This exquisite marble should become a wild garden again within an early transhuman lifetime.

    We're going to have to cast off a lot of meat to get cold and go fast; it's not to soon to start getting used to the idea of even shedding all the meat.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page