Obama's plans for Afghanistan

Jump to Last Post 1-32 of 32 discussions (121 posts)

88
Paragliderposted 15 years ago
------------------------------------------------------------
KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said yesterday that he is in full agreement with President Obama's newly announced strategy for the country, saying it was "exactly what the Afghan people were hoping for" and promising to "work very closely" with the United States.
------------------------------------------------------------

Am I alone in thinking the plan is in fact a backward step almost guaranteed to prolong the war with the Taliban and effectively increase their numbers and their resolve?
reply report
1. 59
  SiddSinghposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I am not sure what else can Hamid Karzai say, except that he "supports the policy fully", and he will "work very closely". What was the amount of the Afghan input into this "Afghanistan Strategy" is a matter on conjecture.
  
  The US Prez has announced that the new strategy will "move beyond Kabul". What that means will be clearer in the time to come. What is of greater concern (especially from an Indian perspective) is the new policy of differentiating between the "Good Taliban" and "bad Taliban". One can only imagine where that is heading!!
  reply report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not at all. I think also that Obama is merging already large "entities" if you will building larger ones... greater (not necessarily good) "entities" and alliance I suppose for Global Domination.
  
  As if America hasn't already overstepped it's boundaries and put the entire world in jeopardy. I know that bringing this up is just gonna get negative remarks but...
  
  It does seem as though this conspiracy theory about a "New World Order" is already in the works.
  
  Last night I was watching the news..
  
  Obama states that auto workers or manufacturers either merge with other larger companies or declare bankruptcy and be put out business and they will (the federal securities) will honor the warranties on their vehicles...
  
  I know it doesn't sound so significant but to me it looks like he paving a one way street. I think by doing so that other myth about the Amero will be much easier to make its way into circulation as if the failure of the entire economic system being pinned to the dollar wasn't failure enough.
  
  I am also concerned with prospects of re'engaging in a war with N. Korea over a rocket that N.Korea is going to launch into space sometime between April 4-8th, saying that if they launch that rocket Obama will shoot it down. North Korea says, you shoot down our rocket that does not have nuclear missiles built into it, then we will go to war.
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And what kind of negative remarks are those? Some Americans do realize, the same as you, that America has over stepped its boundaries. As for the entire world being jeopardy, maybe. From what I understand of History, for the past 2500 hundred years the entire world has been in jeopardy [as not to leave all the burden on American shoulders]. But stating a fact of oncoming approaches to your view is a tad bit premature. I would simply like to ask that you give due credit to Americans. For not all of us are negative commentators with unrealistic views. Thanks.
  
  If someone does approach your comment in a negative manner, please have patience. You kinda of were asking for it, weren't you?
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL, thanks RKHenry. I didn't mean anything like what it might of sounded like, I live in America just sore about what is going on like others are as well. Maybe my ideas are premature and I am not saying it is all Americas fault but in some ways I am saying that America (not really the majority of Americans) are accepting things that are out of our control (so it seems) to gain control or something.
  
  Maybe I was asking for it, but well.. umm.. and ... I guess I am just sorta used to it by now. Because it seems like anyone who says, "war" or "holy moly" LOL, is a warmonger and I am not either.
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh to the contrary- you are a very well informed person with a great understanding and knowledge. War Monger is not your forte`.
  
  I, like you see that more fighting, spending money on warfare isn't the perspective or the voice of what most Americans want. When it comes to this mess, lately I'm at a loss.
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Werd, me too.
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe we need to return from a war monger to a whore monger??
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe.
  reply report
88
Paragliderposted 15 years ago
Hi SiddSingh - The plan has 'sweeteners' in the form of development projects for both Afghanistan and Pakistan which the respective Governments can hardly refuse, but it also seems to claim the unilateral right to take the fighting into Pakistan. Also much of the rhetoric used to introduce the plan seemed calculated to spread fear of the Taliban into the US, while the Taliban's whole history has been local. They are not Al Qaeda.
reply report
59
SiddSinghposted 15 years ago
Hi Paraglider,

You are right. The sweeteners are probably of the variety found in carrots, while a stick in the form on military action is also wielded!

You have also a point about the plan being overwhelmingly targeted towards Taliban. I would like to understand why this is being done.
reply report
88
Paragliderposted 15 years ago
As you said, time will tell. But no-one has ever won a war in Afghanistan. Britain, Russia both failed and there's no reason to expect the US to do any better. The cynical view is that with Iraq winding down the US military wants a new playground. I had hoped Obama would be less inclined to adventurism but the signs are not good.
reply report
59
SiddSinghposted 15 years ago
With all the right noises that Obama made about "Military adventurism", it would indeed be a tragedy if he indulged in it. Even with all the sweeteners that he is planning, and what with his current focus, it is apparent that the problems are going to increase, and not decrease.
reply report
1. 65
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm concerned that Obama is jumping into the fire in Afghanistan before even jumping out of the Iraq frying pan. The more troops we send to Afghanistan the more casualties, allied and Afghan. The cost in lives and money will be considerable with little assurance of success, however defined. Nobody has ever succeeded in governing the Pushtun tribes in the border area who have sheltered Al Qaida. And I doubt that they are looking forward to help from the U.S. and its allies.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Ralph - I agree with your simple statement! Send troops into Afghanistan and more people will die, on all sides. It seems a very bad idea to me. And I agree with Sidd's view that there are no moderate Taliban (except my local Taliban Stores, which sells dishtash fabric in Doha!) The Taliban (and the Afghani people in general) famously dislike foreign troops on their soil. It could get very unpleasant fast. Then of course there's no easy way out.
  reply report
59
SiddSinghposted 15 years ago
From the time Obama was campaigning, and later when he became the president, he has made a lot of statements about the situation in Afghanistan, and what he would like to do here. But the gist is: he has accepted that there is no way they can "WIN" the war there, and the focus is to get out ASAP, while stabilizing the situation.

As far as I have gathered, no American president can remain popular while there are "body bags" coming back home. With the current economic crisis, Obama is likely to need all the goodwill that he can gather. Yet, the latest plan entails INCREASING the military deployment.

Also, in search of the said objective of stabilization, Obama and his Foreign policy mandarins have embarked upon a rather curious exercise: identifying the "GOOD TALIBAN". Many people believe that phrase is an oxymoron. What can be good about an ideology that advocates brutal suppression of women, propagates religious extremism and suppresses democracy.
reply report
63
Mishaposted 15 years ago
Glad that I can agree to Ralph at least time to time
reply report
1. 88
  Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Misha - all agreed so far then. I suspect Venugopal might hold a different view though...
  reply report
63
Mishaposted 15 years ago
Frankly I don't take Venugapal seriously, so I do not care much which exactly propaganda cliche he regurgitates
reply report
88
Paragliderposted 15 years ago
Sandra, RKH -
North Korea will eventually collapse. The country is virtually bankrupt and incredibly backward. Even their military, in spite of their nuclear ambitions, is very primitive. They need to be contained until the borders open. But let's try to keep this on Afghanistan. The parallels between Obama's rhetoric on Afghanistan and Bush's rhetoric on Iraq are certainly disturbing. Is there hard evidence that the Taliban pose a threat to anyone outside their own region? Or is it another case like the imaginary WMDs of Saddam Hussein?
reply report
1. 59
  SiddSinghposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There was oil in Iraq. What is there in Afghanistan? Poppies, maybe??:
  
  Or does USA need a presence somewhere close to China? Engagement (pronounced Containment), perhaps??
  
  About Taliban posing a threat outside their own region, well, it is clear and present danger for India (And in some ways for the people of Pakistan. Although, not for the Pakistani Army establishment). But clearly, the security of India is the last thing on O's mind. So what exactly is it??
  reply report
  59
  Julahaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No, in the case of Afghanistan, it is its strategic location that is invaluable to imperialists, whether they be Britain or the US. From Afghanistan, you can keep an eye on Iran, Russia, China and India, all viewed upon by the US as potential threats or challengers to its superpowerdom.
  
  That is why America will not get out of Afghanistan in a hurry, unlike Iraq. There was no need for America to remain in Iraq, because it already has a number of lackeys in that area including Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
  
  But Afghanistan is important to America to be able to have a handle on Iran.
  
  But America is playing a dangerous game here. No one has won a war in Afghanistan and this time China is playing the same game that America played against the USSR. It is supplying the Taliban with weapons so that it can take on American troops. This means a long bloody war for America, which perfectly suits China. For if the US is bogged down in a war, its economy can go into a tailspin, just as it happened with USSR, and China will then be able to become the sole superpower of the world.
  
  China has very close links with Pakistan, and both are playing a double game against the US. Cocksure US can fall flat on its nose in Afghanistan tripped up by its "ally" Pakistan and its mentor China.
  reply report
61
knolyourselfposted 15 years ago
"Am I alone in thinking the plan is in fact a backward step almost guaranteed to prolong the war with the Taliban and effectively increase their numbers and their resolve?"
Nope not alone.
Pipelineistan
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22292.htm
reply report
1. 67
  Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  For sure, Pipelineistan. You could even say Afghanapipelineistan.
  
  No Paraglider I don't think there is hard evidence that the Taliban poses a threat to anyone outside their own region either.
  
  On a good note, believe it or not the US and Iran open Afghanistan peace talks.
  
  Iran has also suggested an alternative route for the Afghanistan gas pipe lines for some time.
  
  Bring on the alternatives to oil and gas.
  
  Globalization sucks.
  
  No Sandra the US 'will not stop' the N Korea rocket now. Thank God. I see your concern though.
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Am I the only one who has heard of the recent threat from the Taliban leader, on Washington? "An attack the world would never forget." Now I'm not saying a war should be made, but I do say keep your eyes peeled for the possibilities these guys might be serious.
  reply report
  57
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not that you are war-mongering or anything, but you have heard there might be an attack so maybe we should do something about this terrorist threat............
  
  Sheesh. How convenient. A new Taliban leader. A new threat. Lets up the troops in Afghanistan.
  
  How easily scared you are. Do you even know how far away these threats are from you?
  
  Keep your eyes peeled. Just in case.....
  
  Specially in Kansas.
  
  War monger.
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure if we can find him we'll drop a bomb on him.
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is that $5 million dollar bounty.
  
  It was mentioned as a point to the fact that the Taliban does pose a threat to everyone. Turning a blind eye is unrealistic. Turning the other cheek? We'll have to wait and see. But threats like this are real.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Let's think about this.
  1. There's an occupying force in your land, from about 10,000 miles away. Do you issue a threat? yes/no?
  2. There is no occupying force in your land. Do you threaten a superpower 10,000 miles away? yes/no?
  There is no surer way to create enemies than to invade their land. The fact is, Empires care little for enemies and a great deal for trade routes. For Empire, read US and for trade route, pipeline. Nothing changes.
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Paraglider.
  
  I only differed from you on the fact that the Taliban was an apposing threat. Thats it. To say they are not a threat, [to me] is wrong. And. Somehow all your justifications are not going to convince me otherwise.
  
  Now whether it's their threat OR whether it's the fact that America or somebody else, is occupying their land that causes the fight and a war breaks out, only many years of history will bring out the blinding truth to whose at fault. I'll let that determination up to people like yourself.
  
  But in the end, anyway you look at it, lives will be lost. What justification, brought forth by yourself, in trying to convince that is acceptable- in any time frame, no matter by whom- will fail.
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  RKH, Specifically, what makes you think the Taliban is a threat to the United States? I suppose they could be a threat if they took control of Pakistan which would mean big problems for India and the region. Are you equating the Taliban with Al Qaida?
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No Ralph, I [truly] no the difference between the two social/religious groups. As I stated earlier, a threat has been made on Washington D.C., by the head of the Taliban movement in Pakistan, just days ago. He said, in speech to his militant followers, that their movement is planning an attack on Washington, that will shock the ENTIRE world.
  
  The US's response was to up the bounty on his head now to a whopping $5 mil. Specifically speaking, I'll take the Taliban at their word. A threat is a threat. Whether its followed up on, is an entirely different matter.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  He did say that, prompted perhaps by the presence of American troops on the ground in Afghanistan. The troops are there to kill his people. If they are planning an outrage in WDC, troops in Afghanistan won't prevent it. Intelligence might.
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Paraglider, I concur with you on the matters of state. BUT. To openly say that the Taliban is NOT a threat is just wrong information. [I know it wasn't you who said that.] But still defending an open violent message of harm, is not helping your cause to better understanding. I do thank you for at least saying that the threat was made.
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Words are cheap. All threats are not created equal. As I pointed out in another forum, my recollection is that the 9-11 attack plot was hatched in Germany and carried out by Saudis. There are plenty of better places for Al Qaeda to plot attacks on the U.S. than in the tribal areas of Afghanistan. These areas may work as a hideout for Bin Laden, but there are plenty of better places for Al Qaeda to hatch plots against the U.S. About the most Mehsud could do is provide money to Al Qaeda plotters elsewhere.
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sure Ralph, I see your point. But read me out for a second and ponder if you will-
  
  There is an old saying, "What is good for the goose isn't good for the gander." A threat is a threat. Continuing threats aren't helping matters, continued occupation isn't helping matters. But the same as they are protecting their own, do we not have the right to ponder whether this threat could be real? OR would you rather Washington civilians not be told and when the threat is made into reality, a call to Global War be made in vengeance? Spill American blood again, in America's front yard, no not a good idea. But NOT telling Americans that a threat was made, even worse idea. America ignored past threats made by people like that of the Taliban, Al Qaida. Yeah, like whose occupying who will or will NOT make a difference. People won't care about that. They will care about the bloodshed. Now how is that going to help the cause of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, etc... Americans greatest weakness is American blood. America won't stand for it. And to damn with the rest of the world thinks, if it comes to it. America won't care. I live here. I here it everyday. I see it everywhere. This country was built on the backside of Pride. Right or wrong, won't make a difference. For a young person like myself, who has seen the roar the American pride- good luck to the rest of you in at your lap tops, if this Nation is bombed again. Glory be. People think we're terrible now, I'm sure none of us has seen the worse yet, if the threat is acted upon.
  
  You know-
  Someone made the suggestion that the Taliban wasn't a threat and that us Americans or most of us Americans don't know the difference between the Taliban or Al Qaida. Newsflash, we do and most of can recognize why threats are being made and to which group is making them. What are some suggestions that have a chance of ending the violence? More threats? More violence? Killing? Destruction? I could get called up. That scares the crap out me. Would I serve, sure, I'm American. It is my duty. Call it pride. Would I fire a shot? No, I'd rather die. But, that still doesn't change a damn thing, now does it? No. There are PLENTY of American men like myself, who would fire that shot.
  reply report
  65
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree that the Taliban may well be a threat to U.S. facilities in the area--embassies, U.S. corporation facilities and to our friends and allies. And the Taliban is apparently sheltering Bin Laden and a few other Al Qaida leaders. The question is how best to deal with this situation. It seems clear to me that even if we were able to capture Bin Laden and extinguish all Al Qaida activities in the tribal areas, there would still be danger of terrorist attacks on the U.S. and American and allied facilities from Al Qaida and other Islamist terrorist groups located in other countries. So, the question in my mind is what is the likely effect of escalating our activities against the Taliban; what is the likely cost; how long will it take; and is the result likely to be worth the cost? It's similar to deciding whether or not to removing a hornet's nest from under the eaves of one's house or to just leave it alone.
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Seems to me we are wondering the same things. I don't think the cost will ever be worth the cause.
  report
  67
  Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If you wouldn't fire a shot then don't fire the war mongering.
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  hm... looks like an attempt to brown nose Mark. Please. You've clearly read nothing what I wrote. Despite that, this coming from you? Who you kidding man? Think everyone's forgotten about your trip to nowhere land? Dude.
  report
  67
  Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  What of it. I got fed up with the Religion forum. Brown nose Mark? Yeah right.
  
  You know RK prior to the war in Iraq there were all kinds of people in every forum and chat room online war mongering for that war. Most of them were from a certain ethnic group that had an alternative motive. You are not one of them are you?
  report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Have you seen how long I've been here? Furthermore, how old is hubpages? 6+ years? Hell far, you haven't even been on here for 6 years. Are you okay dude? That's a huge calculation error. Huge.
  
  Man, I have no idea as to what you are talking about or referring too. And. After reading your question again, I don't think you do either.
  
  What group of people would that be now? Black? White? Jews? Christians? Who?
  report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The Pakistani Army seems to have conceded parts of its territory to the Taliban and have allowed the Taliban to impose Shariah Law. The Taliban has been gaining in strength and carrying out more brazen attacks against Pakistani Institutions - the most recent being the attack on the Police Academy that is thought to have resulted in the deaths of 40 or so police trainees.
  
  They are attacking the security establishment of Pakistan. Pakistan is a state with nuclear weapons. Does it still ring a bell?? Or would you much rather prefer waiting - till you find out that the Taliban and elements in the Pakistani Army sympathetic to the Taliban have taken over? The Taliban ideology is spreading into Pakistan and destroying Pakistan from within.
  reply report
  59
  Julahaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It is highly improbable that the Pakistanis have control over their bomb. The Americans are sure to have taken control over it to prevent the Taliban from getting it. If the Americans haven't done that, they are really stupid.
  
  Taliban's writ runs over half of Pakistan and it is just a matter of time before Islamabad falls into the lap of Taliban.
  
  As the US beefs up its army in Afghanisthan, more and more Afghan Taliban will pour into Pakistan, strengthening the Pakistani Taliban, which could then get emboldened to make a run for the big bomb.
  
  The stakes are high for Taliban. If it is able to capture the bomb, that will be the end of the war in Afghanistan. The Taliban will rule not only Afghanistan, but also Pakistan.
  
  If Iran decides to side with the Taliban, the Taliban can become a force to reckon with. A nuclear-armed terrorist state that has the backing of China and Iran.
  
  Can there be a more nightmarish scenario?
  reply report
  60
  VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Possession of nuclear weapons does not confer the right to breed terrorism. The Americans are attacking Pakistani territory daily, knowing well that it has N-weapons. Taliban, Pakistan, Iran or anyone else soft on terror should be treated as one. Counting numbers and feeling threatened is not the remedy. If they are convinced of their legitimacy, they will not act covertly. They will come out openly and declare war on others. So, they are afraid to come out. They are afraid to attack the army personnel. They attack only civilians... unarmed.. and children and women. So, they need not be feared. We should only count the days and hours of their complete destruction.
  reply report
  60
  VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Possession of nuclear weapons does not confer the right to breed terrorism. The Americans are attacking Pakistani territory daily, knowing well that it has N-weapons. Taliban, Pakistan, Iran or anyone else soft on terror should be treated as one. Counting numbers and feeling threatened is not the remedy. If they are convinced of their legitimacy, they will not act covertly. They will come out openly and declare war on others. So, they are afraid to come out. They are afraid to attack the army personnel. They attack only civilians... unarmed.. and children and women. So, they need not be feared. We should only count the days and hours of their complete destruction.
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The Pakistanis are very wary of the US. They sided with the US under compulsion - not by choice. Right now, they are not sure whether they want to fight the Taliban or whether they want to bribe them by offering them Shariah Law, et al. So, its fantasy to believe that the Pakistanis would have the US or any other country have control over their nuclear weapons.
  
  The US might want to have control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons, but wanting to have control and actually getting control are two different things. The Pakistanis are smart - they aren't just going to give what they consider to be their ultimate weapon to the US to safeguard.
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Just the other day, you had one of the Pakistani Taliban leaders threaten the US. Of course, right now, its an empty threat - they don't have the capability to attack the US (as of now). But, would you wish to allow them to develop that capability by retreating?
  reply report
71
AEvansposted 15 years ago
You are definitely not alone and I have to say that I am becoming seriously concerned about our country.
reply report
63
Mishaposted 15 years ago
There is nothing better than a war to distract populace from internal problems. I think this is the case here...
reply report
1. 63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Misha, I differ from your valid opinion in one area and that is, the American populace is on this administration like flies on shit.
  
  Americans are deeply affected by what is going on. People may not see that across the seas, but since when has the news ever talked about the positive. They love to focus on the negative. If Americans are in support of Obama's position concerning Afgan., it is because most of them think this is what the majority of them people want from us. It is because they feel the avg. Afgan citizens need our help. Nobody in America, as of late, want innocent killings to be taking place. NOBODY. Nobody buys the Bush's bullshit anymore. Some of us never did. But America is VERY aware of OUR internal problems. No war is going to distract us. If anything, it will only tighten our grip on Washington.
  
  Misha if I may, Do you live in the USA?
  reply report
2. 86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I am afraid but there's much more at stake in Afghanistan. America walked away from Afghanistan after the Soviet retreat, leaving behind a country in turmoil. The anarchy proved ideal for Osama and his ilk. They got an ideal breeding ground to test out their experiments in Jihad against the West.
  
  Does the West want to walk away from Afghanistan a second time? Its certain that within weeks of the western forces withdrawing, the Taliban would hold sway in Afghanistan - especially since the Pakistani military has always covertly supported the Taliban. The Afghan Army stands no chance.
  
  Turning back the clock and going back to the Taliban days would be idiotic.
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Are we to forget all the other times like they never happened?
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why would you want to compare Afghanistan to others? Why wouldn't you want to see that on Afghanistan - the whole world is united.
  reply report
  93
  Amanda Severnposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Afghanistan has been at the heart of conflict in that region on a cyclical basis for centuries now. We either have to get out and let the Taliban have free reign, or keep going in the knowledge that every insurgent that gets killed is replaced by several more who want to avenge his memory.
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  True - but the Taliban and Talibanization has been a recent phenomena. Should the Taliban be allowed free reign is the right question and should be asked and debated thoroughly. It will have long-term consequences - not only for the region - but for the whole world.
  
  The Taliban aren't in it for the avening part - they want to enforce their ideology. They have been burning down girls' schools in Pakistan (they deem it unIslamic) - they have been ordering executions at their whim and fancy.
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I don't see that. Don't equate Western cultures (and striving to become Western, like India) to the whole World. It is definitely a big part of the World, yet only a part. And in my opinion Afghanistan should be left alone to mind its own business, and every other country too. The sooner West stops trying to fix other countries to their liking, the sooner they start to respect and cooperate...
  reply report
  79
  Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed, Misha - we can be very arrogant in the West.
  
  'Our liking' means that they give us all of their resources and money
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL yes, on the "haves" level. For general populace things like subjugation of women serve as a good motivation - see Amanda's post.
  
  Amanda, I don't like what they do to women, yet I too fail to see this as a reason to invade the country. This is their way of life, and we have enough of our own problems to deal with. And yes, I agree that at the end their way may the right way, and ours not - we never really know
  reply report
  60
  countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Misha/Paraglider- When woman have no access to education/health and other critical factors(i.e.,unfair justice meted out to women) then it surely is a gross violation of human rights(I am not talking of just cultural factors here). Besides that LondonGirl's has written a hub about the treatment of minorities by the Taliban. I agree invasion may not be the best solution and a sustained long term approach of engagement is best (but only when they are allowed to engage). Even Aid by the various international agencies/NGO's was being severely affected.
  
  And the traditional way of life indigenous to Afghanistan prior to Taliban isn't something I am rallying against but the recent import of Wahabi ideology (which the majority of people even there don't support but unable to rebel) seems to be the problem. One has to draw the line again to what response is "reasonable" no matter what the provocation (i.e., 911). I am sure this debate would never end since it is an issue which has many grey shades and taking a black/white posture doesn't help either in this regard.
  reply report
  93
  Amanda Severnposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Misha, Whilst I definitely don't like to contemplate the subjugation of women, or any of the other bullying abuses that the Taliban imposes, I do wonder if we are trying to impose a way of life on them just because we think we know best. We don't, necessarily.
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Shil1978: Who is comparing Afghanistan to someone else? The West has walked AWAY from Afghanistan more than 2x's. So are we to forget about the other times we've walked away in failure? You mentioned twice. There has been more than that. That's all.
  
  Let us do compare Afghanistan TO AT least Afghanistan.
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If you do happen to follow what the intellectuals and liberals in these countries are saying (i.e. Pakistan and Afghanistan) - they don't think its their (or should be) their way of life either.
  
  When you have a bunch of people with weapons who want to enforce their point of view on others and want to terrorize others by public executions - you don't have a choice but to follow their viewpoint and their interpretation of things.
  
  Its an important distinction to make here. I am all for people living their lives the way they want to. I am not for imposing western values on them. But, how about listening to the voices from within these countries themselves?
  
  I hope you saw Stan Grant's interview on CNN with a woman who feld the SWAT Valley. These are people living in these areas.
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "And in my opinion Afghanistan should be left alone to mind its own business, and every other country too."
  
  Yes - we should all mind our own business - of course that is until our own people's are attacked - OR in your opinion - we should all mind our own business even then - should we??
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure exactly what are you talking about - can you be more precise?
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps you need to read better and comprehend better If you still didn't get it - well perhaps it wasn't meant for you!!!
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Huh? Bye then
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Bye bye - you can use your energies elsewhere - and me too
  reply report
  59
  SiddSinghposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I think it would also be very instructive to learn about the origin of Al Quaeda (and by extension, Taliban). Most people are mistaken when they believe that Al Quaeda came into existence LATER than Taliban. Al Quaeda was established around 1988, a good 8 years before Taliban. AQ is rather "Pan-Islamic" in its world view, Taliban is essentially localized. Also, AQ is MOSTLY comprised of people from Arab world, Taliban is comprised of mostly Pashtuns from a common ethnic stock from Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  
  Another VERY important point that should be remembered that the so called "Mujahideen" were hailed as heroes when they were fighting the "Communist regime of USSR" (erstwhile). Everyone knows on whose side they were fighting. At the height of the conflict against USSR, it is estimated that about 65000 tonnes of US made weapons were entering Afghanistan, EVERY YEAR!
  reply report
  67
  Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually Sidd Al Qaeda did come into existence later than the Taliban.
  
  "Although there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan."
  
  Though you are right when you say Al-Qaeda was established around 1988. Both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are Sunni movements.
  
  It looks like woman's rights are bleak no matter who governs Afghanistan.
  Karzai roundly condemned for 'legalized rape' law
  A "bid by Karzai to obtain re-election in this year's polls by currying favour with the Shia minority (about 10% of the population) at the expense of women"
  reply report
63
Mishaposted 15 years ago
Sure you may, and yes I live in the USA for the last 10 years
reply report
1. 63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Excellent. You a citizen? Got the right to vote?
  reply report
61
knolyourselfposted 15 years ago
'Hillary Clinton just said the Taliban plans attacks on the US.' Fact is the Taliban has never attacked the US. Their sole objective is to drive
the US and NATO out of Afghanistan. Guess Hillary can't find enough
al Qaeda around, so the Taliban is now Al Qaeda. Sort of the same as
Iraq was Al Qaeda. These people are all the same and will say anything, but certainly never the truth.
reply report
63
Mishaposted 15 years ago
No. I am non-resident alien
reply report
1. 63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I see. Out of respect for companionship and for my love of your Motherland, I'll end my questions here. Thank you.
  reply report
  63
  Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Did you get scared of abduction?
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I love your wit man.
  reply report
83
Aya Katzposted 15 years ago
Misha, seriously? A non-resident alien for ten years? What are you, a diplomat?
reply report
63
Mishaposted 15 years ago
I used to work for the World Bank, my wife still works there. So I am here as her husband
reply report
63
Mishaposted 15 years ago
Thank you

Does not change the fact that your government is preparing another war
reply report
1. 86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The Afghan War was never like the Iraq War. Most of the World supported the Afghan War and they still do. Its another matter that a few of the NATO allies have developed cold feet when it comes to committing troops to Afghanistan.
  reply report
61
knolyourselfposted 15 years ago
"Am I the only one who has heard of the recent threat from the Taliban leader, on Washington?"
Did he give that press conference in Hollywood? Funny how just when the admin needs a new justification for war, suddenly a super star terrorist appears in the midst of cameras galore, to scare the bejeebers out of us.
reply report
60
VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago
Mr.Paraglider may not be the terrorists' target. So, he is finding justification for terrorists. Throughout ages, terrorists (anti-govt.forces) springup and the respective governments destroy them. In another place, another terrorist.. another reason... The same terrorist can never be born after he is destroyed. Our aim should be to clear out the present terror network and not to speak that "terrorism never dies". There is no rebirth to terrorists or their destroyers. Another period, another country, another reason, the process will be unending. Not only the terrorists, their targets may also change, their governments may also change. The present terrorist may have to face a more dreaded terrorist in future.
Everyone should alienate terrorists and avoid finding justifications. Let civilians live in peace... Let uniformed army be used to settle disputes between countries.
Encouraging terrorists will bite our own back.
reply report
1. 88
  Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Venugopal - I don't entirely disagree with you. There is no justification for terrorism and it is wrong to state that that is what I am doing. There is also no justification for invasion and occupation of sovereign territory. And there is plenty of evidence that invasion breeds terrorism, and also that terrorism cannot be and never has been defeated by "uniformed army". Least of all by a uniformed army from across the globe. No-one has explained satisfactorily why Afghanistan is America's problem.
  reply report
  60
  VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Mr.Paraglider, thanks for partial agreement. Invasion breeds terrorism... yes. but invaders are deadlier than the terrorists. Most historical invasions took place in India only. But India has always preached non-violence. If terrorists sprang up after each invasion in India, history would have been different. I think Afganistan is not America's problem. America is Afganistan's problem. They are here to stall any design for terrorist attacks on their country. A group of terrorists of Saudi Arabian origin are stationed on Pak-Afgan border and are planning to terrorise the world.
  reply report
  63
  RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Mr. Venugopal, I couldn't agree with more. America is Afghanistan's problem. Why are we pestering them people over there is beyond me. I don't understand it. I simply don't get why America, just won't leave them be. The West has always tried to change, invade, conquer, etc. the people of Afghanistan. It can't be done. America doesn't pestered China in this way, not any longer anyways- why here? It's like we've taken history, removed all lessons learned from it and poof. Lost it. If I was living in Afghanistan, and had the same love in my heart for my country as I do now- I'd probably be considered a hater of all things American too. Look at America has done to these people. Not for a mere six years but decades and decades. It's terrible. And the English are just as guilty too. The West needs to get out and leave these poor people be. The only troop force that should be over there, is a humanitarian force passing out food, medicine, blankets and water.
  reply report
  60
  VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  For the present the west need not leave Afganistan... only after eradicating terrorists hiding there.
  Why humanitarian forces...? Let the Afgans work hard, cultivate crops, take their own food honourably. expecting these favours from others breeds colonisation. Let them produce their own food or let them buy from neighbouring countries.
  When they can cultivate drugs, why not they cultivate crops? When they can take up arms against others, why not they take up tilling machines? Just because others are feeding them, they have the time to terrorist acts. If all financial help is stopped, they will feel their needs and them come on he line. Now also, Americans have provided billions of dollars to fight terrorists in Afganistan. This is why the people in Pakistan and Afganistan always go on the terrorist lines. America is making the people idle by providing money and make them subservient always. Pakistan thinks India is far away from them than the United States.
  reply report
88
Paragliderposted 15 years ago
RKH - Ralph is along the right lines here. Terrorism is not tied to geography, but wars are. Troops in Afghanistan means war in Afghanistan. The war will be used to justify retaliatory acts anywhere in the world. I respect your pride in your country, but ask yourself why US troops are in Afghanistan. Not to catch Bin Laden. Not to stop terrorism. There are two possibilities: The Administration doesn't understand what troops are for, or, they are there for strategic reasons to do with control of energy supplies. Which is more likely?
reply report
88
Paragliderposted 15 years ago
I agree that disliking the Taliban's style of domination is not reason enough to take the fight to their territory. If the Afghanis genuinely do not want the Taliban in control, they will eventually and painfully get rid of them or otherwise assimilate them, neither of which a foreign power can do.
reply report
1. 86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ordinary citizens everywhere (including Afghanistan) can't fight regimes that control them, who have weapons and use terror tactics to keep their populace in check. Why did you have people visiting barber shops and having their beards shaved when the Taliban rule was ended? Because people had voluntarily wanted to grow beards??
  
  Its not about disliking the Taliban or not - its about the growth of the Taliban and its spread to Pakistan now. The consequences of that are what should drive policy - not whether you personally like or dislike the Taliban.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not talking about 'me personally'. The growth of the Taliban is cancerous, but the US should not be acting unilaterally. If the international community decides to act, so be it. But unilateral action by the US (or anyone else) is not justified.
  reply report
  81
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  America is infamous for being too involved in other countries business. I think the Taliban are crazy, but I do not agree with America trying to be the world policeman. Afghanistan has a government. Let them sort it out I say.
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Afghanistan doesn't have a government that can function independently. Its power is limited to the capital and a few pockets. The NATO troops wouldn't need to be there if Afghanistan could function as any other independent country.
  reply report
  60
  VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No consensus is needed to weed out terrorist threat. Even if it is so, America can get consensus from the UNO. Who will oppose clearing terrorists from this area?
  And does the terrorists get consensus for attacking the twin towers or other activities?
  
  On the day of their coming power in Afganistan, they drove the former Afgan President on the streets, and entered the UN office to pull him out to the streets. Then they shot him dead in the streets.
  
  Uncivilised barbarians have no right to live in this world and let anyone finish them off. But the US should look into their own future, financially.
  reply report
  59
  Julahaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  China will and so will Iran and Pakistan. China has a veto in the Security Council.
  
  Iran has a long-standing confrontation with the US which wants to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
  
  China and Pakistan want the US to be embroiled in a debilitating war in Afghanistan for as long as possible, may be 10 years, may be even more. This will weaken the US and leave it with less of a stomach for policing the world. China can then fill in for the US.
  
  As for Pakistan, it is an economy propped up by the war largesse received from the US which will pour in only as long as the war in Afghanistan continues. For the present, it has ensured annual cheques of 1.5 billion dollars for the next five years in return for sponsoring terrorism, and will be looking for ways of prolonging this windfall for another five years, even ten.
  
  The only fear is Pakistan thought of Taliban as a well-heeled dog on a leash which will obey all of its ISI's commands, but the Taliban is turning out to be a tiger that wants to make a meal of Pakistan itself.
  reply report
  60
  VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Security council seat does not mean having more power. If China could control US in Afganistan, it would have already done it.
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Afghanistan has never been a unilateral operation - unlike Iraq.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Technically you are right, but practically? Did Obama ask his allies for consensus before his recent announcement? If he did, it was a well kept secret.
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Do you mean other countries don't support the operation in Afghanistan - like Iraq? Do you mean other countries don't support Obama's policies on Afghanistan? As for consensus, I don't think there is any lack of it.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Obama is still getting an easy ride from people and countries who are just glad that GWB is gone. But many people are very concerned at his position on Afghanistan. Your personal approval doesn't constitute consensus. The fact remains, he appears not to have conferred with allies.
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "Appears" is the key word here. Should all diplomacy / consultations between nations be carried out in full media glare? And if you don't see visible consultations / consensus - does that mean nations are not in agreement. Certain nations might not want to be visibly seen to be supporting certain issues - for their own political reasons back home.
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "But many people are very concerned at his position on Afghanistan."
  
  Can you elaborate on that? What is this position that is apparently so concerning to some people?
  reply report
  59
  SiddSinghposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Two points come to the top of mind:
  
  1) The admn attempt to dissociate the "moderate elements in Taliban" from the "Hardline Taliban". Which parts of Taliban are "moderate"? It is another matter altogether that Taliban itself has rebuffed this gesture. What is disconcerting is that this approach has even been tried.
  
  2) The sweeteners in the form of annual aid, both to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the money which is coming in as military aid, which is OVER AND ABOVE this figure, and is quite substantial. The money has not been reaching where it was intended to.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Have you read the earlier contributions to the thread? There is a lot of concern that this is really about control of the worlds energy supplies. Of course, that will never be openly stated, so to get domestic support for it, the Administration has to exaggerate the threat from the Taliban.
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  "Exaggerate" - well, I for one, think the threat from the Taliban is not at all exaggerated. But, of course, I know over time people are going to be making more noises along these lines and absolve themselves of any responsibility towards Afghanistan and just walk away - just as they did in the late '80s. Risk Pakistani nuclear assets falling into hands of Al-Qaeda/Taliban elements - sure why not - because of course war is unjust and should never be an option - according to some.
  
  People seem to believe that terrorism wouldn't come to their backyard - if their countries don't meddle in far-away territories. However, the ideologies of the Al-Qaeda (which is supported by the likes of the Taliban) aren't based on peaceful coexistence. Idealists would like to believe otherwise.
  
  Is it in the interest of the countries involved to deny Al-Qaeda a friendly base? I don't think any of the countries involved would commit the resources and time and troops to Afghanistan if they didn't think that having a stable, friendly dispensation in Afghanistan is in their own long-term interests.
  reply report
63
Mishaposted 15 years ago
CW-girl, you as a person ALWAYS respect other people views, even when they seem to be idiotic or barbarian. This is something every one of us here is learning from you.

This is definitely the most beneficial way to deal with your neighbors, real or virtual. Why do you think it is different for countries?
reply report
1. 60
  countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for all those compliments. I agree no nation unilaterally has a right to go into another country (in fact most the problems in the world arise when we try to do that). When 911 happened then it was a challenge to the mightiest nation (I feel Russia is number 2 now) and US was simply not used to such a treatment(and also it probably was the last straw to break the camel's back). If it would have happened in India then at the most we would have complained but never invaded.
  
  I agree violence begets violence and somewhere the evil vicious cycle has to be broken. But there are some issues (which at least as women we identify strongly with) like no education, access to health for women and inhuman "justice" system (improper interpretation especially WRT women and punishments like stoned to death) these issues really makes me sad/helpless sitting comfortably here in US when in some other parts of the world women are treated like that. Sometimes some things are like cancer and the only solution may be the operation. I have seen website of RAWA and read numerous news items (I am not saying there aren't evils or poor women in India) but there is a line that I certainly draw (of what is acceptable and what is not).
  
  I don't know if I am making much sense anyway I got to finish some work. Bye take care. Btw it was great talking to you and thanks once again for all the kind words.
  reply report
63
Mishaposted 15 years ago
I don't think anything or anybody has "rights" to anything. This really helps to keep things in a perspective

And it is always a pleasure to talk to you
reply report
61
knolyourselfposted 15 years ago
"Why are we pestering them people over there is beyond me." Might have something to do with empire and resource wars.
reply report
82
LondonGirlposted 15 years ago
I wrote, six weeks ago, about Afghanistan, with particular reference to Sikhs and Hindus there. I said, then:

"There were very high hopes when the Taliban regime was toppled, and there was a window of opportunity for a better Afghanistan to be built. That window has proved to be a false dawn, and the state of Afghanistan has fallen back into armed warlordism and tribal conflict."

Nothing since has made me more optimistic.
reply report
60
VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago
By providing a huge amount of money to Pakistan, Obama is draining the US treasury. For what purpose? Only to be bullish against India again. No amount of help can save Pakistan if India decides. All their money sent to Pakistan to fight terrorists in Afganistan will be a waste.. the Pakistanis consider the terrorists as their "brothers". Just to get money, they pretend otherwise.
For decades, America has wasted a large amount of money and this may be one of the reasons for their bankruptcy. Obama can be told like this: "Leave Afganistan.. there is no one here to breed terrorists except you". By showing Bin Laden, Pakistan is swallowing the US aid.
reply report
63
RKHenryposted 15 years ago
Has anyone seen this yet?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_ … to_summit?

I for one think it's a good start. I do. I particularly liked how France and Germany are against anymore combat troops. I really don't believe that Obama wants more combat troops either. Is this all a step in the right direction?
reply report
88
Paragliderposted 15 years ago
Readers of this thread might also like to check out bgamail's thread on the Finance forum. It might go some way to explaining SiddSingh's question about good & bad Taliban?
reply report
1. 86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  One can either attribute agendas to Obama's Afghan policy or view the issue purely from the security aspect of it. I choose to do the latter. My worry is the increasing influence of the Taliban - both in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  
  In Pakistan especially because there seem to be elements within the Pakistani Army that are sympathetic to the Taliban. It could be one of the reasons why the Pakistani Govt. chose to sign a peace deal with them - rather than fight them.
  
  Now, the question is should NATO leave Afghanistan? If yes, on what grounds? If no, after completion of what specific goals?
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Shil - I've read your recent Pakistan hub and I agree that there is cause for concern and a need to be vigilant. But even if we leave aside alternative motives and treat the whole thing as a security issue, there's an element of fighting yesterday's war (something military leaders tend to do) using conventional methods against a new type of enemy. A war of attrition in Afghanistan will not reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks elsewhere. So why pursue it?
  reply report
  86
  Shil1978posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree - conventional military methods alone would not win the war in Afghanistan, you need economic/political resolution as well. However, where I disagree is when the military/security options are dismissed out of hand as being unnecessary - especially in the fragile situation you have right now in Afghanistan.
  
  Do get out of Afghanistan - no body wants occupation of Afghanistan for any prolonged period of time, but since so much time and effort has been put in - at least do achieve some stability and strengthening of institutions in Afghanistan. Not doing so would be (in my view) a waste of the enormous resources already committed.
  
  Surely - at a later date in the future - one wouldn't want to revisit the same issue and same problems. Why not try the very best to achieve some sort of stability in Afghanistan.
  
  The likelihood of terrorist attacks elsewhere would stem from an Afghanistan that has been allowed to drift and become a safe haven for the likes of Osama and other Al-Qaeda leaders. A job well done now would not necessitate future interventions from anybody.
  reply report
2. 65
  Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting!
  reply report
82
SweetiePieposted 15 years ago
It looks as if the hope for Obama to create more consensus and work with allies has not transpired. It is a little sad to see this, but I suppose not surprising. He did talk quite a bit about shifting focus from Iraq to Afghanistan during the election. Overall I would say how do we think John McCain would be handling this right now? At the very least Obama is doing a better job than he would have. At the worst Obama is not working with allies on the level he should. Personally I would not want to be a politician because no one can make everyone happy.
reply report
1. 88
  Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hi SP - everything is relative and I agree wholeheartedly that Obama was by far the better choice for President. He inherited a dreadful legacy to sort out too and is entitled to support. But not without question, and this stance is at least questionable.
  reply report
60
VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago
Terrorist activity is launched from Afganistan and Pakistan... It does not stem (not planned) from there. The roots of terrorists are elsewhere... Saudi Arabia! It pretends that Bin Laden has been banished from Arabia for political reasons. But how does Bin gets all the money to wage war on America or India?
America should at least now find out who are real friends and who are real enemies. It should not waste billions of American people's money for the sake of helping a disintegrating Pakistan. Several parts have already gone to Talibans. Pakistan cannot and will not stop them to take whole Pakistan. Their aim is Kashmir and finally India. If America realises what it is doing now, the damage will be less for America and India.
reply report
63
RKHenryposted 15 years ago
"In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a violent ideology that people of all faiths reject. But I also want to be clear that America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to Al Qaeda. Far from it. We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect," President Obama said in Turkey today.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Obama's plans for Afghanistan

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Obama's plans for Afghanistan

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies