jump to last post 1-32 of 32 discussions (121 posts)

Obama's plans for Afghanistan

  1. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 8 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?

    1. SiddSingh profile image60
      SiddSinghposted 8 years ago in 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!!

    2. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in 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.

      1. RKHenry profile image78
        RKHenryposted 8 years ago in 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. wink  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?smile

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in 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. smile

          1. RKHenry profile image78
            RKHenryposted 8 years ago in 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.

            1. profile image0
              sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              Werd, me too.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                Maybe we need to return from a war monger to a whore monger??

                1. RKHenry profile image78
                  RKHenryposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  Maybe.

  2. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 8 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.

  3. SiddSingh profile image60
    SiddSinghposted 8 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.

  4. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 8 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.

  5. SiddSingh profile image60
    SiddSinghposted 8 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.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in 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.

      1. Paraglider profile image90
        Paragliderposted 8 years ago in 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.

  6. SiddSingh profile image60
    SiddSinghposted 8 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.

  7. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Glad that I can agree to Ralph at least time to time smile

    1. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Misha - all agreed so far then. I suspect Venugopal might hold a different view though...

  8. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Frankly I don't take Venugapal seriously, so I do not care much which exactly propaganda cliche he regurgitates smile

  9. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 8 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?

    1. SiddSingh profile image60
      SiddSinghposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      There was oil in Iraq. What is there in Afghanistan? Poppies, maybe??big_smile:

      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??

      1. Julaha profile image60
        Julahaposted 8 years ago in 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.

  10. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 8 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

    1. Make  Money profile image73
      Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in 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.

      1. RKHenry profile image78
        RKHenryposted 8 years ago in 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.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in 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..... lol

          Specially in Kansas.

          War monger.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sure if we can find him we'll drop a bomb on him.

          1. RKHenry profile image78
            RKHenryposted 8 years ago in 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.

            1. Paraglider profile image90
              Paragliderposted 8 years ago in 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.

              1. RKHenry profile image78
                RKHenryposted 8 years ago in 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.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in 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?

                  1. RKHenry profile image78
                    RKHenryposted 8 years ago in 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.

                  2. Shil1978 profile image88
                    Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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.

      2. Shil1978 profile image88
        Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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?

  11. AEvans profile image70
    AEvansposted 8 years ago

    You are definitely not alone and I have to say that I am becoming seriously concerned about our country. sad

  12. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    There is nothing better than a war to distract populace from internal problems. I think this is the case here...

    1. RKHenry profile image78
      RKHenryposted 8 years ago in 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. wink

      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?

    2. Shil1978 profile image88
      Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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.

      1. RKHenry profile image78
        RKHenryposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Are we to forget all the other times like they never happened?

        1. Shil1978 profile image88
          Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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.

          1. Amanda Severn profile image91
            Amanda Severnposted 8 years ago in 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.

            1. Shil1978 profile image88
              Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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.

          2. Misha profile image76
            Mishaposted 8 years ago in 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...

            1. Sufidreamer profile image81
              Sufidreamerposted 8 years ago in 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 wink

              1. Misha profile image76
                Mishaposted 8 years ago in 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 smile

                1. countrywomen profile image60
                  countrywomenposted 8 years ago in 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. smile

            2. Amanda Severn profile image91
              Amanda Severnposted 8 years ago in 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.

              1. RKHenry profile image78
                RKHenryposted 8 years ago in 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.

              2. Shil1978 profile image88
                Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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.

            3. Shil1978 profile image88
              Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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??

              1. Misha profile image76
                Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                Not sure exactly what are you talking about - can you be more precise? smile

                1. Shil1978 profile image88
                  Shil1978posted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps you need to read better and comprehend better smile  If you still didn't get it - well perhaps it wasn't meant for you!!!

                  1. Misha profile image76
                    Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                    Huh? Bye then smile

      2. SiddSingh profile image60
        SiddSinghposted 8 years ago in 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!

        1. Make  Money profile image73
          Make Moneyposted 8 years ago in 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"

  13. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Sure you may, and yes I live in the USA for the last 10 years smile

    1. RKHenry profile image78
      RKHenryposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent.  You a citizen?  Got the right to vote?

  14. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 8 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.

  15. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    No. I am non-resident alien smile

    1. RKHenry profile image78
      RKHenryposted 8 years ago in 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.

      1. Misha profile image76
        Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Did you get scared of abduction? wink

        1. RKHenry profile image78
          RKHenryposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          I love your wit man.lol

  16. Aya Katz profile image88
    Aya Katzposted 8 years ago

    Misha, seriously? A non-resident alien for ten years? What are you, a diplomat?

  17. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    I used to work for the World Bank, my wife still works there. So I am here as her husband smile

  18. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Thank you smile

    Does not change the fact that your government is preparing another war sad

    1. Shil1978 profile image88
      Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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.

  19. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 8 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.

  20. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image62
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 8 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.

    1. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 8 years ago in 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.

      1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image62
        VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 8 years ago in 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.

        1. RKHenry profile image78
          RKHenryposted 8 years ago in 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.

          1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image62
            VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 8 years ago in 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.

  21. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 8 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?

  22. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 8 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.

    1. Shil1978 profile image88
      Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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.

      1. Paraglider profile image90
        Paragliderposted 8 years ago in 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.

        1. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 8 years ago in 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.

          1. Shil1978 profile image88
            Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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.

        2. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image62
          VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 8 years ago in 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.

          1. Julaha profile image60
            Julahaposted 8 years ago in 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.

            1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image62
              VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 8 years ago in 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.

        3. Shil1978 profile image88
          Shil1978posted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Afghanistan has never been a unilateral operation - unlike Iraq.

          1. Paraglider profile image90
            Paragliderposted 8 years ago in 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.

            1. Shil1978 profile image88
              Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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.

              1. Paraglider profile image90
                Paragliderposted 8 years ago in 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.

                1. Shil1978 profile image88
                  Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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.

                2. Shil1978 profile image88
                  Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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?

                  1. SiddSingh profile image60
                    SiddSinghposted 8 years ago in 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.

                  2. Paraglider profile image90
                    Paragliderposted 8 years ago in 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.

  23. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 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. smile

    This is definitely the most beneficial way to deal with your neighbors, real or virtual. Why do you think it is different for countries?

    1. countrywomen profile image60
      countrywomenposted 8 years ago in 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. smile

  24. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    I don't think anything or anybody has "rights" to anything. This really helps to keep things in a perspective smile

    And it is always a pleasure to talk to you smile

  25. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "Why are we pestering them people over there is beyond me." Might have something to do with empire and resource wars.

  26. LondonGirl profile image90
    LondonGirlposted 8 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.

  27. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image62
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 8 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.

  28. RKHenry profile image78
    RKHenryposted 8 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?

  29. Paraglider profile image90
    Paragliderposted 8 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?

    1. Shil1978 profile image88
      Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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?

      1. Paraglider profile image90
        Paragliderposted 8 years ago in 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?

        1. Shil1978 profile image88
          Shil1978posted 8 years ago in 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.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting!

  30. SweetiePie profile image86
    SweetiePieposted 8 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.

    1. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 8 years ago in 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.

  31. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image62
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 8 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.

  32. RKHenry profile image78
    RKHenryposted 8 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.

 
working