Update on Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by charboneau, Feb 24, 2003.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    #1
  2. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #2
    charboneau,
    Those are foolish words based on wishful thinking. Even the inspectors say they cannot disarm Saddam, only verify that his is disarming himself. He isn't, they can't.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #3
    For pete's sake, can't we rebuild the last country before we start bombing the next one? That article's pretty sad. But who didn't see it coming?
     
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #5
    That article is alarmist fluff and bad journalism

    That article read like the tremulous ranting of someone desperate to make a point. There were very few hard facts- instead, we're told about "persistent whispers" and "unsettling little tremors," and "a deep concern." Whose?

    "People," "plenty," and "Afghans" are referenced, but no one seems to want to speak on record. Why can't this writer get anyone to give their name- other than two Afghans who maintain that things are better now than before?

    He then quotes a sermon by an Army chaplain and uses it to paint American military personnel as fundamentalists. Yeah, and all Brits are pagan monarchists because they have a Queen and what's all that Stonehenge stuff about, anyway? A ridiculous statement, but on the same level as this supposed reporter's conclusion.

    Next, we're told that the US effort to topple the Taliban is a failure because there are several hundred Taliban left in Afghanistan. News flash, Phil: there's hundreds of Nazis in Europe, too. Does that mean the Brits didn't finish that toss up back in '45? A military victory over the ruling party doesn't mean everybody automatically gives up their loyalties, and to the credit of the US forces, they don't try to mask that fact.

    When he finally gets around to laying blame, it REALLY gets interesting:

    ISAF is mainly composed of countries that wanted no part of the fighting but didn't want to be left out of the peace- Germany chief among them. Apparently, they are not willing to extend their commitment beyond the one point in Afghanistan where the international media can see what nice guys they are.

    The one party that seems to want to move forward with the reconstruction is- surprise, surprise- the Pentagon! However, this plan is OPPOSED by international aid agencies. Why? No reason is given. Perhaps because any teams would have to operate under the protection of the dreaded fundamentalist US forces, since the Germans won't leave the safety of Kabul.

    The bottom line is that if you trim speculation, rumor and conjecture from this article, it drops to a three paragraph report about how the international community is not willing to pick up the ball with regards to their commitments made after the US did the heavy lifting to topple the Taliban, and the only ongoing efforts that exist today are the result of the US military. Hardly the sort of fatalistic report the readers of the Independent (and apparently, some Macrumors posters) are hoping to read.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #6
    marcsiry:

    Yeah I'd say there are a handful of people here that want very badly to paint the Afghani campaign as an Americian failiure, presumably in order to make Bush+co look worse.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Kethoticus

    #7
    I think this is partly true. I also think that the critics expected (or wanted) the Afghan campaign to be much shorter in duration. Yet I haven't heard one American official say that ANY aspect of our fight against radical Muslim fanaticism would be quick or easy. Some estimates have run to as much as 10 years. That we haven't abandoned Afghanistan like we did a couple of decades ago shows a much greater commitment and a greater level of patience -- two qualities we and the Afghans are gonna need.

    As for attacking Iraq while our work in Afghanistan isn't finished, we can only hope that the US has some assuredness in something they can't reveal until after Saddam's gone. There are elements within Iraq that are ready to go with us, but not much more than that I'm aware of. There are Kurdish rebels in the north (similar to the help we received in Afghanistan), and there's the INC as well. *IF* we get the help of the Iraqi people once Saddam is gone, this will not be as messy as many seem to think.

    Either way, 9/11 showed us that our ME enemies are willing to hold no punches. The only reason NYC was not vaporized is because they didn't have the resources to do that. Thank God. We have to stop these loonies or they will stop us. If we pacify and appease, afraid that they might hit us again if we initiate anymore attacks, then we have surely lost this fight and might as well start praying to Allah or prepare ourselves to die for not doing so. That, or we might as well see our nation fall back to broken national morale and global disrespect like under the pacifistic Jimmy Carter days. Radical pacifism does not work. It only whets the appetites of your enemies. (Of course, balance in all things--jumping to war over the slightest provocation is destructive as well.)

    As for inspections, they don't work. They haven't for 12 years. All they've done is force Saddam to get creative. And once Iraq is occupied, not only will this stop, but Syria and Iran will probably be on their best behavior--considering that we'll be right at their back door.

    As for the $$ cost, it's gonna be heavy-duty. But I'd rather suffer that than watch NYC or Wash DC lose a hundred thousand people in a chemical bomb attack. Perhaps the Arabs were right: we don't have the stomach for this. Unfortunately, they do. That antiwar activists want to paint this as racism or an oil war is evidence for another agenda, complete spinelessness or total naivety (sp?).
     
  8. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
  9. macrumors 6502

    Kethoticus

    #9
    re: Wash Post story

    Could you either copy/paste the text or email it to me? I could not get into their site. Thanks.
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #10
    I linked this not to show that everything is wonderful in Afghanistan, just to show that there's more than one way to report the story. One should be aware of more than just one side.

     
  11. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #11
    One would have to be either terribly naive or just plain blind to think that the Allied action in Afghanistan hasn't been a tremendous victory in the war against terrorist organizations.

    Prior to the war, Al-Qaeda was running dozens of terrorist camps unmolested in their Afghan haven. In the years between 1993 and 2001, it's estimated they trained and graduated nearly 80,000 disciples. That safe haven has been denied to them.

    Additionally, information gleaned from operations in Afghanistan has helped to prevent further terrorist attacks- a notable one being attacks on American civilian and military installations in Singapore.

    The main reason for the assault on Afghanistan was to dismantle the regime of a country that supported our terrorist enemies. This has happened, and it happened much faster and easier than anyone imagined. All the whining about "another Vietnam" and ferocious warriors that defeated the Soviets evaporated as quickly as the Taliban's resistance.

    Rebuilding Afghanistan was never the main goal- it's just a prudent move to prevent a backslide into a terrorist nurturing regime. Sadly, the peace loving Europeans seem to have dropped the ball after we warmongering Americans snatched it away from the Taliban.
     

Share This Page