http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7019415Oh my.
The large-proboscised primitive, the geocentric Oscar Wilde:
Cyrano (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:31 AM
Original message
This morning, Hillary was trying to peddle us a bunch of crap
No, I'm not a Hillary hater. And I'm not an Obama hater. But why the hell are we still in Afghanistan?
This morning, I began to watch "This Week" with Stephanopolis, and Hillary spent the first three minutes handing us a line of crap worthy of Dick Cheney.
I've said this before here, and I will repeat it. Afghanistan is a collection of local war lords who grow poppies for opium, pillage and plunder everything in sight, and have no regard for anything called a "central government." And "President" Hamid Khazai is a figurehead who's stolen a few "elections" (with our help?).
Al Queda is spread out world wide. They are not a centralized group of people hanging out in Afghanistan. The Taliban are some of the worst people imaginable. And for each one our army kills, three more join up with them.
Why the hell is American blood being spilled in this remote, rock-filled, mountainous place where everyone hates our guts and has no history of having ever been a civilized (or even unified) country?
Sounds like there's some pretty remarkable similarities between Afghanistan (as Oscar Wilde perceives Afghanistan) and Skins's island, especially the drug-growing economy.
First up, the Oreo cookie primitive:
Orrex (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. Aside from leaving the country an absolute, catastrophic disaster
what would happen if we just pulled out of Afghanistan?
I hate that we're still there, but I can't see a reasonable, responsible alternative at this point.
Jackpine Radical (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Afghanistan is the world's longest-standing "absolute, catastrophic disaster."
The real reason nobody has ever conquered them--not the British, not the Mongols, not the Russians, not the Indians, and ultimately not us--is because there is no meaningful way in which you can get "conquer" and "absolute, catastrophic disaster" into a sensible sentence, let alone into any semblance of political reality.
Oh my, how geocentric.
Cyrano (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Okay, let me try this again. Afghanistan has always been a catastrophic disaster mistakenly called a country.
Let franksolich try this again.
Skins's island has always been a catastropic disaster mistakenly called a "message boad."
The truemud primitive, who chased the cboy4 primitive off Skins's island:
trumad (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. Well for one--- No Americans would die in that shit hole.
Is that enough of a reason?
winston61 (602 posts) Sun Nov-15-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. Are you kidding?-- I have what I think is the solution for Afghanistan-
I call it 'Get The Hell Out'. Line up the planes, call all the troops into the airfield, put 'em on the planes, fly the planes to western Europe for R&R then bring 'em home.
The Afghanis don't want us there, the government (which we support) is corrupt. They and their CIA contacts know this, the Congress knows it and even Barack Obama knows it.
In western terms it is a failed state. In Afghani terms everything is fine. So, let's get the hell out. If they want to live in 9th century, what is that to us? Does anyone remember that Afghanistan is still called the 'Graveyard of Empires'?
If you want to talk about making a difference, how about talking about where the arms for 'insurgents' and Taliban are coming from? China? Eastern Europe? Why not put a little pressure on the arms dealers? Or does that hit a little too close to home?
And why should an Afghani farmer NOT grow poppy? The western countries the drugs flow to don't seem to be willing to stop it. Perhaps a little too much cash incentive to try and shut down the highly placed, well connected money launderers.
American foreign policy is never happy with merely stepping into shit. They want to jump and down and spread shit everywhere they can then say 'Look at all the shit, we need more troops to clean up all this shit'. And Jesus wept.
Deja Q (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. There's a lot of chatter about Pakistan too.
I need more information, but why would we really need to invade them to tackle a handful of petty terrorists? Is OBL truly there?
Or are we being the patsy to yet another dispute not relevant to our country (first it's Israel vs Palestine and not it could very well be Pakistan vs India.)
bigtree (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
4. it was interesting
. . . to hear the SoS justify our involvement there in terms of our national security. It's unclear how she sees the role of our military in the equation of holding the Karzai regime accountable. My first response would be to ask what we've gained in terms of that security from the increased force that the president ordered deployed in February.
"We're going to be doing what we can to create an atmosphere in which the blood and treasure that the United States has committed to Afghanistan can be justified and can produce the kind of results that we're looking for," Clinton said.
I'd be interested to hear the justification for the record number of deaths in the last two months surrounding that increased deployment. Most of what we're being told is that we've facilitated the re-ascendency to power of a corrupt regime. That would seem to indicate a waste of those lives and resources.
What I'm looking for is something from the administration which clearly demonstrates progress behind the deployments and sacrifice of life, limb, and livelihood toward their stated primary 'goal' of 'defeating al-Qaeda' (a crap-shoot, imo).
Greyhound (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
6. The same reason for every "war" since WWII, to prop up and protect corporate assets.
And the worse they can make things here, the more fodder they get for their bloodbath.
opihimoimoi (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
8. and wha would happen if the Traliban dudes take over Afghani and later Paki??? Pakistan has NUKES
Meaning, the extremists would have possession of NUKES...which, they will share and then, we would lose millions of lives...
tekisui (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Unbased fear. The Taliban are not going to take over Pakistan.
Further, the Pakistan Taliban is not the Afghanistan Taliban. The Afghanistan Taliban are more and more being brought into the political process by the US and Karzai.
Cyrano (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. That's one hell of a claim. Can you substantiate it or back it up in any way?
tekisui (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Which one?
Cyrano (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. The part about the Afghan Taliban
tekisui (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Here ya go:
\
Here is why Pakistan is not at risk of falling to the Taliban:
Why the Taliban won't take over Pakistan:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0607/p06s07-wosc.html
Here are some articles on Afghan's Taliban:
Karzai welcoming 'Taliban brother's' during acceptance speech:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
US to Pay Taliban to Switch Sides:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Taliban Not the Enemy in Afghanistan:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
One more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
There are more, but that is what I could find quickly.
And the sources are mostly from.....primitive jibber-jabbering on Skins's island.
opihimoimoi (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. despite your optimism....I remain dubias...That is a strange place and as far as I am concerned....anything is possible ...inclu bad stuffs
bigtree (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. The Pakistan army is considered capable and willing
. . . to defend their nukes (and government) against some takeover by Taliban or al-Qaeda. In Afghanistan, even our military admits that al-Qaeda has been routed from that country. The element which makes al-Qaeda any danger is their ability to influence individuals bent on violent resistance against the NATO presence and activity and the Afghan and Pak regime's coziness with the U.S..
It's always interesting to hear folks in the administration and without assert that our military presence there is some defense against extremism when it's clear that the main instigator to that 'extreme' resistance is our military occupation and our actions in defense of our nation's grudging, vengeful campaign against al-Qaeda (which is not always in the best interest of these propped-up regimes).
Subdivisions (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
13. She also said today that she would LOVE to have coffee with Sarah Palin.
Cyrano (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. I didn't stay tuned in long enough to hear that.
Nonetheless, it's part of each and every politician's job description to endlessly heave bullshit at us.
And for the primitives to relentlessly fling pig excrement at each other.
dsc (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. as would I admit it, being around such a rarified version of idocy would be a once in a life time experience.
Cyrano (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Oh, give me a break. While you were having coffee, she'd drain the brain cells from your head. This tactic has been perfected by Limbaugh and it's the biggest secret weapon the lunatic right has.
Individualist (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. No doubt
Just like Bill likes to pal around with the Bushies. DLC loves neocons.
Tierra_y_Libertad (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-15-09 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
28. It's the new version of "Smoke 'em out!" and "Bring it on!". All that's missing is the cowboy boots
