To all DU'ers who want Obama to get out of Afghanistan NOW...

[samrock]

IF we get out now and the Taliban take over like they did before we invaded after 9/11.. and Afghanistan returns to the way it was ( with women reduced to near slave hood status, training camps allowed for extreme islamic groups). you will not see another democratic president for 20+ years.. also there is a DAMN increased chance the republicans will take back one or both houses of congress.. Than you will see 0 progressive initiatives move thru congress for another generation..

[ShortnFiery]

1. Copy this: The Taliban had NOTHING to do with 9/11. We are killing them for operating "the hotel"

for al Quaeda. That's INSANE!

Again, the TALIBAN did not attack us on 9/11. Why are we killing these people when they NOW have no love lost for al Qaeda (now in Pakistan)?

[samrock]

9. Sooooooo you REALLY feel...

That if the Taliban take back over they will NOT allow Al Queda to set up back in Afghanistan??? They did it before.. why will they not do it again?? You willing to risk all progressive initiatives and having to relive the last 8 years again for another generation.. Cause IF Obama is perceived to allowing the Taliban back by our leaving... and reposts come back of Al Queda training camps reopening THATS what will happen..

[ShortnFiery]

22. The Taliban have LOCAL interests and do not normally align with al Qaeda who is

GLOBAL and DE-CENTRALIZED.

One fact I know for sure: If we remain and escalate combat troop involvement, the PEOPLE will throw in with the TALIBAN against the corrupt Karzai government. In the Taliban's efforts to throw us out of THEIR COUNTRY, al Qaeda (now in Pakistan) may INDEPENDENTLY activate several cells all over the World Community.

Bottom Line: NO GOOD can come out of USA combat troops occupying two Muslim Nations. :nuke:

[WeDidIt]

13. I do not distinguish between those who set up the safe house and those who used it.

Both are equally guilty of the crimes.

[ShortnFiery]

20. Then since we still OPERATE the SOA - perhaps we should bomb ourselves?!?

:sarcasm:

[WeDidIt]

27. Comparing apples to giraffes. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

39. No, during the 80s, they trained the DEATH SQUADS of Columbia.

If we are to be morally and intellectually consistent, we're gonna have to bomb Columbus, Georgia. :sarcasm:

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. Bullshit

So we need to applaud warmongering in order to get "progressive initiatives moved thru congress", where the piece of shit DLC'ers and Blueballed cowards who enable the warmongering will shut them down anyway?

FUCK THAT :grr:

[phantom power]

3. Fascinating. That's what I am sure will happen if we stay.

[GodlessBiker]

8. +1

[n2doc]

21. +2

[AllentownJake]

24. +3

[Orsino]

26. Yep. Too afraid to leave, and afraid to stay.

Our war in Afghanistan is fear-driven, and an excuse not to exercise diplomacy.

[ixion]

4. read up on your history... Afghanistan is a fool's errand

and we should never have invaded in the first place.

[FirstLight]

5. I don't see the connection,

Besides, if we could get out and de-escalate the war zone activity...wouldn't it make it easier for HUMANITARIAN groups to go in there and assist the People, working WITH the govt and tribes...?


Not only do I disagree with your statements, but I believe there are no more excuses to continue these wars, period.

on Edit: congratulations! you are my first UNREC

[cali]

6. Afghanistan hasn't become a better place for its citizens over the last

8 years. We have not managed to get rid of the Taliban. Aside from that, staying for political reasons is morally indefensible.

It's a war that wreaking havoc on the citizens of the country and on our troops.

Out of Afghanistan now.

[RKP5637]

7. AGREE 100%!!! n/t

[HopeHoops]

10. It isn't our job to change the conditions in another country. It IS our job to change them here!

We've got the homeless, the uninsured, the abuse by the banking mafia, and SHIT - we can't even take care of our VETERANS properly! If that money (debt) is going to be spent, it should be spent fixing OUR problems and OUR infrastructure. If the Afghan government wants to fix their own problems, let THEM handle their own problems.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

11. Oh okay

so according to your logic, getting a Democrat elected is more important than sending men and women to die in Afghanistan for nothing. At least now I know where you stand.

[bigtree]

12. Taliban support is increasing in proportion to the escalation of force in Afghanistan

. . .and YOU want to continue that? If we're fighting for human rights there, then why not everywhere else in the world? Why not in Africa? It's because the interests which keep us bogged down there are about much more than some dubious defense of our national security. Their persistence is about Empire, plain and simple. It's about a foot in the door, a U.S. military presence in the region as a wedge or check against the interests of economic and military rivals like Russia, China, Iran, and others. If we were serious about 'eliminating' the Taliban or reducing their influence we'd remove the most aggravating, negative influence in the region: our invading, occupying forces.

[samrock]

17. We had 0 troops in Iraq/Afghanistan in 2001.. when

we were attacked.. Many here are idealist's.. thats fine.. imagine worlds with no hate .. but face the consequences of that.. I do not want our troops over there any more than any one on this site... but I do not want to sit back while others who hate us for being who we are allowed to plan and train unencumbered to be attacked again.. That would be all the excuse the right needs to replay the last 8 years all over again .. and maybe for longer than 8 years...

[bigtree]

25. right, zero troops

It was the aim of bin-Laden and crew to draw America into a conflict in the region where we would be shedding Muslim blood. Mission accomplished. Now the argument is to continue this. Hell, even Bush's intelligence agencies concluded that our military presence and activity was spurring more individuals to violent acts of resistance than we could reasonably put down.

[RKP5637]

35. I believe it was also one of bin-Laden's statements that an objective was

to wear down the US financially, trying to keep up with conflicts... of course, we seem to be quite capable of that on our own with our self-generated financial problems.

[Democracyinkind]

32. We had about 20 or so looking at Osama in 2000. it sure didn't stop him or his plans.

What you are talking about - ridding the danger you are concerned about - means SOCIALLY RE-ENGINEERING at least Afghanistan and Pakistan. It means spending trillions of dollars in infrastructure and nation building, ridiculing the size and scope of our pathetic failed efforts at "building Afghanistan" in the 60's.
Our GI's are losing their blood on the very spots that American nation building failed 50 years ago, hell, they fight the "Taleban" in the remnants of the canals and ditches we built back then. So go back and look at our effort in the 60's, look how much was invested morally and economically, and can you honestly tell me then that you expect that kind of engagement multiplied by 10000 coming from the United States soon?

If not, you are just talking dreamy, lofty things, rebuilding Afghanistan and getting rid of "AQ/Taleban" would mean efforts of an unimaginable scope to completely change the political, moral, economic, socio-logic and religious outlook of about 160 million people. DO you honestly believe that we are building a nation there? Do you believe all this poppycock about the Afghan army and about economic development? For the people of Afghanistan, not much has changed for 30 years when it comes to the benchmark of terror and violence. I wouldn't want the people of Afghanistan being fucked in my name just for some dreamy, lofty idea that I hold about security or "development".

And the notion that the "Taleban" have greater operational capabilities now than they had in the mid-90's is just ridiculous. They got to control about 75% of Afghanistan ONLY because of ISI-airlift assistance, financial assistance from outside, and strategically placed american foreign aid. Without those inputs, they have no operational capabilities that would allow them to repeat such a success. Even back then 75% were not wholly run by them - we just don't understand that because the other faction are bearded too and don't treat women that nicely either (something that has more to do with tribalism than with islam, just like in SA).

We, as a nation should come to terms with what Afghanistan really is. More and more I am reminded of Edward Saids "Orientalism" when reading posts here: the east is not what we make of it. The Orient is not the other. We should learn about these countries and cultures through scholars, through people who have been there - not through politicians and generals. The history of Afghanistan and its interactions with what lies outside of it do clearly prove that the kind of transformational agenda that you promote here for Afghanistan is just ridiculous - we would never invest ourselves to the level required, and it wouldn't be a good thing anyway.


To make it short: As Cali posted above .... war for political reasons (like some domestic policy goal) is one of the wrongest wars you can ever engage in.

There's a good short peace making that point in comparison to Vietnam in the New York Review of Books in the current addition.

[trumad]

42. Ugg----

The stupid burns.

[tekisui]

14. The Taliban are extending their reach with our support and the

support of the Afghan government. AQ is gone from Afghanistan. They have moved on to Somalia and other pockets around the world.

You argument is bunk.

[StarfarerBill]

15. From what I've heard and read, the Afghan countryside isn't any better now...

...than it was under the Taliban; still desperately poor and struggling, but with the added feature of a guerrilla war raging in it.

The Taliban and other Afghan insurgent groups will still be there, whether we are or not; they occupy most areas that we don't, and infiltrate the areas we do occupy. If we stay we remain entangled in a civil war, which is not helping the Afghans one iota. If we leave, the Taliban and other groups will fight it out amongst themselves once more. It's a damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't choice...but while things may conceivably get better if we aid the Afghans without killing large numbers of them and razing their country, if we stay and fight, misery and death is the best that can be hoped for them.

As for future terrorism, I'm afraid our invasion and ongoing assault has already put paid to that question.

[AllentownJake]

16. You Forgot Sarah Palin

Any effective threat of terrible things in the future if there is dissent is to include that Sarah is not complete without Sarah.

[mike_c]

18. utter, media deluded bull shirt....

Now it's a holy mission to transform life in Afghanistan, 'ay?

[TomClash]

19. So when are you leaving for Afghanistan?

Thank you for serving your country. Stay safe.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. You forgot about the falling dominoes and the Taliban storming the beaches of Atlantic City.

[Individualist]

33. +1

:thumbsup:

[phantom power]

38. +2

[BeFree]

28. Simple solutions

Don't let them buy airplane tickets like we did.
No more jet attacks!

And don't let them learn how to fly at our airports.
And when the FBI agent finds them doing that, don't ignore that agent.

And when the president is told they're gonna attack, make the president do everything possible to stop it. Next time, put us on Alert!

Oh yes, we've learned our lessons.

[StreetKnowledge]

29. The OP has a point.

Look, most of us don't want our troops there. But the reality is that we have to finish the job of annihalating the Taliban. Leaving now would take all the work of the last eight years and toss it in the dumpster, which doesn't serve anybody's purpose. The problem is not the troops being there, it's the tactics and the way the war has been waged so far. Propping up Hamid Karzai's horribly corrupt government will solve nothing. What they need to do is focus on security - which does mean hunting the Taliban, unfortunately - and fixing some of the mess we have caused.

Every woman educated, every person not killed the by the Taliban, every child who has the ability to improve their lives is a victory for us. Can we do more? Absolutely. I don't know why we don't buy up every poppy crop in the country, myself - they can use that stuff to make morphine instead of heroin. I don't know why we don't ask the Afghans what could we do that would best improve their lives, and then do that. Leaving now will doom Afghanistan to going back to the mess it was before 9/11, and it doesn't have to be that way.

Fix the mess or make a good start at it, then start bringing the troops home as we get the job done.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. Clue:

This was fiction:



By your measure, we ought to kill everyone named Hoover on the off chance me may get another one of them running for president.

Must be nice to live where you do.

[Ozymanithrax]

31. Staying in Afghanistan for political purposes is disgusting.

The lives of our children should not be sacrificed to win an election.

Leaving only for political purposes is equally disgusting.

Staying or leaving should be determined only by which choice is the best for U.S. foreign policy.

And, your disaster scenario is not realistic...

Republicans have successfully and unsuccessfully played the National defense card since Nixon. They will continue to use the National Defense card and spin any facts to prove their point.

If leaving Iraq is the right thing to do for our National policy, we should do that. If staying in Iraq is the right thing to do for our National policy, we should do that. Politics should not be involved.

[Mari333]

34. honey, you need to put those cheetos down and enlist. nt

[leftstreet]

36. +1

:thumbsup:

[blindpig]

37. What immoral nonsense

war for politics....

What progressive initiatives? Sure don't see any now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. Oh, let's see, where have I heard this line before?

Oh, yes, it was in the 1970s, when militarists and gung ho chest thumpers assured us that there would be a total bloodbath in Vietnam if U.S. troops pulled out. Outright slaughter on a massive scale.

Except that it didn't happen.

While the North Vietnamese were not gentle Quakers, the aftermath was nowhere nearly as bad as predicted, and today, Vietnam is a major supplier of sweatshop labor for the capitalist world and a hip tourist destination.

[bridgit]

41. Oh you may see a Dem president alright, but one that will cut through the anti-war sentiment...

and diminish it as a noble way to garner votes; discount it as a viable, more realistic response to a dangerous world *then* into an image based more upon a statue of a minute man - one minute man - where the powder is always dry and less like the Jolly Green Giant stomping round breaking things and killing people which the army admits themselves is what they do the very best

"Than you will see 0 progressive initiatives move thru congress for another generation"

If not two. Whether we stay, go, quit, or cry about it - progressive positions, the big ones, are already being discounted; framed by the opposition as too splintered at their base to form a snowflake let alone a snow ball; framed as too contentiously disruptive to pursue by the simplest of opposition jibber-jabber and underscored by ourselves when we are seen arguing insatiably over their minutia

The tie doesn't always go to the runner, sometimes it goes to the person willing to stand there and say, "I told you so"

Cause when they can field talking heads that just keep on talking we seem to get bored too quick - and still they keep talking


But it's not Obama's war to stop it's congress', if they un-fund it it will end, well, 'they', a deliberative body of august, forked *and* silver tongued two-faced back-stabbing carpetbaggers and their sycophants that know enough about semantics to void all laws and opposition - they are the ones that are making all this war go forward so let's be realistic: where will McChrystal take his daily run, in the middle of some other region under a trillion dollar pile of materiel? Not likely. How will Rumsfeld justify his desk in the pentagon? Won't Dick Cheney's dreams of opulent war profits and MIC riches for his immediate and extended family of like-minded smirkers: his daddy's girl be dashed? :(

Cause they and their efforts (and they are legion) are what DU is up against - it has nothing do with the Taliban