Furtopia | Family Friendly Furry Forum and IRC Chat!
not-so-furry discussion => debate forum => Topic started by: Kobuk on October 08, 2009, 07:36:31 am
-
For the past several days, I've heard and read various news reports that the situation is deteriorating in Afghanistan and that there may be no way to rout the Taliban and stop their terrorist ways. There's even been talk of increasing the troop levels over there to maybe the same levels in Iraq right now (100,000+). Seems to me like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become just another Vietnam war gone bad. :P We just seem to be repeating history and we'll fail just like the Soviets did when they were in Afghanistan in the 70's/80's.
What are everyone's opinions? Should we get out of Afghanistan?
-
It is my opinion that pulling out of Afghanistan without putting in place the resources needed to reconstruct the ailing government and bring stability back to the region would be inconsiderate. However, we should be working towards pulling out of the war gracefully. There are a lot of wrongs which need to be put right before we can retreat, and unfortunately the situation is so fragile that I feel pulling out too soon or escalating military presence too much would both be wrong. As such, “winning the war” should never be thought of as the goal - what Afghanistan needs is peace, and leaving it in the state it is in now isn’t going to achieve it.
-
Its is my feeling that we never should have entered Iraq, and should have instead concentrated all our efforts on Afhanistan.
Even still, Afghanistan has quite the reputation when it comes to war. They outlasted the soviet war machine, essentially being the USSR's "vietnam war" I doubt the war in Afghanistan is one we will easily win. These people know how to live in warzones like Americans know about living in suburbs.
They are dedicated to their causes. One just need research "kyber pass" to get my meaning.
-
A slow and gradual withdrawl is best in this delecate situation, but I agree that we have a lot of work to do in putting together the resources needed to putting the country on the path to stability. Afghanistan, and indeed most middle eastern countries, is a country that is used to war. There has been fighting there for hundreds of years mostly over religious issuse. Religion is one of those things that once a war is started over it it's nigh impossible to stop.
The only difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary is point of view and the terrorists must truely believe what they are doing is the right thing to do, even though their tactics look evil to us. I don't think we can win. They're willing to do anything it takes to achiveve thier goals and are even willing to die fighting, that kind of willpower is an awesome force to stand against and I don't think the US has such will.
Rather than fighting Afghanistan's battles for them we should be trying to strengthen them to fight for themselves. Sending more of our troops over there will only weaken our home security.
-
At this point, it appears to be a war we cannot win... although I do think we have an obligation to rebuild, and some of that has been done and is being done by soldiers and aid workers alike in the region. The thing is, we can't defeat nor prevent terrorism with a conventional war on a nation. That takes an increase in intelligence operatives and policing several regions. If we are there because we are still trying to track down Bin Laden or al Queda, then we are there for the wrong reasons, because the people linked to the 9/11 attacks are, by all accounts, likely in Pakistan. Does that mean we need to declare war on Pakistan? No. We do, however, need to mindful of what is happening in the world and to police what we can to prevent such things in the future.
If we pulled out of Afghanistan today, we would simply be doing what we have done numerous times before in other countries. I really don't think there would be any significant fall out from doing so. The region has been unstable for decades, and yes, I know that it has been argued that such instability led to Bin Laden coming into power there. It would be the best if our involvement was limited to building schools, and bettering the lives of the people over there. More likely for us to win hearts and minds by doing that than by continuing to fight.
The truth is, no matter how much the American people might want the U.S. to pull out, we are there for a long while yet. We still have permanent military bases in places like Korea and Sudan. There is no war fought in the modern era that does not demand long-term involvement in a region. There should have been more thought put into entering both Afghanistan and Iraq, but there wasn't. Maybe we should have asked the people of Ireland how they have learned to deal with the IRA over the years. Seems to me to be a similar situation that demands a similar solution.
-
I dont think we have any obligation to rebuild Afghanistan. Why does America do this? It seems anytime we win a war, we suddenly feel the urge to go back in spend money, and build their country back better than before. Afghanistan didn't offer to rebuild the WTC or the Pentagon after the September 11th attacks. I feel that we owe them no such favor either.
-
I dont think we have any obligation to rebuild Afghanistan. Why does America do this? It seems anytime we win a war, we suddenly feel the urge to go back in spend money, and build their country back better than before. Afghanistan didn't offer to rebuild the WTC or the Pentagon after the September 11th attacks. I feel that we owe them no such favor either.
...
...How much do you actually know about Afghanistan? Are you aware, at least, that the regime in charge now is not the same regime as during the September 11th attacks?
Also, to claim we "won the war" is an astonishing oversimplification. Who even told you that? Can you show me the news report from which you learned that we captured Osama and eliminated the terrorist threat in the region? I must have missed that one.
-
I never said we won the war in Afghanistan. I'll thank you in advance to not put words into my mouth. Your comment is a bit rude and somewhat insulting. Perhaps you forgot that this is an area where everyone must be respectful? As a moderator, I honestly expected better from you.
I'm aware that there has been a change in leadership in Afghanistan, but that really doesn't change how I feel. We've been at war over there for nearly 10 years now, and from the looks of it we could be there for a few more years, and still may not ever capture Osama Bin Laden. In all honesty, I do not support the rebuilding after any war, unless the country being rebuilt has become a colony of the victor.
-
I never said we won the war in Afghanistan.
Out of curiosity, then, why did you begin talking about America "winning wars" ten words after you mentioned Afghanistan? Did you switch gears and begin talking about an unrelated subject in that time?
We've been at war over there for nearly 10 years now, and from the looks of it we could be there for a few more years, and still may not ever capture Osama Bin Laden. In all honesty, I do not support the rebuilding after any war, unless the country being rebuilt has become a colony of the victor.
See, there is a fundamental disconnect between these two sentences. In one sentence, you say we've been at war for almost ten years. In the next, you're talking about rebuilding after wars. I'm going to assume that this is not a mid-paragraph subject switch, and that you're talking about rebuilding after wars because that is how you view our current situation in Afghanistan. Except that does not reflect reality. We're not "rebuilding." We're still fighting. We haven't caught Osama, we've barely put a dent in the terrorist infrastructure that flourishes there - heck, we never even got rid of the Taliban, which, almost a decade later, still exerts far more power in the country than we do. If you concede all that, as you seem to, I don't see how you can think of this as "rebuilding," as if we're victorious conquerors whose reason for being in Afghanistan has passed. It has not passed. The exact same threat still remains. We're still fighting the exact same war. All we're trying to do is wrap it up without leaving the terrorists in a position to attack us again.
By the way, I think part of the reason the global community is so obsessed with "rebuilding" is that, well, we've already tried it both ways. And rebuilding works better. After World War II, we made a huge eight-year commitment to rebuild Western Europe through the Marshall Plan, and as a result we were able not only to build incredibly strong alliances but also prevent USSR-sponsored parties from seizing power in Italy, France and elsewhere. By contrast, after World War I, we chose the opposite strategy, leaving Germany to its own devices and slapping it with huge punitive measures that it was unable to repay. And what happened? World War II.
-
I believe it was Mr George W Bush who said that we had won the war in Afghanistan in 2003. You know, despite not actually achieving its goal - to oust the Taliban and capture Osama Bin Laden. Whether RedneckFur has suggested we have won the war or not, and whatever the conclusion of this, the mission has not even been accomplished yet. It is a non-issue for now.
On the other hand, I would like to address a point RedneckFur has raised:
I dont think we have any obligation to rebuild Afghanistan. Why does America do this? It seems anytime we win a war, we suddenly feel the urge to go back in spend money, and build their country back better than before. Afghanistan didn't offer to rebuild the WTC or the Pentagon after the September 11th attacks. I feel that we owe them no such favor either.
I would just like to complain about the insinuation that Afghanistan is synonymous with the terrorist organisation which orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. It is offensive and hypocritical that you should accuse a global moderator of the same disrespect.
-
I would just like to complain about the insinuation that Afghanistan is synonymous with the terrorist organisation which orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. It is offensive and hypocritical that you should accuse a global moderator of the same disrespect
In all honesty, that makes no sense. What does Afghanistan harboring terrorists have to do with a moderator acusing me of saying somthing that I did not? It is not hypocritical, and I'm offended that you accuse me of that. Perhaps you think those who moderate are above following the rules? Those who inforce the rules should be held to a higher standard.
See, there is a fundamental disconnect between these two sentences. In one sentence, you say we've been at war for almost ten years. In the next, you're talking about rebuilding after wars. I'm going to assume that this is not a mid-paragraph subject switch, and that you're talking about rebuilding after wars because that is how you view our current situation in Afghanistan. Except that does not reflect reality. We're not "rebuilding."
Dont look for meanings were there are none. What I said was very straight foward. We have been at war for nearly 10 years in that country. How much or how little we've acomplished in that time is open to debate. I want us to finish up this war, and then come home. I do not support the use of an occupation force to rebuild Afghanistan when this is all done. It may seem anti-humanitarian, and mean of me, but I fully support the idea of leaving your enimies in such a state that they'll never be capable of waging war again.
-
I would just like to complain about the insinuation that Afghanistan is synonymous with the terrorist organisation which orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. It is offensive and hypocritical that you should accuse a global moderator of the same disrespect
In all honesty, that makes no sense. What does Afghanistan harboring terrorists have to do with a moderator acusing me of saying somthing that I did not? It is not hypocritical, and I'm offended that you accuse me of that.
You have done nothing to prove that you are not being hypocritical. You have made two irrelevant statements, and have made an illogical conclusion. My issue was that you were being disrespectful - through equating Afghanistan the country with Al Qaeda the terrorist organisation. Not only is this wrong, but it is also painfully offensive. Of course, I understand you have only said Afghanistan harbours terrorists, and I would like to come back to that point.
Perhaps you think those who moderate are above following the rules?
You have made a controversial point (several, in fact) and you should expect some debate on it. You should not be accusing people of breaking the rules just because they adopt a contrary position in this debate. I believe your argument is invalid from the outset, and I thoroughly understand why Arbutus has challenged it. I don’t believe any rules are being broken here at all.
Those who inforce the rules should be held to a higher standard.
This is completely untrue; those who enforce the rules should be held to an identical standard. There is nothing to gain from holding volunteers to an arbitrarily higher standard.
I do not support the use of an occupation force to rebuild Afghanistan when this is all done. It may seem anti-humanitarian, and mean of me, but I fully support the idea of leaving your enimies in such a state that they'll never be capable of waging war again.
And now you have implied Afghanistan is your enemy. I cannot accept that you should feel this contradicting argument is valid, considering the “enemy” of this war is not Afghanistan. Afghanistan is merely where the war is taking place: the war is currently with the terrorist organisation of insurgents that is present in Afghanistan.
It is not hypocritical, and I'm offended that you accuse me of that.
Unfortunately, when you brought up your point that moderators should be held to a higher standard, your argument ceased being on-topic and became a personal attack: if it were any other person calling out your argument, you would not have been able to mention moderation at all, thus it is personal. Considering this, I must say that you are being very plainly hypocritical. I advise you to reconsider your argument with Arbutus as I don’t think he has actually broken a rule at all.
-
I would just like to complain about the insinuation that Afghanistan is synonymous with the terrorist organisation which orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. It is offensive and hypocritical that you should accuse a global moderator of the same disrespect
In all honesty, that makes no sense. What does Afghanistan harboring terrorists have to do with a moderator acusing me of saying somthing that I did not? It is not hypocritical, and I'm offended that you accuse me of that.
You have done nothing to prove that you are not being hypocritical. You have made two irrelevant statements, and have made an illogical conclusion. My issue was that you were being disrespectful - through equating Afghanistan the country with Al Qaeda the terrorist organisation. Not only is this wrong, but it is also painfully offensive. Of course, I understand you have only said Afghanistan harbours terrorists, and I would like to come back to that point.
Perhaps you think those who moderate are above following the rules?
You have made a controversial point (several, in fact) and you should expect some debate on it. You should not be accusing people of breaking the rules just because they adopt a contrary position in this debate. I believe your argument is invalid from the outset, and I thoroughly understand why Arbutus has challenged it. I don’t believe any rules are being broken here at all.
Those who inforce the rules should be held to a higher standard.
This is completely untrue; those who enforce the rules should be held to an identical standard. There is nothing to gain from holding volunteers to an arbitrarily higher standard.
I do not support the use of an occupation force to rebuild Afghanistan when this is all done. It may seem anti-humanitarian, and mean of me, but I fully support the idea of leaving your enimies in such a state that they'll never be capable of waging war again.
And now you have implied Afghanistan is your enemy. I cannot accept that you should feel this contradicting argument is valid, considering the “enemy” of this war is not Afghanistan. Afghanistan is merely where the war is taking place: the war is currently with the terrorist organisation of insurgents that is present in Afghanistan.
It is not hypocritical, and I'm offended that you accuse me of that.
Unfortunately, when you brought up your point that moderators should be held to a higher standard, your argument ceased being on-topic and became a personal attack: if it were any other person calling out your argument, you would not have been able to mention moderation at all, thus it is personal. Considering this, I must say that you are being very plainly hypocritical. I advise you to reconsider your argument with Arbutus as I don’t think he has actually broken a rule at all.
You are also putting words in my mouth, and accusing me of things I did not say. That is rude and disrespectful, and it is not how polite debate is carried out. I sugest some reading on the subject of debate, and perhaps picking up a copy of Roberts Rules of Order for you to peruse.
I never said that Afghanistan is my enemy. You're putting words in my mouth. Rude.
What was said between Arbutus and I is between him and I. We have discussed this in depth in private message, and you're not a party to it. It is of no concern to you, and is off topic in this thread. Your bringing it up is quite un professional and quite rude. I suggest reading the rules of this forum before posting further embarasment.
If this thread continues along these lines, I'm going to recomend that the moderators lock this forum. One of the paramount rules to this area is that all posters must remain on topic and freindly.
With that said, I'm done with this debate. I will not lower myself to the standards of others and get in an internet finger pointing match. I consider doing so to be tasteless and childish.
-
You are also putting words in my mouth, and accusing me of things I did not say. That is rude and disrespectful, and it is not how polite debate is carried out. I sugest some reading on the subject of debate, and perhaps picking up a copy of Roberts Rules of Order for you to peruse.
I never said that Afghanistan is my enemy. You're putting words in my mouth. Rude.
I do not support the use of an occupation force to rebuild Afghanistan when this is all done. It may seem anti-humanitarian, and mean of me, but I fully support the idea of leaving your enimies in such a state that they'll never be capable of waging war again.
If Afghanistan is not the enemy, you should have no problem with rebuilding it after the war is over. It is a fairly logical step to conclude that you believe Afghanistan is your enemy and through refraining to stabilise it you believe you are leaving your enemy in such a state that they would never be capable of waging war again. Could you please clarify your position on this?
What was said between Arbutus and I is between him and I. We have discussed this in depth in private message, and you're not a party to it. It is of no concern to you, and is off topic in this thread. Your bringing it up is quite un professional and quite rude. I suggest reading the rules of this forum before posting further embarasment.
All debate members are encouraged to help moderate by calling out members who are social engineering or disrespecting other members and not treating other members with respect.
Having read the rules, I have decided that I am well within my rights in calling out your disrespect.
If this thread continues along these lines, I'm going to recomend that the moderators lock this forum. One of the paramount rules to this area is that all posters must remain on topic and freindly.
With that said, I'm done with this debate. I will not lower myself to the standards of others and get in an internet finger pointing match. I consider doing so to be tasteless and childish.
Do NOT start a debate if you are emotionally involved to the point you can't respect all debaters. Do NOT start a debate if you will get upset if most/all furs/people do not agree with you. Do NOT start a debate if you can't stay calm, civil, and respectful at all times.
The Furry Debate Club was designed at the request of members to be a place where "mature" members who enjoy ideas and arguments can exchange ideas in "civil" debate. Base your arguments on facts while showing respect to all parties. Say your part but in the end allow others to keep their point of view if they wish. Do NOT start a debate if you are emotionally involved to the point you can't respect all debaters. Do NOT start a debate if you will get upset if most/all furs/people do not agree with you. Do NOT start a debate if you can't stay calm, civil, and respectful at all times.
What is Civil Debate? Everyone knows how to debate. Not everyone knows how to debate in a good civil fashion. That is why this group is "privileged access" for ONLY those who do know how to respect others while debating. Civil debate is where two or more parties post/discuss their points of view without putting down or disrespecting each other while giving a point of view.
Again, this is taken directly from the rules. It is not my conviction to bring this thread off topic as I would very much like to discuss your opinion on this war without anyone resorting to personal attacks, emotional responses, or plain disregard of the matter at hand. I apologise if I am coming across as rude, but I believe we both agree that this is a right to every member of this Debate Club?
Of course, if you are genuinely done with this debate then my entire argument is in vain.
-
Enough! >:( This forum was not put here to attack, bash, flame, and bait other members. Access can be removed just as well as given.
RE-READ THE RULES, PLEASE!
http://forums.furtopia.org/index.php/topic,36687.0.html
Secondly, if a member has a problem with any staff, then please take it to PM and the matter will be discussed there.
-
As Redneck mentioned, he and I have sorted out the issue through PM. Therefore, I'd like to ask both of you to please leave me out of the discussion. Thank you.
Back to Afghanistan.
-
I'm not very fond of wars. I remember when our men and women started going over to Iraq they were promised their jobs would still be intact when they came back and their families would be taken care of. When some of our men and women came back they did not find these to be true. They had lost their jobs and some of them also lost their homes while away. When the men and women come back injured they have another fight on their hands. Not against the enemy but against their own government because they have to fight so hard to get the medical help they really need and deserve.
Also, why stay in a play where the people are still at war with us? Doesn't make any sense to rebuild if they don't want us there. Just means we lose more of our men and women who have families waiting for them that live in fear every day that their loved ones may not come back home to them. For what? To try and rebuild something for someone that doesn't want us there in the first place?
I don't get it. I never did. I probably never will.
Just my $1. (inflation)
-
If we are the cause of destruction in the lives of innocent men, women and children, we have an obligation to rebuild. Afghanistan did not attack us on 9/11, a terrorist cell made up of men who were led by Osama bin Laden, and who were from Saudi Arabia, did. Yes, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban took control of Afghanistan after the region was left in an unstable condition following the war with the Soviet Union. So many times, throughout history, when a region is made unstable as a result of war, it falls into the hands of a dictator. If any of the men who attacked us on 9/11 had actually been from Afghanistan, it may have made a bit more sense to declare war on the country. But that simply was not the case. When it comes to terrorism, conventional warfare doesn't work. Terrorists will not stay in one place. I know there are atrocities within Afghanistan that the majority of us object to. For one, the treatment of women is deplorable. However, if that were reason enough to declare war, we would be at war with many more countries.
I confess, I am anti-war in general. I don't think it ever makes sense in this day and age. There are no victors in war. Everyone loses.
-
I think we need to stop shoving our American noses in other peoples business and governements without asking. Everyone wonders why we are in a resession, I think its caused by all the exessive funding that we are sending into two pointless wars. That and giving it all away to China and other countries. Just because we see others as different or "not right," American feels the need to swing the "You need American Democracy" hammer. Stop trying to make all the countries like us and leave them alone. Stop fighting over oil and religion. If we spent all that war money on wind turbines in the western plain states to make wind turbines and water energy things then we could power the whole USA really cheap.
-
I'm in agreement with those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and although Kobuk didn't ask, out of Iraq as well. While it's not quite true that Afghanistan has never been conquered, it has never been conquered and held. The British couldn't do it, the Russians couldn't do it and we can't do it either. Those people are tough. They don't give up.
However, this is a war for Big Oil and the military-industrial complex, and they are going to keep at it for as long as they can. That has nothing to do with victory. There will be no victory. It has to do with profits -- money, and lots of it. War is a profitable business.
There was a time, perhaps even as recently as the early 'seventies, when the people could influence U.S. government officials. Those days are long gone. Global multinational corporations are pulling the strings now, and they tell the elected officials what to do. If those officials disobey, bye-bye campaign finances. The President is not in power and neither is Congress. They have to dance to their contributors' tune. If they don't, those contributors will find a new set of sold-out prostitutes (I prefer a blunter one-syllable synonym beginning with "w") who will.
Our elected officials do not work for the people. They work for Big Banking, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance et al., and the nine or so multinational Mainstream Media outlets play ball with all the rest. It's a shell game, crony corporatism, not "capitalism" as the idiotic ditto-heads, Faux Noise-watchers and Teabaggers seem to believe. Any candidate who doesn't play ball will be made to look like a conspiracy theorist. He might as well give all his speeches in a tinfoil hat.
So, in short, yeah, I think we should pull out of the Middle East, because this is just another Vietnam. So what? It doesn't matter what I think, because I do not have billions of dollars to contribute to the sold-out you-know-whats on both sides of the aisle.
There is no "aisle." There is only one major U.S. party: the Authoritarian Corporatist Party. All other distinctions are meaningless.
-
I'm in agreement with those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and although Kobuk didn't ask, out of Iraq as well. While it's not quite true that Afghanistan has never been conquered, it has never been conquered and held. The British couldn't do it, the Russians couldn't do it and we can't do it either. Those people are tough. They don't give up.
However, this is a war for Big Oil and the military-industrial complex, and they are going to keep at it for as long as they can. That has nothing to do with victory. There will be no victory. It has to do with profits -- money, and lots of it. War is a profitable business.
There was a time, perhaps even as recently as the early 'seventies, when the people could influence U.S. government officials. Those days are long gone. Global multinational corporations are pulling the strings now, and they tell the elected officials what to do. If those officials disobey, bye-bye campaign finances. The President is not in power and neither is Congress. They have to dance to their contributors' tune. If they don't, those contributors will find a new set of sold-out prostitutes (I prefer a blunter one-syllable synonym beginning with "w") who will.
Our elected officials do not work for the people. They work for Big Banking, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance et al., and the nine or so multinational Mainstream Media outlets play ball with all the rest. It's a shell game, crony corporatism, not "capitalism" as the idiotic ditto-heads, Faux Noise-watchers and Teabaggers seem to believe. Any candidate who doesn't play ball will be made to look like a conspiracy theorist. He might as well give all his speeches in a tinfoil hat.
So, in short, yeah, I think we should pull out of the Middle East, because this is just another Vietnam. So what? It doesn't matter what I think, because I do not have billions of dollars to contribute to the sold-out you-know-whats on both sides of the aisle.
There is no "aisle." There is only one major U.S. party: the Authoritarian Corporatist Party. All other distinctions are meaningless.
Quoted for effing truth.
-
Sharg: "Its been a LONG time that I've seen someone (not on a 'conspiracy'/crazy site) talk the truth..."
Well, a lot of people would say a Furry board is pretty crazy. :D
It's not a "conspiracy" though... because we don't call it that. However, that wouldn't keep anyone who pointed it out in the MSM from being branded a conspiracy nut. But really, it's no big secret. It's right out in the open... a good ol' boys' club... business as usual. They don't even hide it anymore. You have to be willfully stupid not to see it, and a lot of (maybe most) Americans are.
A good part of that is, frankly, slave mentality. Those wealthy corporate donors are the sheeple's bread and butter, because said sheeple are either employees or stockholders. It's rather like all those stupid auto workers in Detroit who used to wave the American flag and parrot, "What's good for General Motors is good for the country!" Yeah, GM stood behind those idiots, didn't it? Shipped their jobs off to countries with virtual slave labor so fast it made Archie Bunker's head spin. LOL!
That's happening to a lot more than U.S. auto workers now, but it doesn't matter. Lose your job, lose your voice. Everyone knows the unemployed are lazy. They're unemployed because they don't want to work. Who cares what those freeloaders say? There will always be stockholders, investment bankers, media prostitutes and other I'm-all-right-Jack types to accuse anyone who rocks the gravy boat of being "un-American." So it goes!
Anyway, thanks. :)
-
Let's try to please keep this thread about Afghanistan. If you wish to discuss "corporate America", then please make a separate topic. Thanks.
-
Kobuk: "Let's try to please keep this thread about Afghanistan."
They're inextricably linked, Kobuk. You can't discuss the possibility (or lack thereof) of a pullout without acknowledging the military-industrial complex and Big Oil; you can't discuss our reasons for being there without acknowledging the same; you can't explain Washington DC's reluctance to listen to those of us who are against this war without acknowledging the fact that our elected officials are in thrall to their donors. That's just the way it is. You might as well try to discuss the Earth's food chain without bringing the sun into the equation, because the energy flow all starts there.
You asked "Should we?" I said "Yes." That begs the question "Will we?" The answer is "No, the people have no say in this matter." But, it's your thread and I'll be happy to withdraw from it if that is your wish.
-
Kobuk: "Let's try to please keep this thread about Afghanistan."
They're inextricably linked, Kobuk. You can't discuss the possibility (or lack thereof) of a pullout without acknowledging the military-industrial complex and Big Oil; you can't discuss our reasons for being there without acknowledging the same; you can't explain Washington DC's reluctance to listen to those of us who are against this war without acknowledging the fact that our elected officials are in thrall to their donors. That's just the way it is. You might as well try to discuss the Earth's food chain without bringing the sun into the equation, because the energy flow all starts there.
You asked "Should we?" I said "Yes." That begs the question "Will we?" The answer is "No, the people have no say in this matter." But, it's your thread and I'll be happy to withdraw from it if that is your wish.
I don't buy the reason we are in Afghanistan and won't leave is because corporate America in the shape of military industrial complex and big oil wanted us there and want to keep us there.
There were a lot of people, I believe a majority of people who felt that going to war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do when we started the campaign. You may not agree with the reasons, but the stated reasons were clear and verifiable (not like Iraq where the reasons were untrue). America was attacked by a group that the ruling government of Afghanistan at the time, the Taliban, let use their country as a staging area for planning and training their attack.
Now today, with the war having dragged on many years, a lot of people who supported going to war feel it's time to withdraw. There still may be a majority that supports being there today, but I believe things are more 50/50.
I believe the real reason we are still there today is that many elected officials and military experts are afraid of what will happen if we leave. I doubt the current government in Afghanistan would survive for more than a couple of years if we just left and what fills the vacuum would be the Taliban again.
Yes, there are companies that profit from military spending during the war and those companies will lobby to protect their interests. That doesn't mean they are the reasons we are there.
-
Drake Blackpaw: "...there are companies that profit from military spending during the war and those companies will lobby to protect their interests. That doesn't mean they are the reasons we are there."
Not the stated ones for sure, but look, when you say, "I doubt the current government in Afghanistan would survive for more than a couple of years if we just left and what fills the vacuum would be the Taliban again," what did you expect? How long do think it'll take to stabilize it when nobody ever has? More importantly, what did the military so-called experts expect? Surely the Bush administration had analysts who knew Afghanistan's history (and Iraq's, for that matter), or do they just hire Yes Men with Ivy League PhDs and pay them out the wazoo to screw up? Hell, I knew those regions are countries in name only, inhabited by a very tough bunch of squabbling tribes who only pull together when there's an outside enemy involved; then, when that's over, they start fighting each other again. Lines on a map does not a country make.
Hadn't those "experts" ever heard the Arabic saying, "I against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; I, my brother, and my cousin against the stranger"? That's basic. That's the way it works. If we pull out of there next week or a hundred years from now, the result will be exactly the same.
I don't buy the argument that our analysts were so ignorant as to think conventional warfare would work. You can't fight terrorism like that. There's nothing to strike. It's like fighting air. The enemy disappears into the desert like a shadow, and he knows the land far better than we do. There are only two ways to defeat enemies like that: you either infiltrate, patiently gather intelligence and take out the leaders one by one (we can't even find bin Laden), or you stop doing the stuff that made them your enemies in the first place.
It just doesn't wash. They either knew the conventional approach was worthless but pursued it anyway for their cronies' perpetual profits, or they're so flat-out incompetent that a Journalism major from a state college with some Master's work in English Lit could've provided a better analysis.
I don't believe they're that stupid.
-
You might as well try to discuss the Earth's food chain without bringing the sun into the equation, because the energy flow all starts there.
Discussion of the temperature of the core of the sun vs it's surface, and how fusion works, and so on would be off topic in such a thread if mentioned more than in passing. Same goes here.
Anyways, I agree with Drake, we didn't get involved for corporate profit or any nonsense like that. We got involved because we got attacked, and that required action. It may not have been handled as well as it should have been, but something had to be done, and so it was.
-
Vararam: "Discussion of the temperature of the core of the sun vs it's surface, and how fusion works, and so on would be off topic in such a thread if mentioned more than in passing."
Would it? Seems to me you can focus down on a debate until it becomes meaningless and pointless, a mere list. Kobuk asked, "Should we pull out of Afghanistan?" Taken to ridiculous extremes, this could become rather like one of those dumb "RATE IT" threads you sometimes see on movie websites: "RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK: RATE IT!"
"10!"
"7!"
"8!"
"9.5!"
"Well, there were things it did well, and things it didn't..."
"OFF TOPIC!"
To wit:
Vararam: "...I agree with Drake, we didn't get involved for corporate profit or any nonsense like that. We got involved because we got attacked, and that required action."
See, there you've opened up a whole 'nother can of worms (never mind your insulting word, "nonsense"). Why were we attacked? Were we? What about all those architects and engineers who are still running around going, "The official story stinks!" Why was Weiner Cheney* running the show that day while the President read to schoolchildren? What was the PNAC's role in all of that? Is it too amazing a coincidence that only a couple of years before, the PNAC had stated in a written report that its plans for a new American Empire were infeasible without a "galvanizing event, like a new Pearl Harbor"? How did a plane hit the Pentagon, which is under some of the most tightly controlled airspace on Earth? What is the melting point of structural steel? What is the temperature of burning jet fuel? Inside job? Outside job with the doors intentionally left open? Was that a false flag attack?
It would be remiss to allow your statement to stand unchallenged. We can't just let someone say, "We got involved because we got attacked, and that required action," because that's bone-stick-stone simplistic. It just hangs there, pretending to be self-evident when it's anything but. The American people were howling for blood, but that's to be expected after "a galvanizing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." So what? The decision to go to war is never made democratically. It just helps if the public is supportive.
Frankly, practically everything that's happened in this country since the hung election of 2000 stinks. I can even call a point earlier than that: the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Kobuk's opening question scratches the paint on a ramshackle structure that becomes increasingly astonishing as you dig deeper into it.
*Added in Edit: LOL! The silly filter on this website won't even let me say the former Vice President's name! "Weiner Cheney!" You know, I actually like it better that way.
Oh, and y'all misspelled "wiener." :D
-
Remember how I brought up conspiracy theories in the other thread. *points to post above* That pretty much sums up why.
I won't respond to that here because that's seriously off topic.
Vararam: "Discussion of the temperature of the core of the sun vs it's surface, and how fusion works, and so on would be off topic in such a thread if mentioned more than in passing."
Would it? ... *snip*
Yes it would. If you can't see that, then you really don't belong in the "furry debate club". Keep the threads on topic about the ORIGINAL subject being discussed. Disrespectful users will be removed from the Debate Club rather than shutting down threads.
So to answer the question of the thread directly, Yes we should pull out. Of course it's a lot more complicated than just leaving. But I don't think prolonged occupation is a good idea. I don't know enough about it to say anything further.
-
First warning.
Bashing/flaming of other members, their opinions, and/or hatred/slander/bashing of other groups, religions, countries, etc. will not be allowed and/or tolerated.
Also, please keep this thread ON TOPIC. >:(
-
I rate this thread at Three Picards:
(http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs48/f/2009/210/5/a/face_palm_by_Draculasaurus.gif)(http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs48/f/2009/210/5/a/face_palm_by_Draculasaurus.gif)(http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs48/f/2009/210/5/a/face_palm_by_Draculasaurus.gif)
-
Just to be clear about my last post, I don't for one minute believe that J. March OHare thinks that going on and on about the sun would be on topic in a thread about the food chain. In other words, I wasn't saying he should leave, but was instead showing that his position is on shaky ground.
Anyways... back to the topic.
-
In an effort to get back on topic, I don't believe anyone has responded to this yet:
Hadn't those "experts" ever heard the Arabic saying, "I against my brother; my brother and I against my cousin; I, my brother, and my cousin against the stranger"? That's basic. That's the way it works. If we pull out of there next week or a hundred years from now, the result will be exactly the same.
Of course, I don't believe I've seen anyone assert that we should stay yet. We all seem to be in agreement about that. To me, the above (and the other stuff I mentioned in Reply #26) makes staying there useless, but I suppose it could be argued that we should not only stay, but build bases and remain indefinitely.
Does anybody think we should?
-
I don't think we should be there...
But it's a lot more complicated than to just say, "We'll pull out." Pulling out could cause massive issues down there... A lot of people that have given the US open support down there would suddenly have their support removed out from under them which would be fatal...
It's a sticky situation and there's really no way for it to end well.
On oil, i don't see an issue there with pulling out on that note... we could just drill for it ourselves, we've got pleanty around us. O.o