Moonlight Graham

The report puts most of the blame of Rumsfeld actually. A different piece of poop, but the same toilet.

How exactly are we going to strengthen the Afghan military enough for NATO to be able to leave and protect its sovereignty from attacks from the Taliban if NATO itself, and the country with the most powerful military in the world leading the fight, cannot even defend Afghanistan adequately from the Taliban? The Afghan military has no air-force whatsoever. That should give us some idea of how far the Afghan military has to come before we can leave. It's going to take decades and trillions of dollars to get Afghanistan able to defend itself against the Taliban as well as we are now, which isn't very well at all! And at the same time, yes you are indirectly calling for a military dictatorship in Afghanistan because that is what more than likely gong to happen if we prop up this military and leave. Sooner or later, which has happened in other developing countries before, is that when we leave Afghanistan, giving them this powerful army to protect itself from the bad guys who will likely become the bad guys themselves. A military coup is initiated, goodbye democratic government we spent much lives/money/years fostering, and hello to yet another in the long list of corrupt and violent authoritarian regimes ruling a country in the "third world". There are other instances where the West has politically, financially, and militarily supported/assisted regimes, having it blow up in their faces years later. Here's one example. The problems in Afghanistan are vast. It is the second lowest ranking nation on the U.N.'s Human Development Index (HDI) for 2009. It is a very complex situation. For those of you who are saying that i'm just being a defeatist, that's B.S. I'm being realistic. I'm looking at the evidence, looking at the country, it's history/society/culture, what has occurred in other developing countries, and making an informed opinion. I believe this troop surge, in the long-term, is going to have a negative affect on Afghanistan and on Canada/NATO countries. You can "hope" all you want, but its better to deal in evidence than wishful thinking. I can hope all i want that the fat limping horse who lost 20 of its last 22 races is going to win the next race, but odds say its not likely gooing to happen.

Very interesting. Obviously there is an difference in regime change, and military invasion + regime change. I read the law you posted. It seems to support regime change in that the U.S. may help fund and assist democratic opposition parties in Iraq in replacing Saddam's regime. There is one part that mentions the U.S. military but it is slightly vague, maybe purposely so lol. But it clearly does not call for invasion as a means, but more or less a U.S.-backed coup. Wondering what you get out of the meaning of this law? Anyways, quite interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I certainly do hope the best for Afghans, much more than my hope to stroke my ego with an "i told u so".. If this works, and in 50 years Afghanistan is a better country for it, then that would be wonderful. But i'm not very optimistic about this based on the realities of situation in the country, and i'm not afraid to criticize this decision. I'd much rather us 'do what is best' than 'hope for the best'.

The fan is still moving, and s**t keeps hitting it. The article goes on further. link

This isn't just politics, its plain fraud. It's corrupt manipulation of data and research.

i was being sarcastic

Hey, it'll be neat to look back at this topic in 5 years when the U.S. pulls out of Afghanistan in basically the same situation they're in now.

Made his decision obviously: Also of note, i found this in another article in the Guardian:

Not responding to you in particular, but China is not possible in Afghanistan, not in the next few decades or so at the very least. China & India were able to able to rise up economically because they had basic infrastructure in place and tons of cheap labour available before global manufacturers came calling. Afghanistan is not industrialized like China was a few decades ago. Countries can't just build a few factories and *POOF* we've got some cheap manufacturing going on in Afghanistan.

That's a significant part of it, but not the whole story. Surely, there are those in gov't in the U.S. and Canada who actually see Afghanistan as a security problem. The military industrial complex and securing oil reserves just makes this decision to invade so much easier to make.

I'd rather have a gov't or party that decides policy depending on what works, or has proven to work, or is based on statistics, research, and rational common sense rather than simply on ideology. I think that somewhat describes the moderate "centrist" approach.

Disturbing. Important for us to remember that Afghanistan is one of the poorest & least developed countries in the world. In 2009 it holds the 2nd-lowest ranking among the 182 countries listed on the UN's HDI (Human Development Index), which ranks countries based on factors like adult literacy rates, life expectancy, income (GDP-per-capita) etc. Rankings: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ In my opinion, Afghanistan more resembles a sub-Saharan African country than most of the other middle-eastern countries in many regards. It's mostly tribal, rural, it's woefully undeveloped and poor, and its elite are corrupt druglords/warlords. The sad thing is, within a couple of decades from the time NATO leaves, even if we were to kill every member of the Taliban, whatever democratic government we help establish will likely be ousted in a coup (possibly even by the Afghan army we are helping to train) and replaced by a corrupt authoritarian regime. If no coup, then a "democratically elected" authoritarian regime is likely to emerge, or something just as bad. It may even come to be as bad as the Taliban were, who knows. The problems in Afghanistan are beyond immense. Way more complex a situation than Iraq. i don't think we should leave Afghanistan, but i do think we should end our military occupation there, send a few bombs al-Qaeda's way if they are ever to establish any kind of facilities in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and focus our efforts on trying to help the Afghans develop their country the way they wish (within reason obviously). Help them build infrastructure, hospitals, schools etc. But this is all if the Afghans want us there in the first place. They are a country well known for their rabid self-determination and resentment of foreign occupation.

Where are you looking? Only in the news headlines it seems.

You write as if Shady cares at all about this issue. This post is just an excuse to bash Obama. Whether it has any validity or not doesn't matter.

Wave you guys seen the new pic of what Omar looks like now? He looks so much different, all grown up. Looks like a man. By the time this whole court thing is settled he'll be growing grey hairs!

The video is a bit unsettling. But i don't know this guy's views or his agenda with all this. His does say that "at this rate the enitre Parliament will be Muslim, but that is not my objective." Is he an Islamic fundamentalist who wants Islam & Sharia Law to completely take over Britain and the world? Or is he simply pointing out that this is a step for diversity in Parliament in regards to Muslim representation, like blacks or women in Parliament?? Or is he just damn proud of his faith/people? hard to say, i dont know the context of this man's words or beliefs. But yes, it does seem unsettling.

There is a big difference in radical/extremist Islam and the Islam that the vast majority of Muslims practice. Most of radicals follow a radical fundamentalist form of Islam called Qutbism that came out of the 1950's/60's. I don't know why the "peaceful" Muslims don't reel in the radical violent ones. How are they going to do it? By taking up arms against the these armed and trained extremists? How can they if they are "peaceful", and it is against Islam to kill other Muslims? Many Muslim leaders have spoken out against the radicals. There's just some crazy bad apples out there. This bunch is just a heck of a lot more determined than the others.

Welcome!

Occasionally he does have good, serious interviews though and really hammers it to his guests. The Jim Cramer interview comes to mind. Would never say he's media's last hope though.

There is a big difference between Islam, and the radical, violent, fundamentalist version of Islam that those like al-Qaeda believe. You should choose your words more carefully. But it's a good point, radical fundamentalist Islam may be the new Communism.

Exactly. Revenge is what led to the harsh terms in Versailles. Keeping the Berlin Wall up would be a sick punishment. With the USSR gone, who would keep up the Wall? The West would. Do we want our men to stand in towers and shoot civilians trying to cross it...for the sake of revenge? Sick. Do we want East Germany to stay behind the wall, and develop anti-West and anti-democratic resentments which led to the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1st place? Everyone is better off with Germany united, democratic & free, and finally healthy. If you want revenge, Germans took their share of beatings via their defeats in WWI and WWII, plus they were a battleground in the Cold War. The wars are over, just let it go.

Gain a 1st-hand understanding into the mind of one of history's most important figures. It may be twisted, but it's an important historical work.

What happened to Saudi Arabia? Why weren't they pursued? They were even only 1 of 3 countries in the world that recognized the Taliban as the legit gov't of Afghanistan prior to 9/11.

A politician saying "you're either with us or you're against us" is a really stupid thing to say. It's antagonizing. That's not being a good diplomat, it's just a good way to piss people off. In global politics, nations can often choose to be for a given issue, against an issue, or stay neutral. Bush was saying you can't be neutral. If you're neutral, then that means you're against us. Stupid. There's also a big problem if Obama "takes a side" in the Iran democratic protests. If he publicly sides with the protesters what good would it do VS how much it would make the Ayatollahs and the Iranian gov't PO'd and tarnish relations, & ruin future chances at diplomatic dealings. The US has mucked with the internal affairs of Iran enough, best to leave the protesting up to the protesters on that one. Anyways, if the diplomatic approach eventually doesn't work regarding nukes that's fine. What will matters is that Obama is trying. A national leader should try to exhaust every workable diplomatic/non-violent possibility before they start killing people and blowing stuff up. Hopefully Obama does this. Obama needs to keep trying the diplomatic approach, but he also needs to stay tough on Iran. There's a balance between being tough & being diplomatic. JFK and Reagan seemed to get it right. Carter and Bush Jr. got it wrong.