Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001

[bush_cheney2004]

Doing the same failed things over and over again, leads to the same failed results.

Agreed....Bush changed all that and now we "wait" much longer between successful attacks. Voters noticed this.

Neither require the end state that the Bush Administration was aiming at. We could accept a substantially less centralized Afghan state and we could accept some legitimate legal and political role for the Taliban in the governance of that less-centralized state as long as we assure that Afghan territory is not used to destabilize Pakistan or attack us."

Don't confuse the longer term goal of state building with exterminating terrorists or those who harbor terrorists.

Many of us who knew the history of Afghanistan when the war started knew that it was being done in angry retaliation for 9/11. Not for the express purpose of making Afghanistan a democracy. The US was content to leave Afghanistan under Taliban rule for ten years after the soviets pulled out. But if you recall, GWB wanted them to deliver Osama bin Laden. And when they didn't, it was off to war.

The Americans told you this from the outset....Canada's processing of events is your own affair. If you were naive at first, then surely unfolding events should have revealed true intentions.

[Guest American Woman]

Doing the same failed things over and over again, leads to the same failed results.

When did we fight back - at least on this scale - before? Seems to me you're reinforcing my/our view. To do nothing more would have been to do "the same failed thing" again. Attacking them was a new "thing."

And history teaches us that. We learn from history about the root causes of things, why things are the way they are now. We're partly responsible for what happened in Afghanistan beginning with the British empire, then on to supporting, training and arming Mujahideen against soviets, which helped to give power to the Taliban and even create terrorist training camps.

Recognizing "the cause" (I won't get into that aspect of it beyond that now) regarding what was done in the past to create/help create the present doesn't do anything to change the present. It also overlooks all of the other factors that have gone into it. We cannot look at this one-sided and think it's so enlightened of us to blame ourselves - and only ourselves. I see that as a dangerous precedent.

If I am pessimistic, it's only because I read the news.

Perhaps you should broaden your sources. "The news" certainly doesn't tell the whole story, and it doesn't necessarily always tell the correct story. Even at that, from what I see, in order for you to believe what you so pessimistically believe, even from the "news," you are selective of what news you read/believe, because all of the news certainly isn't pessimistic; but that does sell better than optimism, which is why we hear all about it "in the news" when one of our troops does something nasty while we virtually hear nothing "in the news" about all the wonderful, humanitarian things our troops have done. You have to go outside of "the news" to hear about that.

(That's all I have time for right now - will address the rest later.)

Edited September 17, 2011 by American Woman

[Sir Bandelot]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Suggest y'all take it up with your President!

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Suggest y'all take it up with your President!

What bad news....our president has engaged and escalated the strategy for the real agenda...Pakistan's tribal areas. He also shot Osama Bin Hidin' in the head.

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Suggest y'all take it up with your President!

What bad news?

Good response, though. I can see you put a lot of thought into it.

[Sir Bandelot]

What bad news?

Good response, though. I can see you put a lot of thought into it.

The bad news that Bush's goals for the war will not be accomplished. Afghanistan will remain de-centralized, and the Taliban will still be in power.

You did read my other more thoughtful posts, didn't you?

[Guest American Woman]

The bad news that Bush's goals for the war will not be accomplished. Afghanistan will remain de-centralized, and the Taliban will still be in power.

Ahhh... I see. More crystal ball reading on your part, in other words. FYI, that doesn't fit the definition of "news," but if I ever want to consult a psychic, you'll be the first to know. Fair enough?

[GostHacked]

Ahhh... I see. More crystal ball reading on your part, in other words. FYI, that doesn't fit the definition of "news," but if I ever want to consult a psychic, you'll be the first to know. Fair enough?

I am sure you are aware that it has been reported in the news that Karzai, if he does not get enough support from the west, he said he will go talk to the Taliban for help.

[Guest American Woman]

I am sure you are aware that it has been reported in the news that Karzai, if he does not get enough support from the west, he said he will go talk to the Taliban for help.

I'm sure that you are aware, or at least I hope you are, that "if" isn't synonymous with "will." Furthermore, I'm sure you are aware, or at least I hope you are, that "talking" about something isn't synonymous with "it happening." Last but not least, we don't know how the west would react to it if that were to happen, so we don't know the end result even "if" Karzai were to "talk" to the Taliban - and the Taliban were to "help him."

[Sir Bandelot]

Ahhh... I see. More crystal ball reading on your part, in other words. FYI, that doesn't fit the definition of "news," but if I ever want to consult a psychic, you'll be the first to know. Fair enough?

As linked, it is the US president who said so. he did it in his speech in June 2011. I'm not making this up.

It hasn't happened yet, so maybe there will be a better, alternate plan? I doubt it. It looks like the US led coalition has spent all they are willing to spend in Afghanistan, in terms of lives and dollars, and they now want to move on. The exit plan is already made.

So at the risk of repeating myself I conclude, they didn't accomplish much of real worth to the people of Afghanistan. The people didn't get a better society, at least not in the short term. With groups like Mujahideen and Taliban in power, I don't see a reason to feel optimistic about their future. But at least Al-Qaeda is on the run. Bin Laden is dead. Those are accomplishments, yes, but the notion that things are/ will be better for Afghanistan as a result of this is not believable.

Turning to Iraq, I don't believe they are better off. Iraq is now ruled by the Shiites, who adhere to Sharia law. They voted to adopt sharia law into their constitution.

US relents on Islamic law to reach Iraq deal

Iraq: Beheading up. Constitution accepts Sharia

Please read this article:

Fighting for women's rights in Iraq

Under Saddam there was no sharia law. It was secular. Everybody, including girls went to school. Women even held positions in high government.

(CNN June 26 2005) Under Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist party, citizens were declared equal before the law regardless of sex, blood, language, social origin, or religion, and they were allowed to vote and run for office, the HRW said.

Even after Hussein rolled back women's rights to curry favor with tribal and religious leaders after the first Gulf War, women were spared the level of violence they endure now, according to Amnesty International.

According to a United Nations report, the kidnapping, rape and murder of women is on the rise. Honor killings, or the killing of a woman who brought perceived dishonor to her family, is up also. Women -- Muslims and non-Muslims alike -- are warned to adhere to the strict dress code, the United Nations said.

Again, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

[Sir Bandelot]

I am sure you are aware that it has been reported in the news that Karzai, if he does not get enough support from the west, he said he will go talk to the Taliban for help.

Actually it is known that the Taliban have strong supporter in the current Afghanistan government. They never completely lost their power. And this is part of the reason why things are so difficult over there for us, due to lack of cooperation on their part.

[Guest American Woman]

As linked, it is the US president who said so. he did it in his speech in June 2011. I'm not making this up.

Really? Obama said, "Bush's goals for the war will not be accomplished. Afghanistan will remain de-centralized, and the Taliban will still be in power." He said that will be the outcome of the war in Afghanistan.

Perhaps you could cite that quote for me. Thank you.

[Sir Bandelot]

If you want that, then please read the CNN page linked to in post # 300. Then go and find President Obama's speech in June 2011, I believe it was, in which he says things such as allowing the Taliban to participate in the government. He outlines the goals that he believes are achievable. He is not going after the goals that were set out by President Bush at the start of the war.

I found the transcript for you. It's a long speech but see Page 2.

[Guest American Woman]

If you want that, then please read the CNN page linked to in post # 300. Then go and find President Obama's speech in June 2011, I believe it was, in which he says things such as allowing the Taliban to participate in the government. He outlines the goals that he believes are achievable. He is not going after the goals that were set out by President Bush at the start of the war.

I found the transcript for you. It's a long speech but see Page 2.

I don't want to read "a long speech" looking for what you claim he said. You said he said it, so you must know where he said it - so I'm asking you to back up your claim. I would like you to quote the part of the speech where he says what you claim he said. I don't believe he said it, so I don't want to spend my time trying to find something that you interpreted that way, only to not be able to find it.

In other words, in order to back up your claim, you have to provide me with the quote. I'm just not seeing it.

Edited September 17, 2011 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

...In other words, in order to back up your claim, you have to provide me with the quote. I'm just not seeing it.

Of course....Obama said no such thing on page 2 or anywhere else...this is what he did say:

....We do know that peace cannot come to a land that has known so much war without a political settlement. So as we strengthen the Afghan government and Security Forces, America will join initiatives that reconcile the Afghan people, including the Taliban. Our position on these talks is clear: they must be led by the Afghan government, and those who want to be a part of a peaceful Afghanistan must break from al Qaeda, abandon violence, and abide by the Afghan Constitution. But, in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made.

[maple_leafs182]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHRYhL4ofNo

I really don't think people understand the horrors of war.

You can't force democracy on a nation with bombs and bullets, it won't work, the people have to want democracy. As for your democracy in the States, why is it the media only focuses on two parties, why is it that out of the hundreds of candidates that run for president the media only focuses on around 5 candidates that generally have the same views on major issues. I think you guys need to work on your democratic process before forcing it onto others. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Canada is much better, truth be told I wish we ditched the parliamentary system and become a constitutional republic, but one that actually follows the constitution.

[Moonlight Graham]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99Xei97NQ8E

Listen to what he is saying...what would you do?

Ron is bang-on here.

Lesson #1 of Robert McNamara's 11 lessons of war: "Empathize with your enemy". It's so damned true and important.

[Sir Bandelot]

Don't confuse the longer term goal of state building with exterminating terrorists or those who harbor terrorists.

From what I understand Obama has dropped the goal of US-sponsored nation building for Afghanistan. That was one of the mission objectives under Bush, but is no longer a primary goal. Sure, they would love to see Afghanistan become a democracy, complete with Hedonism II resorts on lake Hamun. But Obama does not feel compelled to make that happen, using US "blood and treasure". Rather, as he point out in the speech in June 2011, the time as come to invest in Americas own nation building.

And rightly so, IMO.

Meanwhile the mission objective over time drifted from defeat of the Taliban, to diminishing the Taliban, to reconciliation, and finally to acceptance. With some attempt at face-saving caveats, yes, but try dealing with them when you've already left the country.

[bush_cheney2004]

I really don't think people understand the horrors of war.

Well, I am quite certain that you don't.

You can't force democracy on a nation with bombs and bullets, it won't work, the people have to want democracy.

The Japanese Imperial Army and Navy would beg to differ.

As for your democracy in the States, why is it the media only focuses on two parties, why is it that out of the hundreds of candidates that run for president the media only focuses on around 5 candidates that generally have the same views on major issues.

Because those minor party candidates do not have enough support to win, just like the joke Green Party in Canada.

I think you guys need to work on your democratic process before forcing it onto others. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Canada is much better, truth be told I wish we ditched the parliamentary system and become a constitutional republic, but one that actually follows the constitution.

Then you are obviously in no position to tell Americans what they should or should not do, though I know it is very very difficult for you to follow the exact same advice you described above.

[Sir Bandelot]

Because those minor party candidates do not have enough supportmoney to win.

There, I fixed it for you.

[bush_cheney2004]

There, I fixed it for you.

No, contrary to the mods direction vis-avis quotes, you have only proven yourself to be a putz. Congratulations....

[Sir Bandelot]

No, contrary to the mods direction vis-avis quotes, you have only proven yourself to be a putz. Congratulations....

I was wondering if you had a sense of humour too, since the point went beyond a mere childish or provocative post, as others did. Rather than engage the point, you chose an ad-hominem and invoked the mods.

And you support MDancer's right to expression, eh? A la Voltaire, no less. Too bad for you that you don't get that.

[Guest American Woman]

bush_cheney2004, on 17 September 2011 - 08:43 PM, said: Because those minor party candidates do not have enough supportmoney to win.

There, I fixed it for you.

So very clever of you. But let me be the one to address what you "fixed" - the reason they don't have enough money is because, as bush_cheney actually said, they don't have enough support.

Edited September 18, 2011 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

I was wondering if you had a sense of humour too, since the point went beyond a mere childish or provocative post, as others did. Rather than engage the point, you chose an ad-hominem and invoked the mods.

Correct....modifying another members post is verboten.

And you support MDancer's right to expression, eh? A la Voltaire, no less. Too bad for you that you don't get that.

Too bad you can't express an original idea without vandalizing another member's post.

[bush_cheney2004]

So very clever of you. But let me be the one to address what you "fixed" - the reason they don't have enough money is because, as bush_cheney actually said, they don't have enough support.

.....having established that, the US nevertheless has more political parties and far more "democratic" elections than in Canada, where some actually whine about the cost of having "yet another" election. Go figure....