People around are talking about how it would be good if West and Russia were real friends...and it makes me laugh especially now...when I switch on my TV set and watch "west news" and they inform me how evil Russia behaves itself: on Monday it uses gas and oil in political questions, on Thursday it doesn't want rockets to be placed in East Europe, on Wednesday it protects Serbs who are killed on their territory, on Tuesday it keeps silence and it means Russia has something bad in it's mind, on Friday it protects memorials of fighters with fascism in eSStonia, how do you think what will Russia do on Saturday? Let me guess it will invade Banana Republic!?

Europe and America should now understand that other sides also have their opinions and they shouldn't rely on their marrionettes.

And I plead you not to tell me about Russian paranoya, it also makes me laugh.

America seems to be stuck with bipolar thinking. It really wants to be friends with everyone - and in the eyes of the American people, we really do try hard to give aid when needed, do try the diplomatic route whenever possible, and generally be a nice country. That is why you read that Russia and the US should be friends.

However, when the US feels like it is any way threatened, it shoots first and answers questions later. I guess that attitude comes from the heritage of the people who founded this nation. We are proud of how we grew to be a superpower against all odds. We beat the British and the Spanish/Mexico to expand the borders of our country. And while defeating the American Indians was not too difficult, our ancestors (including mine), did suffer through some pretty tough times to carve out the nation that you see today. America's rough and tumble history gives it a special "right" to be wary of other countries who do not like the US. One special privilege that the US has is we can preemptively attack other countries. We did that in Vietnam to stop the Communists. We did that again in Afghanistan/Iraq to stop terrorists.

The irony is that American people really don't realize other countries have also gone through the same suffering to survive in this world as we did. The greater Eastern European area, including Russia, has known nothing but war and turmoil for thousands of years. Basically any nation that exists in the world today has fought a hard fight to maintain its sovereignty. The American people can be proud of their efforts to survive in a cruel world, but that does not make us something special. Still, many Americans think we have earned some special privilege to bomb countries (from Bosnia to Sudan) with impunity. If Americans think a country needs to be bombed for some reason...we bomb it, or invade it, or sanction it. Yet, if some other country tried to do the same thing to the US, we would be horrified.

For some reason, the American way is the always the "right way" in the eyes of most Americans. Not only is it the "right way" for America, it also is is best way for the country that is being bombed or invaded as well! Iraq cannot be left alone to simply work out its internal problems by itself, like the US did during the Civil War. Today, so many evil forces are lurking in the world that the US must stick around and help Iraq find the proper way to organize their country.

The same was true in Vietnam - the Communists were over-running all of Southeast Asia...the famous "domino effect". If the Communists were not stopped in Vietnam, they would soon control the whole world. Well, with 20/20 hindsight of that dismal war we see that the Communist threat in SE Asia was much larger in our imagination than it was in reality.

And the same "Americans know what is best of the world" attitude will prevent any future friendly relations with Russia. The Russian government will never be "truly democratic", Russian mafia will forever threaten to overtake the government, and now Russia is developing its petroleum supplies. Russia will surely hold Europe hostage to Russia's every whim. Oh, I almost forgot. Russia's nuclear stockpile and ballistic missiles can be turned against the US if some evil dictator takes over Russia.

So in the eyes of most Americans, Russia should best be left alone to wallow in its own internal turmoil. It certainly does not appear as if Russia will ever again reappear as a world power - so it is best for the US just to keep them at arms length. The thought of truly engaging Russia in a long term program to maintain a rational and healthy relationship between countries is - to most Americans - an inconceivable idea.

Hate to be pedantic here, but actually, bipolar isn't a pattern of thinking. It's a pattern of extreme moods; extreme up and extreme downs.

There is a gem of truth here IMO.

Don't think you can speak of the whole nation concerning your first sentence. I realize that you are generalizing, though. But, give some of us more credit than your generalized masses here. I've come to realize that to the mighty comes the power to control others (sadly even in the career field). Even though what you say is more or less correct, I don't think I could find another country so endowed with power that would have been so benign in its intentions as the US. This doesn't mean to say that we have always had others' interest as paramount. However, since there must be a topdog in this world (such is the way of humans and animals), which country would be best? And, please no pie-in-the-sky statements about international communities and such. They last about as long as it takes for one person/country to become paramount...........again, such is the way of humans/animals.


Which country doesn't? If the US was wiped off the face of the earth, would there be peace?

Proper language from a guilty, self-hating American, with the luxury of speaking so freely forthright. What country would you prefer?


Have you polled every American on the earth? If not, I don't think you can logically or honestly make your last statement, either. Seems that your "intelligent, educated, and well-read " thoughts are somewhat ill-thought out. Depressed, are we?

Agreed, the term bi-polar is not correct; perhaps polarized is better. Actually, though, I don't think many in the current central govt. of the USA cares much about being friends with other countries. Hasn't this Bush said "You're either with us or against us" and only made token efforts at diplomacy?

Sherriff., I didn't quite understand most of your viewpoint in your opening post. I'll be spending three days and nights in Moscow next month. Should I engage the local Russians in political discussion?

Sheriff, my friend and now it appears adversary once again. We do not trust Russia. We do not trust a Russia that will not allow those with the means and initiative to grow to their full potential. Putins nationalization of Yukos is a prime example. Jailing succesful people does not a democracy make. But since Russia has never enjoyed a true democracy this point is wasted on you.

That said I disagree with the US position of admonishment of your endeavors to control or kill the Muslim extremists that have killed so many of your people. Chechnya belongs to Russia. Kill all of these Pigs as you see fit. The war against these bastards must be joined by all.

I didn’t know that Mexico was a superpower…and those poor and proud American Indians, sometimes evil and good exchange their places. Don’t get offended but I think it’s not very difficult to build nation having only few neighbors. And you had mentioned well:


I wonder how my ancestors could always to be prepared to fight with Turks (I can’t count how many times, maybe 20), Golden Horde, France, Austria, Prussia then Germany, Byzantium, nomads (not our Nomad but Khazars, Polovtsi, Pechenegs), Poland, Sweden……and many-many others.



Commies were not stopped in Vietnam.



Name me even one country “truly democratic” except ancient polis-Athens. All say said the term “democratia” consist of demos and cratos but nobody mentions that demos refered to people who had rights to vote, other people, not privileged didn’t have such rights, in its root democracy isn’t democracy. BTW ancient Russian princes practiced war democracy when princes had to consult with their warriors in any issues and of course Cossacks…



I doubt if anyone even the evilest and maddest man would ever used nuclear weapons.



Yes, leave us alone, some countries behave like paparazzo.



Will live, will see.



Fit, as you wish but how?



But I hope not real, friendy?



Khodorkovsky went to far people say. But say whom do you trust? Those little marrionettes which do any favor to America? But remember once they had betrayed Soviet Union and ustrader gave them a good name – “Happy weather friends”.

Let me help cure your pedantry. The word bipolar is an adjective, meaning "having or relating to two poles or extremities". In psychiatry, the word is popularly used with the terms, "bipolar depression", or "bipolar moods". However, a magnet is a piece of iron with bipolar electric charges, and the earth is a bipolar planet.



Of course, it is hard to know if another country were the only superpower in the world – if they could do a better job. Some situations arise where there is simply not a good way for the US to respond. Perhaps the point that I should make is that the US has a unique opportunity to improve the overall condition of the world. We are perhaps the first nation to gain superpower status without firing a gun – and in the late 1980’s had very few enemies. We had…and still may have…an excellent opportunity to improve the overall level of peace and stability in the world. It is an unique opportunity to put into practice our Christian principles of “do unto others…”, etc. After the 9/11 bombing we could have waited until the UN security council agreed that an invasion of Iraq was appropriate. The same thing was true during the Clinton administration’s Kosovo bombing. We don’t need to jump in with our military every time some crisis arises. Give the rest of the world time to understand the gravity of a crisis and let them participate in making a decision about if and when bombs fall. Instead our country, and the people who are its citizens, have this bad habit of tending to get so angry, so quickly, that we immediately to turn to a military option. Why can't we show some of that courteous regard for people's feelings and tolerance that we Americans think we are so good at?

As Sheriff's comments point out, nations such as Russia would simply like to be left alone. They can make their own mistakes and work their way through their own problems. They certainly don't need a US diplomat knocking down the door every time someone sneezes in the Kremlin. Furthermore, I can understand why Russia would be upset when the US decides to build anti-ballistic missile ABM sites in Poland and Czech Republic to counter some ill-defined ballistic missile threat. What if Russia put ABM sites in Mexico and Cuba?

Why are we so quick on the trigger? No one is threatening to attack us and make war. And if a situation deteriorates so badly that a military confrontation is necessary, we should strictly follow the Powell Doctrine:

If we waited on the UN to decide for us, it would have been too late. Besides, they complied and agreed.

UN Resolution 1483



UN Resolution 1511




Yeah I guess freeing the Iraqi people from a tyrant who had ties to international terrorism, who continually violated UN sanctions, and who oppressed, murdered, and tortured millions of the people in his country...yeah, that is SOOOO insensitive of us.


Good God! You people on the Left are so freaking blind, clueless, and in such denial. It's sickening.

You all hate and blame America so much..and you can't be more wrong. What a bunch of pathetic and insensitive cowards you Leftists are.

Quotes aren't working, so I'm using italics to separate my statements from quotes.

[quote name='Hobo' date='May 12 2007, 07:29 AM' post='101405']
Let me help cure your pedantry. The word bipolar is an adjective, meaning "having or relating to two poles or extremities". In psychiatry, the word is popularly used with the terms, "bipolar depression", or "bipolar moods". However, a magnet is a piece of iron with bipolar electric charges, and the earth is a bipolar planet. [/quote]

Then I stand corrected. I was speaking from a psychiatric standpoint as that is my field. I often hear this word used incorrectly, as well as schizophrenic. Your sentence following your bipolar statement didn't illustrate what you were talking about in that regard.

[quote] After the 9/11 bombing we could have waited until the UN security council agreed that an invasion of Iraq was appropriate.[/quote]
I agree with KenRi here.

[quote] Give the rest of the world time to understand the gravity of a crisis and let them participate in making a decision about if and when bombs fall. [/quote]
Bzzzzzzzzz! You did what I say not to to.......... Sounds good on paper, but I'm thinking this is why the U.N. has failed............too many opinions influenced by those who have something to gain by saying, "No." (ie, Russia, France in the U.N. and Koffi Annan, and any country involved in kickbacks in the Oil for Food Program at the U.N.) And, didn't we appeal to other countries, as well? Did it work? No.

[quote]Instead our country, and the people who are its citizens, have this bad habit of tending to get so angry, so quickly, that we immediately to turn to a military option. Why can't we show some of that courteous regard for people's feelings and tolerance that we Americans think we are so good at?[/quote]

Were not talks held with Hussein before we attacked him???? He repeatedly told us where to go. And, which tribe in Afghanistan or in Iraq should we go to in order to ask their opinion/permission? Do you even think they would all agree............even with each other? No. How many years did we plead with the UN to do something about Iraq?

[quote] What if Russia put ABM sites in Mexico and Cuba?[/quote]

I believe they did in Cuba in the Cuban Missle Crisis in 1962. Did Kennedy go to the U.N. on that? He may have consulted them, but I think he pretty well had his mind made up. What is your point?


[quote] No one is threatening to attack us and make war. [/quote]

This is getting crazy. I most certainly beg to differ. We were attacked. And, have you read recent statements by the new serpent head of AQ and other blood-thirsty statements from terrorists???? What do you call that?

And if a situation deteriorates so badly that a military confrontation is necessary, we should strictly follow the Powell Doctrine:
[/quote]
This containment strategy , the Powell Doctrine, was born out of the fiasco in Lebanon in 1983
One difference: The terrorists killed 3000 American Civilians on our soil.


The Powell doctrine was not designed for fighting a Counter Terrorist (AKA a Counter Insurgency) mission. Trying to impose the Powell Doctrine in a post 09-11-01 World is wrong headed. The Powell Doctrine is not at all designed for the current problem we face with Islamic Fascism.

Contrary to the dearly held dogmas of the Neo-Isolationists these people are not going to go away. In the 30 years prior to 09-11 we tried this dogma, we got 09-11-01. What we are doing in in Iraq is a lot harder but has a much better chance of success then the “Ignore them and maybe they will go” dogma exposed by the Neo Isolationists.

HOWEVER, In the Powell doctrine it was clear that developing WMD was not enough to go to war...... Unless the Country was threatening to use WMD on us we should not invade.

Get this on world opinion:

"In March 2003, shortly before the US-led Invasion of Iraq, Deepak Chopra, upon being asked for creative ideas, gave ten suggestions. These suggestions included that Iraq could be disarmed without force; that religious leaders meet in Baghdad; increasing UN forces by ten-fold; sponsoring 25,000 Iraq exchange students to the West; etc. He also suggested that a new Disney World theme park in the Middle East would help to reduce fear and anger in children and that residents of Iraq should be provided free access to CNN, MTV and Nickelodeon to expose them to the rest of the world.”


Did FDR ask anyone's permission to beat the crap out of Japan after Pearl Harbor? What's the difference?

The difference is that Japan attacked the US, Iraq did not.

You speak but say nothing.


People say..... Have you not a mind of your own or do you rely on what "people say"? And what is "went too far"? Are citizens of your country punished for being too successful? And who defines what is too successful? Communist scum like Putin? Here in the US we tax the successful we do not nationalize their endeavors. As to the rest of your reply I am not a fan of Russian riddles. Clarify if you can.....................



Yes Iraq was a pillar in the international community, respected by all the world. How dare we invade a lilly white innocent regime that was a staunch ally against musscum terrorism. Our bad, bummer..........

Even though the terrorists who flew/crashed the plane weren't Iraqis, you need to some study on the part that Iraq has played in this little world of terrorism.
http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...06/550kmbzd.asp

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=10848

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=21489. This one talks of how Iraq moved their WMD's to other terrorist states.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html


I tire of the cut&paste. If you'd like more, I'd be glad to furnish them.




And, do you think the terrorists if, God forbid, they get the chance of harming any of the nations that have been against them in this war, will stop at only at one nation? If not, why not?

There is something about war that causes allies to be killed, too.

The simple fact remains that if the US had not invaded Iraq, the world would be pretty much the same as it was in March 2003, and possibly somewhat better.

Absolutely we would be a trillion dollars richer, and the lives of 3000 soldier would have been saved. Not having an army in Iraq may have allowed us to work closer with many of the Islamic nations to stop terrorism from proliferating in their home countries. This would have been the “true solution” to stopping terrorism.

The US could have used that time to find a worldwide solution to nuclear proliferation so that we don’t have to deal with nations like North Korea and Iran on a piecemeal basis. The time could have also been used to work with Russia and China to reorganize the United Nations so that it functioned more efficiently and effectively.

True, the people of Iraq would probably be suffering under Saddam Hussein, but the average citizen’s condition would have been no worse than it is today, nor any worse than the citizens of the dozens of other nations who suffer under a tyrant dictator for a ruler.

Oh, yea, I almost forgot – by focusing our efforts, the chances are pretty good we could have captured Osama bin Laden who was, after all, the mastermind for 9-11.

I tire of the same old bollox.
There was no involvement of Iraq in the 9-11 bombing.
There was no substantive link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
There were no weapons of mass destruction.
There was no valid reason to invade and occupy Iraq.
The whole invasion was nothing more than American adventurism, premised on falsehood.
The result, a fiasco, a veritable Al Qaeda wet dream, and a matchless recruiting Sargent for the Al Qaeda franchise.

[quote name='Hobo' post='101415' date='May 13 2007, 01:55 AM']
The simple fact remains that if the US had not invaded Iraq, the world would be pretty much the same as it was in March 2003, and possibly somewhat better. [/quote] In your opinion, you mean?

[quote]Absolutely we would be a trillion dollars richer, and the lives of 3000 soldier would have been saved. Not having an army in Iraq may have allowed us to work closer with many of the Islamic nations to stop terrorism from proliferating in their home countries. This would have been the “true solution” to stopping terrorism.[/quote] I'm sure you'd find fault if Bush didn't use the right kind of TP/

[quote]The US could have used that time to find a worldwide solution to nuclear proliferation so that we don’t have to deal with nations like North Korea and Iran on a piecemeal basis. The time could have also been used to work with Russia and China to reorganize the United Nations so that it functioned more efficiently and effectively.[/quote] In your dreams, Idealist. Hasn't done it so far, and I really doubt any President in the future will either any time soon.

[quote]True, the people of Iraq would probably be suffering under Saddam Hussein, but the average citizen’s condition would have been no worse than it is today, nor any worse than the citizens of the dozens of other nations who suffer under a tyrant dictator for a ruler.[/quote] Go tell that to the women and children that aren't being raped by SoDamedInsane and his two sons.

Oh, yea, I almost forgot – by focusing our efforts, the chances are pretty good we could have captured Osama bin Laden who was, after all, the mastermind for 9-11.
[/quote]
B.itch, B.itch, B.itch. Is there anything that Bush could be doing that would satisfy you? Besides turning his backside and pleading with one of your liberal goons to guide the war for him?
BTW, has anyone heard of OBL since 2006?

Don't listen to any thing different than your opinions.

Goodbye, Hobo. You and your leftist friends can talk to each other. Tonk is very amusing in his cynicism. You deserve each other. I think you are brothers?

As far as me, I'm through. I've seen through your simpering wide-eyed innocent facade of asking questions. You're just another liberal, superior and intellectual in your smugness. You and Tonk carry on.

You live in a fantasy world Hobo. The world exists today as it is as a result of brute force. You should be grateful that the US is the one that carries the most force.

I just warn you that future events not to be suddenness for American citizens and I wish America not to be surrounded by traitors who once were their allies like it happened to Russia. Once you won’t have such money and who will stay with you, everything happens with countries like with our own humans’ lives.



“In any rumor there is a part of truth”. “Went to far” means he wanted to pay Kremlin for loyalty , people say.




Communists don’t take big part in Russian politics. Maybe magazines define such as “Forbes”, recently their journalist Paul Hlebnikov was killed, but notice that he was killed by some Chechens. Maybe you heard about Abramovitch, the richest citizen of Russia, he’s successful and a governor of one Russian region like Swartznegger. And what Russian riddles are you talking about?

BTW, thanks for supporting Russians on Caucasus, I wish you finish your job in Afghanistan and leave Iraq when it will be necessary not only for democrats.



…And nobody blames Russia? If we watch west news it will accuse Russia in all sins.



Some people understand me.

Solo, I feel equal frustration with the people who think like you. Anytime someone like me expresses dissatisfaction with current the US foreign policy, I get some variation of the phrase, “Support and follow George Bush II, do not question his actions.” I have no personal vendetta against Bush the man or the President nor the toilet paper he uses. All my life I have supported conservative ideals and voted that way. My criticism is directed at the war in Iraq, which to me is hopeless and senseless.

Can’t you see that the war in Iraq is a complete disaster? Even George Bush Sr. knew that removing Saddam Hussein from power would cause a power struggle of massive proportions in Iraq. That’s why he did not attempt to conquer Baghdad during Gulf War I. The conflict between Shia, Shiite, Kurd an Baathist has been well know for decades. How can you support a war when all of the original reasons we sent troops to Iraq are no longer valid? Today we are supposedly there for one reason: to stabilize the new government now in power – namely the government the US put into power. Somehow we hope to train an Iraqi army to become strong enough to fend off the wide array of insurgents that hope to garb a piece of the pie in Iraq.

Have you really considered what the chances are that we can actually stabilize a government in Iraq, plus create an army that can protect that country? This is the Middle East! Every country from little Israel to Saudi Arabia are stockpiled to the gills with weapons and troops to protect themselves and protect their interests. With a quarter million US soldiers we think we can hold back the hoard of insurgents whose primary goal is to keep Iraq unstable? Also, nations like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia all have a horse in this race and most certainly will not allow their group of fighters in Iraq to loose the war. Most of these outside nations are already involved in some form of regional conflict themselves – the whole area is one big war zone. Saudi Arabia certainly doesn’t want to see the Shiites gain power in Iraq. Turkey will never permit the Kurds to grow strong enough to be a threat. Lebanon and Iran have everything to gain by supporting a Shiite government, but certainly not with the Shiite leaders hand-picked by the US.

Perhaps it is only a coincidence that the US is making so many bad choices at the some time that Bush is president. Personally, I believe he is incapable of choosing good advisers and is taking this country down the wrong path. I don’t care what party he was associated with, nor do I care how people choose to label his politics. NeoCon, Republican, Liberal, Democrat…those names are too abstract to mean anything. George Bush the man has made some very bad decisions, and it is time we stop hiding behind our ideology and start looking at the reality of this Iraq War.

double post

Since my quotes aren't working, I'll use your whole post.... NO, I won't. I'll just delete your post. Together, this was just too long. But, quotes still aren't working for me on this site.

These folks differ with you about the success in Iraq

"The clock ticking, Saleh — a Kurdish politician highly regarded by U.S. officials and who speaks impeccable English — said he came to Capitol Hill to convey the "imperative of success" in Iraq.

"Iraq is a central battleground in this historic conflict" against terrorism, he said in a brief interview after meeting with Reid, the Senate majority leader.

His trip came on the heels of a visit by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, along with three other senior advisers, according to the Iraqi embassy. The New York Times first reported al-Rubaie's visit on Tuesday.

The timing of these meetings is no mistake. This month, Congress is expected to send Bush legislation that funds the war in Iraq but requires the Baghdad government meet certain political and security reforms. In question is what consequences the Iraqis should face if they fail. Democrats want U.S. troops to leave, Republicans say they don't want to force redeployments, but some say they would be open to withholding more than $5 billion in foreign aid."

Clinton speech at the Pentagon, 1998




Bin Laden 5 days later



Its called plausible deniability. MARK

Sheriff, do you even know what ABM'S are. Have you even a slight knowedge of the difference of defensive versus offensive weapons? I think not..............

I understand that many people, in many different countries stand to loose a lot if the US pulls its troops out of Iraq. I will go as far as to say that "loosing the war" would be terrible for the US. For the powerful US to loose a war undermines our credibility in the world. How can we expect to talk with countries like Iran in the future with any credibility? I recognize the outcome of this conflict has consequences - many of them unexpected negative consequences.

However, if you re-read my post, I hope you can see that this is a no-win situation for the US. Without repeating myself, the whole situation has turned into a riotous brawl where as many as 6 or 8 different groups are fighting for something. The one (and perhaps only) thing they have in common is a desire to shoot Americans whom they regard the evil Satin, the foreign invader. The Middle East is a particularly bad place to fight a war - history has taught us that lesson. I'll venture a guess that many men are fighting against the US simply for the opportunity to shoot a rifle, and brag about it to his friends.

And so, we can listen to the government leaders from Iraq - whose life probably depends on the outcome. We can listen to words like "historic conflict", and we can think about those things that the US will loose if we pull out the troops. But, we must balance those factors against against reality: the US can never win a military battle under these circumstances. We are trying to fight a war where the enemy has all the advantages, including an endless supply of fighters and the ability to become invisible in a crowd. Most important of all, the men who are fighting us have a fire in their gut to prove they are better and stronger than the superpower, the USA. They are not going to stop fighting until the US is considered beaten.

Of course, in reality, whatever happens in Iraq means really nothing to the US. Its a painful setback if you are a diplomat or an oil executive...and perhaps it is hard on our ego. But, we still have the world's largest and best equipped army; the strongest economy the world has ever seen; the most capable, educated work force which pays the most taxes to its government. We still have the power to put heavy diplomatically muscle on any nation in the world. The US has no serious enemies... we are superpower without rival. Do you see the point here? In 5 years, the Iraq War will mean nothing - just like the Vietnam War. Now is the time to cut our losses, put a dressing on the wound and get on with life. It is time for the US to check out.

Are you joking here?


Do you realize that you've just repeated the thoughts that were in vogue concerning Afghanistan after the Afghan war in 1992 with Russia was more or less won, and we then abandoned Afghanistan after Clinton won the election?

Do you know what happened to the mujahideen(with whom we fought side-by-side against Russia) and one of their rich, influencial leaders after we left without repairing the damage wrought by the war?

Look it up.

You'll see this was the beginning of our war with Islam today. At least, that's what the rich, influential leader of the mujahideen has used as the reason for his hatred for the U.S.

Humorously, also part of the reason for us having our present-day war with militant Islams is because of your vaulted organization, the United Nations:

By 1992 Muhammad Najibullah, who had been President of Afghanistan for almost 6 years, agreed to step down in favor of a transitional government. The United Nations presented a plan to Najibullah, saying that as soon as he resigns, a multi-national United Nations peacekeeping force would be sent quickly to stabalize the situation in Afghanistan. But the promise was never fulfilled, and instead of peace came civil strife, and the mujahideen filled the vacuum. link = The rise of the Taliban.

Did it ever occur to you that the people of Afghanistan prefer the Taliban as their government? Afghanistan is, and always has been, a very fundamentalist Muslim country. They are also extremely primitive...camel caravans of nomads still trek from valley to mountain each year to find grassland for their herd of goats.

May I suggest you read this link European influence in Afghanistan

The history of Afghanistan is replete with attempts by Western powers to control the country, and the result is always a disaster for the West. If you are claiming that indifference by the Clinton Administration allowed the Taliban to gain power after the Russians were soundly beaten - that is correct. If you are saying that the rugged mountainous terrain and a sympathetic government allowed Osama bin Laden to establish a home base for al-Qaeda - that is also correct. I think it is generally conceded by most historians that the Clinton Administration and the first year and a half of the Bush Administration ignored a clear and present threat from Osama bin Laden. He had a long history of blowing up American embassies, a ship of the US Navy, and other activities directed at the US. Ignoring OBL prior to 9/11 was clearly a major mistake by the US.

However, if you are saying all of this somehow can be translated into what might happen in Iraq after our military forces leave, then you are painfully wrong. The people of Iraq, regardless of which branch of Islam they support, are not sympathetic to al-Qaeda fundamentalism (or anything of the sort). If you are wondering where al-Qaeda might establish a new home base, countries like Sudan are much more conducive to terrorist activity than Iraq.

Worrying and wondering what might happen to Iraq in the future is a fruitless guessing game. What happened in Afghanistan certainly does not give us any clues - they are two, totally different countries.

The fact remains we cannot win in Iraq...and no matter what the future might hold, no excuse can be used to justify the current futile war.

I think yes, but could you give the definition of ABM?

This is laughable.

I've got to go to work and can't say any more, but you gotta be kidding. I don't recall ANYONE enjoying being under these religious primitives, and I've read excerpts along the way from the people of Afghanistan who say just the opposite.

Can't imagine your saying that.

Yeah, that happens a lot when they threaten to bomb or kill you if you don't comply with their commands. I'm sure the women of Afghanistan prefer Taliban rule.

I must say (and agree with SoloNav here) you are a funny one!

You either worked for Amnesty International or CPT.

They have to create an alternate reality in order for their perception of the world to make any sense.
MARK



We won a long time ago. Now the hope is that we can turn it into a win for the Iraqi people as well.

MARK

Anti Ballistic Missile. These are defensive weapons. They will shoot down incomming missiles. They are kinetic projectiles designed to simply slam into those missles and neutralize them. Why Putin is so against is a mystery to me. They cannot be used to destroy anything on the ground. We offered to share the technology with the Russians and they refused. Foolish pride I guess.

I'm back.

I don't have to read a book about how the Afghaners feel about the Taliban. I hear it from their own mouths. Do yu get your info from books???

May I suggest that you visit BearPit forum and read this man's words. He's LIVES in Afghanistan:
"According to BBC, the Taliban have used a 12 year old boy to behead an Afghan .
The Taliban claim their movement is for imposing the Islamic Sharia in Afghanistan. Although we, the Afghans, have suffered the cruelty of this Sharia six years, when they were in the government and another five years, when they are 'out of control'. Every one can go out of control if they have Irani weapons at their hands and money in pockets and Pakistan's military and the ISI on their back.
They recent cruelty of the Taliban shocked not only the world and Afghans, but those who had a good wish with the Taliban.
Some days ago, they beheaded an Afghan journalist and a driver, killed many more Afghans and now this poor Afghan mentioned in the BBC's above report.
The interesting fact is that, the Taliban had imposed a ban on every kind of photos, videos and pictures calling them un-Islamic but now they issue thier films and videos in which they show their ugly faces beheading people.
I think this is a golden chance for the international community to pressurise Pakistan and Iran to end their support to the Taliban. The day these tow countries ended their support to the Taliban, they will be hanged in every corner by the Afghans.
_________________
A secular Afghanistan will bring peace to the world"
Link



Another post:

"Musharraf is a a hypocryte military leader. He is working on both fronts. He is an ally of international community and a supporter of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban on the same time. The world should know it the sooner the better.



America, Europe, and Arabs must do some thing it because all this terrorism and extremism is created by them who now fighting it. America, Europe and Arabs have imposed this war on us. They were giving weapons and money to the bloody jihadist to use them against Soviets. When they achieved their goal, they left us, the ordinary Afghans, to these hungry blood drinkers who killed people like they were not human beings and destroyed our country from A to Z.
We are not sitting and waiting. We have raised our voice against them time by time. We have condemned them, we have advised them to stop the evil they call jihad. We are telling our people that all this is a game of profits. But when you (I mean the West) handed them weapons and money to kill their own people, you gave them a license and now they are doing what you have told them to do.
So, there is a line of a Pashto poem which says:
You created the hatred and you have to control it.
The west has created the jihadists and the Taliban so they have to control them now.....
Regards"
Link


This man lives his life in the hell created by the Tailiban. His simple words are an eloquent rebuttal to your pie-in-the-sky statements.
You gotta get your head out of the clouds, guy.

You'll suffocating up there whilest the ground is being eaten out from under your feet.

I find your last lofty comments about the Taliban bitter to the taste, arrogant, and cruel. You go against and betray the people you verbalize support for. Go tell this guy how much the Taliban is preferred by the people. Ill be looking for you over there...........

In my haste last night, I wrote BearPit forum when in actuality it is ItsAllPolitics.

Well, we all make mistakes…I guess I was resounding proven wrong that the Afghanistan people liked the Taliban. I am convinced they do not!

When I wrote that, several thoughts were in my head. How can a group of essentially vigilantes continue to exist when A) a sophisticated military fighting force is using the latest technology to hunt them down and destroy them, when 90% of the population would also like to get rid of this band of hoodlums as well, and C) an apparently moderate government has been established that most Afghanistan people can support? I have traveled to Pakistan and seen the rugged mountainous terrain that makes up virtually all of Afghanistan. I know that in cultures like this cling to tribal organizations for protection – tribal organizations whose leaders are the so called warlords in the media. The tribal unit, formed around religious, family and regional traditions, is the basic organizational structure for most of the civilian population.

According to most published reports that I have read, the US coalition had fairly effectively destroyed most of the Taliban fighting force in the first couple years of war. Of course, we all know many al-Qaeda moved to the border with Pakistan. Osama bin Laden I guess is hidden somewhere in a cave in this area.

But the main tactical fighting force of the Taliban still remains in Afghanistan, seemingly in sizable numbers. It retains the ability to organize to effectively coalesce in a single area long enough to establish a command center and mount attacks against coalition and governmental forces. Recently I read a summary of the situation which states: “The fighting for NATO forces was intense throughout the second half of 2006. NATO has been successful in achieving tactical victories over the Taliban and denied areas to them, but the Taliban have not been completely defeated and NATO has had to continue operations into 2007.”

It just doesn’t all fit together. Here is a tribal culture that is loyal to the clan. Islamic leaders are chosen locally and generally work within the structure of the tribe, to serve the needs of the community. Islam does not have a hierarchical structure of priests and bishops like the Catholic Church. Religious leaders are chosen from local men within the tribe, not sent in from Mecca. I cannot imagine a local Imam telling the members of his community to go join the Taliban, in stark contrast to the wishes of the community. And yet, the Taliban seems to remain viable regardless how many of its members are killed. They seem to travel and operate with impunity over most of the country.

The logical explanation is that Taliban has more local support than what has been reported and that’s how they continue to survive if not grow. The only parallel analogy I can make is the presence of Communists in the United States. During the 1950’s when the Communist philosophy seemed to make sense and some Americans were swayed to join Communist organizations. However, with a vast majority of the American people opposed to this philosophy, Communism simply could not remain viable in the US.

And so the question remains…how can the Taliban remain a viable fighting force and political force after 6 years of Western military efforts to eradicate them?

My opinion as to why. (Disclaimer: I'm not going to paint a rosy picture here and say everything's going well. It certainly is not going as well as in Iraq, but it isn't as bad as reports make it out to be. Yes, the Taliban are making a slight comeback, but anytime they attack and hold a village or area, they are immediately fought against and retreat. They are significantly weaker than they've been in the past)

1) We need to get more Special Forces in Afghanistan, like we did at the beginning
2) We need to coordinate the NATO forces better..especially concerning the ROE. Some countries aren't even allowed to use force.
3) We need to counter their very powerful IO (propaganda) campaigns. Here's an example of what the Taliban do using something called "night letters". VERY effective because they implement fear and threats and will follow through with them.
4) We need to train the Afghan Army much better and much more quickly than we are now. A huge problem with that is their indifference, disloyalty, and distrust of the Afghan government. Security is a big problem in Afghanistan because there is not a big enough Army
5) The drug problem. We are eliminating the poppy fields, but we are not providing a good enough alternative to replace it.

Security is the biggest issue, but IMO, #3 is one of the, if not, the biggest problem. The Taliban/Al Qaeda propaganda machine is incredibly effective. (Just look at how much they've infiltrated Western media. It's alarming, to say the least.) They are losing psychological ground in Iraq, but are still going strong in Afghanistan.

I appreciate the honesty in your admission, which is the signal of a mature mind, rather than bluffing or obfuscating or trying to change the subject, or counter-attacking. But...............
Ever the eagle-eye here for details. And, the female disposition to not leave any thing left unsaid, let me ask this question that is in my mind.

How could a person with as much information and knowhow about the muslim/arab mind from hours of drinking coffee in intimate situations in their country and in their tents not have snapped to the answer to this question about the Taliban before it was even asked?

And, how could one post so drastically change one's mind......for one so well-informed and well-read?

Just curious, you realize. But, it seems to this person, who has spent most of her adult life in delving into the minds/psyche of people in order to perform professional services, to be a Huge contradiction.

I'll just stop there.

But, I'll leave it to you to surmise the thoughts that come to my mind when I'm reading your posts......about various/sundry issues of personal and global issues.

Solo, to honestly answer your question…I have learned much living in the Muslim world. It has also offered me a different perspective on the role America (and its citizens) play in the world…but that’s a different subject. But there are still many things I still do not understand.

Some things about the Muslim culture are fairly easy to discern. Guns are rare among the general population. Police have them…and somehow combatants in an area of conflict have automatic machine guns. But your basic Mohammad bin Mohammad cannot get a gun. Also, the police and the justice system tend to be corrupt and inept which means law and order often must be maintained by vigilante groups. This automatically makes maintaining law and order in a Muslim country very different than in America.

Remember the US and most of Europe have derived their system of laws from a Greco-Roman heritage. Most Muslim countries derived their laws based on a system developed for a nomadic society. Things like digging up a sacred grave and committing adultery are much more serious offenses than stealing a motorcycle. I talked about that before, but the Muslim rational of law and justice are completely different from the Western world. And I have learned you really cannot make an effective argument which system is “more correct”. Is having a motorcycle stolen more serious than having a wife cheat on her husband? You can always buy a new motorcycle…but an unloyal wife puts the welfare of a whole family in jeopardy.

I will readily admit, often the Muslim logic is so dramatically different than mine, I cannot hope to figure out why one group thinks this way, and another group believes something totally different. The world is not a logical place. In some places women are stoned to death and men have their heads cut off with a knife. In other cultures people are held in a prison for their entire life, while other people are electrocuted after 15 years of endless court procedures. I look at it like there is no right and wrong. People are different – and that causes conflict between cultures.

And so I am confused by what the Afghanistan people are doing with regard to the Taliban. But why should you think it strange that I do not have all the answers.

Strangely enough, the more I know about a subject, the more mysterious that things become. No longer does simplistic idealism provide an answer. The ideologues who live by the simple axioms, such as all Muslims are dangerous and crazy, are the ones who have simple answers. People like KenRI are quick to pull out 5 quick steps to solve the Afghanistan problem. All of the steps he recommends are based on classic Western logic. When I was young, I believed in a whole bunch of idealistic concepts: the Constitution is perfect, Democracy is always fair to the average citizen, and any war can be won if enough bombs are dropped and soldiers are committed to the effort.

Now, when I am old, I know those idealist ideas were wrong. I am wise enough to admit I really could not re-write a better Constitution, recommend a different form of government than Democracy, nor do I know how the US can win a war against insurgents and guerrilla freedom fighters in hostile terrain. However, I think I am wise enough to know when something is not working – and I know I am wise enough to try something different when continuing to do what you have been doing for 5 years is definitely not working.

So there’s your answer, as best I can give it. No huge contradiction. I trust if you look carefully enough, you can find parallel examples in your field of expertise. The more patents you see, the stranger the human race becomes. Here’s an idea…when you figure out how the human brain works would you please write it down. That information could be very helpful in my effort to decipher why people in third world countries act the way they do.