Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As you know, the U.S. has been fighting a war in Afghanistan against the Taliban for the last 16.5 years. We officially got into Afghanistan in order to eliminate the safe haven that the Taliban provided to al-Qaeda, but another large part of our mission in Afghanistan was to modernize the country--specifically by bringing modern technology, schools, and women's rights there. Obviously our success in regards to this has been only partial, though--with the results primarily visible in Afghan cities.
Anyway, my question is this--if the U.S. will be on the verge of losing the war in Afghanistan (something which I don't think is true yet considering that the war there currently appears to be a stalemate), should the U.S. aim to work with pro-U.S. Afghan politicians and military officials to partition the country?
The Taliban appears to have the strongest support among Afghan Pashtuns (who primarily--albeit not exclusively--live in southern Afghanistan).
Thus, do you think that a losing U.S. should try to create a separate state (or more than one separate state) in northern Afghanistan in order to prevent the Taliban from seizing all of Afghanistan and in order to allow the U.S. and U.S. influence to continue to have a presence in a large part of Afghanistan?
Any thoughts on this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Afghanistan was a perfect opportunity to create a continuous war, there is no desire by the MIC to ever resolve the conflict, nor by US neocons. The US needs all the excuses in the world to maintain presence there.
Afghanistan is a collection of dozens of individual groups, and hundreds more sub-groups, partitioning it will not ever solve any issue as the area now cannot be secured, and making an imaginary line on a map will not change that.
Correct.
There are almost as many tribes in Afghanistan as there are "Native America" tribes in the US.
Thus, do you think that a losing U.S. should try to create a separate state (or more than one separate state) in northern Afghanistan in order to prevent the Taliban from seizing all of Afghanistan and in order to allow the U.S. and U.S. influence to continue to have a presence in a large part of Afghanistan?
Any thoughts on this?
Who the hell are we to go into another country and split them up because we don't like the inhabitants? What unbelievable hubris. We shouldn't have been there in the first place, but now you want to start carving up sovereign nations to suit our preferences. Unreal.
Who the hell are we to go into another country and split them up because we don't like the inhabitants? What unbelievable hubris. We shouldn't have been there in the first place, but now you want to start carving up sovereign nations to suit our preferences. Unreal.
That's the whole reason that part of the world is screwed up to begin with. The U.S. and Great Britain partitioned most of SW Asia after WWI, despite it being an extremely tribal area.
Amazing, what a bunch of stupid people can do with AK-47's, against the 2 most powerful armies in the world.
The US has proven it cares little about learning lessons from the past.
It was always labeled "Russia's Viet Nam" and it bankrupted the USSR.
So who thought it was great idea to do the same thing just 15 years later?
OH, that would be Pres Bush, Senators Clinton, Reed, Schumer and 85% of the rest of the Congress.
They all "were for it before they were against it". When we invaded Afghanistan and especially Iraq, THAT was the year I became a dues paying Libertarian.
Charlie Wilson got funding for the Mujahideen back in the 80s. USA money was matched by Israel and Egypt.
That almost bankrupted Russia. Why anybody thought it was a good idea for us to get involved is beyond me. Must be some valuable minerals in those mountains.
The US has proven it cares little about learning lessons from the past.
It was always labeled "Russia's Viet Nam" and it bankrupted the USSR.
So who thought it was great idea to do the same thing just 15 years later?
OH, that would be Pres Bush, Senators Clinton, Reed, Schumer and 85% of the rest of the Congress.
They all "were for it before they were against it". When we invaded Afghanistan and especially Iraq, THAT was the year I became a dues paying Libertarian.
Perhaps the real cause is found in Title 12 USC Sec. 411.
Since the only legal way to increase the supply of federal reserve notes ('dollar bills') is to borrow them, you need a good excuse for perpetual deficits.
You can't beat an unWar for that.
And since interest requires a growing money token supply, you have to always be borrowing more to create the new dollar bills to pay the interest.
Of course, that is insane, but thanks to clause 4, 14th amendment, USCON, muggles can't challenge the validity of that insanity.
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned."
D'Oh !
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
