Afghanistan will be Obama's Vietnam

[Hombre57]

Originally Posted by floridasandy

i think americans are more concerned about having freedom in the united states! if we keep spending ridiculous amounts of money overseas "helping other countries" (or whatever our stated reason is for escalation), we certainly will deplete the available resources that we have to fix our own country's problems? those countries will be fighting long after we are gone!

Originally Posted by floridasandy

what is our excuse for the escalation in colombia anyway?

Probably to spread the good word of christianity and democracy.

I agree with you, politicians should be more concerned about the homefront, than spending American lives and dollars to countire which might end up hating us in the endgame anyway.

[Ketabcha]

Obama inherited Afghanistan thanks to Bush's mishandling. I hope he pulls us out. No one can win in Afghanistan except the Talibs and they are all over the country now, including the north. They can't be beaten because many of them ARE Afghans. They hide among the population.....like Pol Pot's pals and the Viet Cong did in Vietnam.

The US government never backed the Taliban because of its religious nature. We never even recognized the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan and neither did the UN. Western oil made nice with the Taliban because of, you guessed it, oil. To be more specific, an Afghan pipeline from Tajikistan. There is oil in those Tajik mountains and we want it. To be perfectly honest, I want it, too, but not enough to embrace the fundamentalist, backward Taliban and inflict them on Afghanistan again.

Do some research about that country. It has been at war for over 40 years. When there is no one else to fight the Afghans fight each other. Don't get me wrong, I happen to care a lot about Afghanistan and would be pleased as punch for it to be at peace without some fundoo Wahabis (Taliban) running the place and killing everyone in sight. I have been studying the country for a long time.

The fact remains that Afghanistan is going to have to cure itself and that won't happen in this lifetime because of the mindset in the country. Meanwhile, we need to pull our troops out. I was all for going in back in 2001 but it is a no-win situation and we need to be free of it. Make no mistake, though, as soon as we withdraw the Taliban will take over. Then al qaeda will move in. History will repeat itself on a global scale.

This would never have happened if we had not abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets were chased out of the country after 10 years. Gee, we've been there for almost 8 already. Our pulling out might be construed as abandoning the country again, and perhaps that is the case, but we gave Afghanistan a real shot at making it and it has not managed to do so. We now have to save our own folks because the American death toll is rising month by month and it is unacceptable to lose one single life, IMO. Great Britain is our most faithful ally and I expect to hear that it is pulling out any day now.

I'm waiting for someone to come up with a solution that will save the lives of our military who are in Afghanistan while saving Afghanistan, too. But if we have to choose then I'll always side with the United States of America. Always have. Always will.

[floridasandy]

it is a very complicated issue, as evidenced by the difficulty of the afghanistan election. i certainly believe that the drug trade is fueling a lot of this conflict, especially considering that afghanistan fuels 90% of the world's opium supply. here is an interesting read on the situation from a canadian perspective:
Canadian Centre for Investigative Reporting: Canada is quiet amid growing reports of government corruption in Afghanistan reports CCIR Vice-President Alex Roslin | Facebook

again, i agree with the posters who feel that we absolutely cannot solve this problem and no americans should be sacrificed to solve their own internal conflicts.

[floridasandy]

here is something else to just consider. we are escalating action in both afghanistan and colombia. (fact)

drug trafficking constitutes "the third biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade." (The Independent, 29 February 2004).

Afghanistan and Colombia are the largest drug producing economies in the world, which feed a flourishing criminal economy. These countries are heavily militarized. The drug trade is protected, and it is amply documented that the CIA has played a central role in the development of both the Latin American and Asian drug triangles.

The IMF estimated global money laundering to be between 590 billion and 1.5 trillion dollars a year, representing 2-5 percent of global GDP. (Asian Banker, 15 August 2003). A large share of global money laundering as estimated by the IMF is linked to the trade in narcotics.

[Ketabcha]

Originally Posted by floridasandy

it is a very complicated issue, as evidenced by the difficulty of the afghanistan election. i certainly believe that the drug trade is fueling a lot of this conflict, especially considering that afghanistan fuels 90% of the world's opium supply. here is an interesting read on the situation from a canadian perspective:
Canadian Centre for Investigative Reporting: Canada is quiet amid growing reports of government corruption in Afghanistan reports CCIR Vice-President Alex Roslin | Facebook

again, i agree with the posters who feel that we absolutely cannot solve this problem and no americans should be sacrificed to solve their own internal conflicts.

You are totally right about the drug trade. One of Karzai's brothers is heavily involved in it.

For Afghanistan to have had a chance, Dr. Abdullah should have been elected.

[Sunny-Days-in-Florida]

If Obama backs this war like he has, then he is also a war monger, simple.

The left has called Bush a war monger for years for fighting what they thought was a war we could not win, your post suggest we cannot win this war either, therefore we are fighting a losing battle.

Thus, why I called him a war monger.

[GregW]

Afghanistan is Obama's vietnam? Afghanistan has be every invaders Vietnam. Afghanistan is where empires go to die. This has been true for over 4,000 years. You would think the politicians would have learned by now.

[Ketabcha]

Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90

If Obama backs this war like he has, then he is also a war monger, simple.

The left has called Bush a war monger for years for fighting what they thought was a war we could not win, your post suggest we cannot win this war either, therefore we are fighting a losing battle.

Thus, why I called him a war monger.

I never considered Georgie to be a war monger. To be totally honest here, I do not think that he has the where-with-all to be a monger of any kind. He was the governor of my state and I have a pretty good feel for the guy's (dis)abilities. I bestow the war monger description on Cheney and Rumsfeld. Plus, Cheney was and probably still is, a privateer. His company makes money hand over fist in Afghanistan in the "service" sectors of food and construction and the American taxpayers foot the bill. I want our troops to have good food but I don't want some money grubbing ex-vice president to be making money on it.

Obama is most definitely not a war monger. Give the guy some time to sort out the mess in Afghanistan.

[floridasandy]

that is where you lose me! if he is not a global corporatist, what explanation can you give for his escalation in afghanistan and colombia both? (especially in light of those being the largest drug economies in the world)

[GregW]

Without the economy built around the transport and sale of cocaine from Columbia and opium from Afghanistan a large enough segment of international financial trade would be lost and cause a major global banking crisis. These drugs may be illegal but the money used for the trade is quite real.