Politics, Current Events & History Debates on politics, current events, and world history. |
 What I don't understand... |
|
|
Captain
Posts: 5,021
Join Date: Mar 2005
|
What I don't understand... -
12-24-2005, 09:41 AM
Whatever happened to Afghanistan? I know we still have a small contingency of troops over there but nothings really changed there. (There were elections right?)
Think about this, when we invaded Afghanistan we went in with the support of many other counties, we successfully overthrow a hated regime with the aid of Afghan rebels and coalition troops. Afterwords the people went through the streets playing music, watching movies, shaving their beards, women were removing their burk as, etc. And then we abandoned them and went off to fight an ill-fated campaign in Iraq in which none of our previous allies supported and the ones who did are now pulling their troops out. Cheney had it right when they said we would be greeted as liberators, he just got the country wrong.
Why did Bush abandon Afghanistan? Something that if we worked at could have made him go down in history as one the greatest presidents. Now his place in history will be that of blundering moron.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Major General
Posts: 12,683
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Calgary
|

12-24-2005, 11:03 AM
There are 19,000 US troops in Afghanistan. Along with troops from most other NATO countries. Canada has 1,000 troops there and that number is supposed to go up.
The forces there are under NATO supervision not UN and the Canadians there are part of the Provincial Reconstruction Team. I think the Americans are still looking for "terrorists" but some of them are also part of reconstruction teams. Soon they'll be a mcdonalds and starbucks on every corner of Kandahar.
FYI, Bush is interested in making Afghanistan work. Why would he? What does he care if one country out in the middle of nowhere. All it does is cost money time and manpower.
The reason for going to war in Afghanistan was terrorists that attacked the US on 9/11. However, it has been noted that the US wanted to attack Afghanistan before 9/11 even happened.
Take this article from March 15, 2001:
http://www.janes.com/security/internati ... _1_n.shtml
And this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
|
|
|
 |
|
|
1st Lieutenant
Posts: 4,807
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ottawa, Ont, Canada
|

12-24-2005, 11:06 AM
This is a little off topic but my friend's friend is in the cdn military and he said that Canada does have SOME troops in Iraq right now, and that his troop could be deployed to Iraq in 2007. this was news to me.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Major General
Posts: 12,683
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Calgary
|

12-24-2005, 11:14 AM
There could be troops in Iraq, but it's not public knowledge. I doubt the govt can deploy a lot troops to Iraq without someone finding out. Or maybe he means afghanistan. I know guys who will be in Dubai in Feb and Astan in August 2007.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 2,769
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Virginia
|

12-24-2005, 05:05 PM
People are still their, sorta like Japan after WWII, they are helping everything get setup, we just don't hear about it because it's going better than it is in Iraq.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 2,769
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Virginia
|

12-24-2005, 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninty
There are 19,000 US troops in Afghanistan. Along with troops from most other NATO countries. Canada has 1,000 troops there and that number is supposed to go up.
The forces there are under NATO supervision not UN and the Canadians there are part of the Provincial Reconstruction Team. I think the Americans are still looking for "terrorists" but some of them are also part of reconstruction teams. Soon they'll be a mcdonalds and starbucks on every corner of Kandahar.
FYI, Bush is interested in making Afghanistan work. Why would he? What does he care if one country out in the middle of nowhere. All it does is cost money time and manpower.
The reason for going to war in Afghanistan was terrorists that attacked the US on 9/11. However, it has been noted that the US wanted to attack Afghanistan before 9/11 even happened.
Take this article from March 15, 2001:
http://www.janes.com/security/internati ... _1_n.shtml
And this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
|
From the Janes article, sounds like we should have gone in earlier
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Colonel
Posts: 9,369
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: United States of England
|

12-25-2005, 09:21 PM
gone in earlier so the mess would look even bigger now?
found a interesting article here anyway that does highlight the situation, and if you voted bush then dont read it as your feelings might get hurt.
http://counterpunch.org/whitney06022004.html
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1,789
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Marietta, GA
|

12-26-2005, 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by elstatec
...found a interesting article ..
|
Sorry dude, I can't take any website seriously that would post revisionist history crap like this: http://counterpunch.org/mickey05292004.html
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 2,769
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Virginia
|

12-26-2005, 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by elstatec
gone in earlier so the mess would look even bigger now?
|
no, because we knew there were terrorists there and maybe had we done something pre-9/11 it might not have happened...or wait, maybe you like the way it happened...
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 2,644
Join Date: Dec 2003
|

12-26-2005, 11:12 PM
You dont hear about AFGHANISTAN because people arent blowing themselves up, American troops arent dying. In other words - its not good enough for American media to cover. Reminds me of when Matt Laurer visited the troops in IRAQ, asked them about morale and didnt get the answer he wanted. They said morale was fine, and Laurer basically said he didnt believe them, and that how can their views be SO DIFFERENT than the "folks back home" who are reading about all the bloodshed and "terro". The soldier flat out replied - "My morale would be low too if I get all my news from the newspaper".
Same situation. Afghanistan is a success. Period. They are in a transitional period moving towards establishing a HISTORY of liberal democracy in the middle east - and thats just not news worthy. Its ridiculous to even think Afghanistan was abandoned. The work isnt done, but in no way has it been "abandoned".
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Brigadier General
Posts: 10,721
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: C-eH-N-eH-D-eH eH?
|

12-28-2005, 10:56 PM
You consider Iraq a success ? oOo: oOo:
|
|
|
 |
|
|
2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 3,441
Join Date: Oct 2002
|

12-29-2005, 10:59 PM
he said afghanistan a success.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1,789
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Marietta, GA
|

12-30-2005, 06:26 AM
[quote="Short Hand":9fc08]You consider Iraq a success ? [/quote:9fc08]
So far.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 3,358
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Good ol' England!
|

12-30-2005, 06:57 AM
[quote="TGB!":d6a86]
Same situation. Afghanistan is a success. Period. [/quote:d6a86]
Please explain how you make a success of something inwhich you havent yet achieved the goal??
I'll make it simpler. We went into afghanistan to remove/arrest ABL. This goal hasnt been reached. Yet your still calling the mission a success? How so?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1,789
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Marietta, GA
|

12-30-2005, 07:01 AM
Well, the President stated that we were going after the terrorists and "all who harbor them". If I'm not mistaken, the Taliban government is gone, and a new democracy is in place and functioning. Sounds like a success to me.
|
|
|
 |
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.
|