Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan

quote:

---

That is the nation where the Taliban (the group which protects AQ) not only still exists but is making a come back.

---

You have got it all wrong. They (Taliban ) had nothing to do with 911...
In fact it is assumed that AQ had something to do with 911..
What we know is that American foreign policy in Middle East is what motivated (and will continue to motivate) acts like 911.
If the US does not change its behavior towards them (especially supplying Nuclear Power Israel with weapons,ignoring Palenstians etc and dictating that others have no right to nuclear weapons), then their behavior too will not change.. this is human nature and it is as simple as that..If you propose that the US remain a bully, then the only chance of victory is complete annihilation of the middle east..

Which is why the Schwubbia administration policy in Iraq is so totally and completely flawed. An inspired people rise above needs.Those cutting and running from the fear of terrorism are incapable of accomplishing anything positive.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Or the ones that did not learn the lesson were too busy cutting and running from it.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You seem to have me all wrong...1) I didn't say the Taliban had anything to do with 911. What I said is that the Taliban were an organization that protected AQ and they are making a comeback. Even if they didn't protect AQ it is still important not to let them return to power in Afghanistan. They were a minority power which inflicted major damage on that nation.2) AQ had something to do with 911. It moves a bit beyond assumption when the leaders take credit for the attack. That said, I agree and have argued that US foreign policy has to a large degree motivated attacks like 911. In particular our support for Israel and propping up tyrants and other unpopular leaders in other nations, in support of US interests, breeds enemies. My only caveat on this is to say that you cannot claim that the US is solely to blame. There are movements within that region which have nothing to do with us, and would exist without us.3) I did not propose that the US remain a bully. I questioned how the reps could consider leaving Afghanistan to NATO as not CnR, if leaving Iraq to Iraqi forces is. I do happen to think we need to stay in those nations, but not as bullies. I think we need to support moderate gov'ts entering power and gaining stability until they no longer need our help. Otherwise militant organizations (like the Taliban) can emerge in the power vaccuum to harm the people of those nations.Perhaps you can explain how simply leaving will help those nations?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

The US presence in these regions will foster more hatred and in the long run give more power to Taliban (and similar organizations) because of grass roots support.
Leaving will be much better in the long run, because it allows them to choose their own destiny. It is not up to the Americans to decide the fate of Afghanistan or Iraq for that matter.The US can contribute to a peace keeping force but it needs to pull out at once. Otherwise this thing will drag on forever and more US soldier's lives will be lost.

The US leaving the Middle East would mean nothing to the Taliban, AQ, or any other group of thugs of that ilk. The US is a convenient lightning rod for those groups to use to recruit like-minded thugs, but if not the US, they would find something else.The US has done some incredibly wrong and wrong-headed things in the ME. I don't know if our leaving would be good or bad in the long run, but it certainly won't make any difference to hate-filled terrorists.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

When the Democrats do it, it is 'Cut and Run'. When the Republicans do it, it is an Exit Strategy. We all know that the Republicans are the worlds greatest fans of cultural relativism.

I'm sorry but that above statement appears completely ignorant of the facts. The Taliban emerged as a regional power because of a power vaccuum left by the US. It was not a response to the US, and was in large part empowered by the US.This empowerment came from military support of radicals during Soviet occupation and apathy with regard to the future of afghanistan by the US.It is not up to the US to choose exactly what the gov't of Afghanistan will be. But it is up to the US to determine the fate of Afghanistan as they are currently in a state of chaos. We will either leave it up to the group with the greatest military ability (force and skill) which can seize control, or to remain fractured and fighting, or to empower a moderate gov't by protecting it from attacks as well as eliminating aggressive military forces.Frankly I prefer the third choice. We tried the first two already and it was horrible for everyone there.Now we have placed Iraq in the same situation we had left Afghanistan after the Soviet failure. Thus I think it is in our and their best interest to help them pull away from the edge of chaos and not let thugs take control. That is what we allowed ith Hussein in the aftermath of their earlier gov'tal collapse and it didn't work well either. ??? What is the constitual difference between a peacekeeping force and our current military personnel? You seem to be trying to have your positional cake and eat it too. This is why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. In any case pulling out will only reduce our casualties. At this point I believe we have a responsibility to minimize their casualties. We broke it, we bought it.Only with security will they be able to choose their destiny in a way that has a hope of lasting more than one military dictator at a time.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

BTW, I should have said... exactly.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Iraq isn't about such short terms goals - it is about securing the region so that oil supply long term can be protected. Fluctuations and blips the worlds economic system can handle. Just knowing (or being under the impression) that oil supply from the Middle East is more or less secure stabilises world markets. You don't need anything to happen to the supply in order to destabilise things - the perception of threat in itself is enough to cause things to go wobbly.Will investors invest in something which is heavily reliant on oil supply if that investment is percieved as risky (due to uncertainty about oil supply)? Would people invest so as to allow an airline to expand into emerging markets? Would they invest in a motor car companies lauching a new range of cars or...(and its a long list when your talking oil)?Uncertainty is the enemy of the stock market and the stock market makes the world go round. And the stock market (capitalism-in-action) floats on oil. It may have been mistaken not to 'complete' the job. It may not have been. Everyone operates under constraints - they are not free to do as they please. Removing Saddam in the Gulf War would have left the US with more or less the same problem that the US has now - a long and costly presence on the ground is required due to the removal of the person who held things in check - they have to do what Saddam was doing but they are constrained in ways which Saddam wasn't in so doing. Very complex business when you are constrained thus.{AbE} On reflection, leaving Saddam in power after the Gulf War was I think a deliberate strategic decision. He would do the job of keeping Iraq under control yet his ability to destabilise the region was eliminated. A toothless tiger outside his own borders but a ragin and ruthless lion within them. Perfect! He could always be taken out at any time in the future were that need to arise. It arose: "time to go into the Middle East"Maybe it was felt that Saddam would take the hint and be a good boy - he was shown in no uncertain terms that destabilising the region would not be tolerated: the West would fight like a mother protecting her cubs if required to.The necessity to go in again wasn't necessarily "finishing off the job" of Saddam. Maybe he had WMD, maybe not. He was but one potentially destabilising influence. Iran is another and a far more certain one. Iran is intent on proceeding with nuclear power - meaning it is proceeding with its potential intent to access nuclear weapons. Israel took a pre-emptive strike against Iraqs attempt at a nuclear facility in 1981 (which the Yanks finished off by carpet bombing it during the Gulf War). She has shown she will not tolerate a stated enemy attempting to access nuclear weapons - which is good defence strategy: why bother getting to MAD if a) you don't have to and b) you have a nut on the other side of the MAD table. Is the US going to sit by with that tinderbox situation waiting to go off? I think not. Post 9/11 there are any other number of things which could tip that region into instability.If ensuring stability was the intent then all that was needed was an excuse to initiate proceedings. That the excuse was perhaps flimsy is an irrelevancy. Forget the short term. This is long term strategy folk are engaging in{AbE} Sorry for seeming to be way off topic but am just trying to point out strategy which should indicate that Afghanistan is irrelevant in the scheme of things. It has no strategice significance of note - and there are bigger fish to fry in IraqEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This is revisionist history. Bush and his gang of thugs were quite clear that this was to be a very short war. It was well known that if Saddam had WMD, he didn't have many and he was well contained by policies that had been in effect for 10 years. That Bush and Co said otherwise was a clear misrepresentation, intended to gain political support for a stupid and ignorant policy.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

It will be revisionist history whenever the US leave the region. I suggest they never will. Whatever reason would be given would always have been a smokescreen. One can hardly expect them to say:"We are going to invade and occupy Iraq in order to ensure stable oil supplies" This is politically impossible whereas as a WMD "threat" is politically possible. Once in it doesn't matter whether WMD are found. Your already in. If security of the worlds economic and industrial health was the agenda then that was the agenda. Saddam was the means to execute strategy. Strangely enough it was an uncle of mine who was top tier in NASA and a member of a Clinton government think-tank who first mentioned the security-of-oil issue to me. That was years ago - long before the US invaded this time around.What do you think would happen if oil supply was interupted for want of American presence and willingness to enfore stability? Some seem to think that we would be able to pull a hydro-economy out of our hats.Do you think Israel are going to let Iran progress with nuclear power - the waste product of which is weapons grade nuclear material (give their 1981 response to Saddam attempting the same thing)? And if not do you think the US should be there - in the region.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I doubt that was ever the agenda. It it was, then there has been a colossal failure. The world's economic and industrial health is more threatened now than it would have been if Bush had stayed out of Iraq. I don't try to predict what Israel will do.The future existence of Israel depends on them finding a way to get along with their neighbors. They have foolishly ignored this obvious truth. Perhaps they have already sealed their own doom. Maybe they can recover, and find a more intelligent strategy than the one they are now following, but count me as skeptical.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

You never answered my earlier point regarding the oil imperative. But let me break it down for you. If securing oil was our sole interest...1) Why didn't we just allow Saddam to stay in his box and improve the food for oil program? Its not like he ever hurt us regarding oil, so why was it necessary to rush in when we did? If we needed someone to supply us we certainly could have counted on him being greedy enough to give us what we wanted as long as we paid well. And that would have cost everyone less money and wasted lives.2) Assuming there was a threat from Saddam regarding oil, why didn't we just rush in to secure the fields and then declare them as international resources, or extend Kuwait/Saudi borders to those fields? No need to topple his gov't at all. At most some strikes to further degrade his already decrepit military. Cheap n easy and no massive loss of life. Less instability.Truly, to back up what nwr said, if oil stability was our goal then Bush n Co totally screwed up. Your rationalizing doesn't help them any. ??? What does that have to do with invading Iraq? I might add that the Taliban could have, and I suppose still could, obtain nuclear devices. If nuclear threats are a concern, why shouldn't we be in Afghanistan?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Just so you know, I'm not pushing to fix "daddy's mistake". All I'm saying is that over here across the pond, a lot of us have this theory about junior fixing his dad's "mistake". Now one to the rest.hmm. . . it's not in this post I'm replying to. anywho, you made the comment about it being no big deal if WMD's weren't found, because by that time we're already in. I disagree. It is a very, very big deal. You do not lie your way into a war. You do not go from "we're gettin' him for his WMDs to We're here to liberate the iraqis to who knows what else is next." You plain and simple do not lie to America to get america into a war--and if he is as good a christian as he claims to be, then he surely remembers the commandment that says that thou shall not bear false witness. You do not send 200,000 people to war on a lie or a whim of fancy. We are now stuck in Iraq because of a lie--not a very good image, especially for a country that supposedly takes the moral high road.As to the relevance of Afghanistan. You may not think it is relevant. It's not, really, not Geopolitically. However, once you walk in, youhave made it relevant. We went after the Afghani's gov't the Taliban for supporting Al-Queda. We kicked the Taliban out. If we didn't want them to come back (which we don't) then we should have finished the job there before starting a second war. We should have instituted a form of the marshall plan, where we build up their economy and raise their standards of living and give them a stable government--we had their backing to do this. Now we are losing that backing, and the terrorist supporting Taliban are moving back in, and getting support becuase they can offer what we have failed to--a stable life.It may not have been relevant at one point and time, but as soon as we put our foot in the door, it became relevant.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.