News GWB's War on Terror: A Futile Fight?

[russ_watters]

This time you must be really kidding or something man !

Nope. Based on your other posts, stoned, I'm not sure you'd know reality if it hit you over the head with a baseball bat.

heroine

Yeah, I heard the next X-Men movie will star Afghani female superheroes.

 

[Informal Logic]

The Taliban is similarly on the edge of extinction, and Afghanistan is a democracy. If that was the only foreign policy success Bush has, Bush's administration would be considered a foreign policy success. In fact, I think you need to squint your eyes to consider Afghanistan anything but a success.

Terrorists, including the Taliban, are not on the edge of extinction. The joke on the Daily Show this week was how the US keeps capturing the 3rd guy in command. There is always another person in line who will take that place. I believe there was an earlier thread about the war on terror, and discussion on how it could not be fought in conventional ways, and likened to the 'war on drugs' from this perspective.

Here is a recent report about continuing problems with Afghanistan: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7923756/

Production of opium has soared since the fall of the Taliban government in 2001, leading to warnings that the former al-Qaida haven is fast turning into a “narco-state” despite the presence of more than 20,000 foreign troops.

Last year, cultivation reached a record 323,700 acres and yielded nearly 90 percent of the world’s supply.

Assuming Afghanistan is now, and will remain a democracy...currently Karzai is critical of US occupation:

...he wants some restrictions on how the U.S. military operates in his country.

“Operations that involve going to people’s homes, that involves knocking on people’s doors, must stop, must not be done without the permission of the Afghan government,” Karzai said.

And at the same time (probably because of aid from the EU and $780 million they are expecting from Washington this year), Karzai is "seen by his critics as an American puppet." Sounds more like a police state with a puppet government than a democracy. And speaking of democracy, you may recall that womens rights also were used as a reason for invading Afghanistan. Perhaps you could provide insight regarding progress on this matter?

But I believe that in 20 years, the Middle East is going to be a very different place than it was 3 years ago. And most of the credit will go to Bush. We're already seeing the rumblings of widespread, permanent change: Khaddafi has moderated, Syria pulled out of Lebanon, Pakistan is cooperating with us, and the Arabs and Israelis are doing things toward peace they have never done before.

The claim I have highlighted has also been discussed before, and it is a claim you cannot substantiate, so why do you make it?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112699/
"My Sharansky - Bush's favorite book doesn't always endorse his policies"

This is the 'neo-neocon' vision, and there are many holes in the concept (though it is nice to see Bush has read a book). Most notable is the premise that democracies will live together peacefully. We can reflect on history, both past and present and see the fallacy in this conclusion. However, this would probably be worthy of a separate thread.

 

[chound]

Last year, cultivation reached a record 323,700 acres and yielded nearly 90 percent of the world’s supply.

If you can get so much info defenitely UN or US would get it so why don't they destroy the fields of heroin?

 

[russ_watters]

Terrorists, including the Taliban, are not on the edge of extinction.

I think you are confusing the Taliban with Al Qaeda, and I never claimed that terrorists in general are on the edge of extinciton. My comment was specific: it was about the Taliban only.

And at the same time (probably because of aid from the EU and $780 million they are expecting from Washington this year), Karzai is "seen by his critics as an American puppet." Sounds more like a police state with a puppet government than a democracy.

What's your point? Are you expecting the transition to be instantaneous? "Puppet" or not, its still a huge step in the right direction. See: Germany and Japan for similar examples of US "puppet" regimes.

And speaking of democracy, you may recall that womens rights also were used as a reason for invading Afghanistan. Perhaps you could provide insight regarding progress on this matter?

Is that meant to be a loaded question? Significant progress has been made. Significant work is left to be done. Both should be self-evident.

Assuming Afghanistan is now, and will remain a democracy...currently Karzai is critical of US occupation...

What are you implying?

The claim I have highlighted has also been discussed before, and it is a claim you cannot substantiate, so why do you make it?

A claim regarding something that hasn't happened yet is a prediction. People make predictions all the time - why can't I?

In any case, the main point of the prediciton is to highlight the fallacy of the position you (and others) are presenting: You are implying that since Afghanistan (and Iraq) isn't a perfect, peacful, prosperous democracy right now that that indicates a failure on the part of the Bush administration. That's just absurd.

This is the 'neo-neocon' vision, and there are many holes in the concept (though it is nice to see Bush has read a book). Most notable is the premise that democracies will live together peacefully. We can reflect on history, both past and present and see the fallacy in this conclusion.

Heh - have a look at the past 50 years of Euro-American relations and re-evaluate that premise. The peace and prosperity of the western world in the past 50 years is utterly unprecidented in all of human history. The reason for that is democracy/capitalism.

In fact, here is a simple challenge: can you name for me a time when any two modern (US style) democracies were at war with each other?

 

[Grogs]

If you can get so much info defenitely UN or US would get it so why don't they destroy the fields of heroin?

It depends on who you ask. The conspiracy theorist will tell you that it's because the CIA has a hand in it and takes part of the money earned to fund their operations in other parts of the world. A more reasonable explanation is that it would tear the country apart. If they rioted in the streets because someone allegedly desecrated a copy of the Qur'an, what would happen if you took away the means of support for thousands of Afghan farmers?

 

[Informal Logic]

I think you are confusing the Taliban with Al Qaeda, and I never claimed that terrorists in general are on the edge of extinciton. My comment was specific: it was about the Taliban only.

I did clump the Taliban into a generality of terrorism. The Taliban is a radical religious militia like Al Qaeda, but there is probably more parallelism to the insurgents in Iraq. Still, I disagree that any of these groups are on the verge of extinction, including the Taliban.

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Sun May 22, 7:30 AM ET

WASHINGTON - American commanders say the Taliban is a viable resistance force in Afghanistan even three years after the Islamic radicals fell, but the U.S. military's fight to undermine their influence and bring stability is showing signs of progress.

The assessment follows a stretch in which U.S. troops in Afghanistan have been killed at a higher rate than those in Iraq, where there are about eight times as many American soldiers and where the situation is widely perceived as more dangerous.

George Joulwan, a retired four-star Army general and former NATO commander in Europe, said Friday that ultimate success will be determined by economic and political rebuilding, hunting down Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders on the Afghan-Pakistan border, and stamping out narcotrafficking in Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050522/ap_on_re_as/us_afghanistan_outlook_3

What's your point? Are you expecting the transition to be instantaneous? "Puppet" or not, its still a huge step in the right direction. See: Germany and Japan for similar examples of US "puppet" regimes. Is that meant to be a loaded question? Significant progress has been made. Significant work is left to be done. Both should be self-evident.

No I do not expect an instantaneous transition (actually a criticism by Sharansky of Bush's expectations). However, democracy must be accomplished by the people of a country, not by a lengthy, police state occupation.

What are you implying? A claim regarding something that hasn't happened yet is a prediction. People make predictions all the time - why can't I?

I do not personally have an issue with this. You are the one who has an issue with members making unsubstantiated claims.

In any case, the main point of the prediciton is to highlight the fallacy of the position you (and others) are presenting: You are implying that since Afghanistan (and Iraq) isn't a perfect, peacful, prosperous democracy right now that that indicates a failure on the part of the Bush administration. That's just absurd.

Assuming a third world country will substitute wheat for opium ('terms of trade') is a leap, but certainly to think their culture will allow women equality is an even greater leap.

Heh - have a look at the past 50 years of Euro-American relations and re-evaluate that premise. The peace and prosperity of the western world in the past 50 years is utterly unprecidented in all of human history. The reason for that is democracy/capitalism.

In fact, here is a simple challenge: can you name for me a time when any two modern (US style) democracies were at war with each other?

So that we will not waste time on this topic, here is a reference: "Democracies Do Not Make War on One Another...or Do They?" http://users.rcn.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm