USA plans for troop reductions in Afghanistan

[Cowperson]

An interesting overview of where the USA thinks Afghanistan is going in the next 12 months.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-12...n-general_x.htm

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

It sounds like the U.S. is just looking to move more resources to Iraq or something because seriously, they have not succeeded in Afghanistan yet. Most of the country is still being run by the people who support Bin Laden. I can't believe the U.S. would rather just give amnesty to the Taliban than finish the job. It makes no sense at all. This is the country that harboured and trained the terrorists that conducted 9/11.

Do we have to remind them that Bin Laden is not captured yet? Musharraf certainly doesn't need to be reminded: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...tan_binladen_dc

Musharraf told the Post the U.S.-led coalition did not have enough troops in Afghanistan, which had left "voids." He said the United States and its allies needed to speed the training and expansion of the new Afghan army.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Dec 5 2004, 11:10 PM
It sounds like the U.S. is just looking to move more resources to Iraq or something because seriously, they have not succeeded in Afghanistan yet. Most of the country is still being run by the people who support Bin Laden. I can't believe the U.S. would rather just give amnesty to the Taliban than finish the job. It makes no sense at all. This is the country that harboured and trained the terrorists that conducted 9/11.

That's clearly a fallacy considering the flacid opposition to the recent election. Period. You have no argument for that. That's simply the physical evidence.

It would be more accurate to say most of the country outside Kabul is controlled by various warlords, doing quite well in the opium business now that a relative peace has been restored. They also remember it was the Taliban who opposed the poppy trade.

And it was the Taliban who sheltered Bin Laden.

By the way, I'm sure the Americans would love to have various warlords filling the power vacuum in Iraq, focal points to deal with. There would be a lot fewer USA troops there right now if that situation were in place.

Afghanistan is a generational project, something to check back on in 20 years. But right now it seems to be heading in the right direction.

Cowperson

[Looger]

i just don't have this rosy view of afghanistan's future.

its most prosperous and stable days were when it was last a truly lawless zone, in the 1970s. warlords, bandits, drugs, etc. but people made livings as truck drivers and farmers (of various things...). things rolled along as they always have there.

the national character is a lawless one.

this was partly by design, the british, russian, and persian empires set it up. they needed a lawless zone in between them for their own illegal trades.

it was superpower involvement - depending on whom you listen to, american / islamic fundamentalist (sorry - charity) provacation or the immediately proceeding soviet invasion - that brought this place to where it is today and seems to never break out of - disaster.

there are four distinct ethnic groups at ~10% or more:
Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/af.html

america's buddies were in power, the taliban, and it was a mess. are russia's buddies going to be any better? womens' rights will improve etc. but the fundamental problems of the country will remain - most of the populace outside of kabul doesn't give a pinch of sheep crap what kabulites are doing. they are content to carve out a living selling opium and running around in anarchy.

central asian culture is one of defiance to authority, in the extreme. everything we do to install a regime or order there will only have the backwards effect that we say we want.

what gets me is when people think of afghanistan as one people, one country. this place makes iraq look like iceland when it comes to its diversity.

if it must be westernized/civilized it should be something like five countries.

[FlamesAddiction]

You mean this election: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10...rzai-vote_x.htm

Ballot boxes that were clearly tampered with and intimidation. 15 of the 16 candidates protested and claimed fraud, yet it was never looked into. If that is a victory for democracy, then I'm scared for democracy in Afghanistan.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Dec 6 2004, 12:41 AM
You mean this election: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10...rzai-vote_x.htm

Ballot boxes that were clearly tampered with and intimidation. 15 of the 16 candidates protested and claimed fraud, yet it was never looked into. If that is a victory for democracy, then I'm scared for democracy in Afghanistan.

Nice try but the election was considered to be generally free and fair by independent observors, or what passes for free and fair for a start in that part of the world.

An article from the New York Times posted on the web site of a Karzai opponent:

http://www.mohaqiq.org/press_room/101104_7.html

In fact, it appears to have been far more free and fair than the recent Ukraine election.

Your assertion that 15 of 16 candidates protested is true . . . . to a point. They later agreed to let an independent commission investigate and settle the matter. That was done and the result was validated to the satisfaction of all candidates.

Give it up. Meanwhile, I'm off to watch Desperate Housewives.

Cowperson

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Dec 6 2004, 01:01 AM
Nice try but the election was considered to be generally free and fair by independent observors, or what passes for free and fair for a start in that part of the world.

An article from the New York Times posted on the web site of a Karzai opponent:

http://www.mohaqiq.org/press_room/101104_7.html

In fact, it appears to have been far more free and fair than the recent Ukraine election.

Your assertion that 15 of 16 candidates protested is true . . . . to a point. They later agreed to let an independent commission investigate and settle the matter. That was done and the result was validated to the satisfaction of all candidates.

Did you even read the last 4 paragraphs of your link? It doesn't sound as peachy as you want it to.

Give it up. Meanwhile, I'm off to watch Desperate Housewives.

Cowperson

No, you give it up.

FlamesAddiciton

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Does anyone else think this is similar to some of the actions that the Americans took in Latin America? They went in, made a mess, installed their puppet and then pulled out and let the country fall apart at the seams, bordering on civil war. I think this is just another disaster starting to form. America should stop trying to nation build and focus on their own problems IMO.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Dec 6 2004, 02:41 PM
Does anyone else think this is similar to some of the actions that the Americans took in Latin America? They went in, made a mess, installed their puppet and then pulled out and let the country fall apart at the seams, bordering on civil war. I think this is just another disaster starting to form. America should stop trying to nation build and focus on their own problems IMO.

Weren't you the guy betting me the Afghan election would be fixed?

Looks like you're down 1-0 with one more to go in Iraq.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Dec 6 2004, 03:28 PM

Weren't you the guy betting me the Afghan election would be fixed?

Looks like you're down 1-0 with one more to go in Iraq.

Cowperson

You're still saying the Afghani election wasn't fixed? Seems I'm not the only one to think that and disagree with you based on some of the links posted here. I don't know how you can think it wasn't. The Americans got the man they wanted and made sure he got elected using what ever means they could. I mean, this is the part of the world has a massive hate for America, and yet an America friendly politician is elected during American occupation. The result just doesn't seem to align with the base beliefs of the people IMO. Oh yeah, I forgot, that's democracy in action!




I'm not sure how you can say I'm down 1-0. I said that America's candidate would win, and win in a landslide. That's what happened. Seems we were both right on the result, just having different beliefs on how that result was attained.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Dec 6 2004, 03:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Dec 6 2004, 03:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Dec 6 2004, 03:28 PM

Weren't you the guy betting me the Afghan election would be fixed?

Looks like you're down 1-0 with one more to go in Iraq.

Cowperson

You're still saying the Afghani election wasn't fixed? Seems I'm not the only one to think that and disagree with you based on some of the links posted here. I don't know how you can think it wasn't. The Americans got the man they wanted and made sure he got elected using what ever means they could. I mean, this is the part of the world has a massive hate for America, and yet an America friendly politician is elected during American occupation. The result just doesn't seem to align with the base beliefs of the people IMO. Oh yeah, I forgot, that's democracy in action!




I'm not sure how you can say I'm down 1-0. I said that America's candidate would win, and win in a landslide. That's what happened. Seems we were both right on the result, just having different beliefs on how that result was attained. [/b][/quote]
You said the election mechanisms of the Afghan election would be fixed by America to produce a particular result.

At the time you said it, independent opinion polls in Afghanistan had Harmad Karzai in the lead by a wide margin.

Claiming the result was fixed because the most popular candidate happened to win is a little like telling us America arranged to have the sun come up tomorrow morning.

Nice try but it rings hollow.

In truth, no fixing was necessary in this election and, aside from endorsing Karzai, America was a bystander.

Absent from your argument is any credible agency or government claiming the election was fixed. In fact, the opposite occurred, neighbouring governments, global politicians and even the disgraced Kofi Annan endorsing the result as free and democratic.

Where's the hue and cry and massive debate as we see with Ukraine? It doesn't exist. You simply can't overcome that fact. And in the ensuing weeks, the bulk of the opposition in Afghanistan has also accepted the result as the will of the people.

However, I can't help but notice that if you type "Afghan Election Fixed By America" into Google you get a limited list of hits from literature generated by the desperate far left. Entirely predictable.

Our intellectual challenge with each other is whether or not an election will be fixed to procur a particular result. That obviously didn't happen in Afghanistan.

Next up is Iraq. Hopefully.

Provided elections can be held in Iraq, you'll be happy to know the USA endorsed candidate President Allawi is slipping in the polls. That might be more of a challenge for our bet should he happen to win. Afghanistan is not.

(By the way, in Iraq, its estimated a typical ballot will have 200 choices on it!!)

My point of view looks directly at places like Latin America and Vietnam where America DID fix elections. The lesson repeated over and over is that these governments eventually fail, particularly in places of armed conflict, because they lack the moral authority only general acceptance can provide. The people don't want them and the people won't fight for them. It's that simple.

In short, fixing the election is a one way ticket to losing badly. If I thought fixing would work, I would endorse it. That's how shallow I am!!

But, I don't see the point. Particularly not in Iraq or Afghanistan.

You're down 1-0. And counting. Cheer up. It looks like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are staying so you might win that one.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Well Cow, you cannot prove the election was not fixed, just like I can't prove that it was. I just think that when a country that has historically had hate for America elects a pro-American candidate during an occupation that is rings just as hollow as the elections in Latin America and the Far East. When you see people change their views diametrically in a very short time it is likely that the result is flawed.

You're going to have to explain to me how America is all of a sudden willing to take the high ground when it comes to installing a puppet government when they have a history of doing just that and went to rather questionable lengths to get to where they are in the world in the last four years. America has not changed their modus operandi and become more fair, they have become even more questionable in their motives and have embraced even more questionable tactics.

Frankly you have no idea how the election went. None of us do. We have no idea what candidates were run or what candidates were prevented from running. What we do know is that America's candidate (Karzai) was the one that was proclaimed best for Afghanistan early and that was all we heard. It would be like having Paul Martin as the candidate on the ballot against a bunch of people you had never heard of. Campaigning takes time and takes money. When you are talking about a technologically deficient country that is one of the poorest in the world, it is pretty easy to say that electioneering did not take place and that those who wished to have a voice were likely unable to get it out there.

The one thing that we know for certain is that Afghanistan was not prepared for "democracy" and that it was forced upon them, just like it will be forced upon Iraq. Democracy requires educated people and communication of issues that matter to those voting. You are talking two countries that are a little short on both of these requirements at the moment. While some (yourself included) may try and hail this as a victory for democracy I think its a travesty against the principle of democracy and is just another way for America to impose its will on other nations while making excuses that allow its people to sleep at night.

[Cowperson]

Well Cow, you cannot prove the election was not fixed, just like I can't prove that it was.

Oh, that's a solid comeback.

The most popular guy wins and you're claiming a fix because his friends happen to be Americans.

Meanwhile, you have no one arguing your case, no one helping you out. You against the world.

Yet we have a massive international hue and cry from alternative sides on voter fraud and ballot fixing in the Ukraine only a month or two later.

Where are your friends on the Afghanistan issue? Quotes? Mumbles? Dirty looks? Anything?

1-0. Sore loser.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Look up this thread. Did you decide to ignore that link? Looks like you did.

No, there is not a huge thing going on over Afghanistan like these is Ukraine, primarily because no one is sticking their nose in the business of Afghanistan (everyone is afraid of the United States, just in case that slipped by you while you were waiving their flag as the pervayors of freedom and democracy). Mean while the whole Ukraine situation has been exacerbated by none other than the United States, meddling in the affairs of yet another country, even though Russia has requested they keep their nose out of the situation.

The difference between the two is the support of the United States IMO. If the United States was happy with the candidate that had been elected in Ukraine they would have not said a word. But because they view the other candidate as a more friendly solution to them they get the media machine rolling and cry how an injustice to democracy has been done. No one cares about Afghanistan. The United States has made sure that everyone cares about the Ukraine.

BTW, how am I sore loser when I said that the American candidate (I didn't care who it was, it could have been Daffy Duck for all that it mattered) was going to win in a landslide. I hit on the head. Picking the obvious is still the wise thing to do you know. Good lord, you've suffered through the lean years of the Flames and you didn't learn that?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Dec 6 2004, 05:15 PM
Look up this thread. Did you decide to ignore that link? Looks like you did.

No, there is not a huge thing going on over Afghanistan like these is Ukraine, primarily because no one is sticking their nose in the business of Afghanistan (everyone is afraid of the United States, just in case that slipped by you while you were waiving their flag as the pervayors of freedom and democracy). Mean while the whole Ukraine situation has been exacerbated by none other than the United States, meddling in the affairs of yet another country, even though Russia has requested they keep their nose out of the situation.

The difference between the two is the support of the United States IMO. If the United States was happy with the candidate that had been elected in Ukraine they would have not said a word. But because they view the other candidate as a more friendly solution to them they get the media machine rolling and cry how an injustice to democracy has been done. No one cares about Afghanistan. The United States has made sure that everyone cares about the Ukraine.

BTW, how am I sore loser when I said that the American candidate (I didn't care who it was, it could have been Daffy Duck for all that it mattered) was going to win in a landslide. I hit on the head. Picking the obvious is still the wise thing to do you know. Good lord, you've suffered through the lean years of the Flames and you didn't learn that?

You are really desperate.

And I've got better things to do (seriously, I'm busy today, so I'm not going to go round and round the merry go round for no purpose).

See you later when the Iraq election happens. It won't be a slam dunk like this one was. That'll give us something interesting to talk about. Even I might be surprised if the USA favoured candidate forms a government.

Mean while the whole Ukraine situation has been exacerbated by none other than the United States, meddling in the affairs of yet another country, even though Russia has requested they keep their nose out of the situation.

So you'd rather see no questioning of an election in Ukraine where the results were clearly fraudulent, as determined by not only the USA but also Europe and the UN, agreeing together for once, yet you're alleging vote fixing in Afghanistan where the most popular candidate, heaven forbid, actually won by the same margin independent opinion polls prior to the ballot said he would.

Nice contradiction.

Meanwhile, you're saying Afghani's aren't culturally capable of handling the concept of democracy when they were clearly clamouring to get to the ballot box, literally risking life and limb to do so.

Are Ukranians also too culturally inept to handle the concept of a fair election?

Ah, fuggedaboudit. I'll be back tonight.

Cowperson

[Flame On]

So CP it sounds to me like you think the majority of Afgahnistan being run by warlords is a slam dunk. Is this the plan the US had from the start? To have elections that reflect one area where there is some control and the rest run by warlords (by the way what about warlords makes you think it's a good thing and thus a success) doesn't seem to me to be a slam dunk. To me either they planned for warlords to rule the place on the whole, which is rediculous, or they didn't plan for it and it's turning out that way and just happens that they may run it less badly than the previous group, the Taliban did. Which shows a lack of planning. Wrong and wrong IMO.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Dec 6 2004, 05:34 PM
You are really desperate.

And I've got better things to do (seriously, I'm busy today, so I'm not going to go round and round the merry go round for no purpose).

See you later when the Iraq election happens. It won't be a slam dunk like this one was. That'll give us something interesting to talk about. Even I might be surprised if the USA favoured candidate forms a government.

Mean while the whole Ukraine situation has been exacerbated by none other than the United States, meddling in the affairs of yet another country, even though Russia has requested they keep their nose out of the situation.

So you'd rather see no questioning of an election in Ukraine where the results were clearly fraudulent, as determined by not only the USA but also Europe and the UN, agreeing together for once, yet you're alleging vote fixing in Afghanistan where the most popular candidate, heaven forbid, actually won by the same margin independent opinion polls prior to the ballot said he would.

Nice contradiction.

Meanwhile, you're saying Afghani's aren't culturally capable of handling the concept of democracy when they were clearly clamouring to get to the ballot box, literally risking life and limb to do so.

Are Ukranians also too culturally inept to handle the concept of a fair election?

Ah, fuggedaboudit. I'll be back tonight.

Cowperson

Desperate to do what? Point out the strange goings on over there? You don't see the parallels between what has happened in the past when America stuck their noses into Latin America and the Far East? To point out how strange it is to see a polar switch in politics in a country with a deep seeded cultural hatred of the United States? No desperation there at all. Just pointing out the obvious. You know, like a pro-American candidate winning an election in a landslide during American occupation of the country. I mean, how desperate can a guy get to make such an outlandish comment?



Do I think the Ukraine is right or wrong? Wrong naturally. But I also do notice the active participation the United States is taking in this situation. If you're looking for someone leading the hord with pitch fork and torch firmly in hand, look at the United States in this regard. Or did you miss how p*ssed Putin was in regards to the American's actions. It seems that as long as democracy goes the way the United States wants it to, its all god and fair. As soon as something goes the otherway, well its recount time. And I'm not sure how that is a contradiction, but hey, you're going to say I'm wrong no matter what I say, so who gives a damn.

The Ukraine and Afghanistan are apples and oranges. In regards to democracy, yes, the Afghanis were not prepared to have an election. That is not democracy in action. For democracy to work you need to have an educated population. They need to not only be able to read but also to freely exchange ideas. There has to be understanding of the issues, an understanding of the platforms, a way for the candidates to openly debate, and a way to freely vote. Unfortunately for that to take place you need a literate population, something that is sorely lacking in Afghanistan. The literacy rate in Afghanistan is 31.5%, meaning 68.5% can't read or write. How can you honestly say that democracy can take place when you can't read a ballot? Conversely the Ukraine has a very high literacy rate (98%, which is better than Canada) and has had some time to develop the bodies of democratic government. The Ukraine is more than ready to deal with democracy as they have the education, the technical infrastructure and the ability to stage open debate for the masses. The differences are night and day. I'm surprised a semi-intelligent fellow like yourself would not recognize the differences and comprehend the challenges that implementing democracy is like. Or maybe you were just jerking my chain and trying to get a reaction? No, that would be giving you way too much credit. Obviously the actions of a desperate man.

[badnarik]

afghans are way too stupid to understand democracy. maybe now that they can go to school they will smarten up and do a better job in the next election. those ######s might not even need pictures on the ballots next time.

[Looger]

those ######s that eat superpowers for breakfast?

and for the record, the taliban WAS the united states in afghanistan for 99.9% of their ruling time.

british empire, imperial russia, soviet russia, taliban/pakistan/US, this is the only unconquered region on the planet. people have claimed to hold it all the way from alexander the great to darius to ancient india to ancient china, and not one of them ever has.

yeah,

######s.

[badnarik]

i was being sarcastic. i know they arent stupid.