2020 US Election (Part One)

[Timsup2nothin]

There's no political will here for that kind of occupation with long-term institution-building (and, importantly, Marshall Plan investment). No plan for such a thing appears to be on the table for the Pentagon either.

That's the point...we need to firmly attach the two. If we don't have the political will for the occupation than we don't have the political will for the invasion, because the two are inextricably linked. By pretending they aren't we get the Dick Cheneys of the world using the US military to produce clients for their construction business by blowing stuff up for them.

 

[Ironsided]

So what does this mean exactly? We have no plan, no strategy, for "winning" in Afghanistan. No clear path to achieving the goal of 'functioning government' or whatever it is. The regime we've set up there is so pathetically corrupt and incompetent that if we left the Taliban - the freakin' Taliban - would win by default.

The supporters of endless war apparently want our grandchildren to be still be occupying Afghanistan because that's what's going to end up happening if we don't recognize the reality that we screwed up and lost.

It means that a complete sudden withdrawal will, as you also say, likely lead to the Taliban taking control. Sharia laws, no schooling for girls, women as property of their husbands, more terrorists and more refugees than before the conflict.


There has to be accountability to the people of Afghanistan for that. Most honest and most unlikly a UN take over and the bill paid by American taxpayers. Maybe they start thinking before they vote Clintons and Trumps into office.

 

[Traitorfish]

Musing back, except for some loss of face, what was the actual damage to the US for giving up in Vietnam?

The "domino effect" proved to be very slightly true, and they were locked out of Indochina for the next couple of decades. Didn't really go further than that, though: Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia remained aligned with the West, and Burma remained... weird, but reliably anti-Communist.

 

[rah]

It means that a complete sudden withdrawal will, as you also say, likely lead to the Taliban taking control. Sharia laws, no schooling for girls, women as property of their husbands, more terrorists and more refugees than before the conflict.

Not to discount the suffering or anything but will it really be any different than before. We made a valiant effort (i'll concede that one) but weren't willing to completely destroy the country. (for those of us from the 60's, it sounds familiar)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It means that a complete sudden withdrawal will, as you also say, likely lead to the Taliban taking control. Sharia laws, no schooling for girls, women as property of their husbands, more terrorists and more refugees than before the conflict.


There has to be accountability to the people of Afghanistan for that. Most honest and most unlikly a UN take over and the bill paid by American taxpayers. Maybe they start thinking before they vote Clintons and Trumps into office.

I find it interesting that you consider the lessons of Bush's war to be "don't vote for Clintons or Trumps." Shouldn't the lesson be "don't vote for Bushes"? Or even more accurately, don't vote for the "promise the evangelicals a religious tyranny and the stupid people a nickle tax cut to get their support and then we can run completely amok in myriad ways" party.

 

[Ironsided]

It's the same policy. It was Hillary and not Bush who not only unconditionally sided with the decisions but extended it to the world as “You are either with us or against us”.

 

[Lexicus]

It was Hillary and not Bush who not only unconditionally sided with the decisions but extended it to the world as “You are either with us or against us”.

Wth are you talking about? Bush said "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists." Hillary Clinton wasn't part of the government until Obama took office, for god's sake.

There has to be accountability to the people of Afghanistan for that.

Is there any data on what the Afghans want? Do they want us to stay? I doubt it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's the same policy. It was Hillary and not Bush who not only unconditionally sided with the decisions but extended it to the world as “You are either with us or against us”.

LOL...When we invaded Afghanistan Clinton was the junior Senator from New York. She wasn't extending anything to the world.

 

[Ironsided]

Hillary was supposed to be the voice of the "opposition". She was nothing of the sort – in the face of the classic skin deep American blind patriotism she was in effect more like Bush’s cheerleader.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Is there any data on what the Afghans want? Do they want us to stay? I doubt it.

Under current terms, maybe not...but probably so. I suspect that a solid majority prefer even our half hearted occupation to a restoration of the Taliban. I'm sure that a solid majority would prefer a genuine Afghan government propped up by occupation forces, but recognize that a genuine Afghan government would be opposed to the US so the occupying force would have to belong to someone else.

 

[Ironsided]

LOL...When we invaded Afghanistan Clinton was the junior Senator from New York. She wasn't extending anything to the world.

She was the goto representative of the Democratic party line in the media at the time.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hillary was supposed to be the voice of the "opposition". She was nothing of the sort – in the face of the classic skin deep American blind patriotism she was in effect more like Bush’s cheerleader.

She was the junior senator from New York. What makes you think she was expected to be the "voice of the opposition"? By the way, due to the administration's misrepresenting of intelligence to congress and their propaganda campaign with the public there really was no opposition for anyone to be a voice of. Anyone old enough to have been around for it who claims "I was opposed from the start" is a liar, and anyone too young to have been around for it who claims "well, *I* would have known better" is a fool.

 

[Lexicus]

She was the goto representative of the Democratic party line in the media at the time.

No, she really wasn't.

I would agree that the Democrats were much too ready to support Bush's war. But this singling out of Hillary Clinton is just absurd.

Anyone old enough to have been around for it who claims "I was opposed from the start" is a liar, and anyone too young to have been around for it who claims "well, *I* would have known better" is a fool.

If you're talking about Afghanistan, you're basically right. There were people who opposed the war from the start but they were isolated leftist weirdos. There was more opposition to Iraq but still nowhere near enough to make a real difference. Even had the Democrats opposed both wars in a bloc (something their constituents would certainly not have supported) I believe the Congressional math at the time wouldn't have let them do anything about it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Absurd, yet so typical. Come to think of it, absurd, in itself, has become typical.

 

[Kyriakos]

"we came, we saw, he died (laughs in demented way". Hill would be perfectly suited to be part in w's gov along with goons like cheney, condi and rumey.

 

[Ironsided]

No, she really wasn't.

I would agree that the Democrats were much too ready to support Bush's war. But this singling out of Hillary Clinton is just absurd.

Yes, she really was. I think she was pretty much the only voice of the Dems in international media at the time. And the quote which is all over the internet was "Every Nation has to either be with us or against us". Followed by "… those who harbour terrorists will have to pay…" etc.

And yes, that is a big thing because there has to be checks and balances in politics - if one side is mad the other has to step in and make sense or you get this mess.

 

[Lexicus]

And yes, that is a big thing because there has to be checks and balances in politics - if one side is mad the other has to step in and make sense or you get this mess.

What you don't seem to understand is that there were no 'sides' to speak of. The American public was effectively deceived into supporting the wars by the warmongers' propaganda. Any Democrat (perhaps there were a few exceptions but certainly no Senators) who opposed the war would have been voted out in the next election.

 

[Ironsided]

Oh, I understand. I’m just not as blasé about it.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean, the demonstrated readiness of the US public to overwhelmingly support wars of imperialist aggression has led me to call on numerous occasions for the military destruction of the US state in the past (and more practically to support the nuclear weapons programs of both Iran and North Korea among other things), so I wouldn't really describe myself as "blasé" about it, but whatever...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh, I understand. I’m just not as blasé about it.

And yet you are totally blase about the propaganda and misleading of congress by the Bush administration.