mmarsh
Active member
Mmarsh, you are very welcome to belive what you read in the papers..Since you have no other understanding of the conflict we are discussing.
Typical response of someone who realizes he has failed to deliver his weak message and so compensates by blaming the other party for not being "enlightened" enough to agree with their opinion. Hilarious you'd make such a arrogant remark after just being completely schooled speechless on very basic Afghan history. So I think Ill follow your advice and stick with the papers rather than trust your "expertise".
The point still remains that we have attempted over the past 9 years to create a stable government, ANY sort of stable government, and we have failed miserably. It was worth it to try, but the time has come to admit we failed and leave it up to the Afghans...keeping a watchful eye on what happens. Its pretty obvious that these people do not to be governed by either us or *any* government in Kabul. You could put Mohammed in person in Kabul and the Afghans wouldn't follow him. The Afghans are not Arabs, its simply not their nature to be ruled like a peasant is by a king. I absolutely guarantee you that we stay an extra 10-20 years we will be exactly where we are now except that the costs in money, material, and lives will have been even higher. Ask the Russians on this one if you don't believe me, it took them 10 years for the message to sink in.
Senojekips and I are along the same line of thought. The Taliban can be beaten in theory, but it would require steps and actions no western politician in their right mind would ever do. And because we refuse to escalate (and I am not suggesting we should) the conflict to a level necessary for us to have a shot at winning, its better to step aside. Better to lose now then lose big later.
Typical response of someone who realizes he has failed to deliver his weak message and so compensates by blaming the other party for not being "enlightened" enough to agree with their opinion. Hilarious you'd make such a arrogant remark after just being completely schooled speechless on very basic Afghan history. So I think Ill follow your advice and stick with the papers rather than trust your "expertise".
The point still remains that we have attempted over the past 9 years to create a stable government, ANY sort of stable government, and we have failed miserably. It was worth it to try, but the time has come to admit we failed and leave it up to the Afghans...keeping a watchful eye on what happens. Its pretty obvious that these people do not to be governed by either us or *any* government in Kabul. You could put Mohammed in person in Kabul and the Afghans wouldn't follow him. The Afghans are not Arabs, its simply not their nature to be ruled like a peasant is by a king. I absolutely guarantee you that we stay an extra 10-20 years we will be exactly where we are now except that the costs in money, material, and lives will have been even higher. Ask the Russians on this one if you don't believe me, it took them 10 years for the message to sink in.
Senojekips and I are along the same line of thought. The Taliban can be beaten in theory, but it would require steps and actions no western politician in their right mind would ever do. And because we refuse to escalate (and I am not suggesting we should) the conflict to a level necessary for us to have a shot at winning, its better to step aside. Better to lose now then lose big later.
Last edited: