Obama Calling it Quits on Afghanistan--and Redefining Why We ever went

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Multinational corporations and their contractors/mercenaries can take care of resource extraction and security. The U.S. military doesn't need to hang around for that, especially when they've got that pro-U.S. puppet government in place.

Chinese won all the contracts (bribes) but cannot work due to security issues

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

Chinese won all the contracts (bribes) but cannot work due to security issues

Sort of like how the mining company in Avatar got its butt kicked. The land and the people makes it impossible for outsiders to dominate.

[cocodrilo]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Sort of like how the mining company in Avatar got its butt kicked. The land and the people makes it impossible for outsiders to dominate.

Yeah, but we showed Iran (on behalf of British Petroleum) back in 1953 when Iran tried to dominate its own oil.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

Yeah, but we showed Iran (on behalf of British Petroleum) back in 1953 when Iran tried to dominate its own oil.

You sort of missed my point (not by much). I was also referring how the actual landscape of Afghanistan is very isolated and unforgiving.

[cocodrilo]

Originally Posted by northgagator

You sort of missed my point (not by much). I was also referring how the actual landscape of Afghanistan is very isolated and unforgiving.

Point taken. We need to start invading only countries that are easily overrun and occupied. (Remember how easy Iraq was? "Thank you, Mr. Bush!")

[rpmGator]

We never cared what the Taliban was doing to the people of that nation until 911. Now the anti-spenders, want to continue throwing bad money after bad money.

You can wait a year, five years or a decade, and the Taliban will do what they do at that time. They just smiled and waved goodbye, sitting on that sack of seed.

Just wish we had gotten spot head and Mullah Omar, which with BL was our only job there.

[cocodrilo]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

Just wish we had gotten spot head and Mullah Omar, which with BL was our only job there.

No, the real job was to let BL escape. He served us well for years. As for Omar, we had him in the crosshairs and let him go. Not sure who spot head is, but I'm sure he must be another one who could not be eliminated too quickly, else there could be no years-long "war on terror."

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

Point taken. We need to start invading only countries that are easily overrun and occupied. (Remember how easy Iraq was? "Thank you, Mr. Bush!")

Two problems with us going into Iraq (there are more),
1, The diversity of the general population promotes adversity instead of unity. Civil war there is inevitable,
2, Not enough boots in the ground with the initial invasion. The insurgents were able to organize and raid the Iraqi weapon depots.

Both items created the need for the surge.

Iraq militarily was a victory.

Unfortunately it was a political defeat in many ways.

[cocodrilo]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Iraq militarily was a victory.

Unfortunately it was a political defeat in many ways.

Iran may have been behind it, but I'm not sure how. Qui bono? The MIC certainly, for a relatively short time, but certainly Iran for the long haul.

Who's that Iranian-born news correspondent who married the guy formerly at the State Department? (I have trouble nowadays remembering names.) I'll bet she had something to do with it!

[ChartsandGrafs]

What's funny about the American retreat from Afghanistan is the fact that Afghanistan is one of the nearest examples of anarchism left on Earth. It's not truly anarchist, but it's fairly close in its lack of political structure and cohesion. Statists always make the argument that anarchy is a pipe dream, mainly due to the fact that a state of anarchy would be too easy for outside nations to conquer. Yet, in real world practice, Afghanistan (anarchy) seems to be the place where empires go to die. Governments want to come in, control, and exploit anarchy, but they can't. They end up running away with their tails between their legs.

"But, but, but..."

LOL.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

What's funny about the American retreat from Afghanistan is the fact that Afghanistan is one of the nearest examples of anarchism left on Earth. It's not truly anarchist, but it's fairly close in its lack of political structure and cohesion. Statists always make the argument that anarchy is a pipe dream, mainly due to the fact that a state of anarchy would be too easy for outside nations to conquer. Yet, in real world practice, Afghanistan (anarchy) seems to be the place where empires go to die. Governments want to come in, control, and exploit anarchy, but they can't. They end up running away with their tails between their legs.

"But, but, but..."

LOL.

Cannot dispute your post.
Here are factors to support your post.
1, The combination of being landlocked and extremely isolated.
2, Requires long and logistically supply lines.
3, Harsh climate in the winter.
4, Impossible alliances t manage or take advantage of with the multiple warlords and their tribes.
5, intrigue and treachery with other countries hoping to capitalize on a failed mission.
6, Time. A factor that can wear down and tire a war weary invader.

As far as the anarchy, Afghanistan has a long history of warring tribes that have on again off again feuds. These tribes have existed for centuries off the drug trade and taking protection money from the trade caravans. The irony is the thing that keeps them apart is the same thing that defeated their invaders. If they cannot govern themselves then how can an invader.

[cocodrilo]

Who controls the Afghan rug trade? This could be an overlooked factor in the conflict.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Cannot dispute your post.
Here are factors to support your post.
1, The combination of being landlocked and extremely isolated.
2, Requires long and logistically supply lines.
3, Harsh climate in the winter.
4, Impossible alliances t manage or take advantage of with the multiple warlords and their tribes.
5, intrigue and treachery with other countries hoping to capitalize on a failed mission.
6, Time. A factor that can wear down and tire a war weary invader.

As far as the anarchy, Afghanistan has a long history of warring tribes that have on again off again feuds. These tribes have existed for centuries off the drug trade and taking protection money from the trade caravans. The irony is the thing that keeps them apart is the same thing that defeated their invaders. If they cannot govern themselves then how can an invader.

It's very difficult to govern people who either don't want to be governed or simply reject the notion of government. It's so difficult, in fact, that it's rarely if ever worth the effort. It's much easier to find and target people who want to be governed.

That's why this particular attack on anarchy is so incorrect. A state of anarchy is like bug spray to a government. It's a repellent. A government may decide to land and suck some blood, but they can't get to any of the blood without also sucking in an awful-tasting mouthful of government repellent, so they often end up flying away looking for tastier targets.

[Minister_of_Information]

I don't care about the rationale, if O is getting us out of Afghanistan I'm in favor of it.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

That's why this particular attack on anarchy is so incorrect. A state of anarchy is like bug spray to a government. It's a repellent. A government may decide to land and suck some blood, but they can't get to any of the blood without also sucking in an awful-tasting mouthful of government repellent, so they often end up flying away looking for tastier targets.

Strange analogy but in this case it is accurate.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Strange analogy but in this case it is accurate.

LOL, yeah that was pretty strange.

I wrote it while drinking a bad cup of coffee.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

What's funny about the American retreat from Afghanistan is the fact that Afghanistan is one of the nearest examples of anarchism left on Earth. It's not truly anarchist, but it's fairly close in its lack of political structure and cohesion. Statists always make the argument that anarchy is a pipe dream, mainly due to the fact that a state of anarchy would be too easy for outside nations to conquer. Yet, in real world practice, Afghanistan (anarchy) seems to be the place where empires go to die. Governments want to come in, control, and exploit anarchy, but they can't. They end up running away with their tails between their legs.

"But, but, but..."

LOL.

So you're warming to including Afghanistan as a member of the anarchy club, are you?

That's funny--since for years you and Anne Arbor would claim "Afghanistan and Somalia don't count!!!"

Or just trying to have your cake and eat it too?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

So you're warming to including Afghanistan as a member of the anarchy club, are you?

That's funny--since for years you and Anne Arbor would claim "Afghanistan and Somalia don't count!!!"

Or just trying to have your cake and eat it too?

Link?

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Link?

Shirley, you are aware that not every thread is archived, right?

Since you were banned most of this past year, the furthest back your posts go is whenever you started posting again a few weeks ago.

I get it: you forgot that you'd previously railed against including Afghanistan in the anarchist club. It's cool, I forget things all the time.

Really though, now that you've brought the topic up, I would think Afghanistan is the perfect place for you: weak and ineffective central government, large swaths of the country are not governed, the people there hate America, almost no taxation, etc. Sounds like your kinda paradise.

Oh...and no Disney agents either. Disney's not allowed...

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Shirley, you are aware that not every thread is archived, right?

Since you were banned most of this past year, the furthest back your posts go is whenever you started posting again a few weeks ago.

I get it: you forgot that you'd previously railed against including Afghanistan in the anarchist club. It's cool, I forget things all the time.

Really though, now that you've brought the topic up, I would think Afghanistan is the perfect place for you: weak and ineffective central government, large swaths of the country are not governed, the people there hate America, almost no taxation, etc. Sounds like your kinda paradise.

Oh...and no Disney agents either. Disney's not allowed...

LOL, TL;DR...

Still no link I presume?