Comments on: Are we deluding ourselves about Afghanistan? Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Aprenous Wed, 23 May 2012 22:52:51 +0000 The American people are not deluding themselves about Afghanistan, but the American politicians are deluding themselves while trying to delude the people.

The politicians are cutting education, while they are building schools in Afghanistan, schools that are then bombed by the Taliban.

The politicians claim the taxpayers cannot afford to repair the crumbling US infrastructure, but the politicians are building roads in Afghanistan, roads that then get destroyed by the insurgents—over and over and over again.

The politicians say the U. S. cannot afford universal health care, but they are building hospitals in Afghanistan. In the meantime, the politicians have the very best of health insurance and health care at a 70% taxpayer subsidy.

The politicians say that the U. S. populace must cut-back severely on everything, including Social Security and Medicare while the politicians are sending plane-loads of cash to Afghanistan that provide jobs for Afghans and the rich-life for corrupt Afghan politicians.

The politicians say that the rich are not getting richer, that they owe the country nothing while the common man must continue to pay and pay and pay—even while the politicians claim that pigs can fly.

The politicians say that Afghans (and other Muslims) want democracy—Western or otherwise—even as virtually every Arab Spring nation is voting for those who will support sharia law.

Perhaps the American people are deluding themselves that the US political system is not broken and that the American politicians are not corrupt?

How much blood and treasure will be enough to waste on people who will not fight for their own freedoms as they continually have their hands out for ever more, More, MORE from the American taxpayers? How many years in Afghanistan will be enough: Fifteen, fifty, one hundred?

How many Americans does it take to change a lightbulb or a corrupt system? Theoretically, a majority—but even then, they cannot see the light.

By: paintcan Tue, 22 May 2012 18:11:19 +0000 @BajaArizona – That’s amazing!

I know that WW1 started almost on automatic. I tend to think the “Great” war started because all the European powers had enmeshed themselves with mutual defense treaties that kicked into play like a market sell-off spurred by computer trades.

At the time of the first moves on Afghanistan, I thought the country really couldn’t say no. But I half hoped they would. Countries can’t seem to afford to “turn the other cheek”. Isn’t it wise to smell a rat or at least suspect a trap when something as spectacular and impossible to ignore like 911 occurs?

I had a long conversation in these pages with a Syrian a few months back and I have very little trouble accepting his statement that OBL was dead years ago. I thought he was too. There were no releases from him for years.

I accused Obama of pandering or engaging in psy-ops in a comment here. I even got a little hot with a returned VET down the street who just ignored me and tweeted or used his cell phone.

Since when is it good sense, or even thinking at all, to have to accept the statements of an elected government on faith alone?

What a load of indigestible baloney.

I have to work very hard now (I haven’t got much else to do) just to try to reconstruct a believable social, political and economic world order in my head, (most of which I actually had very little or no much formal education in)just to make sense of my memories and the stuff on this machine and Syrian Humanfriend cames along and knocked my stack of blocks over. And I never believed in them all that firmly to begin with.

Talk about Cognitive dissonance?

By: BajaArizona Sat, 19 May 2012 03:39:13 +0000 paintcan, they discovered a few years ago that the influenza epidemic jumped from birds to humans at a Kansas Army base where soldiers were preparing to ship out to WWI. These soldiers then spread it across Europe and beyond. Of course they also then brought it back with them as well. Bottom line though, no WWI, then the conditions for the virus to spread so widely don’t exist.

By: donhope Tue, 15 May 2012 18:34:53 +0000 Afganistan is Vietnam all over again.

Like the Viet Cong, the Afgan fighters have no place to go. This is a powerful motivator. Napolean said, “morale is to the number of soldiers in the ratio of 10 to 1.”

A chopper only holds as much as a good sized pickup truck and costs a fortune to operate and maintain. The Afgan fighters walk.

Afgan fighters are conditioned to endure harsh conditions of extreme poverty, heat, cold and hunger. Our troops are used to s much higher living standard and require extensive supplies.

We have an 8 thousand mile supply line. The Afgans live off the land and the local population. We supplied them with their AK-47s during the Russian occupation.

As in Vietnam we have very little to gain and very much to lose. The Afgans don’t need to win, they only need endure — time is on their side.

By: paintcan Tue, 15 May 2012 13:30:55 +0000 Isn’t it quite possible all the supportive talking heads are being bribed (legally) for their support? The Bush administration paid for articles to support the war and knowing how important money is, I doubt it ever stopped.

WWI sent influenza back with the troops. That is one theory about the origin of the great influenza epidemic of the post war period.

I think the ME’s legacy to this nation will be the practices of bribery, graft, kickbacks and perhaps even nepotism (that one is harder to practice because it is easier to see). Political and economic systems that practice that will want lots of unquestioning patriotism and respect. Defeat will mean a reactive instinct – a kind of counter-reformation – could take hold here. The crooks taking the payoffs will want to hide it all behind a comforting show of political unity, respect for authority and they will throw up all sorts of phony defenses.

The major media will craft the message and they could be doing it all because it makes money for them.

It isn’t much mentioned, but some of the greatest warriors of history were chronic drunks. Alexander the Great, Marc Antony and U.S. Grant come to mind. They probably needed the sedative and maybe even the antiseptic effects of higher blood alcohol levels? OR they had to seduce their owns minds to continue their career objectives at any costs.

The last two wars were a kind of national binge. The huge funding was the intoxicant. Now we enter the hangover period.

By: RPhillips111 Mon, 14 May 2012 17:00:45 +0000 Except for the Warlords the Taliban fought, the Afghan people were fairly happy with the Taliban government, and didn’t mind Bin Laden’s presence.

Forget the neo-cold War policy of world domination by the US, The american people’s only interest in Afghanistan ws getting rid of Bin Laden, and that has been accomplished.

The american people want to leave Afghanistan NOW, and the Afghan peole want us out of their country NOW. We should forget the Bush family policies of “Nation building and spead of capitalism” and leave NOW.

The Republican party needs to forget the Bush family and Dick Cheney, unless they want an Obama landslide in NOvember. If Romney supports a conitnued presence in Afghanistan, victory in November will be impossible.

Eisehower got elected in 1952 to bring the boys home from Korea, and Nixon pledged to end the Vietnman War. The Bush Republicans gave us Iraq and Afghanistan–and elected Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to succeed them.

Stupid is as stupid does.

By: brnwtrs7 Sat, 12 May 2012 11:37:39 +0000 You know folks, you cannot force feed your beliefs to a nation of people who don’t believe in your beliefs. Especially as you kill their people! How hypocritical is that to try to convince people that you are there to help them as you systemically kill them.

By: brnwtrs7 Sat, 12 May 2012 11:32:40 +0000 @ APR 26, 2012 10:56 PM EDT

That is sooooo well said!

By: ErnestPayne Thu, 10 May 2012 19:03:31 +0000 The american strategy on Afghanistan was a failure on day one. After that it got worse.

By: aeci Tue, 08 May 2012 11:21:33 +0000 CanyonLiveOak has a point which seems to be rarely explored. When we engage in combat we justify the encounter with values. But our values … any cultures values … are the product of our own experiences. For us they are of paramount importance, as the values of other cultures are important to them. We would not wish to live under values imposed from without. Why would we expect others to change their values for ours? Especially under occupation. Surely, the time involved for acculturation takes decades, if successful at all. I think we need to question ‘globalization’ and ‘multiculturalism’ if by those terms we imply a single culture with a single economic system. It’s not hard to see that certain Muslim cultures chafe under our values. And while some of their values might horrify us, we need to respect their right to choose their own way. In their countries/societies they have the right to live as they choose. And we, in the the comfort of our own shores, have the right to live as we choose. Anything less, makes us/them an aggressor … a threat to someone’s way of life. At this point, 11 years into Afghanistan, does it matter who threw the first punch? The more interesting question is why, as that may lead to revelations unexpected. We fought well, it’s time to go home and think about all this.