It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Afghan Leader Hamid Karzai gives up Trying to Talk to Taliban

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 

Your post is a perfect example of Cognitive Dissonance. You refuse to acknowledge the conflict in your own mind so you deny that it even exists and project it onto the world outside by creating a complex conspiracy to justify yourself. It's silly and a waste of time because while you beat yourself up the reality in Afghanistan grows worse and Pakistan and the Taliban are not getting any nicer. I hope people in power are nothing at all like you're, sir. If they're, we're doomed.
edit on 2-10-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Cosmic911
I agree that this will continue for years to come. I'm not sure what direction the U.S.


The reason for going into Afghanistan was to end Bin Laden.

Mission accomplished there.

If the Afghans want our help in their country, why not.

If they dont want us in their country, off we go.

At the rate the Afghan government is going, its time to cut our losses and leave. When the citizens of that country get fed up with the Taliban or whoever else is in trouble, they can make the changes to the goverment on their own.

If they dont wish to fight for their freedom, like they did with the Soviets, and to an extent the US, then why bother?

They will make their bed, and will have to lay in it also.


Everyone knows why we sent troops to Afghanistan, yes, to capture/kill Bin Laden. I agree, but, and this is a BIG BUT, let's see how long we stay there. Mark my words, this won't end with Bin Laden, We knew he wasn't in Afghanistan for years. We knew he was hiding in Pakistan, with or without sanctions from their government. And in the end, where did we find him? In Pakistan. We will never completely pull out of Iraq and we will won't completely pull out of Afghanistan. To pull out because Bin Laden is dead would be premature and irresponsible. How many times have we started something and left it only to have it bite us in the ass years later. That would be twice we've done it in Afghanistan, first arming the Taliban against the Soviets and now again? It bit us in the ass in Irag when we put Hussein in power. Yes, Bin Laden is dead, big deal. We have a little closure on 9/11, but if the Taliban and Al Queda is being supported by Pakistan's ISI (and they are as evidenced by Bin Laden's proximty to Pakistan's military academy), then we have bigger problems. Pakistan won't support us because we support India's interests as well. They are mortal enemies.

Leaving afghanistan now, without a legitimate and capable government would only prove what we already know....the U.S. Government doesn't give a sh$% about Afghanistan and that we are only looking out for U.S. interest abroad. It's the same reason we invaded Iraq. We don't really think the U.S. cares about the Iraqi people, right? It's the oil we care about. There are atrocities happening everyday in Africa, rape, mutilation, murder, but have we done anything about that? No, because there is nothing for us to gain. There is nothing exported that we need. No natural resources. Nothing. An occupying force should never leave until there is an adequate infrastructure in place to support itself, for without this, the power vaccumm that would open up would be disastrous and monolithic.

Do I agree with you that we should leave? 100% We've spent enough money and sacrificed enough lives for all of us. But do I think it would be a disaster? I do...



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
This is related:
www.cnn.com ...

His wiki:
en.wikipedia.org ...

He was an agent of peace shot dead by the Taliban on the 21st of September 2011.

The US along with Karzai and the UN feel that Pakistan is behind this violence. If that's not a coalition then what is? Every road leads to Pakistan. They're friendly with the Taliban.
edit on 2-10-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 



I also think we're going to stay there for awhile longer because Afghanistan is the perfect test bed for continuing R&D of drone/UAV technology. What more could the military ask for? They have a real-time test bed for ongoing advancements in drone tech. Often, the military spends years developing secret and advanced technologies, unable to utilize them in real-time military scenarios, limiting their time of usefulness. Not so with drones. We are developing, perfecting, and employing them in real time; gaining valuable insight into what works and what doesn't. Boys and their toys!



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


I think justifying a stay because of R and D is a bit off. The F-117 stealth fighter was doing operational testing at the end of the vietnam war. The drone technology we are seeing now is most likely just as old.

As an example look at the helicopters used to take out bin laden.



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


I think justifying a stay because of R and D is a bit off. The F-117 stealth fighter was doing operational testing at the end of the vietnam war. The drone technology we are seeing now is most likely just as old.

As an example look at the helicopters used to take out bin laden.


I didn't imply its the only reason, just one of many. The F-117's first flight was 1981, being fully operational and deployable in 1983, long after Viet Nam, although blue prints and design ideas might have been in the late 1970's. Have Blue, its sub-scale prototype was produced in the late 1970's. Neither saw combat or action in Viet Nam.
edit on 3-10-2011 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


Operational flight to me means operations testing, not military deployment. sorry about that. The prototypes were flying around 1977. My point being though the drones we are using now are old technology. The US is large enough and encompasses enough different enviornments, from arctic to tropical, that we can easily do testing.

Im all for the US living up to its olbligations, however, when the country is not living up to their seid a decision must be made. The Us cannot build a nation on its own and requires to participation of the people (I hate nation building in this manner btw).

Its exactly like the United Nations and its resolutions. The resolutions state if this country doesnt comply with this criteria, they are in violation and will be punished. The problem is it never happens. The UN was ok with leaving the Us / UK forces in Iraq after the first gulf war, enforcing the no fly while the UN ignored Husseins continued violations of the UN resolutions.

I say the Us has reached a point where we need tio pull everything back home and fix our country, and let the rest of the world deal with the problems they are content on dumping on the US.

I see people embracing China as a new world Policeman. They can have them all they want...



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I agree....time to go. Leave Iraq and leave Afghanistan. I just don't think its going to happen anytime soon. How much $$ will we have to spend before its over? I think estimates of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is approximately 3.2 to 4 trillion dollars! That's just insane!



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
Afghanistan has been always an unstable region for thousands of years like that before the Americans got involved in the late 1980s. You can thank Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for contributing to this. We let them do the rebuilding for their own country.


I see this argument all the time from my fellow Americans, and every time, this is what's really being said.

"I'm ignorant of the subject, too stupid to know how to fix that, and waaaay too lazy to bother trying anyway, so screw it."

Aghanistan has not always been "unstable," Paulio. In fact it was more stable than both of its major neighbors - Iran and Pakistan - for its entire existence as a nation. Before that, instability was external - the British and the Russians using the region as a battleground; however the Afghans themselves remained a very stable community. granted it wasn't a nation-state community, but it was, in fact, stable.

We broke Afghanistan, Paulio. From the late 70's onward, we've been up to our elbows in Afghanistan, trying desperately first to make the Russians lose, then trying desperately to add it ot our own empire, and now trying desperately to keep from looking too desperate about it.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


And what am I like? I see you spent an entire paragraph arguing against me without ever once making a #ing point.

So what am I like, chuckles? Someone who's actually put study into the history of the region? Yeah we sure as hell can't have leaders like that, can we?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join