30,000 more?

[Madrigal]

What a surprise!

No, not really.

[melancholeric]

What.

[Works]

More troops in Afghanistan.

[Architectonic]

Wait, I'd like to change my vote to the third option. I misread the question. (I thought the question was: Is 30,000 more troops a surprise to you?) :ph34r:

[Madrigal]

Wait, I'd like to change my vote to the third option. I misread the question. (I thought the question was: Is 30,000 more troops a surprise to you?) :ph34r:

*narrows eyes*

[JocktheMotie]

I'm pretty sure Obama differentiated the Afghan War and the Iraq War during his candidacy, so this really doesn't come as a surprise. If his military commanders and advisors feel that more troops in Afghanistan is tantamount to keeping terrorist groups from gaining a foothold, then it seems he is doing what is necessary. Candidates should always avoid speaking in absolutes and certainties, because you never know when you'll have to pull a 180 [like HW Bush and raising taxes].

[C.J.Woolf]

I don't understand the logic of Obama reinforcing a mission that he said is going to end, but at least he did say it's going to end. He's playing the role of the president who succeeded the president who started the war.

[JocktheMotie]

I don't understand the logic of Obama reinforcing a mission that he said is going to end, but at least he did say it's going to end. He's playing the role of the president who succeeded the president who started the war.

Well, his reason would be that 30k more troops are necessary for that mission to end at all.

[C.J.Woolf]

Well, his reason would be that 30k more troops are necessary for that mission to end at all.
True. That was Nixon's rationale for invading Cambodia.

[Trentham]

Option #3. Two sides of the same coin.

[pan_sonic_000]

LMAO @ people who:

1) Believe the bi-partisan ruse

2) Believe(d) any of Obama's bullshit (now or during his campaigning)

3) Believe(d) he's anything other than a puppet for the corporatocracy.

Way to get played, jackasses.

[C.J.Woolf]

Obama didn't bullshit anybody during the campaign regarding the Afghan war. He called it "the right war", unlike the Iraq war. Whether the next president was Obama or McCain, the Afghan war was going to continue.

I'm still convinced we're better off with Obama than we would be with McCain.

[pan_sonic_000]

I'm still convinced we're better off with Obama than we would be with McCain.

See point one.

[starla]

Madrigal's obviously a racist.

[Jonah Davids]

See point one.

I saw it, I just didn't see anything reasonable about it. Just your typically vapid conspiracy theory anti-establishment superiority rant. About what one ought to expect from F types.?

[md5fungi]

oh god... that picture...

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOU'VE DONE

[pan_sonic_000]

I saw it, I just didn't see anything reasonable about it. Just your typically vapid conspiracy theory anti-establishment superiority rant. About what one ought to expect from F types.?

All that from four words, eh? My level of awesomeness is still skyrocketing.

[Pooja]

I'm very much against the 30,000 "surge." Those resources could be better spent. Hell, they'd be better spent if you just dumped the money on a swamp. That way, you'd at least fill a swamp.

Also, I think that to be the type of person that wins a national electing in the US almost guarantees them to be a bad, bullshit spouting president. Of course, there are exceptions.

[Anonymous]

I get annoyed when people point to economic reasons to say that this is a bad idea. We're in there for economic reasons. We're preserving economic interests; that's the entire point behind basically everything this nation has done. World police, remember? Economically, it's strategically brilliant. Maintain control of a region with an important oil pipeline that also happens to be right in between the world's two other superpowers. They're planning ahead, because they know that we're going to run out of oil.

Socially, it's a train-wreck of a decision. But you can't expect these people to make socially conscious decisions, because this is capitalism. The most you can hope for by catering to that system is that they'll try to appease voters by making some little reform or another, and even then you'll be lucky if it's anything more than a weak ploy. See this new healthcare "reform".

[Nighthawk]

Never get involved in a land war in Asia. The US has had a poor history of extricating itself from those. See Korea and Vietnam. I don't know why people expect this would be any different.

[nfinityi]

That picture is genius.

[avolkiteshvara]

My guess is that he wants to give the appearance of one last try before we pull out.


But yeah given the topography, hard to win anything, especially when the run away using guerrilla tactics. Locals don't know whether to be more afraid of the U.S. soldiers, regional warlords, or Taliban. It would be a nice little strategic geopolitical foothold though.

[joft]

books not bombs

the cost of sending 1 US troop for 1 year could instead build 20 schools there

[Jonah Davids]

All that from four words, eh?

Your math seems rather off too.

[Rhu]

I'm very much against the 30,000 "surge." Those resources could be better spent. Hell, they'd be better spent if you just dumped the money on a swamp. That way, you'd at least fill a swamp.

Bah. I'd rather use the resources to either kill people pointlessly, or maybe restore swamps. Cool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_whisky) things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Biogas) depend (http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/3/1151-a) on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans) swamps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda).

[vSv]

An surprise act from your presi... ahem... actor.

Surprisingly enough he does what every other president in the US has ever done, which is not to change anything but too keep things the way they are, all in favor too the capitalist swines.

[Kleptocracy]

I get annoyed when people point to economic reasons to say that this is a bad idea. We're in there for economic reasons. We're preserving economic interests; that's the entire point behind basically everything this nation has done. World police, remember? Economically, it's strategically brilliant. Maintain control of a region with an important oil pipeline that also happens to be right in between the world's two other superpowers. They're planning ahead, because they know that we're going to run out of oil.

Socially, it's a train-wreck of a decision. But you can't expect these people to make socially conscious decisions, because this is capitalism. The most you can hope for by catering to that system is that they'll try to appease voters by making some little reform or another, and even then you'll be lucky if it's anything more than a weak ploy. See this new healthcare "reform".

They're not going to all these lengths to steal this oil for you.

I didn't notice the picture had an option to vote for it but it sums it up nicely.

[Huston]

books not bombs

the cost of sending 1 US troop for 1 year could instead build 20 schools there

Why would they want that?

[manza]

I'm very much against the 30,000 "surge." Those resources could be better spent. Hell, they'd be better spent if you just dumped the money on a swamp. That way, you'd at least fill a swamp.

As someone in natural resource management, I'd like to point out that swamps perform important ecosystem services and provide valuable wildlife habitat.

[OrionzRevenge]

books not bombs

the cost of sending 1 US troop for 1 year could instead build 20 schools there

One wonders what the Taliban will use all those schools for???

I know, nobody here has mentioned the first word about the Taliban.

I mean, why on Earth would someone want to bring those Women beating, Buddha blasting, Bomb making bastards into our quaint little discussion about the Afghan War?

[nonperson]

One wonders what the Taliban will use all those schools for???

I know, nobody here has mentioned the first word about the Taliban.

I mean, why on Earth would someone want to bring those Women beating, Buddha blasting, Bomb making bastards into our quaint little discussion about the Afghan War?

Lot of Muslims are illiterate in Arabic..........

(The poll options are a tad silly; surely yes or no would do. Anyway who is the guy in the picture?)

[stopharian]

As someone in natural resource management, I'd like to point out that swamps perform important ecosystem services and provide valuable wildlife habitat.


Thats what I was thinking when I read that post!!!!!

Im sorry, I think we have an antiswampist in our midst!!

[stopharian]

Maddy, you've made some Fine threads in your day, but this is a reaaal stinker. Totally valueless. I love voting in random polls but I cant even vote in this one. I haven't the first clue as to what it means.

Everyone in this thread seems to be totally dancing around this issue, spouting a lot of superior attitude without ever actually committing to a point of view.

What do you actually think? What is the correct answer to all of the problems in Afghanistan?


Should The US pull out? What would happen then?

Should the US stay? What can they do to be more successful there?

What is success in Afganistan? What should or could be accomplished there?

[Anonymous]

[LIST]
Should The US pull out? What would happen then?


Yes. Civil war between Taliban factions. There would be bloodshed. Someone would win. Life would go back to normal (women would be attacked with acid, but at least their children and homes wouldn't be blown up).

[stopharian]

Yes. Civil war between Taliban factions. There would be bloodshed. Someone would win. Life would go back to normal (women would be attacked with acid, but at least their children and homes wouldn't be blown up).


If you are arguing for a return to normalcy that plan wont cut the mustard.

At the end of 2011 the US backed regime will have been in power in Afghanistan for precisely twice as long as the Taliban regime before them making the present status quo more "normal".

If you want to look before the 5 years of Taliban "normalcy", you have about 4 years of chaotic infighting by warlords, preceded by 3 years of strong manism, preceded by 10 years of war with the Communist Soviets(the last Imperialists to invade).

You can keep going back, but you wont find any "normal" to revert to

[Anonymous]

If you are arguing for a return to normalcy that plan wont cut the mustard.

At the end of 2011 the US backed regime will have been in power in Afghanistan for precisely twice as long as the Taliban regime before them making the present status quo more "normal".

If you want to look before the 5 years of Taliban "normalcy", you have about 4 years of chaotic infighting by warlords, preceded by 3 years of strong manism, preceded by 10 years of war with the Communist Soviets(the last Imperialists to invade).

You can keep going back, but you wont find any "normal" to revert to

By normal, I mean life where the peasants can grow their opium poppies and not worry about having their houses and fields bombed and their homes raided by soldiers who don't speak their language.

[nonperson]

Yes. Civil war between Taliban factions. There would be bloodshed. Someone would win. Life would go back to normal (women would be attacked with acid, but at least their children and homes wouldn't be blown up).

This has been the way on the North West Frontier for centuries. And as yet nobody has won.

[Melody]

But yeah given the topography, hard to win anything, especially when the run away using guerrilla tactics. Locals don't know whether to be more afraid of the U.S. soldiers, regional warlords, or Taliban. It would be a nice little strategic geopolitical foothold though.well the approach he is using is a lot better than just guns:

5oxz9TaQOLg
basically empowering the afghanistan 'army' and attempting to raise the nation's quality of life a notch or two. raising the QoL is probably the most potent weapon ... its like taking the ground out from under strife

personally i'ven't a fucking clue whatitup regarding afghanistan. what i think may be the case is that we went in there as part of cheney's plan to get a foundation of oil and make buncha ppl rich, but the reason obama is staying is to actually do what the stated purpose was, which is to "punch Al Qaeda in the neck, face, and jaw"

besides this, i hope as many people as possible are annoyed by this annoucement. the greatest thing about Obama is the incessant whining he naturally educes from people

[Skinart]

Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

And never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

[Madrigal]

Maddy, you've made some Fine threads in your day, but this is a reaaal stinker. Totally valueless. I love voting in random polls but I cant even vote in this one. I haven't the first clue as to what it means.
I wasn't going to add the value to it. It's one of my information-gathering threads. I'm interested in knowing how Obama's popularity has changed and whether people are disappointed by this, how they see the war in Afghanistan and US participation in it at this point in time. In this thread I want to "listen", not :soap:

I mean, wait, I always listen, scratch that. xox


Everyone in this thread seems to be totally dancing around this issue, spouting a lot of superior attitude without ever actually committing to a point of view.

What do you actually think? What is the correct answer to all of the problems in Afghanistan?

[LIST]
Should The US pull out? What would happen then?

Yes, they should pull out. If you want the US govts to stop endangering their own population, then stop invading countries, setting up unwanted military bases everywhere, and basically fucking with other nation's military, political and economic sovereignty.

But you know what, that's not gonna happen, because the US has a position to maintain. Or should I say grasp onto for dear life, because it's a slippery slope when you don't even have an economy to fall back on for authority. Nothing more vicious than a fatally wounded animal fighting for survival. That's what we're seeing now. Obama can't be a president of peace because it isn't the time for that. Military might becomes your only resort when the true foundations of your power (economic strength) begin to crumble.

The neocons wanted to build a new Pax Americana to usher the US into the new century as the lone superpower, and reshaping a strategic area like the Middle East was not just about oil but also about containing China and Russia for that purpose. It was obvious they would go for Iraq after Afghanistan.

You know what bugs me? People still calling Afghanistan the "just" war. For fuck's sake. You'd think that after all these years the objectives there have become a little clearer.


Should the US stay? What can they do to be more successful there?
I should hope they are not successful at all and suffer many losses to drive this point home, in coffins. And if you think that's insensitive you should see the body count of innocent Afghan civilians killed since that invasion by airstrikes or raids on villages. It's more than Coalition and Afghan forces put together, many times over. I can assure you these people have it worse and have every right to kill their enemy. That's the way an invaded people defeats an occupier.

You could help by joining an anti-war movement.

[Anonymous]

You could help by joining an anti-war movement.

I disagree, that would only be relevant if this were a democratically decided war. While I myself am a part of the anti-war movement, it's basically just symbolic. We've been in a state of emergency (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_7463) for the past eight years, which is the only reason they're able to wage this war without actually getting the consent of the people who are forced to fund it. If you live in America, I think the only way you can really help is if you join the anti-imperialism/capitalism movement.

[Madrigal]

I disagree, that would only be relevant if this were a democratically decided war. While I myself am a part of the anti-war movement, it's basically just symbolic. We've been in a state of emergency (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_7463) for the past eight years, which is the only reason they're able to wage this war without actually getting the consent of the people who are forced to fund it. If you live in America, I think the only way you can really help is if you join the anti-imperialism/capitalism movement.

Don't you try to out-left me! xD

Anti-war movements include what you just said, it wouldn't be homogenous. A powerful anti-war movement can go in many directions, but the breadth of the movement is important.

[Hustler]

As someone in natural resource management, I'd like to point out that swamps perform important ecosystem services and provide valuable wildlife habitat.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8174/roflbotxq1l.jpg

[Madrigal]

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8174/roflbotxq1l.jpg

Kinda prefer the word quagmire myself.

[edge walker]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/4156526243/ (Mostly a blog post not a photo)

[!diom]

I seem to remember Obama very clearly stating -- during the debates over a year ago -- that he intended to send more troops to Afghanistan. It sounded kinda funny then, and still sounds kinda funny now, but it's not like it should be a surprise.

He also plans to lay the smackdown on Pakistan.

[Madrigal]

I seem to remember Obama very clearly stating -- during the debates over a year ago -- that he intended to send more troops to Afghanistan. It sounded kinda funny then, and still sounds kinda funny now, but it's not like it should be a surprise.

He also plans to lay the smackdown on Pakistan.

The US is not in a position to be laying smackdowns, they have been smacked down for a while now by "lesser" forces. I'm waiting for the smackdown on the domestic front by its own people.

[edge walker]

I'm waiting for the smackdown on the domestic front by its own people.
Read the link.

[Madrigal]

Read the link.

Summarize the link. I hate it when people do that.

[last_caress]

The US is not in a position to be laying smackdowns, they have been smacked down for a while now by "lesser" forces. I'm waiting for the smackdown on the domestic front by its own people.

exactly how do you mean?

[Madrigal]

exactly how do you mean?

The anti-war movement needs to come back and become a nightmare for Obama.

[Neville]

You guys should just come over to the right.

[last_caress]

The anti-war movement needs to come back and become a nightmare for Obama.

not gonna happen.

[Madrigal]

not gonna happen.

Well, you're not gonna win the war either.

Btw don't underestimate people. This century hasn't exactly started off with business as usual for anybody.

[Neville]

Well, you're not gonna win the war either.

Btw don't underestimate people. This century hasn't exactly started off with business as usual for anybody.

You really think Americans are going to stage some sort of uprising?

[Madrigal]

You really think Americans are going to stage some sort of uprising?

Someday.

[Huston]

You really think Americans are going to stage some sort of uprising?

Yes, but it will be made up of religious corporatist dumb-fucks.

[last_caress]

Well, you're not gonna win the war either.

Btw don't underestimate people. This century hasn't exactly started off with business as usual for anybody.

me? I'm not fighting it.

don't underestimate the power of comfortable apathy. that and the highly polarized partisan state of politcs are primary reasons why it won't happen.

[Neville]

Someday.

Things would have to get astronomically worse for Americans to rise up. Then you have to account for the vast numbers of Americans that simply don't want what you're preaching. It would be a mess.


Yes, but it will be made up of religious corporatist dumb-fucks.

It's no different than what the liberal dumb fucks would do. Your agenda isn't any more right than theirs.

[Madrigal]

me? I'm not fighting it.
No kidding. It's easier to watch Jon Stewart crack jokes about it while eating pretzels. At least while you still have a job because the economy hasn't completely fucked itself in the face yet.


don't underestimate the power of comfortable apathy.

Don't overestimate the persistance of comfort.

[Huston]

It's no different than what the liberal dumb fucks would do. Your agenda isn't any more right than theirs.

My agenda? Ah, you presume too much.

[Anonymous]

Things would have to get astronomically worse for Americans to rise up. Then you have to account for the vast numbers of Americans that simply don't want what you're preaching. It would be a mess.



It's no different than what the liberal dumb fucks would do. Your agenda isn't any more right than theirs.

Liberals wouldn't rise up. The right would, though. It's called ultra-nationalism. It thrives off dumbucks with nothing to cling to but their state to prove their manhood and a host of apathetic people who are too stupid to realize that letting the dumbfucks run rampant through their country is just going to end up in getting majorly screwed over.

[ciphersort]

Also, I think that to be the type of person that wins a national electing in the US is elected to any position of sufficient power to matter almost guarantees them to be a bad, bullshit spouting president douche. Of course, there are exceptions.

:)

[edge walker]

Summarize the link. I hate it when people do that.

Speaking to the Western Association of Venture Capitalists today. Over lunch, and a smaller session with the Board:

In less than one month, this decade will be over. As we used to say in the Clinton administration, mistakes were made.

Healthcare. Does anyone understand what is happening? [no hands] Here it is. If you are an insurance company in America, it makes no sense to insure a 57 year old with diabetes. If you are a 24 year old, it makes no sense for you to take medical insurance. All variations of the solution force people who don't need insurance to buy it, and that covers the 57 year old with diabetes. The only fix is to force people who don't need it to buy it.

Afghanistan: There was no passion in the votes. The usual suspects were for and against. That's because nobody has a better idea. It took 5 months to split the baby - we'll give them 30K more troops but withdraw them in 2011. If you want to know what a quagmire looks like, this is it. Obama started with 50K troops, added 20K, and now 30K more.

Khazai is amazingly cynical and corrupt. The country is run by warlords and drug lords, and they don't want a government in Kabul. The deal was that they would deliver the votes if you leave us alone. And if you want a job, you have to work for them. Unlike The French Connection, they now process the heroin into cakes, and it is very portable.

Do you know how much the average marine carries in Afghanistan? 117 lbs. on average. (It's largely body armor, most recently to protect the underarms from snipers who can hit that target when arms are raised.) And it is not flat terrain. Imagine the cost in medical bills when they turn 45 years old with back pain. That's why the total cost of the wars is $3 trillion.

The Taliban is only 4% of the people, but if chaos reigns, they will kill all the barbers and math teachers.

I am very dark on the climate question. I wish I had better news.

2010: I'm a Democrat, obviously. I don't have any good news for you. We are going to lose the House. That's going to happen.

Now the Republicans don't like their own party. And everyone else can't stand them.

But if unemployment is over 10%, the incumbent will not win.

2012: If you look at the polls of how favorable people regard the Democratic Party and add their regard of the Republican Party, it's the lowest it's ever been. The trend is declining faith in political parties. Partisanship will be worse in 2012. Somebody will rise up as a third party.

So, you are probably imagining a fiscal conservative, who is socially liberal, and supports free trade and invests in education. [cheers] Sure, that's what most grad school educated people would say. But that's not the third party that you're going to see. The new party will campaign that America best ought to start taking care of its own. It will be a combo of the white GGGG Republicans who care about God, Guns, Gays and now Gold and the racially diverse Democrats that have seen their lives crushed and they want a champion to stand up for them. They look to government to soften the harsher edges of capitalism and they see an unfair system, which Obama has not changed.

So you just need a modern antichrist to step in . It wouldn't be hard to write a stump speech for them.

Here are three observations:
1) We have an expensive system of retirement security. The only area of healthcare where the U.S. leads is in life expectancy over 65 years old. And that's expensive.
2) We spend more on defense than all other countries combined.
3) Of the 30 Industrialized nations, we have the lowest per capita taxes paid.

Something is going to change by 2013.

If there is an answer, it is in this room. We have to become more productive. The real credit for the Clinton economic boom goes to an an enormous productivity spike. If we are going to have another, it will come from you guys. Deep down inside, we have great young people, and we are the best in the world at innovation.

Q: Can you compare Obama in 2010 to Clinton losing Congress in 1992-3?
A; Well, I would guess that the health care bill will pass by a slight margin. Clinton did not have that. But we don't know if Obama can take a lick. He hasn't been beat yet. But Clinton did not have the war. And this is a nasty, nasty recession. With Clinton, we got beat so bad it looked like we couldn't govern. We just weren't that good in the first two years. The '93 budget was a great accomplishment, but it was not apparent then.

Q: VCs represent only .1% of investment but create 20% of GDP growth and new jobs. How can we have political representation relative to our impact, when we are so few?
A: What percent of the country is Jewish? [long pause, 2% is offered up as a guess] Right. But just try to go against Israel. It would be end of days, wrath of god type stuff. I say this with admiration. They are very well organized.

Figure out who will be in power Rangel won't be there long. He's 76 and might get his ass indicted. Schumer is with you, but forget Kansas.

Q: China?
A: Historically they have not been expansionist. The standing assumption is that they need out market, so they buy our debt. But with their GDP growing 7.8% versus our 2.8% the great fear is that Beijing turns to their internal market, and India and Brazil, and decides they do not need America. That is the doomsday scenario.

[Neville]

Liberals wouldn't rise up. The right would, though. It's called ultra-nationalism. It thrives off dumbucks with nothing to cling to but their state to prove their manhood and a host of apathetic people who are too stupid to realize that letting the dumbfucks run rampant through their country is just going to end up in getting majorly screwed over.

You sound like the foxnews of the left wing.

[!diom]

http://andrewjpurcell.com/Cheez-It-600.jpg

Pic unrelated?

[Architectonic]

As someone in natural resource management, I'd like to point out that swamps perform important ecosystem services and provide valuable wildlife habitat.

I prefer to call them wetlands. That tends to diminish the association with bad smells. :ph34r:

[MacGuffin]

If Iraq wasn't such a waste of life/time/money/resources...

[Hustler]

I prefer to call them wetlands. That tends to diminish the association with bad smells. :ph34r:

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/1750/roflbotzspz.jpg

[OrionzRevenge]

If Iraq wasn't such a waste of life/time/money/resources...

Tru Dat!

The Iraq war will no doubt resonate through history as an epic fuck-up.

Yet, let us understand, the 30,000 going over to Afghanistan have either joined since 9/11 or else decide it is worth their while.

Further, the sensationalism about the slaughter of innocent non-combatants is erroneous. Indeed, this conflict is very remarkable for its lack of collateral damage.

And still, we have a glimmer of a chance to make things right in Afghanistan.

A government of self-determination that includes the 51 % of the populace female.
And the tools for independent internal security.

We all understand the personal importance of having a friend in an otherwise hostile hood. Thus, I don't understand why we should want to turn our backs on a people with an historical inclination (1980s) to regard us with esteem.

Mostly, and once again, I am appalled by the inflexible attitude of our members who claim to stand up for the down trodden.

How in fuck could you look an Afghan 7 year old girl in the face and say "I really don't care if somebody mutilates you, as long as he looks like you."?

Absolutely fucking not!

Whatever you think about W, he went into Afghanistan with a epic mandate from congress and the American public While Colin Powell cautioned us that "If we break it, we need to fix it."


It is time for us to fix it and redeem our failure to an affectionate ally after the Soviet withdrawal.

[Madrigal]

Things would have to get astronomically worse for Americans to rise up.
Could be.


Liberals wouldn't rise up. The right would, though. It's called ultra-nationalism.
How can you be so sure what phenomenons we'll be seeing?


So, you are probably imagining a fiscal conservative, who is socially liberal, and supports free trade and invests in education. [cheers] Sure, that's what most grad school educated people would say. But that's not the third party that you're going to see. The new party will campaign that America best ought to start taking care of its own. It will be a combo of the white GGGG Republicans who care about God, Guns, Gays and now Gold and the racially diverse Democrats that have seen their lives crushed and they want a champion to stand up for them. They look to government to soften the harsher edges of capitalism and they see an unfair system, which Obama has not changed.
I see the polarization becoming deeper. But I'm puzzled why nobody thinks a progressive movement could arise.

Btw good going with the copy/paste. :-p


Mostly, and once again, I am appalled by the inflexible attitude of our members who claim to stand up for the down trodden.

How in fuck could you look an Afghan 7 year old girl in the face and say "I really don't care if somebody mutilates you, as long as he looks like you."?

Absolutely fucking not!

:facepalm:

Uh. Right, like that had anything to do with invading Afghanistan in the first place. I think the US mutilated and killed enough little girls already by invading their country for economic interests.

[OrionzRevenge]

Uh. Right, like that had anything to do with invading Afghanistan in the first place. I think the US mutilated and killed enough little girls already by invading their country for economic interests.

I luvs ya Maddy, but Lucy could you 'splain the economic value of the pile of rocks that is Afghanistan?

[Anonymous]

How can you be so sure what phenomenons we'll be seeing?


I'm not sure of anything. We've never seen the bourgeoisie "left" rise up though, at least as far as I know. But we have seen the bourgeoisie right rise up several times, such as in Italy, Germany, Spain, Japan, etc. I see America as closer to their models than the models of, say, early 20th century Russia.

[nonperson]

could you 'splain the economic value of the pile of rocks that is Afghanistan?

Poppies.......

[nonperson]

I'm not sure of anything. We've never seen the bourgeoisie "left" rise up though, at least as far as I know. But we have seen the bourgeoisie right rise up several times, such as in Italy, Germany, Spain, Japan, etc. I see America as closer to their models than the models of, say, early 20th century Russia.

Hungary '56? Czechoslovakia '68? East Germany '89?

[nonperson]

You could help by joining an anti-war movement.

Good idea........

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/xml/news/2009/03/lifelines_recruiting_posters_031609w/031609LL_posters4_800.JPG

[INThoughtPolice]

I thought I was voting yes for the Obama/Bush pic.

[nonperson]

I thought I was voting yes for the Obama/Bush pic.

I hadn't spotted that......:stupid:

[pioneer_167]

Something's coming back to me here...yes...I remember now. It was the late 1980s and the Soviet Union was trying to win an impossible war in Afghanistan. How did that turn out for them again?

[nonperson]

Something's coming back to me here...yes...I remember now. It was the late 1980s and the Soviet Union was trying to win an impossible war in Afghanistan. How did that turn out for them again?

You have to be careful with conclusions you draw from that Afghan war. At no time did the USSR have more 5% of its forces in country. And various such as the VDV formations were quite successful against the Mujahideen. None of those inconvenient PC ROE to worry about.

[pioneer_167]

You have to be careful with conclusions you draw from that Afghan war. At no time did the USSR have more 5% of its forces in country. And various such as the VDV formations were quite successful against the Mujahideen. None of those inconvenient PC ROE to worry about.

I realize it isn't the same, but the environment and terrain are still just as harsh now as they were then. It's an example of how a long, drawn out war with what seems like a disorganized group can eventually bleed even a superpower to death.

[edge walker]

I'm puzzled why nobody thinks a progressive movement could arise.
History.


Btw good going with the copy/paste. :-p
:P

[nonperson]

I realize it isn't the same, but the environment and terrain are still just as harsh now as they were then. It's an example of how a long, drawn out war with what seems like a disorganized group can eventually bleed even a superpower to death.

Death by a thousand cuts! Politics win and loose wars now I realise that, I am an IR (Security Studies) student. I spent a good deal of time with teenagers (and early 20s) who trot the party line when it comes to certain conflicts. Take Vietnam. Rarely, rarely did US forces or its allies loose a face to face with either the NVA or Viet Cong. But because the political war was lost this gets broadened to include the military sphere. Take the Tet. Ask the average politics or (non-specialist) history lecturer about how much a set back that offensive was for the US forces. Take the US embassy incident. They will have the streets full of pyjama wearing AK47 warriors. Not so. The VC soundly had their back sides kicked. In fact some would have it that the VC were sacrificed by the NVA because of competition between their DIFFERENT sponsors. US caught by surprise, yes. Threatened to the point of collapse or capitulation, not even close.

Another factoid missing from the thread is that more often than not a withdrawal (or even disengagement on the tactical/operation) requires greater force. When the Brits pulled out of Aden it required two aircraft carriers to cover the withdrawal.

[nonperson]

History.


:P

Preferably history not taught by lefty socialist simpletons that dominate history faculties in the West...........:grin:

[pioneer_167]

Death by a thousand cuts! Politics win and loose wars now I realise that, I am an IR (Security Studies) student. I spent a good deal of time with teenagers (and early 20s) who trot the party line when it comes to certain conflicts. Take Vietnam. Rarely, rarely did US forces or its allies loose a face to face with either the NVA or Viet Cong. But because the political war was lost this gets broadened to include the military sphere. Take the Tet. Ask the average politics or (non-specialist) history lecturer about how much a set back that offensive was for the US forces. Take the US embassy incident. They will have the streets full of pyjama wearing AK47 warriors. Not so. The VC soundly had their back sides kicked. In fact some would have it that the VC were sacrificed by the NVA because of competition between their DIFFERENT sponsors. US caught by surprise, yes. Threatened to the point of collapse or capitulation, not even close.

Another factoid missing from the thread is that more often than not a withdrawal (or even disengagement on the tactical/operation) requires greater force. When the Brits pulled out of Aden it required two aircraft carriers to cover the withdrawal.

History is full of accounts of seemingly small, disorganized forces defeating larger, more organized armies. I agree with you that it's a lot of politics, especially in Vietnam. It wasn't necessarily that the war was not winnable, but rather that a military force simply cannot function at maximum efficiency when it's carrying around a huge political trailer. Those small forces can move around on a dime and aren't restrained by a political/military hierarchy.

As for withdrawals, absolutely, it can be a major operation. But that certainly puts us in quite the quagmire. Do you stay, potentially for a very long time, slowly bleeding to death militarily or economically, or do you quit outright and deal with that? There are only really two solutions to the Afghan war in my opinion. First, they need to figure out exactly what it is they are trying to accomplish and do whatever necessary to get it done. I don't think they've been doing that, either because they can't, or they aren't being given the resources to do it. Second is to just leave. It seems to me though, that there are a lot of people who seem to advocate a third option: Stay indefinitely, throwing just enough resources at it to keep afloat, but not enough to complete the task. The third option is what you get when politics become too ingrained in micromanaging military operations.

[lowtech redneck]

books not bombs

the cost of sending 1 US troop for 1 year could instead build 20 schools there

What good are schools without the soldier's to protect them?

[Anonymous]

What good are schools without the soldier's to protect them?

There are more choices between absolutely no soldiers and way too many (and having them all in the wrong spot).

[Neville]

There are more choices between absolutely no soldiers and way too many (and having them all in the wrong spot).

Where are the right spots?

[Anonymous]

Where are the right spots?

Home.

[lowtech redneck]

Home.

You kind of just contradicted your last post in spirit, if not technically.

[Neville]

Home.

You'd rather us be an isolationist nation?

[euterpenc]

At first I thought the third option was simply blank, and so I was going to choose it on the basis that it is absurd to talk about things like this. I don't know what to say anymore.

My initial choice was confirmed when I saw the picture.

[Robert165]

At first I thought the third option was simply blank, and so I was going to choose it on the basis that it is absurd to talk about things like this. I don't know what to say anymore.

My initial choice was confirmed when I saw the picture.
i must say i dislike the picture too

[Defensin]

i must say i dislike the picture too

I think the picture is quite amusing.

Eugenics? Anyone?

[Stryfe]

You have to be careful with conclusions you draw from that Afghan war. At no time did the USSR have more 5% of its forces in country. And various such as the VDV formations were quite successful against the Mujahideen. None of those inconvenient PC ROE to worry about.
It goes back much further than that though. Afghanistan (or the region that is now called Afghanistan) has been invaded by outside forces over and over throughout history. The Pashtun people (who don't recognize borders and move freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan) have a long heritage of repelling these invaders. Gengis Kahn didn't have an easy time with them either. These people know how to fight this kind of war like few others do. I will be incredibly surprised if there is any victory in this war, the best I think we can hope for is some kind of negotiated peace.

Wouldn't it be nice if world leaders bothered to look into the history of a country before invading it.

[Anonymous]

You kind of just contradicted your last post in spirit, if not technically.

How so?


You'd rather us be an isolationist nation?

No, I'd rather us not try to police other nations.

[Skinart]

No, I'd rather us not try to police other nations.

While I see a certain amount of value in keeping our wars in other people's countries, I also see a tremendous amount of irony in that I see many of the same faces in protests to bring our troops home that I see in protests to 'Do Something!' about warlords in some other country populated by brown people.

[spamtar]

Democrats President/Republican president...meh…what’s the difference...they are all in the pocket of international corporations. More blood for oil. Fucked up thing is taxpayer has to flip the bill and American youth has to die/kill.

[Neville]

No, I'd rather us not try to police other nations.

Would you be opposed to the US stepping in to stop a genocide in Sub-Saharan Africa?

[Anonymous]

Would you be opposed to the US stepping in to stop a genocide in Sub-Saharan Africa?

Yes.

[Neville]

Yes.

At least you're consistent.

[lowtech redneck]

How so?


1.) My first post was a response to a post by joft, where he was arguing that it would be better to spend an equivalent amount of money on Afghan schools rather than on more troops. My implicit contention was that spending such money on schools rather than troops would only result in the schools being blown up and the school children dying.

2.) You challenged my response by (perhaps inadvertently) implying that protecting Afghan schools and school children could be better accomplished through means other than adding more troops to Afghanistan, in the process apparently implying (given the context of preceding posts) that fewer troops could accomplish the same thing if positioned differently, and further implying (again, in the context of preceding posts) that this did not mean you were advocating a total military withdrawal from Afghanistan at this point in time.

3.) Finally, you implicitly stated that you do in fact favor a total military withdrawal from Afghanistan, which would leave any schools we helped to build defenseless (thereby defeating the purpose of building them in the first place).

We seem to be talking past each other again; I was talking about the most effective use of our resources for the purposes of our strategic goals in Afghanistan (as per my response to joft) , while you seem to have been talking about the purpose of the American military itself, which you believe should not currently include any strategic goals in Afghanistan.

[Her Royal Highness]

What a surprise!

No, not really.

That was to be expected.

[Madrigal]

I luvs ya Maddy, but Lucy could you 'splain the economic value of the pile of rocks that is Afghanistan?


Poppies.......

I don't think this was the main reason, despite Afghanistan being the world's largest exporter of heroin.

If the US was going to advance its economic interests in the region, it is of strategic importance to install a US-friendly regime there. To the north it borders with the oil, gas and coal-rich countries of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. The latter also have minerals. Through Uzbekistan you can reach Kazakhstan, a huge territory which has a wealth of oil and gas as well as minerals.

This entire region of untapped resources is surrounded by Russia, China, Iran... and Afghanistan. You do the math.

Afghanistan is a strategic route needed to expand the USA's sphere of influence in Central Asia.

[nonperson]

Afghanistan is a strategic route needed to expand the USA's sphere of influence in Central Asia.

Thank you for the geography lesson. I am very well of aware of Afghanistan's geopolitical importance. I would google "Great Game"..........

[Madrigal]

At least you're consistent.

The US does't step in to "stop genocides" unless it has an economic interest in the balance. We all know it will actually unleash or support a genocide for the same reason.

I do so love it when the right calls the left "idealists". USA mobilizing its troops for humanitarian interests...

To quote a respected philosopher of our time, "Yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt."

[Robert165]

The US does't step in to "stop genocides" unless it has an economic interest in the balance. We all know it will actually unleash or support a genocide for the same reason.

I do so love it when the right calls the left "idealists". USA mobilizing its troops for humanitarian interests...

To quote a respected philosopher of our time, "Yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt."
they've tried to say the same thing about Iraq
"humanitarian intervention" was sited as a major justification :banghead:

[Madrigal]

Thank you for the geography lesson. I am very well of aware of Afghanistan's geopolitical importance. I would google "Great Game"..........

So why did you say, "poppies"? You think the heroin is more important than all those nations put together? Or do you just type things because you can.

[Madrigal]

That was to be expected.

Yep, but I don't think Obama's campaign stated he would send tens of thousands more to Afghanistan, despite not opposing the war. When people think of an exit strategy they don't usually imagine sending 30,000 more soldiers somewhere. So some people are actually surprised by this.

Of course, maybe Obama did say he was sending a massive number of new troops to Afghanistan during his campaign, and I missed it. Doubt it though.

[nonperson]

So why did you say, "poppies"? You think the heroin is more important than all those nations put together? Or do you just type things because you can.

No if I remember somebody said something about the economic value of Afghanistan. And Afghanistan derives its main economic value from heroin. Just because heroin is illegal and therefore traded on a black market doesn't actually reduce its value. One of the hot topic areas in security studies is alternative economies (and value structures.) You would know this by its more work a day name of crime. Further you could say that a lot of legitimate expenditure is derived from that source: law enforcement, health care, social care, popular culture. etc. etc.

And yes I do sometimes type things just because I can. :yes:

[OrionzRevenge]

You'd rather us be an isolationist nation?

One wonders what the face of this planet would look like without the U.S.'s sense of global responsibility over this past century???

America has made mistakes and is not above taking care of the home-front first.

We have made deals with the devils such as the Shaw of Iran or various petty dictators in hopes of a greater good that finally come to fruition when the Iron curtain came tumbling down.

Take a look at all the blue places on this map.

http://orionzworld.tripod.com/wmd.gif
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Freedom+House+electoral+democracies&go=Go


For most of these blue places a good argument could be made that America:

Defended, Re-Stored, Instilled, Supported, Petitioned or Inspired governments of self determination via the ballot box.

Another curtain will one day fall.
This past summer, the women of Iran were in the streets eating bullets, and Islamic fundamentalist will one day succumb to their suffrage. thus what we do in Afghanistan will impact when and what will come to pass in Persia. Maybe in this way America can redeem another stain on our hands.

It frustrates me when I constantly here America referred to as some sort of Demonic Greed Machine.

Take a look at the blue on this map.

The U.S. and her allies have paid with a mountain of coin and a valley of blood for much of it.

P.S. Maddy, I understand where you have been witness to some of the Devil dealing I spoke of, and for that I am apologetic.
:hug:

[Madrigal]

No if I remember somebody said something about the economic value of Afghanistan. And Afghanistan derives its main economic value from heroin. Just because heroin is illegal and therefore traded on a black market doesn't actually reduce its value. One of the hot topic areas in security studies is alternative economies (and value structures.) You would know this by its more work a day name of crime. Further you could say that a lot of legitimate expenditure is derived from that source: law enforcement, health care, social care, popular culture. etc. etc.

And yes I do sometimes type things just because I can. :yes:

That's not an intuitive reply, considering that the question implied was, "If the US invaded Afghanistan for economic interests, then how is Afghanistan valuable". Therefore the answer to that is the strategic location of the country and not its poppies.

[Robert165]

That's not an intuitive reply, considering that the question implied was, "If the US invaded Afghanistan for economic interests, then how is Afghanistan valuable". Therefore the answer to that is the strategic location of the country and not its poppies.
didnt the US invade afghanistan in response to 9/11 ?

[nonperson]

didnt the US invade afghanistan in response to 9/11 ?

Did you know gullible isn't in the dictionary? ;)

[Madrigal]

Orionz - you should check out this site of coups arranged or backed by the USA. (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa01.html)

[Robert165]

Did you know gullible isn't in the dictionary? ;)
i guess there is no use arguing if you're going to take that position. this is one of those topics thats like a religous concept, each persons opinon and each persons bias are more or less directly linked. i clearly think the proof is on my sode and i doubt either of us is going to sway the other......

[OrionzRevenge]

Orionz - you should check out this site of coups arranged or backed by the USA. (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa01.html)

Maddy, I must admit to being ignorant as to the details of many of these, and a goodly number I admit are the sorts of cold war Devil dealings I spoke of. Albeit, some of these stretch the creative application of "coups arranged or backed by the USA".

I do understand where the fount of your frustration pours from. I wish I could erase the alienation and sense of betrayal they have caused. Maybe in time we can find a way.

[MacGuffin]

Orionz - you should check out this site of coups arranged or backed by the USA. (http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa01.html)
I was quickly able to find several facts wrong. I demand a better link, preferably one untainted with bias.

How is it the U.S. manged to pull off a coup in Australia in 1975, but never Mexico? WTF?

[kble]

The picture is oddly compelling.

[nonperson]

That's not an intuitive reply, considering that the question implied was, "If the US invaded Afghanistan for economic interests, then how is Afghanistan valuable". Therefore the answer to that is the strategic location of the country and not its poppies.

No its poppies.

[Madrigal]

Maddy, I must admit to being ignorant as to the details of many of these
Me too, I only read about some of those events.

I demand a better link, preferably one untainted with bias.
I'm on it. I'll bring it to you along with a cloak made from the golden skins of Hell-dwelling salamanders.

[Henry]

Never get involved in a land war in Asia. The US has had a poor history of extricating itself from those. See Korea and Vietnam. I don't know why people expect this would be any different.

Not just the US either...
http://www.garenewing.co.uk/angloafghanwar/sitestuff/images_sitestuff/book_Maiwand66th.jpg

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier!

[nonperson]

Quoting Kipling doesn't get you points here. Unfortunately. :)

[Hustler]

Did mancroft post this (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout) yet?

[C.J.Woolf]

Did mancroft post this (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout) yet?
mancroft does not strike me as the Rolling Stone-reading type. Which would be a shame, because Matt Taibbi is fantastic.

[joft]

fuck yeah, matt taibbi

[Architectonic]

How is it the U.S. manged to pull off a coup in Australia in 1975, but never Mexico? WTF?

'backed by America'. LOL
They did not organise it and were not the catalyst.

Summary: Whitlam's massive public spending spree sent Australia into massive debt. The senate blocked his attempt to increase the debt and so he tried to illegally get loans from the middle east. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

[MacGuffin]

'backed by America'. LOL
They did not organise it and were not the catalyst.

Summary: Whitlam's massive public spending spree sent Australia into massive debt. The senate blocked his attempt to increase the debt and so he tried to illegally get loans from the middle east. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

No, you're our bitch.

[nonperson]

No, you're our bitch.

I remember the last time you posted a remark like this in a similar thread. And I will respond in a similar fashion....

The fact of the matter is both the US and Australia are China's bitches.
The US because of the dollar imbalance. Australia because its economy is based on primary industries which means it is tied to China. In fact it could be argued that the Australia economy follows an essentially Third World model.

The UK is now Belgium's bitch. :p

[Qfwfq]

What a surprise!

No, not really.

He said in the campaign trail he would pull troops out of Iraq, and put them in Afghanistan.


So no, it's not really a surprise, I think you just confused the two in memory.


Not that I give a shit, I think it's all a bunch of crap.

[MacGuffin]

I remember the last time you posted a remark like this in a similar thread. And I will respond in a similar fashion....

The fact of the matter is both the US and Australia are China's bitches.
The US because of the dollar imbalance. Australia because its economy is based on primary industries which means it is tied to China. In fact it could be argued that the Australia economy follows an essentially Third World model.

The UK is now Belgium's bitch. :p
Time for Chinese coup. Should be easy, we do like one per year it seems.

[nonperson]

Time for Chinese coup. Should be easy, we do like one per year it seems.

One of things that annoys me about studying IR in an education system that is essentially populated with proto-commies and whining socialists is that Chinese ascendency is seen as a given. And I just don't see it.

We have two world renown experts on China and Third World development in the department. And I had small argument with one over the state of the China's hi-tech industries. Broadly I pointed out the China only builds last generation tech' for foreign companies, that when it tries to do its own thing it invariable fails, it struggles to copy Soviet last gen military tech, the society model doesn't allow for independent thought (its armed forces don't allow officers to think for themselves let alone NCOs which are the back bone of any successful military force. There will never ever be a Chinese google,) the internal economics are skewed too many poor and a few rich, birth rate screwed, etc. etc. All document facts but I was talking garbage.

I wasn't too popular when I pointed out that the Chinese like him because he told the Chinese what they wanted to hear.......

[avolkiteshvara]

One of things that annoys me about studying IR in an education system that is essentially populated with proto-commies and whining socialists is that Chinese ascendency is seen as a given. And I just don't see it.

We have two world renown experts on China and Third World development in the department. And I had small argument with one over the state of the China's hi-tech industries. Broadly I pointed out the China only builds last generation tech' for foreign companies, that when it tries to do its own thing it invariable fails, it struggles to copy Soviet last gen military tech, the society model doesn't allow for independent thought (its armed forces don't allow officers to think for themselves let alone NCOs which are the back bone of any successful military force. There will never ever be a Chinese google,) the internal economics are skewed too many poor and a few rich, birth rate screwed, etc. etc. All document facts but I was talking garbage.

I wasn't too popular when I pointed out that the Chinese like him because he told the Chinese what they wanted to hear.......

After listening to and reading some "experts", I do agree. Their lack of creativity and social/political structure ripe for revolt/upheaval do constrict global dominance.

Once they float the dollar, they have to figure out how to self-sustain.

[nonperson]

After listening to and reading some "experts", I do agree. Their lack of creativity and social/political structure ripe for revolt/upheaval do constrict global dominance.

Once they float the dollar, they have to figure out how to self-sustain.

The Chinese are pushing for a new currency to replace or complement (depending on how you read it) the dollar. Now as we all know the dollar isn't real and the current crisis if nothing else has proved that money it totally abstract.

Perhaps a better way to evaluate China's strength is to ask if the global system was to collapse which country would recover more quickly? Have a think.

A year or two back I attended lecture by one of the UK's leading China experts. This was one of a series of lectures ran annually for adults and student attendance was rare. For this particular lecture though the large auditorium was dotted with groups of Chinese (foreign not domestic) students. At the end during the question and answer session they didn't ask questions they just stated that China was a really great country. No reasons. Just China was a really great country. It was bizarre.......

[Hustler]

One of things that annoys me about studying IR in an education system that is essentially populated with proto-commies and whining socialists is that Chinese ascendency is seen as a given. And I just don't see it.

We have two world renown experts on China and Third World development in the department. And I had small argument with one over the state of the China's hi-tech industries. Broadly I pointed out the China only builds last generation tech' for foreign companies, that when it tries to do its own thing it invariable fails, it struggles to copy Soviet last gen military tech, the society model doesn't allow for independent thought (its armed forces don't allow officers to think for themselves let alone NCOs which are the back bone of any successful military force. There will never ever be a Chinese google,) the internal economics are skewed too many poor and a few rich, birth rate screwed, etc. etc. All document facts but I was talking garbage.

I wasn't too popular when I pointed out that the Chinese like him because he told the Chinese what they wanted to hear.......

I don't think the objections you raise really paint a complete picture. The most important factor IMO in regards to China's ability to master hi-tech is its ability to produce scientists. In 1995, there were 8,139 Chinese people who were 1st year entrants into Ph.D programs in China. In 2003, this number was 48,740. In 2010, this number will eclipse that in the United States, and this doesn't even factor in Chinese people studying abroad for their Ph.D.s. Consider, too, that in 2000, 52% of bachelor's degrees granted in China were in science and engineering, compared to 17% of bachelor's degrees in the United States.

This is why people see Chinese ascendancy as a given. The ability to be a leader in hi-tech is a function of the ability to produce scientists and engineers. China's education system has been in the toilet for its entire modern history, up to the last few years. In 1978, only 1.4% of college-aged people in China were in higher education; in 2005 that number had climbed to 20%. Now, China still has a long way to go. As of 2008, the Chinese national education budget was at about US$8.11 billion, which is quite paltry in comparison to the $972 billion the US spent in 2007. But, what's critical is that the Chinese 2008 budget was a 45% increase over its 2007 budget. If it continues to increase at this pace then, given its size, it will catch up to the United States in dollar spent per student in about 25 years. However, given China's rate of science and engineering Ph.D. production, it doesn't have to catch up to the United States across the board on education to compete with it in hi-tech.

What you say about the disparity between the haves and have nots in China is true, and it will probably take a while before income disparity has decreased to levels seen in today's first-wold nations. For instance, Shanghai has a PPP per capita of $21,795, and a baby born today in Shanghai has a longer life expectancy than a baby born today in New York City. In terms of an external comparison, that PPP figure puts it right around the level of Portugal. But, a city like Chongqing has a PPP per capita of about $2,595. Places like Shanghai will be centers of hi-tech development and places like Chongqing will continue to be full of gigantic factories with 50,000 employees making underwear for westerners.

Time will tell if China will be able to rectify enough of its problems to be a serious contender on the hi-tech front. They are clearly making moves designed to strengthen their hi-tech industry, what with such a focused move toward science and engineering Ph.D. production, but they obviously have a long way to go. Can they get there? Yes. Will they? No one can prognosticate that one. In the United States, the state with the highest median household income is Maryland, at $70,545. The lowest is Mississippi, at about $37,790. This is a regional disparity ratio of about 2:1. The difference between Shanghai and Chongqing was about 8:1 (and there are regions of China even poorer than Chongqing, though it gets a little complicated to properly analyze them). I think you need to see this difference shrink in order for China to be a serious contender in the global hi-tech arena, and it could be that China's education policies will end up doing just that.

[nonperson]

I have just caught a quick glimpse of your post on iSpy. I am sure it is wonderful. But as you are on my ignore list I am unable to furnish you with a reply.

[Dman]

One wonders what the Taliban will use all those schools for???

I know, nobody here has mentioned the first word about the Taliban.

I mean, why on Earth would someone want to bring those Women beating, Buddha blasting, Bomb making bastards into our quaint little discussion about the Afghan War?


What is your point?

Yes, there are bad governments/warlords/gangs all over the world that do horrible things to the people they rule. Obviously that is not the criteria for the US to get involved militarily. so I presume your point is that since we are already there, we should have a responsibility to eliminate the "bad guys" (currently the Taliban) before we leave. Is that your point?


Tru Dat!

The Iraq war will no doubt resonate through history as an epic fuck-up.

Yet, let us understand, the 30,000 going over to Afghanistan have either joined since 9/11 or else decide it is worth their while.

Further, the sensationalism about the slaughter of innocent non-combatants is erroneous. Indeed, this conflict is very remarkable for its lack of collateral damage.

And still, we have a glimmer of a chance to make things right in Afghanistan.

A government of self-determination that includes the 51 % of the populace female.
And the tools for independent internal security.

We all understand the personal importance of having a friend in an otherwise hostile hood. Thus, I don't understand why we should want to turn our backs on a people with an historical inclination (1980s) to regard us with esteem.

Mostly, and once again, I am appalled by the inflexible attitude of our members who claim to stand up for the down trodden.

How in fuck could you look an Afghan 7 year old girl in the face and say "I really don't care if somebody mutilates you, as long as he looks like you."?

Absolutely fucking not!

Whatever you think about W, he went into Afghanistan with a epic mandate from congress and the American public While Colin Powell cautioned us that "If we break it, we need to fix it."


It is time for us to fix it and redeem our failure to an affectionate ally after the Soviet withdrawal.

You actually wrote "tru dat"? I'm embarassed for you.

Anyways, about this -


the sensationalism about the slaughter of innocent non-combatants is erroneous. Indeed, this conflict is very remarkable for its lack of collateral damage.

How is the "sensationalism" erroneous? I think you miss the point. The point is that ANY collateral damage should be taken seriously and weigh heavily on our minds.

There may be people who are willing to go risk their health and lives to fight for what they believe in, but little kids and other people simply minding their own business don't sign up for that shit. So it better be for a really fucking clear-cut and morally superior cause to justify ANY of it. Even then, justification for killing innocent people is arguable. You think this war qualifies?

Does it qualify for your wife, kid, mom, sister, boyfriend, whatever, to be subject to death or horrible disfiguration? Would you accept that?

Or is it easier to accept/justify "some" collateral damage when it's thousands of miles away and people you don't know.


How in fuck could you look an Afghan 7 year old girl in the face and say "I really don't care if somebody mutilates you, as long as he looks like you."?

Or say to her "it was worth your mom and dad and little brother being blown to pieces by that US airplane, because the US is going to "fix" your nation! This was just an accident, they don't happen as often as they used to. Aren't we great?"


time for us to fix it and redeem our failure

Yeah, that's great. What other great recommendations do you have, Pollyanna? Time for us to end world hunger, disease, and poverty?

How much fucking time, huh? How much money, how much death? How much is enough? What are the metrics used to determine sustainable success versus failure?

Wait - I know! Set up multi-million dollar bases and establish a permanent military presence there! Just another sponge to suck our country dry in the name of "defense" "democracy" "freedom".

...

On another note, lately I've seen media pundits proclaiming that the best way to end the war is to reinstate the draft. You know, when everyday people suddenly have to start worrying if they, or their brother/kid/husband/boyfriend are going to go fight in the war. That would make the public think a little harder about the worthiness of a war, no? A little more thought put into the old cost/benefit analysis?

Curious what folks here think about that.