The self delusion and justifications are mind boggling...
Russ Feingold (D-MN) in the WSJ
I cannot support an open-ended commitment to an escalating war in Afghanistan when the al Qaeda operatives we sought have largely been captured or killed or crossed the border to Pakistan.
OK, I will listen to what you have to say about getting them in Pak
Yet our operations in Afghanistan will not do so, and they could actually contribute to further destabilization of Pakistan. Meanwhile, we've become embroiled in a nation-building experiment that may distract us from combating al Qaeda and its affiliates, not just in Pakistan, but in Yemen, the Horn of Africa and other terrorist sanctuaries.
Nice try, but Obama has said the real war is in Afghanistan. Of course watching you and he, and the others of like mind, in the end try to slip that knot will be great sport
We need to start discussing a flexible timetable to bring our brave troops out of Afghanistan
Welcome to 1990. We already brought everyone home once.
our troop presence contributes to resentment in some quarters and hinders our ability to achieve our broader national security goals.
Where have I heard this before? Maybe before the surge in Iraq? NAAAAAAAAAAAH
But wait till you read this and try to figure out what it means
we should seek to deny al Qaeda a safe haven in Afghanistan in the long term with a civilian-led strategy discouraging any support for the Taliban by Pakistani security forces, and offer assistance to improve Afghanistan's economy while fighting corruption in its government. This should be coupled with targeted military operations and a diplomatic strategy that incorporates all the countries in the region. We will never relent in our pursuit of al Qaeda, nor will we "walk away" from Afghanistan. But our massive military presence there is driving our enemies together and may well be counterproductive.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
Pakistani security forces 'dissuaded' from supporting the Taliban? Delusion.
Here, take our money and think of us as nice guys and be nice to you people instead of stealing this money? Yeah, that has worked in the past
A diplomatic strategy to kill a religious war?
And this lie?
"We will never relent in our pursuit of al Qaeda, nor will we "walk away" from Afghanistan"
That is precisely what you are proposing in a Maple-BrownSugar Oatmeal dish to kill the flavor.
This sucks Russ, but those are the cards, Feingold. Imagine this manner of thinking in April 1942.
I have no idea what Feingold ACTUALLY ENVISIONS, but I can tell you what others will see. I can tell you what enemies, religious and otherwise will convey to those they influence. I can tell you what allies will fear about us in the night. And I can tell you what Mr, Feingold and so many other democrats can hide from themselves with such alacrity. They are the party of defeat. And they were chosen by the people
7 comments:
fyi, that pic of the fall of saigon was 1975.
last us troops on the ground in combat in Vietnam: 1973. 3.30.1973 - two years earlier.
the svg fell because the dem doves in congress pulled the plug on them financially.
they'll o the same to afghanistan and iraq and israel.
I believe the photo from Memri is Hassan Nasrallah.
In any case, the man is likely right.
However, he is wrong, we did not abandon everyone who placed their trust in us.
We did not abandon the Philippines.
We did not abandon England.
We did not abandon Germany.
We did not abandon Japan.
And, we did not abandon the black slaves of the American South.
Yes that's precisely the point, Relia, and do you know the eyes?
Pasto .. as Derek Jeter said of the 2002 Yankees when down 3-1 in the playoffs, and being reminded of all the great yankee comebacks ...
THAT
WASN'T
THIS
TEAM
Remember, Hassan Abassi's dictum?
'Bush was an exception to the western risk averse man, and will never be repeated'
They are only marginally worried and will behave as if the tidal forces of history (in this case they see them as religious) are with them, and they are going to play .750 ball the rest of the season
I don't think things are going to work out the way Nasrallah thinks they are, IN THE LONG RUN.
What exactly are we fighting for in Afghanistan? He's right about al-Qaeda being pretty much defeated. We didn't go in there to fight the Taliban, and even without the Taliban Afghanistan and Pakistan are still the Taliban. It's who they are. While he's clearly lying about giving a rat's ass about our national security, we have little interest in changing who those people are fundamentally. It's a money pit and the whole of Afghanistan is not worth a single allied life, not by a long shot. We should cut and run because the job is done. We should also cut off all aid to both nations, and every nation, until they hold regular, free elections and uphold the UDHR to the letter, so forever. Keep them poor and killing each other. It's the best we can hope for with either of those cesspoolstans. We should be in India protecting out allies, just like we should be in Ethiopia instead of giving money to Somalia. The best we can hope for with any of those nations (and all Islamic nations) is famine, disease, and civil war, which is their natural state. Who are we to try to change that?
This is not a situation like Vietnam where we knew that pulling out would cause the S. Vietnamese to be slaughtered. We're just letting Afghans be Afghans and Pakis be Pakis. We can't fight that, so we should contain them so that they kill each other, which is, let's face it, the only thing a Paki or an Afghan has ever contributed to this world.
Fighting a turf war for Karzai is quite possibly the stupidest foreign policy decision ever made. We should have left in 2002.
Feingold is from Wisconsin, not MN. And he's right about Afghanistan. At a recent listening session, when he spoke on this topic he mentioned other, non military ways that we can support them. Afghanistan is not a country we should expect to be able to govern, though we can hope to work with them.
Sharai,
I pretty much agree with you.
My father (who lives in the UK) sent me a book which changed my mind about Afghanistan:
http://www.amazon.com/Places-Between-Rory-Stewart/dp/0156031566/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251904296&sr=1-4
Reading this book explains why Afghanistan has become the destroyer of Empires throughout history.
You began a sentence in your comment with these words,
"Afghanistan is not a nation ..."
Excise the rest of the comment and you spoke absolute truth.
Afghanistan is not a nation. It is a nest of poisonous insects. There is no way to fix the problems in Afghanistan.
It's almost as if hell is on Earth and it was named Afghanistan.
Post a Comment