Thread: Karsai proves American deaths in Afghanistan a waste

Originally Posted by Amielle

Someone has coined that phrase first, his name is Neville Chamberlain.

Correct.

Peace in our time.

Originally Posted by Amielle

Someone has coined that phrase first, his name is Neville Chamberlain.

Because some third rate Middle Eastern country with 1980's military technolgy poses the same threat that Germany did to Europe in the '30's.

Originally Posted by ArmyCowboy

Please don't do yourself the discredit of believe the "we want to give others the opportunity to be free" garbage.

The US government doesn't give a rat's hairy ass if some villager in Afghanistan has the opportunity to vote or enjoy politcal freedom.

It has nothing to do with the US government. It has to do with the people of the US. The people of the US have, for a long time, been seen as a "dangerous nation" due to the habit of America to export democracy.

The phrase "dangerous nation" comes from a letter that John Quincy Adams wrote to his father. John Quincy Adams was serving as the ambassador to the United Kingdom in 1817. And he reported to his father, John Adams, that all the governments of Europe regarded the United States as likely to become a very dangerous member of the society of nations and that all of Europe was fervently hoping that the United States would break apart and not fulfill what they regarded as this very dangerous destiny.

Arab nationalism was born from the teachings on patriotism by US missionaries in the middle east in the 19th century.

Re-read the declaration. This is the basis of our foreign policy.

Note-the worst stain on Pres. Clinton's record is his failure to intervene in Rwanda.

Note 2-the US built itself, and engaged in nation building following the civil war.

Our foreign policy is based on the needs of the United States.

We have no business interceding into the internal affairs of other countries and wasting money that we don't have for some ridiculous noble gestures.

As far as nation building goes, these have been utter disaters since as a nation we continually fail to anticipate the reactions to our interventions. We continually do ourselves more harm than good, intervening into the business of other countires, not to mention wasting our nations blood and treasure.

Originally Posted by ArmyCowboy

As far as nation building goes, these have been utter disaters since as a nation we continually fail to anticipate the reactions to our interventions. We continually do ourselves more harm than good, intervening into the business of other countires, not to mention wasting our nations blood and treasure.

Europe, post WWII? Japan, where Gen McArthur wrote the constitution that still serves today? Eastern Europe following the collapse of the USSR? We have made many good choices.

In the western hemisphere, where the US has had almost exclusive hegemomny, the state of affairs has been largely peaceful. No wars. No major atrocities (except for Cuba). And except for the occasional socialist dictator, largely free nations.

The Imperialism of the British Empire has, overall, been a benefit to those nations in which it existed.

Originally Posted by ArizonaSun

Europe, post WWII? Japan, where Gen McArthur wrote the constitution that still serves today? Eastern Europe following the collapse of the USSR? We have made many good choices.

In the western hemisphere, where the US has had almost exclusive hegemomny, the state of affairs has been largely peaceful. No wars. No major atrocities (except for Cuba). And except for the occasional socialist dictator, largely free nations.

The Imperialism of the British Empire has, overall, been a benefit to those nations in which it existed.

Japan declared war against the US, we had no choice but to fight that war.

As for Eastern Europe, other than Bosnia and Kosevo (which are still a mess) we haven't invaded any of those nations, last I checked.

As for South America, it was a proxy war for most of the 70's and 80's for the Cold War with US installed right wing dictators battle communist rebels all through the continant. Che Guevera ring any bells?

Finally, imperialism isn't a benefit other than to the imperialists. Of course coming from folks who back liberal interventionist policies, I can see how they would think imperialism is a great and wonderful thing.

I do find it rather odd and hypocritical that one espousing freedom and liberty would find imperialism palatable.

Originally Posted by ArmyCowboy

I do find it rather odd and hypocritical that one espousing freedom and liberty would find imperialism palatable.

What where the other guys doing?

Originally Posted by ArmyCowboy

Because some third rate Middle Eastern country with 1980's military technolgy poses the same threat that Germany did to Europe in the '30's.

Dear bin Laden,

Thanks for freeing up real estate in lower Manhattan. Sorry you live in a backward ass country. Please don’t attack us again. Cheerio!

Originally Posted by Amielle

Dear bin Laden,

Thanks for freeing up real estate in lower Manhattan. Sorry you live in a backward ass country. Please don’t attack us again. Cheerio!

You're honestly trying to compare the 9/11 attacks to the wholesale death and destruction caused by WWII?

Really?
:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by ArmyCowboy

You're honestly trying to compare the 9/11 attacks to the wholesale death and destruction caused by WWII?

Really?
:rolleyes:

By all means. They are equivalent. :rolleyes:

Yep, at Pearl Harbor we should have just let that slide like we should have with 9/11.

Originally Posted by Amielle

By all means. They are equivalent. :rolleyes:

Yep, at Pearl Harbor we should have just let that slide like we should have with 9/11.

Not "letting it slide" does not equate to a full scale invasion and subsequent 8+ year occupation of a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

Originally Posted by ArmyCowboy

Not "letting it slide" does not equate to a full scale invasion and subsequent 8+ year occupation of a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

Then tell us where is the point between “letting it slide” and “full scale invasion and subsequent 8+ year occupation of a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks” is?

Where did the US go wrong? At what point can the US pull out and be rest assured that the flowers grown on Afghan soil by the blameless Taliban are not for opium funded terrorism, but for hippies to put behind their ears and dance blissfully for peace?

Simply put, Afghanistan was supposed to be the “just war”. When did it become “unjust”, or should the US have just let 9/11 slide by the wayside and done nothing.

Originally Posted by Amielle

Then tell us where is the point between “letting it slide” and “full scale invasion and subsequent 8+ year occupation of a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks” is?

Where did the US go wrong? At what point can the US pull out and be rest assured that the flowers grown on Afghan soil by the blameless Taliban are not for opium funded terrorism, but for hippies to put behind their ears and dance blissfully for peace?

Simply put, Afghanistan was supposed to be the “just war”. When did it become “unjust”, or should the US have just let 9/11 slide by the wayside and done nothing.

My previous post was on the subject of Iraq, not Afghanistan.

As for Afghanistan, we should have left after the Taliban was removed from power.