#190404 - 07/29/10 08:45 PM
Once you start nation building
|
Greg
Member
Registered: 08/20/05
Posts: 10000
|
can you stop?
All those silly women in Afghanistan who bought into the dream.
What will become of them?
This story keeps playing out over and over again, Vietnam, Somalia, Iran, Cuba .........
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190406 - 07/29/10 09:08 PM
Re: Once you start nation building
[Re: Greg]
|
ghoti
Member
Registered: 04/06/02
Posts: 8469
Loc: Ishpeming, MI 75.128.229.255
|
George W. Bush was against it. He said so while he was running for president:
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/politics/main646142.shtml
_________________________
Feisty survivors populate this site. Avoid controversies unless you have a very thick skin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190407 - 07/30/10 12:40 AM
Re: Once you start nation building
[Re: ghoti]
|
Paul I
Member
Registered: 02/24/00
Posts: 7913
|
This is beginning to become our modus operandi and it's not at all
a responsible foreign policy. It is cruel in some ways, opportunistic in some ways and justifies us being widely criticized
by half the nations in the world as being an irresponsible quitter.
We are ADHD.
_________________________
"...only the shadow knows"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190420 - 07/30/10 12:00 PM
Re: Once you start nation building
[Re: Paul I]
|
Greg
Member
Registered: 08/20/05
Posts: 10000
|
I am disappointed Obama does not seem to be as clear headed in his approach to Afghanistan. Lesson learned, never underestimate the power and pull of the military industrial complex.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190535 - 08/02/10 06:32 AM
Re: Once you start nation building
[Re: Greg]
|
ævory
Member
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 9657
|
I am disappointed Obama does not seem to be as clear headed in his approach to Afghanistan. Lesson learned, never underestimate the power and pull of the military industrial complex. 
http://blog.newvoices.org/
Note to the US: British colonialism sucked
July 1st, 2010 by Ben Sales
People love to show how intellectual they are nowadays by drawing historical parallels between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other seemingly similar past events. Thus, Iraq is Vietnam; no, wait, Iraq is the Tripoli Wars; no, wait, Iraq is the Gulf War gone bad…
No, wait, says Christopher Dickey, Iraq and Afghanistan should be British colonialism. I’ll say that again, so it’s clear: Dickey is advocating the revival of British colonial practices in the Middle East.
His argument is that the British made efforts to understand the local population, which led to a stable society in the places they ruled. The basis for his argument? A fictional character in Rudyard Kipling’s “Kim” who seemed like he was a good viceroy in India.
I’m not sure where this idea came from, but it’s bad history. I hope with all my heart that the US does not do what Dickey suggests, because it would be a terrible idea. Here’s why:
If we base our research on facts rather than a 19th-century novel, it is clear the British colonialism was a ruthlessly horrible political, social and economic force. The Brits drew borders with little regard for ethnic populations, so in the post-colonial period we ended up with conflict zones like Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan and, yes, Iraq–where three ethnic groups now need to try to form a government because someone drew a big polygon around them a while ago.
Nor were the Brits particularly good at managing these ethnic conflicts once they arose. Millions of people died because of interethnic violence in India and Pakistan, and those battles have also kept rolling in Israel, Iraq and other places where the Brits set up their enlightened colonial administrations.
They also didn’t care about the local population much. British colonists in Africa put many locals under harsh conditions to mine for diamonds, and similar economic exploits happened in India and China. The American colonists of the 17th and 18th centuries put forth a great effort to kill off the indigenous population. In fact, many of the social and economic ills present in today’s post-British colonial societies are a direct result of that colonization.
The British were brutal imperialists. They cared neither for the welfare nor for the advancement of the people they were colonizing. While some “enlightened” Brits in the 19th century spoke of the “White man’s burden,” to civilize and Christianize the backwards locals, this was by no means the main purpose of colonization. The Brits colonized the world to extract economic resources and gain naval strongholds across the globe, not to altruistically serve the natives. And even if the primary goal were to have been “civilization,” would that have justified the colonial program? Since when is it a British right to take over a territory and impose western cultural and social standards there?
Please, US, do not do this. Do not treat Iraq and Afghanistan as colonies. And furthermore, instead of spending your time trying to analogize historical situations, why don’t we try to understand what’s going on now on its own terms? Historical analogies are important insofar as they help us figure out what’s going on, but they only work up to a point. Iraq isn’t Tripoli; Iraq is Iraq. We need to understand, in the end, that each diplomatic and military situation is unique, and that each deserves a unique solution–and definitely not one based in a history of violence and persecution.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190537 - 08/02/10 06:41 AM
Re: Once you start nation building
[Re: Greg]
|
corlorde
Member
Registered: 04/24/01
Posts: 9246
|
I am disappointed Obama does not seem to be as clear headed in his approach to Afghanistan.
How so? President Obama clearly stated we would wind down our commitment in Iraq and divert resources, money, and troops to Afghanistan. He was very articulate about that and is keeping his campaign promise. Remember, the Democrats have been very consistent about Afghanistan.
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190539 - 08/02/10 07:49 AM
Re: Once you start nation building
[Re: corlorde]
|
Greg
Member
Registered: 08/20/05
Posts: 10000
|
I am disappointed Obama does not seem to be as clear headed in his approach to Afghanistan. How so? President Obama clearly stated we would wind down our commitment in Iraq and divert resources, money, and troops to Afghanistan. He was very articulate about that and is keeping his campaign promise. Remember, the Democrats have been very consistent about Afghanistan.
I wasn't referring to campaign promises or political rhetoric I was referring to the reality of Afghanistan. A strong, primarily tribal run country with very high levels of illiteracy and a strong will for ousting foreign occupiers will not be brought to accept any type of western style plan. Just listen and watch their token leader, Karzai perform. The original goals wrt Afghanistan have been met, Al Quada has been kicked out, like it or not the Taliban is there to stay. That is as much of a "win" as there is going to be. I think Obama needs to show leadership and be more aggresive with decreasing the military footprint in Afghanistan.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190547 - 08/02/10 09:59 AM
Re: Once you start nation building
[Re: ghoti]
|
starlight.2
Member
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 793
|
George W. Bush was against it. He said so while he was running for president: During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
the way i see it, shrub squandered a perfect opportunity immediately after 9-11. there was nearly unanimous international approval toward the US back when we helped remove the taliban from power; the afghani people were literally blasting music and dancing in the streets. then all of a sudden the focus shifted to iraq, leaving behind a power vacuum and a decimated infrastructure and all the people were like, ok now what?
_________________________
Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace.
--Dalai Lama
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190549 - 08/02/10 10:18 AM
Re: Once you start nation building
[Re: starlight.2]
|
Greg
Member
Registered: 08/20/05
Posts: 10000
|
the way i see it, shrub squandered a perfect opportunity immediately after 9-11.
and what opportunity would that be? and try and be specific
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190558 - 08/02/10 01:08 PM
Re: Once you start nation building
[Re: Greg]
|
corlorde
Member
Registered: 04/24/01
Posts: 9246
|
I wasn't referring to campaign promises or political rhetoric I was referring to the reality of Afghanistan.
Welcome to realiy.
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#190566 - 08/02/10 04:34 PM
Re: Once you start nation building
[Re: corlorde]
|
Paul I
Member
Registered: 02/24/00
Posts: 7913
|
The "opportunity" with reference to Afghanistan was not necessarily
meant to be like getting our hands on control of Iraqi oil. It was an opportunity for the people of Afghanistan to improve their lot and also eradicate the poppy trade while continuing to keep the land financially productive.One of our first moves was the highway from Kabul to Herat. There was much talk of a pipeline from the oil areas north of Afghanistan to the port area of Pakistan. There was a push for women's rights which has succeeded
to some extent, medical clinics, etc. The point is that had the Taliban not resurected itself or been allowed to do so then all the $$s and skills pumped into the country would have produced
significant improvement.
_________________________
"...only the shadow knows"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
