Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It’s a stretch to say Afghanistan attacked the US, they didn’t most of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis as is OBL, when they didn’t find him in Tora Bora, because he’d already moved to Pakistan the US should have left, but they didn’t they decided to stay and play. Note the US didn’t invade Pakistan who harboured and quietly supported him.

Your fellow Kiwis were "playing" there until quite recently. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/1 ... tan-in-may

I know and I’m disgusted that we got involved, they were no threat to NZ, nor were they a threat to Norway, this was just another American folly that other countries were sucked into.

Just change the names. NZ or Norway couldn't go it alone.
https://mmejocelyne.wordpress.com/2012/ ... peak%20out

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Your fellow Kiwis were "playing" there until quite recently. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/1 ... tan-in-may

I know and I’m disgusted that we got involved, they were no threat to NZ, nor were they a threat to Norway, this was just another American folly that other countries were sucked into.

Just change the names. NZ or Norway couldn't go it alone.
https://mmejocelyne.wordpress.com/2012/ ... peak%20out

It’s doesn’t matter which country neither of them should have been there. Afghanistan was never a threat to NZ or Norway.

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I know and I’m disgusted that we got involved, they were no threat to NZ, nor were they a threat to Norway, this was just another American folly that other countries were sucked into.

Just change the names. NZ or Norway couldn't go it alone.
https://mmejocelyne.wordpress.com/2012/ ... peak%20out

It’s doesn’t matter which country neither of them should have been there.

The United States had the backing of many nations to go into Afghanistan and take out OBL. Instead, Bush blew all that trust and good will and decided Iraq was the enemy. OBL could have been taken out and Bush been an international hero but no. Now, 20 years later, here we are still in a war zone.

In the end it seems that Osama Bin Laden was a true mastermind.

With 9/11 he caused a reaction from the US that was much more detrimental to the nation then the attack itself.
Not only did more soldiers die in Afghanistan and Iraq (if you see that campaign as an extension of the war on terror) then civilians due to 9/11, the wars have cost the US billions of USD, tarnished it international reputation and caused new (long term) geopolitical issues that will affect the region for quite some time...

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Just change the names. NZ or Norway couldn't go it alone.
https://mmejocelyne.wordpress.com/2012/ ... peak%20out

It’s doesn’t matter which country neither of them should have been there.

The United States had the backing of many nations to go into Afghanistan and take out OBL. Instead, Bush blew all that trust and good will and decided Iraq was the enemy. OBL could have been taken out and Bush been an international hero but no. Now, 20 years later, here we are still in a war zone.

I think the support was mainly due to George saying "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It’s doesn’t matter which country neither of them should have been there.

The United States had the backing of many nations to go into Afghanistan and take out OBL. Instead, Bush blew all that trust and good will and decided Iraq was the enemy. OBL could have been taken out and Bush been an international hero but no. Now, 20 years later, here we are still in a war zone.

I think the support was mainly due to George saying "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

At the time, the United States was still that shining beacon on the hill. Muslims and Jews and Sikhs and Christians knew this killing was wrong. We all knew it. We were all in on getting OBL. Then came "....well, I don't really think about him... I don't know where he is..." and everyone said "wait a minute...." GWB and Republicans just threw all that goodwill and trust away.

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

The United States had the backing of many nations to go into Afghanistan and take out OBL. Instead, Bush blew all that trust and good will and decided Iraq was the enemy. OBL could have been taken out and Bush been an international hero but no. Now, 20 years later, here we are still in a war zone.

I think the support was mainly due to George saying "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

At the time, the United States was still that shining beacon on the hill. Muslims and Jews and Sikhs and Christians knew this killing was wrong. We all knew it. We were all in on getting OBL. Then came "....well, I don't really think about him... I don't know where he is..." and everyone said "wait a minute...." GWB and Republicans just threw all that goodwill and trust away.

I disagree with "Muslims and Jews and Sikhs and Christians knew this killing was wrong. We all knew it. We were all in on getting OBL" all over the world people were celebrating this event, hundreds of millions of people.

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I think the support was mainly due to George saying "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

At the time, the United States was still that shining beacon on the hill. Muslims and Jews and Sikhs and Christians knew this killing was wrong. We all knew it. We were all in on getting OBL. Then came "....well, I don't really think about him... I don't know where he is..." and everyone said "wait a minute...." GWB and Republicans just threw all that goodwill and trust away.

I disagree with "Muslims and Jews and Sikhs and Christians knew this killing was wrong. We all knew it. We were all in on getting OBL" all over the world people were celebrating this event, hundreds of millions of people.

Of course there were extremists celebrating 9/11 just like there were extremists all over the United States celebrating 1/6. I am talking about the aftermath. When we knew that OBL needed to be punished. Yes, Saudi Arabia should have been also, but we went into Afghanistan specifically to capture OBL and bring him to justice. Just when our forces were about to do that, GWB decided he was not important at all so let's go invade Iraq.

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I think the support was mainly due to George saying "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

At the time, the United States was still that shining beacon on the hill. Muslims and Jews and Sikhs and Christians knew this killing was wrong. We all knew it. We were all in on getting OBL. Then came "....well, I don't really think about him... I don't know where he is..." and everyone said "wait a minute...." GWB and Republicans just threw all that goodwill and trust away.

I disagree with "Muslims and Jews and Sikhs and Christians knew this killing was wrong. We all knew it. We were all in on getting OBL" all over the world people were celebrating this event, hundreds of millions of people.

With the tone of many of your posts, were you one of them?

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

At the time, the United States was still that shining beacon on the hill. Muslims and Jews and Sikhs and Christians knew this killing was wrong. We all knew it. We were all in on getting OBL. Then came "....well, I don't really think about him... I don't know where he is..." and everyone said "wait a minute...." GWB and Republicans just threw all that goodwill and trust away.

I disagree with "Muslims and Jews and Sikhs and Christians knew this killing was wrong. We all knew it. We were all in on getting OBL" all over the world people were celebrating this event, hundreds of millions of people.

With the tone of many of your posts, were you one of them?

It was karma.

As the late Bernard Lewis said, “get tough or get out”. There was no “exit strategy” in 1941, either, just unconditional surrender. That goal led to 75 years of European peace, even if you consider the Cold War war, it’s been 30 years of peace.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

As the late Bernard Lewis said, “get tough or get out”. There was no “exit strategy” in 1941, either, just unconditional surrender. That goal led to 75 years of European peace, even if you consider the Cold War war, it’s been 30 years of peace.

Except it isn't the 1940s anymore and the US citizenry generally doesn't have an appetite for total destruction of civilians anymore. 'Getting tough' in a place like AFG would require temporarily being worse than that which you're trying to replace. Become the monster to defeat the monster? Don't think many voters, especially women, would take kindly to that.

Aaron747 wrote:

Except it isn't the 1940s anymore and the US citizenry generally doesn't have an appetite for total destruction of civilians anymore. 'Getting tough' in a place like AFG would require temporarily being worse than that which you're trying to replace. Become the monster to defeat the monster? Don't think many voters, especially women, would take kindly to that.

That is indeed the problem.
In 1919 General Dyer machine gunned a crowd of civilians. Punjab was in revolutionary mood, but after that event it became quiet again.
History is speculation, but I consider it possible that Dyer's action spared the British a lot more trouble.
Indian children learn in school how bad General Dyer was. But Indira Gandhi did exactly the same when she faced a Punjabi independence movement. Strange enough she is never compared to Dyer.

Most people don't like to think in numbers. Is it o.k. to machine gun 300 people if it brings peace to millions?

George Carlin had said it best about pulling out of a war in his 1972 album "Class Clown":

https://youtu.be/xrSQzLIENlU?t=197

The US hasn’t won a war since 1945. Doesn’t want to either. No gains for the military-industrial complex in a quick victory followed by peace. Better to fight wars with no strategic plan, no idea what victory would even look like, that can last forever.

seb146 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Just change the names. NZ or Norway couldn't go it alone.
https://mmejocelyne.wordpress.com/2012/ ... peak%20out

It’s doesn’t matter which country neither of them should have been there.

The United States had the backing of many nations to go into Afghanistan and take out OBL. Instead, Bush blew all that trust and good will and decided Iraq was the enemy. OBL could have been taken out and Bush been an international hero but no. Now, 20 years later, here we are still in a war zone.

Agree we are very good at trying regime change and get ourselves into a quagmire that costs a lot of people their life. Bush has a lot of blood on his hands once he decided to go into Iraq and split our fighting forces ensured we would lose both wars. I dont know how Bush,Chaney and Rumsfeld sleep at night.

There has been PLENTY of time and U.S. monies spent or donated...20 years... for Afghanistan to train and equip a modern day military. If the Afghans do not want to participate in the defense of it's country...so be it.

The international community has a responsibility to stay invested in Afghanistan. Remember what happened in Rwanda after the international community upped and left? We cannot have a repeat of that!

Ofcourse, it is also unfair to suggest that the US alone should do the lifting.

Afghanistan is a shared problem. All nations in the UN must devise a strategy to jointly deal with the problems in Afghanistan.

BawliBooch wrote:

The international community has a responsibility to stay invested in Afghanistan. Remember what happened in Rwanda after the international community upped and left? We cannot have a repeat of that!

Ofcourse, it is also unfair to suggest that the US alone should do the lifting.

Afghanistan is a shared problem. All nations in the UN must devise a strategy to jointly deal with the problems in Afghanistan.

it is not. Like Iraq, USA created the mess and should thus be responsible for cleaning it up.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

The international community has a responsibility to stay invested in Afghanistan. Remember what happened in Rwanda after the international community upped and left? We cannot have a repeat of that!

Ofcourse, it is also unfair to suggest that the US alone should do the lifting.

Afghanistan is a shared problem. All nations in the UN must devise a strategy to jointly deal with the problems in Afghanistan.

it is not. Like Iraq, USA created the mess and should thus be responsible for cleaning it up.

This 100%

Afghanistan is a mess entirely of the US's making.

Kiwirob wrote:

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

The international community has a responsibility to stay invested in Afghanistan. Remember what happened in Rwanda after the international community upped and left? We cannot have a repeat of that!

Ofcourse, it is also unfair to suggest that the US alone should do the lifting.

Afghanistan is a shared problem. All nations in the UN must devise a strategy to jointly deal with the problems in Afghanistan.

it is not. Like Iraq, USA created the mess and should thus be responsible for cleaning it up.

This 100%

Afghanistan is a mess entirely of the US's making.

This I greatly disagree with. After 9-11 the US was justified to carry out heavily punishing raids, destroying the parties responsible, and getting assurance from the Taliban that it would never happen again. Instead 9-11 was used by the president and his ill advisors in one of the most horrible examples of 'nation building' ever imagined. I would have then supported bribes and aid if the Taliban would devise a way to treat women better.

Kiwirob wrote:

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

The international community has a responsibility to stay invested in Afghanistan. Remember what happened in Rwanda after the international community upped and left? We cannot have a repeat of that!

Ofcourse, it is also unfair to suggest that the US alone should do the lifting.

Afghanistan is a shared problem. All nations in the UN must devise a strategy to jointly deal with the problems in Afghanistan.

it is not. Like Iraq, USA created the mess and should thus be responsible for cleaning it up.

This 100%

Afghanistan is a mess entirely of the US's making.

Wrong. Afghanistan has always been a mess. In the last two centuries, the British Empire and USSR are also responsible. You can't nation-build when the people still identify with their clan first.

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

it is not. Like Iraq, USA created the mess and should thus be responsible for cleaning it up.

This 100%

Afghanistan is a mess entirely of the US's making.

Wrong. Afghanistan has always been a mess. In the last two centuries, the British Empire and USSR are also responsible. You can't nation-build when the people still identify with their clan first.

Agreed. This is a very odd conversation. It’s unfortunate, but it’s hardly as if Afghanistan was an incredibly well functioning, peaceful country prior to 2001. In terms of “recent” history, the Taliban and US are basically blips

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

it is not. Like Iraq, USA created the mess and should thus be responsible for cleaning it up.

This 100%

Afghanistan is a mess entirely of the US's making.

Wrong. Afghanistan has always been a mess. In the last two centuries, the British Empire and USSR are also responsible. You can't nation-build when the people still identify with their clan first.

You want to blame Russia and the U.K.? Russia was in Afghanistan for 10 years, they left in 89, the U.K. hadn’t been involved in Afghanistan since 1919. The US has been screwing with Afghanistan since 2001. You didn’t need to invade, there wasn’t any justification for it.

Kiwirob wrote:

You want to blame Russia and the U.K.? Russia was in Afghanistan for 10 years, they left in 89, the U.K. hadn’t been involved in Afghanistan since 1919. The US has been screwing with Afghanistan since 2001. You didn’t need to invade, there wasn’t any justification for it.

The US has been screwing with Afghanistan since at least before the Soviet intervention in 1979.

support and Infusion of weapons to the stone age islamist tribes set the framework
for the Soviet intervention ... by design.
"provide the Soviets with their own Vietnam".
What fun!

it is an eye opener on what drives US foreign activities and policies in general.

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

This 100%

Afghanistan is a mess entirely of the US's making.

Wrong. Afghanistan has always been a mess. In the last two centuries, the British Empire and USSR are also responsible. You can't nation-build when the people still identify with their clan first.

You want to blame Russia and the U.K.? Russia was in Afghanistan for 10 years, they left in 89, the U.K. hadn’t been involved in Afghanistan since 1919. The US has been screwing with Afghanistan since 2001. You didn’t need to invade, there wasn’t any justification for it.

1. I was just showing a pattern of foreign intervention that has gone on for centuries. I wasn't "blaming" anyone.
2. You're right, we didn't need to invade. The Taliban could've just given up OBL.
3. The Afghans can keep going with their clan warfare forever and I don't care. It's what they do and nobody can change it. We didn't start it, we just were there so the news media focused on it.

Had to do some creative googling, but managed to come up with an article on this, but I had read a similar story years ago. There were actually some decades when hope and advances were happening in Afghanistan.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/week ... iller.html

A school for girls has been bombed in Kabul with at least 50 dead.

https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origi ... them-girls

I wonder if we should offer asylum to all Afghans, but only women and girls. Let the men between them since it seems it's what they want.

B777LRF wrote:

For more than 2.000 years nobody has successfully invaded and occupied Afghanistan, which leads to the logical conclusion that it's simply not possible for outsiders to come in and tell them how to run their show. Arrogance, however, will usually prevail over something as mundane as facts and, well, here we are.

I appreciate the desire for revenge following 911, but it's also fair to say that the plan to invade, displace the Taliban, catch OSM, occupy and install a "friendly western minded" government was always going to fail. The plan should have been "invade, displace the Taliban, get OSM, leave". This is a people which simply cannot be ruled by outsiders, and as barbaric, backwards and inhumane we may find their way of ruling themselves is, it's still their train-set to play with. If change is going to happen, it must come internally and not be forced upon by external forces.

So if you're asking me, the decision to pull out is roughly 9 years overdue, and it's about bloody time someone realised mission: impossible only becomes mission: possible in Hollywood flicks.

It's the epitome of irony that OSM was eventually found in Pakistan.

Very well put. This short summary should be given to all Foreign Policy students.

Aesma wrote:

A school for girls has been bombed in Kabul with at least 50 dead.

https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origi ... them-girls

I wonder if we should offer asylum to all Afghans, but only women and girls. Let the men between them since it seems it's what they want.

The is a shortage of females in India, relocating all the afghan females could relieve some of the pressure

Is a world without war possible?

1975 the war in Vietnam ended. The war in Angola started. Americans had enough of war and voted Carter (1977-81). However he was followed by Reagan. I assume that Carter lost the election because he appointed Paul Volcker to head the FED. And while there was a lot of short term unemployment, Volcker's policy, continued under Reagan, worked.

After Reagan Bush Sr. and from 1993 Clinton. Clinton was the peaceful one. I believe in Somalia he should have been more aggressive. Anyway overall beside repealing Glass -Steagall I don't know what was not to like about Clinton. Why did Americans vote for Bush Jr.?
And was Bush Jr. 's aggressive foreign policy a reaction to Clinton's peaceful one?

In other words:
Does a Reagan have to follow a Carter and a Bush Jr a Clinton?
I think Trump was in tits, not in maps. He even asked why one would want to get rid of Assad? Even though he didn't cut defense spending. Did he say to himself "Why to call for trouble?"

I believe the defense spending of a hegemon has to be a fixed percentage of GDP. To cut it for a peace dividend is calling for trouble.

Something like Afghanistan keeps the defense lobby happy and the US Army in practice of warfare without too many human losses.

The Project for a New American Century may find itself a new project/ war.
Better to stay in Afghanistan?

After US pull put of Afghanistan, amid new push of cooperation between China, Pakistan and Afghanistan, will China send its army into the Afghanistan to fill the void of power left by the US?

Sokes wrote:

Is a world without war possible?

No, unless there is a single authority powerful ebough to reign over and suppress all the ears, but that would be worse to human civilization than wars

c933103 wrote:

After US pull put of Afghanistan, amid new push of cooperation between China, Pakistan and Afghanistan, will China send its army into the Afghanistan to fill the void of power left by the US?

Sokes wrote:

Is a world without war possible?

No, unless there is a single authority powerful ebough to reign over and suppress all the ears, but that would be worse to human civilization than wars

The possibility of PRC going into Afghanistan is a very interesting scenario - let’s see what happens.

That is a high possibility and PRC would arguably do a better job. Why, because it has got ears of Pakistan and interest the way U.S. never had. Also, they have no compulsion to behave one way or the other. They can be both soft or as brutal as situation dictates. I believe that void will be filled. As far as the women are concerned, many of them may be trafficked to China for the 'leftover men' and they are willing pay a hefty price. And lot of human trafficking has been happening due to that which sadly most do not want to report. It would again be sad state of affairs and don't really and end of it unless somehow Taliban is ended for once and for all. How and when Chinese enter and what they do would certainly be watched.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cn ... y-10485358

pune wrote:

That is a high possibility and PRC would arguably do a better job. Why, because it has got ears of Pakistan and interest the way U.S. never had. Also, they have no compulsion to behave one way or the other. They can be both soft or as brutal as situation dictates. I believe that void will be filled. As far as the women are concerned, many of them may be trafficked to China for the 'leftover men' and they are willing pay a hefty price. And lot of human trafficking has been happening due to that which sadly most do not want to report. It would again be sad state of affairs and don't really and end of it unless somehow Taliban is ended for once and for all. How and when Chinese enter and what they do would certainly be watched.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cn ... y-10485358

So China would do a better job because they do human trafficking??

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

That is a high possibility and PRC would arguably do a better job. Why, because it has got ears of Pakistan and interest the way U.S. never had. Also, they have no compulsion to behave one way or the other. They can be both soft or as brutal as situation dictates. I believe that void will be filled. As far as the women are concerned, many of them may be trafficked to China for the 'leftover men' and they are willing pay a hefty price. And lot of human trafficking has been happening due to that which sadly most do not want to report. It would again be sad state of affairs and don't really and end of it unless somehow Taliban is ended for once and for all. How and when Chinese enter and what they do would certainly be watched.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cn ... y-10485358

So China would do a better job because they do human trafficking??

Sure! Send all the women away and within a generation or two, Afghanistan will be uninhabited. Then there won't be any "problems". (sarcasm)

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

That is a high possibility and PRC would arguably do a better job. Why, because it has got ears of Pakistan and interest the way U.S. never had. Also, they have no compulsion to behave one way or the other. They can be both soft or as brutal as situation dictates. I believe that void will be filled. As far as the women are concerned, many of them may be trafficked to China for the 'leftover men' and they are willing pay a hefty price. And lot of human trafficking has been happening due to that which sadly most do not want to report. It would again be sad state of affairs and don't really and end of it unless somehow Taliban is ended for once and for all. How and when Chinese enter and what they do would certainly be watched.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cn ... y-10485358

So China would do a better job because they do human trafficking??

They would do the job (whatever that means) because the access of media would be suppressed enough to silence the subject on a global scale.
No human rights advocates, no angry hashtag warriors nor tiktokers to make noise about it.
At this point, all you have is generals giving orders and we can all imagine how it would look.

Now, I am not saying this is right. I just think that that's how China would act.

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

That is a high possibility and PRC would arguably do a better job. Why, because it has got ears of Pakistan and interest the way U.S. never had. Also, they have no compulsion to behave one way or the other. They can be both soft or as brutal as situation dictates. I believe that void will be filled. As far as the women are concerned, many of them may be trafficked to China for the 'leftover men' and they are willing pay a hefty price. And lot of human trafficking has been happening due to that which sadly most do not want to report. It would again be sad state of affairs and don't really and end of it unless somehow Taliban is ended for once and for all. How and when Chinese enter and what they do would certainly be watched.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cn ... y-10485358

So China would do a better job because they do human trafficking??

China will definitely be more effective at *something* in Afghanistan than the western coalition. We just probably won’t like what that something is.

Again, the whole right and wrong has not been in Afghan history for almost 2000 years. Where would you say right and wrong when a place has been enmeshed in wars for 2000 odd years. If people were concerned about Afghanistan, then 200 nations (all those recognized by WTO and UN both) would have come to Afghan aid. The reality is in most conflict-ridden places it is usually a reporter or two who gives some sense - An instance -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_vultu ... ittle_girl

Now if it weren't for that image the whole world was content for the ciivil war to go in Sudan for 20 odd years. It was for that picture that it shook people up. The one who took the picture committed suicide afterwards but he did save the girl after taking the picture. This my friend is sadly the reality. And it's no different from how life probably is in Iraq. When Saddam was there, you didn't see the chaos that is there today. He was no peace lover but still most people lived peacefully in his reign. Now the only people who are enjoying is the oil mafia and private military contractors.

Why is there so much conviction that Afghanistan is all that much more violent than US culture. I see little evidence. We do have a more effective government.

Aaron747 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

That is a high possibility and PRC would arguably do a better job. Why, because it has got ears of Pakistan and interest the way U.S. never had. Also, they have no compulsion to behave one way or the other. They can be both soft or as brutal as situation dictates. I believe that void will be filled. As far as the women are concerned, many of them may be trafficked to China for the 'leftover men' and they are willing pay a hefty price. And lot of human trafficking has been happening due to that which sadly most do not want to report. It would again be sad state of affairs and don't really and end of it unless somehow Taliban is ended for once and for all. How and when Chinese enter and what they do would certainly be watched.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cn ... y-10485358

So China would do a better job because they do human trafficking??

China will definitely be more effective at *something* in Afghanistan than the western coalition. We just probably won’t like what that something is.

Well one might say the government of China can get something done at all cost faster than any Western countries due to its power structure, but does that necessity translate into more efficient management of one place? Seeing how regular government process in China look like I doubt it. Or I mean like, see what they're doing in Hong Kong, yes there are many changes they have made to deconstruct the city's civil society, but are they efficient at changing people's mind into complying with their leadership? I think not.

pune wrote:

Again, the whole right and wrong has not been in Afghan history for almost 2000 years. Where would you say right and wrong when a place has been enmeshed in wars for 2000 odd years. If people were concerned about Afghanistan, then 200 nations (all those recognized by WTO and UN both) would have come to Afghan aid. The reality is in most conflict-ridden places it is usually a reporter or two who gives some sense - An instance -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_vultu ... ittle_girl

Now if it weren't for that image the whole world was content for the ciivil war to go in Sudan for 20 odd years. It was for that picture that it shook people up. The one who took the picture committed suicide afterwards but he did save the girl after taking the picture. This my friend is sadly the reality. And it's no different from how life probably is in Iraq. When Saddam was there, you didn't see the chaos that is there today. He was no peace lover but still most people lived peacefully in his reign. Now the only people who are enjoying is the oil mafia and private military contractors.

Afghanistan with its border and geographical situation will almost always guarantee conflicts unless the map is redrawn to elimibate its existence is my understanding. On the other hand, for things like human trafficking, It affect more countries than just Afghanistan with China also importing human from North Korea and Southeast Asia, in addition to domestic acquisition, gence I think the issue involves more than one side's problem.
As for Iraq being more stable under Saddam rules? Sure but was that a good thing? After overcoming disaster created by radical fractions my understanding is that Iraq nowadays is more flourishing than back then

c933103 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

So China would do a better job because they do human trafficking??

China will definitely be more effective at *something* in Afghanistan than the western coalition. We just probably won’t like what that something is.

Well one might say the government of China can get something done at all cost faster than any Western countries due to its power structure, but does that necessity translate into more efficient management of one place? Seeing how regular government process in China look like I doubt it. Or I mean like, see what they're doing in Hong Kong, yes there are many changes they have made to deconstruct the city's civil society, but are they efficient at changing people's mind into complying with their leadership? I think not.

These are not other Chinese people they will deal with in AG, so I think we can imagine how it'll go.

Your understanding is suspect. Now Iraq is being besieged by many. For e.g. after Trump said we are in Iraq for oil which raised many an eyebrow in Iraq.

See also https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Close.html

More than that, both Russia and ISIS, together and separately, getting into Iraq. Russia wants to sell more of its arms to all and any militia there. ISIS also has similar ideas, just chaos.

Meanwhile, US doesn't care as long as the oil flows to its country. That's the bottom-line.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Why is there so much conviction that Afghanistan is all that much more violent than US culture. I see little evidence. We do have a more effective government.

Much hyperbole?

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Why is there so much conviction that Afghanistan is all that much more violent than US culture. I see little evidence. We do have a more effective government.

Does this in any form or way look normal to you, in any sense -

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/worl ... -2021.html

Regarding the quest for revenge after 9/11. Talk about digging two graves...

c933103 wrote:

After US pull put of Afghanistan, amid new push of cooperation between China, Pakistan and Afghanistan, will China send its army into the Afghanistan to fill the void of power left by the US?

Sokes wrote:

Is a world without war possible?

No, unless there is a single authority powerful ebough to reign over and suppress all the ears, but that would be worse to human civilization than wars

We have managed to live in peace and harmony in Europe (save the breakup of Yugoslavia) since 1945. So a world without war is not out of the question. Wars and conflict are already starting to become a rarity compared to the past. Give it a few thousand years.

faalap, what you say is true, but that is because of EU and the whole idea of taking everybody along. And with Brexit, people are realizing the follies of it, even though they blame EU for it. Nevertheless, for the harmony that we are looking for, borders will have to go and be a thing of the past. And then be something humorous for a youtuber to talk about -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEM_cp6hVeM

Or what makes a country

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1JlYZQG3lI

fallap wrote:

We have managed to live in peace and harmony in Europe (save the breakup of Yugoslavia) since 1945.

The breakup of Yugoslavia is a huge "except for". Over 130,000 people were killed. With so many non-state terrorist organizations, I'd say the London, Paris and Madrid attacks would constitute a war. Europe needs to quit with their whole "we're so much more civilized than the rest of the world" attitude.