[tgs]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
. Buuut rest assured that if there were progress you'd be screaming about undue American influence anyway. Unfortunetaly no, just like you I hope that the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan will positive results to the people who live there, And I'll be very happy to be proven wrong, but meanwhile I don't see it happening.

[doctorzlo]

Then you can't compare it to anything either, can you? Kabul is a 'ruin', compared to what? Miami Beach? I seem to remember that Kabul experienced a Soviet invasion and civil war since 1979 and that when the Taleban finally controlled Kabul they closed most of the schools and hospitals and schools, threw out most of the foreigners, refused foreign aid or development and were content to unwind the clock about 600 years.


At any rate the simple fact is that best case, Afghanistan will remain a loose confederacy of tribal groups all more or less connected to one another through the central government in Kabul which serves to funnel outside contacts, contracts, media and aid. This is really the history of Afghanistan so results will be slow. Buuut rest assured that if there were progress you'd be screaming about undue American influence anyway.

[Slonopotam845]

Originally posted by Hierophant
Even tho you are making reasonable points you loose credibility with these arrogant remarks. well arrogant yourself.
i said that because it's only from US source that I heard this reasonning. I'm afraid I have to repeat terrorism does not work like that. Wether I say it respectfully or not, it's the same conclusion.

No, invading iraq is not the panacea to "vaporize" all existing terrorists who will all come running at US troops in Iraq like lemmings.

Even Rumsfled ended up realizing that "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?". No you are not.

And one of the best way is just to stop torturing and humiliating iraqis. It just drives them mad and it's inevitable they seek vengeance.


The very best way to go at terrorism is to FIRST establish a just peace between israel and palestine, because the main root cause in there (OK you have two now with iraq).
Precisely the opposite of what the Bush administration did.




Originally posted by Hierophant
At first glance, your point certainly seems logical, but it misses a few important details. Aah "important details"?


Originally posted by Hierophant
First you assume that education can solve this problem. I do agree, that education is probably the most important weapon. I'm not too sure I talked about education. Why not?

Originally posted by Hierophant
any effective education is actually going to take generations. But you do have to take into account, that any attempt to 'educate' is immediately seen as part of the 'war on islam' mm I don't really think you can 'educate' like that.

I'd simply say you can create conditions where you do not consistently provocate arabs and muslems. The opposite of invading iraq, as a matter of fact.
I support the invasion of afghanistan, though for reasons I explained before. But invading iraq is not a solution. The solution is providing the conditions for freedom and development in the arab world.
(And that's why Europe contributes much more to rebuilding afghanistan than the US... as for iraq, like Powell said "you break it, you own it").



Originally posted by Hierophant
It would be much like if the english speaking world decided to educate the french that the french language is no longer needed. just don't try that.

We've already been subjected by Bush to the threat that "we should support the invasion of iraq or be with the terrorists". Now I don't think we want to be "educated" the way you said either

btw I hope you remember Condy said her intentions are to "punish France". For me I keep that in mind when thinking how the US plan to 'educate' me.

I repeat: france and europe did not oppose the invasion of iraq just for the sake of it, but mostly because it was the worst thing to do (well it depend which side you look on, for ben laden it was the *best* thing bush could do).





Originally posted by Hierophant
One could assert that by giving into the demands of the islamists, that the 'war on terrorism' could be done with. no way.

[MannoFr]

Originally posted by Hierophant
i cant say i agree at all with the author's premise ... or rather the premise that was high-lighted. Before the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no real 'front' on the war on terror. Afghanistan became one front, Iraq became another. Having physical fronts is a markedly better position to be in, when fighting typically asymetrical forces. You have no front, you try to occupy iraq that's not a front. The ennemy is around you, in friendly or innocent surroundings.



Originally posted by Hierophant
What would have "played into the enemy's hands" is if the US would have just called it a day after ousting the taliban. Or, removing saddam and then washing their hands of Iraq. wait and see. It's not a handwashing problem, it's that the iraqis hate to be occupied and they'll get teh US out ... probably only to kill one another (and the US might help the Kurds kill the others like in good ol' days of iran-iraq war).



Originally posted by Hierophant
I understand the argument that these battles have drawn ppl to the islamists cause, but i consider the alternative to be much worse. If the US would have backed off in the way that the anti-war crowd wanted, these terrorist groups would have simply waited, and planned for the next big attack. works for afghanistan, clearly not iraq.
And even in this case you can't call Afghanistan a win: most noticeably BL escaped, Omar escaped. Afghanistan is world's biggest producer of opium now. There is a good degree of success in cities though: kabul is getting through a wonderful development.

[LottiFurmann]

You have neer been able to define or put some shape around what you think democracy could or should look like there. There are tons of variations in the world and seemingly the Eurowest things that waving a wand in the air much the same as they did to form Iraq 80 years ago is sufficient.

And, let's imagine a time when there is some kind of clanky democratic process that low and behold isn't of the same old Arab strongman one vote one time go home model and still - because life is cheap - there are regular bombings and the one thing that no one will admit is that internal tribal/ethnic/criminal frictions low intensity civil war is really the steady state destiny of any arab country - then is that bad or good, better or worse.

That is, is the Eurocrying for 'democracy' really just a cover for a demand for quiet no matter how repressive or oiligarchic. I think it is. I think the Euro position is one of not really caring all that much what kind of government or rule exists there as long as the Yanks are gone and WOGS aren't shooting at the white people.

We all have our historic models and symbols to rely on. Yours are pure colonialist - ours are more globalist in nature.