[vernotixas]

Youre right mabus, we shouldve just instituted an iron fisted dicatorship that they didn't want instead of letting them pick their own government.

When exactly picked the peoples of Afghanistan their own Government? Was it when we installed our powerless drug-trafficking puppet, or when our powerless drug-trafficking puppet rigged the recent election?

[Sleflanna]

When exactly picked the peoples of Afghanistan their own Government? Was it when we installed our powerless drug-trafficking puppet, or when our powerless drug-trafficking puppet rigged the recent election?

They got their new constitution in 04 when it was approved by a loya jirga.
Then elections were held and Karzai was elected.

[Idorsearogele]

They got their new constitution in 04 when it was approved by a loya jirga.
Then elections were held and Karzai was elected.

So the tribal leaders approved a constitution they do not need to obey and our puppet survived a single election, probably because of the tribal leadership who told their vassals who to vote. Then, it took our puppet five years until he was in the position where he only could survive the election by rigging it.

What a holy, magical, epic moment of democratization. A corrupt president, involved in drug trafficking, was put into power by a foreign power, which convinced the local tribe leaders to pledge support to a worthless constitution which they do not have to obey. In return, the puppet was allowed to stay in power. Even after he lost the "support" of the population and took a shit on our democratic ideals. That sure outperforms a more practical attempt of installing a constitutional monarchy, for per definition public order and economic prosperity cannot outweight a fake democracy caught in a civil war quagmire.

[soprofaxelbis]

So the tribal leaders approved a constitution they do not need to obey and our puppet survived a single election, probably because of the tribal leadership who told their vassals who to vote. Then, it took our puppet five years until he was in the position where he only could survive the election by rigging it.

What a holy, magical, epic moment of democratization. A corrupt president, involved in drug trafficking, was put into power by a foreign power, which convinced the local tribe leaders to pledge support to a worthless constitution which they do not have to obey. In return, the puppet was allowed to stay in power. Even after he lost the "support" of the population and took a shit on our democratic ideals. That sure outperforms a more practical attempt of installing a constitutional monarchy, for per definition public order and economic prosperity cannot outweight a fake democracy caught in a civil war quagmire.

They didn't choose a constitutional monachy. Not much we can do about that.

[itaspCatCriny]

They didn't choose a constitutional monachy. Not much we can do about that.

Well, they didn't choose a democracy, either. But there definely was something the West has done about that.

[DoctorTentonyya]

We went to war with out the intention to win it. That was the Biggest problem. I don't think we needed to be there to begin with but once you decide to jump, you go there to win. Finally, so you believe we should ignore our agreements whenever we find it expediant to do so?

It's my understanding that after Japan invaded Indochina in WWII and the French colonial government in Vietnam fled back to France, that General Eisenhower promised Ho Chi Minh that if he fought the Japanese, the US wouild not allow the return of French colonial rule after the war. Ho Chi Minh's forces beat back the Japanese, but allegedly because Eisenhower, as President, needed the French to back NATO, he ignored his agreement with Ho and allowed the French return. Then, after the Vietnamese defeated the French with communist support from Russia and China, the US took over the war in place of the French.

If I believed in big government statism at all, I would agree with George Washington's advice in his Farewell Address for the US to avoid "entangling alliances" and mind its own business. It was the overthrow of the democratically elected Mohammed Mossedegh in Iran by the CIA and MI6 in 1953 and the installation of the Shah in Iran, among other things, that have created Arab skepticism about US intentions in the MId-East. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Ir...Operation_Ajax

[SeftyJokipl]

Well, they didn't choose a democracy, either. But there definely was something the West has done about that.

The west hasn't done anything about the type of government they chose. We are there to provide security and help rebuild. Its up to them to make their system work. They did choose a democratic system.

[Licacivelip]

The west hasn't done anything about the type of government they chose. We are there to provide security and help rebuild. Its up to them to make their system work. They did choose a democratic system.

What a load of crap. The decision that the next government of Afghanistan would be a "democracy" was made in Washington D.C., and not in Kabul. There was no discussion in Afghanistan what the best for the country would be. They were presented a constitution and the tribal leaders decided to tolerate the piece of paper, for they enjoy proving us it isn't worth the paper it is written on every day.

[truck]

What a load of crap. The decision that the next government of Afghanistan would be a "democracy" was made in Washington D.C., and not in Kabul. There was no discussion in Afghanistan what the best for the country would be. They were presented a constitution and the tribal leaders decided to tolerate the piece of paper, for they enjoy proving us it isn't worth the paper it is written on every day.

That is simply wrong. Their constitution was drawn up by a constitutional committee assisted and advised by constitutional experts working through the UN. The process involved extensive consultation with the Afghan people throughout Afghanistan as well as with Afghans living in other countries. It was then presented to a loya jirga for approval where it was very hotly debated before being approved.

[jamisi]

That is simply wrong. Their constitution was drawn up by a constitutional committee assisted and advised by constitutional experts working through the UN. The process involved extensive consultation with the Afghan people throughout Afghanistan as well as with Afghans living in other countries. It was then presented to a loya jirga for approval where it was very hotly debated before being approved.

How exactly does this change the fact that the decision to implement a democracy was made in Wasghington only? Afghanistan was seized and the tribal leaders were presented with a democratic constitution. It wouldn't even surprise me if all the "native" authors of that constitution were on the CIA payroll for years.

There simply was no other option discussed, for the occupators decided to enforce their own system of government. And just like you put out, there was resistance, before the tribal leaders decided to tolerate the worthless piece of paper.

The decision that there would be a democracy in Afghanistan was made in Washington and in Washington only. Options like reinstating the King were refuted by Washington and therefor out of discussion.

Today, it becomes obvious that this democratic system forced upon the Afghanis by us is neither practical for the country nor healthy enough to survive the quarrels within the country. We can only hope that just like in Iraq, an ethnic cleansing stabilizes the country in the end.

[Pszinygv]

Is ethnic cleansing necessary? Switzerland has three official languages- French, Italian, and German- and a lot of Swiss speak English, yet they generally live in peace and prosperity.

[thegamexpertsdotcom]

Is ethnic cleansing necessary? Switzerland has three official languages- French, Italian, and German- and a lot of Swiss speak English, yet they generally live in peace and prosperity.

Well, at least the previous US administration must have considered ethnic cleansing an viable option, for they watched by the sidelines when their shiite allies implemented one on their sunni heditary enemies.

[icyfreshy]

How exactly does this change the fact that the decision to implement a democracy was made in Wasghington only? Afghanistan was seized and the tribal leaders were presented with a democratic constitution. It wouldn't even surprise me if all the "native" authors of that constitution were on the CIA payroll for years.

There simply was no other option discussed, for the occupators decided to enforce their own system of government. And just like you put out, there was resistance, before the tribal leaders decided to tolerate the worthless piece of paper.

The decision that there would be a democracy in Afghanistan was made in Washington and in Washington only. Options like reinstating the King were refuted by Washington and therefor out of discussion.

Today, it becomes obvious that this democratic system forced upon the Afghanis by us is neither practical for the country nor healthy enough to survive the quarrels within the country. We can only hope that just like in Iraq, an ethnic cleansing stabilizes the country in the end.

I don't think there was any disagreement from anybody involved that the new government would be a democracy. The Afghan people did not want a dictatorship. Nobody was demanding communism.

[cenRealliat]

[/B]

It's my understanding that after Japan invaded Indochina in WWII and the French colonial government in Vietnam fled back to France, that General Eisenhower promised Ho Chi Minh that if he fought the Japanese, the US wouild not allow the return of French colonial rule after the war. Ho Chi Minh's forces beat back the Japanese, but allegedly because Eisenhower, as President, needed the French to back NATO, he ignored his agreement with Ho and allowed the French return. Then, after the Vietnamese defeated the French with communist support from Russia and China, the US took over the war in place of the French.

If I believed in big government statism at all, I would agree with George Washington's advice in his Farewell Address for the US to avoid "entangling alliances" and mind its own business. It was the overthrow of the democratically elected Mohammed Mossedegh in Iran by the CIA and MI6 in 1953 and the installation of the Shah in Iran, among other things, that have created Arab skepticism about US intentions in the MId-East. 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bit of revisionist history there. Yes the Ho did beat the French in North Vietnam but the South remained under their control. While we had "advisers" a couple of hundred only in the South to help with the Viet Cong, serious involvement began duing the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The overthrow of Mohammed Mossedegh was helped by the US but for reasons than just Oil. Those reasons included sympathetic responses to USSR and early NAZI ties. That being said, US Oil interests did play a role. While I don't believe we should have gotten involved in Vietnam, I don't have a real issue with our involvement in Iran which amounted to material/intelligence help. We were given decades of a close Intell field on our Number One enemy at the time and it did not involve the US military. Yes this isn't fair but that is the world we live in.

[LongaDonga]

I don't see the revisionism. Here is a Vietnam War timeline Vietnam War Timeline
Note that the US began sending moeny to the Fench for their war effort in 1950.

[spacecrafty]

I don't see the revisionism. Here is a Vietnam War timeline Vietnam War Timeline
Note that the US began sending moeny to the Fench for their war effort in 1950.

Sending money to support an ally to help rebuild after WWII should be kept in context. There was also the Korean War to consider. I would be curious to read where the money was specifically given to France for the "Indo-China War". More likely this was just military aid for an their support in the UN.

[Eltabaco]

After the French pulled out of Vietnam the US took over as colonial power du jour. It was the same colonial game that had been played by the French, British, Germans, Dutch, Spanish, Italians, and Portuguese for centuries, only with newer players-- the Russians and the US-- and instead of colonies, possessions were called "spheres of influence". There's a fort in San Juan, Puerto Rico that I believe had been taken and occupied by the French, Spanish, and British all within one year, but after the US started playing the colonial game in earnest with the Spanish-American War, it became a possession of the US.
But, actually, despite what your 5th grade teacher said, the US began playing the colonial game early on, and was never the peaceful "non-interventionist" nation we were told it was. In 1812 when the Brits were busy fighting the French, southern "War Hawks" in the US Senate orchestrated an invasion of Canada which failed. The Battle that Saved Canada - The Friends of Crysler's Farm Battlefield Memorial

[aNoBVsUW]

Pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq and let the fucking chips fall. No President in the in the last two administrations has addressed the American people and told us why our men and women are dying over there. Did I miss it? It's a fucking abuse of power. You don't just send kids to die without your country knowing why. When your kid comes home in a box, what did he die for? Is it a secret? I don't know anybody who knows what the fuck we're doing over there, and that doesn't seem to be an issue.