we're fighting for the women?

[sandinista]

We have to be able to tell ourselves that all the lives and money we spent were worth it.

good luck with that. There's no amount of spin that will accomplish that task.

[Tyrannical]

Women need to step up and be the instrument of change, otherwise they deserve the situation they are in. No reason why they can't take up arms against the Taliban.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Women need to step up and be the instrument of change, otherwise they deserve the situation they are in. No reason why they can't take up arms against the Taliban.

We used to have a rule, "Shoot the women first, they have something to prove and will try to prove it over your dead body." This wasn't a gender issue, it was a matter of survival. Having said that, I agree, women can make an impact if they get their dander up.

[mistermack]

"We" the administration. "We had to destroy the village to save it" is a classic description of Lyndon Johnson's policy in Vietnam. Mistermack's excuse for Obama's policy is similar and makes just as little sense: "we had to escalate the war to stop it."

Obama wants to get re-elected.
His policy is dictated by US public opinion. Get the fuck out now, and he loses the next election for running away.
If you want to blame someone, it should be George Bush for starting it, Bin Laden for giving him the Option, the Afghans for hosting him, and the US public for being so dumb they need to be convinced they won the war.

[Warren Dew]

His policy is dictated by US public opinion. Get the fuck out now, and he loses the next election for running away.
If you want to blame someone, it should be George Bush for starting it, Bin Laden for giving him the Option, the Afghans for hosting him, and the US public for being so dumb they need to be convinced they won the war.

There was initially a strong U.S. public consensus for Bush going into Afghanistan with a small number of troops on an antiterrorism mission. There was never any consensus for Obama escalating that to a nation building mission.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"We" the administration. "We had to destroy the village to save it" is a classic description of Lyndon Johnson's policy in Vietnam.

I once spent an entire day going through the NYT ("source" for that quote) without finding the article it supposed came from. It's fiction.

[sandinista]

"We" the administration. "We had to destroy the village to save it" is a classic description of Lyndon Johnson's policy in Vietnam. Mistermack's excuse for Obama's policy is similar and makes just as little sense: "we had to escalate the war to stop it."

Obama wants to get re-elected.
His policy is dictated by US public opinion. Get the fuck out now, and he loses the next election for running away.
If you want to blame someone, it should be George Bush for starting it, Bin Laden for giving him the Option, the Afghans for hosting him, and the US public for being so dumb they need to be convinced they won the war.

for running away? He's going to lose an election for that? That's ridiculous. They haven't, nor will ever "win" the war. What would even be the definition of victory?

[mistermack]

for running away? He's going to lose an election for that? That's ridiculous. They haven't, nor will ever "win" the war. What would even be the definition of victory?

Of course he would lose the election for that. I don't think you're being genuine there. He would be roasted if he got out without claiming some result.

The 'victory', or success if not victory, will be claimed, it will be false, and will fall apart within a short time. But that won't matter to Obama so long as he gets re-elected.

It's the only real option he's got. He's probably hoping and planning on being able to dump the whole mess on the next president, anyway. Just like Bush did.

[mistermack]

There was initially a strong U.S. public consensus for Bush going into Afghanistan with a small number of troops on an antiterrorism mission. There was never any consensus for Obama escalating that to a nation building mission.

That was the military advice Obama got.
The other option was to run away with your ass on fire. There was never any consensus for that either.

[sandinista]

Of course he would lose the election for that. I don't think you're being genuine there. He would be roasted if he got out without claiming some result.

Genuine? What do you mean? What result is he going to claim? There is nothing he could possibly invent, no amount of spin will make this occupation look positive.

[JimC]

sandinista, leaving aside the questions of whether the US should have entered the fray in Afghanistan and whether or not they (and their allies) should leave, what do you think of the Taliban, and their treatment of women? Do you regard them as heroic freedom fighters against the evil imperialists? I am genuinely curious...

[Robert_S]

sandinista, leaving aside the questions of whether the US should have entered the fray in Afghanistan and whether or not they (and their allies) should leave, what do you think of the Taliban, and their treatment of women? Do you regard them as heroic freedom fighters against the evil imperialists? I am genuinely curious...

They're imperialists in their own right, foreign meddlers from Pakistan.

[mistermack]

Of course he would lose the election for that. I don't think you're being genuine there. He would be roasted if he got out without claiming some result.

Genuine? What do you mean? What result is he going to claim? There is nothing he could possibly invent, no amount of spin will make this occupation look positive.

Not to you, of course.
He's aiming at the minimum possible damage to US prestige. If you can't make it look positive, go for the smallest negative.
His priorities are not your priorities, you don't seem to be able to understand that.
I'm not debating right and wrong, I'm pointing out his limited options, given his obvious priorities.

And I was around when the US left Vietnam. If they can put positive spin on a defeat like that, they can spin anything.
Obama will keep it as quiet as possible till after the election, then creep out slowly and quietly, and then they will blame the corruption of the Afghan government when it falls.

[sandinista]

what do you think of the Taliban, and their treatment of women? Do you regard them as heroic freedom fighters against the evil imperialists? I am genuinely curious...

What do I think of the Taliban? Religious idiots. That's about it. Not sure what you're looking for. By saying "evil" imperialists, what are you trying to say? Of course the US and it's allies that invaded Afghanistan and Iraq are acting as imperialists, they are occupying foreign countries. I also expect the people there to fight back. The same way that if the US was invaded and occupied by a foreign country I'm sure the populace would also fight back. So, in a sense, anyone fighting against the US are freedom fighters, simply because they are fighting to be free of occupation.

They're imperialists in their own right, foreign meddlers from Pakistan.

Partially true, but keep in mind that the borders drawn up by western powers don't count for much in the minds of the people of the region.

He's aiming at the minimum possible damage to US prestige.

US prestige? already damaged beyond repair.

If they can put positive spin on a defeat like that, they can spin anything.

What was the positive spin there? To this day it's still looked at as a huge disaster and war crime.

Obama will keep it as quiet as possible till after the election, then creep out slowly and quietly, and then they will blame the corruption of the Afghan government when it falls.

You mean the government the US installed?

[Warren Dew]

"We" the administration. "We had to destroy the village to save it" is a classic description of Lyndon Johnson's policy in Vietnam.

I once spent an entire day going through the NYT ("source" for that quote) without finding the article it supposed came from. It's fiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tre