USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Supah 0]

He didn't help the reporters because he felt what Nixon did was wrong, he helped them because he got passed over for a promotion.

Can you substantiate that?

Read yesterdays New York Times Has an article on him and the reasons why he apparently helped the reporters.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]how about joining me and the rest in condemning Nixon's abuse of power instead of trying to smear Felt?

How did I smear Felt by saying that? There is a possibility he would had not talked if he wasn't passed over. While is actions were good, his motives for his action is still foggy.

[theavonlady 2]

He didn't help the reporters because he felt what Nixon did was wrong, he helped  them because he got passed over for a promotion.

Can you substantiate that?

Read yesterdays New York Times Has an article on him and the reasons why he apparently helped the reporters.

This one?

Everything is speculative there.

Is there another article you're referring to? Did Felt admit this or is someone accusing him of having these alterior motives?

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]Actually, if you'd done your homework...

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]but just because bush is a freakin' idiot doesn't mean kerry is any better.  

No I think Kerry is "better" in the relative sense of the word. Think of it as the Great Satan, Lesser Satan type deal.

You have to see that Bush did a lot that he did because of 20 years of unfinished buisness (starting with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan)

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]george bush may be a dumbass, but at least he's honest.  he doesn't play with your mind, & just tell you what you want to hear to get elected, (ie, john kerry)

Thats the biggest load of horseshit ever...

Honest? Why again are we in Iraq?... Newsflash. There weren't any terrorists in Iraq before we went in!

agreed, we invaded Iraq to show Suidi Arabia that we still can kick some ace (due from the Vietnam and Korean War loss). They'er probably still founding Terrorist even though we did try to show them up.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]bush never smeared john kerry. john kerry smeared himself by not being honest to the american people.

Yeah. The Swifties just materialized out of thin air headed by a man that has been on the Republican payrolls for years. Maybe you should do your homework and see what his campaign did to McCain, unless of course you think McCain is just a coward too.

well i kinda agree, Kerry did chage his mind a lot so in a way he did it to himself.

Source: Americas Secret War - George Friedman

^Thats were i got info for my homework  

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]You have to see that Bush did a lot that he did because of 20 years of unfinished buisness (starting with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan)

Bush ousted the taliwackers but rebuilding afganistan he never had a plan for.......

[Sophion-Black 0]

as said i didn't say ALL the things...

thats one he just plain "overlooked" (or in other words he was a dumbass on that part... but don't hold me to saying that i'll just deny)

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]You have to see that Bush did a lot that he did because of 20 years of unfinished buisness (starting with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan)

Bush ousted the taliwackers but rebuilding afganistan he never had a plan for.......

He relied to heavily on the Northern Alliance, which was mistake.

[miles teg 1]

How was relying on the Northern Alliance a mistake???

Sure alot of them are thugs, but the Northern Alliance also maintained huge loyal followings amongst Afghans.  If we had done everything alone and told the Northern Alliance to "F"-off, then we would have likely had another Somalia or Iraq on our hands with widespread uprisings against the "occupiers" of Afghanistan.  I think its actually a good thing that we have a relatively low number of soldiers fighting in Afghanistan compared to Iraq because that means we leave a much smaller footprint and don't interfere so much with the day to day lives of most Afghans.  In Iraq we're all over the place there especially in central Iraq where there is daily combat and daily combat related civilian deaths caused by either our forces or the insurgent forces.

Afghanistan has overall been alot more successful because of our willingness to work with some somewhat less the savory warlords.  That type of tribal system is the traditional political system of Afghanistan.  Trying to force Western principles of democracy and governance on a country and excluding the old power brokers (who have TONS of guns and heavy weapons) is a plain stupid idea unless you don't mind absolute chaos and many years of bloody guerilla war.  

Things are getting a bit worse in Afghanistan, especially now that American popularity is taking a nose dive amongst Afghans after allegations of torture in Afghan prisons and Qu'ran desecration.   Before most Afghans were not willing to work with Arabs who they don't particularly like.  However that could change if Al-Qaeda begins to recruit more and more ethnic Pashtuns and Tajiks and other Afghan ethnic groups into Al-Qaeda and they begin to use similar tactics as they do in Iraq.  They know how to play the game, but we are very slow in combating the type of threat Al-Qaeda represents.   If we don't do something to stop the downward spiral of our image in Afghanistan the entire effort of nation building there is in serious jeapordy.

One big sorepoint is the whole opium production problem. I honestly think we need to overlook that for awhile until Afghanistan get its act together and actually develop some kind of economic infrastructure even if that infrastructure is funded by opium money. There needs to be an effort on using that capital generated from the opium into training these farmers into setting up other small businesses and develop different types of industries. This would be much better in the long run, then just pressuring the Afghan government to just destroy fields and either arrest opium farmers or push them into growing crops that they can't earn a very good living with. Its very easy for some big-wig in Washington DC to pass judgement on these opium farmers when they have not experienced the economic realities of small scale agriculturalists in Afghanistan (or in any 3rd world country for that matter). Its an extremely tough existence.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Bordoy 0]

Chris, he relied too heavily on them. Yer he should of used them, and he did. I think he wanted them to get Bin Laden for him, which didn't work out.

[miles teg 1]

Well what else do you do with them?  

Attack them?  Try to disarm them?  Not bloody likely without starting a massive insurgency. The reality is that they ARE a powerful political and military faction in Afghanistan. You can't ignore them and leave them out of the government without a civil war and a chaotic insurgency.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]How was relying on the Northern Alliance a mistake???

As the NA consits of warlords with their own interests who didn´t hesitate to kill anyone for their means that are not very legal and never were. By taking them onto the "good" side they got a reputation they never deserved, and are now actively influencing the political process in Afghanistan. It´s the same old story. Take some bad guys, give them a general absolution and let them serve for your cause. In Afghanistan this will be a failure as it was in any other country where this has been the method of approach.

When the US will hand over to NATO next year we´ll see how productive this collaboration has been. I may remind you that the process in Afgha is slowing down a lot and oppositon against all western influence is on a dramatic rise again.

The shit will hit the fan, the only question is when.

[SFWanabe 0]

as said i didn't say ALL the things...

thats one he just plain "overlooked" (or in other words he was a dumbass on that part... but don't hold me to saying that i'll just deny)

And also if 911 never happened Afghanistan would still be in the control of the tailiwackers. So if you want to praise somebody for giving us an excuse for liberating Afganistan look at Bin Laden BKA *Caugh*Waldo*Caugh*

[Bordoy 0]

Well what else do you do with them?  

Attack them?  Try to disarm them?  Not bloody likely without starting a massive insurgency.  The reality is that they ARE a powerful political and military faction in Afghanistan.  You can't ignore them and leave them out of the government without a civil war and a chaotic insurgency.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Well the allied forces came from the north east where the NA was. Where were the allied troops inserted into the south to stop Bin Ladens escape? There wasn't any, because the yanks wanted the NA to persue and get him.

[Bordoy 0]

as said i didn't say ALL the things...

thats one he just plain "overlooked" (or in other words he was a dumbass on that part... but don't hold me to saying that  i'll just deny)

And also if 911 never happened Afghanistan would still be in the control of the tailiwackers. So if you want to praise somebody for giving us an excuse for liberating Afganistan look at Bin Laden BKA *Caugh*Waldo*Caugh*

Waldo? you mean Wally mate Dam americans with their waldo's lol

[EiZei 0]

as said i didn't say ALL the things...

thats one he just plain "overlooked" (or in other words he was a dumbass on that part... but don't hold me to saying that i'll just deny)

And also if 911 never happened Afghanistan would still be in the control of the tailiwackers. So if you want to praise somebody for giving us an excuse for liberating Afganistan look at Bin Laden BKA *Caugh*Waldo*Caugh*

And now it is in control of northern alliance wankers who are not unlike the taliwankers. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGASA110082005

Quote[/b] ]

Daily, Afghan women are at risk of abduction and rape by armed individuals, forced marriage and being traded in settlement of disputes and debts. They face discrimination from all segments of society as well as by state officials.Violence against women is widely accepted by the community and inadequately addressed at the highest levels of the government and the judiciary. Investigations by the authorities into complaints of violent attacks, rape, murders or suicide of women are neither routine nor systematic, and few result in prosecutions.

"Societal codes, invoked in the name of tradition and religion, are used as justification for denying women the ability to enjoy their fundamental rights. Perceived transgressions of such codes have led to the imprisonment and even killing of some women. Some authorities treat women who run away to escape these situations as criminals and imprison them." said Amnesty International.

Afghanistan is in the process of reconstruction after many years of conflict, but hundreds of women and girls continue to suffer abuse at the hands of their husbands, fathers, brothers, armed individuals, parallel justice systems, and institutions of the state itself such as the police and the justice system. There are reported increases in forced marriages and some women have killed themselves to escape, including by self immolation.

"Husbands, brothers and fathers remain the main perpetrators of violence in the home but the social control and the power that they exercise is reinforced by both state authorities and informal justice systems" Amnesty International emphasized.

Too damn bad the international attention has shifted from Afghanistan, that country is far from liberated.

[miles teg 1]

Well what else do you do with them?  

Attack them?  Try to disarm them?  Not bloody likely without starting a massive insurgency.  The reality is that they ARE a powerful political and military faction in Afghanistan.  You can't ignore them and leave them out of the government without a civil war and a chaotic insurgency.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Well the allied forces came from the north east where the NA was. Where were the allied troops inserted into the south to stop Bin Ladens escape? There wasn't any, because the yanks wanted the NA to persue and get him.

That my friend, was NOT the sole fault of the NA.  You have to understand the way Afghans fight and their culture to understand why the NA let some of Taliban get away.  Money talks and there may have been other deals made we were not aware of.  Or possibly they simply slipped thru the lines of the undisciplined NA soldiers.  

However... the reason why it was not soley their fault is because it was by CHOICE that Washington didn't send in more troops.  They very easily could have airlifted a VASTLY larger ground force to lay seige to the Tora Bora area. Instead they relied on a relatively small number of Special Operations units for that operation.

To Balschoiw:  Again I do not dispute the fact that these NA commanders are often very unsavory figures, however again I repeat my question... what should we have done with them?

Should we have went to war with them as well and risked a unified Afghan resistance front like the Russians faced???

Afghans have always united against outside invaders.

Because we supported one side of the civil war in Afghanistan meant that we were in a fashion, guests...and guests are very important in an Islamic culture.  

So while anti-Western attitudes are increasing in Afghanistan, its not because they are a bunch of savages.  You got to look at the reasons WHY these anti-western attitudes are increasing.   I almost guarantee you that it is largely due to a combination of torture allegations, Qu'ran desecration, and anti-opium programs in addition to efforts by Al-Qaeda instigators who use any reason they can find to raise anti-foreigner hatred amongst the population in order to restart a popular revolt.  Its not rocket science.  

Any NGO's tied into the urban communities in Afghanistan should be able to verify this.

As for the NA warlords being illegitimate, indeed they are but only by our standards.  If you remember, there were democratic elections in Afghanistan.  Were they riddled with corruption and possible fraud?  Yes most likely, but it was still a very big first step in the transition.  I think it went a hell of alot better then it went in Iraq.  The NA are most likely NOT the reason for Anti-Western attitudes in Afghanistan.  Will they be a problem in the future of Afghanistan?  Certainly.  But the central government needs to buy time as it rebuilds the infrastructure of its country and rebuilds its military and police force into the strongest military force in Afghanistan and one that can take care of any warlords itself.  

You can't simply compare Afghanistan to other countries in which this was tried because the situations are VERY VERY different.   We tried leaving warlords out of the political process in Somalia and that nation building endeavor failed miserably because they had the guns and the tribal loyalties, just as many of these NA commanders have vast tribal loyalties such as General Dostum.  

Thugs or not, while many of these warlords are hated, they are also loved my their supporters, many of whom faught and bled for these warlords against the Taliban and even before then against the Soviets.

So in the grand scheme of things, I think its best not to point fingers for anti-Western sentiments at the warlords unless there is evidence that they are behind the anti-western propaganda.

I think it is a MUCH wiser idea to actually find out what the root causes are and work to counter rumors and misperceptions about the UN and NATO (and the US) in Afghanistan.  

The US holds the bulk of this responsibility especially regarding prisoner abuses that continue to happen over and over again.  The US has a major image problem and the State Department and the DoD need to make it a priority to work to change that image.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]And now it is in control of northern alliance wankers who are not unlike the taliwankers. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Only one difference dude. He hates Al Qeada.....

[Balschoiw 0]

@Miles :

The fight on drugs hasn´t even begun. NATO and the US are both very aware that a fight on drugs in Afghanistan will be the end of moderate days as it is THE source of income for average Afghan Joe. Once the war on drugs should start there, it´s the end of peaceful days for everyone in Afghanistan.

Quote[/b] ] what should we have done with them?

Judge them by the same rules and law that the Taleban were judged with. They have another name, but their motivations are quite similar and they never hesitated to kill for their purpose. Not only Taleban but also regular citizens, and they are well known for their support in sending people to Gitmo for money, even if the allegations are untrue from the scratch.

For sure the NA may appear to be the lesser evil, but they are not.

A fight against Taleban should have been followed by disarming the NA to a level where they can´t do much harm anymore. Now the situation we have is a building government military that is outrun by NA numbers in terms of 10:1. I guess you can imagine what will happen when major combat forces will leave Afgha oneday. The NA is a well equipped lynch mob now that controls much of Afgha´s drug-trade and has a big foot in hostage -taking and other criminal acts. They loot, they murder, they are bad guys. Bad guys, equipped by the west. Once the west is not welcome anymore they will fight them with no hesitation, with their own weapons.

Quote[/b] ] I almost guarantee you that it is largely due to a combination of torture allegations, Qu'ran desecration, and anti-opium programs in addition to efforts by Al-Qaeda instigators who use any reason they can find to raise anti-foreigner hatred amongst the population in order to restart a popular revolt.

It´s not that "complicated". We are in their country and tell them what to do. That´s enough for average afghan Joe to pick up his rifle. They didn´t fight wars for ages to have another nation in their country who tells them what to do or not, what is good or bad, what is religion or not. They are angry because another country tries to put them into a direction they don´t want to be put. They are a traditional warrior country and they will turn against the ones who set foot on Afghan soil and think that they can tell them what to do.

All the funny sparks that got added by stupid military actions or international affairs are just the tips of the mountain, the main reason for Afghan scepticism has different roots. Their history tells us that they do have a point there.

Back to the NA. As time goes by the NA will grow in numbers and in quality of training and equipment (thank you US). They will be the number one enemy of Karzai and certainly try to overthrow him once US help is far and NATO hasn´t changed their ROE´s which is very unlikely.

My own limited opinion is, that the process of bringing democrazy to a country from the outside is not possible. Democrazy has to come from the people inside a country. Any "enforced" democrazy from the outside will not be accepted and will not last without foreign troops in the country on a permanent base, which contradicts the idea of a selfrunning democrazy if you are in permanent need of external security forces to uphold your status quo.

Just my 2 cents.

On to something completely different:

Animal rights activists face trial under terror law

Quote[/b] ]PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - New Jersey is using an anti-terrorism law for the first time to try six animal rights activists charged with harassing and vandalizing a company that made use of animals to test its drugs.

Prosecutors say the activists, who will stand trial next week, used threats, intimidation and cyber attacks against employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences, a British company with operations in East Millstone, New Jersey, with the intention of driving it out of business.

The six, members of a group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), are charged under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, amended in 2002 to include "animal enterprise terrorism," which outlaws disrupting firms like Huntingdon.

If convicted, the group and its accused members face a maximum $250,000 fine and three years in prison.

SHAC argued that the charges are a violation of free-speech rights and it is the victim of a government crackdown on dissent. "This is a frightening step in the Bush administration's path to war on domestic dissidence," the group said on its Web site.

The defendants are also charged with interstate stalking, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and $250,000 fine, and with conspiracy to engage in interstate stalking, carrying the same penalty.

The list of potential defense witnesses includes actress Kim Basinger, who joined a protest outside a Huntingdon laboratory in Franklin, New Jersey to try to stop such companies using animals to test their pharmaceutical products.

Their tactics included invading offices, damaging property and stealing documents. They also charged with physical assault -- including spraying cleaning fluid into the eyes of employees -- smashing the windows of their homes and threatening to kill or injure members of their families, prosecutors said.

The group also targeted other companies that did business with Huntingdon. Those firms were swamped with telephone calls and e-mail blitzes intended to clog their computer systems, the indictment said.

Other alleged incidents include overturning a Huntingdon employee's car in the driveway of his New Jersey home and the destruction of putting greens at the Meadowbrook Golf Club in Long Island, New York, where some Huntington employees held memberships.

Those charges are Kevin Kjonaas, 27, president of SHAC; Lauren Gazzola, 26, the group's campaign coordinator; Jacob Conroy, 29; Joshua Harper, 30; Darius Fullmer, 28; and Andrew Stepanian, 26. They all deny the charges.

Opening arguments before Judge Mary Cooper of U.S. District Court in Trenton, New Jersey, are expected early next week. Jury selection began on Wednesday.

This had to be expected.....

TERRORISTS !

[Sophion-Black 0]

<!>--- Terror Alert---<!>

ABC NEWS

Quote[/b] ]

A Virgin Atlantic flight diverted en route to New York has landed in Nova Scotia after its hijack signal was activated.

Canadian fighter jets scrambled to escort the flight that was originally due to land at JFK International Airport at 12:10 p.m.

Virgin officials told ABC News the hijacking signal was a mechanical error and was sent from the plane's transponder. The airline said it was in constant contact with the pilot and the plane's crew, who assured them the cockpit was secure. Air traffic control officials and Heathrow Airport security officials also confirmed it was mechanical error. They are investigating the reason for the mechanical error.

When asked how they knew that the pilot was OK, a Virgin official said, "We have ways of knowing he is OK, which we cannot let know."

Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Border Service will interview the crew and passengers to confirm there are no problems, ABC News' Pierre Thomas reported.

Virgin officials said the flight has 271 passengers and 16 crew members on board. Canadian officials had originally planned to have the aircraft land at the Moncton, New Brunswick, airport but the runway was too short to accommodate the A340-600.

In a released statement, Virgin Atlantic officials said they are "working closely with the authorities and the airline has been advised purely as a precautionary measure to divert to Halifax, Canada.

Passengers were aware of what was going on, Virgin officials said, and were being understanding. Once the plane goes through security in Nova Scotia, Virgin officials said it will proceed to JFK.

Flight 45 left London's Heathrow at 8:59 a.m. and was scheduled to arrive at JFK at 12:10 p.m.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, airlines were required to install bulletproof doors to the cockpit and to keep them closed to prevent hijackers from taking over planes.

Nice to know how well the U.S. responds to this... even though Canadian Fighters scrambled, the lowest (in lattitude) point that the plane's scheduled path took was 31N (which by the way is just a few miles north of the Florida panhandle). we should have at least sent some fighters to help intercept. after all it would have landed in our airport.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]"We have ways of knowing he is OK, which we cannot let know."

Let me guess...partysound and champagne bubbling on the mic accompanied by the sound of dancing stewardess feet ?

[Daniel 0]

That "hijacking" has delayed my Uncle's flight to my town in England.

I havn't seen him for 15 years too, great timing

Just noticed this on the first page of this thread:

Quote[/b] ]Seriously what enemy does the US have that is technologically developed enough to have satelites?

America have been working on a partical cannon system for decades

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]"We have ways of knowing he is OK, which we cannot let know."

Let me guess...partysound and champagne bubbling on the mic accompanied by the sound of dancing stewardess feet ?    

soccer-mom it (censor it up), after all the airline's name is virgin.

[SFWanabe 0]

<!>--- Terror Alert---<!>

ABC NEWS

Quote[/b] ]

A Virgin Atlantic flight diverted en route to New York has landed in Nova Scotia after its hijack signal was activated.

Canadian fighter jets scrambled to escort the flight that was originally due to land at JFK International Airport at 12:10 p.m.

Virgin officials told ABC News the hijacking signal was a mechanical error and was sent from the plane's transponder. The airline said it was in constant contact with the pilot and the plane's crew, who assured them the cockpit was secure. Air traffic control officials and Heathrow Airport security officials also confirmed it was mechanical error. They are investigating the reason for the mechanical error.

When asked how they knew that the pilot was OK, a Virgin official said, "We have ways of knowing he is OK, which we cannot let know."

Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Border Service will interview the crew and passengers to confirm there are no problems, ABC News' Pierre Thomas reported.

Virgin officials said the flight has 271 passengers and 16 crew members on board. Canadian officials had originally planned to have the aircraft land at the Moncton, New Brunswick, airport but the runway was too short to accommodate the A340-600.

In a released statement, Virgin Atlantic officials said they are "working closely with the authorities and the airline has been advised purely as a precautionary measure to divert to Halifax, Canada.

Passengers were aware of what was going on, Virgin officials said, and were being understanding. Once the plane goes through security in Nova Scotia, Virgin officials said it will proceed to JFK.

Flight 45 left London's Heathrow at 8:59 a.m. and was scheduled to arrive at JFK at 12:10 p.m.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, airlines were required to install bulletproof doors to the cockpit and to keep them closed to prevent hijackers from taking over planes.

Nice to know how well the U.S. responds to this... even though Canadian Fighters scrambled, the lowest (in lattitude) point that the plane's scheduled path took was 31N (which by the way is just a few miles north of the Florida panhandle). we should have at least sent some fighters to help intercept. after all it would have landed in our airport.

It was a false alarm......

[Sophion-Black 0]

<!>--- Terror Alert---<!>

It was a false alarm......

The Canadian fighters were scrambled right after the ATC asked if the pilot did it by mistake. We of all people should have scrabled too because of all the poeple that want us dead. we didn't know if the pilot was being forced by terrorist to say that. besides, on that quite sunday morning on Oahu there was a radar reading going off the charts before the US was plunged into World War II. If we would have sent a patroll we would have at least had some aircraft in the air. We could have saved many on Ford island and the pacific fleet could have been less destroyed.

Quote[/b] ]Not everything that is counted, counts. And not everything that counts, is counted.

Quote[/b] ]Precaution never hurt anybody so why not have some.

Quote[/b] ]You should do everything in real-time not "20mins from now"

those quotes pretty much some up my answer.

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]

The fight on drugs hasn´t even begun. NATO and the US are both very aware that a fight on drugs in Afghanistan will be the end of moderate days as it is THE source of income for average Afghan Joe. Once the war on drugs should start there, it´s the end of peaceful days for everyone in Afghanistan.

Actually the fight on opium has started in Afghanistan.  

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/05222005/world/43697.htm

http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=107625

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-05/29/content_3016914.htm

Quote[/b] ]

Judge them by the same rules and law that the Taleban were judged with. They have another name, but their motivations are quite similar and they never hesitated to kill for their purpose. Not only Taleban but also regular citizens, and they are well known for their support in sending people to Gitmo for money, even if the allegations are untrue from the scratch.

For sure the NA may appear to be the lesser evil, but they are not.

A fight against Taleban should have been followed by disarming the NA to a level where they can´t do much harm anymore. Now the situation we have is a building government military that is outrun by NA numbers in terms of 10:1. I guess you can imagine what will happen when major combat forces will leave Afgha oneday. The NA is a well equipped lynch mob now that controls much of Afgha´s drug-trade and has a big foot in hostage -taking and other criminal acts. They loot, they murder, they are bad guys. Bad guys, equipped by the west. Once the west is not welcome anymore they will fight them with no hesitation, with their own weapons.

You know the motivations of all the NA leaders?  If I remember correctly Karzai himself had ties to the Northern Alliance.  Also its very presumptuous to link all the crime in Afghanistan to drug lords.  There are ALOT of guns in Afghanistan and I don't see why its always the warlords responsible. There have only been a relatively small number of attacks on aid workers and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan compared to the daily attacks on contractors in Iraq.  

Also, a disarmament program is taking place:

http://www.rferl.org/feature....ba.html

Not very successfully but its a first step.

Its a slow gradual process and trying to rush into by getting the US military or NATO to go in guns blazing is NOT a recipe for a stable Afghanistan.  You seem to have the cynical view that Afghanistan is a lost cause.

Do you think all Afghanis really hate the West and are all tribal warrior wannabes who don't want any democracy?

If so then why did so many take part in the elections?

In case you didn't know there is a traditional form of tribal council which is what formed the bases for the elections.

We don't have to force a Western style of democracy upon them when they have their own brand of democracy already in their culture.  

What you advocate is a highly colonialist type of "Disarm and get with the program or we kick your ass" mentality thats basically in keeping with the general Middle East stragety of the Bush administration.

Now, there is an alternative which is just to scrap all pretences of democracy and support a strongman, monarchy, or totalitarian government.  That DOES work to bring stability.  Its worked pretty damn well with the Saudi Royal family and the Jordanian monarchy.  In fact dicator's are the primary factors in stability in the Middle East.  Its generally those that are weak or who fool around with democracy that have become unstable.

At any rate, I think its a bit cynical to just throw your hands up and believe that the clash of Afghanis and foreigners can not be averted.  Alot can be done to help prevent or minimize this clash.  I think it is foolish to believe that we must hasten this potential clash and force the medicine of civilization and democracy down their throat.  Patience and a strong understanding of the politics of Afghanistan (from first hand on the ground experience with warlords) and its economy (again from first hand experience and research rather then theoretical modelling) is what is required.

Quote[/b] ]

It´s not that "complicated". We are in their country and tell them what to do. That´s enough for average afghan Joe to pick up his rifle. They didn´t fight wars for ages to have another nation in their country who tells them what to do or not, what is good or bad, what is religion or not. They are angry because another country tries to put them into a direction they don´t want to be put. They are a traditional warrior country and they will turn against the ones who set foot on Afghan soil and think that they can tell them what to do.

All the funny sparks that got added by stupid military actions or international affairs are just the tips of the mountain, the main reason for Afghan scepticism has different roots. Their history tells us that they do have a point there.

Back to the NA. As time goes by the NA will grow in numbers and in quality of training and equipment (thank you US). They will be the number one enemy of Karzai and certainly try to overthrow him once US help is far and NATO hasn´t changed their ROE´s which is very unlikely.

My own limited opinion is, that the process of bringing democrazy to a country from the outside is not possible. Democrazy has to come from the people inside a country. Any "enforced" democrazy from the outside will not be accepted and will not last without foreign troops in the country on a permanent base, which contradicts the idea of a selfrunning democrazy if you are in permanent need of external security forces to uphold your status quo.

Is the US still training and equipping warlords?  If so these are things that can be stopped and seem to go against the UN disarmament program.  If I remember correctly you were actually in Afghanistan doing peacekeeping work (unless I'm confusing you with someone else) but I still find that hard to believe.  Continuing to arm the NA would only further weaken the central government.  

Guys like General Dostum are no idiots.  Many of them ran for political seats in office and were elected.  What needs to be done is not a one size fits all solution but rather a study of what districts have the worse instability.  Then find out why.  If its the warlords encouraging lawlessness you try and convince them that security means more trade into his district and thus more revenue for him and his people. If its not his fault and just can't control rogue bands of bandits, you look at ways to work with that warlord to bring in government forces if the government forces are available so that joint patrols can be done to root out bandits.  Working with the local mosques can also help.  All of this can be done primarly with only Afghans unless they require air support or other logistical support.  The goal should be to leave as small a foreign footprint on Afghanistan as possible.    

In the Sinai for example, the UN monitors are almost invisible there as they dress in civilian clothes and blend in with the population and tourists rather well.  

The UN and NATO should not be in the business of tryng to be the military muscle of Afghanistan but rather faciliators to a stable Afghanistan even if it means a less then perfect democracy.  If the warrior culture is the main problem as you say, well how can that culture be subverted to sell democracy?  Can't Afghan warriors be depicted as defenders of democracy in propaganda?  The Loya Jerga (spelled something like that) is an example of the traditional tribal council.  This can be used to as the roots and foundation for a democratic society.  In fact it already has.  But it needs to be emphasized more in propaganda campaigns that their government is NOT a US puppet but creation of their nation and that stability and economic prosperity means fighting terrorism and crime as well as fighting corruption.

But of coarse I'm saying all this without ever having been to Afghanistan and in fact, if I travelled there and did a good bit of research I might change my mind about alot of things or realize that certain programs would have to be heavily modified.

Nevertheless I refuse to believe that a "kick all their asses" methodology is the way to go in Afghanistan.  That will do nothing more then unify opposition against the West in Afghanistan and bring about the downfall of the Karzai government.  I do agree that disarmement needs to be done to ALL the warlords, but it needs to be done in a very very cautious and delicate manner using incentives primarily to get compliance.  Furthermore there needs to be a systematic expansion of the central government military and police forces across Afghanistan that goes along with this process. If this is not done together, then you end up getting power vaccums in which other younger tribal leaders or worse, Al-Qaeda leaders, fill the power vaccum. Either that or you end up getting lawlessness cuz the warlords only have enough guns to protect themselves.  But if this disarmament is done correctly, then slowly but surely, I think things will become more stable.

I have alot of faith in Karzai.  Of all the Middle East leaders him and probably the King of Jordan I respect the most as being highly intelligent, capable, and diplomatic men who are doing their best in tough situations.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>