Karzai Twists the Knife - Would Support Pakistan over US

[Paul Kemp]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/22/us-pakistan-afghanistan-usa-idUSTRE79L19Z20111022?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Probably time to stop funds and bring the troops home.

[Sbane]

Weird. He wants to be friendly with Pakistan now? He should realize that unless he wants to be the ISI's bitch, Pakistan will look at other options. Options that would want to put bombs in his turban.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Things that Hamid Karzai would support over the US:

• Pakistan
• The Taliban
• A guy called Hajirullah whose chief qualification is 'possesses a scimitar'
• Wales
• A needle of horse.

Old news.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The obvious thing America should do is withdrawal. But if we cant, we should at least give him the Diem treatment..

[Хahar 🤔]

A silly question deserves a stupid answer.

The obvious thing America should do is withdrawal. But if we cant, we should at least give him the Diem treatment..

That's disgusting.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

welcome to the Muslim mind

Now, jmfcst, dear, what have we told you about generalising 1.6 billion people?

[All Along The Watchtower]

welcome to the Muslim mind

How Christian of you.

[Jacobtm]

Why should Afghanistan be grateful to the U.S.?

We have not helped them. We have invaded them.

[dead0man]

Why should Afghanistan be grateful to the U.S.?

We have not helped them. We have invaded them.

It's not possible we've done both?  There has never been more children going to school in the country, that probably wasn't possible without the invasion.  And this isn't about Afghans being grateful or not, it's about Karzai.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

A silly question deserves a stupid answer.

The obvious thing America should do is withdrawal. But if we cant, we should at least give him the Diem treatment..

That's disgusting.

Everything is disgusting to you. Take. A. Joke.

[Paul Kemp]

Why should Afghanistan be grateful to the U.S.?

We have not helped them. We have invaded them.

Yes, Afghanistan was a much better place pre-2001 . . . .

Also, how about the fact that the only reason Karzai is in power/still in power/still alive is because of the United States?

[Insula Dei]

Why should Afghanistan be grateful to the U.S.?

We have not helped them. We have invaded them.

Yes, Afghanistan was a much better place pre-2001 . . . .

Unless memory fails me 1980 also was before 2001,...

[Paul Kemp]

Why should Afghanistan be grateful to the U.S.?

We have not helped them. We have invaded them.

Yes, Afghanistan was a much better place pre-2001 . . . .

Unless memory fails me 1980 also was before 2001,...

Thanks.

[Jacobtm]

It's not possible we've done both?  There has never been more children going to school in the country, that probably wasn't possible without the invasion.  And this isn't about Afghans being grateful or not, it's about Karzai.

No country appreciates being invaded and occupied. Especially Afghanistan, which has been invaded and occupied more than enough.

Karzai follows in a long line of people we thought would be our puppets but it didn't work out that way. If I remember correctly, that's pretty much what happens all the time.

We should stop invading countries to install new governments. It doesn't even work out in a cynical realpolitik way. That's a perfectly libertarian position, don't you think?

[patrick1]

It's not possible we've done both?  There has never been more children going to school in the country, that probably wasn't possible without the invasion.  And this isn't about Afghans being grateful or not, it's about Karzai.

No country appreciates being invaded and occupied. Especially Afghanistan, which has been invaded and occupied more than enough.

Karzai follows in a long line of people we thought would be our puppets but it didn't work out that way. If I remember correctly, that's pretty much what happens all the time.

We should stop invading countries to install new governments. It doesn't even work out in a cynical realpolitik way. That's a perfectly libertarian position, don't you think?

In the case of Afghanistan that is not really the reason we wound up there to start with. Further, I doubt that had the aged King or Rabbani been not pressured to stand aside and were selected at the 2002 Loya Jirga that things would be much better.

[Jacobtm]

We should stop invading countries to install new governments.[/b] It doesn't even work out in a cynical realpolitik way. That's a perfectly libertarian position, don't you think?

In the case of Afghanistan that is not really the reason we wound up there to start with. Further, I doubt that had the aged King or Rabbani been not pressured to stand aside and were selected at the 2002 Loya Jirga that things would be much better.

The Bush Doctrine is exactly the reason we went there. It took us 10 years to find Bin Laden, but in the meantime we DID quickly overthrow Afghanistan's government and put Karzai in power.

I'm not defending the previous Afghan government, but it is not our place to go overthrowing one government to install another. Bringing 10 years of war to Afghanistan has not helped them. Karzai is no a good leader.

Do you think it's a positive thing to constantly be invading other countries to overthrow their leaders and prop up our own puppets? That is largely the reason WHY we have to deal with terrorism in the first place, our support for dictators in the muslim world and our military interventions there.

It's best to just not invade countries whenever we goddamn please.

Can't believe that seems like a radical position

[Insula Dei]

The reason the US invaded Afghanistan was because the Taliban harboured Bin Laden, and was at the very least indirectly involved in 9/11. The Taliban regime was a festering soar that needed to disappear anyway. Anyone pretending the US invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified needs to think again. It's the way you handled the invasion and what followed that was riddled by mistakes. (e.g. the installation of Karzai, the destruction of papaver fields)

[patrick1]

We should stop invading countries to install new governments.[/b] It doesn't even work out in a cynical realpolitik way. That's a perfectly libertarian position, don't you think?

In the case of Afghanistan that is not really the reason we wound up there to start with. Further, I doubt that had the aged King or Rabbani been not pressured to stand aside and were selected at the 2002 Loya Jirga that things would be much better.

The Bush Doctrine is exactly the reason we went there. It took us 10 years to find Bin Laden, but in the meantime we DID quickly overthrow Afghanistan's government and put Karzai in power.

I'm not defending the previous Afghan government, but it is not our place to go overthrowing one government to install another. Bringing 10 years of war to Afghanistan has not helped them. Karzai is no a good leader.

The problem that I have is that I think you have your timeline incorrect and are failing to put events in their proper context.  The real thrust of what became the Bush doctrine did not exist.  Bush had campaigned in 2000 on a non interventionist policy in contrast to the Clinton admin's nation building projects.  I think 9/11 proved to them that our borders now offer little protection and that we should take the fight to the enemy.  Now there are solid arguments to be made pro and con this strategy and about its ultimate efficacy.  These are all with the benefit of hindsight.   I wanted to interject a little context.   

[Хahar 🤔]

In terms of American actions that I find problematic, invading Afghanistan is nowhere near the top of the list.

[Paul Kemp]

In terms of American actions that I find problematic, invading Afghanistan is nowhere near the top of the list.

It is certainly the most justified military action the United States has taken since WWII.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

In terms of American actions that I find problematic, invading Afghanistan is nowhere near the top of the list.

It is certainly the most justified military action the United States has taken since WWII.

Very justified. But we can only go so far in so many places...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

welcome to the Muslim mind

Now, jmfcst, dear, what have we told you about generalising 1.6 billion people?

I would like to see those 1.6B polled on the following question:  "Who would you support in a war between the US and Pakistan?"

I'd guess at least 80% would choose Pakistan

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

welcome to the Muslim mind

Now, jmfcst, dear, what have we told you about generalising 1.6 billion people?

I would like to see those 1.6B polled on the following question:  "Who would you support in a war between the US and Pakistan?"

I'd guess at least 80% would choose Pakistan

Many of them have reasons for feeling that way other than the fact that they're Muslim, though.

If one polled the 2.3 billion Christians and 80% said that they would support the US in that situation, which I would not be surprised by at all, would you say that this tells you something deep and important about 'the Christian mind'?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

welcome to the Muslim mind

Now, jmfcst, dear, what have we told you about generalising 1.6 billion people?

I would like to see those 1.6B polled on the following question:  "Who would you support in a war between the US and Pakistan?"

I'd guess at least 80% would choose Pakistan

Many of them have reasons for feeling that way other than the fact that they're Muslim, though.

Such as…the US’s harsh treatment of women and intolerance of religious diversity, as compared to rest of the world?

---

If one polled the 2.3 billion Christians and 80% said that they would support the US in that situation, which I would not be surprised by at all, would you say that this tells you something deep and important about 'the Christian mind'?

Yeah:  Many Christians understand Islam is the enemy of individual freedom and that the US is the champion of individual freedom.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

welcome to the Muslim mind

Now, jmfcst, dear, what have we told you about generalising 1.6 billion people?

I would like to see those 1.6B polled on the following question:  "Who would you support in a war between the US and Pakistan?"

I'd guess at least 80% would choose Pakistan

Many of them have reasons for feeling that way other than the fact that they're Muslim, though.

Such as…the US’s harsh treatment of women and intolerance of religious diversity, as compared to rest of the world?

Such as the US's harsh treatment of that part of the world, as compared to the rest of the world. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates do in fact produce religious fanatics who hate us for fairly crappy reasons, but people in places like North or East Africa--or, for that matter, Pakistan--have somewhat more dialectically standard fish to fry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah:  Many Christians understand Islam is the enemy of individual freedom and that the US is the champion of individual freedom.

[/quote]

How is it 'championing individual freedom' to judge and at times wage war on people on the basis of their religion. Related question: Have you ever actually met a practising Muslim?