Forums | MacLife

Ribtorus wrote:

But don't we in the west depend on a successful China?

I would have said peaceful, successful, ehhh.

Ribtorus wrote:

But don't we in the west depend on a successful China?

I often wonder.

radarman wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

kudos to Adrienne Mong, then.

So if Afghanistan is "lost" to the Afghans-we-don't-like-at-the-moment, then whoever can foster actual investment will "win".  A resource hungry China is all over the map and A'stan is just one nation on their list of investments.

But don't we in the west depend on a successful China?

Actually, I think we should promote policies more like the Chinese. Forget the moralizing crap, and just encourage the most stable environment possible. Then invest in the nation to gain better access to natural resources or labor. China is going to change the face of Africa, and potentially Afghanistan, far more effectively than we will, and they will come out of it with access to oil, copper, gold, and other natural resources we will end up having to buy from them.

We, on the other hand, are going to spend a crapload of money and lives, get squat in return, and end up poorer for the effort. Worse, we will probably end up making the situation for the average person in these regions worse for the wear, not better.

Don't assume there aren't also western and American business interests active in the new Afghanistan.

robco wrote:

I do think we need to drop the moralizing as well. What happens to these people isn't entirely up to us. If the place turns to crap after US forces leave, too bad. We really do need to quit worrying about things like collateral damage when we go to war. But that's also where the real change needs to happen - the US needs to actually go to war. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq should be the last actions done without a declaration of war from Congress. War should only happen when we are truly committed. These half-assed measures simply don't work out. This should also teach us that there is simply no place for NATO in the post-Soviet world. Coalition my ass. No offense to Ribby, but the US always winds up bearing the brunt of these things. And not just here, but places like Kosovo as well - something that should have been a US matter.

I'm sick of these wars dragging on for years with nothing to show for it. We need to spend that money here. I know it's harsh, but smurf the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. And in the future, the US needs to stay out of world affairs. Our military needs to be pulled back within our own borders. If people are overrun by <Communists, Islamofacists, insert-boogeyman-du-jour-here> too smurfing bad. The US military exists to preserve freedom for US citizens, not foreigners. If business interests are involved, then tax businesses to pay for it. They can also pay the benefits to the families of the soldiers killed and the equipment lost.

We need a program similar to those in post-war Germany to rid the nation of a certain ideology here, but applied to neoconservatism.

You still don't know why you're there.

You frame your objections in terms of the lies and half-truths you've heard, rather than the reality.

robco wrote:

Does anyone know why the US is there? I don't think we know anymore. It's been eight years already. Whatever the reason, that's too long. I thought we were there to nab OBL. But I think he's long gone. Time to declare mission failure and pull out.

Whatever the reasons the US is still there aren't good ones. We are no good at nation building, anything we try and build there will crumble when we leave. Why stay?

That's a valid question.

Nation building is a good, sufficiently general term that can mean almost anything.
It can mean setting up a puppet regime dictatorship torture state, or a fantasy peaceful democracy.

I think real nation building has its historic roots in migration, assimilation and conquest. But we don't migrate, only our interests migrate; that's empire building.  And that's what we do.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2009-10-20 1:14 pm)

Ribtorus wrote:

robco wrote:

Does anyone know why the US is there? I don't think we know anymore. It's been eight years already. Whatever the reason, that's too long. I thought we were there to nab OBL. But I think he's long gone. Time to declare mission failure and pull out.

Whatever the reasons the US is still there aren't good ones. We are no good at nation building, anything we try and build there will crumble when we leave. Why stay?

That's a valid question.

Nation building is a good, sufficiently general term that can mean almost anything.
It can mean setting up a puppet regime dictatorship torture state, or a fantasy peaceful democracy.

I think real nation building has its historic roots in migration, assimilation and conquest. But we don't migrate, only our interests migrate; that's empire building.  And that's what we do.

yeah, just shut up, and be a good soldier of the Queen.

Others will decide what and where we go.

sturner wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

robco wrote:

Does anyone know why the US is there? I don't think we know anymore. It's been eight years already. Whatever the reason, that's too long. I thought we were there to nab OBL. But I think he's long gone. Time to declare mission failure and pull out.

Whatever the reasons the US is still there aren't good ones. We are no good at nation building, anything we try and build there will crumble when we leave. Why stay?

That's a valid question.

Nation building is a good, sufficiently general term that can mean almost anything.
It can mean setting up a puppet regime dictatorship torture state, or a fantasy peaceful democracy.

I think real nation building has its historic roots in migration, assimilation and conquest. But we don't migrate, only our interests migrate; that's empire building.  And that's what we do.

yeah, just shut up, and be a good soldier of the Queen.

Others will decide what and where we go.

By we I mean the west

sturner wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

The general concepts of commerce, investment and risk are central to protecting capitalism and depend on interventions of some kind or other. Intervention either to mitigate threats or preserve a positive situation.

Even your vaunted founding fathers knew to keep some kind of foreign presence with sufficient clout to maintain or even enhance opportunities.

Hence the frigates, U.S.S  United States, Constellation, Constitution, Chesapeake, Congress, and President.

As well as diplomatic officers in various foreign capitals.

robco wrote:

Diplomacy certainly. But permanent military bases in Europe? Soldiers in Korea more than a half century after the conflict? No. What resources does Afghanistan have besides opium? I doubt our founders wanted a militaristic empire along the lines of ancient Rome.

Well, the ancient Roman Republic was a fanciful model for those men, as well as their European counterparts at that time.  Perhaps destiny dictates the terms, and empire is inevitable.

Ribtorus wrote:

robco wrote:

Diplomacy certainly. But permanent military bases in Europe? Soldiers in Korea more than a half century after the conflict? No. What resources does Afghanistan have besides opium? I doubt our founders wanted a militaristic empire along the lines of ancient Rome.

Well, the ancient Roman Republic was a fanciful model for those men, as well as their European counterparts at that time.  Perhaps destiny dictates the terms, and empire is inevitable.

As will our fall be inevitable...

Western credibility is already shot - at least US credibility. This is an opportunity for the EU to step up and become relevant. Afghans already despise us and will probably repeat the AQ thing anyway. Iran is already in chaos, or a hair's breadth from it. Nobody likes the Russians. The only NATO member that will be revealed to be weak is the US because the US is the only ones with considerable forces committed in Afghanistan. The rest are more token forces than anything else. NATO is already weak because the US and UK are the only strong members. The other members went in with some trepidation and committed as few forces as possible and are looking to get out ASAP. NATO is already done for or should be. It's a relic from the Cold War.

None of the scenarios you mention are worth the cost of being there or ratcheting up our involvement. If you think other NATO members could be convinced that it's worthwhile and would be willing to help more, that would help, but I doubt you could. The rest of the world is too weak and/or timid. If they want the Iranians or Putin to gain more power, so be it. The US is no longer a shield.

As for being debtors, our involvement in the MidEast is dragging us into debt faster than anything aside from SS and Medicare. For the money we spent, we could have researched, developed and be in the process of implementing alternative energy. The whole region is a mess. They're a backward, brutal people going through their Middle Ages. The only reason we give a smurf is the oil. Remove our dependence on that and we don't have to care about them anymore.

They don't hate Canada, nobody hates Canada. They hate Americans.

What is this NATO mission you keep speaking of? Who, aside from the UK and US have committed considerable forces in Afghanistan? The French? The Belgians?

We could alter the mission... again. We could keep moving the goalposts. We can continue to redefine what success is. Mission creep continues and we're in for another eight years - right before the Ponzi scheme that is the US government comes crashing down. No matter what we do, we're not going to come out a winner.

As for Pakistan and Iran, they'll get what they deserve. I hate quoting the Bible but, "as ye sow, so shall ye reap."

robco wrote:

nobody hates Canada.

Except for Quebec.