Fucking savages

[JimC]

What I am looking for (and will never fucking see) is shame, anger and outrage about such incidents from all those "moderate muslims" that political correctness tells us we musts never upset or denigrate in any way...

[Schneibster]

Inconvenient answer, I know.

Actually, your timing sucks. The Asia Foundation poll is due out on Tuesday. I don't want to discuss it until then. The last one said you're wrong, but we'll see. My own fault; I brought it up.

Part of the problem is that the Afghani government needs us right now, and so do the people, and neither of them wants to admit it. I expect the results of the most recent poll will show that even more strongly than the last one, but I don't want to argue about it in advance of the poll; I may be wrong and I'd look like an idiot.

While we wait you'll want a look at the previous ones.

The truth is that I am not in favour of the US getting out of either Afghanistan or Iran. It broke them. It owns them.

Errrrmmm, you mean Iraq. I think that's a done deal, and I think the Iraqi people and government really do want us out, and we're gone as of next month. Whether they can deal with things on their own remains to be seen, but it's pretty much a fait accompli at this point.

I just that don't see how the US administration can fix the problem. It's record is not so good lately. I think the last success - and it was a resounding one - was the Marshall Plan. It missed out on doing the same in Afghanistan by totally ignoring Charley Wilson's advice after he engineered the ignominious retreat of the Soviet military a few decades ago.

There's quite a bit more to it than you saw in Charlie Wilson's War. Keep in mind as well that it's a multinational force, operating under a strong UN mandate, unlike Iraq.

Because of the multinational character of the force, the situation in Afghanistan is very different from the situation in Iraq. The real question is what's going to happen as the financial crisis in Europe continues to develop.

[Schneibster]

Here's an inconvenient question:

So, everybody's all for getting out of Afghanistan right away, huh?

Short of conducting a massive deculturation campaign over the next 50 years, which means ousting the elites and replacing them; and sending a million more troops to make the occupation something proper, there's nothing to do, so, yeah.

I don't think anything that drastic is required. In fact I don't think more than a year or two more and finishing some in-progress rebuilding, and tamping Pakistan down, which we're in the process of doing right now, will be needed. A great deal of the problem in Afghanistan is Pakistan. Always has been.

[Hermit]

Yes, I meant Iraq, and thanks for that link to the Asia Foundation poll. Going by the results thus far, would you not think that I made a valid point? In 2004 64% of the respondents agreed that "things in Afghanistan today are going in the right direction" In 2010 only 47% thought so. In the same time span, the percentage of people who agreed that "things in Afghanistan today are going in the wrong direction" rose from 11 to 27.

Not exactly a trend to inspire confidence in eventual success, is it? And those are the results procured by an organisation that started off in 1951 as "an ostensibly private body . . . sanctioned by the National Security Council and, with the knowledge of congressional oversight committees, supported with covert indirect CIA funding". Ostensibly, again, the connection with the CIA has been severed around 1967, but I think its dice are still heavily loaded.

[Schneibster]

OTOH, since the election of Obama, the "right direction" has increased steadily instead of falling steadily like before, which was why I disagreed. What I'm interested in in the new one is whether that trend has continued this year.

[Hermit]

OTOH, since the election of Obama, the "right direction" has increased steadily instead of falling steadily like before, which was why I disagreed. What I'm interested in in the new one is whether that trend has continued this year.

I implied that the objectivity of the Asia Foundation and its survey is suspect. And the increasing presence and power of the Taliban and Al Queda is a matter of fact.

I fear that some time in the near future the US administration will claim to have "fixed it" and pull out. Shortly after that the puppet government will be toppled, and the US will say "well, we did fix it, and then they fucked it up again." The stoning and shooting of women for "moral deviation and adultery" will continue unabated. Girls and women will not be allowed an education, and they certainly will not be allowed to drive or even go shopping on their own. They will remain the chattel of men in its medieval sense. Assuming the US presence is actually aimed at doing something about that, I despair at its chances to succeed.

[Schneibster]

OTOH, since the election of Obama, the "right direction" has increased steadily instead of falling steadily like before, which was why I disagreed. What I'm interested in in the new one is whether that trend has continued this year.

I implied that the objectivity of the Asia Foundation and its survey is suspect.

Based on what evidence? If they were crooked I'd've expected them to be showing all nicey-nice trends for W and then tanking to show how bad we were for electing that scary black guy President.

And the increasing presence and power of the Taliban and Al Queda is a matter of fact.

Ummm, OK. Again, based on what evidence? I don't see that as a claim anyone's making in either trad or alternative media. The sites I found claiming that were, hmmm, shall we say, "fringe." If you have some that aren't I'd like to see them but I'm pretty skeptical.

I fear that some time in the near future the US administration will claim to have "fixed it" and pull out. Shortly after that the puppet government will be toppled, and the US will say "well, we did fix it, and then they fucked it up again." The stoning and shooting of women for "moral deviation and adultery" will continue unabated. Girls and women will not be allowed an education, and they certainly will not be allowed to drive or even go shopping on their own. They will remain the chattel of men in its medieval sense. Assuming the US presence is actually aimed at doing something about that, I despair at its chances to succeed.

I linked Hilary Clinton, the United States' Secretary of State, the head official of our diplomatic corps, saying that it is a priority. I have to point out that Afghanistan could become a casualty of this mess in Europe. We can't afford a double-dip recession. It would start a depression. Also, I have to point out that it's starting to look like the majority of the problem in Afghanistan is Pakistan. So that could make a pretty big difference in the way we go about fixing it.

While still pretty bad in places, Pakistan as a whole is a lot better than Afghanistan from the human rights POV. The Afghans could do worse than to emulate them.

[JimC]

OTOH, since the election of Obama, the "right direction" has increased steadily instead of falling steadily like before, which was why I disagreed. What I'm interested in in the new one is whether that trend has continued this year.

I implied that the objectivity of the Asia Foundation and its survey is suspect. And the increasing presence and power of the Taliban and Al Queda is a matter of fact.

I fear that some time in the near future the US administration will claim to have "fixed it" and pull out. Shortly after that the puppet government will be toppled, and the US will say "well, we did fix it, and then they fucked it up again." The stoning and shooting of women for "moral deviation and adultery" will continue unabated. Girls and women will not be allowed an education, and they certainly will not be allowed to drive or even go shopping on their own. They will remain the chattel of men in its medieval sense. Assuming the US presence is actually aimed at doing something about that, I despair at its chances to succeed.

With the one change to "International coalition" rather than just the US pulling the plug, I suspect that you are basically right. Nothing the current corrupt government or its armed forces are doing fills anyone with confidence. When (not if) the West pulls out, they are dead men walking...

If the Taliban has any political nous (and I'm sure that they do...) when they take over, they will make it quietly known that they are not going to be publically or obviously supporting major attacks on western interests elsewhere. If they do it right, and don't overtly rock the boat outside their borders, they can ensure that their is little chance of the West intervening anytime soon. They will be able to indulge in their vicious,medievel misogyny to their heart's content.

A rather depressing conclusion...

[apophenia]

Sadly, you can't fast forward a culture.

Russia, China, Africa. All have tried to skip rungs on the ladder, to the detriment of their peoples.

Millions died. Millions. And more suffered, famine, brutality, torture, imprisonment and exile.


We are nought but mammals after all. We have no magic power to erase what is and replace it with what we wish was.
It is the fate of all who are born, to live, to suffer, to die, and to be no more.

Some future generation will lament us for what we consider advanced civilization. And furthers on will laugh at them. Or just shake their heads.

Walk away.
Walk away.

[Hermit]

OTOH, since the election of Obama, the "right direction" has increased steadily instead of falling steadily like before, which was why I disagreed. What I'm interested in in the new one is whether that trend has continued this year.

I implied that the objectivity of the Asia Foundation and its survey is suspect.

Based on what evidence? If they were crooked I'd've expected them to be showing all nicey-nice trends for W and then tanking to show how bad we were for electing that scary black guy President.

The Asia Foundation's core funding comes from annual Congress appropriations. It also mentions that it receives funding from other, unnamed governmental organisations in the USA. It has no endowment of its own. It is essentially an arm of the US administration.

And the increasing presence and power of the Taliban and Al Queda is a matter of fact.

Ummm, OK. Again, based on what evidence? I don't see that as a claim anyone's making in either trad or alternative media. The sites I found claiming that were, hmmm, shall we say, "fringe." If you have some that aren't I'd like to see them but I'm pretty skeptical.

You only have to look at the Asia Foundation's own survey results. Only 38% of the respondents who thought things are heading in the right direction were happy with the security aspect in 2010. That is down from 44% in 2009.

I fear that some time in the near future the US administration will claim to have "fixed it" and pull out. Shortly after that the puppet government will be toppled, and the US will say "well, we did fix it, and then they fucked it up again." The stoning and shooting of women for "moral deviation and adultery" will continue unabated. Girls and women will not be allowed an education, and they certainly will not be allowed to drive or even go shopping on their own. They will remain the chattel of men in its medieval sense. Assuming the US presence is actually aimed at doing something about that, I despair at its chances to succeed.

I linked Hilary Clinton, the United States' Secretary of State, the head official of our diplomatic corps, saying that it is a priority. I have to point out that Afghanistan could become a casualty of this mess in Europe. We can't afford a double-dip recession. It would start a depression. Also, I have to point out that it's starting to look like the majority of the problem in Afghanistan is Pakistan. So that could make a pretty big difference in the way we go about fixing it.

I told you what I fear will happen. My prognostication is no better than yours. I do think it is unfortunately the more likely outcome, though. While there is a significant European involvement, I also think the role of the US is the overwhelmingly most important factor, almost as much as its involvement in what was officially known as "UN police actions" in the past, of which you would have no difficulty recalling two major ones.

[Schneibster]

OTOH, since the election of Obama, the "right direction" has increased steadily instead of falling steadily like before, which was why I disagreed. What I'm interested in in the new one is whether that trend has continued this year.

I implied that the objectivity of the Asia Foundation and its survey is suspect.

Based on what evidence? If they were crooked I'd've expected them to be showing all nicey-nice trends for W and then tanking to show how bad we were for electing that scary black guy President.

The Asia Foundation's core funding comes from annual Congress appropriations. It also mentions that it receives funding from other, unnamed governmental organisations in the USA. It has no endowment of its own. It is essentially an arm of the US administration.

I don't see what use the government has for inaccurate polls of opinion. This is just supposition.

I don't support them without question; present some data that controverts them, and I'll have a look. But you haven't.

And the increasing presence and power of the Taliban and Al Queda is a matter of fact.

Ummm, OK. Again, based on what evidence? I don't see that as a claim anyone's making in either trad or alternative media. The sites I found claiming that were, hmmm, shall we say, "fringe." If you have some that aren't I'd like to see them but I'm pretty skeptical.

You only have to look at the Asia Foundation's own survey results. Only 38% of the respondents who thought things are heading in the right direction were happy with the security aspect in 2010. That is down from 44% in 2009.

We pulled soldiers out. What did you expect? That doesn't equate to "increasing presence and power of the Taliban and Al Qaeda."

I fear that some time in the near future the US administration will claim to have "fixed it" and pull out. Shortly after that the puppet government will be toppled, and the US will say "well, we did fix it, and then they fucked it up again." The stoning and shooting of women for "moral deviation and adultery" will continue unabated. Girls and women will not be allowed an education, and they certainly will not be allowed to drive or even go shopping on their own. They will remain the chattel of men in its medieval sense. Assuming the US presence is actually aimed at doing something about that, I despair at its chances to succeed.

I linked Hilary Clinton, the United States' Secretary of State, the head official of our diplomatic corps, saying that it is a priority. I have to point out that Afghanistan could become a casualty of this mess in Europe. We can't afford a double-dip recession. It would start a depression. Also, I have to point out that it's starting to look like the majority of the problem in Afghanistan is Pakistan. So that could make a pretty big difference in the way we go about fixing it.

I told you what I fear will happen. My prognostication is no better than yours. I do think it is unfortunately the more likely outcome, though. While there is a significant European involvement, I also think the role of the US is the overwhelmingly most important factor, almost as much as its involvement in what was officially known as "UN police actions" in the past, of which you would have no difficulty recalling two major ones.

I have to say that I think what Pakistan does is as important as any other factor.

[Hermit]

And the increasing presence and power of the Taliban and Al Queda is a matter of fact.

Ummm, OK. Again, based on what evidence? I don't see that as a claim anyone's making in either trad or alternative media. The sites I found claiming that were, hmmm, shall we say, "fringe." If you have some that aren't I'd like to see them but I'm pretty skeptical.

You only have to look at the Asia Foundation's own survey results. Only 38% of the respondents who thought things are heading in the right direction were happy with the security aspect in 2010. That is down from 44% in 2009.

We pulled soldiers out. What did you expect? That doesn't equate to "increasing presence and power of the Taliban and Al Qaeda."

What does it equate to? Increasing presence and power of rampaging goats stoning and shooting women for "moral deviation and adultery"?

[Schneibster]

And the increasing presence and power of the Taliban and Al Queda is a matter of fact.

Ummm, OK. Again, based on what evidence? I don't see that as a claim anyone's making in either trad or alternative media. The sites I found claiming that were, hmmm, shall we say, "fringe." If you have some that aren't I'd like to see them but I'm pretty skeptical.

You only have to look at the Asia Foundation's own survey results. Only 38% of the respondents who thought things are heading in the right direction were happy with the security aspect in 2010. That is down from 44% in 2009.

We pulled soldiers out. What did you expect? That doesn't equate to "increasing presence and power of the Taliban and Al Qaeda."

What does it equate to? Increasing presence and power of rampaging goats stoning and shooting women for "moral deviation and adultery"?

Ummmm, less soldiers?

You're just assuming. And it's a big assumption when we're talking about Pakistan, the ISI, you know, the guys who are in bed with al Qaeda and the Taliban, the guys Karzai just publicly accused of executing his peace czar, and said he's not gonna bother with the Taliban or al Qaeda anymore, he wants to talk to Pakistan. They're giving the orders, 'cause they got the money. I gotta say I think Karzai's right.

So let's make sure we understand who the fuck's responsible for what, here.

[Hermit]

You're just assuming. And it's a big assumption when we're talking about Pakistan...

"We" are not talking about Pakistan. You are. I am talking about this: You asked "So, everybody's all for getting out of Afghanistan right away, huh?" I replied: "May as well. What exactly has been achieved in Afghanistan? Here are some inconvenient facts: The Taliban presence is stronger than ever. The nation has become a magnet for Al Qaeda terrorists. The puppet government is ineffective. Isn't ten years of failure enough? Or are you expecting some sort of miracle?" And you have been squirming ever since. Even the Asian Foundation's surveys you linked to contradicted your claims. They indicate a deteriorating security situation. So what to do? Oh, let's talk about Pakistan instead. Let's not, Schneibster. I reiterate my assertion of facts that seem so inconvenient to you that you feel the need to change the subject: The Taliban presence is stronger than ever. The nation has become a magnet for Al Qaeda terrorists. The puppet government is ineffective. Isn't ten years of failure enough? Or are you expecting some sort of miracle?

You asked me to back those assertions up, but have not produced a single piece of support for contrary ones yourself. While I wait for you to start, let me provide you with these two snippets:

Two years ago, General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the US forces in Afghanistan, wrote a report addressed to the US secretary of Defence, Robert Gates. Included in the introduction was this: "Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest that the overall situation is deteriorating. We face not only a resilient and growing insurgency; there is also a crisis of confidence among Afghans -- in both their government and the international community that undermines our credibility..." General McChrystal then proceeds to propose a change in strategy - to capture the hearts and minds of the population.

Has it worked? Let's fast forward to a BBC article last updated on the 4th of October 2011: "the [Taliban] came back with a vengeance and violence has risen steadily to levels not seen since the fall of the Taliban in 2001."

Let's not forget that this was sparked by an article about a mother and daughter being stoned, then shot dead in Afghanistan for moral deviation, and the question being subsequently raised as to what can be done to prevent that sort of tragedy from recurring. My attitude is that the US has neither the competence nor will to do anything about it. They had ten years so far to do something, but Islamic fundamentalism via the Taliban keeps increasing in influence over increasing areas.

[Schneibster]

"We" are not talking about Pakistan. You are.

OK. So basically, you don't want to have to pay attention to reality.

It's OK. But I'm not gonna play.

I am talking about this: You asked "So, everybody's all for getting out of Afghanistan right away, huh?" I replied: "May as well. What exactly has been achieved in Afghanistan? "

But you don't want to talk about Pakistan. And without achieving anything in Pakistan, it's not possible to achieve anything in Afghanistan.

You're exactly what the Pakistanis say we all are: completely ignorant of what's going on over there.

"Here are some inconvenient facts: The Taliban presence is stronger than ever. "

Sorry, I don't believe that, nobody at any reputable source agrees with you, and you offer no evidence but your say-so. Good luck with that.

"The nation has become a magnet for Al Qaeda terrorists. "

You never said that.

And you certainly haven't provided any evidence to support it, either. Nor is it something, again, that any reputable source agrees with.

"The puppet government is ineffective. "

You never said that, either. What puppet government?

I bet you don't have any evidence for that claim, either. And yet again, it's not something anyone else is saying who has a reputation to protect.

That's three claims with no evidence.

Are you seriously bringing that horseshit up in here? I have no time for this.

I can claim it's all due to the pink unicorns that invaded Uzbekistan on exactly the same evidence you've provided.

Can we talk about reality now?

Isn't ten years of failure enough? Or are you expecting some sort of miracle?"

And you never said that, either. Though you only finally got around to asking your "inconvenient questions," and they're not particularly inconvenient, just kinda dumb since they're not backed by any evidence.

Eight years of the failure were due to a stupid policy that had the US attacking the wrong country. That dude is gone now. We had this thing called an election and got someone who at least has a clue in there.

Maybe you forgot.

And you have been squirming ever since.

No, I've been pointing out you didn't have any evidence. Sorry you're having trouble with that.

Even the Asian Foundation's surveys you linked to contradicted your claims.

You presented one claim you say it proves: that the Taliban and al Qaeda are getting stronger.

Unfortunately, a) no one else agrees with you, and b) it doesn't, and c) they aren't. But now that you've been challenged, and it's turned out you got no evidence, you're all butthurt.

They indicate a deteriorating security situation.

Yep. The people with guns who keep the bad people away are leaving. Duh.

Has nothing to do with the Taliban or al Qaeda. Which I said and provided evidence to support. Something you have not done yet, though you claim it.

So what to do? Oh, let's talk about Pakistan instead. Let's not, Schneibster.

I repeat, then there will be no solution in Afghanistan.

Pakistan is supplying and training Taliban. In the same camps where they were being trained, Taliban mid-level leaders told the BBC that al Qaeda had sequestered camps where candidate suicide bombers were taken and trained. These camps were run by the ISI. The weapons and food and transportation these Taliban were using were provided by the ISI. Save havens to hide in after their work in Afghanistan is done are provided, across the border in Pakistan where the NATO troops can't go.

But you don't want to talk about it, so it must not be real.

OK.

I reiterate my assertion of facts

This is a waste of time. You have no facts.

This is boring. Next time say something smart.