Taliban use 8 year old girl as suicide bomb

[General Mung Beans]

Americans should have never supported jihadist factions in Afghanistan in the first place. Yes, it would've been a secular dictatorship like, say, Iraq, but even between Iraq and Afghanistan lies an unspeakably large maw - Iraq is modernized, even if that happened through Saddam's brutality, whereas Afghanistan is simply regressive in every bit of cultural attitude and such.

But now America bears some responsibility for Afghanistan. If dying Americans save some Afghanis from death, that is a noble cause. After all, all lives are equal, don't you agree?

America sponsored jihadists in the 1980s to kick out Soviet forces. America invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 with its own revenge in mind, but that resulted in deposing the Taliban.
.

Not all mujahadeen were Taliban-there were plenty of more moderate factions.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet intervention period, Mullah Omar founded the group largely from scratch only in 1994 long after US aid ceased. The Taliban were a product of the chaos after the Soviet invasion and the utter corruption and ineffectiveness of what passed for the Afghan government. That would have all happened anyway, because even if the USSR didn’t pull out of Afghanistan in 1989, they sure would have pulled out in 1991. At best things are delayed several years. The real US mistake was forcing Sudan to expel Bin Laden rather then letting him stay in a location he could be easily watched at.

[Scorpion]

Fundie mentality. After all, what is the big deal of an 8-year-old getting blown to bits when the destiny that awaits her in the afterlife is much better?

Do you think they really care about that? I don't know why anyone is surprised about this specific incident, or any sort of horrendous act they commit.

I've seen so much of fundies (though I have rarelly met them first hand, except a Jehova's Witness at my Politechnic that believes that Adam and Even Really, Really Did Happen, Herpa Derp) that I wouldn't be surprised. Either he is a True Believer(TM) and really really believes that or it's just the racionalization that justified what he really wanted to do anyway: using an 8-year-old as a bomb delivery system.

[Scorpion]

Addendum to the previous post (couldn't edit any more): Or he could just be a greedy, power-hungry bastard that just pays lip service to islam.

[Pelranius]

Isn't the "CIA funded the Taliban" talking line based on our support for the Haqqani network and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (now two of the Taliban's biggest allies)? Admittedly, I think the later alone received $600 million funneled by the CIA through the ISI.

[K. A. Pital]

Who cares if there were moderate jihadists? Most jihad movements go the way of radicalization and islamization. If that was not painstakingly obvious with PLO, it sure as hell should have been obvious with Afghanistan. And Iran. And almost everybody else.

The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet intervention period, Mullah Omar founded the group largely from scratch only in 1994 long after US aid ceased.

Islamic Party was pretty much the cradle of the Taliban - leaders, cadre soldiers, etc. mostly came from there. Mullah Omar didn't "found the group from scratch", he took many of his "anti-Soviet jihadists" from the IP to fill it with qualified personnel, both rank soldiers and leaders. Once again Skimmer forgets history for the sake of his apologetic rant. And it goes without saying that the Islamic Party got enough money from the CIA and their best buddies in Pakistan.

And Taliban weren't the only jihadists. All the rest were also fucking radical islamic jihad movements. The aforementioned Hekmatyar declared jihad on the US of A and is sought by the US intelligence - he was the man the USA was supporting with funds and money.

The fact that Afghani jihadists fought among themselves doesn't make them any less radical. Illusions about "good" mujahed suddenly being corrupted by some outside force after the USA stopped funding them is just crazy.

[blahface]

The problem with that is that they are mostly illiterate.

Have you ever heard of pictograms, dipshit? Like the ones we use on food packets?

Oh BTW, according to the CIA World Factbook, which I found after Shroom777 seconds of Googling, is 43% for males in Afghanistan. Guess those are the alpha males, you know, the ones who actually organize a fucking government and run villages and help the Taliban and make deals with the Americans and British and Dutch etc. Only 12% (est.) in 2000 of females were literate, but remember we're still dealing with a pre-medieval religion-cum-government that assigns no value to women; that's more literacy in the women than I expected, frankly.

The point, blahface, is that you're being an ignorant, lazy, smarmy dickhead and you'd better step up your game. Oh yeah, welcome to the board!

Seriously dude, don't you think you're being a little melodramatic? I was just pointing out that it might be a little hard to do considering their low literacy levels and you act as if I were denying the holocaust. Are you always this high strung?

[Broomstick]

If America washes their hands now while the nation is a complete wreck, who is going to rebuild Afghanistan? Three imperialist powers - Britain, Russia and America - all had a hands in making Afghanistan a wreck and ruin. Nobody seriously thinks Russia or Britain have either money or ability to restore Afghanistan to normality, right? Right.

So.... the UK and Russia bear some of the responsibility for the mess, but none for any part of the clean-up? Oh, yeah, that's fair, that's right, that's business as usual. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the US isn't as wealthy as it used to be.

Regardless, what the fuck do you think the US remaining in Afghanistan is going to accomplish? If the Afghanis don't want a modern nation I don't think anyone can force it down their throats, in which case we could spend the next 50 years in that shithole and nothing will change. The US doesn't have the political will to truly go in, conquer, and remold the nation, the most it will ever do is the current half-assed job. So why bother? Pull out, go home, and let the Afghans solve their own problems.

[K. A. Pital]

So.... the UK and Russia bear some of the responsibility for the mess, but none for any part of the clean-up? Oh, yeah, that's fair, that's right, that's business as usual.

No, that's not right and they should pay, in my view. However, as a matter of practical enforcement, UK is much poorer than the USA and so is Russia.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the US isn't as wealthy as it used to be.

I have. However, the US military budget is reaching exorbitant sums of $700 billion and the like. It could at least help one nation. Though, and I noted this before, US-backed governments often suffer a deep crisis of legitimacy and fail after the US stops backing and supporting them - perhaps, considering this, it would be good to exit Afghanistan. I never said this is a simple decision.

The US doesn't have the political will to truly go in, conquer, and remold the nation, the most it will ever do is the current half-assed job. So why bother? Pull out, go home, and let the Afghans solve their own problems.

That's a good argument. The US is not willing to commit to secularization and modernization of Afghanistan, and Afghanistan doesn't have a sort of a Young Turk movement that would break religious backwardness. Couple this with the lack of legitimacy and you have a decent argument for leaving the nation.

[Broomstick]

Frankly, I see Afghanistan as one of the situations where there is no good answer and you must choose between evils. We've been there 10 years, have we done any good? Is it reasonable to think that by staying we could do good in the future? Those are the questions that need to be looked at.

I blame some of this on the Bush family, but not for the usual reasons. I think the Bushes were influenced by the US rebuilding of Japan post WWII which was a success and resulted in unusually good and strong ties between former enemies. I think they went into both Iraq and Afghanistan with a notion that that success could be duplicated without considering the vast differences between the two situations. Well, lesson learned I suppose.

Note: that should not be taken as a formal historical statement of fact, it really is just an opinion/notion I have, which could easily change based on new or more information.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, lesson learned I suppose.

You think Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney gang thought about anything else but their political and business interests, which manifested in one of the greatest imperialistic ventures of the XXI century? I'm not betting on it.

After all, these people thought that invading a nation with a minimal security force and taking over little patches of land in the cities and natural resources like oil is essentially enough for their war goals.

At no point they had any illusions that this is going to be Japan, and no effort - zero effort - has been done to make this scenario even remotely close to the Japanese one. If they didn't plan on making Iraq and Afghanistan into strong US allied nations, as opposed to pathetic puppet regimes which could only linger with US troops backing them and that was only necessary for a few years while Cheney and his folks reaped the profits of this war - no wonder it turned out this way.

So yes, blame it on Bush, but don't think it was because of his, or his government's idealism. They were the most malevolent, evil and crooked government of the USA in the recent years. The failure was all theirs and it was a logical result of their actions, something they clearly had no intention of stopping. At all.

[Broomstick]

Well, lesson learned I suppose.

You think Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney gang thought about anything else but their political and business interests, which manifested in one of the greatest imperialistic ventures of the XXI century? I'm not betting on it.

No, I mean the concept of "nation-building", as they understood it, was part of their business interests. I think they thought they could bamboozle the Iraqis as easily as they had so many Americans, rebuilding Iraq into their view of what it should be (largely a means of extracting wealth from the Middle East) and somehow have the Iraqi people embrace them and hail them as heros. And they based this notion, in part, on the success of rebuilding Japan. The thing is, post-war Japan and 21sth Century Iraq were two totally different situations.

At no point they had any illusions that this is going to be Japan, and no effort - zero effort - has been done to make this scenario even remotely close to the Japanese one.

Yes, from the outside you can see that - my point is that Bush the Younger could NOT see that. Because he's fucking stupid. That's why it was all fucked up from the first.

They were the most malevolent, evil and crooked government of the USA in the recent years.

On the Federal level, yes - trust me, there are worse politicians in the US, however you care to define the term "worse", than Bush-Cheney. Fortunately, they're usually local and have little influence beyond their own puddle, but I'd say former governor Palin, as an example, would be far worse than Bush the Younger - thank Og she didn't become VP.

[Sea Skimmer]

Islamic Party was pretty much the cradle of the Taliban - leaders, cadre soldiers, etc. mostly came from there. Mullah Omar didn't "found the group from scratch", he took many of his "anti-Soviet jihadists" from the IP to fill it with qualified personnel, both rank soldiers and leaders.

The cradle of the Taliban is the Pashtun people and the desire of said people for self rule, not anything more complicated then that. Yes they had experienced people to pull together, but organizationally nothing existed like the Taliban during the war with the Soviets.

Once again Skimmer forgets history for the sake of his apologetic rant. And it goes without saying that the Islamic Party got enough money from the CIA and their best buddies in Pakistan.

A bunch of groups got money from the CIA, all of which stopped years before the Taliban got anywhere. Pakistan was involved before and after the US, and why should it not be when the USSR was bombing Pakistani territory on a regular basis and deliberately pushing a flood of refugees across the border.

And Taliban weren't the only jihadists. All the rest were also fucking radical islamic jihad movements. The aforementioned Hekmatyar declared jihad on the US of A and is sought by the US intelligence - he was the man the USA was supporting with funds and money.

Yeah exactly, a bunch of groups existed, and would exist anyway about it. Except without US aid the war would have gone on until 1991 instead of 1989. Hekmatyar turned against the US after the US occupied Saudi Arabia and stations thousands of troops at Mecca. The same reason why Osama declared war on the US. Not because we gave them aid to kill communists.

The fact that Afghani jihadists fought among themselves doesn't make them any less radical. Illusions about "good" mujahed suddenly being corrupted by some outside force after the USA stopped funding them is just crazy.

I love how you ignore the groups that formed the Northern Alliance, now rule the country, and have 150,000 men under arms. Yeah they don't count at all. But the fact is the USSR was just making everything worse and once it invaded I simply don’t see a path which would not turn into someone founding the Taliban or something exactly like the Taliban in the aftermath. The US gave them aid, years later someone pulled a group together strong enough to take over the country, basing power on the largest single ethnic groups and Islamic ‘values’ which are popular in a large portion of the country independent of anyone else’s actions. Horrors. The place is fucked up, it was going to be fucked up. The local government was never powerful and never respected for its wonderful communist politics we all damn well know don’t work, let alone in a deeply religious society. Once Soviet troops showed up it was completely discredited. So you tell me, how does the world turn into a better place without US aid? Do you expect these waring groups to just fight forever?

[K. A. Pital]

The cradle of the Taliban is the Pashtun people and the desire of said people for self rule, not anything more complicated then that. Yes they had experienced people to pull together, but organizationally nothing existed like the Taliban during the war with the Soviets.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afgha ... liban.html

The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. "The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul," adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that," said another U.S. diplomat in 1997.
The reference to oil and pipelines explains everything. Since the collapse of the USSR at the end of 1991, U.S. oil companies and their friends in the State Department have been salivating at the prospect of gaining access to the huge oil and natural gas reserves in the former Soviet republics bordering the Caspian Sea and in Central Asia. These have been estimated as worth $4 trillion. The American Petroleum Institute calls the Caspian region "the area of greatest resource potential outside of the Middle East." And while he was still CEO of Halliburton, the world's biggest oil services company, Vice President Dick Cheney told other industry executives, "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." The struggle to control these stupendous resources has given rise to what Rashid has dubbed the "new Great Game," pitting shifting alliances of governments and oil and gas consortia against one another.
Afghanistan itself has no known oil or gas reserves, but it is an attractive route for pipelines leading to Pakistan, India, and the Arabian Sea. In the mid-1990s, a consortium led by the California-based Unocal Corporation proposed a $4.5 billion oil and gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. But this would require a stable central government in Afghanistan itself. Thus began several years in which U.S. policy in the region centered on "romancing the Taliban." According to one report,
In the months before the Taliban took power, former U.S. assistant secretary of state for South Asia Robin Raphel waged an intense round of shuttle diplomacy between the powers with possible stakes in the [Unocal] project.
"Robin Raphel was the face of the Unocal pipeline," said an official of the former Afghan government who was present at some of de meetings with her....
In addition to tapping new sources of energy, de [project] also suited a major U.S. strategic aim in the region: isolating its nemesis Iran and stifling a frequently mooted rival pipeline project backed by Teheran, experts said.

Also

“In the 1980s, the CIA provided some $5 billion in military aid for Islamic fundamentalist rebels fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, but scaled down operations after Moscow pulled out in 1989. However, Selig Harrison of the DC-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars recently told a conference in London that the CIA created the Taliban “monster” by providing some $3 billion for the ultra-fundamentalist militia in their 1994-6 drive to power.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... liban-dies

Tarar trained in guerrilla warfare at an American special forces base in the 1970s and spent the next decade at the heart of Pakistan and America's covert war against Soviet forces occupying Afghanistan.

He ran a network of CIA-funded training camps in the tribal belt and Balochistan, which funnelled tens of thousands of mujahideen guerrillas into battle against the Soviets. He won the respect of his charges, mostly Pashtun refugees, by showing regard for their religious beliefs and tribal traditions. "They called me Imam after the man who leads the prayers in the mosque," he told the Guardian in 2006.

Among his students was a young Afghan cleric named Muhammad Omar, who emerged as head of the Afghan Taliban and seized power in Kabul in 1996. Tarar played a key role in that movement too.

Operating under diplomatic cover, Tarar was the ISI's point-man with the Taliban, nurturing a relationship in which Pakistan offered arms, advice and finance.

If this is true (and it looks like that is), I'm not sure how one can deny US being complicit in both Taliban and Al-Quaeda strengthening in Afghanistan.

A bunch of groups got money from the CIA, all of which stopped years before the Taliban got anywhere. Pakistan was involved before and after the US, and why should it not be when the USSR was bombing Pakistani territory on a regular basis and deliberately pushing a flood of refugees across the border.

It seems that the very people who created Al-Quaeda and the Taliban were trained by the CIA, got money from the CIA - either directly or through ISI - and successfully applied their skills to build up a new type of guerilla organization which eventually triumphed, and the US didn't really object much to the Taliban at first (although Russia did, probably because Taliban meant bad juju for the Civil War in Tajikistan).

Yeah exactly, a bunch of groups existed, and would exist anyway about it. Except without US aid the war would have gone on until 1991 instead of 1989. Hekmatyar turned against the US after the US occupied Saudi Arabia and stations thousands of troops at Mecca. The same reason why Osama declared war on the US. Not because we gave them aid to kill communists.

Obviously he didn't turn on the US because you gave them aid. None of the above-mentioned people or groups turned against the US because the US gave them aid. They just did it because they were radical islamists and radical islam doesn't mix well with US goals in the region, although it served a useful function in Afghanistan. However, if the US never involved in the first place, who knows if Soviet forces would have stabilized the Najibullah government to an extent where it could weather not three-four years, but a good decade?

The local government was never powerful and never respected for its wonderful communist politics we all damn well know don’t work, let alone in a deeply religious society. Once Soviet troops showed up it was completely discredited. So you tell me, how does the world turn into a better place without US aid? Do you expect these waring groups to just fight forever?

The local government weathered out for quite a few years. "We all damn well know don’t work, let alone in a deeply religious society" - so why did secular dictatorships like Saddam, Assad and Gaddafi "work"?

[Magis]

Fuck. OBL is dead, pull our troops out and let the shit hole do what it wants and save their 8 year old's for next time.

And let the Taliban undo every inch of progress made in pulling the country out of the dark ages? Even if the resulting atrocities don't concern you, there's a practical side as well; the Afghan government is still a mess, and the police and military aren't likely to stay loyal once the pay stops turning up. Guess who the biggest client for private military contractors will be after we pull out? If you need a hint, stick the phrase "ten dollar Taliban" in the search engine of your choice. That'll do wonders for Pakistan's internal security, won't it?

I would agree with you if we've even had an inch of progress. Not too sure there has been that much.

Are you serious?

(all following numbers are approximate)

Number of schools
2002: 6,000
2009: 11,000

Number of female students
2002: 75,000
2009: 250,000

Reported number of measles cases
2000: 6,000
2010: 2,000

Measles immunization (% population)
2000: 40%
2010: 80%

Number of reported polio cases
2000: 120
2010: 30

Polio immunization (% population)
2000: <30
2010: >80

Access to safe drinking water (% population)
2000: 13
2010: 27

Access to grid electricity (% population)
2000: 6
2011: 30

GDP/capita
2002: $500 US
2010: $1000 US

Although these numbers don't do the GDP achievement justice. Take a look at this chart: link

There has been a lot of progress in Afghanistan, and the biggest obstacle in achieving that progress were Taliban militants. I can't fathom how anybody could think that handing the whole country over to those militants could be considered a preferable scenario, under any circumstance. Even if someone was worried about the money that we're spending over there, it's doubtful that anyone here would notice any measurable increase in their own quality of life as a result of pulling out and saving that money for ourselves.

edit: The numbers shown above were estimated, by me, from the following graphic at the National Post:
~http://afghanistan.nationalpost.com/gra ... ing-times/

[K. A. Pital]

Number of schools - not even doubled over 7 years (most nations with a serious education reform quadrupled or quintupled the number of schools in a decade sometimes). Number of female students tripled, but still remains insignificantly low for such a nation. Safe drinking water access is ridiculous as "progress", the number merely doubled and is still below 50%.Measles and polio immunization is about the most serious achievement.

GDP "figures" are bullshit. The number of increasing monetary transactions inevitably lead to inflation of GDP volume and drug money flowing into Afghanistan also helps to increase the money in circulation.

Yes, he is serious. The progress is almost nonexistent and ridiculous no matter how you look at it.

[Magis]

Number of schools - not even doubled over 7 years

I'm sorry that the progress has not met your arbitrary standard. Although I'm speculating that you were against the war from the start, so if the world has listened to people like you, the number of additional schools would be zero.

(most nations with a serious education reform quadrupled or quintupled the number of schools in a decade sometimes).

Then I congratulate the "most" nations that do that "sometimes". They are clearly an example for us all.

Number of female students tripled, but still remains insignificantly low for such a nation.

For such a nation? What does that even mean? What category of nation have you arbitrarily placed Afghanistan into for the sake of your analysis? The number of female students tripled. That is progress. If you dispute that it is progress, you are being entirely illogical.

Safe drinking water access is ridiculous as "progress", the number merely doubled and is still below 50%.

"Merely" doubling the amount of critical infrastructure available to citizens doesn't seem like an achievement that is mock-worthy. Then, again, I'm going to speculate that you were protesting against any intervention whatsoever by the people who are responsible for that, so I guess that "mere" doubling was achieved despite your best efforts.

GDP "figures" are bullshit. The number of increasing monetary transactions inevitably lead to inflation of GDP volume

The numbers are not bullshit. They are what they are. According to the IMF, the PPP GDP/capita in Afghanistan grew from $490 US in 2002 to $998 US in 2010. So, the GDP growth isn't simply inflationary. Real increases in purchasing power have been had by the Afghan population.

Opium production has probably been the item that has see the least progress, but that doesn't mean that the country on the whole isn't better off than it was.

The progress is almost nonexistent

Right. In the wacky world of Stas Bush, doubling or tripling a number of key quality of life indicators is almost nonexistent progress. Are you fucking retarded?

[Knife]

Are you serious?

(all following numbers are approximate)

Number of schools
2002: 6,000
2009: 11,000

Are you serious? In a decade we've made 5 thousand schools? Well over a trillion spent as of a year and a half ago and we've made 5 thousand schools? That isn't progress, that's total epic failure.

Number of female students
2002: 75,000
2009: 250,000

Good for them. Now they can stand up and take charge of their own destiny. Hopefully they can pull off their own suffrage movement.

Reported number of measles cases
2000: 6,000
2010: 2,000

And in the same decade their rates have been cut in half, ours have tripled. Perhaps some of the money we spend over in that shit hole can come back home to deal with our own people.

Measles immunization (% population)
2000: 40%
2010: 80%


Number of reported polio cases
2000: 120
2010: 30

Polio immunization (% population)
2000: <30
2010: >80

Good for them. Now that 80% of them don't have to worry about MMR, perhaps they can take care of their own business and politics now. Time to come home. So glad it took a military invasion a decade and well over a trillion dollars to immunize them. Surely if we stay there another decade and spend another trillion or so, we can get it to 100%. Or wait... why is it our problem? Should not the UN be doing stuff like this? Don't we pay dues to the UN for that? Why do we need a military invasion force to do this? Wouldn't it be cheaper and more efficient to send, oh I don't know, doctors over there to immunize the populace? Or bring their doctors here to train them? Why does it take a military invasion force to to this and why are you holding immunization rates up as a measure of progress as an argument to keep the military there?

Access to safe drinking water (% population)
2000: 13
2010: 27

Access to grid electricity (% population)
2000: 6
2011: 30

GDP/capita
2002: $500 US
2010: $1000 US

Great. Only a decade and over a trillion dollars and two and a half thousand US dead. How many Afghani deaths? Quick Google-fu doesn't give an answer. Small negligible results in comparison to two and a half thousand deaths, many more injured, Americans, thousands of dead Afghani's, well over a trillion spent, all in the span of a decade. That is not progress, that is a fucking tragedy. The only real highlight is that we stated a decade ago that we were going to depose the Taliban and kill OBL. Mission accomplished, time to end this cluster fuck.

Although these numbers don't do the GDP achievement justice. Take a look at this chart: link

There has been a lot of progress in Afghanistan, and the biggest obstacle in achieving that progress were Taliban militants. I can't fathom how anybody could think that handing the whole country over to those militants could be considered a preferable scenario, under any circumstance. Even if someone was worried about the money that we're spending over there, it's doubtful that anyone here would notice any measurable increase in their own quality of life as a result of pulling out and saving that money for ourselves.

edit: The numbers shown above were estimated, by me, from the following graphic at the National Post:
~http://afghanistan.nationalpost.com/gra ... ing-times/

We can't afford it? Plain and simple. The nation I want to build with my tax money is my nation. The snails pace you call progress over a fucking decade isn't the bang for the buck it should be. If they want to change their country, go for it. Hell, I'm not opposed to helping. But for the US to keep up the heavy lifting, spending trillions on it, and sacrificing our boys and girls? Nope, done with that. OBL is dead. Time to come home and let the Afghani's figure out how they want to rule their own country.

[Simon_Jester]

Are you serious? In a decade we've made 5 thousand schools? Well over a trillion spent as of a year and a half ago and we've made 5 thousand schools? That isn't progress, that's total epic failure.

...Why are you counting the cost of the Iraq war when judging the failure of US forces in Afghanistan?

That doesn't make any sense. Surely we would expect that no matter how much money we spend in Iraq, it will have zero effect in Afghanistan. To assess the success or failure of our operations in Afghanistan, we should count only money spent on those operations, not money spent on completely different operations a thousand miles away.

Good for them. Now that 80% of them don't have to worry about MMR, perhaps they can take care of their own business and politics now. Time to come home. So glad it took a military invasion a decade and well over a trillion dollars to immunize them. Surely if we stay there another decade and spend another trillion or so, we can get it to 100%. Or wait... why is it our problem? Should not the UN be doing stuff like this? Don't we pay dues to the UN for that?

Not on this scale, no...

Look, if your argument is "we cannot afford to modernize Afghanistan on our own without the Afghanistani's consent, not when our own country is deficit-spending its way toward a political crisis and our leadership doesn't have the balls to raise taxes to cover the deficit" or something like that, fine. Come out and say it, it makes a lot of sense.

But don't throw bullshit like saying that our successes in Afghanistan should justify the money we spent in a completely different country that had nothing to do with any success or failure in Afghanistan. Or like keeping up the pretense that we do pay the UN a significant enough sum to do this kind of project; it ain't cheap even when there are no howling fanatics running around the hills shooting at people who try to civilize the country.

For that matter, the US has a long habit, going back 25 years or more, of refusing to pay chunks of UN dues over various issues where the US has a beef with the UN. In light of that I don't think we can reasonably expect the UN to stick its neck out for us.

[Scorpion]

Right. In the wacky world of Stas Bush, doubling or tripling a number of key quality of life indicators is almost nonexistent progress. Are you fucking retarded?

To be fair, those absolute values (nr. of schools built, nr. of women students, etc...) are worthless as an assessment tool unless compared to the total universe (like nr. of students per school, or number of females per thousand in school). 250000 female students doesn't mean nothing unless unless you give it context. In an extreme example, if in a nation of 10 000 000 people you have 30 people who can read, but ten years ago there were only 10, you can truthfuly say the number of people who can read tripled, but you still have a shitty literacy rate!

[Magis]

Are you serious? In a decade we've made 5 thousand schools? Well over a trillion spent as of a year and a half ago and we've made 5 thousand schools? That isn't progress, that's total epic failure.

That's one new school every 33 hours, for ten straight years, built thousands of miles away, while simultaneously fighting a war and doing countless other public works projects.

Number of female students
2002: 75,000
2009: 250,000

Good for them. Now they can stand up and take charge of their own destiny. Hopefully they can pull off their own suffrage movement.

So now that there are a quarter million girls in school, they can stand up against in the Taliban without our help, eh? Are you stupid?

Reported number of measles cases
2000: 6,000
2010: 2,000

And in the same decade their rates have been cut in half, ours have tripled. Perhaps some of the money we spend over in that shit hole can come back home to deal with our own people.

Nice red herring there. Measles cases that have happened "over here" does not diminish the progress made in Afghanistan, and since the progress in Afghanistan is what is at stake regarding a withdrawl from Afghanistan, your claim is irrelevant.

Good for them. Now that 80% of them don't have to worry about MMR, perhaps they can take care of their own business and politics now.

Oh, right. I forgot that immunization against a few diseases was all it would take for them to "take care of their own business" and fight off an army of theocrats. Silly me.

So glad it took a military invasion a decade and well over a trillion dollars to immunize them.

This is nothing but a distortion of the facts. That trillion 1) wasn't spent entirely in Afghanistan, and 2) certainly wasn't spent only on immunizations. The fact that you can't generate a single reasonable argument only displays how nonsense your ideas are.

Wouldn't it be cheaper and more efficient to send, oh I don't know, doctors over there to immunize the populace?

Yeah, I'm sure it's easy to send in a bunch of doctors (where are you going to get these doctors, by the way?) to give out immunizations during a civil war without protection from an effective military. I bet you'll have a thousand volunteers!

Or bring their doctors here to train them?

Well, for them to have doctors in the first place, they need schools, such as the schools that we've built for them, which are the same schools that you're happy to abandon.

Access to safe drinking water (% population)
2000: 13
2010: 27

Access to grid electricity (% population)
2000: 6
2011: 30

GDP/capita
2002: $500 US
2010: $1000 US

Great. Only a decade and over a trillion dollars and two and a half thousand US dead.

We spent a trillion on those things? I thought it was immunizations that we spent a trillion on. Or, maybe, we spent a trillion on a whole bunch of different things, in several countries, which is why the progress is distributed over a broad range of projects instead of having monumental gains in only one or two areas.

We can't afford it? Plain and simple. The nation I want to build with my tax money is my nation.

That's noble. How is that fundamentally different from the libertarian, "I want to keep my money for myself" mantra that objects against things like public schools and universal healthcare?

and sacrificing our boys and girls?

Maybe you should let the "boys and girls" decide for themselves if it's worth the risks. At least in Canada, I believe that polls suggest support for the Afghanistan mission is high among the military personnel.

[Knife]

...Why are you counting the cost of the Iraq war when judging the failure of US forces in Afghanistan?

That doesn't make any sense. Surely we would expect that no matter how much money we spend in Iraq, it will have zero effect in Afghanistan. To assess the success or failure of our operations in Afghanistan, we should count only money spent on those operations, not money spent on completely different operations a thousand miles away.

I lumped them together, perhaps too hastily, because we've been spending hand over foot for a decade to make them both America-lite. So perhaps a bit lazy on my part, disregard if you wish.

Not on this scale, no...

Look, if your argument is "we cannot afford to modernize Afghanistan on our own without the Afghanistani's consent, not when our own country is deficit-spending its way toward a political crisis and our leadership doesn't have the balls to raise taxes to cover the deficit" or something like that, fine. Come out and say it, it makes a lot of sense.

Since that's pretty much my argument, cool.

But don't throw bullshit like saying that our successes in Afghanistan should justify the money we spent in a completely different country that had nothing to do with any success or failure in Afghanistan. Or like keeping up the pretense that we do pay the UN a significant enough sum to do this kind of project; it ain't cheap even when there are no howling fanatics running around the hills shooting at people who try to civilize the country.

I regret adding the UN bit. My frustration is that all the nation building was secondary to our stated goal of being there, thusly not why we were/are there. I would flip the tables on Magis and ask him why we should be there and why we should spend the money because that's not why we are there and it's not our stated goal. So why should we do all that?

[Knife]

That's one new school every 33 hours, for ten straight years, built thousands of miles away, while simultaneously fighting a war and doing countless other public works projects.

Whatever. So, in like how many years do we stay to get them another couple thousand schools? How much more money? How many more lives? Quick Google-fu says there is a little over 98 thousand public schools in the US. If we double Afghanistan's schools every decade, maybe we can come home in another 30 years or so when they have as many schools as we do. Cause building schools on the other side of the planet is our mandate for some reason.

So now that there are a quarter million girls in school, they can stand up against in the Taliban without our help, eh? Are you stupid?

So when is it NOT our problem. At what point is it ok not to be in Afghanistan? What new mission are you proposing and what are the factors that describe victory?

Nice red herring there. Measles cases that have happened "over here" does not diminish the progress made in Afghanistan, and since the progress in Afghanistan is what is at stake regarding a withdrawl from Afghanistan, your claim is irrelevant.

At what point is it going to be ok to leave Afghanistan then, what new mission and what criteria are you proposing for victory?

Oh, right. I forgot that immunization against a few diseases was all it would take for them to "take care of their own business" and fight off an army of theocrats. Silly me.

At what point is it going to be ok to leave Afghanistan then, what new mission and what criteria are you proposing for victory? Why are we responsible for fighting their theocracy? Iraq I can understand, though don't necessarily agree with, in that we broke it we should fix it. We didn't break Afghanistan, why should we fix it? And if we do, what is the moral reason we aren't fixing the other 75% of the world that is a shithole?

This is nothing but a distortion of the facts. That trillion 1) wasn't spent entirely in Afghanistan,

Conceded. However, a couple hundred billion isn't laughable either. Point still remains if the actual amount is lower.

and 2) certainly wasn't spent only on immunizations. The fact that you can't generate a single reasonable argument only displays how nonsense your ideas are.

Whatever. So you're going to go ahead and explain this new mission and the solid points that need to be crossed to declare victory and come home?

Yeah, I'm sure it's easy to send in a bunch of doctors (where are you going to get these doctors, by the way?) to give out immunizations during a civil war without protection from an effective military. I bet you'll have a thousand volunteers!

So, it has had so much progress but still needs the US military there so volunteers don't get shot at such a rate as volunteer rates drop? That's your argument? How low does such a rate have to be before the US military can leave Afghanistan?

Well, for them to have doctors in the first place, they need schools, such as the schools that we've built for them, which are the same schools that you're happy to abandon.

If you want to train their doctors, bring em over here and train them. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with continuing a decade long war and spending large sums of money we don't have for nothing but your feel goods and very minimal gains. The progress you claim is also so fragile and weak it can't withstand us leaving. Doesn't sound like a lot of progress to me.

We spent a trillion on those things? I thought it was immunizations that we spent a trillion on. Or, maybe, we spent a trillion on a whole bunch of different things, in several countries, which is why the progress is distributed over a broad range of projects instead of having monumental gains in only one or two areas.

I conceded that to Simon.

That's noble. How is that fundamentally different from the libertarian, "I want to keep my money for myself" mantra that objects against things like public schools and universal healthcare?

What a bunch of bullshit. If that's your stance, you're going to go ahead and not only make an argument why we should do as you want, but you're also going to need to make the argument of why we aren't doing it in all the other shit holes in the world?

Maybe you should let the "boys and girls" decide for themselves if it's worth the risks.

I'm a vet, I fully understand the reasons why people do and don't reenlist/enlist. Fuck off newb.

At least in Canada,

So let me get this straight, you're not even American and you want to dictate how, where, and why we spend our money and our military lives? Bwhahahahahahahahaha! Fuck off buddy. How about you step up your lobbying of Canadian government to spend your money and your military lives to get Afghanistan to where you think it should be before Canada can leave.

I believe that polls suggest support for the Afghanistan mission is high among the military personnel.

Of course, as a military unit, they are given a mission. Their sense of unit honor says they have to finish the mission, for their unit, for their brothers and sisters they are there with.

So...

Why don't you go ahead and outline an argument of why we, not your country but go ahead and toss one in for Canada too, in the US should stay in Afghanistan and the criteria for 'victory' that we many come home. Because the reason I got from my government was to depose the Taliban and kill OBL. Both are done. You want us there longer? What's the new mission?

[Simon_Jester]

...Why are you counting the cost of the Iraq war when judging the failure of US forces in Afghanistan?

That doesn't make any sense. Surely we would expect that no matter how much money we spend in Iraq, it will have zero effect in Afghanistan. To assess the success or failure of our operations in Afghanistan, we should count only money spent on those operations, not money spent on completely different operations a thousand miles away.

I lumped them together, perhaps too hastily, because we've been spending hand over foot for a decade to make them both America-lite. So perhaps a bit lazy on my part, disregard if you wish.

Since we've spent about twice as much on Iraq as on Afghanistan, that inflated the cost of the war in Afghanistan by about a factor of three. Poor form, I have to say.

[PeZook]

Okay, what is it with the recent epidemic of well established posters moving the goalposts?

Knife, you wrote:

I would agree with you if we've even had an inch of progress. Not too sure there has been that much.

Magis clearly demonstrated progress has been made. If you want to argue that's not enough progress, fine, but first concede you were wrong originally: it's clearly more than "an inch", as it were.