The Economist: War in Afghanistan Can Be Won

[editec]

Another completely idiotic statement that shows no understanding of history or modern fact.

1) The Soviet Army of 1980 was a miserable collection of poor paid, demoralized conscripts. Like the US in Vietnam, the bulk of the Soviet force in Afghanistan were the dregs of Soviet Society, mostly non-Russians from the republics. The crack troops remained in Europe and deployed on the Chinese border.

2) The terrain is intimately mapped down to the square CENTIMETER.

3) A Large majority of the people back the US and NATO force and detest the Taliban.

I got a choice, I can agree with people who insult, chickenhawks and government officials or I can listen to former military and CIA figures. I choose the latter.

I'm a retired intelligence officer that still maintains a top secret compartmentalized clearance. I know what I am talking about.

Great!

I've been looking for somebody like you to discuss this with.

Why, in your opinion, does the Taliban still constitute a threat to the people of Afghanistan?

If, as you say, and incidently, as I believe, the majority of people in Afghanistan are not supportive of the Taliban, why are we having trouble constituting a government which can remove them as a threat to Afghanistan?

What percentage of the people of Afghanistan do you think support their mission?

And how, if the majority of people do NOT support the Taliban, do we give THEM the tools to get them out of that nation?

 

[Neser Boha]

Thanks for your perceptive input.

With the exception of your claim that they come at issues as pacifists, I think you're fairly accurately describing their POV.

They POV is basically one which supports free trade, the end of nationalism, and the reduction of most of the world's population from citizens with rights under their national laws, to consumers with only whatever rights their money brings to them.

Hmmm... after all, it still IS a great source of news and even some pretty good critical analysis...sometimes. You don't think so? If not, what are among the 'better' sources of news and such according to you? Please do share. I subscribe to The Economist and find it more than satisfactory, but maybe I should change subscription. If I hear a good and sound argument against The Economist and someone offers me a better substitute, I might even go for it. However, all my PolSci professors that I have utmost respect for - even though I might disagree with some of them on some points - recommend The Economist to all their PolSci and Int'l Affairs students.

 

[editec]

Thanks for your perceptive input.

With the exception of your claim that they come at issues as pacifists, I think you're fairly accurately describing their POV.

They POV is basically one which supports free trade, the end of nationalism, and the reduction of most of the world's population from citizens with rights under their national laws, to consumers with only whatever rights their money brings to them.

Hmmm... after all, it still IS a great source of news and even some pretty good critical analysis...sometimes. You don't think so?

Yes, I do. I thought my post made that fairly clear. I think the economist is one of the best business and real politik periodicals one can read, actually.

If not, what are among the 'better' sources of news and such according to you? Please do share.

I think there are other excellent sources of information, but none I know of focus their attention as well on the world macroeconomy and international business scene

I subscribe to The Economist and find it more than satisfactory, but maybe I should change subscription.

I used to subscribe to it. I can't afford it anymore. Mores the pity.

If I hear a good and sound argument against The Economist and someone offers me a better substitute, I might even go for it.

You obviously misread my post.

However, all my PolSci professors that I have utmost respect for - even though I might disagree with some of them on some points - recommend The Economist to all their PolSci and Int'l Affairs students.

As did I.

Go back and reread my post.

My objection was to the suggestion that it was a "pacifistic" publication.

It isn't.

 

[Neser Boha]

Go back and reread my post.

My objection was to the suggestion that it was a "pacifistic" publication.

It isn't.

I thought you agreed with the following post in a negative sense...

The Economist is, and always has been, and apologist rag for the socio-progressive, pacifistic, socialist welfare states of Western Europe.

My bad, I totally misunderstood and I guess ignored your own post before zoomie's - not on purpose of course.