Afghanistan...A success...?

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
...Not bloody likely.

Yesterday, Medecines Sans Frontieres announced that it was shuting down operations in Afghanistan...this after 24 years in country during the abortive Russian war and the worst excesses of the Taliban. They can no longer suffer the casualties they have been sustaining recently.

Dubbyuh loves to make much of the success of Afghanistan and its President, Hamid Kharzhai. In reality though, Mr. Kharzhai is nothing more than the Mayor of Kabul...Despotic warlords control the countryside..The Taliban and Al Qaeda are re-establishing their foot hold in southern Afghanistan...Men and women with voter registration cards are murdered by the Taliban and their sympathizers. Yeah...Afghanistan is a success alright...A success at showing what a failure Dubbyuh's policy is.
 
Bully, there is good news:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28160.htm

Excerpt:

July 27, 2004 -- THERE'S good news from the forgotten front of the War on Terror: The first-ever public opinion poll in Afghanistan shows that people there are optimistic about the future and excited about upcoming elections.
But you wouldn't know it from the mainstream press, which received the poll with a level of skepticism usually reserved for Yeti sightings and money transfers originating in Nigeria. The most coverage given to the poll so far: a five-sentence news brief in The Washington Post.

Perhaps some folks worry that the news is a bit too convenient for President Bush.

With the situation in Iraq seen by many as a mess, Afghanistan has a constitution, is registering voters and is moving toward holding a presidential election in October. And the survey of 804 randomly selected male and female Afghan citizens, commissioned by the Asia Foundation notes that:

* 64 percent say the country is heading in the right direction.

* 81 percent say that they plan to vote in the October election.

* 77 percent say they believe the elections will "make a difference."



* 64 percent say they rarely or never worry about their personal safety, while under the Taliban only 36 percent felt that way.

* 62 percent rate President Hamid Karzai's performance as either good or excellent.

This was no pro-Bush put-up job. The polling firm, Charney Research, is a partisan Democratic polling firm. And superstar Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who's read the study — and who has worked on similar polling in developing countries — calls it "very reliable."
 
Bullypulpit said:
...Not bloody likely.

Yesterday, Medecines Sans Frontieres announced that it was shuting down operations in Afghanistan...this after 24 years in country during the abortive Russian war and the worst excesses of the Taliban. They can no longer suffer the casualties they have been sustaining recently.

Dubbyuh loves to make much of the success of Afghanistan and its President, Hamid Kharzhai. In reality though, Mr. Kharzhai is nothing more than the Mayor of Kabul...Despotic warlords control the countryside..The Taliban and Al Qaeda are re-establishing their foot hold in southern Afghanistan...Men and women with voter registration cards are murdered by the Taliban and their sympathizers. Yeah...Afghanistan is a success alright...A success at showing what a failure Dubbyuh's policy is.

You remind me of the post-war Germans. They longed for the days of Hitler because he made the trains run on time. We ousted the Taliban and we are now attempting to provide the Afghani government sufficient time to organize, train and arm a police force and a military. It should be no surprise that some back-sliding occurs during this transition.

Actually, don't know why I bother answering your post. You care little for the facts, you're simply looking for another rock to throw.
 
Merlin posted
Actually, don't know why I bother answering your post. You care little for the facts, you're simply looking for another rock to throw.

I was feeling that way all morning, but when gop jumped in, had to do it! :eek:
 
Once more, y'all miss the point. Had Dubbyuh not engaged in an un-necessary, illegal, ill-concieved, unfounded war in Iraq, Afghanistan would be secure now...The Taliban would be exterminated...Osama would be dead or captured...Al Qaeda would be effectively neutralized as a threat to anyone.

Instead the resources to do this were siphoned off to an illegal and un-founded war in Iraq, leaving 15,000 troops in Afghanistan. Jesus...what a creepshow.
 
Bullypulpit said:
Once more, y'all miss the point. Had Dubbyuh not engaged in an un-necessary, illegal, ill-concieved, unfounded war in Iraq, Afghanistan would be secure now...The Taliban would be exterminated...Osama would be dead or captured...Al Qaeda would be effectively neutralized as a threat to anyone.

Instead the resources to do this were siphoned off to an illegal and un-founded war in Iraq, leaving 15,000 troops in Afghanistan. Jesus...what a creepshow.


I dare you to fly to baghdad and tell the Iraqis to their face that their liberation was unnecessary and that the reason to outst Saddam was unfounded.
 
Avatar4321 said:
I dare you to fly to baghdad and tell the Iraqis to their face that their liberation was unnecessary and that the reason to outst Saddam was unfounded.

We didn't go there to "liberate" the Iraqi people. Dubbyuh sent our troops off to war because Saddam had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons which he was about to unleash upon the West in long range RPV's... :rolleyes:
 
Bullypulpit said:
We didn't go there to "liberate" the Iraqi people. Dubbyuh sent our troops off to war because Saddam had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons which he was about to unleash upon the West in long range RPV's... :rolleyes:

Yeah, but that wasn't the only reason, and I still think those weapons are in Syria.
 
Bullypulpit said:
And you are delusional.

Not really Bully, tis you!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26141-2004Jul29.html

Our survey showed that nearly three years after U.S. troops launched the war on terrorism in Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, Afghans want democracy. They are looking forward to their first free presidential election, scheduled for October, and say they will vote in large numbers. They are also surprisingly supportive of democratic values such as equal rights and peaceful opposition. Though big problems -- public ignorance, administrative and partisan difficulties, and insecurity -- must be faced if the elections are to succeed, the research indicates democracy's chances in Afghanistan may be better than widely thought.

In the study, which involved 804 interviews with a representative, random sample of men and women in urban and rural areas in 29 of the country's 32 provinces, Afghans' interest in the election was palpable. Almost everyone knew it was coming, and 81 percent intended to vote. (This included large majorities of both sexes in every region, though some women feared their husbands might not let them vote.) Their eagerness to participate was confirmed by the rapid progress of voter registration since May, when it began in the rural areas (home to four-fifths of the population). In three months, registration soared from 1.5 million to 8 million of the estimated 9.5 million eligible voters. It continues at a pace of up to 125,000 per day, despite Taliban remnants opposed to the vote who threaten and even kill registrants.

A major reason for Afghans' determination to vote is the rebirth of hope in their country since the fall of the Taliban. They know too well its problems with security, warlords and women's rights. But two out of three think Afghanistan is headed in the right direction, citing the progress toward peace, reconstruction and normality in most of the country. Interim president (and presidential candidate) Hamid Karzai has a 62 percent job approval rating and is praised for hard work and efforts to bring peace. Karzai's personal favorability is even higher -- 85 percent -- and runs across regional and ethnic lines.

Moreover, Afghans have placed great faith in democratic elections: Fully 77 percent say the election of a president and parliament will make a difference. In a country that has never known elected leaders, they voice intense hopes that rulers accountable to the people will be able to fulfill their aspirations.

Almost two-thirds of Afghans have gained some idea of the meaning of democracy; most mention freedom or rights. A solid consensus (more than 80 percent) supports equal rights under law -- regardless of religion, tribe or gender -- and the right to peaceably oppose government. Two in three now favor separating religious and political leadership, while less than 10 percent think democracy and Islam are incompatible.
 
Bullypulpit said:
...Not bloody likely.

Yesterday, Medecines Sans Frontieres announced that it was shuting down operations in Afghanistan...this after 24 years in country during the abortive Russian war and the worst excesses of the Taliban. They can no longer suffer the casualties they have been sustaining recently.

How many members of "Doctors without Borders" are replaced by native Women now allowed to practice again. There were women doctors who recieved Western style medical training by the Soviets who can now practice again, and although they may be rusty it should make up for the loss, along with a host of coalition and NATO sponsored personel.
 
Comrade said:
How many members of "Doctors without Borders" are replaced by native Women now allowed to practice again. There were women doctors who recieved Western style medical training by the Soviets who can now practice again, and although they may be rusty it should make up for the loss, along with a host of coalition and NATO sponsored personel.

and doctors without borders is not without it's own controversies:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/07/doctors_without.html

Arthur Chrenkoff has a great post about Médecins sans Frontières - more commonly known in the USA as Doctors Without Borders (DWB). DWB has many, many patrons who continually criticize American Special Forces for interfering in it's areas and it's operations.

I happen to have been personally involved in one such issue with Médecins sans Frontières.

Back in 1991, in Northern Iraq, DWB had a Kurdish refugee camp where they (DWB) estimated 600 children would die of Cholera. When the US Army arrived, the Special Forces Soldiers (medics and doctors, mostly) were treated by DWB with immense scorn...that is until the American Group Commander, upon hearing of the plight of the Kurdish children, decided that NO children would die as a result of Cholera. The American SF Soldiers worked with DWB after that and earned their grudging respect.

The SF Soldiers devised a way to have the Kurdish mothers help with the medical care of their children. The DWB doctors did not want to show the Kurdish women how to care for the sick because they had been threatened by the fathers. In Kurdish culture, the husband/father must teach the wife/mother how to do everything. No one else is allowed to teach her - if you tried, you would probably get shot or stabbed. And the DWB doctors would rather let the children die than address the problem of having the mothers learn to prevent and stop Cholera.

After a few serious problems with the teaching method, a "process" and chain of medical responsibility was established to care for the sick. With DWB and the SF working together, the disease was stopped and only two children were lost. Not six hundred. DWB thought it was a huge success. They became our friends for the time being.

The American Commander went absolutely ballistic over losing two children to Cholera.

Now, you can take your pick on who you want to help you. You can decide what the motivations were for the Americans to help. You can delve further into the reasons behind DWB's mistrust of American SF Soldiers.

But there is no denying the result of 598 children living to see another day...



http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/07/mdecins-sans-frontires-blames-america.html

Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors Without Frontiers), the well known international humanitarian organisation, is pulling out of Afghanistan and - you guessed it - blaming the Americans. The lead paragraph in the London "Independent" will give you some idea of the left's glee:

"It survived Soviet occupation, civil war, the Taliban and US-led invasion. But after 24 years of aid work, Médecins sans Frontières has been forced by the American military to flee Afghanistan."
Forget for the moment the not-so-subliminal message that the American military is worse than the Red Army and the Taliban; simply ask yourself how did they Yanks manage to chase MSF out of the country?

"US military tactics have made it too dangerous to operate there... MSF claimed the American military had endangered the lives of humanitarian volunteers by blurring the distinction between soldiers and aid workers. Five MSF workers were killed last month."
No, they weren't killed by the American soldiers, but by the parties unknown; either Taliban remnants or opium growers. But the US is to blame because as Kenny Gluck, MSF's operations director, says:

"The US-backed coalition has consistently sought to co-opt humanitarian assistance to build support for its own military and political ambitions... MSF denounces attempts to use humanitarian aid to win hearts and minds. That jeopardises the aid to people in need and endangers the lives of humanitarian aid workers ... These soldiers are often out of uniform. It's hard to know what nationality they are."
In other words, no one knows who killed the MSF personnel or why they were killed - but they must have been obviously targeted because they were mistaken for American soldiers doing humanitarian work. But the article gets even worse:

"Aid groups' concerns centre on the actions of combat troops trying to win over villagers in areas afflicted by guerrilla warfare. Despite years of work by organisations such as MSF in the country, many villagers now confuse aid workers and soldiers, Mr Gluck claimed. 'We have seen military people with weapons and in white cars providing health care. How can you expect Afghans to distinguish?'

"Aid workers particularly criticise US special forces teams who sometimes operate clinics to win over local populations or distribute sweets and toys to village children."
Those damned American soldiers doing their humanitarian work! How dare they!
 
Bullypulpit said:
Once more, y'all miss the point. Had Dubbyuh not engaged in an un-necessary, illegal, ill-concieved, unfounded war in Iraq, Afghanistan would be secure now...The Taliban would be exterminated...Osama would be dead or captured...Al Qaeda would be effectively neutralized as a threat to anyone.

Instead the resources to do this were siphoned off to an illegal and un-founded war in Iraq, leaving 15,000 troops in Afghanistan. Jesus...what a creepshow.

Bully, you once again display your ignorance for all to see.

The war in Afganistan is MUCH different from the war in Iraq. Due to terrain, we could send a million troops to Afganistan and it wouldn't work. The job there is better left to small groups of elite soldiers that can move around easily.

Perhaps if you had served the country you so love to blast, you might would know a little bit about how to fight battles.
 

Forum List

Back
Top