Obama withdraws from Afghanistan. What happens?

[babylonsister]

Do the majority of people think he's disowned the controversy of whether the Taliban 'did' 9/11? Do people care, or do they care a great deal?

Should we just leave? I know I'd love to be war-free. Is that prudent? I honestly don't know.

[timeforpeace]

1. People live who would otherwise die. That's a big plus right there.

[eridani]

2. They are dying right now, and we are killing them

We are waging an air war against a civilian population.

[timeforpeace]

8. And someday someone may charge that these are war crimes.

[BOG PERSON]

43. Hahahaha, no.

Come back down to earth.

[Orsino]

28. Yes. We could stop being directly responsible for so many deaths.

We could invest in the living instead.

[babylonsister]

4. Simplistic answer. Got anything better? Should we be defending

something or not? And who would find fault if we left? Would you? Would I?

[sharesunited]

11. The Taliban are barbarians, standing in the way of the aspirations of a civil society.

Art and music banned. Women oppressed. Eyes and tongues being cut out.

Demolition of the giant Buddahs. Al Qaeda training camps and 9/11 command center.

Bottom line: Kill, kill, and kill some more until this nest of vipers is annihilated.

And I am a peaceful man!

But do so ONLY with volunteers for this theater, because it is a ferocious fight with a strong undercurrent of futility. The enemy are effective fighters committed to victory.

If we don't have the volunteers, then evacuate all civilians who seek refuge.

[eridani]

17. Al Qaida training? Nonsense.

Tell me how many flight schools Afghanistan has. The 9/11 attacks were planned in London, Hamburg, and Jakarta. The only use Al Qaida ever had for Afghanistan was as a rugged, hard to penetrate hidey-hole to retreat to. Now we've driven them to Pakistan. And so what? Why didn't we bomb Michigan after the Oklahoma terrorist attack?

Besides which, Al Qaida is no longer much of a real organization, but a brand name adopted my many strands of Islamic fundies.

[sharesunited]

19. Don't let the passage of time dim the memory.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15082633/

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/tape.transcript/

Kill.

That is all.

[eridani]

20. Those say nothing about where those guys learned to fly

I can guarantee you that it wasn't in Afghanistan.

According to the following, we should have bombed Germany after 9/11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg_cell

[rug]

3. Something awful I'm sure.

http://www.vnstocknews.com/

[nosmokes]

5. we would have more money to spend here.

Our popularity would go up in the Moslem world.

[babylonsister]

6. I agree. So we're done trying to finally find out who the people are

who 'did' 9/11? Just forget it?

I'm half for that, half not.

[nosmokes]

9. We know who's responsible for 9/11, but we will not be invading Saudi Arabia

in our lifetimes.Guaranteed. No matter who or what is in charge.

[JCMach1]

7. We can't win there, so hell yes... get out now

[timeforpeace]

10. It stopped being about 9/11 a long time ago. No one knows what it's about any more.

[PDJane]

13. an oil pipeline........

Which was what it was for before 9/11.

[babylonsister]

34. And you know that for a fact? Got proof? Nah, you never do. nt

[PDJane]

35. If that was addressed to me,

please note that the war was 'on the table,' including the date, during negotiations with the Taliban. That was published in enough places, including Salon:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/06/05/memo/index.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1208-04.htm

The details are in several books, too; French authors Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie have written a thoroughly-researched and heavily-documented book about the entire extraordinary business titled "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth," "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll, and "The War on Truth" by Nafeez Ahmed.

This is clearly documented stuff; the war in Afghanistan was on the table during those negotiations; the carpet bombing and all the rest of it is a mere side effect of energy policies.

[beaglelover]

42. Totally agree!

If the russians failed there, we will as well.

Get the hell out of that hellish part of the world and let them sort it out themselves!

[PDJane]

12. Get out, yes......

But spend money on rebuilding the country that the US has had a hand in destroying since 1979. Money for schools, rebuilding infrastructure, hospitals, schooling, planting food crops (Afghanistan used to be known for pomegranates, not poppies).

The Taliban is the fault of the US, who trained, funded and armed them....a dictate of Jimmy Carter in July of 1979. Not December, when the Russians invaded. Since the US did so to tempt the Russians to do just that, and since 30 years of almost constant war have produced a country that is literally bombed back to the stone age, it behooves the US to pay for reconstruction.

If the US had spent even half the money on reconstructing the country that was spent on bombs and missiles and arming factions, on building bases to protect an as-yet unbuilt pipeline to carry oil from the Balkans to the sea, the situtation would be much better all around.

[JVS]

14. We save money and lives

[EC]

15. What happens?

The Taliban gets into Pakistan and gets nuclear...

[Prometheus Bound]

16. No one has ever accused the Taliban of "doing 911".

And the ostensible command center was not in Afghanistan, as someone alleged below, but in Germany, as the official line goes.

[babylonsister]

29. Wow. Got links? nt

[Prometheus Bound]

36. Sure.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.pdf

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

Nowhere does it accuse the Taliban of 911.

[MercutioATC]

18. Opium gets less expensive?

Seriously, if we left Afghanistan today, that would probably be the biggest impact felt 20 years from now.

[Prometheus Bound]

37. How do you figure that?

Didn't the Taliban virtually wipe out opium production? With the US/NATO running things, opium production has skyrocketed.

[PDJane]

40. Yes, well.........

The CIA is well-known for drug trafficking.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Pakistan collapses, the Taliban gets their nukes, Obama loses in 2012

At least I think that is a large part of why he is keeping the troops there.

[JCMach1]

49. IF Pakistan collapses it won't be because of the Taliban

lol

Try a President with a 9% approval rating... Actually it's kind of ironic... He was such a crook when his wife was PM (i.e. Bhutto) that he earned the nickname, "Mr. 10%"... Now he has the nickname for other reasons.

See the just released Al JAzeera/Gallup poll...

[TheWatcher]

22. The Seas Would Boil, The Sky Would Fall.

Dogs, Cats, Living Together, Mass Hysteria.

And the World just MIGHT continue to turn and function without us being at war with someone.

We should keep invading every sovereign country on Earth and Force Democracy down the throat of the Planet until people give in and shout all at once, in a planetary, Unison of Choir Like Chorus:

"America: FUCK YEAH!"

:eyes:

[KG]

23. +infinty

[babylonsister]

31. Drama aside,

I can hear at least half the country blaming the Dems for dropping the ball on keeping America safe.

[tekisui]

32. The fact that Afghanistan escalation is the one thing repubbies

support Obama on tells me all I need to know.

As for what happens if we leave, it is hard to say. The upcoming elections will tell us a lot. If the elections seem legitimate to the Afghan people, then they will recognize the authority of their government, and it will weaken the extremists. the unfortunate thing is that the election is already being seen as rigged, and violence will keep many from participating. It will likely further destabilize the country and lead to the US feeling the need to fill the security role. Our presence, though, weakens the security and, in some aspects, strengthens the extremists message of the US as occupiers.

We need to get out, and give the Afghan government the opportunity to govern without us as a prop. It has not been about 9/11 for years. The sooner we get out, the sooner we quit being the enemy.

We are helping to recruit the next terrorist attackers each day we are there.

[babylonsister]

33. Your last sentence is interesting considering

that's the last thing we're trying to do. Bush did that with Gitmo. We're trying to get rid of the Taliban w/o torturing anyone first.

Yes, we need to get out.

You don't see any blow-back if we just leave? I wish I had that confidence. Even VetVoice thinks this 'war' is righteous. Or did in January. I don't know about 7 months later.

[tekisui]

41. I honestly think any blowback if we left would be less than what

we are creating while there. We are sending people into the extremists who provide them protection. We are also weakening the Afghan government. The people of Afghanistan see us as occupiers, as enemies. They see their government as a puppet of our imperialism, regardless of whether that is true.

[jakeXT]

24. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP9QDRDLw6c

[rug]

25. The game has never been chess.

[Atman]

26. Dick Cheney's oil pipeline is at risk?

Remember, this was THE PRIMARY REASON to go into Afghanistan. The first thing we did once we got there was start building the new oil pipeline. Everything else is revisionist history smokescreen.

I only ask "Why are we there NOW?" I heard the talking heads ask about more troops being needed to complete our mission, and all I could say was "WHAT MISSION?" What are we doing there? Trying to secure a patch of arid desert land with the infrastructure straight out of the 6th century? Come on. This is pure bullshit.

.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

27. Turn that around for a second

Consider yourself living in a country that is occupied by another nation's military and you see your resources disappearing and you see levels of violence increase dramatically in addition to the straight forward bloodshed caused by the occupiers.

You see levels of displacement that create instability and lead to even more fatalities. The years go by...

[BOG PERSON]

44. n/m

[BOG PERSON]

46. Ooops! N/M!!

[asdjrocky]

30. It doesn't get pregnant?

But trust me Obama, it doesn't work.

[lihop at the ihop]

38. What would be "unprudent" about leaving a war-ravaged country?

Surely you do not see Afghanistan as a threat to America or anywhere else, for that matter? They don't even have a frigging air force! These poor people have been battered and bombed to the Stone Age! Look at a woman of 40 over there. She probably looks 80. Poor people...

[Romulox]

39. I think clearly, we must destroy Afghanistan to save it!

I mean, do you really think we can just pack up and stop waging war on a civilian population? Might not be prudent!

[BOG PERSON]

45. "Rapist withdraws from victim. What happens?" n/t

[G_j]

47. I don't think there is a controversy,

the Taliban didn't take part in 9/11.

One of the main stated objectives by the present military, is to interfere with Al Qaeda and Taliban collaboration.
The Taliban are indigenous, and 'we' can't eliminate them militarily.

[maxsolomon]

48. Simply, the Taliban take over the country again

Women are banned from working, getting an education, leaving their homes. Kite flying is banned. Music is banned. The country's collective intelligence is returned to the 9th century. Al Qaeda is once again given a haven where we have no eyes, not even the unreliable ISI to help us.

The Taliban didn't execute 9/11, but they sure as fuck provided a base from which to coordinate operations.

The new strategy is to interrupt their command structure and revenue stream, & I don't have much of a problem with it - I'm not an absolutist on collateral damage. The first fruits of it were on display in the Taliban shootout after Baitullah Meshud's assasination.

[eridani]

51. They wouldn't have nearly as much support if they weren't being invaded

These days, the term doesn't really mean anything in particular. It's applied to warlords who constantly change sides and to people who think of themselves as just fighting foreigners. The hardcore religious student base that originally constituted the Taliban are of decreasing significance.

Afghanistan was never a coordination site for Al Qaeda. The 9-11 plotters were from London, Hamburg and Jakarta. The hijackers were Saudis who recieved their only flight training in the US.

I just don't get this totally whacked notion that war somehow helps women. More war equals more women slaughtered. The war of each against all is NEVER, under any circumstances, won by women.

[ConsAreLiars]

50. The Afghan people choose their own future and the oil cartels and geopolitical hegemonists

give up their claim to rule the planet. The first would be nice, They had a pretty progressive government before the US took it down, but the Monsters on the other side still run the US Imperialist killing machine, so that will not happen.