# Osama killed



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

maybe time to bring the troops home now?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I wouldn't put my hopes on it.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

At last someone has put out the trash.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Good riddance,now he can go rot in hell!


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

a4audi08 said:


> maybe time to bring the troops home now?


I'm afraid not. There's just too much going on in the Middle East to do that. We're still fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan; Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen is becoming more active. We have to keep an eye on Iraq, and then there's the Libya business. Let's see what happens in Syria next. Is it going to explode into open warfare?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

a4audi08 said:


> maybe time to bring the troops home now?


Sure.

Right after Gitmo closes.

BAAAAAAAAABABABABABAHAhahahahahahahaha!!

Sorry,

Couldn't resist.


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

Heard a man this morning arguing with another man that the Osama killing is just as phony as the moon landings. :biggrin2:


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Fraser Tartan said:


> Heard a man this morning arguing with another man that the Osama killing is just as phony as the moon landings. :biggrin2:


Maybe Donald Trump will demand to see the long version of Osama's death certificate. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

blue suede shoes said:


> Maybe Donald Trump will demand to see the long version of Osama's death certificate. :icon_smile_wink:


I'd like to see DT's voter registration saying he's a Republican!!


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Regillus said:


> I'm afraid not. There's just too much going on in the Middle East to do that. We're still fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan; Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen is becoming more active. We have to keep an eye on Iraq, and then there's the Libya business. Let's see what happens in Syria next. Is it going to explode into open warfare?


Like the mythical hydra, with one head gone, will several others sprout? What's worse, one guy running the show, or ten? I'm glad OBL is gone, but the U.S. troops certainly won't be coming home any time soon (I wish they all would come home though).

andy b.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'd like to see DT's voter registration saying he's a Republican!!


At least The Donald is out front - unlike the rest of the Republicans who are running scared and unwilling to announce they are even running.

No matter anyway...the Republican party just shot themselves in the foot with this Paul Ryan fiasco.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Well I was talking specifically in Afghanistan, I should have mentioned that. We will be in Iraq forever, that's not up for debate. 

But we really no longer have any real interests in Afghanistan. The people prefer the Taliban, we can't trust the government in place even though we put them there. Al Qaeda isn't even based there anymore.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

a4audi08 said:


> Well I was talking specifically in Afghanistan, I should have mentioned that. We will be in Iraq forever, that's not up for debate.
> 
> But we really no longer have any real interests in Afghanistan. The people prefer the Taliban, we can't trust the government in place even though we put them there. Al Qaeda isn't even based there anymore.


I disagree - the Afghan people don't prefer the Taliban. They were glad to see them go. Remember that the Taliban came from Pakistan. Were given military training and weapons by Pakistan's ISI. The Afghan people; suffering the effects of years of internecine war; were unable to mount a defense when it became clear just how bad the Taliban were. I know we can't trust the gov't in place but it's a start. You have to start somewhere. Now that some semblance of gov't institutions exist the next task is to get better people. As for our interests in Afghanistan - we must continue our nation-building activities so that some years hence we can leave the country without fear that it'll slip back into warlordism and become a terrorist haven again. We chased the terrorists out of Afghanistan into Pakistan's tribal areas - Waziristan. They're in a disorganized and piece-meal state. Let's keep them that way while we continue our efforts both diplomatic and military to eradicate them. I know we're all tired of these foreign involvements but it's better to deal with them over there than on our own soil.:smile:


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Regillus said:


> I disagree - the Afghan people don't prefer the Taliban. They were glad to see them go. Remember that the Taliban came from Pakistan. Were given military training and weapons by Pakistan's ISI. The Afghan people; suffering the effects of years of internecine war; were unable to mount a defense when it became clear just how bad the Taliban were. I know we can't trust the gov't in place but it's a start. You have to start somewhere. Now that some semblance of gov't institutions exist the next task is to get better people. As for our interests in Afghanistan - we must continue our nation-building activities so that some years hence we can leave the country without fear that it'll slip back into warlordism and become a terrorist haven again. We chased the terrorists out of Afghanistan into Pakistan's tribal areas - Waziristan. They're in a disorganized and piece-meal state. Let's keep them that way while we continue our efforts both diplomatic and military to eradicate them. I know we're all tired of these foreign involvements but it's better to deal with them over there than on our own soil.:smile:


The Afghani people, at least according to past history, prefer a semblance of law and order and no government corruption. Neither of those exist at the present moment, in spite of all the money and political support the US and international community has invested.

The Taliban received a lot of their support from Pakistan yes, but the bulk of their support came from the Pashtun ethnic group (the largest individual in Afghanistan) w/n Afghanistan. That is the bedrock of their support even to this day.

I think we can leave Afghanistan at the same time make it perfectly clear that if it were to become another haven for terrorists that the US would intervene. All of the other "nation building" exercises have been, at least to my understanding, to no avail. A nation has to build itself, it can't be done by foreigners. If the Afghani people want a liberal democracy/republic then that is what they will produce. If they want a government that has a distinctly Islamic flavor, they should be able to do that as well. Our only interests there are as you said to prevent it from being overwhelmed by a terrorist group. I don't know that we need to have such a heavy footprint in that country to achieve that goal.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

a4audi08 said:


> All of the other "nation building" exercises have been, at least to my understanding, to no avail. A nation has to build itself, it can't be done by foreigners.


Nation-building worked in Iraq. The U.S. and Britain created a democratic society from scratch where none had ever existed before. Iraq had historically been ruled by the Ottomans; then became a monarchy and then a dictatorship. There was never any democracy until the U.S. invasion. It was a long hard slog but democracy appears to have taken root in Iraq. It's still fragile - yes, but it's working. And it only cost us a trillion dollars!:wink2:
Afghanistan is proving to be a tough nut to crack, but we need to stick it out. Part of the problem is that the Taliban are hiding in Pakistan and moving across the border at will. Also, the Pashtuns and other tribal groups have these rivalries that go back generations. Yes, as you say, the Pashtuns are the ethnic base of the Taliban, but we can make it clear to them that it's not in their best interests to support the Taliban. A military presence and civil programs will win over the Pashtuns given time.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Now that he's dead you ever see Indians and Pakistanis on the city bus and you feel like pointing a finger at them because they might be targets too or it doesn't bother you at all?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Regillus said:


> I disagree - the Afghan people don't prefer the Taliban. They were glad to see them go. Remember that the Taliban came from Pakistan. Were given military training and weapons by Pakistan's ISI. The Afghan people; suffering the effects of years of internecine war; were unable to mount a defense when it became clear just how bad the Taliban were. I know we can't trust the gov't in place but it's a start. You have to start somewhere. Now that some semblance of gov't institutions exist the next task is to get better people. As for our interests in Afghanistan - we must continue our nation-building activities so that some years hence we can leave the country without fear that it'll slip back into warlordism and become a terrorist haven again. We chased the terrorists out of Afghanistan into Pakistan's tribal areas - Waziristan. They're in a disorganized and piece-meal state. Let's keep them that way while we continue our efforts both diplomatic and military to eradicate them. I know we're all tired of these foreign involvements but it's better to deal with them over there than on our own soil.:smile:


The Afghan people prefers Afghans. The Taliban were a home grown tribal fundamentalist movement that were inherently conservative, and which arose in the anarchy of Afghanistan post-Soviet intervention. They became popular because of their imposition of a kind of law over the chaotic warlordism that existed at that time, and, lacking an effective opposition, became the de facto government of Afghanistan. Pakistan supported them, but they did not come from Pakistan. There aren't, of course, clear ethnic boundaries around countries, so Pashtuns reside in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and their loyalties are tribal, not national. 
The interventionist forces backed one of the former warlords and used his invitation to justify military intervention in Afghanistan, beginning the endless war against the Taliban, which won't be won in any of our lifetimes. We in the West weren't interested in the Taleban until 9/11. The Taleban hadn't attacked us, and weren't interested in attacking us; Al quaeda was a different matter. By intervening in Afghanistan we escalated the Islamic insurgency. We've certainly not dealt with it by involving ourselves there.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

> The Taliban were a home grown tribal fundamentalist movement that were inherently conservative, and which arose in the anarchy of Afghanistan post-Soviet intervention.


Chouan, it's my understanding that most of the Taliban leaders - at least the early ones - were products of the Pakistani madrassas. Thus, while they were natives of Afghanistan, they *were *a product of Pakistan. And Pakistan viewed them as a tool to help them exert control over Afghanistan, and gave them material support, intelligence, etc. Of course, the American assistance to the anti-Soviet Mujahadeen was also instrumental in the creation of the Taliban, so we could say that they were, in some sense, a product of American actions, too.



> We in the West weren't interested in the Taleban until 9/11. The Taleban hadn't attacked us, and weren't interested in attacking us; Al quaeda was a different matter.


There was some interest, but it obviously became a different matter after 9/11. But the fact is that they had made common cause with AQ before 9/11, but long after AQ's intention to violently engage the civilian populations of the west were clear. After 9/11, they were presented with an ultimatum to deliver OBL and other AQ leaders taking refuge with them. They refused. There was absolutely no choice but to overthrow them.

FWIW, I have a solution I would like to see tried in Afghanistan. Step 1: all military arms are contraband for all Afghan men not in uniform. After a 2-week turn-in period, any man seen with a kalashinkov, RPG, or the like would be shot or missled on sight. Step 2: arms are issued to all Afghan _women_, with fingerprint locking mechanisms. The women are invited to run the country for a while. Step 3: either things get better, or they will not. If they get better, great. If not, it is clear that part of the world is beyond redemption or hope, and that there are no victims, just complicit participants. Either way, we can leave after a short time.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Regillus said:


> Nation-building worked in Iraq. The U.S. and Britain created a democratic society from scratch where none had ever existed before. Iraq had historically been ruled by the Ottomans; then became a monarchy and then a dictatorship. There was never any democracy until the U.S. invasion. It was a long hard slog but democracy appears to have taken root in Iraq. It's still fragile - yes, but it's working. And it only cost us a trillion dollars!:wink2:
> Afghanistan is proving to be a tough nut to crack, but we need to stick it out. Part of the problem is that the Taliban are hiding in Pakistan and moving across the border at will. Also, the Pashtuns and other tribal groups have these rivalries that go back generations. Yes, as you say, the Pashtuns are the ethnic base of the Taliban, but we can make it clear to them that it's not in their best interests to support the Taliban. A military presence and civil programs will win over the Pashtuns given time.


Re: Iraq, the 1 trillion mark is a floor. There have been several studies which suggest that the war in Iraq was a big reason for the increase in oil prices after 2003. Also we will be paying for another generation for the veterans who came back wounded, both physically and mentally. My cousin is a physician with the VA and she tells me that the incidence of PTSD among this groups is alarmingly high. We don't like to talk about it publicly but the costs are very real.

History suggests that a nothing ever really "wins over" the Pashtuns. The British and Russians tried it before and it simply hasn't worked. I think at times we have an attitude that is somewhat patronizing - if we fund enough social programs and political parties that the people will "come around" and accept liberal democracy as the best form of government. We need to consider the possibility that in some countries, due to their social/religious makeup and even the effect it will have on our national interests, that something less than a liberal democracy/republic is best.

Iraq is a perfect example. Yes we can point to it as a fledgling democracy, but understand that Iraq is rapidly becoming an Iranian client state. It's great to be able to pat ourselves on the back for "creating" a democratic society, but the reality is the day after the American people decide we no longer want to finance a huge American footprint in Iraq, Iran will be in control.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

a4audi08 said:


> ...There have been several studies which suggest that the war in Iraq was a big reason for the increase in oil prices after 2003...


What studies?


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Orsini said:


> What studies?


This was the last I read.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers...r+Mamdouh+Salameh+iraq+war&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Also it's only very recently that Iraqi oil production has reached pre-war levels.


----------

