I can't claim to be an expert in Middle East religions, but seems to me Saudi Arabi and wahhabism is the heart of the current terrorist threat. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia after all.

 

They continue to teach hate. Seems like this would be easier to tackle then invading all the countries over there. Don't you think?

Seems like this would be easier to tackle then invading all the countries over there. Don't you think?

 

I dont really get what your asking.

I can't claim to be an expert in Middle East religions' date=' but seems to me Saudi Arabi and wahhabism is the heart of the current terrorist threat. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia after all.

 

They continue to teach hate. Seems like this would be easier to tackle then invading all the countries over there. Don't you think?[/quote']

 

it would be, yes.

 

but since the saudis own 6 to 7% of the USAs economy, it`s prudent not to pi$$ them off too much

[quote=john5746

They continue to teach hate. Seems like this would be easier to tackle then invading all the countries over there. Don't you think?

 

 

How would you tackle them? Invading them seems like one way of tackling them.

How would you tackle them? Invading them seems like one way of tackling them.

 

I always prefer discussion before I decide to kill someone over opposing viewpoints. Call me quirky.

Yes, when I say "tackle" I mean the idea, not the people themselves. For one, the government should be talking about it as an issue, put pressure on Saudi Arabia. Has anyone asked them about making plans to move toward democratic rule? Do we only liberate the countries we deem enemies?

Do we only liberate the countries we deem enemies?

 

lol. Is it not that obvious?

lol. Is it not that obvious?

 

No, not really. How's the Afganistan election going?

No, not really. How's the Afganistan election going?

 

Oh yeah your right. Every time I hear the word liberate I think conquer for some strange reason.

Well, technically Afganistan was being dominated by Al-Queda.

I was trying to be funny, guess it missed...

 

But technically Afgahnastan was dominated by the Taliban which was a supporter of Al-Queda.

I was trying to be funny' date=' guess it missed...

 

But technically Afgahnastan was dominated by the Taliban which was a supporter of Al-Queda.[/quote']

 

Yes, that's true.

 

So we do only liberate our enemies it seems.

"Technically" in what sense?

No, not really. How's the Afganistan election going?

 

 

The election in Afghanistan was a great success.

The election in Afghanistan was a great success.

 

Well, not great : -

 

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/afghanistan/

 

But fair point.

Well' date=' not great : -

 

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/afghanistan/

 

But fair point.[/quote']

 

Maybe great was an exagerration, but any peaceful election in Afghanistan has to be a cause for celebration, just look at that benighted countries history.

It's not terrible, but it sure isn't what we were promising them while we were blowing things up with daisy cutters.

It's not terrible[/i'], but it sure isn't what we were promising them while we were blowing things up with daisy cutters.

 

I don't remember them being promised anything.

 

The reasons for invading Afghanistan were always openly stated as being about hitting the Taliban, any benefits for the locals were honestly presented as a matter of spin offs rather than the main purpose.

*cough* The Bonn Agreement *cough*

*cough* The Bonn Agreement *cough*

 

Having read the Bonn Agreement it simply states that after a period of UN supervision Afghanistan shall have its own democratically elected administration.

 

That's happened.

 

Am i missing anything?

Having read the Bonn Agreement it simply states that after a period of UN supervision Afghanistan shall have its own democratically elected administration.

That's happened.

Am i missing anything?

The Bonn Agreement didn't just appear out of thin air in front of the signatories, who all just happened to be in Bonn at the same time, in the same building. The Agreement itself is just that - "the agreement". It would be fairly stupid to refer to things like "the seventy-third-to-last discussion before the Agreement was reached, between France, Burundi and Finland, on the topic of votes for all in Afghanistan".

It was arrived at by promises on one side and hope on the other. You should know as well as anyone here that the stipulations of a final document are not necessarily a good reflection of the intentions that brought it about in the first place.

 

Since I have actually read the Agreement too, I am very much aware that you have grossly over-simplified it for the purposes of making a catchier post.

 

 

I don't see how you can hope to sweep aside any criticism of ongoing human rights abuses with "well, they were only promised democratic elections and they had those already". It's pretty callous to use that as the basis of a semantic argument about the way I phrased a glib post.

Having read the Bonn Agreement it simply states that after a period of UN supervision Afghanistan shall have its own democratically elected administration.

 

That's happened.

 

Am i missing anything?

 

A description of the promises made that were not met, and so on: -

 

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghanistan/bonn1yr-bck.htm

I don't see how you can hope to sweep aside any criticism of ongoing human rights abuses with "well, they were only promised democratic elections and they had those already". It's pretty callous to use that as the basis of a semantic argument about the way I phrased a glib post.

 

I do not intend to sweep anything aside, esp human rights abuses. Although it seems obvious that the defeat of the Taliban will have led to fewer human rights abuses in Afghanistan rather than more.

 

What i am pointing out is the matter of intentions. The USA was always clear that the war in Afghanistan was about defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Human rights and democrary were side issues.

 

You may not like that and think that was cynical, but the fact remains that the USA was both open and honest. They repeated stated that they were not in the business of 'nation building', simply in the business of hitting their enemies very hard.

 

As such it is incorrect to criticse the USA for not living up to promises. You can criticse the USA for its intentions, but not for failing to live up to promises. That's not glib or callous but realistic and fair.

When I say "we", which part of that suggests I'm talking about the USA?

When I say "we", which part of that suggests I'm talking about the USA?

 

As it was the USA which invaded Afghanistan and no one else, only they were in any position to be making any promises. They are the only relevant party here.