"We have no interest in occupying your country."

[bigtree]

I'm dumbfounded by this statement. What does the president consider an occupation?


from the speech: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/01/f-obama-afghanistan-speech-transcript.html

"The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al-Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering.

We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner and never your patron."

[John Q. Citizen]

1. The Afghan Government is an illegitimate mafia. Why Obama is supporting the mafia is

the question I want answered.

[Chulanowa]

3. Better the Mafia than the Crips and Bloods having joint custody

[John Q. Citizen]

13. That's faulty thinking. It's not a logical argument.

[Chulanowa]

24. I learned years ago to not waste my reserves of logic on those incapable of appreciating it

:shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

35. Hey there brother. Who you jiving with that cosmic debris? Logic isn't a finite

commodity, except perhaps to the illogical mind.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. What Gordon Brown said was they were going to train the Afghans to control their country

until the Afghan training was complete then they would leave. This is awfully like nation building?

[C_Lawyer09]

15. Because national security and national security strategy

is not black and white. There is a huge amount of nuance. You all want your opinions cut into tiny easy to digest squares which is not the reality. The reality is asymetric warfare and cutting edge intelligence will hopefully keep us safe. Bear in mind you do not recieve a daily NSA briefing. By the way there is a reason we set up AFRICOM. Failed states are a hotbed of terrorist training and recruitment. Keep acting like 9/11 was an isolated incident and there will be another one.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Bear in mind, bush recieved a daily NSA briefing. We are an imperilalistic

Empire and we act like it.

Bear that in mind.

[C_Lawyer09]

19. The difference is

The Bush admin pushed the NSA, CIA, and others continually to make unrelated events substantiate their motivation. Iraq, yellow cake uranium, al-qaeda tie ins were a very different deal, Iraq versus Afghanistan. Very different.

[C_Lawyer09]

23. I do bear that in mind

But we are now a unipolar world versus bi or tri, and the fact remains that we've not taken over other countries, and the fact that we continually involve ourselves, sometimes for better, sometimes arguably for worse, we are definitely a stabilizing element. I've read the Chalmers Johnson trilogy, I do feel we need to scale back our imperialistic overstretch, but that needs to be balanced with force projection. Any other take is naive. There is actually an argument that we should be more intrusive in world affairs, e.g. our failure to intervene in the Darfur genocide. I'd have been strongly in favor of that. As it was we left General Romeo Dallaire crying for a mandate, any kind of help, as the weapons were stockpiled under the current IMF SAP. Do I think our involvement in Afghanistan is beyond criticism? Hell no, but I'm disgusted by the constant oversimplicication by those who don't work in the security community or have limited knowledge of what is currently at hand.

[ShamelessHussy]

26. 'we've not taken over other countries' - just bring'n peace, prosperity and security to the region

hmmm... that is a great idea!

maybe we should call it the Great Eastern Co-Prosperity Sphere, sex it up a little, make it fit on a bumper sticker :shrug:

http://www.mywire.com/a/Oxford-Companion-World-War-II/Greater-East-Asia-Coprosperity-Sphere/9595675/

[C_Lawyer09]

27. If you want to be sarcastic and oversimplify, by all means

The problem is, this situation is extremely complex. Especially if you want to ignore the terrorist threat that is still there.

[ShamelessHussy]

28. no, no... i am just pointing out the echos of the past

it is really quite amazing how similar the language is, right down to the term 'ILLEGAL COMBATANTS', don't you think?

[C_Lawyer09]

30. No, I think there is a huge chasm between illegal combatants

and where we are now. Believe me, I wish that collateral damage was not part of the equation. Believe me that I hate service members or any innocents being killed. I wish I felt that an immediate withdrawal would cease any loss of life on either side. The sad fact and reality is that in this day and age, with constant failing states coupled with the growth of Islamist extremism, the reality we are left with is abhorrent. Interestingly and disgustingly the big international relations theorists seem to be weighing in after the fact. There are only a few big names, but they have been notoriously late for the game. Now what we are currently experiencing is but a forethought of what resource deprivation will bring. I'm not trying to be paranoid or a conspiracy theorist, but the writing is on the wall. Global warming, desertification, etc. If we leave Pakistan/Afghanistan to their own device, will the outcome be peace and love?

[ShamelessHussy]

31. We are not in Pakistan, in fact we carry out 'surgical' air strikes there

why couldn't we do that in Afghanistan, too?

sorry, but historians will rightly call these wars of aggression, what they are resource wars, which is pretty obvious now to most after all these years.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. occupy for a little bit and then go home?

[FarLeftFist]

4. Permanent ground troops.

Many Afghani's believe America wants to take over their nation and turn it into a christian nation that abides by western rules. They fear the burkas will be shed, christian churches will be built, their internet will be uncensored and Mtv will take over their society. I guess he's just trying to reassure them.

[bigtree]

38. I think that most of the message the president is conveying is paternal

. . . and centered on what the U.S. wants in Afghanistan, without much acknowledgment of what Afghans want. I didn't hear a bit from the president about their views ans aims for their country. Just his own interpretation of what he believes is good for them. Reality is, the U.S. government doesn't give a shit about what Afghans ultimately want. It's all about empire and control with us. 'Do what we say and we won't hurt you (much)'.

[jobycom]

6. If Obama is playing chess, we are his opponents.

That's the same thing Bush said when he invaded, both Afghanistan and Iraq. It's pretty much what Hulagu assured Baghdad when the Mongols laid waste to the city in 1258. (I used Hulagu to avoid a Hitler reference to avoid the whole Godwin thing). The conquerors are always your friend. They will never harm you. They will only harm those people who don't want them there. That isn't you, though, is it? Pardner? Because if it is, that makes you one of them instead of one of the people we are protecting...

[kenny blankenship]

10. Thank you for doing the research.

I knew history wouldn't just provide examples, but would read the same thing over and over and over. We come in peace! We just have to kill a goodly number of you before suppertime, and again the next day. Then up and at it all the next week. But seriously we are your friends and just want what's best for you. This is for your own good. In time you'll come to thank us for the sacrifice we've made here on your behalf, blah, blah...It always what they say.

[kenny blankenship]

7. We just can't seem to tear ourselves away

boring really.

[KG]

8. Afghanistan was occupied 'by foreign al-Qaeda fighters'?

:eyes:

[C_Lawyer09]

12. Look at other failed states

The basic fact is failed states are open for al qaeda and other terrorist groups to leverage. That isn't an opinion, it's fact. Taliban and al-Qaeda have worked in concert for a long time and consistently. You are not privy to NSA briefings daily or otherwise. 9/11 was not an isolated incident that will not be followed up if the opportunity is given. Hard target versus soft target. Osama bin Laden is not the only terrorist out there. Give your naivete a rest.

[KG]

18. naivete? and your expertise is derived from what, exactly?

really, anybody who still thinks an operation as complex as 9-11 (official version) was planned and controlled from a cave in afghanistan delusional.

[C_Lawyer09]

20. My job and in large part my education

for the better part of the last 22 years. That said, it's no big secret, read the national security strategy or recommendations for the new administration or any number of unclassified reports that detail al-Qaeda and other terrorist cell activities in and around failed states. Seems you took offense to my using the term "naivete". The reason I used it is because most seem to feel that terrorist threat was contained after 9/11 which was not the case. Further many al-Qaeda have been caught within US borders. It bothers me that many on du talk about our presence in Afghanistan as if the primary goal is control of a caspian oil reserve pipeline. Truth be told refining costs of such unpure oil would be huge. If oil was the goal, there would be ten targets of opportunity that would take precedence. The most annoying aspect of many du posts is that nobody seems to account for nuance, it is all pro or con, which is exactly the problem with the bought media. Hope you feel better about yourself by questioning an opinion that differs with yours.

[ShamelessHussy]

25. ah, the best and the brightest, at it again... though I'm sure it will pass, I am now very worried

[C_Lawyer09]

29. For Shame

Are you that unaware of national security issues? Or does it just make you feel good to simplify complex foreign policy in order to make people feel bad? Your shameless use of Vietname photos doesn't change the fact that we face a huge security threat from AfPak, both from terrorists already and still being caught from within our borders and Pakistani nuclear security. News Flash, it is not delinquents that are bombing our troops. It is terrorists. Taliban and al-Qaeda are not seperable entities in AfPAC. Why are you sending Vietnam photos? Educate yourself and read some current literature instead of hiding within your own prejudices.

[ShamelessHussy]

33. agreed, it is not only a tragic shame, but an immoral war of aggression to secure vital resources

in a vain, futile and desperate attempt to cling to our already lost status of worlds only super power.

it is vitally important to know/acknowledge the horror of war that is sanitized by our leaders and the m$m in order to not become so desensitized to it that we will continue to tolerate these on going wars of aggression over resources, imho anyway.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. What do you consider "interest."

You're not one of those "pipeline" goofballs, are you?

[bigtree]

36. that's the president's word

. . . he used it last night in his justifications.

You tell me what our 'interest' there is. I believe the generals and politicians are keeping us there to provide another base of operations in the region and to prevent other countries like Russia and China from dominating Afghanistan with their own 'interests.' Just a stall to the inevitable, imo.

Calling folks 'goofballs' is not a good starting point for debate or discussion. Just sayin' . . .

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. So, we have lost interest in it now, but will continue to do it ?

[kenny blankenship]

21. It's like any other marriage. Til death do we part

Afghanistan no longer holds in its farts around us. We sleep on the couch and no longer care that we feel like a romantic failure because of it. We only stay in it for the kids.

[FrenchieCat]

14. The Occupation has been in Iraq.....

We have never controlled or occupied Afghanistan, because we've never had enough troops to do that....
and so Obama saying we are not interested in that was him speaking directly to the Afghan people,
not so much you. He is telling them that we will not be staying. period.

[Amonester]

22. And what do you think they will do?

Personally, I think a lot of them will not believe him -- his reputation is getting around (you know: promises of "change" and "hope" that were not really "sincere"...) and will join the resistance, "hoping" to chase the occupying empire (for greed and domination).

More un-necessary deaths of our best young people, and for what?

[FrenchieCat]

32. No, that reputation is relegated to the US,

where politics is a parlor game,
and politicians are made to be shat on,
cause folks believe they can do
more than they really can.

Bush gave Obama a bunch of bricks made out of shit,
and you are demanding that he builts a house out of them
that don't stink.

The rest of the world remembers Bush all too well.

[Amonester]

34. The rest of the world remembers ** so well..

that the rest of the world want the whole **'s bloody BS to END (tomorrow morning).

(And I know that, because... I LIVE somewhere in the rest of the world. Do you?)

[bigtree]

37. I'll bet the Afghans see us as occupiers. If they had as many of their troops in America

. . . telling us what to do with our government, controlling roads, airspace, and territory we'd call them occupiers and more.

[ShamelessHussy]

16. We come in peace!

Ack ack ack ack-ack! Don't run, we are your friends!