Quote:
Quote by: Nono  Prax, no kidding the US isn't party to Kyoto. That's the whole point. And a Canadian government busily implementing Kyoto (Chrétien) is far less congenial to Washington than a Canadian government actively subverting its own treaty commitment (Harper). Harper's a tool.
Re Vietnam, it's never quite the same, is it? So -- hey, no problem -- it's always possible to overlook the similarities until those similarities get their big hairy paws all over you and demand your attention. We'll see, eh?
So, what you described as NATO strategy in Afghanistan sounds to me just like Vietnam pre-Tet. As for what the "Afghans" want (which tribe? which clan within which tribe?), I don't see how anybody can pretend to know. Certainly no news organization.
Why should NATO's intervention end in a way any different from the British or the Russians in the past? |
I honestly don't have the time to educate you on the past 5+ years of what has been going on, in which location, what tribes, and which divisions of NATO that were involved, considdering it varies from one section to another.
Quote:
|
I don't see how anybody can pretend to know. Certainly no news organization.
|
Nobody is pretending to know, they are asking them face to face.... they are talking to the people and they are expressing themselves..... the news organizations and the military there know more then you or I, so I would trust more in what they say then yourself, no offense.
If you want to know which tribes and which locations, look back on some of the many links I supplied for each new article, they tell you the name of who was interviewed, their position in the tribe/village, and where they are located compared to the battles at hand.
One thing you should realize is that you can easily make a comparison with Vietnam to Iraq, but you can't do so easily with Afghanistan, because:
1 - The US is not in 100% control over the actions in Afghanistan, NATO is, so it's a joint effort between various countries.
2 - There are US Army and Marines in Iraq, as there were in Vietnam... things seem to be going the same way in both of these situations, where US Forces were the main military in the situations in question.
3 - Why should NATO's mission suceed any differently then when the British and Soviets tried to fight in Afghanistan? Because both of those situations were for taking over. To replace the Taliban's forces and government with their own. At those times, the Taliban were being supported by the people, which is not much of the case these days, and NATO is attempting to help Afghanistan to form their own government, not force another country's wants and desires to influence their country to suit them. (In a manner of speaking)
The Afghan people are tired of the Taliban's rule, their laws, and the way they have been treated in the past by them (But at the time, it was better then having the Soviets rule them, or the British.)
Anyways, you see things in one perspective and I see them in another. As you said, we shall see how things unfold. Just remember, not every other country in the world deals with situations like the US seems to do a lot.