The news is in…and Karzai is officially president of Afghanistan.It seems to me that Obama now has a problem-he was wavering on sending more troops, and (I think) having Karzai thrown out would have given him cover to ommit more American lives to this mess. Now, he has no “out”-Karzai is the leader-so what can he (Obama) do?
If he sends more toops, and all we have is more American deaths, he looks bad.
If he denies Gen. McCrystal’s request, he will be attacked for not supporting the war effort.
Karzai is corrupt, and his rule is not liked-so what does Obama do?
I hope he has the courage to admit the whole thing was a mistake, and get out.
Where’s the GQ here?
Like posting a political question without an answer in the wrong forum perhaps? 
Move 'em all and let GD sort 'em out.
I wonder if Ahmed Karzai can get me some of the goooood shit.
No - but his brother can.
I think Obama knew he was going to have to work with Karzai. Karzai’s people tampered with the votes in the last round and there was every reason to think they were going to do it again. I don’t think they were expecting Abdullah to win. Maybe they were hoping for a coalition government. If anything, having this issue resolved probably makes it easier for him to make a decision.
I thought that Hamid Karzai relegated that to his brother so that he didn’t get his hands dirty. It’d be strange to get the goods from Hamid rather than Ahmed.
He could appoint Orly Taitz as a special envoy to Afghanistan, with a mandate to locate Karzai’s birth certificate.
I understand her calendar just opened up…
Obama is screwed. McCrystal originally wanted 85,000 troops. He probably figured that was too many. He pared it down to 45,000. It seems more reasonable, but it is not. We outnumber the enemy by 12 to one now. But in America when a general asks for more troops, he gets them. They always ask for more troops. If we just leave, the goofballs will say we left when we could win. We can not afford to waste more treasure and lives in a losing cause. But, if we get attacked at home it will be Obamas fault. He is forced to the wrong thing whether he likes it or not. We are broke. we have problems were. We can not keep doing this crap. Every escalation involves an equal number of contractors. We are talking about a lot of money here. And it is doomed to failure.
I assume you don’t remember our late success in Iraq? Also if we can just contain Al-Qaeda and reduce the violence by a fraction the treasure spent will be worth it.
I think the US is going to try to get Abdullah in the government in some way and then try to pretend the half cooked mess is a legitimate government.
Iraq success? Please elaborate with cites.
And no - ‘success’ dos not mean a country that had no Al-Q in the first place now having al-Q ‘contained’ while still being on the path to a 3-way civil war with Iran and its allies still immeasurably strengthened and the govt was having its people and buildings blown up on a regular basis.
And in Afghanistan you conveniently overlook the analysis that it is our presence causing the violence. I know this is a difficult concept - but people, especially Afghan - Islamic Afghans at that - don’t like being invaded as they see it, by a Christian army.
Violence in Iraq has gone down to previously unimagined levels and is now less violent than Mexico. Please do not reject reality.
Do the majority of the Afghans prefer to be under the Taliban? :dubious: Also in northern Afghanistan they are fairly pro-American and anti-Taliban; it’s southern Afghanistan that’s the big problem. Also what do you suggest we do? Give up and surrender in Afghanistan giving Al-Qaeda a massive propaganda coup and destroying US morale? A second Vietnam? Geez, how well Vietnam went after we withdrew. If we needed to station 250,000 US troops in Vietnam up till now and carpet bomb Hanoi every six months so be it but I will oppose surrender.
And the cites?
and Vietnam did just fine it seems to me. And I’d take you more seriously if I thought you understood that Al-Q and the Taliban are not the same.
And your opinion of how Vietnam should have been handled would make you a war criminal and marks you as a savage.
Do you think war is a sport or something?
I suspect that violence in Iraq was almost non existent until we invaded the place, for no reason and with no planning other than some idiotic pipe dream that the citizenry would rise up and worship us as semi-divine liberators. You might consider that AQ had no presence in Iraq until we made their presence possible.
They’re not the same but they should both be eradicated. After all Stalinism and Nazism are two different ideologies but both should have been eradicated.
I was exaggerating but President Ford did not even I dunno give weapons aid, zip, zilch, nada.
Well we are in Iraq anyways, after all, we cannot change History so what do you propose we do? :dubious:
Opinion confirmed. Age no excuse.
And you do realise there was no such country as South Vietnam right? That is was created by the USA to stop Ho winning the democratic elections agreed in the treaty that ended the indo-china war?
And that South Vietnam was a brutal corrupt incompetent kleptocratic dictatorship (rather like the current illegitimate regime of the Mayor of Kabul)?
In short - your lack of any sort of knowledge of either current realities or past circumstance should stop you from embarrasing yourself further. But I’m guessing it won’t.
Still waiting on those cites also.
And as for not propping up an illegitimate regime with no support in the end days - another good call. It would have done no good. It would have been better to have stood by the Geneva Accords in the first place and never intervened.
I propose we get the hell out and let those folks decide their own fate.