# Karzai Officially President! What Will Obama Do? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2009, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066 "2009-11-02T17:09:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/41 "2009-11-16T00:40:50Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Do you care about the people of Iraq? I think you see international politics (mostly warface) as a game, and you want to be on the biggest, strongest, baddest team. Both: I wish the United States of America to maintain global hegemony and for the condition of the people of the globe to improve. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/42 "2009-11-16T13:20:49Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Both: I wish the United States of America to maintain global hegemony and for the condition of the people of the globe to improve. You probably think that sounds like a nice wish, but what happens when those goals conflict? ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/43 "2009-11-16T14:20:04Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Both: I wish the United States of America to maintain global hegemony and for the condition of the people of the globe to improve. > [@Marley23](#): > > You probably think that sounds like a nice wish, but what happens when those goals conflict? When do they not? **Curtis** , I’m thinking a couple of tours as a drummer boy would broaden your perspective on US hegemony. Off duty, you could teach classes in comparative religion to the heathen. Your grasp of political and religious issues deserves a wider audience. Hide not your light. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/44 "2009-11-16T14:39:23Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > When do they not? The might converge in Iran, at least as far as a democracy movement goes. But any kind of hegemony does not promote freedom and better quality of life. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/45 "2009-11-16T14:56:11Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > 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 find your definition of ‘success on Iraq’ very puzzling. As other posters have stated, since the US invaded there have been hundreds of thousands of casualties, many terrorist bombings and shooting by the three rival factions and the infrasturucture has been wrecked. You sound like someone in Hiroshima on Tue Aug 7 1945 saying “Today was a successful day because far less people died than yesterday.” ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/46 "2009-11-23T00:47:29Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You probably think that sounds like a nice wish, but what happens when those goals conflict? It rarely does nowadays and if they do we must weigh the balance scale and carefully and rationally decide on the issue. > [@Marley23](#): > > The might converge in Iran, at least as far as a democracy movement goes. But any kind of hegemony does not promote freedom and better quality of life. If for instance the US was to maintain global hegemony and prevent wars would it not improve the entire world economically and also successfully pressure tyrannies to liberalize? > [@glee](#): > > I find your definition of ‘success on Iraq’ very puzzling. > > As other posters have stated, since the US invaded there have been hundreds of thousands of casualties, many terrorist bombings and shooting by the three rival factions and the infrasturucture has been wrecked. > > You sound like someone in Hiroshima on Tue Aug 7 1945 saying “Today was a successful day because far less people died than yesterday.” From the Allied Perspective on June 1st 1945 it would be far better then one year before for instance since they’re winning. Same thing here. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/47 "2009-11-23T02:24:35Z")
I was reading this weekend that we may have wasted 53 billion dollars in fixups and rebuilding in Iraq. We have built hospitals, water treatment plants and other new infrastructures. They don’t have the ability to run them or maintain them . The educated and professional classes ran when we started blowing the place up. Now they don’t have enough talent to keep it going. We could have used that infrastructure building right here. What a mess. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/48 "2009-11-24T08:21:14Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > It rarely does nowadays and if they do we must weigh the balance scale and carefully and rationally decide on the issue. That’s not much of an answer. > [@](#): > > If for instance the US was to maintain global hegemony and prevent wars would it not improve the entire world economically and also successfully pressure tyrannies to liberalize? Pretty much by definition, hegemony is about domination, not protection. So I don’t see that preventing a lot of wars. The U.S. has been the most powerful country in the world for more than half a century, and for about 20 years it hasn’t even had a significant rival, but it hasn’t been a particularly peaceful period in many parts of the world. There’s been liberalization in some places, but I can’t chalk that up to U.S. hegemony. As I was saying earlier, where liberalization has conflicted with hegemony - Africa and Latin America during the Cold War, for example - liberalization has been kicked to the curb. ---
**Author:** ![independentminded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed8c4c/32.png) [@independentminded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/independentminded)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/49 "2009-11-24T08:41:42Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > 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. Quite frankly, one doesn’t have to know an awful lot about what’s been happening to realize that Obama has screwed up big time on a number of things, including our Afghanistan situation, and the stimulus job program…well, I’m not so sure that it’s really working, given the fact that the economy is still in the dumps, and that many people are still unemployed and/or are losing their homes to foreclosure. He also caved right into AIPAC (The Israel Lobby), and began parroting their lines right then and there, instead of pressuring Israel to allow the Palestinians to create their own independent, sovereign nation-state alongside Israel in West Bank, Gaza and East Jerualem. What’s equally disgusting is that Obama hasn’t even so much as opened his mouth about what israel’s been doing in Gaza, either. Back to the subject of Afghanistan, etc., war is far too ingrained in the American psyche for us not to be at war, and it’s backfired on us in more ways than one. Obama should get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but I’m not sure he can be trusted to do that. Saying that he’s “forced to do the wrong thing whether he likes it or not” is not something that I buy into. Anybody who thinks that Obama is a socialist, imho, is full of baloney. He’s not even the next thing to it, imho. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/50 "2009-11-24T17:45:21Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That’s not much of an answer. > Pretty much by definition, hegemony is about domination, not protection. So I don’t see that preventing a lot of wars. The U.S. has been the most powerful country in the world for more than half a century, and for about 20 years it hasn’t even had a significant rival, but it hasn’t been a particularly peaceful period in many parts of the world. There’s been liberalization in some places, but I can’t chalk that up to U.S. hegemony. As I was saying earlier, where liberalization has conflicted with hegemony - Africa and Latin America during the Cold War, for example - liberalization has been kicked to the curb. Latin America has prospered under American domination after the Cold War. Indeed almost the entire world outside of Africa and parts of the Middle East are quite stable compared to the Cold War. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/51 "2009-11-24T18:09:27Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Latin America has prospered under American domination after the Cold War. “After the Cold War?” Since the Cold War ended there hasn’t been much in the way of domination. Since the Cold War ended it seems to me the U.S. has been increasingly getting the finger from Latin American countries. And that’s because when there _was_ domination, those countries did not do well. You may have noticed the crop of leftist leaders elected in that region over the last decade. > [@](#): > > Indeed almost the entire world outside of Africa and parts of the Middle East are quite stable compared to the Cold War. In other words, many of the places where the U.S. was involved (Africa and the Middle East) are some of the least stable places in the world. Must be a coincidence. I haven’t checked lately - how are things in Zaire? ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/52 "2009-11-24T18:10:41Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Latin America has prospered under American domination after the Cold War. Indeed almost the entire world outside of Africa and parts of the Middle East are quite stable compared to the Cold War. If you bothered to do a little research you’d find that anywhere we “dominate”, the indigenous, the poor and the environment suffer while the relatively few wealthy prosper. If you equate stability with repression, I suppose you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/53 "2009-11-25T02:05:33Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > “After the Cold War?” Since the Cold War ended there hasn’t been much in the way of domination. Since the Cold War ended it seems to me the U.S. has been increasingly getting the finger from Latin American countries. And that’s because when there _was_ domination, those countries did not do well. You may have noticed the crop of leftist leaders elected in that region over the last decade. If the Latin American communist symphatizers like Allende had triumphed in the '70s they might be Cuban allies by now and moderate socialists like Lula would be non-existant. > [@](#): > > In other words, many of the places where the U.S. was involved (Africa and the Middle East) are some of the least stable places in the world. Must be a coincidence. I haven’t checked lately - how are things in Zaire? Correction: A lot of places where the US didn’t intervene are unstable like Somalia (we should have sent a full Marine division and slaughtered the warlords), Sudan, or Rwanda. > [@adhay](#): > > If you bothered to do a little research you’d find that anywhere we “dominate”, the indigenous, the poor and the environment suffer while the relatively few wealthy prosper. If you equate stability with repression, I suppose you’re right. Oh really? Suppose the United States got taken over by a bunch of radical hippie social democrats and withdrew it’s troops from everywhere. Were that to happen someone will step into the power vacuum most likely China and/or Russia. If they dominated the world would it be a better place? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/54 "2009-11-25T05:52:48Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > If the Latin American communist symphatizers like Allende had triumphed in the '70s they might be Cuban allies by now Heaven forfend Cuba, a tiny country that’s been flat broke for decades, have some allies. It’d destabilize the globe I guess. In any case this proves what I said: Latin American democracy contradicted America’s views on its security, so the democracy had to go. That’s how it works with hegemony. You refused to deal with that earlier, and it seems like you don’t want to admit it. > [@](#): > > Correction: A lot of places where the US didn’t intervene are unstable like Somalia (we should have sent a full Marine division and slaughtered the warlords), Sudan, or Rwanda. That’s true. But I believe you were arguing that U.S. dominance promotes stability. The recent track record there is mixed at best, and I don’t think I need to say anything other than Iraq and Afghanistan to demonstrate it. If that’s not enough I could point out that things aren’t going very well in Pakistan - not a military intervention, but strong involvement by the U.S. Vietnam is stable, of course, but it’s stable and Communist, so I’m not sure that’s a good example for you. The Koreas are stable, but 50 years later that’s still a headache. And that’s not intended to be an argument against all international interventionism - but your take on it doesn’t come anywhere close to reality. You can’t want hegemony and what’s best for everyone else at the same time. > [@](#): > > Suppose the United States got taken over by a bunch of radical hippie social democrats and withdrew it’s troops from everywhere. I’d be worried about leprechauns taking my lucky charms. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/55 "2009-11-25T14:00:16Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > … > but your take on it doesn’t come anywhere close to reality. You can’t want hegemony and what’s best for everyone else at the same time. I keeping thinking that **Curtis** will have to come up for air at some point but, so far … > [@](#): > > I’d be worried about leprechauns taking my lucky charms. That’ll be happening about the time Wall Street and the “defense” industry grows a conscience. **Curtis** , a recent OP (mine) asked the question [How Did You Come By Your Political Opinions?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=533523) Your input there might help a lot us to understand your grasp of the world and our place in it. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/56 "2009-11-25T14:13:38Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > If the Latin American communist symphatizers like Allende had triumphed in the '70s they might be Cuban allies by now and moderate socialists like Lula would be non-existant. So what? It’s their country. No damn business of the USA how they govern themselves. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/57 "2009-11-25T14:49:14Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > So what? It’s their country. No damn business of the USA how they govern themselves. Communist! ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/58 "2009-11-25T23:12:13Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Heaven forfend Cuba, a tiny country that’s been flat broke for decades, have some allies. It’d destabilize the globe I guess. They do have allies: China, and until '91 the Soviets. Also they violated the Monroe Doctrine by allowing the Soviets to place their nukes on Cuba threatening the USA. > [@](#): > > In any case this proves what I said: Latin American democracy contradicted America’s views on its security, so the democracy had to go. That’s how it works with hegemony. You refused to deal with that earlier, and it seems like you don’t want to admit it. Well if it threatens American security the US is perfectly justifying to do whatever it fits short of war crimes. > [@](#): > > That’s true. But I believe you were arguing that U.S. dominance promotes stability. The recent track record there is mixed at best, and I don’t think I need to say anything other than Iraq and Afghanistan to demonstrate it. If that’s not enough I could point out that things aren’t going very well in Pakistan - not a military intervention, but strong involvement by the U.S. Vietnam is stable, of course, but it’s stable and Communist, so I’m not sure that’s a good example for you. The Koreas are stable, but 50 years later that’s still a headache. And that’s not intended to be an argument against all international interventionism - but your take on it doesn’t come anywhere close to reality. You can’t want hegemony and what’s best for everyone else at the same time. If there are instead many competing great powers like in pre-1914 Europe you have a very good recipe for a bloody war. And you’ve left off quite a few successful US interventions: Grenada, Panama, and of course Germany, Japan, and Italy after World War 2. > [@](#): > > I’d be worried about leprechauns taking my lucky charms. Well that’s what many are basically advocating. > [@tagos](#): > > So what? It’s their country. No damn business of the USA how they govern themselves. If their governments threaten American security or will be utterly terrible under the political regime…? ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2009, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/59 "2009-11-27T13:29:41Z")
Hamid Karzai ought to be concerned-witness the fate of the Diem brothers (as President Kennedy turned on them). Obama has been making noises about a “new” Aghanistan strategy-does this bode a future without Karzai? I seethe parallels with Vietnam as striking-the CIA may well be talking to some Afghan generals as we speak, and planning a coup. I wonder if Karzai has a villa and a cash stash in Switzerland?😕 ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066/60 "2009-11-27T15:28:38Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > If their governments threaten American security or will be utterly terrible under the political regime…? Still none of your goddam business until you start operating under a less hysterical definition. I assume you extend this right to the many nations whose ‘security’ is ‘threatened’ by the USA? As for the second part of your clause - that is simply self-serving nonsense. The USA has never had the slightest problem with the vile regimes it gets into bed with - often after turfing out perfectly palatable democratic governments. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karzai-officially-president-what-will-obama-do/516066.md?page=4)