Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Whatever happened to Afghanistan?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Whatever happened to Afghanistan?

    Why don't we ever hear about Afghanistan in the news anymore? What's going on there, is everything pure bliss? Bush went in there on his cowboy horses, and rid the country of the evil Talebans. What did he put in their place? I mean, even by his own vision?

    Could it look like Bush is just a candyfloss cowboy, riding into any country in the Middle East, and knowing that the UN will do its best to clear up the mess he left in his wake?
    "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

  • #2
    from the little I've gleaned/read, I believe it's pretty dire. Women's rights still in the dark ages despite the fact the Taleban have gone (although they're still out there and fighting back). Brutal war criminals like Dostum given ministerial positions etc.
    Pilger wrote a bit about Afghanistan in "the new rulers of the world" I think (my momery's awful), although it's slightly out of date now.

    Comment


    • #3
      The Taliban is operating again, even though it isn't in control of the government, and the coming elections are looking a little grim for supporters of the present regime.

      The war in Afghanistan is apparently hard to fight, because the enemy only engages on their terms. The great manhunt is still active, but I think OBL may know the US Army is trying to find him.

      Recently, however, the war in Afghanistan returned to the US news, but only because troops may be shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. It is interesting that the war that directly resulted from 9/11, the war that was supposed to address the first front of the war on terrorism (whatever that really means) seems so unimportant politically and militarily.

      Of course, I know you asked the question rhetorically, Jagged (and with the great style of your namesake).

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Doc
        It is interesting that the war that directly resulted from 9/11, the war that was supposed to address the first front of the war on terrorism (whatever that really means) seems so unimportant politically and militarily.
        That's what I keep saying, and all I get back from conservatives is, "The war in Iraq is justified," and "Where would you have us look for Osama?" Cop outs. No one ever actually comes out and admits that finding the guy responsible for 9/11 is less important than beating Iraq into submission.
        "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
        --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

        Comment


        • #5
          I agree, PWV. It has turned into the ultimate bait-and-switch. Sadly, many people have fallen for it. There are many people, including people on this board, who have mistakenly linked the war in Iraq directly to 9/11. OBL, not Saddam, was responsible for those events.

          Comment


          • #6
            And even the arguments that Saddam was financing Osama (Har, as if he needed it.) were shown to be complete BS.

            "Bait and Switch" Yes, that's exactly what it was. We have laws against it when it comes to doing business but not, evidently, when it comes to war.
            "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
            --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

            Comment


            • #7
              Why is this an issue? Not that I don't agree with you, but why didn't ONE of the 525-odd Congressman vote NO on the grounds that we haven't finished the job in Afghanistan? I know the first response, "GWB Is the Commander-in-Chief and he should have never even proposed the idea..." Yada Yada Yada. Bottom line is he did. And the system is designed to protect those ideas that sound good in theory but aren't good in practice.

              The great thing, that people often forget, is that all this could have happened WITHOUT Bush. If Congress voted to go to Iraq and foresake Afghanistan it could have done so with or without Bush or Kerry.

              But that's not a good soundbite.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm not disagreeing with you at all, Bill. Nowhere did I blame Bush for this. But since you brought it up...

                Although Congress is ultimately responsibie and culpible, it would be hard for anyone to convince me that Bush wasn't the lead salesperson for the bait-and-switch. He has carried the message proudly. He has claimed the Iraq war as his own. He is also the person who insists on continually changing his own message about justifying that war, even if he believes he isn't changing his actual justification.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I forgot to add what is maybe most pertinent...

                  Why have the news media stopped talking about all of this? They've talked more about a very old war in the last six weeks much more than the two current ones.

                  Until the 1000th service member killed milestone made the news, when did we have any real details about what was happening on the ground in Iraq? When was the last time we had any news at all about what was happening in Afghanistan, war or otherwise? Where are the embedded reporters now?

                  I know that these are rhetorical questions.

                  For some perspective, three Sunni cities are out of the control of the interim Iraqi government, but a Pentagon spokesperson said that US forces were doing nothing about it until the Iraqi army could participate, which would be sometime around the middle of November or early December. How convenient that the actual combat of war won't muddy up the Presidential election.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bill
                    Why is this an issue?
                    Well, good ole Georgie went into Afghanistan. Then he went into Iraq. At the peak of his popularity, he offered quite distinct intentions of riding into another Arab country.... so I think it's fair to ask about the results of his previous campaigns.
                    "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      "Well, good ole Georgie went into Afghanistan. Then he went into Iraq. At the peak of his popularity, he offered quite distinct intentions of riding into another Arab country.... so I think it's fair to ask about the results of his previous campaigns."

                      Not alone, and not without the full support of the U.S. Congress (including one member who is hoping to unseat President Bush).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bill
                        "Not alone, and not without the full support of the U.S. Congress
                        Ooops, sorry Bush. You have backup from ninconpoops in the Congress.
                        "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "Ooops, sorry Bush. You have backup from ninconpoops in the Congress."

                          What kind of comment is that? You either argee with the system or you don't. As somebody else said here, you don't throw out the process just because you don't like the results.

                          Or maybe you do. But that isn't what we are talking about in November, is it?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Bill
                            Not alone, and not without the full support of the U.S. Congress.
                            He said (yet again), fully ignoring Doc's comment: "Although Congress is ultimately responsibie and culpible, it would be hard for anyone to convince me that Bush wasn't the lead salesperson for the bait-and-switch."

                            So Congress, given the same false information Dubya was snowed by, votes to go to war with Iraq. Fine. It isn't completely Bush's fault. But I have to wonder where we would be right now had we attacked the correct country (Saudi Arabia) or tried a little harder in Afghanistan instead of wasting our time and money in that huge cluster-f*ck known as Iraq.

                            Sorry, but I can't see a war as justified just because Congress made misinformed decisions. Hmmmm, maybe the UN was actually the smart one in that debate? Perhaps Congress should have listened to them?
                            "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                            --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              "correct country (Saudi Arabia)"

                              Whoa; when did we all agree that the nationality of a terrorist was enough to attack that country?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X