Democracy means voting for your friendly neighborhood dictator

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/as...ion/index.html

Well, at least that's what NATO seems to be saying now. Abdullah Abdullah backed out, now the Afghan people gets to vote on a mighty one candidate... Fortunately, that candidate is the one we're backing, so it still counts as democracy!!1

Withdraw the troops, I say. I see absolutely no reason why they should continue killing Afghani civilians when all they're doing is ensure that true democracy remains an illusion in Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/as...ion/index.html

Well, at least that's what NATO seems to be saying now. Abdullah Abdullah backed out, now the Afghan people gets to vote on a mighty one candidate... Fortunately, that candidate is the one we're backing, so it still counts as democracy!!1

Withdraw the troops, I say. I see absolutely no reason why they should continue killing Afghani civilians when all they're doing is ensure that true democracy remains an illusion in Afghanistan.

---

It is very disappointing to see some people entrenched in the power with all the negative effects of it. But it is not surprising.

The whole idea of spreading democracy by force seems strange and unpracical. You can take freedom of the people by force but you can not make them free by force. In addition, NATO could have played their cards far better and to be more careful to the native people. For many of them, NATO is nothing but just another occupator ==> some support the Talibans, which I consider to be quite unappealing regime for my taste. To make the things worse, Afghanistan has always been more like a confederation of clans rather than a true state. :wall:

I really do not know what is the best policy in this case (withdrawing or not). Something must be changed but I do not think USA chose the right way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

It is very disappointing to see some people entrenched in the power with all the negative effects of it. But it is not surprising.

The whole idea of spreading democracy by force seems strange and unpracical. You can take freedom of the people by force but you can not make them free by force. In addition, NATO could have played their cards far better and to be more careful to the native people. For many of them, NATO is nothing but just another occupator ==> some support the Talibans, which I consider to be quite unappealing regime for my taste. To make the things worse, Afghanistan has always been more like a confederation of clans rather than a true state. :wall:

I really do not know what is the best policy in this case (withdrawing or not). Something must be changed but I do not think USA chose the right way.

---

That we still support Karzai shows clearly that our mission is not to bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan, but rather to install a puppet in control. The democracy thing has just been a PR-stunt.

If we actually were serious about freedom and democracy, of course we wouldn't support Karzai anymore, he's a bloody cheat and has no right to be in the position he is anymore. We don't support Putin, do we? And Putin actually has the real support of a majority of the russian people, something this idiot does not.

It is a mess. Dr Abdullah pulling out of the (re)ellection, after his accusations of fraud essentially catalysed the recount and review of corruption, has further undermined any efforts to give legitimacy to Afghan democracy in the eyes of everyone, most importantly the Afghans.

Why has he pulled out now? Same reason Karzai eventually agreed to allow the second stage vote: Dr Abdullah simply doesn't have the public support to beat Karzai in an election -however open, free and fair. Dr Abdullah's best and only hope of gaining any power is a deal with Karzai.

Eh, you only really know if you live in a democracy if you can chuck the buggers out.

We aren't there to bring democracy, why some even play with that idea is beyond me. Taliban can eventually overpower Pakistan, they have unlimited funds because of the opium-trade, do we think that is a very good idea. They have to go. Why? Because we can. Why not. Don't want to wake up in a nuclear wasteland not taking any chances.

Legalise opium - suddenly less money for the Taliban.

Overrun Pakistan? Please! Every coutry has infinite money It's called taxes. You make it sound that the Taliban have some printing machine that others don't have.

Afghanistan is a mess, always was and might always be. Who gets elected to look after that wasteland is not my concern. Why should be get tarred with this country imploding?

Pakistan is also a mess, but it is in a position to be able to use some aid and support in a meaningful manner.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Legalise opium - suddenly less money for the Taliban.

Overrun Pakistan? Please! Every coutry has infinite money It's called taxes. You make it sound that the Taliban have some printing machine that others don't have.

Afghanistan is a mess, always was and might always be. Who gets elected to look after that wasteland is not my concern. Why should be get tarred with this country imploding?

Pakistan is also a mess, but it is in a position to be able to use some aid and support in a meaningful manner.

~:smoking:

---

All of that is true of course, call me nuts, but this isn't something we have dealt with before, I think we can expect extremely irrational actions because we are dealing with a religion here, and they won't play by our rules. On a scale of 1 to 10 how likely do you find it the Taliban will salaam a nuke, I have no idea but even such a scale is unacceptable to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

It is a mess. Dr Abdullah pulling out of the (re)ellection, after his accusations of fraud essentially catalysed the recount and review of corruption, has further undermined any efforts to give legitimacy to Afghan democracy in the eyes of everyone, most importantly the Afghans.

Why has he pulled out now? Same reason Karzai eventually agreed to allow the second stage vote: Dr Abdullah simply doesn't have the public support to beat Karzai in an election -however open, free and fair. Dr Abdullah's best and only hope of gaining any power is a deal with Karzai.

---

Finding out who has the most popular support in Afghanistan is quite simply impossible, due to the extreme amounts of cheating done by Karzai.

The Taliban get about 33% more money from foreign donations, than from the opium trade. Freeze the accounts, and you freeze the Taliban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

The Taliban get about 33% more money from foreign donations, than from the opium trade. Freeze the accounts, and you freeze the Taliban.

---

How will that matter, when the Afghani's still live in a dictatorship?

I was just referring to the comments about Opium further up the page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

How will that matter, when the Afghani's still live in a dictatorship?

---

What if they want to live in a dictatorship?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

What if they want to live in a dictatorship?

---

In that case they lack education, enlightenment and a SOUL!:sweatdrop:

We're talking at sixes and sevens here.

Afghanistan is an artificial construct, delineated as usual by an imperial marker pen. There's at least six major ethnicities. It is a feudal society.

The "democracy" people are used to is that of the strong man who, through force of arms and patronage, secures his community's support. This is rooted in tribal relationships.

Karzai (now confirmed as "re-elected") has a writ that barely covers Kabul. He spent a great deal of money and favour getting enough warlords from the North on side to bring an election victory and thus four more years of pocket lining. Just as in our own ancient times, you buy the warlord, you buy his community.

There can be, will be no democracy as we in the West understand it. There can only be opportunities for Karzai and his favoured henchmen to continue to get rich, and pass laws against women that would make the Taliban blush. By the way, the Taliban are another amorphous group of common interests, this time united by religious fanaticism. They don't hold much sway in the north, but are gaining ground there (terrifying the locals) as they are increasingly rich and are seen as a good focus for a fight.

The US president and others must know this. They must be entirely aware that shedding blood to nation-build such a place is the dictionary definition of futile. President Obama's so-called "dithering" is a tacit recognition that any plan to have the Afghans develop enough to run their own affairs in the way the West wants is doomed. But it's actually easier to let more young men die that to admit how horrendously wrong all this has been. This is also a sobering motif from history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

The Taliban get about 33% more money from foreign donations, than from the opium trade. Freeze the accounts, and you freeze the Taliban.

---

Hmm, that is not what I read in the Economist, Time, or any other article. They all said, IIRC, that the vast majority of funds come from poppy fields. I would appreciate a citation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Hmm, that is not what I read in the Economist, Time, or any other article. They all said, IIRC, that the vast majority of funds come from poppy fields. I would appreciate a citation.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009092602905

Quote:

---

The CIA recently estimated that Taliban leaders and their allies received $106 million in the past year from donors outside Afghanistan.

---

Quote:

---

The U.S. military has estimated that the Taliban collects $70 million annually from poppy farmers and narcotics traffickers. The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, which monitors opium production, earlier projected that the Taliban and its affiliates earned as much as $400 million a year from the drug trade. The agency later revised the figure sharply downward, to about $100 million a year

---

Ahh, I see. Well, I suppose then you are correct, or at least mostly so. The funding is about half and half, with the drug production most likely being the past major source of funding, but now, with the prominence Taleban receives today coupled with anti-drug operations means that their drug revenues are going up and the donations are, if anything, either increasing or staying the same. Thus, I would not be surprised if the donations surpassed the drug revenues.

Karzai is the lesser of the multitude of evils that can take power in Afghanistan. As such, he should be given some support as a counterbalance to the Taliban. As bad/corrupt as he is, he's still an angel compared to Mullah Omar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Karzai is the lesser of the multitude of evils that can take power in Afghanistan. As such, he should be given some support as a counterbalance to the Taliban. As bad/corrupt as he is, he's still an angel compared to Mullah Omar.

---

Are you sure this lesser evil is really needed? Don't you think this choice can backfire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

Are you sure this lesser evil is really needed? Don't you think this choice can backfire?

---

Anything can backfire, but leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban vultures is *guaranteed* to backfire.

Didn't the Taliban used to shoot farmers/terrorise them against doing poppy fields?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Anything can backfire, but leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban vultures is *guaranteed* to backfire.

---

My question was: do you think Karzai is able to stop the Talibans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Didn't the Taliban used to shoot farmers/terrorise them against doing poppy fields?

---

When they were in power, yes. Now they desperately need money, and as we say, "when the need is strong enough, the devil eats flies".

Anyway, it's not just the Taliban in the Afghani heroin trade. Removing the Taliban won't reduce the heroin exports, all it will do is make Karzai's comrades the only ones profiting from it. No wonder why Karzai wants the Taliban gone, eh? More money for him if they disappear...

And this is the guy we're supporting.

Honestly i would have left afghanistan and concentrate on iraq. More important of the tow and more easily won. While i support the afghanistan war i think it is veryyyyy hard to win there. Especially with a president who takes so long to make decisions and doesn't listen to his generals.

They are withdrawing from Iraq, because iraq is apparently tamed now. They might be putting those that were stationed in Iraq in Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

My question was: do you think Karzai is able to stop the Talibans?

---

Hell no. That's why we should stay there.

I think Banquo's Ghost sums up the situation quite well.

Installing a Western style democracy would probably involve eliminating the Taliban; "neutralizing" the present warlords...and their clique...to the 3rd generation; imposing the "rule of law" through martial law (at least initially); finally getting the remaining ppl to agree that all of the above was a swell idea and for their good really...

Of course the above prescription ignores any thought of the legitimacy of the regime in the eyes of the ppl it was imposed upon. We can work that out over time...(return to beginning of process)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

I think Banquo's Ghost sums up the situation quite well.

Installing a Western style democracy would probably involve eliminating the Taliban; "neutralizing" the present warlords...and their clique...to the 3rd generation; imposing the "rule of law" through martial law (at least initially); finally getting the remaining ppl to agree that all of the above was a swell idea and for their good really...

Of course the above prescription ignores any thought of the legitimacy of the regime in the eyes of the ppl it was imposed upon. We can work that out over time...(return to beginning of process)

---

What gives us the right to do that? Considering the massive effort involved there are many other countries who'se problems are tiny in comparison and the money would be better spent removing corruption, improving facilities, siting clinics etc etc - all the same things, without the fighting and the bombing - and genuinely wanted by the locals!

When the rest of the world is a Utopia, then we can try to sort out the willfully backward, barbaric corrupt dumps.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

When the rest of the world is a Utopia, then we can try to sort out the willfully backward, barbaric corrupt dumps.

~:smoking:

---

The problem is that this willful, corrupt barbarism has a tendency to spread like an infectious disease. For example, if we withdraw from Afghanistan, then the Taliban after overpowering the regime in Kabul, will turn its eyes outward, to Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc. We are basically containing a fire so that it does not engulf the entire region.