"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:
The West invaded the Middle East for oil. Prior to the early 20th
century, the West had little interest in the Middle East, other than for
mutual, consentual trade. And even in the first half of the 20th century,
the money which oil brought into the Middle East was considered fair
compensation for our presence there. Until Western influence and ideals
began to seriously conflict with core Muslim beliefs.

Well I already anticipated this argument and addressed it before you said
it. Why did we invade Afghanistan then? And when you realize you can't
answer that, tag on the follow up question: Why are we still there
sacrificing American lives for the sake of establishing a democracy?

First, you reduce the equation too far when you assume that Afghanistan has
nothing to do with oil (or more precisely, power). The Trans-Afghanistan
Pipeline project has a great deal to do with America's interest in that
particular country. But the fact is that our original foray into Afghanistan
was viewed by virtually the entire world, including most of the Muslim
world, as being righteous. And as a matter of fact, I supported it until
that idiot Bush declared victory after three months and pulled out all but a
relative handful of troops and invaded Iraq.

That said, it is impossible for any occupying force to hold Afghanistan. The
more enemies we make there, the greater the insurgency will grow, to the
point that no amount of force will be able to hold it.


The militant extremists will always consider Western presence in Muslim
lands to be an occupation of those lands. When we put military might into
those lands, we only further this belief. "We will stop raping you when
you stop resisting." In what sane world does the one being raped not have
the right to resist?

Of course, most of the Afghanies hate the Taliban. They know the brutality
that comes with them. Most Afghanies want a democracy and want the US to
succeed in helping them establish that. The Taliban strategy is the same
one all Muslim extremists are using nowadays. Bomb, kill and terrorize so
many innocent citizens that they wish for the relative safety of the
brutal Taliban government instead of terrorism. And you think the US
should go ahead and let that happen? Weren't you just saying that you
agreed the US should stop them?

Stephen

We disagree on what should be done to "stop them." You view it as a military
problem -- kill them, and keep killing them until they stop fighting. I view
it as a cultural problem. When we stop meddling with affairs that the vast
majority of Americans cannot grasp, as they cannot empathize with any
world-view other than their own, things will improve on their own.

As for the Taliban, this would be the exact same group that the United
States nurtured and supported when Afghanistani mujahideen were fighting
against the evil Soviets. They were led by an individual called Osama bin
Laden. Of course, at that time we were also best buddies with Saddam
Hussein. And Saddam, bless his heart, was gassing kurds and killing Iraqi
revolutionaries at that time.

But who does the Taliban kill? Those who are supporting their enemies. Gee,
sort of like every other government on the planet. How are they any
different than the US, or Israel?