You mention a "concern", daggett.

>>One concern I have with Afghanistan is the seeming unpalatability of the alternative to the current Afghan Government, namely the Taliban<<

A genuine concern, I would suggest, particularly for anyone even vaguely interested in the rights of human beings to be treated with respect.

Do you have a view on how to square this particular circle?

Because frankly, I can't see an easy or immediate solution that would be any significant improvement over the - utterly ridiculous - situation that exists right now.

It's like many other religion-based struggles around the world, both past and present. It is difficult even to imagine an outcome where fairness and humanity prevails.

In my view, the entire US interference in Afghanistan was horrendously misjudged from the outset. However, since it is impossible to turn back the clock, we are forced to wrestle with the problem as it exists, and not as it might have been.

Raking over the coals in order to find and name a culprit is all very well for journalists and womens-rights lawyers. I'm sure it makes them feel very warm-and-fuzzy with virtue.

But it takes a little more than righteous indignation to solve the problem. Or even take baby-steps towards solving the problem.

Does anyone have any constructive suggestions?

Nope?

Didn't think so.

So, carry on waffling about who did what, and to whom.

I'm sure Afghani women are profoundly grateful, on a daily basis.

Pericles seems remarkably ready to accept the explanation of ineptitude, or "misjudge[ment]" as he puts it, for all that has gone wrong with US foreign and domestic policy - the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the chaos that followed the invasion of Iraq, US intelligence agencies allowing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board Flight 253 on Christmas Day last year and Afghanistan.

In Chapters 16 to 18 of "The Shock Doctrine" (2007) Naomi Klein shows how,if the US had wanted it, could have set up a stable democracy in Iraq following the invasion in 2003.

However, a stable democracy would have been an obstacle to the crony capitalists' plans to loot both the wealth of Iraq and the US Treasury, so elections were cancelled, bodies elected in elections held spontaneously after the invasion were dismissed and a dictatorship.

To the extent that the violence that ensued was not false flag terrorism directly carried out by the US and British or their patsies (see "Bin Laden's unpaid media push" discussion at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10018#161772), it would have been a result of this decision by the US occupiers.

I think it would be safe to also assume that if the US had wanted a stable democracy in Afghanistan they would have got one.

The outcome of supposed "misjudge[ments]" seem far more likely to me to have been what was intended by the US.

---

Anyway, unlike you Pericles, I am not interested in moulding reality to suit what would be most comfortable for me to believe.

I would like to be able to believe that those fighting the occupation of Afghanistan are fighting to bring into being a relatively just and humane society. However the evidence for and against that hypothesis seems contradictory and, no doubt, much of the story has been confused by newsmedia disinformation.

What can be certain is that the US has no intention of bringing into being a just and humane society in Afghanistan and that, in the longer term, Afghans stand a much better chance of bringing that about without the presence of the US and its allies.

(tobecontinued)

Occasionally, daggett, your contributions here are positively hilarious, bordering on comic genius.

You expend so much effort bending other people's posts to conform to your single-issue-fanaticism, the contortions alone are side-splittingly entertaining.

>>Pericles seems remarkably ready to accept the explanation of ineptitude, or "misjudge[ment]" as he puts it, for all that has gone wrong with US foreign and domestic policy - the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the chaos that followed the invasion of Iraq, US intelligence agencies allowing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board Flight 253 on Christmas Day last year and Afghanistan<<

The masterstroke here is of course is the way you allocate policy equivalency between a lone, would-be suicide bomber with exploding underpants, and 9/11, Iraq, and the US invasion of Afghanistan.

The really gut-bustingly amusing part, though, is that you are totally, deadly serious.

To you, there exists a seamless connectivity between a nutty Nigerian with combustible jocks, and two massive multinational troop mobilizations, plus a detailed, highly orchestrated plan to simultaneously hijack four commercial aircraft.

And that connectivity would appear to be that clandestine quasi-government agencies were responsible for both.

Such versatility. Such vision.

Don't stop, please. You're a hoot, every time.

Where can I vote for you? Queensland doesn't really need more comedians in Government. But you're something very special.

I await your next rib-tickling contribution with bated breath.

It is a pity that Pericles has not the facts to match his pseudo intellectual banter.Most of it is ad homenin with the barest of substance to back it up.

Daggett has more moral fibre than you will ever allude to in your wildest dreams.You think that Daggett is an easy target,like the wounded lion who seeks easy prey.Is it the mark of cowardice,or pragmatic survival Pericles?

Thanks for the moral support, Arjay.

In fact, dealing with Pericles' ad hominem posts is becoming an increasingly tedious chore for me, so I though I would leave it for a few days.

Still, I believe replacing lies, wherever they are found to be found, with truth is vitally necessary, so I was intending to post again in the near future.

I have no doubt that given time, Pericles will be running away with his tail between his legs as he has on every single past occasion in which we have crossed paths.

And thanks for the highly predictable comedy routine, guys.

First go to Tweedledum:

>>It is a pity that Pericles has not the facts to match his pseudo intellectual banter<<

The day either of you produce any facts to support your fantasies on "global bankster domination" and "9/11 was Bush's grand plan", will be the day the Lithgow Shamrocks win the AFL Grand Final.

>>You think that Daggett is an easy target,like the wounded lion who seeks easy prey.Is it the mark of cowardice,or pragmatic survival Pericles?<<

Neither, Arjay. I think of daggett as a self-promoting fruit-loop with a soap-box, and treat him with as little contempt as I can summon up in the face of such nonsense. Daggett a wounded lion? Give me a break.

And here's Tweedledee.

>>Thanks for the moral support, Arjay.<<

With friends like that, daggett...

>>I have no doubt that given time, Pericles will be running away with his tail between his legs as he has on every single past occasion in which we have crossed paths.<<

Your fantasies intrude far too much into your daily life, I'm afraid. Your tactics, which consist of endlessly cutting and pasting from other people's conspiracy sites, are designed to kill any discussion with tedious repetition.

As someone so succinctly reminded me recently:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" Samuel Clemens