Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) - View Single Post - Leaders in tribal borderland threaten to send fighters to battle U.S. in Afghanistan

Zarathustra · 09-16-2008, 05:21 PM

Rocky,

You make many valid points, the best of which is questioning why we should be there. I still think your analysis, with respect, is too black and white, when the situation there is 99.99% gray. These are the most fiercely independent peoples on the planet. The only foreign power to successfully control that region for any lenth of time was Alexander the Great, and that eroded swiftly with his death. The British, the Russians, and now the U.S. have all taken their turns failing there. The Ahfgans don't want us there. The Pakistanis don't want us there. The tribal peoples in the middle don't want us there.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you stated that we leave them to themselves (forgive the paraphrase), because that WILL happen at some point in time. The question is how long we continue to provocate in an area where nations hold stocks of nuclear weapons, and will certainly use them before they see an American air force base in the middle of their country (my supposition).

In my opinion, and mine only at this point, is that the U.S. /Pakistani alliance did not deteriote because Musharaff left the scene, but that Musharaff left the scene because the U.S. /Pakistani allaince deteriorated.

Again, when you look at this in the context of the events in Georgia and Russia's response, the circling of the wagons by the Latin and South American countries, it seems clear to me that the world outside of North America and Western Europe is sending a clear message to the U.S. - the plan of hegemony has failed.

I think events will occur shortly that will clarify this further.

09-16-2008, 05:21 PM	#8
Zarathustra Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Eastern U.S. Posts: 429	Re: Leaders in tribal borderland threaten to send fighters to battle U.S. in Afghanis Rocky, You make many valid points, the best of which is questioning why we should be there. I still think your analysis, with respect, is too black and white, when the situation there is 99.99% gray. These are the most fiercely independent peoples on the planet. The only foreign power to successfully control that region for any lenth of time was Alexander the Great, and that eroded swiftly with his death. The British, the Russians, and now the U.S. have all taken their turns failing there. The Ahfgans don't want us there. The Pakistanis don't want us there. The tribal peoples in the middle don't want us there. I think you hit the nail on the head when you stated that we leave them to themselves (forgive the paraphrase), because that WILL happen at some point in time. The question is how long we continue to provocate in an area where nations hold stocks of nuclear weapons, and will certainly use them before they see an American air force base in the middle of their country (my supposition). In my opinion, and mine only at this point, is that the U.S. /Pakistani alliance did not deteriote because Musharaff left the scene, but that Musharaff left the scene because the U.S. /Pakistani allaince deteriorated. Again, when you look at this in the context of the events in Georgia and Russia's response, the circling of the wagons by the Latin and South American countries, it seems clear to me that the world outside of North America and Western Europe is sending a clear message to the U.S. - the plan of hegemony has failed. I think events will occur shortly that will clarify this further.