====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Bottom line, talk about talking out of your behind-- do you support immediate withdrawal of US/Nato troops from Afghanistan? Do you support continued presence of US military forces, private and government in Afghanistan? And where did you get your 70% figure? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <[email protected]> To: "David Schanoes" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Afghanistan > ====================================================================== > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > ====================================================================== > > > So because you convinced yourself that I am talking out of my behind, > you thought you had license to do so as well? Do you really expect > people to take you seriously? And if they do, what does that say about > them? > > Yes I think many people are worried about who will take up the struggle > against the Taliban offensive once NATO leaves. > > Juan Cole is making the argument that given the constraints of domestic > politics and the nationalist concern with the safety of US and Western > troops, NATO cannot carry out the struggle effectively, and with respect > to the civilians of Afghanistan (for example as a cost cutting measure > Bush and Rumsfeld encouraged Karzai to shore himself up by making > alliances with war lords, as Ahmed Rashid has shown in detail and as > Obama has in fact criticized...though this may in fact not change). > > > Now you with your memories of the 80s are not concerned about the > Taliban offensive since you think we shouldn't be offending the > Russians. Or perhaps you think the Taliban don't really exist (or you > have forgotten about the rising attacks in Pakistan and the terrorism > all over the world) or perhaps you have kept yourself ignorant of the > probable effects of a jihadist victory on fundamentalism throughout the > world, the pressures on the Pakistani state or the lives of India's > Muslims. > > Without much argument you assert that NATO can play no role in thwarting > their offensive, but you don't say who could. There's another pipe dream > that if India makes concessions on Kashmir, the ISI will help contain > the Taliban. But the point is that a sovereign Afghanistan is probably > going to have stronger ties with India with its six percent growth and > high tech economy than Pakistan. > > Also what would have increased is the number of innocent civilians that > the Taliban has killed were it not for the successful offensives against > them. It's truly tragic that such an offensive had not been taken > against Lashkar-e-Taibi. > > Rakesh >> > > > ________________________________________________ > Send list submissions to: [email protected] > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
