I'm in complete agreement with your analysis, Vam. The approach to the whole Afghanistan situation has been deeply flawed, even if I remember thinking pre-9/11 that the Taliban were barbarous monsters and that it would be good of "someone" did something about them. Looking at what has been playing out since the twin towers fell makes me occasionally wonder whether the whole script hasn't been written by Bin Ladin.
The question Obama (and others) are faced with is what to do now... Francis On 8 Okt., 21:24, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > A lot seems to be missing in this particular discussion. > > 01 The West needs to realise that they are not capable of leading the > world in any real sense. It was not long ago that they were mass > killing other people, plundering the colonised economies and raping > the cultures in other lands. Much of what they do is guided by their > economic or technological power and definitely led by deeply > entrenched military - industrial - economic interests. Even the ' help > ' they extend is not without an eye on their own profit, establishing > their dominance and superiority over others. > > The West may not realise it, but there is a huge credibility issue > that remains. > > 02 If anything, what the West is actually doing is teaching other > nations to follow the policies and conduct that they themselves have > practised and continue to do so till date. That is, to gain power, by > hook or crook if need be ( Iran ) ; establish military - industrial - > economic empires ( Iran , North Korea , China , Pakistan ) ; > establish dominance and superiority over others, wherever possible > ( Pakistan over Afghanistan , China over minority ethnic populations > and over Taiwan , Cambodia , Vietnam , North Korea , etc.). > > The Al Quaida and the Taliban strategists are only following the same > valueless expedience, and they have their supporters, which the West > now denounces as their enemies ! > > 03 India saw through the ' bomb ' politics being played in the > international arena. So, it ramped up its technological learning, > especially after China was rewarded for its own. > > China proliferated, as a matter of state policy ; it has caused and > nurtured hostile environments around its perceived enemies including > Japan and India ; just a matter of time before the US gets actively > included. > > North Korea and Pakistan made proliferation a means to earn more, both > from the West and from other needy countries. > > India has no military - industrial - economic establishment. It has > never proliferated and has a declared ' no first use ' policy. It has > no ( modern ) history of dominating other nations militarily. It has > several faults and weaknesses, but not the slightest danger of being > overtaken by fundamentalist forces. > > On the other hand, Pakistan has a state policy of exporting terror, > strategically nurtured by its all - powerful military - industrial - > economic establishment. It organised the Taliban and actively > supported the overtaking of Afghanistan. It now exports terror to both > its western and eastern neighbour. > > India has put $ 1.2 billion in Afghanistan infrastructure, a fact that > makes Pakistan feel insecure. > > Both China and Pakistan are hubs of counterfeit goods and currencies > that they export. > > These are just glimpses of what the world has learnt from the West and > has become what it now is. How would you rate this kind of leadership > of the West ? > > 04 The best course for the US in Afghanistan would have been to gain > credibility and trust, through creating infrastructure and > institutions. But that doesn't happen in a year or two ! > > Instead, the US only came to exercise ' power.' Well, Ho Chi Minh won > against that. Others would too, if they are motivated enough. But, > would the West ever believe that about themselves, which it invariably > judges in terms of the power it can exercise over others ? > > On Oct 8, 11:01 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 8 Okt., 18:11, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > As to the Taliban and nukes, I guess I have missed this occurrence. Of > > > course, for years there were simple instructions on the web as to how > > > to produce nukes as well as books in libraries all over the world. It > > > is all too easy to acquire the materials to make such a thing. That > > > genie (Djinn) has long been out of the bottle. I have met the enemy > > > and it is us. A fine mess indeed! > > > The Taliban are no longer - indeed they never were - a purely Afghan > > phenomenon- Many of their roots, strongholds, and much of their > > support are across the border in Pakistan. This area is all part of > > the old Gunga Din "North West Frontier" and borders don't mean much to > > the inhabitants, where older familial, community, tribal and feudal > > structures were always much more important. General collapse, civil > > war and an increase of fundamentalist Islam in Pakistan is the real > > worry here. The idea of a resulting fundamentalist Taliban-like regime > > in part of a war-torn Pakistan is not far-fetched, and it is here that > > a real concern about nuclear weapons arises. The Pakistani army has > > nuclear weapons. So does India. There's something eerily prophetic > > about Neil's scenario. > > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
