Comments on: War & Peace: Afghanistan, the Soviets, winter & Tolstoy

By: SEO Expert

SEO Expert — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:53:17 +0000

Hi nice blog you should apply your blog on Shout Space

By: pandapatam

pandapatam — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:08:10 +0000

Dear Author subversify.com !
I apologise, but, in my opinion, there is other way of the decision of a question.

By: grainnerhuad

grainnerhuad — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:22:37 +0000

I am glad to see that halfway around the world I find myself agreeing with Anwaar and Agha. I do not see a short end to this, the land itself will become a player and America and Her cohorts should be peripherally involved.

My prefrence for involvment would be on a human level. If we make a larger attempt to continue to nurture the upcoming generation, especially the young women, but also the men who will marry them and make them aware of a world beyond the rough desert scrabbling that they know, to make them dream and feel that their dreams mean something, then change will be inevitable.

By: Astra Navigo

Astra Navigo — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:58:24 +0000

While lasting peace may be achieved through economic development (this, by the way, was the primary goal of the Marshall Plan, which was roundly ‘trashed’ by conservative elements in America at the time), there is another fact here – a nasty one – which has to be considered.

Religion.

Most people would prefer their own bad government to that of an outsider, even if they could make the trains run on time and keep the water running. American assistance in economic development would be viewed as the ’success’ of the ‘Crusaders’.

Further, while it’s possible to get people to fight for clean water and electric razors, it’s still necessary to get them to make a sacrifice in wartime – and the only way people have done that through the centuries is to believe they’ll go to a better place when they die, because what they are doing is legitimately Better Than The Other Guy.

You can make ‘em fight – but you can’t make ‘em like it – and you sure can’t make ‘em die for it – if ‘it’ is nothing more than economics.

By: karlsie

karlsie — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:45:10 +0000

A local news special announced that more Alaskan armed forces have been used in the Afghanistan war than were used during World War II or any time period since then. My initial distaste was for emptying out a population that is already rather small for the sake of cannon fodder. Your phrase, “Moreover, given South Waziristan’s terrain and the nature of the foe, a significant part of the militants’ strategy would be to encourage the military to penetrate deeper into the region i.e. farther up into the mountains, the favorite fighting ground of the militants, and then tie the soldiers down with hit-and-run tactics. That is likely to keep the soldiers engaged in a long-drawn-out operation in the unfriendly terrain over the winter,” added significantly to my distaste for the official news cast. It was written as though our young men should be praised for their valiant venture, when all it really meant was they had been hijacked for a losing battle because of their ability to withstand a rugged environment.

Peace cannot be achieved through force. It’s an oxymoron. Peace acquired through propaganda is a cheap and short lasting peace, as the evidence of its lies become apparent. America doesn’t have a special formula for peace keeping skills. It doesn’t even set a shining example of democratic unity. We have a home front that is sadly in need of care; a deteriorating infrastructure, a disparity between the need to set new energy technology into place, rebuild our sewers, clean our waterways, develop secure health and social programs, and the economic means to make this happen. We need to quit wasting so many of our resources on war and start doing what is necessary for our civilian population to survive.