Okay... first you say Cass thinks it shouldn't be done. Now you say Cass thinks it can't be done. Which is it?
Same difference as far as I'm concerned. It shouldn't be done because the Afghani government can't possibly plan into the future. For whatever dumbfuck reason you want to believe. Come on. Keep on evading.
Then english wasn't your strong subject, I take it. Nope, you're seeing this in black and white. Cass is seeing this in the gray, in that wont be easy, perhaps (maybe) not even possible, but it's still worth trying.
It is a black and white issue....if you're talking about making progress even in the face of terrorism. There is NO OTHER WAY. Now if you want to make a claim that planned cities don't work because, well they don't work, fine....but claiming that they can't work because the Taliban will get pissed off is ridiculous. And you know it, so I have no idea why you keep evading the issue. Did Cass send you nude pictures or something?
Sigh. You know, this whole 'defending' Cass at all costs issue has become ridiculous. She SAID it can't be done. Go read the OP again.
If I say "The dog needs a bath, but he really hates to have a bath," does that mean "I can't give the dog a bath"?
I think they're just trolling now. No matter how many times you show that post to either of them....they just keep evading the issue.
Poor comparison. What will the dog do? Shoot back, blow shit up, kill innocent civilians like Cass alleges that the Taliban would do if Afghanistan started planning '30' years into the future?
Okay.... Do you realize that a proper plan has to take expected variables into account? Do you realize that the Taliban, with their hatred of progress and their tendency to blow things up, are an unstable variable? Do you understand how it's difficult to create a proper long-term plan with an unstable variable in the mix?
Stop extrapolating. Look at the sentence objectively. "If I do this, X will get pissed." Doesn't matter who or what "X" is. You are NOT saying "I can't do this."
You don't say. You mean like they're blowing things up now? Why would it get any worse if Afghanistan laid a foundation down for the future? Each year the Taliban makes a push to drive the allied forces back, and each year they lose thousands of fighters, ground, equipment, etc, etc. How much longer do you think they're going to keep that up? 30 years? God forbid that Afghanistan, you know the government that actually runs the country has an objective viewpoint on the situation, unlike you, and wants to plan into the future because they feel security won't be a concern. There is no unstable variable in the plan. The Taliban are not going to be around forever to blow shit up.
'X' is already pissed off. Doesn't mean that Afghanistan can't still make progress. They've been doing it for the past 7 years.
Because they'd have a big shiny target to focus their energy on. Terrorism is all about symbolism. Remember the Twin Towers? Dunno. Why don't I have an objective viewpoint? They don't need to be around forever to muck up a 30 year plan.
Personally, I don't think the Taliban can keep up the attacks for 30 years. They are already stretched thin, and their numbers dwindle severely every time they are attacked. Sooner or later, you run out of manpower and/or money to fund these attacks. 5 years, possibly, 10 years, mot likely. I highly doubt they can keep sending suicide bomber after suicide bomber for the next 30 years.
Probably not, unless they succeed in recruiting new members. One of the numerous advantages of developing the region economically is that you create jobs and give these otherwise aimless young men not only an income, but something to do besides blow things - and themselves - up. However, in the start-up phases, given the present condition of the country, you'll be dealing with sabotage, and attempts to threaten workers, etc.
You're shitting me right? The Taliban has lots of shiny targets to blow up. All of which the Taliban has at one time or another said they want to blow up. Well come on, why haven't they? That about sums up the whole thread. Because you seem to having a fucking problem with the Afghanistan making progress, even at the cost of human life. Well considering they can't even 'fuck' up the places they already have SAID they want to fuck up, I doubt they'll even pose a minor problem in the future.
According to 14thDoc, Garamet and Cass....they can. I think the US, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Australia and everyone else involved in rebuilding the country should just leave. And all the private organizations that have sent their people over to help rebuild the country, they should leave too. Clearly risking human life to make progress can't be done.
No it can't. Considering that the Taliban does NOT have the resources to even damage a fucking dam, I doubt they could screw up something of this magnitude. You're really grasping at straws now though.
You haven't gotten to deductive versus inductive reasoning yet, have you? I keep forgetting how young you are, because you're able to hold your own better than some of the folks here who are twice your age. But... Is it possible for you to make "X" something other than "the Taliban"? Anything at all? Because the reason you're misunderstanding the statement here is that you're fixated on one specific, particular example rather than grasping the generality of the concept.
A target that's a perfect symbol of the West? What the fuck are you babbling about? I want Afghanistan to make progress. I used to work with a bunch of Afghans, they were good people. I think their homeland deserves a real chance after getting fucked over for so long. I support Canada staying in Afghanistan as long as it takes to get the job done, and although it sucks when our troops die, I believe it's worth the cost. What I have a "fucking problem" with is you jumping all over Cass because you seem to be looking for a fight, to the extent that you're seeing outrageous statements where none exist. The twin towers disagree.
Why should I make it anything else besides the Taliban? We're talking about the threat they pose to Afghanistan. Plus, our idea of 'X' doesn't fight back if you do something that it hates. So your comparison is invalid. The idea is that the Taliban may fight back....but the damage they'll be able to do with be so minimal that keeping up with the progression won't be a problem. Seriously, Afghanistan has so many projects on the go right now that the Taliban have expressed interest in blowing up, yet they can't. Every year they make the same push, and every year they get pushed back and lose even more ground. Plus, both France and the United States have sent even more troops over there, and Canada has recommitted itself(IIRC) for a few more years. At least till 2012 if I remember properly. So at this point you're looking at a terrorist group that is already in a big disarray.....and to think that they'll actually be able to impede progress to the point where Afghanistan should seriously considering not planning ahead into the future? Thats just stupid. Even stupider is the fact that both of you are either intentionally trolling, or you're both too dumb to understand that. Quit looking at Afghanistan as some third-world shit house that is going backwards.
