Afghanistan

In my mind, whether troop withdrawal was done 10 years ago, today, or in 10 years time, this outcome was always highly likely.

Whatever the motive, whatever the ambition, whatever the obligation, whatever the objective, from the very start there was a distinct lack of understanding of the country and in particular of the Taliban.

There is loads now being mentioned about woman’s rights and all of that, but that’s not why Afghanistan was invaded. In fact it wasnt the regime itself that caused the invasion, directly at least. The aim was to stop the place being a haven for terrorism.

Despite the severe question of morality of allowing the Taliban to take over again with their archaic laws, all of this only ever came in to question when the mission turned from retaliation and clearing terrorism (whatever that even means), to being a “project” about rebuilding the society.

I wonder if, in some ways, trying to do too much is what has, in the end, led to this being such a devastating situation.

There is a huge amount to untangle when it comes to Afghanistan. And so many different angles to look at things. None of it which reflects well on anyone or any country or anything. I’m not sure if staying there and prolonging a false sense of victory in just delaying this moment into the future is right. But at the same time, the morality of what’s happening now is also difficult to stomach.

It’s just a total mess.
 
rotherham_red said:
Tbf, all that you mentioned in the boldened didn't stop the Saudis having those rules in place for as long as I've known it. I distinctly remember going there in 2005 and having the feeling that all the rules and regulations placed upon women in particular were no different to the rules and regulations that the West were decrying the Taliban for.

The only difference was, that one was sitting in the Americans' good books, and the other, didn't.
Click to expand...

I think an important point though is that the invasion wasn’t because of the Taliban. For 5 years no one did anything. No one cared. It only became a subject when it was clear Afghanistan was where the mastermind of 9-11 was running his group.

Yes, you’re right that Saudi gets away with it partly because of its US relationship, it’s money, and it’s relative importance in politics in the Middle East. But then the invasion of Afghanistan wasn’t about any of that in the first place.

Sadly it became about that when the occupation lasted 20 years and the purpose became increasingly grey.
 
rpitroda said:
In my mind, whether troop withdrawal was done 10 years ago, today, or in 10 years time, this outcome was always highly likely.

Whatever the motive, whatever the ambition, whatever the obligation, whatever the objective, from the very start there was a distinct lack of understanding of the country and in particular of the Taliban.

There is loads now being mentioned about woman’s rights and all of that, but that’s not why Afghanistan was invaded. In fact it wasnt the regime itself that caused the invasion, directly at least. The aim was to stop the place being a haven for terrorism.

Despite the severe question of morality of allowing the Taliban to take over again with their archaic laws, all of this only ever came in to question when the mission turned from retaliation and clearing terrorism (whatever that even means), to being a “project” about rebuilding the society.

I wonder if, in some ways, trying to do too much is what has, in the end, led to this being such a devastating situation.

There is a huge amount to untangle when it comes to Afghanistan. And so many different angles to look at things. None of it which reflects well on anyone or any country or anything. I’m not sure if staying there and prolonging a false sense of victory in just delaying this moment into the future is right. But at the same time, the morality of what’s happening now is also difficult to stomach.

It’s just a total mess.
Click to expand...

This largely describes how I feel. You're right that we didn't go in to protect women's rights or any other social cause, nor is it the only country in the world where those issues exist to this extent, but that doesn't mean it isn't gut wrenching now to know that life is going to get worse for a lot of Afghan women and it's hard to read the human stories and know we're just abandoning them to that and the likely unpicking of progress in areas like girls' education.

I think the only option if a presence had stayed would be to maintain air strikes for a significant amount of time (probably at least another decade) until whole generations had got used to the Afghan government and felt that was the best future for their country (which of course might never have happened, but I don't think 20 years is actually all that long to destroy and rebuild a state and expect people to be invested in it).

Even if withdrawal is the right approach, it's been handled terribly. It's been too sudden and clearly the Taliban were hugely underestimated by western intelligence services, which is bizarre given a number of commentators who know the country well were warning they thought the Taliban takeover would be swift and inevitable, so whilst this is probably quicker than anyone predicted, it wasn't totally unpredictable. Now we're scrambling to get people out safely and faffing around with pointless charades like recalling Parliament.

I've been feeling pretty helpless about the whole thing so just donated to Turquoise Mountain who are helping with humanitarian aid out there (see link on Rory Stewart's Twitter). I'm not sure how much they can do in these circumstances, but if it can help anyone it will be worth it. I thought others may like to consider donating too if they're feeling similarly and can afford to.
 
Agent Red said:
This largely describes how I feel. You're right that we didn't go in to protect women's rights or any other social cause, nor is it the only country in the world where those issues exist to this extent, but that doesn't mean it isn't gut wrenching now to know that life is going to get worse for a lot of Afghan women and it's hard to read the human stories and know we're just abandoning them to that and the likely unpicking of progress in areas like girls' education.

I think the only option if a presence had stayed would be to maintain air strikes for a significant amount of time (probably at least another decade) until whole generations had got used to the Afghan government and felt that was the best future for their country (which of course might never have happened, but I don't think 20 years is actually all that long to destroy and rebuild a state and expect people to be invested in it).

Even if withdrawal is the right approach, it's been handled terribly. It's been too sudden and clearly the Taliban were hugely underestimated by western intelligence services, which is bizarre given a number of commentators who know the country well were warning they thought the Taliban takeover would be swift and inevitable, so whilst this is probably quicker than anyone predicted, it wasn't totally unpredictable. Now we're scrambling to get people out safely and faffing around with pointless charades like recalling Parliament.

I've been feeling pretty helpless about the whole thing so just donated to Turquoise Mountain who are helping with humanitarian aid out there (see link on Rory Stewart's Twitter). I'm not sure how much they can do in these circumstances, but if it can help anyone it will be worth it. I thought others may like to consider donating too if they're feeling similarly and can afford to.
Click to expand...

There were US/Nato troops still stationed in Bosnia almost a decade after the civil war and ethnic cleansing was ended. They were there for the purpose of peacekeeping operations which they then handed over to the European Union. The whole situation in Afghanistan is even more of a farce when compared to the handling of that particular conflict.

I don't know whether Biden was trying to get brownie points for being the president who brought the troops home but the reverse is going to happen. My expectation was he would organise an strategic withdrawal which at least will buy time to hold back the taliban enough to get all his people out and allow as many Afghans as possible to seek refuge.
 
Agent Red said:
This largely describes how I feel. You're right that we didn't go in to protect women's rights or any other social cause, nor is it the only country in the world where those issues exist to this extent, but that doesn't mean it isn't gut wrenching now to know that life is going to get worse for a lot of Afghan women and it's hard to read the human stories and know we're just abandoning them to that and the likely unpicking of progress in areas like girls' education.

I think the only option if a presence had stayed would be to maintain air strikes for a significant amount of time (probably at least another decade) until whole generations had got used to the Afghan government and felt that was the best future for their country (which of course might never have happened, but I don't think 20 years is actually all that long to destroy and rebuild a state and expect people to be invested in it).

Even if withdrawal is the right approach, it's been handled terribly. It's been too sudden and clearly the Taliban were hugely underestimated by western intelligence services, which is bizarre given a number of commentators who know the country well were warning they thought the Taliban takeover would be swift and inevitable, so whilst this is probably quicker than anyone predicted, it wasn't totally unpredictable. Now we're scrambling to get people out safely and faffing around with pointless charades like recalling Parliament.

I've been feeling pretty helpless about the whole thing so just donated to Turquoise Mountain who are helping with humanitarian aid out there (see link on Rory Stewart's Twitter). I'm not sure how much they can do in these circumstances, but if it can help anyone it will be worth it. I thought others may like to consider donating too if they're feeling similarly and can afford to.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It’s horrible to see. But sadly, I also don’t see how it wasn’t inevitable.

And it’s just a cluster feck. Ignoring the first dubious decision when this turned from retaliation to reconstruction (I say dubious not because I disagree with the morality or principle of it, dubious because clearly no one truly understand what it actually meant and how to actually succeed), it just doesn’t make sense.

If the aim was to turn this county into a democracy and into a place of proper human rights, why is everyone not surprised the Taliban is now taking over? Contradiction. Why has the Taliban grown so significantly in the last few years? The two don’t marry up. If you knew when you left the Taliban would just take over, then what was everything being done for in the first place? And if you didn’t know or didn’t expect it, then how is that even possible given how significantly they’ve grown? Yes the advance has been significant the last few days, but it’s false to not say this hasn’t been happening the last few years. The Taliban had already been extending its reach.

Husy a whole bunch of contradictions from start to finish.
 
rpitroda said:
I think an important point though is that the invasion wasn’t because of the Taliban. For 5 years no one did anything. No one cared. It only became a subject when it was clear Afghanistan was where the mastermind of 9-11 was running his group.

Yes, you’re right that Saudi gets away with it partly because of its US relationship, it’s money, and it’s relative importance in politics in the Middle East. But then the invasion of Afghanistan wasn’t about any of that in the first place.

Sadly it became about that when the occupation lasted 20 years and the purpose became increasingly grey.
Click to expand...
With respect, I'm not arguing the merits or demerits of the invasion, that particular rodeo has been ridden over and over again in this thread.

My post was particularly focused on Raoul's assertion that a potential dialling of the clock backwards on human rights would be a potential cause for renewed focus from the West. The Saudis have one of the most educated and young populations in the Middle East, and have done for at least the last 30 years. That didn't stop these archaic laws on gender inequality to come to pass and more importantly, be sustained. Even now, with MBS apparently being the moderniser that the West held him up as.

My view is that if the Taliban have the regional powers onside, I'm talking China, Iran, and Russia here, heck even just ignoring Iran and Russia, if they just have China onside, they'll be secure.

And from what people who know the situation well are saying, it seems that this seems to be the case with Iran and China. So this dialling back the clock (if it even happens, which I personally doubt) won't be too much of an issue for them.
 
Boycott said:
There were US/Nato troops still stationed in Bosnia almost a decade after the civil war and ethnic cleansing was ended. They were there for the purpose of peacekeeping operations which they then handed over to the European Union. The whole situation in Afghanistan is even more of a farce when compared to the handling of that particular conflict.

I don't know whether Biden was trying to get brownie points for being the president who brought the troops home but the reverse is going to happen. My expectation was he would organise an strategic withdrawal which at least will buy time to hold back the taliban enough to get all his people out and allow as many Afghans as possible to seek refuge.
Click to expand...

In fairness to Biden, he didn’t initiate this process. It was actually Trump. He carried on with it though, so he’s also accountable.

But for many years, even since his time as VP, he has been pushing for withdrawal. So I don’t think this was some kind of play for his image as president. I do think he has wanted this for a long time.

Not saying it’s right or wrong. But I genuinely don’t think this is a political move for him.
 
DavidDeSchmikes said:
Click to expand...


This guy Jordan Uhl is really disingenuous. If you look at his past tweets he had been bashing Biden for not pulling out fast enough or even doubting whether he actually was genuine about withdrawing because it wasn't going fast enough. People like him are the kind of guys who are the loudest in online circles about ending wars as if it can be done overnight with a signature.
 
rotherham_red said:
With respect, I'm not arguing the merits or demerits of the invasion, that particular rodeo has been ridden over and over again in this thread.

My post was particularly focused on Raoul's assertion that a potential dialling of the clock backwards on human rights would be a potential cause for renewed focus from the West. The Saudis have one of the most educated and young populations in the Middle East, and have done for at least the last 30 years. That didn't stop these archaic laws on gender inequality to come to pass and more importantly, be sustained. Even now, with MBS apparently being the moderniser that the West held him up as.

My view is that if the Taliban have the regional powers onside, I'm talking China, Iran, and Russia here, heck even just ignoring Iran and Russia, if they just have China onside, they'll be secure.

And from what people who know the situation well are saying, it seems that this seems to be the case with Iran and China. So this dialling back the clock (if it even happens, which I personally doubt) won't be too much of an issue for them.
Click to expand...

I probably read your post out of context - sorry.

I don’t know what “renewed focus” from the West means.

I do think that human rights alone will not result in any significant action from the West. You’ll get the usual messages and statements of condemnation across the board, but like many other countries, it won’t lead to much else.

My only “hmm” thought about it is that Afghanistan is slightly different. Because of what’s happened over the last 20 years, it has a certain prominence and image impact in the West. This adds a wrinkle, not sure how much though.
 
Boycott said:
This guy Jordan Uhl is really disingenuous. If you look at his past tweets he had been bashing Biden for not pulling out fast enough or even doubting whether he actually was genuine about withdrawing because it wasn't going fast enough. People like him are the kind of guys who are the loudest in online circles about ending wars as if it can be done overnight with a signature.
Click to expand...

There are very very very few people in the US who haven’t been calling for an end and complete withdrawal of troops. Largely veterans and precious generals and the like.

But in typical American political fashion, people will show a different colour like a fecking chameleon.
 
Boycott said:
There were US/Nato troops still stationed in Bosnia almost a decade after the civil war and ethnic cleansing was ended. They were there for the purpose of peacekeeping operations which they then handed over to the European Union. The whole situation in Afghanistan is even more of a farce when compared to the handling of that particular conflict.

I don't know whether Biden was trying to get brownie points for being the president who brought the troops home but the reverse is going to happen. My expectation was he would organise an strategic withdrawal which at least will buy time to hold back the taliban enough to get all his people out and allow as many Afghans as possible to seek refuge.
Click to expand...

As others have pointed out, I think Biden has been consistent on his position of bringing troops home (I think it was something he and Obama disagreed on) but I'm not convinced it's the right decision and certainly think it has been executed dreadfully. I also find it odd when he's interviewed that he talks about Afghanistan as though he is being asked to consider the case for invasion now ('we can't go into every country that has human rights issues') rather than acknowledging that the US did go in twenty years ago, and therefore now bears some responsibility for the future of the state.

To be honest I've always had reservations about how good a president Biden would be and think he largely benefit from Trump being so awful that people were just hugely relieved he wasn't re-elected. I haven't followed US politics much since the election, but I don't think he's handled this at all well and if Trump was still in power I think the clamour would be a lot louder.

I hope Britain takes in refugees from those who helped us in particular. If we don't it isn't just morally wrong but sends a terrible message to potential future allies about whether they can rely on us or not. There's quite a few Tory backbenchers campaigning for it, so hopefully that might sway the government's normally very tough position on asylum and immigration.
 
rpitroda said:
In fairness to Biden, he didn’t initiate this process. It was actually Trump. He carried on with it though, so he’s also accountable.

But for many years, even since his time as VP, he has been pushing for withdrawal. So I don’t think this was some kind of play for his image as president. I do think he has wanted this for a long time.

Not saying it’s right or wrong. But I genuinely don’t think this is a political move for him.
Click to expand...

Pushing for withdrawal is one thing but the manner of how it has been executed is another. People are comparing this with Vietnam. The US citizens were protesting and calling for an end to the bombings and military invasion of Vietnam for several years before they pulled out but it didn't stop the images of the fall of Saigon and people desperately trying to flee even more tragic. He is going to take a hit for botching this up. Canada announced 20,000 refugees will be taken in. The US should take in substantially more. If they don't because it is logistically now impossible to get those people out or to find a temporary host nation to accommodate them nearby then there is no honour in the exit because it's abandoning the citizens including many who helped the US over these years.

In my opinion the biggest mistake was announcing a deadline which allowed the Taliban the opportunity to wait it out before taking over. And it puts extra pressure on the people on the ground whose own lives are on the line to do all the tasks they need to an arbitrary deadline set by suits in an ivory tower. It's true Trump initiated for an earlier deadline but it would have been the same situation and the Taliban had already started to indicate they would break from the deal just weeks afterwards.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/4/5/taliban-warn-deal-with-us-in-afghanistan-near-breaking-point
 
Boycott said:
Pushing for withdrawal is one thing but the manner of how it has been executed is another. People are comparing this with Vietnam. The US citizens were protesting and calling for an end to the bombings and military invasion of Vietnam for several years before they pulled out but it didn't stop the images of the fall of Saigon and people desperately trying to flee even more tragic. He is going to take a hit for botching this up. Canada announced 20,000 refugees will be taken in. The US should take in substantially more. If they don't because it is logistically now impossible to get those people out or to find a temporary host nation to accommodate them nearby then there is no honour in the exit because it's abandoning the citizens including many who helped the US over these years.

In my opinion the biggest mistake was announcing a deadline which allowed the Taliban the opportunity to wait it out before taking over. And it puts extra pressure on the people on the ground whose own lives are on the line to do all the tasks they need to an arbitrary deadline set by suits in an ivory tower. It's true Trump initiated for an earlier deadline but it would have been the same situation and the Taliban had already started to indicate they would break from the deal just weeks afterwards.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/4/5/taliban-warn-deal-with-us-in-afghanistan-near-breaking-point
Click to expand...

I mean, I don’t disagree with you at all. The execution has been poor and that’s primarily on Biden. But that wasn’t what your (or my) previous posts were about.
 
Surely no sane, honest person would argue that Biden hasn't handled this horrendously? Just a few weeks ago he was asserting that what's happening right now wouldn't happen, even as there were multiple reports of advisers within his own administration cautioning that it would. He also seemed intent to frame it as if the US was being being asked to commit its armed forces to address some new problems rather than having responsibility for the mess it ploughed itself into over the last 20 years.

Even if you accept that a full withdrawal was necessary, the way this has turned out is a massive scale foreign policy humiliation for the Biden administration.
 
Its amazing the concept on the XXI century that a country can invade another and get away with it
 
Raoul said:
Why do you find it amazing ? Its literally how the world is set up.
Click to expand...

Well, I never heard that casual sentence when you criticized russia for invading crimea. Probably this american hypocrisy is what amazes even more
 
4bars said:
Well, I never heard that casual sentence when you criticized russia for invading crimea. Probably this american hypocrisy is what amazes even more
Click to expand...

The world is a dominance hierarchy. Russia can invade whoever they want. If the US disagrees with this, they can sanction them economically, which is precisely what happened. The more powerful the nation state, the more they can do whatever they want.
 
Raoul said:
The world is a dominance hierarchy. Russia can invade whoever they want. If the US disagrees with this, they can sanction them economically, which is precisely what happened. The more powerful the nation state, the more they can do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

Oh so you are justifying the american position as a bully. Then alright. Im glad that now you clarified your position. Not morality but I am the strongest and feck you if you dare to do what I don't like
 
4bars said:
Oh so you are justifying the american position as a bully. Then alright
Click to expand...

Its just the way power works in an anarchic international system. It will remain this way until there's a world government, which won't happen anytime soon.
 
Raoul said:
Its just the way power works in an anarchic international system. It will remain this way until there's a world government, which won't happen anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Ok, as I said, thanks for clarifying
 
Boycott said:
Pushing for withdrawal is one thing but the manner of how it has been executed is another. People are comparing this with Vietnam. The US citizens were protesting and calling for an end to the bombings and military invasion of Vietnam for several years before they pulled out but it didn't stop the images of the fall of Saigon and people desperately trying to flee even more tragic. He is going to take a hit for botching this up. Canada announced 20,000 refugees will be taken in. The US should take in substantially more. If they don't because it is logistically now impossible to get those people out or to find a temporary host nation to accommodate them nearby then there is no honour in the exit because it's abandoning the citizens including many who helped the US over these years.

In my opinion the biggest mistake was announcing a deadline which allowed the Taliban the opportunity to wait it out before taking over. And it puts extra pressure on the people on the ground whose own lives are on the line to do all the tasks they need to an arbitrary deadline set by suits in an ivory tower. It's true Trump initiated for an earlier deadline but it would have been the same situation and the Taliban had already started to indicate they would break from the deal just weeks afterwards.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/4/5/taliban-warn-deal-with-us-in-afghanistan-near-breaking-point
Click to expand...

Agreed. The deadline was basically a date for the Taliban to move forward and a device that would demoralize the Afghan Army into believing defeat was inevitable. Biden wanted to end it all by Sep. 11th as a PR victory, and wound up with a PR and humanitarian disaster.
 
Yes the buck stops with him but surely it is his military and intelligence advisors who are the ones briefing him. Either they fecked up or he completely ignored all their advice. Having been a VP I do not think he would have completely ignored their advice.
 
Raoul said:
I doubt the gains in various freedoms can be reversed. Too many females have gone to school over the past 20 years and are now employed and earning money to support their families. The Taliban (this version of them at least) will have to evolve their views a bit to compensate for this, or else deal with more resistance from the public against a backdrop of knowing their policies will be instensely scrutinized by the world on social media. This applies not only to education, but also women walking around without a male relative, wearing Burcas, media freedoms etc.
Click to expand...

It has already happened before.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47032829
 
Most likely, the taliban will create an authoritarian system that will suppress women just as from 1996-2001 and all gains in freedoms will be reversed. Their world view is pretty clear and they will enforce it with violence. No doubt about that. Everyone but the taliban is completely fecked in Afghanistan, but women in particular. They're facing hell on earth soon.
 
What would have been the correct thing for Biden to? With hindsight. What should he have done differently? Is there anything he could have done besides reversing decision to leave?


(im generally curious to know as i have very little knowledge on the subject compared to most posters in here and im just trying to learn more)
 
ChaddyP said:
What would have been the correct thing for Biden to? With hindsight. What should he have done differently? Is there anything he could have done besides reversing decision to leave?


(im generally curious to know as i have very little knowledge on the subject compared to most posters in here and im just trying to learn more)
Click to expand...

I don't think at the stage when he came into office he could have done much differently to be honest. Maybe take more care of the americans and the afghani collaborators like translators, guides and the likes in Afghanistan when the end of occupation was clear and close. Read lots of news about the latter being sort of left behind.
 
Every president from Bush to Biden via Obama and Trump should have handled the interpreters and refugee claims better. But allowing them in would actually bring the war home in a way it never was, and would be an easy talking point (can't keep your allies safe, allowing Muslims in, etc). For the withdrawal, I think Biden deserves criticism over this aspect.

For the rest, the speed of the Taliban takeover is proof that whether the war was 10 years or 40, it was lost. So it was the right decision from Trump and then Biden.
 
ChaddyP said:
What would have been the correct thing for Biden to? With hindsight. What should he have done differently? Is there anything he could have done besides reversing decision to leave?


(im generally curious to know as i have very little knowledge on the subject compared to most posters in here and im just trying to learn more)
Click to expand...

There was just one mistake and was going there on the first place. 20 years had been lost, lives had been lost, trillions had been lost. All that could be invested with another approach. they are worse now that if nothing had been done. Invading Afghanistan because a terrorist attack was perpetrated by Saudis individual was wrong. Invading Afghanistan because it was the first step to invading Iraq with more future lies, was wrong, Invading Afghanistan because Bush had the lowest ratings before 11-S was wrong. Invading Afghanistan to create a new enemy to curtail freedoms in America and other countries through fear was wrong, Invading Afghanistan because disrupting the area because oil was wrong. Invading Afghanistan because 'Murica' was wrong. Invading Afghanistan because women rights was right, but that was never the case, we all know

After this huge blunder, there was nothing that Biden could be done, or next president or next. It was continuing with the invasion to fail once they withdraw, leaving was the best because the sooner US left, the sooner a better approach can start with a country and region that is culturally different and needs something else that the western democracy can offer
 
Sky1981 said:
You gotta wonder how shit the training is, corrupt or no corrupt weak or strong, 20 bloody years of full course American training and they collapse faster than France against "goat herders" with AK.

83 billion wasted, could have gone into infrastructure back home.
Click to expand...
One has to wonder if it wasn't 83 billion to pay them off to be on our side for the time being.
 
Sky1981 said:
You gotta wonder how shit the training is, corrupt or no corrupt weak or strong, 20 bloody years of full course American training and they collapse faster than France against "goat herders" with AK.

83 billion wasted, could have gone into infrastructure back home.
Click to expand...

dont you think quality of training and the likes is completely irrelevant when the decision makers basically decide to concede?
 
4bars said:
There was just one mistake and was going there on the first place. 20 years had been lost, lives had been lost, trillions had been lost. All that could be invested with another approach. they are worse now that if nothing had been done. Invading Afghanistan because a terrorist attack was perpetrated by Saudis individual was wrong. Invading Afghanistan because it was the first step to invading Iraq with more future lies, was wrong, Invading Afghanistan because Bush had the lowest ratings before 11-S was wrong. Invading Afghanistan to create a new enemy to curtail freedoms in America and other countries through fear was wrong, Invading Afghanistan because disrupting the area because oil was wrong. Invading Afghanistan because 'Murica' was wrong. Invading Afghanistan because women rights was right, but that was never the case, we all know

After this huge blunder, there was nothing that Biden could be done, or next president or next. It was continuing with the invasion to fail once they withdraw, leaving was the best because the sooner US left, the sooner a better approach can start with a country and region that is culturally different and needs something else that the western democracy can offer
Click to expand...
So would you say short term this is obviously a lot of pain and a culmination of nad prior decisions, but ultimately the best course of action at this time since it would eventually happen anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.