Chris, you don't like me or my posts so give it a rest mate, it's boring.
Actually, Tez, I'm indifferent to you. If you post about something and I disagree (or agree) with it I'm perfectly capable of posting since this is a public forum.
Life in Iraq infinitely worse now, it's a matter of scale. No one said Saddam was great or even alright but he was a non religious buffer. Our 'allies' the Turks also kill and persecute the Kurds, nothing said about that.
So, since people haven't invaded Turkey they shouldn't have invaded Iraq? Is that what you're saying? This is a serious question because this statement of yours isn't clear to me.
You can't involve yourself in every possible conflict in the world. A country has limited resources and there will be some conflicts that simply will be unwinable. The people who are in the government are generally the ones who have to exercise prudential judgments about which conflicts - if any - the country gets involved in. They generally have more information on the matter than a private citizen. If people don't like enough of their decisions they can be, at least in the U.S. and other democratic countries, voted out of office.
Karzai is corrupt through and through.
And here in the real world you don't get to deal with angels all the time. He was probably the best we were going to get in Afghanistan. It was him of the Taliban.
He doesn't care who'd in charge as long as it's him, he's long been an Al Queda sympathiser, you can't blame Obama for that.
What I "blame" Obama for is stuipidly insulting Karzai to the point where he feels he has little if any support from the U.S. and so will be much more willing to cozy up to al-Qaida. Foreign policy isn't exactly Barak's strong suit, as he continues to demonstrate since day one (how's that bust of Churchill look back at 21 Downing St or wherever you guys stashed it since he threw it back in your faces?).
Obama is being honest and there's little point in him not telling the truth.
And his honesty is going to have severe consequences. For all his lip service about diplomacy he's demonstrated he has no idea what he's doing in that area.
While the government, police (they are very corrupt, we work with them out there, untrustworthy and mostly druggies) and army in Afghan is corrupt it's a waste of breath trying to even think there's going to be a decent standard of living or democracy there. Karzai is an example of evrything wrong about that place.
Oh, for the good old days of the Taliban! You're really beginning to sound a bit like people who would say "At least the made the trains run on time!" when talking about Mussolini.
Most of the Al Queda terrorist cells are in Pakistan and Kashmir not Afghanistan, they are training Muslims from the UK and the States then sending them back.
So, we should have invaded Pakistan? Or Kashmir? because either one of those areas would've been better to fight a war in? Conflicts there would've been more winable?
Entering any conflict is a matter of prudential judgement based on your ability to win (aming other things). Pakistan in ostensibly a U.S. ally, despite Obama's statement that he would invade it. That is generally frowned upon by people who are allies. YMMV But, again, remember that behaviors - even "diplomatic" statements like that one - have consequences.
New strategies and fresh thinking are needed on the terrorist situation, we aen't going to stop them by being in afghan.
Perhaps not, but Afghanistan was never supposed to be a one size fits all theatre of operations.
Pax,
Chris
. 
