Lee Kuan Yew in 2009 on US intervention in Afghanistan

chatugakgb

Well-known member
  • Sep 11, 2017
    439
    624
    93


    A dozen years ago, journalist Charlie Rose asked Singapore’s first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew about the role of the United States in the Middle East. Lee made these points:
    1. The United States can’t create an artificial country in Afghanistan. Lee said, “Trying to make a country out of Afghanistan is a distraction. There was no country for the last 30 or 40 years. They have just been fighting each other since the last King was chased out. How on earth are you going to put these little bits together? It’s not possible.”

    2. Just because the US helped overthrow the Taliban, it didn't mean that the US had to govern Afghanistan. Lee said, “I’m not an expert. But in my simple mind, it strikes me that you won in Iraq and you won in Afghanistan not because you fought the Taliban, but because you got the Northern Alliance to fight them. You provided the Northern Alliance with intelligence and capabilities to bomb them.”


    3. Rose then pointed out that the US had to stay on in Afghanistan, because the Afghans had problems governing themselves. Lee said, “That’s all right. That’s their problem. Why do you want to make it your problem?”

    4. Afghanistan isn’t important, in the grand scheme of things. Lee said, “I see the imbroglio in Iraq and Afghanistan as distractions. It’s not going to change the world, what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    5. So what is important? Lee said, “The main changes are taking place in China and India. It’s a watershed. The world order we knew was dominated by the Caucasian peoples. The 20th century was the American century. The first half of the 21st century will be the American. But I believe in the second half, they will have to share top places with China and India.”

    Lee was interviewed while in the US. He was there because Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke and others wanted to consult him. Many people wanted to hear from Lee because he was seen as an unbiased elder statesman. He would just tell it like it is, and never take sides with any superpower.
    Lee’s non-partisan analysis was straightforward: the Afghanistan situation distracted the US from focusing on the real issue, which was the rise of China and India.
    Lee said that the US was a “benign stabilizing force” in the world. But he also reminded them, “You can’t solve all the problems in the world.”
    He reminded the US, "The 21st century will be a contest for supremacy in the Pacific. That’s where the growth will be. If you cannot hold your ground in the Pacific, you cannot be a world leader."
    Today, in the midst of the US pullout from Afghanistan, it’s sobering to reflect on Lee's thoughts. To Lee, this always had to happen: the US would have to leave, and allow Afghanistan to solve its own problems. There are more important issues to focus on.
     

    tharakaf

    Well-known member
  • Oct 19, 2020
    2,066
    4,367
    113


    A dozen years ago, journalist Charlie Rose asked Singapore’s first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew about the role of the United States in the Middle East. Lee made these points:
    1. The United States can’t create an artificial country in Afghanistan. Lee said, “Trying to make a country out of Afghanistan is a distraction. There was no country for the last 30 or 40 years. They have just been fighting each other since the last King was chased out. How on earth are you going to put these little bits together? It’s not possible.”

    2. Just because the US helped overthrow the Taliban, it didn't mean that the US had to govern Afghanistan. Lee said, “I’m not an expert. But in my simple mind, it strikes me that you won in Iraq and you won in Afghanistan not because you fought the Taliban, but because you got the Northern Alliance to fight them. You provided the Northern Alliance with intelligence and capabilities to bomb them.”


    3. Rose then pointed out that the US had to stay on in Afghanistan, because the Afghans had problems governing themselves. Lee said, “That’s all right. That’s their problem. Why do you want to make it your problem?”

    4. Afghanistan isn’t important, in the grand scheme of things. Lee said, “I see the imbroglio in Iraq and Afghanistan as distractions. It’s not going to change the world, what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    5. So what is important? Lee said, “The main changes are taking place in China and India. It’s a watershed. The world order we knew was dominated by the Caucasian peoples. The 20th century was the American century. The first half of the 21st century will be the American. But I believe in the second half, they will have to share top places with China and India.”

    Lee was interviewed while in the US. He was there because Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke and others wanted to consult him. Many people wanted to hear from Lee because he was seen as an unbiased elder statesman. He would just tell it like it is, and never take sides with any superpower.
    Lee’s non-partisan analysis was straightforward: the Afghanistan situation distracted the US from focusing on the real issue, which was the rise of China and India.
    Lee said that the US was a “benign stabilizing force” in the world. But he also reminded them, “You can’t solve all the problems in the world.”
    He reminded the US, "The 21st century will be a contest for supremacy in the Pacific. That’s where the growth will be. If you cannot hold your ground in the Pacific, you cannot be a world leader."
    Today, in the midst of the US pullout from Afghanistan, it’s sobering to reflect on Lee's thoughts. To Lee, this always had to happen: the US would have to leave, and allow Afghanistan to solve its own problems. There are more important issues to focus on.
    We will have to spend another few centuries to be led by a leader like this. Look at how he talks. How much meaning is there in what he says. Then go and watch one of our political discussions on TV.
     

    chatugakgb

    Well-known member
  • Sep 11, 2017
    439
    624
    93
    We will have to spend another few centuries to be led by a leader like this. Look at how he talks. How much meaning is there in what he says. Then go and watch one of our political discussions on TV.
    smart leader. leaders like Lee Kuan Yew hard to find.
     

    Bounty_Hunter

    Well-known member
  • Apr 18, 2015
    593
    965
    93
    Lee Kuan Yew is an American loving puppet, that how singapore staying top of the world. The moment he criticizes the US thats the point signapore starting to going down. Look how he addressed the US intervention in global politics, he said US is a "benign stabilizing force", and said russian forces are ruthless and china is a worthy member. see the difference?
     
    • Wow
    Reactions: TCB Rox

    chatugakgb

    Well-known member
  • Sep 11, 2017
    439
    624
    93
    Lee Kuan Yew is an American loving puppet, that how singapore staying top of the world. The moment he criticizes the US thats the point signapore starting to going down. Look how he addressed the US intervention in global politics, he said US is a "benign stabilizing force", and said russian forces are ruthless and china is a worthy member. see the difference?
    he thinks about Singaporean citizen in global level. that's why he is a smart leader. no need to worry about hurt the feelings of russia and china. keep your country grow in the time of global economics and politics works.
     

    tharakaf

    Well-known member
  • Oct 19, 2020
    2,066
    4,367
    113
    Lee Kuan Yew is an American loving puppet, that how singapore staying top of the world. The moment he criticizes the US thats the point signapore starting to going down. Look how he addressed the US intervention in global politics, he said US is a "benign stabilizing force", and said russian forces are ruthless and china is a worthy member. see the difference?
    No one gives a shit about if you are been a puppet or not as long as your country is going in the right direction. Singapore is a country that relies alot on other countries in a smart way. Unlike SL who is Chinas favorite whore.
     

    Bounty_Hunter

    Well-known member
  • Apr 18, 2015
    593
    965
    93
    he thinks about Singaporean citizen in global level. that's why he is a smart leader. no need to worry about hurt the feelings of russia and china. keep your country grow in the time of global economics and politics works.

    No one gives a shit about if you are been a puppet or not as long as your country is going in the right direction. Singapore is a country that relies alot on other countries in a smart way. Unlike SL who is Chinas favorite whore.
    Just stating the facts here ban. i dont give a shit about being puppet or not. These are interesting leaders and interesting strategies. Just see how US allies are more developed and RF allies are struggling, importantly Chinese allies are getting stronger and stronger, thats why he said US must see China as a worthy member and must share places with Chian and India. He even knows its China-India leading the future.