Printable View
Sociologically the explanation for this is very easy. People in the cities are thrust together with a lot of diversity of background, religion, viewpoint and national origin and choice of lifestyle, and have to tolerate it. Rural areas tend to be homogenous, resist and encounter changes much more slowly, and are more fearful of change (in part because they're so much slower to experience it.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Yes, the war was waged for one reason, but conducted under the visage of another. The Taliban were unable, not unwilling, to remove Bin-Laden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
As for the second part of that fists paragraph, are you talking about the U.S?
"Women can work", I hope you are not suggesting that women actualy have it better, in any reasonable degree, these days.
(I would link an article, but for some reason John Pilger's websiteis not up and running :wall:)
I understand your point. I must admit that I didn't cry a river when it happened. After all, that same US just a short time before killed just as many, if not more of my countrymen, but I didn't see it as some kind of divine justice. Those people in WTC were innocent. Civilians without any real influence on politics or advanced political thought. I was afraid that it might be (mis)used in the similar way as Hitler used Reichstag fire. It turned out that I was mostly right. After so many years in Afghanistan, the country is in disarray, many people have lost their lives, God knows how many lost their homes, drug trade is flourishing and so on... At the same time, almost no one from the top of Al-Qaeda has been caught and certainly not Bin Laden, Talibans had not been defeated and the country hadn't moved an inch towards democracy. Until that happens, Afghanistan is a total failure. Maybe American presence there stopped another attack on US, it probably did, but for me Afghanistan civilian casualties are not less worthy than American. Americans probably think differently. For them, 5000 killed Afghan civilians are acceptable if it saves 5000 American lives, but for me they're the same. It used to really annoy me when some US official says casualties in Iraq are XXXX, and he includes only American casualties. At least acknowledge how many Iraqis died. At least show that you are aware of those people. You don't have to build monuments for them and carve every name into the stone, but show that you're not totally oblivious. They had families, friends, pets, jobs and hobbies, too. But understanding that would mean elevating them to the status of human beings, instead of collateral damage and/or statistics, and then conscience might have something to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Would the situation in Afghanistan been handled much better if it hadn't been for Iraq? Possibly, but that's no excuse. If the attack on Afghanistan was made to make the world a safer place (including US and Afghanistan) I could support it, but if it's done as punishment, or to save American lives at the price of Afghan lives, I really can't. I hope that Obama will turn things around there. He showed much more awareness than McCain, but time is passing, death toll is rising and nothing's happening. I wished that someone in the US take at least a moral responsibility for that.
For those that have argued Brigadier Carleton-Smith is misguided, it seems that others are coming to the same conclusions.
Facing a spreading Taliban insurgency, the White House has begun a comprehensive review of policy towards Afghanistan. A National Intelligence Estimate, representing the considered view of America's 16 spy agencies, is now being prepared.
Its conclusions are thought to be deeply pessimistic, stressing the systemic weakness of Afghanistan's central government and the damage caused by the burgeoning narcotics trade, which may account for about half of the country's entire economy.
Oh cut the crap already.
The U.S. did not break Afghanistan. The Afghans broke Afghanistan when they turned their country into a safe haven for global terrorists. The Afghans own it, it is their problem, reconstruction is their responsibility. As long as they piss away their money, however acquired, on weapons,stolen Toyota pick-ups and Rolexes for dumb-** tribal potentates, they have only themselves to blame. If they can't organise an army to take care of their national security, big deal. It is their loss.
The only reason why western troops are there is to secure the western interest of keeping the Taliban out of power. And contrary to myth and newspaper speculation we can keep it up longer than the Prophet cares to know.
Rubbish, Adrian. It's all the fault of Western leftist intellectuals andQuote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Wait, wrong thread.
I meant to say that I can keep it up longer than the Prophet cares to know as well and all you girls love it and
Wait, that's the other forum I frequent.
Third time's a charm: I would agree with your post. The reason for going in was to avenge and to prevent. The strategy for going out has been to install some sort of stable government that can keep the Taliban, AQ and others at bay. This, it would appear, is not going to succeed any time soon.
So, as a question, is there an alternative strategy that you know of other than staying there forever? We can keep it up, but so can they. Tribal warfare has been the national pasttime since time immemorial.
Maybe we can lure the Russians back in. What if we all dress up as Georgians and moon in a northern direction? :idea2:
Invade Pakistan, cut it up again, put a fence around the unworkable north-western part and throw away the key.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I mean it. But I don't have time to elaborate, my 72 virgins are crying out for me.
Um. I can't say that "we invade, and if your country gets screwed up that's your fault" implies very good planning or strategic forethought on the U.S. leadership's part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Afghanistan has never been a country. I has always been a collection of warring tribes and sects. Even the ruthless Taliban never controlled the entire territory. All the Americans (and subsequent Nato operations) did was chase them from power and install various rivals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
The Americans don't 'own' it, nor does Nato. That's just Colin Powell's barnyard sale nonsense. World politics is not a barnyard sale.
If you want to blame anyone for lack of forethought, blame the Taliban.
Oh, there's no doubt. Afghanistan is becoming an icnreasingly losing battle. And until we can haul ass out of Iraq and put the men and material in places we actually need it, it will continue to be as it is. Only the death count will get higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
U.S. war planners should have taken this into account, and had correspondigly reflective ground strategies and exit strategies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Yes or no?
The whole problem that we created during this wretched conflict is that we took our eye off the ball by letting up the pressure on Bin Laden and his followers, along with the Taliban supporters. After the debacle of Tora Bora we just let them slip away into Pakistan by failing to block the mountain passes leading into the country. This was clearly a Bush administration mistake, as they were so focused on how they could spin the whole thing to blame Saddam Hussein somehow. Now, because we have made this a problematical situation, to say the least, and it is going to be much harder everyone wants to pack it in and give up. Shame on us all if we do.
Listen, there is no doubt that going to Iraq was a colossal blunder; we have made this bed and must now sleep in it. The problem still remains, what should we do about the resurgent Taliban and Al Queda? I agree with many of you here that everything must be done to minimize innocent casualties. The problem is that these insurgents are like a cancerous growth inside a sick body. To remove a tumor will involve destroying some good tissue as well, no? It is unfortunate that this will happen, but to show mercy in this case is folly. Eradication from the face of the earth is the only way IMHO. More soldiers, an agreement with Pakistan for military access and assistance, and a shifting of priorities from Iraq will all help, but a willingness to be utterly ruthless when required is also needed to win. Believe me when I say that it is really the quickest way to ending this madness.
They did, and they had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
It may take ten years before Afghanistan gets its act together and create some sort of sustainable central government. That's not because of lack of American planning. You can't blame the Americans for Afghan unwillingness, stupidity and backwardness.
And it's no use for western powers to invest in a society that doesn't want to be one, to reconstruct roads for warlords and to rebuild powerplants, organise education or train a police force in the sole interest of a bunch of corrupt tribal leaders.
Let them rot in their own misery.
Great idea , invade it with what exactly ?Quote:
Invade Pakistan, cut it up again, put a fence around the unworkable north-western part and throw away the key.
I like the fence , thats good , who is going to man it though and who is going to pay ?
The problem there is that leaving them to rot is what helped the Taliban in the first place , allowing Afghanistan to return to its failed state status is just inviting another terrorist safe haven isn't it .Quote:
Let them rot in their own misery.
Nato forces, led by the US. They're invading Pakistan already, aren't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Western taxpayers, as usual.Quote:
I like the fence, that's good, who is going to man it though and who is going to pay?
The alternative -- re-arming Afghans, helping them to (re)construct the trappings of a modern central state and giving them a sense of purpose -- might accomplish the exact same thing: create another terrorist enclave supported by Pakistani armed forces, intelligence and drug lords.Quote:
The problem there is that leaving them to rot is what helped the Taliban in the first place, allowing Afghanistan to return to its failed state status is just inviting another terrorist safe haven isn't it .
Look at the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. What did they accomplish? Or the reconstruction efforts in eastern Congo. Or in Somalia. What did they accomplish? The notion that they accomplished anything useful in the sense of 'nation-building' is purebollpoppycock.
Yeah right :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Nato forces, led by the US. They're invading Pakistan already, aren't they?
I think you will find that western taxpayers are screwed at the moment and ain't gonna be able to stump up the cash or credit for such an endeavour .Quote:
Western taxpayers, as usual.
Are you short on arguments again? :laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Oh, that's what people always say when faced with workable ideas.Quote:
I think you will find that western taxpayers are screwed at the moment and ain't gonna be able to stump up the cash or credit for such an endeavour .
Politicians shouldn't listen to the people. They should tell the people that they can't have (inter)national security on the cheap, or if they think they can, they should find other leaders asap to implement it because cheap security policies sure as hell ain't gonna work.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Are you short on arguments again?
Nope , your position is just laughable .
America and the coilition of the bribed couldn't provide enough troops to do Iraq , America and Isaf cannot provide enough troops to work Afghanistan , and now you propose that they can invade and partition a country of nearly 200million people that has lots of long established thoroughly entrenched terrorist groups .:dizzy2:
Have you been down the coffee shop eating funny cakes ?
Of course I can! Are you saying an intelligent invasion strategy is "the people we conquer had better be ready and willing to adopt whatever sort of government we tell them to assemble?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
That's mighty hubristic planning. And not a shock when it fails to work.
Are you drunk again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Seriously, in 2001 we were told that the Americans could never 'do' Afghanistan because the Russians never could. Yet they did 'do' Afghanistan inside of 4 weeks.
Same with Iraq in 2003. Remember we were told that the house to house fighting against Saddam's troops would take months, nay years? Yet they 'did' Iraq inside of 10 days.
The notion that either country could be rebuilt into a functioning democracy was a mistake, or a white lie if you want. Even with the best of efforts it couldn't succeed. As Francis Fukuyama has pointed out in State Building (2004) formal elections aren't enough to constitute a working democracy. It requires free, peaceful and enduring public debate backed up by free media, it requires security, functioning public services, an independent judiciary, a functioning neutral police force and an army that follows political orders. None of these can be established without the will of the people, or a large majority of them. This will was clearly absent in Iraq. That's why in the first 'free' Iraqi election everyone voted for their own ethnicity or religion, out of fear instead of confidence in the future of the country.
Same, mutatis mutandis, in Afghanistan. Your illusion that these countries could be somehow' rebuilt' into functioning democracies is much more costly and much more dangerous than my view that they should be left to rot, in order to contain the potential damage which their unworthy or fanatic leaders could cause.
Are you saying that warfare is intelligent, that its consequences are calculable and that its planning must be foolproof? Dream on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
War should be the measure of last resort. And for good reason: it is not clean or surgical, it is cruel and destructive, and it is not guaranteed to turn the world into a better place for everyone.
The Afghans suffer primarily from their own incompetence and backwardness. It is neither the legal nor the moral duty of Americans to take responsibility for their suffering. It is their duty to prevent more massive terrorist attacks on American soil. Sure, they could have done a better job in Afghanistan. Other Nato countries could as well, if they'd had the guts and sense to invest more troops and means into the operation. There is always ground for improvement. Maybe the Afghan people could take the initiative to improve their situation. Instead of blaming everyone else for their self-inflicted wounds, they could actually start building a country. How about that, eh?
If I could emote a hand waving away, I would put it here.
If you had a good argument, you could consider putting it here instead of an inane put-down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Do you know of any post-war arrangement or occupation that went according to the victor's pre-war planning?
You don't have a good argument, you just have a vehement insistence that everything wrong in Afghanistan is the Afghanis' fault. You made a rant, nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Stop the personal comments and come up with something substantial instead of mere contradictory statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
For instance look at your own previous posts in this thread. You said about Iraq:
What is the U.S. struggling with in Iraq? With the same power divisions and old hatreds that Saddam's authoritarian regime kept in check, and the religious extremists now free to bloom who were ironfisted under Saddam's regime.There you go. No rational planning could ever prevent this scenario. Nation building is a pipe-dream if the people concerned don' t want to be a nation. The thought of nation building shouldn't guide a war. War should be a measure of last resort to avert an existential threat to your country and way of life. It can not be a therapy for failed states.
The idea of go in, absolutely gut every semblance of the existing power, and replace it with a McDemocracy Happy Meal transplant, is nice ideologically. But I do not see any rational reason to believe that it works and, even when it does, how long is it before a) we're back in there to save them from being toppled or b) we're back in there overthrowing whatever dictatorship took it over as soon as we left?
Umm, well kinda, in an undeclared way, but to openly declare war on Pakistan would be suicidal for the West.We cannot even hold onto Iraq or Afghanistan, so what makes you think we can do Pakistan? Its frikin insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
The West, through it rampant destruction of Afghanistan via such great things as high altitude bombings, to help them.
I would also point out that the Afghan government has been tripped up from the get-go, the funding Afghanistan gets for reconstruction is barely enough to cover govt. salaries, the US has also enforced the power of the warlords onto the country, in return of support against the Taliban. It just pathetic.
Yeah :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:and then what ?Quote:
Seriously, in 2001 we were told that the Americans could never 'do' Afghanistan because the Russians never could. Yet they did 'do' Afghanistan inside of 4 weeks.
Same with Iraq in 2003. Remember we were told that the house to house fighting against Saddam's troops would take months, nay years? Yet they 'did' Iraq inside of 10 days.
It doesn't take a genius to go in destoy an army topple a regime and screw the place up does it , it just takes men and a lot of money .
But unless you are going to be able to improve the situation very significantly its a waste of time , improving the situation does take a genius and a lot of men and a hell of a lot of money . Not improving the situation very significantly means that you are going to have to go back in again and again and again which takes lots of men and lots of money and achieves bugger all .
The west has neither the men or the money to do the significant improvement , neither does it have the men or money to do the rinse and repeat cycle , that means what is being done is a complete waste of time that is achieving nothing worthwhile .
Not at all. 'Improving' Iraq or Afghanistan was never the rationale for these wars. Removing a threat to the U.S. was the rationale. In the case of Iraq it was nonsense and therefore a waste of lives, time and money. In the case of Afghanistan it was fully justified, as it was in certain previous wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The U.S. has always fought wars in its own interest, whether it was WWI, WWII, Korea of Vietnam. It didn't invade Germany in the spring of 1945 in order to 'improve the situation' in Germany. Nor did it go into Korea or Vietnam out of sheer altruism. Gerroffit, Tribesman. If and when the U.S. could establish democracy in countries with willing majorities (such as post-war Germany) it never failed to do so. But it was never its prime rationale for war, nor should it be, particularly in the case of unwilling peoples.
In both Iraq and Afghanistan so far the U.S. has stuck mainly to the law of occupation as spelled out in the 1907 Hague Regulations, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and Additional Protocol I. That's good enough. They made a mess of certain issues, it's true, mainly because they misjudged the mess they found when they went in. In both cases the attempts at nation building failed, as you and I can agree, because there was no basis for it.
Where we disagree is on the question whether the U.S. is legally and/or morally obliged to force democratic nationhood on unwilling peoples, to install a system of political representation, separation of executive and legal powers, the rule of law and the principle of national unity in a country where the majority doesn't want any of that. Should we blame the U.S. for failing to install it, or should we lay the blame primarily at the feet of that country, its political factions and leaders, its traditions and religions. I guess you know what my answer is.
There lies the problem , why was afghanistan a threat ?Quote:
Not at all. 'Improving' Iraq or Afghanistan was never the rationale for these wars. Removing a threat to the U.S. was the rationale. In the case of Iraq it was nonsense and therefore a waste of lives, time and money. In the case of Afghanistan it was fully justified, as it was in certain previous wars.
Is it because it was a failed state without law where nutters could gain power and other nutters could go to plan being even nuttier ?
You have been drinking. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Wow. Adrian just utterly destroyed 3 native English speakers and not only that he echos my sentiments exactly. Adrian wins we may close this thread
He's back...
He's angry...
He's Winning...
https://img507.imageshack.us/img507/...inator2yq9.jpg
Adrianator II
Judgement Day
Now playing in forums near you.
Rated PG-13
THAT IS WHY YOU DON'T GO IN UNDER THE DELUSION OF "INSTALLING DEMOCRACY!" And why you don't go in unless it's absolutely necessary! Now granted, in Afghanistan there was more we actually had to do there than Iraq. But clearly even if the goal was just to get the Taliban out of power and push them so far back that they could never recover, our strategy has failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
However, saying that (1) Afghanistan like Iraq is a conglomerate of different ethnic groupings which have always warred and struggled against each other and can only be held together by a strongman/dictator and (2) we went in to get rid of said dictator and "install democracy" and reduce the risk of terrorism, but the fact that this plan is not working out is not our fault, it's all the Afghanis' fault
is contradictory.
Curiously, the sensation I have from this thread is that Afghanistan is a losing battle for everyone but for drug farmers. :P
- NATO is losing because they can't defeat the Taliban stuck up in Pakistan (And some argue because NATO can't control every single meter of land in Afghanistan, therefore, it is losing)
- Afghanistan is losing because it can't control the territory wihch is ruled by local tribal leaders.
- The Taliban are losing because they are stuck in Pakistan and limit themselves to killing 10 soldiers and 5 civilians per month, as well as losing dozens of their own men trying to destroy jails and prisons and bring criminals back onto the streets.
- The Tribal Leaders aren't winning, having to delicately balance themselves over NATO and the Taliban.
- Drug Farmers continue to increase their output and win more money.
Wow, Strike once again illustrates a deep undestanding of the issues, give this man a medal!!!:balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Again Adrian, how would the West be able to gather the men and money to invade and hold down a nation like Pakistan? 'Cause its gonna take a while to get all them nasty terrorists there.
I would like Platinum please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Adrian won??? By stating that West is in Afghanistan to protect itself and not to install democracy and/or to help Afghanistan become a "country"? Gee, what a grand discovery, Columbus is put to shame.
The "we're there to protect ourselves and we don't care about anything else" is a failed policy. Like Tribesy asked, why was Afghanistan a threat in the first place. Precisely because it was not a real country, because it was divided between different tribal lords and fundamentalist government. And if something isn't done to change that situation, when US & Co army leaves it's going to revert to the exact same situation before the invasion, which was the reason for the initial invasion. Or maybe some people think that keeping troops there indefinitely is a viable solution...
Either you change something there and leave without having to worry about it in the future, or you're stuck with endless occupation of the country, because if you withdraw while Afghanistan is in the state it is now, you're gonna have a Taliban or Taliban-like regime taking power. I believe that keeping troops in Afghanistan indefinitely isn't an option. So, Tribesy hit the nail on the head - why was Afghanistan a threat?. You need to address the cause, and not the consequence.
yeah right :dizzy2:Quote:
You have been drinking.
Ok for people who are really thick and for Adrian who is pretending to be .
What the hell are you on about ?
If the current or past circumstances are counterproductive to what you want then attemting to change the current result withiout sorting the present circumstances is just pissing into the wind .
Your premise seems to be that it can't be done so why bother unless they can be bothered to bother which ain't gonna matter much anyway but **** it we is gonna do it and anyone who doesn't believe that ****doesn't undrerstand it .
And no I ain't doing a president tribesman statement , afghanistan with all the ISS :daisy: and the al-qaida bolox is just too far goneto be adressed without going inio essay style proportions
The world is very simple when "it's someone other than America's fault" is your explanation for absolutely everything, including our own foreign policy collapses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Come on Koga , give Strike a chance to say how operations can be conducted so that Afghanistan(pakistan) can be forged into a place where hostility isn't rife and terrirusts can't find a resting place ?
Well Adrian doesn't have a vote or a goat in the U.S. but I'm sure he'll have a happy explanation for how we won when we leave, and that anything that goes wrong afterwards wasn't our fault, even if we're back in there again in 10 years to overthrow some new Talibanesque fundamentalist terror training regime. At least someone will say we did well!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
He won't. I'm disappointed with how he skirts in and out of controversial topics saying he doesn't care much and screw it all, but then always putting on a cheerleader outfit for any apologist explanation that America has done everything right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Now that ain't fair at all Koga , Strike does some bloody good posts and often goes against the percieved grain
It's quite fair both here and in the Israel thread. I meant those two specifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Let it be known I skirt topics due to a short attention span and alcohol.
Ahem:
It all comes down to demographics and fortunately those are in our favor. The older gentleman have to much wrapped up in islam and the local power politics of the region. So what should we do? Bribe all the tribal leaders we can. Do everything within our power to pit as many of these people against each-other as possible. Then we educate the women and the younglings give them the power. Teach them that a constitutional democracy is the way to go. Build schools roads and hospitals so in ten years time these people will not be lead by a strongman but by a belief in Afghanistan. The US military operations is something Im not worried about because at the end of the day the military side of this plays a very small role in what this country becomes. It is about how we attack the culture.
Aren't we already doing that? The Warlord in the South rebeled! Oh no! Let's pay another warlord to defeat him! Wait, now he's rebelling? Man, we're running out of warlords very fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
This is a much better plan, Strike, than "lol don't do any of that and if a democracy doesn't emerge it's the Afghans' fault." I'd endorse it given what the alternatives seem to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Well we need more troops as well, however I am a firm believer money>religion any day of the week. Just look at why we were able to hand over the Anbar Provence.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
I agree completely. People who say this is all about religion are totally off their rocker. Aside from lone fanatics there is no terrorist group out there (or rebel group, or insurgency, or militia, or whatever), regardless of religious affiliation, which isn't out to accomplish geopolitical goals. i.e., indirectly, money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
1. The US has :elephant: up on a huge scale in this area. It seems they had no knowing of the area before going in.
2. If the US withdraws, it will be WORSE than under the taliban regime, they at least kept some sort of control.
3. Don't expect UN/NATO forces to do your dity laundry. We were all against this ill-planned war. Its is your mess, sort it out yourself. It was better before you started it, when you get it back to the state it was before you attacked, we will give it some consideration.
4. Afghanistan was attacked because that is where Bin laden, or one of his copies, were right after 9/11. One MIGHT think you would havw gone after Saudi Arabia, but no, you choose Afghanistan because they have no oil and no ties with the president.
Of course, Bin Laden left the county as you attacked, and then you were stuck in a meaningless war. To be quite honest, I think the Afghanistan war has hurt the US more, in general terms, than 9/11 did. Shall we call this a doubble victory for Bin Laden, or what?
5. You can not blame Afghan leadership. They were set up from the start - "Hey, let's give local warlords weapons and training and use them as cannon fodder instead of US troops".
a coupel of months later
"Huh, why are the local warlords fighting for independance, and how come they have so sofisticated weapons and tactics?"
From my perspective, and bear in mind I am probably the only one who actually been there: You can either:
A) Just leave. After soem time a local warlords will take over and we wil have a new terror regime much like the taliban.
B) Spend trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lifes forcing the country to become a democrasy.
:cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:
lies in boldQuote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Historical revisionism if you think most of the hijackers weren't Saudi. And other than the oil trade and the ties between the Saudi royals and the Bush family, what is your explanation for why we never chastise them or even declare them a rogue state given their human rights record and state sponsor of fundamentalist extremism?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I know the were Saudi but they were based in Afghanistan. Or is that more revisionism? So if I start a terror group in Chile that means whoever I attack will attack America because that is were Im from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
No, the training camps were in Afghanistan. Led by a Saudi ex-prince. And probably funded with a lot of Saudi money. Which indirectly came from us, from the oil trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
What have we done about Saudi Arabia?
Exactly they were based in Afghanistan. Probably does no good. Im sorry not every American dollar has no blood on it as if that were even possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
You're not getting my point. This is like arresting all the prostitutes and continuing to do business with the pimps. Or druggies and drug dealers. Whatever metaphor you'd like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
So we should've attacked SA instead of were AL Qedia was located and thriving in Afghanistan because in SA there may or may not be people funding AQ? Because Osama has allot of money due to oil? Because you dont like them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Didn't say that. But you said that pointing out that the source of this problem, ultimately, goes back to Saudi Arabia and other places outside of Afghanistan. And you bolded it and said it was a lie. Carpet bomb Afghanistan if you like, if you think that will be the end of Middle Eastern terrorism against the U.S. you are pretty mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
saudis
trained in afghanistan...
... by saudis
funded by saudis
go figure :wall:
To quote Adrian:
Oh, cut the crap already.
If the Americans had gone after Saudi Arabia, we'd be sitting here listening to how it was all about oil and how America should've gone after Afghanistan since that is a rogue state where terrorists operate freely and that Bin Laden after all was chased out of Saudi Arabia by the Saudis themselves and the other 9-11 terrorists all got their education outside of SA etcetera.
And if the Americans had gone after both we'd be talking about Syria and Algeria and Pakistan etcetera and why the Americans didn't go after the terrorists there.
And if the Americans had gone after all of those too we'd be talking about how the Americans are warmongering imperialists and that this is what America gets 9-11's.
Can't win.
QFTQuote:
Can't win.
However, if you would have gone after saudi arabia, at least the europeans wouldnt scratch their heads wondering "hmm... now why did they do that?"
Exactly. Invading country by country is a pretty poor solution. What should have been done is to identify canals through which terrorist groups get funding and weapons and cut them, using invasion only as a last resort. IIRC, after 9-11, Russia was interested in combining forces against terrorism and helped initially with Afghanistan but cooled off after seeing that American vision of how it should be done is very different then theirs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
This is not about hand-made guns, hand grenades or molotov coctails. In the case of 9-11, several planes were hijacked simultaneously. Now, you can't bring an AK-47 on a plane. You need a bit more sophisticated and expensive weapons. How did those weapons get on a plane? How did they get in the US? Were they made in the US? Who can make them? Those people who flew those planes had to be trained. Where were they trained? Who trained them? Most important of all questions is, of course, who provided the money for all that. That was extremely complicated, expensive and time consuming process, preparing for that attack.
Further, stop funding potential terrorist havens. Although it was known for some time that Mujahedeens and various terrorist groups fought together with Bosnian muslims, US continued to support Izetbegovic with money and weapons. It pretty much handed out visas to Bosnian citizens, with little control. Then what happens is that some guy from middle east gets to Sarajevo, gets a new passport and hits America without any control. It took a decade before someone finally got it in the US and stopped handing out visas to Bosnian citizens without control. Don't tell me no one in the US knew that middle eastern fundamentalists are involved in Bosnia. Same goes for Saudi Arabia and Kosovo, and many other potential terrorist havens. You try to fight terrorism and then support Kosovo as an independent country, through which a large portion of drugs grown in Afghanistan is pushed into Europe and America and money made from that is used by Afghans to buy weapons. That doesn't make sense, it's absurd. Your right hand is doing the total opposite of your left hand and it's no wonder you're not getting anywhere...
So, setting up a consistent policy and cutting of funding and hurting logistics is much more effective than invading countries in which a certain terrorist leader happened to be in that particular time of the year.
Precisely how I feel. Arguing that Afghanistan has gone into the toilet and it's the Afghanis' fault is not only bullheaded but misses the entire point. We aren't safer from terrorism, if anything, the root causes of it have been exacerbated. The "cause" of terrorism was not a camp in Afghanistan. The cause was foreign policy, a variety of socioeconomic and geopolitical causes, the history of the U.S. in the Middle East, and, Saudi and UAE money (among others) funding it. The Saudis in particular use extremism and some subtly nurtured resentment of the west as a release valve for the problems and frustration within its own population under its abusive regime and extreme inequalities of wealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
THe point was not that we should invade Saudi Arabia and leave Afghanistan. The point was that coming in with a bunch of snazzy pinache about how Americans shouldn't feel a lick of responsibility for Afghanistan is, from the point of view of why we went in and what we are trying to accomplish, and irrelevant sidetrack.
Well Louis, since when has America done anything in respect of Saudi Arabia that was not about oil? I don't need another stupid invasion to realise that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Afghanistan is a failure because the U.S & Co. have done almost nothing about the problem and in many cases have made it worse.
Bin-Laden and the Taliban got their know how from the U.S. So perhaps the U.S should rethink its idiotic game plan which it has been following for the past half century?
Syria and Algeria? No lets talk about the French!:clown:
Oh common the same guys that are crying foul now are the same ones crying foul when supposedly a genocide was being conducted in our own backyard. What pacifist europeans think should never be taken into consideration just because of the very fact that they can't think, they want to be a paralel universe despite not being one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Well hey you could spin that around, I find it annoying that so many European hawks disillusioned with their own governments use the internet to voice vehement support of anything reckless and aggressive the U.S. does. I don't think Europe's approval OR disapproval changes the fact that the way we're handling the war on terror is very bad, and bankrupting us for very little return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It is not spinning around it is accepting that there is a difference between what you want and what it is. Shooting bad guys, I can't think of a better way of dealing with terrorists really. AdrianII is hardly a hawk, you wondered if I was the most rightwing person in the netherlands, well there is my leftist non-hubris and much apreciated nemesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
I might do a Tribesman...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You mean that reality where Afghanistan was never planned properly and never conducted properly? Where the thing has been such a cock up that it is likely to re-create the conditions which leade to 9/11?
Yeah what a load of tossers they are!
..............................................Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
So, all America has to do, is keep up the billions we are bleeding out every month, until we "shoot every last bad guy."
That's fine talk, from someone whose great-grandkids aren't going to be paying the bill.
You really believe this is a sensible response to terrorism? That we have achieved optimal results for the investment put in?
YEAH OMGWTFLOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Make sure you look less rediculous when you do it, Tribesman has an excuse he is usually drunk and all the better for it, but what is your excuse, right now being this early in the morning?
Taliban bad = dead Taliban good,
capice?
Not just america, also england, australia, poland, norway, germany, france, holland, belgium, canada england, denmark, not all shooting but all helping neverthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
Great investment, no dead beard is likely to become alive again, saves us 30 tennis tables and community centres here.
I'm just glad you're nowhere near a meeting of the Joint Chiefs or a budget meeting. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
“Oh common the same guys that are crying foul now are the same ones crying foul when supposedly a genocide was being conducted in our own backyard.”
Well, aren’t they the same crying about Russian Intervention against Georgia?
I agree. I do remember all the reports and news about the Talibans, public hanging, widow dying of starvation because no right to work, no doctors for women for the same reason and the fact tat a man can’t touch a woman, a country back to the stone age, no music, nothing just a plain theocratic dictatorship. The intellectuals making noises for supporting Massoud and its Northern Alliance… Hey guys it is done… The “right of intervention” at work…
I supported the Russian intervention against the apprentice genocider, I support the US intervention in Afghanistan. I wish we would have done that in Former Yugoslavia at the start, when the Croats started to hunt the Serbs in Vukovar…
Can we expect better for Afghanistan. Yes. It was better, not perfect, under the king. I have not a great admiration of kings in general, but it did work, even under the communist rule…
“You mean that reality where Afghanistan was never planned properly and never conducted properly? Where the thing has been such a cock up that it is likely to re-create the conditions which leade to 9/11?”
Probably not well planned, I think. Who would have planned to invade Afghanistan before? So, it leads to improvisation meaning alliances with the Northern Alliances, and few war lords, and the disaster of Bora Bora. And of course no planning for development and democratisation, civil society and Post War Psycho-Social Progrmme, demining etc...
To invade a country is not so much a problem, to keep is. In fact to make it safe is.
Yes, the US founded and trained the guys who killed them. Yes, the US Foreign Policy was so blind by the “Communist” menace they didn’t see the other one coming. They forget that the best enemy of communism s fascism and Nazism because they hunt on the same grounds
But no, the Taliban have no chance to win without the support of a big power… Like the one they had against USSR. And apparently Putine and co thing a little bit clearer than the Reagan Administration…
Nope they have succesfully mentally blocked that, they are currently undecided nobody has told them what to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...r-Taliban.html
Mmmhmm, the smell of history about to repeat itself, Taliban no.2 here we come!
Brenus what are you talking about?
I'm sorry but are you in support of the "intervention"? Or are you pointing out that it has been a cockup?
Again stop going on about the women for God's sake they still do not have it better, in fact most of them have it worse off. :dizzy2:
Care to support that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Afghanistan was practicly a collection of stone age tribes in 2001. The only reason that some people (and women in particular) are arguably worse off is because the Taliban targets people wich are perceived to be pro-Kabul and have started getting illusions about being free to walk umolested in public, etc. The Taliban's reign was the proverbial bad peace that's worse than war.
I've not given up mentally on Afghanistan myself by the way, but a lot will depend on what happens in Pakistan.
“Or are you pointing out that it has been a cockup?”
:beam:Actually, both. I did support and still do understand the US intervention after the mass murder (in police reference) of the Twin Towers and others. I do acknowledge the splendid missing of opportunities done.
Now, what the US should have done? Sheikh Omar refused to give Bin Laden, so let the guy walk around the world, let his supporters teaching the world how the US are weak, even not trying to revenge their dead. What a paper tiger, look how they are. They are scared of the Holly War, let’s do more…:no:
I still think it would have been done differently. No permanent Allies Bases but from out side countries, Long Range Recon Patrol and neutralisation/elimination of all Taliban leaders. Search and kill, and let them organise the country. When he does not behave properly, we drop (heliport) a command, and out of the traffic. Soviet method by the way.
The French did that as will in Vietnam. The commando Van den Berg was attacking only the tax collectors and the payroll officers, and the district administrators. It was hundred times more efficient than the big operations. He was so efficient that he was assassinated by a double agent infiltrated in his commando.
It would probably cost less.:yes:
“Again stop going on about the women for God's sake they still do not have it better, in fact most of them have it worse off” Oh, you mean they are more than hanged an stoned to death, or killed because they drive?
Or perhaps they have to wear a double mobile jail (burka)?
One of my sisters worked on the Afghan Refugees Camps in Pakistan. Her translator was judge before the Soviet Occupation. She had pictures of her in mini skirt and driving a car in Kabul. Even under Soviet Intervention, the women were better off.
I hardly imagine what could be worst for a woman than to live under Taliban’s rules.
Yes, yes of coarse Brenus, the rampant rape which is now a daily feature of most women's lives really proves that things have improved. Those anti-Taliban warlords sure do keep them safe.
Well in that case I would give up in every aspect of the matter, Pakistan is down the hole, what with having no money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
"Yes, yes of coarse Brenus, the rampant rape which is now a daily feature of most women's lives really proves that things have improved. Those anti-Taliban warlords sure do keep them safe": And the Taliban were the best in women's right protection were they? And they never raped women? Or perhaps, because it was always the woman fault, it was not recorder or reported? Ooops...:oops: