Printable View
Well, thats another failed Imperial adventure to add to the list, though I doubt we will be able to milk as much romanticism from Afghanistan as last time. :help:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ith-warns.html
Well, where to next?
Could give France another go 'spose
I thought another great footballer had retired when I saw this title. I clicked it, fearing the worst, like Giggs, Sir Alex, Nedved....
Fortunately, it was about something far more trivial than that ~:)
No surprise there , they knew before they went in that they had a very very short timeframe to make any worthwhile progress , once they sidetracked by playing silly buggers elsewhere they threw in the towel .
However, he told a Sunday newspaper: "We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army.
Maybe it is just me but hasn't this always been the objective?
What?
Not to win it?
Of course not why would do we need a desert. It has always been about making the Taliban insignifant, no ground, no opium. Right on track, sloppy reporting.
By "we" you mean "America" right? Or does the Netherlands have a force in Afghanistan? I beg your pardon if they do. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yep, sure do, killing beards with the rest of themQuote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
You may want to check your sources on that one...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
2006 - Highest Opium production levels on record
2007 - 2006 record broken
Opium Production spread - Interestingly it says the Taliban banned opium production in 2000 and introduced a death penalty for it.
2007 - Production doubled since 2005
As for making the Taliban useless. Great idea but... errr... I'm afraid that isn't happening either.
And as for your claim about no ground, how about this observation in the New York Times:
Quote:
But the objectives of the war have become increasingly uncertain in a conflict where Taliban leaders say they do not feel the need to control territory, at least for now, or to outfight American and NATO forces to defeat them — only to outlast them in a region that is in any case their home.
The Taliban’s tenacity, military officials and analysts say, reflects their success in maintaining a cohesive leadership since being driven from power in Afghanistan, their ability to attract a continuous stream of recruits and their advantage in having a haven across the border in Pakistan.
Maybe locally, but it's opium that grows them fat. And those new tactics, suicidebombings and traps. When a bomb goes of newspapers report increase of influence of Taliban. Oh really. I'd say the opposite. How many casualties do you ozzy's have, here about 20 vs hundreds of beards. Of course we can't bring peace with so many young males without prospects we are going to end up with a lot of blood on our hands but it has always been a violent place, if we can make the government army strong enough, and yes work with the tribal leaders no way around it, it's not a lost thing at all. Afghans are pragmatic they side with the strongest party.
The reason they are growing more opium is because they need to fund the war. If we weren't there they wouldn't be growing it.Quote:
Maybe locally, but it's opium that grows them fat.
Yeah you are right. Al-Qaeda striking the WTC showed a lessening influence. Seriously, now you aren't even trying.Quote:
And those new tactics, suicidebombings and traps. When a bomb goes of newspapers report increase of influence of Taliban. Oh really. I'd say the opposite.
6 Fatalities. Don't call them beards.Quote:
How many casualties do you ozzy's have, here about 20 vs hundreds of beards.
It has always been a violent place because the world can't keep its hands off. First the British and Russian Empires, then the Soviet Union and now the American-led Coalition forces. If we aren't there, they won't need to fight - it is as simple as that.Quote:
Of course we can't bring peace with so many young males without prospects we are going to end up with a lot of blood on our hands but it has always been a violent place, if we can make the government army strong enough, and yes work with the tribal leaders no way around it, it's not a lost thing at all.
Can you at least attempt to reply to the sources I posted? Can you acknowledge any of the following:
1) The invasion has increased Opium production and this is not a good thing.
2) The Taliban has increased its influence
3) The Taliban is not fighting for any territory specifically, they are fighting against us.
I'd rather call them something else but that would greatly sadden the moderators. You know, everything you say is true but it is as it is. Welcome to world politics.
Can you say whether you will admit any of those three things I asked you about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Well yes sure, already said that. But Pakistan being the homebase also means that we can gradually build up the ANA, a bomb here and there is painful and we can't defeat the Taliban, but we can give Kabul the means to deal with them we just need to hang on. Don't forget that the Taliban can't actually defeat us they know that.
This guy seems to be a little flakey to be in such a position of power.
Maybe next month he'll declare victory? :laugh4:Quote:
Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said the British public should not expect "a decisive military victory" and that he believed groups of insurgents would still be at large after troops pulled out.
In June, he claimed that British forces had reached a "tipping point" against a weakened Taliban after their leadership was "decapitated".
Well you know the British can understate things. Perhaps he was referring to a spot of tea.
But yea, bi-polar generals are bad.
1) Well, whatever else they were and are, the Taliban, when "ruling" Afghanistan, were fairly anti-drug and both criminalized and tried to stop poppy and opium production. The world's apetite for heroin has not abated, so poppies are still the most profitable crop thereabouts. Little surprise, with the economic difficulties there, that a family (or terrorist group) would plant the most profitable crop.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
2) Arguable. They no longer run the country as a whole. It is clear that they have, however, rebounded from their nadir and are regaining influence and political power.
3) I would be shocked if, having enjoyed rulership, they are not seeking to regain same. However, the coalition is their opponent, and their first objective is to do us harm. I suspect that, if they are successful in inducing us to leave, they would make a play for power.
Your post seems to imply that our withdrawal would engender the dissolution or neutering of the Taliban. I disagree, I believe it would allow them the chance to regain control of Afghanistan (or most of it).
I believe that this would be to our detriment, so we must prevent it. I do not believe that withdrawing will end up working.
We shouldn't have taken the eye off the ball. It's fixable, but not while we continue what we're doing in Iraq, on the scale we're doing it.
IMHO.
Who really thought we went in there to win the war by rebuilding Afghanistan? We went in there to kill Bin Laden and annihilate Al Qaeda. We failed on the former and managed to deliver on much of the latter... at least initially. However thanks to our failure to complete the primary mission the stream of faithful fanatical recruits into Al Qaeda's ranks continues unabated.
I could care less about rebuilding Afghanistan. Alexander the Great, the British Empire and the Genghis Khan could barely subdue the region so why should we knock our heads about trying to follow in their footsteps? If we ever manage to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden we should get the hell out and let Afghanistan's warring factions & tribes tear each other apart like they've done for thousands of years.
Isn't it pretty commonly agreed that he's not in Afghanistan anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Your military and the few brighter minds in your government .Quote:
Who really thought we went in there to win the war by rebuilding Afghanistan?
Then you should pull out now and let it return to being another backward failed state which will be a haven for terrorists .Quote:
I could care less about rebuilding Afghanistan.
I agree Seamus, but unfortunately the ball was dropped very early on so staying isn't going to work either .Quote:
I do not believe that withdrawing will end up working.
Its a lost war , and unfortunately unlike Iraq this one was actually important .
Umm, no it was about the inability of the Taliban to properly secure the safety of an oil pipeline. See, we could be friends with them, so long as they kept complete control, they didn't do that so we had to do some house cleaning.:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Stupid buggers.:2thumbsup:
The problem is the amount, or lack thereof, of ISAF and especially American troops. Afghanistan is always considered less than Iraq, even though Afghanistan was the base of the people who attacked the World Trade Center. Since we've gotten into that quagmire, Afghanistan has become priority number 2. If we can put in some sort of "surge" into Afghanistan, we may very well be in a winning state. Are we losing in Afghanistan? Not totally, though the Taliban has significantly grown and consolidated it's position. We need more men, and different strategy, it's obvious our current one is not working.
We broke it, we own it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Tough if we didn't do our history homework first.
This is one thing I think that non-Americans might not "get." Americans don't have that sense of a greater historical context of things. Most of them didn't know who Al Qaida was until after 9/11. Most didn't know we had helped arm Saddam. Most didn't know that we helped the present Iranian regime into power. Most of the people who rallied for war in Iraq and Afghanistan never endorsed the idea we should spend money to rebuild either country. And if we pulled out tomorrow, and in 20 years are fighting Karzai over something, most would not remember nor care that we puppetted him into power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Thats the bugger though Pape , the NSA has big sections of plans for how to do Afghanistan , some bloody idiots just decided to ignore nearly all that those studies contained .Quote:
Tough if we didn't do our history homework first.
I think that the General isn't quite off the rocker as he seems to be. He's very right in that a 'decisive victory' can't be achieved against the Taliban in Afghanistan. A decisive victory is rarely had against guerrilla forces. If the full cooperation of Pakistan was to be had against the Taliban in their country then perhaps a decisive victory could be achieved but I doubt it could happen without their help.
Having said that I also want to point out that the war in Afghanistan is not lost, though by no means are ISAF winning either. The majority of urban areas are under government control and most of the northern rural areas as well. The current situation is fairly similar to that of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
The current situation is due to the mismanagement of the war in the past and as noted early the lack of personnel assigned to OEF. The Iraq war can definitely be blamed for siphoning off talent, manpower, and funding away from Afghanistan but a large part of the blame is probably to do with the desire to fight the war on the cheap under Rumsfeld's hand. Remember that the number of troops in Afghanistan has always been a small amount and that the early success was primarily due to the buying off of warlords and providing air power and secret squirrel guys to the opponents of the Taliban.
Perhaps as armchair generals we could debate whether a large influx of soldiers early on would have been helpful. No doubt though we would still have seen a gradual erosion of the local power we were wielding as warlords switched sides in refusal to submit to the Afghan government. That and Pakistan would probably have been a haven for the Taliban then as it is now.
Very simply this is a war without a real plan for winning, the General's suggestion to focus on bringing the insurgency down to a level manageable for the Afghan military and government to keep in check and hopefully defeat is probably the definition of success that most people have and had for Afghanistan. More troops are needed too so that more of the country can be denied to the Taliban and more reconstruction is needed as well. Unfortunately reconstruction is at a slow pace and underfunded, and the lack of security denies Afghanistan from any significant outside investment.
@Koga No Goshi: How can you say we brought the present Iranian regime into power? Last I checked the present regime are the ones that ousted 'our' Iranians. I'll agree if you meant that our support for the Shah created conditions ripe for revolution but that does not equal us bringing them into power. I'd say the current regime really came into power after Saddam invaded Iran when they were able to successfully bring all of Iran together against Iraq.
You hit the nail on the head, that is exactly what I meant. We toppled an attempted revolution presumably to swing things our way and those practices have a nasty habit of coming back to bite us.Quote:
Having said that I also want to point out that the war in Afghanistan is not lost, though by no means @Koga No Goshi: How can you say we brought the present Iranian regime into power? Last I checked the present regime are the ones that ousted 'our' Iranians. I'll agree if you meant that our support for the Shah created conditions ripe for revolution but that does not equal us bringing them into power. I'd say the current regime really came into power after Saddam invaded Iran when they were able to successfully bring all of Iran together against Iraq.
Just like Iraq?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The Taliban has no control over anything, and are consistently routed without much difficulty whenever they present themselves to US forces (can't say much about our NATO allies), yet some are already willing to declare this lost.
The US military has heavily armored humvee convoys driving around southern Afghanistan as we speak looking to provoke Taliban attacks just to crush them.
Will Afghanistan sustain democracy or revert back to tribalism? Who cares. The goal is - and should have always been - to keep the Taliban out of power. The best option would have been to prop up a relatively secular local strongman and form a benevolent autocracy, but we all know those days are over. In any event, as long as we maintain support of anti-taliban forces in the country, they have no chance. There is absolutely no way they will be able to retake and hold land any longer than the US allows them to.
For every 1 Taliban that dies in battle, about 3 take his place. This is a war you cannot win just by shooting everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I always thought the Southern Regions were primarily ISAF responsibility, and they've been doing a good job with what they got.Quote:
The US military has heavily armored humvee convoys driving around southern Afghanistan as we speak looking to provoke Taliban attacks just to crush them.
The people care.Quote:
Will Afghanistan sustain democracy or revert back to tribalism? Who cares.
The problem is that they are growing, Panzer, they don't need to hold land.Quote:
The goal is - and should have always been - to keep the Taliban out of power.
Because that's worked so well.Quote:
The best option would have been to prop up a relatively secular local strongman and form a benevolent autocracy,
Again, they don't want or need land. That isn't their goal, their goal is the withdrawal of Western troops from Afghanistan, if they can achieve that, they've won.Quote:
There is absolutely no way they will be able to retake and hold land any longer than the US allows them to.
I see you also neglect mentioning our European and Canadian allies. They seem to be doing a lot more in Afghanistan than the US bothers to.
Yes Panzer , like Iraq its another lost war .Quote:
Just like Iraq?
Actually its the colilition and government in Kabul who control very little and are losing that little steadily .Quote:
The Taliban has no control over anything
Whats it down to now ? less than a third of the country:oops:
Sounds like Vietnam ehQuote:
The US military has heavily armored humvee convoys driving around southern Afghanistan as we speak looking to provoke Taliban attacks just to crush them.
Which you ain't doing .Quote:
The goal is - and should have always been - to keep the Taliban out of power.
Like a Saddam ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: Then again you do have Dostrum , a nice ally who changes allegience more aften than a hermit changes his robe and doesn't give a damn about anything apart from making money from the opium trade .Quote:
The best option would have been to prop up a relatively secular local strongman
:dizzy2:Quote:
There is absolutely no way they will be able to retake and hold land any longer than the US allows them to.
They don't have to , all they have to do is wait .
Not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
Western troops are not going anywhere. Not even Barack plans on that.Quote:
The problem is that they are growing, Panzer, they don't need to hold land.
Again, they don't want or need land. That isn't their goal, their goal is the withdrawal of Western troops from Afghanistan, if they can achieve that, they've won.
They do need to hold land or gain some measure of control. An insurgency that makes no progress cannot sustain itself. As events on the ground move forward, at some point the Taliban must gain legitimacy in order to not be left behind. If association with that group means constant pursuit with no hope of victory, it will continue to be marginalized and simply burn out - like AQ in Iraq. The peak of that insurgency was when AQ had actual control of cities such as Fallujah. Why join the Taliban when you can pledge your allegiance to a local chieftain and make a pretty good living guarding a poppy field? There are only so many ideologues.
The reason the Taliban has seen a quasi-resurgence has been their safe haven in Pakistan - which is being addressed.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...wVTmAD93LN0UO2
Considering that before the invasion the Taliban was the official government of Afghanistan, and now they have to live in hiding like the rats that they are, I do not see how you can actually say #2 with a straight face.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
People seem to forget that waiting is just as bad for them, the ANA is growing better and the ANA has better training and firepower. Why so pessimistic modern wars can't be ' won'. No war was ever won in northern ireland but it's calm nevertheless.
Try and keep up, bud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
And how much does the Taliban control?Quote:
Actually its the colilition and government in Kabul who control very little and are losing that little steadily .
Whats it down to now ? less than a third of the country:oops:
Why you would have NATO make the same mistakes the soviets did is beyond me. If local leaders can keep the Taliban out and don't cause too much trouble, why waste time and resources doing it? The key is bringing these local feifdoms into the greater process, as in Iraq, not trying to control every square mile. Less face time and more afghani control = less local resentment.
Saddam was the leader of a relatively powerful nation in a very important part of the world. I doubt an Afghani strongman would have any imperial ambitions.Quote:
Like a Saddam ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: Then again you do have Dostrum , a nice ally who changes allegience more aften than a hermit changes his robe and doesn't give a damn about anything apart from making money from the opium trade .
Wait for what? There is no significant movement to leave Afghanistan among any of the NATO nations. The longer they fight on without any gains, the less influence they have - not that they have much now anyway.Quote:
They don't have to , all they have to do is wait .
Also, have you been keeping up with recent events in Pakistan? If they are forced to fight there, you'll see a marked decline in anything going on in Afghanistan. If they lose that safe haven, which I'm not ready to predict they will, the insurgency will die completely.
Because you win a war by signing some sort of treaty with a national leader or power structure that more or less continues to represent the population legitimately in some form. Whereas the interventionism of late has focused on forced regime change and taking the "friendlies" and propping them up with an ineffectual government or one which cannot long exist without dependency support externally, and trying to get them to be strong enough to stand up to all the insurgency leftover "the unfriendlies."Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.
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?
Yes Panzer try and keep up , the surge failed and the generals say the war can't be won .Quote:
Try and keep up, bud.
They don't have to control any , all they have to do is ensure that the coilition and government don't control it .Quote:
And how much does the Taliban control?
You really havn't followed events at all have you , the local leaders were quite pissed at the Taliban before the invasion , now they are really pissed at the coilition . You blew the chancesof gettingthe locals on side becasuse you screwed up the initilal phases and have now dragged it out for far too long . #1 on the priorities list for an effective operation was don't piss off the locals , Karzai keeps repeating for at least the past 3 years don't piss off the locals , yet you continue to do it on a daily basis .Quote:
If local leaders can keep the Taliban out and don't cause too much trouble, why waste time and resources doing it?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:oh stop you're killing me:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Also, have you been keeping up with recent events in Pakistan?
Panzer you clearly hav't been keeping up with events in either Pakistan or Afghanistan .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The mistake the Russian made was that they couldn't control or hold the territory , upset nearly all the locals and got into the bunker mentality of controling small areas and sending out armoured patrols to proke attacks ....hey thats what you said the American were doing wasn't it :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Why you would have NATO make the same mistakes the soviets did is beyond me.
Errrrr...are you talking about the coilition there Panzer ?Quote:
The longer they fight on without any gains, the less influence they have - not that they have much now anyway.
Thats exactly what was done in WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
The real problem is that not enough was destroyed. You have to completely decimate a nation before it can be properly reshaped. Look at German democracy post WW1 versus WW2.
I assume you're being sarcastic because I'm unsure as to your philosophical outlook on the benefits of rebuilding Afghanistan. Anyway the rebuilding point is debatable. You need to look at it from a strategic perspective. We could not have operated in Afghanistan with any kind of meaningful force without first having the 'friendly' Northern Alliance secure bases of operations for us. Relying purely on having to fly men & material in and out of Afghanistan from border nations would have lowered our efficiency and put a greater strain on our logistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Iraq perhaps but not Afghanistan. You could argue that any nation that allows the execution of women in soccer stadiums after being tried by a handful of mullahs in a kangaroo court is broken to begin with. In fact one could argue that Afghanistan has been broken since the Soviets invaded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Hirohito wasn't executed with a black cloth over his face in front of a jeering crowd. Nor declare the Japanese army a terrorist organization and refuse them a means of dignified surrender.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I don't know how you can think we set up conditions for a stable post-war in Iraq or Afghanistan just as wisely as we did in WWII.
Failed or not, Afghanistan is not an Imperialist adventure. There is a very clear reason why we are there. The invasion had to be done. To avenge and to prevent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Being the good guys, we didn't set out to destroy Afghanistan, but also to hope to turn it into a functioning democracy. This, it would appear, it is not going to be anytime soon. By this latter standard, it is a failure. It is not a failure in the supressing of AQ and the Taliban from openly waging terrorist warfare against America / the West / everybody else.
I think America needs to get over expecting the "unquestioned win." I think simply staying there forever until every vestige of anything remotely related to Al Qaida is so irrevocably destroyed that it could never potentially be any threat ever again is unrealistc, and what we are doing is an enormously, appallingly wasteful ratio of resources invested to results gained. (Or enemy resolve destroyed, if you prefer.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
This is a Pyrrhic victory for any groups of people anywhere in the world who want to see America destroyed. And we played and continue to play right into it.
Well I must say that you are completely correct with them last 10 words , well done .Quote:
I assume you're being sarcastic because I'm unsure as to your philosophical outlook on the benefits of rebuilding Afghanistan. Anyway the rebuilding point is debatable. You need to look at it from a strategic perspective.
However that raises the big question , a simple question but an important one .... why havn't you looked at it from a strategic pespective Spino ?:inquisitive:
Cause strategy =/= ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
To be quite honest, I think more non-aermicans than americans are aware of that fact...Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
The US reminds me of 1984 (the book, not the year), "we are at war with X, we have always been at war with X"
And the sheeps from Animal farm goes beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.........
This is one of the main reasons for the dislike of american politics rampant in the EU.
The Taliban had no control over anything much when we put boots on the ground, that's why we went in.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Question, do you know how much money has been spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan so far Panzer?
Not enough to do anything, and that includes keeping groups like the Taliban out of power.
Your idea that simply sustaining anti-Taliban forces will be good enough is increadibly short sighted, why in heck would it end up any different? The Taliban were unable to remove Bin-Laden (yes they tried) sop why would a new bunch of autocrats without popular support do any better?
Also, a U.S backed autocracy in a region already sick to death of them will fuel more powerful an popular anti-Western sentiment, most probably in an Islamic form, yep well done there:smash:
As for the U.S ability to do anything about another Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, do you read the news Panzer? The U.S are buggered, they really are, they will never again be able to do things like invade Iraq or Afghanistan without massive international support. The party is over.
Well that was A grade bollocks Louis:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
The very clear reason was nothing to do with helping Afghanistan, simple vengence is a noted aspect of Imperialism and its inherent warmongering.
The good guys? Jesus, have you read anything about how the coalition is fighting the war in Afghanistan? Have you any idea what is really happening in terms of reconstruction?
Functioning democracy? Haha! Yeah ok, sure Louis, we set out do nothing of a sort. As long as there is a stable autocracy (no matter how brutal) to keep oil pipelines and dissidents secured, then we are A-Ok with that.
So by all accounts Afghanistan is and will be a failure...
You have eaten up corporate media bull happily:balloon2:
It always seems darkest before the dawn, doesn't it? If we (the Americans and our allies) would have given up every time a war got hardest, we would have never survived this long. I believe this General does not represent the views of all the factions. I admire his moral courage for speaking his mind, but there is always a way to win if one wants to. I think we must expand the war into western Pakistan and destroy the resupply and the recruiting grounds of the enemy. If Pakistan will not support this than they must be prepared to accept the consequences of their duplicity. Pulling units from Iraq is essential to such a strategy, and this is feasible. It will call for steadfastness and courage but it can be done.
If any lack motivation, let them review the videos of the World Trade Center attacks. The mere sight of the people jumping from the burning towers fills me with a terrible resolve. Unfortunately, I will be deploying to Iraq next year, when I would much rather fight Al Queda and their intrepid supporters the Taliban.
"These are the times which shall try mens' souls."- from Thomas Payne's Common Sense.
I do not think Thomas Payne would agree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As for your deployment, you are a brave man, more so than any of your pathetic political leaders. I hope that you do not sacrifice too much in what I percieve to be an unjust war.:yes::balloon2:
Really defeating Talibans requires a bit more diplomacy than brute force. It's pretty clear that Pakistan is the key. Cutting of supply to talibans is much more important than trying to eradicate them.
But the real issue is what kind of Afghanistan you leave behind. If you leave the country turned upside down it will most likely just revert to pre-invasion state. So, it's not just "defeat the talibans" thing. Talibans follow certain ideology, and it's that ideology that you have to defeat or at least weaken, not the talibans. It seems that US & co are making similar mistakes as soviets have made...
Perhaps quoting Thomas Payne was less then apt, but I am mainly addressing the issue of doing what is right in the face of certain adversity, such as our forefathers did in the earliest struggle of my nation's history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Thank you for your concern for my well being. Really I am just a maintainer of Helicopter Electrical/Armament Systems; I'll probably be on a FOB most of the time. The really brave guys in my unit are the aircrews. They have to face danger even just training for their missions. I'll go out on a limb here and say that I agree with you that our war in Iraq is unjust, but I cannot say the same for Afghanistan. Iraq is a mess we created that we must now address or forever be viewed as nothing more than mere imperialists. Afghanistan is the chosen ground of our enemy and the Taliban is the rouge entity that supports them, now from the hate madrases of Pakistan. I'll never rest peacefully knowing that Al Queda has not been dealt a death blow along with the repressive Taliban-who would see Afghanistan stay forever in the middle ages culturally. I owe it to those who lost loved ones that day in September to protect them. If we fail in Afghanistan then I believe that they will strike again. What would you do?Quote:
As for your deployment, you are a brave man, more so than any of your pathetic political leaders. I hope that you do not sacrifice too much in what I perceive to be an unjust war.:yes::balloon2:
Excellent points made here. I agree that a diplomatic approach must be tried. But without a "big stick" to back it up, than it will be ineffectual. As to the Afghanistan we leave, I agree that we will have to be committed to a long term relationship with this country. Showing the people that we are there to stay will help them feel secure and allow for the kind of growth that can effect change. That was one reason why the Taliban was able to gain support in the past-the people felt abandoned by the west during the Soviet occupation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
So when someone does something you dont agree with they are immediately a rouge authoritarian state hell bent on world conquering? All you seem to do is insult America and then say you aernt anti-american.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
“1) The invasion has increased Opium production and this is not a good thing.
2) The Taliban has increased its influence
3) The Taliban is not fighting for any territory specifically, they are fighting against us.”
The war in this country was raged for ONE reason: The “government” sheltered an criminal organisation which just committed one of the greatest crime in history and refuse to extradite the murderers. This government put all the means necessary for training and financing people who want openly to destroy and kill other people under the pretext of religion and beliefs. Themselves Islamo-fascist, the Taliban were and are as ideology a thing to destroy, potentially as dangerous than Nazi in the seeking of purity/way of life to impose to others.
The danger is to forget the exportation of this ideology in neighbourhood countries, especially in Former Soviet Asian Countries…
And I know about all the rest, but these reasons (exposed in Michael Moore for ex) were the same said about the Russian who wanted to have access to an open sea (then they would have just to invade Pakistan). It is intellectually attractive but total rubbish (like it was).
US Army and allies are NOT the Narcotic Bureau or the Ministry of Agriculture. Their task is not to eradicate drugs or to promote potatoes farming.
The Taliban decisively lost influence. Women can be cured and work, and listening music is again possible.
The Taliban are fighting us, and? They were fighting the Massoud Northern Alliance as well.
Without USA help and training the Talibans wouldn’t be able to defeat the Red Army. It is because the introduction of AA missile that the Mujahidin were able to stop the Soviet tactic (Spetnatz in the rear supported by Hinds).
Putin is not hopefully stupid enough to pay the USA back, so that would be avoided and the Coalition would keep the sky safe.
But the material and technological superiority is a trap easy to fall in.
What will win the war is:
Military domination and development:
More grunts on the ground and NGO. To compare or claim it is a new Colonial Adventure is wrong, but the method to win is as in the colonial period. When you take a village you built a market and a school (and nowadays a Rural Health Centre). It is so true that the Vietcong was killing people involved in such programme.
Again, watch the 9th Company, the Russian movie about Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is a multitude of tribes and interests. I don’t think there is a real national feeling.
They fight because, for some, foreigners are on their soils. Well, fair enough, this can be dealt with politic and agreement.
The real Talibans are dead, or almost, as ideology. Their failure is obvious. They lost the war.
The problem is the Allies didn’t win it. Yet.
Anti-american is a way to general label...Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I am anti-US-foreign-politics though... Not all of it of course, but the more general guidelines of it.
Brenus,What a interesting comment... Now, as a student of history myself, could you enlighten me what you compare this to?Quote:
The “government” sheltered an criminal organisation which just committed one of the greatest crime in history and refuse to extradite the murderers.
I mean, 3000 people dead in historical terms... Let us say I find your reasoning well thought out, it also makes it evident that you are one of the greatest thinkers of the modern society.
No need to de-rail this topic though, but pretty please PM me with the list the other "greatest crimes in history" just for laughs :cheerleader:
“I mean, 3000 people dead in historical terms... Let us say I find your reasoning well thought out, it also makes it evident that you are one of the greatest thinkers of the modern society.”
I think it deserved better than private debate.
Compare with the massacre of the St Valentine, the twin towers are really one the biggest crime in crime history.
Never a Mafia succeeded in so much kills in one day.
Your mistake (and laugh) comes from the fact you think in term of genocide when I consider Al Quaida and consorts as criminal organisations.
You are giving too much credit to people who are just criminals.
The question you would have ask could have been can we attack a country because the refuse to extradite? My opinion is yes in this particular case.
So perhaps I am “one of the greatest thinkers of the modern society”, if you means by that the ability to think by myself, and not following the trend.
And for the list, well, Dr Petiot, Landru, perhaps some gang war, go in Google in greatest crimes or watch History channel…
“Now, as a student of history myself, could you enlighten me what you compare this to?” I think you’ve got your answer. However, to be sure to be understood, I compare them with Mafia, Camora and all other criminal organisations, not with Nazi, Pol Pot or others Stalin. Sorry.
Well, IF you compare it to crime, by your own reasoning, the police should handle it, no?
My mistake, it should have been "Have been increasing their influence from where they were shortly after the invasion".Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
As a student of history you should know that events cannot be compared unless they happen in the same context. It took one murder to get the european stalemate leading to WW1, the ripple effect; and 11/9 september is a major stone.
The world was headed towards the First World War long before the bullet was fired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
linuistical screwup, meant ended the stalemateQuote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
"Well, IF you compare it to crime, by your own reasoning, the police should handle it, no?": Yep. It should be done with law enforcement methods and anti-terrirism legislation, like the Mafia was delt with in its times.
Special frces can give a hand, but all should follow the rules of law
Of course, you can point out my contradictions in this, but I think USA and the rest of the world should deal with terrorism and crimes for what it is and not how they wanted be seen.
It is to give too much honour to Bin Laden. He is a mass criminal, just that. Not a Sheir, not a leader, just a gang leader.
Oh in that case you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
EDIT: Oh no... I just realised that within the last month I have agreed with CR, Frag and I believe TuffStuff at some point. I'm scared...
Ah, my favourite voice of reason. How can I not love you, Brenus? :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I'm sorry, Kadagar, but for some strange reason, I agree with Brenus that the murder of three thousand civilians is a criminal act of an unprecedented scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
But then, I rather like Americans....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I'm sorry, but I don't think that's reason enough. To punish some murderers who killed 3000-4000 civilians, coalition launched an attack that murdered many more civilians, brought hundreds of thousands on the brink of poverty, created a suitable situation for growing and selling of narcotics etc...
I'm certainly not gonna cry for Talibans or Bin Laden, but I can't support punishments, especially when that punishment is mostly felt by those not really responsible. After so many years, where is Bin Laden and his clique? It seems like the war is no longer about them. I could support action that's about justice and that's about stopping things like attack on the WTC from happening ever again. For me it should have been about capturing those responsible and helping Afghanistan stand on its own two feet.
But if it was about punishment, like let's ruin their country and kill their civilians, because their government refused to extradite Bin Laden, than the war waged for wrong reason, imho.
No, for very simple facts. Mafias don't commit criminal acts against foreign countries, they commit against individual or organizations, mostly inside the countries which under they operate. Terrorrist factions commit crimes not against those generally implicated in destroying them but against innocent civilians of targeted nations, for a myriad of purposes. The fact that Afghanistan has no "police" (Which doesn't really matter) and protected the terrorrists, forcibly obliges the U.S.A. to invade the former country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Furthermore, mafias are a blight and a cancer for the countries they are located in, incentivating corruption and the curbing of the laws of one's country, therefore detrimental to the development of the said country, therefore if the country wishes to develop and enforce it's law, it must crush the mafia, which is a criminal organization. Terrorrist groups, however, at least in Afghanistan's case (Which is directly linked to it's invasion), remained inside Afghanistan, without causing any detriment to the Taliban plans for the country, and didn't violate any Afghani law (Since I'm not an expert in Afghani law, I'll say "at least enough") to enforce a Taliban crackdown.
Bottomline: If the Taliban militias started fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (Which wouldn't happen since both follow the same basic guidelines: Islamic Fundamentalism), then I doubt the country would be invaded.
Jolt,
From their point of wiev, civilians are not innocent.Quote:
Terrorrist factions commit crimes not against those generally implicated in destroying them but against innocent civilians of targeted nations, for a myriad of purposes
Look, if the US was a dictatorship then yes, you would be right... However, the US is a democracy, meaning in effect that the people, the civilians, are the one making the decisions, no?
So, attacking the people responcible for US foreign policies would make sence, would it not?
Look at what got attacked at 9/11, it wasnt a kindergarten, was it? It was the building representing the economy of the US, an economy many believe are built on blood of the innocent.
I think very few kids were in this building, am I right? But a lot of grownups working with world trade, would make sence, building was named world trade center.
The also attacked the pentagon, do I have to explain what pentagon symbolises? Again, this can in no way be seen as an innocent target.
Do not get me wrong, I am strongly against idiocy and killing in any way and/or form. I am trying t explain their mindset, and why they reason as they do.
Also, I must mention, the rest of the world was not as surprised as the americans were about the 9/11, how many deaths are the US responcible for the last century?
Payback is a female dog, sure. But many kind of saw it coming, and this is not the end of it.
Many people, specially in countries where US bombs has blown children to mincemeat, think the 9/11 was a moderate attack, quite controlled and well thought out.
“I'm sorry, but I don't think that's reason enough. To punish some murderers who killed 3000-4000 civilians, coalition launched an attack that murdered many more civilians, brought hundreds of thousands on the brink of poverty, created a suitable situation for growing and selling of narcotics etc...”
Sarmatian, it is a reason, and honestly quite good one. The aim was not to punish civilians for what happened but to catch Bin Laden. Sheikh Omar refused to give a fellow follower of Islam to the Infidel so in no way the mighty USA (and others less mighty) would allowed this.
Then the stupid policy determined and followed by Bush and Co and the War in Iraq made the reconstruction in Afghanistan more difficult, etc.
I do understand your feeling remembering what happen to Serbia and Kosovo (I metohija).
Kadagar AV I do fully agree. For a lot of people it was finally pay-back time, USA finally tasting their own medicine.
I was in Novi Sad at the time, Serbia, country which just few months before was at the receiving end of Cruise Missile, which is a pilotless plane. The only difference for some was that at least the murderers (and more ironic for some of them, the same one they were fighting in Bosnia) was at least killed with their victims.
And yes, the Twins Towers were the siege of the same company making money on the misery of others, ignoring the distresses and miseries created by them. It is how Globalisation and International Trade is seen.
They're terrorists man, terrorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
So TS to those who opposed the wars? TS to those who opposed Bush?Quote:
Look, if the US was a dictatorship then yes, you would be right... However, the US is a democracy, meaning in effect that the people, the civilians, are the one making the decisions, no?
No, it doesn't. The people do not say who we ally with, this is up to government. We do not get to decide if we want to invade Iraq, this is up to the President and Congress.Quote:
So, attacking the people responcible for US foreign policies would make sence, would it not?
These buildings were full of parents, husbands, wives, grandparents, foreign nationals. You do not intentionally target civilians. This is what happened.Quote:
Look at what got attacked at 9/11, it wasnt a kindergarten, was it? It was the building representing the economy of the US, an economy many believe are built on blood of the innocent.
So TS to those hate supporting children? And what of the children who lost family?Quote:
I think very few kids were in this building, am I right? But a lot of grownups working with world trade, would make sence, building was named world trade center.
And yet again, there were people working there who were not a key part in foreign policy and who did not affect the terrorists.Quote:
The also attacked the pentagon, do I have to explain what pentagon symbolises? Again, this can in no way be seen as an innocent target.
Fanatics don't need reason, they have their religion and twisted thinking. Their mindset is that of intolerance and hate. You do not need to lecture us on how a terrorist works.Quote:
Do not get me wrong, I am strongly against idiocy and killing in any way and/or form. I am trying t explain their mindset, and why they reason as they do.
So it justifies the killing of 3,000 innocents when a past government that these people had no involvement in? (I am assuming you are referring to the Korea-Vietnam-Latin America years)Quote:
Also, I must mention, the rest of the world was not as surprised as the americans were about the 9/11, how many deaths are the US responcible for the last century?
Really?Quote:
Many people, specially in countries where US bombs has blown children to mincemeat, think the 9/11 was a moderate attack, quite controlled and well thought out.
See this is where I have a qualm. I fully understand where the terrorists are coming from if I was poor destitute and hungry I would be angry at the people who were enabling my biggest enemy and lap up power politics thinly veiled as a religious war. Chances are I wouldn't really have a problem with these decadents being killed either. The US government has been ignoring the premise of blowback for years and it is now biting us. At the same time I must sit down and ask why must we fight this people with one hand tied behind our back? These people want us dead and we are sitting here fighting hog tied. Bound by these rules of engagement which our enemy will not follow. Past American policy has now put us between a rock and a hard place. I sympathize with the average Iraqi or Palestinian or Afghan but at the end of the day I sympathize with the average American more. It of course should have never come down to that choice but we can thank our father.
Swedishfish>
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. You know, when Bin Laden ran around with CIA support, messing up Soviet targets, he was called freedom fighter... When he attacks you he becomes a terrorist?Quote:
They're terrorists man, terrorists.
Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Bin laden. From my perspective he should spend the rest of his life in jail. However, there are lots of americans I can say the same thing about.
I just don't think the US has much right to claim moral highground. Again, CIA-sponsored freedom fighter one day, terrorist the other.
As an american you should be familiar with the term collateral damage?Quote:
So TS to those who opposed the wars? TS to those who opposed Bush?
Again, I am not defending this perspective, I am explaining it.
Are you saying US bombs has killed no one who wasn't saddam-friendly or Bin Laden-friendly?
Again, be careful about claiming moral highground.
And who elects this said president?Quote:
The people do not say who we ally with, this is up to government. We do not get to decide if we want to invade Iraq, this is up to the President and Congress.
And when he, by your own example, decided to invade Iraq, I didn't exactly see massive protests from the people... The white house wasnt exacly blockaded by angry voters, was it?
Again, they are not civilians in these peoples eyes.Quote:
These buildings were full of parents, husbands, wives, grandparents, foreign nationals. You do not intentionally target civilians. This is what happened.
First of all they are responcible since they vote.
Secondly, they wage economig warfare against other countries...
Are you seriosly claiming the Pentagon is not to be considered a perfectly valid target?Quote:
And yet again, there were people working there who were not a key part in foreign policy and who did not affect the terrorists.
Fixed it for you.Quote:
Fanatics don't need reason, they have their religion and twisted thinking. Their mindset is that of intolerance and hate. You do not need to lecture us on how an American works.
Geez, half your population see Iraq as a holy war, as a crusade.
They see you the same way you see them.
From my personal perspective, I believe both the americans and the fanatical muslims are about equally :elephant: :cheerleader: :elephant:
I am referring to more than that...Quote:
So it justifies the killing of 3,000 innocents when a past government that these people had no involvement in? (I am assuming you are referring to the Korea-Vietnam-Latin America years)
Sucking money from the third world, manipulating regimes and so on... You can be responcible for deaths even though you don't drop bombs, you know.
Really.Quote:
Really?
Ok. So if we dont have the moral high ground and we see the war as "crusade" Should we start killing the civilians? Cut of hands? feet? throw infants in the river? you are really influenced by a small minority of people you realize this? I doubt you have ever been here.
Maybe we can all be friends?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
If you spent less money on bombs, and more on world aid, the terrorists would have a hell of a time finding a new generation.
It is a long-term process, but I think it would work.
Some village is found supporting terrorists, build a well and a school... It would cost the fraction of one single bomb.
I am being optimistic here, but soemone must be.
If you start fighting hate with love, the "average joe" will quickly come around... It is hard spreading hate propaganda in a village, when the villages well is build by americans, and where the best students in the american built school gets a schoolarship in the US as reward, and a green card, allowing him to send money home to his parents...
A more cost-effective solution to remove the base from terrorists.
However, it is hard to win elections with 50-year programs... It is so much easier to "shock and awe" a startled Iraqi population wondering what the heck they had to do with 9/11.
There's a line between firing on Soviet military targets and planning the flying of planes into civilian buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Intentionally flying a plane into a civilian structure is not collateral damage.Quote:
As an american you should be familiar with the term collateral damage?
Of course, but then again, many of those Saddam supporters were known party members in key positions or military fanatics and Osama-supporters are typically militant terrorists.Quote:
Are you saying US bombs has killed no one who wasn't saddam-friendly or Bin Laden-friendly?
I have never claimed high ground here. I do not support any killing of civilians, but in war, especially in a war where your enemy hides in cave sonly to bomb a convoy collateral damage cannot be avoided.Quote:
Again, be careful about claiming moral highground.
Again, what of those who do not vote for said president? Just because you voted for Bush does not mean you deserve a good bombing.Quote:
And who elects this said president?
Bush told me, my state, my country, and the planet I live on that Saddam had or had the capability of creating weapons of mass destruction. When someone makes that kind of claim to this many people, the people will rally in what they are told is a grave threat. This is simple deceit. Even when Bush said "THEY HAS TEH ANTHRAX" many, national and foreign, were skeptical.Quote:
And when he, by your own example, decided to invade Iraq, I didn't exactly see massive protests from the people... The white house wasnt exacly blockaded by angry voters, was it?
In these people's eyes, they are right, they're God commands them to do this, and everyone, you included, are to be cleansed from His earth. You obviously don't take this in any seriousness unless you are a militant. (Not accusing you of being one)Quote:
Again, they are not civilians in these peoples eyes.
Well hell, it all makes sense now. You vote, you deserve a good bombing.Quote:
First of all they are responcible since they vote.
And how does one wage economic warfare? Blockading? I doubt Jimbo the burger flipper really had much to do with that.Quote:
Secondly, they wage economig warfare against other countries...
When intentionally targeting civilians, no it is not. You honestly think the terrorist wanted to take out the military leadership? They had a whole lot of other places to do it.Quote:
Are you seriosly claiming the Pentagon is not to be considered a perfectly valid target?
Oh crap, and you know it.Quote:
Fixed it for you.
Geez, half your population see Iraq as a holy war, as a crusade.
I sure think they need a good bombing as well, the Arab civilians. Hell, let's just do a lot of genocide. Party anyone?Quote:
They see you the same way you see them.
Don't ever, ever, compare myself or my thinking to those who are killing innocent civilians.
It's a real eye opener when you, you know, actually live with the people :yes:Quote:
From my personal perspective, I believe both the americans and the fanatical muslims are about equally :elephant: :cheerleader: :elephant:
Civilians can? Mothers, grandparents, children? Wow, isn't that interesting?Quote:
Sucking money from the third world, manipulating regimes and so on... You can be responcible for deaths even though you don't drop bombs, you know.
The problem is we are passed that. Can we minimize the threat? Yes. but it wont ever go away. There is to much power and money in the America hating industry. We already give the most money in the world and there is still poverty here. Jose isnt nearly as cute in a tall tee as he is in a poncho. Im sick and tired of helping others when we need help here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
depends on what you mean with "here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I've been to two places in the US.... One of them was pretty much against the war, and had the same wievs as me (new york).
Other one was Missouri.... It was before 9/11, but I am rather convinced they are polishing their knightly armour and great-cross flagpoles as we speak...
It of course depends on where you are in the US...
But yes, people all over teh world DO watch Faux news, and it is claimed to be the no. 1 channel in the US... so it is not wierd people think the general american has the same view as faux, as it is the biggest channel...
So you really dont know? You are just assuming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
[QUOTE=Kadagar_AV;2032369]depends on what you mean with "here...
Well hell, that's like me basing my opinion on the Swedish because I've only visited Stockholm and Goteburg. (:2thumbsup:)Quote:
I've been to two places in the US.... One of them was pretty much against the war, and had the same wievs as me (new york).
I think they have a family to get to :yes:Quote:
Other one was Missouri.... It was before 9/11, but I am rather convinced they are polishing their knightly armour and great-cross flagpoles as we speak...
I think Faux News is the only one who claims this.Quote:
But yes, people all over teh world DO watch Faux news, and it is claimed to be the no. 1 channel in the US... so it is not wierd people think the general american has the same view as faux, as it is the biggest channel...
SFTS> Indeed. They might have started reading other books than the bible and watching other stuff than god channel and faux news since I was there.
SwedishFish> Both Stockholm and Göteborg are pretty close to each other when it comes to politics... Not a very good retort.
of course, Sweden is WAY smaller than the US so it is not comparable. In Sweden, the biggest difference is between the rural areas and cities. I would say Göteborg and Stockholm has the same perspective in about 99% of the issues.
Also, if Faux News gets to keep claiming they are the no. 1 news channel for The US year after year, then can you blame non-americans for believing it?
Actually, that pattern "city mouse - country mouse" repeats in the USA quite reliably. Most small towns and rural areas are quite conservative while most urban centers -- especially the biggest ten cities and any university town -- are strongly liberal. The suburbs are a mish-mash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV