Org Mobile Site
Thread: The Great Game, another loss
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
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.
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!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.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
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 ?
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.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 ?
Now that ain't fair at all Koga , Strike does some bloody good posts and often goes against the percieved grain
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.Now that ain't fair at all Koga , Strike does some bloody good posts and often goes against the percieved grain
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by SwedishFish:
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
1. The US has 
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
1. The US has 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.
lies in bold1. The US has
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.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
lies in bold
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?lies in bold
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
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?
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?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?
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?
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.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?
What have we done about Saudi Arabia?
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.
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 possibleNo, 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.
What have we done about Saudi Arabia?
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
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 possible
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.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 possible
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.
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?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.
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?
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.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?
saudis
trained in afghanistan...
... by saudis
funded by saudis
go figure
trained in afghanistan...
... by saudis
funded by saudis
go figure
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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
Can't win.
QFTCan'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?"
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.
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. 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.
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.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.
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.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.
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!
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
QFT
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?"
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.QFT
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?"
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. 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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
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.
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.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.
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. 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.
I might do a Tribesman...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.
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!
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.
..............................................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.
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?
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar:
I might do a Tribesman...
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!
YEAH OMGWTFLOLI might do a Tribesman...
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!
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?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO