Afghanistan, your views.

[Dectomax]

Firstly, if this is not in the right location, sorry, please feel free to move it!

To my point. Recently a good friend of mine returned from his second tour in Afghanistan, He was wounded twice, a hit in the shoulder by mortar shrapnel and a wound to the leg by small arms fire. This got me thinking, why are we keeping our men over there. These people are dying and being wounded ( Horrendously for some ) for what? The Middle east and their culture is very different than ours and it is clear that we can not win a conventional war with them.

I'm worried, because my first tour will come up as soon as 16 Air Assault Brigade finish next year. Will I make a difference? Are our troops doing enough to justify their presence over seas? Many of the Corporals of my regiment all say the same thing, "Bugger the politics, just be there for your oppo's". So it's clear what they think of the situation too.

Though, also many good things have come from the efforts of our troops. Schools have been reinstated and many towns are now safer because of us. Yet, will it all be for nothing when we leave? The Afghan National Army and Police must be able to stand on it's own two feet. Which even the Afghan people have said it won't. They need our troops to stay.

So, what do you think? And what are your views on this matter?

Please, keep this flame free.

 

[vento 231]

I think that the world will be better when we're done there, but maybe we should change the tactics, maybe resort to geurilla warefare. I don't know if we have ever done it on a large scale before, it would be a learning experience.

 

[Dectomax]

A guerilla war wouldn't work. The Taliban have had years of experience of that style. Some of them have been fighting since the Russians tried invading back in the '80s. Their tactic revolves around ambushing our soldiers and then retreating before we can mount a successful counter attack. They use the peoples fear against us, none of them want to talk or co-operate unless they feel safe, that they won't be reprimanded by the Taliban.

We're fighting a completely different style of war there. With no disrespect intended, its much like that of the Vietnam war, we have superior technology and firepower, yet it's not paying off. We're fighting them on their home turf.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I think if the republican party had had the balls when Bush Sr. was in office, and we went at it more with desert storm, this mess wouldnt be happening at the moment.

 

[Canid117]

I think if the republican party had had the balls when Bush Sr. was in office, and we went at it more with desert storm, this mess wouldnt be happening at the moment.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same country. Please go buy a map.

 

[fKd]

get out, get out now. the world will not be a better place once or even if it comes to some kinda end. and what would the end even be? once a nation has been blown back to the stone age what do you hope to get from it? world security? blowing the crap out of a nation is not how you build trust or fight terrorism or topple a government system you helped fund and setup in the first place.
should never have gone there in the first place, much like iraq... cheers bush administration for making the world a more unsafe place to live. sigh

 

[emeraldrafael]

I think if the republican party had had the balls when Bush Sr. was in office, and we went at it more with desert storm, this mess wouldnt be happening at the moment.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same country. Please go buy a map.

I own a map. several. Of several different time periods, seperated by several different centuries.

BUt if we had just plugged a bullet into Suddam at the time, we could have concentrated on Afghanistan and probably be doen with this now.

We're fighting a completely different style of war there. With no disrespect intended, its much like that of the Vietnam war, we have superior technology and firepower, yet it's not paying off. We're fighting them on their home turf.

No, We lost Vietnam because johnson was too much a of a pussy to commit. We could end this just the same as we could have ended Vietnam in about 30 days. Just Firebomb and napalm the shit out of both places for a good 3 months, and that war would have been done in a summer's time. Same for this war. Destroy the enemy, and all around it, and you won, for sheer logic that there is no one left to fight.

And ebfore you say thats terrible, remember this. The only countries that use the geneva convention, care about a good image, and dont want to commit a crime against humanity, are the ones like the US, UK, and other developed countries. You dont see the Taliban obeying the Geneva Convention and you didnt see Hitler listening either.

 

[VanityGirl]

Well, to be frank, the U.S. has troops everywhere. Even if this conflict were resolved, there would probably still be troops there.

Sadly, whether or not the U.S. should be "at war" with the country has no effect of if troops will be there or not. My buddy served over in Iraq (Yes different country, same principle) BEFORE 9/11.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I think if the republican party had had the balls when Bush Sr. was in office, and we went at it more with desert storm, this mess wouldnt be happening at the moment.

you retard, you dont understand anything about humans do you? lol yeah, because blowing the shit out of a 3rd world nation is gonna stop kids who have lost their families to war from joining some kind of terrorist group to fight the people responsible, grow a brain :/

I did have a reason. We could have stopped a dictator. you saying you didnt wnat to do that? maybe you should explain to the people in that tribe that suddam destroyed with nerve gas why my statement was wrong oh... wait.

 

[Ruffythepirate]

First off, I don't actually have any statistics on what has happened in Afghanistan (schools built contra children killed and so forth). But after seeing Armadillo (a basically uncensored documentary right in the action), I don't really think anything is going to work. Getting out as soon as possible seems like the best solution.

 

[Dectomax]

Stop the flaming please people

Don't mind a good debate, flaming isn't cool, yo dig?...

 

[emeraldrafael]

Stop the flaming please people

Don't mind a good debate, flaming isn't cool, yo dig?...

To be fair, I didnt flame.

First off, I don't actually have any statistics on what has happened in Afghanistan (schools built contra children killed and so forth). But after seeing Armadillo (a basically uncensored documentary right in the action), I don't really think anything is going to work. Getting out as soon as possible seems like the best solution.

I think I have to agree, cause this is about the only thing the US can do at tthis point that we all know will be the best choice in the end.

 

[lionheart_1]

There are no simple solutions for Afghanistan. Many of the problems that are wrapped up in that conflict are multi-factorial.

For example, many of the farmers there grow opium. This in turn leads to additional funds either being handed over to the local warlords or the Taliban.

The reason why the farmers grow the stuff is money. A year or two after the invasion, Afghanistan suffered a severe drought. Many farmers relied on being able to grow wheat to feed their families and sell enough of it to buy additional goods. While the inital influx of food aid was welcomed, it wasn't scaled back sufficiently enough when the drought ended. As a result, wheat prices collapsed, and it became economically unviable for farmers to grow wheat and they switched to opium.

Other problems range from the building of infrastructure, provision of healthcare (and veterinary support), corruption, governance, let alone any military issues that we regularly confronted with on the news.

 

[Dectomax]

Stop the flaming please people

Don't mind a good debate, flaming isn't cool, yo dig?...

To be fair, I didnt flame.

First off, I don't actually have any statistics on what has happened in Afghanistan (schools built contra children killed and so forth). But after seeing Armadillo (a basically uncensored documentary right in the action), I don't really think anything is going to work. Getting out as soon as possible seems like the best solution.

I think I have to agree, cause this is about the only thing the US can do at tthis point that we all know will be the best choice in the end.

Was just a general shout out

I agree and disagree. Whilst bringing our forces home would seem better to population of both our countries, it would be a dishonour to those who served and died there. The only foreseeable way that Afghanistan is going to fix itself, is with our help. We need to rethink how we go about that though. As can be seen, we're having some effect, but at what cost?

 

[Tdc2182]

I currently have a brother in the War over their, so I will use some of his knowledge to describe it.

We are their for a good cause, but the problem is we are fighting an idea. You can't kill an idea. The country is screwed, they won't even protect themselves. Give them money to build a water tower, it will be in the hands of the Taliban by the end of the week.

We gave it our best, but the only way we can win is if we resort to unhumanitarian acts. And the cause is not worth the effect.

 

[GundamSentinel]

It was wrong to go to Afghanistan to begin with. Democracy isn't the best system everywhere, and trying to forcibly implement it can only make things worse for the country involved.
Sure, I sympathize with the troops over there, but they really aren't doing much good. Yes, they're building schools and infrastructure, but the Taliban is only getting stronger and one day the troops have to leave. What then? Trying to create a democratic utopia is in itself a utopian thought. It serves no purpose. Then again, the only purpose the operation had was to alleviate American fear of terrorists.

 

[Tdc2182]

No, We lost Vietnam because johnson was too much a of a pussy to commit. We could end this just the same as we could have ended Vietnam in about 30 days. Just Firebomb and napalm the shit out of both places for a good 3 months, and that war would have been done in a summer's time. Same for this war. Destroy the enemy, and all around it, and you won, for sheer logic that there is no one left to fight.

Wow. "Yeah, let's just nuke the entire country and get it over with. More innocent people die than the enemy, but who cares. We won, didn't we"

Looks good on you.

 

[emeraldrafael]

There are no simple solutions for Afghanistan. Many of the problems that are wrapped up in that conflict are multi-factorial.

For example, many of the farmers there grow opium. This in turn leads to additional funds either being handed over to the local warlords or the Taliban.

The reason why the farmers grow the stuff is money. A year or two after the invasion, Afghanistan suffered a severe drought. Many farmers relied on being able to grow wheat to feed their families and sell enough of it to buy additional goods. While the inital influx of food aid was welcomed, it wasn't scaled back sufficiently enough when the drought ended. As a result, wheat prices collapsed, and it became economically unviable for farmers to grow wheat and they switched to opium.

Other problems range from the building of infrastructure, provision of healthcare (and veterinary support), corruption, governance, let alone any military issues that we regularly confronted with on the news.

You're basing this all on the fact that people care what happens after we leave. I cna say for a fact the US doesnt give two shits what happens when we leave, otherwise we'd have done something abit more forceful in Korea or Vietnam. This is a war (for the us at least), to give the message that we dont take shit from anybody, and that we are never wrong. If we (the us) didnt think the terrorists would take a victory from this and be emboldened, we'd pull out and say fuck it, leaving an IOU stamped tank tread as we left. Also, if we had more then Isreal there as a "democratic" nation, we wouldnt care as much either.

Its a war for our glory, one of those things that people always make jokes against the US about saying that when they need to feel good, they launch war against a small country. Besides that, we're waging war on an idea, not a place or person. and you cant fight an idea until you kill everyone who thinks differently then you, ebcause what is yellow to one man is gold to another.

 

[emeraldrafael]

No, We lost Vietnam because johnson was too much a of a pussy to commit. We could end this just the same as we could have ended Vietnam in about 30 days. Just Firebomb and napalm the shit out of both places for a good 3 months, and that war would have been done in a summer's time. Same for this war. Destroy the enemy, and all around it, and you won, for sheer logic that there is no one left to fight.

Wow. "Yeah, let's just nuke the entire country and get it over with. More innocent people die than the enemy, but who cares. We won, didn't we"

Looks good on you.

thanks,m you took the post out of context. Here, this is the rest of the post that you must have "forgotten" :
And ebfore you say thats terrible, remember this. The only countries that use the geneva convention, care about a good image, and dont want to commit a crime against humanity, are the ones like the US, UK, and other developed countries. You dont see the Taliban obeying the Geneva Convention and you didnt see Hitler listening either.

And here is the entire post in its entirety (so no one gets lost) :

I think if the republican party had had the balls when Bush Sr. was in office, and we went at it more with desert storm, this mess wouldnt be happening at the moment.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same country. Please go buy a map.

I own a map. several. Of several different time periods, seperated by several different centuries.

BUt if we had just plugged a bullet into Suddam at the time, we could have concentrated on Afghanistan and probably be doen with this now.

We're fighting a completely different style of war there. With no disrespect intended, its much like that of the Vietnam war, we have superior technology and firepower, yet it's not paying off. We're fighting them on their home turf.

No, We lost Vietnam because johnson was too much a of a pussy to commit. We could end this just the same as we could have ended Vietnam in about 30 days. Just Firebomb and napalm the shit out of both places for a good 3 months, and that war would have been done in a summer's time. Same for this war. Destroy the enemy, and all around it, and you won, for sheer logic that there is no one left to fight.

And ebfore you say thats terrible, remember this. The only countries that use the geneva convention, care about a good image, and dont want to commit a crime against humanity, are the ones like the US, UK, and other developed countries. You dont see the Taliban obeying the Geneva Convention and you didnt see Hitler listening either.

 

[emeraldrafael]

BUt if we had just plugged a bullet into Suddam at the time, we could have concentrated on Afghanistan and probably be doen with this now.

The reason America supposedly invaded Afghanistan was to get rid of Al Qaeda and hunt for Saddam Hussein. It was a response to the 9/11 attacks, which didn't even happen during George H.W. Bush's term.

Also, who the bloody heck is Suddam?

No, We lost Vietnam because johnson was too much a of a pussy to commit. We could end this just the same as we could have ended Vietnam in about 30 days. Just Firebomb and napalm the shit out of both places for a good 3 months, and that war would have been done in a summer's time. Same for this war. Destroy the enemy, and all around it, and you won, for sheer logic that there is no one left to fight.

And ebfore you say thats terrible, remember this. The only countries that use the geneva convention, care about a good image, and dont want to commit a crime against humanity, are the ones like the US, UK, and other developed countries. You dont see the Taliban obeying the Geneva Convention and you didnt see Hitler listening either.

Do you have any idea how many civilians died in Afghanistan due to bombings and attacks by the American Coalition forces and the U.S. Army? By recklessly bombing every single supposed insurgent hideout without maximum precision, you're putting the lives of thousands of civilians living in the area at risk. What was the point of the invasion of Afghanistan, to stop devastation and destruction or to commit it?

Does it matter? We're fighting a conventional war against an unconventional enemy. Look, i get it. We have to be humane because we have to be better then the opnes we're fighting against. But if that were the case, we'd still be fighting with sticks. Do you really think the Taliban are going to stop and say, "wow, they're being really good sports about this, perhaps we should let by gone be by gones"?

No, they're not. As horrible as it is to say, we're fighting a gentleman's war when we need to fight like animals. We are fighting TERROR as an idea, so we must use Terror in return. there is no fighitng on even ground in a war like this. it is simply who can bury all of the others first.

EDIT: Suddam is supposed ot be Saddam. I just spelled it as it sounded, and i've seen it spelled that way a few times so I thought thats how it was spelled. And while 9/11 didnt happen during Bush Sr.'s term, he did have the chance to kill saddam in the gulf war, but decided that would be too much. at the time, it was a good idea, in retrospect, its debatable.