Afghanistan, your views.

[emeraldrafael]

snip

And you actually think the rest of that post makes you look better?

No one else is playing by the rules, so why should we? You do realize that the Taliban represents less than one percent of the Muslim nation. Less than a quarter percent of Afghanistan actually supports them.

So what should we do? Kill all the citizens of their nation, cause they would do the same to us?

Why don't we go to total war with them? Rape the villagers, burn down their little huts? Hell, they'd do the same to us. Let's make an example of them. Let's go round us up some muslims who have little to do with the Taliban, and cut off their heads during halftimes at football games. We can film it too, and put it on the internet. Cause that's what they would do to us

And before you do the whole "taking my words out of context" don't. Because that is exactly what you are implying.

hey, somoene gets it!

no, i'm not going to argue, that is what i said. Its called total war. Its what General Sherman did to the South in the American Civil war. So yeah, its horrible. But it works, and thats the important part. You cant make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

No I'm not proud of it, but its the best you can do if you want to completely destroy the threat.

 

[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.

Can I live in your simple world where everything is easy and takes five seconds of thought?

Its true. we could have stopped the regime and had somoene US or at least UN neutral and focused on Afghanistan from the start.

Yes because a dictators seconds give up immediately after the dictator is dead.

You think we would just get Saddam alone? Especially since a good portion of his cabinet wanted him dead? It would have been when he was in a group of them, taken them out.

Dont talk down to me like i'm stupid. My field of study is history, and my interest/focus is CIA/KGB undercover type deals. If the US would have commited, we could have stabalized that stretch of sand and that is proven speculation by many history scholars.

 

[Glerken]

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.

Right, because we're no better than the Taliban or Hitler.

So yes. We should kill countless innocent civilians. We'll have to hit the enemy right?
But seriously dude, you don't think we're better than that? You think we should act like animals and "Just Firebomb and napalm the shit out of both places for a good 3 months"

No.
I don't even know what else to say.
Just no.

 

[emeraldrafael]

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.

Right, because we're no better than the Taliban or Hitler.

So yes. We should kill countless innocent civilians. We'll have to hit the enemy right?
But seriously dude, you don't think we're better than that? You think we should act like animals and "Just Firebomb and napalm the shit out of both places for a good 3 months"

No.
I don't even know what else to say.
Just no.

yes. Actually no, you're statement contradicts itself. I said if we should this, we'll be no better then the above. BUt there are times when thats what it takes. Unfortunately, the US lost taht ability after the realization that jungle dwellers (veitnam) beat the might of the us, and the really images came out of who we were fighting.

But yes, to get the job done as efficently and totally as possible, Total war always works. Its just too bad we're one of those countries that cares what that little scrap of paper called the Geneva Convention says.

 

[Tdc2182]

hey, somoene gets it!

no, i'm not going to argue, that is what i said. Its called total war. Its what General Sherman did to the South in the American Civil war. So yeah, its horrible. But it works, and thats the important part. You cant make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

No I'm not proud of it, but its the best you can do if you want to completely destroy the threat.

Congratulations. You are the soul example of what's wrong with this world.

Now you can go ahead and kill yourself, save some poor sap the trouble of buying bullets.

On second thought, it sounds like you are trolling. Either way, kill yourself.

 

[PrimoThePro]

The way I see it, the whole thing is really stupid. I put forth this point to my pro-war American friends. Assume the Cold War was still going on. Imagine Russia invades, and no nukes go flying. Back in Russia, they tell their people over the news that they are bringing a "real freedom" to the United States. But back in the U.S., you would be revolting, no? It makes sense, Communists invade, attempt to change your way of life, so you create a band of soldiers made for fighting them tooth and nail. Back in Russia, they tell their people, "This brigand hates freedom!" and thus their people believe that Americans truly hate freedom, when no, that is exactly what you are fighting for.
Now I'm not saying I agree with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, in fact I find them brutal and repulsive, but you have to have to understand, their way of life is how it's been for... well, forever. They are used to it you could say. And even though the U.S. could go in there with the best of intentions, and indeed save quite a few people, the fact of the matter is there will always be those who rebel against it.

 

[emeraldrafael]

hey, somoene gets it!

no, i'm not going to argue, that is what i said. Its called total war. Its what General Sherman did to the South in the American Civil war. So yeah, its horrible. But it works, and thats the important part. You cant make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

No I'm not proud of it, but its the best you can do if you want to completely destroy the threat.

Congratulations. You are the soul example of what's wrong with this world.

Now you can go ahead and kill yourself, save some poor sap the trouble of buying bullets.

On second thought, it sounds like you are trolling. Either way, kill yourself.

Careful, I got suspended for saying someone should kill themselves after they said they didnt have an imagination. I'd hate to see the same happen to you.

besides, its an opinion thread and asks what we think should be done in the country to get soldiers out quickly. And total war is the only way while still saving face and saying we're not giving up Bin Laden. Anyways, how does this make me bad? Its pointing out a statement, and i never said it should be done, just said IF it was done. So far everyone that quoted that post has either missed the point or tried to word it differently then whats its said.

 

[Glerken]

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.

Right, because we're no better than the Taliban or Hitler.

So yes. We should kill countless innocent civilians. We'll have to hit the enemy right?
But seriously dude, you don't think we're better than that? You think we should act like animals and "Just Firebomb and napalm the shit out of both places for a good 3 months"

No.
I don't even know what else to say.
Just no.

yes. Actually no, you're statement contradicts itself. I said if we should this, we'll be no better then the above. BUt there are times when thats what it takes. Unfortunately, the US lost taht ability after the realization that jungle dwellers (veitnam) beat the might of the us, and the really images came out of who we were fighting.

But yes, to get the job done as efficently and totally as possible, Total war always works. Its just too bad we're one of those countries that cares what that little scrap of paper called the Geneva Convention says.

No, my statements do not contradict themselves.
And yes, it's just too bad we think that innocent humans should not have to die because of another persons beliefs. It's just too bad we value life. It's just too bad we're better than terrorists. It's just too bad that there would be protests and marching in the streets, just because we would be killing countless, innocent men, women, and children. How dare we have compassion for our fellow man. Why can't people just see that the only true answer is to kill everything.

No sir, I respectfully disagree.
And yes, I will say that what you have said is terrible. I don't see how anyone can begin to justify your ideas above.

We can't create a stable government in Afghanistan if everyone is dead.

 

[emeraldrafael]

hey, somoene gets it!

no, i'm not going to argue, that is what i said. Its called total war. Its what General Sherman did to the South in the American Civil war. So yeah, its horrible. But it works, and thats the important part. You cant make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

No I'm not proud of it, but its the best you can do if you want to completely destroy the threat.

Congratulations. You are the soul example of what's wrong with this world.

Now you can go ahead and kill yourself, save some poor sap the trouble of buying bullets.

On second thought, it sounds like you are trolling. Either way, kill yourself.

Eh, I've been told worse. To bad my statements only said COULD. I dont beleive in total war, but this is an opinon thread, and in my opinoin, the only way to end this quickly and save fface while showing terroists American (and the world, whoever wants ot commit) wont take thier shit is total war.

NOTE TO EVERYONE THAT QUOTED MY POST ABOUT THE GENEVA CONVENTION!

There is the word COULD in there. That is not to be confused with the word Should.

 

[Blobpie]

When we leave the Taliban will just takeover, we need to finish it other wise the afghan people will be no better off than they were to begin with.

 

[emeraldrafael]

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.

Right, because we're no better than the Taliban or Hitler.

So yes. We should kill countless innocent civilians. We'll have to hit the enemy right?
But seriously dude, you don't think we're better than that? You think we should act like animals and "Just Firebomb and napalm the shit out of both places for a good 3 months"

No.
I don't even know what else to say.
Just no.

yes. Actually no, you're statement contradicts itself. I said if we should this, we'll be no better then the above. BUt there are times when thats what it takes. Unfortunately, the US lost taht ability after the realization that jungle dwellers (veitnam) beat the might of the us, and the really images came out of who we were fighting.

But yes, to get the job done as efficently and totally as possible, Total war always works. Its just too bad we're one of those countries that cares what that little scrap of paper called the Geneva Convention says.

No, my statements do not contradict themselves.
And yes, it's just too bad we think that innocent humans should not have to die because of another persons beliefs. It's just too bad we value life. It's just too bad we're better than terrorists. It's just too bad that there would be protests and marching in the streets, just because we would be killing countless, innocent men, women, and children. How dare we have compassion for our fellow man. Why can't people just see that the only true answer is to kill everything.

No sir, I respectfully disagree.
And yes, I will say that what you have said is terrible. I don't see how anyone can begin to justify your ideas above.

We can't create a stable government in Afghanistan if everyone is dead.

I can. No one had a problem with it when it was to end Slavery in America. Which, i will point out, did NOT begin in the US. ANd of course you CAN make one. you set it up yourself. there's 6+ billion in the world, you odnt think people will move?

Also, id ont beleive in death. Well, not the deaths of innocents. but its jsut the best way while showing we're not taking shit from people like Bin Laden. Yes its horrible, but then agin, life is horrible. Also, if we really valued people's lives there would be no war. Any war fought, any soldier killed in it, dies for the beielive that the country they fight for is right. but go ahead. life in the land of fantasy where wars and killings dont exist. I only wish i had that kinda imagination.

also *ahem*:
NOTE TO EVERYONE THAT QUOTED MY POST ABOUT THE GENEVA CONVENTION!

There is the word COULD in there. That is not to be confused with the word Should.[/quote]

 

[Kiju]

The only thing this "war" in Afghanistan is reminding me of is Vietnam, except it's worse. We're fighting in a war we don't really have to be a part of, and what we should be doing is sucking it up and leaving them the hell alone.

The only reason I can fathom that we haven't done so yet is pride. It's my own personal opinion that the bigwigs don't want to retreat simply because it would be a major and embarrassing loss on our part. But ya know, they're making an even bigger embarrassment of our nation by keeping us going at it, and not even winning the fight.

So...we either A) Throw more than the peacemeal we've thrown at them so far or B) We leave.

I'm all for option B, but I'm not really fond of war and killing, so that's just me. A, on the other hand is perhaps a little too power-hungry for the UN, and I think it would be frowned upon more than if we just plain retreated and left the Afghans to their own devices.

 

[Krion_Vark]

*SNIP*

You ever ask your friend WHY he went back after being injured? My dad knows people who are now disabled from being over in Afghanistan. If they could they would go back in a heart beat because they have seen first hand what is going on over there and truly believe that they are making a difference. THAT is why I am promilitary because of the people fighting for what they believe is right. The reason our military is kind of screwed up ISN'T the soldiers its the people who order them.
The people who are protesting the war are either going off people who only joined the military so that they could get a free education and completely hated it or went into military service with the wrong sense.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I have some thoughts.

First, I am a veteran of the Iraq war and after spending several years of my life there I can say that I am fairly confident that nothing significant changed as a result. Some lives were saved and others were taken by my presence I'm sure but on the balance that altered nothing. By the end of my first tour (Later 2005) things had gone from a simmer to full blown genocide level violence. On the average day, we were finding hundreds of corpses of people killed by sectarian violence in Baghdad alone. That first tour shattered my world view and the belief that warfare could ever be anything other than an ugly business. By the end of my second, I was convinced that victory, as we had defined it at the time, was not achievable. The same goes for Afghanistan. At this point, it seems like the power players in Iraq are just waiting for us to leave to start up again and in Afghanistan, the last time I saw credible news on the subject, we could only claim to hold 3 provinces.

The entire notion that there is a polite or correct way to fight a war is silly enough. Warfare is nothing but cruelty. People who think otherwise are hopelessly naive. Even with cutting edge technology a 2,000 pound bomb is still sufficient to level a city block. Even with the best training, a soldier is just an armed man trying not to die and they will make mistakes. Does the fact that a reasonable mistake was made justify gunning down an innocent man in a car? I doubt the family of such a statistic would think so. The rules of warfare, in spite of what people might think, exist for one of two reasons. Either, they exist because the following such a rule makes it easier to achieve victory or they exist because some misguided fool thinks that there is a polite way to murder a large number of people.

There is a way to prosecute the war on terror, but it does not lie in striking out against our enemies with a massive show of military might. Such a method is suitable for bring ruin to a nation, not for halting the actions of a few thousand determined men spread across the world. I regret that I once thought invading Iraq was a noble endeavor. More than a million lives have been lost, millions more shattered and all so that I could feel a little safer at home. But I don't feel any safer. Worse still, I when I came back home, I realized that, were I in Mohammad Bin Insurgent's shoes, I probably would have done the same thing.

I hate that, by going to war, I realized just how ugly it was. I hate that, by going to war lent humanity to the enemy. And, I hate that by going to war, I realized that, were our roles reversed, I would hate the US in spite of the presumed nobility of the cause.

 

[emeraldrafael]

The only thing this "war" in Afghanistan is reminding me of is Vietnam, except it's worse. We're fighting in a war we don't really have to be a part of, and what we should be doing is sucking it up and leaving them the hell alone.

The only reason I can fathom that we haven't done so yet is pride. It's my own personal opinion that the bigwigs don't want to retreat simply because it would be a major and embarrassing loss on our part. But ya know, they're making an even bigger embarrassment of our nation by keeping us going at it, and not even winning the fight.

So...we either A) Throw more than the peacemeal we've thrown at them so far or B) We leave.

I'm all for option B, but I'm not really fond of war and killing, so that's just me. A, on the other hand is perhaps a little too power-hungry for the UN, and I think it would be frowned upon more than if we just plain retreated and left the Afghans to their own devices.

It depends who you are. This is in all reality, the US's war, and it is a war of revenge and pride, so we wont pull out until Bin Laden is dead or we get somoene with a bit of sense and humility who knows how to say "I give up".

The problem is, if we left, we'd still have ot leave troops, cause the afghai military force falls apart in fornt of the terrorists when left alone. we're ocnstantly fighting for land we had just yesterday.

 

[Krion_Vark]

*SNIP*

I am going to TRY and refrain from turning into a raging person on the internet because of your statements.

Do you know which side has killed more Civilians the US or the Taliban/Al-Queda?
That is all I will say for now.

 

[Krion_Vark]

The only thing this "war" in Afghanistan is reminding me of is Vietnam, except it's worse. We're fighting in a war we don't really have to be a part of, and what we should be doing is sucking it up and leaving them the hell alone.

The only reason I can fathom that we haven't done so yet is pride. It's my own personal opinion that the bigwigs don't want to retreat simply because it would be a major and embarrassing loss on our part. But ya know, they're making an even bigger embarrassment of our nation by keeping us going at it, and not even winning the fight.

So...we either A) Throw more than the peacemeal we've thrown at them so far or B) We leave.

I'm all for option B, but I'm not really fond of war and killing, so that's just me. A, on the other hand is perhaps a little too power-hungry for the UN, and I think it would be frowned upon more than if we just plain retreated and left the Afghans to their own devices.

Do you know anyone in the military?
Yeah we don't need to be a part of the war but here is my question for you. If there was a tyrant government telling you how you had to act and if not you would be executed and people were too afraid to stand up against that government would you want another country to step in and stop that government?

 

[emeraldrafael]

The only thing this "war" in Afghanistan is reminding me of is Vietnam, except it's worse. We're fighting in a war we don't really have to be a part of, and what we should be doing is sucking it up and leaving them the hell alone.

The only reason I can fathom that we haven't done so yet is pride. It's my own personal opinion that the bigwigs don't want to retreat simply because it would be a major and embarrassing loss on our part. But ya know, they're making an even bigger embarrassment of our nation by keeping us going at it, and not even winning the fight.

So...we either A) Throw more than the peacemeal we've thrown at them so far or B) We leave.

I'm all for option B, but I'm not really fond of war and killing, so that's just me. A, on the other hand is perhaps a little too power-hungry for the UN, and I think it would be frowned upon more than if we just plain retreated and left the Afghans to their own devices.

Do you know anyone in the military?
Yeah we don't need to be a part of the war but here is my question for you. If there was a tyrant government telling you how you had to act and if not you would be executed and people were too afraid to stand up against that government would you want another country to step in and stop that government?

we're not in a war against the afghan govenment, just against Terrorism. We're keeping an Eye on the president of Afghanistan because he's not exactly pro american and is in line to get Nuclear Weapons. Just to clarify, otherwise you're gonna get torn apart by counter posts.

 

[Krion_Vark]

The only thing this "war" in Afghanistan is reminding me of is Vietnam, except it's worse. We're fighting in a war we don't really have to be a part of, and what we should be doing is sucking it up and leaving them the hell alone.

The only reason I can fathom that we haven't done so yet is pride. It's my own personal opinion that the bigwigs don't want to retreat simply because it would be a major and embarrassing loss on our part. But ya know, they're making an even bigger embarrassment of our nation by keeping us going at it, and not even winning the fight.

So...we either A) Throw more than the peacemeal we've thrown at them so far or B) We leave.

I'm all for option B, but I'm not really fond of war and killing, so that's just me. A, on the other hand is perhaps a little too power-hungry for the UN, and I think it would be frowned upon more than if we just plain retreated and left the Afghans to their own devices.

Do you know anyone in the military?
Yeah we don't need to be a part of the war but here is my question for you. If there was a tyrant government telling you how you had to act and if not you would be executed and people were too afraid to stand up against that government would you want another country to step in and stop that government?

we're not in a war against the afghan govenment, just against Terrorism. We're keeping an Eye on the president of Afghanistan because he's not exactly pro american and is in line to get Nuclear Weapons. Just to clarify, otherwise you're gonna get torn apart by counter posts.

Actually we have been phasing out our involvement for quite a few years. Then the Taliban got a resurgence in the area so we had to send troops back. And The Taliban WERE the government in Afghanistan before this war started and they did everything that I described. Right now we are fighting to defend the new government from the old government because they asked us to help them against the Taliban. Even so our involvement is very minimal since we are training their police and military and making it so that they can train themselves and be able to fend for themselves.

 

[emeraldrafael]

snippy snip

processing....

yeah, youre right. I'm thinking Iraq and Pakistan. My apologizes and thank you for the correction.