Poll: After Bin Laden: Next Step
- Thread starter Calbeck
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I actually agree with Calbeck here, that even the Taliban in Pakistan are the US's mess, because without the american help, funds and equipment they wouldnt have been able to take over most of Afghanistan and parts of other countries.
You are still in the cold war aftermath and yes, thats your war to end. Finally.
You are still in the cold war aftermath and yes, thats your war to end. Finally.
Yeah, this worries me.Kortney said:
From a lot of people's reactions you'd think the war is over. What happened the part where we make the lives of the people in Afghanistan better, fight the other insurgents and combat the heroin trade stemming from Afghanistan?
Surely people realise these are among the other reasons for being there nowadays?
(well, for the US anyways, I'm not sure we (the U.K. - brackets within brackets, is that even allowed?!) should be there anyway, but that's a story for another day.)
Well, except for the fact that none of that is actually true.Fetzenfisch said:
US arms shipments were limited to the Stinger missiles. By comparison, Britain sent over 100,000 rifles. The American Stingers, however, allowed the mujihadeen to knock down armored Hind-D helicopters and low-flying jets that there was otherwise little defense against.
The CIA trainers were usually laughed at by the mujihadeen because they were generally empty suits trying to teach from textbooks, as though to children in a classroom. Most of them, including bin Laden's bunch, refused such training.
Finally, the Taliban didn't even exist when the US was assisting. They evolved from the power vaccuum which was left behind, when the US pulled out its assistance once the Soviets were run out of the country.
It's still our mess, though. One we should have prevented from occurring back in the '80s, and could have simply by maintaining involvement in the region and keeping the power vaccuum from filling up with religious extremists.
Another reason the USA is in Afghanistan is because of the contractors and employment. What do you think would happen if they sent the hundreds of thousands of contractors back home? It wouldn't be good for the country at all. The USA does benefit through war - it's probably their main export.Wadders said:
It's a slightly outside the box reason - but it is certainly one of the many reasons they are there.
In all fairness, he started shooting first, capturing him was out of the question after that.Hussmann54 said:
They buried under the ocean to demoralize the enemy and not give them a grave to turn into a shrine.
There's no way in hell he could've been used as a bargaining chip and he couldn't be given trail due to the fact he was shooting, as in, you know, trying to kill, those sent to get him. That'd be like trying to give someone a speeding ticket after they drove off into the distance at a hundred miles per hour and you're in the middle of pursuit.
They did DNA testing and confirmed it was him, no need to keep it. Besides, his supporters would've killed for his body back, best destroy it before a war breaks out over it.
Also, POW implies he is a prisoner, which he wasn't. He started shooting, thus making him a combatant.
1) No one's expecting them to take it lightly.
2) Handling it any other way would've been a terrible idea.
3) Your argument makes no sense.
4) You clearly don't understand the situation that the operation was carried out under.
Also, as a side note, proper grammar helps one not make an idiot of themselves.
OT: I think they should stabilize the region before pulling out, right now all we've got is a power vacuum that's going to be filled with upstart terrorist leaders seeking both revenge and power of their own.
Except we don't have hundreds of thousands of contractors in Afghanistan. And those working there do so on the federal tax dollar. It profits the nation no more than the bank bailouts did.Kortney said:
Actually it's agricultural products. -
We get out and if we are attacked like we were on 9/11 we drop a nuke. Having thousands of there people vaporized in a second would take the fight out of them. Say what you will but many people argue that dropping the big one on Japan took the zealotry and fanaticism out of them. Pre bomb Japan is using suicide bombers post they are one of our best friends.
Oh, another one of those who holds there is no middle ground between "Corporations Secretly Run Everything" and "Corporations Exist". Thanks for clarifying that. -Kortney said:
Now, perhaps you'd like to explain where you got your "hundreds of thousands of contractors in Afghanistan" figure. Or is hyperbole your standard means of getting people to agree with you?
"Next" would be to stop attempting to fight extremist terrorism in the one way that has been proven, time and time again, to not work in any significant way.
You cannot fight terrorism or extremist views with bombs and guns and killing.
Every extremist you kill has a mother, a father, brothes, sisters, uncles, aunties and maybe even children. Every extremist you kill has a dozen people who care about them as a human being that might take up arms for revenge, not because they believe in the ideology.
Every country you invade has citizens. No matter how much you hate your leaders, they are still your leaders, in your country.. being invaded causes people to fight you because you are an invader.
Most importantly.. every single innocent you kill creates new fighters for our enemies.. and these are not people you can blame, they are not extremists, they are not terrorists, they are victims who are doing exactly the same thing that was done to them.. killing people in the name of vengence.
Wars like this end only one way, when one party finally gives up the need for vengence and starts building bridges.
You cannot fight terrorism or extremist views with bombs and guns and killing.
Every extremist you kill has a mother, a father, brothes, sisters, uncles, aunties and maybe even children. Every extremist you kill has a dozen people who care about them as a human being that might take up arms for revenge, not because they believe in the ideology.
Every country you invade has citizens. No matter how much you hate your leaders, they are still your leaders, in your country.. being invaded causes people to fight you because you are an invader.
Most importantly.. every single innocent you kill creates new fighters for our enemies.. and these are not people you can blame, they are not extremists, they are not terrorists, they are victims who are doing exactly the same thing that was done to them.. killing people in the name of vengence.
Wars like this end only one way, when one party finally gives up the need for vengence and starts building bridges.
Were that in fact true, we would still be fighting in Germany and Japan, where the Allies killed MILLIONS of civilians.Craorach said:
The reality is, history shows than even extremists eventually get tired of fighting if they see little or no progress. Hence the "Awakening Councils" which ultimately led to the cessation of most of the Iraqi insurgency (and the shifting of the diehards to Afghanistan/Pakistan).
Quite correct. Note that the reason THIS war started was because Al Qaeda already believed it had a need for vengeance. This was expressly and primarily, according to Al Qaeda itself, because the United States supports Israel. And the need for vengeance is because Israel has (in part due to US assistance) repulsed multiple attempts to "drive it out of occupied Palestine".
When religious radicals in the Middle East finally give up the need for vengeance, and begin building bridges, these conflicts will end...and not just the ones the US is involved in.
Considering the people employed in the Defense Department in Afghanistan outnumbers US troop numbers, I think that isn't all that much hyperbole. Also, by "contractors" I was talking about contractors. Not all of them are combat personnel as you seem to be telling me I was talking about.Calbeck said:Oh, another one of those who holds there is no middle ground between Corporations Secretly Run Everything and Corporations Exist. Thanks for clarifying that. -Kortney said:
Now, perhaps you'd like to explain where you got your "hundreds of thousands of contractors in Afghanistan" figure. Or is hyperbole your standard means of getting people to agree with you?
It isn't secretly run either. I think it is pretty naive to believe that contract companies and stakeholders in Afghanistan aren't mutually benefiting through US presence. You don't have to turn my viewpoint into a conspiracy theory - because it's not.
There is no way that the US can possibly "win" in Afghanistan. Not with soldiers and million dollar missiles.
Our enemy over their just wants to die for Allah and go up to heaven so they can have sex with virgins, and we've been giving that to them with great enthusiasm. If our military wasn't so egostistical they would realize this and change their strategies accordingly.
Our enemy over their just wants to die for Allah and go up to heaven so they can have sex with virgins, and we've been giving that to them with great enthusiasm. If our military wasn't so egostistical they would realize this and change their strategies accordingly.
So you continue to hold that "hundreds of thousands" is an accurate assessment of the number of contractors in Afghanistan, simply because they outnumber the actual troops. Okay, that's your call. I don't see any numbers supporting it, but it's irrelevant in any case since your entire point in bringing it up was to claim that a reason the US stays in the region is as a weird form of "make-work" public welfare.Kortney said:
Nope. I'm considering both military and civilian contractors. We simply don't employ that many in Afghanistan, as opposed to Iraq, because Afghanistan never HAD the scale of infrastructure that had to be repaired or replaced in Iraq. There's simply no place to employ "hundreds of thousands" of civilian contractors in Afghanistan.
Nor did anyone suggest they aren't. But you seem to have a habit of overstating your case for the purpose of leaping to dramatic conclusions.
Considering 90,000 US troops are in Afghanistan and contractors outnumber them - it is pretty reasonable to suggest the number is in the hundreds of thousands.Calbeck said:
So instead of addressing my point you make a personal accusation about me. You're kind.
Germany and Japan have completely different cultures and fighting motive than Afghanistan does.Calbeck said:
Afghanis hold the concept of the "valley" close to them. It is a symbolic term that represents them. The area and tribe an Afghan belongs to represents their family, their possessions, their God and themselves. It is a completely alien belief that they hold compared to Western rationalisation. When there is foreign presence, they defend their valley. You also have to remember many thousands of people in Afghanistan are poor and uneducated. They don't understand the over arching goals of the US military. All they know is the US is in their "valley" and tresspassing upon their kingdom. Maybe they lost an uncle or a brother or a cousin to US artillery. USA=Enemy. They join up to fight. Plain and simple. To win in Afghanistan, you have to understand Islamic culture. Obama thankfully does seem to understand this a tad better than Bush. On top of this, there is a huge civil war going on that the USA is intruding. That doesn't help either.
I've got two Brothers fighting at the moment and they both vouch for the idea that every time you kill a man, his sons, his brothers and even his sisters join the resistance movement.
That would be a singular, not a plural. And it's not on me to disprove numbers you're guessing at. Especially since the only reason you came up with them was to push some snark about the US being in Afghanistan for teh munniez.Kortney said:
Observation, not accusation. And in addressing your point, I've made mine.
You do not appear to remember what German and Japanese cultures during World War II were like --- just as a reminder, one reason we did NOT want to invade the Japanese Home Islands with conventional ground troops was because the Japanese had mobilized eight MILLION civilians to counterattack the beach-heads if we landed.
WITH BAMBOO SPEARS, BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ENOUGH GUNS.
Yeah. Same culture that trained suicide pilots to fly actual bombs (Google: "Baka Bomb") into ships. Jet-powered bombs, because not enough of the normal propellor-driven suicide attempts were getting through.
And that's just the Japanese. I don't think we really need to examine Germany's origins and concepts of "Total War".
Actually, you've just described most of Western Europe for most of its history. I'll agree that in today's more "enlightened" age, such thinking is alien --- to those in the West who have not paid attention to their own precedents. Bearing those precedents in mind, no, the Afghan man or woman is not an impossible-to-understand creature whom we should treat with fear or trepidation.
Or, historically, enlist it against an actually hostile presence. You forget that "foreign presence" in Afghanistan, prior to the current unpleasantness, was a matter of colonization to seize actual resources --- poppies, opium, and most importantly the Silk Road. But today, the Coalition obtains nothing from Afghanistan, even if we held it as a colony.
This means that "enemy of my enemy" is the operative phrase in effect. And to many in Afghanistan, the Taliban have always been the enemy.
The only reason there is a civil war is because the United States made it possible for the Taliban --- the other side in said war --- to be overthrown. We're not intruders to it: we're primary participants and allies.
So it should be hundred of thousand? I thought any number between 100,000-900,000 was within the "hundreds of thousands". Just like any number between 10,000-99,000 is in the "tens of thousands". But English is my third language, so I don't really know. If you started all of this because you don't like the way I speak about numbers - then fair enough.Calbeck said:
And I never said the USA was in Afghanistan for money. I said the beneficial arrangement of contractors is one of the reasons - because I believe both huge organisations and the USA a mutually benefiting through it. And yes, I believe certain influencial figures and bodies within the USA make a lot of money out of it.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post because it's filled with elitism and a condescending tone. If you don't agree with what I said, I don't really care. Half of what you are going on about has been completely misinterpreted anyway.