Can we win the war in Afghanistan?

[Dr_Chagas]

The community poll caught my attention. If you haven't already taken a look, it asks: "Can we win the war in Afghanistan?" And offers three options; "Yes", "Maybe", and "No".

Whoever submitted the poll should've added a fourth option.


First off, who is we? Can any people from the US on this site even list more than 5 NATO countries taking part in combat operations? Just off the top of your head.

Now, what's up with the war label? The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war on drugs. None of these are wars. A war is armed conflict between two nations. There's no war in Afghanistan. It's an occupation. And it'll probably become more off a peace keeping operation in the future.


So no, "you" can't win or lose "the war" because the question is fundamentally flawed. And that means maybe is also out. :p

[bobdina]

We have 42 countries involved in Afghanistan . Off the top of my head I can count at least 18. And we also have vet's from most of those 18 countries in this forum and on the page, that have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. And if you do not think that there is a war going on in Afghanistan then I cannot help you with your question because you are fundamentally flawed . As a matter of fact if you come in here and read the military news there are topics from counties as diverse as Canada to Finland and Germany to the Netherlands, not counting the U.K. and U.S.
You can pick apart any poll you like, they are up there just to get the pulse of the community and people would have to be pretty dumb to come on a military themed website and think the poll is about the war on drugs.

[GTFPDQ]

Pedantic tosser.

[bobdina]

Pedantic tosser.

I'm gonna have to start writing down your quotes Charlie and use them with my family, on second thought better not or they'll have me committed.

[Stark]

The community poll caught my attention. If you haven't already taken a look, it asks: "Can we win the war in Afghanistan?" And offers three options; "Yes", "Maybe", and "No".

Whoever submitted the poll should've added a fourth option.


First off, who is we? Can any people from the US on this site even list more than 5 NATO countries taking part in combat operations? Just off the top of your head.

Now, what's up with the war label? The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war on drugs. None of these are wars. A war is armed conflict between two nations. There's no war in Afghanistan. It's an occupation. And it'll probably become more off a peace keeping operation in the future.


So no, "you" can't win or lose "the war" because the question is fundamentally flawed. And that means maybe is also out. :p

Well maybe I was right and I should have been more specific - the question who is "we" is justified.

However Afghanistan is a war - it doesn't need to be an occupation OR a war - it can be both - see WW2 - the germans were occupying most of Europe but still it was considered a word war.
Afghanistan is a war, and the sooner it is officialy labled a war in my homecountry and many other countries the sooner this war can be brought to an hopefully soon end - since nobody over there wants the taliban back.

[Dr_Chagas]

and think the poll is about the war on drugs.

What? That's ridiculous. It was an example. That's generally how you get a point across. See Stark's use of World War II if you're confused.





Pedantic tosser.

The habs suck cock. lol





the question who is "we" is justified.

I was just probing to see how knowledgeable those not in the military ('cause they damn well should know who they're fighting with,) are about the situation in Afghanistan.


However Afghanistan is a war - it doesn't need to be an occupation OR a war - it can be both - see WW2 - the germans were occupying most of Europe but still it was considered a word war.

Not to be too picky. But yeah it WAS a war. See how it kinda fits my definition of being armed conflict between two nations. Actually it was between several different nations, Axis versus Allies. But whatever. :p


Afghanistan is a war, and the sooner it is officialy labled a war in my homecountry and many other countries the sooner this war can be brought to an hopefully soon end - since nobody over there wants the taliban back.

Come on. You don't win support by constantly fighting. In fact, it's not even our fight. What the fuck happened to the Northern Alliance? 2001 was what you should have stuck with. You focus on what you do best. It's not boots on the ground, it's surgical high altitude bombing. Let the Afghanis fight the ground war. It's their own country after all.

The country is ridiculously unstable. The talib fight dirty. IEDs, suicide bombings. It gets worse when they garrison homes and shit, which totally sucks, because, from what I've seen and read the houses get blown to fuck, along with the taliban in them. And all that fighting destabalizes whole regions. Who in their right mind would stick around if there's a gun battle every other day? I don't think any Afghani civilian wants to die.

Honestly. There's two options:

A) Go back to 2001. Bomb the fuck out of 'em. Accept that the country is tribal. That it's ruled by whoever has the most guns.

Or...

B) Become what the Nazis, Romans, etc, were. You basically throw 100,000 thousand plus troops and become the Taliban.

[nastyleg]

What? That's ridiculous. It was an example. That's generally how you get a point across. See Stark's use of World War II if you're confused.






The habs suck cock. lol






I was just probing to see how knowledgeable those not in the military ('cause they damn well should know who they're fighting with,) are about the situation in Afghanistan.



Not to be too picky. But yeah it WAS a war. See how it kinda fits my definition of being armed conflict between two nations. Actually it was between several different nations, Axis versus Allies. But whatever. :p



Come on. You don't win support by constantly fighting. In fact, it's not even our fight. What the fuck happened to the Northern Alliance? 2001 was what you should have stuck with. You focus on what you do best. It's not boots on the ground, it's surgical high altitude bombing. Let the Afghanis fight the ground war. It's their own country after all.

The country is ridiculously unstable. The talib fight dirty. IEDs, suicide bombings. It gets worse when they garrison homes and shit, which totally sucks, because, from what I've seen and read the houses get blown to fuck, along with the taliban in them. And all that fighting destabalizes whole regions. Who in their right mind would stick around if there's a gun battle every other day? I don't think any Afghani civilian wants to die.

Honestly. There's two options:

A) Go back to 2001. Bomb the fuck out of 'em. Accept that the country is tribal. That it's ruled by whoever has the most guns.

Or...

B) Become what the Nazis, Romans, etc, were. You basically throw 100,000 thousand plus troops and become the Taliban.

Northern Alliance was assimilated into the ANA. Your options that you are limiting yourself to are ridiculous. Options A would lead to international back lash as did the Dresden Bombings. B We would not allow ourselves to occupy a country how they did, To compare the Coalition forces to those of past ruling nations is ill advised. We do not rape, and pillage as past "Empires" did. The coalition forces are working to help bring about a new ruling government that can provide peace and security to its peoples. Once that is done the OCCUPYING FORCES that you so lovingly call them can and will leave.

[bobdina]

I feel very sorry for you if you have to resort to ridiculous statements to get your point across, I have spoken to some very intelligent people on here who are against the war, however they have never had to lead with a ridiculous statement to make a point. I guess that explains your lack of knowledge as to why the poll was put up in the first place.

[Dr_Chagas]

Northern Alliance was assimilated into the ANA.

From an irregular army to a force that is supposed to be loyal solely to Afghanistan and Hamid Karzai.

Afghanistan is a tribal country. You can't just go in there and change their way of thinking.


Your options that you are limiting yourself to are ridiculous.

Right. Kinda like how ridiculous occupying a country like Afghanistan is and thinking that by wagging "war" you can turn it into a democratic utopia.

Hey, who cares about a country's past. 200 hundred years of history mean nothing.


Options A would lead to international back lash as did the Dresden Bombings.

Right.

Who attacked the US? The Taliban or Al Qaeda? Oh, but the Taliban fostered them. Countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon, etc.. don't all have terrorists in them. Honestly, why not attack every country that has terrorists.

Hey Yemen is going through a rough patch with muslim extremist. Why not invade them?


B We would not allow ourselves to occupy a country how they did, To compare the Coalition forces to those of past ruling nations is ill advised. We do not rape, and pillage as past "Empires" did. The coalition forces are working to help bring about a new ruling government that can provide peace and security to its peoples. Once that is done the OCCUPYING FORCES that you so lovingly call them can and will leave.

What about Hamid Karzai? He was democratically elected. Half the mission is done right?

So what's security and peace? Only 100 people dying a month? Or? What's the barometer. This sounds more like peace keeping. But wouldn't a WAR be more like combat missions?





I feel very sorry for you if you have to resort to ridiculous statements to get your point across, I have spoken to some very intelligent people on here who are against the war, however they have never had to lead with a ridiculous statement to make a point. I guess that explains your lack of knowledge as to why the poll was put up in the first place.

Likewise, I don't really want to address your post, so I'll just pity you and then insult you.

[bobdina]

From an irregular army to a force that is supposed to be loyal solely to Afghanistan and Hamid Karzai.

Afghanistan is a tribal country. You can't just go in there and change their way of thinking.



Right. Kinda like how ridiculous occupying a country like Afghanistan is and thinking that by wagging "war" you can turn it into a democratic utopia.

Hey, who cares about a country's past. 200 hundred years of history mean nothing.



Right.

Who attacked the US? The Taliban or Al Qaeda? Oh, but the Taliban fostered them. Countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon, etc.. don't all have terrorists in them. Honestly, why not attack every country that has terrorists.

Hey Yemen is going through a rough patch with muslim extremist. Why not invade them?



What about Hamid Karzai? He was democratically elected. Half the mission is done right?

So what's security and peace? Only 100 people dying a month? Or? What's the barometer. This sounds more like peace keeping. But wouldn't a WAR be more like combat missions?






Likewise, I don't really want to address your post, so I'll just pity you and then insult you.

My friend you really have no military sense by trying to say we should have not attacked Afghanistan , they were given the option of turning Bin laden and his cronies but they refused. It was a fact he planned the attacks from there( i could care less where the hijackers were from, unless their government sent them) and also ran terrorist training camps from there. All the Taliban had to do was turn him over but they refused because they thought we were a weak nation based on past Presidents but they were badly mistaken. They would still be in power(with lots of sanctions against them but still in power) if they gave him over, As for the other countries not being invaded I'm sure if they plan an attack from there soil they will be dealt with, How I don't know, maybe the easy way out by missile strike maybe some other way, oh and by the way in case you missed it we just went into Somalia and killed a terrorist who was responsible for the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya, so much for not going into other countries. To pull off a raid you need actionable intelligence to go into other counties and take out al-quada's members, this does not come over night, it takes time. And on this topic where the hell are we going to get the troops to attack those other countries you say are harboring terrorists?
We train those countries so they can take care of the problem just like we are doing in Afghanistan, and I'm sorry but times have changes from 200 years ago for learning lessons, yes you learn the lesson where others have failed and improve on it, other wise we would still be fighting with WW1 tactics. And I must tell you I pity you for your lack of military strategy and coming in here like you know something. your posts thus far have shown you read the paper/internet and take what you like out of it and make that your argument instead of reading both sides and truly be informed .

So what's security and peace? Only 100 people dying a month? Or? What's the barometer. This sounds more like peace keeping. But wouldn't a WAR be more like combat missions? This comment right here says everything about what you know about the war in Afghanistan and your knowledge of the military in general. Every time you leave the wire for whatever reason is a combat mission for the men/women pulling it.Going to a Shura can quickly turn south in a minute and your in a combat mission, with an organized enemy trying to kill you I.E. war. Peacekeeping means keeping the warring parties separated and taking fire from the occasional pot shot.
And I do not need your pity or anyone else's , I stepped up to the plate and served my country and could not be prouder for doing that, if anyone needs pity it's you . And go ahead and insult me all you want I have taken a whole lot more then words coming my way and I'm still here.

Oh and by the way the Saudi's just killed 2 members of Al-quada so much for them not doing anything.

Oh and by the way with the love the avatar you have on the front page . So much for an open mind

[Dr_Chagas]

My friend you really have no military sense by trying to say we should have not attacked Afghanistan ,

Where did I say you should have not attacked Afghanistan?

I was asking where the US draws the line or how it goes about invading countries.

Afghanistan had Al-qaeda in 2001. Shit, when was the last time you heard about a "senior" leader or some shit like that being captured.

Move on. You did your job. Why the fuck would you be so crazy to sit around in a fucking third world country trying to prop up a government that like I said earlier, only survives by having the most guns.

I'm not hating on the US.

Now there's that argument that a Taliban ruled country will allow Al-qaeda back in. Come on. Pull a fucking Contra. The US is notorious for supplying arms and training to the enemies of their enemies.

You don't stay top dog by being holier than thou. Sure, you wanna act like that, but secretly, you have to play dirty.

I dunno. There's not much more to say. You're very opinionated.


they were given the option of turning Bin laden and his cronies but they refused. It was a fact he planned the attacks from there( i could care less where the hijackers were from, unless their government sent them) and also ran terrorist training camps from there. All the Taliban had to do was turn him over but they refused because they thought we were a weak nation based on past Presidents but they were badly mistaken.

Right. And that's why they rolled over and were defeated. And don't attack one of the most powerfull militaries in the world.

But like you said. You couldn't care where terrorists come from. But, you do like to geopoliticaly shape OTHER countries, like say Iraq and Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia is fine.

Okay, so let's say Osama is in Pakistan, JUST for arguments sake. You tell Pakistan to hand him over. They say, well, they're going after him. You go, what the fuck? It's been eight years, either you get your hands on him or we're coming in. Pakistan says, no, we won't allow you in.

Fuck, that sounds pretty much like what the Taliban did. Shouldn't the US start to cross the border?


They would still be in power(with lots of sanctions against them but still in power) if they gave him over, As for the other countries not being invaded I'm sure if they plan an attack from there soil they will be dealt with, How I don't know, maybe the easy way out by missile strike maybe some other way, oh and by the way in case you missed it we just went into Somalia and killed a terrorist who was responsible for the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya, so much for not going into other countries. To pull off a raid you need actionable intelligence to go into other counties and take out al-quada's members, this does not come over night, it takes time. And on this topic where the hell are we going to get the troops to attack those other countries you say are harboring terrorists?

When did I say they were harboring? That implies that a government knows of the terrorist being there and they turn a blind eye or even support them.

I said there were terrorist in those countries.

And as for Somalia. Oh yeah, that country is stable. There's no fighting there. O_O Not since 1993. lol


We train those countries so they can take care of the problem just like we are doing in Afghanistan, and I'm sorry but times have changes from 200 years ago for learning lessons, yes you learn the lesson where others have failed and improve on it, other wise we would still be fighting with WW1 tactics.

I was talking about Aghanistan's history. And not about the foreign powers that have tried invading it.

I was refering to their culture. About the people. Most of them are dirt poor farmers that live in isolated in their own villages.


And I must tell you I pity you for your lack of military strategy and coming in here like you know something. your posts thus far have shown you read the paper/internet and take what you like out of it and make that your argument instead of reading both sides and truly be informed .

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot you went to Wespoint. I forgot you went through officer training and studied warfare. I forgot you majored in Irregular Warfare or something equivalent to that.

And you must be all knowing. I mean, you aren't biased. Doing a job day in day out did not change your opinion at all.


This comment right here says everything about what you know about the war in Afghanistan and your knowledge of the military in general. Every time you leave the wire for whatever reason is a combat mission for the men/women pulling it.Going to a Shura can quickly turn south in a minute and your in a combat mission, with an organized enemy trying to kill you I.E. war. Peacekeeping means keeping the warring parties separated and taking fire from the occasional pot shot.

Why are they trying to kill an occupying force?

Probably because they believe it's their country.

See how defensive you get when you defend what you believe are your country's ideals? It's kinda the samething for them.

They saw you as imperialistic before, and that sure as shit hasn't changed.

They're not from mars. The Taliban are every bit as human as you and I are.


And I do not need your pity or anyone else's , I stepped up to the plate and served my country and could not be prouder for doing that, if anyone needs pity it's you . And go ahead and insult me all you want I have taken a whole lot more then words coming my way and I'm still here.

I think you're a wee bit confused, see- earlier you posted this:


I feel very sorry for you...
...you have to resort to ridiculous statements...
...they have never had to lead with a ridiculous statement to make a point...
...explains your lack of knowledge...

So you pity me.
You say that my posts are ridiculous (a word that means laughable.)
You then compare me to someone else and basically imply that I'm below their level.
And then close by claiming that I lack knowledge.

I don't care what job you got paid to do, you insulted me from the start, so I used sarcasm to show you how irrelevant posts should be treated. I probably should have just ignored what you wrote.


Oh and by the way the Saudi's just killed 2 members of Al-quada so much for them not doing anything.

Wow, all by their lonesome? Crazy. I thought all countries but the US were incompetent.





Oh and by the way with the love the avatar you have on the front page . So much for an open mind

Haha. You must be the open minded one. "OH MAI GOD, LOOK AT THAT PICTURE!" So let me guess, you probably judge people based on their appearances. That's all you illustrated (lol, pun,) by bringing that up.

What if I was using an avatar that was just a picture of a rock? Would you then assume that I support rocks?

Well okay, hmm, if it works like that.. I see sand. So you must support the middle-east. All of it.

See how illogical that is?

Check out my forum avatar. I probably support mustaches and private investigators. Oh, and it's b&w, so I must not like colours.

[bobdina]

This will be my last reply as I have better things to do with my time then arguing with an ill informed anti-U.S. person on here.
Just in the last month at least 2 senior al-qaida leaders have been killed in U.S. strikes, as I told you read more then one paper/internet site. If you don't sit around and prop that 3rd world government then it will once again become a safe haven for al qaida like it was before, once we have trained the Army then we leave, contrary to your believe we don't like to occupy places nowadays , if we did we would not be pulling combat units out of Iraq and only leaving trainers in their place. I wish I could look into your Chrystel ball that says if the Taliban regained power they would not let al qaida in but alas we don't have one and cannot take the risk.
And you are correct I am very opinionated. There are 2 reasons for that. I live in The United States where we are allowed to speak our minds and 2 I have served this great country for 21 years and that gives me the right whether you agree or not , to say whatever I want to in defense of my country from little trolls on the internet.
As for your Pakistan analogy sorry that one is a no brainer. I can guarentee you that a force of SOF would go in if they had actionable intelligance just like they did in Somalia, then give the credit to the Pakastanis, thats how it goes. Why do you think there are still missille stikes going on in Pakistans terriotory by the U.S., because the Pakistani's want us to do it , just like they want Bin Laden captured. They just cannot be seen publicly suppporting them .
Not even going to reply to the Somalia comment, makes no sense to the topic at hand.You seem to have it wrong, you started this by your ridiculous statement about a meaningless poll .As i have said at the start I will no longer be replying to your drivel because your avatar from the front page speaks more about you then I ever can.

[Dr_Chagas]

Why do you think there are still missille stikes going on in Pakistans terriotory by the U.S., because the Pakistani's want us to do it ,

'Pakistan's military has condemned an air strike by Afghanistan-based US forces that killed 11 of its troops as a "cowardly attack".'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7447608.stm

lol 'nuff said, it's apparent how much you know and how much you think you know. You actually sound like a muslim extremist/hard-line taliban. Which is ironic since you seem so keen on fighting them.


This will be my last reply

Bye.

[acf6]

Troll!!!

[Dr_Chagas]

Troll!!!

Because my opinion differs from someone else's? Jeez.

[ghost]

Because my opinion differs from someone else's? Jeez.


No, because your opinions are based on half-truths.

[nastyleg]

From an irregular army to a force that is supposed to be loyal solely to Afghanistan and Hamid Karzai.

Afghanistan is a tribal country. You can't just go in there and change their way of thinking.



Right. Kinda like how ridiculous occupying a country like Afghanistan is and thinking that by wagging "war" you can turn it into a democratic utopia.

Hey, who cares about a country's past. 200 hundred years of history mean nothing.



Right.

Who attacked the US? The Taliban or Al Qaeda? Oh, but the Taliban fostered them. Countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon, etc.. don't all have terrorists in them. Honestly, why not attack every country that has terrorists.

Hey Yemen is going through a rough patch with muslim extremist. Why not invade them?



What about Hamid Karzai? He was democratically elected. Half the mission is done right?

So what's security and peace? Only 100 people dying a month? Or? What's the barometer. This sounds more like peace keeping. But wouldn't a WAR be more like combat missions?






Likewise, I don't really want to address your post, so I'll just pity you and then insult you.

Lets see Afghanistans 200 year history....Hmm i seem to recall it was a kingdom. That was in the 200 year history. When the kingdom fell due to invasions leadership changed hands so many times it left the any semblance of a sound government in ruins. Out of that it came down to the family structure being the main form of governance so called "Tribal". The Taliban formed their own form of government based on cruel interpretations of a religious books. The fact that most of the populace of Afghanistan chose to go out and vote for a Central based government evades you huh. Afghanis chose to seek a central government never comes up in arguments that they are willing to change the way they live.

Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen are actively helping us. Palestine, Lebanon are what the intelligence community are called "proxy wars". Two opposing sides are arming battling groups to have one eliminate the others group. Security and Peace come in when children no longer have to worry about being blown the hell up with IED's, or the fact that their government can protect them. By the way the Taliban and Al Queda fight under a flag that WAS recognized by the international community as a form of government after the soviet unions invasion. If you are as naive as you seem then the only reference to a combat mission is based on Hollywood movies or TV shows. I am sure your vast experience you spent in your countries military has given you the insight of what a combat patrol is. Peace keeping mission would resemble best that of the current one in Egypt. Oh wait you forgot about that one didn't you.

[GTFPDQ]

'Pakistan's military has condemned an air strike by Afghanistan-based US forces that killed 11 of its troops as a "cowardly attack".'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7447608.stm



Taken from the BBC June 2008.

The thing is, you put forward an opinion as an argument. Arguments can only be won through the use of fact, otherwise its just browbeating. Afghanistan is geographically at a crossroads between countries who are either unstable or undecided where they fit in the world.

Given that, it could be deduced that Afghanistan was the catalyst for the west to act to stabalise a region of concern, internationally. It had been used as a base of planning and operation of a terrorist organisation, shielded in part by the then Taliban government.

Whether it was right or wrong, only time will tell.

[Sixx]

I can cut and paste bullshit too....

[Dr_Chagas]

The fact that most of the populace of Afghanistan chose to go out and vote for a Central based government evades you huh. Afghanis chose to seek a central government never comes up in arguments that they are willing to change the way they live.

Hopefully. But that's hard with low voter turn out and fraud. Samething that happened in 2004. Read ANYWHERE about it. Nothing has changed twice.


Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen are actively helping us.

Maybe. And now Yemen and Pakistan are basically fighting their own civil wars at the moment.


Security and Peace come in when children no longer have to worry about being blown the hell up with IED's, or the fact that their government can protect them.

Then not even the United States is secure. The Pentagon and Trade Tower attacks prove, by your logical, that the goverment couldn't protect its citizens.

Spain, England and a whole truckload of other countries are also out.


By the way the Taliban and Al Queda fight under a flag that WAS recognized by the international community as a form of government after the soviet unions invasion.

No you're incorrect. The Taliban emerged sometime 1994. The soviets withdrew by 1989.

Al-Qaeda didn't really exist either until 1988. What you had in Afghanistan during the war with the soviets was mujahideen.

These are basic facts.


If you are as naive as you seem then the only reference to a combat mission is based on Hollywood movies or TV shows. I am sure your vast experience you spent in your countries military has given you the insight of what a combat patrol is.

Naive? Where or when have I initally accused anyone specifically on the forum of having less experience than me?

I've only attacked someone's knowledge after they have attacked my own.


Peace keeping mission would resemble best that of the current one in Egypt. Oh wait you forgot about that one didn't you.

Haha. Okay. Show me. Who told you there are peacekeepers in Egypt?

Dude. The country ACTIVELY sends its own troops as peacekeepers to other countries.









Taken from the BBC June 2008.

"Pakistan has objected to such attacks, saying they are a violation of its territory that undermines its efforts to tackle militants. Since September, the US is estimated to have carried out about 30 such attacks, killing more than 220 people. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece

"60 drone hits kill 14 al-Qaeda leaders, 687 civilians"
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440



Given that, it could be deduced that Afghanistan was the catalyst for the west to act to stabalise a region of concern, internationally. It had been used as a base of planning and operation of a terrorist organisation, shielded in part by the then Taliban government.

Whether it was right or wrong, only time will tell.

What? No. No-no-no. Region of concern? Stabilize? This isn't Iraq, you're making this out to be more complicated then it actually is.

The US went in to kill people responsible for terrorist attacks.

Al-Qaeda was basically wiped out between 2001-2002 in Afghanistan.

[Dr_Chagas]

We're getting distracted here though.

The poll shows just how confused the mission is in Afghanistan. I think both should be clearer.

Wasn't the goal in Afghanistan originally to get Bin-Laden and the rest of his fuckbags?

You did. You fucked them up. You pwned Tora Bora. Whoever was left, moved on, out of the country. But the US stuck around, for what?

What's the objective now? You still after Al-Qaeda, the taliban, turning the country into a democracy, ending the drug export, what?

This is the shit you should be going to Obama with.




Anyway. That's what I'm saying. You should change the poll to one of those. Not, can we win the war? That makes it sounds like you'll be there for the next 1000 years.

[nastyleg]

Hopefully. But that's hard with low voter turn out and fraud. Samething that happened in 2004. Read ANYWHERE about it. Nothing has changed twice.



Maybe. And now Yemen and Pakistan are basically fighting their own civil wars at the moment.



Then not even the United States is secure. The Pentagon and Trade Tower attacks prove, by your logical, that the goverment couldn't protect its citizens.

Spain, England and a whole truckload of other countries are also out.



No you're incorrect. The Taliban emerged sometime 1994. The soviets withdrew by 1989.

Al-Qaeda didn't really exist either until 1988. What you had in Afghanistan during the war with the soviets was mujahideen.

These are basic facts.



Naive? Where or when have I initally accused anyone specifically on the forum of having less experience than me?

I've only attacked someone's knowledge after they have attacked my own.



Haha. Okay. Show me. Who told you there are peacekeepers in Egypt?

Dude. The country ACTIVELY sends its own troops as peacekeepers to other countries.










"Pakistan has objected to such attacks, saying they are a violation of its territory that undermines its efforts to tackle militants. Since September, the US is estimated to have carried out about 30 such attacks, killing more than 220 people. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece

"60 drone hits kill 14 al-Qaeda leaders, 687 civilians"
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440




What? No. No-no-no. Region of concern? Stabilize? This isn't Iraq, you're making this out to be more complicated then it actually is.

The US went in to kill people responsible for terrorist attacks.

Al-Qaeda was basically wiped out between 2001-2002 in Afghanistan.

Nothing has changed are fucking kidding me seriously even in your own words you said it was tribal but when they turn out to vote for a centralized government you dismiss it. How is Yemen and Pakistan fighting a civil war when they are attacking terrorists who for the most part are not of their country? America is not 100% safe sure but no country is. At least here we do not have to worry daily about roadside bombs planted by terrorists or have to worry about our daughters going to school to receive an education. If you are willing to throw in 9/11 as an example of how unsafe America is then why not 12/7 or the bombing of the train depot in ww2, assassination of our presidents or the attempted assassinations as well.

Taliban aka Mujaheddin were nothing more than a name change. The fact that you are ignoring their history is astounding. Peace keeping missions in Egypt have been on going since the October war.

http://popp.gmu.edu/resource-bk/mission/untso.html

OGE http://www.unic-eg.org/index.php?view=items&cid=1%3Aun-system&id=22%3Aunited-nations-truce-supervision-organization-observer-group-egypt-untso&option=com_quickfaq&Itemid=66

to be more precise. I have had former team leaders who were stationed there in 2000 tell me how shitty it was because they were barred from drinking. That was the only shitty part about it. The attack of you being Naive comes from you lack of understanding of the term combat patrol. Indeed Egypt does send out its own troops to places like the Congo were there are massive allegations and accusations of the UN troops involved raping the locals. Did the Egyptian troops do it more than likely no but did they stop it no. That is another matter.

War is never simple. Look at WW1 and the leading factors that caused it. Arch Duke Ferdinand was just one factor not the whole picture. To think that Afghanistan needs to be bombed back to the stone age then left to pick up the rubble. Can you get it through your thick scull what would of happened to Germany after ww2 if the allies were not there to help support the western side of Germany? How about Japan after the war was over we sent aid to them! You see once when you "take out" who needed to be "taken out" you have to help those who were not nor ever involved in the conflict. If Afghanistan were just that simple don't you think other countries would still rule it to this day. Al Queda is still a threat to sovereign nations world wide. They were never fully taken out. They emerged in Africa and Iraq.

[Dr_Chagas]

Nothing has changed are fucking kidding me seriously even in your own words you said it was tribal but when they turn out to vote for a centralized government you dismiss it.

No, nothing has changed since the 2004 election. You got "Mayor" Karzai who really only governs Kabul. And even there it's not safe.

I'm not dismissing the elections. I'm saying we don't know what the Afghan people want for sure. How can you say that they ALL want a centralized government when only 5.5 million people voted out of the "15.6 million people that were registered to vote".
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=7057152

Should I even bother bringing up corruption? It's a backward country.

"As far as the elections are concerned, there was fraud in 2004, there is today, there will be tomorrow. Alas, it is inevitable in a nascent democracy," -- Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL7677562



How is Yemen and Pakistan fighting a civil war when they are attacking terrorists who for the most part are not of their country?

Really? You have any sources for that? That would be interesting to know.


America is not 100% safe sure but no country is. At least here we do not have to worry daily about roadside bombs planted by terrorists or have to worry about our daughters going to school to receive an education. If you are willing to throw in 9/11 as an example of how unsafe America is then why not 12/7 or the bombing of the train depot in ww2, assassination of our presidents or the attempted assassinations as well.

So you're backtracking on the "or the fact that their government can protect them." comment?


Taliban aka Mujaheddin were nothing more than a name change. The fact that you are ignoring their history is astounding.

Ignoring what? You claimed things that are totally incorrect. Do you know anything about the Taliban? Do you know its roots? To say that the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, an umbrella term for muslims engadged in armed struggle (a word you can't even spell), changed their name (or whatever you imply,) is so ignorant.


Peace keeping missions in Egypt have been on going since the October war.

For border protection between them and Isreal. You said that- "Peace keeping mission would resemble best that of the current one in Egypt. Oh wait you forgot about that one didn't you." That's a type of peace keeping operation between nations.

Not because the country has some sort of internal struggle.

Afghanistan has a border problem AND an internal one. So no, that type of peace keeping operation would not work.


War is never simple. Look at WW1 and the leading factors that caused it. Arch Duke Ferdinand was just one factor not the whole picture. To think that Afghanistan needs to be bombed back to the stone age then left to pick up the rubble.

Okay, so stop using an analogy from an anciet war and provide examples to the current "war".


Al Queda is still a threat to sovereign nations world wide. They were never fully taken out. They emerged in Africa

Emerged? Look up your histroy. They've been in Africa; Sudan and Somalia.. since before 2001.


and Iraq.

Oh boy. rofl Provide some source ANY credible source that Al-Qaeda was there pre Iraq-war 2003.

How about Bush saying they weren't there?

"BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take–

RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that’s right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they’re going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand. "
http://crooksandliars.com/cernig/bush-admits-al-qaeda-wasnt-iraq-invasion-so

[GTFPDQ]

Chagarse, Im still at a loss as to what point you are trying to get across. I get the feeling that this may just be argument for the sake of argument. Its all becoming rather tedious.

Maybe you could go to the www. gray.com and argue black is white. Anyhoo, its been a hoot.

[Dr_Chagas]

Chagarse, Im still at a loss as to what point you are trying to get across. I get the feeling that this may just be argument for the sake of argument. Its all becoming rather tedious.

Maybe you could go to the www. gray.com and argue black is white. Anyhoo, its been a hoot.

You blind or something?


We're getting distracted here though.

The poll shows just how confused the mission is in Afghanistan. I think both should be clearer.

Wasn't the goal in Afghanistan originally to get Bin-Laden and the rest of his fuckbags?

You did. You fucked them up. You pwned Tora Bora. Whoever was left, moved on, out of the country. But the US stuck around, for what?

What's the objective now? You still after Al-Qaeda, the taliban, turning the country into a democracy, ending the drug export, what?

This is the shit you should be going to Obama with.




Anyway. That's what I'm saying. You should change the poll to one of those. Not, can we win the war? That makes it sounds like you'll be there for the next 1000 years.

[GTFPDQ]

[QUOTE= Originally Posted by GTFPDQ
Chagarse, Im still at a loss as to what point you are trying to get across. I get the feeling that this may just be argument for the sake of argument. Its all becoming rather tedious.

Maybe you could go to the www. gray.com and argue black is white. Anyhoo, its been a hoot.[/QUOTE]


Repeated for clarity.

[GTFPDQ]

We're getting distracted here though.

Yes we are, by inane drivel, but Ill play your game this once.


The poll shows just how confused the mission is in Afghanistan. I think both should be clearer.

The poll asked a simple question, with simple answers. Afghanistan was never a simple question that had simple answers.


Wasn't the goal in Afghanistan originally to get Bin-Laden and the rest of his fuckbags?

It may be easy to accept that the original mission was to capture Bin Laden. But since the country was governed by an organisation which had imposed itself on the nation through the gun and a singular interpretation of a religious text, an organisation which allowed the free use of land and its resources by a terrorist group. If you believe that Bin Laden was THE target, then you are deluded. The then government had to be removed to decrease the use of land and resources by terrorists. When you remove a government, you have to take on a hole new mission, a longer, slower and bloodier mission.



You did. You fucked them up. You pwned Tora Bora. Whoever was left, moved on, out of the country. But the US stuck around, for what?

To remove operational space from your enemy. But given that this is an insurgency, denying that space takes time, effort, money and raw courage. Tora Bora was a target area, bordering a porous border with tribal lands of another nation. A tribal area that doesnt really see a border at all.


What's the objective now? You still after Al-Qaeda, the taliban, turning the country into a democracy, ending the drug export, what?

Al Qaeda is a much reduced force. There are however more groups than there were before. You might say that the US and its actions made this happen. You would be wrong, these groups were offspring of Al Qaeda. They saw the opportunity for power through money and fear. For every ideologue out there, there are 200 others that want that power.

The Taliban are a product of poverty. The product of interpretations by those who should teach, but have twisted words to fit. Behind it all, is that power or money and fear. The drugs are just a side problem, lack of opportunity is the problem. Maybe if true market prices were paid for exportable products, things would change.

[ghost]

Holy shit. I lost track. I don't even know what the fucking argument is anymore....

[Dr_Chagas]

I don't even know what the fucking argument is anymore....

It's not an argument. But if you can't see that, there's the door, don't feel obliged to stick around and contribute nothing relevant.








Wasn't the goal in Afghanistan originally to get Bin-Laden and the rest of his fuckbags?

...

If you believe that Bin Laden was THE target, then you are deluded.

You must've stopped reading after and, right?


The then government had to be removed to decrease the use of land and resources by terrorists. When you remove a government, you have to take on a hole new mission, a longer, slower and bloodier mission.

You mean you have to occupy and hold land. How many years does this take? As far as I know the last counter-insurgency operations the US ran were Vietnam and Iraq.

The Vietnam mission failed and the domino effect theory proved incorrect. I admit this is a poor example seeing as how it was fouth 25+ years ago.

Iraq is still ongoing, but is definitely starting to look succesful. But is by no means even close to being finished. And it could honestly deteriorate as soon as US troops leave the region.

There has yet to be a succesfully completed counter-insurgency.


You did. You fucked them up. You pwned Tora Bora. Whoever was left, moved on, out of the country. But the US stuck around, for what?

To remove operational space from your enemy. But given that this is an insurgency, denying that space takes time, effort, money and raw courage.

So you're saying Al-qaeda is an insurgent force in Afghanistan? After the US temporarily removed the operational space, they up and fled over the border.

So what's the effectiveness there? Why squat in a country for 8 years (now the longest "war" fought by US troops,) when the enemy isn't using it as a base of operations?


Tora Bora was a target area, bordering a porous border with tribal lands of another nation. A tribal area that doesnt really see a border at all.

No. Tora Bora was targeted because it was believed to be used by Al-Qaeda and a hideout for Bin Laden. Period.


What's the objective now? You still after Al-Qaeda, the taliban, turning the country into a democracy, ending the drug export, what?

Al Qaeda is a much reduced force. There are however more groups than there were before. You might say that the US and its actions made this happen. You would be wrong, these groups were offspring of Al Qaeda. They saw the opportunity for power through money and fear. For every ideologue out there, there are 200 others that want that power.


Okay. So I'll repeat my question, seeing as how you didn't answer it.

What's the objective now?

[GTFPDQ]

Ill turn this around, as any answer that I may give will probably not satisfy you.

What do you see as the objective now?

[Dr_Chagas]

Fair enough.

I say the mission should only be about smashing up what existed of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. That, at least to me, was accomplished.

I understand pulling out immedietaly is impossible. I think something akin to the june 30th quasi-withdrawl in Iraq could work. By that I mean station all troops close to Kandahar, Kabul and Kunar, so as to fortify them. Might even have to be in Helmand too, seeing as how that's where all the poppey is.

This could provide the ANA and the police a rallying point where they could be armed by the coalition. I know, I know. There are all sorts of transitional programs. But I'm saying no more patrols, instead we provide air support for the Afghans.

And then, fuck, then what right? I'd like to see our guys get pulled out of harms way. But a transition back to 1980s Afghanistan would be unpredictable. Keeping the country unstable by supplying arms to various tribes/muj/whatever you wanna call 'em, could prevent the Taliban from taking control of the country again.

Would Al-Qaeda re-emerge? Are drone strike assassinations on leaders more effective than what's happened in 8 years? Are we really any safer since September 11th?

My opinion is that, in a sense, having troops overseases protects people back home in the states. What's closer for the terrorists, Iraq, Afghanistan and several other places where there are troops stationed or embassies or the United States? It's easier to kill Americans when they're only a few countries over.





Shit. Haha. That's the thing though right? It's easier to critize than to be the one calling the shots.

[GTFPDQ]

In my humble opinion, this would be a good time to close this topic.

[acf6]

in my humble opinion, this would be a good time to close this topic.

agreed!!!

[shatto]

Seems to me someone ought to understand what "Occupation" is.
Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation
America in Afghanistan does not fit the defination.

Then there is the question of fighting a group who has been at war with us, not for 30 years, but since Mohammed,
and will not cease until there are none of them to war against non Muslems and Muslems who do not accept their theology.


Until the entire subject is thought of Strategically, not tactically, any discussion is flawed.

Viet Nam is a classic example of being in country for strategic reason, to contain Communism and
where the people responsible for implementing strategy, LBJ & Co., got involved in playing war games and dictated tactics.
And lost.

It all boils down to the need to understand Rush Limbaugh's Undeniable Truths;


4. Peace does not mean the absence of war.
5. War is not obsolete.
6. Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
8. Peace cannot be achieved by developing a "understanding" with the
Russian People. .......(insert; Islam)
10. Communism Kills. ......(Islam Kills)
11. Neither the US, nor anyone else, imposes freedom on the peoples of
other nations.
18. There is no such thing as war atrocities.
19. War itself is an atrocity.
31. To more and more people, a victorious US is a sinful US.



Rush Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur52.htm

[GTFPDQ]

Cant we just all get along and use spellcheck or something....

Vietnam
Muslim

Who cares about Rush Limbaugh?



Now can some law abiding MOD close this crap?!?!?!?!?!

[Dr_Chagas]

I understand pulling out immedietaly is impossible. I think something akin to the june 30th quasi-withdrawl in Iraq could work. By that I mean station all troops close to Kandahar, Kabul and Kunar, so as to fortify them. Might even have to be in Helmand too, seeing as how that's where all the poppey is.

This could provide the ANA and the police a rallying point where they could be armed by the coalition. I know, I know. There are all sorts of transitional programs. But I'm saying no more patrols, instead we provide air support for the Afghans.


General McChrystal new strategy:

Pull soldiers out of FOBs to urban areas. Let the Afghans do the fighting where you pulled out. Rout out corruption in the government.


Wow. And to think, this "civie who has never seen combat" knew better than "99% of the guys...[that] have doneat least 1 most 2 combat tours there".

.: to whoever downranked me with that drivel comment; please, please, for the sake of the civilized world, eat shit and stfu. :)

[TangoMango]

Wow how the hell did I miss all of this?? Notice only Vets replied. This we will defend!!
Paging Dr. Doochebag. :rip: