Afghanistan s turning into a quagmire...

[busybody..]

Oh, OK so he was being sarcastic. gottcha.

Does that mean you think obama should just pull out and leave them to it?

NUKE THE WHOLE SHITTY USELESS PLACE and LEAVE

 

[unregistered]

 

[where]

No, I think we should kill the enemy in huge numbers, as many of the sons of bitches as we possibly can. Happy now?

so stay then? despite the heavy losses to our side?

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

Our losses though terrible, are light compared to other wars.

one US soldier isnt worth an entire Cuntry

nuke em

 

[where]

Our losses though terrible, are light compared to other wars.

so you think we should stay and.... stay forever? when should we pull out?

 

[The_Trouvere]

Originally Posted by The_Trouvere View Post
Eisenhower caused the war. The United States did not deserve to win. Before dying Robert McNamara acknowledged that the United States should have pulled out in 1963.

He and LBJ should have been tried for murder.

President Eisenhower should have been in the dock too.

 

[unregistered]

 

[ksmybuttons]

Afghanistan has always been a quagmire. It was before Bush and it will be for Obama

It's history. Of course, the Project for A New American Century wanted Iraq. But in order to go after Iraq, they had to bomb Afghanistan first. Shock and Awe!

Wars in Afghanistan (since 1919 -- there has basically always been war in Afghanistan...)
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/centrasia/milxafghanistan.html
1919 Palace Coup, followed by brief Internal Strife
1919 Third Anglo-Afghan War
1924-1925 Khost Rebellion
1928-1929 Afghan Civil War
1953 Coup d'Etat
1955-1957 Pakhtunistan Crisis
1961-1963 Pakhtunistan Crisis; Border Conflict with Pakistan
1973 Coup d'Etat; Abolition of Monarchy
1978 Coup d'Etat
1979-1991 Soviet Occupation, Afghan Resistance
1991-1995 Civil War, country partitioned among a number of warlords
1995 Taliban brought most of Afghanistan under their control;
warlords held out in the north
2001 International coalition, Afghan allies ousted Taliban
2001-present Resistance against Occupation forces, Democratic Regime

The US has been involved in the wars since 1980. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton...W just decided to push it. Didn't learn anything from the Soviet drain...well, of course not because the US was the one supplying the fuel...

Anyway. Nice little chart here.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/timeline.shtml

 

[where]

No of course not. When we complete the mission, when the enemy is defeated in detail and no longer wishes to take the field. Don't worry though, The president doesn't have the stomach for it. We are getting ready to declare victory and bug out.

complete what mission? and who are the enemy? the taliban or the kids who either get forced to join or chose to join? You are always going on about military history so you know a lot about it, I imagine. when has anyone ever defeated the afghans?

 

[busybody..]

No of course not. When we complete the mission, when the enemy is defeated in detail and no longer wishes to take the field. Don't worry though, The president doesn't have the stomach for it. We are getting ready to declare victory and bug out.

dont be silly

NONE of this CAN ever be accomplished by the US, ever!

There is ONLY ONE way to do the above

KILL WANTONLY and INDISCRIMINATELY

and that we cant do (SHAMEFULLY)

what will happen is

1-Our precious soldiers will die for no reason

2-The US will lose stomach and leave

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

it's like the playground in here.

here's a question. someone... ofrget who said a couple of pages back that what Obama should have done was negotiated with the Taliban. If he had done that, wouldn't he have been crucified for talking to terrorists and becoming the lap dog of Al Qaida?

not being contentious, promise, just curious.

Yes.

It comes with the territory. I for one would not have having advocated he follow through with all his big talk.

...

On the side: LeTrouve, I was discussing end games and you jumped to the first four moves of the game.

You're as bad at reading as Throb is when he went bananas demanding i "prove" where he was for the war in Iraq even offering to leave if I could...

Too bad I said he was FOR the war in Afghanistan and could prove it.

You two should settled down and suck each other.

 

[where]

Yes.

It comes with the territory. I for one would not have having advocated he follow through with all his big talk.

...

huh? you are saying yes he should have had talks with the Taliban or yes, if he did you would denounce it?

I don't understand your reply as typed. a typo?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

huh? you are saying yes he should have had talks with the Taliban or yes, if he did you would denounce it?

I don't understand your reply as typed. a typo?

No, I said he's going to be denounced no matter what he does, he's a most polarizing figure (I submit, on purpose) and yes, as soon as Karzai popped off with his desire to have talks with the Taliban Bush and Obama should have supported that effort, the only way you're going to achieve stability is for the Taliban to understand as long as they stay in the hills, we're going to stop coming after them. Our generals are calling for more troops for the mission, but what the bloody hell, the Soviets threw a million man army at the problem and got the end of their Empire, I don't see us doing any better with the military Obama decried all through the campaign as as tired, demoralized, suicidal, and broken (a real modern-day Hobbes!).

Removing them from power for supporting al Qaeda was a proper punishment, but now we risk the punishment of a conqueror would-be led by a man with no stomach for what it takes to actually win the fight.

 

[where]

No, I said he's going to be denounced no matter what he does, he's a most polarizing figure (I submit, on purpose) and yes, as soon as Karzai popped off with his desire to have talks with the Taliban Bush and Obama should have supported that effort, the only way you're going to achieve stability is for the Taliban to understand as long as they stay in the hills, we're going to stop coming after them. Our generals are calling for more troops for the mission, but what the bloody hell, the Soviets threw a million man army at the problem and got the end of their Empire, I don't see us doing any better with the military Obama decried all through the campaign as as tired, demoralized, suicidal, and broken (a real modern-day Hobbes!).

Removing them from power for supporting al Qaeda was a proper punishment, but now we risk the punishment of a conqueror would-be led by a man with no stomach for what it takes to actually win the fight.

you kinda sound like you are contradicting yourself here. first you are saying that to achieve stability the taliban have to give up and until they do there will be a US/UK presence but at the same time you are saying that it's an impossible aim. And then you are basically calling Obama a coward for not having the 'stomach' to win the fight.

Do you believe the war in afghanistan is really winnable?

 

[Ishmael]

Afghanistan has always been a quagmire. It was before Bush and it will be for Obama

It's history. Of course, the Project for A New American Century wanted Iraq. But in order to go after Iraq, they had to bomb Afghanistan first. Shock and Awe!

Wars in Afghanistan (since 1919 -- there has basically always been war in Afghanistan...)
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/centrasia/milxafghanistan.html
1919 Palace Coup, followed by brief Internal Strife
1919 Third Anglo-Afghan War
1924-1925 Khost Rebellion
1928-1929 Afghan Civil War
1953 Coup d'Etat
1955-1957 Pakhtunistan Crisis
1961-1963 Pakhtunistan Crisis; Border Conflict with Pakistan
1973 Coup d'Etat; Abolition of Monarchy
1978 Coup d'Etat
1979-1991 Soviet Occupation, Afghan Resistance
1991-1995 Civil War, country partitioned among a number of warlords
1995 Taliban brought most of Afghanistan under their control;
warlords held out in the north
2001 International coalition, Afghan allies ousted Taliban
2001-present Resistance against Occupation forces, Democratic Regime

The US has been involved in the wars since 1980. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton...W just decided to push it. Didn't learn anything from the Soviet drain...well, of course not because the US was the one supplying the fuel...

Anyway. Nice little chart here.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/timeline.shtml

Oh, that's just the recent stuff Ksmy.

The Persians were the first to try to conquer Afghanistan back in 500 BC. After about 50 years of trying to bring the blessings of the Persian Empire to the Afghans, they gave up and paid tribute to the local tribes to keep the trade roads open.

Around 326 BC Alexander marched through Afghanistan on his way to India. He thought that the Afgahns would love to embrace the benefits of Greek culture. They really weren't that impressed. You have to give Alexander credit for learning from the Persians though, he started paying tribute to keep the trade roads open after only 3 years.

The Romans didn't even make the attempt.

Things stayed more or less quiet in Afghanistan for almost a thousand years until the Mongols got pissed at the Muslims and sent Halagu Kahn to take care of business. He marched through the place around 1250 AD on his way to exterminating the Assassins and then sacking Baghdad. They didn't even try to conquer the place either, they just garrisoned the trade routes and reached an understanding with the natives. "You don't bother us, we won't exterminate you."

Then came the British on their way to building Empire. You notice on Ksmy's list that the third Anglo-Afghan war was fought in 1919. The obvious implication being that there was a first and second Anglo-Afghan war and if the Anglos had been all that successful the first two attempts, the third war would have been unnecessary. The British didn't fair too well the third time out either.

The point is that NO ONE has ever conquered Afghanistan nor brought the blessings of civilization to them even though the attempts to do so go back 2500 years. The primary reason that no one has ever succeeded is that the place has no infrastructure and the cost of building infrastructure exceeds any mineral, agricultural, or industrial benefits that might be gained from building that infrastructure. It's a great big, mountainous, void that just happens to sit astride a couple of major trade routes.

You pay them tribute, smack them down if they get unruly, and otherwise leave the Afghans to their own devises. Nation building is a game that far wiser men than are in position of power today have tried and had the wisdom to abandon before their own nations wealth was sucked dry.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

you kinda sound like you are contradicting yourself here. first you are saying that to achieve stability the taliban have to give up and until they do there will be a US/UK presence but at the same time you are saying that it's an impossible aim. And then you are basically calling Obama a coward for not having the 'stomach' to win the fight.

Do you believe the war in afghanistan is really winnable?

There must be a language barrier here...

Can Afghanistan be subdued?

No.

Can the Taliban be defeated?

Yes. Eliminate everything that moves.

Will Obama do that? OH HELL NO!!! That means Vietnam since he's going to try and win by some other method.

It's best to negotiate a deal that allows us to leave and gives Afghanistan 15 minutes alone to decide what it's going to become.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yes.

It comes with the territory. I for one would not have having advocated he follow through with all his big talk.

...

On the side: LeTrouve, I was discussing end games and you jumped to the first four moves of the game.

You're as bad at reading as Throb is when he went bananas demanding i "prove" where he was for the war in Iraq even offering to leave if I could...

Too bad I said he was FOR the war in Afghanistan and could prove it.

You two should settled down and suck each other.

Too bad you changed the question after the fact, and lacked the testicular fortitude to admit it.

You're a moral eunuch as well as a physical one.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Can the Taliban be defeated?

Yes. Eliminate everything that moves.

Advocatin' genocide again, AJ?

No wonder your daddy kicked your worthless ass to the curb.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Advocatin' genocide again, AJ?

No wonder your daddy kicked your worthless ass to the curb.

Again, your desire to pick a fight and be the nastiest SOB on the board clouds your ability to comprehend, you're like the drunk that stumbles into the middle of a conversation at a party and the never notices during the diatribe that ensues that everyone has drifted away from you...

We put out the old lampshades whenever you show up.

 

[Byron In Exile]

The Viet Cong had to operate clandestinely because they were out gunned, and because the U.S. Air Force controlled the skies.

You said earlier that both sides committed atrocities. Do not argue with me about that 80%. Argue with President Eisenhower.

No, there's no question. The Vietnamese did exactly what the American Revolutionaries did. They resorted to guerilla warfare. Being out-gunned is exactly why they did that.

For the Americans, it defeated the British.

For the Vietnamese, it defeated the Americans.

Returning veterans, affected civilians and others have said that U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam MACV, based on the assumption that all friendly forces had been cleared from the area, established a policy designating "free-fire zones" as areas in which:

* Anyone unidentified is considered an enemy combatant

* Soldiers were to shoot anyone moving around after curfew, without first making sure that they were hostile.

Since such encounters could result in the deaths of innocent civilians, it would have been a violation of the Geneva Convention to have had such a policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fire_zone

Hamburg. Dresden. Hiroshima.

Are we done with America citing the Geneva Convention now?

And don't tell me about dates. It if was once true, then maybe it's true now.

If it wasn't true then, well... someone seriously fucked up.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

We were not defeated on the field of battle.




We were defeated in the halls of Congress and that's where Obama's going to get his drubbing.

 

[where]

There must be a language barrier here...

Can Afghanistan be subdued?

No.

Can the Taliban be defeated?

Yes. Eliminate everything that moves.

Will Obama do that? OH HELL NO!!! That means Vietnam since he's going to try and win by some other method.

It's best to negotiate a deal that allows us to leave and gives Afghanistan 15 minutes alone to decide what it's going to become.

you are distinguishing the taliban from the afghani people. I don't think you can do that. So your solution is to eliminate everyone? what happens then? you really really think that every muslim in the world will go "ohhh they mean business
we better not do any more terrorist attacks!" more to the point, do YOU think that the total 'elimination' is the way to go?

 

[Byron In Exile]

We were not defeated on the field of battle.

I don't really agree with that. It's my belief that America was defeated on the field of battle because they didn't realize that they were posing as the British, fighting Americans.

Americans became the thing they fought against.

That's what makes it so hopeless and futile.

I feel really stupid that I'm an American sometimes.

I mean, get a grip, people.

America isn't going to save the world from anything. It has... 187 F-22's, the most awesome fighter aircraft ever made. Trust me, this sort of airplane hasn't been seen before. But what are they to do now? The USSR is gone. Russia has been reduced to a bunch of blustering idiots like Putin. And Medvedev, who talks very grand but gives great sexual pleasure to Putin each night. And yet the US is afraid to stand up them them.

We were defeated in the halls of Congress and that's where Obama's going to get his drubbing.

"Suppose I said you were a Congressman... and suppose I said you were an idiot... but... I repeat myself." ~ Mark Twain

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

you are distinguishing the taliban from the afghani people. I don't think you can do that. So your solution is to eliminate everyone? what happens then? you really really think that every muslim in the world will go "ohhh they mean business
we better not do any more terrorist attacks!" more to the point, do YOU think that the total 'elimination' is the way to go?

No, I'm not. I said so way back.

No, it's not my solution as per my first answer, it's the ONLY solution if your response is a military response.

Which is why Obama will fail. He's taking half-assed measures to look tough because he painted himself into a verbal corner by blasting Bush for taking his eyes off the right war and invading Iraq, a war he assured us that had already been lost...