How to win the war in Afghanistan

[Lowaicue]

This is where I draw the line. I hate empire, and do not like to see my country intervene in other country's affairs. I am perfectly okay with condemning foreigners to the tyranny of their governments, because its not America or Americans, and because said tyrants are sovereign tyrants. I do not subscribe to the braindead ideal called Wilsonianism or to the concept of global/international government.

I am perfectly okay with this, until these regimes, like the Taliban, become a threat to my national security by harboring, training, feeding, treating, equipping, and generally aiding terrorist organizations. Then I support going into a shithole like Afghanistan.

The day the Middle East ceases to be a concern to our safety and security (and I suppose this means defending oil wells, etc.), is that day I say wave the middle finger at them, and let them kill and starve each other forward into the Stone Age.

If you think it is right to attack countries that harbour criminals I guess you are rather glad that Switzerland handed back Polanski. That would have been something else. The US invading Swizerland!
Oh no. Of course, how silly of me. It could never happen, could it?





They are PLU s!

 

[Minister of Truth]

If you think it is right to attack countries that harbour criminals I guess you are rather glad that Switzerland handed back Polanski. That would have been something else. The US invading Swizerland!
Oh no. Of course, how silly of me. It could never happen, could it?





They are PLU s!

As long as they're neutral...

And whatever criminals they might be harbouring, I'm going to hazard a guess that they are not a threat to my national security.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

If you are the world's policemen you aren't doing a very good job.
You WERE. But, sorry to have to tell you, you no longer are. Your apparent 'might' is no longer important save with small third world nations. You are not 'policing the ME. You are not policing N Korea. You are not policing SE Asia or Europe or Russia.......
you are not even policing America!!!!!!

then why even bring it up? If that's not what we are doing anymore?
I fail to see what you are complaining about if that's the case

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

If you think it is right to attack countries that harbour criminals I guess you are rather glad that Switzerland handed back Polanski. That would have been something else. The US invading Swizerland!
Oh no. Of course, how silly of me. It could never happen, could it?





They are PLU s!

the taliban knowingly harbored al qaeda, a group which killed thousands of americans in the biggest terrorist attack in american history. Roman Polanski is one man and is not/was not a threat to the USA warranting an invasion.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, it just makes you look foolish and detracts from your already weak argument.

 

[Lowaicue]

the taliban knowingly harbored al qaeda, a group which killed thousands of americans in the biggest terrorist attack in american history. Roman Polanski is one man and is not/was not a threat to the USA warranting an invasion.

Don't be deliberately obtuse, it just makes you look foolish and detracts from your already weak argument.

Do you have an extradition treaty with the Taleban? Do they have any obligation to the US or anyone apart from themselves?
Your country practices the death penalty. Few countries would hand over anyone to you. Its sort of the world standard. I guess you will learn about it one day.
So you expect a bunch of uneducated Islamist loonies to get hold of Osama bin Laden and his merry band and hand them over to another bunch of people who have a reputation of killing even more people. Do you see just how ridiculous Americans who think like you appear to normal people.
You sent in the troops. You knew where AQ were hiding. (remember the caves ... LOL) and you failed. Jeesus, under bush you couldn't catch a bloody cold let alone OBL.
We have said this so many times. Our politicians, our film stars, our entertainers, our ordinary people, For chrissakes, America, open your bloody eyes!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Al Quaeda did not exist as an organised threat to the USA prior to the attack on New York. I thought that fact was well known on both sides of the channel.
The fact that the Taleban harboured AQ immediately after 11/9 may well be true but their mission is NOT to attack US soil or any other soil. It is to take over Afghanistan and, I would guess Pakistan also. You may say it was regarded as an act of war against your country but your country represents but a tiny minority of the world's population. You are NOT the freakin' world.
The Taleban present no 'clear and present danger' to you and, whilst being rather a nasty 'nation' of extremists, they confine that extremism to the lands they consider to be theirs.
Afghanistan has been a failed state since before the Russians went in. The Taliban were born out of the Soviet Afghan conflict. They are the product, not the cause.
Now if the ambitions of these people change in the future to thoughts of actually attacking the west then, yes, lets bomb them to smithereens. But now - they dont.
I fail to understand why it is that, despite the 'comparative' sanity of the rest of the world vis a vis the Afghan/Pakistan problems, Iran, N Korea etc etc America alone (and to some extent the UK in their poodling) continues to see them as a major threat to personal safety.
They really are not. Much of the strutting and posturing is as a result of the PERCIEVED American threat. If you put a dog into a corner it will bite you. Is that the dog's fault?
300 million otherwise good souls seem unable to grasp the fact that their government encourages, or does nothing to stop, incorrect information to further strengthen its internal defence against the truth being exposed.
If you take off your boots and lay down your guns many of these people would suddenly become almost acceptable. Little people dont like big people showing their strength just because they can.
This is not intended as an anti yank tirade. But, for chrissakes, someone has to show you the truth. It appears well hidden within your own borders.
In my lifetime America has hated the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Soviets, The Palestinians, The North Koreans, The Iraquis, The Iranians. NONE OF THEM HAS EVER INVADED YOUR COUNTRY.
I went to Germany 10 years after WWII. 10 years after we had bombed each other half out of existence. We harboured no deep seated hatred. (Some did, its true, but not the ordinary Joe). They didnt hate us either. Why must you continue to hate so much? Do you remember Doc in the drug store in West Side Story? What he said to the Sharks is still true today but for many more Americans than a small NY gang.

You just simply don't know what your talking about. Al Qaeda had all ready made previous attacks on US interest costing US lives and property prior to 911. That's a well known fact on both sides of the channel to virtually everyone but you. Where do you get your information? A cereal box? Dude, you want to have a serious discussion you need to do a better job of being informed instead of making these half baked and uninformed opinions. You sound like Dixie and his convoluted rants when he discusses evolution because that's all your post is, an uninformed rant.

I did start this thread as a football joke but if you want to have a serious discussion on Afghanistan then read up and become informed and then post something when you actually know what your talking about and can back up your comments with facts instead of an uniformed, condescending and snide rant.

 

[Lowaicue]

You just simply don't know what your talking about. Al Qaeda had all ready made previous attacks on US interest costing US lives and property prior to 911. That's a well known fact on both sides of the channel to virtually everyone but you. Where do you get your information? A cereal box? Dude, you want to have a serious discussion you need to do a better job of being informed instead of making these half baked and uninformed opinions. You sound like Dixie and his convoluted rants when he discusses evolution because that's all your post is, an uninformed rant.

I did start this thread as a football joke but if you want to have a serious discussion on Afghanistan then read up and become informed and then post something when you actually know what your talking about and can back up your comments with facts instead of an uniformed, condescending and snide rant.

You still seem to be confusing Al Qaeda and the Taleban ... Dude.
They are NOT the same.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The issue I have is whether invading and occupying afghanistan was the appropriate response, whether or not the Taliban were in league with al qaeda. From what I understand, the taliban never had any goals or ambition to carry out international terrorist attacks against the US or Europe. The are, and were a bunch of fanatical whackos with regional and provincial ambitions to promulgate an islamic state. There's zero evidence they knew about the 9/11 attacks, and there's zero evidence that the taliban, or any afghan citizen that I know of, ever carried out an international terrorist attack against the west.

From what I gather, the Taliban's ties to al qaeda was rooted in islamic solidarity, and bin ladin was a folk hero to them for his role in driving the soviets out of afganistan. I am not aware that the Taliban ever conspired, equipped, or helped plan any of al qaeda's international attacks.

Which is why I have to ask why it is exactly we feel compelled to wage a ten year war against a tribe of backward, theocratic fucks who's goal always has been regional and local. Plenty of nations have harbored terrorists who attacked the United States. I don't ever recall Ronald Reagan, or George HW Bush demand that we invade and occupy Libya or Iran for the deaths of hundreds of US marines and american civilians. Is invasion supposed to be the only option to deal with problems of this magnitude? No, even the dim witted Reagan knew that.




We need to be honest with ourselves. We WANTED war after 9/11. We wanted blood pay back. I personally am past the point of believing anything the bush administration claimed. They claim the taliban would never comply or cooperate with us. I don't believe them. First, I don't believe we even tried to resolve this diplomatically, through covert ops, or through law enforcement in anything but the most trivial and inconsequential way. We wanted blood, no matter what. This is entirely consistent with how the Bush regime conducted itself. Did the Bush regime ever really want to resolve the Iraq situation, without war? Of course they didn't. They were going to have a war, and all the UN resolutions and inspections were a ruse; a fig leaf at best.

There's sufficient documented evidence that the Taliban were willing to turn over bin ladin to a neutral third country. We're they bullshitting us? Maybe. But we didn't even freaking try that route. And when it comes to preventing the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and saving the US taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars, I certainly am predisposed to trying everything short of bloodshed and mayhem to resolve a situation like that.

As for a failed state, that is indeed a legitimate concern. Again, is invasion and occupation the only way to mitigate the problem of a failed theocratic state? Afghanistan was a civil war. Just like Vietnam. What exactly was gained by invading and occupying? I'm not award of any examples in modern history that the problems of a failed state and a civil war was resolved adequatly with the invasion of a western army.

Again, we're kidding ourselves if we think we can impose our will through force of arms in civil war for which we have little understanding or comprehension. I really don't think it's plausible to suggest that invading is the one and only viable solution.

You make some good points. However, invading Afghanistan to terminate the threat to the US by Al Qaeda was certainly an appropriate response and one that was backed up by most of the international community. We had the right to protect our selves from further attacks. As for the occupation, well you make some very good points there but that's not germane to the point I was making. The situation in Afghanistan presented a clear and present danger to US national security requiring a military response to mitigate that threat. The fact that Bushco fucked up the occupation and that continuing our occupation may not be tenable is a completely different issue.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You still seem to be confusing Al Qaeda and the Taleban ... Dude.
They are NOT the same.

I'm not confused at all. You are. You're point isn't a valid one. Al Qaeda may have committed the attacks on 911 but the Taliban harbored them and continued to do so after the attacks. This, in turn, made the Taliban also a clear and present danger to US national security. It is this point you fail to understand. That or you are being purposefully obtuse.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You still seem to be confusing Al Qaeda and the Taleban ... Dude.
They are NOT the same.

Let me ask you this, in the form of an anology. If the Michigan millitia said "Fuck all the Limey's" and detonated a dirty bomb in London killing thousands. The Government of Great Britain in turn demands the US Government to turn over the members of the Michigan Militia who committed this crime and the US refused to do so. Would this not be considered an act of war by the US against Great Britain and would not the US represent a clear and present danger to Great Britain's security?

 

[Lowaicue]

Let me ask you this, in the form of an anology. If the Michigan millitia said "Fuck all the Limey's" and detonated a dirty bomb in London killing thousands. The Government of Great Britain in turn demands the US Government to turn over the members of the Michigan Militia who committed this crime and the US refused to do so. Would this not be considered an act of war by the US against Great Britain and would not the US represent a clear and present danger to Great Britain's security?

No. I do not think it would. But I am not a member of the British judiciary.

 

[Lowaicue]

No. I do not think it would. But I am not a member of the British judiciary.

Oh and further to that, have you forgotten the money Americans gave through Noraid to the IRA and the welcome given in America to Irish terrorist leaders.
I don't remember a call to arms to attack the US.

 

[cawacko]

I laughed when I read this, Mott.

But unfortunately, what started as a joke about OSU was quickly turned to an international political debate.

But good post, Mott.

Yeah, it was funny. Made me laugh as well, actually as a Bucks fan it made me shed a tear.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No. I do not think it would. But I am not a member of the British judiciary.

Then your a fool and you know little about foreign or military policy.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yeah, it was funny. Made me laugh as well, actually as a Bucks fan it made me shed a tear.

Aw don't be maudlin. Three things will happen. Pryor will improve, get benched or graduate. Either way, life goes on.

It's not all doom and gloom either. We have our fate in our own hands. If we win the rest of our games, which is more than just possible, then we win the Big 10 title, go to the Rose Bowl.

Any season that ends with a win against Michigan and a Big 10 title is a good year.

 

[cawacko]

Aw don't be maudlin. Three things will happen. Pryor will improve, get benched or graduate. Either way, life goes on.

It's not all doom and gloom either. We have our fate in our own hands. If we win the rest of our games, which is more than just possible, then we win the Big 10 title, go to the Rose Bowl.

Any season that ends with a win against Michigan and a Big 10 title is a good year.

Well even more selfishly than my support of Ohio St is to maximize USC's strength of schedule. We needed Ohio St to go 11-1 which of course enhances our victory at the Shoe. The Bucks losing to Purdue takes away some of the 'shine' if you will from the victory in the eyes of voters.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well even more selfishly than my support of Ohio St is to maximize USC's strength of schedule. We needed Ohio St to go 11-1 which of course enhances our victory at the Shoe. The Bucks losing to Purdue takes away some of the 'shine' if you will from the victory in the eyes of voters.

CA, since you may not have seen my post, and before things change, here are the predictions for the bowl games by Sports Illustrated's Stuart Mandel:

Title game: Alabama vs. USC

Rose: Iowa vs. Boise State

Fiesta: Texas vs. Georgia Tech

Sugar: Florida vs. Cincinnati

Orange: Miami vs. Penn State





I thought you would enjoy it, since it fits in with our prayers sent up before the USC/OSU game.

 

[cawacko]

CA, since you may not have seen my post, and before things change, here are the predictions for the bowl games by Sports Illustrated's Stuart Mandel:

Title game: Alabama vs. USC

Rose: Iowa vs. Boise State

Fiesta: Texas vs. Georgia Tech

Sugar: Florida vs. Cincinnati

Orange: Miami vs. Penn State





I thought you would enjoy it, since it fits in with our prayers sent up before the USC/OSU game.

Haha, I did see that on his site and thank you for reposting. That would be awesome if that came to fruition. I would love to see the Southern Belles invade L.A.!

 

[WinterBorn]

Haha, I did see that on his site and thank you for reposting. That would be awesome if that came to fruition. I would love to see the Southern Belles invade L.A.!

Ah, a fan of southern belles? Careful, they can be addicting. And they seem soft and sweet but they can be tough, manipulative things.

But damn they do make life interesting.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

CA, since you may not have seen my post, and before things change, here are the predictions for the bowl games by Sports Illustrated's Stuart Mandel:

Title game: Alabama vs. USC

Rose: Iowa vs. Boise State

Fiesta: Texas vs. Georgia Tech

Sugar: Florida vs. Cincinnati

Orange: Miami vs. Penn State





I thought you would enjoy it, since it fits in with our prayers sent up before the USC/OSU game.

It would be interesting to see OSU and Cincinatti play.