I say we won the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We killed Saddam in Iraq.
Osama bin Laden and Al Queda fled Afghanistan, leaving about 100 guys.

The old governments are gone, replaced with democracies. We have huge embassies in each (read military bases) and we have economic problems at home.

What exactly do we have to do to win? Who else needs to die? By what definition of "war with afghanistan" have we not won? We went to war to prevent Saddam from getting the nuke. Well, he ain't gonna get the nuke, now is he? We went to Afghanistan to kill Al Queda. We killed them. We blew up their bases and took their computers and chased them into Pakistan.

I say we won. And I'm pissed we keep sending people over there. We should declare victory and move on to Pakistan. At least they're friendly, no need to invade, just help them out is all.

"The old governments are gone, replaced with democracies" The rest of the world doesn't agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Anon

We killed Saddam in Iraq.
Osama bin Laden and Al Queda fled Afghanistan, leaving about 100 guys.

The old governments are gone, replaced with democracies. We have huge embassies in each (read military bases) and we have economic problems at home.

What exactly do we have to do to win? Who else needs to die? By what definition of "war with afghanistan" have we not won? We went to war to prevent Saddam from getting the nuke. Well, he ain't gonna get the nuke, now is he? We went to Afghanistan to kill Al Queda. We killed them. We blew up their bases and took their computers and chased them into Pakistan.

I say we won. And I'm pissed we keep sending people over there. We should declare victory and move on to Pakistan. At least they're friendly, no need to invade, just help them out is all.

---

Sir... I hope you're trolling.

""The old governments are gone, replaced with democracies" The rest of the world doesn't agree with you."

In 2000 Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein and the Bathist party. Please list for me which nations in the world believe that government continues to exist.

*waits with a notepad*

"Sir... I hope you're trolling."
Absolutely not.

Soldiers are capable of certain tasks. Most of them related to killing and/or destroying. We said kill Saddam's government. They did. We said kill the Taliban government. They did. Now, the Taliban are wanted outlaws commiting terrorism against their own people. So we leave a thousand special forces guys, and we take the army home. In Iraq, different people, same idea. The only ones left are insurgents who have no interest in attacking America, only an interest in us leaving their country, and a few foreign fighters tossed into the mix.

So leave a few thousand to fight the foreign fighers, enough airforce to back up the Iraqi military, and let's get the rest of them out. We won. We won hardcore.

Can those new "Democracies" excist without help from the west?
Why are the US going to send another 30000 troops to afghanistan if we already have won the war?

Two regimes have fallen but both Iraq and Afghanistan are still in a state of anarchy. Both goverments are extremely weak, suffer from big corruption and are unable to survive without a large military precance by the west. I even doubt afghanistan would be able to pay their army if we didn't send them billions of dollars on a yearly basis.

I don't have a single doubt at the moment that the taliban will be back in power if we would pull our troops back now. I bet that the Afghan goverment will fall within 2 years if we don't continue to support them with a large military force and extenisive funding. Our troops will have to stay there for dozens of years if we want to build a real democratie out of afghanistan and Iraq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VT2

"The old governments are gone, replaced with democracies" The rest of the world doesn't agree with you.

---

qft

Your very premise is flawed.
You think that the point of the war was instate democracies and "kill them".
That very way of thinking is the reason why the world thinks Americans are a joke.
Saddam was a friend of the USA, and single handedly prevented Iraq from adopting Communism, with blessings and hefty aid from the American government. It was only when Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened the American oil interests in the emirate that the US government decided to demonize Saddam, and fill your head as well as the heads of millions of Americans with a nice strong dose of propaganda.

So after the US began their crusades in the Middle East, committing unspeakable atrocities and war crimes verified by the UN, they were slightly pissed. Pissed enough to respond. And they did, in the only way a weaker country can.

The peoples of neither country are less resentful of the US, and the puppet governments the US has instated will be toppled in time.

If these wars have done anything, they've pissed more people off, and that will eventually culminate into eventual further attacks in the US.

To conclude, did the US win? Well yes, the American government won, but the American people are fscked.

winning a war is ambiguous.

It is most often used to define an outcome where you got what you wanted out of the war.

It is quite possible under such circumstances that both opponents win or that they both lose (assuming that they want different things or simply something that can be acquired by both sides simultaneously like making the corporations that manufacture their weapons richer for example in which case it would be rather easy to win a war).

I think the term 'winning' a war is applied too generously however.

I would rather qualify winning a war as being better off when the war is over than when the war started.

Under such a definition, very few wars can be won indeed.

The Iraq war, for example, was doomed to be a losing war from the onset (think of the human cost of the war alone vs what was actually achieved).

pft at this thread

this is like declaring victory for the entente in ww1 in 1918

premature if it is premature, totally disregardful of geopolitics and geopolitical strategy, total lack of strategic insight whatsoever and utterly disregarding any future events that may take place

dumbest thread of the week! and the week ain't even over yet

Freemehul actually made a post slightly more intelligent than the OP's...

I'm astounded.


And OP, I still think you're just trolling.

What happens when a few years down the line the unstable government collapses, an anti-american regime pissed that we invaded their country gains power and starts funding - *gasp* - terrorist attacks against the US? Oops! Do over!

And I just can't take you seriously if you really think that Afghanistan and Iraq have anything like stable governments at the moment.

You must be trolling because I refuse to believe that you are that much of a fool.

"Can those new "Democracies" excist without help from the west?"
I said we won the war. I didn't say they are capable of living on their own. War is war. Nation Building is something else entirely different.

"Both goverments are extremely weak, suffer from big corruption and are unable to survive without a large military precance"
You just described half the countries on earth.

"Our troops will have to stay there for dozens of years if we want to build a real democratie out of afghanistan and Iraq"
Again, I said we won the war. I never said we created Utopias (hehe, okay, so that was a pun kill me :P). War is about defeating an enemy, not creating perfect Democracies.

'You think that the point of the war was instate democracies and "kill them"."
Nope and nope. I think the point of war is to achieve a political end. The end we wanted was for Al Queda to no longer have bases in Afghanistan (check) capture Osama bin Laden (not yet, but he's in pakistan) and prevent Saddam from getting WMDs (check)*. We won.

"If these wars have done anything, they've pissed more people off, and that will eventually culminate into eventual further attacks in the US.

To conclude, did the US win? Well yes, the American government won, but the American people are fscked."
I agree, except I'm not sure out Government won. The military won. But nitpicking aside, that is why I want out military out of those countries. Because, i'm not filled with propoganda, because I do know Saddam was our man for years, because I do know that we've done horrible damage over there, and because the first law of holes is that when you find yourself in one, stop digging.

Magn:
Hmm..
Your comment was interesting, and on a different day I'd probably enjoy arguing about the philosphy of the thing. Can anyone win a war when so many are killed and maimed? Tough philisophical question.

Today though, I'm not talking philosophy, in which case there is nothing ambiguous. America won WWI and WWII. We did not win Vietname. We won Iraq. We won Iraq because we invaded they're country, killed their leader, removed his government and put one in place that then invited us to stay. Ditto for Afghanistan. By the most basic definition of war, once the enemy we fight is dead, we win. Our enemies weren't the people of the countries, but the governments of those countries. Those governments are dead, thus, we won! (Start the parade!)

Freemehul:
lol Love you too.

tip: Wouldn't be the first time I was accused of trolling. I have trolled sure enough in the past, won't lie about that.

"What happens when a few years down the line the unstable government collapses"
Well, if they were black people we'd look the other way. But they have oil, so we'd have to do something. I never said their countries are perfect democratic utopias were peoples farts smell like honeysuckle in the spring, I said we won the "war".

'And I just can't take you seriously if you really think that Afghanistan and Iraq have anything like stable governments at the moment."
Nor would I. They don't. Please quote me saying they do.

Now, I'm just teasing you with my sarcasm, don't take offense. Your line of thinking is (I think) very much similiar to most people. I fully recognize I'm mostly alone on this line of thinking, so let me explain. War isn't defined as "creating working democracies" war is defined as "an active struggle between competing entities".

We actively struggled against the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those governments have been killed off. Those wars are over, we won.

Now, that isn't to say there a lot of stuff wrong in those countries. But those problems exist post-victory. Much like how the North won the Civil war, but the South Carolina statehouse kept waving the confederate flag. People still where the flag on their jackets and pickup trucks. It took us about a hundred years AFTER winning the civil war to get blacks some semblence of equality. Likewise in Iraq and Afghanistan, it may be close to a hundred years before there is some semblence of equality for everyone in that country (hell, in the US we're still squimish about letting the gays marry).

But that isn't a problem the military can fix. That's not a war. There isn't a US military solution to "Karzai is a giant raging corrupt thieving douchebag".

Therefore, we should:
A. Bring home the bulk of our forces
B. Leave a few thousand soldiers (5,000-10,000 tops) as special forces, trainers, airforce, support, etc.
C. Have parades for the troops that have been through so much and fought so hard and won us everything a military can win.
D. Continue to give both countries monetary aid, loans, technical assistance, protection from foreign governments and internal terrorist groups, and diplomatic support whenever possible.

Bravo, and I even agree with some of your points, but... *ahem*

Quote:

---

What happens when a few years down the line the unstable government collapses, an anti-american regime pissed that we invaded their country gains power and starts funding - *gasp* - terrorist attacks against the US? Oops! Do over!

---

Whole reason for Afghanistan, yes? Please explain...

Thank you. Now let me break up your question into parts, as it's more than one question.

"What happens when a few years down the line the unstable government collapses"
Firstly, that is why I said we need to leave 5-10 thousand troops, why we continue to help them build schools, give them loans, etc. That is all to prevent just what you suggest. Now if that does happen, if the government does collapse, even with all that help, the absolute last thing I want is for US troops to be used as the corrupt Iraqi governments personal SS. They can't depend on our soldiers to hold they're country together. They can depend on our airforce to drop bombs, and our special forces to do sneaky ops in the dead of night.

"an anti-american regime pissed that we invaded their country gains power and starts funding - *gasp* - terrorist attacks against the US? Oops! Do over!"
First, that's why I want us out of there. The longer we're there the more the average non-crazy mud-hut farmer hates us.
Second, again, 5-10,000 troops is for their protection, but also ours. It's a friendly reminder that if the new government becomes our enemy, we'll wipe them out.

The reason for Afghanistan was Al Queda. Al Queda is now in the border regions of two quasi-friendly allies. Which means we don't need an invasion army, we need NSA, CIA, special forces, diplomatic leverage and the occasional drone bombing (all of which we've got going on).

I assure you, for the 100 Al Queda goons left in Afghanistan, we don't need an occupying army of 100,000

1) Stopping Saddam from procuring WMDs. Yay. The US managed to prevent something that..... wasn't happening.....

2) Destroy Al Qaeda. They're still up and running. Hiding? Fighting with guerrilla warfare? Absolutely. There's no other way for them to fight back. Is Al Qaeda less functional now? Maybe, but now there's the problem of Al Qaeda no longer being a simple organization. The US have made martyrs of them. They've become an idea, a symbol. Groups of angry civilians with no ties to Al Qaeda are acting and plot terrorist attacks in their name.

=> They made a bad situation worse. I don't call that winning.

1. That's irregardless.

2. Now you're confusing wars. Bush declared a "war on terrorism" that's Al Queda. Then there was the war against Afghanistan.

We won the war against Iraq because Saddam and his government are dead.
We won the war against Afghanistan because the government that supported AL Qeuda is dead.
We have not yet won the war against Al Queda. (As an aside, you can't war "terrorism" but you can war against a terrorist group)

And you say they made a bad situation worse, I disagree. Afghanistan no longer protects Al Queda. Situation improved (ahem, for us. For them? Less.)

'There's no other way for them to fight back."
*holds head*
Are you really saying that car bombing civilians counts as "fighting back"

People like to make anologies that Americans in the Revolutionary war fought guerrilla and its true. But we didn't carriage bomb our own people. That's just stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Anon

Magn:
Hmm..
Your comment was interesting, and on a different day I'd probably enjoy arguing about the philosphy of the thing. Can anyone win a war when so many are killed and maimed? Tough philisophical question.

Today though, I'm not talking philosophy, in which case there is nothing ambiguous. America won WWI and WWII. We did not win Vietname. We won Iraq. We won Iraq because we invaded they're country, killed their leader, removed his government and put one in place that then invited us to stay. Ditto for Afghanistan. By the most basic definition of war, once the enemy we fight is dead, we win. Our enemies weren't the people of the countries, but the governments of those countries. Those governments are dead, thus, we won! (Start the parade!)

---

My comment is about the crux of the matter.

Wars are bloody and costly in the one thing that you can't readily replace: human lives (you can rebuild houses, tanks, etc, but you can't resurrect the dead). A life is the one thing we cannot rebuild.

I don't think you are thinking about this hard enough.

They are sending your coworkers, neighbors, friends, children, siblings, spouses to danger and a significant number will get slaughtered, often in an horrible violent way (and a fair number of them will live, but get maimed pretty badly). Think of it as if they were sending people related to you in the above manner away to danger (heck, think of it as if they are sending you away to danger).

You better think long and hard about what you are trying to achieve, because this ain't no video game (its the real thing... people dying out there don't get a 're-load last savegame' button).

You need to go into a war with a clear objective, the objective must be important enough for a bucketload of people to give up their life for often in a pretty horrible way (because they will) and you need to determine how much you are willing to sacrifice for your objective (1k soldiers? 10k soldiers? 10% of the country's population?).

From there, you can make an estimate of the expected losses and determine if the war is worth it.

This was not done properly with the Iraq war and I think the cost of the war far outweighed the benefits that were reaped from it (so how can you really think about this in terms of winning?).

Its should never be about something as stupid as pride or refusing to 'lose' or showing people out there who is 'tough'.

"Think of it as if they were sending people related to you in the above manner away to danger"
Check. Younger brother. His name is William and I want to get him and his friends the hell out of that country.

"You need to go into a war with a clear objective,"
Agreed. Kill the enemy. The enemy is dead. Get them home.

"so how can you really think about this in terms of winning"
How can you not? I'm not saying war is fun or good or that we had a blast and should do it more often. I said our military won their fight. They killed those who needed killing, and now they get to come home.

How can we as a nation send our families to war, and then after they win the war, pull the rug out from under them and say "oh, um, yeah, I know you think you've done your job, but um, now you have to build a fully functioning democracy in the asshole of the world with a population that is 90% illiterate, a government that is corrupt, a legislature that legalizes rape and a people that think America is Satan. So um, good luck coming home before that 100 year mark McCain warned us about."

You win a war when you beat down all oppostion, and secure all the booty.

You have not beaten down all the opposition, and your former president's stupid decision to center the whole thing around a 'war on terror' means you cannot plunder and loot all the booty, or the international community will look down even more on you - you have to loot and plunder the booty in a slow, controlled, ineffective fashion.
We all know you wanted their shinies, and we'd all have been okay with you declaring a real war, in the name of getting shinies, but now you've screwed yourself, and you keep pouring resources, time, and manpower into a war you will never gain from.

Following the 'war on terror,' you proceeded to destroy your own economy, bumped China up the charts, and now you've declared yet another crusade on another sand nation.

"You win a war when you beat down all oppostion, and secure all the booty."

The word opposition is far too broad to be used in terms of war. If the word you use is opposition, then we haven't yet won the civil war because there are still groups that oppose the Federal Government getting involved in "states rights"

If you use the word opposition then the cold war ain't over because Russia still oppose us.

People still wear swatzikas, does that mean WWII is still ongoing? I assure you, there are all kinds of people who oppose America protecting the jews.

Hell, Brittain's Prime Minister was still opposing us on Climate Change and International law issues last month. Does that mean we haven't won the Revolutionary war yet?

People will always oppose us. There will never be a point in time that the US can invade a country, stay for 8 years, torture their people, and have no one oppose us. That doesn't mean we can't win a war and come home.

It'd be nice if we were fighting a civilized people that would say "gee, we surrender", we aren't. We are fightng religious extremists. These aren't politicians. Or reasonable sane people who care about farms and families and rebuilding. These are people who think they'll go to hell if they don't fight us to the death and die in the attempt. The question then is who opposes us.

1. The government of Iraq no longer opposes us, thus, we won the war against Iraq.
2. The government of Afghanistan no longer opposes us, thus, we won the war against Afghanistan
3. We have not won the war against Al Queda and similar groups. But they aren't in Afghanistan, they're in Pakistan.

Let's get after them. That's who we're at war with.

"The word opposition is far too broad to be used in terms of war."

No.
No, not really.

Do you still have people who resist your 'win,' and bomb your units, themselves, and your allies?
If 'yes,' you have not beat down the opposition.

"It'd be nice if we were fighting a civilized people that would say "gee, we surrender", we aren't." You've invaded their tents, killed their soldiers, destroyed their old leadership, and now you're trying to take their stuff. Have you ever even heard of a country that surrendered when people did that to them?

"We are fightng religious extremists." You're fighting people over control of their country. If I were to invade your precious America, and you refused to give in to my silly demands, would that be because you're a religious extremist, or because I have - indeed- invaded your country, and am dictating the rules?

no research was done in this. Al Queda has been surging again in afgahnistan.

America set out to capture osama not chase him into pakistan. so no the war is not over, seeing as Osama and Al Queda the enemies america is targeting with the wars are weakened but not defeated.

You know, last I checked, a group of angry, women-hating, ancient, old men, living in tents in the middle of the desert, wielding guns and hardware from the second world war, did not equal a serious threat to anyone - flying planes through your non-existent security at the time be damned.

That whole deal about how you needed to capture their leader, and how Saddam had 'weapons of mass destruction?'
Just lame excuses to capture resources, and ending stuff the current president's daddy started.

Obama's daddy started something?

And, yes we still need to capture their leader- Osama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigDizzy

Obama's daddy started something?

---

He was referering to Bush Jr and Bush Senior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Anon

1. The government of Iraq no longer opposes us, thus, we won the war against Iraq.
2. The government of Afghanistan no longer opposes us, thus, we won the war against Afghanistan
3. We have not won the war against Al Queda and similar groups. But they aren't in Afghanistan, they're in Pakistan.

---

The US might have won the one battle of removing Saddam from power in Iraq. Not that he was any big threat to the US or the world to begin with. There is still sectarian violence in Iraq. Thanks to the democratic elections in Iraq there are now a large group of Islamists in the Iraqi government, Islamists who wants Sharia-laws, and when/if Iraq splits or turn into an Islamic regime will you still say that the US won?

Saddam Hussein was secular and used to keep these religious fanatics on a leash. I'm not saying that all Islamists in the Iraq government are fanatics or fundamentalists though. Also, by removing Saddam the US (the neo-conservatives) helped to strengthen Iran's influence over Iraq and the entire Middle-East.

Keep that in mind and let's move on to talk about Afghanistan.

Of course the US puppet regime in Afghanistan does not oppose the US. But I don't think that the US has won anything in Afghanistan. What have they won? Sure, the US military forces wins a few battles here and there. One day they kill a dozen of armed Talibans, or Pashtuns. The next day they "win against Afghanistan" by killing a dozen of civilian women and children.

Meanwhile, eight years after 9/11 the Talibans now has a permanent presence in 80% of Afghanistan.

http://www.icosgroup.net/modules/pre...ears_after_911


...and NATO's top commander said in august/september 2009 that the US/NATO is risking to lose the war.


Have this in mind and let's move on to talk about Al-Qaida. Here you say that the US has not yet won against them. And you are correct. But I think that you are wrong when you say that Al-Qaida isn't in Afghanistan but in Pakistan. Last time I checked they were in Somalia, Nigeria (and lots of other hell holes in Africa), Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, etc. They are operating from many different places. They are basically everywhere. Because it seems that a lot of people wants to join them nowadays. Because these people see the US aggression as a Crusade against their way of life, against their religion, against their culture and against their very lives.

So, with the situation in Iraq not looking all too good, and with Taliban permanent presence in 80% of Afghanistan, and Al-Qaida has spread all over the world, and NATO's top commander says that the USA/NATO risk losing - how is the US winning in Iraq and in Afghanistan again?

Report: U.S. spy effort in Afghanistan ‘clueless’
Military intelligence chief says agencies out of touch with people

WASHINGTON - The U.S. military's intelligence chief in Afghanistan sharply criticized the work of U.S. spy agencies there on Monday, calling them ignorant and out of touch with the Afghan people.

In a report issued by the Center for New American Security think tank, Major General Michael Flynn, deputy chief of staff for intelligence in Afghanistan for the U.S. military and its NATO allies, offered a bleak assessment of the intelligence community's role in the 8-year-old war.

He described U.S. intelligence officials there as "ignorant of local economics and landowners, hazy about who the powerbrokers are and how they might be influenced ... and disengaged from people in the best position to find answers."

An operations officer was quoted in the report as calling the United States "clueless" because of a lack of needed intelligence about the country.

Grassroots effort urged
The report, which highlighted tensions between military and intelligence agencies, urged changes such as a focus on gathering more information on a wider range of issues at a grassroots level.

Release of the report came less than a week after a suicide bomber killed seven CIA officers at a U.S. base in eastern Afghanistan, the second-most deadly attack in agency history. NBC News reported on Monday the bomber was an al Qaida double-agent from Jordan, citing unnamed Western intelligence officials.

The security breach was a major blow to the CIA, which has expanded operations hunting down and killing Taliban and al Qaida militants in Afghanistan and tribal areas in neighboring Pakistan, partly through the use of unmanned drone aircraft.

The drone strikes have fueled public anger and have been sharply criticized by human rights groups.

"Eight years into the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. intelligence community is only marginally relevant to the overall strategy," Flynn wrote in the report with his chief adviser, Captain Matt Pottinger.

Excessive focus on insurgents
The report said U.S. intelligence had focused too much on gathering information on insurgent groups and was "unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which U.S. and allied forces operate and the people they seek to persuade," the report said.

A revised war strategy unveiled last month by U.S. President Barack Obama calls for sending 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan and for expanding a counterinsurgency campaign aimed at garnering Afghan public support and sidelining a resurgent Taliban.

Instead of mounting a counterinsurgency, Flynn asserted that the intelligence community had "fallen into the trap" of waging an "anti-insurgency campaign" aimed at capturing or killing mid-to-high level militants.

An intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, defended the focus of U.S. spy agencies on insurgents, saying: "You can't be successful at counterinsurgency without a profound understanding of the enemy."

Flynn's report said the intelligence community had enough analysts in Afghanistan but "too many are simply in the wrong places and assigned to the wrong jobs."

The report described the main problems as "attitudinal, cultural, and human," saying U.S. intelligence community had "a culture that is strangely oblivious of how little its analytical products, as they now exist, actually influence commanders."

An operations officer at one U.S. task force was quoted in the report as questioning why the intelligence community was unable to produce more information about the Afghan population. "I don't want to say we're clueless, but we are. We're no more than fingernail deep in our understanding of the environment," the officer said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34694618..._central_asia/

america also won the vietnam war dont forget, they never lose or fail

lol, you know once we leave afghanistan they'll go back to afghanistan, rebuild, and al qaeda will be back in the bizz.

You can't have 'won' something that hasn't ended. In your opinion you might be 'winning', but you haven't 'won' anything.

You may think that the war has ended because you achieved your goal, but it hasn't. A war ends when the fighting stops. All though you've established a Democracy, you haven't yet obtained Peace. You may have achieved your goal, but the war is not over.

America pulling out now is the equivalent of a Basketball team quitting the game in 3rd quarter because their 'goal' was simply to get to 100 points. Yes, they achieved their goal and yes from a certain point of view they 'won' something. In the end, they lost the game.

You guys know squat. The Yakuza gains the most from the war. The Afghan and Iraq hotties practically show up at their doorsteps in boats and currently, under the protectorate of Yakuza Moms, selling their booty to Japanese lechers. The biggest porn producer in the world is changing the lead actress of "Interracial IV" from a japanese lady to an arab hoe. And here you're bickering about politics and what not, and missing all the action.

Not sure when it became gospel that once u beat the crap out of a country u have to build them back up. Almost seems a good strategy to start a war with the US and loose it so they will build u up out of your 3rd world status. Japan and Germany did pretty well for themselves after getting rebuilt after WWII. Vietnam still pretty much a crap hole. Likely the biggest mistake they ever made was not giving the US a win then standing around with their hands out. We should have just gone in, taken out Saddam, made sure they didn't have WMD and then got the heck out IMO. Germany and Japan had more for us to work with than Iraq and Afghanistan, would be hard enough to build the last two into anything, assuming they really wanted to be anything other than a fundamentalist backwater. Trying to drag them kicking and screaming where a good share of their population doesn't want to go, not likely to work out real well. And not our call to decide for them what sort of govt/economy etc they should have. Let them make their own choices and sink or swim on their own.

The purpose of war is to kill people and break things. Armies not really the best agent to be a meals on wheels program. Once the troops do the job they are best at, bring them home till u need someone smacked around again. Foreign troops on someone elses soil usually not real welcome unless they invited u in. Sticking around after the shooting is over not likely to make them love u any more.

Crap!

I take it you disagree? Well I have to give it to you. A one word response to a post is certainly pithy.

Theres two rules in war - don't invade russia in winter and stay out of Afghanistan - The war in Afghanistan is completely unwinable ... the minute the US and their British poodles pull out the Taliban will take power back again. If the Soviet Union couldn't get a permanent victory in Afghanistan with no regard to how many people they killed to get it how are America and the UK supposed to do it?

You'd kinda forgive America for not realising that victory in Afghanistan is impossible but you'd think the Brits would remember Gandamak. I mean you can bomb rock, desert and wasteland as much as you want but it will only get you so far. The Taliban and co can just disperse and short of Nuking the place you can't get them all. The minute they pull out the fundamentalists will march on Kabul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuthmoses

Theres two rules in war - don't invade russia in winter and stay out of Afghanistan - The war in Afghanistan is completely unwinable ... the minute the US and their British poodles pull out the Taliban will take power back again. If the Soviet Union couldn't get a permanent victory in Afghanistan with no regard to how many people they killed to get it how are America and the UK supposed to do it?

You'd kinda forgive America for not realising that victory in Afghanistan is impossible but you'd think the Brits would remember Gandamak. I mean you can bomb rock, desert and wasteland as much as you want but it will only get you so far. The Taliban and co can just disperse and short of Nuking the place you can't get them all. The minute they pull out the fundamentalists will march on Kabul.

---

Well, not sure if the war in Afghanistan will amount to the whole lot in the end unless they maintain an occupation that will last a generation (enough to change a significant percentage of the younger generation's mentality... current radicals of our generation will of course remain radical), but at the same time, something needed to be done I guess.

You can't let terrorists blow stuff up without there being consequences, especially when you know where they come from and that the place they are coming from not only isn't doing anything about it, but is fostering it.

I'm really not a fan of the war in Iraq, but as far as the Afghan war goes, I'd say it was a tough call to make.

The occupation is certainly maintainable for a long time because its supported by the UN as opposed to a handful of countries.

Just wish my country wasn't stuck with the most dangerous spot of the occupation. They should rotate or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magn

Just wish my country wasn't stuck with the most dangerous spot of the occupation. They should rotate or something.

---

you're not alone... that seems to be the general mood these days, where every country thinks they've got the worst spot and want to rotate. Its worrying

The Dutch government only got a new mission to Afghanistan through parliament by the narrowest of margins and they only got a majority thanks to the support of GreenLeft...

yes greenleft and if you don't know what greenleft is, let me explain... they are environmentalists, radicals, former communists (the stalinist kind) and wait for it.....


pacifists lol


it seems like you can only get a good majority when there is no economic depression, because war is afterall a very costly business.... and no I don't mean costs in terms of human lives, but in terms of money.... that's right, cold hard cash.


No doubt greenleft only gave their support in return for something else. That's right, opposition made a shadow agreement with the government. I expect to see a tax on meat implemented here in the Netherlands within a few months. That's right, the poor are going to get squeezed financially by the government thanks to the opposition's support.

and that's not everything...no wait there is more.

Dutch government plans to impose 3000 euro per year fines on long term students. Fines that are in direct violation of the Dutch constitution, the penal code and the law general public. The law is going get through parliament regardless of the negative advise of the Raad Van State (state council). Who's in the Raad van State you ask? Why the Dutch head of state amongst others. Yes, even Queen Beatrix said that law proposal was a bad idea. They can get a majority thanks to the help of Labour. Who gave their support in exchange for a stop on the increase of Value Added Taxes. Crazy right...

that's not all...

who do you think, came up with the idea to make that law in direct violation of the constitution? If you say the conservative liberals like VVD, with Prime Minister Rutte, the one, who wants to impose the biggest most disastrous cutbacks to the Dutch economy ever since the thirties of the previous century, then you're wrong. No it's Wilders of course... that's right, the guy who loves Jews and hates Muslims and hates the left intelligentsia. Why? do you ask! Well it's a pretty simple answer really. He never got to go to University himself, because he was impatient and a lazy bum, who's only interested in trivial sex, drugs and his ever present hunger for power. Power because of the sake of holding power, because he is a shallow, egocentric bastard, imcapable of only the slightest bit of empathy, who only cares for what he wants and not his fellow man or woman. And well because he didn't get to go to Uni, noone else may go to Uni. That's right, he's a vengeful sob. But of course he is not naive and not delusional and so he realizes he has to manipulate the coalition government and the opposition. And because the Chistians democrats are in a identity crisis, and because the liberals can't get along with the social democrats over petty differences, Wilders manages to get what he wants, which is irrational, egocentrical unadulterated revenge!

But ah why worry over those silly students, they can afford it. Can anyone afford it really when you let parliament break the constitution? Why not levy fines on the sick, afterall their hospital care is paid by the not so honest taxpayers. But why leave it at the students and the sick? Nah wait you can do so much more. Penalize migrants, welfare seekers, unemployed, the elderly, the children. No no wait Homosexuals, no wait even better... Muslims. Everyone hates Muslims right?

But wait there is more, what about D66, I mean they're democratic and moderate right? Not all political parties can't be bad, right? D66, all they do is talk, talk, talk, talk, talk.... sigh, do something instead of trying to look good in front of the camera.

But out of those 150 representatives in 2nd chamber there has to be someone who gets Wilders right? At least one person who realizes what he is? Nope you're wrong! She is gone now. The last person to understand Wilders and to realize what he really is, is gone. Femke Halsema quit politics a few days ago. She was replaced by misses Sap, the one person who moved GreenLeft towards the political stance of supporting the War in Afghanistan, despite of her pacifist members objections.

But of course there might be more behind it. Certain members of parlaiment might have taken bribes from U.S. ambassadors in return for their support of the war in afghanistan. I won't say who, because unlike Assange I'm not too keen on getting extradited to Sweden, only to get extradited to the U.S. in return, and get convicted by a corrupt judge on the supreme court, because that judge was doing a favor to Hillary Clinton and Obama in return for Hillary's and Obama's support to get that judge on the supreme court in the first place. No judge, likes to bite the hand that feeds them. Unlike Assange I'm not to keen on being served the death penalty for alleged espionage. Am I being too cynical? I think not! Ah but he might get away with live. I mean the U.S. has one big and now (almost empty) prison still open on the island of Cuba. I hope Assange loves waterboarding and listening to white noise, I hear it is a favorite passtime over there.

So bottomline is that we, the Dutch people are royally F-ed! You can't vote for any political party if you value democracy. There is no choice. Out of the 22 or so parties we have, they all sux!

Don't get me wrong, I used to be in favor of the war in Afghanistan. But I am no longer in favor of the war in Afghanistan for one simple and very basic reason. How can you expect to support and export Democracy, when you are not, I repeat when you are not a Democratic nation?! Is Afghanistan really something you want to die for, considered how much your own country sux? I think not!

It's kind of ironic really, we belittle our Arabian fellow humans, say they don't have women rights etcetera etcetera. Well, unlike us, at least the people in Tunisia and Egypt know how to treat their presidents (ahum, read dictators) with the respect they so clearly desire.

By now you're probably left asking, well if the existing 22 political parties are crap, can't you make your own political party and join the national elections? Afterall ,the Netherlands still have free, fair and democratic elections right? Wrong again! Suppose you want to make a new political party, you first need to register with the Chamber of Commerce, because you're considered a foundation or a union. If you can't afford the high registration fee, because you're poor, or on welfare, well tough luck to you, no political party for you my friend.
But suppose you have the money, then you still need to register in all 20 election districts and the election council at the Hague. Wait weren't there 19 election districts? Nope not anymore, there are 20 districts now. Guess where the 20th district is. It's on the island of Bonaire. Don't know where Bonaire is? It's in the Caribbean, not too far from Venezuela. Ya know Hugo Chavez is in Venezuela and he doesn't like the Dutch-American navy present at the Dutch Antilles. In Fact he might want to invade it and make it his own Islas Malvinas. But suppose somehow your party to be gets passed the registration process. How are you going to get enough support from the press? If you say there is free and unbiased press in the Netherlands, then think again. All the major networks are either state sponsored, and the commercial channels are in league with the existing political parties. But of course there is still the internet! That's free and uncensored, right? I guess you haven't heard of the arrests regarding wikileaks or how providers are meant to keep and store personal data (no privacy) or how they censor information. Kinda funny how Wilders can't get convicted for what is clearly slander and inciting hatred, but others can get arrested and lifted from their beds for something true they reported. There is no free press here, there are no free elections here, there is no free speech here!

In short... who gives a F about Afghanistan and Al Qaida... we got our own problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freemehul

you're not alone... that seems to be the general mood these days, where every country thinks they've got the worst spot and want to rotate. Its worrying

---

Look at the number of troops we've committed (in great part because we are a smaller nation in terms of population) and how much we've lost per troops commited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaliti...in_Afghanistan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freemehul

and no I don't mean costs in terms of human lives, but in terms of money

---

Well, I'm talking about human lives.

I used to read about each loss in the paper and found it depressing. I've stopped reading the paper since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freemehul

So bottomline is that we, the Dutch people are royally F-ed! You can't vote for any political party if you value democracy. There is no choice. Out of the 22 or so parties we have, they all sux!

---

Yeah, the current democratic system in most western nations is a democracy, just not a particularly good one as it leaves too much room for elite accomodation (especially with elections happening every 4-5 years).

These days, I'm more of a proponent for participatory democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freemehul

Don't get me wrong, I used to be in favor of the war in Afghanistan. But I am no longer in favor of the war in Afghanistan for one simple and very basic reason. How can you expect to support and export Democracy, when you are not, I repeat when you are not a Democratic nation?!

---

Actually, as far as I'm concerned, I don't have a problem with the way they manage their country as long as they don't produce state endorsed terrorists that go blow stuff up in other countries.

My support of the Afghan war is purely pragmatic, not ideological.

my lack of support is purely pragmatic and ideological...

chapter 1 of Sun Tzu..."By means of these seven considerations I can
forecast victory or defeat."

(1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued
with the Moral law?
(2) Which of the two generals has most ability?
(3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven
and Earth?
(4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced?
(5) Which army is stronger?
(6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained?
(7) In which army is there the greater constancy
both in reward and punishment?

-our generals ability stinks, too friggin old, kinda like France in WW1 and WW2
-we don't have advantages derived from heaven and earth, and we never had them... there's too many mountains
-discipline is much to be desired... there's junkies on both sides on this war in the land of opium
-neither side has a consistency in reward and punishement
-the army in afghanistan is still strong, but morale of the british is terrible with the recent cutbacks, and let me be clear U.S. will make these cutbacks too and many more coalition members
-western troops are better trained

so it's training versus mountains

and do I really need to point out how none of the souvereigns are any good, whatever side they're on

as it stands now, fighting this war, is like Nazi Germany invading the Soviet Union during WW2, without interference from Western Europe, U.S., Canada, and Japan.

It's pointless and meaningless and very impractical...


I like to say I'm the glass half full kind of guy when it comes to democratic values in western nations... but the glass is empty... it really is a score of 0 out of 18 right now


We (the coalition) will lose this war, as soon as this army tires and dwindles in strength, and let me remind you... strength does not come from numbers in this kind of war! You can commit millions of men and you'd still lose, for the same basic reason. If you can't offer democracy at home, don't bother exporting it abroad.

It's "nemo-plus", you can't offer more than you have and you have nothing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA_xX...eature=related

Beats writing a long post ... more truth there than in one year of continous watching CNN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by citadela01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA_xX...eature=related

Beats writing a long post ... more truth there than in one year of continous watching CNN

---

Yes, overall, western powers really alienated the middle east with their imperialistic ambitions and overall meddling in their affairs.

There is no question that the US is responsible for the whole Al-Qaeda situation, they trained them.

For that reason alone, they should man up and take the most dangerous location in Afghanistan (and suffer the accompanying extra casualties), not Canada.

However, who created the mess is only of partial relevance in that its a strong indicator of what not to do in the future, but it can't change what was done in the past.

At this point, the mess is there.

@Freemehul's post:

They have strong moral, but they are hiding in the mountains while the vast majority of their children are being raised in a less fundamentalist regime.

I'm French Canadian, believe me, I know a thing or two about assimilation. Its part of our history.

Those that are hiding in the mountains will never give up, but they will die of old age while they watch their children turn into non-radical adults if the occupation can be maintained that long.