I say we won the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[watchman]

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.

[goplay]

Crap!

[watchman]

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

[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.

[Magn]

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.

[freemehul]

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.

[Magn]

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

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.

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.

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.

[freemehul]

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...

[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

[Magn]

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.

[freemehul]

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.

I would agree with you there, if time permit it. Do you know how costly it is, to stay that long? This kind of tactics can seriously cripple any nation's economy and it already has. The credit crisis is connected to the war in afghanistan and iraq. Pay a soldier's wages and he will buy himself a home. If he dies or gets injured, no more paychecks, means no more subprime mortgage payments, means banks and pension funds going bust (which is what already happened).

And remember you'll get weaker with time. A state (hence the army) is a monopsonist, means it can lower wages when it needs to make cutbacks, which means lower morale (which will happen to the british, coming august) and do I need to remind you who the biggest european supporter is?

Really the only thing the coalition has going for itself is the weather. If it is bad, the opium harvest will fail, which means lesser funding for the taliban. What's to say the next harvest won't be good?

[goodz]

The thing about removing a goverment, is that you then need to provide a replacment. In the good old days the USA would have just made Iraq / Afghanistan states of the USA and would have considerd them conquered. Of course guirrlla warfare would persue from people who did not want american rule, and it would be fairly similar except the goverment would probably set up for americans to move to those places. As conquering countries is frowned upon these days instead you have choosen to help them set up a new goverment with a more pro usa agenda.

In order for that goverment to survive it requires military strength, which you must continue to provide. I believe the goal was to find/destroy weapons of mass destruction, which never happened... Huissen was overthrown more to justify it, mind you he treated his people like dirt so that was fine. Not sure what the point of iraq was.

The war in afghanistan was somewhat succesful, mind you is not compleatly over. The war in iraq was about as succesful as vietnam, and I don't think anyone chalked that up as a win. Keeping the peace their is americas responsibility as they choose to invade the country without UN backing. Stop complaining, if you want a job join the army, they are probably recruiting more with the wars going on.

[citadela01]

You guys seem to be under impression that there is a generation of fanatics and you just need to ride it out until young people accept current situation.
That is completely wrong. Religious fanaticism is not something you can outlast. It appears as a reaction to oppression of the people. It has been like that since the dark ages and in every war between different religions clergy was there ready to stir things up and bless the guns. This is even more truth for muslim religion, centuries and centuries of oppression and constant attacks by catholic nations resulted and in widespread hatred and resentment. Crusades of dark ages have simply taken another form today via economical enslavement of these countries.
Installing puppet regimes that are only focused on protecting western countries economical interests rather than bettering the livelihood of their own population will never work. As soon as USA and their puppet nations pull their forces out those regimes will crumble ... and guess who is most likely to take hold of power ? Extreme religious parties ofc.

[Korp]

That is completely wrong. Religious fanaticism is not something you can outlast.

Yea, thats why we still burn witchies, the earth is flat and God dominates the politics of Europe. Ofc you can outlive it, its quite tedious but quite possible.

[Magn]

I would agree with you there, if time permit it. Do you know how costly it is, to stay that long? This kind of tactics can seriously cripple any nation's economy and it already has.

I don't have the economics of it.

I know the Iraq war is draining the US, but thats because Bush was a boneheaded enough to jump into a war that wasn't even connected to the terrorist attack without UN support.

This may be naive maths, but it seems to me that if a single country could maintain the occupation in Afghanistan for a year, then 30 countries could maintain it for at least 30 years.

The credit crisis is connected to the war in afghanistan and iraq. Pay a soldier's wages and he will buy himself a home. If he dies or gets injured, no more paychecks, means no more subprime mortgage payments, means banks and pension funds going bust (which is what already happened).

Won't the family get some sort of coverage for the soldier's death?

The way mortgages work is retarded anyways. If you manage to pay up 90% of your house's value, you should own 90% and the bank should own the remaining 10%.

Then again, the banks are holding the big end of the stick vs the would-be owners (hence the whole "invisible hand" of the market really won't regulate itself here) so it would really be up to the state to do something about it if it weren't too busy appealing to constituents that have been brain washed by the empty rethorics of right wing intellectuals (otherwise, you'd have a bunch of angry poor right wing voters with delusions of upcoming wealth screaming in the streets for their patriotic right to be exploited... if it weren't people's lives that are on the line, it'd be a funny spectacle indeed).

That is completely wrong. Religious fanaticism is not something you can outlast. It appears as a reaction to oppression of the people. It has been like that since the dark ages and in every war between different religions clergy was there ready to stir things up and bless the guns. This is even more truth for muslim religion, centuries and centuries of oppression and constant attacks by catholic nations resulted and in widespread hatred and resentment. Crusades of dark ages have simply taken another form today via economical enslavement of these countries.

Religions of judeo-christian roots have 2 main things going for them:

1) Love thy neighbor and treat them as you'd want to be treated

2) You will live eternally in happy bliss if you behave yourselves

We can agree that religion the way it is run by the fanatic extreme gives up on theme (1). It becomes worst as religion tries to get involved with politics (really, the whole "religion is not about politics" adage is for religion's own good... you start doing serious politics with religion and you end up with a generation that truly despise the entire religious institution like it happened in the province where I live).

They can still brainwash their young into following theme (2), assuming that they exert strict control over the environment in which they are raised.

The moment you start giving the children real free will on what to believe with alternatives, most will either become agnostic/atheist or religious moderates (meaning they believe in the better aspects of what religion has to offer, but don't think everything the religious texts say is gospel).

Those that become religious moderates will do so only if religion can provide them some sort of emotional solace, which it won't do if it doesn't uphold theme (1).