Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lies it all may be, but the Northern Alliance were our allies in the fight to kick the Taleban out of Afghanistan.

And America was allies with Taliban members when it was the Afhanis vs. the Soviets.

How are the Northern Alliance not freedom fighters? Or are we all just content with saying 'oh that's a lie' without substantiating the claim? If you can't back up what you have to say, why say it at all? 'You're lying' isn't a counter point- it is a desperate argument people cling to when the facts aren't on their side. sry

Edit-- We sell TONS of people guns and don't build schools or hospitals for them. Just because you gave someone one type of help doesn't mean you need to give them another kind. We helped them resist an invasion- that doesn't mean we somehow owe them double now. Where is the logic in that? They needed help, we gave it to them, and now we owe them? Erroneous.

Edit x2-- America was never allied with the Mujahdeen, or specifically the Taliban. By definition, an ally is someone who defends you if you are attacked. At most there were a couple green berets and SAD agents in country during the war, more to monitor Soviet tactics than defend the nation of Afghanistan. They were never an ally- it is a misuse of the word.

Silverthorne wrote:Edit-- We sell TONS of people guns and don't build schools or hospitals for them. Just because you gave someone one type of help doesn't mean you need to give them another kind. We helped them resist an invasion- that doesn't mean we somehow owe them double now. Where is the logic in that? They needed help, we gave it to them, and now we owe them? Erroneous.

We didn't owe them it, but it was in our best interest to not leave a decimated country in the hands of zealots with no infrastructure. There were people at the time who pushed for us to continue to help and be a friend, if not an ally. But we didn't want to spend the money at the time because apparently we wanted to spend trillions later as well as shed some blood. We had people with the foresight to understand the effects, it was just politically easier to say screw em then explain to people why Foreign Aid does help us at home.

Your definition of ally is also sorely lacking in nuance and breadth.

The Taleban, and after them the Northern Alliance, were US/Western allies under the principle that "my enemy's enemy is my friend." Of course, Saddam also qualified at one stage of his career.

When you are a global power (or ex-power in the case of the UK) you have to expect some strange bedfellows at times.

"How are the Northern Alliance not freedom fighters? Or are we all just content with saying 'oh that's a lie' without substantiating the claim? If you can't back up what you have to say, why say it at all? 'You're lying' isn't a counter point- it is a desperate argument people cling to when the facts aren't on their side."

I was in country. The Northern Alliance was and is made of of armed gangs of drug lords, rapists, murders and other such undesirables who were outcast from their own tribes.

Think on what you have to do to be outcast from an Afgan tribe for a moment.

There was legitimate concern of a Middle East version of the Rape of Nanking event with us providing them support.

Go look up the NY Times for "Kunduz" and "Qala-i-Janghi prison" in 2001 toward November to december for that year for their usual treatment of anyone that fell into their hands.

Abdul Rashid Dostum is a modern day Hitler. Most of the NA's have changed sides at least once, some more often.

Turning your back on a group of then is not bad judgment , it's a form of suicide.

We are tarnishing our national image every day that we let them live, mush less support them.

Forgot to add drug lords :}, and spelling correction

Kilkrazy wrote:When you are a global power (or ex-power in the case of the UK) you have to expect some strange bedfellows at times.

I would say that this person is quietly being retired from service. If he can't be bothered to follow up on his promises to serve the country, then they just won't ask him anymore.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I, for one, would not like to get caught in enemy territory without the protection of the Geneva Convention. That means the enemy can legally do anything to you...ANYTHIIIIIIING!

Hmmm, I must have missed the news that day. When did Al Qaeda and the Taliban become legal governments and signatories to the Geneva and Hague conventions?

Regardless, here is my point of view, developed from my last 19 years in the military: if a Soldier felt an order was illegal, but didn't oppose it until it effected him, then regardless of whether his interpretation is right or wrong, he is a self-serving coward unwilling to make a moral stand to support and protect his fellow Soldiers.

The burning question is WHY is he getting away with it?

Silverthorne wrote:How are the Northern Alliance not freedom fighters? Or are we all just content with saying 'oh that's a lie' without substantiating the claim? If you can't back up what you have to say, why say it at all? 'You're lying' isn't a counter point- it is a desperate argument people cling to when the facts aren't on their side. sry

Edit-- We sell TONS of people guns and don't build schools or hospitals for them. Just because you gave someone one type of help doesn't mean you need to give them another kind. We helped them resist an invasion- that doesn't mean we somehow owe them double now. Where is the logic in that? They needed help, we gave it to them, and now we owe them? Erroneous.

Edit x2-- America was never allied with the Mujahdeen, or specifically the Taliban. By definition, an ally is someone who defends you if you are attacked. At most there were a couple green berets and SAD agents in country during the war, more to monitor Soviet tactics than defend the nation of Afghanistan. They were never an ally- it is a misuse of the word.

That IS rich. Damn those againt you, praise those with you. Point out the difference between the Taliban and Northern Alliance, (part from not "technically" allying with them) please? I didn't say you owed them, but it certainly was not smart to give uneducated thugs (which is what they became) guns without expecting some backlash for you suddenly abandoning them. It actually does surprise me that you are argueing that USA did not ally or support the Taliban. Afghanistan must have thought they had made a great friend and ally when America provided help against the soviets. How betrayed do you think they felt when America buggered off and left Afghanistan a shattered country.

(P.S. I admire the Afghans as a people widely. They have resisted ALL oppresers in the past. 1) Persia could never REALLY bring them to heel, 2) Alexander passed through rather than try to pacify the region, 3) Britain had a hell of a time there, 4) Soviets failed, and currently 5) USA isn't doing too good either. You have to admit, the Afghans are the toughest bastards you'll find)

Silverthorne wrote:How are the Northern Alliance not freedom fighters?

For exactly the same reason you aren't willing to accept Al-Qaeda as freedom fighters. They aren't fighting to overthrow an unjust government, but attempting to reestablish a government which was overthrown due to the widespread lack of faith in its legitimacy.

Silverthorne wrote:
Edit x2-- America was never allied with the Mujahdeen, or specifically the Taliban. By definition, an ally is someone who defends you if you are attacked. At most there were a couple green berets and SAD agents in country during the war, more to monitor Soviet tactics than defend the nation of Afghanistan. They were never an ally- it is a misuse of the word.

That's incorrect. Allegiance makes no specific comment on the nature of the agreement involved. Jordan is a US ally, but its highly unlikely they would feel bound to defend the United States in the event of an attack.

However, you are correct that the Mujaheddin were not US allies; they were proxies.

Honestly, I find it endlessly amusing that seem compelled to prove that certain groups can be considered 'freedom fighters' as a matter of objective fact. Its made even better by the fact that you're willing to disqualify certain groups because they:

Silverthorne wrote:
precipitate a chain of events that will lead to your country being occupied by a foreign power, with full knowledge of the the consequences before you act, you aren't a freedom fighter.

A criterion which would actually eliminate the Colonial Army from the category of 'freedom fighters' because the nascent American leadership instigated hostilities with the British knowing that it would additional troops to their shores.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Silverthorne wrote:How are the Northern Alliance not freedom fighters? Or are we all just content with saying 'oh that's a lie' without substantiating the claim? If you can't back up what you have to say, why say it at all? 'You're lying' isn't a counter point- it is a desperate argument people cling to when the facts aren't on their side. sry

Edit-- We sell TONS of people guns and don't build schools or hospitals for them. Just because you gave someone one type of help doesn't mean you need to give them another kind. We helped them resist an invasion- that doesn't mean we somehow owe them double now. Where is the logic in that? They needed help, we gave it to them, and now we owe them? Erroneous.

Edit x2-- America was never allied with the Mujahdeen, or specifically the Taliban. By definition, an ally is someone who defends you if you are attacked. At most there were a couple green berets and SAD agents in country during the war, more to monitor Soviet tactics than defend the nation of Afghanistan. They were never an ally- it is a misuse of the word.

That IS rich. Damn those againt you, praise those with you. Point out the difference between the Taliban and Northern Alliance, (part from not "technically" allying with them) please? I didn't say you owed them, but it certainly was not smart to give uneducated thugs (which is what they became) guns without expecting some backlash for you suddenly abandoning them. It actually does surprise me that you are argueing that USA did not ally or support the Taliban. Afghanistan must have thought they had made a great friend and ally when America provided help against the soviets. How betrayed do you think they felt when America buggered off and left Afghanistan a shattered country.

(P.S. I admire the Afghans as a people widely. They have resisted ALL oppresers in the past. 1) Persia could never REALLY bring them to heel, 2) Alexander passed through rather than try to pacify the region, 3) Britain had a hell of a time there, 4) Soviets failed, and currently 5) USA isn't doing too good either. You have to admit, the Afghans are the toughest bastards you'll find)

There's good points on both sides of this conversation, but the statement about the Afgans feeling betrayed after the US buggered off before everything was set right makes me wonder what your feelings are about the US leaving Iraq as well as Afganastan before everything is in it's place and everyone is making nice.

Is everyone making nice? (serious question)

American attitude:
US: We go in, kill the bad dudes, then leave.
Sane: Don't you help the people whos country you just had a war in?
US: We already have, we killed the bad dudes.
Sane: B-but, what about schools? Education? Hosptials? You've wrecked their country.
US: Yeah, but we killed the bad dudes.
Sane: But now these poverty striken people are going to hate you, and without a relaible system of government more bad dudes will take power.
US: Well then we'll keep going in and killing bad dudes till they get the message.
Sane: But without schools they won't know about history and they'll all think that it's all you fault.
US: Then we'll keep killing bad dudes.

Trapped in a bit of an endless circle there. Until USA decides to Nuke the whole goddam planet (except their excellent selves of course)

Emperors Faithful wrote:Is everyone making nice? (serious question)

American attitude:
US: We go in, kill the bad dudes, then leave.
Sane: Don't you help the people whos country you just had a war in?
US: We already have, we killed the bad dudes.
Sane: B-but, what about schools? Education? Hosptials? You've wrecked their country.
US: Yeah, but we killed the bad dudes.
Sane: But now these poverty striken people are going to hate you, and without a relaible system of government more bad dudes will take power.
US: Well then we'll keep going in and killing bad dudes till they get the message.
Sane: But without schools they won't know about history and they'll all think that it's all you fault.
US: Then we'll keep killing bad dudes.

Trapped in a bit of an endless circle there. Until USA decides to Nuke the whole goddam planet (except their excellent selves of course)

Nice stereotype. We are helping to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the billions of dollars we have poured into their economys to jump start them. We have also made it possible to have elections in both countries. Now its become plain to see that our military being there is also contributing to the cycle of war. So we need to leave, but in a way that both countries' governments have functioning militaries to protect them.

Okat, okay, I didn't say you weren't doing better the next times 'round. But you have to admit, but for the shortsightedness of the government at the end of the Afghan-Soviet war, this whole thing could have been avoided.

"shortsightedness of the government"

"shortsightedness of the American voters"

Fixed it for you

Governments do what the voters wanted, Americans were told we won, so they promptly pulled all support.

The only way Americans as a whole ever gets solidly behind a war and the patching up afterward is when there is a DRAFT and rich folks kids are dying along side poor folks kids.

This statement brought to you by a 22 year combat vet who retired from the sharp end of the stick. If you disagree with it, tough, you opinion on this matter does not matter unless you have been there.

It you have not I believe the expressions is "an uninformed opinion"


Americans as a people never really give a gak unless their kids are dying, not the neighbors from the poor end of town.

It takes rich powerful people whose kids will never die in a war to commit American troops into wars that can not be won somewhere overseas.

Put the rich folks kids at risk via a draft and then we will do what is needed to win in the Middle East or we will pull out.

This isn't only about winning, it's about not leaving the country as a wrecked crater full of people who now blame USA for everything.

Given that they blame us anyways, we should have killed all the men, taken their women as slaves, takend daughters as concubines, razed the buildings, and salted the earth!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Given that they blame us anyways, we should have killed all the men, taken their women as slaves, takend daughters as concubines, razed the buildings, and salted the earth!

DO you have any idea how much it would cost to ship that much cargo??? At least one country is going to take a pop-shot, and there isn't an insurance company in the world that would cover us.

On that note we are half-way there and a little bit more never hurt anybody... at least anybody in the U.S. ()

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Governments do what the voters wanted, Americans were told we won, so they promptly pulled all support.

Well most Americans didn't know much about the situation other than the Soviets were up to no good. We never voted on it so the whole voting angle doesn't make a lot of sense. We also don't vote like that, being a Republic.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:The only way Americans as a whole ever gets solidly behind a war and the patching up afterward is when there is a DRAFT and rich folks kids are dying along side poor folks kids.

Is that why we were so gung-ho about Vietnam? I don't recall us being all that behind it even though there was a draft.

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:This statement brought to you by a 22 year combat vet who retired from the sharp end of the stick. If you disagree with it, tough, you opinion on this matter does not matter unless you have been there.

Well that would make your opinion on military procedure valuable, but this is political science, not military science. Or are you also a 22 year veteran of the Kennedy School of Political Science? Also, you aren't the only person who has ever served in the military. Being in the Military doesn't grant special wisdom as it is a cross section of people and views with varying degrees of reliabity gathered by a common cuase. Just saying one was in the military in this instance doesn't give someone carte blance to think their views are unassailable. If not for any other reason than that this was a covert non-military operation by the US and not a military one. Are you now a 22 year veteran of the CIA? What happens when you meet another vet with a differing opinion? Does the world implode or something as two absolutely right but different opinions come together?

You also seem to assume the only way anyone can ever know anything is by specific experience. This is a false dichotomy. There are multiple ways people can come to knowledge. If it was the only way there would be no need for books, such as Army Training manuals. Either your military service was incredibly myopic or you are just playing the internet tough guy because it is made up of more than just poor kids from the bad part of town and the US is made up more than people who care only about their kids. Your assessment is overly simplistic.

barlio wrote:Yeah and it worked, but then again people get away dumb stuff all the time.

The reason why it worked is not a matter of the President being lagit or not...it is simple political and public openion.

1) This was in the news which would show unfavorable attitude toward the President
2) Blasting this and making a big stink would show that the Army leaders and his superiors could not maintain good order and discipline.
3) There are Dozens of officers voulenteering to deploy, not to mention hundreds that have ducked under the wire way too long.

It was easier to Revoke his orders than continue to allow the media to exploit the situation.

Even if the president is not lagit (I am not saying if he is or is not, I am sure someone would have proved it by now!), the Deployment orders come from the Department of Defence, and Resourse Management...not directly by the president. Unless specifically stated by President Obama, policy would remain in effect until recended. This blanket order for continued support to OIF / OEF would and will continue until such time as they are terminated or rewritten.

The Officer that said that the president is not valid, and he should not have to go...in my openion, is a coward. I do not always agree with my presidents actions or views, but I will support the lawful and direct orders of the officers appoint above me. They should prosicute this leader under the fullest extent of the Uniform Code of Military Justice...the same way they did for the soldiers at Gitmo, or any other crime.

Ahtman wrote:You also seem to assume the only way anyone can ever know anything is by specific experience. This is a false dichotomy.

In many cases, this is a truism, though.

Sex immediately comes to mind. Along with marriage and parenting.

If you've never had it, you simply can't imagine the reality.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Is everyone making nice? (serious question)

American attitude:
US: We go in, kill the bad dudes, then leave.
Sane: Don't you help the people whos country you just had a war in?
US: We already have, we killed the bad dudes.
Sane: B-but, what about schools? Education? Hosptials? You've wrecked their country.
US: Yeah, but we killed the bad dudes.
Sane: But now these poverty striken people are going to hate you, and without a relaible system of government more bad dudes will take power.
US: Well then we'll keep going in and killing bad dudes till they get the message.
Sane: But without schools they won't know about history and they'll all think that it's all you fault.
US: Then we'll keep killing bad dudes.

Trapped in a bit of an endless circle there. Until USA decides to Nuke the whole goddam planet (except their excellent selves of course)

I am trying to figure out when we left Afghanisan, where the hell was I for the last year....seems alot like Kabul....are you saying I was somewhere else?

Emperor's: How long do you think we should stay over there?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Ahtman wrote:You also seem to assume the only way anyone can ever know anything is by specific experience. This is a false dichotomy.

In many cases, this is a truism, though.

Sex immediately comes to mind. Along with marriage and parenting.

If you've never had it, you simply can't imagine the reality.

But that doesn't mean you can't know about it. Why do you think Playboy is still around after all these years. I didn't say that people learned nothing from experience, just that it is not the only possible way we learn things. It also isn't a truism as an student of epistemology will tell you.

@Relapse: I son't see why America went there in the first place.
1st time was due to commie phobia.

But now it seems like some sort of US Jihad of their own against anyone who LOOKS like the guys who did 9/11.

Why did USA give a damn about that country in the first place?

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Relapse: I son't see why America went there in the first place.
1st time was due to commie phobia.

But now it seems like some sort of US Jihad of their own against anyone who LOOKS like the guys who did 9/11.

Why did USA give a damn about that country in the first place?

Actually it was because the guys that did 9/11 were sheltered and sponsored by the Taliban, who allowed them training bases and whatnot inside Afganastan. We went in to root the bastards out.

That still doesn't answer my question as to what you think our time frame and actions should be from here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Is everyone making nice? (serious question)

American attitude:
US: We go in, kill the bad dudes, then leave.
Sane: Don't you help the people whos country you just had a war in?
US: We already have, we killed the bad dudes.
Sane: B-but, what about schools? Education? Hosptials? You've wrecked their country.
US: Yeah, but we killed the bad dudes.
Sane: But now these poverty striken people are going to hate you, and without a relaible system of government more bad dudes will take power.
US: Well then we'll keep going in and killing bad dudes till they get the message.
Sane: But without schools they won't know about history and they'll all think that it's all you fault.
US: Then we'll keep killing bad dudes.

Trapped in a bit of an endless circle there. Until USA decides to Nuke the whole goddam planet (except their excellent selves of course)

Reading this I realize how little it seems you really know what the US is doing in Afganastan. There are quite a few operations in place where schools, roads and other improvements are being worked on. The only trouble is, the tough guys you admire so much keep coming in to attempt the destruction of the improvements being done. I have a neice getting ready to be deployed there as an educator in medicine in one of the several similar army missions to the Afgan villagers.
Damned if she isn't going to go with a rifle and pistol because of the Taliban heroes you seem to favor.

Yeah, that worked didn't it? You got em all didn't ya?

In answer to your question, I honestly don't know. While handing out guns is easy, but building a decent country from scratch isn't. In the words of an obscure Aghani tribesmen (saw it on documentary about mixed schools being started in the villiages):

Tribesman Elder: We don't need anything that the western countries have to offer. In the past it has only be blood/sweat/tears/corruption (words to that effect). Except your education. Yes...we could use some of that.

I would support America as a country moving out, and instead leaving Support groups and Life centres and such run by UN to help build schools, hospitals and economies. (With a bolster of US troops as UN armed guard).

That way, when the people see that we are helping, not blowing them up, the support for the Taliban will falter.

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Sivlerthorne: I was just saying that it is very hard to label one side "good" and one side "bad", universally. Do you really think that EVERYONE hates Al-Queda and the Taliban? No, they themselves would have a substanital amount of supporters, who view them as freedom fighters, otherwise they would never have be able to pose such a threat.

Also, Osama is not entirely in the wrong. (not condoning twin Towers here, mind you). I learnt that Obama, just like countless others, were trained and armed by CIA to fight against the russian invasion. For years he and his did the dying on the front lines while America sat content. When they finnaly won, thier country was in tatters, and what did America do to help? What did you think was going to happen by giving a country missiles and guns, but no schools or hospitals?

Well, If this is true, he certainly isn't a legal citizen