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.

Wait who did we assassinate in Afghanistan again?

I was speaking to the point of foreign meddling, not assassination.

You're confusing us with the Russians again.

Russians invaded Afghanistan.
Russians/Chinese created a communist state in north Korea which later invaded South Korea. (North Korea is BEST Korea!). Israel was a British and Isreali creation.

We also meddled in Western Europe and the Pacific in WWII.
Europe in WWI
Somalia trying to feed starving people
Bosnia
Kosova
Kuwait
etc etc

Whats your point?

Russians invaded Afghanistan.

We then helped them throw off their occupiers, thus creating the trained militant warlords we now face. If we had not done that russia would have.. Afghanistan. Woo.

Russians/Chinese created a communist state in north Korea which later invaded South Korea. (North Korea is BEST Korea!). Israel was a British and Isreali creation.

True, but the conflict was largely produced by the domino proxy wars russia, china, and the US were engaged in at the time. As for Isreal, it wasn't entirely a british creation, we had a large hand in that.

We also meddled in Western Europe and the Pacific in WWII.
Europe in WWI

Yeah, and we did such a good job in WW1 that WW2 happened. Post war WW2 was handled pretty well.

Somalia trying to feed starving people

Man, that went well.

Bosnia
Kosova
Kuwait

All wonderful vacation destinations now, after all our effort.

Whats your point?

I was just defending the idea that militaristic foreign involvement often times extends local conflicts, while involving us. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it does. When you look back through some sort of lens of perfection and treat current conflicts as isolated incidents it creates a dangerously short national memory.

So your solution is do nothing? Leave the rest of the world alone?

Just to be clear here.

Frazzled wrote:So your solution is do nothing? Leave the rest of the world alone?

Just to be clear here.

No, it's to be smarter about foreign involvement. No more war in Iraq style debacles, no more gulf war jobs unfinished, no more bay of pigs style weakness or post 9/11 idiocy. Engage in war with a brain, not with a flag. There are ongoing conflicts in africa far more pressing and disastrous globally than in the mideast or mexico, but mexico is the single most pressing war America should be involved in right now.

Either way it's all hindsight. We can't pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now, africa is utterly uncooperative, and people just ignore mexico because they don't care about it at all.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So your solution is do nothing? Leave the rest of the world alone?

Just to be clear here.

No, it's to be smarter about foreign involvement. No more war in Iraq style debacles, no more gulf war jobs unfinished, no more bay of pigs style weakness or post 9/11 idiocy. Engage in war with a brain, not with a flag. There are ongoing conflicts in africa far more pressing and disastrous globally than in the mideast or mexico, but mexico is the single most pressing war America should be involved in right now.

Either way it's all hindsight. We can't pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now, africa is utterly uncooperative, and people just ignore mexico because they don't care about it at all.

Oh so you would continue to intervene, just based on your keen intellect? Oh well, we almost had agreement there...

ShumaGorath wrote:We then helped them throw off their occupiers, thus creating the trained militant warlords we now face. If we had not done that russia would have.. Afghanistan. Woo.

That is still faulty logic. You are assuming that had we done nothing then everything would be ok, and that there would be no Islamo-fascists. At the time it was a great idea, it fit our policy of containment and it helped bring about the collapse of the USSR. The question now is was it worth it?

ShumaGorath wrote:As for Isreal, it wasn't entirely a british creation, we had a large hand in that.

Not really. The US' involvement was really limited to voting in favor of the UN Partition Plan, which everyone in the world voted for, except the Arab nations. There were a few abstainers, but it was largely agreed upon by the international community to create a Jewish state. Furthermore, the Brits were the first to recognize Israel as a nation. IT was not long thereafter though that the US became its most staunch supporter.

ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, and we did such a good job in WW1 that WW2 happened. Post war WW2 was handled pretty well.

The handling of the Post-WWI effort was not a fault of the US. We pushed for reconstruction, a limit of punitive restrictions etc. Wilson only demanded that the Germans dump the absolute monarchy in favor of some form of representative government. It was Clemenceau and Lloyd George that pushed for the structure of Germany after WWI, and thus helped to start WWII.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Oh so you would continue to intervene, just based on your keen intellect? Oh well, we almost had agreement there...

Mines better than the shitpile you get if you listen to the american public after two hours of special fox news coverage.

Maybe, maybe not, but its better than multiple Presidents and their staffs, better than folks like Eisenhower who, you know, ran a war and all? Ok. I respect this level of hubris. Such an ego can only mean one thing-you sure you're not a Texan?

That is still faulty logic. You are assuming that had we done nothing then everything would be ok, and that there would be no Islamo-fascists. At the time it was a great idea, it fit our policy of containment and it helped bring about the collapse of the USSR. The question now is was it worth it?

Economic instability brought down the soviet union. Not being rebuffed in afghanistan. It's fairly logical that when you empower a religious militant extremist group that once they are done fighting off one oppressor they would immediately move to the next.

Not really. The US' involvement was really limited to voting in favor of the UN Partition Plan, which everyone in the world voted for, except the Arab nations. There were a few abstainers, but it was largely agreed upon by the international community to create a Jewish state. Furthermore, the Brits were the first to recognize Israel as a nation. IT was not long thereafter though that the US became its most staunch supporter.

By that point our approval was pretty significant, but as you said, it was a global endeavor (and not just british).

The handling of the Post-WWI effort was not a fault of the US. We pushed for reconstruction, a limit of punitive restrictions etc. Wilson only demanded that the Germans dump the absolute monarchy in favor of some form of representative government. It was Clemenceau and Lloyd George that pushed for the structure of Germany after WWI, and thus helped to start WWII.

Certainly true, and a good bit of historical information when talking about the sheer importance of post war methodology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Maybe, maybe not, but its better than multiple Presidents and their staffs, better than folks like Eisenhower who, you know, ran a war and all? Ok. I respect this level of hubris. Such an ego can only mean one thing-you sure you're not a Texan?

Someones gotta get gak done. If it's gotta be me I'll volunteer.

JEB_Stuart wrote:That is still faulty logic. You are assuming that had we done nothing then everything would be ok, and that there would be no Islamo-fascists.

He's assuming that we would have no reason to intervene in Afghanistan. Islamo-fascists can do as they please so long as they don't attack us.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
At the time it was a great idea, it fit our policy of containment and it helped bring about the collapse of the USSR. The question now is was it worth it?

See, there you go stealing my patented redirection query.

Anyway, Afghanistan is more valuable then most people think. There be potential natural gas pipelines in them hills. Its sort of like Africa in Risk. Lots of potential once you secure South America, but more trouble than its worth on the whole.

How the hell did this go from a Democrat protecting himself with a gun to the merit of America's involvement in USSR's invasion of Afghanistan???

Altered_Soul wrote:How the hell did this go from a Democrat protecting himself with a gun to the merit of America's involvement in USSR's invasion of Afghanistan???

Very carefully


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Economic instability brought down the soviet union. Not being rebuffed in afghanistan.

The two are related to each other. The waste of billions upon billions of dollars in Afghanistan by the Russians, and their attempts to keep up with the US' level of spending brought about the economic instability that led to their collapse.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's fairly logical that when you empower a religious militant extremist group that once they are done fighting off one oppressor they would immediately move to the next.

True enough, but it still depends on how you would define oppressor. Jumping from friend and ally to oppressor is a pretty long bow to draw by any reasonable person. Granted we aren't really dealing with reasonable people....

ShumaGorath wrote:By that point our approval was pretty significant, but as you said, it was a global endeavor (and not just british).

It was the US' support that ensured the propagation of the Jewish state. While I do agree that the creation of Israel was a worldwide effort, I would still point out that it was largely dependent on the UK's unwillingness to govern the region any longer, and not to mention the Zionist support within the UK's own government.

ShumaGorath wrote:Certainly true, and a good bit of historical information when talking about the sheer importance of post war methodology.

Wow, we agree on something

dogma wrote:He's assuming that we would have no reason to intervene in Afghanistan. Islamo-fascists can do as they please so long as they don't attack us.

That is still a poor assumption. It fit well with our prevailing foreign policy modules, and as you so aptly point, vis-a-vis Risk, is more valuable then people might first assume.

dogma wrote:See, there you go stealing my patented redirection query.

Tut tut now old boy! All's fair in love and war....and Dakka apparently!

Altered_Soul wrote:How the hell did this go from a Democrat protecting himself with a gun to the merit of America's involvement in USSR's invasion of Afghanistan???

Welcome to the OT forum.

On that note you will also want to invest in flame proof clothing for the flame wars.

Oh and popcorn...lots and lots of popcorn to munch while you watch the Shuma & Fate Show,you'll need lots of popcorn...becuase the show goes on foooooorrreeevvvveeerrrrrr.

It takes leet skills to drag a topic so OT that it eventually veers back on topic.

Watch and learn Padwan.

JEB_Stuart wrote:That is still a poor assumption. It fit well with our prevailing foreign policy modules, and as you so aptly point, vis-a-vis Risk, is more valuable then people might first assume.

Yep, but consistency does not make for good decisions.

That being said, I'm not particularly critical of Afghanistan.

It seems to me that there are two points;

1) That the US has made foreign policy errors and jerked around sovereign countries and this has led to
2) That the foreign policy errors and interference in other countries has led to the current level of hostility and violence towards the US by Islamic extremists.


The first point seems almost impossible to deny. The second point is much tougher - if the hostility among Islamic extremists were the natural result violence against Muslims then target #1 would be Russia, because nothing the US has done iis anywhere near the ballpark of the Soviet occupation of Afghanisatan or the Russian operations in Chechnya.

sebster wrote:The second point is much tougher - if the hostility among Islamic extremists were the natural result violence against Muslims then target #1 would be Russia, because nothing the US has done iis anywhere near the ballpark of the Soviet occupation of Afghanisatan or the Russian operations in Chechnya.

Ron Paul would disagree!

JEB_Stuart wrote:

sebster wrote:The second point is much tougher - if the hostility among Islamic extremists were the natural result violence against Muslims then target #1 would be Russia, because nothing the US has done iis anywhere near the ballpark of the Soviet occupation of Afghanisatan or the Russian operations in Chechnya.

Ron Paul would disagree!

He also wanted to move to a shiny metal backed currency again. Dudes off his rocker.

Back on topic:

It's a shame the intruder lived. The Senator must have been a bad aim.

ShumaGorath wrote: Dudes off his rocker.

I imagine Paul as some sort of Badger, perhaps with a mushroom.

Fateweaver wrote:It takes leet skills to drag a topic so OT that it eventually veers back on topic.

Watch and learn Padwan.

I guess I have much to learn. I had assumed that OT went to the black hole of gun rights conversation. And there was a gun rights topic, and it went in reverse. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS STRANGE WORLD!!!

Altered_Soul wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:It takes leet skills to drag a topic so OT that it eventually veers back on topic.

Watch and learn Padwan.

I guess I have much to learn. I had assumed that OT went to the black hole of gun rights conversation. And there was a gun rights topic, and it went in reverse. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS STRANGE WORLD!!!

Only things without substance can escape a blackhole, which is why we're now talking about Ron Paul.

Speaking of things without substance and ridiculous positions on violence...

Ron Jeremy showed up at the Consumer Electronics Show to badmouth violent videogames, and espouse that the porn industry contributes more to society.

Think of how much less business CA testing clinics would do if adult film actors weren't supposed to undergo periodic checks for STDs?

So maybe he wants video games to carry an actual risk of STD transmission? GTA: 6 - Now with genuine chance to catch hepatitis from prostitutes!

sebster wrote:
Only things without substance can escape a blackhole, which is why we're now talking about Ron Paul.

Most excellent.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
Only things without substance can escape a blackhole, which is why we're now talking about Ron Paul.

Most excellent.

It is a strange day when Sebster, Dogma, and Frazzled agree on something. Its the Unholy Trifecta (much like whisy, rum, and tequila) Yes!

Let us all come together in some sort of Long Island Iced Tea of brotherhood.

dogma wrote:Let us all come together in some sort of Long Island Iced Tea of brotherhood.

Slonshal!