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.

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


They didn't bother talking to the Afghan government about this first!?!?

You've got a phone i'm assuming, or skype, get in the case dude.

That'd be violating the Logan Act.

 Seaward wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


They didn't bother talking to the Afghan government about this first!?!?

You've got a phone i'm assuming, or skype, get in the case dude.

That'd be violating the Logan Act.

we're america we dont obey /the law/ son!

We should of never gotten involved in the first place. All that has happened is that we have lost good men & women and blighted the lives of many others, and for what? At no point whatsoever does the Western style of government work in Muslim countries. The Middle Eastern mindset / culture is completely different to the Wests.

The only way to stop the chaos is for the country to be run as a dictatorship with an iron fist. Now you may get a dictatorship like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, that are generally acceptable in Western eyes or the likes of Iraq (pre Gulf War) or Iran. As soon as that ironfist loses it's grip, chaos rules. The basic problem is that Muslims don't play nice together. You can never have a truly secular Muslim country, the fundamentalists will always want to be in charge. They can never be satisfied with being the main religion in that country, they have to have power to in-force their will / beliefs. They are scared that if the peasants are left to their own devices they won't respect them any more and they will lose any control over them.

 Wolfstan wrote:
We should of never gotten involved in the first place. All that has happened is that we have lost good men & women and blighted the lives of many others, and for what? At no point whatsoever does the Western style of government work in Muslim countries. The Middle Eastern mindset / culture is completely different to the Wests.

The only way to stop the chaos is for the country to be run as a dictatorship with an iron fist. Now you may get a dictatorship like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, that are generally acceptable in Western eyes or the likes of Iraq (pre Gulf War) or Iran. As soon as that ironfist loses it's grip, chaos rules. The basic problem is that Muslims don't play nice together. You can never have a truly secular Muslim country, the fundamentalists will always want to be in charge. They can never be satisfied with being the main religion in that country, they have to have power to in-force their will / beliefs. They are scared that if the peasants are left to their own devices they won't respect them any more and they will lose any control over them.

You're getting confused. We had no choice in Afghanistan. We had a choice in nation building (or not) but in "going in there," no, no choice.*


*Frazzled includes the option of nuking the site from orbit, just to be sure under the term "going in there."

Ok there was a strong argument for going in, but the mess afterwards was guaranteed. There was no way that this wasn't going to happen. Probably on reflection we should of helped the Warlords to remove the Taliban from power and then left them to it. If the Taliban got into power again, then it should of been accepted that was the way of things, whether we like it or not. As I said, non of the buggers can play nice with each other, so why should our people die trying to force democracy on to them?

Why do we care if there's a mess after? Its not like its worse then before.

Why do we care if the Taliban are in power? Its Al Qaeda that attacked us.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why do we care if there's a mess after? Its not like its worse then before.

Why do we care if the Taliban are in power? Its Al Qaeda that attacked us.

I'd say basic humanity should make us care.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why do we care if there's a mess after? Its not like its worse then before.

Why do we care if the Taliban are in power? Its Al Qaeda that attacked us.

'cause the Talibs were allied with AQ and actively protecting them. We believed we needed to hurt them as part of our retribution against AQ. "Harbor our enemies and a JDAM will thrash your house" type stuff.

Additionally, for the teams that did the initial fighting/invasion, we need the (loosely termed) Northern Alliance as allies and fighters. They would not have played as well as they did without us helping them against the Talibs.

I'd say basic humanity should make us care.

Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why do we care if there's a mess after? Its not like its worse then before.

Why do we care if the Taliban are in power? Its Al Qaeda that attacked us.

'cause the Talibs were allied with AQ and actively protecting them. We believed we needed to hurt them as part of our retribution against AQ. "Harbor our enemies and a JDAM will thrash your house" type stuff.

Additionally, for the teams that did the initial fighting/invasion, we need the (loosely termed) Northern Alliance as allies and fighters. They would not have played as well as they did without us helping them against the Talibs.

and we pounded hell out of the Taliban. Time to move on.

 Frazzled wrote:

I'd say basic humanity should make us care.

Why?

I thought you were Christian? Have you renounced your faith?

I care a lot about the fate of the peaceful civilian population, especially the young women who will be mutilated, raped and murdered and the young boys who will be programmed into monsters, once this cult of wickedness asserts it's self again. I think JC would fully be down with giving a gak about them as well and would suggest we try to find a way to protect and help them. I definitely read the bible multiple times and I'm very sure he said loads about protecting and helping the weak and vulnerable.

We leave, Karzi leave.....well...whoever first but it better be ISAF....Taliban/AQ moves in. Take over government buildings, and we send massive amounts of drones in and call it a day, or flip a switch and watch it on the news that all the government building's were blown up. End result. Taliban and AQ doing another rounds of promotions again.....damn we can't those....budget cuts.....and that's money better spent into going into Syria...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I'd say basic humanity should make us care.

Why?

I thought you were Christian? Have you renounced your faith?

I care a lot about the fate of the peaceful civilian population, especially the young women who will be mutilated, raped and murdered and the young boys who will be programmed into monsters, once this cult of wickedness asserts it's self again. I think JC would fully be down with giving a gak about them as well and would suggest we try to find a way to protect and help them. I definitely read the bible multiple times and I'm very sure he said loads about protecting and helping the weak and vulnerable.

So they're like every other country outside of a few. And? I'm not willing to waste the lives of Americans just for that.
Again, I could do that in Mexico in save a lot more people.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I'd say basic humanity should make us care.

Why?

I thought you were Christian? Have you renounced your faith?

I care a lot about the fate of the peaceful civilian population, especially the young women who will be mutilated, raped and murdered and the young boys who will be programmed into monsters, once this cult of wickedness asserts it's self again. I think JC would fully be down with giving a gak about them as well and would suggest we try to find a way to protect and help them. I definitely read the bible multiple times and I'm very sure he said loads about protecting and helping the weak and vulnerable.

Where do you draw the line though? I've been a firm believer in the use of British Armed Forces as a police force for a long time. There are no real wars any more, with no clear sides, so most conflicts are likely to be about protecting people. It's something we should accept as a society for the good of all. However we must be able to stand back and see when it's time to leave or how deep we should get involved.

The problem with a lot of Arab countries are the tribal / religious ties that bind them all together. Even in countries like Saudi Arabia the power lies with a monarchy, ok they maybe be relaxed about things than other Arab countries, but they still rule the country with an iron fist. Yes it's terrible what was going on in Afghanistan when the Talliban were in charge, but there could of been an uprising. They did it against the Russians. The Wests intervention was just a useful tool for those who wanted power. Once we'd done the job we were back to being looked upon as occupiers.

 whembly wrote:
Wait... are you saying Afghanistan wasn't a clusterfeth before we marched in there???

o.O

Dude?

Of course it was. And now after years of trying to make it no longer a clusterfeth, you've decided to walk away. Okay, whatever.

But when people talk about how they'll never negotiate with the Taliban because they're evil, but are wanting to just walk away from the country... and you know, leave it to the Taliban, well it's worth pointing out the obvious moral bs that's going on there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Perhaps the time has come for the West to just totally and permanently change the Islamic world, utterly rebuild it into a functioning system, if we really think it will be easier to retain islam as a nation, try to find a way to bring back the enlightened islam of education and tolerance, as shown long ago.

Dude... just, fething hell.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And we've hit our first hurdle.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22973111

The Afghan government will not take part in peace talks with the Taliban unless the process is "Afghan-led", President Hamid Karzai has said.

Does Karzai remind anyone else of Diem?

Though I guess Karzai has managed to get to the end of US involvement without suffering a coup, so he must be a little more skilled on that front.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

I'd say basic humanity should make us care.

Why?

They've done experiments that have found empathy in 8 month old babies.

As such, I can only conclude that Fraz is no more than 7 months old.

Taliban Rep:"We demand your complete subjugation to our regime, the degradation of your women and your oil"
U.S"You can the first two, but the oil will take more convincing"

Hotsauce....Afghanistan has no oil......

The joke is that they want the U.S's oil

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Wait... are you saying Afghanistan wasn't a clusterfeth before we marched in there???

o.O

Dude?

Of course it was. And now after years of trying to make it no longer a clusterfeth, you've decided to walk away. Okay, whatever.

But when people talk about how they'll never negotiate with the Taliban because they're evil, but are wanting to just walk away from the country... and you know, leave it to the Taliban, well it's worth pointing out the obvious moral bs that's going on there.

Ultimately, there is little choice but to negotiate an end to the war... glassing that country is not an option. We went it... kicked some Taliban ass and took name too.

Unlike al-Qaeda, the Taliban are an integral part of Afghanistan as leaders of the Pashtun tribe (I think).

The war in Afghanistan in the post-Soviet era has been both religious and tribal... victory for either side would be difficult if not impossible .

We’re negotiating to our part of it, and to attempt to get assurances that the Taliban won’t cooperate with terrorism outside of their borders again.

The rest will really be up to the Afghans people.

 whembly wrote:
Ultimately, there is little choice but to negotiate an end to the war... glassing that country is not an option. We went it... kicked some Taliban ass and took name too.

Unlike al-Qaeda, the Taliban are an integral part of Afghanistan as leaders of the Pashtun tribe (I think).

The war in Afghanistan in the post-Soviet era has been both religious and tribal... victory for either side would be difficult if not impossible .

We’re negotiating to our part of it, and to attempt to get assurances that the Taliban won’t cooperate with terrorism outside of their borders again.

The rest will really be up to the Afghans people.

Well, the Taliban aren't so much an integral cultural element (even in regions where they're strongest, they're only preferred by a few percent of the population), as much as an unavoidable reality given the massive failings of the current government.

Fixing the Karzai government, though, will likely take a hell lot more time and money than the US is interested in spending at this time. Which basically, means, as you said, negotiating some kind of an end.

You know that funding will stop if he bolts from the country right? Then the next crazy question who going to try to fix it. Which in my book "It ain't F'ing happening"

 Jihadin wrote:
You know that funding will stop if he bolts from the country right? Then the next crazy question who going to try to fix it. Which in my book "It ain't F'ing happening"

Who's 'he'? Karzai?

Whether or not the US wants to fund any other government is, well, entirely a US decision. If they think there's an option that's better than Karzai (and a big part of the problem is no-one is sure if there is...), and they move him on, well of course they'll fund whatever they replace him with. But at this point, it's pretty clear the US does not have the political will for that.

The Moral argument that we should help people is fair and correct but we can't just pick and choose. There are countries worse than Afghan I believe and we don't invade them all. Its really taking far too big a stick to the problem. We (USA and UK) still play nice to China despite what they do.

We can't force other countries to act like we do or to even believe the same civil, moral, religious values. When you get into trying to change the way of a country through violence it becomes 'killing in the name of..' which is just what the Talibs and crusades were all about and easily can be called oppression in my book. Taking a religious view I don't believe that Christ would expect us to try to forcibly change any country to our way of thought. That's not any form of 'Loving your Neighbour' that I know of.

Of course who's to say the way we do things is so great. We can discuss and persuade an even show the benefits but most of that region is gonna have to figure it out for themselves. getting the local parties at least talking to each other is probably really the only option for the time being I think.

A total shambles from start to finish, and after 12 years (with thousands dead, missing, or killed, plus billions of pounds wasted) the US and its allies are back to where they started from.

Still, they can't say they weren't warned by the history books or by the experts.

And it still hasn't been explained to me why Marines were operating in a land-locked country! Maybe the Swiss Navy could have been sent in!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A total shambles from start to finish, and after 12 years (with thousands dead, missing, or killed, plus billions of pounds wasted) the US and its allies are back to where they started from.

Still, they can't say they weren't warned by the history books or by the experts.

And it still hasn't been explained to me why Marines were operating in a land-locked country! Maybe the Swiss Navy could have been sent in!

Well the Swiss Navy volunteered, but they couldn't get their fast attack carriers over the mountains. Ooops.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A total shambles from start to finish, and after 12 years (with thousands dead, missing, or killed, plus billions of pounds wasted) the US and its allies are back to where they started from.

Still, they can't say they weren't warned by the history books or by the experts.

And it still hasn't been explained to me why Marines were operating in a land-locked country! Maybe the Swiss Navy could have been sent in!

Well the Swiss Navy volunteered, but they couldn't get their fast attack carriers over the mountains. Ooops.

Swiss mercenaries had a fearsome reputation back in the day, and they say that nobody has conquered Afghanistan before. Hmm, it were possible to do a historical match-up with Switzerland Vs the Taliban

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And it still hasn't been explained to me why Marines were operating in a land-locked country!

Where's that "not sure if serious" jpeg?

 Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And it still hasn't been explained to me why Marines were operating in a land-locked country!

Where's that "not sure if serious" jpeg?

I'm being deadly serious. If you were storming Okinawa, or trying to re-capture Taiwan from China, or a launching a surprise attack against North Korea, then marines make sense. The funny thing is that I was reading that the US military top brass were reluctant to commit 10th Mountain division to Afghanistan (did they get deployed there?), but not the marines!

Understandable. US marines are an expeditionary force now.

Plus when something absolutely, positively has to be destroyed overnight you call the jarheads.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm being deadly serious. If you were storming Okinawa, or trying to re-capture Taiwan from China, or a launching a surprise attack against North Korea, then marines make sense. The funny thing is that I was reading that the US military top brass were reluctant to commit 10th Mountain division to Afghanistan (did they get deployed there?), but not the marines!

The Marines don't fight exclusively on or near water.

I heard some marines even fight in space.

SPAZZ MRINEZ HURR!!!