The war against the Talibans

Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I am fucking sick and tired of people getting thw two confused, republicans like warfare and both and liberals hate warfare and support neither.

But that is bullshit, mostly coming from the warthog propaganda that liberals are against all warfare, well, the more i speak with liberals the more support i get and at the same time i am chastised for not supporting the war in Iraq.

I'm mot going to make this a poll, i just want you to give your opinions because they matter to me.

I'm not sure how long my stay will be this time i have something very important to do but it might take a few days to set up what i am doing.

If i'll be gone before this thread is dead, there are others equally curious about your replies.

Iraq, yay or nay and why

Afghanistan, yay or nay and why

Thank you.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,415
4,795
126
Both have been Managed very poorly, but at least Afghanistan has Justification.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
59,808
8,032
136
Iraq...NAY...all based on lies, misinformation, poor intelligence estimates, and Bush's desire to avenge the attempt on his daddy.

Afghanistan...YAY...but get the fucking job done will ya? ;)

It constantly amazes me that the Soviets couldn't control the Afghans in 6 or 7 years even though they were willing to do whatever it took to control the population, AND had massive troop and equipment support, yet Bush and the others in the "coalition" expect our troops to do as much or more with less troops, less equipment, and their hands tied behind their back most of the time.
IMO, Bush and Blair dropped the ball and lost track of what was important here...they started the ball rolling in Afghanistan, then more or less abandoned it to pursue Saddam Hussein.
They SHOULD have poured the resources into finishing the Afghani conflict FIRST, ridding the country (and Pakistan) of the Taliban, eradicated the opium growers to help stop the cash stream that feeds, clothes, and arms the Taliban, and THEN, and ONLY then, dealt with Iraq if need be.
Bush got so ego-blown over being the "WAR PRESIDENT," that he lost sight of what was important.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
531
126


Can Afghanistan ever be considered a success if we leave these Wannabe-Taliban types in charge?



Abused Afghan women end up in jail
A woman fleeing domestic violence or rape often ends up guilty
The Associated Press
updated 4:48 p.m. ET, Wed., April. 30, 2008
JALALABAD, Afghanistan - Trafficked across the border from Pakistan with her 3-year-old son, Rukhma was handed to an Afghan who raped and abused her, then beat the toddler to death as she watched helplessly.

He was jailed for 20 years for murder, but Rukhma ended up in prison too.

Rukhma, who doesn't know her age but looks younger than 20, had put up with her mistreatment for three months last summer before seeking protection and justice from authorities. Instead she was given a four-year sentence on Dec. 5 for adultery and "escaping her house" in Pakistan, even though she says she was kidnapped and raped.

The fall of the Taliban six years ago heralded new rights for Afghan women: to go to school or get a job, and be protected under the law. Women's rights are now enshrined in the constitution.

Blaming the victim common
Yet except for a small urban elite, a woman fleeing domestic violence or accusing a man of rape herself often ends up the guilty party in the eyes of judges and prosecutors.

"Why am I here? I'm innocent," Rukhma said, crying in a musty jail cell and cradling a baby daughter by her previous marriage whom she bore in prison. "It is cruel to have your son killed before your eyes and then to be imprisoned."

In parts of Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan, where stern social codes prevail, a woman who runs away from home is typically suspected of having taken a lover and can be prosecuted for adultery. Simply leaving her house without her family's permission may be deemed an offense ? as in Rukhma's case ? although it is not classified as such under Afghanistan's penal code.

The chief prosecutor of eastern Nangarhar province who oversaw Rukhma's case suggested she got off lightly.

<<"If my wife goes to the bazaar without my permission, I will kill her. This is our culture," Abdul Qayum shouted scornfully during an interview in his office in the city of Jalalabad.

His colleagues laughed approvingly. "This is Afghanistan, not America," Qayum said.


More women seeking help
The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission registered 2,374 cases of women complaining of violence in 2007, compared with 1,651 in 2006 ? a sign that more are seeking help.

Family response units have been established in the police force, and there are tentative signs of sympathy in officialdom ? at least in the relatively liberal capital, Kabul.

At a Kabul hospital, a 16-year-old girl who is too scared to give her name is recuperating from reconstructive surgery after her husband cut off her nose and ears, bashed out all but six of her teeth with a stone, and poured boiling water on her.

In-laws from southern Zabul province want to take the girl home, but the hospital director refuses to hand her over.

"This brother-in-law comes every day. He says, 'Let me take her home. She's OK now,'" Dr. Ghairat Mal said. "I don't trust him. The Ministry of Women's Affairs brought her to us, and I won't let her go unless they take her."

Kamala Janakiram, a U.N. human rights officer in eastern Afghanistan, said that in 70 to 80 percent of the cases she has seen, a woman complaining of domestic violence is charged as a criminal for running away from home.


Rape victims forced to marry attackers
The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime said many rape victims are forced to marry their attackers or are jailed for adultery because proving rape is virtually impossible.

Women can end up in prison simply on the basis of gossip, said Manizha Naderi, the director of Women for Afghan Women, an aid organization. "It's a horrible, horrible practice."

Fear of returning to a violent spouse drives some women to suicide.

Janakiram cited the case of a young village woman in Laghman province who was shot by her husband and left to die.

She survived, but the provincial judge refused to hear her plea for a divorce and insisted that local elders resolve the matter.

Janakiram said the woman was so scared of being forced to return to her abusive husband that on Jan. 30, she set herself ablaze in front of the Laghman court. She had burns on 98 percent of her body and died a week later.

Naderi told of a 16-year-old girl kidnapped from her engagement party by three men and raped, after which her fiance called off the engagement.

"The whole village blacklisted her and said, 'It's your fault. Why did you go with them?' She was a lost soul because she was raped," Naderi said.

Rather than approach police, some women seek a reconciliation through village elders or aid organizations.

Saving family honor
Orzala Ashraf, an Afghan women's rights activist, said that usually gets the woman home but can leave her vulnerable to abuse or even death at the hands of male relatives bent on saving family honor.


"The woman will be more humiliated than before because she violated the family rules: You never discuss family problems outside the family circle," Ashraf said.

Rukhma, who goes by only one name, is still hoping an appeals court will free her.

Sitting on the prison floor with a black scarf over her hair and shoulders, she described being married in Pakistan as a preteen to an abusive man, who fathered her son, Bilal.

She said she divorced him and married another Pakistani man by whom she became pregnant last year. Then, she says, a female neighbor kidnapped her and delivered to an Afghan man named Yarul who claimed her as his wife and raped her for three months.

One day she overheard Yarul finalizing a deal to sell her to another man, who wanted her but not her son.

Scared of losing Bilal, she ran away one day late last summer. When Yarul found her and took her home, he beat her and the toddler relentlessly.

She said the boy was placed under a blanket, barely conscious, blood dripping from his mouth.

"When I lifted the blanket, he looked up and saw his mother. I could see that those were going to be his last breaths, and then he died. That was the last time we looked each other in the eyes," she said, her voice cracking, her face crumpled in grief. As she cried, so did the newborn daughter of her second marriage, lying in her lap.

When police came to arrest Yarul, they arrested her, too.

The prosecutor, Qayum, acknowledges that Rukhma was raped by Yarul but still maintains she shares the blame.

"She spent several nights with the man," he said. "She committed adultery. It was rape, but the woman is also guilty."

 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: BoomerD

Iraq...NAY...all based on lies, misinformation, poor intelligence estimates, and Bush's desire to avenge the attempt on his daddy.

Afghanistan...YAY...but get the fucking job done will ya? ;)
With what military men and equipment? The Traitor In Chief and his lapdog, Blair, already squandered so much of our military resources in Iraq that we're hemoraging bodies while diving still deeper into debt.

I'm a liberal from an eastern European Jewish family, and I know that WW II is all the proof one needs to know that war can be necessary. Unlike the Bushwhackos' war in Iraq, WW II came to us. We didn't volunteer for it. Similarly, going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda attacked us, and the Taliban was shielding them, there.

If they'd kept their eyes on the ball, our guys probably would already have finished the job in Afghanistan, and Bin Laden would probably be in Guantanamo by now.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Both have been Managed very poorly, but at least Afghanistan has Justification.
You know, we really couldn't have done shit about the Taliban without your countrymen having our backs and as i get this, thanks to the French sending troops Canada will be staying.

So i can do this knowing fully well that Canadian troops will stand at the border, i think you should be proud to be a Canadian because of it. These are good men.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
31,698
5,686
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Both have been Managed very poorly, but at least Afghanistan has Justification.
Managed very poorly, our leadership is bankrupt.

Afghanistan hosted AQ which committed acts of war against us. We returned the favor and should do so again to anyone that attacks us.

Iraq was a mistake driven by fear. Would have been fairly justified had the intelligence been correct, but still a very stupid move that empowered Iran as the nuclear power in the Middle East. Through Iraq we have given Iran unimaginable power.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,415
4,795
126
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: sandorski
Both have been Managed very poorly, but at least Afghanistan has Justification.
You know, we really couldn't have done shit about the Taliban without your countrymen having our backs and as i get this, thanks to the French sending troops Canada will be staying.

So i can do this knowing fully well that Canadian troops will stand at the border, i think you should be proud to be a Canadian because of it. These are good men.
Yup, our Troops have always risen to the challenge. :thumbsup:
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: BoomerD

Iraq...NAY...all based on lies, misinformation, poor intelligence estimates, and Bush's desire to avenge the attempt on his daddy.

Afghanistan...YAY...but get the fucking job done will ya? ;)
With what military men and equipment? The Traitor In Chief and his lapdog, Blair, already squandered so much of our military resources in Iraq that we're hemoraging bodies while diving still deeper into debt.

I'm a liberal from an eastern European Jewish family, and I know that WW II is all the proof one needs to know that war can be necessary. Unlike the Bushwhackos' war in Iraq, WW II came to us. We didn't volunteer for it. Similarly, going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda attacked us, and the Taliban was shielding them, there.

If they'd kept their eyes on the ball, our guys probably would already have finished the job in Afghanistan, and Bin Laden would probably be in Guantanmo by now.
Definently, if the superior firepower would have shown it's face in Afghanistan, especially in the early days when there was drop bombs fast and invade faster without even so much as air support in some places, such as Bagram... well, now it's up to individual units to go cross the mountains to get the talibans, and doing so is an act of war, however, Pakistan is in worse shape than ever, so it needs to be done, the US doesn't dare to, the UK doesn't have the balls to.

But individual troops...

There are a lot of men with a lot of balls, do not discount the will of those platoons, this is one battle where everyone i know of wanted to go back into it, no matter how much horrors have been witnessed or maybe just because of that.

But it would be nice to have some fucking air support, those famous choppers seem to be only good at one thing and that is crashing, how about a fucking GPS navigator in those damn things so they don't do that?

I'm in a very pissy mood about this deal.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: sandorski
Both have been Managed very poorly, but at least Afghanistan has Justification.
You know, we really couldn't have done shit about the Taliban without your countrymen having our backs and as i get this, thanks to the French sending troops Canada will be staying.

So i can do this knowing fully well that Canadian troops will stand at the border, i think you should be proud to be a Canadian because of it. These are good men.
Yup, our Troops have always risen to the challenge. :thumbsup:
Yeah, i overheard some US troops being locked to home base when we went out and the Canada troops were our backup, they were talking some shit, well that is what the US does in a real war zone, they talk some shit while French and Canadian troops set up snipers and clear zones for us Brits to get through.

The US performance in Afghanistan is fucking pathetic, the US performance in Iraq is fucking worse, now that is in NO way to be taken as a personal insult amongst the brave soldiers that have participated, but to the US as a warmongering whore of a nation, this is justified criticism from a boot on the ground.

I believe we have been promised air support but got NONE, i believe we have been promised artillery but got NONE, i believe as far as the UK is concerned the US can fight as they fucking well please but don't sen our men into harms way with promises that you have not EVER had the intention to keep.

We have handled the situation with good men and air support from Canada and France but we woule NEVER even had set foot into this zone knowing what we know now.

It's not much different in Iraq right now, ask any current soldier if he can get air support, he'll tell you that it's been since the surge since they actually had air support.

The illusion of not needing air support took precedence over actually needing it every day.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Political considerations always supercede the military objective from the policitians view.

It does not matter what a politician states, the boots are expendable if it means saving face.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
In a way, both Afghanistan and Iraq are justified, but I agree with the forum consensus, Afghanistan is far more justified than Iraq. Beyond that, its a very difficult to figure out which military occupation was bungled worse.

In a large sense, the prior actions of the British and American governments have done much to sow the seeds of what we have now, and depending on the limits of our historical vision, the roots of the conflicts started as long as 500 years ago. If we limit our past historical judgment to only the past 100 years, its the gradual death of former British and other colonial empire as the Muslim nations of that whole swath of countries from Western Africa to Indonesia throw the former colonial rascals out. If we limit it to the past three decades, blame more US foreign policy for trying to keep the former status quo.

Both the Muslim and Christian religions which have common roots are wondrous adaptive and paradox ally stubborn. The status quo nations still have the sales tool of the benefits of modernity. And when they pair that sales tool of modernity without using military force, they win and win without conflict. When military force is used, the status quo nations always ignite a reactionary backlash which ends up being the hard way and not the easy way. I can agree with JOS and palehorse74 that the taliban is exactly the wrong way for the future of Afghanistan, but am somewhat of a tireless advocate that the taliban is still a homegrown movement that should be co opted rather than directly confronted. All we create with the strategy we now have is to drive the moderates out of the process. The straight line is not always the shortest distance between two points in the human sphere of geometry. As we are sure painfully learning in Iraq and Afghanistan.

See my earlier comment about totally bungled occupations.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law

In a way, both Afghanistan and Iraq are justified, but I agree with the forum consensus, Afghanistan is far more justified than Iraq. Beyond that, its a very difficult to figure out which military occupation was bungled worse.
No, going into Afghanistan was completely justified, and it was the right thing to do both militarily and politically. Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda were based in Afghanistn, they attacked us, and the Taliban was shielding them, there.

The only thing wrong with going into Afghanistan was the Bushwhackos dunderheaded decision to divert our strength, there, and squander it in their ill planned, ill conceived, ill executed war of lies in Iraq. As a result, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have regrouped and regained strength, and Bin Laden and his top cadre are still at large.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Lemon law

In a way, both Afghanistan and Iraq are justified, but I agree with the forum consensus, Afghanistan is far more justified than Iraq. Beyond that, its a very difficult to figure out which military occupation was bungled worse.
No, going into Afghanistan was completely justified, and it was the right thing to do both militarily and politically. Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda were based in Afghanistn, they attacked us, and the Taliban was shielding them, there.

The only thing wrong with going into Afghanistan was the Bushwhackos dunderheaded decision to divert our strength, there, and squander it in their ill planned, ill conceived, ill executed war of lies in Iraq. As a result, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have regrouped and regained strength, and Bin Laden and his top cadre are still at large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok Harvey, even if I totally buy this was the right thing to do in Afghanistan, we should still ask why we waited until
after 911 to take out the Taliban? After all, these totally reactionary idiots had already disenfranchised half of their population and were using 3000 year old stone Buddhas as target practice. Yet right next door in Iran and Pakistan,
nations that had embraced modernity were rejecting those very barbaric ideals. Yet six years into our military occupation of Afghanistan, all we have seemingly done is to strengthen the popular appeal of the taliban.

Does that give you a clue on exactly what inspired bungling it takes to strengthen the popular appeal of the taliban.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law

Ok Harvey, even if I totally buy this was the right thing to do in Afghanistan, we should still ask why we waited until after 911 to take out the Taliban?
Because 9-11 was the catalyst to get the support of Congress and the American people. Before 9-11, it probably would have been impossible. That's just the way it was, despite the fact that it could have been justified after AQ bombed the U.S.S Cole.

The same is true of international reaction. Remember, the world, including most of the Muslim world, was with us when we went into Afghanistan, and more moderate Muslims weren't at all happy with the way the Taliban was ruling.. It wasn't until the Turd In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers and torturers went off the deep end of reason into Iraq that it all fell to shit.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
3
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Lemon law

Ok Harvey, even if I totally buy this was the right thing to do in Afghanistan, we should still ask why we waited until after 911 to take out the Taliban?
Because 9-11 was the catalyst to get the support of Congress and the American people. Before 9-11, it probably would have been impossible. That's just the way it was, despite the fact that it could have been justified after AQ bombed the U.S.S Cole.

The same is true of international reaction. Remember, the world, including most of the Muslim world, was with us when we went into Afghanistan, and more moderate Muslims weren't at all happy with the way the Taliban was ruling.. It wasn't until the Turd In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers and torturers went off the deep end of reason into Iraq that it all fell to shit.
America's blood lust was not satiated with Afghanistan. The guerilla attacks, lack of taking the truly high-profile prize just kep the fury alive and they were more than eager to go after Saddam. He wouldn't hide in mountains. He ended up in a hole, but at least for a few days their armored divisions could bust some ass because it didn't matter who they attacked, they just wanted to kick somebody's ass over 911. For some Saddam was the stand in for Osama. In fact, included in that some would be Bush, for after a while he said that Osama wasn't important to him anymore (or a priority or whatever his wording was).

The US was like a john. It's not like he really finds that STD-ridden prostitute hot, but by God he is looking to get laid tonight and it may as well be her if not the person he'd really rather be with.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Lemon law

Ok Harvey, even if I totally buy this was the right thing to do in Afghanistan, we should still ask why we waited until after 911 to take out the Taliban?
Because 9-11 was the catalyst to get the support of Congress and the American people. Before 9-11, it probably would have been impossible. That's just the way it was, despite the fact that it could have been justified after AQ bombed the U.S.S Cole.

The same is true of international reaction. Remember, the world, including most of the Muslim world, was with us when we went into Afghanistan, and more moderate Muslims weren't at all happy with the way the Taliban was ruling.. It wasn't until the Turd In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers and torturers went off the deep end of reason into Iraq that it all fell to shit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still have to wonder if we are arguing at cross purposes and that we basically agree. But still the core of the disagreement seems to be contained here---Because 9-11 was the catalyst to get the support of Congress and the American people. Before 9-11, it probably would have been impossible.

The question is and remains, why is America assumed to be the world's unpaid policeman? And in Afghanistan and Iraq we have managed to combine preemptive military action after the fact and before the fact. And have proceeded to bungle both.

We have the quite successful model set forth by GHB in confronting Iraq with international consensus and two failed models of GWB trying to confront bad governments with primarily lone US force.

The fact is and remains, the taliban is an insult to Islam. And should have been thus addressed.
 

BucsMAN3K

Member
May 14, 2006
126
0
0
I have 2 brothers in the military, more than 3 years of experience in Afghanistan between them.

Neither have had (as far as they've told me) experience in Iraq, but both think it is a disaster both politically and strategically.

Their experience in Afghanistan gives an interesting perspective, however.

One is a Major and part of Special Forces. As far as I know he spent most his time fighting Taliban on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. From what he has said this is because a lot the Taliban schools are now in Pakistan, and they filter out. He really didn't notice a decline in their activity, but fought them for about 2 years with a good bit of international support.

The other is a Captain who spent a year working, from what I understand, to maintain relations between our military and the government there, and aiding the building up of their infrastructure. He would do things like distributing the supply of aid money across villages, and escorting engineers to do various things (not sure of all the specific things they did, but what he did mention was the construction of bridges and giving power to mosques). He regularly was in attendance to meetings with both the governor and the assistant governor of Afghanistan (he even has a story where the governor went to hug him, they tripped, and knocked over a table holding glasses of tea).

And with their experience in Afghanistan, one is on the border about our efforts in Afghanistan, and one is straight nay. The SF one has confiscated lots of Taliban propaganda, and did not see a welcoming atmosphere in the area. However, he was aided by many Afghan soldiers who want to get rid of the Taliban, and had greatly improved relations with the locals over time by providing food, water, medical supplies, and even some health care.

The other though is not so confident in the ruling government we have allowed to set up there. He says that they are still very oppressive (as in any Afghan person who decides they don't want to be a Muslim can be punished by death), and that many do not spend our aid wisely. He believes we are also wasting money that we give for aid there, such as spending a million dollars for a temporary bridge, or 25k for a solar powered P.A. system for their mosque that could be powered by a 300 dollar generator.

I, weighing their experience and opinions with my own thoughts about the issue, think nay for Iraq and nay for Afghanistan.

But yay for continuing unconventional warfare and relief via Special Forces. Influencing governments, getting involved politically, or using mass amounts of infantry as a garrison is not productive, however.

 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Iraq...NAY...all based on lies, misinformation, poor intelligence estimates, and Bush's desire to avenge the attempt on his daddy.

Afghanistan...YAY...but get the fucking job done will ya? ;)

It constantly amazes me that the Soviets couldn't control the Afghans in 6 or 7 years even though they were willing to do whatever it took to control the population, AND had massive troop and equipment support, yet Bush and the others in the "coalition" expect our troops to do as much or more with less troops, less equipment, and their hands tied behind their back most of the time.
IMO, Bush and Blair dropped the ball and lost track of what was important here...they started the ball rolling in Afghanistan, then more or less abandoned it to pursue Saddam Hussein.
They SHOULD have poured the resources into finishing the Afghani conflict FIRST, ridding the country (and Pakistan) of the Taliban, eradicated the opium growers to help stop the cash stream that feeds, clothes, and arms the Taliban, and THEN, and ONLY then, dealt with Iraq if need be.
Bush got so ego-blown over being the "WAR PRESIDENT," that he lost sight of what was important.
Don't forget we were trucking boatloads of money and weapons to the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there. Either way, the US occupation is going alot better than the Soviet one did.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
59,808
8,032
136
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: sandorski
Both have been Managed very poorly, but at least Afghanistan has Justification.
You know, we really couldn't have done shit about the Taliban without your countrymen having our backs and as i get this, thanks to the French sending troops Canada will be staying.

So i can do this knowing fully well that Canadian troops will stand at the border, i think you should be proud to be a Canadian because of it. These are good men.
Yup, our Troops have always risen to the challenge. :thumbsup:
Yeah, i overheard some US troops being locked to home base when we went out and the Canada troops were our backup, they were talking some shit, well that is what the US does in a real war zone, they talk some shit while French and Canadian troops set up snipers and clear zones for us Brits to get through.

The US performance in Afghanistan is fucking pathetic, the US performance in Iraq is fucking worse, now that is in NO way to be taken as a personal insult amongst the brave soldiers that have participated, but to the US as a warmongering whore of a nation, this is justified criticism from a boot on the ground.

I believe we have been promised air support but got NONE, i believe we have been promised artillery but got NONE, i believe as far as the UK is concerned the US can fight as they fucking well please but don't sen our men into harms way with promises that you have not EVER had the intention to keep.

We have handled the situation with good men and air support from Canada and France but we woule NEVER even had set foot into this zone knowing what we know now.

It's not much different in Iraq right now, ask any current soldier if he can get air support, he'll tell you that it's been since the surge since they actually had air support.

The illusion of not needing air support took precedence over actually needing it every day.
Says a man who would be posting in German if the USA hadn't saved your asses TWICE! :);

OK, had to say it. ;)

I agree that our troops are severely hobbled by the politicians both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Vietnam was really no different.

Our politicans send men into war, then tie their hands and don't let them do what needs to be done to fucking win the dammed thing.

That puts added stresses on the troops in the field, and causes a lot more of them to die needlessly.

It's an understood fact that men will die in war, but letting them die needlessly is a dishonor to them and a waste of manpower.

Fight the fucking war, kill the enemy, don't bargain with them, don't negotiate over a few square kilometers of ground...kill them and get it done.

Politicans rarely have any personal stake in war, so it just doesn't matter to them.

IIRC, you can count on one hand the number of children of US Congress persons who have children or family members serving in either theater.

Bush certainly isn't gonna send one of his precious girls off to fight...after all, HE was too good to do so, why should his kids have to fight in HIS war?

John, I don't know if you really are a British soldier...after all, the internet is more or less anonymous and people often aren't who/what they claim, but I have no cause to doubt your word. IF it is true, then go kick some Taliban ass. I can't help with the logistical problems you and others are facing, I can only offer an old Marine's understanding of the problem.
 

tvarad

Golden Member
Jun 25, 2001
1,130
0
0
Afghanistan was a no-brainer. And that invasion had the world's support. If the U.S. had stuck to that job and that one alone, a majority of the asymmetrical threats would have been eliminated.

Iraq: Where do we start. The Chicken-Hawks with their black-and-white view of the world thought they'd ride in on a shining white steed and bring democracy to the Middle-East. Instead, they've opened up all the fractures and fissures that exist in a tribal world that they never took the time to understand. The U.S. has managed to p*ss off it's allies and thrown a much needed life-line to it's enemies, most notably Iran and Al-Qaeda. The worst consequence is the serious loss of U.S. prestige despite it's enormous economic and military power which is going to be difficult to recover, if ever.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,415
4,795
126
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: sandorski
Both have been Managed very poorly, but at least Afghanistan has Justification.
You know, we really couldn't have done shit about the Taliban without your countrymen having our backs and as i get this, thanks to the French sending troops Canada will be staying.

So i can do this knowing fully well that Canadian troops will stand at the border, i think you should be proud to be a Canadian because of it. These are good men.
Yup, our Troops have always risen to the challenge. :thumbsup:
Yeah, i overheard some US troops being locked to home base when we went out and the Canada troops were our backup, they were talking some shit, well that is what the US does in a real war zone, they talk some shit while French and Canadian troops set up snipers and clear zones for us Brits to get through.

The US performance in Afghanistan is fucking pathetic, the US performance in Iraq is fucking worse, now that is in NO way to be taken as a personal insult amongst the brave soldiers that have participated, but to the US as a warmongering whore of a nation, this is justified criticism from a boot on the ground.

I believe we have been promised air support but got NONE, i believe we have been promised artillery but got NONE, i believe as far as the UK is concerned the US can fight as they fucking well please but don't sen our men into harms way with promises that you have not EVER had the intention to keep.

We have handled the situation with good men and air support from Canada and France but we woule NEVER even had set foot into this zone knowing what we know now.

It's not much different in Iraq right now, ask any current soldier if he can get air support, he'll tell you that it's been since the surge since they actually had air support.

The illusion of not needing air support took precedence over actually needing it every day.
Says a man who would be posting in German if the USA hadn't saved your asses TWICE! :);

OK, had to say it. ;)

I agree that our troops are severely hobbled by the politicians both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Vietnam was really no different.

Our politicans send men into war, then tie their hands and don't let them do what needs to be done to fucking win the dammed thing.

That puts added stresses on the troops in the field, and causes a lot more of them to die needlessly.

It's an understood fact that men will die in war, but letting them die needlessly is a dishonor to them and a waste of manpower.

Fight the fucking war, kill the enemy, don't bargain with them, don't negotiate over a few square kilometers of ground...kill them and get it done.

Politicans rarely have any personal stake in war, so it just doesn't matter to them.

IIRC, you can count on one hand the number of children of US Congress persons who have children or family members serving in either theater.

Bush certainly isn't gonna send one of his precious girls off to fight...after all, HE was too good to do so, why should his kids have to fight in HIS war?

John, I don't know if you really are a British soldier...after all, the internet is more or less anonymous and people often aren't who/what they claim, but I have no cause to doubt your word. IF it is true, then go kick some Taliban ass. I can't help with the logistical problems you and others are facing, I can only offer an old Marine's understanding of the problem.
Not German, possibly Russian.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
We are still left with the BoomerD advice of---I can't help with the logistical problems you and others are facing, I can only offer an old Marine's understanding of the problem.

Sadly, that old marine way, did not turn out well in Vietnam. And is seemingly having equal success in Afghanistan and Iraq. At some point, maybe its time to realize that its not getting us to our goal.

When X amount of force that amounts to massive is not getting us to our goal, one must either escalate that force massively, or gasp, try different tactics. We would now have to almost triple the number of troops in Iraq just to get to the amount of failed force we brought to Vietnam. Does that tell us something about using gasp different tactics in what amounts to a battle for hearts and minds?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: sandorski
Both have been Managed very poorly, but at least Afghanistan has Justification.
You know, we really couldn't have done shit about the Taliban without your countrymen having our backs and as i get this, thanks to the French sending troops Canada will be staying.

So i can do this knowing fully well that Canadian troops will stand at the border, i think you should be proud to be a Canadian because of it. These are good men.
Yup, our Troops have always risen to the challenge. :thumbsup:
Yeah, i overheard some US troops being locked to home base when we went out and the Canada troops were our backup, they were talking some shit, well that is what the US does in a real war zone, they talk some shit while French and Canadian troops set up snipers and clear zones for us Brits to get through.

The US performance in Afghanistan is fucking pathetic, the US performance in Iraq is fucking worse, now that is in NO way to be taken as a personal insult amongst the brave soldiers that have participated, but to the US as a warmongering whore of a nation, this is justified criticism from a boot on the ground.

I believe we have been promised air support but got NONE, i believe we have been promised artillery but got NONE, i believe as far as the UK is concerned the US can fight as they fucking well please but don't sen our men into harms way with promises that you have not EVER had the intention to keep.

We have handled the situation with good men and air support from Canada and France but we woule NEVER even had set foot into this zone knowing what we know now.

It's not much different in Iraq right now, ask any current soldier if he can get air support, he'll tell you that it's been since the surge since they actually had air support.

The illusion of not needing air support took precedence over actually needing it every day.
Says a man who would be posting in German if the USA hadn't saved your asses TWICE! :);

OK, had to say it. ;)

I agree that our troops are severely hobbled by the politicians both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Vietnam was really no different.

Our politicans send men into war, then tie their hands and don't let them do what needs to be done to fucking win the dammed thing.

That puts added stresses on the troops in the field, and causes a lot more of them to die needlessly.

It's an understood fact that men will die in war, but letting them die needlessly is a dishonor to them and a waste of manpower.

Fight the fucking war, kill the enemy, don't bargain with them, don't negotiate over a few square kilometers of ground...kill them and get it done.

Politicans rarely have any personal stake in war, so it just doesn't matter to them.

IIRC, you can count on one hand the number of children of US Congress persons who have children or family members serving in either theater.

Bush certainly isn't gonna send one of his precious girls off to fight...after all, HE was too good to do so, why should his kids have to fight in HIS war?

John, I don't know if you really are a British soldier...after all, the internet is more or less anonymous and people often aren't who/what they claim, but I have no cause to doubt your word. IF it is true, then go kick some Taliban ass. I can't help with the logistical problems you and others are facing, I can only offer an old Marine's understanding of the problem.
Other than your first line, which clearly proves that you do not have a fucking clue about WWII, we fought it, we took the casualties and Roosevelt said "we will not get involved in Europes war" you came late to the fucking party, and what the fuck were you supposed to do when Japan bombed your lazy arses and Germany declared war on your sorry butts? Say NO THANKS?

Don't you EVER tell a Brit you saved us, EVER, you are not a daft person, and you should fucking know better, if the UK and Russia hadn't diminished their forces for five fucking years the US would have been run over.

And don't even try to pretend you saved anyone, EVER. You didn't.

Well, if it wouldn't have been for the US, then everything west of the UK would have been great Russia, so you and us saved them from that, but not from the Germans.

In this war, i count GB, CA and FR as reliable enforcements and that is it, the US should either commit or get the fuck out of here, that the CIA is meddling in the shit isn't helping either, get the fuck OUT and let those of us who know how to fix this fix it, or get used to being under British command.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY