• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Turn off the lights, the parties over in the Afghanistan region

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
In a recent move, the Afghan government has demanded all US troops deployed across the wider country, all leave and report back to only major bases. Meanwhile the Taliban has broken off all talks, while the sponsor of the talks, the United Arab Enumerates will be asking the USA to explain its strategy. Ill disguised code for saying, if Nato can't win in 10 years, why stay a minute longer?

http://news.yahoo.com/u-soldier-flown-home-afghan-anger-mars-panetta-022251034.html

As I would advocate if that policy of deploying back to only major bases is long standing, it will mean the Nato mission in Afghanistan has ended with total failure. The only Nato weapon then left would be with drones, but drones in themselves are too prone to bad intel assessments and are prime reasons Nato is hated in the region.

Edit in, another such link on yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/army-blame-afghan-massacre-135900413.html

After all Nato has been committing atrocities in Afghanistan almost from the start. But maybe none as graphically as senselessly horrifying as the latest one.
 
Last edited:

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,307
3
81
Good we should be pulling out anyway. It might have been prudent to go in there to route out terrorists a decade ago, but cost vs benefit hasn't looked good for many years.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I have always said, when the host nation tells us they want us to leave, we should leave.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,389
309
126
Yep, GTFO time. It's a loss and it's over. Been over for a long time. We went there after Osama, and he's been dead for awhile now. Why the hell we are still there I have no clue.
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
LOL, Karzai will be following the US troops out with his kronies...I think we should seal the borders and make him stay..damn crook...
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Vietnam v2.0. Tuck tail and run time. Been that way for a while. Should have ended this years ago.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,909
1,057
126
Vietnam v2.0. Tuck tail and run time. Been that way for a while. Should have ended this years ago.
Part of the problem with the tuck tail and run strategy is what happens later as a result. Vietnam isn't a country that we should have ever been in in the first place. When we left they were just glad to have us the hell gone. Afghanistan was harboring those who attacked American civilians, not doing anything was out of the question. Now if we leave and the country devolves back into Taliban control, what happens to our nation's security? If they start harboring or sponsoring terrorism again and kill more Americans, which is very likely, what do we do? Do you really believe that if we leave the Taliban won't regain control, Al Qaeda won't grow in strength, and they'll just decide to let bygones by bygones and not attack the US again? You can't be that gullible.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
But, but,,, what about the billions of dollars in natural resources we need to milk out of Afghanistan?
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,307
3
81
Part of the problem with the tuck tail and run strategy is what happens later as a result. Vietnam isn't a country that we should have ever been in in the first place. When we left they were just glad to have us the hell gone. Afghanistan was harboring those who attacked American civilians, not doing anything was out of the question. Now if we leave and the country devolves back into Taliban control, what happens to our nation's security? If they start harboring or sponsoring terrorism again and kill more Americans, which is very likely, what do we do? Do you really believe that if we leave the Taliban won't regain control, Al Qaeda won't grow in strength, and they'll just decide to let bygones by bygones and not attack the US again? You can't be that gullible.
If they start plotting against America again you do something prudent to stop them. Being sitting ducks in a country where no one wants you there is not the answer. Whatever advantage we gained with our original occupation has long since not been worth the cost.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Part of the problem with the tuck tail and run strategy is what happens later as a result. Vietnam isn't a country that we should have ever been in in the first place. When we left they were just glad to have us the hell gone. Afghanistan was harboring those who attacked American civilians, not doing anything was out of the question. Now if we leave and the country devolves back into Taliban control, what happens to our nation's security? If they start harboring or sponsoring terrorism again and kill more Americans, which is very likely, what do we do? Do you really believe that if we leave the Taliban won't regain control, Al Qaeda won't grow in strength, and they'll just decide to let bygones by bygones and not attack the US again? You can't be that gullible.
I am not saying we never should have gone there, just it should have been short and sweet. Also, whether the military is there or not doesn't really stop the Taliban from plotting against us. Guarantee you right now there are some of them sitting in a cave around a campfire doing that very thing. We can easily monitor the intel without a military presence there. The only thing the military is gaining us is reaction time (and a lot more force) when we do find something out. But really we don't need to stop the Taliban from leaving there to do something, we just need to stop them from getting here to do something. We don't need the reaction time the military is giving us, IMO.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Almost sounds perfect to me. Being strongly opposed to nation building, I like the idea of merely having some soldiers on a remote base in Afghanistan that can deploy as needed to blow up Taliban etc. (Assuming the military thinks that's d-able. Otherwise, time to leave.)

The one thing I do NOT want to see is us having to fight our out of Afghanistan.

Fern
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
As the OP on this thread, its somewhat hard for me accept the sour grapes consensus forum answer.

Although I did not support the GWB inspired answer to invade Afghanistan, in 2002 it was the 90% popular American reaction to nation build in Afghanistan. As from the word go Donald Dumsfeld told us he was so smart, he could win a military occupation with only 1/3 of the troops needed. And now 10 years later, after we in the US and Nato wasted 1/2 a trillion dollars minimum and 2000 +American lives, all the forum chicken little types wake up and say yep it times to bail.

When none of you ask the more important question, how we grasped defeat from the jaws of victory and lost a beauty contest to the Taliban? Its gotta kinda hurt when the Taliban calls the USA primitive barbarians and that shoe fits.

What the hell is wrong with this forum?

Don't blame me, I have been writing on this subject ever since I joined this forum in 11/2005 and advocating what it would take to win.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
As the OP on this thread, its somewhat hard for me accept the sour grapes consensus forum answer.

Although I did not support the GWB inspired answer to invade Afghanistan, in 2002 it was the 90% popular American reaction to nation build in Afghanistan. As from the word go Donald Dumsfeld told us he was so smart, he could win a military occupation with only 1/3 of the troops needed. And now 10 years later, after we in the US and Nato wasted 1/2 a trillion dollars minimum and 2000 +American lives, all the forum chicken little types wake up and say yep it times to bail.

When none of you ask the more important question, how we grasped defeat from the jaws of victory and lost a beauty contest to the Taliban? Its gotta kinda hurt when the Taliban calls the USA primitive barbarians and that shoe fits.

What the hell is wrong with this forum?

Don't blame me, I have been writing on this subject ever since I joined this forum in 11/2005 and advocating what it would take to win.
Um Vietnam wiped our noses in shit...I don't see a Vietnam problem today. Trust me, we will overcome this defeat just like we did Vietnam.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
When none of you ask the more important question, how we grasped defeat from the jaws of victory and lost a beauty contest to the Taliban? Its gotta kinda hurt when the Taliban calls the USA primitive barbarians and that shoe fits.

What the hell is wrong with this forum?
Most of us are smart enough to realize winning a war in Afghanistan is impossible.

The people there do not want our help, in fact, they do want anything we have to offer.

This is not a war to be won with weapons and bombs, its a war of ideology, its a war we can not win.

The "only" way the US can win any kind of war with Afghanistan is for the people there to reject Islam. Since the people will not reject Islam, there will never be a resolution to the conflict.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
58
86
The US presented the brass ring to Afghanistan. They decided not to tak it.

If they want to remain a technological backwater and mired in fundamentalist religious dogma for their rest of their days, so be it. We did what we could.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Most of us are smart enough to realize winning a war in Afghanistan is impossible.

The people there do not want our help, in fact, they do want anything we have to offer.

This is not a war to be won with weapons and bombs, its a war of ideology, its a war we can not win.

The "only" way the US can win any kind of war with Afghanistan is for the people there to reject Islam. Since the people will not reject Islam, there will never be a resolution to the conflict.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a single word, a pack of denial bullshit from start to finish. People are people are people all over the planet. Our problem is that we believed our own propaganda and forgot to look at the Afghan people's viewpoint. If someone treated us like we treated the Afghan people, we would be up in arms too.

Its my country too Texas Hiker, and I don't like seeing our dick knocked into the dirt any better than you do, but at least I can understand why we failed and you sir seem clueless.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
-snip-
Although I did not support the GWB inspired answer to invade Afghanistan, in 2002 it was the 90% popular American reaction to nation build in Afghanistan.
Nope.

Attack? Yes.

"Nation build"? No.

Fern
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Nope.

Attack? Yes.

"Nation build"? No.

Fern
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least Fern has an answer, but in MHO not a very good one. So we got out our can of US whoope ass, chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and brought back the very thugs and drug traffickers that made the Taliban a better choice for the Afghan people than the very turds Nato allied with. If Fern is right, why did not Nato get the hell out in 2003 saying mission Afghan anarchy accomplished? As we won the GWB war on terrorism by creating more terrorists than we had before.

Oh Magoo Fern, we did it again.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least Fern has an answer, but in MHO not a very good one. So we got out our can of US whoope ass, chased the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and brought back the very thugs and drug traffickers that made the Taliban a better choice for the Afghan people than the very turds Nato allied with. If Fern is right, why did not Nato get the hell out in 2003 saying mission Afghan anarchy accomplished? As we won the GWB war on terrorism by creating more terrorists than we had before.

Oh Magoo Fern, we did it again.
WTH does all that BS have to do with it?

You specifically said that 2002 the American public (90%) supported "nation building".

I'll calling BS on that.

Show me a poll taken at that time demonstrating 90% (or something near, heck I'll accept 75%) support for nation building. I have no recollection of the American support "nation building" then.

Fern
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,514
24
76
I think Fern is correct, in 2002 we wanted blood and bomb videos on TV as 9/11 was still fresh. The nation building excuse, err mission came later.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY