• 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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Yes. In fact, I thought back then we got assurances that we were NOT going to "nation build".

Fern
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok daymat and Fern, go ahead and assert, the USA and Nato accomplished anything by getting out our can of whoopse ass after 911?

If it lead to no improvement in 2002-3, why do you assert getting out in 2003 would be better than getting out in 2012? If it was stupid and non productive in 2002, why should such a turd later age into fine vintage wine that is spoiled?

Those are the questions Fern and daymat fail to answer? If it was stupid in 2002, why do you assert it was not stupid then? Does the cat got your tongue on that point?
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,514
24
76
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok daymat and Fern, go ahead and assert, the USA and Nato accomplished anything by getting out our can of whoopse ass after 911?

If it lead to no improvement in 2002-3, why do you assert getting out in 2003 would be better than getting out in 2012? If it was stupid and non productive in 2002, why should such a turd later age into fine vintage wine that is spoiled?

Those are the questions Fern and daymat fail to answer? If it was stupid in 2002, why do you assert it was not stupid then? Does the cat got your tongue on that point?
As you hallucinated with Ferns post earlier, you are apparently doing so again. Where do I assert the bolded above, that getting out in 2003 would be better than 2012? The one you say I fail to answer? Is there an imaginary party to this thread Fern and I are not privy too?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok daymat and Fern, go ahead and assert, the USA and Nato accomplished anything by getting out our can of whoopse ass after 911?

If it lead to no improvement in 2002-3, why do you assert getting out in 2003 would be better than getting out in 2012? If it was stupid and non productive in 2002, why should such a turd later age into fine vintage wine that is spoiled?

Those are the questions Fern and daymat fail to answer? If it was stupid in 2002, why do you assert it was not stupid then? Does the cat got your tongue on that point?
Are you now trying to argue that we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan to go after AQ and the Taliban after it was determined they were behind 911?

If so, go ahead and do so.

Me? I at least wanted to see us go in and unload a can of whoop azz after attacking us like that. Then leave? Why not, unlike Iraq it wouldn't have been left it in any worse shape.

I understand the objective some have to leave it in some shape so as to prevent another incident like 911, but frankly I don't think that's an obtainable objective.

Fern
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
I have always said, when the host nation tells us they want us to leave, we should leave.
Ohhh what a clever spin term for DEFEATED!
no cheap copper and look out! china gets a oil pipe thru the middle of Afghanistan......Money talks, bullshit walks
WTC prices will ramp up another 30% bye bye world subsidizing the usa's oil consumption....
HAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Fern asks, "Are you now trying to argue that we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan to go after AQ and the Taliban after it was determined they were behind 911?

If so, go ahead and do so."

Ok Fern I will do so? Because the result proved that it was stupid as we in the USA failed to realize what is Afghanistan and why Afghanistan was the deep do do it was in since basically 1937, the last time Afghanistan had a stable and popular government.

As the USA again made the same mistake it always does, looking at the then government of a given political entity rather than looking at the aspirations of the Afghan people.

As the USA only looked at the rat finks among the Afghan people, corrupt war lords and drug dealers v a popular homegrown reformist movement called the Taliban after 911. That together could not constitute more rat finks than a half a million out of a 31 million Afghan civilian population.

But no no no, the USA was so stupid as to think, that those 30.5 million Afghan population was irrelevant, and instead we should side with the 250, 000 strong set of Afghan thugs instead. And now pinheads like Leon Pinetta and Fern wonder why we failed.

Siding with thugs never works.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Fern asks, "Are you now trying to argue that we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan to go after AQ and the Taliban after it was determined they were behind 911?

If so, go ahead and do so."

Ok Fern I will do so? Because the result proved that it was stupid as we in the USA failed to realize what is Afghanistan and why Afghanistan was the deep do do it was in since basically 1937, the last time Afghanistan had a stable and popular government.

As the USA again made the same mistake it always does, looking at the then government of a given political entity rather than looking at the aspirations of the Afghan people.

As the USA only looked at the rat finks among the Afghan people, corrupt war lords and drug dealers v a popular homegrown reformist movement called the Taliban after 911. That together could not constitute more rat finks than a half a million out of a 31 million Afghan civilian population.

But no no no, the USA was so stupid as to think, that those 30.5 million Afghan population was irrelevant, and instead we should side with the 250, 000 strong set of Afghan thugs instead. And now pinheads like Leon Pinetta and Fern wonder why we failed.

Siding with thugs never works.
Fern is right and you are wrong. No surprise. The Afghan culture is based on tribal affiliations. They have no desire for central government and your "people are people" statement is rather much like that of Neocons, where everyone yearns to be Little Americans. Well in one sense they are like everyone else and that is they want self determination. Like Dumbsfeld you feel there is a solution to make them in our image. The fact is they never wanted that and never will. Karzai was a joke from the beginning and not because of himself personally, but "The President of Kabul" says it all. A federal controlling government is what is not wanted. The Bush administration did not realize that then and you still appear to not know it now.

We should have gone in, done the maximum damage to our enemies and left. 90% of us did not want nation building, we wanted a big can of whoop ass unleashed on our enemies who attacked or supported those who attacked on 9/11. In fact we were told we did NOT do nation building then tried to do it.

It was a fools errand, and any hope of being successful went out the window because those in charge like a paltry few now didn't get it. When we abandoned Afghanistan in favor of Iraq that would have been an end even if our leaders had a clue then.

The body has been dead and cold a long time and we're dying to guard it. Time to cut bait and sail home.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,808
1,125
126
Yes. In fact, I thought back then we got assurances that we were NOT going to "nation build".

Fern
I recall the exact opposite. Yes, GWB did mention in the presidental debates (before 9/11 and Afganistan) that he wasn't into "nation building" but when Afganistan rolled around all of us realized they had gone through literally decades of war and essentially all the infrastructure was destroyed.

Nation building is tough, slow, expensive and tricky. We did manificient jobs after WWII with Japan and Europe (especially compared to what USSR did to Eastern Europe). Unfortunately GWB was distracted by the bright shiny ball of Iraq and we let him sucker us into that expensive ego trip.

The real question is whether the situation in Afganistan is so screwed up at this point that an immediate withdrawal and most likely Taliban takeover is the best solution. Our efforts certainly have been set back enormously in the last month-by US actions.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
I agree! Pack up and leave and cut off all funding. Dont leave anything behind for them to steal. Afghanistan is the war that the democrats wanted to fight. It is all O'Bammah's war.
 
Last edited:

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,294
0
76
Ohhh what a clever spin term for DEFEATED!
no cheap copper and look out! china gets a oil pipe thru the middle of Afghanistan......Money talks, bullshit walks
WTC prices will ramp up another 30% bye bye world subsidizing the usa's oil consumption....
HAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
Reading this post brings to mind one arched eyebrow and a pinkie held to the side of the mouth.
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
21,044
357
126
Yay, we fucked and abandoned yet another country. This is what, like #12 in the last 60 years?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Yay, we fucked and abandoned yet another country. This is what, like #12 in the last 60 years?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Vietnam and the killing fields of Cambial, who is really counting, does it really matter if it #12, or #10, or 15.

But maybe Afghanistan is unique because we in the USA screwed them twice. First we armed the Mujahaddeem with sole purpose of tweaking the nose of the Russian bear, and once that mission was accomplished we in the USA abandoned the Afghan people like a no longer needed tool, and consigned them to a nearly decade long civil war. And stood om the sidelines while the Taliban took over.

And then came back with Al-Quida started 911, and instead of chasing Al-Quida, we decided to chase only the Taliban instead.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
I am getting old so I don't know if my memory is still that reliable. But if I remember correctly, the exact reason we went to war with Taliban is they refused to hand over Bin Laden.

Given that stance and what Bin laden did in 911, America need to invade Afghan and establish a government so they can operate in the Afghan/Pakistan border to hunt down Bin Laden.

That mission was really only completed last year. Time for American to leave.

As for Afghan and nation building, if Afghan people and their president don't want the US to be there, why does America have to spend the resource and time to do something Afghan people don't want us to do?
 

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
Not that I support us being there anymore, however, that's what Karzai says publicly to appease the masses. What he's saying privately may be completely opposite.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,657
13,735
136
Are you now trying to argue that we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan to go after AQ and the Taliban after it was determined they were behind 911?
I think that's false attribution wrt the Taliban. Nor is it like they could have met Bush Admin demands to hand over the leadership of AlQ, either. I also think that LL's understanding of our own sordid involvement in Afghanistan is more accurate. It dates back to the waning years of the Carter Admin, and was intensified during the Reagan/GHWB years, then again with the invasion. It really is quite shameful, but the leadership of the American Right lost any sense of shame a long time ago.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
In recent developments, Karzai is really taking rhetoric off the deep end, and sadly, IMHO, Obama now greatly over estimates our military position in Afghanistan. As Obama remains seeming clueless, not only on the Afghan side of the border, but on the Pakistani side as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/world/asia/gulf-widens-between-us-and-an-increasingly-hostile-karzai.html?ref=global-home

I would not be surprised to see Karazai take his case to the UN and demand an immediate exit of Nato troops. I can't believe Obama pretends recent Afghan incidents will not force the USA out much sooner than he plans.

As Karzai points out these incidents are not new, and its more like the 500'th incident, and a few more such incidents are surly going to be forthcoming to really guild the lily. Because, IMHO, the USA may soon suffer a foreign policy disaster without a better job of damage control.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
In recent developments, Karzai is really taking rhetoric off the deep end, and sadly, IMHO, Obama now greatly over estimates our military position in Afghanistan. As Obama remains seeming clueless, not only on the Afghan side of the border, but on the Pakistani side as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/world/asia/gulf-widens-between-us-and-an-increasingly-hostile-karzai.html?ref=global-home

I would not be surprised to see Karazai take his case to the UN and demand an immediate exit of Nato troops. I can't believe Obama pretends recent Afghan incidents will not force the USA out much sooner than he plans.

As Karzai points out these incidents are not new, and its more like the 500'th incident, and a few more such incidents are surly going to be forthcoming to really guild the lily. Because, IMHO, the USA may soon suffer a foreign policy disaster without a better job of damage control.
I'd like to see us out in 6 to 8 months. Thats actually moving quickly. Let the politicians save face another time.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
56,281
4,695
126
I agree! Pack up and leave and cut off all funding. Dont leave anything behind for them to steal. Afghanistan is the war that the democrats wanted to fight. It is all O'Bammah's war.
Is you stupid? O-Bammah didn't send our troops there in the first place. O'Bammah didn't lose site of the original mission there and focus instead on Iraq...a country that, while it wasn't complying 100% with the UN mandates, was still in 1000% better shape than it is now...

Nope, If GWB would have stayed focused on Afghanistan...gone in, gotten Osama Bin Forgotten, mopped up the Taliban resistance that was fairly minor at the time...and left without trying to rebuild the country into a democratic nation, (something that doesn't seem to work well in that region) then none of the bullshit that's gone on in the past several years would have happened.

While O'Bammah is to blame for us remaining in Afghanistan, the REAL blame for our failure there rests solely and firmly on the shoulders of George W. Bush...the president who fucked that mission in the ass.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,211
126
Is you stupid? O-Bammah didn't send our troops there in the first place. O'Bammah didn't lose site of the original mission there and focus instead on Iraq...a country that, while it wasn't complying 100% with the UN mandates, was still in 1000% better shape than it is now...

Nope, If GWB would have stayed focused on Afghanistan...gone in, gotten Osama Bin Forgotten, mopped up the Taliban resistance that was fairly minor at the time...and left without trying to rebuild the country into a democratic nation, (something that doesn't seem to work well in that region) then none of the bullshit that's gone on in the past several years would have happened.

While O'Bammah is to blame for us remaining in Afghanistan, the REAL blame for our failure there rests solely and firmly on the shoulders of George W. Bush...the president who fucked that mission in the ass.
Thats completely true, but we need to get off the pot and should have long ago.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
17,211
7,302
136
Is you stupid? O-Bammah didn't send our troops there in the first place. O'Bammah didn't lose site of the original mission there and focus instead on Iraq...a country that, while it wasn't complying 100% with the UN mandates, was still in 1000% better shape than it is now...

Nope, If GWB would have stayed focused on Afghanistan...gone in, gotten Osama Bin Forgotten, mopped up the Taliban resistance that was fairly minor at the time...and left without trying to rebuild the country into a democratic nation, (something that doesn't seem to work well in that region) then none of the bullshit that's gone on in the past several years would have happened.

While O'Bammah is to blame for us remaining in Afghanistan, the REAL blame for our failure there rests solely and firmly on the shoulders of George W. Bush...the president who fucked that mission in the ass.

Exactly. Read it and choke Bush bots.
 

NetGuySC

Golden Member
Nov 19, 1999
1,643
4
81
"Afghanistan, the place where nations go to die.... "

There does seem to be some truth to that statement.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
There is somewhat a question here, are we in Afghanistan to continue to nation build at the speed of a snail and without the troops or economic resources to do so?

Or are we in Afghanistan to prevent a Iran to India pipeline that would bring economic prosperity to Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India? After all the US wants such a pipeline routed differently. As the stated policy of the USA.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
56,281
4,695
126
Thats completely true, but we need to get off the pot and should have long ago.
If the US would have used the assets that we wasted in Iraq, we'd have been out of Afghanistan in a year or two, tops.


"Afghanistan, the place where nations go to die.... "

There does seem to be some truth to that statement.
The Soviets couldn't make Afghanistan bend or break...and they were 1000 times more brutal in their treatment of the Afghani citizens than we ever thought of being.

Rebuilding Afghanistan should never have been our mission. Killing Osama Bin Forgotten and the Taliban should have been our ONLY mission there.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY