no argument from me there. It almost makes me despair to think that with all the corruption, narco-terrorism, and Taliban resurgence that 108,000 troops (68k American, 40k NATO) troops are expected to pacify an area bigger than iraq. I'm glad that there's a push for more troops but I think we need alot more than 45,000 as reinforcements in my view.
no argument from me there. It almost makes me despair to think that with all the corruption, narco-terrorism, and Taliban resurgence that 108,000 troops (68k American, 40k NATO) troops are expected to pacify an area bigger than iraq. I'm glad that there's a push for more troops but I think we need alot more than 45,000 as reinforcements in my view.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
It won't matter now, it would have mattered around the time when the US decided that the war was won and removed the troops, right now it doesn't matter how many troops are sent because without a complete and utter USAF/RAF attack on civilian areas with around 80% civilian casualties in the process this is a hopeless mission.
The Taliban are no longer contained, they operate freely in all areas in Afghanistan nowadays.
The war was lost a long time ago. This is MAYBE damage control but it continues to get worse by the day.
How much can you stomach is the question most relevant today.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
The war in Afghanistan is far from over. As the war in Iraq winds down, and kinetic operations come to an end, more and more forces are being brought to bear on Afghanistan. Every soldier I know can't wait for their chance to get over to Afghanistan and "get in the fight." They groan at the news of a boring deployment to Iraq. There are a lot of US soldiers who can't wait for their chance to win the fight in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile the UK Special Operations community seems to have abandoned all hope.... yeah right. I'll believe JoS is an "operator" when pigs fly.
Meanwhile the UK Special Operations community seems to have abandoned all hope.... yeah right. I'll believe JoS is an "operator" when pigs fly.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
I don't know what the fuck an "operator" (well i do know what an operator is, but not in this context) is nor have i ever claimed to be one.
I've stated why and i have stated how it happened so i'm not going to waste more time arguing about it.
Sorry kiddo, you're not going to rile me up today.
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
Better yet why don't we just Make All drugs legeal and many other things that are banned so we can make FREE CHOICES! The Drug heads will not live long let them go don't turn their Fix into CRIME let them have what they choose of there own FREE WILL. Give them access to cheap easy to get drugs .
Protect people from themselves removes FREEDOM and CHOICE . Because of that Natural selection in the gene pool. Is poluted with their blood . Let them go they contaminate us and their generic deficicies grow stronger in the genie . Pool /
Choice = Natural Selection . Remove choice = Polluted gene pool . Natural order . LAW DISRUPTS IT pollutes it.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I think I understand your comment.
If I do, you suggest legalized Opium would rid the gene pool of future 'dopers'. Not sure users of drugs are obviated from creating baby thems.
Freedom of choice has more merit, I think. Legalize drugs and tax them would generate revenue, save money on drug czars and those folks and save lots of Prison space so we could lock up Drunk Drivers. I'd even vote for providing a State for them to live in peacefully. Maybe section off Montana. I'd not mind marijuana after seeing what it does for some folks who won't use Oxy this or that. They can live near by ok. Booze... it's already legal and taxed and just as bad or good depending on your view.
So yeah. Give the poor folks who farm that stuff a market and there ya go.. they'd be our buddy.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: bamacre
It does not.
And the link you gave clearly shows this.
Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
Non-interventionism ? Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
Protectionism ? There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
Guess I don't know what you mean then... when you say Isolationism is not equal to non-interventionism or that there is a big difference...
I think Geo. Washington said it best...
" George Washington in his Farewell Address placed the accent on isolationism in a manner that would be long remembered:
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
isolationism = non-interventionism + protectionism
non-interventionism = isolationism - protectionism
So, they are not the same, although I do see what you mean, that some have referred to non-interventionism as isolationism. But today, I think it's vitally important not to confuse the two, because of the obvious difference. I would imagine the vast majority of Americans who would support a non-interventionist foreign policy would definitely NOT support economic isolationism.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
You do realize, for example, that if we had an isolationist economic policy, Intel and AMD would have to decide either to remain in the US, or stop doing business in other countries. Now, let's assume they stayed (and they likely wouldn't), what do you think that would do to the cost of a microprocessor? Or perhaps I am not understanding your position, and in that case, please correct me.
Edit: You may find this interesting.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: bamacre
It does not.
And the link you gave clearly shows this.
Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
Non-interventionism ? Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
Protectionism ? There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
Guess I don't know what you mean then... when you say Isolationism is not equal to non-interventionism or that there is a big difference...
I think Geo. Washington said it best...
" George Washington in his Farewell Address placed the accent on isolationism in a manner that would be long remembered:
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
isolationism = non-interventionism + protectionism
non-interventionism = isolationism - protectionism
So, they are not the same, although I do see what you mean, that some have referred to non-interventionism as isolationism. But today, I think it's vitally important not to confuse the two, because of the obvious difference. I would imagine the vast majority of Americans who would support a non-interventionist foreign policy would definitely NOT support economic isolationism.
Well, Adams was an Isolationist so was Jefferson and Washington and arguably the Colonies and US was for quite some time before and after them (even though I don't think the word was in use then. At no time did most isolationists seek literally to isolate the US or the Colonies from either international culture or commerce.
I think our quabble is to do with a definition of a word that changed over time and what it means to some/most today versus at some other time.
Some dictionaries indicate 'or protectionism' in place of 'and protectionism' but I agree it is both but needing clear definition of the bits.
Protectionism to me does not mean complete elemination of international commerce but, rather, legal remedy to control trade to our objective. And, of course, Non-intervention does not mean never go to war.
Some economists see isolationism as a favorably controlled trade situation while favoring the intervention in strategic economic locales and binding alliances that further that notion.
Some brilliant folks think isolationism is a myth.
While others maintain that we've been Isolationists until the FDR Administration. Even though we've been in wars declared and undeclared before that time.
I think, anyhow.
OK.. let's see.. "J"
Juxtaposition ... it is the next letter and somewhat related..
Rustler
Golden Member
- Jan 14, 2004
- 1,253
- 1
- 81
Washington Post, called "The Limits of Force: Iraq and Afghanistan Aren't Ours to Win or Lose," Hagel writes, "It is easy to get into war, not so easy to get out. Vietnam lasted more than 10 years; soon, we will slip into our ninth year in Afghanistan. We have been in Iraq for almost seven years. These wars have cost more than 5,100 American lives; more than 35,000 have been wounded; a trillion dollars has been spent, with billions more departing our Treasury each month. We forgot all the lessons of Vietnam and the preceding history. Bogging down large armies in historically complex, dangerous areas ends in disaster. In Vietnam, we kept feeding more men, material and money into a corrupt Vietnamese government as our own leaders continued to deceive themselves and the American people. The president and his national security team should listen to recordings of conversations that President Lyndon B. Johnson had with Sen. Richard Russell about Vietnam, especially those in which LBJ told Russell that we could not win in Vietnam but that he did not want to pull out and be the first American president to lose a war. Difficult decisions with historic consequences are coming soon for President Obama."
Diffrent story same result, billions wasted, lives wasted, we are a proxy of the Anglo British banking empire doing thier bidding.
Diffrent story same result, billions wasted, lives wasted, we are a proxy of the Anglo British banking empire doing thier bidding.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Great powers can conquer and re-image other great powers because they have foundations that made them a great power to springboard. It's a different story when a great power conquers a "nation" that has nothing to build off of, so we shouldn't try. We should have achieved our immediate goals militarily with a 8-12 month assault and cleared out... and that's what we should do in the future. Nation building and SASO aren't worth it in cases like this.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Actually, Afghaistan has oil, natural gas etc.. along with Gold, Copper, Silver and other minerals. They have yet to exploit those assets, though.
It won't be long before we set up the drilling machines.
A large percentage of their population live on 2$ a day. 40% unemployment etc.. time to get them to work. Another hidden agenda ??
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
There are lots of lessons to learn from Afghanistan, but if nothing else, we should learn that we can't do something like Reagan did, act on short terms interests, and not expect it to come back and bite us.
And I also think much of the Nato new found pessimism was due to the very recent Afghan Obama mini surge, that actually put boots on the ground in areas of the country we have not even bothered to visit for years, and when Nato discovered that the Taliban and Afghan government officials in bed together and running the bulk of the country as a thugocracy, its hard to retain much optimism when they tried so hard to ignore the obvious for too many years. Especially when government officials are even more eager than the Taliban to protect their source of wealth and power, and are perfectly willing to shoot at Nato troops in the process.
But I have been saying for years, job one is fighting the corruption, and no one listened, but even at this late date, I remain optimistic because we need to stamp our the opium cultivation that feeds the corruption. And that we can do with aerial surveillance and herbicides. Most of the 99.9 % of the Afghan people get no benefit out of corruption, starve the thugs at the top of drug money and it becomes a manageable problem. Kill opium plants, not people even if we have to give food aid the Afghan farmers.
And I also think much of the Nato new found pessimism was due to the very recent Afghan Obama mini surge, that actually put boots on the ground in areas of the country we have not even bothered to visit for years, and when Nato discovered that the Taliban and Afghan government officials in bed together and running the bulk of the country as a thugocracy, its hard to retain much optimism when they tried so hard to ignore the obvious for too many years. Especially when government officials are even more eager than the Taliban to protect their source of wealth and power, and are perfectly willing to shoot at Nato troops in the process.
But I have been saying for years, job one is fighting the corruption, and no one listened, but even at this late date, I remain optimistic because we need to stamp our the opium cultivation that feeds the corruption. And that we can do with aerial surveillance and herbicides. Most of the 99.9 % of the Afghan people get no benefit out of corruption, starve the thugs at the top of drug money and it becomes a manageable problem. Kill opium plants, not people even if we have to give food aid the Afghan farmers.
I heard it in the local news, that it was to please the clerics for there votes.
Some where saying that they would just change it back to normal after the elections.
Much of our hope lies in the hearts and minds of the decent people who absolutely refuse to allow the Taliban to win:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WO...ndex.html?iref=topnews
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WO...ndex.html?iref=topnews
The lashkars are comprised of native people who are against the brutal way with which the Taliban attempts to rule the people. They prefer to rule their areas using a much more peaceful form of local governance that may be the only possible solution for that region -- councils; and they have absolutely no interest in reaching beyond their immediate regions. As far as I'm concerned, that alone is reason enough to support them.
They may never resemble or support the type of governments we have in the West, but they're heads and shoulders above the Taliban/AQ alternatives.
Comparing them to AQ was amateur, but I've come to expect no less from you.
Just as we did in Iraq, we should leverage local groups, such as these lashkars, to eliminate the extremist groups who threaten the entire region. Failure to take advantage of their voluntary assistance would be a mistake.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
And guess what, some of the strongest parts of the Afghan resistance is now compromised of old line mujaheddin fighters who have now allied with the Taliban. As they teach what they learned from the CIA on how to run an effective guerrilla war to new generations. The old line mujahaddin types may not have much use for Taliban ideology, but they share the agenda of expelling the foreign invaders. All we have done is replaced the Russians and at least the Russians built better infrastructure is now the Afghan sentiment.
Its always extremely naive to assume that one can help create an entity without that entity having soon having its own agenda of power and survival in even the not very long term of a year or so.
All I can say to you TheSkinsFans, you are almost as naive as GWB&co.
Its always extremely naive to assume that one can help create an entity without that entity having soon having its own agenda of power and survival in even the not very long term of a year or so.
All I can say to you TheSkinsFans, you are almost as naive as GWB&co.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter