Thread: Afghanistan - What is the objective?

  1. #241
    Registered Senior Member DiamondHearts's Avatar
    Posts
    2,558
    Well America has been unable to defeat an impoverished group on nomads, its pretty sad really. This speaks volumes for the lack of discipline and bravery of the US troops. Not to mention that this has been going on for 8 years. Pathetic really.

    We all know the reason why, couples with the lack of courage and disciple on the part of the Americans, the Afghani resistance is resolute and fearless. Warriors like them cannot be bought by high-tech weapons and armor, they are made from decades of war and resistance.

    Afghanistan Zindabad. Jivay Sipah e Afghanistan.

  2. #242
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by DiamondHearts View Post
    Well America has been unable to defeat an impoverished group on nomads, its pretty sad really. This speaks volumes for the lack of discipline and bravery of the US troops.
    Oh, the military could wipe Afghanistan from the face of the Earth if the politicians would just turn them loose. And you know that as well as me!

    Personally, I'm beginning to think that the soldiers are being held back because we all know that if they stay, the Muslims will keep killing other Muslims until there are no Muslims left in the country.

    Baron Max

  3. #243
    Registered Member vhawk's Avatar
    Posts
    101
    oh dear now we are a slanging match, rather than intelligent debate. i don't think there is any call for calling American soldiers cowardly, they are merely doing their job, rather bravely IMHO, in any event it is not brave to attack defenseless civilians whosoever does it. crazy maniac emotional thinking or killing anyone ever is wrong and the cause of all the misery in this world

  4. #244
    disseminated primatemaia StrawDog's Avatar
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Max View Post
    Oh, the military could wipe Afghanistan from the face of the Earth if the politicians would just turn them loose. And you know that as well as me!

    Personally, I'm beginning to think that the soldiers are being held back because we all know that if they stay, the Muslims will keep killing other Muslims until there are no Muslims left in the country.

    Baron Max
    That does not say much for your humanity I am afraid.

    It "seems" that the above vitriol represents the EXACT reason for the hate and resistance against the invaders.

  5. #245
    disseminated primatemaia StrawDog's Avatar
    Posts
    3,373
    Quote Originally Posted by vhawk View Post
    oh dear now we are a slanging match, rather than intelligent debate. i don't think there is any call for calling American soldiers cowardly, they are merely doing their job, rather bravely IMHO, in any event it is not brave to attack defenseless civilians whosoever does it. crazy maniac emotional thinking or killing anyone ever is wrong and the cause of all the misery in this world
    Thanks vhawk. That at least is honest.

  6. #246
    Registered Member vhawk's Avatar
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by StrawDog View Post
    That does not say much for your humanity I am afraid.

    It "seems" that the above vitriol represents the EXACT reason for the hate and resistance against the invaders.
    seconded, shades of Dr. Strangelovecoming from the wipe out the world brigade

  7. #247
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by StrawDog View Post
    It "seems" that the above vitriol represents the EXACT reason for the hate and resistance against the invaders.
    As I've said numerous times, I have no problem with the Afghans fighting the Americans/coalition forces. Where I have a problem is how you try to defend Afghan Muslim "resistance fighters" murdering innocent Afghan Muslim women and children in marketplace attacks and suicide bombings.

    More Afghani Muslim civilians are killed by the Muslim fighters than are killed by all of the coalition/UN forces. How can that be called "resistance" to the "invaders"?

    And that same idiotic "resistance" is going on in Iraq, too. How can you defend such cowardly "resistance"?

    Baron Max

  8. #248
    Registered Member vhawk's Avatar
    Posts
    101
    does it matter frightfully what the religion of the people on kills is?it's hardly constructive to be a suicide bomber but cowardly- hmmm I'm not so sure. it takes guts to blow oneself up

  9. #249
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by vhawk View Post
    does it matter frightfully what the religion of the people on kills is? ....
    Only in this particular context.

    SAM and DH are trying to defend the Afghani "resistance", yet those same "resistance fighters" are actually killing more Afghani civilians than "occupiers". How can that be defended as "resistance"????

    If China invades the USA, should US citizens begin killing their own people as a way of fighting the Chinese invaders???

    Baron Max

  10. #250
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    The Americans want them to kill each other. Its what their arms industry depends on:

    IRAQ:

    Last summer American military commanders spent millions of dollars on "concerned local citizens" programs—essentially paying off tribal sheiks to keep their followers from planting roadside bombs. In Tikrit's Salah Ad Din province, the Army has spent more than $5 million to buy the loyalty of 26 different sheiks. (Kanan is not among them, although another sheik from the same family is.) With Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's central government weaker than ever—unable to provide basic services even to Baghdad—power brokers in the provinces are enjoying something of a renaissance. That's fine with Kanan al-Sadid. "We have to get rid of central control," he says, exhaling a cloud of French-cigarette smoke.

    Yet "government from the bottom up" is not without risks. Critics say empowering regional strongmen is creating a warlord state in Iraq, with tribal and religious leaders operating increasingly independently—and often unconstitutionally. At best, the breakdown into local fiefdoms is not necessarily consistent with political reconciliation at the center, the strategic goal of U.S. diplomats. At worst, power struggles among local leaders—particularly in the southern Shiite heartland—could erupt into all-out civil war.
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/42453

    AFGHANISTAN:

    Afghanistan's ambassador to the US, Said Jawad, has said a US-backed plan to form local tribal groups to help combat the insurgency is very risky.

    The US hopes groups similar to those that have had success in Iraq will counter the growing insurgency and the lack of security forces.

    But Mr Jawad told the BBC the plan could backfire.

    He said it could undermine state institutions and actually strengthen warlords and criminals.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7828611.stm

    PAKISTAN:

    TIn a key finding of an investigative study by the Washington-based organization that does investigative reporting and research on significant public issues Center for Public Integrity, the U.S. military aid to Pakistan soared to $4.2 billion after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack compared to $9.1 million in the three years before the attack boosting Pakistan to the top tier of countries receiving military funding.
    http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/5126

    SOMALIA:

    The Bush administration is helping empower the very same warlords that were responsible for the "Black Hawk Down" fiasco in Mogadishu and the deaths of eighteen American soldiers.

    As Chris Floyd points out, "The attack also openly allies the United States with repressive dictatorship of Ethiopia, whose troops – trained and supplied by the Americans already – invaded Somalia to join with the local warlords in ousting the Islamic movement that had taken control of the country after more than 15 years of violent anarchy."

    The disgusting irony of this is lost on jingoistic cheerleaders for war on Fox News and talk radio, who are applauding the air strikes under the banner of finding and destroying America's enemies, when in reality the Bush administration is aiding the very same thugs that butchered and humiliated U.S. troops fourteen years ago, dragging them around the streets in celebration

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...rswarlords.htm

    Good old American entrepreneurship?

  11. #251
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    The Americans want them to kill each other.
    Ahh, so the Americans made the Afghani "resistance fighters" kill the Afghan women and childern in suicide attacks? And they made the Afghani "resistance fighters" throw acid in the faces of young school girls?

    Wow! We Americans can make anyone do anything, huh? Shit, it's no wonder America is the world's most powerful nation ....we make people kill their own people for us!!

    Baron Max

  12. #252
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Yeah, think "giving millions of dollars and arms to whacked out students" in the US.

    Thirteen of the top 25 U.S. arms recipients in the developing world in 2006/07 were either undemocratic governments or regimes guilty of major ongoing human rights abuses (see appendix). This is a one-third reduction in the number (18) of top U.S. recipients that fit these categories when we last surveyed these trends in 2005, but the number of such recipients contrasts sharply with the Bush administration's pro-democracy rhetoric. The majority of the undemocratic and/or human-rights-abusing governments armed by the United States are in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Bahrain) and South Asia (Afghanistan and Pakistan). Although the administration's motivations for arming these nations-protecting oil flows, supporting antiterrorism efforts, or promoting coalition partnerships in theaters of war-are not without merit, the rationales for making these sales and their effectiveness in achieving U.S. policy goals need to be reconsidered. For example, does arming the Saudi regime make it easier or harder for Riyadh to move toward a more open, more stable political system that will keep that nation's oil on the world market uninterrupted by internal or external conflict? Will U.S. weapons supplied to Iraqi and Afghan forces end up in the right hands or disappear into local black markets where they could just as easily end up in the possession of anti-U.S. rebels, insurgents, and terrorists? Has the U.S. decision to arm and support Ethiopia in its recent war against Somalia helped to stabilize or destabilize the Horn of Africa?

    http://www.newamerica.net/publicatio...ons_war_2008_0

  13. #253
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Yeah, think "giving millions of dollars and arms to whacked out students" in the US.
    We already do that, SAM. But the results are far, far from anything going on in Afghanistan.

    Personally, I'm beginning to believe that Muslims just plain enjoy killing other Muslims. It happens far too frequently to be caused by anything else as far as I can see.

    And I just have orgasms if, as you say, all the Americans have to do is wave a little money and the Afghan Muslim go out killing other Afghan Muslims! Damn, that's got to be the way to fight this war. Forget weapons of war, just hand out money and point to other Afghan Muslims ....they'll do all the killing for us! What a deal!

    Baron Max

  14. #254
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Then you'll really enjoy this:

    Reta, in Spanish street slang, describes his initiation as an assassin, at the age of 13, for the Mexican Gulf Cartel, one of the country's two major drug gangs.

    "I thought I was Superman. I loved doing it, killing that first person," Reta says on the videotape obtained by CNN. "They tried to take the gun away, but it was like taking candy from kid."

    In Cardona's interrogation tape, there are clues that "Los Zetas" are reaching deeper and deeper into the United States. Cardona is asked, "Where else are the Zetas?" And Cardona responds, "I've heard in Dallas and Houston."

    And that's why the cartel recruited these young Americans. Cardona and Reta could move freely and easily back and forth across the border with Mexico.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/12/...ens/index.html

  15. #255
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    21,051
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Yeah, think "giving millions of dollars and arms to whacked out students" in the US.
    Out of curiousity, what are these Afghans recieving arms then? Crazed terrorists, impoverished nomads, whacked-out students or the heroic resistance? Because the usage and meaning seems to change depending on the context and audience.

  16. #256
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Its as flexible as the US motivations as an arms supplier

    U.S. arms and military training played a role in 20 of the world's 27 major wars in 2006/07
    http://www.newamerica.net/publicatio...ons_war_2008_0

  17. #257
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    21,051
    Hmm. Again, you're grouping the whole US here. Which you decry otherwise.

    About those figures....pretty small, most of them. Who "played the rest of the role", and why? Or is that unimportant? (To you.)

  18. #258
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    Hmm. Again, you're grouping the whole US here. Which you decry otherwise.

    About those figures....pretty small, most of them. Who "played the rest of the role", and why? Or is that unimportant? (To you.)
    The fact that you think supplying arms to 20 of the 27 major wars is a pretty small figure speaks for itself. And the US supplies the weapons as a country, last I heard, the Americans elect their government. If they are asleep at the helm when it comes to accountability, when its American tax dollars at work, who is to blame?

  19. #259
    Caput gerat lupinum GeoffP's Avatar
    Posts
    21,051
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    The fact that you think supplying arms to 20 of the 27 major wars is a pretty small figure speaks for itself.
    Not really, because you don't understand the question you're proposing, or else your Googling has got a bit out of control: how much of the arms proportionately were supplied? What was the outcome?

    And the US supplies the weapons as a country, last I heard, the Americans elect their government. If they are asleep at the helm when it comes to accountability, when its American tax dollars at work, who is to blame?
    Interesting. Should I also blame all muslims for the likes of al-Qaradawi? The president of al-Ahzar? The "rape imam"? - the one in Australia, I mean. How about attitudes among some proportion of muslims towards domestic abuse, or women, or homosexuals? Shall I lump them all together, Sam?

  20. #260
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Your reading comprehension skills require a review.

    Clearly the concept of arms sales is foreign to you.

    And you cannot distinguish between an elected government with 50,000 nuclear weapons and a military occupying two countries which has killed a million people, from a man at a podium.

Similar Threads

  1. By Echo3Romeo in forum World Events
    Last Post: 11-20-08, 06:14 PM
    Replies: 81
  2. By DiamondHearts in forum World Events
    Last Post: 07-31-08, 10:10 PM
    Replies: 4
  3. By MattMarr in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 08-02-07, 01:42 PM
    Replies: 6
  4. By Free_Matt_417 in forum Politics
    Last Post: 02-16-07, 10:08 PM
    Replies: 0
  5. By OliverJ in forum World Events
    Last Post: 04-16-06, 06:21 PM
    Replies: 82

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •