Afghanistan - What is the objective?

Actually, it's yours.

You have not illustrated what proportion of all arms used in these wars were provided by the US.

You have not illustrated what the outcome of the use of these arms was, or what proportion of that outcome was by US-supplied arms.

You have not illustrated why it is that I should blame the entire US for the actions of one or another of their companies, but should not blame the entire islamic world for the actions of some of their adherents. (I know your comprehension is generally poor, so let me explain clearly: I don't.)

Your entire argument is based on something you stumbled on on the internet.

And you say that I have trouble with comprehension.

I think I know what I need to about your argument.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

SSDD.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I supported my assertions with relevant citations.

Feel free to back up yours.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

None of that explains why the Afghan "resistance fighters" are killing their own people at astonishing rates. I'm still waiting an answer for that, SAM, in addition to the reasons why you defend such tactics.

If the USA gave 500 billion weapons to the Afghans, surely you don't use THAT as an excuse for those same Afghanis to kill other Afghanis, do you? Oh, surely not!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sam - it's not my argument. It's yours.

You need to illustrate the following:

Otherwise, kindly shut up.

 

I did not make any claims as to the relevancy of the above. The fact that the US supplied weapons to 20 out of 27 wars and mostly to oppressive regimes is sufficient to support my case. Even if one is somehow deaf dumb and blind to Gitmo or the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. If you think for any reason, its not, its up to you to provide the evidence in rebuttal.

Are you sure you're a scientist?

 

Then the relevancy of your argument is nil.

Are you sure you're a scientist?

 

Actually, if we are applying that standard, it nullifies all your arguments.

 

Takes two in a war. The U.S supplied Afghanistan in the 80s thinking they would work things out and everything would be fine. Look how well that worked out.

From your posts you dont think the taliban was repressive.

 

You need to look at the legal definition of enemy combatant. It's not clear what he and others under arms and out of uniform are.

 

In retrospect, should have let Communism run its full course. And just watch.

 

So giving weapons to Afghanis is the reason that they're killing other Afghanis at such astonishing rates?? So if we give more weapons, then it will cause more Afghani deaths? Easy way to win the war, huh?

Just because America (or anyone) gives guns to people, that somehow forces them to use those guns to kill their own people???? And that's your excuse for the Muslim-on-Muslim violence in Afghanistan?

Baron Max

 

I can dig up the exact text if you like, but I doubt it will make a difference to you, given the mindset you've shown so far. It's in Peter Bergen's The Osama bin Laden That I Know, which is largely collections of overseas media sources augmented with Bergen's writings.

 

Hell, we should have helped the Russians!!

Baron Max

 

Maybe we should help no one.

 

Let the chips fall where they may, as they say.

 

First, we should notice, that as usual, you refuse to be open and answer questions about your motives and your overall point. You'd rather argue and muck around in rhetoric, hiding as much as possible, until it's useful to you.

Secondly, I'm curious how, if this is all some sinister Bush energy scheme (the crackpot Michael Moore idea), you reconcile your theory with the fact that Obama is INCREASING the US involvement in Afghanistan and consistently preached about the rightness of the mission there.

You keep crowing about superior knowledge, but in typical fashion you have shown absolutely nothing to back that claim up. Fuck, do you ever back anything up? In fact, I would argue they have inferior knowledge, in that the Taliban's haven in Pakistan has proved fairly impenetrable to outside intelligence agencies.

It is. The US probably has tacit permission to do so. And it's very different than having boots on the ground, permission for which the Pakistanis have consistently denied. Currently, neither Afghan or US troops can cross the border for reconnaissance or Ops.

 

Yeah, but then people will complain about us being such a rich nation and NOT helping others!

I get the impression sometimes that lots of people think the USA should just fly big cargo planes over other nations and drop $20 bills by the planeload.

Baron Max

 

Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were never tried in court, you know? So are you reserving judgment on them and their historical actions, too?

Seriously, what's your game here?

You're not being fair. You're not being objective. You're just being obtuse. Now you're either doing this out of some misplaced sense of moral righteousness, or for ideological and rhetorical reasons you can't accept the truth staring you straight in the face, because you already made your mind up to accept another truth. There is a word for that: Denial.

Either way your actions are silly. You seem like a smart enough fellow. This isnot noble, and it's certainly not sensible.

 

its funny though...the Nazi's blitzkrieging across Europe, communism building walls and shooting people jumping over them and now this.

 

Sam you need to look at the import/export laws in the US.

It's very difficult for the US govt. to stop companies from selling arms abroad.