SEAL Team Six Members Killed in Afghanistan Crash

What were the respective casualty figures in this "butt kicking"? Would the tide have turned against America to the point where Vietnamese troops were landing on the beaches of California? The Vietnamese sacrificed themselves to the bone just to exhaust America's will to fight a war that served them no real practical use in the first place. America had no business being there to support their own puppet dictatorship over the communists, and they were right to pull out in the end. If Vietnam actually posed an existential threat, it would have gone the way of Japan and Germany or worse. It's really stupid to say you kicked someone's butt when they landed 90% of the punches before heading on their merry way, but conspiracy theorists like you see the American military as nothing more than a death machine, and you'll always look for signs of weakness just like many a devout worshipper constantly seeks signs of the Apocalypse.

IMO there's no point in fighting a war unless you're willing to completely annihilate your opponent if necessary, down to the last drop of drinkable water. Doesn't look like Afghanistan poses that kind of threat at this point or into the foreseeable future, and we've had more than enough time to train a new army for them, so we should be wrapping it up now.

Does that logic only apply to Christian empires?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The point is that as far as the rest of the world is concerned, we lost. The fact that we annihilated millions of Vietnamese and untold others is neither here nor there. They never were a threat to us as indeed was the case with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course not and no reason to think it would unless you're judging me through one of your bias filters.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well my point is that it's not just western foreign intervention that's bad for Afghanistan. Iran and Pakistan don't exactly have any entitlements there either, but they often seem to act as if they do, as if they're somehow more domestic than NATO just because they live closer to the borders. So if you're going to condemn a foreign presence there, it should apply to all foreigners, including Arabs, Persians, Uzbeks, Pakistanis, etc etc.

But again, I could tell you the sky is blue and you probably wouldn't believe me, so believe whoever and whatever you want as long as you don't go around trying to shank "the man".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where is the evidence for this presence?

Bottom line, its time for the crusaders to leave. All occupied countries. Period. Its just a matter of time anyway. Its over.

In the meantime, US&NATO are winning. Really. Shhhh...

No, really, we are winning, it all makes sense. :m:

 

You've been shown such many, many times in the past here, by myself and others.

The tactic of rebooting the same old arguments every few weeks is not a productive on.

Please refrain from inflammatory socioreligious baiting. Thanks.

 

Is that what Tahrir Square was all about? Giving Egypt back to the people who originally owned it 1500 years ago before they were ethnically cleansed?

Edit: Heck I shouldn't have taken the bait, sorry about that quadraphonics. There's a lot of hypocrisy in this world with select foreigners being branded as invaders, while other foreigners get a free pass on the lands they've conquered or are in the process of conquering- but most of us already knew that anyhow.

 

My word. :m:

 

What has the Egyptian people gathering in Tahrir Square to do with Western (read alien/foreign/outsider/etc) occupation of AfPakLibRaq?

 

My point is you're very picky about which occupations are bad and which ones are good, which aspects of violent history should be reversed and which ones should be preserved and continued. You portray recent events in the Middle East as if they herald an era of justice in which the west will be brought to its knees, and I'm saying that even if the west were in some kind of serious danger from them (sorry, it isn't), it doesn't mean other imperialist powers and nations aren't trying to exploit these events (Iran and Syria included), i.e. true freedom and justice are a long ways away for the backers of the various Arab/Muslim revolts.

 

I won't agree with the first part of your statement, but

Navy Midshipmen all the way!

 

Not all the indigenous Egyptians (mostly Christians by the 7th century A.D., by the way) were ethnically cleansed when Muslims invaded, massacred and occupied Egypt. Many were pressed into dhimmitude, and over time decided (understandably) that converting to Islam (i.e., joining Big Brother) was preferable to the precarious and hellish existence of dhimmitude. Ditto for many Hindus after Islam conquered India; Persians after Muslims conquered Persia; etc. etc., ad nauseam.

 

CptBork, I'm dismayed that you appear to have made incorrect assumptions about me in two back-to-back posts. Judging by many of the replies I've seen on this forum, you can be forgiven for thinking that I, too, am one of those who will defend an opinion to the death no matter what.

Opinions are like rectums - everybody's got one. My opinions are always based on the evidence available to me subject to change immediately upon receipt of incontrovertible proof.

That said, I've got bucketfuls of evidence as to the US and NATOs intervention in Afghanistan and zero for Iran and Pakistan. Perhaps I'm not looking in the right place or hard enough!???

Furthermore, as an American living in the UK and therefore part of Europe and NATO, I'm utterly pissed off that all of these countries and organisations that would demand my allegiance are commiting atrocities in foreign lands. The fact that they dress it up as bringing democracy to the world or humanitarian missions just makes it all the more disgusting.

I would condemn any country, religion, party, etc that was doing the same thing but it's no good getting all high and mighty when we're the worst of the bunch!

 

Apologies if being a newbie here means that I've missed the unspoken context of Strawdogs' post BUT...

...I saw nothing in Strawdog's post to indicate that the west's current crusade against the Middle East was any better or worse than previous crusaders.

I DO see you implying that the west's crusade is OK because other other nations are doing it or did it somewhere in human history. What kind of twisted logic is that?

IMO, you're absolutely right about the Arab revolts. The backers of the Libyan revolt (USA, UK, France, etc) made it perfectly clear what they want to give Libyans. A puppet government just like Afghanistan and Iraq while they strip away the countries wealth, resources, identity and dignity.

I cannot really tell who backed the Egyptian revolt but considering all they had was rocks and loose building materials to fight back with, I suggest it wasn't the USA. What they got was the sacrifice of Mubarek while his number 2 man (the one who ran the secret police) got put in charge. In other words, they got jack in the way of change!

 

Thanks for the articulate response Cap`n.

IMO all occupations are bad. Imperialism is a scourge that should have ended after WW2. That the West is still immersed in a culture of war, utterly negates the sacrifices made by the millions who perished in WW2. That nations still believe in and pursue imperial domination is sadly, laughable. And to attempt to call it something else is dishonest. It seems quite clear that the costly lessons of history have not sunk in, and thus, given that the West is the dominating economic, cultural and military force in the world today, one has to strongly question the intellect, integrity and morality of Western leaders. Surely, surely, we should could be living in a more peaceful world today?

The events in the ME should be left alone to run its course. Instead they are being engineered and arbitrarily supported or not by Western interests. There will be no lasting political solution outside 100% internal political process.

This is not an accurate POV. The nations named above have absolutely no history of imperial pursuits and thus there is no precedent for such a conclusion. However, a cursory glance at the Western nations paint an entirely different and predictable picture. Additionally, if these nations are attempting to gain influence, it would be quite understandable as a counterweight to Western interference and occupation, which incidentally (not) of course goes way back to Bin Laden`s publicly stated initial gripe.

Of course, then it stands to reason, the sooner the occupiers leave, the sooner internal political processes can evolve and settle? The tired old boogyman, that Iran or whoever will interfere and dominate these nations is bollocks and without precedent. This is an utterly common notion, from all outside the crusader camp. :m:

 

Including occupations of defeated Axis powers after WWII?

What would have been the preferable alternative, there?

What about occupations by non-belligerents, such as UN-mandated peacekeeping operations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations

Why at that specific time, exactly?

So, you think the world geopolitical configuration today is morally equivalent to what would have resulted if the Nazis and Imperial Japan had prevailed in that conflict?

Difficult, considering that the Middle East is a crossroads region.

But why is this isolation supposed to operate solely on the regional level? Does the demand for non-interference not extend down to states with regions? Or between areas within states? Or even down to the individual level?

And since there is no such thing as a 100% internal political process - not anywhere, at any time in history - it follows that there will be no lasting political solution to anything, ever.

Which should be obvious already - politics is a process for managing issues, not some means by which some utopian stable end-point is reached.

You are being ignorant to the point of silliness, there. Don't lecture people on history and precedent if you refuse to first learn the basics yourself.

The thing about war and self-interest is that everybody can justify their own expansionism as a reaction to/hedge against everyone else's. Only a fool would think you can use that to construe a rational argument for taking one side or the other. Principle is just that - it isn't the same as whichever national interest you want to endorse today.

No it isn't. If you aren't willing to learn what the precedents are, then stop making naked, unsupported declarations about them. Do some homework, if you want to argue in these terms.

But you should just stick with the "regional non-interference" line, if you can put some meat on it. Just argue that local, regional interference is preferable to distant interference, rather than having to pretend that these petty tyrranies are pussycats.

 

Welcome to the civilized world and REVENGE CULTURE.

Lesson. You should not defend your home against invaders. :m:

 

Invaders my ass, the Taliban come largely from Pakistan and other countries and are responsible for killing 400,000 Afghans.

 

If killing some guy who killed your soldiers is REVENGE CULTURE, then isn't using violence to "defend your home against invaders" also REVENGE CULTURE?

These are both acts of violence premised on reacting to prior acts of violence against one's self, no?

 

These were temporary (apart from Japan - Okinawa still occupied to this day) and part of the solution for lasting PEACE.

No problem with reasonable logical measures. But preferable? To vacate Okinawa say 50 years ago?

A good idea in principle, and successful at times. The UN has become far too POLITized, NATOized and VETOized. I mean are the Palestinians still occupied or what?

Because the European Imperial nations were severely weakened and the British Empire could no longer afford Empire. And frankly the horrors of WW2 should have sufficed to birth a rethink around the entire morality of subjugation. Not to mention trying something NEW in the face of the innumerable lessons from history.

Sadly, it is hypothetically no different, and perhaps worse. You have oppression and an oppressors. You have countries that are being ravaged and innocents that are being slaughtered. Try tallying the dead form all the pointless and barbaric conflicts since WW2.

Any region is crossroads region, if one has an agenda.

Semantics. To be clear, for example, what happens in Libya stays in Libya. its the business of Libyans. Everyone else get the hell out. Why is that so hard to fathom?

I don`t necessarily agree with your limitations on internal processes. Notwithstanding, why not limit the interference as much as possible? Are you arguing that NATO military occupation intervention in Libya has or will achieve anything? What do you think is the goal apart from installing a West friendly regime? Surely you know the backed opposition are a bunch of crims and murderers as well?

Exactly, just as WAR is not a good process for managing issues. Are you forgetting the AU and other negotiation initiatives that were started and then rejected by yours truly?

My friend, you flatter yourself. Point out where I err? Point out Iran and Syria's foreign bases? Point out their imperial aspirations and interventions in the last couple of hundred years?

Of course, but one cannot get a clear view unless one removes the prime current thorn. The thorn which, to name a few, sticks into Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, and is jabbing away at Syria and Iran.

Oh boy. One needs to see past the limitations of the current Western worldview my friend.

You see, this is where you get confused. I never stated any of the above. :m:

 

No, that`s called resistance culture.

Yes, they are both acts of violence. But as you know, if you remove the cause, the symptom disappears. :m: