We should get out of Afghanistan.

Discussion in 'World Events' started by sculptor, Oct 28, 2019.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,909
    It seems that many who joined the taliban did so to get the foreign soldiers out of their country.
    The Taliban is currently both fighting Isis in Afghanistan, and losing members to Isis due to the US brokered peace between the Afghan government and Taliban.
    If we stay, then Isis becomes stronger.
    And, still, many who are not in Afghanistan, have the illusion of control.
    It is just delusional to think that anyone from outside of Afghanistan can control the people of Afghanistan.
    Also, with us pouring money into Afghanistan, many of the leadership are getting wealthy from our continued support, and many of these would see their countrymen/women continue to suffer for just a few dollars more in their pockets. We foster corruption which does nothing to improve the situation there.

    Your thoughts?
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,364
    Yep.
    So, first step: dump the Republican Party - get it out of power.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,964
    No stay there send more troups and more..much more equipment..at home increase the military budget to five fold the rest of the world combined cause god is on the side of the US and well...think of the jobs...building weapons, bombs, etc and then there is the money to be made in rebuilding the destroyed infrastructure and if course we must address maintaining a permanent occupation and eventually making the place safe enough to sell Mac Donald franchises....
    Sculptor what on Earth were you thinking.
    Alex
     
    sculptor likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,048
    We never learn. National building...just say no.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,364
    "We" learned that long ago. That's why W had to lie about the long planned invasions he launched on the excuse of 9/11, specifically denying that he intended to occupy and build compliant nations throughout the oil and pipeline regions.

    We said no to nation building. But too many of us said yes to the likes of W&Cheney - that's the lesson not learned.
     
  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,372
    Yes, that's probably true.

    I'm not convinced that one is preferable over the other. There's a whole assortment of these Islamic fundamentalist groups, often divided more by personal rivalries among their leaders or ethnic rivalries, than by fundamental differences in ideology or methods.

    I suspect that many Afghans would prefer a more modern secular state as opposed to rule by the Islamic nut-cases. Whether there are enough of them to finally defeat the Islamists, is the question. The answer over close to 20 years is 'no'.

    Yes, I think that most of our Afghan "allies" are pretty corrupt.

    The question as I see it is what to do going forward.

    1. Complete victory seems unlikely, given the fact that many/most Afghans are Islamic nut-cases. If we were going to win, it would have happened by now.

    2. Complete withdrawal might just return Afghanistan to the situation it was in prior to 2001. Effectively another crazy ISIS-style Islamic State straight out of the 'dark ages' waging Jihad against the West.

    (Many Muslims are still living in what is essentially a medieval culture. Things fundamental to us like the renaissance, the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution and the enlightenment are all things imposed on them from outside by colonialists they don't like, so they resent it.)

    3. Perhaps the best future, from our perspective (but not the Afghans'), is to have a never-ending war there. Keep them fighting each other so they don't attack us. Support the secularists, such as they are, and make sure that they are strong enough to be able to hold Kabul and a few other places. Then support them in taking the war to their enemies out in the villages. Keep the Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaida and company on their heels, fighting a defensive battle.

    I don't think that US troops should be doing the actual fighting. Just assist friendly Afghans and help them (in a low-cost sustainable way) protect themselves from being taken over by the Islamists.

    India might be a source of help in that regard. They are very concerned to prevent the spread of Pakistani influence into Afghanistan. (Pakistan provides covert help to many of the Islamists in their battle against the US.) While India probably doesn't want to see its army bogged down there, they might be another major source of aid to the (sorta) "good guy" Afghans. Of course the Afghans have a long history of fighting the Indians, they don't call their mountains the 'Hindu Kush' (Hindu killer) range for nothing.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,048
    If you said yes to W and Cheney that's on you I guess.
     
  11. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  12. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    In all honesty, I have mixed feelings
    apparently, we not only didn't learn a damn thing from Viet Nam, nor did we take history into account before committing to combat in the nation (as Gawdzilla Sama notes above)
     
  13. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    474
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,364
    And if some of the US citizenry did, it's on them.
    As noted: these are all Republican Party wars.
    Again: "we" did in fact learn - from Korea and Vietnam - not to attempt nation building. That's why W had to lie to launch his wars.

    What "we" didn't learn, apparently, is not to elect people like W to the Presidency.
     
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,048
    The problem is there is no "we". The country is divided whether it's rural/urban or educated/uneducated or religious/not so religious. It will be a long time before a rural Texan will be in agreement with an urban Californian.
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  16. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,323
    Why is Korea being lumped in there with Vietnam? The US and other allies successfully defended south Korea from a Soviet and Chinese-backed invasion, today it's a successful prosperous democracy whose citizens remain grateful for the help they received, and their relationship with the rest of the western world is greatly and mutually beneficial. Meanwhile China had to lie about the nature of their invasion because they had no rational justification for it, and they took 1 million casualties in vain just to end up with a stalemate in which the Soviet side lost a small amount of the territory they controlled at the beginning. Plus it demonstrated to China who the real paper tiger is, and they have yet to forget it or they'd have already gone much further with their inferiority complex imperial ambitions.

    Who in America would rather see the entire Korean peninsula falling under Chinese and Russian control just so they can wave more nukes around and continue invading western allies and US/western interests elsewhere? There's nothing wrong with nation building as long as the bulk of it is done willingly by the people inhabiting said nation, and the job of the US etc. is to keep incompetent thieving assholes like Schmelzer and his cousins from interfering.
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  17. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    Just to start a fight, I would point out that communism stopped spreading after the Vietnam War.
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  18. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,323
    No kidding, you'd think 3 million less expansionist troublemakers in the world ought to be of some benefit, right?
     
  19. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    we apparently didn't learn to let the Generals fight the war rather than the politicians, however. We did well with the first Gulf war but then went into idiot mode for the Second and subsequent Afghanistan war.
    spoken like a true fanatic. thanks for the demonstration.
    I'm neither party and I hate them all equally, but I'm not so stupid as to think that one party has better thieves and liars than the other.
    Our two major US parties are just different sides of the same BS coin.

    this is absolutely true. Even here on this forum, or especially here on this forum, it's painfully obvious.
    because they've never been there and they're overly politically ideological?
    you should read the humour thread here - start at this joke: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/humour.162197/page-2#post-3603758
    then read on for the sh*tshow.
    I actually think the posturing is every bit as funny as the joke... It reminds me of a banty rooster we once had that tried to mate with the neighbour's sow. now that was hilarious to watch.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Yazata and sculptor like this.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,364
    Not quite - it was spread into Cambodia, at least partly by the Vietnam War (the US bombed the shit out of Cambodia, which destroyed the opposition to its spread, and abetted takeover by the crazed and desperate in several ways- including some direct aid in the form of weapons and money and drug trade).

    And its replacement by fascism, also partly a result of the Vietnam War (what the US did to Vietnam was a lesson to strongman wannabes everywhere), was often a trade down.
    We did. The faction that launched the Iraq War did not.
    So we see where you get your projections of "hatred" from. And we see that you identify historical and informational accuracy with stupidity, and pride yourself in your independence from any such concerns.
    Meanwhile, anyone who points to the obvious and even dramatic differences between a resurgence of fascism and ordinary bad government is a "fanatic".
    Your case would be a bit stronger if you could identify my cause, of course. Fanatics are supposed to have a cause, right? Or are you just typing juvenile pejoratives again, without bothering about the trivialities of "meaning" and the like?
    They were both failed attempts at nation building, military defeats (stalemate with North Korea in China's pocket was a Chinese win), and launched from a common ideological ground on the basis of lies (Korea's less flagrant, but that was before the rollback of the New Deal in the US got its feet under it).
    Among other concerns, the Chinese feared the establishment of an American client State on their border, and they succeeded in preventing that. They won, essentially - it cost a lot, but the US had military and industrial superiority and was not easy to stop. One could argue that their fear was irrational, but not easily. http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/art...chinas-intervention-in-the-korean-war-in-1950
    And not by the US at gunpoint, which was the thread reference.
    That seems a non-issue - people building their own nations has not been a thread topic.
    The US Republican Party - an important part of the US - is among Schmelzer's "cousins". Or Schmelzer is among their's, if you prefer. He is getting almost the entirety of the content of his posts from their media feeds.

    It's a bit strange to say that the job of the US is to prevent its own incompetent thieving asshole government from interfering with other people's nation building - it's true, in a sense, but a strange way to put it.

    The immediate corollary is that it is the job of the US - apparently, the country itself, its people - to get the US government out of Afghanistan. I fully agree. I was among those traitors and (apparently) "fanatics" who went to the wire in opposition to the US Republican Party invading Afghanistan in the first place.
    But it's a bit late to begin doing that, and the hole dug deeper by installing another Republican disaster of governance at the head of the US military is going to be decades in the escaping.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2019
  21. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    the phrase "What "we" didn't learn, apparently, is not to elect people like W to the Presidency" is subjective and contains your perspective as well as ideological beliefs on the election of W.

    that isn't historical - only the election of W was historical.
    nor is it informational accuracy as it's your opinion, as in, your attitudinal statement about W and lessons learned, otherwise you should have also said "What "we" didn't learn, apparently, is not to elect people like BC or BO to the Presidency".

    well, we can demonstrate you're anti-"W" and you dislike republicans so much that you're willing to completely rewrite history

    your words above, meltdown. they're plain as day, unless, of course, you're also advocating for us to dump the democrats.

    so, are you?
     
    Yazata likes this.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,364
    So a failure to post the standard false equivalences of the Republican bothsider media feed line is a meltdown - a loss of sanity - in the view of supposedly independently minded spouters of Republican talking points.
    That's not new. Opposing the Iraq Invasion was also described as an irrational spasm, a fit of fanaticism, by the Big Lie purveyors of the Republican Party.
    You can't demonstrate a single rewriting of history, even in minor detail, by me.
    I don't dislike all Republicans, in general - many, especially in my neighborhood, are merely elderly and very ignorant of the modern world. I don't blame the vulnerable for being swindled. I blame the swindlers - a tribe you have joined.
    I do dislike fascism, which has taken over the Republican Party, and I do not credit its supporters and Big Lie repeaters with adult judgment or decent morality or even common sense. There aren't many excuses for voting for W or not voting for the serious opponent of his, even once let alone twice, and the blame for the consequences of electing him to the Presidency falls on those who did that.
    Electing the better choice available is something people should learn to do. Electing the worst choice available is something they should learn not to do.
    Bothsides is bullshit. Your false equivalencies - like that - are evidence of your enthrallment by Republican Party propaganda, of your vulnerability to the swill of that fascist Party's lies and deceptions. Since they are flagrant and dirty and inexcusable in a competent adult, on moral and ethical as well as factual grounds, they reveal your bad faith and self deception - the erosion of your character that is the price of having supported fascism and refused to learn better or even admit it, let alone repudiated whatever led to such an ugly mistake.
    It's a sentence, not a phrase - a complete thought.
    It's also historically, objectively, accurate. W did in fact lie about the motivation and agenda of the Iraq invasion and occupation, and did in fact deny the actual motivation and agenda when asked, in fact (there are records) because he knew (from polls etc) that gunpoint nation-building and oil field seizure were both deeply unpopular among US citizens as reasons for making war.

    We - the US citizenry in general - had learned from Vietnam.

    But "we" did not learn not to elect people like W. There's nothing "subjective" about that - it's right there in the historical record. "We" elected him - or at least voted for him in large enough numbers to make theft of the election possible. That's a fact.
    And nothing there mentions any of my ideological beliefs "on" anything. My money says you don't even know what they are, despite having those posts in front of you.
     
  23. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    erm... what about this:
    Have you ever been to Korea?

    ROTFLMFAO
    the only "republican" talking point I can be said to support is the defence of the second amendment, and it stems primarily from my liberal view of "liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law" (-wiki) as an Oath-bound veteran.
    fucking liberals - I shall remember to unjoin immediately! Where do I turn in my ACLU and NAACP membership cards?
    there is just no room for their conservativism in any form, especially as this is truly offensive in the eyes of the free-speech-and-liberty crowd! In no way should we allow antiquated thought because, as a liberal willing to understand and respect other people’s behaviour, opinions, etc., especially when they are different from your own and believing people should be able to choose how they behave, we should target the ignorant elderly conservatives and educate them into modern society!
    [hyperbole intended - just in case it wasn't clear to you]


    and hillary committed a felony.
    like I said: different sides of the same coin

    I don't know - there is a pretty good argument that since the US didn't elect hillary, the US did learn that lesson.

    personally, I would have preferred that neither of the major parties got elected in 2016
    and apparently being a minority who remembered there were other parties and candidates seems to have placed me firmly in the republican camp, according to you.
    Guess I should go register as one now since you're the "reality based community (the "left", "liberal", or "scientific", factions)" of well-informed populace and you say I'm a spouter of their talking points.

    And I had such high hopes for my Anarchist party too...
    except what I demonstrated

    and just for the record: I, personally, supported the first Iraq invasion, not the second.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2019

Share This Page