meade95 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Any notion that Astan is worse off today, than in 2001 is absurd. It is beyond being even simply intellectually dishonest. We haven't broken anything in Stan on the whole. The place was in the dark ages prior to 2001. Reality is dragging that country out of the dark ages (in the effort to not allow it to become a sanctuary any longer / ever again via AQ or radical Islam mimics). Was always going to be a decade long process (at a min). Removing the Taliban from direct control was always going to be the easiest task (and if you remember correctly many suggested the U.S. military wouldn't be able to accomplish that. Within 2 months back in late 01/ early 02 the word "quagmire" was being thrown around)..... COIN & FID Ops take time to thoroughly defeat an enemy. DA Ops on HVT and/or HV-AOs are key during this time period in allowing those COIN/FID operations to take root. That is what phase we are in now. The process we are in now. Gen. McCrystal knows exactly what he is doing, has a very aggressive, thorough, yet KISS type plan / strategy to see this phase through..... Furthermore, both Iraq and Astan were part of the larger GWOT. It is foolish to think that simply because Saddam didn't directly support the attacks on 9-11 ...that therefore, Iraq isn't / couldn't be part of the WOT. The WOT was not simply a war on AQ. Reality is Saddam was a brutal dictator, who had started two wars, was a State sponsor of terrorism, had used WMDs in the past and was an incredibly unstable wild card in the heart of the ME. After 9-11 no reasonable person could allow that man to stay in power. There is no denying the people of Iraq and the world are better off without Saddam in power. Just as are the people of Astan / and the world are that the Taliban are no longer in power, there. And the American military along with our allies are the reason for this. Along with the leadership and reslove of former President GWB (like him or hate him). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Applying strategy and self-interest is not a conspiracy. It is when you seem to discount the accidental nature of history, the fallibility of its actors, and the unforeseen consequences of their actions. The Iron Curtain was not something planned - what were the Western Allies supposed to do about the Soviet Union's takeover of Eastern Europe? Start a new world war right after finishing the second one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackVoid Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 http://www.voltairenet.org/article162372.html "If left undisturbed, such nation-states like China and Russia, would dominate the global economy and, by extension, international politics. This is exactly what Anglo-American foreign policy has been trying to prevent for almost three centuries, first strictly under British clout and then later through combined British and American cooperation. In Europe, the containment policy was first applied to France for centuries and later, after German unification under Prince Otto von Bismarck, to Germany. Later the policy was expanded in scope to all Eurasia (the proper geographic extension of Europe or the “Continent”, as the British called it)." US/UK strategy is well-known by all geopolitical experts and it is hidden in plain sight - even official sources confirm it and describe it in detail. Just not every evening on CNN or on the first page of The New York Times. You have to look just a little bit harder than that. Besides, it is JUST PLAIN COMMON SENSE. If you are a peripheral power, you must keep the center divided. The objection, that no player can dominate Eurasia is a false one, based on the assumption that such domination would require military power and conquest. Not so. Domination can be achieved by economics, politics and self-interest of the involved states. The US Empire also employs these tools to a great extent. I am always amazed how well people in the west are conditioned by propaganda. If it is not spewing forth from the mass media 24/7, then it is not true, conspiracy, etc. The majority of people just parrot the official story without ever trying to look behind the curtains. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackVoid Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 What were the Western Allies supposed to do about the Soviet Union's takeover of Eastern Europe? Not wait until 1944? Let Patton drive forward? Not make a pact with the USSR and divide Europe in the pact? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackVoid Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Regarding propaganda, this is a very good series by the BBC. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151# 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 The majority of people just parrot the official story without ever trying to look behind the curtains. The vast majority of people don't know what the official line is! Let alone have the commonsense or indeed interest to think about it. You need a good repressive dictactorship to get people thinking - or be French. Bread and circuses works well as it ever did. : ( 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share Posted October 5, 2009 So...anyway....how's that Afghanistan thing going?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-E Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 As for fighting over Tibet. Why? Short of them finding major oil who would want to fight there. The only alternative reason would be seriously rising sea levels : ) The secret of anti-gravity is a worthy reason (every tin foil wearing person of distinction knows that Tibetan Monks can float/hover). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boeman Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Furthermore, both Iraq and Astan were part of the larger GWOT. It is foolish to think that simply because Saddam didn't directly support the attacks on 9-11 ...that therefore, Iraq isn't / couldn't be part of the WOT. The WOT was not simply a war on AQ. Reality is Saddam was a brutal dictator, who had started two wars, was a State sponsor of terrorism, had used WMDs in the past and was an incredibly unstable wild card in the heart of the ME. After 9-11 no reasonable person could allow that man to stay in power. There is no denying the people of Iraq and the world are better off without Saddam in power. Just as are the people of Astan / and the world are that the Taliban are no longer in power, there. And the American military along with our allies are the reason for this. Along with the leadership and reslove of former President GWB (like him or hate him). Sigh... Fox News has done it's job well, apparently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Any notion that Astan is worse off today, than in 2001 is absurd. It is beyond being even simply intellectually dishonest. We haven't broken anything in Stan on the whole. The place was in the dark ages prior to 2001. And as thoroughly discussed above, you are wrong. Military people who have worked for both Bush's & Obama's team say that especially outside Kabul, things are a lot worse for the average Afghan, particularly in terms of security and day to day normality. Saying a place was in the dark ages because it wasn't umm, just like America, is the sort of "four legs good, two legs bad" reasoning that has so utterly fuxored so much of this intervention. At the end of the day, people don't need air conditioners, 145 channels of **** on the TV and access to as much porn as they can watch. They don't even need democracy. They need to feel safe. They need to feel their family is safe. That they can go to work without being car bombed by a nut job or shot by a combat team "suppressing a possible sniper position." They want to catch the bus into the next city without being robbed by bandits on the way. They want to go to their niece's wedding without having a Predator pop a Hellfire at the bridal convoy. And that happens now. That's what was broken. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 6, 2009 Author Share Posted October 6, 2009 It is foolish to think that simply because Saddam didn't directly support the attacks on 9-11 ...that therefore, Iraq isn't / couldn't be part of the WOT. The WOT was not simply a war on AQ. Reality is Saddam was a brutal dictator, who had started two wars, was a State sponsor of terrorism, had used WMDs in the past and was an incredibly unstable wild card in the heart of the ME. After 9-11 no reasonable person could allow that man to stay in power. :eek: do people still actually believe this?? SH had nothing to do with 9/11, wanted nothing to do with AQ, had no designs on the USA other than getting them off his back while still looking "strong" in the ME for purely local/ME political reaons, and was no more a warmonger than a few other dictators/states we can probably all think of. He was entirely predictable to anyone not blinkered by the sort of stupidity echoed in the quote above! Afghanistan, OTOH, harboured and supported AQ who launched 9/11 - they US had so much sympathy from around the world after 9/11 that IRAN offered to help the USA in Iraq (and to stop supporting Hezbollah & Hamas at the same time!!) - an offer brusquely turned down with "We don't talk to evil" - an example of GWB's "leadership" that has cost thousands of US and otehr lives for no good purpose. That people can continue to believe the gist of that quote is just astounding and bodes poorly for the future - those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it and all that! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 And the gravity of this situation is reflected in the fact that Stalin's Organist and I never agree on anything. But we do here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Just for the record, so do I. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meade95 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 :eek: SH had nothing to do with 9/11, wanted nothing to do with AQ, had no designs on the USA other than getting them off his back while still looking "strong" in the ME for purely local/ME political reaons, and was no more a warmonger than a few other dictators/states we can probably all think of. He was entirely predictable to anyone not blinkered by the sort of stupidity echoed in the quote above! I love it. Saddam was "entirely predictable". Classic. That is why not one, not one nation on the entire Security Council of the United Nations voted against Resolution 1441. Authorizing the use of Force in Iraq based on a variety of issues (17 or 18 if I remember correctly)...under the reality that no one trusted Saddam nor thought him predictible. But you had him pegged, right. Of course. Got it. Though I will give you in the one area Saddam was predictible, in his support of terrorsim. This is not denible. As for AQ and Saddam having no part of them? Tell that to al Zarqawi (AQ #3) who was in Iraq, long before OIF ever started. Fleeing Stan to Iraq. And in pre-OIF Iraq, outsiders were not there, who Saddam did not want there or allow there. Saddam new very well who Zarqawi was and his afflication to Zawahiri / AQ. And you're right not knowing history does repeat it. Reality is, before Pre-Emption.... we could have searched every inch of every cave in AStan prior to 9-11 and we would have never found any weapons that eventually hit us.......That being our own airliners. But we would have found a Gov't supporting terrorism, with people within that country that wished to do us great harm. That is exactly the profile of Saddam (only with much more resources than the Taliban/AQ had prior to 9-11). And if I remember correctly, we were struck by Japan in 1941.......and that was the push that made us "active" in WWII.....Vs Germany..... Not just Vs Japan. GWB made it clear after 9-11, as seeing terrorism itself as a threat, not simply AQ. But radical Islam along with those nations / dictators openly supporting terrorism. The idea at that point became......going after those that wished harm upon us, going after them hard.....while at the same time looking to help create an atmosphere that allowed for a self-deportation away Radical Islam throughout the greater ME. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Fvk me. Just how many conservative memes do you have confused and running around un-chaperoned in your head? It's like you think "mixed metaphor" is the name of a valid approach to foreign policy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 GWB made it clear after 9-11 that he is an asshat who likes to start wars that he can't finish. How is that important for the discussion? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 Tell that to al Zarqawi (AQ #3) who was in Iraq, long before OIF ever started. Fleeing Stan to Iraq. And in pre-OIF Iraq, outsiders were not there, who Saddam did not want there or allow there. Saddam new very well who Zarqawi was and his afflication to Zawahiri / AQ.Yeah - he knew he had none. His little terrorist mob was aimed at overthrowing the Govt of Jordan & he continually refused o have anything to do with AQ or the Taliban until he figured they might be "serious" AFTER 9/11....and he went from Iraq TO Afghanistan to fight - he had no plans to do so earlier, he didn't formally join AQ until 2004...so much for your precious pre-9/11 AQ cell in Iraq - pure fantasy - like the rest of Bush's bull.... fail, fail, fail...and how many dead Americans because of it? No-one begrudged the US attacking AQ and the Taliban - but the Iraq was nothing to do with any WoT and no amount of post-hoc irrationality is ever going ot change that - it was pure stupidity - lethal, warmongering, war-criminal stupidity, and that's how it's going to be remembered for a long long time! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I love it. Saddam was "entirely predictable". Classic. That is why not one, not one nation on the entire Security Council of the United Nations voted against Resolution 1441. Authorizing the use of Force in Iraq based on a variety of issues (17 or 18 if I remember correctly).... It was Colin Powell's testimony on the satellite photos that swung the UN. He regrets having given it, but he can hardly be blamed for crap intelligence analysis from the CIA. Bush can be. Even the Israelis were doubtful that removing Saddam was going to achieve anything worthwhile - I remember a Mossad guy saying as much; that having a stable government in Iraq was probably preferable to throwing the whole thing into chaos and waiting ten years for something to come out of it (and not knowing what it is that will come out). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Tell that to al Zarqawi (AQ #3) who was in Iraq, long before OIF ever started. Fleeing Stan to Iraq. And in pre-OIF Iraq, outsiders were not there, who Saddam did not want there or allow there. Saddam new very well who Zarqawi was and his afflication to Zawahiri / AQ. Yes he was in Iraq. He was the most wanted man there. Because he was running a terrorist cell carrying out attacks AGAINST Saddam Hussein from safe havens in Kurdistan. (Who was guaranteeing the safe havens there?) Be that as it may, the tendency to inflate the importance of individuals as linchpin post-event justifications is laughable. General Aideed anyone? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 That is why not one, not one nation on the entire Security Council of the United Nations voted against Resolution 1441. Authorizing the use of Force in Iraq based on a variety of issues Ummmm Res 1441 DID NOT authorise the use of force. That's the whole basis for the accusations of illegality and unilateralism of the invasion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 The UK analysts thought the threat was bogus but the leading expert became, as far as I am concerned, the first British casualty of the war. " Kelly and Gilligan had pointed up an open rift between the government and substantial sections of the security services over the advisability of going to war against Iraq and the use of unsubstantiated claims to justify this. Not only was such a schism embarrassing in itself, but also it focussed attention on the campaign of lies and misinformation employed by the government to steamroller overwhelming popular opposition to the war and defy all legal norms in launching unprovoked military aggression against a largely defenceless country." http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/hutt-a23.shtml It is quite shaming to have a warmongerer like Blair roaming free. Regardless of what one thinks of Saddam democracies should be ultra careful if they are going to go to war that it is unavoidable. I would feel the same way whatever political party the Prime Minster represented- sexing up, and outright misinformation given to garner support is totally beyond what is allowable. Politicians should be held accountable for their acts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 And if I remember correctly, we were struck by Japan in 1941.......and that was the push that made us "active" in WWII.....Vs Germany..... Not just Vs Japan. *facepalm* Germany declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Ross Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 After comparatively heavy casualties in July the recruitment figures for the British Army jumped by 25%. I think the motivation you're looking for is: F**K'EM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 8, 2009 Author Share Posted October 8, 2009 Either that or there's a recession, it's a steady job and and no-one ever believes they will be the one who get shot... As an old former miltary aquaintance of mine says......when you tell guys that chances are 1 of them will get shot they all think how they will miss whoever gets killed! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavicula_Nox Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 As for AQ and Saddam having no part of them? Tell that to al Zarqawi (AQ #3) who was in Iraq, long before OIF ever started. Fleeing Stan to Iraq. And in pre-OIF Iraq, outsiders were not there, who Saddam did not want there or allow there. Saddam new very well who Zarqawi was and his afflication to Zawahiri / AQ. A Zarqawi was a competitor to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, he was also a man they rejected. Zarqawi was more of an Iranian man than anything. Yes, I know his group was called "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", but that is because Westerners take everything at face value. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.