Assault on Taleban stronghold underway

[skelley]

We use ungodly expensive ordinance to ensure as few civilian casualties as possible. They use homemade bombs with the intent to kill as many civilians as possible. If you can't see the difference in morality between the 2 sides then I don't know what to tell ya. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[hammelman]

pretty much.

[panzermartin]

Its not about morality it is about strategy. You need to win the locals and public opinion back home. It wont help you if TV broadcasts piles of children bodies killed by coalition bombs, don't you think?

I higly doubt that in Bush's agenda these people are considered better than garbage. In Vietnam you didnt have those morality issues I think. I guess you learnt your lesson this time. That of course doesnt make any difference because technicaly you are once again the invader. And the invader is always wrong in my book no matter how gentle or smart his bullets are.

[skelley]

And the invader is always wrong in my book no matter how gentle or smart his bullets are.

so if a country attacks Greece. You are gonna sit back and wait for the next attack or are you going to invade and end the threat? Was the united states wrong in invading Germany even though they hadn't invaded us?

In Vietnam you didnt have those morality issues I think.

Wrong. Johnson didn't attack many sites in North Vietnam because of their proximity to schools and populated areas.

[panzermartin]

You make it sound like the boeings had the afghani flag stamped on them. You even invaded Iraq and later admitted that there was no solid link between 9/11 and Saddam. How can you compare this blurry case of terrorism with the extreme paradigm of WW2?

I would consider it a madness if my country would start a war with lets say Turkey because of a terrorist act planned by an Albanian guy living in Ankara and executed by a Mongolian taxi driver from Instanbul. Your enemy is so widespread and invisible that waging war on particular countries is just a waste of lives and resources.

[skelley]

You laid out the case that invasion is always wrong. As for the Taliban not flying the jets into the towers, I consider any nation that gives support to Bin Laden to also be a terrorist. If the Taliban had handed Bin Laden over then they would most likely still be in power. They chose their side and have been ousted from power. We are not waging war on Afganistan, we are waging war on the Taliban which happen to be in Afganistan

[panzermartin]

Good luck with your witch hunting then. I haven't heard anything positive from Iraq or Afghanistan all those years. Saudi Arabia which supposedly is an ally seems to host more terrorist cells than countries US have invaded. Iran seems untouchable too. I dont know why people keep persuading themselves that the cumbersome military will make any difference in fighting something so asymmetrical, flexible and faceless as terrorism. Killing one more bearded caveman with an Ak-47 doesnt sound like a solution to the problem.

[Peter Cairns]

The problem with war with the Taliban because they supported Bin Laden, is that a lot of Afghans support them for a whole range of reasons, and most of them don't support Bi Laden.

So for deposing the Taliban for supporting one group you declare war on far more people than you would have expected.

It's similar in Somalia, the Islamic courts brought stability and hope to hundreds of thousands for the first time in decades but we deposed them because they had connections with AQ. In the last month half the population of Mogadishu has fled the ensuing chaos, and the destruction that has caused is tremendous.

The end result is that we have destroyed the best hope a nation has had since the US left because that best hope may have been a threat to us.

There has to be a better way forward...

Me I'd talk to the Islamic courts and the Taliban and try to bring them in to a national government, with the help of the Saudi's.

For all it's flaws, and they are many, Saudi Arabia proves you can have an islamic state that lives in cooperation with the west.

Peter.

[skelley]

And if they allow Al Queda to operate from their lands?

I'm not opposed to a complete pull out of all the middle east and barring all muslim immigration to the US. Not because I am anti-Muslim, but because there is no way to tell who is a moderate and who is a Jihadi. At the same time drill for oil in our country and do Manhattan Project type work for an oil alternative. Then sit back and let the rest of the world deal with its own problems.

[gautrek]

Originally posted by skelley:

What were the Brits thinking in trying to negotiate with the Taliban in the first place. Now the US has to go and retake it. If ya ask me the Brits should have to do it, they gave it away.

Well maybe if you yanks hadn't stupidly invaded another country before finishing in Afghanistan then maybe us Brits wouldn't have lost so many guys trying to sort out the mess your guys left.

So lay off the blame mate.

[DaveDash]

Originally posted by Ali-Baba:

Good luck with your witch hunting then. I haven't heard anything positive from Iraq or Afghanistan all those years. Saudi Arabia which supposedly is an ally seems to host more terrorist cells than countries US have invaded. Iran seems untouchable too. I dont know why people keep persuading themselves that the cumbersome military will make any difference in fighting something so asymmetrical, flexible and faceless as terrorism. Killing one more bearded caveman with an Ak-47 doesnt sound like a solution to the problem.

Sorry mate but your head is completely in the sand. I suggest you take it out one day and take a look around, because Iraq is well on the road to recovery.

Despite the "pre-text" for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, what really is ironic is how so many people supported 1991 because the U.N. said it was OK, despite the fact the coalition came in, bombed the living **** out of the country, slapped on sanctions, then left. Oh, not before promosing to support a coup which they didn't resulting in further bloodshed.

However 2003 oh no, it's so WRONG, despite the fact this time instead of blowing the place up from the air, soldiers are sent in to minimise civilian casualties, billions are dollars are spent on reconstruction and despite the heavy toll they are staying the course.

When you said "Bush's agenda" I assume you meant George Bush the first? Because GWB certainly is pouring a ton of American taxpayer dollars into giving a **** about the Iraqi people right now.

Well maybe if you yanks hadn't stupidly invaded another country before finishing in Afghanistan then maybe us Brits wouldn't have lost so many guys trying to sort out the mess your guys left.

So lay off the blame mate.

STFU. Remember who the enemy is. If we in the west can't band together and resort to petty squabbling in the face of adversity then our time is surely up.

[wunwinglow]

Maybe this is the answer...

Tim

[phil-]

Originally posted by DaveDash:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ali-Baba:

Good luck with your witch hunting then. I haven't heard anything positive from Iraq or Afghanistan all those years. Saudi Arabia which supposedly is an ally seems to host more terrorist cells than countries US have invaded. Iran seems untouchable too. I dont know why people keep persuading themselves that the cumbersome military will make any difference in fighting something so asymmetrical, flexible and faceless as terrorism. Killing one more bearded caveman with an Ak-47 doesnt sound like a solution to the problem.

Sorry mate but your head is completely in the sand. I suggest you take it out one day and take a look around, because Iraq is well on the road to recovery.

Despite the "pre-text" for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, what really is ironic is how so many people supported 1991 because the U.N. said it was OK, despite the fact the coalition came in, bombed the living **** out of the country, slapped on sanctions, then left. Oh, not before promosing to support a coup which they didn't resulting in further bloodshed.

However 2003 oh no, it's so WRONG, despite the fact this time instead of blowing the place up from the air, soldiers are sent in to minimise civilian casualties, billions are dollars are spent on reconstruction and despite the heavy toll they are staying the course.

When you said "Bush's agenda" I assume you meant George Bush the first? Because GWB certainly is pouring a ton of American taxpayer dollars into giving a **** about the Iraqi people right now.

Well maybe if you yanks hadn't stupidly invaded another country before finishing in Afghanistan then maybe us Brits wouldn't have lost so many guys trying to sort out the mess your guys left.

So lay off the blame mate.

STFU. Remember who the enemy is. If we in the west can't band together and resort to petty squabbling in the face of adversity then our time is surely up. </font>

[skelley]

This thread is about Afganistan not Iraq

[phil-]

Originally posted by skelley:

This thread is about Afganistan not Iraq

Very true, but its also about politics and people will draw connections to the hot topic of the times. It's six degrees of Kevin Bacon, but far more angry.

[skelley]

LOL

[Guest]

Originally posted by DaveDash:

Sorry mate but your head is completely in the sand. I suggest you take it out one day and take a look around, because Iraq is well on the road to recovery.

Really?

1) The infrastructure is in worse shape than it was when *Saddam Hussein* was in power.

2) We are likely to be there for several more casualty-laden years, despite what the Democrats claim.

3) Regardless of how long we stay, when we leave its very likely that Iraq as a nation will be compromised anyway: either splitting into separate states or being subjugated by a more powerful, ideologically stronger neighbor.

I'd say we haven't even found the road to recovery yet. The only people with a decent plan is the military and they're being held back by swindling contractors and waste.

Originally posted by DaveDash:

Despite the "pre-text" for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, what really is ironic is how so many people supported 1991 because the U.N. said it was OK, despite the fact the coalition came in, bombed the living **** out of the country, slapped on sanctions, then left. Oh, not before promosing to support a coup which they didn't resulting in further bloodshed.

Actually, I think the reason that people (and the UN) were so supportive of the 1991 Gulf War *because Iraq had invaded another country, something specifically outlawed by international law.* Do you see how this diverges from our current situation?

Also, how were our allies supposed to know beforehand that we were going to run GW1 that way? *We* didn't even really know.

Originally posted by DaveDash:

However 2003 oh no, it's so WRONG, despite the fact this time instead of blowing the place up from the air, soldiers are sent in to minimise civilian casualties, billions are dollars are spent on reconstruction and despite the heavy toll they are staying the course.

Billions of dollars have lined the pockets of a few corporations with suspicious connections to the current administration. I can't help but think that there's something conscious about this.

Our soldiers, on the other hand, are bravely carrying out the mission they've been handed; I doubt VERY much that the people who "sent [them] in" have anything to do with that.

Originally posted by DaveDash:

When you said "Bush's agenda" I assume you meant George Bush the first? Because GWB certainly is pouring a ton of American taxpayer dollars into giving a **** about the Iraqi people right now.

See above. Don't give the Bush II administration credit for the good things that have happened in Iraq so freely.

Originally posted by DaveDash:

STFU. Remember who the enemy is. If we in the west can't band together and resort to petty squabbling in the face of adversity then our time is surely up.

This "STFU if you disagree" attitude is another part of WHY we didn't get people lining up to help us in GW2 on the scale of GW1.

[DaveDash]

Im just utterly sick of the moronic bickering between allied nations over ridiculous points. Let's get the job done first then worry about what went wrong and how to avoid it after.

I can't be bothered refuting all of your other points Phillip, I could quite easily but I've been down this road a million times before, and don't want to be a hypocrit since I've stated we should stop arguing. Besides, as people have pointed out, this thread is about Afghanistan.

[aka_tom_w]

It was about an attack on Musa Qala and by now it should be almost over (the battle that started the thread that is).

Looks like the battle is not really over yet and may take more time

a little background info on Musa Qala from Afghan news.com (an all english interesting web site from Afghanistan)

[ December 08, 2007, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Charlie901]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Me I'd talk to the Islamic courts and the Taliban and try to bring them in to a national government, with the help of the Saudi's.

Peter.

LOL...

I could see it now....

The National Taliban Goverment could finally join the Olympics in the Dive Board Hangings Competition, in an empty olympic swimming pool.

The Taliban themselves have show themselves to be nothing more than brutal animals and as underserving of a National Goverment as anyone in the World!!!

[Guest]

Originally posted by DaveDash:

Im just utterly sick of the moronic bickering between allied nations over ridiculous points. Let's get the job done first then worry about what went wrong and how to avoid it after.

Yes. Let's leave reasoned dialogue about options until AFTER the job is done. Well done, good thinking. That's precisely how we ended up in this mess.

Originally posted by DaveDash:

I can't be bothered refuting all of your other points Phillip, I could quite easily but I've been down this road a million times before, and don't want to be a hypocrit since I've stated we should stop arguing. Besides, as people have pointed out, this thread is about Afghanistan.

I'm sure you could refute my points. It's a matter of opinion and information, eminently refutable. That doesn't make me wrong, any more than it makes me right.

I do suspect that you'd get more of an argument from me than the millions you've already persuaded.

I will do my level best not to stray from the topic of this thread again, as I'd hate to, oh, hijack a thread and then refuse to do the newly extended topic justice by actually having a thoughtful discussion about it.

[Guest]

On topic (and a double post at that!)... why is it that armies primarily skilled in arrogance think that it's a good idea to say they're going to fight to the death when in fact they will most likely *rout* and run scared as soon as we give them an opening?

Do they actually believe that this time will be different?

[Battlefront.com]

Guys... this is totally off topic and is getting heated on top of that. Time to lock it up.

Steve