|
| Thread: War in Afghanistan |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · NEXT» |
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 10, 2010 10:40 PM |
|
|
War in Afghanistan
My english teacher in school lived in the US for a couple of years and then she imported her boyfriend to Sweden.
In our english class we often discus recent events in the US and related to that country. Like Super Bowl commercials. We were amazed when she told us the nation freaked out when Janet Jacksons nipple appeared. Recently two swedish soldiers in Afganistan died. Obviously this is related to the US so we discussed it a bit.
My opinion was that we have no reason to be there at all, as a neutral country outside NATO. That we are not "peace-keeping" there but rather assisting the americans in their war.
I am very interested in society, politics and war etc.
What are you thoughts of the war in Afghanistan and the war against terror in general?
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted February 10, 2010 10:52 PM |
|
|
|
Omg this is hillarious...
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted February 10, 2010 10:53 PM |
|
|
I don't see the fun in war. Please induldge me!
____________
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted February 10, 2010 11:00 PM |
|
|
It all comes down to:
What? They have bigger pricks? BOMB them!! - George Carlin
____________
none of my business.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted February 10, 2010 11:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Omg this is hillarious...
Lol yeah. I was reading and thinking wtf?
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 10, 2010 11:06 PM |
|
|
Care to enlighten a bit what's so wtf about it?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted February 10, 2010 11:07 PM |
|
|
Just some of the things he said.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 10, 2010 11:08 PM |
|
|
Yeah the beginning of his post was, but the thread itself isn't 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted February 10, 2010 11:09 PM |
|
|
Well obviously not, the nature of the thread (the war) isn't funny, but yeah, the beginning of his post was.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted February 10, 2010 11:10 PM |
|
|
Ok, I was hopin' people would be mature enough to not just presume that this is a thread of suck, just because it's made by Xerox. You really give him a fair chanse to prove himself, don't you? I didn't really want to make a post because I don't like to think to much about war, it awakens my sympathy, my rage, my insight, my punity and all of my worst sides... and my best!(example)
My general thoughts on war is that it's stupid, it rarely solves stuff, mostly, it's just wasting tons of money just to post pone a problem, by killing innocent civilians, just because they're easier to hit. Or for "safety"! But this war is different, bacause it's a big rich country that controls it, why we should forsaken the wars of others is obvious, but that we don't care enough about morale and justice to try and do something, when we have to go against some one who we just happens to trade with. Believe me, people would be all over the case if it was a less rich country than USA that started a war!
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2010 11:42 PM |
|
|
Xerox, I've said it before and I'll say it again. That English teacher of yours it full of crap. She is teaching total bull**** to her classes. Either that or she is not really saying what you post here.
"The nation freaked out when Janet Jacksons nipple appeared"??? lolol
You want to know the truth? The vast majority of the nation didn't give a ****. It was nothing more than the typical media trying to make a big story when there wasn't one.
Now on to the war in Afghanistan. As far as Sweden is concerned, that's Sweden's business if they get involved or not. That has to do with their own internal politics. The same is true for every other country.
As far as the US is concerned. I think you have to break it down into the initial reasons for going in there and the reasons why they are still there.
Initially I think the US was 100% justified in going into Afghanistan. Terrorism around the world was getting totally out of hand. 9-11 was not only like a last straw, but it was a total wake up call for the entire world. Terrorism was nothing new, but 9-11 showed the world just how serious it could get, just how devastating it could get. It was so big that the world realized it had to get more serious about fighting it.
Terrorist acts out of the Middle East had been on the rise for over 30 years. The terrorists were getting more and more bold, more and more destructive, more and more numerous, and more and more organized. Something more HAD to be done. Working internally with a police force was no longer enough, it had gotten too big. It was time to go to their stronghold and flush them out. Afghanistan was one of their biggest strongholds.
This isn't just about the US. It's not really an America's war. This is something very serious and affects the entire world. The way I see it, there is no responsible choice in the matter. Terrorism MUST be fought with any available tools. If the world lets its guard down, there almost certainly WILL be more 9-11 size attacks.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted February 10, 2010 11:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't see the fun in war. Please induldge me!
Let me point it out to you then gee...
Quote:
My english teacher in school lived in the US for a couple of years and then she imported her boyfriend to Sweden.
In our english class we often discuss recent events in the US and related to that country. Like Super Bowl commercials. We were amazed when she told us the nation freaked out when Janet Jacksons nipple appeared. Recently two swedish soldiers in Afganistan died. Obviously this is related to the US so we discussed it a bit.
That's what makes it funny. Of course WAR isn't fun, but that doesn't mean his reply can't be hillarious in it's ridiculousness.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 11, 2010 12:01 AM |
|
|
Some sort of military operation was both merited and ethically obligatory, but the Afghan War was conducted very incorrectly. Rather than a swift and discrete (as far as large assaults go) attempt to eliminate Al Qaeda's presence and ideally its masterminds, it has turned into a long term occupation where the U.S. and its pawn nations are now nation building. So the forces are currently there for a reason largely separated from the original and much more logical motivation. The fact that the nation will revert into a tyrannical government once those forces are gone is irrelevant. It was a tough place to live before, and it will be a tough place to live afterward. It is not productive or acceptable to invade or occupy an area because it has a crappy government and/or society, else we would be occupying a huge chunk of the planet, which isn't at all realistic, nor does trying to fix an area by such means hardly ever work.
As far as the increasing amount of terrorism in the 20th century, it is critical that you ask why it has been increasing, because in order to solve a mystery crime, you must first identify the motive. And I think when you look into that question, you should come to believe that less intervention, not more, is the better approach to deter terrorism. Western conniving, and in more recent years, mostly U.S. conniving, has been ****ing with that part of the world for quite some time, starting in 1918. It doesn't make it justified for them to suicide bomb civilians, but all the same, they are angry for a legitimate reason. It's not like they do it just for the hell of it.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted February 11, 2010 05:23 AM |
|
|
i dont think its a war in general,just skirmishes... after a was war.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted February 11, 2010 06:27 AM |
|
|
blizzardboy: 
____________
The empty set
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2010 08:22 AM |
|
|
No, they are not just doing it for the hell of it.
Now, Afghanistan has a very complicated history. Until 1920 there were 3 wars with the Brits, who wanted to make Afghanistan part of India. Russians had interests tzhere as well, and Afghanistan got independence only about 1920.
Afghanistan became a Monarchy on the surface in 1925, a Constitutional with a revision of the constitution one in the 60s, however, below the hood they retained their tribes structures, which means that, while there was a King and such, politics were still made (this is true today as well), by the Clan Leaders.
In the first half of the 70s there was a Military Coup in Afghanistan, toppling the King. The new government proclaimed the country a Republic, but in fact the regime was a Dictatorship and based on naked terror. Of course there was resistance, not surprisingly led by the Communist left, but make no mistake: the Daoud Government was in no way rightful or just or democratic or something. It was a brutal dictatorship and was toppled by revolution end of the 70s (all of which sounds like playing a game of Junta).
At this point Afghanistan became a People's Republic, and the government tried to break with everythiong, make a land reform, the usual stuff a convinced communist government would do after a revolution.
Not surprisingly, the Sowjets were willing to support them financially, and not unsurprisngly the dependance on the USSR got stronger each day - of course the reason wasn't so much that communism sucks; they didn't even get the chance to prove that it does, since, again, not surprisingly, the disposessed big land owners and the religious muslim leaders resisted firmly and violently. They got support from CHINA (yup, that was something of a downer: a supposedly commmunist country supports revisionists to damage another communist country; a shame) and not much later from the US - after all, the country bordered along the USSR. Which led, of course, to a radicalization of the Afghan communist party who acted more violent as well.
The Mujaheddin seemed on the winning road, when the Sowjets decided to take a more active role, 1979. That's when the War in Afghanistan REALLY started. Since the Mujaheddin fought basically against the Sowjet military machine, they could only have a chance to win with a strict guerilla/terror tactic which had been successful against the Brits as well. They got support from US, China, Pakistan and Saudia-Arabia, and they hired lots of mercenaries from the latter and other countries of the Near East where there have been enough of them, with quite a few wars going on since after WW 2.
The end of it was, that after 10 years of guerilla warfare the Sowjets - which would later become Russians - left the country, still supporting the government, but not with their own troops.
In 1992 the Mujaheddin won the war, taking Kabul.
However, while you would expect that peace may settle, the tribes (think tribe structure here) began immediately to war against each other for power.
That's when the Taliban movement got started, primarily because they didn't feel represented enough. With support from Pakistan they took part in the raging Civil War and continually got stronger until they took Kabul in 1996 and proclaimed the Islamic Emirate Afghanistan, recognized by Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia and the Arabian Emirates only.
The Taliban are extreme fundamental muslims, erecting what I would call a religious dictatorship, destroying everything considered unfitting and so on. They didn't control the whole country of Afghanistan, though. All attem,pts of the UN to talk with the Taliban about human rights and stuff were unsuccessful.
You might say, that Afghanistan has been in a state of Civil War, of tribes warring each other, for a long time.
After 9/11 the US decided that Al Quaida operated from out of Afghanistan and attacked the Taliban.
The thing here is, since there had been war for nearly 30 years in Afghanistan - a war of terror and guerilla tactics mostly -, it's clear there have been trainings camps there. It's absolutely imaginable that Al Quaida had a camp or two there as well: where else would you train a guerilla fighter if not in Afghanistan, in that war zone?
Of course an attack on Afghanistan with a view on Al Quaida made NO sense, none at all: PAKISTAN had recognized the Islamic Emirate, and you don't need a lot of imagination to see all people feelimng "endangered" by the US intervention retreat into Pakistan. What the US did there, was nothing else than creating a big training camp where future terror fighters can test their mettle with attacks on US and UN military.
The country is still chaos, still there's the struggle of tribes, Democracy notwithstanding. It's one hell of a mess, as is Iraq, another training camp for terror fighters.
Waging conventional war against that is simply nonsense - I mean, the Brits did, the Sowjets did for 10 years...
The only realistic chance to get the job done in Afghanistan would have been bombing the Taliban out of their big weapons, then supporting a US or UN guerilla army within the country, fighting under the same rules, trying to eliminate every guerilla fighter, and every training camp with a vengeance: the only way to get those border bases in Pakistan, short of starting WW 3 is tasking a small guerilla force with it and do it.
At least that's my opinion Shouldn't people learn from history? Northern Ireland, the Basqs, Afghanistan, Vietnam... in "rough" terrain a regular army is pretty much useless against a highly trained guerilla force with strong bases and a source of supply.
Of course, politically that would probably be out of the question, and I suppose these Generals and Admirals commanding an army worth billions in high-tec material won't let themselves being deprived of the chance to use all that hardware and stuff.
So here we are, helpless and with a losing war on our hands. The only chance of peace in Afghanistan is bringing the tribes to reason, because only the tribes can clear their country from all that. I suppose after so many years of armed combat it must be difficult to go back to peace times...
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted February 11, 2010 01:59 PM |
|
|
Why do we even care for 3rd world sandbox countries?
Go in, kill terrorists, withdraw.
No warm hearted rebuilding 
OR EVEN BETTER...Screw ethics and learn how to use espionage agencies correctly 
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted February 11, 2010 02:02 PM |
|
Edited by Shares at 14:03, 11 Feb 2010.
|
Quote:
OR EVEN BETTER...Screw ethics and learn how to use espionage agencies correctly
And that's supposed to be less ethic than what's going on now?
____________
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted February 11, 2010 02:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
OR EVEN BETTER...Screw ethics and learn how to use espionage agencies correctly
And that's supposed to be less ethic than what's going on now?
Wastes less money, troops and equipment.
What's going on now is that we are chasing them around the country while all this could have been avoided and the taliban still been taken out.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted February 11, 2010 02:10 PM |
|
Edited by Shares at 14:12, 11 Feb 2010.
|
Exactly, isn't that more ethical correct then? Wasting less money? That money could do good! Less resources? Same there! Less lives? Yeah, killing less people seems right(less wrong) to me.
Besides, with good espionage, it would be possible to only take out the actual bad guys. Raiding an actual base would kill no innocents, or very few. It'd at least be less lives lost than if you kill of people at random. It would also be possible to only kill the leaders behind the troops. I'd wager that a lot of the soldiers doesn't want to be in a war, but the pressure of the group, the guilt of betraying your leaders and your friends. Fear's also a factor.
____________
|
| |
|
|
