Afganistan 2007

[Yoda Power]

It's a different world overthere. You can't expect these troops to reach western standards. Plus we also see western troops comitting attrocities. My point was, however, that the army is growing in seize and strenght, not that they were fair.

Ofcause they can't be the same quality as wetsern forces, but that doesn't justify their actions. In many places the local population are more afraid of the goverment forces than of the Taliban.

It's just you, and some of the media. What would the government gain from cleansing out the Pashtuns? Half the government is Pashtuns...

I said it looks more and more like etnic cleansing, not that it actually is deliberetly. Remember the goverment does not really control their forces. They consists mainly of tribes from the north who now found a way to take revenge on the Pashtuns.

Yes, that's the real problem. Countries like France and Germany should do more.

The whole of NATO should do more. France and Germany isn't doing enough, true. But just getting them to be active is far from enough.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

In Iraq, the cities are extremely dangerous to coalition troops. In Afghanistan, the Talliban can't enter the large cities, but hides in the mountains and villages. In the south. It's an entirely different situation.

True, but that is because in Iraq, the bulk of the population lives in the major cities, and these are where you have to win.

In Afghanistan, the countryside is the key to winning. Once the countryside is secured in Afghaniland, NATO will be good.

 

[aelf]

How about the latest news about South Korean aid workers being abducted and killed?

It really makes no sense to me, since these people are there out of their own generosity and all they get in return is this?

I'm surprised little has been said about this here (I did a few searches). And does anyone here actually sympathise with such terrorist groups at all? IMO, they lose all credibility once they do something like this and should be hunted down and killed to the man. I'm sure a lot of the family members of the hostages feel so too. These victims can never be classified as enemy combatants or justifiable targets.

 

[Merkinball]

Why you can't take liberals seriously. Ever.

In the past, heavy-handed armies haven't successfully built democracies. - sobieski

Ta-heet.

How much more heavy handed do you get than dropping nuclear bombs? Or firebombing a city full of refugees?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FriendlyFire
There calling Afganistain the new Iraq
meanwhile Iraq has been upgraded to Vietnam

And Somalia in 1994 has been downgraded to minor incident (in comparison).

Yeah, because only a million people have died there, and another million have been displaced, this coming from a country with 10 million people. Good call.

 

[Mango]

So then why did you invade in the first place?

No WMD
No links to Al Quaeda
No threat to the US
Don't care about the freedom of the Iraqi people

So why throw away 3000+ US lives?

That is a statement you can make after-the-fact, but the fact is we were told before the war that there was a strong possibility of finding WMDs and thus, they were a threat to the US (also thru their supposed sponsership of terrorist cells). And as for caring about the freedom of Iraqi people, I think that's one thing that a lot of people actually DO care about. Currently it is the reason a lot of people believe we still need to be over there, despite the fact that they do not support the war. People like that (myself included) believe that by ousting Saddam we have made our bed and now we have to lie in it, and that involves protecting the Iraqi people from the instability we caused.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

How much more heavy handed do you get than dropping nuclear bombs? Or firebombing a city full of refugees?

And yet the daily news makes you look like a fool, not me.

 

[Merkinball]

And yet the daily news makes you look like a fool, not me.

Huh? No you really make no sense.

 

[amadeus]

nevermind, i'm sure Washington would be proud to know we're the new England.

I'm sure Washington would never have given aid to a dictator...

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yeah, because only a million people have died there, and another million have been displaced, this coming from a country with 10 million people. Good call.

[sacrasm]
hey bud did you not get the jest of my comments as the somalia referance was a dead give away
[/sacrasm]

 

[Merkinball]

Apologies.

 

[Hygro]

I'm sure Washington would never have given aid to a dictator...

Because the world had so many democracies to engage in 1796.

Spoiler :

Virtually every country was run by a dictator then. Unless you differentiate between dictators and kings

 

[Hygro]

Why you can't take liberals seriously. Ever.



Ta-heet.

How much more heavy handed do you get than dropping nuclear bombs? Or firebombing a city full of refugees?

You're right.

But note the difference between Germany, Japan, the Confederacy, and other enemies of the United States in which we have successful built democracies after destroying them. All of those countries had at least a somewhat democratic, liberal history, some real goodwill towards America by a majority of the populace in prewar history, and an enemy that comprised one nation of people. Iraq is a country and a state with at least 3 nations within it. maybe 4, if you count National Iraqi as separate from the Kurdish nation, Sunni nation, and Shia nation.

So its not just a matter of committing to a real war vs not.

edit: right, Afganistan thread.

So I'll continue my point and say that though our tactics in Afghanistan aren't as successful as they could be, our small presence is not inflaming the local populace like our larger presence is in Iraq. Maybe the smallness of our occupation there is a good thing.

 

[Evie]

Hygro essentialy summed it up.

Any comparison between Iraq and Japan is wishful thinking at best.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why you can't take liberals seriously. Ever.

Are you a Liberal?

 

[Verbose]

You're right.

But note the difference between Germany, Japan, the Confederacy, and other enemies of the United States in which we have successful built democracies after destroying them. All of those countries had at least a somewhat democratic, liberal history, some real goodwill towards America by a majority of the populace in prewar history, and an enemy that comprised one nation of people. Iraq is a country and a state with at least 3 nations within it. maybe 4, if you count National Iraqi as separate from the Kurdish nation, Sunni nation, and shia nation.

So its not just a matter of committing to a real war vs not.

edit: right, Afganistan thread.

So I'll continue my point and say that though our tactics in Afghanistan aren't as successful as they could be, our small presence is not inflaming the local populace like our larger presence is in Iraq. Maybe the smallness of our occupation there is a good thing.

There are at least as many nationalities involved in Afghanistan; Pashtuns, Tadjiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras (who are Shia unlike the other who are Sunni), Baluchis etc.
And these break down along tribal lines. It could be important to tell the Afridis apart from the Ghaznis, even if they're all Pashtuns.
The historical precedent for them all living together peaceful like isn't that great.

 

[aelf]

I thought I'd revive a dead thread to pose some relevant questions, but all I really did was to revive old arguments without getting any of my questions answered

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Maybe better to create a new thread without all the excess bagage.

 

[aelf]

Maybe better to create a new thread without all the excess bagage.

Nah. That would require me to look for reliable links to the news item

 

[Volum]

Well we lost a soldier there last week. Wich led to alot of debate if we should stay in Afghanistan, again. The socialists protesting there own decicions again :S

I think we're pulling out soon too. Not sure tough.

 

[Merkinball]

But note the difference between Germany, Japan, the Confederacy, and other enemies of the United States in which we have successful built democracies after destroying them. All of those countries had at least a somewhat democratic, liberal history - Hygro

I don't know why you threw the confederacy in there but...

What was at all Democratic about Japan and Germany? Is the rise of the Nazi party your example of Germany being Democratic, if so, how was Adolf's rise much different than Saddam's initial assention to power? How could you even begin to possibly construe that the underlying fundamentals that present us problems in Iraq now, didn't exist in Japan or Germany? I think it's absolutely amazing, that you think that whatever menail, petty, pathetic displays of goodwill between Japan/Germany, and America, would have weighed more heavily upon the minds of the people than the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the merciless firebombings of Hamburg and Dresden. Perhaps you're not so familiar about what Germans thought about what we want to do to them post WWI? With all seriousness. What do you think was running through the minds of the people of Germany while we forced every able bodied person to clean up the dead in the concentration camps. "Hey, I bet these guys aren't so bad, they may have obliterated our cities, with no regard for civilian life, but don't you remember that show of goodwill all those years back?"

Again, this is why you can't take liberals seriously.