• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taliban: we won the war

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
119,541
Reaction score
34,987
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The war in Afghanistan will be won by the women of Afghanistan.


On September 28, candidates for the Afghan parliament launched their campaigns ahead of the October 20 elections. Of the 2,565 people running, a historic 417 are women. According to data by The World Bank, the number of seats in parliament held by women rose from 4 percent in 1990 to 28 percent in 2017.

The United Nations says that women’s participation in the Afghan electoral process is essential to creating a stronger democracy. The Independent Election Committee (IEC) of Afghanistan has said that they are working to increase the number of women voters, including an initiative to hire a woman to staff each polling place.



This review attempts to synthesise the available literature addressing women’s election participation in Afghanistan, spanning a period of 6 years. Press coverage around the recent presidential elections in Afghanistan emphasised the low turnout of women voters, the perceived lack of security at voting stations, and election fraud. However, things are clearly changing in Afghanistan, with recent data indicating that women, who comprise 55% of the population and are considered part of the ‘intelligentsia’ within Parliament increased their Provincial Council participation in the 2009 election by 20 percent.

Lesson learning from prior elections has been described as a major building block to subsequent success in following elections. This includes the influence of Government and NGO-sponsored programmes which conducted public information campaigns to encourage female voter registration; correctly identified physical safety and security as a major concern; created women-only voting stations staffed by female election workers and offered the highly publicised option of voter registration cards without the requirement of being photographed. Lessons relating female candidacy include – observing and reforming legal frameworks, reform of quota system, well planned security arrangment, openness in political parties and financial support.

 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
27,068
Reaction score
6,390
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Are you telling me that the Soviets were not sufficiently brutal in Afghanistan? Were they Soviets too restricted in the rules of engagement in Afghanistan? They killed more than 250,000 Mujahideen, as many as 2 million Afghans (that was nearly 20% of the country's population at the time), and they still left after 9 years having failed.

There is a reason for the quote, "Afghanistan, where empires go to die."

But then the Soviets were not just fighting the Mujahideen. There were also fighting the CIA as we were supplying stinger missiles, other weapons and intelligence to the Mujahideen. and the Soviets had other issues, such as ill prepared troops conscripted from other nations enslaved to them behind the Iron Curtain. Rank and file Soviet troops were not motivated by anything other then their own survival.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,690
Reaction score
8,714
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Who said anything about remaking Afghanistan or the Middle East? We cannot change their culture, however when they attack ours, we can respond.
I guess you did not actually read my post you responded to.

If you had you would have noticed that you had responded to a post about remaking the Middle East and Afghanistan.
🤷

I am still flat-out awestruck that any informed adults could've thought that a foreign power remaking Afghanistan was doable while simultaneously trying to remake the Middle East.

"Let's **** around with two of the World's biggest ****ing labyrinths of quagmires.
It'll be different this time because Freedom Fries or some shit."

"hubris" doesn't do that delusion justice
Invading Iraq was mission creep from Hell's own special Hell.
 

swing_voter

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
11,060
Reaction score
7,039
Location
'Murica
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Russia will invade Afghanistan within the decade.

After Afghanistan falls into chaos once again.
 

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
11,875
Reaction score
4,247
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This should have ended a long time ago.

After Bin Laden was killed in PAKISTAN

We should have gathered up and said, "If we have to come back here, we're going to lay waste and salt the earth when we leave. Don't harbor terrorists."
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
146,994
Reaction score
49,062
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Afghanistan: 'We have won the war, America has lost', say Taliban

I tend to agree. The Taliban are still around, still controls parts of Afghanistan, and will probably be in charge of all of it within a few years. America is leaving and the people they went to unseat from power will be back in charge.
I blame Reagan and the paranoid who feared communism so much they made a deal with the devil. And, yes. That devil came back to collect on 911.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
27,068
Reaction score
6,390
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I guess you did not actually read my post you responded to.

If you had you would have noticed that you had responded to a post about remaking the Middle East and Afghanistan.
🤷

Perhaps. However I am not of the opinion that we have to remake the Middle East to defeat them in war.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,690
Reaction score
8,714
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Perhaps. However I am not of the opinion that we have to remake the Middle East to defeat them in war.
Maybe you weren't around then. idk

We didn't invade Iraq just to defeat Hussein.
That was never the deal.

The deal was we had to remake the ME to prevent ObL et al from attacking us again.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
27,068
Reaction score
6,390
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Maybe you weren't around then. idk

We didn't invade Iraq just to defeat Hussein.
That was never the deal.

The deal was we had to remake the ME to prevent ObL et al from attacking us again.

I have been around since President Eisenhower. As for Iraq, we first went to war with them in 1991 over their annexation of Kuwait. The objective was simply to evict them from Kuwait and stop their production of weapons of mass destruction. They signed onto terms that allowed the regime to stay in power. Fast forward to 2003. They violated those terms, they continued to threaten Kuwait and refuse to verify destruction of wmds. The regime was given an ultimatum. Saddam and his bastard sons were to leave or there would be an invasion. After the regime was taken down, ofcourse we could not leave them with no functioning government. We did not do that in Germany either in the aftermath of WW2. However we did not remake Germany of Japan, nor did we remake Iraq.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,690
Reaction score
8,714
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have been around since President Eisenhower. As for Iraq, we first went to war with them in 1991 over their annexation of Kuwait. The objective was simply to evict them from Kuwait and stop their production of weapons of mass destruction. They signed onto terms that allowed the regime to stay in power. Fast forward to 2003. They violated those terms, they continued to threaten Kuwait and refuse to verify destruction of wmds. The regime was given an ultimatum. Saddam and his bastard sons were to leave or there would be an invasion. After the regime was taken down, ofcourse we could not leave them with no functioning government. We did not do that in Germany either in the aftermath of WW2. However we did not remake Germany of Japan, nor did we remake Iraq.
I am unable to argue that we remade Iraq.

But that was the stated intention.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
27,068
Reaction score
6,390
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am unable to argue that we remade Iraq.

But that was the stated intention.

The only remaking we ever intended was to remove a murderous tyrant dictator and help the nation set up a parliamentary government where they elect their own leaders. Remaking to a point I suppose, but they are largely on their own.
 

Phys251

1/20/2021: The healing begins
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
37,777
Reaction score
20,670
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I was confident from the beginning that the Freedom Fighters would defeat Corporate Fascist Forces in Afghanistan.

Now, 20 years later, here we are.

Good job Freedom Fighters!!! Run the enemy out of Iraq now too!!

Rah rah sis boom bah....gooooOOOO Freedom Fighters!!!!!

*swinging pom poms*

So you were rooting for the terrorists. Good job.

Bet the guy in your avatar would be so proud of you if he were alive. /s
 

uptower

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
9,712
Reaction score
5,910
Location
Behind you - run!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Afghanistan: 'We have won the war, America has lost', say Taliban

I tend to agree. The Taliban are still around, still controls parts of Afghanistan, and will probably be in charge of all of it within a few years. America is leaving and the people they went to unseat from power will be back in charge.

Sad but it hasn't really worked, they still control much of the country and screw it, it's their country anyway, in the sense that they're Afghans too.

I don't like the way they run it, but how many decades must the west pour blood and treasure into this basket case, especially in these times. Keep an eye on it, send gear to whichever faction or government is in favor at the time, bomb any terrorist training camps or whatever needs to be done, but otherwise stay out.
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
25,574
Reaction score
12,884
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Maybe we should stop respecting our troops so much until they do better and start actually winning some of these things.

Maybe liberal assholes should let them fight instead of trying to come up with "Courageous Restraint" medals.

But then again, when Odumbo droned a wedding party, his liberal cult following never said boo!
 

Fishking

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
25,257
Reaction score
8,033
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Afghanistan: 'We have won the war, America has lost', say Taliban

I tend to agree. The Taliban are still around, still controls parts of Afghanistan, and will probably be in charge of all of it within a few years. America is leaving and the people they went to unseat from power will be back in charge.

They didn't win a war. The U.S. military is not fighting any formalized enemy force and have been nation building for years. We can't make the people of Afghanistan do what they need to to make a stable and reliable country.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,690
Reaction score
8,714
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The only remaking we ever intended was to remove a murderous tyrant dictator and help the nation set up a parliamentary government where they elect their own leaders. Remaking to a point I suppose, but they are largely on their own.
Feel free to explain what "remaking" would actually means in this context.

We were only gonna remove their existing government, demolish their ruling party and all of its formal and informal structures, and replace it with a totally different government, constitution, social norms, etc.

And that is different from remaking because . . .
 

rickc

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
5,169
Reaction score
2,352
Surprised that it took the Taliban that long to declare victory.

From what I saw reported, the US hasn't lost a single solider in Afghanistan in the last 18 months, and there are only a few thousands there. The locations where they are are relatively secure, and provide a base of operations for CIA and other Intel operations to 'keep tabs' on what the Taliban are up to.
Seems presence in Afghanistan has intel benefits.

Pulling all that out was stated as effectively blinding the US as to what the Taliban were doing, as blind as we were prior to 9/11.

If the point is to reduce overseas deployed troops, why not reduce the number of troops in relatively peaceful locations and maintain the small presence in Afghanistan?

Would you like to be part of that small presence?
 

bomberfox

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
14,954
Reaction score
3,917
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I mean, if that’s the standard we are using we probably shouldn’t have holidays for civil rights leaders like MLK Jr since it seems like they failed pretty badly at solving this whole systematic racism thing 🙄

Do you seriously not understand the problem with your statement?
Yeah that statement was bafflingly stupid.
 

mrjurrs

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
9,066
Reaction score
3,335
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
23,540
Reaction score
20,661
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That did not take long.
 

MamboDervish

Looking Forward
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
3,473
Reaction score
2,600
Location
The Big Apple
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
They violated those terms, they continued to threaten Kuwait and refuse to verify destruction of wmds.
Well - there's more than a little revisionist history going on in your post. The fact is, when Bush the Lesser invaded and occupied Iraq, they were a threat to absolutely no one. Moreover, international teams of weapons inspectors - about 700 of them - had already been occupying and scouring the country for 3 months. They had announced multiple times to the world that they had been given access to anything and everything they wanted, and had discovered nothing! They even went so far as to point out that those teams had already visited one of the sites before Colin Powell wound up using aerial photos of it in his dog-and-pony show at the UN, and they declared there were no traces of any weapons there. Hans Blix was subsequently quoted as saying that he failed to understand how the Bush administration could be "100% certain about the presence of WMD, and 0% certain about where they are!"

After the regime was taken down, ofcourse we could not leave them with no functioning government.
This is also inaccurate. They had a functioning government. It was Paul Bremer, who was put in charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, who disbanded the Iraqi military, disbanded all of Iraq's police forces, and disbanded the entire civil authority that could have, and would have, run the country, leaving Iraq without so much as someone to operate a waste water treatment plant. That was all done deliberately, effectively crippling the entire country, putting millions of young men out of work, and necessitating a takeover by US corporations. They were then granted lucrative no-bid contracts totaling billion$ of dollar$, just to keep things like the oil wells pumping, water flowing, and the power grid in operation.

The Bush administration knew exactly the kind of morass they would be leading us into, did it quite intentionally, and none of it was necessary.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
27,068
Reaction score
6,390
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well - there's more than a little revisionist history going on in your post. The fact is, when Bush the Lesser invaded and occupied Iraq, they were a threat to absolutely no one. Moreover, international teams of weapons inspectors - about 700 of them - had already been occupying and scouring the country for 3 months. They had announced multiple times to the world that they had been given access to anything and everything they wanted, and had discovered nothing! They even went so far as to point out that those teams had already visited one of the sites before Colin Powell wound up using aerial photos of it in his dog-and-pony show at the UN, and they declared there were no traces of any weapons there. Hans Blix was subsequently quoted as saying that he failed to understand how the Bush administration could be "100% certain about the presence of WMD, and 0% certain about where they are!"


This is also inaccurate. They had a functioning government. It was Paul Bremer, who was put in charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, who disbanded the Iraqi military, disbanded all of Iraq's police forces, and disbanded the entire civil authority that could have, and would have, run the country, leaving Iraq without so much as someone to operate a waste water treatment plant. That was all done deliberately, effectively crippling the entire country, putting millions of young men out of work, and necessitating a takeover by US corporations. They were then granted lucrative no-bid contracts totaling billion$ of dollar$, just to keep things like the oil wells pumping, water flowing, and the power grid in operation.

The Bush administration knew exactly the kind of morass they would be leading us into, did it quite intentionally, and none of it was necessary.

Nice try, however the Iraqis did not cooperate well with the inspectors. Their rooms were bugged and the Iraqis knew where the inspectors were going to go almost before they did and had time to clean up the target sites. if rushed, they simply delayed the inspectors for as much as hours. They may or may not have disposed of the material, however they did not prove they did and the inspectors were unable to verify said destruction. That violated the terms of the agreements they signed with the coalition to end the war. As for your suggestion that the Iraqis were a threat to nobody, that is merely conjecture. Had the US military pulled up stakes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the Iraqi regime was still quite the threat.
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
21,474
Reaction score
10,358
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Maybe liberal assholes should let them fight instead of trying to come up with "Courageous Restraint" medals.

But then again, when Odumbo droned a wedding party, his liberal cult following never said boo!

They did fight. And got their asses kicked for 20 years, thus we get to be just like every other loser nation that lost to “people in caves”.

Maybe the ROI on the military has been garbage since ww2.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

Hindsight is 2020
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
42,686
Reaction score
24,826
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

MamboDervish

Looking Forward
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
3,473
Reaction score
2,600
Location
The Big Apple
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Nice try, however the Iraqis did not cooperate well with the inspectors. Their rooms were bugged and the Iraqis knew where the inspectors were going to go almost before they did and had time to clean up the target sites. if rushed, they simply delayed the inspectors for as much as hours. They may or may not have disposed of the material, however they did not prove they did and the inspectors were unable to verify said destruction. That violated the terms of the agreements they signed with the coalition to end the war. As for your suggestion that the Iraqis were a threat to nobody, that is merely conjecture. Had the US military pulled up stakes in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the Iraqi regime was still quite the threat.
Nice try. We know this is all horseshit. Because even AFTER our invasion and occupation, our own military still found nothing of what was alleged by Powell at the UN General Assembly, so there was nothing "to clean up at the target sites". Saudi Arabia was so unconcerned with any threats from Iraq, they didn't even join the "coalition of the willing" in our invasion efforts. The shear folly of attempting to occupy Iraq was well understood by the VP Dick Cheney when he was interviewed in '94 after the first Gulf War.

BRINKLEY: One other question — it keeps coming up. Why didn’t we go to Baghdad and clean it all up while we were there?
Sec. CHENEY: "Well, just as it’s important, I think, for a president to know when to commit U.S. forces to combat, it’s also important to know when not to commit U.S. forces to combat. I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire." . . . .
. . . and . . . .
"If you can take down the central government of Iraq, you can easily see pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have in the West. Part of Eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim – fought over for eight years. In the North you have the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."

We never had to go into Iraq, but even if we had elected to go in - just to unseat Saddam - we didn't have to bomb their infrastructure into oblivion, we didn't have to put millions of trained and armed military-aged men out of work, and we didn't have to disband their civilian authority. We could have deposed Saddam and left the secular Baathist government intact to find its own way, instead of disenfranchising millions and allowing them to devolve into the fundamentalist Islamists who later formed ISIS.

The risks were well understood beforehand, but it was all done for the profit of the few, at the expense of the many, and at an incalculable cost to the future.
 
Top Bottom