• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

The war in Afghanistan will be won by the women of Afghanistan.



Historic Number of Women Running for Afghan Parliament. - Feminist Majority Foundation

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...
feminist.org



Women’s Participation in Elections in Afghanistan - GSDRC

Please synthesise materials and reports relating to women’s political participation in Afghanistan during elections to cover materials not consulted (because not available) in the previous GSDRC report.
gsdrc.org
 

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.
 
DopeyJoeIsSenile said:
Who said anything about remaking Afghanistan or the Middle East? We cannot change their culture, however when they attack ours, we can respond.
Click to expand...
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.


 
Russia will invade Afghanistan within the decade.

After Afghanistan falls into chaos once again.
 
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."
 
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.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. However I am not of the opinion that we have to remake the Middle East to defeat them in war.
 
DopeyJoeIsSenile said:
Perhaps. However I am not of the opinion that we have to remake the Middle East to defeat them in war.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I am unable to argue that we remade Iraq.

But that was the stated intention.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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
 

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.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Maybe we should stop respecting our troops so much until they do better and start actually winning some of these things.
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
DopeyJoeIsSenile said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 . . .
 

Would you like to be part of that small presence?
 
Yeah that statement was bafflingly stupid.
 
That did not take long.
 
DopeyJoeIsSenile said:
They violated those terms, they continued to threaten Kuwait and refuse to verify destruction of wmds.
Click to expand...
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!"

DopeyJoeIsSenile said:
After the regime was taken down, ofcourse we could not leave them with no functioning government.
Click to expand...
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.
 
RetiredUSN said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…