• 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

eohrnberger

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
42,066
Reaction score
27,248
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Would you like to be part of that small presence?
I wouldn't qualify. Being blind to what the Taliban are 'up to', as we were once before, doesn't sound like a good idea. It sounds like a for real National security issue. Listed some locations where an Afghanistan deployment could be off set, where national security doesn't appear to be as much 'in play'.

It's called prioritization. Something that politically driven and publicity driven decisions rarely take into account.
 

GDViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
18,722
Reaction score
10,878
Location
SW Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
So long as they dont use it to attack americans, they can have it. Yes, this is just another example of how a small determined group of people with no rules can beat a bigger force. Unfortunately Im not sure what the alternative is to fight islamic fascism. They wont give up? They cant win, we cant win.

The alternative is like with any and every religion, education and technology.

The more educated people are the less they believe in crazy ass myths and kill one another over who's God is in charge....
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
27,068
Reaction score
6,390
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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 are not completely accurate. We did find wmds, just not the expected massive quantities. And that's beside the point. Under the agreement the regime signed to end the 91 war, it was up to the regime to cooperate with inspectors and prove that they destroyed the wmd material that was uncovered in the 91 war and admitted to by the regime. Or should we have just taken the word of the brutal tyrannical dictator?
 

MamboDervish

Looking Forward
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
3,473
Reaction score
2,600
Location
The Big Apple
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You are not completely accurate. We did find wmds, just not the expected massive quantities. And that's beside the point. Under the agreement the regime signed to end the 91 war, it was up to the regime to cooperate with inspectors and prove that they destroyed the wmd material that was uncovered in the 91 war and admitted to by the regime. Or should we have just taken the word of the brutal tyrannical dictator?
Before our invasion and occupational folly, Saddam was in complete compliance. 700 inspectors in Iraq guaranteed that. Bush himself admitted there were no WMD in a White House press conference as early as August 21, 2006. But even after 3-1/2 years of occupation, he was still desperate to continue to conflate Iraq, and reasons for our invasion, with the events of 9/11/01.
Here's part of the word-for-word transcript of that interview. (emphasis mine)
REPORTER: A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn’t gone in. How do you square all of that?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I square it, because — imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would — who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
Now, look, I didn’t — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. (This too was untrue) But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question — my answer to your question is, is that — imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
You know, I’ve heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived, and then, you know, kind of that we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest theory. It just — just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East."
The fact is there was never any good reason to invade Iraq. But even after Bush's uncalled for invasion, there was no reason to engage in such a ham-handed occupation and "nation building".
 

rickc

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
5,169
Reaction score
2,352
You are not completely accurate. We did find wmds, just not the expected massive quantities. And that's beside the point. Under the agreement the regime signed to end the 91 war, it was up to the regime to cooperate with inspectors and prove that they destroyed the wmd material that was uncovered in the 91 war and admitted to by the regime. Or should we have just taken the word of the brutal tyrannical dictator?

Yep

They found the WMD's Jr's daddy gave them when they were fighting Iran. None of it was usable.

Sadam was a buffer to Iran. Removing him destabilized the entire region.

All to fulfill the neocon dream of American oil companies controlling all of Iraq's oil reserves.

Greed does it again.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
27,068
Reaction score
6,390
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yep

They found the WMD's Jr's daddy gave them when they were fighting Iran. None of it was usable.

Sadam was a buffer to Iran. Removing him destabilized the entire region.

All to fulfill the neocon dream of American oil companies controlling all of Iraq's oil reserves.

Greed does it again.

Some equals greater then none. and it does not matter if they were not kept up. Which part of it was up to the Saddam regime to prove their disposal do you not understand? And American Oil companies were not after Iraqi Oil. And the blame for destablaiztion of the middle east goes to Jimmy Carter's poor handling of Iran when they seized the American Embassy.
 

Crakhobarbie

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2020
Messages
2,377
Reaction score
1,201
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Ike warned us. Afghanistan was/is unwinnable. But the military industrial complex sure got their wheels nicely greased for 20 years. God bless America.
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
19,046
Reaction score
11,421
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
And the blame for destablaiztion of the middle east goes to Jimmy Carter's poor handling of Iran when they seized the American Embassy.

What do you think he should have done? Invade Iran?
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
19,046
Reaction score
11,421
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Prove it.

The whole "withdrawal with conditions" was falling apart before they even started. The Taliban made that abundantly clear all the while the US kept negotiating with them.
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
21,206
Reaction score
3,066
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The alternative is like with any and every religion, education and technology.

The more educated people are the less they believe in crazy ass myths and kill one another over who's God is in charge....

How do you force them to be educated in something other than religion? Or at all? They dont let women go to school for example.
 

rickc

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
5,169
Reaction score
2,352
Well we kind of screwed them back when we were helping them fight the Russians. Made them all kinds of promises and then when the Russians left we did too. One of the reasons Bin Laden hated America. Pretty much standard operating procedure for America.

I feel sorry for our puppet government we installed. Didn't turn out too well for our South Vietnam puppets either.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
27,068
Reaction score
6,390
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The whole "withdrawal with conditions" was falling apart before they even started. The Taliban made that abundantly clear all the while the US kept negotiating with them.

Can't really argue with that.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
27,068
Reaction score
6,390
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What do you think he should have done? Invade Iran?

No. However he could have been a bit more forceful. He could have parked an aircraft carrier nearby and given the regime an ultimatum. Instead he wrote love letters to the Ayatollah appealing to his religion.
 

MamboDervish

Looking Forward
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
3,473
Reaction score
2,600
Location
The Big Apple
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
No. However he could have been a bit more forceful. He could have parked an aircraft carrier nearby and given the regime an ultimatum. Instead he wrote love letters to the Ayatollah appealing to his religion.
Exaggerate much? I recall - quite vividly - that the Ayatollah held onto the hostages deliberately because back door negotiations from Reagan's campaign team promised weapons in exchange for that accommodation, which was designed just to make Carter look weak and lose the election. That covert weapons sale was one leg of the Contra-gate scandal where the money paid by Iran was then used to buy drugs, the sale of which funded the Nicaraguan Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment.

Don't tell me you slept through that one, Van Winkle. North and Poindexter were both convicted of multiple felonies for that fiasco.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
27,068
Reaction score
6,390
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Exaggerate much? I recall - quite vividly - that the Ayatollah held onto the hostages deliberately because back door negotiations from Reagan's campaign team promised weapons in exchange for that accommodation, which was designed just to make Carter look weak and lose the election. That covert weapons sale was one leg of the Contra-gate scandal where the money paid by Iran was then used to buy drugs, the sale of which funded the Nicaraguan Contras in violation of the Boland Amendment.

Don't tell me you slept through that one, Van Winkle. North and Poindexter were both convicted of multiple felonies for that fiasco.

Nice attempt at a deflection, however Jimmy Carter was president when the hostages were taken and he let them sit in Iran for 445 days. There were no back door negotiations from the Reagan campaign other then telling the media that Iran would not get a better deal from him. The Iran Contra stuff occurred well after the hostages were released and involved other hostages. It was not connected to the embassy hostage ordeal. Iran Contra is not going to rescue you in this debate. It was Carter's weakness that led to the embassy hostages remaining in Iran for 445 days. Appealing to the Ayotollah's religion was weak and stupid. The suggestion that the Reagan campaign held back door negotiations to release the hostages is hilarious. What next. Will you google that lunatic Gary Sick conspiracy theory suggesting that claimed that George HW Bush took a ride in an SR-71 spy plane to Paris to negotiate with the Iranians and tell them to hold off until Reagan was in office?
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
21,474
Reaction score
10,356
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
You are not completely accurate. We did find wmds, just not the expected massive quantities. And that's beside the point. Under the agreement the regime signed to end the 91 war, it was up to the regime to cooperate with inspectors and prove that they destroyed the wmd material that was uncovered in the 91 war and admitted to by the regime. Or should we have just taken the word of the brutal tyrannical dictator?

Wow. There’s still Iraq war folks that are still saying the same lies and propaganda. Hoo boy.
 

TypicalRussian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Messages
10,558
Reaction score
604
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
no they didn't "win", but they didnt "lose", they will probably be stuck in this limbo of where they cant get too powerful but dont go away forever
 

rickc

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
5,169
Reaction score
2,352
Since Genghis Khan everyone who has thought to conquer Afghanistan has left with their tail between their legs.

We should have known how stupid it was to go there. Plenty of history there. Sure blow up the training camps and kill the leaders but do it from the air. No boots on the ground. Those mountains and caves are better cover for guerilla forces than the jungles of Vietnam.
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
19,046
Reaction score
11,421
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No. However he could have been a bit more forceful. He could have parked an aircraft carrier nearby and given the regime an ultimatum.

The Iranians were gassed by the Iraqis and it didn't deter them, so I'm not sure what you expect an aircraft carrier would have accomplished.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,675
Reaction score
33,518
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Taliban were never going to say anything different.

That said, I rather doubt the Taliban are going to roll into Kabul any time soon. The modern Afghan government is much stronger than the Soviet puppet state, and even they held on for years after the Russians left.
The opposition to the Najibullah regime was fractured, turned to squabling internally, and fought each other. The Taliban are unified. They'll take Kandahar, Helmand, and the West before they move on Kabul, but, it's hardly implausible.
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
19,046
Reaction score
11,421
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No. However he could have been a bit more forceful. He could have parked an aircraft carrier nearby and given the regime an ultimatum. Instead he wrote love letters to the Ayatollah appealing to his religion.

For the record, actually, Carter weighed the option of military action against Iran, but the post-Vietnam malaise resulted in the Joint Chiefs bluntly stating the US military wasn't capable of it.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
27,068
Reaction score
6,390
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
For the record, actually, Carter weighed the option of military action against Iran, but the post-Vietnam malaise resulted in the Joint Chiefs bluntly stating the US military wasn't capable of it.

Utter nonsense. Nobody is suggesting we should have gone to war with Iran. However a stern warning and ultimatum followed by sending an aircraft carrier to the region would have sufficed. If the Iranians still balked, a surgical strike on an oil field or some other prime target would have got their attention. To say the US Military was incapable of that is ludicrous.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
27,068
Reaction score
6,390
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Iranians were gassed by the Iraqis and it didn't deter them, so I'm not sure what you expect an aircraft carrier would have accomplished.

You are kidding, right?
 

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
23,594
Reaction score
13,210
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
“We” pulled out of Vietnam. Technically “we” didn’t “win” that war either.

Now Vietnam is a rather nice place to go visit.
 

DopeyJoeIsSenile

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
27,068
Reaction score
6,390
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
“We” pulled out of Vietnam. Technically “we” didn’t “win” that war either.

We did not lose that war either. Our involvement ended in a Treaty. After we left, North Vietnam violated the Treaty and defeated South Vietnam.

Now Vietnam is a rather nice place to go visit.

Depends on your definition of a nice place to visit. They are not at war, and capitalism has got it's foot in the door, however the citizens of Vietnam are still living under an authoritarian communist dictatorship. If that changes in my lifetime, I'll be delighted to visit. I restrict my tourism to free nations.
 
Top Bottom