Taliban: we won the war

[Grand Mal]

I don't know how Bush could even show his face in public after this Afghanistan/Iraq fiasco.

All that wasted youth and wealth for nothing.

Strange way to respond to a bunch of Saudi Arabians flying jetliners into American buildings, alright.
Afghanistan you can almost understand if It's just an effort to capture bin Laden but it all got out of hand really quickly. And Saddam Hussein wouldn't have tolerated Islamic jihadists who might siphon off loyalty from his Ba'athist rule.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Afghanis have been hiding beside a road waiting for their enemy to come along since Alexander the Great. Arabs, Persians, Mongols, the list goes on and on. There's no winning in Afghanistan. You're right. That's life.
Best to just leave them be.

Best to leave them be as long as they leave us be. If you are confused as to why we ended up invading Afghanistan, research the terrorist attacks on the US on 9-11-01. The Taliban regime in power at the time, willingly hosted and supported a terrorist group and allowed them to train for and stage a terrorist attack that left roughly 3000 and included an attack on the center of US military power, the Pentagon. Would you not agree that is an act of war? The Taliban were offered a way out. All they had to do was extradite Osama Bin Laden to the USA. I do agree that we should not still be there, however I disagree with your suggestion that based on pass history, there is no defeating bad players in Afghanistan. We just have to be willing to do what it takes to defeat them. We were willing to do so in regards to Germany and Japan in WW2. And Japanese soldiers were largely as fanatical as the Taliban today.

 

[snakestretcher]

Do you really think they were better off with a brutal authoritarian dictatorship? They are a fairly new democracy. They still have bugs to work out as do all others at some level. America for instance had a civil war just less then 100 years after our government was formed. Give it time.



I find that to be one of the goofiest questions in politics. What would you choose if you were a citizen of Iraq at the time? Brutal authoritarian dictatorship? Or a parliamentary system that allowed you basic liberties, including the opportunity participate in electing your leaders?

Their choice, not America's. Do you understand that basic concept?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Their choice, not America's. Do you understand that basic concept?

It became America's choice on 9/11/01 when Afghanistan was used as a staging area for the worst terrorist attacks on US soil in history. As for choice, it's idiotic to suggest that any human being on the planet would prefer a brutal authoritarian dictatorship over liberty. Do you understand that basic concept?

 

[snakestretcher]

It became America's choice on 9/11/01 when Afghanistan was used as a staging area for the worst terrorist attacks on US soil in history. As for choice, it's idiotic to suggest that any human being on the planet would prefer a brutal authoritarian dictatorship over liberty. Do you understand that basic concept?

Imposing 'democracy' on a nation which never asked for it isn't democracy; it's the antithesis. What right does America have to unilaterally decide what a sovereign nation does politically? The answer is 'none'. The world is pissed-off with America's continual meddling and fumbling around in countries where you were never invited. The political disasters in Latin America and the resulting refugee crisis are largely of America's doing.
As far as brutal and authoritarian dictatorships are concerned, who was it ousted a democratically elected government in Iran and installed a vicious dictator in its place, along with SAVAK, the CIA-trained secret police who tortured and did away with thousands of political dissidents? If your answer is the US/CIA with British collusion you get today's Gold Star award.
The USA has no moral authority to preach 'democracy'.

SAVAK - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Imposing 'democracy' on a nation which never asked for it isn't democracy; it's the antithesis.

Which part of The USA was attacked on 9/11/01 by terrorists who were allowed to train and stage their attack from Afghanistan do you not understand? That was our modern day Pearl Harbor. More died in the 9/11/01 attacks then died in the attack on Pearl Harbor that led to America entering World War 2. Why is that so hard for you to understand? And again, your suggestion that anyone on the planet if given the choice would not choose liberty over a brutal authoritarian dictatorship is idiotic. And as for your claim about America lacking moral authority, look who is talking? Check your own country's history of colonialism. The vast majority of the world's hotspots in my lifetime have historical roots to European colonialism and the lions share was carried out by Great Britain.

 

[snakestretcher]

Which part of The USA was attacked on 9/11/01 by terrorists who were allowed to train and stage their attack from Afghanistan do you not understand? That was our modern day Pearl Harbor. More died in the 9/11/01 attacks then died in the attack on Pearl Harbor that led to America entering World War 2. Why is that so hard for you to understand? And again, your suggestion that anyone on the planet if given the choice would not choose liberty over a brutal authoritarian dictatorship is idiotic. And as for your claim about America lacking moral authority, look who is talking? Check your own country's history of colonialism. The vast majority of the world's hotspots in my lifetime have historical roots to European colonialism and the lions share was carried out by Great Britain.

I have no qualms in criticising Britain's colonial misdeeds, but you appear tacitly supportive and dismissive when America does the same. Why is that? Is US regime overthrow somehow permissible but not if another country chooses to do so? Curiously it's only the weak and poorly defended nations that America chooses to attack and invade in attempts at achieving global hegemony. If you believe these actions are for the benefit of the citizens of those nations, or some feeble excuse involving altruism, you're deluding yourself.
All the issues the US now has with Iran, for example, are of your own making. Try joining the dots from 1953 until today.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I have no qualms in criticising Britain's colonial misdeeds, but you appear tacitly supportive and dismissive when America does the same. Why is that? Is US regime overthrow somehow permissible but not if another country chooses to do so?

You are making up your own narratives and assuming what I support or do not support. There have been military actions by United States that I was not in agreement. One such was Vietnam. That was a civil war that I did not feel we needed to get involved in. And the historical roots to that civil war was French attempts at colonialism. Having said that, we elect civilian leadership that makes those decisions and once the decision is made to go to war, we should kick ass, win, and bring the troops home, even if I did not agree with the reasons for going.

 

[snakestretcher]

You are making up your own narratives and assuming what I support or do not support. There have been military actions by United States that I was not in agreement. One such was Vietnam. That was a civil war that I did not feel we needed to get involved in. And the historical roots to that civil war was French attempts at colonialism. Having said that, we elect civilian leadership that makes those decisions and once the decision is made to go to war, we should kick ass, win, and bring the troops home, even if I did not agree with the reasons for going.

That would be great, but remind me when was the last time the US won any military conflict since WW2-apart from beating mighty Grenada?

 

[calamity]

No, we didn't. Only in your dreams. We haven't won in Pakistan nor Afghanistan nor Iraq nor Iran. We're batting zero in the Middle East.

We won until Bush and Rumsfeld pulled troops out to manage the war on the cheap rather than end it quickly. Read up on it.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

That would be great, but remind me when was the last time the US won any military conflict since WW2-apart from beating mighty Grenada?

I doubt that you are objective enough to admit to any of them. The 1991 invasion of Iraq was absolutely a victory as was the 2003 invasion, even if it took too long the beat down the insurgency that rose afterward. Iraq is now electing it's own leaders. Initially, Afghanistan was a victory as soon as the Taliban government in Kabul went down, however the insurgency still goes on as our leaders have not allowed the military to do what it would take to achieve victory. The invasion of Panama was a victory. Vietnam was not an outright victory as after we left, the objective was lost. The Korean War is technically an ongoing truce.

 

[snakestretcher]

I doubt that you are objective enough to admit to any of them. The 1991 invasion of Iraq was absolutely a victory as was the 2003 invasion, even if it took too long the beat down the insurgency that rose afterward. Iraq is now electing it's own leaders. Initially, Afghanistan was a victory as soon as the Taliban government in Kabul went down, however the insurgency still goes on as our leaders have not allowed the military to do what it would take to achieve victory. The invasion of Panama was a victory. Vietnam was not an outright victory as after we left, the objective was lost. The Korean War is technically an ongoing truce.

Panama? What a joke*. You were escorted out of Vietnam by a bunch of peasants in pajamas. Nobody in history since the time of Alexander the Great has achieved anything resembling 'victory' in Afghanistan. History is a great teacher; ignoring it is folly.
*https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-u-s-invades-panama

 

[Tigerace117]

That would be great, but remind me when was the last time the US won any military conflict since WW2-apart from beating mighty Grenada?

Desert Storm.

Defeating ISIS’ drive on Baghdad.

Crushing Gaddafi’s forces.

Driving Milosevic’s thugs out of Kosovo.

Just a couple examples.

 

[Tigerace117]

Panama? What a joke*. You were escorted out of Vietnam by a bunch of peasants in pajamas. Nobody in history since the time of Alexander the Great has achieved anything resembling 'victory' in Afghanistan. History is a great teacher; ignoring it is folly.
*https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-u-s-invades-panama

North Vietnam actually received large amounts of advanced Soviet military equipment. Trying to declare them just a bunch of “peasants in pajamas” is actually a bit of an insult to them.

And even then they only won after the US decided not to fight.

 

[snakestretcher]

Desert Storm.

Defeating ISIS’ drive on Baghdad.

Crushing Gaddafi’s forces.

Driving Milosevic’s thugs out of Kosovo.

Just a couple examples.

Iraq was a dismal failure-still is. Gadaffi? Libya's civil war was none of your business, as usual. ISIS? Still around and growing. I'll concede Kosovo.

 

[snakestretcher]

North Vietnam actually received large amounts of advanced Soviet military equipment. Trying to declare them just a bunch of “peasants in pajamas” is actually a bit of an insult to them.

And even then they only won after the US decided not to fight.

Huh? The US threw everything, bar nukes, at the NVA during the three years of 'Rolling Thunder' and achieved nothing.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Panama? What a joke*. You were escorted out of Vietnam by a bunch of peasants in pajamas. Nobody in history since the time of Alexander the Great has achieved anything resembling 'victory' in Afghanistan. History is a great teacher; ignoring it is folly.
*https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-u-s-invades-panama

You are making up your own realities as you go. Study the actual history of the war in Vietnam. The single biggest battle in that war was the TET Offensive. While it certainly showed that the Viet Cong was quite a force, they were virtually eliminated as a fighting force, which primarily left the North Vietnamese regulars. However the fact that it became a real war rather then a quick so-called police action spooked the politicians and media in the US and the Paris Peace Talks began. And while those idiots were spending their days arguing about whether to have Lobster Thermidore or Baked Alaska for long, all prime military targets that would have ended the war sooner were taken off limits. Those talks went on for years, until finally President Nixon had had enough after North Vietnam walked out of the talks. Nixon ordered unrestricted carpet bombing of all military targets and the mining of Haiphong Harbor. North Vietnam was getting it's ass kicked. That brought their return to the Peace talks and a Treaty was signed. Nobody chased US Troops out of Vietnam.

 

[Tigerace117]

Iraq was a dismal failure-still is. Gadaffi? Libya's civil war was none of your business, as usual. ISIS? Still around and growing. I'll concede Kosovo.

Uh...no, Saddam got his ass kicked hard and was run out of Kuwait, which was the entire point of Desert Storm.

Gaddafi was a brutal thug who was responsible for deaths of numerous Americans, so the US had every right to keep him from slaughtering his own people.

Growing in other directions, perhaps, but their original plan has been throughly crushed.

 

[snakestretcher]

You are making up your own realities as you go. Study the actual history of the war in Vietnam. The single biggest battle in that war was the TET Offensive. While it certainly showed that the Viet Cong was quite a force, they were virtually eliminated as a fighting force, which primarily left the North Vietnamese regulars. However the fact that it became a real war rather then a quick so-called police action spooked the politicians and media in the US and the Paris Peace Talks began. And while those idiots were spending their days arguing about whether to have Lobster Thermidore or Baked Alaska for long, all prime military targets that would have ended the war sooner were taken off limits. Those talks went on for years, until finally President Nixon had had enough after North Vietnam walked out of the talks. Nixon ordered unrestricted carpet bombing of all military targets and the mining of Haiphong Harbor. North Vietnam was getting it's ass kicked. That brought their return to the Peace talks and a Treaty was signed. Nobody chased US Troops out of Vietnam.

America lost; you were driven out after years of failure to subdue the Communists-and one battle doesn't win a war. Even three long years of 'Rolling Thunder' achieved nothing but bombed jungle.

 

[Tigerace117]

Huh? The US threw everything, bar nukes, at the NVA during the three years of 'Rolling Thunder' and achieved nothing.

The NVA tried to roll on Saigon in force in 1972. They got crushed so badly it took them three years to recover enough to try again.....at which point the US had washed its hands of the whole affair.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Iraq was a dismal failure-still is. Gadaffi? Libya's civil war was none of your business, as usual. ISIS? Still around and growing. I'll concede Kosovo.

Really? is Saddam Hussein still in control of Iraq? Oh wait....no he is worm food. Iraq is still a bit of a mess, however they are no longer under an authoritarian dictatorship. They are electing their own leaders and I think history will see it as a success.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

America lost; you were driven out after years of failure to subdue the Communists-and one battle doesn't win a war. Even three long years of 'Rolling Thunder' achieved nothing but bombed jungle.

Again, you are making up your own realities. Subduing the communists would have taken an invasion of Russia and probably China. That is where their supplies came from. Nixon bombed the North Vietnamese into signing a treaty, even if that treaty was violated after we left. I don't call it an overall victory as the objective was ultimately lost when the north overran the south. America has never lost a war. That would take a military defeat.

 

[snakestretcher]

Really? is Saddam Hussein still in control of Iraq? Oh wait....no he is worm food. Iraq is still a bit of a mess, however they are no longer under an authoritarian dictatorship. They are electing their own leaders and I think history will see it as a success.

Iraq is a political disaster fraught with political and factional in-fighting. Attempting to force democracy onto a tribal nation isn't working too well. Then again when has America ever not been hypocritical where its defence of 'democracy' is concerned? You're quite happy to overthrow legitimate democracies if they aren't playing by America's rules.

Tribal Justice in a Fragile Iraq

Tribalism is a defining characteristic of modern Iraqi society, but one that is constantly adapting to changing times. This report aims to shed light on

tcf.org

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Iraq is a political disaster fraught with political and factional in-fighting. Attempting to force democracy onto a tribal nation isn't working too well. Then again when has America ever not been hypocritical where its defence of 'democracy' is concerned? You're quite happy to overthrow legitimate democracies if they aren't playing by America's rules.

Tribal Justice in a Fragile Iraq

Tribalism is a defining characteristic of modern Iraqi society, but one that is constantly adapting to changing times. This report aims to shed light on

tcf.org

Give it a rest. America was not a perfect democracy in the beginning either. We fought our own civil; war less then 100 years after our founding. Expecting Iraq to be a perfect democracy immediately is just silly. It will be fragile for a while, just like America was. Again, I think in the long run, history will show it as a success. And again, since you keep bringing it up, considering the UK's colonial history, I do not find you morally qualified to judge America's military ventures.

 

[snakestretcher]

Give it a rest. America was not a perfect democracy in the beginning either. We fought our own civil; war less then 100 years after our founding. Expecting Iraq to be a perfect democracy immediately is just silly. It will be fragile for a while, just like America was. Again, I think in the long run, history will show it as a success. And again, since you keep bringing it up, considering the UK's colonial history, I do not find you morally qualified to judge America's military ventures.

Why not? America's military adventures continue. We don't do it any longer unless obligated to by our NATO membership commitments.