CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › US soldiers Vs Afghan rebels
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US soldiers Vs Afghan rebels

post #1 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
By MARK KENNEDY, Associated Press Writer

BAGRAM, Afghanistan - U.S. and Afghan forces battled rebels aligned with renegade leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar on Tuesday in the largest-scale fighting in Afghanistan (news - web sites) in 10 months.

At least 18 rebels were killed in the fighting, which began Monday in the southeastern mountains, the U.S. military said. There were no Afghan coalition casualties or civilian injuries.

The military said 80 rebels were involved in the conflict, and — on the American side — up to 350 soldiers, including troops from the 82nd Airborne division, U.S. Special Forces, and allied Afghan militia troops.

"It's the largest concentration of enemy forces since Operation Anaconda," U.S. military spokesman Roger King said from Bagram Air Base, referring to a fierce eight-day battle last March against Taliban and al-Qaida holdouts in southeastern Afghanistan.

Fighters received aerial support from American B-1 bombers dropping 19 2,000-pound bombs on enemy positions, including deep caves, King said. F-16 fighters flown by European allies dropped a pair of 500-pound bombs, while AC-130 gunships and Apache AH-64 helicopter gunships pounded the enemy with rocket and cannon fire, King said.

"We've had reports of various numbers of armed men, groups of people trying to gather in order to carry out attacks on the coalition," King said. "We've been actively engaged in trying to develop intelligence that would lead us to a precise location and yesterday we did."

The fighting — about 15 miles north of Spinboldak and near the border with Pakistan — was triggered by a small shootout pitting armed attackers against U.S. Special Forces and their Afghan government allies working to clear a mud-walled compound.

One attacker was killed, one injured and one detained, King said. The detained suspect told questioners that a large group of armed men had massed in mountains nearby.

Apache helicopters sent to investigate came under small arms fire, and then fighter aircraft went to pound the area.

"Our intelligence leads us to believe that they are most closely aligned with the Hezb-e-Islami movement, which is Hekmatyar's military arm," King said. "We've had reports over several months that he's been attempting to consolidate with remnants of al-Qaida and Taliban."

Hekmatyar was a key guerrilla commander during the 1980s Soviet war in Afghanistan. Later, in the civil war that paved the way for the Taliban takeover, Hekmatyar's men pounded the capital, Kabul, with daily rocket barrages. He lived in exile in Iran during the five years of Taliban rule, and returned after U.S.-led forces ousted the hardline militia. Western intelligence agencies suspect he is getting money from Iran.

His following among ethnic Pashtuns is considered fairly significant...
A little taste of what will happen in Iraq if you don't plan for the day after.

I think it's fairly obvious now that bombing a tyrant and then doing nothing, does not lead to democracy and happiness for all.
post #2 of 62
18 to 0.....not bad.
post #3 of 62
Yes, I'd say that an unstable country with a gaping power vacuum and rival rebel factions running wild is a resounding success.
post #4 of 62
Quote:
Call:
18 to 0.....not bad.
Christ, this disgusts me to no end. You make it sound like it's a fucking football game.
post #5 of 62
Yeah, we keep winning. Winning WHAT exactly?
post #6 of 62
Quote:
Call:
18 to 0.....not bad.
As long as they keep killing camel jockeys, call doesn't care about anything else. You're a real scumbag.
post #7 of 62
Thread Starter 
I really love the conservative's Bene Gesserit logic on who's human and who's not.
post #8 of 62
Reading this makes me physically ill. I want to move to a less fucked place, like Columbia.
post #9 of 62
Quote:
Fighters received aerial support from American B-1 bombers dropping 19 2,000-pound bombs on enemy positions, including deep caves, King said. F-16 fighters flown by European allies dropped a pair of 500-pound bombs, while AC-130 gunships and Apache AH-64 helicopter gunships pounded the enemy with rocket and cannon fire, King said.
It's this sort of detailed fetishisation of the weaponry that knocked me sick during the Gulf War. It's not news, it doesn't help us understand why things happen - it's just porno for the war junkies watching at home with a copy of Jane's Defence and a box of tissues.
post #10 of 62
Sadly, it seems that people prefer to hear this kind of fetishisation than the result of what said weapons do. After all, a big 500-pounds being dropped means a big 'splosion so it's cool, right? These sickos should be force fed the images of the people who received the bomb on the head.
post #11 of 62
Thread Starter 
It makes no difference, because it's not people that die from these bombs, no siree!

It's "collateral damage" (TM).

The disturbing mentality is that as long those who get dismembered do not hold US passports, it's okay.
post #12 of 62
Now, now conflict boy. Let's keep the name calling and accusations of racism to a minimum. You've been something close to tolerable lately, and we wouldn't want to run the risk of exile again, would we?

Presuming to know my mind and what prejudices I hold or don't hold is as ridiculous as it ever was.

And as for the rest of you who are unable to take a slightly abrasive joke:

Would it have made you feel all squishy and good if some Americans had died in the battle? Would that make everything OK for you? Why do lament the deaths of truly horrible people who would put to death a woman for showing a bit of ankle? Or a homosexual simply for living his life? Or a Hindu wanting to practice his relegion in peace?
You all so easily forget the EVIL that those "rebels" represent. They would kill you as easily as look at you all. Never forget that.

Your "outrage" over my post is laughable when you simply let it slide when devilf wishes for the deaths of people who vote for Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.

Hypocrites.
post #13 of 62
Quote:
Call:
Why do lament the deaths of truly horrible people who would put to death a woman for showing a bit of ankle? Or a homosexual simply for living his life? Or a Hindu wanting to practice his relegion in peace?
You all so easily forget the EVIL that those "rebels" represent. They would kill you as easily as look at you all. Never forget that.
These would be the same rebels who were just dandy when they were helping to kick Russia in the ass? Or have they only become EVIL since then?
post #14 of 62
How about evil people who would put retarded people or children to death?
post #15 of 62
Yes, Dan. The very same.

You are happy as long as you can pretend the world works in a vacuum, huh? I have news for you: the world is sometimes a dirty place and you have to make allies with less than savory characters to meet goals (Soviet Union in WWII anyone?). These men helped hand a resounding defeat to the greatest enemy of freedom the world had ever known. Their fight against the Soviets in the 80's was necessary. Like it or not.

And it was our duty to help them in that fight.

Yesterday's friend is the enemy tomorrow. I know it doesn't really fit into the bright and sunny worldview that many of you wish to see. But that is just how things work.
post #16 of 62
Thread Starter 
Please check out other threads before replying. I was just as pissed off when Devin wished death on others.

That's just it. I don't consider it a nice thing to say that you are happy for someone losing his life.

And it's an established fact that in their postings, conservatives appear not to give a damn about people dying, as long as they are not Americans. You think wars are cool because you have the luxury of carpet bombing from the stratosphere, out of harm's way. What you don't acknowledge is that these bombs don't open up and dispense flowers and candy when they hit the ground. They kill and maim. And what's sickening for me is the mentality that "hey, a few innocent bystanders got torn apart, big deal. Collateral damage". It's human lives we're talking about here, not video game kills.

To answer your question, no I would not be happy if a couple of Americans also bought the farm. I'm not insane to want more death. But I expect the others not to be happy for the enemy's death. In this case, where no civilians were involved, call it an unfortunate necessity. But don't call it a good score.
post #17 of 62
I just find it difficult to swallow when we ally with butchers when it serves our purposes, and then denounce them as EVIL when they turn on us.

I just think it undermines the whole War On Terror moral standpoint when the people we're so desperate to stop are fighting with weapons and training we gave them only a few years ago.

Nothing sunny in my worldview.
post #18 of 62
Quote:
mastronikolas doesn't tell the elf:
Fighters received aerial support from American B-1 bombers dropping 19 2,000-pound bombs on enemy positions, including deep caves, King said. F-16 fighters flown by European allies dropped a pair of 500-pound bombs, while AC-130 gunships and Apache AH-64 helicopter gunships pounded the enemy with rocket and cannon fire, King said.
And we only killed eighteen? Geez, our aim sucks.
post #19 of 62
Of course it's unfortunate and not what any of us would want. ANY of is. Conservatives included.

But to not acknowledge that alliances such as that are sometimes a necessary evil is shortsighted. The number one threat to the world at the time was the Soviet Union. Our primary concern was to see their defeat. Allying ourselves with another, but lesser, evil was a distaseful exercise.
Could we have done more in the years after to neutralize the threat that was posed as a result of the arms we gave them? Of course. But can you imagine the uproar from the world community if we had suddenly turned on the Afghan rebels ourselves, and tried to disarm them? It would have been a bloodbath. We should have applied constant pressure and covert war on them in all these years, but we didn't. You can hazard some guesses why we didn't.
post #20 of 62
Quote:
Call:
And as for the rest of you who are unable to take a slightly abrasive joke:

Would it have made you feel all squishy and good if some Americans had died in the battle? Would that make everything OK for you? Why do lament the deaths of truly horrible people who would put to death a woman for showing a bit of ankle? Or a homosexual simply for living his life? Or a Hindu wanting to practice his relegion in peace?
You all so easily forget the EVIL that those "rebels" represent. They would kill you as easily as look at you all. Never forget that.

Your "outrage" over my post is laughable when you simply let it slide when devilf wishes for the deaths of people who vote for Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.

Hypocrites.
Please. Saying that you won't be saddened when two bigoted old men pass after living, long full lives is hardly equivalent to casually celebrating as rebels/civilians/whatever from another country are KILLED.

You talk of evil, hatred for gays, and mistreatment of women? Let's talk of Helms and Thurmond. They've been just as familiar with it as these rebels if not more so.
post #21 of 62
Did Thurmond or Helms ever have a gay man beheaded? Or a woman stoned? Or a Hindu pulled from limb to limb?

Of course not.

Micah, PLEASE don't try to liken the Taliban and Jesse Helms. That's just ridiculous.
post #22 of 62
And no cilvilians were killed in this operation.
18 enemy soldiers supported by Al-Quaeda and the Taliban were killed.

Enemy combatants. Not pregnant women and old men.
post #23 of 62
Quote:
Call:
But to not acknowledge that alliances such as that are sometimes a necessary evil is shortsighted. The number one threat to the world at the time was the Soviet Union. Our primary concern was to see their defeat. Allying ourselves with another, but lesser, evil was a distaseful exercise.
</strong>

Where are you getting these "gradients" of evil from?

There's nothing noble about going to drug dealer B to wipe out drug dealer A. There's one less drug dealer, but the same amount of drugs are out there and the dealer that's left if stronger than he ever was before you "allied" with him.

Quote:
Could we have done more in the years after to neutralize the threat that was posed as a result of the arms we gave them? Of course. But can you imagine the uproar from the world community if we had suddenly turned on the Afghan rebels ourselves, and tried to disarm them? It would have been a bloodbath. We should have applied constant pressure and covert war on them in all these years, but we didn't. You can hazard some guesses why we didn't.
Maybe because it'd be doubly cruel to arm a people to fight battles that many of them wouldn't survive, wait until they "win" the conflict, and then disarm them and turn your back on them once they'd died to fight OUR adversary for us.

Instead of constant pressure and covert war, which probably would've exacerbated and hastened 9/11, we should've been improving our diplomatic standing over there.
post #24 of 62
To think we could ever have better diplomatic standing with radical Islamists is one of the more ridiculous notions put forth since this war started.

Once again: They don't want to get along. They want us dead.
post #25 of 62
Quote:
Call:
Did Thurmond or Helms ever have a gay man beheaded? Or a woman stoned? Or a Hindu pulled from limb to limb?

Of course not.

Micah, PLEASE don't try to liken the Taliban and Jesse Helms. That's just ridiculous.
This is hilarious. You say that Helms and Thurmond haven't "had" any of these things done even though they've both had close ties to white racist Taliban-like groups that HAVE done these things, yet you accused AL Shaprton of "inciting a mob" to murder someone even though he's rarely said anything as inflammatory as these two "men"'s recorded and televised remarks about blacks and gays.
post #26 of 62
Let's not forget that Helms has openly supported RIGHT-WING terrorist groups before because they fought communists.
post #27 of 62
Quote:
Call:
To think we could ever have better diplomatic standing with radical Islamists is one of the more ridiculous notions put forth since this war started.

Once again: They don't want to get along. They want us dead.
NEWSFLASH: A lot of people other than radical Islamists occupy both Iraq and Afghanistan.
post #28 of 62
Quote:
Call:
To think we could ever have better diplomatic standing with radical Islamists is one of the more ridiculous notions put forth since this war started.

Once again: They don't want to get along. They want us dead.
Maybe we could have had an impact on whether they became radical islamists. When you fuck with something too much sometimes it breaks.
post #29 of 62
Quote:
Ned Fats:
Quote:
Call:
To think we could ever have better diplomatic standing with radical Islamists is one of the more ridiculous notions put forth since this war started.

Once again: They don't want to get along. They want us dead.
Maybe we could have had an impact on whether they became radical islamists. When you fuck with something too much sometimes it breaks.
Much like Cuba. They come to us for help, we ignore them, they go to Russia for help, & then we wonder why they become anti-American.

If we would just help people sometimes, instead of focusing soley on helping those who serve a purpose for us at the time, we just might have a lot better relations with some of these nations that hate us.
post #30 of 62
Quote:
Call:
To think we could ever have better diplomatic standing with radical Islamists is one of the more ridiculous notions put forth since this war started.

Once again: They don't want to get along. They want us dead.
You're right, far better to give them weapons and train them in guerilla warfare (or, let's not be coy about it, terrorism) and get them to fight our enemies through underhanded means. Then we can denounce them as EVIL when they've served their purpose.

Where can we buy these wonderful Call-culators that prove two wrongs make a right?
post #31 of 62
Quote:
Dan Whitehead:

Where can we buy these wonderful Call-culators that prove two wrongs make a right?
55 W 125th St
New York, NY 10027-4516
post #32 of 62
Quote:
Nelson:
Quote:
Dan Whitehead:

Where can we buy these wonderful Call-culators that prove two wrongs make a right?
55 W 125th St
New York, NY 10027-4516
Sorry, what's your point?

This has nothing to do with party politics. Both sides have dirtied their hands on this issue, and if we're talking about arming Afghan rebels against the Russians then this particular ball lands firmly in the Reagan/Bush court first. The fact that Clinton continued this sort of idiocy is equally wrong.

I just can't believe that it's possible to call these people EVIL (in capital letters, no less) when only a few decades ago, we were supporting them for our own ends. How then, can we now claim moral superiority in this battle?

It may be a political neccesity to work with EVIL people to achieve an end (that's another argument), but the fact that you have done so surely undercuts your credibility when you later denounce them as the scum of the Earth. To be told that these people are now evil terrorists, when previously they were freedom fighters, just exposes a hypocrisy that cuts across party lines. You can't fight for Truth, Justice and Freedom by using EVIL people to achieve your aims. It just doesn't add up.

I really don't understand the moral spinning you have to do to justify that.
post #33 of 62
Quote:
Call:
Did Thurmond or Helms ever have a gay man beheaded? Or a woman stoned? Or a Hindu pulled from limb to limb?
I'm from South Carolina, and I can assure you my feelings about Strom Thurmond are just as negative and irrational as your feelings about Clinton. I wouldn't put any of the above past him or the staff of people who exist to carry out the requests of his constituency. A constituency of loud-mouthed, racist, sexist, south-will-rise-again, old-world-southern-aristocracy loving voters.

In fact, I will go ahead say it: If Strom Thurmond never had black man killed, or was at the very least privy to, I'm the magic pumpkin.

Not really up on Helms, can't say too much there.
post #34 of 62
Quote:
Dan Whitehead:
Quote:
Call:
To think we could ever have better diplomatic standing with radical Islamists is one of the more ridiculous notions put forth since this war started.

Once again: They don't want to get along. They want us dead.
You're right, far better to give them weapons and train them in guerilla warfare (or, let's not be coy about it, terrorism) and get them to fight our enemies through underhanded means. Then we can denounce them as EVIL when they've served their purpose.

Where can we buy these wonderful Call-culators that prove two wrongs make a right?
We didn't "get them to fight our enemies". They were at war with the Soviets from the moment they invaded their nation. An invasion that was part of an attempt to dominate and control all of mid-Asia.

We gave them weapons and training.

If you want to call fighting a superior force that invaded your nation WITHOUT PREVIOUS CAUSE TO DO SO (Just in case someone tries to create a bogus Soviet circa '80 and USA circa '02 connection) terrorism, then go right ahead.

I'm not sure what can be done to satisfy you here, Dan.

We're criticized for arming Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. We're criticized for attempting to disarm him and make the region a safer place.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

According to my Call-caulator you're argument is intentionally circular. There is no right answer short of throwing down our arms, tucking tail, and withdrawing into our own borders for good.
post #35 of 62
I'd say there is an answer. Stop selling weapons to third-world nations all together. Then we don't have to worry about disarming them after we have gotten what we want out of them.
post #36 of 62
I love his definition of "not getting them to fight our enemies."

"Here's some weapons and training meant to be used against adversaries. Oh, lookie...the USSR is invading you. We hope you win because they're our enemies too and we can't risk attacking them and having them dumping guided missiles on American soil. But we're not, by any means, getting you to fight them for us.

By the way, we're going to need all of that back once you beat them back and finish scraping your casualties out of the mountains."

post #37 of 62
Quote:
Call:
We're criticized for arming Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. We're criticized for attempting to disarm him and make the region a safer place.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Weren't we talking about Afghan rebels? And regardless, my point is that you can't arm people one day and call them "evil" the next and expect to have any kind of moral credibility. What bugs me is the attempts by the Bush administration to make the world believe that by warring with these people America is somehow fighting the good fight, conquering "evil" on a white steed, when a more honest approach would be to say "Sorry we funded these sick bastards to help us win the Cold War, we'll do our best to clean up the mess without triggering World War III".
post #38 of 62
Why should we be sorry for helping to arm a force that handed the Soviet Empire a defeat that helped speed along their own destruction?

Of course it's has unintended consequences, but you have to ask yourself if you would rather the Soviets won in 1980? Do you think the world would be a safer place with a still strong Soviet Union in control of a large chunk of middle Asia?

The continual oversight of the Soviet Union as a major threat to world peace never fails to amaze me. We HAD to be involved. That's why we sent them arms 6 months before the invasion. We knew it was coming. The Afghans knew it was coming. We couldn't afford to let the Soviets have a foothold like that. Think of the consequences: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait...ALL under Soviet control. That's what the plan was, but they were stopped in Afghanistan. Thanks in large part to the arms sent by the United States. I refuse to be sorry for that. You deal with htreats as best as you can, and that's exactly what we did.
post #39 of 62
Quote:
Call:
Why should we be sorry for helping to arm a force that handed the Soviet Empire a defeat that helped speed along their own destruction?

Of course it's has unintended consequences, but you have to ask yourself if you would rather the Soviets won in 1980? Do you think the world would be a safer place with a still strong Soviet Union in control of a large chunk of middle Asia?

The continual oversight of the Soviet Union as a major threat to world peace never fails to amaze me. We HAD to be involved. That's why we sent them arms 6 months before the invasion. We knew it was coming. The Afghans knew it was coming. We couldn't afford to let the Soviets have a foothold like that. Think of the consequences: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait...ALL under Soviet control. That's what the plan was, but they were stopped in Afghanistan. Thanks in large part to the arms sent by the United States. I refuse to be sorry for that. You deal with htreats as best as you can, and that's exactly what we did.
Nice dream scenario. Shame about that Reality thing in the way...

Alas, even if the USSR would've beaten Afghanistan, they certainly wouldn't have been able to hold on to it.

The USSR ECONOMY collapsed. Not their troops in some climactic battle. Due to their spending in the arms race, they would've bitten the bullet any way you look at it and if anything, trying to fight simultaneous conflicts in half of Asia would've SPED that along without us going into deficits trying to match them.

If we were so intent on "stopping evil," we would've stopped them OURSELVES. Not fattened the brutal and murderous Hekmatyar - an open and violent HATER of America (Gee, who does that sound like?) - with buttloads of resources to fight the Soviets.

Lest you forget, he was leading the same fundamentalists who kidnapped an American ambassador and 50+ American hostages, yet Reagan praised him.

Then, once we left Afghanistan in a lurch, the fundamentalists took the country and here we are.
post #40 of 62
Quote:
Call:
Why should we be sorry for helping to arm a force that handed the Soviet Empire a defeat that helped speed along their own destruction?
You're still talking about the "then". I'm talking about now and the problems with using terms such as "evil" to describe people who we used to consider allies, even if they were allies by neccesity.

You don't believe that allying with "evil" puts you in a shaky position to cast moral judgement on them later?
post #41 of 62
Quote:
mikah912:
Nice dream scenario. Shame about that Reality thing in the way...
Tell ya what. Attempt to have one discussion with me without reverting into the most condescending person populating theses boards and we might make some progress.

Who said a thing about some "climactic battle"? Putting words in my mouth again to try and prove a point? I'm speaking of the fact that the Soviets were fought to a decade long stalemate that sped along their defeat. The money and resources they poured into the Afghani war ceratinly did help drain them.

Your bluster about stopping them ourselves is nonsense meant to misdirect. Full out war with the Soviet Union was in the best interest of NOBODY. War by proxy was clearly the best way to deal with things.

We never left Afghanistan in the lurch. We left them with the ability of self-determination. Something the Soviets had no intention of doing. If we had tried to install a government more to our liking I wonder how much more complaing about meddling in other nations affairs we would have heard. Once again: hypocrisy.

So you think the Afghans would have won anyway, without a bit of help from us? Talk about dreams versus reality...
post #42 of 62
So the Soviet Union's economy would have collapsed if they were in control of most of the Middle East's oil. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiigght.

Besides, people LOVE to bring up that past. You evil white devil Americans did this or that. Ya we did. Sometimes we fuck up. We fucked up in Vietnam (guess who started that: A liberal). We fucked up in a lot of other places. Should we have given weapons to Afgahnistan? I'm not sure. But people miss the point that History is never clear, it ebbs and flows. Enemies today are friends tomorrow and vice versa. Sometimes you have to deal with "undesirables" to push agendas that benefit the world and more importantly to ME, America and Americans.

However, when a nation goes rogue, or supports the DEATHS of Americans, it needs to be dealt with. Diplomatically hopefully, but if not then unfortunately you have to use force.

What would you have done in Afghanistan NOW? Who gives a fuck about 10 or 20 years ago...the problem is NOW. Would you drop candy canes and roses on them? Shower them with love? Say Hey, democracy is grand! How about in Iraq? How would you handle the world's worst tyrant who is already in MATERIAL BREACH of a UN Resolution that most of you supported that calls for action in such a breach? Tell me. Please. Let my feeble mind understand.

The difference btw us and Saddam or Al Quaeda or whoever is that we have the capablility to WIPE THEM OFF THE EARTH, obliterate them all. Do we? God no. Would we? NO fucking way. Its a moral background. Would Saddam? Would AlQuaeda. Hell Fucking yeah he would.

And if you are seriously comparing a couple of Southern Bigots to Saddam Hussein, then you have severe problems.
post #43 of 62
Quote:
Call:
Tell ya what. Attempt to have one discussion with me without reverting into the most condescending person populating theses boards and we might make some progress.
</strong>

There's always option B: You knowing exactly how I post and either accepting it and moving on or ignoring me altogether instead of constantly going off on tangents about how "smug" or condescending I am or not.

Trust me...I have issues with your personality as well, but they're not worth whining about.

Quote:
Who said a thing about some "climactic battle"? Putting words in my mouth again to try and prove a point? I'm speaking of the fact that the Soviets were fought to a decade long stalemate that sped along their defeat. The money and resources they poured into the Afghani war ceratinly did help drain them.
</strong>

Defeat. The collapse of an economy followed by widespread starvation, depression, and ruin for an entire nation including it's civilian population. Is that supposed to be a victory for us?

It also helped put us in further deficit at the same time. And further military action to try and control the Middle East would've brought the same goal on a similar timeframe.

Quote:
Your bluster about stopping them ourselves is nonsense meant to misdirect. Full out war with the Soviet Union was in the best interest of NOBODY. War by proxy was clearly the best way to deal with things.
</strong>

Love the terminology. "War by proxy." Proxy, of course, being the MILLIONS of Afghani people murdered, maimed, and turned into destitute refugees after the Soviet Conflict. Why bother to actually go in and save these beleagured people from fighting a meance they could only "beat" by attrition? Just keep arming them and let THEIR casualties pile up.

Quote:
We never left Afghanistan in the lurch. We left them with the ability of self-determination. Something the Soviets had no intention of doing. If we had tried to install a government more to our liking I wonder how much more complaing about meddling in other nations affairs we would have heard. Once again: hypocrisy.
</strong>

Please. No meddling is preferred, but if you're going to meddle, do it in a way that will actually HELP the people of Afghanistan.

"Almost 50 percent of your population has been murdered or seriously wounded in this Soviet conflict. Your economy is in disarray. But you helped keep our biggest foe distracted. Tell 'em what they win, Johnny!"

"A crap, unstable interim government in Kabul and 'the ability of self-determination.' You get to 'self-determine' whether you fall in with the murderous madman taking over the country or dying by starvation. Thanks for playing."

Quote:
So you think the Afghans would have won anyway, without a bit of help from us? Talk about dreams versus reality...
Never said that. Said the USSR would've fallen anyway.
post #44 of 62
Quote:
Smirk:
But people miss the point that History is never clear, it ebbs and flows. Enemies today are friends tomorrow and vice versa. Sometimes you have to deal with "undesirables" to push agendas that benefit the world and more importantly to ME, America and Americans.
So, in essence, evil bastards who torture, maim and murder, trampling human rights in their path, are OK as long as they're serving American needs, but the minute they turn that savagery against America rather than its enemies then they should be dealt with?

Evil is tolerable as long as it serves your own interests?

Perfect example of the moral dichotomy I'm talking about. Thanks.
post #45 of 62
Chud posters:

Best hindsight in all the land or west of the Poconos, whichever's larger...
post #46 of 62
Quote:
Smirk:
So the Soviet Union's economy would have collapsed if they were in control of most of the Middle East's oil. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiigght.
</strong>

Hard to control it when your military is falling apart, you have no money to reinforce them, and not nearly enough resources to occupy foreign countries as you continue to buy nukes to keep up with the US arms race.

The USSR fell while the Afghan conflict was still going on.

Quote:
Besides, people LOVE to bring up that past. You evil white devil Americans did this or that. Ya we did. Sometimes we fuck up. We fucked up in Vietnam (guess who started that: A liberal). We fucked up in a lot of other places. Should we have given weapons to Afgahnistan? I'm not sure. But people miss the point that History is never clear, it ebbs and flows. Enemies today are friends tomorrow and vice versa. Sometimes you have to deal with "undesirables" to push agendas that benefit the world and more importantly to ME, America and Americans.
</strong>



Hey, let's blame liberals for a conflict that spanned multiple administrations and parties.

Anyway...the point is that the agenda only "benefits" in the short term. The long-term is millions of Afghanis dead, 3,000 Americans dead on 9/11 along with hundreds other killed in terrorist incidents, billions spent to fight "the cold war" and "terror," increased ill will for the US in the Islam Extremist world, and a seemingly never ending series of dustups with Middle Eastern figureheads that - oddly enough - we put there.

Oh, and we're right back to square one with MULTIPLE hostile, emerging nations with WMD.

Quote:
However, when a nation goes rogue, or supports the DEATHS of Americans, it needs to be dealt with. Diplomatically hopefully, but if not then unfortunately you have to use force.
</strong>

Interestingly enough, we helped the Afghani people AFTER the same "freedom fighters" had committed numerous terrorist attacks and kidnappings.

Quote:
What would you have done in Afghanistan NOW? Who gives a fuck about 10 or 20 years ago...the problem is NOW. Would you drop candy canes and roses on them? Shower them with love? Say Hey, democracy is grand! How about in Iraq? How would you handle the world's worst tyrant who is already in MATERIAL BREACH of a UN Resolution that most of you supported that calls for action in such a breach? Tell me. Please. Let my feeble mind understand.
</strong>

World's worst tyrant. Are you a comedian?

In any case, I've made it clear numerous times what I think we should've done in both countries' cases before.

Quote:
The difference btw us and Saddam or Al Quaeda or whoever is that we have the capablility to WIPE THEM OFF THE EARTH, obliterate them all. Do we? God no. Would we? NO fucking way. Its a moral background. Would Saddam? Would AlQuaeda. Hell Fucking yeah he would.
</strong>

Yes, Saddam would wipe out the nation that buys so much from his and has helped to keep his economy and the world's economy afloat. Yeah. You have a solid grasp on world politics and economics, my friend.

Would Bin Laden/Al Queda? Of course. No one is EQUATING the US with him. I'm saying that we should never get involved with him except to capture/kill him if he poses a threat to the US.

And we were most certainly involved with Bin Laden before our current problems.

Quote:
And if you are seriously comparing a couple of Southern Bigots to Saddam Hussein, then you have severe problems.
Bigots who support terrorists who brutally kill people just as Hussein has, I might add. Look up some info on Helms and the Contras or Helms and the Mujahedin.
post #47 of 62
You got my point exactly.

Mikah: There is NO possible way we could have gone into Afghan v. the USSR. But I think you know that and know why, so I won't go into it.

I'm going to end here, b/c both Dan and Mikah are WAY smarter than I am and there is no reason to even bother. My political Science minor is useless. No one's mind is going to get changed.

Besides, arguing here is like running in the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded.

(oh and I like the evasivness on my questions about what YOU would do. Nice and fairly typical.)
post #48 of 62
I blame The Illuminati&reg;.
post #49 of 62
No need to be a PRICK. I actually respect your opinions on everything I have read over the past year or 2 a great deal Mikah and think you are a helluva smart guy. You could work on the attitude a bit though. Seriously, no need to be caustic with someone you don't know.

I will check into the Helms and Strom thing, b/c to tell you the truth I don't know that much about either except for the basics. Thats good info.

And I find it VERY hard to believe that Saddam wouldn't wipe us and ALL our supporters (esp the uk) off the face of the earth given the chance. If you don't believe that, then YOU don't have a firm grip.

He would. In a heartbeat. He has said this on numerous occasions.
post #50 of 62
Who's whining Micah? Don't like it when someone points out something less than likeable about that sparkling wit or devestating intellect? Deal with it.

You got problems with me, with my "personality" (as if you have some insight to me refelected beyond these boards)? You know the drill. You remind people often enough of the PM feature. Use it yourself or learn to accept a little criticism.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › US soldiers Vs Afghan rebels