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

US soldiers Vs Afghan rebels - Page 2

post #51 of 62
1/28/03 at 9:50pm
"You remind people often enough of the PM feature. Use it yourself or learn to accept a little criticism."

You could have avoided all the bullshit if you had just called him condescending through PM in the first place. It is hard not to respond to something once its made public.
Reply
post #52 of 62
1/29/03 at 12:02am
Not even going to acknowledge the irrelevant BS from Call, and I recommend you don't either, Ned.

Back to the disappointingly minute bit of on-topic response to my two lengthy posts:

Quote:
Smirk
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.
</strong>

That's fine. Then he's also suicidal. The First (as opposed to the Third World) World CANNOT exist without the US economy right now.

Coincidentally, any weapons of mass destruction deployed in great enough force to eradicate the continental United States - whether nuclear, chemical, or biological - would also most likely wipe out the rest of the world as winds carry the fallout or viral strains globally.

So, in any case, he wouldn't. He likes living too much, which is why he never confronts or agitates us enough to go in there and truly mop the floor with him.

Bin Laden? Sure. Hussein's too much of a pussy.
Reply
post #53 of 62
1/29/03 at 12:41am
"Hussein's too much of a pussy."

I wouldnt call him a pussy, actually it seems Saddam is pretty smart. He's made his living being the scapegoat of the US for almost a decade now...and I dont think his standard of living has gone down.
Reply
post #54 of 62
1/29/03 at 2:06am
I don't agree with how we have dealt with Afghanistan since we ousted the Taliban. It smacks of "well, they're gone, let's move on" instead of fixing the fundamental problems in the nation. We went for the quick fix, and I'd be surprised if it doesn't bite us down the road.

However, looking at the past and saying "we shouldn't have done that" and then using that as ammo isn't the best thing to do. We didn't know the mujahadeen would become the Taliban and al Qaeda, we didn't know Saddam would be arguably worse than the Ayatollah, we just saw which threat was a higher priority and attacked that (the Soviets and Iran). There was no way to know that we'd be here like this today - no history to guide us, and no concept of global terrorism.

From what Bush & co are saying, Iraq won't be like Afghanistan, but more like Germany and Japan. That should be the ideal for every regime we aim to change.
Reply
post #55 of 62
1/29/03 at 4:39am
"From what Bush & co are saying, Iraq won't be like Afghanistan, but more like Germany and Japan. That should be the ideal for every regime we aim to change."

And you honestly take there word for that? If we put in nearly the resources we put in Germany and Japan we are definately going to piss off a lot of Muslims. The war could be swift and with little loss of US troops, but what comes after is going to be something none of us can even begin to fathom.
Reply
post #56 of 62
1/29/03 at 12:01pm
I think it will be a modified version of that plan. Tommy Franks will probably be the ruler of the nation for a few years, just like MacArthur was in Japan. However, instead of just using US troops (because that would make the rest of the Arab world mad), we'd probably try and get the Germans, the French, the Turks, and others in on the peacekeeping efforts. We'd immediately start democratic reform and list the objectives that need to be filled to move on to the next step, culminating in self rule. Ultimately, that's the only way we can do it to even try and prevent unrest in the Middle East. There will be problems one way or the other, but if we go in and overthrow Saddam and then jump out like we did in Afghanistan, it will cause more long term damage in the Arab world than a short term occupation by coalition forces.
Reply
post #57 of 62
1/29/03 at 12:09pm
Quote:
about sorro:
However, looking at the past and saying "we shouldn't have done that" and then using that as ammo isn't the best thing to do. We didn't know the mujahadeen would become the Taliban and al Qaeda, we didn't know Saddam would be arguably worse than the Ayatollah, we just saw which threat was a higher priority and attacked that (the Soviets and Iran). There was no way to know that we'd be here like this today - no history to guide us, and no concept of global terrorism.
To be fair though, none of these parties was ever anything but what they are now - they didn't suddenly become evil in the last decade. They've been consistently violent and amoral in everything they've done. The idea that using brutal warlords and despots to achieve short-term goals in the region was never really going to have a rosy outcome. It doesn't require much foresight to work that out. I think the problem isn't that we didn't know how things would turn out, we just didn't care until the consequences came knocking on western doors.
Reply
post #58 of 62
1/29/03 at 12:14pm
Here, I got a question for you. What the fuck is wrong with reading Janes Defence?
Reply
post #59 of 62
1/29/03 at 12:31pm
Quote:
about sorro:
I don't agree with how we have dealt with Afghanistan since we ousted the Taliban. It smacks of "well, they're gone, let's move on" instead of fixing the fundamental problems in the nation. We went for the quick fix, and I'd be surprised if it doesn't bite us down the road.

However, looking at the past and saying "we shouldn't have done that" and then using that as ammo isn't the best thing to do. We didn't know the mujahadeen would become the Taliban and al Qaeda, we didn't know Saddam would be arguably worse than the Ayatollah, we just saw which threat was a higher priority and attacked that (the Soviets and Iran). There was no way to know that we'd be here like this today - no history to guide us, and no concept of global terrorism.

From what Bush & co are saying, Iraq won't be like Afghanistan, but more like Germany and Japan. That should be the ideal for every regime we aim to change.
More the problem I have is the fact that after the afganis beat the USSR, the Americans just left. we got what we wanted, & left them to rebuild their country. What would have happened had we been there to help them get their country back together? Do you think there would be the animosity today?

I know this is seems like hindsight, but it isn't. One of the lessons of WWI is that you can't just leave a war-torn nation to fend for itself after the war is over. Things tend to get worse.

It is difficult I imagine, for other countries to feel the need to get involved in a war we have created for ourselves. We wonder why the French don't want to get some of their countrymen killed just to save our ass.
Reply
post #60 of 62
1/29/03 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Guttenberg Fan Club:
More the problem I have is the fact that after the afganis beat the USSR, the Americans just left. we got what we wanted, & left them to rebuild their country. What would have happened had we been there to help them get their country back together? Do you think there would be the animosity today?
We shouldn't have done that. We should have helped them pick up the pieces. We should have more commitment in Afghanistan now, instead of letting the warlords tear the place apart again.
Reply
post #61 of 62
1/29/03 at 12:52pm
Quote:
The Man Called Gruber:
Here, I got a question for you. What the fuck is wrong with reading Janes Defence?
Nothing, if you work in the defence industry.
Reply
post #62 of 62
1/29/03 at 3:34pm
Quote:
about sorro:
I think it will be a modified version of that plan. Tommy Franks will probably be the ruler of the nation for a few years, just like MacArthur was in Japan. However, instead of just using US troops (because that would make the rest of the Arab world mad), we'd probably try and get the Germans, the French, the Turks, and others in on the peacekeeping efforts. We'd immediately start democratic reform and list the objectives that need to be filled to move on to the next step, culminating in self rule. Ultimately, that's the only way we can do it to even try and prevent unrest in the Middle East. There will be problems one way or the other, but if we go in and overthrow Saddam and then jump out like we did in Afghanistan, it will cause more long term damage in the Arab world than a short term occupation by coalition forces.
And what happens if the people want an Islamic nation? We aren't going to allow these people to decide there fate, we are going to do it for them.
Reply
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