• Have We Won in Afghanistan? - Afghanistan is fucked
    73 replies, posted
I'd rather not have a dictator that orders the gassing of ethnic minorities. Just saying
[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;40620157]Why isn't the current situation like the Vietnam War? The way I see it (probably wrong, unless you inform me correctly), is that the purpose of Afghan + Iraqi War was to curtail terrorism, which gives it the name "The War on Terror". Vietnam was partly about curtailing Communism in that area of the world. Plus, the fact that combat is and/or was mostly asymmetrical, fighting against insurgents & guerrillas laying traps and explosives. Not to mention the local population being hostile to Western Forces. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong... but please explain why and how?[/QUOTE] The iraq war had nothing to do with terrorism and actually its the iraq war that holds more similarity to the Vietnam war, NOT Afghanistan. The local population being hostile to western forces is one of the biggest misconceptions that just seems to be taken for granted on these forums, I often wonder if people here actually differentiate between Iraq and Afghanistan. It often doesn't seem like it. The Taliban have little to no local support in Afghanistan. They remain established by use of force and because they were the lesser of two evils; when the soviets left afghanistan it decayed into chaos because there was no hierachy or government, and you had bands of fighters roaming over the country doing as they pleased, which was typical rape and murder. One of those incidents is what gave birth to the taliban. Less than ideal, but it at least allowed some semblance of order. The only similarity Afghanistan shares with Vietnam is asymmetrical warfare, so its only as similar as literally every other war fought against largely guerilla forces, which is to say not similar at all. The insurgent force in Afghanistan is made largely by taliban themselves, the insurgent force in Iraq was almost entirely citizens taking up arms against invaders and foreign muslim fighters coming to Iraq for the jihad. Most of the populace in Afghanistan is pro-ISAF, and the rest do not care according to polling. Conversely, the populace of Iraq was almost entirely against international presence.
Afghanistan is fucked? yes, but everything is going according to plan. Who sponsors the Taliban? The US and Saudi arabia, Who just happen to be allied to the US. 90% of the worlds heroin is produced in Afghanistan. Which countries got the most problems with heroin? Iran, Russia, some european countries and unsuprisingly the US... Does anyone remember that movie American Gangster? $$$ Look at a map, where is afghanistan located? What country is between Iraq and Afghanistan? And that my friends! is how you create a war on two fronts and make it diffricult for Russia to aid them incase of war. Deception is a wonderful thing.
[QUOTE=Stalk;40620589]Afghanistan is fucked? yes, but everything is going according to plan. Who sponsors the Taliban? The US and Saudi arabia, Who just happen to be allied to the US. 90% of the worlds heroin is produced in Afghanistan. Which countries got the most problems with heroin? Iran, Russia, some european countries and unsuprisingly the US... Does anyone remember that movie American Gangster? $$$ Look at a map, where is afghanistan located? What country is between Iraq and Afghanistan? And that my friends! is how you create a war on two fronts and make it diffricult for Russia to aid them incase of war. Deception is a wonderful thing.[/QUOTE] Your conspiracy crap doesn't even make sense since you got who supports who wrong.
[QUOTE=Stalk;40620589]Afghanistan is fucked? yes, but everything is going according to plan. Who sponsors the Taliban? The US and Saudi arabia, Who just happen to be allied to the US. 90% of the worlds heroin is produced in Afghanistan. Which countries got the most problems with heroin? Iran, Russia, some european countries and unsuprisingly the US... Does anyone remember that movie American Gangster? $$$ Look at a map, where is afghanistan located? What country is between Iraq and Afghanistan? And that my friends! is how you create a war on two fronts and make it diffricult for Russia to aid them incase of war. Deception is a wonderful thing.[/QUOTE] The post started with some intelligence and then devolved into a conspiracy theory.
[QUOTE=Stalk;40620589]Afghanistan is fucked? yes, but everything is going according to plan. Who sponsors the Taliban? The US and Saudi arabia, Who just happen to be allied to the US. 90% of the worlds heroin is produced in Afghanistan. Which countries got the most problems with heroin? Iran, Russia, some european countries and unsuprisingly the US... Does anyone remember that movie American Gangster? $$$ Look at a map, where is afghanistan located? What country is between Iraq and Afghanistan? And that my friends! is how you create a war on two fronts and make it diffricult for Russia to aid them incase of war. Deception is a wonderful thing.[/QUOTE] Wake up sheeple. It was all planned by Obama to defame Bush.
[QUOTE=CAPT Opp4;40618794]No. Hussein carried out gas attacks on innocent people, and committed abominable war crimes against civilians. Occupying Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban was merely a side objective the US decided to accomplish, basically while they were "in the neighborhood". If anyone truly NEEDED to be taken down, it was Hussein.[/QUOTE] This is really dumb and it showcases the massive public ignorance of the events regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40620924]This is really dumb and it showcases the massive public ignorance of the events regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] Its pretty ironic how you say this after you spewed garbage relating to the soviet war in Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=laserguided;40620948]Its pretty ironic how you say this after you spewed garbage relating to the soviet war in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] What garbage did I spew? Russia had no business trying to prop up an unpopular socialist government for the sake of maintaining its influence in the region.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40620924]This is really dumb and it showcases the massive public ignorance of the events regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] I could have sworn that both UN and NATO agreed that people that use gas is bad.
[QUOTE=CAPT Opp4;40618794]No. Hussein carried out gas attacks on innocent people, and committed abominable war crimes against civilians. Occupying Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban was merely a side objective the US decided to accomplish, basically while they were "in the neighborhood". If anyone truly NEEDED to be taken down, it was Hussein.[/QUOTE] That doesn't make it the US's problem, well I mean it does in our governments view for some strange reason, but ideally, we have no business caring about that, shit happens, let the people of that country revolt, plenty of others were able to do it.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;40621073]I could have sworn that both UN and NATO agreed that people that use gas is bad.[/QUOTE] Nice strawman
[QUOTE=Stalk;40620589]Afghanistan is fucked? yes, but everything is going according to plan. Who sponsors the Taliban? The US and Saudi arabia, Who just happen to be allied to the US. 90% of the worlds heroin is produced in Afghanistan. Which countries got the most problems with heroin? Iran, Russia, some european countries and unsuprisingly the US... Does anyone remember that movie American Gangster? $$$ Look at a map, where is afghanistan located? What country is between Iraq and Afghanistan? And that my friends! is how you create a war on two fronts and make it diffricult for Russia to aid them incase of war. Deception is a wonderful thing.[/QUOTE] You always know how to make me laugh Stalk
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40621044]What garbage did I spew? Russia had no business trying to prop up an unpopular socialist government for the sake of maintaining its influence in the region.[/QUOTE] Soviet Union* not "Russia", and by the how are you judging popularity? They asked for help, and yes they did have plenty of business to be there because Afghanistan bordered the Soviet Union and had effectively built up its economy and military since the 50's. Plus, the Mujahideen were smuggling drugs into the Soviet Union so they did indeed have plenty of business there.
[QUOTE=laserguided;40621202]Soviet Union*, and by the how are you judging popularity? They asked for help, and yes they did have plenty of business to be there because Afghanistan bordered the Soviet Union and had effectively built up its economy and military since the 50's.[/QUOTE] That fact that there was an uprising in the nation.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40621223]That fact that there was an uprising in the nation.[/QUOTE] A uprising that was based on some Afghan's feeling that their religion was superior to their state. It was bolstered by billions of dollars from the US, and the US also supported their illegal drug smuggling operation. The soviets had plenty of reason to be there. You are just uninformed. Because of external support for the Mujahideen, they went from this (DRA 1980). [t]http://i.imgur.com/rsXb5vM.jpg[/t] To this [IMG]https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfgGstPp_NxLn5kb7-7tB5UKT4WdSNcP-aO8PHf10fR2hAiqb-[/IMG] Gross transformation.
[QUOTE=zach1193;40621108]That doesn't make it the US's problem, well I mean it does in our governments view for some strange reason, but ideally, we have no business caring about that, shit happens, let the people of that country revolt, plenty of others were able to do it.[/QUOTE] Thats right, but you miss the point. Afghanistan was invaded to capture Al Qaeda who were reportedly being given safe haven by the taliban. The damage was already done and you could either fuck off and leave the country to rot in post-conflict state with a invigorated taliban who will then need to assert their power violently over the populace lest they be seen as weak, or you could stick around, attempt to make it a better place while also securing international interests. It's making the best out of a bad (read: dumb) situation. And while the liberal hivemind of facepunch will attempt to criticize any international military action, the reality is for all the dumb shit and suffering over the years, Afghanistan is now potentially a much, much better place for future generations of Afghani people. It remains to be seen how it ultimately plays out, but for the time being its in a much better state than it was found. I mean fuck, there is a strong growing women's rights movement in afghanistan. [B]women's rights movement in afghanistan[/B] - that is almost unbelievable, this is a country where barely more than a decade ago a woman could have been raped and beaten for talking out of turn, let alone challenging authority. And since it's worth reposting: [quote] •54% of Afghans say they are more prosperous now than in 2001. •Those without access to electricity form only 33% of the population, which is an improvement on the previous 42%. •In 2000 only 35% of the population was immunised against Measles. Now it stands at 70%. •Literacy rates have improved to 52%, up from a previous 37% •In Helmand there are now 93 schools, an improvement from a previous 34. •52% of children are enrolled in schools, up from 37%. Around one million in 2001 (none of whom were girls) to over six million today, one third (or over two million) of whom are girls. •A significant increase in the availability of basic health services, which were available to less than 10 per cent of the population under the former Taliban regime, but are now extended to around 85 per cent of people. •The identification and management of over 39,000 community-based infrastructure projects - such as wells, clinics and roads – in over 22,000 communities throughout Afghanistan, through the Afghan-led National Solidarity Program. •The rehabilitation of almost 10,000 km of rural roads, supporting the employment of hundreds of thousands of local workers, through the National Rural Access Program. •The telecommunications industry has created about 100,000 jobs since 2001 •10 million Afghans today have access to telecommunications, compared to only 20,000 in 2001. •The Taliban suppressed free speech. Afghan people now have access to over 400 print media publications, 150 FM radio stations and 26 television channels. These give Afghans an outlet to discuss publicly issues that were previously off-limits, such as human rights abuses and women's rights. [/quote] The only thing thats gonna stop Afghanistan from thriving is if the Karzhai government is incompetent and the Afghani military can't stop the taliban from regaining power. This is very unlikely however given that the anti-taliban groups (which have existed well before the invasion btw) are now considerable in manpower and support.
[QUOTE=laserguided;40621252]A uprising that was based on some Afghan's feeling that their religion was superior to their state. It was bolstered by billions of dollars from the US, and the US also supported their illegal drug smuggling operation. The soviets had plenty of reason to be there. You are just uninformed. Because of external support for the Mujahideen, they went from this (DRA 1980). [t]http://i.imgur.com/rsXb5vM.jpg[/t] To this [IMG]https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfgGstPp_NxLn5kb7-7tB5UKT4WdSNcP-aO8PHf10fR2hAiqb-[/IMG] Gross transformation.[/QUOTE] I agree that the DR government was moving in the right direction as it attempted to modernize the economy and legal system of Afghanistan, but the entire nation was in open rebellion at these attempts. To claim that the Soviet Union was trying to help modernize Afghanistan and then criticize the U.S. for doing the same thing is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40621470]I agree that the DR government was moving in the right direction as it attempted to modernize the economy and legal system of Afghanistan, but the entire nation was in open rebellion at these attempts. To claim that the Soviet Union was trying to help modernize Afghanistan and then criticize the U.S. for doing the same thing is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Afghanistan would surely be better today without the Mujahideen revolt, which the US played a vital role in. I do not see how it is a dumb thing to say, and it makes no sense to say the Soviets had no reason to be there. I never criticized the US for trying to modernize and rebuild their economy and social standards, but they are at fault for supporting the Mujahideen's destruction.
[QUOTE=laserguided;40621497]Afghanistan would surely be better today without the Mujahideen revolt, which the US played a vital role in. I do not see how it is a dumb thing to say, and it makes no sense to say the Soviets had no reason to be there. I never criticized the US for trying to modernize and rebuild their economy and social standards, but they are at fault for supporting the Mujahideen's destruction.[/QUOTE] Well I think our opinions differ in that you find it OK for a nation to invade another nation so it can "modernize" it (aka maintain influence).
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40621631]Well I think our opinions differ in that you find it OK for a nation to invade another nation so it can "modernize" it (aka maintain influence).[/QUOTE] The DRA requested large numbers of Soviet forces to maintain peace and security. The Soviet union already had large numbers of advisor's and workers to modernize the country. The US did not invade for the sake of nation building, they invaded because Afghanistan was harbouring Al-Qaeda.
[QUOTE=laserguided;40621497]Afghanistan would surely be better today without the Mujahideen revolt, which the US played a vital role in. I do not see how it is a dumb thing to say, and it makes no sense to say the Soviets had no reason to be there. I never criticized the US for trying to modernize and rebuild their economy and social standards, but they are at fault for supporting the Mujahideen's destruction.[/QUOTE] Supporting their destruction?? We need to clarify a few things here. firstly, "mujahideen" are not a group, political or military. It's a word for fighters or those involved in a "struggle", its literally almost identical in meaning to jihad. The mujahideen as a concept during the soviet-afghan war were literally just rebels. From all different tribes. They weren't a unified group other than the common goal of removing the soviet presence. The US supported the Mujahideen with arms. And critcizing the US for this alone is dumb, because the UK and just about everyone else did the exact same thing. Hell if some sources are to be believed, the UK actually deployed the SAS on offensive operations against the soviets while they mentored mujahideen fighters. So the US has in no way supported the destruction of the mujahideen, what happened was when the soviets left you essentially had large groups of jumped up little shits who had spent the last few years fighting tooth and nail, now with no common goal to unite against and nothing to do but roam the country taking what they wanted when they wanted. The Taliban were born out of one of these incidents, involving the abduction and rape of two schoolgirls or so the story goes. Some mujahideen from the soviet war are probably taliban now, some mujahideen are also part of anti taliban movements. They are in no way a collective group. The mujahideen that formed the majority of the Taliban in their early rise to power were largely fighters trained by [B]pakistan[/B]. Again, another case were blaming the US alone is reactionary and short sighted.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;40621701]Supporting their destruction?? We need to clarify a few things here. firstly, "mujahideen" are not a group, political or military. It's a word for fighters or those involved in a "struggle", its literally almost identical in meaning to jihad. The mujahideen as a concept during the soviet-afghan war were literally just rebels. From all different tribes. They weren't a unified group other than the common goal of removing the soviet presence. The US supported the Mujahideen with arms. And critcizing the US for this alone is dumb, because the UK and just about everyone else did the exact same thing. Hell if some sources are to be believed, the UK actually deployed the SAS on offensive operations against the soviets while they mentored mujahideen fighters. So the US has in no way supported the destruction of the mujahideen, what happened was when the soviets left you essentially had large groups of jumped up little shits who had spent the last few years fighting tooth and nail, now with no common goal to unite against and nothing to do but roam the country taking what they wanted when they wanted. The Taliban were born out of one of these incidents, involving the abduction and rape of two schoolgirls or so the story goes. Some mujahideen from the soviet war are probably taliban now, some mujahideen are also part of anti taliban movements. They are in no way a collective group. The mujahideen that formed the majority of the Taliban in their early rise to power were largely fighters trained by [B]pakistan[/B]. Again, another case were blaming the US alone is reactionary and short sighted.[/QUOTE] By supporting the Mujahideen's destruction, I mean supporting their destruction of the DRA. And when did I ever solely blame the US? They played a huge part in funding Pakistan's aid to the Mujahideen, provided plenty of support for the Mujahideen themselves and even sent Stingers, which came from the US and into Pakistan and then onto the Mujahideen. $3-$30Bn USD was spent training and equipping the Mujahideen. I am by no means saying the US is solely at fault, but seriously the world was dominated by either the Soviet Union or the United States at that point, and its fair to say that biggest players aiding the mujahideen were under the influence of the USA and the resulting collapse of government and the rise of warlords, then later the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is the fault of the countries supporting the Mujahideen fighters, and the Mujahideen fighters themselves. I believe Afghanistan would be much farther ahead than it is today if the Mujahideen were not externally supported by HUGE cheques, crates of weapons and political support from U.S. influenced countries and the US itself. [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Reagan_meets_Afghan_Mujahideen.jpg[/t] See Operation Cyclone.
You're saying if the west hadn't funded the revolt it would be further along? I'd agree with that mostly, except the revolt was there. Contrast that to today's situation, where the Taliban are ones being revolted against, with almost zero support from the local populace, and the local populace is favorable to the ISAF. I don't think the DRA held the populace's favor much at all from memory.
[QUOTE=Retardation;40619264]"b-but other guys did it too!!"[/QUOTE] Your name speaks for yourself, do you not realize that I'm pointing out that pinning the blame entirely on the US is a shitty thing to do?
[QUOTE=laserguided;40621735]By supporting the Mujahideen's destruction, I mean supporting their destruction of the DRA. And when did I ever solely blame the US? They played a huge part in funding Pakistan's aid to the Mujahideen, provided plenty of support for the Mujahideen themselves and even sent Stingers, which came from the US and into Pakistan and then onto the Mujahideen. $3-$30Bn USD was spent training and equipping the Mujahideen. I am by no means saying the US is solely at fault, but seriously the world was dominated by either the Soviet Union or the United States at that point, and its fair to say that biggest players aiding the mujahideen were under the influence of the USA and the resulting collapse of government and the rise of warlords, then later the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is the fault of the countries supporting the Mujahideen fighters, and the Mujahideen fighters themselves. I believe Afghanistan would be much farther ahead than it is today if the Mujahideen were not externally supported by HUGE cheques, crates of weapons and political support from U.S. influenced countries and the US itself. [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Reagan_meets_Afghan_Mujahideen.jpg[/t] See Operation Cyclone.[/QUOTE] let us be honest here laserguided, Afghanistan was somewhat modern only in the capital, the rest of the country was and still is a medieval shithole, the US did fucked up afghanistan, but not THAT much, could the soviets maybe fixed that and prevent the rise of al-qaeda? probably, by killing people left and right, but they would probably get it done, look at Chechnya for instance for you to get an idea of what the soviets would do to afghanistan, although it would probably still be preferable to the current situation. and yeah, most of the issues in the middle east can be traced down to mostly the US and Britain(as well as other european powers in a smaller note) fucking it up. and this ain't getting solved as long as the US needs the middle east for fucking oil.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40621124]Nice strawman[/QUOTE] You do realize that almost the entire world with the exception of Iraq agreed on the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention right? [editline]12th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Wizards Court;40622614]let us be honest here laserguided, Afghanistan was somewhat modern only in the capital, the rest of the country was and still is a medieval shithole, the US did fucked up afghanistan, but not THAT much, could the soviets maybe fixed that and prevent the rise of al-qaeda? probably, [b]by killing people left and right, but they would probably get it done[/b], look at Chechnya for instance for you to get an idea of what the soviets would do to afghanistan,[b] although it would probably still be preferable to the current situation.[/b] and yeah, most of the issues in the middle east can be traced down to mostly the US and Britain(as well as other european powers in a smaller note) fucking it up. and this ain't getting solved as long as the US needs the middle east for fucking oil.[/QUOTE] That's not how you fucking prevent an insurgency, you do realize the more people you murder or the more you treat them like shit, the harder a resistance becomes right? That example can be seen throughout all of history, all the way back to when the Romans took in Germans. Why did you think the Soviets had to deal with such a horrendous insurgency when they were in Afghanistan? Or how the Germans had to put up with a bloody uprising in Warsaw? You don't curbstomp a local populace thinking that they'll shut up and sit down. Why would I prefer to have a region whose capital got turned into the equivalent of [b]Stalingrad[/b] aside from a US presence in Afghanistan? [img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrubkpyMNF1r18o95o1_1280.jpg[/img] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War[/url] Face it, Soviet occupation strategies and modus operandis isn't exactly the most stellar as compared to what the United States is trying to do.
Its hard to say without extensively comparing the strategies employed by both countries and it has to be said, you are comparing afghanistan THEN to afghanistan NOW. The taliban are fucking terrible people so its no surprise their is quite a bit of popularity residing in the ISAF. Certainly the US's campaign focus on hearts and minds is a strategy they've built on since vietnam and arguably the most successful example of defeating insurgencies, but the soviets also utilized similar tactics and had a focus on heart and mind campaigns. I don't compare the two because I dont know enough about soviet culture at the time to have an honest opinion - and by extension I doubt most of the people going "lol fuck the soviets!" do either.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;40622614]let us be honest here laserguided, Afghanistan was somewhat modern only in the capital, the rest of the country was and still is a medieval shithole, the US did fucked up afghanistan, but not THAT much, could the soviets maybe fixed that and prevent the rise of al-qaeda? probably, by killing people left and right, but they would probably get it done, look at Chechnya for instance for you to get an idea of what the soviets would do to afghanistan, although it would probably still be preferable to the current situation. You were alright until you brought up oil. Oil has 100% nothing to do with this unless you somehow think that Iraq has suddenly become a part of Afghanistan. and yeah, most of the issues in the middle east can be traced down to mostly the US and Britain(as well as other european powers in a smaller note) fucking it up. and this ain't getting solved as long as the US needs the middle east for fucking oil.[/QUOTE] You were alright until you brought up oil. Oil has 100% nothing to do with anything unless you think Iraq has somehow become one with Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=Retardation;40620873]all that guy ever posts is retarded conspiracy drivel often using words like "petrodollar", "oil" and my favourite "the REAL forces at play here are..."[/QUOTE] Yes. There is nothing is wrong with the world, but only because you don't care to find out. I think you would be very suprised if you people actually took your time and looked up this some of this stuff. Some of you will, but most of you just don't care. Keep on rating dumbs and have your laughs. I'm sure that will aleast give you a sense of feeling that you are somehow right.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.