Subject: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Stringsinger Date: 30 Aug 08 - 12:04 PM Does anyone remember what happened to the Russians, there? Afghanistan is a lot of tribal leaders who are not together. MCain doesn't know where the border of Pakistan is. The US is about to get into another debacle. Saber-rattling in Afghanistan without an endgame. Sound familiar? |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Teribus Date: 30 Aug 08 - 12:07 PM No |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Donuel Date: 30 Aug 08 - 12:29 PM It was for the former Soviet Union. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: artbrooks Date: 30 Aug 08 - 01:17 PM Not really. Vietnam was all about knee-jerk reaction to a (mostly) imaginary political situation. The US went in there in the first place as part of the "global war against Communism", providing military advisers to the somewhat less than democratic government in the south after Ho Chi Minh declared a war of unification in (I think) 1957. The whole thing escalated from there. There is somewhat of a similarity to the conflict in Iraq, in that there was never an end-game option considered in either one other than total victory. There is little in common between Vietnam (or Iraq) and Afghanistan; the enemy is well-defined (the Taliban and their Al-Quaida allies) and the objective is clear. One thing that they do have in common - the presence next door of a physical refuge and militarily untouchable supply base. The point about Afghanistan being "a lot of tribal leaders" is well taken, however - at least as far as the Pashtun regions of the country is concerned. A much better comparison than Vietnam would be the interminable conflict on the "Northwest Frontier" of the Indian Raj during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Aug 08 - 01:24 PM It depends on the objectives. If it is the Bush, do nothing strategy then its like Viet Nam. But if the idea is to get Al Qaeda whey they live and enough resources are committed to do that, after a year or so our only mission will be to help rebuild the country. When the Russians were in Afghanistan the whole country was against them along with foreign fighters and Charlie Wilson's supplies. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are a much smaller group with much less support. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Ed T Date: 30 Aug 08 - 01:42 PM Seems like Afganistan is the place that the USA should have focused on a few years ago, rather than Iraq. It was the genuine strategic military front to fight terriorists, not Iraq. The USA leadership of theat time (if we can call it that) blundered and missed the right place to be, and at the right time. After temporily outgunning the Taliban, with global sympathy on it's side, the USA wrongly put this area as a low priority. It left the area for their less prepared and comitted NATO partners (i.e. Canada) (and unstable Pakistan) to look after. This was wrong. I suspect this was a bad strategic move. And, it was a blunder that could have unfortunate long term historic consequences, as many background factors change. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: GUEST,Oakville Date: 30 Aug 08 - 01:43 PM Ask the Brits, they have been getting walloped out there since the 19th century ! No winners take the victory home from that neck of the woods. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Amos Date: 30 Aug 08 - 03:19 PM Historically true--it is one hell of a tough sandbox if you are invading against the wills of the locals. But a lot of Afghans are sick of being the host country to international evil personified, sick of the Taliban, and very interested in the small taste of free-market economics they experienced right after the Taliban fell. So it ain't necessarily so. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Peace Date: 30 Aug 08 - 03:30 PM "The Taliban and Al Qaeda are a much smaller group with much less support." Fidel, Raoul and Ernesto led a small group, too. IMO, the objective in Afghanistan should be search and destroy combined with the establishment of good civilian government. The Taliban will continue to receive the suppost of 'the locals' for as long as the locals feel the Taliban will not be defeated. If they think there's any chance NATO will withdraw and leave them hanging, well, frankly, they'd be bloody fools to support NATO. Remember, they too know about the American abandonment in Iraq--and they too know that many Iraqis took it in the teeth afterwards. So, I don't think the locals are gonna be all THAT helpful. And I don't blame them! |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: GUEST,Oakville Date: 30 Aug 08 - 03:44 PM Also I doubt the Afghan people are that impressed with the gum chewing gun- totting American soldiers. Many out there hold no love for Iraqis, but they're still one notch above the "Here to kick ass" Americans. I can never understand why America feels the need to be the world's police force. It is dammed hard to change a culture as old as time it's self. I think oil and weapons testing are the real reasons. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: gnu Date: 30 Aug 08 - 03:45 PM A thousand times... we maintain our military by battle training troops and field testing weapons... these poor fuckers just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Taliban? Isn't that a religous and or civil war? Of course, you can go to You Tube and watch Canuck snipers shoot farther than anyone ever did, complete with exploding Taliban body parts.... thank goodness our lads are getting the battle training they need by dismembering these poor fuckers at two thousand too many fucking metres. Don't get me wrong. I am all for our lads and lasses and I am all for having a strong military... I just don't like it when innocent people die for a lie. It ain't fookin right in my books. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Charley Noble Date: 30 Aug 08 - 03:53 PM I'm not convinced that we have a long term strategic mission to accomplish in Afghanistan, other than rooting out Al Qaeda. However, it may not be possible to negotiate with the Taliban; they are not known for their willingness to compromise. About the only thing in their favor was their success in eradicating the poppy cash crop. I do wonder why Obama seems so ambitious to ratchet up our war efforts there. I'm not sure what his expectations are. Charley Noble |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Peace Date: 30 Aug 08 - 04:07 PM If the Taliban is the problem, then eliminate the problem. Ya can't do that without guys on the ground digging them out and destroying them. The Taliban is brutal. They are able to justify their treatment of the populace by quoting a book. I am not in favour of solving all situations with violence, but when it is the only way, do it right. Get the sonsofbitches down and simply don't let them get back up. (Street Fighting 101). Do so much damage that they have to go away. Continue to find out where they are and continue to destroy them. Otherwise just call it a draw and get the hell out. The training of an NCO backbone for armies is a reason smaller countries get involved in crap like Afghanistan. IMO, it's half the reason that kids from the PPCLI are serving there, and why members of JTF2 have served/are serving. But dragging small wars out for that purpose is tantamount to stupid. The olny folks gaining are the armament makers. They be doing just fine, thank you. But then they don't have to bury the dead or care for the maimed and wounded. Must be nice. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: kendall Date: 30 Aug 08 - 04:27 PM Guest Oakville, it's because we are addicted to war. Afghanistan has proven to be the "Waterloo" of many war mongers. Starting with Alexander the Great, arguably the greatest military leader in history. Then, England, then Russia, now us. "When will they ever learn, oh when will they ever learn..." |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: olddude Date: 30 Aug 08 - 04:37 PM I hate war, but I do understand Afghanistan, that is were the SOB's lived that took out the towers. It was right to go after them. But then switch to an unjust Iraq war made no sense to anyone. Never finished the job where the actual terriorist lived , the ones that attacked us ... Nothing makes sense. But as Peace said, it lines the pockets of more than a few defense contractors to drag it on. And we can also find the nuts on a house fly 5000 miles away but can't find Bin Laden who sticks out like a flying duck with a 12 inch dick and needs kidney dialysis. Why because if we did there would be no more excuses for dragging anything on ya see |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 30 Aug 08 - 05:53 PM Afganistan is composed of Usbeks, Hazara and Tajiks in the north, many of whom are Shi'a, and in the south by Pashtuns, who are Sunni. The Pashtuns of Afganistan and the neighboring states of Pakistan have a culture that is ancient and extremely conservative. Although often dominated militarily in Afganistan by the Shi'a groups and/or invaders who ruled from Kabul and the north, they have maintained their cultural independence. The Taliban are conservative militants of the Pashtuns, and their numbers have been steadily increasing. For a short time they overran Kabul and put their very conservative Sharia rule in place. Political parties are not recognized, and essentially they wish to impose what they believe was the system at the time of the prophets. The weak government imposed in Kabul will not prevail. The Taliban will not be defeated by force; they may withdraw from action for a time, but when western forces are removed, they will once again expand. Only time, and evolution over several generations, will modify the Pashtun culture and bring them into some semblance of the moderate Sunni cultures elsewhere in the Middle East. It is best to withdraw and let time, and the pressures from the more moderate peoples surrounding them, change their culture. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: GUEST,lox Date: 30 Aug 08 - 06:11 PM Who needs to compare it to vietnam? Afghanistan is the next afghanistan - full stop. Central asia has been an unsuccesful battleground for western powers for more than a hundred years. Everyone has tried and failed. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Teribus Date: 30 Aug 08 - 06:20 PM "Seems like Afganistan is the place that the USA should have focused on a few years ago, rather than Iraq. It was the genuine strategic military front to fight terriorists, not Iraq. The USA leadership of theat time (if we can call it that) blundered and missed the right place to be, and at the right time." In the wake of 911, by December 2001 Al-Qaida and their Taleban hosts were no threat to the USA. All 19 of America's intelligence services plus the Joint House Security Committee evaluated precisely what the greatest threat facing the USA was - It was not identified as being Al-Qaeda or the Taleban. In the State Of The Union Address in January 2002 your President clearly repeated what he had been told WAS the greatest threat - according to what has been posted on this thread and in others - most of you weren't listening, or paying attention. Not surprising, none of you listened, or paying attention to Bill Clinton when he said the same thing on 17th February 1998. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Amos Date: 30 Aug 08 - 06:51 PM T, Your sorry reprise completely ignores the cherry-picked intell, the doctored reports and the direct falsehoods. THousands of people knew he was off on the wrong foot. A |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: pdq Date: 30 Aug 08 - 06:53 PM Taliban blow apart 2,000 years of Buddhist historyFighters begin job of demolishing Afghanistan's statues Luke Harding, south Asia correspondent The Guardian, Saturday March 3 2001 Deep in the heart of Afghanistan's once serene Bamiyan valley, the sound of gunfire and mortar explosions could be heard yesterday. Bearded men dressed in baggy salwar kameezes loaded and reloaded their rocket launchers under a clear azure sky. The Taliban fighters were busy - busy destroying two giant Buddhas carved into the hillside nearly 2,000 years ago, busy erasing all traces of a rich pre-Islamic past. Though no one knows for certain, it seems likely that the massive Buddhas, previously Afghanistan's most famous tourist attraction, have been pulverised. Taliban and opposition sources yesterday confirmed that troops spent all day demolishing them. "They have started attacking the Buddhas with guns and tank shells, with whatever arms they are carrying," a militia source said last night. "People are firing at them out of their own sentiments." Western diplomats had hoped that Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's spiritual leader, might reconsider the edict he issued on Monday ordering the destruction of all of Afghanistan's statues, which he considers idolatrous. A tidal wave of international condemnation from the US, Germany, Russia, India, the European Union and even Pakistan, the Taliban's closest ally, made no difference. It appears that local commanders have already launched a ferocious attack, before the statues could be formally blown up. "We have also heard reports that they are attacking them with rockets and tank shells," opposition spokesman Mohammad Bahram said last night, speaking from the western mountains of Bamiyan, which are controlled by anti-Taliban groups. The isolated valley, deep in the Hindu Kush mountains, was the scene of heavy fighting last month, when it fell briefly to opposition forces. The Taliban retook it in massive numbers. Much of the hardware they used in that offensive litters the mountainside and is now being deployed against a sandstone enemy unable to fight back. The valley, visited by Buddhist pilgrims for hundreds of years, was closed to foreigners last month and local Afghans have also been kept out. In all of Afghanistan's cities, Mullah Omar's edict was being implemented yesterday, some sources suggested. Two days ago the information minister, Qudratullah Jamal, confirmed that the historic statues in Kabul's bombed out museum and in the provinces of Ghazni, Herat, Jalalabad and Kandahar were also being destroyed. Western cultural experts fear that as many as 6,000 Buddhist antiquities - some lying in the basement of the Taliban's information ministry - may already have been destroyed. Unesco's director-general, Koichiro Matsuura, said: "Words fail me to describe adequately my feelings of consternation and powerlessness as I see the reports of the irreversible damage that is being done to Afghanistan's exceptional cultural heritage." The destruction, which has only added to the war-shattered pariah state's misery, is being seen by most observers as a defiant response to the fresh wave of UN sanctions imposed on Afghanistan last month. The country is already in the grip of the worst drought in 30 years, with 12m people affected, 3m of whom are on the brink of starvation. Some half a million Afghans have fled their homes this year, many in a massive exodus to neighbouring Pakistan. In the capital, Kabul, yesterday, a woman, two-month old baby and four-year-old boy were trampled in a stampede for charity food coupons. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Ed T Date: 30 Aug 08 - 06:53 PM Does anyone actually believe this old politically spun Bush-Cheny-Rumsfield story today? If so, some in the USA is destined to make the same mistake again and again. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: kendall Date: 30 Aug 08 - 07:31 PM Bush went into Iraq because he thought it would be a slam dunk, and Afghanistan was too much of a problem. Like the guy who said he was starting on his second million dollars, because the first on was just coming too damned hard. Draft dodgers don't make good Commanders-in-Chief. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Charley Noble Date: 30 Aug 08 - 08:56 PM I think we might at least agree that the Bush Administration has squandered billions on a discretionary war in Iraq, and undercut our international credibility in the process. In the process he has all but lost the war in Afghanistan. And now Pakistan is imploding. Maybe we should invite the Russians in to clean up this mess! Charley Noble |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 31 Aug 08 - 12:22 AM After their experience a few years back, the Russians will advance quickly- as far away from Afganistan as they can get. They have a bunch of "-stans between them and Afganistan. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Teribus Date: 31 Aug 08 - 07:24 AM Amos, as to that sorry reprise of mine: "In the wake of 911, by December 2001 Al-Qaida and their Taleban hosts were no threat to the USA. All 19 of America's intelligence services plus the Joint House Security Committee evaluated precisely what the greatest threat facing the USA was - It was not identified as being Al-Qaeda or the Taleban." Please point out anywhere where that statement is incorrect. Excerpt from the "State of the Union Address" January 2002: "Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11, but we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security. We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch, yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch. We can't stop short. If we stopped now, leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked, our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight." Your President was spot on, as was the advice given him. It was identical to that given four years before to William Jefferson Clinton, if you doubt, or wish to challenge that, I refer you to the transcript of the speech given to Congress by Bill Clinton on 17th February 1998. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Aug 08 - 01:08 PM The general Middle Eastern-Central Asian theatre of war could well be termed the present Vietnam (not the next one), not to say that there aren't significant differences in regards to Vietnam...there are. But it is rather like the Vietnamese-Southeast Asian conflict(s) in that it is a protracted conflict waged by the USA and various other western powers, and also involving Russia and China in a somewhat less direct manner, and involving vast displays of US firepower and occupation of foreign lands, and having no forseeable conclusion, and being a situation in which final victory is not achievabe, and wasting collosal amounts of money and a good deal of blood on a hopeless endeavour, and claiming a foreign threat to the USA where no such threat exists (aside from a threat to how the USA would like to see oil being marketed). As for terror, the foremost sponsor of terror right now is the USA itself. Not that it's the only one. Some of its Muslim fundamentalist opponents deal in terror too, but they have considerably less capability in that sense than Washington does. You have to experience "Shock and Awe" on a national basis throughout the length and breadth of an invaded nation to fully understand terror, not just get a couple of major skyscrapers knocked down and lose 3,000 innocent bystanders. Real terror is not achieved by a few ragtag terrorists running around in the shadows. It's achieved by a modern army, navy, and air force operating right out in the open. Wait until it happens to your country if you don't think so. Georgia, for instance, just terrorized South Ossetia a short while ago...and then the Russians countered that by terrorizing Georgia in return. That was real terror on a large scale....much more impressive than a few suicide bombers, and it does a lot more damage too...even if you don't get to see the replay 8500 times on CNN. The really successful terrorists are, and always have been, the commanders of governments and their national armed forces. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Stringsinger Date: 31 Aug 08 - 02:02 PM I quote: "Not really. Vietnam was all about knee-jerk reaction to a (mostly) imaginary political situation. The US went in there in the first place as part of the "global war against Communism", providing military advisers to the somewhat less than democratic government in the south after Ho Chi Minh declared a war of unification in (I think) 1957." The pretext for finding Al Quaeda in Afghanistan is because of an ostensible "global war on terror" which has replaced the "global war on communism". The enemy in Afghanistan is so "well defined" that innocent civilians have been bombed by American forces in the last few days. Does this remind anyone of what was done with napalm in Vietnam? If Al Quaeda is in Pakistan, what does this have to do with one of the largest exporters of heroin and cocaine in the world? What is the end-game in Afghanistan? Elimination of Al Quaeda and the Taliban? Is that even possible? Just as in Vietnam, there was no elimination of communism in that country and in fact today the Chinese are doing quite well thank you. I assert that war in Afghanistan is another knee-jerk reaction to a plan that has not been well thought out. For starters, there is no proof that bin Laden is even alive, today. And if the motivation for 911 is vengeance, than what does that say about the US policy for diplomacy? I maintain that the objective is fuzzy as it was in Iraq and Iran. The tribal leaders extend much farther than the Pashtun regions of the country. The US is presently in negotiations with many of them who really can't be trusted with the best interests of their country. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Stringsinger Date: 31 Aug 08 - 02:14 PM The object is to create an enemy whether the "global war on terror" or the "global war on communism" and fill the coffers of the military industrial complex and its Republican supporters (some Dems too). The US "Commander-in-Chief" was defined by Bush as a position that has to be seen as being tough to get elected and push bills through congress. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the impending debacle in Iran fit this scenario. These are wars and/or occupations of political expedience and not well-thought out in their execution. Here's what needs to be done. A realistic assessment of the cultures of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan (not to mention Pakistan) based on knowledge of the history of these countries and not trigger-happy knee-jerk military actions. I propose that in the next president's cabinet, there should be a department of anthropology that takes this into account. Diplomacy can't be based on not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shi'a or where the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq lie. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Aug 08 - 02:18 PM They can't really be trusted, period. ;-) Afghanistan's always been a hellhole of competing tribal groups fighting for turf and resisting ANY foreign occupying force, and I expect it always will be. It also stands at a very strategic transit point between several vital regions of central Asia, so further conflicts there between major powers are virtually guaranteed. Excuses will be found to justify those conflicts. This has true ever since the days of Alexander the Great, if not before. None of it has anything to do with bringing "democracy" to Afghanistan, but it does have to do with creating a client government in Kabul. That's what the Russians were there for too. And that's what the British were once there for. And that's what Alexander was once there for. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Teribus Date: 31 Aug 08 - 05:14 PM "vast displays of US firepower" - Where? "occupation of foreign lands" - Which foreign lands are currently being occupied by US Forces? |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Aug 08 - 05:50 PM (yawn) That dry British humour again? The same answer to both questions. Afghanistan and Iraq. The USA isn't the sole foreign military occupier of those lands, but it's the primary one. It has achieved regime change and set up client regimes in those countries, which is the same thing most conquering empires do when they take over a small country. Just consult the years 2001-2008, look for where American firepower has been displayed on a very large scale in that period, and look for where large numbers of American military forces and mercenaries presently have boots on the ground. Afghanistan and Iraq. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: RobbieWilson Date: 01 Sep 08 - 01:04 AM Coming back a little bit to old dude's comments; Afghanistan is not where the SOB's who took out the twin towers came from, that was Saudia Arabia, as was the money behind them. But of course that money and that country is very close to the money behind GWB. The billions of dollars/ millions of pounds being spent in Afghanistan and Iraq is not leading to the people of Afghanistan or Iraq having any kind of standard of living; it goes largely to the corporate interests who also are closely linked to GWB and his backers. The Taliban are not some green skinned aliens with the word Taliban tatooed on their foreheads who can be easily rooted out from the people of Afghanistan they are indistinguishable from the people of Afghanistan because they are people of Afghanistan with a particular view of how the world should be run. Every time a village or a wedding party or even a house is bombed because someone has said they think there might be taliban fighters there more hatred is created and stored up in the general population. This will last for generations. It does not matter how effectively Military Might kicks ass it can never succeed in making the world a safer place, merely drive those who harbour this hatred to more and more desparate measures. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Teribus Date: 01 Sep 08 - 01:57 AM Fire power displayed on a very large scale - LH you really do tend to exaggerate, whenever it comes to things relating to the US military. Compared to the firepower they have at their disposal what has been displayed over the period in question has been fairly proportionate to the situation. US armed forces "occupy" neither Iraq or Afghanistan - Ask the UN Security Council, US Forces/ISAF/MNF are present in accordance with UN Security Council Mandate - A fact I know that you hate to acknowledge to the point that you never mention it. Set up "Client" regimes? Now how on earth did they set those up LH? Or is this juust another of your inventions? The "big bad USA" got all those people out to vote for the people that they (The USA) wanted to get elected? Another fact that you and your fellow travellers hate to admit about the elections held in both Iraq and in Afghanistan: 1) They were the first democratic elections ever held in either country. 2) Both elections were adjudged to be full, fair and free by UN monitors present at both. 3) A larger proportion of electorate voted in both those elections than ever turn out for elections in either the US or in the UK. Oh by the bye LH, US Forces "boots-on-the-ground" look up Germany, South Korea and Japan, are those countries "occupied" as well? To Robbie Wilson, true "Afghanistan is not where the SOB's who took out the twin towers came from" - Afghanistan is where they were trained. Afghanistan is where the plot was hatched, planned and directed from. Now irrespective of where the perpetrators were born, why on earth would you attack any other place than Afghanistan in relation to the attacks of September 11th 2001? |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: RobbieWilson Date: 01 Sep 08 - 06:47 AM Well, one reason might be that you want to show you are doing something by kicking some ass, any ass-- these foreigners are all the same anyhow. Yes Afghanistan was one of the places training took place, but as I remember it most of the training for 9/11 took place in the USofA. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: MarkS Date: 01 Sep 08 - 09:03 AM Draft dodgers don't make good Commanders-in-Chief. Bill Clinton was a perfect example of this. At least Obama was too young to be caught up, but hey, Joe Biden, "where were you, in '62?" |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Stringsinger Date: 01 Sep 08 - 01:28 PM Teribus, more misinformation from you. "Fire power displayed on a very large scale - LH you really do tend to exaggerate, whenever it comes to things relating to the US military. Compared to the firepower they have at their disposal what has been displayed over the period in question has been fairly proportionate to the situation." Yes, this is what was said about the slaughter of innocents in Vietnam. "US armed forces "occupy" neither Iraq or Afghanistan - Ask the UN Security Council, US Forces/ISAF/MNF are present in accordance with UN Security Council Mandate - A fact I know that you hate to acknowledge to the point that you never mention it." This still is an occupation precipitated by a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. It doesn't matter how much influence the US exerts on the Security Council Mandate. They should move the UN building out of the US. "Set up "Client" regimes? Now how on earth did they set those up LH? Or is this juust another of your inventions? " Blackwater, KBR and other defense contractors own Iraq. Very little of the oil money is going to help that country regain its former state. "The "big bad USA" got all those people out to vote for the people that they (The USA) wanted to get elected?" You may not be aware of this but there are those in the Republican Administration that know how to conduct fraudulent elections. Not the USA wanted the elections to go their way but the Pentagon and the defense contractors were the recipients. Elections in Iraq are a joke. " Another fact that you and your fellow travellers hate to admit about the elections held in both Iraq and in Afghanistan: 1) They were the first democratic elections ever held in either country." Errant nonsense. They were railroaded by special Bush interests. They were not true democratic elections in any meaningful sense. "2) Both elections were adjudged to be full, fair and free by UN monitors present at both." Also not true. There was no unanimous opinion on this. "3) A larger proportion of electorate voted in both those elections than ever turn out for elections in either the US or in the UK." Complete false and flagrant propaganda. There was no way to measure this. "Oh by the bye LH, US Forces "boots-on-the-ground" look up Germany, South Korea and Japan, are those countries "occupied" as well?" In that the citizens of those countries are not being pushed around by American troops in an aggressive and dictatorial fashion, it's not the same thing. "To Robbie Wilson, true "Afghanistan is not where the SOB's who took out the twin towers came from" - Afghanistan is where they were trained." Here, they may have been trained but not at the behest of the Afghanistan government or with the unanimous support of the Afghan people. It was a training camp that could well have been funded by Arab nationals. It was a convenient place to do this because there was no official monitoring. " Afghanistan is where the plot was hatched, planned and directed from. Now irrespective of where the perpetrators were born, why on earth would you attack any other place than Afghanistan in relation to the attacks of September 11th 2001?" Because it was the reactionary forces in the Arab Republics, the fundamentalist religious groups in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that were behind bin Laden to begin with. Afghanistan just happened to be a convenient locale to form camps. You don't know that these plans were hatched in Afghanistan. That's just a guess. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: kendall Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:10 PM Every enemy we have and ever had were and are of our own creation.We are addicted to war. Fire away, I would love to debate this. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Teribus Date: 01 Sep 08 - 06:33 PM Vietnam - Now that was fire-power displayed on a large scale. At its height the US had upwards of half a million men deployed there. Nothing like the numbers involved in Iraq or Afghanistan - tiny by comparison. Unfortunately I was responding to Little Hawk's description, so you stringsinger introducing Vietnam is irrelevant. How can the US exert force on a UN Security Council piece of paper? The US can exert very little pressure on the UN Security Council, the four other permanent members all have veto powers which stop things dead in their tracks. Nothing that you have said alters the fact that US/ISAF/MNF troops are present in both Iraq and Afghanistan in accordance with a perfectly legal UN Security Council Mandate and at the request of the duly elected sovereign Governments of both those countries, which means stringsinger, that no matter how much you would think it to be, no matter how much you wish it to be - It ain't no "Occupation". The elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan were adjudged free fair and democratic by the independent UN monitoring teams. Highest voter turn out in the USA since the end of the Second World War has been 65%. In Iraq and in Afghanistan voter turn out was over 70% The way you measure it stringsinger is number of votes cast against electoral rolls. Glad to see that you do not think that Germany, South Korea and Japan are not under US occupation - Neither are Iraq or Afghanistan. As to where 911 was hatched up being a guess, I don't think so - KSM and OBL hatched up the plot, or at least that is what both have clearly stated - I have no cause to doubt them. The Taleban in Afghanistan were asked to give up the leadership of Al-Qaeda and to close down the training camps, they refused to do either, so the US threw its lot in with the Northern Alliance who were fighting the Taleban at the time. With the help of US air-power the Northern Alliance defeated the Taleban, there was no US "Invasion" of Afghanistan, so how on earth can there be an "occupation"? |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Stringsinger Date: 02 Sep 08 - 01:18 PM "Vietnam - Now that was fire-power displayed on a large scale. At its height the US had upwards of half a million men deployed there. Nothing like the numbers involved in Iraq or Afghanistan - tiny by comparison." but a McCaoin presidency would escalate this to the size of Vietnam. "Unfortunately I was responding to Little Hawk's description, so you stringsinger introducing Vietnam is irrelevant." Actually, it's quite relevant because it's a continuation of US foreign policy, shoot first and ask questions afterward. "How can the US exert force on a UN Security Council piece of paper?" Not on a piece of paper but on the Security Council itself by muscling it for political means. What do you think John Bolton represents? "The US can exert very little pressure on the UN Security Council, the four other permanent members all have veto powers which stop things dead in their tracks." The fact that they haven't done so is the case in point. The reason they haven't is because of the influence the US has exerted. " Nothing that you have said alters the fact that US/ISAF/MNF troops are present in both Iraq and Afghanistan in accordance with a perfectly legal UN Security Council Mandate and at the request of the duly elected sovereign Governments of both those countries, which means stringsinger, that no matter how much you would think it to be, no matter how much you wish it to be - It ain't no "Occupation". First of all there is no duly elected sovereign government of Iraq. It's a propped-up puppet government and the head of that government Maliki wants the US out. Maliki says it's an occupation. If it isn't an occupation, then what are American troops doing there with guns pushing the denizens of that country around or committing genocide by ethnic cleansing? "The elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan were adjudged free fair and democratic by the independent UN monitoring teams." I doubt that very much. You say that this is a fact but this has been disputed. " Highest voter turn out in the USA since the end of the Second World War has been 65%. In Iraq and in Afghanistan voter turn out was over 70% The way you measure it stringsinger is number of votes cast against electoral rolls." These votes may not have been cast legally or democratically. This is analogous to how the elections in the US were cast in 2000 and 2004. There was election fraud here and there was election fraud there. "Glad to see that you do not think that Germany, South Korea and Japan are not under US occupation - Neither are Iraq or Afghanistan." Not true. Iraq is under occupation by armed troops from the US. This is why elections can't be counted as being fair or uncorrupted. "As to where 911 was hatched up being a guess, I don't think so - KSM and OBL hatched up the plot, or at least that is what both have clearly stated - I have no cause to doubt them." ObL is from Saudi Arabia. You can doubt where the plans were hatched or when because you simply don't know. "The Taleban in Afghanistan were asked to give up the leadership of Al-Qaeda and to close down the training camps, they refused to do either, so the US threw its lot in with the Northern Alliance who were fighting the Taleban at the time." There were times in the negotiations (see Scott Ritter) where the Taleban could have handed over OsL but this was rejected by the US Administration. Bush preferred to go after the Taleban instead. "With the help of US air-power the Northern Alliance defeated the Taleban, there was no US "Invasion" of Afghanistan, so how on earth can there be an "occupation"? The Taleban have not been defeated. Bombs were hurled killing innocents at a madrasa and there is an invasion taking place right now under the radar. Just the other day, bombs killed innocent civilians in a Taleban raid. It's as I said before, Bush foreign policy is to shoot first and ask questions afterward. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Teribus Date: 02 Sep 08 - 03:58 PM Latest in wishful thinking from Stringsinger: 1. "McCaoin presidency would escalate this (Iraq) to the size of Vietnam." Now where and when has he said that? He was a proponent of the "Surge" but all surge troops have now left Iraq and as far as I know all talk is of reducing troop numbers there. I have not seen, heard or read any article whereby any increase of troops is called for by anybody - I am sure Obama, or somebody in his campaign staff would have said something if McCain intended any escalation. 2. "Actually, it's quite relevant because it's a continuation of US foreign policy, shoot first and ask questions afterward." Only in your rather fevered imagination Strinsinger, only in your fevered imagination. 3. "Not on a piece of paper but on the Security Council itself by muscling it for political means. What do you think John Bolton represents?" You claim that the US put pressure on the UN Security Council, care to tell us how? If what you are saying is possible, which it is not, can you exlain why there was no second Resolution? You know the one, the one the French said that they would Veto sight unseen. Or are you trying to tell us all that US pressuring of the UN Security Council is fallible, it only works now and again. For the first resolution 1441 the US managed to pressure all fifteen members of the Security Council including Syria, Russia and China, then when it came to the second they couldn't even pressure France. Lacks consistency, reason and logic Stringsinger. 4. "First of all there is no duly elected sovereign government of Iraq. It's a propped-up puppet government and the head of that government Maliki wants the US out. Maliki says it's an occupation. If it isn't an occupation, then what are American troops doing there with guns pushing the denizens of that country around or committing genocide by ethnic cleansing?" Now this really is a rabid left-wing rant based on myth isn't it. No duly elected Government eh? Ask Maliki if he doubts if he was duly elected or not - I think that you will find out that he will state quite clearly that he was duly elected by his constituents and then again elected to be Prime Minister by the duly constituted Iraqi Assembly. That the Iraqis want to see the MNF troops leave, of course they do, it will mean that things have returned to normal. For the MNF troops to be removed all that the Iraqi Government has to do is to tell the UN that they want their troops to leave - So far Stringsinger they have not. The UN will not renew its mandate after 31st december this year, hence the negotiations with the Iraqi Government relating to status of US Forces in country. I do not believe that Maliki has ever referred to the presence of MNF troops as being an "occupation". Are US troops, or more correctly MNF troops, "pushing the denizens of that country around" with guns? Where are MNF troops engaged in ethnic cleansing or genocide in Iraq? Or are you mistaking the activities of Russian troops in Georgia? 5. "The elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan were adjudged free fair and democratic by the independent UN monitoring teams." - Teribus "I doubt that very much. You say that this is a fact but this has been disputed." - Stringsinger Well no Stringsinger I do not state as fact that the elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq were adjudged free, fair and democratic. The people who stated that were the people sent there by the UN to monitor the elections. Now you tell me, should I believe them, the people who were on the ground and witnessed those elections first hand, or should I just take your word for it, a person who was nowhere near either place at the time. Please forgive me but I'll opt for the opinion of the UN Observers. Oh, by the bye Stringsinger, just because a fact is disputed does not necessarily prove that fact false. 6. "These votes may not have been cast legally or democratically. This is analogous to how the elections in the US were cast in 2000 and 2004. There was election fraud here and there was election fraud there." MAY not have been = WERE, since when? One thing about the elections in both Afghanistan and in Iraq Stringsinger was that they were monitored by the UN, the elections in the US have never been monitored by any independent official body. But I would venture to guess that they are free, fair and democratic. I would also venture to guess that the only elections in the US that in your opinion have ever been subject to electoral fraud are the ones where you didn't agree with the result. 7. "Not true. Iraq is under occupation by armed troops from the US. This is why elections can't be counted as being fair or uncorrupted." http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9207.doc.htm 8. "ObL is from Saudi Arabia. You can doubt where the plans were hatched or when because you simply don't know." According both OBL and KSM 911 was planned from camps inside Afghanistan, that was where those who took part were trained and selected. As stated previously, I have no cause to doubt that. Where OBL comes from is completely irrelevant. Where he bases his organisation and where he sets up his training camps however is. 9. "There were times in the negotiations (see Scott Ritter) where the Taleban could have handed over OsL but this was rejected by the US Administration. Bush preferred to go after the Taleban instead." Sorry Stringsinger, nowhere in that sentence of yours does it state that at anytime the Taleban offered to handover OBL to the US Authorities. "...the Taleban COULD HAVE handed over" OBL, bloody right there were times when they COULD HAVE handed over OBL, the significant fact however was that they didn't- Did They?? 10. "The Taleban have not been defeated. Bombs were hurled killing innocents at a madrasa and there is an invasion taking place right now under the radar. Just the other day, bombs killed innocent civilians in a Taleban raid." Oh yes Stringsinger, the Taleban have been defeated, they just do not know it yet. Supposedly the de facto Government of Afghanistan in 2001 to doing what now? Hiding over the border in Pakistan's tribal areas? They have all but given up on direct attacks and ambushes on ISAF, US and Afghan Army troops because they can no longer sustain the losses. They have reverted to planting roadside bombs - No terrorist organisation has ever won using such tactics. Now they are starting to be hit on what they assumed was the "safe" side of the Pakistani border. Here's a little story for you Stringsinger - this cost the Taleban over 200 of their followers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7593901.stm |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Teribus Date: 03 Sep 08 - 10:44 AM Here's another one for your consideration Frank: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7594729.stm |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Sep 08 - 05:24 PM Two basic rules of warfare: Don't invade Russia. Don't get tangled up in Afghanistan. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Teribus Date: 04 Sep 08 - 12:54 AM Well, originally on this forum it was Iraq, "Iraqmire", that was being touted as the USA's next Vietnam, but unfortunately for the chorus that didn't pan out. So now it must be Afghanistan. As for Afghanistan? I'll stick by what I said, "...the Taleban have been defeated, they just do not know it yet." In exactly the same way that in Northern Ireland by 1985 the Provisional IRA knew that they were never going to win (Not my opinion that came from Martin McGuinness) It took the rank and file another eleven years to come to terms with that then another ten years for their Army Council to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement they signed up to. The biggest mistake that extremists have made was their involvement in the assassination of Benhazir Bhutto. The Pakistan side of the border can no longer be assumed by them to be a "safe haven" anymore. MGOH, there is only one basic rule in war - make sure you WIN. ISAF and the US Enduring Freedom Forces currently deployed in Afghanistan number about one third of the forces deployed there by the Russians. The number is about one eighth of the number of US troops deployed in Vietnam at its height. Militarily ISAF and EDF are beating the Taleban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Direct attacks on Afghan Government Forces and ISAF are no longer the tactic, because of the losses being sustained, so the Taleban have regressed to road-side bombs and suicide attacks. Unfortunately they kill more of the people that the Taleban need to support them than they do "the foreign infidels" so the perception amongst the civilian population is that the Taleban cannot deliver peace and security, their very basis for existence. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Sep 08 - 08:50 AM "...only one basic rule in war - make sure you WIN." And that's what never seems to happen when you break the rules I quoted... ............................. The Northern Ireland analogy suggests that at some point a modified Taliban will be back in power. That does seem the likely outcome, sooner or later. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Teribus Date: 04 Sep 08 - 11:00 AM Hopefully modified enough to allow access to education and education for all. Hopefully modified enough to practice living in this world peacefully and exercising tolerance. As to exercising war, since 1945 neither of your dictums holds water. Trouble is those on the emotive left yell war whenever any of the Western democracies are involved and peacekeeping whenever Russia wades in. While the Taleban may call what they are engaged in a war in Afghanistan, and undoubtedly what the PIRA called what they were engaged in in Northern Ireland a war, the forces that oppose them in Afghanistan are fighting an insurrection (The Taleban represent no-one but themselves) and the British troops in Northern Ireland provided "Aid to the Civil Power". If the US were at war with Afghanistan it would be all over in 15 minutes - Don't kid yourself that the result would be any different. In the 1980's the Russians went in in the hope of propping up a puppet regime and lost with three times the number of men. The country was ablze from end to end. ISAF, US Enduring Freedom and Afghan Government troops number about one third of the forces available in the 80's and much of the country is prospering and the Taleban have to hide in Pakistan and recruit there. Yes Kevin, thankfully they are losing. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Sep 08 - 08:06 PM Hopefully, but very likely not. At some point the occupiers will pull out, and the people who have been fighting them are likely to be the major element in whatever regime that follows. That's how it always works out in these situations. ...since 1945 neither of your dictums holds water./a> How so? Since 1945 no one has invaded Russia, so that one hasn't come into play. As for Afghanistan, getting tangled up there proved disastrous for the USSR, and is not working out at all well for the current foreign intanglement. ...thankfully they are losing. What matters in this kind of war isn't beating the enemy, or outgunning them, or outbombing them, it's outlasting them. Don't get me wrong, this isn't about what kind of outcome I might like to see. It's about what seems the likely outcome. Pragmatic rather than ideological. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Teribus Date: 05 Sep 08 - 01:05 AM It comes down to misconceptions then Kevin: Misconception 1: "At some point the occupiers will pull out" As far as I am aware it is only the Taleban/the anti-Bush/anti-war/the chattering left that hold the opinion that Afghanistan is under occupation, although how a country of 31-odd million people can be "occupied" by about 50,000 defies logic. Misconception 2: "the people who have been fighting them are likely to be the major element in whatever regime that follows" As far as Afghanistan goes and the extent of progress achieved they may be an element - they will not however be a major element. The Taleban only ever came into being to counter-balance the excesses of the various warlords in the country. With prosperity and growth comes employment and stability - counter to what many believe war is bad for business - with people left at peace to make a living the Taleban have simply no appeal. Misconception 3: That the countries engaged as contributers to either ISAF in Afghanistan or the MNF in Iraq are "at war" - They are not. True nobody has invaded Russia, but since the advant of atomic/nuclear weapons nobody has to do they? As for Afghanistan "not working out at all well for the current foreign intanglement" - well most of the country is fairly quiet according to what has been reported in the press, even the left biased BBC, much to their chagrin, no longer refer to the "resurgent" Taleban in every news item. The Taleban are having major problems recruiting in Afghanistan Kevin, so they have to rely on recruits from the tribal areas in Pakistan - they are the "foreign element" that are not fairing well in Afghanistan. It will take time and effort, anybody who knew anything about the country, would have realised that. At the end of the day the people of Afghanistan will be the ones that "win" - Anything, anything is better than what has been their lot over the last forty years. |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: GUEST,Kiwi Guest Date: 05 Sep 08 - 01:38 AM The only reason the States invaded Afghanistan was to create and secure the gas pipeline that it's multinational company with ties to prominent govt members wanted. The invasion of Afghanistan was planned well before 9/11 |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Teribus Date: 05 Sep 08 - 01:57 AM Oh that explains it all then. That the pipeline project that the US oil company you mentioned påulled out of years ago? |
Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam? From: Teribus Date: 05 Sep 08 - 07:05 AM Kiwi Guest, the Indians are expressing marked interest in the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) Pipeline as their previous preferred option, the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) Pipeline project is now viewd as being too risky a venture. The is no US involvement in TAP although it was originally a Chevron or Unical idea if I remember correctly, both lost interest a long time ago, well before 911. The project now would be backed by the Asian Development Bank - No US involvement whatsoever. |