BF2S Forums Afghan army is useless

lowing wrote:

venom6 wrote:

How come that USA and EU cant win a war against some poor equipted "terrorists" who dont got high tech stuff, jets, artillery, uav and so on.
That whole "war" is a big fucking lie. Military superpowers cant win that war since when? 2001 or when did they moved into that country?

They can win, do we have your permission to unleash our military as needed, or shall we try to keep fighting with both hands tied behind our backs by PC rope, leaving you the the opportunity to ask your smug, insipid, condescending question?

Oh gimme a fucking break, doing that would do nothing but destroy all hope we have in that country. Intelligent planning, restricted use of overly destructive weapons, respect towards the local peoples, and surgical strikes which are done in a way to have a minimally negative effect upon the rest of the population are the only way we have any hope of succeeding.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Well to be fair even the Soviets did the whole "Hoorah" approach and it didn't even work out for them either

maximum personnel strength of the russian army in afghanistan was 115000

maybe they would have won if they'd sent 300000, 500000 or 1 mio soldiers

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Oh gimme a fucking break, doing that would do nothing but destroy all hope we have in that country. Intelligent planning, restricted use of overly destructive weapons, respect towards the local peoples, and surgical strikes which are done in a way to have a minimally negative effect upon the rest of the population are the only way we have any hope of succeeding.

Apparently using your brain and not your brawn is being 'PC'. v0v

Then pose the question differently. the question was, in a smart ass tone, asked why the mighty US can not win with our advanced weaponry. The answer and the truth is, we can win militarily, but we are fighting with our hands tied.

So the question for you now is, since we are agreed we are not using the full potiential of our military. How is your approach, fully engaged in PC wworking out for you? Can't be doing to great since you are bitching about progress.

Read up a few posts for my opinion on why i don't think you can win militarily. And by that i mean more tanks and more guns and more soldiers, which is what you mean, for future clarification.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

Then pose the question differently. the question was, in a smart ass tone, asked why the mighty US can not win with our advanced weaponry. The answer and the truth is, we can win militarily, but we are fighting with our hands tied.

So the question for you now is, since we are agreed we are not using the full potiential of our military. How is your approach, fully engaged in PC wworking out for you? Can't be doing to great since you are bitching about progress.

Read up a few posts for my opinion on why i don't think you can win militarily. And by that i mean more tanks and more guns and more soldiers, which is what you mean, for future clarification.

I addressed the smart ass insipid question asked as to why the US isn't winning with all of our mighty technology. Nothing more. Furthermore, my response was correct.

Ok i'm getting completly lost with this discussion.

To clarify for me, if the U.S was given free reign to use all of it's assets in Afghanistan, what would you prefer for them to do now, that they don't do currently?

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

I addressed the smart ass insipid question asked as to why the US isn't winning with all of our mighty technology. Nothing more. Furthermore, my response was correct.

Ok i'm getting completly lost with this discussion.

To clarify for me, if the U.S was given free reign to use all of it's assets in Afghanistan, what would you prefer for them to do now, that they don't do currently?

I prefer, if we are going to war, that we go no holds barred, win it unconditionally, then sort it out afterward. Pussyfooting around with politicians cost lives. diplomacy is for politicans, when that fails war is the next step. War is for the military, once war is unleashed, it is not right to ask a military to fight it with spitballs when they have tanks. it is not right to tell them they will be prosicuted if they shoot someone, after sending them in to fight.

Yeah i asked what you'd do differently, not to restate your issues with the way it's being done currently.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

I prefer, if we are going to war, that we go no holds barred, win it unconditionally, then sort it out afterward. Pussyfooting around with politicians cost lives. diplomacy is for politicans, when that fails war is the next step. War is for the military, once war is unleashed, it is not right to ask a military to fight it with spitballs when they have tanks. it is not right to tell them they will be prosicuted if they shoot someone, after sending them in to fight.

Yeah i asked what you'd do differently, not to restate your issues with the way it's being done currently.

thought I answered that, right now, it is being conducted in a restricted hands tied fashion, I would pull out all the stops and and fuck up afghanistan until they beg us to stop, and hand over Bin Laden. If you declare war, go to war to win

But what would pulling the stops out include? tanks flattening villages sorta scale, or glassing the country bit by bit sorta scale?

Vilham wrote:

During Hitlers's reign minorities were fucked, indeed. But majority was quite ok. Now whole German nation is fucked (cold war ruined eastern Germany).
Im amazed you can't see the similarity.

Whole German nation isn't leaded by weak pro-american leaders who cant control religious fanatics inside of country. The real power in Iraq now are imams and mullas - and they drive the country back, forcing people to live by strict following of quran. At least during Saddam's reign of terror you wasn't prosecuted only because you dont believe in Allah.
And srsly, comparing Germany, one of the best & strongest european countries to a shithole called Iraq? I doubt Germany was that bad even in 1953. I doubt Iraq will be anything like Germany in 2066, or ever.

Commie Killer wrote:

Think long term, obviously Iraq is fucked up, but its a hell of a lot better then it was in 2006, and the situation is improving, SLOWLY. I don't believe we should have went into Iraq, while I do believe that we should have went into Korea, but that is not the reason I drew the parallels. I equate the two because Korea took decades to fully become a real democracy and a stable country, Iraq will most likely work out the same way. I know you've only been out of your mothers cooter for 12 years but the world events have been happening for longer then that.

Things are only becoming worse when coalition troops are trying to pass responsibility to so called legitimate Iraqi goverment. First they screwed the things up, turned quite liberal (speaking of religion) country into a shithole - now they wanna leave, even though taking into account current situation they are the only force that can possibly keep law & order in the country.

p/s I find further arguments with someone, who accuse me of being 12 years old when he finds out that my opinion is different compared to his, pointless. I'm 22 by the way.

Longbow wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Think long term, obviously Iraq is fucked up, but its a hell of a lot better then it was in 2006, and the situation is improving, SLOWLY. I don't believe we should have went into Iraq, while I do believe that we should have went into Korea, but that is not the reason I drew the parallels. I equate the two because Korea took decades to fully become a real democracy and a stable country, Iraq will most likely work out the same way. I know you've only been out of your mothers cooter for 12 years but the world events have been happening for longer then that.

Things are only becoming worse when coalition troops are trying to pass responsibility to so called legitimate Iraqi goverment. First they screwed the things up, turned quite liberal (speaking of religion) country into a shithole - now they wanna leave, even though taking into account current situation they are the only force that can possibly keep law & order in the country.

p/s I find further arguments with someone, who accuse me of being 12 years old when he finds out that my opinion is different compared to his, pointless. I'm 22 by the way.

Your view of reality is a little off in some areas, but I guess that depends on what reality is huh. Just a different perspective I suppose.

I'm interested as to why you think that the Iraqi government is illegitimate(I could understand that if you were talking about Afghanistan), and why you believe it has a very conservative religious stance(in the region its doing pretty good, especially if you stand it up next to Saudi Arabia) why its a shit hole, again, its been improving since 2007, and who are leaving that are the only ones who can keep law and order in that country.


EDIT: Might find this a little interesting.

Last edited by Commie Killer (2009-12-28 20:41:11)

=NHB=Shadow wrote:

as useless as America is? I think so!

Learn to swim.

Commie Killer wrote:

Your view of reality is a little off in some areas, but I guess that depends on what reality is huh. Just a different perspective I suppose.

Well I guess you don't understand the theoury of minor evil. I suppose that Saddam was minor evil compared to islamic fundamentalists. Saddam was at least somewhat predictable.

Commie Killer wrote:

I'm interested as to why you think that the Iraqi government is illegitimate(I could understand that if you were talking about Afghanistan), and why you believe it has a very conservative religious stance(in the region its doing pretty good, especially if you stand it up next to Saudi Arabia) why its a shit hole

I'm pretty much sure that Iraqi goverment is pro-american not because all Iraqi's are found of America, but because different (read: antiamerican or isolationist) candidates simply wont pass even 1st tour. If you call that legitimate...

As for religion part, yes, on paper country is ruled by the goverment who isn't stricly following sharia laws blablabla...but in reality islamists are the only force (exept the coalition, who are about to leave soon) in the country. Guess who is effecting overall political climate and social life the most? Right, mullas and imams.

I strongly believe that religion is separated from the state for a reason. I'm pretty sure that should happen to islam too. Thats why I think that moderately religious dictator was better that bunch of radical islamists. I doubt current goverment will survive next 5 years after coalition forces leave. Probably the same shit like in Iran will happen. Islamic revolution, ffs.

lowing wrote:

I would pull out all the stops and and fuck up afghanistan until they beg us to stop, and hand over Bin Laden

Uh Bin Laden is in Pakistan...
BTW These guys keep going until they're dead, they won't beg for anything at that point.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

I would pull out all the stops and and fuck up afghanistan until they beg us to stop, and hand over Bin Laden

Uh Bin Laden is in Pakistan...
BTW These guys keep going until they're dead, they won't beg for anything at that point.

works for me.

AussieReaper wrote:

What are you gonna do, bomb them into the stone age?

Dunno I guess that would be up to them as t ohow much ass whippin' they are willing to take.