They seem to have managed pretty well so far.lowing wrote:
Dunno I guess that would be up to them as t ohow much ass whippin' they are willing to take.AussieReaper wrote:
What are you gonna do, bomb them into the stone age?
guess yer not following very well. read back a few, it is because of PC our troops our left to fight with both hiands tied behind their backs, Afghanistan wouldn't be managing very well if we were allowed to take the gloves off and fight this war as it should be fought, with no holds barred and achieve victory.AussieReaper wrote:
They seem to have managed pretty well so far.lowing wrote:
Dunno I guess that would be up to them as t ohow much ass whippin' they are willing to take.AussieReaper wrote:
What are you gonna do, bomb them into the stone age?
the only way to win the war in afghanistan is to use nuclear weapons. everything other than that will not lead to victorylowing wrote:
guess yer not following very well. read back a few, it is because of PC our troops our left to fight with both hiands tied behind their backs, Afghanistan wouldn't be managing very well if we were allowed to take the gloves off and fight this war as it should be fought, with no holds barred and achieve victory.AussieReaper wrote:
They seem to have managed pretty well so far.lowing wrote:
Dunno I guess that would be up to them as t ohow much ass whippin' they are willing to take.
Possibly because it is an unwinnable war. See a post of mine on P3 for further reference to what i mean.lowing wrote:
I don't give a shit, I am not a general. Ask them. I simply feel whenever the last resort of war is called for, the decisions then should turn to the military as to how best achieve victory. and yes, if it is to be war, victory victory should be the objective.FatherTed wrote:
But what would pulling the stops out include? tanks flattening villages sorta scale, or glassing the country bit by bit sorta scale?lowing wrote:
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
Or have you not noticed, when speaking of Afghanistan, Obama never mentions the words win or victory. Only time lines.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Might be right, but if this war would be lost, lets not let it be for lack of trying to win it.FatherTed wrote:
Possibly because it is an unwinnable war. See a post of mine on P3 for further reference to what i mean.lowing wrote:
I don't give a shit, I am not a general. Ask them. I simply feel whenever the last resort of war is called for, the decisions then should turn to the military as to how best achieve victory. and yes, if it is to be war, victory victory should be the objective.FatherTed wrote:
But what would pulling the stops out include? tanks flattening villages sorta scale, or glassing the country bit by bit sorta scale?
Or have you not noticed, when speaking of Afghanistan, Obama never mentions the words win or victory. Only time lines.
Might be right as well. However, nuclear war and destroying the world is not winning a war, it is killing the patient to cure the disease.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
the only way to win the war in afghanistan is to use nuclear weapons. everything other than that will not lead to victorylowing wrote:
guess yer not following very well. read back a few, it is because of PC our troops our left to fight with both hiands tied behind their backs, Afghanistan wouldn't be managing very well if we were allowed to take the gloves off and fight this war as it should be fought, with no holds barred and achieve victory.AussieReaper wrote:
They seem to have managed pretty well so far.
Truth. And i do 100% respect the efforts the U.S.A have made (and let's be honest, the British have taken a fucking pounding too) in trying to bring some form of stability to the area. Sadly, i don't think it can ever be achieved.lowing wrote:
Might be right, but if this war would be lost, lets not let it be for lack of trying to win it.FatherTed wrote:
Possibly because it is an unwinnable war. See a post of mine on P3 for further reference to what i mean.lowing wrote:
I don't give a shit, I am not a general. Ask them. I simply feel whenever the last resort of war is called for, the decisions then should turn to the military as to how best achieve victory. and yes, if it is to be war, victory victory should be the objective.
Or have you not noticed, when speaking of Afghanistan, Obama never mentions the words win or victory. Only time lines.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Victory has not yet been defined.lowing wrote:
Or have you not noticed, when speaking of Afghanistan, Obama never mentions the words win or victory. Only time lines.
Fuck Israel
Afghan Army Afghanistan is useless
i agree.lowing wrote:
Might be right as well. However, nuclear war and destroying the world is not winning a war, it is killing the patient to cure the disease.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
the only way to win the war in afghanistan is to use nuclear weapons. everything other than that will not lead to victorylowing wrote:
guess yer not following very well. read back a few, it is because of PC our troops our left to fight with both hiands tied behind their backs, Afghanistan wouldn't be managing very well if we were allowed to take the gloves off and fight this war as it should be fought, with no holds barred and achieve victory.
that's why it is useless for the western coalition to stay even one day longer. victory (in terms of even a modest democratization and stabilization of afghanistan, not to speak of defeating the taliban and other islamic fundementalists) cannot be achieved
Useless in what respect?Turquoise wrote:
Afghan Army Afghanistan is useless
Culturally and resource-wise.Commie Killer wrote:
Useless in what respect?Turquoise wrote:
Afghan Army Afghanistan is useless
Probably not, and certainly not with our hands tied by the binds of PCFatherTed wrote:
Truth. And i do 100% respect the efforts the U.S.A have made (and let's be honest, the British have taken a fucking pounding too) in trying to bring some form of stability to the area. Sadly, i don't think it can ever be achieved.lowing wrote:
Might be right, but if this war would be lost, lets not let it be for lack of trying to win it.FatherTed wrote:
Possibly because it is an unwinnable war. See a post of mine on P3 for further reference to what i mean.
You are right, yet another problem of PC. I say state your business and get on with it.Dilbert_X wrote:
Victory has not yet been defined.lowing wrote:
Or have you not noticed, when speaking of Afghanistan, Obama never mentions the words win or victory. Only time lines.
Dunno about that, like I said earlier, the Us military, unleashed, can have them begging for mercy.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
i agree.lowing wrote:
Might be right as well. However, nuclear war and destroying the world is not winning a war, it is killing the patient to cure the disease.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
the only way to win the war in afghanistan is to use nuclear weapons. everything other than that will not lead to victory
that's why it is useless for the western coalition to stay even one day longer. victory (in terms of even a modest democratization and stabilization of afghanistan, not to speak of defeating the taliban and other islamic fundementalists) cannot be achieved
Are you talking about the terrorists, or the total country?
unless the pakis are willing to let us get dirty in their country, anything we do in afghanistan is pointless. trying to build an afghan army is probably doing more harm than good. they're primitive, tribal people: like Iraq without any education or resources.
The country harbors the terrorists, hell the Taliban IS the govt. for all practical purposes and we are at war with them, and yes they could be crying uncle if the US were allowed to make it happenAussieReaper wrote:
Are you talking about the terrorists, or the total country?
Well it sounds to me like your plan would only further radicalise the moderates within the country.
If you want to prevent the harbouring of terrorists, you adopt the tried and true strategy of winning hearts and minds.
A crusade against all Muslims is just going to be a rally call for a Jihad.
If you want to prevent the harbouring of terrorists, you adopt the tried and true strategy of winning hearts and minds.
A crusade against all Muslims is just going to be a rally call for a Jihad.
and why should that be, if they believe fighting terrorism and the spread of radicalization was the right thing to do, why fight against us?AussieReaper wrote:
Well it sounds to me like your plan would only further radicalise the moderates within the country.
If you want to prevent the harbouring of terrorists, you adopt the tried and true strategy of winning hearts and minds.
A crusade against all Muslims is just going to be a rally call for a Jihad.
Why could not "moderate Muslisms" recognize what the fight is about and join the west in the fight against those that supposedly hijacked their "peaceful" relgion?
We are not fighting "all Muslims". It has never been claimed and is not being done. We are fighting the Islamic terrorism and those that harbor and finance them ( or should be) yet you claim this fight will do nothing but create more radical Islamic goons, you can not figure out what the problem is with Islam? go figure.
A post ago you said
now you're sayingThe country harbors the terrorists, hell the Taliban IS the govt. for all practical purposes and we are at war with them, and yes they could be crying uncle if the US were allowed to make it happen
So make up your mind. You're either fighting the terrorists, the "government" as you claim, or the country. It'd be nice if you could stick to the one position between consecutive posts.We are not fighting "all Muslims". It has never been claimed and is not being done.
Are the Taliban now representative of "ALL MUSLIMS" worldwide?AussieReaper wrote:
A post ago you saidnow you're sayingThe country harbors the terrorists, hell the Taliban IS the govt. for all practical purposes and we are at war with them, and yes they could be crying uncle if the US were allowed to make it happenSo make up your mind. You're either fighting the terrorists, the "government" as you claim, or the country. It'd be nice if you could stick to the one position between consecutive posts.We are not fighting "all Muslims". It has never been claimed and is not being done.
Of course not. But according to you the war should be fought against the country, since they harbour the terrorists. The "government" is apparently Taliban controlled too. And the use of a no holds barred engagement is appealing.
I find it hard to believe you can distinguish that the Taliban doesn't represent all Muslims world wide, yet apparently it represents all the peoples of Afghanistan - the population, the government.
I find it hard to believe you can distinguish that the Taliban doesn't represent all Muslims world wide, yet apparently it represents all the peoples of Afghanistan - the population, the government.
Are "the people" harboring terrorists? Are "the people" taking up arms against the US? or is the govt doing it?AussieReaper wrote:
Of course not. But according to you the war should be fought against the country, since they harbour the terrorists. The "government" is apparently Taliban controlled too. And the use of a no holds barred engagement is appealing.
I find it hard to believe you can distinguish that the Taliban doesn't represent all Muslims world wide, yet apparently it represents all the peoples of Afghanistan - the population, the government.
We had a no holds barred action against many countries and govts. without including "ALL Germans" and "ALL Japanese" as targets of our agression. As a matter of fact, did our war against Hitler turn "ALL GERMANS" against us?
If "moderate Muslims" were indeed "moderate" they would join the fight on our side. As it is, you are afraid this fight will anger them into joining terrorist groups, ( which they probably will) and STILL see a need to ask the question, what is wrong with Islam, it is the same as any other religion? Well now you have your fuckin' answer.
Some people are harboring terrorists. You can either kill them, and radicalise their families, or win over their support and that of tribal leaders.lowing wrote:
Are "the people" harboring terrorists? Are "the people" taking up arms against the US? or is the govt doing it?
We had a no holds barred action against many countries and govts. without including "ALL Germans" and "ALL Japanese" as targets of our agression. As a matter of fact, did our war against Hitler turn "ALL GERMANS" against us?
If "moderate Muslims" were indeed "moderate" they would join the fight on our side. As it is, you are afraid this fight will anger them into joining terrorist groups, ( which they probably will) and STILL see a need to ask the question, what is wrong with Islam, it is the same as any other religion? Well now you have your fuckin' answer.
Some people have taken up arms against the US, those should be dealt with as enemy combatants. Some, on the other hand, have taken up arms against the terrorists and joined the police force and Afghan army. The government is not funding terrorists, or harbouring them.
You did declare war on Germany and Japan. Not on the standing armies. Not on the airforces. The war was declared on the country, population and government. The war on "terrorism" does not have country or population you can target. And the governments of these terror groups are not in power in Afghanistan.