You mean the Taliban and Al Quaeda? Yes.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes of course, punishing Afghan peasants for terrorist acts committed by Saudi playboys would have been the right thing to do.
Saudis should've been taken to task for their role too, yes.
You mean the Taliban and Al Quaeda? Yes.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes of course, punishing Afghan peasants for terrorist acts committed by Saudi playboys would have been the right thing to do.
Do you reckon the JCS should be given more authority on the subject of when/how or even if you should go to war?FEOS wrote:
The role of the JCS is to provide military advice to the civilian leaders of the nation, as they are the ones who make the ultimate decisions. It is wholly up to those leaders whether or not they accept that advice in whole or in part, based on any number of reasons, keeping in mind that the focus of the JCS is on military issues--the civilian leaders have to make their decisions based on multifaceted information.
However, once the decision is made--whatever that decision is--the role of the military is to perform its mission as best it can. I believe that is the case in Afghanistan, given the diplomatic mess and lack of clear objective there. Much of the military mission has been "learning by discovery"...not a good way to operate, but you get there, eventually. Unfortunately, it's the way you must operate when you don't have clear objectives. You do the best you can with what you have, trying to save as many blue/gray lives as possible, while taking as many red objectives as possible, based on what you know/can learn about the enemy, within the constraints you've been given. Pretty sure that's what's happened in Afghanistan.
No. I like civilians being in charge of the government.Shocking wrote:
Do you reckon the JCS should be given more authority on the subject of when/how or even if you should go to war?FEOS wrote:
The role of the JCS is to provide military advice to the civilian leaders of the nation, as they are the ones who make the ultimate decisions. It is wholly up to those leaders whether or not they accept that advice in whole or in part, based on any number of reasons, keeping in mind that the focus of the JCS is on military issues--the civilian leaders have to make their decisions based on multifaceted information.
However, once the decision is made--whatever that decision is--the role of the military is to perform its mission as best it can. I believe that is the case in Afghanistan, given the diplomatic mess and lack of clear objective there. Much of the military mission has been "learning by discovery"...not a good way to operate, but you get there, eventually. Unfortunately, it's the way you must operate when you don't have clear objectives. You do the best you can with what you have, trying to save as many blue/gray lives as possible, while taking as many red objectives as possible, based on what you know/can learn about the enemy, within the constraints you've been given. Pretty sure that's what's happened in Afghanistan.
So what is the reason you jokers support one corner of the tricorn of Abrahamic religions over the other two?rdx-fx wrote:
Go kvetch about "t3h evil j000s" there, please.
Something is definitely wrong in the current construction if it's possible for the civillian leadership to completely disregard whatever the JCS may be stating in regards to starting a war and how. To have people with no experience or knowledge on either tell the people who are knowledgeable in the area what to do in a one-way conversation doesn't sound right.FEOS wrote:
No. I like civilians being in charge of the government.Shocking wrote:
Do you reckon the JCS should be given more authority on the subject of when/how or even if you should go to war?FEOS wrote:
The role of the JCS is to provide military advice to the civilian leaders of the nation, as they are the ones who make the ultimate decisions. It is wholly up to those leaders whether or not they accept that advice in whole or in part, based on any number of reasons, keeping in mind that the focus of the JCS is on military issues--the civilian leaders have to make their decisions based on multifaceted information.
However, once the decision is made--whatever that decision is--the role of the military is to perform its mission as best it can. I believe that is the case in Afghanistan, given the diplomatic mess and lack of clear objective there. Much of the military mission has been "learning by discovery"...not a good way to operate, but you get there, eventually. Unfortunately, it's the way you must operate when you don't have clear objectives. You do the best you can with what you have, trying to save as many blue/gray lives as possible, while taking as many red objectives as possible, based on what you know/can learn about the enemy, within the constraints you've been given. Pretty sure that's what's happened in Afghanistan.
attack rocks and dirt and poppies, or oil...rdx-fx wrote:
You mean the Taliban and Al Quaeda? Yes.Dilbert_X wrote:
Yes of course, punishing Afghan peasants for terrorist acts committed by Saudi playboys would have been the right thing to do.
Saudis should've been taken to task for their role too, yes.
When did the US release the policy of supporting Judaism over Christianity and Islam?Dilbert_X wrote:
So what is the reason you jokers support one corner of the tricorn of Abrahamic religions over the other two?rdx-fx wrote:
Go kvetch about "t3h evil j000s" there, please.
It can't be in support of regional stability or peace.
Its been running for the last 60 years, unless you're blind of course.RAIMIUS wrote:
When did the US release the policy of supporting Judaism over Christianity and Islam?Dilbert_X wrote:
So what is the reason you jokers support one corner of the tricorn of Abrahamic religions over the other two?rdx-fx wrote:
Go kvetch about "t3h evil j000s" there, please.
It can't be in support of regional stability or peace.
(I'll give you a hint, it starts "N" and ends with "ever.")
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2011-09-23 17:46:30)
QFTRAIMIUS wrote:
MODS: can we move this discussion into the Israel/Palestine thread, instead of Afghanistan?
Feel free to PM a mod.rdx-fx wrote:
Dilbert has his own little litterbox in Israel vs Palestine.
Can we scoop up the relevant posts and put them where they belong?
I was just trying to understand why you have so much hate for one group of sky-daddy psychos and so much love for another set of sky-daddy psychos.rdx-fx wrote:
I see your point.
I just don't have any give-a-shit left for the Middle East.
Whole fucking region could be under 100 feet of ocean water, and I wouldn't really care.
They like their pretend sky-daddy myth,
they like having someone to blame their problems on,
they like their psychotic despot rulers,
they absolutely love being pissed off at the jews.
Fuckit.
Leave 'em to it.
Bomb the shit out of them when they get Jihadi-explodey towards us.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-09-24 22:25:04)
wordrdx-fx wrote:
It's a tribal shithole.
It's been a tribal shithole for 10,000 years.
They're proud of always being the same tribal shithole they've been for 10,000 years.
It will continue to be a tribal shithole after the West leaves again.
And, in the distant future, when there are no more tribal shitholes on the planet, Afghanistan will still be a tribal shithole.
And the smartest guys in the room are throwing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives at it because1stSFOD-Delta wrote:
wordrdx-fx wrote:
It's a tribal shithole.
It's been a tribal shithole for 10,000 years.
They're proud of always being the same tribal shithole they've been for 10,000 years.
It will continue to be a tribal shithole after the West leaves again.
And, in the distant future, when there are no more tribal shitholes on the planet, Afghanistan will still be a tribal shithole.
You think our politicians in DC are "The smartest guys in the room".Dilbert_X wrote:
And the smartest guys in the room are throwing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives at it because
No, actually, we were doing just fine until you showed up.Dilbert_X wrote:
Feel free to PM a mod.
However, you did bring the subject up in this thread so feel free to report yourself.
With you, every goddamned thing has to do with "t3h j000s" or "evil imperialist Americans"Dilbert_X wrote:
Maybe try not supporting the jews ? - Another group of Armageddonist sky-daddy fruitloops.
Jesus.venom6 wrote:
First Iraq then this.
Well, not to be a tightass, but you can't disagree there is a connection when the entire ME policy is directed to a degree by pro - Israel forces within the US... Nor can you dismiss the imperialist part if you want to be objective about the whole thing...rdx-fx wrote:
With you, every goddamned thing has to do with "t3h j000s" or "evil imperialist Americans"
Give it a rest, Dilbert
They are connected, and I was exploring the 'obliterate anyone who believes in a sky-daddy, except the jewish or christian people who believe in a sky-daddy' theme.oug wrote:
Well, not to be a tightass, but you can't disagree there is a connection when the entire ME policy is directed to a degree by pro - Israel forces within the US... Nor can you dismiss the imperialist part if you want to be objective about the whole thing...rdx-fx wrote:
With you, every goddamned thing has to do with "t3h j000s" or "evil imperialist Americans"
Give it a rest, Dilbert
Of course if you're only trying to defend your country's policy first and foremost, then there's no room for complaints against those who oppose it.
Iraq;Saddam deserved to be taken out in 1991 for using chemical warfare WMDs on the Kurds, and for annexing Kuwait.oug wrote:
Well, not to be a tightass, but you can't disagree there is a connection when the entire ME policy is directed to a degree by pro - Israel forces within the US...
As I've mentioned previously, I'm not a fan of this futile "nation building" experiment either.oug wrote:
Nor can you dismiss the imperialist part if you want to be objective about the whole thing...
1) Not a big fan of obliterating any group of people. Have personally seen what happens when military ordnance goes against people.Dilbert_X wrote:
They are connected, and I was exploring the 'obliterate anyone who believes in a sky-daddy, except the jewish or christian people who believe in a sky-daddy' theme.
This idea that we're free to crusade through the Afghanistan and the ME because 19 Saudis wanted to get to heaven a bit quicker bears no real scrutiny.
No does the 'close down the training camps' theory.
All the training for 9/11 was done in the US, getting excited about AQs summer getaways is another distraction from the real issues.
That may be true, but if it was the Kurds' welfare you were after, you would have pressured Turkey for the creation of a Kurdish state. Which you didn't. Sorry but I find your understanding of US foreigh policy to be fundamentally flawed. You're not trying to avert injustices around the world. You're just looking after your own interests like everyone else.rdx-fx wrote:
Iraq;Saddam deserved to be taken out in 1991 for using chemical warfare WMDs on the Kurds, and for annexing Kuwait.
That is not the case. A handfull of men would be enough to kill Bin Laden. As history showed btw. There are other motives for military presence in Afghanistan as I'm sure you're suspecting.rdx-fx wrote:
Afghanistan; We asked the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden.
They wouldn't. We went in after him.
We almost had him in Tora Bora - but DC jerked the military's leash, at exactly the right moment to let Osama escape to Pakistan.
These assholes are doing business with your government because they have what you want and their influence ends there. Nothing more, nothing less.rdx-fx wrote:
Saudi Arabia; These are the assholes who have way too much influence in DC.
Wahabbiist shitheads, sponsoring Al Quaeda on one hand, sponsoring DC politicians on the other.
And what is there to gain from that? What reason is there to go to war if US interests don't benefit from the rebuilding process?rdx-fx wrote:
As I've mentioned previously, I'm not a fan of this futile "nation building" experiment either.
My military policy:
Go in, take out the offending regime, take out their military.
Leave the civilians and infrastructure as intact as possible.
LEAVE
Saddam's not around gassing Kurds, annexing Kuwait, or threatening to lob chemical Scud missiles at Tel Aviv anymore, is he?oug wrote:
That may be true, but if it was the Kurds' welfare you were after, you would have pressured Turkey for the creation of a Kurdish state. Which you didn't. Sorry but I find your understanding of US foreign policy to be fundamentally flawed. You're not trying to avert injustices around the world. You're just looking after your own interests like everyone else.
Yes, as I've previously stated in this thread.oug wrote:
A handfull of men would be enough to kill Bin Laden.
Plenty more.oug wrote:
These assholes are doing business with your government because they have what you want and their influence ends there. Nothing more, nothing less.
Rebuilding the place has fuckall to do with us.oug wrote:
What reason is there to go to war if US interests don't benefit from the rebuilding process?
You did install a puppet govt, they just aren't so good at taking orders.THAT would be imperialism, if we installed a puppet government in their country that took orders from DC.