Last edited by Superior Mind (2012-01-04 19:57:41)
Only because you invaded their country, derp.Superior Mind wrote:
Men in the mountains with Kalashnikovs = physical enemy
lolThe nation is mostly convinced.
Superior Mind wrote:
Men in the mountains with Kalashnikovs = Red Dawn! Go Wolverines!
They were running around in the mountains with AKs well before we invaded. Derp.Dilbert_X wrote:
Only because you invaded their country, derp.Superior Mind wrote:
Men in the mountains with Kalashnikovs = physical enemy
Yup, has been, though it seemed very low to me. Voter turnout on parliamentary elections is around 70-80% here. I assumed that it would be the norm in a succesful democratic country to have more than half the population vote in what is pretty much the most important national election.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
This may have already been brought up:Shocking wrote:
1. an Afghan voter turnout rate of only 40% in 2010 elections according to an Afghan election commission.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
There's also no Taliban to strong-arm us into voting a specific way or not voting at all. So I'd say if they've got a 40% turnout, that's doing pretty well.
It is more or less a nationalist movement, hence a COIN strategy was implemented.Superior Mind wrote:
If the Taliban is a Pashtun nationalist movement then they would mean to remain as an entity with presence in Afghanistan whether or not the US is there.
Which means either we make them our friends our we kill all the males. But of course we have no reason to make such decisive moves. For if we have this quasi-enemy to fight then we have a reason to keep our military in the region.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-05 09:13:11)
What's the voter turnout for democracy loving America compared to the rest of the world?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
This may have already been brought up:Shocking wrote:
1. an Afghan voter turnout rate of only 40% in 2010 elections according to an Afghan election commission.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
There's also no Taliban to strong-arm us into voting a specific way or not voting at all. So I'd say if they've got a 40% turnout, that's doing pretty well.
Last edited by AussieReaper (2012-01-05 12:18:10)
Hit submit early. See editRTHKI wrote:
isnt that what you just quoted >.<
or are you trying to get shit started by mentioning useless stuff again
Were they attacking America or Americans before you invaded?FEOS wrote:
They were running around in the mountains with AKs well before we invaded. Derp.Dilbert_X wrote:
Only because you invaded their country, derp.Superior Mind wrote:
Men in the mountains with Kalashnikovs = physical enemy
They were fighting Commies!Dilbert_X wrote:
Were they attacking America or Americans before you invaded?FEOS wrote:
They were running around in the mountains with AKs well before we invaded. Derp.Dilbert_X wrote:
Only because you invaded their country, derp.
No.
There is no such thing as a "nationalist movement" in Afghanistan. It is tribal, not national.Shocking wrote:
It is more or less a nationalist movement, hence a COIN strategy was implemented.Superior Mind wrote:
If the Taliban is a Pashtun nationalist movement then they would mean to remain as an entity with presence in Afghanistan whether or not the US is there.
Which means either we make them our friends our we kill all the males. But of course we have no reason to make such decisive moves. For if we have this quasi-enemy to fight then we have a reason to keep our military in the region.
9/11 never happened. :rolleyes:Dilbert_X wrote:
Were they attacking America or Americans before you invaded?FEOS wrote:
They were running around in the mountains with AKs well before we invaded. Derp.Dilbert_X wrote:
Only because you invaded their country, derp.
No.
'more or less', by now I'm sure it's a mix of people from many, many different Afghani tribes. I'm unaware of any overdominance of one group of people in recent years, it doesn't really function as a strictly tribal movement with tribal interests.FEOS wrote:
There is no such thing as a "nationalist movement" in Afghanistan. It is tribal, not national.
Even when they were in charge, they were not nationalist in nature. A COIN strategy was implemented because the ISAF and GoA forces are fighting an insurgency which consists of multiple elements, among them Taliban.
Of course it does. That is what makes it, as an insurgency, markedly different than Vietnam. Vietnam was a coherent, homogenous insurgency. Afghanistan is not. It consists of multiple tribal and terrorist organizations that may or may not be working together. The only thing they have linking them is a common enemy and goal, and they may very well fight amongst themselves when not fighting the Coalition.Shocking wrote:
'more or less', by now I'm sure it's a mix of people from many, many different Afghani tribes. I'm unaware of any overdominance of one group of people in recent years, it doesn't really function as a strictly tribal movement with tribal interests.FEOS wrote:
There is no such thing as a "nationalist movement" in Afghanistan. It is tribal, not national.
Even when they were in charge, they were not nationalist in nature. A COIN strategy was implemented because the ISAF and GoA forces are fighting an insurgency which consists of multiple elements, among them Taliban.
was that, were the situation in Afghanistan that of fighting an insurgency (which it is), trying to kill everyone won't work. Admittedly it was clumsy to lump everything together and use 'the Taliban' as an umbrella term for the various insurgencies, though that is oftenly done especially in the media. I just continued in the trend of the quote.Superior_Mind wrote:
If the Taliban is a Pashtun nationalist movement then they would mean to remain as an entity with presence in Afghanistan whether or not the US is there.
Or give insentive?Superior Mind wrote:
What if we just pressure Pakistan to give Pashtun sovereignty.
Let the Taliban have their own country?Superior Mind wrote:
What if we just pressure Pakistan to give Pashtun sovereignty.
