BF2S Forums Afghanistan

Mekstizzle wrote:

Oh yeah, and one question about Vietnam. I always hear about how there was a draft, but I don't get it. Did that really mean that every able man had to sign up and fight in Vietnam?

Every able bodied man has to sign up for Selective Service when they turn 18 in America. You have to register for the draft. During Vietnam they had an active draft and would hold draft lotteries that would pick social security numbers to call up. There were exemptions for college students and for people with disabilities. This is why the main protests in this country came from college students, half of them were in school hiding from the draft.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Well in essence then only the less well off who couldn't afford University would get drafted, and those without high connections. And they didn't protest about being sent to a war against their will. Whilst the more well off who weren't even in threat of being sent off to die decided to hold protests. Makes you think huh. In the US you couldn't exactly just go to Uni if you didn't feel like fighting a war. You need to be rich to go to Uni over there, especially in those times.

Umm, state schools tuition is cheap. I wouldn't call what I pay ($13k a year) a burden in the slightest. Sure, Harvard and other private colleges are expensive as hell but getting a college education here isn't really all THAT much of a hardship.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Or you can use your connections to hide out in the National Guard.

Or dodge the draft like Clinton. Shrug. I fought in Iraq and I wasn't happy about being sent but I couldn't really complain because I volunteered for the Army (A year prior to 9/11 but still). If I had been drafted I would've probably fled to Canada with all the others.

There are a lot of similarities, but both cases are unique.

There are serious problems in Afghanistan. Primarily, the coalition helped them set up a strong central-government, which is neither strong nor governing.  Afghanistan isn't like the West.  They don't have a history of sound government.  Trying to institute a strong central-government in a couple years isn't going to work well, especially with the tribalism in the region.  We need to look at how to achieve a legitimate, if not "western" government.  Infrastructure is also huge, since it is nonexistent in much of Afghanistan.

...or we could just go terrorist hunting and leave Afghanistan as a failed state...

ruisleipa wrote:

Varegg wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

LOL the only people the Taliban were terrorising was the Afghanis, at least until the West jumped in. Didn't you know that Bin LAden is a Saudi, the hijackers on 9/11 were mainly Saudis, and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have both produced more 'terrorists' than Afghanistan. It IS a fuck-up, but not for the reasons you mention.

You should prolly do some research, Afghanistan has been a safe haven for terrorists under taliban control for many years ... doesn't matter what country the terrorist originate from, many of them got their training in Afghanistan ...

Love it...you show me your 'research' and I'll show you mine, k?

Ummm Resolution 1267.

Proof enough?

Mekstizzle wrote:

It's probably not as useless as Vietnam. I mean who gives a shit if Vietnam fells to the communists. What the fuck does that matter, that's their fucking problem if they wanted communism. If Afghanistan falls back into the hands of the terrorists though, that could have grave consequences as has already been demonstrated with 9/11 and various other terrorist attacks which originated within Afghanistan in terms of planning and preperation etc..

Southern Vietnamese did NOT want communism (except for a few farmers that were promised a bike), hence they lived in the South and not the North.

The similarities between the two in terms of military administration and development are striking though, except that the troops in Afghanistan are alll professional volunteers instead of conscripts. In any case, the US should have stayed in Vietnam and should stay in Afghanistan.

From Matthew Hoh Resignation Letter

"I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. [My emphasis.] Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons. However, again, to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan, not Afghanistan. More so, the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights that the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries."

Time to gtfo?

Lai wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Lai wrote:

In any case, the US should have stayed in Vietnam and should stay in Afghanistan.

why should the US be the policemen of the world?

I didn't say that, but once you have comitted, you have to finish the job.

tell that to Vietnam-era America
or Soviet-Afghan war-era USSR

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Lai wrote:

burnzz wrote:

why should the US be the policemen of the world?

I didn't say that, but once you have comitted, you have to finish the job.

tell that to Vietnam-era America
or Soviet-Afghan war-era USSR

That's what I said.

I do think though that it was different for the Soviets in Afghanistan. Though the trauma suffered by both respective countries might be the same. That was a lost cause from the beginning since they moved in to support a very weak regime that had virtually no local support. The Soviets only intended to clean up a bit for them, but ended up overstaying. The present situation in Afghanistan is different in that is started of as a genuine war with the intentions of rebuilding the state afterwards. True, this might be going a bit slower than hoped for, but there is potential and there certainly is local backing for a non Talib government, even though Hamid Karzai might not be the most popular figure. Vietnam basically was two countries, with the Southern government, though impopular in its sort, still prefered by the people over the Northern would be occupators. The Southern government also was already in place as was American support (though predominantly non military at first) prior to the war. It was more of a standing alliance rather than a supposed move-in-move-out scenario.

you also have to understand that the communists weren't so much communists but a whole bunch of people sick of being occupied by foreign powers (like 80 years of them) and so had turned to communism as a way of saying 'get the fuck out of our country', not 'revolution for the people!'.

or that's basically what i've been told. the people didn't care about communism. they cared about independence + freedom from foreign occupation.

Last edited by Spark (2009-10-29 18:42:53)

or that's basically what i've been told. the people didn't care about communism. they cared about independence + freedom from foreign occupation

Which is the case in Afghanistan, and Palestine.
In both places they weren't interested in radical Islam, they saw it as the least bad way of gaining control of their country from invaders.

What is the current mission in Afghan?
What is the Afghan government doing to combat the domestic terrorism problem?

Tell me again how the worlds biggest superpower managed to lose track of the most wanted man in the world? I mean, its not like he is Carmen San Diego...