Pages: 1 … 4 5 6

 

2009-12-29 22:27:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

you are forgetting the bloody pipelines that are being planned.
I'm aware of the pipelines, but that's still a weak argument.
why? tell me, what do you think usa are doing over there? don't tell me they are chasing that osama-dude, ok? - that's just ridiculous.
It's not really about Osama.  It's about terrorism in general.  Afghanistan while under the Taliban was one of the worst countries for harboring terror that threatened the U.S.  Admittedly, we're allied with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which are both quite bad about this as well, but the difference is that we can negotiate with those governments.  We couldn't with Afghanistan.

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

all that is tilting at windmills. no sence to be nice to them, they won't appreciate it. no sence in building "civilization" and "democracy" for them - they cannot sustain them. beat the crap out of them untill they yeild and make sure they know what happens if they try something stupid again - that's the only way to handle this situation.
That didn't work when you guys ran the place.  Granted, part of the reason it failed is because of us.
basically, soviets made exactly the same mistake you are making now - they went in, installed a government they thought they'd be able to control, but failed to obliterate the opposition. but soviets had an excuse - they didn't have usa's economical might behind their military operations, and nukes where out of the question too, obviously. today usa can do just about anything they want in afghanistan, with only a bunch of loosers opposing them - that's the difference.
The difference is that we can't stomach wiping out the entirety of a useless country, because we know what the backlash would be.  It relates back to what Cybargs said.  The only real way to win this is to slowly win over their trust.  This takes a lot of time, lives, and money.

Unfortunately, it seems like we've got a lot more to lose from staying than they've got to gain, but staying would seem to be the most likely option we'll take.
2010-01-01 09:34:08
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7062|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

tell me, what do you think usa are doing over there? don't tell me they are chasing that osama-dude, ok? - that's just ridiculous.
It's not really about Osama.  It's about terrorism in general.  Afghanistan while under the Taliban was one of the worst countries for harboring terror that threatened the U.S.  Admittedly, we're allied with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which are both quite bad about this as well, but the difference is that we can negotiate with those governments.  We couldn't with Afghanistan.
you do not fight "terrorism in general" by invading their guerilla camp - as i said, it's tilting an windmills. you should've done something about those that you think you can "negotiate with" - if you actually wanted to fight terrorism that is - they are the cause of the problem, not those poor bastards living in the shithole called afghanistan.

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

basically, soviets made exactly the same mistake you are making now - they went in, installed a government they thought they'd be able to control, but failed to obliterate the opposition. but soviets had an excuse - they didn't have usa's economical might behind their military operations, and nukes where out of the question too, obviously. today usa can do just about anything they want in afghanistan, with only a bunch of loosers opposing them - that's the difference.
The difference is that we can't stomach wiping out the entirety of a useless country, because we know what the backlash would be.  It relates back to what Cybargs said.  The only real way to win this is to slowly win over their trust.  This takes a lot of time, lives, and money.
really? "Cybargs said"? when did that ever work, man?

Turquoise wrote:

Unfortunately, it seems like we've got a lot more to lose from staying than they've got to gain, but staying would seem to be the most likely option we'll take.
well, good luck. you'll need it.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-01-02 01:57:35
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

tell me, what do you think usa are doing over there? don't tell me they are chasing that osama-dude, ok? - that's just ridiculous.
It's not really about Osama.  It's about terrorism in general.  Afghanistan while under the Taliban was one of the worst countries for harboring terror that threatened the U.S.  Admittedly, we're allied with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which are both quite bad about this as well, but the difference is that we can negotiate with those governments.  We couldn't with Afghanistan.
you do not fight "terrorism in general" by invading their guerilla camp - as i said, it's tilting an windmills. you should've done something about those that you think you can "negotiate with" - if you actually wanted to fight terrorism that is - they are the cause of the problem, not those poor bastards living in the shithole called afghanistan.

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

basically, soviets made exactly the same mistake you are making now - they went in, installed a government they thought they'd be able to control, but failed to obliterate the opposition. but soviets had an excuse - they didn't have usa's economical might behind their military operations, and nukes where out of the question too, obviously. today usa can do just about anything they want in afghanistan, with only a bunch of loosers opposing them - that's the difference.
The difference is that we can't stomach wiping out the entirety of a useless country, because we know what the backlash would be.  It relates back to what Cybargs said.  The only real way to win this is to slowly win over their trust.  This takes a lot of time, lives, and money.
really? "Cybargs said"? when did that ever work, man?

Turquoise wrote:

Unfortunately, it seems like we've got a lot more to lose from staying than they've got to gain, but staying would seem to be the most likely option we'll take.
well, good luck. you'll need it.
Winning hearts and minds worked really well in Iraq and Kuwait. Sure the Afghan's will bitch about US occupation, but they would rather have the US there than the fucking Taliban being in charge.

Russians never win hearts and minds, they fucking take hearts and minds.

Since you haven't heard of supply and demand economics let me clearly explain it to you.

Person A wants to get high (Demand), he buys some heroin (Supply).

Now if said Person A doesn't want to get high and fuck up his life (Demand), he wouldn't buy heroin in the first place (Supply).

And I'm pretty sure all of those heroin users aren't bloody angels as well, survival of the fittest and social Darwinism plays out.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-01-02 11:10:07
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

you do not fight "terrorism in general" by invading their guerilla camp - as i said, it's tilting an windmills. you should've done something about those that you think you can "negotiate with" - if you actually wanted to fight terrorism that is - they are the cause of the problem, not those poor bastards living in the shithole called afghanistan.
If you're referring to Saudi Arabia, I somewhat agree.

Shahter wrote:

really? "Cybargs said"? when did that ever work, man?
We were able to rebuild Germany, Japan, and South Korea.  Obviously, winning hearts and minds doesn't always work, but it's more productive than most of the alternatives.

Shahter wrote:

well, good luck. you'll need it.
Thanks.  If nothing else, we still have a lot of allies that will be helping us.
2010-01-04 11:56:30
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7062|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

you do not fight "terrorism in general" by invading their guerilla camp - as i said, it's tilting an windmills. you should've done something about those that you think you can "negotiate with" - if you actually wanted to fight terrorism that is - they are the cause of the problem, not those poor bastards living in the shithole called afghanistan.
If you're referring to Saudi Arabia, I somewhat agree.
yes, that's exactly it.

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

really? "Cybargs said"? when did that ever work, man?
We were able to rebuild Germany, Japan, and South Korea.  Obviously, winning hearts and minds doesn't always work, but it's more productive than most of the alternatives.
what?! ok, let's see:
with germany: you didn't go there to "rebuild" anything or fix somebody else's problems. you went because otherwise stalin wouldn't have stopped in berlin. and you didn't have to do any real beating to them - soviets already had them scared shitless. so, basically, you didn't win any "hearts" or "minds" - you were chosen as a lesser evil.
with japan: i just loled, dude, sorry.
with south korea: well, you had surely won some people over. but you did so by beating the crap and making mortal enemies out of their northern neighbours.

so, my question still stands: when exactly did that "winning hearts and minds" approach work again?

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

well, good luck. you'll need it.
Thanks.  If nothing else, we still have a lot of allies that will be helping us.
for the promises of a share of the pie you are baking in middle east you sure as hell are going to have a lot of allies. you are not doing too well though so i wouldn't be so sure of them staying your allies if you don't get some real results soon.

Last edited by Shahter (2010-01-04 11:57:51)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-01-04 12:08:53
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6509|teh FIN-land
400 BILLION dollars on war on terror



48 BILLION spent on war on drugs. Not fighting a war my ass.
LMAO at 'war on terror' and 'war on drugs'. Surely it should be possible to WIN a war, and also actually have an enemy that can be identified. What they're doing is...er.. BULLSHIT.
2010-01-04 12:09:44
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003
Shahster... WTF is wrong with you? Well what about the entire Marshall plan that helped not only rebuild germany, but most of Europe as well. And for Japan... It was actually the American occupation that led to its economic success, due to soldiers stationed there spending their money on Japanese business' during the Korean War.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-01-04 12:15:36
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

Shahster... WTF is wrong with you? Well what about the entire Marshall plan that helped not only rebuild germany, but most of Europe as well. And for Japan... It was actually the American occupation that led to its economic success, due to soldiers stationed there spending their money on Japanese business' during the Korean War.
They didn't teach him those things in grade school. They were busy singing the praises of Lenin and blaming the US for the fall of the USSR.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-04 12:31:18
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7062|Moscow, Russia

Cybargs wrote:

Shahster... WTF is wrong with you? Well what about the entire Marshall plan that helped not only rebuild germany, but most of Europe as well. And for Japan... It was actually the American occupation that led to its economic success, due to soldiers stationed there spending their money on Japanese business' during the Korean War.
no nation does anything out of kindness in this world. marshall plan was not only to rebuild europe, but to prevent communism form spreading there. as for japan - yeah, they've chosen a really good way to "fix" stuff by nuking them first. that worked really well, and that, as i said, is what i'd like to see done to those fucktards who grow opium in afghanistan.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-01-04 12:41:50
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6509|Escea

Shahter wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Shahster... WTF is wrong with you? Well what about the entire Marshall plan that helped not only rebuild germany, but most of Europe as well. And for Japan... It was actually the American occupation that led to its economic success, due to soldiers stationed there spending their money on Japanese business' during the Korean War.
no nation does anything out of kindness in this world. marshall plan was not only to rebuild europe, but to prevent communism form spreading there. as for japan - yeah, they've chosen a really good way to "fix" stuff by nuking them first. that worked really well, and that, as i said, is what i'd like to see done to those fucktards who grow opium in afghanistan.
Let me put it this way. Allies and west have done a hell of a lot more for redeveloping countries than the old Soviet Union ever did. There was a reason most Warsaw-pact economies went to utter shit and also why many of them have vowed to join the EU.

Here's a good comparison, North and South Korea. North inspired by communism, oh dear. South inspired by the US, one of the largest manufacturing countries in the world.
2010-01-04 12:49:57
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
I feel bad for you shahter. To you, freedom is something scary and worthy of scorn. To me, it's beauty. Pure angelic beauty.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-04 15:29:24
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

what?! ok, let's see:
with germany: you didn't go there to "rebuild" anything or fix somebody else's problems. you went because otherwise stalin wouldn't have stopped in berlin. and you didn't have to do any real beating to them - soviets already had them scared shitless. so, basically, you didn't win any "hearts" or "minds" - you were chosen as a lesser evil.
with japan: i just loled, dude, sorry.
with south korea: well, you had surely won some people over. but you did so by beating the crap and making mortal enemies out of their northern neighbours.

so, my question still stands: when exactly did that "winning hearts and minds" approach work again?
Let's go through this step by step, shall we?

With Germany, it is true that we and the rest of the Allied Forces beat the shit out of them.  However, after the war, we worked together to rebuild Germany, although Russia decided to go its own route of "annexation."  So yes, the Soviet Union did serve quite well as a bogeyman for persuading the Germans to work with us.

However, observe what that implies.  We were the nice guys, you were the scary oppressors.  In the end, it didn't work out too well for the Soviets, did it?  Because we took the higher road, we helped bring Germany back to some of its previous glory.  Half of the country was rebuilt and became one of the most productive economies of the world.  Meanwhile, the other half decayed under Soviet rule.

I'd say Germany actually serves quite well as support for my argument.

Japan...   Yet another country we rebuilt.  Yes, we bombed the shit out of them beforehand, but the nukes were used mostly to scare the Soviets.  While you might cite that as an example of us not being so nice, we made up for it by rebuilding Japan into a major player in the global economy.  If we had followed the example you set in East Germany, Japan would be in shambles.

South Korea...   We rebuilt them just like we did with Japan, but unfortunately, this time it was the Chinese who grabbed hold of half of the country.  Again, observe how much better off South Korea is compared to North Korea.  We went with winning hearts and minds through economic progress and civil rights.  The Chinese helped establish a delusional and totalitarian dictatorship.

Shahter wrote:

for the promises of a share of the pie you are baking in middle east you sure as hell are going to have a lot of allies. you are not doing too well though so i wouldn't be so sure of them staying your allies if you don't get some real results soon.
Yes, deals are made, but really...  How much monetary benefit do you see in staying in Afghanistan?  With Iraq, you have an argument, but with Afghanistan?...  It's a shithole.  It does have natural resources, as Clause pointed out earlier, but I don't see how Afghanistan will be anything other than a net loss financially for us and our allies.  Our involvement there clearly is routed more in national security and actually fighting terror.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-01-04 15:31:14)

2010-01-04 18:28:09
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003
If the US really wanted to install a puppet gov that would make a lot of money for them... Iran would be a good target, and you have validity for invasion.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-01-06 00:02:57
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7062|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

Let's go through this step by step, shall we?

With Germany, it is true that we and the rest of the Allied Forces beat the shit out of them.  However, after the war, we worked together to rebuild Germany, although Russia decided to go its own route of "annexation."  So yes, the Soviet Union did serve quite well as a bogeyman for persuading the Germans to work with us.

However, observe what that implies.  We were the nice guys, you were the scary oppressors.  In the end, it didn't work out too well for the Soviets, did it?  Because we took the higher road, we helped bring Germany back to some of its previous glory.  Half of the country was rebuilt and became one of the most productive economies of the world.  Meanwhile, the other half decayed under Soviet rule.

I'd say Germany actually serves quite well as support for my argument.

Japan...   Yet another country we rebuilt.  Yes, we bombed the shit out of them beforehand, but the nukes were used mostly to scare the Soviets.  While you might cite that as an example of us not being so nice, we made up for it by rebuilding Japan into a major player in the global economy.  If we had followed the example you set in East Germany, Japan would be in shambles.

South Korea...   We rebuilt them just like we did with Japan, but unfortunately, this time it was the Chinese who grabbed hold of half of the country.  Again, observe how much better off South Korea is compared to North Korea.  We went with winning hearts and minds through economic progress and civil rights.  The Chinese helped establish a delusional and totalitarian dictatorship.
oh, c'mon man, listen to what you are saying: "we beat the crap out of germans and soviets were even better at that, but then we were being really nice to them", "yeah, we nuked japaneeze, but then we were being really nice to them", with korea if it wasn't for cheneeze you'd have completely obliterated nk and then you'd surely have the opportunity to be "really nice" to those, who remained there - instead you had to do not only that, but also to continuosly fuck up nk just so that you could point a finger at "delusional and totalitarian dictatorship" and how bad it was. ffs, man, why do you - as in "most americans and other people from so called "progressive and civilized west" who post here - insist on being nice to the fucking barbarians in afghanistan BEFORE beating the crap out of them as it had been done before without fail?

Turquoise wrote:

Yes, deals are made, but really...  How much monetary benefit do you see in staying in Afghanistan?  With Iraq, you have an argument, but with Afghanistan?...  It's a shithole.  It does have natural resources, as Clause pointed out earlier, but I don't see how Afghanistan will be anything other than a net loss financially for us and our allies.  Our involvement there clearly is routed more in national security and actually fighting terror.
do you know what they do when setting up a bee-garden? - they destroy every wasp nest a mile around the place. so, pipelines, that seem to give certain people around here a hard on, and possible invasion of iran aside - that's what's being done in afghanistan.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-01-06 05:43:03
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

ffs, man, why do you - as in "most americans and other people from so called "progressive and civilized west" who post here - insist on being nice to the fucking barbarians in afghanistan BEFORE beating the crap out of them as it had been done before without fail?
So we shouldn't give diplomacy a chance to work before launching into death and destruction to achieve national/coalition goals or protect national/coalition interests? That seems to be a fairly brutal (Stalinist?) approach...

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Yes, deals are made, but really...  How much monetary benefit do you see in staying in Afghanistan?  With Iraq, you have an argument, but with Afghanistan?...  It's a shithole.  It does have natural resources, as Clause pointed out earlier, but I don't see how Afghanistan will be anything other than a net loss financially for us and our allies.  Our involvement there clearly is routed more in national security and actually fighting terror.
do you know what they do when setting up a bee-garden? - they destroy every wasp nest a mile around the place. so, pipelines, that seem to give certain people around here a hard on, and possible invasion of iran aside - that's what's being done in afghanistan.
Do you know why they get rid of those wasp nests? Because if they don't, those wasps will kill every fucking one of those bees.

Now, if you liken the Taliban and like-minded militants to wasps and the representative government to bees...then sure, that's what's happening. To carry that further, bees are beneficial to man--wasps aren't.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-01-06 17:00:48
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

oh, c'mon man, listen to what you are saying: "we beat the crap out of germans and soviets were even better at that, but then we were being really nice to them", "yeah, we nuked japaneeze, but then we were being really nice to them", with korea if it wasn't for cheneeze you'd have completely obliterated nk and then you'd surely have the opportunity to be "really nice" to those, who remained there - instead you had to do not only that, but also to continuosly fuck up nk just so that you could point a finger at "delusional and totalitarian dictatorship" and how bad it was. ffs, man, why do you - as in "most americans and other people from so called "progressive and civilized west" who post here - insist on being nice to the fucking barbarians in afghanistan BEFORE beating the crap out of them as it had been done before without fail?
A few things...

We weren't interested in just destroying Korea.  We didn't want the Communists in charge of it.  There's a difference between being willing to obliterate something under certain conditions and willing to do it just to get resources.  We had a legitimate fight in keeping the Chinese from extending their influence over Korea.  We succeeded in keeping them from getting all of it.  If it was just about killing Koreans, we could have easily taken that route and won a war with China (although at a great cost).

Shahter wrote:

do you know what they do when setting up a bee-garden? - they destroy every wasp nest a mile around the place. so, pipelines, that seem to give certain people around here a hard on, and possible invasion of iran aside - that's what's being done in afghanistan.
I think FEOS responded pretty well to this.  Like any other country, we do use our influence to weaken or eliminate "wasps" so to speak.  That doesn't mean we don't also try to help the people that are willing to work with us.
2010-01-09 03:36:29
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7062|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

So we shouldn't give diplomacy a chance to work before launching into death and destruction to achieve national/coalition goals or protect national/coalition interests? That seems to be a fairly brutal (Stalinist?) approach...
call it what you will, i don't care - it worked before, it would now, that's all that matters to me. you had eight years to try that diplomacy bullshit - the results aren't exactly spectacular.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

do you know what they do when setting up a bee-garden? - they destroy every wasp nest a mile around the place. so, pipelines, that seem to give certain people around here a hard on, and possible invasion of iran aside - that's what's being done in afghanistan.
Do you know why they get rid of those wasp nests? Because if they don't, those wasps will kill every fucking one of those bees.
oh yeah, you actually got my point, captain obvious. well done! those wasps will surely kill your little oil making bees - that's why you are there, trying to fix stuff. the only problem - you are doing it wrong. there's never been and won't be any way to negotiate with "wasps". you will have to burn the fucking nest.

FEOS wrote:

Now, if you liken the Taliban and like-minded militants to wasps and the representative government to bees...then sure, that's what's happening.
there's a wee little problem there - no way in hell you are going to tell the "wasps" from everybody else.

FEOS wrote:

To carry that further, bees are beneficial to man--wasps aren't.
and the "man" is the land of the free and teh brave. your thoughts betray you, Luke FEOS. search your feelings, you know it to be true (c).

Last edited by Shahter (2010-01-09 03:37:32)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-01-09 04:03:11
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7062|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

A few things...

We weren't interested in just destroying Korea.  We didn't want the Communists in charge of it.  There's a difference between being willing to obliterate something under certain conditions and willing to do it just to get resources.
really? there is? tell that to n.koreans whom usa killed by the fucking thousands first, and then, when things proven too much of a hassle, continuously fucked up politically and economically.

Turquoise wrote:

We had a legitimate fight in keeping the Chinese from extending their influence over Korea.
by extending your own influense over it? that's "legitimate", huh?

Turquoise wrote:

We succeeded in keeping them from getting all of it.  If it was just about killing Koreans, we could have easily taken that route and won a war with China (although at a great cost).
i'm not so much debating your intentions there, but rather the methods you used. it worked very well in korea and it doesn't work as well in afghanistan - that's my point.

Turquoise wrote:

I think FEOS responded pretty well to this.  Like any other country, we do use our influence to weaken or eliminate "wasps" so to speak.  That doesn't mean we don't also try to help the people that are willing to work with us.
see my responce to FEOS on this one.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-01-09 08:47:22
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So we shouldn't give diplomacy a chance to work before launching into death and destruction to achieve national/coalition goals or protect national/coalition interests? That seems to be a fairly brutal (Stalinist?) approach...
call it what you will, i don't care - it worked before, it would now, that's all that matters to me. you had eight years to try that diplomacy bullshit - the results aren't exactly spectacular.
But they were when you guys did it your way?

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

do you know what they do when setting up a bee-garden? - they destroy every wasp nest a mile around the place. so, pipelines, that seem to give certain people around here a hard on, and possible invasion of iran aside - that's what's being done in afghanistan.
Do you know why they get rid of those wasp nests? Because if they don't, those wasps will kill every fucking one of those bees.
oh yeah, you actually got my point, captain obvious. well done! those wasps will surely kill your little oil making bees - that's why you are there, trying to fix stuff. the only problem - you are doing it wrong. there's never been and won't be any way to negotiate with "wasps". you will have to burn the fucking nest.
Go ahead and point out the nest, then.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Now, if you liken the Taliban and like-minded militants to wasps and the representative government to bees...then sure, that's what's happening.
there's a wee little problem there - no way in hell you are going to tell the "wasps" from everybody else.
Exactly. So if you try your super-smart strategy, you end up killing a lot of your bees (to keep using a flawed metaphor). So it doesn't work.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

To carry that further, bees are beneficial to man--wasps aren't.
and the "man" is the land of the free and teh brave. your thoughts betray you, Luke FEOS. search your feelings, you know it to be true (c).
Wrong. The Taliban serve pretty much no useful purpose unless you want to live in the 7th century. The "man" I was referring to was the "man" who wants to help bees: educate their people in something other than the Qu'ran (to include their females), develop a sustainable economy, work with their neighbors and others in the region, etc. The metaphor that was being used should've been crystal-clear...even to you, Shahter.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-01-09 09:36:52
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6509|Escea

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

A few things...

We weren't interested in just destroying Korea.  We didn't want the Communists in charge of it.  There's a difference between being willing to obliterate something under certain conditions and willing to do it just to get resources.
really? there is? tell that to n.koreans whom usa killed by the fucking thousands first, and then, when things proven too much of a hassle, continuously fucked up politically and economically.
NK is fucked up because it oppresses its people with its Communist inspired Juche. The same thing happens with people trying to jump the DMZ from North to South as people trying to jump the border between East and West Germany. The reason the Soviets built the wall was to stop people escaping. Sounds marvellous. Like a prison sounds marvellous.
2010-01-09 23:28:11
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

really? there is? tell that to n.koreans whom usa killed by the fucking thousands first, and then, when things proven too much of a hassle, continuously fucked up politically and economically.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, Shahter.  We were at war.  They weren't going to negotiate with us.  We were defending our Korean allies, so we had little choice but to kill those who threatened us and our allies.

Shahter wrote:

by extending your own influense over it? that's "legitimate", huh?
Nothing occurs in a vacuum.  Sometimes, it's kill or be killed.  When one power falls, another will take its place.  We took the place of the Communists in the southern half of Korea.

Shahter wrote:

i'm not so much debating your intentions there, but rather the methods you used. it worked very well in korea and it doesn't work as well in afghanistan - that's my point.
Sure, I can agree with that.  The culture of Korea is much more productive and reasonable than that of Afghanistan.  Korea has its problems, but it's always been a more advanced culture than the shithole that is Afghanistan.

Shahter wrote:

oh yeah, you actually got my point, captain obvious. well done! those wasps will surely kill your little oil making bees - that's why you are there, trying to fix stuff. the only problem - you are doing it wrong. there's never been and won't be any way to negotiate with "wasps". you will have to burn the fucking nest.
I can't speak for FEOS, but while some of what you're saying is true in nature, we have the power.  For the most part, we haven't negotiated with the "wasps."  We've mostly bombed the shit out of them.  We'll likely continue doing that.

As long as we're willing to spend the money and expend the manpower necessary to maintain order in the more contentious regions of Afghanistan, we'll have the upper hand.  The most that insurgents can hope for is to tire us out.  Admittedly, they have been somewhat successful.  I myself would like us to leave Afghanistan because I don't feel that American lives are worth wasting on maintaining order in a shithole, but even I'll admit that leaving essentially grants insurgents somewhat of a victory.

It's kind of like the situation we faced in Vietnam.  We decided that it wasn't worth losing more soldiers to try to hold onto Vietnam, but had we chosen to stick around for about 10 more years, Vietnam probably would be very different today.

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard