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.
Saudis should've been taken to task for their role too, yes.
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.
inane little opines
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.
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
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.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
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.
Moreover why should they be allowed to micro-manage troops like was done in Tora Bora?
inane little opines
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.
(I'll give you a hint, it starts "N" and ends with "ever.")
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.")
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Perhaps you did not notice, but the US doesn't like supporting particular religions. I think your assertion is quite ridiculous, and I bet you know it too.
If you really want to convince yourself that the Levant has only been an issue for 60 years, I pity your sense of history.
MODS: can we move this discussion into the Israel/Palestine thread, instead of Afghanistan?
Perhaps you did not notice, but the US doesn't like supporting particular religions. I think your assertion is quite ridiculous, and I bet you know it too.
If you really want to convince yourself that the Levant has only been an issue for 60 years, I pity your sense of history.
MODS: can we move this discussion into the Israel/Palestine thread, instead of Afghanistan?
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?
Dilbert has his own little litterbox in Israel vs Palestine.
Can we scoop up the relevant posts and put them where they belong?
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?
However, you did bring the subject up in this thread so feel free to report yourself.
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.
Not least because they basically worship the same sky-daddy and are just as psychotic as each other.
But for some odd quirks of history you'd be ranting about jews getting zionist-explodey and how they should all drowned.
You seem smart, I would have thought you would be able to see past the propaganda.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-09-24 22:25:04)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
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.
Baba Booey
It's just like Canada or Australia.
Baba Booey
or England...
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
naaa. Despite all I say about Europe, I actually like Europe a lot. The girls are pretty cool.
Baba Booey
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.
[ ]
Feel free to use as many words as you like, extend the box if necessary.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I don't know. Ask the Australian dudes in Bagram that.
Baba Booey
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
Oh, man.
You're crazier than I thought.
Reread this thread.
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.
Your second post in the thread.
We were discussing Afghanistan. Apropos of nothing, you piped up with;
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.
Give it a rest, Dilbert
There's an Israel vs Palestine thread already.
go vent your spleen there.
You don't need to shit on every thread in D&ST with your anti-Israeli bullshit.
Jesus.venom6 wrote:
First Iraq then this.
Baba Booey
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.
ƒ³
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.
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.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
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...
Why they stopped just short of the finish line on that in 1991, only to redo everything in 2003.. No idea.
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.
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.
Pakistani ISI; I detest these assholes slightly more than the Saudi rulership. For reasons I've ennumerated countless times over.
[Uzique would get the humor in that last line...]
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...
My military policy:
Go in, take out the offending regime, take out their military.
Leave the civilians and infrastructure as intact as possible.
LEAVE
Let Middle Easterners solve middle eastern problems.
If their next government is akin to Quadaffi Duck or Sodom Hussein, well... we go back in.
Only takes a couple months for the US (& allies) to take out a middle eastern military - done it a couple or three times now.
Cheaper to visit 2 months every 10 years - rather than stay camped out there burning money and people for 10 years straight.
We want to do "nation building", do it in Detroit, for fuck's sake.
Western solutions to Islamic problems do not work.
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.
2) All three religions are delusional fairy tales, IMHO
3) You distract from a reasonable discussion of the issues, with terms like "obliterate" and "crusade".
4) All three of your assertions above were not mentioned by anyone in this thread.
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
ƒ³
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.
One, Turkey is an ally. In NATO, even. Bit of a delicate pain in the ass to 'demand' they do anything.
Two, after the first Gulf War, we spent years enforcing a no-fly zone over parts of Iraq.
For the expressed purpose to keep Saddam from going full-tilt genocidal on the Kurds again.
Intent got fucked up by politics, as usual... but we did do more for the Kurds than you'll ever hear of on CNN.
I was fucking there for part of that
My understanding of US foreign policy is just fine, thanks.
I think it is your understanding that is "fundamentally flawed".
Somalia, Haiti, Grenada, Turkey, Kuwait, Berlin, Honduras, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again.
All places the US has sent money and soldiers to, for humanitarian purposes.
And that's just part of the list of places that myself, my father, my wife, or my sister have deployed to as US Army soldiers, for humanitarian missions.
Yes, we are "just looking after [our] own interests" here.
Invade one of our allies, destabilize a region we do business in, or blow our stuff up - and we deal with it.
Sit down, shut up, play nice, do business, don't kill or kidnap too many US citizens, don't be a complete genocidal shit to your people.
Real simple rules to keep the USMC off your el Presidente's lawn.
Yes, as I've previously stated in this thread.oug wrote:
A handfull of men would be enough to kill Bin Laden.
But not nearly so few as you probably imagine.
For every cool-guy door kicker SF infantry Rambo, there's a pile of pilots, supply clerks, intel geeks, signals nerds, helo mechanics, port-a-shitter unfillment specialists, cooks, guards, medics, and officers in the same sandbox next to them.
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.
They have money, which politicians need for their slush funds, lawyer retainers, and mistresses bank accounts.
The Saudis also control the heart of Islam (Go ahead, invade Mecca - see how fast you have a few billion screaming Arabs in your face..), a large supply of oil, and have a great deal of influence in the middle east.
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?
We can suggest they elect a government that isn't going to cause the US military to come stomping through their yard again, but...
Not our job to tell them how to run their country. THAT would be imperialism, if we installed a puppet government in their country that took orders from DC.
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.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!