He should really go to afghanliand and let him see for himself weather or not it can be fixed.Turquoise wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
It could have been very different, Afghanistan could have been fixed, Iran brought into the civilised fold.
Instead the objectives were so dumb, the planning so poor, the implementation so shit, and a significant minority of the troops so poorly disciplined that the whole exercise has been utterly counterproductive.
The Afghans now hate us, the Pakistanis now hate us and the Iranians are so scared they'll be the next victims of Team Dumbfuck they're prepared to take the risk of developing nuclear weapons in an all-or-nothing gamble.
Because of the excuses we made of getting involved everywhere else.Macbeth wrote:
Why should we do anything to Syria?
Why did we say we got involved in Libya?
No I agree with you, Europe showed that they cannot intervene without US assistance in Libya, theres no chance we could manage Iran or Syria. Yet that doesn't stop us telling them what they are doing is unacceptable etc etc If we continue to moan about them but ultimately do nothing then it just discredits Europe further and gives us less international authority.Turquoise wrote:
We really shouldn't invade either of them.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
The reality is that Afgahn needs to be finished asap so that we can invade another country namely Iran / Syria.
Personally I dont think it would happen but I suspect that with our current commitments it is far to obvious to everybody that force is currently an empty threat, once we again have the capability perhaps we can effect more of a change...
Just thinking aloud..
Syria is actually more of a possibility, but with Iran, it's just saber rattling. The only country that actually would invade Iran would be Israel, but thankfully, we have kept them from doing so (so far).
Syria is a more likely candidate for the "Libya" approach. Hopefully, we won't be stupid enough to do it.
Consistency isn't a good argument to use for Syria since you are asking us to be consistently dumb. Libya, like Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, were all mistakes. You can't justify making a mistake because you made other mistakes. Just silly
Libya wasn't a mistake because now when people tell you America only does shit to profit you can say no we're good guys, look at libya.
Last edited by jord (2012-03-19 13:34:46)
I think our aid during the tsunami crisis is a better argument for that.jord wrote:
Libya wasn't a mistake because now when people tell you America only does shit to profit you can say no we're good guys, look at libya.
Libya was for France's profit mostly.
While I largely agree that we shouldnt have got involved, the fact remains that we did and we weren't particularly shy about it. I cant see that many major decision-makers have changed their tune since Libya and so I would imagine that there is a desire to intervene in Syria for "humanitarian" reasons.Macbeth wrote:
Consistency isn't a good argument to use for Syria since you are asking us to be consistently dumb. Libya, like Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, were all mistakes. You can't justify making a mistake because you made other mistakes. Just silly
Noting this desire, and the poor performance in Libya I would imagine that there is a desire to finish up in Afgahn so that we are more able to "intervene" elsewhere. Let alone the whole budget deficit argument.
I cant think of a good reason why anybody would want us to stay in Afgahn any longer than is felt absolutely necessary.
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2012-03-19 14:32:44)
You're trolling right? You think nuking tribal villages would have been an appropriate course of action to fight terrorists?Turquoise wrote:
Nation-building doesn't fix anything in a place like Afghanistan. Nukes would have fixed them though.
I think fighting terrorists is best done without invading, but once we crossed that line, there's not much left to do.AussieReaper wrote:
You're trolling right? You think nuking tribal villages would have been an appropriate course of action to fight terrorists?Turquoise wrote:
Nation-building doesn't fix anything in a place like Afghanistan. Nukes would have fixed them though.
We lost in Vietnam because the American public apparently thought you can win against a guerilla force in a jungle environment without decimating villages. When it became obvious that we were killing a lot of civilians, the outcry forced us home.
With Afghanistan, we're fighting an insurgency that is being aided and abetted by remote villages near the Pakistan border. Not all of the villagers are part of the problem, but it's kind of hard to effectively rout the insurgency without bombing these areas to oblivion.
People complain about drone attacks killing civilians, but do you honestly think all of these people are innocent?
Bombing the shit out of tribal villages is about the only way we could feasibly win in Afghanistan. We're clearly not able to do that enough to win, so withdrawal is the best course of action.
If we had really been thinking clearly, we would have realized that attempting to set up a central democratic government in an area with multiple tribes that hate each other and with people who mostly can't even read is just a stupid idea.
The Taliban was an effective government for Afghanistan precisely because of how authoritarian they are. When we leave, the world will get another view of how this works.
The only hope we had of establishing a democratic government in Afghanistan would have had to involve splitting the country into different countries divided by ethnic lines. Inevitably, some cleansing would probably occur, but at least most of the blame would go towards the tribes instead of us. Each region could have a democratic government, but even that's questionable.
This is all moot by now though. We tried to fight a politically correct war against an authoritarian insurgency. That usually ends very badly. But of course, we'll still get infinitely bitched at no matter what we do.
What, Taliban is pissed that someone else got to their victims first?
'cause ritual stoning-to-death, female genital mutilation, beheadings, and acid in the face is so much friendlier when it's a fellow countryman doing the job... for an infidel to do something comparable, that's just rude
I don't condone the murder of innocent children, obviously.
My point is the disproportionate outrage over this act, compared to the deafening apathy over the evils the Taliban considers 'business as usual'
Same with the whole KONY 2012 bullshit.
Yeah, wear your T-shirt, feign your outrage, wring your hands, post on Facebook...
It's all bullshit.
There's a few thousand fuckhead warlords worse than Kony.
It's called 'The rest of the damned world outside the safety bubble of the 1st world'
Somalia has been a cesspool of murder and atrocity for over 20 years.
Don't hear a bunch of westerners clamoring for us to send in the troops there...
Nah, people saw some uncomfortable footage on CNN (ala Blackhawk Down), and demanded we leave - lest they have to actually be aware of such unpleasantness.
People in the West don't actually give a damn about anything in the world beyond their little Walmart & McDonalds safety bubble existence.
No, they just feign outrage until the uncomfortable footage on their TV stops showing them such horrible little unpleasantries.
You want to help?
Go join Doctors Without Borders, or your nation's Army/Marines, or UNICEF.
Otherwise, take your hypocritical faux outrage, and go fuck yourself with it.
Do something REAL, or fuck off.
The only place it really matters how you feel about something is kindergarden, or inside the Western safety bubble...
Afghanistan is a tribal shithole.
Afghanistan will always be a tribal shithole.
The Afghani tribes are proud of their long staunch unwavering heritage as a tribal shithole.
When the world has evolved to the point that there are no more tribal shitholes,
Afghanistan will still be a tribal shithole.
Leave.
Leave them to their tribal shitholitude.
Isolation and containment, works as well as siege warfare and is a fuck of a lot cheaper.
'cause ritual stoning-to-death, female genital mutilation, beheadings, and acid in the face is so much friendlier when it's a fellow countryman doing the job... for an infidel to do something comparable, that's just rude
I don't condone the murder of innocent children, obviously.
My point is the disproportionate outrage over this act, compared to the deafening apathy over the evils the Taliban considers 'business as usual'
Same with the whole KONY 2012 bullshit.
Yeah, wear your T-shirt, feign your outrage, wring your hands, post on Facebook...
It's all bullshit.
There's a few thousand fuckhead warlords worse than Kony.
It's called 'The rest of the damned world outside the safety bubble of the 1st world'
Somalia has been a cesspool of murder and atrocity for over 20 years.
Don't hear a bunch of westerners clamoring for us to send in the troops there...
Nah, people saw some uncomfortable footage on CNN (ala Blackhawk Down), and demanded we leave - lest they have to actually be aware of such unpleasantness.
People in the West don't actually give a damn about anything in the world beyond their little Walmart & McDonalds safety bubble existence.
No, they just feign outrage until the uncomfortable footage on their TV stops showing them such horrible little unpleasantries.
You want to help?
Go join Doctors Without Borders, or your nation's Army/Marines, or UNICEF.
Otherwise, take your hypocritical faux outrage, and go fuck yourself with it.
Do something REAL, or fuck off.
The only place it really matters how you feel about something is kindergarden, or inside the Western safety bubble...
Afghanistan is a tribal shithole.
Afghanistan will always be a tribal shithole.
The Afghani tribes are proud of their long staunch unwavering heritage as a tribal shithole.
When the world has evolved to the point that there are no more tribal shitholes,
Afghanistan will still be a tribal shithole.
Leave.
Leave them to their tribal shitholitude.
Isolation and containment, works as well as siege warfare and is a fuck of a lot cheaper.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-03-19 15:37:02)
yeah, I'm sure that'll be the outcome. He may not be executed, but he'll never be released. are you still on your period because we didn't hand him over to the fucking afghans?Dilbert_X wrote:
Ah OK, I can see the end-game already. Decorated war-hero just wanted a hug all along. Lets forget about the kids with their heads blown apart seeing as they're brown and try to help the poor fellow get his life back together. We should give him an honourable discharge ASAP so he can retain his well-deserved pension and go get those book and movie deals.
(In the meantime the Fort Hood shooter and that Wikileaks fag can rot in solitary until we kill them, never mind the double standards)
Totally agree wih you here, but bombing the shit out of the villages now will just draw more insurgents to the Taliban's cause. Just like the Koran burning. It's not always intentional, but winning hearts and minds of the locals was never possible. You appease one tribe and their rival tribes are upset.Turquoise wrote:
I think fighting terrorists is best done without invading, but once we crossed that line, there's not much left to do.AussieReaper wrote:
You're trolling right? You think nuking tribal villages would have been an appropriate course of action to fight terrorists?Turquoise wrote:
Nation-building doesn't fix anything in a place like Afghanistan. Nukes would have fixed them though.
We lost in Vietnam because the American public apparently thought you can win against a guerilla force in a jungle environment without decimating villages. When it became obvious that we were killing a lot of civilians, the outcry forced us home.
This is all moot by now though. We tried to fight a politically correct war against an authoritarian insurgency. That usually ends very badly. But of course, we'll still get infinitely bitched at no matter what we do.
The war started as a conventional one, imo the troops need to move out and deal with terrorists covertly and by all means continue the drone strikes taking out the high value targets.
Implying that ordinary Afghanistan's aren't also pissed...rdx-fx wrote:
What, Taliban is pissed that someone else got to their victims first?
The crimes were committed in Afghanistan against Afghans. Why do you accept it as his right to say "I'm a murkin gardummit" and be immediately whisked away to safety?Reciprocity wrote:
are you still on your period because we didn't hand him over to the fucking afghans?
Had an Afghan tourist killed 16 Americans in their beds you'd be howling to have him quartered without a trial, not flown home to be 'tried' by his friends.
There has never been the remotest chance of establishing a democratic government in Afghanistan. A coalition of relatively moderate islamic councils as fronts for strongmen and warlords was the best that could ever have been hoped for.Turquoise wrote:
The only hope we had of establishing a democratic government in Afghanistan would have had to involve splitting the country into different countries divided by ethnic lines.
But no, Team Dumbfuck thought waving a few flags and saying "freedom" with enough tears in their eyes would turn the place into the next great democracy.
Dilberts tip for the day: Stop voting for illeducated imbeciles.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-03-20 01:04:17)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
it's not his say, that's just how it fucking is. he's in custody and he'll remain in custody for the rest of his life.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why do you accept it as his right to say "I'm a murkin gardummit" and be immediately whisked away to safety?
1st. he wasn't a god damned tourist.Had an Afghan tourist killed 16 Americans in their beds you'd be howling to have him quartered without a trial, not flown home to be 'tried' by his friends.
2nd. the difference between "murika" and trashcanistan is that while we might howl for drawing and quartering, we have due process and justice. not just a lynch mob of illiterate tribesmen whose concept of justice generally involves the exchange of goats and daughters.
finally, after 11 years, someone figured out what went wrong.But no, Team Dumbfuck thought waving a few flags and saying "freedom" with enough tears in their eyes would turn the place into the next great democracy.
Or cry about it on the Internet.m3thod wrote:
tough shit, get it right or fuck off home.
Baba Booey
who crying? your goons go on about your sophisticated tech and military precision and yet manage to do exactly the reverse time and time again.
Not to mention you've essentially lost afghanistan by your own doing for which a bunch ragheads rocking tech from 1882 will take the accolade, you're going to go home with your tails between your legs. its laughable.
Carry on solider! i'm sure you will pretend to be a 'vet' when you get back home and claim your daily free cheeseburger from what ever establishment that takes pity on you.
Not to mention you've essentially lost afghanistan by your own doing for which a bunch ragheads rocking tech from 1882 will take the accolade, you're going to go home with your tails between your legs. its laughable.
Carry on solider! i'm sure you will pretend to be a 'vet' when you get back home and claim your daily free cheeseburger from what ever establishment that takes pity on you.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Allah Snackbar.
Take the plunge? What are you going to do?
Nothing.
the dudes in the Pech have more balls than some British Internet jihad warrior.
Take the plunge? What are you going to do?
Nothing.
the dudes in the Pech have more balls than some British Internet jihad warrior.
Baba Booey
Yep, the drone strikes are about all that we can do now.AussieReaper wrote:
Totally agree wih you here, but bombing the shit out of the villages now will just draw more insurgents to the Taliban's cause. Just like the Koran burning. It's not always intentional, but winning hearts and minds of the locals was never possible. You appease one tribe and their rival tribes are upset.
The war started as a conventional one, imo the troops need to move out and deal with terrorists covertly and by all means continue the drone strikes taking out the high value targets.
If you think a soldier killing civilians during an occupation and a "tourist" killing them not during an occupation are comparable, then you're quite mistaken.Dilbert_X wrote:
The crimes were committed in Afghanistan against Afghans. Why do you accept it as his right to say "I'm a murkin gardummit" and be immediately whisked away to safety?Reciprocity wrote:
are you still on your period because we didn't hand him over to the fucking afghans?
Had an Afghan tourist killed 16 Americans in their beds you'd be howling to have him quartered without a trial, not flown home to be 'tried' by his friends.
The soldier will possibly face the death penalty, just like a "tourist" could face the same from his own country (depending on whether or not his home country has the DP).
Despite this eventual equivalency in punishment, a soldier isn't tried in civilian courts, whereas a "tourist" usually is.
Here's my tip for the day: Stop whining like a bitch about moot points.Dilbert_X wrote:
There has never been the remotest chance of establishing a democratic government in Afghanistan. A coalition of relatively moderate islamic councils as fronts for strongmen and warlords was the best that could ever have been hoped for.Turquoise wrote:
The only hope we had of establishing a democratic government in Afghanistan would have had to involve splitting the country into different countries divided by ethnic lines.
But no, Team Dumbfuck thought waving a few flags and saying "freedom" with enough tears in their eyes would turn the place into the next great democracy.
Dilberts tip for the day: Stop voting for illeducated imbeciles.
We both know the democracy thing was a facade. Some idiots bought into it, but most of us know the real reasoning behind all this was about profit and strategic power.
"Team Dumbfuck" would be the team stupid enough to harbor people that would attack the most powerful country in the world. Even though we've spent billions on Trashcanistan and lost about 4,000 soldiers, the real losers in all this are the Afghani people, because they lost far more people and are stuck living in the ass end of the world.
Thats a good point turq, i agree for now. maybe not tomorrow but for now you're okay.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Its not an "occupation", hasn't been for years.Turquoise wrote:
If you think a soldier killing civilians during an occupation and a "tourist" killing them not during an occupation are comparable, then you're quite mistaken.
The soldier will possibly face the death penalty, just like a "tourist" could face the same from his own country (depending on whether or not his home country has the DP).
Despite this eventual equivalency in punishment, a soldier isn't tried in civilian courts, whereas a "tourist" usually is.
Outside war, soldiers are tried in civilian courts, this is not wartime.
Or if it were wartime he should be prosecuted as a war criminal.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-03-21 01:19:22)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
You can't occupy a country when you've declared war on terror...Dilbert_X wrote:
Its not an "occupation", hasn't been for years.Turquoise wrote:
If you think a soldier killing civilians during an occupation and a "tourist" killing them not during an occupation are comparable, then you're quite mistaken.
The soldier will possibly face the death penalty, just like a "tourist" could face the same from his own country (depending on whether or not his home country has the DP).
Despite this eventual equivalency in punishment, a soldier isn't tried in civilian courts, whereas a "tourist" usually is.
Outside war, soldiers are tried in civilian courts, this is not wartime.
Or if it were wartime he should be prosecuted as a war criminal.
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICEDilbert_X wrote:
Its not an "occupation", hasn't been for years.Turquoise wrote:
If you think a soldier killing civilians during an occupation and a "tourist" killing them not during an occupation are comparable, then you're quite mistaken.
The soldier will possibly face the death penalty, just like a "tourist" could face the same from his own country (depending on whether or not his home country has the DP).
Despite this eventual equivalency in punishment, a soldier isn't tried in civilian courts, whereas a "tourist" usually is.
Outside war, soldiers are tried in civilian courts, this is not wartime.
Or if it were wartime he should be prosecuted as a war criminal.
That's what he was governed by. That's what he will be tried by.
The UCMJ applies to military personnel both in and out of war.
You have the answer, now give that particular rant a rest.
good luck with that.
his neighbors have said that they trust him, i personally believe head trauma affects more than modern science will admit.
his neighbors have said that they trust him, i personally believe head trauma affects more than modern science will admit.