Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

12 Years Later: An Introspective

Posted Oct 2, '13 at 9:04pm

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,859 posts

Deine "win." On a military scale, the US accomplished its goals in Iraq and Afghanistan. Totalitarian regimes were quickly overthrown, democratic governments were established, and the Iraqi and Afghani peoples have the opportunity to have free political discourse for the first time in a very long time.

Funny you mentioned these, all I see is Iraq is in deeper **** than it was in before saddam was topelled, also Iran is trying to gain influence there and getting successful, tell me for what aim does usa go there?
ans no it did not go there to spread democracy. that's BS.
If the goal was to remove a potentail threat, they have spectacolarly failed in it as in removing one threat, they have created many more.
If the goal was to dispose off "al Qaida" well, its still alive and kicking, it simply skipped town.
As for afghanistan, Bravo , after scarificing 2280 men you have succeeded in killing a one man,(If the "honest and truthful govrn. of USA" is to be believed)  bravo.
While any one who is not taliban is crapping its pants over the thought of their return after your armies are withdrawn in 2014.
One will have to be stupid one thinks that the reason USA went in these countries were Over throwing Totalitarian regimes , Establishing democratic governments , and giving Iraqi and Afghani peoples  the opportunity to have free political discourse.
Might I remined that these same regimes were supported by USA at one time or another.
(even the warlords that comprise talibans).

War is won by any means necessary. If the goal is to kill the enemy quickly, cheaply, and efficiently as possible, then any means can be utilized to accomplish the end. Placing undue importance on one over another is ridiculous

That is the thing, you simply can not kill this enemy, where you kill one, his both sons take up arms, that is there culture.
Do you know what they do when hey kill someone in a feud? they kill his male children too so that they don't avenge their father.
Truth is, Afghans were never a threat to USA it was US who messed withem in first place to eliminate "Alqaida".
In which it has not yet succeeded and has lost nearly same number of troops as were the victims of WTC.Smart strategy?

Have you not seen any recent news involving the NSA? Suggesting the US government and military will be without intelligence is laughable, and completely ignores the wealth of drones, satelites, and other nefarious devices in the US arsenal.

You are just conyradicting yourself but what ever.
The question is, how the Mighty US govrn.has not   yet succeeded with all these nefarious devices?

 

Posted Oct 3, '13 at 12:11am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,984 posts

all I see is Iraq is in deeper **** than it was in before saddam was topelled,

Oh yes, the modern lack of genocide is horrible by comparison. We should have more of that.
/sarcasm

after scarificing 2280 men you have succeeded in killing a one man

And tens of thousands of his followers. But war isn't judged in lives. A majority of Afghans oppose the Taliban and are supportive of the US military presence. The US also has a strong strategic alliance with their government.

(If the "honest and truthful govrn. of USA" is to be believed)

If bin Laden was alive, Al-Qaeda would simply take a video and Obama would be screwed. Instead, they issued a statement confirming that he's dead.

While any one who is not taliban is crapping its pants over the thought of their return after your armies are withdrawn in 2014.

Hopefully the decade of training their security forces to do their own job was enough.

Afghans were never a threat to USA

And the vast majority of them still aren't.

In which it has not yet succeeded and has lost nearly same number of troops as were the victims of WTC.

76% is the nearly same number? I'm so glad you're not a financial advisor.

 

Posted Oct 3, '13 at 12:46am

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,859 posts

Oh yes, the modern lack of genocide is horrible by comparison. We should have more of that.

What genocide did in one quick shock, bombings are doing it peice by peice

And tens of thousands of his followers. But war isn't judged in lives. A majority of Afghans oppose the Taliban and are supportive of the US military presence. The US also has a strong strategic alliance with their government.

"Strong" is a very strong word to call that govrn. A puppet would seem more suitable.

If bin Laden was alive, Al-Qaeda would simply take a video and Obama would be screwed. Instead, they issued a statement confirming that he's dead.

Or may be he died long ago, al qaida just saw it as an oppertiunity to get free of its shadow.

Hopefully the decade of training their security forces to do their own job was enough.

That may turn out to be a false hope as they have so high of a desertion rate that they replace a third of their army anually.

And the vast majority of them still aren't.

You better hope, for if it is the contrary, things can go kabul massacre very easily.

76% is the nearly same number? I'm so glad you're not a financial advisor.

I wouldn't want a desk job any way. Still 76% is a huge share.

 

Posted Oct 3, '13 at 2:26am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,984 posts

"Strong" is a very strong word to call that govrn.

I didn't say "The government of Afghanistan is strong". I said "The US-Afghanistan alliance is strong". Just the bond, not the country.

What genocide did in one quick shock, bombings are doing it peice by peice

By a small radical group, not a government with a military.

Or may be he died long ago

Then they wouldn't have kept sending tapes to desperately confirm that he was alive.

things can go kabul massacre very easily.

Sure, if we replace their government, they'll get mad. Except we're already friends with their elected leaders. And the people are begging us to stay.

Still 76% is a huge share.

Soldiers in a long conflict to civilians in a single event is hardly a fair comparison to base success or failure on. For example, the attack on Pearl Harbor killed about 2400 soldiers and about 50 civilians, but the resulting war in the Pacific lead to over 100000 US military deaths, meaning the same comparison is about 4200%. And it really means nothing when you look at the wars that didn't involve any "national spark/cost", like Vietnam or Korea.

 

Posted Oct 3, '13 at 5:28am

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,859 posts

I didn't say "The government of Afghanistan is strong". I said "The US-Afghanistan alliance is strong". Just the bond, not the country.

What use is the friendship of a lamb, in a den of lions?

By a small radical group, not a government with a military.

Not just one radical group, its on the brink of a civil war

Sure, if we replace their government, they'll get mad. Except we're already friends with their elected leaders. And the people are begging us to stay.

Correction those in the govrn. and their cronies are begging you to stay for they remember what happenned to Najibullah

Soldiers in a long conflict to civilians in a single event is hardly a fair comparison to base success or failure on. For example, the attack on Pearl Harbor killed about 2400 soldiers and about 50 civilians, but the resulting war in the Pacific lead to over 100000 US military deaths, meaning the same comparison is about 4200%. And it really means nothing when you look at the wars that didn't involve any "national spark/cost", like Vietnam or Korea.

I understand what you are trying to say but here, it really does make sense as the very reason to enter this war was Vengeance, and you lost more men to avenge than real victims (Iraq and afghanistan combined).

 

Posted Oct 5, '13 at 9:15am

danielo

danielo

1,395 posts

Vengence was not the reason. The fact that, as i said befor, afganistan became terroristan/Al-quaidastan was the problme.

 

Posted Oct 5, '13 at 2:39pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

before saddam was topelled, also Iran is trying to gain influence there

Iraq is Sunni. Iran is Shia. A spattering of high-level visits is nothing when held up to the past.

and getting successful, tell me for what aim does usa go there?
ans no it did not go there to spread democracy. that's BS.

To bring stability to the region? Remove a dictator from power? And no, spreading democracy is not "BS" seeing as that's actually what the US did.

If the goal was to remove a potentail threat, they have spectacolarly failed in it as in removing one threat, they have created many more.

Care to give specifics of these "threats?"

If the goal was to dispose off "al Qaida" well, its still alive and kicking, it simply skipped town.

The capabilities of AQ to operate as an effective organization are severely hindered, and largely on the decline. Success.

As for afghanistan, Bravo , after scarificing 2280 men you have succeeded in killing a one man,(If the "honest and truthful govrn. of USA" is to be believed)  bravo.

You seem to have this amusing notion that if a side loses any men, they lose. Yes, the US suffered casualties... That's sort of how war works. And while it isnt NATO policy to count bodies, the consensus is that the number of terrorist casualties are astronomically greater than that of coalition forces.

One will have to be stupid one thinks that the reason USA went in these countries were Over throwing Totalitarian regimes , Establishing democratic governments , and giving Iraqi and Afghani peoples  the opportunity to have free political discourse.

Then enlighten us. You've done a lot to bad mouth the rest of us, without offering anything yourself.

Might I remined that these same regimes were supported by USA at one time or another.
(even the warlords that comprise talibans).

And your point is...? Yesterday It was beneficial for the US to support them - so they did. Today its beneficial for the US to kill them - so they do. Pragmatism; look it up.

That is the thing, you simply can not kill this enemy, where you kill one, his both sons take up arms, that is there culture.

Then we will kill his sons. And his son's sons. Ad infinitum, ad nauseaum.

You are just conyradicting yourself but what ever.The question is, how the Mighty US govrn.has not   yet succeeded with all these nefarious devices?

Care to explain how I allegedly contradicted myself?

Sorry, but what exactly are you trying to imply here? Because it would seem that you're suggesting the US spy system is nonexistant, and has no way of gathering intel.

 

Posted Oct 5, '13 at 8:43pm

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,859 posts

OK first of all, It took me an hour to compose a post with links etc but when I posted it, i automatcally got logged out(may be some thin to do with Proxy or cache) So this answer will be a little short but I will cover every thing.

Iraq is Sunni. Iran is Shia. A spattering of high-level visits is nothing when held up to the past.

Get your facts straight.

To bring stability to the region? Remove a dictator from power? And no, spreading democracy is not "BS" seeing as that's actually what the US did.

Seeing Iraq US were chums earlier, I doubt it somehow, infact I think US never started a war for noble purpose as " Freedom" or "Democracy" or even vengeance.
The only reason that war was necessary was because SAddam was becoming unruly, he was threatning some freinds of US which were far more benefecial than him.
and you seem to agree with me on this point as you just say next

And your point is...? Yesterday It was beneficial for the US to support them - so they did. Today its beneficial for the US to kill them - so they do. Pragmatism; look it up.

Care to give specifics of these "threats?"

AQIM?
Iran spreading its influence?

You seem to have this amusing notion that if a side loses any men, they lose. Yes, the US suffered casualties... That's sort of how war works. And while it isnt NATO policy to count bodies, the consensus is that the number of terrorist casualties are astronomically greater than that of coalition forces.

No my friend, you misunderstand me, for if causualities dictated who won or who lost a war, then no one was a bigger loser in WWII than USSR.
The question I ask is, has the stated gaol been completed?
No, it has not been.

The capabilities of AQ to operate as an effective organization are severely hindered, and largely on the decline. Success.

AQIM?
Al shabbab?

Then enlighten us. You've done a lot to bad mouth the rest of us, without offering anything yourself.

I already gave you reason for Iraq invasion. As for afghanistan.
It definately was not OBL as Taliban offered to hand him over to a neutral country or give a proof.
They reason US invaded it was the very same reason Lion Of Brittania and Russian Bear wanted it.
Open a map.
Good, now see where Afghanistan is.
You'll see its surrounded by Iran, China, Pakistan and Three CIS.
Out of these six countries 2 of them can be classified as Rivals and one as a constant risk.
Imagine If you land an army between them, it will be like russia installing nukes on cuba. One thing which they under estimated was stubborness of afghans.

Ad infinitum

Threat neutralised?
Nope.
So mission not accomplished?
yep.
How can we accomplish it?
We must kill every one of them.
After all, there was areason russians used toy bombs against them.

Care to explain how I allegedly contradicted myself?

In the very same post you said over emphasising any military aspect is stupid and then you did the same.

Sorry, but what exactly are you trying to imply here? Because it would seem that you're suggesting the US spy system is nonexistant, and has no way of gathering intel.

there is a reason that the most wanted man on planet hid in plain sight for 10 years while US was searching left and right until CIA peratives (that is boots on the ground with pretty much full freedom) turned a doctor and cinfirmed his residence.
What if Pak us relations were not that warm? and/or there was no US military presence in Afghanistan? would CIA be able to roam free? would they be able to hire so freely?
No, I don't think so.

 

Posted Oct 5, '13 at 9:58pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

Seeing Iraq US were chums earlier, I doubt it somehow, infact I think US never started a war for noble purpose as " Freedom" or "Democracy" or even vengeance.
The only reason that war was necessary was because SAddam was becoming unruly, he was threatning some freinds of US which were far more benefecial than him.
and you seem to agree with me on this point as you just say next

I blame the Baath Party; never understood how a minority can hang on to power so long. >.

 

Posted Oct 5, '13 at 10:17pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,984 posts

The question I ask is, has the stated gaol been completed?
No, it has not been.

The goal in Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power. Success. Apparently Al-Qaeda is down from maybe a thousand to under 100 in the region. Their network is severely disorganized.

In the very same post you said over emphasising any military aspect is stupid and then you did the same.

He never said that drones/satellites/etc would be what wins the war, just that they're other tools in the toolbox that shouldn't be overlooked or underestimated.

there is a reason that the most wanted man on planet hid in plain sight for 10 years while US was searching left and right until CIA peratives (that is boots on the ground with pretty much full freedom) turned a doctor and cinfirmed his residence.

Even by '03 they had a pretty good idea of where he was, but he wasn't alone in all this. It was better to gather more intel on everyone else while their group was "whole", so their chain of command would be almost entirely broken, which it was. Like fighting a hydra: cut all the heads.

 
Reply to 12 Years Later: An Introspective

You must be logged in to post a reply!