AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Troops in Afghanistan

163 31520
Indiagamerz
offline
Indiagamerz
77 posts
Nomad

Should we send more troops into Afghanistan?

  • 163 Replies
Deth666
offline
Deth666
653 posts
Nomad

Troop numbers and force aren't the reason that Iraq was a success. It was because the people had a genuine wish to get a democracy and had pre existing institutions to support that. Afghanistan doesn't. Their 'democracy' is a joke, with the Karzai administration bowing to the regional war lords, producing fascist legislation and rigging their elections.


I'm not suggesting the only reason Iraq was a success was the troop surge. The troops in Afghanistan are overwhelmed and they need help. More troops aren't gonna solve everything but, it's a start.

I'm not saying democracy in Afghanistan is gonna work. Their government is probably gonna suck for a long time. Whatever, the type of government it needs a chance to work.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Yes, it's a process, but it's a process that will happen faster if we do it now.


It took the West literally hundreds of years to get to liberal industrial democracy. What makes you think it can be implemented by 2011?

and many Afghan people want change, it's just a matter of getting the ones who don't to see the upside of democracy -- as it's expected most will.


Democracy isn't really a part of their culture. Average Johynny Afghan couldn't care less if he had a vote or not, so long as he had food, water and Islam.
balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Peasant

Did Afgans invent the afgan?

German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

He got a Nobel for saying that he would pull out the troops.

false. he got a Nobel Prize (and 1.4 mil) for keeping an open mind when speaking to other nations (ie: Palestine).
Obama's Afghanistan plan calls for 4,000 more U.S. troops

actually, 30k.
I'm not suggesting the only reason Iraq was a success was the troop surge. The troops in Afghanistan are overwhelmed and they need help. More troops aren't gonna solve everything but, it's a start.

Exactly. We can't do what we're trying to do with the troops we have. We won't be able to do what we're trying to do with the troops we have there right now. We need more just to hold our position in major villages and fight the Taliban at the same time.
It took the West literally hundreds of years to get to liberal industrial democracy. What makes you think it can be implemented by 2011?

That's a completely different situation, but okay.
Also, 2011 isn't the date at which we all pull out and everything is fine, it's the initial pullout date.
The US has decided that we can overtake the Taliban substantially help the Afghan troops control the country's regions by 2011, which would be the start of a democracy.
Democracy isn't really a part of their culture. Average Johynny Afghan couldn't care less if he had a vote or not, so long as he had food, water and Islam.

They don't know what democracy and the experience of it is like, so obviously they're not going to be striving for it yet.
7432200
offline
7432200
134 posts
Nomad

Yes we need to kill those sobs

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Exactly. We can't do what we're trying to do with the troops we have. We won't be able to do what we're trying to do with the troops we have there right now. We need more just to hold our position in major villages and fight the Taliban at the same time.


I doubt what we're trying to do now ie., defeat the Taliban and build a stable democracy would need around 250k troops. 30k is peanuts compared to what's needed. The force we have at the moment should focus its efforts upon Al Qaeda, not the Taliban.

That's a completely different situation, but okay.


How is it different? I am merely pointing out that you cannot instantly instill completely alien ideologies in less than a decade. It takes generations for this to happen.

Also, 2011 isn't the date at which we all pull out and everything is fine, it's the initial pullout date.
The US has decided that we can overtake the Taliban substantially help the Afghan troops control the country's regions by 2011, which would be the start of a democracy.


Democracy is already supposed to have started, and it's clearly failing. I cannpt see how this situation will change by 2011.

They don't know what democracy and the experience of it is like, so obviously they're not going to be striving for it yet.


Hvae you considered that the liberal democracy is based on civil liberties? Civil liberties only exist in the West, because there is enough material wealth present to enable people to pursue these freedoms. Democracy doesn't work in impoverished countries, especially ones as conflict stricken as Afghanistan.
whimsyboy
offline
whimsyboy
938 posts
Nomad

So, why would the U.S. send 250k troops, as FireflyIV said, if the U.S. is not going to get some money and yes just help destroy Al Qaeda or the Taliban?

So that our oil tycoon friends won't get roughed up in the middle east.

Beside that point, it wasn't the U.S. that made the decision. First, our ignorant western ideologies spread to the Middle East. That pissed off Sadam, and he sent some of his people to attack us. That in turn pissed off Bush, so he sent some of his people to attack Sadam.
And it is basically a recurring cycle of us pissing them off, and them pissing us off.

It's basically a big piss fight.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

That pissed off Sadam, and he sent some of his people to attack us


Saddam Hussein and his regime had nothing to do with 911. Official US intelligence reports confirm this, even though it did help justify the move. None of the terrorists were even from Iraq either.
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

The force we have at the moment should focus its efforts upon Al Qaeda, not the Taliban.

So we should let the Taliban radicalize all of Afghanistan and Pakistan and let them overthrow whichever governments they feel like?
We ignore the threat of the Taliban (which spread very quickly) and you're going to complain.
How is it different? I am merely pointing out that you cannot instantly instill completely alien ideologies in less than a decade. It takes generations for this to happen.

All the more reason not to wait to do it.
Democracy is already supposed to have started, and it's clearly failing. I cannpt see how this situation will change by 2011.

Maybe because it's a "completely alien ideology".
Also, since we need to have a soldier per household in many situations, and the Afghan people don't enjoy that, and we are tied to democracy, the Afghan people don't make great connections in their mind between democracy and freedom.

and with the same situation, it's pretty obvious the Taliban will be trying to convince all the Afghan people that the US wants to control them, and then our troops come in and heavily populate the area.

It'll take some time for them to grasp what democracy really is, but no, it hasn't been great for us so far; yet no, not everything stays the way it is now.
Democracy doesn't work in impoverished countries, especially ones as conflict stricken as Afghanistan.

So a radical group which is trying to overthrow two different governments right now is the way to go?

We don't have to install our exact form of democracy, it's not what we did in Iraq, and that's definitely not what we're going to do in Afghanistan. Also, just because someone is poor doesn't mean they'd be better off in a government where they get no voice and no freedom.
It's annoying how the U.S.A. wants to control the world, and many times with the objective of getting more fortune

we're not trying to control the world.
We're trying to avoid governments that are traditionally hellbent on attacking us.
Also, I see no way that we're going to gain fortune by attacking Afghanistan.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

So we should let the Taliban radicalize all of Afghanistan and Pakistan and let them overthrow whichever governments they feel like?


I am saying we let the Afghan people deal with it. At the end of the day, the Taliban are Afghans too.

We ignore the threat of the Taliban (which spread very quickly) and you're going to complain.


Spread to where? They went no further than the borders of Afghanistan last time. What makes you think it would be any different?

All the more reason not to wait to do it.


Have you ever considered that Western liberal democracy isn't auitable for an intensely Islamic, Asian society?

What gives you the right to dictate which ideologies are better than others, much lessimpose them upon the people. You are no different from the Taliban in that regard.

It'll take some time for them to grasp what democracy really is, but no, it hasn't been great for us so far; yet no, not everything stays the way it is now.


So your solution is: ''well it's not going great at the moment. Hopefully those ignorant Afghans will realise who the good guys are''. That's an incredibly colonial, and naive view.

So a radical group which is trying to overthrow two different governments right now is the way to go?


Let's remember that the Taliban were overthrown. You could just as easily apply this statement to ISAF forces.

We don't have to install our exact form of democracy, it's not what we did in Iraq, and that's definitely not what we're going to do in Afghanistan. Also, just because someone is poor doesn't mean they'd be better off in a government where they get no voice and no freedom.


In Iraq, we let them choose the style of government, which is why it worked. The majority of the people were behind it. Even the concept of a state is ludicrous for many Afghans. It's a tribal nation. The people have more respect and connection to their haram than they do for any governmental body.

I'm not saying they'd be better or worse off at this point. I am however saying that when you are living in poverty you don't care about freedoms or liberties. If the West wants to succeed in Afghanistan, they should concentrate less on fighting the Taliban and more on developing the country.
balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Peasant

And then the developments are destroyed and you are back where you started.

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

And then the developments are destroyed and you are back where you started.


Of course you protect these projects, however you don't go on search and destroy missions against the Taliban. With enough development, you will win hearts and minds too, turning people against the Taliban. Shooting and bombing them won't do this.
balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Peasant

This isn't the Philippines and it is not our job to build their shitty nation up from nothing.

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

This isn't the Philippines and it is not our job to build their ****ty nation up from nothing.


(1) What's with the Philippines reference?

(2) If the US is serious about instilling democracy then that's exactly what they have to do. Otherwise, get the hell out.
balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Peasant

We were in the Philippines for decades building infrastructure. We arbitrarily decided Cuba was ready for independence, but they were not so we fought a war with them over it and stayed after to build their roads and schools.

Showing 61-75 of 163