AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Troops in Afghanistan

163 31519
Indiagamerz
offline
Indiagamerz
77 posts
Nomad

Should we send more troops into Afghanistan?

  • 163 Replies
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

We were in the Philippines for decades building infrastructure.


Don't really know much about Phillipino history but I think the building of infrastructure is definitely the way to go.

Look at former Malaya. A guerilla uprising was countered by the British through building hospitals, roads, schools etc., meaning there was no need to be radical. That seems to be the only way to defeat these kinds of insurgencies.
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

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

They're already spreading into Pakistan.
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.

I'm simply saying that most of their views of democracy right now consists of the US army heavily populating their villages, which is not an accurate view.
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.

I see what you're saying, but we haven't been able to control areas nearly enough yet to develop them.
Fighting isn't always the answer, but it's not always the wrong answer.
I'd have to see what is done once we've properly stabilized enough of the largest villages to say whether or not this is in our plan, and whether or not that plan should be changed.

Re: Philippines: better to spend our money creating a positive influence than simply sitting around.
balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Peasant

They never spread there. They were there already.


Paradox. Unless they were there from the dawn of time they had to have spread from somewhere.
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

And the Americans should be the ones to teach them? Don't make me laugh.

No one else wants to, and if they're going to be able to make a decision as to what they want, they at least need to know more.
Probably nothing will be done.

well once there's something to debate about, I'll have an opinion.
Have you ever considered that if the US stopped meddling in the Middle East, there'd be no reason for the people to become radical in the first place. Iran is a case and point on this. The US instilled the corrupt, autocratic Shah, which then led to the Islamic Revolution.

Yes, that's true, but that doesn't mean we should just throw it into a closet and say it's a failure. I'm sure I'm not the only person who believes trying to correct a wrong is a good practice.
They went way beyond that and took on Afghanistan in their blind ignorance and thought ''let's create another liberal state in the ME, we might aswell now that we're here''.

Considering we've been heavily criticized before for doing a similar thing and simply leaving afterwards, we weren't about to do the same thing again.
I'm not saying it's right, but it's a political obligation to keep us from being portrayed as complete assholes, so we've chosen to be political assholes.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Paradox. Unless they were there from the dawn of time they had to have spread from somewhere.


It's funny you should mention that, because genetic studies have been conducted which reveal that the Afghans are among the most 'ure' people on the Earth due to the complete lack of immigration or emigration to or from the country since the first settlers went there.

Either way though, within the context of the thread, it doesn't really matter for how long the Pahtun people have been in Afghanistan - they were here before the US were, and that's what really matters.
xyishere
offline
xyishere
32 posts
Nomad

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab51/xyyoke/images-1.jpg Thats how I answer this question!

German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

It's funny you should mention that, because genetic studies have been conducted which reveal that the Afghans are among the most 'ure' people on the Earth due to the complete lack of immigration or emigration to or from the country since the first settlers went there.

yes, but the Taliban hasn't been there since the dawn of time.
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

And the Americans should be the one to educate them? It's ironic the US acts like they are going into Afghanistan to preserve freedom, when they are denying the Afghan people the freedom to choose how they want to live their lives.

If you're going to bring up the exact same point, then I might as well -- if no one else is going to attempt to show democracy, how can they make any decision at all?
We don't know yet if we'll allow the citizens to decide which form of gov't they want, and at any rate they certainly can't make a proper decision now if they don't even know their choices.
So as long as the Americans do absolutely nothing you have no view? Interesting standpoint to take.

We haven't had a perfect opportunity to start doing things, so I don't know if it's in our plan or not. I don't have the clearance to know what our exact Afghanistan plan is, so I have to wait to see what we actually do with the situation before jump the gun and label it as an ultimate failure before it's barely started.
It's only wrong by our Western liberal standards. To the Afghans it's a completely inorganic entity which expounds virtues completely contradictory to what is really important to them - Islam.

Just because only Islam is important to them right now doesn't mean that being able to voice their opinions won't be important to them once they experience the ability to do so.
So you've invaded a country to prove to the rest of the world you're not complete ********. ell, I have to say, it's really working well! Oh wait...

Since we were portrayed as assholes before when we did not try to help a country up and let them deal with it themselves, we didn't consider doing the same exact thing again.
This isn't the A+ approach, but it's not a purposeful F- repeat.
balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Peasant

At the risk of our national security? No thank you.

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

At the risk of our national security? No thank you.


Do you honestly think the US has been made safer by invading Afghanistan. It's massively increased the numbers of insurgents by radicalising the local population. Not to mention the bad reputation it has gained them around the world.
TheTerminator
offline
TheTerminator
174 posts
Nomad

At the risk of our national security? No thank you.

National security of what? Other countries? We are in their country, what are we defending ourselves from? We are attacking, so I do not see how this can be a risk of our national security.
Do you honestly think the US has been made safer by invading Afghanistan. It's massively increased the numbers of insurgents by radicalising the local population. Not to mention the bad reputation it has gained them around the world.

The United States is always safe. We barely have any military force in Afganistan. I'm really sick of these petty little wars by sending one troop at a time. We finally have a reasonable plan that we are executing.
And who cares about bad reputation? Russia has bad reputation, but that hasn't kept hem from havig the worlds second most advanced military, navy, airforce, and not to mention its nuclear capabilities (shudder).
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Yes, without the knowledge of democracy.


Yet we have given then democracy which they have abused, and failed to comprehend.

I'm saying that they don't know what democracy really is, and in order for them to make a decision, they need to know their options.


Your arrogance is astounding. Applyng this logic, before any decision is made by an entity outside of the US, the Americans should always make sure the people know all the options.

How about you let other countries choose how to run themselves. They know better than anyone what is best for themselves. What the hell do Americans know about the Afghan way of life? Nothing. So how on Earth do you presume that a political system which is completely alien to them and their way of life could ever work?

Rationalism, self rule and tolerance are cornerstones of liberal democracy. You seem to be forgetting that with the brand of imperialism you are preaching.

I've already said that's NOT what I'm saying.


Well by supporting US involvement in Afghanistan on these grounds, that's exactly what you are saying.

Until now, it hasn't been a focus. Until now, we haven't had enough troops to actually do something other than invade villages and defend them heavily against Taliban attacks.


Untrue. The North of the country is almost untouched by the Taliban. You've had plenty of time, and the resources capital wise to make a difference. Even in the South, the 'clear and hold' strategy which has been employed is not designed for development, but purely for warfghting. Much more could, and should be done.

In the past, every communist country has threatened us and had missile tests, so we generally don't like communists.


Generally they don't like you because you support autocratic regimes purely because they aren't communist, then use brutal methods to suppress the population of said country once they vote communist. God bless American democracy. If they don't like the outcome of a vote, they send in the troops!

Not saying that was a correct decision, I'm saying that we need to help sustain the country so that it can be unified, so that it can decide.


That doesn't really answer the question. You've just continued to try to justify the US remaining in Afghanistan to uphold its reputation. You haven't refuted it. Now that it's clear that's your standpoint, it gives me no pleasure in saying how disingenuous this reason is. It's a deception of the Afghan people, but much worse than that, it's coming at the cost of lives. Ask the soldiers and civilians on both sides of the war what they want most. A healthy US reputation, or their loved ones returned to them.

Don't try to say that we are deciding to invade right now, because we invaded a long time ago. It would be a horrible idea to start a warand then give up without giving it half a chance to actually work.
If we pulled out now completely, it would be ridiculed heavily.


I'm not saying this is in the past, but it is completely within your power to withdraw from the country. You originally invaded on the pretex of fighting Al Qaeda. Now this has turned into a prestige battle for the US. No wars should be fought on that basis.

Taliban is a radical group.


It's funny how such a term is so subjective. US revolutionaries were freedom fighters. Afghan freedom fighters are terrorists and radicals. The hypocrisy of ths report (also from an extremely biased source I might add) is astounding.

They have expressed discontent with the US


How very dare they object to you invading their country. Those evil SOBs.

Considering terrorists have attacked our nation before, they can do it again.


Ahh yes, the old war on terror trick. Really though, the Taliban have no means whatsoever to attack the US. It wasn't even them who did so, but Al Qaeda, therefore even assuming going to war to prevent terrorism is the right thing to do, you're attacking to wrong group.
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

Rationalism, self rule and tolerance are cornerstones of liberal democracy. You seem to be forgetting that with the brand of imperialism you are preaching.

There is no ignorance nor imperialism in my speech.

Can anyone make a half-decent decision when they have one choice? Do you get multiple-choice questions with only an "A" and no "B, C, D"? They should at least know what they're choosing and what they're forgoing.
Untrue. The North of the country is almost untouched by the Taliban. You've had plenty of time, and the resources capital wise to make a difference. Even in the South, the 'clear and hold' strategy which has been employed is not designed for development, but purely for warfghting. Much more could, and should be done.

There was almost no focus on Afghanistan before.
Generally they don't like you because you support autocratic regimes purely because they aren't communist, then use brutal methods to suppress the population of said country once they vote communist. God bless American democracy. If they don't like the outcome of a vote, they send in the troops!

Even with communist countries we did not automatically fight, they still expressed hatred against us. Communist countries want their ideals spread throughout the world, too -- it's not just us.
Generally they don't like you because you support autocratic regimes purely because they aren't communist, then use brutal methods to suppress the population of said country once they vote communist. God bless American democracy. If they don't like the outcome of a vote, they send in the troops!

Even the communist countries we did not invade still hated us and tried to (/are trying to) attack us. They want their political ideas spread around the world too.
Ask the soldiers and civilians on both sides of the war what they want most. A healthy US reputation, or their loved ones returned to them.

Now this has turned into a prestige battle for the US. No wars should be fought on that basis.

If the decision had been made differently, and the Taliban continued gaining support and troops, expanding, etc, there would be ridicule as well.
I said in a different thread a few days before the announcement that either way, there would be people complaining heavily. War and lack thereof are two matters that get ridicule constantly.
t's funny how such a term is so subjective. US revolutionaries were freedom fighters. Afghan freedom fighters are terrorists and radicals. The hypocrisy of ths report (also from an extremely biased source I might add) is astounding.

Simply because I'm not using euphemisms doesn't mean I'm treating them as animals.
Just as we were once unpredictable, they are too.
How very dare they object to you invading their country. Those evil SOBs.

They have good reason to hate the US.
That does not exclude the fact that they hate the US.
Ahh yes, the old war on terror trick. Really though, the Taliban have no means whatsoever to attack the US. It wasn't even them who did so, but Al Qaeda, therefore even assuming going to war to prevent terrorism is the right thing to do, you're attacking to wrong group.

Fine, we leave this alone.
They've already attracted troops and supporters from almost the entirety of Afghanistan. That continues. They have all the resources Afghanistan has, they hate us, they can find people with means to hurt us, they can harbor and aid those people.
Then people complain because we allowed something like that to happen.

---I'm not entirely for the plan but I'm not entirely against it. There are pluses and minuses on both sides, and the few people knowing the more about the pluses and minuses than anyone else in the country made the decision/helped make the decision. I was on the fence before this decision, and I'm supporting the man I helped get elected until the downsides strongly outweigh the upsides or some horrible decision is made.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

There is no ignorance nor imperialism in my speech.


Of course it's imperialist. By your logic, before people make decisions about how to run their own countries, the US must intervene to show them all the options. Not to mention the strategic benefits for the US this brings.

Can anyone make a half-decent decision when they have one choice?


They have had a choice. Between the warlords and the Taliban during the civil war. Democracy is not something which applies to their world, nor should it. It's a fundamentally Islamic country. Islam is a theocratic religion. How on earth can wetsern liberal democracy ever work in a country which does not separate the mosque and the state?

There was almost no focus on Afghanistan before.


Oh, so as long as the public don't care about it, it's ok for the US to neglect the Afghan people. Loving your logic considering you seem to be championing their rights as a reason for going in.

Even with communist countries we did not automatically fight, they still expressed hatred against us. Communist countries want their ideals spread throughout the world, too -- it's not just us.


Perhaps they expressed hatred towards you because you had already invaded their allies? Of course both sides wanted to spread their ideals. It doesn't justify either of them doing so, or the brutal methods the US employed.

Raping and murdering of entire villages. That was the US. Using chemical weapons. That was the US too. Indiscriminate bombings? Hm. US there as well.

Well, they're communists, that's pretty horrific right?

If the decision had been made differently, and the Taliban continued gaining support and troops, expanding, etc, there would be ridicule as well.
I said in a different thread a few days before the announcement that either way, there would be people complaining heavily. War and lack thereof are two matters that get ridicule constantly.


How about you Americans stop caring about your own media reputation and care about the lives of the people involved in this conflict. Maybye then world peace really could be achieved.

Simply because I'm not using euphemisms doesn't mean I'm treating them as animals.
Just as we were once unpredictable, they are too.


I never suggested the US was treating anyone like animals. I was suggesting how hypocritical they are. When it suits their agenda, the Taliban are freedom fighting heroes against the evil communist Ruskis. When it suits their agenda to be their enemy, they are evil terrorists.

They have good reason to hate the US.
That does not exclude the fact that they hate the US.


Hating the US is not grounds to invade. Most British people hate the US for dragging them into two costly wars they didn't need to enter in the first place. I guess you should probably invade the UK too. Oh, and don't forget all those who hate the US government living within your own borders. You should probably invade yourself just to be safe.

They've already attracted troops and supporters from almost the entirety of Afghanistan. That continues.


Celary demonstrating the will of the people is not with the US and their brand of democracy.

They have all the resources Afghanistan has


4th poorest nation in the world. Yep. All those resources they have are a real threat to the US.

they hate us,


So invade them right? Great idea that turned out to be.

they can find people with means to hurt us,


Not if you leave the country.

they can harbor and aid those people.


Those can be countered purely using intelligence services and minimal military intervention. An invasion is clearly not the answer.

Then people complain because we allowed something like that to happen.


Something like what to happen? People who hate the US living thousands of miles away in caves being pissed off and sending the occassional home movie. What a terrible outcome that would be.

and the few people knowing the more about the pluses and minuses than anyone else in the country made the decision/helped make the decision.


Yes, it's not like they had a vested interest in the outcome of that decision at all. After all, historically the US' advisors has always made the right decision when it comes to military matters.

I'm supporting the man I helped get elected until the downsides strongly outweigh the upsides or some horrible decision is made.


Afghanistan and Obama are not synonymous. You can support Obama without supporting Afghanistan, as I do. Also, can I just point out your profile says you are 16, which means you couldn't have voted in the 08 election.
joao99
offline
joao99
350 posts
Shepherd

Just get out of Afghanistan and Iraq thats not ur country...Im against this pointless wars.

Showing 76-90 of 163