AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Troops in Afghanistan

163 31516
Indiagamerz
offline
Indiagamerz
77 posts
Nomad

Should we send more troops into Afghanistan?

  • 163 Replies
German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

They have had a choice. Between the [quote]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?

I'm pretty sure that I've specified that it doesn't have to be our exact government. Iraq didn't steal our constitution, did it?
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.

Fine, I'll be specific. There was almost no focus in the previous administration towards Afghanistan. Why that was, ask them, but this administration has focus on it. If the previous administration had focus on it, the public would have had focus on it. Simple.
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.

I've very rarely heard the word terrorist when officials have spoken of the Taliban, if at all.
4th poorest nation in the world. Yep. All those resources they have are a real threat to the US.

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

We've discussed how hard it is to find the Taliban living in caves using the resources we currently have, earlier in this thread, and about how it's hard to identify them.
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.

Those people then helping real terrorists with means to attack the US.
I'm saying that it's unpredictable what the Taliban would do if they ruled all of Afghanistan and part of/all of Pakistan.
So invade them right? Great idea that turned out to be.

Once again:
Kind of too late for complaints about invasion. We did it, now they'll be against us.
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.

The invasion of Afghanistan has two outcomes:
We have decent/good allies later on.
We have horrible political standing with them for decades.
There's nothing else that can come out of it, there's nothing else that can influence the decision. Unlike all other wars we've gone into, there's no possible monetary benefit.
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.

I support him, therefore I support his decisions until his decisions turn out to be horrible.
I was on the fence, this made me decide that he thinks this is best for the country.
I helped recruit people for Obama.
balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Peasant

Mad Quoting Skills.

I still have a cold... *coughNobamacough*

Man I really need to take something for that. Maybe a good glass of propaganda would help.

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

I'm pretty sure that I've specified that it doesn't have to be our exact government. Iraq didn't steal our constitution, did it?


And I'm pretty sure I've specified that it's not your exact government I was referring to, but democracy. That'd be like saying there's a massive difference between imposing, Iranian Islamic fundamentalism here in the UK or Afghan Islamic fundamentalism. Either way it wouldn't and shouldn't work.

Fine, I'll be specific. There was almost no focus in the previous administration towards Afghanistan. Why that was, ask them, but this administration has focus on it. If the previous administration had focus on it, the public would have had focus on it. Simple.


You're missing the point. If the US really is an arbiter for human rights, why didn't they intervene in Afghanistan decades ago> Indeed why haven't they intervened in a number of countries which do not operate under liberal democracies? The answer is because they only do so when it fits their strategic interests, and they use 'state building' as a pretence for that. And that is not a valid reason to go to war.

I've very rarely heard the word terrorist when officials have spoken of the Taliban, if at all.


I have, on numerous occassions. All the bombs that go off in civilian areas in Afghanistan are attributed to terrorists with links to the Taliban.

We've discussed how hard it is to find the Taliban living in caves using the resources we currently have, earlier in this thread, and about how it's hard to identify them.


Just because it's hard to defeat the Tliban in open warfare doesn't mean they'd actually be able to perpetrate an attack on America itse;f, which is what you are afraid of.

Those people then helping real terrorists with means to attack the US.
I'm saying that it's unpredictable what the Taliban would do if they ruled all of Afghanistan and part of/all of Pakistan.


Unpredictable? It's been happening for the past 20 years, and they haven't tried to attack the US. You are also cleary overestimating their strengths. Guerilla warfare is only effective when employed defensively. It's almost useless offensively.

Kind of too late for complaints about invasion. We did it, now they'll be against us.


If you acknowledge this, how can you justify going to war in the first place? Also, they won't be against you if you leave. With a new president, it's your chance to say 'hey GWB screwed up, we'll just be getting out of your hair'.

We have decent/good allies later on.


So you invaded to get powerful allies? Perhaps if you gave more aid after the Russians left as you promised this wouldn't be necessary?

We have horrible political standing with them for decades.


You have a horrible political standing with Vietnam. How has that really affected you?

Unlike all other wars we've gone into, there's no possible monetary benefit.


Having over 30k troops in the Middle East. Gee, I wonder how that could help the US' plans to control the area.

I was on the fence, this made me decide that he thinks this is best for the country.


Seeing as it was in his election manifesto to withdraw, doesn't that show you he thinks otherwise?

I helped recruit people for Obama.


Fair enough.
Flipski
offline
Flipski
623 posts
Nomad

All of you guys are whining about things that you are completely misguided about. What are you calling an invasion? No one is invading anyone. Do you realize the whole purpose of sending 300,000 troops to Afghanistan after the Holidays? The whole reasoning to it is that we spent long enough in the Middle East and it's time to get the ef out. In order to do so, we need to prepare the Afghanis to protect the form of government they have now. The whole reason is to help train the military and police in the Afghani regions, and to weaken the opposing forces so that the government has a fighting chance when we leave.

I don't know what either of you are complaining about. We are already in Afghanistan. We want to get out of Afghanistan. To just simply leave would be a completely rude, and careless thing to do. Yes it was wrong for us to play "World Police" and to abuse our power and invade a country because they had someone we didn't like withing their borders. If other countries did this, we would be completely astounded. I completely disagree with this. But since we are already there, and Obama has the job of cleaning up our mess. The bet plan of action is to clean up, make sure everything is all good, and leave as soon as possible.

I don't see a better plan of action that is more diplomatically, and economically sound.

Thomas1st2
offline
Thomas1st2
1,943 posts
Peasant

More troops is eqivealent More Deaths is not The troops need to be sent after the holidays now that Obama (You americans) president sending 30,000 over we will have about same amount of troops in afghanistan as the Pakistans I hope to be sent there or fight a war one day

German3945
offline
German3945
996 posts
Nomad

Indeed why haven't they intervened in a number of countries which do not operate under liberal democracies?

I apologize for us not having enough resources to invade the rest of the world.
Having over 30k troops in the Middle East. Gee, I wonder how that could help the US' plans to control the area.

You just said Afghanistan has no resources.
You are also cleary overestimating their strengths.

So in battle you would rather underestimate your enemy's strengths, when your enemy is currently growing in strength?
I have, on numerous occassions. All the bombs that go off in civilian areas in Afghanistan are attributed to terrorists with links to the Taliban.

Terrorists with links to the Taliban. IE, terrorists being aided by the radical Taliban.

@Flipski
Thank you for saying that better than I tried to.
numbauno
offline
numbauno
21 posts
Nomad

Obama and all the other 1st world country leaders should just do a proper invasion, kill the terrorists and then just GTFO. This pussy **** of 'keeping the peace' never works.

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

First, German3945:

I apologize for us not having enough resources to invade the rest of the world.


No, you could invade more countries if you wanted to, even without invoking conscription. The amount of money you put into your defence budget is insanely large. If you spent less of it on high end weaponry and more on boots and bayonets, you could occupy a lot more countries.

You just said Afghanistan has no resources.


Having troops in the region gives the US leverage in other Middle Eastern countries. It's really quite obvious what I meant.

So in battle you would rather underestimate your enemy's strengths, when your enemy is currently growing in strength?


Their strengths are relative. They are guerilla fighters. Their strength is defencive warfare, not offensive.

Terrorists with links to the Taliban. IE, terrorists being aided by the radical Taliban.


No they are Taliban members. Much like the Viet Cong. Irregular troops, but still communist North Vietnamese.

Now Flipski:

What are you calling an invasion?


Operation Telic and the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

No one is invading anyone.


''The stated aim of the invasion''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

When US troops are sent to another country with the intent of overthrowing the government, that's classified as an invasion.

Do you realize the whole purpose of sending 300,000 troops to Afghanistan after the Holidays?


There's an inherent contradiction in sending more troops to Afghanistan in order to leave.

In order to do so, we need to prepare the Afghanis to protect the form of government they have now.


(1) The Afghan government is a sham. It is on ethe Afghan people did not want, and as a result is not functioning properly. Whatever 'government' you instill, it's still regional warlords who hold the power in that country.

(2) The majority of the US troops being sent to Afghanistan are not bveing sent there to train the ANA and army. McCrhystal's strategy places very little emphasis upon infrastructure and training new recruits. Most of the troops will be sent to thicken the lines of defence which are already in place.

I don't know what either of you are complaining about.


I am complaining about the fact that the US used 911 as a pretence to benefit strategically by invading a Middle Eastern country in order to gain leverage in the region, by creating another pro US state.

We are already in Afghanistan. We want to get out of Afghanistan. To just simply leave would be a completely rude, and careless thing to do.


The bet plan of action is to clean up, make sure everything is all good, and leave as soon as possible.


I don't see a better plan of action that is more diplomatically, and economically sound.


You don't need to have thousands of troops in the region to stabilise it, as I am about to explain.

The US invaded because of 911, with the intention of defeating Al Qaeda. Sincce they were there, they have completely shifted the focus to the Taliban. - a costly mistake.

What is necessary now is far less reliance on the military and far more on the intelligence services. The focus should be completely on Al Qaeda and economic development of the country, mainly in the North where it's stable enough to do so. If the US did these things, there wouldn't be any need for more soldiers and deaths, on either side. The Taliban would not instantly take control of the countrybecause they wouldn't have the public support, as they did in the 90s.

Diplomatically speaking, the US would actually have a legitimate reason to invade - Al Qaeda, which the people at home would be able to understand, and so there would be more support for efforts there. Other countries, those in the Middle East included, would not be able to say the US are imperialists, if they draw down the military and actually put proper funding into the country which they haven't been doing.

Economically, this is much cheaper than deploying thousands of soldiers, with all the cost that goes along with that. All the schools in Afghanistan could be repaired for a little over $10m. This is peanuts, yet has the US even put anything into schooling bearing in mind 40% of the population are 14 or under? Of course not, they spend it instead on high tech jet aircraft like the Raptor which are rendered almost useless in this theatre.
Thomas1st2
offline
Thomas1st2
1,943 posts
Peasant

Obama and all the other 1st world country leaders should just do a proper invasion, kill the terrorists and then just GTFO. This ***** **** of 'keeping the peace' never works


That would be to risky, because the Taliban could somehow get out and attack a country due to most troops being there so the 1st world leaders know what there doing in a attack and defencive form 911 could happen again anywhere you know

The US invaded because of 911, with the intention of defeating Al Qaeda. Sincce they were there, they have completely shifted the focus to the Taliban. - a costly mistake.


Not relly the US wanted to actully find and capture Bin Ladin due to him being the cause of 911 to try and esure that he would'nt do it again. They took it to his homeland and are still trying to capture him. The reason of the war 1. Bin Ladin to capture
2. To trap him in his Motherland so he has no where to run he can only hide and it will be a matter of time until we find him
3. Afganistan+Iraq have started or are trying to build Nuclear Bombs to hit Britan+America and maybe Italy. The therey belives that there will be a WW3 in 2012 over this.

And the reason we cannont put a Nuke on them is because propley the after blast would hit somewhere like russia or somewhere close by

If Russia is far away don't qoute I don't have a globe :P
Flipski
offline
Flipski
623 posts
Nomad

@FireflyIV

Those are all really good points. I completely agree with you that there have been huge mistakes made. American people seem to have this fear of anything that isn't called "Liberal Democracy". If you showed them their own government and told them it was something else, they would instantly start talking about going in to "fix" it. There is some serious brain washing going on in this country. And so many fail to see it. It's the same way that people are raised by their parents who always did something, and then they go out into the real world and no matter how hard you try to convince them of it, they will never see that what they are doing is weird or wrong. It's just human nature, but it's unfortunate.

I never agreed with anything that Bush did. And it's too late to complain about it now, all we can do is try to fix the situation. I'm sure Obama didn't want to annihilate their form of government, but it was done. It would look stupid, and wouldn't work if we tried to put back what was their before. So the strategy is to strengthen what we have now. I know this won't last very long. You are right, their culture and strong religious ties to government will conflict with western democracy. The best thing really would be to work on their actual way of life, which would greatly affect public opinion of the United States, vs. a military approach. Very good points.

balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Peasant

Ya we need to improve their way of life so they can get ulcers from stress just like us. I see industrialization as a horrid thing which has placed far too much emphasis on mass production all to get a buck. When money doesn't matter life is much less complicated.

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

I never agreed with anything that Bush did.


In principle I don't think what Bush did was necessarily wrong. I initially supported the war in Afghanistan on the basis that it was to fight Al Qaeda. I maintain that was a legitimate reason for being going into the country in 2001. However, Bush turned the war on Al Qaeda into a war against the Taliban in order to create a pro US state for strategic purposes, claiming it was to spread democracy.

This is, of course, a terrible reason for going to war, however it's also eye wateringly hypocritical of the US. They go into Afghanistan to supposedly protect democracy, yet also strongly support and fund Saudi Arabia for their oil, when in fact it is one of the least democratic and most oppressive states on the globe.

And it's too late to complain about it now, all we can do is try to fix the situation.


Oh I agree with you. I just don't agree with the decision Obama has made. Although to be fair to him, this is politics. He's already pissed off enough right wingers in the US about health care. If he oulled out of Afghanistan, no doubt it would be another severe blow to his support in Congress and the Senate. Even with this in mind though, when it comes to war, and putting people's lives on the line, you have to be 100% sure that what you are fighting for is just and that you are doing it for the right reasons. Politics I'm afraid is not something your average soldier on the front line cares about, Afghan or US/UK.

American people seem to have this fear of anything that isn't called "Liberal Democracy".


I actually have far more faith in the American people than it would seem from my posts. Just to clarify, I'm not anti US, I'm anti the US government.

Here in the UK many do hate Americans because of Iraq and Afghanistan, because the vast majority of the populus were against the war, and Blair, being Bush's poodle joined in anyway. However this hate is misdirected. Most of the Americans I have spoken to on the matter are just as dissillusioned as us Brits. It's just that when you watch the news here in the UK, all you see is the more vocal right wingers, and not enough of the sensible American people.
Flipski
offline
Flipski
623 posts
Nomad

I initially supported the war in Afghanistan on the basis that it was to fight Al Qaeda.


Well no one disagreed with that. Everyone was frantically trying to find someone to get back at. I was talking about the choices he made after we were already in the war.

however it's also eye wateringly hypocritical of the US.


If History has shown anything, it's that the US does as it likes whether or not they have spoken otherwise in the past.

I'm anti the US government


Americans I have spoken to on the matter are just as disillusioned as us Brits


It's a really weird situation. It depends on who you talk to. At the University I go to, most are fairly disappointed by the government. But I would still say that there is about half of the population that thinks the United States is doing fine. And that we should just keep doing things the way we have been... I guess I might be biased, because to be conservative at anytime seems like a waste of time to me. Why sit around and weight for death, when we could be constantly improving our world. It depends. There are rational Americans who want changes, and there are those that are upset that we are "trying to ruin America". It's pretty depressing to me that there are people like this. And I do believe that there is a huge chunk of population that has been brainwashed by Uncle Sam. As in they grow up being told that America is # 1, and that we are so incredibly amazing and other countries that attack us are simply jealous of our freedoms and want to take them away from us. I don't know, tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the military folk of some other countries such as the UK are more rational. Many Americans are brainwashed with these things, and when an opportunity for improvement comes along they don't understand why we would want to ruin our country. There's always room for improvement. They would quickly go out to fight and die for their perfect country. I can't complain too much, because I believe this is a reason why we have such military strength. Because some of our states basically breed mindless, dedicated warriors. I live in California, so much of the state is like a different United States. Don't get me wrong I like this country in general, there are just some things that irritate me and some people that just depress me, but it's the same way anywhere I would go. Every country has its extremes.
balerion07
offline
balerion07
2,837 posts
Peasant

Don't take this the wrong way, but I am going to be frank. Many of the people who love the government are the ones that are on welfare. I am not talking about the ones that truly need help, but those that exploit it.

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Well no one disagreed with that. Everyone was frantically trying to find someone to get back at. I was talking about the choices he made after we were already in the war.


Oh, of course. That's something I agree on.

If History has shown anything, it's that the US does as it likes whether or not they have spoken otherwise in the past.


True, although that doesn't make it excusable. I thought Obama getting elected would have helped to stop this kind of thing. Evidently mass re-educatrion of the American people seems to be the only way that could ever happen.

It's a really weird situation. It depends on who you talk to. At the University I go to, most are fairly disappointed by the government. But I would still say that there is about half of the population that thinks the United States is doing fine.


I suppose that shows which kind of Americans I seem to come into contact with.

I don't know, tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the military folk of some other countries such as the UK are more rational.


It depends. Certainly British people are generally less deferential towards their politicians, and there isn't the synthesis between being patriotic and supporting the current government that there seems to be in America. If you didn't support Bush you were accused of being 'un-American'. What the hell's up with that? That's the kind of rhetoric the Nazis used.

Anyway, I digress. I believe there are many in the military, including myself, who feel that the war in Afghanistan is unjust. However, we are also realists. If Britain wants to retain it's seat at the world power table, we have to play nice with America. If that means going to war with them in the Middle East every few years, then we don't really have much choice in the matter.

There's also less of an attitude of general patriotism in the UK. I certainly didn't join the armed forces for patriotic reasons. Most I know did so because they wanted a chellenging, exciting job, or because there was no other work available where they lived.

Many of the people who love the government are the ones that are on welfare


I disagree. The people I'm referring to have severe welafreophobia.

I love those naive irritable cranks, they're so cute when they're angry. Seriously, I love it. I imagine them listening to Michael Savage, calling everywhere other than the US a craphole, Alex Jones telling them everyone else is out to kill them for fun and Glenn Beck assembling the next Protocols for the Elders of Zion (only this time it's communazi atheist muslims, armed with healthcare and not hesistating one second to use it) all day, and then popping a vein if they so much as think one of their favourites might have been made fun of. I mean, that's clearly innapropriate and uncalled for. Aren't they adorable with their double standards so big they could have carbed whole political movements out of it?

Every country has its extremes.


Indeed. Before I make it seems like I'm making it out that the US is the only country that has idiots, we have the BNP. A racialist Nazi-esque party, who'd probably have me deported if they got into power. So yea, idiots all over.

Also, yay for political profiling!
Showing 91-105 of 163