Afghanistan's future in peril

[DJPePe]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

so, if the majority of the hi jackers are from Saudi Arabia, then why aren't in SA? The Saudi's are the problem here, wouldn't you say? Bin Laden is a Saud as well.

from NYT



iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, and afghani's had nothing to do with it.

J. Fees, the hijackers were trained in Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda had a lot of free reign under the rule of the Taliban.

So you're partially wrong about Afghanistan having nothing to do with the attacks. Going in Afghanistan was 100% justified and the Taliban needed to go, but we should have been a bit more harsh on the Saudis with their insistence on setting up madrassas that preach their garbage.

[J. Fees]

Originally Posted by DJPePe

J. Fees, the hijackers were trained in Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda had a lot of free reign under the rule of the Taliban.

So you're partially wrong about Afghanistan having nothing to do with the attacks. Going in Afghanistan was 100% justified and the Taliban needed to go, but we should have been a bit more harsh on the Saudis with their insistence on setting up madrassas that preach their garbage.

the taliban or any other regime that was in Afghanistan at that point most likely would have either let them train or not been able to stop them from training.

it seems most americans want to think of what we would and could do. But its not like that. Its like punishing some crack dealers family for the crack dealers doings. what can the people really do against armed rebel forces? And on top of that bin laden had enough money to let him train pretty much any 3rd world country.

[Nyteshade]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

so, if the majority of the hi jackers are from Saudi Arabia, then why aren't in SA? The Saudi's are the problem here, wouldn't you say? Bin Laden is a Saud as well.

from NYT



iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, and afghani's had nothing to do with it.

The country of origin has nothing to do with it. We went to Afghanistan because the Taliban government sheltered, trained, and provided funds for AQ. State sponsored terrorism is a de facto declaration of war.

Say a group of US citizens, with absolutely no knowledge of our government, pulled off a terrorist act in a foreign country. Would you advocate that country going to war with the US? The US had no knowledge or support of the act so why should we be held responsible? In the case of Afghanistan, the government KNEW about it and supported it. They damn sure had a lot to do with it.

What you're saying is no less wrong than blaming Iraq for it.

[Nyteshade]

Originally Posted by DJPePe

So you're partially wrong about Afghanistan having nothing to do with the attacks. Going in Afghanistan was 100% justified and the Taliban needed to go, but we should have been a bit more harsh on the Saudis with their insistence on setting up madrassas that preach their garbage.

Holy crap, I agree with you on something for once.

[J. Fees]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

The country of origin has nothing to do with it. We went to Afghanistan because the Taliban government sheltered, trained, and provided funds for AQ. State sponsored terrorism is a de facto declaration of war.

Say a group of US citizens, with absolutely no knowledge of our government, pulled off a terrorist act in a foreign country. Would you advocate that country going to war with the US? The US had no knowledge or support of the act so why should we be held responsible? In the case of Afghanistan, the government KNEW about it and supported it. They damn sure had a lot to do with it.

What you're saying is no less wrong than blaming Iraq for it.

so why havent we gone after other countries that shelter and condone terrorism?

[Nyteshade]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

so why havent we gone after other countries that shelter and condone terrorism?

You don't hear about them unless there's a body count to report. Why do you think there was almost no news from Afghanistan for a couple of years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theater...r_on_Terrorism

I know, lolWikipedia but I'm too lazy to dig up the few news articles there are in the other places right now. It will give you a brief overview if nothing else.

[J. Fees]

its not that i dont condone us fighting or even pre-emptive strikes, but it just seems like its an all or nothing situation, and we keep half assing things.

is it like that for reasons of diplomacy? probably yes

does it really ever help anything in the long run? not really

can we afford to continue this path? not at all.

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by Johnny Funk;3881324The same goes for other citizens. It doesnt make them crazy, evil, un-American, [B

commie traitors[/B]. It just means they don't agree.

I have never called anyone a commie unless they actually ARE a communist. i.e. Green Jobs Czar Van Jones... and Tricky.

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

so, if the majority of the hi jackers are from Saudi Arabia, then why aren't in SA? The Saudi's are the problem here, wouldn't you say? Bin Laden is a Saud as well.

from NYT



iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, and afghani's had nothing to do with it.

Ummm... you DO know why we went to war in Afghanistan correct? I'm now questioning your KnowLidgeez

Originally Posted by J. Fees

the taliban or any other regime that was in Afghanistan at that point most likely would have either let them train or not been able to stop them from training.

it seems most americans want to think of what we would and could do. But its not like that. Its like punishing some crack dealers family for the crack dealers doings. what can the people really do against armed rebel forces? And on top of that bin laden had enough money to let him train pretty much any 3rd world country.

Ok, so... the "Taliban" is now so ineffective as a fighting force that they would not be able to decide whether or not they allowed Al Qaeda to conduct operations and setup training camps in their country.

However, at the same time they are such an effective fighting force that they kicked the Russians out of their country after killing 50,000 ruskies... and you now believe that it is hopeless for us to continue conducting operations in this country because it is virtually impossible to win????????????

~I can only assume that you do NOT see the conflict between your points~

and this..... kind sir, is EXACTLY why I keep bringing up the fact that you guys pick up the talking points from the left-wing propaganda sites/papers/blogs/television shows.

You would be much more credible if you would just simply state "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY TYPE OF WAR... IN ANY TYPE OF SCENARIO... NO MATTER WHAT!"

Originally Posted by J. Fees

what can the people really do against armed rebel forces? And on top of that bin laden had enough money to let him train pretty much any 3rd world country.

I guess that you are unaware that Afghans are armed to the teeth like you wouldn't believe. Right? Please dude, watch a few "un-biased" documentaries about the place if you don't personally know anyone who has served there.

Any 3rd world country huh? Do you know where Al Qaeda was based before Afghanistan? Do you know where they are based now? If they could go anywhere why would they have left the Sudan?

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by FarangBa

Ok, so... the "Taliban" is now so ineffective as a fighting force that they would not be able to decide whether or not they allowed Al Qaeda to conduct operations and setup training camps in their country.

However, at the same time they are such an effective fighting force that they kicked the Russians out of their country after killing 50,000 ruskies... and you now believe that it is hopeless for us to continue conducting operations in this country because it is virtually impossible to win????????????

I didn't read the rest of the thread, but one thing that jumps right out at me in your response is that you're describing the Taliban as some monolithic force that singlehandedly defeated the Russians. What eventually became the Taliban only comprised a portion of the Mujahideen's fighting force. For example our allies, the Northern Alliance, were an integral part of the forces who eventually pushed Russia out of Afghanistan.

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

I didn't read the rest of the thread, but one thing that jumps right out at me in your response is that you're describing the Taliban as some monolithic force that singlehandedly defeated the Russians. What eventually became the Taliban only comprised a portion of the Mujahideen's fighting force. For example our allies, the Northern Alliance, were an integral part of the forces who eventually pushed Russia out of Afghanistan.

I'm fully aware of the Northern Alliance and Shah Ahmad Massoud. There's no need for you to cloud the issue. But if you insist, then tell me why OBL and Zawahiri left the Sudan and moved to Afghanistan?

Why do you think the training camps have moved from Afghanistan to Somalia?

~ and why the FUCK does all this matter? What all this boils down to is if you think that we should not be in Afghanistan and should NEVER have gone to Afghanistan after 9/11.. You are severely warped in the brain!!

It's quite simple really.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by FarangBa

But if you insist, then tell me why OBL and Zawahiri left the Sudan and moved to Afghanistan?

Cause the Sudan kicked them out.

Originally Posted by FarangBa

Why do you think the training camps have moved from Afghanistan to Somalia?

Because we kicked them out.

OBL has a nasty habit of getting kicked the fuck out of any country he decides to set up shop in.

Originally Posted by FarangBa

~ and why the FUCK does all this matter? What all this boils down to is if you think that we should not be in Afghanistan and should NEVER have gone to Afghanistan after 9/11.. You are severely warped in the brain!!

It's quite simple really.

It doesn't matter, like I said, I didn't read the rest of the thread. We absolutely should be in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better way to wage war there. I don't think a surge like you saw in Iraq will work very well in Afghanistan. I think the strategy that focused on special forces integrating into day-to-day life was the right way to go. Just because we have a bad month and it looks bad in the papers doesn't mean it time to go drastically changing the strategy there.

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

so why havent we gone after other countries that shelter and condone terrorism?

Simple really... we can only go to so many places at one time. We started with Afghanistan, because they already attacked us first.. 3x's in case you've forgotten.

Originally Posted by J. Fees

its not that i dont condone us fighting or even pre-emptive strikes, but it just seems like its an all or nothing situation, and we keep half assing things.

is it like that for reasons of diplomacy? probably yes

does it really ever help anything in the long run? not really

can we afford to continue this path? not at all.

Well.. Jeez Fees.. That is probably the most impressive thing I have ever read from you.

-Yes, we keep half=assing shit. Four Words- Political Correctness Run Amuck (The Progressives have been so successful at mind fucking the entire U.S. Population over the past 30 years that no matter WHAT we do WE are ALWAYS the bad guy). We kill 300 terrorists and 1 person gets killed in the crossfire and the USA is at it with their imperialistic, murdering Army.

-Yes, it helps in the long run. Why? because the terrorists are now actively fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq because it's easier for them. Would you rather my squad hole up in your house and have continual firefights, bombs, death and destruction?

-Can we afford to continue on this path? Do you mean money? Well would you rather keep the terrorists from attacking us (possibly killing YOU or your family this time) or would you rather pay for healthcare?

[DJPePe]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

so why havent we gone after other countries that shelter and condone terrorism?

I agree there are double standards when it comes to that. Even we are guilty of it. Hell, go to Miami and the Cuban community still venerates a man who was responsible for blowing up a Cuban airliner back in the 70's and was responsible for bombing tourist spots in Havana in 1997.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

the taliban or any other regime that was in Afghanistan at that point most likely would have either let them train or not been able to stop them from training.

it seems most americans want to think of what we would and could do. But its not like that. Its like punishing some crack dealers family for the crack dealers doings. what can the people really do against armed rebel forces? And on top of that bin laden had enough money to let him train pretty much any 3rd world country.

No, its more like driving the crack dealers out but not being too sure which were crack dealers and which were citizens. Also, having citizens complicate things by telling the cops that the dude fucking their old lady was a crack dealer... when he wasn't. And having rival crack dealers call each other out making etc etc.

We cleaned the swamp (temporarily) but it wasn't a very precise job... the guys living in the swamp know their turf and we don't.

Originally Posted by J. Fees

so why havent we gone after other countries that shelter and condone terrorism?

we have... we have been active in the Philipines, Somalia, Pakistan etc. The fact is that we have limited resources and limited information. We cannot act on every tip we receive. Also, some tips, be they golden, we'd not be able to act on. If OBL showed up tomorrow in Moscow at the Kremlin there's not much we could do if Putin told us to fuck off when we asked for OBLs head. Extreme example of course but the concept still has application.