• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

USA Afganistan

 
 
 
Because shareholders have rights and stopping an endless war will negatively impact quarterly profit margins for weapons manufacturing and mercenary corporations.
 
Pakistan considers Afghanistan to be in their sphere of influence, and there are many Islamists in positions of power there. The Taliban is supported by Pakistan.

Thanks to India's non-alignment during the Cold War, and Richard Nixon, Pakistan is a US ally.

Something similar to Russian and Ukraine, except we're allied with both the Russia part and the Ukraine part.
 
none said:
he did?
Click to expand...
Seems the perfect solution for Trump.
A friend of his gets taxpayer money, (or a friend of a friend), he can recall the troops so America stops being 'at war,' we maintain a shooting presence in the area so we didn't 'abandon' the country, people stop yelling at him for any troop death or troop commitment or pissing on families of fallen servicemen... Seems perfect! Until Al Qaeda outbids us...
 
As noted political philosopher Eddie Izzard once asked:

"Do you have a flag?"

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k[/YOUTUBE]

And it is funny, but cuts to the heart of the problem. We (meaning the "civilized" countries) have decided that Afghanistan needs to be a cohesive country with a national government and a flag, and for the last - fill in the blank period of history here - we've been trying to impose this model upon them with pretty much fuck-all consideration of what the Afghans actually want.

I mean, how many citizens of what we call Afghanistan actually know or care that they're "Afghans?" How many of them give a shit what the central government in Kabul wants? My guess is that the last several decades of civil war indicates the answer is none, and given their druthers much of the country would be just as happy being led by their local tribal leaders.

The whole concept of "Afghanistan" is a country imposed on these people and it seems very much like they're having none of it and have held this view for generations. Why are we there is a great question, but the better question is why are we there when they don't want us there?
 
none said:
yeah, I still don't know
Click to expand...

We are still there because neither Pres. Obama nor El Cheato want to be the president that oversaw the official failure of years upon years of occupation on their watch. Pres. Obama had the added concern about Repugs labeling him a weak libral wimp if he had bugged out. Secondarily, presidents are concerned about being blamed for future terror attacks from people sourced from Afghanistan. Thirdly, presidents know if we walk away the current parasitic ‘government’ would probably collapse within 2-3 years, providing Iran and Russia with more influence. We are also there still because the body count is low, so Americans generally don’t give a fuck. We are there because we can afford to flush $50-60 billion into the swamp each year. We are there because it is profitable to the military-complex. In the end, we are there because the current slow churn and burn is the political path of least resistance…
 
The problem is there is no real goal so there's no way to know if we achieved the goal. Plus the very nature of Afghanistan itself, where Ghengis Khan was the last one to actually successfully conquer that pit.

There is a way the US can win in Afghanistan, but the US is still too civilized to do it. Thank the gods we are still too civilized to do it.
 
Ford said:
As noted political philosopher Eddie Izzard once asked:

"Do you have a flag?"


And it is funny, but cuts to the heart of the problem. We (meaning the "civilized" countries) have decided that Afghanistan needs to be a cohesive country with a national government and a flag, and for the last - fill in the blank period of history here - we've been trying to impose this model upon them with pretty much fuck-all consideration of what the Afghans actually want.

I mean, how many citizens of what we call Afghanistan actually know or care that they're "Afghans?" How many of them give a shit what the central government in Kabul wants? My guess is that the last several decades of civil war indicates the answer is none, and given their druthers much of the country would be just as happy being led by their local tribal leaders.

The whole concept of "Afghanistan" is a country imposed on these people and it seems very much like they're having none of it and have held this view for generations. Why are we there is a great question, but the better question is why are we there when they don't want us there?
Click to expand...

I think it's a common problem for large parts of the world, middle east, Pakistan/India partition. But "Afghanistan" does seem unnatural.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
The problem is there is no real goal so there's no way to know if we achieved the goal. Plus the very nature of Afghanistan itself, where Ghengis Khan was the last one to actually successfully conquer that pit.

There is a way the US can win in Afghanistan, but the US is still too civilized to do it. Thank the gods we are still too civilized to do it.
Click to expand...

Sure there's a goal: a state which can and will prevent terrorist bases from being established there.

But with Pakistan backing the Taliban, it can't happen.
 
Derec said:
Ford said:
what the Afghans actually want.
Click to expand...
Given what's been happening for the last few years, what most Afghans actually want is to move to either Sweden, Germany or Austria, live high on the hog on welfare, have 10+ children, molest European women, and impose Islam onto Europe.
Couple in Austria request IVF to help conceive tenth child
Austria police investigate Afghans over New Year's sexual assaults
Afghans accused of raping, broadcasting assault of Swedish woman
Click to expand...

In the UK any 3rd and subsequent children born after 06 April 2017 will not entitle parents for child benefit. We are also 2 million houses short much of this government and even more acutely so for large families. We are short of doctors (takes up to 3 weeks to see one) short of hospital beds, schools, nurses, doctors and midwifes. We have always had immigration but never at recent levels which were well over 600,000 pa less those who leave the UK.

The UK is overcrowded and we are receiving a net amount of people each year to fill a small city (over 3,00,000 after migration).
 
Last edited:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
The problem is there is no real goal so there's no way to know if we achieved the goal. Plus the very nature of Afghanistan itself, where Ghengis Khan was the last one to actually successfully conquer that pit.

There is a way the US can win in Afghanistan, but the US is still too civilized to do it. Thank the gods we are still too civilized to do it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This has always been the two options facing the US in Afghanistan: eternal war or pulling out and conceding to the Taliban. It amazes me that anyone believes any US-backed government will ever have legitimacy in Afghanistan.
 
Horatio Parker said:
Sure there's a goal: a state which can and will prevent terrorist bases from being established there.
Click to expand...

This is a completely unrealistic goal, though. Afghanistan currently hosts many terrorist bases, and probably will continue to do so.

Unless the US is willing to go old-school and kill all the people over the age of 2, there is no solution. No government will ever have legitimacy being backed by the US in Afghanistan. Hell, we have never been able to control more than a small area around Kabul - the rest has been controlled by various warlords.

The ironic thing is that this was Osama Bin Laden's plan all along: provoke the US to bring its military might to bear in a region where they can bleed us out slowly. We only accelerated that by invading Iraq (a real gift to Bin Laden). The Taliban are thinking in terms of generations. They don't care about dying either. They welcome death. And here we stand, unable to learn that cutting off a head form the Hydra just makes it stronger. So unless we are willing to burn the whole thing down, we might as well just be cutting ourselves.
 
J842P said:
Horatio Parker said:
Sure there's a goal: a state which can and will prevent terrorist bases from being established there.
Click to expand...

This is a completely unrealistic goal, though. Afghanistan currently hosts many terrorist bases, and probably will continue to do so.

Unless the US is willing to go old-school and kill all the people over the age of 2, there is no solution. No government will ever have legitimacy being backed by the US in Afghanistan. Hell, we have never been able to control more than a small area around Kabul - the rest has been controlled by various warlords.

The ironic thing is that this was Osama Bin Laden's plan all along: provoke the US to bring its military might to bear in a region where they can bleed us out slowly. We only accelerated that by invading Iraq (a real gift to Bin Laden).
Click to expand...

The question is why are there so many bases and the answer, fundamentally, is Pakistan. If Pakistans interests were the same as ours, we wouldn't need to be there.

I agree under the circumstances the goal is unrealistic but at the same time unfettered control of the country by terrorists is denied. And unfettered control is what lead to 911. We learned from that that allowing terrorists a state is a bad idea.

I disagree on OBL's strategy. He wanted, through his attacks, to make our support of Saudi Arabia problematic. Then the caliphate could be established. His focus all along was bringing down the House of Saud and liberating the Land of the Two Mosques. A Soviet-style bog-down in Afghanistan was a tactic, not a strategy. Kinda backfired.

It's easy to see how first Obama now Trump get roped into continuing, the only alternative is to leave and hope that somehow nothing bad happens. I read critiques from both the right and the left that the "blob" or the NSC or the Defense Establishment tail is wagging the dog, but I don't see any good ideas.
 
J842P said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
The problem is there is no real goal so there's no way to know if we achieved the goal. Plus the very nature of Afghanistan itself, where Ghengis Khan was the last one to actually successfully conquer that pit.

There is a way the US can win in Afghanistan, but the US is still too civilized to do it. Thank the gods we are still too civilized to do it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This has always been the two options facing the US in Afghanistan: eternal war or pulling out and conceding to the Taliban. It amazes me that anyone believes any US-backed government will ever have legitimacy in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

The choice for Afghanis is US backed or Pakistani backed. That's not as simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom