• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Afghan "train, advise and assist" 1984 style

Yeah, it is sports, but it is still... well sports. Afghanistan are pretty good at cricket, despite the Taliban not considering allowing it until 2000. The *looks to make certain bilby isn't looking* T-20 World Cup is coming up in Dubai (assuming Delta hasn't fucked that up too) and questions are abuzz about whether the Cricket team will be allowed to exist, forget about playing in the global event. The top player for the squad Rashid Khan is actually abroad playing the Hundreds tournament in the UK, and he is concerned about his family for obvious reasons.

The Taliban could use Cricket to try and gain a bit of favor, but the Taliban rarely cares what anyone else thinks, so who knows.

I mean yeah, bigger issues at hand in Afghanistan, but it is another angle.
 
I can still hear Dubya telling everyone how opposed he was to "nation building." I wish he'd kept to that. In hindsight we should have taken out Bin Laden and then got the fuck out of there.
George W Bush said:
Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

George W. Bush 3/13/02 said:
Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
link
 
Ah, Tom, most agree this Afghanistan misadventure must end.
I was one of those prescient people who, back in 2001, didn't want it to start. I've wanted it over ever since.

Call me hardcore Prolifer if you must. Too bad the USA is not a Prolifer culture. Lots of people like to bitch about abortion, but when push comes to shove Americans are Prodeath by and large.

But we’d like it done competently. Putin chose Biden to be president to ensure that didn’t happen.

I can't believe you really think that Putin helped Biden win the White House. Maybe you do. There are people who believe that Creation is 6000 years old, anything could be possible.
Tom
 
Acyn on Twitter: "Ingraham: Is it really our responsibility to welcome thousands of refugees from Afghanistan? (link)" / Twitter
Then
Congresswoman Marie Newman on Twitter: "Yes." / Twitter


Michael McFaul on Twitter: "I find it implausible that 300,000 Afghan soldiers spontaneously and individually quit. I find it more plausible that they received such orders from their leaders who cut a deal with the Taliban. I look forward to reading more reporting to confirm/refute this hypothesis." / Twitter


Afghan women, journalists, translators seek help from US groups
Over the last 24 hours, Afghan women, journalists, human rights advocates and former translators for the U.S. military have flooded U.S.-based refugee groups with desperate messages seeking a way out of their country now that the Taliban have taken control.

“They’re really sitting ducks,” said Gayatri Patel, the vice president for external relations at the Women’s Refugee Commission.

Patel and other advocates have been working feverishly to assemble a “master list” of potential evacuees, even as they watch in horror at the chaos unfolding at the Kabul airport, where panicked Afghans have rushed the tarmac and tried to grab ahold of departing planes.
 
Yeah, it is sports, but it is still... well sports. Afghanistan are pretty good at cricket, despite the Taliban not considering allowing it until 2000. The *looks to make certain bilby isn't looking* T-20 World Cup is coming up in Dubai (assuming Delta hasn't fucked that up too) and questions are abuzz about whether the Cricket team will be allowed to exist, forget about playing in the global event. The top player for the squad Rashid Khan is actually abroad playing the Hundreds tournament in the UK, and he is concerned about his family for obvious reasons.

The Taliban could use Cricket to try and gain a bit of favor, but the Taliban rarely cares what anyone else thinks, so who knows.

I mean yeah, bigger issues at hand in Afghanistan, but it is another angle.

The Taliban appear to be opposed to anything that is associated with civilisation, so I am not surprised that they oppose the playing of cricket.

T-20, on the other hand, would seem to be right up their street...
 
IIRC the last foreigner to conquer Afghanistan was Genghis Khan in the 13-14th Century.

Though I shudder to think how much of the population he killed to do it.
 
That may be true and all but it doesn't say anything about why Osama bin Laden developed a hatred for the father that gave him his "first gun" and allowance.

Really?
You're unaware of USA support of the Afghan mujahadeen?
As long as it suited "us".

You're such an American.
Tom

You're the one failing to recall the history correctly.

We aided the mujahadeen in kicking the Russians out. Bin Laden was a very small part of that force. After the Russians were gone the rest of them settled down to running their country, but Bin Laden wasn't ready to lay down arms, instead he went after the rest of them--basically a civil war. We did not fund that--it probably was Pakistan behind it.
 
If you kill your enemies, they die.
The problem with US involvement in Afghanistan over the last 20 years was that it was too half-assed and not aggressive enough in fighting the enemy.

The average IQ in Afghanistan is 84. It is very tribal. Most are illiterate. Corruption is wide spread. Mix in US government incompetence, grift, and a steadfast refusal to acknowledge/fix institutional problems. No amount of military aggressiveness could have made this work.

No.

The average IQ of every group is the same. Human traits and abilities arise just as randomly in all groups.

If we are talking about mental abilities then all large groups are the same.

If we talk about a crude biased human test then exposure to ideas and modes of thought contained within the test and motivation to take the test determines outcomes.

No. There are multiple problems with this:

1) IQ as measured is a combination of innate mental ability and how it's developed. Situations like Afghanistan will stunt the development of what people were born with, you would expect a lower measured IQ.

2) There are also physical issues. Nutrition isn't good in such places and malnutrition in childhood leads to reduced IQ as an adult. Disease can also stunt development.

3) Selection bias. People who migrate to new areas are on average more intelligent than those who stay behind. (They are people who are willing to trust that they can make it in a new area without the connections they had where they are moving from.) Any area that people have been getting out of for some time will thus have a lower IQ--and this is to some degree heritable, the damage persists for generations. If the leavers breed mostly within their own group you will also see a rise in IQ. (Observation: Ashkenazi Jews. If you're a persecuted group having the brains to know when to bug out is an evolutionary advantage.)

As for all large groups being the same IQ, a simple counterexample: Compare Ivy League graduates with those with life sentences.
 
I never thought I'd say this, but I actually approve of something the Biden administration has done.

I was certain they'd find an excuse to stay. I thought delaying the departure from May 1st to September 11th was a way to try to provoke the Taliban into attacking, and thus say "we are being attacked we have to stay to defeat them."

The Biden administration bungled every step of the pull out, but in the end they did actually pull out of Afghanistan.

They actually pulled out.

Well, I was wrong, but in this case I'm happy that I'm wrong.
 
That may be true and all but it doesn't say anything about why Osama bin Laden developed a hatred for the father that gave him his "first gun" and allowance.

Really?
You're unaware of USA support of the Afghan mujahadeen?
As long as it suited "us".

You're such an American.
Tom

You're the one failing to recall the history correctly.

We aided the mujahadeen in kicking the Russians out. Bin Laden was a very small part of that force. After the Russians were gone the rest of them settled down to running their country, but Bin Laden wasn't ready to lay down arms, instead he went after the rest of them--basically a civil war. We did not fund that--it probably was Pakistan behind it.
You aided wrong people.
 
The problem with US involvement in Afghanistan over the last 20 years was that it was too half-assed and not aggressive enough in fighting the enemy.

Do you know how aggressive the US would have to be in order to "win" in Afghanistan? I'll give you a hint - Genghis Khan was the only conqueror to ever succeed there. He did it by killing everybody.

Here's a way we could "win" in Afghanistan. Order the general in charge to rename himself "Grant" or "Sherman" and tell him that the Afghans are actually Sioux.

Here's another way. Kill every male over the age of 15 and every female over the age of 30. Then empty our prisons and give them Afghan women as wives.

I'm glad we weren't aggressive enough to "win" there.
 
The problem with US involvement in Afghanistan over the last 20 years was that it was too half-assed and not aggressive enough in fighting the enemy.

Do you know how aggressive the US would have to be in order to "win" in Afghanistan? I'll give you a hint - Genghis Khan was the only conqueror to ever succeed there. He did it by killing everybody.

It is just one of those silly distractions...tossing as much explosive power on SE Asia as we did upon the German's, did so much good in our last failed big experiment...so of course it should be different this time. Maybe we should just Napalm the cities to show them bad guys...
 
The problem with US involvement in Afghanistan over the last 20 years was that it was too half-assed and not aggressive enough in fighting the enemy.

Do you know how aggressive the US would have to be in order to "win" in Afghanistan? I'll give you a hint - Genghis Khan was the only conqueror to ever succeed there. He did it by killing everybody.

It is just one of those silly distractions...tossing as much explosive power on SE Asia as we did upon the German's, did so much good in our last failed big experiment...so of course it should be different this time. Maybe we should just Napalm the cities to show them bad guys...

Even that wouldn't be enough for the hawks.
 
My Early Life: A Roving Commission, Winston Churchill.

Except at harvest time, when self-preservation enjoins a temporary truce, the Pathan tribes are always engaged in private or public war. Every man is a warrior, a politician, and a theologian. Every large house is a real feudal fortress made, it is true, only of sunbaked clay, but with battlements, turrets, loopholes, flanking towers, drawbridges, etc., complete. Every village has its defense. Every family cultivates its vendetta; every clan, its feud. The numerous tribes and combination of tribes all have their accounts to settle with one another. Nothing is ever forgotten and very few debts are left unpaid… The life of the Pathan is thus full of interest…

Into this happy world the nineteenth century brought two new facts; the breech-loading rifle and the British Government. The first was an enormous luxury and blessing; the second, an unmitigated nuisance. The convenience of the breech-loading, and still more of the magazine, rifle was nowhere more appreciated than in the Indian highlands. A weapon which could kill with accuracy at fifteen hundred yards opened a whole new vista of delights to every family or clan which could acquire it. One could actually remain in one's own house and fire at one's neighbor nearly a mile away.
 
Probably because it wouldn't have helped.
Of course it would have helped. The Taliban has a fighting force of maybe 70k. A lot of them could have been killed/incapacitated with air strikes, not to mention destroying their equipment and weaponry.

We bombed the crap out of our enemies in Viet Nam and it did not change the end result one iota.
We also bombed the crap out of Germany and Japan. Worked better.

And some people might argue that killing hundreds or thousands of people in an effort to "weaken them", without any concrete military objective in mind that serves the interests of the people of Afghanistan or the US, would constitute a war crime.
I am not saying to indiscriminately bomb civilians, but Taliban specifically. That's a legitimate military target.

As heartbreaking as it is to watch all our work over the last two decades come to nothing, it is still preferable to a drawn out civil war that kills many thousands more and uproots the lives of millions and has no net effect on the situation in Afghanistan.
The lives of millions are getting uprooted now because of Taliban.

The Afghans should be free to utilize their resources as they see fit, and we have the option to compete with other countries on the free market for these resources. To suggest that we continue to occupy another country so can exploit their resources is absurd, and flies in the face of our nation's policies over the past hundred years or more.
First of all, Afghanistan was not under military occupation. It had, until very recently, an elected civilian government. A government US military was protecting. And I do not think it is wrong to expect favorable mining deals in exchange for that protection.

I am ok with women choosing to wear whatever attire they find suitable, and men choosing to wear long beards and dress in their traditional clothing. I am ok with the US providing special visas to Afghani people who have worked with us and supported our efforts in their country for two decades, often putting their own lives in danger to do so.
I do not think we should give visas to Islamists, period. Even if they worked for US. That is not to say that we should not let any Afghans in, but they need to be carefully vetted for Islamism. And that does not mean we should abandon people who worked for us - but that doesn't mean they should necessarily get to move here - many could also be resettled to other Muslim countries.

I am completely ok with people choosing to worship whatever god(s) they want to worship, and will fight for their right to do so.
If their culture is incompatible with ours, they should not move here. Period. Otherwise you risk this country permanently changing in a more Islamic direction, as is already happening in Europe. Remember, Afghans tend to have five children or more. We let one million in now, and in a generation that's 2.5M. In another generation, 6.25M, in three, 14, then 32, 71 and 160. Exponential growth!

We already made a mistake of not vetting Islamic migrants before. For example with Somalis, who got to come here by the millions pretty indiscriminately, and are now joining Islamic terrorist groups.
Second Lansing man convicted on terrorism charges
This was just a week ago!

And we made this mistake with Afghans who have come here before. Remember the Pulse Night Club? Biden signed a law memorializing the massacre, but he downplayed the fact that it was an Islamic terrorist attack perpetrated by Omar Mateen, an Afghan. Another Afghan terrorist, Ahmad Khan Rahami, bombed targets in NY and NJ.

I would prefer that the US not allow racists to immigrate to the US, along with people who habitually break the laws of our land and flout their illegal activities on the internet, but they manage to sneak in once in a while. Such is life.

I do not know who the racist is that you are referring to, but I assume the second part is the tired old obsession of some far left posters on here to obsess over my sex life.

And it is quite telling that you far leftists have no problem with letting in Islamists but have a problem with people occasionally hiring sex workers. :banghead:
It is not surprising though. Islamists and leftists have long been allies against their common enemy, the Western culture. For example German leftists and Palestinian terrorists hijacking that El Al plane to Entebbe. Or Marxist groups joining the Islamists in overthrowing the Shah of Iran before Khomeini double-crossed them. That should be a warning to you. Don't think you won't be double-crossed by the Islamists too!
 
The Taliban was result of the USA. They used to be called the mujahadeen, which the Reagan/BUSH administration supported with money and weapons when they were helping fight the Cold War.
US sadly did support the mujahedeen, but they are not the same as Taliban.

Kinda like ISIS. They're another group of violent Islamists that the USA supported when it was convenient.
When did US support ISIS? That is a conspiracy theory I have seen among the anti-Israel loons, because Hamas and PIJ are enemies of ISIS. But in reality US bombed the shit out of ISIS. And to those that believe bombing doesn't work, it worked quite well against ISIS.
 
I think that Biden is doing a great job so far. Not perfect. Far from perfect.
He screwed up very badly in Afghanistan.
Regardless, we obviously need to give the Taliban a chance.
Neville Chamberlain: Give Nazis a chance.
I don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that they'll invite the Jihadists back into their fold.
What do you mean? They ARE Jihadists.
 
Oh goody. The 'if we only killed more people we'd have won' argument. We did kill people. We did imprison many others.
Clearly not enough. US barely fought against Taliban for years, preferring to do minor patrols and otherwise keep to their bases.
As to prisoners, Gholam Rouhani was released form Guantanamo in 2007 and he should not have been, as he is a Taliban commander.

The Taliban today isn't the Taliban of 2001.

There is always going to be a lot of churn over 20 years, but some of the commanders have been active in 2001.

Defeating enemies like this is extraordinarily hard. Even harder when the first people trying to do it forget about the mission.

Hard doesn't mean it can't be done.
 
It is hilariously predictable and also sad that Derec (and the rest of the right) think this is solely the fault of the Biden administration.
First of all, I am not on the right.
Second, no, the mess in Afghanistan is not solely Biden's fault, but he bears a significant portion of the fault. The mess that is the actual withdrawal IS solely his administration's fault, because he is the CinC. Also, the withdrawal was planned for a while - it's not like Biden had to react quickly to some unforeseen calamity.
Then there is this:

Epic fail!

Face, it if Trump had won in 2020 and the withdrawal went exactly like it did with Biden (complete with Afghans falling off planes) y'all would be rightly mocking Trump's incompetence and saying that this is one reason he should not have been elected. But since it's Biden this complete failure gets defended.

He's only been in office for a little over 6 months,
That's not "only". Six months is a full eight of the entire presidential term.

and his predecessor not only set the withdrawal plan in motion, but bragged about it, and actually invited the Taliban to Camp David a couple years ago. He had to cancel the meeting under pressure. On a related note, the RNC scrubbed a page on their site that praised Trump for his handling of the withdrawal.
True. Trump's foreign policy was usually a disaster - Israel-Arab peace deals and finally moving the US embassy to the capital of Israel being two rare exceptions.
But just because Trump put US on a bad choice road does not mean Biden could not and should not have taken the first exit off it. He undid other things Trump did - like taking is out of the Paris accords - so why did he persist in Trumpian insanity here?

But Trump hardly shoulders the entirety of the blame. There was another Republican President before him who led us into Afghanistan 20 years ago...anyone remember that guy? Obama also mishandled the country. Add to that the fact that (as has already been mentioned) we threw a lot of money and support at the Islamic radicals fighting the Soviets back in the 80s. And in case anybody else other than Derec missed it, we've been supporting Pakistan the entire time, which has been happily funding, arming, and providing refuge to the Taliban almost the entire time.

I agree with all of the above actually.

As for the suggestion that if we just carpet-bombed the Taliban a little more, it would make leaving easier? Um...have we all forgotten Vietnam, Nixon, and "peace with honor?" Blaming Biden for the fall of Kabul is like blaming Gerald Ford for the fall of Saigon.
Afghanistan is not the same as Vietnam for many reasons, and beating down Taliban with air power would have delayed their progress toward regional capitals and Kabul itself. So even if you want Biden to hold onto the withdrawal schedule, it would have went a lot more orderly had he ordered Taliban be attacked from the air.

Oh, and this dumbass notion that we can't take in any Afghan refugees because they "support Sharia Law?" It doesn't matter what they support.
Of course it should matter! We should not have immigrants that have a culture incompatible with ours. That does not mean no Afghans should be admitted, but they should be better vetted for Islamism.

The "OMG Sharia Law" bogeyman is just good old fashioned bigotry,
No, it is not. It is being against Islamic bigotry and extremism. But for some reason you Leftists have a soft spot for Islam.

and wholly ignorant of this thing we have in this country (that the right really, really hates) called "separation of church and state."
Islamists don't believe in the separation of mosque and state - that is the whole problem!
The bill of rights is not a suicide pact!

It applies to mosques, as well. A tiny minority of Muslims from ANY country couldn't implement Sharia Law if they wanted to.
Of course, a tiny minority today can become a large minority and eventually a majority in time. You have Muslim immigration from places like Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia and at the same time Muslims from those countries have very high birth rates (~5 children for every woman for Afghans), well over replacement, which means that their population is increasing exponentially.
 
Do you know how aggressive the US would have to be in order to "win" in Afghanistan? I'll give you a hint - Genghis Khan was the only conqueror to ever succeed there. He did it by killing everybody.
Everybody? So how come there are still Afghans?
We hardly need to kill everybody, just the enemy fighters.


Here's another way. Kill every male over the age of 15 and every female over the age of 30. Then empty our prisons and give them Afghan women as wives.

Do just ex-prisoners get instant wives (Love After Lockup meets 90 Day Fiancé: Afghan edition!) or could other people apply too? Sure beats online dating! (asking for a friend)
 
Back
Top Bottom