StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:I love Jingoistic, I love non-PC, and I LOVE PISSING OFF FUNDYS(yes Iraqis are Fundys)!!!

I agree with points one and two but the Iraqi's are probably the closest thing to a secular nation in the Middle East.

Stormbringer wrote:I agree with points one and two but the Iraqi's are probably the closest thing to a secular nation in the Middle East.

They'll go fundie if the Americans kill Saddam, briefly pretend to be interested in the aftermath, and then go home, like they did in Afghanistan.

Darth Wong wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:I agree with points one and two but the Iraqi's are probably the closest thing to a secular nation in the Middle East.

They'll go fundie if the Americans kill Saddam, briefly pretend to be interested in the aftermath, and then go home, like they did in Afghanistan.

Feel free to inform the 9,000 American troops in Afghanistan of the fact that they've left and gone home. Should help moral.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:They'll go fundie if the Americans kill Saddam, briefly pretend to be interested in the aftermath, and then go home, like they did in Afghanistan.

Feel free to inform the 9,000 American troops in Afghanistan of the fact that they've left and gone home. Should help moral.

Please feel free to inform me when those troops start doing something to rebuild the country as promised.

You're missing the whole point; they said they would go in, blow up the bad guys, and then rebuild the country. They checked items #1 and #2 off the list, left the troops in place, and forgot to send in anybody to rebuild anything. Why must you assume that a useful American presence must be an exclusively military one?

Darth Wong wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:They'll go fundie if the Americans kill Saddam, briefly pretend to be interested in the aftermath, and then go home, like they did in Afghanistan.

Feel free to inform the 9,000 American troops in Afghanistan of the fact that they've left and gone home. Should help moral.

Please feel free to inform me when those troops start doing something to rebuild the country as promised.

You're missing the whole point; they said they would go in, blow up the bad guys, and then rebuild the country. They checked items #1 and #2 off the list, left the troops in place, and forgot to send in anybody to rebuild anything. Why must you assume that a useful American presence must be an exclusively military one?

The would be what the 600 civil-affairs personal are and have been doing, they've already repaired quite a few existing buildings and built a number of new schools and municipal buildings. The rest are providing security both for the American personal and some other groups. There also doing such minor tasks as fighting the remaining Talaban, guarding the government, training thousands of troops for a new Afgan national army, and various EOD tasks.

Then there are the millions of dollars America has given the countries new goverment to help do rebuilding tasks themselves via local and imported labor and equipment.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The would be what the 600 civil-affairs personal are and have been doing, they've already repaired quite a few existing buildings and built a number of new schools and municipal buildings. The rest are providing security both for the American personal and some other groups. There also doing such minor tasks as fighting the remaining Talaban, guarding the government, training thousands of troops for a new Afgan national army, and various EOD tasks.

Not what I'm talking about, I'm afraid. Karzai's government isn't getting support. Foreign interests want their own name on anything built in Afghanistan, with the result that the puppet government has no credibility and the long-term outlook is pathetic. As soon as they stop, the situation will degrade because they're not setting up something that will be self-sufficient.

Then there are the millions of dollars America has given the countries new goverment to help do rebuilding tasks themselves via local and imported labor and equipment.

Right, that's why Karzai's government has had trouble making payroll.

Darth Wong wrote: Right, that's why Karzai's government has had trouble making payroll.

Quite frankly, I don't care what happens in Afghanistan. I just want
the Taliban found, shot, strafed, and wiped out for supporting OBL
as an object lesson to the rest of the world that you DO NOT FUCK WITH
AMERICA.

Darth Wong wrote: They'll go fundie if the Americans kill Saddam, briefly pretend to be interested in the aftermath, and then go home, like they did in Afghanistan.

I thought you meant the way they left Afghanistan twisting in the wind after the Soviets pulled out in 1989 (though the Soviet supported government remained for 3 years after that until all Russian support was dropped), allowing the rise of the Taliban. In fact, it was Russia of all countries to support the very people who had defeated them- keeping the Northern Alliance going until 9/11- probably because the Taliban was a whole lot worse (the very day before, as I recall, Masood, military leader of the Northern Alliance and hero of the Afghan war, was assisnated by Taliban fundies).

As for the current effort in Afghanistan- the country is completely unsafe outside of Kabul, many of the warlords have gone apeshit, the Taliban is starting to show its face again I hear, etc.

The whole place is completely impossible to transform, methinks- is it really a country, or just a poorly, arbitrarily defined area on a map filled with people who have no semblance of 'nationality'?

Good, perhaps if the Taliban are starting to stick their heads out again, that might mean that we are not at a place yet to start builing or rebuilding Afganistan. The war there is not over yet. Fighting still remains in several areas, and it would be pointless to start to rebuild in earnest if the fighting is not done.

Knife wrote:Good, perhaps if the Taliban are starting to stick their heads out again, that might mean that we are not at a place yet to start builing or rebuilding Afganistan. The war there is not over yet. Fighting still remains in several areas, and it would be pointless to start to rebuild in earnest if the fighting is not done.

Question: how much control did the American armed forces ever exert over Afghanistan in the first place? I know I was getting information filtered through the news services, but I was under the impression that they had a base or two which the Taliban wouldn't go near, but the rest of the country was basically secured by proxy, through the Northern Alliance, with American ground forces only taking direct action in specific search and destroy missions at selected Al-Quaeda strongholds or as observers/advisors to the NA. Is this erroneous?

Darth Wong wrote:Question: how much control did the American armed forces ever exert over Afghanistan in the first place?

Your impression is basically correct. The US only exercises control over parts of Kabul, a few minor 'cities,' several airstrips, and not much else. What small portion of the Taliban was actually destroyed (as opposed to escaping into Pakistan or changing sides with the help of cash bribes) was killed by fairly small search & destroy missions. The US never had anywhere near enough troops in country to occupy Afghanistan.


Note that this silly strategy of taking over cities and exercising only temporary control over the countryside is exactly how the Russians started in Afganistan and is also the same idea that Rumpsfelt wants to use in Iraq.

Enlightenment wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Question: how much control did the American armed forces ever exert over Afghanistan in the first place?

Your impression is basically correct. The US only exercises control over parts of Kabul, a few minor 'cities,' several airstrips, and not much else. What small portion of the Taliban was actually destroyed (as opposed to escaping into Pakistan or changing sides with the help of cash bribes) was killed by fairly small search & destroy missions. The US never had anywhere near enough troops in country to occupy Afghanistan.


Note that this silly strategy of taking over cities and exercising only temporary control over the countryside is exactly how the Russians started in Afganistan and is also the same idea that Rumpsfelt wants to use in Iraq.

So long as you can move at will and seize any place you attack, it works just fine. Currently thats how it is in Afganistan. The Russians had the problume that the oppoistion got strong enough to close down the road network and destroy entire air assualt companies as they landed.

Search and destroy operations are meant to prevent that from happening.

Darth Wong wrote:They'll go fundie if the Americans kill Saddam, briefly pretend to be interested in the aftermath, and then go home, like they did in Afghanistan.

How do you dare to say that? The US have rebuilt all the countries they have defeated.They have rebuilt Japan,Japan,Japan and Japan.

But seriously I think that probably this time will be a bit different.Iraq is quite rich in terms of oil and would be an excellent colon...ehm state friendly to the US.
So they will probably get a decent puppet as Saddam replacement and their standards of life will be restored to pre 1991 levels.Of course some people here might decide to masturbate themselves into believing that they will make of Iraq such a shining example of democracy and prosperity that the whole ME will explode from envy.But I have not noticed a similar commitment to country rebuilding in Yugoslavia.

There's also the 5000 men strong ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) in charge of the rebuilding and security in Kabul. It's comprised of over dozen countries. However, they don't operate anywhere else than in the capital, and rest of the country belongs to the regional warlords who aren't in very good terms with each other.

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Right, that's why Karzai's government has had trouble making payroll.

Quite frankly, I don't care what happens in Afghanistan. I just want
the Taliban found, shot, strafed, and wiped out for supporting OBL
as an object lesson to the rest of the world that you DO NOT FUCK WITH
AMERICA.

You're a fucking moron, with absolutely no ability to think about the future.

The reason the Taliban existed was America's involvement in the area. America spent billions to train and arm Islamic Extremists who hated the States, just cause America hated the Commies.

Then when the war was won, instead of helping the country rebuild and setting up a secular government (which I'm sure they promised to do) they pulled out and let the nutcases take over. They didn't care what happened to the people, they fufilled their purpose for the States and were forgotten. Untill Sept 11th, that is.

Now the exact same thing is happening again, except instead of fighting the Commies your fighting the Taliban. But the people of Afghanistan are being treated the same. And there's not reason to expect the end result will not be the same.

A couple of my thoughs:

1. Iraq will be different in my opinion. We will leave a fairly large force for the long term. Give us a counter to the Saudis, give us access to oil, etc.


2. I dont think there are effectvie numbers of Western troops to keep things under control. However, that might be on purpose cause the place is so fucked up that nobody wants to take a serious risk. That place needs help far beyond what is being given.


3. I disagree that the rise of the Taliban is our fault. So after we help you throw off the invading Russians, its somehow our fault you are a bunch of savages who like to kill each other instead of building a nation?

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: Right, that's why Karzai's government has had trouble making payroll.

Quite frankly, I don't care what happens in Afghanistan. I just want
the Taliban found, shot, strafed, and wiped out for supporting OBL
as an object lesson to the rest of the world that you DO NOT FUCK WITH
AMERICA.

You're a fucking moron, with absolutely no ability to think about the future.

The reason the Taliban existed was America's involvement in the area. America spent billions to train and arm Islamic Extremists who hated the States, just cause America hated the Commies.

Then when the war was won, instead of helping the country rebuild and setting up a secular government (which I'm sure they promised to do) they pulled out and let the nutcases take over. They didn't care what happened to the people, they fufilled their purpose for the States and were forgotten. Untill Sept 11th, that is.

Now the exact same thing is happening again, except instead of fighting the Commies your fighting the Taliban. But the people of Afghanistan are being treated the same. And there's not reason to expect the end result will not be the same.

I thought that was what you assholes wanted, the US to leave others alone. Make up you fucking mind, either we leave them alone and let them make their own futures or we intervene and help, and oh my god, maybe make suggestions that would benifit us.

We supplied the Mujahadine(have no idea how to spell it) which turned into the Northern Allience. The Taliban was the creation of Fundie's and Pakistan. We did not equip OBL, though you can argue that some of the gear that we left with the NA eventualy ended up with the Taliban.

I realy wish people would decide why they hate America. Either hate us for not helping enough, or hate us for helping too much and fucking it up. But make up your mind.

Knife wrote: I thought that was what you assholes wanted, the US to leave others alone. Make up you fucking mind, either we leave them alone and let them make their own futures or we intervene and help, and oh my god, maybe make suggestions that would benifit us.

You've got to do one or the other. You can't fuck up a nation and then get out as soon as your short term goal is complete.

We supplied the Mujahadine(have no idea how to spell it) which turned into the Northern Allience. The Taliban was the creation of Fundie's and Pakistan. We did not equip OBL, though you can argue that some of the gear that we left with the NA eventualy ended up with the Taliban.

Bullshit. You supplied the resistance fighters with no concern who got the weapons. OBL was one of those resistance fighters.

I realy wish people would decide why they hate America. Either hate us for not helping enough, or hate us for helping too much and fucking it up. But make up your mind.

Oh fuck you. America goes in where it doesn't belong, fucks with the people there, and then leaves without helping fix the damage they did. Then they expect to be thanked for the 'help.'

Oh, please, our goal was to help the Afgans to fight the Soviets. We did it. We were not there to fight for them, we were not there to rebuild their nation, we were there to suply them with the shit they needed to stand a chance against a modern army.

So you can take that and blame us for what they did with the freedom from the Russians. That is bullshit. The Afgan situation in the 80's is a text book example of the US helping and not taking over which is what I thought you all wanted. We can't be responsibile for what the Afgans did after our help, since we never "occupied" the country and took the responsiblity on ourselves for them.

So what, we should have taken over and did it for them? We'd be blamed for that as well. Should we have stood by and let our enemy (at the time) take the nation and expand their empire? We would have absolutely been blamed for that as well.

And I already said that we supplied the freedomfighters in Afganistan, and we still can't be responsible for what the victors did with the weapons after their war. You probably think that the lawsuits against the firearms manufacturers is just too. Same situation, we supplied weapons for a purpose, the weapons were used for that purpose, then years down the line they were used for other purposes that we do not agree on.

And again, we get blamed when we leave people alone. We get blamed when we help people. And we get blamed when we take over and just do what is in our best effort. So if we're screwed no matter what, we should just do what is in our best intersets. We can do a better job of paying for our mistakes though, and I will agree with you on that.

Knife wrote:Oh, please, our goal was to help the Afgans to fight the Soviets. We did it. We were not there to fight for them, we were not there to rebuild their nation, we were there to suply them with the shit they needed to stand a chance against a modern army.

So you can take that and blame us for what they did with the freedom from the Russians. That is bullshit. The Afgan situation in the 80's is a text book example of the US helping and not taking over which is what I thought you all wanted. We can't be responsibile for what the Afgans did after our help, since we never "occupied" the country and took the responsiblity on ourselves for them.

So what, we should have taken over and did it for them? We'd be blamed for that as well. Should we have stood by and let our enemy (at the time) take the nation and expand their empire? We would have absolutely been blamed for that as well.

And I already said that we supplied the freedomfighters in Afganistan, and we still can't be responsible for what the victors did with the weapons after their war. You probably think that the lawsuits against the firearms manufacturers is just too. Same situation, we supplied weapons for a purpose, the weapons were used for that purpose, then years down the line they were used for other purposes that we do not agree on.

And again, we get blamed when we leave people alone. We get blamed when we help people. And we get blamed when we take over and just do what is in our best effort. So if we're screwed no matter what, we should just do what is in our best intersets. We can do a better job of paying for our mistakes though, and I will agree with you on that.

Well said. The American public, the European public, and the rest of the world would have cried out loudly if the US got invovled in Afganistan after the Russians left. Besides, I dont remember them asking for help?

Like I said before their internal civil war was their problem. What excactly could we have done at that time?

Knife wrote: And again, we get blamed when we leave people alone. We get blamed when we help people. And we get blamed when we take over and just do what is in our best effort. So if we're screwed no matter what, we should just do what is in our best intersets. We can do a better job of paying for our mistakes though, and I will agree with you on that.

Personally I am happy for the US intervention in Kosovo.I am simply fed up by the "we are so good at rebuilding countries" propaganda.
And I may also concur on the fact that the idea of supplying weapons to them might have the right one.Then however if a bunch of afghan fundies fighting to free their pathetic country from the soviets were the good guys then I do not see why a bunch of fundie morons fighting for the independance of their country (Chechenya) should be the bad guys by default.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: The reason the Taliban existed was America's involvement in the area. America spent billions to train and arm Islamic Extremists who hated the States, just cause America hated the Commies.

Actually, we trained the fucking NORTHERN ALLIANCE, while Osama
and his fellow tallyban idjuts were privately funded by Saudi money...

Then when the war was won, instead of helping the country rebuild and setting up a secular government (which I'm sure they promised to do) they pulled out and let the nutcases take over. They didn't care what happened to the people, they fufilled their purpose for the States and were forgotten. Untill Sept 11th, that is.

And why is it so important that America have to intervene and personally
rebuild every goddamn shithole in the world?

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: Oh fuck you. America goes in where it doesn't belong, fucks with the people there, and then leaves without helping fix the damage they did. Then they expect to be thanked for the 'help.'

Would you rather have had the entire country of Afghanistan run as
a Soviet puppet?

Knife wrote:Oh, please, our goal was to help the Afgans to fight the Soviets. We did it. We were not there to fight for them, we were not there to rebuild their nation, we were there to suply them with the shit they needed to stand a chance against a modern army.

Right, so your short term goal was more important than the long term effects on the country you were pretending to help. Once that goal was complete, you pulled out and left a destroyed nation to fend for itself, even though you helped destroy it.

Either you stay out completely, or you help the country rebuild itself once your done.

MKSheppard wrote:

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: Oh fuck you. America goes in where it doesn't belong, fucks with the people there, and then leaves without helping fix the damage they did. Then they expect to be thanked for the 'help.'

Would you rather have had the entire country of Afghanistan run as
a Soviet puppet?

I'm sure the Afghan people would have been better of under the Soviets than under the Taliban. And without the Islamic extremists in charge, there would have been no WTC attack.