|
On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote:
If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama.
Well, since I already punched you, I should go ahead and stab you. Oh, I stabbed you, I should go ahead and shoot you. Oh man, I've already shot you, so I might as well kill you.
We shouldn't have gone there to begin with, but to say that there is ANY reason to stay is absurd.
|
On January 15 2010 10:29 KwarK wrote:
American just went about Vietnam in entirely the wrong way. Britain had a very similar situation in post colonial Malaya (now Malaysia). Anti-colonial forces with international communist backing. However it was dealt with extremely differently (although you could argue the French started going about it the wrong way in Vietnam and the problem was too big to be contained by the time the US got involved). Britain had a lot of experience at exactly this type of war dating back to the 1905 Boer war which they approached in much the same way as America approached Vietnam. The Malayan Emergency was never officially given the status of a war on paper, despite the fact that it was in reality. That technical definition alone helps an awful lot in limiting public protest. The local population were forcibly moved into guarded villages, cutting them off from the guerrillas. These villages were newly constructed for this precise purpose and were in defensible locations and surrounded with barbed wire, floodlights etc. However they were also well furnished and equipped, offering the poorest section of society utilities they previously lacked. Doing this stripped the guerrillas of provisions and recruits and undermined the revolutionary ideals of the population.
Britain then struck back with constant special forces operations within the jungle, often using regiments which had fought the Japanese through the jungles of Burma in WWII. These soldiers had all the jungle warfare skills and local knowledge of the guerrillas as well as the ability to call in air strikes and reinforcements. They fought guerrilla warfare with guerrilla warfare with huge logistical advantages to the British forces.
There was a campaign for hearts and minds from the outset which at key moments was supported with amnesties for disillusioned insurgents.
The situation was contained, the support cut out from beneath it and the enemies hunted down. It's kind of retarded that Vietnam actually happened after the Malayan Emergency.
..you, you, you .. give arguements beeing inequitable, immoral and cruel with more success ? 
|
On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote:
If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama. Here is a great question. Why not? Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave.
Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
|
On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote:
If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama. Here is a great question. Why not? Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave. Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
safe your friends, change the situation completely by doing this
On January 15 2010 10:13 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:
like most said, this war cant be won by soldiers, it will be won by heart. if you really organise that country for that amount and you are out in 1 year. and you got the heart and thankfullness of all living there. ignore the handfull terrorists, the folks will take care on their own on freewill with passion.
war over. maybe even 8 months and no chance ever recruiting there for the "terrorists" that want to fight "invaders".
simply art of war. sun tzu. clausewitz not even necessary.
cost effective, hm...
|
On January 15 2010 00:46 Disregard wrote:
We cant just leave, we will lose our dignity.
edit: Who cares, Blackwater sounds more convert and badass. I'll just stick to that.
thats just being stubborn, not being able to admit that you're wrong. if we made a mistake in going to war, why not just make an agreement to end it? i dont understand why the cost of our pride is so high.
|
On January 15 2010 04:11 HnR)hT wrote:
Our Afghan and Pakistani partners, as well as our close Iraqi and Yemeni friends, need all those billions, as well as those weapons and that training we are giving them, "to watch out for Al Qaeda." When Iran gets nuclear weapons, no doubt we will give a few nukes to our Egyptian and Saudi allies to maintain the balance of power. I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong.
This might be jumping to conclusions, which is why I'd only present to an anonymous online forum:
This whole situation reminds me of the Roman Empire in decline. In order to protect it's interests in often undefended provinces, the Romans would hire, train, and feed/pay mercenary "barbarians". Then the barbarians would inevitable rebel against the romans once they had the upper hand and simply turn the Roman training and weaponry against their former bosses. And this doesn't even mention the multitudes of whole legions that completely turned against the state in favour of their general.
rome-america
barbarian allies/mercenaries - pakistan/afghan/iraqi/indian people being trained and equipped with american money and advisors
Oh and we need not look as far back as Rome... I mean look at the mujahideen in the 80's... I wonder who supported, trained, and equipped them against the Soviet Union.... WHO?
PS
On January 15 2010 11:50 Raz0r wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 15 2010 00:46 Disregard wrote:
We cant just leave, we will lose our dignity.
edit: Who cares, Blackwater sounds more convert and badass. I'll just stick to that. thats just being stubborn, not being able to admit that you're wrong. if we made a mistake in going to war, why not just make an agreement to end it? i dont understand why the cost of our pride is so high.
Razor... he [Disregard] was being sarcastic in his comment... this is further supported by the light-heartedness of his edit. Be mindful of each line of every comment young padawan.
|
On January 15 2010 10:33 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote:
Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term? Either way your giving a vote for war.
I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job?
On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote:
If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama. Here is a great question. Why not? Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave. Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government.
If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side.
|
United States43813 Posts
On January 15 2010 22:41 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 10:33 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote:
Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term? Either way your giving a vote for war. I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job? Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote:
If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama. Here is a great question. Why not? Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave. Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government. If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side.
Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars.
|
On January 15 2010 10:29 KwarK wrote:
American just went about Vietnam in entirely the wrong way.
Implying that there was a right way.
|
lol
there was
like not going would be one.
|
United States43813 Posts
On January 15 2010 22:58 Trezeguet23 wrote:
On January 15 2010 10:29 KwarK wrote:
American just went about Vietnam in entirely the wrong way.
Implying that there was a right way.
Yes. There is a right way to fight a colonial insurgency. That was what the rest of my post was saying. That after fifty years of doing it a country gets the hang of it. Contain the situation, isolate the guerrillas from the population, match their expertise and beat their logistics. But the French were shit at that stuff too and the situation was possibly beyond containing by the time the Americans got their hands on it. Still, their "overwhelming force" approach was very much the wrong way.
|
On January 15 2010 22:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 22:41 ghostWriter wrote:On January 15 2010 10:33 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote:
Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term? Either way your giving a vote for war. I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job? On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote:
If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama. Here is a great question. Why not? Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave. Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government. If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side. Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars.
It's true. But I had nothing to do with it.
But you can't assume that your expertise in Africa and Asia will necessary carry over into the Middle East. I'm guessing that the British would have handled it better, but it's a desert terrain and a different people. They're similar, but not parallel situations.
|
United States43813 Posts
On January 15 2010 23:10 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 22:51 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2010 22:41 ghostWriter wrote:On January 15 2010 10:33 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote:
Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term? Either way your giving a vote for war. I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job? On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote:
If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama. Here is a great question. Why not? Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave. Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government. If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side. Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars. It's true. But I had nothing to do with it. But you can't assume that your expertise in Africa and Asia will necessary carry over into the Middle East. I'm guessing that the British would have handled it better, but it's a desert terrain and a different people. They're similar, but not parallel situations.
Guess who were the first people to gas the kurds? That's right, us. Middle East was British too.
|
On January 15 2010 23:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 23:10 ghostWriter wrote:On January 15 2010 22:51 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2010 22:41 ghostWriter wrote:On January 15 2010 10:33 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote:
Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term? Either way your giving a vote for war. I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job? On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote:
If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama. Here is a great question. Why not? Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave. Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government. If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side. Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars. It's true. But I had nothing to do with it. But you can't assume that your expertise in Africa and Asia will necessary carry over into the Middle East. I'm guessing that the British would have handled it better, but it's a desert terrain and a different people. They're similar, but not parallel situations. Guess who were the first people to gas the kurds? That's right, us. Middle East was British too.
I'm aware, but wasn't that like half a century ago?
|
asdfffasdE!#j4*$&. OBAMA. Stop making my fucking stocks go down you ass clown.
|
We still have a huge threat, we need to protect Pakistan from being taken over by the Taliban or we may be f*cked
|
United States43813 Posts
On January 15 2010 23:16 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 23:14 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2010 23:10 ghostWriter wrote:On January 15 2010 22:51 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2010 22:41 ghostWriter wrote:On January 15 2010 10:33 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote:
Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term? Either way your giving a vote for war. I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job? On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote:
If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama. Here is a great question. Why not? Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave. Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government. If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side. Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars. It's true. But I had nothing to do with it. But you can't assume that your expertise in Africa and Asia will necessary carry over into the Middle East. I'm guessing that the British would have handled it better, but it's a desert terrain and a different people. They're similar, but not parallel situations. Guess who were the first people to gas the kurds? That's right, us. Middle East was British too. I'm aware, but wasn't that like half a century ago?
War hasn't changed that much and the United States is effectively an imperial power. Hell, half your air bases are old British imperial possessions which you rent from us and have done since WWII. Personally I think it's a legacy of the American foundation myth of a struggle for freedom against imperialism (which is bullshit anyway) that they refuse to learn the lessons of empire.
That said, on the economic front America seemlessly moved into the old holdings of the British Empire and superceded it. It's just a pity that militarily they seem to insist on learning the same lessons Britain learned the hard way.
|
United States43813 Posts
On January 15 2010 23:21 ItsYoungLee wrote:
We still have a huge threat, we need to protect Pakistan from being taken over by the Taliban or we may be f*cked
Pakistan has a huge army, it's been glaring across the border at India for ages. And if the situation ever looks serious India will immediately pull back from the frontier to enable Pakistan to fully focus on the Taliban. India does not want crazy Islamic extremists holding Pakistans nuclear arsenal. MAD only works so long as both sides are rational. They'll even help Pakistan if it comes to that.
Edit: And while I'm bragging about the British Empire, that whole Muslims and Hindus hating each other bullshit. We started that. Divide and conquer yo. The division of an entire subcontinent and a war that's been going on for 60 years so far. All completely artificial but once you light the fire of religious hatred it just keeps on going.
|
On January 15 2010 23:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2010 23:16 ghostWriter wrote:On January 15 2010 23:14 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2010 23:10 ghostWriter wrote:On January 15 2010 22:51 KwarK wrote:On January 15 2010 22:41 ghostWriter wrote:On January 15 2010 10:33 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 10:30 LunarDestiny wrote:
Should I vote for the Republican party for the next term? Either way your giving a vote for war. I never understood why the general public would ever vote Republican. Conservatism is all about thinking that government should be made smaller and business, which is supposedly more efficient (they're not), should be able to take over. Why vote for someone who thinks that they can't do the job? On January 15 2010 11:34 Wr3k wrote:On January 15 2010 02:46 Archerofaiur wrote:On January 15 2010 02:40 Wr3k wrote:
If your gonna go to war, at least finish the job, I don't necessarily think the wars were a good idea, but once the ball is rolling you can't just fuck off and not finish the job, good on Obama. Here is a great question. Why not? Your assuming that the instability and damage caused by you to continue waging war will be less than the instability and damage occuring if you leave. Yeah, I have friends who have done tours in Afghanistan, and basically they all say that the local military is completely incompetent, and that for every Canadian troop who gets wounded, 4 afghan military troops die from insurgents. So yes, I really do think they need our help if they hope to create any sort of stable government. If we exited Iraq, they would probably be able to set up their affairs better than we are doing right now. It's our fault that their infrastructure sucks, we bombed everything AND we forced through "de-Baathification" in which we fired pretty much everyone important since you had to be part of Saddam's party. So the people that know what they're doing are part of the insurgency, since they lost their jobs and the people that don't know what they're doing are doing their jobs for them but are on our side. Again if you guys had asked the British army what to do you'd have had a way easier time. Our generals have been bitching about the de-Baathification for years. You may be the stronger coalition member but the British army is way ahead of you when it comes to experience in waging imperial wars. It's true. But I had nothing to do with it. But you can't assume that your expertise in Africa and Asia will necessary carry over into the Middle East. I'm guessing that the British would have handled it better, but it's a desert terrain and a different people. They're similar, but not parallel situations. Guess who were the first people to gas the kurds? That's right, us. Middle East was British too. I'm aware, but wasn't that like half a century ago? War hasn't changed that much and the United States is effectively an imperial power. Hell, half your air bases are old British imperial possessions which you rent from us and have done since WWII. Personally I think it's a legacy of the American foundation myth of a struggle for freedom against imperialism (which is bullshit anyway) that they refuse to learn the lessons of empire. That said, on the economic front America seemlessly moved into the old holdings of the British Empire and superceded it. It's just a pity that militarily they seem to insist on learning the same lessons Britain learned the hard way.
I'm aware of America's status as an imperial power. However, it was very different from the British model. Rather than going in directly and trying to control the government and the infrastructure of countries (which we started doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and which I think is the wrong way to go about this), Americans went for economic control. They used their influence in the UN and their overwhelming military strength to cow opponents into submission and force them to liberalize their economies. For example, in Yugoslavia, America won by just sending in planes to bomb from the air and in Afghanistan, it defeated the Soviet Union by training and supplying the Afghan people, rather than sending in its own soldiers. This strategy saved a lot of money and avoided the risk of public displeasure by basically contracting out the human costs of war to other entities. However, under Bush, the United States started sending in its own foot soldiers on the ground, which was a huge mistake. Direct control means that the yolk of imperialism is much more visible and that people can see the occupier as soldiers to be killed, rather than a relatively unthreatening McDonald's and Coca-Cola.
|
I am very sorry to dissapoint you guys, but the wars in the Middle East are not there to bring the people there democracy, a better living standard or whatever arguement was used. The wars there a there to be sustained so that some groups can make profit of war. War means profit on short terms. It provides jobs, it keeps people occupied with what is happening outside of their country so they dont have a clue what is happening in their own country. America's rights are being torn dow none by one and you guys here are arguing about what is best for some foreign country. All of your liberties are vanshing one by one. It's starting In Europe too. We should not focus on foreign wars, but on our own countries and what is happening here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
