|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 18 2021 03:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know really about Afghanistan. It's very clearly the last gasp of any sort of ideal the west has about improving the lives of people in oppressive states. No one is ever going to go back to Africa and it just feels like the middle east is going to be treated the same from now on.
I guess Chinese colonialism is what the people want and it's what the world just has to accept now.
We could do all the same things China does if we didn't have dynamics like politician personalities, twitter, accountability and all that garbage. We invite the nation to give their perspective on these issues. It is a tragedy.
In a perfect world, the US would work with the Taliban, make the Taliban really corrupt and financially dependent on the US, mine a ton of rare earth metals, create an addict situation where Afghanistan is nothing without the US, and then reap the benefits. But there are so many other ethical considerations there. By accounting for those ethical considerations, here we are, way, way, way worse off. The ethical implications of the last 20 years pale in comparison to the unethical components of just harvesting REMs from Afghanistan.
China is basically doing exactly that. They don't care if the corrupt government skims off the top, does a bad job at providing for citizens. They just want to infect Afghanistan to the point where its too late. We never got that far because our goals were too broad and too ridiculous. We tried to do the impossible, failed miserably, made everything worse.
|
Norway28892 Posts
How on earth is exploiting a country your perfect world? I keep being weirded out by the things you write on this subject.
|
On August 18 2021 03:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How on earth is exploiting a country your perfect world? I keep being weirded out by the things you write on this subject.
Because that's the best it gets. You don't have better options. The world proved that in the last 100 years. I wholly reject your fantasy world you have built up. It has no basis in reality and it has no evidence of being possible. Its just idealism run amuck.
Edit: Also, if we did that from the start, imagine how many people would be alive today. An incredible amount of people are dead because we were busy patting ourselves on the back rather than making a positive difference. We just let idealism guide us right off a cliff.
|
On August 17 2021 22:00 Purressure wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 21:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 17 2021 15:03 Purressure wrote:On August 17 2021 04:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 21:49 Purressure wrote:On August 15 2021 21:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 17:49 Purressure wrote:The use of flamethrowers for example, when you know that in a specific cave there are 20 fighters hiding and waiting, why should we not use them? Why use flamethrowers when a bomb to collapse the cave is better and safer? You think that you can just saunter up to a cave and flamethrower it or something? You don't know that 20 fighters are hiding and waiting in a specific cave, that's the point, real life isn't a hollywood movie. Why would they be in a cave instead of out in the open with the rest of the population? USA has already proven to happily bomb with drones (because drones are cheap and have high availability) with 90% civilian casualties. It's a large mountainous region, and the collobarist government set up under the American invaders are corrupt and refuse to compromise with local authorities. Guess I'll just roll my eyes and ignore the majority of what you said since you clearly haven't paid attention, which is fine. One of the issues, indeed, was the vast amount of corruption. Something at a scale we really didn't have a solution for and it shows. Just hoping now we won't have another Benghazi at our hands with how things are evolving at this very moment. Guess I'll roll my eyes at your fake situation (fighters hiding in caves when the Taliban have always controlled large areas of rugged land even after their defeat some 20 years ago), lack of understanding the correct solution to this hypothetical and fake solution (flamethrowers!) and a strange belief that a non-existent restriction to small arm tactics is the problem that lead to the Taliban not being defeated instead of macro geopolitical strategy. Anyways, if anybody is wondering why the ANA collapsed so fast, it was apparently due to the Taliban, which now is more multi-tribal than in the past, offering clemency to all opposition that retreated and offered power sharing deals to all regional authorities and are known to keep such promises. Whether they will keep to their word remains to be seen in the wake of such quick collapse. All I read in that first paragraph was but whatever, it's to be expected from the likes of you since you clearly didn't pay attention (again) so you better just drop it as you're not really winning anything here sonny. Unless you want to say we didn't suffer casualties because of politics, which was the larger point being made, regardless of using a more or less silly example but yet an example being used for several years and not by people just sitting behind a desk like yourself. Would we have won the war with ft's? No, don't be stupid. But there is no denying politics has caused more casualties than there should have been. And everyone's well aware why the ANA collapsed as fast as it did. With how Biden handled it now is a bit of a shit show, but not entirely something he had control over. I mean, the man can't be held responsible for the flawed intelligence and assumptions given by his advisors. If this turns out into another Benghazi that's where Biden will get burried if he fails to react properly. Edit: about 640 afghans have squeezed themselves into a c130 to texas and wisconsin... Curious to see how that'll be handled once they've landed "Blabla blabla blabla", you are being very erudite aren't you sonny? Just roll with it that you've been caught out that you know nothing of the battlefield environment of Afghanistan because you thought that 20 fighters hiding in a cave is a thing. And that somehow flamethrowers are the appropriate response to such a fantasy when the US Army have to reintroduce small arms and tactics (designated marksman and their rifles) to deal with the ranges they actually engage the Taliban on. The politics that caused more American casualties than there should had been was the invasion of Afghanistan. The 20 years of occupation when the Taliban gave all indication they were open to negotiation and power sharing with the American backed government. If you don't want American casualties, then the political solution is to not invade countries and occupy them. Which by the way since USA seemingly is happy to cause massive civilian casualties your notion that politics is preventing effective tactics at killing doesn't bear scrutiny. Your fantasy politics of the prohibition of flamethrowers (which doesn't exist btw) on fantasy targets doesn't cause American casualties. And again you ignore the point being made, thank you, you're done with having a chance of having a proper discussion if all you can do is missing the point. Maybe you should read what you quoted again instead of repeating the same thing all over again which is plainly wrong and inaccurate and definitely missing the point. You keep hammering on an exaggerated example that veterans have made throughout the years about Afghanistan. You go and sit behind your desk big guy, seems to work just fine for you, but don't go and miss the point (elaborately) that has been made by actual veterans throughout the years. Telling me I know nothing is actually hilarious and you should know why that is, but you even managed to miss that. Should try and lecture yourself first, because even in your last line, you were inaccurate. The ONLY thing you're accurate about is (one of) the reasons small arms were reintroduced, however, if I wanted to be a pain in the ass I'd ask how you would solve DA's without them (which requires tic at close quarters in the way they just happen to be carried out) Have fun behind your desk, we won't agree and that's fine.
I don't know why you keep refering to a desk job, and insinuating that you somehow have some sort of military experience in Afghanistan when it is clear that you do not, when from the only example you gave of political interference that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Lets just say I had the opportunity in a past job, of talking with British soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Their concerns are in no particular order: We carry too much. It's too hot during the day. It's too cold at night. I don't like sand. It's coarse, and rough, and irritating, and it gets everywhere. The Afghans don't put milk in tea.
What don't they say: non-existent politics given us a non-existent prohibition on using flamethrowers on non-existent combatants in non-existant caves so we can't walk into a cave with a flamethrower.
|
Norway28892 Posts
On August 18 2021 03:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 03:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How on earth is exploiting a country your perfect world? I keep being weirded out by the things you write on this subject. Because that's the best it gets. You don't have better options. The world proved that in the last 100 years. I wholly reject your fantasy world you have built up. It has no basis in reality and it has no evidence of being possible. Its just idealism run amuck. Edit: Also, if we did that from the start, imagine how many people would be alive today. An incredible amount of people are dead because we were busy patting ourselves on the back rather than making a positive difference. We just let idealism guide us right off a cliff.
That sounds more like 'in the least bad version of the very flawed world we live in' than 'perfect world' to me! Not really a big point to make, I guess I understand what you mean, but it's just weird to see someone argue for something I find abhorrent while describing it as 'perfect'. 
|
On August 18 2021 03:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2021 22:00 Purressure wrote:On August 17 2021 21:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 17 2021 15:03 Purressure wrote:On August 17 2021 04:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 21:49 Purressure wrote:On August 15 2021 21:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 15 2021 17:49 Purressure wrote:The use of flamethrowers for example, when you know that in a specific cave there are 20 fighters hiding and waiting, why should we not use them? Why use flamethrowers when a bomb to collapse the cave is better and safer? You think that you can just saunter up to a cave and flamethrower it or something? You don't know that 20 fighters are hiding and waiting in a specific cave, that's the point, real life isn't a hollywood movie. Why would they be in a cave instead of out in the open with the rest of the population? USA has already proven to happily bomb with drones (because drones are cheap and have high availability) with 90% civilian casualties. It's a large mountainous region, and the collobarist government set up under the American invaders are corrupt and refuse to compromise with local authorities. Guess I'll just roll my eyes and ignore the majority of what you said since you clearly haven't paid attention, which is fine. One of the issues, indeed, was the vast amount of corruption. Something at a scale we really didn't have a solution for and it shows. Just hoping now we won't have another Benghazi at our hands with how things are evolving at this very moment. Guess I'll roll my eyes at your fake situation (fighters hiding in caves when the Taliban have always controlled large areas of rugged land even after their defeat some 20 years ago), lack of understanding the correct solution to this hypothetical and fake solution (flamethrowers!) and a strange belief that a non-existent restriction to small arm tactics is the problem that lead to the Taliban not being defeated instead of macro geopolitical strategy. Anyways, if anybody is wondering why the ANA collapsed so fast, it was apparently due to the Taliban, which now is more multi-tribal than in the past, offering clemency to all opposition that retreated and offered power sharing deals to all regional authorities and are known to keep such promises. Whether they will keep to their word remains to be seen in the wake of such quick collapse. All I read in that first paragraph was but whatever, it's to be expected from the likes of you since you clearly didn't pay attention (again) so you better just drop it as you're not really winning anything here sonny. Unless you want to say we didn't suffer casualties because of politics, which was the larger point being made, regardless of using a more or less silly example but yet an example being used for several years and not by people just sitting behind a desk like yourself. Would we have won the war with ft's? No, don't be stupid. But there is no denying politics has caused more casualties than there should have been. And everyone's well aware why the ANA collapsed as fast as it did. With how Biden handled it now is a bit of a shit show, but not entirely something he had control over. I mean, the man can't be held responsible for the flawed intelligence and assumptions given by his advisors. If this turns out into another Benghazi that's where Biden will get burried if he fails to react properly. Edit: about 640 afghans have squeezed themselves into a c130 to texas and wisconsin... Curious to see how that'll be handled once they've landed "Blabla blabla blabla", you are being very erudite aren't you sonny? Just roll with it that you've been caught out that you know nothing of the battlefield environment of Afghanistan because you thought that 20 fighters hiding in a cave is a thing. And that somehow flamethrowers are the appropriate response to such a fantasy when the US Army have to reintroduce small arms and tactics (designated marksman and their rifles) to deal with the ranges they actually engage the Taliban on. The politics that caused more American casualties than there should had been was the invasion of Afghanistan. The 20 years of occupation when the Taliban gave all indication they were open to negotiation and power sharing with the American backed government. If you don't want American casualties, then the political solution is to not invade countries and occupy them. Which by the way since USA seemingly is happy to cause massive civilian casualties your notion that politics is preventing effective tactics at killing doesn't bear scrutiny. Your fantasy politics of the prohibition of flamethrowers (which doesn't exist btw) on fantasy targets doesn't cause American casualties. And again you ignore the point being made, thank you, you're done with having a chance of having a proper discussion if all you can do is missing the point. Maybe you should read what you quoted again instead of repeating the same thing all over again which is plainly wrong and inaccurate and definitely missing the point. You keep hammering on an exaggerated example that veterans have made throughout the years about Afghanistan. You go and sit behind your desk big guy, seems to work just fine for you, but don't go and miss the point (elaborately) that has been made by actual veterans throughout the years. Telling me I know nothing is actually hilarious and you should know why that is, but you even managed to miss that. Should try and lecture yourself first, because even in your last line, you were inaccurate. The ONLY thing you're accurate about is (one of) the reasons small arms were reintroduced, however, if I wanted to be a pain in the ass I'd ask how you would solve DA's without them (which requires tic at close quarters in the way they just happen to be carried out) Have fun behind your desk, we won't agree and that's fine. I don't know why you keep refering to a desk job, and insinuating that you somehow have some sort of military experience in Afghanistan when it is clear that you do not, when from the only example you gave of political interference that you have no idea what you are talking about. Lets just say I had the opportunity in a past job, of talking with British soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Their concerns are in no particular order: We carry too much. It's too hot during the day. It's too cold at night. I don't like sand. It's coarse, and rough, and irritating, and it gets everywhere. The Afghans don't put milk in tea. What don't they say: non-existent politics given us a non-existent prohibition on using flamethrowers on non-existent combatants in non-existant caves so we can't walk into a cave with a flamethrower.
Nobody liked the weight, nobody liked the heat nor the cold, nobody at any remote fob liked to sleep with their boots on, chest rigs and plate carriers weren't right for the specific job,.. the list of generic complaints goes on, but those who had to deal with politics trickling down into what could and couldn't be done, that's an entirely different story. Something you clearly keep ignoring. As said before, the example I used isn't new (at all), you want to call it bullshit, fine, I don't need to prove anything to you, doing some research would already prove the opposite if you'd look into the experiences of those who had to do DA's on a regular basis.
You wanna question my legitimacy, go ahead, I know where I went and where I stood, you on the other hand do not.
And since you keep saying FT's were not prohibited.. protocol iii prohibits the use of incindiary weapons on humans. Another for example prohibits the use of plastic mines.. the list goes on, you'd be surprised to what can and cannot be used. Even the use of pepper spray could get you in serious trouble as it's an aerosol chemical weapon.
I wouldn't even need to lay down personal experiences to prove you wrong but okay, if that's what you want to believe then have at it. Facts state otherwise and that's about it, don't really need to give more of a reply than that.
If you don't wanna believe me then that's your problem, not mine, so you can stop bothering me, thank you.
|
On August 18 2021 03:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 03:27 Mohdoo wrote:On August 18 2021 03:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How on earth is exploiting a country your perfect world? I keep being weirded out by the things you write on this subject. Because that's the best it gets. You don't have better options. The world proved that in the last 100 years. I wholly reject your fantasy world you have built up. It has no basis in reality and it has no evidence of being possible. Its just idealism run amuck. Edit: Also, if we did that from the start, imagine how many people would be alive today. An incredible amount of people are dead because we were busy patting ourselves on the back rather than making a positive difference. We just let idealism guide us right off a cliff. That sounds more like 'in the least bad version of the very flawed world we live in' than 'perfect world' to me! Not really a big point to make, I guess I understand what you mean, but it's just weird to see someone argue for something I find abhorrent while describing it as 'perfect'.
That's fair. Let me rephrase:
In a perfect world, we would have cold fusion and limitless energy. This would allow for us to eliminate scarcity of resources since we could use exotic methods of atom formation, which is generally cost prohibitive. Once we had limitless resources and energy, the Afghanistan situation would resolve itself.
I am trying to just frame this in terms of what I think can actually happen.
|
Honestly I think, Mohdoo, what you're describing is unconsciously how you think China will treat African countries and how they would approach a place like Afghanistan. If any external country is trying to exploit a country like that in a dessert that is so poor which such a seriously unskilled labor force, it's almost impossible. The most valuable thing we can do is to simply make sure terrorists don't come from that place and try to hurt us domestically, but it's likely gone too far for that. Disguising one's exploitation as charity and/or cooperation rather than occupation is a classic method of making it last.
But probably the best thing for the people of Afghanistan long term ironically enough may be to just leave them alone - give them their independence and provide a steady stream of minimalist, basic aid and try to let the culture evolve over time. Let them get sick of their corrupt governmments, have their own civil wars over religion or whatever. There are 'more progressive' Middle Eastern nations, and they will likely export their culture and eventually have an influence on the cultures of the 'regressive/conservative' Middle Eastern nations.
The ideal case would probably be if the Afghan National Army collectively had just learned some basic discipline, if the Americans did more to emphasize ideology in their training of the Afghan army, and had the sense to understand and undermine the methods that the Taliban used to subvert the ANA. If the Afghani National Army had more skin in the game, I doubt we'd see what we saw. For every person trying to hang on to an airplane, they should have been handed a rifle, given 3 hours of training, and sent to the front-lines. Maybe the US should have been training exclusively women? It seems like they would be the ones most incentivized to protect their newfound rights.
Honestly it just sickens me, seeing how many men there in he photo of people escaping on that C-17. It's like 85%+ males. Why are there not more women and children on-board? Afghani culture just seems so backwards and absurd, a breeding ground for cowardice among those who aren't indoctrinated and paid handsomely into being psychotic zealots. From a military theory standpoint I'm legitimately still trying to reconcile the notion of a 300,000 strong army with better equipment and logistics losing to an army of less than 75,000 in a matter of weeks and not months - or just you know, never losing. I can't imagine the level of corruption, lying, false reporting, and cultural mismatch that could lead to such an outcome. But it's absolutely an American problem that they didn't recognize it and do something about it.
|
|
|
On August 18 2021 05:10 SirKibbleX wrote:
Honestly it just sickens me, seeing how many men there in he photo of people escaping on that C-17. It's like 85%+ males. Why are there not more women and children on-board? Afghani culture just seems so backwards and absurd, a breeding ground for cowardice among those who aren't indoctrinated and paid handsomely into being psychotic zealots. From a military theory standpoint I'm legitimately still trying to reconcile the notion of a 300,000 strong army with better equipment and logistics losing to an army of less than 75,000 in a matter of weeks and not months - or just you know, never losing. I can't imagine the level of corruption, lying, false reporting, and cultural mismatch that could lead to such an outcome. But it's absolutely an American problem that they didn't recognize it and do something about it.
Men were also the majority of "refugees" that came about to the Syrian civil war. Although, I think this is probably more legitimate, as the majority of our collaborators would likely be male in this situation.
Also, to see why the bigger army lost look at the link I shared 3-5 pages back.
|
https://scholars-stage.org/fighting-like-taliban/
This was a really, really great article, and I did read it. I think it really helps get into the mindset of how war works within this culture. It's a tremendously different military tradition and culture.
For the record, I'm not trying to imply any kind of general cultural superiority against the Afghans - I'm trying to suss out some of the cultural differences especially with respect to military tradition that could have led to such a huge underestimation of this group's performance by certain officials. Surely there must have been failures in how American soldiers and trainers reported outcomes. There must not have been basic tests of various skills competency or written tests or examinations for officers on government or ideology. Afghanis, possibly even Taliban members, surely accepted paychecks for being a soldier who never had any intent of ever lifting a finger.
Nearly as bad, I've heard reports of mid-level commanders making up fictional people to inflate the numbers of the army and stealing those payments. Why were these things not audited? How did the U.S. military working closely with these guys not catch wind of this corruption? And since they probably did, why was nothing done about it by the higher-ups?
I'm so pissed at the military for allowing this sham to have happened. Whichever officers oversaw the training, and probably their direct reports and maybe even *their* reports all need to be fired.
|
On August 18 2021 03:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How on earth is exploiting a country your perfect world? I keep being weirded out by the things you write on this subject.
In my opinion it depends on how the country is being "exploited" if it's something like:
Large country give
- Secure borders.
- Financial aid to rebuild.
- Specialists to help the rebuild.
Small country give
- Dont break human rights.
- No housing terror organization .
- Exclusive mining rights for x years.
I'd say it's a pretty decent deal for a war torn, tired and poor country.
|
On August 18 2021 07:16 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 03:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How on earth is exploiting a country your perfect world? I keep being weirded out by the things you write on this subject. In my opinion it depends on how the country is being "exploited" if it's something like: Large country give - Secure borders.
- Financial aid to rebuild.
- Specialists to help the rebuild.
Small country give - Dont break human rights.
- No housing terror organization .
- Exclusive mining rights for x years.
I'd say it's a pretty decent deal for a war torn, tired and poor country.
The bolded are deal breakers. It will never work as long as these are conditions. China won't care and they won't need those concessions.
|
|
|
Norway28892 Posts
On August 18 2021 07:16 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 03:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How on earth is exploiting a country your perfect world? I keep being weirded out by the things you write on this subject. In my opinion it depends on how the country is being "exploited" if it's something like: Large country give - Secure borders.
- Financial aid to rebuild.
- Specialists to help the rebuild.
Small country give - Dont break human rights.
- No housing terror organization .
- Exclusive mining rights for x years.
I'd say it's a pretty decent deal for a war torn, tired and poor country.
Exploitation is by definition an unfair arrangement.
|
I'm getting the same vibe from this conversation as from Trump's "we should have taken [Iraq's] oil" line back in 2016.
|
On August 18 2021 07:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 07:16 Jek wrote:On August 18 2021 03:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How on earth is exploiting a country your perfect world? I keep being weirded out by the things you write on this subject. In my opinion it depends on how the country is being "exploited" if it's something like: Large country give - Secure borders.
- Financial aid to rebuild.
- Specialists to help the rebuild.
Small country give - Dont break human rights.
- No housing terror organization .
- Exclusive mining rights for x years.
I'd say it's a pretty decent deal for a war torn, tired and poor country. Exploitation is by definition an unfair arrangement.
Would you call the deal bad for the theoretical poor country?
|
|
|
On August 18 2021 09:16 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2021 07:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 18 2021 07:16 Jek wrote:On August 18 2021 03:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:
How on earth is exploiting a country your perfect world? I keep being weirded out by the things you write on this subject. In my opinion it depends on how the country is being "exploited" if it's something like: Large country give - Secure borders.
- Financial aid to rebuild.
- Specialists to help the rebuild.
Small country give - Dont break human rights.
- No housing terror organization .
- Exclusive mining rights for x years.
I'd say it's a pretty decent deal for a war torn, tired and poor country. Exploitation is by definition an unfair arrangement. Would you call the deal bad for the theoretical poor country?
Don’t even need to be that poor. Peru would totally love that deal, unfortunately.
|
Even Mexico, probably, would love this deal if we could do it in some sort of way, and they are I think the richest country south of the US in the Americas. The cartels and the government are both really bad for the people there. But they are somewhat collaborative, marginally at odds, and so large segments of the population are poorer and less happy.
But, almost no one there (at least as far as my conversations have gone) would accept anything like this. The only plausible solution I've heard would be a US recall of most of its deployments in places like Germany, South Korea, and Japan, placing them at the border, and declaring a sort of DMZ wherever cartels control, basically stating "this place is no longer Mexico, its a terrorist substate". IMO this would actually work and be a good thing long term, but it would be unpopular in both countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
