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.
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?
Depends how large the financial aid is compared to the value and duration of the mining rights.. I am sure it is possible to come up with a solution that would genuinely be mutually beneficial, but I'd be very skeptical towards the idea of the large and powerful country suggesting a non-exploitative deal. I don't have any issues with the suggestion hypothetically, but maintain the opinion that when rich countries have harvested the natural resources of poorer countries, historically, the poor country has virtually always gotten a bad deal.
But if this suggestion was one where say, mining rights are given for x years and those years are spent developing infrastructure so the poor country can successfully nationalize them at the end of the contract, I could picture myself being hugely supportive of this type of arrangement.
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.
What fantasy world? The post WW2 era has irrefutably shown that seemingly crazy things are possible.
A European Union that has problems but is pretty cohesive after an unbelievably destructive war between nations that make up said European Union? A Japan that got nuked not once, but twice and has cordial relations with the nation that nuked it?
If you’re talking to average Joe in 1945, both of those if posed as predictions seem absolute lunacy.
The problem isn’t idealism, it’s a lack of it. America used to, for all it’s other flaws have some imagination and principles guiding its foreign policy.
The issue is ideology, not idealism. Idealism is wide-eyed, bushy-tailed, enthusiastic and open to possibilities and reshaping the world. Ideology is open to reshaping the world, provided you think you can shape it into your chosen image.
For all people enjoy shitting on America, historically, at your best your idealism has lead to great things, a man on the moon, stuff I’ve previously mentioned. Jumping in World Wars you could absolutely have sat out of and been fine.
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.
What fantasy world? The post WW2 era has irrefutably shown that seemingly crazy things are possible.
A European Union that has problems but is pretty cohesive after an unbelievably destructive war between nations that make up said European Union? A Japan that got nuked not once, but twice and has cordial relations with the nation that nuked it?
If you’re talking to average Joe in 1945, both of those if posed as predictions seem absolute lunacy.
The problem isn’t idealism, it’s a lack of it. America used to, for all it’s other flaws have some imagination and principles guiding its foreign policy.
The issue is ideology, not idealism. Idealism is wide-eyed, bushy-tailed, enthusiastic and open to possibilities and reshaping the world. Ideology is open to reshaping the world, provided you think you can shape it into your chosen image.
For all people enjoy shitting on America, historically, at your best your idealism has lead to great things, a man on the moon, stuff I’ve previously mentioned. Jumping in World Wars you could absolutely have sat out of and been fine.
Sorry I forgot to respond to you before.
I understand your point that situations can look bleak and hopeless and still turn out great. I generally share that perspective and I am a big proponent of the idea that time is a lot longer than we realize. Things go on after we are gone. We don't need problems to be solved in the next 20 years and we should be courageous enough to try.
From the reading I have done about Afghanistan, it feels like a totally different level of chaos compared to post-WW2 Europe. I am by no means an expert, but it appears to just be really different. It seems like even the formation of Afghanistan in the 1800s was a really bad move.
Its not that I don't think Afghanistan can ever be a happy place. Its that I think the US isn't the right therapist to help the country thrive.
One core truth will always be conservatism and religion losing ground culturally around the world. Those are the major issues in Afghanistan, so it will eventually work out. But I really think they need to find their own way. They've been robbed of their own identity by constantly being molded to be something they never wanted to be. There can be big lows before thrilling highs. Just to be clear, there are no good solutions *currently*. But it will improve eventually.
One thing that I would like to see as an interim solution is a unified global refugee system for Afghanistan. I dunno where to put them, but the world should try to have places where people can go to flee Afghanistan if they want.
I think the world should always intervene to allow citizens to leave a country. That is one place where I put my foot down in terms of leaving others alone. No one should ever be forced to stay. We should launch attacks on whatever forces keep people trapped. Aside from that, I think this is simply their time to overcome their situation and find their new identity.
Damn we're really going back to 2001 in Afghanistan apparently the vice president is rallying ana forces in northern Afghanistan northern alliance style and pushing to link up with the forces that fled to Uzbekistan.
And biden still has thousands of troops at the airport in Kabul. Let's just reinvade and forget all the lessons and mistakes we made.
On August 18 2021 18:00 Sermokala wrote: Damn we're really going back to 2001 in Afghanistan apparently the vice president is rallying ana forces in northern Afghanistan northern alliance style and pushing to link up with the forces that fled to Uzbekistan.
And biden still has thousands of troops at the airport in Kabul. Let's just reinvade and forget all the lessons and mistakes we made.
It's a never ending story unfortunately.
Training people to pull out with the most valuable equipment and assets was never going to end well.
Should just let Afghanistan be Afghanistan at this point. Our western values and system doesn't work there, never will, at least not without actually forcing it by maintaining a presence there and even then it's hard to ignore the Tali have been on the rise for like the last 2y.
Training people to pull out with the most valuable equipment and assets was never going to end well.
Should just let Afghanistan be Afghanistan at this point. Our western values and system doesn't work there, never will, at least not without actually forcing it by maintaining a presence there and even then it's hard to ignore the Tali have been on the rise for like the last 2y.[/QUOTE]
But evacuating everyone who really believed in your freedom bullshit and worked for you would still have been right.
Training people to pull out with the most valuable equipment and assets was never going to end well.
Should just let Afghanistan be Afghanistan at this point. Our western values and system doesn't work there, never will, at least not without actually forcing it by maintaining a presence there and even then it's hard to ignore the Tali have been on the rise for like the last 2y.[/QUOTE]
But evacuating everyone who really believed in your freedom bullshit and worked for you would still have been right.
[/QUOTE]
"Your" freedom "bullshit"
Please do elaborate instead of just trying to be offensive.
Please do elaborate instead of just trying to be offensive.
The NATO (or ISAF) troops enabled and even encouraged a more free lifestyle, when the politics decided to pull out, with no contingency plan, basicly on sunday, they left behind thousands of people that would not like to live under the sharia, and also thousands that already have been threatened by the Taliban personaly.
Thousands i think should be given visas or even citizenship in the US and other NATO countries. AND also should have been moved before the last fighting troops leave.
US-policy is even better than the german's. We'd only give visas to people who worked directly for the Bundeswehr in the last two years, and not even contractors. Ignoring everyone who worked for german NGOs and other departments of government than the acutal military.
All ISAF casualties died for nothing. All emtpy words about freedom worth defending...well until it's just not worth defending anymore...and you pull out.
Please do elaborate instead of just trying to be offensive.
The NATO (or ISAF) troops enabled and even encouraged a more free lifestyle, when the politics decided to pull out, with no contingency plan, basicly on sunday, they left behind thousands of people that would not like to live under the sharia, and also thousands that already have been threatened by the Taliban personaly.
Thousands i think should be given visas or even citizenship in the US and other NATO countries. AND also should have been moved before the last fighting troops leave.
US-policy is even better than the german's. We'd only give visas to people who worked directly for the Bundeswehr in the last two years, and not even contractors. Ignoring everyone who worked for german NGOs and other departments of government than the acutal military.
All ISAF casualties died for nothing. All emtpy words about freedom worth defending...well until it's just not worth defending anymore...and you pull out.
Depends on what perspective you decide to look at it from. At some point a harsh decision needs to be made when it's obvious that 20y of occupying Afghanistan didn't result in a society that would reflect our own.
I know for a fact that there's definitely a part that were glad we ( the western coalition) were there but make no mistake, the tribal mentality is still a very core foundation of life over there, anyone stronger showing up will get their support, over the last 2y they all saw the Taliban growing, getting richer and stronger. To say that it's only a minority backing the Taliban right now would be a dangerous thing to say.
Am I happy with this? No, but you have to face the fact that the US made the wrong decision and Afghanistan falling in less than a week is honestly a serious wakeup call. Either you go back in and STAY or you don't go in at all. It's a sad situation and I definitely am saddened by what's going on, but looking at it from an objective standpoint, The US made a very very bad call based on very inaccurate intelligence and we're paying for it as are the Afghans who were on our side (granted, the majority of them won't think twice about just supporting the Taliban if it means they can just continue living).
Btw, I said "your" as I'm definitely not American, so going at me the way you did was kinda confusing at first. Apologies if I gave the impression that I'm from America, in fact we're practically neighbors as I'm from Belgium.
It'll be interesting to see what comes next - has the Taliban liberalized, and what sort of resistance (armed or otherwise) will pop up and how successful they are. Either way I'm damn glad we're doing it from the outside.
On August 19 2021 03:19 ticklishmusic wrote: I'm glad we're finally out of Afghanistan.
It'll be interesting to see what comes next - has the Taliban liberalized, and what sort of resistance (armed or otherwise) will pop up and how successful they are. Either way I'm damn glad we're doing it from the outside.
This is more or less my take as well. Could the pullout have been handled better? Perhaps so. Nonetheless, getting out is a huge step away from our failed attempts at nation-building via the military.
On August 19 2021 03:19 ticklishmusic wrote: I'm glad we're finally out of Afghanistan.
It'll be interesting to see what comes next - has the Taliban liberalized, and what sort of resistance (armed or otherwise) will pop up and how successful they are. Either way I'm damn glad we're doing it from the outside.
This is more or less my take as well. Could the pullout have been handled better? Perhaps so. Nonetheless, getting out is a huge step away from our failed attempts at nation-building via the military.
I think it was entirely perfect except for the order of removing people. Military should have been the absolute last people to leave. Aside from that, we're good.
The whole military thing ended up working out fine, so far. It seems like the Taliban is just going to theme parks and doesn't care about the airport. So long as all the Americans make it out without harm, I see this as a zero-issue withdrawal from a USA-centric perspective.
The only worry I have is the release of so many bad guys who've been caught throughout the years. Sure, they'll be happy to be free again but at the same time.. what's on their mind after this has quieted down?
People are genuinely worried for another 9/11 knowing that those people with soooo much resentment towards the west are free to do as they please.
I can imagine terrorism will go up again, I don't see how it wouldn't. With all the weapon caches from the US military that were still present are in their possession now too.. Can't imagine it won't be put to use one way or an other.
Genuinely curious about the future.
Still believe we should let Afghanistan be Afghanistan, but how to minimize the payoff for that is beyond my understanding and knowledge of the possibilities.
Yeah, I know John is being a tad dramatic there but at the same time I don't think anyone can argue about his own experiences over there and the perspective he has comes from what he experienced there. A bit sensational (too sensational to my liking) but I can't blindly throw everything he says in that video out the window either. (Except for the summary of countries he mentioned I'm still lol'ing as he missed the swing there)
On August 19 2021 03:19 ticklishmusic wrote: I'm glad we're finally out of Afghanistan.
It'll be interesting to see what comes next - has the Taliban liberalized, and what sort of resistance (armed or otherwise) will pop up and how successful they are. Either way I'm damn glad we're doing it from the outside.
I posted already about this on this page. ITs just 2001 all over again with the north of the country in rebellion. I'll be shocked if the nation doesn't slip into a multi-sided civil war Once the Taliban fails to get all the old corruption schemes up and running.
On August 19 2021 03:58 wdoubleN wrote: The only worry I have is the release of so many bad guys who've been caught throughout the years. Sure, they'll be happy to be free again but at the same time.. what's on their mind after this has quieted down?
People are genuinely worried for another 9/11 knowing that those people with soooo much resentment towards the west are free to do as they please.
I can imagine terrorism will go up again, I don't see how it wouldn't. With all the weapon caches from the US military that were still present are in their possession now too.. Can't imagine it won't be put to use one way or an other.
Genuinely curious about the future.
Still believe we should let Afghanistan be Afghanistan, but how to minimize the payoff for that is beyond my understanding and knowledge of the possibilities.
Yeah, I know John is being a tad dramatic there but at the same time I don't think anyone can argue about his own experiences over there and the perspective he has comes from what he experienced there. A bit sensational (too sensational to my liking) but I can't blindly throw everything he says in that video out the window either. (Except for the summary of countries he mentioned I'm still lol'ing as he missed the swing there)
The last 20 years have been a nightmare for everyone involved. The Taliban and all their homies know they would be well served by just building their Afghanistan caliphate
On August 19 2021 03:58 wdoubleN wrote: The only worry I have is the release of so many bad guys who've been caught throughout the years. Sure, they'll be happy to be free again but at the same time.. what's on their mind after this has quieted down?
People are genuinely worried for another 9/11 knowing that those people with soooo much resentment towards the west are free to do as they please.
I can imagine terrorism will go up again, I don't see how it wouldn't. With all the weapon caches from the US military that were still present are in their possession now too.. Can't imagine it won't be put to use one way or an other.
Genuinely curious about the future.
Still believe we should let Afghanistan be Afghanistan, but how to minimize the payoff for that is beyond my understanding and knowledge of the possibilities.
Yeah, I know John is being a tad dramatic there but at the same time I don't think anyone can argue about his own experiences over there and the perspective he has comes from what he experienced there. A bit sensational (too sensational to my liking) but I can't blindly throw everything he says in that video out the window either. (Except for the summary of countries he mentioned I'm still lol'ing as he missed the swing there)
The last 20 years have been a nightmare for everyone involved. The Taliban and all their homies know they would be well served by just building their Afghanistan caliphate
What makes you think that 1) they'll be allowed to build their caliphate? 2) they would stop after that, 3) they'll go down that road without doing some extra towards the west on the side?
Genuine questions btw. Been reading the comments a bit and it seems most people are able to explain their thoughts really well, so I hope you don't mind me asking for yours on this.
On August 19 2021 03:58 wdoubleN wrote: The only worry I have is the release of so many bad guys who've been caught throughout the years. Sure, they'll be happy to be free again but at the same time.. what's on their mind after this has quieted down?
People are genuinely worried for another 9/11 knowing that those people with soooo much resentment towards the west are free to do as they please.
I can imagine terrorism will go up again, I don't see how it wouldn't. With all the weapon caches from the US military that were still present are in their possession now too.. Can't imagine it won't be put to use one way or an other.
Genuinely curious about the future.
Still believe we should let Afghanistan be Afghanistan, but how to minimize the payoff for that is beyond my understanding and knowledge of the possibilities.
Yeah, I know John is being a tad dramatic there but at the same time I don't think anyone can argue about his own experiences over there and the perspective he has comes from what he experienced there. A bit sensational (too sensational to my liking) but I can't blindly throw everything he says in that video out the window either. (Except for the summary of countries he mentioned I'm still lol'ing as he missed the swing there)
The last 20 years have been a nightmare for everyone involved. The Taliban and all their homies know they would be well served by just building their Afghanistan caliphate
What makes you think that 1) they'll be allowed to build their caliphate? 2) they would stop after that, 3) they'll go down that road without doing some extra towards the west on the side?
Genuine questions btw. Been reading the comments a bit and it seems most people are able to explain their thoughts really well, so I hope you don't mind me asking for yours on this.
I think if they wanted to fuck with the US, they'd be fucking with planes and people leaving. They don't want this to continue.
On August 19 2021 03:58 wdoubleN wrote: The only worry I have is the release of so many bad guys who've been caught throughout the years. Sure, they'll be happy to be free again but at the same time.. what's on their mind after this has quieted down?
People are genuinely worried for another 9/11 knowing that those people with soooo much resentment towards the west are free to do as they please.
I can imagine terrorism will go up again, I don't see how it wouldn't. With all the weapon caches from the US military that were still present are in their possession now too.. Can't imagine it won't be put to use one way or an other.
Genuinely curious about the future.
Still believe we should let Afghanistan be Afghanistan, but how to minimize the payoff for that is beyond my understanding and knowledge of the possibilities.
Yeah, I know John is being a tad dramatic there but at the same time I don't think anyone can argue about his own experiences over there and the perspective he has comes from what he experienced there. A bit sensational (too sensational to my liking) but I can't blindly throw everything he says in that video out the window either. (Except for the summary of countries he mentioned I'm still lol'ing as he missed the swing there)
The last 20 years have been a nightmare for everyone involved. The Taliban and all their homies know they would be well served by just building their Afghanistan caliphate
What makes you think that 1) they'll be allowed to build their caliphate? 2) they would stop after that, 3) they'll go down that road without doing some extra towards the west on the side?
Genuine questions btw. Been reading the comments a bit and it seems most people are able to explain their thoughts really well, so I hope you don't mind me asking for yours on this.
1)If the West was going to stop them from building a Caliphate the time for that was before we ran with our tails between our legs. 2) That's a local problem, not the Wests 3) Presumably a desire to not see their new caliphate go up in the dust plume of a carpet bombing.
The West is leaving and giving them back the country. The quickest way to lose it again is to piss off the people who kicked them out in the first place.
Thats probably the theory atleast. Terrorists are hardly the most rational of actors and I personally won't be surprised if this comes back to bite us in some 10-20 years time.
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.
I am talking facts.
You say protocol iii prohibits the use of incindiary weapons on humans. This is false.
Article 2: Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
It clearly refers to civilian population, individual civilians and concentration of civilians.
Not only is your situation of 20 fighters in a cave a fantasy, and the use of flamethrowers on a cave a dubious tactic that would increase American casualties, there is no political prohibition banning the use of flamethrowers, which you keep beleiving that it exists. Except onto civilian targets.
Can we agree that not using flamethrowers on civilians is actually a good thing?
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.
I am talking facts.
You say protocol iii prohibits the use of incindiary weapons on humans. This is false.
Article 2: Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
It clearly refers to civilian population, individual civilians and concentration of civilians.
Not only is your situation of 20 fighters in a cave a fantasy, and the use of flamethrowers on a cave a dubious tactic that would increase American casualties, there is no political prohibition banning the use of flamerthrowers, which you keep beleiving that it exists. Except onto civilian targets.
Can we agree that not using flamethrowers on civilians is actually a good thing?
I think the point that military folks bring up is "how do I know who is a civilian when they use kids as bombs and old women as information sources?", which is fair, but it doesn't mean you should use a flame thrower on everyone lol
EPT
