MedVision ad

War on Terror..Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. (1 Viewer)

E

Empyrean444

Guest
This.

One man's 'terrorist' is another man's freedom fighter.
The US should just fuck off instead of instigating wars and then blaming the other for retaliating and labelling THEM the terrorist.
Yes, because if we simply pack up and leave Afghanistan, all the problems with the domination of warlords, the Taliban and violence will simply dissolve and the country will revert to the Utopia it was before the Americans came.
 

Sprangler

Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
494
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Plus the Taliban aren't fighting for freedom, they're fighting in order to establish backward oppressive laws.
 

Mu5hi

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
425
Location
sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
i dont know, but all im saying is that i made the distinction about the terrorist v freedom fighter thing and it just shows how the idea of a 'terrorist' is very subjective.

im sure the russians thought of the afghans in the 80s as terrorists, while in the west they were freedom fighters

Edit: these same guys + their sons are now fighting coalition troops and being labelled terrorists (which they are)

although i admit russias intentions were a lot less noble than the coalition
The Russians intentions were trying to stabilize Afghanistan, on which the US capitalise and using Muslim allies declare "jihad" on the Russians.


With a surge in troops and the annexation of Pakistan we could win this war within a year. We brought freedom to Iraq, and Afghanistan shall eventually embrace civilization too.
Annexation of Pakistan would just cause ISI to rigorously fund Al-Qeada and the Taliban with top of the range military hardware.

US commanders wanting an extra "40,000" troops is a big ask, for an ever growing unpopular war. The terrian in Afghanistan make it difficult for the military to fight. The US is only limited to border drone attacks on the lawless Pakistan region, most of the guys killed in drone attacks are either civilians or small Taliban foot soldiers. The US is helpless in taking out the big fish who lie deeper inside Pakistan. The US needs to bribe the Pakistan military establishment via massive funding, to the American camp and hopefully by proxy it is able to get the ISI on side. That's the only way the big fish will be caught.

Can the Coalition win in Afghanistan? It will need to take new steps and get the civilian population onside and have a massive troop surge in the next few months. A lot of NATO countries are drawing up timetable for a withdrawal from Afghanistan. The US needs concrete steps including a surge before allies start to leave Afghanistan and then a surge is useless.

When the war started i was watching the new i remember this fondly, "the british lost here 100 years ago, the russians 20 years ago, will the USA be sucessful here?" Only time will tell if The United States can break the Voodoo.
 

Jeee

Banned
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
705
Location
Displaced
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
LOL. epic fail...wat i meant to say was not all afghans are good afghans.
time to re-read my post.
why not attack my post instead of me.
Your post made no sense and you were throwing around some poorly structured Pauline Hanson. Therefore, I attack you, because you're stupid.
Kthx.
 

TheStallion

Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
528
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
More violent bombings is the only way we can win this. Small sorties won't be able to do enough. Either that or fucking huge numbers of troops - most coalition forces don't have enough troops in there imo, Australia has way too little. Send our fighter jets over there at the very least ffs.
 
Last edited:

Kittikhun

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
615
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
The US is helpless in taking out the big fish who lie deeper inside Pakistan

Not really.

AFP: Pakistan Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud dead: militants

You cannot win in a counter-insurgency war. The mission for us in Afghanistan is to improve the lives of the Afghan people as best as we can before we leave and to hand over our responsibilities for the ANA to handle thereafter. That is our mission. We cannot just leave and go 'hey, thanks for letting us invade your country to search for Bin Laden and to remove the Taliban from your country for supporting Bin Laden and Al Queda in the September 11 attacks in my country. We now leave you in a worse situation than before- Afghanistan still isn't a democratic country and is instead still corrupt by its Karzai government; Taliban insurgent activities have been increasing since we invaded and one day, if we do not eradicate them, will re-emerge in your tribal villages and punish all those who helped the Americans and British and other ISAF forces and the Afghan people are still living in fear without peace. We're now leaving and you can fix yourself up now as the 170th poorest country in the world under a corrupt Karzai government.' It's unrealistic and dishonourable of us to do so until the ANA can take over from us and until Afghanistan is a democratic and safe country, free from oppression, corruption and violence, under a corrupt free democratically-elected government.

The only way we can improve the lives of the Afghans is by building trust between us and the Afghans (that is by bombing less and bringing in more troops to give them a sense of security); by assuring them that we are not occupation forces (which will hamper on the recruitment of suicide bombers by the Taliban); by providing them with security (done by a larger troop commitment i.e. surge which will prevent the Taliban and its supporters returning to villages the same night that coalition troops had just patrolled and lessen the painful occurrences of patrols engaging the enemy and beating them only to retreat back to their outposts and bases the same day to allow the Taliban to regroup again and attack in the future) and financial aid (since most of Afghanistan's economy is generated by its opium exports); by providing better training and motivation and leadership training for the ANA (in order to allow us to withdraw in the future); by continuing to support anti-Taliban tribal groups in the tribal areas between the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan; by supporting and trusting the efforts of the Pakistan Army (which are taking a beating at this moment); by increasing the number of UAV bombing sorties to hunt for Taliban leaders and by maintaining general public support for the war effort by us (a vital element in winning, or gaining the upper hand in, a counter-insurgency war)

More violent bombings is the only way we can win this. Small sorties won't be able to do enough. Either that or fucking huge numbers of troops - most coalition forces don't have enough troops in there imo, Australia has way too little. Send our fighter jets over there at the very least ffs.

Like I said, this war is practically not winnable. There will be no white flag from the Taliban. Carrying out more violent bombing attacks will not help at all in the war effort. Sure they will, if we can hit Taliban targets all the time but that's unrealistic when they use innocent Afghans as human shields.

Taliban terror holds 2,000 villagers as human shields - Times Online

This will just result in more civilian deaths and in a counter-insurgency operation it is important to win the 'hearts and minds' of the civilian population as shown by the British in Malaya. Killing innocent civilians, even if by accident, will not win hearts and minds. Instead, what I believe should be done is to send more troops to the country and give the Afghan people security while the ANA gets the experience to be a competent enough force to protect its own country.

Yes, we do not have enough in Afghanistan but then again if a government sends more troops to Afghanistan they will probably lose in their next election as public support for the war wanes as the casualties mount up and questions of why we are there start becoming rampant(which is understandable when you live in Wooten Bassett and have seen over 200 caskets pass through your town's streets). Politicians tend not to like to do that, especially those from European countries, except of Britain and France. However, I also believe more Australian troops need to be sent. Probably one more battalion. The funny thing is when you say that is all NATO forces, which make up the majority of the ISAF in Afghanistan, have more soldiers on the ground than us! Anyway, back to the point, if we can send 5000 to East Timor in 1999 we can increase our contribution to 2000 soldiers., then again it probably would be unnecessary, unless if the Dutch withdraw, but yet more troops would make Afghanistan a more secure country temporarily; how long will they stay there is the question.

Fighter jets won't do much unless if an infantry unit is about to be overrun (as what nearly happened to a US unit last year when their outpost was attacked by about 1000 Taliban) and then again that would be danger close. In the mountains of Afghanistan gunship helicopters play the best role in air support for the troops. A 30mm chain gun and 20mm cannons together with hellfire missiles can do more damage to Taliban forces than an F18 Hornet fighter jet dropping down a bomb danger close in support to the coalition infantry down below.
 
Last edited:

Kittikhun

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
615
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
I just got this email off a comrade.

1. Life is getting worse for most Afghans under occupation. There are still millions of Afghan people in refugee camps in Pakistan and thousands have been internally displaced. Life expectancy is 43 years. Access to water is 31% of households. Adult literacy is just 24%. Some 50% of children are malnourished. Far more is spent on the war and the military than on reconstruction.

2. More and more people are dying. No one keeps track of the number of Afghan dead, but it numbers in the tens of thousands since 2001. Eleven Australian soldiers and more than 1000 US and NATO soldiers have been killed in the war and occupation. There are weekly reports of occupation forces and US air strikes killing civilians. The Taliban is using suicide bomber to do the same. The carnage is growing.

3. The coalition forces are spreading the war into Pakistan. Military raids and unmanned drones have taken the war into the North-West Frontier regions of Pakistan. Under US pressure the Pakistan army has attacked the Swat valley and displaced some 2 million people.

4. The war has cost us billions over the past 8 years. The Rudd government has budgeted the Afghanistan war to cost $1.3 billion in 2009-10, a 50% increase over previous years along with another 500 troops. There is no separate budget for aid to the Afghans.

5. We were told that the war in Afghanistan would liberate women.Women's lives have not improved. Death in childbirth is rising. less than a third of Afghan girls are in school and less than 10% can read and write. In a bid for fundamentalist support, the Karzai government has even passed a law allowing rape in marriage. Women are still subject to high rates of physical abuse and limited access to jobs even in the cities.

6. This war cannot be 'won' by the occupiers. The failure of the Karzai government and foreign aid to deliver any real improvement to the people of Afghanistan is forcing them to look to the Taliban and war lords.. More foreign troops and more helicopters will not change that equation as retired generals in the UK and US also admit. They have called the war "unwinnable" , not least because of the cost of lives and weapons. Afghanistan is called the "graveyard of empires" because its people have fiercely defended their independence.

7. Kevin Rudd claims the war is about 'combating terrorism'. But there was no terrorist threat to Australia before the war in Afghanistan, or before the war in Iraq in 2003. Strategic analysts like conservative Huge Whitepoint out that Australian support for America's war in Muslim countries has made us a target.

8. The majority of Australians want the troops to leave. An Age/Nielsen poll in March revealed 65% opposed Kevin Rudd's decision to send more troops there and 51% opposed the war outright. A majority of Americans – 54% - also now oppose the war according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released in August, 2009.

9. The war is destroying the country. The Hamid Karzai government, mired in corruption, is prepared to do deals with the Taliban and war lords to try to hang onto power. Opium cultivation and addiction has massively increased, encouraged by the warlords and the Taliban. Ethnic divisions fostered by the Occupation is dividing people as never before and threatening ethnic strife.

10. The majority of Afghans do not want the war and do not want occupying forces in their country. Malalai Joya, an Afghan woman MP, told meetings around Australia in July that the Afghan people have two enemies: the fundamentalists and the occupation forces. She said that they can easily deal with the fundamentalists, but not with an occupying force which is giving support to such reactionaries. . She urged Australians to pressure the government to remove the foreign forces.


Ten reasons to end the war in Afghanistan. What do people think of this?
This is what a US Army Ranger veteran who has actually served in Afghanistan thinks about these ten points made by your comrade in a forum where I posted your post. He makes some good points.

1. BS. Research what life was actually like under the Taliban before making that claim... Many, many more people fled to refugee camps (and anywhere else) during the post-Soviet civil war and the Taliban occupation than have left since we arrived. Yes, there are people still in the camps, but fewer than there were before the Taliban was ousted. Even if your other numbers are true (and I have a tough time with some of them,) Afghanistan was not some wealthy utopia before the war - it has always been one of the poorest, harshest countries on the planet. It sucks for them, but it's not this war's fault.

2. It's a war. People die. I know, in your video games you get to come back to life every time, but that's not how it works here...

3. The war STARTED in Pakistan. They created, trained, and continue to support the Taliban/ACM. One of the lessons from Vietnam is that you cannot win a counter-insurgency if you allow the enemy to have a safe haven from which to operate; if anything, we should force the Pakistanis to EXPAND the war against the Pakistani Taliban/ACM.

4. War is expensive. As to "no budget" to help the Afghan people, you are talking out of your ass. Millions upon millions upon millions of dollars have been spent by the Department of Defense, Department of State, and numerous other governmental and non-governmental bodies directly to help the people. Hell, as a lowly platoon leader over there, I had access to tens of thousands of dollars that we spent digging wells, providing school supplies, building clinics, and so on. To say that money isn't being spent (in huge quantities) helping the Afghans is an outright lie.

5. Life for women still sucks there, but it is slowly getting better.Under the Taliban, it was FAR worse. So, only one in three girls is in school now? Well, if only one girl was in school that would literally be an infinite improvement over the ZERO that were in school under the Taliban...Going from zero to 1/3 isn't bad, considering the environment there is fundamentally against educating women. And hey, guess what? It isn't the wars fault that they are treated so poorly, it is the fault of the "religion of peace" and the cultural values of that region. It will NEVER get better without pressure from the rest of the world.

6. This is entirely opinion. The Taliban garner most of their support by spreading drug money around, of by threatening to kill anyone who doesn't work with them. We can't operate that way. No war is "unwinnable," if the goals are realistic. Are we going to turn Afghanistan into East Iowa in the next ten years? No, of course not. But we can keep them relatively stable, and keep them from being a base of terrorism as they were 9 years ago.

7. Frankly, I don't give a crap about Australia. Help, or don't. Be an ally, or don't. You really aren't that important. However, know that your decisions will have consequences down the road.

8. Again, Oz can do as they please. If the sheep here eventually baah loud enough, maybe they'll be able to cause us to lose this war, too, but so far it hasn't happened...

9. The Karzai government is extremely corrupt, no doubt. No doubt, also, was every govt before them. Not an excuse for him, just a statement of fact. As to the ethnic divisions being worse now - Bull. Go talk to the Hazara (or any other ethnic minority) about how they felt about the ethnic divisions under the Pashtun Taliban. I have personally walked through "ghost villages" where the entire populations (of Hazara, in these cases) were rounded up, most to be killed, some to be taken off as slaves, the lucky few to flee to camps to live in forced isolation. The Taliban were/are a racist, murderous scourge. That you keep saying things are worse now shows a massive ignorance of history.

10. If the Afghans could so easily "deal" with the Taliban, why then were the Taliban in power for so long? That is just plain stupid. They couldn't "deal," they were under the yoke of those animals for six years (after 5+ years of full-on civil war). Afghanistan is a fractured, tribal country that can't "deal" with getting themselves running water, electricity, any sort of central government, or any of the other trappings of what we might consider "civilization." With tens of thousands of US troops there, they can't "deal" with the Taliban/ACM, and yet we're expected to believe that if we just walk away they will somehow magically whoop the Taliban even though they completely failed to do just that in the civil war? Seriously, man, listen to what you are saying here...

Frankly, I don't care if we continue the ground occupation or not. I don't think the entire country is worth one more US life. However, simply bugging out is no guarantee that no more Americans will die - a completely failed Afghanistan could have very dire results for us down the road. If you think that Oz (or whomever) should pull out, that's fine - it's an opinion. Just try (for once) to base it on actual fact, and not parrot some stooge who is using murky logic, skewed stats, and, mostly, complete lies to support his thesis.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top