SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - New Afghanistan policy

Page 5 of 6

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - New Afghanistan policy (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=158795)

Onkel Neal

12-08-09 10:56 AM

We want their poppy fields!

Snestorm

12-08-09 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 1215769)

We want their poppy fields!

Agreed.

Also. The article link you posted (Washington Times) was very interesting.
Maybe we'll all get lucky, and they can fix there problems, so their people will want to remain in their own country, and those that left will have an incentive to go home.

High unemployment + immigration = big longterm problems.

goldorak

12-08-09 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish (Post 1215746)

Hello,

if i remember right, a long time ago one of the then officials in Afghanistan asked the US to stay, and help. The "answer" of the american ambassador was short "Do you have anything to trade in for - resources ? No ? Bye.."

Then the US left, and Russia overtook in a way, killing more people, also certainly lots of its own army. At that time the US supported Mr. Osama BinLaden heavily with all kinds of ammunition, against the bad russians.

Now i wonder why they did it then, other than for strategical reasons ?
What is the strategical role of Afghanistan (Against China? Russia?), if there isn't anything else ? Ah, Drugs .. :shifty:

You said it for geo-strategical reasons.
Fight those ugly commies if not directly as in Vietnam then through incentives to islamic fanatics that decades after would haunt the west. Isn't it ironic ?

Quote:

But really, why did the US get involved again ? To chase one man and a few followers ? The real homestead has been somehow left out, like Saudi Arabia. But there's maybe a reason..
Greetings,
Catfish

Yeah, somehow everyone conveniently forgot just from which country all the terrorists of 9/11 came from. Hint it was not from Afghanistan. It was Saudi Arabia that financed unhindered large sections of the islamic fanatics not only in their own country but other islamic countries as well. Always follow the money and the trail was clear -> Saudi Arabia.
But the terrorist acts were so "mediatic" that somehow chasing a single man was not deemed enough and therefore lets blame the Talibans (easy target) and off the US went in central asia.
It would have been more productive to actually bring the full force of the US on Saudi Arabia but of course it was impossibile to do as long as the US depends on SA for its energetic needs.
Saudi Arabia and its wahabite islamic doctrine is the most radical view you will find in the islamic world.

Skybird

12-08-09 02:54 PM

Tja, Saudi Arabia... America...

the biggest oil producer in the world... and the biggest oil consumer in the world...

"Wa-has soll das be-hedeuten, ehes taget ja-ha schon..." :woot:

ETR3(SS)

12-08-09 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak (Post 1215815)

You said it for geo-strategical reasons.
Fight those ugly commies if not directly as in Vietnam then through incentives to islamic fanatics that decades after would haunt the west. Isn't it ironic ?

Yeah, somehow everyone conveniently forgot just from which country all the terrorists of 9/11 came from. Hint it was not from Afghanistan. It was Saudi Arabia that financed unhindered large sections of the islamic fanatics not only in their own country but other islamic countries as well. Always follow the money and the trail was clear -> Saudi Arabia.
But the terrorist acts were so "mediatic" that somehow chasing a single man was not deemed enough and therefore lets blame the Talibans (easy target) and off the US went in central asia.
It would have been more productive to actually bring the full force of the US on Saudi Arabia but of course it was impossibile to do as long as the US depends on SA for its energetic needs.
Saudi Arabia and its wahabite islamic doctrine is the most radical view you will find in the islamic world.

You've got the story pretty much right, except for the blaming the Taliban part. We knew bin Laden was in Afghanistan, he claimed the credit and we wanted his ass. Determined not to let him slip through our grasp again, we told the Taliban that we knew bin Laden was there and to hand him over. Of course they refused, being somewhat of the local hero he is there. So again came the call to turn him over "or else." The rest of the story we all know. Our motivation for taking out the Taliban was that they were aiding bin Laden and in doing so condemned themselves to the wrath of a freshly pissed off USA.

goldorak

12-08-09 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS) (Post 1215913)

Yes you are correct.
Bin Laden as head of Al-Quaeda is if not the material responsabile than the moral responsabile for the terrorists attacks and he was supported by the Taliban regime. So aprehending him and eliminating the Taliban was important on a symbolic plane. Because we can be sure that wether Bin Laden is alive or dead it will have absolutely no consequence on the islamic terrorists if they are still being founded/greased by saudi arabian money.
What I question is wether the deployment of a whole army was the right thing to do. Its like trying to kill a fly with a 10 ton bulldozer (and Bin Laden is still at large so the goal of aprehending and bringing him to justice is not yet fullfilled).

CaptainHaplo

12-08-09 07:43 PM

The situation in "pre-russian" afghanistan - and the region - was much different than it is today.

The Russian invasion of 1979 - and our arming of the resistance - predates Pakistan having nuclear weapons. It was not until 1983 that Pakistan had a functional nuclear weapon.

Thus, an "extremist" muslim power in Afghanistan (as was there with the Taliban), and its cross border ties into (and violence within) Pakistan - represent a substantially different set of equations and risks than it used to.

The reality is that this policy is going to do one thing - it will show us whether Pakistan is truly a "moderate" islamic country, or whether they are in fact tacitly aiding as much as they can the "extremists". I won't tell you where my money is on that bet.

Skybird

12-08-09 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1216083)

it will show us whether Pakistan is truly a "moderate" islamic country,

Have I missed something? It never was!

CaptainHaplo

12-08-09 11:13 PM

I said it sarcastically - however there are many in political leadership roles in the US and in Europe that want to convince everyone (likely including themselves) that Pakistan is indeed "moderate" in its faith. They fail to see that just because it is not a theocracy doesn't mean it is not supportive (though it keeps such support as hidden as possible) of extremism.

gutted

12-09-09 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikimcbee (Post 1212104)

Well, what did you think of the speech?

i quit listening to them many months ago

gutted

12-09-09 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1213916)

Before you can decide what it would take to win - you have to define what "win" means.

Is it a stable Afghani government that can maintain its own security?

Is it the total destruction of Islamic Extremism?

Is it the death of Osama Bin Laden?

Is it al-Qaeda and the Taliban weakened to the point that they must evacuate Afghanistan entirely?

Is it dismantling any associated terror groups?

The same issue was what was brought up with Bush, and to be frank, he never answered the question either. Alot of folks see this as a continuation of the Bush "direction" - or lack thereof - because there has been no real definition of what "victory" means.

I will say his speech made it clear that it goes beyond Afghanistan however.

IMO, as long as we're killing the would be terrorists "over there" it's a win.

But, yes.. there needs to be a clear definition, with a direction towards it.

Sending in less troops than was ordered however... and giving a date of withdrawal is not the way to win anything. You only encourage the enemy to wait you out.

Why even send 30,000 more if you are going to tell the enemy when you are leaving? Why put them in harms way? What kind of slap in the face is it to one of those 30,000 to have to go risk his life needlessly, if we're going to be pulling out whether the job is complete or not anyway?

It just highlights the arrogance, naivete, and amatuerishness of this administration.

Just like "We're going to close Gitmo in one year. I don't know how we're going to do it, or what we're going to do with them.. but we're going to do it."

Ok.. umm ... why?

Platapus

12-09-09 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gutted (Post 1216292)

Sending in less troops than was ordered however... and giving a date of withdrawal is not the way to win anything. You only encourage the enemy to wait you out.

That would actually be a good thing. If the Taliban decides to do nothing but wait us out, it will give the AF government time to get their forces up.

We should use any trick we can to convince the Taliban not to attack now. It will not be time wasted and it will be easier to train up the AF forces if they are not being constantly attacked.

So yes, I hope the Taliban think the way you do. That is just what we want them to do.

Fincuan

12-09-09 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1216309)

Or it goes like the British withrawal from Aden in the 1960's: The local population doesn't really thinkg the government's forces up to the job, and correctly deduce that supporting the Brits now means a bullet in the head later-on when they've pulled out. As a result the support for the Brits plunged and outbursts and violence against them increased. They managed to hold the country together almost until the pre-designated date, but when they finally pulled out, a bit early, the People's Republic of South Yemen was declared the next day.

That's why I always think setting a fixed withrawal date is a bad idea if the local forces aren't in tip-top shap to handle the situation and the local government isn't in much better shape either.

Tribesman

12-09-09 07:21 AM

Quote:

That would actually be a good thing.

You mean like in Iraq where they paid the Sunni militia to be quiet so they could get the Iraqi forces out working and then get on with pulling out themselves.
It was quite tight though as Bush stuck with that deadline and wouldn't take the option that could have given him a better deal

Skybird

12-09-09 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1216162)

What do you think, how are their chances to convince me? :D

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 AM.

Page 5 of 6

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page