What is next for Afghanistan?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

I was dismayed by Powell's support for the invasion of Iraq, since I did and do find him very impressive otherwise.

Nobody bats a thousand.

See, you and I can agree on things.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Yes of course I am wrong. Killing people with drones is a mark of bravery. Soon the US military will be issuing purple hearts because of the damage suffered in PTSD.

 

 

 

Try to separate the stupidity of the war from the facility of the weapon. I don't know, maybe your heart is so pure and your willingness to adhere to your philosophy so strong that you'd rather your friends or family be massacred by a homicide bomber than risk, against small odds, an innocent life lost in a drone strike. Well good for you. Me, well when I saw the footage of the attack on the car after 13 of our soldiers were killed by those maniacs I thought: f'n good. When I learned the attack was a mistake and an Afghani family was killed, I though that's really awful. I also thought, so be it, that's what can happen when your entire super well equipped and trained 300,000 man strong army surrenders on day one minus 20 and everyone else hides at home or tries to escape at the airport fucking it up for everyone else. The USA does not own 100% of every fuck up, believe it or not.

[gowlerk 1,903]

31 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Me, well when I saw the footage of the attack on the car after 13 of our soldiers were killed by those maniacs I thought: f'n good.

Yup, I know. Same reason few Americans objected to the Iraq invasion. Y'all needed to get some revenge for 9/11. So spending a few trillion dollars and expending a few thousand of your soldiers was worth it. Who cares that Iraq had nothing to do with it? They're all the same over there in the sand box. Because revenge is just so sweet. As long as you don't personally pay the price that is. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yup, I know. Same reason few Americans objected to the Iraq invasion. Y'all needed to get some revenge for 9/11. So spending a few trillion dollars and expending a few thousand of your soldiers was worth it. Who cares that Iraq had nothing to do with it? They're all the same over there in the sand box. Because revenge is just so sweet. As long as you don't personally pay the price that is. 

Hi Ken,

Please count me as one of the 'few.'

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,294]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yup, I know. Same reason few Americans objected to the Iraq invasion. Y'all needed to get some revenge for 9/11. So spending a few trillion dollars and expending a few thousand of your soldiers was worth it. Who cares that Iraq had nothing to do with it? They're all the same over there in the sand box. Because revenge is just so sweet. As long as you don't personally pay the price that is. 

Take a deep breath and try to separate your thoughts. A lot of Americans, not a few, objected to the Iraq invasion. No one knew it would be a 2 Trillion dollar and 20 year adventure at the onset. And we are not so callous to think our soldiers are simply expendable. Now, command leaders may take such a view going into combat, and they should, but thats not true of the overwhelming majority of Americans. G.W. Bush may have been out for sweet revenge, I'll agree. But you do paint a seriously flawed portrait of a nation that many free countries in the world rely on to send their kids to war and spend their treasure in the process.

[gowlerk 1,903]

29 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

But you do paint a seriously flawed portrait of a nation that many free countries in the world rely on to send their kids to war and spend their treasure in the process.

America is both beautiful and seriously flawed. There is nothing new under the Sun.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

America is both beautiful and seriously flawed. There is nothing new under the Sun.

In fairness, we aren't here for you personally to judge. We are flawed but we are not alone. But really, isn't it a little disingenuous of you to continue to point out our failings while relying on our existence? Truly, except for the border you are no less a son of America than I. 

[billvon 2,384]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Take a deep breath and try to separate your thoughts. A lot of Americans, not a few, objected to the Iraq invasion. No one knew it would be a 2 Trillion dollar and 20 year adventure at the onset.

A lot of us strongly suspected it, actually.  Bringing peace to the Middle East is even less likely than bringing it to Southeast Asia.

Quote

 But you do paint a seriously flawed portrait of a nation

Yep,  Well, you need an accurate picture of a nation before you can fix it.  A great deal of damage has been done by people who believed "but America is really a good country and doesn't do things like My Lai or the Gulf of Tonkin."

Quote

But really, isn't it a little disingenuous of you to continue to point out our failings while relying on our existence?

?? You have not been shy about pointing out failings in the skydiving industry.  Why would that in others be "disingenuous?"

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

A lot of us strongly suspected it, actually.  Bringing peace to the Middle East is even less likely than bringing it to Southeast Asia.

Yep,  Well, you need an accurate picture of a nation before you can fix it.  A great deal of damage has been done by people who believed "but America is really a good country and doesn't do things like My Lai or the Gulf of Tonkin."

?? You have not been shy about pointing out failings in the skydiving industry.  Why would that in others be "disingenuous?"

Sure, but no one knew in advance the real cost or the number of years. Also I did not state "But you do paint a seriously flawed portrait of a nation". I wrote: : "But you do paint a seriously flawed portrait of a nation that many free countries in the world rely on to send their kids to war and spend their treasure in the process." Maybe I should have worded it better but the point is that many of Americas friends rely on us to send our kids to war and spend our treasure while they sit back critiquing our motives and intentions while enjoying the benefits.To be clear, I am in no way saying what we do out the gate is always right. And yes, I am an evil enemy of my own profession but that was not my point. My point was that some of our friends jobs and economies relied on the markets created by our evil empire so a little understanding might be in order.

[jakee 1,254]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

When I learned the attack was a mistake and an Afghani family was killed, I though that's really awful. I also thought, so be it, that's what can happen when your entire super well equipped and trained 300,000 man strong army surrenders on day one minus 20 and everyone else hides at home or tries to escape at the airport fucking it up for everyone else. The USA does not own 100% of every fuck up, believe it or not.

Utter bullshit.

The US military may not own every fuck up but it owns the fuck ups it makes. No one else blew up that car, no one else killed that family, they did it.

Blaming it on the collapse of the Afghan army that the US Army designed and trained? Well first you clearly haven't thought very hard about that argument, second you'll need a different excuse for the thousands of civilians directly killed by drones before this one.

[Phil1111 908]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Take a deep breath and try to separate your thoughts. A lot of Americans, not a few, objected to the Iraq invasion. No one knew it would be a 2 Trillion dollar and 20 year adventure at the onset. And we are not so callous to think our soldiers are simply expendable. Now, command leaders may take such a view going into combat, and they should, but thats not true of the overwhelming majority of Americans. G.W. Bush may have been out for sweet revenge, I'll agree. But you do paint a seriously flawed portrait of a nation that many free countries in the world rely on to send their kids to war and spend their treasure in the process.

Some forget that Canada and others also had debate. Also sent soldiers to Afghanistan for what they considered a just cause. Then war as it always does, reared its ugly head.

No, NATO obligations is a red herring they all could have shirked treaty obligations.

"In July 2008, Canadian soldiers killed a five-year-old girl and her two-year-old brother after their vehicle got too close to a convoy. The father said afterwards that “if I get a chance, I will kill Canadians.” Due to an agreement between Kabul and Ottawa, Afghans had no legal right for compensation if they were hurt or their property damaged by Canadian soldiers...Later, the video shows a Canadian commander saying “too bad for you if you don’t want to tell us where the Taliban are hiding. We will come and kill them. We will drop many bombs and fire all over. Is this what you want? Well then continue telling us nothing.”."

If American can learn a lesson IMO it should be. Keep the troops in the barracks where they belong. Use diplomats to developed coalitions of sanctions and pressures on misbehaving countries.

Canada on the other hand has natural restraints on military adventurism. 1.9% of GDP defense spending means few bombs, troops and almost no drones.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Phil1111

[winsor 186]

3 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Some forget that Canada and others also had debate. Also sent soldiers to Afghanistan for what they considered a just cause. Then war as it always does, reared its ugly head.

No, NATO obligations is a red herring they all could have shirked treaty obligations.

"In July 2008, Canadian soldiers killed a five-year-old girl and her two-year-old brother after their vehicle got too close to a convoy. The father said afterwards that “if I get a chance, I will kill Canadians.” Due to an agreement between Kabul and Ottawa, Afghans had no legal right for compensation if they were hurt or their property damaged by Canadian soldiers...Later, the video shows a Canadian commander saying “too bad for you if you don’t want to tell us where the Taliban are hiding. We will come and kill them. We will drop many bombs and fire all over. Is this what you want? Well then continue telling us nothing.”."

If American can learn a lesson IMO it should be. Keep the troops in the barracks where they belong. Use diplomats to developed coalitions of sanctions and pressures on misbehaving countries.

Canada on the other hand has natural restraints on military adventurism. 1.9% of GDP defense spending means few bombs, troops and almost no drones.

I was in France when all this was coming about, and I wound up having a drink (Orangina - alcohol doesn't agree with me) with a youngster who I helped when he locked the keys in the car.

He assured me that he meant no offense, and asked "are you Americans crazy?"

I responded "I suspect we are.  We keep doing the same thing while expecting different results, which rather meets the definition."

The fact that we got mad at France for showing a modicum of sanity is about par for us.

The United States has a lot going for it.  We make a pretty good sandwich.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[kallend 1,621]

14 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Ken,

Please count me as one of the 'few.'

Jerry Baumchen

There was a long thread back in early 2003 in which a number of us (not  just "a few") raised objections to invading Iraq, pointed out the extremely flimsy pretext Bushco used to justify it (including Powell's absurd speech to the UN) and to some extent predicted a bad outcome.  I think the thread was called "Anti Americanism explained" or something similar. 

I find the search function in the current version of DZ.COM rather awkward to use, or I'd look it up.

[kallend 1,621]

1 hour ago, winsor said:

 

The fact that we got mad at France for showing a modicum of sanity is about par for us.

The United States has a lot going for it.  We make a pretty good sandwich.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

"Freedom Fries"

[winsor 186]

47 minutes ago, kallend said:

"Freedom Fries"

If you order "French Fries" in Belgium, you're SOL.  It is a matter of national pride that Pommes Frites are a Belgian dish and that the boors below the border deserve no credit for them.

 

[Stumpy 256]

2 minutes ago, winsor said:

If you order "French Fries" in Belgium, you're SOL.  It is a matter of national pride that Pommes Frites are a Belgian dish and that the boors below the border deserve no credit for them.

 

They'll look at you a bit funny in France too. They are just Frites.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

There was a long thread back in early 2003 in which a number of us (not  just "a few") raised objections to invading Iraq, pointed out the extremely flimsy pretext Bushco used to justify it (including Powell's absurd speech to the UN) and to some extent predicted a bad outcome.  I think the thread was called "Anti Americanism explained" or something similar. 

I find the search function in the current version of DZ.COM rather awkward to use, or I'd look it up.

Hi John,

While it is merely my opinion, I am of the belief that one of the reasons Bush 43 was determined to invade Iraq was because of the Iraqi assignation attempt on Bush 41.

Some of the suspects reportedly confessed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS ) was behind the assassination attempt.

USDOJ/OIG FBI Labs Report (justice.gov)

YMMV,

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  And here is an interesting movie, based upon true events, about about how the Bush 43 admin tried to get the UK Blair admin to support the invasion.

In early 2003, GCHQ analyst Katharine Gun obtains a memo detailing a joint United States and British operation to spy on diplomats from several non–permanent United Nations Security Council member states Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea in order to "dig dirt" on them and influence the Security Council into passing a resolution supporting an invasion of Iraq. 

Official Secrets (film) - Wikipedia

Edited October 21, 2021 by JerryBaumchen

[murps2000 86]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

"Freedom Fries"

I started calling French Canadians Freedom Canadians around that time.