Run away USA!!

popinfresh

With all the talks of revenge, and how Georgie is planning a "war on terrorism", people are generally thinking that the terrorists are fécked...Far from the truth, all the USA planes can do is bomb a bit of sand and rock.
And if Georgie realises this, and decided to send in troops, and equip them with a few grenades, chanting "USA,USA", the consequenses will make you vomit...
The general view Americans have of people in Asia, is a bunch of happy people that talk funny and work in chippers. But if the Taliban catch American soldiers on their soil... the soldiers should consider being shot dead as a very kind gesture ...
A popular tactic used by the Taliban against the Russians was the "pullover". This was when they cut the skin around your stomach, pulled it up past your arms and tie it in a knot, leaving you to suffocate...
George should just accept defeat before it happens, go home and leave that part of the world in peace. Because if he doesn't, the suffering on his soldiers part will make him extremely unpopular.....

Nagilum

Originally posted by popinfresh
With all the talks of revenge, and how Georgie is planning a "war on terrorism", people are generally thinking that the terrorists are fécked...Far from the truth, all the USA planes can do is bomb a bit of sand and rock.
And if Georgie realises this, and decided to send in troops, and equip them with a few grenades, chanting "USA,USA", the consequenses will make you vomit...
The general view Americans have of people in Asia, is a bunch of happy people that talk funny and work in chippers. But if the Taliban catch American soldiers on their soil... the soldiers should consider being shot dead as a very kind gesture ...
A popular tactic used by the Taliban against the Russians was the "pullover". This was when they cut the skin around your stomach, pulled it up past your arms and tie it in a knot, leaving you to suffocate...
George should just accept defeat before it happens, go home and leave that part of the world in peace. Because if he doesn't, the suffering on his soldiers part will make him extremely unpopular.....

I usually wouldn't argue with children, but I must say, you know nothing about military strategy; you know nothing about foreign policy; you know nothing about Americans. Lastly, you know nothing about struggle, sacrifice, or courage. You have no appreciation for the sacrifice that British and Americans made to allow you to live as you do.

Go back to playing Counterstrike.

George should just accept defeat before it happens, go home and leave that part of the world in peace.

Peace, eh? I sincerely hope, for Ireland's sake, that you are not typical product of the Irish education system.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Nagilum


I usually wouldn't argue with children, but I must say, you know nothing about military strategy; you know nothing about foreign policy; you know nothing about Americans. Lastly, you know nothing about struggle, sacrifice, or courage. You have no appreciation for the sacrifice that British and Americans made to allow you to live as you do.

Go back to playing Counterstrike.




Peace, eh? I sincerely hope, for Ireland's sake, that you are not typical product of the Irish education system.

Really Nagilum? He knows nothing about military strategy? I think popinfresh, however inexpertly, has spoken with the voice of common sense. Remember Vietnam Nagilum? US soldiers being sent to a hostile territory to fight guerillas? And in that conflict we actually had reasonable intelligence on the ground in the form of the South Vietnamese. Plus whoever the CIA and our wonderfully humane SFIG interrogaters could threaten over to our side. And we got our asses whooped- quite severely.

Now before you trumpet the right-wing militia line "It was the fault of our half-a$sed politicians back home, blah, blah, b0llocks drivel...whatever their strategic and diplomatic failures, the US was forced to surrender ground to the NVLA and the VietCong at an amazing rate, and evacuate territory we already held from a position of strength! That simply means that the NVLA and VietCong out-fought us...Vietnam is a nation that has constantly been attacked, invaded, subjugated since the Chinese occupation over a milennium ago. They tried and failed, the French tried and failed...and so did we.

What does this all have to do with Afghanistan you might ask? Well, seeing how you take an active interest in spreading misinformed opinions in a degrading and specious fashion...I'll tell you. The Ottoman Empire, British empire, British-armed peshmergas, and the Red Army all invaded on a massive scale with superior arms, and in the case of the peshmerga guerillas, superior intelligence. They were all beaten badly- the Soviet Union lost 20,000 men. So if the US were to invade...you see where I'm going with this? Our soldiers could well pay the price for the eagerness of our politicians and some of our poorly educated citizens.

My spidey-sense (specially designed to detect silly arguments) tingling senses you will claim that the mujahadeen were well-armed/trained by the US and our allies.

Well my brainy lil' libretarian, they're still there now...and guess what- they have the financial backing of Bin Laden and the illegal arms contacts we supplied them with.

So what do you propose Nagilum, so obviously bristling with facts(rofl) and strategic policy outcomes as you are? Should we just bomb them from the air, pat each other on the back, bag the civilians and leave having failed to accomplish anything useful? Or should we risk sending soldiers into hostile terrain with limited intelligence and only the capabilities to fight a conventional force?

Wait...there goes that spidey sense again. You might argue that the opposition forces on the ground might be able to provide us with valuable intelligence. Well, if the intelligence were so valuable, they would have acted on it themselves, installed themselves in place of the Taliban, and we wouldn't be facing the same scale of a problem as we do now. Far from acting on this "valuable intelligence", they too are getting beaten badly...one of their front-line reconaissance choppers was even shot down on their own side of the lines recently...there's a viable intelligence source for you...

The way you attacked popinfresh for (perhaps unwittingly) putting our feet back on the ground was quite amusing really. I'm still wondering something though Nagilum...when the party both you and I support, this very morning declared its unwillingness to commit troops onto foreign soil...why are you so seemingly eager to countenance it? Your attitude is very disappointing for that of a libretarian...I can't believe one of our party's supporters would spout some of the drivel that you do.

Just curious...

Occy

chernobyl

i just hope that the US get bin laden, and put him in jail until he dies.
i dont see it happening, but death for bin laden is an escape.

if the US go for blood justice, then we can expect retaliation.


an eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind....as said by a little known man.

Shinji

Good lord - this is the first time in weeks that I've agreed with Occy on something like this...

Two facts stand out:

1) If the combined forces decide to engage in a ground war in Afghanistan, they will lose. Cruise missiles into Kabul is easy. Bringing troops into the high valleys and mountain passes to fight against the Taleban guerrilla forces is not. Most of those passes are too high for helicopters - the mainstay of US and British army movement - to be used effectively; and the Taleban forces are armed with Stinger ground to air missiles anyway (guess who gave them to 'em, eh?).

You can't fight an enemy who knows the ground better than you, has a tactical advantage over you, hates you more than anything else on earth, has his back to the wall and doesn't care about dying.

US/British military losses would be too high for the campaign to be sustained, the armies WOULD be pulled back and the hardline Muslim world would see it as an attach on a muslim nation (reason to declare jihad) and proof that the West is weak. A bad combination.


2) Any assault which is not followed up with a concentrated international effort aimed expressly at improving the lot of normal people in Afghanistan and Pakistan will merely result in the stepping up of fundamentalist terrorist activity.

Nagilum

Occy, as I've stated before, there is another way to do this without troops on the ground. Blockade the country. Nothing, absolutely nothing, gets in or out.

Inform the rulers that they will get nothing until Bin Laden and his organization is handed over to us. We provide them with the majority of food they get, what little else they have either comes from the UN, again financed in large part by us, or Pakistan. The Taliban will either turn over Al Queda or lose all the sustanance we provide for them.

I know you're going to say civilians would starve, which is probably true. Although, one would hope there may be some way to set up a temporary refuge for the women and children to be fed at various locations around the perimeter. Of course, anyone identified as involved in the Taliban government should be arrested for aiding and abetting known terrorists. Logistics of it would be a bitch, true, but its the best idea I have come up with.

It gives the people a choice to decide who they will support, it allows us to get what we want, and it minimizes military involvement. But, make no mistake, we must get what we want. Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to fight the Soviets and that training is what has allowed him to develop a terrorism network that succeeds where many others have not. Its time for us to clean up our mess, one way or another. Interventionism got us into this mess, but without some amount more of it, there's no other forseeable way to get out.

Also, I happen to be a reservist in the armed forces, and I may very well be called up to participate in this. If so, I will willingly go, as it is my duty. I do not see this as another Vietnam in any way, shape, or form. The United States was attacked, something that never occurred in Vietnam, Korea, or the Gulf War. We must defend ourselves and rid the world of these people. If we can do it peacefully, all the better. Honestly, though, does anyone think with the Taliban's history, that a peaceful resolution would be reached?

Also, I may vote Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I completely agree with everything that is the official party line. While I would fight vehemently with anyone that suggested racial profiling of arab-americans or national ID cards, I really have absolutely no problems subjecting foreign nationals from arab countries to more scrutiny than others. I suspect that you, and many other libertarians, would disagree with that, but I believe that the US constitution and laws primarily exist to provide freedom and liberty to US citizens. I also suspect that you may have a few beliefs of your own that don't fall directly in line with libertarian party philosophy.

I am completely against the "war on drugs", interventionism (ie. Bosnia, Somalia, M.E.), aspouse the benefits of a free market economy and I am a strict constitutionalist, however, there do come times when I disagree with the Libertarian policy. If they do not believe that we need to use all means at our disposal, with the possiblity or ground troops, to aprehend this organization, that would be one of those times. As I said, hopefully, it won't take that, but I'm not counting on it.

We are in the unique position of providing a majority of sustanance to the very country that we are trying to make demands against. I think it would be foolish not to use that leverage.

I must admit Occy, I'm not exactly sure what you're advocating. Are you saying that we should give up on aprehending Bin Laden? If so, what will we do while they plot an even bigger disaster the next time. Just today, Time reported that there was a possible plot within the cell to acquire a crop dusting plane and dispense nerve agent or biological weapons with it.

The question is, do we sit and wait for the next attack, one which could potentially be far deadlier than this one, or do we act to remove the immediate threat to the best of our ability, even if there are casualties. I don't see any other way than to act Occy. This event has forced all of us to rethink our positions on things. In the past, I probably would have never thought military action would be acceptable. Given the circumstances, though, I don't see any other way.

As for popinfresh advocating we "admit defeat and leave that part of the world in peace. " I am shocked that any libertarian would actually defend such ****e.

That doesn't sound like somethine Patick Henry would have said, a far cry from, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" Were we to admit defeat every time we came upon a frightening adversary that intimidated us, we would never have become the country we are today. We must be very selective and choose our fights wisely, yes, but admit defeat when what is under assualt is the very liberty we so value, never.

Regards

chernobyl

heh Shinji, using IE6.0 i get the "your using an old browser" page trying to access your <<work>> page.

gandalf

OMG I actually think that Nagilum has a good idea there. Yes cut off all aid to the Taliban. Set up aid camps outside the blockade zone to allow Afghan civilians to be provided with aid. Now obviously as he says the logistics will be huge but it would be far better than sending innocent US troops to their deaths and bombing innocent civilians in Afghanistan.

Also it probably not infuriate the Muslim world as much as, to use a Bushesque term, "a Gunfight situation".

Nagilum I do hope you aren't called up for action over there as it would be extremely harse.

Gandalf.

chernobyl

The fact remians that terrorism will be around for ever.
even if troops dont go in arny style, americans will still die because of terrorism.
maybe the US should get their pound of flesh, i dunno, but terrorists will try again and again to hit the US.
if some guy is prepared to die for his "cause" then nothing really can stop him.
im glad i dont have to decide.
we really do live in a $hitty world.

Manach

My view the Americans will likely go in with some ground forces. The choice of the US President would not be dicated by taking a hit in popularity but to ensure that attacks like those which occured in New York will not reoccur in the near future.

My scenario:
Series of airstikes in Northern Afganistan to aid the Northern alliance break out from it's area.
Followed by special forces raids on suspected terrorist bases (SAS / Rangers / Delta Force).
This would take time & cost many lives, but I think that the US is taking it's example from the Pearl Harbour generation, not the anomolous Vietnam era.

I'd agree with Shingi's point about massive aid to reconstruct the region.

ps - Wargames has a discussion on the Vietnam war.

Blitzkrieger

I wouldn't go agreeing with Bob too much - the man who said thinking of Sadam as Sodamn Insane was a false viewpoint. Let's not forget his recent gem : "The American people deserved this attack for their crimes against humanity." For starters Sadam accusing someone else of crimes against humanity is hardly the driest of ironies, and of course there’s the insane suggestion that innocent women and children deserve that sort of horror.



What Bob is afraid of, is another Vietnam. Ever since Vietnam, Americans have always been afraid of another Vietnam. Every time there’s armed conflict in the world, it’s the first question the journalists (a.k.a. hacks) ask the politicians is : “Is this going to be another Vietnam?” Get over it! America never lost in Vietnam. Political support disappeared and the Americans began to pull out, eventually forced out. There were some defeats in Vietnam, but you could hardly say the North Vietnamese won losing 600,000+ men. Anyway – before I trumpet the right-wing militia line "It was the fault of our half-a$sed politicians back home, blah, blah, b0llocks drivel, I’ll see if I can get to my point……
I was watching news footage of the Afgan armed forces and I wasn’t impressed. They seemed to be parading Jap import pickups with machine guns on the back as if they were the latest, greatest thing. It might frighten the Afgan women and children but I don’t think a Gulf war veteran in a M1 Abrahms will be quaking in his boots. I also saw some examples of Afgan “armour” and nearly wet myself laughing. The right type of bullet would penetrate that armour, never mind SABOT shells, depleted uranium cannon rounds, rockets, missiles, cluster bombs, etc. They’re not so much tanks as mobile barbeques.
The footage was of tanks being deployed against a possible invasion, but long before any invasion happens just about every tank, plane, helicopter and even pickups will be destroyed from the air. The Taliban may have stinger missiles but by the time an invasion happened that would be all they have. Iraq and Kosovo had air defense nets much better than Afganistan’s and the west has plenty of combat veterans used to breaching them.
The west’s armed forces are highly trained, highly disciplined and have had a long time to think about how to avoid another Vietnam. There will be casualties, but I think that the fact that this is being called a war is significant. Declaring war means the west will accept casualties, will accept retaliation and will see it through to the end. The Taliban cannot win the war. They cannot win a moral victory. They cannot win a political victory. All they can do is suffer, and increase that suffering. And the entire Islamic world will suffer with them.

Victor

Originally posted by Nagilum
I am completely against the "war on drugs", interventionism (ie. Bosnia, Somalia, M.E.), aspouse the benefits of a free market economy and I am a strict constitutionalist, however, there do come times when I disagree with the Libertarian policy. If they do not believe that we need to use all means at our disposal, with the possiblity or ground troops, to aprehend this organization, that would be one of those times. As I said, hopefully, it won't take that, but I'm not counting on it.

"a strict constitutionalist", but that does not necessarily mean you are promoting a moral position.

Nagilum, perhaps you could listen to me for a few moments. When Occy says these things, he says them with the knowledge that his cousin came very close to death in the attack on the Pentagon. He does not seek to trivialise or demean the feelings of shock and hurt and anger and sadness and outrage and bitterness and indeed revenge, that followed the attacks.

What I say, I say in the knowledge that one of my best friends has been called up in the National Guard. He will serve, but he doesn't know why. It's not that he's of lesser intelligence than the rest of us (with a masters degree, far from it), but rather he has thought further than many others in the implications of an overt military response to the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

Many of my friends come from military families. One family has had at least three generations - her grandfather, her father, her, her brother, her sister-in-law, all in uniform. She grew up in Dublin, Damascus and Tel-Aviv, her father bounced from one hotspot to the next, his helicopter shot down twice in Beirut, the rockets and shells flew over his head during Operation "Grapes of Wrath". Another friend is in the reserves, 3 of his brothers serving full time. My military experience is limited to my many books and photos and trips to quite a few war memorials and visiting warships and the knowledge imparted by those on my military strategists mailing-list.

However, this is now to say that I cannot appreciate the realities of war - I have seen the sheer number of names on the Menin Gate in Ypres and the photos of burnt bodies from the Gulf War - the ones they can't show on TV. I once saw the reporter Robert Fisk show a piece of shrapnel on TV, it was more than 4 feet long, from a 16 inch shell. Even that is the nice side of war - sanitised, enumerated and two dimensional - none of the stench of blood and soiled bodies, no seared human flesh and burnt vehicles. No rivers and streets run red from blood. No clusters of children with their faces steaked with the tears for their lost parents or worse the adults who do the same for their lost children.

In one horrific morning, the attack on the WTC killed more people than 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland. There will be too many little white coffins, but too many of them empty will be empty - the bodies of smiling 6 year old tourists and school children incinerated in a Hell on Earth. Many Irish and Irish-American people died, more than a year's atrocities in Northern Ireland in one morning.

I know a woman whose little six year old daughter had had face blown off with a shotgun by her father, he then turned the gun on himself.

I saw a picture in the Irish Times this week "Matthew Faulkenberry with Amanda Faulkenberry before he boarded the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt which departed from the Norfolk Naval Base in Norfolk, Virginia this week.", at first I thought it was sister saying goodbye to her brother, but then I realised it was probably teenage wife saying goodbye to teenage husband.

All of these horrors will not be healed nor repaired or forgiven nor dare I say revenged by a 'military' attack on Afghanistan. Any such attack will just fill more coffins, large and small. To bomb that country or to starve it or as one person said "turn it into a desert" will have little effect. It has been bombed for 20 years, its people are starved and it is already a desert.

What is needed now is not what will almost immediatly be acknowledge as short-sighted violence. It may kill some people, maybe even some "bad guys", but it won't work, because soon there will be more bad guys and more little coffins. Martyrs to a cause. Seen to many time in Northern Ireland and Lebanon and elsewhere.

However, those new coffins won't be restricted to Afghanistan. What I hope, indeed pray, is they won't be in your neighbourhood or mine.

Victor

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
I was watching news footage of the Afgan armed forces and I wasn’t impressed. They seemed to be parading Jap import pickups with machine guns on the back as if they were the latest, greatest thing. It might frighten the Afgan women and children ...

A bullet of any vintage will kill. Look at what all that shiny weaponry did to protect New York and Washington DC.

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
Iraq and Kosovo had air defense nets much better than Afganistan’s

Indeed, but very little military equipment was hit in Kosovo. And Afghanistan in winter won't be very forgiving. You won't be able to attack in snow or mountains or indeed those hidden under mountains.

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
The Taliban cannot win the war. They cannot win a moral victory. They cannot win a political victory. All they can do is suffer, and increase that suffering. And the entire Islamic world will suffer with them.

And neither can anyone else.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Ah, Blitzkrieger, was wondering when your neo-facsist point of view would make its langerous way into this thread...

To address some of yours, and Nagilum's points:

America never lost in Vietnam. Political support disappeared and the Americans began to pull out, eventually forced out.

Well, I'm sorry to say that former Secretary Robert McNamara disagrees with you- and he's the man most say was behind our illegal action in Vietnam, one of its staunchest supporters. He said we suffered, and I quote "The most crushing military defeat in our recent history, a cornerstone of our ideology has crumbled before a better-prepared foe."

That coming from a man who took only 23 years to apologize for the effects his actions had on ordinary Americans, never mind the 2 million Vietnamese civilians killed. If he concedes that we suffered a military defeat...then perhaps it's a stance worth considering. And it takes me nicely onto the next bit of drivel:

There were some defeats in Vietnam, but you could hardly say the North Vietnamese won losing 600,000+ men.

Oh I see...casualty figures are the means of determining whether a war is won or lost...brilliant bit of reasoning that :rolleyes:

So the VietCong lost the vietnam war, the Red Army lost WWII, the mujahadeen lost to the Soviets, the American Revolution failed and...wait, that argument's a piece of $hite, isn't it? In the American revolution, 8 Minutemen died for ever British RedCoat...and yet, independance was achieved. The Russian army repelled the German advance, with the help of winter, their knowledge of their own country, and the sheer will of a people with their backs to the wall, a people with nothing to lose. Certainly they might take more casualties, but they have a lot more to fight for than the aggressors. The USSR and the US were pursuing political goals in Vietnam and Afghanistan respectively...the people of those nations were fighting for their very existence.

Desperation in an opponent is something to fear in the military world, find me an analyst that disagrees with that warped point of view, and I'll show you an analyst that hasn't earned his/her meal-ticked yet. They know the terrain better, have experience in repelling conventional forces, and have the will to survive. All qualities that US and other allied forces don't have in the slightest. A professional attitude to soldiering just doesn't cut it in this day and age- soldiers need a reason to fight, and the intelligence to turn that prowess to their advantage. Neither of which American soldiers currently have.


As for your sniggering at the Taleban's armor units Blitz- first off, those armor units you saw on TV are most likely Opposition forces, which were supplied and trained by the USSR in the 80s. And even on the remote off-chance that they weren't...aren't you forgetting the purpose of this conflict? It isn't to get rid of the Taleban(though that would certainly be a bonus)...it's to destroy the Al-Quaeda terrorist network that is spearheaded by Osama Bin Laden- and their main weapons aren't MBT's. And how, pray are you going to get an Abrams through the Pashangar pass? Or through any of the high passes? Analysts from both the ISS and Jane's (including former Soviet General Sergei Ivanovich Marchenko) have stated that these high passes must be patrolled and cleared by infantry- and that these infantry are in an extremely vulnerable position.

Returning for a moment, to our friend Osama here. Where do you think he's most likely to be found? In a carryall, an APC or a tank? No, he's most probably squatting in a cave somewhere, beyond the reach of most intelligence, and certainly beyond the reach of armor, ground forces and any credible airstrike that wishes to be proclaimed as "targeted. You are ignoring the obvious strength of the Afghan forces- that they know the terrain, have their backs to the wall, and have for decades, resisted foreign armies. Their claim that Afghanistan is a graveyard for foreign armies is, however theatrical, on some levels indisputable.

Declaring war means the west will accept casualties, will accept retaliation and will see it through to the end. The Taliban cannot win the war. They cannot win a moral victory. They cannot win a political victory.

Should we just call you Nostradogbert then? :rolleyes:
I don't believe any of that Blitz, though time will tell. As for the "they have no hope of victory" b0llocks...how then, I ask you, were the Vietcong, Mao's army, the Peshmergas in Turkey, how were these vastly "inferior" forces able to thrash well-equipped and modern armies of their time? The Afghans deserve their place in that list, after the resilient manner in which they have been at war for 20 years and still endured. Not only endured, but thrashing the opposition forces. The West has never known that kind of war Blitz. We were upset enough about the first and second world wars...those lasted for 4-5 years, and, for the Americans and British at least, they were fought on a foreign battlefield.

Twenty years of defending your own soil against aggression from superior forces? I think that's a damn impressive track record- and one that we have good reason to fear. Your confidence in our destruction of any air-defences they might have is empty- they have no air defence network. But then again, our spy planes can't fly into the caves and subterranean fortresses of the Taleban guerillas can they? There's no way of knowing what to target. Unless you have forces or intelligence on the ground.

I am also a reservist Nagilum, with a medical unit in the 82nd, and it is possible, however unlikely that I might be called up. But, as a libretarian, I feel it my duty to resist my call to action by any legal means possible. For the simple reason that I don't believe, in my heart of hearts, that our government is interested in fighting terrorism, so much as exploiting a unique position. For perhaps the first time in a long time, we have genuine sympathy for us in much of the Arab world. Why do you think we've rushed with all available speed to create a Muslim-based coalition? Because we need to take advantage of the sympathy they have for us now- our trading of sanctions for bases, and candy for airspace is, quite frankly, a descension into double-standards of fallacious levels.

When Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty, or give me death!", he was talking about our right to exist as a nation, our right to self-determination. Our very existence as a nation was under threat- if I'd have been around then, I'd have picked up a musket, a knife, a pitchfork, anything, and joined the fight as my duty. But I don't believe that sending our soldiers into Afghanistan gives us any more liberty than we already have. In fact, as a nation we have been incredibly spoiled for the last 40 or so years- running ahead with blinkers, and nodding blind approval at what our leaders perpetrated. The events of the last weeks show just how dangerous it is for us to do that...it's even more incumbent upon us as citizens that we choose our leaders with care and diligence.

I'm not saying we admit defeat in the war against terrorism, not at all. I think we should fight it tooth and nail...but we should pick fights that we can win. That was the mistake in Vietnam, in Somalia, for the Soviets in Afghanistan. We should use methods that have a chance of yielding results- ie, small, covert insertion teams backed up by opposition force intelligence. But that's not going to happen, Nagilum George Dubyah is hell-bent on showing us, the American people, and the rest of the "civilized world" that we are determined to act. Even if that action doesn't yield practical results, even if it kills civilians. Now this is what I think popinfresh was trying to say- not that we admit defeat in the broadest sense, but the conventional military sense. And I'm with him on that- I don't think we can win a conventional struggle, because there is no such thing in Afghanistan- we'd be fighting guerillas.

Here's another interesting thought- more than one of our allies, and in fact Bush himself, have proclaimed this as a war between terror and the civilized world. Now if we claim to be representing "the civilized world" then shouldn't we act, even fight as such? How civilized will we look if we bomb the pitiful remains of rubble that now pass for Kabul? Or if images of starving deprived children are beamed back to the Arab world? The sympathy they had for us would evaporate in an instant- and we'd see more September 11th's. That is something we must prevent at all costs.

Occy

Shinji

I was watching news footage of the Afgan armed forces and I wasn’t impressed. They seemed to be parading Jap import pickups with machine guns on the back as if they were the latest, greatest thing. It might frighten the Afgan women and children but I don’t think a Gulf war veteran in a M1 Abrahms will be quaking in his boots. I also saw some examples of Afgan “armour” and nearly wet myself laughing. The right type of bullet would penetrate that armour, never mind SABOT shells, depleted uranium cannon rounds, rockets, missiles, cluster bombs, etc. They’re not so much tanks as mobile barbeques.

And of course, every war is won by the side with the best guns!

Come off it. This very country, Ireland, less than an century ago forced the greatest world superpower of the time to the negotiating table with a guerrilla group who travelled about on bicycles.


Regarding the suggestion that we should starve out Afghanistan... Dear god. This country cannot sustain all its people, and when the starving begins, do you think the Taleban will be the ones going hungry? Also, have you any concept of the sheer size of Afghanistan? Suggesting that we should set up feeding camps on the borders is a lovely idea when you're sitting in your comfy chair in Ireland, but I think that if you lived in Athlone and the nearest feeding camp was in Cork, you'd be somewhat miffed, and somewhat dead....

Enforced famine for military purposes. Jesus christ. And there are people here nodding and saying it's a good idea. What the hell have we come to?

bonkey

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
What Bob is afraid of, is another Vietnam. Ever since Vietnam, Americans have always been afraid of another Vietnam. Every time there’s armed conflict in the world, it’s the first question the journalists (a.k.a. hacks) ask the politicians is : “Is this going to be another Vietnam?” Get over it! America never lost in Vietnam. Political support disappeared and the Americans began to pull out, eventually forced out.

You are correct, 'krieger, in that the media (and perhaps the public) have been bleating "another Vietnam?" to every armed conflict that the US has gotten involved in.

This is not a bad thing, and should not be dismissed. You think another Vietnam can never happen, simply because the question has been asked too often?

My knowledge on the subject is somewhat sketchy, so feel free to correct me if I go wrong on some of this :

Congress granted the US government a bill to take "all necessary action" which ultimately led to the military action in Vietnam. They did pull out due to political support disappearing. But why did the political support disappear? In part, definitely, because the public were tired of seeing their sons and husbands go off to get killed for an apparently pointless reason. If the public had been behind the Vietnam War 100%, you can be damned skippy that the political support would not have dried up.

The Americans were better armed, better equipped, and had better organisation in Vietnam.

The Americans were forced to fight an unconventional enemy in unconventional terrain. Their tactics, organisation, etc. suffered massively as a result of this.

All of this desribes Vietnam. The US were unprepared to fight an enemy on their own soil, on their own terms. They wanted a military conflict - they didnt get one.

Now look at Afghanistan - some of the most inhospitable terrain on the planet. It is people by those who know how to survive in this terrain, and who have had a lifetime of fighting for it. The US public might be after bin Laden today, and be extrapolating that to Afghanistan, but when its their sons and daughters who get killed over there, they will ask why it took an army to find one man. Why it took so many more deaths to find one man. Are we fighting the right fight at all. Then if more terrorist attacks get carried out on the US, they will ask why we send our armies abroad, when the enemy is striking at home. Why the entire might of the US military is focussed on one nation, and yet it hasnt stopped the terror.

You think public and political support will be long in disappearing? You think the US can achieve anything in Afghanistan before this happens? I doubt it.

The other major military point which people seem to be overlooking is very simple - Location. Lets look at the "large-scale" suggestions which have been put forward, should the US end up in a full-scale conflict with the Taliban :

1) Carpet Bombing. For the same reason that the US did not engage in carpet bombing in the Gulf War, it will not happen in Afghanistan : there are no large-scale stationary targets to hit, and the logistics involved in shipping that amount of ordinance from the US is prohibitive. Also, there will be no large standing army to use as a target

2) Full-on assault. Uh-huh. From where? Send a large US army through a neighbouring nation (with permission), and maintain a supply-line through this neighbouring nation. Now, if the Taliban and/or AlQaeda take action against the neighbouring nation as threatened, what happens if the US are told/forced to shut down their supply line as Pakistan or whoever decides the cost is too high for them? All in all, a very risky proposition.

3) Cruise strikes / precision bombing. On what? There's nothing of worth to attack - no prime locations. You are hunting people, not buildings.

4) SAS/SEAL/Ranger units - HALO insertion, specific missions. Yup - and their aim is what? "Specific targets" is a pointless description - what is there for them to go after? What is their aim? To remain unseen in enemy territory whle they find bin Laden? For how long? They will not blend in. They cannot bring any vehicles etc. with them, or their presence will be too obvious. They need to hunt a single man in an entire nation - a nation who have a large number of people who will kill them on sight.

5) Search and "Rescue" - spy on the nation using UAVs and/or satellites until you find bin Laden and then... Yeah. Right. Where exactly is the manpower going to come from to analyse the images in real-time? If the US could scan all of Afghanistan *at once* with a resolution sufficiently high enough to identify bin Laden, have you any idea how long it would take to find him - even if he were outdoors at the time, in a position to be clearly seen??? You gotta be kidding me. You could set the entire US population looking at photo's and still never find him with that approach.

So - what does this point to. It points to the fact that unless the US have some very good HumInt that they are keeping schtum about, then the entire concept of going into Afghanistan is a short-term knee-jerk reaction designed to show someone that justice is being seen to be done. There is no justification for a war with/in Afghanistan.

If the US want bin Laden, this will not get him. If they want to bloody the Taliban's noses for supporting bin Laden, this will not do anything except strengthen their resolve, and perhaps their numbers. If this is supposed to stop/slow terrorism, it wont.

Bob, myself, and several other posters have been decried with the "so you just want him to get away with it then, we sit here and do nothing" comments. I have also seen the comment that those against a military strike on the Afghan nation are only offering negatives.

So - for those who are in favour of some form of raid....here's the challenge.

Outline how a military operation can be successfully be carried out in Afghanistan, including how to deal with the fact that it is a landlocked country which the US do not have a direct line of access to. Outline what the goals in the region are, and how they can be achieved. Outline how justice will be done as a result, and what a successful outcome would be. Outline how the Afghani's can be successfully fought in a guerrila war - because thats what you'll get.

Along the way - please do not forget just how damned large that nation is. Make sure you provide the resources for an operation of the appropriate scale.

Basically put - show that *you* are more than a Counterstrike or Command&Conquer strategist. Show that you understand what it is you are advocating. Show that it is possible.

Before looking at "sanctions", please remember that only 3 nations recognise the Taliban, and that relations are only maintained (I believe) by 1 of those nations at present. Before looking at "blockades", please remember who Afghanistan's neighbours are, and ask how those blockades can be set up and/or enforced - again remembering the nation's size and terrain.

I am not a nay-sayer. If bin Laden could be got, or Al Qaeda smashed by going into Afghanistan in an appropriate manner, then I would probably support it. What I do not support is pointless violence to make some people feel better cause they want to hit back at anything.

No-one in the public domain has yet put together a credible description of how a military action against Afghanistan could be successful. Many military experts have, in fact, doubted its feasbility.

So - all you yay-sayers....how do you do it?

jc

Xterminator

The easiest way to get Bin Laden is a Judas.

Use the Inteligence to find out who surrounds Bin Laden. get leverage on one or more. Play dirty.

Get him to be the mole. (Whatever it takes)

Remember its a fecked up world out there, and even the fundamentalists don't play it straight.

Where there is a will there is a way.

X

Nagilum

Regarding the suggestion that we should starve out Afghanistan... Dear god. This country cannot sustain all its people, and when the starving begins, do you think the Taleban will be the ones going hungry? Also, have you any concept of the sheer size of Afghanistan? Suggesting that we should set up feeding camps on the borders is a lovely idea when you're sitting in your comfy chair in Ireland, but I think that if you lived in Athlone and the nearest feeding camp was in Cork, you'd be somewhat miffed, and somewhat dead....

As a libertarian, I don't believe that we should be giving any aid to Afghanistan in the first place. Its not like we're preventing them from sustaining themselves, only removing our artificial sustanance. As I said though, I'd still have no problems setting up refugee sites on the perimeter temporarily, if only because it is necessary for support of the action that needs to be taken. If the people can get to them, they should be taken care of.

I think the Vatican best summed up what a lot of people were thinking with this statement: "It is certain that if someone has done great harm to society and there is a danger that if he remains free, he may be able to do it again. You have the right to apply self-defence for the society which you lead even though the means you may choose may be aggressive, either people who have carried out a horrendous crime are put in a position where they can do no further harm, by being handed over and put into custody, or the principle of self-defence applies with all its consequences."

If we sit back and do nothing, which, thankfully you weren't advocating Bob, it will result in something far more catostophic in the future. I would like to point out that everyone in a position of authority has said this will not be fought as a conventional war is fought.

Shinji

As a libertarian, I don't believe that we should be giving any aid to Afghanistan in the first place.

I wasn't aware that the definition of "libertarian" had changed to incorporate "advocates the murder of countless civilians through enforced famine; believes that allowing innocent people to die through inaction is nobody's fault".

I shall update my dictionary to include this new material immediately.

Its not like we're preventing them from sustaining themselves, only removing our artificial sustanance.

These are human beings for christs sake! You are advocating the creation of a famine affecting millions of poverty-stricken innocent civilians in order for your nation to have revenge on one man!

Your "artificial sustenance" for Afghanistan might be considered by some, apart from being your duty as a vastly rich nation to a horribly poor nation, to be reparations for the fact that were it not the USA and USSR treating the people of the country like chess pieces for years, they wouldn't be in such a bad way in the first place...

Victor

Originally posted by Shinji
Your "artificial sustenance" for Afghanistan might be considered by some, apart from being your duty as a vastly rich nation to a horribly poor nation, to be reparations for the fact that were it not the USA and USSR treating the people of the country like chess pieces for years, they wouldn't be in such a bad way in the first place...

And dare I say and I know this might be a terrrible thing to say and I am not justifying the attacks, neither would the people of New York and Washington be in such a bad way, if some common decency had been shown to countries in the 'Third World' (i.e. the world outside the old East-West Blocs).

Nagilum

By "common decency", I'm assuming you mean giving them more than the $100+ million in foreign aid we already do?

bonkey

Originally posted by Nagilum
By "common decency", I'm assuming you mean giving them more than the $100+ million in foreign aid we already do?

Seeing as this figure keeps cropping up, and America's foreign-aid policy has been brought up as a "good thing [tm]" in thread after thread, I did a bit of checking. Here's what I found :

The United States may be the undisputed world leader in the global economy. Regrettably, when it comes to foreign assistance we are running well behind the pack. According to the Department of State, the percentage of United States GNP devoted to foreign assistance ranks last among the world's 21 wealthiest nations.

Foreign aid, as practiced by the United States, runs the gamut from child immunization programs to financing the purchase of lethal military equipment.

Another 16% of the foreign aid budget addressed the aftermath of prior conflicts through peacekeeping, refugee assistance and food aid. It should be noted that many of the nations now receiving this kind of assistance, including Haiti, Somalia, Angola and Afghanistan, were former recipients of U.S. arms transfers or military aid.

So, looking at this $100M. I dont know whether or not it includes the one-off $43M which the Taliban were "gifted" for outlawing opium production earlier this year or not, but even if it doesnt, it definitely includes the US paying (and continuing to pay) for cleaning up the mess they helped create during the Soviet/Afghan war. The rest is presumably humanitarian aid. I honestly cant say, because a trawl of the net has failed to find me any figures for the expenditure on Afghanistan by the US in foreign aid. I'd greatly appreciate such links.

Oh - hang on - I did find a link. Its a bit out of date. In 1997, the US gave Afghanistan the following : a grand total of $45.614M, we have less than $6M being spent on Development assistance.

Getting back to the point, Nagilum, you are in essence saying that the US should, and would be right to :

a) Stop paying to clean up a mess it helped create

b) Stop paying to help the common person stay alive in an ultra-poor nation, because hey, if they can only stay alive on artificial economies like foreign aid, then they dont matter anyway and should be consigned to death.

jc

C B

Originally posted by Nagilum
By "common decency", I'm assuming you mean giving them more than the $100+ million in foreign aid we already do?

This money is not given as "commom decency" it was given as part of the US's other war on the intangible: "The War on Drugs". The Taliban restricted opium smuggling in return for the money. I wouldn't classify it as aid.

When you remove your "artifical sustanance" would you also remove the artifical damage caused by supporting anti_Soviet forces. You should read up on subjects such as historical time before you go throwing about labels like "libertarian".

Nagilum

Taken Directly from the Libertarian Party homepage:

As a result, Alex de Waal, president of the human rights group, Africa Rights, concludes that foreign aid is "structurally bad because it undermines the incentive to take responsibility. The more aid a country receives, the less the government of that country has to answer to the people."

If Americans truly want to help other countries, they can best do so not through failed foreign aid programs, but by improving the U.S. economy, so that U.S. businesses have funds to invest abroad, and pursuing free trade policies. As the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted, "Critics rightly argue that the broad policies of the major Western countries -- trade policies, budget deficits, growth rates, and the like -- generally exert greater [positive] influence on the economies of developing countries than does aid."

Nagilum

Originally posted by C B


This money is not given as "commom decency" it was given as part of the US's other war on the intangible: "The War on Drugs". The Taliban restricted opium smuggling in return for the money. I wouldn't classify it as aid.

When you remove your "artifical sustanance" would you also remove the artifical damage caused by supporting anti_Soviet forces. You should read up on subjects such as historical time before you go throwing about labels like "libertarian".

I know the history well thank you very much. If it was up to me and the majority of other libertarians, the Soviets would have conquered Afghanistan because they'd have received no aid in the first place, especially weapons. And, we would send them no money for battling opium production at all. Its a losing battle and if people want to ruin their own lives, so be it. Regardless, that was less than half the total amount of aid they recieved last year.

Because of aid, their population is artificially higher than it should be. Because of this, they cannot support themselves but through more aid. Its a viscous spiral. You do a nation more of a favor in the long run by witholding aid in the first place.

GreenHell

Umm lets see.

America have been involved in conflict like this before, although not a whole war.

America and Isreal just two examples both have troops trained for mountain combat, and more than likely will be using mainly HALO tactics to wipe out cells of gurriella troops.

However many missiles, heavy guns etc Afganhistan have, its out of date compared to the modern weaponry boosted by most professional armies.

Also the tactic which I can used will the taking of Kabul, thus cutting the head off the Taliban regime, correct me if I'm wrong but its not a popular goverment.

Hmmm if there is a large scale invasion who will be send it.

First special forces, mess up logistics

Air Strikes, won't work but will happen and hit Afgan oil reserves.

Ground assault, Army rangers and tanks, I dunno not people I would like to face any day of the year.

If this war happens it will be majorily differant to any conflict seen so far. One which the Taliban is not equipped to fight.

They do not have a professional army. 300,000 troops mobilised, whoop dee doo, peasants with aks and rpgs, untrained. Gurriella war fare won't be much help either as this conflict progress, spy planes and satilites tracking movements, no where to hit.

Oh ya, can't most military helicopters take a hit from an air to ground missile? Black Hawks for example, not sure though.
The west will win a ground war. What happens afterwards well Islam v the West, theres going to be alot of bad feeling against this crusade from extremist, so watch out for the next generation of terrorists.

bonkey

Originally posted by Nagilum
Because of aid, their population is artificially higher than it should be. Because of this, they cannot support themselves but through more aid. Its a viscous spiral. You do a nation more of a favor in the long run by witholding aid in the first place.

Because of aid, their population is also artificually *lower* than it should be, due to the wars which were fought on the budget supplied by a foreign nation and the consequential refugees fleeing the country, notably during the rise of a new power in the country - exactly those that were sponsored in the first place.

If it was up to me and the majority of other libertarians, the Soviets would have conquered Afghanistan because they'd have received no aid in the first place, especially weapons. And, we would send them no money for battling opium production at all.

The simple fact is that the US is paying for its sins of the past. The fact is that you *did* fund the Afghans against the Soviets, and as a result, it should be incumbent on you to make good on the damage which this caused to the region.

As for battling opium production...thats a different kettle of fish.

You may not agree with the current US policy, but you cannot simply state "we're not doing this any more, cause we never should have started".

You helped kick a nation into the mud.

Now you see nothing wrong with saying "we wont give them any more money. If they cant live in the mud, then let them die in it"

Note that the vast majority of the money the US spends in the region is on "post conflict relief", not on development.

Having been partly responsible for helping Afghanistan further back towards the stone-age, you feel it is perfectly ok to say that it is their problem for being there, and you shouldnt even help them survive, let alone help them get back on their feet?

Had the US never been directly responsible for the desolation of the Afghan nation, then you could honestly say "screw humanitarian aid - its not for us any more". It would be cold, but thats about it.

However, because the US was directly responsible in part, you cannot just shrug shoulders and walk away saying "we should never have started". At least, not with any shred of humanity.

jc

Shinji

This money is not given as "commom decency" it was given as part of the US's other war on the intangible: "The War on Drugs". The Taliban restricted opium smuggling in return for the money. I wouldn't classify it as aid.

When you remove your "artifical sustanance" would you also remove the artifical damage caused by supporting anti_Soviet forces. You should read up on subjects such as historical time before you go throwing about labels like "libertarian".

When I said earlier that the definition of "libertarian" should be rewritten to include "advocates the murder of countless civilians through enforced famine; believes that allowing innocent people to die through inaction is nobody's fault", I wasn't being entirely serious.

I wasn't aware at the time of how close to the truth I was. It would appear that as a "libertarian", what you really seek is your own liberty and the dominance of your nation over the rest of the world. Oddly enough, it would appear here that your beliefs are actually most in line with that other interesting political structure known as "fascism".

Nagilum

Originally posted by Shinji


...I wasn't aware at the time of how close to the truth I was. It would appear that as a "libertarian", what you really seek is your own liberty and the dominance of your nation over the rest of the world. Oddly enough, it would appear here that your beliefs are actually most in line with that other interesting political structure known as "fascism".

We seek dominance over no one. We tend to be more isolationist in terms of political beliefs about interventionism but seek open, free trade with all. Fascist? Hardly.

Please learn more about it before you insult it, ok?



Libertarian Party Link
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Blitzkrieger

Some excellent points bonkey and I can't answer all of them. As in many things debated here it's not black and white and I'm trying to stick to the lighter grey side

Neo-facist Bob? I have no idea where you got that from, except....... Whenever I log onto a UK server with the name Blitzkrieger I always get a torrent of abuse along the lines of "**** off you German Nazi ****". Maybe it's the name

One of my favorite sayings on war, is actually a joke : "War is not won by who is right, war is won by who is left". Now I don't know as much about the Vietnam war as I would like to but as soon as someone mentions 600,000 North Vietnamese casualties, I automatically think 50,000 US casualties. They might have driven the americans out in the end but that's not a victory I'd like to win. Also - I can't remember the name of the airstrip now - there was a famous battle at an airstrip where some marines were surrounded by superior North Vietnamese forces. Not only did they not take the airfield, they suffered appaling casualties in failing to do so. The American forces were superior - don't ever doubt it.

Oh - and Mao won through the almost super-human efforts of his soldiers. Looking back It might appear I was, as you say, "casualty figures are the means of determining whether a war is won or lost" but I would have assumed in mentioning NV casualties you would have taken US casualties into account.

Quick poll : how many people didn't consider US casualties when I mentioned NV's?

I don't think there will be a land war, but it is possible. My point is that the American and Allied armed forces are more than up for the task. I'm not going to try to get into the deeper issues, as I have nothing to add to that debate at the moment

bonkey

Originally posted by Nagilum

We seek dominance over no one. We tend to be more isolationist in terms of political beliefs about interventionism but seek open, free trade with all.

So, in other words, you look to have a complete reversal of current american international and economic policy?

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Nagilum


We seek dominance over no one. We tend to be more isolationist in terms of political beliefs about interventionism but seek open, free trade with all. Fascist? Hardly.

Please learn more about it before you insult it, ok?



Libertarian Party Link
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

Opinions on foreign aid are sharply divided in the party- however, I haven't heard a single party member condemn foreign aid to the Afghani people, or allowing foreign aid workers access to those who need their help. The party is doing its best to act as the voice of reason regarding any response:

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=533

I would also humbly suggest that the 580,000 Afghanis who only have enough food for another week or so might just disagree with you in terms of how much aid they need. The starvation of innocents is something we want to prevent- not just because we're a happy civil liberties party...but because it would generate sympathy for any action we might take in Afghanistan. Knowing that the US are a nation opposing foreign aid to Afghanistan will put enormous pressure on any coalition to sunder, and even more ordinary people will be driven to strap explosives to themselves, and kamikaze jets into buildings- comfortable in their own minds that they are avenging the death of half a million Afghani lives that could have been saved at minimal cost. Not only that, but the anger at the thought that just a tenth of the annual 3 billion in aid we give Israel, would save over a million lives with enough food, medicine and blankets to get those people through the harsh and uncompromising central Asian winter.

In the words of the secretary of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK (the Libretarian's closest political analogue anywhere):

"We need air-strikes, but those that drop food and medicine, not bombs...we need strong action on the ground- but with aid and counseling, not rifles...and we need diplomacy and cooperation-not war and isolation."

I think that sums it up really...we'd have a far better chance of preventing terrorist attacks if we focused on the job that actually has a better chance of success than a manhunt over the Peshvanga ranges. A job that would guarantee sympathy for the US, and would do more than any airstrike against Al-Quaeda to ensure that terrorists will no longer have the hatred in their hearts to strike with.

Occy

Nagilum

Originally posted by Smedley

Bob -- I'm not prone to harp on your post in general -- some parts I liked, some I liked, but disagreed with,....but I honestly don't think all the groceries and band-aids in the world will put a dent in the fanatic hatred of the conterted terrorist.

The average muslim, yes. Osama bi Laden and company --- no

Have to agree with Smedly on that one. You aren't going to change someone's heart who's willing to fly a plane full of people into a building full of people.

Hobbes

I mentioned it in another post before.

You remove the cause of the terrorism, you remove the reason for people to become terrorists.

Internment in England for example where innocent people were locked up without any rights helped the IRA a lot more then it hurt it.

Nowdays the rights of people in Northern Ireland are much better then they were 30 years ago, and the IRA has no where near the support it used to have.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Smedley
I tried to post this on another thread, but the great and might Castor has a habit of shutting down threads. For some reason this clown finds it PERFECTLY acceptable for people with his beliefs to flame, but shuts down the competition ASAP.

Castor deleted flames from both sides, including some of his long-time friends on boards. His reluctance to moderate situations which I would jump in at an instant, deserves and gets my utmost respect. I stand by his decision to delete your posts if they are abusive and personal, though your last few posts before this one certainly bucked the trend, to your credit. But your posting of one-sided criticism in your last reply smacks of the one-sidedness you've shown in all your arguments, which I believe is what he and several others object to- including myself.

If CT is abusing his mod power, this would be the first I've heard of it. I direct your attention to the stickynote gandalf has posted in this forum- abiding by that shouldn't be difficult now, should it? If it proves to be, consider yourself 12-clicked...I don't think you can say any fairer than that. I'm sure CT and others intend to contact DeVore, I might myself, and I suggest you do too. This isn't the place for such discussion, even the Admin forum should be spared this tripe. I don't think this kind of backbiting gets us anywhere- I'm sorry to see that you do.

Occy

Hobbes

Erm, Smed you best go through all the threads and delete the spam crap before you wake Castor or Devore up.

gandalf

Smedley I will not edited the multiple post here as there are replies but I think you have gone too far. While I applaud you for the content and apparent sentiment of your post, posting it multiple times etc just shows you have no repect for others using this board.

Gandalf.