nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

US and Nato withdrawal from Afghanistan...- threadbanned users in OP

Sandor Clegane

Incredible to think that after being in Afghanistan for 20 years that we are possibly on the verge of having the Taliban back in power, by all accounts the government is on the brink of collapse in a matter of months or even weeks...

How is it possible that after a 20 year occupation by Nato/US that the Afghan government/military was so ill equipped?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/04/afghanistan-americas-longest-war-ends-amid-accusations-of-betrayal

Threadbanned users
jmreire
Timberrrrrrrr

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

ChickenDish wrote: »

Vietnam taught the US what!? So what have the last 20 years in Afghanistan been, the Americans exacting revenge! Or them making the same mistakes they made with Vietnam.

I said the lessons that were taught due to Vietnam.. And the US didn't make the same mistakes over the last 20 years. They made new ones.

So you think America's civil rights record is golden - huh?

I'm going to stop you here. Deal with what I've written, not the argument you want to have inside your own head, because in spite of all your words, and the CAPS, you haven't countered what I said.

A two party system with two parties different sides of the same coin is a total illusion, ours is not perfe t but its no illusion.

Sure it is. Why does FF continue to exist as a party after the Banking crash? How many politicians were held criminally responsible for the negligence leading up to the crash, and during it? There is a serious lack of accountability among our political elite... and what happens when most of the parties are spouting similar crap on the same issues? There's very little choice for alternatives than the traditional parties, and they do whatever the like once the elections are finished.

Democracy is an illusion. It's a nice illusion, but the electorate has little real power as long as it accepts the system that politicians have been changing slowly over time to benefit themselves.

If your believe removing Sadam didn't destabilise Iraq and have a knock on effect in the Area, your on hard drugs and probably should do some research. Saying it would probably happen is a cop out and proves absolutely nothing.

Again, you're not reading what I wrote. Do so.

Your right, we obviously disagree, I tend to believe the facts.

Oh lord. :rolleyes: You're stating your opinions, not facts. As am I.

jmreire

political analyst wrote: »

Why would a substantial element of the Afghan public support the Taliban? That's like turkeys voting for Christmas!

They didn't and they don't. The original Taliban ( means student) literally swarmed out of the Pakistani madrassa's to quell the war between the different factions. Pakistani ISI played a big part in this, as they didn't then ( or now ) want a strong Afghanistan on their border, and especially either Russian or American controlled.
Outside of the cities, the Country has not changed much,and that is especially true of their devotion to Islam. One of the gripes they had with the Taliban was why they were trying to impose Islam on an already Islamic Country when as they reasoned, there was absolutely no need for it. Especially the brutal form of Islam followed by them. But when you establish a heavily armed militia in each town and village, its easy to control them. Thats what they did in the past, and its what they will do again.
Except this time around, Afghans, both men and women have had the benefit of 20 years of education, and it may just make a difference. For their sake, I hope so. They deserve better.

AbusesToilets

jmreire wrote: »

They didn't and they don't. The original Taliban ( means student) literally swarmed out of the Pakistani madrassa's to quell the war between the different factions. Pakistani ISI played a big part in this, as they didn't then ( or now ) want a strong Afghanistan on their border, and especially either Russian or American controlled.
Outside of the cities, the Country has not changed much,and that is especially true of their devotion to Islam. One of the gripes they had with the Taliban was why they were trying to impose Islam on an already Islamic Country when as they reasoned, there was absolutely no need for it. Especially the brutal form of Islam followed by them. But when you establish a heavily armed militia in each town and village, its easy to control them. Thats what they did in the past, and its what they will do again.
Except this time around, Afghans, both men and women have had the benefit of 20 years of education, and it may just make a difference. For their sake, I hope so. They deserve better.

They deserve better, but they don't seem to want to fight for it. The reason there's been 20 years of warfare is Afghans inability to make the effort to defeat the Taliban living in their own villages. Leading a horse to water, and all that

Gatling

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They deserve better, but they don't seem to want to fight for it. The reason there's been 20 years of warfare is Afghans inability to make the effort to defeat the Taliban living in their own villages. Leading a horse to water, and all that

For most part the Taliban aren't living in villages there imported from the various ungoverned provinces inside Pakistan and elsewhere ,
They use Tribal allegiances that allow them to pass through and stay in villages ,and fear ,
That's why we don't see fighting in winter they flee back to Pakistan to regroup and resupply and return in spring and summer .
It's not a simple case of not wanting to fight , average Joe Afghan know the dire consequences they face if they do stand against the Taliban

AbusesToilets

Gatling wrote: »

For most part the Taliban aren't living in villages there imported from the various ungoverned provinces inside Pakistan and elsewhere ,
They use Tribal allegiances that allow them to pass through and stay in villages ,and fear ,
That's why we don't see fighting in winter they flee back to Pakistan to regroup and resupply and return in spring and summer .
It's not a simple case of not wanting to fight , average Joe Afghan know the dire consequences they face if they do stand against the Taliban

That's not entirely accurate, it depends on the region. In many places the Taliban are members of the local tribe. You can talk to a villager and they'll be related to ones you'd be fighting.

For many also, as with Is, the Taliban are a means of employment where it would otherwise be lacking. The Afghan government has repeatedly failed to deliver the services to the population, after white space has been created by the military.

jmreire

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They deserve better, but they don't seem to want to fight for it. The reason there's been 20 years of warfare is Afghans inability to make the effort to defeat the Taliban living in their own villages. Leading a horse to water, and all that

Before now, there were not any Taliban living in the villages..and any Taliban living in the villages now, are living in well armed groups, ( they need to be ) and they are not in any way connected tribally or in any other way ( marriage, Family etc) to the village they are in. After the US invasion, the Taliban retreated to their stronghold of Kandahar, and the roads they took were littered with burnt out vehicles and Talib bodies. Shows what the locals thought of them. But just like isis, who rolled over vast swatches of territory, and imposed their own administrations in areas under their control. Same thing happened in the past with the Taliban, and will again, unless they manage to get another Alliance together to fight them.
Another thing, despite the trillions spent in war, very little actually filtered down to the ordinary Afghan ( especially in rural areas)
It was siphoned off due to corruption at all levels, but mostly by the Govt. So where was the incentive to fight ( and die) for a corrupt Govt like that? They are not cowards, for sure,,,Thats not the reason. look at how they fought against the Russians for several years.

AbusesToilets

jmreire wrote: »

Before now, there were not any Taliban living in the villages..and any Taliban living in the villages now, are living in well armed groups, ( they need to be ) and they are not in any way connected tribally or in any other way ( marriage, Family etc) to the village they are in. After the US invasion, the Taliban retreated to their stronghold of Kandahar, and the roads they took were littered with burnt out vehicles and Talib bodies. Shows what the locals thought of them. But just like isis, who rolled over vast swatches of territory, and imposed their own administrations in areas under their control. Same thing happened in the past with the Taliban, and will again, unless they manage to get another Alliance together to fight them.
Another thing, despite the trillions spent in war, very little actually filtered down to the ordinary Afghan ( especially in rural areas)
It was siphoned off due to corruption at all levels, but mostly by the Govt. So where was the incentive to fight ( and die) for a corrupt Govt like that? They are not cowards, for sure,,,Thats not the reason. look at how they fought against the Russians for several years.

Cowards would be the wrong word, but they definitely lack a will to fight. The ANA are mostly worthless, it's only their SOF forces that are in any way effective, and even then only typically when under direct guidance. Bear in mind, the Afghan military numbered around 300+ thousand for most of the war.

Labaik

Gatling wrote: »

Compared with russia and China they are doing quite a good job ,

Dont recall Russian or Chinese civilians attacking any of there government buildings due to simmering societal issues in the last few decades or large scale rioting in most of there cities for that matter.

Has there been many police stations burned down lately in Moscow or Beijing?

You paint the US as some sort of utopian paradise and when rightly ridiculed you always have to bring the Russians into it lol.

Gatling

Labaik wrote: »

Dont recall Russian or Chinese civilians attacking any of there government buildings due to simmering societal issues in the last few decades

Tiananmen Square comes to mind ten thousand + massacred ,
In Russia you go to prison or accidentally fall off balconies or get poisoned actually remind me of Chechnya or Ukraine

Labaik

Gatling wrote: »

Tiananmen Square comes to mind ten thousand + massacred ,
In Russia you go to prison or accidentally fall off balconies or get poisoned actually remind me of Chechnya or Ukraine

Happened a few months ago in the US. There were some states basically in martial law.

jmreire

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Cowards would be the wrong word, but they definitely lack a will to fight. The ANA are mostly worthless, it's only their SOF forces that are in any way effective, and even then only typically when under direct guidance. Bear in mind, the Afghan military numbered around 300+ thousand for most of the war.

Yes, my point was that in the past, they had fought very well, so it all boils down to the battle.. aginst the Russians, ? (and unbelievers to boot) they were 100% committed, but against the Taliban ( who are pushing the "invaders" narrative ) and arguably also that the US are unbelievers too? So for a lot of the ANA, it was just a job. Then there is the whole Afghan culture thing,,,,,, and in the countryside, life goes on very much the same as it did hundreds of years ago. Its a very tribal based society, and they are more focused on local rather than national issues. But again, they will be guided by the local Mullah / Imam, and their local Chief. So we will have to wait and see if there will be any committed organised local resistance like in the past. If they can still depend on long range US support ( who now will be more or less free to act as they see fit) there's a good chance the Taliban will not get it as easy as they think.

Gatling

Labaik wrote: »

Happened a few months ago in the US.

But no massacres ,or tanks used against civilians ,
No political opponents , journalists or doctors falling off balconies .

no ....

Labaik

Gatling wrote: »

But no massacres ,or tanks used against civilians ,
No political opponents , journalists or doctors falling off balconies .

no ....

Dead civilians in the capitol riots. Julian Assange rotting in a prison cell basically been kept in solidary confinement for 23 hours a day and what would happen to Edward Snowden if he ever came back to the US?

Gatling

The biggest fear has to be a resurgence of isis from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan ,they share similar beliefs to the Taliban only more extreme and had people in their droves all over the world joining ,this could be similar especially with Pakistan next door along with Iran
Remember when the Taliban almost over ran Pakistan

Gatling

Labaik wrote: »

Julian Assange rotting in a prison cell basically been kept in solidary confinement for 23 hours a day and what would happen to Edward Snowden

Still alive and well .....
Again no massacres of civilian protesters n

Not this has anything to do with this thread other than whataboutery

[Deleted User]

Labaik wrote: »

Happened a few months ago in the US. There were some states basically in martial law.

Basically, Martial law. Are you really trying to draw an equivalence with Russia and China?

Have you ever read about these countries, because I get the sense you don't have a clue.

I understand the desire to talk down about the US (I do it myself).. but this is ridiculous.

Relax brah

Gatling wrote: »

The biggest fear has to be a resurgence of isis from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan ,they share similar beliefs to the Taliban only more extreme and had people in their droves all over the world joining ,this could be similar especially with Pakistan next door along with Iran
Remember when the Taliban almost over ran Pakistan

The ISIS-Khorasan branch in Afghanistan are already incredible active and considered a serious threat. The same US military leadership withdrawing from the country have stated that they fear an ISIS stronghold across the country within two years.

The taliban have been on the offensive against ISIS within the country so I don’t see any sort of collation, they would need to beat and remove the taliban which is impossible in Afghanistan (as previously demonstrated.)

jmreire

Relax brah wrote: »

The ISIS-Khorasan branch in Afghanistan are already incredible active and considered a serious threat. The same US military leadership withdrawing from the country have stated that they fear an ISIS stronghold across the country within two years.

The taliban have been on the offensive against ISIS within the country so I don’t see any sort of collation, they would need to beat and remove the taliban which is impossible in Afghanistan (as previously demonstrated.)

Or maybe disgruntled Taleban both in Afghanistan and Pakistan would join them??? Hard to see them (isis) making any headway in Iran, seeing as Iran is Shia Islam, and therefore unbelievers according to isis. Which makes the Khorasan angle a bit strange.

joseywhales

Gatling wrote: »

Still alive and well .....
Again no massacres of civilian protesters n

Not this has anything to do with this thread other than whataboutery

I mean if we are going to have whatabouterry, what about Osama bin laden?

Did he have a trial? As far as I can tell he is still has alleged involvement in 9/11 but has not been proven guilty in court.

Technically that was an assassination no?

Gatling

joseywhales wrote: »

Technically that was an assassination no?

Did you want him to have a trial ,he was responsible for multiple terror attacks around the world , a trail would have just been a propaganda coup for himself , better he took a 5.56 to the head and buried at sea ,
No grandstanding at trial of giving further calls to carry out attacks against the west and no memorial spot for similar persons to get all teary eyed and inspired by

joseywhales

Gatling wrote: »

Did you want him to have a trial ,he was responsible for multiple terror attacks around the world , a trail would have just been a propaganda coup for himself , better he took a 5.56 to the head and buried at sea ,
No grandstanding at trial of giving further calls to carry out attacks against the west and no memorial spot for similar persons to get all teary eyed and inspired by

I mean it's hypocrisy. We want justice but only if it's convenient. When it's not we will take extrajudicial killing. If you don't have ethical standards then your power is meaningless, you are just another animal surviving. You set the example for others to follow, you allow far more ruthless and baseless regimes justify their barbarism. Yes I think there should have been a trial.

jmreire

joseywhales wrote: »

I mean it's hypocrisy. We want justice but only if it's convenient. When it's not we will take extrajudicial killing. If you don't have ethical standards then your power is meaningless, you are just another animal surviving. You set the example for others to follow, you allow far more ruthless and baseless regimes justify their barbarism. Yes I think there should have been a trial.

Yes regardless of who he was or what he did, that would be the ideal. but I thought that he was killed in a firefight in that house in Abbotabad and they took his body and buried him at sea, in a strict Islamic tradition, with a cleric in attendance?

astrofool

jmreire wrote: »

Yes regardless of who he was or what he did, that would be the ideal. but I thought that he was killed in a firefight in that house in Abbotabad and they took his body and buried him at sea, in a strict Islamic tradition, with a cleric in attendance?

He was treated with far more dignity than was afforded to any of his victims (and I'd count those he brainwashed to kill themselves in that).

joseywhales

jmreire wrote: »

Yes regardless of who he was or what he did, that would be the ideal. but I thought that he was killed in a firefight in that house in Abbotabad and they took his body and buried him at sea, in a strict Islamic tradition, with a cleric in attendance?

No he was unarmed and there was no reasonable threat to the team(though I believe they feared that some people could potentially have suicide belts or other such "possibilities"). They could have captured him. By killing him without trial they surrendered the opportunity to deliver justice in my opinion.

Manic Moran

Labaik wrote: »

Happened a few months ago in the US. There were some states basically in martial law.

Eh? Name one.

Hint. Military personnel enforcing civilian law as a supplement to the police is not martial law. The last time martial law was imposed in the US was Alabama, 1961.

patsman07

joseywhales wrote: »

I mean it's hypocrisy. We want justice but only if it's convenient. When it's not we will take extrajudicial killing. If you don't have ethical standards then your power is meaningless, you are just another animal surviving. You set the example for others to follow, you allow far more ruthless and baseless regimes justify their barbarism. Yes I think there should have been a trial.

I consider myself left wing. I used to hate when the word 'terrorism' was bandied about after 9/11 to excuse everything that the US/Britain/Israel decided to do. I always thought the word represented a refusal to even try to see where the other side is coming from. There are many groups, who are called terrorist groups, who could be negotiated with-IRA, UVF, Hamas, Tamil Tigers all had political aspirations and so could be negotiated with. Bin Laden, the taliban, ISIS are fundamentalist religious nutcases and unfortunately they can't be reached through reasoning. They are Islamic-fascists and deserve to be executed/killed. Their existence is a threat to our way of life, just ask the concert goers of Paris, Danish & French cartoonists, Madrid commuters, Salman Rushdie, the kurds, the women and girls of Afghanistan, or the former staff of the World Trade Centre.

That said, Afghanistan should have been dealt with by a UN force made up of soldiers from neighbouring Muslim countries. The US was feeding the Taliban by going in themselves. Unfortunately it strengthened the links between pan-Arab/Persian nationalism and the Islamic faith.

joseywhales

patsman07 wrote: »

I consider myself left wing. I used to hate when the word 'terrorism' was bandied about after 9/11 to excuse everything that the US/Britain/Israel decided to do. I always thought the word represented a refusal to even try to see where the other side is coming from. There are many groups, who are called terrorist groups, who could be negotiated with-IRA, UVF, Hamas, Tamil Tigers all had political aspirations and so could be negotiated with. Bin Laden, the taliban, ISIS are fundamentalist religious nutcases and unfortunately they can't be reached through reasoning. They are Islamic-fascists and deserve to be executed/killed. Their existence is a threat to our way of life, just ask the concert goers of Paris, Danish & French cartoonists, Madrid commuters, Salman Rushdie, the kurds, the women and girls of Afghanistan, or the former staff of the World Trade Centre.

That said, Afghanistan should have been dealt with by a UN force made up of soldiers from neighbouring Muslim countries. The US was feeding the Taliban by going in themselves. Unfortunately it strengthened the links between pan-Arab/Persian nationalism and the Islamic faith.

I respectfully disagree, if bin laden was the devil himself(if I believed in such things), he should face trial, by killing without trial you are objectively no different than the evil you profess to hate. It was a real wasted opportunity. The people aren't important here(or ever), it is what they symbolize and instead of tackling "evil" you met it with more unjustified violence.

To say that these people cannot be reasoned with and thus we can morally assassinate them, has the exact same moral equivalence to the murder carried out by that enemy. Surely you can see that?

Manic Moran

The other minor detail is if AQ are considered 'enemy combatants.' If so, there is no legal requirement that they be armed before killing nor that they be taken alive, unless they indicate a desire to surrender. He would have been treated as any other soldier on the premises.

joseywhales

Manic Moran wrote: »

The other minor detail is if AQ are considered 'enemy combatants.' If so, there is no legal requirement that they be armed before killing nor that they be taken alive, unless they indicate a desire to surrender. He would have been treated as any other soldier on the premises.

Yeah I had a quick perusal since I posted above a few minutes ago. Noone ever challenged it legally but of course it would be the ultimate political suicide. I believe as you say once they deem someone enemy combatants they can basically assassinate, which itself is a frightening precedent. There is the counter argument that by the time that bin laden was killed he was no longer capable of influencing AQ operationally, so is he still an enemy combatant?

Maybe I'm the only one who reacted this way. I was happy he couldn't hurt more people but I was disappointed with the lack of justice and I felt that actually they had martyred him, ironically. I also am very cynical about the political ploy of creating single bogeymen. A trial would have restored some trust in the us government.

riclad

Towns are under seige by the taliban they are not recieving any help from the air force

How long till they whole country is under taliban control

The US has plans to allow translaters and other other workers to go to the USA if they want in a few weeks

The American government simply got tired of spending money in that country after 10 years