Run away USA!!

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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."

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".