Is the US losing the Afghanistan war?


UShadItComing
#1
Are they losing the war? So thinks 'The Economist' and Rolling Stone reporter in the know.

The US won't lose the war if it kills enough people. That means there will be a so-called surge and many, many Afghani civilians will die. The cost of resisting the occupation they hate will become too much to bear any longer. The US will not give way because Afghanistan is a strategic position in the ME that they need. This differs not a bit from the Russian occupation.

This is a war for the exact same reason as the Iraq war. The claims of helping the people or fighting terrorism or the latest, preventing a ground for terrorism are hollow claims and complete fabrications and lies.

The US will not leave either Afghanistan or Iraq and huge US bases are being built and have been built in both countries for a permanent occupation. The US doesn't even really deny this fact.

But as we have witnessed in Iraq, the few citizens who resist will fight on and kill the military occupiers of their country. As they will in Afghanistan and as they proved they were capable of doing against the Russians. The occupation's military will never walk safely on the streets of either country because there will always be a few brave souls left who will try to kill them or drive them from their country. Brave souls who fight on at great personal risk to themselves.

Opinions?

www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_625261.html (external - login to view)
 
Colpy
Conservative
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by UShadItComingView Post

Are they losing the war? So thinks 'The Economist' and Rolling Stone reporter in the know.
The US won't lose the war if it kills enough people. That means there will be a so-called surge and many, many Afghani civilians will die. The cost of resisting the occupation they hate will become too much to bear any longer. The US will not give way because Afghanistan is a strategic position in the ME that they need. This differs not a bit from the Russian occupation.
This is a war for the exact same reason as the Iraq war. The claims of helping the people or fighting terrorism or the latest, preventing a ground for terrorism are hollow claims and complete fabrications and lies.
The US will not leave either Afghanistan or Iraq and huge US bases are being built and have been built in both countries for a permanent occupation. The US doesn't even really deny this fact.
But as we have witnessed in Iraq, the few citizens who resist will fight on and kill the military occupiers of their country. As they will in Afghanistan and as they proved they were capable of doing against the Russians. The occupation's military will never walk safely on the streets of either country because there will always be a few brave souls left who will try to kill them or drive them from their country. Brave souls who fight on at great personal risk to themselves.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
First of all, the Taliban kills A LOT more civilians than the NATO forces.

Secondly, Afghanistan is simply NOT of strategic importance to the USA, other than to prevent it once again becoming a base for terrorists..

Thirdly, the purpose of the Russian occupation was to de-populate Afghanistan......roughly one quarter of the population fled the country.......many of those refugees have recently RETURNED.......which kinda puts the lie to equating Russian and American objectives now, doesn't it?

Fourthly, rarely now are Iraqis killing American troops, they are too busy murdering the opposite Muslim sect.........

Those are not opinions, they are facts.

I'll leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions.
 
UShadItComing
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

First of all, the Taliban kills A LOT more civilians than the NATO forces.

Secondly, Afghanistan is simply NOT of strategic importance to the USA, other than to prevent it once again becoming a base for terrorists..

Thirdly, the purpose of the Russian occupation was to de-populate Afghanistan......roughly one quarter of the population fled the country.......many of those refugees have recently RETURNED.......which kinda puts the lie to equating Russian and American objectives now, doesn't it?

Fourthly, rarely now are Iraqis killing American troops, they are too busy murdering the opposite Muslim sect.........

Those are not opinions, they are facts.

I'll leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions.

Yes, I know that you have accepted all the US propaganda and are acting as a for-free propagandist on their behalf. And no doubt the US propaganda is a powerful weapon to fight against but sooner or later the US credibility comes into question simply because it's not credibly and impossible to believe anymore.

Perhaps some readers here have not been so propagandized that they can't begin to question the Afghanistan war. The Iraq war, the US credibility was destroyed when it was discovered that their pretense for war was proven to be false. There were no WMD's and only extremists continue to claim there were. Therefore you, and those of your same ilk now contend that the war had to be for some other reason. Saddam, who you contend fancifully murdered his own people now has to be reason enough for the US to go to war with Iraq and murder murder Iraqis under their bombs as well as destroying the country again. A credibility gap one thinks?

And now in Afghanistan, where the US is uncertain if any Al Queda remains, it fights on against both Taliban and the war lords who fight the Taliban because it can't discern one from the other. Fighting against the Taliban and war lord equally who are fighting to rid their country of the occupiers and maintain their right to freedom. All as if they had anything to do with the so-called threat from terrorism against the US.

Given a choice, there's little doubt that Karzai's government would align itself with the Taliban now. The US would find itself in the position of fighting against a puppet government that it originally established and supported. How can this be reconciled by you pro-war enthusiasts any longer? Most of the war lords and the Taliban couldn't find the US on a map and couldnt care less. Pakistan is where Al Queda lives but Pakistan is nuclear armed and that throws a monkey wrench into US plans for more aggression.

Too many americans are now abandoning the facade that justifies war and it's time for you to do likewise. Even though the occupation will not end it's time to at least understand that it should end. Not for the sake of the US troops who are being offed more and more every day but for the innocent people who don't even understand why they are dieing at the hands of the occupation.

Try to do more than just babbling over and over again your propaganda talking points.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#4  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by UShadItComingView Post

Yes, I know that you have accepted all the US propaganda and are acting as a for-free propagandist on their behalf. And no doubt the US propaganda is a powerful weapon to fight against but sooner or later the US credibility comes into question simply because it's not credibly and impossible to believe anymore.
Perhaps some readers here have not been so propagandized that they can't begin to question the Afghanistan war. The Iraq war, the US credibility was destroyed when it was discovered that their pretense for war was proven to be false. There were no WMD's and only extremists continue to claim there were. Therefore you, and those of your same ilk now contend that the war had to be for some other reason. Saddam, who you contend fancifully murdered his own people now has to be reason enough for the US to go to war with Iraq and murder murder Iraqis under their bombs as well as destroying the country again. A credibility gap one thinks?
And now in Afghanistan, where the US is uncertain if any Al Queda remains, it fights on against both Taliban and the war lords who fight the Taliban because it can't discern one from the other. Fighting against the Taliban and war lord equally who are fighting to rid their country of the occupiers and maintain their right to freedom. All as if they had anything to do with the so-called threat from terrorism against the US.
Given a choice, there's little doubt that Karzai's government would align...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
No, I am not a "victim" of US propaganda, neither am I a victim of the self-hatred you so obviously wallow in....

Don't put words in my mouth....the Second Gulf War was perpetrated on an excuse because Bush wanted to finish the first one. I supported it because I hated the tyranny of Hussein and his ambition to create a fascist pan-Arab state.......in retrospect, that may have been a mistake. Ask me in 20 or 30 years.
Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds, killing tens of thousands.....that's a fact, not a conjecture.

Admittedly, Karzai is turning out to be a disaster. But we don't give a crap who leads the country, when it comes down to it. We just don't want any more terror bases there.

I'm sure you can manage something both real and original yourself, but I have yet to see any evidence of it.
 
AnnaG
#5
Oh great, another thread about A-stan like we don't already have dozens.
 
earth_as_one
#6
I'll contribute.

BBC News - Afghans say US team found huge potential mineral wealth (external - login to view)

Apparently we never knew before we invaded...
 
UShadItComing
#7
I would sincerely doubt that the US is in Afghanistan for the mineral wealth. Why is it so hard to understand that the US is in the ME period because of empire building and asserting it's control over the ME? They're not there for next year's cabbage crop nor are they there for mineral deposits. If one followed the history of British empire building in the ME one would more quickly understand that the US is repeating the same thing. Does anyone actually think British empire building was for honest reasons or for defensive reasons? Of course not.

The simple fact of the matter is that the US has a track record of wars of aggression over the last 100+ years. None of these wars were for the sake of the invaded and occupied people and none were defensive wars. Although they used to make that claim when they had the war with Vietnam where they once again massacred millions upon millions.

People who defend the US wars have become a crude and sad joke and should be ashamed of themselves. Fortunately now some americans are coming to their senses. Too few too late to save milions more dead civilians.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#8
"None of these wars were for the sake of the invaded and occupied people and none were defensive wars" Now everything you quoted is of course your opinion. Now for a very important fact, never has the U.S. permanently occupied any of these countries.
 
GreenFish66
#9
There is no winning in Afganistan ..Even if the U.S takes the whole country...There is only positioning for more Unnecessary wars...

Peace or Pieces?

Peace
 
Colpy
Conservative
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by UShadItComingView Post

I would sincerely doubt that the US is in Afghanistan for the mineral wealth. Why is it so hard to understand that the US is in the ME period because of empire building and asserting it's control over the ME? They're not there for next year's cabbage crop nor are they there for mineral deposits. If one followed the history of British empire building in the ME one would more quickly understand that the US is repeating the same thing. Does anyone actually think British empire building was for honest reasons or for defensive reasons? Of course not.

The simple fact of the matter is that the US has a track record of wars of aggression over the last 100+ years. None of these wars were for the sake of the invaded and occupied people and none were defensive wars. Although they used to make that claim when they had the war with Vietnam where they once again massacred millions upon millions.

People who defend the US wars have become a crude and sad joke and should be ashamed of themselves. Fortunately now some americans are coming to their senses. Too few too late to save milions more dead civilians.

Ah, excuse me?

You seem to have missed some of the most basic facts of the history of the last century.

In the First World War, the USA was our ally.....but they stayed out until 1917. Hardly war-mongers.

No defensive wars? You have forgotten, perhaps, Pearl Harbour? How on earth do you figure that was not a defensive war? And, btw, Germany declared war on the United States in WWII as well. Oh, and you conveniently forget that the USA rebuilt Europe and Japan after the war at their own expense......without prejudice against their former enemies.

Korea was a defensive war, one mandated by the United Nations in defense of the South............if you want to judge the necessity of that war and the righteousness of our cause in that war, take 5 minutes and compare modern North and South Korea.

Vietnam was a colossal mistake..........Ho Chi Minh was a Nationalist and a friend of the USA, who had armed and trained his group to fight the Japanese.....but then the USA made the gigantic error of backing the return of colonial France....OOOPS!!!!

The First Gulf War was a necessity to prevent Saddam Hussein from taking territory and making the first moves towards the creation of a fascist pan-Arab state........he invaded Kuwait, a US ally, and threatened Saudi Arabia.....he had to be taken down.....and yes, it was defensive.
 
petros
#11
The main Afghan goal has long since been met. They have secured exactly what they needed to secure. NATO will be there until what is really wanted is extracted and the rest is pure "icing" on the "cake".
 
UShadItComing
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

"None of these wars were for the sake of the invaded and occupied people and none were defensive wars" Now everything you quoted is of course your opinion. Now for a very important fact, never has the U.S. permanently occupied any of these countries.

I can think of several countries where the US is still occupying the country. But let's not lose sight of what we're talking about right now. The US has made it very plain that they have no intention of leaving either Iraq or Afghanistan. Funny isn't it, how people never stop to think of that. Permanent bases are built and being built in both countries.

But right now I'm going to concentrate more on drawing a parallel between Afghanistan and Iraq. Check out my new thread on Iraq and follow some of the truths if you so much as care.

I can do no more than attempt to expose the lies and the evil perped by the US. If someone doesn't want to subject themselves to the horrible truth then there's not much I can do about it.

As I've said, to not try would be less than human and perhaps as bad as being one of the murderers myself.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

The main Afghan goal has long since been met. They have secured exactly what they needed to secure. NATO will be there until what is really wanted is extracted and the rest is pure "icing" on the "cake".

You may be right but I seriously doubt that NATO as such will remain to share in the spoils of war. I think that Britain will ask for a share of the spoils but I don't think Canada will do so openly at least. Once the people are defeated, if that ever happens completely, most nations will leave. The US of course will never leave until there is no further reason to assert it's control over ME oil resources.

Much evidence can easily be found to prove that the US is building permanent military installations in Afghanistan. As they already have in Iraq.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#13
I'll respond to the thread title only, since what you write UShaditcoming is nothing more than hateful BS.

The US is not winning this war....nor will they.

Unless they do what needs to be done, invade southern and western Pakistan.

It was foolish to go in and it was more foolish the way they went in.

Didn't help either that they decided to invade Iraq on shakey evidence and without approval.

Sort of like what Iraq did to Kuwait.
 
GreenFish66
#14
Look for "EVIL" UShaditComing -- you will find EVIL .. You will be surrounded by EVIL finally becoming EVIL...Better to keep with the cause/the effect/the re-action....It is better to Look for solutions than to cause more problems.....For Goodness sake..

Peace
 
UShadItComing
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by GreenFish66View Post

There is no winning in Afganistan ..Even if the U.S takes the whole country...There is only positioning for more Unnecessary wars...

Peace or Pieces?

Peace

I suspect that the same thing will happen in Afghanistan as happened in Iraq. The US formed a safe zone away from the Iraqi people where they could continue the permanent occupation in relative safety. Everyone knows that if US troops venture out of the safe zone they will be killed as quickly as possible by the Iraqi freedom fighters. Hence, they hide in their safe place and keep the casualty count down for the sake of observers at home in the US who protest the wars.

The American people are very accepting of wars as long as their own aren't dying in large numbers. People who live in foreign lands are of no interest to most americans.

Quote: Originally Posted by GreenFish66View Post

Look for "EVIL" UShaditComing -- you will find EVIL .. You will be surrounded by EVIL finally becoming EVIL...Better to keep with the cause/the effect/the re-action....Look for solutions not cause more problems.....

I have looked for evil and I have found great evil, disguised as US defensive wars. To do less than my best to expose it would make me less than human.
 
GreenFish66
#16
Ushaditcoming - Your hate and the Evil you speak of.. is within your name ..I will agree with one thing you say - U.s is no longer on the defensive... if it ever was at all...

Peace or Pieces?

Peace...
 
petros
#17
Quote:

Quoting petros The main Afghan goal has long since been met. They have secured exactly what they needed to secure. NATO will be there until what is really wanted is extracted and the rest is pure "icing" on the "cake".

Quote:

You may be right but I seriously doubt that NATO as such will remain to share in the spoils of war. I think that Britain will ask for a share of the spoils but I don't think Canada will do so openly at least. Once the people are defeated, if that ever happens completely, most nations will leave. The US of course will never leave until there is no further reason to assert it's control over ME oil resources.

Much evidence can easily be found to prove that the US is building permanent military installations in Afghanistan. As they already have in Iraq.

Canadians have had heavy interest already in Central Asia especially Afghanistan long before 911 was ever concocted.

Cameco has been trying to get into there long before the pipeline was thought up. There are hefty urainium deposits in Helmand province and Pamir plateau as well as gold, copper zinc, nickle etc etc etc.

Not to mention the 3000+ glaciers to power the smelters.

Afghanistan was the last place on the planet to be properly surveyed by todays chemical and digital mapping capabilities.

We knew if we didn't get that Urainium China or Pakistan would have got it. We didn't need to worry about Russia with more urainium but we do with the locals.
 
UShadItComing
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

I'll respond to the thread title only, since what you write UShaditcoming is nothing more than hateful BS.

The US is not winning this war....nor will they.

Unless they do what needs to be done, invade southern and western Pakistan.

It was foolish to go in and it was more foolish the way they went in.

Didn't help either that they decided to invade Iraq on shakey evidence and without approval.

Iraq was given the greenlight by April Glaspie to invade Kuwait.

The US didn't actually win the war against Iraq but they accomplished what they set out to accomplish. Establishing permanent bases in Iraq which allows them to sit on Iraq's oil and prevent Iraq from privatising, thusly the US losing control over world oil markets. The are safe for now sitting in the green zone safe place where few americans will be killed by the Iraqi freedom fighters.

Quote:

Sort of like what Iraq did to Kuwait.

Removing the attack on the Messenger, not the message.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Canadians have had heavy interest already in Central Asia especially Afghanistan long before 911 was ever concocted.

Cameco has been trying to get into there long before the pipeline was thought up. There are hefty urainium deposits in Helmand province and Pamir plateau as well as gold, copper zinc, nickle etc etc etc.

Not to mention the 3000+ glaciers to power the smelters.

Afghanistan was the last place on the planet to be properly surveyed by todays chemical and digital mapping capabilities.

We knew if we didn't get that Urainium China or Pakistan would have got it. We didn't need to worry about Russia with more urainium but we do with the locals.

You're trying to imply that Canada is in Afghanistan for the minerals?
You're trying to imply that Canada is in Afghanistan to prevent the locals from using the uranium?


Quote: Originally Posted by GreenFish66View Post

Ushaditcoming - Your hate and the Evil you speak of.. is within your name ..I will agree with one thing you say - U.s is no longer on the defensive... if it ever was at all...

Peace or Pieces?

Peace...

I disagree with you that there is hate and evil in my name. Is it wrong to state the truth which is a truth known to most of the world. Is it wrong to state that the WTC 911 attacks were in revenge for the vicious and criminal deeds done by the US against Arab nations? Do you still suppose that the WTC fell because they hated our life style? Or were jealous of our t.v. sets?

Would it be wrong to say that WW2 Germany had it coming? Would you agree that they (Germany) had it coming?

Thank you for acknowledging that the US is not fighting defensive wars in the ME. That is a very plain fact to me and to many others in the world who are not victims of US propaganda.
Last edited by Ron in Regina; Jun 27th, 2010 at 12:33 PM..Reason: Removing the attack on the Messenger, not the message.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by UShadItComingView Post

Iraq was given the greenlight by April Glaspie to invade Kuwait young lady but I doubt you have the resources or the ambition to find out that is true. I don't waste my time on lost causes but if you prove you are capable I will have time for you.

I already new that, most people do.



Quote:

The US didn't actually win the war against Iraq but they accomplished what they set out to accomplish. Establishing permanent bases in Iraq which allows them to sit on Iraq's oil and prevent Iraq from privatising, thusly the US losing control over world oil markets. The are safe for now sitting in the green zone safe place where few americans will be killed by the Iraqi freedom fighters.

See, you can skim the truth but you never actually get there because of your hate.


Quote:

If you are trying to portray yourself with the avatar you post then you wouldn't be even born when the Gulf war started. Hence, you wouldn't have the faintest idea of what it was all about. Save for the propaganda you have snorted and licked up in your onesided quest to learn something worthwhile

.

See, more garbage from someone who can't do a tiny bit of research (external - login to view).
Last edited by Ron in Regina; Jun 27th, 2010 at 12:29 PM..
 
petros
#20
Okay. You've had your chance.


Quote: Originally Posted by UShadItComingView Post




You're trying to imply that Canada is in Afghanistan for the minerals?
You're trying to imply that Canada is in Afghanistan to prevent the locals from using the uranium?

I would suggest you stick to the simple stuff on the social threads here. Either that or just listen for a while.




Quote:


Mineral deposits could contribute to Afghanistan’s economic recovery
05-08-03 Afghanistan might be one of the poorest countries in the world after 23 years of devastating war. However, its rugged terrain still houses probably some of the most precious wealth on Earth.
While the transitional government in Kabul cries for donor aid for the daunting post-war reconstruction, experts say that the abundant mineral resources throughout the country could contribute to the recovery of its war-torn economy if exploited properly. At an international donor conference on Afghanistan's reconstruction in Tokyo early last year, representatives reportedly derailed their discussions to talk about the fact that Russia was holding detailed information about mineral deposits in Afghanistan.
It was known that huge oil and gas reserves were discovered by Soviet specialists in north Afghanistan in the 1960s and even a pipeline was built to supply gas to the former Soviet Union. Surveys at that time showed that Afghanistan also had large deposits of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, including iron, copper and other strategically important rare ones, such as those widely used in air and space industry, officials said.

Quote has been trimmed
Still confused about why we are still there and will be there for a long long time?
Last edited by Ron in Regina; Jun 27th, 2010 at 12:29 PM..Reason: Removing the attack on the Messenger, not the message.
 
earth_as_one
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

"None of these wars were for the sake of the invaded and occupied people and none were defensive wars" Now everything you quoted is of course your opinion. Now for a very important fact, never has the U.S. permanently occupied any of these countries.

Connect the dots...

Quote:

The term puppet state (also puppet government, marionette government) describes a nominal sovereignty controlled effectively by a foreign power.[1] The term refers to a government controlled by the government of another country like a puppeteer controls the strings of a marionette.[2] A puppet state has also been described as an entity which in fact lacks independence, preserves all the external paraphernalia of independence, but in reality is only an organ of another state who has set it up and whose satellite it is.[3]

Puppet state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

Quote:

Friendly Dictators
by Dennis Bernstein and Laura Sydell

Many of the world's most repressive dictators have been friends of America. Tyrants, torturers, killers, and sundry dictators and corrupt puppet-presidents have been aided, supported, and rewarded handsomely for their loyalty to US interests. Traditional dictators seize control through force, while constitutional dictators hold office through voting fraud or severely restricted elections, and are frequently puppets and apologists for the military juntas which control the ballot boxes. In any case, none have been democratically elected by the majority of their people in fair and open elections.

They are democratic America's undemocratic allies. They may rise to power through bloody ClA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture. ...

...They usually grow rich, while their countries' economies deteriorate and the majority of their people live in poverty.

friendly dictators (external - login to view)

Quote:

America and the Dictators: From Ngo Dinh Diem to Hamid Karzai
Alfred W. McCoy: America and the Dictators: From Ngo Dinh Diem to Hamid Karzai (external - login to view)
The 2009 presidential election in Afghanistan was characterized by lack of security, low voter turnout and widespread ballot stuffing, intimidation, and other electoral fraud.[1][2][3]

Afghan presidential election, 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

IMO the west should hand control to China...

Quote:

According to a recent CRS report, China’s influence in Afghanistan is steadily increasing.
Who?s Going to Win in Afghanistan? China. Center For Defense Studies (external - login to view)

Last edited by earth_as_one; Jun 25th, 2010 at 07:54 PM..
 
petros
#22
Quote:

According to a recent CRS report, China’s influence in Afghanistan is steadily increasing.
Who?s Going to Win in Afghanistan? China. Center For Defense Studies (external - login to view)

Well they are funding the war and are right next door. They could have done it (invaded Afghanistan) themselves but we owe them far too much money so it's essentially debt relief.

Welcome to the New World Order
 
earth_as_one
#23
Its in China's best interest to take over. NATO has over reached itself. Even the Afghans would likely be better off. Its a win win win
 
petros
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Its in China's best interest to take over. NATO has over reached itself. Even the Afghans would likely be better off. Its a win win win

Then we can use all the scrap armament from the Iraq military to pay China with more scrape metal like the cash for scrape cars in the US because they won't take a useless dollar?
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#25
both wars are hopelessly lost - the only ones who have won anything are those who profit from it
 
Johnnny
#26
tactically NATO hasnt lost at all, stategically NATO has lost in big ways
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by JohnnnyView Post

tactically NATO hasnt lost at all, stategically NATO has lost in big ways

Not that I doubt the credibility and objectivity of a user who calls himself UShadItComing... Yeesh!

I think Colpy's got it right, both the facts and the interpretation, and you, UShadItComing, have missed a key point. Afghanistan is not a U.S. war, it's a UN and NATO sanctioned action that involves many countries, it's just that the U.S. as by far the wealthiest and most powerful player in this little drama naturally has a leading role.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#28
Yes the west is losing the war, and the biggest reason is they don't want to win it.
There is money in fighting on and on, If the west wanted to win they would have left
Iraq alone. Iraq had nothing to do with the Taliban and the Government there was the most stable in the middle east. The BAATH party was a strong central force that kept the Shia at the edge of power. All fire power should have been used against the Afghans. This should have been an occupation not a changing of the guard.
What is coming is a major war with Islam itself
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Yes the west is losing the war, and the biggest reason is they don't want to win it.

No, I don't think that's quite right. The biggest reason is simply that it's not possible to win a war against determined guerrillas on their home turf, unless you can kill every one of them, because they're at home and you're not, at some point you'll have to leave and they won't, and they know it. And it's not really possible to kill every one of them if every one you kill recruits two more to the cause. That's the obvious lesson of Vietnam, beats me why nobody seems to have learned it. It's also the obvious lesson of 19th century colonialism: you cannot indefinitely occupy another country, you will eventually lose because you really don't belong there. And every former colonial power, which includes the U.S. and most nations in western Europe, knows that from experience. Africa, India, central America, South America, the Philippines,.. it just doesn't bloody work, it can't be done in the long term. What does work, however, is getting away from the war part of it. We gotta stop killing people and start talking to them.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#30
One of the major faults with so many of the parties to this conflict is that nobody is really taking responsibility, or taking their own role in this armed intervention seriously — and let’s be very clear, this is nothing at the moment but an armed intervention. At no point has the Congress of the United States actually had the discussion it needs to have to declare war on al-Qa’ida (which is entirely the constitutional role of Congress, and not of the president). For some reason, politicians in the United States are all too willing to take advantage of the imagery of “the Afghani war” for partisan purposes, without actually entering into a true war with the entirety of its resources. And let’s be honest here, if it was as important as they say it is, they would dedicate everything they have to the cause.

And the United States is not alone on that.

Despite Canada’s involvement to date, and despite the word “war” being bandied about on both sides of the House, and by the mainstream media, we have made no such declaration. We have dedicated so little of our resources to this intervention, compared to what we could dedicate if we really took our role there seriously. Until Canadians wake up and scream at our Government to either pull out completely, or declare war on al-Qa’ida and the Taliban, and any offshoot organisations thereof, we are destined to continue an intervention of give-and-take, attrition, endlessness, and ultimately failure.
 

Similar Threads

19
The US is Losing Iraq
by Paranoid Dot Calm | Jul 27th, 2007
17
Tories Losing Control
by FiveParadox | Oct 27th, 2006
0
Losing Sun - Perspective
by Blackleaf | Jul 24th, 2006
14
BIG BEN LOSING TIME
by cortez | Mar 11th, 2006
no new posts