Is the US losing the Afghanistan war?
- Thread starter UShadItComing
- Start date
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
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?
both wars are hopelessly lost - the only ones who have won anything are those who profit from it
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.
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
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
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.
Re: Is the US Losing the Afghanistan War?
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.
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.
It's all a novel idea petros but I don't accept it yet and I don't think you have presented much evidence to prove it. But I wont pursue the argument because on the face of it it is consistent with what I consider 'is not' the real reason. That being that the US is not in Afghanistan, nor is Canada for humanitarian reasons or to aid the people. So for the sake of this thread, I'll accept it even though I doubt there is any trut in it. Maybe one of the US/Canada war apologists will pick up the argument with you?
When the Liberals took us into Afghanistan we only went to appease the US because we had to refuse the phony Iraq war. The people of Canada wouldn't have tolerated going into Iraq because we knew that it was a trumped up effort. The Liberal government knew likewise. Now we have Harper and the Conservatives, the war is being taken seriously as a legitimate war, which of course if it isn't. Why would we want or even need to do more than we absolutely need to do to continue to appease the US? Let's not push a bad thing and make it even worse by doing more for the US. And on the other hand, we can't pull out because we would suffer more repercussions and dirty tricks from the US. Remember how they played dirty tricks over softwood lumber and wheat, just to mention a couple?
The US is not our friends. We only have to play friendly games with them. In truth the US is nobody's friend, not even Israel's friend. The US uses Israel as a proxy in the ME and that happens to suit Israel's purposes as well as the US's purposes. It'll all come to an end for Israel some time in the future. It's probably going to cost the US with another big terrorist/freedom fighter attack before it ends. They will have had it coming again.
I LOVE you guys! lol!!! It's like comedy central!
Israel has at least 200 nuclear weapons. Who is going to put an end to her???
OF COURSE the USA plays hardball on trade issues..........every nation acts in its own best interests....that simple. That doesn't change the fact that we are the same people, we share a continent, a heritage, a system of law, and many of us have family and close personal stakes in both countries.......
We ARE withdrawing, at the end of 2011. I personally would like us not to drop out at that point, but this is a democracy, and the majority want us out....btw, now it is Ignatieff that is saying we should stay in a training role.......
heads up! He's NOT a Conservative Party of Canada member.....You have ONE thing correct....Chretien sent us into the worst spot possible in Afghanistan with an under-equipped military so he could duck Iraq.........
It doesn’t matter what The Honourable Michael Ignatieff P.C., M.P. (Etobicoke Lakeshore), the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition thinks, nor does it matter what the other party leaders think; the constitutional advisor to our Commander-in-Chief is the prime minister alone, and it is his decision. One of this prime minister’s biggest mistakes, in my view (as I have mentioned several times) was setting a terrible precedent by giving key decisions on the Afghanistan intervention to the House of Commons, essentially attempting to surrender one of the powers of the Crown.
Only withdrawing the combat mission which leaves things wide open to stay on as a security and logistical roles. We aren't leaving until the geological wealth is 100% in western hands.
No comparison with Empire building. You want to see empire, look at the Philippines, not Iraq or Afghanistan. One clear and obvious sign of long-term imperialism is the introduction of the mother country's education system in the colony, such as was done to the Philippines and many other countries especially in Africa and India.
I have seen no evidence of that In Iraq yet. That's not to say we should keep a very close and vigilant eye to ensure this does not happen, but I'm just saying that I myself have never come across anything of that sort yet.
Now if you do have a link proven intent to subvert the education system, I'm all eyes.
"The BAATH party was a strong central force that kept the Shia at the edge of power."
Actually Baathists are sectarian and opposed to Shiia theocracy.
Actually Baathists are sectarian and opposed to Shiia theocracy.
Baathists have had a fair amount of support from socialists and communists as well.
And then, there's is this famous photo of a Republican who gave Baathists a lot of support:
And then, there's is this famous photo of a Republican who gave Baathists a lot of support:
Define winning. The military-industrial achieves victory every day it continues. Private profit, public loss.