Can the US win in Afghanistan?

[Maes]

myk said:

You can see that as a partial form of adaptation and change. Keeping in character with their culture, they utilize the Western concept of rights.

Which really turns into a problem when they start asking e.g. for a marriage subside for all of their 12 wives (several known instances of that in France) or practice female genital multilation (in Italy), while at the same time demanding that we take our Crucifixes out of our classrooms and public places, and the news invite people "not to provoke Muslims during Ramadan, by avoiding cooking/consuming pork meat in their proximity".

This is when that infamous "cultural acceptance" contract/clause I was talking about before would come in handy: you signed it, Mister? Did you not formally agree that you're in MY country now? Then STFU and suck it down, you'll bear the sight of my Crucifix and smell my pork. Don't like it? Well, the border is that way...

Western tourists (especially women) are advised/warned "not to provoke or critique" the customs in Muslim countries with this or that behavior that will be deemed inappropriate and spark furious reactions, how come the same is never done to Muslims? Maybe we don't have furious enough reactions ourselves?

[D_GARG]

Well, if you decide to go somewere, no matter what reason, you always have to follow the rules that are set in the current area.

Unfortunatly, some just dont get it. So what are we going to do about it?

[Maes]

D_GARG said:

Unfortunatly, some just dont get it. So what are we going to do about it?

In most Islamic countries they have a very clear idea of what to do about it: have some local police station have fun kicking your ass and -off the record- have a sweaty, muscular, bald Turk bugger you.

I'd settle for having every Islamic immigrant -although this could be extended to other potentially troublesome categories- simply sign a formal Cultural Tolerance and Acceptance contract. Hell, I'm not even demanding this for tourists, just for those planning a long and medium term permanence. Upon breaching it, they'd get blissfully ignored at first "What did you say? Remove that crucifix? HAHA NO YOU DON'T, YOU SIGNED A PIECE OF PAPER THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO STFU AND SUCK IT DOWN!!!!" and then deported, if they grew too troublesome/disruptive. Then they can ask for their 11th wife subsidies from their government...if they don't fear getting an official standard-issued crescent-adorned billyclub deep inside their ass in response.

[Enjay]

Phobus said:

To be totally certain of defeating all Taliban supporters and insurgents you'd essentially have to purge the entire Afghan population and shut the entire countries borders, as apparantly the opposing forces are largely insurgents rather than local fighters.

Indeed. One of the common misconceptions about the Taliban is that they are somehow "out there" hiding in the countryside in caves and launching covert attacks and, although tricky, all we have to do is find them and whack them. Sure, yes, they are out there and doing that. However, they are also all over the place and very visible members of Afghan society. I know someone who was at an Afghani wedding last year and a significant number of the guests were Taliban. Interestingly, the pictures from the wedding after the Taliban left look almost like a different event. People simply started having much more fun after they had gone. The same person also had a meal in a restaurant very recently and seated at the table next to them were members of the Taliban.


Oh, and when I said that no one has won in Afghanistan for hundreds of years, I really did mean hundreds of years. The reason much of Afghanistan is a harsh, dry, rocky country is because the irrigation systems supplied by the river Helmand (etc) were destroyed almost 1000 years ago (something to do with Gengis Khan?) and even now only the "green zone" around it is properly supplied by water. There are British military documents going back a couple of hundred years detailing the problems that are faced in Afghanistan and the difficulty in winning there and, not too surprisingly, they are strikingly similar to texts written in the last year or so.

D_GARG said:

at least Saddam is catched.

Yeah, I'm glad he paid for his part in 911. Ohwait!

[D_GARG]

Maes said:

In most Islamic countries they have a very clear idea of what to do about it: have some local police station have fun kicking your ass and -off the record- have a sweaty, muscular, bald Turk bugger you.

an official standard-issued crescent-adorned billyclub deep inside their ass in response.

sounds fair atleast

[trooper077]

Gez said:

To defeat the Talibans, you have to cut their source of income. This means:
- Absolute control of Afghanistan's borders. They have backup bases in Pakistan, for example, so it's kinda difficult to attack them there as it would require military action in an allied country.
- Efficiently cracking down on drug traffic. They get a steady income from opium and derived drugs such as heroin.
- Monitoring the quite informal banking system that exists in Islamic countries and which allows them to channel petrodollars (and diverted funds from international assistance programs...) into terrorist groups and fundamentalist madrasahs.

But mostly, you need a working nation-state. Culturally, large regions of Afghanistan still operate on a tribal system. A nation-state only works if it has both an actual nation and an actual state.

Hate to say it Gez,But I don't think their is any way to beat the taliban even using those methods,as long as they believe what they are doing is right,they'll keep doing it until every single one of them is dead,Plus the taliban usually hide in villages of afghanistan,At this point I look at this war as something we really should have stopped years ago.

[MajorRawne]

The thread should be entitled Can the US *and the UK* win in Afghanistan, since we loyally stick up for our allies in America every day... except when our weak, Brussels-controlled government won't deport terrorists in case it breaches their supposed "human rights".

I think the West would have prevailed by now if it wasn't for the media constantly stirring the population against its own military force. I mean it's bad when our side tortures prisoners and stuff, of course, but the Taliban are doing that to us and their own people on a daily basis and calling it their religious duty, and we are expected to take it as par for the course.

When soldiers die it's a tragedy -- any loss of human life is deplorable -- but the fact is these people KNOW they will die in battle, they prepare for it, they accept it, because unlike most people they will die for something they believe in. The media does not and will never accept this because it has no moral strength and stands only for misery and intrusive mocking. I would rather one soldier lived and a thousand journalists got teleported to the moon without breathing gear.

So when they are supporting a war on terror until the first western soldier dies, then declaring we need to pull out, they fail to understand what war and death are all about. What would happen if there was a WW3 and 10,000,000 people died? What would the media do then?

[Mr. T]

Your logic is flawed, the Russians didn't give a FUCK about human rights but still weren't able to defeat the predecessors of the Taliban. Go and read a book, lol

[GreyGhost]

MajorRawne said:

What would happen if there was a WW3 and 10,000,000 people died? What would the media do then?

Only 10 Million! Hunger and poor nutrition are responsible for around 36 Million death each year - what's the media doing about that?

[MajorRawne]

Your logic is flawed, the Russians didn't give a FUCK about human rights but still weren't able to defeat the predecessors of the Taliban. Go and read a book, lol

Yeah but they were winning until they messed with Rambo.

Only 10 Million! Hunger and poor nutrition are responsible for around 36 Million death each year - what's the media doing about that?

They're busy reporting on the sex lives of ex-soap actors and calling Gordon Brown a has-been. Although they are actually correct on the second point.

[SYS]

Ralphis said:

Comparing either of these military actions to Vietnam is one of the most laughable statements ever. It's the internet war argument equivalent of comparing a mean forum moderator to Hitler.

Godwins Law. You win the prize.

[DeathevokatioN]

I don't think US can win in Afganistan, with just about operation or raid they do, they kill civilians... and in some footage I've seen, which shows some smug mother fuckers abusing their positions and laughing while offloading a barrage of bullets onto defenseless civilians who are fleeing for their lives, shit like that creates anger in the general population living there. This anger, will in turn keep pushing people over the edge to join the those people with the masks whose ultimate goal is to keep blowing themselves up to off a few US troops.

[MajorRawne]

TheDarkArchon said:
The time gap was less than three hours. It's a bit premature to say the thread is dead.

I've got a habit of killing threads. I thought I'd struck again.

@ Potgeisser - surely, though, people will compare this conflict to Veitnam, because in both cases US troops are operating in a completely foreign environment and are facing media-led pressure to withdraw.

@ DeathevokatioN - good point, makes you wonder why anyone would be stupid enough to film themselves doing things like hat... obviously they've never heard of "leaks" and "Youtube". I think humans are basically violent and when their lives are under threat and they are facing sustained pressure, that's when you get this kind of behaviour from them.

[Aliotroph?]

Maes said:

I'd settle for having every Islamic immigrant -although this could be extended to other potentially troublesome categories- simply sign a formal Cultural Tolerance and Acceptance contract. Hell, I'm not even demanding this for tourists, just for those planning a long and medium term permanence. Upon breaching it, they'd get blissfully ignored at first "What did you say? Remove that crucifix? HAHA NO YOU DON'T, YOU SIGNED A PIECE OF PAPER THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO STFU AND SUCK IT DOWN!!!!" and then deported, if they grew too troublesome/disruptive. Then they can ask for their 11th wife subsidies from their government...if they don't fear getting an official standard-issued crescent-adorned billyclub deep inside their ass in response.

And at what point is somebody permitted to question/change your culture then? Why is being disruptive wrong? Sure, being Muslim is wrong, but IMHO so is being Christian. I might cheer for the Christians when they smack down a bunch of Muslims who want to be able to beat their daughters, but I'll be damned if I'm having them put crucifixes on public institutions. The government would have a hard time deporting me since I was born here. Then what? Jail me?

You can't put culture in a contract. You can start a nice culture war though. Culture wars are fun. :D Convincing enough Afghans to fight back in any kind of political or military struggle with the Taliban sounds near impossible, even if many of them like life better without so many rules as the Taliban like. It's depressing.

[myk]

MajorRawne said:
I think the West would have prevailed by now if it wasn't for the media constantly stirring the population against its own military force.

The mainstream media is generally rather passive and in this case played along with the circumstances. At first, high on 911 aftereffects, it did little to single out abuses and atrocities of the war, when it wasn't blatantly doing proselytism for the White House. Later, in a lazy manner and as the economic and geopolitical bills and balances came in, they suddenly "noticed" the war was not such a great idea.

There is no war to win without throwing relative allies engaged in profitable business or convenient treaties, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, into disorder. At best, "winning" is the appropriation of certain areas economically, which may benefit some sectors of "Western" society and yet make others more disadvantaged. Thus, you can't expect to be taken as something particularly just, even by many people in that so-called-West, let alone other places.

[Maes]

Aliotroph? said:

And at what point is somebody permitted to question/change your culture then?

At none, if it disrupts a stable status quo. I personally don't care about the crucifixes myself, but I wouldn't ask for them to be removed, either.

Why?

1. I would look like an ass.
   
2. If I asked this in a foreign country, I would soon become a persona non grata
   
3. I would also gain unwanted enemies in doing so.
   [*}I probably wouldn't be deported from my own country, but I could be facing several locked doors all of a sudden.
   
4. No immediate benefit for me (unless I was paid to lobby/pressure)..
   

Muslims in general don't seem to "get it", and will challenge anything they don't like...only in Christian countries where they are tolerated far too much. In their own countries or even in other Muslim countries they STFU, because they know how much tolerance they'll get from their -allegedly- likely-minded brethren: none, and probably a slit throat.


As to why ask only immigrants to sign/be bound from something like that, just think of this: do you expect your family members to uphold the same rules that apply to guests/visitors to your house? Of course not, unless your house is a total bordello or, on the opposite, a mausoleum.

[MajorRawne]

@ Myk: This is probably going to piss some people off, which isn't the intention, but it seems to me that people start to complain as soon as the first soldier gets killed. I sometimes wonder if people watch too many films or play too many games, and think that the only casualties of war are the enemy.

I think all war is wrong and all death is a waste of human life. Maybe one day we'll live up to Gene Roddenberry's expectations and overcome our need to wage constant war.

[dew]

POTGIESSER said:

Godwins Law. You win the prize.

ralph actually said comparing the current wars to vietnam was the equivalent of godwin's law. i believe you can't induce it purely by saying the word 'hitler'. or comparing to comparisons of hitler. that's the square root of godwin's law at best.

[Colusio]

If India and Pakistan reach an agreement over Kashmir then tension in the region would relax and Pakistan would loose it's incentive to support the taliban with weapons, shelter, ideology and so on. The taliban is something very recent, it exists since 1994 and is a "creation" of the ISI, (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency).

However reaching an agreement is not easy as those countries are archenemies, fought numerous wars and above all water
All rivers who nourishes roughly 1.400 000 000 people have their origin in Kashmir which is divided after wars between China, India and Pakistan.
It's believed that Bin Laden is in the Pakistani part of Kashmir.

Pakistan filled in the power vacuum after the departure of the USSR in Afghanistan with the radical taliban movement. So even if someday India manage to take control of the whole of Kashmir it would have allies in Afghanistan. (Btw in that scenario Pakistan would have Iran and India as adjacent states both are their enemies).
But here is the map of Kashmir.

That brown part called Shaksam Valley was a gift from Pakistan to China. And there you have it we live in a secular world, it's about world domination. Bin Laden did America a favor from a strategic viewpoint. The rather cold relation with India became friendship thanks to the beating of the taliban and the gift Bush gave to India. An alley America definitely needed facing an awaking China.

[myk]

Maes said:
As to why ask only immigrants to sign/be bound from something like that, just think of this: do you expect your family members to uphold the same rules that apply to guests/visitors to your house? Of course not, unless your house is a total bordello or, on the opposite, a mausoleum.

Ask for that and you'll eventually get it to bite you in the ass. Let's say Greeks implemented such a policy. It could well piss the French, British, Germans and other Europeans off, prompting them to kick or drive you guys out of the EU. Treating you more like filthy barbarians in a way analogous to how you'd treat Muslims, if you were to happen to pay them a visit.

[Aliotroph?]

That example doesn't work for me. I expect my family to obey more rules than the guests. How the hell are the guests going to know all the rules?

And how do you decide when somebody isn't a foreigner anymore? When they start agreeing with the status quo all the time? When they've spent enough time pretending they do? Such a contract would be logically and legally laughable.

Shutting up people who want to disrupt your stable status quo is a good way to ensure your society will be a backwards hell hole within a generation or two since nothing really has a stable status quo. It is also fundamentally against freedom. The reason the Muslims are wrong is because they are against the freedom of others to do what they want (including avoid Islam). Allowing the majority in any society to impose their cultures on newcomers so forcefully is the same garbage.

I don't think cultures are worth protecting. In fact, I'm not convinced that having a society with anything like one unified culture is even a remotely good thing. It stops the potential of a too many people. This is why the government should leave culture alone and worry about infrastructure and murders.

[Maes]

Aliotroph? said:

That example doesn't work for me. I expect my family to obey more rules than the guests. How the hell are the guests going to know all the rules?

So you let guests e.g. put their feet on the living room's table or sit in boxers before the TV? I can do it, IN MY OWN HOUSE, but I would be WTF if e.g. the electrician helped himself to the same treatment unsolicited. Unless of course your family has such strict rules that you can't touch anything in your own house either (I know of such families too).

Aliotroph? said:

And how do you decide when somebody isn't a foreigner anymore?

When he starts behaving like everybody else, for instance. That means, no fucking burqas, no pretending to wear them even in ID card/police photos, no asking for subsidies for his 11th wife, no bitching about me eating pork/putting crucifixes in my school etc.

As long as they comply, they can move on to full citizenship and demand respect. Otherwise, they will be treated like the towelheads themselves chose to be.

You're in a foreign country? You STFU and try to integrate. If you don't like it, revel in your misery, behave like a misfit, and then trump the "racism" and "intolerance" card when a bunch of skinheads come to kick your ass. Poor malaka :-p

Aliotroph? said:

Such a contract would be logically and legally laughable.

Quite the opposite, it would provide, at-fucking-last, an umbrella framework to shut down all lobbying and ill-posed claims of unilateral tolerance that are currently screwing most Western countries up.

Aliotroph? said:

Shutting up people who want to disrupt your stable status quo is a good way to ensure your society will be a backwards hell hole within a generation or two since nothing really has a stable status quo.

Seriously? Shutting up people who come from more backwards hell holes will make me more backwards? Now, that's laughable. They are nothing but opportunistic lobbyists that try to take advantage of our -relative- tolerance without giving anything in return.

Aliotroph? said:

Allowing the majority in any society to impose their cultures on newcomers so forcefully is the same garbage.

So when you go somewhere else you consider it a given that you'll start shaping anything you survey to your own whims? That's the attitude of either a conqueror or a fucking sociopath.

Aliotroph? said:

I don't think cultures are worth protecting. In fact, I'm not convinced that having a society with anything like one unified culture is even a remotely good thing. It stops the potential of a too many people.

Too bad that no 100% free-thinking societies have formed yet (Hippie communes? Ha ha ha!) and sooner or later everybody will have to fit into a schema. If you can afford not to, the more power to you and good luck. Go roam the world with a guitar and 3 stray dogs and sleep in cardboard boxes near bums, if you want no ties. I sincerely wish that you can instead afford living in a seaside resort in the Barbados in your own villa and not give a fuck about such problems, but what are the chances?

Since I need a job, social security etc. I put up with paying my taxes, my union dues, my rent, doing my military service etc. and I don't like anyone with no part in all this behaving as if we owned him a favour, let alone calling me "infidel" in my face in my own fucking country.

myk said:

Ask for that and you'll eventually get it to bite you in the ass. Let's say Greeks implemented such a policy. It could well piss the French, British, Germans and other Europeans off, prompting them to kick or drive you guys out of the EU. Treating you more like filthy barbarians in a way analogous to how you'd treat Muslims, if you were to happen to pay them a visit.

Come on myk, you know very well that most westerners would not have any practical problem obeying it (though many would have an ethical problem signing it). However, most immigrants from muslim countries would have serious practical problems and would sooner or later fuck up, at least those pretending to apply Islamic Law everywhere. There's no comparison. Greek vs Europeans: compatible. Muslims vs non-muslims: VERY incompatible.

IMO, such a contract is a much better alternative to any immigration policy. You allow entry to anyone responsible enough to sign it instead of arbitrarily deciding who's in and who's out, like happens now, but letting them know that they're essentially on probation with very specific terms.

Surely beats e.g. those IQ tables used by the US immigration office for decades, who ranked immigrants by "desirability" according to subjective anthropological averages (e.g. they considered Greeks more stupid than Turks, on average, and thus less desirable, while placing themselves as #1 on the list).

[DooMikE]

Can the US win in Afghanistan?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Not ******* likely!

Thread should´ve been named: "Does anybody really think the US can win in Afghanistan" imo, because reading up on Afghan history kind of answers that question. In the last 1000 years or more, countless nations/armies have tried every trick mentioned in Machiavellis "The Prince" on Afghanistan and eventually failed miserably.

I´d consider it a success or win if you like, if a western-friendly government lasts more than 5 years from when all forign/peace-keeping troops are out of there, but i highly doubt that is a likely scenario.

[Maes]

MajorRawne said:

@ Myk: This is probably going to piss some people off, which isn't the intention, but it seems to me that people start to complain as soon as the first soldier gets killed. I sometimes wonder if people watch too many films or play too many games, and think that the only casualties of war are the enemy.

The fact that the western armies involved in modern wars are 100% professionals and the highly visible corporate involvement doesn't help building up much public sympathy, either.

Would you feel sympathy for the mercs hired by e.g. african mining companies to quell worker uprisings, or strikebreaking pinkertons? Or for the private security forces of Halliburton?

In comparison, Vietnam seems almost romantic in comparison...conscripted young men sent abroad to fight the greatest menace at the time: Charlie.

Compare that with a highly-paid grunt (even if typically a member of a regular army) sent to enforce certain murky geopolitical and economical interests (his own, not the least), with major corporations joining in. Yup, it's not the same, is it?

[D_GARG]

well if US cant win this shit...

how about:
1. leave this shit.
2. stay the way they do and keep messing around.
3. build a fucking wall all around the shit and let no one in or out.
4. have bunker complex all over tha place ( talibans cant touch this )
5. burn it.

any other suggestions class?




oh by the way: if some country have problems with imigrants who cant talk the country langue, then do this: give 1 year to learn to speak, or GTFO and return to were you came from.

I dont think any country have the time, nerves or fully all resources to keep treating poeple like 5 year olds with silly meetings classes times and lessons. There are books translated and so on GET ON WITH IT.

btw Maes talk big ammounts of facts.

[myk]

Maes said:
Come on myk, you know very well that most westerners would not have any practical problem obeying it (though many would have an ethical problem signing it).

Yeah, they didn't have much of a practical problem becoming Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain or the like. At least in the past. (Although we could argue the Spanish case wasn't so practical, as it took a bloody civil war.)

By the way, do you have Italian ancestors?

[Maes]

myk said:

Yeah, they didn't have much of a practical problem becoming Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain or the like. At least in the past. (Although we could argue the Spanish case wasn't so practical, as it took a bloody civil war.)

They also had the common sense of keeping a low profile as immigrants, and letting their children integrate (for the most part).

You really have to nitpick at extreme examples like the Amish to fish a group of westerners who emigrated and remained stuck to their own world view (then again, at least the Amish are happy to raise their barns in the mid of Lancaster and don't bother outsiders much).

Don't confuse bringing your own harmless customs (e.g. Irishmen celebrating St. Patrick's day and dancing like Leprechauns) with becoming pressuring, demanding and abusive right away. It's not even comparable to what the Jews did historically: they kept a low profile and slowly creeped into certain niches of society (money lending, bartering etc.) but they didn't go up-front and tell everybody "Yo, I'm a Jew, ammah fuck yo up, dawgs", at least not pre-holocaust.

myk said:

By the way, do you have Italian ancestors?

Yeah. My mother had to adapt to life in Greece (mostly she had to put up with poorer infrastructure) and I lived a stretch of time in Italy (which I found to be pretty much like Greece, only richer). under no circumstances I would be in the same position as these Saudi businessmen my father had to tour around, that photographed every fucking woman on the street with their cell phones.

[myk]

Maes said:
They also had the common sense of keeping a low profile as immigrants, and letting their children integrate (for the most part).

You seem to forget workers' conflicts and gangs in relation to European immigrants, and you're inflating the amount of Muslims that cause issues. There are 8 million in the US and 16 in Europe. Do you really think a sizable amount of these are so problematic?

You either ignored or missed the insinuation in my comment, though :p

But if you mean immigrants who were descendants of Nazis or Fascists, I met the (great) granddaughter of an escaped Belgian Nazi criminal. She didn't know the identity of her great (I think) grandfather till by chance I stumbled on a document mentioning her ancestor's name. She didn't act like a Nazi or anything, for the most part, but in her appreciation of art and culture, there was something similar to Nazi aesthetics. Heh, that's why I was moved to ask you of any Italian ancestry. This idea you're upholding may well have seemed reasonable to the Fascists, and perhaps it's gotten to you through the family.

under no circumstances I would be in the same position as these Saudi businessmen my father had to tour around, that photographed every fucking woman on the street with their cell phones.

Indeed, Saudi businessmen are usually in a very good position due to the loads of oil and telecommunications money they handle!

[Maes]

myk said:

You either ignored or missed the insinuation in my comment, though :p

That insinuation was really trying too hard, even for you :-p

myk said:

You seem to forget workers conflicts and gangs in relation to European immigrants, and you're inflating the amount of Muslims that cause issues. There are 8 million in the US and 16 in Europe. Do you really think a sizable amount of these are so problematic?

I'm aware of the various ethnic mafias, we get plenty of those here too, mostly "Shquipetars" (Albanians) and "Russkies". But mafias are that: mafias. And the various mafiosi are more like the proverbial bad apple that spoils the bunch.

However not all members of any given ethnic minority can be, in fact, mafiosi. But a WHOLE LOT of them can be following a certain religion. And if it's a particularly uptight, unpermissive and severe religion as Islam you're bound to have problems.

Let me come back at you: you're living in a continent with a remarkable language, cultural and religious homogeneity (practically, eveybody but Brazil speaks Spanish and almost everybody is Christian Catholic). Did you ever have to deal with such integration problems yourself? Would, in your most honest opinion, Muslims integrate well in the typical Latin-American country? Or would they throw a fit at the first culo brasileiro they'd behold?

[myk]

Maes said:
Let me come back at you: you're living in a continent with a remarkable language, cultural and religious homogeneity (practically, eveybody but Brazil speaks Spanish and even everybody is Christian Catholic).

Latin American culture is pretty sensitive to integration issues due to its colonial history. More so than North America, I'd say, because the Spanish tended to mix more with the natives, ending up with more cultural ties with them.

Did you ever have to deal with such integration problems yourself?

Integrating myself into society during childhood felt pretty harsh, now that you ask.

Would, in your most honest opinion, Muslims integrate well in the typical Latin-American country? Or would they throw a fit at the first culo brasileiro they'd behold?

It's reputed that Argentina has the largest Islamic community in Latin America. Most live in the northern provinces. Incidentally, we also have the largest Jewish community, though in the capital, mostly. A dude of Syrian descent (Carlos Menem) became our president during the '90s, to boot. Incidentally, his administration donated land where the largest Mosque in South America now resides. Brazil itself has a lesser but still notable amount of Muslims, many of which seem to be in southern Brazil, near the northern section of Argentina that I mentioned above.