Can the US win in Afghanistan?

myk said:

It's reputed that Argentina has the largest Islamic community in Latin America.

Then we need to see what particular branch of Islam they follow and what country they come from. As I said countless of times, the most reasonably westernized muslims are Turks, followed by Bosniacs and Albanians (although the latter may be more westernized in some cases), and usually they come to be more known for the problems that their ethnic mafias and vendetta culture causes, rather than for their being Muslim.

Muslims from countries like Syria, Lebanon etc. tend to be pretty moderated as well, and the ones I met seemed to know their place.

There's also the large south asian Muslim community to consider, but we seldom hear of them over here, as we seldom hear of e.g. Chechen muslims (I'm sure Russkies have some horror stories about them too).

Most of the negative connotations of Islam (and where the real problem is, at least for Europe's immigration reality) is the South-Saharan Islam: yeah, with female genital mutilation, claim of polygamy subsidies and all. North African Islam is less troublesome, but in no case as "moderated" as e.g. Turkey, and even Turkey has internal divisions and tensions between those "more Muslim" and those "less Muslim". Pakistanis are pretty numerous all over Europe, and AFAIK they're a mixed bunch: some are reasonably westernized, like Turks, and some are Quran-thumping bigots.

In general however, muslim immigrants in Europe tend to be on the lower end of Islam: South Saharan and North African and the most Quran-thumping of each possible ethnicity, minority and country, which are the most troublesome. Not exactly la creme de la creme if you catch my drift.

Maes said:

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.

Man, i hear all these stories of people from Islamic countries coming back from Europe/America and telling their countrymen that they saw people walking around naked and having sex in the streets. I think they just have weird definitions of what "naked" and "sex" mean.

Meh, the Saudis tend to "bend" their rules a lot anyway. Saudi is a "dry" country so loads of them pop across the border to Oman to get pissed.

I don't think it's specifically belief in Islam that causes problems, but the adherence to "Sharia Law" followed by the imposition of it on others.

As a religion itself, it's no worse, no less backwards, no less bronze age mythology, or ridiculous than any other religious viewpoint.

Maes said:

... the U.S. army has easily the best standard issue equipment of all modern western armies, high levels of training and professionalism (100% volunteer professionals...)

That's funny, I had the impression they were in a large part a bunch of guys, about my age, that watched a lot of adverts spewing out how the army is as "boring" as a videogame.

spank said:

That's funny, I had the impression they were in a large part a bunch of guys, about my age, that watched a lot of adverts spewing out how the army is as "boring" as a videogame.

At least they don't force them by conscription to be part of this "boring videogame" anymore. To be quite honest, there's not the required political climate anywhere, anymore, to send a bunch of unwilling conscripts to fight for the Kaiser or the Tzar or Krupp or their modern equivalents.

If you want to get the "job" done and secure some oil rigs in Iraq for Halliburton, you have to send in professionals that cash in, shoot, and ahut up, and not conscripts that may think "why am I risking my neck for free to protect Dick Cheney's interests?"

They were forced to do that in other times and other eras, granted, it just wouldn't fly anymore. Enter all-professional armies, whose only different with mercs is an aura of legitimacy, granted by their being a regular army of a sovereign country. But other than that, their duties are more like those of a bunch of pinkertons.

E.J. said:

I don't think it's specifically belief in Islam that causes problems, but the adherence to "Sharia Law" followed by the imposition of it on others.

As a religion itself, it's no worse, no less backwards, no less bronze age mythology, or ridiculous than any other religious viewpoint.

Very true, but unfortunately there's no "Sharia free" Islam yet (the closest is the so-called "moderated Islam". And as I said, the st vamajority of the millions of muslim immigrants tend NOT to belong to this "creme de la creme" of moderate Islamic intellectualism.

Maes said:
Very true, but unfortunately there's no "Sharia free" Islam yet

Very? You might want to read up a bit, as Sharia law seems to vary from place to place according to how traditionalist it is and other cultural phenomena. Nothing stops more moderate Sharia laws from being established with less reactionary and literal interpretations.

In your posts, you are unable to analyze why Muslims are as they are, just saying that since they are "this and that way," they are untreatable or untrustworthy. Fear prevails, intelligence fails.

By the way, perhaps you are right in saying I try too hard, as, just like I'm well aware that some Muslim deep into strict (and possibly warped) Sharia may be impervious to certain observations and facts, you might indeed not be in a position to be able to see past your Islamophobia. An observant mind doesn't come magically because it's subject to social circumstances which may impair it.

myk said:

Very? You might want to read up a bit, as Sharia law seems to vary from place to place according to how traditionalist it is and other cultural phenomena.

Apply the "very" to the whole context instead of nitpicking on the isolated argument.

myk said:

Nothing stops more moderate Sharia laws from being established with less reactionary and literal interpretations.

Pretty much like nothing stops the world being all roses and flowers with no wars etc. but sadly it doesn't, so a down-to-earth, result-oriented, cold-fact mentality approach is needed. Yeah, moderate Sharia laws are theoretically possible, like e.g. the Islamic world could very well be the craddle of the next major technological and sociological revolution putting Europe, US and Japan to shame.

Possible on a theoretical level, impossible with the currently available data on the short and mid term. And the immigrants are flooding in NOW, with a very specific mindset which is far from ideal.

myk said:

In your posts, you are unable to analyze why Muslims are as they are, just saying that since they are "this and that way," they are untreatable or untrustworthy.

I believe I made it clear in all of my posts that for me, Islam is inherently fucked up on so many levels that I didn't really feel the need to make yet another lengthy list of statistic facts and anecdotal evidence. Books such as Dan Diner's pretty much sum it up for me, so I'll redirect you there, once more.

Actually, my "nitpick" pokes a hole in your whole argument by attacking its reductionism.

Maes said:
yet another lengthy list of statistic facts and anecdotal evidence.

You never did any such thing. If anything, it can all be reduced to that book you cited (which I critiqued the last time by singling out its motivations), and certain cultural anecdotes that pair off with aptitudes you've inherited in a country that is rival to Turks.

And the immigrants are flooding in NOW, with a very specific mindset which is far from ideal.

There is your true concern. I can sympathize in respect to cultural clashes. It's not easy dealing with strangers that act in weird and often assertive ways, but trying to make a worldview of these experiences merely twists your interests into a gigantic ball of shit that will perpetuate the issue in frustration.

Saying "the problem is Muslims are weird and crazy" is a cop-out of a complex clash between different peoples. Hitting rock bottom it may become inevitable, and ugly, but are you really there? That would be pretty sad.

myk said:

You never did any such thing.

Then search all of the forums for "Maes" and "Islam", that should cover it. I just don't felt the need to repeat myself (and blatantly obvious facts, too). Sure you don't recall another thread where another Islam shitfest erupted and that same book was called in again?

myk said:

and certain cultural anecdotes that pair off with aptitudes you've inherited in a country that is rival to Turks.[/b]]

That's ridiculous, if anything I've always cited the Turks as a role model for the rest of the Muslims, in this thread and in others, by calling them "the most modern", "the most westernized" etc. etc. without of course ommiting to mention that despite this they are internally divided on the secularity/religious front. Not once have I called in Greek-Turkish geopolitical relations into all this (which would also be pointless, as they say nothing about Islam). Sorry, but you made that last bit entirely up.

I'm quite aware of all our previous discussions and that you've been basing all on a fundamental generalization, pasting anecdotes and "facts" to it. You introduced the Turks as some sort of evidence that "even in the best cases" Muslims are incurably fucked.

myk said:

You introduced the Turks as some sort of evidence that "even in the best cases" Muslims are incurably fucked.

Would anything change if they were, instead, Eskimos? Unless a Greek isn't qualified to speak about Turks in general in any way...

also, its extremely easy to generalize people afterthe shit that some cause of many.


but its enough with some bullshiting around with religius propaganda about that non-beliers shall die and so on, its enough with theese jerks to piss off the entire west.

and its not we whoare responsible for have theese jerks mouths shut, its their own.

looking at the pope at the same time see he says: "condoms is a sin, we shall populate the earth!" even if we have problems with a over-populated planet, for not opening his eyes and see that it has 2000 years AT LEAST since bible were written. ( the insanity with religion in power is sort of the sasme with muslims, but this doesnt mean that their religoin is bad, exept that they dont seem to think about thatit wasnot 1 person whowrote it, it was probablymore, and some were not that gifted with brains as most of we humans are. just like the bible. !GOD DAMNIT! never mix religion with politics. even without religoin mixed in its a big fuck of a deal of responsibility.)

D_GARG said:

even without religion mixed in [politics] its a big fuck of a deal of responsibility.)

Don't even get me started on that...there is no other field of human endeavour where someone with virtually no formal or practical qualifications whatsoever can ascend to a position of apparent responsability, which however almost never translates to being actually accountable/punished for one's fuckups.

There are positions that have too much responsability for one's actual power (which suck), but more often than not we get to see too much power in the hands of individual with little responsibility.

A tax evader or even someone crossing a red traffic light will be punished swiftly, a policeman or serviceman will be called to answer for the most petty violations of the code of conduct etc., but a politician fucking everything up will be just allowed to retire (with plenty of money) and write a best-selling book. At most he will receive a rotten egg or somesuch, and that's it.

Maes said:
Unless a Greek isn't qualified to speak about Turks in general in any way...

As you're aware, I don't like generalizations. It's not because you're a Greek that I said that, but because you're a Greek saying what you said. Ideas and idea systems, like Islamic religion, are a series of symbols (semiotic constructs) to meld relations in society. These aren't fixed and unchanging, but are subject to biological and social change. Taking ideologies and ideas as fundamental causes of things leads to what religions are often criticized for; the reduction of facts and circumstances to non-material "first causes" that make people go in retarded circles.

nad the worst thing is that when some politican screw up he often dont see more than 3/10 of what he causes, aware of the shit he causes, dont give a shit, instead go eat another caviar. meanvile, roboticks upper lipp turns out to dislike this shit and require an explanation, ending up with a shitty pice of paper signed by the marshal academic of molten mushrooms, saying that this shit is totaly ok and right fullylegal after a pack of disgustingly smiling lawyers had their nonsense said of isac newtons old jokes taken from mrs holdsons rumble of scarfs. (good examples of the nonsense for cirkus lawers have stealing patents for a living)

and then other power junkies wanna join the tea party either messing dog poop or run over the shit with an army.










but mostly it turns out going acceptebly okay from our everyday view.

We should withdraw all Allied troops and send in Rambo to represent America, and Alan Partridge to represent the UK.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/147/357141079_69bfe39bbc.jpg?v=0

It is hard to say that US will win in Afghanistan. How many people have lost fathers, brothers, husbands, daughters and wives? Hundreds? thousands?

It's been years, and we still get nothing than blood.

I think withdrawing the troops and sending Rambo could probably a good option. though it might not be the greatest solution.

Rambo's good but not that good, I'd send in Team America as well.

Afghanistan's been a graveyard for foreign armies since at least the time of Alexander the Great. The US went in there with no apparent objective beyond kicking Osama bin Laden's butt and is now caught in a Vietnam-style guerrilla war with no way out that doesn't look like they're cutting and running.

Do the americans even have the orders to just smash the shit out of all opposers down there?

The Rules Of Engagement are probably fairly specific as to where, how and against whom lethal force can be applied, which is not to say that stuff-ups don't happen in the heat of the moment.

"...We can't win this battle by bombing or shooting everything. Our leaders must make hard choices on employment of their troops and weapons in order to accomplish their mission. Protecting the Afghan people is one of our top priorities - we cannot win this battle without them. Preventing civilian casualties is a fabric which runs through all our operations..."

GreyGhost said:
with no apparent objective beyond kicking Osama bin Laden's butt

GreyGhost said:

The US went in there with no apparent objective beyond kicking Osama bin Laden's butt

Just like they went in Iraq with all-good intentions of ending the tyranny of a monster that gassed his own people, and in total serendipity they found plenty of business opportinities like oil rigs, reconstruction, etc. to make up for the trouble, and so everybody lived happily ever after. The Iraqis, the US, Halliburton, Blackwater, the Saudis...EVERYBODY.

The oil thing is a joke. That industry never came back there. America has always bought far more oil from us than from the middle east. The stupid thing is we sell it cheap because Alberta's politicians are a bunch of Republican wannabes.

The thing with nation building is if you're going to do it you have to really, really, really want it. And then when you really want it you have to convince the locals that they want it. Then you have to show them how to stand up to threats, intimidation, corruption, and incompetence (if they don't do that already). It's no wonder it almost never works.

Aliotroph? said:

The thing with nation building is if you're going to do it you have to really, really, really want it.

And even more, it has to be really-really-really needed, and digging someone else's grave is never an unanimous decision. In simpler words: there was no need to tear a country down so that it needs rebuilding, and they didn't invade it out of "kindness" or just for "ending tyranny", or even for the inexistent WMD. If that was the case, they'd have attacked NK in the same time frame, before it built its first nuke. Ooops...too close to China and Russia, not enough friendly bases there....and no oil, so why do it?

What would you think would happen if tomorrow a coalition of the Chinese/Russkies/NK/EU decided that the US required "rebuilding" by their "unanimous" -but unilateral- decision because it's too much of a PITA for everybody for a variety of reasons and proceeded to "deconstruct" you first?

myk said:

GreyGhost said:
with no apparent objective beyond kicking Osama bin Laden's butt

Heh - I forgot about that, not so much an objective as an ulterior motive.

Seriously comparing Afghanistan or Iraq to the Vietnam war is laughable

Ralphis said:

Seriously comparing Afghanistan or Iraq to the Vietnam war is laughable

Indeed. It has more in common with those so-called "low intensity" African conflicts which were found mostly by mercs on behalf of corporations or for factions liked by western governments.

With the difference that now the mercs are much, much more numerous, they have an aura of legitimacy (even if post-event), and their recruiters used them to gain a foothold in a resource-producing country, not to secure it vs an occasional threat like e.g. the European mining companies did in Congo or Rhodesia.

Sadly, this is the future of warfare: no more heroic trench warfare where the wealthy nations send their conscript youth one against the other for the Kaiser or the Fuhrer: no, now being a grunt means being primarily a paid professional not unlike a merc, a pinkerton or a bodyguard, and thus your employer's economical interests come first.

Abso-fucking-lutely Top priority.

In practice this translates to low-intensity warfare in 3rd world countries, chasing Somali pirates off the sea and even internal heavy policing. Being such a "soldier" has come to be regarded as an occupation like any other, and that's really disturbing, if you come to think of it. Camaraderie is replaced by a sort of detached professional unionism/interests safeguarding similar to that found in private security or certain police forces.

Of course they still need to throw a sheen of stars & stripes over the whole matter because you still can't recruit people by the thousands saying "Become a halliburton merc!". Yet. I'm sure in the future they will be more explicit about it, and volunteers will also be less stigmatized.