Search:

[QUOTE=HentaiManOfPeace;946768]Blame Donald Rumsfeld for somehow convincing POTUS Bush Jr. to tangent into Iraq when their primary focus should've been Afghanistan from the get-go.

Another example of failed American leadership fucking shit up for the rest of us non-Americans trying to live our own lives peacefully.[/QUOTE]
I’m starting to feel like ‘American’ and ‘leadership’ do not belong next to etchother in context with politicians. It’s getting to the point of how we joke about the term ‘government intelligence’

Originally Posted by HentaiManOfPeace

Blame Donald Rumsfeld for somehow convincing POTUS Bush Jr. to tangent into Iraq when their primary focus should've been Afghanistan from the get-go.

Another example of failed American leadership fucking shit up for the rest of us non-Americans trying to live our own lives peacefully.

I’m starting to feel like ‘American’ and ‘leadership’ do not belong next to etchother in context with politicians. It’s getting to the point of how we joke about the term ‘government intelligence’

[QUOTE=OzyWho;946279][I]Compare it to how it took the Russians 8 year to fully withdraw all their forces from the Baltic states after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[[URL="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states"]Wiki[/URL]]
But ok those are not comparable[/I]

It was Trump who promised that though, and Biden was just respecting that agreement.

I'm just wondering though. Will the US now expand less tax money towards the military or will nothing change in that regard? Your medical and education bills are kinda legendary around the world ¯\_(ツ)_/¯[/QUOTE]
Valid points. Trump is no better and arguably the cause of the timeline although I would point to (and took part in) the consolidation of Iraq that was well executed without any loss of life. Regardless of the timeline (and with my ignorance of politics) the 'withdraw' from Afghanistan looked like it was caused by some total panic retreat. Blame it on Biden or Trump but that never would have happened if whatever jackass politician had listened to military advice. I was not sitting in war cabinets in Iraq or Afghanistan but I am very damn confident no military commander would have willingly allowed that mess if they had half the resources they felt they needed to at least stand up for a decent fight.

I don't think the US will spend a dollar less until this tragedy is used as an excuse to go back and restart the war machine.

I do always like to point out how medicine and education are the only subsidized things and they are absolutely out of control in price which points to how subsidized capitalism only profits the private industries with the money to lobby while shifting the cost to the tax payer. It truly is a legendary business model for anyone who wants to generate profitable subsidization which funnels money from the tax payer to the private industry.

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Compare it to how it took the Russians 8 year to fully withdraw all their forces from the Baltic states after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[Wiki]
But ok those are not comparable

It was Trump who promised that though, and Biden was just respecting that agreement.

I'm just wondering though. Will the US now expand less tax money towards the military or will nothing change in that regard? Your medical and education bills are kinda legendary around the world ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Valid points. Trump is no better and arguably the cause of the timeline although I would point to (and took part in) the consolidation of Iraq that was well executed without any loss of life. Regardless of the timeline (and with my ignorance of politics) the 'withdraw' from Afghanistan looked like it was caused by some total panic retreat. Blame it on Biden or Trump but that never would have happened if whatever jackass politician had listened to military advice. I was not sitting in war cabinets in Iraq or Afghanistan but I am very damn confident no military commander would have willingly allowed that mess if they had half the resources they felt they needed to at least stand up for a decent fight.

I don't think the US will spend a dollar less until this tragedy is used as an excuse to go back and restart the war machine.

I do always like to point out how medicine and education are the only subsidized things and they are absolutely out of control in price which points to how subsidized capitalism only profits the private industries with the money to lobby while shifting the cost to the tax payer. It truly is a legendary business model for anyone who wants to generate profitable subsidization which funnels money from the tax payer to the private industry.

[QUOTE=OzyWho;946279]Maybe so, but inside a Mosque? I'm not a Muslim but even I think suicide bombing inside a Mosque is just insane.[/QUOTE] I am not sure how to say this in a politically correct way but when I was in Afghanistan there was a city they used as a mosque to base attacks. They would snipe from near by and then retreat to the mosque knowing it was some 'sacred' bullshit we would not touch. I think I lost my sympathy there when they started making an effort to get kids killed so they could launch a PR campaign that the child died after demanding payment for the killed kid.

The fact they are now killing etch other in a mosque gets a giggle from me after how little regard they have for the 'rules of war' or any ethics. Go to your local VA and talk to your combat vets with PTSD and you will find most of them are fucked up because those assholes used women and children to do some really ugly stuff because they had social 'protections.' Saying a Mosque is sacred is just declaring it off limits to 1st world countries. An enemy that uses children as cannon fodder for a marketing ploy has no moral standing.

Originally Posted by OzyWho

Maybe so, but inside a Mosque? I'm not a Muslim but even I think suicide bombing inside a Mosque is just insane.

I am not sure how to say this in a politically correct way but when I was in Afghanistan there was a city they used as a mosque to base attacks. They would snipe from near by and then retreat to the mosque knowing it was some 'sacred' bullshit we would not touch. I think I lost my sympathy there when they started making an effort to get kids killed so they could launch a PR campaign that the child died after demanding payment for the killed kid.

The fact they are now killing etch other in a mosque gets a giggle from me after how little regard they have for the 'rules of war' or any ethics. Go to your local VA and talk to your combat vets with PTSD and you will find most of them are fucked up because those assholes used women and children to do some really ugly stuff because they had social 'protections.' Saying a Mosque is sacred is just declaring it off limits to 1st world countries. An enemy that uses children as cannon fodder for a marketing ploy has no moral standing.

[QUOTE=OzyWho;946191]It seems like it's not going well for Afghanistan.
In a suicide blast inside a Shia Mosque, in Kunduz, killed over 100 people. It's the third deadly attack this week apparently targeting religious institutions.
If you want a source, it seems every news media in existence has covered it - take your pick. If it's all the same to you, I got it from video description in a recent [URL="https://youtu.be/sOGtHBuAhWw"]UN Watch video[/URL].

How in the world can any Muslim do suicide bombing inside a Mosque of all places? They've gone completely mad.[/QUOTE]

They have been killing themselves for thousands of years. The biggest thing I see as changed is that now small warlords have giant tanks and cannons they can do it with.

I think American leaders got what they wanted though. They were able to funnel trillions of dollars from the American public to arms manufactures who lobbied with congress and they get to act blameless condemning Afghans while they are used to commit atrocious acts of violence.

On the bright side Biden played it off well shifting the blame to the generals. The leadership on how withdraw happened was impressively incompetent. Hopefully it will stand as an example of exactly why you should listen to the advice of professionals in your field when you have no clue what you are doing.

Originally Posted by OzyWho

It seems like it's not going well for Afghanistan.
In a suicide blast inside a Shia Mosque, in Kunduz, killed over 100 people. It's the third deadly attack this week apparently targeting religious institutions.
If you want a source, it seems every news media in existence has covered it - take your pick. If it's all the same to you, I got it from video description in a recent UN Watch video.

How in the world can any Muslim do suicide bombing inside a Mosque of all places? They've gone completely mad.

They have been killing themselves for thousands of years. The biggest thing I see as changed is that now small warlords have giant tanks and cannons they can do it with.

I think American leaders got what they wanted though. They were able to funnel trillions of dollars from the American public to arms manufactures who lobbied with congress and they get to act blameless condemning Afghans while they are used to commit atrocious acts of violence.

On the bright side Biden played it off well shifting the blame to the generals. The leadership on how withdraw happened was impressively incompetent. Hopefully it will stand as an example of exactly why you should listen to the advice of professionals in your field when you have no clue what you are doing.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;944047]"Taliban" is an ideology (a school/interpretation of Islam), not a group. Also, "they [Afghans] are a very tribal people"... uh, I'm not sure that's a valid point lol. I'm not even sure "they" are [I]one people[/I] to begin with, although that would have to be history fact-checked. Some are very happy with tribal organization, some are far from that (don't tell me people in Kabul, Herat or whatever other big city there is in Afghanistan are very tribal, that's utterly false).

The "label" part is [I]somewhat[/I] true since talibans are simply demonized by the US, as can be seen in military propaganda movies, for example. However, the answer is a little oversimplified: it's not true that the talibans are [I]nothing[/I] organized. There's a general agreement of guerilla warfare, and there are founders of the movement (hence why there are people going to lead the new government). It's not a super strict organization of course, and it will still be civil war once the "Western problem" is gone for them, but it still is an organization, as the anonymous author even recognized later - this part seems contradictory with the rest. It seems that was written out of resent for the very simplistic and inaccurate label "talibans are Hell's army of evil muslims" views more than out of an intent to grasp the concept, which is understandable, but not so enlightening.

As for "peace is bad for business", remember how WW2 got the US out of the Great Depression. They manufactured weapons, a LOT of weapons. That, and access to oil or something, as you said, but I don't know enough about the area to say for sure.[/QUOTE]

For context that quoted copy-paste was a bit of my ramblings in a discord serious/politics chat from a few weeks back.

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

"Taliban" is an ideology (a school/interpretation of Islam), not a group. Also, "they [Afghans] are a very tribal people"... uh, I'm not sure that's a valid point lol. I'm not even sure "they" are one people to begin with, although that would have to be history fact-checked. Some are very happy with tribal organization, some are far from that (don't tell me people in Kabul, Herat or whatever other big city there is in Afghanistan are very tribal, that's utterly false).

The "label" part is somewhat true since talibans are simply demonized by the US, as can be seen in military propaganda movies, for example. However, the answer is a little oversimplified: it's not true that the talibans are nothing organized. There's a general agreement of guerilla warfare, and there are founders of the movement (hence why there are people going to lead the new government). It's not a super strict organization of course, and it will still be civil war once the "Western problem" is gone for them, but it still is an organization, as the anonymous author even recognized later - this part seems contradictory with the rest. It seems that was written out of resent for the very simplistic and inaccurate label "talibans are Hell's army of evil muslims" views more than out of an intent to grasp the concept, which is understandable, but not so enlightening.

As for "peace is bad for business", remember how WW2 got the US out of the Great Depression. They manufactured weapons, a LOT of weapons. That, and access to oil or something, as you said, but I don't know enough about the area to say for sure.

For context that quoted copy-paste was a bit of my ramblings in a discord serious/politics chat from a few weeks back.

I am glad its over. The occupation 'rebuild' was stupid in my opinion. We set that country back 200 years trying to force their society to function like ours.

The most substantial take-away I look at is how American military leaders did not have a real goal or objective. This (in my opinion) reflects that the war itself was just the pre-tense to move money around and keep that war economy going.

Wars in general are always about power when you dig deep enough. We wrap whatever ethical human rights nonsense we can around them after the fact to look justified but its just about raw power.

The refugee subject is another issue. No good will come of it in any respect and I generally disagree with the concept of refugees while holding the belief that it perpetuates inequality on a macro scale. But in this instance we created that suffering and have a duty to make it right regardless of the violence it can potentially bring to America. Not sure if diving into that subject would be productive though.

I am glad its over. The occupation 'rebuild' was stupid in my opinion. We set that country back 200 years trying to force their society to function like ours.

The most substantial take-away I look at is how American military leaders did not have a real goal or objective. This (in my opinion) reflects that the war itself was just the pre-tense to move money around and keep that war economy going.

Wars in general are always about power when you dig deep enough. We wrap whatever ethical human rights nonsense we can around them after the fact to look justified but its just about raw power.

The refugee subject is another issue. No good will come of it in any respect and I generally disagree with the concept of refugees while holding the belief that it perpetuates inequality on a macro scale. But in this instance we created that suffering and have a duty to make it right regardless of the violence it can potentially bring to America. Not sure if diving into that subject would be productive though.