You are naive and talking about topics that are beyond your experience.Originally Posted by MK27
You are naive and talking about topics that are beyond your experience.
Heh half the island campaigns had major screw ups in them. Sometimes water craft would land miles from the beaches they should have landed on, some landed too far out causing the men to drown the minute they hit the water with their heavy packs, and some landed right in the mouth of the enemy which was not planned at all. War is anything but a completely organized set of attacks. Usually it's mass chaos and you do your best not to become separated from your unit. No vet that has ever shared with me their their battle experiences has said that they were anything less than complete and utter chaos and confusion. Sometimes to the point of not knowing who you were shooting at. Sometimes being shot at by your own people and your own air forces. It's prob a little better today with GPS and computers but I'm sure it's still rather chaotic on the ground in the thick of it.This is completely backward. You are making war out to be some kind of chaos.
Probably better. But why would the US want to help? The US cares about itself as all countries do in the end. That is the main reason about wars in the first place.
Much worst.
Afghanistan is not a country you can dump money in to rebuild the nation. Besides, Karzai and his family would love that, of course. That would be more money to buy Bentleys. The corrupt SOB he became is probably going to be the next Saddam Hussein a few years after USA troops pull out.
We tried that in Africa and it only served to produce richer warlords and finance weapons purchase. What Afghanistan needs is War.
But the opportunity was lost. When the western public opinion was accepting and willing to fully support war in Afghanistan (true War, with mounting casualties and sacrifice) we moved to Iraq in one of the biggest ..........ups in modern history.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Nah, there's no oil in Afghanistan, but it has strategic importance.
History has taught us many times that Afghanistan can not be subdued by military force.
It is also much harder to convince a teenager that they should martyr themselves (suicide bombing for a place in heaven) when they are educated, employed and safe/secure.
The US has spent nearly a trillion dollars and the situation is just as bad as when the war started (and OBL is still at large).
The fighting has now spread to Pakisatan, opium is flooding western markets and support for the war is waning.
I don't see how it could be much worse...
"Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
George Best
"If you are going through hell....keep going."
Winston Churchill
The Russians did it quite effectively until we intervened.
A nuclear Iran, with a little help from a 'friend'... Here is just a sample of the notes used to submit the full 127 page report to (among others) Iran several years ago, before the annoying Patriot Act closed a few legal loopholes regarding the export of technical information.I don't see how it could be much worse...
Last edited by abachler; 12-09-2009 at 12:48 AM.
I though you had me on ignore, just another inaccuracy in your posts?
The Russians were there at the request of the Afghan government.
The US funded the Islamic terrorists (including OBL) with billions of US$.
Ten years of war, 1/3 the population killed or fled, billions in cost and no one won a decisive victory.
Didn't the US government learn anything?
Currently the US intel services think that Iran stopped trying to create nukes in 2003. They do not think that Iran could have nuke weps before 2013, if at all.
I always find it amusing that the US won't allow Iran to have a nuke (Iran is a signatory to the NNPT) but has no issues suppling India, Israel and Pakistan with nuke/military technology (who are not in the NNPT).
Its not like you can't buy a nuke from the black market for a few Rubles.
Alexander Lebed and Suitcase Nukes
Last edited by novacain; 12-09-2009 at 01:36 AM.
"Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
George Best
"If you are going through hell....keep going."
Winston Churchill
You are on ignore, but I generally will read posts from ignored people after a few days to see if their attitudes changed. Usually new posters just have a case of diarrhea of the keyboard for a few days and then they get better. But I guess you haven't. And yes, I see your post count, I also looked at your post history, which shows you drop by every couple months, start making a bunch of posts, then drift off somewhere when you lose interest.
No they weren't, you are just making stuff up again, like you did before to get on ignore in the first place.The Russians were there at the request of the Afghan government.
Last edited by abachler; 12-09-2009 at 11:08 AM.
History hasn't told us anything like that. That's a common misconception. A catch phrase that stuck. Afghanistan has been subdued many times in the past, including by the Taliban just 10 years ago. History of Afghanistan for Idiots.
In their sweet innocence, people tend to adhere to catch phrases and thus perpetuate their ignorance and anyone else's willing to listen.
Indeed. I agree. But who says non-intervention would make things better? I hope you aren't suggesting the problems in Afghanistan could all be solved by building schools and feeding the population. That's insanely ignorant and shows how little you know about the Taliban.The US has spent nearly a trillion dollars and the situation is just as bad as when the war started (and OBL is still at large).
The trillions haven't work out because (in my opinion) USA (including NATO) is not fighting a war more then they are PRing. Instead, Afghanistan war would need a decisive military intervention. A full-scale military intervention. Which in the military jargon I believe includes the potential for substantial loses of civilian lives and destruction of civil and military infrastructures.
However, we helped induct a friendly(?) Afghan President before we could secure victory on the theater of war. That's like building a house from the roof. As such, today we do not have the diplomatic capacity to declare war on Afghanistan (like we did after 9/11). Just on the Taliban.
The result is that the USA and NATO forces are accountable for civilian loses, which strongly reduces their ability to conduct war. This is made even more difficult by the fact the Taliban employ guerrilla tactics which include the use of civilians for all sorts of tasks, from intelligence to standard supplying and even recruitment.
It's Vietnam all over again. Thankfully this time with a lower body bags count. This war is obviously lost. But could have been won had it actually been fought (same in Vietnam).
1. You don't know Karzai very well, do you? Neither do I.I don't see how it could be much worse...
But who do you think he is? A friendly president worried about the state of his people and willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of his nation? A true Afghan president like this country never saw in its history? Or a corrupt official getting richer everyday whose brother activities are apparently protected by him and his staff?
I place my bet on the latter. If you place your bet on the former, you haven't been paying attention.
2. And as for the Taliban. Do you really think they would just sit and have tea while Afghan boys and girls go to school under the benedictive hand of a democratic government? Do you think the Taliban only fight the American and NATO forces?
3. And what about the money? To the billions you say it would cost, you would still have to keep spending the same trillions you say it is costing this war. Because without USA intervention, the Taliban would bulldoze every school you created and kill anyone within (or have you forgotten what they did in Afghanistan just 10 years ago to gain control of the country?).
Last edited by Mario F.; 12-09-2009 at 12:19 PM.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
On 20th March 1979, one of the leaders of the PDPA (Taraki) visited Moscow to formally ask for military assistance from the USSR.
The USSR sent over 1,000 troops as well as helicopter gunships (and food aid).
At least try to confirm your opinion with research (as you seem unable retain the facts.)
LOL! I am the 'new poster' even though I have been here 6 years longer than you. If you checked my posts from 2001 you would see my opinion has not changed in 8 years (and I predicted that Afghanistan and Iraq would be Vietnam style disasters for the US).
Actually the Taliban did not ever control all of Afghanistan and the civil war was still waging when the US invaded in 2001. (read your own link, summarized below)
1738 Nadir Shah creates what is considered 'Afghanistan'.
The first Anglo Afghan war (1839-1842) resulted in the defeat of the British.
In the second Anglo Afghan war (1878-1880) the British won, but were unable to actually occupy Afghanistan (due to many revolts) and withdrew all forces in 1881.
In the third Anglo Afghan war (1919) the Afghans won independence.
In 1979 the Soviets entered Afghanistan at the request of the government.
The US took this opportunity to weaken the USSR, by getting the USSR involved in a Vietnam style war. The US supplied the Muslim terrorists with billion on arms/training, including OBL.
The USSR withdrew in 1989.
In 1992 a civil war starts.
By 2000 the US funded Islamic terrorists (the Taliban) took control of up to 95% of Afghanistan (even though the UN recognized the ANA as the government).
2001 the US invades.
2009, after 8 years and spending nearly US$1 trillion there is no victory in sight.
The Afghan terrain extremely treacherous and the climate very unforgiving and only the Afghans know how to thrive in these conditions (and have US CIA training).
On top of that, there is no ‘military infrastructures’ to attack.
If it was that simple the US would have captured OBL by now.
At that time the Taliban was receiving over US$600 million / year from the US.
I wonder how well the Taliban would do without funding or new recruits (which become harder to find when people are fed, educated and feel secure).
"Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
George Best
"If you are going through hell....keep going."
Winston Churchill
Yeah, like real-life. Pfft. I don't see what that has to do with anything.
I can see why there is such prejudice towards (North) Americans... What a pointless argument.
Last edited by zacs7; 12-10-2009 at 12:23 AM.
Yeah because real life routinely interferes so much you don't have access to the internet or a library for 6-9 months out of each year for 6-7 years in a row...
Now you know why Americans have such disdain for Europeans and their trashy penal colony rejects. They talk a great game but utterly fail to deliver.
So you can't attack the facts I have posted so you attack the poster?
I fail to see why that makes my argument any less valid, even if it was true (a quick check of my posting record shows it is not factually correct).
EDIT: I spend ~25% of my working time on site. Many times with no mobile phone coverage and a 500 Km drive by 4WD to the nearest library....(and I spend at least a month a year at my other house on Patong Beach in Thailand, where I try not to use a computer.)
The lack of US education always amazes me, so here is a quick history lesson.
Transportation' was developed as a punishment in Brittan in 1717. (not to be confused with the US's current practice of 'renditions')
To get transported you must have committed ONLY a petty crime. Stealing more than 5 shillings, cutting down a tree or killing a rabbit (and over 220 other crimes) were punished by death. Lesser crimes got transportation.
Convicts were sent to America until 1776 (guess why they stopped...).
In 1787 Transportations began to Australia and continued until 1868.
Brittan sent ~160,000 convicts to Australia and ~60,000 to the US.
Australia's population exploded in the gold rush of 1871, rising from 0.45 to 1.7 million.
At this time (1860) America had over 4 million SLAVES and Australia had none...
Last edited by novacain; 12-10-2009 at 10:52 PM.
"Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
George Best
"If you are going through hell....keep going."
Winston Churchill
Ouch!
Not to mention USA president assassination attempts by their own fellow American citizens right into the 90s, discounting the alleged attempt against George Bush just 9 years ago. Or the fact USA was the only western country to institute racial segregation policies well into the 20th century or to legally prosecute citizens on their political beliefs (to this day).
We all have stones in our shoes. Abachler's country is no different.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
