Why is Nato falling short in Afghanistan?
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 Next
Winnipegger @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:38 am
I should also point out that Afghani forces are not able to defeat Taliban forces. News announced a particular hill that Canadian forces took from the Taliban, then once it was secure handed it over to Afghani forces. They lost it to the Taliban. So Canada took it again, and again once it was secure and all fighting stopped, handed it back to Afghani forces to hold. They lost it again to the Taliban. So Canada took it a third time, but this time stayed.
fatbasturd @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:45 am
WesterCharcoal WesterCharcoal:
That’s purely speculative though. Of course we would loose if we stopped sending supplies and soldiers to fight. It's hard to win any conflict when you've stopped fighting it.
What makes you assume that the USA will stop? Counting reserves the USA has 2.5+ million soldiers, barely 8% of which are deployed in Iraq. Despite what polls and news papers say, there’s plenty of political will lying around too. Even if NATO left the USA holding the bag, I'm pretty confident that wouldn't stop the USA from fighting on.
because your country is war poor...it can't afford it any more.
What makes you assume that the USA will stop? Counting reserves the USA has 2.5+ million soldiers, barely 8% of which are deployed in Iraq. Despite what polls and news papers say, there’s plenty of political will lying around too. Even if NATO left the USA holding the bag, I'm pretty confident that wouldn't stop the USA from fighting on.
BartSimpson @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:46 am
Because the mosques are still open.
EyeBrock @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:56 am
Because NATO has always really been the US, UK and Canada.
The others are wimpy Europeans who have been invaded by each other numerous times. Capitulation and surrender are core European values.
The Dutch have helped in this conflict , and do have balls but they are likely to pull out due to public pressure.
It's down to us Anglo-Saxons again.
neopundit @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:06 am
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Freedom starts with the people who live there deciding for themselves how they want to live. If they want a parliamentary democracy like Canada, or a constitutional monarchy like the UK, or republican democracy like USA, or an oligarchy with a socialist economy like the Soviet Union, or a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy, it has to be their decision.
Quoted for mother fucking truth.
BartSimpson @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:17 am
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Because NATO has always really been the US, UK and Canada.
The others are wimpy Europeans who have been invaded by each other numerous times. Capitulation and surrender are core European values.
The Dutch have helped in this conflict , and do have balls but they are likely to pull out due to public pressure.
It's down to us Anglo-Saxons again.
The others are wimpy Europeans who have been invaded by each other numerous times. Capitulation and surrender are core European values.
The Dutch have helped in this conflict , and do have balls but they are likely to pull out due to public pressure.
It's down to us Anglo-Saxons again.
Don't forget Poland. Poland has been punching above her weight to help out in this war and Poland also told Russia where to head in when Russia saber-rattled over the US placing ABMs in Poland.
Scape @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:06 am
WesterCharcoal WesterCharcoal:
As for the Afghanis, I think your painting an awfully pessimistic picture.
Well, it is.
WesterCharcoal WesterCharcoal:
... Unlike the Soviet Union which was simply offering slavery by a different name, the United States is offering a genuine chance at Freedom and Justice for the Afghani people. Since the USA's biggest weapons are Freedom and Democracy it is never stronger than when it is advancing those causes, unlike in Vietnam.
The judges in Afghanistan are still practicing sharia law and default to it en masse when in doubt. That is a theocracy not freedom. They still have no choice as the scumbags we are throwing out (Taliban) are as bad as the scumbags we are propping up (former Northern Alliance warlords). We are offing a choice to the Afghani people that differers little practically then the options offered under the soviets.
WesterCharcoal WesterCharcoal:
... I find it amazing that the US invasion of Afghanistan happened only 6 or so years ago. Every one seems to have forgotten the very nature of the conflict. Where was the US military build up for the Afghanistan invasion? How many soldiers are stationed there? Who is doing the majority of the fighting there? You find the answers to those questions and your going to discover that the Afghanis are the ones who are most invested in fighting against the Terrorists. If you have been paying attention to the methods employed in Afghanistan at all, you would have noticed that the majority of ground forces the USA has deployed there are Special Forces who are playing a support role to indigenous soldiers.
The reason for this is simple... air power. The US has relied heavily upon it and it has huge costs. The costs for the US may not be immediately apparent but to the people of Afghanistan it has been huge. Karzai: Stop The Air Strikes
$1:
After six years, the liberation of Afghanistan has become a triumph without victory. The fighting is the greatest it has been since the beginning of the war and more civilians are dying. In fact, 60 Minutes was surprised to hear this: while the enemy has killed hundreds of civilians this year, a similar number of civilians have been killed by American forces. With relatively few troops there, the U.S. and NATO rely on air power. The number of civilians killed in air strikes has doubled.
60 Minutes wondered whether civilian deaths are undermining the effort to win the Afghan people.
“There’s this macabre kind of calculus that the military goes through on every air strike, where they try to figure out how many dead civilians is dead bad guy worth,” says Marc Garlasco, who knows the calculus of civilian casualties as well as anyone.[..]
“Our number was 30. So, for example, Saddam Hussein. If you’re gonna kill up to 29 people in a strike against Saddam Hussein, that’s not a problem,” Garlasco explains. “But once you hit that number 30, we actually had to go to either President Bush, or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.”
Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets — Iraqi officials.
But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, “a couple of hundred civilians at least” were killed.
60 Minutes wondered whether civilian deaths are undermining the effort to win the Afghan people.
“There’s this macabre kind of calculus that the military goes through on every air strike, where they try to figure out how many dead civilians is dead bad guy worth,” says Marc Garlasco, who knows the calculus of civilian casualties as well as anyone.[..]
“Our number was 30. So, for example, Saddam Hussein. If you’re gonna kill up to 29 people in a strike against Saddam Hussein, that’s not a problem,” Garlasco explains. “But once you hit that number 30, we actually had to go to either President Bush, or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.”
Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets — Iraqi officials.
But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, “a couple of hundred civilians at least” were killed.
The US does not need to concern itself because they are in the air and not on the ground. The Afghani people and our troops are in the line of fire. We have been hit before and will be again. This tactic is only undermining the long term goals of this campaign and is nothing more than a whitewash as it does nothing to address the underlying reasons for the strikes to begin with. Only boots on the ground can do that, boots that only the UK and Canada in significant numbers seem to be able to provide.
WesterCharcoal WesterCharcoal:
This isn't like Vietnam where the USA does all of the fighting for its puppet state. This isn't like Vietnam where there is a draft in the USA. This isn't like Vietnam where the USA is in so much turmoil that it has no business fighting any war at all.
I agree, but only for now. If this is the greatest war civilization has ever faced, as the leader of the free world has stated, then it would demand a draft to get the job done. If the US continues to bomb from afar and hope it holds instead of engaging the people directly and instead of propping up another criminal regime rife with corruption instead offers the Afghani people true freedom there may yet be hope. Otherwise the US may well end up fighting this fight all by its lonesome and the people of the US may see this is yet another hopeless cause which at this point is still redeemable but that moment in time is fleeting.
WesterCharcoal @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:54 am
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Firstly, you are wrong. NATO had a first use policy for nuclear weapons because Warsaw Pact countries had more soldiers, more tanks, more conventional military than NATO. Their military spending was damaging their economy, but President Ronald Regan started the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) not with any intention of it working, but as bait to enter an arms race. The bet was "let's see whose economy collapses first". He knew the US could not afford to sustain that level of military spending indefinitely without the US also collapsing, but he felt the US had a much stronger economy so could survive longer. It worked better than anyone could have hoped. But that doesn't change the fact the Soviet Union had massive conventional forces.
That so huh? You say that the USA, the richest nation on the earth, couldn't afford to sustain that kind of spending and I'm just supposed to take your word for it eh?
As for the Soviet Unions military advantages, they were purely numeric. The Soviet Union had no force projection abilities, and would have been outmaneuvered at every turn. Their air force had a horrible record trying to compete with US pilots, despite some of the technological advantages of the latest Mig of the day. n addition to being out maneuvered, the Soviet forces would have suffered heavy losses once they lost air superiority. The Overestimation of the capabilities of the WARSAW nations is a Cold War mindset formed from an absence of any one knowing the truth.
If anything was adequate about the Soviet Union, it was their disinformation campaign. Once you look at the information that finally escaped Russian when the USSR collapsed, you would have to be delusional to believe that the USA was ever threatened by the USSR.
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
The Soviet Union actually believed in communism. They thought they were liberating the people of Afghanistan from oppression. The people just had to "learn" how right the communist system is. Now NATO is attempting to "liberate" the people of Afghanistan. The people just have to "learn" how right be democratic and free market system is. Are you beginning to get it?
Freedom starts with the people who live there deciding for themselves how they want to live. If they want a parliamentary democracy like Canada, or a constitutional monarchy like the UK, or republican democracy like USA, or an oligarchy with a socialist economy like the Soviet Union, or a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy, it has to be their decision. If you truly believe in freedom, you have to respect their decision.
Freedom starts with the people who live there deciding for themselves how they want to live. If they want a parliamentary democracy like Canada, or a constitutional monarchy like the UK, or republican democracy like USA, or an oligarchy with a socialist economy like the Soviet Union, or a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy, it has to be their decision. If you truly believe in freedom, you have to respect their decision.
Oh, their intentions make it ok then huh? We aren't supposed to look at the lack of dignity of the Soviet Citizen, or the genocides they committed because they believed huh? With that same reasoning, the Nazi's were completely justified and you should be agreeing with ME since I believe in what the USA does.
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
That's part of the problem. The USA invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to hand over Al Qaeda but demanded to see proof they were guilty first. Canada often demands proof before extraditing criminals, that was reasonable. George W. Bush demanded they obey without providing evidence, and showed the evidence to Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Canada, everyone who except the one country that mattered. Very stupid decision. Oh, I lived in Miami, Florida, during the campaign for the year 2000 presidential election, so I feel qualified to criticize Dubya. But the US didn't stay in Afghanistan and clean out Al Qaeda, the ones who attacked on 9/11, they moved on to Iraq. Countries like Canada have been carrying the burden in Afghanistan. Poles show most Afghani locals think all NATO troops are American, but reality is they aren't. Canada sent JTF2, our elite anti-terrorism force into Afghanistan before any other country, even before any American troops, but they were focussed. After the invasion we didn't participate in the occupation of Afghanistan, we were peacekeepers in Kabul where there wasn't resistance to the new Afghani government. Unfortunately Paul Martin chose to put Canadian forces in Kandahar where there was real conflict, and I have to point out that although most members of Al Qaeda are not Afghani, the Taliban are. Canada tried to be a peacekeeper in Kandahar but you can't do that in an active civil war. It didn't help when American forces were actively attacking Taliban, and the Afghanis can't tell the difference between American and Canadian troops. So American forces are constantly stirring up trouble, but other NATO countries, mostly Canada, are bearing the burden.
A mighty delusional history you have there. Did you know that the Taliban Government refused to talk directly with the USA? Also, they weren't denied the evidence. They saw the same evidence that every one else did, and they simply said the evidence was fake. Almost immediately, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates withdrew all recognition of the Taliban as a legitimist government. The funniest part, is that after the initial attack on Afghanistan, US forces GREW to 10,000. Not shrunk. Operation Anaconda was the first battle to feature ANY conventional (non special forces) NATO ground forces took part in the Afghanistan war. Operation Anaconda was well after the initial strikes on Afghanistan. I don't know what Canada's exact involvement was, and I would gladly say more on how much they did or didn't help in Afghanistan if I was informed on their involvement as I am on US involvement in the country.
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
America is attempting to make Afghanistan a puppet state. When Afghanis chose a Canadian style parliamentary democracy several politicians in Washington demanded an American style republican democracy. America rejects theocracy or any other form of government; let them hold elections but insisted that America establish the constitution, control the method of elections, and direct the form of government first. It is a puppet. As for turmoil, what do you think you're in right now?
George W. sent forces to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban; note the target was the Taliban, not Al Qaeda. Any military is designed to fight another military, not a terrorist organization. Rooting out Al Qaeda is primarily police work. Canada's Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) and America's Delta Force are designed to fight terrorists, but the majority of the military isn't. Most importantly, American went in with overwhelming force, toppled the Taliban, then before cleanup out Al Qaeda they left to go pick on Iraq. A few special forces were left in Afghanistan just to stir up trouble, but other NATO countries like Canada were left to fight the on-going battle while Al Qaeda was free to rebuild their forces, and the Taliban fought back to re-establish their power.
$1:
If you don't think we are using a tremendous amount of force against Al-Qaeda, you’re not paying enough attention. If you don't think the USA is fast, when they toppled an entire nation’s government to get at Al-Qaeda within months of 9/11, then I don't know what Fast is. And if you don't think we should help Afghanistan get back on it's feat after dropping so much ordinance in their country, then you have a lot of history to answer for.
George W. sent forces to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban; note the target was the Taliban, not Al Qaeda. Any military is designed to fight another military, not a terrorist organization. Rooting out Al Qaeda is primarily police work. Canada's Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) and America's Delta Force are designed to fight terrorists, but the majority of the military isn't. Most importantly, American went in with overwhelming force, toppled the Taliban, then before cleanup out Al Qaeda they left to go pick on Iraq. A few special forces were left in Afghanistan just to stir up trouble, but other NATO countries like Canada were left to fight the on-going battle while Al Qaeda was free to rebuild their forces, and the Taliban fought back to re-establish their power.
Oh? Look up the battle for Mazari Sharif, the fall of Kabul, and the Battle of Tora Bora. All of the heavy fighting was done by the Northern Alliance fighters. NATO played a supporting role. Al-Qaeda was the primary enemy combatant with almost no Taliban Presence in some of those battles. Afghanistan DID free itself. 200 hundred years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if Afghani history books downplayed it's aid from NATO in fighting off the Taliban, the same way American Text books down play Frances role in the American Revolution.
WesterCharcoal @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:15 am
Scape Scape:
Well, it is.
Why? If you’re going to dismiss that in 3 words, then I'm going to dismiss you in one.
Scape Scape:
The judges in Afghanistan are still practicing sharia law and default to it en masse when in doubt. That is a theocracy not freedom. They still have no choice as the scumbags we are throwing out (Taliban) are as bad as the scumbags we are propping up (former Northern Alliance warlords). We are offing a choice to the Afghani people that differers little practically then the options offered under the soviets.
Wait, their practicing Sharia? According to Winnipegger, they are US puppets and have had their government and legal system dictated by the United States? Look, I'm not going to try to have it both ways, and neither should you guys. You need to talk with Winnipegger and decide what the 2 of you believe before I try to debate any of this.
Scape Scape:
The reason for this is simple... air power. The US has relied heavily upon it and it has huge costs. The costs for the US may not be immediately apparent but to the people of Afghanistan it has been huge. Karzai: Stop The Air Strikes
The US does not need to concern itself because they are in the air and not on the ground. The Afghani people and our troops are in the line of fire. We have been hit before and will be again. This tactic is only undermining the long term goals of this campaign and is nothing more than a whitewash as it does nothing to address the underlying reasons for the strikes to begin with. Only boots on the ground can do that, boots that only the UK and Canada in significant numbers seem to be able to provide.
I agree, but only for now. If this is the greatest war civilization has ever faced, as the leader of the free world has stated, then it would demand a draft to get the job done. If the US continues to bomb from afar and hope it holds instead of engaging the people directly and instead of propping up another criminal regime rife with corruption instead offers the Afghani people true freedom there may yet be hope. Otherwise the US may well end up fighting this fight all by its lonesome and the people of the US may see this is yet another hopeless cause which at this point is still redeemable but that moment in time is fleeting.
$1:
After six years, the liberation of Afghanistan has become a triumph without victory. The fighting is the greatest it has been since the beginning of the war and more civilians are dying. In fact, 60 Minutes was surprised to hear this: while the enemy has killed hundreds of civilians this year, a similar number of civilians have been killed by American forces. With relatively few troops there, the U.S. and NATO rely on air power. The number of civilians killed in air strikes has doubled.
60 Minutes wondered whether civilian deaths are undermining the effort to win the Afghan people.
“There’s this macabre kind of calculus that the military goes through on every air strike, where they try to figure out how many dead civilians is dead bad guy worth,” says Marc Garlasco, who knows the calculus of civilian casualties as well as anyone.[..]
“Our number was 30. So, for example, Saddam Hussein. If you’re gonna kill up to 29 people in a strike against Saddam Hussein, that’s not a problem,” Garlasco explains. “But once you hit that number 30, we actually had to go to either President Bush, or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.”
Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets — Iraqi officials.
But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, “a couple of hundred civilians at least” were killed.
60 Minutes wondered whether civilian deaths are undermining the effort to win the Afghan people.
“There’s this macabre kind of calculus that the military goes through on every air strike, where they try to figure out how many dead civilians is dead bad guy worth,” says Marc Garlasco, who knows the calculus of civilian casualties as well as anyone.[..]
“Our number was 30. So, for example, Saddam Hussein. If you’re gonna kill up to 29 people in a strike against Saddam Hussein, that’s not a problem,” Garlasco explains. “But once you hit that number 30, we actually had to go to either President Bush, or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.”
Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets — Iraqi officials.
But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, “a couple of hundred civilians at least” were killed.
The US does not need to concern itself because they are in the air and not on the ground. The Afghani people and our troops are in the line of fire. We have been hit before and will be again. This tactic is only undermining the long term goals of this campaign and is nothing more than a whitewash as it does nothing to address the underlying reasons for the strikes to begin with. Only boots on the ground can do that, boots that only the UK and Canada in significant numbers seem to be able to provide.
WesterCharcoal WesterCharcoal:
This isn't like Vietnam where the USA does all of the fighting for its puppet state. This isn't like Vietnam where there is a draft in the USA. This isn't like Vietnam where the USA is in so much turmoil that it has no business fighting any war at all.
I agree, but only for now. If this is the greatest war civilization has ever faced, as the leader of the free world has stated, then it would demand a draft to get the job done. If the US continues to bomb from afar and hope it holds instead of engaging the people directly and instead of propping up another criminal regime rife with corruption instead offers the Afghani people true freedom there may yet be hope. Otherwise the US may well end up fighting this fight all by its lonesome and the people of the US may see this is yet another hopeless cause which at this point is still redeemable but that moment in time is fleeting.
I wouldn't mind seeing more US troops on the ground in Afghanistan either. Of course, while where at it I would like to see serious US involvement in Darfur, and would like to see at least another hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq as well. But that's not my call. George W Bush is the President, and it's his call. For that reason, a lot of Conservatives (including myself), who want him to take these conflicts seriously, have become very displeased with Bush.
As for Afghanistan's government, I keep telling you over and over again your just going to have to be patient. Progress is going to be slow, especially BECUUSE they are not a puppet state. A lot of Conservatives also criticize Bush for not writing the Afghani legal system for them the way the USA did with Japan and Germany. That seemed to work very well for those countries, but we didn't do that In Afghanistan. Although I dislike the source, I have to agree with Winnipegger when he said the following =
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Freedom starts with the people who live there deciding for themselves how they want to live. If they want a parliamentary democracy like Canada, or a constitutional monarchy like the UK, or republican democracy like USA, or an oligarchy with a socialist economy like the Soviet Union, or a fundamentalist Muslim theocracy, it has to be their decision. If you truly believe in freedom, you have to respect their decision.
We gave them an Opportunity to attain Freedom. If they don't take that opportunity, we might have to fight against them in the future, but let’s not convict them before they have committed that crime.
EyeBrock @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:22 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Because NATO has always really been the US, UK and Canada.
The others are wimpy Europeans who have been invaded by each other numerous times. Capitulation and surrender are core European values.
The Dutch have helped in this conflict , and do have balls but they are likely to pull out due to public pressure.
It's down to us Anglo-Saxons again.
The others are wimpy Europeans who have been invaded by each other numerous times. Capitulation and surrender are core European values.
The Dutch have helped in this conflict , and do have balls but they are likely to pull out due to public pressure.
It's down to us Anglo-Saxons again.
Don't forget Poland. Poland has been punching above her weight to help out in this war and Poland also told Russia where to head in when Russia saber-rattled over the US placing ABMs in Poland.
Well since the recent election in Poland I'm not to sure how the support for the US and NATO will play. I think we will see a more EU-centric Poland at the expense of the US ties.
Winnipegger @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:40 pm
Oh, come on. The situation in Afghanistan is a mess. Using military force to to make them become a western country isn't working. The current government is dominated by the Northern Alliance, which is hunting down and killing the Taliban. The Taliban aren't arrested or contained, they're slaughtered. Prisoners are tortured. The head of security at the Kandahar airport was replaced because he was effective at stopping drug traffic, the new guy lets it go. These are the guys you want to prop-up? And yet someone in Washington thinks they will obey orders, that they're a puppet.
The Mujahideen never were a single, cohesive organization. There were a loose collection of bands who wanted all foreigners off Afghani soil. The accepted American weapons and training to get Soviets out of their country, but then someone in Washington though the Mujahideen was their dog, would obey ordered from them. Nope, they want all foreigners out. The Mujahideen broke into separate groups, the largest were Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Remember these guys never did work with each other well. But American politicians want to think the Mujahideen were one single cohesive organization so don't want to believe that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are separate.
Now they think the current government, dominated by the Northern Alliance, will obey Washington. Somebody just hasn't learned.
As for the evidence, you have a selective memory yourself. The truth is evidence that Al Qaeda was guilty was not available to the public for years after the Afghan invasion. George W. demanded the Taliban hand over Al Qaeda without evidence, claimed a single operative would be compromised by the evidence, so invaded. That operative could have been pulled out first, before handing over the evidence, but he didn't do that.
As for the Soviets, information after the collapse of the Soviet Union was interesting. Their ballistic missiles were more accurate than anyone in the US believed. They didn't have as many missiles as intelligence thought. All sorts of things were more or less effective. I'm a space fan, I found their space technology interesting. Their Hall Effect thrusters were thought to be half as fuel efficient as NASA's ion engines, but when they sold technology to NASA they found them to be the same. While NASA demonstrated an ion engine on Deep Space 1 in 1998, the Russians used Thruster Anode Layer Hall Effect Thrusters on military satellites starting in the 1960s.
Bottom line: if the Soviet Union with all its assets could pacify Afghanistan with military force, why do you think Canada can?
neopundit @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:46 pm
WesterCharcoal WesterCharcoal:
As for Afghanistan's government, I keep telling you over and over again your just going to have to be patient. Progress is going to be slow, especially BECUUSE they are not a puppet state.
So, six years isn't long enough?
WesterCharcoal WesterCharcoal:
We gave them an Opportunity to attain Freedom. If they don't take that opportunity, we might have to fight against them in the future, but let’s not convict them before they have committed that crime.
How is trying to impose a "democracy" on a nation freedom? Maybe they don't want one.
PluggyRug @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:23 pm
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
A friend told me Middle East terrorists attempted an attack on Russians once. Remember those who operate suicide squads often "recruit" the bomber by threatening him, telling the bomber if he refuses not only will he be killed, his entire family will be killed too. So carrying out the suicide bombing protects his family. The Russians responded to the suicide bombing by killing the bomber's entire family. It was fast and complete; no one has attempted an attack on Russia again.
Tell that to the Chechens
WesterCharcoal @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:57 pm
neopundit neopundit:
WesterCharcoal WesterCharcoal:
As for Afghanistan's government, I keep telling you over and over again your just going to have to be patient. Progress is going to be slow, especially BECUUSE they are not a puppet state.
So, six years isn't long enough?
Maybe you should check over the rest of the thread more carefully. I explicitly stated it would have taken 11 years under ideal conditions. Conditions are not ideal, and I stated that such a thing might take 2 decades or longer.
neopundit neopundit:
WesterCharcoal WesterCharcoal:
We gave them an Opportunity to attain Freedom. If they don't take that opportunity, we might have to fight against them in the future, but let’s not convict them before they have committed that crime.
How is trying to impose a "democracy" on a nation freedom? Maybe they don't want one.
Wow, if letting them form their own government despite our objections to intigrating islam with their legal system is "Imposing a democracy", I don't want to see what you say about the Japanese or German governments.
Johnny_Utah @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:16 pm
The Left will use anything to claim Afghanistan is a lost cause, can't be won etc..
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 Next