What happens when you oppose Bu$hCo too vigorously

[EoinC]

...The Taliban was Afghanistan...

I think you may need to do some further research on this, Bill. The Taliban are a militia, with the majority being Pushtun from Afghanistan and the NWP (although not all Taliban are Pushtun and, certainly, not all Pushtun are Taliban). In 2 years they managed to take control of 2/3's of Afghanistan (considerably more than the Coalition forces have managed in 5 years).
Afghanistan is a very complex place, with artificial borders created by colonial powers attempting to contain resistance, once they found they couldn't defeat it. There are levels of independence that range from individual villages, through tribal allegiances, regional allegiances and on to a quasi-'national' dislike of occupying presence.
The Taliban is not Afghanistan - It is an ethereal group that is a part of NWP and Afghanistan. Keep using those bayonets to cut through the jelly - very effective.
There was a diplomatic means of dissolving the power of the Taliban, but the Coalition chose not to use it. The Coalition forces do not have the same access to locals for application of 'winning hearts and minds' that the Taliban do. The Coalition forces are not suited to 'they seek him here, they seek him there' warfare against an elusive enemy.
I am sorry, but I think our Governments have underestimated what it takes to 'control' the region known as Afghanistan. If they hope to achieve control through military means, our grandchildren are going to still be over there watching their backs.

 

[BillM]

You president said $25m - dead or alive.

No mention of ineffective, Bill.

Soundbite.

Google it.

Think.

Bali and Madrid were carried out by Binladen.

You said that he was rendered ineffective.

Do you have proof that he carried these attacks out?

I thought not.

Even if he did...a 12 year old with a library card can build a bomb.

But you're still in Afghanistan - since 2001.
Funny notion of "winning", eh, Bill?

Limerick we've been in Germany since 1945...did we lose that war too?

Don't you ever think before you post?

Bill....you made some remarks about your country calling the shots.
I dispute that idea.

No one is reversing your posts.

You dispute anything regarding America....other than we are evil of course.

You haven't proven anything.

You are right...you did....everytime you put up a moronic post using my name or just saying the same thing I said to you but in reverse.

That's all the proof needed.

Plenty of game Bill and plenty of discussion as to how someone can claim that their country is calling the shots when it's apparent that for the past five years, your country hasn't been calling the shots - it's been led.

Uh yeah ok. Let's just agree to disagree and quit wasting each others and everyone else's time reading our stupid posts. Deal?

 

[BillM]

When has the US ever fought an enemy of equal size?
Never.
When has the US ever defeated an enemy of equal size?
Obviously,never.
Even one of the poorest countries in Asia (Vietnam) managed to defeat the US.
The underlying flaws of the US Empire are the belief that everything American is the best and that everybody in the rest of the world will believe this ******** as well.
That fatal hubris will be the cause of the downfall of the American Empire.

Another America hater sounds off.

The downfall of the American empire will be spineless, liberal weenies.....

 

[BillM]

A significant number would be 200k+

Well then you only have to go to Iraq to find the example you asked for. That was tough.

That's why you're still there, Bill.
Spineless.

Well at least you signed your post right.

5 years and 2 weeks perhaps.
This is 2006 and you're still mired there.

We aren't done stealing oil and torturing the innocent.

You could always start a civil war - in your own country for a change.
Kill two birds with the one stone.




Imperialism.
You said it.





I recall your country's president saying that your country had no conflict with the Afghan people.
The dispute was with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Do you call your president stupid also?

Yes.

You tell that to the family of the US soldiers who were blown to pieces in Kabul last week.
The British families of soldiers who died last week over there - would agree that it's an afterthought.

Afghanistan ain't over.

My brother in law is there...so I think I know more about it than you do.

Game over.

OK - go and kill your fellow spineless Americans who aren't uniting behind "our boys".
After all they're holding your country back, eh?

Too stupid to bother with a response.

 

[stevebaby]

Another America hater sounds off.

The downfall of the American empire will be spineless, liberal weenies.....

Another stereotypical response?
Roadhog was much more interesting than you.Mostly I disagreed with him,but he wrote intelligently and was able to respond to reason.I hope he's OK.

 

[BillM]

Another stereotypical response?
Roadhog was much more interesting than you.Mostly I disagreed with him,but he wrote intelligently and was able to respond to reason.I hope he's OK.

If I were met with an intelligent and reasoned response....I would answer as such. Instead we argue like school kids on the playground.

It's too bad.

I will say one thing...the veil of naivety has been lifted on me. I had no idea our "allies" looked at America with such hatred and disgust. Maybe we can return the favor some day.

 

[Carrera]

Bear in mind our modern armies are a lot softer than the armies of old. The barbarians were just as resolute as the Afghans and they also fought a guerilla warfare against the Romans. However, the barbarians and Gauls only scored successes when the Romans became weaker and Christianized, if you like.
Also bear in mind that Afghanistan and Vietnam had certain limits that had to be adhered to in order to prevent an escalation of the Cold War.
You can read about the rebellion of the British Tribes against the Romans under Nero when various Roman settlements were destroyed (there's even a series just about to start on TV).
As for ferocity of the Afghans, the Celts of the period cut Roman bodies into pieces and hung them on trees and did things even worse than that. However, they were fighting a highly efficient fighting machine in the Roman Army and the tribes were finally routed so the island of Britain was Romanised in the end - which is why you and I speak a Latin based language.
In other words, it's not true that bands of rebels with small arms have always driven out bigger armies. Europe was shaped by an occupying force - the Roman Army and the effects on France and Italy today are pretty clear.
The Romans would have subdued the Afghans just as easily - more easily in fact.

A little different, Carrera. The Afghani's have been conducting war using and being hit by modern weaponry for quite some time - The ousting of the Soviets comes to mind as a recent example.
I don't believe I ever made that assumption, Carrera. My comments were directed more towards the specifics of this campaign of occupation. Afghanistan is a very, very difficult place to occupy - Allegiances are ethereal, the terrain is horrific, the people are used to have the **** blown out of them, the "enemy" has an uncanny ability to blend into and become the public, the tribal people's desire not to be occupied is probably more resolute than the Coalition Force's desire to be there and not know where the next shot is going to come from. I feel for those troops who have been sent there to fight what I would deem an unwinable war (at least without causing total destuction). There was a political solution, but our mighty Governments chose not to take it, preferring to support the installation of a puppet regime, dedicated to appeasing one portion of the population - Shades of South Vietnam's President Nguyen Van Thieu and Soviet Afghanistan's President Babrak Kamal?
I do, indeed.
I don't think anyone claimed that the Taliban were a conventional army. I would disagree on the "disorganised" nature of their efforts and, if your term "tribal lords" is meant to be disparaging, then I believe that you, and our Governments, severly underestimate the capabilities of these people. The routing of the Soviets left a road-kill ratio of around 1 million Afghani's to 15,000 Soviets, along with annihilation of what infrastructure existed over there. Such odds were not enough to make the MH weak-hearted. I doubt if the current situation has them trembling at the knees either.
Again, I have no liking for the Taliban, but I also have no liking for our soldiers, and others, being killed in a meaningless war. Taking on the Afghani's militarily is like using a bayonet to cut oneself out of a vat of jelly.

 

[EoinC]

...In other words, it's not true that bands of rebels with small arms have always driven out bigger armies...

I never claimed this. I spoke only of the situations in Vietnam and Afghanistan. You would probably be aware that the Romans were a lot more used to encountering scenes of barbarity / ferocity than our soldiers of today are, and were less informed of background politics, therefore they would be less inclined to think "WTF am I doing here". I don't think the Romans understood the nature of post-traumatic stress, did they? Nor do the Afghani's when it comes to fighting.

 

[davidmc]

the hyperlink animation is very "touching"
http://www.cagle.com/news/fiore/main.asp

 

[darkboong]

Not really. The only reason a conflict still exists is because the spineless of our country will not let the military simply complete the mission.

Meanwhile back in reality...

The Military is enjoying unprecedented levels of spending at present and the President has enjoyed control of both houses (and unwavering support for military action by the vast majority of the politicians sat in opposition). I don't see any lack of support whatsoever as far as the people making the calls and spending the money goes. Recruitment is down, but that is entirely normal when thousands of squaddies are returning in body bags.

No...like I said...if our country would unite behind the cause....it's game over for anyone. Period.

What cause are you talking about ?

As for "game over", you are very much mistaken. Firstly War is not a "game" and Secondly you deluded in thinking that expending massive quantities of valuable resources to smash stuff up beyond use is a "win".

 

[BillM]

Meanwhile back in reality...

The Military is enjoying unprecedented levels of spending at present and the President has enjoyed control of both houses (and unwavering support for military action by the vast majority of the politicians sat in opposition). I don't see any lack of support whatsoever as far as the people making the calls and spending the money goes. Recruitment is down, but that is entirely normal when thousands of squaddies are returning in body bags.

As usual.....you're wrong. The Army is on track for it's recruitment goals.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/10/army_expects_to_meet_recruiting_goal/

What cause are you talking about ?

Follow the thread or stay out of it.

As for "game over", you are very much mistaken. Firstly War is not a "game" and Secondly you deluded in thinking that expending massive quantities of valuable resources to smash stuff up beyond use is a "win".

Game over is slang in America. You're problem that you don't understand...not mine.

 

[EoinC]

...Game over is slang in America. You're problem that you don't understand...not mine.

The problem is, Bill, viewed externally, this desire to cause mass destruction in order to bring about an outcome appears to be very similar to that of the terrorists whom you hunt.
Carrera's nuke-'em tactics open the door for all groups or individuals anywhere to carry out their wishes via total destruction. I'm sure none of us would wish that on our own Countries - Why, then, would we wish it upon others? 'Collateral damage' is the most terrible euphemism of modern times - just try applying it hypothetically to your own family to understand what an appalling abrigation of responsibility it is.
If you have to join them to beat them (annihilating the rights of innocent people in order to stand up for the rights of other innocent people), it does not seem like what I would term a moral victory.

 

[BillM]

The problem is, Bill, viewed externally, this desire to cause mass destruction in order to bring about an outcome appears to be very similar to that of the terrorists whom you hunt.
Carrera's nuke-'em tactics open the door for all groups or individuals anywhere to carry out their wishes via total destruction. I'm sure none of us would wish that on our own Countries - Why, then, would we wish it upon others? 'Collateral damage' is the most terrible euphemism of modern times - just try applying it hypothetically to your own family to understand what an appalling abrigation of responsibility it is.
If you have to join them to beat them (annihilating the rights of innocent people in order to stand up for the rights of other innocent people), it does not seem like what I would term a moral victory.

EoinC...you need to reread where this started a few posts back. I did not mean to say we wish to cause mass destruction....I simply said that any military force on this planet would not hold up to the force of the US Military IF the American people were united behind the cause.

Politics plays FAR FAR too much of a role in our military machine....however to your point Americans (contrary to what some on here say) do not wish to conquer the world or even be involved in wars at all if they are avoidable. If it comes down to war though...their isn't an easy way to win it. It is going to be violent and deadly and I don't see how you can not have collateral damage. I agree with you that it isn't right and it is sad to see....I guess the measuring stick is the lesser of two evils maybe?

Maybe some day we could go back to medieval times and have each country send a hero....whichever hero wins....wins the war.

 

[Carrera]

I don't recall advocating a nuclear strike - I think I was merely pointing out that when push comes to shove, technology is the deciding factor. So far, the Islamic World doesn't have such technology, except Pakistan with a lot of help. The Islamic World doesn't have the technology and isn't capable of producing this technology without help from willing foreign scientists - such as North Korea in the case of Iran.
If you look at what the Islamic World actually has, you wind up with arms sold to them from countries such as Russia and China. Iran has managed to produce its own missiles, of course, but these are simply carbon copies of missiles other countries invented long ago - old Russian Skuds, for instance.
The irony is the Islamic militants fight their war with foreign weapons, arm themselves with Russian kalashnikovs e.t.c. It seems a contradiction in terms.
No guns, missiles, planes, subs or satellites were ever pioneered in the Islamic World. No steam engines, telephones, radios, computers or the like.

The problem is, Bill, viewed externally, this desire to cause mass destruction in order to bring about an outcome appears to be very similar to that of the terrorists whom you hunt.
Carrera's nuke-'em tactics open the door for all groups or individuals anywhere to carry out their wishes via total destruction. I'm sure none of us would wish that on our own Countries - Why, then, would we wish it upon others? 'Collateral damage' is the most terrible euphemism of modern times - just try applying it hypothetically to your own family to understand what an appalling abrigation of responsibility it is.
If you have to join them to beat them (annihilating the rights of innocent people in order to stand up for the rights of other innocent people), it does not seem like what I would term a moral victory.