Afghan War not worth havoc it wreaked on thousands of troops.

[mazHur]

America's Failed War of Attrition in Afghanistan

"In the past nine years, the invaders could not establish any system of governance in Kabul and they will never be able to do so in future."

JEREMY SCAHILL | The Obama administration is trying to kill its way to victory in Afghanistan.


Afghan Farce
http://www.thenation.com/blog/156610/afghan-farce-taliban-talker-was-phony?rel=emailNation
"You know, Omar, I can make them look silly!"

ROBERT DREYFUSS | Talking is still the way out. But, as Casey Stengel said, can't anyone here play this game?

Making Afghanistan Real
What is striking is that the decision to essentially stay the course in this failing war comes at a moment when a majority of Americans believe the war isn’t worth fighting.

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL | A Congressional proposal to establish a Veterans Trust Fund is driving home the message that the war in Afghanistan is not worth the havoc it has wreaked on thousands of troops.

 

[Dana]

Afgan: The war On Blannkets

 

[darkcgi]

what we do without greed
oh I know be happy

 

[Accountable]

A limited war is not war, it's just getting our own guys killed. We should pull out. If it's worth winning, it's worth nuking. If not, then we shouldn't be there.

 

[Minor Axis]

A limited war is not war, it's just getting our own guys killed. We should pull out. If it's worth winning, it's worth nuking. If not, then we shouldn't be there.

You advocating nuclear war as a viable solution to conflict or was this just a euphemism of sorts?

Afganistan is not winnable if the goal is to eliminate the Taliban and bring the people around to our way of thinking. It's unlikely to happen because they (the Taliban types) can out wait us for their entire lives if necessary. We are not fighting a state but a way of thinking complicated by cultural issues. We can beat them down temporarily, but unless we plan a never ending occupation, they will just grow back as soon as we leave. With all the other challenges to our economy, we can't afford it.

Look at Iran, after billions spent and thousands killed, there is no guarantee that in 5 years Iran will still be a friendly country to the U.S. After the first Gulf War (Desert Storm), I actually thought we had learned our Vietnam Lesson and acted on that Lesson. Winning a battle between two armies is relatively straight forward. On the other hand nation building is incredibly expensive with no guarantees of success. This is where Bush Sr was smart. When General Schwarzkopf wanted to roll into Bagdad, Bush Sr said no. Apparently intelligence and wisdom does not have to flow from father to son.

 

[Accountable]

You advocating nuclear war as a viable solution to conflict or was this just a euphemism of sorts?

I'm advocating not going to war unless we've declared war, and not to declare war unless we really mean it.

 

[darkcgi]

basically our tactic of being a nice guy caused us to not win that war and waste assets
and look like weak fools
vulnerable

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm advocating not going to war unless we've declared war, and not to declare war unless we really mean it.

Then be careful how you bandy about the word "nuke".

basically our tactic of being a nice guy caused us to not win that war and waste assets
and look like weak fools
vulnerable

Vietnam or? If Vietnam, it was not so much a case of being a nice guy. I'm not sure how you arrived at that. Vietnam was a civil war quagmire.

 

[mazHur]

You advocating nuclear war as a viable solution to conflict or was this just a euphemism of sorts?

Afganistan is not winnable if the goal is to eliminate the Taliban and bring the people around to our way of thinking. It's unlikely to happen because they (the Taliban types) can out wait us for their entire lives if necessary. We are not fighting a state but a way of thinking complicated by cultural issues. We can beat them down temporarily, but unless we plan a never ending occupation, they will just grow back as soon as we leave. With all the other challenges to our economy, we can't afford it.

Look at Iran, after billions spent and thousands killed, there is no guarantee that in 5 years Iran will still be a friendly country to the U.S. After the first Gulf War (Desert Storm), I actually thought we had learned our Vietnam Lesson and acted on that Lesson. Winning a battle between two armies is relatively straight forward. On the other hand nation building is incredibly expensive with no guarantees of success. This is where Bush Sr was smart. When General Schwarzkopf wanted to roll into Bagdad, Bush Sr said no. Apparently intelligence and wisdom does not have to flow from father to son.

See how our friend Accountable tries to wriggle out of his own argument!! Nuking is not the solution...to any problem.

I totally agree with Minor Axis as his evaluation of the situation is down to earth and precise!

However, changing an ideology is not an easy task....it may take decades or even centuries.
It's better to keep our buttresses in form rather than invade others to disturb the universal peace.
Go hitting and shattering the wasp's hive with your stick but see they do not sting me!! But in this War this is happening...the war is being counter-productive and like a 'reference pain' adversely affecting the whole Western world, in particular, and that is not fair, is it??

 

[mazHur]

4]Then be careful how you bandy about the word "nuke".

hahaha! Accountable has unaccountably lost his case!! Good shot , MinorA!!

 

[mazHur]

basically our tactic of being a nice guy caused us to not win that war and waste assets
and look like weak fools
vulnerable

No, not exactly....everybody loves the Americans, it's only US govt policies over which disagreements, whatsoever, are!!

 

[Accountable]

See how our friend Accountable tries to wriggle out of his own argument!! Nuking is not the solution...to any problem.

Intelligent readers know that I don't advocate nuclear war or any war. I don't advocate limited war, either. The term "War" has taken on an odd PC quality. Real war is too ugly to contemplate, and should be. But this bullshit of sending our brave soldiers to die when none need even step foot on foreign soil has got to stop. We should not act like we want to wage war unless we truly are ready to wage real, all-out war, and I can't imagine an instance since WWII that it was warranted.

 

[mazHur]

Intelligent readers know that I don't advocate nuclear war or any war. I don't advocate limited war, either. The term "War" has taken on an odd PC quality. Real war is too ugly to contemplate, and should be. But this bullshit of sending our brave soldiers to die when none need even step foot on foreign soil has got to stop. We should not act like we want to wage war unless we truly are ready to wage real, all-out war, and I can't imagine an instance since WWII that it was warranted.

thanks for clarification...

BTW when do you expect WW111 to occur and who will lead??

 

[Accountable]

I don't expect another world war in the traditional sense. All the established nations are too well-established to go to war against each other directly. Violent groups today don't have national loyalties. They are either religious zealots or drug cartels. Traditional military is useless against them. It's time to adapt and change.

 

[mazHur]

I don't expect another world war in the traditional sense. All the established nations are too well-established to go to war against each other directly. Violent groups today don't have national loyalties. They are either religious zealots or drug cartels. Traditional military is useless against them. It's time to adapt and change.

I take your point on adapting new methodology but the inevitability of keepin ground forces cannot be ruled out.
In Afghanistan it is mainly the air attacks which are successful while ground forces are facing much hard time in
that dangerous terrain.

Let's hope there is no war in future....as that would be almost ruination of most life on earth!

 

[dkwrtw]

I don't expect another world war in the traditional sense. All the established nations are too well-established to go to war against each other directly. Violent groups today don't have national loyalties. They are either religious zealots or drug cartels. Traditional military is useless against them. It's time to adapt and change.

THIS, there is NO "winning" a war on terrorism or drugs, they're not just a race of people that can be exterminated, you can't wipe out beliefs no matter how many people you kill, more will just pop up to take their place, and they'll only get smarter and sneakier with their ways, it's futile.

 

[TommyTooter]

A limited war is not war, it's just getting our own guys killed. We should pull out. If it's worth winning, it's worth nuking. If not, then we shouldn't be there.

woo! accountable, that's pretty strong stuff and it wipes out a whole lot of innocent civilians.

if i am perceiving anything i'd get behind in any depth you might have had to this brain fart, it would be that if we're going to make a war at all, use the nukes, unless we can't justify exterminating everybody, and then we should just leave it completely alone, using our military for more constructive and profitable purposes, like eisenhower and kennedy had envisioned.

what happened to the undersea and outer space colonies that would have been completed by now if the programs initiated under them, johnson and nixon had not been scrapped in favor of dirty little bush wars?.

let mercenary corporations go in and exploit the millions of laborers and trillions in minerals and medicinal plant resources. let the volunteer UN A E F forces go home to their families already. this is not working and it won't. afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.

. there are plenty of men and women who would happily bear arms for a corporate entity to brutally exploit people anywhere in the world for their natural resources without sullying the honor of our service people.

let the soldiers who enjoy atrocities like abu ghraib and all this other shit that's getting reported go fucking work for monsanto or somebody.

why should we allow the families in the so-called free world to be eternally traumatized by the wars deemed necessary by greedy industrialist - bankers?

the suicide rate in american services is higher than it has ever been. is whatever illusory goal that these people think they will achieve worth the price?

 

[TommyTooter]

Originally Posted by Accountable
Intelligent readers know that I don't advocate nuclear war or any war. I don't advocate limited war, either. The term "War" has taken on an odd PC quality. Real war is too ugly to contemplate, and should be. But this bullshit of sending our brave soldiers to die when none need even step foot on foreign soil has got to stop. We should not act like we want to wage war unless we truly are ready to wage real, all-out war, and I can't imagine an instance since WWII that it was warranted.


nice recovery, pard.

i see we have some wranglers here who like to whoop it up without really thinking too deeply.

 

[TommyTooter]

THIS, there is NO "winning" a war on terrorism or drugs, they're not just a race of people that can be exterminated, you can't wipe out beliefs no matter how many people you kill, more will just pop up to take their place, and they'll only get smarter and sneakier with their ways, it's futile.

there doesn't seem to be much winning the war on crime, poverty, cancer, heart disease or any of those other wars either.

abraham lincoln had some most profound words on that when he said that we can't legislate morality; that it goes against the very principles on which this republic was founded.

further, you cannot eliminate the demand for the proscribed product or service by making it illegal and only invite the market to be served by criminals, completely unregulated and untaxed while overwhelming the criminal justice and penal systems in keeping up with processing the end users they bust (obviously my words mixed in, but i hope you get the gist of it)

my pro bono attorney calls one of the methods 'balancing the budget on the backs of the poor'. a little brag here if i may: as a dissident activist there has been an active effort to interdict my actions by constantly charging me with crimes i didn't commit or being sent to what's called a 'warrantless police officer emergency custody order' if the cops on the scene couldn't dream up anything the sergeant couldn't get past his higher ups as a criminal charge.

in 30 years of it, i've never been convicted of anything significant or committed to an involuntary psychiatric hold longer than 14 days because it sometimes took that long to get past a doctor who wanted to fill me full of drugs to a judge. the pro bono lawyers are batting 1.000 on a bunch of cases

no war is winnable if there is a third party playing both ends from the middle. buckminster fuller says this sort of thing has been going on almost 2000 years according to his researches for 'operating manual for spaceship earth)

 

[Accountable]

I take your point on adapting new methodology but the inevitability of keepin ground forces cannot be ruled out.
In Afghanistan it is mainly the air attacks which are successful while ground forces are facing much hard time in
that dangerous terrain.

Let's hope there is no war in future....as that would be almost ruination of most life on earth!

Why is keeping ground forces inevitable? With bombers, unmanned drones and satellite remote controlled vehicles, there's not a reason in the world to risk soldiers' lives the way we have been, unless we want to become an occupying force, which is a post-war action.