User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 34

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tantive View Post
    US involvement in the middle east prior to the attack starting from Russia's involvement there, research that. Motives theyve given for the attack at the towers, research that. Casualties of middle eastern nationals, drones, hypocrasy of the US, nationbuilding with BOMBS in the other hand..yea...heh research that. Sentiments of the people to this foreign occupation, research that. Follow the money and the massive amounts of unaccounted money, research that, wikileaks leaks...research that, CIA blowback, research that.

    There is no investment to be made there, the middle eastern politics are irrational. To dismiss taliban as simply irrational with no sense of reason is a cop out. These countries haven't seen real peace for such a long time....their culture might not even remember it. The US is not helping in that matter either.
    I dont need to research any of it because its just a constant drone to me now, its the same "right on" critique of "imperialism" which is occasioned by the US intervening per se.

    The Bush administration had become radically isolationist, a total U-Turn from Clinton's foreign policy, right up until 9/11, they hadnt paid monies to the UN or anything, they where not trying to influence world affairs in any obvious way at all.

    If the US was acting in any way which mirrored or countered Russian influence I'm alright with that, the Russians have behaved very aggressively since they finally got their act together under Putin and its largely unreported.

    They've been sabre rattling around the arctic in their ancient subs, conducting fly overs and cloud seeding over the UK (if you can make it rain with silver iodine you can make it rain radioactive or acid rain if you change the chemical mix), they invaded Georgia for being too friendly with the EU, they've positively stimulated islamic threats within their territory, transforming nationalist or seperatist struggles into sectarian ones and been involved in all kinds of spy games, intrigue and assasinations.

    The poisoning of Lipvinenko (spelling) was right out of the KGB play book and the use of radioactive water to do it was a message to the UK government about the rain which could fall if they wanted it to you want to hazard a guess if the waiters or restaurant staff or even people eating out will develop cancers in the future?

    I hear people saying that this is all Russian government theatre for domestic consumption, that's what the clever diplomats say but you know.

    No matter how much of an objection you have to real politik and state violence I tell you this that you would no a difference if anyone but the US was world hegemon, the EU does not want to be so much as a rival to the US, when it behaves in that way it only runs the risk of inviting trouble by making the US appear weaker than it is.

  2. #12
    Per Ardua Metamorphosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    3,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm interested in how your reach these conclusions, do you believe that the Taliban are reasonable, rational people who are reasonable in their dealings with their nationals and foreigners or what?

    Similarly what did the US do, precisely, to encourage an attack and how does the continued committments to assisting foreign countries in state building encourage further atrocities?
    The US was making efforts to work with the Taliban until their social policies became more and more radical, making it increasingly difficult for US politicians to support them, and the increased likelihood that they would be unable to bring peace to the -entire- country, making the construction of an oil pipeline more and more unreasonable. Other countries had much bigger problems with the Taliban than we did (Iran for instance, and the central asian republics).

    The US didn't do anything to provoke an attack...from Afghanistan. The problem is that when we cut our ties with Afghanistan, Pakistan didn't. The increasingly radical Islamic Taliban was a perfect safe haven for genuinely radical religious extremist groups. The Taliban never had any real interest in a caliphate outside of Afghanistan, per se, but they needed fighters and allowed extremist groups from Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. to operate their freely as long as they provided manpower to support the Taliban. In fact, the regional version of Islam that was practiced in Afghanistan previously is not prone to extremism. It was the outside influence that caused the problems.
    "You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
    than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

  3. #13
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Shame the Pentagon didn't watch Rambo 3, they gave good advice on Afghanistan. XD

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7h-XThft8g&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7h-XThft8g&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    470

    Default

    Better quality
    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvQjDvnPpCk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvQjDvnPpCk[/YOUTUBE]

  5. #15
    Per Ardua Metamorphosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    3,466

    Default

    The real problem is that you can't win when you don't even know what you're trying to accomplish.
    "You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
    than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

  6. #16
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tantive View Post
    Better quality
    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvQjDvnPpCk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvQjDvnPpCk[/YOUTUBE]
    too long though I didn't trust people to watch till the relevant bit (oh me of little faith).

  7. #17
    Senior Member ColonelGadaafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    Si
    Socionics
    ESTP
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    The real problem is that you can't win when you don't even know what you're trying to accomplish.
    Well it's kind of obvious what long term goal is with their war. They want to secure a forward base in south-central asia, in a country that they eventually can mold into a proxy banana republic that is easily coordinated and managed from pentagon. By accomplishing this, they have a strategic leverage in the entire of asia, besides creating a thorn in Iran's back.
    Last edited by ColonelGadaafi; 08-02-2010 at 07:54 AM.
    "Where can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. Fortresses will not detain us, nor arms stop us. Your prayers to God will not avail against us. We are not moved by tears nor touched by lamentations."

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    470

    Default

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Rc4lxkt6g"]part 7/15[/YOUTUBE]
    Its worth looking at it from the beginning. And no, it has nothing to do with the truthers or whatnot...but the history to the events leading and after the attack, and everything around it.

  9. #19
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    925

    Default

    So far most of what I'm seeing is what I expected: pessimism and assumptions of modern day imperialism. This is disappointing, but it brings up a worthwhile point on the matter: a lot of people have opinions on Afghanistan, but hardly any of them have a solid grasp on the situation. This isn't directed particularly at this thread's posters, just in general, and I could stand to learn some more too.

    People don't understand the military. And it's not just me complaining about the public; politicians often don't have realistic expectations for the military. Even inside the military there are differences of opinion on what its capacities should be and how to carry them out.

    I actually do think it's still possible for the US to achieve some kind of victory in Afghanistan. The US isn't leaving anytime soon, and I really like Gen Petraeus in charge now. He led the project that (literally) wrote the book on Army/Marine counterinsurgency doctrine, led a very well done local counterinsurgency in one of his Iraq tours, and then returned to Iraq with the successful surge/counterinsurgency. The US, reported today, is on schedule for withdrawal from Iraq.

    A crucial part of COIN is that it's primarily political, not military, meaning the US civilian sector needs to take on the brunt of the work of nation development, economy, structure, jobs, judiciary, etc. The military's job is to secure the Afghan civilian population, to effectively separate them from insurgents.

    Now, although the military finally more or less has accepted a COIN approach to warfare, and this COIN doctrine is vital stuff that is effective and will be needed in the future, it's not a guaranteed "lesson learned" from Iraq/Afghanistan for the US. The fact is, though I hate to admit it, COIN at this stage may be too little too late for Afghanistan. If the US loses in Afghanistan, on top of all other consequences, one of the most perilous possible consequences is that the COIN will be seen unjustly as a failure doctrine (because it didn't lead to victory in Afghanistan), and therefore abandoned by both the military and the civilian government. COIN may be the worst casualty of the war.

    There are those in the military who are deeply opposed to the US using COIN strategy. COIN is a complete reversal on conventional military doctrine. COIN is civilian centered, meaning the conventional attitude that civilian deaths can be accepted short term for long term victory and peace is rejected. Any civilian casualty, inflicted by the Army or the insurgents is seen as a failure according to COIN. COIN also makes soldiers assume more risk because of this (you can't shoot first, ask later anymore) which leads to more US military casualties in the short term (part of the reasons why NATO casualties have been higher recently). These COIN rules of engagement are met with resistance from the military and the US population because we don't like to see military casualties. It's a big no-no, even though today's casualties are very small compared to just a few decades ago.

    If COIN is rejected, if the civilian government doesn't do its part, if we fail in Afghanistan, it will hurt us the next time around when once again we are unprepared for the next counterinsurgency operation--which will happen as most conflicts in the near future will be insurgencies against failing states. This will also be a detriment to counterterror operations, since the two are often linked.
    Johari Nohari

    "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. "--Niccolo Machiavelli

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    Well it's kind of obvious what long term goal is with their war. They want to secure a forward base in south-central asia, in a country that they eventually can mold into a proxy banana republic that is easily coordinated and managed from pentagon. By accomplishing this, they have a strategic leverage in the entire of asia, besides creating a thorn in Iran's back.
    No I dont think that is the goal but I agree with the earlier point that its not clear what's trying to be accomplished, at least the public dont believe it, in more than one sense of the word and without support it cant go on indefinitely.

Similar Threads

  1. Entrepreneur strengths assessment
    By nightning in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-15-2008, 08:15 PM
  2. easyTIM - socionic type assessment
    By machintruc in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 10:39 AM
  3. Can Assessments Hinder Extraverts/Introverts
    By "?" in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-20-2008, 02:44 PM
  4. SWAP 200 Personality Assessment
    By proteanmix in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-25-2007, 05:15 PM
  5. Objective assessment
    By snegledmaca in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-25-2007, 08:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO