Spring offensive kicks off in Afghanistan

[ericredbeard]

Originally Posted by ChillyFox

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17724261

They're calling this the spring offensive that kicks off the fighting for the summer. The fighting is in it's second day. Here we go then.

"The Afghan capital woke up to the sounds of explosions and gunfire as a siege by Taliban militants continued into its second day.

A police official in Kabul said fighting in the central diplomatic quarter had ended, but gunfire is being reported near the parliament in the west of the city.

Officials said at least 17 gunmen and one police officer have died.

Attackers also struck in the provinces of Logar, Paktia and Nangarhar.

In Kabul, foreign embassies, Nato's HQ and the Afghan parliament were hit in the first major attack on the city in more than six months.

The BBC's Bilal Sarwary in Kabul quotes officials as saying that special forces have entered the construction site in the Wazir Akbar Khan district which the insurgents were using as a base."

Well, can someone who is totally in favour of this war explain to me why the troops are still there, what are the objectives, what is the exit plan and where is the gain so far?

Just transpose the failed strategy we used in Vietnam to Afghanistan: corrupt allies, politicians dictating limitations to the generals, and an enemy fighting for control of his own country. Just as the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese used North Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos as safe havens, so the Taliban use Pakistan. Just as the North Vietnamese received aid from Russia, Communist Eastern Europe, and China, the Taliban receive aid, training, and support from Pakistan, international jihadist organizations, and Iran. Just as things went in Vietnam, so things are going in Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by northerntomcat

Fighting is just over now and it looks like the ANSF have won a large victory,not sure what the numbers are but by the sounds of it it was an epic fail for the TB.

The Viet Cong were defeated during their Tet Offensive, and suffered defeat after defeat against US Forces. Yet they continued to fight until we left, just as we will leave Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by ChillyFox

Yea sure, just like the last eleven years have been an "epic fail" for the Taliban. For experiencing so much "epic fail" you'd think they'd give up by now. But they don't. Wonder what's up with all that?!1

There is a Russian saying, that "The fight is not won by the first to strike, nor even the strongest to strike. It is won by the last to strike." The US nation does not have the will to do what Genghis Khan did when he conquered Afghanistan, and he was the last foreign power to succeed in subjugating the Pashtuns. We are too humane. So we will lose.

[YWAHW]

This whole war is fucking pointless and a waste of time. Imagine during WW2, the allies never crossed into Germany. Instead they sat in France and Poland waiting for Nazis to come to them. Total war or no war, either finish the job or get the fuck out. NATO isn't the god damn police department for 3rd world shit holes over run with Muslim fundies.

[Bashman]

leave the rats to their holes...let them devour each other for awhile

we're done there anyway

all on schedule...(pronounced "sheh-jewel")...old boy.

Project for a New American Century

[marinemom]

Originally Posted by ChillyFox

Well, can someone who is totally in favour of this war explain to me why the troops are still there, what are the objectives, what is the exit plan and where is the gain so far?

OK, I'll bite. I've said all this before in these forums, but I'll say it again - just for you. Isn't that special?

The U.S. went into Afghanistan to do three things:

1) To punish AQ and to kill or capture OBL,

2) To depose the taliban government of Afghanistan,

3) And to set the conditions for a non-return to power of the taliban/AQ after we leave.

As far as I'm concerned, 1 and 2 are done. 3 is something we have done, but in the end, the future of Afghanistan will be an Afghan decision, not an American/NATO one. If they want to live under an islamic dictatorship like they did before, they will. If they want to live in some form of more democratic system, they can, but they must want it enough to fight for it.

The exit plan you asked about is in progress. It's happening as we speak. By the end of 2014 I think you're going to see a much reduced NATO presence, and the military that is there is going to be doing support activities.

Where is the gain? Well for one, America answered. We didn't cower to a bunch of barbarians. We held those responsible for 9/11 accountable. OBL is dead. Quite frankly, it is gratifying to me that he died at the hands of Americans, not someone else, and that we dumped his carcass into the ocean for the crabs.

War is expensive, and every lost life is heartbreaking. But, as of today, the U.S. has lost 1506 military members KIA in Afghanistan. That is a low number compared to the world wars, Korea, Viet Nam, and Iraq. And our casualties are on the decline.

So you asked the question. You got an answer.

[Guderian74]

Love that you see the long range end...suffered and bled there, so did my fam...love and peace and hairgrease! Darkhorse!

[ChillyFox]

Originally Posted by marinemom

OK, I'll bite. I've said all this before in these forums, but I'll say it again - just for you. Isn't that special?

The U.S. went into Afghanistan to do three things:

1) To punish AQ and to kill or capture OBL,

2) To depose the taliban government of Afghanistan,

3) And to set the conditions for a non-return to power of the taliban/AQ after we leave.

As far as I'm concerned, 1 and 2 are done. 3 is something we have done, but in the end, the future of Afghanistan will be an Afghan decision, not an American/NATO one. If they want to live under an islamic dictatorship like they did before, they will. If they want to live in some form of more democratic system, they can, but they must want it enough to fight for it.

The exit plan you asked about is in progress. It's happening as we speak. By the end of 2014 I think you're going to see a much reduced NATO presence, and the military that is there is going to be doing support activities.

Where is the gain? Well for one, America answered. We didn't cower to a bunch of barbarians. We held those responsible for 9/11 accountable. OBL is dead. Quite frankly, it is gratifying to me that he died at the hands of Americans, not someone else, and that we dumped his carcass into the ocean for the crabs.

War is expensive, and every lost life is heartbreaking. But, as of today, the U.S. has lost 1506 military members KIA in Afghanistan. That is a low number compared to the world wars, Korea, Viet Nam, and Iraq. And our casualties are on the decline.

So you asked the question. You got an answer.

Well it's not just about retrospective analysis about this war but about why this particular type of war has been waged in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ok another question, how about the Iraqi and Afghani civilians who have died as a direct result of these wars? I see absolutely zero mention of any of them in your, or other pro-war Americans, texts. It's almost like they are not full value humans to you, is that true? Are Iraqi and Afghani civilians so called 'untermench' to you? Do they have the same human rights and value that, say, American civlians have? The ratio of Iraqi and Afghani civilians who have died in these wars as oppose to the US dead in the 9/11 attacks is something like 1/100 or even 1/1000. And yet no outrage about these Iraqi and Afghani casualties.

If an American is murdered or dies, the relatives can sue tobacco companies, alcohol companies, etc. for indirectly causing that individuals death. Can the relatives of the Iraqis and Afghanis who have died as a result of these wars sue USA for either directly or indirectly causing the deaths of their relatives?

And to mention Vietnam, I hear the Vietnamese are still very angry about especially the birth defects etc. caused by the defoliating poisons that US used during the war. I guess that, in addition to other deaths of civilians caused by US during that war, is a kind of '911' as well.

[marinemom]

Originally Posted by ChillyFox

Well it's not just about retrospective analysis about this war but about why this particular type of war has been waged in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well your original question was about the Afghan war, so I tried to answer it. The Iraq war is a whole different subject. But "why this particular type of war has been waged" - a war of occupation, you mean? Chilly, I think in the future you're going to see this war against islamic extremists continue, but I doubt you'll see another war of occupation. Americans don't want another war like that, and I think we've learned that we can fight our enemies without it. Like what's going on in Yemen, for example. Have you been following that? The MSM ignores it, but it is a hot war. For us, it is carried out by drones. I suspect that in the future we could see more special forces operations here and there like the one that got OBL. But I am quite certain America is not interested in another war of occupation.

Originally Posted by ChillyFox

Ok another question, how about the Iraqi and Afghani civilians who have died as a direct result of these wars? I see absolutely zero mention of any of them in your, or other pro-war Americans, texts. It's almost like they are not full value humans to you, is that true? Are Iraqi and Afghani civilians so called 'untermench' to you? Do they have the same human rights and value that, say, American civlians have? The ratio of Iraqi and Afghani civilians who have died in these wars as oppose to the US dead in the 9/11 attacks is something like 1/100 or even 1/1000. And yet no outrage about these Iraqi and Afghani casualties.

Well, to begin with, don't call me a "pro-war American". That is a characterization that I reject and resent. If someone walks up to you and punches you in the face, you punch back. That doesn't mean you're "pro-violence".

Next, the idea that we regard civilian casualties as less than human is a made-up concept, made up by those who oppose what we're doing in order to demonize us. It is completely hypocritical, especially coming from Europeans - Europeans who have fought a couple of the most vicious wars in terms of civilian casualties and atrocities in history - and not that long ago, either. It is made up by those with a political agenda, not something grounded in reality.

There are many good reasons to avoid war whenever possible, and the innocent civilians are one of them. You speak of the lack of outrage about the Iraqi and Afghan civilian casualties. There is a lack of outrage. But it is not because those lives "are less than human". It is because everyone knows that a grim consequence of war has always been, and will always be, civilian casualties. And the other reason is that the U.S. and NATO, due to their advanced technology, have been able to fight these wars without killing great numbers of civilians, while being able to much more precisely target the enemy.

We've all seen the WW2 aerial footage of the devastated German cities, and Japanese cities, at the end of that war. That was how war was fought not long ago. By destroying entire cities - major population centers - killing tens and hundreds of thousands of inhabitants in the process. Think of those images - and then transfer that to the modern day. If that was how we still waged war, that would be how Baghdad, Kabul, and all of those country's major cities would look. Times have changed, haven't they?

And finally, anyone who knows anything about these wars knows the the U.S. has imposed the most stringent rules of engagement upon its military that have ever been seen in history.

And yet, in spite of all that, there are still civilian casualties. But some of those underlying facts I mentioned are why there is no widespread outrage. There is a grim recognition of the inevitability of it, and some mitigation by the knowlege that everything possible is done - using our technology and rules of engagement - to avoid it.

Originally Posted by ChillyFox

If an American is murdered or dies, the relatives can sue tobacco companies, alcohol companies, etc. for indirectly causing that individuals death. Can the relatives of the Iraqis and Afghanis who have died as a result of these wars sue USA for either directly or indirectly causing the deaths of their relatives?

No.

Originally Posted by ChillyFox

And to mention Vietnam, I hear the Vietnamese are still very angry about especially the birth defects etc. caused by the defoliating poisons that US used during the war. I guess that, in addition to other deaths of civilians caused by US during that war, is a kind of '911' as well.

By the time that war ended that country had been at war almost non-stop since 1941 - over 30 years of war. That was one of your familiar deflections, Bush Killer Chilly. A final shot at the country you so love to hate. Just couldn't resist, could ya?

[ChillyFox]

Originally Posted by marinemom

Well your original question was about the Afghan war, so I tried to answer it. The Iraq war is a whole different subject. But "why this particular type of war has been waged" - a war of occupation, you mean? Chilly, I think in the future you're going to see this war against islamic extremists continue, but I doubt you'll see another war of occupation. Americans don't want another war like that, and I think we've learned that we can fight our enemies without it. Like what's going on in Yemen, for example. Have you been following that? The MSM ignores it, but it is a hot war. For us, it is carried out by drones. I suspect that in the future we could see more special forces operations here and there like the one that got OBL. But I am quite certain America is not interested in another war of occupation.

Haven't followed the Yemen situation a lot. I know it's a very traditionalist Muslim country with probably a very hard conservative outlook on things. Not sure if a drone war will infatuate them to the US.

Well, to begin with, don't call me a "pro-war American". That is a characterization that I reject and resent. If someone walks up to you and punches you in the face, you punch back. That doesn't mean you're "pro-violence".

Next, the idea that we regard civilian casualties as less than human is a made-up concept, made up by those who oppose what we're doing in order to demonize us. It is completely hypocritical, especially coming from Europeans - Europeans who have fought a couple of the most vicious wars in terms of civilian casualties and atrocities in history - and not that long ago, either. It is made up by those with a political agenda, not something grounded in reality.

There are many good reasons to avoid war whenever possible, and the innocent civilians are one of them. You speak of the lack of outrage about the Iraqi and Afghan civilian casualties. There is a lack of outrage. But it is not because those lives "are less than human". It is because everyone knows that a grim consequence of war has always been, and will always be, civilian casualties. And the other reason is that the U.S. and NATO, due to their advanced technology, have been able to fight these wars without killing great numbers of civilians, while being able to much more precisely target the enemy.

We've all seen the WW2 aerial footage of the devastated German cities, and Japanese cities, at the end of that war. That was how war was fought not long ago. By destroying entire cities - major population centers - killing tens and hundreds of thousands of inhabitants in the process. Think of those images - and then transfer that to the modern day. If that was how we still waged war, that would be how Baghdad, Kabul, and all of those country's major cities would look. Times have changed, haven't they?

And finally, anyone who knows anything about these wars knows the the U.S. has imposed the most stringent rules of engagement upon its military that have ever been seen in history.

And yet, in spite of all that, there are still civilian casualties. But some of those underlying facts I mentioned are why there is no widespread outrage. There is a grim recognition of the inevitability of it, and some mitigation by the knowlege that everything possible is done - using our technology and rules of engagement - to avoid it.

Well I would say there are differences in how for example various coalition/ISAF - countries have waged this war. US, that seems to be the 'leader' of this war, sort of tells the other nations what to do. So far it hasn't worked. That's about it.

You want to listen to your ISAF allies, Finns opinion about how the war should be waged? A little too late now though. Finns have lost soldiers in this conflict, and had soldiers wounded. Finns have focused on building and helping the locals and winning over hearts and minds. US has been leveling suspected Taliban areas killing civilians in the process. Finland isn't even in Nato so I don't know what we're doing there in the first place.

Interesting you should mention WW 2. I guess that's what US thinks, that it's fighting WW 3. Since the Soviet Union dissolved US was left with nobody to shoot with nukes and missiles. Well, with Iraq and Afghanistan that changed, although to deploy such huge numbers there didn't really work out.

No.

Oh yea why not? I think they have a better case then Trayvon Martin.

By the time that war ended that country had been at war almost non-stop since 1941 - over 30 years of war. That was one of your familiar deflections, Bush Killer Chilly. A final shot at the country you so love to hate. Just couldn't resist, could ya?

In WW 2 the Vietnamese fought against the Japanese invaders with the British because they wanted independence. I remember seeing this documentary where they interviewed this British guy who taught Ho Chi Minh how to use the mortar. And pretty much as soon as they kicked the yanks out there was peace and has been since. They also have a better case to sue the yanks then Trayvon Martin.

[moefugger]

Idiots cannot even defend themselves.
They sure cry and want apologies a lot.
Nuke the whole stinking muzzie infested place.

[Dat1111]

Originally Posted by northerntomcat

Fighting is just over now and it looks like the ANSF have won a large victory,not sure what the numbers are but by the sounds of it it was an epic fail for the TB.

Indeed. The taliban got destroyed yet again. The Taliban cant win this war they have no ability too unless we give up. Thats the only way they can win or gain anything...

Obama is carrying on the destruction the taliban deserves.. Well Our soldiers are and god bless them and there just war against these maniacs who only want to kill people and subjugate races/women