Protracted War

[Bender]

just a thought ... speaking on military philosophy Sun Tzu said that 'no country has ever benefited from a protracted war'.

i'm currently watching a news programme on BBC1 about Bin Laden and it occurs to me that the US and UK have been at war against Afghanistan for a very prolonged period of time, not only costing the many lives of troops but also taking an excessively long time to end the war too and pull out of the country they're at war with.

on this point of protracted war not being beneficial, why the US taking so long to come up with an end to this war against Afghans.

 

[Chronic]

Come on, this is an excuse to use the phrase 'protracted war' and to say you've been reading Sun Tzu.

Maybe it's because they didn't read Sun Tzu.

 

[S O F I]

Because it's hard to come up with an exit strategy, especially when you go to war without one.

 

[Duke]

^ I doubt they even had a "staying" plan in the first place.

 

[Flipmo]

I prefer a protracted anus.

 

[Rukas]

^ I doubt they even had a "staying" plan in the first place.

I doubt they had ANY plan in the first place.

The problem was that they went to war over WOMD. Had they been found, the exit strategy would have been easy, find and remove said weapons, and exit.

The problem is that there was no clear reason to enter Iraq in the first place, so there was no clear objective and thus there is no clear outcome and no clear milestone for exit.

I know that is very simplified, but you get the point.

A clear objective gives a clear victory point, a clear problem has a clear solution.

 

[S O F I]

^Yeshua is talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq.

 

[Rukas]

Same thing. They went into Afghanistan to take out the Taliban, whether successful or not the objective regarding the country isnt the clearest so the exit strategy isnt the clearest.

I mean they could have come in, taken out the Taliban, and left, but I guess they had responsibility (or an agenda) for the country as a whole and couldnt just leave it like that.

 

[ImmortalTech]

Actually, initially they claimed they went to Afghanistan to take out whoever was responsible for 9/11, 'Osama Bin Laden' and 'Al-Qaeda'. They developed the story of the (evil) Taliban to gain support for the war. It didn't make sense to attack Afghanistan, in order to capture an elusive Saudi that could have pretty much been anywhere in the world, along with an organization that is not bound to or limited to Afghanistan.

I do not know what it is exactly that's so important about afghanistan, maybe it's strategic location?

But the truth is, America does not give a flying fuck about oppressive regimes, as long as they're willing to play their game.

All in all, I do not think the United States has an exit strategy, because I personally do not think they ever plan to completely leave if they are successful with whatever it is they're trying to accomplish. All I know is that, that region is not easy to conquer... unfortunately that probably means years and years of bloodshed.

But for those of you that still feel that the people fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are irrational extremist. Think about how irrational or extreme you might start behaving if a group of men forcefully entered your house with weapons and the first thing they did was shot ur dad in his head, and then gave ur little brother some candy cuz he was crying, then went into ur sisters room and raped her, and then came downstairs and told u that they're only there to help.

... btw, I do not support the United States or the Taliban, nor do I support any organization that finds illegitimate justifications to kill innocent people. I just pray for peace for Afghanistan, and Iraq, and anywhere else in the world people are being oppressed or occupied.

peace

 

[Bender]

Come on, this is an excuse to use the phrase 'protracted war' and to say you've been reading Sun Tzu.

Maybe it's because they didn't read Sun Tzu.

SpOt on.

I doubt they had ANY plan in the first place.

The problem was that they went to war over WOMD. Had they been found, the exit strategy would have been easy, find and remove said weapons, and exit.

The problem is that there was no clear reason to enter Iraq in the first place, so there was no clear objective and thus there is no clear outcome and no clear milestone for exit.

I know that is very simplified, but you get the point.

A clear objective gives a clear victory point, a clear problem has a clear solution.

Same thing. They went into Afghanistan to take out the Taliban, whether successful or not the objective regarding the country isnt the clearest so the exit strategy isnt the clearest.

I mean they could have come in, taken out the Taliban, and left, but I guess they had responsibility (or an agenda) for the country as a whole and couldnt just leave it like that.

yes there is similarities between the war in iraq and afghanistan, both have similar objectives of taking out leaders of both political and extremist groups who pose a threat to other countries and their own peoples.

as well as capturing and bringing the men wanted for crimes against humanity and terrorism to justice, the only reason i can think of why the continuing wars in the middle east are protracted is because that the US and it's allies are also trying to bring reform to those countries as well as also stop the tyrants that inhabit those countries.


if the US does have a plan i imagine it would look like this: Capture, Command, and Conquer.

Actually, initially they claimed they went to Afghanistan to take out whoever was responsible for 9/11, 'Osama Bin Laden' and 'Al-Qaeda'. They developed the story of the (evil) Taliban to gain support for the war. It didn't make sense to attack Afghanistan, in order to capture an elusive Saudi that could have pretty much been anywhere in the world, along with an organization that is not bound to or limited to Afghanistan.

I do not know what it is exactly that's so important about afghanistan, maybe it's strategic location?

But the truth is, America does not give a flying fuck about oppressive regimes, as long as they're willing to play their game.

All in all, I do not think the United States has an exit strategy, because I personally do not think they ever plan to completely leave if they are successful with whatever it is they're trying to accomplish. All I know is that, that region is not easy to conquer... unfortunately that probably means years and years of bloodshed.

But for those of you that still feel that the people fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are irrational extremist. Think about how irrational or extreme you might start behaving if a group of men forcefully entered your house with weapons and the first thing they did was shot ur dad in his head, and then gave ur little brother some candy cuz he was crying, then went into ur sisters room and raped her, and then came downstairs and told u that they're only there to help.

... btw, I do not support the United States or the Taliban, nor do I support any organization that finds illegitimate justifications to kill innocent people. I just pray for peace for Afghanistan, and Iraq, and anywhere else in the world people are being oppressed or occupied.

peace

a couple of good points there.

obviously one motive of the US going to war with Afghanistan is because bindah laden is on their most wanted list, and again to bring proper democratic stability to those countries.

 

[ImmortalTech]

a couple of good points there.

obviously one motive of the US going to war with Afghanistan is because bindah laden is on their most wanted list, and again to bring proper democratic stability to those countries.

hmm... Do you really think that the United States is interested in 'proper democratic stability' in those countries?

1) The US itself does not have 'proper democratic stability'. Although it has proper political stability, I dont see the US as a proper democracy, atleast in theory.

2) Saudi Arabia is the second biggest ally to the US in the region, besides Israel, but is an absolute monarchy. There hasn't ever been any sort of talks to attack them and bring democracy to them now has there?

3) I do not think the US would like to run the risk of a legitimate election process in fears of a man like Osama Bin Laden (if he is who we've been told he is) to come into power.

If a dictator gets out of line.. He's easy to overthrow, the people of the region and the world will most likely stand behind you. You'll get him out of power and u might even be hailed a hero for doing it. If a leader genuinely elected by the people is not willing to play your game, you'll have a much harder time.

... personally the idea of attacking and occupying a region in order to bring proper democratic stability to them is ludicrous. But who knows maybe I'm just crazy.

 

[Bender]

hmm... Do you really think that the United States is interested in 'proper democratic stability' in those countries?

Yes of course it is the job of the United Nations to work towards international law/security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and overall achievement of world peace on a global scale ... there is no peace without democracy.

1) The US itself does not have 'proper democratic stability'. Although it has proper political stability, I dont see the US as a proper democracy, atleast in theory.

Politics is built on Democracy.

2) Saudi Arabia is the second biggest ally to the US in the region, besides Israel, but is an absolute monarchy. There hasn't ever been any sort of talks to attack them and bring democracy to them now has there?

if Saudi Arabia is the second biggest ally to the US, then why is a Saudi on the FBI's most wanted list?

3) I do not think the US would like to run the risk of a legitimate election process in fears of a man like Osama Bin Laden (if he is who we've been told he is) to come into power.

Osama has no power over the US, he attacks blindly.

If a dictator gets out of line.. He's easy to overthrow, the people of the region and the world will most likely stand behind you. You'll get him out of power and u might even be hailed a hero for doing it. If a leader genuinely elected by the people is not willing to play your game, you'll have a much harder time.

this is what i mean about democracy and politics. the al-qaeda may have a big influence and power in their own region and country but their ideals aren't constituted to that of the united nations.

... personally the idea of attacking and occupying a region in order to bring proper democratic stability to them is ludicrous. But who knows maybe I'm just crazy.

afghans are crazy i don't see them succeeding in this war at all despite their holy driven convictions that be a farce

 

[Tha_Wood]

if Saudi Arabia is the second biggest ally to the US, then why is a Saudi on the FBI's most wanted list?

thats like saying why is there Americans on their most wanted list.

 

[ImmortalTech]

there is no peace without democracy.

I don't even know where to start with that. You're basically passing off your opinion as a fact without any merit.

Politics is built on Democracy.

That all depends on how you define democracy and politics, and I'm not here to debate how you personally define either of the two terms.

if Saudi Arabia is the second biggest ally to the US, then why is a Saudi on the FBI's most wanted list?

Tha Wood already addressed this comment.

Osama has no power over the US, he attacks blindly.

No offense, but at this point it seems like you weren't even reading what I wrote.

this is what i mean about democracy and politics. the al-qaeda may have a big influence and power in their own region and country but their ideals aren't constituted to that of the united nations.

gee thanks captain obvious. Again, I don't think you were reading my post, but instead just wanted to say something for the hell of saying it

afghans are crazy i don't see them succeeding in this war at all despite their holy driven convictions that be a farce

Americans are crazy i don't see them succeeding in this war at all despite their self-righteous convictions that be a farce.

... do I sound ignorant yet?

Sorry Yeshua, I didnt mean to sound condescending but it seems like you quoted me and then just said something irrelevant, because you felt like saying it. :wacko: