nato-says-war-against-afghans-taliban-being-won

[Qwert]

Its these true, or Nato make jokes?

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... eing-won-0


I must say that i dont believe in these fairytale .

[2dimes]

We have the luxury of criticizing it but what would it look like if the peace keepers never went in? Do you think it would be better?

I guess it's possible but I think the Taliban would have made things worse. Maybe not much but at least a bit.

In my opinion it's not like Libya where things were somewhat stable and relatively good under a questionable leader with excellent fashion sense.

[AndyDufresne]

I wondered where all of qwert's NATO iz bad yo topics went. Good to see one returning.


--Andy

[Dukasaur]

http://www.swans.com/library/art8/xxx083.html

War Is Peace
by George Orwell
Excerpt of his novel, "1984"


(...)

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.



"1984," George Orwell, Signet Classic, ISBN: 0451512189, March 1969 reissue, p. 164 (originally published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1949).

[BigBallinStalin]

We have the luxury of criticizing it but what would it look like if the peace keepers never went in? Do you think it would be better?

I guess it's possible but I think the Taliban would have made things worse. Maybe not much but at least a bit.

In my opinion it's not like Libya where things were somewhat stable and relatively good under a questionable leader with excellent fashion sense.

Libya's relatively calmer than AFG because many of the armed militias and the government counter-balance each other. Gaddafi was interesting in that he brokered power among the regional tribal groups, so after US/NATO started bombing military targets and civilians and arming extremist and moderate groups, the US/NATO forces didn't invade and establish a puppet government and impose laws which annoyed people. Instead, the Libyans were left with much of their self-governing institutions intact. In Iraq and AFG, that didn't happen. The US/NATO rushed in, demolished those institutions, and centrally planned an economy (lol, like the Soviet Union--no wonder that would lead to problems, derp derp derp).

At least with the Taliban in AFG, you had security and stability under type-X warlords. Now you have insecurity and instability under type-Y warlords. That's a failure. The smell and sentiment of democracy can't mask the violence and futility of a US-imposed, corrupt government. <45% participated in the last election, down from.. 65% or so. The AFG-Taliban rejected talks and are simply biding their time.

"Success." lol.

[2dimes]

How do you deal with the Taliban short of illimination and no one was prepared to do that as far as I could tell. So maybe the answer to qwert's OP question is "Yeah man NATO didn't win because they left one or more alive."

[BigBallinStalin]

How do you deal with the Taliban short of illimination and no one was prepared to do that as far as I could tell.

Oh, simple: you don't waste people's lives fighting someone else's war.

The US has a problem of ideology. Many of the policymakers think they can export democracy through sustained violence. (Even worse, most don't plan for the long-term*; after invading AFG, there wasn't much of a plan).

*That's a problem with the chief positions (the Executive and his cabinet, the NSC, Joint Chiefs, etc.)

So maybe the answer to qwert's OP question is "Yeah man NATO didn't win because they left one or more alive."

Well, now you're changing goals, which changes the criteria of success.

The ISAF can't kill all the Taliban. It doesn't work that way, unless you destroy all the civilians--to be certain. NATO didn't win because they weren't willing to incur higher casualties, which the citizens would find unacceptable, who in turn would call for the end of the corporate-political boondoggle war in AFG. One constraint is potentially negative public opinion.

2nd constraint: knowledge problem. NATO didn't win because a government and a group of governments learned the hard way that they can't centrally plan and design a democracy (assuming that was the actual goal). All they did was empower a group of warlords (the former Northern Alliance), and surprise surprise many civilians didn't favor that (or didn't care one way or the other about group of thugs X and group of thugs Y).

[2dimes]

But this one is even worse. I don't even remember when it started but we can basically go back to before Chuck Wilson. Great move who doesn't love Tom Hanks drinking whiskey in the hustler club hot tub or where ever the opening scene is...

So he's when Carter? How many administrations later we're here. You've got Canada involved and I don't even care to google who else but there's got to be more than our two countries.

Talk about "Changing goals" stop me if I'm wrong but every entity that put their fingers in would want at least a subtle change in goals. Just the change over from "I don't want to have sexual relations while that woman blows me." to "Mission accomplished Sparky." was pretty huge probably.

So I hope you can excuse me from much content since, I don't really want to spend 384 hours researching stuff that's at my classification level to get a seriously incomplete picture of what is partially going on.

Obviously it's part opinion part pretending to be Hitler for comedic effect that I said if you're bothering to go in go hard!

Is this true or is NATO making a joke is a pretty harsh critisism. Maybe it's warrented, I disagree.
Take care.

[The Voice]

http://www.swans.com/library/art8/xxx083.html

War Is Peace
by George Orwell
Excerpt of his novel, "1984"


(...)

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.



"1984," George Orwell, Signet Classic, ISBN: 0451512189, March 1969 reissue, p. 164 (originally published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1949).

Great passage from a great book, one that'll be applicable for centuries despite its title.

[2dimes]

I mean, I didn't even take the time to spell "ellimination" correctly. I've probably been drinking.

[patches70]

I mean, I didn't even take the time to spell "ellimination" correctly. I've probably been drinking.

You're still drunk! When you sober up you'll spell elimination right.

It's not a big deal though, I'm sure anyone can figure out what you meant. So it's all good! Drink up and post to your heart's content.

[2dimes]

No, I'm sober and a really bad speller.

[AndyDufresne]

I mean, I didn't even take the time to spell "ellimination" correctly. I've probably been drinking.

This is why I like your posts, 2dimes.


--Andy

[Qwert]

Bombing mountains from 10000 meter above to eliminate enemies,are not so great strategy to win a war. You have big chance to make big casualty to civilians then to armed rebels.
But because next year NAto_US will move out of Afghanistan, then its time to make some "Win" propaganda, so that everybody try to believe that Nato_US realy "won a war" ?
Mine prediction its that after they move out, soon Afghan Puppet Government will collapse.( these its one of high possible scenario)

[2dimes]

But because next year NAto_US will move out of Afghanistan, then its time to make some "Win" propaganda, so that everybody try to believe that Nato_US realy "won a war" ?

Unfourtunately I agree this is a possibility. That might be the only way to leave with any public support.

I wanted to use "sembalince of public support" but I didn't want to spell it wrong.

I mean, I didn't even take the time to spell "ellimination" correctly. I've probably been drinking.

This is why I like your posts, 2dimes.


--Andy

Because you're drinking and my style makes it seem like we're posting together and having a beverage?

[b.k. barunt]

I mean, I didn't even take the time to spell "ellimination" correctly. I've probably been drinking.

Oh shit! I thought you meant "illumination". This changes everything. Now i'm going to have to entirely rethink my reply to your post. <uncaps bottle of Cuervo>


Honibaz

[patches70]

But because next year NAto_US will move out of Afghanistan, then its time to make some "Win" propaganda, so that everybody try to believe that Nato_US realy "won a war" ?

Unfourtunately I agree this is a possibility. That might be the only way to leave with any public support.

I wanted to use "sembalince of public support" but I didn't want to spell it wrong.

I mean, I didn't even take the time to spell "ellimination" correctly. I've probably been drinking.

This is why I like your posts, 2dimes.


--Andy

Because you're drinking and my style makes it seem like we're posting together and having a beverage?

Awww....
spell anything you like how you like. I was just bustin' yo ballz a little and chuckling is all.

[2dimes]

I mean, I didn't even take the time to spell "ellimination" correctly. I've probably been drinking.

Oh shit! I thought you meant "illumination". This changes everything. Now i'm going to have to entirely rethink my reply to your post. <uncaps bottle of Cuervo>


Honibaz

Oh, man. We're going to have them merging threads soon.

Awww....
spell anything you like how you like. I was just bustin' yo ballz a little and chuckling is all.

It's all good. I'm a bit happy someone stood up for Woodruff.

Craig Ferguson figures Canadians could have solved it. http://www.omaha.com/article/20120126/GO/701269909

[BigBallinStalin]

Bombing mountains from 10000 meter above to eliminate enemies,are not so great strategy to win a war. You have big chance to make big casualty to civilians then to armed rebels.
But because next year NAto_US will move out of Afghanistan, then its time to make some "Win" propaganda, so that everybody try to believe that Nato_US realy "won a war" ?
Mine prediction its that after they move out, soon Afghan Puppet Government will collapse.( these its one of high possible scenario)

What do you think hinges on that?

e.g.

(1) US stops contributing or significantly decreases funding to AFG (just like around the early 1970s with Vietnam).

[fadedpsychosis]

you'd rather we keep throwing money and lives into this god forsaken shithole country?

[2dimes]

That depends a bit on what you want to do faded. Yes?

[fadedpsychosis]

That depends a bit on what you want to do faded. Yes?

me? I'm a peon, it doesn't matter what I want, it matters what the Generals want... and from what I can tell, what they want is to put the best face on a bad situation

[2dimes]

It was kind of implied to be like if you could ask for what you'd like to happen.

I'd like to see the Taliban [miss spelled word for gone] or at least neutralized. Then again I'd like the whole Middle East to become a nice safe place to go for a vacation. So I'm not being very realistic.

[fadedpsychosis]

It was kind of implied to be like if you could ask for what you'd like to happen.

I'd like to see the Taliban [miss spelled word for gone] or at least neutralized. Then again I'd like the whole Middle East to become a nice safe place to go for a vacation. So I'm not being very realistic.

if I was given the power to see what would happen in this area? I'd want the people who live here to not have to be afraid of those in power. I'd want everyone to have access to the kind of things we in the states consider "basics" but are in reality luxuries we take for granted. I'd want to see the people of this country stand on their own feet, and not be beholden to ANYONE but themselves... and I mean everyone, not just a privileged few... so I guess what I want is no more realistic than you

[2dimes]

That sounds good. Would probably cost more though.

A lot of people would probably like that. A few jerks are ruining it for the rest of us.