Start of Civil War? Attacks Across Iraq!

[Agathon]

Yes, but you take the initiative too soon, leaving the local women wakeful and frustrated.

[LoneWolf]

Agathon- You forgot to mention that we were on the wrong side in WW1 and WW2.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by LoneWolf
Oh, AH if only this was true, maybe they would have some respect. It is better to be feared than loved.

Reminds of the MASH line:

Mad general: Learned that trick from the Germans

Hawkeye: Oh great - now we're learning from the losers.

[LoneWolf]

AH: See Agathon, apparently we ARE the losers. Hmm...

[Agathon]

@ that Patton quote LW.

[LoneWolf]

AH, the light-hearted banter among friends and "allies".

Well, I'm off to bed now, safe in the knowledge that the heros across the great water have our best interests at heart.

Toodles!

[Alexander's Horse]

Just be thankful they didn't interveve in the civil war.

[Ted Striker]

so

[Alexander's Horse]

All I know is there are a lot of complaints and mutteriing from the Brits and others on the ground about the way you are handling things i.e. making things worse for everyone with your Bull in a China/ Crack a walnut with a Sledgehammer approach to everything you do.

Didn't subtlety and discretion make it across the Atlantic with the Pilgrims?

[Ted Striker]

Not really.

If you will recall the English respone to armed aggression by the "savages" was overwhelming force.

Kinda like against the Boers, Rhodes abuse of his private army, the Aboriginee genocide, etc.

[Alexander's Horse]

Hmmm, no, that's quite wrong, violence was always a last resort because it was seen as counter-productive in civil emergencies and very senior officers were courtmartialled for overuse of force where negotiation, tolerance and turning a blind eye would have worked better. The Brits would fight but always look for a negotiated outcome.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
WW2 - Late again - but honorable mention this time (even though those godless commies did most of the fighting and dying).

Why does everyone think WWII happened only in Europe?

[Kropotkin]

The godless commies still did most of the fighting and dying.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Let's go into the stories about women dying from lack of medical care because there was nobody available to treat them.

The Taliban were so brilliant that:

1) Most women were barred from having job (including doctors)

2) Women were mostly forbidden to be seen by male doctors.

So, no women doctors, and male doctors not allowed to see them, what a brilliant setup.

It is clear that during the civil war raging in Afghanistan prior to the US invasion there were numerous massacres of civilians and other human rights abuses by both sides - that would be the Taliban, and the Northern Alliance, especially those under the command of general Dostum. However, it strikes me as odd that the US state dept. would only point to the abuses of the Taliban. And not through it's own findings, but by refering to amongst others Human Rights Watch. See here

Now, when the civil war was offcially over, and a new government had been implaced, there seemed no longer to be the same concern over the continuing human rights abuses, so much more incomprehensible because the full fury of conflict has subsided. The Pashtun were thus maltreated, robbed, sexually abused and killed by the warlord bands. That is, the 'allies' of the US, who actually did the fighting, while the US provided aircover.
See here

So it seems to me that the lopsidedness in pointing towards only Taliban crimes during the civil the war, and the silence on human rights abuses after the war and the defeat of the Taliban, shows that the US is rather choosy in deciding what private human rights reports it wants to refer to in justifying various foreign policy adventures.

No doubt the Taliban was repressive, yet that repression is perhaps more understandable since the country was in the grip of civil war. The present ongoing human rights abuses by the warlords is perhaps less understandable since the civil war is over.

Taking that unfortunate lesson to heart, competing nations, will of course have to reconsider the veracity of The US offical aim, when it states it seeks to bring democracy and stability to the regions that fall within its sphere of influence. And thus adjust their foreign policy, and move away from taking any idealist presumptions on behalf of the US seriously.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Sorry guys, AH is right. I've spoken to veterans of WWII, Korea, Vietnam and GW1 and all of them complained that US soldiers are trigger happy.

I don't know what it is that causes it, but you have been notorious for years for shooting first and thinking later.

You mean like when Julian Bond forced a river crossing (at over 50% casualties) to take the bridge over Nijmegen so Brit tankers could cross and then find a nice place to brew their afternoon tea while the Red Devils and Polish Airborne Brigade were being overrun just 18 km up the road?

We take the brunt of the fighting and deliver results.