Mission accomplished: "Death to America" and "Death to Karzai".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VetLegion


Don't you think Afghanistan is relatively peaceful precisely because Iraq is "where it's at" at the moment? If you didn't go to Iraq all the foreigners in Iraq would probably be fighting you in Afghanistan.

Thats the proadmin argument. I dont know, there are arguments both ways. Some of the Saudis, Sudanese, Syrians, etc troubling Iraq might have made it to Afghanistan - but we'd have had more aid for reconstruction, and more special forces and civil affairs guys and intell operatives available. Even if we didnt put more ground troops in.

[Arrian]

It's an interesting question: who is neglecting Afganistan more, us or the jidhadis?

-Arrian

[Serb]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Lets see, theres an elected govt.

Elected government, my ass. The elections in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq, was a complete joke.
And the people who supposedly elected that government now demand "death to Karzai".

The North and west of country is quiet. And essentially under central govt control, with the warlords tamed.

Really?

Even in the Pashtun South and East the problems are mainly limited to 3 or 4 provinces. And some of the problems are due to the central govt disbanding militias, and asserting greater authority in the Pashtun provinces.

I don't care about the reasons why your puppet government there sucks so badly.

And to cracking down on opium growing.

No sh!t? I thought that the warlords were tamed How could it be that under your "elected" government, who has the warlords tamed, the opium yeild and therefore export, in Afghanistan increased several times comparing to prior invasion?

So theres a riot in Kabul - this is still a third world country, excuse me.

Yes, it is a third world country where your puppet government, which still lives only thanks to your troops stationed there to protect their precious arses, controls nothing, except the capital and currently have problems even there.

And there are barely 10,000 US troops there.

And how many NATO troops?

I suspect the Soviet commanders in Afghanistan in the '80s would have given alot to have a situation like this.

The Soviet commanders fought a proxy war vs. the SUPERPOWER, which trained and supplied the opposing force. If Russia (not to mention the USSR) had supplied the Taliban, instead of the Northern Alliance, you would never entered Afghanistan, in other case, it would be another Vietnam for you, for sure.

But its not perfect. In particular there is still support for the Taliban coming from across the border in Pakistan.

Strange, I thought the freedom-loving, fairly elected dictatorship of Pakistan is your lackey. Sorry, I mean your loyal ally.

Maybe the situation would be better if we werent in Iraq, and were in more position to pressure the Paki govt. Maybe. But thats a different issue. The fact is this is big news, as is the Taliban spring "offensive" mainly in CONTRAST to how quiet things have been there.

What the Taliban spring "offensive"? You think inhabitants of Kabul outraged by behaviour of the occupation forces are Talibs?

[Serb]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Reuters

"It is peaceful, there is no violence," said Mohammad Shafiq Fazli, Kabul's deputy police chief

You mean this guy?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Serb
Yes, it is a third world country where your puppet government, which lives thanks to your troops stationed there to protect their precious arses, controls nothing except the capital and currently have problems within the capital.

I agree with Serb (on this one point anyway )

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Serb


"No sh!t? I thought that the warlords were tamed How could it be that under your "elected" government, who has the warlords tamed, the opium yeild and therefore export, in Afghanistan increased several times comparing to prior invasion?"

The opium situation is more complex than simply being a measure of the influence of warlords.


"es, it is a third world country where your puppet government, which still lives only thanks to your troops stationed there to protect their precious arses, controls nothing, except the capital and currently have problems even there."

Except they control most of the country.

"And how many NATO troops?" A few thousand more. Cause its an international commitment.


"The Soviet commanders fought a proxy war vs. the SUPERPOWER, which trained and supplied the opposing force. If Russia (not to mention the USSR) had supplied the Taliban, instead of the Northern Alliance, you would never entered Afghanistan, in other case, it would be another Vietnam for you, for sure."

The support we gave the mujahadeen was small, compared to say the money we funneled into central america in the same period. It was a sideshow, it wasnt the principle focus of US foreign policy. If you think THAT was taking on a superpower, its a good thing you didnt have to take on a real superpower effort.

"Strange, I thought the freedom-loving, fairly elected dictatorship of Pakistan is your lackey. Sorry, I mean your loyal ally."

No, theyre not our lackey. You were misinformed.

What the Taliban spring "offensive"? You think inhabitants of Kabul outraged by behaviour of the occupation forces are Talibs?

I dont know who they are. But there is a series of high casualty battles going on in the countryside. If you really followed the situation in Afghanistan, youd know that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil


I agree with Serb (on this one point anyway )

you believe the karzai govt does not control Herat or Mazar? Your basis for this?

[Wezil]

I believe Kabul Karzai only survives so long as we keep him in power. He is toast w/o us.

This does not lead me to believe Karzai has popular support. He clearly does not.

[Serb]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
No you didnt have riots in Kabul. Massacring rioters in Herat probably did a prettty good job of deterring riots in Kabul.

Yeah, sure. Whenever Soviets did something better than you, it's only because they were TEH EVIL!!! It's them who tortured their prisoners in Abu-Grave and Guantanamo. It's them who've shot locals in Iraq and Afghanistan just for fun or to be sure they not facking them f*cking dead, used cruise missiles vs. angry mobs, white phosphorus, depleted uranium, etc.

In any case Kabul was the center of support for the Afghan Communist party, and the one place in the country where your suppor was strongest.

Exactly! Soviets had a significant support among the local population. That's why we came there in the first place and that's why we stay there for so long. What force do you have now in Afghanistan to rely on?
The answer is - NONE. Your support among the locals equals to ZERO.

Meanwhile the insurgents tended to control parts of Herat and Kandahar, not to mention almost the entire countryside. Even the Panshir Valley close to Kabul, where you launched offensive after offensive.

Blah...blah...blah...
What kind of offensives are you talking about? There was no any stable, permanent frontline in Afghanistan. All what Majaheded were good to do (just like you trained them) was hit and run tactics. It was a guerilla warfare.

But the Karzai govt is a democratic govt,

Bullsh!t.

and doent massacre rioters.

And what do you think just happened in Kabul?

So riots happen. This doesnt mean Kabul is outside govt control.

I see. So, the government controls nothing except Kabul, but even there they have riots, but there is nothing to worry about - everythin is under control. Please, tell me, did his majesty King George-II resurected the captain of Titanic to govern this Afghan province of yours?

There were riots in Teheran the other day, and in Tabriz - are those cities outside the control of the govt of Iran?

I have no idea,. But something tells me that demostrations/riots in Teheran could be anti-American only.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
4/10

The predictability knocks it down

Yes, you responded, troll successful

8/10

[Wezil]

It's so much easier to attack the messenger than the message.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Serb

"Yeah, sure. Whenever Soviets did something better than you, it's only because they were TEH EVIL!!! "

no, im not saying that. You referenced specifically that there were no riots in Kabul during the Soviet occupation. AFAICT that was due to the rep the Soviets had for cracking down on riots much more harshly than the Karzi govt does.



"Exactly! Soviets had a significant support among the local population."

Among the secular elite in Kabul. Thats what I said.

" That's why we came there in the first place and that's why we stay there for so long. What force do you have now in Afghanistan to rely on?
The answer is - NONE. Your support among the locals equals to ZERO."

The Afghan army has fought fairly effectively, from all Ive read. But we and our allies have only been recruiting and training it for the last 4 and half years. The Afghan army in 1979 OTOH, was largely pro-Soviet, and had institutional continuity with the army under the monarchy. In 1979 you walked into an Afghanistan that had largely been at peace for over 30 years, with a growing infrastructure. In 2001 we walked into an Afghanistan without even the remnants of a functioning govt, and with an economy and society devastated by 22 years of war.


''What kind of offensives are you talking about? There was no any stable, permanent frontline in Afghanistan. All what Majaheded were good to do (just like you trained them) was hit and run tactics. It was a guerilla warfare. "

Maybe this is a translation problem. Why cant guerilla warfare have offensives?


"And what do you think just happened in Kabul? "

A riot.

"I see. So, the government controls nothing except Kabul,"

False. They control the entire north and west of the country. In the Pashtun South and East they control all the towns, including Kandahar. They control the country side in several of the Pashtun province. They LACK control of the countryside in several of the
Pashtun provinces, notably Helmand, Kandahar, and Gazni. Why do you think repeating a false statement makes it true?

" but even there they have riots,"

Yes, cause riots happen. There were riots in Paris.

"but there is nothing to worry about - everythin is under control."

Theres plenty to worry about. Your statements are still false.

" Please, tell me, did his majesty King George-II resurected the captain of Titanic to govern this Afghan province of yours?"

The govt of Afghanistan is recognized by the UN, was elected in fair elections, and is supported by a range of countries, not just the US. The policy of supporting the govt of Afghanistan is stronly supported by the Democratic party.


"I have no idea,. But something tells me that demostrations/riots in Teheran could be anti-American only."

Well that something is ignorant, then.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
I believe Kabul Karzai only survives so long as we keep him in power. He is toast w/o us.

This does not lead me to believe Karzai has popular support. He clearly does not.

since he is opposed the military force of the Taliban, and the Afghan army is still improving, it may be that the afghan govt would collapse without outside support. It does not follow from this that the Afghan govt lacks popular support.

But I take it you DONT agree with Serbs statement that the govt exerts no control outside Kabul?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Serb


You mean this guy?

whatever.

BBC confirms, its quiet in Kabul today.

[Wezil]

I think the government does exert some control outside Kabul - control enforced at the end of western rifle barrels.

I don't think the average Afghani (whatever that might be) wants us there and that the mission is ultimately doomed to failure. We are an occupyng force that eventually will decide we have paid too high a price and we will leave. It seems to be the history of Afghanistan and I fail to see why our mission there will end any differently.