B
Bartimeus
Guest
We can only hope that US/NATO/western country will finally learn of all those past conflicts and keep themself to play "world police".
US withdrawal from Afghanistan - your thoughts?
- Thread starter Bulletpoint
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2017
- Messages
- 814
- Reaction score
- 713
The outcome is not unexpected. The Taliban were always going to win without US forces to stomp on them. We could not stay there forever.
But the execution of the US pull out was ignorant. Stupid. Unbelievably bad. Horrible. Words just cannot describe.....
But the execution of the US pull out was ignorant. Stupid. Unbelievably bad. Horrible. Words just cannot describe.....
B
Bartimeus
Guest
I agree totally, I will also add that theire reputation will take a hit(and it was already not that great before).
If the US doesn't want to be world police anymore, then who will?
If the answer is "nobody", then what will be the consequence of that?
Not being polemic here, just generally wondering what this will mean for the world after the end of the US as an intervening force. I think the implications down the road will be huge. For better or for worse.
My prediction: Iran is now set to become a nuclear power within long. There is no longer any credible threat of attack from the US or its allies. The Israelis might launch some air strikes, but it's doubtful they will be able to stop the programme going ahead.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2017
- Messages
- 814
- Reaction score
- 713
Frankly, as an American, I would like to see the US stop being the world's policeman. And I say this knowing that the world will likely devolve into chaos. We spend unimaginable amounts of money to develop these capabilities.
People forget that the last 80 years have been called "The Long Peace" by historians. The world has never known such peace, prosperity or stability.
But at the same time......there are "unresolved differences" all over the world. The US policing only delays these confrontations. It does not really prevent them.
S
Sgt Joch
Guest
it is actually supposed to be up to the UN and the security council to be the world's policeman and decide what should be done. And yes, the UN can actually work and does if there is consensus.
"If there is a consensus."
Indeed the UN, but also indeed IF there is consensus. But that's quite a big if. In all other cases, which is quite often because of for example veto's, it's unfortunately rather a toothless body or a venue to use for ones own interests.
Anyway I think that in many cases the world might be better off without policing. Not every individual, but overall. Accepting is an underappreciated virtue ;-).
Anyway I think that in many cases the world might be better off without policing. Not every individual, but overall. Accepting is an underappreciated virtue ;-).
From my jaded perspective.
Irrespective of the myriad of reasons that have been creatively proffered by whoever was the Administration of the day over the past 20 years, as they tried to justify and explain this on-going FUBAR. For me, what always helps make some bottom line sense for this current crap sandwich and so much else of the man-made nonsense & B.S. that dramatically, and most often negatively impacts so many lives around the world, regardless of one's social standing, political leanings and / or world views. And that are still to this day being foisted upon us on an on-going basis, pick your own sound bite for whatever you may want to hang your hat on.
To the current question of ..."Afghanistan, why 20 years?"
I would simply suggest...follow the money...
Cheers!
Irrespective of the myriad of reasons that have been creatively proffered by whoever was the Administration of the day over the past 20 years, as they tried to justify and explain this on-going FUBAR. For me, what always helps make some bottom line sense for this current crap sandwich and so much else of the man-made nonsense & B.S. that dramatically, and most often negatively impacts so many lives around the world, regardless of one's social standing, political leanings and / or world views. And that are still to this day being foisted upon us on an on-going basis, pick your own sound bite for whatever you may want to hang your hat on.
To the current question of ..."Afghanistan, why 20 years?"
I would simply suggest...follow the money...
Cheers!
Last edited:
Imo not perse because of this. And sure I don't see any other US president invading Afghanistan because it wouldn't do good with anybody and someone with the capabilities to become president should have at least have an adviser to tell him/her so, should the person in question not be able to get that by themselves ;-).
Vietnam didn't and in and of itself this won't mean that the USA is any less powerful then yesterday. If some nation would attack USA tomorrow I'm sure there will be repercussions. Although more likely drones+hellfires over a boots on the ground invasion type of repercussions. Which we have already seen the last couple of years.
B
Bartimeus
Guest
Well we saw the consequence of a unique power playing the policeman. I do not target the USA specifically it could have been any over power it would have be the same.
As for Iran, honestly it's a chemeric foe. For me they are clearly not a threat. Even with the nuke.
And I think the withdraw of US and less intervention for US will not lead to chaos, I think It will be the opposite in fact. As for the 80 years of "peace" they were not "peacefull" for all unfortunately.
I don't necessarily see a nuclear Iran as a threat either, but it would change the power dynamics of the Middle East considerably.
For me it is not that we withdrew. I mean did anyone expect us to be there forever?
The problem is what appears to be a complete lack of planning on how to get that job done.
I mean, did Biden just say "C'mon man, we're outta here" and that was that? Sure looks like it.
Where were our military leaders in the planning stages? Were there planning stages?
This is such an embarrassment.
----
I just researched this a bit closer and what I've found is that Biden (apparently) completely disregarded
his advisors and did this on his own initiative. Well, that does explain a lot.
Oh, my.
The problem is what appears to be a complete lack of planning on how to get that job done.
I mean, did Biden just say "C'mon man, we're outta here" and that was that? Sure looks like it.
Where were our military leaders in the planning stages? Were there planning stages?
This is such an embarrassment.
----
I just researched this a bit closer and what I've found is that Biden (apparently) completely disregarded
his advisors and did this on his own initiative. Well, that does explain a lot.
Oh, my.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,194
- Reaction score
- 1,655
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
Interesting that you say that. I just happened to be listening to an episode of Freakenomics Radio that talked about the economics of infrastructure projects in Afghanistan. Turns out the contractors were paying the Taliban protection moneyin many parts of the country. This speaks to what @Sgt Joch is saying. The NATO command said it was not going to project all projects and all workers but those projects were expected to be complated. They had no other choice but to pay projection - or not do the work.
There is a lot of details and different companies handled things better or worse than others. Some seemed to be knowingly paying, some just turned a blind eye to sub contractors doing so and some just didn't take projects in those areas. In the end though the Taliban were getting 25% of their revenue from protection rackets for the reconstruction projects.
That is just not a winnable strategy.
I would be curious how those historians that referred to past 80 years as the Long Peace rationalized the more than 6, 853,000 cumulative fatalities that have resulted from the 57 skirmishes, minor conflicts, wars and major wars that have according to Wikipedia taken place over that same time frame?
Again according to Wikipedia, the U.S.A. itself is listed as having participated in some fashion in 47 armed conflicts since the end of WWII
As my daughter might say, "Maybe its not a 'they' problem, but a 'we' problem.""
(Source: Wikipedia: List of On-going Armed Conflicts ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts )
(Source: Wikipedia: List of Armed Conflicts Involving the United States ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_the_United_States )
Cheers!
The US shouldn't have to police any where in the World, most times they don't get apricated, Step back America you deserve it...... and I am hoping the UK don't take on the job
Exactly who are they policing the world for?
I always presumed that that was what the U.N. and the U.N. Security Council was for.
The U.S. has been the "world police" since the end of WW2. I don't feel like explaining why. Just read up on post WW2 global politics. Personally, I'm sick of it. It would fill me with joy if the rest of the world would put on their big boy pants and take care of themselves. We don't want to defend you, and most of us are fucking tired of it. Canada and Mexico exempted, of course. Well, Mexico is run by a bunch of drug cartels at the moment. That can be solved, but nobody wants to actually do it.
Last edited:
The UN is a toothless tiger and has been for a long time, any nation with actual power will ignore what they have to say and do what's best for themselves, see China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc - especially if they have a way to circumvent economic sanctions or in the case of the more brutal regimes, simply ignores them as it's only the common people who suffer.
As for the USA stepping down as world police, I doubt anyone will attempt to fill the void on purely altruistic motives, the problem may come to pass however, that if another 9/11 style attack happens on American soil, the population there may once again demand that something be done.
History will be repeating itself once again.
As for the USA stepping down as world police, I doubt anyone will attempt to fill the void on purely altruistic motives, the problem may come to pass however, that if another 9/11 style attack happens on American soil, the population there may once again demand that something be done.
History will be repeating itself once again.
I presume that the truism you refer to, specifically "... any nation with actual power will ignore what they have to say and do what's best for themselves, see China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc" also includes the U.S. and rest of the NATO community, and thus helps explain the various geopolitical & military adventures they involve themselves in as well?
Speaking of history, we would all be well served to refresh ourselves with the 1935 writings of Smedley Butler.
Cheers!