War with Russia
Discussion
I have to say that the only thing not depressing about this whole Ukrainian issue has been Vice news. They are making some fantastic stuff. This is the guy who was doing ace reporting on the field in Crimea. Now he is in the east mixing up with the locals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUNVwbp_JSA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUNVwbp_JSA
egor110 said:
I remember a country called Afghanistan , they had no army and took on and sent packing Russia and the USA, underfunded, undermanned 'armies' do not fight by the well funded armies rules.
The Soviets were forced from Afghanistan by Stingers and the impending collapse of the Soviet Union. The Red Army was doing a reasonably effective job of subjugating Afghanistan until the arrival of the Stingers.NATO has completed its primary military objective in Afghanistan: the capture/elimination of high ranking Al Qaedaists. There is no further military function for NATO in Afghanistan because there is no political objective to subjugate the country.
V8 Fettler said:
....
NATO has completed its primary military objective in Afghanistan: the capture/elimination of high ranking Al Qaedaists. There is no further military function for NATO in Afghanistan because there is no political objective to subjugate the country.
Was there ever a list of the specific "Al Qaedaists" we needed to end our involvement there? Or is this just bNATO has completed its primary military objective in Afghanistan: the capture/elimination of high ranking Al Qaedaists. There is no further military function for NATO in Afghanistan because there is no political objective to subjugate the country.
ks to justify both entry and exit to the place? Neither our involvement nor that of the Soviets before us (nor our involvement a century before that) has made any material difference to the country, it's people, it's stability nor our security. Except for plenty of dead people.
It will return to type not very long after we leave.
Neither we nor the Russians will ever learn apparently. People are evidently just nasty...
Murph7355 said:
V8 Fettler said:
....
NATO has completed its primary military objective in Afghanistan: the capture/elimination of high ranking Al Qaedaists. There is no further military function for NATO in Afghanistan because there is no political objective to subjugate the country.
Was there ever a list of the specific "Al Qaedaists" we needed to end our involvement there? Or is this just bNATO has completed its primary military objective in Afghanistan: the capture/elimination of high ranking Al Qaedaists. There is no further military function for NATO in Afghanistan because there is no political objective to subjugate the country.
ks to justify both entry and exit to the place? Neither our involvement nor that of the Soviets before us (nor our involvement a century before that) has made any material difference to the country, it's people, it's stability nor our security. Except for plenty of dead people.
It will return to type not very long after we leave.
Neither we nor the Russians will ever learn apparently. People are evidently just nasty...
What other reason would there be to invade Afghanistan? With hindsight, the destruction of Al Qaeda should have been achieved with air power, special forces and drones; that will certainly occur next time.
The only real material difference to Afghanistan would be if the West stayed there indefinitely, my view is that should occur to prevent it returning to type after the West leaves. No long term political objective makes things difficult.
The Russians have learnt that it's bad news not to have a buffer zone between Russia and the West, need to keep those Germans at arm's length.
The British learnt several centuries ago that to invade is to control.
The US learnt 1914 - 2001 that not to intervene means they get dragged in anyway.
Asterix said:
V8 Fettler said:
The Red Army was doing a reasonably effective job of subjugating Afghanistan until the arrival of the Stingers.
Perhaps, but with very different ROEs that our lads and lasses operate within. V8 Fettler said:
"Hand over Al Qaeda or else" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1341196/Bush-gives...
What other reason would there be to invade Afghanistan? With hindsight, the destruction of Al Qaeda should have been achieved with air power, special forces and drones; that will certainly occur next time.
The only real material difference to Afghanistan would be if the West stayed there indefinitely, my view is that should occur to prevent it returning to type after the West leaves. No long term political objective makes things difficult..
I wouldn't trust Bush if he told me today was Tuesday, and he was appealing to those even more stupid than him.What other reason would there be to invade Afghanistan? With hindsight, the destruction of Al Qaeda should have been achieved with air power, special forces and drones; that will certainly occur next time.
The only real material difference to Afghanistan would be if the West stayed there indefinitely, my view is that should occur to prevent it returning to type after the West leaves. No long term political objective makes things difficult..
Which senior Al Qaeda operatives were captured/killed in Afghanistan?
And how come we haven't invaded Pakistan? Or anywhere else with much less tenuous links to Al Qaeda (Saudia Arabia anyone?).
It was "weapons of mass destruction" all over again but on a (arguably) smaller scale.
Bush didn't have a clue how to deal with an organisation like Al Qaeda so he was lashing out at the weakest kid in the playground like a bully.
It looks like we still have no clue how to deal with an organisation like Al Qaeda. Tell me precisely what these drones will target? And where? And under whose jurisdiction?
Special Forces might well be something of use, but IMO the main problem with the US version of them is that they cannot help themselves in glorifying their operations. As soon as you do that with an idealist set of people not constrained by the boundaries of nations or operating under the formal rules of engagement of the "civilised" world, you lose. You play into their hands.
V8 Fettler said:
...
The Russians have learnt that it's bad news not to have a buffer zone between Russia and the West, need to keep those Germans at arm's length..
I'm not at all convinced that is their motivation whatsoever. Economics are at the heart of this, plus a healthy does of Putin giving himself some street cred' back home to secure his own position.The Russians have learnt that it's bad news not to have a buffer zone between Russia and the West, need to keep those Germans at arm's length..
NATO countries have, IMO, handled this badly so far and show no signs of abating. We appear again to be supporting a "side" that was itself an uprising. I'm not convinced that we have any evidence this is the "right" side. Our history on such decisions has been poor to say the least.
Perhaps we'd have been better off joining up with Russia to help/support them secure their assets/interests in the country and then collectively coerce Ukraine into a bit of peaceful self determination?
V8 Fettler said:
The British learnt several centuries ago that to invade is to control.
I'd venture that we learnt more recently that long term this strategy might be very costly in many ways.I'm very patriotic and believe our nation has done much good for the world at large. But am not blind to the bad it's also done and suspect on balance it's probably 50:50 in terms of the good:bad our empire building did for the state of the world. Worth it? Hmmmmm.
V8 Fettler said:
...
The US learnt 1914 - 2001 that not to intervene means they get dragged in anyway.
Up to WWII I'll agree. The US learnt 1914 - 2001 that not to intervene means they get dragged in anyway.
Post-WWII they seem to have taken on the "Team Amercia" angle with gusto. And I'd argue that the localised meddling they've done since is (a) a very different kettle of fish to the global conflicts they were roped into helping with and (b) fundamentally massively less successful.
With the possible exception of Kuwait being restored as a nation in its own right, which conflicts that the US have been involved with have left the situation that started them better than before? I'm pretty sure the answer is none.
Collectively we need to find much better ways of dealing with what is essentially an internal situation of a nation. Everything we have tried to date has failed, but then that's no surprise as we typically only try one thing - munitions. It doesn't work.
(btw, not sure if you're American so substitute you/we/they as needed. And I'm also very much not anti-American - the British govt have been complicit and have equally hoodwinked its own people. It's a failing of both countries IMO...though very ironic that America hans't learnt from British imperialism and its brushes with guerrilla warfare!).
men spotted with modern rocket propelled grenade launchers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-30
a map showing areas of interest
Dutch sending military observers to South-Eastern Ukraine
http://en.itar-tass.com/world/727782
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-30
a map showing areas of interest
Dutch sending military observers to South-Eastern Ukraine
http://en.itar-tass.com/world/727782
Edited by skyrover on Tuesday 15th April 09:24
The Guardian list five possible outcomes:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/14/ukrai...
It appears to me that options 1 or 2 are the most likely. Anything to stop the Ukraine having a gerneral election is in Putins interest.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/14/ukrai...
It appears to me that options 1 or 2 are the most likely. Anything to stop the Ukraine having a gerneral election is in Putins interest.
Murph7355 said:
Stuff
Life's too short for post dissection.No US involvement in Europe post 1945 = Soviet tanks at Calais. I think that's a good enough reason alone to welcome US intervention in world affairs. From the US perspective, they avoided direct involvement in European conflict 1914 - 1917, but were dragged in anyway, they avoided direct involvement in European conflict 1939 - 1941, but were dragged in anyway. Thus 1945 onwards = US foreign policy has generally been to have involvement at an early stage to have an opportunity to control rather than react, hence US armour in West Germany 1945 onwards.
How effective has NATO been in Afghanistan? Always difficult to prove a negative, but how effective has Al Qaeda been since NATO involvement? Afghanistan became a killing field for those who wish to destroy Western values, bad news for the local inhabitants but preferable to the conflict occurring in London, NY etc. Perhaps US failure to continue involvement in Afghanistan following the withdrawal of the Red Army led directly to the power vacuum resulting in the rise of the Taliban and opportunities for Al Qaeda?
Why didn't NATO take military action in Pakistan against Al Qaeda? They did and they continue to do so.
Afghanistan is/was the weakest kid in the playground?! Bizarre comment, see failed Soviet invasion.
V8 Fettler said:
Life's too short for post dissection.
No US involvement in Europe post 1945 = Soviet tanks at Calais. I think that's a good enough reason alone to welcome US intervention in world affairs. From the US perspective, they avoided direct involvement in European conflict 1914 - 1917, but were dragged in anyway, they avoided direct involvement in European conflict 1939 - 1941, but were dragged in anyway. Thus 1945 onwards = US foreign policy has generally been to have involvement at an early stage to have an opportunity to control rather than react, hence US armour in West Germany 1945 onwards.
How effective has NATO been in Afghanistan? Always difficult to prove a negative, but how effective has Al Qaeda been since NATO involvement? Afghanistan became a killing field for those who wish to destroy Western values, bad news for the local inhabitants but preferable to the conflict occurring in London, NY etc. Perhaps US failure to continue involvement in Afghanistan following the withdrawal of the Red Army led directly to the power vacuum resulting in the rise of the Taliban and opportunities for Al Qaeda?
Why didn't NATO take military action in Pakistan against Al Qaeda? They did and they continue to do so.
Afghanistan is/was the weakest kid in the playground?! Bizarre comment, see failed Soviet invasion.
You think military action in Pakistan has been commensurate with that taken in Afghanistan? Really?No US involvement in Europe post 1945 = Soviet tanks at Calais. I think that's a good enough reason alone to welcome US intervention in world affairs. From the US perspective, they avoided direct involvement in European conflict 1914 - 1917, but were dragged in anyway, they avoided direct involvement in European conflict 1939 - 1941, but were dragged in anyway. Thus 1945 onwards = US foreign policy has generally been to have involvement at an early stage to have an opportunity to control rather than react, hence US armour in West Germany 1945 onwards.
How effective has NATO been in Afghanistan? Always difficult to prove a negative, but how effective has Al Qaeda been since NATO involvement? Afghanistan became a killing field for those who wish to destroy Western values, bad news for the local inhabitants but preferable to the conflict occurring in London, NY etc. Perhaps US failure to continue involvement in Afghanistan following the withdrawal of the Red Army led directly to the power vacuum resulting in the rise of the Taliban and opportunities for Al Qaeda?
Why didn't NATO take military action in Pakistan against Al Qaeda? They did and they continue to do so.
Afghanistan is/was the weakest kid in the playground?! Bizarre comment, see failed Soviet invasion.
"Weakest kid in the playground" - (a) not a nuclear power. (b) no mineral resources we are utterly reliant upon. (c) traditional military strength very weak.
Ref the Soviet invasion, we are leaving. We have suffered a lot of casualties. We have made feck all difference. It *will* return to how it was with the Taliban taking hold again. Weakest kid or not, we have taught them nothing.
But doing what we have done in Afghanistan to a nation like Pakistan (or Saudia Arabia etc) would have "ended" very differently.
Whether Soviet tanks would have gone any further than East Germany post 1945 is conjecture. I'm doubtful personally, but as mentioned the US were undoubtedly roped into that conflict (and were paid for/benefitted from it hugely). Whether you want to dissect posts or not, however, global conflict on that scale is very, very different to the engagements it has "controlled" since then. And welcome support in one conflict does not mean all support in any future conflict should be welcomed...each should be addressed on its own merits.
US foreign policy since 1945 has been very effective.
I'm hoping that Al Qaeda being relatively quiet over the last few years is a result of more surgical, and "quiet" use of force than anything else. Unfortunately I suspect that the West's barging around the global stage has simply created new generations of idealists who are biding their time. Only time will tell.
Murph7355 said:
You think military action in Pakistan has been commensurate with that taken in Afghanistan? Really?
"Weakest kid in the playground" - (a) not a nuclear power. (b) no mineral resources we are utterly reliant upon. (c) traditional military strength very weak.
Ref the Soviet invasion, we are leaving. We have suffered a lot of casualties. We have made feck all difference. It *will* return to how it was with the Taliban taking hold again. Weakest kid or not, we have taught them nothing.
But doing what we have done in Afghanistan to a nation like Pakistan (or Saudia Arabia etc) would have "ended" very differently.
Whether Soviet tanks would have gone any further than East Germany post 1945 is conjecture. I'm doubtful personally, but as mentioned the US were undoubtedly roped into that conflict (and were paid for/benefitted from it hugely). Whether you want to dissect posts or not, however, global conflict on that scale is very, very different to the engagements it has "controlled" since then. And welcome support in one conflict does not mean all support in any future conflict should be welcomed...each should be addressed on its own merits.
US foreign policy since 1945 has been very effective.
I'm hoping that Al Qaeda being relatively quiet over the last few years is a result of more surgical, and "quiet" use of force than anything else. Unfortunately I suspect that the West's barging around the global stage has simply created new generations of idealists who are biding their time. Only time will tell.
You're moving goal posts, I said that NATO were and are involved in Pakistan. You've tried to spin that."Weakest kid in the playground" - (a) not a nuclear power. (b) no mineral resources we are utterly reliant upon. (c) traditional military strength very weak.
Ref the Soviet invasion, we are leaving. We have suffered a lot of casualties. We have made feck all difference. It *will* return to how it was with the Taliban taking hold again. Weakest kid or not, we have taught them nothing.
But doing what we have done in Afghanistan to a nation like Pakistan (or Saudia Arabia etc) would have "ended" very differently.
Whether Soviet tanks would have gone any further than East Germany post 1945 is conjecture. I'm doubtful personally, but as mentioned the US were undoubtedly roped into that conflict (and were paid for/benefitted from it hugely). Whether you want to dissect posts or not, however, global conflict on that scale is very, very different to the engagements it has "controlled" since then. And welcome support in one conflict does not mean all support in any future conflict should be welcomed...each should be addressed on its own merits.
US foreign policy since 1945 has been very effective.
I'm hoping that Al Qaeda being relatively quiet over the last few years is a result of more surgical, and "quiet" use of force than anything else. Unfortunately I suspect that the West's barging around the global stage has simply created new generations of idealists who are biding their time. Only time will tell.
Weakest kid? See Soviet invasion.
NATO casualties in Afghanistan have been light compared to those suffered by previous invaders. There has been no meaningful action by Al Qaeda against the US or UK since the invasion of Afghanistan, there has been little action by Al Qaeda against any NATO country in recent years. Although it's difficult to prove a negative, that is an achievement that should be recognised (as far as I am aware, there is no proven link between the Madrid train bombings and Al Qaeda).
Without US involvement, who would have stopped the Red Army 1945 onwards?
Al Qaeda has been ineffective in recent years because it has been decimated by the West. It (or it's successors) will return.
V8 Fettler said:
What other reason would there be to invade Afghanistan?
Afghanistan oil pipeline?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pip...
Octoposse said:
Quite so . . . and if that is what passes for a US State Department rebuttal they need to hire somebody who understands the difference between assertion and fact:
I'd say they have the right man; he has done a splendid job of condensing the latest state-approved narratives for shaping public opinion in support of preconceived U.S. objectives.Considering that only about 10% of the population is likely to even know what critical thinking is, we can assume that the other 90% have now been won over entirely as of this rebuttal and are ready to get down and spread some "freedom."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff