-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I predict a China-Pakistan-Afghanistan-Iran alliance and the US will fund ISIS again to counter it.
I feel like that was just very risky to bank on. Everyone seems to have predicted that the Afghan forces would inevitably lose, so why would those forces then even want to fight and die if all it does is buy some extra days.
Biden's intel from earlier this week was that Afghanistan would fall in 90 days. Some security experts believed 30 days.
In the end it took 6 days. 75,000 Taliban fighters in Toyota Landcruisers waltzed in and 300,000 well equipped Afghan troops surrendered without a shot being fired.
It just goes to show you that even after $2T of money spend and thousands of lives lost, Afghanistan was little more than a house of cards held together with American duct tape. They couldn't even hang on for a month to help facilitate the final bit of the American civilian withdrawal. They didn't want to.
It was never a winnable war, and we should stop pretending that it ever was. The ending was always going to be very ugly no matter who eventually presided over it. In some ways I actually respect Joe Biden for taking the political hit that Bush, Obama and Trump were unwilling to take.
Joe Biden will rightly be held accountable for the manner in which he ripped the duct tape off, but he wasn't the only one who built the house of cards and tried to pretend it was a fortress. That failure has many, many authors.
Trump, Pence, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Biden himself, and then all the way back to George W Bush, Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell. Every last one of them lied. So did everyone in my country's government over the last 20 years - John Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison. All of them tried to claim we were "building a secure and stable government in Afghanistan" at various times. The whole thing was one gigantic lie.
The lesson here is - never again.
I've heard it mentioned that people in that region are accustomed to switching sides when fighting heats up and situations change. That there were folks who'd fought each other in the Soviet Afghan war and similar conflicts that now fight together as groups for survival and remain relatively cohesive.
If this was the case, it makes sense that they would understand the situation and know that the power coming after the US is the Taliban. It's not personal; they have to survive, and to survive, they have to pick the side that will govern their immediate future.
Yeah, the dynamic sounds like medieval times. You had all these merchants and dukes and their armies would constantly be traded around, bought and sold, change sides.
Years and years ago, I read books about Afghanistan and how the tribal nature of the region meant that "sides" in a conflict are always fluid. Men can fight one side one day, but then during the night just as quickly switch sides. There is no sort of national unity.
None of that seems to have changed since. Why fight for this loose idea of a national government when Afghanistan has never had such a centralized government? The civilian government we kept propping up failed to provide any reason to the average citizen to trust in it.
Defenitely should have. I'd say Biden may have caused a disaster through not doing much of anything for getting as many people out as possible. He gave time to prepare. And of course he's partly responsible for the entire situation in the first place with his history as a Senator and being VP for 8 years of the occupation.
Afghanistan before the Russian Invasion (Documentary, 1979)
This film is a glimpse of the traditional life of the Afghan people, their culture and their music, just before the Russian intervention in 1979.Original tit...
www.youtube.com
YouTube knows that I want.
It should be noted that Biden was against the surge in Afghanistan, he's been pushing to get out since back then. No surprise he's so quick to get out now.
As we're discovering, they were not actually "well equipped", except in the loosest possible sense that they had good rifles or whatever. Inadequate supplies of food, inadequate stockpiles of munitions, and substantially delayed pay. The latter no doubt contributed to some of the former, with people on local levels selling out supplies of their equipment and ammunition to earn money over the years.
Glee at the Taliban taking over?
I wish they didn't exist in the first place!
But A PARTICULAR COUNTRY WHO SPENT THE LAST 20 YEARS FIGHTING THEM funded their existence and rise to power in it's McCarthyist paranoia of commie hatred!
Fucking thanks for that!
The Taliban was formed well after the fall of the soviet union (and 2 civil wars after the Soviet withdrawal) and it was Jimmy Carter that started funding and arming the Mujahideen groups (which were later defeated by the Taliban) against the soviets, not Reagan.
Yeah, it's like, maybe they could fight for those 90 days the Biden admin calculated, but why would they
Glee at the Taliban taking over?
I wish they didn't exist in the first place!
But A PARTICULAR COUNTRY WHO SPENT THE LAST 20 YEARS FIGHTING THEM funded their existence and rise to power in it's McCarthyist paranoia of commie hatred!
Fucking thanks for that!
Whats funny is you sound very excited still
Update on Afghanistan from Biden Administration
I want the names of the advisers/analysts who thought that those people will die in a losing war for 30-90 days just so we have time to evacuate Kabul.
For real, after all the corrupt government officials stuffed money into duffel bags and got the fuck out of the country, why would anyone go die for that?
Yes, though I'm also talking about his stance when we first invaded, his support of shifting focus to an invasion of Iraq, and going all the way back to his support of the funding the Mujahideen back in '79. Basically, he's consistently supported nearly every bad and inhumane decision in regards to that part of the world for longer than most of us have been alive. There really should be little faith that Biden will handle foreign policy well, esp. in this area.Afghanistan before the Russian Invasion (Documentary, 1979)
This film is a glimpse of the traditional life of the Afghan people, their culture and their music, just before the Russian intervention in 1979.Original tit...
YouTube knows that I want.
It should be noted that Biden was against the surge in Afghanistan, he's been pushing to get out since back then. No surprise he's so quick to get out now.
If anything the US probably caused some national unity as people rallied against their invader. Which the Taliban have exploited for recruitment.
US officials believing (or at the very least hoping) that Afghans would be stupid enough to fight and die for nothing. A total lack of respect for Afghan intelligence and self-preservation.
User banned (1 month): Trolling a sensitive thread with insensitive commentary, previous similar infractions
To see a imperialist super power get it's ass handed to it once again by a tiny country with nowhere near the technological lead or global power structure? Nah, don't know why you would say that.
I mean it wouldn't have been a hard sell by the end of the war the US was bombing the shit out of the place;
U.S. and Afghan Forces Killed More Civilians Than Taliban Did, Report Finds
U.S. and Afghan Forces Killed More Civilians Than Taliban Did, Report Finds (Published 2019)
Afghan civilian deaths attributed to pro-government forces rose in the first quarter of this year, even as overall civilian casualties dropped, according to the U.N.
This is incorrect and also completely ignores the history of how the US invasion of Afghanistan started.
Hint: we had a lot of support from the Northern Alliance.
United States invasion of Afghanistan - Wikipedia
There is not and never was any national sense of "we need to drive the American invaders out of Afghanistan." Don't mistake that for me saying that we should have stayed in Afghanistan.
I do indeed. Cause that removes one of the biggest murderers of Afghan people, see:
I mean it wouldn't have been a hard sell by the end of the war the US was bombing the shit out of the place;
U.S. and Afghan Forces Killed More Civilians Than Taliban Did, Report Finds
U.S. and Afghan Forces Killed More Civilians Than Taliban Did, Report Finds (Published 2019)
Afghan civilian deaths attributed to pro-government forces rose in the first quarter of this year, even as overall civilian casualties dropped, according to the U.N.www.nytimes.com
To see a imperialist super power get it's ass handed to it once again by a tiny country with nowhere near the technological lead or global power structure? Nah, don't know why you would say that.
Afghan women fear ‘dark’ future, loss of rights as Taliban seize control
"Women in Afghanistan are the most at danger or most at-risk population of the country," said Fawzia Koofi, a women's rights activist and former lawmaker.
www.nbcnews.com
But at least the US getting a black eye makes you happy.
In addition to specialized human assets, the team brought three cardboard boxes filled with $3 million in $100 bills to buy support.This is incorrect and also completely ignores the history of how the US invasion of Afghanistan started.
Hint: we had a lot of support from the Northern Alliance.
United States invasion of Afghanistan - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There is not and never was any national sense of "we need to drive the American invaders out of Afghanistan." Don't mistake that for me saying that we should have stayed in Afghanistan.
Support that is paid for is not exactly the kind of support that can be relied on for when the money runs out.
The estimates were as much about how fast the Taliban would choose advance as it was about how much the Afghan army would put up a fight. Advancing this rapidly (including getting into small scale firefights in the outskirts of Kabul even after they'd announced a ceasefire yesterday) was extremely risky for them. Triggering a reinvasion would be the last thing they want, and as such I certainly would have expected them to at least wait until the foreigners had evacuated before getting anywhere close to Kabul.
This post needs to be quoted more. The fact that it took six days for the state to fall shows how much of a farce the Afghan government was. And, perhaps, in the end, the entire situation being (relatively) bloodless also shows how the Afghanis are ready for a change.
Hey guys, if you think a foreign country is better off under an invading occupation army, you're in my shit list for imperialist assholes. :)
To see a imperialist super power get it's ass handed to it once again by a tiny country with nowhere near the technological lead or global power structure? Nah, don't know why you would say that.
Anti-imperilasm > the lives of women every time.
Gotta keep your priorities straight. Remember everyone, its not about the lives of people. Its about reminding people on the internet you are right.
Gotta keep your priorities straight. Remember everyone, its not about the lives of people. Its about reminding people on the internet you are right.
Well, if you read that article you'd see that it was for one year, 2019, that civilian casualties by pro-government forces outstripped those of the Taliban (and other insurgent groups) as the Taliban decreased their use of suicide bombers. Not that these civilian deaths are excusable, especially since the article doesn't really explain the increase with U.S. forces completely removed from ground operations at this point. The best guess is reliance of Afghan forces on calling in airstrikes:
NYT said:
UNAMA said:
But, what is clear is that every year before this the Taliban was responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths in Afghanistan.
The situation just a year prior:
NYT said:
But, I'm sure you knew this.
EDIT:
Oh, and I decided to go and check if this trend continued since this was only the first quarterly report of the UNAMA. Let's see what they say to the second half of 2019.
UNAMA said:
Yeah, the trend didn't continue.
Last edited:
This is incorrect and also completely ignores the history of how the US invasion of Afghanistan started.
Hint: we had a lot of support from the Northern Alliance.
United States invasion of Afghanistan - Wikipedia
There is not and never was any national sense of "we need to drive the American invaders out of Afghanistan." Don't mistake that for me saying that we should have stayed in Afghanistan.
Yeah, there's a lot of revisionist history in this thread, unfortunately. The war in Afghanistan would not have been won without the Northern Alliance.
The sad part about the current situation is that the West collectively failed in building up Afghanistan. Not to say that efforts weren't made in infrastructure and women's rights, but the biggest problem was that the Afghani government failed to gain the support of local tribes and warlords over the span of two decades.
IIRC, there were reports of how even the Taliban were surprised at how quickly they advanced.
Are you including the educated women of Afghanistan in that list, who are saying that they feel betrayed by the US' withdrawal from Afghanistan because they will have to give up all the political and civic gains they made in the past 20 years?
For my part, I'm glad that we are out of Afghanistan and think it was the right decision, even if I disagree with how hastily and haphazardly it was carried out.
An Afghan woman in Kabul: ‘Now I have to burn everything I achieved’
A university student tells of seeing all around her the ‘fearful faces of women and ugly faces of men who hate women’
www.theguardian.com
I don't know what to say to posts like this because it basically ignores the reality US imperialism is why women in Afghanistan are so fucked
I mean it wouldn't have been a hard sell by the end of the war the US was bombing the shit out of the place;
U.S. and Afghan Forces Killed More Civilians Than Taliban Did, Report Finds
U.S. and Afghan Forces Killed More Civilians Than Taliban Did, Report Finds (Published 2019)
Afghan civilian deaths attributed to pro-government forces rose in the first quarter of this year, even as overall civilian casualties dropped, according to the U.N.
This was notable because it was the first quarter since the UN started reporting in 2009 where pro-government forces killed more civilians than anti-government forces. The trend didn't continue
Yes late in 2019, the US announced it would be removing half of its troops as a result of the ceasefire with the Taliban. Then early 2020 they signed a peace deal.
The US's imperialism and meddling in Afghanistan and the Middle East more broadly is the reason why Afghan women are in such a state in the first place, and the US' presence in Afghanistan is also the reason why Afghan women had been able to make so many political and civic gains over the past 20 years. Both things can be true.
Read what the women of Afghanistan have to say in their own words. There was a real sense of hope for the future--especially among urban, educated women--and it all came crashing down these past few weeks.
Afghan women’s defiance and despair: ‘I never thought I’d have to wear a burqa. My identity will be lost’
As city after city falls to the Taliban, women fear that the freedoms won since 2001 will be crushed
www.theguardian.com
Afghan activist: The Taliban 'will come and kill me' – DW – 08/14/2021
As the Taliban make rapid gains in Afghanistan, women in the country are concerned about their future. An Afghan women's rights activist told DW her life may be in danger if the Islamist militants attack Kabul.
www.dw.com
Afghan women fear ‘dark’ future, loss of rights as Taliban seize control
"Women in Afghanistan are the most at danger or most at-risk population of the country," said Fawzia Koofi, a women's rights activist and former lawmaker.
www.nbcnews.com
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/PYAREHCVUBLLPPUF4UQMUR6T3U.jpg)
Afghan women forced from banking jobs as Taliban take control
In early July, as Taliban insurgents were seizing territory from government forces across Afghanistan, fighters from the group walked into the offices of Azizi Bank in the southern city of Kandahar and ordered nine women working there to leave.
www.reuters.com
As and if the conditions of certain groups deteriorate with the regime change , the USA owes granting them asylum if they so want.
Say what now? It was the Soviets who fucked up Afghanistan, not that it was a model country for the rights of women and minorities before that. It was still pretty terrible, just less barbaric. The mujahideen that the Americans funded against the Soviet invasion did not lead to the Taliban; those groups opposed each other.
Say what you will about the American occupation, and there's a lot to say, but at least there were advances for women's rights and 15 year old girls were not under threat of forced marriage.
It's just a way for neocons to sell regime change wars to liberals, sadly it's quite successful.
They did with Iraq too, they do it every time really.
Empires aren't capable of learning this unfortunately. The response all around shows this
Right, I guess my point is that if the US killing civilians was the primary motivator then people really should have been done with the Taliban far earlier given they were responsible for more civilian deaths in every other quarter. I think the reality is more nuanced in that rather than keeping score like this report, people would view Taliban bombings of civilians as a byproduct of the American occupation and lay the blame with the US (That is the intent of them, after all)
Mate I promise you I am just as anti imperialism as you, but I cant read these stories/tweets from terrified women and pretend this is any kind of "win." I wont blame you for side eyeing me. All im asking is to not pretend this is in any way or shape good for them especially when theyre telling us its not.
Not to say that this isn't the neocon/right-wingers' modus operandi, but it's worth nothing that Malala Yousafzai is voicing these very same concerns right now.It's just a way for neocons to sell regime change wars to liberals, sadly it's quite successful.
They did with Iraq too, they do it every time really.
I think the flaw in your argument is believing the invading army and/or the government they put in place were seen as legitimate actors that had a right to be there.