• 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.

MasterChumly

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,895
Why is this a bad thing necessarily? Genuinely curious. Isn't it better to get the troops out of places we shouldn't be in to begin with?
The United States caused this clusterfuck situation and pulling out in an unorganized way could lead to a humanitarian crisis that leads to more people getting killed or our troops getting killed. I mean I get it and I want our troops gone as well but I feel that ship has sailed and we are obligated to help those counties as much as they want help.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,523
But this is like lighting a bomb in a room full of people and leaving right before it goes off. Just because we won't be able to cause any more damage (and if anyone believes this I have a bridge to sell you), that doesn't mean other nations aren't going to pick up right where we left off.

Oh shit you're right I guess we have to destroy all these nations so the bad guys don't destroy them instead
 

Chikor

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
14,239
No its not because he's just opening the door for China and Russia.
I really don't think either Russia or China look at the mess that is the war in Afghanistan and say "oh shit, we want some of that".

The US didn't fund the Taliban. It was founded in 1994, after the Soviet invasion ended by 5 years. Some members might have also been part of the anti Soviet movement that was funded by the US among others but so were some of the people the Taliban overthrew and fought a civil war against and is still fighting.
The Taliban is a new name, but the US armed, trained and in many cases brought in religious fucknuts from other countries in order to lure the USSR into Afghanistan and then later to get them bogged down in that mess.
Those people for the most part became the Taliban.


It's one of the most disastrous programs the CIA ever did, and the whole world is still paying the price for this shit.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
Ok but what do the actual Afghan citizens think about this? Do they want the Taliban to rule over them in the power vaccuum created by the US pulling out?
I mean the US itself doesn't think the conflict is winnable as evidenced by the Afghanistan papers.

What exactly is the solution here?
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
I'm not a military strategist or a historian so I don't know. But we must have a better solution than cut and run...no?
We could keep killing Afghanis, radicalizing more people and funding corrupt officials and warlords or we could just admit it was a giant ~40 year mess of our own making and leave.
 

Swiggins

was promised a tag
Member
Apr 10, 2018
11,446
Ok but what do the actual Afghan citizens think about this? Do they want the Taliban to rule over them in the power vaccuum created by the US pulling out?
I'm going to sound terrible for saying this...but is oppression by the Taliban really that much worse than oppression via the US Military?

The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. I know it, the government knows it, the Taliban knows it. There's no way that the US can exist in Afghanistan perpetually, it's untenable. The cold, violent reality is that the US cannot 'fix' the Middle East; Afghanistan is known as the Graveyard of Empires for a reason.

This conflict has been going on almost as long as I've been alive. Nothing has improved, everything the US touches in the middle east turns to fucking shit.

What needs to happen is the US needs to pull out, allow for Afghan refugee's to apply for asylum and pay a fuck-load of war-reparations. Sadly I doubt any of these things will happen.
 

molnizzle

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
17,695
The United States caused this clusterfuck situation and pulling out in an unorganized way could lead to a humanitarian crisis that leads to more people getting killed or our troops getting killed. I mean I get it and I want our troops gone as well but I feel that ship has sailed and we are obligated to help those counties as much as they want help.
This is the logic that has kept us there for nearly 20 years.

It cannot be avoided. We're not helping. There is no universe where that humanitarian crisis does not occur after we withdrawal. All we are doing is delaying the inevitable, and the longer we delay, the worse it will be after we leave.

No Commander-in-Chief wants that mess on their hands so we've just been dicking around for 2 decades, keeping the region destabilized and contributing towards the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. It's gotta stop. We should've ripped off this band-aid back in 2002.
 

MasterChumly

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,895
This is the logic that has kept us there for nearly 20 years.

It cannot be avoided. We're not helping. There is no universe where that humanitarian crisis does not occur after we withdrawal. All we are doing is delaying the inevitable, and the longer we delay, the worse it will be after we leave.

No Commander-in-Chief wants that mess on their hands so we've just been dicking around for 2 decades, keeping the region destabilized and contributing towards the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. It's gotta stop. We should've ripped off this band-aid back in 2002.
If we just abandon Afghanistan and it becomes Syria situation then no I don't consider that an acceptable outcome. Sure we are no longer involved but I'd rather not make the situation worse. If we have to provide aid indefinitely then that is our punishment for getting involved to begin with. Otherwise we should do an automatic refugee offer and pullout.
 

poklane

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,898
the Netherlands
Why is this a bad thing necessarily? Genuinely curious. Isn't it better to get the troops out of places we shouldn't be in to begin with?
Because withdrawing from a place doesn't necessarily mean an improvement on the ground, prime example being the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria after the US got out. If you want the US to withdraw from Afghanistan that's fine by me, but that means you forfeit the right to be surprised when within a few years the Taliban runs the entire place, takes away every single right girls and women have there and straight op execute anyone who doesn't agree with them. Same with Iraq and Syria, withdraw all you want but now you're just giving Turkey and its jihadi friends free play against the Kurds with Russia also taking a slice of the pie.
If you leave, rebuild what you fucked up first. But nah, what people who want to withdraw ASAP are basically saying is that they want to leave those place in ruins and left for the taking by terrorists.
 

KingK

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,847
Yeah it's basically this
93f.jpg


I have 0 faith he's gonna do it in a smart way or for the right reasons but whatever.
If had confidence that we're gonna work toward ending these war in these wars in earnest, I would be very much against trying to speedrun this shit, especially with someone as dumb as Trump at the helm.
But I really don't.
Yeah, I basically agree with these sentiments.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
If we just abandon Afghanistan and it becomes Syria situation then no I don't consider that an acceptable outcome. Sure we are no longer involved but I'd rather not make the situation worse. If we have to provide aid indefinitely then that is our punishment for getting involved to begin with. Otherwise we should do an automatic refugee offer and pullout.
Screenshot_20201117-161318_Chrome.jpg
 

louisacommie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,566
New Jersey
Because withdrawing from a place doesn't necessarily mean an improvement on the ground, prime example being the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria after the US got out. If you want the US to withdraw from Afghanistan that's fine by me, but that means you forfeit the right to be surprised when within a few years the Taliban runs the entire place, takes away every single right girls and women have there and straight op execute anyone who doesn't agree with them. Same with Iraq and Syria, withdraw all you want but now you're just giving Turkey and its jihadi friends free play against the Kurds with Russia also taking a slice of the pie.
If you leave, rebuild what you fucked up first. But nah, what people who want to withdraw ASAP are basically saying is that they want to leave those place in ruins and left for the taking by terrorists.
There are multiple bad things in the univers

The united states isn't a good thing becuase it opposes bad things


Just like how things aren't necessarily good just becuase they oppose the united states

Getting the united states to stop profiting off the oppression of the people of aphganistan is an objective good thing


Despite any one negative factions that would swoop in
 

Drek

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,231
Why is this a bad thing necessarily? Genuinely curious. Isn't it better to get the troops out of places we shouldn't be in to begin with?
This was an already planned withdrawal for spring of next year. Trump basically just told the Afghan govt, after negotiating directly with the Taliban and leaving them out of the talks earlier this year, that he is now not even giving them the few months of cover they had left to put a plan in place.

Also a rapid withdrawal like this will result in most military hardware of size being left unaccounted for, so now the Afghan forces and Taliban get to have a free for all race after them.

The Taliban are already winning and are only complying with the portions of the withdrawal agreement that centers on them not attacking US troops. They're hitting Afghan forces harder than ever by recent reports. They were in a good position to retake the country next year. Trump just handed it to them on a silver platter with a compliment of US weaponry to make sure they've got the tools to defend their oppressive regime once in power.

Even leaving with a stable Afghan govt won't make up for the cost in human lives from the US' actions in the region, but this is literally saying the past 20 years was completely pointless, other than upgrading the Taliban's US sourced weaponry from the 70's equipment we gave their precursors to 201x versions.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
Even leaving with a stable Afghan govt won't make up for the cost in human lives from the US' actions in the region, but this is literally saying the past 20 years was completely pointless, other than upgrading the Taliban's US sourced weaponry from the 70's equipment we gave their precursors to 201x versions.
I mean, it was? Like even government officials and department of defense and military people admit this.

It was just a giant waste of money and lives.

Agreed about your earlier points about how a sloppy withdrawal could make things worse but again I don't have confidence Biden would do it at all so whatever.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,523
but this is literally saying the past 20 years was completely pointless,

I was going to reply with "Well duh" but then I remembered that it made a shitload of money for the military industrial complex as well as resulting in the deaths, maiming, rape, torture and psychological devastation of countless innocent brown folk and the utter devastation of an entire region for generations to come so it was actually very productive.
 

moblin

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,107
Москва
People in this thread unironically parroting George W Bush 2004 re-election campaign propaganda about "cutting and running", siding with neoconservative establishment ghouls about the supposed necessity of American presence in every corner of the world's deserts...and yet some still have the audacity to claim that PNAC's philosophy was somehow defeated at the ballot box!
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,523
People in this thread unironically parroting George W Bush 2004 re-election campaign propaganda about "cutting and running", siding with neoconservative establishment ghouls about the supposed necessity of American presence in every corner of the world's deserts...and yet some still have the audacity to claim that PNAC's philosophy was somehow defeated at the ballot box!

You suggest that maybe the US should stop bombing and occupying Muslim nations and all these allies quickly become a neocon, happens every time.
 
Oct 27, 2017
45,041
Seattle
Why is this a bad thing necessarily? Genuinely curious. Isn't it better to get the troops out of places we shouldn't be in to begin with?

It's how you leave. quick pull outs like this leads to reprisals to allies and those that helped out. See Syria, we left our kurd allies in a horrible mess.

So those that helped in Afghanistan, will likely have to deal with reprisals from the Taliban.
 

ginger ninja

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,060
This has zero to do with concern for troops or ending stupid wars. This is a pitch for 2024 and fucking things up for the next administration.
And people applauding this need to educate themselves. 5000 is the bare minimum to stop the collapse of the Afghan government which could trigger new human rights violations and atrocities against the minority groups/women by Taliban.
 

Chikor

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
14,239
You suggest that maybe the US should stop bombing and occupying Muslim nations and all these allies quickly become a neocon, happens every time.
Americans get super concerned about the suffering of poor Muslims the moment someone suggest that we might stop bombing them. Not before, not after.

It's how you leave. quick pull outs like this leads to reprisals to allies and those that helped out. See Syria, we left our kurd allies in a horrible mess.
America hasn't left Syria. Don't worry, the Kurds are still guarding the oil fields for us.
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
This has zero to do with concern for troops or ending stupid wars. This is a pitch for 2024 and fucking things up for the next administration.
And people applauding this need to educate themselves. 5000 is the bare minimum to stop the collapse of the Afghan government which could trigger new human rights violations and atrocities against the minority groups/women by Taliban.

Let's be real- we never cared about the human rights violations and atrocities. The KSA is one of our closest allies. We're aiding their genocidal campaign in Yemen. We certainly don't give a shit about Afghani women and children. We've been bombing the shit out of them for 20 years now. This is such a dishonest framing. 5000 troops or 500,000 troops, the situation in Afghanistan is unwinnable. Keeping troops there indefinitely is just delaying the inevitable.

Personally I hope Trump brings as many of our troops abroad home as is physically possible. Make it difficult for Biden to redeploy them without a political cost that he'll be terrified of.
 

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,116
Also planning withdrawals from Somalia, South Korea and Germany


Dude's probably mad that Trump is ruining the original plan he had a big help in forming as part of PNAC

www.salon.com

"Seven countries in five years"

Wesley Clark's new memoir casts more light on the Bush administration's secret strategies for regime change in Iran and elsewhere.
In "A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor and Country," published by Palgrave Macmillan last month, the former four-star general recalls two visits to the Pentagon following the terrorist attacks of September 2001. On the first visit, less than two weeks after Sept. 11, he writes, a "senior general" told him, "We're going to attack Iraq. The decision has basically been made."

Six weeks later, Clark returned to Washington to see the same general and inquired whether the plan to strike Iraq was still under consideration. The general's response was stunning:

"'Oh, it's worse than that,' he said, holding up a memo on his desk. 'Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years.' And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran."
While Clark doesn't name the other four countries, he has mentioned in televised interviews that the hit list included Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. Indeed, he has described this same conversation on a few occasions over the past year, including in a speech at the University of Alabama in October 2006, in an appearance on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" broadcast last March, and most recently in an interview with CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room." On "Democracy Now" he spoke about the meetings and the memo in slightly greater detail, saying that he had made the first Pentagon visit "on or about Sept. 20."

Clark says he didn't read the memo from Rumsfeld's office. When the general first held it up, he remembers asking, "Is it classified?" Receiving an affirmative answer, he said, "Well, don't show it to me." He also says that when he saw the same general last year and reminded him of their conversation, the officer said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

Time to end these forever wars that we've basically made worse as they've gone along (seriously, compare Afghanistan civilian casualties to 10 years ago). Massive reparations to these countries and their citizens as well.

So broken clock and all that. I would be pleasantly surprised if even half this troop withdrawal wishlist happens.
 

ginger ninja

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,060
Let's be real- we never cared about the human rights violations and atrocities. The KSA is one of our closest allies. We're aiding their genocidal campaign in Yemen. We certainly don't give a shit about Afghani women and children. We've been bombing the shit out of them for 20 years now. This is such a dishonest framing. 5000 troops or 500,000 troops, the situation in Afghanistan is unwinnable. Keeping troops there indefinitely is just delaying the inevitable.

Personally I hope Trump brings as many of our troops abroad home as is physically possible. Make it difficult for Biden to redeploy them without a political cost that he'll be terrified of.


Again, please educate yourself about the issue at hand instead of just shouting your (legitimate) grievances at hand:

www.cfr.org

The Road to Peace in Afghanistan

The Center for Preventive Action has compiled an accessible overview of the Afghan peace negotiations, including the U.S.-Taliban agreement, the U.S.-Afghan government joint declaration, and the ongo…

There is nothing dishonest about this argument.There is a peace process underway and Taliban already have the upper hand. The only thing stopping them from overrunning the government is the small influence US is still able to wield. You're not thinking clearly about the consequences within Afghanistan and on at risk groups if the government suddenly collapses, let alone what it would mean for the region and International security.
 

Drek

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,231
I mean, it was? Like even government officials and department of defense and military people admit this.

It was just a giant waste of money and lives.

Agreed about your earlier points about how a sloppy withdrawal could make things worse but again I don't have confidence Biden would do it at all so whatever.
It was far from a net positive, but the replacement of the Taliban with an attempt at representative government was at least something.

And to proactively get this out of the way: I don't especially give a fuck about arguing that point with people who want to claim false equivalence between a POS corrupt government versus what is basically a theocratic dictatorship with a specific focus on the oppression of women.

The US should absolutely get the fuck out of the ME entirely. But it should do it on a timeline where we aren't leaving fucking heavy artillery behind. That is what the remaining time should have been focused on - deweaponizing the war zone we created as much as possible and constructing a path for safe escape to those who want out.

Instead we're leaving earlier with less care regarding the tools of death we imported, while leaving all the people still there to fuck off. This isn't a case of a broken clock being right twice a day. This is a case of the Arms Dealer in Chief not giving a fuck about the fallout and just wanting to watch the world burn as he's pushed out the door.
 

molnizzle

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
17,695
The US should absolutely get the fuck out of the ME entirely. But it should do it on a timeline where we aren't leaving fucking heavy artillery behind. That is what the remaining time should have been focused on - deweaponizing the war zone we created as much as possible and constructing a path for safe escape to those who want out.
That's what we have been trying to accomplish for at least the last 10 years of the conflict.

It is simply not possible. One way or another, this story ends with the US abandoning the country and letting Afghanistan determine its own fate. We can either do it now or in another twenty years after 30,000 more civilian lives (minimum) are lost in the crossfire.