Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   NATO is securing road routes, and even flying high-level Taliban officials into Afghanistan for super high-level talks to end this meandering clusterfark of a war   (nytimes.com) divider line 130
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5642 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Oct 2010 at 2:54 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-10-20 04:26:32 AM  
log_jammin: Befuddled: If we're trying to negotiate a deal with the Taliban, it's time to GTFO of Afghanistan as it means we've lost there.

why does diplomacy = "we lost"?


The Taliban want the foreigners to leave. The only way to keep them from simply taking over once we do leave was to basically wipe them out and build up a working government that was Taliban-free. Now that they get to remain and maybe even become part of the government we're trying to set up, they win because that means they'll be there when we leave regardless of how long we now choose to stay.
 
2010-10-20 04:29:36 AM  
log_jammin: Fireproof: FTFY.

/Lulz

*flag[nospam-﹫-backwards]e­s­uohet­i­h­w­*g­ov


One of my coworkers was dead convinced that it was something to be seriously concerned about. Problem is, said coworker has his own TV show.

/And I have to produce it
//With no creative input whatsoever
 
2010-10-20 04:35:23 AM  
Befuddled: they win because that means they'll be there when we leave

so in your mind, anything short of extermination is defeat.

interesting.
 
2010-10-20 04:36:15 AM  
Fireproof: One of my coworkers was dead convinced that it was something to be seriously concerned about.

My personal favorite was "The americorps is Obama's personal brownshirt army! The wear military style cargo pants!!!"
 
2010-10-20 04:39:11 AM  
log_jammin: Befuddled: they win because that means they'll be there when we leave

so in your mind, anything short of extermination is defeat.

interesting.


Trolling or stupid?
 
2010-10-20 04:47:14 AM  
Befuddled: Trolling or stupid?

I don't think you're trolling.
 
2010-10-20 04:52:09 AM  
log_jammin: Befuddled: Trolling or stupid?

I don't think you're trolling.


SWEET
 
2010-10-20 04:53:04 AM  
Befuddled: The only way to keep them from simply taking over once we do leave was to basically wipe them out and build up a working government that was Taliban-free.

Taliban Strength
45,000 (2001 est.)[2]
11,000 (2008 est.)[3]
36,000 (2010 est.).[4]

They seem to regenerate! They're not our Founding Fathers, they're Jesus Farking Christ!
 
2010-10-20 05:02:28 AM  
log_jammin: Befuddled: Trolling or stupid?

I don't think you're trolling.


Burn!

/grabs popcorn
 
2010-10-20 05:08:34 AM  
Anyone else see today that we killed a Taliban leader?

/maybe he had a "pressing engagement" a la Goldfinger...
 
2010-10-20 05:32:11 AM  
Are we just going to give them a shiatload of cash to stop killing us? That's how we "won" in Iraq. Thereby handing victory to the Iranian-controlled Shia militias.
 
2010-10-20 05:38:48 AM  
gibbon1: Alphax: I was surprised that didn't actually happen.

And the reason is, Dick Cheney.

Korovyov: Extreme-traditionalist tribesmen don't necessarily want your foreign aid and modernization. Remember that we actually do have a pretty substantial bounty available, have had for years, and it hasn't been enough to overcome e.g. Pashtunwali notions of hospitality.

Dick Cheney and George Bush didn't leave them any choices that would allow them to save face for starters. So the Taliban told them to stuff it. So then we went in, ousted the Taliban, and installed a puppet to do the US's bidding. That doesn't play well in any culture. So as far as they are concerned we can eat a bowl of dicks.

Nine years later here we are.


uh, we said we wanted OBL, the guy who mridered 3,000 of our citizens, they said fark off. what the f*ck else was there we could do to let them save face? yeah, right. nothing. exactly. stuff it.
 
2010-10-20 05:41:42 AM  
relcec: what the f*ck else was there we could do to let them save face?

send in Hannibal, Murdock, and B.A.
 
2010-10-20 05:52:04 AM  
USA: "Let us run pipelines unimpeded through the country and you can go back to running an oppressive backwater where people are stoned to death for listening to music or not wearing a beard."

Taliban: "Who's next?"
 
2010-10-20 06:00:39 AM  
Befuddled: log_jammin: Befuddled: If we're trying to negotiate a deal with the Taliban, it's time to GTFO of Afghanistan as it means we've lost there.

why does diplomacy = "we lost"?

The Taliban want the foreigners to leave. The only way to keep them from simply taking over once we do leave was to basically wipe them out and build up a working government that was Taliban-free. Now that they get to remain and maybe even become part of the government we're trying to set up, they win because that means they'll be there when we leave regardless of how long we now choose to stay.


well you didn't necessarily have to wipe the Taliban out (and that was always gonna be impossible anyway because they could always regenerate in Pakistan), but you did have to create a stable, fully autonomous, non corrupt, effective, federal government of some sort in Afghanistan that could police it's extremities, and that was always gonna be impossible because that place is such a shiat hole and the American people were never gonna want to waste a couple decades, thousands of soldiers lives and a trillion dollars at least trying to turn that f*cking god forsaken rock pile into an actual nation. who knows if it would even be possible anyway.

We got stuck in a really hard place tactically when we kicked the Taliban's ass but the remnants fled across the border to Pakistan. As long as we weren't wiling to go destroy them (or get Pakistan to do it) we were always gonna have to support the Afghanistan government because they are just to f*cking corrupt and weak on their own to survive the inevitable counterattack when we left it seems. we bread a weak species that will die in the wilderness on it's own and now we have to protect it or it will be snuffed out by the hardy indigenous animals of the area. but we're tired of f*cking supporting this annoying little POS animal.


Bush should have got us out long ago. not sure what's wrong with obama. trying to keep a stupid campaign promise I guess. should be easier for him to say lets get the fark out you would think.
 
2010-10-20 06:08:36 AM  
It seems that OBL, if he is alive, resides in Pakistan, and is ultimately sheltered by the fact that Pakistan has the bomb. The incentive in capturing OBL is two-fold. We are angry with him an would like to kick his ass. This is called revenge. The motives here are narcissistic and perfectionistic. The aggressive aim would be to make him an example to others, giving them a ready object example as to why they will not follow his course. Our disproportionate slaughter of innocents in Iraq is a proxy for this.

'Getting the bomb' seems to function sorta like an eternal eye in the game of go. This situation is then, in a way, ahistorical. Or, new, post-1945. We may have to get used to this.

Slavoj Zizek has some interesting things to say about the war in Afganistan.
 
2010-10-20 06:16:06 AM  
relcec: ...Bush should have got us out long ago. not sure what's wrong with obama. trying to keep a stupid campaign promise I guess. should be easier for him to say lets get the fark out you would think.

The same campaign promise McCain made.

"you break it, you bought it."


That said...BUG OUT!
 
2010-10-20 06:17:00 AM  
omg the day is finally here!

Diplomacy
 
2010-10-20 06:20:44 AM  
Suede head: Are we just going to give them a shiatload of cash to stop killing us? That's how we "won" in Iraq. Thereby handing victory to the Iranian-controlled Shia militias.

ah, a man who prefers the bring 'em on tactics and towel head cracking good times to traditional greenback diplomacy any day of the week. fair enough. there is room for all god's creatures here, meat head. you just speak up if yo have any other nuggets of wisdom you'd like to share.
 
2010-10-20 06:21:34 AM  
SuperCatBarf: We need to stay there until the Afghans stop attacking America.

"All the suspected hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (fifteen hijackers), United Arab Emirates (two hijackers), Lebanon (one hijacker) and Egypt (one hijacker)."

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

/yeah, i know you were trolling
 
2010-10-20 06:23:51 AM  
relcec: if yo have any other nuggets of wisdom you'd like to share.

word.
 
2010-10-20 06:25:08 AM  
ghare: relcec: ...Bush should have got us out long ago. not sure what's wrong with obama. trying to keep a stupid campaign promise I guess. should be easier for him to say lets get the fark out you would think.

The same campaign promise McCain made.

"you break it, you bought it."


That said...BUG OUT!


yeah, it's weird. I get the feeling they both kind of thought Afghanistan was salvageable or something. I guess I never realized what an absolute disaster it was until we found out he Pakistanis have been double dealing this whole time and were never gonna really lift a finger to get the Taliban. maybe the senators weren't privy to that information either. or maybe it's just something they had to say lest the other one say they were pussies.
 
2010-10-20 06:38:33 AM  
And Republicans want to start us on MORE wars that we don't have the money to win. We didn't have the money for Iraq and Afghanistan from day 1, but "gotta kill us some turrists to save 'murca derpy derp".

Run our economy into the ground for 8 years, give big corporations tax bonuses to send jobs overseas, demolish the middle class, and basically redistribute the former middle classes wealth amongst the top 1% of wealthy individuals, and then blame Obama for causing our financial woes.

Right wing thinking is farking stupid. Just stone farking stupid. Bring our boys home, stop pissing away our future into the farking sand.
 
2010-10-20 06:59:59 AM  
gibbon1: Alphax: I was surprised that didn't actually happen.

And the reason is, Dick Cheney.

Korovyov: Extreme-traditionalist tribesmen don't necessarily want your foreign aid and modernization. Remember that we actually do have a pretty substantial bounty available, have had for years, and it hasn't been enough to overcome e.g. Pashtunwali notions of hospitality.

Dick Cheney and George Bush didn't leave them any choices that would allow them to save face for starters. So the Taliban told them to stuff it. So then we went in, ousted the Taliban, and installed a puppet to do the US's bidding. That doesn't play well in any culture. So as far as they are concerned we can eat a bowl of dicks.

Nine years later here we are.


That worked so well in Iran, what are we going to do when Afghanistan becomes a hostile nuclear territory?
 
2010-10-20 07:30:28 AM  
NewportBarGuy: Does this mean we have to listen for another 40 years about how "The Democrats lost the war because they didn't fight hard enough!"?

Better question: Do we get a replay of the Fall of Saigon after Karzai is strung upside town in the city square?


Got on a plane in 'Frisco
And got off in Vietnam
I walked into a different world
The past forever gone

I could have gone to Canada
Or I could have stayed in school
But I was brought up differently
I couldn't break the rules

Thirteen months and fifteen days
The last ones were the worst
One minute I'd kneel down and pray
And the next I'd stand and curse

No place to run to
Where I did not feel that war
When I got home I stayed alone
And checked behind each door

Cuz I'm still in Saigon
Still in Saigon
I am still in Saigon
In my mind
 
2010-10-20 08:01:51 AM  
The spin is changing.

At the start, it was: "We have to invade Afghanistan to get Osama bin Ladin". Understandable reason, and prior to that no-one gave a shiat about the Taliban.

Then, when OBL wasn't found, they spun the failure with "Well, we have to take out the Taliban because they are fundamentalist and support terrorism, that's the real mission."

Now, when the effort to take out the Taliban has ALSO failed, suddenly we are getting reports of rapprochement with them and rumours that OBL is in Pakistan. So the spin will be "Well, we have to make peace with the Taliban so that we can concentrate on the hunt for OBL." Repeat ad nauseam.
 
2010-10-20 08:02:35 AM  
Viet Nam.
 
2010-10-20 08:10:23 AM  
NewportBarGuy: Does this mean we have to listen for another 40 years about how "The Democrats lost the war because they didn't fight hard enough!"?


Yes.

Not saying that it's true, but we'll hear it.
 
2010-10-20 08:18:32 AM  
Freakman: NewportBarGuy: Does this mean we have to listen for another 40 years about how "The Democrats lost the war because they didn't fight hard enough!"?


Yes.

Not saying that it's true, but we'll hear it.


are you saying the dems didn't lose vietnam? they decided to go then do dumb stuff like not attack SAM missile sites until they were operational because they might hit soviet installation crews. proportional response was probably the dumbest thing. they deserve all the blame they got for that. of course the dumbest idea was there plan to go at all, but only slightly less dumb was the way they decided to half fight it. broke the military for a while.
 
2010-10-20 08:23:05 AM  
gibbon1: Dick Cheney and George Bush didn't leave them any choices that would allow them to save face for starters.

www.womenforafghanwomen.org

What a Pashtun's idea of saving face looks like.
 
2010-10-20 08:35:50 AM  
haddie: Befuddled: The only way to keep them from simply taking over once we do leave was to basically wipe them out and build up a working government that was Taliban-free.

Taliban Strength
45,000 (2001 est.)[2]
11,000 (2008 est.)[3]
36,000 (2010 est.).[4]

They seem to regenerate! They're not our Founding Fathers, they're Jesus Farking Christ!


Send in the Romans!
 
2010-10-20 08:36:30 AM  
Con_Authority: i266.photobucket.com

They weren't the Taliban then. Some of those dudes became the Northern Alliance.
 
2010-10-20 08:37:51 AM  
NewportBarGuy: Does this mean we have to listen for another 40 years about how "The Democrats lost the war because they didn't fight hard enough!"?


Yup. This is what you all preached about in the election. Afghanistan is where we should be, {blah blah blah, harumph, political derp, harumph}

Proposed Afghan policy. Do it hard, do it quick, GTFO.
 
2010-10-20 08:50:32 AM  
foxyshadis: That worked so well in Iran, what are we going to do when Afghanistan becomes a hostile nuclear territory?

That'll happen about as soon as they democratize. They lack the infrastructure and knowledge base. They have very few universities, no central government to support such an undertaking.
 
2010-10-20 09:13:12 AM  
Fireproof: Atillathepun: November 1st 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010. Osama Bin Laden Captured. End of conflict in Afghanistan declared.

FTFY.

/How many times will morans repeat this BS with dead certainty that its going to happen?
//Ditto for the "major terrorist attack just before elections"


Yeah. Everybody knows you wait until AFTER the elections before having a "major terrorist attack". That way you're not expected to actually do anything about it and you can ride the political capital for a decade.
 
2010-10-20 09:19:59 AM  
OK, here's the deal. If you stop attacking us, we will let you chop 10000 hands, 1000 heads, and 50000 other body parts next year. Plus you may stone 250 women to death, and beat 100000. How does that sound? Deal?
 
2010-10-20 09:24:10 AM  
Attach GPS transponders to their persons when you send them back, then bomb the shiat out of their camps. It's a valid tactic, and doesn't violate the agreements we made to bring them out of hiding -- they weren't attacked or arrested while traveling or during the conference.

Bonus: good money says it would take several rounds of "leaders" before they caught on and stopped sending anyone.
 
2010-10-20 09:28:59 AM  
g-ecx.images-amazon.comimg.timeinc.net

If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. -MD
 
2010-10-20 09:50:49 AM  
foxyshadis: gibbon1: Alphax: I was surprised that didn't actually happen.

And the reason is, Dick Cheney.

Korovyov: Extreme-traditionalist tribesmen don't necessarily want your foreign aid and modernization. Remember that we actually do have a pretty substantial bounty available, have had for years, and it hasn't been enough to overcome e.g. Pashtunwali notions of hospitality.

Dick Cheney and George Bush didn't leave them any choices that would allow them to save face for starters. So the Taliban told them to stuff it. So then we went in, ousted the Taliban, and installed a puppet to do the US's bidding. That doesn't play well in any culture. So as far as they are concerned we can eat a bowl of dicks.

Nine years later here we are.

That worked so well in Iran, what are we going to do when Afghanistan becomes a hostile nuclear territory?


Same thing the rest of the world does with America. Pat it on the head once in a while and hope to god it does not go full retard and kill us all.
 
2010-10-20 09:58:00 AM  
relcec: Freakman: NewportBarGuy: Does this mean we have to listen for another 40 years about how "The Democrats lost the war because they didn't fight hard enough!"?


Yes.

Not saying that it's true, but we'll hear it.

are you saying the dems didn't lose vietnam? they decided to go then do dumb stuff like not attack SAM missile sites until they were operational because they might hit soviet installation crews. proportional response was probably the dumbest thing. they deserve all the blame they got for that. of course the dumbest idea was there plan to go at all, but only slightly less dumb was the way they decided to half fight it. broke the military for a while.


Yeah, I'd say that. The possibility of schwacking a few Russians is a strategic level decision, one that was properly their decision to make and they made the right decision. The USG gave the military more than enough resources to win the war and the ROEs were probably not restrictive enough. The military leaders lost that war all by themselves.

Of course, that's my independent, intellectual take on Vietnam. When I'm around my Vietnam vet father, the Democrats lost the war by tying the military's hands because they were communist symathizers.
 
2010-10-20 10:04:23 AM  
The trick is to recognize what "reasonable" looks like in Afghanistan. If you want it to look like Luxembourg, or heck even Miami, you're outta luck.
 
2010-10-20 10:15:21 AM  
Taliban officials don't live in Afghanistan? They must be living it up in Pakistan.
 
2010-10-20 10:18:39 AM  
Oh hell does anyone actually think OBL even exists or existed? Really? Over 20 yrs of both sides fawning over OBL, one side says he's good, one side he's bad. Mission accomplished for everyone- you have eternal hope or an eternal enemy lasting as long as what PR says. Media has complete control of the boogieman. Win/win for those in charge of both sides, just not the rest of us.
 
2010-10-20 10:18:56 AM  
graphics8.nytimes.com
/guy on the right sees what you're doing
/isn't amused by it
 
2010-10-20 10:21:56 AM  
Civil_War2_Time: UNC_Samurai

If we end up with Republicans in control of the executive and legislative branches again in 2012, would you be surprised?

No, it wouldn't. But I also wouldn't be surprised to see us in either 1) Iran, or a distant 2) North Korea by some time next year...if we are out of Afghanistan relatively soon.


And Obama was going to take everyone's guns.

Hooray fear-mongering.
 
2010-10-20 10:41:11 AM  
I love it if subby would out themselves so I could know who to give credit for "meandering clusterfark", cause its awesome.
 
2010-10-20 10:53:04 AM  
Civil_War2_Time: So who's next? Iran?

I'll just leave this here (new window).
 
2010-10-20 10:59:30 AM  
It's all about the poppies.

Never been anything but.
 
2010-10-20 11:05:11 AM  
farkin_Gary: ...because as we all know, them A-rabs are all about the art of peace treaty negotiation.


/This is a pig in a poke.


Afghans aren't A-rabs. They're a blanket people
 
2010-10-20 11:06:47 AM  
BMulligan: Civil_War2_Time: So who's next? Iran?

I'll just leave this here (new window).


Hurray friendship! Let the evil bonds of real politik bind us together always.

LasssiterBeRight: It's all about the puppies.

www.everythingdogblog.com

/that is what afghan hound puppies look like, apparently.
 
Displayed 50 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report