OT: WTF? The Taliban is still around??

Check out these recent news reports:


http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/article.print?id=7451

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1801539,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051900273.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/09/MNGG4D5L951.DTL

How can a country with the largest (by far) and most technologically
advanced military in the world not achieve complete victory in a dirt-poor,
backwards-ass hick country like Afghanistan after five years?

The Taliban cannot stand against the US/coalition forces in conventional
warfare, but the coalition forces cannot eradicate the Taliban nor stop
their guerrilla attacks on the coalition forces.

To your knowledge, has any superpower ever defeated a country, no matter how
small and militarily insignificant, when that country employed the use of
guerrilla tactics? Not to mine, but I'd like to know if it's ever happened.

Guerrilla fighters are regular people most of the time, who occasionally
sneak out, launch a couple hundred dollars' worth of mortar rounds at US
military bases costing the US a couple million dollars in damaged supplies
and equipment and possibly maiming or killing some troops, then sneak back
home; or they wait until troops are passing by, pick up a grenade launcher
and start killing them, etc. Sometimes you can catch them in the act and
kill them, but not nearly often enough. They blend in to the general
public.

Russia couldn't win in Afghanistan after ten years of trying, and the US
couldn't win in Vietnam. There is a way to win a war against guerrilla
fighters, but it means killing everyone in that country old enough to carry
a bomb so you make sure you kill all the guerrilla fighters, but of course
you'd be killing all the innocent people as well. Maybe some countries are
capable of that, but I think the US would consider that too high a cost, at
least in terms of PR.

Same thing in Iraq, but replace al Qaeda/insurgents with the Taliban.

I am only seeing two options for the US at this point: Continue fighting
and expending national resources at an unprecedented rate until our economy
collapses, or withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and let the Taliban and/or
al Qaeda take over (or at least instigate civil wars.)

If the US withdraws and Osama attacks us again, he'll lose the support of
the Muslim clerics, because he promised a truce if the US withdrew their
troops from the Mideast. The Muslim clerics sharply criticized him for the
9/11 attacks because they believed he should have given the US adequate
warning and time to comply with his demands. However they did not withdraw
their support for him at that time, though they seemed close to doing so.

Losing the support of the clerics doesn't mean al Qaeda would be destroyed,
but it would substantially reduce the amount of help they receive from the
people in their area. That would help covert agents gather intelligence on
and assassinate key members of the group.

On the other hand, if the US withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan, it would
be saying that terrorists can get whatever they want by attacking the US.
Obviously, this is not acceptable.

What's the solution?

"That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote in message
news:OvGdnbr3DbJA3gDZnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com ...
> Check out these recent news reports:
>
>
> http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/article.print?id=7451
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1801539,00.html
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051900273.html
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/09/MNGG4D5L951.DTL
>
> How can a country with the largest (by far) and most technologically
> advanced military in the world not achieve complete victory in a
> dirt-poor, backwards-ass hick country like Afghanistan after five years?
>
> The Taliban cannot stand against the US/coalition forces in conventional
> warfare, but the coalition forces cannot eradicate the Taliban nor stop
> their guerrilla attacks on the coalition forces.
>
> To your knowledge, has any superpower ever defeated a country, no matter
> how small and militarily insignificant, when that country employed the use
> of guerrilla tactics? Not to mine, but I'd like to know if it's ever
> happened.
>
> Guerrilla fighters are regular people most of the time, who occasionally
> sneak out, launch a couple hundred dollars' worth of mortar rounds at US
> military bases costing the US a couple million dollars in damaged supplies
> and equipment and possibly maiming or killing some troops, then sneak back
> home; or they wait until troops are passing by, pick up a grenade launcher
> and start killing them, etc. Sometimes you can catch them in the act and
> kill them, but not nearly often enough. They blend in to the general
> public.
>
> Russia couldn't win in Afghanistan after ten years of trying, and the US
> couldn't win in Vietnam. There is a way to win a war against guerrilla
> fighters, but it means killing everyone in that country old enough to
> carry a bomb so you make sure you kill all the guerrilla fighters, but of
> course you'd be killing all the innocent people as well. Maybe some
> countries are capable of that, but I think the US would consider that too
> high a cost, at least in terms of PR.
>
> Same thing in Iraq, but replace al Qaeda/insurgents with the Taliban.
>
> I am only seeing two options for the US at this point: Continue fighting
> and expending national resources at an unprecedented rate until our
> economy collapses, or withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and let the
> Taliban and/or al Qaeda take over (or at least instigate civil wars.)
>
> If the US withdraws and Osama attacks us again, he'll lose the support of
> the Muslim clerics, because he promised a truce if the US withdrew their
> troops from the Mideast. The Muslim clerics sharply criticized him for
> the 9/11 attacks because they believed he should have given the US
> adequate warning and time to comply with his demands. However they did
> not withdraw their support for him at that time, though they seemed close
> to doing so.
>
> Losing the support of the clerics doesn't mean al Qaeda would be
> destroyed, but it would substantially reduce the amount of help they
> receive from the people in their area. That would help covert agents
> gather intelligence on and assassinate key members of the group.
>
> On the other hand, if the US withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan, it would
> be saying that terrorists can get whatever they want by attacking the US.
> Obviously, this is not acceptable.
>
> What's the solution?
>
>

The solution is for the citizens of the aflicted countries to expel the
worhtless zealots that do not represent the will of freedom loving people.
The citizens have to want it, and until they do the zealots will be around,
stalking and killing innocent men women and children.

The Taliban in Afghanistan is much the same as al-Qaida in Iraq, or anywhere
else for that matter.

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:53:32 -0500, "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote:

>How can a country with the largest (by far) and most technologically
>advanced military in the world not achieve complete victory in a dirt-poor,
>backwards-ass hick country like Afghanistan after five years?

Pretty simple, really.

Tell us how the Russians did....

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:53:32 -0500, "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote:

>To your knowledge, has any superpower ever defeated a country, no matter how
>small and militarily insignificant, when that country employed the use of
>guerrilla tactics? Not to mine, but I'd like to know if it's ever happened.

We beat Germany....

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:53:32 -0500, "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote:

>the US
>couldn't win in Vietnam

I beg to differ...

The left (Democrats) caused us to lose in Viet Nam.

They started the war and chickened out. Typical of the left.

A Nam Vet bumper sticker that really is true comes to mind.

"We were winning when I left"

Never trust anything to the left....

Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:53:32 -0500, "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote:
>
>> How can a country with the largest (by far) and most technologically
>> advanced military in the world not achieve complete victory in a
>> dirt-poor, backwards-ass hick country like Afghanistan after five
>> years?
>
> Pretty simple, really.
>
> Tell us how the Russians did....

Sure is. The Russians did as well as we currently are. In the end, they were
forced to smarten-up.

Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:53:32 -0500, "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote:
>
>> the US
>> couldn't win in Vietnam
>
> I beg to differ...
>
Of course, but as usual you're argumentlessly wrong..

In article <b6ir92lp2apmk6gt0k2ra4h25qa0e1peho@4ax.com>,
Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:53:32 -0500, "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote:
>
> >the US
> >couldn't win in Vietnam
>
> I beg to differ...
>
> The left (Democrats) caused us to lose in Viet Nam.
>
> They started the war and chickened out. Typical of the left.
>
> A Nam Vet bumper sticker that really is true comes to mind.
>
> "We were winning when I left"
>
> Never trust anything to the left....

Yes we were winning, until the protesters and the anti-war media turned
the corner for North Vietnam and the VC. This is burned in the history
books and nobody went to jail for the crime of treason.

This is also being tried in a later conflict with Iraq, but the
difference this time is we have a president who is brave and uncaring
about his own political position and polls under hugh pressure from the
left wing party and the left wing media and the hate GWB crowd. He will
stick it out and we won't be cutting and running like we did in Vietnam.
--

"The always Benevolent dbu." <howard@dynoisajerk.com> wrote in message
news:howard-6CFA9A.03194625062006@news-rdr-02.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <b6ir92lp2apmk6gt0k2ra4h25qa0e1peho@4ax.com>,
> Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:53:32 -0500, "That Guy" <7@f.com> wrote:
>>
>> >the US
>> >couldn't win in Vietnam
>>
>> I beg to differ...
>>
>> The left (Democrats) caused us to lose in Viet Nam.
>>
>> They started the war and chickened out. Typical of the left.
>>
>> A Nam Vet bumper sticker that really is true comes to mind.
>>
>> "We were winning when I left"
>>
>> Never trust anything to the left....
>
> Yes we were winning, until the protesters and the anti-war media turned
> the corner for North Vietnam and the VC. This is burned in the history
> books and nobody went to jail for the crime of treason.
>
> This is also being tried in a later conflict with Iraq, but the
> difference this time is we have a president who is brave and uncaring
> about his own political position and polls under hugh pressure from the
> left wing party and the left wing media and the hate GWB crowd. He will
> stick it out and we won't be cutting and running like we did in Vietnam.
> --
>

Yes, we seem to have forgotten that we telegraphed So Damn Insane several
months warning to hide all his stuff that still (although the left
conveniently forgets) had not been accounted for from the last war. Also
anything he may have aquired under the table from the Russians, Germans, and
French.

I still think I would have said "Ooops, my hand slipped off this live
grenade that I just dropped down the spider hole, and let the door slam back
shut on.".

Charles of Schaumburg.

n5hsr <n5hsr@comcast.net> writes:

> I still think I would have said "Ooops, my hand slipped off
> this live grenade that I just dropped down the spider hole,
> and let the door slam back shut on.".


It's a tempting thought, but Saddam will certainly end up dancing
at the end of a rope. At least this way, with the trial, we get
the bene- fit of PR. You can bet your ass and hat that had the
troops simply killed him, the Blame America First Society would've
pounced on the lack of due process and used it against the U.S.

Also, don't think for a minute that the lesson of our being able to
invade a distant country and effect regime change (whatever the
complications may have been afterward) was lost on our emerging
adversary, Red China. (Yes, I still call them that. To hell with
this politically correct "PRC" stuff.) Long-range power projection
is something we have that the ChiComs lack, and will for a long time.



Geoff

--
"And how about the American eagle? The eagle is a bird of prey
and hence offensive to rodents, a key Democrat constituency."
-- Ann Coulter

"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message
news:e7mrth$qho@u1.netgate.net...
>
>
> n5hsr <n5hsr@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> I still think I would have said "Ooops, my hand slipped off
>> this live grenade that I just dropped down the spider hole,
>> and let the door slam back shut on.".
>
>
> It's a tempting thought, but Saddam will certainly end up dancing
> at the end of a rope. At least this way, with the trial, we get
> the bene- fit of PR. You can bet your ass and hat that had the
> troops simply killed him, the Blame America First Society would've
> pounced on the lack of due process and used it against the U.S.
>
> Also, don't think for a minute that the lesson of our being able to
> invade a distant country and effect regime change (whatever the
> complications may have been afterward) was lost on our emerging
> adversary, Red China. (Yes, I still call them that. To hell with
> this politically correct "PRC" stuff.) Long-range power projection
> is something we have that the ChiComs lack, and will for a long time.
>
>
>
> Geoff
>
> --
> "And how about the American eagle? The eagle is a bird of prey
> and hence offensive to rodents, a key Democrat constituency."
> -- Ann Coulter
>

Chi Coms? You mean Billy Clinton's friends? That he helped sell the W83
plans to?

Charles of Schaumburg

n5hsr <n5hsr@comcast.net> writes:

> Chi Coms? You mean Billy Clinton's friends?

Yup, they're the ones, all right.


> That he helped sell the W83 plans to?

And to think that the Rosenbergs got the Chair(tm) for
doing that sort of thing in *their* day...



Geoff

--
"Admittedly, conservatives give as good as they get. The difference
between us and [leftists] is that we can argue as well as inveigh.
They can only hurl invectives." -- Don Feder

"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message
news:e7nlbk$dc8@u1.netgate.net...
>
>
> n5hsr <n5hsr@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Chi Coms? You mean Billy Clinton's friends?
>
> Yup, they're the ones, all right.
>
>
>> That he helped sell the W83 plans to?
>
> And to think that the Rosenbergs got the Chair(tm) for
> doing that sort of thing in *their* day...
>
>
>
> Geoff
>
> --
> "Admittedly, conservatives give as good as they get. The difference
> between us and [leftists] is that we can argue as well as inveigh.
> They can only hurl invectives." -- Don Feder
>

Then why ain't we warming up old Sparky?

Charles of Schaumburg